Abstract

Research on the writing process suggests that planning is a significant component of the writing process. According to this body of research, the planning process results in writing plans of various kinds. Often these writing plans seem to be decisions or judgments-that is, mental constructs only. However, they are not consistently mental constructs in this body of research. Sometimes writing plans are written constructs, sometimes both mental and written constructs. And when they do appear as written constructs, they are sometimes viewed favorably, sometimes unfavorably. In addition, they do not seem to be distinguishable from goals, another key concept in this body of research. Unfortunately, and without explanation, the nature of a writing plan seems to change from study to study in this body of research, with no apparent progress over the years in conceptual clarity or consistency. This conceptual ambiguity poses serious problems for writing research. It also poses problems for writing instruction, too, even though this body of research seems to have some beneficial implications for instruction as well. The question this essay addresses is why this conceptual ambiguity exists. I begin by pointing out the inconsistency and lack of clarity in the way in which planning and writing plans are defined or illustrated in this body of research. I then indicate why definitions for key concepts matter for researchand for teachers who look to research for insights or guidance on instructional questions. The essay has two major purposes. First, it shows how theoretical assumptions underlying this body of research may be responsible for the conceptual ambiguity of its key terms. It then suggests why theoretical constructs developed in other domains of inquiry may pose unresolvable problems when applied to the act of writing and serve as unintended conceptual barriers to important new research in the field.