Stony Brook University - SUNY Digital Repository

first-year writing course” (90) and, therein, “one student named
Brian [who] wrote about trying to maintain a friendship with an
openly gay student named Todd” (90). While the suggestions to
that “Deweyan instructor” that arise out of his course and his
student “Brian” are more along the lines of what he “should have
done,” what is there does testify to their effectiveness towards
achieving those “Deweyan” ends, in particular with the influence
of peer response.
While Donald Jones’ research, again, may not be
staggeringly deep – and it was not intended to be so - my
greatest interest in his essay, truth be told, is the fact that
what is there serves to corroborate another Dewey-heralding
essay from that same year, 1993: Stephen Fishman’s “Explicating
Our Tacit Tradition: John Dewey and Composition Studies.” Like
Jones, Fishman seeks to corroborate the field of composition’s
indebtedness to Dewey, thus, hopefully, bringing his philosophy
to the forefront of composition theory and research. Also like
Jones, Fishman would do so by relating Dewey’s philosophy to the
theories and practice of a “contemporary expressivist,” namely
Peter Elbow. And like Jones, the practical advice for writing
instructors who would teach in accord with Dewey’s philosophy,
like myself, that arises from his thusly intended explanations
revolve around the vital influence of peer response, Fishman
claiming, “[T]he concept of community remains central to Dewey’s
202