Patrick Gabbard
Annotated Bibliography: Cognition and Writing
I chose to focus on Cognitive approaches for my paper because of a rather sobering passage from the ‘Fault Lines In The Contact Zone’ article by Richard Miller; Miller engages the larger implications of problematic/inappropriate texts that make their way into the classroom discourse. While student essays such as the infamous ‘Queers, Bums, And Magic’ are problematic in and of themselves for obvious reasons, Miller goes on to make what is in my view a rather scathing indictment of college-level composition courses in general and rhetoric-composition pedagogy in particular:
“One has to wonder why it is that, at a time when almost all of the current major theories on the rise celebrate partial readings, multiple subjectivities, marginalized positions, and subjugated knowledges, nearly all student essays remain essentially illegible, offered forth more often than not as the space where error exercises its full reign, or, as here, the site where some untutored evil shows its face. There seems, in other words, to be little evidence of what one might call "poststructural" or "postcolonial" trickledown, little sign that the theoretical insights that carry so much weight in our journals actually make themselves known in the pedagogical practices deployed in classrooms across the country.”
Miller is pointing out a rather grim reality here: It’s bad enough that Scott Lankford had to engage with ‘Queers, Bums, And Magic’ in the classroom in any context, and it’s bad enough that Lankford was forced to frame the essay itself as a legitimate example of student writing in any context, even a supposedly fictional one. But the worst implication lies in the fact that for as much as Rhetoric-Composition instructors seem willing and even eager to parse and mangle the theoretical matter of their discipline, there’s little or no evidence that any of these major theories are actually working, little or no evidence that composition students are actually becoming better or more effective writers. And in my view, the problem here is that no one has ever actually bothered to look for a concrete, identifiable and above all quantifiable spectrum of indicators as to what actually works in the classroom.
Barritt, L. S., & Kroll, B. M. (1978). Some Implications Of Cognitive-Developmental Psychology For Research In Composing. In C. R. Cooper, & L. Odell (Eds.), Research On Composing: Points Of Departure (pp. 49-57). Urbana, IL: National Council Of Teachers Of English.
This article attempts to synthesize certain crucial developments in the field of developmental psychology with research into the role of cognition in composing. It also draws , at least partially, from philosophy and linguistics. The article is torturous to read in places, especially to anyone who is unfamiliar with the myriad disciplines listed above. However, the section on error was insightful. As I was grappling for a way to frame the composition classroom in spatial-psychological terms, I was looking for an effective but credible way to make the point that the classroom should be a space where mistakes are allowed, even encouraged, as long as the student continues to become acquainted with his or her own distinctive writing process.
Berkenkotter, C. (1994). Decisions And Revisions: The Planning Strategies Of A Publishing Writer. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 127-140). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
This was an entertaining and insightful article, even if by limiting herself to the observation of a single colleague for whom her affection is obvious, it was a bit narrow in scope. Even so, the article was unflinchingly honest, and provided a clear illustration of the problems and difficulties that are part and parcel of the observation and study of process and cognition as they apply to writing. This article helped me to formulate two core ideas to this paper. Obviously, that empirical observation of cognition, process, and composing are difficult, and also the idea that beyond acclimation and general comfort, professional writers don't seem to be possessed of some core truth or idea that nonprofessional writers lack. Professional writers are comfortable with themselves and the error, redundancy, and recursive elements of the writing process.
Emig, J. (1978). Hand, Eye, Brain: Some Basics In The Writing Process. In C. R. Cooper, & L. Odell (Eds.), Research On Composing: Points Of Departure (pp. 59-72). Urbana, IL: National Council Of Teachers Of English.
Despite all her efforts to the contrary, I still think Emig applies a somewhat narrow definition to the idea of process here-a little too micro-theoretical-in Reither's parlance. Even so, I found that this article was actually quite effective in framing both cognition and process in immediate and concrete terms. This article did nonetheless broaden my understanding of cognition and process, and helped me to see cognition in process as the convergence of several internal and external factors and stimuli. This also helped me understand-or remember-that questions of cognition and writing aside, the act of composition is one that engages several other crucial sensorimotor and physical processes, ideas that seem conspicuously absent from many other studies into cognition. In layman's terms, this source brought cognition 'out of the brain' just a little bit, and made it more approachable.
