Utility (Murray)

I am increasingly thinking about this idea of the UTILITY of Murray's work. Originally, I had thought that what I wanted to do was position Murray's work, or some of it, obviously not all of it, in relation to these two frameworks (I've now added another item, after reading Hesse's article):

1. Beaufort's five knowledge domains and, more specifically, her domain called writing-process knowledge (there is some debate here, however, about whether writing process knowledge can be developed acontextually).
2. WPA Outcomes Statement
3. Procedural Knowledge or "production"

Here, for example, are specific Outcomes which Murray most definitely speaks to (under the category of "Processes"):

By the end of first year composition, students should

• Be aware that it usually takes multiple drafts to create and complete a successful text
• Develop flexible strategies for generating, revising, editing, and proof-reading
• Understand writing as an open process that permits writers to use later invention and re-thinking to revise their work
• Understand the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes
• Learn to critique their own and others' works

---

As I go over the WPA Outcomes statement and think about Hesse's article, something else occurs to me. In his article, Hesse describes a movement, in composition studies, away from the kinds of procedural concerns that perhaps animated the field in its earlier days--how writing actually gets done. Perhaps its that those questions were no longer interesting. Perhaps its that we felt like we were arriving at some level of consensus about how writing gets done (by students/by experts).

Hesse points out that the field of composition "bobs and weaves between analysis (knowledge about) and performance (knowledge how)" (34) and suggests that "we're at a crucial professional juncture, needing to find a good mix between being "about" writing/composing (that is, as focusing on interpretation, on analyzing texts or other literate practices) and being "for" writing/composing (that is, focusing on production, on making texts)" (35). There is a feeling, in Hesse, that perhaps we have already chosen, but perhaps not.

When we look at the WPA Outcomes Statement, though, it does appear that we have already chosen. I've never thought of this before, but the WPA Outcomes Statement definitely has an agenda within the agenda and I wonder if anyone has written about this. What do I see? What would Murray see when he looks at this document which has done perhaps more than any other do codify the way writing is taught in first-year composition courses?

I think Murray's favorite parts of the WPA Outcomes Statement would come in the "Processes" section. He would be particularly interested in these three:

• Be aware that it usually takes multiple drafts to create and complete a successful text.
• Develop flexible strategies for generating, revising, editing, and proof-reading.
• Understand writing as an open process that permits writers to use later invention and re-thinking to revise their work.

That we want students to know and be able to do these things we owe, in large part, to Donald Murray. Murray would consider these items to be of incredible importance.

And yet, the implicit hierarchy of the WPA Outcomes Statement suggests that these are not of the utmost importance. And here's the point: the Statement begins with "Rhetorical Knowledge" and, in its original draft, closed with "Knowledge of Conventions." It's hard, given my knowledge of the field and its history, not to read a sense of hierarchy there. In other words, it's no coincidence that "Knowledge of Conventions" comes last in that list and I believe that the fact that it comes last would annoy some people (surely not Murray, but perhaps many of those I have encountered over the years who are not "of" composition--older faculty like Spencer or outsiders like Deans, employers, high school teachers, etc.). It's also important to note that Rhetorical Knowledge comes first--and that Rhetorical Knowledge AND Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing precede Processes, which scrapes in at third, just above Knowledge of Conventions. It's hard not to come to the conclusion, based on the simple order in which the document presents its domains, that rhetorical knowledge and critical thinking are more important than writing process knowledge.

I don't think it is the case that Murray would disagree with some of the elements of the first two categories, Rhetorical Knowledge and Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing. For example, I think that under Rhetorical Knowledge, Murray would see the value and significance of "Focus on a purpose" or "Respond to the needs of different audiences" (but I think that the bullets on rhetorical situation might not draw him in the same way). Similarly, in the Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing section, I think he would be drawn to the "Use writing and reading for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communicating" outcome and also the first part of the "Understand a writing assignment as a series of tasks" outcome.

But I think Murray would...well, he might find, as we often find, that the WPA Outcomes Statement is a bit...over-ambitious. But he might find that the things he cares about the most, the Processes outcomes, are marginalized, and that they shouldn't be. The Processes outcomes speak to the procedural matters--how the writing gets done. Murray cared a good deal about this. One can imagine a world in which a different order is presented in the Statement, one which places something as important as "Be aware that it usually takes multiple drafts to create and complete a successful text" much higher up in the hierarchy. To connect with Hesse, this would mean shifting the prioritization of the document to perhaps acknowledge in a more considerable way "focusing on production, on making texts."