This first semester as an MFA student (so far) has been really interesting for me in terms of observing my own writing process. There are two stories, in particular, that I’ve brought back from my very first writing class, still believing, despite what peers and teachers told me at the time, that there is something there, some idea worth getting out even though I have yet been unsucsessful. I have never called this process revision, but I think that is because I too, like first year composition students, always thought of revision as “error-hunting”. In my head I’ve always referred to this process as “re-writing” and what allows it to be successful is the time I’ve spent between drafts continuing to read and write.
It was interesting to read that the workshop and conference models used in composition classes is based on the creative writing workshop model. I understand why this model has been employed in attempt to combat the idea that revision is “punishment work” (111). I think it’s important to point out that the popularity of this “punishment work” idea as it applies to revision is not merely the result of student laziness, but aided by the composition teachers themselves. In Yagelski’s 1995 study of composition students, he reports “Most of the teacher’s comments on drafts focused on lower-level concerns with virtually no attention given to ideas…as a result, students revised primarily to improve their grades and considered the teacher to be the primary audience” (115). How can we expect our students to understand what it means to rigorously revise something when we are not guiding them to it?
The problem as I see it, is that the “workshop” model as an approach to combat these problems is not particularly effective because it’s adaptation from the creative writing class is missing some key feature: reading, imitation and practice.
I think we can all agree that the majority of improvement in writing is gained from exposure to “expert” work. Where in the composition course are we pointing them to examples of how something should be structured? We try our best to explain it through diagrams and instructions, but really, when and where are they supposed to be improving? I agree that a certain amount of improvement can come from writing itself, but I believe this is a result of stumbling across something that gets positive feedback and continually trying to re-emulate it.
It was interesting to read this following my grading weekend of the students PAEs. When I found myself bogged down in less than perfectly constructed sentences I had to resist the urge to cut this, add that and mark everything in red. I treated sentence construction the way we were told to treat mechanics—does it interfere with getting the message across? Many of these mistakes or less than stellar writing are likely a result of not having proof-read as they ought to, or possibly at all.
The question posed about how computers have affected the revision process was interesting because I saw first-hand some examples in my student’s work. I think there is an attitude like why should I go back and read it when the computer is going to catch mistakes that I can’t? Calling this the “tech-savvy” generation doesn’t really refer to their tech-skillz but rather the trust they place in technology. They defer to the computer as the expert. I came across one paper that had a partial sentence lingering at the end of a paragraph, like the writer abandoned the thought mid phrase. This would be amazingly easy to correct and delete had the student read over the work before submitting it, but this and other evidence led me to believe he hadn’t.
Mistakes like these do not come about from a lack of understanding about the revision process, but a lack of caring. The prevailing idea being, if the computer will correct my sentence-level errors and I’ve written through the paper once, why would I do the extra work to polish my ideas? If the revision process is polishing, think about literally what that metaphor is telling them: the only difference between a polished something-or-other vs. an unpolished one is just the presentation. The function is, in no way, changed. I think the composition student feels the same way about their essays, will that extra work even show up in my grade?
So my questions are:
How do we teach them what revision means through example and not metaphors that break down and (possibly) convey the wrong ideas?
And if we can do that, how can we teach them to care about these essays the same way students of creative writing care about their stories, poems and essays? Does the answer lie in understanding their audience?
I do think there is value in having an audience beyond the writing instructor--in workshop, students are much more likely to be embarrassed by their sloppy work when a peer is talking to them about it, as opposed to reading comments on a paper two weeks after the fact. I put my students in workshop groups based on their level of preparedness. I ranked them 0, 5, or 10, and then tried to create as much variation as possible in groups of 3. One thing I discovered was that, while it was extremely helpful for the unprepared students to read extremely polished student work, the "tens" felt like workshop was a waste of time. I'm not sure how to combat this problem next time.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question of how we can get our students to care like creative writing students, I wonder if this is even possible. I also wonder if it is even a good thing! In creative writing workshop, a writer's level of investment in their own work can sometimes hinder the process. They cannot remove themselves from their work or see it objectively. I do wish my students cared more about proofreading and revision, but I do like the fact that they are very open-minded. Often I think that they just simply do not know what to do next to make their papers stronger. This makes my job as an instructor a lot easier.
I think there is something valuable in thinking of revision as more than just "error-hunting". I fear that, despite the prompts I gave my students for workshopping, they still view it as an exercise in finding the missing comma. I think this is reflected in the PAAs they turned in. It was uncanny how many final drafts were almost identical to an earlier draft. I think the problem was the students didn't know how to take a comment like, "Organization needs work" and apply it to their papers.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Emily. I'm not sure it's even possible for them to care about their essays the same way we care about our creative work. I say this because no one is forcing us to write stories or poetry. We write because we are inclined to. They write because they are told to. However, if we can get them to care, then I think that will lead to better, more focused, more carefully written, inquiry papers.