An empirical investigation focusing on the different role of problem solving and the dual process

models of writing

A research proposal submitted to the University of the Witwatersrand in partial fulfilment of the
degree of Doctoral in Philosophy, 2017

1
Table of contents pages

1.1 Introduction and the back ground of the study 1

1.2. the aim of the study 4
1.3. rational of the study 4
2. Research objectives 6
3. research questions 6
4. Research Methodology 6
4.1. The experimental design process 6
5. Theoretical Framework 8
5.1. Problem solving model of writing by Flower & Hayes (1980) 9
5.2. The dual process model of writing by Galbraith (2009) 10
6. Literature review 12
6.1. Conceptualization of discovery of ideas (idea generation) and the cognitive
writing process 12
6.2. Using planning time conditions and self monitoring scale 13
6.3. Previous L1 and L2 research studies examining planning time conditions 15
6.4. The Models of Writing 16
6.4.1. Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1987) writing process model 17
6.4.2. Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) the working memory model 18
6.4.3. Skehan’s (1998) the limited attentional capacity model of writing 19
6.4.4. Chenoweth and Hayes's (2003) the text production model 21

References 22
Appendix 1 25
Appendix 2 25
Appendix 3 25

2
1.1. Introduction and background of the study

Writing is often described as a process of ideas’ discovery, there are contrasting conceptions about what
is responsible for this epistemic impact of writing (Baaijen, 2012). This study seeks to assess and focus
on the different role of the two theories, namely the problem solving model of writing by Flower &
Hayes (1980); and the dual process model of writing by Galbraith (2009) of text production processes. It
will consider both the development of understanding through writing as well as the process underlying it.
Both theories present writing as a process of ideas’ discovery, but they assign the epistemic effect of
writing to different processes.

Flower and Hayes (1980) refers to the discovery of new ideas and development of understanding
through writing come through planning designed to satisfy rhetorical goals, or it depends on the
adaptation of ideas to rhetorical goals. In other words, this model of writing refers to the epistemic effect
of writing to explicit planning processes in which writers evaluate their existing knowledge and
modulate this knowledge to satisfy rhetorical constraints. Contrastively, Galbraith (2009) claims that it
depends on the extent to which text production is dispositionally drive. It means ideas are retrieved
spontaneously by the topic and translating them directly into text without planning time. In this model,
discovery of ideas through writing occurs during text production, not as a passive process of translating
previous ideas into written output, but as an active knowledge constituting process that itself involves the
generation of ideas (Baaijen, 2012).

These two models use different methodologies to investigate which text production processes are
involved in the development of understanding through writing. The problem solving model of writing
suggests discovery by comparing the processes of novice and expert writers, but “they do not provide
empirical evidence that these distinct processes actually lead to differential development of
understanding” (Baaijen, 2012, p.108). On the other hand, Galbraith (2009) assesses how much writers
feel they know about a topic. He presumes that different processes are responsible for these different
writing outcomes, however, Galbraith does not investigate the implicit writing processes.

Moreover, Galbraith (2009) applied self-monitoring scale adapted from Snyder (1986) (see appendix 3)
to distinguish between writers whose writing is more or less guided to rhetorical goals ( high self-
monitors) or dispositional goals (low self-monitors), which mention to immediate reflections of the
internal condition of the writer. Also, Galbraith (2009) and Baaijen (2012) used planning time
conditions, in which they assumed that these different planning tasks will stimulate the use of different
text production processes during writing. This study will use self-monitoring and planning time

3
conditions as a variables to test whether discovery of ideas is effected by dispositionally or rhetorically
guided text production.

The differentiation between rhetorical and dispositional goals is based on the earlier work of Bereiter
and Scardamalia (1987) who differentiate between two approaches; the knowledge telling approach (i.e.
dispositional planning) used by novice writers, which involves retrieving ideas prompted spontaneously
by the topic and translating them directly into text. The knowledge transforming approach (i.e. rhetorical
planning) used by expert writers, which involves developing an elaborate set of goals for their text, and
generating ideas in order to satisfy these goals. It is assumed that differences in the extent to which
writers prefer either of these processes are a key source of individual differences in approaches to
writing (Baaijen, 2012).

1.2. The aim of the study

This study aims to assess empirically which text production processes or writing processes and discovery
of ideas are involved in the development of understanding through writing as well as how writing
processes are related to text quality by focusing on the different role of the two theories by Flower &
Hayes (1980) Galbraith (2009). This study will use self-monitoring to test whether discovery of ideas is
effected by dispositionally or rhetorically guided text production. It will use planning time conditions to
assess whether these different processes are more probably to occur when writing is with external
planning or not and to stimulate the use of different text production processes during writing.

Moreover, this will be examined by the effect of the two planning time conditions ( planning time
condition and no planning time condition) to assess whether these different processes occur when
writing is planned or not; within two different groups of writers ( high and low self-monitors) ( see table
1). By these two groups, it will be assessed how writers develop ideas through writing, and how the
development of ideas is related to text quality and development of understanding. In other words, it will
be found out how new and old ideas arise in the text.

1.3. Rationale of the study

This study will focus on the different role of the two theories, namely the problem solving model of
writing by Flower & Hayes (1980); and the dual process model of writing by Galbraith (2009) of text
production processes. It will consider both the development of understanding through writing as well as
the process underlying it. In doing this, this research aims to test which text production processes and
discovery of ideas are involved in the development of understanding through writing as well as how

4
writing processes are related to text quality, and by this it will be assessed whether discovery of ideas is
effected by dispositionally or rhetorically guided text production.

