Michel Couzijn

Learning to write by observation: effects on learning and transfer.

Abstract A traditional writing pedagogy, learning-by-doing exercises, is criticised for its lack of focus on balancing writing and learning processes. Three variants of learning-by-observation are investigated as possible alternatives: observing writers as models (OW), observing both writers and readers as models (OWR), and observing readers as feedback on writing performance (FW). Observations were made by means of authentic video-tape recordings of student writers or readers (model conditions), or by live confrontations between writers and their readers (feedback condition). Training focused on argumentative text. Participants were pre- and post-tested on reading skill and writing skill in order to measure learning and transfer effects. Results show that all observation conditions were more effective than the learning-by-doing condition: OW and FW showed larger learning effects (on writing skill) and larger transfer effects (on reading skill). Condition OWR only showed larger transfer effects. It is concluded that the effective components of learning-by-observation deserve to be studied in more detail.

Theories, models and methodology in writing research

Theories, Models and Methodology in Writing Research describes the current state of the art in research on written text production. The chapters in the first part offer contributions to the creation of new theories and models for writing processes. The second part examines specific elements of the writing process, such as lower order processes, cognitive load, revision and planning. Part three also discusses the specific elements of the writing process but examines them from the point of view of developmental psychology. The final part contains chapters dealing with aspects of research methodology.

Writing Experiment Manuals in Science Education: The Impact of Writing, Genre, and Audience.

In this study, Grade 9 students wrote experiment manuals for their peers describing a simple physics investigation to explore whether air takes space. Peers executed these manuals and their processes were videotaped. In several experimental conditions, these videotapes were played back for authors. Then they had to rewrite the experiment manual. Three weeks later they wrote a letter‐of‐advice, explaining to peers how to write an experiment manual. Both measures (rewritten manuals and letter‐of‐advice) showed clear effects of the condition in which writers saw real‐time readers’ feedback on their own manual, on understanding of the genre of an experiment manual, as well as on the understanding of physics topics introduced.

Effective learning activities in observation taks when learning to write and read argumentative texts

On repeated occasions, observational learning has proved itself to be an effective instruction method. Experimental studies have shown to be effective for complex tasks such as reading and writing for both teachers and students as models. The problem when interpreting the results of such research is that, in observation tasks, several mental activities play a simultaneous role. In this study we therefore set out to identify the effective elements of observation tasks. We focused on two elements of the observation tasks, both aimed at stimulating monitoring activities: evaluation of the model’s performance and elaboration on this evaluation. We have also distinguished between elaboration on the observed products (the models’ written answers), and elaboration on the observed processes (the models’ verbalisations of their mental activities).The data were subjected to a LISREL analysis. First of all, it was observed that subjects who performed “evaluation” and “productelaboration” better, and “process-elaboration” more often in one lesson, also performed these activities better or more often in the subsequent lesson. Next, we observed an effect of aptitude on the learning activities: pre skill scores influence “evaluation” and “product-elaboration”. The most important finding is that “evaluation” and “product-elaboration” contribute positively to argumentative writing skills. It is discussed that these findings confirm the importance of the monitoring, evaluative and reflective activities when learning complex tasks as writing.RésuméComparativement à l’apprentissage par l’action, la méthode d’apprentissage par l’observation c’est plus efficace. On sait queles études expérimentales s’appliquent bien à destâches complexes comme la lecture et la production écrite, à la fois chez les enseignants et chez les élèves, pris comme modèles. Portant l’interprétation des résultats expérimentaux pose un problème puis que dans les tâches d’observation, plusieurs activités interviennent simultanément. Dans la présente étude, nous voulons identifier les éléments réellement critiques dans ces tâches d’observation. Nous nous sommes intéressés à deux d’entre eux: ‘l’évaluation’ et ‘l’élaboration’ (du ‘produit’ et du ‘processus’).Pour le traitement des donées nous avons utilisée par la méthode LISREL. En premier lieu, les sujets qui, dans une première leçon, réalisent plus souvent correctement les activités d’apprentissage ‘évaluation’ et ‘élaboration du produit’, et réalisent plus souvent ‘élaboration du processus’, réussissent de la même façon dans le leçon suivante. En outre, nous avons constaté quel’existe un effet d’aptitude: les aptitudes établies préalablement influencent ‘l’évaluation’ et ‘l’élaboration du produit’. Le plus important résultat c’est des effets positifs de ‘l’évaluation’ et de ‘l’élaboration du produit’ sur les performances d’écrire argumentatives. Ce résultat confirme l’importance des activités monitor, évaluation et réflexion pendant l’apprentissage des taches complexes comme écrire.

The study of revision as a writing process and a learning-to-write process

This chapter analyzes revision as a component of the writing process and as a tool for learning to write. We explore the field of revision via three excursions. The first excursion is undertaken to define revision. It is suggested that in writing research, revision should be reserved for the intentional, reflective activity during and after writing which the writer implements to improve the text. This definition excludes making transformations or other operations on pretext. A second excursion concerns the question as to why revision has received so much attention from writing researchers. The validity of making inferences from text changes about writing processes is questioned. In the last excursion, we take the reader through the landscape of writing instruction: what difficulties do teachers and learners need to overcome to learn to write? What role can be played by revision activities? For both revision as a writing process and revision as a learning-to-write process, we propose a prospective research agenda. We conclude with some methodological considerations.

