It's about the writER, not the writING.

That's the informal motto of the Writing Center that we developed two years ago at the school where I teach. What I didn't realize was that this fell under the umbrella of process pedagogy! When students come in to our center, they seem to fall into two categories. Some of them come with a draft and are looking for a proofreader. They are often dismayed to find out that this is not our primary function. When we work with them to develop their own proofreading skills, they are always amazed at the number of their own errors they can find if they just practice a few simple techniques like reading their own work aloud. The other category of writer that frequents our center are the ones who do not know where or how to begin.

I found myself saying "um hmm" and "yes" quite often while reading Flowers and Hayes' A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory (p. 273-297). Of particular relevance to my teaching was the section where they discussed the stage models of writing. We subscribe to the stage model in the writing center as well. I find it to be a framework to help writers recognize the components of the process - and, in an even more basic way, that writing is, indeed, a process.

I would even call myself a fan of the writing process model - I do believe that good writers use the prewriting, writing, and revision phases when they compose; however, it is not necessarily a linear process - it can and should be recursive. In that vein, I agree with the process advocates who criticize this composing process as stifling and not engaging the voice of the writer. But I have to say (again) that it's the framework that helps those most needy writers. It gives them a starting point. It gives them benchmarks to guide their writing. I theorize that, with time, they will internalize this process and make it almost subconscious. Then maybe they can move to a less linear approach...

In Flowers and Hayes' work, they discuss the planning process that writers use. Many of the writers I work with break down in this phase. It's the sub-process of organizing and making meaning of text that many writers find challenging. And often the actual generation of those ideas is fuzzy for them. Their understanding of the task or the information they are asked to use is fragmented and unconnected so they cannot make meaning of it. Then it snowballs. Their organization suffers because they cannot connect their thoughts and information. Goal-setting cannot occur as readily because they are unclear about what their goals should even be.

From there, translation is often a challenge. I couldn't agree more that this translation piece becomes an extra burden for writers who cannot multi-task both the planning piece and the translation piece(p. 282). They do become overwhelmed and often choose to either pay attention to content or the writing itself - but not both. I've even taking over the physical act of handwriting for those students in an effort to free up their minds to the content piece. We've had limited success using voice-recognition software (Dragon Naturally Speaking) to help certain students free up more of their brain power for goal-setting, reviewing, and monitoring. It's not that these writers can't think of things to say -- they often can! It's just that they cannot handle to complexity of all the different tasks they have to perform simultaneously while writing.

Lad Tobin raises a fine point about finding a happy medium between the process pedagogues and the post-process fans (A Guide to Composition Pedagogies, 15). In my experience, when the most needy writers are given the freedom to write about a topic completely chosen by them, it makes the idea generation piece easier. But they still need the framework of a process to guide and organize their thoughts. Mini-lessons can be just the answer to help students develop skills that don't come naturally. In this way they can find their voice and develop as writers both creatively and mechanically.