Murray talks about writing as writing, at its best as; personal, thoughtful, brimming with meaning. He is requesting a "call to pens" that we let students first find their voice and that through this they can write anything. I very much agree with this because if we only teach formulaically then what will the student do when they are presented with a formula they don't know but if they have their voice, they can find a way to mold that into whatever type of writing is needed.
I very much agreed with Emig's distinctions between writing and talking. Often books teach that writing is talking on a page (9) many students fall into this trap and are usually not rescued. I can hear many of my students in their writing, but not in terms of their thoughts or philosophies, I can literally hear them in their writing because they cannot transfer what is discussed in class to a meaningful reflection or reaction on paper. Emig points out how all encompassing writing is by discussing that this process takes both sides of the brain to really work. Since the majority of writing is taught way too simply by focusing on the surface errors and editing the layers of writing are lost which is why I see students producing "surface" level work. The other factor is that of time "One writes best as one learns best, at one's own pace. Or to connect the two processes, writing can sponsor learning because it can match its pace" (12). Adaptations must be made by teachers to let students work according to their own personal needs, if this starts at an early age, students will or should be able to pick up their pace s they mature. As well as increasing their self-efficacy through the process because they are not consistently being left behind in the dust.
The irony in Perl's "The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers" is that in analyzing how someone writes, the analysis portion becomes a complicated, math type equation. I found the research different and unlike any study I've read, the explanation of the study and the writing operations table was helpful in understanding exactly what they were looking for when observing the student. Though Perl and her researchers bit off a huge topic to study, they definitely made progress in understanding why some students have difficulty with writing. Their findings showed that most of it has to do with the practically mechanical process of editing and changing. What surprised me was just how often students go back and "fix" their work to the point where "Editing intrudes so often and to such a degree that it breaks down the rhythms generated by writing and thinking" (38). As a whole their thought processes are being destroyed by the indoctrination they have received over and over again to look at spelling, punctuation, etc. That should come last, not first, why can't our educational system move beyond that?
"What is impossible in speech is revision" (44) so why as Sommers puts it is writing modeled after speech? Writing is cyclical, to achieve true writing and thought expression, the revision process should not stop, there should not be a final draft. According to Sommers delineation of the six student definitions of revising, students do not have this view. All six definitions are essentially the same, to revise is to change words, making writing about speech and not about writing. As she points out they "Blind themselves to problems on the textual level" (48) not looking at issues of voice or expression and not seeing that they just have become really good at saying the same exact thing in a lot of different ways. Yes, this is a talent that all politicians try to procure...in their speeches! Then I began to wonder if this is something I do as a writer, and in a way I think that I do. That is until I read the definitions of revision for experienced writers, who see writing as a whole (52), I do view my writing in this way, I want it to fit together or not, for a purpose. And when I do revise, I try to read it first from my perspective and then from that of an outside reader. What was really freaky for lack of a better word was that within the first few paragraphs of reading this article I had made a note that writing is like composing a piece of music, it has to be more than notes or words on a page,
it must be inspiration driven and then low and behold I read something very similar later on in this article!
Through in depth analysis of teaching practices in writing Hillocks makes some excellent observations that again what should be taught is not and what works best is thrown to the wayside. By explaining the "modes of instruction" presentational, natural process and environmental, I realized that the first two are very representative of the old modes of writing whereas the environmental is more reflective of the new theories and practices on composition. And as Hillocks finds, environmental is the most productive mode "Because it brings teacher, student and materials more nearly into balance and, in effect, takes advantage of all resources of the classroom"(160) the best resource being the student. Since this type of instruction is more student centered including having the students write for their peers as an audience instead of the teacher they learn from each other. Therefore not learning as many of the nasty revision habits I have observed students picking up in the other articles as well as observing this in my own students.
The commonality among all of these articles is what is not happening in writing. The two most important are not allowing a student to pace themselves according tho their thought processes and skills and intertwined with this is a devaluing of the process, especially the revisions stages. I feel that a major shift is necessary in both the K-12 area and the education courses on the postsecondary level. However, even if we receive this type of needed instruction at some point in our education, how can we control it on other levels? I suppose that is just a matter of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment