The Organization of the Writing Process – A Cognitive Model

The aim of Hayes & Flower (1980) was to understand writing as a cognitive process, inspired by the cognitive science mainstream of their time. For their methodology to derive a model, they adopted a technique that had been used for ground-breaking research in cognitive science: protocol analysis as

30

developed by Newell & Simon in the context of their work on the General Problem Solver (Newell &

Simon, 2000, originally published 1959). Because they were interested not only in the observable behavior of their subjects, but mainly in not directly observable cognitive processes, they used thinking-aloud protocols, for which subjects are asked to verbalize what they think while they are performing a given task. The utterances produced are taken to be a keyhole into the subject’s psychological processes used to perform the task. Additionally, Hayes & Flower (1980) drew on theories and task knowledge to inform assumptions on how to interpret such protocols:

Typically though, protocols are incomplete. Many processes occur during the performance of the task that the subject can’t or doesn’t report. The psychologist’s task in analyzing a protocol is to take the incomplete record that the protocol provides together with his knowledge of the task and of human capabilities and to infer from these a model of the underlying cognitive processes by which the subject performs the task. (Hayes and Flower, 1980, p. 9)

Giving a measuring problem as an example, they explain that their previous knowledge of the task and their knowledge that human problem solvers “in the wild” often use for search or means-ends analysis helped in analyzing the thinking-aloud protocol (Hayes and Flower, 1980, p. 8). Thus, while they are careful to point out that the protocols only reveal brief glimpses of the underlying mental processes, it should be realized that this way of approaching data analysis is highly theory-laden: The interpreter assumes to have not only full knowledge of the task, but also of “human capabilities” or knowledge of cognitive processes. These are shaped by the very strong assumption that the aim of cognition – and thus also of the cognitive processes underlying writing – is problem solving. Problem solving, in turn, is conceptualized in an algorithmic sense: the explanations and examples given are in line with a method introduced by Newell and Simon to cognitive science, i.e. means-end analysis.

This is a particularly successful method for finding a solution to a problem, as long as the problem is well-defined (making mathematical problems ideal) and have at least one proper solution (otherwise the algorithm goes on forever); thus, the resulting problem space must be finite (or closed, so the solution of the problem lies within this problem space).

THE MODEL

Hayes & Flower's (1980) research yielded a model of expository writing (see Fig. 1) derived from sub-processes identified through protocol analysis and their organization as well as different editing modes which may account for individual differences. The model comprises not only the Writing Process, as its main module, but also encompasses two parts representing the context in which the model operates: Task Environment (the writing assignment and the text produced) and Long-Term Memory. Within the Writing Process module, Hayes and Flower (1980) propose three major

31

processes (processes and sub-processes are written in capital letters): PLANNING, TRANSLATING, and REVIEWING. PLANNING in turn consists of GENERATING, ORGANIZING, and GOAL-SETTING, whereas REVIEWING is distingtuished into the sub-processes READING and REVIEWING.

Each of these (sub-) processes has been analyzed in detail, resulting in a use-case-like diagram. The model proposes that PLANNING yields a writing plan which determines which material TRANSLATING will use from Long-Term Memory. This “memory material” is assumed to be stored in propositional form as concepts, relations, or attributes, taking the shape of

[(Concept A) (RelationB) (Concept C)(Attribute D)], etc.

Hayes and Flower (1980, p. 15) state that TRANSLATING can be identified by two features: It is in the form of full sentences and the protocol often contains a question, seeking the next sentence part. At each step of the procedure, a halting condition determines whether an activity is completed or whether a further iteration must be taken, until the process is completed.

Fig. 1: Hayes and Flower’s cognitive process model of writing; for a detailed explanation see the text (based on Hayes and Flower, 1980, p. 11)

32

Hayes and Flower give the following example to show the process at work:

1. Get next part of writing plan: “I’ve covered the early years, now I have to say how he got the painting.”

2. Plan next sentence: Retrieve propositions.

Proposition A: [(Rosseau)(showed)(some early promise)]

Proposition B: [(Rosseau)(did)(very little painting until 40)]

Sentence plan: (Proposition A) but (Proposition B)

3. Express next proposition part: “Rosseau…Rosseau, what? Rosseau displayed…. Although Rosseau displayed…. Although Rosseau displayed some early promise…, etc.”

(Hayes and Flower, 1980, p. 15) In addition to the processes PLANNING, TRANSLATING, and REVIEWING, a process called MONITOR is part of the model structure (see fig. 1), but not described further in the text. Thus, while the

individual processes of the writing process are explained, the question of how they act together is actually not addressed but “outsourced” into a cognitive structure which, while not described, is assumed to organize the writing process.

The authors do state that GENERATING and EDITING may interrupt other processes at any time.

Beyond the elements named in the figure, there is no further comment on the role of task

environment and Long-Term Memory and how they interact with the writing processes. This comes as a disappointment, considering that this model is (also) hailed as the first to include the task environment (Molitor-Lübbert, 1996).