RE: Big Yes for Formulaic Writing

[Katherine Fischer <kfischer@keller.clarke.edu>]

Why do they need a form of structure?  Structure, at its best, is an alive
thing that grows out of the writing, out of the writer's attempt to attend
to her purpose, her art, her audience.  Students are not born with
structure for the five-paragraph theme or anything else in writing, for
that matter, and young children write quite well for the most part.  Look
beyond the misspellings and "structure" of first or second grade writers.
Normally it is lively, engaged and engaging.

Our son came home from third grade last fall with his assignment.  This
was six pages of 8x11 paper stappled together with "instructions" on each
page, oddly lining up with some of the "steps" often taught about
standardized academic writing forms.  #1:  Describe a puffin and draw a
picture;  #2:  Describe puffin predators and draw a picture of them;  #3
Describe puffin habitat and draw a picture of it, etc.  Much like teaching
students to write a three-part thesis and hang the rest of the paper on it
(a curious choice of verbs perhaps), Andrew's teachers were teaching him
"to write real academic papers."  I reminded Andrew of how we'd seen
puffins at the zoo in Omaha last summer and he began giggling, sliding
down the steps imitating the puffin antics he'd seen.  "Write about that,
Andrew," I advised.  "Oh no, mom.  You could tell stories like that back
in second grade, but teacher says now it's time to do 'real' writing."

I spend a great deal of time un-teaching the forms and structures planted
into students before they enter my composition and essay classes.  Form
and structure become, at best, a convenient way for writers to feel that
they've done the job even when they haven't.  "Let's see, now, did I give
a thesis statement?  Did I use 2-3 quotations per page to substantiate it?
Did I blow the opposition out of the water?  Is the closing conclusive?"
It's easy to teach, easier to grade, and terribly illusory, this business
of form and structure, when it comes to working on authentic writing and
thinking skills.

Take a look at Wendy Bishop and Hans Ostram's text, take a look at the
papers being presented more and more often at places like the C's and
NWCA, take a listen to the writing of people like E.B. White or E.O.
Wilson or half the essays in the New yorker or your local papers.  Why are
we teaching students a "structure" that is outmoded and often ineffective?
Particularly, why are we priviledging this structure, with its roots in
Bacon's attempt to write in a scientific way, over all others?  Just once,
I wish someone would say, "I sure am glad my students were taught the
power of associative linking in their essays back in high school, so we
can build on that now in college!"

Katie Fischer

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Lynne Belcher wrote:

> Robert,
> 
> You use the example of students of music looking at the structure 
> of the compositions of real composers.  How about having writing 
> students look at the structure of the compositions of real 
> writers?  How many real writers do you know who actually use the 
> five-paragraph theme structure?  
> 
> Students do need to know something about structure, but filling a 
> structure with content is one of the hardest things I have ever 
> done as a writer.  As as student in a master's program, I had a 
> composition pedogogy class in which students had to write from 
> the modes.  I couldn't do it!  I found it very difficult to start 
> with a structure instead of an idea. 
> 
> Students who have learned the five-paragraph theme structure want 
> to write everything that way.  Unfortunately, that structure has 
> a very limited application.  Why not do as you suggest and have 
> students look at how real writers structure their ideas?
> 
> Lynne Belcher
> Southern Arkansas University
> 
>