The Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 26, No.

1, 1982

The Psychological Structure of Creative

Writing

]. B. BIGGS and K. F. COLLIS

Creative writing is defined as an open-end prose or poetic construction, that is intended

to entertain rather than to impart information. Two aspects of writing are disting-
uished: the process of writing, and the quality of the product.
Composition is conceptualized in information-processing terms, and the components
of writing are used as a basis for the main concern of the present paper, product
evaluation.
The SOLO Taxonomy is proposed by the authors to evaluate the quality oflearning,
in terms of the structural complexity of the product. Five levels of writing structure are
referred to: incoherent, linear, conventional, integrated, and metaphoric. Samples of
creative writing of high school students are selected to illustrate each level. This
analysis has implications for both the psychology and the teaching of writing.

INTRODUCTION
The creation of written text seems to place unusually heavy demands on the
performer; much more so, for instance, than its counterpart, decoding written
text. Thus, too, there is some evidence that, in terms of equivalent levels of
complexity, writing is typically less sophisticated than output in other high
school subjects (Biggs and Collis, 1982; Collis and Biggs, 1979).
These demands refer particularly to the load upon working memory. The
writer has to think of and integrate several features simultaneously: hand-
writing, spelling, punctuation, word choice, syntax, intentions, organization,
clarity, reader perspective, to name only a few. For the beginning writer, who
has yet to automate many of these skills, such a task may appear overwhelming
and aversive. While it may be that the skilled writer uses writing as 'an oppor-
tunity to confront the state of his own thoughts' (Smith, 1975, p.192), such a
confrontation in the case of the unskilled writer is likely to be misleading, not to
say humiliating.
In short, the structure and quality of the written product depends upon the
integration of the many processes involved in planning, composition, and
transcription . Very few of these processes receive any specific attention in
school; and it is only recently that they have become the focus of psychological
research. In this paper, we discuss a model for analysing written products of
high school students. This analysis enables us to address two major areas of
concern: (a) the course of development of writing skills; and (b) the evaluation
of writing quality.
PROCESS AND PRODUCT IN CREATIVE WRITING
In the analysis to follow, we shall be limiting ourselves entirely to creative

59
60 Australian Journal of Education

writing, by which we mean an open-end prose or poetic construction, based

upon a topic (self-selected or imposed), the purpose of which is self-expression
by the writer. This definition includes both expressive and poetic functions as
distinguished by Britten et al. (1975) and excludes his transactional or didactic
function. More simply, our distinction is between writing that is primarily in-
tended to entertain, as opposed to writing that is primarily intended to instruct.
As indicated above, several stages in the writing process may be distin-
guished. Bereiter, Fine, and Gartshore (1978) refer to three levels of planning:
macro, middle, and micro. Macro planning is concerned with the overall shape
of the work, as given for example in an outline. Middle planning uses the
sentence as a unit, with the writer planning the general sense and sequence of
ideas within say a paragraph. Micro planning is concerned with clauses, and
the specific wording necessary for the writer's intentions to be expressed: Brit-
ten et al. (1975) refer to this as 'shaping at the point of utterance'. Micro plan-
ning consists of two main skills: composition and transcription. Composition
skills are concerned with defining and refining meaning-word selection,
appropriate syntax, etc. - and transcription skills with such technicalities as
spelling, punctuation, and handwriting. We might further distinguish post-
planning skills such as revising and editing, although these tend to be used only
by relatively skilled writers. Bracewell, Scardamalia, and Bereiter (1978) for
example showed that revision did not result in improved essay-writing until
Grade 12, when a sense of audience (i.e, writing for a 'generalized other') was
more adequately developed.
Each of these processes produces its own set of components, that are generally
distinguishable in the final product. Odell and Sage (1978) use product analysis
as a means of identifying the components that a writer has used. We intend to
take product analysis a stage further and show that the interrelationships
between components form a structure that is generalizable across a variety of
intellectual tasks and which may be used as a criterion-referenced measure of
the quality of task performance.

