When categorizing language, most people, Emig states, combine the four languaging processes in one of two ways: reading with writing and speaking with listening or writing with speaking and listening with reading. Listening and reading are both receptive functions while speaking and writing are productive. The following chart provides a graphic look at the distinctions between the languaging functions:
Languaging functions
|
originating
|
graphically recorded
|
creating / recreating
|
Writing
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
Speaking
|
X
|
X
|
|
Reading
|
X
|
X
|
|
Listening
|
X
|
Emig shows that writing is the only languaging function that allows students to practice originating, creating / recreating and graphic recording skills. Emig calls for a distinction to be noted between creating and originating, although she does not go on to explain what her perception of those differences are. My understanding, and what I’ve inferred from her text, is originating is the creation of new content, while creating / recreating is the formation / reformation of meaning and understanding.
Although Emig’s focus is on the importance of writing in the learning process, she clarifies that it does not invalidate the other languaging processes as “a silent classroom or one filled only with the teacher’s voice is anathema to learning.” Talking, she explains, is a valuable part of prewriting. However, talking is not the same as writing. According to Emig, some sources suggest that “talking and writing may emanate from different organic sources and represent different, possibly distinct, language functions” (123). There is a pedagogical danger, Emig suggests, in not maintaining clear lines between speaking and writing.
Referring to Jerome Bruner and Jean Piaget, Emig identifies the three typical ways man represent and deal with actuality. “(1) Enactive— we learn ‘by doing’; (2) iconic— we learn ‘by depiction in an image’; (3) representational or symbolic— we learn ‘by restatement in words.’” Writing, Emig argues, meets all three of these strategies for deal with actuality simultaneously. Because the hand is doing the writing, the enactive element is present, and as verbal language is given physical structure through the symbols of the alphabet which are then shaped into the icon, a graphic product, the symbolic and iconic elements are present as well.
Highlighting further the usefulness of writing in the learning process, Emig argues that writing requires the use of both hemispheres of the brain, with the left hemisphere providing the linear process and the right hemisphere allowing for the implementation of emotion, intuition and abstract thoughts and metaphors. This is beneficial, even essential, to learning because an emotional investment in the topic encourages more willing students. For example, Sondra Perl’s case study in “The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers” documents the relationship between the product and a writer feeling a connection between the topic and himself. Her findings show that Tony’s writing process went much more smoothly when he felt a connection to the topic.
Ultimately, Emig argues that writing is crucial to the learning process because both composition and successful learning strategies include multi-representational and integrative reinforcement, both immediate and long-term feedback, provisions for both synthetic / analytic connections and hypotheses and summaries, and, finally, allowances for students to be active, engaged and personally vested in the work.
I found Emig’s work intriguing. Initially I held reservations because her work seemed to dismiss the validity of the other languaging processes, so I was relieved when she elaborated that she is not rejecting their usefulness but rather emphasizing the strengths of writing as a learning strategy. I am particularly curious about her opinion on composition and learning styles. Both tactile learners and visual learners fit quite nicely into the ways we “deal with actuality,” but auditory learners are left out of the loop in this study.
Hi Heather,
ReplyDeleteI could see a tailored version of Gutierrez and Coe’s process oriented lesson proposal fitting in well within individual first year writing classrooms, simply because it calls attention to a facet of learning that students have not likely considered. Such self-reflective practices are helpful to allow students to understand themselves as writers and learners, but yes, students could perform the task shallowly, conforming to what they think is the “correct” way, glossing over their differences.
Emig’s work seems to further the notion that process oriented pedagogy has an integral role in the first year comp classroom, because at the forefront of their academic careers, students must begin to see themselves as agents in their own learning, with writing (as well as the writing process) as their agency. It has always been the case in my own experience that writing responses to confusing material, or assimilating a literature review before embarking on my own research can allow me to process and reprocess the information at hand. As Emig might say, in this instance, we’re internalizing a concept, and then producing in in writing—this process helps us solidify our ideas.
Heather,
ReplyDeleteYour statement that an emotional investment in the topic that the student is writing about relates to what Noah said in his review of the Donald Murray article. He said that it is important to ensure the student has enough time to choose a topic that they are interested in writing about, otherwise it will be more difficult for them to write well or to stay on task. It’s interesting to read that writing is an exercise for both hemispheres of the brain; it makes sense that it requires both being analytical and factual as well as being able to contribute emotion-based opinions. If the argument is to be convincing, the writing needs a mix of both fact and emotional appeal to the audience. An effective combination of the two is created by a good writer, I have just never considered from where the ability to do this came from.
I also like that the author considers talking a form of prewriting. I can relate to this-I can recall numerous occasions that meeting with the teacher or professor just to talk about ideas and consider paper topics helped me to decide what it was that I wanted to write about. The final aspect of this author’s argument that I found interesting is that her thoughts only relate to people that fit two forms of learning. Maybe this article was written before the subject of learning processes and accommodating students of all learning types was in the front of educators’ minds?
-Nicole