About The Psycholinguistic Models of The Writing Process For A Didactics of Written Production

About the psycholinguistic models of the writing process for a didactics of written production 07/12/2022 00:31
OPENEDITION BOOKS
Home Issues Hors-série About the psycholinguistic models...
Repères
OPENEDITION JOURNALS
HYPOTHESES
Recherches en didactique du français langue maternelle
CALENDA
Hors-série | 2013
Libraries and institutions
OpenEdition Freemium
About the psycholinguistic

models of the writing process
Our services
for a didactics of written

OpenEdition Search
production1 Newsletter
What cooperation between psycholinguists and specialists in

Follow us
didactics?
CLAUDINE GARCIA-DEBANC AND MICHEL FAYOL

https://doi.org/10.4000/reperes.505
Abstract
This article problematises the possible areas of cooperation between psycholinguists and
specialists in didactics by underlining both the interests of an interaction between them and
the specific and complementary mission of both fields.
After a historic overview of how references to psycholinguistic works emerged in the research
on the didactics of written production, the main models of verbal production, especially of
written verbal production, published during the 1980s and1990s are presented: Hayes and
Flowers (1980), Garret (1980), Levelt (1989), Van Galen (1991). Their interest and the limits of
their use in didactics are investigated. What is the possible function of verbal production
models in didactics? What methodological precautions are necessary before using them? More
particularly, the aids to writing possibly inspired by these models and the limits of such aids
are examined. In a fourth part, we compare the ways in which each of the two disciplines
approaches the key issue of learning.
As a conclusion, the comparison of the methods respectively used in each of these fields,
especially the part reserved to text analysis and real-time processes is useful to define an
interesting cooperation area between psycholinguists, linguists and specialists in didactics,
especially towards designing writing tasks and evaluation indicators.
Full text
https://journals.openedition.org/reperes/505?lang=en Página 1 de 19
1 A number of research works on the didactics of writing have drawn upon

psycholinguistic research into writing processes. The present contribution, which was
jointly written by a psychologist of language and a specialist in didactics offers a
problematisation of possible areas of cooperation between these two disciplines by
showing both the interests of an interaction between them and the specific and
complementary missions of both fields. It is aimed to raise methodological questions
and open up new research perspectives.
2 Anglo-Saxon psycholinguistic research into writing processes was presented for the
first time to the community of teacher trainers by Michel Fayol in a paper entitled
“L’approche cognitive de la rédaction: une perspective nouvelle” (The cognitive
approach to writing – a new perspective) published in 1984 in issue 63 of Repères. In
this article, the author argued for a cognitive approach to writing to advance both
psychological knowledge and teaching practice. He was aware of the limits of these
CATALOGUE
analyses and of their teaching implications: “Psychologists believe that the recent study All
of writing processes has only led to very naive descriptive attempts and to extremely
limited theorisations.” The HOME OF 603
conclusion of the articleOPENEDITION
indicated the SEARCH
interest of OpenEdition
cooperation between language psychologists and specialists in didactics: “if we know
JOURNALS
the world only through the initiatives we take and the ‘outcomes’ of these initiatives,
then the findings of the didactics of writing will contribute to advance psychological
knowledge and teaching practice simultaneously”.
3 This pioneer contribution was completed in March 1986 by issue 49 of the journal
Pratiques entitled “Les activités rédactionnelles” (writing activities) which also
contributed to disseminating the research works conducted by Anglo-Saxon language
psychologists on writing processes and published in the early 1980s. This was a
landmark issue in the dissemination of these psycholinguistic works. In a long
introductory article, Michel Charolles summarised the findings about the linguistic,
psychological and didactic aspects of the writing processes. In addition, he requested
secondary school pupils to perform constrained writing tasks – introducing
paraphrastic reformulations in a scientific text or writing an argumentative text based
on a particular argumentative orientation. He showed how the analysis of writing
processes opened up new perspectives for the didactics of writing. All the papers he
collected in this issue explored writing processes. The contribution by Claudine Garcia-
Debanc sought to identify the teaching implications of the knowledge derived from the
description of writing processes. She exposed the risks of a naive borrowing of a
theoretical model that was not designed for didactics and investigated the risks of
applicationism. To what extent can expert practice contribute to didactic progress?
What is the impact of the explanation of procedures on their completion?
4 In 1989, Dominique-Guy Brassart in issue 11 of the journal Recherches entitled “Du
brouillon au texte” (From rough drafts to final texts) wrote a long paper to the
“reviewing processes in the psycholinguistic models of writing”. He scrutinised the
original models. It was all the more necessary as these works were often mentioned or
quoted but not studied, which caused many misinterpretations. He also gave a detailed
outline of research findings. The main specificity of this article is to refute the received
idea shared among specialists in didactics and teachers that deletions were a sign of
higher textual competence, which led them to value reviewing operations. Brassart
argued for the crucial importance of planning operations.
5 During the same period, these psycholinguistic models were reference frameworks
for two research works on writing in primary school “Évaluer les écrits à l’école
primaire” (Evaluating writing assignments in primary education) and “De l’évaluation à
la révision” (From evaluation to reviewing). These works were followed by research
reports published by INRP (French institute for educational research) and mainstream
books published by Hachette Éducation. The interim findings of these works also
materialised in oral contributions, especially during the DFLM (Didactics of French-
Mother Tongue) symposium in Namur in 1986. These works were based mainly on
textual linguistics and the models of writing processes.
6 Some fifteen years later, we think it is worth evaluating the cooperation between
language psychology and the didactics of writing. The didactics of French has indeed
made progress and developed into a field with its own research topics and
methodologies. It has become aware of the risks of applicationism in all its forms.
7 Similar cooperation with the specialists of other fields that are valuable references for
the didactics of writing – specialists in textual genetics who analyse writers’
manuscripts, anthropologists, and sociologists of cultural practice – would be fruitful.
Such cooperation is necessary to clarify the links between the didactics of writing and
some contributory disciplines and determine their specificities. Issue 118-119 of
Pratiques, which was coordinated by Christine Barré de Miniac, initiated similar
reflection on the research into the sociology of the cultural practices of writing.
8 In this article, we will first seek to outline the key elements of the main models of
verbal production, especially of written composition, and to question their uses in the
didactics of writing. The various models of verbal production, especially of written
composition, will first be examined. What is a model for a psycholinguist? What
requirements must it meet? What are the assets and drawbacks of the main models of
the 1980s?
9 We will then investigate the uses that can be made of psycholinguistic models in the
research on didactics. What is the possible function of composition models in didactics?
What methodological precautions are necessary before using them? More specifically,
we will focus on the aids to writing such as they may have been inspired by these
models.
10 In a third time, we will show how a purely didactical question, that of aids to writing,
can be enlightened by references to theories of language psychology.
11 We will also compare how each of the two fields addresses the key issue of learning.
What are the limits to the psycholinguistic studies of development? What is specific to
the contribution of didactics and how can its impact be analysed? How can longitudinal
studies be conducted to account for long-term learning? Such research whose findings
are expected by both researchers in language psychology and teacher trainers calls for
cooperation between psycholinguists and specialists in didactics.
12 The comparison of the methods used in each respective field, especially the part
devoted to text analysis and to the analysis of real-time processes is useful to map a
potentially fruitful cooperation area between psycholinguists, linguists and specialists
in didactics, especially towards the development of writing tasks and evaluation
indicators.
1. The main models of verbal

