the place of metacognition in process-oriented writing models

*Corresponding author: Parviz MaftoonDepartment of English Department, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Available online at http://www.bretj.com

ISSN: 2249- 1465

THE PLACE OF METACOGNITION IN PROCESS-ORIENTED WRITING MODELS1Parviz Maftoon and 2Majid Farahian1,2English Department, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, IranA R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C TArticle History

Received 8th, August, 2014Received in revised form 10th, August, 2014Accepted 9th, September, 2014Published online 28th, September, 2014

While process-oriented writing theories underline the role of composingprocesses and speculate on the components of the writing act, the role of anorchestrating mechanism does not convincingly appear in these models. Instead,different terms have been introduced which often leave the reader bewildered asto which one denotes meta cognition. To reconceptualize the role of metacognition in the dominant process-oriented theories, the present article gives abrief account of some prominent process-oriented writing models and describesthe place of meta cognition in each.

Copy Right, IJCLS, 2014, Academic Journals. All rights reserved.

Key words:

Mtacognition; process-oriented theories;problem solving theories; monitoring

INTRODUCTIONFor a long time writing was regarded a product-orientedskill and the final product was given the credit. Theprevalent product-oriented approaches focused onmechanical aspects, such as syntactical structuresinvolved in writing. Correctness was highly appreciatedand mistakes were not tolerated. Based on this approach,the writer was not asked to take into consideration theintended audience since he was required to mimic a pre-specified framework or a model text. Textbooks withsuch an orientation were mainly concerned with usageand style demanding the learners to compose fiveparagraph essays.

The shift of paradigm toward progressive education,together with the influence of cognitivism, as well asexperiential learning (Gold, Hobbs, & Berlin, 2012)resulted in a shift of paradigm toward process-orientedtheories of writing (Hairston, 1982). In the new paradigm,as Hairston states, writing is regarded as a recursiverather than a linear process, writing strategies are taughtto the students, teachers intervene in the process ofwriting, and writers intention as well as the intendedaudience, is taken care of. Furthermore, in the newperspective, writing is viewed as process of creation ofmeaning in which the writer indulges himself in therecursive process of preparing the draft, revising, andchecking.

Under the influence of cognitive psychology on modelsof writing in early1980s, the writers mental processesgained prominent importance (Johns, 1990). In a shorttime, terms which had been borrowed from cognitivepsychology emerged in writing research studies.Therefore, long-term memory, short term memory,cognitive processes, memory probes, and some otherterms found their place in the description of mentalprocesses of writers. This trend gave birth to process-

based models of writing. These models began to examineanew the act of composing. What is noteworthy in theoutlook is that writing is not considered as a creativeaccident, as Blood (2013) puts it, since student's progressin writing depends on their awareness of cognitiveprocesses of writing.

Although all process-oriented writing theories in one wayor another hold that reflective mental monitoring helpswriters potentially adjust their writing behavior andmanage it successfully, metacognition has beenconceptualized in various ways in these theories and thereis no explicit mention of the term metacognition.Accordingly, to clarify the place of metacognition in eachmodel, after giving a review of each of the prominentprocess-oriented models namely, Hayes and Flower(1980), Hayes (1996), and Bereiter and Scardamalia(1987), this paper gives an account of the role ofmetacognition in each.

The Process Approaches and Metacognition

Hayes and Flowers model

As it was stated, the shift of emphasis from product-oriented to processoriented approach to writing broughtwith itself different models of writing. One of the mostinfluential models having a significant effect on researchon writing is that of Hayes and Flower (1980). The act ofwriting, based on this cognitive process-oriented theoryof writing is regarded to be a form of problem solvinggoal-directed complex activity. In this model, the maincomponents of writing are considered to be basic mentalprocesses that have a hierarchical structure. This is incontrast to stage models of writing in which stages areseparated in time, and characterized by the gradualdevelopment of the written product (Flower & Hayes,1981, p.367).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CURRENT LIFE SCIENCES

RESEARCH ARTICLE

International Journal of Current Life Sciences - Vol.4, Issue, 9, pp. 7557-7561, September, 2014

International Journal of Current Life Sciences - Vol. 4, Issue, 9, pp. 7557-7561, September, 2014

7558 | P a g e

The model proposed by Hayes and Flower is based onfour assumptions: (1) the writing process is composed ofvarious distinct thinking processes that writers adoptduring composing a text; (2) the organization of theseprocesses is hierarchical in the sense that any of theprocesses can be embedded within another and overlap;(3) the act of writing is process which is guided by thewriters goals; and (4) writers adopt two ways to createtheir own goals. They either develop both primary high-level and supporting sub-goals or modify the primarygoals based on what they have learned during the writingprocess.

Based on Hayes and Flower (1980), there are three majorelements in the act of writing: (1) the task environment,or everything which is outside of the writer; (2) thewriters long-term memory, which stores topicknowledge, as well as writing plans one has formulated;and (3) writing processes of planning, translating, andreviewing which take place in the short term memory.When the writer begins to write, the first element which istask environment comes into play. Regarding thiselement, the first step for a writer to do is consideration ofthe topic. This means that the writer has to take care ofthe goals of the writing, the audience, and the situationbefore he begins to write. Long term memory, as the nextelement, provides different pieces of information, such asthe knowledge of the topic, knowledge of the audience,linguistic knowledge which corresponds to the identifiedtopic. The processes of writing, the third element, are thecentral core of the act of writing. Hayes and Flower(1980) characterize writing processes as planning,composing (or translating), and reviewing.

As a critical step in writing, planning involves generatingand determining the content of the text. Planning isbroken down into three sub processes: planning;generating, organizing, and goal setting. Generatinginvolves having access to the information the writer needseither through ones background knowledge or fromsources external to the writer (Graham & Harris, 1989)Organizing refers to putting together and arranging theinformation produced by generating. The nextsubcategory, goal setting, according to Graham andHarris, entails assessing the compatibility of the writtenproduct and the writers intentions.

The second phase of the writing process in the Hayes andFlower model is translating. In Chiens (2008) term, itoccurs when writers actually put their ideas into visible

language (p. 46). In other words, at this stage ideas aretransformed to sentences. In order to be able to gothrough this stage the writer has to draw on variousresources such as syntax and spelling. In the case ofskillful writers, this seems to take place automatically;however, translating ideas into the texts may be verydemanding for inexperienced writers since they maydevote conscious attention to the writing process whichmay interrupt generating and organizing ideas (McCurdy,et al., 2011).

Reviewing, as a major writing process, occurs when thewriter goes through the text critically for the purpose ofexpanding and/ or revising it or evaluating and /orrevising the plan. Therefore, there are two subcategoriesto reviewing: revising and evaluating. Reviewing may beeither a conscious act which results in writers rereadingthe text they have produced or an unplanned act whichhelps the writers evaluate their original plan. It may alsohelp writers revise the text.

Apart from the above-mentioned processes, what isnoteworthy in Hayes and Flower (1980) model is the roleand significance of a higher order process which seems tocontrol cognitive processing. Monitoring in this model isresponsible to coordinate the writing processes since ithelps writers set goals, and regulate their progress towardthe goals. To be more specific, monitoring enables thewriter to engage in an ongoing coordination andevaluation of mental processes. It is also an aid to themanipulation of various strategies which ultimatelyresults in the better quality of writing (Chien, 2008).

Monitoring in Hayes and Flowers (1980) model shouldbe viewed in the broader perspective of problem-solvingtheories since the process of setting goals and regulatingthem is defined with regard to the assumptions ofproblem solving approaches (Rouiller, 2004). Problemsolving implies that the writer has to tackle the ongoingproblem of formulating, organizing, and producing text.To put it in simple terms, problem for a writer is the actof producing the text for which he has to set goals andfind solutions. There are speculations regarding therelationship between problem-solving and metacognition.As Hawkins (2007) puts it, studies have demonstratedthat meta cognition plays an important role in problemsolving especially when there is no clear cut answer to theproblems as is the case in writing. Although Hayes andFlower (1980) make no explicit reference to metcognition, the interaction between planning, translatingand reviewing processes, depends on met cognitive subprocesses for planning, monitoring, and regulatingcognition (Hawkins, 2007). Wong (1991), emphasizingthe role of meta cognition in Hayes and Flowers(1980)model, notes that each time learners begin to write theyhave to overcome various constraints. For example, theyhave to focus on communicative goals and at the sametime keep track of their plans. Meanwhile, they need to becognizant of the targeted audience, and at the same timefollow writing conventions. To overcome theseconstraints, writers need to resort to self-regulation anddecision making.

Wong (1991) gives different examples to illustrate therole of metacognition in Hayes and Flowers (1980)

Figure-1 Structure of the writing model. Adapted from ACognitive Process Theory of Writing, by L. Flower, and J.R.

Hayes, 1981, College Composition and Communication, 32, p.370.Copyright 2008 by National Council of Teachers of English

(NCTE).


7559 | P a g e

model. As he exemplifies, in the process of planning thewriter specifies the type of text for the intended audience.This is where meta cognition intervenes. As anotherexample, when writers intends to translate their thoughtinto words they need to get access to meta cognition.Furthermore, Wong (1991) states that when writers in theprocess of revision spot instances of ambiguity ormismatches, they need to call upon their meta cognitiveresources. Moreover, as he maintains, they have to beaware of any in congruencies between the produced textsand their initial intended meanings. In sum, it seems thatmeta cognition orchestrates the recourses to meet thedeficiencies and in Wongs term it involves the decisionmaking processes on where to allocate the writerslimited cognitive resources (p.80).

Hayes model

Hayes (1996) model as a revision of Hayes and Flower(1980) model is notable for being one of the mostextensively used and influential models of writing. Thismodel is an attempt to present a framework whichprovides explanation for wider range of writing processesthan those suggested in the 1980 model. Hayes (1996)categorized the writing process in a general frameworkconsisting of the task environment, and the individual.

The task environment which includes the aspects outsidethe writer has two components: (a) social environment,and (b) physical environment. Social environment refersto social convention which specifies what we write, howwe write, and who we write to. Social conventionincludes the audience and collaborators, as well as thesocial-cultural aspect of writing. On the other hand, thephysical environment, takes into account characteristicsof the writing environment, as well as the text beingproduced.

The individual as the second dimension of Hayes (1996)model refers to those characteristics of the writer whichinfluence the writing act and, based on Prez, et al.(2010), includes (a) motivation/ affect which includes thewriters beliefs and attitudes, his predisposition towardthe given task, goal setting, and so on; (b) cognitiveprocesses which refer to sets of mental activities. Theseactivities contribute to the transformation of knowledge,reading, and comprehension of the text and production ofthe text; (c) working memory referring to phonological,semantic, and visuo-spatial processing; and (d) long termmemory which contains a cluster of various types of

knowledge that contribute to different functions withinthe writing process.

Although monitoring has a significant role in therecursive model of Hayes and Flowers, it is not retainedin Hayes (1996) model nor is there mention of metacognitive processes. However, based on Prez, et al.(2010), task-schema, as procedures which contribute tothe production of effective texts, plays the role of metacognition. Prez, et al. further elaborate on task schemas.As they explain, in Hayes (1996) model, the process ofcontrol and monitoring is in the form of proceduralknowledge. As such, unlike the Hayes and Flower (1980)model, monitoring is no longer considered part of thewriting process, but it is embedded in the long termmemory as task schema or procedural knowledge. Inaddition, a task schema has access to a repertoire ofknowledge deposited in long-term memory. Itencompasses all or some of the following. A goal (toimprove the text), a set of processes to realize this goal(evaluating reading, problem solving, etc.), someattentional sub goals (what is important to be attentive of,what kind of errors are important to avoid, etc.), qualitycriteria (the choice of the style, for example), and finallystrategies to correct specific problems (Alamargot&Chanquoy, 2001, p. 142).

Based on Hayes (1996) model, to function properly, taskschema needs to be in harmony with both long and short-term memory since while long term memory providesknowledge of topic, audience and genre, short termmemory enables the processing capacity and ensures theavailability of attentional resources (Midgette et al.,2008).

Hayes (1996) hypothesized two subcategories to taskschemas: fundamental processes and resources.Fundamental processes are of three subcomponents whichare text processing, reflection, and text production.Resources are places to store information. It should benoted that the process of storing takes place either inlong-term or short term memory. As Becker (2006)explains, based on Hayes model (1996), oncefundamental processes detect a problem, a resource whichis present in the long term memory is activated and sentto short term memory. Accordingly, it seems thatfundamental processes are suggested based on the ideathat writing process of expert writers is an act of problemsolving. In consequence, metacognition is needed in orderto help the writer tackle the obstacles present in problemsolving.

Bereiter and Scardamalias writing model

Bereiter and Scardamalias writing model (1987) which isbased on their extensive research studies considerswriting as a problem solving activity; however, itconceptualizes two different processes for novice andexpert writers. As Bereiter and Scardamalia argue, novicewriters rely on their long-term memory, and theirproduction is by no means guided by problem solvingprocess. On the contrary, expert writers do not rely totallyon what they have in their heads to put words on thepaper but writing is created while the writer is engaged inthe process of writing. As Heine (2010) notes, in theprocess of knowledge telling no planning or monitoring

Figure-2 Framework for understanding cognition and affect inwriting. Adapted from Adapted from New Directions in Writing

Theory (P.30), by J. R. Hayes. New York: The Guilford Press.Copyright 2006 by the Guilford Press.


7560 | P a g e

takes place. On the contrary, during knowledgetransforming process writing ... serves as an opportunityfor reflection: It actively triggers processes of conceptualconstruction and generates new knowledge. (p.47)

For novice writers, the role of planning, revising, and theemployment of other self-regulatory processes tend tosubstantially decrease since they convert a writing taskinto a task of retrieving the content from memory. In thiscase, each new sentence stimulates the generation of thenext one. This retrieve-and-write process of novicewriters is reported to function more like an automatedprogram, without resorting to metacognitive control. Onthe contrary, expert writers engage in a writing processwhich involves setting goals and ongoing monitoring ofthese goals (Ruan, 2005).

Bereiter and Scardamalias (1987) writing model isdifferent from that of Hayes and Flowers (1980) for tworeasons: First, Scardamalia and Bereiters (1987) modelpropose a more detailed model of cognitive processes inthat they elaborate on higher order goals, and sub-goals ofsuccessful writers. As they explain, skillful activelyconstruct high-level goals and those goals are translatedto subgolas. Secondly, Scardamalia and Bereiters modelcontrast between novice and expert writers and proposetwo different models with different processes adopted bymature and immature writers.

It is noteworthy that based on Bereiter and Scardamalias(1987) model, unlike immature writers who do not makeuse of problem solving skills or metacognitive strategies,knowledge transformers have control over their processof writing. Highlighting this issue, Hawkins notes thatsuccessful knowledge-transformer requires writersheightened awareness of metacognitive sub processes forplanning, monitoring, and regulating cognition (p.36).

Additionally, as an indication of such a control is theemployment of two primary classes of strategies namely,rhetorical and self-regulatory. Rhetorical strategies suchas developing plot, being more familiar with topic, or useof cohesive ties, as Mu (2007) explains, helps one writein a way that is acceptable by native speakers of thatlanguage. Self-regulatory strategies in Bereiter andScardamalias (1987) model are those which help onemanage his cognitive behavior during writing (p.75).For Bereiter and Scardamalia, self-regulatory strategiesare of greater importance to help novice writers improvetheir writing. It can be assumed that such a control overhigher order processing, if is not the sole is one of thefundamental differences between knowledge-tellers andknowledge transformers. This suggests that in the processof writing knowledge employing higher ordermetacognitive processes is critical to efficient writing.Therefore, Bereiter and Scardamalia propose the termprocedural facilitation in instructional settings in order tohelp novice writers make the best use of self-regulatoryprocesses. The rationale behind procedural facilitation isthat while novice writers might have appropriate self-regulatory processes and are aware of them, they areunable to make use of them. In this regard, Leavitt-Noble(2008) explains that procedural facilitation is composedof a set of questions, prompts, or simple outlines ofimportant learning structures that teachers use to help

students imitate the performance of expert writers (p.24).

Concluding Remarks

While there is no general agreement among the models ofcognitive process regarding the definition of amanagement and control process, these theories refer tothe crucial role of self-regulatory and decision makingprocesses which improve writing performance. Differentterms in the models are representatives of these processes.In Hayes and Flowers (1980) model which is derivedfrom theories of problem solving, monitoring plays therole of the executive control mechanisms. Besides,although the model does not specifically refer tometacognition, metacognition can be found in the act ofplanning, detecting and diagnosing problems that letwriters monitor and guide cognition (Flower, cited inHawkins, 2007, p.226). These regulatory processesdistinguish novice from expert writers. In Hayes model,(1996) task schema exerts control on writing processesand organizes them. Finally, in Bereiter andScardamalias (1987) model, strategic control as well asrhetorical and self-regulatory strategies helps expertwriters to regulate their writing process. In sum, anessential element of these three process-orientedapproaches is the inclusion of self-regulatory processes tomonitor the writing act.

