Observation of peers in learning to write

Journal of Writing Research

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 53-83

  Rijlaarsdam, Gert ^a   Braaksma, Martine ^a   Couzijn, Michel ^a   Janssen, Tanja ^a   Raedts, Mariet ^b   van Steendam, Elke ^c   Toorenaar, Anne ^a   van den Bergh, Huub ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b University of Antwerp ^*  (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^d UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Communities of learners; Inquiry; Observational learning; Strategy learning; Writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 75949117312     PISSN: 20301006     EISSN: 22943307     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.3     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Awramiuk, E. (2002). Mother tongue teaching in Poland The dynamics of change. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2, 165-176. doi: 10.1023/A:1021113206586
2. Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Hurley, M.M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing to learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001029
3. Benson, N.L. (1979). The effects of peer feedback during the writing process on writing performance, revision behaviour, and attitude toward writing. Dissertation University of Colorado. Boulder.
4. Braaksma, M.A.H. (2002). Observational learning in argumentative writing. Unpublished dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
5. Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H., (2002). Observational Learning and the Effects of Model-Observer Similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405-415. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.405
6. Braaksma, M.A.H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1-36. doi: 10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_1
7. Braaksma, M. A. H., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Couzijn, M. (2001). Effective learning activities in observation tasks when learning to write and read argumentative texts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(1), 33-48. d o i: 10.1007/BF03172993
8. Brown, A.L., & Campioni, J.C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In: K. McGilly (Ed.), Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice: Classroom lessons (229- 270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
9. Bruffee, K.A. (1980). A short course in writing. Practical rhetoric for composition courses, writing workshops, and tutor training programs. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
10. Bruffee, K.A. (1981). The structure of knowledge and the future of liberal education. Liberal education, 181-185.
11. Bruner, J.S. (1960). The Process of Education. Harvard University Press.
12. Burt, R.M. (1980). Effects of an individualized, humanistic program of confluent literature and composition instruction on the writing performance of low ability suburban eleventh grade Eight /high school students. Dissertation Temple University. UMI 80-25- 1 8 1.
13. Carter, R. D. (1982, November). By itself one-shot peer group revision has no power. Revised version paper delivered at national Council of Teachers of English. Washington. ED 226 350.
14. Clifford, J. (1981). Composing in stages: The effects of a collaborative pedagogy. Research in the teaching of English, 15, 37-53.
15. Cobb, P., & Yackel E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational psychologist, 31, 175-190. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_3/doi: 10.1080/00461520.1996.9653265
16. Copland, J. B. (1980). A twelve week study on the effects of peer evaluation for improving narrative writing performance at the eight grade level. Dissertation Auburn University.
17. Couzijn, M. (1995). Observation of writing and reading activities: Effects on learning and transfer. Dissertation University of Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Dorfix.
18. Couzijn, M. (1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: Effects on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 9, 109-142. doi: 10.1016/S0959- 4752(98)00040-1
19. Couzijn, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Learning to write by reader observation and written feedback. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Effective teaching and learning of writing. Current trends in research. (pp. 224-252). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
20. Couzijn, M. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2004). Learning to read and write argumentative text by observation. In G. Rijlaarsdam, (Series Ed.), & G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14. Effective learning and teaching of writing, Part 1, Studies in learning to write (2nd ed., pp. 241-258). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21. Crasnich, S. & Lumbelli, L. (2004). Improving argumentative writing by fostering argumentative speech. In G. Rijlaarsdam, (Series Ed.), & G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14. Effective learning and teaching of writing, Part 1, Studies in learning to write (2nd ed., pp. 181-196). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
22. De Jong, M., & Schellens, P. J. (1997). Reader-focused text evaluation: An overview of goals and methods. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 402-432. doi: 10.1177/1050651997011004003
23. De Jong., J. (2006). Leren-door-Observeren. Een experiment in het basisonderwijs [Learning through observing. An experiment in primairy education]. Master thesis Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
24. Degenhart, M. (2006). Camtasia and Catmovie. In L. Van Waes, M. Leijten & C. M. Neuwirth (Vol. Eds.) & G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), Studies in Writing. Vol. 17. Writing and digital media (pp. 180-186). Oxford: Elsevier.
