Noden and Anderson's texts present overlapping attitudes with approaches which contrast slightly in method. Anderson's text seemed more packed with information, and for this reason 4 of my 5 Big Ideas come from Anderson. My 5th, which contrasts Anderson in some ways, comes from Noden. Having felt satisfied with my format last time, I'd like to outline, in general terms, these larger points before I build discussion thereupon.

1. In understanding developing writers (or any writer), it is important to understand the concepts and pseudo-concepts which they utilize. Individuals do not write without reason.
2. A paradigm shift oriented towards "writer's craft" in the academic instruction of language is necessary or preferable.
3. The instructional model to teach writer's craft focuses on shorter grammatical lessons and places more emphasis on writing.
4. The focal point of the instruction of grammar should be on sophisticated errors related to communication and not simple errors related to grammatical "rules" in themselves.
5. The focal point of the instruction of writing (according to Noden) should be built around the "Five Basic Brush Strokes" of image-evocative, descriptive writing.

As last time, I find myself tending to agree with the authors. Upon this reading, however, I have seen the beginnings of the proposed model and I am more confident in this approach--or, rather, I am confident in Anderson's.

I think the concept of "writer's craft" is valuable as both a means of academic instruction and as an alternate philosophy towards writing. I question if this approach may work for all students (bearing in mind that the majority of people do not particularly care to write, and many who can write creatively choose not to), but I know very little about educational strategies at the intended age level. Nonetheless, literacy is vital, and ultimately an academic strategy will have to be implemented. To me, this model appears to hold a lot more capacity for creative expression and satisfaction in writing, but again it is hard for me to say because I am aware that not all people derive the same intrinsic satisfaction from preparing a text that I do myself.

While it is certainly a well-developed academic plan, I am inclined to question Noden's approach moreso than Anderson's. Personally, I can recall being taught in the "5 steps to (academic goal)" approach, and it doesn't work as well for me because I have never tended to learn sequentially, even with modes of academia where this would seem more feasible. My own learning biases aside, however, I also question the preservation of creative integrity within Noden's approach. While the five figurative brush strokes are all undeniable ways to improve a mundane sentence, I noticed that most of Noden's samples sound too similar in tone and content. Maybe it's just me, but at times I think that the creators of these academic models sometimes forget that they are being implemented on children between 4 and 12 years old or so. At this level, I question the ability of children to apply these concepts as guidelines and not as ways to appease the instructor or simply finish the required writing. I have to wonder if teaching using the "5 steps..." or "5 tools..." approach that is so common may be detrimental in creating a new, more agreeable but not necessarily more beneficial, form of subconscious confine within writing.