Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

A Multidimensional Approach to Understanding

College Writing Processes

ELLEN LAVELLE & ANTHONY J. GUARINO

To cite this article: ELLEN LAVELLE & ANTHONY J. GUARINO (2003) A Multidimensional
Approach to Understanding College Writing Processes, Educational Psychology, 23:3, 295-305,
DOI: 10.1080/0144341032000060138

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000060138

Published online: 01 Jul 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 230

View related articles

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20

Download by: [Universitat Politècnica de València] Date: 15 February 2017, At: 10:14
Educational Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2003

A Multidimensional Approach to
Understanding College Writing Processes

ELLEN LAVELLE, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Illinois, USA

ANTHONY J. GUARINO, Auburn University, Alabama, USA

ABSTRACT The aims of this study were to confirm the factor structure of college writing
processes as measured by the Inventory of College Composition, and to test for a second-order,
deep and surface structure, as suggested in the literature on college learning and writing.
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the dimensionality of the model based on the
responses of 517 undergraduate students enrolled in general education courses. Results support
the construct validity of the original model, as well as binary second-order factors, reflective of
the deep and surface processes. Conclusions address the nature of the interrelationships of
writing processes, and suggestions for instruction.

Introduction
Academic writing has long served as both an instructional and evaluative tool in higher
education. However, the processes involved in college writing have not been well-expli-
cated. Indeed, writing is a complex activity involving attentional demands at multiple
levels: thematic, paragraph, sentence, grammatical and lexical (Biggs, 1988). Writing
becomes even more complex when consideration is given to students’ intentions, which
affect writing processes and outcomes (Biggs, 1988; Hounsell, 1997; Lavelle, 1993,
1997; Lavelle & Zuercher, 2001). The approaches-to-writing framework, advanced
here, offers a new and evolving perspective; one based on the notion that students’
intentions when writing affect their choices of writing strategies which, in turn, affect
written outcomes (Biggs, 1988; Hounsell, 1997; Lavelle, 1993, 1997; Lavelle &
Zuercher, 2001). Biggs (1988) extended the learning approaches framework to include
college writing, and Lavelle (1993) operationalised that model by developing the
Inventory of Processes in College Writing.
The purpose of the present study was to examine the structure of the writing
processes of college students as described in the approaches-to-writing model, and
measured by the Inventory of Processes in College Composition (Lavelle, 1993).

ISSN 0144-3410 print; ISSN 1469-046X online/03/030295-11  2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0144341032000060138
296 E. Lavelle & A. J. Guarino

