My Theory of Writing Pedagogy
How Does One Teach Writing?
In my Theory of Writing, I talked about how I view writing as a toolbox, and things like genre, audience, purpose, etc. as some of the tools inside. If writing is a toolbox, then to successfully teach it, one would need to offer it to students as a means for accomplishing their goals. They’d also need assistance exploring the utility contained within each tool.
As an educator, I believe it’s my responsibility to not only offer this toolbox but also allow students to practice their writing in an low-stakes environment that encourages their own realizations and development. To do this, it’s necessary to understand the challenges that new writers face and to put controls in place to help meet those challenges.
The Instructor's Role: Reframing Writing
As stated previously, a shift in the way students think about writing is necessary for them to be successful. Many have difficulty understanding the intricacies of their new college writing environment. Some bring with them misconceptions about the importance of grammar and spelling, or they feel writing’s only goal is to produce a product worthy of a passing grade. My pedagogical approach is designed to change those attitudes.
To paraphrase scholar Don Murray: writing should be understood not as a product to be completed, but as a process of discovery. The role of the instructor in this capacity is to shift the students thinking from product-focused to process-focused, while also helping to understand writing’s rhetorical aspects (Murray 3). Likewise, instructors must also encourage students by creating equitable environments in which to practice their writing. With process and practice as the focus, students are not judged or graded solely on their product. Instead, grades are awarded based on individual writing process development.
Writing instruction should also be presented as what Estrem calls “an activity that can help students understand existing knowledge, mull over an issue, or explore connections between seemingly disparate ideas” (Estrem 19). In other words, the goal should no longer be to create a finished piece that “ticks all the boxes.” Rather, the goal should be to position writing as something that can be employed as a medium for broader thinking with real audiences, contexts, and outcomes.
Sondra Perl’s research mirrors Murray’s thoughts. She sees an effective instructor as one “who can see through the tangles in the process…and who can intervene in such a way that untangling…leads to [creating] better prose” (Perl 328). In other words, the instructor uses their wider scope of experience to help newer writers understand what their writing is doing, what it is trying to do, and how to bridge that gap.
The Instructor's Role: Contextualizing
Another problem for many new writers is understanding why the methods of writing instruction in college differ from those in high school. More so, some instructors incorrectly assume that undergraduates arrive knowing the reasons for these differences. As an instructor, however, it is important to contextualize this shift and introduce students to the connections between lectures, course assignments, and course readings.
When instructors fail to contextualize, “this [failure] creates a potential disconnect between instructor theorization [recognizing important connections] and instructor pedagogy [not teaching those same connections to students]” (Bunn 501). Contextualization provides students with reasoning for why certain materials are assigned, rather than allowing them to interpret reading scholarly texts as useless busy work.
As educators, we always want our students to achieve specific learning outcomes. Solidifying connections through the contextualization of course materials demonstrates to students that the instructor understands where academic materials fit into the writing conversation. Course readings can then operate as reinforcement to support the course’s and the student’s goals. (Bunn 505)
Course Design: What Should Writing Instructors Teach?
When creating courses to suit process-based instruction, the student's writing practice and process should be at the core of the curriculum. Students should be responsible for finding their own subjects, be encouraged to use their own language, create multiple drafts, and examine the choices they make within their writing (Murray 4). When instructors allow this type of autonomy students feel responsible for their individual learning trajectory.
Wardle and Downs have famously stated that because writing is a field with declarative knowledge, that it is imperative to teach that knowledge in first-year composition courses (Downs 1). So, rather than trying to teach students how to write, a composition course’s focus should be instead on teaching the study of writing as a discipline. This focus goes hand-in-hand with teaching writing as process and practice.
By reframing writing as a subject of study, students can begin to recognize the subject as having conventions, in the same way Biology or Chemistry do. Students can then seek those conventions to orient themselves to the specific writing task or rhetorical situation at hand.
Just as student's wouldn't portray themselves as “bad chemists” or a “bad biologists,” at the introductory levels, they shouldn't operate under presuppositions of being “bad writers,” or “good writers.” Teaching writing as a discipline removes these presuppositions and positions students instead as untrained learners entering into a new and complex subject of study.
Course Design: The Importance of Revision
As instructors, we constantly strive to help students recognize the value of revision. Many view revision solely as the identification of their writing shortcomings. But we need them to understand revision as more than just fixing typographical errors and ferreting out grammatical faux pas. We need to show them that revision allows writers to reflectively consider the strengths and weaknesses of their writing. Part of the instructor’s task is to reframe revision as a necessary stage of the writing process.
Jeff Sommers’ research into the field of radical revision offers insight into bridging this gap. Radical revision—as coined by Fulwiler and Bishop—challenges the student to repurpose a piece of their writing into a different genre through the acts of adding, switching, limiting, or transforming (Sommers 295). By its very nature, radical revision trades the perceived corrective component of revision for a complete reimagining of what a student’s work might become. And when revision is treated as a self-directed exploratory exercise, the pressure and friction of it as correction dissipates.
Course Design: Reflection as a Means of Self-Assessment & Critical Thinking
Finally, all writers need to become proficient in the skill of self-assessment. For many undergraduates, writing will be a significant part of their future careers. But without an instructor to help critically examine a piece of writing, the responsibility of assessment falls to them or their employers. To build that skill, writers need to develop the critical skill of reflection.
According to writing scholar Kathleen Yancy, reflection is a critical but often undervalued component of the writing process (Yancy 5). By introducing reflection into the classroom, students can become “intelligent agents who can engage in frequent and deliberate self-awareness” (Yancy 8). In other words, the act of thinking about their thinking and how that affected their writing allows students to recognize the actionable, real-world implications of their writing process.
Success in the Classroom
To teach writing, one must possess the attitude that they are equal parts coach, advocate, and editor. Doing so isn’t an easy task. But with careful course design, attention to the field, and an understanding of their purpose in the classroom, instructors can help students effectively use writing inside the academic environment and beyond.
Works Cited
Bunn, M., “Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and Writing) in the Composition Classroom”, College Composition and Communication, Vol 64, No. 3., 2013, pp. 496-516.
Downs, D. & Wardle, E. “Reflecting Back and Looking Forward: Revisiting “Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions” Five years on”, Composition Forum 27, 2013, http://compositionforum.com/issue/27/reflecting.php, accessed March 2023
Estrem, H., “Writing is a Knowledge Making Activity”, Naming What We Know, University Press of Colorado, 2016, pp. 19.
Murray, D., “Teaching Writing as a Process Not a Product”, The Essential Don Murray: Lessons from America's Greatest Writing Teacher, Heinemann, 2009, pp. 1-5.
Pearl, S. “The Composing Process of Unskilled College Writers”, Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 13, No 4., National Council of Teachers of English, 1979, pp. 317-336.
Sommers, J. “Revisiting Radical Revision”, Critical Expressivism: Theory and Practice in the Composition Classroom, WAC Clearinghouse, 2014, pp. 289-304.
Yancey, K. “Reflection In The Writing Classroom,” Utah State University Press, 1998. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umboston/detail.action?docID=3442793.
