User:Hunta8/sandbox

A writing process describes a sequence of physical and mental actions that people take as they produce any kind of text. Writing processes are highly individuated and task-specific; they often involve other kinds of activities that are not usually thought of as writing per se (talking, drawing, reading, browsing, etc.). Most commonly, the stages of the writing process consist of pre-writing, writing and rewriting.

Historical and contemporary perspectives
Firstly, it is important to disclose the ongoing problem with product based models that has been historically critiqued by many literary scholars. For instance, in 1972, Donald M. Murray published a brief manifesto titled "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product", in which he argued that English teachers' conventional training in literary criticism caused them to hold students' work to unhelpful standards of highly polished "finished writing". Teachers, he explained, ought to focus less on correcting students' written products and focus more on involving students in "discovery through language", which Murray believed for "most writers most of the time" involved a process: i.e., stages of "pre-writing, writing and rewriting". Though Murray was not alone in advocating process-based instruction, this manifesto is regarded as a landmark articulation of the differences between process and product orientations in the teaching of writing. Within a decade, Maxine Hairston was to observe that the teaching of writing had undergone a "paradigm shift" in moving from a focus on written products to writing processes. Ultimately, the goal that these scholars have in mind serves to favor models that emphasize the writing process in order to develop better writers and not merely better writing.

Project English experimental researcher D. Gordon Rohman expounds upon the problem with product based paradigms and theorizes these categories more. In his 1965 article “Pre-writing the Stage of Discovery in the Writing Process,” Rohman condemns product based approaches: “All we have done, in fact, is to give them standards to judge the goodness or badness of their finished effort. We have not really taught them how to make that effort”. Truthfully, Rohman confronts current writing modalities by implying that English teachers have failed students in a way; he unveils that all English classrooms judge is the finished product rather than educating students on how to achieve that product. In application of the stages, Rohman defined pre-writing as the "sort of 'thinking' [that] precedes writing" and the "activity of mind which brings forth and develops ideas, plans, designs". According to Rohman, writing begins "at the point where the 'writing idea' is ready for the words and the page". Even today, much "process-based" teaching has continued to broadly conceptualize writing processes along these three phrases, and some have linked this three-stage process to the five canons of rhetoric. That is, linking pre-writing to invention and arrangement. For instance, writing to style and revising to delivery and sometimes memory. In connection with this, Rohman believes pre-writing concerns itself with discovery: “prewriting we defined as the stage of discovery in the writing process when a person assimilates his “subject” to himself". Evidently, he believes that prewriting is an action within the writer that allows the writer to practice discovery through writing. Also, Rohman asserts that prewriting is not writing but it is actually thinking. Rohman states, “In writing, the fundamental structure is not one of content but of method...there is no other “content” to writing apart from the dynamic conceptualizing”. While not all scholars would concur with this, it is important to reveal that in this way, Rohman places more emphasis on prewriting in order to condemn the traditional, historic product based approach to English instruction.

While more contemporary research on writing processes accepts that some kind of process is necessarily involved in producing any written text, it collectively endorses "the fundamental idea that no codifiable or generalizable writing process exists or could exist". In this view, "writing processes are historically dynamic – not psychic states, cognitive routines, or neutral social relationships". In terms of "pre-writing", for instance, writing processes often begin long before any visible documentable work or easily categorizable steps are observable. From the contemporary perspective of composition studies, it is thus inaccurate to assume that any authentic writing process (i.e., one not contrived as part of a school assignment or laboratory setting) involves a linear sequence of "stages". Rather different kinds of activities emerge as overlapping parts of a complex whole or parts of a recursive process that can be repeated multiple times throughout anyone's process of composing a particular document. Or in short, every writer will conduct their respective writing process differently and on their own terms. For example, writers routinely discover that editorial changes trigger brainstorming and a change of purpose; that drafting is temporarily interrupted to correct a misspelling; or that the boundary between pre-writing and drafting is less than obvious.

Approaches to process
Writing process has been described by composition scholars in a variety of ways with attention to "developmental, expressive, and social" elements.

Historical approaches to composition and process[edit]
A historical response to process is concerned primarily with the manner in which writing has been shaped and governed by historical and social forces. These forces are dynamic and contextual, and therefore render any static iteration of process unlikely.

