Weekly Response: Fulkerson's "Composition at the Turn of the 21st Century"

Fulkerson accomplishes his stated goal: to show that the field of Rhetoric and Composition has become divided into many different camps and ideologies. He offers neither guidance nor opinion as to which pedagogies or ideologies he prefers; rather, he simply explains the differing views and seems to endorse none of them. He raises various useful questions, such as what to accomplish with students, and how, while providing little guidance towards answers.

I am very interested in his views, as he is a director of a first-year college writing program, and I am a professor of first-year college writing.

He describes the field as it was in 1980 and compares it to 2001. Then, he discusses how the field has changed and divided. For example, in 1980 Donald Murray's process approach (see Weekly Response: Murray's "Teach Writing as Process Not Product") was considered new and innovative. Now, the process approach is standard. There are currently three modern ideologies: critical/cultural studies; expressivism; and procedural rhetoric.

The critical and cultural studies are theme based courses that borrow from social studies and literature courses. They include topics such as diversity studies and feminism. Often they focus on social issues of power, society, and injustice. The author argues that students are told what to think and write in these types of classes, and they are being indoctrinated by the professors. My course is theme based; however, the students can write about what they want and have their own opinions.  We need to have some type of theme, or what will we have class discussions about? 

Fulkerson seems to disagree with this approach, stating that the instructor requires the students to interpret the theme in a certain way, and then grades the students on their insight and interpretation. This is more appropriate for a literature or civics class. The author coins the term "content envy" to describe professors of these theme based critical/cultural studies (CCT). He also accused professors of marking a student down for misinterpreting the content or social argument.

Expressivist pedagogy includes journals, free writing, reflection and voice. It is a feminist ideology that encourages personal growth, development, and awareness. This seems to me what much of the KUWP was about. Perhaps that is why it was so different from what I was accustomed to in my MBA program, corporate career, and NJIT. The class felt a bit loose and touchy-feely--not usually my thing, but it was ok. I like how the author noted that process and expressivist pedagogy were mingled in Donald Murray's early work. There it is, the expressivism is what Murray went overboard with. That's why I didn't like it!  Thanks for the insight, Fulkerson!

The author notes, and rightly so, that there is really no data to prove how many classes and how many instructors are using these methods. It is all conjecture to assume that there are more CCT classes than expressivist classes, and vice versa.

The WPA (Council of Writing Program Administrators) created standards for first year composition courses, and neither CCT nor expressivist pedagogies were represented.  Instead, they championed the outcomes of "Rhetorical Knowledge, Critical Thinking, Process, and Knowledge of Conventions." All of that is on the outcomes of the HUM 101 syllabus at NJIT. It includes writing for specific audiences, a process with multiple drafts, and knowledge of conventions and format. The author says this is what was common in the 1970's and 80's. The student is an apprentice, learning different genres of writing and proper format from the teacher. Fulkerson goes on to break this section that he calls procedural rhetoric down further into three factions: "composition as argumentation, genre based composition, and composition as introduction to an academic discourse community."

Argumentation, according to the author, makes sense and is widely used. Where does he get this data? Genre based composition follows the old modes of discourse EDNA model of teaching expository, descriptive, narrative and argument by reading texts of that genre and expecting students to produce similar texts themselves. 

While I use a CCT approach because we have a theme in class, I most certainly use a genre, or modes of discourse, approach as well.  The author claims that CCT and genre based readings are used differently. I think I use them in both of the ways that he describes: content and example of the genre.

The "discourse community" theory wants students to read, write, and respond to texts as they would in other college courses, thus providing practical knowledge for what awaits them in college and jobs. There is thought that this gives unfair advantage to White students and robs other students of their own language. I don't agree with this. Reality: to build ethos in professional circles, you must communicate in Standard English.  I'm not saying it's fair; I'm saying it's true.

The author draws the following conclusions:
1. Composition has become more complex.
2. There is controversy within the field of Composition.
3. It is difficult to plan a composition course because of the complexity of the contradictory pedagogies.
4. While Composition insiders disagree among themselves, there is also disagreement among stakeholders outside of academia regarding what to teach and how to teach it.
5. There is no way to determine "truth" of which approach is better.
6. Some form of standardization is ultimately going to be required in field.
7. Preparing graduate students to become Composition professors is very difficult.

At the end of the article, the following questions remain unanswered:
What are our courses supposed to achieve?
How is effective writing best produced?
What does an effective classroom look like?
What does it mean to make knowledge?
Fulkerson ends by saying that the practitioners in the field of Composition are virtually at war with one another.

This article gives an overview of the field and the current disagreements within it.  While I was expecting some answers at the end, a nice clean finish and resolution, it seems there are none to be had. I suppose it is we graduate students in 2015 who will have to end the war and shape the new quasi-standards and pedagogies for the future.