Reading Response Week #2: The Process Movement, Johnny, and the rest of us.

TORDA'S FALL 2024 TEACHING SITE

Reading Response Week #2: The Process Movement, Johnny, and the rest of us.

9/3/2020

This week, we are reading about one of the most significant theories in Composition--significant in the sense that process pedagogy marked a sea-change in how writing should be taught and what the goal of why we teach writing and the kinds of writing we teach. You may read this material and think that this is how it always was; however, as we will discuss in class, what will become clear, is that this is hardly the case.

As you post your 300 word Reading Response for this week, react to and summarize the reading for the week. As you do so, consider how the discussion/reading from last week "Why Johnny Can't Write" connects to/argues against what Process pedagogy argues. Include that thinking in your 300 words.

10 Comments

Andrea Hicks

9/6/2020 01:55:58 pm

It is interesting to acknowledge that writing has been taught as anything but a process. The art of composition does not exactly lend itself to a formulaic approach, and since I began teaching, we have always had a full lesson or even unit on “the writing process”. Looking at this idea now, perhaps we have taken this formulaic approach and forced the writing process into it. The writing process is widely accepted as some variation of planning, drafting, and revising, but there is more to the process than these steps. It is a constantly changing practice, and to strip writing of its fluid nature takes away much of the purpose of writing. Critics of the processes movement make this point, but wouldn’t there always be some kind of formula simply due to the nature of teaching? It would be impossible to individualize the writing process for each student. However, after reading about exigence and rhetorical situations, I wonder if perhaps it would be more accurate to describe writing as an exploration rather than a process. If the purpose of writing is indeed to foster the development of the student, then the students themselves will be writing in order to actively make discoveries about their own processes--not passively accept that which they have been taught. In that sense, writing is unique to each individual, and even the process itself will vary. On a similar note, we must remember that our persuasiveness varies with our audience, and rhetoric must take into account the audience to whom we speak. This is something that is NOT explicitly taught, however, and students do need that additional guidance. “Why Johnny Can’t Write” fails to take much note of the role of the audience, which is probably one of the major reasons why the writer believed that students’ writing has tanked. If we were to look at audiences today, who are surrounded by constant entertainment, we would surely recognize that writing MUST look differently than it has in the past. I am so curious about what Merrill Sheils believes constitutes good writing, and I doubt that she is a proponent of process pedagogy. My biggest takeaway from this week’s reading is that writing is so subjective. We write for our audiences; therefore, the very definition of “good writing” is elusive.

Katelyn Fitzsimmons

9/8/2020 05:09:16 am

This week’s readings all placed a keen focus on the importance of the individualized writing process, and how important teaching a writing process is when teaching writing. In “Guide to Composition of Pedagogy, it states that, “good writing is correct, well organized, and stylistically appealing” (215). No writer can accomplish this on the first try. A process needs to be established in order to achieve this. I noticed that according to all three readings, the approach to teaching as a process started because this sort of universal deficit in good writing exists. All three readings acknowledged that "good writing" is a process and this process is not one size fits all by any stretch of the imagination. These readings shined a light on the fact that people in general underestimate and downplay the complexity and importance of the individualized writing process. Specifically in the section in “Guide to Composition Pedagogy,” a priority is placed on the writing process and how it allows writers to truly explore meaning. Process pedagogy thrived in an environment that cultivated the growth of diverse ideas and approaches from various sources. These readings relate to last week’s reading, “Why Johnny Can’t Write” because expressivist writing is mentioned along with process in writing. Expressivist writing and “formal” writing training need to both have a place in the in the writing space of an English classroom. Both of these can be “good writing,” but the process of writing is what is important in all styles. We as educators need to create a balance -- no “expressionist classroom” can exist. After reading last week’s reading, I could definitely understand that having too much expressivist writing deprives students from “formal” writing training. Now, after reading this week’s readings, I find that it is truly all about teaching process in writing that allows us to breed good writers and become good writers ourselves.