In the early of 1980, writing researchers transferred the writing product to the writing processes, they
focus mainly on the cognitive processes involved in writing, so as to resolve what happens in the
individual’s mind during composition (De Smet et al., 2014). From that time, Various researchers tried to
understand the complexity of the writing process in a model. The first and the most outstanding model is
Hays and Flower’s (1980) cognitive model of writing process which contains three main components;
the task environment, the writers’ long term memory, and the writing processes. Flower and Hays (1980)
assert that the complexity of writing can be explained that learners have to perform a set of cognitive
activities all together. Based on this model, cognitive of writing process became as a problem solving
model of writing. Following the Flower and Hays’ (1980) model, several models raised and based on the
Flower and Hays’( 1980) model, as these cognitive models of writing focus on the translation of
thoughts into a text.

However, some models such as Galbraith’s (2009) the dual process model of writing has the same their
aim but different view with Flower and Hayes (1980). As Flower and Hayes (1980) refers to the
discovery of new ideas come through planning designed to satisfy rhetorical goals, or it depends on the
adaptation of ideas to rhetorical goals. In contrast, Galbraith (2009) claims that it depends on the extent
to which text production is dispositionally drive. It means ideas are retrieved spontaneously by the topic
and translating them directly into text without planning time.

Problem solving and the dual process models of writing have been dominated over the last thirty years
in the research studies on writing ( Baaijen, 2012). Some studies such as Kellogg (1988,1990), Ellis and
Yuan (2004), Baaijen (2012), Ong (2013) as well as Ong and Zhang (2010, 2013) use the two models as
a basic and a frame to their studies. As these studies focus on the reflective thinking processes related
with writing I mean the thinking behind the text. These two models present writing as a process of ideas’
discovery, but they assign the epistemic effect of writing to different processes. These two different
models or view have been tested separately or individually, however no previous study has tried to assess
these models together and Contrastively as this study do. It is therefore important to find out if text
production and the development and the quality of ideas are held to serve rhetorical goals as Flower and
Hayes’ (1980) claim or held to perform dispositional goals as Galbraith’s (2009) claim. Therefore, this
study is important because it will assess the most two outstanding models in writing. The findings of this
study may will support one of these models’ view and it will be as a clear evidence on these two models
that may help further studies on writing.

5
Research Key words: discovery of ideas, text production, cognitive writing process, writing models,
planning time conditions, development of understanding through writing.

2. Research objectives

My primary research objective is to assess both theories (Problem solving model of writing by Flower &
Hayes,1980; and Galbraith’s dual process model of writing, 2009), by investigating the effects of
planning time conditions within self-monitoring groups on the development and the quality of ideas
that may held to serve rhetorical goals or held to perform dispositional goals.

3. research questions
To assess both theories (Problem solving model of writing by Flower & Hayes,1980; and Galbraith’s
dual process model of writing, 2009), this study will answer on these questions:

1- Are the development and the quality of ideas are held to serve rhetorical goals or held to fulfil
dispositional goals?
2- How is the development of ideas affected by two planning time conditions and self-monitoring ?
The two sub questions underlying the current question:
- Which of the two planning time conditions will produce a better quality and produce more
new ideas?
- Which of the self- monitoring groups will produce a better quality and produce more ideas?
- What effect does the interaction between planning time conditions and self- monitoring have
on the development and the quality of ideas?
3- How the development of ideas is related to text quality as well as to development of
understanding?

4. Research Methodology

This study will be an experimental study. It will use methods of quantitative research with the aim to
discover if there is a causal relationship between different variables (Christiansen et al., 2010). Research
methodology is seen as the study of methods in which knowledge is acquired and also assists to develop
the work plan for one’s research (Christiansen et al., 2010). This study is situated within the quantitative
research approach. Maree and Pietersen (2007a, p.145) define the quantitative approach “[…] as a
process that is systematic and objective in its ways of using numerical data from only a selected
subgroup of a universe or population to generalize the findings to the universe that is being studied”.

4.1. The experimental design process:

6
Some of the methods of this study had been used by various researches such as Baaijen (2012), Bereiter
and Scardamalia (1987), Flower & Hayes (1980), Galbraith (1999, 2009) and Ong (2010, 2013). A
quantitative descriptive method will use to examines the effects of two planning time conditions;
planning time and no planning time within two different groups of writers, high and low self-monitors.
Participants will be pre-selected using Snyder’s revised 25 items self-monitoring scale (Snyder, 1986),
and will be classified as high self-monitors if they scored between 11 and 25 on the scale and as low self-
monitors if they will obtain a score between 0 and 10 on the scale (Baaijen, 2012). The two groups of
low and high self-monitors will randomly distribute to either an planning time condition or no planning
condition. In all four conditions, participants will be asked to plan and write an article. The session was
divided into three different components: before writing, writing task and after writing (Baaijen, 2012).

Before writing: Participants will be given 10 minutes to list all the ideas they could think of relevant to
the topic. They will then asked to rate the importance of these ideas on a 5-point scale, where 5 = more
important idea, 1= less important idea. Then, the participants will be asked to rate how much they felt
and they knew about the topic on a 7-point scale, where is 1 = leas and 7 = a great ( Baaijen, 2012).

Writing task: In the planning time condition, participants will be given 5 minutes to think about the
topic and to write down a single ideas and to give their overall opinion of the topic briefly. Then, they
will be given another 5 minutes to construct a structured outline. Thereafter, they will have 20 minutes to
write a well-structured essay or article (Ong,2013; Baaijen, 2012). In the no planning condition,
immediately, the participants will be given 30 minute to write their a well-structured essay or article
without previous planning time.

After writing: The participants will be asked again to rate how much they feel and know about the
topic. Then, they will be again given 10 minutes to list of the ideas they could think of relevant to the
topic and to rate the importance of these ideas. Finally, participants will present with the two lists that
they had produced and will be asked to rate the degree to which ideas on the second list corresponded
with the ideas on the first list on a 6-point scale ranging from 1= identical point to 6 = not identical. On a
another page, they will be presented with three columns. In the first column they will find the numbered
list of ideas produced on the second list. In the second column they will be asked to list equivalent ideas
from list 1. Then, in the last column they will be asked to rate the correspondence between these ideas or
this group of ideas. On the second list were classified as new ideas if participants did not identify a
corresponding idea on the first list and hence rated the correspondence between the ideas with a score of
4 to 6 whereas ideas from the first list that persisted onto the second list were classified as preserved
ideas when they received a score of 1 to 3 on the correspondence rating (Baaijen, 2012). The study
strictly will be controlled the amount of planning and writing time given to the students‘ in their writing
7
 task, to gain insights into whether more ideas and ideas of a better quality may be generated through the
planning or through the writing process.

