Downs and Wardle’s “Teaching About Writing”

The study performed by Douglas Downs and Elizabeth Wardle attempts to point out the various flaws in standard first year composition writing courses, while simultaneously submitting a proposal for a change in the way these courses are taught. On some fronts, they seem to succeed. They point out that there is a distinct difference between writing about one subject and writing about another: that more than a mere difference in content, there is a difference in the style--and subsequently, the conventions--of writing. Therefore, a the teacher of a first year composition course should not, according to them, presume to know with absolute certainty that the specific type of writing they are teaching is the "right" one. However, part of the problem, it seems, is that the tremendous focus on spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. interferes with any improvement in writing that the students might make, straying far too close to what they have already struggled with in high school. Downs and Wardle follow up by explaining their methodology: forcing students to relate their own experiences with this current problem, and essentially writing about their own writing.

Interestingly enough, Downs and Wardle speak of the ways in which the writing of one subject might be entirely different from another, such as science and composition. But they manage to combine these styles of writing by using something very similar to the scientific method in their studies of first year composition courses. This might suggest that, though the subjects may be different, one method of writing could be used in a different way for different sort of content.

The anecdote concerning Jack reflects something that I've seen quite often in first year composition courses as well as remedial writing courses: a lack of confidence and self-trust. Most of these people don't identify themselves as writers, and therefore believe that they are ill-suited for writing. This is only reinforced by the fact that, during their early education in writing, they've been told time and time again by strictly traditional English teachers that they were doing things the "wrong" way. Changing these rules from year to year compounds the problem even further. They feel they can't get the hang of writing, so they believe they're terrible at it and ultimately give up. They've been told so many times that they're "wrong" that they refuse to even try. Because of that "wrong" label, they feel that nothing that they write has any merit.

One important aspect of Jack's course was that he was forced to write, regardless of whether it was right or wrong, good or bad. Then he started to see that, while not perfect, at least some of what he had to say did have merit and could be used. Once the "right" and "wrong" labels are removed, a student writer can begin to see a wider range of possibilities, and they will start to realize their own potential. Once these student realize that what they write is not inherently better or worse than what anyone else writes--that is, that it mostly depends on the amount of work put into the writing--they find their own voice. They find their confidence, and they start to trust themselves.

Now, along the lines of confidence, I'm not sure I agree with Downs and Wardles ideas of addressing shortcomings, at least publicly. It is always important to realize one's flaws and shortcomings, true; those who are entirely too certain of themselves typically can't learn anything. It is important to remain humble in that sense, but not to the point of self-depreciation, which many of these students have struggled already to overcome. I would tell these students to acknowledge the flaws and shortcomings in their work, but to do so privately or during workshopping and revision. But providing a list of shortcomings in a final piece of work (or as final as a paper will get) is like introducing oneself by saying "Nice to meet you; here's what's wrong with me." A little exaggerated, perhaps, as a person's work doesn't necessarily reflect them as a person, but the whole point behind rhetoric is to make an argument to convince the audience of the writer's position. There is a certain amount of influence that goes into that. So, if you're a particularly good writer, by listing your flaws you will end up convincing the audience that your argument is flawed, even if they didn't see those flaws before they were mentioned. That having been said, it's not necessarily a bad idea to force a first year composition student to acknowledge their flaws; it should just be emphasized that the one person that needs to see those flaws is the student themselves.