Page 306 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 306
What Do We Know about the World?
ment of cognitive rhetoric changed the whole picture of writing and,
consequently, influenced the imitative practice. Apparently, the ascend-
ant criticism of imitation in the 1980’s is not incidental. It is, exactly, the
date of birth of Flower and Hayes’ (1981) three-fold cognitive model of
writing, composed by such elements as the task environment, the writ-
er’s long-term memory and the writing processes. The three writing ac-
tions of the continuously expanded model, planning, translating and re-
viewing, consist of an onslaught on product theories that emphasize the
role of “assisted” imitation in learning and in writing development (Be-
reiter and Scardamalia, 1981; Pincas, 1982: 24; Flower et al., 1986; Gee,
1997: 25).
Notwithstanding their expansion, process theories didn’t remain
impervious to criticism (Horowitz, 1986). Since 1990 the development
of genre-based approaches seem to dissent from viewing writing, only,
as an “unconscious process” between the writer and his unreachable
inner world (Swales, 1990; Tribble, 1996; Badger and White, 2000:
155). Teaching writing via genre-approaches serves not only for learn-
ing particular “patterns of forms” but, mainly, as Miller (1984) points
out, for participating “in the actions of a community” (165). In this
theoretical framework, imitation is accepted, even partially, as a useful
pedagogical means to the development of writing. Genre based mod-
els of writing propose strategies which include the modeling of the tar-
get-genre and the analysis of the organization of textual patterns for
teaching literacy and writing (Cope and Kalantzis, 1993; Devitt et al.,
2003; Beaufort, 2007: 178). Such actions recall the classic activities of
progymnasmata as the reading aloud of the text, textual analysis and
transliteration. Similar techniques are used in modern workshops of
creative writing, while the practice of imitation in writing is already
inserted in the curriculum of teachers in Denmark (Fleming, 2003;
Geist, 2004: 170).
The long pedagogical tradition of imitation influenced the two-fold
aim of this paper. First, the theoretical and diachronic review of its prac-
tice attempted to gain a deeper comprehension of the way that could,
still, facilitate the modern rhetorical pedagogy. Second, it is examined
whether its practice could still facilitate students’ familiarity with ar-
gumentative writing. The research reveals an explicit commitment to
classical rhetorical teachings as well as to modern instructive practices.
Moreover, it challenges the repetition (or imitation!) of similar efforts in
the future.
ment of cognitive rhetoric changed the whole picture of writing and,
consequently, influenced the imitative practice. Apparently, the ascend-
ant criticism of imitation in the 1980’s is not incidental. It is, exactly, the
date of birth of Flower and Hayes’ (1981) three-fold cognitive model of
writing, composed by such elements as the task environment, the writ-
er’s long-term memory and the writing processes. The three writing ac-
tions of the continuously expanded model, planning, translating and re-
viewing, consist of an onslaught on product theories that emphasize the
role of “assisted” imitation in learning and in writing development (Be-
reiter and Scardamalia, 1981; Pincas, 1982: 24; Flower et al., 1986; Gee,
1997: 25).
Notwithstanding their expansion, process theories didn’t remain
impervious to criticism (Horowitz, 1986). Since 1990 the development
of genre-based approaches seem to dissent from viewing writing, only,
as an “unconscious process” between the writer and his unreachable
inner world (Swales, 1990; Tribble, 1996; Badger and White, 2000:
155). Teaching writing via genre-approaches serves not only for learn-
ing particular “patterns of forms” but, mainly, as Miller (1984) points
out, for participating “in the actions of a community” (165). In this
theoretical framework, imitation is accepted, even partially, as a useful
pedagogical means to the development of writing. Genre based mod-
els of writing propose strategies which include the modeling of the tar-
get-genre and the analysis of the organization of textual patterns for
teaching literacy and writing (Cope and Kalantzis, 1993; Devitt et al.,
2003; Beaufort, 2007: 178). Such actions recall the classic activities of
progymnasmata as the reading aloud of the text, textual analysis and
transliteration. Similar techniques are used in modern workshops of
creative writing, while the practice of imitation in writing is already
inserted in the curriculum of teachers in Denmark (Fleming, 2003;
Geist, 2004: 170).
The long pedagogical tradition of imitation influenced the two-fold
aim of this paper. First, the theoretical and diachronic review of its prac-
tice attempted to gain a deeper comprehension of the way that could,
still, facilitate the modern rhetorical pedagogy. Second, it is examined
whether its practice could still facilitate students’ familiarity with ar-
gumentative writing. The research reveals an explicit commitment to
classical rhetorical teachings as well as to modern instructive practices.
Moreover, it challenges the repetition (or imitation!) of similar efforts in
the future.