Specifically, the study focused on confirming the validity of the original five-factor
model, and on testing for a second-order binary structure reflective of deep and surface
processes, as suggested in the literature on college learning and writing (Kember &
Leung, 1998).
Writers at all levels rely on strategies, or patterns of writing tactics, to achieve their
writing goals. Common strategies include combinations of activities such as outlining,
drafting or free writing. Strategies vary between novice and expert writers (Benton,
Kraft, Glover, & Plake, 1984), between native tongue and second language (L2)
writers, as well as between writers of similar competence levels (Biggs, Lai, Tang, &
Lavelle, 1999). Writers’ strategies have also been linked to beliefs about writing among
college students (Biggs, 1988; Hounsell, 1997; Lavelle, 1993, 1997; Ryan, 1984; Silva
& Nicholls, 1993). For example, college students who believed that an essay was
primarily just an organised collection of data were likely to employ a listing or
reproductive strategy rather than a more meaningful, integrated approach (Hounsell,
1997). Also, the role of children’s beliefs in affecting writing processes has long been
part of the elementary teacher’s tacit repertoire (cf. Barrie, 1978; Knudson, 1995).
The basic distinction has been between deep writing, based on taking a proactive
position geared towards making a new meaning and using strategies such as complex
revision; and surface writing which is primarily reproductive, involving a listing strategy
and a linear outcome or presentation of facts (Biggs, 1988; Biggs et al., 1999; Hounsell,
1997; Lavelle, 1993, 1997). Biggs (1988) has elaborated on the deep and surface
paradigm to discuss how it is that college students focus attention in writing with a deep
writing approach incorporating a high (thematic, intentional) or alternating level of
focus, and a surface writing approach suggestive of a more local, sentence-level focus
of attention. Similarly, Torrance, Thomas and Robinson (1994) differentiated the
writing strategies of graduate students using to a sculptor/engineer distinction. Sculp-
tors get it all out and then go back to rework and revise the model (thematic focus)
whereas architects tend to build brick by brick (word or sentence level focus) and
produce a finished product.
Working from a cognitive developmental perspective, Biggs and Collis (1982) de-
vised the Structure of Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy to reflect various levels
of structural complexity (depth) in writing outcomes. Here writers move from incoher-
ent, fleeting words or impressions to sequencing, to mastery within the framework, and
finally (hopefully) to the extended abstract position which includes metaphoric skill to
carry meaning beyond the chosen context, and the creative application of conventions
or multiple meanings. In extended abstract writing, the words clearly become the
servant of the message as writers move from the literal, or overt, to a more covert
position involving layers of meaning. The SOLO taxonomy has been applied to
expository writing (Biggs, 1988; Lavelle, 1993) as well as to narrative writing tasks
(Lavelle, 1997).
The constructs of deep and surface approaches to learning have become generic in
the literature on college learning in Europe and Australia, based on qualitative studies
(Hounsell, 1997; Marton & Saljo, 1976; Van Rossum & Schenk, 1984) and on
psychometric analyses (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Kember & Leung,
1998; Schmeck, 1983; Schmeck, Geisler Brenstein, & Cercy, 1991). In a landmark
study, Marton and Saljo (1976) queried students regarding their processes when
studying an expository text and regarding the meanings that they constructed. Chang-
ing the focus to what is learned, rather than on how much is learned, resulted in two
basic categories of processes. Students using a deep-level process focused on what
 Writing Processes 297

is signified by the text, or the implications and intentions, and those employing a
surface-level process focused on the sign, or literal meaning (cf. Marton & Booth,
1997).
The deep and surface model has been linked to specific academic tasks such as
reading (Marton & Saljo, 1976), studying (Schmeck, 1983), computer programming
(Booth’s study as cited in Marton & Booth, 1997) and writing (Biggs, 1988; Hounsell,
1997; Lavelle, 1993, 1997). The core distinction is between a deep learning approach
as involving the intention to understand and to create a meaning, and a surface
approach as being focused on a literal translation and the intention to reproduce
(memorise) information. Appendix A lists the core characteristics of deep and surface
writing, taken from a range of writing research (cf. Entwistle & Entwistle, 1991;
Hounsell, 1997; Lavelle, 1993; Lavelle & Zuercher, 1997). Approaches, as opposed to
learning styles (cf. Schmeck et al., 1991), may be construed as “situated” phenomena
because they represent an interaction between the student and the learning environ-
ment rather than a stable student characteristic, or individual difference. In describing
students’ approaches to learning, Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) have argued for the
effects of the instructional environment and methods of assessment on learning ap-
proaches. More specifically, Biggs (1999) has suggested “constructive alignment” of
instruction as geared toward promoting a deep learning outcome. Thus, variation in
expectations, instructional strategies and assessment tools, common across classes and
departments, largely affect students’ writing approaches.
For a psychometric perspective, student learning questionnaires have been developed
which serve to operationalise and further extend the deep and surface dichotomy
(Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Schmeck, 1983; Schmeck et al. 1991): see
Richardson (1994) for a review. In particular, Biggs and Rihn (1984) carried out a
confirmatory factor analysis involving six subscales of the SPQ and identified a
two-factor, deep and surface second-order solution. Similarly, Kember and Leung
(1998) identified a dichotomous second-order factor structure, meaning and reproduc-
ing, working with the same inventory. When examining writing processes, Lavelle
(1993, 1997) identified a five-factor structure thought to be reflective of the basic deep
and surface continuum, in developing the Inventory of Processes in College Compo-
sition which served to extend the deep and surface paradigm to writing.

