The Beginning of Comp

Critical Question 1: Skinnell describes how normals schools taught composition and rhetoric separately, grounded in the “philosophy of mental discipline inasmuch as it suggests that strengthening basic foundations (composition) provides the grounds on which advanced work (rhetoric) can be constructed” (52). Is this a false binary? In English 101, we teach that composition is rhetoric. How did the normals schools’ separation of composition and rhetoric change how writing was taught? Why has this model changed since then?

Critical Question 2: According to Skinnell, “Composition was a fundamental element of normal school duration rather than a deficiency to be overcome with a semester of remedial instruction” (56). How does only having one required English class (ENG 101) affect how students view the course? Furthermore, how do Basic Writing classes further enforce the “deficiency model” present in modern universities? 

Critical Question 3: Could it be beneficial to tell our students about the history of composition? Acknowledging the time constraints of the college quarter system, is there a context-appropriate way to inform students about the history of composition?

Bonus Critical Question: According to Brereton, most colleges "required a mix of real and written composition throughout all four years of college" and "Students did not learn to write in a single course, but got instruction at all stages of their academic careers" (9). In contrast, modern universities require one quarter or semester of composition as a GUR. Instead, they will learn discipline-specific writing and composition in their fields of study. What are the pros and cons of this modern academic system compared to the continuous composition education model in early colleges? Is there a way that we can supplement this loss?

---

Discussion Post:

Skinnell’s article, “Conceding Composition to Create a New Normal,” provided essential information about the differences between universities and normal schools in the late 1800s. Before reading Skinnell’s text, I had never heard of “normal schools” and was very surprised to learn that they were an institution separate from the college system and specialized in training teachers. Skinnell highlights how “the normal and the university were deliberately designed in contrast to one another because they were intended to address different education needs—teacher training versus research” (58). Although normal schools eventually merged into universities and colleges, the distinction between training K-12 teachers and post-secondary professors is still extremely clear. When I first realized I wanted to teach English, I went back and forth between teaching high school and college. But I knew one thing for sure: whichever I chose, I wanted to be a good teacher. The path to being a good high school teacher was clear, requiring multiple classes in pedagogy, student teaching, teaching observations, and a teaching certificate. But, the path to becoming a good, student/teaching-centered college professor was unclear and uncharted terrain. Instead, an intensive amount of professionalism and prestige was required to be hired at a university, where my main obligation would be to perform research and pursue publication. When normal schools were founded, their mission was to teach teachers composition as a secondary academic subject, not a post-secondary professional subject. Composition was a skill emphasized by normal schools because it was a tool essential to good teaching. While normal schools centered around teaching and teachers, colleges centered themselves around professionalization, certification, and measurable prestige. This binary still exists today. 

Another thing that Skinnell brought to my attention was the longstanding tradition of emphasizing correctness, grammar, and “error-less” professionalism in composition classes. In past readings and courses, I learned about the centrality of orality and recitation during the emergence of early university institutions like Harvard. But, learning about the Philosophy of Mental Discipline brought essential context to the time period. This philosophy was founded on the belief that training and drilling would strengthen the mind like a muscle. According to Skinnell, “Lecture and recitation were the hallmarks of rhetorical education at colleges and universities prior to 1870” (54). Correctness and mechanical accuracy were the foundations of composition. Learning about composition and college history makes it clear where academia’s grammar and correctness obsession comes from. Skinnell even quotes Felton, who states, “improvement (in student writing) will come only as a result of mastering the elementary law as of grammar and composition, and applying the constantly in practice” (55). Every morning in 4th grade, we would start the school day by doing a grammar activity. The teacher would write a sentence on the overhead camera, and we would have to collectively “correct” it as a class. This wasn't the most difficult task for me because I was raised in a family of academics who spoke a somewhat “proper” way at home. But, I imagine that my Hispanic classmates who were just learning to speak English, nonetheless writing in English, could have experienced some language anxiety that could continue throughout their lives, and more specifically, correctness anxiety when it comes to writing. Later, when working in a community college writing center, I noticed how much correctness, spelling and grammar got in the way of multilingual students when trying to write out their ideas. I can think of one student specifically who was a regular at the writing center. He would flag me down every few words to ask about spelling to the point where his sentences lost cohesion. But, when we showed him the dictation tool, his thoughts and words revealed a comprehension level and complexity that astounded me.