Most first year composition instructors have, at one time or another, heard this complaint from a student, who has been taught that writing should be no more complicated than knocking out the requisite five-paragraphs
This pretty much described my first years of high school English classes with it feeling like it was just being graded in sections and explanations than flow.
encourage students to challenge the status quo by entering into a process of inquiry. Instead, the banking method suggests that the knowledge conferred upon students (or deposited within them) is all those students will need in order to be successful. In fact, this is not the case. Students need to think critically and creatively in order to become community leaders and to gain social and politi-cal power.
I feel like this rigidity of not being able to question things stems a lot from how schools feels very utilitarian with teaching students what to do or not do, and not following directions will be punished.
When students are challenged to write beyond memorized formulas, to travel beyond the how of writing to the why of writing, they learn skills of academic resiliency that will transfer to college and beyond.
The author brings up that the natural evolution of your craft will allow you to develop greater in the real world.
s soon as a student is in a position to enter a process of inquiry to explore (and perhaps offer solutions to) an issue that may provoke more ques-tions and yield myriad answers, the five-paragraph format should be thrown to the wind.
I relate to this a lot when trying to write essays about books in high school where I feel like I wanted to add a lot more thoughts and discussion about a book but have to do the traditional "checklists: like essays.
Useful—maybe even necessary at first—but, as the rider becomes more proficient and broaches more complex terrain, those little wheels will collect debris, or become snagged on rocks. Thus, these once-useful train-ing wheels become a liability. They may slow the rider down or, when they catch on obstacles, may throw her from the bike. At best they are a nuisance, while at worst they are a danger.
The author says that making the writing think more about structures, limits their thinking and makes them think about how to make something into a certain way than having a natural flow.
To be clear: We are not suggesting that there are no rules and that rules don’t matter. Without adherence to conventions of grammar and usage, for instance, many readers may misunder-stand a writer’s point or not take them seriously. However, writers are ultimately undermined by a thoroughgoing rule-bound mental-ity.
The author reminds us that while they are advocating for a more free system when it comes to writing, it's good to have some rules, but it's best to change things up.
A writer can try it out and see what happens. What effect does it have on the text? Does it meet the audience’s and context’s needs (i.e., the rhetorical situation)? Does it contribute to expressing what the writer is trying to say? How do real readers respond? In this way, writers can experiment with techniques, deliberate about their implications, and make judgments about the best course of action among their options.
When I looked back at my argumentive essay, looking at this and reading this really makes me think more about what really works and if something really contributes to the whole, rather than just feeling like it fills in a checkbox.
Of course, outlining can be a powerful conceptual and organiza-tional tool. However, when writers believe that they must outline first, they often lock themselves into the ideas as expressed on the outline, rather than allowing their ideas to develop and change as they work. Writers who always create detailed outlines and who write very polished preliminary drafts also tend to resist revision, because they have already committed a great deal of upfront effort on their initial plans and prose.
I really relate to this, in that I write an outline, only to add information that is most convenient to it, rather than expand more about it and not change things in it, until I start writing and quoting evidence.
As writing consultants for faculty instructors, we have witnessed many smart, capable teachers who were undermined rather than helped by their own staunch rules about the writing process. They believed unequivocally that they could only write when they had big blocks of uninterrupted time. Or that they should never share unpolished, messy works-in-progress. Or that they could only work on one project at a time. Of course, most faculty writers simply don’t routinely enjoy big blocks of uninterrupted time. They likely need to write in smaller windows of time—30 minutes here, an hour there—between their administrative, mentoring, and teach-ing responsibilities (not to mention their lives).
If this is so, why do we perpetuate this mention to close, rigid analysis when it comes to writing and AP English and Comprehension, the college level of reading?
But good options may not work under every circumstance. Thus, when writers treat options as rules, writing can actually become more frustrating because the writer insists on abiding by the rule, whether it works or not.
Wow, this feels really really true. I only really like writing essays when I like to write them with my style of articulation instead of the plain formal style, so I can really relate to this and why people don't like writing.
expressed as hard and fast rules. Always begin an essay with a catchy hook. Never use the passive voice. Always make your writ-ing flow. Always make a detailed outline before you start to write. Never edit as you draft.
The author presents and emphasizes the list form of what people think traditional writing is, by also giving a list, mimicking the structure the author is saying to further make us think about how wrong this system is.