Examines the "cognitive process theory of writing" expounded by writing researchers Linda Flower and John R. Hayes, discussing problems with their theory and with the methodology on which it is based. (HTH)

Presents and discusses research on the intellectual processes that writers engage in to attain what is commonly called "audience awareness." (RL)

Argues that an integrated vision of the composition process is needed to explain how context cues cognition, which in turn mediates and interprets the particular world that context provides. Explores some ways that observational research might be used to create a well-supported, theoretical understanding of the composition process. (RS)

Linda Flower and John Hayes respond to Marilyn Cooper and Michael Holzman's "Talking About Protocols," pointing out errors in their understanding of protocol analysis and a study in which the data appear to contradict what Cooper and Holzman assume the researchers should see. Includes reply by Cooper and Holzman. (HTH)

Introduces a theory of the cognitive processes involved in composing in an effort to lay groundwork for more detailed study of thinking processes in writing. (RL)

Describes a case study of the composing strategies used by a professional writer, Donald Murray, concentrating on his planning and revision processes. (FL)

Analyzes the writing processes of a businessman-engineer and discovers that not all of the generalizations about composing are borne out in the way the subject writes. (FL)

Analyzes the steps in the writing of an established poet and an 11-year-old boy. An appendix provides suggestions about how to encourage meaningful revision. (FL)

Describes classroom experiments, using invisible writing which produces a carbon copy while preventing scanning during the composing process, to examine how different writing tasks differ in their cognitive demands and how the need for scanning may indicate the cognitive difficulty of the task. (HTH)

Notes weaknesses in current writing theory as it fails to deal with the affective domains--emotion, memory, motivation, and value. Recommends that future studies should try to make knowledge of the affective processes clear and useful to teachers and students. (NH)

Presents results of an informal study indicating that (1) external contingencies that force writing productivity regardless of mood seem to facilitate rather than impede the appearance of creative ideas for writing, and (2) productivity precedes creativity. (HTH)

Argues that cognitive reductionism--seeking singular, unitary cognitive explanations for broad ranges of poor school performance--is an inadequate and culturally biased approach to the study of remedial writers. Surveys different approaches to cognition, and notes problems in applying these theories to the thought processes of poor writers. (MM)

Presents three broad areas--writing anxiety, motivation, and beliefs--that seem to be ripe for study in terms of affect, and suggests that the constructivist views refined by George Mandler could be helpful to drive such research. (NH)

Explores (l) the role of pre-text in translating ideas into linguistic forms, and (2) the relationship of translating and pre-text in the planning and reviewing process. Suggests four observations worthy of further study concerning the nature and function of pre-text. (NH)

Provides a model of the rhetorical problem, based on the study of writing as a problem-solving cognitive process; describes three major differences between good and poor writers revealed by a protocol analysis study. (DD)