Oct 31: Placeholder Post for "Post-structuralism to Multiculturalism"

Dear Good Folks,

This may be one of our most vast and complicated "turns" and I don't expect we'll finish discussion today. More likely, the concepts undergirding post-structuralism and multiculturalism will also bear on our exploration of theories of "literacy" next week. For now, as a starting point, we might consider these working definitions of our key terms, before complicating them together:

• Poststructuralism: A descriptive condition referring to movements associated with the analytical strategies of philosophers, linguists, theologians, literary critics, and rhetoricians (primarily) after the 1960s, which generally characterized attempts to subvert or contest structuralist theories. Has roots in psychoanalytic, Marxist, cultural, feminist, and gender criticsm, but is most often associated with deconstructors who moved toward approaching textual criticism based in reader response. Questions that poststructuralist critics might pose in a rhetorical sense, include, What is an author What does it mean to write? To what degree do the privileged, academic discourses of the West write the writer rather than being written by the writer?
• Multiculturalism: A descriptive condition of society in which different cultures coexist (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). A type of policy that addresses demands of cultural groups and the challenges presented to those groups from a status quo. An assumption of fundamental humanity for all persons and cultural groups. That is, multiculturalism works to rectify relationships of domination and seek to correct problematic representations and appropriation of non-dominant cultures by dominant groups (SEP Online). 

For our purposed in theories of composition, based on the presumed post-linguistic turn that is serving to open up composition theory, praxis, and/or history in the decades reflected by our syllabus, we might see a range of goals of "multiculturalism" most clearly in the Ohmann’s discussions of class, Lu’s uptake of Pratt’s contact zone, and Alexander and Rhodes's refusal of “narrative coherence.” Here are some questions we might take up:

• What could become of a politicized (ideologized) orientation to composition in a post-structuralist world)?
• What could it mean to see "difference" as resource?
• How can dissensus lead to rhetorical knowledge?
• What does it mean to interrogate difference as a linguistic ideology?
• Of what should the multiculturalist canon consist?
• What questions about rhetoric-writing relationships should we open up?
• On what theoretical grounds can we see students, teachers, and community stakeholders as agents in a post-structuralist world?
• What should be our methods or modes of cultural criticism?
• What are key distinctions between culture, ideology, and dogma--furthermore, how do we differentiate (historically) between "ideologies" and "dogmas"?

Here are relevant links for today:

• gridding from a "post-structuralist" perspective
• charting "theoretical turns"
• background on Take 20
• literacy/community terms and case study 

-Dr. Graban

Oct 17 [reposting]: Theories of Agency & Ecology

[Re-posting, FYI, as this preparation post may have gotten lost. -Dr. G]

Dear Good Folks,

As promised, I offer some tentative resolution from today's [Oct. 10] seminar, as well as a look ahead to next week. As a way of connecting this week's and next week's readings, I have asked you to bring back Connors, and Elbow or Olson next class.

We had some great discussion today about where to position these theorists and their theories in relation to extant paradigms and to each other. I might position Flower and Hayes's sociocognitive theory of composition closer to Carter's notion of "finding common ground" between the cognitive (general) and the social (local) knowledge poles, even as I recognize that their models for composition are differently motivated. Perhaps it is because he builds on Bizzell's critique of Flower and Hayes, but Carter does help us to see potential weaknesses in the ways that cognition theories assume expertise on the level of general knowledge but not on the level of local knowledge. At the same time, Linda Flower's ongoing work -- beyond the "Cognitive Process Theory" article -- tries to clarify the role of expertise in sociocognitive theories by broadening the interactive element of the writing process to include collaborative talk between writers and others, and not merely between the writer and her task.

Today's discussion brought to light how even opposing process models such as these do signal the significance of discourse community to any theory of composition. Although our readings were not centered in agency, we may see movements towards agency in the way that Murray delineates responsibilities for teachers and students, and particularly in Murray's insistence that teachers "must publish and share criticism [with their students] from careful readers" (Murray 122). We certainly can question how to theorize agency in something like Flower and Hayes's cognitive process model, specifically in its construction of a network of goals  (Flower & Hayes 192). And in advocating for a "pluralistic theory of expertise" [that synthesizes local and general knowledge], we can see how Carter poses the idea of a new writerly agent that operates between past and present sociocognitive paradigms in Rhetoric and Composition. After all, he argues, specialized social theories of rhetoric require a specially situated audience (Carter 277). Next week, we may want to talk about how to disrupt some of the processes and mechanisms by which audiences assume normalcy as a result of these sociocognitive approaches to writing. We may try to recover all of the agents in each writing system.

In the meantime, I invite you to consider the following questions as you read Logan, Smitherman, Cooper, Enoch and Flynn or Ritchie-Boardman:

• In each of their theories where is the writer's exigence located?
• How does each theorist build her theory? What is the logic -- or what are the logics -- underlying each notion of "agency," or the features of each "ecology"? What do they use as evidence?
• What seems to be their driving research question? Is it a claim against to which they respond, or against which they react?
• Whose voices are included -- implicitly or explicitly -- in their theorizing? Whose voices are excluded from their theorizing?