Maeve McDonagh

9/8/2020 03:28:40 pm

This week the readings focused on the writing process and how a shift was made in the way we teach writing to focus on this process more. The readings attempt to define what we consider good writing and furthermore identify how we can teach “good” writing to all students. The authors accomplish this by looking at the function of writing in our society and determining how we can encourage students to foster writing skills that work towards that function. For example, one concept that is found throughout the readings is that writing is a social process. This leads to a discussion of the benefits of collaborative learning. The relationship between good writing and logical thinking is also emphasized in these pieces to show the importance of creating an effective way to teach students to write well. The readings from this week reminded me of the “Why Johnny Can’t Write” piece because they all focus on the shifts in the way we teach writing to attempt to “fix” the perceived decline in student writing. When thinking about all these readings, it seems that the reason Johnny can’t write is that he is always being taught how to write, rather than taught how to develop his own process of writing. The shift away from grammar and syntax focused writing instruction in favor of teaching process seems to be celebrated by most teachers and researchers; however, there seems to also be an agreement that this style of teaching could be improved even more. Teachers who teach the development of a writing process can be criticized for not addressing the way that process might look for each individual student or for addressing one aspect more than other aspects of writing. While these readings brought up valid points about the ways in which writing pedagogy can be improved, I feel that they lacked an answer for how to effectively address every aspect of writing completely and in the correct context for each student, who may each have a completely different process, in a typical, crowded classroom.

Nicole Moscone

9/8/2020 06:57:31 pm

This week’s readings all placed emphasis on the importance of the writing process. It was interesting to see the shifts in theories and pedagogy over the years. In “A Guide to Composition Pedagogies” it is explained that the major difference between current-traditional paradigm and process pedagogy is the shift from product to process.The process movement argues for the importance of viewing writing as a process in which one is prewriting, writing, and revising. The most common critique of this theory arises from the fact that no writing process looks the same for two people. Teachers had begun using the 3 step writing process as a model and it became formalic.The problem with this is that not everyone’s writing process is the same. A writing process is not a one size fits all. Students may use different processes and techniques at various stages in their writing. I do not think teachers meant to make the writing process so mechanical; I think teachers naturally tend to do this with all aspects of teaching in order to help students chunk complex concepts. There are many aspects of expressivism that could be tremendously beneficial in a writing class. Employing expressivism practices like freewriting, journaling, and workshopping help develop the whole person and writer. However, I agree with Berlin that expressivism seems to dismiss the material world and audience. It appears that during each movement or period of time, scholars argue over the proper theory to implement. One movement or theory was quickly replaced by the next due to the idea that it was perceived that writing was still not improving. Rather than discarding one theory entirely, I think teachers should incorporate multiple aspects of these theories into their teaching. This made me think about the article “Why Johnny Can’t Write”. It seems that we are always declaring that students cannot write or that there are less and less “good writers”. I think we need to look at the way we are teaching writing and analyze what we are valuing. Perhaps Johnny will be able to write if we weave these movements and pedagogies together rather than arguing against one. We, as teachers, should value the writing process, but instead of teaching the writing process as we teach the formalic five paragraph essay, we should spend more time helping students find their own writing process.

Diana Cross

9/9/2020 06:37:07 am

Donald Murray’s statement “writing is a process, not a product” illustrates the greatest difference between current- traditional and process pedagogies. It’s quite difficult for me to imagine that the process pedagogy was a revolutionary ideology. Yet all of the readings this week describe the process movement as having been an alternative approach to writing, with some of the key elements focused on the student in a socially dynamic environment where writing is more than the sum of the all parts put together. Previous and ineffective tactics targeted error correction and tried to establish formulas for how to write correctly. In Process Pedagogy and Its Legacy, Anson remembers with great frustration that using such methods provided minimal engagement or improvement with student work, a sentiment that was echoed among college professors mentioned in the 1975 article, “Why Johnny Can’t Write”. Through reading about the emergence of process writing this week, it was clear to me that this new approach reimagined the writer and solved some of the “illiteracy problems” bemoaned in “Why Johnny Can’t Write”. This process-centered paradigm allowed, for the first time, exploration and flexibility within composition. It seems that the movement proposed and then the subsequent post-process movement refined the theory that writing is cyclical; a writer, seeking self-development and a strong and expressive “voice”, may move back and forth through the stages of “prewriting”, “writing” “revising” and “presenting” many times. What I believe the previous instructors, especially those mentioned in “Johnny” were getting wrong, was that teaching writing was a “one size fits all” methodology. As a middle school ELL teacher today it’s almost inconceivable to me that educators were recognizing that writing instruction was ineffective, but were unwilling to evaluate their own practices. Rigidity in composition stifles writers, who will only “develop self-efficacy, confidence and strategies for meeting the challenges…” (Anson, 226) when given the ability to craft their own texts, the support to collaborate with others, and the freedom to choose what to write about.

