The document summarizes a presentation given by Mariëlle Leijten and Luuk Van Waes on professional writing from multiple sources. The presentation discussed a case study of a professional writer creating a proposal by copying and pasting from various sources. Network analyses of the writing process showed the writer spent 74% of time searching and working with sources, and only 26% of time directly writing the proposal text. The presentation also proposed new features for the Inputlog software to better analyze writers' focus when switching between documents.

1. 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

2. Professional writing from multiple sources
Mariëlle Leijten & Luuk Van Waes

3. Program
introduction
method
case
reflections

4. Introduction
1980’s
I think I
will start
writing a ... I will change the
formulation of
this sentence
into...
Flower & Hayes, 1981

5. Introduction
1996
Hayes, 1996

6. ?
?

7. Long term memory:
 Task schemas
 Topic knowledge
 Audience knowledge
 Linguistic knowledge
 Genre knowledge
External digital sources:
 Task schemas
 Topic knowledge
 Audience knowledge
 Linguistic knowledge
 Genre knowledge

8. Method
 Observations (participative & Inputlog)
 Interviews
 Versions of documents
 (Logbooks)

9. Inputlog 5.0.* Beta
 Record
 Logging of sources: focus events
 Procedures for professional writing
 create new
 open existing
 continue previous

10. Case Study
 Midsized Design Consulting Agency in Brussels
Experience 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

11. 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 % Sessions
session 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%

12. Data preparation
 Merging
 Filtering
 Coding sources

13. Graph of writing process
Percentage of time spend in
Proposal: 26%
Sources: 74%
Type of text production
Copied: 75%
New: 25%

14. template constructing searching re‐reading constructing
searching inserting/rewriting distraction searching connecting
meeting contextualizing
re‐reading constructing
deleting
commenting

15. 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."

16. 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."

17. 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.”

18. Text construction

19. Network analyses (step 1)
Number of switches
Total: 2759

20. Network analyses (step 2)
Number of switches
Without transitions: 1118

21. Network analyses (step 3)
Relative time spent in:
Proposal: 29 %
Other documents: 24 %
Mail: 18 %
Other: 13 %
Projectmanagement: 9 %
Internet: 4%
Remainder: 3 %

22. Reflections on writing models
Expertise in professional writing
digital sources
Schriver, 2012
search for re‐sources Hayes, 1996

23. Reflections: new features of Inputlog
 Filters
 Time Filter
 Event type Filter
 Window Filter
 Focus analyses

24. New feature of Inputlog 5.1
 Focus analyses
227 60%
148 39%

25. New feature of Inputlog 5.1
 Implementation of focus analyses

26. Thank you
 Eric Van Horenbeeck (technical coordinator Inputlog)
 Tom Pauwaert (programmer Inputlog)
 Aiden S.

27. 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 Inputlog 5.1 available
www.jowr.org