Building a Model in Researching Strategy Use in the Process of Writing English as a Second Language: A Cognitive Approach

Shih-Chieh Chien

University of Cambridge

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New

Researchers/Student Conference, University of Warwick, 6 September 2006

AbstractThis paper is from a cognitive approach to explore strategies in the process of writing English as a second language. It is evident in research that is being conducted on various aspects of cognitive and metacognitive writing strategy use in L1 (e.g. Emig, 1971; Flower and Hayes, 1981; Hayes, 1996). Despite this increase in interest in writing and a considerable amount of work on models of how people write in L1, there have been relatively few research developed of the role of writing in L2. To determine the writing strategy use, 6 Chinese EFL students at a university participated in this study. It was mainly explored through the following question: What strategies do students use in completing English writing? In order to address this question, the structure of the writing is revealed by the think-aloud protocol analysis, in which students attempt to document the processes of thinking about writing--asking student writers to think aloud while writing and then analyzing the student writers’ writing strategies that go on inside the their head. The results showed which strategies the students employed in their cognitive activities. The findings hold important implications for researching L2 writing strategy use and L2 training in writing.

Keywords: Strategy use; Cognitive approach; Cognitive and metacognitive; EFL; L1/L2

1. IntroductionEducational psychology is the branch of education and psychology focused on the development of effective teaching techniques and the assessment of learners’ aptitudes and progress (Conner, 2001). Educational psychologists have been trying to understand the factors that underpin students’ success and failure in different educational domains for many years. One psychological function that has been found to play an important role in educational achievement is metacognition in 'working memory', the processes involved in cognitive functions as self-regulation in executive control (Pickering and Phye, 2005). Executive control is a monitoring device that enables individuals to know about their own cognitive activity and to manage it effectively (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1982). This study aims to investigate Chinese students’ cognitive/metacognitive strategies in the process of writing in English in monitoring their strategy use in working memory during writing. It is based on the assumption that only by studying the students’ writing process can we begin to design and evaluate the appropriateness of teaching students writing process methods and approaches. A discussion in teaching students the English writing process would be incomplete without first researching students’ English writing process.

2. Research Relevant to Metacognition in Cognitive Theory

2.1 Definition of Cognitive/Metacognitive Strategies

Metacognitive strategies may be shown in the form of cognitive strategies and appear to overlap with cognitive strategies. Flavell (1979) himself acknowledges that metacognitive strategies may not be different from cognitive strategies. The distinction lies in how the information is used. Roberts & Erdos (1993) state that cognitive strategies are used to help an individual achieve a particular goal (e.g., understanding a text) while metacognitive strategies are used to ensure that the goal has been reached (e.g., quizzing oneself to evaluate one's understanding of that text). Hacker (as cited from Hacker, Dunlosky, Graesser, 1998) suggests that cognitive strategies are invoked to make progress towards goals while metacognitive strategies are invoked to monitor the progress of cognitive strategies. Jonassen (1988) asserts that the distinction lies in that when these metacognitive strategies serve as cognitive

strategies, their function is to process information while as metacognitive strategies, their function is to monitor rather than to produce it. As stated by Butterfield, Albertson and Johnston (in press), a distinction that can be made between cognition and metacognition is that the former involves strategies for using that knowledge to solve problems, whereas the latter concerns monitoring, controlling and understanding one’s strategies.

2.2 Cognitive Theory of the Writing Processes/Strategies1 in L1: Flower and Hayes Composing Process Model

Figure 2.1Flower and Hayes Composing Processes Model (Flower and Hayes, 1981; Hayes, 1996)

Task Environment

Writing Assignment Text Produced So Far

1 The terms, writing “processes” and “strategies” are often used interchangeably to indicate the mental processes that writers go through while engaged writing (e.g., Armengol-Castells, 2001; Arndt, 1987; Jones & Tetroe, 1987; Kongpun, 1992; Martin-Betancourt, 1986; Perl, 1979; Yahya, 1994).

Writer’s Long Term Memory

Knowledge of Discourse

Knowledge of Topic

Planning

Generating

Translating

Monitoring

Three Main Components in Cognitive Writing Processes/Strategies:According to Flower and Hayes (1980, 1981), Flower (1984) and Hayes (1996), writing consists of three main cognitive processes/strategies: planning, translating and reviewing. The detailed three main phases in the process are illustrated as follows.