Next week, we will begin class with our case study, observing some Take 20 clips and the ideologies they may espouse. Then, we will navigate our definitions work space, and spend some time charting our theoretical turns to help us synthesize what we read, and to begin looking forward and back. Finally, I will answer your questions about the upcoming Critical Book Analysis Presentations (though you are welcome to ask them at any time and through any medium), and I'll demonstrate an assortment of learning tools that past presenters have constructed.

Nice work today, and very looking forward to next week,
-Dr. Graban

A Continuum of Knowledge: Thinking as a Work in Progress

This week we were tasked with creating a tool that can be used to highlight the intricacies of process and post-process theory. The function of this tool is to help further knowledge in these theories and show how the scholars work together or through each other to create a new way of composing and learning. My partner and I created a tool that can be defined as a study tool—although at first we were aiming for an archive of sorts—because it is organized by key concepts/arguments of the scholars and then puts them into conversation with each other. A key note of this tool is that it also provides the sources directly for the user, so they have the option to access the sources and gain their own meaning and connections with their prior knowledge of process/post-process theory. The scholars examined for the purpose of the creation of this tool ultimately communicated how imperative it is that students be allowed to take control of their knowledge through composition.

Through the creation of this tool, a noticeable shift was highlighted from process theory to post-process theory and an emphasis of value was placed upon student agency and knowledge as they were leading the shift to a newer way of composing. While I mention a shift, it is imperative to note that there can easily be a connection found between scholars of post-process to scholars of process theory, and not just in the sense that the former is referencing the latter. Although, there was a shift in theories from “students work in this specific process that allows them fluidity in how they navigate these processes” to “there is no one specific process that can encapsulate the intricacies of every student,” it’s clear that the goal of both process and post-process theory aim at acknowledging that the student is the one who controls their composition and thus knowledge because they learn through the act of composing. 

In order to understand how the scholars work together, why my partner and I decided to construct our study tool the way that we did, and what this ultimately means for composition, it is necessary that you first have knowledge of the scholars and the key arguments derived from them. The first scholar investigated was Donald Murray’s “Finding Your Own Voice: Teaching Composition in an Age of Dissent.” Through Murray’s reading came the concept of student agency because he makes the claim that “there is no single standard, no one way to think or to write, and we must not give our students the illusion there is” (Murray 118). Murray goes so far to create four responsibilities for the student (and the teacher alike) that emphasize the need for the student to have freedom in their composition because it is through doing that they will make meaning. A connection was made between Murray and Linda Flowers and John R. Hayes’ essay “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” While Flower and Hayes are definitely more structure-based in the sense that they create a literal model for the way that composition takes place, they also focus on student agency. The writer, for Flower and Hayes, is who organizes these set of processes during the act of composing (Flower and Hayes 366).

However, it should be noted that this fits more in a process-based theory, rather than a purely expressivist theory. This is why through Flower and Hayes, the concept of “writing as goal-directed thinking” emerged. The third key point in Flower and Hayes’ theory is that “composing is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by writer’s own growing network of goals (Flower and Hayes 366). This means that in order for the writer to compose, they need to set a goal or a set of goals that they wish to achieve through their composition—this can be an internal goal such as learning something new, or an external goal such as evoking something from the audience. My partner and I then made a connection to a source outside of this process to post-process theoretical turn because the scholar worked with a set of “aims” that focus on ways of thinking and learning. This is a perfect example of the way that the tool operates—it allows the user to see connections between scholars within this theoretical turn and outside of it. This provides the reader with a more holistic view of the way that knowledge is created, specifically through writing. 

Surprisingly, the student agency section was the only one where my partner and I directly linked scholars within this theoretical turn. For our argument for “Writing as Coming to Knowledge,” the only scholar from our designated list of readings that we used was William F. Irmscher and his essay “Writing as a Way of Learning and Developing.” This was a concept that we found the majority of the connections to outside resources because Irmscher builds his theory around the idea that writing is a “process of growing and maturing” and consequently a way that the student makes knowledge (Irmscher 242). It is surprising that seeing as how process/post-process theory centers on writing with agency as the way that knowledge is formed that all of the scholars in this turn aren’t linked in this concept. However, that is not to say that thy did not contribute to the conversation. Through Gary Olson’s “Towards a Post-Process Composition: Abandoning the Rhetoric of Assertion” and Michael Carter’s “The Idea of Expertise: An Exploration of Cognitive and Social Dimensions of Writing” we derived the concepts “movement away from master narratives” and “expertise as a continuum” and “transferability” respectively. 

In this theoretical turn there is a clear emphasis on the student’s agency and the way that they make knowledge through writing. The question that was investigated in breaking down these essays was where do these scholars position themselves in this conversation and how do they see this making of knowledge happening? Olson and Carter’s essays were arguably the most post-process based because of their emphasis on the development of the student as a free agent, similar to Irmscher and the key concept that derived from his essay. Carter’s theory of the continuum would be an accurate way to visualize learning because it shows knowledge, not as something that one has, but as something that one is constantly developing (Carter 266). 

It should be stated that I am aware that there are arguments and connections that can be made in addition of what has already been created. That was the purpose of this exercise and of the tool that was created. The tool’s job is to serve as a guide for the way that connections can be made, yet it is in no way static in that as new theories are created, new connections can be made. If we were to look at process/post-process as a continuum, I would humbly put Flower and Hayes on the far left side and Olson closer to the end of post-process. Carter, Irmscher, and Murray, would operate between and throughout the continuum and I suspect that as new connections are made, the scholars would drift back and forth on this continuum.

For now, here is a list of the key arguments in hopes that it encourages thought:

• Student agency 
• Return to classical rhetoric 
• Writing as coming to knowledge 
• Writing as subject to study 
• Writing as goal-directed thinking 
• Expertise as a continuum 
• Transferability 
• Movement away from master narratives 

--Liana Clarke

Key Terms and Connections Across Readings

Student Agency:

Donald M. Murray “Finding Your Own Voice: Teaching Composition in an Age of Dissent”

Linda Flower and John R. Hayes “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing”

Connection: Murray aims at a classroom where the instructor serves as a mentor for the student, where the student takes ownership of their own learning. Flower and Hayes' essay also centers on the writer's cognitive processes. For both Murray and Flower and Hayes, agency resides within the individual composer.

Return to Classical Rhetoric:

Donald M. Murray “Finding Your Own Voice: Teaching Composition in an Age of Dissent”

James E. Kinneavy “Kairos: A Neglected Concept in Classical Rhetoric”

Edward P.J. Corbett “The Usefulness of Classical Rhetoric”

Connection:

Murray argues that in order for students to have agency in the composition classroom, that there needs to be a return to classical rhetoric. Kinneavy sees classical rhetoric (specifically kairos) as the tool to teaching college composition. Corbett’s argue for classical rhetoric is that it provides guidance in the classroom. While Murray and Corbett may not agree on the way that classical rhetoric is used in the classroom-- Murray being post-process and Corbett being very system-oriented-- there is a connection between the three scholars in how they value classical rhetoric.

Writing as Coming to Knowledge:

William F. Irmscher “Writing as a Way of Learning and Developing”

Charles W. Kneupper “Argument: A Social Constructivist Perspective”

Michael Quigley “Rhetoric, Dialectic, and Ideology in Freshman English”

John T. Gage “An Adequate Epistemology for Composition: Classical and Modern Perspectives”

James Moffett “Ch. 1-2” in Teaching the Universe of Discourse

Connection: Irmscher centers his essay around the concept that “writing [is] a process of growing and maturing” (242) and that through writing and composition the student develops the ability to use knowledge. Irmscher references Moffett and his concept of abstraction in his essay, saying that “if teachers do not let students abstract from the ground up, students will never learn” (243). Kneupper and Quigley both work towards a concept where critical thinking/furthering knowledge is the goal in composing. Gage’s text uses classical rhetoric as a means of discovering and validating knowledge. All of the readings listed construct a theory or process where writing/composition works toward knowledge and developing.

Writing as Subject of Study

Irmscher “ Writing As a Way of Learning and Developing”

Wardle and Downs “ Looking into a Writing about Writing Classroom”   

Connection: Irmscher brings up this idea of a declaration of integrity with the discipline; the “integrity of our own discipline as a subject worthy of research and understanding” ( 240). For me this brings up the idea of the focus of first year composition being the study of writing. This approach to first year composition has been referred to throughout the literature as a writing studies or writing about writing approach. This approach “takes that declarative and procedural knowledge about writing as the content of the course, and that regards helping students think and learn about writing as the appropriate goal for the course ( rather than teaching students how to write) (276). If we do not study writing as a discipline then we run the risk of seeing writing as skills to master rather than a way of understand and making sense of the world around us (243).

Writing as Goal-Directed Thinking

Linda Flowers and John R. Hayes “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing”

James E. Kinneavy “The Basic Aims of Discourse”

Connection: Flowers and Hayes create a structure where they emphasize that “composing is a goal-directed thinking process” wherein the writer creates a hierarchy of their goals (366). Flower and Hayes argue that through these goals and sub-goals, the writer engages in the creative process of writing. Kinneavy’s essay follows along the same lines in that he creates these aims, or categories, of writing in which the student can operate within and throughout. Both Kinneavy and Flower and Hayes formulate a structure that emphasizes “goals” or “aims” as ways of thinking and writing, yet they also both note that their structures are fluid and ultimately set by the writer.

Expertise as a Continuum

Carter “ The idea of Expertise: Exploration of Cognitive and Social”

Quigley “ Rhetoric, Dialect and Ideology in Freshman composition”

Connection: Carter argues that expertise is not something that one has or does not have but rather that expertise is constantly developing. Expertise in a combination of both general and local knowledge. Cater brings forth the idea of discourse community and states that “ novice writers should be initiated into a discourse community by studying the conventions of that discourse community and the ways that writing is used in that community” (266). In order to gain expertise one needs to both procedural knowledge and theoretical knowledge. For example it is not enough for students to compose within a certain community, a student must also understand the conventions and why these conventions are in place. For example, Quigley states that he is not “against having students write paragraphs that “cohere”; nor am I opposed to having them write essays that unified and focused” (Quigley 24) these are the argumentative structures in our discipline that are the “recurrent forms that are social products tested and maintained” ( Kneupper 184). The goal however is that the not that students learn these forms to reproduce them but  use this procedural knowledge to have students, “test the form and even to test the idea of form” (Quigley 24).

