Katherine Kelly 

Questions for 6/28

On pages 20 and 21, Bartholomae begins to question the role of composition within institutions, and the role of composition as something greater than just basic writing instruction in academia. He talks about institutional and cultural pressures to push a certain kind of curriculum and the things that govern how and why schools teach the things they do. I guess my question goes back to Bartholomae’s original thought process in asking whether or not an English department should be more concerned with producing English majors, PhD’s and scholars, or with promoting functional literacy. Does it have to be one or the other, or can there be a focus on both basic instruction and advanced work within a department? Should the “profession” of writing ever try to break away from the institutionalized version of what defines composition?

Bartholomae references student writers as “unprepared writers” who create “unauthorized writing.” On page 12, he even identifies the essay contest winner as an “unauthorized writer.” This leads him into a conversation about how hard it is to truly talk about what makes good writing and bad writing, and how disciplinary boundaries prevent teachers of different departments from engaging in meaningful conversations about writing in general. Is this because composition as a field of study relies on a myriad of methods and best practices for teaching writing? Is it because there is no direct, prescribed way to teach writing? On that note, is it fair for scholars to refer to students as “unprepared and unauthorized” while they admit to the difficulty in truly defining good/bad writing?