Chapter 14. Researching Habits-of-Mind Self-Efficacy in First-Year College Writersглава из книги
Аннотация: Over the past few decades, a number of influential voices within the Conference on College Composition and Communication have discouraged researchers' interest in cognitive approaches to writing.The cognitive approach has been accused of many sins-including being scientistic, failing to resist dominant ideologies (e.g., serving corporate masters), and being anti-feminist, (see Charney [1996, 1998] for excellent critiques and reviews).Other critics have asserted that cognitive approaches to writing are ineffective and have, in fact, disappeared.As recently as 2006, Martin Nystrand and Paul Prior, in separate articles in the Handbook of Writing Research, made these comments: By the 1980s, this new social perspective gathered momentum within writing studies.Challenging the Flower and Hayes (1981) cognitive model of writing processes, Nystrand (1982) argued that "the special relations that define written language functioning and promote its meaningful use . . .are wholly circumscribed by the systematic relations that obtain in the speech community of the writer" (p.17).Bizzell (1982), also challenging Flower and Hayes's cognitive model, argued that "what's missing here is a connection to social context afforded by the recognition of the dialectic relationship between thought and language . .." (Nystrand, 2006, p. 19) Research on writing processes in the United States initially settled on cognitive processing theory (i.e., Flower & Hayes, 1981); however, that paradigm was soon critiqued as too narrow in its understanding of context and was eclipsed by studies that attended to social, historical, and political contexts of writing.(Prior, 2006, p. 54) From these quotes, one might easily infer (1) that cognitive writing research was briefly popular in the early 1980s but was soon abandoned and (2) that it viii Hayes was abandoned because it failed to take adequate account of social, political, and historical contexts.In this foreword, I will address these two issues.xiv Hayes writing; others express interest in attention and knowledge.The phenomena of plasticity and mirroring receive special attention from authors interested in the implications of neuroscience for writing.If these authors in this book and like-minded colleagues can garner attention from an audience within English departments and beyond, perhaps they can reduce the bias against cognitive writing studies.Perhaps, in coming decades, researchers in English departments will integrate cognitive science and neuroscience in their studies of writing to design more effective research programs and more effective
Год издания: 2017
Авторы: Peter H. Khost
Источник: The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado eBooks
Ключевые слова: Reflective Practices in Education, Evaluation of Teaching Practices, Student Assessment and Feedback
Открытый доступ: hybrid
Страницы: 271–289