Response to 3/31 readings

“Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought.”
Walter S.J. Ong

I really enjoyed this article, especially the section pertaining to oral traditions. Ong’s paper has numerous ideas that are new to me; I look forward to discussing them in class.

Ong maintains that writing is immensely more complex than the mechanical skill many people make it out to be. As Ongs says “[t]he fact that we do not commonly feel the influence of writing on our thoughts shows that we have interiorized the technology of writing so deeply that without tremendous effort we cannot separate it from ourselves or even recognize its presence and influence.” (Ong 19) Ong follows this significant statement by giving examples and historical situations.

In his section discussing oral tradition, Ong surprised me with his extensive knowledge of mnemonic techniques in oral epics. After giving historically relevant data, Ong goes on to describe situations in which writing separates and divides. Among them are: logic and rhetoric, dialect from standard language, the past from the present, and academic learning from “wisdom." This last reason echoes the “gatekeeper” mentality we have read so much about.

I found Ong’s section on print and electronic relevant to my interests, as well as insightful. Ong contrasts the act of writing with the complex processes a computer undertakes even when performing a seemingly simple action. It is unfortunate that Ong ends his paper before fully exploring how the effects of electronic composition varies from those of writing. He hints at the distance imposed by computers, and the possible impact on the human thought process.

“A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing”
Linda Flower and John Hayes

In their essay, “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing”, Flower and Hayes seek to tear down the commonly held theory that “composing process as a series of decisions and choices” (Flower 273). Flower and Hayes attempt to construct their own model; one not based on stages, but instead a process model.

Using “thinking outloud protocol,” Flower and Hayes attempt to scrutinize the methods writer use when approaching a task. Given that this essay was written in 1981, I can’t help but wonder what changes or improvements computers and technology has contributed to these types of research. Would a writer’s typed “thoughts” be as accurate as those spoken out loud? Does the act of typing rather than speaking cause self editing?

Flower and Hayes present their model as a “tool for researchers to think with” (Flower 284). I would be interested to read more studies using this tool, especially current studies.

Although I feel that Flower and Hayes certainly outline and describe their model in great depth, I’m still not convinced of its usefulness. Before I make my decision, I would like to see more evidence supporting “thinking outloud protocol” as a genuine representation of thought.


"Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing."
Patricia Bizzel

Patricia Bizzel investigates the link between writing problems and thinking problems, and argues that a writing problem is a thinking problem. Bizzel looks at how composition specialists regard both writing problems and composition itself. She separates these specialists into two camps, inner and outer-directed theorists.

According to Bizzel, inner-directed theorists believe that there are writing processes “that are so fundamental as to be universal” (Bizzel 389) It would appear that this school of thought shares a lot with Chomsky’s linguistic theories of universal grammar. Inner-directed theorists also hope to isolate these processes in a context devoid of societal influences.

On the other hand, outer-directed theorists do not believe that these structures “can never occur free of a social context that conditions them” (Bizzel 390). Although I tend to agree to some extent with both of these schools of though, I think that Bizzel is correct when she draws from both theories; her ability to integrate these two seemingly incongruous theories is impressive. Bizzel's model strikes me as more accurate than the Flower/Hayes model, I am interested in what everyone else thinks about it.

"Distributed Cognition at Work"
Patrick Dias, et al

According to Dias, et al, distributed cognition is the intellectual interaction between numerous people; more specifically, the fact that "people appear to think conjunction or partnership with others and with the help of culturally provided tools and implements" (Dias 136).

Dias, et al, provides an example in the form of the Bank of Canada. One aspect of this paper I found interesting was the different distributions of intellectual contributions. In some hierarchical situations, such as school, the contribution is skewered, yet in the workplace it is not.

I found this article insulting in its implication for universities. According to Dias, et al, a university's goal is to prepare students for "real" jobs. Their assertions that demand should skewer writing also irritated me.