Having reread Berlin and Inkster’s “Current-Traditional Rhetoric: Paradigm and Practice,” I am convinced of its truth. As I grade final papers, I am simultaneously engaging in a post-mortem of my first semester teaching, and I see that the FAU Writing Program, at least as introduced to me, is firmly ensconced in the CTR theory camp, at least for freshman writing.
GTAs are not given any sort of instruction in pedagogy prior to stepping foot in the classroom. All we really are given to go on in the beginning is a book of texts (not a textbook), a work book, and a syllabus. That is, of course, until we’ve worked through 6700 and Colloquium. So, I found my pedagogical inspiration from the grading criteria provided in Elements, which instructs us to grade for argument, organization, evidence, grammar/formatting, and audience. Is it any wonder that I find myself chastised by Berlin and Inkster?
This past semester, I was the incarnation of the textbooks they examined. I didn’t exactly instruct the students to find, sharpen, and believe your thesis,” but just as these texts gave very little if any instruction on how to write an effective thesis, I felt lost just about the entire semester thrashing away at the ether trying to do more than evaluate arguments. I can tell students what an effective thesis is, but how can I get this through to their brains? I often felt useless when trying to get my students to move beyond a summary thesis and five paragraph essay.
Also, I have found it intriguing that there is no grading criteria for quality of writing. It seems perfectly plausible that a student could receive perfect marks for argument, organization, evidence, grammar/formatting and audience and write the dullest, a most dull and uninteresting paper. I haven’t experienced this, but I can certainly see the possibility. CRT leaves no room for creativity and expression, at least according to the grading criteria and especially considering the texts our students are writing on.
Berlin and Inskster do not acknowledge the benefits of this instruction, however. There is value in the instruction of form and genre. We are charged with preparing students for academic writing, and it would be wrong and a disservice to the students to take a wholly aleatory approach. Despite this, I do not see any reason why we cannot teach our students to be good academic writers and to be good writers at the same time.
