Facts, Artifacts, Counterfacts - Review

ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the basic reading and writing program at University of Pittsburgh and examines the flaws and factors of David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky’s Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts. Written over thirty years ago does it still stand as a valid go-to text for instructors of basic writers? The paper also discusses if the course can be adjusted for the 21st century classroom by examining a similar curriculum at City College of New York.

Has the Basic Writing Course Changed?

Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts by David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky presents and discusses the basic reading and writing program created by the faculty of the University of Pittsburgh in 1977. With the full support of the university, the authors and their colleagues set out to design a program that would teach young adults who were considered students “outside the mainstream [or] students who were underprepared for the textual demands of a college education” (4) not only how to write but, just as important, how to read. Their idea was to design a course, conducted like a graduate seminar that would allow the students to develop and share their own thoughts and ideas on the theme or subject for the semester. The young adults were given the topic “Growth and Change in Adolescence” (48) and the continuing adult students were given the subject of “Working” (169.) However, the latter subject and course is not addressed in detail in this book.
This six hour class took place over three non-consecutive days with fifteen students and two teachers in a fifteen week semester. After completion of the course, the students receive six credits for their efforts. There are given 24-26 writing assignments including the diagnostics test taken at the beginning of the term. One to two writing assignments are given per week. Oddly, page 49 says ten books are assigned per semester and page 89 states the number as eleven. What is clear is that four of those books are chosen by the student. The books can be of any genre except magazines, textbooks, how-to books and books from other courses. Students are given one hour a week of in-class reading for the books they have chosen but they are also encourage to read their choices outside of the classroom as well. This practice motivates the basic writer to “develop their reading skills with books they have a particular and personal interest in” (89). It is the authors’ assumption that their basic writers are not familiar with reading books for pleasure (90). Having students choose and read books for their personal enjoyment juxtaposed to having them read books for an assignment serves two purposes. First, it encourages students not to see reading as just a skill but to see it as a quiet escape that uninterrupted in-class reading can provide. Second, because class readings are discussed and guided, the skills and strategies students have learned to apply to the assigned readings can be applied to their personal readings. This can enhance their reading experience, taking it to a level they may not have experienced, making their contact with books and texts more meaningful.
Students are given nine days to read an assigned book and two days to write a paper. Journal entries are inclusive in the writing assignments and are designed to initially have students write about the experience of reading the book. As the semester progresses so does teacher expectation. The writing assignments increase in difficulty as the students are asked to re-think and re-see the text. These assignments culminate in an autobiography the students must have typed. This manuscript of student autobiographies is then treated as a text for examination and study for the remainder of the semester.
The introduction of the book states the clear purpose of the authors. They have created a course that does not separate the task of reading and writing. It was their attempt to design a course that is less about the retrieval and regurgitation of information and more about understanding what has been read and how to respond to that reading. “Ours is not a course in study skills…Our students write drafts and revisions, not exercises; they work on semester long projects, not the usual set pieces defined by discrete weekly themes” (4). This course sets out to differentiate itself as something more than just a read and response writing course. The students are actively engage in their texts, looking, revising and re-thinking their work for the duration of the semester. The students are frequently asked in their assignments to go back and re-read what they have written and offer additional commentary or insights based on additional readings and class discussions.
What is impressive about this course is the amount of thought and forethought that went into its creation. This curriculum was designed only seven years after the City College of New York began its open admissions policy so the field of basic writing was still young, but growing steadily. University of Pittsburgh’s dean, Bob Marshall’s hands on participation in the course is evidence of his strong commitment to have in place a curriculum that would help “marginalized students” (4) participate in academic discourse. The scaffolding of writing assignments, pre-discussion of texts, journaling, in-class reading and analyzing provides a rich foundation for a successful basic reading and writing course.
It bears repeating that this curriculum was taught in 1977, a time when technology was in its infancy too. Therefore one must keep in mind while reading this book that all assignments were handwritten, except in the case of the autobiography where a typist had to be secured in advance to type the student’s manuscript for publication. With technology more realized today than it was in the 70’s several questions come to mind. Can this combination reading and writing curriculum be adapted in the 21st century college? What are the flaws? What factors make this course successful and can they be duplicated today?
In 2007 the Freshman Inquiry Writing Seminar (FIQWS) was established at City College of New York (CCNY) and it bears many similarities and a few differences to the course created at the University of Pittsburgh. Both universities offer two teachers to facilitate learning however, the composition component of CCNY’s program is taught by graduate students who are often inexperienced (Gleason). The University of Pittsburgh program was taught by two full time faculty members who worked in collaboration to create the course.
The curriculum can be adapted but the class size and the student teacher ratio may be problematic in some of today’s schools. However, CCNY keeps its FIQWS class between 16-18 students and this is slightly above par with the student to teacher ratio at the University of Pittsburgh. The time commitment expected of the student is similar as well with CCNY spending an hour less time per week with students than its predecessor. The one hour in-class reading is not part of the FIQWS course.