production in the 1980s and their
developments
13 During the 1980s and 1990s, many theoretical and empirical works tackled the
problems raised by written composition. These works drew upon three main categories
of models that were distinguished by their topics and the methods used but, beyond
these differences, were all based on a conceptualisation strongly inspired by cognitive
psychology. These models were essentially descriptive. However, they contributed to

regarding written composition as an activity that could be analysed as a whole and into
different parts. Despite their shortcomings, they were instrumental in making
assumptions in three research fields – how adult writers function; the comparison
between experts and novices; the didactics of written composition.
14 When we look at the various models, we realise that the models of written
composition (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Fayol, 1997, 2002; Piolat, Pélissier, 1999)
are all part of the model-based theory and complement each other as they focus on
partially different components.
1.1. The Hayes & Flower model

15 The first and most popular model from which all the other models were derived is
based on Flower and Hayes’ (1980) and Hayes and Flower’s (1980) works. Following an
analysis of verbal protocols designed to identify the origins of learning difficulties, the
authors eventually distinguished (Figure 1):
Task environment (including the text itself from which the writer can build
upon and writing instructions mentioning the topic, the audience and the
reasons for writing);
Conceptual, situational (especially that relative to the audience) and rhetorical
(types of texts) knowledge in the long-tem memory;
The writing process itself divided into three sub-processes: conceptual
planning (generating, organising and goal-setting), translating and reviewing
(evaluating and revising).
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the writing process (adapted from Hayes &
Flower, 1980, p. 11)
16 This model focuses on the conceptual aspects of writing (topical knowledge,
organisation of the corresponding knowledge in the memory and translation of this
knowledge according to the goal set). This model is part of a problem-solving
framework and pays little attention to the analysis of language processing. It focuses
instead on one box “REVISING/REVIEWING” which gave rise to considerable
research. This part might prevail over all the others and the use of this tool is one of the
privileged means to improve outputs. However, the potential interest of this tool for the
study of learning has been little exploited, at least initially. Between 1990 and 1993 it
was the research topic and the title of cooperative research “Révision des écrits2”
(Reviewing compositions) coordinated by Sylvie Plane and Gilbert Turco at INRP.
17 The Hayes and Flower model was extended. More specifically, other researchers
raised the question of composition strategies which initially were not directly
addressed. As a result, Bereiter & Scardamalia (1988), Scardamalia & Bereiter (1986)
opposed two composition procedures: the strategy of knowledge enunciation which
consists in writing information as it is retrieved in memory and the strategy of
knowledge transformation which takes account of the constraints concerning
conceptual knowledge and rhetorical organisation before text writing.
1.2. The Garrett/Levelt model

18 The second, influential model does not particularly focus on written composition.
Building upon the study of speaking mistakes by Garrett (1975, 1980), the initial model
was enriched by Levelt (1989) and his colleagues. Unlike the model designed by Hayes
& Flower, this model is set in a strictly psycholinguistic perspective. It focuses more
particularly on word and sentence production and on the relations between
comprehension and production (Figure 2).
19 This model is based on the results from the conceptual construction of a message in
order to give this message a linguistic form. The construction of this form implies a
two-step approach. The model first constructs a functional representation with an
abstract grammatical structure (verb/subject) and equally abstract lexical elements
(lemmas). In a second time, the syntactic structure and “surface” lexical forms are
retrieved and “sent” to the articulatory component. Changes were subsequently brought
to this model but they do not affect the general economy, which is what matters to us
here (Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer, 1999).
Figure 2
20 The very conception of this model allows to account for a whole set of phenomena
“words on the tip of the tongue”, naming speeds, etc. It is based on the assumption of
impenetrable production mechanisms which operate on an automatic and modular
basis. As a result, we only access the results of their intervention. Comprehension-
based regulation can only be done “after” production. Once again, this model was
extended, especially in terms of lexical access and its temporal alteration. However, the
questions concerning learning and the influential factors behind it have remained little
addressed (however see Levelt 1998).
1.3. The Van Galen model

