| |
Between Classical Art and Modern Discipline: Tensions
in Composition Studies' Encounters with Behavioral and Cognitive Psychology
Author: Jay Gordon
Degree: Ph.D. in Rhetoric, Carnegie Mellon University, 2001
In this study I examine the published discussions surrounding Robert
Zoellner's behaviorist writing pedagogy and Flower and Hayes'
cognitive-processes research program. In their time, these discussions
helped the field of composition studies to define itself through intense
dialogue over the relevance of psychological concepts and methods for the
study and teaching of written composition. However, at least three important
problems concerning the relationship between psychology and composition
studies have yet to be addressed adequately. First, the discussions of
Zoellner's and Flower and Hayes' projects themselves have not been analyzed
closely, leaving their implications for contemporary rhetoric unclear '
though they are widely considered to be historically significant, their
dynamics as disciplinary discourse have not been clarified. In addition, the
appropriation of behavioral and cognitive psychology for the teaching of
writing has not been examined from a more general perspective on the
theory/practice relationship; that is, composition studies have not directly
explored what it means to say that one's pedagogy "applies" a particular
psychological concept or method. Finally, the modern treatments of
psychology's role in composition studies, as exemplified in the work of
Zoellner and Flower and Hayes, have yet to be interpreted in light of
classical rhetoric's views on the relationship between psychological
knowledge and rhetorical practice. Some intriguing questions for
contemporary rhetoricians emerge, though, when the modern and classical
views are compared.
The aim of this study, therefore, is to address these three problems as
follows: In chapter one, I provide a historical context for examining the
encounters between composition studies and modern psychology, focusing on
problems associated with the practices of cross-disciplinary borrowing and
empirical research in rhetoric and composition. Then I examine in detail the
published debates over Zoellner's "Talk-Write" pedagogy and Flower and
Hayes' "cognitive processes" project, in chapters two and three respectively,
focusing on the interplay between the overt claims of the various arguments
presented and the disciplinary assumptions that drive them. In chapter four, I
address the problem of characterizing the relationship between theoretical
arguments and pedagogical practice, using the discussions in chapters two and
three as reference points. Finally, in chapter five, I discuss how the discourse on
Zoellner's and Flower and Hayes' projects may be situated in a productive
relationship with the classical rhetorical tradition.
|