A New Research Agenda for Writing-to-Learn: Embedding Cognition in Discipline

Deaf Cognition: Foundations and Outcomes

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages

  Hermsen, Lisa M ^a   Franklin, Scott V ^a  

^a ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Composition; Deaf college students; Education; Learning; Writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921259531     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368673.003.0015     Document Type: Chapter

References (62)

1. Ackerman, J. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10, 334-370.
2. Albertini, J. A., & Schley, S. (2003). Writing: Characteristics, instruction, assessment. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.) Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Albertini, J. A., Bochner, J. H., Dowaliby, F., & Henderson, J. B. (1997). Valid assessment of writing and access to academic discourse. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2, 71-77.
4. Anson, C. (2004, May). Writing to learn versus learning to write. Paper presented at the Seventh National WAC Conference, St. Louis, MO.
5. Applebee, A. N. (1985). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 577-596.
6. 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.
7. Bazerman, C. (1984). Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics. Social Studies of Science, 14, 163-196.
8. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
9. Bazerman, C., Little, J., Bethel, L., Chavkin, T., Fouquette, D., & Garufis, J. (Eds.). (2005). Reference guide to writing across the curriculum. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press and the WAC Clearinghouse.
10. Bazerman, C., & Russell, D. (Eds.). (1994). Landmark essays in writing across the curriculum. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
11. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Berkenkotter, C. (1983). Decisions and revisions: The planning strategies of a publishing writer. College Composition and Communication, 34, 156-169.
13. Bertoff, A. (1981). Recognition, representation, and revision. Journal of Basic Writing, 3, 19-32.
14. Brandt, D. (1992). The cognitive as the social: An ethnomethodological approach to writing process research. Written Communication, 9, 315-355.
15. Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication 58(3): 385-418.
16. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
17. Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298.
18. Dyson, A. H. (1984). Learning to write/Learning to do school: Emergent writers' interpretations of school literacy tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 233-264.
19. Ediger, M. (2006). Writing in the mathematics curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(2), 120-123.
20. Elby, A. (1999). Another reason that physics students learn by rote. American Journal of Physics, 67, S52.
21. Ellis, R. (2004). University student approaches to learning science through writing. International Journal of Science Education 26(15), 1835-1853.
22. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-28.
23. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-408.
24. Florence, M. K., & Yore, L. D. (2004). Learning to write like a scientist: Coauthoring as an enculturation task. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(6), 637-668.
25. Flower, L. (1993). Cognitive rhetoric: An inquiry into the art of inquiry. In T. Enos & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Defining the new rhetorics (pp 171-190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
27. Fulwiler, T., & Young, A. (1982). Introduction. In T. Fulwiler & A. Young (Eds.), Language connections: Writing and reading across the curriculum (pp. ix-xiii). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
28. Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Graves, H. B. (2005). Rhetoric in(to) science: Style as invention in inquiry. Hampton Press.
30. Hayes, J. R., & Flower L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Herrington, A. (1981). Writing to learn: Writing across the disciplines. College English, 43, 379-387.
32. Horning, A. S., & Becker A. (Eds.) (2006). Revision: History, theory, and practice. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
33. Joyner, P. Kelly, & Larkin-Hein, T. (2002). Writing and Physics: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Presented at the IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA.
34. Kaufer, D., Hayes, J., & Fower, L. (1986). Composing written sentences. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 121-140.
35. Kaufer, D., & Young, R. (1993). Writing in the content areas: Some theoretical complexities. In L. Odell (Ed.), Theory and practice in the teaching of writing: Rethinking the discipline. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
36. Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical semiotic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 28-55.
37. Kiefer, K. (1990). An alternative to curricular reform: Writing in the natural science/engineering curriculum. In Proceedings of the core across the curriculum conference, October 6-8. Keystone, CO: The American Association for the Advancement of Core Curriculum.
38. Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educationa Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270.
39. Knoblauch, C., & Brannon, L. (1983). Writing as learning through the curriculum. College English, 45, 465-474.
40. Kollberg, P. (1998). S-notation: A computer-based method for studying and representing text composition (Licentiate thesis) TRITA-NA-P9808, IPLab-145. Department of Numerical Analysis and Computer Science, KTH.
41. Lang, H. (2001). Construction of meaning in the authentic science writing of deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6, 258-284.
42. Lloyd-Jones, R. (1977). Primary trait scoring. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing. (pp. 33-66). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
43. Marchark, M., Lang, H. G., & Albertini, J. A. (2002). Educating deaf students: Research into practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Mayer, C. (1999). Shaping at the point of utterance: An investigation of the composing processes of the deaf student writer. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 37-49.
45. Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in the early literacy development of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12.
46. McLeod, S. H. (ed.). (1988). Strengthening programs for writing across the curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47. McLeod, S. H. (1989). Writing across the curriculum: The second stage, and beyond. College Composition and Communication 40(3), 337-343.
48. Meath-Lang, B., & Albertini, J. (1984). Keeping the purpose before the learner: A notional-functional curriculum framework for deaf students. Teaching English to Deaf and Second-Language Students, 2, 4-11.
49. Monroe, J. (Ed.). (2002). Writing and revising the disciplines. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.
50. Monroe, J. (Ed.). (2003). Local practices, local knowledges. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.
51. Odell, L. (1980). The process of writing and the process of learning. College Composition and Communication, 36, 42-50.
52. Patterson, E. W. (2001). Structuring the composition process in scientific writing. International Journal of Science Education 23, 1-16.
53. Russell, D. R. (1991). Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870-1990: A curricular history. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
54. Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504-554.
55. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction 23(1), 23-55.
56. Schwartz, M. (1983). Two journeys through the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 34, 188-201.
57. Selfe, C. (1997). Contextual evaluation in WAC programs. In K. B. Yancey & B. Huot (Eds.), Assessing writing across the curriculum: Diverse approaches and practices (pp. 51-68). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
58. Swales, J., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4(2), 175-191.
59. Walvoord, B. E. (1992). Getting started. In S. H. McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.). Writing across the curriculum: A guide to developing programs: Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
60. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
61. Young, A., & Fulwiler, T. (1986). Writing across the disciplines: Research into practice. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
62. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M.K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(4), 338-369.