Should We Teach the Five-Paragraph Essay?
Headline: As Children's Freedom Has Declined, So Has Their Creativity. Biggest decline? Creative elaboration--expanding on ideas in novel and creative ways. Have we done this to children, with "eminently gradable" assignments? Josh Boldt, who teaches writing at the University of Georgia in Athens, shares his thoughts:
College writing teachers hate the five-paragraph essay. According to Writing Analytically, the writing guide used by my first year composition department, a faculty survey conducted prior to publication indicated a consensus among college writing professors that "students are coming [to college] prepared to do five-paragraph themes and arguments but [are] radically unprepared in thinking analytically."
The writing guide takes a sharp stance against the five-paragraph essay, claiming that its "rigid, arbitrary, and mechanical organizational scheme values structure over just about everything else, especially in-depth thinking" (7). The text completely dismisses the form, arguing that any value it holds as a helpful learning strategy is negated by its damaging long-term effects on creative thought. The writers, David Rosenwasser and Jill Stephens, argue that the format "handicaps" young writers by teaching them a method that "runs counter to virtually all of the values and attitudes that they need in order to grow as writers and thinkers--such as respect for complexity, tolerance of
uncertainty, and the willingness to test and complicate rather than just assert ideas" (8). Of all the writing handbooks I've
College writing teachers hate the five-paragraph essay. According to Writing Analytically, the writing guide used by my first year composition department, a faculty survey conducted prior to publication indicated a consensus among college writing professors that "students are coming [to college] prepared to do five-paragraph themes and arguments but [are] radically unprepared in thinking analytically."
The writing guide takes a sharp stance against the five-paragraph essay, claiming that its "rigid, arbitrary, and mechanical organizational scheme values structure over just about everything else, especially in-depth thinking" (7). The text completely dismisses the form, arguing that any value it holds as a helpful learning strategy is negated by its damaging long-term effects on creative thought. The writers, David Rosenwasser and Jill Stephens, argue that the format "handicaps" young writers by teaching them a method that "runs counter to virtually all of the values and attitudes that they need in order to grow as writers and thinkers--such as respect for complexity, tolerance of
uncertainty, and the willingness to test and complicate rather than just assert ideas" (8). Of all the writing handbooks I've 
