is essay writing a recursive process

Guide to Writing at Stetson University

You the Writer

Writing as a Process: Writing is Recursive

Know the right moves for college writing, build an argument, not an opinion, is every assignment an argument, know the two most important kinds of sentences: thesis and topic sentences, introduce your sources with purpose and show relationships between ideas.

Understand and Use Sophisticated Punctuation

Speaking and Writing English (when it isn’t your first language)
Writing in the Disciplines
University Writing Rubric
A Biology grade rubric
The Four Point scale
General Descriptive Rubric
Information Literacy and Fluency (Research Fundamentals)
General Citations
Copyright Basics
The Writing Reference

Writing is a process. Writers don’t just sit down and produce an essay, well-formed and ideal in every respect--we work at the stages and steps. But writing is not only a process: it’s also a measure of learning and your thinking, and so the process has to stop at various points so that your measure can be taken. Good academic writing is both a process and a product.

Writing is recursive. “Recursive” simply means that each step you take in your writing process will feed into other steps: after you’ve drafted an essay, for instance, you’ll go do a bit of verification of some of your facts—and if you discover that you’ve gotten something wrong, you’ll go back to the draft and fix it. But doing that may well require you to loop back to a different section of your essay to rewrite or to take it out altogether-and that revision, in turn, might mean that you need to rethink your organization. At some point, you know that the work is done.

To be successful at college-level writing, students need to be willing to learn the new moves. Writing for the demands of college is challenging, but it can be a little easier if students understand up front that readers at the college level expect to see certain skills be demonstrated.

Know what a college-level essay looks like in the appropriate discipline (your professors should show you examples)
Keep the focus of your work narrow (don't take on too much! Given the choice, go deep rather than broad)
Compose and revise to create a thesis statement and topic sentences
Introduce your sources with a purpose
Show relationships between ideas
Use sophisticated punctuation

Know What a College Level Essay Looks Like (generally)

While professors at Stetson have specific expectations for what their students turn in, students may not always understand the depth for the expectations. Some professors will show examples of what they want; some will not. In general, while each of your professors will provide a clear assignment, students may benefit from seeing an outline of what that assignment might entail.

The key differences are several:

The need for a clear and directive thesis or purpose statement;
The expectation of substantial consideration of other viewpoints and perspectives;
The use of sources to develop and explore a point made by the writer (not just to support the point itself); and
The need for the conclusion to do something other than summarize

Know What a College Level Essay Looks Like (in your discipline)

Not every assignment students get at Stetson will look like the above list. For example, writing assignments in Life Sciences prioritize a clear discussion of methods and results, often to test the work of others (in which case, using sources "to explore a point" may look very different. Ask your instructor to help you with these differences.

Here is a link to a video that demonstrates how to write a college-level essay.

Many students come to college thinking that “arguing” in an essay means to present a well- supported position. The definition of “argue” thus becomes a defense rather than an inquiry. In the real world, we're accustomed to "arguing" as trying to win. In college, "arguing" means to present a line of thought that takes into account different perspectives, additional evidence, and new ideas as it comes to a conclusion. In other words, a strong argument is one that incorporates both sides effectively.

https://miro.medium.com/max/2700/1*7NKDqKz8LG8bffMQoGIhqg.png

Sophisticated thinkers and writers seek to advance and deepen the understanding via discussion; thus, at college we seek to encourage deeper discussions with the goal to have a richer and fuller understanding. To do this well, it’s important to go deeply into a subject rather than stay on the surface. While the approach of defending a position rather than exploring its layers may feel somewhat easier, there are only so many ways to learn from general subjects; we learn more, and find opportunities for growth and development more easily, when we narrow down the field of interest. As we work with an idea and consider it carefully, we continue to narrow it down, zeroing in on a particular angle or position that interests us and meets the needs of the assignment.

Identifying a position requires several steps:

First , understand the subject area from which the argument must come.
Second , break that subject area down into topics
Third , focus on developing a question whose answer can be identified and defended. As the subject undergoes continual narrowing and focusing, specific questions develop; the reasoned, detailed, careful answer to those questions becomes the argument.
Fourth , read, research, and discuss the potential answers to the question you’re asking so that your writing is multidimensional and well supported. The Guide’s chapter on “Using Your Resources” deals with this element of the process.

Remember: A true argument requires that other perspectives be taken into account, because once you have found a focus and can easily develop an opinion or come to a position on the questions that have been created, this can provide an opportunity for a discussion, exploration of different perspectives, and dialogue about values.

Opinion : statement of writer’s general attitude toward a specific subject, issue or event
Position : announcement of writer’s general attitude toward a specific subject, issue, or event, with explanation of reasons
Argument : statement that captures a spirit of debate and discussion about a specific topic, issue, or event

Not every writing assignment students get in their courses will be an argument essay. As mentioned earlier, students here write lab reports, correspondence, proposals, brochures, arguments, applications, evaluations, analyses, and host of others.

We also ask that students consider and evaluate questions and ideas, formulate their own responses to those ideas, and then do something with those responses: argue, defend, propose, compare, and analyze are some of the things we do with our responses to ideas. Each kind of assignment has a different purpose.

Generally speaking, arguments take two kinds of shapes: one is a shape that actively argues with its reader from the start, presenting its position and systematically defending against its opposition by marshalling evidence that will defeat an opposing viewpoint. This focuses on difference. One other popular shape starts from a position of unity and common ground, and then, as each element of common ground on a position is discussed, the writer’s position becomes clearer.

A strong writer develops through practice in a variety of forms and audiences and purposes. That's why Stetson requires you to have four different writing-enhanced (WE) courses. The practice helps build "muscle" and a set of strategies to respond to new situations.

Students consider and evaluate questions and ideas, formulate their own responses to those ideas, and then do something with those responses. Argue, defend, propose, compare, and analyze are some of the things we do with our responses to ideas. Each kind of assignment has a different purpose.

Generally speaking, arguments take two kinds of shapes: one is a shape that actively argues with its reader from the start, presenting its position and systematically defending against its opposition by marshalling evidence that will defeat an opposing viewpoint. This focuses on difference. One other popular shape starts from position of unity and common ground, and then, as each element of common ground on a position is discussed, the writer’s position becomes clearer.

Here is a link that shows brief examples and descriptions of what assignments students may encounter at Stetson.

Thesis statements and topic sentences perform nearly the same function in your writing: each one makes a claim, or states a main idea, and each one serves as a central focus connecting ideas presented earlier and leads to ideas about to come.

A classic thesis statement demonstrates three specific elements:

It states a main idea, which the essay will go on to explain and develop
It goes beyond statements of fact or announcement-type statements
It offers the reader some idea of the direction of the essay

Writing thesis statements worksheet - The Perfect Dress | Writing ...

Whereas a thesis statement captures the main idea of an essay and provides structure and direction, a topic sentence introduces a paragraph’s main claim or idea. When we read a well put- together paragraph, we can identify the topic sentence relatively easily: it’s the one making a claim, and the other sentences are adding support and explanation. We typically find the topic sentence of a paragraph at the starting or ending position; at the start of a paragraph, the topic sentence makes a claim or point that will then be developed and supported. At the close of the paragraph, the topic sentence brings the reader to a conclusion that's just been made.

Introduce Your Sources With Purpose

Inexperienced writers often us this particular technique:

“Prostitution in Dubai is ruining the city’s reputation” (Alexis).

While functional, this approach to using a source is so minimal as to be almost ineffective. Note, for example, that the reader has not been told who "Alexis" is, what their credentials are, where this information has come from (and whether it is credible.)

However, look at the difference between that example and the next, paying close attention to the introduction of the source as well as the mention of the origin of the source material:

Shakar Alexis, a prominent sociologist, warns in Dubai News that “Prostitution in Dubai is ruining the city’s reputation” (Alexis).

In the second example, the student has introduced the speaker using their full name, has provided the reader with some idea of the speaker’s credentials, and has given the source of the speaker’s words. Finally, in the parentheses, the student has documented the source. Note also that the student has used an effective verb, "warn," to introduce and characterize the quotation.

Choosing your words and embedding useful information carefully provides readers with a richer, more complete experience.

Show Relationships between Ideas

Your writing should show your thinking forms a whole. That is, your thinking forms a coherent unified idea by using transitional words and phrases. These may be used between paragraphs, to show the big connections among the ideas in your writing, or between sentence, to show the train do thinking that leads you to connect one claim to the next.

This chart provides a useful reference for students looking for just the right word to show the relationship between two paragraphs’ or two sentences’ main ideas:

Transition words/phrases | Transition words, Transition words for ...

Sentence punctuation involves using commas, semicolons, colons, periods, parentheses, and dashes to coordinate sections of sentences (phrases and clauses) into coherent wholes.

An independent clause is one that can function on its own as a sentence: it has a subject and a verb. It looks like a complete sentence. When you put together independent clauses, you need to signal that coordination with some sort of punctuation.

Link independent clauses in four ways :

Comma plus conjunction : I wasn’t ready for school to start, but it started anyway
Semicolon : I wasn’t ready for school to start; it seemed like summer should have stretched on forever
Semicolon and transitional word/phrase : I wasn’t ready for school to start; however, the first day turned out to be enjoyable.
Colon : I wasn’t ready for school to start: time had sped past me all summer

Link items in a series with some sort of punctuation . You can use commas or semicolons depending on your intended effect:

Commas : We can look at the increased coral deaths, melting polar ice caps, and the gradual decline of biodiversity as evidence of climate change.
Semicolons : Resolving the climate problems will take increased attention from governments; stronger sanctions for violators; and a genuine realization that our species is in trouble.

Colons and dashes set off examples and explanations so that each one gets the proper attention from the reader:

Colons : It doesn’t get any easier than this: I can pass some of my classes just by doing the work.
Dashes : I can pass some of my classes just by doing the assignments—I guess that means I’d better schedule time for homework.

Use colons, dashes, and parentheses to set off the important information from the rest of the sentence:

Commas : Before we can tackle our serious problems, most importantly humanitarian crises in Darfur and the African continent, we have to admit that they exist.
Dashes : It doesn’t take much milk to make pancakes--just a cup or so will do it--but using skim milk instead of whole milk will reduce calories.
Parentheses : I know a lot about being a student (but I don't know much about how to get a job after this).
Punctuation Overview at Purdue
The Punctuation Guide
<< Previous: You the Writer
Next: Speaking and Writing English (when it isn’t your first language) >>
Last Updated: Jul 23, 2024 12:21 PM
URL: https://guides.stetson.edu/WritingGuideStetsonU

Have a question? Ask a librarian! Email [email protected]. Call or text 386-747-9028.

Type your email…

The Writing Post

Reading, Writing, and Reciprocity

Exploring Writing as a Recursive Process

I used to think that the writing process was as simple as sitting down, typing out a short story or essay on my laptop, giving it a quick review, and then sending it off to a magazine. I did not acknowledge that writing is a recursive process. In my imagination, I pictured editors responding with messages like, “You’re a genius! Here’s $3 billion dollars! You’ve revolutionized the world of writing!” In reality, all I managed to do was irritate a slew of editors at literary magazines with my nonsense.

One of my early mistakes was failing to grasp a concrete, recursive writing process beneficial to me. Yes, “recursive” might sound like an expensive word, but it carries significant weight. This is especially clear when you are striving to establish an effective approach to writing. It’s about comprehending the steps a writer must take to be both productive and proficient.

What does Recursive Mean?

In simple terms, recursive means “repeating” a process. Though, in more academic lingo, recursive means to do something “several times in order to produces a particular result or effect” (Cambridge). That is to say, working through a particular project and then repeating stages of the project to perfect your end goal is an example of recursion.

Another way to look at this is that when engaging with a recursive process, you are going back to a “simpler” form of your project and creating a more technical version. As such, you are going back to a prior stage in order to make better. Recursive is repetition, but it’s also perfection. You aren’t simply repeating necessarily. You are also adding to the previous construct to make it shine a little brighter.

How is the writing process recursive?

Writing as a recursive process encompasses the writing process itself (prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing). It allows you to revisit previous steps and jump around during a writing project because, as most approaches to academic writing will tell you, these processes flow into one another, creating fluidity between stages. For instance, you may need to return to your drafting stage to enhance your introduction with more refined language, even though you’re in the revising stage.

When we discuss writing as a recursive process, we’re talking about the repetition of the writing process, which can sometimes trap us in the space between the editing and revising stages, endlessly moving sentences around, correcting grammatical issues, and adding new ideas over and over. Yet, this is precisely what we do as writers to create polished, well-crafted work. Remember: reading and writing is a “ reciprocal ” process and therefore they go hand in hand together; thus, you should be reading and writing as recursion.

It’s one thing to say, “Writing is recursive!” and another to fully understand its implications. Recursive writing means that each step you take in your writing process feeds into other steps. For example, after drafting an essay, you’ll verify facts, and if you find errors, you’ll return to the draft to correct them. In other words, we repeat processes to refine our message.

We must remember that we will always jump between stages. Completing the draft doesn’t mean you’re done drafting, and finishing revising doesn’t guarantee every paragraph is in its ideal place. In essence, writing is rewriting. It’s perfectly acceptable to revisit old steps in the process, from prewriting to drafting to revision, and even to begin again when you feel it’s necessary.

As Nancy Hutchison, associate professor of English at Howard Community College, wisely advises, “Good academic writing takes time. It’s a marathon, not a sprint, and there are many steps to writing well.” This advice holds true for various writing genres, whether it’s academic, fiction, content writing, or any other form. It reminds us that we’re not in a race to finish quickly. We’ve all submitted unfinished writing due to neglecting the revision process, and a key lesson is to remember your writing steps, take breaks, and know that it’s perfectly fine to revisit your writing process.

Works Cited

“Recursive.” Cambridge. Dictionary.Cambridge.org.

Hutchison, Nancy. “Recursive Writing Process.” ENGLISH 087 Academic Advanced Writing, Howard Community College, 24 Jan. 2020, pressbooks.howardcc.edu/engl087/chapter/writing-process-recursion/.

“Writing as a Process: Writing is Recursive.” Stetson University Writing Program. Web. URL: https://www.stetson.edu/other/writing-center/media/G_Part_3.pdf . Accessed: June 14, 2021.

Resources for Writers: The Writing Process

Writing is a process that involves at least four distinct steps: prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing. It is known as a recursive process. While you are revising, you might have to return to the prewriting step to develop and expand your ideas.

Prewriting is anything you do before you write a draft of your document. It includes thinking, taking notes, talking to others, brainstorming, outlining, and gathering information (e.g., interviewing people, researching in the library, assessing data).
Although prewriting is the first activity you engage in, generating ideas is an activity that occurs throughout the writing process.
Drafting occurs when you put your ideas into sentences and paragraphs. Here you concentrate upon explaining and supporting your ideas fully. Here you also begin to connect your ideas. Regardless of how much thinking and planning you do, the process of putting your ideas in words changes them; often the very words you select evoke additional ideas or implications.
Don’t pay attention to such things as spelling at this stage.
This draft tends to be writer-centered: it is you telling yourself what you know and think about the topic.
Revision is the key to effective documents. Here you think more deeply about your readers’ needs and expectations. The document becomes reader-centered. How much support will each idea need to convince your readers? Which terms should be defined for these particular readers? Is your organization effective? Do readers need to know X before they can understand Y?
At this stage you also refine your prose, making each sentence as concise and accurate as possible. Make connections between ideas explicit and clear.
Check for such things as grammar, mechanics, and spelling. The last thing you should do before printing your document is to spell check it.
Don’t edit your writing until the other steps in the writing process are complete.

Composition Resources

Writing Is Recursive

Christopher Blankenship

In a recent interview , Steven Pinker, Harvard professor and author of The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century , was asked how he approaches the revision of his own writing. His answer? “Recursively and frequently.”

What does Pinker mean when he says “recursively,” though?

historical document in tight cursive with "We the People" at the top

U.S. Constitution

You’re probably familiar with the root of the word: “cursive.” It’s the style of writing that you may have been taught in elementary school or that you’ve seen in historical documents like the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

“Cursive” comes from the Latin word currere , meaning “to run.” Combine this meaning with the English prefix “re-” (to do again), and you have some clues for the meaning of “recursive.”

In modern English, recursion is used to describe a process that loops or “runs again” until a task is complete. It’s a term often used in computer science to indicate a program or piece of code that continues to run until certain conditions are met, such as a variable determined by the user of the program. The program would continue counting upwards—running—until it came to that variable.

So, what does recursion have to do with writing?

You’ve probably heard writing teachers talk about the idea of the “ writing process” before. In a nutshell, although writing always ends with the creation of a “product,” the process that leads to that product determines how effective the writing will be. It’s why a carefully thought-out essay tends to be better than one that’s written the night before the due date. It’s also why college writing teachers often emphasize the idea of process in their classes in addition to evaluating final products.

There are many ways to think about the writing process, but here’s one that my students have said makes sense to them. It involves five separate ways of thinking about a writing task:

Invention: Coming up with ideas.

This can include thinking about what you want to accomplish with your writing, who will be reading your writing and how to adapt to them, the genre you are writing in, your position on a topic, what you know about a topic already, etc. Invention can be as formal as brainstorm activities like mind mapping and as informal as thinking about your writing task over breakfast.

Research: Finding new information.

Even if you’re not writing a research paper, you still generally have to figure out new things to complete a writing task. This can include the traditional reading of books, articles, and websites to find information to cite in a paper, but it can also include just reading up on a topic to learn more about it, interviewing an expert, looking at examples of the genre that you’re using to figure out what its characteristics are, taking careful notes on a text that you’re analyzing, or anything else that helps you to learn something important for your writing.

Drafting: Creating the text.

This is the part that we’re all familiar with: putting words down on paper, writing introductions and conclusions, and creating cohesive paragraphs and clear sentences. But, beyond the words themselves, drafting can also include shaping the medium for your writing, such as creating an e-portfolio where your writing will be displayed. Writing includes making design choices, such as formatting, font and color use, including and positioning images, and citing sources appropriately.

Revision: Literally, seeing the text again.

I’m talking about the big ideas here: looking over what you’ve created to see if you’ve accomplished your purpose, that you’ve effectively considered your audience, that your text is cohesive and coherent, and that it does the things that other texts in that genre do.

Editing: Looking at the surface level of the text.

Editing sometimes gets lumped in with revision (or replaces it entirely). I think it’s helpful to consider them as two separate ways of thinking about a text. Editing involves thinking about the clarity of word choice and sentence structure, noticing spelling and grammatical errors, making sure that source citations meet the requirements of your citation style, and other such issues. Even if editing isn’t big-concept like revision is, it’s still a very important way of thinking about a writing task.