25. Delaney, M. C. (1980). A comparison of a student-centered, free writing program with a teachercentered rhetorical approach to teaching college composition. Dissertation Temple University.
26. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
27. Dewey, J. (1930). Human nature and conduct. New York: The Modern Biblioteca.
28. Dixon, J. (1967). Growth through English. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195--208.
29. Elbow, P. (1974). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Englert, S., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In Ch. A MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 208-221). New York: the Guilford Press.
31. Farrell, K.J. (1977). A comparison of three instructional approaches for teaching written composition to high school juniors: teacher lecture, peer evaluation, and group tutoring. Dissertation. Boston University.
32. Ford, B.W. (1973). The effects of peer editing/grading on the grammar-usage and themecomposition ability of college freshmen. Dissertation University of Oklahoma.
33. Fox, R.F. (1978). Treatment of writing apprehension and its effects on composition. Dissertation University of Missouri-Columbia. UMI 79-15233.
34. Gárate, M., & Melero, A. (2004). Teaching how to write argumentative texts at primary school. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H. & Couzijn, M. (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14, Effective learning and teaching of writing, 2nd Edition, Part 2, Studies in how to teach writing, pp. 323-337
35. Galbraith, D. (1996). Self-monitoring, discovery through writing and individual differences in drafting strategy. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 1. Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 121-144). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
36. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 4. Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139-160). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
37. Garcia-Sánchez, J.-N., Fidalgo-Redondo, Raquel (2006). Effects of two types of self-regulatory instruction programs on students with learning disabilities in writing products, processes, and self-efficacy. Learning disability quarterly, 29(3), 181-211.doi: 10.2307/30035506
38. Geist, U. (2004). Stylistic imitation as a tool in writing pedagogy. In G. Rijlaarsdam, (Series Ed.), & G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14. Effective learning and teaching of writing, Part 1, Studies in learning to write (2nd ed., pp. 169- 180). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
39. Graham, S. & Harris, K.R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In L. Swanson, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning Disabilities (pp. 383-402). New York: Guilford.
40. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
41. Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (ed.), New horizons in linguistics. Pp. 140-165. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin books Ltd.
42. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research in written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English.
43. Holliway, D.R. (2000). It looks like a goose: Composing for the informational needs of readers. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1-29.
44. Holliway, D.R. (2004). Through the eyes of my reader: A strategy for improving audience perspective in children's descriptive writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18, 334.doi: 10.1080/02568540409595045
45. Holliway, D. R. & McCutchen, D. (2004). Audience Perspective in Young Writers Composing and Revising. Reading as the reader. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 13. Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 87 -101). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
46. Hymes, D.H. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvannia.
47. Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
48. Karegianes. M.L., Pascarella, E.T., & Pflaum, S.W. (1980).The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. Journal of Educational research, 73, 203- 207.
49. Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude--treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning & Instruction. 18, 379-390. Doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.004
50. Lindgren, E. (2004). The uptake of peer-based intervention in the writing classroom. In G. Rijlaarsdam, (Series Ed.), & G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14. Effective learning and teaching of writing, Part 1, Studies in learning to write (2nd ed., pp. 259-274). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
51. Locke, T. (2001). English teaching in New Zealand: In the frame and outside the square. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 1(2), 135-148.doi: 10.1023/A:1012768217528
52. Lumbelli, L. & Paoletti, G. (2004). Monitoring local coherence through bridging integration: From text comprehension to writing revision and planning. In G. Rijlaarsdam, (Series Ed.), & G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14. Effective learning and teaching of writing, Part 1, Studies in learning to write (2nd ed., pp. 197-208). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
53. Lyons, W. D. (1976). The effects of teacher-peer response and teacher-only response upon attitudes towards writing, and upon writing performance. Dissertation University of Missouri- Columbia
54. Maize, R.C. (1954). Two methods of teaching English composition to retarded college freshmen. Journal of educational psychology, 45, 22-28.doi: 10.1037/h0059985
55. Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company.
