Flower and Hayes; Lunsford

I apologize for not having these in on time, but I had a second wind of the flu. So, here goes!

Flower and Hayes

Linda Flower and John R. Hayes present their cognitive process theory in four main points: the first, that writers organize as they compose writing, the second, that writing is hierarchical and embedded, the third, that composing is directed by a growing network of goals, and the fourth, that writing is composed with different levels (high and sub-) of goals that support a writer's purpose and that this process can change these goals or create new ones based on what the writer learns during the creation. I found that this model of writing was more effective than that of the stage model since this one emphasizes that all creative choices are contingent upon what ideas are generated in the process, regardless of what initial goals are set forward. I like the potential of having a surprisingly different piece of writing than one intends because the potential for discovery and subsequent major changes in thought and knowledge demand that kind of outcome, in my opinion. The linear model seems to lock one's ideas in the past, returning to the opening as if to simply justify the act of writing, while the other seems to promote and demonstrate true experiential growth and understanding of a topic. Because we go back and forth as we write, and because we read through and compose new drafts once they are "complete," only to change them again, I think the cognitive process model is ideal for generative thinking.

I enjoyed the idea of the think aloud protocols since I often find I forget my thoughts in the writing process and lose track of my ideas that way. I think it would be an interesting experiment to record my spoken thoughts as I work on some piece of writing to see if I become more engaged in it for simply hearing my own thoughts as I think them, and then later on in review. Of course, this process cannot enlighten us 100% as to how our brains work in the writing process, but it certainly provides insight. I also liked the end of the article, in which Flower and Hayes leave us with the image of writing as a process of genuine invention.  They emphasize the "inventive power of the writer, who is able to explore ideas, to develop, act on, test, and regenerate his or her own goals" and really present it as a working process, like scientific inquiry. I found that very compelling and true to my own experience.

I think a lot of the reason why we find it difficult to define "a" single process for writing is that it differs for each writer, and for each piece of writing; but I think this article certainly provided a lot of insight into that truth. In my own writing, I can come back to the beginning, reread and not change much, and follow through at the end as I think, in review, it works best to conclude, OR I can write a paragraph or two out of order, write around them, edit tons of sentences out, or whole parts, etc. The possibilities in revision are endless since we do have a real "re-vision" of our work from a slightly new perspective every time. We change our minds about what our goals should be with new knowledge, or new applications of old knowledge. It would be self-fulfilling and inaccurate to simply follow through with one's goal and not alter it one bit after being enlightened with research and consideration of a topic; I think that this is the separation between good and bad writing they discussed.

Lunsford

It strikes me now that, just as writing fits more appropriately under the cognitive process model rather than a linear/stage model, so does the process of learning basic writing skills. I recalled, reading the Andrea A. Lunsford article, that I myself had completed a great number of exercises similar to the ones she provided as basic examples used in training students to analyze and synthesize information in the "de-centering" process. I was, at first, offended by the simplicity of the verbs exercise, assuming that it was intended for an older age group than it must have been; however, I think now that each exercise would likely be beneficial in improving one's growing understanding of a less ego-driven way of making sense of the world, both on paper and not. I thought it was interesting that her argument, that students having trouble understanding unfamiliar circumstances or a person's situation will also have trouble "abstracting from it or replicating it in another context." (38) I thought that it was true that "students learn by doing and then by extrapolating principles from their activities," as well as that education in writing "can serve as a guide to art only if they can be integrated into the practical knowledge" one acquires. (40)

I found it true to my experience that imitation, like Lunsford writes, is truly important in achieving the state of de-centered once it has been understood that a work or style can not only be replicated but individualized, expanded upon, etc. We learn to infer such lessons once our analytical skills improve; and I do believe that successfully completing such exercises as the ones she provides, although shamefully simplistic, most certainly were necessary in continuing down our educational paths. (Though I hope we never had exercises as creepy as the "Oil massages you." one... Honestly, who thought that was a good idea?) Once we got a basic hold on these kinds of tasks, we were thus able to generate our own instances and more unconsciously, eventually, comprehend sentence structure until we could fly through novels and essays without ever really thinking about that careful and precise crafting. I liked that this article unearthed some of those unconscious habits of writing we now all probably take for granted on a daily basis.

As a side note, I also really enjoy seeing the names of other writers we've read being quoted, Janet Emig right at the beginning. It's fascinating to me that they really keep analyzing and synthesizing their thoughts, expanding on them, illuminating them. I wonder if the field of composition theory might never run out of wonderfully insightful new takes on ideas, like the two we read this week.