H15)?“ 1 - .. - . 3 1293 10441 5686 g: ’ I ~ ’ h H ‘ '-' “L e '3 -. ' - :v "I ‘ ~. .,(‘~._‘ ‘ —_ ‘3‘ ‘ . '7 ' ' ' \ -~ .."_. .‘\ 5' .‘ U 1“. -"7‘K.'}?.“fl‘— — ._. -- ' " ,0- ‘fi."’ """'\Vl wow . t .V .. 'EL“(.§?".’ i? ' mum mmuuuwww\\\\\\\\\\M\u\\\\| This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Investigation of First-Time University English Department Teaching Assistants: Considerations for Training Programs presented by Janet E. Samuelson‘ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph -L degree in _Eng11_aL Date .1 nnLZZ.._J.9_8.Z_ 042771 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution IV‘ESI.) RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from w your record. FINES will ' be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. r sz/ M 3-3 6 AN INVESTIGATION OF FIRST-TIME UNIVERSITY ENGLISH DEPARTMENT TEACHING ASSISTANTS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRAINING PROGRAMS BY Janet E. Samuelson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of English 1982 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF FIRST-TIME UNIVERSITY ENGLISH DEPARTMENT TEACHING ASSISTANTS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRAINING PROGRAMS BY Janet E. Samuelson This study investigates teaching assistants in American univer— sity English departments: the origins and history of teaching assist- ants and the major issues in training programs for them. I also con- ducted a survey of first-time teaching assistants at five universities in an attempt to learn more about their backgrounds, their understand- ing of and attitudes toward writing theory, and their knowledge of writing pedagogy. Finally, I discussed the profile that emerged of the teaching assistants in context with the major recommendations for training programs posited by such theorists as Donald Murray, Janet Emig, Wallace Douglas, Donald Nemanich, and Richard Gebhardt. The survey revealed that the prospective teaching assistants had extensive experiential backgrounds in writing, but their educational backgrounds in writing were considerably weaker. While they reported having had little knowledge of specific theorists and theories in writing and pedagogy, they more closely aligned themselves with the recent "process-oriented" approach to writing and its teaching than with the "prescriptive" orientation-—perhaps reflecting their experi— ence as writers which they bring to their newfound role as teachers. Janet E. Samuelson From the information reported by the teaching assistants and the major concerns discussed by the theorists, training programs are an essential feature of preparing graduate students to teach college—level writing courses, especially given the concentration of literature in undergraduate English majors' curricula. Furthermore, comprehensive and sustained training programs are needed because they offer prospec- tive college teachers the only training they might receive before entering the field as professionals. While training programs provide soon-to-be teachers an opportunity to explore a rich and complex field, they are nonetheless flawed because of the short period of time given to them. In addition, they cannot guarantee effective teaching nor dictate attitudes toward writing, theory, and pedagogy. Their impor- tance is, however, not diminished because in training programs, under— graduates' improved writing is, ultimately, at stake, and that improve- ment begins with effective college writing teachers. Copyright by JANET E. SAMUELSON 1982 In memory of my father ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing is inexorably long, hard, and lonely work; the process, however, is made immeasurably easier by support, feedback, and encour- agement along the way. This study proved to be no exception. Accord- ingly, I wish to thank the Directors of Writing Programs and their in- coming teaching assistants for graciously providing me with the data for this study. I thank Professor Nancy Ainsworth for her time and suggestions; Professor Candida Gillis for her perceptive and lucid feedback on research methodology; Professor Stephen N. Judy for making me aware of the importance and joy of studying history; Professor Linda W. Wagner for her quiet and constant encouragement. I also thank Professor Jay B. Ludwig for serving as my guidance committee chair- person and dissertation director, for believing in this project, and for continually challenging me to shape my thinking and to make language "beautiful." Special thanks go to friends--Kathy, Gwen, Helen, Jim, Marilyn, and Lois-whose presence and faith helped me to persevere. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. HISTORICAL REVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Origins of Teaching Assistantships in American Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Growth of Training Programs for Teaching ASSiStants O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 II. ELEMENTS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The survey 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 0 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Findings 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O I O 0 Discussion of the Finding . . . . . . . . . . III. ISSUES IN MODEL TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR TEACHING ASSISTANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A. A SURVEY OF FIRST-TIME TEACHERS OF COLLEGE WRITING COURS Es . O O O I O O O O O O C C O C O O O O O O B. DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLED SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . C. DEFINITIONS OF UNDERGRADUATE COURSES . . . . . . . D. MEMBERSHIPS IN PROFESSIONAL ENGLISH ORGANIZATIONS . E. JOURNALS READ REGULARLY . . . . . . . . . . . . F. WORKSHOPS OR CONFERENCES ATTENDED . . . . . . . . G. BOOKS AND ARTICLES SHAPING ATTITUDES TOWARD THE TEACHING OF WRITING . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv l3 13 27 43 43 44 48 51 72 85 110 . 117 124 126 127 128 129 130 132 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. The Percentage of Teaching Assistants' Responses to the Most Important Features of Non-Fiction Prose writing 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 59 2. The Percentage of Teaching Assistants‘ Responses to the Importance of Certain Processes in Producing a Piece Of GOOd writing 0 O O 0 O I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 61 3. The Percentage of Teaching Assistants' Responses to Attitudes Toward writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4. The Percentage of Teaching Assistants' Responses to their Degree of Familiarity with Practices, Theories, or Issues in the Teaching of writing . . . . . . . . . 65 5. The Percentage of Teaching Assistants' Responses to Writing Class Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O Introduction "A Lyf so short, a craft so long to lerne." -Chaucer The academic community has long questioned the predominant train- ing its graduate students should have: inherent to the problem is the extent to which graduate school should emphasize the making of scholars or the making of teachers. In her chapter on the preparation of col- lege teachers in Challenges to Graduate Schools, Ann M. Heiss examines the rationale behind the dichotomy between scholarship and teaching: Those who plan doctoral programs are faced with the dilemma of whether to educate scholar-teachers, teacher-scholars, or both. Usually they start with the basic question: is any distinction necessary or desirable at this level? Until quite recently most planners rejected . . . [the] contention that 'to discover and to teach are distinct functions and dis- tinct gifts rarely found in the same person' in favor of . . . [the] view that research informs teaching. In either case, most graduate faculties have operated on the assumption that the process of becoming a re- searcher requires rigorous exposure to theory and practice but the art and skill of teaching 'comes naturally'-or develops gratuitously when she is educated for research. Thus, the emphasis in most Ph.D. programs has been heavily weighted in favor of preparing students to discover knowledge, and only incidentally if at all on how to impart to others the nature and value of that knowledge. . . . Graduate faculties, who are responsible for the edu- cation of future college teachers, are generally dis- posed to hold the opinion that an intelligent, lib- erally educated individual who has achieved mastery1 of subject matter is thereby qualified to teach it. As yet an unresolved issue, Dennis L. Stockdale and Zachary S. WOchok in 1977 point to graduate programs' concentration on and success in promoting the training of researchers, much to the neglect of training prospective college teachers. In "Why Not Train College Teachers to Teach?" they write, "Recent studies show that universities generally are credited with doing a good job in training graduate stu- dents in research, but it is difficult to find someone who will assert that universities are doing a good job in the training and preparation of teachers. Indeed, the American college teacher is the only high level professional person who enters his career with little or no prac- tice and experience in using the tools of his profession."2 While Stockdale, wochok, and Heiss in the 1970s address them- selves to the university community as a whole, critics specializing in the English curriculum began in the early 19608 to focus their atten- gion on similar matters and have likewise explored the consequences of the dilemma as it pertains to the college teaching of writing. In his 1963 Themes, Theories, and Therapy: The Teaching of writing in College, for example, Albert R. Kitzhaber maintains that the undergraduate and graduate English majors' coursework is "almost entirely literary,"3 the result being that "the young teacher of freshman English is ill- prepared for the job he is asked to do. . . .4 Almost twenty years since Kitzhaber's observation, other critics continue to note the same problem when they describe the Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctoral English preparation in literature as "largely unsuited to the realistic career needs of the students enrolled in them.5 Hence, the problem that Kitzhaber described remains a problem in the 19805, and English departments are not exempt from the "scholar-teacher" controversy noted twenty years earlier. Indeed, the study of literature has been the charge of, and has consequently preoccupied, university English departments since Harvard College instituted a literature-based curriculum in the third quarter of the nineteenth century. Therefore, while skilled in literature and literary criticism, first-time teachers of college writing courses may not have had the equivalent training in writing, writing theory, and pedagogy to what they have had in the more traditional English curricu- lum. It is assumed, for instance, that teachers of literature are well skilled in reading and analyzing the genres, and are aware of the prob- 1ems one encounters when approaching a text. After all, the education that afforded them their jobs supposed, if not dictated, their famil- iarity with such knowledge. If teachers of writing, however, have not had educational backgrounds and training in writing as they have had in literature, they may not be thoroughly prepared to teach writing as well as they might teach literature. RobertlL.Gorrell also has addressed English departments' priori- ties and the resulting problems caused by them. In "Freshman Composi- tion," in The College Teaching;of English, he points to the belief that "anyone can teach English . . . since he can speak and write it"6 as widespread and misleading, if not fallacious. Gorrell supports the no- tion that first-time teachers of college writing courses may not have had the experience with the types of writing required of their students and with sorting through the maze of research concerning writing theory and pedagogy. Therein lies the problem for the new teachers, for the directors of writing programs who supervise the departments' writing courses, and ultimately for the students enrolled in the writing courses . Whether to shift, then, from training scholars to training teach- ers becomes a vital issue in English departments. New teaching assist— ants' knowledge of writing, writing theory, and the teaching of writing is especially significant when one considers the role of these people inside and outside of the academic community. Teaching assistants and new faculty, the two groups who comprise the majority of first-time college writing teachers, are responsible for the instruction of stu- dents in the introductory writing courses offered by university English departments. Kitzhaber notes