The use of cognitive and social apprenticeship to teach a disciplinary genre: Initiation of graduate students into NIH grant writing

Written Communication

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 3-52

  Ding, Huiling ^a  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive apprenticeship; Genre system; Social apprenticeship; Writing in the Discipline

Indexed keywords

EID: 37249016867     PISSN: 07410883     EISSN: 15528472     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0741088307308660     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Askehave, I., & Swales, J.M. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 22, 195-212.
2. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3. Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genre and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79-101). London: Taylor and Francis.
4. Bazerman, C. (1997). Discursively structured activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 296-308.
5. Bazerman, C. (2003). What is not institutionally visible does not count: The problem of making activity assessable, accountable, and plannable. In C. Bazerman & D. R. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 428-481). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
6. Bazerman, C., & Paradis, J. (1991). Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
7. Bazerman, C., & Russell, D. (2003). Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
8. Beaufort, A. (2000). Learning the trade: A social apprenticeship model for gaining writing expertise. Written Communication, 17, 185-223.
9. Berg, C.E. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-237.
10. Berkenkotter, C. (1995). The power and the perils of peer review. Rhetoric Review, 13, 245-248.
11. Berkenkotter, C. (2001). Genre systems at work: DSM-IV and rhetorical recontextualization in psychotherapy paperwork. Written Communication, 18, 326-349.
12. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T., & Ackerman, J. (1988). Conventions, conversations, and the writer: Case study of a student in a rhetoric Ph.D. program. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 9-41.
14. Blakeslee, A.M. (2001). Interacting with audiences: Social influences on the production of scientific writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Brakel, V.L. (1990). The revising process of sixth-grade writers with and without feedback. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 22-29.
16. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
17. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the "conversation of mankind." College English, 46, 635-652.
19. Carter, M. (1990). The idea of expertise: An exploration of cognitive and social dimensions of writing. College Composition and Communication, 41, 265-286.
20. Casanave, C.P. (1995). Local interactions: Constructing contexts for composing in a graduate sociology program. In D. D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 83-110). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21. Coe, R. (2002). Ideologies of genre. Creskill, NJ: Hampton.
22. Collins, A., Brown, S.B., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15, 4-46.
23. Devitt, A. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential, and functional. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions (pp. 336-380). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
24. Dong, Y.R. (1998). Non-native graduate students' thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from two US institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 369-390.
25. Dysthe, O. (2002). Professors as mediators of academic text cultures: An interview study with advisors and master's degree students in three disciplines in a Norwegian university. Written Communication, 19, 493-544.
26. Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Engestrom, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64 - 103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. The federal appropriations process. (2003). Retrieved April 26, 2005, from http://www.pan-can.org/Public/appropriationsProcessinfo.html
30. Ge, X., & Land, S.M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 5-22.
31. Gebhardt, R. (1980). Teamwork and feedback: Broadening the base of collaborative writing. College English, 42, 69-74.
32. Geisler, C. (2003). When management becomes personal: An activity-theoretic analysis of Palm™ technologies. In C. Bazerman & D. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves, writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 125-158). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity.
33. Graff, G., & Hoberek, A. (1999). Hiding it from the kids (with apologies to Simon and Garfunkel). College English, 62, 242-254.
34. Haas, C. (1994). Learning to read biology: One student's rhetorical development in college. Written Communication, 11, 43-84.
35. Herrington, A.J., & Cadman, D. (1991). Peer review and revising in an anthropology course: Lessons for learning. College Composition and Communication, 42, 184-199.
36. Holt, M. (1992). The value of written peer criticism. College Composition and Communication, 43, 384-392.
37. Hung, D., Chee, T.S., Hedberg, J.G., & Seng, K.T. (2005). A framework for fostering a community of practice: Scaffolding learners through an evolving continuum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 159-176.
38. Hunter, S. (1995). The case for reviewing as collaboration and response. Rhetoric Review, 13, 265-272.
39. Inouye, S.K., & Fiellin, D.A. (2005). An evidence-based guide to writing grant proposals for clinical research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142, 274-282.
40. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Leki, I. (2003). Living through college literacy: Nursing in a second language. Written Communication, 20, 81-98.
44. Leont'ev, A. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4-33.
45. Leont'ev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
46. Leont'ev, A. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.
47. Locke, L.F., Spirduso, W.W., & Silverman, J.S. (2000). Proposals that work: A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (4 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. Looi, C., & Tan, B. (1998). A cognitive apprenticeship-based environment for learning word problem solving. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 17(4), 339-354.
49. Lotman, Y.M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 24, 33-51.
50. Miller, C.R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
51. Mohan-Ram, V. (1999). Grant reviews: Introduction to the review process. Retrieved May 28, 2005, from http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ full/1999/09/07/1
52. National Institutes of Health. (n.d.). Guide for assigned reviewers' preliminary comments on research grant applications. Retrieved April 19, 2003, from http://cms.csr.nih.gov
53. NIH announces updated criteria for evaluating research grant applications. (2005). Retrieved March 6, 2004, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-002.html
54. Nystrand, M. (1986). Learning to write by talking about writing: A summary of research on intensive peer review in expository writing instruction at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), The structure of written communication (pp. 179-211). Orlando, FL: Academic.
55. Paré,0 A. (2000). Writing as a way into social work: Genre sets, genre systems, and distributed cognition. In P. Dias & A. Paré (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 145-166). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
56. Prior, P.A. (1991). Contextualizing writing and response in a graduate seminar. Written Communication, 8, 267-310.
57. Prior, P.A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58. Smart, G. (2003). A central bank's "communication strategy": The interplay of activity, discourse genres, and technology in a time of organizational change. In C. Bazerman & D. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 9-61). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
59. Spear, K. (1988). Sharing writing: Peer response groups in English classes. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
60. Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
62. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
63. Swales, J. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
64. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65. Tardy, C.M. (2003). A genre system view of the funding of academic research. Written Communication, 20, 7-36.
66. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67. Vygotsky, L. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 134-143). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
68. Wilhelm, J., Baker, T., & Dube, J. (2001). Strategic reading: Guiding students to lifelong literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
69. Winsor, D. (1996). Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
70. Winsor, D. (1999). Genre and activity systems: The role of documentation in maintaining and changing engineering activity systems. Written Communication, 6, 200-224.