I want to say first and foremost that I really enjoyed the article by Linda Flower and John R. Hayes. I found it very interesting and very true. The article tackled the subject of what writers think about when composing and the decisions they make. They go on to first criticize the Pre-writing, Writing and writing process because it occurs in a linear form and it lacks the importance of time, decisions and other aspects that go on in the writer's head. "They model the growth of the written product, not the inner process of the person" (pg. 275). That is why a cognitive process is better according to them because it takes that and more into consideration. The cognitive process studies the mental processes that the writer is going through while composing the paper. The protocol analysis was the term they used to describe how it is better to test the writer while composing not after the fact. The 3 components of the cognitive process are Planning, Translating and Reviewing. The major elements are the task environment, long term memory and the writing processes.
Under the task environment are two sub elements: the rhetorical problem and the written text. In this time period the writer needs to decides what they are going to write about and the goals they are going to set for themselves. Also, once having the problem determined the writer needs to decide what to say about it. They usually have this thought in their mind and the hardest task is for them to get it on paper. The planning process the writer creates ideas, organizing them and sets the goals he wants to achieve in the paper. The goals have a chain reaction because they change thought out the writing process and that altars the paper. Under the translating state of mind the writer needs to decide how to put his thoughts into words that his readers will understand. The problem with this is they may be editing while translating and that could put a stop to the flow of ideas. While revising the writer can just read over his paper or make changes and add things.
The cognitive process is one that never ends. It is a continuous function that goes on during the writing process. There is no order to it. "It is much more common for writers to simply embed individual processes as needed-to call upon them as sub-routines to help carry out the task at hand" (pg. 284). That is very true and I can say that from experience. I do not use a set series of steps to compose a paper I take things as they come. The goals guide the paper and the thought process that will accompany them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree that the goals guide the paper and the thought process. I don't really have a set series of steps that I use every time I sit down to write a paper either, but I almost always have a set of goals, some more important than others, that guide where my writing is headed. I thought that was right on. Even so, I thought the essay was a bit lofty and when I read it, I found myself interpreting it based on my past experiences and while I had never labeled the process the way they did, or really mapped it out like they did, I got the feeling they were getting at the same ideas that I had heard before, but simply using different terminology. Did you get that impression at all?
Post a Comment