Doesn’t That Sound Smarter? - An Analysis of the Writing Style of a Group of Advanced First-Year Writers - Monika Shehi

Oct 15, 2026

Investigates how stylistic choices affect clarity and communication in first-year writing, with emphasis on advanced first-year (English 102 Honors) students whose grammatically correct prose nonetheless becomes wordy and vague. Uses a classroom comparison of two contrasting sentences to illustrate unexpected stylistic preferences aligned with students’ beliefs about academic writing. Reviews composition scholarship on “bullshit” in academic discourse, drawing on postmanian “crap-detection,” Frankfurt’s account of knowledge limits, and later analyses of disciplinary conventions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages25

Reading Time1 h 3 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

The Question of Motivation

Doesn’t That Sound Smarter?: An Analysis of the Writing Style of a Group of Advanced First-Year Writers Monika Shehi University of South Carolina Upstate Introduction This project was born out of my preoccupation with the stylistic choices that impede clarity and communication in my students’writing. While teaching first-year writing, I have realized that these struggles are not unique to average first-year writers but become even more pronounced among the ambitious ones. Things came to a head when I was assigned an English 102 Honors class. The course was going to be demanding and fast-paced and would require various assignments, from literary analyses to proposal arguments. However, after a more experienced colleague told me that I could expect the Honors students to be better writers, I looked forward to spending less time addressing stylistic problems. Yet, what I found was that the writing of these ambitious students presented its own challenge. While the writing they produced was grammatically correct, the style was both wordy and vague rather than concise and to the point. At first I thought the problem could be easily remedied. After reading the students’ first batch of papers, I decided to talk to them briefly about the changes they needed to make to their writing styles. At the time, I was also teaching an upper-level writing class, where I was using Joseph Williams’ Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Keeping in mind Williams’ lessons, I walked into my Honors class, wrote on Blackboard two sentences which I thought of on the spot, and asked my students which one they thought was better. I expected this simple exercise to quickly and conclusively clarify the writing style they should adopt . The two sentences were: 1. Jim and Jane should not get married because each will undermine the other’s freedom and 2. Jim and Jane should not get married due to freedom corrosion. To my considerable surprise, the students overwhelmingly chose the second sentence. It was the sentence that was more in keeping with their writing style and the one which I had intended as the wrong model. Incidentally, it was also the sentence the students in my regular English 102 class, earlier that day, had chosen as the better written one. Indeed, the main difference between the two groups was that the Honors students felt much more confident that the style of the second sentence—and the similar ones they produced—was that of academic writing. The Question of Motivation When I decided to investigate what composition scholarship says about stylistic choices, I was not a little surprised to find out that the term often used in informal language to describe the deliberate camouflage or misrepresentation of real knowledge has been, for some time now, part of the scholarship that has problematized academic discourse. In their boldly titled paper“Bullshit in Academic Writing: A Protocol Analysis of a High School Senior’s Process of Interpreting Much Ado about Nothing,” Peter Smagorinsky et al. present an impressive list of other similarly striking titles that examine what they term the “construct of bullshit”(370) . In this body of scholarship, one can delineate two camps: those who lament its disregard for truth and substance and those who appreciate its knowledge and performance of discursive and disciplinary conventions. The earliest academic usage of the term seems to have made its appearance in Neil Postman’s paper “Bullshit and the Art of Crap-Detection,” presented at the annual convention of The National Council of Teachers of English in 1969. Postman defines “crap-detection” as“[s]ensitivity to the phony uses of language,” which hides the lack of substantial knowledge. Thus, the ability to expose it requires “knowledge of how to ask questions, how to validate answers, and certainly, how to assess meanings.” According to Harry Frankfurt,“bullshit”emerges in one’s writing when “the obligations or opportunities to speak about s

FAQs

What writing problem does the author observe in first-year students?

Students’ writing, even when grammatically correct, often becomes wordy and vague rather than concise and to the point.

How does the author test stylistic expectations in the Honors class?

She presents two sentences on Blackboard and asks which one is better written, finding students overwhelmingly choose the second sentence that she intended as the wrong model.

What does the scholarship discussed in the paper suggest about “bullshit” in academic writing?

It frames “bullshit” as tied to language performance and disciplinary conventions, with differing views on whether this disregard for truth can still support learning to write academically.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Indoniesian Boy