Introduction: From Product to Process: Legacy of the Problem-Solving Approach to

Writing
Author(s): Deborah McCutchen
Source: Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, The Development of Writing Skill
(September 1996), pp. 187-191
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23359411
Accessed: 07-09-2018 09:54 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational
Psychology Review

This content downloaded from 103.98.135.2 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:54:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1996

Introduction: From Product to Process: Legacy

of the Problem-Solving Approach to Writing
Deborah McC'utchen12

A 1993 cartoon from Wiley's Non Sequitur depicts Thomas Jefferson

considering alternative openings for the Declaration of Independence. Al
ternatives range from "We the really ticked-off people" to "Yo, tax this,"
and the caption reads "Before eloquence there are rough drafts." Posted
on the door of my office, the cartoon sends a message to students com
plaining about my revision requests; however, the message for me is more
personal. The cartoon reminds me of my days teaching freshman compo
sition, when I dissected the Declaration of Independence for my students
as an exemplar of an argument essay, sent them off to write their own
arguments, and then viewed with dismay their inability to write persuasive
arguments. The cartoon emphasizes the writing process, whereas I, the writ
ing teacher, had emphasized only the written product.
Emphasis on the writing process is so widely accepted today that it is
difficult for some to imagine how recently the idea was novel. It is an over
statement to claim that the study of writing as a cognitive process began
with the publication of Hayes and Flower's process model in Gregg and
Steinberg's (1980) edited volume, Cognitive Processes in Writing. Prior to
that time, process-oriented arguments had come from rhetoric and com
position researchers (e.g., Britton, 1970; Britton, Burgess, Martin, McLeod,
and Rosen, 1975; Moffett, 1968a,b; Emig, 1971; see Nystrand, Greene, and
Wiemelt, 1993, for a historical review), and Flower and Hayes (1977) had
already published in the journal College English. Still, the publication of
Cognitive Processes in Writing, containing seminal chapters by Hayes and
Flower (1980; Flower and Hayes, 1980) as well as Bereiter (1980), broke
new ground within psychology. Just as the area of composition studies had

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Correspondence should be directed to Deborah McCutchen, University of Washington,
Educational Psychology, 312 Miller Hall, Box 353600, Seattle, Washington 98195-3600.

187

1040-726X/96/0900-0187$09.50/0© 1996 Plenum Publishing Corporation

This content downloaded from 103.98.135.2 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:54:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 188 McCutchen

emerged dur
tional Englis
the problem-
about writing
Several edit
Dominic, 198
Steinberg, an
nitive writin
the dominan
abandoning s
psychologist
ing (Newell a
the most ra
thought: No t
of Hanoi con
the writer's
and Flower (
over 15 years.
The reviews in this special issue document the power of Hayes and
Flower's theory, both as a description of empirical data and as a prompt
for new data generation. The authors of these articles extend the theoiy
proposed by Hayes and Flower (1980), most notably examining develop
mental issues that were absent from Hayes and Flower's original discussions
of writing expertise. Berninger, Fuller, and Whitaker survey a wide devel
opmental range, examining children's emerging writing skills as well as
adults' acquisition of an unfamiliar genre. They remind us that the move
ment from product to process is better viewed as a broadening of focus
rather than as a mutually exclusive shift. Reviewing their own research as
well as that of others, Berninger et al. use children's written products as a
window on the planning processes that generated them, documenting sys
tematic differences in the nature of written products across grades one
through nine and speculating on the rules of thumb that children may use
during on-line planning. Berninger et al. complement their discussion of
this "linear" development of writing skills with an analysis of "horizontal"
development, following adult writers via think alouds as they developed
expertise with a new genre encompassing new rhetorical purposes and
goals. The variety of strategies employed by the adults (including some that
resemble knowledge telling) demonstrates that writing skill is not a mono
lithic psychological construct independent of situation; it is rather a con
stellation of skills that depend heavily on context—social, rhetorical,
disciplinary, and professional (see also, Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Acker
man, 1988; Faigley and Hansen, 1985).

This content downloaded from 103.98.135.2 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:54:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Introduction: From Product to Process 189

