Reading and Writing

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 853–888 | Cite as

Using eye and pen movements to trace the development of writing expertise: case studies of a 7th, 9th and 12th grader, graduate student, and professional writer

  • Denis Alamargot
  • Sylvie Plane
  • Eric Lambert
  • David Chesnet
Article

Abstract

This study was designed to enhance our understanding of the changing relationship between low- and high-level writing processes in the course of development. A dual description of writing processes was undertaken, based on (a) the respective time courses of these processes, as assessed by an analysis of eye and pen movements, and (b) the semantic characteristics of the writers’ scripts. To conduct a more fine-grained description of processing strategies, a “case study” approach was adopted, whereby a comprehensive range of measures was used to assess processes within five writers with different levels of expertise. The task was to continue writing a story based on excerpt from a source document (incipit). The main results showed two developmental patterns linked to expertise: (a) a gradual acceleration in low- and high-level processing (pauses, flow), associated with (b) changes in the way the previous text was (re)read.

Keywords

Writing Development Expertise Eye movements Pauses Author 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Nadia Rodier (educator in “France Bloch Sarrazin” college) for her help in the experiment management, Marie-Françoise Crété for the editing and Elizabeth Portier for her translation of the manuscript.

References

  1. Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Alamargot, D., Chanquoy, L., & Chuy, M. (2005a). L’élaboration du contenu du texte: De la mémoire à long terme à l’environnement de la tâche. Psychologie Française, 50(3), 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alamargot, D., Chesnet, D., Dansac, C., & Ros, C. (2006). Eye and pen: A new device to study the reading during writing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 38(2), 287–299.Google Scholar
  4. Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Chesnet, D., & Fayol, M. (2007). Parallel processing before and after pauses: A combined analysis of graphomotor and eye movements during procedural text production. In M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition. Research and applications (Vol. 20, pp. 13–29). Dordrecht: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Ros, C., & Chuy, M. (2005b). Rédiger un texte procédural à partir de sources: Relations entre l’empan de mémoire de travail et l’activité oculaire du scripteur [Composing a procedural text from sources: Relationships between working memory span and writer’s eye movements]. In D. Alamargot, P. Terrier, & J. M. Cellier (Eds.), Production, compréhension et usages des écrits techniques au travail (pp. 51–68). Toulouse: Octarès.Google Scholar
  6. Alamargot, D., & Fayol, M. (2009). Modeling the development of written composition. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand & J. Riley (Eds.), Handbook of writing development (616 pp). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Alamargot, D., & Lebrave, J. L. (in press). A mutual contribution by cognitive psychology and genetic criticism to the study of professional writing. European Psychologist.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Andersson, B., Holmqvist, K., Holsanova, J., Johansson, V., Karlsson, H., Strömqvist, S., et al. (2006). Combining keystroke logging with eye-tracking. In L. Van Waes, M. Leijten, C. Neuwirth, et al. (Eds.), Writing and digital media (Vol. 17, pp. 166–172). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Baccino, T., & Pynte, J. (1998). Spatial encoding and referential processing during reading. European Psychologist, 3(1), 51–61.Google Scholar
  11. Bereiter, C., Burtis, P. J., & Scardamalia, M. (1988). Cognitive operations in constructing main points in written composition. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1983). Levels of inquiry in writing research. In P. Mosenthal, S. Walmsley, & L. Tamor (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and method (pp. 3–25). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Berninger, V. (1994). Reading and writing acquisition: A developmental neuropsychological perspective. Madison, WI: WCB Brown & Benchmark. (Reprinted 1996, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Distributed by the Psychological Corporation).Google Scholar
  15. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Jones, J., Wolf, B., Gould, L., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., et al. (2006). Early development of language by hand: Composing-, reading-, listening-, and speaking-connections, three letter writing modes, and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying hayes and flower model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. C. Butterfield (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice (Vol. 2: Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing) (pp. 57–82). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  17. Binder, K. S., Duffy, S. A., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Caccamise, D. J. (1987). Idea generation in writing. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modeling production processes (pp. 224–253). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  20. Caporossi, G., Alamargot, D., & Chesnet, D. (2004). Using the computer to study the dynamics of handwriting processes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3245, 242–254.Google Scholar
