Rhetorical Dimension

Regarding the rhetorical dimension of writing, one can observe that the younger the model, the later the rhetorical dimension is expected to be mastered by the writer: In his first model, Bereiter (1980) placed communicative writing as third of five stages. In the second model, it becomes central in the second (and last) stage of knowledge transforming, where content space and rhetorical problem space are equally important for the writing process. Finally, Kellogg (2008) adds knowledge crafting, claiming that only then will the writer be able to represent the reader’s potential representation of the text. If I understand writing not merely as internal cognitive process, but as a means of

interaction with the environment, the shift in perspective implied in figure 6 will ask for considering the rhetorical dimension (from implicit assumptions on the reader’s – teacher’s – expectation to explicit knowledge of an audience) at every developmental stage. After all, writing is “always discursive” (Kruse, 1999).

4.5.3 Knowledge

From the names given to the developmental stages, one can infer that knowledge is a central issue in both, Bereiter & Scardamalia's (1987) model and Kellogg’s (2008) extension of it. However, the underlying cognitivist assumptions are the same as Hayes’ and collaborators’, with all their implications. The difference to Hayes’ and collaborators’ models is that Bereiter and Scardamalia introduce the idea of repeated transformations of knowledge between knowledge space and rhetorical space as the writer works on the text. In the face of the considerations about problem solving in an overall problem space, this means they are explicitly naming two sub-problem spaces, while not naming others. This changes neither the underlying atomistic concept of propositional knowledge nor the idea that writing is problem solving. Bereiter and Scardamalia were probably well-aware of this when they concluded that the model can account for knowledge re-production and understanding (since inference is within the scope), but did not claim that knowledge transforming is equivalent to epistemic writing. Bereiter initially describes epistemic writing as producing more than a “verbal artifact”, where writing becomes an “integral part of thought” in a “personal search for meaning” (1980, p. 88). However, with regard to his initial model he does not discuss the concept of knowledge underlying this view, whether knowledge would be affected by this process, nor the consequences for understanding the role of knowledge in writing. In the later publication the

82

concept of epistemic writing occurs merely once (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987, p. 85), in the context of executive control in internal feedback and planning.

In addition to the ostensive focus on the role of planning on the writing process, the cognitive developmental models can be understood as focusing on the rhetorical dimension of writing, founded on a notion of writing as “written speech”. The field (explicitly or implicitly) agrees on the relation between thought and language that writing means translating (possibly non-linguistic) concepts (which constitute thought) into language, together with the assumption that with regard to the aspect of verbalization the medium speech is not so fundamentally different from writing. With the exception of Bereiter’s initial claim (1980) that epistemic writing has in turn an impact on thought, this view on the nature of writing does not change with the development of the writer.

Furthermore, like the cognitive process models, the developmental models are “knowledge neutral”

in the sense that knowledge is a resource to the writing process. At different stages in writing development, the process knowledge is subjected to change, but the basic propositions stay untouched. In this sense, I suggest that writing research has a blind spot with regard to the role of knowledge in academic writing. This certainly has to do with the cognitivist paradigm but may also be due to the fact that writing research is focused on a “general competency” in the sense that the

“content” of writing is blended out. If we want to understand epistemic writing as a tool for the

“personal search for meaning”, as Bereiter (1980) termed it, the intentional dimension needs to be part of a developmental account of writing. Thus, instead of keeping the “static” view on the nature of writing and the role of knowledge in the development of the writer, I suggest that we should include those in theorizing the changes occurring in writing processes as the academic writer develops in the interaction with his/her environment.

TEMPORAL LEVELS RESULTING FROM THE RECURSIVITY OF THE WRITING PROCESS

Above I argued that writing processes should be considered at least at two temporal levels, the level of “writing-as-it-is-happening” and the “writing process at project level”. Bereiter and Scardamalia as well as Kellogg do not differentiate these levels. The cognitive process models Bereiter & Scardamalia (1987) propose for knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming writing refer to writing-as-it-is-happening, the next level of the model is the developmental level. Kellogg follows Hayes in assuming 10,000 hours of practice between two developmental levels ( 2008, p. 2). Implicitly, however, processes regarding the project do play a key role, at least with regard to larger writing projects as they are common in academic writing: at the knowledge transforming stage, the writer is expected to be able to represent the text in ‘content space’ as well as in ‘rhetorical content space’. If we abandon the idea the writing entails the representation of the whole problem space, what is demanded of the writer is to engage in directing the writing project. The same argument holds for the

knowledge-83

crafting writing, which assumes that the problem space must incorporate a representation of the audience in order to be able to predict how the potential reader will understand the text. In academic writing, this reader will be from the academic community, which in turn will be better understood as the writing project progresses – after all, the publication of the academic text is an act of participation in this community.

