Thinking about Writing Program History

Every time I read additional articles/books about the history of writing instruction I'm fascinated by the combination of innovation and circularity -- constant flow of people thinking about writing and about new ways to teach writing, and a constant flow of people saying we are doing it wrong.

What's up with that?

Can it just not be taught? Somewhere in all that circular motion of reform and innovation have we made any progress at all in thinking about how writing happens? How it is learned?

Most teachers who teach writing or work closely with writers to improve writing (at any level and in any field) have had moments when they feel their instruction has resulted in some kind of change for the better. It might be a better understanding of grammar, or a rhetorical sophistication in a particular genre, or an ability to organize text/ideas in useful ways. This success is also part of the problem. If we don't know how writing is learned (really) and we aren't sure what (exactly) we do as writing instructors that is useful, then the default is to point to either (1) some activity we do that results in a change in writing habits, or (2) some relationship that we have with apprentice writers that seems to make them more confident or agile in their approach. The problem is that this lore then becomes part of a teacher's unexamined practice -- we just do what we think might work without thinking about the bigger picture.

So I guess the questions I have are:

(1) Can we come up with ways to integrate writing instruction (at the introductory writing and advanced writing levels) so that we avoid the "1 teacher in a classroom doing what s/he thinks might work," while still keeping innovation at the core of our pedagogy.

(2) What do historical accounts tell us about practice that we can USE in thinking about future practices?

(3) How much do attitudes about writing instruction vary from attitudes about other "content-oriented" subjects. What are the subtle differences (and what are the similarities) between a content-oriented approach to teaching and an approach that see writing a a generalized thinking/communicating skill? How do these differences affect the nature of instruction?

I'm also interested in documenting (at least a little) how various approaches to teaching have resulted in very specific activities and assignments. If we think "X" about writing, then we do "Y" in the classroom to improve writing. Often it seems as if this direct relationship is missing in our understanding of how theory translate into practice.