Models of writing

Flower and Hayes’ (1981) model of the writing process represents a seminal work that has been widely quoted and reviewed. Perhaps most importantly for this study, it acknowledges reading in the process of writing. The model is shown in Figure 2 and alongside the model Hayes and Flower (1981:p366) present four key points on which their theory of writing is based. The four key points are:

1. The process of writing is best understood as a set of distinctive

thinking processes which writers orchestrate or organize during the act of composing.

2. These processes have a hierarchical, highly embedded organization in

which any given process can be embedded within any other.

3. The act of composing itself is a goal-directed thinking process, guided

by the writer's own growing network of goals.

4. Writers create their own goals in two key ways: by generating both

high-level goals and supporting sub-goals which embody the writer's

developing sense of purpose, and then, at times, by changing major goals or even establishing entirely new ones based on what has been learned in the act of writing.

20

In the explanation that accompanies this model Flower and Hayes are clear that the revision process is a cyclical one in which the writer will repeatedly review the text so far. This reviewing is naturally in the form of reading the text produced so far.

Figure 2 Hayes and Flower's 1980 Model of writing

Hayes and Flower’s 1980 model attempts to represent what Hayes and Flower see as a complex process in which ‘writers are constantly, instant by instant, orchestrating a battery of cognitive processes as they integrate planning, remembering, writing, and rewriting’ Flower and Hayes (1981 p387). They are at pains to point out that the processes described ‘have a hierarchical, highly embedded organization in which any given process can be embedded within any other.’ (ibid p366.)

Essentially Flower and Hayes identify two key areas which exert influence on the writing process. These are the Task Environment (incorporating the rhetorical problem and the text produced so far) and the writer’s long-term memory (incorporating the writer’s

21

knowledge of the topic, assumptions about the audience and writing plans). Both of these areas interact with the process of writing as it proceeds.

The writing process itself is divided into three sub-processes: planning, translating and reviewing, all of which interact with the fourth sub-process, monitoring. Whilst the diagrammatic model provides a relatively clear and simple picture of the process Hayes and Flower are clear that, in fact, the reality is a complex one. Their use of the term ‘orchestrating’ perhaps casts the writer as a conductor, directing different sections of the orchestra; however, it could be added that there is no score to follow! Instead the conductor is doubling as composer, attempting to compose the score as he goes, repeatedly testing out new chords and phrases, adding in small sections of familiar ones and repeatedly replaying the emerging score to check if it captures the elusive musical motif he feels is playing just out of earshot.

Hayes and Flower’s model (1980) is useful when reflecting on the cognitive processes of reading into writing. If this model were to be adapted to reflect reading into writing, in addition to the writer’s long-term memory, the source or reading texts would need to be represented. A revised model might see readers drawing on the texts for information which then interacts with their memory, prompting new ideas. Hayes and Flower (ibid.) account for the role of the writers emerging text in their model, but any model of reading into writing would have to consider whether the role of the emerging text is the same in writing only and reading into writing tasks, or whether the role of the emerging texts changes.

This model was later updated by Hayes (1996) and the revised model shown in Figure 3 places much greater emphasis on reading, citing reading as a central process in writing.

22 Figure 3 Hayes new model of writing Hayes (1996:4)

Reading is referred to repeatedly in the chapter that accompanies Hayes’ new model and Hayes identifies three distinct roles for reading.

Reading for comprehension; the first change regarding reading is the inclusion of

source texts in the writing process. Hayes notes that the social environment incorporates ‘other texts that the writer may read while writing’ (Hayes 1996:4).

Reading to define the writing task; Hayes cites reading to understand the task as

23

Reading to revise; more significantly Hayes recognizes the central role of reading

what has been written so far and ‘the text so far’ is identified as a crucial factor in the task environment.

In terms of cognitive processes, instead of using ‘revision’ (as in the earlier model) Hayes uses the term ‘text interpretation’ and ‘reflection’ in the later model and goes on to say ‘Text interpretation is a function that creates internal representations from linguistic and graphical inputs. Cognitive processes that accomplish this function include reading, listening and scanning graphics.’ (Hayes 1996:4)

Hayes’ (ibid.) revised model emphasises the central role of reading in the writing process. According to Hayes’ model the way in which the writer reads, and the cognitive processes that reading triggers, would seem to impact very heavily on the writer’s final written product. The researcher suggests that whilst Hayes makes a valuable contribution to understanding the role of reading in the writing process, it is an area that would benefit from further investigation.

