Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 594–600 | Cite as

Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition

  • Thierry OliveEmail author
  • Ronald T. Kellogg
Article

Abstract

Writing a text requires the coordination of multiple high-level composition processes in working memory, including planning, language generation, and reviewing, in addition to low-level motor transcription. Here, interference in reaction time (RT) for detecting auditory probes was used to measure the attentional demands of (1) copying in longhand a prepared text (transcription), (2) composing a text and pausing handwriting for longer than 250 msec (composition), and (3) composing and currently handwriting (transcription + composition). Greater interference in the transcription + composition condition than in the transcription condition implies that high-level processes are activated concurrently with motor execution, resulting in higher attentional demands. This difference was observed for adults who wrote in standard cursive, but not for children and not for adults who used an unpracticed uppercase script. Greater interference in the composition condition than in the transcription condition implies that high-level processes demand more attention than do motor processes. This difference was observed only when adults wrote with a practiced script. With motor execution being relatively automatic, adults were able to attend fully to the high-level processes required in mature, effective composition. One reason that children fail to engage in such high-level processes is that motor processes deplete available attention.

Keywords

Reading Span Motor Execution Work Memory Resource Composition Condition Text Production 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bereiter, C., &Scardamalia, M. (1987).The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. 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 (series ed.) & E. C. Butterfield (vol. ed.),Advances in cognition and educational practice: Vol. 2. Children's writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bock, K., &Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdin, B., &Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach.International Journal of Psychology,29, 591–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S., McDonald, J. L., Brown, T. L., &Carr, T. H. (1988). Adapting to processing demands in discourse production: The case of handwriting.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chanquoy, L., Foulin, J.-N., &Fayol, M. (1990). Temporal management of short texts writing by children and adults.CPC/European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology,10, 513–538.Google Scholar
  7. Daneman, M., &Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Desmette, D., Hupet, M., Schelstraete, M. A., &Van Der Linden, M. (1995). Adaptation en langue française du “reading span test” de Daneman et Carpenter [French adaptation of Daneman and Carpenter's “Reading Span” test].L'Année Psychologique,95, 459–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fayol, M. (1999). Writing: From on-line management problems to strategies. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.),Cognitive demands of writing (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Flower, L., &Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Foulin, J.-N. (1995). Pauses et débits: Les indicateurs temporels de la production écrite [Pauses and writing rate: Temporal indexes of written composition].L'Année Psychologique,95, 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., &Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach.Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Jonides, J., &Smith, E. E. (1997). The architecture of working memory. In M. D. Rugg (Ed.),Cognitive neuroscience (pp. 243–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D. (1973).Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kellogg, R. T. (1994).The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes.American Journal of Psychology,114, 175–192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Levy, C. M., &Ransdell, S. E. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems?Memory & Cognition,23, 767–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCutchen, D. (1988). Functional automaticity in children's writing: A problem of metacognitive control.Written Communication,5, 306–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition.Educational Psychology Review,8, 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., &Piolat, A. (2001). The triple task technique for studying the process of writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (series ed.), T. Olive, & C. M. Levy (vol. eds.),Studies in writing: Vol. 10. Contemporary tools and techniques (pp. 31–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Passerault, J.-M. (1991). L'analyse en temps réel de l'activité de résumé: Une étude des temps de pause [On-line analysis of summarizing: A study of pausing times]. In M. Charolles & A. Petitjean (Eds.),Le résumé de texte: Aspects linguistiques, sémiotiques, psycholinguistiques et automatiques (pp. 207–219). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  25. Piolat, A., Olive, T., Roussey, J.-Y., Thunin, O., &Ziegler, J. C. (1999). SCRIPTKELL: A tool for measuring cognitive effort and time processing in writing and other complex cognitive activities.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,31, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y., Olive, T., &Farioli, F. (1996). Charge mentale et mobilisation des processus rédactionnels: Examen de la procédure de Kellogg [Mental load and activation of writing processes: Examination of Kellogg's procedure].Psychologie Française,41, 339–354.Google Scholar
  27. Ransdell, S. E., &Levy, C. M. (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 93–106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Schilperoord, J. (2001). On the cognitive status of pauses in discourse production. In G. Rijlaarsdam (series ed.), T. Olive, & C. M. Levy (vol. eds.),Studies in writing: Vol. 10. Contemporary tools and techniques (pp. 61–88). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Torrance, M., &Jeffery, G. (Eds.) (1999).The cognitive demands of writing: Processing capacity and working memory effects in text production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.“Cognition & Activités Finalisées,”Université de Paris 8 and CNRS (ESA 7021), Lab.Saint-Denis, CedexFrance
  2. 2.University of MissouriRolla

Personalised recommendations