Chapter 12: The Writing Process:
In Chapter 12 of the Writing Process: The authors discuss the topics of Prewriting, Drafting, Revising, Editing and Proofreading.
Lesson 1 Prewriting:
1. Finding A Topic:
In Language Network, the authors of this text view prewriting as a process of its own. The authors of this text view prewriting as the first step of the writing process. The text encourages its readers to participate in activities such as free writing, brainstorming, and creative questioning and browsing in order to decide on a topic of interest to the writer. All of these activities are used for the purpose of getting a writer to narrow down the list of potential topics for their paper. The textbook emphasizes the importance of having a writer carefully select a topic that is of interest to them. Expressivists such as Peter Elbow would definitely approve of these types of activities because it encourages writers to find topics that are of interest to them, as well as encourages writers to neglect conventions and grammar during these pre-writing activities. According to theorist Richard Fulkerson (1979) in his essay, “The Four Philosophies of Composition,” Fulkerson discusses how Expressivists “value writing that is about personal subjects, and such journal keeping is an absolute essential. Another keynote for Expressivists is the desire to have writing contain an interesting, credible, honest, and personal voice”(p. 432). However, even though we think that Expressivists would appreciate these types of activities listed in the textbook, we think it is also important to emphasize that these activities are suggested just for the “stage” of prewriting.
2. Purpose, Audience, and Form:
In Language Network, the authors of this text place great emphasis on the necessity for writers to consider the purpose of their writing, their audience, and the form in which they wish to write. The text states, “Knowing why you are writing and for whom you are writing will help you focus your thoughts about your topic (p. 309). The textbook provides a chart that provides several questions that a writer might use in order to figure out what their purpose is, as well as the audience to whom they will be addressing. The emphasis on having writers figure out who their audience is in order to create an effective written piece is a component of the rhetorical pedagogy. In Richard Fulkerson’s essay, “Four Philosophies of Composition,” Fulkerson defines rhetoric as “writing adapted to achieve a desired effect on the desired audience” (1979, p.433). Supporters of Rhetorical pedagogy would support this text’s claim to consider audience when composing a written piece because the writer will then be more inclined to develop a written piece for the purpose of having an effect or impact on their audience. Theorists such as Flower and Hayes (1980) would also greatly appreciate Language Network’s emphasis on having writers consider their purpose, audience and form when writing because Flower and Hayes emphasize in their essay “The Cognition of Discovery” that experienced or “good” writers, “consider many different factors that shape their rhetorical situation such as; the audience, how to establish their persona, and how to create meaning,” (p. 476). Asking writers to consider factors such as their purpose, audience, and form throughout the composing process will encourage students to pose more rhetorical problems throughout their writing process and will also, essentially help writers move beyond the standard focus of just simply answering a prompt. Theorist Peter Elbow would also support the idea of having students figure out who their designated audience is for their writing piece. If a writer figures out who their audience is, then they will most likely be more inclined to write for the purpose of producing a desired effect on their reader. In Peter Elbow’s essay “A Method for Teaching Writing,” Elbow emphasizes the importance of having students learn how to do just that. Elbow believes that in order for writing to be considered “good” it needs to produce a desired effect on the audience.
3. Exploring and Limiting A Topic:
Again, readers are able to see the great emphasis that the authors of this textbook place on having the writers select a topic that is of importance and relevance to them. The textbook provides various techniques for writers to follow in order to limit a topic. The authors suggest creating a list, or a web of everything that you already know about your topic, or everything that you wish to know about your topic. The authors of this text also suggest gathering more information about your topic through research. Although the text does provide the suggestion to use research in order to further explore a topic, we would not say that this text is heavily mimetic. The authors of this text are suggesting the task of researching in order to guide their readers throughout their process of narrowing down, and learning more about a topic. The authors are not saying that their readers must use research in order to support their selected topic.
