Response to "What Are English Majors For" and "Composition at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century"
Miller and Jackson offer interesting points in their article. According to the statistics cited by Miller and Jackson, literary reading wanes. Young adults show the sharpest decline (Miller and Jackson 700). From 1992 to 2002, book reading dropped significantly. I wonder if the survey encompasses reading digital media or does it only reflect physical books? Reading's fall seems to correlate with the rise of the computer. What does the correlation mean? Were survey participants asked if they read on-line? If so, what did they read?
The article makes a sound point regarding ESL students. The authors realize a need to address students of "underrepresented backgrounds" within the field (698). Bright students, new to English may struggle to compose. Miller and Jackson posit that a need exists for a growing population of students. ESL students could benefit from their needs being directly addressed in the English discipline. I agree. The "so what" of composition means a great deal to students studying in America and seeking opportunity in various fields.
Reading Fulkerson, I found the numerous approaches to pedagogy eye-opening. Three axiologies comprise the "major approaches to the teaching of composition" (Fulkerson 655). Fulkerson depicts social, expressive and multi-faceted rhetorical approaches. The CCS model's "indoctrination of students" could siphon time away from facilitating student writing. Also, the multi-faceted CCS model presents a caveat of evaluating students' papers based on a teacher's worldview. The CCS model seems to profit certain students and punish others based on ideological perspectives.
The expressivist view functions in various forms also. A key theme in expressivism seems to be emphasis on the writer's personal voice. Expressivism points to helping students "become more self-aware, more reflective" (667). Perhaps this mode can be helpful to those who have suffered various forms of oppressive silencing. However, I think a balance of the personal and academic voice provides a means of communication which will serve the student in a professional career.
Fulkerson depicts a third model, a rhetorical one. It emphasizes "writing effectively for different audiences, seeing writing as an extended process of multiple tasks and drafts, and learning to control surface features and formatting" (670). Fulkerson closes, saying those who reject a rhetorical model may see it as "writing to the demands of the academic discourse community." Therfore, they probably won't adhere to it (679). There may be some debate as to "hegemonic imperialism" in the third model. However, I don't see this model as detracting from previous forms of writing. Rather, I see it as equipping students with new tools to function in rigorous academic courses and future careers.