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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.