Balancing Binaries

Bruce Horner’s “Students, Authorship, and the Work of Composition” is all about removing the binaries which divide composition studies. Rather than reinforcing the binaries, such as author/student, and classroom/real world, Horner proposes a balanced approach, one that takes into consideration both sides of the spectrum.
His first concern, the duel relationship of the author/student, illustrates the conflicting nature of what teachers teach and what they expect from students’ writing. Horner advises teachers to revisit their comments on student papers and rather than critiquing their writing, focus on how they achieved or failed to satisfy the purpose of the assignment. When grading my own students’ papers, I have tried to focus on global issues rather than sentence-level grammar errors; however, with my pen in hand, it is so easy to circle everything I see. I know that if I condense and reshape my comments then my students would be more likely to benefit from them.
We can learn so much from our students’ writing, and as Ballinger would claim, our students’ writing is our best resource. Horner also believes in the relevance of student writing, and, in fact, credits student writing with much of the progress made in composition. He contends, “Much that has been accomplished in composition has come from the practice of paying close attention to student writing; indeed, composition distinguishes itself from other fields by its attention to student writing, so defined” (523). Therefore, student writing is not just something to evaluate but to reflect upon. By treating students as authors, while still realizing that they are evolving students, composition instructors can have a more balanced and productive view of their students.
Horner suggests giving the students room to breathe and not expecting the perfect paper. Sheldon tells us all the time that the assignments are intentionally challenging, and we do not expect perfection. If we set the bar high, our students will not only meet but exceed the expectations placed on them as first-year composition students.
Although I liked Horner’s balanced approach to most aspects, I had difficulty accepting his claim that a classroom should not be treated as a community. I have always thought that a communal approach to writing, reading, well, to learning in general is the most industrious stance. Through workshopping and Socratic seminars, I encourage my students to rely on their classmates for constructive feedback. At first I thought that Horner was against this ideology, but now I realize that he encourages combing the social with the classroom and the world, rather than only the classroom in isolation. Writing in classrooms in not meant to only prepare them for real life. It is real life. Our students need to understand the social aspect of writing. It is dangerous for the instructor to present the classroom as society, just as it is dangerous for society to be seen as only the outside. Writing, as a social entity, is complicated and cannot be neatly confined and defined. I understand that by broadening my students’ perspective of the community as both inside and outside the community, they will be better equipped to apply their writing practices to all rhetorical situations, instead of only those found within the composition classroom.