that "although there are exceptions, espe- cially in smaller colleges, the freshman course is most commonly as- signed to graduate students who teach part-time while working toward an advanced degree and to junior faculty newly out of graduate school."7 Apparently, little has changed since Kitzhaber made that observation. The University of Iowa, for instance, staffs its freshman rhetoric program with some one hundred twenty teaching assistants;8 at Michigan State University, the majority of the English department's sophomore- 1evel writing workshop is taught by teaching assistants. The situa- tion seems to be similar at other universities with the exception of some schools (such as the University of Vermont) which recently have required all full-time faculty to teach a writing course at least once a year. Furthermore, teaching assistants teach not only the first, but frequently the last and only formal writing course in which undergraduates enroll. For many students, then, freshman writing taught by first-time teachers becomes a first and last chance meeting with writing instruction during their undergraduate (and sometimes graduate) degrees. As Gorrell maintains, "From several points of view, freshman English is the most important work of the English department. It affects more students and occupies more teachers than any other. For many students it is the only college level experience with language or literature. It is, by reputation, at least, basic to success in other disciplines."9 Gorrell's last point brings up yet another reason to look closely at the importance of first-time writing teachers' responsibilities to the department and university community. A resurgence of the call for students to receive more and better training in writing is currently being heard at all levels in the schools. The media, as well as academia itself, have turned their attention to what is happening-—or not happening-in the writing classroom. Writing classes are now the target for close scrutiny, and the teachers' ability, training, and acumen are included in the investigation. One only needs to peruse any of the weekly magazines (starting in recent times with Newsweek's December 7, 1976 article entitled "Why Johnny Can't Write") or survey the reports on radio and television newscasts to hear that students are making films, engaging in rap sessions, and doing anything but learning the fundamentals and writing in the writing classroom. Cur- rently, one hears of school systems being sued by students and parents for graduating illiterates, and of teachers being unable to pass even the most rudimentary tests in writing and mathematics. Disregarding the truthfulness of such claims, the point still holds: teachers of writing are under investigation, if not attack, concerning their abil- ity to teach America's youth, and as members of the profession, first— time teachers of writing at the college level are not exempt from such matters. From this attention to writing-—or at least to its teachingr- one can deduce that the ability to write well is still seen, as Gorrell notes in 1965, as the foundation for achievement in academia as well as outside the university community. Evan a Gallup poll taken in the late 19703 reported that despite the poor reputation English has as a subject matter, 1500 respondents maintained that English is the first on a list of school subjects they found "most useful in later life."10 Since the turn of the century, too, those in the lower levels of education have considered colleges and universities leaders in what is taught and the way it is taught--and for an understandable reason: a desire to best prepare students for what they eventually will have to know in order to succeed in college. In The ABC's of Literacy, Stephen N. Judy suggests, not without irony, that in the primary grades, teachers look to junior high school as the model to follow, and junior high school teachers look to the curricula of high schools, and the pattern continues.ll College-level writing and its teaching, then, become an example or the victim of a ripple effect or reverberation in academia. In other words, the impact of college writing courses may be felt well beyond its intended audience. Finally, an examination of first-time college writing teachers' knowledge of writing, writing theory, and pedagogy is significant when one considers the importance of writing they will be instilling in their students. As many theorists have noted, among them James Britton, language, and more particularly writing, is a way of " sym— bolizing what is in the universe"12 and serves as an "organizing prin- ciple in our accumulated picture of the experienced world."13 Writing can help to make us fully cognizant of the world in which we live and the experiences which shape our lives. Both a skill and a craft, it has the ability to unite our real and imagined lives; it can help to bridge our conscious and unconscious worlds. As such, any inquiry into writing and its teaching, expecially in light of the reborn or, more accurately, ongoing attention now being paid to the "literacy" crisis, should be of interest to educators at all levels in the schools, in- cluding those in disciplines other than English. Indeed, the role of teaching assistants has, and continues to be, important. Unfortunately and ironically, as Stockdale and Wochok state, "It appears that most institutions see the teaching assistant as pri- marily a means of providing undergraduate instruction and giving finan- cial support for graduate students, not as a means of explicit training of future college teachers."l4 And while teaching assistants are in- volved in training others to write, their own training as teachers is no less important: ". . . the experience of the majority of these future college teachers as teaching assistants is the sole opportunity they will have to learn how to teach."15 Thus, any inquiry into teach— ing assistants and training programs for them involves both their stu- dents' and their own training. Despite the inherent difficulties that face first-time writing teachers and despite the tremendous responsibility laid before them, they do have several strengths and advantages which make them excel- lent candidates for such a first teaching assignment. Many are stu— dents themselves or are close enough to their days as students to be acutely aware of the demands placed on undergraduates; their natural affinity toward their students can help them to relate to the problems and frustrations that student writers often experience. In discussing teaching assistants as teachers of college writing courses, Dudley Bailey also cites other qualities peculiar to first- time writing teachers in his remarks on a panel at the Conference on College Composition and Communication: "As yet unsophisticated to the point that they know the general professional contempt for freshman English, as yet unbelieving that knowledge is worthy of their attention, as yet unpersuaded of the division of form and content which often drains the vitality from the instruction of older colleagues—~they [teaching assistants] come to their task with enthusiasm and faith; and they often see and readily admit as pertinent to their instruction something of the proper vastness and excitement of student life and student thinking."16 Or, as Kathryn Zabelle Derounian points out over twenty-five years later, ". . . what the assistant professor possesses in rank and experience, the teaching assistant can match in time and enthusiasm."17 First-time teachers of college writing courses, then, are worthy of investigation for the backgrounds, responsibilities, and skills they bring to their jobs. To illuminate the nature of first-time teachers of college writing courses and the training for their posi- tions, this study examines three principal areas: the history of teaching assistants in universities, with special attention paid to English departments; the development of training programs for prospec- tive college teachers, with specific attention again paid to English teachers; and first-hand information from first-time college writing teachers regarding their educational and experiential backgrounds, their understanding of and attitudes toward writing theory, and their knowledge of writing pedagogy. To learn about the range of their backgrounds, I surveyed a group of first-time teaching assistants on the undergraduate and graduate courses they took in writing, their pub- lications, their familiarity with the journals and in the memberships they held in organizations devoted to writing and its teaching, the conferences they attended where writing and teaching were central fo— cuses, and their perceptions of themselves as writers. To learn about their understanding of and attitudes toward writing theory, I asked the teachers about their ideas concerning the qualities which contribute to effective non-fiction prose writing and the processes involved in producing effective writing. I also asked about their beliefs concern— ing the activities by which one best learns and teaches writing. Fi— nally, to learn about their knowledge of pedagogy, I asked them about the extent of their knowledge concerning major theories and theorists in the teaching of writing, the activities in which they would have their students participate in a writing class, and their anticipations as prospective college writing teachers. From these areas of inquiry, the following question is under investigation: what can be learned for training programs about first-time teachers' backgrounds as writers, their attitudes toward writing theory, and knowledge of writing peda- gogy? In essence, what kind of profile might be drawn of first-time college writing teachers, and what are the implications for preparatory programs that might help them, and consequently their students, in their new role of writing teacher? Any inquiry into first-time teachers of college writing courses and training programs for them points not only to the success or fail— ure of the new college teachers, but the knowledge undergraduates 10 acquire and the improvement they make in the course of their studies. At stake, too, is a new breed of college teachers becoming the superior, the poor, or the legions of mediocre teachers for their students—-in short, the bearers of the tradition. Combining the stakes of both new teachers and students, Joyce Carroll emphasizes the ongoing need to attend to the writing teacher when she states that "what is necessary for writing to improve . . . is a change to occur deep within the writing classroom. And this change must focus first on our greatest l resource-the teacher." 8 Notes 1 Ann M. Heiss, Challenges to Graduate Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970), pp. 228-9. 2 Dennis L. Stockdale and Zachary S. Wbchok, "Why Not Train College Teachers to Teach?" Improving College and University Teaching, 25 (1977), 85. 3 Albert R. Kitzhaber, Themes, Theories, and Therapy: The Teach- ing of Writing in College (New York: McGraw Hill, 1963), p. 15. 4 Kitzhaber. 5 David D. Roberts, "Survival and Prosperity: TA Training Colloquia" Freshman English News, 10 (1982), 4. 6 Robert M. Gorrell, "Freshman Composition," in The College Teaching of English, ed. John C. Gerber (New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1965), p. 109. 7 Kitzhaber, p. 13. 8 Sue Seyfarth, "The Professional Development Program: More Than One at Iowa" Freshman English News, 10 (1982), 14. 9 Gorrell, p. 114. 10 Elizabeth WOoten Cowan, ADE Bulletin, 60 (1977), 30. 11 Stephen N. Judy, The ABC's of Literacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 86. 2 James Britton, Language and Learning (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1970), p. 13. 13 Britton, p. 276. 14 Stockdale and Wochok, p. 87. ll 12 15 Stockdale and Wochok, pp. 85—6. 16 Dudley Bailey, "The Graduate Assistant and the Freshman English Student," College Composition and Communication, 5.(1954),‘38. 17 Kathryn Zabelle Derounian, "From Graduate Assistant to Assist— ant Professor: Promotion in Composition Teaching Skills?" Freshman English News, 10 (1982), 20. 