Table 1: Experimental task conditions

High self-monitoring Low self- monitoring

Planning time condition No planning time planning time condition No planning time
condition condition
10minutes planning time No planning time 10 minute planning time No planning time
20 minutes writing 30minuteswriting essay 20 minutes writing essay 30 minutes writing essay

This study will assess the two hypothesises by these methods, and it will find out if its findings will
support one of these hypothesis, or it may will find different results. The experiment will use a 3x2
between subjects‘ design, with two different amounts of planning and writing times as one independent
factor, and with two different self-monitor groups as the other. The dependent variables examined are
quantity of ideas ( production of new ideas) and the quality of the ideas produced in the argumentative
essays following Ong’s (2013) design.

To assess the development of ideas through writing different calculations will be carried out on the lists
produced before and after writing. The scores will calculate: number of ideas produced before and after
writing list 1 and list 2, mean length of ideas (mean number of words per idea) produced before and after
writing, mean importance of ideas produced on list 1 and 2 (Baaijen, 2012, & Ong, 2010).

To assess the quality of the texts will be conducted by four independent scorers (the candidate, the
supervisor and two English L1 speakers) using the scoring scheme provided by Ong (2013). Inter-scorer
agreement will be a pre-requisite for utilisation of any scoring results in the further utilisation of the data.

To assess the development of understanding, and from the above described procedure, we will measure
discovery through writing with a personal rating of knowledge of the topic. It may will establish
increases in understanding when participants evaluate their knowledge after writing with a higher
ranking than their rating of knowledge before writing (Baaijen, 2012) .

5. Theoretical Framework

8
The two theorise, problem solving model of writing by Flower & Hayes (1980) and the dual process
model of writing by Galbraith (2009) will be assessed as well as it will be chosen as the theoretical
framework for this study as it attempts to explain how ideas are developed in writing. The models detail
the cognitive processes underlying the discovery of ideas (Ong, 2013). Both models are agree that
writing requires the active organisation of one’s personal understanding. Once writers have embodied
their own understanding of the topic in written produce, this enables them to reflect on their current
understanding for their text and to evaluate the expression of their ideas according to the requirements of
the intended text.

5.1. Problem solving model of writing by Flower & Hayes (1980)

The original cognitive model of writing of Flower and Hayes in 1980 describes their view of writing as a
problem solving activity that led to the development of a general model of the processes involved in
writing and also to a theory of writing expertise (Flower and Hayes, 1981; Baaijen, 2012). problem
solving provide a conceptual language for classifying the mental processes involved, and a series of
methods for testing these processes. The model differentiates between three main processes: planning,
translating and revising or reviewing. Flower and Hayes (1981) and Galbraith and Trent (2009), Baaijen
(2012, p. 21) assert that “Planning has generating ideas, organization and goal setting as its components.
Translating means translating plans into text. It refers to constructing sentences and to actual language
production. Revising includes reading and editing as its components. It involves evaluating the text or
plans for the text”, so it refers to both mental as well as written evaluations. These processes operate on a
representation of the task environment as well as on knowledge stored in long term memory and it
controlled by monitor (Baaijen, 2012). These processes, planning, translating and reviewing can take
place at any moment during the writing task (Galbraith & Trent, 2009; Baaijen, 2012). Note that
(translating process here is not about the process of translating from one language to another, rather it
mentions to the process of transforming conceptual content into a linguistic form).

Thereafter, Flower and Hayes used these cognitive processes of writing to compare the writing processes
of novice and expert writers thinking aloud while writing. They found that expert writers set more
explicit rhetorical goals for their text and that experts created more connections between their goals than
did the novices. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) agree with this model that writers have to define the
rhetorical context by establishing what their goals are for the text and how they want to present their
ideas in the emerging text. These goals will then function as constraints within which the writer searches
memory for relevant content and develops ideas for inclusion in the text. Also, in a recent study that its
findings concur with the general conceptions of problem solving model, Klein and Kirkpatrick (2010)
indicated that text quality and development of understanding through writing are related and tested the
relationships between strategic rhetorical planning processes, text quality and discovery through writing.
9
Their findings demonstrated that rhetorical planning processes improve text quality, which it leads to the
development of understanding through writing.

Furthermore, the main purpose of problem solving model is on the higher order thinking processes
behind the text, it should be noted that rhetorical planning processes strategic impacts the way in which
knowledge is offered in language (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Baaijen, 2012). According to them, expert
writers can evaluate and reflect their premier rhetorical problem for the text. This suggests that rhetorical
planning goes from the thinking behind the ideas to the wording of the ideas in the text. Therefore, the
problem solving model predicts more planned sentence production which may reflect careful word
choice (Baaijen, 2012). Going back to the writing processes, one of the important cognitive processes in
this model is translating processes, and higher order thinking processes, it assumed that writers will be
less able to engage in rhetorical problem solving the more they try to carry out translating at the same
time as generating content (Baaijen, 2012). This assumed to be directed by outlining or planning before
writing. The useful effect of outlining or planning before writing is that writers are able to discovery or
generate ideas separately from involvement in demanding translating processes (Baaijen, 2012).

In summary, the problem solving model proposes that discovery through writing is a result of strategic
amendment of content to serve or satisfy rhetorical goals, and this will be promoted when the writer can
focus on higher level thinking about text structure and content, independent from the request of
formulating full text spontaneously.

