The historical accounts from Monaghan and Saul (1987), Myers (1996), and Nystrand, Greene, and Wiemelt (1993) provided a great deal of contextual knowledge with respects to understanding literacy’s development along side the societal growth of the United States both inside and outside of educational settings. For me, these writings illuminated just how significant the interplay between cultural, political, and intellectual factors were and continue to be with respects to literacy studies. Such factors sculpt our perceptions of literacy and how we to one degree or another perpetuate particular attitudes and beliefs about literacy.
One thing that was rather surprising to me was how disturbed I was initially when I finished reading the works by Monaghan and Saul (1987) and Myers (1996). I found myself up in arms about how individuals have historically separated reading and writing into two very distinct literacy practices and more so how writing has always taken a proverbial backseat to reading. While the past may not reflect our current views of writing and reading, we, as practitioners and scholars, should not become so frustrated with the past that we discount it. Rather we should try to understand that what constitutes a literacy practice shifts with a society’s needs, which was clearly a theme from the readings. I find comfort in the fact that more and more people are contemplating the interconnectedness between reading and writing. One such example that comes to mind is the 2001 publication by Belcher & Hirvela, Linking Literacies, which explores the connections between reading and writing in second language learning. Understanding how different modes of human communication interact and enhance one another will certainly broaden how we define literacy. Yet, I’m wary of the bandwagon effect that might happen if we rely solely upon their interconnections. Even though reading, writing, and other forms of communication can be linked, we still need to honor them and see them as separate modes of human communication that do distinct things.
In connection to the readings mentioned in the first paragraph, I find myself wanting to borrow the term “the weight of tradition” from Monaghan and Saul (1987) in relationship to my experiences as a writing tutor (p. 86). My time tutoring allowed me to witness just how many traditional conceptions of and attitudes about writing still persist within in minds of individuals. The individuals I encountered as a writing tutor consisted of students/tutees, graduate assistants, professors, and even the general public. Grammar, spelling, punctuations, thesis statements, topic sentences, and flow were often viewed as important point to “good writing”. From my conversations with people creativity, imagination, and authenticity were rarely, if ever, brought up as points associated with “good writing”. I remember countless times were students asked me to “fix” their paper...as if something was wrong with their work and I had the authority like a doctor to prescribe the right, magical answer(s) to make a good paper.
In recollection of my tutoring experiences, I’m triggered to think again about the long held Process vs. Product debate in the compositions field. Some of the question I’m considering in relationship to this debate are: 1). Who defines “good” writing and “bad” writing?; 2).To what degree (or) how much of writing is a process and how much of writing is product?; 3). How much liberty can a writer actually take with the writing she/he does?; 4). In what ways does the context for writing determine the product that is created?; 5). How might our conceptualizations of writing differ if we began by teaching it as a creativity endeavor verses prose-based, structured artifact?
