Por parte del jugador

Military publications have recently started to call for the development of better writing instruction, especially for officers. In Military Review, a publication of the Army, Desirae

Gieseman argues for a redefined “Army Writing Standard.” The current Army writing style aims to “transmit a clear message in a single rapid reading that is free of errors in grammar,

mechanics, and usage” (Armywritingstyle.com). Gieseman argues that this standard is taught using methods that are “overly focused on correcting discrete points of grammar, mechanics, and usage, and facilitating rapid reading of limited document types,” while the Army simultaneously has too many directives on too many genres, some of which are from the early 1990s (115). As personal computers have become ubiquitous, Army genres have changed, and increased the volume of writing that is performed, especially for officers (115). Citing current research on writing, reading, and learning, and using the NCTE’s Guiding Principles for Sound

Postsecondary Writing Instruction, Gieseman argues for a “functional standard” that is rooted in Army leadership principles. Such a standard would see writing as a leadership skill and as a way of communicating focused messages for targeted readers. (115). This ideal is actually described in an Army leadership publication from 2006, which cites clear and targeted writing as an important communication ability for Army officers. Gieseman is arguing for a perspective that does exist in theory in the Army’s conversations about leadership, but she argues that the current educational structure and current Army publications are not supporting the attainment of such a “functional” writing standard. For example, Gieseman points out that while the Army has a rich culture of coaching and mentoring, coaching and mentoring for writing tasks is not readily available, even though it has been recommended in various Army directives since the mid-1980s.

Gieseman’s pedagogical recommendations to the Army are practical, but there are Army publications that offer a more theoretical argument for the inculcation of writing in the Army, and these arguments align well with known theory in composition pedagogy. Major Trent Lythgoe (U.S. Army) has theorized widely about the need for more writing among Army

officers, even drawing on writing studies used by composition theorists like John T. Gage, David Bartholomae and Donald M. Murray. In his article, “Flight Simulation for the Brain: Why Army Officers Must Write,” Lythgoe sounds like many writers from the composition field when he argues that the “deterioration of writing skills is causing a corresponding deterioration of thinking skills. Writing, although valuable as a communication medium, is most valuable as a powerful way of thinking” (49). In an argument that complements Gieseman well, Lythgoe argues that the Army needs to return to longer writing in day-to-day operations as a way of synthesizing information and “creating thought” (55).

Just like many first year composition courses, many military entrance programs try to connect writing and verbal communication in their curriculum, yet there is no literature addressing the connection of their pedagogy to the field of rhetoric. For example, West Point explicitly addresses the need for students to be clear communicators in their description of their first year academic program (United States Military Academy Curriculum and Course

Descriptions, Class of 2020), and the Air Force publishes a writing handbook called Tongue and

Quill to help its officers write better. Quality writing is prized in the military culture, as

evidenced by collections such as Today’s Best Military Writing. The Army issues multiple orders each year that connect the values of communication (verbal and written) with leadership and the ability to think clearly (Gieseman, Lythgoe). But while the subject of educating officers to be clear communicators is addressed in military publications, and while writing and its value is part of military culture, there are no publications addressing the composition pedagogy of military entrance programs or the experiences of military instructors as teachers of writing.

A final interesting note on the value of some of the articles that I have reviewed here: Gieseman and Lythgoe’s work is unique amongst Army writing. Both were published in popular

and widely read military journals, and they draw on pedagogical theory and models that many instructors are not trained in and might not even recognize. At the same time, as I began interviewing instructors, I found that there are many instructors who are interested in writing pedagogy, and both of these pieces are well known to that subset of officers. With those of my participants who I can “talk writing research” with, I have sent them Mark Blaauw-Hara’s article. It has been new to every one of them, and has met with overwhelming approval. The conversations that have resulted from that specific exchange of articles have been personable and interesting. It would seem that when one is attempting to study a group of people who is not usually studied, our literature is not only a way to ground research questions and insure that a “gap” has been adequately identified. It can also be a way of connecting interpersonally with participants that might be reluctant or suspicious of motives. Part of the way that I have reviewed the literature here reflects what I believe is yet another fortuitous and unique aspect of my project and research: while there is no research that addresses my questions, there is literature and research where the common goal of caring for students has been expressed in a compassionate and intelligent way, and that has worked to connect me with my participants in what might have otherwise been a very difficult project.

In summary, my research questions identify several research gaps. In the field of writing studies and composition pedagogy, interest in veterans is high and scholarship related to veterans is developing. Research focused on veterans helps composition instructors to understand the realities of transitioning from the military to the classroom, but it does not address the inverse: writing instruction for the future Army officer, or students expecting to serve in any branch of the military as officers. Veteran studies have done a good job of bringing instructors into discussion with their student veterans, and of focusing pedagogy on how it can better serve

student veterans. But this pedagogical discussion still does not give military instructors a voice or help to enrich composition instructors’ understanding of what military instructors hope for their students as writers.

Both veteran studies and military publications illustrate what a writing-rich environment the military is, and how important writing skills are for officers, while also indicating that officers approach writing with different ideas about authority and purpose, and a strong adherence to structured genre within a professional environment that prizes creative thinking. The ways that the military writing environment both connects with and diverges from the pedagogy of the academy would be important information for the field of writing studies, and help to round out the field’s interest in student veterans as well as fostering conversation between the military and the academy.