Inventory of Processes in College Composition

In developing the Inventory of Processes in College Composition (IPIC), Lavelle
(1993, 1997) factor analysed a pool of over 200 items derived from approaches to
learning (Biggs, 1987) and learning styles (Schmeck, 1983) inventories. Items were
adapted to address writing specifically. In particular, items were drawn from Biggs’
(1988) extension of his learning model to composition, and on Hounsell’s interview
study relating students’ conceptions of university writing to their writing processes and
outcomes. Ideas similar to the deep and surface paradigm had evolved in the compo-
sition literature (for example, Bereiter, 1980) and were also reviewed as a source for
items.
Based on a screen test, five orthogonal factors emerged, descriptive of the beliefs and
strategies, or approaches, of college writers (Appendix B). The first factor, elaborative,
is marked by a search for personal meaning, self-investment, and by viewing writing as
symbolic and representing a deep, personal orientation. “I tend to put a lot of myself
in my writing.” “Writing an essay or paper is making a new meaning.” “I often think
about my essay when I am not writing (for example late at night).” The elaborative
298 E. Lavelle & A. J. Guarino

approach involves pleasing oneself as writer as well as the audience. The emphasis is on
active engagement and managing constraints such as audience and voice. Writing
strategies include description, elaboration, self-reference and going beyond the expecta-
tions of the assignment.
The second factor, low self-efficacy, describes a writing approach based on doubt and
on thinking about writing as a painful task. “Writing is always a slow process.” “Having
my writing evaluated scares me.” “I cannot write simple, compound or complex
sentences.” Writers scoring high on this scale are virtually without a strategy and see the
acquisition of microskills and teacher encouragement as necessary for success. College
writing performance has been linked to low writing self-efficacy (Daly & Wilson, 1983;
Meier, McCarthy & Schmeck 1984) and low self-efficacy scale scores were predictive
of writing apprehension (Lavelle, 1997).
The third factor, reflective-revision, describes a deep writing approach based on a
sophisticated understanding of the revision process as a remaking or rebuilding of one’s
thinking, “I reexamine and restate my thoughts in revision.” “The reason for writing
really matters to me.” “Revision is more than a one time process at the end.”
Reflective-revision strategies involve taking charge in order to create meaning when
writing. Writing is viewed as a tool for creating meaning and exploring ideas rather than
for just telling what is known (cf. Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). Reflective-revision
scale scores were predictive of grade in freshman composition course (Lavelle, 1993).
The fourth factor, spontaneous-impulsive, profiles an impulsive and unplanned
approach similar to Biggs’ (1988) surface restrictive style. “My writing just happens
with little planning or preparation.” “I never think about how I go about my writing.”
“Often my first draft is my finished product.” This approach is linked to viewing writing
as a one-step procedure. Spontaneous-impulsive writing may rest on the overestimation
of skill, perhaps because of fear of dealing with limitations. The emphasis on minimal
involvement and sticking to the rules is suggestive of a surface approach.
Lastly, the procedural approach represents a method-oriented approach based on
adherence to rules and a minimal amount of involvement. “When writing an essay, I
stick to the rules.” “The teacher is the most important audience.” “I like written
assignments to be well specified with details included.” Procedural writing is similar to
Bereiter’s (1980) communicative or Biggs’ (1988) surface elaborative approach: where
can I put this information that I just came across? If you are unsure of yourself, the rules
keep you afloat, as Stafford says in Writing the Australian Crawl (1978). The procedural
approach clearly indicates reliance on the rules rather than concern for making a
meaning or for intentionality: a surface approach.

But swimmers know that if they relax on the water it will prove to be
miraculously buoyant: and writers know that a succession of little strokes on
the material nearest them, without any prejudgments about the specific gravity
of the topic or reasonableness of their expectations, will result in creative
progress. (Stafford, 1978, p. 23)

The scales were found to be independent with acceptable reliabilities (Lavelle, 1993).
Interestingly, the highest interscale correlation (r ⫽ 0.32) was found between the
elaborative and reflective-revision factors: an interrelationship between self-reference
and depth in writing, and (with interpretation) the suggestion of a higher order, deep
factor.
Validity studies supported the scales as predictive of college student learning styles,
 Writing Processes 299

composition grades (Lavelle, 1993), narrative writing performance, complexity of essay

outcome, writing apprehension (Lavelle, 1997), and developing writing skills at the
graduate level (Biggs et al., 1999). In particular, reflective-revision scale scores were
predictive of grade in freshman composition (Lavelle, 1993) and elaborative scale
scores were predictive of the quality of narrative writing (Lavelle, 1997).
Based on the deep and surface distinction, we hypothesised that scale scores could be
used to define a binary factor structure—deep and surface approaches. Biggs et al.
(1999) argued that IPIC scores may be interpreted as either an outcome of instruction
or as an individual difference variable, and supported the modifiability of the scale
scores with an instructional intervention.
We hypothesised that the elaborative and reflective-revision variables were linked to
a deep process involving metacognition, focus at a global level, and proactive engage-
ment in writing; and that the low self-efficacy, spontaneous-impulsive and procedural
factors were linked to a more superficial, linear and passive process. Additionally, we
hypothesised that the dichotomous factor structure would be reflective of a unitary
higher order factor that we called writing skill. Thus the purpose of this study was
twofold. First, we wanted to assess the construct validity of the IPIC through a
confirmatory factor analysis procedure. Second, we hypothesised the existence of a
second-order binary factor structure based on the deep and surface distinction.

Method
Data Analysis
A two-step structural equation modelling strategy via AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle, 1999) was
employed to estimate parameters. This strategy involves the separate estimation of the
measurement model prior to the simultaneous estimation of the measurement and
structural submodels. While the measurement model provides a confirmatory assess-
ment of convergent validity and discriminate validity, the measurement model in
conjunction with the structural model enables a comprehensive, confirmatory assess-
ment of construct validity.
In judging the goodness of fit of the overall model, the following were employed: the
chi-square, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and the
Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA).
The generation of items for the IPIC (Lavelle, 1993) used the rational-empirical
approach to instrument development (Burisch, 1984). The rational component drew
upon the research literature to suggest potential items. The empirical component
selected or rejected items based on their psychometric properties. The initial item pool
contained 72 items.

Procedure
Participants were 517 college students enrolled in general education courses in Speech
Communication at a large midwestern college. After a brief introduction by the
experimenter, students were invited to participate on a voluntary, anonymous basis.
Administration involved handing out the inventory and scantron sheets for data
collection. All students participated. Mean completion time was 14 minutes. Of the
participants, 261 were female and 256 were male.
300 E. Lavelle & A. J. Guarino

TABLE I. Chi-square and goodness of fit indices for confirmatory factor models

Factor model 2 df CFI TLI RMSEA

Elaborationist 555.24* 230 0.988 0.985 0.059

Low self-efficacy 202.04* 44 0.986 0.979 0.094
Reflective-revision 93.23* 35 0.994 0.991 0.064
Spontaneous-impulsive 201.19* 65 0.990 0.985 0.072
Procedural 255.75* 54 0.986 0.980 0.096

* P ⬍ 0.05

Construct Validity
The model was examined by AMOS 4.0 maximum likelihood factor analysis (Arbuckle,
1999). The model was evaluated in three ways. First, departure of the data from the
specified model was tested for significance by using a chi-square test (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1989). Second, goodness of fit between the data and the specified model was
estimated by employing the CFI (Bentler, 1990), the TLI (Bentler & Bonett, 1980),
and the RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Third, factor loadings were assessed for
statistical significance at P ⬍ 0.05.

