Flower and Hayes Response

Flower and Hayes' article summarizes their personal view of cognitive process theory. In this view, cognitive process theory rests on four key points: (1) the process of writing is best understood as a set of distinctive thinking processes which writers organize during the act of composing; (2) these processes have a hierarchical organization in which any given process can be contained in any other; (3) the act of composing itself is a goal-directed process determined by the author; (4) writers create their own goals in two key ways: by generating high-level goals and supporting goals, and by changing/remaking goals based on what has been learned (p274).

In Flower and Hayes' cognitive process theory of writing, the authors stray from the usual paradigm of writing stages. Instead of using major units of analysis as stages of completion, the major units of analysis are seen as elementary mental processes. The advantage of doing this is that researchers (teachers/tutors in terms most applicable to us) can compare the composing strategies of good and bad writers.

Flower and Hayes believe that the act of writing involves three major elements: the task environment, the writer's long-term memory, and the writing process. The task environment includes everything outside of "the writer's skin." Each word in the text determines what word choices can come next. In turn, this causes the writer to contribute a great deal of time and attention during composition. The second element of writing is the writer's long term memory, which is where the writer has stored knowledge of audience and writing plans. Long-term memory, unlike short-term, is relatively stable and provides the writer with organized information. Flower and Hayes take up two main issues with long-term memory. First, some writers have trouble accessing all of the things inside of it. Second, when they do access this information, they cannot take it for face value- they must mold it to fit their rhetorical purposes.

The third element, the writing process, seems to be a little more complex than the first two elements. It contains three processes: Planning, Translating, and Reviewing. In the planning process, writers form internal representations of the knowledge that will be used in their writing. This is usually more abstract than what the writers would use in rough drafts and is best suited for brainstorming purposes. The planning process involves a number of sub-processes, most obviously the act of generating ideas. After all, where else could a writer start? In addition, planning encompasses the act of organization and also the process of goal-setting. It is crucial that these goals are the ones set forth by the writers and not their outside influences. The second element of the writing process, translating, is basically the act of putting the “planning” ideas into words. The information generated in planning may be in code or messy notes but this is the stage where it must be clearly restated. The final writing process, reviewing, requires both evaluating and revising.

Flower and Hayes also make note of how writers function as “monitors,” or strategists who decide when to move from one process to the next. For example, monitors determine how long they might spend planning ideas before translating them into readable English language.

Overall, I was able to understand majority of Flower and Hayes’ cognitive process theory of writing. I could logically follow what the authors said about the three major elements of writing. These elements made perfect sense to me. In a way, I thought Flower and Hayes’ theory was really nothing new. I felt like the authors were defining their processes in the same exact terms I have seen a thousand times. For example, the “planning” process of writing is not any different than my understanding of brainstorming. Both processes require writers to generate ideas and neither process requires writers to put these ideas into coherent sentences.

Towards the end of the article, I began to stumble over what the authors were saying. I think I got the main points of this article, but I hope to clear up anything I may have missed in classroom discussion. If anyone reads this and notices that I’m way off target, please feel free to post and set me straight. :)