Cover not available

In:Writing and Language Learning: Advancing research agendas
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 56] 2020
► pp. 49–72

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 3
A dual-process model of L1 writing processes

Implications for L2 writing research agendas on processing and language development

 | University of Southampton
 | University of Southampton
Published online: 20 November 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.03gal
Abstract
Current models of the cognitive processes involved in L1 writing treat them as problem-solving processes, and characterize expert / novice differences as a contrast between a knowledge-transforming approach and a knowledge-telling approach. Empirical research informed by these models has typically used this distinction as a characterization of the processes involved but has not explicitly tested what effect these have on the writer’s knowledge. In this chapter, we argue that these models neglect the implicit nature of much of the writer’s knowledge, and present an alternative dual-process model of writing, which is designed to take this into account. We then describe recent studies in L1 that support the main claims of the dual-process model, call into question some of the assumptions of problem-solving models and suggest that an alternative rough-drafting strategy may help overcome the conflict between text quality and the development of the writer’s understanding. We conclude by discussing the implications for research into L2 writing processes and drafting strategies.
Article outline
  • Writing as problem solving
  • Dual process model of writing in L1
    • The knowledge-transforming process
    • The knowledge-constituting process
    • The two processes in combination
  • Evidence for the dual process model
    • Keystroke studies of text production
    • Drafting strategies
  • Implications for L2 writing research and language development
  • Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (53)
References
Al-Saadi, Z. T. (2018). The effects of proficiency in English as a Foreign Language, gender and writing beliefs on the writing processes and products of undergraduate Omani students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southampton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baaijen, V. M., & Galbraith, D. (2018). Discovery through writing: Relationships with writing processes and text quality. Cognition and Instruction, 36(3), 199–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & de Glopper, K. (2014). Effects of writing beliefs and planning on writing performance. Learning and Instruction, 33, 81–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & de Glopper, K. D. (2012). Keystroke analysis: Reflections on procedures and measures. Written Communication, 29, 246–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (2016). What do sociocultural theories of writing tell us about learning to write? In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 11–23). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (2014). Task, task performance, and writing development: Advancing the constructs and the research agenda. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 267–299). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2003). The inner voice writing. Written Communication, 20(1), 99–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., Saricaoglu, A., Torrance, M., & Feng, H.-H. (2019). Combined deployable keystroke logging and eye-tracking for investigating L2 writing fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 583–604. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooper, M. M., & Holzman, M. (1989). Writing as social action. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (2016). Theoretical orientations in L2 writing. In R. M. Manchón & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language and foreign language writing (pp. 65–88). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Multilingual writing in preschool through 12th grade: The last 15 years. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 337–354). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flower, L. S. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41(1), 19–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980a). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 21–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1980b). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–160). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Writing as discovery. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2(6), 5–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2018). The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist, 53, 4, 238–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Aligning keystroke with cognitive processes in writing. In E. Lindgren & K. P. H. Sullivan (Eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 306–325). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galbraith, D., & Torrance, M. (2004). Revision in the context of different drafting strategies. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision of written language: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 63–85). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galbraith, D., & Vedder, I. (2019). Methodological advances in investigating L2 writing processes: Challenges and perspectives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 633–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). From idea to text. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 65–79). London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1106–1113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 355–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 327–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). The psychology of writing. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., Turner, C. E., Cahill, M., & Mertens, A. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5, 159–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Galbraith, D., & van den Bergh, H. (2007). The effects of adapting a writing course to students’ writing strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 77, 565–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kumaran, D., Hassabis, D., & McClelland, J. L. (2016). What learning systems do intelligent agents need? Complementary learning systems theory updated. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(7), 512–534. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30, 358–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (Eds.) (2019). Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López-Serrano, S., Roca de Larios, J., & Manchón, R. M. (2019). Language reflection fostered by individual L2 writing tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 503–527. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 13–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O’Reilly, R. C. (1995). Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review, 102(3), 419–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). Searching for words: One strategic use of the mother tongue by advanced Spanish EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(2), 61–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47 (2), 375–398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Reilly, R. C., Bhattacharyya, R., Howard, M. D., & Ketz, N. (2014). Complementary learning systems. Cognitive Science, 38(6),1229–1248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Révész, A., & Michel, M. (2019). Methodological advances in investigating L2 writing processes: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 491–501. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2019). Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behaviors: A mixed-methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 605–631. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Nicolás-Conesa, F., & Coyle, Y. (2018). Focus on writers: Processes and strategies. In R. M. Manchón & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language and foreign language writing (pp. 267–286). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, D. R. (1997). Writing and genre in higher education and workplaces. Mind, Culture and Activity, 4(4), 224–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. D. (2006). Revising in two languages: A multi-dimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 201–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tardy, C. (2018). Voice and identity. In R. M. Manchón & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language and foreign language writing (pp. 349–363). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, M. J., & Bruning, R. (2005). Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 166–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue