JAC Volume 1, Issue 1

Although advanced composition courses are offered by most colleges and universities (and even some junior/community colleges¹), very few articles in the professional journals have been addressed to the issues of theory and pedagogy for these courses. Only in the Guidelines formulated by participants to Invitational Workshops at the 1966 and 1967 College Composition and Communication Conferences has there been a concerted effort to examine how college instructors might design and teach advanced composition courses.² Because these Guidelines attempt to set forth a definition for advanced composition, the only one readily available, I used them as the basis for a nation-wide survey in the 1979 spring term to determine what characterizes the teaching of advanced composition courses. The 374 teachers who returned this 21-item questionnaire represent 311 schools.³ The results show considerable support for the Guidelines but an equal amount of disagreement.

Of the 374 respondents, 29.7 percent endorsed the Guidelines, 28.9 percent criticized one or more topics,  and 41.4 percent made no response to the Guidelines portion of the survey. The 1967 Guidelines consisted of six topic entries: 1)Definition of the Course, 2)Variety and Focus, 3)Humane Emphasis, 4)Course Content, 5)Qualifications of Instructors, and 6)Modes of Instruction. I will outline (quoting where possible) each of these topics, discuss the response to them, and relate the relevant questionnaire items to each to reveal current practices in and/or attitudes toward advanced writing courses.

This segment of the 1967 Guidelines gives a prerequisite and an alternative but not a definition. And since students progress but courses themselves cannot "represent” progress, how we distinguish advanced writing courses from freshman courses remains unsolved. Many respondents found advanced composition similarly a difficult rubric to respond to because so many courses fall into that category or heading. Indeed, one respondent proposed abolishing the term. For the 311 institutions represented in the survey, respondents listed 50 different types of courses under the heading of advanced composition. These courses classify generally as follows: advanced composition/exposition; intermediate composition; genre and techniques of writing; stylistics, research; argument, criticism; teaching composition, theory and practice; creative writing; journalism, technical and professional writing; and business writing.

Regarding prerequisites, several respondents stated that the simple testing out or completion of freshman composition should not qualify students for advanced composition courses. Some schools attempt to ensure qualification by requiring one of the following: freshman composition and literature, 10.2 percent; literature only, less than 1.0 percent; freshman composition and standing above the freshman year, 7.0 percent; senior college standing and instructor permission, less than 1.0 percent. Nevertheless, the majority do require only freshman composition, 54.9 percent, or its equivalent, 2.8 percent. Only 5.7 percent have no prerequisites, accepting students with whatever writing ability they have.⁴

In distinguishing general courses from specific courses, the 1967 Workshop participants recognized that the varieties would depend upon the size of the school, its budget, and its students’ needs. Limited size, however, does not preclude specialization. In the 130 schools with a population under 2500, respondents noted 20 types of specialized courses. A few respondents did note that the examples given in Guideline 2 for special problems are “irrelevant except for graduate students and their programs.”

Representative responses to Guideline 2 suggest that a definition should concentrate on rhetorical matters. In support of Aristotelian rhetoric, some respondents note that we should concentrate on professional writing or writing external to the classroom, a reader-centered emphasis. Conversely, others make a plea for more emphasis on Platonic rhetorical strategies and less on Aristotelian; thus, the emphasis would be writer-centered, the conceptualization of the thought and the inherent truth of the idea being primary. One respondent vented frustration with theories of rhetoric as pedagogical tools, saying they are as difficult to use in improving writing as are systems of grammar.

The orientation and the types of assignments noted by the respondents reveal much about the focus of instruction.

A rhetorical emphasis does dominate the course orientation, 67.9 percent of the respondents checking this item. In describing what is involved in this emphasis, they broke it down into the following categories: Aristotelian/classical rhetoric (66 citations); new rhetorical theory (21); both (5); forms and structures (58); modes (33); stylistics (22); service to the professional needs of the students (17); and problem-solving (3). Only 6.1 percent of the respondents checked the subject matter item for their course orientation, describing subject matter as ideas (9), thematic issues in fiction (2), or the subject matter in the students’ majors (12). Other orientations were noted by 14.4 percent of the respondents: eclectic approaches (9); process orientation (20); McCrorie’s free-writing (7); workshops (11); and creative writing (7).

The predominance of certain assignments may indicate that many instructors view their advanced courses as extensions of the freshman course, but the variety indicates efforts to reach beyond its limitations. Respondents listed no fewer than 25 types:

Perhaps the types of assignments are determined in large part by the texts commonly used. The titles of the rhetorics, handbooks, and readers listed by the respondents are far too numerous to list here, but most are those one would find being used in freshman courses. Indeed, one respondent expressed dismay that texts used in freshman composition in her school are used elsewhere in advanced composition courses. Except for highly specialized courses such as business, technical, and professional writing and stylistics, few texts on the market seem to focus on the general advanced writing course. The reason for this scarcity may lie in the lack of a working definition for general writing courses beyond the freshman level. Necessarily, the majority of the instructors, in using “freshman” texts, must rely on their own resources to make the course one of “advanced” focus and status.

