Jen's+Process+Reflection

Inspired by //The Process Approach to Writing Instruction// (Pritchard and Honeycutt)
 * A Reflection on the Writing Process **

A summation of this article might be: Writing is a recursive and varying process that should be explicitly taught. Many of the authors we have read, carefully outline specific steps within the process. Pritchard and Honeycutt do not do this. Instead they acknowledge a loose framework with steps that vary depending upon the writer, audience, genre, and a number of other variables. I like this approach for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the different processes advocated by some authors seems a bit like splitting hairs. The writing process contains pre-writing, writing, and re-writing. The fine tuning that happens to the process depends upon the details I previously mentioned. I can see why text books would attempt to make it a linear process, but, as Pritchard and Honeycutt point out repeatedly, it is most definitely recursive. I think it is good to talk with students about this quality of the writing process.

Honeycutt's research seems to confirm Calkin's anecdotal observations and provide evidence that children employ the writing process as they internalize it over time. I think, in terms of instruction, the writing process poses a problem for educators because it is so messy. We are called upon to explicitly teach a process that may well be different for every student in our classroom. Too often, students tend to adhere rigidly to the prescribed process. Many of us like the satisfaction of checking off steps. So, explicitly teaching individual aspects of the process and allowing students the freedom to practice and experiment with them addresses this problem. The end result is that students will learn to use elements of the writing process strategically.

The article also contains a discussion of the writing process as a series of problem solving steps. I think this is a good way of framing the process and it aids the concept of focusing instruction on specific elements. On page 278, Peter Elbow is acknowledged as believing it is wrong to have a final version of writing in mind prior to beginning. As a technical writer, I disagree. Perhaps I am misunderstanding his meaning. With manuals, I have a general final version in mind before I begin or, at minimum, during the pre-writing phase. While I have to be flexible, a blue print is essential for large projects especially when writing about unfamiliar topics. I think this points to the need to teach "critical dimensions of genre" and audience awareness (Gersten & Baker).

Finally, I am in agreement that writing assessments should be renamed, as Schuster suggests, "state drafting tests". These assessments test a students ability to think coherently under pressure rather than ability to employ the writing process successfully.