Robin,+7,+Ivanic,+Six+Discourses+of+Writing

Robin, 7, Ivanic, Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write

Roz Ivanic makes good cases for Creative Writing and Genre Writing discourses; what I like most though is the observation that the best case is a blended discourse. Sure, it would be difficult to incorporate all six discourses, and although a tentative structure is laid out for doing exactly that, I think in reality, “experienced, eclectic teachers of writing” (230) will adopt the strongest roots of discourses to explicitly teach and will incorporate remaining discourses as branches planned to regularly influence. For instance, I would teach both creative and genre writing as the root discourses, and in fact, I had not realized they were separated, and, while reading, recognized areas of cross-over that have always existed in the literature-based assignments I have delivered – without conflict. The remaining four discourses Ivanic poses would be integrated as related branches wherever explicitly applicable, just as are other related approaches, perspectives, or methods.

In short, I think it would be faulty to choose exclusively a creative or genre writing discourse, as they both offer value both ought to be offered. I believe Ivanic also views each equally valuable, as strong cases are built for teaching each, and a strong case for teaching both.

Ivanic writes of Creative discourse writing that “As a result, sensitive and aware teachers of writing have championed the value of writing which represents the experience, perspectives and ‘voice’ of learner writers from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds, challenging elitist ideas of what counts as an interesting narrative or topic to read about” (229). Ivanic further supports this discourse of writing when pointing out further benefits to the writer, “Experienced, eclectic teachers of writing recognize the advantage of inspiring learners to write about topics which interest them and the opportunities this provides for implicit learning, alongside explicit teaching about linguistic rules and patterns” (229). However, Ivanic has equally supportive views to write regarding Genre discourse writing.

Ivanic builds a strong case for teaching Genre discourse in academic socialization when stating, “Good writing is not just correct writing, but writing which is linguistically appropriate to the purpose it is serving. (And) This view of the nature of writing has a clear implication for learning to write: learners need to learn the linguistic characteristics of different text-types in order to be able to reproduce them appropriately to serve specific purposes in specific contexts” (233).

Yet, to my perception, Ivanic’s strongest case is made for teaching Creative and Genre discourses in tandem, when noting the weaknesses inherent in each “On the one hand it is seen as logical, systematic, down to earth, and teachable: the opposite of ‘wooly liberal’ thinking about writing, as many dub the ‘creative self-expression’ approach. On the other hand, it is seen as prescriptive and simplistic, based on a false view of text-types as unitary, static and amenable to specification” (234). When discussing students writing texts which will not be valued in the real world, Ivanic emphasizes, by early mention, the development of a comprehensive conceptualization of writing that is to come later, “…but it can, in my view, be complemented by more socially aware, critical views, and can have a role to play in a comprehensive conceptualisation of writing, as I discuss at the end of the paper” (230).

Ivanic continues to elaborate upon the position that teachers would implement a plan incorporating all elements that are relevant and valuable, “More realistically, specific teaching sequences might integrate two or more approaches, while a whole curriculum might span all six” (241). Bazinga! I couldn’t agree more.

Ivanic’s closing words reveal the importance of a critical and integrated approach when challenging and reminding teachers that “Teachers are to a large extent at the mercy of these forces, but they have the intellectual freedom to be aware of the way in which these forces privilege one discourse at the expense of others, and to compensate for this if at all possible. In order to maximize what they offer to learners, I suggest that teachers of writing can benefit from being aware of the existence of all six views of writing and learning to write and the pedagogic practices associated with them, and from recognizing which discourse(s) of writing they are inhabiting” (242). I think it is this message that is the heart of all Ivanic has written in this article, and exemplifies what needs to be taken and implemented by teachers. I think to some measure, it is what teachers naturally do when managing curriculum, and I think sometimes, teachers manage routinely, without necessarily critically appraising their choices or methods, but if, reflective thinking were also routinely a part of practice, at least semester-ly, if not daily or weekly, then critical and comprehensive choices would be assured.