Understanding Composing
In “Understanding Composing” Sandra Perl states that composing is not a strict plan-write- revise sequence but in stead she, among other researchers, instead argues that it’s a recursive process. She argues that through out the writing process writers go back to what they believe it’s that fundamental essence of writing. They do that because they feel that by going back to basics of writing they will get clearer idea, a better understanding of what they need to write. She states that there are 3 recursive elements that writers utilize while they are writing. One of which is rereading parts or sections of the text that they have already written; another recursive element is the use of key words or items that are called up by the topic at hand. The last element which Sandra Perl feels that is one of the most important elements is “felt sense” which refers to the feelings or non-verbal perceptions that are evoked within the writer. She states that all kinds of writers use it; that this is what experience writers called their “inner voice”, or their feeling of “inspiration.” She states that writers use that inner voice as a source of ideas which are refined through a process that she calls “projective structuring” which refers to the process of refining our thoughts to project what our believes. She also states that people that see composing as a strict plan-write- revise sequence have a much harder time expressing what they truly feel in their writing because they are more concerned if the paper is correct and pleases the reader than trying to provoke a response within them.
What is retrospective “structuring”? What is “discovery”? How does the latter term differ from its common sense?
What the author refers to retrospective structuring is when a writer goes back to his writing to find ideas that will help him/her move forward. In other words the author uses what is already written to move forward. In the article discovery is when you work with the information that you have to craft out an answer that is easy to understand but most importantly an answer that shows something new about our selves, or that it confirms an idea that we only knew implied, or that it reveals something new about the topic. This definition differs from the commons sense of discovery because commonly discovery means that you find something, like in archeology, that was already there, but in the writing discovery is when you work with the information that you have to craft out an answer. The answer it self might not be the discovery but the process from which you formulated the answer will lead you to the discovery.
In “Understanding Composing” Sandra Perl states that composing is not a strict plan-write- revise sequence but in stead she, among other researchers, instead argues that it’s a recursive process. She argues that through out the writing process writers go back to what they believe it’s that fundamental essence of writing. They do that because they feel that by going back to basics of writing they will get clearer idea, a better understanding of what they need to write. She states that there are 3 recursive elements that writers utilize while they are writing. One of which is rereading parts or sections of the text that they have already written; another recursive element is the use of key words or items that are called up by the topic at hand. The last element which Sandra Perl feels that is one of the most important elements is “felt sense” which refers to the feelings or non-verbal perceptions that are evoked within the writer. She states that all kinds of writers use it; that this is what experience writers called their “inner voice”, or their feeling of “inspiration.” She states that writers use that inner voice as a source of ideas which are refined through a process that she calls “projective structuring” which refers to the process of refining our thoughts to project what our believes. She also states that people that see composing as a strict plan-write- revise sequence have a much harder time expressing what they truly feel in their writing because they are more concerned if the paper is correct and pleases the reader than trying to provoke a response within them.
What is retrospective “structuring”? What is “discovery”? How does the latter term differ from its common sense?
What the author refers to retrospective structuring is when a writer goes back to his writing to find ideas that will help him/her move forward. In other words the author uses what is already written to move forward. In the article discovery is when you work with the information that you have to craft out an answer that is easy to understand but most importantly an answer that shows something new about our selves, or that it confirms an idea that we only knew implied, or that it reveals something new about the topic. This definition differs from the commons sense of discovery because commonly discovery means that you find something, like in archeology, that was already there, but in the writing discovery is when you work with the information that you have to craft out an answer. The answer it self might not be the discovery but the process from which you formulated the answer will lead you to the discovery.
No comments:
Post a Comment