process vs product coffin week 2

7/24/2019 Process vs Product Coffin Week 2

1/5

Running Head: WRITING INSTRUCTION: PROCESS VS. PRODUCT 1

Writing Instruction: Process vs. Product

Daniel Coffin

Concordia University, Nebraska

Submitted in artial fulfillment of

t!e re"uirements for #DUC $%%

November $t!, %&'(


2/5

WRITING INSTRUCTION: PROCESS VS. PRODUCT 2

)Can I t!ro* t!is a*ay no*+ I *ill never forget t!e time a student asked me t!is

after I !ave -ust !anded back to !im !is argumentative essay, a labor of si *eeks/

ainstaking lanning, drafting, roofreading, and revision. I *as incredulous. Uon

furt!er reflection, !is reaction makes more sense to me. I asked !im to *rite an essay,

!e *rote it, !e olis!ed it, !e !anded it in, I graded it. 0rom !is ersective, it *as all

over. 1e !ad t!e grade !e !ad, and t!at *as t!at. I don/t kno* t!at !e articularly

treasured t!e artifact of !is !ard *ork. I don/t kno* t!at !e came to reconsider or

understand !is vie*s better. Still, *!at *as I going to do+ 0orce !im to carry it around+ I

mutely nodded my assent and into t!e garbage can it *ent, my commentary in t!e

margins unread. W!en I t!ink of t!e dangers of focusing too intently on t!e end roduct

of *riting, t!is interaction is *!at I t!ink of. I believe t!at a s!ift in em!asis from

roduct to rocess *ill engender a greater engagement in *riting on t!e art of our

students.

2ut !o* do *e as teac!ers begin t!is s!ift in em!asis from *riting as roduct to

*riting as rocess+ 0irst, I *ould argue t!at it begins *it! a decision on t!e art of a

teac!er, clearly communicated to student *riters, t!at no iece of *riting is ever really

)finis!ed. 3nyt!ing can be revisited, revised, rebuilt from t!e bottom u, or recycled into

a ne* iece of *riting. 4!is seems like suc! a simle idea 5 anyt!ing *ort! sending

t!e time to *rite and revise and erfect is *ort! keeing around to look back on at t!e

least, rig!t+ 3nd yet, students are loat!e to !ang on to comleted *ork and teac!ers so

rarely make time to look back over *!at !as been done in a structured and substantive

*ay. I susect t!at t!ese t*o reactions are related. Students are "uick to discern *!at

is valued and *!at is not and discard t!e latter.


3/5


Second, em!asi6ing *riting as a rocess means c!anging t!e *ay *e as

teac!ers assess *riting. 4oo often teac!ers 7and I *ill be t!e first to say t!at I am

among t!e guilty8 lose sig!t of *!y *e *rite and lace an undue imortance on

conventions9 severely enali6ing student *ork for errant selling and grammar errors

even t!oug! t!e same sometimes sneak into rofessionally ublis!ed *orks 74omkins,

%&'%, . (, '(8. 3roac!ing a *ork *it! too great a focus on selling, grammar, and

syntactic errors can distract us as teac!ers from t!e ideas t!at students are trying to

communicate, and isn/t t!at t!e real urose for *riting+ 4o s!are *!at *e kno*, t!ink,

and feel *it! ot!ers+ Conventions s!ould serve *riting, and not t!e ot!er *ay around.

at!er t!an douse student *riting in red ink, teac!ers s!ould focus on a small number

of errors t!at students can easily detect and correct in future *riting, *it! riority laced

on t!ose errors *!ic! significantly affect comre!ension of t!e student/s intending

meaning. Students don/t !ave to get every error every time9 if t!ey are continuing to

revisit and reflect uon ublis!ed *riting, t!ey *ill !ave t!e oortunity to catc! t!em in

t!e future.

0inally, em!asi6ing *riting as a rocess means t!at teac!ers s!ould !ave

students *riting somet!ing everyday as not every iece of *riting needs to go t!roug!

all stages of *riting to become a full5fledged formal *riting roduct. Student *riters can

consider eac! !ase of t!e *riting rocess in isolation to ractice rocedures or

cometencies associated *it! t!at ste. 0or eamle, students can ractice re5*riting

by generating ideas for *riting ieces tailored for different audiences, uroses, and

toics. 4!ese can be stored in a *riter/s notebook for later use. 1aving students save

u many ideas for *riting can combat student aralysis 7e.g. )I don/t kno* *!at to *rite


4/5


about;8 and increase student assion for *riting 74omkins, %&'%, . $8. Similarly,

students in a drafting stage could *ork on coming u *it! model effective interest5

grabbing oeners for t!eir *riting, and students in a revising stage could ractice giving

7and receiving8 constructive feedback on a *ork in rocess. 4!e *riting *orks!o is t!e

erfect venue for t!is ongoing student eerimentation *it! t!e *riting rocess.

Creating a laboratory environment means t!at students !ave t!e freedom to individually

tailor t!e *riting rocess to t!eir ersonal needs and ace and gives students t!e

freedom to try ne* t!ings, make mistakes, and occasionally not !ave t!ings *ork out

*it!out t!e fear of a lo* grade or eer !umiliation 74omkins, %&'%, . '


5/5


4omkins, >. #. 7%&'%8. Teaching writing: Balancing product and process 7$t! ed.8.

2ostom, ?3: Pearson

Do you t!ink it *ould be stronger if you found at least one source from outside t!e

book+

process vs product coffin week 2

Documents