Profiling writers: analysis of writing dynamics among college students
We studied the processes involved in synthesis writing, focusing on planning, editing and self-regulation strategies. The aims of the study were a) to analyse the temporal distribution of cognitive strategies and self-regulation across the different phases of writing, b) to identify different writing approaches (i.e., profiles), and c) to establish the relationship between writing behavior and writing performance. Twenty-seven humanities students, who were 23 years of age on average, were asked to produce a synthesis. The methodology combined videotaped observations, a think aloud protocol, and an assessment of writing performance, and specific instruments were constructed to collect the data. Algorithms were also calculated to determine the transitions between different types of writing behavior. Results showed that the nature, frequency, and duration of planning, editing, and self-regulation strategies varied according to the phase (prewriting or writing), and the most remarkable changes occurred in the final period of writing. Moreover, although the college students’ functioning generally reflected a novice approach, there were significant differences between the three writer profiles we found, namely precise transcriber, active reviser, and spontaneous writer. Finally, writing performance was positively and significantly correlated with writing strategies such as taking notes and reading drafts.
KeywordsWriter profile Synthesis Writing strategy Reading Editing Self-regulation strategy
We thank the funders of this research: the National Research Agency (ANR) of the French Government, and the Centre for Human and Social Sciences (MSHS) of the University of Poitiers.
Compliance with ethical standards
This research was supported by the French Government through the National Research Agency (ANR), as part of the Investment for the Future programme, reference ANR-11-IDEFI-0028. This work was also funded by the Centre for Human and Social Sciences (MSHS) of the University of Poitiers, as part of its Language and Cognition programme on writing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Brassart, G. (1993). Remarques sur un exercice de lecture-écriture: La note de synthèse ou synthèse de documents [Commentaries about a reading-writing exercise: the synthesis of written documents]. Pratiques, 79, 95–113.Google Scholar
- Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Castelló, M., Bañales, G., & Vega, N. A. (2010). Research approaches to the regulation of academic writing: the state of the question. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(3), 1253–1282.Google Scholar
- Donahue, C. (2008). Écrire à l’université: Analyse comparée, France-États-Unis [Writing in higher education: Comparative analysis of France and the United States]. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
- Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive Development. Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
- Galbraith, D., & Torrance, M. (2004). Revision in the context of different drafting strategies. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 63–85). Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com.gate1.inist.fr/chapter/ 10.1007/978-94-007-1048-1_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Graham, S., Harris, K., & Troia, G. (1998). Writing self-regulation: Cases from the self-regulated strategy developmental model. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 20–41). New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
- Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: the effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207–241. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hayes, J., & Nash, J. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 29–55). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (1991). Analyse de données qualitatives, recueil de nouvelles méthodes [Analysis of qualitative data, and new methodologies. Brussels: DeBoeck Université.Google Scholar
- Lavelle, E. (2007). Approach to writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Volume Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Studies in Writing) (Vol. 20, pp. 219-230). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- National Center for Scientific Research & University of Toulouse. Actogram Kronos (Version 2.3). [Computer software]. Retrieved April 24 2016 from http://www.preventica.com/doc-actogram-kronos-octares-editions.php.
- Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
- Olive, T. (2010). Methods, tools and techniques for the on-line study of the writing process. In N. L. Mertens (Ed.), Writing: Processes, tools and techniques (pp. 1–18). New York: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
- Olive, T. (2014). Toward a parallel and cascading model of the writing system: a review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research 6(2), 173–194. doi:10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4.Google Scholar
- Sitko, B. (1998). Knowing how write: Metacognition and writing instruction. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 93–115). London: LEA.Google Scholar
- Van Den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2007). The dynamics of idea generation during writing: An online study. In M. Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith. (pp. 125-150). Writing and cognition: Research and applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Zimmerman, B. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–19). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (2004). Pursuing academic self-regulation: A 20 years methodological quest. In J. Ee, A. Chang, & O. S. Tan (Eds.), Thinking about thinking: What educators need to know (pp. 3–30). Singapore: Mc graw hill.Google Scholar