Flower and Hayes discuss cognitive proces theory. This theory has four components they explain:
- writing proces is a set of distincitive thinking processes that the writer organizes during composition.
- processes have a hierarchial embedded oranization where any process may be embedded within the process ( I didn't understand this at first but I will interpret that later in the blog)
- composing is a goal- directed, thinking process that the writer's goals guide
- the writer creates his/her own goals
In the Stage Models of Writing section, Flowers and Hayes make a connection to the Sommers article we read. They reject Murray's linear model of prewriting, writing and rewriting, while siding with Sommers' idea of revision being an ongoing, developing process. The problem with the linear, or "stage" model is the focus on the product verus the process-- this section was deja vu for me because of the Sommers article. Anyway, the authors argue that the writer needs to recognize the thinking that links planning to revision for an intellectual paper.
The cognitive process model explain three units of model: task environment, writer's long-term memory and writing processes. The units of analysis, they say, are mental processes such as generating ideas that may occur at any time.
I think the most pertinent points made were in the planning and reviewing stages of this essay. In planning, the writer builds their thoughts internally, generates ideas, organize them and set their own goals. The reviewing stage reinforces Sommers' rejection of the linear model. According to Flower and Hayes, reviewing happens in cycles; perhaps during planning and translating, and reviewing is able to interrupt and occur at any time.
I think bringing this idea of cyclical revision to our tutees may be helpful. It's okay to be putting your ideas down and then revise what you're saying as it's occurring. I think that's what the authors are trying to stress, that reviewing may come at any time the writer sees fit. Also, there is more emphasis on writing for individuals, not attempting to come up with a universal plan. In defining the rhetorical problem and setting your own goals, Flower and Hayes say that the way to do this varies from writer to writer, and you must discover what works for you-- I like this better than trying to come up with a universal concept of writing process.
Basically I believe that F&H and Barthomomae both come to the conclusion that writing is a process, not product. They both place invention outside the actual writing. Bartholomae thinks that exterior influences help the writer dictate what to say and that “discovery of ideas” happens before writing itself; F&H think successful writers are those who develop their own goals for writing.
2 comments:
Totally. I mean, traditional Chinese is written vertically from top to bottom, form the right to left (I think); and the language is ideographic (not alphabetic and phonetic, like ours)--So I am darn sure there are different cognitive processes that appropriate composition in Chinese than in Indo-European languages. Their entire syntax and thought-structure is different. So, I agree with you that there is no such thing as universal in terms of the writing process; the cyclical revision approach could be applied universally, I think.
Thanks for the post!
hmmm. . . interesting tension here between the differences in individuals' cognitive processes (which Flower and Hayes model seems to allow for) and the "universality" of the cognitive process *model.* Individual processes differ; however, the model is universal? hmm. . . I don't know.
I wonder whether the cognitive process model would look different if Flower and Hayes analyzed protocols from writers in non-Western countries. That might reveal whether the "cyclical revision approach could be applied universally." I suspect that, in some ways, the research method of protocol analysis is itself bound up with a Western way of thinking about cognitive processes: as individual (rather than collective) and externalized (through "thinking aloud"). I wonder whether such a "think aloud" method depends on the writer's perception of a distinct individual composing "self." For example, in a more collectivist culture, where authority might be distributed among members of a community, writing might serve as a way of reproducing or reinforcing the dominant culture (as in copying The Pledge of Allegiance), rather than a means of individual expression. In that case, a think-aloud protocol such as Flower and Hayes might not make much sense to a writer.
Post a Comment