Murray and Emig

Teaching the process of writing is more important than the product, Donald Murray advocates in Teach Writing as a Process Not Product. By this, Murray means teachers should focus on teaching tools to help students explore language, “using language to learn about our world, to evaluate what we learn about out world, to communicate what we learn about our world.” To Murray, the process of writing involves subject development, understanding the audience and how the writer hopes to affect the audience.
I agree with Murray’s assertion. He supports his belief by stating the prewriting process usually takes about 85 percent of the writer’s time. With this statistic, it only seems logical that most of the teaching time should also be spent on prewriting or the process. Murray also goes on to describe ten implications of teaching the process of writing opposed to the writing product. While these implications clearly support Murray’s argument and further establish my agreement with his assertion that teachers should teach the writing process more directly than the product, Murray also fails to recognize the importance of the product. I think some teachers may argue that such a strong focus on the process of writing ignores the outcome and evaluating the product. Ultimately, it is the writing product that the audience reads and evaluates, not the process. I think some attention does need to be given to the product in order to maintain a connection with the readers.
For Janet Emig, writing is unique to the learning process. She asserts that as both a process and a product, writing possesses the powerful learning strategies. “Writing involves the fullest possible functioning of the brain,” she writes. She acknowledges while writing is most commonly presented as a mostly left-brain activity because of the linear process, it is also a right-brain activity due to the creative aspects of the process. Murray would probably agree that the process of writing does involve a lot of creative thought, research and non-linear functioning.
Emig also argues that writing provides “a unique form of feedback, as well as reinforcement”. The results of the process are immediately visible in the product, she writes. The various psychologists and studies Emig uses to support her argument believe results are key to understanding and evaluating the process. Emig’s argument therefore I think supports what I said in regards to Murray’s argument. Murray fails to recognize the importance of the product itself. While the process should possibly be given more attention than some teachers already do, the product is important and should not be overlooked.