Don’t Mind Me; A tantrum over Wiley’s article

I felt as if Russell’s article was just an echo of our class discussions: “If you want students to do the thing, then have them do the thing.” Because of this, I’m going to focus on what Wiley has to say. I knew I was going to have to mentally prepare myself for whatever Wiley had to say by his opening statement: “but don’t worry, I’m not about to rehash diatribes against the five-paragraph” (61). Oh, Joy.

So, already, we’re given a formulaic approach to writing called the Jane Schaffer Approach to teaching writing. I’m always weary of those with little modesty, so reading that Schaffer recommends her formula should be used “not just by individual teachers, but as the preferred curriculum for all language arts teachers” is very discouraging (61). Of all the ideas I could have commented on in this article, I went with these opening statements and Shaffer’s method because it kept me angry as I read this article twice.

Her approach includes having shared jargon in relation to writing between students and teachers to make critique and discussion easier. She also recommends, for a body paragraph, a specific 8-sentence format:

Topic sentence

Concrete detail 1

Commentary 1a

Commentary 1b

Concrete detail 2

Commentary 2a

Commentary 2b

Concluding sentence

These body paragraphs must be at least 100 words, with introductions and conclusions containing at least 40 words. Intros need a thesis and a minimum of three sentences; conclusions have all of the commentaries from the body paragraphs. This format makes me angry, but what makes me especially bitter is that “this format replicates what is found in high scoring essays on district wide tests and AP exams” (62).

I am personally offended for two reasons with the first being that this is the successful method for student’s test scores. To me, this feels like a cop out. Look at my blog post. This post appears to be blatantly disrespecting this ‘writing formula,’ but am I not getting my point across? Am I not using ‘concrete details’ and ‘commentary’ without having to structure them immediately after one another? My body paragraphs haven’t even broken 60 words, but does this mean I’ve jeopardized my paper? I will allow that this is not a paper, but a blog post in response to an article. The only reason that this is even called a ‘blog post’ is due to the method of which I’m presenting this paper (look at that, 130 words).

While reading this article, I made a connection to another formula of essay writing Jaxon had my class discussed in Intro to Literacy: The Twitter Essay. The purpose behind this formula was mainly in defense against the degradation of English Language, but this article can also be applied towards my point. The author, Jesse Stommel, tells his own students to condense their argument with support into 140 characters:

“In composing their Twitter-essay, I have students proceed through all the steps I would have them take in writing a traditional academic essay, including brainstorming, composing, workshopping, and revising. I also have them consider and research their audience, the Twitter members engaged in discussion around a particular hashtag. Finally, I have them work dynamically with the Tweets of their peers, responding to them on Twitter and close-analyzing them in class. I ask the students to consider their word-choice, use of abbreviation, punctuation, etc. (Stommel, “The Twitter Essay”)

This idea puts an emphasis on content more so than presentation. Schaffer’s formula allows those grading the papers to easily identify the quotes and commentary with a simple scan of the page while quickly judging how well students executed each. Schaffer says that “teachers are happier with the results when they read essays with a 1:2+ ratio,” and I can confidently hazard a guess as to why. It’s the arguments made, the content, that should be given attention, not the structure of the paper. This ‘paper’ that you’re reading would be ripped to shreds in any other context or blog post because of my wacky format, but shouldn’t my argument and evidence be valued more than the fact that this paragraph is made up of 100 words?

My second complaint is this emphasis on competition. Schaffer’s format is reflected, as written in the article, in high scoring AP papers and district wide tests. It’s doesn’t matter whether or not the student can form a cohesive argument and be able to back up their words with evidence; ultimately, it’s how well they score, and, when left to the judgement of the teacher, presentation is everything. This ‘formula,’ with an introduction, 2-3 body paragraphs, and a conclusion, with each body paragraph containing at least 2 commentaries for every 1 piece of textual evidence, is a method I know all too well how to (pardon my language) bullshit all over my page.

Schaffer wants this method to be used by all language arts teachers, but this method- instead of helping students improve their writing and argument building- only makes it easier for a student to bullshit whatever the teacher wants to hear. Since middle school, my fellow classmates and I easily wrote beautiful papers that were essentially flowers covering a discarded candy wrapper. The only time I ever got reprimanded for writing a ‘paper without content’ was in my AP psychology class- a non-language arts class that required an entirely different approach to writing.

Why is learning a competition? Why are we making learning a competition? Education’s goal should be to educate, not to place a value on a person based on how advanced their knowledge is. Those who don’t do well are discouraged and faced with a constant reminder of how they’re performing compared to their classmates. There are plenty of students who can make well thought out and supported arguments without needing to use as many words as the ‘writing formula’ preaches, but they are faced with the stress to fill in the blanks of that chart shown above that they do poorly trying to give their teachers what they want.

Structure can be good for some students. Yes, it can be a helpful template for those struggling with where to start or how to approach presenting their arguments. Ultimately, however, for Schaffer to say that her method should be used by all schools frustrates me. Learning and writing (oh Lord, especially writing) shouldn’t be this static, constrained thing. It should by dynamic and changing to embrace the needs of students. As our society evolves, so should the methods behind teaching and writing.

To use this method as a suggestion or an example, I’m okay with. It is a good teaching tool. To assert that it is a method that every classroom needs (and knowing that some teachers will misunderstand that this formula is a suggestion, not an expectation or essay requirement) is what bothers me. Even though the article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this method (some of which I’ve echoed in my writing), my tantrum is mainly thrown in anticipation of the teachers that will make this structure their edict for essays.