The Challenges of
Integrating and Balancing
Speaking and Writing
in First-Year Rhetoric Classes

by Mary Trachsel & Carol Severino
University of Iowa Rhetoric Department

As the authors of this contribution, we are situated neither in an English department nor in a free-standing Composition program, but in a non-degree-granting Department of Rhetoric. Our department was born of the early 20 th-century “communication movement” that embraced the notion that oral and written delivery skills should be taught together under the umbrella of communication theory and practice, or rhetoric. For many years, Iowa’s Rhetoric Department was unique in retaining a curriculum of first-year instruction that paid coequal attention to written and oral communication while other colleges and universities nationwide separated instruction in public speaking from instruction in composition, typically assigning the first to Communication Studies departments and the second to Composition programs in English departments.

Recent years, however, have witnessed something of a return to the rhetorical priorities of the old communication movement. Many composition programs now include oral composition and delivery in their curricula (a trend reflected in the recent appearance of “effective speaking” sections in Composition texts and handbooks). Moreover, as Communication-across-the-Curriculum gathers momentum, many American colleges have begun to experiment with combining instruction in both speaking and writing across the disciplines. At this historical juncture, when Composition may find itself linked with oral communication, we want to share our observations of the practical challenges to integrating and balancing instruction in speaking and writing.

Challenge #1: “This is not a skills course!” Many Composition programs have struggled to disabuse their many publics of the notion that their primary objective is to teach the mechanical skills of Standard Written English—how to organize essays, structure paragraphs and sentences, and spell and punctuate correctly. When instructors in subsequent courses encounter students whose skills are weak in these areas, they often complain that Composition is “not doing its job!” Composition instructors typically defend themselves against such charges by claiming that their “job” is not merely to teach formal writing skills. Instead, they argue, form cannot be separated from content; the development of a compelling narrative or a convincing argument must proceed hand in hand with the skillful manipulation of mechanical skills in a meaningful rhetorical context. Programs like ours that aspire to integrate and balance speaking and writing instruction in a rhetorical framework are doubly challenged in this regard. As Deanna Dannels cautioned in a previous module, oral delivery skills, such as establishing eye contact and eliminating distracting verbal and physical mannerisms “should not be the sole purpose of speaking competence.” Dannels urges us to apply the same process approach to speaking instruction that we use in teaching writing: “Instead of focusing completely on delivery, encourage students to think about preparing for speaking events by addressing issues of audience, ethics, and enhancing credibility.” Nevertheless, Dannels acknowledges that delivery skills are “important,” just as grammar and mechanics are important elements of good writing. We cannot ignore delivery skills in speaking or in writing, but how can we find the time, in a single course or course sequence, to cover both sets of skills in addition to everything else we deem “important”?

Challenge #2. “Everything but the Kitchen Sink”: The Grab Bag Construction of Rhetoric Classes.

Closely related to the challenge of teaching more than one set of delivery skills is the challenge of teaching them in a course that has for decades been accumulating a host of other instructional responsibilities that the academy deems “essential” to higher education but cannot seem to find a place for. First-year Rhetoric programs routinely accept responsibility for teaching reading, research, critical thinking, computer literacy, media literacy, time-management, study skills, and more. Faced with this wide array of instructional responsibilities, many Rhetoric teachers find they do little more than scratch the surface, and we often feel frustrated for having taught our students a little of everything but not a lot of anything. We come face to face with the impossibility of meeting these many and varied instructional responsibilities alone; they must be infused throughout the entire curriculum, shared and reinforced by our faculty colleagues in other disciplines and courses.

Challenge #3. “What Constitutes Public Speaking?”

Our Rhetoric courses at Iowa require three major essays and three major speeches. Our faculty generally agree on what an essay is, but we are less certain about what should count as a speech. Only a solo stand-up performance? Will students really have to perform such formal speeches in their undergraduate years and in their future lives? If a student reads a script aloud in front of the room, does that qualify as a speech? If not, who are we, who read our papers at conferences, to downgrade such performances? Is a group panel in which each student speaks independently for five-seven minutes a speech? Should conducting class discussion be considered a speaking performance? These last two types of public speaking are more in line with what students will experience in their college and professional lives, but many faculty do not count them as speeches.

Integrating Speech and Writing Beyond our Courses and Across the Curriculum.

Last year our department underwent an external review that examined, among other things, the advisability of our remaining a free-standing, non-degree-granting department. Our reviewers recommended that we retain our current departmental structure but advised the University to do more to promote “the continued development of student communication competencies” in a Communication Across the Curriculum program. As we contemplate our next steps and prepare to advise the University of our students’needs, we hope to hear from others who face or have overcome challenges to integrating and balancing undergraduate speaking and writing instruction in composition or rhetoric courses, and in institutional contexts that include or are developing Communication Across the Curriculum programs.

Some beginning questions:

Should instruction in speaking be included in a composition course?  What is the rationale behind your response?

Does your institution support instruction in speaking beyond the composition course?  Are students required to use their speaking skills to give presentations in courses after composition?  If so, do you feel they are adequately prepared to give these presentations?

If your students give speeches or presentations in their writing classes, are the grades on these speeches weighted equally with the writing grades?

When you teach speaking along with writing, how do you balance higher order skills (such as argumentation and integration of sources) with lower order skills (such as maintaining a connection with the audience through sustained eye contact, or speaking from minimal notes instead of a fully prepared text)?

Do you teach students how to turn a paper into a speech or are the speech topics different from the writing topics?  If so, how do they differ?

Are the speaking performances in your courses called speeches?  Presentations? Speaking performances? Talks?  Some of the above?  What is the rationale for the labels you use?  Do you consider leading class discussion or a panel presentation to qualify as a speech?

Does a speech that is read verbatim from a script to qualify as a speech?

Is speaking as important as writing in your communication across the curriculum program?

What resources, articles, and books have you read that have helped you incorporate speaking into your composition courses?

Resources

Teaching Composition