Now, you may be thinking, “Okay, that’s great and all, but it still doesn’t tell me what recursion has to do with writing.” Well, notice how I called these five ways of thinking rather than “steps” or “stages” of the writing process? That’s because of recursion.

In your previous writing experiences, you’ve probably thought about your writing in all of the ways listed above, even if you used different terms or organized the ideas differently. However, Nancy Sommers, a researcher in rhetoric and writing studies, has found [1] that student writers tend to think about the writing process in a simple, linear way that mimics speech:

arrows pointing from invention to research to drafting to revision to editing in a row

This process starts with thinking about the writing task and then moves through each part in order until, after editing, you’re finished. Even if you don’t do this every time, I’m betting that this linear process is probably familiar to you, especially if you just graduated high school.

On the other hand, Sommers also researched how experienced writers approach a writing task. She found that their writing process is different from that of student writers:

arrows connecting invention, research, drafting, revision and editing to each other in all directions

Unlike student writers, professional writers, like Steven Pinker, don’t view each part of the writing process as a step to be visited just once in a particular order. Yes, they generally begin with invention and end with editing, but they view each part of the process as a valuable way of thinking that can be revisited again and again until they are confident that the product effectively meets their goals.

For example, a colleague and I wrote a chapter for a book on working conditions at colleges, a topic we’re interested in.

When we started, we had to come up with an idea for the text by talking through our experiences and deciding on a purpose for the text. [Invention]
Although we both knew something about the topic already, we read articles and talked to experts to learn more about it. [Research]
From that research, we decided that our original idea didn’t quite fit with the research that was out there already, so we made some changes to the big idea. [Invention]
After that, we sat down and, over several sessions on different days, created a draft of our text. [Drafting]
When we read through the text, we discovered that the order of the information didn’t make as much sense as we had first thought, so we moved around some paragraphs, making changes to those paragraphs to help the flow of the new order. [Revision]
After that, we sent the rough draft to the editors of the book for feedback. When we got the chapter back, the editors commented that our topic didn’t quite fit the theme of the book, so, using that feedback, we changed the focus of the ideas. [Invention]
Then we changed the text to reflect those new ideas. [Revision]
We also got feedback from peer reviewers who pointed out that one part of the text was a little confusing, so we had to learn more about the ideas in that section. [Research]
We changed the text to reflect that new understanding. [Revision and Editing]
After the editors were satisfied with those revisions, we proofread the article and sent it off for final approval. [Editing]

In this process, we produced three distinct drafts, but each of those drafts represents several different ways that we made changes, small and large, to the text to better craft it for our audience, purpose, and context.

One goal of required college writing courses is to help you move from the mindset of the student writer to that of the experienced writer. Revisiting the big ideas of a writing task can be tough. Cutting several paragraphs because you find that they don’t meet the purpose of the writing task, throwing out research sources and having to search for more, completely reorganizing a text, or even reconsidering the genre can be a lot of work. But if you’re willing to put aside the linear steps and view invention, research, drafting, revision, and editing as ways of thinking that can be revisited over and over again until you accomplish your goal, you will become a more successful writer.

Although your future professors, bosses, co-workers, clients, and patients may only see the final product, mastering a complex, recursive writing process will help you to create effective texts for any situation you encounter.

“Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers” in College Composition and Communication 31.4, 378-88. ↵

Share This Book

2.5 Writing Process: Thinking Critically about How Identity Is Constructed Through Writing

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain the importance of communication in various cultural, language, and rhetorical situations.
Implement a variety of drafting strategies to demonstrate the connection between language and social justice.
Apply the composition processes and tools as a means to discover and reconsider ideas.
Participate in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes.
Give and act on productive feedback to works in progress.

Now it’s your turn to join this cultural conversation. As you write, keep your audience in mind as well as the principles of inclusivity and anti-racism that you have learned about. Consider how you can share your personal experiences, ideas, and beliefs in a way that is inclusive of all and shows sensitivity to the culture of your readers.

Summary of Assignment: Cultural Artifact

Choose an artifact that symbolizes something about a culture to which you belong. This might be a physical object that you have, or it may be a metaphorical object, such as Du Bois’s color line or veil, that represents something larger about your culture. Write approximately 350–700 words describing it, using sensory detail and explaining its meaning both to you personally and within your culture. To begin your thinking, view this TEDx Talk for a discussion of cultural artifacts and narrative led by artist David Bailey.

Another Lens 1. Choose a space that is important to a cultural community to which you belong. While visiting this space, conduct an hour-long observation. Respond in writing to these items: Describe the space in detail. What do you see permanently affixed in the space? What activity is going on? How is the space currently used? What is the atmosphere? How are you feeling while conducting your observation? Then, do some brief research on the space (using the Internet, the library, or campus archives), and answer these questions: What is the history of the space? When was it established, and under what circumstances? How has this space been used in the past? What is your response or reaction to this history? Then write a passage in which you highlight a unique feature of the space and your cultural relationship to it.

Another Lens 2. Considering Du Bois’s theory of double consciousness, explore the ways in which you may experience competing identities or competing cultures in your own life. What experiences have you had or witnessed where language clashed with or supported your identity or culture? What happened? How did others react? How did you react? What insight does your experience offer on this discussion of rhetoric and the power of language to define, shape, and change or give birth to identity or culture?

Quick Launch: Joining the Dialogue

You may choose to use journaling to develop your language use and voice. Journaling, or keeping a written record of your thoughts and ideas, can clarify your thoughts and emotions, help you better understand your values, and increase your creativity. The following two journaling techniques should help you get started.

Character Sketch and Captured Moment

Because your cultural artifact may be tied to a person, a character sketch might help you think about its significance. A character sketch is a brief description of a real or fictional person—in this case, likely someone you know or even yourself. In it, you describe the character’s personality, physical traits, habits, history, relationships, and ties to the cultural artifact. You may include research about the character to introduce readers to them. Use the following format if you need more guidance:

Character Sketch

Anecdote about the character
Most important traits
Physical appearance
Ties to cultural artifact

A character sketch of your grandmother might read as follows.

student sample text My first memory of Nonna materializes in the kitchen, where we are baking Swedish cookies together. She carefully shows me how to measure ingredients, stirring with her hand over mine in her deep “cookie-making” bowl. Nonna is a slight woman with a big heart full of kindness. She teaches me many skills, both in and out of the kitchen, that I still use today. Some have proven to be life lessons. She never met a stranger she didn’t like and often said it takes more effort to be unkind than kind. Because of Nonna, the Swedish cookie has become a metaphor for my life. The ingredients of one’s life make up an identity, and the combination is always delicious. end student sample text

Another journaling technique is to record a captured moment through the examination of a cultural artifact. This exercise lets you use an artifact as a means to look at an event in your life and create a written piece that captures its importance, emotion, or meaning. Select an artifact and an experience. Think about what they mean to you. What do you remember, and why? Then go deeper. Analyze the long-term meaning of it in your life. Try to recreate the artifact and then the experience in your mind, and relive the sensations you experienced in the moment.

Choose the Artifact

Begin your assignment by choosing your artifact. You may take inspiration from W. E. B. Du Bois’s image of the veil in the annotated sample in the previous section. Or, going back to the beginning of this chapter and Sequoyah ’s syllabary, you may choose to take inspiration from something linguistic, an expression or a way of talking that is associated with your culture. You may choose an artifact that, like the veil, has metaphorical significance. Or you may choose a more tangible artifact, such as a religious symbol, a traditional clothing item, or any number of objects related to your chosen culture.

Once you have chosen your artifact, do a prewriting exercise called a freewrite . In this activity, set a time limit (say, 10 minutes), and write whatever comes to mind about your object within that time. Don’t worry about organization, flow, grammar, punctuation, or whether your writing is “good”; just write. This exercise not only gets your creative juices flowing but also allows you to put pen to paper and opens your mind to what may be subconscious thoughts about the object as it relates to culture.

Next, it is time to take a more refined approach to planning your writing. Think back to The Digital World: Building on What You Already Know to Respond Critically , which addresses the different purposes for writing. To help shape your writing use a separate sheet of paper to answer the questions in Table 2.1 .

Who is my audience?
What is my purpose for writing?
What organizational strategies will I use?
How will I introduce my artifact?
How will I describe my artifact using sensory language?
Will I share personal anecdotes, examples, or ideas?
How will I add cultural context to my writing to help my audience understand my culture?
What transitions will I use?
How will I end my writing?

Drafting: Critical Context

In your writing, try to incorporate and respond to the current cultural climate. Context is information that helps readers understand the cultural factors that affect your ideas, actions, and thoughts. Context helps build the relationship between you as a writer and your audience, providing clarity and meaning. For example, Du Bois’s veil means very little until readers understand the deep racial divide that existed during his lifetime, including Jim Crow laws , segregation , and violent crimes committed against his fellow Black Americans.

Cultural Context

Sharing cultural context helps your readers understand elements of culture they may be unfamiliar with. Consider what background information you need to provide, especially information that is integral to readers’ understanding of the traditions, beliefs, and actions that relate to your artifact. Essentially, you will need to close the gap between your own culture and that of your readers.

Armed with your freewrite and your answers to the questions as a starting place, create your first draft. As you write, embed cultural context and explain the significance of your artifact in a way that is relatable and meaningful to your audience. Like Du Bois, try to use figurative language, such as similes or personification, in your description, and include the relevant sensory elements of the artifact: its appearance, taste, smell, sound, and feel. See Print or Textual Analysis: What You Read for definitions and examples of some figurative language, or consult this site . Consider using a graphic organizer like Figure 2.6 as a guide. Add more outer circles if needed, and be mindful of writing in a way that it is accessible and inclusive.

Remember that your first draft is just a starting point. The most important thing is to get your ideas on paper. This draft can be considered a test of sorts—one that determines what should and should not appear in the final paper.

Consider the following sensory description of Broadway in New York, written by British novelist Charles Dickens (1812–1870) in his book American Notes for General Circulation (1842). What does Dickens, as a British observer, note about this street in America? How does he use language to convey what he sees, hears, and smells? In what ways does he use language to convey a British viewpoint?

public domain text Warm weather! The sun strikes upon our heads at this open window, as though its rays were concentrated through a burning-glass; but the day is in its zenith, and the season an unusual one. Was there ever such a sunny street as this Broadway! The pavement stones are polished with the tread of feet until they shine again; the red bricks of the houses might be yet in the dry, hot kilns; and the roofs of those omnibuses look as though, if water were poured on them, they would hiss and smoke, and smell like half-quenched fires. No stint of omnibuses here! Half-a-dozen have gone by within as many minutes. Plenty of hackney cabs and coaches too; gigs, phaetons, large-wheeled tilburies, and private carriages—rather of a clumsy make, and not very different from the public vehicles, but built for the heavy roads beyond the city pavement. . . . [C]oachmen . . . in straw hats, black hats, white hats, glazed caps, fur caps; in coats of drab, black, brown, green, blue, nankeen, striped jean and linen; and there, in that one instance (look while it passes, or it will be too late), in suits of livery. Some southern republican that, who puts his blacks in uniform, and swells with Sultan pomp and power. Yonder, where that phaeton with the well-clipped pair of grays has stopped—standing at their heads now—is a Yorkshire groom, who has not been very long in these parts, and looks sorrowfully round for a companion pair of top-boots, which he may traverse the city half a year without meeting. Heaven save the ladies, how they dress! We have seen more colours in these ten minutes, than we should have seen elsewhere, in as many days. What various parasols! what rainbow silks and satins! what pinking of thin stockings, and pinching of thin shoes, and fluttering of ribbons and silk tassels, and display of rich cloaks with gaudy hoods and linings! The young gentlemen are fond, you see, of turning down their shirt-collars and cultivating their whiskers, especially under the chin; but they cannot approach the ladies in their dress or bearing, being, to say the truth, humanity of quite another sort. Byrons of the desk and counter, pass on, and let us see what kind of men those are behind ye: those two labourers in holiday clothes, of whom one carries in his hand a crumpled scrap of paper from which he tries to spell out a hard name, while the other looks about for it on all the doors and windows. end public domain text

Now, how might Dickens go on to provide context and make connections between British and American cultures so that readers understand both more keenly? Although American Notes is generally critical of the United States, this description creates a positive mood, as if Dickens recognizes something of home during his visit to Broadway—a cultural artifact. This recognition suggests that moments of unexpected joy can create connections between cultures.

Peer Review:

One of the most helpful parts of the writing process can be soliciting input from a peer reviewer. This input will be particularly helpful for this assignment if the peer reviewer is not a member of the culture you are writing about. An outsider’s view will help you determine whether you have included appropriate cultural context. Peer reviewers can use the following sentence starters to provide feedback.

One piece of your writing I found meaningful was ________.
Something new I learned about your culture is ________; you explained this well by ________.
Something I was confused by was ________; I don’t understand this because ________.
A major point that I think needs more detail or explanation is ________.
In my opinion, the purpose of your paper is ________.
To me, it seems that your audience is ________.
I would describe the voice of your piece as ________.
I think you could better build cultural context by ________.

Writing is a recursive process; you will push forward, step back, and repeat steps multiple times as your ideas develop and change. As you reread, you may want to add, delete, reorder, or otherwise change your draft. This response is natural. You may need to return to the brainstorming process to mine for new ideas or organizational principles.

As you reread and prepare for revisions, focus on the voice you have used. If a friend were to read your draft, could they “hear” you in it? If not, work on revising to create a more natural cadence and tone. Another area of focus should be to explain cultural context and build cultural bridges. Use your peer reviewer’s feedback to develop a piece that will be meaningful to your audience.

While describing your artifact is likely a deeply personal endeavor, an important part of writing is to consider your audience. Composition offers a unique opportunity to build and share cultural understanding. One way to achieve this goal is by using anti-racist and inclusive language. Try to view your composition from outside of your own experience.

Is any language or are any ideas harmful or offensive to other cultures?
Are you using the language of preference for a specified group?
Can people of various abilities read and understand your writing?

One overarching strategy you can use for anti-racist revision is to constantly question commonly used words and phrases. For example, the word Eskimo is a European term used to describe people living in the Arctic without regard for differentiation. The term was later used to describe a popular frozen treat known as an Eskimo pie . Today, the term is considered offensive to Inuit communities—Indigenous people living in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. You can also make yourself aware of the evolving preferences for language use. For example, the term Negro gave way to African American , which is now giving way to the term Black . Finally, consider the use of the word see , for example, to mean “to understand”: Do you see what I mean? Is the use of see in this way inclusive of a visually impaired person who may be reading your text? To start, determine one or two places to include anti-racist or inclusive language or ideas in your writing, and build those into your piece.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/2-5-writing-process-thinking-critically-about-how-identity-is-constructed-through-writing

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Writing Is Recursive

Chris Blankenship

What does Pinker mean when he says “recursively,” though?

So, what does recursion have to do with writing?

There are many ways to think about the writing process, but here’s one that my students have said makes sense to them. It involves five separate ways of thinking about a writing task:

Invention: Coming up with ideas.

Research: Finding new information.

Drafting: Creating the text.

Revision: Literally, seeing the text again.

Editing: Looking at the surface level of the text.

On the other hand, Sommers also researched how experienced writers approach a writing task. She found that their writing process is different from that of student writers:

For example, a colleague and I wrote a chapter for a book on working conditions at colleges, a topic we’re interested in.

When we started, we had to come up with an idea for the text by talking through our experiences and deciding on a purpose for the text. [Invention]
Although we both knew something about the topic already, we read articles and talked to experts to learn more about it. [Research]
From that research, we decided that our original idea didn’t quite fit with the research that was out there already, so we made some changes to the big idea. [Invention]
After that, we sat down and, over several sessions on different days, created a draft of our text. [Drafting]
When we read through the text, we discovered that the order of the information didn’t make as much sense as we had first thought, so we moved around some paragraphs, making changes to those paragraphs to help the flow of the new order. [Revision]
After that, we sent the rough draft to the editors of the book for feedback. When we got the chapter back, the editors commented that our topic didn’t quite fit the theme of the book, so, using that feedback, we changed the focus of the ideas. [Invention]
Then we changed the text to reflect those new ideas. [Revision]
We also got feedback from peer reviewers who pointed out that one part of the text was a little confusing, so we had to learn more about the ideas in that section. [Research]
We changed the text to reflect that new understanding. [Revision and Editing]
After the editors were satisfied with those revisions, we proofread the article and sent it off for final approval. [Editing]

“Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers” in College Composition and Communication 31.4, 378–88 ↵

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base
Academic writing
A step-by-step guide to the writing process

The Writing Process | 5 Steps with Examples & Tips

Published on April 24, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on December 8, 2023.

Good academic writing requires effective planning, drafting, and revision.

The writing process looks different for everyone, but there are five basic steps that will help you structure your time when writing any kind of text.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

Academic style
Vague sentences
Style consistency

See an example

Step 1: prewriting, step 2: planning and outlining, step 3: writing a first draft, step 4: redrafting and revising, step 5: editing and proofreading, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about the writing process.

Before you start writing, you need to decide exactly what you’ll write about and do the necessary research.

Coming up with a topic

If you have to come up with your own topic for an assignment, think of what you’ve covered in class— is there a particular area that intrigued, interested, or even confused you? Topics that left you with additional questions are perfect, as these are questions you can explore in your writing.

The scope depends on what type of text you’re writing—for example, an essay or a research paper will be less in-depth than a dissertation topic . Don’t pick anything too ambitious to cover within the word count, or too limited for you to find much to say.

Narrow down your idea to a specific argument or question. For example, an appropriate topic for an essay might be narrowed down like this:

Doing the research

Once you know your topic, it’s time to search for relevant sources and gather the information you need. This process varies according to your field of study and the scope of the assignment. It might involve:

Searching for primary and secondary sources .
Reading the relevant texts closely (e.g. for literary analysis ).
Collecting data using relevant research methods (e.g. experiments , interviews or surveys )

From a writing perspective, the important thing is to take plenty of notes while you do the research. Keep track of the titles, authors, publication dates, and relevant quotations from your sources; the data you gathered; and your initial analysis or interpretation of the questions you’re addressing.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Especially in academic writing , it’s important to use a logical structure to convey information effectively. It’s far better to plan this out in advance than to try to work out your structure once you’ve already begun writing.

Creating an essay outline is a useful way to plan out your structure before you start writing. This should help you work out the main ideas you want to focus on and how you’ll organize them. The outline doesn’t have to be final—it’s okay if your structure changes throughout the writing process.

