Donald Murray’s article Writing as a Process
Not a Product explains the time writers
spend in each step of the writing process.
Students tend to spend the majority of their
time during the pre-writing phase, followed by
revision and the least amount of time in the
actual writing. In the classroom, I would like
to spend a few class periods on pre-writing and
the issues surrounding pre-writing. If the
students are like I was as an
undergraduate, then they will spend hours analyzing
prompts, drawing webs, and developing outline
after outline. I do not think students have as
much trouble writing a draft as they do figuring
out what to write. In Kenneth Bruffee’s article
Peer Tutoring and the “Conversation of
Mankind,” writing is “internalized talk made
public and social again [or] writing is
internalized conversation re-externalized [if
thought is considered internalized]” Connecting
Murray with Bruffee I want to devote at least
the first class of each assignment to a
discussion on the topic in general. During the
discussion the students should gain a large
picture of what surrounds the topic. Allowing
the students to engage in class conversations
helps the students take their internalized
thought and make it public. My job is not just
to teach students how to write, but how to think
through their ideas and express their thoughts.
Drawing from Stephen North’s article Idea of
a Writing Center, I want to strive to make
my students better writers, not just improve
their assigned texts. Even though North
references the goal of a Writing Center, I feel
the same goal should be that of a composition
classroom. The only way I know how to make
better writers is to have students practice and
engage in writing every time they are in the
classroom. I do not want to be a teacher who
lectures ‘how to write.’ Most students will not
remember anything said during the lecture;
however, encouraging students to work through
their assignments together as a class and learn
how to write by writing, will help them remember
more skills. Collaboration is key in the Writing
Center. The tutors and the students engage in
conversations that deal with the internalized
thoughts that Bruffee mentions in his article.
The same collaboration is key in the composition
classroom. The difference is that the
collaboration will not be between a student and
a tutor, but twenty-five students and a teacher.
Friere’s theory of critical pedagogy wants
teachers to use students’ texts as examples and
set the classroom up in a way that teachers and
students are on equal levels. I want to use the
students’ texts to teach skills that the students
can use to improve their writing. I hope that
this will also draw a community together and
start dialogue in the classroom. With the
emphasis of collaboration in my classroom, it is
important to me that students feel that they are
in a safe environment where their classmates
will respect their opinions. The students’ texts
will foster a sense of community and allow the
students to learn from each other.
Bitzer defines rhetoric as “a mode of altering
reality, not by direct application of energy to
objects, but by the creation of discourse which
changes reality through the mediation of thought
and action” (219). The discourse in the
community/classroom will make the students think
through their thoughts, opinions and actions and
develop their rhetoric. With guidance this will
lead to showing the students how to “think
outside of their texts” (Fleckenstein 82). By
examining their actions and the actions and
written work of others, the students discover
what it is like to look from the outside in and
learn to apply the concepts and skills of others
in their own text. With the emphasis of class
discussions, collaborative work and
student-centered environments I have focused on
helping students learn how to think through
their thoughts and how to take their thoughts
and put them into writing.
When my students leave my classroom I want them
to know that they are in control of their
writing and they have the skills to succeed in
other classes. Meaning-based assignments,
conversations and teacher responses seem to be
the most effective way to bridge connections
between large class discussions and individual
writings. The end of Murray’s article provides
teaching implications for the classroom. One of
the implications tells teachers to shut up in
the classroom. I want to be on the same level as
my students so that we can learn from each other
and Murray’s implication for shutting up in the
classroom allows students the chance to write
and communicate with each other and find ways to
accomplish the assignment. If I let the
students find their own voice, use their own
language and have the opportunity to work
through assignment topics together I will help
the students cultivate a sense of self-reliance.