21 The third model is also the least influential and least popular, probably because it
focuses on the last stages of written production: the graphic generation of the message
(van Galen, 1991). However, this model raises the problem of the sequentiality of
operations. The different operations starting at different levels are simultaneously
active and likely to be in competition. They must be organised and coordinated so that
only one graphic element is generated. The same reasoning holds for oral production.
22 The van Galen model is instrumental in showing that a supposedly “basic” process –
graphic word generation – is actually complex. This model includes the determination
of the correct spelling of words, the selection of allographs, the control of the size of
letters, muscular adjustment, etc. It also raises the question of the different paces to
generate “units” at the different levels: the clause is a probable unit compared to the
global conception of the message while the “letter” is a unit at the level of graphic
generation. But given that several “units” are probably at play at middle levels, the
problem is raised of their respective processing speeds and of the temporary storage
waiting to be used by subsequent levels. In other words, the van Galen model – more
than any other model – raises the question of the real-time coordination of the different
components so that production happens in a relatively harmonious and continuous
way.
1.4. Critical analysis of these models

23 All the abovementioned models but also those by Beaugrande (1984) or Martlew
(1983) are based on a modular conception of written or oral production characterised
as follows:
They all isolate components, each of which receives a particular (conceptual or

semantic for example) type of information and transforms it into another type of
information (lexical for example). As a result, a type and a level of representation
can be associated with each component.
There are functional relations between components. Most often, information
flow is constrained by a specific architecture: the data generated by a component
can be directed only to another particular data. Components function either
sequentially or simultaneously. In the first case, information processing of level l
(see the notion of cascade processing) must wait to start processing level l – 1. As
a result, it often implies arguing for temporary memories that store intermediary
representations (Van Galen, 1991). In the second case, components function in
parallel which raises the question of how exits are coordinated and possible
interferences controlled. The connectionist models that developed later offered
interesting solutions in terms of activation/inhibition (Dell, 1988).
The control processes that regulate the transfer of information and evaluate
final products were partially studied. Either the very structure of processes
includes a control component (Hayes & Flower 1980) that tests and rejects or
accepts the products (the comprehension component in the Levelt model, 1989)
or the very functioning of the production system is self-regulated (Berg, 1986)
and the question of a control instance is then irrelevant. Most models seek a
compromise between controlled/sequential processes and automatic/self-
regulated/parallel processes (Fayol, 2002).
24 All the models offer relatively autonomous components that are organised according
to a more or less sequential or parallel structure and whose control of productions is
made by an autonomous instance or, on the contrary, by the self-regulation of
mechanisms. There are three types of components: those that deal with concepts, their
relations and the impact of communicative and enunciative dimensions; those that
concern linguistic aspects: lexical access, syntactic production, cohesion markers, etc.;
those that focus on the generation of the material (phonological or graphic) aspects of
the message.
2. The use of these models in the

didactics of writing
2.1. Heuristic or prescriptive model? Models in

didactics: an ambiguous status
25 Didactics can be defined (Garcia-Debanc, 1991) as the “study of the conditions and
procedures to apply teaching contents, of their impact towards improved learning
outcomes in ordinary classes”. Since the research conducted by Verret, Chevallard and
Martinand, the notions of didactic transposition and of reference practices are
instrumental in analysing the gaps between the contents to be taught and reference
disciplines, contents to be taught and contents actually taught, and finally contents to
be taught and the actual learning outcomes of pupils.
26 The status of models is by nature ambiguous in didactics, probably because of the

polysemy of “didactics” which, especially for the didactics of French as a foreign
language, still often refers to the design of (prescriptive) teaching methods and
resources and not to an epistemological analysis of actual teaching materials or
practices. But while models should be heuristic, teaching experts tend to use them as
norms to be reproduced, probably because they often have a praxeological aim towards
effective action. Scientific models are by definition partial, provisional and heuristic.
They contribute to questioning the complexity of reality and not to simplify it. They are
always refutable and can historically be replaced by a more competitive but still
provisional model. For example, the quinary scheme of narratives designed by
Larivaille and reproduced by Jean-Michel Adam is not intended at all to identify the
surface markers of a text. Instead, it is designed to organise the deep semantic structure
of a text and possibly to be used as a reference when one seeks to account for the
interpretation or memorisation processes of narrative texts. Similarly, the models of
verbal production processes help account for the complexity of jointly requested
operations and for the diversity of approaches. They are certainly not a list of
instructions to be successively fulfilled or an inventory of sub-processes to be used for
training.
2.2. What a model is not
A model is not a set of instructions to be sequentially

performed
27 This is the main distinction between the Hayes and Flower model and the works of
classical rhetoric, even if many people were eager to emphasise similarities, especially
the parallel between planning and inventio, translating and dispositio. While classical
rhetoric lists a set of recommendations, the Hayes and Flower model focuses on the
iterative nature of the different writing sub-processes and their variable weight
according to individuals. In addition, Garcia-Debanc (1982) attempted to show the
impact of the writing task on the writing processes applied by the same people. As a
consequence, it is a major misinterpretation to regard it as a stage-based model.
A model is not an inventory of components

28 Even if the abovementioned models are characterised by an analytical, even
boxological dimension, they cannot be interpreted as a linear inventory of components
to be successively connected.
A model is not an established truth

29 As we have already pointed out above, it is the very possible reproduction of a model
that guarantees its scientific quality. Therefore all models are necessarily provisional.
2.3. The functions of a psycholinguistic model in
didactics
30 In the research on the didactics of disciplines, the possible reference to one or several
psychological models of pupils’ activities fulfils several functions. It is especially useful
to:
Investigate the complexity of pupils’ activities and

understanding possible difficulties
31 The reference to the operations of the writing process is useful to observe the activity
of writing pupils in greater detail. How much time do pupils effectively devote to
translating operations? Are there any signs of planning or reviewing operations? Do
some tools or work conditions facilitate these operations? How early can pupils be
helped to put these operations into practice? It is the very reference to a specific model
used as a grid of analysis which gives substance to these questions.
Analyse some dimensions of teaching practices

32 What representation(s) do teachers have of planning? What instructions do they give
to pupils to develop planning and revising/reviewing?
Adapt writing activities in class

