by Michael Hall

There are very few classes that are as boring and as uninspiring as high school English.  Students dread having to sit through another hour of a monotonous class where nothing substantial is ever accomplished.  Ideas go unheard and questions left unanswered.  This is an unfortunate, but completely justifiable, view held almost universally by students of English.  The fault, however, lies not with the students, but with us as educators.  We have failed to recognize and correct this troubling problem.  But there is an answer.  We need to shift our idea of the classroom environment from one that is based on teacher instruction to one that is student-based.  In this new environment, we need to promote a sense of creative freedom among the students, but at the same time we need look out for obstacles that may prevent us from reaching our goals.  The only question now is if we are ready to change our philosophy to get there.  A student-centered learning environment that promotes creative freedom is conducive to enhancing necessary skills that will facilitate the student in future endeavors; however, certain restrictions on this freedom should be put in place to prevent interference with the acquisition of those skills and the implementation of effective communication.

Before we look at the problem, we need to go over some of the shared goals of what we expect English class to accomplish.  First of all, English class should provide students with an opportunity to learn about, appreciate, and experience other cultures and eras.  True, history class also deals in this area, but it deals primarily with facts.  Through literature, students are able to experience that culture, or era, through the author’s eyes.  Secondly, students should leave English classes having developed and improved their analytical, argumentative, and logical thinking skills.  And thirdly, English class should show students how to take their own thoughts and ideas, and communicate them effectively to others through writing.  Now for the problem—this is not happening!  We are not meeting our goals.  Students are leaving high school under-prepared and lacking those necessary skills that are instrumental for success in today’s society.  So now that we know the problem, let’s examine why that problem exists.

To understand the problem, we need to take a look at the present state of the high school English classroom.  Traditionally, the focus in English class has been on the teacher, not on the student.  In terms of literary analysis, students become a captive audience for an instructor giving his interpretation of a particular work, with an instructor rarely, if ever, asking input from a student.  Instead of challenging students with thought-provoking writing assignments, teachers assign papers which hardly ever ask students to go beyond the most basic comprehensive summary.  Also, English teachers appear to be more concerned with teaching students the rules of grammar, and seem less interested in showing students how to communicate effectively.  These and other factors combined create a very boring atmosphere for students and teachers alike.  So, is there a way to meet all of our goals and prevent our classrooms from becoming intellectual wastelands?  Yes.  The answer is to shift ideologies from a class that is focused on the teacher to a student-centered classroom.

A student-centered classroom that promotes creative freedom can provide the means to achieve our goals.  “We need an atmosphere of free thought where all ideas are invited to compete; we need talk-rich, interactive classrooms where students are invited actively to make their own meanings, form their own hypotheses, and test them autonomously and in open discussion” (Elbow 32).  Literature is supposed to stimulate discussion and bring up controversial issues for students, not the teacher, to explore.  No longer should the teacher act as a knowledge bank, but instead the class itself should become the bank with the teacher guiding the way.  Students, both individually and collectively, would then become responsible for their own ideas, and as a result, find their own meanings within a text through shared self-reflective interpretations.  And because of this, students will be able to connect with literature through their own experiences.  Finally they will begin to take an active role in their own learning instead of just passively absorbing, or forgetting, the material.  Johannessen may have said it best: “Real learning happens only when students become actively involved and can internalize knowledge or understanding by arriving at the realization themselves” (29).  This is the model that we as educators should follow if we want to provide the best learning environment for our students.  But where do we stop with this revolutionary idea?  What are the limits to this creative freedom?  Well, we must remember that the initial reason for the change was to try to reach our shared goals.  If a new method arises that interferes with attaining those goals, then it should be avoided and an alternative method should be found.  One of these obstacles is the rise of imaginative writing.

Some experts in the profession feel that English departments need to give more attention to teaching imaginative writing to their students.  Elbow asks: “How can a discipline so rooted in the study of imaginative literature privilege expository and critical writing over narrative and imaginative writing?” (189)  It is true that this type of writing, while used somewhat in the lower grades, is largely ignored by those in secondary education.  So why are high school English departments not focusing on enhancing their students’ imaginations?  Well, Elbow gives some possible reasons for this practice.  For example, he believes it is possible that instructors may either feel that imaginative writing is reserved for the gifted among us, or that a concentration on such writing requires little critical thought, and therefore is an insufficient method in teaching writing (Elbow 190).  These reasons, along with the others he mentions, are interesting and I would not doubt that there are teachers who fit into one of these categories.  But there is one option that I believe Elbow failed to consider—the pragmatic superiority of academic writing.