Not every student will be aware of the processes
of writing, so to help students develop their
process I will assign multiple prewriting
activities at the beginning of the semester, in
addition to the in-class discussions. At the end
of the semester the students may choose the
prewriting activity that works for them. Giving
the students choices as the semester moves on
not only gives more meaning to the students
work, but also helps the students to develop a
sense of ‘positive interdependence’ that Goggin
and Roen mention in their article
Rhetorically Writing and Reading Research
Arguments. I will also ask the students to
turn in an extra draft for me to look at during
the first two papers to give the students
feedback; the last two papers the students have
the option of me looking at their drafts before
they are due. I want the students to take
control of their own work and by guiding them at
the beginning of the semester and giving them
more independence towards the end I am
emphasizing a sense of responsibility. With each
draft students will see their thoughts and ideas
developing and by the end of the semester the
students should be confident in their abilities
to take their thoughts and express them in
writing.
When the students are developing their writing
and finding their voice, I want to follow the
suggestion from Elbow’s article (1987),
Closing My Eyes as I Speak. The
students should write to find their meaning and
consider the audience afterwards. When I wrote,
I spent so much time making sure that my word
choice was the most effective choice for the
audience that I wrote for. Had I waited till
after I wrote, as I do now, I would have
understood more of what I wanted to say.
Students struggle the most with audience
awareness and Elbow’s approach seems very
effective. When the students are finished
drafting and working through their thinking,
they can turn their attention to the audience
and alter their draft to fit the needs of the
audience (337). The strength of the students’
essays will derive from an unawareness of the
audience. For students and advance writers it is
difficult to work out new meaning while
constantly thinking about audience and how to
stylistically approach their writing.
Considering the audience at the end of the
process helps students find their authentic
voice; students never know exactly what their
point is until they get all their thoughts out
and reflect (337).
As a student, I found the most helpful advice in
writing were the comments that forced me to
think about my writing and not just correct.
When I respond to student papers I want to use
open-ended questions so students have to think
about their content and not just delete or add
an extra sentence to please the teacher.
William’s article, The Phenomenology of Error,
suggested reading for content and to only
acknowledge the students’ errors when they
interfere with the meaning. I support that view,
though I do feel it is important to help
students acquire a vocabulary to understand
grammatical terms and to know how to manipulate
their text to convey the meaning they intend.
After I have read through the students’ work I
will create a list of the most common noticed
errors that the students make. I have used a
form of error analysis in the Writing Center and
this helped students bridge connections between
their papers. Using this with a whole class
seems to be an effective approach to error, as
compared to me lecturing. After the class wide
analysis the students will prepare a
presentation, in groups, to teach the class
their grammatical/sentence level error. This way
I am still making the concept meaningful to the
students and the students will learn more by
teaching each other, rather then subjecting them
to the banking method.
The students’
grades will be determined through the use of
portfolios. Portfolios allow the students to
work through their own processes and allow me to
see the improvement from the first draft to the
final draft. Since I am placing an emphasis on
writing process I want the students to
understand that I value process and allow for
the students to have the opportunity to revise
and draft. I will count the first copies of
their paper for a percentage of their grade but
the main emphasis will be on the portfolio.
Bitzer,
Lloyd. “The Rhetorical Situtation.”
Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1-14.
Bruffee,
Kenneth. “Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of
Mankind.’ Writing Centers
Theory and Administration.
Urbana,
Illinois: NCTE, 1984. 3-15.,
Elbow,
Peter. “Closing My Eyes As I Speak.” College
English 49.1 (1987): 50-69.
Fleckenstine, Kristie S. “An Appetite for
Coherence.” College Composition and
Communication
43.1 (1992): 81-87.
Goggin,
Maureen Daly and Roen Duane. “Rhetorically
Writing and Reading Researched
Arguments.” Reading Writing Research.
Chpt. 2: 15-21.
Murrary,
Donald. “Teaching Writing as a Process Not
Product.” Cross-Talk in Comp
Theory.
Ed. Victor Villanueva. Illinois: NCTE, 2003.
3-6.
North,
Stephen. “The Idea of a Writing Center.”
College English 46 (1984): 433-46
Williams, Joseph. “The Phenomenology of Error.”
College Composition and
Communication 32 (1981): 152-168.
