Terri Tims
Dr. Brent Lynn
Teaching College
Composition
13 November 2013
Wolcott and
Strong’s Articles on Writing
Though both Wolcott’s “Writing
Instruction and Assessment: The Need for Interplay between Process and Product”
and Strong’s “Language as Teacher” were published in 1987 in the same issue of College Composition and Communication,
it would be challenging to find two more dissimilar texts on the subject of
writing. One article explores timed
writing assessment and the way that the nature of writing assessment prevents
students from being able to utilize all of the aspects of the writing process,
especially revision. The other article
explores writing as a learning process and an interior dialogue between the
writer and the text. While both views
are meaningful to writers and writing educators, one article is more pragmatic
while the other is more idealized.
Unfortunately, in the world of high stakes testing in education,
pragmatism will always win out, and less importance will be placed on writing
to learn, and more emphasis will be placed on writing as a means of assessment.
Wolcott’s main point in her article
is that timed writing assessments do not function as a tool to help students
develop understanding but are instead a method of eliciting student writing in
a testing situation that does not allow students the time to practice the
writing method as it has been taught to them.
Though the time allowed for most writing assessments may allow for some
brief and hurried pre-writing, there is usually not enough time for
consideration of any audience other than an evaluator, and definitely not
enough time for any serious revision.
Wolcott proposes a shift to a portfolio method of evaluating student
writing or perhaps providing students with the needed information before the
assessment as possible solutions to the testing problem. Wolcott concludes by stating that, of course,
writing educators are most concerned with teaching students the writing process
so that students can use “writing as a means of thinking and learning” (43),
but that objective and writing assessments should be approached in such a way
as to ensure students’ success in both arenas.
Strong’s article, on the other hand,
focuses not nearly so much on product as on process. The writing process is important, but that
process serves to bring students to the point where the real learning happens:
revision. According to Strong, in
writing and revising, writers subject their work to two different aspects of
their own consciousness. Writers think
about their own work in terms of how their audience would perceive the
work. Another internal reader that a
writer utilizes is the consciousness who is inquisitive and eager to seek
connections between ideas. This is the
aspect of the self that lets a reader know if his or her work is boring or
substandard. On the other hand, this is
also the self who lets the writing is effective. Along with these interior consciousnesses
that evaluate a writer’s work, there is also present the human mind’s drive to
either make connections or make distinctions.
All of these mental conversations that go on over the task of writing
must be given time to flourish and blossom into the completed work. The writer learns from the experience of
writing, revisiting and revising the text and learning from each reading and
each experience of writing.
Wolcott’s article is the one of the
two that would be preferred by school administrators across the United States
today. Wolcott tackles the issue of
writing assessment, an issue that is even more sensitive to educators today
than it was 26 years ago when her article was written. Wolcott confirms the importance of the
writing process but states that unless some way is found to modify assessment
to more closely match the true writing process, then the way the writing
process is taught will have to change.
Strong, on the other hand, is apparently unconcerned with writing
assessment but more concerned with students’ learning experience as they
write. Strong recognizes the writing
process as a learning process and not just as a demonstration of student
ability. Both viewpoints have merit and
have a place in education today, but Strong’s article would appeal much more to
the idealist who sees writing as learning than the pragmatist who sees writing
an activity in which a student’s timed writing assessment can be used to
determine that student’s writing proficiency (and the teacher’s teaching skill).
Works
Cited
Strong, William. “Language as Teacher.” College Composition and Communication. 38:1 (1987): 21-31. JSTOR.
Web. 13 Nov. 2013.
Wolcott, Willa. “Writing
Instruction and Assessment: The Need for Interplay between Process and
Product.” College Composition and Communication. 38:1 (1987): 40-46. JSTOR.
Web. 13 Nov. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment