In their article ‘A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing (1981)’, Flower and Hayes set about their theoretical construction based on the question: ‘What guides the decisions writers make as they write?’ In order to comprehend the rhetorical differences between good and poor writers, Flower and Hayes look towards the writing process itself and rest the ‘cognitive process theory’ upon a strong emphasis of goal-orientated writing method. The approach to writing, they proclaim, is hierarchical in nature consisting of goal-directed thinking and organizational processes that rotate and change before and during the act of writing (p.366). The authors, also distancing themselves from the linear sequence, further maintain ‘that the major units of analysis are elementary mental processes (p.367)’ and that these cognitive operations will illustrate and hence, make available to comparison, the ‘composing strategies of good and poor writers (p.368)’. Another important feature of the model is the distinguishing of internal and external components that affect the mental processes – ‘task environment’ and ‘the writer’s long term memory (p.370)’ However, it could be suggested that this is where the model lacks depth and fails to take into account the social aspects of the writer and to an extent, the reader. Faigley lends support to this notion by drawing on the discourse presented by Giroux in his work ‘Theory and Resistance in Education (1983)’. Faigley mentions that ‘Writing for Giroux, like other acts of literacy, is not universal but social in nature and cannot be removed from culture. He would fault the cognitive view for collapsing cultural issues… As a consequence, pedagogies assuming a cognitive view tend to overlook differences in language use among students of different social classes, genders and ethnic backgrounds (1986, p.534)’. In reference to this subject, what then of the National Literacy Strategy? Merely looking over the framework definitions of the strategy indicates that the NLS originates from a cognitive view (DfES, 2001, p.50) and Stannard & Huxford hold a similar opinion: ‘The National Literacy Strategy is founded on the widely accepted assumption that human cognition and learning are active. In the context of primary education, the notion of active learning is rooted in the work of Piager, whose influence was formative in shaping ideas about the nature of learning and teaching. The theory was attractive to teachers because of its constructivist emphasis on the active role of the learner. However, it failed to recognize the enormous impact of social and cultural values in driving and shaping individual development (2007, p.24).
Advocates of the expressive movement tended to overlook the thought process approach to writing and concentrated more on the development of ‘self’. This concept translates to Murray’s ‘collection’ of information (1968) and Elbow’s ‘free writing’ (1973) and was viewed as a ‘romantic’ era of scribe that drew attention to the integrity, spontaneity and originality of voice. While the position of this essay maintains that these are respectable qualities to enhance in one’s own writing, a complete and thorough paradigm it is not. Firstly, Murray promotes a gathering of knowledge, which idealistically equals to writing ability being based on ‘osmosis’ where students who read enough acclaimed literature will ‘learn how to write as a result of a process of assimilation (Giroux, 1978, p.293).’ Secondly, pertaining to Elbow’s literacy tool, such an abstraction could be considered pessimistic as in what Giroux refers to as the ‘Calvinist notion (p.294)’ that some people possess the gift of writing and others do not. Giroux further goes on to say that according to this position, because it is biologically based, ignores the requirement for a pedagogy of writing (p.294).’ In terms of child-centred education, writing as cognition was an imperative step forward for growth but the facets of the expressive view are important ingredients to balance with the modern notions of good written work.
Interestingly, government initiatives through the implementation of the National Curriculum and the National Literacy Strategy in contrast to the ‘reader response’ issue as discussed above, have applied an effective model of reading for KS1 and KS2 children in school that employs a balanced approach for teachers to practise (Wyse & Jones, 2001, p.45). NLS reading demands are even socialistic in nature: ‘Translations take readers further into the world context, as well as fulfilling NLS requirements that children should read literature from other cultures…(for example) Reading literature across cultures enables British children to appreciate the repercussions of the war in the lives of children across the world (Lathey, 2005, p.59).’ Nevertheless, reading improvements withstanding, the gaps between these and attainments reached in writing have widened, especially between boys and girls (Ofsted, 1999, p.8) as well as a strong relationship linking social disadvantage and low writing ability (Stannard & Huxford, 2007, p.193). Stannard and Huxford further denounce government initiatives on writing with the following inference: ‘it is hard to understand why a Secretary of State should choose to invest a protracted enquiry into the teaching of early reading and exclude writing from its terms of reference (p.193).’ The focus by government departments on the importance of reading above writing is a curious subject: ‘But ten years on, this perception of literacy as reading is out of date. When employers and those in higher education criticize the literacy standards of school leavers, it is not reading but writing competence that concerns them. Writing is the fundamental skill for progress through higher education and into success and promotion in the workplace (p.193).’ Stannard and Huxford certainly embark on the future challenges of writing in comparison to the government investment in reading: ‘Many good readers are poor communicators, and worse writers. It is one thing to appreciate a narrative, grasp an explanation or follow an argument but a very different challenge to compose any of these (p.194).’
One of the more influential models on the teaching of writing in the UK originates from Donald Graves and became known as the ‘process approach’ (Wyse & Jones, 2001, p.124). Allowing children to take more responsibility for their own writing so as to view themselves as authors is the main reasoning behind this school of thought (Bunting, 2003, p.7). Being that the National Curriculum ‘states that at key stage 2 children should be taught to choose the form and content of their writing to suit their purpose (Grainger, 2005, p.85)’, it is evident that the ‘process approach’ holds sway in today’s school system. Graves himself certainly endorses the role of ‘options’ for children to lead to ‘opportunities for discovery’ much like professional writers (1991, p.52). This type of liberated path to writing ability has its criticisms in the shape of a group of academics known as the ‘genre theorists’. Drawing upon social means of conduct, they question the use of freedom in the classroom and call for a more structured means of pedagogy (Wyse & Jones, 2001, p.127). Speaking on an example of Graves’ work shown through a dialogue between teacher and pupil, Martin et al (1987, p.77) scrutinize the report by highlighting the fact that a large population of low-socioeconomic status Aboriginal children hailing from the Australian Northern Territory, over the course of a year, had only written a total of four topics. They claim that the example ‘casts doubts on the effectiveness of the process approach claiming that the range of forms that children choose is limited (p.127)’ and will not help children to ‘structure a narrative’. Moreover, they put forth the assumption that only ‘bright middle class children’ will benefit from this kind of ‘indirect guidance (p.127)’ emphasizing an overall awareness of social factors.
In order to properly deliver effective pedagogical practices when it comes to writing, we must ascertain a clear knowledge and understanding of how children develop their own mental processes for the purpose of writing. I concur with Bunting who stresses an ‘emergent writing approach’ that adheres to creativity and invention by allowing children to know a great deal about writing from an early age (2003, p.10). Younger children tend to write from a wholly self-centred perspective, with minimal awareness of audience, and perhaps due to NLS requirements, distracted from an expressive means of communication due to a stressed value on good grammatical recognition. On a side note, I tend to find that to practice grammar and instil a sense of external perusal, children should write about a subject that comes easy to them such as composing letters to a selected audience for the purpose of accumulating something that they want as an individual. Whether to entertain, convince or narrate, writing should be viewed by children, exponentially as they grow, as a pleasant and gainful experience (Krest, 1990, p.18) which must be provoked by teacher and educational framework alike. In fact, educators of all levels need to rethink their positions as instructors and approach the teaching of writing more philosophically. To school learners, we should be stressing the importance of writing for ourselves and not just for the sake of educational prompts in order to develop a sense of ownership in regards to the role of author.
I know I enjoy doing so.
Word count: 2477.
The Reference List.
DfES (2001) The National Literacy Strategy. Framework for Teaching. London: DfES Publications.
Elbow, P. (1973) Writing Without Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faigley, L. (1986) ‘Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal’. College English. 48(6) pp.527-542.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1981) ‘A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing’. College Composition and Communication. 32(4) pp.365-387.
Giroux, H.A. (1978) ‘Writing and Critical Thinking in the Social Studies’. Curriculum. 8(4) pp.291-310.
Giroux, H.A. (1983) Theory and Resistance in Education. South Hadley: Bergin.
Goodwin, P. (eds)(2005) The Literate Classroom. London: David Fulton.
Graham, J. & Kelly, A. (eds.) (2003) Writing Under Control. London: David Fulton.
Graves, D.H. (1991) Build a Literate Classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books Inc.