PlanningPlanning is divided into three sub-strategies: generating ideas, organizing, and goal-setting. According to the Flower and Hayes model, generating ideas consist of retrieving relevant information from the task environment and long-term memory, which is a storehouse of knowledge about discourse and topic. Organizing entails selecting the material retrieved by the generating process and organizing them into writing. The other sub-strategy of planning is goal setting. In this sub-strategy, some materials from the generating process are criteria that are used to judge the text in terms of meeting the goal specified.

Composing (Translating) In the Flower and Hayes writing model, the second part of the writing process, the act of composing referred to as “translating,” is when writers actually put their ideas into visible language, an activity through which the writer transforms the ideas from a

Reviewing

Reading

Editing

Organizing

Goal Setting

linear or hierarchic plan into sentences (Flower and Hayes, 1981). It involves putting ideas into language (text generation) and then into written words (transcription) to build cohesive and coherent text (Berninger et al., 1994, 1997, 1998).

ReviewingReading and editing are the sub-strategies of reviewing. In these sub-strategies, the writer examines any material written with the goal of correcting anything that would prevent the text from meeting the established goals. This includes correcting grammatical errors and altering the contents of the writing. Reviewing is a conscious process in which writers choose to read and examine what they have written either as a springboard to further translating or with an eye to systematically evaluating and/or revising the text (Flower and Hayes, 1981; Hayes, 1996).

MonitoringAccording to Flower and Hayes (1981), Flower (1984) and Hayes (1996), monitoring the writing process well is the ability to think about thinking and to continuously coordinate and examine the mental manipulation in sustaining and shifting the focus of attention among sub-processes in order to ensure the writing progress and quality. This process is referred to as "executive control" (Garner, 1994, p. 715).

2.3 The Use of the Think-Aloud Protocol in Researching Strategies in Working Memory in the Writing Process

Research on the composing processes of students, particularly the think-aloud protocol analysis, is based upon the case-study methodology from cognitive psychology. Emig’s The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders study provides the general case-study model followed by many researchers of student composing processes since 1971. The method of research is a sequential record of a subject’s behavior while actively engaged in performing a task, taping their utterances2 while they are in the process of composing (when they have been asked to “compose aloud”). In later studies in the 1980s, Flower and Hayes’ think-aloud protocols included a transcript of a tape recording made by writers instructed to verbalize their thinking process as they write, as well as all written material the writer produced. They became even more sure of the efficacy of think-aloud protocol analysis in 1981, in which they pare their definition of protocol down to the transcript of the taped

2 According to Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2004), the definition of utterance is something that someone says (i.e. think-aloud). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000) defines it as the act of uttering; vocal expression. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2005) defines it as something uttered; especially: an oral or written statement: a stated or published expression.

composing session itself, the transcript becoming what they call a “think aloud protocol.” According to Flower and Hayes (1981), think aloud protocols capture a detailed record of what is going on in the writer’s mind during the act of composing itself.

2.3.1 Advantages of Using the Think-Aloud Protocol to Investigate Strategies in Working Memory in the Writing Process

The very small time delay from processing has made researchers think that the think-aloud protocol allows direct access to people’s mental operations during cognitive activities and thereby providing an authentic description of the contents in their working memory. Ericsson and Simon (1993) state that the “concurrent report of contents of working memory are often valid…As time passes from the original cognition, the validity of recollections decreases” (p. 7). Kavale and Schreiner (1979) consider the think-aloud protocol analysis as superior to the retrospective method in that it offers a more positive and direct way of identifying the processes used by the subjects. In addition to the immediacy of reporting, the think-aloud protocol provides an accurate report of the mental process because it requires the participants to report their behaviors without analyzing and theorizing. Ericsson and Simon (1980) state that the think-aloud method unlike the other techniques for gathering verbal data, there are no interruptions or suggestive questions as the subjects are encouraged to give a concurrent account of their thoughts and to avoid interpretation or explanation of what they are doing, they just have to concentrate on the task. When the subjects focus on and articulate the information that is already available to them without describing and theorizing about the information, the think-aloud will not change the course and structure of the cognitive process.

3. Research Method

3.1 Research QuestionFrom a cognitive approach, what cognitive/metacognitive strategies do students use in completing English writing?