Use bullet points or numbering to make your structure clear at a glance. Even for a short text that won’t use headings, it’s useful to summarize what you’ll discuss in each paragraph.

An outline for a literary analysis essay might look something like this:

Describe the theatricality of Austen’s works
Outline the role theater plays in Mansfield Park
Introduce the research question: How does Austen use theater to express the characters’ morality in Mansfield Park ?
Discuss Austen’s depiction of the performance at the end of the first volume
Discuss how Sir Bertram reacts to the acting scheme
Introduce Austen’s use of stage direction–like details during dialogue
Explore how these are deployed to show the characters’ self-absorption
Discuss Austen’s description of Maria and Julia’s relationship as polite but affectionless
Compare Mrs. Norris’s self-conceit as charitable despite her idleness
Summarize the three themes: The acting scheme, stage directions, and the performance of morals
Answer the research question
Indicate areas for further study

Once you have a clear idea of your structure, it’s time to produce a full first draft.

This process can be quite non-linear. For example, it’s reasonable to begin writing with the main body of the text, saving the introduction for later once you have a clearer idea of the text you’re introducing.

To give structure to your writing, use your outline as a framework. Make sure that each paragraph has a clear central focus that relates to your overall argument.

Hover over the parts of the example, from a literary analysis essay on Mansfield Park , to see how a paragraph is constructed.

The character of Mrs. Norris provides another example of the performance of morals in Mansfield Park . Early in the novel, she is described in scathing terms as one who knows “how to dictate liberality to others: but her love of money was equal to her love of directing” (p. 7). This hypocrisy does not interfere with her self-conceit as “the most liberal-minded sister and aunt in the world” (p. 7). Mrs. Norris is strongly concerned with appearing charitable, but unwilling to make any personal sacrifices to accomplish this. Instead, she stage-manages the charitable actions of others, never acknowledging that her schemes do not put her own time or money on the line. In this way, Austen again shows us a character whose morally upright behavior is fundamentally a performance—for whom the goal of doing good is less important than the goal of seeming good.

When you move onto a different topic, start a new paragraph. Use appropriate transition words and phrases to show the connections between your ideas.

The goal at this stage is to get a draft completed, not to make everything perfect as you go along. Once you have a full draft in front of you, you’ll have a clearer idea of where improvement is needed.

Give yourself a first draft deadline that leaves you a reasonable length of time to revise, edit, and proofread before the final deadline. For a longer text like a dissertation, you and your supervisor might agree on deadlines for individual chapters.

Now it’s time to look critically at your first draft and find potential areas for improvement. Redrafting means substantially adding or removing content, while revising involves making changes to structure and reformulating arguments.

Evaluating the first draft

It can be difficult to look objectively at your own writing. Your perspective might be positively or negatively biased—especially if you try to assess your work shortly after finishing it.

It’s best to leave your work alone for at least a day or two after completing the first draft. Come back after a break to evaluate it with fresh eyes; you’ll spot things you wouldn’t have otherwise.

When evaluating your writing at this stage, you’re mainly looking for larger issues such as changes to your arguments or structure. Starting with bigger concerns saves you time—there’s no point perfecting the grammar of something you end up cutting out anyway.

Right now, you’re looking for:

Arguments that are unclear or illogical.
Areas where information would be better presented in a different order.
Passages where additional information or explanation is needed.
Passages that are irrelevant to your overall argument.

For example, in our paper on Mansfield Park , we might realize the argument would be stronger with more direct consideration of the protagonist Fanny Price, and decide to try to find space for this in paragraph IV.

For some assignments, you’ll receive feedback on your first draft from a supervisor or peer. Be sure to pay close attention to what they tell you, as their advice will usually give you a clearer sense of which aspects of your text need improvement.

Redrafting and revising

Once you’ve decided where changes are needed, make the big changes first, as these are likely to have knock-on effects on the rest. Depending on what your text needs, this step might involve:

Making changes to your overall argument.
Reordering the text.
Cutting parts of the text.
Adding new text.

You can go back and forth between writing, redrafting and revising several times until you have a final draft that you’re happy with.

Think about what changes you can realistically accomplish in the time you have. If you are running low on time, you don’t want to leave your text in a messy state halfway through redrafting, so make sure to prioritize the most important changes.

Check for common mistakes

Use the best grammar checker available to check for common mistakes in your text.

Fix mistakes for free

Editing focuses on local concerns like clarity and sentence structure. Proofreading involves reading the text closely to remove typos and ensure stylistic consistency. You can check all your drafts and texts in minutes with an AI proofreader .

Editing for grammar and clarity

When editing, you want to ensure your text is clear, concise, and grammatically correct. You’re looking out for:

Grammatical errors.
Ambiguous phrasings.
Redundancy and repetition .

In your initial draft, it’s common to end up with a lot of sentences that are poorly formulated. Look critically at where your meaning could be conveyed in a more effective way or in fewer words, and watch out for common sentence structure mistakes like run-on sentences and sentence fragments:

Austen’s style is frequently humorous, her characters are often described as “witty.” Although this is less true of Mansfield Park .
Austen’s style is frequently humorous. Her characters are often described as “witty,” although this is less true of Mansfield Park .

To make your sentences run smoothly, you can always use a paraphrasing tool to rewrite them in a clearer way.

Proofreading for small mistakes and typos

When proofreading, first look out for typos in your text:

Spelling errors.
Missing words.
Confused word choices .
Punctuation errors .
Missing or excess spaces.

Use a grammar checker , but be sure to do another manual check after. Read through your text line by line, watching out for problem areas highlighted by the software but also for any other issues it might have missed.

For example, in the following phrase we notice several errors:

Mary Crawfords character is a complicate one and her relationships with Fanny and Edmund undergoes several transformations through out the novel.
Mary Crawford’s character is a complicated one, and her relationships with both Fanny and Edmund undergo several transformations throughout the novel.

Proofreading for stylistic consistency

There are several issues in academic writing where you can choose between multiple different standards. For example:

Whether you use the serial comma .
Whether you use American or British spellings and punctuation (you can use a punctuation checker for this).
Where you use numerals vs. words for numbers.
How you capitalize your titles and headings.

Unless you’re given specific guidance on these issues, it’s your choice which standards you follow. The important thing is to consistently follow one standard for each issue. For example, don’t use a mixture of American and British spellings in your paper.

Additionally, you will probably be provided with specific guidelines for issues related to format (how your text is presented on the page) and citations (how you acknowledge your sources). Always follow these instructions carefully.

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Ad hominem fallacy
Post hoc fallacy
Appeal to authority fallacy
False cause fallacy
Sunk cost fallacy
Deep learning
Generative AI
Machine learning
Reinforcement learning
Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

(AI) Tools

Grammar Checker
Paraphrasing Tool
Text Summarizer
AI Detector
Plagiarism Checker
Citation Generator

Revising, proofreading, and editing are different stages of the writing process .

Revising is making structural and logical changes to your text—reformulating arguments and reordering information.
Editing refers to making more local changes to things like sentence structure and phrasing to make sure your meaning is conveyed clearly and concisely.
Proofreading involves looking at the text closely, line by line, to spot any typos and issues with consistency and correct them.

Whether you’re publishing a blog, submitting a research paper , or even just writing an important email, there are a few techniques you can use to make sure it’s error-free:

Take a break : Set your work aside for at least a few hours so that you can look at it with fresh eyes.
Proofread a printout : Staring at a screen for too long can cause fatigue – sit down with a pen and paper to check the final version.
Use digital shortcuts : Take note of any recurring mistakes (for example, misspelling a particular word, switching between US and UK English , or inconsistently capitalizing a term), and use Find and Replace to fix it throughout the document.

If you want to be confident that an important text is error-free, it might be worth choosing a professional proofreading service instead.

If you’ve gone over the word limit set for your assignment, shorten your sentences and cut repetition and redundancy during the editing process. If you use a lot of long quotes , consider shortening them to just the essentials.

If you need to remove a lot of words, you may have to cut certain passages. Remember that everything in the text should be there to support your argument; look for any information that’s not essential to your point and remove it.

To make this process easier and faster, you can use a paraphrasing tool . With this tool, you can rewrite your text to make it simpler and shorter. If that’s not enough, you can copy-paste your paraphrased text into the summarizer . This tool will distill your text to its core message.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, December 08). The Writing Process | 5 Steps with Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved August 29, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/writing-process/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to create a structured research paper outline | example, quick guide to proofreading | what, why and how to proofread, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

The Recursive Writing Process

Author Louis L’Amour said, “Start writing, no matter what. The water does not flow until the faucet is turned on.”

But how do you go about writing an essay, a story, or a novel? How do you even get started? One method of writing that can help is the recursive writing process .

The recursive writing process can be broken down into four simple steps:

Because this process is recursive, you can revisit old steps after you’ve moved on to the editing process.

Prewriting happens before a single word goes on the page. This includes things like choosing a topic. Are you going to write about something you know personally? Are you writing about a historical event? Maybe your topic is fictional!

Whatever you choose to write about, you will need to do some brainstorming . How long will it be? What format will it be in? Will you have dialogue, or will it be a research paper with citations ?

Every type of writing requires different preparation. For a research paper, you might need to find online sources, peer-reviewed journals, or even interviews of experts on the topic. A science-fiction story might need research into how things like lasers and spacecraft work. Historical fiction might have you looking into styles of dress and manners of that time period.

Using an outline will help you break down and organize the different parts of your paper. There may be changes as you go along, but an outline helps you visualize your writing as a whole so it doesn’t end up choppy and confusing for the reader to follow.

Once you finish your outline, it’s time to write your first draft. When you start writing, you do not have to start with the intro. Sometimes it is easier and better to start in the middle of your paper and add the intro in later.

You can break down your middle into different points or different sources. Having one paragraph per source is usually the way to go. This makes it easy for the reader to pay attention to each source individually while still being aware of how all the sources come together to make sense of the overall topic.

Once your first draft is complete, you’ll need to start revising . Revising is the point at which you start polishing up your work. You should start to cut things out of your work and add clarity to it. Sentences that go nowhere, unneeded descriptions, and repetitive words need to be removed. If ideas can be condensed from a paragraph to a sentence, do it! Unless you have a mandatory word count, less with clarity is much better than more with repetition.

It can be very helpful to have a friend read your paper during this stage. Does everything make sense to them? Can they give you a summary of what you wrote about easily, or is there too much going on for them to grasp it all? If your reader can’t summarize what you wrote, then they typically did not understand what you wrote.

Editing is making your writing polished and ready to be presented. Now is the time to use spell check, grammar check, and even search for improperly used words that often get overlooked.

Check over your citation use, and make sure each separate idea gets its own paragraph. Also, check your use of transition words!

Editing is the last step; you should not worry about editing your paper until everything else is ready to go.

This is when you correct any tiny mistakes you may have missed and add your title. Chapter headings, bibliographies, and all additional pages should be added in the editing process if they have not been created yet. If you have guidelines you need to follow, such as font size, margin width, and spacing this is also the time to give those a final look over.

Once your paper is edited, you’re done! These four steps of the recursive writing process seem easy once you get to the end, but they are a huge help when you are getting started. So whether you are writing an essay for school or working on the next bestselling novel, you can use the recursive writing process to make your writing flow.

Thanks so much for watching. See you next time and, as always, happy studying!

Return to Writing Videos

by Mometrix Test Preparation | Last Updated: August 30, 2024

.............................
	. That means as we write we repeat steps and double-back or jump ahead out of sequence. We use the activities of the writing process--brainstorming/invention, planning, drafting, reflecting, peer reviewing, revising, editing and proofreading--to develop our thinking and find what we really mean as well as the words to express it in. To say writing is "recursive" means we use all of these actions and mental tools of the writing process again and again as we develop our meaning. To help you develop a better mental model of what the writing process truly is like and its nature as a growth process, these three metaphors may help you. The first two come once again from Peter Elbow: Have you ever had trouble writing? Have you ever started to write a sentence and then crossed it out or taken an hour to write one paragraph and then crumpled up the page? Some people call it the terror of the blank page. Studies have even shown that writers may have a good sense of the writing process (that they should prewrite, write and revise), but they can still get stuck writing an essay. Knowledge of the writing process doesn't guarantee the ability to produce a good piece of writing. without significantly improving the overall content or form of what they have written. when she talks about writing a "shitty" first draft (see also ): not very interesting, is it?" And there's the emaciated German male who writes these Orwellian memos detailing your thought crimes. And there are your parents, agonizing over your lack of loyalty and discretion; and there's William Burroughs, dozing off or shooting up because he finds you as bold and articulate as a houseplant; and so on... . Quieting these voices is at least half the battle I fight daily. (25) I suggest separating the two voices from each other as you work on your essay. Take time when you start just to be creative. You can't do anything in this phase "wrong." Your goal is to put down and explore as many ideas about your topic as you can. In traditional terms of the writing process, we can call this phase the "prewriting phase," but the truth is that you may return to this non-judgmental thinking at any time while working on a piece of writing. first draft. As you work in this creative phase, you will have to make a conscious effort not to be critical and ask, "Is it right?" As Anne Lamott says above, you will have to quiet these critical voices as you write. Let everything come out in whatever order or fashion you want. It will be chaotic, but out of chaos comes order--so be chaotic. As much as possible, don't let the critical voice stop your flow of work. Allow yourself to "fail" in the sense that you aren't spitting out the perfect, finished product right away. for more on a sequence for improving your early drafts. . Other researchers into the writing process discovered one interesting fact about the writing process that can also help you. They found that significant thing writers can do with the largest impact upon whether their writing piece is successful or not is to assess the "writing situation" carefully. ?

Images of the Writing (or Rhetorical) Situation

Although your message (thesis) may stay the same, your purpose may change depending upon your choice of audience or visa versa. Depending upon the audience, you may adjust your diction (your choice of words) or the kind of support you choose to include depending upon your audience. Writing, thus, involves many choices and a close attention to and balancing of many constraints that can shape your communication. Although Flowers and Hayes presented the simple triad of goals, knowledge, and the written text as elements writers needed to balance, the following graphic depicts a more complete description these various elements and constraints of the writing situation.

Discovering and maintaining an appropriate and productive balance and alignment of these various constraints--finding one's rhetorical stance--is one of the most challenging and important things to do as we write. We want what we write to appeal to our audience to achieve our purpose within the given context. And since we are writing for school, we importantly need our writing to fit the assignment. Finding this balance and discovering what we mean to say as well as the language to say it is not easy--and takes a process to achieve.

For more see: Orienting yourself towards a writing topic The Watcher and the Muse .

See also The Writing Process (ppt) -- video

Works Cited

Berg, Cliff. “SpaceX's Use of Agile Methods.” Medium , Medium, 9 Dec. 2019, medium.com/@cliffberg/spacexs-use-of-agile-methods-c63042178a33. Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 25, 1992, pp. 1–14. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40237697. Accessed 29 Aug. 2020. Elbow, Peter. Writing Without Teachers. Oxford University Press, 2007 . Flower, Linda and John R. Hayes. "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing." College Composition and Communication , vol. 32, no. 4, 1981, pp. 365-87. Lamott, Anne . Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life . Anchor Books, 1997. Perl, Sondra. "The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers.” College Composition and Communication 28.8 (May 1977): 12-28. Reprinted in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader . Ed. Victor Villanueva, Jr.. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1997.

Free Web Counter (Since 1/12/16)

Recursivity in source-based writing: a process analysis

Open access
Published: 26 October 2023

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Christian Tarchi ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4013-4794 1 ,
Ruth Villalón 2 ,
Nina Vandermeulen 3 ,
Lidia Casado-Ledesma 1 &
Anna Paola Fallaci 1

1214 Accesses

Explore all metrics

In university settings, writing argumentative essays from reading conflicting source texts is a common task for students. In performing this synthesis task, they must deal with conflicting claims about a controversial issue as they develop their own positions. Argumentative synthesis is characterized by writers’ back-and-forth moves between reading source texts and writing their own texts—a self-regulatory process that can be termed recursivity. The present study investigated the recursive behavior of Italian university students as they wrote argumentative syntheses while reading conflicting sources. The 43 graduate students participating in the study read four source texts on a controversial topic, evaluation in academe, with the goal of writing an argumentative essay. Reading of the sources was studied through a think-aloud procedure, and recursivity in writing the syntheses was recorded through Inputlog software. Comparisons were made between 22 high-recursive and 22 low recursive writers for the quality of their argumentative essays and for the critical strategies that they had used in reading the sources. Descriptive and nonparametic analyses produced the following three findings: (1) The strategies most employed in prereading were all related to synthesis-related activities: voicing opinion, expressing agreement, and expressing doubts. (2) Recursivity occurred most often in the middle of the synthesis process, as writers developed their arguments, instead of at the beginning or end. (3) High-recursive writers surpassed low-recursive writers by producing argumentative essays of higher quality and obtained better recall scores. They also employed more critical processing relevant to synthesis when reading the sources. This study provides insight on how recursivity is involved in argumentative writing but still there is need for further research.

Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome?

How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics

Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Composing texts based on the reading of multiple sources, commonly known as synthesis writing, has piqued the curiosity of the educational and scientific community in recent times. This heightened interest can be attributed to both its frequent requirement across various educational levels (Marttunen & Kiili, 2022 ) and the cognitive challenges it poses for students. Studies in the field of synthesis writing have highlighted the significant learning opportunities inherent in this type of task. The process of reading, rereading, integrating, organizing, and extending diverse source texts requires a profound transformation of knowledge (Solé et al., 2013 ; Spivey & King, 1989 ). However, it is not surprising that for students tackling these activities poses a significant challenge, given the high cognitive demands involved (Mateos et al., 2018 ; Solé et al., 2013 ). Students are often faced with multiple-text comprehension tasks with the goal of producing an argumentative essay. When this learning situation occurs, students have to generate a particular type of argumentative writing: an argumentative synthesis (Mateos et al., 2018 ). Argumentative synthesis is a hybrid task that implies the critical use of reading and writing. Indeed, when synthesizing texts, writers comprehend such sources and write an essay based on the information read, returning to source texts for further comprehension if necessary. Producing a synthesis requires students to read and reread the texts (Nelson, 2008 ; Vandermeulen et al., 2020c ), both to identify relevant information and to elaborate and integrate it into the writing; i.e., synthesis writing is closely related to the recursion process.