James A. Berlin in his "Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories" outlines four dominant groups in relation to historical approaches on English Instruction: "Neo-Aristotelians or Classicists, the Positivists or Current-Traditionalists, the Neo-Platonists or Expressionists, and the New Rhetoricians". Prior to even delving into the various historical approaches, Berlin states that he believes the New Rhetoricians model to be the strongest. Berlin describes that for the Aristotle pedagogical theories, rhetoric is central to his system with special emphasis on invention. This emphasis on invention left little to no focus on arrangement or style. Berlin acknowledges that "the aim of rhetoric is to teach how to adapt the discourse to its hearers- and here the uncomplicated correspondence of the faculties and the world is emphasized". Hence, it is implied that some of the historical models are relatively stagnant in their writing instruction. In short, "Classical Rhetoric considers truth to be located in the rational operation of the mind, Positivist Rhetoric in the correct perception of sense impressions, and Neo-Platonic Rhetoric within the individual, attainable only through an internal apprehension. In each case knowledge is a commodity situated in permanent location, a repository to which the individual goes to be enlightened". However, in explaining the New Rhetoric, Berlin reveals that knowledge is not static: "Truth is dynamic and dialectical, the result of a process involving the interaction of opposing elements". Here, the notion of process in writing instruction is included.

Overview of cognitive model
Reputable scholars Linda Flower and John R. Hayes discuss an approach to the writing process through the perspective of cognitivism. In their "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing," Flower and Hayes argue that writing is a process of translating thoughts into meaning. In more depth, Flower and Hayes state that "writing is best understood as a set of distinctive thinking processes which writers orchestrate or organize during the act of composing". Flower and Hayes created a visual break down of their perspective on the writing process which is pictured to the right. In most depth, Flower and Hayes argue that writing involves the three main elements of the task environment, the writer's long-term memory, and the writing processes. According to Flower and Hayes, "the task environment includes all those things outside the writer's skin, starting with the rhetorical problem (which is further explained later) or assignment and eventually including the growing text itself. The second element is the writer's long- term memory in which the writer has stored knowledge, not only of the topic, but of the audience and of various writing plans. The third element in our model contains writing processes themselves, specifically the basic processes of planning, translating, and reviewing, which are under the control of a monitor". In discussion of the inner workings of this model, it becomes apparent that cognitivists do not centralize the writing process, unlike other scholars.

According to Flower and Hayes, Donald L. Bitzer, a research professor with North Carolina State University, "argues that speech always occurs as a response to a rhetorical situation, which he succinctly defines as containing an exigency (which demands a response), an audience, and a set of constraints". Flower and Hayes extended Bitzer's rhetorical situation and developed a set of heuristics that framed the writing process as a series of rhetorical problems to be solved. The heuristics focus on the generation and the structuring of ideas. Writers should choose goals with built-in guidelines that lead their content into certain directions. While generating ideas, four viable techniques are to write ideas without editing or filtering, to play out scenarios discussing the topic, to generate analogies, and to rest on ideas. When a writer is looking to push their ideas they should try to find cue words to tie complex ideas together, to teach the ideas to another person, to tree ideas into classifications of organization, and to read their own writing as if they'd never seen it before. The last tool is to write for a specific audience by finding common ground with them. This serves as another description for the Flower and Hayes model on the right.

Flower and Hayes further developed the cognitive model in "The Cognition of Discovery" by observing writers in order to learn how they generate meaning. They outlined the rhetorical problem as a list of what a writer may address or consider. In doing so, they created a model for the rhetorical problem that can be split up into two main categories: The rhetorical situation and the writer's own goals. The rhetorical situation is what motivates a writer to create ideas. The writer's own goals are what guide how ideas are formed. The rhetorical situation is further split into the purpose of the writing, and who will be reading it. The writer's own goals are split into how the reader is affected, the persona the writer uses, the meaning the writer can create, and implementation of writing conventions.

They came to three results from their study, which suggests that good writers envelop the three following characteristics when solving their rhetorical problems:


 * 1) Good writers respond to all of the rhetorical problems
 * 2) Good writers build their problem representation by creating a particularly rich network of goals for affecting a reader
 * 3) Good writers represent the problem not only in more breadth but in more depth.

