Product over Process

This week’s readings—encircled with the title product theories—takes a step back from our prior week’s readings on process theories to look at its counter-argument and why (especially as Americans) we have encapsulated composition studies in the evaluation of grammars and styles.

Connors outlines the history with which we have become all too familiar of this hundred-plus-years worth obsession with correctness; however, ends by pointing out that by the 60s composition courses were beginning to be reshaped by scholars who challenged the product over process theory. Hartwell continues that teaching grammar in the classroom improves students’ writing abilities. Interestingly, these theories directly contrast those we read about last week. And while it serves as no surprise (after all, we are reading about product over process) it seems as though more contemporary and especially early contemporary attempts to revolt against product theory simply based themselves around dispelling the notions product theory holds dear. In other words, product theory seems obsessed with two things: grammatical (conventional) correctness, and—as Butler describes—the imitation or adopting of the genius’s style.

Process theory, on the other hand, deeply stresses delaying the teaching of conventional and grammatical correctness in order to aid a student to find or develop a style or voice unique to him/herself. This especially seems to ring true in Elbow’s article, where the academic writing of students begins to be seen as a part of an anthology of writing students compose in and outside of the classroom—remember Elbow also contributed to last week’s series and I suspect he is a process theorist through and through.

The final two readings for the week—Sommers and Conners—then, are examples of the reactions we should take to the products of students writing. Interestingly, it serves to display that it is impossible to critique student writing without commenting on the conventional errors one might make in a final draft of a paper. However, I choose to side with the process theorists who choose to see student work (and all writing) as a work in progress, never finished.

This reminds me, again, of an experience I had while tutoring as an undergraduate in college. One particular student would continually schedule her appointments a half hour before her class when her papers would be due. I recall the director of the writing lab exclaiming that in such circumstances it would be best for a tutor to cut out the main part of the paper and focus on one section to improve instead of glancing over the entire paper and making last-minute superficial corrections to grammar. This, of course, would not teach the student anything. So, I continually did this for this student: I would focus on one section and suggest she come in earlier next time so we could look over the whole paper before it was due. Finally, she asked if I would just be a proper tutor and make corrections with a red pen on all the words misspelled and sentences that didn’t make any sense. I was a bit shocked but told her that I wasn’t that kind of tutor. Needless to say, she never scheduled an appointment with me again. I have to consider, especially after reading these articles, that we are indoctrinated into thinking from a very early age that writing grammatically is the best possible writing one can produce. We are taught to assimilate to the style of a genius and told that we must learn the rules of mechanics before we can break them. But do we ever get to really break them? I say no, and unfortunately I suspect that many others would agree with me. We certainly still live in the world where product triumphs over process, and I’m not entirely sure when that will change … but surely, it must.