Children' s composing: A study into the relationships between writing processes, text quality, and cognitive and linguistic skills

Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication

Volumn 12, Issue , 1997, Pages 1-153

  van der Hoeven, José ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85173786100     PISSN: 09277706     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Abbott, R.D., & Berninger, V.W. (1993). Structural equation of relationships among developmental skills and wrìting skills ìn primary and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational psychology, 85 (3) 478-508.
2. Atlas, M. (1979). Addressing an audience : a study of expert/novice diffrences in writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. 192338).
3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1981). From conversation to composition: The role of ìnstruction in a developmental process. In: R. Glaser (Ed.). Advances in instructional psychology. Volume 2. (pp.3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Breetvelt, I. (1991). Schrijfproces en tekstkwaliteit. Een ondenoek naar het verband tussen schrijfproces en tekstkwaliteit bij leerlingen in het voortgezet onderwijs (Writing process and text qu ity. A study on the relationship between the writing process and text quality for students in secondary education). Amsterdam: SCO.
6. Breetvelt, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 103-123.
7. Breetvelt, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Reading the assignment and generating processes: An empirical study on the relationship between cognitive activities and text quality. In: G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories models and methodology in writing research. (pp. 10-20). Amsterdam: University press.
8. Breuker, J.A., Elshout, J.J., Someren, M.W., & Wielinga, B.J.(1986). Hardopdenken en protokolanalyse (Thinking-aloud and protocol analysis). Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresarch 11(5), 241-254.
9. Carey, L.J., & Flower, L. (1989). Foundations for creativity in the writing process: rhetorical representations of ill-defined problems. (Technical report no 32). Berkely (CA)/Pittsburgh (PA): Centre for the study of writing.
10. Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey offactor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. CITO (1993). Periodieke Peiling van het Onderwijsniveau. Schrijftaken (National assessment: Writing tasks). Arnhem, CITO. Unpublished manu script.
12. CITO (1993). Schriftelijke Taalvaardigheden Allochtone en Autochtone Leerlingen (Written linguistic skills of immigrant and autochtonic students). Arnhem: CITO.
13. Coffm W.E. (1966). On the validity of essay tests of achievement. Journal ofEducational Measurement, 22, 41-45.
14. Comeir, S.M., & Hagm J.D. (1987). Introduction. In: S.M. Comier & J.D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contempory research and applications. San Diego: Academic Press.
15. Con R., & Jeroski, S. (1980). The British Columbia assessment of written expression. General Report. Victoria: Quenn's printer for British Columbia.
16. Cullpepper, M.M., & Ramsdell, R. (1982). A comparison of a multiple choice and an say test of writing skills. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 295-297.
17. Doornbos, K., & Steyens, L. M. (1987, 1988). De groei van het speciaal onderwijs. Deel A en B (The growth of speci education. Volume A and B). Den Haag: Staatsuitgeverij.
18. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and:p ertise in the era o f the computer. New York: Free Press.
19. Engle C.S., Stewa S.R., & Hiebert, E.H. (1988). Young writers' use of text structure in expository text generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (2), 143-151.
20. Ericsson, K.A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2),211-245.
21. Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review. 8 3) 215-251.
22. Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol analyśis. Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT-press.
23. Evers, A., Van Vliet-Mulder J.C., & Laak J. ter (1992). Documentatie van tests en testresearch in Nederland (Documentation on tests and test research in the Netherlands). Assen; Van Gorcum.
24. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414.
25. Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481-506.
26. Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365-387.
27. Godschalk, F.I., Swineford, F., & Coffman, W.E. (1966). The measurement ofwriting ability. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
28. Goldstein, H. (1979). The design and analysis of longitidinal studies. London: Academic Press.
29. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. Second edition. London: Deward Amold.
30. Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in leaming disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 781-791.
31. Graham S., &Harris, K.R. (1989). Component analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on leaming disabled students' compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 353-361.
32. Graham, S., & MacArthur C. (1988). Improving leaming disabled students' skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training. Journal of Special Education, 22, 133-152.
33. Graham, S., Harris, K.R., Mac Arthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing instruction. In: Wong B. Y. L. (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities, (pp. 309-343). San Diego.
34. Harris, K.R., & Graham S. (1985). Improving leaming disabled students' composition skills: Self-control strategy instruction. Learning Disabilities Quarter 8, 27-36.
35. Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In: L. W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach. (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Hay J.R., Flower, L., Schriver, K.A., Stratman J. & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In: S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics. Volume 2: Reading, writing and language learning. (pp. 176-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Hillocks, G. Jr. (1986). Research on wntten composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, Ill: NCRE and ERIC/RCS.
38. Hog T.P., & Mishler, C. (1982). Relation ips among measures o f writing skill. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 224 812).
39. Holy K.J. (1991). Symbolic connectionism: Toward a third generation theories of expertise. In: K.A. Ericsson,& J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Pro pects and limits (pp.301-335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Hudson, S.A., & Veale, L. R. (1981). An empirical investigation o f direct and indirect measures o f writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 205993).
41. Janss D., Van Waes L., & Van den Bergh, H. (1996). Effects of thinking-aloud on writing processes. In: M.C. Le vy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing. (pp. 233-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
42. Kellogg, R.T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory and cognition, 15(3), 256-266.
43. Kellogg, R.T., (1988). Attentional overload and writing performances: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory and Cognition, 14(2), 355-365.
44. Kellogg, R.T., (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In: M.C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science ofwriting. (pp. 57-72). M w NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
45. Kress G. (1994). Learning to write. Second edition. london: Routledge.
46. Lammers, D.H. (1991). Taal in tweevoud. Communicatieve competentie, alvaardigheid & het ondern in het Nederlands (Language in duplicate: Language competence, language abilities and education in Dutch). De Lier: Academisch boeken centrum.
47. Levy, C.M., & Randsdell, S. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems? Memory and Cognition, 23(6), 767-779.
48. Levy, C.M., & Randsdell, S. (1996). Writing signatures. In: C.M. Le vy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), Th e science o f writing. (pp. 149-162). Mawah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revision behavior among leaming disabled students. Learning Disability Quarter 14, 61-73.
50. McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S.H., & Mildes, K. (1994). Individual differences in writing. Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (2), 256-266.
51. Monah B.D. (1982). Revision strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for different audiences. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. 229756).
52. Meijerink, J. (1994). Toetspakket STAAL: Veelzijdig en bruikb maar te monocultureel (STAAL test: varied and useful but too mono-cultural). Samenwijs, 14 (6), 285-286.
53. Newcomer, Ph., & Barenbaum, E.M. (1991). The written composing ability of children with leaming disabilities: A review of the literature from 1980-1990. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 10, 578-593.
54. Perfetti C.A., & McCutchen, D. (1987). Schooled language competence: linguistic abilities in reading and writing. In: S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguist. Volume 2: Reading, writing and language learning. (pp. 105-141). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
55. Quellmalz, E.S., Cappel, F.J., & Chou, C.P. (1982). Effects of discourse and response mode on the measurement of writing competence. Journal of educational measurement, 19, 241-258.
56. Ransdell, S., & Levy, C.M. (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In: C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Th eori methods, individual differences and applications. (pp. 93-105). M w NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
57. Rijlaarsdam G.C.W. (1986). Effecten van leerlingenrespons op aspecten van stelvaardigheid (Effects of peer response on aspects of writing proficiency and processes). Amsterdam: SCO.
58. Rijlaarsdam G. & Van den Bergh, H. (1996). The dyn nics of composing: An agenda for the research into an interactive compensatory model of writing: many questions, some answers. In: C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Th eori methods, individual differences and applications. (pp. 107-126). Mahw NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
59. Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh H. & Couzijn, M. (1996). Current trends in research on writing: Theories, models and methodology. In: G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Th eori models and methodology in writing research. (Introduction). Amsterdam: University press.
60. Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh H. & Zwarts, M. (1992). Incidentele transfer bij produktieve taalopdrachten: Een a et tot een baseline (Incidental transfer on productive language tasks: An initiation for a baseline). Tijdschrift voor On rwijsresearch 17 (1), 55-66.
61. Sawyer, R.J., Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1992). Direct teaching, stategy instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 340-352.
62. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). Child as coinvestigator: Helping children gain insight into their own mental processes. In: S. Paris, G. Olsen & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom. (pp. 61-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Scardamal M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In: M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), The third handbook of research on teaching (pp. 778-803). New York: Macmillan.
64. Schilperoord, J. (1996). It's about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
65. Schoonen, R. (1991). De evaluatie van schrijfvaardigheids-metingen. Een empirisch onderzoek naar betrouwbaarheid, validiteit en bruikbaarheid van schrijfvaardigheidsmetingen in de achtste groep van het basisonderwijs (Evaluation of writing ability measures. An empirical study on reliability, validity and utility of writing ability measures in grade 6). Amsterdam: SCO.
66. Snow, R.E. (1980). Aptitude processes. In: R.E. Snow, P.A. Frederico & W.E. Motague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Vol. 1. Cognitive process ana ses of aptitude. (pp. 27-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
67. Torges J.K. (1991). Le arning disabilities: Historical and conceptual issues. In: Wo B.Y. L. (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities. (pp. 3-39). San Diego: Academic Press.
68. Torrance, M. (1996). Strategies for familiar writing tasks: Case studies of undergraduates writing essays. In: Rijl rsdam Van den Bergh, H. & Couzijn, M. (Eds.). Th eori models and methodology in writing res(!arch. (pp. 283-298). Amsterdam: University press.
69. Torrance, M., Thomas, G.V., & Robinson, E.J. (1993). Training in thesis writing: An evaluation of three conceptual orientations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 170-184.
70. Torrance, M., Thomas, G.V., & Robinson, E.J. (1996). Finding something to write about: Strategic and automatic pro sses in idea generation. In: Levy, C.M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.). The science of writing: Th eori methods, individual differences and applications. (pp. 189-206). Mahw NJ: La wrence Erlbaum Associates.
71. Van den Bergh, H., & Meuffels, B. (1993). Empirisch onderzoek naar taal-vaardigheid. Een stand van zaken in het schrijfvaardigheidsonderzoek (Empirical research into linguistic skills. The state of affairs in research on writing ability). In: A. Braet & J. van de Gein (Eds.), Taalbeheersing als teks letenschap: Terreinen en Trends. (pp.177-211). Dordrecht: ICG publikatie.
72. Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G., (1996). The dynamics of composing: Modelling writing process data. In: C.M. Le vy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories. methods, individual differences and applications. (pp.207-232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
73. Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Breetvelt, I. (1994). Revision process and text quality: An empirical study. In: G. Eigler & T. Jechle (Eds.), Writing: Current trends in European research (pp. 148). Freiburg: Hochschul Verlag.
74. Van der Pool, E., & Van Wijk C. (1995). Proces en strategie in een psycho-linguïstisch model van schrijven en lezen (Process and strategy in a psycholinguistic model of reading and writing). Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 20 (3), 200-215.
75. Van Gelderen, A., & Blok, H. (1989). Het stelonderwijs in de hoogste groepen van het basisonderwijs (Education in composing in grade 5 and 6). Amsterdam: SCO.
76. Van Laarhoven, A., Peterink, G., Winnips, F., & Winnubst, T. (1981). Analyse van individualiseringsvormen. Dee ublicatie technisch lezen (Analysis of individualization forms. Volume basic reading). 's Hertogenbosch: Katholiek Pedagogisch Centrum.
77. Vergeer, M.M., & Oostdam, R.J. (1988). Voorstudie Periodieke Peiling van het Onderwijsniveau in het eciaal Onderwijs. Deel 3: Prestaties van LOM-en MLK-leerlingen op functionele taaltaken (Study for the National Assessment in special education. Volume 3: performance of LOM and MLK students on functionallanguage tasks). Amsterdam:SCO.
78. Weaver, C.A. III, & Bryant, D.S. (1995). Monitoring comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory and Cognition, 23(1), 12-22.
79. Zwarts, M. (Ed.) (1990). Balans van het taalonderwijs aan het einde van de basisschool. Uitkomsten van de eerste taa iling einde basisonderwijs (The balance of language teaching in grade 6. Results of the first national language assessment at the end of prim y education). An em: CITO.