Patricia Bizzell

Patricia Bizzell's essay, "Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing" looks at the "the writing problem" from two different standpoints: that of inner-directed theorists (such as Flower and Hayes), and that of outer-directed theorists. Inner-directed theorists argue that the structures of thought and language can be taught, while outter-directed theorists believe that they cannot. They argue that thinking and the use of language are never completely separate from their social context. Bizzell affirms that in order to really get the whole picture, we have to look at both inner and outer-directed theories.

Bizzell points out that Flower and Hayes have been refining their process model of composing. According to them, "translating" refers to putting ideas into visible language and Bizzell thinks it is the emptiest box in their model. On the other hand, the "planning" box is the fullest because it is how the writer gets at the solution to the writing problem. Bizzell points out that the social context due to the dialectical relationship between thought and language is missing from their argument. They do not address the role of knowledge in the writing process. I think he is getting at the idea that Flower and Hayes overlooked the outer-directed approach to writing and therefore do not have the whole problem addressed. I found this particularly interesting because while I was reading Flower and Hayes, I easily related it to my writing process and could identify what they were getting at (even though I had never put it into quite those terms before). When reading Bizzell's argument, however, I agreed that Flower and Hayes did probably overlook some things that go into the writing process. I have found this with many of the authors we have read so far. I can relate to what they are saying, but then when it is refuted, I can also see that point, which only makes the "writing problem" seem that much more complex to me.

Bizzell affirms that no scientific research can have the type of authoritative certainty that inner-directed theorists are looking for. Bizzell goes on to address the idea of the "hidden curriculum" which she describes as initiating students into a world view that addresses daily classroom tasks without actually being examined by the teacher or students. By calling what is being taught, "universal," the hidden curriculum is even further hidden since we are ignoring any historical circumstance. Finally, Bizzell reaffirms the idea that there is no way to stay out of all discourse communities and judge them. We need to look not only at the discourse, but also the community.

I think this is an interesting argument and it seems as though Bizzell was able to really look at the problem of writing on a holistic level. She looks at different approaches, anticipates problems, and discusses how to get a better idea of the whole problem. It seems as if Bizzell is doing exactly what some of the earlier readings would use to classify her writing as "expert" rather than "basic." She presents a complex idea and synthesis of others' ideas, and I'm not sure if it is right to agree with what she was saying as well as what other theorists have asserted because some ideas seem inherently contradictory, but I see validity in both Bizzell's and Flower and Hayes ideas.