pp. 43-53

As a class, we are able to recognize the importance of classical rhetoric. Our current writing process is derived from that of classical rhetoric; therefore, we must study the past in order to be good teachers in the future. As Williams states, "anyone who would be serious about composition needs to go back to the roods and study the classics, particularly Aristotle, and it provides a historical and theoretical rationale for viewing composition as part of a rhetorical tradition 2,500 years old" (Williams, 52).

Do you agree with Williams in that respect? In other words, do you think that an individual must have a solid understanding of classical rhetoric in order to thrive in the field of composition?

I agree, mostly, with what Williams is saying. I am firm believer in the idea that, in order to understand where you're going and how to get there, you need to reflect upon what has been in the past. By studying the history of rhetoric, writers can better understand how current composition and classical rhetoric are intertwined.

Another interesting aspect of this text can be found on page 43. Williams states, There is no evidence... that years of contact with literature develops critical thinking." Do you feel that critical thinking should be a teaching requirement? Or, do you agree with Williams' belief that the study of literature is not efficacious in developing critical-thinking skills?

Foundations of Rhetoric

I had a very hard time getting through Chapter 1. Not only have I taken countless classes that reflect on the foundations of rhetoric, but the author did not present it in an interesting way. I did not gain any additional insight when reading the chapter and I was left wondering what I could take away from the reading that related to the Teaching Writing course, as a whole.
Within the reading, I reflected on a couple of things. First, Isocrates proposed that three necessary factors make a good rhetorician: talent, instruction, and practice. Of these three, Isocrates felt that talent was the most important. I am interested in seeing if you, my classmates,think talent is the most significant.
Personally, I don't agree with Isocrates' belief. In fact, I think that talent may be the least essential characteristic. Rather, I think that instruction is very important. In order to improve the process and the performance, an individual must know what is expected of them and what they need to do in order to be successful. Following proper insruction, potential rhetoricians must practice, practice, practice! This idea applies to a wide variety of things. In order to excel at something, individuals must go above and beyond what is expected of them. And, lastly, talent is also something to consider. This factor is not something that can be taught. Instead, it is an innate ability.
Next, I wanted to reflect on our society, giving inadequate attention to composition in classrooms. As the author of the text noted, conditions within schools have become worse, in regard to writing classes. Colleges and society blame the public schools and, unfortunately, "most new teachers appear to abandon nearly everythin they learned about writing pedagogy after 2 years or less of full-time teaching" (Williams, 41). This is alarming and really enabled me to understand the desperate need for proper writing instruction across our country. Teachers must show children exactly why composition is so important. It is one of the most practical skills an individual can have and we must educate that to our nation's youth.