Hairston, M. (1994). The Winds Of Change: Thomas Kuhn And The Revolution In The Teaching Of Writing. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 113-126). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
This seminal article discusses the evolution of composition in scientific terms through the lens of Thomas Kuhn's monograph 'The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions'. Hairston applies Kuhn's principle that scientific innovation occurs in a piecemeal and uneven fashion across scientific disciplines as a response to problems or perceived gaps in knowledge to composition. Modern composition repudiated the 'vitalist' model that writing can't be taught and replaced it with the idea that writing could be taught and if we need to know how we should try and look at what happens when people write. We read this piece in class, so I tried not to lean on it too much, although there were times where I was frustrated because it seemed like so many theorists and authorities in composition were parsing and reparsing some of Hairston's ideas. However, this source did give me a certain comfort level in my discussion and reflections on cognition, and it also helped me to find a sort of internal syntax as I was constructing my draft.
Perl, S. (1994). Understanding Composing. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 99-107). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
This short article frames composition as a process where meaning is crafted, and also sets out to truly explain and delineate the significance of the recursive dimension of composing, which served as its greatest composition to my paper. I did encounter one problem with this source in that Perl does devote some effort to an attempt to explain and articulate the cathartic moment in composition, where meaning and purpose reveal themselves in a sudden, elegant flash. In constructing this draft, this was an element of cognition I never felt comfortable talking about, even if I am a poet. I don't think this discussion is necessarily pointless, just difficult and worthy enough of a paper in its own right. In constructing this draft, I wanted to stress tangibility and utility, and I felt that any discussion of the cathartic moment was prone to lapse into a counterproductive reflection on philosophy and metaphysics.
Reither, J. A. (1994). Writing And Knowing: Toward Redefining The Writing Process. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 141-148). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
In this piece, Reither discusses the evolution and impact of cognitive approaches to composition and argues for a broader-based and more constructive approach to process and cognition. He argues that there is a need for a macro-theoretical understanding of process that takes into account external factors. Any discussion of process must take into account the social-rhetorical context in which writing takes place, and that as far as cognition is concerned, composition instructors should be equally concerned with identifying the situations and contexts in which effective writing takes place as they are with trying to understand what goes on inside the mind of someone who sits down to write. This piece contributed to my application of cognitive approaches in a classroom setting, and also helped me to construct a definition of process as a convergence of internal and external factors. It also helped me to understand the nature of the interaction between prescriptive, product-based pedagogies and descriptive, product based pedagogies.
Rose, M. (1994). Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, And The Stifling Of Language. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 85-98). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
This piece provided an immediate, entertaining, but nonetheless informative look at the counterproductive processes and practices of 'typical' undergraduate writers. It also inspired the title for this paper. This source was particularly helpful in the formulation of the idea that if process-based pedagogies stress process and not product, problems can still arise if too much emphasis is placed on any one phase of the composition process as it plays out in the classroom, and also brought home the idea, based on classroom experiences I've had with some of my own students over the years, that process work, at least for some students, can become an actual substitute for the construction of the draft. This source helped immensely with my application of cognition and process directly to the classroom. And yes, I am a Martha.
Runciman, L. (1994). Fun. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 199-205). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press .
I turned to this source mainly out of frustration. Runciman grapples with the problem of why exactly, despite all of our efforts to the contrary, writing still seems like torture to many of our students, even when they are writing about or discussing topics that they ostensibly enjoy. She argues that since many student writers equate 'writing' with 'work' that this lends a very real degree of psychic anguish to the act of composition. Runciman makes the point that writers write best when they are enjoying themselves, and they only enjoy themselves when they have the tools to approach a rhetorical task on their own terms and with their own knowledge. I was particularly intrigued by the idea of the composition classroom as a chaotic space. This helped immensely as I was searching for a broader, more effective label to describe the tone and feel of cognition and writing outside of the repetitive labels and signifiers already prevalent across the literature.
