The writing approaches of secondary students

Lavelle, Ellen; Smith, Jennifer A.; O'Ryan, Leslie

doi:10.1348/000709902320634564

Cited by 43 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, a self-reporting writing questionnaire can be useful for discriminating between groups. Other researchers applying self-reporting writing questionnaires showed that it is possible to detect individual differences between writers with self-reporting writing questionnaires (Galbraith, 1996(Galbraith, , 1999Janssen & Overmaat, 1990;Lavelle, Smith, & O'Ryan, 2002;Torrance et al, 1994Torrance et al, , 1999Torrance et al, , 2000.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing as a learning tool: Testing the role of students’ writing strategies

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The claim that writing facilitates students' learning, although widely accepted, has little support from empirical research. A possible explanation for the lack of empirical evidence is that writing-to-learn research has disregarded that students use different writing strategies. The purpose of the present experimental study is to test whether it is effective to adapt writing-to-learn tasks to different writing strategies when teaching literature. A course "Learning to write argumentative texts about literature" was developed in two different versions: one adapted to a planning writing strategy, the other to a revising writing strategy. Participants were 113 tenth-grade high school students in the Netherlands. Our hypothesis is an adaptation hypothesis: we expect that the more a student will use a planning writing strategy, the more the student will profit from the lessons in the planning condition, and that the more a student uses a revising writing strategy, the more beneficial the revising condition will be. However, results show that for improving literary interpretation skill, a course adapted to the planning writing strategy is more effective for almost all students.This paper benefited substantially from the constructive suggestions kindly offered by Martine Braaksma, Michel Couzijn, and Tanja Janssen (our colleagues at the Graduate School of Teaching and Learning), and from the very helpful comments of two anonymous reviewers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing as a learning tool: Testing the role of students’ writing strategies

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Questionnaires about different aspects and/or configurations of writing processes (Kieft et al 2006(Kieft et al , 2008Lavelle et al 2002;Torrance et al 1994Torrance et al , 1999Torrance et al , 2000 are an example of such offline measures. The use of offline measurements have been criticised as inaccurate reflections of the underlying process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relating self reports of writing behaviour and online task execution using a temporal model

Tillema

Bergh

Rijlaarsdam

et al. 2011

Metacognition Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current theory about writing states that the quality of (meta)cognitive processing (i.e. planning, text production, revising, et cetera) is, at least partly, determined by the temporal distribution of (meta)cognitive activities across task execution. Put simply, the quality of task execution is determined more by when activities are applied than by how often they are applied. Planning and revising are two extreme writing styles, in which (meta)cognitive activities are temporally differently distributed across the writing process. Planners are writers who generate plans before text production. Revisers use text production as a means to arrive at a content plan. The present study investigates the question whether the online (meta)cognitive processing of secondary school students during writing tasks, as measured by think aloud techniques and keystroke logging, can be predicted by their responses to an offline questionnaire which measures to what degree students considered themselves to be planners and revisers. It was expected that different reported writing styles would entail different temporal distributions of six (meta)cognitive activities: reading the assignment, planning, text production, reading own text, evaluating own text and revising. This hypothesis was partly confirmed. The results show that the online temporal distributions of reading the assignment and planning are different for different degrees of reported writing styles. On the basis of these results, the validity of both the questionnaire and the concept of planner and reviser styles are discussed.Keywords Metacognitive and cognitive processes . Metacognitive knowledge . Offline reports . Online reports . Writing Writing a coherent and readable text involves handling many (meta)cognitive activities, such as generating, planning, translating ideas into language and making revisions when Metacognition Learning (2011) 6:229-253

show abstract

“…These researchers, as well as others who found that children's writing self-efficacy is related to their writing performance (see Bandura, 1984;Lavelle et al, 2002;Meier et al, 1984;Pajaras & Johnson, 1996;Wray, 1993), note that children can draw on a variety of resources when developing their self-efficacy in a certain domain, previous achievement being one of them. Our results indicate that one of these resources could also be their writing knowledge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%