SOLO: A GENERAL MODEL OF LEARNING QUALITY

The evaluation of learning may be carried out in both quantitative and
qualitative terms. Quantitative evaluation concentrates upon how much infor-
mation in the original display has been assimilated and retained, and there is
an elaborate technology in the measurement literature that deals with this
aspect of evaluation. Qualitative evaluation, however, relies upon subjective
judgment and has a meagre technology. It is contended that structural complexity
may be regarded as one important aspect of what might be meant by 'learning
quality', and that this may be indexed by the application of a taxonomy
developed by the writers, the SOLO taxonomy (Biggs and Collis, 1982). The
term 'SOLO' is an acronym for 'structure of the observed learning outcome'.
While the SOLO levels are in many respects isomorphic to the Piagetian
stages, from pre-operations to formal operations, it is emphasized that SOLO
levels are specific to the test situation and should not be used to make in-
ferences about the developmental stage of the learner giving that response.
Many, probably most, complex tasks consist of a finite domain of com-
 Psychological Structure of Wr£t£ng 61
ponents which the learner has to utilize in some way when he is forming his
response. The SOLO taxonomy is based on a hierarchical structuring of the
way those components are used. There are five such levels:
1 prestructural, which comprises a non-relevant or inadequate component;
2 unistructural, where only one out of a range of several possible components
is utilized;
3 multistructural, which is based on several relevant components, but they
are not integrated or orchestrated to achieve maximal effect;
4 rational, where several components are interrelated;
5 extended abstract, where a pattern of interrelated components is seen as an
instance of a more general case, and is extended to new contexts.
The model has been applied to several areas of academic learning: history,
mathematics, English, reading, geography in the high school situation, and to
educational psychology at university. In fact, the model seems applicable to
any learning situation which involves a finite universe of components. These
components may be analysed for either content or process tasks. The com-
ponents of a content task require the assimilation or interpretation of informa-
tion to given dimensions or concepts, such as appreciating a poem, or drawing
conclusions from two contemporary but conflicting accounts of an event in
history. The components of a process task are skill components that need to be
deployed and integrated, such as solving a mathematical problem, acquiring
reading skill, or, as in the present case, creative writing.
In allocating a response to a particular level, it is first necessary to identify
the major components in the task set and, for the higher levels, to schematize
their interaction. We shall now do this for the task of creative writing.

TASK ANALYSIS OF CREATIVE WRITING

The data for the present analysis were obtained at various times from high
school students in Years 7 to 12. In most cases the students were asked to select
from a list of supplied topics, or to make up their own topic if they wished, and
write an essay of 'about a page'. Topics included 'A boating holiday', and 'What
to do on a really hot day', 'The person I'd most like to be', 'What the world will
be like in the Year 2000', and the like. The actual topic is essentially irrelevant,
as the focus of attention is upon the structural complexity of the resulting essay,
not upon its content. Nevertheless it was found that certain topics tended to
yield low structure essays, and the best essays were mostly on self-chosen
topics. This association is, however, no doubt mediated by the structural com-
plexity of the student making the selection.
In the context of creative essay writing in high school, some of the more im-
portant components are as follows. For convenience, we group them under the
stages distinguished earlier.
Component Anarysir of the Stages in Creative Wnting
1 Macro planning Selection of topic (in most cases this was from a limited
range of supplied topics)
Identification and use of appropriate genre
scheme - each form of writing has its own genre scheme
62 Australian Journal of Education

or set of conventions that should be adhered to (or bet-

ter, deliberately modified); e.g. narrative, free verse,
surprise-end, etc.
Person of narrator, e. g. first, third, multiple narrators
Chronology of events, e.g. sequential, flashback
2 Middle and micro planning
(a) Composition Syntax and sentence structure
Use of descriptors and modifiers such as adjectives and
adverbs
'Sense of audience', which covers a host of features
which amount to writing for a 'generalized other' and
which comes across as allowing for the reader's perspec-
tive.
Identification of context (where), character (who), plot
(what and why)
Use of contrasts: internal (thoughts, feelings) v. exter-
nal (objects, events); what is wished v. what is; rhythm
(fast v. slow tempo)
Use of imagery and metaphor
(b) Transcription Spelling and punctuation
3 Post planning Revising and editing
In a given piece of writing, one of these components may be present or ab-
sent and, ifpresent, related or unrelated with other components. A hierarchy is
thus possible that is directly analysable in terms of the SOLO taxonomy. Some
components are more basic than others. Chronology for example is (in our ex-
perience with high school writing) the most basic; without a firm ordering of
events in time, the result lacks structure to the point of unintelligibility. Other
components, such as the use of metaphor and the mastery of audience sense,
presuppose the integration of many lower-order components and appeal only
in writing of the highest quality.
We shall now integrate this analysis with our general model of structural
complexity, and show with illustrations how writing skill develops in terms of
the SOLO taxonomy. We shall conclude with a discussion of the implications
for the psychology and teaching of writing.

GROWTH IN THE STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY OF WRITING

When applied to writing skills, the five SOLO levels have the following
characteristics. A response is judged as 'transitional' when it shows evidence of
a feature belonging to the next higher level, but that feature is inadequately
developed or integrated.
Prestructural
As the name suggests, prestructural writing has no consistent component; we
use the term 'incoherent' writing. The words appear in the order they strike the
writer, giving a series of unrelated and fleeting impressions. Such writing is
truly 'egocentric', in the Piagetian meaning of that term, with no concession to
the fact that there is a reader out there to make sense out of it. This is not to be
 Psychological Structure of Writing 63
confused, of course, with some stream of consciousness writing, which might
appear formless: such writing is done with deliberate intent to use the medium
to create a particular impact, which is a totally different matter from the
unplanned formlessness of prestructural writing.
Unistructural
The writer uses only one component, usually, as noted, sequencing events in
time. The writing has a definite beginning, middle, and end: we call it 'linear'
writing. It is this linearity which gives it its coherence: other features, such as
spelling, syntax, and the like, are still minimal in the sense that they are not
used by the writer to obtain an effect. The writing is highly concrete,
particularistic, and simplistic.
M ultistructural
The basic components of spelling, punctuation, and syntax are present,
together with appropriate use of description and often a strong story line. Each
such feature, however, is used unilaterally so that the overall effect is flat and
two dimensional. Feelings may be referred to, but conventionally (e.g. 'What a
nice day!' I thought to myself). Narration is in the same person and from the
same perspective, and the writing is cliche-ridden, e.g. the verb-adverb se-
quence ('strode manfully', 'replied briskly', 'repeated slowly', etc.). We call this
'conventional' writing. Examples of the best (technically speaking) con-
ventional writing are to be found in pulp magazines and the popular press
generally.
Relational
The components of writing are not only deployed effectively, but are integrated
in flexible combinations to produce a calculated effect. Contrast is used to in-
tegrate what people think and feel with how they behave: the perspective of the
reader is taken into account, so that information concerning characters and
places is supplied (or deliberately withheld for effect); unexpected or at least
noncliched combinations of words and phrases are used. In short, the technical
components of writing have been mastered and selectively orchestrated into a
unity that suits the writer's purpose: we call this 'integrated' writing. Such
deployment of technique, however, is limited to the particular context the
writer has selected; there is little 'excess meaning'. The narrative still remains
firmly within the concrete experience of the writer.
Extended Abstract
Extended abstract writing is distinguishable from relational in two main ways:
(a) the recognition of different layers of meaning which extend beyond the
chosen context; and (b) innovative use of the medium, involving the creative
redeployment of techniques in order to convey multiple meanings. The em-
phasis, then, is with a carry-over of meaning from the given context, and so we
refer to this as 'metaphoric' writing (meaning not the part of speech so much as
the general idea of multiple meaning). The first characteristic is exactly
equivalent to 'acceptance of lack of closure (AL~)',and occurs in extended
abstract responses in a variety oftasks (Collis and Biggs, 1979). In writing, one
example of this would be the use of metaphor proper, as opposed to simile
64 Australian Journal of Education
(which can occur at earlier levels). The context of the writing transcends direct
experience. The second characteristic occurs when a writer successfully breaks
the rules for effect, thereby modifying a conventional genre scheme. The ex-
tended abstract writer shows himself in complete mastery of his medium, hav-
ing integrated form and content. Needless to say, extended abstract writing is
quite uncommon in high schools, far less so than extended abstract responding
in other subjects such as mathematics.

