Essay

25

Linda Flower and Social Cognition:

Constructing A View of the Writing Process
Beverly B. Zimmerman
Department of English
Brigham Young University
3161 JKHB
Provo, UT 84602
beverly_zimmerman@byu.edu

Abstract
For three decades, Linda Flower has been one of the leading proponents of
cognitive research in the area of writing. This paper reviews her contribu-
tions by first looking at her original cognitive process model and then by
examining important aspects of her social cognitive theory of writing. Spe-
cifically the paper summarizes Flower's view of writing as an active con-
structive process, as a social and rhetorical act, as negotiated meaning, and
as literate practice. Finally, the paper suggests theoretical implications and
practical applications of Flower's work for documentation professionals.

Introduction
L inda Flower's contribution to cognitive research has spanned three
decades. From her early model of the composing process to her
current work developing a social cognitive theory of writing, she
has been committed to understanding the underlying processes
writers and readers use. In this paper, I will first review the origi-
nal cognitive model Flower and John R. Hayes developed, then I will look at
how Flower revised her original thinking to formulate a social cognitive theory
of writing, the major tenant of which is that writing is an active constructive
process embedded in a social and rhetorical discourse. Finally, I will suggest
implications of Flower's work for documentation professionals.

The Flower and Hayes's Cognitive Process Model

In 1980, Linda S. Flower and John R. Hayes introduced their widely cited
cognitive process model for writing. They argued that writing is a set of
hierarchically organized thinking processes rather than a series of linear
steps or discrete stages. Comparing writers who juggle writing constraints
to a busy switchboard operator juggling incoming and outgoing calls simul-
taneously, Flower and Hayes suggested that the best method for writers to
handle the cognitive overload involved in writing was through a problem-
solving approach. Using the technique of protocol analysis-a description
of all the tasks writers perform and the order in which they perform those

*Journalof ComputerDocumentationAugust1998/Vol.22, No. 3

Essay
26
tasks--Flower and Hayes proposed a model that
identified the organization of the writing process and
divided the writer's world into three major parts:
(1) the task environment, (2) the writer's long-term
memory, and (3) the writing process. See Figure 1.
T~k El~,nmtmt
1 posing process; (2) writers organize these thinking
.............................. ! ~ng Pmc~m
! ~a~r, va
Figure 1. Structure of the writing model. Redrawn
from Flower and Hayes, (1981).
In this model, the writer's task environment in-
cludes all of the exterior forces influencing the writer,
including the rhetorical problem, the topic, audi-
ence, and situation prompting the writer to write,
and the unique constraints brought on the writer
by the text. The writer's long-term memory (LTM)
includes everything the writer stores about the topic,
including useful knowledge about the task and au-
dience, and the writer's own plans or goals in writ-
ing. Together, the task environment and the writer's
long-term memory provide the context in which the
writing process occurs. In addition, Flower and
Hayes divided the writing or composing process it-
self into three recursive processes: planning, trans-
lating, and reviewing. During the process of plan-
ning, writers combine information about the writ-
ing task with information from their long-term
memory to generate an internal representation of
the knowledge they will use in writing, and then
they organize their ideas and set procedural and sub-
stantive goals in the form of a writing plan. During
the process of translating, writers transform their
internal representation into written language. Dur-
ing the process of reviewing, they read the text they
have written and either evaluate and revise their
*Journal of Computer Documentation August 1998/Vol. 22, No. 3
writing with respect to their writing goals, or they
begin a new cycle of planning and translating. Indi-
viduals can control or monitor their own writing
processes; however, they differ in their ability to do
so and in their ability to plan and set goals. Flower
and Hayes based their model upon a theory of cog-
nitive processes comprising four key points: (1) the
writing process involves a "set of distinctive think-
ing processes" that writers employ during the com-
processes hierarchically and often embed them
within each other; (3) composing is "a goal-directed
thinking process" that is guided by the writer's own
"growing network" of goals; and (4) writers gener-
ate purposeful goals, both high-level goals and sup-
porting sub-goals, and may revise them or even for-
mulate new ones based on what they learn during
the act of writing (Flower and Hayes, 1981, p, 366).
Flower and Hayes were influenced by the problem-
solving models of Newell and Simon (1972) who
viewed all cognitive activities as fundamentallyprob-
lem-solving in nature. Problem solving involves goal-
directed thinking on the part of the individual who
attempts to solve the overall problem by searching
for an appropriate solution using heuristics, a gen-
eral rule-of-thumb approach. Based on their theory
of cognitive processes, Flower and Hayes (1980) de-
scribed the problem-solving method writers use as
comprising two phases. During the initial phase (for-
ward search), writers search for a solution based
solely on the problem statement. During the next
phase (means-end analysis), writers use their diffi-
culties in solving the problem to set a goal, and then,
on the basis of the writing experience, narrow the
gap between the goal and their present state. Be-
cause many constraints compete for attention, writ-
ers must develop composing strategies or heuristics
to guide them in reducing or integrating these con-
straints. They do this by generating both high-level
goals to provide direction and sub-goals to support
the process. The Flower and Hayes problem-solving
approach to writing was in direct contrast with the
belief that writing is a series of linear steps or stages
leading to a near.perfect draft. It also contradicted
the view that writing is simply a matter of talent and
inspiration. Flower and Hayes, not only attempted
to identify how the writing process is organized and

