Second Class: Introducing Writing Process

 This is what I had planned: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VfRNOQ1cfhJOaNnzYHMABrFqq-wKWxiWwO3o52VJ-CA/edit

This time, the class went more or less according to what I had planned (note to self: don't succumb to a false illusion of control). I started by asking if everyone is comfortable writing and commenting together on google docs, and realized some found it uncomfortable because they were not sufficiently familiar with google docs and it was difficult to navigate the document since many were commenting together. I had expected students to do the exercise in the previous session without explaining google docs functionality--this was a major oversight. 

I'm also mentioning this because the assumption that students already have a certain digital literacy or will easily adapt to working online is pervasive in many teaching contexts at the moment. I teach in a more privileged context, yes, but this assumption needs to be checked every time. Differential digital literacy also affects how students access resources online--from learning to search with relevant keywords to identifying reliable websites to downloading PDFs/EPUBs from academic databases and the digital commons. Even the assumption that all students are comfortable typing should not be taken for granted, especially in a context where the default expectation is that all students type out assignments and submit in a timebound manner. I found out that certain students are transitioning to typing only now--and that obviously affects the speed and fluency of writing. In other words, based on the kind of exposure and access one has had to digital resources, there are different possibilities and limitations of digital learning. As a group, it is essential that we become aware of each other's experiences to be able to build more effective support systems. 

I moved on to introducing the session. While the previous session was more of a conceptual and thematic intro to the course, this session was going to introduce the need for a writing process as we work towards various writing assignments. At the end of the session, students would begin to write the introductory essay--but I wanted them to approach the writing through a set of pre-writing tasks. I spent a little time contextualizing the idea of 'process' in two ways: 

a) The distinction between the process and product approach to writing in composition pedagogy. The product approach typically asks students to write based on convention, format awareness, and standard models that could be imitated. The process approach takes the students through a series of steps through which the writing is composed over time, making students reflect on the assumptions through which they write, and typically giving more freedom to experiment with form. I mentioned how the emphasis on 'process' over product changes the approach to both evaluation and teaching. Evaluation is no longer based on just the final product, but the process through which the composition of thought takes place, combining ideation, research, discussion, drafting, reviewing, and re-drafting. Teaching, too, changes from a more didactic, prescriptive mode (where tasks are announced and students have to merely follow/reproduce them) to a more reflective mode (where each step of the writing process is discussed and reviewed, leading to a more subjective engagement with student thought). 

I think I made it sound a bit too simple. In real classroom scenarios, there is a far more complicated negotiation happening between product and process approaches--teachers still end up prioritizing the final product while paying lip service to the process. Or evaluation systems are not always designed to take into account the qualitative complexity of each aspect of the process. Also, how to contextualize the 'process' approach in large standardized educational settings is a difficult problem. 

b) process as a metaphor for re-orienting the relation between thought and action: here, I wanted to relate process to the notion of 'praxis' in the critical pedagogy+literacy framework. 

I mentioned how learning inevitably entails a process through which we learn, and each process entails its own set of assumptions, techniques, and possible outcomes. To demonstrate, we discussed the examples of learning a musical instrument (learning by intuitively playing vs learning by becoming aware of the instrument), learning mathematics (learning by repetitive, speedy practice vs learning by playfully imagining concepts), and acting (channeling representations via past experience vs being in the present moment), based on the experiences of different students. Then I discussed what implications such a notion of process has for teaching as well as political organizing, especially with regard to how we aim to practice and implement notions of democracy, social justice, and equity. In teaching, for example, there is a frequent disconnect we experience between holding certain ideals and actually manifesting them in the production of the classroom. Such a disconnect is partially a function of how we approach the process of teaching itself and whether there is a critical awareness of how the process influences outcomes. Similarly, with organizing, democractic egalitarian ideals do not necessarily correspond with the nature of organizing, campaigning, and imagining political action. I introduced the notion of 'praxis' as Paulo Freire formulates it--neither mere verbalism (just talk) or mere activism (just action without reflective thought), but a constant mediation between thought and action. The basic point I wanted to reinforce is about how one's choices, actions, behavior, and patterns of thought, are all influenced by conscious and unconscious processes through which they manifest--it becomes essential to critically unpack the process thus. 

