Cognitive Approach and Writing Strategy

On pages 53-58, Williams states that the cognitive approach, which focused on empiricism and the scientific method, was a failure because it focused on the science behind writing rather than the art of writing. After reading the articles by Flowers and Hayes and Sommers, how have your opinions about the cognitive approach been affected? Are there lessons we can learn from the cognitive approach that we can use to help others improve their writing?

I believe writing is an art form. No matter how hard we try, we will not be able to boil writing down to a set of instructions that, when properly followed, will produce a great piece of writing every time. Writing will always require creativity, ingenuity, and imagination- skills that can't be simply taught to students. That being said, I still think the cognitive approach provides us with great insights into what is going on in the heads of good and poor writers. For instance, Flower and Hayes showed us how good writers spend more time thinking about the goals of their writing as well as their audience. Sommers show us how, when revising, poor writers concentrate on word choice while experienced writers focuse on developing or modifying ideas.

After studying the work of cognitive psychologists, we can take their findings and apply them in the classroom. For example, when teaching novice writers about revision, we can stress the importance of ideas and formulate lesson plans that help students create a concept of revision that isn't solely characterized by rewording. Because cognitive psychology shows us some of the differences in the thinking patterns between good and poor writers, we can mold our teaching strategies to focus on improving the good thinking patterns while weeding out the thinking patterns that limit students' writing.

Williams pg.43-53

In Kinneavy's A Theory of Discourse, he emphasizes the important relationship between classical rhetoric and composition. What aspects of classical rhetoric can we draw upon in order to create better methodologies for teaching writing and composition?

One criticism of the current-traditional method was that it concentrated too much on the pragmatic uses of writing. A focus on pragmatism results in either busy work, letter writing, or book reports that are merely summaries of what the student has read. When A Theory of Discourse was published, it challenged this methodology by arguing that writing was a social action that had the ability to create knowledge, instead of simply rehashing current knowledge. By viewing writing as a social action, we no longer see it as a "form of examination" but also as a form of communication in which the audience matters just as much as the writer. By approaching writing with the audience in mind, we see that there is a lot to learn from classical rhetoricians.

Take Aristotle for example. His three rhetorical proofs- ethos, logos, and pathos- all stressed the importance of the audience to which one was speaking. He taught his students how emotion, author credibility, and reason could all be utilized to make a speech more effective. When applied to writing, these proofs can help writers create more sound and persuasive arguments by considering one's audience. Another classical rhetorician we can learn from is Isocrates. He believed in the knowledge-creating ability of rhetoric. While some rhetoricians thought that the common man would never be able to understand philosophy, Isocrates thought that speech was the perfect way to enlighten others. When teaching writing, it is important to emphasize the knowledge-generating capabilities of writing. Otherwise, students may come to view writing as tool used simply for reiterating what their teachers have told them.