The Cognitive Revolution in Writing Studies

Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers

Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: A cognitivist analysis of writer's block

Rose explored the impact of rigid rules on writer’s block, through investigations of ten UCLA undergraduates who either block, or don’t.  The blockers often unnecessarily  adhered to certain writing rules and planning strategies, which stifled their writing and induced blocking.  His paper suggests that flexibility, fluidity and an openness to exploring alternatives to previously learned rules might lead to less blocked writing in the problem solving process of composing.  

Sommers employed a case study approach to determine the differences in revision strategies of experienced versus student writers.  She primarily discovered that less experienced writers focused on a linear revision process at the lexical, not semantic level, and are tied to previously taught rules, much like Rose’s blockers.  Experienced writers on the other hand, attested to viewing revision as an ongoing process which sought to create meaning in a productive collaboration with a much needed, imagined reader.  

I can certainly relate to the blockers’ experiences, as described by Rose.  Much like Ruth, Sylvia and Laurel, I often find myself hindered by a need for a “perfect” first paragraph, believing that what follows the first paragraph can’t be good if what comes before it isn’t excellent.  This type of thinking and writing is quite a contradiction to the way Sommers describes the experts, who use a first draft as exploration; a way to discover meaning and purpose of the piece, knowing they will extensively rewrite on many levels as they go.  

As a teacher and a student I was struck by the notion that novice writers revise in such a “novice-like way” because they are doing, simply, what they were taught to do.  They know something needs to be changed, but lack skills to revise beyond the lexical level, and the strategies needed to see writing as a process of discovery, and how to improve and rewrite the essay as a whole.  I would be interested in exploring how to equip writers with such strategies.  Perhaps there is an importance in understanding and teaching rules not as concrete, rigid confines, but as guidelines which can be rejected when they’re not useful.  

I’m also interested in exploring the affective aspects of writing, in addition to the cognitive components of writing as problem solving.  Rose mentions a possible strong emotional dimension, and I wonder how the consideration of emotions such as fear or insecurity might lead to a more complete understanding of writer’s block.  

The Revolution in Teaching

Murray, D. (1972). Teaching writing as process not product 

Murray, D. (1979). The listening Eye: Reflections on the writing conference. 

Donald Murray argued that writing should be taught as a process, rather than a product.  His emphasis on the “unfinishedness” of writing and the endless nature of discovery through language contradicted an earlier belief in the sole importance of the finished result.  In 1972, Murray summarized the writing process by describing three loose stages most writers pass through: prewriting, writing and rewriting, and stressed that teachers must patiently wait and listen as their students explore this process.  

In 1979, Murray expanded upon the writing teacher’s role, which should be, according to him, to “shut up” and not interfere with students’ writing, but rather point out to them what they had already learned on their own.  He described student-teacher writing conferences and a process he went through himself, ultimately to discover that his job is that of a reader and listener.  He taught and followed the writing process in his conferences and believed in his responsibility to refrain from doing the work which belonged to his students.  In other words, he allowed them to explore their own writing, with their own words and in their own way.  


Though I can see how this might have seemed “crazy” at the time, many of Murray’s ideas must have stuck, since I can recall being taught in a similar way in the past.  I have distinctive memories of a 12th-grade writing class in the 1990s which overemphasized the process of writing to the extent that we did not receive grades on our writing assignments.  We were encouraged to revise endlessly and to write for the purpose of learning something from the process, rather that focus on what would result from a perfect final product.  I actually remember being extremely motivated by this idea, and for some reason, suddenly wanted to put more effort into the process of my writing at that time.  

Since I enjoyed learning this way, I have attempted (as a clueless ESL instructor thrown into a writing classroom) to motivate students to see value in the writing process, and have always failed at doing so.  I would think it would take an extremely experienced and wise teacher to know when and how to be a patient reader and listener, as Murray describes, and to create situations in which students have the opportunity and ability to explore on their own, as the teacher steps back.  I suppose there are some classroom environments in which more blatant intervention and direction might be needed on the part of the teacher. 

I can certainly see a lot of value in Murray’s arguments, yet I’ll be interested in learning more about post-process theory and ways to effectively incorporate other aspects of writing (such as mechanics, which might not be so process-related) into a learning environment which places importance on the writing process as well.