4. Organizing Information:
This section of the text encourages writers to consider the question of how they will go about organizing their writing and information in order to make a cohesive final product. The text provides several different options for writers to consider when organizing a written assignment such as: “using a time line to record events in sequential order, a Venn diagram to record similarities and differences, and a flow chart to record the steps in a process” (p. 311). It is important to note that the textbook provides these different graphic organizational options as mere suggestions, and does not say that the reader must select one, or even any of these options. The purpose of this textbook is to provide readers with suggestions to potentially help them throughout the writing process.
Lesson 2 Drafting:
1. Drafting to Discover:
The text emphasizes the fact that writers do not have to know exactly what they want to say as they begin writing. The authors state that “discovery drafting, like freewriting, can be a helpful way to find and explore ideas” (p.312). The purpose of discovery drafting is to help writers come up with new ideas to address within their writing. This idea of “discovery” through writing is something that theorists Flower and Hayes would not agree with. Flower and Hayes in their essay, “The Cognition of Discovery” discuss the importance for readers to understand that the myth of writing based on the act of discovery gives writers a false representation as to what the writing process actually entails. As Flowers and Hayes (1980) state in their writing, “because discovery emphasizes the rather glamorous experience of “Eureka now I see it,” it obscures the fact that writers don’t find meanings, they make them” (p. 467). Flower and Hayes would see the act of “discovery drafting” as useless. Rather, they would encourage writers to spend less time waiting for an “aha!” moment to happen during their writing, and instead, spend more time focusing on the different rhetorical problems that shape the rhetorical situation.
2. Drafting from a Plan:
The textbook states that when writers “write in a form that has a particular structure, such as a research report, persuasive essay, or play, you may want to plan what you will write before you begin drafting” (p.312). The text then goes on to suggest that writers continuously revise their outlines and drafts in order to take out any unwanted ideas in their writing that may have been previously stated. In Nancy Sommers’ essay, “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers,” Sommers compares the revision process of student writers to the revision process of experienced writers in order to show her readers how they have been mislead by their teachers, as well as many of their textbooks into viewing writing as part of a “linear process” rather than a unified, continuous process. According to Sommers (2009), in the linear structure, “revision is understood as a separate stage at the end of the process—a stage that comes after the completion of a first or second draft and one that is temporally distinct from the prewriting and writing stages of the process” (p.323). Theorists such as Nancy Sommers would approve of this idea of revision because it suggests that even in the “prewriting” stage of writing; writers should still be constantly revising their papers in order to strengthen their writing. This textbook views revision as a continuous process as opposed to a separate stage that occurs at the end of the writing process. This is important for students to know and become aware of because otherwise they will still only view revision as the crossing out and adding on of words or phrases rather than looking at the process as a whole.
3. Using Peer Response:
This textbook provides great emphasis on a writer’s participation in peer reviews. The text claims that, “Feedback from your peers can help you shape and improve your writing” (p.313). Underneath this section, the textbook provides a chart in which it gives the readers helpful tips for both writers and peer readers participating in peer reviews. Some of these tips include: “Asking open ended questions; they will get you more information than questions that can be answered yes or no,” “encourage readers to be honest in their responses to your writing, etc” (p.313). Theorists such as Peter Elbow, Lad Tobin, and Milner& Milner, would greatly appreciate the texts encouragement for participation in peer response groups. In Peter Elbow’s essay, “A Method for Teaching Writing,” Elbow envisions a class that would be primarily run by the students as opposed to the teacher. Elbow (1968) believes that having students evaluate their own classmates work will help students get a feel for what makes “good writing,” as well as what components should go into the writing criteria in order to accomplish this (p. 117). Elbow believes that having students interact and work collaboratively in the classroom on certain writing pieces through activities such as peer review, will ultimately help students get a solid feel for what criteria is and why it is essential to have a criteria when composing a piece of written work. In Lad Tobin’s essay “Process Pedagogy,” Tobin also emphasizes the importance of having students participate in peer review. Tobin (2001) states that ‘the writing classroom should be a workshop in which they are encouraged through the supportive response of teachers and peers to use writing as a way to figure out what they think and feel and eventually publish their work to be read and celebrated by the community of writers they have become” (p.7). As is stated by both the authors of this textbook and Elbow and Tobin, peer reviews are an extremely useful activity for writers to participate in because it provides students with insight into their strengths and weaknesses.
