Elisa Garcia
EDTE 205
Journal #8
In response to: "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing" by Linda Flower and John R. Hayes
I really enjoyed this piece because it challenged me to think metacognitively about my own
writing process. I have to agree with the authors and found that my process was nearly
identical to their process. What I found to be most intriguing is how they compare "good and
poor" writers and what skills or processes one possesses or lacks. I could see myself in this
because it was not until college that I feel I became a skilled writer and that was due mostly to
what the authors described as goal setting. As an inexperienced writer I set huge, unrealistic
goals or looked at the instructions or prompt to set my goals for me. I can see now how that
limited my other processes of planning, translating and reviewing because I never really got at
the text environment.
I also identified with the fact the Cognitive Process Theory of Writing and my own writing
process are not stagnant or linear. On the contrary, especially my writing process, is constantly
changing and adapting by the process of writing. No matter how much pre-writing or planning I
do, sometimes it is the act of creating prose that dictates the product. I am convinced more
now than before that like reading, writing might not be something that can be taught. Rather, it
is through practice and exposure that can develop the set of skills. The authors did not spend a
lot of time discussing but alluded to the fact that learning the skills of writing, such as the parts
of speech, sentence and paragraph structure, help a writer become more automatic.
My process that I described before reading this article consisted of the following: read the
prompt and take a stance on issue (rhetorical problem), make mental outline of direction
(planning), start free writing with intent to go back and edit (translating with monitoring) and
re-read and edit (reviewing, evaluating and revising). Therefore, my process was nearly the
same as the one described by the authors. For me, it is a process that I have developed and
made better through practice; it certainly was not something that I studied or was taught.
When reading this article it was easy to make some obvious connections to other articles
describing the reading process. First, I thought it was interesting how the cognitive writing
theory was not linear and stressed how it was not a step or process based model. This was a
similar argument made by Goodman and Smith in criticism of LaBerge and Samuels' model.
Through our discussions in class I feel we have made the conclusion that the reading process is
not linear or controlled but rather a dynamic and evolving process. In a lot of ways, Flower and
Hayes convinced me of the same thing in the writing process. Another connection I made with
this reading and the LaBerge and Samuels Model is that of automaticity. Again, it makes sense
in both the reading and writing models that when things, whether it be decoding or sentence
structure, become automatic, the person can divert their attention to other things (i.e.
comprehension or goal setting).
This also connected to the interactive and transactive models of Rumelhart and Rosenblatt for
me because of all the stimuli being thrown at a writer as they write. It, like reading, is not a
closed system. This was most evident by the episodes described later in the article. Tons of
thoughts are going through a writer's mind simultaneously while they are planning, translating
etc... The prior knowledge and schema piece is also very important and offers another
comparison for the reading and writing processes. In both cases, it seems obvious that the
process becomes easier for those with schema to start.
Again, I am left feeling bittersweet after reading another article. I feel like each week I have an
"ah hah" moment but then am let down when I ask myself, "how does this translate into the
classroom?" I understand this is not a methods course, but I am forced to wonder, if I had not
started my masters in education would I have ever learned this? I certainly have learned more
in the several weeks in this class than my entire teaching credential. So, if I am getting it now,
thankfully, and hopefully I will be able to use some of it in practice, what about all those other
teachers who never got it? What about their students?