After reading Janet Emig’s article “Writing as a Mode of Learning” and Linda Flower and John R. Hayes’ article, “A Cognitive process Theory of Writing”, I feel like I’ve finally put on my 3-D glasses at “A Bug’s Life” at Disneyland. I’d like to mention just couple of points that have helped me see a bigger, clearer picture of my own writing instruction.
First, Emig’s discussion on how we “represent and deal with actuality” makes the point that writing employs all three ways we learn nearly simultaneously: 1)”by doing”; 2) “by depiction of images”; 3) and “by restatement in words”(124). This concept of the hand, eye, and brain connection is essential in planning instruction in the ESL classroom as a means of engaging students with varying leaning styles. Upon reflection, I’ve thought of writing, for the most part, as belonging to the linguistic intelligence and therefore not necessarily the best mode of learning for, say, the logical-mathematical or kinesthetic learner. Emig shows how writing is a mode of learning no matter where you intelligence lies, and it’s an efficient way to employ the hand, eye, and brain in the learning process.
Second, Flowers and Hayes’ idea that goal setting occurs not just in the planning stage, but in the “moment-to-moment process of composing” leads me to reconsider how much “choice” I allow my students. Also, as they point out revising and evaluating are intermingled with goal setting, I’m left to ponder, when and how I should offer instruction in revision. Typically, I’ve waited until students have produced a full draft, but to be honest this hasn’t worked all that well. Students tend to feel finished and ready to move on by the time the rough draft is complete.
Two questions come to mind as I reflect on the readings:
1. How can I encourage and give opportunities for my students to make rhetorical choices and goals?
2. How can I redesign linear writing assignments in my curriculum to allow for more fluid movement of strategies throughout the process?