When reviewing Hayes’ new model, Wengelin, Leijten and Van Waes (2010) suggest that reading during writing can serve several purposes.

Reading for revision: Wengelin et al. suggest that here readers are interested in reading to check for comprehension and ‘the identification of various text characteristics, such as spelling errors, poor lexical choice, or poor organization’ (2010:736). Wengelin et al. (ibid) go on to state that Reading for evaluation ‘could also involve considerations of whether the text conforms to the structures of the given genre and achieves the writers’ communicative and rhetorical goals.’ Finally Reading to facilitate may offer writers ‘‘opportunities for improvements that do not stem from problems’’ (Hayes, 1996: 15). This

24

accords with Johansson, Johansson, Wengelin and Holmqvist’s (2008) suggestion that reading the text so far can assist with improving the quality of the text and generating new ideas.

The researcher suggests that the reading to evaluate and reading to facilitate suggested by Johansson et al. (2008) may contribute to, or play a part in, knowledge transformation proposed by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987).

Chenoweth and Hayes (2001) propose a model for writing which could also be interpreted as incorporating the reading process. They suggest that the process of writing requires the coordination of three levels: control level, process level and resource level.

The resource level includes internal ‘resources’ – knowledge and skills which enable the writer to retrieve relevant information from long term memory, hold partially composed sentences in working memory and apply sub-skills such as letter/word recognition or letter formation/spelling which subconsciously contribute to the reading and writing processes.

The process level includes both internal and external components. External components include the text composed so far, task materials (such as the question prompt, reading / input texts, feedback and the writers notes) and resources such as dictionaries, spell checkers and style guides. Although not shown on the model, Chenoweth and Hayes suggest that this external section also incorporates the perceived ‘audience’ for the text as well as representing more generally the social and physical elements incorporated by Hayes’ 1986 ‘task environment’. The internal processes are responsible for: generating the abstract ideas to be written about (proposer), converting the ideas to linguistic form (translator), evaluating the language used (both that already written down and that about to be), and the transcriber which converts linguistic strings into words on paper / screen.

25 Figure 4 Chenoweth and Hayes 2001 Model of writing (2001:84)

The control level acts as the conductor, reviewing the task goals and activating / directing the processes in the process level. Chenoweth and Hayes stress that the pattern of interactions between processes in the process level will be different from one person to another and from one task to another depending on the writer’s perception of the task schema.

The researcher finds the Chenoweth and Hayes model to be logical and convincing; however, the researcher suggests that when considering academic writing in particular, external influences are rather under represented. For example, there is little mention of the audience and the writer’s consideration of the reader. In addition, the control level is rather vague and does not really show how the decisions made there interact with external influences, experience and working memory. Once again, this model lacks detail in terms of

26

how specific reading processes interact with the task, the text so far and task materials to account for the cognitive processes involved in reading into writing.

Many different models of writing agree that working memory plays a vital role in the process. Some argue that working memory is limited and the availability of working memory accounts, in part, for the differences between expert and non-expert writers (e.g., Fayol, 1999; Kellogg, 1987; McCutchen, 1996; Olive and Kellogg, 2002; Swanson and Berninger, 1996). Non-expert writers, who have not yet mastered some lower level writing processes to the extent that they are automated, have less working memory to devote to macro writing goals. Torrence and Galbraith (2006:p70) suggest that for non-expert writers…

Devoting resources to these low-level processes leaves less capacity for syntactic processing, content retrieval, rhetorical-structuring and so forth (e.g., Fayol, 1999). Hence, novice writers produce shorter and less complex sentences and texts compared with those of writers who have achieved greater levels of orthographic and grapho- motor automaticity.

In other words, having mastered basic skills such as spelling, writing or typing and composing grammatically accurate sentences in addition to having a good range of vocabulary at their disposal, more accomplished writers are able to devote their attention to higher level skills such as coherence. This concept may prove very relevant to reading into writing where, the researcher would argue, even greater demands are placed on working memory as students attempt to integrate the two skills.

27