to describe the reasons for individual differences in
writing, they also identified writing as an object of
analysis and research. Their purpose, as Flower ex-
plained in her text, Problem Solving Strategies for
Writing, was to analyze how writers plan and gener-
ate ideas in order to teach students to be more aware
of their inner, mental decisions and actions and to
consciously attempt to improve their writing by us-
ing effective strategies for composing, adapting their
writing to different audiences, and revising and ed-
iting their writing.
Response to the Cognitive Model
of Writing
Critics quickly pointed out limitations both in
Flower and Hayes's theory as well as in their research
methods. For example, Cooper and Holzman (1983),
cautioned against making claims for the model as a
valid description of the actual writing process be-
cause writing, like all cognitive processes, cannot
be observed directly. In addition, they argued that
verbal protocols-obtained from subjects who
thought out loud or verbalized their thoughts dur-
ing the writing process-provided data about what
trained research subjects said about the writing pro-
cess but did not provide data "about the writing pro-
cess, nor even, given its limitations, particularly use-
ful data about the cognitive processes of writers in
this particular situation" (Counterstatement,1985,
p. 99, italics in the original). Finally, Cooper and
Holzman pointed out that studying writing in a labo-
ratory is an artificial situation; therefore verbal re-
ports or protocols based on artificial writing situa-
tions suffer from "ecological validity" by ignoring the
context in which writing takes place (1983, p. 291).
The problem-solving approach to writing was also
questioned on other fronts. In reviewing the first
edition of Problem Solving Strategies for Writing,
Petrosky (1983) challenged the problem-solving
approach as being simplistic and mechanical, por-
traying an absolute reality that "puts writing in a
vacuum," (p. 234) with no regard for personal in-
terpretation, for historical, political, and cultural con-
texts, or for learning and discovery. Harris (1988)
pointed to critics who questioned the premise that
students write poorly because they are in an ego-
centric stage of thinking. What they really lack, he
*Journal of Computer DocumentationAugust 1998/Vol. 22, No. 3
Essay
27
argued, was "not an ability to reason but a sense of
how to use the conventions that shape academic writ-
ing" (p. 157). Harris also felt that Flower's attempts
to help poor writer's turn their writing into more
reader-based prose often made matters worse as stu-
dents adopted a "more sweeping, wordy, [and] ag-
gressive" style (p. 160). Finally, Harris argued that
Flower's strategies for helping students write more
powerfully took the form of "formal tinkering" (p.
162) with rules and practices for style, rather than
bringing about cognitive growth. Although these
strategies might help students solve the problem of
writing for academic readers, he argued, they don't
necessarily teach critical thinking.
Indeed, as Flower herself later reflected (1989),
the cognitive model for writing as it was originally
articulated was only partially developed. Because the
model focused on individual psychological processes
without specifying how social and contextual knowl-
edge influenced the writer's task, it failed "to account
for how the situation in which the writer operates
might shape composing, and it had little to say about
the specific conventions, schemata or commonplaces
that might inform the writer's long term memory"
(p. 283, italics in the original).
Since developing the initial cognitive model of
writing, Linda Flower has spent her career defining
and adapting her ideas to reflect changing views in
her own and other fields, filling out the details of a
social cognitive theory, and refining her research
methods. During the mid.to.late '80s and early '90s,
she began to study the context in which writing oc-
curs and to conceptualize the many forces that act
upon and influence cognition. Her attempts to ana-
lyze how cognition and context interact led her to
promote a view of writing as a cognitive process em-
bedded in historical, social and political contexts.
In the process, she has added to our
conceptualization of writing and expanded the bor-
ders of writing research.
• ognitive
aior Aspects of Flower's Social
Theory
I will now look at some of the major aspects of
social cognitive theory, of which Linda Flower is the
leading proponent. These aspects include writing
as an active constructive process, as a social and rhe-
Essay
28

torical act, as negotiated meaning, and as literate their representations of the same text and in the strat-
practice. egies they use to write and understand a text.
Writing as an Active Constructive Process Furthermore, the process by which writers and
readers transform ideas into language is also con-
In describing writing as an active constructive pro-
structive, that is, rather than reproducing the ideas
cess, Flower (1984) challenged the one-time-popu-
of the writer, reading involves reorganizing knowl-
lar, but now outdated, mathematical communication
edge to make new connections and to create or con-
model postulated by Shannon and Weaver in which
struct new knowledge. As a result, Flower suggested
writers encode meaning into a message to be sent
that strategies for teaching writing must help stu-
and readers simply receive and decode or reproduce
dents change their information-exchange view of
the message. This delivery model, as it is sometimes
writing or writing as "knowledge telling" to a rhe-
called, supposes that knowledge is independent of
torical one considering aspects of context, purpose
the social context in which it is created, that writing
and audience. Likewise, she suggested that strate-
is a technique by which factual information is trans-
gies for teaching reading must move from focusing
ferred and received, and that objective language is
on the content of a text or "knowledge getting" to
the vehicle for the transparent delivery of that infor-
helping readers understand the purpose and per-
mation.
suasive nature of texts (p. 182).
Flower's research on reading and cognition (Haas
In a study of college students engaged in reading
and Flower, 1988) led her to argue for a construc-
in order to write texts of their own, Flower and her
tive view of both reading and writing, rather than a
colleagues (1990) found students differed, in impor-
received one. In doing so, she reflected a growing
tant ways, in how they constructed their mental rep-
consensus in the fields of literary theory, rhetoric,
resentations of common academic assignments. The
and cognitive science that knowledge is not an ob-
students' representations were tacit and were "con-
ject to be transferred and received, it is constructed
structed from prior experience, from inferences
by writers and readers as they communicate in a so-
about the social and rhetorical context and from writ-
cial and political setting. Flower defined construc-
ers' own values and desires" (p. 21). Students of-
tion as the act of building complex mental networks
ten approached assignments or tasks with varying
or "multi-faceted, interwoven representations of
goals and strategies, and their representations dif-
knowledge" (p. 168). Because writers and readers
fered with those of the teacher. Even when students
construct knowledge, meaning exists in readers and
had an appropriate representation of the task, they
the representations they build rather than solely with
lacked the ability to carry out the task because they
the author of a text or existing within the text itself.
were unfamiliar with the specialized conventions that
Taking a constructive view, Flower saw writing and
were required for academic writing.
reading as more than the exchange of information
Flower concluded that the process of construct-
or the delivery of knowledge but as part of a larger
ing or representing an academic writing task is on-
discourse situation. She argued that when readers
going and involves "a mixture of questioning as-
and writers construct meaning, they do so "in the
sumptions and building new task representations;
context of a discourse situation, which includes the
of applying to school writing certain broad cogni-
writer of the original text, other readers, the rhe-
tive and rhetorical capabilities already possessed;
torical context for [writing], and the history of the
and, finally, of learning certain new conventions,
discourse" (Haas and Flower, 1988, p. 167). In addi-
strategies, and habits of mind" (1990, p. 22). Stu-
tion, the mental representations writers and read-
dents constructed their tasks individually, by inte-
ers construct "are not limited to verballywell-formed
grating elements from both social, cultural, and aca-
ideas and plans, but may include information coded
demic contexts and from familiar cognitive strate-
as visual images, or as emotions, or as linguistic
gies rather than by retrieving scripts or complete pro-
propositions that exist just above the level of spe-
cedures from memory. In addition, Flower argued,
cific words" (p. 169). Because meaning is con-
"certain general tendencies in representing a task--
structed, writers and readers may differ radically in
which we take as a sign of intelligence or commit-

*Journal of Computer Documentation August 1998/Voi. 22, No. 3

 Essay

29

ment--may also reflect culturally induced assump- nature of both positions, and argued for research to
tions about how to handle a school task" (p. 39). In both ground theoretical explanations and provide
addition, because representations are constructed pedagogical applications.
by both writers and readers, the process involves Flower's social cognitive theory acknowledges an
contradictions and ambiguity and may result in con- interaction between the cognition of the individual
flicts between the two. and the social and cultural contexts of writing; that
Writing as a Socialand RhetoricalAct is, that they construct one another. On the one hand,
cultural and social context "cue" cognition through
To Flower, understanding writing and reading as
"otherpeople, the past,.., the socialpresent.., cultural
a social and rhetorical act means acknowledging that
norms, availablelanguage,intertextuality,and through
writers and readers construct meaning in the con-
the more directlysocial acts of assignmentgiving, col-
text of a discourse. Writers and readers use language
laboration, and so on" (1989, p. 287). On the other
to express the ideas they generate in their minds;
hand, cognition "mediates" context as individual
therefore, textual and contextual factors influence
writers interpret the writing situation, select crite-
meaning. Flower stops short, however, of accepting
ria, and use different writing strategies (p. 288).
the social constructionist idea that writers simply
Writers must learn how to navigate between these
reflect and reproduce their culture.
two interacting forces.
In her article "The Construction of Purpose in Writ-
Flower's efforts to explore this interaction be-
ing and Reading," (1988) she refers to the heated
tween cognitive and social processes were mirrored
discussion within English Studies over whether writ-
in a revised model of the writing process (or "con-
ing is primarily a social or an individual act and
ceptual map") that she and her colleagues proposed.
whether purpose is located within a given culture
See Figure 2. The model shows cognition as "em-
or context or is solely within the author's cognitive
bedded" in context, recognizes the collaborative
control. Rejecting the narrow vision of either view,
nature of discourse between the reader and the
Flower argued for an interactive theory, one that
writer, and shows writing and reading as acts with a
would "include a broad cultural perspective in which
rhetorical purpose (1990, p. 12).
purpose is inseparable from the social assumptions
that help shape the text--assumptions that are of-
ten unexamined and may even seem unreachable"
(p. 530). This cognitive view recognizes that lan-
guage and context shape meaning and still acknowl-
edges and examines the role of individual cognition.
In her article "Cognition, Context, and Theory
Building," (1989) Flower again referred to the de-
bate over whether to focus on individual cognition
or social and cultural context. Admitting the limita-
tions of her own early cognitive work, she argued
that early work in social constructionism also is lim-
ited "by a failure to account for the experience of
individual students or writers within a group and to
accommodate a vision of human agency, original
contributions, and personal or intellectual develop-
ment" (p. 283). This integrated, interactive vision
of the writing process enabled her to maintain both
positions and allowed her to take a more complex
Figure 2. Elements in discourse construction.
view of the writing process. Her social cognitive Redrawn from Flower et al. (1990).
theory sought common ground between the two
polarized perspectives, recognized the conditional

*Journalof ComputerDocumentationAugust1998/Vol. 22, No. 3

Essay
30
Specifically, Figure 2 highlights three important
features. First, the diagram shows that writers and
readers are acted on by multiple forces (represented
by two circles). The outer circle of the figure includes
social forces that influence the writer, such as the
context of the writing problem, discourse conven-
tions required by specific communities, and the lan-
guage the writer uses. The inner circle of the dia-
gram includes the writer's individual rhetorical pur-
pose and goals and relevant knowledge that is acti-
vated by the particular writing instance. Second, the
diagram shows how both writers and readers com-
municate or collaborate to construct mental repre-
sentations of meaning. Although these mental rep-
resentations are related, they comprise different
networks that take the form of "abstract propositions,
code words and pointers to schemas, or even im-
ages" (p. 13) and include the writer's and reader's
own goals, assumptions, and context. Finally, the
diagram indicates that both writers and readers may
be aware of their own representations, their own
writing and reading processes, and the forces acting
on those processes. This awareness or metacognition
is often absent in novice writers and readers; teach-
ing them metacognition often helps them improve
their individual writing and reading processes.
From this revised model, we see that Flower has
addressed some of the weaknesses of the earlier
model by acknowledging writing as an active con-
structive process where cognition is embedded
within social and cultural contexts, rhetorical con-
straints, and the act of discourse.
Writing as Negotiated Meaning
Recently, Flower's work has led her to inquire into
the ways writers actively negotiate meaning within
discourse communities. Theorists in many disci-
plines have referred to the social aspects of knowl-
edge-making using the metaphor of conversation.
For example, Burke (1973) described the writer as
functioning in "an unending conversation" (p. 110),
as though entering a parlor where a discussion has
been going on for a long time. No one present in
the parlor is capable of retracing all of the discus-
sion that proceeded the writer's entrance, so the
writer must listen to catch the tenor of the argu-
ment before contributing to and eventually leaving
the conversation. Clark (1990) extended the con-
*Journal of Computer Documentation August 1998/Voi. 22, No. 3
versation model to describe writing as a dialogue
whereby people exchange the common beliefs and
values or shared knowledge of a community.
Flower (1994) agreed that the metaphor of writ-
ing as conversation has been a "productive meta-
phor for theorizing about the emergence of culture,
communities, and disciplines" (p. 61); however, she
argued that notions of conversation as shared mean-
ing-making are only part of the picture. Because con-
versation theorists are concerned about what "can"
or "must be" happening, they often slip into what
"ought" to happen (p. 64), rather than focusing on
what writers actually do. In addition, she argued that
conversation theory articulates an agentless and
passive process over which writers have no control
and in which they have no role. Social cognitive
theory, on the other hand, articulates a process over
which writers have control and in which they can
take an active role; that is, the process bywhich writ-
ers negotiate a rhetorical situation to actively con-
struct meaning.
Studying and observing college writers in the act
of writing had enabled Flower and her colleagues
(1990) to observe students experiencing conflict
both in interpreting and representing individual
writing assignments and in building a theory of the
task. Flower argued that conflict occurred because
of contradictions and ambiguities between how stu-
dents and the teacher interpreted individual assign-
ments, developments and changes in the student's
ongoing representation of writing tasks, and because
students lacked knowledge of the goals and strate-
gies required for academic discourse. She concluded
that success for student writers depends not on their
knowledge of basic skills, text types, or textual fea-
tures, but on what she calls "strategic knowledge."
Strategic consists of knowing how to actively create
knowledge within a specific discourse and "involves
reading a situation and setting appropriate goals,
having the knowledge and strategies to meet one's
own goals, and finally, having the metaknowledge
or awareness to reflect on both goals and strategies"
(p. 23). Strategic knowledge is knowledge for a spe-
cific context and must develop over time as a result
of experience. In addition, strategic knowledge is
not easily transferred; that is, having strategic knowl-
edge in one context or discourse does not guaran-
 Essay

31

tee knowledge in another ing becomes more than a con-

one.
Reflection is of great importance versation or reciprocal ex-
Flower also argued that in the social cognitive view of change of shared meaning
the situation is made more between writers and readers
difficult because there is the writing process because it is seeking to understand a text;
little agreement within the
academic community
where writers gain control over it becomes an active attempt
to construct new meaning.
about what academic dis- their own writing... In addition, negotiated
course entails and little meaning provides an oppor-
communication to students about the values of the tunity for writers to reflect upon their writing pro-
academic discourse community. Thus, rather than cesses, to interpret their own experience and to
sharing in a common conversation, students must evaluate "their own goals, assumptions, strategies,
learn to "negotiate" or navigate within the new com- and habits of making meaning" (1994, p. 76). Re-
munity of academic discourse through a "good deal flection is of great importance in the social cogni-
of experimentation and discovery, uncertainty and tive view of the writing process because it is where
failure, success and growth" by"adapting old strate. writers gain control over their own writing and read.
gies and retuning and reinterpreting old understand. ing processes. Thus, reflection is not a casual attempt
ings to meet this new situation" (1990, p. 228) to think about thinking; it is a "highly interpretive
In her book, TheConstruction of Negotiated Mean. process" (p. 233) using collaborative planning and
ing, Flower (1994) argued that constructed mean- self-observation to articulate self-awareness or
ing takes the form of active negotiation when "writ- metacognition. Reflection assists writers in articu-
ers choose (or are forced) to turn conscious atten- lating and evaluating the problem-solving processes
tion" to the many forces that shape meaning (p. 54). they use. To Flower, negotiated meaning is "a genu-
Negotiated meaning thus becomes "an act of selec- inely problematic act of indMdual interpretation and
tive attention (not the inevitable outcome of being knowledge construction" wherein writers attempt
'in conversation')" (1996, p. 73) and occurs at the to articulate and address the divergent meanings of
"crossroads" where social and cultural forces and the the other and to "translate an awareness of differ-
writer's individual representation are in conflict ence and conflict into a ground for action" (1996, p.
(Long and Flower, 1996, p. 109). Negotiated mean- 46). Because negotiated meaning exists not for its
ing occurs when the rhetorical situation becomes own sake, but in response to voices in conflict, it
problematic; that is, when constraints and options forces writers to acknowledge and act on "certain
converge or goals are in conflict, and writers must voices, resisting, ignoring, forgetting some, and
attempt to manage or negotiate this conflict. transforming, synthesizing, and reinterpreting oth-
During negotiated construction, writers con- ers. As such, it possesses a logic (often hidden to
sciously attend to the social forces or contextual in- outsiders) born out of that negotiation" (p. 83).
fluences of writing (shown earlier in Figure 2, as the Thus, negotiated meaning goes beyond conversa.
outer circle) and make them "inner voices," (1994, tion to the construction of new knowledge, new
p. 67) where they now compete with the writer's meanings, and new actions.
own purpose and goals and the writer's activated
Writing as Htemte Practice
knowledge (shown earlier in Figure 2 as the inner
circle). Negotiated construction begins as writers In discussing writing as literate practice, Flower
interpret both the goals and strategies of a discourse (1994) has joined forces with social, cognitive, and
communityand the goals and strategies of individual rhetorical theorists who challenge our traditional
tasks. Negotiated construction continues as writers view of literacy. While we usually think of literacy as
make conscious choices and decisions about how the ability to read or write or to understand the dis-
to select, organize, and connect ideas in the face of course features of texts, Flower reframed this no-
multiple options and constraints. At this point, writ- tion as "literacies," or the "diverse discourse prac-
tices that grow out of the needs and values of differ-

