Article on Writing

Citation

Smith, Cheryl Hogue. (2010). "Diving in deeper": bringing basic writers' thinking to the surface. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 8 (53), 668-76.

Summary

The author begins by lamenting that fact that so many professors as the college level claim that there students cannot 'think critically', and yet there is very little definition or form to what it means to 'think critically.' Research has shown that it is not enough to just master rhetorical, logical, and interpretive skills, but rather that the teacher must now develop within the student the motivation and willingness to use these skills. The question Smith addresses within this article asks why high level thinking of basic writers unravels before they even begin the writing process?

Smith explores the reasons students struggle so much with writing and concludes that because so much of writing is based off of what students read, one of the real issues with basic writers is a lack of literacy. Once students have repeated frustrations and failures when it comes to understanding a text, they are more prone to what Vacca and Padak (1990) refer to as a 'learned helplessness,' or the idea that students give up before they even try. Therefore teaching writing is as much about teaching good reading and literacy because no student is able to write better than what they are able to comprehend through reading. Smith proposes that in order to help students through the thinking and learning process is to encourage them to take control of their thinking through instruction about metacognition.

The best way to teach about metacognition is to take writers through a vigorous revision process. This way, students will be forced to see their original line of thinking through the eyes of others, address it critically, ask questions of their thinking, and, finally, make necessary changes. She stresses the importance of the peer revision process so that student may begin thinking about their own work critically. Smith actually has her students turn in drafts with each revision marked and the reasoning behind each change, forcing students to think about their thinking and why it was necessary to make certain changes.

The ultimate goal of this process is to get writers to be critical of their own work in an effort to become better writers. Part of the process involves teacher-initiated peer review sessions, a guided review process, a way for students to evaluate one another's work (in class or electronically), and specific instruction on how students can ask critical questions of their own work. Through this process, Smith hopes that students understand their own value as writers and thinkers. She has already reported results from those students who have taken her class.

Value of Knowledge

Though I have used the peer editing process in class before, I have never been satisfied with the results. Far too often students see the process as an easy day in class and don't really put too much effort into the editing of other students' papers. Plus, there are some students who are not confident in their own writing skills that they think they have nothing valuable to contribute to another's paper. I think I will try applying some of Smith's practical tips for peer editing by being more involved with the process (guided editing, more specific questions) and also demand more from the person who had their paper edited (commenting on why certain changes were made). This is also a process that I can use in my unit planning project, so I will likely put some of these ideas to the test when it comes time to use the peer-editing stage of the essay writing.