Recursivity, which means returning to and repeating a procedure, has become a focus of research in synthesis writing since this is a central cognitive process in this type of activities (Nelson & King, 2023 ; Solé et al., 2013 ). The concept of recursion is widely known in the field of writing research. This recognition dates back to Emig’s pioneering study in 1971 (Emig, 1971 ), which demonstrated that the writing process does not follow a strict, linear sequence comprising only the planning, writing, and revision phases. Rather, writers follow a recursive pattern, repeatedly returning to subprocesses such as planning or revision at different points in the composition process (Flower & Hayes, 1981 ; Perl, 1980 ). However, for research on writing from sources, the term recursion is used differently.

In the field of writing from sources, recursivity involves an iterative process of “back and forth” between the reading of sources and the writing itself (Vandermeulen et al., 2023 ). It is a self-regulatory cognitive process which makes it possible to monitor the writer’s behavior, in order to introduce the relevant changes in the planning, textualization and evaluation phases (Mateos et al., 2018 ; Segev-Miller, 2007 ). Throughout the writing process, authors constantly revisit and reassess their ideas, arguments, and language choices, seeking coherence and effectiveness. This iterative process allows them to identify weaknesses, address inconsistencies, and refine their communication.

Despite the importance of recursivity in critical reading and writing, to date the studies focusing on this behavior are extremely scarce. In this study we aim to contribute to the literature on argumentative synthesis by investigating the relevance of recursivity and its interplay with critical reading processes.

Source-based writing

Writing activities in the academic context can take many forms. Students may be asked to write opinion essays on specific content, scientific reports, summaries of book chapters, etc. One task that stands out for its frequency and the difficulty it entails for students is source-based writing. Source-based writing requires the writer to read different sources and to synthesize information from them in response to an objective; for example, to develop a comprehensive view of a controversial topic (Braine, 1995 ; Weston-Sementelli et al., 2018 ). To adequately develop these writing tasks, students not only have to master different writing skills, but they also have to be proficient in reading and comprehending the different sources provided. Composing a high-quality text based on reading sources depends on both reading and writing skills and, therefore, there is an overlap between the processes of comprehension and language production (Spivey, 1990 ). This interdependence between the reading and writing processes (Graham et al., 2020 ) requires reading effectively in order to identify relevant information for the composition process and, in relation to the writing process, knowing how to incorporate this material into the text being created (Hirvela, 2004 ).

Argumentative synthesis writing

Synthesis writing is a type of source-based writing (Vandermeulen et al., 2023 ) and, therefore, it is a hybrid task (Spivey & King, 1989 ) that requires the combined use of reading and writing. Regarding reading processes, students need to evaluate the trustworthiness and relevance of the source-texts, identify the main perspective, identify and evaluate the strength of the main arguments (and counter-arguments), monitor their own comprehension and connect the new information with their prior knowledge and experiences. In other words, students need to read strategically. In addition, and because they are reading different sources, students need to perform the same actions across texts, to identify whether they hold compatible or opposing perspectives, and the extent to which they overlap in information provided and arguments discussed. Regarding writing processes, students need to plan, compose and revise (Hayes, 2012 ). In short, synthesis writing is an epistemic and a complex task (Segev-Miller, 2004 ) that requires the implementation of processes of selection, organization and connection of information related to different sources (Spivey, 1997 ), as well as intratextual (within one text) and intertextual integration (between two or more sources) processes in order to write a document with an original structure and content (Segev-Miller, 2007 ). To do so, a reader should consult the sources while writing his/her own text.

One aspect to take into account is that syntheses can be elaborated from sources that present complementary or conflicting information on a topic. Writing a synthesis from sources that present conflicting information can be understood as a particular type of argumentative writing, since it is necessary to consider the arguments and counterarguments related to the different perspectives (Mateos et al., 2018 ).

Addressing alternative perspectives on the controversial issue is critical to effective argumentation in argumentative synthesis writing; activities which are becoming increasingly important in the education of elementary and secondary students (e.g., De la Paz & Felton, 2010 ), as well as college students (e.g., Granado-Peinado et al., 2019 ; Luna et al., 2023 ; Mateos et al., 2018 ). In arguing personal opinion on a particular topic, different strategies can be implemented. A rebuttal strategy may be employed in case the arguments corresponding to the undefended position are considered erroneous or insufficiently justified. Another strategy may be to support one of the perspectives after assessing and weighing the arguments linked to the two positions. writers can point out the strengths and weaknesses of alternative perspectives and also refute positions and assertions with which they disagree (Reznitskaya et al., 2009 ; Toulmin, 1958 ). However, the emphasis can also be placed on intertextual integration processes when reading texts that address conflicting topics. In this regard, although rebuttal and weighing are well-recognized strategies in argumentation, Nussbaum and Schraw ( 2007 ) added another strategy in their theoretical framework concerning the integration of arguments and counterarguments: compromise/conciliation between alternative views. In this last strategy defined, the writer tries to propose a conciliatory solution that brings together the positive aspects of the two opposing positions. Importantly, even though all strategies described by Nussbaum and Schraw are employed in synthesizing, the authors use the term “synthesis” for one specific strategy: the development of a “conciliatory solution” to the problem being addressed. Moreover, Nussbaum and Schraw use the terms “argument” and “counterargument” for what many writing researchers would call “claim” and “counterclaim,” while defining the term “argument” as a full argumentative text.

A rebuttal strategy may be employed in case the arguments corresponding to the undefended position are considered erroneous or insufficiently justified. Another strategy may be to support one of the perspectives after assessing and weighing the arguments linked to the two positions. The third and last strategy defined by these authors would be the strategy of synthesis, in which the writer tries to propose a conciliatory solution that brings together the positive aspects of the two opposing positions. Importantly, even though all strategies described by Nussbaum and Schraw are employed in synthesizing, the authors use the term “synthesis” for one specific strategy: the development of a “conciliatory solution” to the problem being addressed. Moreover, Nussbaum and Schraw use the terms “argument” and “counterargument” for what many writing researchers would call “claim” and “counterclaim,” while defining the term “argument” as a full argumentative text. Furthermore, it is worth noting that while Nussbaum and Schraw refer to a synthesis strategy, it could also be called “compromise/conciliation between alternative views”. However, in the field of research on argumentative synthesis writing from multiple sources, the term “synthesis” is commonly used to refer to this specific procedure.

Several studies have been conducted in the field of argumentative synthesis writing from sources with conflicting information (e.g., Casado-Ledesma et al., 2021 ; Granado-Peinado et al., 2023 ; Luna et al., 2023 ; Mateos et al., 2018 ). All these studies share a common feature, which is the design and implementation of intervention programs aimed at enhancing students’ competence in writing argumentative syntheses. In doing so, they all draw upon the theoretical framework of Nussbaum and Schraw regarding strategies for integrating arguments and counterarguments. With regard to our research, an argumentative synthesis writing task was implemented, that is, participants were asked to express an opinion on a topic and support it with the arguments and counter-arguments identified in the texts. Being that, our analytical approach also drew upon Nussbaum and Schraw’s proposal regarding intertextual integration strategies. Besides, we adopted two process-tracing approaches: think-aloud procedures (Afflerbach & Cho, 2009 ) learn about reading strategies employed when writers read source texts after being informed that they will soon write argumentative texts from conflicting sources, and input logs (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013 ) to learn about recursivity during writing. We also used two product-oriented measures: text evaluation of the argumentative syntheses, with major attention to intertextual integration as in past studies in the field (Casado-Ledesma et al., 2021 ; Granado-Peinado et al., 2023 ; Luna et al., 2023 ; Mateos et al., 2018 ) and a delayed recall measure for addressing deep comprehension.

Recursivity in source-based writing

Recursivity when writing has received some attention from research. By recursivity we refer to the number of switches between sources and the writer’s text document. Writers may go back to sources at different stages of the writing processes, namely when planning, composing or revising. Weak writers tend to follow a linear process, from reading to writing, which in turn produces low-quality texts (Fidalgo et al., 2014 ). Strong writers go back and forth from sources to their own text several times for, hypothetically, strategic reasons (Mateos & Solé, 2009 ; Solé et al., 2013 ).

The relevance of recursivity when writing is grounded in the levels-of-processing theoretical framework (Craik, 2002 ; Craik & Lockhart, 1972 ). According to this theory, people process information at different levels of depth, which are generally not processed linearly. Rather, people re-circulate information in their memory to further analyze it. Of course, this process depends on the quality of the working memory: the trace may get lost once people proceed to process different information. The repeated presentation of stimuli could support this process. Thus, recursivity exposes learners over and over again to the same information, which can be processed at different levels.

Past studies have investigated whether recursivity is associated with argumentative synthesis writing. Mateos and Solé ( 2009 ) analyzed the written products of students from different educational levels who had received a synthesis task from their teachers. They found that older students (university level) implemented more often a recursive rather than linear approach to the task than younger students. This finding was partially confirmed by Vandermeulen et al.’s study ( 2020d ), showing that higher grade students switched more frequently between sources and their own text, at least in the beginning of the writing process. Moreover, the studies of Solé et al. ( 2013 ), with secondary students, and Du and List ( 2020 ), with undergraduate students, also support the idea that better quality products are related to more recursive patterns while reading multiple texts. Vandermeulen et al. ( 2020c ) studied source use in upper-secondary students’ argumentative and informative source-based writing. Results showed that recursion was most frequent in the middle part of the writing process (as compared to the beginning and end phase), and that students switched to the sources more frequently when writing an argumentative text than when writing a narrative text. Additionally, these authors related source use to the quality of the text. A positive correlation between recursivity in the first phase of the process and text quality was found, while recursivity in the last phase of the process correlated negatively with text quality.

Process analysis in reading and writing

Most research on reading and writing has almost exclusively focused on the products of these activities (e.g., reading comprehension, recall, written text quality, coherence, and the like). At the same time, several scholars have turned their attention towards reading and writing processes, developing research methodologies able to provide us an insight into the students’ metacognitive activity.

The think-aloud methodology has been used to address reading in writing from sources (Du & List, 2020 ; Mateos et al., 2018 ; Solé et al., 2013 ). This methodology helps researchers to identify cognitive and metacognitive processes implemented during a learning task (Ericsson & Simon, 1998 ; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995 ). When performing a task, such as reading one or more texts, participants are asked to “think aloud”, that is to voice any thought they have while reading, without filtering any thought. Thinking aloud while performing a task, rather than before (prospective think-aloud) or after (retrospective think-aloud) is considerate preferable as it addresses two limitations of these options, respectively people do not do what they say they do and people do not always recall accurately what they have done (Hu & Gao, 2017 ). Moreover, it provides direct access to reading processes, whereas other techniques, such as log-data or eye-tracking, indirectly infer metacognitive processes from behavior. Recent studies have demonstrated the substantial neutrality of think-aloud on target processes (Bannert & Mengelkamp, 2008 ; Tarchi, 2021 ).

One way to access cognitive and metacognitive processes such as recursivity during writing is through the use of keystroke logging tools such as Inputlog (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013 ). Inputlog makes it possible to observe the writing process unobtrusively as it runs in the background of a familiar word processor. Inputlog records (or logs) every keystroke, mouse movement, and window change. All the logged writing process activities are time stamped. The log files can be analyzed within Inputlog from different perspectives: fluency, pause, revision, and - of particular interest when studying recursivity - source use (Vandermeulen et al., 2020b ). Studying the dynamics of the writing process using Inputlog allows us to understand the complexity of writing as a process; however, the conclusions that can be derived from the records are inferential and establishing a direct link between keystrokes and cognitive/metacognitive activities is often not evident (Galbraith & Baaijen, 2019 ). It is therefore advisable to complement this method with others that directly capture the cognitive/metacognitive activity of the subject when performing the task (Wengelin et al., 2019 ).

The present study

Recursivity seems deeply involved in source-based writing tasks, such as argumentative synthesis writing. It may help to connect reading and writing processes and to re-introduce relevant information in the students’ working memory as they proceed in the writing task. However, it is still unclear whether recursivity is associated with strategic processes when going back to sources. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent recursivity is associated with argumentative synthesis performance. These aspects led us to propose the current research, through which we aimed to learn more about writers engaging in an argumentative synthesis task: (a) the strategies they employ in reading the source texts, (b) the recursivity that occurs in their writing of argumentative syntheses, and (c) the quality of the argumentative syntheses that they produce, especially intertextual integration. We were also interested in differences between high and low recursive writers in terms of their reading strategies, patterns of recursivity, and quality of their syntheses. In this study, university student writers read and wrote on the controversial topic of evaluation of education; specifically, about the advantages and disadvantages of standardized student assessment and the evaluation of teachers’ professional practice. Thus, the objectives of this research were as follows:

To describe recursivity behavior (identified through keystroke logging) in university students while reading conflicting sources and while writing argumentative synthesis.

To compare high- versus low-recursive writers on the quality of argumentative essays and the recall of the sources.

To compare high- versus low-recursive writers on strategic behavior, assessed by a think-aloud protocol.

Based on past evidence, studies suggest that writing performances of students in synthesis tasks are still suboptimal, even at the higher education level, and that recursivity is may not found in the behavior of many subjects with less experienced (e.g., secondary school level, see Vandermeulen et al., 2020c ; undergraduate students, Tarchi & Villalón, 2022 ). However, in our study the participants were postgraduate students and the task demanded the use of a significant number of sources, so we expected a moderately higher level of recursivity. Moreover, we hypothesized that recursivity is associated with higher quality in argumentative synthesis written essays. In particular, recursivity should be associated with a higher level of intertextual integration. Moreover, we hypothesized that recursivity would be associated with cognitive and metacognitive strategies while reading sources. In other words, we expected for high-recursive students to write more integrated essays and to be more strategic when reading then low-recursive students.

A recall measure was also included in the research design to investigate the impact of recursivity on retention and depth of processing. In this way, we could investigate whether recursivity influences the way sources are elaborated, besides the quality of students’ written products. Recall allows to assess students’ representation and long-term retention of the text content. Valid inferences, rather than literal comprehension, is a strong index for depth of comprehension, as it represents the links students did between text content and prior knowledge when reading (Diakidoy et al., 2015 ; Tarchi & Villalón, 2021 ).

The following variables were also assessed: perceived prior knowledge, prior beliefs, and need for cognition. These three variables have been found connected with argumentative synthesis writing (see Dai & Wang, 2007 ; Tarchi & Villalón, 2021 ) and may be associated with recursivity. Students with low perceived prior knowledge may struggle in strategically approaching the task and proceed more linearly. Students with skewed prior beliefs may find it unnecessary to process belief-inconsistent texts. Students with low levels of need for cognition may be not so engaged in a complex task such as argumentative synthesis.

As in much of the multi-text reading research (e.g., List & Alexander, 2020 ; Schoor et al., 2023 ), we divided the task into a reading phase and a written production phase. However, since synthesis writing is a hybrid task, we must acknowledge that much composing was, no doubt, occurring as students first encountered the sources during the reading phase of the study.

Participants

Forty-three university students participated voluntarily in the study (13 males, 29 females, one preferred not to declare gender; age mean = 23.9 ± 2.04). All participants were enrolled in a Master’s degree program in Educational Psychology. All participants were Italian and spoke Italian as their primary language. Data was collected anonymously (the participants included a personalized code in each task). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Florence (Italy).

Different variables related to the participants were assessed; specifically perceived prior knowledge and prior beliefs about the topics addressed in the source texts, as well as need for cognition. Perceived prior knowledge was evaluated through an item (“What is your level of knowledge on the topic of evaluation in school”?) to be rated on a scale from 1 (minimum) to 6 (maximum). Prior beliefs were assessed through an 8-item questionnaire including four items reporting a pro-evaluation stance ( e.g., it is necessarily to evaluate teaching quality ) and four items reporting an against-evaluation stance ( e.g., There is no sufficiently well-founded consensus on what constitutes good teaching practices to create an evaluation system ). The four against-evaluation items were reverse coded. The composite score was obtained by adding up all the ratings: the higher the score, the more pro-evaluation the beliefs were. The reliability of the scale was adequate (α = 0.71). Need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982 ) was assessed using an 18-item questionnaire ( e.g., I like tasks that require little reflection once they have been learnt ). Participants scored each item on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = completely false to 5 = completely true). The reliability of the scale was adequate (α = 0.87).

Source texts

We used four texts previously employed in studies about argumentative synthesis writing (e.g., Granado-Peinado et al., 2019 ; Mateos et al., 2018 ). The texts discussed the topic of how to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in the school system.

Two texts addressed the topic of teachers’ evaluation; namely, the advantages and disadvantages of conducting an evaluation of teachers’ professional practice, in order to improve the quality of instructional processes (one of the texts addressed the advantages, and the other, the disadvantages). The text in favor of teachers’ evaluation received the name of “Improving the quality of teaching” (599 words) and presented arguments supporting the use of teachers’ evaluation to improve teaching quality. The text against teachers’ evaluation was titled “Good intentions, bad outcomes” (594 words), and included the problems regarding the implementation of instructors’ evaluation.

The other two texts dealt with the topic of student assessment, through standardized and external performance tests, one taking a positive position and the other taking a negative position. The text related to the advantages of students’ evaluation received the title of “Students ‘assessment and education quality” (502 words) and included arguments supporting the use of students’ performance evaluation as a way to improve the quality of educational processes at school. The text related to the disadvantages of students’ evaluation was named “The performance evaluation trap” (612 words), and it included arguments related to the difficulty of deriving improvements in education from these standardized and external evaluations.

The original texts were written in Spanish, adapted by the second author based on texts used in previous studies (Authors, XXXX), so prior to the implementation of the study they were translated into Italian. Cultural adaptability to the Italian educational context was ensured by the first author. Texts had similar readability scores (calculated through the Gulpease, a legibility index for Italian, range 0-100): “Assessment and quality of teaching” (Gulpease index = 45), “The performance evaluation trap” (Gulpease index = 47), “Improving the quality of teaching” (Gulpease index = 43), “Good intentions, bad outcomes” (Gulpease index = 48). Overall, texts were balanced by length, difficulty and number of supporting arguments (seven each text). Excerpts from texts are included in the Supplementary Material A .

To aim our objectives, the following procedure was followed. Firstly, the participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire including an assessment of individual variables and demographic information. Secondly, participants were asked to perform a source-based writing task. They were asked to read four texts on a controversial topic. While reading, the participants were asked to think-aloud. Then, participants were asked to write on a personal computer an argumentative essay based on the sources that they had just read. They were asked to write the essay (with access to sources) while keystroke logging software Inputlog was working in the background. Finally, a week later, they completed a free recall task.

