essay writing is a recursive process. discuss pdf

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

2 Recursive Writing Process

Good writing: It’s a Marathon, Not a Sprint!

Sometimes in college, your instructors will ask you to write several paragraphs, or even an essay, in a short period of time. Examples include short-answer exam questions and timed writing exercises. This kind of writing allows you to show that you have read and understood the assigned material, or that you have practiced writing in a particular style. You may only have enough time in the class period to write a quick first draft for these types of writing assignments. The purpose of this type of writing is to get your message across clearly and quickly.

However, many times, you will have longer essay assignments which require more reflection and analysis. These assignments will often require that you conduct research to find evidence to support your ideas, and you will be expected to do most of this work outside of class time. This type of assignment uses the recursive writing process . This means that you will follow several steps in your writing journey, pausing along the way to go back to a previous stage, then moving forward, then returning to the beginning, then moving forward again, and so on. Good writers regularly use these steps all the time; you will want to practice using them too. One key to success is to start your journey right away when you get an assignment; do not wait until the paper is almost due to begin your work, because then you will not have enough time to work through the writing process.

Activity ~ Finding Your Writing Process

Directions : Discuss with a small group: What is your writing process? How do you start working on a writing assignment?

Discuss the graphics below with your partners. Have you used any of these steps in the writing process? Which graphic do you like better? Can you draw one that works better for you?

Graphic labeled "The Writing Process." A line of brightly colored circles are connected by gray arrows wrapping around them. From left to right, they read: Topic, Prewrite, Evidence, Organize, Draft, Revise, Proofread.

Good academic writing takes time. It’s a marathon, not a sprint, and there are many steps to writing well. One of the first steps is to make sure that you understand the writing assignment. Your instructor may give you a writing prompt with specific directions; ask for clarification if you do not understand something.

The next sections discuss basic information about some of the stages of the writing process. Remember to practice each of these with all of your writing assignments in our class.

Pre-writing: Why am I writing? What do I already know? What do I want my audience to know/learn?

Before you start drafting your essay, do some pre-writing. 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 is the stage to start reading and researching about your topic. This means finding reliable sources and keeping track of them so that you can responsibly incorporate other scholars’ ideas into your own paper.

Drafting: What do I want to say? Where do I need more research?

Once you have some ideas, you can start drafting your essay. You can start with any section: Introduction, Body Paragraphs, or Conclusion. Or you can just start writing a paragraph, and decide later where it might fit. If you wrote an outline in the Pre-writing stage, now you can write paragraphs that fit into your outline.

Feeling stuck? Return to pre-writing. Look at the notes you created earlier in your first pre-writing phase. Is there anything there that you want to write a paragraph about? Is there anything there that you can expand on?

Try some more pre-writing; see if you can discover some more ideas, now that you have started drafting.

At this stage, it is useful to take a break. Put your essay aside for a day or two. After that, you may think of new ideas to incorporate.

Revising & Editing: Which areas need work?

When you revise , you ‘look again’ at your work. This is the time to edit your draft by deleting or changing words, sentences, and paragraphs that do not fit, or by moving them to a better place in your essay. This is also the time to add more information where you need more explanation or support. Return to your Pre-writing ideas, and do more brainstorming, freewriting, etc., if you need to expand some of your sections. Ask a writing partner or tutor to read your draft; it can be very useful to hear a reader’s reaction and advice at this point.

At this stage, remember to re-read the essay prompt. As you read your own essay, ask yourself: Does my essay answer the questions in the prompt? Is my thesis clear? Are all of my ideas connected to my thesis?

Consult this useful Revision Checklist from The Writing Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (opens in a new tab).

Proofreading & Publishing: What mistakes can I fix?

One of the very last steps in the writing process is proofreading: checking for errors in grammar, mechanics , and formatting . When you are satisfied that you have done your best, you are ready to publish your work by handing it in to your instructor.

When you post an essay in Canvas, your instructor may allow you to use the plagiarism detection tool. This can help you to find areas where you have unintentionally copied from another source. If your instructor allows this step, be sure to leave yourself enough time to submit the essay and make any necessary adjustments.

Remember: good writing takes time. IT’S A MARATHON, NOT A SPRINT!

“Image of Writing Process” (figure 2). Authored by: Kim Louie for Basic Reading & Writing for Lumen Learning. License: CC BY: Attribution

"Of or relating to a repeating process whose output at each stage is applied as input in the succeeding stage." ~ American Heritage Dictionary

statement to be responded to, and/or questions to be answered in an essay

American English: to look again, and make corrections as needed

British English: to study

spelling, punctuation, and capitalization

layout and appearance of words on the page (heading, title, paragraphs, citations, etc.)

ENGLISH 087: Academic Advanced Writing Copyright © 2020 by Nancy Hutchison is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Writing Post

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.

Writing Craft

Book Reviews (20)
uncategorized (1)
Writing Craft (33)

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

ACADEMIC WRITING: THE PROCESS

Academic writing is easy as long as you understand and trust the process. This chapter starts with an overview of academic writing. It ends with a description of the super-secret process used for academic writing.

Related Papers

Lina Rahmawati

this is the paper contains explanation about teaching writing for advance

Andrew Johnson

This chapter describes the essential elements of discovery learning, a form of student-centered learning. Instructional video are included with this paper.

David Dadurka

This chapter excerpt describes the processes of writing a review of the literature for an academic article.

Imelda Hermilinda Abas

English for second language writing has developed greatly, from product oriented approach to process oriented approach. This implies that the focus of L2 writing has shifted from the final product of writing to the process of writing. Because of its own rules and conventions, writing skill is considered difficult to learn in a short period of time. Although it is a difficult skill, writing is essential for second language learners' academic success. Second language researchers are still trying to find satisfactory answers to the how and why of the teaching of writing process to second language learners. More studies are needed to shed light on second language writing process area. This paper discusses briefly the writing process and the writing strategies employed by a few EFL proficient student writers in writing. It is found that the writing process stages employed in this study were prewriting, planning, drafting, pausing and reading, revising and editing which occurred non-linear and recursive. The writing strategies identified in the writing process stages were relating the topic to past knowledge and experience, taking the readers into consideration, talk-write, freewriting, outlining, listing, seeking help, using online materials, focusing on the mechanics of writing, and text organization. However, what works successfully for some students may not work well for others, and what functions well for one assignment may not be compatible for another.

Whoa, this is not my research attached. This was the 2011 article I was reading before I found yours.

budianto rosidi

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Writing as a Recursive Process 1

Posted on October 3, 2016 October 3, 2016 Author Eric Drown 1 Comment

Course Learning Objective: Writing as a Recursive Process – 20%

Reading is part of the writing process, and writing is part of the reading process. The iterative, recursive nature of the writing process means that careful reading of both one’s sources and one’s own writing are regular practices for one who approaches mastery of this learning outcome. A student who is making substantive (global) changes in both the content and organization of a writing project as it moves from an early to a final draft is moving in the direction of mastery. A student moving in the direction of mastery is also engaged in local revision in the final steps of the process through careful editing and proofreading.

Some markers of substantive change (global revision) across drafts include:

Changes to an introduction to better frame the project, establish the conversation and sources in play, and articulate how the student’s thesis contributes to that conversation
Reorganization of paragraphs to more effectively develop the written project
New body paragraphs that develop on ideas in an early draft or that introduce important new ideas
Improved source use (evidence) and explanations

Some markers of local revision include:

Improvement in signal phrases leading into and punctuation around quotations and paraphrases
Reduction in subject-verb agreement, plural/possessive, and punctuation errors that yield fragmented or run-on sentences
Attention to the overall readability of one’s prose

1 thought on “Writing as a Recursive Process 1”

Pingback: How to Prepare for Your Learning Objectives Conference – College Reading and Writing

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

essay writing is a recursive process. discuss pdf

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

1301 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

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.

IMAGES

Essay Writing is a Recursive Process Discuss Free Essay Example 1562
The Essay Writing Process A Recursive Process n
Writing as a Recursive Process 1
The Essay Writing Process A Recursive Process n
Recursive Process in Paragraphs & Essays (pdf)
The Essay Writing Process A Recursive Process n

VIDEO

The Recursive Writing Process for College Admission Essays
Exposition and the Recursive Writing Process
Introduction Week 1: MOOC on Academic Writing (Dr Ajay Semalty)
What is the recursive approach to writing? 📝
How to Write a Paper or Essay
University of Evansville Writing Center Instruction Series

COMMENTS

PDF A Guide to The Recursive Writing Process
The recursive writing process is a non-linear approach to writing that emphasizes the repetitive nature of drafting, revising, and editing. Unlike a linear process, which follows a straightforward path from prewriting to final draft, the recursive process allows writers to move back and forth between different stages as needed.
Recursive Writing Process
However, many times, you will have longer essay assignments which require more reflection and analysis. These assignments will often require that you conduct research to find evidence to support your ideas, and you will be expected to do most of this work outside of class time. This type of assignment uses the recursive writing process. This means that you will follow several steps in your ...
PDF 04_ingraloop1e_25919_ch03_050_070_3pp.indd
To practice writing using a recursive process, we invite you to start plan-ning a working draft (writing that's still in progress and not yet finished) of your Chapter 3 Project: a three-to-four-page literacy narrative, a per-sonal essay that explains and reflects on your experience as a writer or reader.
(PDF) Academic writing: the essay
The essay is a particular genre of writing that is at the heart of academic writing today. Criteria of excellence in this genre have been identiﬁed, and should be observed. All essay. writers ...
Exploring Writing as a Recursive Process
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.
PDF ACADEMIC WRITING
"Writing" is usually understood as the expression of thought. This book redefines "writing" as the thought process itself. Writing is not what you do with thought. Writing is thinking. Better living through interpretation: that's the promise of academic writing, which is a foundational course in most schools because it's a
PDF Essay writing process
The following are suggested steps for writing an essay. 1. Analyse the question. • Underline instructional words, e.g. discuss, explain, describe, justify. • Circle key content words and phrases. • Be clear about what the task is: put the question in your own words.
Writing as a Process: Writing is Recursive
Writing as a Process: Writing is Recursive 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.
PDF Understanding the Writing Process
Understanding the Writing Process There is no one way to produce a paper, and no perfect writing process. But most people conduct some planning, drafting, revising, proofreading, and reflection when they tackle a writing assignment.
1.4: Defining the Writing Process
People often think of writing in terms of its end product—the email, the report, the memo, essay, or research paper, all of which result from the time and effort spent in the act of writing. In this course, however, you will be introduced to writing as the recursive process of planning, drafting, and revising.
Recursive Writing Process
The recursive writing process is what happens when a writer moves through the steps of the writing process but moves back and forth through them instead of just going through them like a checklist ...
4.1: Writing as a Process
Most employ a writing process, in which they begin with prewriting and invention, then outlining, composing, revising and editing. Though the aforementioned might suggest a linear process, it is usually recursive. For instance, you might end up going back to the prewriting phase and do some brainstorming even while writing the actual draft.
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 ...
PDF What Is "Academic" Writing?
Rather than being a lock-step linear process, writing is "recursive." That means we cycle through and repeat the various activities of the writing process many times as we write.
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.
(PDF) ACADEMIC WRITING: THE PROCESS
Academic writing is easy as long as you understand and trust the process. This chapter starts with an overview of academic writing. It ends with a description of the super-secret process used for academic writing.
PDF Recursivity in source-based writing: a process analysis
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.
Writing as a Recursive Process 1
Course Learning Objective: Writing as a Recursive Process - 20% Reading is part of the writing process, and writing is part of the reading process. The iterative, recursive nature of the writing process means that careful reading of both one's sources and one's own writing are regular practices for one who approaches mastery of this learning outcome. A student who is making substantive ...
PDF http://compositionforum.com/issue/29/perl-retrospective.php
Research, like writing, is recursive. We go back to what we know in order to figure out where we might want to go next. Or, said more simply, we go back in order to go forward. This is one of the basic findings about composing that emerged from my study of the composing processes of unskilled college writers that appeared in the December 1979 issue ofResearch in the Teaching of English under ...
Writing Steps: A Recursive and Individual Experience
Writing Steps: A Recursive and Individual Experience. High school teacher Bonnie Mary Warne facilitates students' ease processes as they learn to apply knowledge of it on state assessment. discussion, practice, observations of patterns in their writing, and. begin to understand how individualized writing processes are, while.
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 ...
Essay Writing is a Recursive Process Discuss
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 ...