What Composition Theory Offers the Writing Teacher

  • Patricia M. Dyer

Abstract

Composition Theory, taken as a broad concept, has two meanings: first, all of the theories of composition from the classical view to recent process-oriented views, and second, current competing methods, techniques, and notions of composition pedagogy. In its first meaning, Composition Theory refers to the classical view (Aristotelian rhetoric), the neoclassical view (current-traditional), and more recent process-oriented views (Expressive, Tagmemic, Dramatistic, Cognitive, and Social). In its second meaning, Composition Theory, still in transition from the 1960’s, refers to an expanding set of methods of composition instruction, specific functions of student writers and their teachers, classroom practices, and the supporting positions on how learning to write takes place.

Keywords

Writing Process Rhetorical Strategy Student Writer Technical Writing Collaborative Writing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arena, L.A. (1975). Linguistics and Composition. Washington: Georgetown Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brockmann, R.J. (1984). What is a Case? In R. J. Brockmann (Ed.), The Case Method in Technical Communication: Theory and Models (pp. 1-16). Association of Teachers of Technical Writing.Google Scholar
  3. Carosso, R.B. (1986). Technical Communication. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  4. Carter, B. & Skates, C. (1988). The Rinehart Handbook for Writers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, M.M. (1986). The Ecology of Writing. College English, 48, 364–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dyer, P.M. (1983). Instructional Procedures for Implementing the Strategic Interaction Method in an Intensive English as a Second Language Program. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware, 1982). Ann Arbor: UMI. 8309893.Google Scholar
  7. Faigley, L. (1986). Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal. College English, 48, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grammatik III. Computer software. IBM, 512K, PC-DOS or MS-DOS, disk.Google Scholar
  9. Harrington, D., Keith, P., Kneupper, C, Tripp, J. & Woods, W. (1981). A critical Survey of Resources for Teaching Rhetorical Invention: A Review Essay. In G. Täte & P.J. Corbett (Eds), The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook (pp. 187–207). New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  10. Harris, E. (1979). Applications of James L. Kinneavy’s Theory of Discourse to Technical Writing. College English, 40, 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. HBJ Writer. Computer software. Harcourt Brace. IBM, 128K, PC-DOS 3.0, disk.Google Scholar
  12. Kinneavy, J.L. (1971). A Theory of Discourse. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Lannon, John M. (1985). Technical Writing. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  14. Mills, G. H. & Walter, J.A. (1986). Technical Writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  15. Mindwriter. Computer software. Fred Kemp, author.Google Scholar
  16. Nelson, Craig E. (1989, June). Cognitive Development and Teaching: Facilitating Critical Thinking and Mature Valuing Across the Curriculum. Workshop, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Reither, J.A. (1985). Writing and Knowing: Toward Redefining the Writing Process. College English, 47, 620–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (1982). Method: Approach, Design, Procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rightwriter. Computer software. IBM, 128K, PC-DOS 3.0, disk.Google Scholar
  20. Roundy, N.L. (1985). Strategies for Technical Communication. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  21. Sommers, N. & McQuade, D. (1986). Student Writers at Work. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tarvers, J. K. (1988). Teaching Writing: Theories and Practices. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.Google Scholar
  23. Tebeaux, Elizabeth. (1985). Redefining Professional Writing Courses to Meet the Communication Needs of Writers in Business and Industry. College Composition and Communication, 36, 419–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thinktank. Computer software. Living Videotext, 1985, IBM, 128K, PC-DOS or MS-DOS 3.0, disk.Google Scholar
  25. Tibbetts, C. & Tibbetts, A.M. (1988). Strategies: A Rhetoric and Reader. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.Google Scholar
  26. Volkswriter Delux Plus. Computer software. Lifetree Software, 1983, IBM, 128K, PC-DOS 3.0, disk.Google Scholar
  27. Warren, T.L. (1985). Technical Writing. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  28. Word 5.0. Computer software. IBM, 512K, PC-DOS or MD-DOS, disk.Google Scholar
  29. Wresch, W. (1985). Computer Uses in Prewriting and Invention. In S. Kleimann, E. Rice, & M. Scheltema (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Maryland Composition Conference (pp. 137–151). College Park: Univ. of Maryland.Google Scholar
  30. Writers’ Workbench. Computer software. Bell Labs, VAX.Google Scholar
  31. Young, Richard E., and Alton L. Becker. (1981). Toward a Modern Theory of Rhetoric: A Tagmemic Contribution. In G. Täte & P. J. Corbett (Eds.), The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook (pp. 129–149). New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia M. Dyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Widener UniversityChesterUSA

Personalised recommendations