English 1010 & Murray
My formal composition experience consists solely of English 1010. I used one of the essays I had written in 1010 to test out of 2010. Because of this, my college comp. experience centers on Professor Watanabe’s 1010 class.
In Watanabe’s class our formal writing instruction came from two sources: Watanabe herself, and Donald Murray’s book Write To Learn. At the time, I had no idea who Murray was or what he stood for. I felt that much of his instruction was formulaic, too step-by step, and broken down into unnecessary, small pieces. Murray took away the necessary hard work of creating a dynamic method. The books step-by-step account described writing as it would be executed by an automaton. Also, and this is the worst part, he took a procedure that could be so natural, and dissected it into a million parts—it was like teaching someone to run by having them write a report on the respiratory system.
All the criticisms I and my classmates had for Murray were not enlightening—at least, not from a pedagogical standpoint. From a teaching standpoint, Murray’s methods have proven themselves again and again. However, from my classes perspective, our reactions were justified. What accounts for this discrepancy? After reading Murray’s article “Teach Writing as a Process not Product,” and other related articles from Cross-Talk In Comp. Theory, I have come to a conclusion as to why both reactions, in the end, support Murray’s methods of teaching composition.
Murray tells us, “We [composition teaches] are coaches, encouragers, developers, creators of environments in which our students can experience the writing process for themselves.” A students discovery of the writing process leads “to a potential voice.” From this search for a potential voice, the student begins to change the process he was taught to fit his own needs. “It is an exciting, eventful, evolving process,” Murray emphatically states.
This process is designed to give students with no formal writing methods of their own, a framework on which to create their own individual process. This process works. But what happens when the student already has substantial writing experience and an established composition method that works efficiently and reliably? Myself and several other students in Watanabe’s class were such students. As we read Murray’s textbook, our individual methods grated with Murray’s generic processes. We were resistant to abandon the methods we had spent so much time developing. Our reactions were completely justified.
Murray’s composition methodology has an heuristic aim—to have the student internalize an individual composition model which allows for self-sustained, self-motivated writing development. This is why myself and other students from Watanabe’s 1010 class were justified in feeling a redundancy to Murray’s process—we had already gone through the process, and we possessed an individual model which Murray was trying to get us to develop in the first place.
This does not imply that we needed no further instruction, but simply a recognition that Murray’s process is taught in order that it may become self-sustaining. Because of this, it applies best to beginning writers. The ongoing process as it applies to the development of style, form, etc., is self-evident—a teacher is no longer needed. Yet, clearly, all of us from Watanabe’s class needed further instruction. How does instruction continue if we are taught an entirely self-sustaining process?
The answer to that question has to be extensive and absurd amounts of time devoted to writing, and reflection on what one has written. This is the obvious answer. Perhaps not so obvious, one has to seek new instruction or criticism from a teacher practicing a different process of composition. We can come to the end of what Murray can teach us because we end up teaching ourselves. However, this does not imply that we will be able to teach ourselves everything. Because of this, we must seek a variety of composition theories and models, exploiting their strengths for our own benefit. Out of this, our individual model becomes a synergy of cooperating composition models, each modified to our individual needs, each processed into our own evolving voice.
In Watanabe’s class our formal writing instruction came from two sources: Watanabe herself, and Donald Murray’s book Write To Learn. At the time, I had no idea who Murray was or what he stood for. I felt that much of his instruction was formulaic, too step-by step, and broken down into unnecessary, small pieces. Murray took away the necessary hard work of creating a dynamic method. The books step-by-step account described writing as it would be executed by an automaton. Also, and this is the worst part, he took a procedure that could be so natural, and dissected it into a million parts—it was like teaching someone to run by having them write a report on the respiratory system.
All the criticisms I and my classmates had for Murray were not enlightening—at least, not from a pedagogical standpoint. From a teaching standpoint, Murray’s methods have proven themselves again and again. However, from my classes perspective, our reactions were justified. What accounts for this discrepancy? After reading Murray’s article “Teach Writing as a Process not Product,” and other related articles from Cross-Talk In Comp. Theory, I have come to a conclusion as to why both reactions, in the end, support Murray’s methods of teaching composition.
Murray tells us, “We [composition teaches] are coaches, encouragers, developers, creators of environments in which our students can experience the writing process for themselves.” A students discovery of the writing process leads “to a potential voice.” From this search for a potential voice, the student begins to change the process he was taught to fit his own needs. “It is an exciting, eventful, evolving process,” Murray emphatically states.
This process is designed to give students with no formal writing methods of their own, a framework on which to create their own individual process. This process works. But what happens when the student already has substantial writing experience and an established composition method that works efficiently and reliably? Myself and several other students in Watanabe’s class were such students. As we read Murray’s textbook, our individual methods grated with Murray’s generic processes. We were resistant to abandon the methods we had spent so much time developing. Our reactions were completely justified.
Murray’s composition methodology has an heuristic aim—to have the student internalize an individual composition model which allows for self-sustained, self-motivated writing development. This is why myself and other students from Watanabe’s 1010 class were justified in feeling a redundancy to Murray’s process—we had already gone through the process, and we possessed an individual model which Murray was trying to get us to develop in the first place.
This does not imply that we needed no further instruction, but simply a recognition that Murray’s process is taught in order that it may become self-sustaining. Because of this, it applies best to beginning writers. The ongoing process as it applies to the development of style, form, etc., is self-evident—a teacher is no longer needed. Yet, clearly, all of us from Watanabe’s class needed further instruction. How does instruction continue if we are taught an entirely self-sustaining process?
The answer to that question has to be extensive and absurd amounts of time devoted to writing, and reflection on what one has written. This is the obvious answer. Perhaps not so obvious, one has to seek new instruction or criticism from a teacher practicing a different process of composition. We can come to the end of what Murray can teach us because we end up teaching ourselves. However, this does not imply that we will be able to teach ourselves everything. Because of this, we must seek a variety of composition theories and models, exploiting their strengths for our own benefit. Out of this, our individual model becomes a synergy of cooperating composition models, each modified to our individual needs, each processed into our own evolving voice.
posted by Anonymous at 8:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home