Beal and Butterfield, Hacker, and Albertson focus on revision. Beal

examines children's emerging revision skills and argues that revision is
rooted in children's ability to monitor their comprehension of texts. In the
process, she juxtaposes writing and reading literatures that are considered
together all too infrequently (see also Hacker, 1994). She highlights her
programmatic revision research and concludes that children routinely ove
estimate the comprehensibility of text as readers and therefore may fail to
identify potential communication difficulties as writers. Beal's causal anal
sis is strengthened by her inclusion of instructional studies documenting
that children revise more effectively after training in comprehension moni
toring strategies.
Butterfield, Hacker, and Albertson turn their attention to revision
more broadly defined. They take as a starting point the model of revision
proposed by Flower, Hayes, Carey, Schriver, and Stratman (1986), itself a
elaboration of the revision process originally described by Hayes an
Flower (1980). Based on their comprehensive review of revision research
since 1980, Butterfield et al. further elaborate environmental, cognitive, and
metacognitive influences on revision. They are uncommonly articulate in
their distinctions between cognitive and metacognitive processes—distinc
tions frequently blurred as terms are defined and redefined across studies
In their review, Butterfield et al. look both to the past—synthesizing re
search from diverse perspectives—and to the future—identifying potentia
growth points for future revision research.
In the last article in the special issue, I examine the role of working
memory in writing. If writing is the recursive, interactive process that Haye
and Flower (1980) described, working memory is the logical locus of many
of those interactions. Thus, effects of limited working memory resource
should be apparent in the operation and orchestration of component wri
ing processes. Although the bulk of the review focuses on translating, work
ing memory effects are noted in planning and revising as well. I suggest
that a capacity theory of writing includes a level of interaction that has
been largely overlooked in writing research, noting that working memor
limitations may affect the nature as well as the number of writing processes
that a writer employs.
Given the disciplinary focus and audience of this journal, the present
authors have concentrated on research from a psychological perspective
and their reviews bear witness to the influence of Hayes and Flower (1977
1980; Flower and Hayes, 1980; Flower et al., 1986) on cognitive writing
research. However, the legacy of the problem-solving approach to writin
extends beyond psychological perspectives (e.g., Greene and Ackerman,
1995; Nystrand et al., 1993). Given the multidisciplinary functions of writing
it seems only fitting that writing research include conversations that spa

This content downloaded from 103.98.135.2 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:54:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 190 McCutchen

multiple discip
Flower have p

REFERENCES

Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In Gregg, L. W., and Steinberg, E. R.

Cognitive Processes in Writing, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 73-93.
Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T, and Ackerman, J. (1988). Conventions, conversations, an
writer: A case study of a student writer in a Ph.D. program. Res. Teach. Eng. 22: 9
Bizzell, P (1986). Composing processes: An overview. In Petrosky, A. R., and Bartholo
D. (eds.), The Teaching of Writing: The Eighty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society
the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 49-70.
Britton, J. (1970). Language and Learning, Allen Lane-The Penguin Press, London.
Britton, J., Burgess, T, Martin, N., McLeod, A., and Rosen, H. (1975). The Developme
Writing Abilities: 11-18, Macmillan, London.
Emig, J. (1971). The Composing Process of Twelfth Graders, National Council of Teach
English, Urbana, IL.
Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and proposal. Coll. En
527-542.
Faigley, L., and Hansen, K. (1985). Learning to write in the social sciences. Coll. Comp. Com
mun. 32: 365-387.
Flower, L., and Hayes, J. R. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. Coll.
Eng. 39: 449-461.
Flower, L. S., and Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling
constraints. In Gregg, L. W., and Steinberg, E. R., (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 31-50.
Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., and Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis,
and the strategies of revision. Coll. Comp. Commun. 37: 16-55.
Frederiksen, C. H., and Dominic, J. F. (eds.) (1981). Writing: The Nature, Development, and
Teaching of Written Communication, Vol. 2. Writing: Process, Development, and Communi
cation, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Greene, S., and Ackerman, J. M. (1995). Expanding the constructivist metaphor: A rhetorical
perspective on literacy research and practice. Rev. Educ. Res. 65: 383-420.
Gregg, L. W., and Steinberg, E. R. (eds.) (1980). Cognitive Processes in Writing, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Hacker, D. J. (1994). Comprehension monitoring as a writing process. In Carlson, J. S. (Series
ed.) and Butterfield, E. C. (Vol. ed.), Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice,
Vol. 2: Children's Writing: Toward a Process Theory of the Development of Skilled Writing,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT pp. 143-172.
Hayes, J. R., and Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In
Gregg, L. W., and Steinberg, E. R. (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-30.
Huey, E. B. (1908/1968). The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading, M.I.T Press, Cambridge,
MA.

LaBerge, D., and Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing
in reading. Cognit. Psychol. 6: 293-323.
Moffett, J. (1968a). Teaching the Universe of Discourse, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Moffett, J. (1968b). A Student-Centered Language Arts Curriculum, K-13: A Handbook for
Teachers, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Sovling, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.

This content downloaded from 103.98.135.2 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:54:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Introduction: From Product to Process 191

Nystrand, M. (ed.) (1982). What Writers Know: The Language, Process, and Structure of Writte
Communication, Vol. 2. Writing: Process, Development, and Communication, Academic
Press, New York.
Nystrand, M., Greene, S., and Wiemelt, J. (1993). Where did composition studies come from?
An intellectual history. Written Commun. 10: 267-333.

This content downloaded from 103.98.135.2 on Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:54:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms