In this paper Amanda Fulford addresses the issue of student writing in the university, and explores how the increasing dominance of outcome-driven modes of learning and assessment is changing the understanding of what it is to write, what is expected of students in their writing, and how academic writing should best be supported. The starting point is the increasing use of what are termed “technologies” of writing — “handbooks” for students that address issues of academic writing — that systematize, and smooth the work of writing in, Fulford argues, an unhelpful way. This leads to a reconsideration of what it means to write in the university, and what it is to be a student who writes. Fulford explores etymologically the concept of “writing” and suggests that it might be seen metaphorically as physical labor. Writing as physical labor is explored further through the agricultural metaphors in Henry David Thoreau's Walden and through Stanley Cavell's reading of that text. In making a distinction between writing-as-plowing and writing-as-hoeing, Fulford argues that some technologies of writing deny voice rather than facilitate it, and she concludes by offering a number of suggestions for the teaching and learning of writing in the university that emphasize the value of being lost (in one's subject and one's work) and finding one's own way out. These “lessons” are illustrated with reference to Thoreau's text Walden and to American literature and film.

中文翻译：

---

学习写作：耕种，劳动和作文

本文中，阿曼达·富尔福德（Amanda Fulford）解决了大学里学生写作的问题，并探讨了以结果为主导的学习和评估模式日益增长的主导地位如何改变人们对写作的理解，学生对写作的期望，以及如何最好地支持学术写作。起点是越来越多地使用所谓的“写作技术”（即为解决学术写作问题的学生准备的“手册”），这种系统化和顺畅的写作工作是无济于事的。这导致人们重新考虑在大学里写作的含义，以及成为学生的写作意图。Fulford从词源上探讨了“写作”的概念，并建议在隐喻上将其视为体力劳动。通过亨利·戴维·梭罗（Henry David Thoreau）的瓦尔登（Walden）中的农业隐喻以及斯坦利·卡维尔（Stanley Cavell）对该文本的阅读，进一步探索了作为体力劳动的写作。在区分“按需写作”和“按需写作”之间的区别时，富尔福德认为某些写作技术会拒绝发声而不是助长发声，她最后为大学的写作教学提供了一些建议强调迷失（在一个人的主题和一个工作中）并找到自己的出路的价值。这些“经验教训”是参考梭罗的文字《沃尔登》以及美国文学和电影来说明的。在区分“按需写作”和“按需写作”之间的区别时，富尔福德认为某些写作技术会拒绝发声而不是助长发声，她最后为大学的写作教学提供了一些建议强调迷失（在一个人的主题和一个工作中）并找到自己的出路的价值。这些“经验教训”是参考梭罗的文字《沃尔登》以及美国文学和电影来说明的。在区分“按需写作”和“按需写作”之间的区别时，富尔福德认为某些写作技术会拒绝发声而不是助长发声，她最后为大学的写作教学提供了一些建议强调迷失（在一个人的主题和一个工作中）并找到自己的出路的价值。这些“经验教训”是参考梭罗的文字《沃尔登》以及美国文学和电影来说明的。