The reading-writing task was conducted online with the direct supervision of an experienced researcher. Prior to the experimental session, students were: (1) instructed how to think-aloud, (2) asked to practice thinking-aloud with two texts provided by the researcher, (3) asked to send a sample of the think-aloud to the researcher. Finally, they received feedback on their think-aloud practice. Then, students were: (1) instructed how to install Inputlog on their device, (2) asked to practice starting and ending the writing sessions with Inputlog, (3) and asked to send a sample of the output to the researcher. Finally, they received feedback on their think-aloud practice. Think-aloud and Inputlog practice sessions were all well performed by the participants on their first attempt. In the experimental session, students were asked to work in a quiet environment and perform the task without interruptions and in the same session. The researcher was available for an online meeting throughout their session for any issue. First, students received the four texts and were asked to read while thinking-aloud. Participants recorded their think-alouds and sent them to the researcher. Immediately after the task, students activated Inputlog and performed the writing task. As soon as they had finished, they were asked to submit the Inputlog output to the researcher. The exchange of materials between students and the researcher was performed through a learning management system. All participants completed the task with no issues. Think-alouds and Inputlogs files were carefully reviewed by the researchers to identify any invalid performance.

Reading task

Students were given four digital texts on the debated topic (see paragraph on texts within the material section for details). They were given the following instructions: “You will now read four texts that argue positions on a controversial topic in education. You can read them as many times as you like and return to them as many times as you like. When you have finished reading the passages, move on to writing. You will be asked to write an essay that discusses the positions expressed in each text and includes a conclusion that integrates the strengths of the positions expressed.” This instruction was given so that participants knew that they had to read texts with the purpose of writing an argumentative synthesis essay.

While the participants were reading, they were asked to think-aloud, that is: “say out loud everything that is on your mind, whether inherent in the text you read or not. You should verbalize as much as you can, in any case at least every two minutes (a timer will help you keep time).” Before the reading task, participants practiced think-aloud with a practice text and received feedback from the researcher. The whole reading task was recorded through a screencast software to capture both the reading activity and the thoughts voiced aloud.

Writing task

The participants were given the following instructions: “After reading the texts, you will have to write an essay that, based on the texts you have read, discusses the positions expressed in each text and includes a conclusion that integrates the strengths of the positions expressed. This is a time and effort-consuming task, as it involves consulting the texts, extracting and connecting the key ideas from the four texts, and writing an essay that draws your own conclusion and explains in a well-argued manner why you came to that conclusion. You can go back and read the texts as many times as you like. There is no time limit for this exercise, but it is very important to perform the reading and writing task in one work session, without interruptions.” This instruction was given to help students understand what an argumentative synthesis task is. This type of task is uncommon in the Italian educational system, and students needed some explanation of what it was expected from them.

While performing the writing task, Inputlog was running in the background and logging the writing process. Students were instructed not to take notes on paper. In this way, Inputlog could register every instant the students switched between their own text document and the digital sources, in this way, students’ recursive behavior was logged.

Free recall

After one week, the participants were asked to recall as much content as they could from the texts that they had read (without accessing them). This measure provides an indication of long-term comprehension of the texts.

Strategic reading from think-aloud protocols

Strategic reading was assessed through a think-aloud protocol, which was transcribed and coded following a category system elaborated following a deductive-inductive process. First, we analyzed the scientific literature, identified the studies that investigated strategic reading through think-aloud and created a list of reading strategies (e.g., Bereiter & Bird, 1985 ; Bråten & Strømsø, 2003 ). Then we examined 10% of the protocols to identify reading strategies that were not included in the list. This was the final list of reading strategies: Summarizing, Linking to prior knowledge, Digressing from topic, Expressing agreement with text, Linking to prior experiences, Identifying new information, Making proposals, Expressing disagreement with text, Voicing opinion, Identifying new perspectives, Expressing doubts, Assessing source, Comparing texts.

The protocols were coded through Qcamap (Fenzl & Mayring, 2017 ) by two independent coders, with a good inter-rater agreement ( k = 0.85). Then, we proceeded to calculate a composite score by adding the frequencies of all the functional reading strategies implemented (prior knowledge + agreement with text + prior experiences + new information + proposals + disagreement with text + personal opinion + perspective on topic + doubts + source relevance texts comparison). Verbosity was also assessed (total number of words expressed).

Recursivity in writing from Inputlog

Recursivity was assessed through Inputlog while students were writing, capturing the degree of recursivity between the essay and the sources, among several other indices of the writing process. We counted the number of transitions between the essay and the source texts, which were available when students were writing (absolute recursivity). The total number of transitions was then divided by the total time on task, resulting in a recursivity indicator: the total number of transitions between the sources and the essay per minute. Since the time participants spent on the task differed, it is also recommended to work with relative measures, so that recursivity can be compared between participants (relative recursivity).

Quality of syntheses from text analyses

Students were asked to write an argumentative essay on the topic discussed in the texts. The quality of the essays was assessed considering three different dimensions:

1) The level of argument-counterargument integration. As mentioned in the introduction, in this study we have adopted an analytical approach consistent with the proposal of Nussbaum and Schraw ( 2007 ), based on the intertextual integration of arguments and counterarguments (elements defined from other theoretical perspectives as claim and counter claim or position and counter position). Regarding this criterion, we employed the following coding tool developed by Mateos et al. ( 2018 ); authors who also rely on the framework of integrating arguments and counterarguments. See Table 1 (see supplementary materials B for an extended version):

As seen in the coding system, refutation strategies are considered to be of lower level than weighing and synthesis strategies. This is due to the association of refutation with processes still linked to the bias of one-sided reasoning (Mateos et al., 2018 ; Nussbaum, 2008 ).

2) Intertextual theme : whether students are able to identify the storyline connecting the texts to each other and whether they explicitly state it in their essays. We assigned the following scores: 0 (students do not identify the common theme); 1 (students only mention the common sub-topic of two texts); 2 (students identify the two sub-topics discussed in the four texts and explicitly state it in the essay).

3) Supraintegration : if the students are able to propose solutions that respond to the controversies addressed in four texts, i.e., not only based on one of the sub-topics. We assigned the following scores: 0 (the student focuses on one of the two sub-topics - either external evaluation tests or teacher evaluation - without proposing solutions that address both aspects); 1 (the student is able to mention arguments linked to the two issues, but not to propose solutions for both aspects); 2 (minimal supraintegration: the student proposes at most two solutions to give a combined answer to the problems of the two sub-topics); 3 (maximum supraintegration: the student proposes more than two solutions to give a combined answer to the problems of the two sub-topics).

Two independent judges (authors 2 and 4 of the paper) coded 38% of the argumentative essays to calculate the inter-rater reliability. Reliability indexes were appropriate for the three dimensions (ICC Integration: 0.85; ICC Intertextual theme: 0.81; ICC Supraintegration: 0.67). The cases in which there was no agreement were resolved by consensus, and the remaining 62% of the essays were evaluated by one of these researchers using the established criteria. Essay length was also assessed.

Delay recalls

A week after reading the texts, students were asked to recall what they had read. The outcome variable was the number of valid inferential clauses, as a measure of depth of comprehension. Valid inferences are logical connection across content discussed in different parts of a text (local inferences) or in different texts (intertextual inferences). Moreover, we also considered valid inferences logical connection between new information from the texts and students’ prior knowledge (global inferences) (Diakidoy et al., 2015 ; Tarchi & Villalón, 2021 ). Two raters coded independently the protocols, with a good inter-rater agreement ( k = 0.90).

Data analysis

Research objectives were investigated through descriptive statistics and non-parametric statistical analyses, given the low sample-size and the non-normal distribution of data. To address the first objective (description of recursivity behavior), we analyzed the descriptive statistics and calculated through a series of non-parametric comparisons for paired samples (Wilcoxon test) to determine in which interval (relative) recursivity was higher. Rank biserial correlations were used as a measure of effect size.

To address the second objective (comparison between high- versus low-recursive writers in argumentative quality), we analyzed the interaction between recursivity and outcome variables through a series of non-parametric comparisons for independent samples (Mann-Whintey test), with rank biserial correlations as a measure of effect size. To this end, high- (n = 22) versus low-recursive writers (n = 21) were identified through a median split of the relative recursivity score. While this approach is less than ideal from a statistical perspective, it helps to provide some initial data on reading and writing processes. Preliminarly, we investigated if there were pre-existing difference between groups in prior knowledge, beliefs, or need for cognition.

To address the third objective (comparison between high- versus low-recursive writers in strategic reading), we conducted a series of Mann–Whitney U tests on each reading strategy, with rank biserial correlation as a measure of effect size. The same two groups of high- and low-recursive participants were used in this analysis.

Descriptive statistics for individual variables related to the participants (i.e., perceived prior knowledge, prior beliefs, need for cognition and time on task), process variables (recursivity, strategic reading) and outcome variables (from the essay and free recall tasks) are reported in Supplementary Materials C . Descriptive analyses revealed that the strategies most employed in prereading were all related to synthesis activities; specifically voicing opinion, expressing agreement, and expressing doubts.

Description of recursive behavior

Overall, students spent 82.5 min completing the task (with a median of 76.50). In terms of absolute recursivity values, students went back and forth between the text they were writing and the sources they were reading 55.05 times (with a median of 40). In terms of relative recursivity values, students switched on average 0.58 times per minute (with a median of 0.51). To address our description objective, relative recursivity was used as an independent variable. Students’ performance measured with Inputlog was split into three time intervals: beginning, middle and end This was done by dividing each writer’s total time on task into three equal parts. Because of the complexity of the research design, it was only possible to collect data on a small number of subjects. Due to the sample size of the study and the non-normal distribution of some of the variables, nonparametric tests were performed.

According to Wilcoxon’s test, recursivity in the middle (Median = 0.64) was higher than recursivity in the beginning (Median = 0.43) and in the end (Median = 0.37), see Table 2 .

The following two cases (see Fig. 1 ) serve as an example to illustrate the recursive behavioral pattern over the three phases (i.,e., time interval) of the writing process as measured with keystroke logging. As there is quite some variance in recursivity among the students, we present a case of a high-recursive writer (Fig. 1 , case on the left side) and a case of a low-recursive writer (Fig. 1 , case on the right side). Recursivity is visually represented at the bottom of these graphs by the orange line. When the orange line runs at the top, the focus is on the sources. Every red dot represents a source text. When the orange line runs at the bottom, the focus was on the student’s synthesis text. The blue and green lines show the text production (y-axis: number of characters) at a certain point in time (x-axis). The blue line shows the production during the process, while the green line represents the production in the document. We refer to Vandermeulen et al. ( 2020b ) for a more complete description of the process graph.

As can be observed in the process graphs, both the high- and the low-recursive writer start the process with a focus on the sources. The second phase of the writing process is marked by text production and a certain degree of recursivity. Also in the third and final phase, text production is dominant. These patterns are in line with findings from previous studies on writing processes of source-based tasks. Synthesis writing processes are generally marked by an initial reading phase (Chau et al., 2022 ; Vandermeulen et al., 2020d ) followed by text production in the middle part of the process. Additionally, recursivity is important for the integration of information or arguments (Vandermeulen et al., 2020c ).

In the beginning of the writing process, both the students read the sources without going to their own text document (the orange line runs at the top), so (almost) no text production is taking place. The second process phase is marked by text production. After reading the sources, the students start writing their own text. Both production lines are increasing. An analysis of the keystroke logging data of these two cases shows that the high-recursive writer produces 98 characters per minute in the middle part of the process, thus text is produced rather fluently. At the same time, this student displays a rather high recursivity in the middle phase; this is reflected in the switches between the synthesis text and the sources (2.13 switches per minute). The time spent in the sources is considerably lower than in the first process phase (25% in the second part versus 72% in the first part) as it concerns quick switches between the text document and the sources. Based on these observations, we can argue that it is plausible that the high-recursive writer regularly goes back to the sources to look for information to incorporate in their text. It can be assumed that it is a goal-oriented activity as the checking of the sources is combined with fluent text production.

Although the low-recursive writer switches considerably less frequently between the synthesis text and the sources than the high-recursive writer, recursivity is the highest in the middle part of the process (0.70 switches in phase 2). Although the writer starts producing text in the middle phase of the process, text production is not fluent as this writer types 44 characters per minute. This is not surprising given that it is rather hard to produce text fluently when one relies on their memory to retrieve information from the sources that were read in the first phase of the process.

Illustrative cases: Process graphs generated by Inputlog of the writing process of a high-recursive and a low-recursive writer

Differences between high-recursive and low-recursive writers

Differences in strategic reading (process variables).

For this analysis, we referred to absolute recursivity as relative recursivity was not associated with strategic reading. Overall, high-recursive students had more strategic reading than low-recursive students did (U = 137, p < .05). As a post-hoc analysis, we repeated the Mann-Whitney test on each category. It must be noticed however, that since we are implementing a multiple testing procedure, results should be interpreted with caution. High-recursive writers voiced more their opinions about text content, expressed more doubts and compared the texts more frequently (see Table 3 ).

Differences in argumentative synthesis writing and delayed recall

To address the second objective, we analyzed the interaction between recursivity and outcome variables through a series of non-parametric comparisons (with rank biserial correlations as a measure of effect size). We also identified high- (n = 22) versus low-recursive writers (n = 21) through a median split of the relative recursivity score. While this approach is less than ideal from a statistical perspective, it helps to provide some initial data on reading and writing processes. Students with different recursivity levels (high- versus low-recursive students) did not differ in any individual variables, namely perceived prior knowledge (U = 156, p > .05), prior beliefs (U = 158, p > .05) or need for cognition (U = 112, p > .05).

According to the results from the Mann–Whitney U test (employed because of the non-normal distribution of the data), intertextual activity and recall of valid inferences differed across recursivity levels. In both cases, high-recursive writers outperformed low-recursive writers. To better understand at what step in the intertextual integration process recursivity may have an impact, we repeated the Mann–Whitney U test on each level of intertextual integration (see Table 4 ). High-recursive writers outperformed low-recursive writers in intertextual theme identification and supraintegration, but not in intertextual integration.

Source-based writing and argumentative reasoning are two fundamental skills in today’s world. We are exposed to complex and controversial topics such as climate change, geopolitical conflicts, pandemics, which require the ability to develop an informed opinion which takes into consideration multiple perspectives and supporting arguments. For these reasons, students should be engaged in argumentative synthesis writing, a type of task in which learners are asked to synthesize multiple perspectives based on sources. Unfortunately, research has demonstrated that students’ competence in writing argumentative synthesis essays are suboptimal, even in higher education (Hyytinen et al., 2021 ; Marttunen & Kiili, 2022 ; Nelson & King, 2023 ; Tarchi & Villalón, 2021 ). To contribute to the scaffolding of students’ competences in argumentative synthesis writing tasks, we focused our attention on recursivity, that is, going back and forth between the text we are writing and the sources we are reading (Du & List, 2020 ; Mateos & Solé, 2009 ; Tarchi & Villalón, 2022 ), to provide evidence of the writing process by keystroke logging. Moreover, it is still unclear to what extent recursivity is a strategic process. The present study aimed at addressing these two issues and also to provide more information on the recursivity variable itself.

In the present study, participants displayed an overall minimal level of integration across texts in their essays. Most of the essays were rated as “Minimum integration via weighing or synthesizing with no or partial conclusion.” (Mode = 4). Regarding our first objective, describing the participants’ recursivity behavior, if we look at absolute scores, the level of recursivity among university students involved in an argumentative synthesis writing task seems reasonably high (half of the participants with at least 40 switches between written text and sources), although with a high dispersion of data points, illustrating a consistent variance of recursivity within our sample. Although the absolute number of switches seems high, when we take into account how long they worked on the task, we notice that participants did not switch that often. In respect to the relative scores, our results are coherent with past studies that have indicated that recursivity is most frequently carried out in the middle part of the writing process (Vandermeulen et al., 2020c ). Moreover, overall, the relative level (number of switches per minute) was relatively low, compared to performances reported in previous studies. For instance, inspection of data gathered as part of national baseline study in the Netherlands (Vandermeulen et al., 2020a ) shows that Dutch students in their last year of upper-secondary school, switched on average 3.02 times per minute between the sources and their text when writing an argumentative text based on conflicting sources. Conversely, in our study we found an average of 0.58 of switches per minute. There are several reasons that may explain this result. Firstly, in the previously referenced national baseline study (Vandermeulen et al., 2020b ), students wrote for a maximum of 45 min, whereas in our study the task was open and students took an average of 82.5 min. This could depend on a higher complexity of the task (depending on the topic or the texts) or a higher engagement. Secondly, university students may have a more strategic approach or a higher expertise when reading sources, thus requiring to switch from sources to text less frequently. On the contrary, our sample was quite homogeneous for other control variables. This might be also the reason because we found no effect of the control variables we explored.

The hypothesis we had for the second objective was substantially supported by our data analysis and coherent with previous studies (Du & List, 2020 ; Solé et al., 2013 ). High-recursive students had a better performance in identifying the complexity of the issue explored (intertextual theme identification and supraintegration). However, intertextual integration performances in argumentative essays did not different across recursivity levels. This last result contradicts our research hypothesis, and it may depend that on the fact that the intertextual integration we used (Mateos et al., 2018 ) was originally designed and employed for intervention studies in which students were being taught the three strategies described by Nussbaum and Schraw ( 2007 ) and were expected to use them. Participants in those studies also had less complex pro-con tasks, with only a single major issue and only one pro-text and one con-text.

Moreover, the recall of valid inferences was also associated with a higher recursivity, indicating that a more effortful and nonlinear processing of the sources during writing fosters reading comprehension. These results are, to the best of our knowledge, the first direct evidence supporting the relevance of recursivity for intertextual integration and depth of comprehension in source-based writing. However, recursivity is not frequently found in the common behavior of secondary or even undergraduate students (Fidalgo et al., 2014 ; Mateos et al., 2018 : Solé et al., 2013 ) For that reason, it is essential that they receive instruction that includes this element, although it seems it is not easily incorporated. Tarchi and Villalón ( 2022 ) tested whether it is possible to scaffold university students’ recursivity through critical questions. The intervention was effective in improving text quality and induced, at least in some participants, a higher recursivity level as compared to the control group.

