Bi to the Izzle:

The articles main purpose was to describe two different ways of how a person might write, Inner and outer directed. Bizzel described both very thoroughly using diagrams and then proceeded to theorize which one might be the better. Her solution was to synthesize the two. She also discussed Flowers and Hays, with whom she did not agree.
She began the article by tell her dear readers that she has noticed that some teachers feel they not only have to teach students to write, but also to think. I would agree with that assumption, I don’t know if we mean it the same way, her article being a bit older. I feel this statement rings true in that the average modern student is bombarded with so many distractions and devices designed to make life easier; we don’t have to think as much. Spell check is one example, it’s a great tool that everyone enjoys, but because if it many students will never fully have a grasp of the language. But I digress.
Inner –directed writing, is the group of people that are more interested in the structure and rules of the language, the learning process. This group believes that there basic processes of language that can be taught. There are few ideas which every student can benefit from.
Outer-directed is the group which is more concerned with discourse community itself. This means that different discourse communities have a different language and way of thinking.
In the end Bizzel leans more on the side of outer rather than inner, but she stresses using a mixture of both. Using both methods is the way to go because not every classroom or student is the same, synthesize. Inner blames the students for their lack of knoweldge and outer focues more on the audience, the discourse make the meaning.