5.2. The dual process model of writing by Galbraith (2009)

The dual process model of Galbraith (2009) demonstrates the effect of writing on knowledge change to
more implicit text production processes. The content of implicit text production process is organized
according to the constraints within semantic memory and then transcribed as text. “over a series of
cycles, this allows the writer to constitute their implicit knowledge in the text. The key feature of this
process is that, because of its implicit nature, the writer is unable to predict the content that will be
produced, and hence, in order to constitute their knowledge in the text, the writer has to allow text
production to unfold free from external constraints” ( Galbraith ,2009; Baaijen, 2012.p. 47 ). Therefore,
the implicit text production process that is directed by the implicit structure of semantic memory is
required to constitute the writer’s personal understanding of the topic.

Galbraith (2009) argues that the problem solving model of writing overstates the role of explicit thinking
more than implicit text production processes. In contrast with the problem solving model of writing, this
model has transferred the concept of writing from a problem solving approach to a concept of writing as
text production. It depends on the extent to which text production is dispositionally driven, in which
10
discovery through writing occurs during text production, not as a passive process of translating previous
ideas into written output, but as an active knowledge constituting process that itself involves the
generation of ideas (Baaijen, 2012).

The dual process model acknowledges the existence of an explicit rhetorical component within writing,
but claims that this component only involves the retrieval of existing knowledge from long term memory
and, therefore, does not lead to changes in understanding. The implicit text production process that is
assumed to lead to discovery through writing, and which Galbraith has defined as dispositionally driven
text production, operates on different principles than the reflective processes which are involved during
knowledge-transforming. It is believed that it involves a synthesis process rather than a retrieval process
and this synthesis process leads to discovery when the ideas it produces are different from the explicit
ideas retrieved from long term memory (Baaijen, 2012). Galbraith argues that writing can function as a
process of discovery when text production is a controversial interaction between the text written and the
writer’s disposition towards to topic.

Galbraith's (2009) findings that have led to the development of a dual process-model in which effective
writing is presumed to be the common product of two conflicting processes. The first of these processes
is the knowledge retrieval process involving the retrieval of already formed ideas from an explicit
knowledge store in long term memory. This would involve either translating the ideas directly into text
as is proposed in Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1987) knowledge telling model. The second is the goal-
directed evaluation and the use of ideas before translating them into text as Bereiter & Scardamalia
describe in knowledge transforming model. The knowledge telling model hence entails a ‘think-say’
method of text composition, in which ideas are retrieved directly from memory in response to the topic,
and are then directly translated into text. The sequence of ideas in the text is a direct reflection of the
links between ideas stored in memory and this model is the base of the dual process model .

In addition, the knowledge transforming model comprises retrieving the ideas by active problem solving
processes as this model is the base of the problem solving model. According to Bereiter and Scardamalia
(1987) cited in Galbraith, (2009, p.10) reflection involves a two way interaction between a content space
where content is worked out, and a rhetorical space where goals for the text are developed. The two
model are then used to illustrate, first, the distinctions between different forms of text production;
second, the relation between writing and discovery, and third, the interaction between explicit problem-
solving processes and implicit knowledge-constituting processes during writing (Galbraith, 1992, 2009).

One of the features is that the dual process model’s demand that outlining or planning has a differential
effect on the explicit organizing process and the implicit knowledge constituting process. Planning is
supposed to develop or promote the explicit organizing process and to lead to improvements in text
11
quality ( Kellogg, 1990). It is also presumed to prevent the implicit knowledge constituting process and
thus to reduce the development of understanding. This is also presumed to contribute to text quality, this
means the effect of outlining or planning on text quality will be different for writers who prefer the two
processes differently.

In briefly, the problem solving model and the dual process model provide two different accounts of the
nature of engagement in writing. The problem-solving model implies that the essential advantage of
engagement is the extent to which the writer engages in knowledge-transforming processes that is
presumed to be responsible for the production of text quality. By contrast, the dual process model
implies that the essential advantage is the extent to which writing is driven by the learners' implicit
personal understanding of the topic.

6. Literature review

6.1. Conceptualization of discovery of ideas (idea generation) and the cognitive writing process

Writing is about discovering and inventing the thoughts to be expressed in the text as much as it is a
matter of expressing them in a proper and convincing way (Galbraith, 2009ab). Thus, the development
of writing is described in several ways in the literature; the study by Galbraith (2009a), e.g., refers to it
as a discovery through writing occur when learners express spontaneously and free from external
constraints, whereas Flower and Hayes (1980) refer to writing as a process of invention. Writing is thus a
reflection of our ideas and thoughts in which writers have to identify the rhetorical context by
establishing what their goals are for the text and how they present their ideas in text (Baaijen, 2012).
Moreover, Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) describe writing as the transformation of knowledge.
Looking at these three different descriptions of writing by the various au thors shows some cyclic core
ideas about the essence of writing which are raised by Baaijen (2012) who describes writing as the
construct of discovery; this indicates that writing emerges from the concept of knowledge. Baaijen
(2012, p.43) adds that “ writing involves knowing how to represent spoken language in a visual form, the
writer has to know what symbols can be used to represent the sounds making up spoken language and
how to use punctuation to mark the boundaries between different conceptual and linguistic units”.
Someone who knows these processes would know how to write and be able to produce text.

Idea generation or discovery of ideas is a cognitive process that is a pre requirement to produce coherent
writing (Ong, 2013, p.529). A text is cohesive if its elements are tied together and if it makes sense.
Herring, Jones and Bailey (2009, p.2) assert that discovery of ideas are the activity most frequently
associated with creative problem solving, which is concur with Flower and Hayes's (1980) model. In
general, Elbow (1981cited in Baaijen, 2012) indicates that writing requires two contrasting kinds of

12
processes (creating and criticizing). Elbow (1981) suggests that theses two processes always conflict
with each other, and the writing process should be separated into two stages; First, learners should write
anything down as it comes to mind and without any restrictions. Secondly, learners have to evaluate
what they want to write critically. Further, he explains that writers should first externalize their ideas
spontaneously in text and then turn to critically evaluating the text with rhetorical constraints. The
processes that interfere with the spontaneous of language, such as structure or rhetorical goals, would
affect the strength of writing as an instrument for learning. Within this state, he affirms that discovery
through writing occurs when no sequential organization through writing, and this concur with Flower
and Hayes's (1980) model.

