Lunsford and Shaughnessy Essays

Andrea A. Lunsford's "Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer" argues that basic writers do not yet have the cognitive level of experienced writers, and that is the reason they cannot perform analysis and synthesis effectively. They find difficulties in trying to infer and form their own opinions based on what was read. Lunsford then went on to explain that researchers including Piaget and Vygotsky argue that the development of a higher cognitive level comes from first doing, then doing consciously, and finally formally conceptualizing. According to Lunsford, basic writing classes should revolve around small workshop groups that keep every member actively involved. Also, the teacher should come up with assignments and drills that have the students continually practicing. Furthermore, since the group is working together, they will be involved in what Lunsford calls inferential problem-solving as opposed to simply doing a drill, or strict memorization. Lunsford then goes into the idea of sentence-combining exercises to help basic writers go from imitating other modes/ideas in writing, and transition into generating their own original ideas and synthesis of the material.
Mina P. Shaughnessy's "Diving In: An Introduction to Basic Writing" offers four basic stages that teachers go through as they develop their craft. The first stage, Guarding the Tower, explains that the new teacher is focused on following the rules and protecting the academy (of learners) from those who don't belong. I take that to mean that the teacher is focused on those who do belong to the academy of learners, but the problem is that many of the beginning writers might not. Then, the teacher enters the second stage, Converting the Natives, when they realize that the class has some students that might catch up if they have the right instruction. Next, the teacher enters the third stage, Sounding the Depths, where they observe if their students are improving upon their writing, and look at themselves as a writer as well as a teacher. The final stage, Diving In, is when the teacher decided to remediate himself and become a student of new disciplines and of his students, in an attempt to deduce the things they are struggling with as well as the things at which they excel, according to Shaughness. It is finally deciding to help them learn to write well and enter the community of the educable.
These two essays were difficult for me to relate to because they did not really correlate to my career choice since I am not going into teaching. However, when I tried to apply the Lunsford essay to my tutoring experience, I felt like it had more merit. My tutee has, on both papers that we have looked at, tried to summarize what he has read and then adds his own opinion very minimally at the end of the paper. I felt like this is waht Lunsford was getting at when she said that beginning writers have difficulty with synthesis and really applying what they have read. That is something I hope to work on with him, and this essay helped me to recognize that it is a basic problem that is very common for beginning writers. I hope that much of the discussion we have generated can help him bridge the gap and really come up with his own reaction to the peice he is synthesizing. Also, the Shaughnessy essay really reinforced the role that I must take as a tutor in helping my tutee to write well. He already has strong opinions, does the work, and seems to be a serious student. Now he just needs to work on making those verbal discussions translate into his synthesis, such that it is not simply a summary. I think Shaughnessy would refer to this as the tutor "diving in."

Bitch Magazine

Looking at Bitch magazine helped put a practical application to what felt like a rather abstract topic for me. In reality, however, you would have to consider not only the people you are writing specifically for, but you also have to consider the types of reactions you will likely invoke in the readers as they read your argument. The writers of Bitch would not want to write anything against a magazine to which their readers might subscribe because that would invoke a feeling of mistrust and disagreement among the readers. Therefore, it is evident that the writers do not expect their readers to be reading such magazines and would not be so put off by their remarks. On the contrary, they might find themselves in agreement and identifying with the points. The sarcasm in this magazine particularly was very to the point and the readers could not help but laugh. It was clear that Bitch magazine does not care what their competitors think of them. They want their point read and they are making their view known. Even a name like Bitch invokes a particular response in the reader and also signals that it might not be for everyone.

Ede and Lunsford

Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford’s essay “The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy” addresses many weaknesses in other theories concerning the role of the audience in writing. Ede and Lunsford argue that arguments on both sides oversimplify the issue. They assert that “making meaning through written discourse” is very complex (78). The “audience addressed” approach means that the writer takes into account the audience’s attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. For this approach, the audience is very real. Using this approach, however, Ede and Lunsford argue that theorists Mitchell and Taylor overemphasize and oversimplify the elements they include in their model for writing: writer, written product, audience, and response. In doing so, they do not give enough weight to the relationship between style and substance. Writing is more than just acting upon a receiver, but rather that it is a “means of making meaning for the writer and the reader” (82).

That said, Ede and Lunsford also addressed the idea of “audience invoked” which views the audience to be a fiction that the writer creates. Ong, who we have previously studied, argued that the writer has to construct the audience in their imagination and likewise, the audience must fictionalize itself. Ede and Lunsford, however, contest that the constraints on the writer and the role of the reader are much more complex than Ong would lead you to believe and that Ong does not always recognize the constraints that the audience places on the writer. There are instances in which the writer must think about their actual readers, and both analyze and invent an audience, which would be a mix between the two approaches.

Ede and Lunsford created a model that addresses the many roles of the audience and also looks at the fact that they may be either addressed or invoked. The addressed audience exists outside of the text, but the roles of the addressed audience may be invoked through the text. Ede and Lunsford stress the integrated and interdependent role of both reading and writing. Therefore, the audience must balance the creativity of the writer with that of the reader.

Looking back at Ong’s study, I believe that Ede and Lunsford did point out some important flaws, or areas that Ong overlooked. In reality, it does seem more like a give and take relationship. I know that when I was learning to write, I was always taught the importance of keeping in mind the audience, but also to stay focused on the argument that I was trying to make. I think that if you focus too much on the audience, your argument becomes weaker, but on the same note, if you focus too much on your own argument without taking into account both the fictionalized and addressed audience, your argument could suffer. Therefore, a balance of both is necessary in order to have a truly successful argument.

Ong's Essay

Walter J. Ong’s essay “The Writer’s Audience is Always Fiction” examines the relationship of the audience to the writer, professing that because the audience is not in front of the writer, they are forced to imagine or make them up. Ong explains that writing for your fictionalized audience is stems from reading you have done by authors who have fictionalized their audience before you. The author can cast the audience in different types of roles, according to Ong. For instance, the Hemingway “you –and-me relationship” invoke great empathy in the reader based on shared experience, as if the reader had been through it with the writer, which was very different from the approach many writers before him had taken. Ong explains that even Homer established a fictional world with “once upon a time” language. Chaucer frames his stories and then made it seem real by placing himself, the narrator, in the tales. Ong goes so far as to assert that even letter writers are forced to fictionalize their audience because no one is physically there for you to address orally. Diary writers, too, do so because we do not normally talk to ourselves, and they must pretend they are not there in order to write to themselves. Thus, Ong argues that each writer must create a fictionalized audience when writing.

I think that when I was learning to write, I did fictionalize my audience, and still do, but without really thinking about it. Everything I write is done so for a certain intended reader that is not actually there. In Ong’s example of the student being instructed to write on the subject of “How I spent my summer vacation,” I found it very identifiable because I would write completely different essays for a different fictionalized audience. In fact, I have done exercises in writing classes where we wrote the same paper for different audiences and the result was completely different.

While Ong’s essay was much different from some of the other approaches we have studied, I believe that Ong makes a valid point that the audience is crucial to consider, and fictionalize, as the writer. It reminded me of Perl’s argument regarding the differences between skilled and unskilled writers. Perl pointed out that unskilled readers often take the readers understanding for granted. On the same note, Ong emphasizes that you must, as a writer, take into account your fictionalized audience. That is, the audience for whom you are writing. While Perl came to the conclusion that unskilled writers did not know how to effectively edit their work and attributed that to their lack of attention to their intended audience, Ong would likely argue that the fictionalized audience of the writer is based upon writings they have read in the past and the fictionalized audience of writers in the past. Therefore, I would conjecture that the more one reads, the better equipped they are to understand their fictionalized audience.

Breuch's essay "Post-Process Pedagogy"

Lee-Ann Breuch’s essay, “Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’” explores the idea that process is not an accurate description of writing. It is not a matter of pre-writing, writing, and rewriting which can be easily taught. Rather, writing cannot be taught because it is “situated, interpretive, and interdeterminate” and because of that, it cannot be taught because nothing exists to teach. One scholar, Kent, distinguishes other knowledge like that of grammar rules which can be taught from the act of writing which cannot be taught. While the implications of writing as a process are that writing can be learned and perfected, in reality, as Breuch, Kent, and other scholars argue, writing cannot be perfected. In accordance with Post-Process theory, there are several assumptions about writing. Specifically, the theory assumes that writing is public, interpretive, and situated. Writing is public because there is an intended audience for everything you write and writers try to communicate their argument to that specific audience. Writing is interpretive because the production of discourse is just as interpretive as the reception. It is even suggested that every interpretation is based on previous interpretations. Finally, writing is situated because it must correspond to specific contexts that naturally vary. Some suggest that teachers should change how and what they teach based on the situation in the classroom, and they do not have to follow any one set blueprint. Breuch argues that you should not take Post-Process theory at face value, simply as a critique of process, but rather that it also implies the acceptance of anti-foundationalist perspective and moving toward language-in-use in order to reexamine the foundations from which teachers teach and how they communicate towards students.

I do agree that it is important to discuss ideas and listen to students open-mindedly, and that the argument does seem valid for students not to have to adhere to a strict theory that writing is a process which can be learned. I still cannot get past the fact that I keep thinking about how much the process of writing has helped me learn to become a better writer. It is true that I am not a perfect writer, but I do not think perfection of the skill is necessarily the goal of writing. This theory presents several good implications of writing with which I do agree, but I still keep thinking about the fact that the actual process of writing is very important, as Murray and Emig would assert. Murray, Emig, and Breuch are student centered in their arguments, focusing on what the student needs, but in very different ways. While Murray and Emig would agree that the process of writing is most important, Breuch would contest that writing is not something that straight-foreword. Emig stresses feedback and the act of writing being inclusive and creative, whereas Murray says that prewriting is the creative process, and takes a much less cognitive approach. Breuch, on the other hand, seems to have a less tangible thought about writing, saying that it is very-much so interpretive and should be molded to the situation at hand, and that it really cannot be taught. Therefore, it is not right for teachers to profess that there is one right or wrong way to write and that the process must be followed.

