Post on 24-May-2015
description
The 13th International Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group on Writing
Wednesday July 11, Porto, Portugal
Presentation
Professional Writing from Multiple Sources
www.ua.ac.be/marielle.leijten
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2012). Professional writing from multiple sources. Paper presented at the The 13th
International Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group on Writing, Porto.
Mariëlle Leijten Flanders Research Foundation University of Antwerp marielle.leijten@ua.ac.be Luuk Van Waes University of Antwerp luuk.vanwaes@ua.ac.be
Professional writing from multiple sources
Mariëlle Leijten & Luuk Van Waes
Program
introduction
method
case
reflections
Introduction
I think I will start
writing a ... I will change the formulation of this sentence
into...
Flower & Hayes, 1981
1980’s
1996
Introduction
Hayes, 1996
?
?
External digital sources: Task schemas Topic knowledge Audience knowledge Linguistic knowledge Genre knowledge
Long term memory: Task schemas Topic knowledge Audience knowledge Linguistic knowledge Genre knowledge
Method
Observations (participative & Inputlog)
Interviews
Versions of documents
(Logbooks)
Inputlog 5.0.* Beta
Record Logging of sources: focus events
Procedures for professional writing
create new
open existing
continue previous
Case Study
Midsized Design Consulting Agency in BrusselsExperience in engineering, cognitive ergonomics, visual design & social sciences
Professional: Aiden 45 years old
Background in Economics and Management
No background in technical or professional writing
Case study
Proposal for Flemish Government
In cooperation with contractor
Duration 8:37:54
17 pages
55.000 lines of logging data
Session Date Duration % Sessionssession 1 4/04/2011 5:32:41 64,24%
session 2 4/04/2011 0:19:20 3,73%
session 3 5/04/2011 1:29:59 17,37%
session 4 7/04/2011 0:34:45 6,71%
session 5 7/04/2011 0:41:09 7,95%
Data preparation
Merging
Filtering
Coding sources
Graph of writing process
Percentage of time spend inProposal: 26%Sources: 74%
Type of text productionCopied: 75%New: 25%
template
searching
meeting
constructing
inserting/rewriting
searching
distraction
contextualizing
commenting
re‐reading
deleting
re‐reading
searching
constructing
constructing
connecting
Aiden says:
"I usually start working from a template‐based document. ... In this case I have used Google Docs also quite a lot. I made a distinction between Google Docs and our company Wiki. The Wiki holds more general company information and Google Docs contains more specific information that relates to a project. Because we have worked with this contractor before, we have a document that is constantly updated and shared. It contains all the agreements with contractor A and the information that needs to be included in the project proposal."
Aiden says:
"Ideally, we take a comparable proprosal based on our proposal template, or a comparable project that contains a lot of standard wordings. ... Sometimes the data is a bit what outdated. ... Standard tekst kan be retrieved from the Wiki or from previous texts. However, nowadays the previous texts are more recent than the Wiki. Then I choose a recent project proposal. It is a pragmatic decision."
Aiden says:
"I use a different document in which I save separate cases. It is just a large Word‐document in which I include all the case studies that I have ever written (e.g. case on usability of Sony webpages). Just, so I know they won't get lost. This could also be done in the Wiki, but to save images in a Wiki is terrible.”
Text construction
Network analyses (step 1)
Number of switchesTotal: 2759
Network analyses (step 2)
Number of switchesWithout transitions: 1118
Network analyses (step 3)
Relative time spent in:
Proposal: 29 %
Other documents: 24 %Mail: 18 %Other: 13 %Projectmanagement: 9 %Internet: 4%
Remainder: 3 %
Reflections on writing modelsExpertise in professional writing
Schriver, 2012Hayes, 1996
digital sources
search for re‐sources
Reflections: new features of Inputlog
Filters Time Filter
Event type Filter
Window Filter
Focus analyses
New feature of Inputlog 5.1
Focus analyses
227
148
60%
39%
New feature of Inputlog 5.1
Implementation of focus analyses
Thank you
Eric Van Horenbeeck (technical coordinator Inputlog)
Tom Pauwaert (programmer Inputlog)
Aiden S.
More information
Mariëlle Leijten, Flanders Research Foundation, Belgium
marielle.leijten@ua.ac.be ~ www.ua.ac.be/marielle.leijten
Luuk Van Waes, University of Antwerp, Belgium
luuk.vanwaes@ua.ac.be ~ www.ua.ac.be/luuk.vanwaes
www.writingpro.eu
www.inputlog.net
www.jowr.org
Inputlog 5.1 available