Katie Denton

English 540

Project Proposal, Part I

1. I am interested in doing a comparative study of nineteenth century textbooks to glean from them how a rhetorical education was approached in the classroom. I think that Connors’ work on textbooks offers an interesting and valuable large-scale overview of textbooks from the nineteenth century forward. I want to take two or three of the textbooks and take a more detailed look at the contents of these texts. How is rhetoric presented to students? What is the balance and interplay between the spoken word and the written word? How much sway does rhetorical theory hold in these textbooks? What activities are suggested as helpful exercises for students to perform?

I think this study is of value because in order to understand where we are in terms of teaching composition/rhetoric, it’s helpful to know our historical roots. Today there are many textbooks for the composition classroom, and theory, approach, the role of rhetoric, and suggested exercises vary widely. I think we tend to think this is a fairly new phenomenon, the result of a burgeoning interest in composition theory and instruction. I want to see if rhetoric/composition instruction was fairly uniform, or if the variety that exists today is echoed in nineteenth century textbooks. As I begin to look at these textbooks, I imagine the scope of this project would grow quite a bit, as findings and trends or differences would lead to ideas for further exploration.

2. For the purposes of this semester, I would limit my project to two or three nineteenth century textbooks. I would identify a few key elements to focus on, such as:

· Role of rhetoric

· Whether theory is present

· What rhetoricians are cited?

· What is the balance between writing and speaking?

· What activities are students asked to do?

3. I am not quite sure about the primary texts yet, because I am struggling with the split between “traditional rhetoric” and composition that seems to have taken place in the latter half of the nineteenth century in regards to formal education. This did not even come to mind until I read Connors this week, so I have to give this some more thought. I do know I will be choosing two or three textbooks, maybe from among the many textbooks that Connors discusses.

4. Connors is certainly a helpful starting point. Chuck Paine’s Resistant Writer comes to mind, since he discusses some of the textbook authors Connors draws upon.

Here are some from the Bedford Bibliography:

Applebee, Arthur N. Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of English: A History. Urbana, Ill.: NCTE, 1974.

Berlin, James A. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900–1985. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1987.

Berlin, James A. Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1984.**

Clark, Gregory, and S. Michael Halloran, eds. Oratorical Culture in Nineteenth-Century America: Transformations in the Theory and Practice of Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1993.

Connors, Robert J. Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 1997.

Rudolph, Frederick. Curriculum: A History of the American Undergraduate Course of Study since 1636. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.

Russell, David R. Writing in the Academic Disciplines, 1870–1990: A Curricular History. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1991.

Wozniak, John Michael. English Composition in Eastern Colleges, 1850–1940. Washington, D.C.: Univ. Press of America, 1978.

5. I would have one student track down the three textbooks I choose. While we were gathering these resources, I would have each student read a secondary source or two to find out what other scholars are saying about nineteenth century rhetorical education in general, and textbooks specifically. When we received our primary materials, I would assign one textbook per student, providing them with the rubric of questions I created in response B above. Then I would synthesize this information.

6. I could definitely create a focused, modified set of questions to apply to my examination of textbooks, and choose two or three textbooks to explore. Exploring those textbooks closely and answering my proposed questions may take three weeks or so—I’m not sure. Time planning is not my strong suit. I would probably have to scale back on secondary source work; this would mean an incomplete picture of what others say about nineteenth century textbooks, but would allow me more time to explore for myself. Or maybe it should be the other way around? It just seems more interesting to do the primary work as a starting point…