Choices of Our Inqusition

Both Linda Flower and John Hayes brought up many interesting theories of the cognitive Process in their work "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing"(273). They have found that there is a tradition in looking at rhetoric an composition "process as a series of decisions and choices" (273). If one excepts that as truth, then they question how does one "govern that choice"? Thus being the very topic of their research -- why we write what we do. There is a great model of the "Structure of the Writing Process" (278).

It tries to visually layout out process of how writers do many things at once to formulate a written product. The three major cognitive processes it also points out are: planning, translating, and reviewing. It also points out that we use this and several other sub processes individually or simultaneously depending on how well our knowledge is on the subject or purpose at hand.

Then cognitive theory states we also write in hierarchy. In that we write initially as it flows out, translating our thoughts (284). It is through revision do we review our work to make sure our translation is lost by running it through other literary filters in or writing toolbox. Then, Repeat!!!!

Cognitive theory also states "writing is a goal-orientated process" (286). One first needs a purpose and an opinion. Then one needs to plan how to convey what has already been there, why it's important, and where the purpose is going. All the time being very conscious of what there goal is and that their personal slant is not infecting the research, but finding enough research to create a claim to further dialogue.

I liked the model of the writing process very much in that it tried to show how very interactive the whole writing purpose really is. However, I think that it would have been more effective if it had used line variation in order to further show the intense fluidity between processes.

The article claimed "acceptance of Pre-Writing has helped improve the teaching of composition by calling attention to planning and discovery" (275). However, lacked the acknowledgement accepting post-process theory would help further validate that we write in-turn. Meaning on a large scale to invoke the next writer to continue, compare, or tear apart our literary works to continue to grow in society. But I will give props in that they quoted Sommers idea that revision is "not the end-of-the-line repair process" but cycling the clarity of their purpose while writing when one is considered a skilled writer.