33 The reference to a set of operations also enables teachers to give a critical look at the
activities performed in class. Among the writing tasks performed by pupils, what were
those which contributed to improving pupils’ planning? Were aids given to improve
planning? If so, what type of aids? What about translating? Teacher awareness of the
various dimensions they focused on and of those they did not study enough can help
them adapt the planning of their activities. For example, speaker/reader exchanges
during which pupils can see the impact of their writings in terms of comprehension can
contribute to realising the importance of reviewing/revising and its effective
application.
Designing aids to writing and rewriting

34 Even if the terms “aids” is not often used in didactical research, one might consider
that aids to writing and rewriting in the form of guidance sheets and criteria lists are
designed to promote planning, enable pupils to problematise their writing options
(textual genre, enunciation perspectives, lexical register, etc.) and contribute to
reviewing, ie foster a critical (re)reading of the written composition and focus on
rewriting.
35 In the didactical research on written compositions, the development of such tools is
mainly based on three underlying principles:
Explaining the features of a written piece can guide action effectively;

The texts read are resources for designing criteria on how texts function and
contribute to reading/writing interaction
The criteria identified in the tool reflect the choice of the evaluator and thus
only correspond to some aspects of textual functioning. By definition, they are
part of a provisional and evolutionary process.
2.4. Assets and limits of the Hayes and Flower

model
36 The Hayes and Flower model was the most disseminated in didactics. It contributed
to indisputable advances, especially in the following points:
There was a shift from the linguistic analysis of final compositions to a focus
on the writing process;
Aids to writing and rewriting were designed;
Writing activities in class were adapted.
37 Before 1980, the only method to analyse pupils’ writing was the linguistic analysis of
children’s texts whose methodologies were refined throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Bernard Schneuwly (1988) found how some linguistics markers could be interpreted as
the sign of operations of the writing process, especially step-by-step planning. The
merit of the Hayes and Flower model was to draw teachers’ attention to the observation
of what is going on when writing. The methodology of the think-aloud protocol analysis
inspired the collection of oral interactions during text writing in groups of two and
three pupils (Schneuwly, 1982). These oral interactions are both the signs of
negotiations between the writers and the writing processes that were used. De Gaulmyn
(1999) and Garcia-Debanc (1982) applied this approach to various corpuses.
38 We showed how fruitful it was to refer to the models of the writing process to design
aids to writing and rewriting. The tools modelled by didactical research especially
focused on planning and revising operations. It is a pity that the same work was not
done on translating.
39 Finally, we showed as of 1986 that these models could help teachers adapt classroom
writing activities because they contributed to emphasising the operations of the writing
process on which training or an aid was brought as part of writing projects.
40 While the Hayes and Flower model helped make significant progress in learning text
composition, some blind points remain:
The blind points of the Hayes and Flower model

The linguistic dimension in composition
41 In the Hayes and Flower model, translating operations remain vague. In this respect,
the Levelt model is more satisfactory but is more valid for speaking than for writing
situations.
The task impact on the writing processes used
42 Hayes and Flower especially focused on the writing of essays or argumentative texts
but did not take account of the specificity of writing tasks. Operations probably differ
according to whether they concern composing a written justification or writing a poetic
text based on constrained verbal material. It is necessary to check that the weight and
order of the operations at work in each of these two cases are identical for similar
topics. Various studies3 are currently conducted with 6 to 11-year-old children in the
Jacques Lordat laboratory. Such studies should contribute to explore the linguistic
dimension of the writing processes used in greater detail.
3. Aids to writing
43 Even if aids to writing are rarely referred to as such in didactical research (“writing
tools” is more common), they drew upon the models of writing processes. They were
designed as part of didactical research conducted at INRP, especially the EVA
(evaluating writing in primary school) and REV (from evaluation to rewriting)
programmes. Awareness of pupils’ difficulties to plan and revise/review their texts and
the notion of alleviating cognitive overload mainly inspired this research.
3.1. Aids to writing in psycholinguistics

44 From a psycholinguistic perspective, Fayol (1997) in his book entitled Des idées au
texte: psychologie cognitive de la production verbale, orale et écrite devoted several
pages of chapter V entitled “Control and regulation of composition” (pp 119 to 144) to
this question. He argued that “the social demand about these topics has kept increasing
over the past decade” (p. 144). The studies he summarises offer indications on the
opportunities to improve written compositions and/or better train writers.
45 Even if the term « aid to writing » is not explicitly used, the identification of
difficulties is necessary to design and validate modelling procedures that account for
the mechanisms at work. These mechanisms are then turned into procedures. Research
focused on “control, regulation and revising”, a dimension specific to written
composition and on planning through comparison with the research conducted on oral
production. Fayol (1997) pointed out that this research targeted “higher levels”
(generating, modelling and organising of concepts) and left aside the aspects relative to
translating.
46 For example evaluation grids intended to aid writers in the comparison/evaluation
task inherent in revision activities were developed and tested in various protocols
(Fayol, 1997, p. 134). Scardamalia and Bereiter also tested such grids with teenagers
(Bereiter and Scardamalia 1983, Scardamalia, Bereiter and Steinbach 1984;
Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1984, 1986; Daiute and Kruidenier, 1985). This aid boosts
self-questioning and self-evaluation and has led to relevant evaluations. However, the
improvement of written compositions is limited. Bartlett (1982) also found in another
study that a procedure of reflexive instructions did not significantly improve written
compositions. In the absence of solid linguistic foundations, especially from the lexical
and syntactic perspective, 30% of mistakes at best are corrected.
47 In the same chapter, Fayol also pointed to the insufficient number of developmental
studies about childhood. In addition, mid and long-term learning outcomes were not
appropriately taken into account. He finally indicated that “taking account of learning
aspects seemed inevitable and indispensable in the long run”.
3.2. Aids to writing in the didactics of written

composition: inventory of the parameters
characteristic of aids to writing in didactics
48 For several years, didactical research has focused on how pupils could be helped to
write and revise a written composition. Here is below a list of parameters characteristic
of aids to writing:
When to use them

