NORMAS GENERALES

Introduction

Mina P. Shaugnessy concisely describes three writing pedagogies in Errors and

Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing:―the pedagogy that stresses grammar,‖ ―the pedagogy that stresses process,‖ and ―the pedagogy that stresses the therapeutic value of writing and seeks the affective response to whatever is read or discussed‖ (73). Shaugnessy neatly triangulates these differences for basic writers, but her compartmentalized model may be limited when examined outside of basic writing classrooms. In particular, to begin an

examination of the writing processes in most high school and college classrooms, it may be easier to visualize these varied instructional philosophies as components along a pedagogical writing continuum.

The conservative and liberal ends of this continuum can be clearly identified. At one end lays the FPT and other prescriptive methods like the JSM and formal outlines that restrict

students to sharing knowledge or focusing more on restrictions in form than on other rhetorical elements; at the other end lays Romantic explorative pedagogies that nebulously encourage students to find themselves in their writing. However, many composition teachers do not desire to teach from either of these ends, and the current pedagogies do not help put these desires comfortably into practice. For example, many instructors who encourage non-formulaic process- oriented models find themselves victims of binary logic. Their negative reactions to

oversimplified, formulaic writing push them towards Peter Elbow-like beliefs that organic free- writing will eventually find its path, of course after much ―doubting,‖ ―believing,‖ and

―cooking.‖71

Yet, what many teachers find too often from this search is a student‘s writing product that is not only with little direction but also altogether often lost. These naturalist pedagogies ask students to make uncomfortable leaps. Likewise, the efforts to replace formulaic writing with discovery writing have many times only created discord and discomfort for students and teachers alike. Students often lose their way in their efforts to find themselves, their

subjects, their voices, and their rhetorical purpose through such explorative writing. When students find themselves at the ends of this scale, or firmly nestled in Shaugnessy‘s initial

(current-traditional) grouping, they frequently return to the forms, the rigid structural forms, with which they have experience, even if they think that this formulaic response may be considered at best adequate.

While suitable for some test-taking situations to showcase knowledge, in process-driven composition classrooms, strict commitments to formulaic structural models like the FPT often hinder students‘ understandings of the way an entire composition functions (or could function). Many students, when presently asked to compose an academic essay, frequently turn towards the FPT model – in particular its three-part (non)thesis – because this formula has made invention easier for them. When they do so, they usually make a onetime essay-driving decision that determines what and how they want to write. The linear writing that usually follows highlights how their initial thinking, connecting, and analyzing have waned. Therefore, when these

students restrict themselves to the FPT, they often relegate themselves to superficial discussions. What they need to ask themselves, instead, is how invention – their continued thinking

71 _{See Peter Elbow‘s expressionist textbook Writing Without Teachers; here he fights against structure but still} believes in unity. For example, he concludes the Cooking chapter, ―All parts of a piece of writing are

interdependent‖ (72). See also W. Ross Winterowd‘s A Teacher’s Introduction to Composition in the Rhetorical Tradition in which he calls this expressionist pedagogy the ―Romantic Rhetoric‖ of Peter Elbow and Ken Macorie (39).

about their ideas in relation to their purpose – can drive the organization of their essay. The FPT encourages students to use three parts, set forth in the thesis itself, to move methodically towards a supposed whole. Usually more concerned with task completion than with quality, many

students consequently look for ways to combine a collection of tangential pieces. What the FPT, therefore, does not teach them is how to create a thesis with clearly something at stake. What the FPT has taught, though sometimes criticized, is the notion that students start with their thesis and write from this hierarchical apex downwards. Many students consequently will find comfort – and focus – with opening discussions with their instructors about the values of thesis statements in academic arguments.

This chapter will explore not only the x, y thesis model and its practice but also the theories that surround it in order to explain this model completely. First, I will explain the details of this x, y thesis model by including sample responses to typical prompts in both

literature and composition courses. For comparison essays, brief discussions of the x, y, z thesis model also introduce how the x, y thesis model expands into a third plane and third algebraic variable. The second part furthers examine the underpinnings of the model, by looking at the ways in which the model extends rhetorical theories and attempts to re-complicate the process of writing compositions in a rather uncomplicated way.

An Explanation and Opening Example of the Relational x, y Thesis Model of Invention In contrast to the FPT and other formulaic structures that pose as invention models, the x, y thesis model offers flexible means to create relational patterns – in the shapes of algebraic sentence completions. This model encourages students to (re)consider what they want to argue by looking closely at the interactions between their ideas. With this altered entry point that

focuses on critical thinking rather than on explaining, the x, y thesis model offers a new origin and a new touchstone for students to explore the ongoing relations between their ideas (and under the aegis of an academic argument). The flexibility of the model encourages students to examine their theses from a mindset that is not stagnant or segmented. The model offers writers options that transform when the students explore areas of the writing continuum where they have not ventured and that blossom when these writers begin to build confidence in their own process writing.

