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.