​Driver's Ed (Revision)

After reading the pieces by Graff, Birkenstein, and Durst I realized how often I myself go about my writing a way that is similar to that of starting my car; one task after another that are accomplished almost without thinking. The most glaring thing that stuck out to me about the piece was very early on when they mention how less experienced writers are unable to write effectively because they are unaware of these techniques that that I have gained from the tutelage of other or an academic osmosis. The term academic osmosis can be explained as the retention of certain rhetorical techniques that are developed through interactions with different literary contact zones.  Similar to learning how to drive, learning how to write can come from reading the writing of others.  Whether it is the writing of novel, editorials, or just listening to speeches, the key is to take the time to analyze what about this writing “works” and what does not, understanding which rhetorical techniques are appropriate for the type of audience or the subject matter.  Understanding what tone to take in a persuasive editorial piece versus a literacy analysis.  While these may seem obvious to some, the truth is that like drivers, some people pick them up faster than others and some are able to perform these actions over time much more seamlessly and subconsciously.

For me, I made a hobby of listening to speeches, whether they be from the latest political campaign, a deceased social leader or as specific as the closing speech to the movie Any Given Sunday (at the bottom of post).  To me for the most part writing is about conveying your view in a way that it seeps into the readers head and is strong enough to force the reader to think critically about your view point.

For those that may not find the art of speech writing as entertaining the art of learning through osmosis is still possible if not prominent.  From what I’ve seen though is this is often stifled by impermeable walls of the five paragraph essay.  Majority of the papers I’ve worked on have been set up in this way are none of them ever have a voice. Admittedly this is where the analogy of driving and writing may fall apart.  With driving Driver ED typically works for everyone, but there is no Drivers ED for writers, it’s actually the opposite.  Every tutor session I have told my client to look at me and just say what they’re trying to say. The thesis they tell me is always better than the one on paper.  For other people learning these other techniques are only possible once they escape this Drivers ED (five paragraph structure) of writing.  I find that these clients are able to articulate their points in speech much more profoundly than in their writing; many times using effective rhetoric. The key then becomes just writing these thoughts down.

There is the case of my first client this year that came in with a paper that was full of "evidence" to support her point, but there was no point to be made, at least on paper.  She was very frazzled and unsure about the direction of her paper and had lost all confidence after her professor told her she needed to write in a more "academic" manner.

To me this resembled the idea of my dad telling me to just be a better driver, without telling me what I did that wasn't good driving and what I should be doing.

This being my first client I had so many ideas on how to improve her paper, especially since it was on a topic I am extremely interested in (Western perceptions of the Middle East) and at first I was almost mentally paralyzed because on one hand did not want to overstep boundaries of plagiarism and I did not want to risk silencing her voice.   So after a few seconds of that I thought about less of what I wanted and more what she had brought me to work with and how I could help to make her a "functional driver".

The first of which was the evidence and figure out what she was trying to say (her thesis) and then to help her make it relevant (so what and who cares).  After doing so she was able to write more academically and had a framework for her paper.  This relates well to the Graff pieces, I Say, They Say, in the sense that we were able to make clear her argument by using a simple argument template to build her paper around.  After giving her thesis a skeletal structure she was able to place evidence in relevant locations and form a functional paper while still maintaining her voice.

I think it is interesting that without ever reading these articles before these were the techniques I choose.  I do believe that having an understanding of the frameworks that these authors offers is essential to understanding academic writing and are broad enough to allow for the writer to have a voice while still being seen as legitimate in academia.  At the same time this, once one understands these techniques it does not mean the job of the tutor becomes obsolete.  It is still our job to help them find a way to push the explanation of their points beyond the basic frameworks presented in Graff’s piece.  Since in my opinion there is no such thing a final draft in writing the job of the writing tutor is never really done.

Although while I do find that these frameworks may work in multiple disciplines of writing, just like driving, every genre is different (every type of vehicle is different: car, truck, train, plane) and in that case writers have to understand the necessary adjustment that come with that.  This is something I have struggled with when it comes to history papers or even helping students with history papers, because I lack the experience of reading and writing a ton of historical documents.  While at its core you’re still writing your perspective the nuances take time to develop.  For tutors when you encounter issues like this, you hope for a rubric of some kind or professor feedback to guide you.