Writing Is Something We Keep Learning

Before reading about the different theories of writing I would have defined writing as the ability to put your thoughts into words clearly. I now see writing as a process of making choices based on a particular situation. My emerging theory of writing is that there is no single formula for good writing. Instead writers become better by learning how to recognize what a new situation requires, reflect on what they already know and adapt that knowledge.

Elizabeth Wardle's argument about "Writing in General" explains that writing always takes place in a specific situation involving an audience, purpose, context, and set of expectations. For example a research paper, an email to a professor, a text to a friend, and a work report may all involve writing, but being successful in one does not guarantee success in another form of writing. Instead of thinking there is one perfect way of writing, I believe that a good writer is one who can adapt and figure out what a situation calls for.

This connects to are discussion in class on Transfer which is using knowledge learned in one situation to another. One idea that stood out to me in the readings was that transfer does not happen automatically. Successful transfer requires writers to think about what they already know, why it worked before, and how it may need to change to work in a new situation. This process connects to Meta Cognition which means to think and reflect on your writing and see where it could be used again. This helps writers with improving their writing rather than blindly repeating a strategy in hopes of it working.

For example as a Criminal Justice major, I have already learned to write research papers in APA format, including how to organize evidence, cite sources, and build an argument around research. That knowledge can transfer to a literature course, but I cannot assume that everything should stay the same. An English literature paper may expect a different style of analysis, different kinds of evidence, and possibly a different citation format. I can still transfer skills like supporting claims with evidence, organizing my ideas clearly, and giving credit to sources but I have to adapt these skills to fit the expectations of the new course. This shows that transfer is not about using old knowledge exactly the same way every time. Instead it requires reflection, awareness, and practice so that what I know can be used correctly in different writing situations.

Blitzer's ideas on "The Rhetorical Situation" adds to my theory on writing. A rhetorical situation includes an exigence, an audience, and constraints. This means before deciding how to write, I should ask: Why does this piece of writing need to exist? Who needs to read it? What expectations or limitation will shape what I can say? Blitzer and Wardles writings connect because both show that writing is shaped by the specific situation in which it takes place.

My current definition of writing is the process of responding to a specific situation through purposeful choices about language, structure, evidence, and style of writing. Learning to write is not about memorizing one correct method. It's about learning how to learn again each time we enter a new writing situation. That can mean struggling at first which does not mean failure. It can lead to becoming a more flexible writer.