Quintilian advises a progressive introduction into the art of eloquence, beginning with grammar, which students should largely have mastered upon arriving at instruction in rhetoric. Once students are able to manage the language without significant or embarrassing error, he recommends that they write narrations (stories about things that have actually happened). Once they’re skilled at narrations, he recommends that they learn to write encomia (essays praising and blaming people or things). Having mastered encomia, they can move on to declaiming (arguing) on both sides of an issue. The progression of assignments listed here follows a common principle in language-arts instruction: start with basic and manageable skills, working up towards the more complex and mature subjects, the more difficult tasks. Is this a valid supposition? Should students learn to crawl before they walk? If not, why not? If so, does narration really constitute crawling? Why is disputation on both sides of an issue especially difficult while praising and blaming is easy? Would it feel boring and pointless to narrate events and praise people ? If so, would these school-room exercises be empty of the passion and interest that motivate invested writing?
If we consider argument a higher-level version of narration, then the suggestion that narration ought to be learned first is appropriate. However, I believe that argument is an entirely separate skill, and that it should be taught from an early age, in conjugation with whatever other writing skills the student is learning. This is the same with narration and creative writing: biographers and writers of novels have distinct skills, and one cannot argue that one is more difficult or advanced than the other.
I think Quintilian is right to advocate his progressive introduction method. Students should indeed learn to crawl before they walk. And I would also assent to the fact that narration is crawling. There is no easier form of writing. This is why we did book reports in sixth grade but perform arguments now. Praising and blaming is easier than arguing both sides because the framework for the argument is already set up in encomia. It’s like arguing with training wheels. Looking back it was boring and pointless to narrate events or to praise people, but so is riding a tricycle relative to riding a bike. Moreover we don’t really know what it’s like to ride a bike if we are still learning the art of the tricycle. Perhaps these “school-room” exercises would be empty of the passion and interest that motivate invested writing, but that is of little consequence given the ultimate goal in my opinion. I don’t feel that it’s necessary that school-room exercises be full of the passion and interest that motivate invested writing in order to learn the skills necessary to eventually be able to write with passion and interest.
While I agree with the class's opinion about a progressive system for education, I'm a little surprised at what Quintillian thinks is easy and difficult. From reading the passage, I don't think I would be able to match up to his model student. When they practice common places where they discuss certain vices and try to renounce them or the sinner, they usually add an interesting twist like trying to defame or defend a "blind adulterer or a poor gambler." I certainly don't think this is a lower level thinking task because it requires you to find creative ways to defend an individual or blame them. On the other hand, I agree that narration is an easy task like Heath said because it is easy basic descriptive writing. I believe that narration is so easy that sometimes people never really progress past it. I remember in my senior year of my AP English class, my teacher was so frustrated that so many students were still summarizing the story without providing their own analysis. So my question is, how do modern teachers help their students' writing move from basic narration to solid analysis?
Beginning with the bottom step of the ladder and moving to each subsequent one by one seems great for students who know they want to be writers. Writing narations is a good starting point because it will often consist in simply retelling a known description - The mechanics will be used in every activity, so by focusing them first students won't get bogged down in trying to juggle learning them with learning how to argue.
I can see this method being boring in a classroom setting though. Students who don't care to be great writers might not become as interested as they otherwise would have and the students who are ahead in the game might lose interest or burn out while waiting for enough students to catch up so that the class can move on.
With any skill, as long as we're not waiting around for others, we do make the fastest progress by following the method of first mastering the requisite aspects for the more difficult stuff that we really want to do
I agree with what Heath is saying about the progression - as long as everyone is moving at a pace which keeps them interested but not frantic, this works well. However, in response to Kelli's concerns that the narrative is just as hard an art form to master as rhetoric, I agree - but writing a novel is different than writing short descriptive prose. I can write short descriptive prose, but I can't even produce a decent short story (I get bogged down in detail).
I feel like one of the most important things in order to teach people to write well is to encourage writing as creatively as possible in that first stage. Perhaps I say this because I've had this exact experience - up until the 5th grade, all I'd ever learned was TAAS writing, which was awful. Then, in 5th and 6th grade, I had a teacher who told us TAAS writing was terrible, and that we should write creatively and try to produce writing we were proud of. I don't really write this way anymore, obviously, as I'm majoring in rhetoric and not creative writing. However, I do think that teacher was crucial in my learning that writing didn't have to go just one way, and that it is something that can, and indeed should, be highly personalized (especially as regards style).
I think the rubrics and layouts given in the first stages are far more hurtful than they are helpful, making beginner writers think that at its essence writing is naught but formulas. There are rules, certainly, but never one exact way that everything should be laid out, put together, argued, etc. and if you bore beginners at the outset, make them feel like writing will never be their own endeavor, they're wont to inch away from writing altogether.
Essentially, I agree with Quintillian's steps in writing, with the qualification that those steps not be stifling, TAAS-like situations in which students are taught to write like the essay equivalent of a random shakespeare insult generator.
That's probably a terrible simile, but you get the idea.
I think most of the people in this discussion would agree that a progression of difficulty in subject matter is ideal for education in rhetoric because that is what we know. We all began with a simple foundation on which our understanding of more difficult concepts could rely (although I would be interested to know the outcome if students were given difficult tasks from the beginning and improved in peformance-I'm not sure how the results would differ) . As far as the ladder of difficulty according to Quintilian, I think it is appropriate to work towards arguing from both sides. However, I would not agree that narration, in all cases, is crawling. In narrating a series of events, is it not possible to use more than one perspective (and use the same skills required to argue from multiple perspectives) and offer insight? Students of rhetoric, however, would probably not view narration in this way because they do not wish to be narrators, and would consider the telling of a series of events boring and basic.
