Preparation and Creativity in a Writing Process:
Pragmatic Applications
Before anything else, preparation is the key to success.
– Alexander Graham Bell
Much of composition pedagogy during the last half-century advocated writing process over product in an effort to dispel notions that quantity will eventually lead to quality. Prior to these efforts, epiphanies long sought by methods of repetition and essay length remained hidden. Students had begun to view writing assignments as another test of their navigational skills seeking easier paths to win the “game of grades” against professors. Writing in this former scenario resembled rote pedagogy; teach a method (rules), get an essay, mark the mistakes, hand it back, repeat. (Moreover, keep repeating until the student either gets it or gives up.) Discussion about the paper, if any, revolved around the text itself as finished product, not about what came before. Decades later, researchers, professors, writing center tutors and university students started asking previously ignored questions. Why ask students to think of writing in a proscribed manner about a predetermined topic? What, if any, were the options? How do students make a choice? Where can they go to ask these questions? After process pedagogical methods had seemingly run their course, similar questions have come from post-process theorists who feel the scholastic days of glory are over for process centered writing classrooms. Gary A. Olson in his essay “Toward a Post-Process Composition: Abandoning the Rhetoric of Assertion” states that,
The problem with process theory, then, is not so much that scholars are attempting to theorize various aspects of composing as it is that they are endeavoring (consciously or not) to construct a model of the composing process, thereby constructing a Theory of Writing, a series of generalizations about writing that supposedly hold true all or most of the time. (Kent 8)
The questions for many composition professors, especially those specializing in freshman writing classes, then became focused on whether or not to jump ship and whether the water of post-process is any clearer.
Partial answers to the above questions are this paper’s principle focus and its aim is to introduce, not theorize on, two “various aspects” of my own writing process which I feel have been overlooked in other discussions: Preparation (Prep) and Creative Problem Solving (CPS), which address, in part, both sides of the process debate. Although my inclusion of a constructed process model is useful as a visual representation for Prep and Creativity, the author does in no way posit a generalized “Master Plan.” The purpose of such a construction is as a pedagogical aide for writing tutors (professors, peers, or those working in Writing Centers) and nothing more. Professors advocating process will be able to use Prep and CPS methodology to promote further student discussion within the classroom. Equally, composition professors seeking alternatives for process pedagogical orientation will have tutorial tools that enable students to have a better understanding of writing outside of composition classrooms; that is, addressing the discourse community. Either way, professors and students can enjoy benefits reaped from better text production.
Product (the result of any writing assignment) requires a process extending far beyond the classroom. Professors can speak at length about an assignment and answer all relevant questions, but that does not take into account the next steps – students must then transfer that knowledge into viable products: Clear assignments and cognizant students are merely a first step in a longer path. If students remain unaware of options available to them through process methods of Prep and Creativity, assignments may revert to their former status as a mere hurdle. In an effort to continue expanding discussions on process, I will talk about Creativity in reference to problem solving hand-in-hand with a concept taken from decades working in restaurants – Prep for two-hundred even if you expect twenty. With these tools, both professors and students can achieve a greater understanding of complex and still evolving writing processes and, therefore, a more enjoyable composing experience.
For me, Prep involves all steps taken prior to sitting down and writing; that is, anything that comes before the first word of a first draft including but not restricted to:
- Research
- Making Notes and/or Outlining
- Planning
- Invention
- Pre-Writing
- Reading and Clarifying an Assignment
- Professor conferences
- Talking with peers
- Choosing and narrowing a Topic
- Time Management
- Getting a good night’s sleep
- Eating correctly
- Exercise and/or Mental preparation
- Any idiosyncratic comforters such as choosing a favorite shirt or comfortable shoes, burning incense or lighting a candle, taking a pre-writing shower, cleaning your room before you write, playing music, understanding that you work best in the early morning or late at night.
In other words, discover for yourself that ideal set of circumstances that work best for you even if you cannot accommodate them for every assignment. All of these activities fall under the general heading of Prep. As a former bartender, if I Prepped for twenty customers and two-hundred show up I will be hip-deep in the weeds, (which means I will be busier than the proverbial one-legged-man), my shift will be a disaster, and no tips will be forthcoming.
The other side of my restaurant Prep allegory is that student who remains unaware of her own ideal writing process; in fact, she is probably unaware that process pedagogy exists. She honestly believes in her ability to write at peak performance levels with little, if any, preparation. Typically, this student receives a shock after her first university paper fails to meet the writing standards she ingrained and processes that worked during high school; therefore, she is now deep in the composition weeds without a leg to stand on. Challenging first-year university students with disparate writing assignments, (research articles, compare/contrast, argumentative essays, literature reviews, etc.) especially those essays which necessarily depart from conventional formats or length requirements, are pedagogically sound practices. A freshman composition class ought to challenge students as part of efforts to expand notions of writing and integrate “real-world” composition (effective communication) expertise. Unfortunately, however, despite process pedagogy’s reign, adequate holistic discussions of Prep and its benefits become segment lectures throughout a semester rather than addressed comprehensively prior to the first assignment.
A more practical and pragmatic approach to Prep would resolve many of the grievances of post-process composition theorists if the main objection to process pedagogy remains a lack of focus on discourse communities. Lectures on Prep during the first week of a composition class necessarily include discussions about collaboration among student/student, student/professor, student/writing center tutor, and promoting (granting permission for) these activities. As a Writing Center Graduate Assistant at James Madison University, I have talked with many students, most of them freshmen, who did not know that they had a right to talk with their professor about writing assignments. If students are not aware of Preparation methodologies, how can professors expect competent texts? Process professors can take a page from post-process theorists and discuss collaboration simultaneous with lectures on discourse communities. Students will understand that they are not alone in their writing efforts nor do their efforts count little in “real-world” situations. Regardless of the process/post-process debate, comprehensive lectures about Prep as a general topic early in a semester solidifies a proper starting point for a composition classroom. Meanwhile, all the sub-topics of Prep in the above list create a foundation for a meaningful and creative semester of student/professor engagement with writing.
George Lois, Art Director for Esquire from 1962-72 and an advertising guru, once remarked that Creativity was nothing more than “The defeat of habit by originality” (Brussell 117). When most students begin a university freshman composition course their writing habits have become second nature, notions of change disrupt possible creative thinking. Professors that assign challenging projects without discussing Creative Problem Solving during the writing process, set themselves up for reading ineffective and trite texts. First-year students unaware of CPS methodology as it applies to writing will fall back on format and habit (low-level mechanics) rather than phrase, sentence, paragraph, content or organizational text changes. Foremost for professors, then, should be a desire to encourage authority and originality in applications of text revision, to encourage an embrace of singular voice, and to this end, an embrace of CPS methods in conjunction with teaching effective revision tools.
The idea behind CPS is straightforward; if a student understands the options, they have a better chance of choosing the best rhetorical corrective measure. For example, as a Writing Consultant at JMU I have talked with many students about passive voice construction in formal essays, how to identify passive voice, and creative methods of shifting them into active phrases. In my limited experience, no student has been aware of the three basic CPS solutions I posit for passive voice phrase revision; in fact, most do not understand what constitutes passive voice. After a brief introduction of “to be” and past-tense verb formation, I discuss three possible solutions in no particular order:
- Choosing a stronger (more active) verb than the “to be” variant
- Choosing a different form of the past-tense verb the student used (stretches rather than stretched, reach rather than reached, etc.)
- Flipping the sentence (cutting the sentence basically in half and reversing the order)
As a Writing Consultant, my job is not to tell students which method best suits their text, a professor’s expectations, or their own style; however, it is part of my job to help students become better, more informed writers. And by helping students recognize text revision CPS methods, I fulfill my obligation by augmenting classroom instruction.
Professors, whether those interested in process or post-process pedagogy, instruct composition students to organize essays in a logical manner; that is, in effect, paying close attention to content in paragraph order. One student I met with not long ago knew by instinct that his essay did not follow a logical order. He said, “I feel as if I’m going in different directions with every paragraph but I have no idea how to fix it.” Using CPS methodology, I began by having him construct a reverse outline of his essay. (This tutorial tool is exactly what it sounds like but the student had never heard of the method.) I explained that I wanted him to write a few words in outline format concerning the main ideas of each paragraph in their current order. I then asked him to read the outline and decide for himself if the essay included all the pertinent information about his subject. He felt that one piece of information was missing and he made a note of it in the margin. Next, I asked him to talk me through his paper using only the reverse outline he constructed.
While the student was explaining each section, he began to notice that different paragraphs contained subject material that should have comprised its own paragraph. In addition, once discovering this problem, he realized that by changing the order of his paragraphs his essay’s thesis became much clearer. I asked him to create another outline with the new paragraph sequence, but now he had another problem. Changing the sequence meant that he may have to contend with a whole new set of transitions. Using both outlines, we began to flip pages back and forth trying to get a feel for the new construction and whether or not the paragraphs needed revised or new transitions. Both the student and I reached a point of frustration because we could not gain an adequate visual idea of the new sequence. The student suggested that what he could do was start cutting and pasting and let the computer take care of page flipping for us; however, CPS methodology teaches us to consider every option before action – he needed scissors. Physically cutting the printed text into its separate paragraphs and laying them all out on a table, the student would be able to not only see the new sequence but also move sections at will without losing focus or disturbing his original electronic draft. As the student left our session, he told me that he never knew thinking about revision and writing could manifest in so many different forms. And that is the problem in a nutshell.
I am well aware that composition professors have no shortage of available, necessary and/or relevant subject material; however, limited by time, they must make tough decisions as to their primary pedagogical focus. My position remains that by using Prep as a general discussion early in a semester and highlighting problem areas with its sub-sections as they arise, students will grasp the importance of Prepping for twenty pages even when the assignment calls for ten. (I am also well aware that even if students do grasp the importance of Prep, they will often test the efficacy of its limits and that some students work best under pressure, but most do not and will proceed at their own risk.) In so doing, students should not feel forced into the tall weeds and professors should not have to read last-minute texts. In addition, Creative Problem Solving methodology works in the Writing Center and, therefore, ought to be of importance in the classroom. Teaching composition students as many revision strategies as possible increases their chances of producing engaging, coherent, elucidating texts, which in turn increases a professor’s chances of keeping their hair. People are different and they require different writing processes that require different discussions. Does it matter if we label writing pedagogy as process or post-process? The time has come to be pragmatic. Talk about them all. Use them all.
Works Cited:
Brussell, Eugene E. Ed. Webster’s New World Dictionary of Quotable Definitions. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1988.
Kent, Thomas. Ed. Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing Process Paradigm. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois UP, 1999.
DougzHotMess 