In this line, the hypothesis we had for the third objective was also supported by our data analysis. Recursivity was associated with strategic processing during reading, as assessed through the think-aloud methodology. This is in line with previous research (Du & List, 2020 ; Solé et al., 2013 ), pointing out that recursivity is linked to self-regulated writers. Past research on thinking aloud when reading multiple texts has emphasized the importance of organization and comprehension confirmation strategies in high-grade students, whereas most of the sample engaged in more shallow processing of texts and implemented memorization and elaboration strategies (Bråten & Strømsø, 2003 ). In this study, expressing opinions and doubts, and comparing the texts were associated with recursivity, suggesting that students may have looked back at the sources while writing their own text to integrate content across texts or text information with prior beliefs.

Limitations and directions for future research

When interpreting the findings of the current study, some limitations should be taken into account. Firstly, the sample size was quite low, although larger than in previous studies with similar methodologies (Du & List, 2020 ; Solé et al., 2013 ). For that reason, it was not allowed to run more complex analysis. Nevertheless, the sample size was appropriate for the statistical analysis performed in this study. As we provided evidence supporting the relevance of recursivity, future research should further investigate it.

Secondly, recursivity was associated with strategic reading but not with strategies implemented while writing. This was done as think-aloud is a methodology validated for reading but not for writing. The use of retrospective think-aloud protocols may address this issue (although participants do not always recall correctly what they were thinking). Moreover, we used Inputlog only when writing and not when reading not to overload participants, but in future the reading and writing activities should be studied more in terms of a flow of interweaved processes and activate Inputlog and or think-aloud from when they start reading to when they finish writing.

Thirdly, working memory, along with several other individual differences, may have influenced learners’ performances (e.g., the free recall measure or the actual need for recursivity). Given that the present research design does not allow us to assess working memory, future studies should investigate the influence of working memory on recursivity.

Conclusions

Recursivity is a behavior that can be tracked with softwares such as Inputlog. Thus, it represents a good candidate for being a learning analytics associated with quality of writing. As the reliance on online platforms to support learning processes is increasing, there is a high demand for automated assessments of writing products and processes (Strobl et al., 2019 ). Recursivity may be tracked to provide feedback to students as they progress in their writing. For instance, students displaying a low level of recursivity may receive a warning to go back to sources while writing, to support either planning, composing, or revising.

Importantly, the qualitative analysis of two writers suggests that high- versus low-recursive writers seem to address the task with different approaches. Good writers refer more often to sources at the beginning of the process, whereas in both cases they go back to sources in the middle part of the process. Our study suggests that more research is needed to investigate what good writers do in the initial stages of writing.

In the current society, citizens need to deal with information from different sources on a controversial topic and they should be able to express their own view in writing. Given that recursivity is a central element when composing a source-based text, students need evidence-based instruction which marks the role of it (Castells et al., 2022 ; van Ockenburg et al., 2019 ). In order to develop such instruction, it is of utmost importance to gain a better understanding of recursion processes. Past studies have shown that instruction may improve recursivity (Tarchi & Villalón, 2022 ). However, insights obtained from this study could provide valuable input to develop interventions aimed at supporting students’ source-based writing and, more in particular, the recursive process. More research on how recursivity is developed and promoted should be carried out, but this study is a first step.

Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2009). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In S. H. Waters, & W. Shneider (Eds.), Metacognition, Strategy Use, and instruction (pp. 201–225). Guilford Press.

Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2008). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the Verbalisation Method Affect Learning? Metacognition and Learning , 3 , 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9009-6

Article Google Scholar

Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction , 2 , 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0202_2

Braine, G. (1995). Writing in the natural sciences and engineering. In D. Belcher, & G. S. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 113–134). Albex.

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2003). A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and Writing , 16 , 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022895207490

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 42 , 116–131.

Casado-Ledesma, L., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Mateos, M., Granado-Peinado, M., & Martín, E. (2021). Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: Instructional practices in secondary education. Instructional Science , 49 , 515–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3

Castells, N., Minguela, M., & Nadal, E. (2022). Writing a synthesis versus reading: Strategies involved and impact on comprehension. Reading and Writing , 36 , 849–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10341-y

Chau, L., Leijten, M., Bernolet, S., & Vangehuchten, L. (2022). Envisioning multilingualism in source-based writing in L1, L2, and L3: The relation between source use and text quality. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.914125

Craik, F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present… and future? Memory (Hove, England) , 10 , 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000135

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 11 , 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

Dai, D. Y., & Wang, X. (2007). The role of need for cognition and reader beliefs in text comprehension and interest development. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 32 , 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.002

De La Paz, S., & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 35 , 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001

Diakidoy, I. A. N., Christodoulou, S. A., Floros, G., Iordanou, K., & Kargopoulos, P. V. (2015). Forming a belief: The contribution of comprehension to the evaluation and persuasive impact of argumentative text. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 85 , 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12074

Du, H., & List, A. (2020). Researching and writing based on multiple texts. Learning and Instruction , 66 , 101297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101297

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders . National Council of Teachers of English.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind Culture and Activity , 5 , 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3

Fenzl, T., & Mayring, P. (2017). QCAmap: Eine interaktive webapplikation für qualitative inhaltsanalyse. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation ZSE , 37 , 333–340.

Google Scholar

Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., Arias-Gundín, O., & Martínez-Cocó, B. (2014). Comparison of reading-writing patterns and performance of students with and without reading difficulties. Psicothema , 26 , 442–448. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2014.23

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

Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2019). Aligning keystrokes with cognitive processes in writing. In E. Lingren & K. Sullivan (Eds.), Observing Writing. Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 306–325). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392526_015

Graham, S., Graham, S., Fulton, M., & Lou (2020). Reading and writing connections: A commentary. In R. A. Alves, T. Limpo, & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading-writing connections. Literacy studies (19 vol., pp. 313–317). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38811-9_19

Granado-Peinado, M., Cuevas, I., Olmos, R., Martín, E., Casado-Ledesma, L., & Mateos, M. (2023). Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: Explicit instruction and practice. Reading and Writing , 36 , 909–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x

Granado-Peinado, M., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Cuevas, I. (2019). Teaching to write collaborative argumentative syntheses in higher education. Reading and Writing , 32 , 2037–2058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09939-6

Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication , 29 , 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260

Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting Reading & writing in Second Language writing instruction . The University of Michigan Press.

Hu, J., & Gao, X. (2017). Using think-aloud protocol in self-regulated reading research. Educational Research Review , 22 , 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.004

Hyytinen, H., Siven, M., Salminen, O., & Katajavuori, N. (2021). Argumentation and Processing Knowledge in Open-Ended assignment tasks: Challenges and Accomplishments among Pharmacy Students. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice , 18 , 37–51.

Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing Research: Using Inputlog to analyze writing processes. Written Communication , 30 , 358–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2020). Strategy use in learning from multiple texts: An investigation of the integrative framework of learning from multiple texts. Frontiers in Education , 5 , 578062. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.578062

Luna, M., Villalón, R., Martínez-Álvarez, I., & Mateos, M. (2023). Online interventions to help college students to improve the degree of integration of their argumentative synthesis. Reading and Writing , 36 , 937–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10248-0

Marttunen, M., & Kiili, C. (2022). Supporting university students’ argumentative source-based writing. Written Language & Literacy , 25 , 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00068.mar

Mateos, M., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Villalón, R., Martínez, I., & González-Lamas, J. (2018). Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources. Cognition and Instruction , 36 , 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300

Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education , 24 , 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178760

Nelson, N. (2008). The reading–writing nexus in discourse research. In C. BaZerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 435–450). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nelson, N., & King, J. R. (2023). Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Reading and Writing , 36 , 769–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5

Nussbaum, M. E. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument–counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology , 100 , 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549

Nussbaum, M. E., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education , 76 , 59–92. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92

Perl, S. (1980). Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication , 31 , 363–369. https://doi.org/10.2307/356586

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading . Erlbaum.

Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education , 39 , 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952

Schoor, C., Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2023). Effects of context and discrepancy when reading multiple documents. Reading and Writing , 36 , 1111–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10321-2

Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students’ processes and products. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature , 4 , 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033847.00732.af

Segev-Miller, R. (2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: The case of intertextual processing strategies. In M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 231–250). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1572-6304(2007)0000020016

Solé, I., Miras, M., Castells, N., Espino, S., & Minguela, M. (2013). Integrating information: An analysis of the processes involved and the products generated in a written synthesis task. Written Communication , 30 , 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312466532

Spivey, N. N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication , 7 , 256–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/074108839000700

Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning . Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/358470

Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly , 24 , 7–26.

Strobl, C., Ailhaud, A., Benetos, K., Devitt, A., Kruse, O., & Rapp, C. (2019). Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies. Computers & Education , 131 , 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.005

Tarchi, C. (2021). Effects of think-aloud on students’ multiple-documents comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 35 , 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3782

Tarchi, C., & Villalón, R. (2021). The influence of thinking dispositions on integration and recall of multiple texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 91 , 1498–1516. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12432

Tarchi, C., & Villalón, R. (2022). Fostering university students’ written argumentation via recursive reading: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of College Reading and Learning , 52 , 42–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2022.2021771

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument . Cambridge University Press.

Vandermeulen, N., De Maeyer, S., Van Steendam, E., Lesterhuis, M., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2020a). Mapping synthesis writing in various levels of dutch upper-secondary education. A national baseline study on text quality, writing process and students’ perspectives on writing. Paedagogische Studiën , 97 , 187–236.

Vandermeulen, N., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2020b). Reporting writing process feedback in the classroom: Using keystroke logging data to reflect on writing processes. Journal of Writing Research , 12 , 109–140. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.05

Vandermeulen, N., van den Broek, B., Van Steendam, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2020c). In search of an effective source use pattern for writing argumentative and informative synthesis texts. Reading and Writing , 33 , 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09958-3

Vandermeulen, N., Van Steendam, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2020d). Dataset - Baseline data LIFT Synthesis Writing project [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3893538

Vandermeulen, N., Van Steendam, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2023). Introduction to the special issue on synthesis tasks: Where reading and writing meet. Reading and Writing , 36 , 747–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10394-z

van Ockenburg, L., van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2019). Learning to write synthesis texts: A review of intervention studies. Journal of Writing Research , 10 , 401–428. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.01

Wengelin, Å., Frid, J., Johansson, R., & Johansson, V. (2019). Combining keystroke logging with other methods: Towards an experimental environment for writing process research. In Observing Writing (pp. 30–49). Brill.

Weston-Sementelli, J. L., Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. S. (2018). Comprehension and writing strategy training improves performance on content-specific source-based writing tasks. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 28 , 106–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0127-7

Download references

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Firenze within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This study has been partially funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education under the project PID2019-105250RB-I00.

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Firenze within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dept. of Education, Languages, Interculture, Literatures, and Psychology, University of Florence, via San Salvi, 12, Florence, 50135, Italy

Christian Tarchi, Lidia Casado-Ledesma & Anna Paola Fallaci

Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain

Ruth Villalón

Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Nina Vandermeulen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Tarchi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

Authors have no competing interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tarchi, C., Villalón, R., Vandermeulen, N. et al. Recursivity in source-based writing: a process analysis. Read Writ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10482-8

Download citation

Accepted : 16 September 2023

Published : 26 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10482-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Recursivity
Think aloud
Process analysis
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

5 reasons to give students feedback on their writing process

Have you ever taken a piece of writing on your computer and dropped it wholesale into the recycle bin? Ever crumpled up a piece of paper full of writing and shot it at a trash can, hoping to make a basket? There’s something universally cathartic about being able to start over again—from scratch—with writing. Perhaps it’s because we learn something new as we write. And though our early failed efforts can be painful, they do point us in a new direction and get us closer to what we really want to say with our writing. When you give students feedback on their writing process, you can help them do just that.

Writing is a recursive process, not a linear one

Research shows that this idea of starting over with writing has merit. Writing is a recursive process, not a linear one. The recursive model was first proposed by Linda Flower and John Hayes in 1981, replacing the previous linear model I was taught in school, which involved outlining, completing a first draft, editing, completing a second draft, and so on, all in the same order each time.

In the recursive model, writers constantly move between cognitive processes, such as planning (setting goals, generating ideas, organizing ideas), drafting (putting a writing plan into action), and reviewing (evaluating, editing, revising). Writers move fluidly between these processes to accomplish specific, self-generated goals.

Writers change their goals based on what they learn through the act of writing

According to Flower and Hayes, writing goals change, and they are generated in one of two ways:

The writer establishes high-level goals and supporting sub-goals based on their purpose for writing. These goals are often set before writing begins. For example, a high-level goal for a student in elementary school might be, “I want to tell my school principal about how moving more during the day is good for us, so I can ask for PE class every day instead of every other day.”
The writer changes their writing goal, or creates a new goal, based on what they learn through the act of writing. For the same student, the evolution of their goal might look like this: “My research says that students need 60 minutes of physical activity a day, so my plan for PE class every day isn’t enough. I need to get creative. How can students move more throughout the day? If I start my letter with these ideas, I’ll really get my principal’s attention.” (Cue shot of crumpled-up piece of paper landing in trash can.)

Often, those tossed-out efforts are proof positive that we’re engaged in the writing process and, more importantly, learning from it!

Students and their teachers may learn more from feedback on the writing process than on the written product

Flower and Hayes also suggest that educators should give students feedback on their writing process—not just the written product—when they give students input. This is because it can provide more useful information for students and teachers than focusing on the written product alone. Here are five reasons why:

1. Proficient writing is closely linked to a writer’s ability to self-regulate

Self-regulation is the ability to manage your thoughts, emotions, and behaviors to achieve your goals. In writing, self-regulation involves managing your environment, behaviors, and personal thoughts to effectively plan, draft, and review your work.

Educational psychologists describe these fundamental forms of self-regulation in writing as follows:

Environmental processes are the external conditions and resources that writers use to facilitate their writing. This includes managing the physical environment (like finding a quiet place to write), seeking feedback from others, and using tools and resources (such as dictionaries or writing software) to enhance writing quality.
Behavioral processes are the actions and strategies that writers employ to improve their writing. These include goal setting and generation tasks like outlining, drafting, and revising. But they also include self-reinforcement, such as rewarding ourselves when we meet a writing goal (like treating myself to a piece of dark chocolate when I finish writing this blog!).
Personal processes are the internal cognitive and emotional mechanisms that influence writing. These include beliefs (confidence in one’s writing abilities), motivation (the desire to accomplish a goal with one’s writing), and cognitive strategies (like planning and organizing). They also include emotional regulation, such as how we manage stress and maintain focus while writing.

These three forms of self-regulation interact in a cyclic feedback loop—a loop that gives students many opportunities to self-monitor and adjust their strategies based on what’s going well (or not so well) in their writing.

Unfortunately, traditional feedback methods for student writing often deprive students of these opportunities to become self-regulated learners . In many cases, self-reflection and dialogue produce more relevant feedback for students, as my colleague Gina Wilmurth writes about in “Speak up! How getting students to talk more can improve writing.”

2. Multilingual learners engage in distinct writing processes and benefit from varied feedback

Researchers have found that multilingual learners use distinct writing strategies compared to monolingual learners . These processes aid multilingual learners in navigating the complexities of writing in English by leveraging their full linguistic repertoires. For example:

Multilingual learners frequently rehearse phrases and words to ensure accuracy and fluency in their writing. This helps them internalize and produce language in English that aligns with their intended meaning.
Multilingual learners often switch to their native language to retrieve a specific word or idea because it provides access to a broader range of vocabulary and concepts, which can then be translated into English.
Multilingual learners may revert to their native language to review their writing for coherence , checking that writing is logically structured and ideas flow smoothly.

It’s important to remember that the language students learn first is the bedrock upon which all other languages develop. That’s why empowering multilingual learners to use translanguaging during their writing process is so effective.

When providing feedback on writing to multilingual learners, the type of feedback matters, too. In a meta-analysis of 25 studies on this topic, peer feedback was found to be more effective than teacher feedback for non-native speakers of English . Non-native speakers also benefitted from more varied feedback than native speakers, including oral, written, and computer-based feedback. Finally, the analysis revealed that coaching students on the revision process improved the content of their writing more than giving feedback on a specific written product. For example, providing general explanations about grammatical patterns was more effective than identifying specific errors.

3. Feedback that promotes a growth mindset is more effective than feedback that highlights errors

While feedback generally leads to writing gains for all students, all feedback is not equal. Based on the body of research, some feedback leads to significant gains in learning, some has no effect, and some has a negative effect . Formative feedback, which is given directly to students as part of everyday teaching and learning, is the most effective feedback for writing.

Feedback that promotes a growth mindset (i.e., using effort to increase learning and accepting that mistakes are an important part of the learning process) is also effective. This is particularly true for low-achieving students because it draws a clear connection between effort and achievement (“My writing improved because I worked hard”), which leads to higher expectations for future writing tasks and more attention to effort. Unfortunately, a student’s growth mindset is rendered useless whenever we include a grade with our comments. Repeated studies show that grades alone and grades with comments produce no learning gains . However, comments alone—as is typical in a formative feedback cycle—can result in large learning gains.

4. How we frame feedback to students makes a difference

While formative feedback can improve students’ learning and enhance teachers’ teaching, this is only true when students are receptive to the feedback and the feedback is on target.

In one study involving tenth-graders, students didn’t understand what the feedback was intended to achieve . A teacher’s feedback on word choice, for example, was perceived as a request to use “bigger words” that would impress the teacher. Another study with seventh-graders, however, produced a different result. Researchers placed a handwritten sticky note on some students’ essays that read, “I’m giving you these comments because I have very high expectations and I know that you can reach them.” This simple reframing led to significant gains in writing quality, especially among African American students . Students who received these notes were 40% more likely than the control group to revise their essays and integrate the teacher’s feedback. Why? The sticky notes built trust between teachers and students.

Clearly, how we frame our feedback can make all the difference. That’s why well-known researchers Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey have a new framework for creating a positive culture of feedback in the classroom. Their “4 C’s of Feedback” focus on care, credibility, clarity, and communication. They also address many of the issues I’ve noted in this article, such as the importance of one’s environment, building trust, and self-regulation. To learn more, watch the free webinar How Feedback Work s .

In the meantime, when you give students feedback on their writing process, follow these dos and don’ts .

5. Feedback about the writing process is more likely to transfer to future writing tasks

There are many ways to give students feedback on their writing process effectively. What’s most important is to start, because students are more likely to transfer this feedback to future writing tasks. For a more holistic view, gather input from students, their peers, and adults who observe them writing. Start simply by asking students to rate a series of “I statements” on a four-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree).

Here are 10 statements to get you started:

I enjoy writing at school.
I set goals when I am writing.
It’s hard for me to come up with ideas when I write.
I do not usually plan before I start writing.
I can stay focused when I write.
I like making changes to my writing.
I do not like to share my writing with others.
I write differently depending on who will read my writing.
I know who I can go to for help with my writing.
I believe writing is important in everyday life.