Flower and Hayes (1980) further reveal that generating ideas demands a text composition of a several of
cognitive processes which are achieved within three main stages: planning, translating 1 and reviewing.
Planning includes the generation of ideas, arranging information and setting goals; it is a conceptual
level that organize pre-verbal messages to the ideas when a writer wants to communicate Translating
means interpreting plans into text. It mentions to structure sentences and to actual language production.
Reviewing includes revising and editing as its components. It refers to evaluate the text to both mental as
well as written evaluations..

During the cognitive writing processes, ideas are returned from long-term memory and re-organized if
necessary. Olive, Favart, Beauvais, and Beauvais (2009) agree with this view that these planning
processes also allow the various writing stages to be organized by preparing composition action-plans.
Ong (2013, p. 530) stipulates that the generation of ideas can be considered as the first phase of first and
second language writing production while thinking about the language used to represent these ideas
shapes the second phase. Furthermore, cognitive processes which are part of the writing process are
processes aimed at reviewing the quality of writing according to Flower and Hayes (1981); Bereiter and
Scardamalia (1987), with Kellogg (1996). Over and beside the aspects that were already mentioned,
Writers may use a variety of strategies to organize the different processes effectively to prevent cognitive
overload (Hayes & Flower, 1981, and Baaijen, 2012). In other words, thinking about all of these
processes at the same time employ much of the available working memory capacity and, hence writers
counter the difficult task of coordinating the different processes effectively while writing.

6.2. Using planning time conditions and self monitoring scale

1
The use of the well-established term translating in this context is not unproblematic. It refers to the translating between
cognitive representations and linguistic representations; i.e. between ideas and text. In the context of writing processes in L2
learners this terminology makes it almost impossible to differentiate between this process and the translation process between
lexical material in the L1 and lexical material in the L2. I hope that the difference between these two translating/translation
processes will be sufficiently clear from the context.

13
This study will use planning time conditions as a variable to distinguish between an outline or planning
and a non- outline planning conditions, because it assumes that these different planning tasks will
stimulate the use of different text production processes during writing (Galbraith, 2009; Baaijen, 2012).
For planning time condition, it is assumed that writers will be able to depend on ideas that they have
organised during pre-planning and thus, that their outline plan will guide the generating of content
during writing, whereas for non- outline or no planning time it is assumed that ideas will emerge during
text production.

Furthermore, this study assumes that high and low self-monitors prefer the explicit planning process
(outlined planning time) and the implicit text production process ( no planning time or synthetic
planning) differently and that these types of writers use different strategies to correspond between the
explicit planning processes and the implicit text production processes (Galbraith, 2009; Baaijen, 2012).
Self-monitors adapted from Snyder (1986), Self-monitoring is a personality scale that measures the
extent to which people are concerned with the impression they make on others. In other words, he
showed that people differ in the extent to which they observe their expressive behaviour and to what
extent they control their self-presentation.

Thus, People who are high self-monitors are sensitive to their own expressive behaviour, and use signals
from the social context to dominate their own expressive behaviour. In contrast, people who are low self-
monitors are less concerned or worried about their self presentation, and their expressive behaviour is
controlled from or within their affective conditions and thus, they express their behaviour as they feel it.
According to Snyder ( 1986), high self- monitors will use signal from the rhetorical context to guide
their behaviour, whereas low self-monitors are less cared to their expression so that it suits with the
situation and they prefer to the direct expression of their disposition or belief to present less planned
sentence production.

Some studies applied self-monitoring such as, Galbraith (1992) used the self-monitoring scale to
distinguish between writers whose writing is more or less guided to rhetorical goals ( high self-monitors)
or dispositional goals (low self-monitors), which mention to immediate reflections of the internal
condition of the writer. Prior writing, the learners were asked to list all the ideas that they could think
about the topic, to rate the importance of these ideas and how much they felt they knew about the topic.
After writing, Galbraith asked them again to show how much they felt they knew, to list their ideas and
to rate the importance of these ideas.

The aim of Galbraith’s (1992) study is to find out If on one hand, discovery through writing as a result
of active rhetorical problem solving, it expected that the high self monitors to produce more new ideas
than the low self-monitors, and these writers are supposed to direct their goals towards rhetorical goals.
14
This must be most clear in the notes condition, because in this condition writers can focus on planning
without having to focus on text production. On another hand, if discovery through writing is a
consequence of finding out what you think in the course of writing, it assumed that the low self-monitors
produce more new ideas than the high self-monitors, since these writers are supposed to prefer the direct
expression of their ideas in writing.

Thus, his findings showed that high self-monitors produced more new ideas after writing notes than low
self-monitors. In addition, Galbraith found that low self-monitors produced more new ideas in the text
production condition more than the high self-monitors did. Therefore, these results supported Galbraith’s
(2009) view that discovery depends on the extent to which text production is dispositionally driven (low
self-monitors) rather than guided towards rhetorical goals (high self-monitors). It depends on whether
writers express their implied knowledge about the topic by spontaneous text production processes.

More so, a study conducted by Baaijen (2012) examined the effects of planning and self-monitoring
which learners use to develop ideas through writing. The participants were 84 ESL students from the
Faculty of Arts of the University of Groningen. The study identified that the ways in which the students
develop their ideas are related to the text quality as well as the development of their understanding of the
second language.

6.3. Previous L1 and L2 research studies examining planning time conditions

The importance of the planning time conditions have been confirmed for the L1 and L2 writing tasks by
Flower and Hayes (1981); Hayes and Nash (1996); Galbraith ( 2009); as well as Baaijen (2012). In
addition, Galbraith (1999) discussed how the task environment ( planning time conditions) may
influence the writers’ discovery of ideas and how it may hence have an impact on the quality of their
writing in the context of his knowledge constituting model (Ong, 2014, p.18). The various studies
mentioned above acknowledge that the planning time conditions comprise factors external to a writer‘s
cognition and may include a writer‘s social and physical environment.

