Rose on Cognitive Reductionism:

Rose’s essay is primarily concerned with explaining the remedial differences between good and bad writers. The piece opens with an explanation of Cognitive style and how it relates to an individual’s ability to solve problems. The assertion is that each of us uses our critical thinking abilities in different ways, and not surprisingly, these differences lie between a spectrum of cognitive differences. The results of his first test clearly show the students with more independent cognitive skills tend to be better or more efficient problem solvers. The papers written by those who are field-independent vs. those who are field-dependent tend to be the more fully realized textual efforts. This was a surprise to Rose, but seemed like common sense to me. Writing is a very independent activity, maybe one of the most independent activities an individual can engage in. The activity is by its very nature one of solitude. A person with good independent cognitive skills should be well suited to writing and the quality of the writing should theoretically stand in opposition to the quality of writing by a person with a more dependent style of cognitive problem solving ability. His discussion of the idea of hemisphericity is a little more problematic in that he begins the section by noting that the results of the tests are occasionally at odds with each other and the conflicting results are “disturbing and the literature is filled with methodological  quarrels, competing  theories,  and  conceptual tangles.” (Rose) The results are that individuals tend to rely more on one side of their brain than the other when dealing with cognitive problem solving and thus the term: hemisphericity. This is interesting stuff, but hardly ground breaking research. That human beings handle problem solving with differences in their cognitive approach seems more like common sense to me. Sam Harris discusses some of these points in his book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. Ultimately, Rose leaves us with this summation of his essay’s central thesis; “Human cognition-even at its most stymied, bungled moments-is rich and varied. It is against this assumption that we should test our theories and research methods and classroom assessments.” (Rose) How we as teachers approach these varied cognitive skills when assessing and teaching writing? With so many factors like cultural and genetic differences at work, there can be no simple solution. I feel like the essay comes full circle and leaves us where we started. Maybe better informed about cognitive dissonance, but still lacking a pedagogy which encompasses the full spectrum