Durst's Case Studies and the Missing Thread

One of the things that struck me about Durst’s article was how disappointed the modern-day English 101 student seems to have left him. In the case study towards the end of the article, Durst notes that Rachel was “practically the only one to do the kinds of critical thinking and employ the extended writing process outlined by her teacher” (90) while “The more independent thinkers, like Elizabeth...were far more likely to reject the teachers’ advice about taking a critical, interpretive approach to their coursework” (also 90).

Is Durst asking too much of the English 101 students?

Time and again, throughout the article, we were introduced to students who rebelled against the notion of investing two hours of work outside of class for every hour inside of class. Vince and Elizabeth – both identified as fine students with a strong background of secondary education – did the minimal amount of work to produce a grade they were happy with. Other students – Chloe, Felicity and Cindy – were more content with doing even less than that, to the point of disrupting the actual class. These students could not be bothered with putting in the three hours of actual CLASS time, much less the six hours that Nan suggested they spend outside of class each week. The students that were profiled were diverse in background and previous writing experience, yet they all have one thing in common:

None of them were English majors.

The one unifying thread for any of these students was motivation, or the lack thereof. Elizabeth and Vince were technical majors who recognized early on that a B was sufficient for them to proceed unencumbered through the university to reach their goals – for Elizabeth, that was to become an architect; for Vince, electrical engineering was his field. For them, they were not UN-motivated to spend the six hours a week outside of class revising, or trying new strategies of writing; rather, they were motivated to spend that time on what they deemed more important subjects: their majors. Rachel, a nursing student, was motivated by the negative experience of her sister and a fear of failure; therefore, she performed as close to the level of expectation as laid down by the teacher as she could. The syllabus encouraged prewriting and rough drafting; therefore, she did as she was told.

Even Joshua, the mountain bike enthusiast, was not motivated by the goal of becoming a stronger writer, but of his love for mountain biking. “By focusing upon a topic which he was both interested and knowledgeable about, Joshua was able to achieve a mastery of the course ground rules which to a large extent set him apart from his classmates, giving him a distinction as a strong writer which he clearly enjoyed.” (87) In other words, he was initially motivated to write with passion about a topic he loved, and his success generated positive feedback from the class, reinforcing the pedagogy. Even Joshua, however, did not put in the recommended time outside of class. He also did not stray very far from his area of expertise.

What encourages me is that Rachel seems to have been able to take the lessons from her English class and extrapolate them into her life as a whole. “I’ve learned (through this course) that planning helps keep me from going off on tangents and revision helps me explain my ideas better.” (90) The lessons of preparation, study and effort espoused by the English 101 approach to writing may have influenced her and sharpened her work ethic, affecting her performance across the board. If this is the case, then the English class was a wild success for Rachel.

I also find it interesting that none of the students profiled received an A – or if they did, it was not mentioned. Was the carrot not large enough? Or was the stick too heavy? Are there bits of information that are not reported in this article? I personally would like to see what the teachers deemed “A” work, and the background of the students who received them – if any.

There are some things that resonate in this article. The concept of cultural capital, I believe, is valid. However, the Sheeran and Barnes model explained on page 70 only works if the college class is taught to the same level as the “privileged” students – that is, white, upper middle class experience. Should the class be taught from a different perspective – say, from the African-American or Latino perspective, which may emphasize different ground rules – then would the “privileges” of the upper middle class student turn into detriments?

Now the Zieboski article – that’s another post.