Again, I felt I was trying to explain a set of difficult ideas a little too schematically. Also, I was trying to quickly establish connections that seem intuitive in one sense but also need more critical elaboration. Something to work on for future classes. 

After this, we went through the three pre-writing exercises: 

a) mind-mapping: I demonstrated how I drew a mind-map for the word 'writing process' to discover primary associations, but also prioritized some over others. I showed an example of a more sophisticated mind-map (or an argument map) by an ex-student, to demonstrate how the mind-map can also help structure the entire argument of an essay. Subsequently, some students showed their preliminary mind-maps and I reinforced how it is important to have a sense of which associations to prioritize based on the scope of the essay. 

One interesting question that came up was whether one should be aware of why they're choosing certain associations. This is a tricky question since a mind-map is supposed to generate spontaneous and wide-ranging associations and over-thinking them might stall the process. But at the same time, being aware of the reasons for having those associations might help categorize and hierarchize the associations better. Hm. 

b) pre-writing discussion: students were divided into groups of two and had to ask clarificatory questions to each other (without passing judgments) to help work through the themes they wanted to work on. Since this happened in separate breakout rooms, I didn't really have a sense of how the conversations actually proceeded and what students felt about it. My assumption was that asking clarificatory questions (such as 'what do you mean', 'could you explain that better', 'could you expand on that') helps each person to clarify the hidden inconsistencies, tensions, and obfuscations in thought. 

There were a couple of doubts I had after this exercise. First, this is not a neutral exercise, the listener in each case would choose to ask for clarifications regarding certain points and that would emphasize particular aspects of thought over others. Each listener produces a different set of clarifications. It's important to reflect on the act of listening in this exercise too--something I didn't mention. Second, I mentioned that this is an exercise they could do on their own--ask clarificatory questions as they're developing an idea. However, there is a difference between having an interlocutor ask a question and doing it oneself. On one's own, there might be a limit to the range of questions one ends up asking. 

Thought for future exercise: have 3-4 ask clarificatory questions followed by a comparison of what each listener emphasized or drew attention towards--then reflect on which questions the speaker is more interested in pursuing and why. 

c) plotting: finally, I mentioned the importance of having a plot-line while one is working with longer essays, to have a sense of the narrative thread and structure. I did not want to prescribe this, but while writing articles with tighter deadlines, plotting is useful, I feel. I partially wanted to go into an elaborate discussion on the discourse of plotting in narrative studies (or narratology) but did not since students had to begin writing the essay soon. 

I showed a tentative plot-line I had for the session--and then encouraged everyone to jot down a tentative set of points they wanted to discuss in the essay. In the near future, I particularly want to go into a discussion and demonstration of 'transitions' in plotting--and how they shape the logical construction of narratives. 

Before they started writing the introductory essay, I made a brief comment on plagiarism. I asked why people plagiarised (despite knowing the consequences) and the responses pointed out factors such as losing motivation, feeling disconnected from the topic of the essay, seeking validation or approval of institutional authorities, and even the rare occurrence of unconsciously reproducing the words of others. I tried to reinforce the need to write honestly, to facilitate an honest, meaningful conversation on the content of writing. A couple of interesting points also came up: one was on the difference in the experience of writing factual content and writing opinionated content, and the other was on the limitations of producing 'new' knowledge in certain fields of thought (the specific example used was 'maritime law' interestingly). I made a rather generic (and hopeful) point about how writing is an act of synthesis and stitches together strands of thought to produce particular kinds of knowledge, which incrementally contribute to existing discourses. And while there is rampant repetition in the knowledge/perspectives being produced, it also has to do with the institutional practices and conventions through which we produce knowledge, not necessarily the exhaustibility of the knowledge (or discourse) itself. But both questions require more thinking. 

Finally, finally, I announced that we can begin writing. Everyone switched off their videos and (presumably) started writing. I addressed concerns that people had over chat and waiting in anticipation to receive each introductory essay. At some point during the session, I had mentioned how the introductory essays provide us (the writing faculty) the first glimpse of student writing, so that we can begin to discern the individual and collective aspects of writing we will need to work on. And since the prompt asked everyone to write about a cultural text they were influenced by, it gives me a sense of the kinds of texts and themes which have mattered to each student. I get a glimpse into their thoughts, interests, desires, and styles of thinking. 

There's another reason I didn't mention: I love reading the essays. :)