Annotated Bibliography: Cognition and Writing
I chose to focus on Cognitive approaches for my paper because of a rather sobering passage from the ‘Fault Lines In The Contact Zone’ article by Richard Miller; Miller engages the larger implications of problematic/inappropriate texts that make their way into the classroom discourse. While student essays such as the infamous ‘Queers, Bums, And Magic’ are problematic in and of themselves for obvious reasons, Miller goes on to make what is in my view a rather scathing indictment of college-level composition courses in general and rhetoric-composition pedagogy in particular:
“One has to wonder why it is that, at a time when almost all of the current major theories on the rise celebrate partial readings, multiple subjectivities, marginalized positions, and subjugated knowledges, nearly all student essays remain essentially illegible, offered forth more often than not as the space where error exercises its full reign, or, as here, the site where some untutored evil shows its face. There seems, in other words, to be little evidence of what one might call "poststructural" or "postcolonial" trickledown, little sign that the theoretical insights that carry so much weight in our journals actually make themselves known in the pedagogical practices deployed in classrooms across the country.”
Miller is pointing out a rather grim reality here: It’s bad enough that Scott Lankford had to engage with ‘Queers, Bums, And Magic’ in the classroom in any context, and it’s bad enough that Lankford was forced to frame the essay itself as a legitimate example of student writing in any context, even a supposedly fictional one. But the worst implication lies in the fact that for as much as Rhetoric-Composition instructors seem willing and even eager to parse and mangle the theoretical matter of their discipline, there’s little or no evidence that any of these major theories are actually working, little or no evidence that composition students are actually becoming better or more effective writers. And in my view, the problem here is that no one has ever actually bothered to look for a concrete, identifiable and above all quantifiable spectrum of indicators as to what actually works in the classroom.
Barritt, L. S., & Kroll, B. M. (1978). Some Implications Of Cognitive-Developmental Psychology For Research In Composing. In C. R. Cooper, & L. Odell (Eds.), Research On Composing: Points Of Departure (pp. 49-57). Urbana, IL: National Council Of Teachers Of English.
This article attempts to synthesize certain crucial developments in the field of developmental psychology with research into the role of cognition in composing. It also draws , at least partially, from philosophy and linguistics. The article is torturous to read in places, especially to anyone who is unfamiliar with the myriad disciplines listed above. However, the section on error was insightful. As I was grappling for a way to frame the composition classroom in spatial-psychological terms, I was looking for an effective but credible way to make the point that the classroom should be a space where mistakes are allowed, even encouraged, as long as the student continues to become acquainted with his or her own distinctive writing process.
Berkenkotter, C. (1994). Decisions And Revisions: The Planning Strategies Of A Publishing Writer. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 127-140). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
This was an entertaining and insightful article, even if by limiting herself to the observation of a single colleague for whom her affection is obvious, it was a bit narrow in scope. Even so, the article was unflinchingly honest, and provided a clear illustration of the problems and difficulties that are part and parcel of the observation and study of process and cognition as they apply to writing. This article helped me to formulate two core ideas to this paper. Obviously, that empirical observation of cognition, process, and composing are difficult, and also the idea that beyond acclimation and general comfort, professional writers don't seem to be possessed of some core truth or idea that nonprofessional writers lack. Professional writers are comfortable with themselves and the error, redundancy, and recursive elements of the writing process.
Emig, J. (1978). Hand, Eye, Brain: Some Basics In The Writing Process. In C. R. Cooper, & L. Odell (Eds.), Research On Composing: Points Of Departure (pp. 59-72). Urbana, IL: National Council Of Teachers Of English.
Despite all her efforts to the contrary, I still think Emig applies a somewhat narrow definition to the idea of process here-a little too micro-theoretical-in Reither's parlance. Even so, I found that this article was actually quite effective in framing both cognition and process in immediate and concrete terms. This article did nonetheless broaden my understanding of cognition and process, and helped me to see cognition in process as the convergence of several internal and external factors and stimuli. This also helped me understand-or remember-that questions of cognition and writing aside, the act of composition is one that engages several other crucial sensorimotor and physical processes, ideas that seem conspicuously absent from many other studies into cognition. In layman's terms, this source brought cognition 'out of the brain' just a little bit, and made it more approachable.
