Sarah King

Dr. Ashby

ENG 800

April 25, 2022

Finding Voice in Standardized Writing

The idea of voice is not one that’s new to me. In my undergrad years, I chose voice as the

most important aspect of teaching in a collaborative project during my Methods course. When I

get the chance to pick a research topic, like this assignment, I often go to voice immediately. I

feel like regardless of how much I’ve studied voice, I never truly understand how to incorporate

this into my instruction. I’ve always stumbled on how to give my students the options of voice

when my curriculum is centered on prioritizing standardized writing. However, some of the

readings this semester have given me an idea of how voice might look in writing and how I

might aid my students in discovering it. To further these ideas, I’ve focused my best practice

modules on developing this idea of voice and finding examples of how to put the focus on

students’ language rather than formulaic writing.

The readings that inspired this project were David Bartholomae’s "Inventing the

University," Victor Villanueva’s "Memoria Is a Friend of Ours: On the Discourse of Color," and

Peter Elbow’s “Inviting the Mother Tongue.” In each of these articles, the authors explain the

problem of disqualifying a student’s language to instead privilege academic discourse.

Bartholomae identifies the transformation that happens when a student attempts to use academic

discourse: “he has to invent the university… He has to learn to speak our language, to speak as

we do, to try on the peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding, and

arguing that define the discourse of our community” (4). This transformation leads students to
 King 2

misinterpret that their language has no room among academia. Furthermore, Villaneuva

discusses how academic discourse “can be strong for logos. It can be strong for ethos. But it is

very weak in pathos” (12). Villaneuva points out one disadvantage of academic discourse; when

a student incorporates their voice into their writing, however, pathos slips into the writing to

create complete rhetorical appeals. On the other hand, Elbow believes that both academic

discourse and voice are important factors inside the composition classroom: “I’m seeking safety

for all language that comes naturally to the tongue, and yet I know that such language cannot be

safe, and that the mother tongue cannot flourish, unless we also help our students produce final

drafts that conform to the conventions of SWE” (365). Elbow seeks a compromise between the

two sides by arguing for both acceptance of a student’s natural language when writing and

acceptance that Standard Written English (SWE) is important to teach and learn. These

foundational ideas from Bartholomae, Villaneuva, and Elbow about the balance between voice

and academic discourse set up the context for how I incorporated compositional pedagogies into

my assignment sequence.

However, before I could begin creating the sequence, I had to think of how I was going to

find the balance between requiring students to engage with academic language while also

allowing them the freedom to use their own voice. Peter Elbow again popped up as a valuable

source on this question. In his essay “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries,” Peter

Elbow discusses the need to keep and throw away authorial voice in writing, suggesting that

there are times when both arguments are necessary. In short, Elbow proclaims, “We don't have to

read or write the same way all of the time” (183). Though this idea seems simple, it helped me

work through my ideas on when a student might need to recognize formal language versus when

informal language would be better.

 King 3

Another essay that helped my development of the assignment sequence was “A Kind

Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing,” where Philip Eubanks and John D.

Schaeffer respond to Harry Frankfurt's classic essay "On Bullshit” by suggesting “that some

varieties of academic bullshit may be both unavoidable and beneficial” (372). Eubanks and

Schaeffer argue that academic discourse does have its place within composition classes and to

disregard it would be removing an essential component of formal writing and communication.

Eubanks and Schaeffer conclude that writing instructors should acknowledge the presence of

bullshit within their courses: “most of us have in mind-for our students and for ourselves-a

productive sort of bullshit: bullshit that ultimately produces better thought and better selves. We

must acknowledge that benign bullshit is inevitable when people are attempting to write well”

(387). This conclusion supported my thoughts that students should engage and analyze formal

language, but that they should see it in realistic scenarios. By using this unit as a starting point, I

could scaffold my instruction so that students are prepared to analyze full academic discourse

and writing in the literary analyses and argumentative essays they would write later in the year.

With all of this research in mind, I created an approximately two week mini-unit where

students would conduct research over cryptids. Before this unit, students would have completed

a short story unit. After students read and analyzed all of the stories (“Interlopers,” “The Wife's

Story,” “The Witch of Duva,” and “Burning Slag”), they answered the question “what lessons

can stories teach us?” through an extended response. The sequence below is a mini-unit designed

to introduce the final unit of the semester - Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. By the end of the

Frankenstein unit, students should be able to answer the following question: what makes a story

last for centuries? My demographic for this unit would be students ranging from 14-16 years old
 King 4

taking their sophomore English course and it would take place around October of the fall

semester.

The reading goal of the cryptid unit would be to prepare students for some themes that

will come up again in Frankenstein as it’s the anchor text (main text used to teach content). The

writing goal for the unit would be to look at formal versus informal language and which

scenarios would be appropriate for each type. When looking at my assignment sequence, there is

a tab titled “purpose.” I like putting this tab in my curriculum maps so that I can remember what

my intention was for students to learn from this assignment. For this mini-unit, I focused on

formal versus informal language. I designated on each assignment if I was attempting to have

students use full academic discourse (formal) or full natural language (informal). I wanted to

differentiate these purposes within the assignments as I thought it would be important to offer

students different scenarios for voice.