8 Joyce Carroll, "Process, Praxis, and A Writing Project," Texas writers Newsletter, 26 (1980), 4. Chapter I Historical Reviews The Origins of Teaching Assistantships in American Universities In order to understand contemporary teaching assistants and their role in academia, it is helpful to explore the origins of teaching assistants in universities, their growing responsibilities and func- tions in the department, and the degree and kinds of attention given to their training. In marked contrast to the concern given to the training of secondary English teachers, the history and function of university teaching assistants and training programs are not as easy to ascertain. While the formation of the National Council of Teachers of English in 1911 and the publication of The English Journal in the following year attested to secondary English teachers' interest in and commitment to the need to examine the ways in which the teaching of English could be improved, other conferences and publications of conference proceedings continued the discussion, among them the National Joint Committee on English's Reorganization of English in Secondary Schools in 1917, An Experience Curriculum in English in 1935, and A Correlated Curriculum in 1936. While these documents focused mainly on the secondary schools' English curricula and teach- ing methods, the training of high school teachers was not ignored; Alfred H. Grommon's "A History of the Preparation of Teachers of English" describes the training of secondary school teachers during 13 14 the early part of the twentieth century. Only letters, records, arti- cles by major American university professors and presidents, and the annals on the development of the American college and university pro- vide information about teaching assistants. Complicating the unearth- ing of the history of teaching assistants, too, is that little, if any attention is directly given to teaching assistants (even the origins and use of the term "teaching assistant" are unclear); rather they are most frequently discussed in context of the awarding of fellowships and scholarships, and rarely in the context of their developing role in the academic community. As early as the beginning of the eighteenth century, colleges used tutors who might be considered the first graduate teaching assist- ants as we conceive of them today. In Frederick Rudolph's The American College and University, tutors are described as "just out of college, perhaps with nothing else to do, unlikely to make a career of teaching but conceivably so, probably interested in earning a few dollars shortly before going on to theological school or definitely committing himself to a career. The tutor was a cheap labor device."l Not un- like what some teaching assistants now do almost 250 years later, the position provided them with a rest stop to contemplate and decide on their career and/or to build their funds before continuing their edu- cation. When schools first instituted the tutorship, a marked distinction was made between professors and tutors: professors "taught a subject" (such as an area of specialization), and tutors "taught a class" (such as the graduating class of a school or taking a class through 15 different subject areas in the curriculum). In other words, the tutors' responsibilities were more general than those of professors'. In de— scribing their teaching responsibilities, Rudolph reports that the tutor "would have taught . . . both in subjects for which the college had no professors and in elementary studies for which the college did have professors."2 By filling the vacant areas of the college curriculum and being responsible for its beginning or introductory courses, tutors became an invaluable part of the academic system. While the use of tutors benefited the colleges financially as. well as educationally, the students for whom they were responsible thought otherwise. In fact, "tutors seldom lasted long enough to be- come experienced at anything but dodging stones thrown through their windows or bottles thrown at their dormitory doors by inappreciative students."3 Harvard College was the first school that attempted to remedy the problem of ridicule and disdain for tutors in 1767 when it gave tutors a subject to teach; in other words, the tutors' teaching responsibilities more closely matched those of professors' than before when they taught in areas in which they were or were not necessarily fluent. Thus, tutors were brought into the profession as scholars and instructors whose sights were on professorships whereas before, and at other schools, tutors filled in for unstaffed courses and did not necessarily wish to pursue teaching as a career. The shift in function and responsibility between the first tutors and those who came decades later or who taught at schools other than Harvard College is described this way: "The old tutor was in no sense an organization man-~he was merely passing through. When he changed into an instructor, 16 however, and was invited to join in a competitive race for rank, he found the college had become a bureaucracy . . . he was working his way up a ladder. One day he might be a professor."4 Even with this change of status, however, tutors were still not conceived of as junior faculty members or even as apprentices; rather they were occupying the lowest rung of the academic hierarchy, "a young man who had given up his rights as a student to become a lackey, a spy."5 While disliked by their students (as evidenced by their being the recipients of thrown bottles and stones), they were an economic necessity to the survival of the colleges; while they might eventually work their way up to a professorship, they received no help or encour- agement in doing so. Hence, tutors might best be viewed as the bastard children of academia, yet children that the system was not willing to give up. Rudolph sums up the tutor's situation by writing that "Generally despised by students, exploited or ignored by professors, he was perhaps an answer to inadequate collegiate financial resources. But even so, always allowing for those cherished exceptions, he was one reason that the American college presented such a dreary picture to its critics."6 In The Development of Harvard University Since the Inauguration of President Eliot, 1869-1929, Samuel Eliot Morison provides further information on the later role and function of the tutor in the univer- sity community when he describes the tutor as occupying until 1914 "the lowest grade of instructor. He might hear recitations on a set book, or even lecture; tutoring he never did."7 After 1914, however, ". . the office was revived for its original function of helping 17 individual students, and for the immediate purpose of preparing them for the new General Examination at the end of the Senior year."8 Along with the inception of tutorships came the need for fellowb ships or scholarships-financial inducement for graduate students to continue their education, populate graduate programs, and serve as junior faculty in colleges. In fact, the entire system of using tutors paled in comparison to the attention given to the economics of educa- tion, so much so that the history of the tutorship gets lost in the abundant attention given to funding graduate students' educations. Thus, while the beginning of the eighteenth century brought into focus the use of the tutor, it just as clearly, if not more so, cast atten- tion on fellowships, graduate programs, and departments in colleges and universities. An intermingling of areas of attention became the norm, and in talking about one particular area, one also had to intro- duce into the discussion several others. In short, mutual exclusivity was impossible. The story of the Reverend Dean of Derry, Ireland, the later Bishop George Berkeley, illustrates this situation. In 1731, the Reverend Dean offered to bequeath his Newport, Rhode Island, farm to Yale College if it was used to support post—baccalaureate students in Greek and Latin during their studies for the masters degree.9 Because of the Reverend Dean's gesture to Yale, graduate education and finan- cial support become linked. Unlike the idea of the tutorship, however, the interest in the area of education and economics escalated, and was a major area of concern until the latter part of the nineteenth century. 18 Because of the abusive situations faced by tutors from their students, professors' attitudes toward their presence on campus, and the general lack of financial assistance available for American gradu- ate students, most young men in the early 18003 had to go to Europe to continue their schooling. Such was the case for George Ticknor, a New Englander who went to Gottingen, Germany, to pursue his graduate stud- ies. Upon returning to the United States, Ticknor took a Smith pro- fessorship in French and Spanish languages and literature as well as a professorship of belles-lettres at Harvard. Mere importantly, Ticknor became a central figure in the corporation, a group formed to examine the nature of American colleges and serve as an outside panel to the university president. In line with his interest in American education-or its failings-and because of his European training, Ticknor proclaimed in 1823 that "Changes must take place in the present constitution and organization of colleges . . . we must accomodate (sic) ourselves more to the spirits & wants of the times and country in which we live."10 While Ticknor was referring tangentially to changes in graduate education, its funding, and the role of graduate students as paraprofessionals, the principal change to which he was referring was that the college be broken into departments and students be freed from the proscribed studies of the traditional four classes. Ticknor supported the idea that students could advance through the course of their studies as quickly as they wished, and receive their degrees upon successful completion of departmental examinations. This system was based on and influenced, in large part, by German gymnasia and universities. While American colleges and universities became 19 "departmentalized" and followed in the footsteps of the German system of higher education, the faculties in American universities and colleges such as Harvard were not pleased.11 Still, the need for changes in graduate education was apparent, and growth was inevitable. One of the questions still nagging the profession and yet to be adequately addressed was how to attract students to engage in advanced study or graduate work. Germane to the history of teaching assistants is an idea posited by Charles Beck, 3 German classicist and Tfibingen doctorate. Arriving at Harvard in 1831, he planned a philological seminary whose function was, in part, to train teachers.12 In fact, Beck might be considered one of the first people to bring together the need for financial assistance for graduate students and teacher train- ing. Beck was acutely aware of the two needs, and in June of 1832 the Corporation "accepted a committee report suggesting that appoint- ments of graduates to the office of proctor would offer desirable encouragement and that proficiency in the philological department "13 In the might be considered as one recommendation for the post. Corporation's backing of the report, one finds the first consideration given to qualifications for graduate posts, a commitment to graduate student aid and practical experience for prospective teachers. Such a program was short-lived because Beck's idea for a seminary soon died.14 More important to the history and discussion of teaching assistants, however, a pattern had begun to emerge: while individ- uals saw the need for financial aid to graduate students and practical experience for prospective teachers, the schools had yet to act upon the two areas of concern. 20 Beck's set-back, however, did not put an end to the issue of attracting students for advanced study by offering them financial assistance. In the popular Five Years in an English University pub- lished in 1852, Charles A. Bristed pointed to the British system which provided inducements for students to continue their education. Bristed noted that in fact the mere competition for fellowships in Britain promoted growth among the students: "This was a period during which new traits of character, mental and moral, appeared; new capabilities and veins of thought were displayed, and different kinds of knowledge "15 The from all quarters were sucked up as if for mere amusement. situation in America, however, was sadly the reverse because the uni— versities had not actively committed themselves to offering fellowb ships or scholarships. Bristed's ideas were not lost completely; his viewpoints did gain some notice in America and had an impact on American thinking about education and financial assistance for graduate students. Even the North American Review, in discussing Bristed's book, concurred: "The great want of American colleges [and universities] at the present day is the endowment of a moderate number of scholarships and fellowh ships, for the encouragement of liberal studies."l6 While graduate studies were not wholly supported, let alone accepted, by American society, the 18503 were a turning—point in that university policy statements thereafter called for the support of fellowships to promote graduate studies and to entice gifted students to continue their academic interests. 21 While scholarships and fellowships for graduate students were finally given some attention and support in America, the notion of such monies being given to prospective teachers in order to help them de— velop their skills as professors was yet to be accepted or even pro— posed-except by Charles Beck in the 18303. The need for and interest in training students to become college professors were not diminished. Rather, concern centered on where money would be found and to whom it would be given. The sentiments of a University of Pennsylvania profes- sors sums up the doubts shared by many faculty members concerning fellowships: "'the Yankee graduates, at any rate, will inquire before they start [their academic programs] whether the cash had been paid in.'"17 And yet, at approximately the same time, in the "Report of the President of the University" from the Regents' Proceedingg in 1855, the University of Michigan's concerns over preparing their graduates to become teachers were made a matter of record: "'The graduate of a College is not prepared to become a College Professor. But the direct object of a University is to prepare men to teach in the University itself, or in any other institution.'"18 In short, while the two needs-financia1 assistance to advanced degree students and teacher preparation for prospective college professors-were acknowledged, the two had yet to be fully drawn together; while American colleges and universities focused their attention to and concern over these two areas, they remained separate, albeit related, issues. Of the two issues yet to be solved by academic administrators, financial assistance was the first to receive attention and commitment 22 from American schools. Despite all of the rhetoric paid to the issues (the major schools citing the need to support graduate education), the first school to demonstrate any appreciable and sustained commitment to providing financial assistance to advanced degree students was Johns Hopkins University. During the early 18703, fellowships of $500 were offered to students who showed promise in their studies, despite rumblings of uncertainty and skepticism from the university's board of trustees. Still, the administration of Johns Hopkins was committed to offering graduate education to qualified students, and just as im- portantly, to providing its faculty with feelings that it was being d'"19 by bright students. "'constantly stimulate For graduate students, administrators, and faculty, the risk Johns Hopkins took paid off: the first graduates who were awarded fellowships went on to pursue careers as ambassadors, eminent profes- sors, and pioneers in historical studies. The university, of course, garnered much praise and commendation because of its accomplished graduates. And, as Rudolph maintains, "The early success of Johns Hopkins rested in part on its program of fellowships, a device which would become a characteristic element in the creation of every major American university."20 If fellowships to worthy graduate students became a "character- istic element" in major universities, teaching assistantships-another form of financial assistance-were not far behind. While the exact date of the inception of teaching assistantships (including the use of the term) is unclear and remains a question yet to be fully inves— tigated by the historians of the profession, the rise of undergraduate 23 enrollments in the early part of the twentieth century brought with it the need for universities to staff the growing population of lower- level courses as well as "prolong the period of graduate study, and at the same time to soften the transition from student to teacher."21 Such was the case at Harvard. In 1872, when the Graduate Depart- ment was first being established, faculty opposition to the graduate school was strong: "It was said that the University had insufficient funds to teach undergraduates properly, and that a graduate department would weaken the college. To which President [Charles W.] Eliot replied . . . 'It will strengthen the College. As long as the main duty of the faculty is to teach boys, professors need never pursue their subjects beyond a certain point. With graduate students to teach, they will regard their subject as infinite, and will keep up that con- stant investigation which is necessary for the best teaching.'"22 Thus, one might assume the growth and acceptance of graduate students to teach undergraduate courses increased--primarily to free professors of the burden of teaching undergraduate courses. to encour- age graduate students to continue their studies, but only secondarily to help graduates learn the art of teaching. The universities were not really interested in helping to create teachers; such business was considered "a minor and relatively simple part of university work. . . ."23 Harvard College and its English A program illustrate how the graduate student as teacher helped with the difficulties of teaching large numbers of students, and establish an example of the use of "teaching assistants" which was followed for a number of years. In the early part of the twentieth century, Harvard College was 24 experiencing a tremendous spurt in growth; students, often from rural areas, were beginning to attend college and they were, more often than not, unprepared for the demands of college work. To help students acquire writing skills, Harvard instituted an English A program which demanded a sizeable amount of writing from its students. By 1918, over 38,000 daily, weekly, and fortnightly themes were being produced each year at that institution.24 No faculty-regardless of how hard work- ing and ambitious it was—~could handle such a paper load. One might assume that graduate students as teaching assistants provided such schools with a natural solution to the paper crunch by easing the work load of senior faculty (by being proctors, lecturers, graders, and research assistants to senior faculty) and by being provided financial remuneration for their efforts, thereby allowing them to continue their graduate education. Fellowships and preliminary teaching experience could thus be wed. Just as importantly, the system appeared to be more manageable than before because by the 19303 fellowships had found a permanent home in major American university graduate programs, and the training of prospective college teachers in all disciplines had become a major topic at conferences and in journals. Once the notion of the graduate student as teacher, or the teach- ing assistant, was accepted by universities, the nature of the posi- tion and its responsibilities grew. In fact, being awarded teaching assistantships guaranteed the recipients that they would be involved in any number of different activities: taking roll, grading quizzes, leading small discussion groups, delivering lectures to large classes, marking student papers and exams, assisting senior faculty in 25 research-—in sum, meeting the needs of the particular department, what— ever those needs might have been at the time, with little attention actually paid to teaching the prospective teachers how to teach (unless a major professor was so inclined). Teaching assistants' responsibilities grew throughout the years; they lectured, helped in the preparation of the courses' direction, and evaluated students' overall performances. Their once menial jobs grew into major responsibilities. Ann M. Heiss reports in 1970 on just such responsibilities: while those teaching in the sciences noted relatively little total responsibility for lecturing and grading, the case for those in English, French, and mathematics was markedly dif— ferent. Heiss writes that "23 percent. . . reported that they had total responsibility in planning the course they taught, 65 per cent held full responsibility for devising tests, and 8 per cent were re- sponsible for grading all papers either in their own courses or in the courses offered by their faculty supervisor. In addition, 76 per cent of the teaching assistants in these fields assumed total responsibility for assigning final grades and 81 per cent were responsible for keeping "25 From these all records associated with their teaching assignment. data, Heiss found that 75 percent of the teaching assistants benefited from such responsibilities, so much so that they developed an increased interest in teaching; just as many indicated that their skills as teachers had improved from such experiences.2-6 Because teaching assistants were given so much responsibility and independence, critics began a debate over the "how much is too much" issue. In his 1972 article "Are Teaching Assistants Teachers?" 26 William J. Lnenicka poses just that question and notes that "One can- not but marvel that the whole process [of permitting teaching assist— ants to function as the principal teacher of university courses] did not result in complete disaster!"27 In discussing the use of teaching assistants as teachers, Lnenicka echoes the beliefs of a number of critics (parents and students in— cluded) who do not support inexperienced teachers assuming so much responsibility: The pseudo faculty status conferred upon these indiw viduals provided them, and provides today a cover for incompetence in the classroom, and those who pay the price are the undergraduates. . . . Caught in the middle, the undergraduate student and his parents, who suffer financial strain in order to provide for their children's college education, have a right to feel cheated and resentful when they find even one of the important courses in the undergraduate cur— riculum being taught by a graduate student, one who, in all probability, is inexperienced, unrehearsed, untrained for teaching, and whose primary interest lies not in his teaching, but rather in satisfying the requirements for his own degree. Conscientious members of the teaching faculty cannot react other than with stunned astonishment and dismay at the news that Mr. Grad Student, candidate for the Ph.D., is being assigned to teach a subject to undergradu— ates because he flunked that portion of his compre- hensives and, after all, 'the best way to learn a subject is to teach it.'"28 Clearly, Lnenicka's viewpoint is vehement and inflammatory, if not highly speculative and certainly inflated. Nonetheless, it is shared by others in the profession, including students and parents. If nothing else, his attack on the power and freedom given to teaching assistants calls into question the role that teaching assistants have assumed since their inception as well as the role of training programs for prospective college teachers. 27 The Growth of Training Programs for Teaching Assistants Because the responsibility of first-time teachers of college writing courses is so great to students, the department, the university, and in some people's estimation, to the fostering of a literate society, the training of this group of people becomes especially important. While the early literature on teaching assistants focused on financing graduate studies and curricular development, a number of more recent critics and theorists have attended to the issues of preparatory pro- grams (or pedagogical training) for prospective college teachers, in and outside of the English department. While much of the early liter- ature on training programs does not specifically address English teachers, it does help to provide an understanding of the situations faced by, and the solutions available to college English teachers. As early as 1930, critics turned their attention to the prepara- tion of college level teachers, and in that year the Institute for Administrative Offices of Higherlhstitutions, organized by the Univer- sity of Chicago, had as its central theme "The Training of College Teachers." The papers read at the conference, and subsequently edited by William S. Gray, ranged from inquiries into weaknesses in college teaching and methods of training college teachers to sample prepara- tory programs at three universities.29 It is interesting to note that three years earlier in 1927, a Committee on the Professional Training of College Teachers stated that "'indifference in the need for such I "30 training is all but universal in the graduate schools. During those three years, however, "there . . . [were] heard from the general 28 direction of the colleges low rumblings of discontent, ominous mutter— ings of dissatisfaction, savage growlings of complaint, accompanied by flashes of forked criticism directed immediately at the teaching capac- ity, or, to use the word of the critics, incapacity of the brilliantly "31 Evidently, the dissatis- hooded products of our graduate schools. faction heard during those three years produced a need to attend to, if not remedy, the problem of college teacher training. At the 1930 Institute, Henry Suzzallo cited three basic