Overall, I agree with most of the points made by JNiznick. I think the supposition that students should "crawl before they walk" is completely valid, and it is in fact the one employed by the current school system (and, I believe, most school systems): students learn to read before they can write, write before they can produce formulaic essays, and produce formulaic essays before they produce research papers. I would also agree that narration is, in fact, one of the "crawling" stages, since it requires the least amount of analytical/technical skill to produce. On the other hand, well-done narrative and praise/blame speeches can still hold their own level of interest, especially as a rhetorical exercise in a classroom; I don't feel as though these exercises would be devoid of passion. A student can produce a speech about an event or person towards which they have strong feelings which will still engage the audience, even though the student is still "crawling."
However, in reading the selection, I was struck most by Quintilian's outline of the ideal teacher for a student of rhetoric. As someone who wants to become an educator myself, it's often interesting to see what other people (and different ages) have to say on the subject of "what makes a good teacher." Quintilian's requirements, while definitely necessary to train a child in the kind of oratory he desires to create, seem restrictively harsh and demanding. Looking at Quintilian's list reminded me of the ad placed in Mary Poppins, which only the "perfect" person was able to fulfill. Overall, I was left wondering how many educators truly fit the bill, both in his time and in ours. In fact, I noticed that many of Quintilian's guidelines would have no place in education in modern society.
The progression laid out by Quintillian seems the logical choice for teaching and learning the skills necessary for speaking and writing persuasively. It's a common step by step process that history has proven to be at least semi-successful in grooming students to take on tougher tasks. While not based around rhetoric or writing, a basic and easy to see system of progression can be seen in mathematics. Students must as least possess a basic understanding of addition and subtraction before they can tackle advanced functions such as multiplication and division. As such, the harder disciplines are built upon mastery of the lower ones.
Praise and blame do not rely on any appreciation for the other side of an argument. It is simply the emotions of student being directly funneled toward a target, whatever it may be. Debate requires a basic understanding of the views of your opponent. That understanding allows the orator to find the holes and weaknesses in a given argument. The ability to look objectively at a scenario and not allow your own opinions to effect judgement are skills that are found principally through experience.
Perhaps most important is the selection of a proper tutor to instill these values into young students. Regardless of style of instruction, whether by step by step ladder or jumping into advanced techniques directly, the student would be lost without the proper guidance of a trained mentor.
I've never really questioned the progression of educating a writer; mainly because I think it is an innate ability. The pedagogy is what it is because it must be effective in transforming those lacking the natural talent into acceptable writers. If it didn't, changes would have been made somewhere, especially in a "market" society (for you, Rudy G.; you exploitative, corrupt, soulless old goat). I agree with Niznick that the progression seems logical. I think it might be a good idea to assign a declaiming exercise to the class while there is still narrative being taught, and if any student demonstrates the ability to complete it, let him or her leave encomium behind and focus immediately on the more difficult stuff. As a means of culling, though, the progression is effective. It obviously makes sense to start out on the easier tasks, and then continue from what you've been able to build so far.
In its basic form, the ladder of difficulty here makes sense. You start by writing stories or about history that you already know. This gives the child practice with writing for writing's sake. Then you move up to making an argument, either for or against something. The child has written a story, now he can say "this is a good story because." Finally you work your way up to arguing either side of the situation, which calls for a more abstracted or distanced view from the work so that you can look at it from a perspective that isn't your own. This could certainly be considered more mature, as a child may feel strongly in one direction, and therefore have more trouble becoming distanced from that opinion.
Now, is it effective? From a general standpoint, I would say yes (especially considering that he wanted students beginning their learning at such young ages). You could construct guidelines for students of varying ages that fit this ladder that would teach the children and also be interesting, provide for a good classroom experience. Younger children can have fun practicing basic writing procedure, and as they grow older and more experienced the teacher may supplement that with increasingly difficult argumentation techniques.
Is there some more effective method? I'm sure, but Quintillian has put together a decent way of teaching kids their basic rhetoric.
I agree that the ladder makes sense both in terms of the development of thought and writing skills. You need to be able to describe something before you can make a judgment on it. Though I do think that it would eliminate the "passion" in writing for most students, it would nevertheless effectively teach them skills. And as Chris brought up, it might not be that bad for young children who might have fun describing a room. In fact, it wasn't so bad - I remember doing this.
I think Quintillian has put together an effective method. His method aligns with other theorists concerning the cognitive development of children. In children's literature we learned about about Piaget, who says the development starts with children recognizing the world around them, then being able to sense differences in what they see and compare/contrast. In the advanced stage, they are finally able to analyze and come up with their own persepectives.
This form of teaching reminds me of learning a foreign language. With a foreign language, it is typical for a student to learn how to read and write the language before they can adequately speak it. Whereas, for your native tongue you learn how to speak it before you learn how to write it. Which one is better? I have a unique perspective because I learned how to speak and understand French before I learned how to read and write it. I think that for me this style proved to be more difficult to learn the grammar. And the same is true for English. While I do think that it's necessary to understand the grammar of a language, I think that by learning the language first without knowing what you mean when you say "their" instead of "they're" it can lead to lack of motivation when it comes time actually learn the rules.