Instrumentation
The IPIC (Lavelle, 1993) is a 72-item instrument assessing the attitudes and writing
behaviours of college students. The items are rated on a five point Likert-type scale:
5 ⫽ strongly agree, 4 ⫽ moderately agree, 3 ⫽ neither agree nor disagree, 2 ⫽ moderately
disagree, or 1 ⫽ strongly disagree.

Procedure
The principal researcher administered the IPIC during regular class periods. After
reading the directions, students responded anonymously on computer scantron sheets
to the 72-items. Mean completion time was 14 minutes.

Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A series of confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the items were valid indicators of
their respective factors. The chi-square values and the goodness of fit indices (CFI,
TLI, and RMSEA) are presented in Table I. All items loaded significantly on their
respective factors [P ⬍ 0.05 except for three—questions 27 and 57 in F3 (reflective-
revision) and question 65 in F5 (procedural)].
Items were aggregated to form the measured indicators for the first order factors. The
second-order factor structure was then examined using a confirmatory factor analysis
(see Fig. 1).
Although the chi-square test was significant [ 2 (5) ⫽ 29.91, P ⬍ 0.01], the model
yielded acceptably high goodness of fit indices (0.998 and 0.994 for the CFI and the
TLI respectively). Joreskog and Sorbom (1978) and Bentler (1992) advised against the
sole use of the chi-square value in assessing the fit of the model, due to the sensitivity
 Writing Processes 301

FIG. 1. Proposed second-order model of the IPIC.

FIG. 2. Results of the second-order model of the IPIC.

of the chi-square to sample size. The RMSEA value of 0.09 indicated not quite as good
a fit for the model as the 0.08 recommended by Browne and Cudeck (1993). All
measured variables loaded significantly on their respective factors and these factors
loaded significantly to the second-order factor (see Fig. 2).

Discussion
Research Implications
Writing is a complex phenomenon affected by beliefs, strategies, and multiple dimen-
sions of the writing situation. The strong relationships between aggregated variables
and the second-order factors serve to extend the original, five-factor model to include
deep and surface writing constructs in a “layers of processes” framework.
To define further the nature of academic writing and the various roles of variables,
it is important to examine students’ writing under various conditions such as types of
classes and across different universities. Along the same lines, it is important to view the
characteristics of various writers including intentionality, genre familiarity, competence
and self-regulation, as linked to processes (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). For
example, when genre is unfamiliar the writer may struggle to understand the pattern,
hence relying on the rules and working in a piecemeal fashion. Or when students write
under conditions of assessment, the processes that they employ may be linked to listing
information, or getting the main points in, rather than to creating a reflective meaning
(Biggs, 1988). Experimental studies would serve to test further the effects of various
types of writing instruction (such as modelling, strategic, collaborative) on writing
302 E. Lavelle & A. J. Guarino

approaches. For example, Biggs (1999) has argued for the role of constructive align-
ment: integrating learning tasks, objectives and assessments to further deep learning. It
is important to know how such an approach might specifically impact writing processes
and outcomes.
It is also important to know more about the role of affect and selfhood in deep
writing. As early as 1978, Denman argued for a humanistic, noncognitive approach to
the teaching of writing, and Moxley (1987) supported personal involvement as key to
acquiring writing skills. However, investigators have largely focused their attention on
cognitive skills alone (Benton et al. 1984), ignoring emotion and intentionality. An
exception to this general rule is the research tracing the role of self-efficacy in writing
skills (Meier McCarthy & Schmeck, 1984; Pajares & Johnson, 1996). However, the
personal and demanding nature of the writing process itself demands full consideration.
However a unified writing framework, which is comprehensive and includes a range of
variables, has not been advanced. The approaches to writing model, in its integration
of motives and strategies, offers a fuller perspective.

