Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:29:11.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of a high information-processing load on the writing process and the story written

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Suzanna L. Penningroth  and
Sheldon Rosenberg
Suzanna L. Penningroth*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Sheldon Rosenberg
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
*
Suzanna L. Penningroth, Department of Psychology (m/c 285); University of Illinois, 1009 Behavioral Sciences Building, 1007 Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60607
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test how information-processing load affects the writing process (through thinking-aloud reports) and the story written. Information-processing load was increased by having subjects write to an ending sentence with more content constraints. Secondary reaction times were synchronized with thinking-aloud statements to yield a measure of cognitive effort for the components of the writing process and for the overall task. A high information-processing load led to lower rated story coherence, but not to lower rated quality. A high load did not increase overall cognitive effort, but changed the distribution of processing time, with more reviewing earlier. Results suggest that a high information-processing load altered the distribution of writing processes, which resulted in lower story coherence.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 189 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bamberg, B. (1984). Assessing coherence: A reanalysis of essays written for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1969–1979. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 305–319.Google Scholar
Benton, S. L., Kraft, R. G., Glover, J. A., & Plake, B. S. (1984). Cognitive capacity differences among writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 820–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Britton, B. K., Westbrook, R. D., & Holdredge, T. S. (1978). Reading and cognitive capacity usage: Effects of text difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 582–591.Google Scholar
Brossel, G. (1983). Rhetorical specification in essay examination topics. College English, 45, 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, F. G. (1983). Principles of educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Carey, L., Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Schriver, K. A., & Haas, C. (1989). Differences in writers' initial task representations (Technical Report No. 35). Pittsburgh, PA: Center for the Study of Writing, Carnegie Mellon University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, R., Kurland, D. M., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efficiency and the growth of short term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 386–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language (Technical Report No. 5). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvements. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 282 230)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, C. R. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In Cooper, C. R. & Odell, L. (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Darlington, R. B. (1990). Regression and linear models. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J., & Teasley, A. B. (1986). Effects of instruction in narrative structure on children's writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 424–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication. 32, 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Muth, K. D., & Dogan, N. (1982). Writing and revising persuasive documents: Cognitive demands. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G. Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory and Cognition, 15, 256–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attention overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 355–365.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1992, 05). Process and performance aspects of writing skill. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T., Krueger, M., & Blair, R. (1991, 11). The relative ease of writing narrative text. Paper presented at the 32nd annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Francisco.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, B. (1973). Processing demands during mental operations. Memory and Cognition, 1, 401–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCutchen, D. (1988). Functional automaticity in children's writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1974) How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swarts, H., Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Designing protocol studies of the writing process: An introduction. In Beach, R. & Bridwell, L. S. (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 53–71). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivoriate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Tetroe, J. (1981). The effects of children's planning behavior on writing problems. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Tetroe, J. (1984). Information processing demand of plot construction in story writing. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
van, Dijk T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
van, Dijk T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar