Designing idea processors for document composition

  • Ronald T. Kellogg
Session II Nontraditional Human-Computer Interfaces


This article details three difficulties encountered during the prewriting and drafting stages of document preparation and describes computer aids designed for each difficulty. Writers experience problems in planning ideas and translating ideas into text because of attentional overload, inability to generate useful ideas, and affective interference. Idea processors are programs that perform various functions to assist with generating and organizing ideas so they can be communicated successfully in a written document. Among other things, an idea processor can serve as a funnel for attention, an inventor of ideas, or therapist for emotional hindrance. The article reviews existing programs that function as funnels, inventors, and therapists and concludes with a discussion of the potential efficacy of such programs in solving the major problems associated with planning and translating.


Writing Process Prose Experienced Writer Baseline Reaction Time Inventor Device 
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.


  1. Atlas, M. (1979, December).Addressing an audience: A study of expert-novice differences in writing. (Report No. 3). New York: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  2. Beaugrande, R. de (1984).Text production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  3. Boice, R. (1982). Increasing the writing productivity of “blocked” academicians.Behavior Research & Therapy,20, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boice, R. (1983). Clinical and experimental treatments of writing block.Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology,51, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boice, R. (1985). Cognitive components of blocking.Written Communication,2, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boice, R., &Johnson, K. (1984). Perception and practice of writing for publication by faculty at a doctoral-granting university.Research in Higher Education,21, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonner, P. (1984, March). Make a new plan, Stan.Personal Software, pp. 120–123Google Scholar
  8. Bridwell, L.,Johnson, P., &Brehe, S. (in press). Composing and computers: Case studies of experienced writers. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.),Writing in real time. Modelling production processes. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., Meyer, B. J. F., &Penland, M. J. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading.Journal of Educational Psychology,74, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Britton, B. K., &Tesser, A. (1982). Effects of prior knowledge on use of cognitive capacity in three complex cognitive tasks.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns, H. (1979). Stimulating rhetorical invention in English composition through computer-assisted instruction.Dissertation Abstracts International,40, 3734A. (University Microfilms No. 79-28268)Google Scholar
  12. Burns, H. (1984). Recollections of first-generation computer-assisted prewriting. In W. Wresch (Ed.),The computer in composition instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  13. Burns, H. L., &Culp, G. H. (1980, August). Stimulating invention in English composition through computer-assisted instruction.Educational Technology, pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
  14. Charney, D. (1984, February). The validity of using holistic scoring to evaluate writing: A critical overview.Research in the Teaching of English, pp. 65–81.Google Scholar
  15. Corbett, E. P. J. (1965).Classical rhetoric for the modern student. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cowley, M. (Ed.). (1958).Writers at work: The Paris Review interviews (Vol. 1). New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  17. Daiy, J. A. (1978). Writing apprehension and writing competence.The Journal of Educational Research,2, 10–14.Google Scholar
  18. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving (L. S. Lees, Trans).Psychological Monographs,58(Whole No. 270).Google Scholar
  19. Elbow, P. (1981).Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Flower, L. S (1981).Problem-solving strategies for writing. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  21. Flower, L. S., &Hayes, J. R. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process.College English,39, 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flower, L. S., &Hayes, J. R. (1980a). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem.College Composition & Communication,2, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flower, L. S., &Hayes, J. R. (1980b). 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
  24. Freedman, S. W. (1983). Student characteristics and essay test writing performance.Research in the Teaching of College English,17, 313–325.Google Scholar
  25. Garfield, E. (1983, April 4). Introducing SCI-MATE-a menu-driven microcomputer software package for online and offline information retrieval.Current Contents, pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
  26. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge.American Psychologist,39, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Muth, D., &Dogan, N. (1982). Writing and reviewing persuasive documents: Cognitive demands.Journal of Educational Psychology,74, 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gordon, W. J. J. (1961).Synectics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  29. Gould, J. D. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 97–127).Google Scholar
  30. Graesser, A. C., Hopkinson, P. L., Lewis, E. W., &Bruflodt, H. A. (1984). The impact of different information sources on idea generation: Writing off the top of our heads.Written Communication,1, 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Green, D. W, &Wason, P. C. (1982). Notes on the psychology of writing.Human Relations,35, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guilford, J. P. (1967).The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Hayes, J. R. (1981).The complete problem solver. Philadelphia: Franklin Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hershey, W. R. (1984, May). Thinktank: An outlining and organizing tool.Byte, pp. 189–194.Google Scholar
