Schultz and the "Current-Traditional Paradigm"

"Current-traditional paradigm" (Schultz 10), an interesting turn of phrase that, according to Lucille M. Schultz in "Elaborating Our History: A Look at Mid 19th Century First Books of Composition," denotes the focus of the composition field on the mechanical process of "grammar, rules, style, abstract topics, and other easily named features" (10). Reading Schultz and many of the other essays assigned so far, it is easy to see this "traditional" paradigm as something that will soon be fading away. Looking around college classrooms, however, it is easier yet to see a continuing devotion to grammatical/syntactical correctness. We are still stuck on Subject-Verb-Object.

Textbooks such as John Walker's "The Teacher's Assistant, which Schultz points out are full of sample texts to guide the beginning student, in their time-period, were a step in the right direction, because somethings, even on the subject of writing, are "known" more intuitively through example than explanation, and the idea that "students learn to write" through an "emphasis on memorizing and rules" (14) seems to me to be where many would-be writers have been lost. No one expects us to learn the rules of grammar when we are first learning to speak, but almost from the moment we begin to write, we are given definitions and concepts, forgetting that knowing and understanding must come before any real learning can take place. Suddenly, writing becomes a scary foreign world.

Even though Walker's samples gave students an understanding of what writing could look like, Schultz points out that his text "intended for young writers - does not suggest that students can begin learning to write by writing" (17). We do not learn to ride a bicycle by learning to name the parts of a bicycle; why do we expect students to learn to write by simply by naming the parts of a sentence?

Students were also apparently not given the authority to write about "personal experiences" (19), yet what is not personal seldom has relevance for the student. Without relevance, there is no motivation to write well, or to even care about writing as a skill or practice.

Finally, Schultz makes the point that "the educational hierarchy has assigned more value to what happens at higher levels of education than to what happens at lower levels" (23), but Schultz assigns the practice to the past. It has been my experience that we still expect more from those in four-year colleges and universities than we do of those in high school or even community colleges. It has not been my experience, however, that "good" writing is only a function of higher learning and the "current-traditional paradigm."