Based on my writing experiences, I do think that the principles upon which we write can be taught. By that I mean that we can be taught the process of writing, and the rules that so-called “good writers” follow. However, once we, as students of writing, know those rules and processes, it is alright to stray away from them and develop our own voice as a writer. Process is, in my mind, the key to writing. When writers skip the prewriting or rewriting step, their writing is not nearly as concise as when they follow through with the whole process from beginning to end. While I could definitely agree with some of the points Breuch makes about writing, I ultimately think that writing is a process which can be learned but not perfected.

Perl and Sommers

Sondra Perl’s essay “The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers” examines a study which explored how unskilled writers compose by assigning them to write both in both an extensive, objective manner as well as a reflexive, reflective manner. In one specific case, outlined in the essay, Tony (the unskilled writer) spent more time prewriting and writing in the extensive mode but used fewer words. The reflexive mode took him 20 minutes longer, but he was able to come up with 194 more words. Therefore, he had more fluency in the reflexive mode. In the extensive mode, Tony slowed down and corrected his words and sentences several times because he was hooked on the idea that it had to be right which inevitably slowed down the flow of his writing. Furthermore, when the idea of prewriting was established as a guideline and the unskilled writers had to plan, it was easier for them to articulate the actual writing process because they had a sense of where their writing was going.

In Nancy Sommers’s essay “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers,” Sommers took a sample of twenty college freshmen as well as twenty experienced adults and compared their revision strategies. She found four different levels of changes: word, phrase, sentence, and theme. The students revised in order to “clean up speech” according to Sommers. Experienced writers, however, would rewrite and focus on language changes with the aim of making the argument stronger, identifying and getting rid of dissonance, and finding the shape of their argument. Experienced writers made changes on all levels, but students did not frequently use reordering or addition in their revision process, and lacked a holistic perspective in relation to their work.

In my own experiences with trying to help one of my friends form an argument for a paper, I realized that her main problem is that she cannot get through a sentence without rewording it three times. I tried to encourage her to write it out and get her ideas on paper and then revise, but she always reverts back to erasing every other word she writes and it ends up taking her much longer. This reminded me of Perl’s findings that “unskilled writers” get hooked on the idea that their writing has to be perfect. Sommers, too, explained how skilled writers will revise several times in order to really perfect their argument after completing their work. I know that when I write I try to keep myself from getting hung up on the sentence level errors or inconsistencies before I finish my argument. I also always plan out my argument so that it will be easier not only to write, but also to revise and find any inconsistencies in my argument.

I think the works of Perl and Sommers have a lot to do with Murray’s essay “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product” because just as Perl examines how unskilled writers compose, so too does Sommers test the difference in styles of unskilled and skilled writers. Murray urges teachers to allow the students to engage in the process of writing in order to learn. He clarifies that to be the process of prewriting, writing, and rewriting. Sommers focuses more in-depth on how rewriting styles differ between unskilled and skilled writers, but I believe something all three writers have in common is an attention to the different styles of different writers as well as how they might identify weaknesses.

Cross Talk in Comp Theory Response Journal

Cross-Talk in Comp Theory is intended to be used by teachers as an overview of composition studies. According to the editor, Victor Villanueva, the readings in the book are presented such that you can come to your own conclusions by looking at different viewpoints. The idea is to establish a dialectic through these many readings. The first two readings assigned did just that. Donald M. Murray’s essay “Teach Writing as a Process Not Product” argues that writing is about the process more so than anything else. He says there are three main stages in writing: prewriting, writing, and rewriting. Murray presents the idea that when students spend their time working through this process, they learn a lot more about themselves as a writer because “you don’t learn a process by talking about it.” Janet Emig, in her essay, “Writing as a Mode of Learning” makes note of the higher cognitive functions that develop through writing including analysis and synthesis. She argues that talking and writing are productive functions, but is clear about the differences between the two. While talking is valuable to the prewriting process, writing is not classified as talk recorded – there is no tangible audience, and it is a considerably slower, more defined process.

In my own experiences of being taught to write, I learned to go through the process of writing in steps. We would start by researching, then write out a draft, and then finally revise it several times until the argument was clear and well supported. When I was learning to write, my biggest shortcoming was in researching because I would often want to just jump straight to writing the paper and not take enough time to really analyze my argument as well as the arguments against it. I agree that writing is very much so a process which you learn through experience and past errors. I also believe that higher cognitive functions do develop through this process of writing because you must analyze not only your argument, but the arguments of others in order to synthesize all of the information together into your paper on any given topic. I was always taught the importance of supporting your argument when writing, which I now understand to be crucial to the process.

I can easily see how the instruction of writing has changed over time, in accordance with the historical time period and what was happening in the world. According to Berlin’s “A Short History of Writing Instruction,” the view of teaching writing as a cognitive process or as an expressionist process has evolved over the years. Now, however, I believe that as Cross-Talk asserts, while writing is a cognitive process, it also engages both sides of the brain. Therefore, it is an expressionistic process using cognitive functions. Cross-Talk and Berlin both reference Bruner’s work arguing that writing is a cognitive process. I agree that writing is a crucial cognitive process which forces students to think creatively and develop their own process and means of producing a final product.