Lesson 3: Revising
1. The authors of this text view revision as the writer trying to improve the way they’ve expressed and organized their ideas (p.314). The text provides a chart that addresses the “Six traits of Effective Writing.”
1. Ideas and Content
Make sure your ideas are clear, focused, and supported with relevant details.
2. Organization
Arrange your ideas in a logical order that moves the reader through the text.
3. Voice
Express your ideas in a way that shows your individual style and personality.
4. Word Choice
Use language that is precise, powerful, and engaging.
5. Sentence Fluency
Improve the rhythm and flow of your sentences by using varied sentence lengths and structures.
6. Conventions
Eliminate errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Something that we found particularly interesting about this chart was the order in which the traits were placed. We noticed that Ideas and Content was placed first, and Conventions was placed last. We wonder if this is a comment as to what the textbook authors view as the most and least important traits of the revision process. We think that theorists such as Nancy Sommers would approve of this chart because it addresses a variety of different aspects to be considered when revising a written piece as opposed to just focusing on conventions and word choice. In Nancy Sommers’ essay, “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers,” Sommers conducted a case study approach in which she gathered information about what revision means to student writers as opposed to what it means to more experienced writers. In this case study, it was found that student writers defined “revising” as simply just the elimination and addition of words, sentences, and phrases in a written assignment (1980, p. 326). Student writers only viewed revision as a “once and done” process. Sommers (1980) believes that “because students do not see revision as an activity in which they modify and develop perspectives and ideas, they feel that if they know what they want to say, then there is little reason for making revisions”(p. 324). The authors of this text however, do a good job of pointing out that all of these different aspects need to be considered when revising a written assignment. Not only do writers have to consider conventions, but they also have to consider the voice of their writing piece, the expansion of their ideas and content, etc.
Lesson 4: Editing and Proofreading
1.Checking Conventions:
The textbook encourages writers to make sure that they don’t skip the step of checking one’s writing for errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The text provides a list of common grammar mistakes that frequently occur throughout students writing such as: Sentence fragments, errors in subject-verb agreement, misused or misspelled words, etc. The text also provides an Editing and Proofreading chart in order to give writers some useful tips on how to go about editing and proofread writing.
Lesson 5: Publishing and Reflecting
1. Sharing Your Writing:
This text offers different options for a writer to publish their writing such as “sharing in print (school newspaper, literature magazine, etc) and sharing electronically (website, electronic bulletin board, etc)” (p.319). Theorists such as Pascopella and Richardson would support Language Network’s suggestion of publishing works through the use of social networking and technology. In Pascopella and Richardson’s essay on “The New Writing Pedagogy,” they discuss the benefits of incorporating the use of writing through social networking sites into classroom instruction. Pascopella and Richardson (2009) discuss how “with the advent of Web-based social networking tools like blogs and wikis, YouTube, and Facebook, it may be that the next revision of writing pedagogy is upon us, one that emphasizes digital spaces, multimedia texts, global audiences and linked conversations among passionate readers” (p. 2). It was smart for Language Network to suggest that writers share electronically because it essentially provides writers with a wider option of choices for sharing their work as opposed to just publishing it in print sources.
2. Reflecting:
This section of the text encourages readers to reflect on questions such as; “Does your writing process work for you, or do you need to change it?” This question that the textbook presents shows that the text does not just support one single writing process. Instead, it is more focused on the writer finding a process that works best for them. We think that Flower and Hayes would appreciate this particular section of the textbook because it is asking students to really think about the ways in which they could approve upon their writing ideas, as well as the ways in which they go about the writing process.