Imaginative writing is equally as important as academic writing within the field of English Studies, but academic writing is pragmatically superior in the real world.  As educators, our primary task is to prepare students for life outside of high school, and unfortunately we are given precious little time to do so.  Because of this, activities should be chosen based on the overall benefit to the student.  We have to remember that the majority of students attending English classes will not be authoring literary works, but will be entering college or corporate America at the peak of the information age.  Although imaginative writing is undoubtedly enriching, few practical skills can be gained from it.  Elbow states in defense of the writing method: “It is nonanalytic, nondiscursive, nonlogical, but it is thinking or cognitive nevertheless” (191).  True, but the characteristics that are absent from this mode of writing are the very skills so sought after in the universities and in the job market.  There is a growing need for students with strong analytical, argumentative, and logical skills.  But, there is a mode of writing that enhances these desired skills while at the same time allowing, to a certain degree, the unique imagination of the author—academic writing.  However, we need to be wary of taking creative freedom too far within academic writing, and abandoning the structure that is instrumental to effective communication.

Although creative freedom can benefit a student’s academic writing, too much freedom can have a disastrous effect on the communication process.  Basically, some structural rules are required for effective communication of ideas.  A rule is faulty only if it prevents reasonable creativity or interferes with the communication process.  A perfect example of this idea can be found in a statement by Peter Elbow: “There is no shortage of writing teachers who…want every essay to have the same five-paragraph or ‘funnel’ structure or every paragraph to start with a ‘topic sentence’” (132-33).  I both agree and disagree with that statement.  First of all, I agree with Elbow that the five-paragraph rule is faulty because it limits the student’s creative freedom to expand their thoughts outside the boundaries of the essay.  It also may interfere with the communication process as there is insufficient space to explain all the necessary material.  On the other hand, I disagree with his view towards paragraph structure in regards to topic sentences.  This is because the absence of a topic sentence can interfere with effectively transmitting information, which is the primary purpose of writing.  Also, the presence of a topic sentence does not restrict a reasonable amount of creativity.  Elbow seems to think that creativity cannot flourish within the confines of structure, when indeed it can thrive.  In fact, creativity is a must for academic writing.  You need to be able think of new ways to explain your ideas and organize your information in the most effective way to get your argument across.  And each time is unique.  However, communication can suffer if creativity is left unrestricted.  Remember, the purpose of communication is not merely to produce thoughts, but to transmit thoughts in a manner in which others can comprehend.  Too much creative freedom in this area can have a disastrous effect on the communication process.  So what can be done to foster creativity in the new student-centered environment while maintaining the pragmatic tradition of academic writing instruction?

The English teacher must alter any preconceived notion about the rigidity of academic writing, and instead, encourage students to be creative, but structured and communicatively accessible, in their approach to successfully developing and transmitting their own ideas.  Writers are people; and just like people, no two are alike.  Educators need to realize this.  Instructors all too often expect every student to submit the traditional formulaic essay for each assignment.  Not only do these policies inhibit the individual expression of each student, but also blindly ignores the multiplicity of routes available to reach any conclusion.  Therefore, educators need to be more willing to shed any traditionally held values about academic writing.  Teachers need to remove the blinders from their students’ eyes, and show them the much wider and stimulating perspective available to the artistic writer.  Students must be free, and encouraged, to discover their own unique method to communicate an idea.  However, students should be reminded that while they may choose their own creative avenue to reach their destined point, they must follow the same rules that govern every route.  This emphasis on controlled creativity allows students to tap that innate and aesthetic essence in each of them, while maintaining a universally known platform for effectively communicating an idea.

Overall, we have seen the advantages of creative freedom in forming a student-based classroom environment, and also the dangers that too much creative freedom can bring.  We need to take a look at the goals we expect English class to accomplish and find a way to attain those goals.  This classroom philosophy is a step in the right direction.  However, we need to keep an eye out for methods that could inhibit us from reaching our goals.  Imaginative writing is an example of one of these methods.  Although undoubtedly important within the field, it is not the best choice for what we want to accomplish in high school.  And we should also be weary of getting carried away with creative freedom, specifically in terms of abandoning structure that could have a detrimental effect on communication.  So, a student-centered learning environment that promotes creative freedom is conducive to enhancing necessary skills that will facilitate the student in future endeavors; however, certain restrictions on this freedom should be put in place to prevent interference with the acquisition of those skills and the implementation of effective communication.

Elbow, Peter. What is English? New York: MLA, 1990.
Johannessen, Larry R. “An Interactive Literature-Writing Class”. What is English? Ed. Peter Elbow. New York: MLA, 1990. 28-30.