The audience for this article is primarily college professors and administrators. Musgrove runs a risk of alienating his audience in pointing out that that the educational system is largely at fault. He avoids this by proposing a draconian system of "writing tickets" to enforce good writing. What appears to be a punishment for poor writing ends up being an exhortation to college professors to do their jobs.
Musgrove moves his audience through a series of thoughts designed to stimulate positive action. He begins the article by introducing his credentials as an educator (ethos) and some proposals for a change in curriculum. He then defends the ability of students to write well, given some help and reasons to care about their writing. The author next aligns himself with his audience. He "sympathizes" with his "frustrated" colleagues and strengthens his authority by recounting his professional experience in teaching. He also lists some reasons students fail to produce good writing. Overall this contributes to a feeling of comraderie with his audience as having shared the same experiences. This eases the the condemnation in the next paragraph where he states, "Most college professors would prefer to complain about poor writing than simply refuse to accept it."
The author next proposes his scheme for writing tickets and the consequences of adopting such a system. This is where Musgrove introduces the logos of his article. He makes a number of suggestions but what is interesting is that he focuses on what professors can and should do rather than what students need to do. He maintains his connection with the audience by the liberal use of "we" and what "we" should be doing.
Musgrove ends his piece by stating that a lot of tickets would have to be written but only until students learn good writing skills. He then gives his audience permission to act by simply ending the article with, "Here's your badge."
I found this article interesting in the way Musgrove approaches his audience, empathizes with them and ultimately empowers them to take action.
While reading your analysis I found myself agreeing with a number of your points. The call to action that Musgrove indicates for educators and students alike is something that comes towards the end of this article. Musgrove does not plainly state his proposed idea right off the bat, instead he shocks the reader with his outlandish "writing tickets". As a reader I found myself be appeased through the logos he presents. As a future educator and student, I was largely in agreement with most of Musgrove's arguments. I have seen the struggle of writing and have struggled with writing. As an audience member I accepted the mask that Killingsworth talks about. Overall I agree with your interpretation of the article.
ReplyDeleteI like how you point out that while Musgrave has many ideas on how to improve students' writing, he threatens to alienate his audience by blaming the educational system. While reading this piece, I did agree with him that students do need to learn how to write better and the education system is partly at fault, but I agree with you that he should also place some blame on the students. From your analysis I wasn't sure if you agreed with his solution or not to issue "writing tickets" but I disagree with his solution because if the threat of failing the class doesn't work with helping writing skills, "writing tickets" won't either. It would have been interesting to hear what your thoughts were on what students need to do.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you broke down Musgrove's arguments in the ethos, pathos and logos approach. I would have liked if you went more in depth on Mugrove's arguments and how it affected his readers. I also would have loved to read your thoughts about the importance of writing well and if you agreed with Musgrove's arguments. I also anaylzed this essay and our analyse are very similar. Good job.
ReplyDelete