Clare Nee

9/9/2020 09:55:50 am

This week we read articles relating to the paradigmatic shift in writing composition pedagogy in the early 1970s called “Process Pedagogy”. This shift was largely influenced or shaped by similar ideals upheld within expressivism such as free writing, creativity, and the development of authentic voice and self. During this time, scholars looked within the classroom and noted that teachers must view writing as a process, not a product. This stems from the notions of writing and modes of communication as forms of not only communication, but thought. Thus, scholars contended that we must instill this process of creativity and voice from a young age in order to better prepare students to become better writers rather than to merely produce better writing (North as qtd. 218). Thus, by changing the focus of writing from product to process, you would enable students to develop a deeper sense of education that enabled them to write to think and comprehend (Tate et. al. 216). They also emphasized three stages of writing as being crucial: prewriting, editing, and rewriting. I thought that this was interesting, because it makes sense as to why there were so many times in which teachers have done group and peer editing in class, like today. It was to use collaboration to generate thought and to go through multiple stages in order to finalize the final product. Learning about this shift makes sense, because it relates to our experiences within the classroom, but I also found it interesting to connect with, or rather to critique, standardized testing and other tests that are centered around a one-shot product, not a process of thought.

This reading, like why the article last week, addresses the crisis of illiteracy in America. However, rather than merely placing blame on the teachers, these scholars enacted change. Certainly it didn’t fix all problems, but I think that the shift in pedagogical approach to writing composition was vital. Most of what we read this week contrasts with the article from last week, because it was more focused on improving the mindset and cognitive function of the learner, rather than producing better writing. The Johnny article was more centered around the idea of producing better writing and improving grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. Whereas the Process model focuses more on creativity, connection, and using writing as a means of learning. The scholars put this on a higher order of concern, rather than the structural and technical parts, because they believed that if you critiqued the writing without process, that nothing transformative would happen in the mind of the students. Critique of structure without appreciation for the ideas shuts the student down, rather than building them up as a learner.

Kyle Rego

9/9/2020 10:07:53 am

I read for class in three different sessions this week. During the first of these three sessions I dedicated my time to Wardle & Adler-Kassner, and I felt encouraged. Their first chapter seemed to confirm some of the things I felt secure in. The essays featured in this chapter highlighted the inseparable nature between writer and audience in a variety of contexts and made clear that the process of writing, in fact, is a “Social and Rhetorical Activity.” Writers most often write to specific audiences for specific purposes and they employ different strategies in order to do so. At this point I felt like the content in the chapter was at the heart of my teaching.
“Hey! I teach the rhetorical triangle all year long.” I thought. “My whole approach is based around trying to help students identify this interaction between audience and writer in order to make claims about purpose.”
And then I moved on.
In reading Tobin, Burnham, and Clark my optimism had turned to fear. These three pieces were connected in that they traced the development of the Process teaching model for composition, highlighting the contributions of theorists/researchers like Morray, Elbow, Britton, and Bruner. Tobin, Burnham, and Clark illustrated these scholars as those who orchestrated a resistance to the traditional model of composition classes. My fear, however, was generated by the fact that much of what Morray, Elboy, Britton, and Bruner were rising up against--the “traditional” model--seemed to be describing the state of the educational environment I have been immersed in and perpetrating for 9 years now. During the time that I have been teaching I have seen my department move away from personal writing toward “text-to-text” analysis in order to keep up with the evolving requirements of things like MCAS. In many ways, I have spent my career perpetrating the “compositional two-step” rather than allowing students to find their voice. Perhaps I am part of the old guard--a traditionalist--though I certainly, until this past week, would never have categorized myself as such.

