...some thoughts on writing instruction...

Consider the descriptions, histories, and criticisms (both apparent and implied) of writing instruction described by Kitzhaber, D'Angelo, Macrorie, and others.  Then consider our own personal writing instruction journey--and how we write if we're not academics...really, who among us remembers with fondness the ubiquitous 5-paragraph essay?  And when was the last time we wrote a "theme" (unless it was a "how my company will survive in the next recession" message to shareholders).  But we have to start somewhere, and any teaching method is better than no teaching method...which would surely be the next logical conclusion if we determine that Kitzhaber, D'Angelo, and Macrorie are right.

While I agree with D'Angelo that teaching writing today using nineteenth century methods is neither effective nor relevant, it is a method.  And it does work for some students.  I didn't enjoy being taught to write using this methodology at the time...but I am grateful today for the discipline I was subjected--one that emphasized forms, structures, grammar, and spelling.  This discipline was not available to my offspring decades later and I believe they are the poorer for it, as young college and university students they work much harder to understand that which they could have learned much earlier.

In 2002, I attended my first IPCC conference (the annual International Professional Communication Conference of the IEEE's Professional Communication Society).  That year, the theme was "Reflections on Communication", and several notable professors contributed articles on their methods of teaching writing.  David Beer of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin submitted his article, "Reflections on Why Engineering Students Don't Like to Write--and What We Can Do About It"*

In this article, Beer describes his method as making the process of writing relevant to his students.  He provides us with some useful examples:

"I make it clear that the tasks involved in technical communication are really problem solving.  Engineering is largely a discipline of problem solving, and students are familiar with the term.  What are the basic needs that must be met by this project?  Am I analyzing the correct problems? The "Problem" to be solved in technical writing or speaking is to clearly transmit a piece of information from the encoder to the decoder as efficiently as possible, whether the message is in a short memo, a 500-page instruction manual, or an oral presentation." (Beer, 366)*

and

"Finally, I stress that in the class we will approach the whole question of "correctness" in writing and speech from the standpoint of noise.  Electrical engineering students are familiar with the concept of noise as a technical entity in telecommunications.  It is usually defined something like this"Any desired disturbance, whether originating from the transmission medium or the electronics of the receiver itself, that gets superimposed onto the original transmitted signal by the time it reaches the receiver.  These disturbances tend to interfere with the information content of the original signal". Thus, by simple analogy, anything that prevents efficient communication--whether it be poor spelling or punctuation, lack of transitions or coherence, unclear subheadings, careless diagrams, or aging printer toner--is noise, or unwanted signals that interfere with the message....My students are quite familiar with noise/signal ratios but have never thought of these terms outside of telecommunications, so when I suddenly apply them to writing and speaking it's somewhat of an epiphany." (Beer, 367)*


Beer is trying to overcome the legacy of nineteenth century writing methods through creative means.  However, since 2002 just about every IPCC conference I've attended has had one or more similar presentations.  It is evident to me that teachers of writing are aware of the failings of their legacy method of instruction and are talking about the problem...but is this having any significant impact on how writing is taught?  If it was, shouldn't we be using a different system today?

One final thought: I truly believe that writing is something that all people should know how to do well.  Just like we learn to eat with a knife and fork, say please and thank you, and even drive a car, so learning to write well is a basic skill.  It should not be the sole purview of English departments, but should be a cross-disciplinary endeavour. By keeping the teaching methodologies of the nineteenth century teachers of writing do a disservice to their students.

*IEEE Proceedings of the International Professional Communication Conference. September 17-20, 2002. Portland, OR.