Educational Implications
Active, comprehensive revision is the defining element of deep writing (r ⫽ 0.93). Deep
writing rests on a willingness to engage fully and negotiate the writing task. Reflective
revision implies an agentic position, seeing oneself as a maker of meaning, with respect
for the powerful role of revision, and an awareness of revision as a tool for reshaping
thinking via writing. Writing takes place predominantly at the global level, as writers
tend to get it all out in a first draft and then begin layers of revision when developing
the shape of their writing. From an instructional perspective, it is imperative that
comprehensive revision be taught as an integral part of all writing activities rather than
as a finishing or polishing process! Separating out processes such as planning, translat-
ing and revision (Hayes & Flower, 1980) may not be in line with the function of writing
as a tool of thinking. Although preparation or idea generation may set the stage for
writing, there can be no revision or reconstruction of thinking without writing as a
recursive process. Teaching and modelling revision, as opposed to editing, is key both
in college and earlier, as is empowering students through choice and range of assign-
ments and assessments.
Along the same lines, our results support the contention that deep writing may be
further differentiated from surface writing via consideration of the level of attentional
focus (Biggs, 1988). Both the elaborative and reflective-revision scales suggest a global
focus involving attention to theme, voice, and audience as opposed to microconcerns
such as grammar, rewording, and rules suggested in the low self-efficacy, spontaneous-
impulsive and procedural scales. When attention is high, writers are able to rough out
a bird’s-eye view of a basic hierarchical structure, rather than relying on the listing of
discrete, isolated bits of information. Here instructors might encourage global initiatives
such as attention to genre, voice, audience and intentionality, and employ tasks such as
free writing, sentence and paragraph combining and organisational strategies such as
concept mapping to help writers “go wide.”
Our study served to elaborate further the surface approach by supporting the
relationships of the three scales with that construct: low self-efficacy, procedural and
spontaneous-impulsive. In all three scales, absence of meaning, local concern (micro-
focus), and doubting skills is common. We are not suggesting that surface skills are not
important: only that alone they do not constitute deep writing and that mastery alone
 Writing Processes 303

is not enough. By understanding the surface positions (procedural, low self-efficacy and
spontaneous-impulsive), teachers may adjust their instruction to capitalise on well-
honed and emergent skills, and offer appropriate remediation. This might include
emphasis on free writing, ungraded assignments or the inclusion of assignments geared
towards “getting it all out.”
Finally, the role of self-referencing or voice in writing cannot be overlooked. We are
not suggesting that college teachers specifically encourage personal reference in writing,
although that may often be appropriate, but rather that teachers and students work
together to develop voice in academic writing, as an integrated and comprehensive
reflection of the author. It seems that too often voice is the sole charge of the freshman
composition instructor.
Thus, the primary goal of writing instruction would be to design writing environ-
ments that encourage a deep approach by specifying meaningful writing as an expec-
tation, and include rubrics based on deep criteria (Appendix A). This may not be an
easy task since our own educational system has often emphasised and rewarded
superficial types of writing performance to the exclusion of more meaningful writing
tasks and assessments. From fill-in-the blanks to giving grades based on listing the five
main points in an essay, instructional settings too often encourage a reductionist,
superficial performance rather than a meaningful, integrated one (Biggs, 1988).

Correspondence: Ellen Lavelle, Department of Educational Leadership, Southern Illinois

University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL 62026-1125 (e-mail: elavell@siue.edu).

REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J.L. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation.
Barrie, W. (1978). Responses to written work: The possibilities of utilizing pupils’ perceptions.
Educational Review, 30, 149–158.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238–246.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.I.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Benton, S., Kraft, R.G., Glover, J.A., & Plake, B.S. (1984). Cognitive capacity differences among
writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 820–834.
Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes
in writing (pp. 73–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Biggs, J.B. (1988). Approaches to learning and essay writing. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies
and learning styles (pp. 185–228). New York: Plenum.
Biggs, J.B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Biggs, J.B., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York:
Academic Press.
Biggs, J.B., Lai, P., Tang, C., & Lavelle, E. (1999). The effect of a graduate workshop on graduate
students writing in English as a second language. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,
293–306.
Biggs, J.B., & Rihn, B.A. (1984). The effects of intervention on deep and surface approaches to
learning. In J.R. Kirby (Ed.), Cognitive strategies and educational performance (pp. 279–293). Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
304 E. Lavelle & A. J. Guarino

Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits.