*Journalof ComputerDocumentationAugust1998/Vol. 22, No. 3

Essay
32
ent communities" (p. 2). For Flower, literate actions
"emerge" out of the constructive cognitive process
in which individual writers and readers transform
knowledge in "purposeful ways," including juggling
conflicting demands and negotiating "alternative
goals, constraints, and possibilities" (p. 2). By ad-
dressing literate practice, social cognitive theory is
arguing anew the notion that writers do more than
encode or produce text.
Literate practice in writing includes knowing both
the social practice of a discourse community and
having adequate strategies to manage the task of
writing itself. Discourse practices, such as howwrit-
ing functions in a community, are the "tools"
whereby a discourse community communicates
"what ideas matter, how to frame an argument, and
what readers expect and need" (1994, p. 23). Be-
cause entering and participating in the discourse
depends upon knowing the conventions and expec-
tations of the community to enter the conversation,
literate practice by its very nature, creates "insiders
and outsiders." Thus, to be literate in a discourse
community is "to acquire certain insider knowledge
that comes with participation;" however insiders may
come to see that knowledge as natural, a mere sign
of innate intelligence (p. 23.)" In addition, she ar-
gued that literate practice, like any social practice,
cannot be reduced to analyzing a specific kind of
text or genre, nor can it be understood by creating
"textual taxonomies." Because "the boundaries that
separate one practice from a n o t h e r . . , are both
imprecise and in flux" (1994, p. 21), simply cata-
loguing literate practices would "miss the point of
the personally meaningful, individual constructed
literate act" (p. 18). Neither would developing skill
in one practice ensure skill in another.
For Flower, a view of literate practices is not com-
plete without acknowledging the role of individual
problem solving. Again, she argued for a middle
ground where the interaction between the social
system and the individual are both possible. Accept-
ing a vision of the interaction between the social
and the cognitive makes sense, she reasoned, be-
cause it is impossible to define either cognitive or
social processes without recognizing the other. Thus,
although writers write in social contexts, they must
make "intellectual moves" that enable them "to con-
struct meaning--to interpret the situation; to orga-
*Journal of Computer Documentation August 1998/Vol. 22, No. 3
nize, select, and connect information; to draw infer-
ences, set goals, get the gist, respond to prior texts,
draw on past experience, imagine options, and carry
out intentions" (1994, p. 24). These moves may be
influenced by contextual forces such as school, cul-
ture, or convention, but they are still "conscious,
strategic actions" individual writers make, guided by
their goals and awareness and their response to a
rhetorical situation (p. 24). Social cognitive theory
thus addresses literate practices by combining both
public and personal events and highlighting both
social and cognitive processes. Currently, our soci-
ety generally defines literacy on the basis of a per-
formance on prescribed skill sets or standardized
tests. Social cognitive theory reconceives literacy and
shifts attention "not only from text features to dis-
course practices, but from social practices to per-
sonal literate acts"(1994, p.18).
Social cognitive theory looks beyond text features
like grammar, correctness, and convention to con-
sider writing as a social activity, undertaken while
collaborating with other writers and readers. A so-
cial cognitive view of literacy asks writing teachers
to show students how to enter into a discourse, how
to understand the logic of the practice and to ask
why and when to use a specific practice. Thus stu-
dents acquire problem-solving strategies as a set of
heuristic moves, rather than as rule-based formulas
or algorithms. Social cognitive theory draws atten-
tion to the literate practices of a community and to
the individual purposes and social forces that cre-
ate them to reveal the "shared, conventional patterns
that achieve canonical force because they are un-
derstood by other players as meaningful moves with
the game" (p. 18). Looking at literate practice at-
tempts to explain more of the "diversity and com-
plexity" of literate action, and "to tolerate, even
embrace, internal tension"(p. 26). Social cognitive
theory uses literate practice to "open the door" to a
metacognitive discussion of the conflicts that make
writing problematic by asking writers to observe and
reflect upon their own decisions, to develop aware-
ness of the discourse practices of the communities
they are entering, and to determine which of the
strategies they use are effective (p. 28).
Literate practice encapsulates the social cognitive
view of writing, as a socially situated problem-solv-
ing process shaped not only by contextual influences

