Linda Flower and social cognition: constructing a view of the writing process

ABSTRACT

For three decades, Linda Flower has been one of the leading proponents of cognitive research in the area of writing. This paper reviews her contributions by first looking at her original cognitive process model and then by examining important aspects of her social cognitive theory of writing. Specifically the paper summarizes Flower's view of writing as an active constructive process, as a social and rhetorical act, as negotiated meaning, and as literate practice. Finally, the paper suggests theoretical implications and practical applications of Flower's work for documentation professionals.

REFERENCES

• 1: Bela H. Banathy, Comprehensive systems design in education: who should be the designers?, Educational Technology, v.XXXI n.9, p.49-51, Sept. 1, 1991
• 2: Burke, K. (1973). The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic action. 3rd Ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• 3: Clark, G. (1990). Dialogue, dialectic, and conversation: A social perspective on the function of writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
• 4: Peggy Cole, Constructivism revisited: a search for common ground, Educational Technology, v.XXXII n.2, p.27-34, Feb. 1992
• 5: Cooper, M. and Holzman, M. (1983). Talking about protocols. College Composition and Communication, 34(3), 284-93.
• 6: Counterstatement. (1985). [Response to "Talking about Protocols" by Linda Flower and John R. Hayes and with a reply by Marilyn Cooper and Michael Holzman]. College Composition and Communication , 36(1), 94-100.
• 7: Flower, L. (1981). Problem-solving Strategies for Writing. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• 8: Flower, L. (1984). [Response to Anthony Petrosky's, review of Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing]. College Composition and Communication, 35(1), 96-97.
• 9: Flower, L. (1988). The construction of purpose in writing and reading. College English, 50(5), 528-550.
• 10: Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and Communication, 40(3), 282-311.
• 11: Flower, L. (1994). The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
• 12: Flower, L. (1996). Negotiating the meaning of difference. Written Communication, 13(1), 44-92.
• 13: Flower, L and Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• 14: Flower, L. and Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication , 32(1), 365-387.
• 15: Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M. J., McCormick, K., and Peck, W. C. (1990). Reading-to-write: Exploring a Cognitive and Social Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
• 16: Hayes, J. R. and Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• 17: Harris, J. (1988). Rethinking the pedagogy of problem-solving. Journal of Teaching Writing, 7(2), 157-65.
• 18: Hass, C. and Flower, L. (1988). Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39(2), 167-83.
• 19: Long, E, and Flower, L. (1996). Cognitive Rhetoric. In T. Enos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age, (pp. 108-109). New York: Garland.
• 20: Merrill, M. D. (1991). Construction and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45-53.
• 21: Barbara Mirel, Introduction to this issue, ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, v.22 n.1, p.3-4, February 1998 [doi>10.1145/571773.571774]
• 22: Allen Newell, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1972
• 23: Randall G. Nichols, A challenge to current beliefs about educational technology, Educational Technology, v.30 n.11, p.24-28, Nov. 1990
• 24: Petrosky, A. (1983). [Review of Problem Solving Strategies for Writing]. College Composition and Communication , 34(2) 233-235.
• 25: Charles M. Reigeluth, Reflections on the implications of constructivism for educational technology, Educational Technology, v.XXXI n.9, p.34-37, Sept. 1, 1991
• 26: Sigmund Tobias, An eclectic examination of some issues in the constructivist-ISD controversy, Educational Technology, v.XXXI n.9, p.41-43, Sept. 1, 1991
• 27: William D. Winn, The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design, Educational Technology, v.XXXI n.9, p.38-40, Sept. 1, 1991

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.7 Distribution, Maintenance, and Enhancement
          Subjects: Documentation

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Training, help, and documentation

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.7 DOCUMENT AND TEXT PROCESSING

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY

General Terms:
Design, Documentation, Human Factors, Management, Theory