Which Theorist Do You Identify Most With?

In class today we reviewed the main areas of theory that we have covered so far this semester.  I like everything that the post-process theorists proposed- it seems like in this theory writing is far less structured and more subjective and individualized.  However, I feel somewhat guilty backing solely post-process because i'm kind of a fan of the writing process as well.  I like "knowing" how to construct a paper starting with invention and prewriting.  I guess it gives me the confidence that I will know how to begin- so does this make me an advocate of cognitive psychology?  THen as I look at expressivism and its emphasis on invention and inner thoughts, I find myself leaning towards calling myself an expressionist.  I think it's important to collaborate with others to revise a piece, but then again, isn't it my piece of writing?  Do I really have to interact with others to finalize a writing piece?  Then again,  I would want a peer to revise something super important like an admissions essay, so maybe in a certain writing, I would support the collaborative ideas of social theory.  I've come to the conclusion that I can't pick just one theory to categorize myself in.  I think it all depends on what I am writing and for whom.  I guess I am a cognitive-expressive-social-post-processist.  

Perl Essay- Recursive Writing

Perl discusses the idea of recursive writing in 3 main ways.  What are those 3 ways, and what is involved in each?

First of all, Perl states that when a writer's "go back" and think about what to write, they may repeat a key word or item.  I do this all the time when I read a prompt.  I may repeat the last one or two key words to try to really get in my head what the question is asking me to write about.  By zero-ing in on a key word, it may help to spark a thought or get ideas going before coming up with what to write about

Secondly, Perl states that it also helps to re-read bits of discourse or chunks of a paper.  I also do this a lot.  If I begin to write a paper and I only have the first two paragraphs down, I may hit a road block and have to re-read what I have already said in order to get an idea of what to put next.  This helps with getting a feeling of how the paper is flowing and to continue that flow in the next portion.

Lastly, Perl discusses the idea of reviewing feelings and nonverbalized perceptions that may surround words.   He labels this reviewing process as using "felt sense".  Perl says that using felt sense evokes images, words, and ideas and helps to boost creative thought.  This in turn may produce new and fresh ideas for the remaining writing.  

Another thing I took away from this essay was the last page when Perl talks about being a reader.  She stresses how important it is to put yourself in the shoes of whoever is reading your paper.  Professor Martion also brought this up in class the other day and mentioned that kids today do not know about audience and how important it is.  It kind of reminds me of facebook-  I sometimes find myself going through my profile and thinking to myself  "Now, what would so-and-so think of this picture, phrase, etc?"  I think if we viewed our writing pieces in a similar way, we may have more of a grasp on audience.  

The Process Approach (p.53-56)

Emig states that "there is little evidence that the persistant pointing out of specific errors in student themes leads to the elimination of these errors, yet teachers expend much of their energy in this futile and unrewarding exercise."  Do you agree or disagree with Williams?  Why or why not?

I personally agree with Emig to an extent.  The text states that the process appoach emphasizes error correction.  I believe that this could be a negative thing because students may get so immune to seeing abbreviations like "FRAG" and "RO" on their papers, that they may slowly lose confidence in their writing abilities.   While, some may argue that making abbreviated notations throughout a student's paper is helpful and beneficial in the student's learning abilities, I disagree.  When I was in GWRIT my freshman year at JMU, I had a professor who met with each student individually for a half hour in his office to go over a paper that had been turned in.  In this way, the teacher and student essentially graded the paper together, rather than having the professor mark all over it.  This is more beneficial to the student because he or she can revise the paper directly, rather than indirectly reading red pen marks.  In this way, both the student and the teacher have the opportunity to note areas for improvement in the paper, but also go over strengths that the paper has.