1.
Writing as a Cognitive and Socially Situated Skill
🟢 Keep:
Definitions of writing as mental + social
L1 vs. L2 distinctions (already very well written)
Examples from Leiki et al., Farvardin, Crossley & McNamara, Silva (great synthesis)
✂️Trim:
Repetition about complexity (e.g., cognitive vs. social aspects are echoed multiple
times)
Phrase length: some paragraphs can be cut by 20% by simplifying wordy expressions
📌 Refocus: End with a sentence like:
"Given writing’s dual nature — cognitively demanding and socially situated — instructional
approaches must respond to both dimensions."
2. Pedagogical Approaches to Writing Instruction
🟢 Keep:
Strong summary of product, process, expressivist, genre, and socio-cognitive models
Your references to Hyland (2019), Flower & Hayes (1981), and Hyon (1996) are
excellent
✂️Trim:
Repetitive definitions across subsections (e.g., the function of writing is restated in
several approaches)
📌 Clarify flow: Group these into 3 larger clusters:
Traditional approaches (product, structural/functional)
Cognitive/creative (process, expressivist)
Contextual (genre-based, socio-cognitive, SFL)
🎯 End with:
"These evolving pedagogical orientations form the backdrop against which cognitively
supportive writing strategies — such as mapping and collaborative writing — gain
relevance."
3. Argumentative Writing as a Demanding Academic Genre
🟢 Keep:
Ozfidan & Mitchell, Lee & Deakin, Schneer — your examples are rich and contextual
Challenges: organization, rhetorical structure, counterclaims
✂️Condense:
Reduce overlap between examples (e.g., use one or two key studies per difficulty:
organization, rhetorical features, hedging, etc.)
📌 Strengthen the link to CLT:
"These difficulties suggest that argumentative writing imposes significant cognitive demands,
making it essential to explore strategies that can manage the mental workload involved in
constructing coherent, persuasive texts."
4. Cognitive Load Theory and Writing
🆕 Newly Expand (1.5–2 pages):
Add a fully developed section using the following structure:
🔹 Overview of CLT:
Working memory is limited → easily overloaded during complex tasks like writing
Writing = high intrinsic load + possible extraneous distractions (e.g., unclear tasks, no
scaffolding)
Goal: reduce extraneous load, support germane load
🔹 Domain-General vs. Domain-Specific Knowledge:
Domain-general: planning, organizing, reviewing, argumentation strategies
Domain-specific: topic vocabulary, genre structure, audience awareness
Novices are overwhelmed because they must juggle both with limited schema
🔹 Implications for Writing:
Argumentative writing = high intrinsic + domain-specific complexity
Without planning/mapping, extraneous load can block germane load
CLT justifies use of external tools like mapping and collaboration to offload working
memory
🧠 Suggested citation support: Sweller (1988, 2010), van Merriënboer & Kirschner (2018),
Khezrlou (2020), Shahmohammadi et al. (2021)
5. Concept Mapping as Pre-task Planning and Cognitive Support
🟢 Reframe your current “Pre-task Planning” section here. Use these refinements:
🔹 Begin with the cognitive purpose:
“Pre-task planning serves as a buffer against cognitive overload by allowing writers to
externalize and organize ideas before the taxing process of text generation.”
🔹 Clarify the distinction:
Mind Mapping = associative, great for idea generation
Concept Mapping = structured, relational → better suited for genre-based tasks like
argumentation
🧠 Expand on concept mapping:
Helps encode domain-specific knowledge (thesis, evidence, counterclaim structure)
Supports germane load → schema building
Organizes rhetorical moves visually
🔹 Empirical Support (you already have):
Kellogg (1996), Rahimi (2016), Shahmohammadi (2021), Khezrlou (2020)
Add: Novak & Gowin (1984) for foundational theory of concept mapping
🎯 Conclude:
"As a structured pre-writing tool, concept mapping not only reduces the cognitive load
imposed by argumentative writing but also enhances organization, coherence, and genre
awareness."
6. Collaborative Writing as Shared Cognitive and Social Work
🟢 Keep:
Excellent use of Storch (2019), Pham (2021), Dobao and Blum (2013)
Cognitive and social benefits are clearly expressed
📌 Add a brief link to CLT:
“Collaborative writing can distribute cognitive load by allowing learners to share planning
and problem-solving, thus freeing up individual cognitive resources for higher-order
processes.”
📌 Connect to mapping:
“Collaborative concept mapping during planning stages offers a dual benefit: it externalizes
mental workload and fosters co-construction of schema — a key goal in supporting germane
cognitive processing.”
7. Toward an Integrated Instructional Framework
🎯 Synthesize:
Pedagogy + CLT + tools (concept mapping, collaboration) = holistic support system
Include a short model or visual (e.g., triangle: genre–cognition–tools)
📌 Add research gaps:
Concept mapping vs. mind mapping in argumentative writing
How collaborative mapping affects domain-specific schema development
Long-term effects of reducing cognitive load in L2 academic writing