Before writing: a grid of criteria can help pupils in CM (the final years of
primary education) to determine the features of detective stories even before
setting out to write their own detective short stories. This grid was developed by
themselves and is based on the comparison between several detective short
stories they have read (Objectif Écrire 2000 CRDP Montpellier, 2000).
Included in the instruction: some instructions include a list of criteria or
verbal or non-verbal material that can help pupils in their writing. For example,
pupils in CP (the first year of primary education) who were asked to invent
instructions for math problems had at their disposal syntactic structures to
develop problems and a book of pictures from which they could select ideas to
add content to their problems (Anna Larrouy 2001: Analyse des processus
rédactionnels d’enfants de 6-7 ans confrontés à deux tâches d’écriture
complexes, DEA, Département Sciences du Langage, Université de Toulouse-Le
Mirail).
During writing and on request: in a class of CP, pupils select elements from
word banks posted in the classroom. These banks are crucial to develop
autonomy in writing [Garcia-Debanc (2003) in Le manuel de CP, Observatoire
de la lecture, Paris]
At a specific time during writing: pupils can rely on an anthology of scary
descriptions that they will copy out or pastiche in order to beef up their detective
short stories.
Between two stages of the text to improve rewriting: criteria grids are
designed especially to foster rewriting.
Nature of the problem to be solved

49 The levels of problems to be solved may vary according to the levels of analysis that
are traditionally distinguished in language sciences:
spelling
lexical
syntactic: sentences
syntactic: textual cohesion or speech
writing selection, especially enunciative selection
contents
Linguistic nature of the tool

non verbal material
non linear (set of words, scheme, etc.) verbal material
lists: it is the most usual form of these aids to writing, whether it is a list of
criteria or informative criteria to be found in a text
syntactically organised and selected verbal material
resource material (bank of authors’ texts)
Status of the tool

set of resources that are available to pupils
material selected by the teacher according to the difficulty to be solved
Designing procedure
by “industrial material”, we mean published material, whether images or a
dictionary, a file or a conjugation table
designed by the teacher
designed collectively in class, especially lists of criteria
Procedures to use the aid

chosen by the teacher
provided individually by the teacher on demand
provided individually by the teacher according to needs
spontaneously used by pupils
Single use VS multiple possible uses

50 Ad hoc or permanent nature of the aid to writing
Use procedures
the aid is always available
designing (process)
51 This typology contributes to determining the different types of aids that can be
offered to pupils. Some parameters can be experimented to evaluate the facilitating or
inhibiting nature of an aid and its impact on written production.
3.3. When aids become an obstacle

52 Sometimes, aids are an obstacle and have an opposite effect to that expected, as
shown in the following example.
53 Pupils in CE2 (third year of primary education) were invited to write a sequel to a tale
entitled “Le joueur de flute de Hamelin” (Pied Piper of Hamelin). The female provided
two aids to facilitate task completion:
An aid to planning in the form of three possible ends to choose from: “Here
are three possible ends. Circle your favourite end and write the end of the tale.
1. The four friends flee rapidly and leave for the city of Bremen.
2. The four friends manage to make brigands flee and decide to keep living in
their house.
3. Brigands catch them after a long struggle and …them (imagine what brigands
do with the four friends)
A draft text to be continued:
“Then one of the brigands sneaked in through the window and was determined
to kill this terrifying monster.”
54 It was followed by seven blank lines to be completed.

55 Here is the composition of a pupil.
« Alors, l'un des brigands se glissa à l'intérieur par la fenêtre, décidé à tuer ce
monstre terrifiant. - Les quatre amis s'enfuient rapidement et partent pour la
ville de Brème quant il sont arivé les quatres amis rencontrent un loup je suis
tros vieux pour crier et mon mètre a desider de me tuer
L'ane lui proposa vient avec nous, tu chanteras et tu deviendras musicien de la
ville de Brème tu pouras gagné ta voix pour crier les cinq amis sont à Brème. »
(The original spelling and punctuation were kept)
“Then one of the robbers, who was determined to kill this terrifying monster,
slipped in through the window. – The four friends ran away and left for the city
of Bremen when they arrived the four friends met a wolf I’m too old to shout
and my master has decided to kill me”
The donkey said come with us, you’ll sing and you’ll become a musician of the
city of Bremen you’ll earn your voice to shout the five friends are in Bremen.
56 Pupils’ hesitations in the use of verbal tenses (present at the beginning of the text and
simple past afterwards) are evidence that the sentences suggested by the teacher were
interpreted by the pupils as translating elements. The presents, which were an option in
summary-like sentences for planning, were reproduced as such by the pupil. The use of
the simple past shows that the starter sentence only would probably have been more
effective to prompt pupils to use this verbal tense by analogy. This example suggests
that multiple aids to writing do not necessarily have a positive effect on written
production.
57 While the short-term effects of the writing aids were felt in pupils’ compositions,
there is still a lack of more longitudinal studies of how written production is learnt by
school-age children.
4. A dark continent in language

psychology and didactics: the
question of learning
4.1. How questions about learning are addressed

in psycholinguistic research
58 From our perspective in this article, the models previously mentioned focused little
on the dynamics of production, ie how real-time composition happens, and on
learning/instruction.
59 For example, Hayes & Flower (1980) mainly studied expert behaviours and opposed
them to novice behaviours (Hayes & Flower, 1986). They did not conduct research
analysing the real-time behaviour of writers.

60 Learning-related problems were not addressed per se. During the 1980s, only
Scardamalia & Bereiter (1986) really tackled this issue. They mainly adopted a
“strategic” approach inspired by the opposition expert/novice. The corresponding
model is not a truly developmental model because it does not mention how the shift
from the first to the second mode of text composition is made.
61 These authors also developed metacognitive procedures aimed to instill among
learners: (a) the acquisition and implementation of frames like those derived from
textual linguistics (Fayol, 1985, 1991); (b) the use of procedural guides aimed to help
subjects conduct voluntary research into in-memory information, systematic references
to objectives, planning and control/revising methods (Scardamalia, Bereiter &
Steinbach, 1984). The purpose is to bring subjects to shift from a strategy of knowledge
enunciation to a strategy of development/transformation (Bereiter, Burtis &
Scardamalia, 1988; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987). The suggested method to induce
learning reflects the method that is used in strategic learning in general: providing
examples (remediation), inducing imitation through tutoring, resorting to reflection.
However, these learning procedures are subjected to the usual limits of strategic
learning: importance of conditional knowledge, need for positive reinforcement,
transfer difficulties, strong cognitive overload (see Fayol & Monteil, 1994 for a journal).
Therefore, instruction and its procedures have drawn attention more than learning
itself.
62 There is little research on learning and even less concerning lexicon and the syntax of
written language insofar as academics do not focus on this aspect (Levelt, 1989). By
contrast, van Galen (1990) devoted a whole chapter to the development of writing.
Beside the study of changing parameters during development, he mentioned the
importance of evolving capacities to perform competing processing operations. Taking
this aspect into account raises the problem of how written composition should be
handled.
63 It was not until the 1990s when real-time production was eventually theorised and
studied. Initial research used VCR recording (Chanquoy, Foulin & Fayol, 1990). It soon
turned to the graphic tablet for measures purposes and studied performance in dual-
task situations (Olive, 2002). Theorisations are largely inspired by the works of
Baddeley (1986). These works were adapted to the problems raised by Kellogg about
written verbal production (1994). Interindividual differences were then taken into
account in research works based on the novice/expert opposition or on the examination
of development and learning-related problems.
64 Development and learning-related problems are subject to a dual approach. One
trend is based on the notion of cognitive resources to theorise both real-time processing
of production and the difficulties faced by children when learning written composition
(Bourdin & Fayol, 1994, 1996; McCutchen, 1996). Another field focuses on describing
how the components of written production are implemented and the evolution of their
respective dynamics during development/learning (Berninger & Swanson, 1994)
4.2. How questions about learning are addressed

in didactical research
65 The question of learning was hardly addressed any better in didactical research on
written production, despite favourable conditions for a longitudinal long-term
observation of learning. To our knowledge, only the research conducted at INRP from
1982 to 1989 carried out an analysis of the impact of innovations tested in terms of
actual learning progress made by pupils4. Those in classes engaged or not in research
were requested to write a narrative according to a specific instruction: (tell a story
whose last sentence will be: and it was since that day that birds have flown” or “and it
was since that day that pigs have had a curly tail” or another sentence of the same
kind. You will give a title to your story). This writing task was selected because the
narrative skills learnt during cycle 3 of primary education had to be used but the
narrative genre, the etiological narrative were not familiar to pupils as they were rarely
studied at that time. Then each pupil had to evaluate a text written by one of their
peers, in writing and during an oral interview afterwards. The next step for pupils was
to take a critical look at their own compositions, one week after they were written,
during an individual examination followed by an oral interview with the experimenter.
This set of tests is useful to gauge the writing and critical analysis capacities of children
as well as the nature of most used criteria. These tests highlighted a differential effect
among the innovations implemented, especially in terms of average pupils’ analysis
capacities and the nature of most used criteria.
66 Among current research on written production, few studies collect data on actual
learning outcomes. For example, in the 2001/2002 directory of current research
published by the international association for the development of research on the
didactics of French as mother tongue (DFLM) in September 2001, 23 research
programmes on written production were inventoried or over a third of the research
censed in this directory. Most of them are conducted in Canada (10) compared to 5 in
France, 4 in Belgium, and 4 in Switzerland. Selected methodologies were as follows:
Analysis of pupils’ compositions: 12

Longitudinal studies: 7 (4 targeted nursery education, 2 focused on students
and 1 was conducted on pupils in education priority areas
Questionnaires and interviews on conceptions: 6
Instructions towards the transformation of teaching practices and analysis of
their effects: 10
One research conducted at the University of Sherbrooke with special needs
students taking the baccalaureate collected data relative to writing protocols of
tutoring and aids to writing (Recherches n° 16, p. 63)
67 The summarised analysis of current research shows the very low number of
longitudinal studies. It is regrettable even if we are aware of the difficulties and
constraints of research with cohorts of pupils. However, in the absence of a rigorous
evaluation of short and long-term effects of learning strategies applied in class,
didactical initiatives on how writing is learnt might remain disputable. It is in this
direction that research should now be conducted.
Cooperation perspectives between psycholinguists and

specialists in didactics
68 We observed that the models initially designed in the 1980s targeted expert or
beginning adults and, overall, paid little attention to learning/instruction problems.
During the 1990s, the joint development of the models and techniques to study
composition led to adopt a functional approach. It was useful to focus both on the
dynamics of adults’ verbal production and on the evolution of composition during
development/learning.
69 Fruitful developments are expected from further cooperation between

psycholinguists and specialists in didactics. According to cases, these were the experts
of either field who can help the other field make progress. Here is a provisional list of
these possible cooperation areas:
Defining indicators of achievement. Existing indicators are still too general

and insufficiently analytical from the perspective of language psychology. On the
other hand, the samples of compositions in didactical research are often too
limited to allow statistical processing.
Defining writing tasks. When pupils are faced with psycholinguistic protocols,
the habits they have developed at school remain deep-seated. For example, a
writing task based on sequential pictures is significant. It is essential that
experimental protocols provide scientifically controllable but also not too exotic
tasks compared to pupils’ school habits for fear of dramatically biased results.
Taking account of the possible effects of ordinary teaching practices in
psycholinguistic experimentations. Detailed indicators are necessary to observe
actual classroom practices as Goigoux does (2002) about the teaching of reading
in CP (first year of primary education).
Conducting longitudinal studies of cohorts of pupils. Such research is costly
and difficult to implement but they are essential to know the short, medium and
long-term effects of the applied practices (Larrouy, PhD dissertation in
progress).
Experimenting short, medium and long-term effects of types of aids to
writing.
70 All these enterprises are promising for sustainable cooperation between linguists,
language psychologists and specialists in didactics. This is the orientation given to the
programme “Cross-disciplinary approach to written verbal production” coordinated by
Denis Alamargot and recently implemented by Michel Fayol and Jean-Louis Lebrave.
Bibliography
ALLAMARGOT D., CHANQUOY L. (2001) : Through the models of writing, Kluwer.
DOI : 10.1007/978-94-010-0804-4
BADDELEY A. (1986) : Working memory. New York : Oxford University Press.
DOI : 10.1126/science.1736359
BEAUGRANDE R. DE (1984) : Text production : toward a science of composition. Norwood,
NJ : Ablex.
BEREITER C. (1980) : Development in writing. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.),
Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ : LEA
BEREITER C.& SCARDAMALIA M. (1987) : The psychology of written composition. Journal
of memory and language, 27, 261-278.
DOI : 10.4324/9780203812310
BEREITER C, BURTIS P.S., & SCARDAMALIA, M. (1988) : Cognitive operations in
constructing main points in written composition. Journal of memory and Language, 21, 261-
278.
DOI : 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90054-X
BERG T. (1986) : The problems of language control : coditing, monitoring and feedback.
Psychological Research, 48, 133-144.
BOURDIN B., & FAYOL M. (1994) : Is written language production really more difficult than
oral language production ? International Journal of Psychology.
BRASSART D-G (1989) : « Les processus de révision dans les modèles psycholinguistiques de
la composition écrite » in Recherches n° 11, AFEF Lille, novembre 1989, p. 79-114.
CACCAMISE D.J. (1987) : Idea generation in writing. In A. Matsuhashi (Éd.), Writing in real
time. Norwood, NJ : Ablex.
CHAROLLES M. (1986) : « L'analyse des processus rédactionnels : aspects linguistiques,
psychologiques et didactiques » Pratiques n° 49, mars 1986, Les activités rédactionnelles, p. 3-
21.
DELL G. (1988) : The retrieval of phonological forms in production : tests of predictions from a
connectionist model. Journal of memory and language, 27, 124-142.
DOI : 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90070-8
FAYOL M. (1985) : Le récit et sa construction. Neuchâtel, Paris : Delachaux & Niestlé.
FAYOL M. (1991) : From sentence production to text production : Investigating fundamental
processes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 101-119.
DOI : 10.1007/BF03191929
FAYOL M., LARGY P. & LEMAIRE P. (1994) : When cognitive overload enhances subject- verb
agreement errors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. , pp.
FAYOL M. (1997) : Des idées au texte. Psychologie cognitive de la production verbale, orale et
écrite, Paris, PUF.
DOI : 10.3406/prati.2000.2418
FAYOL M., & MONTEIL J.M. (1988) : The notion of script : From general to developmental
and social psychology. C.P.C./European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 8, 461-475.
GALEN G.R. VAN (1991) : Phonological and motoric demands in handwriting.
Evidence for discrete transmission of information. Acta Psychologica, 74, 259-275.
GARCIA-DEBANC (1987) : La production écrite, Canada
GARCIA-DEBANC C. (1986) : « Processus rédactionnels et pédagogie de l'écriture », Pratiques
n° 49, mars 1986, p. 23-49.
DOI : 10.3406/prati.1986.2449
GARCIA-DEBANC C. (1990) : L'élève et la production d'écrits, Metz, CASUM.
GARCIA-DEBANC C. (1995) : « Le lire dans l'écrire », Pratiques n° 86, juin 1995, 71-92.
Pratiques n° 105-106, La réécriture, juin 2000.
DOI : 10.3406/prati.1995.1743
GARCIA-DEBANC C. (Éd) et alii (2001) : « Théories du texte et écriture » in Quelles
grammaires enseigner à l'école et au collège ? Discours, genres, texte, phrase.
Delagrave/CRDP Midi-Pyrénées, 291-346. Contributions de C. TAUVERON, M. FAYOL,
C.ORIOL-BOYER, N. BIAGIOLI-BILOUS.
GARCIA-DEBANC C. (2003) : Garcia-Debanc (2003) in Le manuel de CP, Observatoire de la
lecture, Paris.
GARRETT M.F. (1975) : The analysis of sentence production. In G.H. BOWER (Ed.) The
psychology of Learning and motivation. New York : Academic Press.
DOI : 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60270-4
GARRETT M.F. (1985) : Levels of processing in sentence production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.)
Language production, vol. 1, Speech and talk. New York : Academic Press.
HAYES J.R., & FLOWER L.S. (1980) : Identifying the organization of writing processes. In
L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (p. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ :
L.E.A.
HAYES J.R. & FLOWER L.S. (1986) : Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist,
41 , 1106-1113.
DOI : 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1106
LARROUY A. (2001) : Analyse des processus rédactionnels d'enfants de 6-7 ans confrontés à
deux tâches d'écriture complexes, DEA, Département Sciences du Langage, Université de
Toulouse-Le Mirail.
LEVELT W.J.M. (1989) : Speaking from Intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA : M.I.T.
Press.
MARTLEW M. (1983) : Problems and difficulties : Cognitive and communicative aspects of
writing. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language. New York : J.Wiley & sons.
MAS M. et alii (1993) : Comment les élèves évaluent-ils leurs écrits ?, Paris, INRP, Rapport de
recherche.
MAC CUTCHEN D. (1996) : A capacity theory of writing : Working memory in text
composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 199-235.
PIOLAT A. et PELISSIER A. (Eds) (1998) : La rédaction de textes, approche cognitive,
Delachaux et Niestlé.
Repères n° 4, Savoir écrire, évaluer, réécrire (1991), n° 10, Écrire, réécrire (1994), n° 11,
Écriture et traitement de texte (1995).
SCARDAMALIA M. & BEREITER C. (1983) : The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and
remedial capabilities in children’s composing. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written
language : Developmental and educational perspectives (pp. 67-95). London : John Wiley
and Sons.
SCARDAMALIA M. & BEREITER C (1985) : Fostering the development of self-regulation in
children's knowledge processing. In S.F. Chipman, J.W. Segal & R. Glaser (Eds.) Thinking and
learning skills, Research and open questions. Hillsdale, NJ : LEA
SCARDAMALIA M. & BEREITER C (1986) : Research on written composition. In
M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York : MacMillan.
SCARDAMALIA M. & BEREITER C. (1987) : Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming
in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.) Reading, writing and language learning.
Cambridge, MA : C.U.R
SCARDAMALIA M. & BEREITER C, & GOELMAN H. (1982) : The role of production factors in
writing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What Writers Know the language, process, and
structure of written discourse. New York : Academic Press.
SCHNEUWLY B. (1988) : Le langage écrit chez l'enfant. La production des textes informatifs
et argumentatifs, Lausanne-Paris, Delachaux et Niestlé.
SCHNEUWLY B. (1991) : « Différence entre les processus de production de trois genres : du
dialogue entre énonciateurs au texte écrit », Repères 3, Articulation oral/écrit, Paris INRP, 45
65.
DOI : 10.3406/reper.1991.2016
Notes
1 - Originally published in Repères 26/27, 293-215
2 See especially the mainstream work reporting on classroom approaches: EVA group (1998)
De l’évaluation à la réécriture, Hachette Éducation
3 Anna LARROUY and Laure PARADA’s master’s degree dissertation, September 2001,
University Toulouse-Le Mirail
4 See the reports on this research: Comment les maîtres évaluent-ils les écrits ? Comment les
élèves évaluent-ils les écrits ? INRP, collection Rapports de recherche
References
Electronic reference
Claudine Garcia-Debanc and Michel Fayol, “About the psycholinguistic models of the writing
process for a didactics of written production”, Repères [Online], Hors-série | 2013, Online since
12 September 2013, connection on 07 December 2022. URL:
http://journals.openedition.org/reperes/505; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/reperes.505
About the authors
Claudine Garcia-Debanc
Language Sciences and didactics of French, IUFM Midi-Pyrénées and University Toulouse -
Le Mirail, research fellow at INRP,
By this author
Faire de la grammaire en comparant les langues dans deux CM1 « ordinaires » REP et
non REP [Full text]
Working on grammar by comparing languages in two “mainstream” classes of pupils in their
penultimate year of primary education, one in a school in an underprivileged area (REP) and
the other in a school in a middle-class (non REP) area
Published in Repères, 65 | 2022
L’évaluation des écrits dans tous ses états de vulgarisation [Full text]
The evaluation of writing with all its forms of popularisation
Pasticher des albums pour s’approprier des structures syntaxiques [Full text]
Imitating storybooks to acquire syntactic structures
Ajout et résolution de problèmes de cohésion textuelle : analyses linguistiques de