Therefore, I propose to consider three levels instead of two in theorizing the cognitive

developmental dimension of writing (see figure 11). Processes at each level potentially impact each other. The writing project has a central role in driving change (indicated by the dark arrows indicating a potentially stronger impact). First of all, the assignment is the starting point in Bereiter &

Scardamalia’s (1987) cognitive process models on both developmental levels. This is plausible insofar as novice students rarely engage in academic writing activities without one, so we may safely assume that it has a “driving role” in the development of the academic writer. Secondly, as the student progresses, academic writing assignments or projects change (from summary to review, maybe essay, pro-seminar paper, seminar paper to BA-, MA-, PhD thesis and beyond) and with them also change the demands (e.g., length, complexity, maybe writing in a foreign language, expectations towards innovation) and, certainly in the case of theses or research papers, the stakes involved.

THE WHOLE WRITER –NOT JUST A COGNITIVE PROCESS

One may argue that the writing process at project level is addressed by planning, as in Hayes’ and collaborators’ models as well as in the developmental models: Where planning does not refer to sentence level, for example when it comes to structure, the project level is addressed implicitly.

However, the models do not differentiate the scope of the planning activities and they do not

address other competencies that novice academic writers struggle with. At project level, writers have to much more than planning text and in contrast to the cognitive and developmental models?, process-oriented writing didactics address these points. They have to learn how to organize

Fig. 11: Interacting levels and temporal scales involved in academic writing projects. The arrows denote the potential impact one level may have on the other, darker arrows stand for putatively stronger impact. The ascending arrow at the left indicates that phenomena observed at each level largely differ in duration, actual writing projects may also differ in demands and stakes involved.

Increasing duration, demands and/or

stakes „real time“

10,000 hours

writing-as-it-is-happening writing process at project level

development of the writer

84

themselves in the sense that they need to develop ways of dealing with the scope of their project and integrate it into their daily lives. For example, Joan Bolker’s (1998) Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day carries a piece of advice for staying on the writing project already in the title.

Wolfsberger (2009) addresses planning of the writing project in the sense of project planning and fitting it into “the rest” of the writer’s life several times and devotes a whole chapter to it. Skinner’s (1997) advice to always write at the same time of day in the same place is even geared towards conditioning ‘the body’ to be ready for writing. In practice, the infamous writers’ block is an

important issue and fortunately most of the time there is simply a writing problem. This is one of the reasons why it would be more advisable to talk about writing blocks (Hjortshoj, 2001), and

practitioners have devised didactic formats to deal with students’ anxieties in the context of writing (Wynne, Guo, & Wang, 2014). The point I want to make is that becoming an academic writer does not only incorporate the competences needed to plan and produce increasingly demanding texts meeting certain criteria, addressing a specific audience, and making the argument one wants to make, but also to organizing one’s life in such a way as to find the time and peace needed for writing as well as regulating one’s motivation and anxieties, and the ability to use different strategies for getting out of a dead end regarding either of the issues addressed. In short, a cognitive

developmental account of writing should not only regard externally motivated short and low stakes writing assignments under laboratory conditions, but have explanatory value for writing in the wild with potentially high personal stakes involved. Including the writing process at project level provides a place for addressing the issues mentioned as part of the writing process instead of leaving them out as external factors.

Having said this, despite the fact this whole chapter is on writing development, it has not been considered whether it is appropriate to refer to the increase of writing competence in terms of development and developmental stages rather than in terms of learning. Writing, even more so academic writing, is obviously culturally determined. I propose to take a step back and consider whether, and if so in which sense, we can talk about academic writing in terms of development.

85