Abstract
Experiment 1 assessed the time and effort allocated to writing subprocesses while generating written and verbal protocols over 10 weekly writing sessions. Within a 40-min session, planning time consumed about 45% in the first 5 min, but stabilized at near 30% thereafter. Generating text initially consumed 40% of the writers’ time, peaked at 50% midway, and then declined to its original level. The time spent revising and reviewing was negligible early in writing sessions, but increased substantially late in the sessions. The highest and lowest quality documents could be differentiated on the basis of the amount of time the writers devoted to revising and to the magnitude of their RTs in a secondary interference task. Writers showed consistent, distinctive patterns of transitional probabilities between writing subprocesses both within and across sessions, yielding quantitative representations of their writing styles. In Experiment 2, writers overestimated the amount of time they devote to revising and overestimated the amount of effort they allocate to planning and text generation. Their estimations did not improve after 10 weeks of composing. A time-and-effort-based analysis of writing is proposed to account for these data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bereiter, C., Burtis, P. J., &Scardamalia, M. (1988). Cognitive operations in constructing main points in written composition.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 261–278.
Bereiter, C., &Scardamalia, M. (1987).The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Britton, B. K., &Tessor, A. (1982). Effects of prior knowledge on use of cognitive capacity on three complex cognitive tasks.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,5, 421–436.
Critchfield, T. S., &Perone, M. (1990). Verbal self-reports as a function of speed, accuracy, and reinforcement of the reported performance.Psychological Record,40, 541–554.
Emig, J. (1971).The composing process of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Ericsson, K. A., &Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data.Psychological Review,87, 215–251.
Ericsson, K. A., &Simon, H. A. (1984).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ericsson, K. A., &Simon, H. A. (1993).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. D. (1983).The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gould, J. D. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In L.W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 91–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., &Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., &Flower, L. S. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.),Research on writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman.
Henderson, R. W. (1989).Eventlog. Iowa City: Conduit, University of Iowa.
Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes.Memory & Cognition,15, 256–266.
Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 355–365.
Kellogg, R. T., &Mueller, S. (1993). Performance amplification and process restructuring in computer-based writing.Journal of Man-Machine Studies,39, 33–49.
Levy, C. M., Fryman, J. B., & Ransdell, S. E. (1994).Measuring response latency while running Windows applications programs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Levy, C. M., &Ransdell, S. [E.] (1994). Computer-aided protocol analysis of writing processes.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,26, 219–223.
Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. E. (in press). Writing signatures. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ransdell, S. E. (1990). Using a real-time replay of students’ word processing to understand and promote better writing.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,22, 142–144.
Ransdell, S. E. (1995). Generating thinking-aloud protocols: Impact on the narrative writing of college students.American Journal of Psychology,108, 89–98.
Ransdell, S. E., &Levy, C. M. (1994). Writing as process and product: The impact of tool, genre, audience knowledge and writer expertise.Computers in Human Behavior,10, 1–17.
Ransdell, S. E., & Levy, C. M. (in press). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stratman, J. F., &Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols: Issues for research. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.),Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 89–112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trabasso, T., &Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory.Discourse Processes,16, 3–34.
Tyler, S. W., Hertel, P. T., McCallum, M. C., &Ellis, H. C. (1979). Cognitive effort and memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 607–617.
Wilkinson, L., Hill, M., Welna, J. P., &Birkenbeuel, G. K. (1992).Systat for Windows: Version 5 [Computer program]. Evanston, IL: Systat.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levy, C.M., Ransdell, S. Is writing as difficult as it seems?. Mem Cogn 23, 767–779 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200928
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200928