  35. Hirsch, E. D., Jr., &Harrington, D. P. (1981). Measuring the communicative effectiveness of prose. In C. H. Frederiksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.),Writing: Process, development, and communication (Vol. 2, pp. 189–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Kellogg, R. T. (1983) [Cognitive effort in intentional and incidental learning]. Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
  37. Kellogg, R. T. (1984, November).Cognitive strategies in writing. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  38. Kellogg, R. T. (1985). Computer aids that writers need.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,17, 253–258.Google Scholar
  39. Kellogg, R. T. (1986).Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of time and effort to writing processes. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  40. Klare, G. R. (1976). A second look at the validity of readability formulas.Journal of Reading Behavior,8, 129–152.Google Scholar
  41. Kubie, L. S. (1958).Neurotic distortion of the creative process. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  42. Landauer, T. K. (1985). Psychological research as the mother of invention. In L. Borman & B. Curtis (Eds.),Proceedings of CHI ’85, Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–10). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  43. Lauer, J. M. (1967). Invention in contemporary rhetoric: Heuristic procedures.Dissertation Abstracts International,28, 5060A. (University Microfilms No. 68-7656)Google Scholar
  44. Layman, D. (1984, August 7). Framework: An outline for thought.PC Magazine, pp. 119–127.Google Scholar
  45. Lowenthal, D , &Wason, P. C. (1977, June 24). Academics and their writing.London Times Literary Supplement, p. 282.Google Scholar
  46. Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving.Psychological Monographs,54(Whole No. 248).Google Scholar
  47. Macdonald, N. H. (1983). The UNIX Writer’s Workbench software: Rationale and design.Bell System Technical Journal,62, 1891–1908.Google Scholar
  48. Neumann, D. (1986). A psychotherapeutic computer application: Modification of technological competence.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,18, 135–140.Google Scholar
  49. Neuwirth, C.M. (1984). Toward the design of a flexible, computer-based writing environment. In W. Wresch (Ed.),The computer in composition instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  50. Nold, E. W. (1981) Revising. InC. H. Frederiksen and J. F Dominic (Eds.),Writing: Process, development, and communication (Vol 2, pp. 67–80). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  51. Owens, P. (1984, April). Thinktank and Promptdoc.Popular Computing, pp. 186–189.Google Scholar
  52. Rodrigues, D., &Rodrigues, R. J. (1984). Computer-based creative problem solving. In W. Wresch (Ed.),The computer in composition instruction, Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of EnglishGoogle Scholar
  53. Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: A cognitivist’s analysis of writer’s blockCollege Composition & Communication,31, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rose, M. (1984).Writer’s block: The cognitive dimension Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenberg, H., &Lah, M I. (1982). A comprehensive behavioral-cognitive treatment of writer’s block.Behavioral Psychotherapy,10, 356–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rueckert, W. H. (1963)Kenneth Burke and the drama of human relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  57. Selmi, P. M., Klein, M. H., Greist, J. H., Johnson, J H., &Harris, W. G. (1982). An investigation of computer-assisted cognitive-behavior therapy in the treatment of depression.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,14, 181–185.Google Scholar
  58. Seymour, J. (1984, September). Data bases: Managers go on-line.Today’s Office, pp. 36–40.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, R. N. (1982). Computerized aids to writing. In W. Frawley (Ed.),Linguistics and literacy (pp. 189–208). New York: PlenumGoogle Scholar
  60. Stein, M. I (1974).Stimulating creativity: Vol. 1 Individual procedures. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  61. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). All’s well that ends well, but it’s a sad tale that begins at the end: A reply to Glaser.American Psychologist,40, 571–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Taylor, C. W., &Barron, F (Eds). (1963).Scientific creativity. Its recognition and development. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  63. Uhlig, R. P, Farber, D. J., &Bair, J. H (1979)The office of the future Holland: Elsevier North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  64. Von Blum, R., &Cohen, M E. (1984). WANDAH. Writing aid and author’s helper. In W Wresch (Ed),The computer in composition instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of EnglishGoogle Scholar
  65. Walker, L (1984, April). How to polish up your word processing.Personal Software, pp. 108–115, 156–157.Google Scholar
  66. Winterowd, W R. (1968).Rhetoric: A synthesis. New York Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  67. Wresch, W (1984). Questions, answers, and automated writing In W Wresch (Ed.),The computer in composition instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of EnglishGoogle Scholar
  68. Young, R. E., Becker, A L., &Pike, K. L. (1970). Rhetoric Discovery and change. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  69. Zinsser, W. (1983).Writing with a word processor. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald T. Kellogg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Missouri-RollaRolla

Personalised recommendations