ReCOVer System

The ReCOVer System is a plan for a timed essay, built in four steps before any sentence is written. The four verbs are retrieve, cut, order, then write. The step names are Recall, Chunk, Order, and Verbalise.

Most essay writing fails at the flow of ideas. The writer spends sentences inventing a plan that should have been retrieved, cut, and ordered first. Perspectives come out in random order. Conclusions have no path leading to them. Points have no instances under them.

Core takeaways

• Twenty minutes of a timed paper go to the plan before the first sentence: up to ten on Recall, five on Chunk, five on Order.
• A timed essay needs roughly three or four main chunks, in one direction, with supports under each, and an opening that states the path.
• Most stuck writing is a missing map of ideas, mistaken for a wording problem. The test is whether the points can be explained in conversation with the source closed.
• If Recall produces no structure, the topic was not learned deeply enough. Planning stops and the writer goes back to learning the topic.
• If the plan is clean and the sentences still will not come, the limit is language. The fix is more practice and interleaving.

The four steps

The writing is done from chunks, in a fixed order. First, around the question stem, a small map of the points that serve it. Then those chunks arranged so each one leads to the next. Then each chunk expanded into its supports: a concept, an instance, a quote, a tension, a reading. Then that skeleton turned into bullets in writing order, and the bullets into sentences. The four verbs name this sequence.

Recall drafts a flow of main points from connected knowledge. The question stem selects which structure is relevant. Difficulty at this step signals shallow Higher Order Learning of the topic. If a structure cannot be retrieved, it is not in memory. The exam default is up to ten minutes on Recall. That figure is a working number for this system. It is not a finding.

Chunk cuts the weaker or less relevant points. It then checks that the remaining flow is one a reader can follow. The default is a progression in one direction, with supports under each chunk, and roughly three or four main chunks for a timed essay. One direction is a default for readability. Some arguments have to turn. The count of three or four changes with the length table below. This step is Skinning the map. It takes up to five minutes.

Order linearises the chunks: the introduction first, then each main point unpacked with its supports. The introduction states the main ideas and how the essay will move between them. The path is then visible before any unpacking starts. This step takes up to five minutes.

Once Order has set the path, Verbalise expands the skeleton into sentences. With a clean plan this is often the easiest step. If it is hard, the limiter may be language. When the skeleton is long, bullets in order come first, then sentences. Timed short essays usually skip that extra move. They have fewer points, and the remaining minutes go to sentences and a last read. If Verbalise is hard and the first three steps were clean, the limiter is language.

Where the fluency comes from

Deep encoding done earlier produced the fluency the writer draws on. The ReCOVer System takes a map that has already been retrieved and linearises it under a clock. Bear Hunter System is the map of ideas. WPW is the other way of linearising the map: reteach aloud, whole, then parts, then whole. Linearising a map this way is the same move as putting a logic layer before the detail layers, the sequence Layers of Learning names.

Time spent on the plan

What separates an essay a reader can follow from a muddy one is the time spent making the logic easy to follow. Writers routinely spend too little time on that step. The writer then wastes minutes inventing structure in the middle of a clause.

Twenty minutes of a timed paper go to the plan before the first sentence: ten on Recall, then five on Chunk, then five on Order. The plan those twenty minutes produce looks too simple, and a plan that simple is what the method asks for. The remaining minutes are spent writing. None of them go to inventing structure in the middle of a clause.

Chunk count and essay length

Chunk count drives length. The conversion is a planning heuristic. It is not a law. High school work sits around three to five chunks and roughly two thousand words. Early university sits around five to seven chunks and three thousand words. Late university sits around five to seven chunks and ten thousand words. Ten thousand words is already a paper, and the heuristic still gives a rough guide. Thesis and publication run five to ten chunks and thirty thousand words and up.

What a usable plan looks like

A usable plan is one a stranger could write the essay from: three or four chunks, one direction, supports under each, and an opening that states the path. If the plan cannot be followed without new decisions, it is not a plan yet.

A plan that cannot be followed on the page produces an essay that cannot be followed. The writing itself also goes slower and less accurately. Weak plans almost never yield strong prose. Sentences written later do not repair a messy outline. Some writers do discover structure while writing prose. They are slower. The ReCOVer System is for timed work, where there is no time for that.

A plan a reader can follow is the fix for a muddy essay. The remaining minutes then go to sentences rather than to inventing structure.

Two kinds of failure and how to tell them apart

Essay failure has two kinds. The first is not knowing what to say, in what order, or how the points connect. The second is turning an already-ordered skeleton into sentences that read. Most stuck writing is the first kind, mistaken for the second. The check for the first kind: close the source and ask whether these points could be explained in conversation. If they cannot, the gap is in the map of ideas. The wording is not the problem.

Each symptom points to a cause. Lacking evidence, or waffling, means Recall was thin, or the topic was learned too superficially. Recalled points that will not support themes means weak chunking, or too little relationship-based learning. Not knowing where the essay is going means inadequate ordering, often caused by weak chunking. Sentences that will not flow despite a good plan mean the limit is language mastery.

When the method does not apply

The method is wrong when the bottleneck is language and not structure. Then the fix is more practice and interleaving. Another plan does not help. The method is wrong for untimed exploratory drafts, where the point is to find the structure in the prose. The method is useless if the topic was never encoded. Recall will fail, and the right repair is the map of ideas. A longer outline does not help. The four-letter name ReCOVer and the length table are packaging made for this system. Neither is a finding.

If Recall will not produce a structure, planning stops and the writer goes back to learning the topic. If the plan is clean and the sentences still will not come, the method has no further step. The limit is language. If two timed attempts produce a tidy plan and a wandering essay, the structure is still being invented in the sentences.

How to practice this

1. Read the question stem and spend up to ten minutes on Recall, writing the main points it calls up. Notice whether a structure of main points comes to mind. If none comes, stop planning and go back to learning the topic.
2. Spend up to five minutes on Chunk. Cut the weaker or less relevant points until three or four main chunks remain, with supports under each. Notice whether the remaining chunks run in one direction a reader can follow.
3. Spend up to five minutes on Order. Write an introduction that states the main ideas and how the essay will move between them. Notice whether a stranger could write the essay from this plan without making new decisions.
4. Turn the skeleton into sentences, writing bullets in order first if the skeleton is long. Notice whether this step is easy. If it is hard after a clean plan, the limit is language, and the fix is more practice and interleaving.
5. When the writing sticks, close the source and try to explain the points in conversation. Notice whether you can. If you cannot, the gap is in the map of ideas, and wording will not fix it.
6. After a timed attempt, compare the plan with the essay. Notice whether the plan was tidy and the essay wandered. If that happens twice, you are still inventing the structure in the sentences.

Related pages

• Bear Hunter System, the map of ideas this procedure linearises
• WPW, the other linearisation: reteach aloud, whole–parts–whole
• Higher Order Learning, the recall depth the first step assumes
• Layers of Learning, logic layer before detail
• Skin, the cut step that Chunk performs

Sources

• Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. An outline written before sentences reduced pause time during translating and raised rated quality for many writers.
• Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The Psychology of Writing. Oxford University Press. Planning before prose as a separate process from translating.
• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication. Novices collapse content, structure, and sentences into one pass; experienced writers separate them.