Introduction and Brief Summary
Writing is an important part of intellectual life. Various authors and scholars have had plenty to say about good and bad writing. ‘Bad ideas about writing’ is an article edited by Cheryl E. Ball and co-authored by Drew M. Loewe. It counters major myths and misconceptions that people have developed about writing. It is inspired by the provocative science and social-science focused book ‘This Idea Must Die’ (Ball & Loewe, 2017). It comprises a collection of over sixty essays divided into eight different sections ranging from what bad ideas about good writing are, to the teachers that teach bad ideas about writing. It is provocative research of debates as it tackles the misconceptions around good and bad writing while offering constructive criticism on the same. This article will analyze the article and establishes how it delivers the message to the intended audience and the effectiveness of the methods used to deliver these messages. The article was first published in 2017 by the West Virginia University libraries and partly by the Insider Higher Ed (Ball & Loewe, 2017). The specific document under scrutiny is authored by Tyler Branson.
Audiences
The audience of the article is wide ranging from teachers, students scholars, writers, and Americans in general. Most especially, the article targets teachers of writing. It seeks to disseminate some misconceptions concerning writing that assail the teachers that teach writing. Several of these myths have been uttered by influential people in the education sector, including administrators and reiterated by politicians (Branson, 2017). Occasionally, their myths come from teachers themselves and students copy them and repeat the same misconceptions. The article targets the teachers, students, administrators, and other stakeholders in the education sector. The authors are concerned about how teachers teach writing and how such teaching is received and impacted in their students. The writer mentions in the introductory paragraphs that there is a diverse group of scholars, intellectuals, and artists that are targeted by the annual edge question designed to spark an argument, and which informed the writing of the particular article.
The Central Goal
The central goal of the article is to spark a debate among intellectuals and scholars on dangerous ideas about writing and to extensively discuss them to come up with a comprehensive representation of what can be considered dangerous ideas about writing. It seeks to discredit the notion that first-year compositions prepare students for academic writing. The exercise commenced with an online survey that asked people to pose questions for possible research on the whole topic of dangerous ideas in writing. The author seeks to spark a continuing debate on writing and the ideas of writing (Branson, 2017). By involving the online community, the author has already set the scene for an ongoing debate among people in the online community. The author mentions that the article is an open educational resource and they intend to create an ongoing debate that constantly comes up with new ideas and suggest better ones on the same topic.
Claims
The article claims that there are several myths that people have created about writing and teaching writing. He describes in detail that first ear writing does not impact the way the student writes in the future. Among them is that anyone can teach writing. This article claims that writing is as intricate a matter as any other matter and must be regarded with as much seriousness as any other matter deserves (Branson, 2017).
Additionally, the article proposes that there are some categories in which people have established myths about writing which are connected to the creation, distribution, and cultural use of writing in different ways. These ideas are categorized into the features of good writing; the qualities of a good writer; how grammar and style should be understood; the techniques and processes appropriate for writing; the genres and occasions of writing; assessment of writing; and the impact of technology on writing (Branson, 2017). This article expounds on how the early learning stages of a child affect their cognitive growth and the attachment it has to the intellectual development of the child. The author is attempting to tackle these goals to improve the nature of writing and teaching writing in academia. These articles are self-evident in their claims. The author described instances depicting either of the situations and the outcomes of each. He points to researches carried out by other scholars that to support his assertion that first-year writing has little to do with the later development of the child.
Rhetorical Appeals
The author uses rhetorical appeals to get to the audience. The author appeals to the credibility of the article by acknowledging all the other researchers that worked towards the achievement of the project. The author alludes to previously carried out studies by other scholars in the same field who have found the same outcomes as he has. The author also starts by narrating a time in his life when he encountered people that believed in this particular myth and the impact of such beliefs to the course of his research. The logical analysis and understanding of different people from different places are taken into consideration to come up with an arguably more logical conclusion to the mater (Branson, 2017). Ideas and empirical data from other scholars have been tested and included in this research to also arrive at logical conclusions. The author also appeals to the emotions of the reader in the sense that, where the reader was misguided on various matters concerning writing and teaching writing, the author brings hope in allowing the reader to see that the myths are all that conclusive. The author relates to the subject matter, instances where ordinary people have been in the same situations, and that helps connect with the reader emotionally.
Rhetoric Devices
The rhetoric devices at work in this article include tone, word choice and repetition, and amplification. Repetition, if overdone, can water down the effect of the article but done properly, works to bring emphasis to the matter at hand. This goes together with amplification. These two devices have helped the author to come up with an article that achieves effectiveness in content delivery. The tone is also well thought out and presented by the words carefully chosen to describe the matter (Branson, 2017). The careful choice of words works to place the article in a particular setting requiring a particular set of skills, expertise, and academic prowess. The targeted audience feels at home with the language chosen by the author.
Supporting Evidence
The author has reinforced their claims using research and statistical data from various sources that accurately represent the topic of discussion. The interviews and discussions held with other practitioners of the academic field emphasized the claims of the author (Branson, 2017). Additionally, the author sorts the thoughts of many other practitioners in the same field with competitive knowledge of the matter to team up and come with an article that fully describes the topic they intended to tackle.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article removes the misconceptions created in the minds of the readers about writing and teaching writing. The audience gets to see with conclusive, irrefutable evidence that some of the myths that have surrounded the subject matter are baseless and the contrary is true in some cases. The audience is expected to take the ideas from this article home and exercise them so that the standards of writing and teaching writing are improved. The article advises that the purpose of first-year writing is to vanquish the idea that writing encompasses mechanical and prescribed instructions in language (Branson, 2017). Essentially, first-year learning is not centered on developing the rhetoric of language but rather in growing cultural and ethical development to position themselves appropriately in social gatherings.
References
Ball, E. C., & Loewe, M. D. (2017). Bad ideas about writing. Bad ideas about writing, 34(1), 382. Retrieved from 10: 0-9988820-0-3
Branson, T. (2017). The FIRST-YEAR COMPOSITION PREPARES STUDENTS FOR ACADEMIC WRITING. Bad ideas about writing, 18-22. Retrieved from 10: 0-9988820-0-3