The respondents were asked to list their texts according to type. The five most frequently cited texts in each category are listed below in order of frequency:

Readers (82 Listed)

The Norton Reader

Prose Models (Levin)

Reading for Rhetoric (Schrodes, Josephson, and Wilson)

Speaking of Words (McKillop and Cross)

Twenty Questions for the Writer (Berke)

Whether the English major or minor and the English education major are required to take an advanced writing course may reveal something of the focus for the course, but especially departmental attitudes. For these majors and minor, 27.6 percent of the schools do not require the course; 48.3 percent require it of the English major; 52.9 percent require it of the English education major; and 27.9 percent require it of the English minor.

The most common explanations for not requiring an advanced writing course of the English major are that the majors acquire the necessary skills in their literature courses or that the course has low prestige for the English major. But respondents also lamented the literature majors’ writing skills. A few respondents gave departmental politics as the reason. Some departments view writing as a program separate from their literature programs, so they offer a writing major but do not require advanced writing courses of their English majors. Such programs are not confined to the large institution; eight respondents representing schools at all levels of enrollment mentioned having a writing major separate from their literature programs.

Respondents were asked to list the types of majors (excluding English majors) electing the course. Responses pertaining to specific courses such as technical and business writing were excluded from the following data:

The following majors all received fewer than ten citations: home economics, mathematics, industrial arts, music, education, management, and agriculture.

Respondents clearly divided on this Guideline. Those endorsing it asked that it be stressed more heavily; those opposing it asked that it be deleted. No item on the questionnaire addressed this Guideline, though the question of whether the orientation is primarily toward rhetoric or subject matter touched on the issue. One difficulty lies in the dichotomy of goals in Guideline 3, rather than their fusion. Certainly, the crafts to be mastered and the goal of understanding how language “defines” humans could both be addressed under the umbrella of rhetoric.

Another difficulty is the word humane. As one respondent noted, “humane should mean ‘of or pertaining to the humanities,'” expressing the view of several respondents that such emphasis would not reflect their schools’ technical, business, legal writing and journalism courses. To this point, a respondent suggested the addition of a scientific emphasis: the use of language to express one’s scientific (e.g., chemistry, biology, engineering) perception of reality. Others protested that they could be no more concerned about humane goals in this course than in any other, or that they simply have too much else to accomplish or include to make this emphasis the major goal of the course. Confused about what “humane emphasis” means, respondents found the statement vague and reflective of the times in which it was written, the 1960’s.

In understanding the Guideline to mean that defining human beings through language must begin with the writer, one respondent suggested that it be modified to stress that writers use their own written language to understand themselves. Though such an emphasis may not reflect an Aristotelian view of rhetoric, it may fit in quite nicely with the Platonic emphasis on the importance of the conceptualization of ideas.

Perhaps most significantly, one respondent noted that Guidelines 3 and 4 conflict in specifying the goal for advanced writing courses.

The apparent intent of this Guideline was to fuse writing and theory. However, some respondents criticized the Guideline as too broad and vague. They also took exception to the suggestion that modern studies of psychology could be explicitly applied to writing in such courses. But others suggested placing even more emphasis on the importance of linguistics and psycholinguistics to writing. But warning that composition specialists should beware of pontificating on hobby horses rather than dealing with students’ writing, one respondent pointed up the danger in letting side issues become the main focus of the course.

Again, one respondent made a rather strong statement for Platonic rhetoric, asserting that the course content should consist of the “formal university essay of ideas.” The purpose is humanistic and liberal in the broadest sense of education. Yet another respondent suggested combining  the concern for ideas and the writing itself by emphasizing the relationship between content and style so that the stylistic techniques would emphasize and enhance the ideas.

The formulators of the 1967 Guidelines viewed the course content as deriving from two primary sources: the topics of the students’ papers and the “subject” of the writing course; but except for specialized professional courses, they provided no information on what the subject of the course might be. The survey item on course objectives may provide some insight as to what that course content might be and the relative importance respondents attach to each area. Respondents checked five suggested objectives, favoring them in the following order:

In space provided, respondents listed other objectives:

The two primary concerns of these teachers, style and audience, are both rhetorical matters.

Given as the minimum, these qualifications were intended to demonstrate that the advanced writing courses should not be taught by "departmental leftovers" but by dedicated teachers as well-trained as those staffing the literature programs. In its field test, the questionnaire had included an item on the training of the respondent for the advanced writing course. In all cases, they cited a literature background and "on-the-job" training in teaching the course. Thus, this item was dropped from the questionnaire. But in the survey, respondents did suggest emphasizing more training in language, rhetoric graduate courses in writing and composition pedagogy so that new teachers can avoid having to "rediscover the wheel" in theory and practices.

Respondents found the Guideline on instructor qualifications unrealistic. In specific criticism, respondents noted that the "emphasis on a wide range of extra- academic experience is impractical, except for teachers of vocational students. An academic career precludes this emphasis for most of us." Others questioned whether extra-academic activities would produce better teaching and complained that such a qualification would prevent them from teaching advanced writing courses. The other qualifications were not so severely criticized, but each was questioned. Respondents remarked on how little time or inclination they have for their own writing—teaching is a full-time job; they questioned how "more than ordinary success” in teaching freshman composition could be determined; they doubted whether participation in professional societies as a demonstration of interest in teaching writing is an adequate criterion for any teacher of composition. For an alternative to Guideline 5, one respondent defined an effective teacher as “one who stimulates students to write well-developed and well-organized and interesting papers.”

If promotions indicate anything at all about qualifications, the academic ranks listed by the respondents indicate that the advanced writing courses are not taught by “departmental leftovers” as feared by the formulators of the Guidelines. The top three ranks share the advanced writing course nearly equally: Professor--26.7 percent; Associate Professor--28.0 percent; Assistant Professor--33.9 percent; instructors and graduate assistants--8.8 percent.

As for professional affiliation, fully one-third of the respondents are not members of the College Composition and Communication Conference. But lack of membership in professional societies such as the CCCC may not demonstrate a lack of professional interest so much as failure of such organizations to meet the specific needs of the instructor who teaches the general advanced writing course. In both College English and College Composition and Communication journals, over the last 16 years, only five articles specifically address advanced composition under that rubric. Of these articles, one promoted Henry James’ novels as the basis for a creative writing course, one by Francis Christensen discussed the training of advanced composition teachers, and the rest addressed writing for publication as the basis for the course.

The involvement of these teachers in their advanced writing courses may be demonstrated by the number of sections they teach. For those on the quarter system, 9.0 percent of the respondents teach four sections per year, and 2.0 percent teach eight per year. On the semester system, 26.4 percent teach two sections per year; 6.9 percent one section; 8.2 percent three sections; 5.8 percent four sections; and 2.4 percent from five to eight sections.

The general evaluation of this Guideline is that it is a statement on workload—not on modes of instruction. Specific responses concern the question of what constitutes a smaller section and whether smaller class size is relevant “because advanced composition students are more mature than freshmen” and require less shepherding. The recommendation pertaining to grade evaluation evokes strong criticism, respondents defending grades because “Students expect to be graded;” “They demand it;” “They work harder when graded;” and “Commentary alone leaves students unclear about their achievements.”

In general, class size does not appear to be the crucial issue the Guideline implies it to be. The average class size is 17 students. However, ten respondents, representing institutions ranging from under 2500 to 15,000 students, noted that their class sizes range up to thirty students. Perhaps because of larger budgets and greater student demand for the courses, larger institutions are able to offer smaller classes.

The average number of assignments is 11 per semester. One respondent stated that he makes no assignments but accepts what the students voluntarily turn in, while another requires 30 assignments, noting they are short. Respondents on the quarter system reported the number of assignments ranged from a minimum of 1 to a high of 30, the average being 9 per quarter.

The survey data suggest that the actual modes of instruction are largely traditional. The primary mode of instruction is the lecture, according to 41.7 percent of the respondents. Another 34.2 percent combine lectures with individualized instruction, workshops, discussion, conferences, or peer-editing. Only 9.9 percent use individualized instruction as the primary mode; and only 9.3 percent use the workshop, discussion, conference, or seminar as the primary mode.

Summary

Although one respondent lamented the displacement of rhetoric as the focus of advanced composition courses, the survey shows that “traditional” rhetoric still provides the foundation for the majority of the courses as indicated in the objectives, the assignments, and the texts used (Corbett’s Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student dominated the other texts named by respondents). However, the increasing concern for invention has apparently given rise to calls for inclusion of Platonic rhetorical concerns in conceptualization of ideas.

Emphases in the courses appear to be largely traditional and, to a degree, repetitive of those things we do in freshman composition. This point is particularly evident in the predominance of the research paper assignment. A fundamental issue is whether it should play such a major role in the advanced course: are students learning skills in invention, analysis, and synthesis in writing such papers in the advanced course that they have not already acquired in the freshman course (if the research paper was taught there) and their own major courses? Obviously more research and discussion are needed to examine this issue. Nevertheless, the point about the research paper illustrates the difficulties in defining the advanced writing courses and distinguishing them from the freshman courses with regard to focus, course content, and modes of instruction.

A definition for the general courses is needed. The specialized courses such as technical writing, creative writing, business writing, and stylistics appear to be well-defined regarding subject, audience, and purpose, as shown by the texts written specifically for the students interested in these areas. But few texts give new teachers and students directions in the general advanced composition courses, some of the respondents, new to the teaching of advanced composition, asked for suggestions about what they might do in designing their courses. Perhaps without a functional definition, the texts are not forthcoming.

A second concern is the course requirement for English majors. Whether the literature major is sufficient for preparing students to write and to teach writing is a troubling question. Requiring literature majors to take a course in advanced composition as vehemently opposed as supported by the respondents in this survey. Such polarization indicates at least the need for discussion.

Much has changed since the Guidelines were issued in 1967. Pedagogical views, goals, and practices in composition have changed. The body of theory for composition has expanded. What is surprising is that amid the great controversy and discussions about freshman composition so little has been said about advanced courses. The 1967 Guidelines provide some foundation for discussion of our goals in the advanced courses, but as the respondents to the survey have shown they need to be revised. They should be more precise, and they should reflect current practices and the attitudes of those who teach the advanced writing courses.⁵