For blog post by Monday afternoon: Are you more inclined toward text-oriented,
writer-oriented, or reader-oriented understandings of writing? Please explain why you are attracted to one
orientation over the others. In
terms of the writer-oriented theories, do you subscribe more to the
Expressivist, Cognitivist, or Situated understanding of writers and
writing? Why?
The easy answer is that I’m more inclined towards the reader-oriented, situated understandings of writing. I’m guessing anyone who knows much about me—my theoretical leanings towards critical frameworks, and the fact that I’m a “literacy person”—would have a good shot at guessing the answer I’ve just given here. I feel that the broader context and the dialogic nature of writing are important to consider when we think about writing and writers, and it seems to me that of all the orientations mentioned in this chapter, the situated, reader-oriented frames are more able to encompass the aspects of writing that the other frames privilege (the cognitive/emotional/creative and lexical/syntactic, for example).
ReplyDeleteThe not so simple answer is that I really appreciate all of these frameworks for the different lenses they offer. Even if the situated, reader-oriented frames are more able to encompass some of the others, the emphasis they place on the macro levels of context and discourse does shift our thinking (as analysists/practitioners) away from some of the more intimate processes or sentence-level features of discourse. And sometimes, that’s what we might really be interested in. What’s more, some of those features are more easily quantified (I can look at number or type of grammatical errors that the same writer makes over time, for example, or total number of distinct vocabulary words, or type and placement of grammatical structures), and being able to count or measure these things could be very important to whatever issue we’re interested in exploring.
One more thing: At one point or another, I’ve been in love with each of these perspectives. My introduction to literary criticism was the “New Criticism” (Pet peeve: why does anyone ever name anything they hope will perdure, “new”? The New Criticism is now so old-hat!), and I loved it. Digging deeply into the text, with the implication that there was just one true meaning, discernable through careful reading, was a satisfying exercise. Then in the 90’s, I fell in love with Peter Elbow. His expressivist, process-oriented approach empowered me, and I reveled in the free gallop across the page that he authorized. I may now find the emphasis on broader societal structures and the way that discourse represents both the site and the aim of sociopolitical struggle compelling, but that doesn’t mean I no longer see value in those things that other approaches made visible to me.
I wish I could say I am more inclined towards a writer-oriented approach, or a combination of all of them, which seems to be the right way to go. Maybe because of the way I was taught, I have a very text-oriented understanding of writing. I have always followed the idea that, certainly, the writer brings his or her own background knowledge to the process, but whatever genre of text is written, it must follow, or comply with, certain requirements to be considered good, or even complete. In order to write an essay, students need to know what an essay is, and more importantly, what writing a well written essay entails. The same goes for any other genre. In my experience, however, both as a student of writing and as a teacher, the approach to teaching writing needs to change depending on the needs of the students, the objectives of the class, and the kind of text we are aiming for. I believe that if I asked my students to write a poem, a writer-oriented approach would be more fitting than a text-oriented one, but I don’t think I could help myself but to ask them to read poems before starting their own.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to writer-oriented theories, I lean towards both the cognitive and situated viewpoints. I believe these are more practical if we talk about education, academic texts, or requirements that need to be fulfilled. Hyland (2016) explains the cognitive approach as a problem solving activity, and that is how I see writing in educational contexts. Nevertheless, as humans, we cannot separate ourselves from what we do, including writing, which is what is explained in Quote 1.5 (p.19), and that is why I also subscribe to the idea of writing as a situated act, because it sees writing as a social act. We are social beings, so even if we are writing the most technical of texts, that text belongs in a certain context, has certain intertextuality that we cannot leave aside.
I change my preferences toward understandings of writing depending on which reading materials I focus on. I tend to be text-oriented whenever I read textbooks, which provides explanation for theories, categories, or research studies that are based on a quantitative approach. I tend to consider writer’s intention when reading qualitative research studies, essays, or novels. In addition, when I conducted my own research, I have changed my perspectives toward more reader oriented and tried to elaborate my words as much as possible for novice readers, who are not familiar with the topics that I covered.
ReplyDeleteFor my research, I’m interested in learners’ identity and how power mechanisms influence their language ideologies to maintain their L1. This notion is closely related to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). As we live in an English dominant country and receive education in English, the chances for learning some marginalized second languages (except Spanish, French, or Chinese) are slim in K-6 in suburban areas. In this situation, discourse can become a resource for people who speak a marginalized L2 as their L1, which shows how they made efforts to maintain their mother tongue. The patterns of language practice contain the relation between dominant language and their L1, which interconnects their agency development in their home, as well as in their communities and schools (Hyland, 2016). For example, people of this community, each bilingual family’s language practice and their ideology can be different depending on their situations and their different views regarding their L1 and L2. In addition, the interpretation of the data can be different depending on who analyzes the discourse. In this sense, Hyland argued that a researcher should overcome this and maintain good intentions through thorough understandings of the participants’ social contexts. This will help the interaction between writer and readers and also promote multilingualism.
I’m fascinated with the way people’s social lives impact texts. When I read a text, I like to dig for details about the author. Shoe size, hobbies, political affiliations, eye color. You never know what might be important. For Christmas, my husband bought me Gloria Steinem’s new memoir, My Life on the Road. While reading the text, I searched for details about Steinem online. For me, understanding how she became the person on the page was just as interesting as the words themselves. Texts are not autonomous artifacts. They are produced in particular times, in particular places, under particular circumstances. And they are consumed in particular moments.
ReplyDeleteMy experiences studying and teaching in diverse contexts have highlighted the significance of social context on learning. For example, the students I taught in rural Alaska needed to pass English 111x, Introduction to Academic Writing to earn a certificate in construction trades technology. Students who earned the certificates became eligible for the few employment opportunities available in their communities. Otherwise, villages had to pay costly transportation fees to bring in certified workers. Training the people who live in rural Alaska to be construction workers makes a lot of sense. Requiring them to write five paragraph essays does not. The course goals didn’t make sense in the social context.
5-paragraph essays are not common literacy practices among construction workers and they are not common ways of communicating among Alaska Native people. People along the Yukon River speak a nonstandard dialect of English called “Village English,” which combines English with features of indigenous languages. Their rhetorical patterns, politeness rituals, and ways of dividing the color spectrum don’t align with my own.
The world’s languages are dwindling quickly. It is unfortunate that the transactions that take place between readers and writers are so often mediated by Western culture. IIE (2015) reports over 4.5 million globally mobile tertiary students worldwide for whom academic writing proficiency in English is a key indicator of success. Not all of those students have the same access to and experience with English. For that reason, the act of writing is always situated. We limit human thinking when we define it according to narrow Western standards.
Adhering to only one perspective on writing is challenging for me because, Amanda and Claudia have noted, each understanding has unique benefits that are dependent upon the context in which the writing is being conducted. While I had a basic understanding of these different orientations, I must admit that I did not have much information about the reader-oriented approach. I found it fascinating how much of the focus was devoted to engagement of the writer and reader through discursive and social interactions. I have never attempted to have my students write focusing on interaction and rhetoric of different communities. I could provide an opportunity for students to really dissect the situation and information and how to best portray that information to others. Even though I find it interesting, I do not necessarily think that this approach would work for all texts. Perhaps it would be interesting to explore how it might be utilized in fiction or non-academic non-fiction writing.
ReplyDeleteWhile I find the reader-oriented approach intriguing, I find that my teaching tends to lean towards a more writer-oriented perspective. I strongly believe in the unique factors that each individual contributes to the writing process and the text itself. By focusing on developing a variety of writing skills for a variety of genres, after some time an individual may begin to play with the text to infiltrate their own voice. As for the more specific views on writer-oriented theories, I actually found that each provide a distinct experience. The cognitive process can help beginning writers develop writing skills and think through the whole writing experience. The expressivist approach allows for individual creativity and experimentation, but I am not entirely certain how it would work with a lower proficiency. However, I was most attracted to the situated approach because it implemented elements from the other two approaches while also incorporating aspects of the specific context of the situation.
ReplyDeleteI am more inclined to the writer-oriented understandings of writing. As pointed out the in chapter 2, writing is a journey of self-discovery. Writing helps us think, analyze, organize, and eventually transform our ideas into language. From the moment when we start to think about writing a piece, we are already in the process of writing. The text-oriented understandings of writing ignore all major process of writing and only give account to the final product. It is problematic in that it views writing as only one dimensional activity. The reader-oriented understandings of writing are appealed to me because the type of audience informs our writing and we use writing to interact with people. However, the very nature of writing is to explore our deep thinking so that we can bring up fresh and original ideas for the contribution to readers. If we look at writing from the aspect of reading, it is easy to understand one goal of reading, which is to learn about others’ thinking processes and products. Therefore, I prefer the writer-oriented understandings and think it illustrates the nature of writing.
I subscribe more to the Expressivist understanding of writers and writing. As I mentioned above, writing facilitates thinking. Research about writing also gives name to different writing instructions, including writing to learn and learning to write. The notion of writing to learn reveals part of the Expressivist view of writing, which people discover ideas and develop cognitive maturation through the free expression of ideas. In my eyes, the Expressivist view is embedded in many writing programs or classes. Students use free writing to develop their thoughts or they are taught to plan or brainstorm first before proceeding. But again, this understanding reflects the nature of writing, rather than the process of writing, which is what Cognitivist view focuses on.
I agree with Amanda’s idea towards reader oriented. On my opinion writers usually use the words that involve people to read and they try to present their ideas in a way that readers can understand. The ability for the writers to influence readers is high through different ways of using grammar, vocabulary etc.
ReplyDeleteI find the reader very capable of translating the meaning in context. For example I taught an advanced Swahili class last semester and most of the students tend to reflect the text they read to comparing it to the text they write. One student would always question about how I think comparing it to the text. In some cases the writer’s idea on the message they want to deliver to the reader doesn’t work effectively. As I prepare notes I think of the student who will be reading. I try to be very direct so that the student may understand.