Galbraith and Torrance’s (2004) study found that the quality of writing (as measured by fluency of
language, coherence of the overall argument, originality, and the appropriateness of style of writing)
improves when the participants either revise without having access to their first drafts or when they write
without planning. To concur this, Kellogg (1990) argues that writers who involve in planning before
starting the actual writing process may be able to focus on the translating processes during writing; and
these processes are critical for L2 writers. Kellogg (1988) examined the effects of outlining planning, no
outlining planning, and mental outlining on the fluency and text quality of 20 college L1 learners’
convincing writing. Learners working under the outlining condition were instructed to plan an outline for
5-10 minutes before writing, whereas the students in the no outlining condition were asked to write
15
immediately. Learners who produced text under the mental outlining condition improved the quality of
the documents as much as a written outline. He found that outlining (planning) did not improve fluency
but it did have an effect on the quality of the text (Kellogg, 1988) and this findings are supported by
Baaijen (2012). Baaijen (2012, p.111) concurs with Kellogg that “[…] the beneficial effect of outlining
prior to writing is that writers are able to generate ideas separately from involvement in demanding
translating processes”. Kellogg (1988) further reports that outlining is associated with the production of
better quality text, since it enables writers to separate the reflective processes that are involved in
generating, organizing, and evaluating ideas from the processes involved in formulating these ideas in a
well-formed text.

Additional studies on L2 for example, the studies conducted by Kellogg (1988, 1990), Ellis and Yuan
(2004) as well as Ong and Zhang (2010, 2013) focus on planning and writing, and also examine the
effects of added planning time, or various task conditions or both on writing quality. Ellis and Yuan
(2004) investigate the effects of pre-task planning or planning time, on-line planning, and no planning on
the fluency, complexity, and accuracy of the narrative writing of 42 Chinese ESL learners. The
researchers found that pre-task planning results in improved fluency and syntactic variety, whereas on-
line planning results in greater accuracy. In comparison no planning time has negative consequences on
fluency, complexity, and accuracy (Ellis & Yuan, 2004).

Furthermore, one of the existing studies Ojima (2006) examines the difference between writing tasks
with planning and without planning on three ESL Japanese learners‘ written performance. Each learner
wrote four essays: two planned essays and two unplanned essays. For all essays fluency was assessed as
a measure of lexical complexity. The findings indicate that writing tasks with added planning time
produced both greater fluency and complexity, but did not improve accuracy of language (Ojima, 2006).
Ong (2013) concludes from such results that the pre-task planners focus their attention on content and
organization during planning. In the consequence, they produce overall a better text quality than no
planners.

6.4. The Models of Writing:

This section review models of cognitive processes involved in writing. It designs their development from
an early assurance on the thinking behind the text and the effect of cognitive overload on this, and these
models asserting the interaction between thinking and text production processes, and more on the
constitutive role of text production in the development of the writer’s thought. these models have the
same goals such as: the impact of linguistics fluency on higher level thinking processes, managing the
writing processes, the maintenance of conceptual performance during text production in L1and L2,and

16
lastly, the effect of L1 and L2 writing on the development of the learners’ understanding during text
production Galbraith & Trent (2009).

These different models of writing assist the L1 and L2 learners in developing their writing skills. Baaijen
(2012, p.19) asserts that “ models of writing are the processes implicated in writing, and how these
processes develop and vary with experience; however these models claim that writing is related with the
development of understanding”. Beside to Flower & Hayes’s (1980) problem solving model of writing
and Galbraith’s (2009) the dual process model of writing that will be discussed later in the theoretical
framework of the study; also this section will mention to the models of writing briefly such as, Bereiter
and Scardamalia’s (1987) writing process model, Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) the working memory
model, Skehan‘s (1998) the limited attentional capacity model of writing, and Chenoweth and Hayes's
(2003) the text production model.

6.4.1. Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1987) writing process model

In this model, Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) compared a knowledge-telling model of writing, which
used by children and novice writers, and a knowledge-transforming model of writing that employed by
expert writers in which writers involve in the sort of problem and goal setting (Baaijen, 2012).
According to their model, the development of ideas through writing relies upon the extent to which
content retrieval is strategically controlled in order to satisfy rhetorical goals as Flower & Hayes's (1980)
claim.

Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1987) knowledge telling model of writing requires a think-say method of
text composition, that ideas are retrieved from memory in response to the topic, and are then
immediately translated into textual form (Galbraith & Trent, 2009). This means that the series of ideas in
the text is a direct reflection of the links between ideas stored in memory. In other words, the output text
reflects the structure of the writer’s knowledge, which is only modified as much as is required in order to
conform to text demands. In line with this idea novice writers do not adopt higher level goals, as they
only pay a lot of attention to surface features of the text (Baaijen, 2012, p. 26).

In contrast, Bereiter and Scardamalia‘s (1987) knowledge transforming model of writing involves
retrieving ideas by active problem solving processes or reflection. Such active problem solving processes
require a mental representation of tasks and spaces in which problem translation processes occur, which
is reflection involves a two ways interaction between a content space where content is worked out, and a
rhetorical space where goals for a text are developed. Knowledge-transforming strategies are involved
with actively designing a text to satisfy communicative goals with respect to the reader. Planning

17
becomes more elaborate, and revising is more extensive than in a knowledge telling model because they
are guided towards the writer‘s implicit goals (Baaijen, 2012).

Both the models of Flower and Hayes (1980) and Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987), claim that the
creation of new ideas depends on the extent to which writers adjust their thought to rhetorical goals.
These models attribute learning to a problem-solving activity where students set explicit rhetorical goals
and follow goal-directed strategies to transform knowledge (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1987; Baaijen, 2012, p. 12).

