Kratzke begins his piece by pondering the effects of technology in the classroom and the various changes it has wrought. The primary focus is on the lost art of revision. Kratzke fears that writers no longer have the same inclination to revise because technology has made the process much simpler. Writers no longer have to rewrite entire passages; instead, they only have to clean up the problems with the first draft. I think that Pete makes a good point here when he says that many students only write one draft, but I hardly think this is the fault of the technology.
As Kratzke brings Murray into his argument, I think he makes another miscalculation; it appears that for Kratzke, the only “new paper” is one that is rewritten from beginning to end. This was not Murray’s point. Murray was simply saying that each draft should have a different goal: the first draft should develop the writer’s meaning and express his ideas as clearly as possible; the writing should also be organized into a logical order. All subsequent drafts were written in order to clarify the author’s points and to add voice and other refinements. A Word document is no different from this process. As long as the writer understands his piece and his goal, each time he saves, he has created a “new” draft.
I find Kratzke’s attempt to pinpoint the problem with student writing to be much more interesting. Rather than quibble about standardized test scores, he focuses on the fact that none of the test record growth, even with all of the focus on composition instruction. He examines various possibilities, but finally settles on a likely possibility: students are being asked to learn too many things at the same time, an imposition that was not placed on their forebears.
Kratzke’s ultimate solution is to learn to write by rewriting. The learning takes place by rewriting a draft with an air of competition: “Can I make this paragraph sound better than the previous version?” I have no problem with this theory, but I find it just as plausible that students can be taught to rewrite through editing on the electronic page. As many educators will point out, what works for some does not work for all. Perhaps the best solution is to present both options for students to choose from, but I even as I write this, I am envisioning those same students mentioned above who only write one draft.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I didn't get the impression that Kratzke was attempting to make technology out to be the villain. In his opening paragraph he states, "it is not that students should abandon word processing, but they should learn to use technology better" (9). The question is about metacognition/metacomposition. Are students thinking about what they're writing and while they're writing? Kratzke calls this "being in" your composition and reminds us that, "Being in, though, does not mean abandoning our 'contraptions'" (16).
ReplyDeleteTony, I agree that writing electronically can be just as effective as the revisioning that Kratzke talks about; however, it is important to be aware of the hazardous effects that result from relying on technology too much. Too many students are too heavily impacted by the rapidly changing types of media and technology, and are losing their ability to think critically and write well.