Abstract

An argument is presented for distinguishing between fluency and automaticity of procedures in writing. Writers must develop a certain level of fluency in some of their writing subskills, but skilled writing necessitates that automaticity not be absolute, not be “modular” to use Fodor's (1983) terminology. Various empirical results are presented suggesting that a prominent difference between skilled and less skilled writing is the extent of metacognitive control over writing subprocesses. It is this metacognitive control, not increasing encapsulated automaticity, that enables the processes that characterize skilled writing, such as directed search, critical examination, and revision. Educational implications of this premise are explored.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
1988-07-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088388005003003
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. Computers and Composition

Cites in this index (3)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
Also cites 20 works outside this index ↓
  1. The architecture of cognition
  2. 10.1016/0273-2297(82)90012-0
  3. The psychology of written composition
  4. 10.1080/00461528209529252
  5. 10.1207/s15516709cog0202_4
  6. 10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.656
  7. 10.2307/376357
  8. 10.1080/01638538309544557
  9. 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329
  10. 10.1080/00461528409529299
  11. 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90036-7
  12. 10.1080/01638538709544676
  13. 10.1515/text.1.1982.2.1-3.113
  14. The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers
  15. 10.3758/BF03197600
  16. 10.1080/00461528209529253
  17. 10.1037/0096-1523.7.3.658
  18. 10.1037/h0054651
  19. 10.2307/1128240
  20. 10.2307/356693
CrossRef global citation count: 119 View in citation network →