Hairston, M. (1994). The Winds Of Change: Thomas Kuhn And The Revolution In The Teaching Of Writing. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 113-126). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
This seminal article discusses the evolution of composition in scientific terms through the lens of Thomas Kuhn's monograph 'The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions'. Hairston applies Kuhn's principle that scientific innovation occurs in a piecemeal and uneven fashion across scientific disciplines as a response to problems or perceived gaps in knowledge to composition. Modern composition repudiated the 'vitalist' model that writing can't be taught and replaced it with the idea that writing could be taught and if we need to know how we should try and look at what happens when people write. We read this piece in class, so I tried not to lean on it too much, although there were times where I was frustrated because it seemed like so many theorists and authorities in composition were parsing and reparsing some of Hairston's ideas. However, this source did give me a certain comfort level in my discussion and reflections on cognition, and it also helped me to find a sort of internal syntax as I was constructing my draft.
Perl, S. (1994). Understanding Composing. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 99-107). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
This short article frames composition as a process where meaning is crafted, and also sets out to truly explain and delineate the significance of the recursive dimension of composing, which served as its greatest composition to my paper. I did encounter one problem with this source in that Perl does devote some effort to an attempt to explain and articulate the cathartic moment in composition, where meaning and purpose reveal themselves in a sudden, elegant flash. In constructing this draft, this was an element of cognition I never felt comfortable talking about, even if I am a poet. I don't think this discussion is necessarily pointless, just difficult and worthy enough of a paper in its own right. In constructing this draft, I wanted to stress tangibility and utility, and I felt that any discussion of the cathartic moment was prone to lapse into a counterproductive reflection on philosophy and metaphysics.
Reither, J. A. (1994). Writing And Knowing: Toward Redefining The Writing Process. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 141-148). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
In this piece, Reither discusses the evolution and impact of cognitive approaches to composition and argues for a broader-based and more constructive approach to process and cognition. He argues that there is a need for a macro-theoretical understanding of process that takes into account external factors. Any discussion of process must take into account the social-rhetorical context in which writing takes place, and that as far as cognition is concerned, composition instructors should be equally concerned with identifying the situations and contexts in which effective writing takes place as they are with trying to understand what goes on inside the mind of someone who sits down to write. This piece contributed to my application of cognitive approaches in a classroom setting, and also helped me to construct a definition of process as a convergence of internal and external factors. It also helped me to understand the nature of the interaction between prescriptive, product-based pedagogies and descriptive, product based pedagogies.
Rose, M. (1994). Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, And The Stifling Of Language. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 85-98). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
This piece provided an immediate, entertaining, but nonetheless informative look at the counterproductive processes and practices of 'typical' undergraduate writers. It also inspired the title for this paper. This source was particularly helpful in the formulation of the idea that if process-based pedagogies stress process and not product, problems can still arise if too much emphasis is placed on any one phase of the composition process as it plays out in the classroom, and also brought home the idea, based on classroom experiences I've had with some of my own students over the years, that process work, at least for some students, can become an actual substitute for the construction of the draft. This source helped immensely with my application of cognition and process directly to the classroom. And yes, I am a Martha.
Runciman, L. (1994). Fun. In S. Perl (Ed.), Landmark Essays On Writing Process (pp. 199-205). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press .
I turned to this source mainly out of frustration. Runciman grapples with the problem of why exactly, despite all of our efforts to the contrary, writing still seems like torture to many of our students, even when they are writing about or discussing topics that they ostensibly enjoy. She argues that since many student writers equate 'writing' with 'work' that this lends a very real degree of psychic anguish to the act of composition. Runciman makes the point that writers write best when they are enjoying themselves, and they only enjoy themselves when they have the tools to approach a rhetorical task on their own terms and with their own knowledge. I was particularly intrigued by the idea of the composition classroom as a chaotic space. This helped immensely as I was searching for a broader, more effective label to describe the tone and feel of cognition and writing outside of the repetitive labels and signifiers already prevalent across the literature.