Re-Visioning in Writing

Revision

This week we kicked off our presentation & discussion “lead” series with the concept of revision in writing. Thanks to Daniel for an excellent “inaugural” presentation and walkthrough discussion of Sommers’ Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers & Witte‘s Preaching What We Practice. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), 6(2). Spending time with the concept of revision in writing proved a perfect entry point into the “fine lens” consideration of writing process. I think the two complimentary readings gave you insight into typical “writing research approaches” while balancing many important insights about writing-as-process.

The work overall prompted us all to think more about the key role that revisionary thinking plays in the act of writing. Perhaps the culprit in seeing revision as a “necessary phase” (or an overall “chore” because of the emphasis on “finished/polished writing”). Perhaps we should instead think about the notion of “unfinished writing” and place emphasis on the dynamism of “unfinished-ness” in writing. Sommers sheds light on the problem of linear thinking that is attached to writing. Born of a problematic conflation between speech and writing, this linear mode of thinking reduces revision to an afterthought in the writing process. But as Sommers has suggested, perhaps writing begins at the point where speech is impossible. Writing is the recursive shaping of thought through/by language. Said another way, writing is active thinking – and it is always, also, a dynamic experience of “re-visioning”.

Thank you all for the dynamic conversation last night. I observed that you all were intuitively bridging the gap between Writing Theory & Writing Practice by grappling with the readings while also considering your own experiences as writers. This is the work set out for us together in the scope of the course. Hence, the name for our course “ENG 5020 – Writing Theory & Practice”.