Studio Journal Entry Two For this second studio journal, I brought in an article from the Dartmouth Institute of Writing and Rhetoric, entitled “Teaching Writing as a Process.” This article outlined in extensive detail the steps to the conventional cognitive writing process, offering insight on process vs. product, invention, composing, and revision, as well as facilitating the writing process. To me, this article read almost as a guide for students who weren’t able to access a writing or tutoring center and needed such support remotely, or classroom instructors who needed guidance in promoting student writing, such was its level of detail. I found this particularly compelling because it seemed to reinforce the cognitive belief of writing as a process of the mind, something that can be taught through a detailed instruction manual rather than necessitating face-to-face interaction. The connection to cognitivism seemed clear to both me and my colleagues in unpacking this article - Linda Flower is even quoted in the introductory segment. This article clearly outlined the steps involved in the writing process, defining them as somewhat linear and sequential, outlining each of their importance in arriving at a complete piece. Though the content of the article deviated a bit from being purely cognitive (as I will address below), the outline and general structure appeared almost mechanical. This led my colleagues and I to question: if the writing process can be reduced to a formula, what is the purpose of teaching writing at all? This seemed a particularly pertinent statement about writing coming from such a renowned institution as Dartmouth. My colleagues each shared cognitive artifacts as well. Sarah shared a metacognitive writing prompt for a class of high school seniors in which students had to break down and analyze their own writing process by sorting through the ideas behind every sentence in their essays. Though a bit of an extreme example, this practice offers a way to keep various ‘steps’ of the cognitive process in conversation with each other, from composition to revision. It shows how the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of writing can connect to each other, as suggested in our readings. Soo Yong shared a resume outline, where applicants could enter answers into a prescribed format to reach a completed product. This to me seemed like an interdisciplinary approach to cognitivism, showing how the mechanical, formulaic mindset of creation can be applied to other disciplines. It also begs the question: who is inventing and defining this formula, this process that students must adhere to for success? I personally really appreciated how this clearly cognitive writing instrument paid reference and homage to other writing theories and practices. For instance, the article starts off the segment on inventing by stating: “Invention includes everything that a student does before beginning to compose a paper. Of course, students don't stop inventing when they've begun to compose. And they are composing even as they invent. But for the sake of this conversation, we'll let the categories stand.” I appreciated this acknowledgement of how the cognitive ‘process’ sometimes feels incomplete or inaccurate to experience. I feel like the cognitive process is a tool used for writing instruction, and like any tool, it has its uses and its shortcomings. The article also suggested lots of places where students and their teachers could employ more social strategies, such as question-and-answer, or draft exchanges either in person or online. I really liked how this article seemed to use cognitivism as an overarching format, then allowed space for scholars to employ practices from other writing theories and frameworks within the cognitive structure. This is the way I think I would use and teach cognitivism: as a structure that could offer some kind of scaffolding for writers to begin their process. My feelings are summed up nicely by a quote from the composing section of the article: “Why? Again, because readers expect it. Can this expectation be violated? Sure. But you need to craft the paragraph exceptionally well if you're going to violate your reader's expectations.” Cognitivism sets up an expectation, a framework for readers to start with. It can be broken down, karate-chopped to bits and then reformulated later, but the cognitive process provides the materials from which students can begin to build.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
|