It can be argue that University of Pittsburgh’s basic reading and writing course has been adapted to a 21st century classroom, with a few adjustments, as is evident in CCNY’s FIQWS program. Therefore, Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts can be a good foundational text for teachers in the beginning of their careers but it also can serve as a resource for teachers who are currently in-service.
Of the flaws I found in this book, one is that it does not give a fuller description of the student population. Students are introduced to the reader as minority, underprepared, marginalized (4). What does that tell us? It would have provided a more concrete picture if ages, backgrounds, and gender were disclosed as well. It, perhaps, would have given the reader a better understanding of who this program was designed for but the vague descriptions reveal nothing useful. A second flaw is that we are not told what makes the University of Pittsburgh students basic writers. How were basic writers determined in 1977? We cannot assume they are basic writers because they are marginalized, underprepared and minority students. Were they tested with a grammar skills test or did they supply a writing sample? This is unknown. Last, with adult education growing today, more information regarding their returning adult population would have been helpful. Taking notice and documenting if there were any differences in teaching these two populations would address the concerns of how and what motivates both sets of adults to learn. If the authors were to revise this for the 21st century audience these factors as well as the use of technology would have to be addressed, explored and discussed.
A key factor in this course is the singular focus on one topic which allows the student to become knowledgeable in a subject. Because the course is treated as a graduate seminar, it connects all students to each other and to one common goal. For this course that goal is the publication of the autobiography. The students have been preparing to write this autobiography since the first writing assignment. Having their work used alongside published writers is a powerful incentive and motivator. This is evident in the description of the sense of pride the students have when the students are presented with the finished manuscript (Bartholomae, 98).
Pre-discussion of the books gives momentum to learning. Students become interactive with the subject, the texts and their classmates. The faculty’s task is to help students “to plan, carry out, and evaluate their own learning” (Merriam 107) making self-directed learning an important component and motivator in this course. The faculty guides the student, gently prodding and asking so the student can discover more on his own. In focusing on one subject the student becomes “expert” not in the subject per se but in his/her own learning.
CCNY’s FIQWS program also focuses on one subject but the students have over two dozen subjects from which to choose. They range from “Slang, Metaphor and Standard English” to “Introduction to Brazilian Film and Literature.” The topics are so varied and diverse it would not be difficult for a student to find something that he or she would like to become knowledgeable in.
Another factor that makes this course successful is the focus on revising. The amount of revising may seem daunting but it is necessary to produce the quality of work that is expected. The instructors do not focus on sentence level revisions until the ninth or tenth assignment because they are convinced that students do not care about sentence structure until they care about what they are saying (97). Instead of the automatic tendency to correct sentence level errors, the teachers provided guided questions that forced the students to see their own mistakes. What is expected is for the student to evaluate what he has written, re-think, evaluate and revise according to class discussions, new insights and other readings. The revision emerges as a more cohesive and thoughtful piece of writing showing depth of thought and understanding of the topic. This is also the goal of the course.
Does time permit today’s instructors the opportunity to address a student’s sentence level errors or ask questions for further guidance? Perhaps, but where these issues can be address is in the writing centers of colleges and universities. One-on-one consultation in a writing center can address errors and revisions and give the student the much needed time to discuss his or her process. Ideally, this should be done with the teacher but it can be done successfully with a trained writing consultant. In fact, on page 191 is a sample of a paper with revision notes and it inspired me to see students paper differently. I have now begun to question the students on their mistakes instead of automatically correcting them. Having the students explain their errors allows me to understand their comprehension and then I address it. Explanation also allows the student to see their understanding of their writing process and how it should be adjusted to coincide with academic norms. There is no empowerment when a student walks away with a corrected paper and no ownership of why the corrections were made. Discussion leads to understanding and understanding, for the student, leads to seeing and thinking about their paper and differently. It empowers them, as it did with this student, to making better choices when writing.
I would recommend Facts, Artifacts, and Counterfacts primarily to teachers just beginning in the field of basic writing. Next, I would also recommend it to those working in the writing centers across college campuses. In truth, any educator could find valuable information in this book. Despite the flaws, Facts, Artifacts and Counterfacts solidify the reason to concentrate on one subject area for basic readers and writers and the need for consistent, guided revision of their assignments. These factors encourage students to become active participants in their learning. Although this book was written over 30 years ago, it is still valid in how it approaches basic writers and readers.



Works Cited

Bartholomae, David, and Anthony Petrosky. Facts, Artifacts and Counterfacts: Theory and Method for a Reading and Writing Course. Portsmouth: Boyton/Cook, 1986. Print.
"General Education Requirements." Step 2: Special Courses. City College of New York, n.d. Web. 02 May 2013. .
Gleason, Barbara. “Remedail Writing at CCNY (2).” In-class PowerPoint presentation. February 14, 2013.
Merriam, Sharan B., and Rosemary S. Caffarella. Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999. Print.
"A Word with Robbie Ramos." Telephone interview. 4 May 2013.