George Ann Gregory

The University of New Mexico has the largest Native American student population of any four-year institution in the United States (de Turenne, 1988). While increasing numbers of Native Americans are attending this university, they still have the highest attrition rate on the campus with 77% dropping out during the first three semesters. This three semester period exactly coincides with the current three semester sequence (including the remedial level) of Freshman Composition required by the university. Apparently, the inability to produce acceptable academic writing serves as one of the major stumbling blocks for academic success among Native Americans (Jojola, personal communication, April 1986).

Most of the Native American students at the University of New Mexico are either Navajo or Pueblo; many are bilingual. Those who are not bilingual often speak a non-standard variety of English, called "Indian English" (Leap, 1977). None has thus far looked at the writing processes of Native Americans. With a growing interest among educators of Navajos in the Whole Language approach (Byrnes, personal communications, May 1988; Thomason, personal communication, May 21, 1988) and its emphasis on a linear model of writing process (Carter-North, personal communications, April and May 1988), now is the time to look at what Native Americans do when they write.

Emig (1971) initiated interest in researching how students write by observing twelfth graders. Her observations revealed that students engage in two modes of composing: reflexive and extensive. In the reflexive mode, students write basically in a contemplative role as a spectator. This mode is stimulated by something with which the writer has interacted. In the extensive mode, students participate in their writings in the business of the world. The extensive mode is stimulated by others such as teachers. These two modes correspond roughly to Flower’s (1981) writer-based and reader-based prose.

Following Emig’s lead, Perl (1979) asked unskilled college writers to write in both the extensive and reflexive modes. The most salient feature of the students’ composing process was its recursiveness. On extensive topics, there was more repetition within each sentence and also more pauses and repetitions between sentences. On reflexive topics, sentences were often written in groups with fewer rereadings and only minimal time intervals separating the creation of one sentence from another. "From the moment Tony [one of the students] began writing, he indicated a concern for correct form that actually inhibited the development of ideas" (Perl, 1979, p. 324).

Pianko (1979) was the first to look at differences between groups of writers. In looking at college students, she found that for most writers, there was no major reformulation of ideas. Most were concerned with cosmetic changes such as changes in words or sentences. When given a specific number of words, the specified length affected the students’ composing processes. Pianko concluded that school-sponsored writing inhibits the writing process. In looking at remedial versus traditional English students, the remedial writers were more concerned with mechanics whereas the traditional English students had a more fully developed understanding of what contributes to good writing. "There seems to be a depth of insight in better writers which is behaviorally and attitudinally absent for less successful writers" (Pianko, 1979, p. 16).

Taylor (1984) looked at a wider range of writing abilities, ranging from good high school writers to college students to professionals who wrote frequently. Like other researchers, he found that the five high school students and three of the four college students did not plan until they actually began to compose. On the other hand, adult writers started their work sometimes as much as several months before it was due. He concluded that experienced writers are able to produce more work in less time, spend longer periods of time thinking about what they are going to write, and also spend at least twice as much time systematically editing as the inexperienced writers. Furthermore, several of the adults could "produce very polished first drafts if they have sufficient time previously to think about their work" (Taylor, 1984, p. 224).

Sommers (1980) in looking at revision strategies also looked at linear versus recursive writing processes. Here, revision was redefined as a sequence of changes in a composition--changes which are initiated by cues and occur continually throughout the writing of a work. Sommers identified four revision operations: (a) deletion, (b) substitution, (c) addition, and (d) reordering. Additionally, she identified four levels of changes: (a) word, (b) phrase, (c) sentence, and (d) theme. Inexperienced writers understood "the revision process as a rewording activity" (Sommers, 1980, p. 381) assuming that the meaning to be communicated was already there. On the other hand, experienced writers described revising "as finding the forms or shape of the argument" (Sommers, 1980, p. 384): their revision strategies were part of discovering meaning. While experienced writers used all levels of revision operations, inexperienced writers failed to use reordering and addition. Sommers noted that linear models of the writing process mimic speech models, thereby overlooking the recursive shaping of thought by language, and concludes that experienced writers are recursive. However, after reviewing other composing process studies, it is obvious what Sommers means by recursive is something more than simply rereading.