  21. Chesnet, D., & Alamargot, D. (2005). Analyses en temps réel des activités oculaires et graphomotrices du scripteur: Intérêt du dispositif ‘eye and pen’ [Real time analysis of the writer graphomotoric and ocular activities: interests of the ‘eye and pen’ device]. L’Année Psychologique, 105(3), 477–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohen, A. (1968) Belle du Seigneur [Her Lover]. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  23. Coirier, P., Andriessen, J., & Chanquoy, L. (1999). From planning to translating: The specificity of argumentative writing. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ehrlichman, H. (1981). From gaze aversion to eye-movement suppression: An investigation of the cognitive interference explanation of gaze patterns during conversation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 233–241.Google Scholar
  25. Ehrlichman, H., & Weinberger, A. (1978). Lateral eye movements and hemispheric asymmetry: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1080–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fayol, M. (1999). From on-line management problems to strategies in written production. In M. Torrance & G. C. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glenberg, A. M., Schroeder, J. L., & Robertson, D. A. (1998). Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory and Cognition, 26(4), 651–658.Google Scholar
  30. Hacker, D. J. (1994). Comprehension monitoring as a writing process. In E. C. Butterfield & J. S. Carlson (Eds.), Advances in cognition and educational practice. Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (Vol. 6, pp. 143–172). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Heurley, L., & Ganier, F. (2002). La production de textes techniques écrits [The production of technical texts]. In M. Fayol (Ed.), Production du langage: Traité des sciences cognitives (pp. 229–249). Paris: Hermès-Science.Google Scholar
  34. Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixations patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 4, 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory and Cognition, 15(3), 256–266.Google Scholar
  38. Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Long-term working memory in text production. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 43–52.Google Scholar
  39. Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive development perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  40. Levy, C. M., Marek, J. P., & Lea, J. (1996). Concurrent and retrospective protocols in writing research. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 542–556). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (Eds.). (1996). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. MacArthur, C., Graham, N. L., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  43. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Myhill, D., & Locke, T. (2007). Editorial: Composition in the English/literacy classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  45. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Nottbusch, G. (2009). Grammatical planning, execution and control in written sentence production. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal (this issue).Google Scholar
  47. Plane, S., Alamargot, D., & Lebrave, J. L. (in press). Temporalité de l’écriture et rôle du texte produit dans l’activité rédactionnelle [The written temporality and the role of the text produced so far during text composition]. Langages.Google Scholar
  48. Quinlan, T., & Alamargot, D. (2007). Composing from sources: Effects of genre and of working memory capacities. In D. Alamargot, P. Terrier, & J. M. Cellier (Eds.), Written documents in the workplace (pp. 61–74). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  49. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Literate expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 172–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1996). Individual differences in children’s working memory and writing skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Torrance, M. (1996). Is writing expertise like other kinds of expertise? In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 3–9). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). The dynamics of composing: Modeling writing process data. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 207–232). Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  54. Van der Geest, T. (1996). Studying “real life” writing processes: A proposal and an example. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing. Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 309–322). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., & Quinlan, T. (2009). Reading during sentence composing and error correction: A multilevel analysis of the influences of task complexity. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal (this issue).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denis Alamargot
    • 1
  • Sylvie Plane
    • 2
  • Eric Lambert
    • 1
  • David Chesnet
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory CeRCA, GDR 2657, CNRSUniversity of PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  2. 2.Laboratory MoDyCo, GDR 2657, CNRSUniversity of Paris-Sorbonne, IUFM de ParisParisFrance
  3. 3.MSHS, GDR 2657, CNRSUniversity of PoitiersPoitiersFrance

Personalised recommendations