American Psychologist, 39, 214–227.
Daly, J.A., & Wilson, D.A. (1983). Writing apprehension, self-esteem and personality. Research in the
Teaching of English, 17, 327–342.
Denman, M.E. (1978). The measure of success in writing. College Composition and Communication, 29,
42–46.
Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, A. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations:
The student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22, 205–227.
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg & E.
Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hounsell, D. (1997). Learning and essay-writing. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle, (Eds.),
The experience of learning (pp. 103–123). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL-7 user’s reference guide. Mooreville, IN: Scientific
Software.
Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation
with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 68, 395–407.
Knudson, R. (1995). Writing experiences, attitudes, and achievement of first to sixth graders. Journal
of Educational Research, 89, 90–97.
Lavelle, E. (1993). Development and validation of an inventory to assess processes in college
composition. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 489–499.
Lavelle, E. (1997). Writing style and the narrative essay. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67,
475–482.
Lavelle, E., & Zuercher, N. (2001). Writing approaches of university students. Higher Education, 40,
373–391.
Marton, F., & Booth, S.A. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwahm, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning—1. Outcome and process. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
Meier, S., McCarthy, P., & Schmeck, R.R. (1984). Validity of self-efficacy as a predictor of writing
performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 107–120.
Moxley, J.M. (1987). The uninvolved ⫽ poor writers. College Teaching, 35, 16–18.
Pajares, F., & Johnson, M.J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and the writing performance of entering high
school students. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163–175.
Richardson, J.T. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A literature
survey. Higher Education, 27, 449–468.
Ryan, M. (1984). Conceptions of prose coherence: Individual differences in epistemological standards.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1226–1238.
Schmeck, R.R. (1983). Learning styles of college students. In R. Dillon & R.R. Schmeck (Eds.),
Individual differences in cognition, 1 (pp. 233–279). New York: Academic.
Schmeck, R.R., Geisler Brenstein, E., & Cercy, S.P. (1991). Self-concept and learning: The revised
Inventory of Learning Processes. Educational Psychology, 11, 343–362.
Silva, T., & Nicholls, J. (1993). College students as writing theorists: Goals and beliefs about the causes
of success. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 281–293.
Stafford, W. (1978). Writing the Australian crawl. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G.V., & Robinson, E.J. (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research
students in the social sciences. Higher Education, 27, 379–392.
Van Rossum, E.J., & Schenk, S.M. (1984). The relationships between learning conception, study
strategy and learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73–83.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.
 Writing Processes 305

Appendix A: Deep and Surface Writing Characteristics

Deep Writing Surface Writing
Reflective Reproductive
High or alternating level of focus Focus at the local level
Hierarchical organisation Linear, sequential structure
Engaged Detached
Audience concern Less audience concern
Thinks about essay as an integrated whole Sees essay as an organised display
Thesis-driven Data-driven
Revision Editing
Coherence Cohesion
Transforming, going beyond assignment Telling within the given context
Autonomous Rule-bound
Feelings of satisfaction, coherence and connectedness

Appendix B: Approaches to Writing as Based on the IPIC

Approach Motive Strategy

Elaborative To self-express Visualisation, audience, voice

Low self-efficacy To acquire skills/avoid pain Study grammar, collaborate,
find encouragement
Reflective-revision To make meaning Revision, reshaping, drafting
Spontaneous-impulsive To get done Last minute, no planning or
revision, just like talking
Procedural Please the teacher Observe rules, organise and
manage writing