Conflict in writing
Actions and objects
Veerle Baaijen | Centre for Language and Cognition, University of Groningen
This chapter argues that writing involves an interaction between conflicting cognitive systems, one designed for the construction of mental objects and the other for the taking of actions. It characterises the construction of mental objects as a problem-solving process involving the retrieval of content from episodic memory and the manipulation of content in working memory. The system for action involves the synthesis of content guided by implicit constraints within semantic memory. The chapter then reviews research investigating the effects of different types of planning and individual differences in goals and beliefs on the development of understanding during writing and on the quality of text. It concludes by discussing the effectiveness of different drafting strategies and implications for theories of writing.
References
Baaijen, Veerle M., David Galbraith, and Kees de Glopper
2014 “
Effects of writing beliefs and planning on writing performance.”
Learning and Instruction 33: 81–91.
Baddeley, Alan
1986 Working Memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bereiter, Carl
2002 Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia
1987 The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Churchland, Paul M
2012 Plato’s Camera: How the Brain Captures a Landscape of Abstract Universals. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Galbraith, David
1992 “
Conditions for discovery through writing.”
Instructional Science 21: 45–72.
Galbraith, David
1999 “
Writing as a knowledge-constituting process.” In
Knowing What to Write, ed. by
Mark Torrance, and
David Galbraith, 139–160. Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press.
Galbraith, David
2009 “
Writing as discovery.”
British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II 6 – Teaching and Learning Writing: 5–26.
Galbraith, David, and Mark Torrance
2004 “
Revision in the context of different drafting strategies.” In
Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes, ed. by
Linda Allal,
Lucile Chanquoy, and
Pierre Largy, 63–86. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Galbraith, David, Sheila Ford, Gillian Walker, and Jessica Ford
2005 “
The contribution of different components of working memory to knowledge transformation during writing.”
L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 5: 113–145.
Galbraith, David, Mark Torrance, and Jenny Hallam
2006 “
Effects of writing on conceptual coherence.” Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society: 1340–1345.
Galbraith, David, Luuk van Waes, and Mark Torrance
2007 “
Introduction.” In
Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications, ed. by
Mark Torrance,
Luuk van Waes, and
David Galbraith, 1–10. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.
Galbraith, David, Jenny Hallam, Thierry Olive, and Nathalie Le Bigot
2009 “
The role of different components of working memory in writing.” Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society: 3028–3033.
Glasspool, David, W., Tim Shallice, and Lisa Cipolotti
2006 “
Towards a unified process model for graphemic buffer disorder and deep dysgraphia”.
Cognitive Neuropsychology 23(3): 479–512.
Kellogg, Ronald, T
1994 The Psychology of Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kieft, Marleen, Gert Rijlaarsdam, David Galbraith, and Huub van den Bergh
2006 “
The effects of adapting a writing course to students’ writing strategies.”
British Journal of Educational Psychology 77(3): 565–578.
Klein, Perry D
1999 “
Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn.”
Educational Psychology Review 11(3): 203–270.
Klein, Perry D. and Lori C Kirkpatrick
2010 “
A framework for content area writing: Mediators and moderators.”
Journal of Writing Research 2(1): 1–46.
Landauer, Thomas K., Danielle S. McNamara, Simon Dennis, and Walter Kintsch
2007 Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leijten, Marielle, and Luuk van Waes
2006 “
Inputlog: New perspectives on the logging of online writing.” In
Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications, ed. by
Kirk P.H. Sullivan, and
Eva Lindgren, 73–93. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
McClelland, James. L., Bruce, L. McNaughton, and Randall C. O’Reilly
1995 “
Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory.”
Psychological Review 102: 419–457.
Norman, Kenneth A
2010 “
How hippocampus and cortex contribute to recognition memory: Revisiting the Complementary Learning Systems model.”
Hippocampus 20(11): 1217–1227.
O’Reilly, Randall C., Rajan Bhattacharyya, Michael D. Howard, and Nicholas Ketza
2011 “
Complementary Learning Systems.”
Cognitive Science April 2011: 1–20.
Popper, Karl R
1972 Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogers, Timothy, T., and James, L. McClelland
2004 Semantic Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Snyder, Mark
1979 “
Self-monitoring processes.”
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 12: 86–131.
White, Mary J., and Roger Bruning
2005 “
Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality.”
Contemporary Educational Psychology 30: 166–189.
Winocur, Gordon, Morris Moscovitch, and Bruno Bontempi
2010 “
Memory formation and long-term retention in humans and animals: Convergence towards a transformation account of hippocampal–neocortical interactions.”
Neuropsychologia 48: 2339–2356.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Ashley, Sue, Harmen Schaap & Elly de Bruijn
2023.
Illustrating conceptual understanding in international business undergraduate writing.
Research Papers in Education 38:4
► pp. 499 ff.
Hanauer, David I.
2022.
The writing processes underpinning wellbeing: Insight and emotional clarity in poetic autoethnography and freewriting.
Frontiers in Communication 7
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.