The first article I read this week was The Popularity of Formulaic Writing (And Why We Need to Resist) by Mark Wiley, and to be quite honest, I do not agree with Schaffer’s formulaic writing model. I believe that formulaic writing motivates predetermined structures on students rather than allowing them to discover their own voices and develop personal insights. Wiley mentions, “Schaffer claims this format replicates what is found in high-scoring essays on district-wide tests and AP exams.” For me, this sentence is key because it clearly reveals that formulaic writing functions as training for standardized testing. It teaches students how to write an essay for one audience: teachers. And guess what? Students may simply memorize the model. When students memorize a concept or structure, they do not actually learn it.

I know this from personal experience. I may or may not have passed Geometry in community college because I memorized how to solve equations and use the Pythagorean theorem just to pass a test. Did I pass the class? Surprisingly, yes. Did I actually learn and remember how to solve those equations? Needless to say, HECK NO. I memorized rules for one semester, and then, boom, I had no clue what I had learned.

Writing, however, is different. I learned to write because I underwent a process of self-discovery, and writing became part of my everyday life. To this day, I am still learning, growing, exploring, and expanding my knowledge and practice of writing. Writing is an infinite journey without a designated route in my eyes.

What I am trying to say is that Schaffer’s model teaches students that writing is limited. Formulaic writing requires students to follow rules. I believe writing has no limits. The limit does not exist! Yes, I totally stole that line from Mean Girls, but I digress. A structure-based model should not determine whether we know “how to write.” One consequence of enforcing Schaffer’s model is that students learn to follow patterns rather than develop as writers. Sure, students may produce organized papers, but they  fail to develop a deeper connection with their ideas, ownership of their voices, and intellectual independence.

First, when students fail to develop a deep connection with their ideas, they struggle to express who they truly are. Our ideas emerge from our experiences, and our experiences often reflect what matters most to us. Following a rigid formula prevents creativity and imagination.

Second, formulaic writing discourages ownership of voice because students write to fulfill expectations rather than express authenticity and agency. To me, Schaffer’s model makes writing feel like the product of a predictable recipe rather than an expression of identity.

Third, let’s talk about the dependency that formulaic writing creates. Many students, especially high school students, arrive in college knowing only the standard five-paragraph essay because it has been taught for years. Once they get to college, they struggle because that structure is not always what professors require. Unless you have a very rigid professor, college writing is more flexible and adaptable. Intellectual dependency becomes a problem because formulaic writing encourages mechanical thinking rather than inspiring students to become independent thinkers. Without a template, many students can complete writing assignments, but don’t become writers because writers make their own decisions.

Now, let’s talk about the pedagogical method as a whole. Wiley mentions, “Teachers can simply refer to this rubric in responding to student writing, making the task of evaluation much simpler, more uniform, and less time-consuming.“

I have always said, and will continue to maintain, that teachers are not entirely at fault. Most of the time, they are following a curriculum and are expected to teach formulaic writing. Therefore, my critique is towards the educational systems and pedagogical methods rather than toward teachers themselves.

Wiley gives the impression that he sympathizes with teachers because he recognizes the difficult conditions many of them work in. Although teachers often face overcrowded classrooms and limited resources, students are primarily the ones affected by this quick-grading method. They become dependent on formulas, and that is something I don’t support because it hinders their ability to become independent thinkers.

In this quote, Wiley pretty much summarizes the idea of students handing over their intellectual independence to a formula. I see it as if students are walking a path that has already been paved for them when they should be instead, exploring discovery and creativity.

“To develop as writers, students must develop a repertoire of strategies for dealing effectively with various writing tasks presented to them in different situations. They must also learn to make choices about genre, content, structure, organization, and style; and they must learn to hone their judgments about the effects of the choices they make as writers. Consider that in Schaffer’s approach the goal of writing is to produce an essay of requisite length that contains the correct ratio of detail to commentary. In contrast, real writers must decide what they will compose based on their intentions, who will read their texts, and what effects they want their texts to have on these real and projected readers.”

Now, I want to discuss Antero Garcia’s How Remix Culture Informs Student Writing & Creativity and how I believe it connects to Wiley’s argument against formulaic writing. Wiley suggests resisting formulaic writing because it assumes the same structure can be applied regardless of context, which is unrealistic because writing situations vary drastically. While Wiley critiques Schaffer’s rigid writing model, Garcia encourages the practice of remixing.

Garcia argues that remix culture has become an essential part of how young people learn, create, and communicate. I really enjoyed this article because it made me realize that remix culture is not just in music or digital media. Remixing is something we do every day, whether through writing, communication, or any form of expression. People are constantly transforming existing texts, music, images/videos, and ideas into something new.

From my perspective, remixing is not copying. It is reinventing.  It’s reinventing something with the purpose of cultivating creativity and identity. There has to be more than just traditional texts such as formulaic writing. There has to be remixing in our culture in order for students to express their identities. One of my biggest takeaways from Remixing culture is that it’s a liberatory act because it allows students to challenge dominant narratives and reshape perspectives.