*** For more on discourse community see Gee “What is Literacy”***

Transferability

Carter “The idea of Expertise: Exploration of Cognitive and Social”

Yancey, Robertson,Tacsak. Writing Across Contexts:Transfer, Composition, and Sites Writing

Connection: Carter explores the idea of transfer of knowledge from one context to another is his discussion of expertise in writing. In his discussion of general and local knowledge Carter asserts that “transfer of learning, the ability to generalize from performance in one specific context to performance in another context, is possible under certain conditions” ( 270). These conditions Carter continues include cuing, practicing, generating abstract rules and socially developing principles ( 270). Therefore, while transfer from one context to the next is possible there are certain things the writer needs in order to engage in this transfer. In Writing Across Context Yancey, Robinson and Tacsak create a composition course that allows students to create their own theory of writing, with the goal of giving students the ability to take what they have learned in their composition course and transfer it to new situations both within the university and outside the university.  

Movement Away From Master Narratives

Gary Olson “ Towards a Post Process Composition: Abandoning the Rhetoric of Assertion”

Royster “When the First Voice You Hear is not Your Own”

All of these readings alert us to the dangers of creating a universal theory that is applicable to all writers. Olson invoking Toulmin cautions scholars that when we create theory we need to be aware what we are doing is generalizing. Theory becomes problematic when we believe “that we have captured a truth” and we assume that this truth is universal to all composers ( Olson 8). Theorizing on the other hand allows us to explore, challenge and reassess and speculate ( 8). Royster asks scholars when we create narratives that we need to listen to the voices of those that we are theorizing about. In order to create new narratives we need to listen to those voices that have been marginalized.

Nobody Speaks for the Text (But Everyone is Welcome to Speak)

More than anything else, the process of planning our curated annotated bibliography helped complicate the notion of theoretical turns in our field. We came up with the concept of "What's at Stake" in order to clearly define the role that each of these has played in our discipline, in our epistemologies, and in our pedagogy. In trying to trace where these authors land in the history of Composition theory, we found that we were oversimplifying their arguments, misrepresenting them through the act of presenting a singular representation of their role in Composition studies. For example, William Irmscher claims that writing is "a way of promoting the higher intellectual development of the individual" and thus we might say that Irmscher is advocating a process pedagogy in which we teach students how to engage in writing processes that promote intellectual development at the individual level. But if we place this as his "What's at Stake" contribution to pedagogy, we miss the point he makes very briefly in the introduction of his paper that "we need the cross-fertilization of our discipline with others" and his emphasis that writing be taught within other disciplines as well. Or, we might turn to his exploration of verbalization via Robert Gagne and Ernest Smith, in which he advocates that verbalizing our words allows our writing tasks to be more complex, noting that it leads to "fuller understanding" (241). He expounds on this by discussing Janet Emig's claim that writing is a unique activity in which hand, eye, and brain become unified through one continuous activity. In discussing hand, eye, and brain coordination, might we understand Irmscher as advocating for a cognitive process theory to writing similar to that of Flower and Hayes?

Or if we understand Flower and Hayes' research in "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing" as one that demonstrates to our field that scientific observation of a "good" writing process is impossible to trace and teach, how do we reconcile with the fact that Flower and Hayes did in fact learn a great deal about good and bad writing processes? If we focus on the point that Don Pierstoff makes--that Flower and Hayes' "experiments in protocol analysis were affected in as yet unidentified ways when [writers] were being observed in the act of composing"--without also recognizing how groundbreaking and helpful their model is to the field, what do we lose? If we understand their contributions through cognitive science without considering that at its root this is a cognitive process, how do we position them within the field? As asinine as it now seems to me to be, I have always placed Flower and Hayes as these pseudo-scientists of sort who attempted to bring science into the field of Composition and were helpful in demonstrating that scientific observations don't really belong in our field. Or rather, through attempting to chart a singular "good" writing process, they learned that there isn't a "good" writing process, but instead writers develop unique, hierarchical processes that are layered into what we might call "the writing process." After negotiating this with Brandon and reconsidering Flower and Hayes' piece as an extension and illumination of process theory rather than a departure from it, I can understand Flower and Hayes in different ways--as a key part of both the process turn (that writing processes are multiple, idiosyncratic, hierarchical, nonlinear) and the cognitive turn (that writing processes can be researched and better understood through cognitive research and experiments). Thus, there is overlap. This occurs because these are frameworks and constructs that scholars put up based on their own construction of the text and negotiation of its meaning.

