The writing process is an age-old obsession among the writing community. People fall into the trap of observing how individuals write and why they write as they do, all in an attempt to come up with some sort of model of writing processes. Researchers have attempted to categorize and generalize writers for decades. Perhaps this is because teaching writing is such a subjective process and lumping each experience into several groups helps educators pass on methodology to students. On the other hand, maybe categorizing and modeling writing processes is a way to keep the concept universal. In any case, writing processes have taken researchers, educators, and learners down the rabbit hole.

            In 1980, John Richard Hayes, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University, and his peer, Linda Flower, devised a model for the three cognitive processes in writing: planning, translating, and revision. In 1996, Hayes sought to correct the old model and adapt it in a way that made it easier to follow and allowed it to be more inclusive. The new model was comprised of the task environment in one section and the individual in the other. The task environment contains both a social and physical aspect. The social environment of writing is the audience and any other texts used in the process, and the physical environment is made up of the writer’s text itself and the writing mode, pen and paper or a word processor, for instance. The individual component contains all the mental and psychological processes that occur during writing, such as motivation, cognitive processes, and memory. This individual-environment model exists as one example of a way to explain how to write and how to analyze writers. One claim that Hayes makes is that writing is a social activity. Not only do writers compose their works for an audience, but the manner in which they write is based on social convention and previous social interactions. Furthermore, writing and its process are influenced by culture, as cultures shape societal norms.

            Hayes then explains the correlation between the physical environment and the differences between writers in the three cognitive processes of planning, translating, and revising. He mentions studies that have revealed that people who write using an electronic word processor tend to edit more poorly than those whose medium of choice is pen and paper. Similarly, the planning and revising processes are altered. Luuk Van Waes and Peter Jan Schellens (2003) carried out a study that sought to observe the differences in revisions between those who used pen and paper and those who used a word processor. They found that there were significant differences in the level, purpose, remoteness, and distribution in revisions. Computer writers revised at the letter level and made changes according to form (spelling, grammar, etc.). These types of writers also made revisions with a greater line distance than pen and paper writers. In contrast, pen and paper writers revised at the word level and rarely revised for form. The mode of writing affects the writing process in an interesting way. There is an even greater interest in this effect due to the technological innovations that have been taking place. With that said, casual observation reveals that the majority of undergraduate writers have resorted to laptops; they rarely pull out the pen and paper of the pre-Internet years. Therefore, looking at the difference between electronic and hard copy writers for the younger generations has become relatively superfluous. However, the concept of Hayes’ cognitive writing processes and the methodology of grouping for Van Waes and Jan Schellens has been utilized for even more categorizations.

            Many researchers have come to the agreement that writers are divided up into Discoverers and Planners. The Discovery approach is rife with engagement and revising. Writers with this mindset write until they have an understanding revealed to them. Then, they spend a great deal of time making revisions and honing their words to perfection. The Planners, on the other hand, begin by exploration and contemplation and follow a prepared outline, revising as they go. However, Mike Sharples (1999) decided that these two divisions were too simple. He examined the quantitative data from the Van Waes study regarding writing mediums and qualitative data from a study by Ali Wyllie concerning writing strategies and then proceeded to discuss how those brought about individuality in writing. People write in rhythms of engagement and reflection; thus, there are rituals and habits that writers follow diligently because it makes their work tick. Each ritual is unique to the individual, and no one can follow another’s way of composing a piece in the hopes of being successful. Even more so, Sharples states that writing is solitary. It needs to occur in a place free from distractions in order for the originality to freely flow.

            Both Sharples and Hayes discuss motivation in the writing process. Hayes focuses most on extrinsic motivation; he mentions that undergraduate students write for a specific course, doing everything in their strategy aimed at the particular goal of getting a passing grade. Sharples compares both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in writing. Intrinsic motivation comes from the writer’s enjoyment of the writing process or of the finished product. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can cause fear and anxiety in writers, which in turn causes the writers to twist their strategies to alleviate that discomfort. This is another way that writing becomes individualized and a subjective experience that is unable to be replicated by a different person.

            George H. Jensen and John K. DiTiberio (1984) explain that the best way to approach writing processes is to understand how people differ and how that affects the process itself. They focus on personality types, specifically Myers-Briggs. Extraverted and introverted writers differ in their strategies; extraverts free write to generate ideas whereas introverts plan and outline prior to putting words on a page. Sensing writers do best when given explicit instructions that lead them to a designated end goal. On the contrary, intuitive writers develop unique approaches to the topics that they are given and do well with general instructions and an open-end goal. Writers who identify as “thinking” prefer to have an organizational pattern to make decisions as they write. Those that are “feeling” tend to follow outlines loosely and choose to write based on personal thought and value rather than based on structure. Lastly, “judging” types focus in on a few topics and set reasonable goals. They write first drafts quickly and return to revising in later drafts. These types also stand by their outlines very adamantly and avoid distractions. Those who are perceiving differ in that they choose broad, ambitious topics and dive into the writing process prior to narrowing their goals. Their limitations come later in the process and their final products tend to be lengthy and extensive because perceiving types desire a dense, thorough composition.

            With all this in mind, it is easy to conclude that writing processes are individualized and specific to a person. However, there is a scarcity of research in the area of writing processes and undergraduate majors. There are hundreds of universities in the United States alone, with even more distinct majors among them. Every major has different requirements and writing styles. Perhaps the reason behind this lack of research is due to the sheer breadth of the task. There would be a wide ground to cover to ensure that each major is accounted for, with the students’ minors and outside interests also in mind. However, there is still a simple way to get a general grasp on the concept. Thus, the question here would be, how do undergraduate students amidst different majors tackle writing processes? What is the difference between a business major’s approach and a science major’s? How do various majors play a role in shaping how a student plans, translates, and revises their work?

             In order to first get an understanding on the general writing processes of undergraduate students, anonymous descriptions were collected as a baseline dataset. As part of an assignment in an undergraduate course, Theories of Writing, participants submitted qualitative responses to the prompt “describe your writing process”. 15 of the 17 class members completed the task and the document was shared using Google Docs with all participants. In the responses, the majority of participants stated that they required some sort of planning step prior to beginning their writing. Furthermore, almost all of the participants’ writing processes involved Hayes’ cognitive processes of planning, translating, and revising, with varying degrees. A few participants wrote that they depended heavily on outlines and notes, while others plan more in their heads, brainstorming throughout the day before sitting down to write. One responder even stated that they need at least a week, if not more, to organize their thoughts and outlines. That same responder also said they write solely in one or two sittings, which was a common theme throughout all the responses. Despite planning and revising variations, virtually all the participants said that they wrote the first draft in one sitting. Then, they go back and revise to formulate their final draft. One participant stuck out in the revising process by saying that they write their first draft as practice, and then their final draft is a completely restructured work. Another common theme in the answers was the idea that writing for different courses requires different writing processes. One participant explicitly stated this by explaining how the majority of their written works are lab reports and journals; they are very structured. Therefore, this person does not plan or outline for those types of writing. However, they also said that for non-science writing, their process is extremely different and needs a lot more thought and planning beforehand.

           The method for looking at how majors affect writing processes required a more personal approach. Thus, five qualitative interviews were conducted via email. Each interviewee has declared a different major at their respective universities; the majors were Geography, English and Psychology, International Studies, Dance, and Economics and International Relations. They were asked the following questions:

1. What is/are your major(s)?

2. How would you describe your writing process? (i.e. planning, revisions, strategies, etc?)

3. How did you come to your writing process? As in, did someone teach you, did you find out about it through peers, or was it a natural development on your own?

4. Has your writing process changed since you have come to college? How has your specific major affected your writing process, if at all?

           Due to the relatively small sample size of participants, significant trends and patterns cannot be observed. However, analysis of the responses reveals several insights. Each participant stated that their major has not changed their writing process directly; rather, the topics they have to write about for their major-specific courses have affected the way they write. One participant, with the Geography major, said that they primarily write position or persuasive papers. Therefore, they need to have plenty of evidence to support claims and opinions. This person’s writing process was primarily centered on research and outlines prior to writing the actual paper. Outlining is something that they have been doing since middle school, however taking courses in the Geography department has changed their writing process because as they write, their thesis and ideas change from the original outline. Thus, they write around the evidence that they uncover during their research. The participant with the International Studies major had a similar response to this topic. English is their second language; for this reason, this participant did not know how to write until they came to college. Furthermore, the International Studies major requires them to write personal and theoretical opinions, which was a new concept, considering they previously only wrote on evidential fact. This has prompted them to utilize outlines and mind maps in order to get a deeper understanding of the material they have to write about.

           One of the participants in this study was an English major, so their responses to the questions were intriguing. This person stated that they do not believe that their major has affected their writing process outside of increasing their skills as a writer. However, they also said that they have begun to research and outline in considerable depth, a method that had been known but went unused until they enrolled in harder English courses. Therefore, their major has indirectly affected their writing process by enforcing previously learned techniques that had not been utilized.

             The interview of the participant with the Dance major also revealed an insight, which is that certain people are drawn to certain majors, and, by extension, certain writing processes. Now, this steps more into the personality territory, mentioned earlier with the DiTiberio and Jensen study. However, it is still applicable to the topic of majors and writing processes due to the nature of the question. The Dance student shared that they are scatterbrained. This quality has been mirrored in their writing process; they do not make an outline and jump around within the paper while writing, preferring to start in the middle and revising very little. Furthermore, they included in their responses an idea that is strongly emphasized at their university, which is perspective. Prior to going to college, this person did not look at their written works from multiple angles. However, by learning that a change in perspective can make a significant difference in the way a work is constructed and viewed, they have incorporated a wider breadth of intuition into their writing process.

              In general, majors do not have a direct effect on writing processes. However, the courses involved with the major work behind the scenes to slowly evolve the way a student writes and the reason for which they write. If one considers Sharples’ and Hayes’ ideas of extrinsic motivation, the audience plays a key role in writing processes. Consequently, as courses for a specific major set the stage for a certain paper, they are shifting the perspective of the students’ written works, thereby affecting the manner in which the students go about creating their pieces. Each adaptation of the writing processes is subtle, almost inconsequential when looking at the bigger picture. Yet, whether a person shifts to revising every single detail to enforce an argumentation or someone decides that their convoluted, philosophical essay on the universe absolutely needs an outline, these adaptations continue to add on top of one another, until the writing process of a student is completely different than it was months prior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Hayes, John Richard. “A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing.” The Science of Writing, edited by C.                    Michael Levy and Sarah Ransdell, Lawrence Erbaum Associates, 1996, 1-27.

Jensen, George H., DiTiberio, John K. “Personality and Individual Writing Processes.” College Composition and Communication, Vol.                35, No. 3, 1984, 285-300.

Sharples, Mike. How We Write: Writing as Creative Design. Routledge, 2002.

Van Waes, Luuk, Jan Schellens, Peter. “Writing profiles: the effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of                               experienced writers.” Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 35, 829-853.

​

Back to Other