Two things on my mind... (Newkirk "agent" and WPA Outcomes)

Got two things on my mind that might help with framing...

Newkirk writes:

In Kenneth Burke's terminology there was a shift from the agent to the scene of writing, with gains and losses in the process. (47)

This is an interesting way of thinking about what happened... Clearly, Murray's work is most focused on the agent of writing.

Next, from the WPA Outcomes Statement. I'm looking at it now and just thinking about Murray's hidden marks on that document... I've noted this before and I note it again, it's hard to say whether the items in this list are listed in order of priority or significance. But then, it's sort of hard NOT to conclude that they are ordered in this way when Rhetorical Situation comes first and "Knowledge of Conventions," at least in the first draft of the statement, came last. "Composing in Electronic Environments" has been mostly added on. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here is about the position of "Processes," which comes second to last, right above "Knowledge of Conventions." There is a story in this. It's not that Murray's own thinking can be confined to the "Processes" section. As I peruse the other sections, I see traces of his influence in them. But, first is "Rhetorical Knowledge" and next "Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing." It's interesting to think about this document itself as an argument--and an argument that Murray lost. For any of the items on this list could have gone first. Processes might have gone first in another era, or under another regime.

I'm thinking about how the WPA Outcomes Statement in some ways codifies composition. Places value on some things other than others. I'm thinking about the document as an argument, which, of course, it is, and not just as a "statement." Statements take on the trappings of a kind of "officialese." They come to seem impenetrable and feel as though they were edicts, issued from on high. But, of course, the statement is an argument that might be received by different groups of other folks in different ways--we hold it up to others outside the field to talk about our work. But how does or might it also represent an argument within the field, the result of a conversation between different groups in the field. What is the story of the WPA Outcomes Statement?

A version of this statement was published in WPA: Writing Program Administration 23.1/2 (fall/winter 1999): 59-66.

From: http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9604&L=wpa-l&D=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=3543

As we wound down, there was general consensus that we need to consider very carefully the backward as well as forward implications of outcomes statements: i.e., the effects on high school instruction as well as upper-division writing courses. Also, we found general
consensus that statements should move to a definition of college-level writing that is about analysis and inquiry.

In the same vein, Susan Marie Harrington urged us to focus on the students rather than the features of the texts--to focus on assessment of writerly development rather than correctness of commas.

For more info, might consult:

Susanmarie Harrington, Keith Rhodes, Ruth Overman Fischer, and Rita Malenczyk, eds. The Outcomes Book: Debate and Consensus after the WPA Outcomes Statement. Logan, Utah: Utah State UP: 2005. 2 0 pages. $22.95 (paperback).