Sommers begin the article “Revision
Strategies of Student Writers and Experience Adult writers” by stating that,
“although various aspect of the writing process have been studied extensively
of late, research on revision has been notable absent.” Sommers
suspect the reason for this is that “current models of writing process have
directed attention away from revision.” Then she went on to name two type of
writing models, first, “Gordon Rohman’s model which suggested that composing
process is move from prewriting to writing and rewriting. Then James Britton’s
model, which described the writing process as a “series of stages described in
metaphors of linear growth, conception, incubation, and production.”Sommers
also describes the linear model, which she states is base on speech in two
specific ways, “traditional rhetorical model” and “stages of composition.” She
further add that the “linear model produce a parody of writing.” after her
introduction to the writing models she continued the conversation by including
her research study in which she examine the revision process of students
writers and experienced writers. In the beginning of the study Sommers defined
the termed “experienced” then she
introduced the students’ side of the study by saying that the students did not
seem comfortable using the word revision and explained that revision was not a
word they used, but a word their teachers used. She concluded that the student
writers predominate concerns were vocabulary. She stated that, “students understand
the revision process as a wording activity.” She also states that the students
placed a symbolic importance on their selection and rejection of words as the
determiners of success or failure for their composition. For the adult
experience writers Sommers concluded that they defined revision as the primary
objective when revising as finding the form or shape of their argument. When
Sommers questioned them about this emphasis the experienced writers responded,
“that since their first draft are usually scattered attempts to define their
territory, their objective in second draft is to begin observing general
patterns of development and deciding what should be included and what
excluded.” According to Sommers the adult experienced writer seek to discover meaning
in their engagement with writing through revision. At the end of the article she
summarizes her thought by saying that, “students do not see the incongruities.
They need to rely on their own internalized sense of good writing and to see
their writing with their “own” eyes. Seeing in revision—seeing beyond hearing
---is at the root of the word revision and the process itself.”
After the reading I thought it was
very interesting how the student writers and the adult experience writers
differ from their point of view of revision strategies. As stated before the
experience writers tried to find meaning in their engagement with writing while
the student writers mostly focused on rewording, but then again shouldn’t that
be expected? After all the adult writers are experienced which mean they had
years and probably good reasons to have developed and perfect their skills
regarding writing revision, while the student writers are still developing
their writing skills, a skill as described by Sommers they see passively
through the eye of their former teachers.
Reading Murray’s article was
awesome. In the beginning I thought wow! what such strong opening statement.
This may have nothing to do with the reading, but I have to say Murray is by
far one of my favorite writers amongst the writers we covered in this class thus
far. He is such an idealist and there’s an ease to his writing that you don’t
have to try to decipher his point. He pretty much lay it out there and say what
many like myself would like to say, but only he can do it so eloquently.
Anyways moving on to the article. In it Murray
states in the beginning that his major goal as an English teacher is to
encourage students to change their sense of what it means to write so it
reflects more of their intuitions and less of their trained belief. Knowing he might encounter opposition for
this statement he quickly added that he does not want to fight any more
opposing forces than he already has in his hand. Murray further described his goal by saying
this: “ I want them to understand that the movement from personal writing to
formal and abstract modes of writing does not involve the death and burial of
the self, but rather a reconceiving of the self that writes.” A beautiful
statement that pushes teachers and students to tap into creativity and become
better writers, however he realized that this idea of his is a mere dream
especially in the of time of standardize test. Murray continues his disapproval
of the state of writing by saying that language teachers do not appreciate the
importance or the excitement of revision, he said instead they teach rewriting
–if they teach it at all as punishment the price you have to pay if you don’t
get it right the first time. He advise
instead of teaching rewriting as punishment teachers should use revision as the
opportunity to enable students to experience the adventure of writing. Murray affirms
his point by providing personal examples and anecdotal experiences of how teachers
can help students discover their thoughts through writing. Although he did not
provide details on how the process of revision should be done or looks like he
offers thoughtful and even inspirational suggestions.
Again, I can’t help to admire
Murray’s effort in trying to encourage the writer to focus on their inner
realties rather than outside realities or influences. Like I mentioned before
he is definitely an idealist and his ideas on writing is necessary for anyone
who is interested in the writing process.
Regarding the final project for some reason
I had it in my head that this week’s assignment was asking us to share our titles
for our individual pieces. Since it’s for the overall project I would say Laura’s
suggestion stands out. I thought both titles are great, however I prefer “Writing
from the Heart” vs. “Writing Matters.” I simply say this because when I hear “Writing
from the Heart” I think of unique, powerful, and creative writing that naturally
flows to whomever is writing and when I think of “writing Matters” I’m sorry to
say, but I think of structure almost like developing writing skills. Anyways, that’s
just my two cents. Again, both titles are very strong and I am excited to hear
what we come up with as a group.
No comments:
Post a Comment