Support of content and rhetorical processes of writing: Effects on the writing process and the written product

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 277-322

  Butcher, Kirsten R ^a   Kintsch, Walter ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039248657     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_2     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267-272.
2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
3. Breetvelt, I., van den Bergh, H., & 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. 10-20). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
4. Corkill, A. J. (1992). Advance organizers: Facilitators of recall. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 33-67.
5. Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Psychology, 57, 481-506.
6. Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285-307.
7. Greene, L., Boyko, M., & Susnowitz, S. (1998). Science writing and revision interactive technology environment (Science WRITE). Retrieved November 15, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.colorado.edu/kines/Science_WRITE
8. Greene, L., Boyko, M., Susnowitz, S., Butcher, K., Kintsch, E., & Kintsch, W. (1998). Introducing Science Writing and Revision Interactive Technology Environment (Science WRITE). In A. S. Bruckman, M. Gusdial, J. L. Kolodner, & A. Ram (Eds.), International Conference of the Learning Sciences 1998: Proceedings of the ICLS 98 (pp. 313-315). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
9. 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 Associates, Inc.
10. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Greg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106-1113.
12. Hayes, J. R., & Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 29-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
13. Jeffery, G. C., & Underwood, G. (1996). Writing as problem solving: The role of concrete and abstract knowledge in the production of written text. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 61-86). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
14. Kellogg, R. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Kintsch, E., Steinhart, D., Stahl, G., Matthews, C., Lamb, R., & LSA Research Group. (2000). Developing summarization skills through the use of LSA-based feedback. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 87-109.
16. Landauer, T. K. (1998). Learning and representing verbal meaning: The latent semantic analysis theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 161-164.
17. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
18. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
19. Levy, C. M,. & Ransdell, S. (1996). Writing signatures. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 149-161 ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444.
21. McCutchen, D., Francis, M., & Kerr, S. (1997). Revising for meaning: Effects of knowledge and strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 667-676.
22. Reisberg, D. (1997). Cognition: Exploring the science of the mind. New York: Norton.
23. Rouet, J. F., Favart, M., Gaonac'h, D., & Lacroix, N. (1996). Writing from multiple documents: Argumentation strategies in novice and expert history students. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 44-60). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
24. Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. D. (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 150-164.
25. Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388.
26. Torrance, M. (1996). Finding something to write about: Strategic and automatic processes in idea generation. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 189-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
28. Wolfe, M. B., Schreiner, M. E., Rehder, B., Laham, D., Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. K. (1998). Learning from text: Matching readers and text by latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 309-336.