Abstract
One of the stages of Franck’s modelling process is testing out the applied model against real-life situations or against data. This validates – or signals further modifications to – the applied model, which can then, in turn, be used to validate the theoretical model. This chapter shows how the testing process, carried out in over 40 video protocols of student composing, validated the user’s model as far as the systemic operation of composing was concerned, but showed up flaws in categorising the social aspects of composing, more specifically, how to portray the impact of local academic criteria on – and in – the composing system. The model in fact displayed the same weaknesses as the approach on which it was initially based, the process approach. This chapter, then, offers a brief description and critique of the process approach, and shows why other more socially conscious approaches were not seriously considered as options for modifying the user’s model. The chapter also describes the video protocol method used to reconstruct composing, as well as the depiction of the systemic operation of composing in colour-coded graphs.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It must be remembered that all of the process researchers were using the term paradigm in the sense of disciplinary matrix (Kuhn 1962:182) rather than comprehensive world view (1962:175), the sense in which it tends to be used in the field of Education (notably by curriculum theorists such as Grundy 1987 and Schubert 1986). To suggest that there is a disciplinary matrix for the field of written composition is clearly unwise, as the field of written composition is characterised by diversity (see North 1987:iii) rather than by a shared set of values and beliefs about composition and how it should best be taught. Moreover, it is difficult to see why the process approach, while popular, should be given a position of prominence in a field which was then, and still is dominated by form-based approaches (e.g. current-traditional rhetoric in the 1980s and social constructionism in the 1990s, as well as the postmodern approaches based on the perception of discourse as text). Yet Young (1978), Hairston (1982) and Spack’s (1984) claim that the advent of the process approach involved a paradigm shift was in fact justified, as the focus shifted (at least momentarily) towards a consideration of writing as interaction between participants, that is the communicative function of writing was being emphasised for the first time.
References
Arapoff, N. (1968) Controlled rhetoric frames. ELT Journal 32(1):27–36.
Arapoff, N. (1969) Discover and transform: a method of teaching writing to foreign students. TESOL Quarterly 3(4):297–304.
Archer, M.S. (1998) Introduction: realism in the social sciences. In M.S. Archer et al. (eds.) Critical realism: essential readings. London: Routledge.
Baëhr, P. (1990) Review article: critical realism, cautionary realism. Sociological Review 38(4):765–778.
Baijnath, N. (1992) Problems with process – tracing the writing problems of EPA students to their roots. South African Journal of Applied Language Studies 1(1):69–78.
Bartholomae, D. (1985) Inventing the university. In M. Rose (ed.) When a writer can’t write. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Berlin, J.A. (1988) Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College English 50(5):477–494.
Bhaskar, R. (1979) The possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Bizzell, P. (1992) Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bloom, L.Z. (1992) The composition curriculum: a paradigm of possibilities. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Cincinnati, OH, 19–21 March 1992.
Britton, J. (1981) Shaping at the point of utterance. In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first language/second language. Essex: Longman.
Bruffee, K.A. (1984) Collaborative learning and the “conversion of mankind”. College English 46(7):635–652.
Bruffee, K.A. (1986) Social construction, language and the authority of knowledge: a bibliographical essay. College English 48(8):773–790.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1993) Comments on Ann Raimes “out of the woods: emerging traditions in the teaching of writing”. TESOL Quarterly 27(2):301–306.
Candlin, C.N. (ed.) (1981) Learning to write: first language/second language. Essex: Longman.
Chase, G. (1988) Accommodation, resistance and the politics of student writing. College Composition and Communication 39(1):13–22.
Clark, R. (1992) Principles and practice of CLA in the classroom. In N. Fairclough (ed.) Critical language awareness. Essex: Longman.
Coe, R.M. (1986) Teaching writing: the process approach, humanism, and the context of “crisis”. In S. de Castell, A. Luke & K. Egan (eds.) Literacy, society and schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coe, R.M. (1987) An apology for form: or, who took the form out of the process? College English 49(1):13–28.
Cumming, A. (1989) Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning 39(1):81–135.
Daiute, C.A. (1983) The computer as stylus and audience. College Composition and Communication 34(2):134–145.
Elbow, P. (1989) Towards a phenomenology of freewriting. Journal of Basic Writing 8(2):42–71.
Elbow, P. (1991) Reflections on academic discourse: how it relates to freshmen and colleagues. College English 35(2):135–155.
Emig, J. (1977) Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication 28(2):122–128.
Faigley, L. (1986) Competing theories of process: a critique and a proposal. College English 48(6):527–542.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and power. Essex: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (ed.) (1992) Critical language awareness. Essex: Longman.
Fishman, S. & McCarthy, L.P. (1992) Is expressivism dead? College English 54:647–661.
Flower, L.S. & Hayes, J. (1980) Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: an introduction to protocol analysis. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (eds.) Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fulkerson, R. (1990) Composition theory in the eighties: axiological consensus and paradigmatic diversity. College Composition and Communication 41(4):409–429.
Gee, J. (1990) Social linguistics and literacies: ideologies in discourse. London: Falmer Press.
Graves, D.H. (1978) Balance the basics: let them write. Paper on research about learning. New York, NY: Ford Foundation.
Grundy, S. (1987) Curriculum: product or praxis? Sussex: The Falmer Press.
Habermas, J. (1972) Knowledge and human interests (2nd edition). London: Heinemann.
Hairston, M. (1982) The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication 33(1):76–88.
Harris, J. (1989) The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication 40(1):11–22.