SOME EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT SOLO LEVELS OF WRITING

Incoherent Writing (Prestruetural)
A boating holiday
I was at the port and saw a raft with some kinds in it Dinki a captain in a tugboat
Oceanliner with the crew waving a submarine surfising to the top a cook in a house
boat and many many more in the ocean it was fabulos and went home to tell the
news I did at the port on Sunday. (Year 7)
This essay consists essentially of a series of impressions-Dinki (dinghy?),
tugboat, oceanliner, submarine, houseboat-strung together with little
chronological, grammatical, or logical structure to make it comprehensible to
the reader. At these lowest levels, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish a lack
of structure inherent in the writing from a low level of sheer literary skill. In
high school it is common to find incoherent transitional (tA) responses, in
which there is an underlying component to unify and structure the composing,
but it may be difficult to discern because of poor transcription skills.
Thejob I'd really like to do if I could
When I leth school I woud thie for a seaman. Then I go to the seamans union
pickup. I like to be a seaman because I like the sea and ship spicely the container
ships. when I got on ship I woudnot mind going the Hong Kong. (Year 9)
This example is very early transitional and arguably incoherent still. The
student has clearly got something important to say but it is difficult to perceive
an intrinsic structure to support the essay beyond 'I like to be a seaman because
I like the sea', followed by relevant but unelaborated back-ups about container
ships and going to Hong Kong.
Linear Writing (Unistruetural)
What to do on a really hot day
On hot days I love to go to the beach and hang around with all my crazy friends. We
usually go surfing and go swimming. I leave my board at my boyfriends place.
Theses about 20 of us that go Maca Punce Jack Paul, Kad, Mark, Greg, Maria
Kim Tracy, Jane,· Brad Lindsy Russel, Jeff, Scott, phill, Ken, Dave John. I go
iceskating because on hot day's you can fall over and cool yourself off. When I go to
the beach it's great to just sit their and get sunburnt and come back the next day and
get sunburnt again then you go brown not red. After we get sick of the beach we pick
up our stuff and jump into the panel vans and go for a rage around town. Just being
mad then we go back to the beach after we get some food. We usually get hamburger
or Heny-Peny, And some can's couple of dozen's because you really get thirsty.
When I leave school I am going to be a beach bum for 3 months then I am going to
get a job and just go to the beach on the weekends and after work. (Year 9).
 Psychological Structure of Writing 65
In this essay, things happen and are reported in an understandable
sequence. However there are no concessions to the reader; for example, that he
would find listing names of people, whom he does not know, to be totally
uninteresting. All the events are reported from an 'outside' perspective (apart
from 'it's great'; and the last line, which briefly raises, but does not deal with, a
broader issue).

Conventional Writing (Multistruetural)

What to do on a really hot day
On a really hot day I would like to relax and go swimming, and sunbathing.
As I rolled over in my bed covers the bright sunlight struck my eyes. What a
beautiful day I though to myself as I slowly got out of bed. Today I would gather up
some friends and head down to the wild surf and sandy beach.
When we arrived there the golden sand shone brightly expanding around the cir-
cular bay. We took our bags, beachtowels and radio and made our way through the
sand to an little opening where the sun was above us, and also shade from a nearby
tree. We put our towels down turned on the radio as we began to sunbake.
The sun was shining on the water making it glitter, boy was that a temtation. After
about an hour and a halffrom lying in the sun we decided to take a swim. All four of
us made our way down the glittering water. As our feet touched the water our sun-
burnt faces changed our facial expressions. The water was freezing, but we didn't
really mind.
We all waded out a little further and when the waves rolled in we all dived into
them. The water was so clear and you could see all the different coloured shades as
they went out deeper and further out to the ocean.
After we had been for our swim we came back onto the sandy surface and sunbathed
again.
When it was time to go home we had a bit of difficulty as we were all burnt. Well
that was a relaxing day and although we were burnt we decided to go down again
tomorrow but under differend and safer precautions. (Year 9)
This essay is very well elaborated, and manifests the use of several com-
ponents in the writings: basic mastery of grammar, spelling, and punctuation
(the tense 'I would like'): a clear recognition of the reader's interest in inner feel-
ings ('I thought to myself); and the use of conventional descriptors ('bright
sunlight', 'golden sand', 'wild surf, 'glittering water'). However the result is flat
and formal in tone.

