At the conclusion of my literacy narrative, I had imagined that, in the sixth grade, “I learned that whatever your argument or perspective is, the right format can allow you to express it.”
Even if this were true, students often don’t have a lot of choice regarding format. At times, the challenge is to express yourself within someone else’s chosen format. Even when the assignment is fairly open to interpretation, it can be difficult to do just that. As a student you ask not only, “What do I want to say and how can I get my point across?” but also, “How can I complete the assignment most effectively?” (That last question includes concern for achieving the best grade.)
As I was looking through old assignments to submit a writing sample to Mike, I remember thinking, “These essays would have been so much better if I had just written what I really thought.” But they had still been a good exercise in writing. Perhaps you have to know the rules before you can break the rules? Can you ever really successfully break the rules in academic writing? Maybe you can manipulate them, or work within them to serve your purpose? I could critically examine what I’d written then and contemplate what I’d write today that would still meet the requirements of the assignment. It hadn’t even been the format that had stifled me, it was just that I was overly conscious of what I thought my argument was expected to be.
I can also remember having a conference over one of those essays with the professor, in which he asked thought-provoking questions, which I deftly dodged until he firmly said, “This is what you need to do . . .” It was what I needed to do, given my approach, but the whole approach was insincere. It wasn’t really my point of view and that’s why I was having that resistance. It wasn’t a matter of cultural differences, but of personal ones. When you come up against resistance in writers, how far do you question that? (Do you assume that they just don’t understand the requirements of the assignment and what they “need to do”?)