textes d’élèves et présentation de différents dispositifs de travail pour enseigner
l’ajout au cycle 3 [Full text]
Addition and resolving textual consistency problems: the linguistic analysis of pupils’ texts
and presentation of different working procedures to teach addition to upper primary school
pupils
Analyse des actions et interactions didactiques en production écrite au Cours
préparatoire [Full text]
Analyzing didactical actions and interactions in written production in first grade
Analyse d’épreuves pour évaluer les compétences de scripteur des élèves à l’entrée
de l’école élémentaire [Full text]
Analysis of tools to evaluate the writing skills of pupils at the beginning of the first year of
primary school
Análisis de herramientas para evaluar las competencias de escritura de los alumnos a su
entrada en la primaria
Analyse von Werkzeugen zur Bewertung der Skriptorkompetenzen der Schüler am Anfang
der Grundschule
All documents
Michel Fayol
Cognitive psychology, University Blaise Pascal Clermont - Ferrand
Copyright
Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-

ND 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

About The Psycholinguistic Models of The Writing Process For A Didactics of Written Production

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

About The Psycholinguistic Models of The Writing Process For A Didactics of Written Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

About the psycholinguistic models of the writing process for a didactics of written production 07/12/2022 00:31

About the psycholinguistic

for a didactics of written

What cooperation between psycholinguists and specialists in

CLAUDINE GARCIA-DEBANC AND MICHEL FAYOL

1 A number of research works on the didactics of writing have drawn upon

1. The main models of verbal

psychology. These models were essentially descriptive. However, they contributed to

1.1. The Hayes & Flower model

1.2. The Garrett/Levelt model

1.3. The Van Galen model

1.4. Critical analysis of these models

They all isolate components, each of which receives a particular (conceptual or

2. The use of these models in the

2.1. Heuristic or prescriptive model? Models in

26 The status of models is by nature ambiguous in didactics, probably because of the

2.2. What a model is not

A model is not a set of instructions to be sequentially

A model is not an inventory of components

A model is not an established truth

2.3. The functions of a psycholinguistic model in

Investigate the complexity of pupils’ activities and

Analyse some dimensions of teaching practices

Adapt writing activities in class

Designing aids to writing and rewriting

Explaining the features of a written piece can guide action effectively;

2.4. Assets and limits of the Hayes and Flower

The blind points of the Hayes and Flower model

dimension of the writing processes used in greater detail.

3.1. Aids to writing in psycholinguistics

3.2. Aids to writing in the didactics of written

When to use them

Nature of the problem to be solved

Linguistic nature of the tool

resource material (bank of authors’ texts)

Status of the tool

Procedures to use the aid

Single use VS multiple possible uses

3.3. When aids become an obstacle

54 It was followed by seven blank lines to be completed.

4. A dark continent in language

4.1. How questions about learning are addressed

analysing the real-time behaviour of writers.

4.2. How questions about learning are addressed

Analysis of pupils’ compositions: 12

Cooperation perspectives between psycholinguists and

69 Fruitful developments are expected from further cooperation between

Defining indicators of achievement. Existing indicators are still too general

About the authors

Ajout et résolution de problèmes de cohésion textuelle : analyses linguistiques de

Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-

You might also like