The notion that writers can change their knowledge through writing is developed from the knowledge-
transforming model of Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987). They describe expert writing as a knowledge-
transforming process, in contrast with the knowledge-telling process employed by novices. However,
this model proposes that expert writers develop their understanding when they are involved in
knowledge-transforming processes, it can be noted that knowledge change is not often empirically
tested. It surely constitutes an area where more research is needed.

6.4.2. Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) the working memory model

The working memory model was developed by Baddeley and Hitch in (1974) as an early version of the
short term memory model. Baddeley (2012) provides that the working memory model developed from
the earlier concept of short term memory and the two can be used alternatively. However, knowledge
stored in different systems within the working memory and these systems are responsible for storing
both new and old knowledge. Working memory is vital for learning, understanding, and thinking as it
helps in connecting long term memory and the world, also updating memory stores with the latest
knowledge. D‘Esposito (2007, p.762) agrees with this claim and states that "working memory refers to
the temporary retention of knowledge that is just experienced or just restored from long-term memory
but no longer exists in the external environment". Moreover, he added that the internal representations
are short-lived, but can be stored for longer periods of time through active maintenance or rehearsal
strategies, and can be presented to several operations that make the information useful for goal-directed
behavior (D‘Esposito, 2007, p.762).

Baddeley (2012, 1996) further elaborates that working memory consists of a combination between the
storage and the use of information and it has three main components are the central executive, the
phonological loop and the visuospatial sketch pad. Their main components are as follows:

 The central executive is the most important component of the working memory system that has
several purposes, and it responsible for retrieving long-term memory, for controlling attention,
18
 and for the supervision of the system as a entire. Studies such as Baddeley (1986, 2012), and
McLeod (2012) have shown that the central executive is responsible for monitoring and
coordinating the operation of information stored in the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial
sketch pad as well as for relating this information to long term memory. McLeod (2012) further
indicates that working memory is responsible for driving the whole system and also deals with
the cognitive tasks of problem solving.
 The phonological loop stores and keeps verbal items in active memory. Baddeley (2012, p.7)
explained that “the phonological loop is a relatively modular system which comprises of a brief
store together with the means of maintaining information by vocal or sub-vocal rehearsals”. The
phonological loop helps in the storage of words and numbers when reading. Spoken and written
materials and is also used for remembering numbers and letters. The phonological loop has two
parts namely the phonological store that is related to spoken words and the articulator control
(inner voice) which is used in rehearsing and storing verbal information from the phonological
store (McLeod, 2012).
 The visuo-spatial sketchpad is the third component of the working memory model which stores
and maintains visual and spatial material in active memory. McLeod (2012) asserts that it stores
and processes knowledge in a visual or spatial form. Baddeley (2012) indicates that visuo-spatial
sketchpad plays an important role in allowing people to identify things and objects in their
surroundings.

Therefore, Kellogg (1996) added that the planning component in the working memory model requires
both the visuo-spatial sketchpad and the central executive and that it is involved with prelinguistic ideas,
not the verbal component of working memory. Although, according to Galbraith and Trent (2009), the
translation stage of the writing process needs the central executive to plan sentences, and the
phonological loop to store and keep verbal items while sentences are being structured.

6.4.3. Skehan’s (1998) the limited attentional capacity model of writing

This model proposed by Skehan‘s (1998), is based on a working memory model which presumes that
writers have a limited information processing capacity and that more demanding tasks require more
attentional resources from writers, because executive attention is limited in capacity, such control
depends on decreasing the working memory demands of other processes involved in writing (Kellogg,
2008, p.1). The important advantage of this model is the planning, translation and revision processes
which can appear at any moment during writing, (Baaijen, 2012, p.109). The way in which these
processes are combined is controlled by a monitor and different arrangements of these processes are
supposed to reflect different writing strategies.

19
Hayes and Flower (1986) developed this descriptive model of processes involved in writing which
contrasts the writing processes of beginner and expert writers. The model was developed by collecting
thinking aloud data while writing that is assumed to decrease the working memory demands. Expert
writers were found to set more explicit rhetorical goals for their text and created more connections
between their individual goals than did the beginners (Hayes & Flower, 1986). Therefore, Baaijen (2012)
and Hayes and Flower (1986) debate that expert writers build a more elaborate representation of their
communicative goals and that they use these goals to direct the retrieval of information during the
writing process. They conclude that experienced writers will produce better quality writing than novice
writers and that higher order reflective processes are evidenced by high quality texts.

6.4.4. Chenoweth and Hayes's (2003) the text production model

Chenoweth and Hayes‘s (2003) developed a detailed model of the processes involved in text production
on the basis of a comparison between writers‘ L1 and L2 texts. Chenoweth and Hayes‘ model has four
components. The first component is the proposer. The proposer is responsible for creating conceptual
content (an idea package). The idea package is forward to the second component, the translator. Then the
translator produces a language string which is evaluated by the last component, i.e. the evaluator/reviser.
If the language string is acceptable it is passed to the transcriber to be turned into text. However if the
language string is not acceptable, the reviser can call on other processes in order to send it back to the
translator which in turn may produce a revised version of the language string. Alternatively, the language
string may be referred back to the proposer who may produce a new idea package altogether (Chenoweth
& Hayes, 2003 & Baaijen, 2012).

However, ideas are produced at the beginning point of the text production process and must be
maintained in the working memory until the complete sentence has been transcribed (Baaijen, 2012, p.
25). In other word, both the extent of time it will take for the writer to complete the sentence as well as
the size of the parts that sentences are produced in, could have an effect on the writer‘s ability to
maintain the idea package they want to express in working memory. Galbraith and Trent (2009) assume
that this might impact on the complexity of ideas which the writer is able to express and perhaps also
have an impact on the local coherence of the text.