Humes, A. (1983) ‘Putting Writing Research into Practice’. The Elementary School Journal. 84(1) pp.3-17.
Krest, M. (1990) ‘The Reflective Writing Teacher and the Application of Knowledge.’ The English Journal. 79(5) pp.18-24.
Murray, D. (1968) A Writer Teaches Writing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ofsted (1999) The National Literacy Strategy. An evaluation of the first year of the National Literacy Strategy. London: Office for Standards in Education.
Stannard, J. & Huxford, L. (2007) The Literacy Game. The Story of the National Literacy Strategy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wyse, D. & Jones, R. (2001) Teaching English, Language and Literacy. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Activity Two.
B.2
1. The premise of the topic is based around the three perspectives on writing which are the expressive, the cognitive and the social.
2. The topic is important because of its relevance to the teaching of writing within the educational setting.
3. The part of the topic that I should write about is which particular perspective is most vital for the development of novice writers into expert writers.
4. I can illustrate the topic through the critical analysis of academic opinion and research as well as theoretical frameworks based upon each perspective on writing.
5. Other questions I can ask about the topic…?
*What are the characteristics of each perspective and how do they contribute to the development of novice writers into expert writers?
Expressive – Gained knowledge followed by spontaneous and original text composition.
Cognitive – The mental processes involved in the composition of text.
Social – The nature of the surrounding social environment in relation to the reader and the writer.
*Who were the advocates of the writing paradigms?
Expressive- Elbow, Murray.
Cognitive- Flower & Hayes.
Social- Giroux, Brice Heath.
*How does each paradigm fit into a political and historical context?
As per the readings.
6. Do I have any problems with this topic?
7. What are the solutions to these problems?
B.3
1. In regards to opinions, people can have a preference to one of the perspectives.
2. My opinion is that all three of the paradigms contain just elements and, whether writing, reading or teaching, a balanced blend to all three should be considered.
3. Through my research, I have not come across any reasons why my opinion is wrong.
4. A descriptive analysis of all three perspectives could show that my opinion is correct.
5. The text of my essay will show good reasons.
Critical comment.
When it comes to different types of artistic form such as illustration, music or writing for instance, different people have different ways of planning and execution of the form. In research leading to the writing of this essay I have learned a great deal more about planning, revision and composition. However, I have not found this particular exercise productive to the undertaking of my written work. In fact, I completed the activity after I finished my essay. When it comes to writing essays, I prefer to compile notes based on reading research which helps me to analyse and gain a thorough understanding of the topic. From journal articles to books, I copy down quotes that I feel will be vital to my work. Quite often, due to word count restrictions, I am unable to utilise a lot of the references and notes that I have jotted down. I never write drafts and I edit my work as I go along sometimes playing with different sentence structures as I progress. With each module, I have noticed that my composing process has become more and more refined. With this, I have found that I enjoy writing essays more and more as I go along.
Haiku and Triolet Activity.
Haiku:
Talker with a pen,
It isn’t impossible,
With glint in her eye.
Triolet:
She walked through the wall,
As if it wasn’t there,
Basically complex,
She walked through the wall,
Complicatedly basic,
Staring into thin air,
She walked through the wall,
As if it wasn’t there.
My process in creating the ideas for the Haiku and Triolet essentially is born out of the motivation to entertain myself through the worded illustration of personal experience. In each case, the poem describes an interaction with a person or people that I have shared common situational memories with. ‘Composition is about creating ideas, developing individual voice and being able to write in different forms for a range of purposes and audiences (Collins, 2003, p.51).’ Clearly, I am writing about enjoyable moments, nothing too deep but I am certain a whole range of people can identify with the situation of the underlying theme existing in both poems: attraction. Maintaining the formative constraints of the assignment, I have utilised the prescriptive text features of the affirmed frameworks of the Haiku and Triolet. However, within each formula I have consciously chosen to apply my own setting of creating an almost sentence structure out of each line. As in, each line could end with a full stop as opposed to run-on sentences ‘tumbling’ into the line below. To conclude, this was a highly enjoyable activity and one in which I will continue to pursue in my own time.
Word count: 195.
Reference Item:
Graham, J. & Kelly, A. (eds.) (2003) Writing Under Control. London: David Fulton.