3.2 Research DesignIn order to answer the research questions, I used a multiple case study3 to investigate

3 “The case study is an intensive description and analysis of a phenomenon or social unit such as an individual, group, institution, or community. The case is a bounded, integrated system” (Merriam, 2002, p. 8). Particularly research into the composing processes of students by means of the think-aloud protocol, is based upon the case-study methodology from cognitive psychology. See section 2.3.

students’ ability in monitoring their strategy use in their working memory in the English writing process by means of the think-aloud protocol. Six participants were recruited. They were all Chinese students at the master’s level enrolling in research in second language education at the University of Cambridge. In this study, all of them wrote the same essay topic.

3.3 Data Collection ProceduresData were collected through students’ concurrent think-aloud protocols during writing and students’ think-aloud writings. In the practice think-aloud writing session, students were instructed to verbalize whatever came into their minds as they wrote, whether the thought was in English, Chinese or in English/Chinese. When they mastered this procedure, they were asked to think aloud in the actual writing session. They performed a think-aloud writing task alone in a quiet room in 40 minutes, in the presence of the researcher, in case some students sometimes may forget to think aloud. The researcher remained unobtrusively in the background and did not intervene, except to prompt students by saying “keep talking” if s/he remained silent. Their writing processes were videotaped. The recorded think-aloud protocols produced by students were then fully transcribed word-for-word into scripts so that the utterance of each strategy could be coded. The detailed data collection procedures are further illustrated as follows.

1. The Practice Think-Aloud Writing SessionBefore the students start writing, they were first introduced by the researcher to the think-aloud procedure based on the principle given by Hayes and Flower (1983). If the students failed to verbalize their mental processes4, there were always verbal signals (“keep talking”) given by the researcher by prompting students to think aloud. After the students were explained the principle in doing the think-aloud writing mentioned above, they were encouraged to raise questions and concerns about the procedure. Then they had around 20 minutes5 to practice think-aloud on a given topic on the computer as follows.

“Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is better for children to grow up in the countryside than in a big city. Use specific reasons and details to support your argument.”

4 In the reality, it is impossible for people to keep talking and talking without any pause. In the present study, all the students were asked and encouraged to speak out as much as they can.5 Some might argue that the 20-min is not enough to practice the think-aloud writing. In the present study, the time limit was not strictly enforced, but instead was extended until they felt that they practiced enough for the upcoming actual think-aloud writing session.

2. The Actual Think-Aloud Writing SessionWhen the students were in the actual writing session, they composed their own think-aloud writings on the computer in 40 minutes6 and the whole writing process were videotaped, with the camera focused specifically on the screen. The students were guided by the following instruction in the writing prompt as follows:

“Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? With the help of technology, people nowadays can gain more information and learn it more quickly. Use specific reasons and details to support your argument.”

The topic was given right after the writing task begins. When the students composed aloud, no interruption was made. If the students failed to think aloud, they were reminded by the researcher with verbal signals (“keep talking”) by prompting students to think aloud.

Data Gathering

1. Transcripts of Think-Aloud ProtocolsAll the think-aloud protocols in students’ writing sessions were collected and fully transcribed for the analysis (see Appendix A).

2. Students’ Finished Think-aloud Writings Students’ finished think-aloud writings were collected for reference.

4. Results

4.1 The Think-Aloud Protocol:The Problem of the Flower–Hayes model for Data Analysis: The Need to Develop a Reliable and Valid Coding Scheme for the Think-Aloud Protocol

When I adopted the Flower–Hayes coding system for the analysis of the think-aloud data produced by the students in this study, I found the categories were problematic and could not accommodate all the utterances in cognitive writing processes/strategies. In order to solve this problem and to code the think-aloud data

6 As summarized by Silva’s (1993) survey article, limiting the writing time to 30–60 min is common in most related studies. Moreover, the results of the previous study revealed that given a similar task a sufficient number of EFL students could complete the whole writing procedure, including postwriting activities such as revision (Sasaki & Hirose, 1996). Furthermore, based upon the findings in my study, all the students said that 40 minutes writing time was enough.

systematically, one major issue in analyzing how the students monitored their strategy use was to develop a reliable and valid scheme which was able to label all utterances in cognitive writing processes/strategies.

