Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Revision and Patience

May 13, 2011

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

I've taught high-school and college writing for nearly 15 years now. And I've directed a university writing program for three. In that time, I’ve found countless risible examples of student writing. I try not to share these. But temptation occasionally gets the better of me.

Here's a gem from this past semester. A student in a required first-year course recently sought to explain what he had learned. (I require such a written explanation at the end of the semester.) He wanted to show that he grasped something about "presentation," a category including grammatical correctness and stylistic felicity. So he wrote: "My improvement in presentation has improves also, I’ve gone from writing long and confusing sentences, to writing more clear and readable ones."

This is like hearing a cologne-soaked man intone: "We should talk more about how I’ve stopped philandering, perhaps over a drink at my apartment." Nevertheless, I’d like for you to consider something. Something that I had to remember myself. Writing is different from casual romance in a very important regard: the writer gets to revise. And the revision erases the first performance altogether. Would that all were so.

Perhaps, in some teaching practicum or graduate seminar, you were exposed to the glory of composition pedagogy, so you know the glittering magic of process and the transformative luster of revision. Those of us in rhetoric and writing delight in such terms, so we readily forget that others aren’t so dazzled by their appearance. Allow me to illuminate.

The student mentioned above did write a poor sentence at an inopportune time. But I won't say that he learned nothing of grammar and style. Over the course of this semester, I watched as he wrote and revised several papers. The first drafts typically featured many sentences like the above. But subsequent drafts improved. As the class practiced editing techniques, as they learned a few choice grammar rules, I noticed that his ability to improve … well, improved. He got better at sentence-level revision. He learned to write concisely, clearly, and appropriately. Just not in the first draft.

By the way, the ability to revise for correctness and felicity improves all writing. It improves my writing. The second-to-last sentence in the paragraph above started out like this: "He really did learn to write clearer, more concise, and more readable prose." Then it became, "He did learn to write more clearly, more concisely, and more readably." Somewhere during the third iteration, I settled on a form but misspelled "learned”: "leared."

Even the writing teacher needs a chance to rewrite.

Since my students submit their materials in electronic portfolios, I can revisit various stages of their work. I can see evidence to support this student’s claim. His ultimately elegant expressions evolved from hideous, writhing syntactic monsters. Unfortunately, he did not have an opportunity to reconsider the sentence quoted above. While professing his ability to revise for style and grammar, he could not revise for style and grammar.

And so, this end-of-the semester self-evaluation that I require of my students is a cruel little puzzle with no satisfactory solution. This is like evaluating a professional dancer’s merit based on an impromptu oration that describes his most recent and successful performance. Or evaluating an orator based on an interpretive dance version of her best speech. Perhaps the impropriety under investigation is not stylistic but pedagogical, not my student's but mine.

It's easy to chuckle at a single sentence, easy to focus on what's written and to overlook the writing. Good writing instruction, as you may have heard, requires attention to process and opportunity to revise. Or so a diligent, though not initially eloquent, student reminds me.

Mark Longaker is associate chair of the Department of Rhetoric and Writing at the University of Texas at Austin. He is grateful for his student’s patience and permission to reprint the quote in this article.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Revision and Patience

  • Posted by Becky Howard , Professor at Syracuse on May 13, 2011 at 10:30am EDT
  • This article won't get as many enthusiastic responses as will the innumerable articles about how stupid students are and how oppressed instructors are by them. Instead it offers a teacherly perspective on issues of student error. Thanks, amigo.
  • Yes, but
  • Posted by Bob Schenck on May 13, 2011 at 11:00am EDT
  • Dr. Longaker is right, but the revision he encourages is simply impossible with the total number of writing students most teachers have to instruct, supervise, edit, and proofread. How silly it is for theorists to suggest that teachers ask students to rewrite an essay from a completely new point of view, from a new angle, to recast, totally, the argument! Even if this alone were possible, the reality is that the second version, or parts of it, may not be as good as the first, and the teacher and writer must then compare and evaluate them, and then perhaps write even a third version. This is indeed how good writing is produced by poets and professional academics -- we all know the story of Hemingway's revision of the conclusion to "A Farewell to Arms" -- but who has time and energy to do this for from 50 to 150 unskilled writers each term? That's why classroom revision is almost always a desultory and rote exercise of incorporating surface features of format, usage, and mechanics. In addition, Dr. Longaker is able to make such judgments of logic, rhetoric, syntax, and style only because he has read, and read, and read, and thus knows many of the infinite ways that written English can appear on the printed page. Most students whose writing needs the four or five revisions Dr. Longaker recommends have no such history of reading, no such internal library of linguistic possibility from which to choose. Sustained reading over several years teaches a way of thinking, a way of writing, and a way of rewriting and revising that can be learned in no other way, and in the brave new world of Google and Twitter I see no possibility that the masses of students who now believe they must go to college to survive will ever be able to write and rewrite as Dr. Longaker and I wish they could.
  • We know what was meant --
  • Posted by DFS on May 13, 2011 at 11:00am EDT
  • Then let's please just dumb it down some more. We all knew what was meant -- it doesn't matter what was actually written.

    In the future, perhaps, we can just fudge the facts also in some calculation on a math test -- we knew what they meant, instead of what they wrote.

    In such a manner, graduates will be afforded the slack necessary from future employers -- excuse us, consumers, but you know what the person meant; never mind what he said.