Perl (1980) echoes Sommers’ sentiments about the real difference between skilled and unskilled writers in her study with writing teachers discovering their own writing processes. While recognizing the recursiveness in writing, she noted that different parts seemed to recur, with rereading being the most visible. Second, some key word or item is called up by the topic. Third, there is a felt sense, the move occurring inside the writer to what is physically felt, analogous for such terms as "inner voice" and feelings of "inspiration." Felt sense allows a writer to say or write something he has never said before. It is called up through the process of retrospective structuring bringing forward what is felt by using language in structured form. How well a writer uses retrospective structuring to tap his or her felt sense depends on what writing process model he or she has internalized. "Those who realize that writing can be a recursive process have an easier time with waiting, looking, and discovering" (Perl, 1980, p. 368). Essentially then, even though there are some elements of recursiveness in the writing of even the most unskilled writer, such recursiveness is surface level and done without engaging retrospective structuring and mimics the linear quality of speech.

Stallard (1976), in an earlier article, described the differences between transcribing and composing, noting the "view of composition that limits the process chiefly to transcription from thought to written process has ignored the key task facing any writer, the conceptualization, origination, or invention of the message to be communicated" (Stallard, 1976, p. 182). This is the demarcation between a linear process and a recursive one: transcribing therefore corresponds to a linear process while composing corresponds to a recursive one.

The purpose of the study was to discover the writing processes of Native Americans during academic writing exercises. Selection of participants was limited to bilingual Navajos, the most typical Native American student on the campus, and also the group most "at risk" (Lippitt, 1986, 1987). A range of writing abilities was included to determine if there were any differences between the writing processes of experienced versus inexperienced writers. A case study approach was used. All participants volunteered. Two participants were still in the process of completing their Freshman Composition requirements and, therefore, met university standards for good writers. Finally, two held master’s degrees, with one teaching in the local school district and the other completing requirements for a Ph.D. in Education.

Prior to the actual writing each participant was told he or she would be asked to write a short essay on a topic of his or her choice. At the time of observation, each was given an hour to complete a 250 word essay. No particular instructions regarding prewriting or revision were given. I observed each participant separately, for the most part acting simply as an observer and kept a running commentary of observable behavior such as rereading, pausing, and scratching out. Completed assignments were scored for usage (Brodkey &Young, 1981).

The least skilled writer in the study had only one semester of writing at the college level. She wrote 438 words in 50 minutes, writing in the reflexive mode on the topic of her daily life. She reread only four times; all changes made were in punctuation and spelling. There was no evidence of prewriting. Analysis of the written piece yielded a 6.2 usage score out of a possible 10.0 maximum significant score (Brodkey & Young, 1981).

The second writer in this group had completed the remedial writing level and one semester of Freshman Composition. She wrote 406 words in 60 minutes, writing in the extensive mode, analyzing her experiences in BIA schools. Making notes prior to writing, she spent 3 minutes on prewriting. She reread 63 times with all changes in punctuation, spelling, and vocabulary. Like Zamel’s (1983) unskilled writer, she paused so often that she interrupted her own composing process and her piece suffered accordingly. Her usage score was 5.8.

In the group with post-freshman English writing skills, the first writer wrote 394 words in 60 minutes. She indicated that she had been thinking about her topic in advance. Writing in the extensive mode about single-parenthood, she spent 1 minute on prewriting. She reread 41 times with all her attention during revision given strictly to punctuation, spelling, and vocabulary. Her essay had a usage score of 20.8.

At the post-master’s level, the first participant wrote in the reflexive mode on the topic, "Something That Has Been on My Mind." She wrote 388 words in 15 minutes, spending 2 minutes on prewriting. She reread five times while writing and once when she was finished for "proofing." When questioned as to whether she usually wrote in this same manner, she stated that she wrote even long papers straight through, rarely making any major changes in her final version, only checking for errors. "I try to visualize it before I begin to write." The usage score for her piece was 27.7.

