In response to Dr. O’Rourke’s last comment, I do think that Flower and Hayes’ cognitive model process seems familiar to me. Like I posted on Safia’s blog, I feel that the concept of “brainstorming” is no different than what Flower and Hayes identify as “the planning process.” Both of these definitions involve the act of gathering ideas and writing them down in messy, eclectic fashion.
I could also see this act of “renaming the processes” in Flower and Hayes’ other two stages of writing as well. Hey, as Billy Shakespeare put it, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
My observations of Flower and Hayes reinforce Bartholomae's claim that the cognitive process model places invention and discovery outside of the act of writing. Flower and Hayes stress that successful writers are those who set forth goals independent of other influences. Alternatively, Bartholomae believed that outside influences (not the writer's goal-setting) largely determine what one writes, what one says or cannot say. Similarly, I observed that Flower and Hayes stress the role of monitors as those who decide how long to plan ideas before shaping them into readable text. Again, this seems to support Bartholomae's claim that the discovery of ideas takes place before the act of writing.
Overall, I think that Flower and Hayes and Bartholomae all agree that writing is a process and what matters is not the product but the PROCESS of getting to that product. As Maria pointed out, this was stated pretty explicitely in both articles. Regardless of their overall agreement, I feel that these theorists have trouble reaching a consensus on where the invention aspect comes into play. Flower and Hayes' cognitive process model follows that the planning stage begins before composition, and this makes sense to me. B artholomae’s theory that invention occurs during the “task environment” and in the active writing process also makes sense to me. I don’t have a good argument for why I believe in both theories, but perhaps I’ll come to a conclusion one of these days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
First and foremost Luke and I (Maria)agree with most of your points because we mentioned them in our own synthesis response.
One part that we thought needed more clarification or was unsure about was the role of the monitors. You portrayed them to be an outside person/idea as opposed to a skill a writer has. Luke and I believe that the notion of "monitor" is the writer himself. We feel that it is an ongoing process that the writer goes through while composing the paper. It can generate discovery during the writing process as well as before. That is just our opinion as we discussed it so let us know what you think! :)
Hmm, I apologize if this was confusing, but I do agree with you that monitors are the writers themselves.
I realize the way I phrased it makes it sound as though they are seperate entities, but I am right on target with you and Luke.
Post a Comment