Introduction
In his thought-provoking article, Stanley Fish raises three fundamental questions regarding the teaching of writing in colleges and universities. First, he questions whether mastering writing forms should be taught earlier in high school. Second, he examines whether extensive reading is the key to learning how to write. Lastly, he ponders the nature of a composition course based on his proposed method.
Should Mastering Writing Forms Be Taught Earlier in High School?
Fish argues that high schools fail to teach writing skills effectively, with some exceptions in parochial schools. He believes colleges are responsible for filling this educational gap, emphasizing that students’ inability to write clean English sentences should motivate college teachers to act. Fish’s first argument centers on the idea that writing forms should be introduced and taught much earlier, ideally in high school or even earlier in the educational journey. He contends that the foundations of effective writing should be laid at a younger age to ensure that students enter college with a firm grasp of the fundamentals. This perspective underscores the critical role that secondary education plays in preparing students for the rigors of college-level writing.
Regarding the relationship between reading and learning to write, Fish notes the historical practice of imitating great authors’ sentences as a valuable exercise in formalism. However, he questions whether more than extensive reading alone can suffice, suggesting that a broader engagement with words, including public speaking and debate, might be necessary. Given the current trends where the task is less popular among youth, Fish maintains that a form-based composition course should be a requirement.
Is Extensive Reading the Key to Learning How to Write?
Fish’s second argument delves into the importance of reading in developing writing skills. He acknowledges the value of reading as a means of exposure to different writing styles and forms. However, he raises a valid concern about the effectiveness of passive reading alone. He suggests that reading should be accompanied by active engagement, such as discussions and debates, to enhance writing skills and encourage students to analyze and apply what they’ve read in their writing. Fish acknowledges the need for further development in teaching this approach, emphasizing the importance of clearing one’s mind of certain orthodoxies. He criticizes the idea that all dialects are equally correct, arguing that language forms are not inherently equal and that teaching standardized language is essential for societal success.
Exploring the Nature of a Composition Course Based on the Proposed Method
In response to Fish’s arguments, it’s crucial to consider the potential implications of his views. While he calls for a form-based composition course, the question remains: can one standardized form adequately represent the richness of language diversity? Fish’s assertion that teaching a single form is essential for navigating societal norms could be seen as limiting linguistic diversity and discouraging multiculturalism.
Fish’s third argument centers on the contentious issue of language standardization. He challenges the notion that all dialects are equally valid, arguing that social and cultural norms shape language forms. Fish contends that teaching standardized language is essential for preparing students to navigate a society where specific norms of speech and writing are enforced, not by law but by institutional expectations.
In contrast to Fish’s perspective, a more inclusive approach to teaching writing recognizes the value of diverse dialects. It encourages students to embrace their linguistic backgrounds while developing proficiency in standardized forms. Language is a dynamic and evolving phenomenon, and fostering linguistic flexibility and open-mindedness can contribute to more effective and inclusive communication in a diverse society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Stanley Fish’s arguments highlight the need to rethink the teaching of writing in colleges and universities. While he advocates for a form-based approach, it is essential to consider the potential consequences of prioritizing standardized language and the importance of nurturing linguistic diversity and inclusion in education. Balancing form and content and promoting cultural sensitivity can lead to more effective and inclusive writing instruction.