As related by Kristopher Blais, in Chapter 22 (pp.147-151) of Leaders and Influences in Composition Theory and Practice (2007), (Smith, Smith, and Wright, Eds.), Hesse earned a BA (Hons.) in English at the University of Iowa in 1978. Subsequently he gained an MA and PhD in English at the same university (in 1980 and 1986 respectively). He also graduated in 1978 from a University of Vienna German summer course called Zeugnis. His involvement in composition studies commenced at the University of Iowa, where he was involved with Carl Klaus in a writing class that involved composition as well as creative writing, rhetoric and literary studies. He began his professional career as an English instructor at Findlay College, Ohio, from 1980 to 1983. Since then, over a 19-year period he was employed at Illinois State University in various roles including director of Writing Programs (from 1987 to 1997). From 1997 to 2000 he was director of Graduate Studies, then – more recently – director of the University Honors Program and their Center for the Advancement of Teaching. Other than Illinois State, he served as president of the WPA (Writing Program Administration) in 1999 and Chair of CCCC (Conference on College Composition and Communication) in 2005.
Smith, Smith, and Wright also report that Hesse has received several awards, including – in 2000 – a fellowship in nonfiction prose from the Illinois Arts Council. Then in 2001 he was named by Illinois State as “Distinguished Humanities Teacher, SeniorLevel.” In the following year they awarded him “University Outstanding Reseacher (2002)” and “Outstanding College Researcher in the Humanities (2002).” Hesse is described as “an avid reader of non-fiction” – a pastime he incorporates into his classroom approach. Although his early works focus on nonfiction, he later shifts that focus in his approach to the teaching of composition writing. Even though his employed positions have been diverse, he retains his focus on nonfiction (in both academic and non-academic contexts) and its link with the teaching of composition writing.
In Hesse’s work “Canon and Critical Thinking: An Inductive Teaching Strategy” (1989), he discusses what he calls the students’ “default strategies” when they are asked to write about literature, and how there is a need to encourage them to be more ambitious in the ways they read, consider and write about the literature they encounter. He suggests a series of imposed tasks associated with the analysis of a single story. These could include considering the merit of the story to be included in an anthology, then to assess the qualities that the anthology editors looked for; then – if the story were to be published in a magazine – what the magazine editors saw in that story to help them generate income, and how they perceived their readers would respond to its inclusion. Then Hesse would ask the students to consider how the same story could be interpreted differently – an alternate view of it. A fifth task could be to consider if the assigned story is representative of our society, and then to consider the perspective of the world outside the story. Hesse would repeat this whole process with more stories, with the aim of helping the students to gain expertise in thinking about the studied stories in different ways.
Moving on, Hesse then proposes students are assigned the study of a group of perhaps three or four stories – a blend of “canonical and noncanonical,” all from unspecified sources. They are then given the task of selecting one or two for an anthology (giving reasons for the selections made). Then to make the selection based on personal preferences instead. Following that, to discuss if both selections were the same, the reasons why or why not, and whether the student would think that all classmates would choose the same stories. The fourth task would be to ask the student to state which of the group of stories is “the most dangerous” (but without defining “dangerous” precisely). The fifth task is to make notes whilst reading each story, attempting to predict the next part of the story or its outcome, giving reasons for the guesses made. Then – in Hesse’s plan – the students move on to studying novels. However, as Hesse admits, the length of novels compared with short stories, makes analysis more time-consuming, although as he suggests, making social criticism of them is a valid means of study. Hesse then moves on to analyzing reading itself and the theories behind it. In concluding his article Hesse reiterates that by asking his students to answer all the questions he poses about the assigned readings, he is asking them to view those stories from a wider and more varied perspective, which results in them learning that there is more to literature than is often perceived at first sight, and that some literature is more complex, providing greater challenges to their view of the world around them. It is clear from this paper that as an English teacher, Hesse is seeking to “stretch” his students’ minds by forcing them to go beyond merely reading assigned literature, to consider what they have read from different viewpoints, and to thereby learn more about literature.
In “Teachers as Students, Reflecting Resistance” (May 1993), Hesse discusses two situations he encounters in his dual role as director of Writing Programs and as a teacher of composition theory in a graduate course. The first scenario related by Hesse is about a female teacher whose students have been reading essays on gender issues – one story called “Bar Wars” set in a stripper bar and another called “Gods, Goddesses, and Bibles” which is associated with pre-biblical and biblical cultures and which most students found hard to follow. In both cases the teacher found that her students failed to provide good analyses of the stories, and felt they were being simply lazy or lacking in intellectual capability. In the second scenario, a discussion of readings with graduate student teaching assistants revealed that if the text was convoluted and the sentence structures complex, they were finding it difficult to read and tended to reject it. In Hesse’s view, both scenarios showed that students tend to resist material that is new, perceiving the text itself to be at fault, rather than blaming themselves for experiencing difficulties. Hesse turned that around and pointed out that they could be called “lazy” or “unintellectual” like their own first year students, for not making more effort to read and properly understand the assigned works. Hesse reports that by getting his students to read journal articles and then summarize them, they are learning to write “from the inside” and to gradually enhance their writing skills, until they can with some authority offer an opinion on the merits of an existing work. Hesse concludes by agreeing that it is equally important for a teacher of English to experience that learning process on the road to becoming an “expert” on the subject, acknowledging that even the best teachers have to learn before they can properly teach their skills to others.
In “Imagining a Place for Creative Nonfiction” (Nov. 2009), Hesse discusses the field of creative nonfiction (CNF). Acknowledging that it is becoming an increasingly popular element of college programs for creative writing, Hesse nonetheless stresses that it is by no means a new field. He points out that the genre has existed “for centuries” and quotes several works in that vein. He sees it as actually a collection of four loosely-connected genres, which are memoirs, essays, literary journalism, and place writing (works about a particular location). Hesse considers that all four possess common qualities such as a strong narrative voice, surprising and delighting language, and often a refreshing and surprising “juxtaposition of facts, ideas and experiences that lead to fresh insights” as well as conveying a sense of real events yet in a way that makes the reader take note and become involved. Hesse asks the rhetorical question: Why should we teach CNF writing? Answering that question, he states that the first reason is because that style of writing exists, so therefore students should be made aware of it and taught how to do it. Secondly, teaching should also be about “life beyond institutions.” Thirdly, Hesse recognizes that CNF is partly about a form of imagination that is different from pure fiction.
The theme of Hesse’s essay “The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies” (2010) is that in the present age of digital tools and digital media, composition studies should focus more on the craft of writing. He offers two reasons why one should consider what creative writing can bring to composition studies, the first being that the two should not be kept separate, as that restricts what and how we teach and how it is understood (or not). Secondly, there is a need to find a blend of learning about writing (analysis and interpretation) and learning to write (focusing on producing texts). Hesse noted that over the years there has been a dearth of CCCC articles on creative writing, for example. In his view the two fields of creative writing and composition studies should have closer ties in the typical university environment, giving teachers as well as students “a more connected and comprehensive view of writing in all its guises.”
Having read and discussed the Kristopher Blais chapter about Hand the four referenced and published works by Hesse, it is apparent that he is not only a gifted and exceptionally talented teacher of English, but that he really wants to help those he teaches gain the absolute maximum from their studies. It is also evident that he does not automatically accept traditional conventions associated with the studies of English, but is ready to question and challenge accepted theories, in his quest for ever better and more relevant teaching of all aspects of the subject. “Canon and Critical Thinking: An Inductive Teaching Strategy” (1989) is a classic example. His teaching techniques are clearly intended to “stretch” his students, to expand their understanding of English and to broaden their outlook on works they encounter. In the view of this researcher he is at the cutting edge of writing – a truly remarkable man.
Works Cited:
Hesse, Douglas. (Nov. 1989). “Canon and Critical Thinking: An Inductive Teaching Strategy.” The English Journal, Vol. 78, No. 7 (Nov., 1989), (pp.16-22). Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/817948 .
Hesse, Douglas. (Nov. 2009). “Imagining a Place for Creative Nonfiction.” The English Journal, Vol. 99, No. 2 (Nov., 2009), (pp. 18-24). Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40503354 .
Hesse, Douglas. (May 1993). “Teachers as Students, Reflecting Resistance.” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 44, No. 2 (May, 1993), (pp. 224-231). Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/358840.
Hesse, Douglas. (Sep. 2010). “The Place of Creative Writing in Composition Studies.” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 62, No. 1 The Future of Rhetoric and Composition(Sep., 2010), (pp. 31-52). Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27917883.
Smith, Allison, D., Smith, Trixie, G., and Wright, Karen (Eds.). (2007). Leaders and Influences in Composition Theory and Practice. Ch. 22: Douglas D. Hesse. pp.147-151. Fountainhead Press X Series for Professional Development. Fountainhead Press. Southlake, Tx. Print.