    It's all very relative, after all.
  • I love those awkward sentences . . .
  • Posted by Laura on May 13, 2011 at 1:31pm EDT
  • and I always have. They often mean that a student is struggling with an idea that he or she doesn't quite know how to express yet. That to me is priceless.
  • right on, Longaker!
  • Posted by SometimeCompProf on May 13, 2011 at 2:45pm EDT
  • I had a student somewhat like yours. One thing he did: he left the "ed" off past participles. We talked about it: about the rich patterns of African-American speech, about the difference between written English and speech, about how people in academe or in the workplace, for good or ill, judge you on your grammar instead of your ideas, and the like. His job required him to write reports, and he brought drafts to office hours so I could help him find what could be improved. He got so he could consistently do "exercises" when confronted with a list of individual sentences involving past participles, but often forgot about this in the excitement of actually writing a report. But at the end of the term, when I was going through the anonymous teaching evaluations, I came upon this one, obviously his:
    "She helpED me with my writing."
    The "e" and "d" at the end of "helped" were in slightly lighter ballpoint ink, indicating that he'd added them after rereading and revising. I wanted to cheer. (Don, if you should happen to be reading this, you made my day that time years ago.)
    There is no way to learn to write better without having a careful reader react to your writing (or, in in-class readarounds, several careful readers). The fact that a careful reader found your idea difficult to grasp is the most important spur to effective revision. Sure, it's labor-intensive. But it works.
  • Posted by Jim on May 13, 2011 at 6:15pm EDT
  • Bob, that can be done, and is done, although not always consistently, or consistently well. It sounds like the end of a semester is talking, and come the fall, we'll all be ready to enter once again into the breach. You're correct, of course, about the habits of thinking and working that allow skilled teachers and reader to think through the errors he talks about. The students can and will engage with the learning of these habits, if we require and encourage them to, and if we provide them the scaffolding to reach those heights of rhetoric and reading.
  • Posted by Philip on May 14, 2011 at 4:45pm EDT
  • The most important thing I've learned in 35 years of teaching composition is that reading is key. If you're not someone who reads every day--and reads for enjoyment, not because it's required--then it's unlikely that you'll ever become a competent writer of academic English.

    I think it's really that simple, and if students simply refuse to even try to become readers (I'll spare you all my anecdotes), then they really need to rethink what they're doing in college.

    Maybe the next most important thing I've learned is that English 101 isn't the end point for most students. We comp teachers usually teach writing as a process, but we overlook the fact that this process doesn't end with us. After students leave our freshman comp classes, they'll (I hope) be doing more reading and writing in their other coursework. Some, but not all, of them will figure it out.

    I never got an "A" on a college paper until the first semester of my junior year. Then something clicked for me, and I got straight "A"s--just for the novelty of it. I never did that again, but my GPA was always 3.5 or 3.7 or whatever because I'd figured out what my teachers wanted, and I figured it out by myself, not through any formal writing instruction--because there is simply no algorithm for writing a good essay.

    "Figuring it out" wasn't a completely random, trial-and-error process like an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters, but it did involve lots of relatively unsuccessful attempts--"C" papers, in other words, and plenty of college teachers who I'm sure must have shaken their heads and and sighed over my sophomoric efforts.

    That's part of the point: I WAS a sompomore. PBut another part is that none of this would have happened if I hadn't been a reader. Helping students to figure out how to write (and that's the best we can do) isn't going to happen if they've never even SEEN much writing. It's like trying to teach painting to the color blind.

    Finally, consider the model term paper that's in the back (in both MLA and APA formats) of every one of the handbooks we require in English 101. We all feel like failures because none of our students can produce anything close. Is that realistic?

    Education--including learning to write well-- is a long, long process. But I don't hear anything about graduate schools complaining about a lack of qualified applicants, and there's certainly no lack of well-prepared Ph.Ds looking for jobs.

    So something must be working. Kind of working, sort of working, anyway. Inefficiently, clumsily, and imperfectly for sure--just like everything else in life.

  • listening for the melodic line
  • Posted by Maria Shine Stewart , Multiple at Multiple on May 15, 2011 at 4:15pm EDT
  • I enjoyed this piece for the author’s listening for what I’ll call music (and what others might call insight) despite the student’s uneven execution. Anyone who writes knows the struggle to get the words right and the leaps of intuition--even desperation--to resolve the competing claims of “let’s think this over one more time” and “let’s push this project out the door.”

    I agree that while reading widely is essential for encountering good, internal rhythms--and having a stockpile of models in one’s head--expressing one’s own word/sentence rhythms may not be automatic. Every writer has fits and starts, good days and bad days, weak seconds and strong seconds, especially when pushing past one's previous limits or context.

    I had a eureka moment as a relatively new teacher when a student who had seemingly eradicated his comma splices in a freshman class showed me a paper marked up by a subsequent professor in a 300-level biology class. We discussed what happened, and the student said he didn't think he needed to spend the same amount of time revising in non-comp classes.

    Technical proficiency is one skill among so many that writing teachers foster. The ability to generate a draft, develop ideas, incorporate research, organize, invigorate style, adjust voice, adapt to audience, and the list goes on ... On one syllabus, I identified at least 15 processes, and I know there are more.

    My son’s violin teachers could not correct errors for him, nor could they necessarily infuse him with enthusiasm – though they certainly could encourage him to play with feeling or to attend to technical precision.

    Like musical performance, revision depends on tolerating the art of almost ... then, better ... and finally, getting it ... and sometimes not quite getting it ...