Weekly Response: Donald Murray's "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product"

Mr. Murray writes this piece to convince instructors to focus on process, not product, when teaching writing. He asserts that students are often criticized by instructors who do not value their writing as literature, the field in which the instructors were trained. By teaching process, teachers will focus on different competencies leading students to create better products.

This essay was written in 1972, and therefore would have been aimed at the Current-Traditional pedagogies popular then, and those who embraced them.

The process should focus on discovery, invention, knowledge creation and evaluation, and communication.

"Instead of teaching finished writing, we should teach unfinished writing, and glory in its unfinishedness." 

Murray introduces the concept of Prewriting, Writing, and Rewriting.  He also says teachers should respect the student by not grading the paper, but by seeking truth and voice in students' work. Then, the author lists implications of this pedagogical change, some of which read more like specific instructions for teachers on how to accomplish the change. 

1. He suggests the text of the writing course should be the writing that the student produces.
I can only suppose that he means in elementary grades, because for college this seems ridiculous. In my experience, the texts produced at Essex would not be shareable, and the texts produced at NJIT require reading to spark thought, discussion, and prewriting. STEM students are not going to produce written work without a prompt, just as poets would not engage properly in a research lab without guidance. I wonder if he is talking about creative writing, narrative, storytelling? This might even work in college level English programs at liberal arts schools, but I can't fathom how it would work in the environments I am accustomed to.

2. Teacher should not define truth, but allow the student to find his own subject.
I agree wholeheartedly with the beginning of this statement, but not entirely with the end of it. We need to require some type of standardization of subject in order to evaluate process and product. In class, I choose a topic that the class investigates, discusses, and brainstorms. Then, each student will write according to his or her own truth. I make it clear that I am grading the process and the final product, not the value and meaning of the thoughts and opinions they express. I tell the story of Nick, who's every word I disagreed with all semester, and who earned an A in my class because he planned, wrote, and rewrote his thoughts, opinions, and research effectively.  

3. The student should use his own language.
Absolutely not. I couldn't disagree more. The student should use his own voice, but certainly not his own language. A student seeking education wants to be able to compete and establish ethos in a professional world of educated people. Instructors to a disservice to students who don't speak and write in Standard English when they refuse to teach it. While the instructors may feel they are being culturally sensitive or politically correct, they are denying entrance to the mainstream to those who are already outside of it. I feel strongly that students must learn Standard English and own it as a tool in their toolbox.  Once learned, students can decide if, how, when, and where to use it. 

4, The student should write as many drafts as he wishes.
OK, as long as reasonable due dates are met.

5. The student can use any form of writing to communicate his meaning.
He says specifically here that the teacher is not teaching functional writing such as resumes or lab reports.  But what about when we are teaching functional writing?  Surely using any form to communicate your meaning will not work. Reminds me a little of using any style of English language to communicate: great in some circumstances and horrible in others. He must be talking about grade school. Or California.

6. Mechanics come last.
OK in creative writing.

7. Make time for process and meet a deadline.
Yes.

8. Papers and drafts are examined, not graded. Grade finished product at the end of the marking period.
That sounds lovely, but in reality, a student will want to monitor progress and know where he stands regarding his class performance. If he is, indeed, talking about grade school, I expect that parents would want to know if I child is earning a C or D before the marking period ends, so intervention can be made. This was definitely published in the 70's.

9. Students should work at their own pace.
Yes, again, lovely. But there are deadlines and a limited amount of classes in a semester. So work slowly, but do that slow work outside of class. Be prepared when you arrive to class so that the students are working on the same schedule. Also, with so many students, how can you know which are working slowly and which are simply not working? Many of his suggestions would work in a class of students who are all motivated and interested in writing. Sadly, I have never had a homogenious class of motivated writers.

10. No rules, all writing is experimental.
That wouldn't go over well with the Humanities Department or the Head of First Year Composition. No rules? How will we determine if our program works? How will we be sure we are serving the students and preparing them for college, business, and professional writing? 

Overall, I find this to be a very hippy-dippy take on writing that might be really fun in an elementary school classroom. I don't think this would help my emerging learners at Essex nor my STEM students at NJIT. He's got a few good points, like the break from the Current-Traditional pedagogy, and teaching process, but I think he takes it too far. Some of his other groovy points suggest he's smoking too much of that 70's weed.