Writing Degree Zero

The title of David W. Smit’s book The End of Composition Studies conveys the notion of a final destination or limit. However, Smit’s usage of the word “end” is, in fact, an effort to prompt a reevaluation of the current and future state of composition studies as a profession. For the past forty-six years, the field of composition studies has been short of a “common methodology” because there are various theories, methods, and pedagogical strategies in practice, which are, for Smit, altogether too broad and counterproductive. This lack of a “common methodology” has lead to a “crisis” in the profession of composition studies (2-3). In The End of Composition Studies, Smit suggests that it is time to reexamine general education’s core curriculum and ask what is writing, how is it taught, how is it learned, and ultimately how it should be taught.

Writing has become a generalized term that does not recognize specific genres of writing and social contexts. Due to this generalization, colleges and universities place the sole responsibility of writing instruction on the English Department. This generalization has been the foundation of the general education curriculum since its inception. For Smit, the “core” curriculum is problematic. It is often believed that the “core” is a seed of knowledge that when planted, will provide foundational roots in which students can grow and branch out into other forms of knowledge. However, a seed is just a seed to one species and cannot be crossbred without some form of intervention. As such, general education initiatives, for Smit, is mistaken to presume that writing is a global activity in which two foundational courses in writing will flower into transferable skills to other disciplines.

Smit proposes that it is time to re-conceptualize composition studies because the college level two-course sequence fails to address the varying degrees to which writing is achieved and applied across disciplines. Smit is not suggesting that the various practices within the current field of composition studies are necessarily ineffective, rather he is stressing that various theories and pedagogical practices are “concerned with writing at a very abstract level” (18). In other words, Smit feels that current approaches do not account for the “fact that people write in many different ways in many different kinds of contexts for many different reasons” (18). Smit believes that writing is an acquired ability rather than learned through formal instruction. While formal instruction may provide a structure for spelling, grammar, syntax, and the like, this type of instruction does not necessarily transfer to other disciplines. For instance, a writer that is able to write within an expressive genre with relative rhetorical maturity does not guarantee that he or she will be able to write with the same level of rhetorical maturity in another genre. Each discipline adheres to its own vocabulary, style, and social context, and as a result, the two-course curriculum is insufficient to aid the needs of individual students. Instead, Smit suggests that writers need to be immersed in various tasks and social contexts that will allow them to develop writing skills.

Smit also addresses the common assumption that writing and thinking are intrinsically interlinked. As such, it is believed that writing will aid the process of critical consciousness and likewise critical consciousness will improve writing. However, Smit asserts, “writing is not transcribed thinking” (99). For Smit, being critically conscious of a subject matter does not ensure that a writer will be able to write well in every genre or social context. Smit suggests that novice writers may, in fact, need to obtain more knowledge of their subject matter as well as the operation of the specific genre they will be using before they can become competent writers.

Smit suggests that novice writers should be immersed in a variety of discourses and contexts. This immersion process would eventually lead to a fluency in writing within domain specific genres and social contexts. Smit proposes a model in which students would be immersed in subjects that matter to them. This personal investment would allow a type of socialization into a domain specific field called a discourse community. Smit explains, that writing as a social practice “forces us to confront the dangers in trying to characterize all writing; it forces us to ask the question, to what degree are large generalizations and broad theories of writing useful” (81). Smit argues that social practice theories are “opaque” because they focus on the internalization of a social environment of which it is unclear what the influences of environment actually are (81). Theorists have tried to expand on social practices by exploring the common writing practices of discourse communities; however, Smit explains that a discourse community does not account for the differences within the community itself.