7. Outline of Chapters
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Background
20
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Chapter 3 – Methodology
Chapter 4 – Findings / Results / Data Analysis
Chapter 5 – Discussion
Chapter 6 – Conclusion

References

21
Baaijen,V.M. (2012). The development of understanding through writing. University of
Groningen, Amsterdam (Netherlands): Off Page.

Baddeley, A.D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
49(1), 5–28.

Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models and controversies. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, 1–29.

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chenoweth, A. & Hayes, J. (2003). The inner voice in writing. Written Communication, 20, 99 –118.

Christiansen, I., Bertram, C. & Land, S. (2010). Understanding research. Pietermaritzburg:

UKZN Faculty of Education.

De Smet, M.R.J., Brand-Gruwel, S., Leijten, M., Kirschner, P.A. (2014). Electronic outlining as a writing
strategy: Effects on students' writing products, mental effort and writing process. Computers &
Education, 78, 352-366.

D‘Esposito, M. (2007). From cognitive to neural models of working memory: Philosophical transactions.
Journal of Biological Sciences, 362 (1481), 761–772.

Ellis, R., & Yuan, F., (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second
language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32, 365–387.

Hayes, J. & Flower, L. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.

Hayes, J. R., & Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell
(Eds.), The science of writing (29–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

22
Galbraith, D. (1992). Conditions for discovery through writing. Instructional Science, 21, 45–72.

Galbraith, D. (2009a). Writing as discovery. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph

Series, II (6), 1–23.

Galbraith, D. (2009b). Writing about what we know: Generating ideas in writing. In R. Beard, D. Myhill,
J. Riley & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (48–64). London: Sage
Publications

Galbraith, D. & Torrance, M. (2004). Revision in the context of different drafting strategies. In L. Allal,
L. P. Chanquoy & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (63–86). Amsterdam:
Kluwer.

Galbraith, D. & Trent, S. (2009). Cognitive models of writing. German as a Foreign Language,
2(3), 7–22.

Herring, S. R., Jones, B. B. & Bailey, B. P. (2009). Idea generation techniques among creative
professionals. (1–10). Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Piscataway, N.J: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

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, 355–365.

Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American

Journal of Psychology, 103, 327–342.

Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C.M. Levy and S. Ransdell(Eds.), The
science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (57–72). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing
Research, 1(1), 1–26.

Klein, P. D, & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). A framework for content area writing: Mediators and
moderators. Journal of Writing Research, 2(1), 1– 46.

Maree, K. & Pietersen, J. (2007). The quantitative research process. In K. Maree (Ed.), First
23
steps in research (145–153). Pretoria: Van Schalk Publishers.

McLeod, S. (2012). Working memory. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/working

%20memory.html

Ojima, M. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers.
System, 34, 566–585.

Ong, J. (2010). The effect of planning and revising on Chinese ESL learners‘ text quality.
Unpublished doctorate thesis. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.

Ong, J. (2013). Discovery of ideas in second language writing task environment. System, 41,
529–542
Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 17–30.

Ong, J. & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on fluency and lexical complexity in L2
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218–233.

Ong, J. & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers‘ text
quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 375–398.

Olive, T., Favart, M., Beauvais, C., & Beauvais, L. (2009). Children‘s cognitive effort and fluency in
writing: Effects of genre and of handwriting automatisation. Learning and Instruction, 19, 299–308.

Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3rd Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behaviour. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 30(4), 526.

Appendix 1: The Topic for the writing task

24
The mass media (including TV, radio, newspapers and the internet) have a great influence on society.
They play an important role in shaping the opinions and positions of people. Especially the younger
generation is easily influenced and manipulated by the media‖.

(The topic will remain the same across all groups; see table 1 for an overview of all
experimental task conditions).

Appendix 2: Rating scheme for quality of ideas in essays

Score Features

The essay is overall not convincing. The development of ideas is not good. A
1-3 points stand is provided, with two or three reasons given to support the stand, but the
reasons are not well-explained or elaborated with examples, reasons or
illustrations.

The essay is overall quite convincing. The development of ideas is quite good. A
4-6 points stand is provided, with at least three main reasons to support the stand. The
reasons are well-supported and elaborated by examples, reasons, or illustrations.

The essay is overall very convincing. The development of ideas is very good. A
7-9 points stand is provided, with at least three main reasons to support the stand. The
reasons are very well-supported and elaborated by examples, reasons, or
illustrations. One or two counter-arguments are proposed with refutations.

Appendix 3: Snyder’s revised 18 item self-monitoring scale

High self-monitors set learners’ behavior in reaction to their environment, whereas, low self-monitors
like to rely on the same attitudes or actions in all contexts. The self-monitoring scale consists of 25 items
which participants should to rate as either true or false. Each item must be answered quickly without
over thinking, and the time should be not more than two minutes to respond.

1- I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people.( T - F)

25
2- My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs.(T - F)
3- At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like. ( T- F)
4- I can only argue for ideas which I already believe.( T - F)
5- I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no information.( T - F)
6- I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people.( T - F )
7 - When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the behavior of others for cues. ( T- F)
8 -I would probably make a good actor.( T - F)
9- I rarely seek the advice of my friends to choose movies, books, or music.(T - F)
10- I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper emotions than I actually am.( T - F)
11- I laugh more when I watch a comedy with others than when alone.( T - F )
12- In groups of people, I am rarely the center of attention.( T - F )
13- In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons.( T - F )
14- I am not particularly good at making other people like me. ( T - F )
15 -Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be having a good time.
( T -F ).
16- I'm not always the person I appear to be. ( T - F )
17- I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone else or win their
favor. (T - F )
18 -I have considered being an entertainer. ( T - F )
19- In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people expect me to be rather than anything else.
( T- F )
20- I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational acting. ( T - F)
21- I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations. ( T- F )
22 -At a party, I let others keep the jokes and stories going. ( T - F)
23- I feel a bit awkward in company and do not show up quite as well as I should. ( T- F)
24- I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right end). (T - F)
25- I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them. ( T - F)

26