Students can revisit these statements throughout the year to track their growth as writers. Also, make sure that you take time during every writing conference to discuss a student’s writing process. During these conversations, you can suggest strategies that might help the student improve their process based on their specific needs (e.g., planning, staying focused, getting help).

And remember, there’s always room for improvement

The writing process first proposed by Flower and Hayes in 1981 was so influential that it spawned fourteen other models, including four revisions by Flower and Hayes to their original work. The lesson here is that there’s always room for improvement when it comes to teaching writing and supporting student writers. For example, more recent studies show that digital support for academic writing is most effective when it encourages students to self-monitor and develop their own writing strategies .

As an educator and writer, I’m excited about these new technologies that can aid us in writing. I’ll probably still feel compelled to toss out an early draft or two. But next time, I just might ask an AI chatbot what it thinks before I do.

Recommended for you

Speak up! How getting students to talk more can improve their writing and writing process

The what, why, and when of decodable and leveled texts

4 ways to teach academic vocabulary and help students master grade-level content

View all posts

Reading differentiation made easy

MAP Reading Fluency now includes Coach, a virtual tutor designed to help students strengthen reading skills in as little as 30 minutes a week.

Helping students grow

Students continue to rebound from pandemic school closures. NWEA® and Learning Heroes experts talk about how best to support them here on our blog, Teach. Learn. Grow.

See the post

Put the science of reading into action

The science of reading is not a buzzword. It’s the converging evidence of what matters and what works in literacy instruction. We can help you make it part of your practice.

Get the guide

Support teachers with PL

High-quality professional learning can help teachers feel invested—and supported—in their work.

Read the article

Content disclaimer:

Teach. Learn. Grow. includes diverse perspectives that are meant to be a resource to educators and leaders across the country and around the world. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of NWEA.

Sample details

Writing process

Words: 1562

Essay Writing is a Recursive Process Discuss

Recursive ‘is a process of doing things again and again till they make sense and ready to be presented to the audience and the lecturer’ as highlighted by Ebest, at al (2005). It is a repetitive way, which makes the generation and the bringing up of new ideas and points easier, until they make a good flow and sense to the audience and the lecture as presented on https://goo.gle/tYpMcp. This process has five stages which are needed to be taken into account before starting to write an assignment, essay or thesis. These stages are as follows prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and proof reading as shown by Langan (2005) (6th ed). This process goes an extra mile in writing, as the writer takes his or her time to think on what he or she is about to write and how to put it on paper.

When writing an essay, assignment or thesis we must firstly do the prewriting process. The prewriting process is the process when you only have the topic paper and the pen, which means, one will be starting on scratch. At this stage, that is when one need to think as wide as he can. Prewriting can also be called the planning process on what you want to write. As presented by Clawson. (2016) https://youtu.be/ASw-iAd1TZo he highlighted that it has four stages which are as follows brainstorming, free writing, questioning and clustering . He said ‘brainstorming is the way of coming up with an idea or something like a memorable event in your life experience.’ When we have a topic we take a second step which is free writing, he highlighted this as, ‘free writing as a way of writing anything that comes on to your mind.’ Then the third step he said ‘questioning is the way of asking questions to yourself like which, where, what, when, why and who.’ Then on clustering he said it is the last stage of free writing process as, ‘it is when we take all those things we had thought off onto a paper and start to organise them.’ This process of planning is a good way of coming up with ideas and knowledge on how to come up with something we do not have an idea on before, it helps people to have composure whenever they are given an assignment.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

Furthermore it is very easy to those who are not even interested in writing and composing, because it has simple procedures to follow. It gives a writer more time to think and organize on coming up with something which will be very interesting to the audience. However prewriting process is very monotonous because it needs more time to think for it, to be effective and to create a good meaning to the audience. It is not applicable when someone has things that are affecting him or her emotionally that will not give him time to think about anything, and the assignments will be needed to be handed in two days. If any procedure is missing in coming up with an essay it will be meaningless to those whom you are presenting to.

We then move on to the second stage of the writing process which is the drafting process. Drafting process ‘it is where by we take those ideas generated from the prewriting process on to the paper or a first draft as you can refer to the plan or the prewriting process’ as indicated by Sebraneck (1992). He also said ‘you can come up with ideas you never came across when you were jotting down the points in the first stage.’ It leads to the development of the existing ideas and generation of the newer ones. ‘When rereading the first draft you can come across and you may discover a word, phrase or an idea that can be stated well’ this was highlighted by Ebest, at al (2005). He took this idea further when he said ‘writing on a paper does not mean the first paper drafted is the one which focuses on perfection.’ Drafting can shut the creative side of your mind and lead to writer’s block. As presented on https://youtu.be/xqk6-ePxPa8 they also said ‘it is the product of free writing process.’ This process it involves the organisation of thoughts that have been presented on the prewriting stage till they make a meaning and sense. ‘It helps the writer to elaborate key ideas which are mainly focusing on the given topic or assignment’ as propound by Elbow (2019). However drafting process is stressing as it is also a process of repetition of what have been done in the planning process.

It requires a lot of papers to be drafted before taken to the final draft and time taken will be more as you will revisit to the same thing. It leads to boredom as much time will be spent doing the same thing.

The third stage is the revising stage theses are now the final stage of the recursive process. Revising stage it is when we polish the styles and fix grammar, spelling and punctuation errors. This stage requires one to have fresh eyes as it is one of the final stages of the writing process. ‘It involves rearrangement of paragraphs and sentences you may add or you can take out information for it to make sense’ as highlighted by Strunk (1995). You can discover some furs in the arrangement o statements of the sentences and also calling for transposition. This is the managing and correcting stage. This process also involves the generation of the new idea as removing irrelevant sentences and correcting misspelt words leads to addition of new flesh on to the points for them to make sense. The correction of your own mistakes it helps a writer to have more time researching more about the assignment. It gives room to consult friends to come and take a look and go through your essay and correct you and give ideas and correct you before going on to editing. ‘This stage makes the essay unique, more precise and effective’ as highlighted by Lyons (2000). However as this process needs to revisit what we have done it will lead to forgetting and ignoring other points that we thought they were strong enough without adding anything. The involvement of friends may lead to misunderstandings as they will try to take other points in different ways to create different meanings.

The fourth stage is the editing process which will lead us to the final product of writing process. Revising it also involve rearrangement of paragraphs. Strunk and White (1995) said ‘they can produce what they are after on the first try quite often you will discover, on examining the completed that they are furs in the arrangement.’ Which means this stage requires more focuses and interest to make the corrections. This process is an ongoing process, not a onetime even. It is encourages the author to edit his work as possible. This process focuses on the correction and the correct use of grammar punctuation. It is easy to correct the errors when you go through your own work reading out loud as it can be ease to allocate where you have made a mistake. The editing of your own work need to be done more than two or more times to impress the readers. Nordquist (2019) highlighted that ‘most effective editing involves tightening …. Short run or work and it becomes better’. This process avoids mistakes to be presented to the audience as it takes a broader look on the correction of mistakes. As moving step by step makes the writer to think on adding some flesh to the sentence and add meanings. It gives the writer confidence to make his work more cohesive and more interest as he will correct his own mistakes made during composing. It makes good flow of the essay or presentation. However this process is very time consuming as you redo editing more than two times.

The last stage is the proofreading process which is the end product of the prewriting process. Proof reading one feels comfortable with the style of your writing as you will be ready to publish. This involves going through every point and every statement in looking for errors and punctuation, spacing, capitalisation of words, sources used and italics used.

In an, nut shell essay writing is a recursive process as the advantages outweighs the disadvantages like it is time consuming. It creates boredom as there is repetition of the work done. There are lot of procedure that are needed to be taken into account. So the prewriting, process, drafting, revising, editing and proofreading are needed to be taken into account in coming up with a good essay and to make a good flow.

Reference List

Clawson. C (2016) ‘Brainstorming’ Available at https://youtu.be/ASw-iAd1TZo (accessed on 16 may 2016).
Ebest, S, B., Alred, G, J., Brusaw, C, T. and Olio, W, E (5th ed) (2005) Writing A-Z.
New York: McGraw Hills Companies Inco.
Langan, J. (6th ed) (2005) College Writing Skills. New York: McGraw Hill Inco
Lyons, E.(2002) Notification Book Proposal Anybody can Write. New York: Penguin Random House
Nordquist, R. (2019) Editing available at Wikipedia (accessed on 03 July 2019).
Sebraneck, P., Merger, V. and Camper, D. (1992) Writers Inc. Burlington: Educational Publishing House.
Mometrix Academy. (2019) ‘Recursive Writing Process’ available at https://goo.gle/tYpMcp (date accessed on16 may 2019).

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/essay-writing-is-a-recursive-process-discuss/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Writing Experience
Sex education
English Language
Free education
Special education
Critical Thinking
Online Education Vs Tradi...
Standardized Testing

Check more samples on your topics

A rhetorical analysis of analytical writing and descriptive writing styles and a comparison and contrast of the two writing styles.

Rhetorical Analysis/Inquiry & Descriptive Genres. There are many different writing genres, for example analytical and descriptive to name two. Analytical writing is commonly used to show logical relationships between two or more concepts. As for descriptive writing it describes clear details of people, places, objects, or events in order to reveal a vivid picture to

Hiring Process in Bank Alfalah Limited According to Decision Making Process

Decision Making

Acknowledgment I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave us the possibility to complete this assignment. I want to thank the Department of Business Administration for giving me permission to commence this assignment in the first instance, to do the necessary research work. I am deeply indebted to our supervisor Madam Syeda Humaira

The Teaching Process and the Process of Teaching Sample

The process-essay written by Diane Cole “Don’t merely stand there” ( Cole 346-350 ) describes illustrations of how person when faced with an violative remark may talk to the individual who said the violative comment ( s ) . Overall this essay is really good written and the assorted illustrations of ways in which person

War can never be justified, discuss Argumentative Essay

War can never be justified. Discuss War. One of the most destructive and futile thing on our planet, yet the ambition of war is usually to find peace is it not? Battle tends to start over the love of power; William Gladstone once said "We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will

Essay – Company Law Discuss Task

The area of law relevant to this case study is directors' duties of care and due diligence, of avoiding conflict of interest, as well as of good faith and proper purposes. Step 2: Discuss relevant legal principles Harris, Harboring and Adams (2011, 485) states that directors owe a fiduciary duty to their company and as such,

Applying the Three-Step Writing Process to Wiki

Whether you are creating a new wiki, adding material to an existing one, or revising one, applying the three-step writing process is effective and adaptable. While wikis don’t require that you have much technical or writing expertise, it is still important for you to apply the three-step process to assure that your contributions are credible

Process Writing Packing for a Trip

Everyone dreads the whole packing process for a trip or a long vacation. Getting everything in order can be a major drag. People do not realize it, but there are certain processes to follow that can make this whole cycle a lot easier. “What to pack? ” “Where to put it? ” “Do we have

Writing and Process

human communication

Writing and Process Essay BY ni4238901 Process essays are essays that explain to the audience how to do something or how to complete a task. This may involve explaining how to put items or ingredients together to make a finished product, such as in a recipe. These essays can also explain how to accomplish a

My Process of Writing

Everyone has a different type of writing process that they go through every time that they write a paper from start to finish. I personally like to start writing a paper at least a week in advance before it is due that way I will receive a good grade for the assignment. I’ve always liked

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

35 Writing Is Recursive

by Chris Blankenship

What does Pinker mean when he says “recursively,” though?

So, what does recursion have to do with writing?

There are many ways to think about the writing process, but here’s one that my students have said makes sense to them. It involves five separate ways of thinking about a writing task:

Invention: Coming up with ideas.

Research: Finding new information.

Drafting: Creating the text.

Revision: Literally, seeing the text again.

Editing: Looking at the surface level of the text.

On the other hand, Sommers also researched how experienced writers approach a writing task. She found that their writing process is different from that of student writers:

For example, a colleague and I wrote a chapter for a book on working conditions at colleges, a topic we’re interested in.

When we started, we had to come up with an idea for the text by talking through our experiences and deciding on a purpose for the text. [Invention]
Although we both knew something about the topic already, we read articles and talked to experts to learn more about it. [Research]
From that research, we decided that our original idea didn’t quite fit with the research that was out there already, so we made some changes to the big idea. [Invention]
After that, we sat down and, over several sessions on different days, created a draft of our text. [Drafting]
When we read through the text, we discovered that the order of the information didn’t make as much sense as we had first thought, so we moved around some paragraphs, making changes to those paragraphs to help the flow of the new order. [Revision]
After that, we sent the rough draft to the editors of the book for feedback. When we got the chapter back, the editors commented that our topic didn’t quite fit the theme of the book, so, using that feedback, we changed the focus of the ideas. [Invention]
Then we changed the text to reflect those new ideas. [Revision]
We also got feedback from peer reviewers who pointed out that one part of the text was a little confusing, so we had to learn more about the ideas in that section. [Research]
We changed the text to reflect that new understanding. [Revision and Editing]
After the editors were satisfied with those revisions, we proofread the article and sent it off for final approval. [Editing]

“Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers” in College Composition and Communication 31.4, 378-88 ↵

Share This Book

Home News Tribune
Courier News
Jersey Mayhem
NJ Politics
National Politics

College essays matter. Here's how to write one that stands out | College Connection

Students facing the college application process typically dread one component: the Common App essay.

Students are presented with six essay prompts, as well as a seventh option, which is “topic of your choice.” Students therefore have limitless possibilities for this essay which will be carefully reviewed by each college to which the student applies.

The goal of college admissions officers is to learn about the student who is applying: personal qualities, struggles, ambitions, priorities. On other parts of the application a student’s “data” is detailed. So, this is not the place to write about one’s SAT scores, GPA, or intended major, or to enumerate one’s activities. It is the place to write about an event, situation, or life circumstance that has influenced the student’s attitudes, goals, and perceptions of life.

The options are limitless. Students can write about life occurrences that impacted them: an illness, a learning disability, a relocation. They can use a sport, club, organization, or volunteer group as the overarching framework within which they learned important life lessons.

More: The biggest key to college acceptance | College Connection

One student’s essay, which went viral after its author was accepted to a multitude of Ivy League schools, focused on lessons she learned from visits to Costco over the years. In short, students can write about anything that has impacted them – hopefully in a positive way.

Then, students face supplemental essays. Many colleges, including almost all the most competitive ones, require an essay that is specific to the school. Typically, the question is along the lines of, “Why do you want to attend this institution?” or “Why did you choose your particular major and how will our school prepare you to meet your future goals?”

More: These are the latest trends in college admissions | College Connection

Colleges are aware that students typically apply to 8 to 12 different schools, and they are trying to discern “demonstrated interest,” or, in other words, the likelihood of a student enrolling if accepted. So, students should utilize each supplemental essay as an opportunity to demonstrate their interest in the particular college, and should specifically state the courses, programs, study abroad options, internships, and any other characteristics that make the institution a perfect match for their college ambitions.

By showing enthusiasm for each school and sharing their attributes through the Common App and supplemental essays, students will greatly enhance their prospects of experiencing a successful college application process.

Susan Alaimo is the founder & director of Collegebound Review, offering PSAT/SAT ® preparation & private college advising by Ivy League educated instructors. Visit CollegeboundReview.com or call 908-369-5362 .

Harvard’s Institute of Politics Announces Fall 2024 Resident Fellows

Introduction

CAMBRIDGE, MA - The Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School today announced the appointment of six Resident Fellows who will join the IOP for the Fall 2024 semester. The fellows bring diverse experience in politics, elected office, polling, journalism, and economic development to address the challenges facing our country and world today.

"We are thrilled to welcome this Fall's cohort of Resident Fellows to Harvard to engage and collaborate with our students and community, and to get their thoughts and insight in the final few months of this year's historic election. Their diverse experiences will no doubt inspire our students to consider careers in public service and prepare them to provide essential political leadership in the months and years ahead," said IOP Director Setti Warren .

"We are excited to have such a remarkable group of Fellows at the IOP this Fall. They bring varied perspectives on how to best approach some of our country's most consequential challenges, and I am confident our students will gain important insight into the fields of politics, civic engagement, journalism, and more," said Michael Nutter , Chair of the Institute of Politics' Senior Advisory Committee, and former Mayor of Philadelphia.

"We are thrilled to welcome the incredibly accomplished members of the 2024 Fall Fellows Cohort as we begin the fall semester prior to the incredibly important U.S. election. As we close out the 'biggest election year in history,' our world remains in the throes of a major period of democratic backsliding. American voters, including many Harvard students, will once again face the possibility of reactionary backsliding and threats to fundamental rights. Closer to home, we are keenly aware of the threats to free speech on campus. While this semester will bring renewed challenges to and debates concerning those fundamental rights, we are hopeful that study groups will remain a source of vibrant, productive, and gratifying discussions on Harvard's campus. In that spirit, this semester's cohort of Fellows will bring in critical perspectives from the varied worlds of governing, policymaking, polling, reporting, and campaigning to equip students with the tools necessary to create a better tomorrow. We are confident that this cohort of Fellows will help this program to remain a bastion of freedom of speech and civil discourse on Harvard's campus," said Éamon ÓCearúil ‘25 and Summer Tan ‘26 , Co-Chairs of the Fellows and Study Groups Program at the Institute of Politics.

IOP Resident Fellows are fully engaged with the Harvard community. They reside on campus, mentor a cohort of undergraduate students, hold weekly office hours, and lead an eight-week, not-for-credit study group based on their experience and expertise.

Fall 2024 Resident Fellows:

Betsy Ankney: Former Campaign Manager, Nikki Haley for President
John Anzalone: One of the nation's top pollsters and strategists, and founder of Impact Research, a public opinion research and consulting firm
Alejandra Y. Castillo: Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development
Asa Hutchinson: Former Governor of Arkansas and 2024 Presidential Candidate
Brett Rosenberg: Former Director for Strategic Planning, National Security Council and Deputy Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, Department of State
Eugene Scott: Host at Axios Live, and former reporter who has spent two decades covering politics at the local, national and international level, including at the Washington Post and CNN

Brief bios and quotes can be found below. Headshots are available upon request.

