In Section 1 of this article, the author discusses the succession of models of adult writing that he and his colleagues have proposed from 1980 to the present. He notes the most important changes that differentiate earlier and later models and discusses reasons for the changes. In Section 2, he describes his recent efforts to model young children’s expository writing. He proposes three models that constitute an elaboration of Bereiter and Scardamalia’s knowledge-telling model. In Section 3, he describes three running computer programs that simulate the action of the models described in Section 2.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
BerningerV.CartwrightA.YatesC.SwansonH. L.AbbottR. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades: Shared and unique variance. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 161-196.
3.
BerningerV.FullerF.WhitakerD. (1996). A process approach to writing development across the life span. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 193-218.
4.
BerningerV. W.SwansonH. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In ButterfieldE. C.CarlsonJ. (Eds.), Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57-81) London: JAI Press.
5.
BerningerV. W.YatesC.CartwrightA.RutbergJ.RemyE.AbbottR. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 257-280.
6.
BourdinB.FayolM. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production: A working-memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 591-620.
7.
BridwellL. S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 197-222.
8.
ChenowethN.HayesJ. R. (2001). Fluency in writing. Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98.
9.
ChristensenC. A. (2004). Relationship between orthographic-motor integration and computer use for the production of creative and well-structured text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 551-564.
10.
ConnellyV.GeeD.WalshE. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 479- 492.
11.
DeLaPazS.GrahamS. (1995). Dictation: Applications to writing for students with learning disabilities. In ScruggsT.MastropieriM. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disorders (Vol. 9, pp. 227-247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
12.
FullerD. F. (1995). Development of topic-comment algorithms and test structures in written compositions of students in grades one through nine. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
13.
GalbraithD. (1999). Writing as a knowledge constituting process. In TorrenceM.GalbraithD. (Eds.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 4. Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 137-157). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
14.
HayesJ. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In LevyC. M.RandallS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
HayesJ. R. (2011). Kinds of knowledge-telling: Modeling early writing development. Journal of Writing Research, 3(2), 73-92.
16.
HayesJ. R. (2012). My past and present as writing researcher and thoughts about the future of writing research. In BerningerV. W. (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 3-26). New York: Psychology Press
17.
HayesJ. R.ChenowethN. A. (2006). Is working memory involved in the transcribing and editing of texts?Written Communication, 23(2), 135-149.
18.
HayesJ. R.FlowerL. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In GreggL. W.SteinbergE. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
HayesJ. R.FlowerL.SchriverK. A.StratmanJ.CareyL. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In RosenbergS. (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading writing and language processing (pp. 176-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
HayesJ. R.SchriverK.HillC.HatchJ. (1990). Seeing problems with text: How students’ engagement makes a difference. Pittsburgh, PA: Center for the Study of Writing.
21.
JonesD. A.ChristensenC. A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1-6
22.
KauferD. S.HayesJ. R.FlowerL. S. (1986). Composing written sentences. Research in the Teaching of English, 20(2), 121-140.
23.
McCutchenD.PerfettiC. A. (1982). Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text, 2,113-139.
24.
NewellA.SimonH. A. (1956). The logic theory machine. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 61-79.
25.
PennebakerJ. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Psychological Science, 8, 162-166.
26.
PennebakerJ. W.Kiecolt-GlaserJ.GlaserR. (1988). Disclosure of traumas and immune function: Health implications for psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 239-245.
27.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children’s composing. In MartlewM. (Ed.), The psychology of written language: Developmental and educational perspectives (pp. 67-95). New York: Wiley.
28.
SommersN. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Compositions and Communication, 31, 78-88.
29.
StallardC. (1974). An analysis of the writing behavior of good student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 206-218.
30.
WallaceD. L.HayesJ. R. (1991). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 54-66.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