Smit gives an overview of the various models used to explain or assess how we learn to speak, and how writing is developed and shaped by these models. For instance, many scholars promote the “process approach” to writing because it seems to “confirm our intuitive sense of how we actually write” (63). The process approach implies a certain sustained linear mode of “invention, planning, drafting, revising, and editing” (63). However, Smit feels that this approach is too general in that it does not account for other ways of composing. Smit argues that the problem we are confronted with is that people compose in very different ways and respond to varying circumstances differently, and therefore a standardized model of composition is ineffective and often too abstract. Smit supports a model called “scaffolding” in which students would be able to build skills that are distributed across concentrated courses. The scaffolding structure is not linear; instead it would be structured like building blocks, laid one on top of the other. Smit believes that scaffolding would provide a stronger foundation. This scaffolding model would be lead by an expert in a discipline field, offering a point of entry into a focused field where new knowledge can be built upon old knowledge.

Writing is a practice that utilizes various kinds of knowledge and abilities that can be applied to various purposes and social contexts. And since there is no way to gauge the varying degrees of an individual’s knowledge or abilities, writing strategies cannot and should not be so overly generalized. Smit believes that we learn by being personally invested in the subject at hand. This personal investment allows individuals to develop their own concepts and correlations. For Smit, rhetorical maturity will eventually come into being as novice writers immerse themselves within a discourse community of their own interests. Novice writers will learn to write on their own, but they need help identifying the differences within genres. Ultimately, the “end” of composition studies is a way to rethink current theories and pedagogical practices and begin to work toward a reevaluation of writing. Smit is suggesting that composition studies as it is currently situated within the college curriculum should not be the sole responsibility of the English department. Instead, Smit envisions an interdisciplinary collaboration that would fulfill the needs of students and allow instructors an opportunity to assist students in a specific genre where they have expertise.

Smit, David W. The End of Composition Studies. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, 2004.

The computer-mediated classroom comes with unique challenges, especially for those most familiar with teacher-centered practices. Having taught writing courses in both traditional and computer classrooms, I prefer the latter. For me, teaching in a computer-mediated classroom supports the writing course objective–to practice writing.

Teachers take on a different role in the computer-mediated classroom. Unlike the traditional teacher-centered setting, the computer classroom is student-centered. Talking-head educators (you know who you are) are required to alter teaching practices when working in a computer-mediated classroom. This is a good thing. In general, the less time teachers spend talking to (or at) students, the more time students can spend writing. I’m not saying that a traditional teacher-centered course doesn’t have its merits, some do. Indeed, I’ve sat through my share of brilliant lectures. However, these inspiring orators rarely focused their attention on writing, even when the course subject was literature. This is an issue that I will explore further in another post. Suffice it to say that a Gen Ed literature course is still, at its core, a writing course.

In the computer classroom, I want students to be actively engaged with their learning outcomes. To facilitate active engagement, I give students specific tasks (group or individual) and expect them to take responsibility for its completion. I spend a good portion of my class time sitting with each student and discussing their work or answering questions. These mini conferences are useful for both student and teacher. Students receive personalized attention with specific problems in real time. And likewise, teachers benefit from the conferences because they can work with students during the writing process rather than after. Yes, it can be exhausting, especially after back-to-back classes on an empty stomach, but the results are rewarding. I find that the one-on-one time not only helps students improve their writing, it also affords me an opportunity to practice articulating sentence level issues in a manner that students can understand.

The biggest challenge of teaching in a computer-mediated classroom is planning activities that will enhance lesson plan objectives. I spend a good deal of time planning effective and interesting activities that are relevant to the coursework. As a rule, I never assign arbitrary computer related tasks. It is a waste of my time as well as my students.

I also like to teach students how to utilize the technology that that they use on a regular basis. Microsoft Word, the “gold standard” of word processing software, is equipped with tools that even regular users are unaware. I can’t tell you how many students learn about the annotation feature for the first time in my class. My suggestion is to teach your students (and yourself) how to take advantage of the tools that are available. If you aren’t familiar with the tools. Tutorials are readily available on the Internet. Take the time to search them out.

Don’t be intimidated by technology. It is a tool that will support your writing course objectives and outcomes. Initially you will need some time to adjust your teaching practices for the computer-mediated classroom, however, in the end, you as well as your students will benefit.