require- ments for prospective college teachers: "civilized and cultured . . . intellectual understandings and appreciations"; "more than ordinary mastery" of the content area; and specific mastery of "some of one subject or part of a subject."32 While these requirements were said to have addressed the academic side of the prospective college teach— ers, other requirements were said to have fulfilled the professional side of the picture. Included in the professional requisites were an understanding of the American educational system, knowledge of the psychology of learning, and supervised experience in the actual teach— 33 (One notes with interest and amusement that the ing of students. University of Iowa also required a physical examination of all graduate students, and if any "impediments or psychopathic tendencies"34 were displayed, the students would be discouraged from pursuing a teaching career.) Of particular concern to the participants of the 1930 Institute and a concern which lasted for a number of years, however, was prospective teachers' actual experience in pedagogy. Critics saw some sort of "professional training" necessary for prospective teachers, and in 1930 the most frequently cited training 29 program consisted of a course on teaching methods conducted by a senior member of the department who was particularly interested in pedagogy. In that course, the prospective teachers, along with an experienced faculty member, discussed problems which might present themselves to beginning teachers. The other major recommendation of the Institute was for prospective teachers to enroll in an education course in order to learn about the developments in and the current state of education..3'5 Hence, the responsibility for training college teachers was shared by the particular department of the prospective teachers and the school of education. (One interesting antidote to the problem of preparing prospective teachers was offered by Ernest H. Wilkins who saw the need to recruit more students of "high potential teaching ability" than the university had been doing, thus alleviating the need to rely so heavily on training programs. In order to successfully accomplish such a goal, Wilkins also saw the need to make the field of teaching more appealing to prospective teachers, thereby encouraging graduate students with the most potential to pursue the teaching field.36) Despite the rhetoric on what "should" be done to train and im- prove new teachers of college courses, and despite the findings of the 1930 Institute, few universities demonstrated any appreciable commit— ment to preparatory programs. Columbia University officials, for example, stated that their university had no general program for pre— paring prospective college teachers, nor did it have any plans to institute one.37 Harvard College officials had no program to aid pro- spective teachers, and thought that one was not critically needed because, in their estimation, prospective teachers could learn the 30 most from observing their own successful professors. Moreover, Harvard officials felt that graduate students should teach in their specializa- tions or where their strengths lay, and not necessarily in lowbdivision courses for which they were frequently unprepared. Because of such thinking, graduate students would naturally be prepared for their teaching duties and would not need a training program.38 The University of Iowa's graduate students entered the university with certifications in education and, therefore, were considered knowledgeable in teaching. Although Iowa urged its students to attend departmental seminars in teaching, the university required only physical examinations of stu- dents, and speech tests and coaching when needed.39 In short, while many of the universities surveyed by the Insti- tute recognized and acknowledged the need for training programs—-or at least for prospective college teachers to be trained-few had made a concerted commitment to providing them for their graduate students. And if any commitment was made, it took the form of one seminar, non- compulsary supervision of senior faculty, and a recommendation for prospective teachers to study the state of education through the edu— cation department. As is the case with trends in education-~perhaps a reflection of the political movements in the country-the issue of college teacher preparation received renewed attention almost twenty years after the Institute. This time a report of a 1949 conference on college teach- ers' preparation, chaired by O. Meredith Wilson, President of the University of Oregon, noted that in spite of the lipservice paid and minor gestures offered to alleviate the problem, few schools had taken 31 an active commitment to helping college teachers prepare for their jobs; rather, it was concluded, the attention to preparatory programs was expressed by a few interested professors, with little consistent or ongoing support and involvement evident from the rest of the depart- ment or university community.40 While the 1949 conference participants noted that graduate schools were concerned with turning out qualified teachers, they found that the overwhelming sentiment was for graduate schools to produce the learned scholar, and only secondarily the accomplished teacher. Hence, one discovers some rationale for graduate schools' lack of commitment to supporting strong and active preparatory programs for their prospective college teachers. It is not surprising then that just over twenty years later in 1960 Bernard Berelson reported that 6 percent of the respondents of his study of attitudes toward training programs wanted to reduce the attention given to teacher training, 40 percent wanted it increased, and 41 percent wanted the current emphasis (or lack of) maintained.41 Clearly, university departments and administrators were divided in their attitudes toward the training of college teachers, but the leaning was toward no increase in preparatory programs for college bound teachers. Finally at the 1949 conference, questions were raised concerning the professional needs that graduate schools would better serve. Among those questions or concerns were the fostering of individual teaching styles of prospective college teachers, prospective teachers' understanding of their students' motivations for learning, the content or subject matter of doctoral work becoming broad enough.to help new 32 teachers, and, most germane to the discussion of training programs, an inquiry into the extent to which graduate students are prepared by the universities to become the best teachers possible.42 The recommendations made or the issues cited as needing continued support from graduate schools included assigning reduced teaching loads to new teachers, having new teachers work under the supervision of ex- perienced professors, providing new teachers with a diverse range of teaching experiences, monitoring new teachers' responsibilities from initial observation of classes to assuming full responsibility for teaching, and providing new teachers with seminars and workshops on teaching to be conducted by superior faculty members.43 Thus, the 1949 conference, more so than the 1930 Institute, generated not only spe- cific areas of concern but, more importantly, remedies or recommenda- tions to aid prospective college teachers. These recommendations, over thirty years old, are now the ones more frequently adopted in graduate teaching assistant programs in universities, especially in departments of English; in other words, the recommendations of the participants of the 1949 conference have become procedure or policy of many college teacher training programs. Almost a decade elapsed before two more conferences on college teacher preparation were held and a renewed commitment to the area was demonstrated. In its discussion of pertinent issues in academia, the American Council on Education's January 1956 conference (whose proceedings were published in 1958) included inquiries into masters and doctoral programs as well as graduate study's commitment to pre- paring prospective college teachers. Like the 1930 Institute, 33 attention was given to several programs in college teacher training at universities. The participants of this 1956 conference, however, disagreed on the kind of pedagogical training needed to prepare pro- spective teachers. Nonetheless, they did reach consensus that some sort of training was necessary, and that requiring graduate students to take a course in college teaching was insufficient to the demands of real teacher training.44 The most significant issue raised at the American Council on Education's conference was the long overlooked distinction in teacher training programs between the prospective teachers' mastery of course work (content or subject matter) and the methods of teaching that con- tent or subject matter. While the 1930 Institute had focused primarily on the professional preparation of prospective college teachers (e.g. handling student problems and becoming bone fide members of the pro- fession) and the 1949 conference had focused on pedagogical issues (e.g. class loads and the supervision of new teachers' classes), all of the conferees at these two conferences had failed to specifically talk about the prospective teachers' mastery of the material they were to teach as an important feature of college teacher training. In re- porting on the proceedings of the 1956 conference, Joseph Axelrod noted that the participants agreed that "two obvious fallacies are to be avoided: the assumption that such preparation [college teachers'] is exclusively a matter of content preparation, and the assumption that pedagogical competence can serve as a substitute for scholarly knowledge."45 Thus, under examination at the 1956 conference were not the methods behind teaching (pedagogy) as much as the knowledge 34 of subject matter required of college teachers that informs what will happen pedagogically--the distinction between the knowledge of course material and the presentation of that course material to students, with the 1956 conference addressing the former. Held in 1958 under the auspices of the American Studies Associa- tion, the College English Association, the Modern Language Association, and the National Council of Teachers of English, the Basic Issues Conference posed thirty-five issues which the participants deemed worthy of investigation, and of those thirty-five, seventeen dealt with the preparation or training of prospective English teachers. Hence, the concerns of the 1930, 1949, and 1956 conferences received renewed attention. 0f the issues germane to teaching at the college level, the committee asked "What preparation for college teaching should the Ph.D. candidate receive?" and "How can we achieve articulation of teaching ?"46 While the issue of and teacher training at all levels in English teacher training for prospective college teachers was not a major con- sideration at the Basic Issues Conference, it was given some attention, and suggests that while previous conferences had focused on college teacher preparation, the area was still open for further considera- tion; no hard and fast conclusions had been reached in almost thirty years of discussion. Perhaps the one issue that united all of the conferences on teacher training for the college level was the question of whose re- sponsibility it was to train prospective college teachers. There ap- pears to be, at least in recent years, consensus on this question, and the answer, according to a number of critics, rests with the 35 individual academic departments, and not with the graduate school or department of education. In The Miseducation of American Teachers in 1963, for instance, James D. Koerner wrote that the "academic depart- ments must accept major responsibility both for the present state of teacher education and for affecting improvements."47 The conclusion of a program.for college teacher training at the University of Michigan during 1967 and 1971 was that "a move toward active departmental re- sponsibility for preparation of college teachers was gaining momentum. More time and resources are being devoted to this responsibility."48 While the Michigan program involved the departments of botany, history, philosophy, physics, and psychology, it appears that English depart- ments are not exempt from similar commitments to college teacher pre- paration. In his article "How the Candidate Learns to Teach College English," for example, warner G. Rice, a University of Michigan pro- fessor, made just that claim: "If, then, departments of English think that college teaching is important, they must accept the obligation for providing a more thorough discipline in the art than they have attempted in the past."49 Certainly one of the