but by the ways writers and readers interpret the
rhetorical situation, set goals, and control their writ-
ing strategies. When we view writing as literate prac-
tice, "we begin to ask not only what the writer did
but why he or she did it" (1994, p. 18).
Implications of Linda F l o w e r ~ W o r k
Although Linda Flower has done her work within
the context of writing research and with the specific
goal of helping students become more powerful
academic writers, her work has implications for other
fields and for other professionals. In the first place,
her work suggests ways to reconceptualize our own
field using a constructionist model. Perhaps more
importantly, Linda Flower has subjected her own
research and writing to the individual reflective
awareness or metacognitive analysis of which she
speaks.
Taking a Social Cognitive Approach to Computer
Documentation
Flower's work can be used to reconceptualize the
field of computer documentation using the construc-
tionist model. Because we are an eclectic group, dif-
fering not only in our job descriptions but also in
our educational backgrounds and training,
reconceptualizing our field is difficult. One way to
begin the discussion would be to simply take an
important aspect of social cognitive theory, fill in a
specific field, job title, or perspective and see what
happens. For example:
Softwaredevelopmentis a socialand rhetorical act
or
Technicalwriting is an activeconstructiveprocess.
In my own field, instructional design, Winn (1991)
pointed out that assumptions of cognitive theory
could lead to a reconceptualization of some aspects
of instructional design, namely in emphasizing learn-
ing rather than on performance and instruction, in
creating a role for technology in promoting learn-
ing rather than delivering content, and acknowledg-
ing the ability of learners to "make sensible deci-
sions about their own learning" (p. 39). Cole (1992)
argued that the debate on constructionism urges us
to reexamine the assumptionswhich underlie mod-
els of instructional design; for example, What is our
viewof knowledge?Of the learner?Ofthe purpose of
instruction? Who should determine the goals of in-
*Journalof ComputerDocumentationAugust1998/Vol. 22, No. 3
Essay
33
struction?whatis our relationshipto the learner?What
exactlyshould we evaluate?How?and Why?Are the
answers to these questions constant?But an equally
important messagein the debate is the need to wel-
comedebateitself.Havingto re-examineour assump-
tions in the light of opposing assumptions helps us
discover their weaknesses as well as prove their
strengths. Webenefitfromboth (p. 33).
For my own part, I find my training as an instruc-
tional designer is frequently in conflict and lagging
behind the constructionist views I encounter as a
teacher of technical writing. Although there has been
some discussion about the need to take a more con-
structionist view towards design, initial efforts to
establish a constructionist dialogue took on a tone
described by Cole (1992) as "reminiscent of battle
rather than of argumentation, debate, and reason"
(p. 27). Nichols (1991) found several beliefs within
educational technology that would be considered
"suspect," according to social cognitive theory (p.
25-26):
• Knowledge is objective and consists of discrete
bits of information. Knowledge, learning, and in-
struction can be discussed without considering
the instructional context in which they occur.
• The role of language is to manipulate informa.
tion.
• Knowledge, learning, and instructional processes
are scientific and lead to measurable output.
• Ethical, cultural, and political issues are outside
the realm of instructional practice.
Although constructionist principles have in the
past been labeled as "extreme" and "evangelistic"
by critics, (e.g., Merrill, 1991; Reigeluth, 1991), most
sides agree on three fundamental issues: (1) tradi-
tional instructional design theory is inadequate to
meet the needs of contemporary instructional de-
signers; (2) constructionist theory has much to of-
fer; and (3) there is a desperate need for "new expe-
riences, fresh concepts, and new data" (Tobias,
1991).
For this we need look no further than recent is-
sues of TheJournal of ComputerDocumentation,
particularly the February, 1998, issue which was
devoted to discussing "the need to integrate com-
puting and its social, political, and cultural contexts"
(p. 3). As further illustration of the need to
Essay
34
reconceptualize instructional design using what
Flower would call "literate practice" (or how instruc-
tion has been framed in the past and how it can and
should be framed in the future), Banathy (1991)
outlined four generations of design approaches or
methods that have emerged in the last forty years.
1. The "design by dictate" approach, influenced
by systems engineering methods of large scale
military and space programs, and carried out
by a technical expert who prescribed solutions.
2. The "designing for" approach, influenced by
industrial efficiency methods, and carried out
by a consultant/expert who presented a solu-
tion to decision makers.
3. The "designing with" approach, influenced by
business management/humansystems methods,
carried out by a team approach of consultant/
expert and subject matter experts.
4. The "designing within" approach, influenced by
more participatory forms of dialogue, carried
out by those who use and are served by the in-
struction (pp. 49-50).
Fourth generation or "user designers," as Banathy
refers to them, must design instruction through a
process of dialogue that leads to negotiation and
consensus. The "designing within" approach argues
that we must know something about the discipline
for which we are designing instruction-how it pro-
duces and exchanges knowledge in order to create
instruction. A social cognitive approach to instruc-
tional design would allow designers to take what
Banathy refers to as an "ethical" approach, by allow-
ing self-determination by the user and respect for
the context in which learning occurs (p. 51).
Adopting a social cognitive theory of design would
mean acknowledging that people construct multiple
realities through social interchange-realities that
change across time and culture. Instead of assum-
ing that the role of design is to convey information,
a social cognitive theory of design would acknowl-
edge design as a social act. As such the role of de-
sign would be to construct rather than to convey
knowledge. Currently, many information designers
base their work on the notion of design as a science
and assume that learning can be measured. A social
cognitive theory of design would acknowledge that
much learning is tacit, cultural, and aesthetic and
*Journal of Computer Documentation August 1998/Vol. 22, No. 3
therefore cannot be measured. Adopting a social cog-
nitive theory might enable designers to consider how
professional disciplines, such as law, describe their
practices. Finally,adopting a social cognitive perspec-
tive would acknowledge that instructional practice
cannot be separated from ethical, cultural and so-
cial dimensions and therefore must be accountable
to these issues.
Linda Flower's work has practical implications as
well. I immediately thought of three examples from
my own experience.
Example 1. Recently, I attempted to learn a new
database program. Although the online help system
accompanying the program did an admirable job of
explaining how to set up several data structures, it
did not explain when I would want to use them. I
quickly became frustrated and had ask a friend to
explain which of the particular databases I needed.
Knowing why I would want to use a particular data
structure would have helped me immensely.
Example 2. As a technical writing teacher, I require
my students to write a set of instructions for a simple
process. Afterthey have completed their instructions,
they conduct usability testing where they observe
each other as they complete the processes described
in the instructions. Every semester, students struggle
to complete the simplest of instructions. After the
testing is over, we discuss the usability testing as a
class. Responses by students indicate they learn more
from this class period than any other because in
nearly every instance, the authors of the instructions
have failed to consider the specific needs (educa-
tional level, experience level, handedness, etc.) of
the students who try to complete the process. Un-
fortunately, former students tell me their companies
can't afford the time nor the money for usability test-
ing, despite recent research that shows its benefits.
Example 3. Our technical writing program has be-
gun to encourage students to complete professional
internships as part of their preparation for future
employment. I recently assisted two students in ob-
taining internships in a company where a former
student works. Both interns experienced frustration
and disorientation over how to adapt to the dis-
course of their new environment. They were unpre-
pared for the culture of the company and the open-
ended nature of the writing tasks. I have since
learned that their experience is normal. We are try-

ing to do a better job of prepar-
ing our students for the literate
...neither social nor cognitive
practices of the world of work. theory makes genuine sense
Placing instruction in context,
providing support for usability without the other.
testing, observing users using
software in real situations, communicating the dis-
course practices and culture of the work place--all
of these are practical implications of the social cog-
nitive theory of writing advocated by Linda Flower.
Reflecting on Literate ~ c e
Over the years, Linda Flower has shown an amaz-
ing ability to adapt to paradigmatic changes within
her field by revising her theoretical models and her
research methods to meet many of the questions
raised by her critics. Perhaps her greatest contribu-
tion, however, has been her ability and willingness
to subject her own research and writing to the scru-
tiny of her own social cognitive theory.
For example, in discussing her research, Flower
argues that all research conclusions, including her
own, are themselves constructed. Indeed, she says,
data cannot be treated "as if it were a source of im-
mutable, objective facts or transparent proofs, even
when that data comes from personal experience"
(1989, p. 299). Her reflection on her own active
constructive process has led her to describe it as an
attempt to "impose meaning and pattern on the data
as part of the discourse of research" and to "use data
to build [her] case and to justify [her] conclusions
to [herself] and others." She acknowledges that be-
cause data and ideology "interact," data becomes "a
privileged form of evidence" used to "facilitate and
limit interpretation within the rules of evidence of
specific research communities" (p. 302).
Flower also considers her work as a social and
rhetorical act. As she explained in her own research
history, her research "began in teaching and devel-
oped in response to individuals, institutions, and
the manner in which the field itself not only pro-
vides but pressures us all to reintegrate and extend
our knowledge" (1990, p. 11). Her purpose has been
to "construct a theory of interaction that could itself
support action," to study aspects of the writing pro-
cess that are "firmly grounded in a body of theory,"
to make "contact with a larger issue," and to pursue
research that would "make a difference". Thus she
*Journal of ComputerDocumentationAugust1998/Vol. 22, No. 3
Essay
35
has focused on aspects
of the field that could be
"observed in the expe-
rience and performance
of real writers," to ex-
plore features of writing
that are of "practical importance to teachers and stu-
dents" and to "intervene" using a pedagogy where
the "thinking, acting, self-aware writer" holds cen-
ter stage (p.15).
Much of her work includes advocating research
as a tool for theory-building. She realizes that many
English teachers see empirical research as a "threat
to the humanities," therefore she has broadened her
research methods, adding action and observational
research methods to that of verbal protocols. She
also advocates a union of theory and research un-
der the name of"rhetoric inquiry--a process in which
one's orienting premises enter into dialogue with a
set of close, systematic observations of writers at
work" (1989, p. 296); that is, theory would "grow
out of research and research would Eground' theory"
(p. 309).
Although Flower has been amazingly productive
over the years, her work has not been without per-
sonal and professional conflict. As she has stated,
building social cognitive theory has not been with-
out its problems; "complexity and dialectic are hard
to sell" (1994, p. 32) and "the very terms cognitive
and social stand as poles around which different
aspects of literacy cluster and conflicting fields of
force seem to form" (p. 30). In addition, she recog-
nizes that
the problem of building socialcognitivetheorygoes
deeper than embracingcomplexity;it is also a prob-
lem of intellectual politics. Born in a storm, this per-
spective attempts to reconcilestronglyindependent
research traditionsand methodsthat bring with them
histories of tending to differentphenomena, of creat-
ing different kinds of knowledge,and the habit, still
with us, of gaining steam for an argument from the
heat ofa socialcognitive,social/individualopposition.
This move to integration is made on the assumption
that neither social nor cognitivetheorymakes genu-
ine sensewithoutthe other.Aseducators,we need to
developmoreresponsiblesocialcognitiveaccountants
of how individual students-as thinking personal
agents operating within and shaped by a social and
cultural fabric--learn.And why they do not learn (p.
33).
Essay
36
But in adopting observational methods to build
theory, Flower does not advocate ignoring the con-
tributions of empirical methods. Rather, she suggests
that researchers must deal with the limitations of
personal observation by subjecting their observa-
tions and interpretations to the strengths of empiri.
cal methods-the tests of reliabilityand validity.Thus
her observational theory building seeks to forge links
between theory or principles and experience by
working on two intersection levels-"a top-down
journey from theory to experience and a bottom up
journey from data to theory" (1994, p. 15). As a re-
suit, her work has the potential to be "a collabora-
tive, cumulative effort shaped by a community of
observers working from different points of view,with
different methods, and in different contexts of ob-
servation" (p. 309).
Following a recent intercultural collaboration, a
study of the use of Black English Venacular, Flower
(1996) acknowledged that manyvoices have "stirred
the waters" of her own constructed meanings (p.69).
In addition to the books and articles she reads and
her conversations with other people, she is influ-
