It is the nature of scientists to desire to quantify and explain any element of the natural world. This drive for objective explanations and accurate models drives the scientific community and has yielded a great deal of new information. There have been many scientific advances in medicine and technology, however some elements of society have proven to be more difficult to study and explain. One example of this is understanding the writing process. Since we do not know enough neuroscience to be able to completely explain all the elements of the writing process, cognitive psychologists have developed models based on thoughts and behavior to attempt to objectify it.
One of these models is explained in the essay “Cognitive Process Theory of Writing” by Flower and Hayes. Flower and Hayes argue that stage models of writing are not necessarily accurate because writing does not always follow the sequential order of pre-writing, writing, and revising and these stages may take nontraditional forms. They prefer to explain the writing process as “a set of distinctive thinking processes which writers orchestrate or organize during the act of composing.” However, they go on to explain the extensive cognitive process theory of writing which includes several elements. The task environment which describes the writer’s environment, including the rhetorical problem and the written text. The other’s elements are the writer’s long-term memory, and the writing processes that include planning, translating, and reviewing, Each of these components contain several contributing elements. For example, the planning stage includes generating ideas, organizing and goal setting. The overarching claim is that there is no correct order and these elements may happen sequentially, simultaneously, or may even be embedded in each other.
I thought it was interesting that the model attempted to quantify and explain every element of the entire writing process. I found it ironic that they argued against the stage model but instead present their own theory that is essentially, a complex and glorified stage model. As I read it, I did not see how it would benefit my writing because it was just too in depth to be able to identify with each stage as during writing.
The most stimulating idea that I took from this model was the inherent complexity of the writing process. The quantity and depth of information that must be integrated in the brain to achieve a seemingly simple task of writing is truly amazing. Although we may struggle with writing, we often take for granted how much our mind is subconsciously working and planning. This complexity is reflected in the difficulty to develop an accurate and accepted model or understanding of this “simple” process that is integral to our society.
I don’t necessarily support or disagree with their proposed model but I don’t think it is particularly useful to writers. Although I think it is important to think about the methods behind writing, I think that the degree of analysis and extensive labeling in this theory is a bit overkill. The writing process is so personal and varies with individual that trying to quantify it can be compared to trying to quantify imagination. I realize that different people are curious and passionate about this process and are driven to break it down and truly understand it. However, I kind of like the mystique of the writing process and the lack of rules. I am not interested in understanding the details of how people write, I am much more curious about the function of writing in society and how it changes based on the writer and the situation.
But I am also not a cognitive psychologist. And nor do I want to be.
And I will leave it at that.
Kaitlyn
No comments:
Post a Comment