References1. Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the

models of writing. Kluwer: Academic PublishersDordrecht.

2. Becker, A. (2006). A review of writing modelresearch based on cognitive process. In A. Horning &A. Becker (Eds.), Revision: History, theory, andpractice (pp. 24-49). West Lafayette, IN: ParlorPress.

3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). Thepsychology of written composition. Retrieved fromhttp://Bereiter Written Composition.pdf-Wiki

4. Blood, B.J. (2013).Why and how to increaseMetacognition in the college composition classroom.Unpublished MA thesis: New York University atFredonia.

5. Chien, S.H (2008). A cognitive analysis of therelationships between Chinese EFL writers strategyuse and writing achievement performance.Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Retrieved fromhttp://www.ling.cam.ac.uk/COPIL/papers/3-chien.pdf

6. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitiveprocess theory of writing. College Composition andCommunication, 32, 365387.

7. Gold, D., Hobbs, C. L., & Berlin, J. A. (2012).Writing instruction in school and college English. InJ. J. Murphy (Ed.), A short history of writinginstruction: From ancient Greece to contemporaryAmerica (3rd ed.) (pp.232-272). New York:Routledge.

8. Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1989). Cognitive training:Implications for written language. In J. Hughes & R.Hall (Eds.), Cognitive behavioral psychology in the


7561 | P a g e

schools: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 247-279).New York: Guilford Press.

9. Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: ThomasKuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing.College Composition and Communication, 33, 76-88.

10. Hawkins, R. E. (2007). Classifying andcharacterizing student writers' metacognition: Asocial cognitive ethnography (Doctoral dissertation).Available at http://books.google.com

11. Hayes, J. & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying theorganization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E.Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp.330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

12. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework forunderstanding cognition and affect in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science ofwriting: Theories, methods, individual differences,and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

13. Heine, L. (2010). Problem solving in a foreignlanguage. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

14. Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories:Implications for developing theories of L2composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second languagewriting: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 2436). New York: Cambridge University Press.

15. Leavitt-Noble, K.A. (2008). Improving the writingskills of sixth grade English language learners withand without learning (Doctoral dissertation).Available at http://books.google.com

16. McCurdy, M., Schmitz, S., & Albertson, A. (2010).Evidence-based written language instruction:Developing and implementing programs at the core,supplemental, and intervention level. In G. G.Peacock, R. A. Ervin, E. J. Daly & K. Merrell (Eds.),

The practical handbook of school psychology:Effective practices for the 21st century (pp. 300-318). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

17. Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). Theeffects of content and audience awareness goals forrevision on the persuasive essays of fifth- and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 21(1-2), 131-151.

18. Mu, C. (2007). An investigation of three Chinesestudents' English writing strategies. TESL-EJ, 11(1),1-23. Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej41/a1.html

19. Prez, C. R., Castro, P. G., Prez, L. A., Menndez,R. C. G., Snchez, J. N., Pienda, J. A. G., Garca, D.A., & Gutierrez, A. B. B. (2010). An analysis ofcurrent theoretical models of writing and its relationto attention-deficit hyperactivity (ADHD). Papelesdel Psiclogo, 31(2), 211-220.

20. Prestin, E. (2008). Writing and reading. In G.Rickheit & H. Strohner (Eds.), Handbook ofcommunication competence (pp. 225-256). Berlin: deGruyter

21. Rouiller, Y. (2004). Metacognitive regulations, peerinteractions and revision of narratives by sixth-graders. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), & G.Rijlaarsdam H. Van den Bergh & M. Couzijn (Vol.Eds.), Studies in writing (pp. 7789). Norwell, MA:Springer.

22. Ruan, Z. (2005). A metacognitive perspective on thegrowth of self-regulated EFL student writers.Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 175-202.

23. Wong, B. Y. L. (1991). The conceptual perspectivesin the connections between reading and writingprocesses. In A. McKeough & J. L. Lupart (Eds.),Toward the practice of theory-based instruction.Current cognitive theories (p. 66-93). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

*******

the place of metacognition in process-oriented writing models

Documents