A Rhetorical Analysis on John Pekins 

John Pekins’ article, “A Community College Professor Reflects on First-Year Composition” reflects on the issues within the English 1301 course nationwide. The Tallahassee Community College Professor discusses the decline in academic writing proficiency with students entering college courses, particularly in his first-year English Composition class. He believes changes must be made to fix the decline in interest and passion, as well as the competency levels for students taking the class to improve their writing skills, such as a course redesign. Pekins delivers an effective argument that English 1301 is in major need of reevaluation in order to help students succeed in their careers, and lives. 

Pekins structures his article by establishing the problem associated with English 1301 in his introduction and lays the foundation for his essay such as a decline in reading, students struggling with the writing process, and an unclear criteria for the course nationwide. He effectively supports his findings throughout the essay while simultaneously proposing solutions to the courses flaws. I believe he successfully maintains a coherent flow when connecting points he made in his introduction and making sure his arguments follow through to the end. 

Pekins believes in order to help students enrolled in English Composition, he must speak to the correct audience that would be responsible for making that happen. He gears his essay primarily towards English professors, as well as to first-year English Composition students because the problem with English 1301 essentially only applies to students enrolled in the class or the professors who teach the class. Pekins would want these two specific audiences to read the article because it serves as a call to action for professors to alter the course in order to help the students. It is also geared towards first year English Composition students because the article gives students an idea of what is expected of them in the course. Pekins creates a common ground by establishing his credibility as an English professor. The author utilizes third person pronouns, particularly the word “we”.  Pekins does this in order to convey the idea that the course redesign will be a team effort from professors, and students. He provides ethos, or background information about himself, by stating that he has been teaching English Composition for eighteen years. The title of his article itself, “A Community College Professor Reflects on First- Year Composition”, even lays the groundwork for his credibility for readers to engage in his article, and listen to his argument. By doing so, he makes himself a reliable source for English students to listen to, and a relatable voice of reason for fellow English professors.

Pekins sets up his intentions for writing his essay by explaining the problems associated with the course, and the students entering the course, such as a loss of passion, or pure confusion.  The author juxtaposes the standards that English professors have for their students versus what the students are actually capable of. Students struggle to meet the expectations of their English Composition course because the instructors of the class have different expectations for what the course should focus on. He even states that writing processes are so foreign to students that the essays students write suggest that the writing process is a “disturbingly unfamiliar experience”(Pekins). Since student’s writing experience is so diverse, it is hard to engage students in the class, potentially causing a lack of interest from the students. Due to a lack of student interest, it is difficult for teachers to perfect their English Composition criteria because they do not receive feedback from students. Pekins suggests that the lack of interest in writing could be a direct result of students not reading for pleasure anymore. Based off of Pekin’s research, he has concluded that “reading is not an integral part of many entering students’ communications experience” (Pekins). He argues that the decline in reading comes from the presence of technology, particularly television. Technology is what Pekins sees as a driving force in the incompetence of students when it comes to writing. Pekin’s discusses the negative effects that television has burdened the English Composition course with, such as its “addictive qualities …which often appear to contribute to a decline in more active medium of reading.” Why read when there are shows to watch? This question is what Pekins sees as the leading problem for why reading has declined, which is a direct result as to why students are at an amateur level when entering English 1301. 

Pekins stresses that the English Composition course is in dire need of a redesign in order for it to appeal to all incoming English Composition students. He establishes the class as an  “anchor course for their dreams” (Pekins) proposing that its purpose is to help students build a foundation for the writing process in order to succeed in life. Pekins appeals to his audiences emotions by showing empathy, and “heartfelt concern” for his students in English Composition (Pekins). Expressing his pure intentions for the course redesign shows that he genuinely wants to help his students succeed both in the course and in their lives. He wants students to realize why this class is so beneficial. He stresses that no matter what major a student is pursuing, English 1301 is vital because all careers have the potential to involve writing devices such as, “involving thesis, organization, development of support, etc.” (Pekins). Students go into the class without knowing what English Composition is, so he wants to change that. Pekins believes that professors should make a set list of criteria for the course so that students have a clear understanding of what is expected of them, and what they should expect from the course. He wants to make an even playing field so that all English students can learn at a steady pace. 

Pekins relies heavily on himself as a source, which can weaken his argument. If he wants to encourage professors to rally together to redesign English 1301, it would be beneficial to add more quantitative data. He provides a small amount of quantitative data in the beginning of his essay by listing the average grades of new English 1301 students. This provides an insight into just how much students struggle with the course, which strengthens his argument for the redesign. Concrete evidence such as polls, and data collected from past and present student grades would help professors understand how to help the students. However, his use of qualitative data does improve his plea greatly. He shares data collected by himself, such as anecdotes he has heard from other professors, as well as investigative work about finding English courses that integrate critical reading with writing. Since his essay is geared primarily toward English professors as a call to action, using other English professors as sources is a clever way of proving his point. It supports his argument because there is a better chance the teachers will listen if the points are coming from fellow professors who share similar beliefs.

The author proposes solutions to the English 1301 courses flaws, such as producing a nationwide assessment of the English Composition course in order to produce a set list of criteria for the course. He also suggests integrating critical reading as a staple piece of the course so that students are required to think outside the box and embrace the writing process. Pekins suggests that a complete course redesign might not be an immediate success, but will be beneficial in attempting to encourage students to want to learn about the writing process. He strengthens his argument for the positive effects of the redesign as compared to its negative qualities, by presenting a clear metaphor as to why the integration of reading would improve students’ writing. He presents the idea of what if a doctor studied the art of inhalation, without studying exhalation.These two actions clearly must go together in order for a human to survive. Pekins then goes on to explain how students attempt to write without the process of reading. He compares the art of reading to inhalation, and the art of writing to exhalation. The author confidently states that professors, “cannot ask them (students) to exhale if they do not also understand how to inhale” (Pekins). This metaphor effortlessly explains how the integration of critical reading into the English 1301 course would be incredibly beneficial to students, because the two processes complement each other. 

In his conclusion,  Pekins refutes his points by acknowledging the fact that a course redesign might result in “more vigorous, more challenging assignments and grading criteria,” (Pekins) which might result in short term problems. However, he states that the course redesign will be incredibly beneficial in the long run, because the redesign has the potential to improve students’ competency levels in writing, as well as cause a return of passion in students’ work. Pekins ends his essay with his consistent hopeful tone for the future of students’ academic success and is willing to work hard to make sure English 1301 helps them achieve their goals.