Integrated Writing (Relational)

Whereas multistructural writing is, as the name suggests, structured by con-
ventions, relational writing uses a re-ordering or a new image or concept, to
structure the work as an integrated whole. The following shows this feature.
What to do on a really hot day
On a really hot day the best place to be is the beach. Soaking up the sun, and then
going for a swim to cool off. If the water is really cold its the best place to be, but you
have to be careful.
On the really hot days, or for any day; numerous numbers of surfers gather in the
water. If you are unlucky enough to have been run down by a surfboard, you'll
know its not very nice.
c
66 Australian Journal of Education
Hot weather usually attracts hordes of sunseekers, who usually make a lot of como-
tion, especially in the water. This also attracts hordes of sharks, who like eating
sunseekers, so you really must be careful.
Lots of people come to the beach on hot days, not to swim or surf, or build sand
castles but to get a tan. So these people put on the Baby Oil and lay in the sun all
day. At the end of the day they find themselves looking like beetroot, and not very
tanned.
So you really must be careful at the beach on really hot days, but even though there
are a few minor problems involved it is still the best place to be on a hot day.
(Year 9)

This example uses form as the integrating structure. The first four
paragraphs, like a litany, end with a negative 'but you have to be careful' with a
surprise departure in the last paragraph ('it is still the best place to be'). This
writer has moved away from a recital of his own concrete experiences, and is
using a complete global scheme to make an entertaining point.
Metaphoric Writing (Extended Abstract)
While integrated writing may be beyond the particular experiences of the
writer, it is still context-bound: there are few metaphoric or universal under-
tones. It is precisely those undertones that characterize metaphoric writing
proper.
Signs of spring
It was in the spaces of a thick green bush that was kissed by the vibrant rays of the
sun. In the clearing a young couple sat beside a blue glassy stream, that laughed and
bubbled over the mossy pebbles.
The young man, thin and tanned, smiled warmly and picked a small flower and
placed it in the girl's long brown hair. She laughed contentedly - but neither spoke a
word. I looked deep at their relationship - and the disasters of the world flashed past
me in one quick second. Then suddenly I realised, all the money in the world, all the
wars, battles and strife could not affect or change someone as much as love.
The couple still sat silently - but their silence was deafening. It screamed out to the
world - scratched, tore and pounded at all the hearts that would listen. Listen?
Have you ever heard love, have you ever stopped to listen? How many of you have
ever sat silently like this couple and listened to the love that surrounds you? Maybe
some of you, or maybe you just can't hear, because you live in your world of pollu-
tion, over-population and drugs.
Look deep-do you see the couple in the clearing? They are richer and happier than
all of you. They are uninhibited and touched by love.
I walked away slowly, looking at the fresh flowers, listening to the young birds. It
was spring, I could tell. It wrapped itself around me and showed me love-nothing
is more beautiful than the signs of spring. (Year 9)
This carefully constructed essay nicely illustrates the carryovers of meaning
in this level of writing. The writer uses the formal properties of written
language (e.g. sentence structure and length, punctuation) in conjunction with
vivid imagery and a simple story, to create a tremendous, even excessive, emo-
tional impact on the reader; there is a 'change of state' between medium and
message. That message is a universal one: the particular lovers in the dearing
are obviously not what the story is about. She draws upon her concrete ex-
periences but, unlike writers at earlier levels, she does so in order to introduce
 Psychological Structure oj Writing 67
hypothetical or abstract references. This imaginative quality is reflected not
only in the total construction, but also in the parts of the composition and in the
way they are linked together. For example, the thought that 'spring showed me
the beauty of love' is revealed in a movement from the concrete (the couple in
the clearing, the fresh flowers) to the abstract ('spring wrapped itself around
me'). This layered structure of meanings requires both writer and reader to ac-
cept that there is no definitive closure: questions are raised and held open for
the reader to consider and emote to.
Reliability of SOLO Ratings
Two separate sets of ratings were carried out by two raters working in-
dependently. In one sample (the first) the correlation between raters was 0.79
(N = 63); and in the second, 0.83 (N = 51). These figures, for essay-type
ratings, are satisfactorily high (cf. Diederich, 1974).
A further breakdown on the first sample showed that 45 per cent of the
ratings agreed exactly, 44 per cent differed by only half a level, 10 per cent by
one SOLO level and 2 per cent (1 essay) by more than one SOLO level.
On the second sample, 58 per cent of the ratings agreed exactly, 36 per cent
differed by half a SOLO level, and 6 per cent by one or more levels.
An experienced English teacher was asked to mark 100 essays for quality,
using the criteria he normally used: originality, length, relevance, transcription
skills, handwriting, spelling etc., and vulgarity (negative). It will be seen that
some of these are SOLO components of response structure. This rating cor-
related 0.75 with SOLO level, which is high, although not as high as inter-rater
reliability of SOLO level.

