journal article
Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in Writing-To-LearnEducational Psychology Review
Vol. 11, No. 3 (September 1999)
, pp. 203-270 (68 pages)
Published By: Springer
//www.jstor.org/stable/23361498
Read and download
Log in through your school or library
Abstract
Writing produces generally positive, but inconsistent, effects on learning. The reasons for this inconsistency are unknown. This review examines four hypotheses about writing-to-learn: Writers spontaneously generate knowledge "at the point of utterance" (Britton, 1980/1982); writers externalize ideas in text, then reread them to generate new inferences (Young and Sullivan, 1984); writers use genre structures to organize relationships among elements of text, and thereby among elements of knowledge (Newell, 1984); and writers set rhetorical goals, then solve content problems to achieve these goals (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; Flower and Hayes, 1980a). These four hypotheses invoke different aspects of writing, and so are mutually compatible. The genre hypothesis has been supported by empirical research; the other three hypotheses have been tentatively supported by research concerning writing-to-learn, or indirectly supported by other research concerning learning or writing. Further investigation is needed concerning: The empirical validity of the four hypotheses, and interactions among the processes that they identify; the declarative and procedural knowledge that underpins writing-to-learn; and the educational effectiveness of applying cognitive strategy instruction to learning through writing.
Journal Information
Educational Psychology Review is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed integrative review articles, special thematic issues, reflections or comments on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners - all pertaining to the field of educational psychology. The contents provide breadth of coverage appropriate to a wide readership in educational psychology and sufficient depth to inform the most learned specialists in the discipline.
Publisher Information
Springer is one of the leading international scientific publishing companies, publishing over 1,200 journals and more than 3,000 new books annually, covering a wide range of subjects including biomedicine and the life sciences, clinical medicine, physics, engineering, mathematics, computer sciences, and economics.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Educational Psychology Review
Request Permissions
journal article
Research on Revision in WritingReview of Educational Research
Vol. 57, No. 4 (Winter, 1987)
, pp. 481-506 (26 pages)
Published By: American Educational Research Association
//doi.org/10.2307/1170433
//www.jstor.org/stable/1170433
Read and download
Log in through your school or library
Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.
Get StartedAlready have an account? Log in
Monthly Plan
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep
Yearly Plan
- Access everything in the JPASS collection
- Read the full-text of every article
- Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep
Purchase a PDF
Purchase this article for $29.00 USD.
Purchase this issue for $94.00 USD. Go to Table of Contents.
How does it work?
- Select a purchase option.
- Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal.
- Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.
Abstract
Views of revision and its role in writing have changed dramatically over the last two decades. This article first presents a historical perspective on revision and suggests a contemporary definition of revision. Next, it reviews research methods for examining revision. The evolving methods mirror the recent reconceptualization of revision by enabling investigation of the following: meaningful revision activity, not just editorial actions; the revision process as well as the revision products; and revision as it occurs at several points in writing. Findings from research on revision are synthesized, conclusions about the results are given, and limitations of the research are examined.
Journal Information
Review of Educational Research (RER) publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education. Such reviews should include conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of literature and scholarly work in a field. RER encourages the submission of research relevant to education from any discipline, such as reviews of research in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided that the review bears on educational issues.
Publisher Information
The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is concerned with improving the educational process by encouraging scholarly inquiry related to education and by promoting the dissemination and practical application of research results. AERA is the most prominent international professional organization with the primary goal of advancing educational research and its practical application. Its 20,000 members are educators; administrators; directors of research, testing or evaluation in federal, state and local agencies; counselors; evaluators; graduate students; and behavioral scientists. The broad range of disciplines represented by the membership includes education, psychology, statistics, sociology, history, economics, philosophy, anthropology, and political science.
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Review of Educational Research © 1987 American Educational Research Association
Request Permissions