The first assignment of the unit is called “The Kentucky Black Panther / Introduction to

Cryptids.” Students will read two texts. The first is an article from a local newspaper, which

represents informal language, and the second is a website from Kentucky Wildlife and Fish,

which represents formal language. This assignment asks students to read through each article and

complete an informational text analysis. Then, students compare the writing of each piece using

a Venn Diagram, paying attention to how the articles compare in regards to point of view, tone,

purpose, credibility, and format. The importance of this first assignment is two-fold: first, to

introduce students to the idea of cryptids and second, to offer students their first chance to think

about how the language is being used in writing. Pulling from Elbow (2007) with Eubanks and

Schaeffer, I tried to find two articles that showed students how a topic can be approached in two
 King 5

different contexts. By the end of the lesson, I would like students to pick up on word choice and

rhetorical devices as well as be able to differentiate between formal and informal writing.

The second assignment in the sequence is “Cryptid Roundtable Research,” which asks

students to research a random cryptid and then create a slide deck over their research. For this

assignment, I relied heavily on Erika Lindemann’s criteria on how to create high quality writing

assignments (217). First, I wrote out the prompt how I normally would and didn’t reference

Lindemann’s recommendations. The prompt stated,“Use the cryptid you were randomly assigned

to create a research brief detailing its origins, location, and description. Also, provide

testimonials about any sightings or stories about the cryptid. Then, combine your research into a

Google Slides presentation. Specific requirements are listed below” and included a rubric below

it. After referencing Lindemann’s criteria, I added context for audience, purpose, and students'

role, flushing out the prompt into a much fuller and in-depth writing assignment. I’ve found that

my prompts typically lack in including specific audiences and student roles. After adding these

to the assignment, I can see the difference these make as now students have a complete rhetorical

situation to respond to.To bring the formal versus informal element into this assignment, I would

have the students focus more on using informal language and not to be held up on conventions

other than just for clarity. When looking for stories about cryptid sightings, I would encourage

students to find testimonials and not edit them into “formal” language.

I repeated the same process with my next assignment - “The Case for Cryptids Final

Project” - where students turn their presentations into podcasts. I again created a prompt and then

rewrote it according to Lindemann’s criteria for writing assignments (217). My focus for this

project is the same as the previous; students should focus on working with content and

technology while using language that they would normally use. Hopefully, these exercises would
 King 6

help students develop voice in their writing as they wouldn’t be held back by the idea of

mimicking academic discourse.

This whole lesson would culminate with a final reflection, where students would rely on

using more formal language to think back on the project. Using the discussions from class and

their experiences with the project, students would respond to the essential question of the unit,

“Why do people believe in legends?” In this paper, I would tell students that they needed to

organize their writing in the district’s On-Demand Writing Outline. Students would have prior

knowledge of this outline as there is a K-12 writing alignment in the district for all schools and

departments to follow. Hopefully by letting students use their experiences, they will create a

response that is organized like academic writing while still using the voice they have been

developing throughout the project. This assignment would later scaffold into more academic

discourse pieces where students will write and respond to elements from Mary Shelley’s

Frankenstein while also following the MLA style guide.

Overall, I think this project incorporates elements of composition both in the writing

focus as well as within the assignment creation. I think it could improve in multiple ways, such

as defining clearer what “voice” should look like in students writing and describing any pre-work

students would have in distinguishing formal and informal language. However, I think this

project’s frameworks serve as a solid foundation on how to incorporate compositional pedagogy

thoughtfully into my curriculum. As I begin to rework my curriculum for the next school year, I

will continue to keep these authors and their works in mind so that my instruction can be an

effective and meaningful writing experience for my future students.

 King 7

Works Cited

Bartholomae, David. “INVENTING THE UNIVERSITY.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 5, no.

1, 1986, pp. 4–23, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43443456. Accessed 27 Apr. 2022.

Elbow, Peter. “Inviting the Mother Tongue: Beyond ‘Mistakes,’ ‘Bad English,’ and ‘Wrong

Language.’” JAC, vol. 19, no. 3, 1999, pp. 359–88, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866251.

Accessed 27 Apr. 2022.

Elbow, Peter. “Voice in Writing Again: Embracing Contraries.” College English, vol. 70, no. 2,

2007, pp. 168–88, https://doi.org/10.2307/25472259. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.

Eubanks, Philip, and John D. Schaeffer. “A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic

Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 59, no. 3, 2008, pp. 372–88,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20457010. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022.

Lindemann, Erika. “Developing Writing Assignments.” A Rhetoric for Writing Teacher, edited

by Erika Lindemann and Daniel Anderson, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 213-221.

Villanueva, Victor. “‘Memoria’ Is a Friend of Ours: On the Discourse of Color.” College English,

vol. 67, no. 1, 2004, pp. 9–19, https://doi.org/10.2307/4140722. Accessed 27 Apr. 2022.