Flower & Hayes, 1981. Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Summary: In this article, Flower and Hayes discuss what guides the decisions writers make and introduce a theory of the cognitive processes involved in writing. To develop their theory, they engaged in protocol analysis which involves asking writers to compose, or think aloud, as they compose. These “think-alouds” are recorded, transcribed, and then examined alongside other artifacts, such as notes, and actual manuscripts. This process does not involve introspection because it has often been inaccurate and participants responded with what they thought they should be doing, rather than their actual processes.

They begin with a brief synopsis of others’ views on this decision-making process. Kinneavy asserts that purpose directs a writer’s choices. Moffett and Gibson suggest writer’s choices are guided by speaker, subject, and audience. Bitzer posits a situation directs a writer’s choices related to response, audience, and constraints. According to Vatz, “imagination and art of the speaker” (p. 365) guide a writer’s decisions. Finally, they explain Britton’s stance that suggests syntactic and lexical selections drive the process.

Four key points of the cognitive process theory are:

1. Writing is a “set of distinctive thinking processes” (p. 366). This is in contrast to the linear, stage process model that reflects the growth of the product. The stage process model misses the interconnectedness of the processes. The cognitive process model is a dynamic system—not linear in nature, but frequently recursive.

2. “Processes have a hierarchical, highly embedded organization …any process can be embedded in another” (p. 366). The processes include plan, translate, and review and they are dynamic and flexible—not fixed, or linear.

3. Composing is a goal-directed thinking process. Each writer has his/her own “growing network of goals” (p. 366).

4. Writers create goals in 2 ways: generating high level goals and supporting sub-goals or by changing major goals or determining new ones.

Writing involves: “the task environment, the writer’s long-term memory, and the writing processes” (p. 369). Task environment involves the topic, audience, and exigency, along with the written text. The writing process includes planning, translating, and reviewing. Flower and Hayes note the tension for the writer between their plans, knowledge (of the subject, topic, and audience), and the actual growing text. As the writer negotiates these tensions, plans may change, so the writer may readjust their goals and begin again with these various processes at different places. Poor writer’s often focus on low-level goals, such as spelling or finishing a sentence. Basic writers look for ready- made goals, rather than creating their own. Planning involves sub-processes: generating ideas, organizing, and goal setting. According to Flower and Hayes, goals are “created by the writer” (p. 373), and good writers appear to generate ideas, organize, and revise their goals while writing in a recursive manner. Translating is the idea of “putting ideas into visible language” (p. 373).

Translating requires the writer to juggle the many demands of writing. Flower and Hayes note that inexperienced writers may be so focused on the demands of writing, such as spelling and letter formation that they cannot attend cognitively to the processes of planning, along with composing. According to Shaughnessy, focus on the demands of writing, or focus on composing without sufficient agency with the technical aspects or writing frustrates inexperienced writers (p. 373, as cited in Flower & Hayes, 1981). Reviewing includes the sub-processes of evaluating and revising. These sub-processes, “along with generating, share the special distinction of being able to interrupt any other process and occur at any time in the act of writing” (p. 374).

Key quote:

“By placing emphasis on the inventive power of the writer, who is able to explore ideas, to develop, act on, test, and regenerate his or her own goals, we are putting an important part of creativity where it belongs—in the hands of the working, thinking writer” (p. 386).

Reflection: The key quote above speaks about the power of the writer. Do our children feel power when they write or oppressed and forced fit a mold to achieve a score? In considering how children are currently instructed in many of the classrooms where I work and observe, it may be that they are forced to quickly generate ideas, and then organize their text without giving serious consideration to their goals for writing, other than producing a text for an assessment. Are we training children to become poor writers by “telling” them their writing goals rather than allowing them to develop goals? I wonder if they consider audience, or return to their ideas once they start writing to re-organize their thinking and in turn their translation (writing). Are the children creating their goals for writing, or are they simply producing a product for an assignment, without consideration or instruction in the creative, dynamic, and iterative process?