Heath, S.B. (1983) Ways with words: language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hedge, T. (1988) Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hultgren, F.H. (1982) Reflecting on the meaning of curriculum through a hermeneutic interpretation of student-teacher experiences in home economics. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Ivanic, R. & Simpson, J. (1992) Who’s who in academic writing. In N. Fairclough (ed.) Critical language awareness. Essex: Longman.
Johns, A.M. (1990) L1 composition theories: implications for developing theories of l2 composition. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second language writing: research insights from the classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, C.S. (1982) Composing in a second language: a process study. Paper presented at the 16th Annual TESOL Convention. Honolulu, May 1982.
Jones, D.C. (1996) Beyond the postmodern impasse of agency: the resounding relevance of John Dewey’s tacit tradition. Journal of Advanced Composition 16(1):81–102.
Judd, D. (2003) Critical realism and composition theory. London: Routledge.
Kirscht, J., Levine, R. & Reiff, J. (1994) Evolving paradigms: WAC and the rhetoric of inquiry. College Composition and Communication 45(3):369–380.
Kostelnick, C. (1989) Process paradigms in design and composition: affinities and directions. College Composition and Communication 40(3):267–281.
Krapels, A. (1990) An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second language writing: research insights for the classroom. New York, NY: Longman.
Kuhn, T. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Laine, C. & Schultz, L. (1985) Composition theory and practice. Volta Review Year 87:9–20.
Lawrence, M. (1973) Enquiry method and problem solving in the ESL classroom. TESL Reporter 6(1):1–12.
Lawrence, M. (1975) Reading, thinking, writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Liebman-Kleine, J. (1986) In defense of teaching process in ESL composition. TESOL Quarterly 20(4):783–788.
Lynn, S. (1987) Reading the writing process: toward a theory of current pedagogies. College English 49(8):902–910.
MacKenna, S. (2004) A critical investigation into discourses that construct academic literacy at the Durban Institute of Technology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
Martin, N. (1981) Scope for intentions. In C.N. Candlin (ed.) Learning to write: first language/second language. Essex: Longman.
Matsuhashi, A. (1982) Explorations in the real-time production of written discourse. In N. Nystrand (ed.) What writers know: the language, process, and structure of written discourse. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Palmer, F. (1971) Grammar. London: Penguin.
Perl, S. (1980) Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication 31(4):363–369.
Pfingstag, N. (1984) Showing writing: modeling the process. TESOL Newsletter, Supplement No.1: Writing and Composition 18(1):1–3.
Pianko, S. (1979) A description of the composing processes of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English 13(1):5–22.
Pratt, D.D. (1987) A process approach: the formulation of a simplified conceptual framework showing the stages of the writing process, and an investigation into the effects on writing behaviour of communicating this framework directly to the learner. Unpublished masters dissertation, University of Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Pratt, D.D. (2002) Changing partners: inner dialogues and creativity in writing. Workshop for South African Writers’ Circle. Westville, Durban, South Africa, 9 February.
Pratt, D.D. (2007b) A realist approach to writing: developing a theoretical model of written composition to inform a computer mediated learning interaction. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Durban University of Technology, South Africa.
Pratt, D.D. & Gutteridge, R. (2006) The role of the social mechanism in social transformation: a critical realist approach to blended learning. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on World Wide Web Applications. Bloemfontein, 6–8 September 2006.
Raimes, A. (1985) What unskilled ESL students do as they write: a classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly 19(2):229–256.
Raimes, A. (1987) Exploring though writing: a process approach to ESL composition. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Raimes, A. (1991) Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly 25(3):407–430.
Raimes, A. (1993) The author responds… TESOL Quarterly 27(2):306–310.
Schubert, W.H. (1986) Curriculum: perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Schwandt, T.A. (1994) Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Shaughnessy, M.P. (1977) Errors and expectations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Shaw, P. (1992) Variation and universality in communicative competence: Coseriu’s model. TESOL Quarterly 26(1):9–25.
Silva, T. (1990) Second language composition instruction: developments, issues and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second language writing: research insights from the classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sommers, N. (1980) Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication 31(4):378–388.
Sommers, N. (1982) Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication 33(2):148–156.
Spack, R. (1984) Invention strategies and the ESL college composition student. TESOL Quarterly 18(4):649–670.
Tomlin, R.S., Forrest, L., Pu, M.M. & Kim, M.H. (1997) Knowledge integration and information management in discourse. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse: a multidisciplinary introduction. London: Sage Publications.
Walshe, R.D. (1980) More and better writing without more marking. Education Journal :29–42.
White, R. (1989) Getting it write. Note issued at 9th Annual SAALA Conference, University of Natal, Durban, South Africa, July 1989.
Widdowson, H.G. (1984) Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, R. (1978) Paradigms and problems: needed research in rhetorical invention. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (eds.) Research in composing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Zamel, V. (1976) Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: what we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly 10(1):67–76.
Zamel, V. (1982) Writing: the process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly 16(2):195–209.
Zamel, V. (1985) Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly 19(1):79–101.
Zamel, V. (1987) Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 21(4):697–715.
Zamel, V. (1993) Questioning academic discourse. College ESL 3(1):28–39, Instructional Resource Centre, the City, University of New York.
Kuhn, T. (1969) Postscript. In T. Kuhn The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
North, S. (1987) The making of knowledge in composition studies. Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton/Cook.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pratt, D. (2010). Testing Out the User’s Model. In: Modelling Written Communication. Methodos Series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9843-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9843-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9842-9
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9843-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)