To start off, I would like to say that this has been my favorite piece so far. It was organized, sound in logic, and very straightforward about presenting ideas and answers.
After addressing the by now well-known difficulties surrounding the task, Lunsford offers a definition for the term college-level writing: "skills, knowledge, and attitudes [students] bring to college, assets that will allow them to develop their abilities to produce the types of writing we value in our institutions" (179). I love this definition for two reasons. One, although it seems general, he will clearly demonstrate what he means by this; he is focusing on one thing-a state of being. Two, this is something that should be attainable for every student. As he gets into his examples we see that it is not about perfection or a formulaic standard, it is about having an open mind and being willing to learn (in other words to actually do what you are supposed to go to college for).
As mentioned, the author backs up his claim with studetn writing samples. His first example is presented and analyzed. It is not perfect but is sophisticated in thought and organization. The student expresses the right attitude, opens himself up to learnign of all kinds. His analysis of the samplegoes beyond surface form and features to abilities. The second sample, though grammatical, using strategies any high school teacher would die to see, is clearly of a different caliber. "This student approaches this writing situation with an attitude that prevents the kind of thought and rhetorical awareness we would encourage" (190). The student expresses no awareness of audience and no desire to open her mind to new ideas. The examples presented make it clear what he values and why it is important.
Lunsford does discuss Sullivan's criteria for college-level writing and states it can be useful, but stands by attitude as the most important factor. I would have to agree. A student needs to be able to read, write and discuss complex ideas, be able to interact with other perspectives in order to attain the level of writing necessary for a college setting. This is greatly helped along by sophistacated control of grammar and language, but the key is in the thought and the thought process. When Lunsford says, "our attitude determines our aptitude" (196), I agree 100%.
It may not be a checklist to go through while reading a text, but then I don't think any contributor to this book would say that is what we need more of. It gives a new angle for approaching college-level criteria and indicators and should be given further thought.
I like this definition for college level writing as well, but what i appreciate more is the acknowledgement that not all students who graduate from high school are capable of college level writing; there are high school graduates who do not have the skills and knowledge that will allow them to develop the college writing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in doing this, i also have to disagree with you, Melissa. Notice that i did not include the word "attitudes". While i am willing to acknowledge that attitude is important in the sense that we should be willing to learn and that willingness to engage the material, the willingess to question is what allows us to do so - learn, where i am willing to say different is that writing depends on attitude. someone with sufficient skill and knowledge can fake the attitude, can produce in thier writing the facade that they are have an "open mind". students do this all the time; they're are incredibly aware that professors are impressed when a student who has espoused views different from their own then turn a paper defending the views opposite of thier own; these professors then congratulate themselves on having made a difference (i changed thier mind!) as the student is smiling at the A scribbled on thier paper and thinking "sucker!".
Furthermore, Lunsford's use of "attitude" is troubling: "No, i mean it when i say i don't like certain students' attidues because it is thier attitudes that are going to keep them from the growth in...thinking that we want to see in a college level writing course." Lunsford wants to see a change (what he calls growth) in student thinking? Till what? Till thier thinking matches his?
one last gripe. When critiqueing the second paper (the one by Donna), it's interesting and troubling to note that what he's targeting is not her writing, but her thinking. The reason i find this troubling is that it takes me back to the purpose of an FYC - is it supposed to teach us how to think?
Or how to write?