Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Semantics
I am finding myself surprised that I don't have a lot to say about the Flower and Hayes article. I thought the information was good, maybe even helpful, but not overwhelmingly new. As I read some of these articles, I keep thinking, "How did these get published? They are common sense ideas." I am also not convinced that the Cognitive Process Models: Planning, Translating and Reviewing (277) are as significantly different from Pre-writing, Writing and Re-writing as Flower and Hayes would like us to believe. Simply because early proponents of Pre-writing, writing and re-writing did not explicitly state that they are multi-fauceted, hierarchical and not necessarily linear, does not mean that this isn't the case. As the language for composition (and the study of composition) has developed, it seems to me that semantics has certainly made its way to the forefront by way of those with a desire to publish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I would have to agree with you Robin. I have that love of writing in the back of my mind when I am teaching writing, but it is a juggling act with what the administration wants you to teach and what you know will benefit the students in the long run. And yes, the 5P essay has to live on for the purpose of the PSSA's, but wouldn't it be interesting to have a discussion with all the proponents of the PSSA and show them documented proof that these tests are not enhancing students writing only stiffling it.
Post a Comment