The Process Approach to Writing Instruction by Ruie J. Pritchard and Ronald L. Honeycutt & Grounded Theory; A Critical Research Methodology by Joyce Magnotto Neff


I enjoyed this piece on the process approach to writing as well as the information on the NWP and all they have accomplished. The discussions of early practices reminded me of my high school English days; we had no examples to imitate like the five-paragraph model of today. And as far as editing was concerned, proofreading and revision were usually lumped together and saved for last. I don’t remember much free-writing but journals were popular and prompted a similar outcome. Pre-writing, writing, and re-writing were expected for a successful paper. These practices still work for me but are much more involved than the simplistic model suggests. The strides made by the NWP through all the studies and strategies is absolutely mind-boggling!
As a student in the 1970’s, I did not know there were new approaches to writing being tried out in my classes. I never dreamed that teachers were learning from us and from one another. And as a returning student today, I am delighted with the documentation of practices we merely dabbled in back then, completely unaware of the bigger picture that was at play. My fascination with reflection as a tool results from my use of it then, as a suggestion for our writing, to now when its relevance is accepted and respected.
The other observation I made as a student then was that revising my paper meant rearranging my thoughts and sometimes my words to convey the intended meaning. One positive side to the freedom of discovery we as students were given (back in the 1970’s), as well as the lack of teacher intervention, was it afforded us the opportunity to experiment with the different suggestions and define our own writing style. But, I knew then and even moreso now, that not everyone can do that without teacher guidance. The ability to simplify the whole process for all students is a huge asset and the earlier age these instructional tools are being introduced really spells success for students to feel able to write without fear of or hatred for the process.

Looking at “Grounded Theory” in chapter 9, Neff does a great job of convincing me of this methodology’s validity. After our discussion in class, this method entails lots of work and can take months or even years to complete the research and data gathering. In fact, it is never really finished as one always questions as you gather your data through the process and beyond. What I liked was the idea of working in collaboration, and starting with assumptions, data collection and analyzation. This requires a detailed process and sounds intriguing while offering the chance to learn from the people on your team. Most important, it can offer solid evidence, researched in depth by a team of qualified people in collaboration. This sounds like a better approach than many we have heard so far; naturalistic research seems inferior as there is little to document in comparison to grounded theory. The discussion on methodologies as social practices was both enlightening and disturbing. Neff states they still remain: “traditional, patriarchal and exclusionary” (133). Hopefully that is changing as this field becomes more accepting of all work, and judges the writing instead of the writer.

The Process Approach to Writing Instruction by Ruie J. Pritchard and Ronald L. Honeycutt & Grounded Theory; A Critical Research Methodology by Joyce Magnotto Neff


I enjoyed this piece on the process approach to writing as well as the information on the NWP and all they have accomplished. The discussions of early practices reminded me of my high school English days; we had no examples to imitate like the five-paragraph model of today. And as far as editing was concerned, proofreading and revision were usually lumped together and saved for last. I don’t remember much free-writing but journals were popular and prompted a similar outcome. Pre-writing, writing, and re-writing were expected for a successful paper. These practices still work for me but are much more involved than the simplistic model suggests. The strides made by the NWP through all the studies and strategies is absolutely mind-boggling!
As a student in the 1970’s, I did not know there were new approaches to writing being tried out in my classes. I never dreamed that teachers were learning from us and from one another. And as a returning student today, I am delighted with the documentation of practices we merely dabbled in back then, completely unaware of the bigger picture that was at play. My fascination with reflection as a tool results from my use of it then, as a suggestion for our writing, to now when its relevance is accepted and respected.
The other observation I made as a student then was that revising my paper meant rearranging my thoughts and sometimes my words to convey the intended meaning. One positive side to the freedom of discovery we as students were given (back in the 1970’s), as well as the lack of teacher intervention, was it afforded us the opportunity to experiment with the different suggestions and define our own writing style. But, I knew then and even moreso now, that not everyone can do that without teacher guidance. The ability to simplify the whole process for all students is a huge asset and the earlier age these instructional tools are being introduced really spells success for students to feel able to write without fear of or hatred for the process.

Looking at “Grounded Theory” in chapter 9, Neff does a great job of convincing me of this methodology’s validity. After our discussion in class, this method entails lots of work and can take months or even years to complete the research and data gathering. In fact, it is never really finished as one always questions as you gather your data through the process and beyond. What I liked was the idea of working in collaboration, and starting with assumptions, data collection and analyzation. This requires a detailed process and sounds intriguing while offering the chance to learn from the people on your team. Most important, it can offer solid evidence, researched in depth by a team of qualified people in collaboration. This sounds like a better approach than many we have heard so far; naturalistic research seems inferior as there is little to document in comparison to grounded theory. The discussion on methodologies as social practices was both enlightening and disturbing. Neff states they still remain: “traditional, patriarchal and exclusionary” (133). Hopefully that is changing as this field becomes more accepting of all work, and judges the writing instead of the writer.