Erin Slayton

9/9/2020 11:26:16 am

My interest in this week’s readings drew into focus when reviewing Clark’s discussion of processes in Concepts in Composition. I appreciated how writing is framed here not as a single process, but rather an amalgamation of various techniques that work best to improve writing quality. The opening chapter argues that writing is a mode of thinking, a technology through which we can tangibly process thoughts; this contrasts notions of writing as reflections of something we’ve already figured out or organized beforehand. Complicating the idea that the writing process is “linear” allows students freedom to approach drafting from outside of typically prescriptive categories, instead implementing steps that work for the individual. Thinking back to “Why Johnny Can’t Write” it seems the deficit view may inhibit students’ feelings of writing competence; perhaps reframing writing processes as an organic pursuit of self-discovery involving “mulling over a problem… exploring new ideas or bringing disparate ideas together” (Alder-Kassner 19) may invite hesitant writers into this previously rigid space.

In Adler-Kassner’s Naming What We Know, I noted how the Rhetorical Triangle was prioritized, insisting on the importance that writing is a social interaction, a vehicle through which communication is expressed and meaning is made by the reader. By interrogating “why we write” throughout history, cultural assimilation and standardization being two reasons, we can see plainly the gradual shift from product-oriented writing, to more emphasis on the role of individual participation throughout. I enjoyed how the readings aligned with my own philosophy around teaching composition – that language and rhetoric are tools, and students’ work is to discover the varied means of persuasion available, and how to use them. Additionally, bringing rhetorical reading into the conversation helps show continuity across the modes, and how, through enacting critical thinking, can help students approach a text purposefully, and not passively.

Liz Brady

9/9/2020 01:07:09 pm

These readings focused on the concept of a writing process and how this is taught in classrooms. It was shocking to see that this concept is a relatively recent development, but it certainly makes sense given that the practice of teaching a writing process is rife with bumps that still need to be smoothed. For instance, Clark describes how the three-stage approach of planning, drafting, and revising is a comfortable lie at best. “It does not reflect what writers actually do,” Clark writes, “because writers frequently discover and reconsider ideas during, as well as before they write, moving back and forth between the… stages as the text emerges” (8). She describes how the assumption that ideas must be fully formed before they hit the paper can hinder a student from beginning the drafting process in fear of not having fully formed thoughts. It is simply true that there is no linear writing process that suits the needs of all students.

These readings and poor, illiterate Johnny have shown me one thing above all: educators are stuck between a rock and a bigger rock. I think if you ask any English teacher, their personal classroom goal would be for students to develop a writing process that allows them to craft effective rhetoric, even after they finish the class. But there exists the simultaneous goal for students to be able to pass the slew of tests they must take to get out of high school and get to college. These tests don’t allow for an organic writing process, as students have to produce fully-formed essays in a relatively short amount of time with minimal preparation. Teachers are often forced to prioritize the product (a five-paragraph essay, for instance) over the process. On top of this, the massive classroom sizes we often see in 21st century America are less than ideal in regards to devoting individual attention to budding writers. We can’t ask teachers to simultaneously teach students how to write effectively no matter the circumstance while putting the entire discipline of composition into a box shaped like a five-paragraph essay. It’s an impossible task.

Carl Olson

9/9/2020 01:22:04 pm

The readings this week touched on what process pedagogy is and how it came to be. I think, like many students, I took for granted that this simply is how writing is and has almost always been taught. In my writing center background, the writing process - the stages of prewriting, drafting, and revision - is a central focus. Because writing centers are not spaces where the end product is the goal, we work to help students learn about what the writing process is and how to make it work for them.
Much like writing can be viewed as a process, writing pedagogy should also be viewed as a process. As mentioned in the introduction to A Guide to Composition Pedagogies, David Kolb “suggests that experience is not useful for building new knowledge and understanding unless combined with cycles of reflection.” Pedagogy must respond to the needs of the students, which can vary due to numerous factors, such as learning styles and disabilities or cultural contexts. By understanding what does and does not work, pedagogy can be revised, expanded, or sprout anew.
It seems to me that much of the problem presented in “Why Johnny Can’t Write” is due to the focus on the product rather than the process. While the product is certainly important, much of the way institutions test for the measure of student writing success is only concerned with the product. Institutions have to set standards for what student writing should look like in order to produce competent students and continue to receive funding. But, when the focus is too intent on the product, students do not learn how to develop a proper writing process for themselves that can help them succeed in higher and higher levels of composition. Pedagogy can at times be at odds with institutional goals because pedagogy can adapt to meet the needs, but an institution’s need for funding never changes.

Reading Response Week #2: The Process Movement, Johnny, and the rest of us.

Leave a Reply.

torda & the 513s

Archives

Categories