Flower and Hayes suggest that composition instructors need to consider showing students how "to explore and define their own problems, even within the constraints of an assignment". They believe that "Writers discover what they want to do by insistently, energetically exploring the entire problem before them and building for themselves a unique image of the problem they want to solve." Ultimately, they believe that the writer possesses a significant amount of invention within that yearns for teachers to tap into and in turn, emphasize in the classroom: "By placing emphasis on the inventive power of the writer, who is able to explore ideas, to develop, act on, test, and regenerate his or her own goals, we are putting an important part of creativity where it belongs- in the hands of the working, thinking writer".

Criticism of cognitive model
Patricia Bizzell argues that even though educators may have an understanding of "how" the writing process occurs, educators shouldn't assume that this knowledge can answer the question "about 'why' the writer makes certain choices in certain situations", since writing is always situated within a discourse community. She discusses how the Flower and Hayes model relies on what is called the process of "translating ideas into visible language". This process occurs when students "treat written English as a set of containers into which we pour meaning". In short, she reveals that the model presented by Flower and Hayes cannot have a universal purpose as each student has different cognitive writing processes. Bizzell contends that this process "remains the emptiest box" in the cognitive process model, since it de-contextualizes the original context of the written text, negating the original. Also, she asserts that the Flower and Hayes model "is hierarchical and recursive rather than sequential in structure; that is, Flower and Hayes do not see the writing process as an invariant order of steps...This model does not tell us how to proceed through the composing process, but only in that proceeding, there are certain subprocesses we must include if we want to compose successfully". She argues, "Writing does not so much contribute to thinking as provide an occasion for thinking."

Expressivist process theory of writing
According to the expressivist theory, the process of writing is centered on the writer's transformation due to the fact that it is an internally directed approach. Namely, expressionist teaching favors personal expression through writing. Arguably, expressionism seeks to de-centralize the rhetorical situation in order to centralize purpose and invention. This model is very student centered and involves the writer changing in the sense that voice and identity are established so that the writer has a sense of his or her self. This theory became popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s. According to Richard Fulkerson's article "Four Philosophies of Composition", the focus of expressivism is for writers to have "... an interesting, credible, honest, and personal voice". Moreover, proponents of the expressivist process view this theory as a way for students to become fulfilled and healthy both emotionally and mentally. Those who teach this process often focus on journaling and other classroom activities to focus on student self-discovery and at times, low-stakes writing. Prominent figures in the field include John Dixon, Ken Macrorie, Lou Kelly, Donald C. Stewart and Peter Elbow. In expansion, in Elbow's "A Method for Teaching Writing," he calls for the students to choose their assignments and judge the assignments through discussion, meaning that the role of the teacher is to oversee the class to ensure that they are performing the necessary steps. This serves as an example for expressivist ideology; while this is heavily controversial, this approach offers an environment that focuses on student expression.

In light of offering another scholar's expressivist theory, Murray provides another classroom dynamic in his "Finding Your Own Voice: Teaching Composition in an Age of Dissent" by outlining the responsibilities of the teacher and the student. The first responsibility of the student is for him to identify his subject or topic as Murray states that "every time the teacher gives an assignment he cheats the student". Next, the second responsibility of the student is for the student to document his initial subject to demonstrate any evolution from the initial topic. The third responsibility of the student is to earn an audience. This requires the student to understand that the teacher is not their only audience. Actually, Murray presents the idea that the teacher can break students up to exchange papers to read amongst their small groups. This way the student gains experience being an audience member. Finally, the students fourth responsibility is to ensure that they are practicing many forms of writing. Ultimately, it becomes apparent that the expressivist approach to writing instruction places a significant amount of trust into the students. Conversely, he also clearly allocates four specific "roles" for the teachers to abide by under this modality. The first responsibility of the teacher as written by Murray serves to establish an environment in which the student can fulfill his various responsibilities. Next, the second responsibility of the educator is to enforce deadlines so there is some structure to the course. The third responsibility of the teacher is to "cultivate a climate of failure". With this, students will be able to endure challenges and learn how to deal with failure. And lastly, the fourth task of the teacher is to only read the papers in which the students are struggling with. Students have the ability to set up conferences with teachers on whatever piece they feel they are struggling with. Murray believes that by students being able to pick and choose what the teacher does or does not read dispels the idea that the sole audience is the teacher.