IMPLICATIONS
The Psychology of Writing
There are two aspects to this question. First, there are implications for the
psychology of writing itself: what the processes are, their demands on working
memory, and so on. As a product analysis, SOLO does not address this ques-
tion directly, in the way that, for instance, the work of Scardamalia, Bereiter,
Bracewell, and others working through OISE in Toronto does. Secondly,
SOLO analysis is useful in enabling questions to be asked about the quality of
the output, in comparison with other outputs and to presumed developmental
stage.
If a ceiling is placed upon SOLO levels of responding by a student's stage of
cognitive development, why is it that students of the same stage of development
continually give lower levels of response to creative writing than to
mathematics or science tasks? Is it simply a matter that pupils are given sur-
prisingly little practice in creative writing? For example, Annells et al. (1975)
found that by Year 10 a pupil submitted an average of only 2.8 pages per day of
writing, of which only 35 per cent was continuous (the rest being short-answer
responses, problems, etc.) and only 4 per cent was creative writing. Given
much more practice, in and out of school, we would expect writers to reach the
same level as that attained in other skills.
A more elaborate hypothesis is that stage development is partly or wholly a
68 Australian Journal of Education

function of working memory capacity. Writing has a relatively large drain on

working memory, as compared with other subjects (Scardamalia, 1980). Given
the small chance many students evidently have of automatizing the component
skills of writing to lessen memory drain, students operate at what appears to be
a lower stage level than in more structured and more practised subjects such as
mathematics. We have, however, at this stage little firm evidence on this point.
SOLO analysis, then, raises many questions about the status of stages, the
problem of decalages across tasks, and the feasibility of instructional interven-
tion in raising stages (Biggs, 1980; Brainerd, 1978).

Educational Implications
Educational implications fall into two main categories: teaching and evalua-
tion. SOLO is a tool that facilitates description; it is not a theory. SOLO
analysis does not therefore define the components of a task, such as writing;
this must come from a content analysis of the task. Once the components have
been isolated, however, SOLO can be used to determine their level of
organization, and hopefully to suggest where intervention or remediation
might most fruitfully be focused.
A teacher of writing should therefore know what the components of writing
are, and be able to point out to students when those components are missing,
are inadequate, or are poorly integrated. By applying the SOLO taxonomy to
the best, worst, and most typical essays, he can begin to form an explicit idea of
the kinds of components students at this level can manage in their writing, and
the levels of performance he might reasonably expect. It is also- possible to
discover what components are present in a particular student's writing. Such
evaluation may be formative or summative; SOLO analysis lends itself par-
ticularly to formative evaluation so that a student may know more clearly
where his main strengths and weaknesses are. More generally, SOLO becomes
a useful organizing framework in which the components of good writing may
be outlined to students.
As summative evaluation, SOLO is helpful, but it indexes only one aspect of
quality; the structure of a piece of writing. The evaluation of the content is a
totally different matter. It is possible, for example, to find quite large
differences in what might be regarded as 'quality' within the same level.
Perhaps, in the end, good writing becomes a matter of joining the writer's in-
tentions with the reader's response. It is reasonable to suggest that technology,
craftsmanship, and structural complexity will be essential materials for con-
structing a reliable bridge across that gap. The aesthetic appeal of the final pro-
duct remains a separate question.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Creative writing is a highly complex activity that requires the deployment and
integration of a variety of components. The quality of writing is reflected at
least in part in the extent to which those components may be discerned in the
final product, the essay, poem, or story.
Writing is held to be just one example of a more general case, which is
described by the SOLO model. When writing is analysed in terms of that
 Psychological Structure of Writing 69
model, five levels of writing, with the possibility of four transitions between
levels, emerge:
1 incoherent, with no consistent use made of any component;
2 linear, with consistent use of one component, that results in a series of
highly concrete impressions linked serially;
3 conventional, which consists of the adequate application of several com-
ponents to personal experience, but in a static, rule-bound way that makes the
product both depersonalized and particularistic;
4 integrated, where the writer adopts the components for his purpose, while
remaining within the context of experience;
5 metaphoric, where the writer has such high mastery over the components
of writing that he can carry over meaning simultaneously to several levels.
This application for SOLO thus provides a general framework for plotting
the growth of creative writing skill. There are several implications both for the
psychology of writing and for educational practice, and the more important
have been discussed.

REFERENCES
ANNELLS, J. W. et al. What Do Pupils Write? Hobart: Education Department of
Tasmania, Curriculum Centre, 1972.
BIGGS, J. B. The relationship between developmental level and the quality of school
learning. In S. and C. Modgil (Eds), Towards a Theory of Psychological Development.
Slough, Berks: National Foundation for Educational Research, 1980.
BIGGS, J. B. and COLLIS, K. F. Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy.
New York: Academic Press, 1982.
BEREITER, C., FINE, J., and GARTSHORE, S. An exploratory study of micro-planning in
writing. Unpublished paper. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
1978.
BRACEWELL, R. J., SCARDAMALIA, M., and BEREITER, C. The development of
audience awareness in writing. Paper presented at American Educational Research
Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, March 1978.
BRAINERD, C. J. Learning research and Piagetian theory. In L. S. Siegel and C. J.
Brainerd (Eds), Alternatives to Piaget. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
BRITTON, J., BURGESS, T., MARTIN, N., McLEOD, A., and ROSEN, H. TheDevelopment
of Writing Abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan Education, 1975.
COLLIS, K. F. and BIGGS, J. B. Classroom examples of cognitive development
phenomena: The SOLO taxonomy. Woden, ACT: Education Research and
Development Committee, 1979.
DIEDERICH, P. B. Measuring Growth in English. Urbana, Ill.: National Council for
Teachers of English, 1974.
ODELL, L., and SAGE, S. Written products and the writing process. Paper presented at
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, March
1978.
SCARDAMALIA, M. How children cope with the cognitive demands of,writing. In C. H.
Frederiksen, M. F. Whiteman, and J. F. Dominic (Eds), Writing: The Nature,
Development and Teaching of Written Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
1980.
SMITH, F. Comprehension and Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1975.
70 Australian Journal of Education
AUTHORS
John B. Biggs is a Professor of Education at the University of Newcastle, New South
Wales, and Kevin F. Collis is a Professor of Education at the University of Tasmania.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers are indebted to the Education Research and Development Committee and
to the Australian Research Grants Committee for financial support; to John Kirby for
obtaining some of the protocols and discussing interpretations of them; and to
Margaret Bowers, John Exton, and Helen Foster for research assistance.
This article is based on a paper presented at the Australian Psychological Society
Annual Conference, Toowoomba, Queensland, August 1980.