56. Myers, C. F. (1979). Teacher and peer evaluative feedback in the development of two composition skills: punctuation and paragraph unity. Dissertation St. John's University, New York.
57. Oostdam, R., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1995). Towards strategic language learning. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi: 10.5117/9789053561560
58. Pamfil, A. (2007). The paradigms of Romanian language and literature curricula in the second half of the 19th century and the 20th century. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 7(3), 211-221.
59. Papoulia Tzelepi, P. (2001). Continuity and change in language arts textbooks in Greek primary schools. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 1(3), 195-207.doi: 10.1023/A:1013827626579
60. Pfeifer, J. K. (1981). The effects of peer evaluation and personality on writing anxiety and writing performance in college freshmen. Dissertation Texas Tech University.
61. Pierson, H. (1967). Peer and teacher correction: A comparison of the effects of two methods of teaching composition in grade nine English classes. Dissertation New York University.
62. Poyas, Y., & Shalom, T. (2002). Textbooks for the teaching of Hebrew language and literature in Israël; A mirror of socio-political and educational changes. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2, 75-94.doi: 10.1023/A:1020800214780
63. Raedts, M. (2008). Bandura's sociaalcognitieve leertheorie als verklaringsmodel voor verschillen in schrijfprestaties bij eerstejaarsstudenten. [Bandura's social cognitive learning theorie as explanatory model for variation in writing performance in freshmen]. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp.
64. Raedts, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van Waes, L., & Daems, F. (2007). Observational learning through video-based models: Impact on students' accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs, task knowledge and writing performances. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), & P. Boscolo & S. Hidi (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing. Vol. 19. Writing and Motivation (pp. 219-238). Oxford: Elsevier.
65. Rosenblatt, L. (1938/1999). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
66. Rijlaarsdam, G., & Braaksma, M. (2004). Students as researchers: defining text quality criteria. Abstracts Writing 2004. 9th International Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group of Writing. Geneva. 129.
67. Rijlaarsdam, G. & Van den Bergh, H. (2004). Effective learning and teaching of writing: Student involvement in the teaching of writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam, (Series Ed.), & G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14. Effective learning and teaching of writing, Part 1, Studies in learning to write (2nd ed., pp. 1-16). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
68. Rijlaarsdam, G. (1987, March). Effects of peer evaluation on writing performance, writing processes, and psychological variables. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Atlanta. ED284288.
69. Rijlaarsdam, G., & Couzijn, M. (2000). Writing and learning-to-write. A double challenge. In R. Simons, J. Van der Linden & T. Duffy (Eds.), New Learning (pp. 157-190). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
70. Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach. In C.A. Macarthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research.(pp. 41-53). New York/London: The Guilford Press.
71. Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., & Van den Bergh, H. (2004). The study of revision as a writing process and a learning-to-write process. In Rijlaarsdam, G. (Series ed.) & L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Studies in Writing. Vol. 13. Revision: Cognitive and Instructional Processes. (pp. 189-207). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
72. Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Kieft, M. (2006). Writing Experiment Manuals in Science Education: The impact of writing, genre, and audience. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 203-233.doi: 10.1080/09500690500336932
73. Rijlaarsdam, G. Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Kieft, M., Broekkamp, H. & van den Bergh, H. (2005). Psychology and The teaching of writing in 8000 and some words. In Pedagogy-Learning for Teaching. BJEP Monograph series 2(3), 127-153.
74. Sager, C. (1972). Improving the quality of written composition through pupil use of rating scale. Dissertation Boston University.
75. Sager, C. (1973). Improving the quality of written composition through pupil use of rating scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national council of teachers in English. ED 089 3041.
76. Sawyer, W. (2007). English as Mother tongue in Australia. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 7(1), 17-90.