enced by other voices, including situational con-
straints, attitudes, affect, and values, and "the per-
plexing, ambiguous voice" (p. 69) of culture. De-
spite sincere efforts to create shared meaning, she
finds individual representations differ radically.
Thus, she concluded that although meaning mak-
ing can be an intensely collaborative social act, per.
sonal representations of meaning aren't necessarily
part of an emerging shared social construct. Re-
searchers, therefore, are forced to negotiate mean-
ings, to construct new knowledge, and to take re-
sponsibility for the representations that they built.
Linda Flower's attempts to understand cognition
within its context has enabled her to participate in
the discourse of the academic research community
and to influence the field of writing instruction.
Through the years she has expanded her boundaries
while still maintaining her sight on the problems
that are important to her. She has considered how
changing views within many fields-cultural criti-
cism, textual analysis, reader response, reflective
pedagogy-can add to the understanding of her own
field. She has attempted to find mutual ground in a
field that is polarized, to foster collaboration on com-
*Journal of Computer Documentation August 1998/Vol. 22, No. 3
mon problems, and to share the workings behind
her own special perspective. Using the very cogni-
tive processes she has espoused, she has constructed
the problem as she has understood it, presented her
ideas in a persuasive manner, and has mediated her
world. In "trying to create conceptual harmony out
of the multiple perspectives" (1994, p. 11) within
her field, she has spoken with a distinctive voice.
References
Banathy,B. H. (1991). Comprehensivesystemsdesignin
education: Who should be the designers. Educa-
tional Technology, 31(9), 49-51.
Burke, K. (1973). Thephilosophy of literaryform: Stud-
ies in symbolic action. 3rd Ed. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Clark, G. (1990). Dialogue, dialectic, and conversation:
a social perspective on the function of writing.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UniversityPress.
Cole, P. (1992). Constructivism revisited: A search for
common ground. Educational Technology, 32 (2),
27-34.
Cooper, M. and Holzman, M. (1983). Talking about pro-
tocols. CollegeComposition and Communication,
34(3), 284-93.
Counterstatement. (1985). [Response to "Talking about
Protocols" by Linda Flower and John R. Hayes and
with a reply by Marilyn Cooper and Michael
Holzman]. College Composition and Communi-
cation, 36(1), 94-100.
Flower, L. (1981).Problem-solving Strategiesfor Writing.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Flower, L. (1984). [Response to Anthony Petrosky's, re-
view of Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing].
College Composition and Communication, 35 (1),
96-97.
Flower, L. (1988). The construction of purpose in writ-
ing and reading. CollegeEnglish, 50(5), 528-550.
Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory build-
ing. College Composition and Communication,
40(3), 282.311.
Flower, L. (1994). The Construction of megotiated mean-
ing: a Social Cognitive Theory of Writing.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress.
Flower, L. (1996). Negotiating the meaning of difference.
Written Communication, 13(1), 44-92.
Flower, L and Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of com-
posing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In
L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive
Processes in Writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flower, L. and Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process
theory of writing. CollegeCompositionand Com-
munication, 32(1), 365-387.
Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M.J., McCormick,
K., and Peck, W. C. (1990). Reading-to-write:Ex.
ploring a Cognitiveand SocialProcess. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hayes, J. R. and Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organi-
zation of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg and E.
R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writ-
ing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harris, J. (1988). Rethinking the pedagogy of problem-
solving.JournalofTeachingWriting, 7(2), 157-65.
Hass, C. and Flower, L. (1988). Rhetorical reading strate-
gies and the construction of meaning. CollegeCom-
position and Communication, 39(2), 167-83.
Long, E, and Flower, L.(1996). Cognitive Rhetoric. In T.
Enos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Com-
position: Communicationfrom Ancient Times to
the Information Age, (pp. 108-109). New York:
Garland.
*Journal of Computer DocumentationAugust 1998/Vol. 22, No, 3
Essay
37
Merrill, M.D. (1991). Construction and instructional de-
sign. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45-53.
iirel, B. (1998). Introduction to this issue. Journal of
ComputerDocumentation, 22(1), 3-4.
Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. (1972) Human Problem Solv-
ing. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Nichols, R.G. (1990). A challenge to current be-
liefs about educational technology. Educational
Technology, 30(11), 24.28.
Petrosky, A. (1983). [Review of Problem Solving Strate-
gies for Writing]. CollegeComposition and Com-
munication, 34(2) 233-235.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1991). Reflections on the implications
of constructivism for educational technology.
Educational Technology, 31 (9), 34-37.
Tobias, S. (1991). An eclectic examination of some issues
in the constructivist-ISD controversy. Educational
Technology, 31(9), 41-43.
Winn, W. D. (1991). The assumptions of constructivism
and instructional design. Educational Technology,
31(9), 38-40.