The two readings in a way where counteractive to one another. Both, do support the same overall idea but the approach in lesson is different. One softly touches on the subject while the other elaborates more on it. In The Popularity of Formulaic Writing, the article briefly touches on the Jane Schaffer Approach. It was a formula designed to help students develop well constructed papers. However, this idea did receive major criticism as it seemed that the idea was not encouraging exploration. But nowhere in Schaffer’s formula did she say not to explore, there was just a structure to help and be used if needed. But somewhere along the lines of translation, there has been confusion as to whether use the formula fully and faithfully in order to do well with writing papers. I do believe that there are students who will use the formula and keep it on the back burner of their mind, but not live with it. While there are others who will use the structure for the rest of their lives. Both is fine, everyone has a different method and needs to find theirs that they think work best and help them the best, I don’t see anything wrong with that. But I do think that after the formula is introduced, more teaching needs to take place.
That’s kind of where the second article comes into play. Teach Writing as Process Not Product does not touch base or mention Schaffer’s idea but it touches base on the overall use of writing products and not using process. Murray discusses that when teachers teach composition they are not teaching a product, they are teaching a process. And once the realization of teaching a process comes into effect, then there needs to be a design of curriculum made. But not to forget, that process can work to produce a product. They both go hand in hand, and need to work together. The article then further discusses the importance of discovery through language, exploration of what we know and what we feel, process of using language to learn our world, and implications. The article also suggests to teach unfinished wiring. I feel that the second article (this one), kind of dives in deeper on creating language and using voice to develop a paper that is more personal and not generic and not so structured. Helps with tips to still create a valid paper that will still earn a good grade even if there is no “formula” being followed. But in a sense, there is a formula with the implications. It just opens up more exploration rather than saying how a paper should be formatted and written.
