Advertisement

Process Execution of Writing and Reading: Considering Text Quality, Learner and Task Characteristics

  • Huub van den BerghEmail author
  • Gert RijlaarsdamEmail author
  • Tanja JanssenEmail author
  • Martine BraaksmaEmail author
  • Daphne van WeijenEmail author
  • Marion Tillema
Chapter

We have conducted systematic reflections, data reanalyses, and incorporated results from several studies to promote discussion, enhance understanding, and build theory. Two models guide our research and analyses: The Descriptive Interactive Process (DIP) model (Fig. 20.1, left), and the Experimental Interactive Process (EIP) model (Fig. 20.1, right). In the DIP model, the main idea is to study processes: What happens during task execution, and how does the process change accordingly? The complexity can be illustrated by adding three components to the model: (a) quality of the output—what variation in processes is related to variation in output quality?; (b) task characteristics—what degree do processes vary with task features (e.g., computer versus pen-and-paper writing)?; and (c) learner characteristics—what degree doesthe way skilled versus unskilled writers adjust their process to tasks vary?

In the EIP model (Fig. 20.1, right), the general aim is to detect the effect of interventions on processes: Do different instructional variables affect thetarget process differently? This model can be extended by adding the product variable—Do instructional variables affect the target process differently, and does the product quality vary accordingly?—and learner characteristics: Does the way instructional variables affect the target process vary with regard to learner characteristics? Do good writers profit as much from the experimental instruction as poor writers? Does the experimental instruction change the processes carried out while writing in the same way for good and poor writers?