This is exemplified by Michael Carter's own exploration of cognitive and social dimensions of writing. Cognitive rhetoric is rhetoric founded on information processing theories of psychology and emphasizes general knowledge. Social rhetoric is based on social theories of knowledge and emphasizes local knowledge. He points out that those advocating for social rhetoric and local expertise, such as Patricia Bizzell, sees the work of Flower and Hayes' and other cognitive theorists as "overemphasizing the 'universal, fundamental structures of thought and language'" (Bizzell 215, qtd in Carter 265). Carter himself points out that in the work of Flower and Hayes, "the individual subject is treated as a way of testing universal theories of problem solving" (266). Carter builds an argument for seeing the general and the local on a "continuum" in which the general becomes the local. In other words, novice writers begin with general conceptions of what a writing process is or does, and those general conceptions develop into local strategies as the writer becomes more familiar with the writing task(s) at hand. Is this contradicting the discoveries of Flower and Hayes? Absolutely not--Flower and Hayes' claims that writing tasks are generally hierarchical, nonlinear, shifting over time, idiosyncratic, etc. is still true, and in fact suggests that what we can generally know about writers is that their goals are local, their writing process is local in the sense that it belongs to them and is dictated by their experiences with writing (as detailed in discussions of long-term memory and the role it has in reading rhetorical tasks and then working on them), etc. This suggests that we bring our local and global theories of writing together rather than make them compete. We can only do this by always reminding ourselves that meaning of text is negotiated, that texts are not confined to a certain time and that they continue to function and have an effect on the field. 

JB


Carter, Michael. “The Idea of Expertise: An Exploration of Cognitive and Social Dimensions of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 41, no. 3, 1990, pp. 265-286.

Flower, Linda, and Hayes, John R. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 32, no. 4, 1981, 365-387.

Irmscher, William F. “Writing as a Way of Learning and Developing.” CCC 30.3 (Oct. 1979): 240-44.

Check out our glossary draft here.

The Chronologic Chaos of a Continuum of Knowledge

I did not realize it until the Prezi by Caitlin, Angela, and I was fleshed out by our readings, but Carter’s piece seemed to carry the weight of what we were trying to convey. His idea of general knowledge and local knowledge representing a continuum (Carter 274) as opposed to a dichotomy represents quite well the visual created through this Prezi. While visually the Prezi may seem chaotic and not a continuum piece in that these works are not on a straight line, and not necessarily in the correct order as they might be placed on a continuum, it became easier to imagine what the order might be if they were placed on a continuum. It also became easier to note that earlier theorists (i.e. Murray) envisioned writing as an art for expressiveness rather than a tool that adheres to structure.

The idea of a continuum showing general to local knowledge displaces the notion of timeline in order to make the connections between theorists more clear. That is for example, Murray’s notions of student and teacher responsibilities (119-22) to ensure writing is broader than just procedure connects more readily with the concept of local knowledge than say, the system presented by Flower and Hayes (370). Flower and Hayes present composition as working through the writer’s mind similar to the information processes of a computer (370), and yet, Flower and Hayes’ piece is part of a more recent time. Although Murray had written earlier, his piece is as progressive as the notion of continuum laid out by Carter. Through the Prezi that was created, one can see not only this difference between when different notions of compositions were written, but the chaos with which theorists jump from one idea to the next about what students and teachers should be learning and teaching to effectively use and appreciate composition. What the Prezi represents is the complexity of thought about the field of composition, as a theorist may think of writing as a more flexible art one year, and the next someone else will want to classify it as a more structured form. Carter’s arguments about general versus local knowledge exactly capture this change.

Through the Prezi, not only could the idea of a continuum somewhat be visualized, but pointing out the vital concepts of each piece clarified their place as a work focused on general ideas of writing, or more specific, expressive openness to the ideas. Again, Flower and Hayes cognitive process model took on the appearance of referring to a computer and its thinking processes; although they turned away from “Stage Models of Writing” (Flower and Hayes 367), they did not explore an argument for writing as a liberating process, but maintained that composition has a certain structure through variables such as “the task environment, the writer’s long-term memory, and the writing process” (Flower and Hayes 369). Outlining these ideas through the use of a Prezi allowed the opportunity to see Flower and Hayes’ place on the continuum of general and local knowledge to which Carter referred. While the key elements of their argument seem to emphasize that Flower and Hayes center on general knowledge, contrast is noted in viewing the main points of Gary A. Olson’s work. Olson emphasizes the use of composition based on the ideas of theorists Sandra Harding and Donna Harraway, one key emphasis being that the best teaching of composition will “delay answers, postpone closure, avoid assertion” (Olson 10).

A composition of this sort is focused on “attempts to increase the number and kinds of stories that get told and the actors who tell them” (Olson 11). Similarly, the idea of writing as “action and a way of knowing” in Irmscher’s piece (241) was more readily understood as arguing for a local composition after placement in the presentation, within and among the arguments of the other works. Being able to pinpoint these ideas on the Prezi permitted a better sense of the authors’ places in the universe of debate concerned with what composition should be focused on. The visual ultimately highlights key points from each work and thus allows quicker connections to be made between arguments of one author versus another.

