Integrating The Flower and Hayes’ Cognitive Process Model with the SOAR Writing Framework in Mobile Supported Synthesis Instruction

Synthesis writing remains one of the most challenging academic writing skills for tertiary learners, particularly in English-medium instruction (EMI) contexts, due to its high cognitive and metacognitive demands and the lack of explicit instructional scaffolding. While the Flower and Hayes (1981) Cognitive Process Model provides a robust theoretical account of the mental processes involved in writing, it offers limited guidance on how these processes can be operationalised into teachable strategies for synthesis instruction. At the same time, the SOAR strategy (Select, Organise, Associate, Regulate) has been shown to support learning from multiple texts, yet its theoretical alignment with cognitive writing models remains underexplored. This conceptual paper addresses this gap by systematically integrating the Flower and Hayes Cognitive Process Model with the SOAR writing framework as the pedagogical foundation of the SEESOAR mobile learning module. Specifically, the paper maps each SOAR component onto key cognitive writing processes, namely planning, translating, and reviewing, in demonstrating how complex cognitive behaviours in synthesis writing can be transformed into structured, teachable, and mobile-supported learning tasks. The integration is discussed within the context of instructional design for tertiary learners in EMI environments, highlighting implications for Technology-Enhanced Language Learning (TELL) and Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL). The paper contributes a theory-driven instructional model that is expected to enhance learners’ cognitive engagement, metacognitive awareness, and synthesis writing proficiency in higher education settings.

Cognitive Process Theory, SOAR Strategy, Synthesis Writing

1. Addison, J. & McGee, S. J. 2010. Writing in high school/writing in college: Research trends and future directions. College Composition and Communication 62(1): 147–179. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. 1971. The control of short-term memory. Scientific American 225(2): 82-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Barks, D., & Watts, P. (2001). Textual borrowing strategies for graduate-level ESL writers. Linking Literacies: Perspectives on L2 Reading-Writing Connections 246-267. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bednall, T. C. & Kehoe, E. J. 2011. Effects of self-regulatory instructional aids on self-directed study. Instructional Science 39(2): 205–226. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bråten, I. & Strømsø, H.I. 2011. Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition Learning 6: 111–130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R. & Rouet, J.F. 1999. Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. Dlm. S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser & P. Van Den Broek (pnyt.), Narrative Comprehension, Causality, and Coherence: Essays in Honor of Tom Trabasso, hlm: 209–233. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Britt, M. A. & Rouet, J.F. 2012. Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. Enhancing the Quality of Learning: Dispositions, Instruction, and Learning Processes 276– 314. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Campbell, J., Smith, D. & Brooker, R. 1998. From conception to performance: How undergraduate students conceptualise and construct essays. Higher Education 36(4): 449–469. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Daher, T. A. & Kiewra, K. A. 2016. An investigation of soar study strategies for learning from multiple online resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology 46: 10-21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dovey, T. 2010. Facilitating writing from sources: A focus on both process and product. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(1): 45-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. 2013. Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in The Public Interest 14(1): 4–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Galbraith, D. 2009. Cognitive models of writing. German as A Foreign Language (2-3): 7-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Garner, R. 1987. Strategies for reading and studying expository text. Educational Psychologist 22(3–4): 299–312. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gettinger, M. & Seibert, J.K. 2002. Contributions of study skills to academic competence. School Psychology Review 31: 350-365. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Goswami, J. 2020. An examination of SOAR strategies for college students writing from multiple sources: Soaring to successful synthesis writing. IAAR Journal of Education-Peer-Reviewed Journal 2(1): 1-79. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1981). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. Research on Writing 207–220. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hill, M. 1991. Writing summaries promotes thinking and learning across the curriculum: But why are they so difficult to write? Journal of Reading 34: 536- 539. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research 56: 473-493. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Jaidka, K., Khoo, C. S. G., & Na, J. (2013). Literature review writing: How information is selected and transformed. Aslib Proceedings 65(3): 303–325. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Jairam, D. & Kiewra, K. A. 2009. An investigation of the SOAR study method. Journal of Advanced Academics 20(4): 602-629. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 102(3): 601. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Jalleh, C. & Mahfoodh, O. H. A. 2021. Chinese-speaking ESL pre-university students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of collaborative planning in an academic writing course. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 17(S2): 1174-1189. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Karpicke, J. D. 2012. Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21(3): 157–163. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Katayama, A. D. & Robinson, D. H. 2000. Getting students “partially” involved in note-taking using graphic organisers. The Journal of Experimental Education 68(2): 119-133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kiewra, K. A. 2005. Learn How to Study and SOAR to Success. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Kiewra, K. A. 2009. Teaching How to Learn: The Teacher’s Guide to Student Success. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Kiewra, K. A. 2012. Using graphic organisers to improve teaching and learning. IDEA Center, Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Kirkpatrick, L. C. & Klein, P. D. 2009. Planning text structure as a way to improve students’ writing from sources in the compare–contrast genre. Learning and Instruction 19(4): 309–321. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Krishnan, L. A. & Kathpalia, S. S. 2002. Literature reviews in student project reports. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 45(3): 187–197. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Luo, L. & Kiewra, K.A. 2019. Soaring to successful synthesis writing: An investigation of SOAR strategies for college students writing from multiple sources. Journal of Writing Research 11(1): 163–209. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mateos, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H. & Solari, M. 2020. Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome? Instructional Science 48(2): 137-157. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mateos, M. & Solé, I. 2009. Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education 24: 435-451. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Mayer, R. E. 1996. Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review 8: 357-371. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Mayer, R. E. 2002. Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice 41(4): 226–232. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Mayer, R. E. 2011. Applying the Science of Learning. Pearson, Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Moreno, R. 2010. Educational Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Nelson, J., & Hayes, J. R. (1988). How the writing context shapes college students’ strategies for writing from sources. Technical Report 16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Nelson, N. & King, J. R. 2023. Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Reading and Writing 36(4): 769-808. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Neuwirth, C. M. & Kaufer, D. S. 1989. The role of external representation in the writing process: Implications for the design of hypertext-based writing tools. In Proceedings of The Second Annual ACM Conference on Hypertext 319-341. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Nikbakht, E. & Miller, R. T. 2023. The development of ESL students’ synthesis writing through reading instruction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 65: 101274. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Reynolds, G. A., & Perin, D. (2009). A comparison of text structure and self-regulated writing strategies for composing from sources by middle school students. Reading Psychology 30(3): 265–300. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organisers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology 87(3): 455. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. 1987. Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics 2: 142–175. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Simonovic, B., Vione, K., Stupple, E. & Doherty, A. 2023. It is not what you think it is how you think: A critical thinking intervention enhances argumentation, analytic thinking and metacognitive sensitivity. Thinking Skills and Creativity 49: 101362. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Solé, I., Miras, M., Castells, N., Espino, S. & Minguela, M. 2013. Integrating information: An analysis of the processes involved and the products generated in a written synthesis task. Written Communication 30(1): 63-90. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Spivey, N. N. & King, J. R. 1989. Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly 7-26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Taylor, B. M. & Beach, R. M. 1984. The effects of text structure instruction on middlegrade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly 19: 134-146. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Thiede, K. W. & Anderson, M. C. M. 2003. Summarising can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology 28(2): 129–160. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study