Keywords

Cognitive Activity Task Execution Learner Characteristic Reading Process Observational Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001).Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Andringa, E. (1995). Strategieën bij het lezen van literatuur [Literary reading strategies].Spiegel,13(3), 7–33.Google Scholar
  3. Bergh, H., van den, & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). The dynamics of composing: Modeling writing process data. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing(pp. 207–232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bergh, H., van den, & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). The dynamics of idea generation during writing: An online study. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.),Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production(Vol. 4 in Studies in Writing, pp. 139–160). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bergh, H., van den, & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2001). Changes in cognitive activities during the writing process and relationships with text quality.Educational Psychology,21(4), 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Bergh, H., van den, & Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., van. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes.Cognition and Instruction,22(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breetvelt, I., Bergh, H., van den, & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how?Cognition and Instruction,12(2), 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breetvelt, I., Bergh, H., van den, & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Rereading and generating and their relation to text quality: An application of multilevel analysis on writing process data. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.),Theories, models and methodology in writing research(pp. 10–21). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Chatfield, C. (2004).The analysis of time series: An introduction(6th edn.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.Google Scholar
  11. Coffman, W. E. (1966). On the validity of essay tests of achievement.Journal of Educational Measurement,3(2), 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Couzijn, M., Bergh, H., van den, & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2002, July).Writing processes and text quality: Effects of L1/L2. Paper presented at the 8th international conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Writing Special Interest Group, Stafford, UK.Google Scholar
  13. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist,12(11), 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology.American Psychologist,30(2), 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dijk, T. A., van, & Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach(pp. 31–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). The pregnant pause: An inquiry into the nature of planning.Research in the Teaching of English,15(3), 229–243.Google Scholar
  18. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.),Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production(Vol. 4 inStudies in writing, pp. 139–164). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goldstein, H. (1979).The design and analysis of longitudinal studies. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Goldstein, H. (2003).Multilevel statistical models(3rd edn.). London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
  21. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications(pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Hayes, J. R. (2005). New directions in writing theory. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),Handbook of writing research(pp. 28–40). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  23. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach(pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Hoeksma, J. B., & Koomen, H. (1991).The development of early mother-child interaction and attachment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Free University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Hoeven, J., van der. (1997).Children's composing: A study into the relationships between writing processes, text quality, and cognitive and linguistic skills(Vol. 12 inUtrecht studies in language and communication). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  26. Janssen, T., & Braaksma, M. A. H. (2007a). Lezen in de diepte; Leren interpreteren van verhalen door vragen stellen [In-depth reading: Learning to interpret stories by generating questions]. In D. Schram & A. Raukema (Eds.),Lezen in de lengte en lezen in de breedte: De doorgaande leeslijn in wetenschappelijk perspectief. Amsterdam: Stichting Lezen.Google Scholar
  27. Janssen, T., & Braaksma, M. A. H. (2007b). Literatuur leren lezen door vragen stellen; Effect op verhaalwaardering [Learning to interpret literature by asking yourself questions: Effect on story appreciation].Levende Talen Tijdschrift,8(3), 11–19.Google Scholar
  28. Janssen, T., Braaksma, M. A. H., & Couzijn, M. (in press). Self-questioning in the literature classroom: Effects on students' interpretation and appreciation of short stories.L1—Educational Studies in Language and Literature.Google Scholar
  29. Janssen, T., Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G.,&Bergh, H., van den. (2005, August).Flexibility in reading literary texts: Differences between weak and strong adolescent readers. Paper presented at the 11th conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  30. Kamalski, J. (2007).Coherence marking, comprehension and persuasion: On the processing and representation of discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  31. Kozijn, R. (2006).Integration and inference in understanding causal sentences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  32. Land, J. F. H., Sanders, T. J. M.,&Bergh, H., van den. (2008). Effective tekststructuur voor het vmbo Een corpus-analytisch en experimenteel onderzoek naar tekstbegrip en tekstwaardering van vmbo-leerlingen voor studieteksten [Effective text structure for Lower Vocational Training: A corpus-analytical and an experimental study on the effects of text structure on reading comprehension].Pedagogische Studiën,85(2), 76–94.Google Scholar
  33. Land, J. F. H., Sanders, T. J. M., Lentz, L. R.,&Bergh, H., van den. (2002). Coherentie en identificatie in studieboeken. Een empirisch onderzoek naar tekstbegrip en tekstwaardering op het vmbo [Coherence and identification in study books: An empirical study in the understanding and appreciation of texts in study books in lower vocational training].Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing,24(4), 281–302.Google Scholar
  34. Mulder, G. (2007).Understanding causal coherence relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap (LOT), Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  35. Pressley, M.,&Afflerbach, P. P. (1995).Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Pressley, M.,&Gaskins, I. W. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students?Metacognition and Learning,1(1), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quené, H.,&Bergh, H., van den. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial.Speech Communication,43(1/2), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quené, H.,&Bergh, H., van den. (in press). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data.Journal of Memory and Language, doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.1002.1002.Google Scholar
  39. Rayner, K.,&Pollatsek, A. (1994).The psychology of reading: An interdisciplinary approach. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Rijlaarsdam, G.,&Bergh, H., van den. (1996). Essentials for writing process studies: Many questions and some answers. In C. M. Levy&S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications(pp. 107–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1938/1995).Literature as exploration(5th ed.). New York: Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
  42. Snijders, T. A. B.,&Boskers, R. (1999).Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Tillema-Kortman, M., Bergh, H., van den, Rijlaarsdam, G.,&Sanders, T. J. M. (2005, September).Adaptivity in the handling of cognitive processes during L1 and FL writing and the role of metacognitive control. Paper presented at the 9th biannual congress of the Writing Special Interest Group, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  44. Tillema-Kortman, M., Bergh, H., van den, Rijlaarsdam, G.,&Sanders, T. J. M. (2008).Adaptive strategies during writing in L1 and L2. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  45. Weijen, D., van, Bergh, H., van den, Rijlaarsdam, G.,&Sanders, T. J. M. (2005). Adaptivity: Transferring writing processes between tasks (in L1) and between languages (from L1 to FL English). In C. P. Constantinou, D. Demetriou, A. Evagorou, M. Evagorou, A. Kofteros, M. Michael, C. Nicolaou, D. Papademetriou,&N. Papadouris (Eds.),Abstracts of the 11th conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction: Multiple perspectives on effective learning environments(pp. 1145–1146). Nicosia, Cyprus: Kailas.Google Scholar
  46. Weijen, D., van, Bergh, H., van den, Rijlaarsdam, G.,&Sanders, T. J. M. (2008a).A comparison of process-product relations in L1 and L2 writing. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  47. Weijen, D., van, Bergh, H., van den, Rijlaarsdam, G.,&Sanders, T. J. M. (2008b).The role of composing episode in first and second language writing. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  48. Weijen, D., van, Bergh, H., van den, Rijlaarsdam, G.,&Sanders, T. J. M. (2008c).Variation in L1 writing: Cognitive activities and text quality. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  49. Wesdorp, H. (1974).Het meten van producti et-schriftelijke taalvaardigheid[Measurement of productive written language skills; doctoral dissertation]. Purmerend: Muusses.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht Institute of Linguistics & Graduate School of Teaching & LearningUtrecht University & University of AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Utrecht Institute of LinguisticsUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations