I’m not sold on the idea that there needs to be a distinction between viewing thought/communication as either natural or artificial—at least not if the central concern at play is whether or not writing is an effective route toward learning. Honestly, what practical takeaway does such a juxtaposition offer when it comes to the process of learning? Learning, regardless of its origins, will either take place or not. The methods by which teaching is implemented is what should be of concern. The problem is not rooted in how “to ask students to see the natural as artificial,” (Bartholomae) but how, as teachers, we might best exploit all of the tools we have at our disposal—writing, reading, talking, and listening—in concert. Rather than wondering whether or not “Writing is a learned behavior” or “talking is [a] natural, even irrepressible, behavior,” (Emig) we should engage in conversations regarding how to best employ every possible language process in order to yield the most learning.
That being said, it is important to note: I had no prior idea of where I stood on this question before I sat down and wrote it all out. I have actively learned here—at my own rhythm and before my own eyes. Furthermore, when I get to class in about 45 minutes, someone else might offer up a highly persuasive thought counter to my argument, using (my god!) his or her voice; this could alter (enrich?) my stance. After class, maybe I’ll read some other blog posts and fall in line with another way to view the question. Reading, writing, talking, listening. Learning, at this point in human history, is a byproduct of thinking; and it is impossible to imagine life without thought. Is that natural or artificial? You tell me.