Teaching Composition: Current Theories and Practices

Publisher Summary This chapter explores the current theories and practices regarding teaching composition. Writing is dynamic. Ideas and events influence and are influenced by writing. Writing is never neutral, never objective for writers or readers. Writing is communicative. Writing communicates about something; there must be a subject matter. The meaning conveyed in writing is always constructed and interpreted, by both writers and readers. Meaning is not inherent in the marks on the page or electronic blips on a screen. Writing is contextual. To some, the term context simply means the linguistic context of a word. Writing is collaborative. Writers depend on interaction with others whether in thought, text, observation, or personal contact to consider and reconsider, shape and reshape their ideas. In this chapter, an approach to teaching writing that is dynamic, communicative, constructive, contextual, and collaborative has been encouraged. Composition teachers have generally approached their teaching in one of three ways, often referred to as a current–traditional approach, a neoromantic (expressivist) approach, or a neoclassicist (rhetorical) approach. Language as interpretation focuses on the communicative acts surrounding language. Teachers need to address a number of complexities and complications during the process of writing.

[1]  Andrea A. Lunsford,et al.  Teachers' Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers. , 1993 .

[2]  Ben F. Barton,et al.  Modes of Power in Technical and Professional Visuals , 1993 .

[3]  Maxine C. Hairston Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing. , 1992 .

[4]  Greg Venne High-School Students Write about Math. , 1989 .

[5]  Cynthia L. Selfe,et al.  The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones. , 1994 .

[6]  R. Pollard,et al.  Seeking Common Ground: Guiding Assumptions for Writing Courses , 1995 .

[7]  James A. Berlin Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class , 1988, College English.

[8]  Linda Flower,et al.  Problem-Solving Strategies and the Writing Process , 1977, College English.

[9]  Mike Markel Techniques of Developing Forecasting Statements , 1993 .

[10]  Jo Allen,et al.  The Case Against Defining Technical Writing , 1990 .

[11]  N. Blyler Theory and Curriculum , 1993 .

[12]  Stephen M. North,et al.  The Idea of a Writing Center , 1984, College English.

[13]  Cynthia L. Selfe Computers in the Classroom: The Humanization of Computers: Forget Technology, Remember Literacy , 1988, English Journal.

[14]  Sarah Warshauer Freedman,et al.  Peer Response Groups in the Writing Classroom: Theoretic Foundations and New Directions , 1988 .

[15]  J. Hayes,et al.  A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing , 1981, College Composition & Communication.

[16]  George Hillocks,et al.  What Works in Teaching Composition: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Treatment Studies , 1984, American Journal of Education.

[17]  Lucille M. Schultz Elaborating Our History: A Look at Mid-19th Century First Books of Composition , 1994 .

[18]  G. Clark,et al.  Rescuing the Discourse of Community. , 1994 .

[19]  J. Hayes,et al.  Images, Plans, and Prose , 1984 .

[20]  Melanie Sperling,et al.  Dialogues of Deliberation , 1991 .

[21]  Muriel Harris,et al.  Talking in the Middle: Why Writers Need Writing Tutors. , 1995 .

[22]  Thomas Kent,et al.  Paragraph Production and the Given-New Contract , 1984 .

[23]  Thomas Kent,et al.  On the Very Idea of a Discourse Community. , 1991 .

[24]  Elaine Chin Redefining “Context” in Research on Writing , 1994 .

[25]  Ben F. Barton,et al.  Simplicity in Visual Representation: A Semiotic Approach , 1987 .

[26]  P. Raines Writing Portfolios: Turning the House into a Home , 1996 .