In Chapter 12 of the Writing Process: The authors discuss the topics of Prewriting, Drafting, Revising, Editing and Proofreading.
Lesson 1 Prewriting:
1. Finding A Topic:
In Language Network, the authors of this text view prewriting as a process of its own. The authors of this text view prewriting as the first step of the writing process. The text encourages its readers to participate in activities such as free writing, brainstorming, and creative questioning and browsing in order to decide on a topic of interest to the writer. All of these activities are used for the purpose of getting a writer to narrow down the list of potential topics for their paper. The textbook emphasizes the importance of having a writer carefully select a topic that is of interest to them. Expressivists such as Peter Elbow would definitely approve of these types of activities because it encourages writers to find topics that are of interest to them, as well as encourages writers to neglect conventions and grammar during these pre-writing activities. According to theorist Richard Fulkerson (1979) in his essay, “The Four Philosophies of Composition,” Fulkerson discusses how Expressivists “value writing that is about personal subjects, and such journal keeping is an absolute essential. Another keynote for Expressivists is the desire to have writing contain an interesting, credible, honest, and personal voice”(p. 432). However, even though we think that Expressivists would appreciate these types of activities listed in the textbook, we think it is also important to emphasize that these activities are suggested just for the “stage” of prewriting.
2. Purpose, Audience, and Form:
In Language Network, the authors of this text place great emphasis on the necessity for writers to consider the purpose of their writing, their audience, and the form in which they wish to write. The text states, “Knowing why you are writing and for whom you are writing will help you focus your thoughts about your topic (p. 309). The textbook provides a chart that provides several questions that a writer might use in order to figure out what their purpose is, as well as the audience to whom they will be addressing. The emphasis on having writers figure out who their audience is in order to create an effective written piece is a component of the rhetorical pedagogy. In Richard Fulkerson’s essay, “Four Philosophies of Composition,” Fulkerson defines rhetoric as “writing adapted to achieve a desired effect on the desired audience” (1979, p.433). Supporters of Rhetorical pedagogy would support this text’s claim to consider audience when composing a written piece because the writer will then be more inclined to develop a written piece for the purpose of having an effect or impact on their audience. Theorists such as Flower and Hayes (1980) would also greatly appreciate Language Network’s emphasis on having writers consider their purpose, audience and form when writing because Flower and Hayes emphasize in their essay “The Cognition of Discovery” that experienced or “good” writers, “consider many different factors that shape their rhetorical situation such as; the audience, how to establish their persona, and how to create meaning,” (p. 476). Asking writers to consider factors such as their purpose, audience, and form throughout the composing process will encourage students to pose more rhetorical problems throughout their writing process and will also, essentially help writers move beyond the standard focus of just simply answering a prompt. Theorist Peter Elbow would also support the idea of having students figure out who their designated audience is for their writing piece. If a writer figures out who their audience is, then they will most likely be more inclined to write for the purpose of producing a desired effect on their reader. In Peter Elbow’s essay “A Method for Teaching Writing,” Elbow emphasizes the importance of having students learn how to do just that. Elbow believes that in order for writing to be considered “good” it needs to produce a desired effect on the audience.
3. Exploring and Limiting A Topic:
Again, readers are able to see the great emphasis that the authors of this textbook place on having the writers select a topic that is of importance and relevance to them. The textbook provides various techniques for writers to follow in order to limit a topic. The authors suggest creating a list, or a web of everything that you already know about your topic, or everything that you wish to know about your topic. The authors of this text also suggest gathering more information about your topic through research. Although the text does provide the suggestion to use research in order to further explore a topic, we would not say that this text is heavily mimetic. The authors of this text are suggesting the task of researching in order to guide their readers throughout their process of narrowing down, and learning more about a topic. The authors are not saying that their readers must use research in order to support their selected topic.
