White 1

Kim White
Dr. Kreiser
English 204-01
11/12/14
Product and Processes: My Pedagogical Theory
From the time we are young, we are passed from teacher to teacher and expected to know
how to write. I, myself, cannot even remember being taught to write. I was taught English and
grammar and somewhere along the lines I was taught to write a five paragraph paper. However,
until I reached college I never had a teacher that taught writing; my teachers in High School
did not put much importance on writing.
Writing is a systematic art and teaching writing should reflect that. The word
systematic is reflecting a little chronos and the word art is reflecting a little chaos. Gorrell
presents ideas that I would say fall somewhere in the middle, in a place of karios. Likewise, I
believe writing should be taught with an element of product and an element of process. When
we teach composition we are not teaching a product we are teaching a process (Murray 3).
Murray simply talks about process, which I do not find useful when trying to teach students how
to write because they do not have any direction. This lack of direction may be good for
blossoming, hopeful writers who wish to make a career of writing and already have their own
way of doing it. However, to a student uninterested in writing, they will have little interest and
incentives to write anything, let alone create something we deem to be written well.
Gorrell is adamant to point out that we cannot look at the process but at the processes.
we should be thinking not of the composing process but of the composing processes (Gorrell
273). Gorrell has no quarrel with process, but he believes students need a good example of a

White 2
product in order to codify the processes within it and create a successful piece of writing all their
own. Analysis of the product reveals the goal or end of the process, and directs us to specific
parts of the process that we can investigate (Gorrell 274). I would say that I agree with Gorrells
composition theory style.
What I see within Gorrells comp theory is the objectivity that I would want to bring to
my own classroom. When I say objectivity, Im referring to Gorrells point that writers use
different processes but they all lead to good writing. Gorrell is not saying, this is the process of
writing and without it is the impossibility of good writing; Gorrell is instead giving freedom to
the writer while still offering a product or end goal.
As a teacher, my comp theory would be much like Gorrell. I would offer an end goal to
my students, showing them an example of a successful writing product. I would then allow them
to pick the process that best fits their style and personality, and I would give them the freedom
within the confined to write something full of originality and creativity. Something that I do not
agree with is telling a student that their writing is not good. Who are we to say if their writing
is good or not? I believe writing is individual like almost everything else in life, such as fashion
or beliefs.
There is a lot of writing that I do not consider to be my style and, honestly, it bores me to
read. However, my opinion that the writing is boring does not change the fact that it is someones
piece of systematic art and it should be respected. I find the assumption that someone must
follow the process(Murray) to create good writing to be an arrogant one. You cannot tell
someone how to create art, but you can give them examples of good art and go over guidelines to
what successful art has consisted of in the past.

White 3
Therefore, if I were to teach writing I would give the students guidelines by showing
them a product, and then I would give them the freedom to choose their own process. I would
grade the drafts not by if they contain certain aspects, but I would grade them on if they were
trying and creating something all their own by their own processes.
When it comes to teaching writing, I believe that there is not one correct way to do it.
Every teacher should find out what works for them and stick with that way of teaching so they do
not confuse the student. Berlin gave us four different rhetorical theories of teaching writing; none
of the theories Berlin gave us are wrong, however, they are each fundamentally different.
Rhetorical theories differ from each other in the way writer, reality, audience, and language are
conceived-both as separate units and in the way the units relate to each other (Berlin 766).
Whichever way we decide to teach writing, we should recognize that we have the great
responsibility of creating a reality for the writer and reader through language. This responsibility
should be recognized so we do not switch from theory to theory, confusing the student. The
classroom should be a place where they learn without the inhibitor of contradictions.

White 4
Works Cited
Berlin, James. Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories. JSTOR 44.8
(1982): 765-777. Print.
Gorrell, Robert. How to Make Mulligan Stew: Process and Product Again. National Council
of Teachers of English. 34.3 (1983): 272-277. Print.
Murray, Donald. Teach Writing as a Process Not Product. The Leaflet. (1972): 3-6. Print.