|
|
|
The Contrubitons of Mina ShaughnessyTaking into consideration the connections Mina Pendo Shaughnessy identified between an Open Admissions
student’s cultural, linguistic, and sociological background and the problems he or she experienced in the writing classroom, it would be difficult to find any composition pedagogy that has not been influenced, directly or indirectly, by one or more of the issues she brought to the attention of the educational community. Her search for a way to teach non-traditional students how to write led her into these various fields of study and foreshadowed the further splintering of composition studies into the pedagogic categories that exist today. Shaughnessy sought an explanation for the difficulties that she and other writing teachers, not only
at City University of New York but also across the United States, were encountering as a result of Open Admissions. She took the time and effort to sift through thousands of essays with the hope of finding a pattern among the errors these students made. The patterns that emerged led Shaughnessy to conclude that a close analysis of the student’s errors was the best way to figure out where in the composition spectrum the student’s problems began. She argued that with this knowledge the teacher could figure out the best method and means to use in order to help the student improve his or her writing. Most often the errors stemmed from the disjointed relationship between the student’s background and those customs and behaviors which were necessary for success within the academy. Shaughnessy compared these students’ experiences in education to those made by an immigrant who is unfamiliar with the language and the customs of a foreign land. They did not lack the intellect, ability, or willingness to learn the foreign customs of formal English; rather, they simply needed time and the assistance of a seasoned tour guide. Furthermore, she did not see the manner in which these students were being evaluated as a realistic way to
measure the improvement of their writing skills. If the errors and solutions were unique to the individual, the rate of progress would be too. It was unrealistic for the administration to think that these students could all be brought up to the same academic level as their traditionally prepared peers within one or two semesters. Shaughnessy gave a voice to those students who were being penalized for not meeting a standard that should never have been used to evaluate their progressing skill and competence as writers. Shaughnessy recognized that the students were not the only ones who were unprepared. Teachers needed more
training and support than they were being offered in order to meet the educational needs of their students. She emphasized that the students’ placement in the basic or remedial writing course was proof the traditional manner of teaching writing had failed them. It was necessary for the teacher to alter his or her mode of instruction; otherwise, it would simply be setting the student, the teacher, and the goal of Open Admissions up for continual failure. Shaughnessy believed more research in this area of composition instruction would enable the teacher to discover various ways to modify the traditional mode of instruction so that he or she could teach in the most effective manner. Another reason for her insistence for increased research was to address the part of the problem that existed
outside of the classroom. Within the English department the writing instructor was made to feel less than his or her literature teaching colleagues. Often the people selected to teach composition were those who already existed on the margins—the women, the racial minorities, the part-time or un-tenured professors, and the graduate students. These teachers were the link between the students and the administrators who made the final decisions in regard to the writing programs. Shaughnessy knew the data collected and evaluated in research studies would help to empower and elevate the voices of the marginal instructors to a level that would be acknowledged by the administration. The individuality of the student, the flexibility of the teacher, and the understanding and support of the
administration were the issues relevant to help Open Admissions students succeed in college, and they are key issues that continue to be discussed and debated in the field of composition today. In the thirty years since Mina Shaughnessy’s death, the evolving nature and value of writing has led to increasingly fractured theories concerning the most effective way to teach students to write. Despite the changes which have and continue to occur in the writing classroom, the manner in which people respond to the basic task of writing will always be a reflection of their cultural, linguistic, and sociological background – the same areas that Shaughnessy identified and connected with the difficulties her students were experiencing in the Basic Writing classroom. |