Writing as a Disciplined and Creative Act

What I find intriguing about Maxine Hairston’s article is her summary on the research conducted to understand and implement process pedagogy. The basis of this research is controversial and subjective since it’s mostly founded on classroom case studies. Thus students’ psychological and cognitive writing processes are analyzed under a microscopic lens to determine strategies for effective teaching methods. Hairston states, “But for me the most interesting data emerging from these studies are those that show us profound differences between the writing behaviors of skilled and unskilled writers and the behaviors of student and professional writers…This kind of information enables us to construct a tentative profile of the wiring behaviors of effective writers [...]” Could this type of research help create a pedagogical model for composition theory?

According to Hairston and Lad Tobin, our current model and methods of writing pedagogy are counter-intuitive and outdated; it relies on the premise that writing is a linear process that creates structured content which is further inserted into a formulaic template. Hairston states that composition text books, “stresses expository writing to the virtual exclusion of all other forms […] neglects invention almost entirely, [making style] the most important element in writing.” Though such assumptions lead to product –centered work, do glitches or “anomalies” in our current system or even the prevalence of dissatisfied teachers serve as proper evidence that our current pedagogical tradition, based on a foundational, temporal classical theory, is outdated and flawed?

If we returned to Hairston’s main concern regarding the literacy gap between skilled and unskilled writers, we have to address the social/economic, ethnic/linguistic, and geographical/regional backgrounds of both a school and its students. As new waves of students enter college because of democratic “access to education” policies and initiatives, we are currently discovering the diversity of our student bodies and their texts. We are also discovering that some, perhaps many, students are entering college without the basic skills necessary to draft a competent piece of writing. These skills are not based on rhetorical style but require a basic knowledge of English grammar and mechanics. Such material should be taught at a secondary and post secondary level but many professors complain about how much they invest in teaching the basics before teaching academic level writing.

I think components of process pedagogy should definitely be implemented in classrooms. As a teacher I do not want to spend my time correcting grammar, punctuation, mechanical mistakes on a paper. What I’d like to focus on is the content, form, or creativity of the work. If I give an inexperienced writer the freedom to choose his or her own topic and do not provide guidelines for an assignment, this may lead to disorientation and confusion, which will inevitably be reflected in the student’s work. Some inexperienced writers, particularly those who do not practice the art of writing and are not acquainted with the mechanics of their language, need a point of departure and need guidelines. Once they begin adopting a strategy, they are free to work around it. I would encourage discovery and invention in writing but also maintain the notion that writing is a disciplined, creative act. Still, I wouldn’t abandon the traditional methodology altogether. Does process pedagogy necessarily contradict the current view? For me, the methodology and research on process pedagogy is additive knowledge to the current theory and not a paradigm shift in the field. Why not synthesize these theories instead of creating bickering arguments that create an illusion of incompatibility between two approaches that are not necessarily incompatible.