The x, y thesis model offers eight sentence completions as the nucleus of the opening instruction. The following sentence completion thesis statements depend on varied relationships and encourage increased rhetorical awareness than formulaic structures; they are designed to help students examine closely the interdependency of the parts that typify these relations. In other words, these sentence stems prepare students to write better theses than the FPT model, which focuses solely on coordination:

1. Although x, y. 2. As x, y. 3. Because of x, y. 4. If x, then y. 5. In order for x, y. 6. When x, y.

7. [Subject] "incorporates" x (in order) to y. [note: ―incorporates‖ or ―uses‖

should be replaced with an alternative verb; how is x incorporated or used?] 8. In [text(s) or subject(s)] x[active verb] y. [note: Restructuring the above

―limits,‖ ―challenges,‖ ―shows,‖ ―masks,‖ ―shifts,‖ ―complicates,‖ ―unifies,‖ ―fragments,‖ ―symbolizes,‖ etc.

These sentence completions explore identifiable means by which students may create

oppositions, build relations, show sequences, and test importance. By inventing a thesis that has a clear hinge that connects two related parts, the purpose of the discussion and the sub-

discussions become not only clearer but also more overtly unified. Moreover, these thesis stems affront formulaic theses: rather than merely outlaying speaking points, they ask students to consider the impact (y) of something (x) worth discussing in specific terms.

In other words, the x, y thesis model establishes relationships between two algebraic variables to help drive the essay to a cohesive end. As an accessible and flexible alternative to the FPT, this model uses such algebraic underpinnings, which help students view language symbolically, and subordinate relationships, which aids in their understanding of the syntactic dependency of parts. Rather than building ideas with forced coordinate relationships, it asks students to examine what relationships occur between their ideas about the subject or subjects. For students who wrestle with their theses – whether or not this struggle occurs at the prewriting, drafting, or revision stages of their writing process – these thesis alternatives come initially in the appearance of varied sentence completions that students can test for compatibility. The x, y

thesis model also helps students pay closer attention to the overall effects of their compositions by looking at relationships beyond the coordinate connections to which the FPT is restricted.

The discussions from and around these models have likewise proven equally effective. When students learn that a thesis is a reflection of invention and not organization, then they no longer look to the thesis as a one-time decision. Many students, consequently, who have had difficulty with the concept of thesis writing, especially once they have the growing confidence to

remove the fetters of form writing, often readily wrap their minds around these algebraic thesis statements. This variety of sentence stems becomes a new tool not only to generate but also to reevaluate effective argumentation (and to continue thinking throughout the writing process). In order to show readers how this example could work in a context similar to my opening FPT example, I have modified the previously discussed Regents‘ essay by inserting and

overlaying my ideas that develop from a restructuring of the FPT thesis into one example of an x, y model. What follows in bold are my additions and what remains in italics are the original writer‘s thoughts:

Going out of Business Sale! Signs of this nature indicatingfailed businesses can be seen everywhere. Sometimes they come in the most

unexpected places. For example, in my community there are many thriving car wash companies. In the past year, I heard of a new company that not only washed cars at a competitive rate but also catered to their customers’ environmental concerns by trying to use as many renewable resources as possible, including offering the empty barrels that once held cleaning

supplies to their customers as free rain barrels. Within months, even before I was able to see how well they cleaned my car and at what cost, I was told this “green” business had shut its doors. The other established companies along this commercial corridor, however, continue to thrive. Although opening a business, like this carwash, does offer some potential external rewards [x], the internal stresses associated with managing such a business make this business venture too frightening [y].

American Dream in all of us. To make money, to build a successful business, to be your own boss, to contribute to the community as a sponsor, and to eventually sell the business to another investor all sound like exciting external benefits. However, these external rewards only can occur if the business is a success. And even if this aforementioned carwash had well researched business plans that accounted for costs, competition, recessions, and weather, then the success of the business is not guaranteed.

With such extrinsic risks come internal stressors, factors that I feel outweigh the potential rewards. The chief reason I would not want to start my own business is the great risk of failure. Today’s statistics show that four out of every six businesses fail within the first year. Those are not very good odds for one just starting his or her own business. Such quick collapses mean that it would be most likely that entrepreneurs would never recuperate their opening costs. Therefore, [t]he second reason not to start my own business is the high cost of starting a business. Businesses take a great deal of money to get started, and for that matter to keep running. The first thing one has to do is find a place to put the business. Lots are very expensive. Then a building has to be built or leased, and merchandise to fill the building has to be purchased. In the case of this carwash, if machines were also purchased rather than leased, then this equipment was most likely sold back at a fraction of the cost of purchase. Such losses build to threaten the very American Dream that owning a business was supposed to fulfill. As such, owning a business can be stressful.

Being one’s own boss can also be stressful to her or him by the way of having to make all of the important decisions, or the responsibilities that were once left at work can now cause stress at home. The stress at home can be very detrimental to the marriage, or the financial losses could even impact the family as a whole if the owner did not have the money to take these losses in stride.

Running the risk of injuring the present quality of life for my family does not seem like a good personal decision.

As I discuss the pros and especially the cons of this situation, I