most damning commentaries on the issue of responsibility for college teachers' training also came in 1963 from Albert R. Kitzhaber, one of the critics who put the issue into sharp focus: . . . much of the poor teaching that one so often finds in freshman English is less the result of inexperience and indifference than of inadequate professional preparation--as indeed it is in the high schools also. The blame for this state of affairs must rest squarely with the college depart- ments of English that have given these teachers their undergraduate and graduate education.50 36 Kitzhaber cited the English curriculum's reliance on the study of lit- erature (and not on writing and its teaching) as the culprit. Despite the interest and care that prospective college teachers bring to their own classes, such qualities, according to Kitzhaber, do not take the place of training or preparatory programs. Good intentions and hard work, while complementary to, are no substitute for training in the teaching of college English. Commenting on the need for teacher prep- aration, one critic noted, . . . all the high-priced texts and high— powered materials will not replace a well-prepared teacher."51 It is interesting to note that the early to mid—19603 produced a tremendous amount of interest in the training of college English teachers. In 1963, for example, Alfred H. Grommon edited The Education of Teachers of English for American Schools and Colleges. Also in that year, Albert R. Kitzhaber's Themes, Theories, and Therapy: The Teach- ing of Writing in College appeared. Two years later, in 1965, John C. Gerber edited The College Teaching of English. Clearly, writers in the field of English were concerned with the ways English might best be taught at the college level and the ways prospective teachers might be trained to become effective college writing teachers. Despite the 19603 interest in the training of prospective English teachers and the call for English departments to shoulder the responsi- bility of preparatory programs, Ann M. Heiss reported in 1970 that "in half of the fifty institutions which produced 90 per cent of the Ph.D's each year, [training] program[s] for teaching assistants had "52 remained substantially unchanged during the past decade or more. In other words, from the 19603 call to prepare future college teachers 37 to 1970, more talk than action had been given to training programs. In 1979, Elizabeth WOoten Cowen reported that of the 157 schools she surveyed concerning their college teaching education program, only 92 (or 59 percent) had graduate instruction in writing as a requirement for their teaching assistants. Still more striking was that 18 percent of the surveyed departments had whatsoever no retraining program for literature specialists faced with teaching college composition.53 So, despite the call for individual departments to be responsible for training their graduate students how to teach, less than full and active commitment was being given to preparing prospective college teachers for their new role. Addressing the issue during a panel discussion on teaching as- sistants and training programs, Edgar W. Lacy contended that "The sys- tem of using graduate students to teach freshman can be regarded as "54 functioning satisfactorally. . . However, Lacy was quick to add that one of the "safeguards" was that the teaching assistant "must not "55 Twenty years be asked to do more than he has experience to do. later, in 1974, Maxine Hairston amplified Lacy's stance when she wrote that "In many ways, Teaching Assistants may do a better job of teach- ing freshmen than some of our senior colleagues. They will do a good job, however, only if we have effective ways to train them and to supervise them during the first years of their apprenticeship in the profession."56 Even the 1979 Rocky Mountain Modern Language Associa- tion Conference featured an entire session on training the composition teacher (specifically the teaching assistant), and other national English conferences such as the Conference on College Composition and 38 Communication have included in their programs papers discussing the training of teaching assistants to become successful college writing teachers. Such conferences, it is important to note, come twenty years after a 1959-60 survey on the issue of college teacher training which reported that "'If there is a grave lack . . . it is in the production of teachers of freshman composition who are specifically trained and psychologically conditioned to perform with enthusiasm and real dis- tinction.'"57 Because of the need for well trained college writing teachers and the plethora of research now emerging on the writing process and the most effective ways to teach college writing, the issue of pre- paratory programs continues to be a concern among directors of writing programs, English professors, and administrators. The issue of college teacher training--at least in English departments and writing prof grams-~has received more than lipservice, and has not been relegated to the departments of education or graduate schools as it had been in the past. While significantly improved since the 19308, training programs are still imperfect, and remain one of the focuses of attention of theorists, researchers, and teachers in the field, especially those who want to successfully staff their freshman writing courses as well as graduate masters and doctoral candidates who are as competent in the teaching of writing as they are in the study of literature. Notes 1 Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University (New York: Alfred A. Knapf, 1962), p. 161. 2 Rudolph, p. 162. 3 Rudolph. 4 Rudolph, p. 163. 5 Rudolph, p. 164. 6 Rudolph. 7 Samuel Eliot Morison, The Development of Harvard University Since the Inauguration of President Eliot, 1869-1929 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930), xli. 8 Morison. Rudolph, p. 336. 10 Richard J. Storr, The Beginnings of Graduate Education in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 16-19. 11 Storr, p. 19. 12 Storr, p. 21. 13 Storr, pp. 25-28. 14 Storr, p. 28. 15 Storr. l6 Storr, p. 65. 17 Storr, p. 66. 39 40 8 Rudolph, p. 337. 9 Storr, p. 115. 20 Rudolph. 21 Morison, p. 461. 22 Morison, pp. 461-2. 23 Morison, p. 523. 24 Stephen N. Judy, Lecture on "The Teaching of writing at the College Level," Michigan State University, February 8, 1979. 25 Ann M. Heiss, Challenges to Graduate Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970), pp. 234-5. 6 Heiss, p. 236. 27 William J. Lnenicka, "Are Teaching Assistants Teachers?" Improving College and University Teaching, 22 (1972), 97. 28 Lnenicka. 29 Frederic Woodward, "The Problem of the Institute," in The Training of College Teachers, ed. William S. Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), p. l. 3O WOOdward. 31 Gordon J. Laing, "The Newer Educational Program and the Train- ing of Teachers," in The Training of College Teachers, ed. William S. Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), pp. 51-52. 2 Henry Suzzallo, "Academic and Professional Elements in the Training of Prospective College Teachers," in The Training of College Teachers ed. Wm. S. Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), pp. 20-23. 33 Suzzallo, pp. 25-6. 41 34 William 3. Gray, "Survey of Current Methods in Training Pro- spective College Teachers," in The Training of College Teachers, ed. William S. Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), p. 83. 35 Laing, pp. 57-8. 36 Ernest H. Wilkins, "The Enlistment of Prospective College Teachers," in The Training of College Teachers, ed. William S. Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), p. 70. 37 "Reports on Current Methods of Training College Teachers in Various Higher Institutions," in The Training of College Teachers, ed. William S. Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), p. 218. 38 "Reports," pp. 221-2. 39 "Reports," pp. 224-5. 40 W. Max Wise, "Who Teaches the Teachers?" in Improving College_ Teaching, ed. Calvin B. T. Lee (washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967), p. 77. 41 Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United States (New York: McGraw Hill, 1960), p. 206. 2 Wise, pp. 78-80. "3 Wise, p. 88. 44 English Journal, 57 (1968), 537-547. 5 Joseph Axelrod, Graduate Study for Future College Teachers (washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1959), pp. 1—3, 95. 46 Axelrod, p. 95. 47 James D. Koerner, The Miseducation of American Teachers (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963), p. 263. 48 Dennis L. Stockdale and Zachary S. Wochok, "Why Not Train College Teachers to Teach?" Improving College and University Teaching, 25 (1977) 90. 42 9 warner G. Rice, "How the Candidate Learns to Teach College English," in The Education of Teachers of English for American Schools and Colleges, ed. Alfred B. Grommon (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963). P. 583. 50 Albert R. Kitzhaber, Themes, Theories,_and Therapy: The Teach- ing of writing in College (New York: McGraw Hill, 1963), p. 15. 1 Joyce Carroll, "Process, Praxis, and A writing Project," Texas writers Newsletter, 26 (1980), 7. 52 Ann M. Heiss, Challenges to Graduate Schools (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970), p. 231. 53 Elizabeth WOOten Cowen, ADE Bulletin, 60 (1977), 30. 54 Edgar W. Lacy, "The Graduate Assistant and the Freshman English Student: A Panel Discussion," College Composition and Communi- cation, 5 (1954), 36. 55 Lacy. 56 Maxine Hairston, "Training Teaching Assistants in English," College Composition and Communication, 25 (1974), 52. 57 Robert M. Gorrell, "Freshman Composition," in The College Teaching of English, ed. John C. Gerber (New York: Appleton-Century— Crofts, 1965), pp. 113—4. Chapter II Elements of the Study Background In the fifty year history of articles, books, and conferences devoted to the training of prospective teachers, specifically those in the teaching of writing offered by university departments of English, much has been assumed about the experiences, attitudes, and knowledge with which first-time writing teachers come to their first college teaching assignment. NOwhere in the history of new college teachers does one find the critics asking the first-time teachers about their experience, attitudes, and knowledge regarding writing, writing theory, and pedagogy. Learning about new teachers of college writing courses might help not only to create more successful training programs for them, but ultimately better serve the students in the courses for which the new teachers are responsible; training programs are not an "end" in themselves, but are rather a means for developing and sustain- ing coherent, substantial, and significant writing programs. Just as important, information about the new college writing teachers' experi- ences, attitudes, and knowledge might allow us to predict their teach- ing methods; their backgrounds and attitudes then, might, in the long run, affect the learning of their students. 43 44 The Survey By the nature of the pasts they bring to their new teaching assignments, one might view first-time teachers of writing as a diverse group; they have differing educational and experiential backgrounds as writers, and differing attitudes about what constitutes effective writing, the process by which such writing is achieved, and the way writing is best taught. In order to acquire data on first-time college writing teachers self-reported backgrounds as writers, attitudes toward writing theory, and knowledge of pedagogy, I developed a survey (see appendix A for the complete instrument) which asks three main questions: 1. What educational and experiential backgrounds help prospective writing teachers in their first college-level teaching experience? 2. What attitudes about the process and product of writing do the prospective teachers bring to their first college teaching position? 3. What kinds of knowledge do the prospective teachers have of the pedagogy of college-level writing courses? Knowledge in these three areas--writing experience, writing theory, and knowledge of writing pedagogy--are frequently cited by theorists as necessary important goals in successful training programs for pro- spective writing teachers and, consequently, for the development of effective teachers of college writing courses. In "Preparing the Com- position Teacher," for example, Donald Nemanich reports that the con- ferees at a three-day meeting on the preparation of college English teachers agreed that prospective writing teachers should be trained in actual writing, rhetorical theory, and the methods of teaching writing?’ 