Although Emig's article focused the issues of writing to learn in order to produce rich ideas in compositions, she was clearly no voice crying in the wilderness on this issue. Even a cursory glance through the literature from composition studies' "Wonder Bread" years, when the process movement was being established as the dominant pedagogical paradigm, shows that its scholars saw successful instruction as being primarily interested in promoting robust thinking and not as interested as it once was in inculcating habits of conventional and correct arrangement, style, and usage. Consider just a few, randomly chosen, examples: In Diederich's (1964)study of the factors that readers from English departments and other fields believed were responsible for improved writing ability, "the largest cluster was influenced primarily by the ideas expressed: their richness, soundness, clarity, and development" (p. 42). In Flower and Hayes' (1980) groundbreaking efforts to define a model of the cognitive process of composing written texts, they assumed that the"act of creating ideas, not finding them, is at the heart of significant writing" (p. 22). In Sommers' (1980) study of revision strategies of students and experienced adults, she concluded that competent adult writers "seek to discover (to create) meaning in their engagement with their writing" (p. 386). In Knoblauch and
Brannon's (1984) treatise on their vision of a new rhetoric, they lauded the student writer who is "in pursuit of a significance that matters" (p. 12).