Bizzell

Early in her article Patricia Bizzell makes the comment that some teachers of English have begun to take the attitude that in addition to teaching writing they have to teach some of the student's to think as well. Judging by some of the terms for less experienced writers that other authors have used it wouldn't surprise me if that was exactly the attitude they had. On a brighter note the main focus of this article was to describe two different ways that theorists have tried to understand writing. Bizzell points out the strengths and flaws of each way of analysis and then lays out a way to combine the theories that might create a more productive method of inquiry into the writing process.

Bizzel suggests that one of the main groups of theorists is more interested in the structure of language learning and/or thinking processes. She calls this group inner-directed. Since this was written in 1982 it's not a surprise that she mentions Flower and Hayes as prominent members of this group. Understanding the writing process for each individual is of more importance to this group than understanding/acknowleding the society or writing situation that might also influence a writer. These theorists think that there are certain univeral fundamentals of thought and language which can be taught. The models in our They Say/I say book might be examples of universal fundamentals which can be taught. As Bizzell states the goal is to first learn a model then change/alter ones wording depending on the situation.

Bizzell defines their oppositon as outer directed theorists (surprise!). The social context is most important for these theorists and thinking and language are always connected to it. One claim these theorists make that seems like it might be interesting to think about more is that even an infant learning a language is in a discourse community because he/she will likely understand the language in a way that unique to her surroundings. Bizzell hammers home the point that outer-directed theorists want to study conventions of different discourse communities.

Once this basic setup is complete Bizzell critiques Flower and Hayes. Bizzell says that ultimately Flower and Hayes develop the assumption that the mental activities of an individual don't change no matter what problem they are trying to solve. When the theory is described that bluntly I find that I have a hard time agreeing with the theory of Flower and Hayes. In one of the blog's I read someone mentioned that it seemed like Flower and Hayes just renamed a lot of the same terms. We did discuss the term "The Montior" as if it were a new concept and I'm not sure we as a class reached a concensus on what exactly it was. Bizzell points out that their study is a mix of daunty complexity and disappointing familiarity but I think she feels it is mostly too familiar. Reading her explanations for terms such as translatting and goal-setting I agree that we've heard these terms maybe even before taking this course. Even the monitor, when Bizzell breaks down the theory, proves not to be some awe inspiring discovery of Flower and Hayes. The problem with Flower and Hayes' research and with most inner-directed theory is that it fails to explain where knowledge came from.

Bizzell says that while Flower and Hayes would like to place poor student performance on insufficient cognitive development perhaps we should also examine how familiar students are with the discourse community. A professor should take time to make student's familiar with conventions of writing expected in their school.

Flower and Hayes have provided the form of the composing process but left out the content. Conventions of the discourse community are the content with is missing.

One study we read compared student writers to professional writers. Of course the study suggested the revising process of the professional writers was superior. Bizzell suggests the composing process might also be superior because students don't feel their writing will have an impact on the real world. I agree with this argument made by Bizzell and would suggest in response to the revising study that perhaps the reaon student's simply revised grammar was because they believed that was the easiest way to earn a good grade.

Unfortunately we can't simply focus on outer-directed theories. The teaching of them seems unrefined, at least in the process which is described by Bizzell. (what exactly is happening with the computers?!?!)

Bizzell ends by arguing against seeking certainty or commonplace in the teaching of writing. It seemed to me that she was making an argument outer-directed theorists would make. My question to Bizzell would be- could a teacher presented a theory as common place and then have the students work to prove the theory wrong. It would be a powerful expereince for the student's if they could prove that a way something was previously judged should be reexamined or discarded altogether.