In "Pre-Writing: Models for Concept Formation in Writing," Gordon Rohman and Albert Wlecke examine traditional methods of teaching writing and find that neither "intensive evaluation" nor frequent practice improves writing quality (217). They explore the processes by which people arrive at concepts, one of which is Jerome Bruner's "concept formation," (218), and find his phrase to be somewhat lacking. They coin their own term "concept transference." By their definition, concept transference is based on the premise "that a major task of the writer is to discover within himself a pattern with which to organize his subject" (218). Most of us writers likely do form concepts and organize our thoughts into a recognizable pattern which leads to discovery (perhaps even an epiphany), and transfer our newly-found treasure to paper and speech.
Rohman and Wlecke further explain that people inherit concepts rather than form them, and those concepts echo their culture (219). Rohman and Wlecke assert that "There is no one philosophy of writing" and "there can be no one method to teach it (221). The two based their research and developed a course on the following belief: "that writing is a form of human behavior, but more specifically, is a form of human self-actualization, and in writing a person is satisfying his basic needs for self-affirmation as well as the immediate, practical needs for communication" (221).
I beg to differ, at least as far as most beginning writers are concerned. For the purpose of this argument, I refer to beginning writers as most students in grades K-12 and a quite few undergraduates. In our educational systems all students must write. Some students will find discovery in writing but only a few will achieve self-actualization. While a few are motivated to write, for the majority, it is a process that is required at all levels in all educational institutions. Could required writing by its very nature squelch discovery and prevent self-actualization? Perhaps it is because students must write that they write poorly. Could it be that not all humans are meant to be writers?
Rohman and Wlecke begin their essay by asking, "Why do students write poorly?" (216). They also ask, "...why does not more of a student's language teaching 'stick'?" (217).
I offer this explanation: students forget because their writing has no relevancy.
Every year I must reteach aspects of English that students have learned and forgotten. One of the teachers in our discussion group reflected that students claimed they had never before been taught sentence structures. I am certain that teachers before me have taught parts of speech, grammar, and the types and kinds of sentences, yet students forget what a noun is from one year to the next. When students write about a topic that is relevant to them - perhaps about an issue related to their culture - their writing comes alive. Personal narratives are easy to teach, because students write about something they know. But I must teach other modes, and it is in those modes that language loses its "stick." An aspect of my pedagogy is that I must be a motivator in order to help students find a connection and relevancy in their writing. One more thing I've found to be true: frequent practice and evaluation has helped my students improve their writing.
Rohman and Wlecke offer insightful evidence and a valuable tool for our writers' bags, but for some, traditional approaches still work.
I know that these gentleman did some scientific research to debunk the notion that frequent writing creates better writers. I agree with writing theorist Natalie Goldberg that writing is a practice that should be done regularly. Writing done often makes you a better writer. It is like running. You can't run a marathon, if you haven't been running on a regular basis. You can't crank out a complicated mode of writing, if you haven't been practicing. Young people don't like writing because it seems so tied up in rules. They don't equate it to a form of expression because being expressive shouldn't feel so complicated. To further the connection to Natalie Goldberg, she suggests that the secret to creativity is to subtract rules in writing, not add them. Frequent writing practice, as teachers and writers know, DOES improve writing.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting trying to find the balance between imposing structure on students and getting them to write in fluid, natural ways. I found what Rohman and Wlecke said about self-actualization to sound nice in theory, but not impractical in real life. It seemed that the authors were saying that writing's primary purpose was self-actualization and that its secondary purpose was communication (self, then others). To me, this goes against the whole concept of audience. Your whole argument is built around and tailored to your audience (Ethos! Kairos!). Obviously, some types of writing (such as journals) have more self-actualization potential than others, but if you are writing primarily for yourself, you may end up being your only audience!
ReplyDeleteI agree that the writing processes can work for some students and other may not be in need of a particular process. Most of the students I have encountered are not writing because they want to, no matter what I do. They write because they have an assignment and not to discover their own writing styles or for self actualization. I agree with what Emily said about students writing for self actualization. There are times to write for yourself, but when writing is intended to send a message or inform you cannot forget you audience.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments - and insights. Only a few students will achieve the self-realization our authors discussed. For the most part, students must write with a specific purpose and with their audience in mind.
ReplyDeleteHi, My name is Martin, I am a doctoral student from Poland. i am looking for a copy of Rohman and Wlecke, the one you mention in the study above. Can you share? my e-mail is: marcin@zst.bytom.pl. Thanks in advance.
ReplyDelete