Posting for 2/11

This week’s articles have been, to some extent, a motivational tool as I am in my 5th week of teaching composition. And as I progress through this course, I have found myself consistently reflecting on the way I have taught composition and the past, and, more importantly, I am constantly thinking about the way I am currently teaching my composition course. The articles this week focused on teaching writing and writing as a process. And although these articles can somewhat be considered older, the message still rings true today: teaching composition should be more of a focus on process rather than a final product.

Murray’s article, Teaching Writing as A Process Not Product, explains in a very passionate and convincing way, how it is far too common that many teachers of composition have been trained to teach writing as creating a final product. This is in large part due to teachers being trained to do so. And since teachers generally teach the way they have been trained, a viscous cycle continues to run rampant across many beginning composition courses. Murray emphasizes how focusing on the overall product often fails us in our mission to actually teach writing to students. Thus, he states that the actual writing process is far too complicated to teach resulting in teaching product as a failure. Essentially, if the writing process is taught, the actual result would be products “worth” reading. He addresses a key question that would naturally be asked: What is the process that should be taught.” Murray illustrates his answers by elaborating on three main components of the writing process: prewriting, writing, and rewriting. Murray suggests that the prewriting stage is by far the most important and the most time consuming for students. If this is the case, why then does it work. Murray states that the prewriting stages “includes the awareness of his world from which his subject is born” (p 4). And, as anyone that is involved with writing and the writing process knows this is no easy feat. Murray attempts to answer the question on how instructors of composition can motivate students to engage in this writing process, and on several occasions. Murray suggests instructors to, for the most part, forget what they have been taught in regards to constant criticism and learn to be more active listeners. Instructors need to provide responses from a reader’s perspective rather than a professor’s perspective. Ideally, Murray implies rather than being instructors of composition, we should become more coaches of composition. Murray lists 10 implications for teaching the writing process rather than the product. Murray asserts the implications should be more student centered rather than teacher centered. Students should be able to examine their own writing and the writing of their peers or classmates. Students should be allowed to determine their own subject otherwise they begin writing toward the professor’s truth rather than their own. Murray continues by suggesting students have the opportunity to use their own language. After all, it is their creation. The ability to write multiple drafts and be given the time to write multiple drafts is part of the process students can benefit from. Additionally, absolute truth should not exist, as the postmodernists exclaim, because with writing, there should only be alternatives, no infinites.
Murray’s article is filled with some valid points that make quite a bit of sense. The message seems to resound within this article and others that in order to make “this” work, this thing we call composition instruction, the instructor needs to be open to the possibility.

Peter Elbow’s article mirrors that of Murray’s. We once again read about the discussion of “truth” in writing. Elbow focuses on writing as producing a desired effect on the reader, ideally what writing should do. Elbow states that whether instructors or writers know it or not, people write to make people respond in specific ways. He suggest that instructors use this fact and work with it. Much of what Elbow suggests is similar to that of Murray, or I should say it is the other way around. Elbow, among others, emphasizes student centered approach as well. He encourages students to read works written by other classmates both “bad” and “good” writing. If students are to only examine “good” writing, how they will know what “bad” writing consists of. Typically, students will assume their own writing to be “bad” writing. Elbow explains how often times, students are required to start from scratch every time they enter a composition classroom solely because the instructor establishes a standard for them to meet. How will they meet the needs of the instructor this time? The natural question, then, how will students ever really learn writing if they are constantly resetting. The part I truly enjoyed about this piece, and probably something I will try with my own students, is the exercise that student be asked to write a piece that will not be judged on whether the writing makes sense or if the assertions are consistent, but whether the audience or reader “feels” the writer shine through his or her words. Is their writing believable? Again, as many of these articles suggest, this course of teaching requires one to be more open and requires trust that students will be more willing to create pieces of work rather than work created for the professor.

Janet Emig’s article is an important one as it breaks down the difference between writing, talking, and reading. We get learn through this article the connection between learning and writing. The main emphasis we get about writing as a process is that through writing, one engages in the process of learning through doing, depicting and image, and restating what we learned. Emig emphasizes how writing is the most basic functioning form of the brain. We are introduced to the various ways in which writing is intertwined with psychology. In essence, according the Emig, writing creates meaning.

The Perl’s and Sommers’ article are both case studies that focus on two different parts of the writing process. Perl’s study focuses on how unskilled writer’s write and what the results say about the way in which writing is taught. What was found through this case study was the patterned behavior illicted by the students which included utilizing the standard prewriting, writing, and editing process. This was surprising for researchers as they did not expect this type of pattern. The researchers suggest that although students were engaged in more process than product, students should not be considered completely beginning writers, and students should not be assumed as proficient writers either.

Sommers’ case study focused on the revision process in order to determine what role the revision process played in the actual writing process. Sommers’ study found how inexperienced writers approached revision and how more experienced writers approached revision. One interesting point I found with this research is students’ attitude and use of the term revising/revision. The study found that many of these students did not actually refer to the revision process by using this term. Instead, students stated that their instructor had used this term. The participants in the study used terms like reviewing, re-doing, and marking out. The study found that the inexperienced writers, while revising, were most concerned with repeating themselves. With the experienced writers, the research found that they actually used the term revision and rewriting as opposed to the aforementioned terms. The main concern for these experience writers was “reshaping their argument.” Again, we are reminded through these two studies how students need to seek to make better for their own writing and not of what they feel is expected of their writing.

Again, I must admit I did enjoy this week’s readings because as mentioned through the various articles, that writing and language must come alive. Writing must have a purpose and truth for each individual author/student. It must be made real to them. As instructors, we often need to remind ourselves that like anything that is worthwhile; it takes time and generally is a process. Although we may face many barriers that stop this from occurring: ourselves, laziness, politics, class sized etc., the only way we will make teaching writing more effective is to let the process of writing take its course, whatever that may be.