Betsy Ankney Ankney is a political strategist with over 15 years of experience on tough campaigns. She has been involved in campaigns and Super PACs at the national and state level and played a role in some of the biggest upsets in Republican politics. She has been an advisor to Ambassador Nikki Haley since 2021, serving as Executive Director for Stand for America PAC and most recently as Campaign Manager for Nikki Haley for President. After starting with zero dollars in the bank and 2% in the polls, the campaign defied the odds, raised $80 million, and Nikki Haley emerged as the strongest challenger to Donald Trump. Ankney served as the Political Director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 2020 cycle. She advised senate campaigns across the country, working directly with candidates and their campaigns on budgets, messaging, and fundraising. Prior to her work at the NRSC, Ankney managed multiple statewide campaigns, including Bruce Rauner for Governor in Illinois and Ron Johnson for Senate in Wisconsin. For her work on Ron Johnson’s race, she was named “Campaign Manager of the Year” by the American Association of Political Consultants for 2016. Ankney got her start in politics at the 2008 Republican National Convention and served in various roles at the Republican National Committee as well as on multiple campaigns and outside efforts. She serves on the boards of The Campaign School at Yale and The American Association of Political Consultants. She is from Toledo, Ohio and attended Vanderbilt University.

"I am honored to be a part of the fantastic program at the Harvard Institute of Politics. As we enter the final stretch of one of the wildest and most unpredictable election cycles in modern history, I look forward to having conversations in real time about our political process, what to look for, and why it matters." – Betsy Ankney

John Anzalone Anzalone is one of the nation’s top pollsters and messaging strategists. He has spent decades working on some of the toughest political campaigns in modern history and helping private-sector clients navigate complex challenges. He has polled for the past four presidential races, most recently serving as chief pollster for President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. In that role, he helped develop the messaging and strategy that drove paid communications, major policy rollouts, speeches, and convention thematics. He has also polled for the campaigns of President Obama and Hillary Clinton, and has helped elect U.S. senators, governors, and dozens of members of Congress. Anzalone works with governors across the country, including current Governors Gretchen Whitmer (MI) and Roy Cooper (NC). He polls regularly for the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Senate Majority PAC, and AARP. With more than 30 years of experience in message development and strategic execution, he has been called on by key decision-makers, executives, and CEOs to provide counsel in a changing world and marketplace. He has extensive experience using research and data to break down complex subjects into digestible messages that resonate with target audiences. He grew up in St. Joseph, Michigan, and graduated from Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He is married and has four children, two dogs, and lives in Watercolor, Florida.

"After a 40-year career in politics I am so excited to give back by sharing and mentoring politically active and curious students, but also to have an opportunity to learn from them myself. During the next three months we will be living the 2024 elections together in real time. There is nothing more exciting than that regardless of your political identity." – John Anzalone

Alejandra Y. Castillo The Honorable Alejandra Y. Castillo was nominated by President Biden and sworn in as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development on August 13, 2021, becoming the first women of color to hold this position. Ms. Castillo led the Economic Development Administration (EDA) between August 2021-2024 through an unprecedented moment of growth and opportunity. As the only federal agency focused exclusively on economic development, she guided EDA’s the implementation of over $6.8 billion dollars in federal funding, powering EDA and its mission to make transformational placed-based investments to support inclusive and equitable economic growth across America. Spanning over two decades of public service and non-profit work, she has served in three Presidential administrations --Biden, Obama and Clinton. Her career has also included a drive to shattering glass ceilings and providing inspiration to multiple generations of diverse leaders. Castillo is an active member in various civic and professional organizations, including the Hispanic National Bar Association, the American Constitution Society, as well as the Council on Foreign Relations. Castillo holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the State University of New York at Stony Brook; a M.A. in Public Policy from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin; and a J.D. from American University, Washington College of Law. A native of Queens, NY., the daughter of immigrants from the Dominican Republic.

"I am excited to join this Fall semester IOP Fellowship class and have the opportunity to engage with students and faculty members across the University. The IOP fellowship presents a great forum to discuss and evaluate the future of U.S. industrial strategy and economic growth in light of the historic federal investments in place-based economic development during the last three years. I am honored to join my colleagues in making this an exciting and informative semester for students." – Alejandra Y. Castillo

Asa Hutchinson Governor Asa Hutchinson is a former Republican candidate for President of the United States. He served as the 46th Governor of the State of Arkansas and in his last election, he was re-elected with 65 percent of the vote, having received more votes than any other Republican candidate for governor in the State’s history. As a candidate for President, Hutchinson distinguished himself as an advocate for balancing the federal budget, energy production and enhanced border security. He also was a clear voice for the GOP to move away from the leadership of Donald Trump. Hutchinson’s time as governor is distinguished by his success in securing over $700 million per year in tax cuts, safeguarding the retirement pay of veterans from state income tax, shrinking the size of state government, creating over 100,000 new jobs and leading a national initiative to increase computer science education. The Governor’s career in public service began when President Ronald Reagan appointed him as the youngest U.S. Attorney in the nation for the Western District of Arkansas. In 1996, he won the first of three consecutive terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. During his third term in Congress, President George W. Bush appointed Governor Hutchinson to serve as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration and later as the nation’s first Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Border Protection. He is a former Chairman of the National Governors. He grew up on a small farm near Gravette. He and his wife, Susan, have four children and seven grandchildren. Governor Hutchinson is currently CEO of Hutchinson Group LLC, a security consulting firm.

"After 8 years as Governor it is time to teach and mentor. I am honored to have the opportunity this fall to share my experiences and perspective but to also learn from the students and my colleagues who will also be resident fellows at the IOP. The timing is historic with our democracy facing a critical choice this fall as to the direction of our country." – Asa Hutchinson

Brett Rosenberg Rosenberg is a foreign policy expert who has served in the White House, Department of State, and Senate. During the Biden Administration, Rosenberg was the inaugural Deputy Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, President Biden’s and the G7’s flagship program designed to meet infrastructure needs in low- and middle-income countries. At the White House, Rosenberg served on the National Security Council as Director for Strategic Planning, working on shaping and realizing approaches to issues spanning from international economics to Western Hemisphere engagement, as well as helping to write the National Security Strategy. Prior to her service in the Biden administration, Rosenberg was Associate Director of Policy for National Security Action, where she remains a senior advisor. Rosenberg began her career in Washington as a legislative aide to then-Senator Kamala Harris, where she advised the senator on a range of domestic and economic policy issues. Rosenberg is a Nonresident Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and her writing has appeared in outlets including Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The New Republic, and McSweeneys. She received her A.B. in History from Harvard College and her PhD (DPhil) in International Relations from the University of Oxford, where she was a Rhodes Scholar.

"What a privilege it is to be part of this incredible community in this incredible moment. I can't wait to learn from the students, faculty, and other fellows as we dive in together to discuss some of the most pressing issues facing the United States and the world." – Brett Rosenberg

Eugene Scott Eugene Scott is a host at Axios Live, where he travels the country interviewing political and policy leaders. He was previously a senior political reporter for Axios covering 2024 swing voters and voting rights. An award-winning journalist, Scott has spent two decades covering politics at the local, national and international levels. He was recently a national political reporter at The Washington Post focused on identity politics and the 2022 midterm election. Following the 2020 presidential election, he hosted “The Next Four Years,” then Amazon’s top original podcast. He also contributed to “FOUR HUNDRED SOULS: A Community History of African America, 1619-2019,” which topped the New York Times’ bestseller list. In addition to writing, Scott has regularly provided political analysis on MSNBC, CBS and NPR. Scott was a Washington Correspondent for CNN Politics during the 2016 election. And he began his newspaper career at the Cape Argus in Cape Town, South Africa not long after beginning his journalism career with BET News’ “Teen Summit.” Scott received his master’s degree from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and his bachelor’s from the University of North Carolina Hussman School of Journalism and Media. He is a D.C. native and continues to live in the Nation’s Capital.

"Learning from and with the professionals that visited the IOP during my time on campus was one of the highlights of my time at the Kennedy School. I am eager to help lead students in understanding the press and this country as we navigate the final weeks of arguably the most consequential election of our time." – Eugene Scott

Additional information can be found here .

About the Institute of Politics Fellows Program The Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School was established in 1966 as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy. The Institute’s mission is to unite and engage students, particularly undergraduates, with academics, politicians, activists, and policymakers on a non-partisan basis to inspire them to pursue pathways in politics and public service. The Institute blends the academic with practical politics and offers students the opportunity to engage in current events and to acquire skills and perspectives that will assist in their postgraduate pathways.

The Fellows Program has stood as the cornerstone of the IOP, encouraging student interest in public service and increasing the interaction between the academic and political communities. Through the Fellows Program, the Institute aims to provide students with the opportunity to learn from experienced public servants, the space to engage in civil discourse, and the chance to acquire a more holistic and pragmatic view of our political world.

For more information on the fellowship program, including a full list of former fellows, visit: iop.harvard.edu

Press Releases

IMAGES

PPT
The Essay Writing Process
recursive-writing-process
Essay Writing is a Recursive Process Discuss Free Essay Example 1562
The Essay Writing Process A Recursive Process n
The Essay Writing Process A Recursive Process n

VIDEO

What is the recursive approach to writing? 📝
“Writing as a Recursive Process Video” with Professor April Van Camp
Writing Recursive Equations for Linear Relationships
AI Terms Explained: Recursive Prompting
What is recursion?
The Recursive Writing Process for College Admission Essays

COMMENTS

Recursive Writing Process
Brainstorm ideas, talk to a friend, complete a graphic organizer, draw pictures, freewrite, create an outline and a working thesis statement. At this stage, include all ideas that occur to you; do not edit anything out. You will probably want to return to your pre-writing ideas later in the process. If you are writing a researched essay, this ...
Writing as a Process: Writing is Recursive
Writing is recursive. "Recursive" simply means that each step you take in your writing process will feed into other steps: after you've drafted an essay, for instance, you'll go do a bit of verification of some of your facts—and if you discover that you've gotten something wrong, you'll go back to the draft and fix it.
PDF Understanding Writing as a Recursive Process
A recursive process refers to the way writers often loop back or revisit earlier work as we write. Say a writer has planned pretty carefully how a draft will be. 50. organized. Even with careful planning, once in the middle of that draft, she might realize that part of that plan isn't working out as she imagined.
Writing Craft: Writing as a recursive process
Recursive writing means that each step you take in your writing process feeds into other steps. For example, after drafting an essay, you'll verify facts, and if you find errors, you'll return to the draft to correct them. In other words, we repeat processes to refine our message. We must remember that we will always jump between stages.
Recursive Writing Process
Every writer goes through the writing process, but recursive writing can complement the writing process while also allowing reflection on the part of the writer in order to improve for the next essay.
Resources for Writers: The Writing Process
Writing is a process that involves at least four distinct steps: prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing. It is known as a recursive process. While you are revising, you might have to return to the prewriting step to develop and expand your ideas. Prewriting. Prewriting is anything you do before you write a draft of your document.
Writing Is Recursive
In modern English, recursion is used to describe a process that loops or "runs again" until a task is complete. It's a term often used in computer science to indicate a program or piece of code that continues to run until certain conditions are met, such as a variable determined by the user of the program. The program would continue ...
Writing Is Recursive
Writing Is Recursive ... It's why a carefully thought-out essay tends to be better than one that's written the night before the due date. It's also why college writing teachers often emphasize the idea of process in their classes in addition to evaluating final products. ... and patients may only see the final product, mastering a complex ...
2.5 Writing Process: Thinking Critically about How Identity Is
Writing is a recursive process; you will push forward, step back, and repeat steps multiple times as your ideas develop and change. As you reread, you may want to add, delete, reorder, or otherwise change your draft. This response is natural. You may need to return to the brainstorming process to mine for new ideas or organizational principles.
Writing Is Recursive
You're probably familiar with the root of the word: "cursive.". It's the style of writing that you may have been taught in elementary school or that you've seen in historical documents like the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. "Cursive" comes from the Latin word currere, meaning "to run.". Combine this meaning with ...
The Writing Process
Table of contents. Step 1: Prewriting. Step 2: Planning and outlining. Step 3: Writing a first draft. Step 4: Redrafting and revising. Step 5: Editing and proofreading. Other interesting articles. Frequently asked questions about the writing process.
2.3: Writing is a Non-Linear and Recursive Process
Writing is a non-linear and recursive process. This means that most writers do not "begin at the beginning" of a piece and "end at the end.". Instead, composing takes places in chunks, with authors going back and forth between clusters of ideas and writing possibilities, constantly reviewing and revising them, and moving them between ...
What is the Recursive Writing Process? (Video)
The recursive writing process has four simple steps: prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing. Learn more details about each step with examples here! ... So whether you are writing an essay for school or working on the next bestselling novel, you can use the recursive writing process to make your writing flow. Thanks so much for watching ...
Rethink Your Writing Process: On Recursion
Diagram made by me. "Recursive" simply means that each step you take in your writing process will feed into other steps: after you've drafted an essay, for instance, you'll go do a bit of ...
The Writing Process
With that in mind, this area of the Excelsior OWL is going to take you through the steps of a thorough writing process—one that involves many stages that will help you become a better writer. You will learn about the recursive nature of the writing process, and you'll be taken through each step of writing a paper with instruction ...
Essay writing is a recursive process. Discuss?
Writing is a process that involves at least four distinct steps: prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing. It is known as a recursive process.While you are revising, you might have to return to ...
A Word or Two on the Writing Process
Three comparisons to describe the writing process as a recursive, growth process: ... write and revise), but they can still get stuck writing an essay. Knowledge of the writing process doesn't guarantee the ability to produce a good piece of writing. Sondra Perl, a researcher into the writing process, explains that unskilled writer's lack of ...
Writing is Recursive
In modern English, recursion is used to describe a process that loops or "runs again" until a task is complete. It's a term often used in computer science to indicate a program or piece of code that continues to run until certain conditions are met, such as a variable determined by the user of the program. The program would continue ...
Writing is Recursive, Not Linear: Free Task Cards to Reflect Writing as
Writing goes all ways: forwards, backwards, sideways, over there, and over here. In fact, the only piece of the writing process that occurs at a set point in time is publishing. The reality is that the writing process is recursive. Sometimes, we don't even begin with brainstorming; sometimes, we begin with drafting, or free writing.
Recursivity in source-based writing: a process analysis
In university settings, writing argumentative essays from reading conflicting source texts is a common task for students. In performing this synthesis task, they must deal with conflicting claims about a controversial issue as they develop their own positions. Argumentative synthesis is characterized by writers' back-and-forth moves between reading source texts and writing their own texts ...
The Recursive Writing Process
Author Louis L'Amour said, "Start writing, no matter what. The water does not flow until the faucet is turned on." But how do you go about writing an essay, ...
5 reasons to give students feedback on their writing process
Writing is a recursive process, not a linear one Research shows that this idea of starting over with writing has merit. The recursive model was first proposed by Linda Flower and John Hayes in 1981, replacing the previous linear model I was taught in school, which involved outlining, completing a first draft, editing, completing a second draft ...
Essay Writing is a Recursive Process Discuss
In an, nut shell essay writing is a recursive process as the advantages outweighs the disadvantages like it is time consuming. It creates boredom as there is repetition of the work done. There are lot of procedure that are needed to be taken into account. So the prewriting, process, drafting, revising, editing and proofreading are needed to be ...
Writing Is Recursive
In modern English, recursion is used to describe a process that loops or "runs again" until a task is complete. It's a term often used in computer science to indicate a program or piece of code that continues to run until certain conditions are met, such as a variable determined by the user of the program. The program would continue ...
College essays matter. Here's how to write one that stands out
Students facing the college application process typically dread one component: the Common App essay. Students are presented with six essay prompts, as well as a seventh option, which is "topic ...
From Idea to Bookshelf: Two YA Authors on the Writing Process
Idea Generation & Development. Christine: Authors have a lot of different opinions when it comes to the best way to start constructing a story. For me, the beginning of my process starts with developing the main character. I have a list of around 40 questions that I ask myself in order to "get to know" this character.
Decision Points Goes to College: Starting the Admissions Process
Over the course of several columns over the coming weeks, we'll talk about what it takes to get your offspring - your family, actually - through a frequently baffling, regularly infuriating ...
Harvard's Institute of Politics Announces Fall 2024 Resident Fellows
CAMBRIDGE, MA - The Institute of Politics at Harvard Kennedy School today announced the appointment of six Resident Fellows who will join the IOP for the Fall 2024 semester. The fellows bring diverse experience in politics, elected office, polling, journalism, and economic development to address the challenges facing our country and world today."We are thrilled to welcome this Fall's cohort of ...

Guide to Writing at Stetson University

Writing as a Process: Writing is Recursive

Thesis statements and topic sentences perform nearly the same function in your writing: each one makes a claim, or states a main idea, and each one serves as a central focus connecting ideas presented earlier and leads to ideas about to come.

Have a question? Ask a librarian! Email [email protected]. Call or text 386-747-9028.

The Writing Post

Exploring Writing as a Recursive Process

What does Recursive Mean?

How is the writing process recursive?

Works Cited

Share this:

Resources for Writers: The Writing Process

Writing Is Recursive

Invention: Coming up with ideas.

Research: Finding new information.

Drafting: Creating the text.

Revision: Literally, seeing the text again.

Editing: Looking at the surface level of the text.

Share This Book

2.5 Writing Process: Thinking Critically about How Identity Is Constructed Through Writing

Summary of Assignment: Cultural Artifact

Quick Launch: Joining the Dialogue

Character Sketch and Captured Moment

Character Sketch

Choose the Artifact

Drafting: Critical Context

Cultural Context

Peer Review:

Writing Is Recursive

Invention: Coming up with ideas.

Research: Finding new information.

Drafting: Creating the text.

Revision: Literally, seeing the text again.

Editing: Looking at the surface level of the text.

Share This Book

Have a language expert improve your writing

The Writing Process | 5 Steps with Examples & Tips

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Table of contents

Coming up with a topic

Doing the research

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Evaluating the first draft

Redrafting and revising

Check for common mistakes

Editing for grammar and clarity

Proofreading for small mistakes and typos

Proofreading for stylistic consistency

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

The Recursive Writing Process

Recursivity in source-based writing: a process analysis

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome?

How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics

Source-based writing

Recursivity in source-based writing

Process analysis in reading and writing

The present study

Participants

Source texts

Reading task

Writing task

Free recall

Strategic reading from think-aloud protocols

Recursivity in writing from Inputlog

Quality of syntheses from text analyses

Delay recalls

Data analysis

Description of recursive behavior

Differences between high-recursive and low-recursive writers

Differences in argumentative synthesis writing and delayed recall

Limitations and directions for future research

Conclusions

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Electronic Supplementary Material