Writing and Learning to Write: A Double Challenge

INTRODUCTION: THE EVER MORE COMPLEX WRITING CURRICULUM Several scientific paradigm shifts have influenced the teaching and learning of written composition. Inspired by developments in linguistics and language education, the writing-as-communication shift took place in the nineteen seventies. More stress was put on the (communicative) effect of the text than on its correctness; grammatical correctness made way for pragma(linguis)tical adequacy. This educational shift resulted in more realistic writings assignments, related to ‘real life’, in explicit attention for ‘audience’ and ‘purpose’ as criteria for effective writing, and in the integration of readers’ feedback in writing curricula (e.g. Elbow, 1973). In the nineteen eighties, an orientation on writing-as-a-process was added to the writing-as-communication paradigm. Cognitive psychologists like John Hayes applied Newell and Simons’s problem solving theory to writing and writing instruction as research domains. Together with a linguist, Linda Flower, Hayes conducted several studies, using the thinking-aloud methodology in order to describe the way in which experts and novices differ in their execution of writing tasks. Writing curricula developers paid more attention to the recursive character of writing and to various means for coping with cognitive constraints. Consequently, traditional ‘step-by-step’ instructional methods (‘think first, then write’) were refined and contextualized (‘in case X, it is worthwhile to just start writing, in order to generate new ideas’). This process-approach also demanded introspection by students, so that they could describe their writing processes and label the effectiveness of the constituting activities. It became clear that planning, evaluation and monitoring are key meta-activities in effective writing. Later on, (socio-)linguists developed their own branch within this paradigm (Flower 1994), describing how norms for genres are taught and learned within communities. This socio-historical paradigm was inspired by Vygotsky and Piaget. It is more strongly related to education than the problem-solving studies in the nineteen eighties, because teachers-student-interactions are often object of study. Studies on collaborative learning offer insight in the processes and products of knowledge acquisition, e.g. when discussions and negotiations of working groups are studied (Milian 1996, Saada-Robert 1999, Rouiller 1996, Rouiller & Allal 1997, Ribas, Farrera & Camps 1997; Camps & Milian, 1999; Allal 1999). A fourth paradigm emerged in the nineteen nineties, and originated in

Self-questioning in the literature classroom: effects on students’ interpretation and appreciation of short stories

In this study we examined the effects of self-questioning on students’ interpretation and appreciation of complex short stories. Two experiments were carried out, in which tenth grade students from different secondary schools participated. In Experiment 1 self-questioning instruction was compared to instructor-made questions about stories. In Experiment 2 two forms of self-questioning instruction were compared: an unguided and a guided form. Literature discussions in peer groups formed a substantial part of all conditions. Results showed that (unguided) self-questioning had a positive effect on students’ appreciation of literary stories, compared to instructor-prepared questions and to guided self-questioning. The results for quality of interpretation were more diffuse. In Experiment 1 effects on students’ story interpretation could not be established. In Experiment 2 a main effect on story interpretation was found for both the guided and unguided form of self-questioning instruction. In addition, students’ reading experience appeared to be important for the effectiveness of the unguided self-questioning condition: avid readers tended to benefit more from this condition than infrequent readers. We conclude that an open literature approach, based on ‘authentic’ student-generated questions in response to short stories, can be beneficial for students’ story interpretation and appreciation.

Learning to Read and Write Argumentative Text by Observation of Peer Learners

This chapter offers a theoretical and empirical comparison of ‘learning by doing’ and learning-by observation, applied to the field of reading and writing. Participants are fifteen-year old high school students, who followed one of a series of experimental courses on composition and/or comprehension of argumentative text.

Learning to Write Instructive Texts by Reader Observation and Written Feedback

Can young writers enhance the quality of their texts by observing real readers trying to comprehend them? What do these writers learn from such observations? In this chapter the authors suggest that writing instruction can be made more effective by making communication failures and successes observable. To a certain extent, writers are blind to the communicative failures in their texts since they have all the prior knowledge to fill in the gaps. On-line observation of readers may help them in detecting these gaps, and in learning to repair or avoid them.

The Power of Plural

This chapter reports on developmental processes in written morphology. Focus is on the learning of the rules for written morphology of adjectives in Dutch. In Dutch, this is a simple morphological rule, mastered rather early in primary school. Agreement rules between noun and adjective — number, gender — hardly play a role in the Dutch morphological system regarding adjectives. However, during primary school, the power of plural in adjacent nouns interferes with the correct application of the rule. In the case of material adjectives (golden in golden chair) and verbal adjectives (painted in painted chair), learning phases are indicated by students’ mixing the adjective rule and the noun-plural rule: although the adjective rule has already been mastered, one may find the occurrence of particular errors at a later stage. In short, the power of plural in adjacent nouns dominates the spelling of adjectives at a certain moment, and we take this moment as indicative of a particular learning stage. As an explanation, it may be expected that children invent agreement rules (like in Romance languages) guided as they are by a semantic awareness of plurality. This could be the case in Dutch, even when no agreement rule between noun and adjective exists. In the discussion, we hypothesize that the children are distracted by the form-function relations in Dutch morphemes for plural in nouns and verbs (—en), material adjectives (—en), and normal adjectives (—e). All these morphemes have different functions, but there is no audible difference. They are homophone: the n in the —en morpheme for plural is not pronounced. When they write —en in adjectives, instead of —e, which difference can not be heard in fluent speech, children may want to establish a plural in the adjective, which does not exist in the Dutch language system.