4. Organizing Information:
This section of the text encourages writers to consider the question of how they will go about organizing their writing and information in order to make a cohesive final product. The text provides several different options for writers to consider when organizing a written assignment such as: “using a time line to record events in sequential order, a Venn diagram to record similarities and differences, and a flow chart to record the steps in a process” (p. 311). It is important to note that the textbook provides these different graphic organizational options as mere suggestions, and does not say that the reader must select one, or even any of these options. The purpose of this textbook is to provide readers with suggestions to potentially help them throughout the writing process.
Lesson 2 Drafting:
1. Drafting to Discover:
The text emphasizes the fact that writers do not have to know exactly what they want to say as they begin writing. The authors state that “discovery drafting, like freewriting, can be a helpful way to find and explore ideas” (p.312). The purpose of discovery drafting is to help writers come up with new ideas to address within their writing. This idea of “discovery” through writing is something that theorists Flower and Hayes would not agree with. Flower and Hayes in their essay, “The Cognition of Discovery” discuss the importance for readers to understand that the myth of writing based on the act of discovery gives writers a false representation as to what the writing process actually entails. As Flowers and Hayes (1980) state in their writing, “because discovery emphasizes the rather glamorous experience of “Eureka now I see it,” it obscures the fact that writers don’t find meanings, they make them” (p. 467). Flower and Hayes would see the act of “discovery drafting” as useless. Rather, they would encourage writers to spend less time waiting for an “aha!” moment to happen during their writing, and instead, spend more time focusing on the different rhetorical problems that shape the rhetorical situation.
2. Drafting from a Plan:
The textbook states that when writers “write in a form that has a particular structure, such as a research report, persuasive essay, or play, you may want to plan what you will write before you begin drafting” (p.312). The text then goes on to suggest that writers continuously revise their outlines and drafts in order to take out any unwanted ideas in their writing that may have been previously stated. In Nancy Sommers’ essay, “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers,” Sommers compares the revision process of student writers to the revision process of experienced writers in order to show her readers how they have been mislead by their teachers, as well as many of their textbooks into viewing writing as part of a “linear process” rather than a unified, continuous process. According to Sommers (2009), in the linear structure, “revision is understood as a separate stage at the end of the process—a stage that comes after the completion of a first or second draft and one that is temporally distinct from the prewriting and writing stages of the process” (p.323). Theorists such as Nancy Sommers would approve of this idea of revision because it suggests that even in the “prewriting” stage of writing; writers should still be constantly revising their papers in order to strengthen their writing. This textbook views revision as a continuous process as opposed to a separate stage that occurs at the end of the writing process. This is important for students to know and become aware of because otherwise they will still only view revision as the crossing out and adding on of words or phrases rather than looking at the process as a whole.
3. Using Peer Response:
This textbook provides great emphasis on a writer’s participation in peer reviews. The text claims that, “Feedback from your peers can help you shape and improve your writing” (p.313). Underneath this section, the textbook provides a chart in which it gives the readers helpful tips for both writers and peer readers participating in peer reviews. Some of these tips include: “Asking open ended questions; they will get you more information than questions that can be answered yes or no,” “encourage readers to be honest in their responses to your writing, etc” (p.313). Theorists such as Peter Elbow, Lad Tobin, and Milner& Milner, would greatly appreciate the texts encouragement for participation in peer response groups. In Peter Elbow’s essay, “A Method for Teaching Writing,” Elbow envisions a class that would be primarily run by the students as opposed to the teacher. Elbow (1968) believes that having students evaluate their own classmates work will help students get a feel for what makes “good writing,” as well as what components should go into the writing criteria in order to accomplish this (p. 117). Elbow believes that having students interact and work collaboratively in the classroom on certain writing pieces through activities such as peer review, will ultimately help students get a solid feel for what criteria is and why it is essential to have a criteria when composing a piece of written work. In Lad Tobin’s essay “Process Pedagogy,” Tobin also emphasizes the importance of having students participate in peer review. Tobin (2001) states that ‘the writing classroom should be a workshop in which they are encouraged through the supportive response of teachers and peers to use writing as a way to figure out what they think and feel and eventually publish their work to be read and celebrated by the community of writers they have become” (p.7). As is stated by both the authors of this textbook and Elbow and Tobin, peer reviews are an extremely useful activity for writers to participate in because it provides students with insight into their strengths and weaknesses.
