Tag: History

ENGL 810 PAB 1b

Errors and Expectations

Most people cannot mention Mina Shaughnessy without including “basic writer” in the same context, and Ritter’s (2008) article, “Before Mina Shaughnessy: Basic Writing at Yale, 1920-1960,” acknowledged just that; however, Ritter (2008) delved further into the history of “basic writer” to combat some overgeneralizations, including Shaghnessy’s (1977), regarding who that is.  While most do not associate “basic writer” with Ivy League schools, Ritter (2008) demonstrated just that when discussing the “Awkward Squad,” a group of basic writers who received additional yet isolated instruction to prepare them for the coursework, at Yale University.  What Ritter (2008) argued is the idea that this group derives from a student population of privileged, white-male students, which revealed Shaughnessy’s definition of “basic writer” in the 1970s as somewhat limited. While the Civil Rights movement influenced Shaughnessy’s definition of “basic writer” due to the influx of African American and female students at American universities (1977), Ritter (2008) noted the paradigm shift to more German structured research universities and the efforts by those institutions to increase student enrollment for financial stability was the reason for earlier “basic writers” in the early 1900s. Yet her work also detailed how the curriculum of the basic writer course evolved, showing focus not only on grammar instruction but also on argumentation and literary appreciation.  Ritter (2008) contended that this mixed curriculum exhibited early signs of modern basic composition courses, moving from “drill and grill” to more nuanced approaches.

The explanation Ritter (2008) provided, which also connects to Mendenhall’s (2011) discussion on Composition in the American university at the turn of the century, highlighted the early pedagogy of composition and how it eventually exhibited signs of a paradigm shift closer to the middle of the 20th century.  Yet what I really appreciated about the article is how Ritter (2008) went beyond Shaughnessy (1977), who many credit with bringing the “basic writer” into the discussion and identifying him, and documented earlier basic writers created by the shift, thus connecting their narrative to the much broader history of Composition studies. .  While cultural environments must be included in our discussion of basic writers, Ritter (2008) noted that this cannot be the only factor in identifying them. I currently teach several Basic Writer courses, so seeing how the history of Composition connected to an area I teach on a daily basis helped me visualize where current pedagogical practices came from.  This, in addition to Mendenhall (2011) and my prior knowledge of Harvard’s composition program, exhibited different experiences with a common event, which was the shift to a German university model and the American university’s efforts to adjust.  While OSU adapted under the leadership of Denney (Mendenhall, 2011), Yale and Harvard both seemingly struggled to adapt.  The mixed curriculum in the Basic Writing classroom was a result of traditional practices and the push for the FYC.  Part of the course goals for ENGL 810 is to analyze the complexities of English studies, and just between the articles I have read, I can see how complex the situation can be for one field, especially if this much diversity existed between how three universities approached the same change.  What I have gathered from the readings has been the danger in limiting terms to basic, or even convoluted, definitions because this more often excludes and hinders progress in Composition studies.

Reference List

Mendenhall, A. S. (2011). Joseph V. Denney, the Land-Grant Mission, and Rhetorical Education at Ohio State: An Institutional History. College English, 74(2), 131-156. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23052356

Ritter, K. (2008). Before Mina Shaughnessy: Basic Writing at Yale, 1920-1960. College Composition And Communication, 60(1), 12-45. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20457043

Shaughnessy, M.  (1977).  Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford UP.

 

ENGL 810 PAB 1a

Many of the histories of Composition studies in America focused on the Hill and the First Year Composition course at Harvard University; however, Mendenhall (2011) provided a somewhat contrasting view of the composition’s history as seen in a localized context of The Ohio State University, particularly the impact of Joseph V. Denney.    Mendenhall (2011) documented how OSU does not share the common decline of compositional studies at other universities around the turn of the century because of Denney’s recognition of the flexible definitions of “science” in connection to research and how this allowed for the department to evolve and thrive instead of struggling to fit a rigid educational structure.  As many other universities followed the German model of a research university, OSU followed suit, but with the focus on meeting the needs of the local student community, which meant providing both liberal and technical education to generate educated civilians (largely because it was also a Land-grant institution).  As other universities struggled to bridge the gap between traditional literary studies and the new FYC, Denney did so successfully as he “subordinated taste in composition” to develop a stronger sense of a “rhetorical situation” the writer might have encountered (Mendenhall, 2011, p. 139).  This article provides a different perspective of Composition and Rhetoric at the turn of the century compared to the common narrative of its history, which is Composition and Rhetoric faded until a resurgence towards the second half of the 20th century.

Mendenhall’s (2011) work is noteworthy for a history of Composition and Rhetoric because it documented that the supposed decline of the field was not all encompassing and most likely misinterpreted as such.  Because of how universities defined certain research terminology such as “real, practical, and scientific” (Mendenhall, 2011, p. 137) with specific and rigid definitions, they relegated Rhetoric and Composition to obscurity, forcing it to change some of its terms and combine with other areas  such as literary theory or criticism; thus, it “disappeared.” Denney’s adaptive approach to how he defined some of these research terms connects to our ENGL 810 class discussions regarding how solidified views of the field actually limits what it should probably include.  The question of “What is English Studies?” is still current just as it appeared to be a century ago; the more scholars try to solidify a definition, the more likely they are to eliminate part of the field. The field is flexible, especially as new technologies change how composition happens.  Essentially, Composition and Rhetoric’s history lies in the definitions we have created for it, which is true for much of what has happened in the past century.  My question now is what other universities follow more of the OSU example during the early twentieth century and if they are Land-grant universities as well. Additionally, how might our current definitions shift as a result of changing university models now?  After reading Mendenhall’s (2011) article, my initial response to this might be that the situation is similar to what English departments faced before: with concerns for the university as a whole coming first, altering definitions of what English studies includes might be a form of self-preservation, but the “disappearing act” mentioned with Harvard at the turn of the century is much less likely due to the recognition of diversity within the field. While this article was not the Harvard-focused history that many other sources provided, I felt I had more breadth of knowledge regarding this pivotal point in Composition’s history and understanding what exactly happened at many of the Ivy League institutions.

Reference List

Mendenhall, A. S. (2011). Joseph V. Denney, the Land-Grant Mission, and Rhetorical Education at Ohio State: An Institutional History. College English, 74(2), 131-156. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23052356