Skip to main content

Online management of text production from pictures: a comparison between fifth graders and undergraduate students

Psychological Research volume 84, pages 2311–2324 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

This study was designed to enhance our understanding of the online management of writing processes by two groups of writers with a different level of expertise, and to explore the impact of this online management on text quality. To this aim, fifth graders (mean age 10.5 years) and undergraduate students (mean age 22.6 years) were asked to compose a narrative from a visual source of images, while their handwriting activity and eye movements were recorded by means of Eye & Pen software and a digitizing tablet. Results showed that fifth graders and undergraduate students used different strategies to engage in high-level source-based text elaboration processes throughout their writing. The main differences concerned the density of source consultation during prewriting, on the one hand, and during pauses, on the other hand. Relationships between these characteristics of online management and text quality were minimal in fifth graders, while in undergraduate students they were more substantial as in the case of syntactic complexity. These findings suggest that with age, the online management of writing becomes more closely related to text quality. In line with a capacity view of writing, it is also concluded that the online management of writing processes of fifth graders is highly constrained by a lack of fluent text production skills which ultimately affects their text quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  • Alamargot, D., Caporossi, G., Chesnet, D., & Ros, C. (2011). What makes a skilled writer? Working memory and audience awareness during text composition. Learning and individual differences, 21, 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alamargot, D., Chanquoy, L., & Chuy, M. (2005). L’élaboration du contenu du texte: de la mémoire à long terme à l’environnement de la tâche [Text content elaboration: from long-term memory to task environment]. Psychologie Française, 50, 287–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alamargot, D., Chesnet, D., & Caporossi, G. (2012). Using eye and pen movements to study the writing process. In M. Fayol, D. Alamargot, & V. W. Berninger (Eds.), Translation of thought to written text while composing: Advancing theory, knowledge, research methods, tools, and applications. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 287–299. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Studies in Writing, 20, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alamargot, D., & Fayol, M. (2009). Modelling the development of written composition. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, & J. Riley (Eds.), International handbook of writing development. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alamargot, D., Flouret, L., Larocque, D., Caporossi, G., Pontart, V., Paduraru, C., … Fayol, M. (2015). Successful written subject-verb agreement: An online analysis of the procedure used by students in grades 3, 5, and 12. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9525-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alamargot, D., Plane, S., Lambert, E., & Chesnet, D. (2010). Using eye and pen movements to trace the development of writing expertise: Case studies of a seventh, ninth and twelfth grader, graduate student, and professional writer. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 853–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9191-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., & Olive, T. (2008). Execution and pauses in writing narratives: Processing time, cognitive effort and typing skill. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 969–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701398951.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alves, R. A., & Limpo, T. (2015). Progress in written language bursts, pauses, transcription, and written composition across schooling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 374–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alves, R. A., Limpo, T., Fidalgo, R., Carvalhais, L., Pereira, L. A., & Castro, S. L. (2016). The impact of promoting transcription on early text production: Effects on bursts and pauses, levels of written language, and writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 665–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauvais, L., Favart, M., Passerault, J. M., & Beauvais, C. (2012). Temporal management of the writing process: effects of genre and organizing constraints in grade 5, 7, and 9. Written communication, 31, 251–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauvais, C., Olive, T., & Passerault, J. M. (2011). Why some texts are good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In J. S. Carlson & E. C. Butterfield (Eds.), Advances in cognition and educational practice children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–114). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breetvelt, I., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and instruction, 12, 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1202_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burtis, J., Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., & Tetroe, J. (1983). The development of planning in writing. In G. Wells & B. Kroll (Eds.), Explorations in the development of writing (pp. 153–174). Chicester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chanquoy, L., Foulin, J. N., & Fayol, M. (1990). The on-line management of short text writing by children and adults. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 513–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesnet, D., & Alamargot, D. (2005). Analyses en temps réel des activités oculaires et graphomotrices du scripteur: intérêt du dispositif ‘Eye and Pen’. L’Année Psychologique, 105, 477–520. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2005.29706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Smet, M. J., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2018). Exploring the process of reading during writing using eye tracking and keystroke logging. Written Communication, 35(4), 411–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318788070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayol, M. (1999). From on-line management problems to strategies in written composition. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory effects (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing. Learning and Instruction, 9, 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(98)00039-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, J. (1996). Writing and speaking: Common grounds and differences toward a regulation theory of written language production. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 73–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (2011). Kinds of knowledge-telling: Modeling early writing development. Journal of Writing Research, 3, 73–92. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2011.03.02.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, K. W. (1966). Sentence structures used by superior students in grades four and twelve, and by superior adults. CRP 5-0313. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, R., Wengelin, A., Johansson, V., Holmqvist, K., Wengelin, A., Johansson, V., & Holmqvist, K. (2010). Looking at the keyboard or the monitor: Relationship with text production processes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9189-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18, 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, E., Alamargot, D., Larocque, D., & Caporossi, G. (2011). Dynamics of spelling process during a copy task: Effects of regularity and frequency. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. E. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory and Cognition, 23, 767–779. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200928.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2018). Tailoring multicomponent writing interventions effects of handwriting fluency and spelling accuracy on writing performance via planning and translating in middle grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multi-media learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01464076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norbury, C. F., & Bishop, D. V. (2003). Narrative skills of children with communication impairments. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 38, 287–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/136820310000108133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nottbusch, G. (2010). Grammatical planning, execution, and control in written sentence production. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 777–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9188-4.

    Article  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, 141–171. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., Alves, R. A., & Castro, S. L. (2009a). Cognitive processes in writing during pauses and execution periods. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 758–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., Favart, M., Beauvais, C., & Beauvais, L. (2009b). Children’s cognitive effort and fluency in writing: Effect of genre and of handwriting automatisation. Learning and Instruction, 19, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory & Cognition, 30, 594–600. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., & Passerault, J.-M. (2012). The visuospatial dimension of writing. Written Communication, 29, 326–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., & Piolat, A. (2002). Suppressing visual feedback in written composition: Effects on processing demands and coordination of the writing processes. International Journal of psychology, 37(4), 209–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orrantia, J., Munez, D., & Tarín, J. (2014). Connecting goals and actions during reading: The role of illustrations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9437-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prunty, M. M., Barnett, A. L., Wilmut, K., & Plumb, M. S. (2014). An examination of writing pauses in the handwriting of children with developmental coordination disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 2894–2905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. (2008). Assessing the microstructure of written language using a retelling paradigm. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(2), 107–120.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shojaeizadeh, M., Djamasbi, S., & Trapp, A. C. (2016). Density of gaze points within a fixation and information processing behavior. In International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 465–471). Springer International Publishing

  • Sita, J. C., & Taylor, K. A. (2015). Eye movements during the handwriting of words: Individually and within sentences. Human Movement Science, 43, 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.01.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. (1982). What’s in a story: Critical issues in story comprehension. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of instruction (pp. 213–268). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 268–281). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, M., Johansson, R., Johansson, V., & Wengelin, A. (2015). Reading during the composition of multi-sentence texts: An eye-movement study. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0683-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, M., & Nottbusch, G. (2012). Written production of single words and simple sentences. In V. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 403–422). New York, NY: Taylor Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Galen, G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human Movement Science, 10, 165–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(91)90003-g.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., & Quinlan, T. (2010). Reading during sentence composing and error correction: A multilevel analysis of the influences of task complexity. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 803–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9190-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2001). Taaltoets Alle Kinderen [TAK]. Arnhem: Cito groep.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wengelin, A., Torrance, M., Holmqvist, K., Simpson, S., Galbraith, D., Johansson, V., & Johansson, R. (2009). Combined eyetracking and keystroke-logging methods for studying cognitive processes in text production. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 337–351. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.2.337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, D., Berninger, V. W., Johnston, J., & Swanson, L. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of language in intermediate grade writers: Implications for the translating process. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(94)90016-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by and conducted at the Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universiteit Antwerpen, Prinsstraat 13, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium

    Elise Drijbooms

  2. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Elise Drijbooms & Ludo Verhoeven

  3. Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YF, UK

    Margriet A. Groen

  4. Laboratoire CHArt (Cognitions Humaine & Artificielle) EA 4004 - ESPE de l’Académie de Créteil -Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), Paris, France

    Denis Alamargot

Authors
  1. Elise Drijbooms
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margriet A. Groen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denis Alamargot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ludo Verhoeven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elise Drijbooms.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drijbooms, E., Groen, M.A., Alamargot, D. et al. Online management of text production from pictures: a comparison between fifth graders and undergraduate students. Psychological Research 84, 2311–2324 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01199-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01199-x