Our Schema: https://prezi.com/view/W70BX0HCRX4x0dGyRqll/

--Cindy Stewart

                              

Works Cited

Carter, Michael. "The Idea of Expertise: An Exploration of Cognitive and Social Dimensions of Writing." College Composition and Communication, no. 3, 1990, p. 265. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/357655

Flower, Linda, and Hayes, John R. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 32, no. 4, 1981, 365-387.

Irmscher, William F. “Writing as a Way of Learning and Developing.” CCC30.3 (Oct. 1979): 240-44.

Murray, Donald M. “Finding Your Own Voice: Teaching Composition in an Age of Dissent.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 20, no. 2, 1969, 118-123.

Olson, Gary A. “Toward a Post-Process Composition: Abandoning the Rhetoric of Assertion.” Post-Process Theory: New Directions for Composition Research. Ed. Thomas Kent. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1999. 7-15.

Who Knows?: The Agency of Writers in Pursuit of Knowledge

This week’s readings complicated our understanding of the process movement, raising questions about the roles and agency of the author, their audience, and the rhetorical situation. It also illustrates a more person-centric model in the post-process movement, where writers’ processes are seen as much more idiosyncratic than the process movement prescribes due to the way individual writers have vastly different cognitive processes. They all approach these ideas by discussing classroom writing instruction, with most of them advocating for a more student-centered classroom that encourages play and introspection. However, each of the theorists vary widely from one another in approach, with some taking a more expressivist stance (like Murray, Elbow) and others more formalistic/formulaic (like Carter or Flower and Hayes).

Muarray argues for a much more individual and writer-centered way to approach composition processes, stating that the students are where writing must begin, identifying their own subjects because “the student may be shown how to perceive, but he has to do his own perceiving” (119), build their own opinions and knowledge from that identification because “the student should begin to discover the vigor of writing doesn’t come so much from the graceful stroke of his pen as from the incisive bit of his intellect” (119), to “earn an audience” and learn to write not just at/for/to an audience, but also to “learn and be a constructively critical audience so his classmates will learn”  (120), and finally, to “find his own form” (120); as the student learns these, they must also realize that “freedom is the greatest tyrant of all” (118). Maurray’s approach gives the student the agency to not only decide their exigencies and begin their writing, but to explore and learn in an environment that both encourages and complicates that process by forcing them to be critical as they learn to compose.

Flower and Hayes propose a “cognitive process” model of composition, which situates itself as a formula that is non-linear and cyclical, based around the writer’s individual knowledge and thinking process. They achieved their model by asking writers to compose whilst verbalizing their thoughts to the best of their abilities into an unobtrusive tape recorder. Pierstorff does criticize them for the data collection, as he argues that the act of observation inherently changes the results (which makes sense, as I can think of few, if any, people who compose aloud at any part of their writing process, and I know I would find it distracting as I attempted to find the proper words instead of just being able to let my brain makes connections without me having to turn them into verbal thoughts). However, this model definitely captures the nature of a writing process as fluid and recursive, allowing for individual agency as they compose instead of prescribing a model and shoehorning people into it (as the stages model tends to do). Their emphasis on the goals of the writer being a major component of the planning process, with “the most important thing about writing goals is the fact that they are created by the writer” (373), show that not only is the agency found within the writer as they create/respond to a writing exigence, but that agency afforded through goal-setting is present throughout the entire composing process, which “lead to new, more complex goals which can then integrate content and purpose,” (373) again showing the recursive nature of composing processes.

Irmcherr’s more explicitly epistemological approach to writing processes emphasizes the student writer’s experience and knowledge, privileging the student’s experiences and agency within the process from the very start by stating that “in writing, this externalizing and internalizing occur at one and the same time,” and that “through writing, we learn by coming aware of ourselves” (242). The act of composing is a way for students to investigate their own knowledge and to identify shortcomings, regardless of where the initial exigence for writing comes. He argues that “control of language ultimately translates into self-confidence and self-sufficiency” (244), which again illustrates that writing-as-learning ultimately lends all of the agency within the writer and requires active participation and constant cycles of personal analysis and external analysis to make sure that what you understand is accurate and coming across to your audience sufficiently.  

Carter, however, argues for an approach that is much less writer-directed and much more audience-based. It seems to reduce the agency of the writer as an active agent engaged in knowledge-making to more of a receptacle of conventions that can be transferred across contexts, while still maintaining that expertise is developed over years via localized knowledge, or in his words: “human performance is a complex interaction of general and local knowledge” (271). He places the agency within the exigencies and contexts of the writing situations to determine how they should be responded to, but writers seem to gain control over these as they develop domain expertise in writing (and, it appears, within the discipline they are writing within). He attempts to bridge the gap between local and global/general, and places much of the power in the writer’s ability to understand discourse communities, as he advocates that teachers “help students acquire appropriate local knowledge, to become a part of a writing community as defined by certain domain-specific knowledge” (281) whilst also giving them general writing tools. It would seem his argument is that the more expertise a writer gains, the more general knowledge they can transfer and more domain-specific knowledge they have about the discourse communities with which they want/need to communicate, the more agency they have over the writing.

