​

   Bonnie Warne conveys to its readers the importance of tackling conventional writing processes which limit the writers’ creativity. It was interesting how she presented her students in a humbling way, students with hard personal issues. Inciting a message to readers, if they can overcome these obstacles and still become proficient writers, so can I. Warne also attempts to facilitate the writing process by expressing flexibility when constructing your own writing piece.

In contrast, Osborne tends to be very personal with his experience writing an academic essay. The narrative is mainly told through his point of view, in an opinionated form. He uses lots of imagery and even exaggerates about his emotional responses about how overwhelmed he is feeling. By citing examples such as shouting out in the street and throwing tantrums, the author hopes the reader (student) to resonate with him, through emotional appeal. As a reader of his narrative, I can relate to him in certain ways such as stress associated with academic assignments like structuring pieces of writing, feeling as if your effort could be improved... always striving for perfection, something that can’t really be attained.

       Osborne and Warne both showcase an individualized approach when following a conventional writing process. Although they both portray it through a different lens. Since Warne is a teacher by profession, her method of explaining the individualized writing process is methodical and even statistical at some points. She makes it clear who her audience is, English and literature educators by being very factual with the way she presents her “opinion”. By using a few of her students as part of a trial to test new strategies to involve in the writing process, Warne provides enough evidence to back her claim that the conventional process which is followed by most teachers is really not benefiting her students as it was intended to do so. Osborne seems to follow an individualized approach as well, but he chooses to eliminate the “facts” and tell it like it is through his own perspective. The reader is able to deduct that Osborne is not reserved in his opinions by the way he expresses himself in his writing. He makes clear that the narrative is about himself. Warne tends to shift her focus on the students’ wellbeing when it relates to writing. She is not egotistical and allows for different perspectives that contradict her thesis. Warne shares the point of view of the parents and administrators in charge of the writing and rhetoric guidelines at the high school she teaches. This way she keeps herself from becoming too biased across her writing and therefore leading to less credibility on her claim.

        In my opinion, Warne had to worry about incorporating more layers to her writing, since the goal of her projected audience was to implement her writing technique into other classrooms around the nation. In contrast, Osborne really only had to worry about taming his ego, allowing his emotions to sift through his writing. He had no interest in pleasing his audience, convincing them in any sort of way. His goal was to simply connect with the reader in a way that an English teacher would not have been able to. The two types of writing portrayed gives the reader two different perspectives involved in the conventional writing process.  

      Christensen has been an English teacher for 15 years. As a young 9th grader, she still remembers the day when she was humiliated by her teacher, Mrs. Delaney, on how she pronounced lawyer. She goes on to elaborate on how society had classified people based on their language. Christensen even argues that students no longer write to send out a message but rather focus on not making any mistakes throughout their writing. She highlights an example of one of her first-year students, Fred, who happened to be a reluctant at first but ended up writing his first piece with no mistakes. Christensen goes on to explain that if he didn’t commit any grammatical or even contextual mistakes, he wasn’t taking any risks, therefore he was not writing to communicate.

      To add legitimacy to your own writing, the author reaffirms her responsibility as a teacher to come up with daily opportunities in literature in which the students can relate to their own unique language and cultures. She also introduces the concept of peer reviewing and how knowledge can be gained by examining our lives.  By doing so, students are motivated to write about their personal stories, feeling encouraged to recount on their own life experiences. After students share their personal stories, they can often feel more relieved, rather than feeling like the elephant in the room. By relating to tales of their own lives, it brings out the true emotions in the writer, allowing them to elaborate on their writing more efficiently. In response, students gain a different perspective on various societal issues we face such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and even mental health.

     At this point, we can conclude that Christensen’s method is much more effective than her 9th grader teacher’s, when it came to teaching students the “language of power” not by humiliating and utilizing textbook drills, but by using the student’s own writing. By focusing more on what is said rather than how it is said, this method only devalued the life and knowledge of the student.

    A correlation between Osborne and Christensen is that Osborne tends to be reluctant to a conventional writing process while Christensen elaborates on how each individual should have their own identity demonstrated through their writing, and not allowing the rules to dictate your own writing process, to show case your originality as a writer. Osborne also seems to have struggled with his own identity as writer before writing his essay. He began to understand more of his flaws and strengths as a writer, in return he was able to feel more comfortable in his own skin, not feeling foreign anymore. He even relates with Fred, one of Christensen’s students who also struggled to find his own identity in his writing, but at last was able to find a connection to his first writing piece. A writing piece that highlighted an event in his life that managed to bring out his inner spirit.

Christensen chooses not to shy away from her bias against standard English. Citing how internalizing blame is something that often happens when standard English isn’t critiqued and people tend to blame themselves rather than question the standard language. She even manages to challenge her students up to the task of questioning their educational system, which tends to focus on manufacturing priorities without students in mind. Christensen appears to show a sense of anarchism against a politically correct system on how language is judged.

          Academic writing is lifeless without personal appeal, at least that is what Strasser contemplates. Strasser provides various points of view throughout her writing from Gerald Graff, Bell Hooks, Fisher and herself. She references her 8th grade school teacher and how she was inspired to fall in love with writing, due to the personal approach to writing her teacher was bringing forward. Stanley Fish argued that beginning writing courses should strictly focus on teaching grammar and style and once students are familiar enough, then they can begin implementing a personal approach to their writing, in my opinion it seems quite radical.

On the other side of the spectrum, Gerald Graff and Bell hooks demonstrate a different perspective, one in which the writing is focused on the students’ life experiences, interests, ideas. It allows students to feel more empowered about their own word choice and how they present it through out their writing. Strasser advocates for students being able to express their own individual voice,  and  feel empowered about their writing.

