Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:26:01 -1000
From:         James Shimabukuro <JAMESS@UHUNIX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Standard English

On Mon, 21 Dec 1992, David E. Schwalm wrote:

> Marcy, you're caught in a classic bind. If you are going to have a writing
> program (with program goals and objectives) rather than a collection of
> writing courses in which each instructor does his or her own thing . . .

Why does it have to be one or the other?  Seems to me there's a wide range
of possibilities in between.  Also, is "each instructor [doing] his or her
own thing" necessarily bad?

> . . . you have
> to develop a set of competencies and a standard syllabus.

Developing "a set of competencies" is fine, I think, but developing "a
standard syllabus," I'm not too sure about--considering the assumptions.

> And the more
> sections you have taught by novices or marginally trained faculty . . .

Are those who fall into these categories necessarily poor teachers of
composition?

> . . . the more
> rigid the std syllabus and the std assignments have to become.

A non sequitur.

> When I started
> to review the assignments instructors were giving here when I first came, I
> realized that I would have to tighten the program up (or down) a little.

That's a lot of power for one person.

> Most
> of the assignments were either trivial or silly, undoable, totally unrelated
> to academic enterprises, and purposeless. And there was enormous variability:
> in one class students got to compare breakfast cereals or family members,
> while in another students had to read complex essays and compare different
> writers' views on abstract topics. The degree of difficulty of this writing
> ranged wildly.

In one--albeit powerful--person's estimate.

> You can have a looser program if you have instructors who are
> knowledgeable about writing and rhetoric and who have established and agreed
> to sensible goals for a required college writing course. But who's got a staff
> like that?

We do.  And I'm sure others do, too.

> We have a pretty rigid program. We have posited certain goals and
> values in our courses; we have developed syllabi and assignments that should
> help students reach those goals . . .

Is this the royal "we"?

> . . . we help our TAs and part-timers acquire
> students centered teaching methods; and we try to make the case for our
> approach on the basis of good theory and good practice. We feel that our
> novice instructors are able, in this way, to provide a solid writing course
> for their students and to learn a great deal themselves about the teaching of
> writing. Eventually, they can become a bit more creative, after they have a
> better idea of what they are doing. (Most of the "creative" assignments I have
> seen from new TAs were actually pretty bad writing assignments.)

Of course, "they" are not part of the "we."

> So, given the
> resources our universities are willing to devote to writing instruction, I
> don't think we need to be too apologetic about being a little rigid.

More than "a little rigid," I think.

Obviously, I differ from the views that David offers.  Many of our finest
writing instructors have had little or no experience teaching composition
courses.  I also feel that writing is emphasized and supported at many
institutions; it definitely is in the U of HI system.  However, I
differ most in the management style that's implied in the "we" vs. "they"
dichotomy, especially when the "we" is really an "I."

Jim Shimabukuro
Kapiolani CC
jamess@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU