This statement by a fifteen year old student is more profound than it actually appears because it says a mouthful about how many students view writing and composition. As they perceive it, writing is talking on paper. In fact, some of the jargon of writing pedagogy supports this view, using terms such as "voice" and "authenticity". Since speech is a more natural medium, students believe that the more writing is like speech, the easier it will be to understand. But this belief ignores the fact that speech has access to dynamics that writing lacks.

Mina Shaughnessy noted the presence or absence of an immediate audience as a major reason for the differences between speaking and writing patterns. She observed that speech is likely to be more losely coordinated, more redundent, and more likely to comply with the natural word orders . In other words, when we talk with others, we naturally put the subject first and supply details or contingent information in separate utterances according the the listeners expressed interest.

Conveying information to audiences who are physically and temporally removed makes it necessary to put different patterns into play. The writer must anticipate the questions readers might be likely to ask, and supply the answers the first time around, since there will be no immediate dialogue to assist. Adherence to the patterns of spoken dialogue can supply the details which readers might want to know, but it will do so in a style that will read much like a second grade basil reader. It becomes evident,that writers of basic skill levels need blueprints for constructing written expression from speech.