         There is always some sort of inspiration that allows oneself to create their own story ,in response allowing for personal creativity to shine through. Graff encourages students to address basic questions such as “so what?”, allowing them to claim their arguments. Bell Hooks focuses on the emotional appeal. The importance of synchronization of the mind, body and spirit. She provides a different outlook on how professors should judge their students by, what to take into account, such as their personal health. Strasser mentions how college culture is not how it is reflected in the media, it does not even encourage a balanced lifestyle. It more or less values extreme separation between party and study.

Bell also argues that educators should be fully “self-actualized”, well rounded human beings, who value students not only for their analytical abilities but their emotional wellbeing as well, on an equal level. That they should nurture both of these human qualities. Another point that is made is that students who have limited access to academic institutions tended to feel more the disparity between popular and academic culture. These kids have endured challenging lives at home, and a result they have accumulated many personal life stories to share, but sometimes the structure of writing they have been taught, limits them, limits their writing.

They are taught the structured and technical aspects of writing but not how they can assimilate them to real life experiences, which would allow them to break free on paper, and value their voices. Strasser makes clear how the expression through writing can be self-empowering to the individual and portrays herself as humble and down to earth. Making sure of encompassing everyone on the spectrum of writing. The fact that she advocates for writing which is taught to empower individuals across all divides such as race, age, gender, and language, gives the reader a clear understanding of how empathetic she really is.

When students can find a correlation between a theme or an article, with something that matters to them, it allows the writer to write passionately about the subject, allowing them to express their opinions in a more defined, stronger approach.

A stereotypical reference to first year writing, is that most of it, if not all should be focused primarily on the grammatical aspect of writing, similar to Stanley Fisher’s point. Correctness and efficiency were the main focus when teaching writing, dating back to the time when middle class was beginning to branch out to professionalism. Back when it was taught that good writing was correct writing. It’s been noted since the 1970s that teaching grammar and mechanics as the focus of writing does not necessarily improve it a whole, for the student.  The theory of writing is complex and personable, and flies way beyond correctness on a grammatical level.

By limiting the idea that students are trained to write correctly in first year writing courses, other opportunities that expand understanding of writing as a whole, are undervalued. First year writing should not be biased to a certain type of writing process, it should rather serve as a discussion where various arguments can be voiced, and on how a writing structure can be defined. It also should not focus only on basic instruction but should serve as a window of opportunity, of exploration, where meaningful arguments are dissected, involving more substance. It should be about how students can develop their own positions and comprehending alternate perspectives on an analytical level.

Lastly, in the Writing Revolution, New Dorp high School followed a specific curriculum reform that focused on analytical writing on a profound level, ensuring deep understanding by implementing the tools necessary in almost every subject.

Students at New Dorp were failing their standardized tests because they weren’t being instructed on how to translate their thoughts into coherent pieces of writing. The importance of formal writing instruction and the place it holds in a public school curriculum, New Dorp was changing the dynamic on how the core principles of formal writing were being taught across the nation.

David Coleman, architect of common core argues that the new writing standards tend to favor “self-expression and emotion, over lucid communication”. But to counter his point, students in a Florida high school were asked to write an expository aligned with common core principles, and as result, the pass rate plummeted from 80% to 38%.

Teachers at New Dorp didn’t seem very enthusiastic regarding the new teaching approach to writing, They were blaming the student body for lacking interest, showing poor sentence structure through their own verbiage. Students were allowed to take part in writing assignments that were interesting and included fun social context, in contract to formal lessons which can really diminish creative expression from the young writer.

Tyre reiterates how students began to slowly comprehend the fundamentals of coherent writing, after implementing the Hochman Program to their academics at New Dorp. This new “formula” would allow the students to break the structure and showcase their own perspective more profoundly. The writing guidelines wouldn’t even look as abstract as they did at the beginning.

One of the testimonials that Tyre points out is the one from Monica. The journey of a student who always had the strive to become a more proficient writer but lacked the instruction to do so. Tyre wanted other students nationwide to feel connected and empowered through their own personal writing as they embark on a journey of self-discovery and nourishment through their own writing.

To conclude, after having analyzed the different angles presented through the six sources, I can concur that the most effective writing process is one which is balanced, personable to the writer, and not involving so much ret tape. Yes, following certain guidelines are important, especially when it comes to grammar, but students should not be dictated on something so fundamental like the way we speak. Students shouldn’t be diminished on how they speak and write but empowered on how to voice their opinions and develop a way to form your own perspective on an argument. As Branson references, correctness and efficiency were a crucial part when defining the writing process but it should not have been the only focus.

​

Works cited:

Branson, Tyler. "First Year Composition Prepares Students for Academic Writing.” Bad Ideas About Writing, West Virginia University Libraries, Morgantown, 2017, pp. 18-23.

Christensen, Linda M. “Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?” The English Journal, vol. 79, no. 2, 1990, pp. 36-40.

Osborne, Thomas. “Late Nights, Last Rites, and the Rain-Slick Road to Self-Destruction.” Stylus: A Journal of First-Year Writing, vol. 2, no. 2, 2011.

Strasser, Emily. “Writing What Matters: A Student’s Struggle to Bridge the Academic/Personal Divide.” Young Scholars in Writing, vol. 5, 2008, pp. 146-150.

Tyre, Peg. “The Writing Revolution.” The Atlantic, Oct. 2012.

Warne, Bonnie M. "Writing Steps: A Recursive and Individual Experience." The English Journal, vol. 97, no. 5, May 2008, pp. 23-27.

​