• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

The Annotated Bibliography of Reviews and Criticism of James Moffett

Emig asserts in her review of Teaching, that while Moffett’s theory of “the verbal language” is not without its shortcomings, it has the ability to provide teachers with writing and teaching samples they could incorporate into their classrooms and curriculum. While she finds that “the kind of classroom where language learning happens is by definition a noisy classroom” she also acknowledges that until children are allowed to use language meaningfully on a daily basis, teaching them to write or communicate is merely moot (421). Emig recognizes the flaws in Moffett’s theory of “experience curriculum,” but also advocates that in order for students to truly learn about writing and how to write in their own voice, the classroom must be a place where students can experiment freely with language.

This short article is a memoriam recognizes the impact that James Moffett had upon his peers and the writing community in general. After his death in 1996, Moffett’s works continue to be used as teaching guides for many expressivist teacher and students throughout many writing programs. He was known among the English academic community as “one of the English profession’s leading thinkers” (12).

Upon the death of James Moffett, Gray hails his mentor as his own personal, educational visionary. He argues that Moffett was “the model of a teacher of other teachers,” that he was a classroom teacher who had the power to inspire those he taught to become classroom teachers themselves. Gray praises Moffett for asking his writers to write in different ways in order to “rework their ideas in different ways, in different forms, and different points of view” (34).

Hillocks reacts to Moffett’s Storm in the Mountains, saying that overall it is a “valuable contribution and a good read” (270). Hillocks believes there were other protestors Moffett could have interviewed for his book, specifically the better educated ones; however, Hillocks believes that as a whole, the textbooks “do not appear to ‘put over a particular philosophy’” (269).

At one point in this review of Moffett’s Teaching the Universe of Discourse, Hundley asserts that “as long as I talk to myself, I understand what Moffett is getting at” which is probably precisely the outcome Moffett desires of all of those who read and try to implement his teachings (109). In order for teachers to teach students how to write, the teachers themselves must know how to write from within themselves, Hundley argues. Although some of Teaching can at times seem a bit presumptuous to Hundley, like when a teacher is supposed to remember how he/she was taught discourse and then in turn teach it how they think their students would like to be taught, Moffett still gets his point across that discourse can be learned and taught through the teacher and the students together.

For Mayher, Storm in the Mountains, provides him with the notion that Moffett is warning teachers everywhere “of the consequences of not recognizing that to advocate a pluralistic, democratic education is to take a stand which is not universally subscribed to” (85). The censorship that surrounded Moffett’s Interaction teaching series in Kanawha, West Virginia in 1974 “reveals the dilemmas facing anyone who attempts to bring children into contact with ideas and beliefs which challenge those held in their homes” (83). Moffett waited for 10 years after the protests against Interaction before he interviewed some of the protesters and created Storm. Overall, Mayher argues that until we as an academic society can come to understand each other’s innovative ideas (such as Moffett’s) “nothing fundamental in education will change” (85).

Miller and drake concentrate on Moffett’s argument that spirituality can make anyone a better writer. They argue that two elements are missing from Moffett’s examination of spirituality in The Universal Schoolhouse: a sense of awe and wonder and imperfection. Moffett argues that spirituality is all-inclusive and even though he does not specify that awe and wonder or imperfection is encompassed within spirituality, Miller and Drake do concede that education through spirituality serves as the “divine spark” for Moffett as it does for them (241). All in all Miller and Drake are left with more questions than answers as to how Moffett intends for this spiritual theory of education to be implemented and because they both appreciate what he is getting at they hope that his next book will provide them with better insight of how to implement this spiritual theory of writing into teaching writing in the classroom.

Rouse is a huge skeptic and critic of Moffett’s all-encompassing expressivist vision. He argues that a spiritual connection to writing through meditation or any other spiritual means does nothing for writing pother than to make it ore fantastical in nature than it has been before. He mocks meditation saying that “we move young people on towards the higher consciousness and they begin to get in touch with the cosmic One” (507). He argues that teaching good, old fashioned processes and fundamental writing skills such as grammar and syntax is the best way to lay a foundation for teaching students how to write.