Altogether, the theorists we read for this week all complicate the idea of student agency when composing, and, taken together, seem to all argue for composition that emphasizes the individual writer’s agency in the composing process as they create knowledge and utilize language to convey that knowledge. While they each provide a different perspective and approach, these theories mentioned above all attempt to shift the field away from rigid composing structures toward a more fluid and writer-based approach.


--Caitlin

Time-Web: Getting lost in a Process to Post-Process timeline

            The readings for this week complicated my view of composition by introducing process and post-process theories. Attending school in the United States, stage composition (i.e. Pre-writing, Drafting, Post-Writing) was most commonly taught throughout my formative years in school. Even now, it is particularly emphasized in the textbooks for developmental English classrooms. I believe that this process method is used to create a sense of structure for students who do not have a strong foundation in writing or the composition of texts. However, as the readings have explained, it is important to realize that students have their own agency, as the post-process method becomes a vital part of this conversation about composition.

            In his article, “Finding your own Voice: Teaching Composition in an Age of Dissent” Donald Murray argues for an age of dissent within the composition field. Murray emphasizes the process of invention in which by giving his students freedom in the process of composition, they will be able to discover their own voices as writers. Murray advocates for content over form stating, “Content always comes before form, and the student should begin to discover that the vigor of writing doesn’t come so much from the graceful stroke of his pen as from the incisive bite of his intellect” (Murray, 119). In this sense, he is stating that students should be able to discover their own subject, evidence, audience, and form through a cycle of feedback and rhetoric. Murray then aligns himself with Gage who views rhetoric as  “a means of discovering and validating knowledge” (153). This places Murray in contention with authors Quigley and Hairston who argue for the teaching of form to evaluate how knowledge is constructed. For Murray, this responsibility of content discovery is placed not nly on the student but on the teacher. In this case, the teacher has the responsibility of creating an environment in which the student can fail. Because writing is a complex and  cyclical process, a student needs to understand that the first thing they write won’t always be the best. In this case, teaching a student to fail, and having them be comfortable with this fact, allows them to continue to revise and grow as a writer. Personally, this process of writing speaks to me as an instructor as I prefer a feedback centric classroom.  

Drawing off of Kenneth Burkes scholarship, in his article ““Writing as a Way of Learning and Developing” Irmscher argues that writing is a generative process in which the student constructs knowledge and learns through action (Irmscher, 241). Irmscher stresses that writing and composition should be a multidisciplinary process and viewed as basic to all disciplines. To illustrate this Irmscher defines writing as “a way of fashioning a network of associations and increasing our potential for learning” (Irmscher, 244). Additionally, he wishes to advance the common idea of writing to be seen as “a way of learning about anything and everything” (Irmscher, 241). He utilizes the work of Janet Emig to explain how "writing is a way of learning, and also, of developing" (Irmscher, 242).

To do this, Irmscher draws from Lev Vygotsky to formulate the way he wants students to think about writing: awareness, abstraction, and control. These three basic functions help a student to develop and learn about relationships through writing. Abstraction in particular is a complicated process in which we try to find meaning, connections, and relationships through our writing. Irmscher draws from Kenneth Pike and James Moffett as sources for this arguement stating, "if teachers do not let students abstract from the ground up, students will never learn" (243). However, I would have liked Irmscher to be clearer in what he means by abstraction. Is it allowing students to create their own meaning? In class, we discussed Abstraction as teaching students to question their own process and ask the question why. This really struck a chord with me as I strive to teach my students this theory of abstraction. It is a difficult process to teach as an instructor because you are asking your students to ask their own questions while also responding to yours. Ultimately we are then asking our students to engage in the cognitive process (i.e. Flowers and Hayes) through which ““composing is a goal-directed thinking process” (Flower and Hayes, 366). This process that values the writers goals and sub-goals allows the student to think and question their own rhetorical situation.

Olson echoes these claims in “Toward a Post Process Composition: Abandoning the Rhetoric of Assertion”. In this article, Olson argues that we should do away with the generalizable process of writing and begin to “theorize” in order to be productive composers of text. Olson defines theorizing as “a way to explore, challenge, question, reassess, and speculate” (Olson, 8).Drawing off of Sandra Harding and Standpoint theory, Olson is advocating for a more dialogic, feminine way of writing which subverts the rhetoric of assertion (which is seen as more definitive and demanding). From this post-process stance, I wish that Olson had been more explicit as to how this could be applied to a classroom setting. I can’t imagine asking some of my students to write in a more feminine way without taking away their own personal narrative or voice. I would have liked to be able to investigate the post-process theory further into how instructors have made this applicable and productive in the classroom.
Our schema can be viewed here.

Works Cited:

Flower, Linda, and Hayes, John R. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 32, no. 4, 1981, 365-387.

Gage, John. “An Adequate Epistemology for Composition: Classical and Modern Perspectives.” Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Ed. Robert Conners, Lisa Ede, and Andrea Lunsford. Carbondale: Souther Illinois UP, 1984. 152-73. Print. (PN175 .E84 1984)

Irmscher, William F. “Writing as a Way of Learning and Developing.” CCC30.3 (Oct. 1979): 240-44.