77. Sawyer, W., & Van den Ven, P.-H. (2007). Starting points. Paradigms in Mother tongue Education. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 7 (1), 5-20.
78. Sawyer, W., & Watson, K. (2001). Mother-tongue teaching in Australia: The case of New South Wales. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 1(1), 87-104.doi: 10.1023/A:1011536027121
79. Schriver, K. A. (1997). Dynamics in document design: Creating text for readers. New York: John Wiley.
80. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
81. Schunk, D.H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.doi: 10.1080/10573560308219
82. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195-208.doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3204_1
83. Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (2007). Influencing children's self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 7-25.doi: 10.1080/10573560600837578
84. Sears, M.O. (1971). Effects of a student centered procedure on the self-concepts and writing practice of college freshmen. Dissertation Florida State University.
85. Shum, M. S. K. (2005). Effects of four methods of evaluation of Chinese composition in Hong Kong secondary schools. Peer checklist at a closer look. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series ed.) & M.S.K. Shum & D-L. Zhang (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing. Vol. 16., Teaching writing in Chinese speaking areas. (pp. 199-214). New York: Springer.
86. Sonnenschein, S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1984). Developing referential communication: A hierarchy of skills. Child Development, 55, 1936-1945.doi: 10.2307/1129940
87. Starc, S. (2004). Mother-Tongue education in Slovenia. Mother-Tongue education in specific regions. L1--Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4(1), 103-115.doi: 10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033857.50595.57
88. Sullivan, K.P.H., & Lindgren, E. (2006). Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications. Oxford: Elsevier.
89. Ten Brinke, S. (1976). The complete mother tongue curriculum. A tentative survey of all the relevant ways of teaching the mother tongue in secondary education. Groningen/London: Wolters-Noordhoff/Longman.
90. Toorenaar, A., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2005b). The classroom as community of learners for students for mother tongue education in pre-vocational education. Abstracts. Learning and teaching mother tongues: The role of literature for children and young adults at home and at school. 5th IAIMTE conference. Albi, France. 66.
91. Torrance, M., Fidalgo, R., & García, J.N. (2007). The teachability and effectiveness of cognitive self-regulation in sixth-grade writers. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 265-285.doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.00
92. Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sercu, L. (2007). Improving text coherence: effects of collaborative revisions conditions on writing quality in EFL. In B. Csapó, & C. Csíkos (Eds.), Developing potentials for learning. Programme 12th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and instruction. Budapest, Hungary. 146.
93. Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sercu, L. (2006, September). Improving text coherence through peer revision. Do ESL-students revise more and better when being trained with peer revision? Paper presented at 10th International conference of the EARLI special interest group on Writing. University of Antwerp, Belgium.
94. Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sercu, L. (2008a). Learning to write through learning-torevise. The effect of teaching evaluative criteria on text quality in EFL. Manuscript submitted for publication. Van Steendam, E., Sercu, L., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2008b). The effect of strategy instruction on the quality of peer feedback in ESL/EFL. Manuscript submitted for publication.
95. Van Steendam, E., Sercu, L., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2008b). The effect of strategy instruction on the quality of peer feedback in ESL/EFL. Manuscript submitted for publication.
96. Van Waes, L., & Leijten, M. (2006). Logging writing processes with Inputlog. In L. Van Waes, M. Leijten & C. M. Neuwirth (Vol. Eds.), & G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), Studies in Writing. Vol. 17. Writing and digital media (pp. 158-165). Oxford: Elsevier.
97. Vernon, S., Alvarado, M., & Zermeño, P. (2005). Rewriting to introduce punctuation in the second grade: a didactic approach. In G. Rijlaarsdam, (Series Ed.), & G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 14. Effective learning and teaching of writing, Part 1, Studies in learning to write (2nd ed., pp. 47-58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
98. Ward, L. R. (1959). A comparison of two methods of teaching writing in a course in communication skills. Dissertation Purdue University.
99. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education. In C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 5 1 - 85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
100. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
101. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Education Psychology, 94(4), 660--668.doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660