A Writer’s Tools
In “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing,” Linda Flower and John Hayes posit that “writing processes may be viewed as the writer’s tool kit. In using the tools, the writer is not constrained to use them in a fixed order or in stages. And using any tool may create the need to use another” (376). Regardless of whether you buy into cognitive process theory or not, I believe this approach to the writing process is useful. Encouraging students to look at the components of their individual writing processes as tools that they draw upon, as needed, can help them to reflect upon the appropriateness of those tools and how they use them.
Flower and Hayes go on to state that their theory of writing process is “. . . powerful because it is flexible” (376). This flexibility s particularly important in considering one important component of the writing process they outline – setting goals. As they note, “ . . . writers frequently reduce [a] large set of constraints to a radically simplified problem, such as ‘write another theme for English class’” (369). Encouraging students to look beyond simply completing the assignment can be a difficult task. Flower and Hayes argue that the writers themselves set goals that change throughout the composing process (373). Cultivating an awareness of and engagement with goals beyond content and organization, or just finishing the paper, is something I struggle with, and continue to work on.
Other articles this week also speak to tools. In “Visualizing Writing Activity as Knowledge Work: Challenges & Opportunities,” Hart-Davidson, Spinuzzi, and Zachry focus on distributed writing in digital contexts. They argue that while research-based and management-based views on writing can be useful, artifact-based views, even with their limitations, are most useful to writers (72). By way of example, they point to an email folder that one of the authors uses to manage writing tasks. I suspect students rarely consider how commonplace tools such as a web-based email application can shed light on their own writing processes. Indeed, coming to this department from a different (although related) discipline last year, I was immediately struck by how professors and grad students here were so aware of how they used various tools in the composing process. In particular, I remember a discussion about marginalia and doodling that came up in casual conversation among students last August. I had never been exposed to thinking about writing in such a broad way; although I might have recognized my doodles or comments on the side of paper as “writing,” I would not have considered how they contribute to my writing process. I am certain many of my undergraduate students would have a similar reaction.
Slattery’s “Undistributing Work Through Writing” also discusses writing as distributed work, focusing on the writing processes of five technical writers. As Slattery notes, the number of artifacts a technical writer may use on the job is huge, “… literally hundreds for even short projects” (316). These texts, along with the software and expertise of others (including SMEs), are, in a broad sense, the tools the writers have to work with. Slattery agues that “the profession of technical writing straddles technological and rhetorical skill” (314). Because of our heavy reliance upon technology, though, “there is the very real concern that . . . technologies and environments might relegate technical writing to a technological skill” (319). I have often wondered about this very danger. So much of my hesitation about entering the job market involves my fears about being unfamiliar with specific applications or programs that the job postings I have looked at ask for in prospective employees. Although I consider myself a technologically savvy person, a “digital native,” and a quick learner, I also recognize I have limited experience with software beyond what’s required in my classes.
Both my students and I have many tools at our disposal. Figuring out which tools are most appropriate for the situation – and learning how to use new ones, whether that involves deeper engagement with the writing process as tool for my students, or, in my case, increasing technological expertise – is a challenge.
Flower, Linda, and John R. Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32.4 (1981): 365-387. PDF.
Hart-Davidson, William, Clay Spinuzzi, and Mark Zachry. “Visualizing Writing Activity as Knowledge Work: Challenge & Opportunities.” SIGDOC ‘06. ACM Press, 2006. PDF.
Slattery, Shaun. “Undistributing Work Through Writing: How Technical Writers Manage Text in Complex Information Environments.” Technical Communication Quarterly 16.3 (2007): 311-325. PDF.