Murray, Donald M. “Finding Your Own Voice: Teaching Composition in an Age of Dissent.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 20, no. 2, 1969, 118-123.

Olson, Gary A. “Toward a Post-Process Composition: Abandoning the Rhetoric of Assertion.” Post-Process Theory: New Directions for Composition Research. Ed. Thomas Kent. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1999. 7-15

           

        

--Angela Minucci

           

Conversations on Process in Three Acts

In my introduction to Rhetoric and Composition as a field, Flower and Hayes’s cognitive process model was near the fore of the history. They were situated within the process movement, which was presented as a radical departure. Of course, the old pedagogies weren’t revolutionized overnight. There’s a level of change and revision in our curricula now as well as a variety of conversations being had about what it means to compose, how it happens, and how we teach it. Though this concept is central to our field, it is interesting that we seem to be building a larger network of conversations rather than coalescing, which can be infuriating or disorienting at times but can also be an invigorating aspect of social knowledge fields—what Lauer calls the mediation of the “epistemic court” (20).

It seems that there is always a gap to be found. Flower and Hayes propose their cognitive model under such auspices. Flower and Hayes assert that the linear, time-metaphor models of conceptualizing the writing process—even if they are recursive—do not accurately represent frames of mind that writers use as they compose. The process groups that they identify are task environment, writing process, and long-term memory (370), and Flower and Hayes arrange these within a network of tasks and subtasks that constitute larger processes of writing. Their model resists linear  or time-oriented functions (which are also linear-based models), which highlights the recursive-ness of composing.

Flower and Hayes contributed significantly to RC discussions of composing and how we may/not be able to theorize or understand it. However, their model continues to be debated in the epistemic court.

Our pedagogies for composition classes stem from our ideas of what “expertise” means, according to Carter. Our definition of such suggests that different composing processes may be happening depending on whether the composer is composing within a specialized area or not.  He asserts, “The goals of our classes indicate what we think expertise in writing is, and the way we teach indicates how we think writers achieve expertise” (265). This assertion becomes a statement for reflection on our curricula. Do we define expertise and the ramifications of that definition for students? Colleagues? Other stakeholders? This question is important to answer, and Carter places it in the cognitive process and constructivist process debate.  Rather than discussing the two models as a binary, Carter offers a continuum that acknowledges the existence of both models and their potential to affect a composer’s process. He argues that expertise can be a way for us to work within the continuum and to use the continuum as a productive lens.

He outlines either side of the continuum as a universal on one side with cognitive processes and local on the other hand with constructivist processes: “According to social theorists, however, all this talk of universal and individual ignores the most important dimension of human activity—the local dimension…the claim that knowledge is constituted by a community and that writing is a function of a discourse community” (266). If we place expertise along this line, we may place general problem solving near the universal and expert problem solving near the local side. According to “The Idea of Expertise,” expertise functions along with general knowledge in specialized situations. The expert then needs content knowledge as well as expert methodologies to accomplish expert problem-solving tasks.

Gary Olson’s “Toward a Post-Process Composition” is mostly a text of question raising. Theories of process are built on the assumption that they can be studied, thus he problematizes process research (Olson 7). It is key to note within his claim is his follow up statement. He understands process theory as part of an attempt to build theory that is generalizable or on some level is universal (8). He resists the process theorists’ attempts to generalize composers’ processes: “The postmodern critique of theory serves as a useful corrective in that it alerts us to the dangers of creating master narratives and then adhering to these explanations as if we have obtained truth” (Olson 8). Therefore, he argues that we should theorize rather than build theory. We should activate the noun, “theory.” The premise, then of process, as relying on the ability to build theory is replicated in some composition pedagogies. He terms this the rhetorics of asserting: “composing …has always seemed to be associated with asserting something to be true. Students are instructed to write an essay, which has usually meant to take a position on a subject…and to construct a piece of discourse that then ‘supports’ the position” (9). Olson argues that this constitutes most writing curricula, which then informs our conception of good writing. “Good” writing follows this model and supports the main assertion, according to Olson (9). Knowingly or not, he describes a five-paragraph pedagogy that teaches students formulaic writing. This view of composition pedagogy seems to be the backbone for his argument on rhetorics of assertion. His claims about composition pedagogies may be flattened, but his claims about the potential perils of a rhetoric of asserting are potential pedagogical conundrums for us.

--Brendan Hawkins

Works Cited

Carter, Michael. “The Idea of Expertise: An Exploration of Cognitive and Social Dimensions of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vo. 41, no. 3, 1990, pp. 265-286.

Flower, Linda, and John R. Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 365-387.

Lauer, Janice. “Composition Studies: Dappled Discipline.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 3, no.1, 1984, pp. 20-29.

Olson, Gary A. “Toward a Productive Engagement with Cultural Difference.” Signs of Struggle: The Rhetorical Politics of Cultural Difference, edited by Thomas West. State University of New York Press, 2002, pp. v–vi.