In their essay on prewriting, Rohman and Wlecke "assumed that a person becomes a writer at the moment when the merely 'autistic' fantasies, day-dreams and reveries of normal mental activity become mobilized to some specific purpose." (218) This statement is very kind to students, but it implies that a person can become a writer without instruction. It assumes that writing is a natural rather than a learned skill. While is it true that people come into the classroom with the ability to think, it may not be true that a student will come into a classroom with the ability to write. Writing is complex skill that can be taught through practice and instruction. Some students may posses more natural ability than others or may come to the classroom with a greater knowledge base, but writing skills are not learned in a vacuum. If this were the case, the essay would not need to begin with the assertion that students are failing to write at an appropriate skill level. (216) Earlier in the essay, the authors state that "the two most common approaches to rigor in language training include assigning frequent writing and then correcting it intensively." (217) Rohman and Wlecke present this course of action as a negative, but it does not need to be so. If the assignments are well designed and the correction is constructive and given with a mind to global issues this approach can work.
One of the underlying questions that is presented over and over again in the Norton text is about the nature of writing. According to David Russell "writing was thought of, on the one hand, as a set of elementary transcription skills unrelated to disciplinary activity...or, on the other hand, as a belletristic art, the product of genius or inspiration rather than of the mundane social and professional activity of the disciplines." (152) The answers that we find throughout our text vary from Rohman and Welke's student-centered belletristic theories to the teacher-centered drills found in Katheryn Fitzgerald's essay on Wisconsin Normal schools. Each approach offers interesting insight in how composition is, has, and should be taught. From a pedagogical standpoint, most would argue that the truth in somewhere in between. Writing requires a great deal of inspiration, but it also requires a knowledge of form and grammar. If your ideas are not presented in a way that the world accepts and recognizes, then they will not be heard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree that there is a need for balance in teaching writing. Many of the authors we've read have approached writing almost completely as a science--cold and sterile, dissecting sentences as one does a frog in biology class. Others have approached it solely as an art form--something mysterious and intangible. Writing is both an art and a science, and should be approached as such in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in saying that not all students come into our classrooms with the ability to write. Some students are lacking in the creativity that leads to the self-actualization that Rohman and Wlecke address. Many students do benefit from practice and correction. Although it is a traditional approach, it works for most students. For a few, the discovery process is an avenue that also works.
ReplyDeleteWhile the young grammar student clearly needs to clear the mechanics of grammar, i am not so sure that a college student might not be able to write spontaneously. However learning to write more effectively can be a benefit to even the most gifted writer. All of us are learning more every day about any number of things. Knowledge and skills do not come all at onc. The young student and the adult writer may or may not function at similar levels, and as a class goes on the interaction with other students as well as knowlege iself can make a big change in one's writing skills.
ReplyDelete