A Survey of Students

In a recent survey I conducted, I asked some first-year writing students how they felt about competition in their classes. Many said that the competition they noticed in their classes was instigated mostly by other students. The teachers had little to do with aiding or beginning competitive activities. Many of these students felt that they were about average or above average in comparison with their classmates, although a few of them would not admit that they compared themselves to other students. Of the 49 students surveyed, 36 of them said that they do compare their writing and/or grades with other students. Only 12 said they did not compare either. Of the 12 who did not compare, one student said, "I believe the real competition is myself. If I had the same classes and teachers as my classmates, then I probably would." Several students commented on how their other classes (like science or math) were highly competitive, but their writing classes were not. Perhaps this is because writing is considered a very subjective skill to evaluate. If a student in a math class receives an A or an F, the student can generally feel good about knowing that they did not receive the A or the F because the teacher likes or dislikes them. In writing classes, students often have trouble identifying the process which leads up to the final grade.
Part of the problem here is that students do not understand the process by which writing is evaluated. In his book Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition, Lester Faigley points out a few of these problems. If we ask our students to write about themselves, which is the nature of the ENG 103 course at Clemson, we must remember that their writing will reflect their personal history and experience. Yet, as Faigley points out, "Joseph Harris says the problem with defining good writing as honest writing 'is that it reduces writing to a simple test of integrity'" (127). Later, Faigley says, "The freedom students are given in some classes to choose and adapt autobiographical assignments hides the fact that these same students will be judged by the teachers' unstated assumptions about subjectivity and that every act of writing they perform occurs within complex relations of power" (128). My issue with Faigley's point is what he points out about Harris. There is a problem with the way in which we define "good writing." The problem for the students is that it must be defined by every individual teacher. How can students be expected to know how they compare or to successfully compete with each other when the evaluation of their writing seems so subjective according to whichever teacher for whom they may be writing. Alas, there is no way to completely set a standard for "good writing" because all writing should be some sort of expression. With that said, we move on, accepting the notion that the standard is not applicable, to discuss ways in which we can still help our students to improve themselves as writers and as students in general.
Of the students participating in the survey who said they do compare themselves, 28 said that they do not notice their teachers fostering competitive activity in class. Only 8 said that their teachers were aiding classroom competition. One student said, "Some teachers reward the top students... Usually [this kind of competition fostered by teachers] helps because I want to be rewarded by those teachers." Of the 8 who said that they do see teachers encouraging competition, 7 said that this kind of competition helps them get better grades. One student said that competition "helped in motivating students to do better than normal in class." I believe that this is the most important aspect of classroom competition. If our goal is to get good results from our students and the ones who are participating in teacher-fostered competition are all saying that it helps their grades, why would we not look into this kind of pedagogy?
In many other groups in society, competition is used for team-building and motivation. In virtually any kind of sales-based business, the salesmen/women will have competitions amongst themselves to see who can get the best results. In one of the offices in which I worked, the winner of the annual sales contest won a week-long trip to Rio de Janeiro. In the food service industry, managers will often encourage servers with sales contests in which the server who sells the most wine or appetizers will be rewarded with less work at the end of the night, a bottle of wine, a free meal at the restaurant, etc. This kind of motivation not only helps the company by selling more product, it also creates a common goal for the servers, bonding them together. Sports are also a huge part of our society. Competition in the sports arena is obvious. Anytime we can bring people together for a common goal, the result will be better. In team sports, players must depend on one another to improve individual performance. This kind of team-building can be used in writing courses to help students as well. Group workshops allow students to compare their writing. This kind of comparison helps students because comparison with a stronger writer enables the students to recognize the weaknesses in their own writing. It also allows them to see the strengths they possess that other writers may not have. Workshopping may not seem to the students like competition, but it is a great tool for motivating them.
One student who participated in the survey said that while she did not notice any competition fostered by teachers in her classes, she said that the competition she has noticed fostered by students "generally helps [her] progress." Every student is inevitably different from every other student, but if the overwhelming majority of students who notice competition being fostered by teachers in their classes are saying that it helps them become better students, why are teachers so afraid to utilize this kind of strategy?

Works Cited

Faigley, Lester. Fragments of Rationality: Ideologies of the Self in Writing Evaluation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992. 111-131.