"Now I have to teach them to think too?" Or can I?

Patricia Bizzel's article "Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know About Writing" has an interesting take on the current issues seen in the classroom. She start by saying that the comp classroom use to be where teachers helped place ideas on paper, teach style, and exposure to "good" models will help those not creatively inclined in language arts. However, she notes that today’s teacher has to not "only convey information but also...transform students' whole world view"(387). The most current issue seen today is trouble writing Standard English and almost all are agreed that "writing has to do with the thinking processes involved in it (388).

Bizzel then goes on to state where composition specialists agree and disagree. The agreement is: "there are some fundamental elements in the development of language and thought", language can be learned, as well as complex conceptual structures. Then the ultimate test of mastery, of said abilities, are tested in the field of society through engagement with others. The disagreement is which part of "writing is relevant to composition studies" (388).

There are two "camps"; one is writing is primarily inner-directed and the other is writing is out directed. "In the current debate, each camp seeks to define what we MOST need to know about writing"(388). Inner-directed theorists seek to discover that the writing process are fundamental which equals universalism. They also think that language dictates the how we write. If there is no word for what is needed to convey meaning how can one convey it through writing? They also believe these fundamental structures of thought and language can be taught. They also teach through audience analysis (390). Outer0directed theorists debate that thought and language processes can NOT be taught and looks into discourse analysis (analyzing community). "Audience analysis aims to persuade readers that you're right; it is to dress your argument in flattering apparel. Discourse analysis aims to enable you to make that argument, to do the intellectual work of significance to the community, and hence, to persuade readers that you are a worthy co-worker" (392). It is also important to note that Bizzel defines discourse community as Stanley Fish does through " "interpretive community'...whose language-using habits are part of a larger pattern of regular interaction with the material world"(398).

Bizzel also tears into Flower and Hayes's "process theory" model a lot. She gives the props for continuing to revise it in the beginning. But then attacks the "goal setting" process because the WHY of why we goal set is not researchable (399). In that even through the lens of protocol analysis --the bridging of articulation of the writing process and the writing process of the test writer--is still an interpretive lens and is not near 100% effective to see into why people do what they do.

I think this article is highly relatable to my own composition experiences. I have noticed my own writing process develop as my vocabulary has. I also agree more with outer-directed theorists in that word choice does dictate my word choice and structure development. I agree also that students are not ready for real world application in that they loose their creative nature in most academic settings and therefore write to the limited audience of the institution. Unfortunately, this will inevitably create a large problem in life after a syllabus. So hopefully we will figure out the why and start up the writing process in the next generation.