45 Similarly, in Richard Gebhardt's "Balancing Theory With Practice in the " the same three areas are discussed as Training of writing Teachers, necessary components of any inquiry into the preparation of writing teachers and of adequate training programs for them.2 Part one of my survey explored the teachers' educational and experiential writing backgrounds, both in and out of the academic set- ting. In recent years, teachers' backgrounds as writers have received much attention from theorists. Donald Murray believes that writing teachers should be writers themselves. In A Writer Teaches Writing, he states that "The writing teacher cannot afford to hide behind the myth of his own good writing. . . . The student should not leave the writing course believing the legend that English teachers can write more easily than other people. . . . The teacher is not a lecturer or an evaluator alone, he is also a participant, and must share with his students the personal process of writing."3 Janet Emig concurs with Murray. In The ComposingeProcesses of Twelfth Graders, she amplifies the notion of writing teachers being writers when she maintains that ". . . teachers of composition should themselves write in both the reflexive and the extensive mode so that when they teach, they are more likely to extend a wider range of writ- ing invitations to their students."4 In part one of the survey, then, I asked about the undergraduate and graduate courses the prospective teachers have taken in writing, about the jobs they have had which required a significant amount of writing, and about the types of writing they had done. In order to learn about their professional involvement with writing (beyond 46 actually writing themselves), I asked the teachers to list the workshops or conferences they have attended where writing, theory, and pedagogy were the main subjects, and to list their memberships in organizations and the journals they regularly read which concentrate on writing. These extra-curricular activities help, at some level, in shaping one's attitudes toward writing, its theory and its teaching. Moreover, these questions begin to draw a profile of the teachers as writers and as participants in the community of those interested in writing, theory, and pedagogy. Finally, in part one of the survey, I asked the teachers to de- scribe their attitudes toward writing, specifically, what they per- ceived as their satisfactions, frustrations, strengths, and weaknesses as writers, and the process by which they produce effective written prose. These questions attempt to seek information concerning the way they view themselves in the role of writers. Such questions are im- portant because the teachers' attitudes toward writing-and, in par- ticular, themselves as writers--contribute to the tone they set for their students to write and respond to the written word. As such, college writing teachers are role models for their students, and stu— dents can directly or indirectly learn from the satisfactions and frus— trations their teachers derive from writing. Further, and just as im- portant, teachers' attitudes toward their own writing can predict the ways they would view the teaching of writing. Part two of the survey includes questions on the new teachers' attitudes regarding the theory behind the writing process and product. The questions concern their beliefs about the features of effective 47 non-fiction prose and the processes by which one produces such writing, as well as how both process and product might be learned. I offered the teachers a wide range of choices by which to describe their atti- tudes. At one end of the possible range of options is what one might call the "prescriptive" or the "product-oriented" viewpoint. This attitude looks at writing as a firm, linear set of processes by which writing is both produced and evaluated; the guidelines for writing and evaluating are formulaic and normative. At the other end of the pos- sible range of choices are items which might be seen as characteristic of the "descriptive" or "process-oriented" viewpoint; that is, the actual process by which writers produce effective prose and the per- spective which attends to the person behind the writing: what s/he learned from the writing experience about the topic, about writing, and about him/herself. Distinguishing between the product and process orientations, walter T. Petty states that "The product is not behavior, nor does it represent what has gone on in the individual's mind. It is only a product; process is what people do"5 (emphasis mine). The process-oriented viewpoint also looks at the personality, individu— ality, and a sense of the real person emerging from the writing. In the final section of the survey, part three, I looked at the kinds of knowledge the prospective teachers indicated they have of the teaching of writing. This section deals with theory put into practice and is particularly important because it focuses on the respondents as teachers. I was interested in learning what first-time teachers know about important topics in writing pedagogy and about the activi- ties they would have their students explore during their writing 48 courses. I asked the prospective teachers to indicate their degree of familiarity with teaching practices and respond to a list of activities they would require of their students in an ideal classroom situation. The term "ideal" is important because it offers the teachers an oppor- tunity to relate what they would do if they were not restricted by curricular or budgetary demands. The items in this portion of the sur- vey again ranged from the more conventional or prescriptive (e.g. com- pleting handbook and worksheet exercises on grammar, discussing and analyzing literature, and studying the principles of logic) to the more descriptive or process-centered approach to the learning and teaching of writing (e.g. using peer group workshops, revising, compiling an— thologies of student writing). I also asked the teachers to cite the concepts or ideas about writing, theory, and teaching they feel are most valuable for a writing teacher to know, and to list the strengths and weaknesses they feel they will bring to their classes as teachers. In short, I asked them to distill into several short answers the knowledge of pedagogy they feel is pertinent to the effective teaching of college writing. Procedures I wrote all of the items in each question and checked for breadth of the area covered, thoroughnessand.accuracy of expression with sev- eral experienced teaching assistants and instructors of English at Michigan State University. In generating the questions and items in each part of the survey, I first relied on my own knowledge of theories and practices concerning writing, theory, and pedagogy, and then 49 referred to the following popular rhetorics used in college-level writ- ing courses for areas and items I had overlooked: Donald Hall's Writing Well, James Macrimmon's Writing With a Purpose, and Anthony C. Winckler and Jo Ray McCuen's Rhetoric Made Plain. A variety of types of questions were used in the survey; that is, some questions required the teachers to fill in the blank, other ques- tions required them to check their preference or degree of knowledge, and yet other questions required short essay-type responses. I used this variety to insure not only a complete response to the questions, but to provide the teachers with some variety in the types of their responses, thereby avoiding fatigue of same-type responses to a large number of questions. A pilot survey was conducted during July of 1981; several new and experienced teaching assistants in the English department at Michigan State University served as respondents. The purpose of the pilot survey was to insure a wide range of items and choices were in— cluded, the directions and items were easily understandable, and the survey was complete, yet not too lengthy and difficult to complete. The surveys were then distributed during August and September of 1981 to the Directors of Writing Programs in the English departments at the University of West Virginia, Michigan State University, Colorado State University, the University of Utah, and the University of Vermont. I chose these schools because they are in different geographical areas and because they are of different sizes (see appendix B for descrip- tions of schools sampled). The Directors of Writing Programs at the schools also assured me that the surveys would be distributed to and collected from all incoming teaching assistants according to my 50 instructions (the first page of the survey provides the instructions). The surveys were distributed to all first-time teaching assist— ants before their departments offered them any kind of training program in order to guard against the potential influence of departmental or peer attitudes on their responses toward writing, theory, and pedagogy. The teachers were given as much time as needed to answer the questions fully in order to provide them the opportunity to be as thorough as pos- sible in their responses. Forty-seven new teachers of college writing courses completed the survey: fourteen from the University of west Virginia, twelve from Michigan State University, thirteen from Colorado State University, three from the University of Utah, and five from the University of Vermont. This represents a return of 87 percent of the first-time teaching assistants from the five schools. When the surveys were returned to me, I compiled and tabulated the responses by the following methods: where lists were required (e.g. of conferences or books), I listed the names the teachers cited; where short essay—type responses were required, I listed the points they made in their answers; and where the teachers were asked to check items in the questions, I totaled the number of responses to each item in the question and then tabulated the percentages of those responding to the question. These data are reported in percentages because they are more revealing in percentages; since not all of the teachers re- sponded to each question, raw numbers would be misleading (i.e. forty— seven is not always the total number of responses to each question although there were a total of forty-seven respondents to the entire survey). 51 I did not intend to draw any conclusions about eil new teaching assistants from the findings of the survey. Instead, I sought as much information as possible in the three areas of inquiry (writing, atti- tudes toward writing theory, and knowledge of pedagogy) in the belief that a long survey producing much information on a small group of re- spondents would reveal more about the breadth and depth of information about teaching assistants. The Findinge Among the qualities that are important to the teaching of writing, according to some theorists, is the requirement that teachers of writ- ing have some experience writing themselves. To develop a profile of the prospective teachers as writers, question five in part one of the survey asked about the types and extent of experience the first-time teachers have had in writing. Their educational backgrounds in writ- ing were by no means extensive: 61 percent of the prospective teachers completing the question reported having taken a freshman composition course,6 and 33 percent had taken a course in sophomore composition (see appendix C for definitions of course titles). Thirteen percent of the teachers had taken a course in expository writing, whereas 10 percent had had experience in an advanced expository writing course. The more specialized writing courses did not fare as well, perhaps an indication of these courses being new to (or non-existent in) some college curricula. For example, 16 percent of the teachers indicated that they had taken a course in the research paper, 3 percent a course in business writing, and none indicated having taken a course which 52 focused on scientific writing. Almost as many first-time teachers reported having taken creative writing courses as freshman composition courses: 57 percent of the new teachers indicated having taken a creative writing course, and 31 per- cent had taken advanced creative writing. Nine percent had taken a graduate course in composition or writing, 2 percent a graduate course in writing theory, and 4 percent a course in writing pedagogy at the graduate leve1--perhaps reflecting the fact that the new teachers were beginning their graduate studies. Question two of part one of the survey asked the prospective teachers about the time they devote to specific types of writing; that is, what percentage of their writing time was spent on, say,poetry as opposed to scholarly essays. While the overwhelming majority of the new teachers reported spending the greatest percentage of their time on scholarly writing (e.g. research or seminar papers), poetry and fic- tion writing also proved to occupy the teachers' writing