I really appreciated the breadth offered by Crowley and Hawhee on the topic of arrangement. Despite a relatively heavy use of new terminology, chapter 9 offered a clear and systematic approach to the discussion of the six-part division of discourse touted by Cicero (294).
Perhaps I appreciated their treatment of the issue of arrangement because in my own experiences many of the texts prescribed for use at my own institution (with the exception of a number of the texts used in the developmental writing sequence) do not do such a thorough job in instructing students on why arrangement of ideas is so important or on how to organize ideas for the best effect. And, as the authors suggest, modern rhetorical arrangement has become somewhat formulaic, with an emphasis on genre substituted for the ancient rhetors’ emphasis on rhetorical situation, of which the audience was a key element (292). Although, Crowley and Hawhee’s presentation of the concept of arrangement has a bit of the formula feel to it.
I’d like to think that audience is a primary consideration when I am trying to determine what to cover in a given course (when the text presents more material that can effectively be covered in 15 weeks) and in what order the concepts should be addressed; I look at things such as,
· what is the make up of the class
· what is it likely the students already understand
· what is the curriculum for composition courses they have already taken
· what types of writing have instructors of those courses addressed
· what activities will engage the students and make them active in the learning process
· what will motivate the students
· what has been effective or ineffective in the past with similar groups
and so on. The answers to these questions help to inform my decisions about how to select and arrange the relevant information.
Of course, to generate the answers to some of these questions, I go right to the source and ask the students in the first days of the course, but this option is not always available to the rhetor.
I liken this process to one that is often discussed in courses which focus on writing for the business world. In such courses, and necessarily then in the texts used in those courses, the role of audience is emphasized. Using a model like the PAIBOC method, students are taught the importance of taking their time to find out about their audience and their audience’s needs before composing discourse that will be addressed to that audience. The PAIBOC method asks one to reflect on these issues:
· the Purpose for addressing the audience
· who the Audience(s) is/are and how the issue affects him/them
· what Information the audience needs to be able to act or respond
· what Benefits the audience will enjoy by attending to the discourse
· what Objections the audience might have to what is being said or proposed and how to
deal with those objections
· what the Context of the situation is
While business writing is so fully audience driven, it seems this focus on audience is often overlooked or, perhaps, forgotten in other forms of discourse. There is a tendency to get caught up in the message and saying what one wants to say rather than what will resonate most with those receiving the message.
To this end then, business writing places the information deemed most critical to the audience up front. Paragraphs are short and to the point. Information is often arranged as bullet points or numbered to facilitate the reader’s locating and reading the key ideas (similar to the way in which Crowley and Hawhee number the summative points throughout chapter 9). After all, in the world of business, time is money; lengthy and poorly arranged discourse (letter, memo, proposal, report, cover letter) will not garner much attention. Crowley and Hawhee seem to suggest the same thing about persuasive discourse.
Interestingly, my students recently read a chapter in their freshman comp. textbook that utilized this bullet point method for delineating key points to consider when using evidence. In the students’ written responses to the chapter, I noticed that quite a few commented on the clarity this arrangement of information provided for them—evidence that arrangement really does matter!?
On a final note, I enjoyed the discussion on imitation that concludes the chapter. I have to agree with the premise that great writers are not necessarily born with the ability to write. While the process of writing eloquently may come more easily for some, initial struggles with composing can be overcome through both imitation and practice. For example, I often find that students who are readers tend to produce more effective writing with efficiency; while others may generate good writing, their efforts are frequently more painstaking and time consuming. The readers’ extensive exposure to the written word translates to their own writing.
Pedagogical practices of journaling, paraphrasing and even peer review seem to follow from this belief in practice and imitation. As a technique for encouraging greater writing proficiency, many teachers make use of a journal assignment to promote more frequent student writing. Because a journal is typically treated as an informal mode of writing, students do not have the same insecurities about how their writing will be perceived. Thus, as a teacher responds to the journal entries and encourages deeper thought, the student develops more confidence in himself and his ability to express himself through writing. The journal becomes a tool for critical thinking, writing practice, and writing proficiency.
Paraphrasing is a common form of imitation that helps a writer demonstrate a variety of writing skills as well as an understanding of the text which he is rephrasing. I always enjoy the results of a paraphrasing activity I sometimes do with my students; usually we end up with a multitude of very different ways to say the same thing, which serves to clarify for the students what a resource language can be.
At the heart of peer review, the primary goal is to provide feedback that will allow a writer to effectively revise his written work. However, the process of reading and evaluating another’s writing exposes the reviewer to different techniques, processes and stylistic practices. In recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of another person’s writing, the review can begin to discover these same strengths and weaknesses in his own writing and work toward mimicking those strategies that work most effectively. Once used effectively, they become part of his common repertoire of techniques.
There were so many nuggets of truth found in these latter pages of the chapter that I could probably write a few more pages, but I will save some of these thoughts for Thursday night.
No comments:
Post a Comment