Teaching Philosophy

                In Donald Murray's essay TEACHING WRITING AS A PROCESS NOT PRODUCT the author introduces the Expressivist teaching model in response to what he believes to be the problem with writing instruction. His premise is based on the "process theory of composition," a process of self-expression where the final product is not as important as the knowledge gained from the experience of writing.  Murray's methodology empowers the student to think like a writer, rather than react to the demands of the finished work. Instead of focusing on the student's flaws, Murray's approach emphasizes a student-centered journey of discovery, and non-judgmental experimentation. His essay proposes, "Instead of teaching finished writing, we should teach unfinished writing and, glory in its unfinishedness."  In spite of Murray's eloquent and convincing manifesto  -  advocating a humanist approach to the teaching of writing  -  his idealistic opinions fall short of addressing,  what I consider to be important issues in today's ESL classroom. There is a flood of second language learners entering the corridors of our educational institutions. Murray's simplistic teaching model does not address their needs. In my opinion, developing a curriculum based on the Expressivist pedagogy is impractical.

                "Too often, as writers and teachers, Thomas Williams points out, we teach English to our students as if it were a foreign language." But that is the reality of an ESL curriculum. Murray's approach addresses the English first language majority, not the second language minority. I agree with an ESL curriculum with less focus on grammar and syntax. However, the process of learning to write must have a well-defined purpose other than the Expressivist ideals of self-discovery and personal growth. Landed immigrants and international students come to us to study English because it is the "Language of Money." It can be said that money speaks English. It can be viewed as a commodity, when seen through the eyes of a foreign student. I myself am paying hefty tuition fees to attend the University of Washington because of a simple principle of business. Supply and demand will always dictate price. Inevitably, the student will seek out the fastest and most efficient path to writing proficiency. Endless hours staring out the classroom window might seem like a productive intellectual exercise to some. Free tuition also sounds great but we live in a competitive, product driven world.

                In my opinion, Murray's "Three stage process" captures the generic heart and soul of the writing experience. Distributing definable percentages to specific tasks like prewriting, writing, and rewriting seem rather arbitrary but sympathetic to the writer's struggle. However, what purpose do these numeric values serve the second language student?  Their experience is different than the typical writing student for a variety of socio-economic, and cultural reasons.  The priorities of a second language learner differs from the domestic variety, home grown student of the arts. To place a numeric value beside a specific phase of writing serves no real purpose. The remedial writing student views the classroom as a window of opportunity, a chance to improve their economic situation. They have no time to stare out the window looking for inspiration. Here is where the role of the teacher is most important. I agree with Murray when he writes, "We must respect our student for his potential truth and for his potential voice." A good writing instructor is a facilitator, coach, and mentor - - - equipped to help the student understand the product and the process. In most cases, remedial writing is defined as simple sentences, moving on to the well-formed paragraph, perhaps advancing as far as the five-paragraph essay (for college entrance).  Murray's more intangible concepts however, seem to drift beyond the preparation of  pedagogy  -  like the gold miner busy searching for nuggets, but ignoring the tiny sparkling diamonds piling up in his slag heap.

                In conclusion, Murray's essay was not written for a contemporary audience. If he were to revisit his essay today, perhaps his opinions might include a sensitivity towards the challenges ESL teachers face. I would hope his thoughtful rewrite might take into consideration the impact of an emerging Third World, and the difficulties associated with constructing an effective pedagogy to address the needs of so many new voices.  His "ten implications for the composition curriculum" might look quite different today, if he were to look onto the Asian Pacific horizon, and realize what is coming in our direction.