Bizzell Response

In Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing, Patricia Bizzell begins by asking the fundamental question of what knowledge must be had about the writing process. Originally, teachers assumed that writing style was the only necessary tool that students need; but more recently it has been realized that many students also need to be taught how to think if they are to become able writers.

Although they agree that each individual possesses the mental capacity to learn complex language structure, composition specialists tend to disagree on how writing is learned and affected by society. The first group ‘sees writing as primarily inner-directed’ (388), and is more interested in an individual’s cognitive development prior to its ‘contamination’ by native discourse communities. The other group primarily sees writing as outer-directed, and therefore is more interested in the ways that an individual’s community shapes and alters the way he/she learns language. Inner-directed theorists see cognitive development in terms of writing to have four stages: Individual, Experience, Society, and Writing situation. It is essentially a timeline, with the first location being an individual’s innate capacity to learn complex language structure, and the last stage being able to apply the conditions learned in order to direct thoughts and communication to a particular unique audience for a particular purpose. Outer-directed theorists, on the other hand, believe that fundamental structures cannot be taught, and that learning language cannot be done outside of a social context that enables it. In other words, if no discourse community that an individual belongs to exhibits formal language structure, the individual thus will not be able to learn it.

Bizzell then states that in order to answer the questions that we have about the writing process, we must borrow ideas from both schools. Therefore, she says, we should ‘think of the current debate between the two schools as a kind of fruitful exchange that enlarges knowledge, not as a process that will lead to its own termination’ (392).

Bizzell goes on to discuss Flower and Hayes, both inner-directed theorists that use Protocol analysis as their primary research tool. Bizzell points out the problem in their model- it answers only the 'why' but not 'how' part of the process. The Translating and Planning aspects of Flower/Hayes’ model become separated, with translating being the emptiest and planning being the fullest. Vygotsky contends that a model that does this will not be complete in describing the use of language, because they are not separate in the actual use of adult language.

Overall, I enjoyed Bizzell’s article and felt like it made a lot of sense. I was able to gain a better understanding of the article by synthesizing it with what we have learned about Flower and Hayes. I thought Bizzell brought on an interesting perspective and I liked how she combined the ideas from inter-directed theories and outer-directed theories. In general, I prefer inter-directed theories because I think cognitive development is key to writing success. In my academic experience, teachers have always stressed the importance of cognitive development, and so this is something I really support.