Hello, and welcome to my blog entry for week 5! This week's topic is very different compared to my previous entries. Our topic of focus this time: reconsidering the five-paragraph formula for writing.

​

Before considering the five-paragraph formula, which dominates most English classes today, one of the most important things to note is what an ideal academic essay even is; after all, the formula supposedly tries to provide a simple method for students to create an exceptional essay. For me, the ideal essay does not really have a defined structure. Now, that does not necessarily mean that my ideal academic essay has no organization at all; what I mean is that it does not have a concrete structure that tells you, for instance, to have exactly one topic sentence, exactly 2 sentences that provide contextual evidence, exactly 3 sentences of elaboration for each piece of evidence, etc. etc. Rather, my ideal academic essay is "free-form:" the number of sentences needed per paragraph, amount of evidence, and sequence in which certain sentences appear is arbitrary to me. What matters most is the content, and I believe the way in which the content is presented should be up to the rhetor, for the rhetor should choose how they want their work to be experienced by readers. To the most basic extent, an academic essay should essentially have an introduction, development paragraphs, and conclusion, in that order; but the specific locations where the thesis, textual evidence, and commentary appear and the number of times they appear should be left to the writer to decide. 

​

To me, the five-paragraph formula, along with the Jane Shaffer formula, are too constraining. Recalling the time in which I had to use them in high school, I remember thinking "Why do I have to add exactly two sentences of commentary for this piece of evidence? What if I want to do more? Or what if I get my point across with just one long, elaborate sentence?" At the time, it felt like I was just plugging in information to the "blanks" of the formula that supposedly builds my essay for me-- like I was only writing for the grade, since my score was contingent upon my following of the formula. It was not allowing me to develop my voice as a writer, for I was constrained to a certain number of sentences, pieces of evidence, and specific commentaries. If I did not have enough information to fill in the formula, I felt like I had no choice but to add "fluff" to my writing, or if I had "too much" I was forced to cut out things I thought were important to my train of thought. Fast forward to the time in high school where my teachers allowed me to develop my own style of writing more, which was around the start of my senior year, I broke free of this five-paragraph formula, and instead, I went "free-form." The amount of developmental paragraphs I wanted to add was left up to me. The amount of commentary I wanted to add was left up to me. Adding creative elements like rhetorical questions was now an option and left to my discretion. Most importantly, the sequence in which I wanted to present my ideas was left up to me. And this form of writing was the most helpful, for I was able to experiment with different writing styles, to figure out which way was best for me to express my voice as a writer and my train of thought. 

​

Recently, our class was introduced to the concept of the "Paraburger," which is essentially a guideline of how our paragraphs in our writing should be structured. Reflecting on this concept, I realized that my "free-form" of writing was basically the "Paraburger." Compared to the five-paragraph formula and Jane Shaffer, it gives the writer much more freedom for developing their own style of writing. For instance, instead of explicitly stating how many sentences of commentary a paragraph needs to have, the "Paraburger" does the exact opposite, solely stating that more than one sentence is necessary, but never explicitly saying how many are needed, implying that the amount of commentary is up to the rhetor, for however many sentences are needed to get their thoughts across is however many sentences that are needed.

​

Evidently, the five-paragraph formula is no longer a rhetorically effective choice for writing an academic essay at the university because it is too restraining of a formula. It defines too explicitly how a student should be writing or how a student should be structuring their work. Most importantly, it restrains the thoughts of a student, for it forces one to fit all of their ideas into a small, rigid box. It does not allow for any individual to fully develop their unique voice as a writer, and thus, does not allow for them to reach their potential as a member of the academic discourse community. If everyone were to follow the formula, no one in the discourse community would be unique. No one would stand out because all works would follow the exact same structure, with the exact same amount of evidence, with the exact same locations of theses, topic sentences, and commentary. On top of this, this formula would not appeal to any one writer, for everyone develops and expresses their thoughts in their own way. So to constrain everyone to a specific structure is to disregard the way in which their unique thoughts form. At the university level, this is the exact opposite of what is needed: as collegiate students, we are expected to contribute our unique thoughts to the discourse community, to add to the conversations of the community in our own way, with our own style. Thus, the five-paragraph formula in this case is hardly a formula for success at all, and this is why the university disregards the formula, why the university pushes more for the "Paraburger" or "free-form," for this is the only way individuals can utilize their creativity to formulate their unique voices in a way that helps them reach their true potential as thoughtful, conscientious beings.

​

On that note, I would like to end this blog entry. Thank you for clicking in! Before exiting this entry, please check out the images below, which show the "Paraburger" and an example of how it is much less constricting compared to the five-paragraph formula!

​

Until next time,

Joanne

​