time, with drama receiving little, if any, attention from most of the teachers. Over half of the new teachers also indicated that they spent between 20 and 60 percent of their writing time on journals, letters, and personal meditations. In marked contrast, however, none of the teach— ers reported spending any of their time writing self-sponsored, in- formal essays--typically the kinds of writing required of students in beginning writing courses. Included in the inquiry about the new teachers' writing back- grounds were questions about their publication records. In question three of part one of the survey, 40 percent of the teachers reported 53 having published articles, stories, or poems in journals, newspapers, and newsletters. While the majority of the teachers noted having had a poem or two published in a journal or newspaper, several indicated that they had a sizeable number of publications. In fact, one teacher had three books of poetry and 240 individual poems published, while another reported having had three books, 450 poems, twelve to fifteen book reviews, two chapters in a book on poetry, and an article pub- lished. While the majority of the teachers answering this question cited poetry as the genre in which they were published, others indi- cated that they had journalism publications: articles, reviews, and editorials for school newspapers or church newsletters. Several of the teachers also reported having had published an article of literary criticism or analysis. The prospective teachers' attitudes toward their own writing- the satisfactions and frustrations they derived from writing as well as their strengths and weaknesses as writers-were examined in question nine of part one of the survey. Perhaps reflective of their involve- ment with writing was the fact that the teachers' satisfactions and frustrations, strengths and weaknesses were wide-ranging. The follow- ing list, in their own words, is representative of the satisfactions the new teachers said they derived from writing: "ordering chaos," "communicating," "having an outlet for emotional and intellectual energy," "getting it right," "manipulating and having power over lan- guage," "exploring self and ideas," "articulating thoughts, gaining insights, sharpening ideas, and turning potentially wasted ideas into a useful product that affects others," and "involving self in exciting 54 work." From their responses, the teachers appeared to be concerned with writing as a means of better understanding their thoughts and feel- ings, and with writing as a means of accurately, clearly, and power- fully communicating or speaking to an audience. The teachers also listed a wide variety of frustrations they ex- perienced in writing: "anxiety of the blank page," "doubting the quality of the work," "problems in organization, fluidity, and logic," "failure to get it right," "writing what comes across as derivative," "striving for but never reaching perfection," "loneliness and solitude ' and "fear of rejection." Their responses not only indi- of writing,‘ cated problems in the beginning stages of writing (trouble with actu— ally starting to write), but difficulties in achieving a product which met their expectations and demands. Despite all that it takes to over- come these frustrations and achieve satisfaction with the final product, it is significant to note that the satisfactions that the teachers re- ported in writing far outnumbered their frustrations; despite the prob- lems that writing presented to the teachers, they found more satisfac- tion than frustration in writing. The answers to the questions about the strengths and weaknesses the teachers perceived in their writing also indicated tremendous va- riety. Further, and just as interesting, the features some teachers considered to be their strengths were the exact features others con— sidered to be their weaknesses. For example, while some of the teach- ers said they "underwrote" (i.e. did not fully describe or support their ideas), others said they "overwrote" (i.e. were too verbose or belabored the points they were trying to make). While some of the 55 prospective teachers cited grammar and mechanics as problem areas in their writing, others indicated those as their greatest strengths. Still other teachers viewed themselves as being "creative," while others felt they were "not creative enough," describing their writing as too "derivative." While some of the teachers had no problem starting the writing process, organizing their ideas, and achieving depth and clar- ity, other teachers were troubled the most by these activities. In fact, the teachers' lists of their strengths and weaknesses as writers almost read like a compendium of the elements that can and cannot work effectively in writing, as well as a comprehensive list of the features which help and hinder writing. As such, their lists were a remarkably accurate representation of the problems students encounter in writing as well. Interestingly, too, the teachers listed as many weaknesses as they did strengths in their writing. In sum, the range and descrip- tions of their strengths and weaknesses, satisfactions and frustrations, demonstrated the prospective teachers to be a group who was aware of the demands of writing, knowledgeable about the features which comprise effective writing, and therefore, one might assume, capable of under- standing the problems their students might encounter in writing. Along with examining the new teachers' backgrounds as writers, the survey also investigated their previous teaching experience. Teaching experience is, in some fashion, "training"-—at least "on the job" training-and affects their perceptions about the teaching of writing and the theories that underlie pedagogy. A surprising 57 per- cent of the group indicated having had previous teaching experience which involved, for the most part, tutoring, substitute teaching, 56 student teaching, and full-time teaching at the primary and secondary levels. Three of the prospective college writing teachers had experi- ence teaching English as a second language (TESOL), and two of the forty-seven respondents indicated that they had taught briefly (one storm or semester) at the junior college and college levels. While writing and teaching activities contribute to the experi- ences of new college writing teachers, so do job-related activities, that is, jobs which require a significant amount of writing. In ques- tion four of part one of the survey, 32 percent of the new teachers in- dicated that they had had jobs which required a sizeable amount of writing as one of the job's principal requirements. The overwhelming majority of those jobs were primarily journalistic: reporters and columnists for college newspapers, research interns, editors for re- search documents, and copy editors. Yet another area of questions in the survey concerned the pro- ' "professional" activities and experiences: the mem- spective teachers berships they held in professional English organizations (such as the Modern Language Association or the National Council of Teachers of English), the journals they regularly read which include topics on writing theory and pedagogy, and the workshops or conferences which they have attended or in which they were participants where writing was a major topic. In question six of part one of the survey, very few of the prospective teachers indicated that they held memberships in professional organizations. Those teachers who did list memberships held them in honorary societies such as Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Tau Delta, as well as creative writing organizations such as the Associated 57 Writers Program, the Association for Poetry Therapy, and American Poets and writers (see appendix D). Thirty-six percent of the teachers re- sponding to this question indicated that they regularly read journals which specialized in writing, theory, and pedagogy. These journals, however, were rather specialized in that they dealt with creative writ- ing. Among the journals listed were writer's Digest, The writer, Poetry Northwest, and Coda (a poets and fiction writers' newsletter). Only 6 percent of the prospective teachers regularly read College English and English Journal, two publications of the National Council of Teachers of English (appendix E shows the other journals listed by the teachers). In question seven of part one of the survey, 19 percent of the prospective college writing teachers indicated that they had attended at least one workshop or conference on writing. The overwhelming majority of the workshops or conferences listed by the teachers, too, dealt with creative writing (e.g. poetry festivals, regional creative writing and literature gatherings). None of the new teachers indi- cated that they had attended conferences or workshops which were specifically directed to non-fiction prose, its theory, and teaching (see appendix F for a complete list of conferences or workshops). While part one of the survey probed the prospective teachers' educational and experiential backgrounds as writers and professionals, part two of the survey lboked at their views about the writing process and the qualities which contribute to effective non-fiction prose--in short, their attitudes toward writing theory. In question one of 58 part two of the survey, the teachers were asked to rank in order of importance the most important features of non-fiction prose writing (see table one). Seventy-five percent of the new teachers indicated that content or ideas was the eee£_important feature of non-fiction prose writing; in fact, 98 percent of the teachers placed content or ideas in one of the first three areas of importance. Conversely, 68 percent of the teachers reported that adhering to Standard English and conventional usage was the leee£_important feature of good non-fiction prose; in fact, 88 percent of the teachers placed that feature in the last three ranks of importance. Grammar and mechanical correctness also was not seen by any of the teachers as the most important feature of non-fiction prose writing; rather 64 percent of them placed that feature between fourth and seventh ranks in importance. Only 6 percent of the teachers felt that grammar and mechanical correctness was one of the first three important features of good writing. Variety of sentence structure, too, was deemed by 77 percent of the teachers as ranking between fourth and seventh positions of importance, with only 7 percent of the teachers placing it in the first three ranks of im- portance. Holding the position for the second most important feature of non-fiction prose writing, with 31 percent of the teachers' responses, was form and organization. Fifty-one percent of the teachers indi- cated that form and organization ranked between first and third places in importance to good writing, and 55 percent of the teachers felt that logic was one of the first three areas of importance. Forty-two percent of the prospective teachers ranked personal voice as being one 59 so s_ N N N N o o o duos: Focoio=o>=oo .euipmcu sooscoom o o N a N_ oN N. N_ s mo_a5oxo .mo_o_ooam .opioooo o NN as _N m_ NP m N N oozoosoom ooooocom a mi N. N_ up I, N_ o o cocooio N N N o o. IN N, am N =o_ooui=omoo .eoou _ o «P o. m s_ mm NF 3 o_mou m mN N_ ON 4_ PP s N o moioogooe .ooEEooo N, a m N a, _. oi oi N. Noupooomooa .ooio> N o o .o o o N o_ mN mooo_ .oeooooo m m n o m e m N p mocoucoaeu mo autumn ozuhmaz mmomm zomhuamuzoz mo mmm=h__ can appear LFogu ucoumtuoc: League cu mcoupc: o—aocu o» »_ ucwu.c3 ea sweats; as» .eos soc» Ao—xum ecu acoucouv x—ucmcoouwu more: case: .o:_u,c: noon we cap“ a a. gm..mcu ocoucoum ou o:_coeu< .mc_u_cz ou xgos_tn m_ :uooam .mo>_omeoeu moon—c3 on u_:oem «coeuoou .m:_u.c3 euouu anon o» canto :_ .mo_co—:aouo> Noumea. we» o>oe woua_tz Noon 0:» .xuppoot monogm omosmcau .ecmcoa scoo_—pou:. as oo comm an» m_ ppm: uu_c3 o» nu.__ao mew .eumoem coca omvuocg ecu unseen woos m_ o=_u_t: .uouo>.uos A—utoz:_ to ouc_amca ocpoa sore moeou m:_uwc3 amen och .coeeocn uo_v=uu o>oe umc.e «was 0:0 ._—o3 uu.c3 cu canto :— .¥uonoooe mc_>.ouoc ecu nevu.cx an cocoon. anon m_ o=.uwt: .uuauoca voem_:_~ on» no “cocoons. an uman my ue_u_c3 ea amouotn ugh .mcou_c: econ mo ago: we» sate mucosa muu_o> o>.uuc_um_o .coNNuatume. pesto» enacts» cocc~o_ anon m. meager: .»_=moc new on on coo »_ use .euwx acoua mtouper was: on No: so: me.coax .x».>wuua scou_pou .Apocop a m_ oc_u.cz .muchutoaou gun—aeu canoes» x—co «gonna on upaogm mc_»_c3 .uuco'vao ace o» m_oonaa mc_u.cz “man we» .»—u>_mcouxo om_>oc mcmupcz coca .mtoaoq uuoecua xppou_uoesocm concede a» m, ocpu_t3 go omoacaa New .mcoumoa sea m:_uou.e. we. uneven; an cactus. m. mc.uwc3 .uoc to Au._wao any ea.) coon oc.xoeu mauve: ou no: o_aooa guoou u.:ou so» ozmhamz om<3op mmozhHhh< op mmmzoammm .mhz