Using two experiments, they evaluated the effects of either content or rhetorical prompts during two different phases of the writing process; first, the composition phase alone (experiment I) and, second, the planning phase and writing stage together (experiment II).
The authors distinguish between the two types of prompts as follows:
"content processes work on problems described by the question, “What do I mean?” In contrast, rhetorical processes in the rhetorical space operate on the question, “What do I say?"(280)Rhetorical prompts have the writers explore and consider the reader's unanswered questions and their persuasive effect on the reader's understanding. Content prompts have writers present specific knowledge and answer specific questions about what the writer thinks and what the writer knows.(286)
The only difference in the two experiments is when the prompts are introduced. Experiment I gave them at the time of writing. Experiment II provided them in the planning phase. The subjects used, 56 college students, were similar to others used in these types of writing cognitive process experiments.
Butcher and Kintsch's findings were consistent with others I have included in that the use of both types prompts vastly improved the quality of the finished product, although with content prompts being the most helpful. Students were more able to write about what they knew than to consider the reader's needs. Rhetorical prompts were even more problematic for inexperienced writers. Rhetorically situating ideas to suit audience and contextual needs seems to require specific training and experience. Unskilled writers become less effective when asked to consider rhetorical prompts they don't know how to use.
Introducing prompts earlier in the writing process also yielded better finished products than if they were left until the time of composition. The writers spent more time thinking about and planning their work and their organization was improved. For my own research question, the results show the power prompts have to effect the quality and content of written assignments as well as a writer's need for training and experience with rhetorical techniques to yield good results.
This study was long and detailed because it wove two separate studies, one involving writing processes and one involving an evaluative tool, the LSA, together. The writing process part of this study seemed very similar to others I have read, except for the exploration of content vs. rhetorical prompts. However, their method did not involve separating the two and conducting different experiments. Instead, they were combined and analyzed through coding of the finished product. I think this was a weakness, because content prompts are easier to use and student subjects likely gravitate to them when given the choice of the two.
Also, there is far less information provided about the subject's skill levels and backgrounds than in other studies. This left me with questions about claims made about the writers experience and skills. Demograhphic information would have been helpful.
Finally, I can't tell which is more important to the authors, the writing prompt study or the LSA study. I am not in a position to evaluate the LSA study, but there were areas where the writing process study was not conceived, conducted or presented as well as others in my bibliography.