Evidently, there are some existing limitations to this model. In order for this approach to be effective each student needs to fulfill all of their responsibilities. Opposers of this method believe that unmotivated students would not gain anything from this classroom setting. Seemingly, the teacher upholds a very laid back role, almost just the role of an overseer; which some theorists do not appreciate. Ultimately, this method focuses on student expression within the writing process.

Autistic autobiographies
As appealing as document sharing may be for students with autism in particular, being able to contextualize one's life story in the context of their disability may prove the most powerful expression of the writing process overall. Rose illustrates that creating narrative identity in a conventional sense is quite difficult for autistic students because of their challenges with interpersonal communication. The narratives of autistic students can sometimes be troubling to neurotypical peers with whom they share their work, as Rose notes in quoting autistic autobiographer Dawn Price-Hughes, "Sometimes reaching out and communicating isn't easy–it can bring sadness and regret. Some of my family and friends, after reading the manuscript for this book, were deeply saddened to learn how I experienced my world."

Rose points to the well-known work of Temple Grandin and Donna Williams as examples of autistic autobiographies and analogizes toward the usefulness of women's autobiographies championed by Susan Stanford Friedman to show women's inter-connectivity, suggesting the same can be learned through autistic autobiographies. She writes that such works can minimize the "pathologisation of difference" which can easily occur between autistic students and neurotypical peers can be broken down by such autobiographies. As Rose directly says, "I argue here that awareness of the relationality of autistic life writing, and the recognition of its corollary status as testimonio and attention to the material relations of the production of these texts is particularly useful in assessing their social significance."

From a rhetorical perspective the use for students with disabilities (not just autistic students) seems to be promising. It would appear to foster a sense of a community among students with disabilities and helping these voices be brought in from the margins similarly to the way Mike Rose refers to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and their needs in Lives on the Boundary.

Stages of the writing process
Murray provides a succinct breakdown of each stage in his "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product". First he reveals that there are three stages of the writing process: prewriting, writing and rewriting, or editing. He prefaces his brief breakdown of each stage by stating, "the amount of time a writer spends in each stage depends on his personality, his work habits, his maturity, his craftsman, and the challenge of what he is trying to say. It is not a rigid lock-step process, but most writers most of the time pass through these three stages". Murray implies that every writer is different and therefore, their approach to these three stages may differentiate between writers.

Murray describes the prewriting stage as essentially everything that occurs before the writing of the first draft. Murray even presents the shocking statistic that prewriting typically compensates for 85% of the writer's time. To quote, "it includes the awareness of his world from which his subject is born. In prewriting, the writer focuses on that subject, spots an audience, chooses a form which may carry his subject to his audience. Prewriting may include research and daydreaming, note-making and outlining, title-writing and lead-writing". Overall, it is apparent that Murray values flexibility in this stage as he acknowledges that prewriting can take on many different forms depending on the given writer.

Next, Murray regards the stage of writing as the action of cultivating the first draft. Again, Murray reveals the appalling fact that this typically serves as the quickest part of the writing process. In fact, Murray states, "the writing of this first draft- rough, searching, unfinished- may take as little as one percent of the writer's time".

Editing or rewriting, according to Murray and others, operates on several levels. The lowest level, often called line editing, is the stage in the writing process where the writer makes changes in the text to correct errors—such as spelling, subject/verb agreement, verb tense consistency, point of view consistency, mechanical errors, word choice, and word usage (there, their or they're) —and fine-tune his or her style. Having revised the draft for content, the writer's task is now to make changes that will improve the communication with the reader. Depending on the genre, the writer may choose to adhere to the conventions of Standard English. These conventions are still being developed and the rulings on controversial issues may vary depending on the source. For example, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, first published in 1918, is considered by some to be an authority on stylistic conventions, but has been derided by linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum as "stupid". A more recent handbook for students is Diana Hacker's A Writer's Reference. An electronic resource is the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL), where writers may search a specific issue to find an explanation of grammatical and mechanical conventions. In transition and in order to apply Murray, Murray regards rewriting as a reconsideration; a reconsideration of "subject, form, and audience". Succinctly, he writes that rewriting or editing is "re-researching, rethinking, redesigning, (and) rewriting". Essentially, this process continues to be active until the writer is fully satisfied, and typically compensates fourteen percent of the writers time.