The major procedures for analyzing the think-aloud protocol data included transcribing the transcripts fully, segmenting and coding utterances of strategies. To start with, the videotapes that documented the students’ writing processes/strategies were transcribed verbatim in pages. The transcribed protocols then were segmented by watching videos. The segmenting procedure was based on the identified points where the students moved from one strategy to another. For instance, when a student progressed from “generating the pretext (GP)” to “generating the text (G),” the utterances were parsed into two units (strategies): “They don’t have to go (GP) they don’t have to go (G).” By the same token, when a student progressed from “reading the sentence part (RP)” to “generating the text (G),” the utterances were parsed into two units (strategies): “without having to compete (RP) and wait a long time (G).” When the coding unit was found unsatisfactory, it was modified by adding new strategies. Other strategies were also deleted, combined and separated if they were found unsatisfactory. Each segmented unit was coded according to the components I discovered in my study. In the planning process, I found the students did not use the strategy of organizing as stated by Flower and Hayes. Instead, they exerted the strategy of formulating the position by expressing the intention to take the position in whether to agree/disagree to the writing topic, interpreting the writing task by responding to the prompt and defining the task, memory search for ideas, memory search for languages, generating ideas, and giving general comments (see the next part for the further explanation of each term). I kept the goal setting strategy based on the Flower and Hayes model as I found most of the student writers made plans for what to do and/or what to write about next. In addition, in the translating process, the component was blank in the Flower and Hayes model. Based upon my findings, the translating process was divided into two sub-strategies, generating pretext and generating texts. Finally, in the Flower and Hayes model, the reviewing process was divided into reading and editing sub-strategies. These two sub-strategies were also problematic. I found the student writers did not only read and edit, but also evaluate, revise and give general comments.

4.2. Strategy Use in the English Writing Process--The Coding Scheme for the Think-Aloud Protocol

Reading

1. RP Reading the Prompt

Reading the prompt refers to the act of reading or rereading the writing prompt. It is a sub-process

that the writers go through in order to understand the writing task.

Planning

2. FP Formulating the Position

Formulating the position refers to the mental activity of expressing the intention to take the position

in whether to agree/disagree.

Example:

“Yes, I agree with this statement.” (Mary)

3. IW Interpreting the Writing Task

Interpreting the writing task refers to the process of responding to the prompt and defining the task.

Example:

“I think this topic is a little bit difficult.” (Sue)

4 . GS Goal Setting

Goal setting refers to the process of making plans for what to do and/or what to write about.

Example:

“I will begin with the points I agree.” (Alice)

5 . MS(I) Memory Search for Ideas

Memory search for ideas refers to the process in which a writer asks a question in order to generate

sentences or ideas.

Example:

“any other technology? any other technology?7” (Mary).

6. MS(L) Memory Search for Languages

Memory search for languages refers to the process in which a writer asks a question in order to find a

word or expression to use.

Example:

“Europe. zhi38 ma pin (how to spell it)” (Mary).

7 When the students keep repeating the same sentences, the same sentences are counted as one strategy rather than two strategies except under the circumstance of generating pretext and generating text. They just keep using the same strategy and the repeated sentence(s) usually do(es) not serve any function. It might possibly be a personal habit as well. This situation is very rare in my study.8 Mandarin Chinese is a tonal language. The tone is generally labeled with 1, 2, 3, 4 or without labeling the number. Tone 1: high level tone. Tone 2: mid rising tone. Tone 3: low falling rising tone. Tone 4: high falling tone. Without labelling the number is a neutral tone. Mandarin speakers refer to this tone as the light tone. These tones can lead to one syllable, e.g. "ma", having five meanings, depending on the tone associated with it, so that "ma1" glosses as "mother", "ma2" as "hemp", "ma3" as "horse", "ma4" as "scold", and "ma" at the end of a sentence acts as an interrogative particle. This differentiation in tone allows a speaker to create the (not entirely grammatical) sentence "ma1 ma1 ma4 ma3 de ma2 ma?", or "Is Mother scolding the horse's hemp?" (traditional characters: "媽媽罵馬的麻嗎?"; simplified characters: 妈妈骂马的麻吗?), where the series of "ma"s are differentiated in meaning only by their tone.

7 . GI Generating Ideas

Generating ideas refers to the process of retrieving information from long-term memory. The process

may be observed when a writer mentions his/her experiences that are related to the writing tasks or

when a writer draws ideas from what he/she has understood or remembered from the texts.

Example:

“Also I want. I want to. I want say some data online. Online database. Online resources.” (Jane).

Composing

8 . GP Generating Pretext

Pretext refers to the words or expressions that are rehearsed in a writer’s mind just shortly before they

are actually written. When the utterance corresponds closely to the words that are usually

immediately written after the rehearsing act, the act of producing the utterance will be categorized as

“generating pretext” rather than “generating ideas.”

Example:

“They don ’ t have to go (GP) they don ’ t have to go (G)” (Jane).

9 . G Generating texts ( Translating)

Generating texts refers to the act of actually writing down the words and/or sentences.

Reviewing

10 . RP Reading/Repeating sentence Parts in the written text

Rereading/Repeating sentence parts in the written text refers the process of rereading or repeating the

key words or sentence parts after they have written before.

11 . R Reading sentence(s)

The process of reading a sentence or a group of sentences is an important part of the review process.

Evaluative comments and revising behaviors usually follow the process of reading one’s own text.

This process is recursive in nature. For example, reviewing phase may lead to a change in plans and a

renewal of the drafts, which may again be followed by phase of reviewing, and so forth.

1 2 . EV E v aluating the written text

Evaluating the written text refers to the act of making evaluative comments of the written text.

Example:

“zhe4 (the) conclusion tai4 duan3 le (is too short). Ying gai zai4 xie3 i1 ju4. (I should add one more

sentence)” (Mary).

1 3 . RV Re v ising the written text

Revising the written text refers to the meaning changes are made usually after the writer

rereads/evaluates his/her own text such as deleting a word(s)/sentence(s), changing major ideas,

altering logic of argument or reorganizing ideas.

1 4 . E E d iting the written text

Editing the written text refers to making the changes that do not result in a meaning change such as

fixing the grammatical or mechanical errors or such as correcting the sentence structure, spelling,

punctuation, etc. This usually happens after the writer rereads/evaluates his/her own text.

1 3 . + 1 4 . = Total Revision

Miscellaneous Process

1 5 . GC Giving general Comments

Giving general comments refers to the utterances that are less directly related to the process of

writing, but are found in the think-aloud procedure.

Example:

“Oh. I save it. OK. To wait. That’s my habit keep saving the file.” (Jane).

Contextual Influence

1 6 . RI Researcher Intervention

Researcher intervention refers to the questions that the researcher’s remarks indicate the need to

verbalize the writers’ thoughts when they forget to do it or to remind the writers to raise their voice.

Example:

“Zai4 yue4 du2 de shi2 ho4. Yao4 ba3 hua4 jiang3 ch lai2. (When you are reading, you should speak

it out)” (Alice).

4.3 A Proposed New Composing Process ModelAs stated in the previous section, based on the Flower–Hayes model (Flower and Hayes, 1981; Hayes, 1996) and incorporating discoveries of strategies in working memory made in my study, therefore a new model of the writing process is proposed (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1Task Environment

Writing Assignment Text Produced So Far

Writer’s Long Term Memory

Knowledge of Topic and Discourse (Ideas related)

Linguistic Knowledge (Language related)

Reading theWritingPrompt

Reviewing

Reading Sentence(s)/

ReadingSentence Parts/

Evaluating

Editing/Revising

GivingGeneral

Comments

Planning

Formulating thePosition

Interpreting the Writing Task

Goal Setting

Memory Search For Ideas

Memory Search For Languages

Generating Ideas

Giving General Comments

Translating

GeneratingPretext

GeneratingTexts

Monitoring

5. Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications

Process: Writing and Pedagogy

What do the Research Findings in the Writing Process Tell Us:

An important goal in writing instruction is to help students develop the self-regulation skills needed to successfully manage the intricacies of the writing process. Researching in the students’ ability in monitoring strategy use in their working

memory in the writing process may offer us paths to consider the improvement of student writing.

In sum, this study on cognition/metacognition in writing provides educational researchers and practitioners with notable insight about the cognitive processes involved in writing. It holds important implications for writing instruction, particularly in teaching students which parts they have to be more aware of in their writing processes as well as the need to regulate these processes. The opportunity for students to see their earlier ideas on the written page and to rethink them is perhaps the most important method towards the development of metacognitive awareness.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future ResearchThe small sample size limits the generalizability of the results; the findings should be confirmed with a larger sample of participants. Furthermore, this study, being experimental and exploratory in nature, seeks to generate theory and stimulate further research in the area of the cognitive writing process. Therefore, all the findings and the composing process model I attempted to build should be tested by future research.

Appendix A Transcripts: Part of Coded Strategies in the Students’ Writing Process in the Think-Aloud Protocol

Jane

Essay Topic: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? With the help of technology, people nowadays can learn more information and learn it more quickly. Use specific reasons and details to support your argument. (P) So it means that I must agree that people nowadays can learn more information and learn it more quickly with the help of technology. So I think I need to. (FP) IW. (G) I don’t want IW. (E) With the help. (G) I don’t want the. (E) with the growth of. (G) I don’t want of. (EV) And development of technology. (G) I don’t want d. gy. (E) Technology. (RP) And especially (G) especially (RP) computer (G) I don’t want n. I change to m. computer computer. All right. My mistake. E. computer (E) science. (G) Computer science. (RP) People get a lot of benefit from. (G) I don’t want n. change to m. (E) benefit from. Many people get a lot of benefit. (RP) I don’t want from (RV) in terms of the speed and quantity of the information. (G) I don’t want n. information. (E) in terms of the speed and quantity of the information. (RP) They received. (G) It changed automatically. (GC) They received. With the growth and development of technology and especially computer science, people get a lot of benefits. Benefit. With the growth

and development of technology and especially computer science, people get a lot of benefits. (RP) Add s. (E) in terms of the speed and quantity of the information they receive. (RP) That’s the first paragraph. (EV) What shall I say next. (MS-I) When you read, you should speak out your thought. (RI) With the help of technology, people nowadays can learn more information and learn it more quickly. Learn it more quickly. speed and quantity of the information they receive.(P)

ReferencesArmengol-Castells, L. (2001). Text-generating Strategies of Three Multilingual

Writers: A Protocol-based Study. Language Awareness. Vol. 10,  No. 2,  91-106.Arndt (1987) “Six writers in search of a text: A protocol based study of L1 and L2

writing” in ELT Journal 41/4 pp. 257-267Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role

of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berninger, V. & Swanson, H.L. (1994). "Modifying Hayes and Flowers' model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing." In E. Butterfield (ed.), Children's Writing; Toward a Process Theory of Development of Skilled Writing (pp. 57-81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Berninger, V.W., et al (1997). "Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition." Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (4), 652-666.

Berninger, V.W., Vaghan, K., Abbott, R.D., Brooks, A., Abbott, S.P., Rogan, L., Reed, E., & Graham, S. (1998). "Early intervention for spelling problems: Teaching functional spelling units of varying size with a multiple connections framework." Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (4), 587-605.

Butterfield, E.C., Albertson, L. R., and Johnston, J. (in press). On making cognitive theory more general and developmentally pertinent. In F. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Memory performance and competencies: Issues in growth and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (2004). Cambridge University Press.Emig, J. (1971). The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana, Ill.: NCTE.Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological

Review, 87, 3, 215-251.Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal reports as data.

Cambridge, MIT Press.Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis, (revised edition), MIT,

Cambridge.

Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34, 109-118.

Flower, L. (1994). The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (eds.) Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Pub.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365-387.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1984). Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1 (1), 120-160.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106-1113.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1988). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem (2nd ed.). In G. Tate & E. Corbett (Eds.), The writing teacher's sourcebook (pp. 92- 102). New York: Oxford University Press.

Garner, R. (1994). Metacognition and executive control. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.). Models and processes of reading (fourth edition) (pp. 715-732). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., Graesser, A. C. (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, N.J. ; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy and S. Ransdell (Eds.). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and application (pp. 1-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hayes, J. R. and Flower, L. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, and S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and Methods (pp. 207-220). New York: Longman.

Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Integrating learning strategies into courseware to facilitate deeper processing. In D. Jonassen (Eds.) Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp.151-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kavale, K. & Schreiner, R. (1979). The reading process of above average and average readers: A comparison of the use of reason strategies in responding to standardized comprehension measure. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 1, 102-128.

Kongpun, S. (1992) “Composing Processes of Thai High School Students: A Protocol Analysis” Dissertation Abstracts International 54/11: 4018A.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). “Introduction to Qualitative Research.” In Qualitative

Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis, edited by S. B. Merriam, pp. 3-16. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2005). http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.Pickering, S. and Phye, G. (2005). Working Memory and Education. Elsevier:

Academic Press.Roberts, M. J., & Erdos, G. (1993). Strategy selection and metacognition. Educational

Psychology, 13, 259-266.Sasaki, M. and Hirose, K., (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository

writing. Language Learning, 46, pp. 137–174.Silva, T., (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The

ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, pp. 657–677.The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000). Fourth Edition.

Houghton Mifflin Company.Yahya, N. (1994). A Comparative Study of Multilingual Writers’ Composing

Processes. Facsimile Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.