Lesson 3: Revising
1. The authors of this text view revision as the writer trying to improve the way they’ve expressed and organized their ideas (p.314). The text provides a chart that addresses the “Six traits of Effective Writing.”
1. Ideas and Content
Make sure your ideas are clear, focused, and supported with relevant details.
2. Organization
Arrange your ideas in a logical order that moves the reader through the text.
3. Voice
Express your ideas in a way that shows your individual style and personality.
4. Word Choice
Use language that is precise, powerful, and engaging.
5. Sentence Fluency
Improve the rhythm and flow of your sentences by using varied sentence lengths and structures.
6. Conventions
Eliminate errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Something that we found particularly interesting about this chart was the order in which the traits were placed. We noticed that Ideas and Content was placed first, and Conventions was placed last. We wonder if this is a comment as to what the textbook authors view as the most and least important traits of the revision process. We think that theorists such as Nancy Sommers would approve of this chart because it addresses a variety of different aspects to be considered when revising a written piece as opposed to just focusing on conventions and word choice. In Nancy Sommers’ essay, “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers,” Sommers conducted a case study approach in which she gathered information about what revision means to student writers as opposed to what it means to more experienced writers. In this case study, it was found that student writers defined “revising” as simply just the elimination and addition of words, sentences, and phrases in a written assignment (1980, p. 326). Student writers only viewed revision as a “once and done” process. Sommers (1980) believes that “because students do not see revision as an activity in which they modify and develop perspectives and ideas, they feel that if they know what they want to say, then there is little reason for making revisions”(p. 324). The authors of this text however, do a good job of pointing out that all of these different aspects need to be considered when revising a written assignment. Not only do writers have to consider conventions, but they also have to consider the voice of their writing piece, the expansion of their ideas and content, etc.
Lesson 4: Editing and Proofreading
1.Checking Conventions:
The textbook encourages writers to make sure that they don’t skip the step of checking one’s writing for errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The text provides a list of common grammar mistakes that frequently occur throughout students writing such as: Sentence fragments, errors in subject-verb agreement, misused or misspelled words, etc. The text also provides an Editing and Proofreading chart in order to give writers some useful tips on how to go about editing and proofread writing.
Lesson 5: Publishing and Reflecting
1. Sharing Your Writing:
This text offers different options for a writer to publish their writing such as “sharing in print (school newspaper, literature magazine, etc) and sharing electronically (website, electronic bulletin board, etc)” (p.319). Theorists such as Pascopella and Richardson would support Language Network’s suggestion of publishing works through the use of social networking and technology. In Pascopella and Richardson’s essay on “The New Writing Pedagogy,” they discuss the benefits of incorporating the use of writing through social networking sites into classroom instruction. Pascopella and Richardson (2009) discuss how “with the advent of Web-based social networking tools like blogs and wikis, YouTube, and Facebook, it may be that the next revision of writing pedagogy is upon us, one that emphasizes digital spaces, multimedia texts, global audiences and linked conversations among passionate readers” (p. 2). It was smart for Language Network to suggest that writers share electronically because it essentially provides writers with a wider option of choices for sharing their work as opposed to just publishing it in print sources.
2. Reflecting:
This section of the text encourages readers to reflect on questions such as; “Does your writing process work for you, or do you need to change it?” This question that the textbook presents shows that the text does not just support one single writing process. Instead, it is more focused on the writer finding a process that works best for them. We think that Flower and Hayes would appreciate this particular section of the textbook because it is asking students to really think about the ways in which they could approve upon their writing ideas, as well as the ways in which they go about the writing process.