The second participant at the post-master’s level wrote in the extensive mode. She stated prior to writing that she had a topic she wanted to write about. Writing 454 words in 30 minutes, she reread eight times. While composing, she volunteered that she generally uses a word processor and generally makes changes as she composes. The usage score on her piece, an argument, was 14.4.

Inexperienced Native American writers, like other inexperienced writers, write using a linear process (Perl, 1979, 1980; Pianko, 1979; Sommers, 1980; Zamel, 1983). There was no major reformulation of ideas by any writers, and most writers were concerned only with correct punctuation, spelling, and vocabulary. Additionally, inexperienced Native American writers showed little or no evidence of any prior planning (Taylor, 1984), whereas both experienced (post-master’s) writers had an idea they wanted to express; that is, the writing merely served to transform thought into writing.

Additionally, both postgraduates were able to produce relatively polished pieces in a short period of time due to the fact that both had thought through their topic prior to writing (Taylor, 1984).

The three semester sequence now prescribed by the University of New Mexico is, for most Native American students, inadequate to produce the expertise needed to comfortably handle the demands of academic writing. In comparison to Pianko’s (1979) traditional English students, the two graduates of the Freshman Composition program did not exhibit a more fully developed understanding of what contributes to good writing. Like all of the writers studied, both were still concerned with sentence-level mechanics of writing.

Additionally, rereading does not necessarily signal recursiveness, or the shaping of language by thought, but rather seems to serve for all writers as a way of maintaining focus or keeping their train of thought. There was no evidence of either reordering or addition among any of the writers (Sommers, 1980). Only the two postgraduates seemed to have tapped their felt sense and used their retrospective structuring (Perl, 1980) to shape their writing.

Furthermore, the focus on errors of appearance rather than discovery of meaning by inexperienced writers indicates transcription rather than composing (Stallard, 1976). Teaching Native Americans a linear writing process inhibits their search for meaning in their own writing. Whatever approach writing instructors take with Native Americans, that approach must assist students in discovering what they mean first through the reshaping of language by thought. Therefore, basic courses at the college level need to address analysis skills and conceptualization in writing as well as traditional writing skills. Native Americans must be allowed to evolve their own solutions through repeated exploration of the same problem.

Bartlett, H.G. (1980). Language transfer of Navajo and Western Apache speakers in writing English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.

Brodkey, D. & Young, R. (198 1). Composition correctness scores. TESOL Quarterly 15 (2), 159-167.

de Turenne, V. (1988). UNM tries to retain Indians. New Mexico Daily Lobo, 92 (160), 17.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Flower, L. (1981). Writer-based prose: A cognition basis for problems in writing. In G. Tate et al. (Eds.), The writing teacher’s scrapebook (pp. 268-292). New York: Oxford University Press.

Leap, W. L. (1977). The study of American Indian English: An introduction to the issues. In W. L. Leap (Ed.), Studies in Southwestern Indian English (pp. 3-22). San Antonio: Trinity University.

Lippitt, L. (1986). A structured language appraisal of student writing samples from the Santa Fe Indian School. Santa Fe, NM: Santa Fe Indian School.

Lippitt, L. (1987). Structured language appraisal: Post test data, spring 1987. Santa Fe, NM: Language Arts Center, Santa Fe Indian School.

Perl, S. (1979). The composing process of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 3 (4), 317-336.

Perl, S. (1980). Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication, 31 (4), 363-369.

Pianko, S. (1979). A description of the composing processes of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13 (1), 5-22.

Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31 (4), 378-388.

Stallard, C. (1976). Composing: A cognitive process theory. College Composition and Communication, 27 (1), 181-184.

Taylor, K.K. (1984). The processes of inexperienced and experienced writers. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 10 (3), 219-225.

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17 (2), 165-186.