I enjoyed this piece on
the process approach to writing as well as the information on the NWP and all
they have accomplished. The discussions of early practices reminded me of my
high school English days; we had no examples to imitate like the five-paragraph
model of today. And as far as editing was concerned, proofreading and revision
were usually lumped together and saved for last. I don’t remember much
free-writing but journals were popular and prompted a similar outcome.
Pre-writing, writing, and re-writing were expected for a successful paper. These
practices still work for me but are much more involved than the simplistic
model suggests. The strides made by the NWP through all the studies and
strategies is absolutely mind-boggling!
As a student in the 1970’s, I did not
know there were new approaches to writing being tried out in my classes. I never dreamed that teachers were learning from us and from one another. And as
a returning student today, I am delighted with the documentation of practices
we merely dabbled in back then, completely unaware of the bigger picture that
was at play. My fascination with reflection as a tool results from my use of it
then, as a suggestion for our writing, to now when its relevance is accepted
and respected.
The other observation I made as a student then was that revising
my paper meant rearranging my thoughts and sometimes my words to convey the intended
meaning. One positive side to the freedom of discovery we as students were
given (back in the 1970’s), as well as the lack of teacher intervention, was it
afforded us the opportunity to experiment with the different suggestions and
define our own writing style. But, I
knew then and even moreso now, that not everyone can do that without teacher guidance. The ability to
simplify the whole process for all students is a huge asset and the earlier age
these instructional tools are being introduced really spells success for students
to feel able to write without fear of or hatred for the process.
Looking at “Grounded
Theory” in chapter 9, Neff does a great job of convincing me of this
methodology’s validity. After our discussion in class, this method entails lots
of work and can take months or even years to complete the research and data
gathering. In fact, it is never really finished as one always questions as you gather
your data through the process and beyond. What I liked was the idea of working
in collaboration, and starting with assumptions, data collection and
analyzation. This requires a detailed process and sounds intriguing while
offering the chance to learn from the people on your team. Most important, it
can offer solid evidence, researched in depth by a team of qualified people in
collaboration. This sounds like a better approach than many we have heard so
far; naturalistic research seems inferior as there is little to document in
comparison to grounded theory. The discussion on methodologies as social
practices was both enlightening and disturbing. Neff states they still remain: “traditional,
patriarchal and exclusionary” (133). Hopefully that is changing as this field
becomes more accepting of all work, and judges the writing instead of the
writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment