This week’s readings, I must admit, was a bit overwhelming for me. Nevertheless, there are salient points that are addressed that revolve around the notion of writing as technology and the cognitive process theory of writing.

I will start by addressing Ong’s article “Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought.” Of the articles, this was one I particularly enjoyed reading mostly because it is a notion that I have not ever considered, especially within today’s context in which we use the term “technology.” Ong contends that writing is essentially a technological tool as a means to communicate. However, in regards to orality, Ong addresses Plato’s view on writing as an intrusion much like the way we view computers as an intrusion to the written language, in some cases anyway. I did enjoy the analogy Ong used regarding how people need instruments in order to make music. Although humans have the ability to think about the way they would like the music to sound as well as the ability to plot the notes to create the sound, the sound could never be produced without the instrument or technology for that matter. Similarly, although humans have the ability to express themselves orally, they may not be able to express the same ever again. Ong made an interesting point about orality and the written word being permanent. Although the written word is permanent, at least we will never lose the original thought that was made because writing is far removed from the source (although this can be good and bad as he points out about burning books). With orality, when one speaks, if it isn’t understood by the audience or whomever is listening, the speaker may never really say the exact same thing he or she said initially; it is often what they perceive they said or what they feel the listener needs to hear. This may be a little off topic, but this notion reminds me of matters dealing with the consciousness and the bicameral mind as discussed in Julian Jaynes’ book, but that’s another matter, which, oddly enough, leads me to my next point about this week’s readings, the cognitive process theory.

The Flower article raises an important question regarding the writing process: “What guides the decisions writers make as they write?” Flowers’ article addresses four key points of the cognitive process theory essentially revolving around how writers organize during composing, the hierarchical structure within a structure, composition as goal driven, and the hierarchy within the goal development process. What I found to be fascinating, not because I never knew we utilize a think aloud process when we write sometimes, but to actually see it as a means of determining how people compose text when using the this model. The one point Flower points out in regards to the hierarchical sub process is the plan, translate, and review process. I think it is important to address how we should not define “revision” as only one stage of the composing process, but rather a process that can occur at any point in time. This is essential for beginning writers to realize especially since, as we know, they have been conditioned to believe it as a single, one time only stage.

Bizzell’s article attempts to answer the question about what we need to know about writing. Bizzell discusses the two theories of composition in the classroom one in which composition specialist perceive writing as a language-learning and thinking process before social influence (inner-directed) and the other as primarily a social process (outer-directed) in which language-learning and thinking is shaped by and use in specific communities. Bizzell contends that in order for the writing classroom to be effective, it is important to utilize both the inner and outer-directed approach. Moreover, she feels it is important to find patterns of discourse from all communities in order to assist students in transitioning to academic discourse. Ultimately, the belief that in order for students to address a specific writing situation, especially in academia, it is important for students to be capable of “cognitively, sophisticated thinking and writing.”

Kellogg’s emphasizes the need to acknowledge writing that involves multiple processes. Essentially what I took away from this article is the major difference between beginning writers and mature writers is the ability to determine whether or not and how the reader will be able to interpret the text. Kellogg contends that there are severe limitations that hinder the ability for beginning writers to develop the actual skill of writing. In order for these beginning writers to move from lower level to advanced writing, it is essential these writers receive not only training, but be able to utilize their knowledge. As I was reading this article, I couldn’t help but think about my field regarding teaching effectively. The argument is in order to be an effective teacher one must incorporate practical knowledge in addition to training. I am pretty sure there is no real direct connection, but I think there can be some similarities with this notion. In order to be an effective writer, one must have formal training and practical knowledge.