What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of Composition Studies
Setting forth an innovative new model for what it means to be a writing teacher in the era of writing across the curriculum, The End of Composition Studies urges a reconceptualization of graduate work in rhetoric and composition, systematically critiques the limitations of current pedagogical practices at the postsecondary level, and proposes a reorganization of all academic units.
David W. Smit calls into question two major assumptions of the that writing is a universal ability and that college-level writing is foundational to advanced learning. Instead, Smit holds, writing involves a wide range of knowledge and skill that cannot be learned solely in writing classes but must be acquired by immersion in various discourse communities in and out of academic settings.
The End of Composition Studies provides a compelling rhetoric and rationale for eliminating the field and reenvisioning the profession as truly interdisciplinary—a change that is necessary in order to fulfill the needs and demands of students, instructors, administrators, and our democratic society.
David W. Smit calls into question two major assumptions of the that writing is a universal ability and that college-level writing is foundational to advanced learning. Instead, Smit holds, writing involves a wide range of knowledge and skill that cannot be learned solely in writing classes but must be acquired by immersion in various discourse communities in and out of academic settings.
The End of Composition Studies provides a compelling rhetoric and rationale for eliminating the field and reenvisioning the profession as truly interdisciplinary—a change that is necessary in order to fulfill the needs and demands of students, instructors, administrators, and our democratic society.
272 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 2004
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 1, 2014
I can get behind his argument, but I think it glosses over some potential alternatives. But perhaps this is just a suspicion raised from how frequently the words "obviously" and "clearly" are used to introduce paragraphs.
Like I said, I understand the argument and generally agree, but this book was horrible to read. Smit really needs to fire his copy-editor, and I realized at chapter four that all his arguments are basically variations on "this isn't specific enough," which is legit, but also very hard-nosed and repetitive. His constant repetition that our current lines of thought in composition theory have reached the limit of what they can tell us never struck me as qualified assertions. You can't always predict innovation--in fact you usually can't, so how can you assert that there's nothing else useful down a given idea path?
On the other hand, I teach in a program that (I now suspect) took this book to heart in its structuring, and my program would not be a good representative of the traditionally GTA taught 101 course, so my annoyance as a reader was probably in part from the fact his interpretation didn't seem to fit with my own experience, even though I'm at the heart (demographically) of the problem he is addressing. I think if I were teaching the quintessential course he takes issue with (which I assume is normative), this book would be a much-needed sobering wake-up call.
Like I said, I understand the argument and generally agree, but this book was horrible to read. Smit really needs to fire his copy-editor, and I realized at chapter four that all his arguments are basically variations on "this isn't specific enough," which is legit, but also very hard-nosed and repetitive. His constant repetition that our current lines of thought in composition theory have reached the limit of what they can tell us never struck me as qualified assertions. You can't always predict innovation--in fact you usually can't, so how can you assert that there's nothing else useful down a given idea path?
On the other hand, I teach in a program that (I now suspect) took this book to heart in its structuring, and my program would not be a good representative of the traditionally GTA taught 101 course, so my annoyance as a reader was probably in part from the fact his interpretation didn't seem to fit with my own experience, even though I'm at the heart (demographically) of the problem he is addressing. I think if I were teaching the quintessential course he takes issue with (which I assume is normative), this book would be a much-needed sobering wake-up call.
October 6, 2012
Professional reading. Worthwhile.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews