Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:45:08.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Promoting idea production by novice writers through the use of discourse-related prompts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Boris Bakunas
Boris Bakunas*
Affiliation:
National-Louis University
*
9036 South Bell Avenue, Chicago, IL 60620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study asked whether exposure to discourse elements affects idea production in novice writers. Different types of prompts were given to 127 high school subjects following the cessation of production. One prompt, termed contentless, was purely motivational; the other, a discourse prompt, conveyed a motivational message as well as information about the discourse structure of the problem/solution text. Subjects given discourse prompts generated significantly more idea units than those given the purely motivational variety. Also, subjects in the discourse-prompting condition spent more time generating ideas. The results held across topic interest and achievement levels, suggesting that instruction in discourse elements may prove beneficial.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 385 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. M., & Hamel, F. L. (1991). Teaching argument as a criteria-driven process. English Journal, 80, 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1984). Producing considerate expository texts: Or easy reading is damned hard writing (Reading Education Report No. 46). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bray, M. H., & Maxwell, S. E. (1982). Analyzing and interpreting significant MANOVAs. Review of Educational Research, 52, 340–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brossell, G. (1986). Current research and unanswered questions in writing assessment. In Greenberg, K. L., Wiener, H. S., & Donovan, R. A. (Eds.), Writing assessment: Issues and strategies (pp. 168–182). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Caccamise, D. J. (1987). Idea generation in writing. In Matsuhashi, A. (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modelling production processes (pp. 224–253). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology. 80, 448–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. C., & Matsuhashi, A. (1983). A theory of the writing process. In Martlew, M. (Ed.), The psychology of written language (pp. 3–39). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Fear, K. L., & Anderson, L. M. (1988). Students' metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 18–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, J., & Teasley, A. B. (1986). Effects of instruction in narrative structure on children's writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 424–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In Gregg, L. W. & Steinberg, E. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. F., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In Gregg, L. W. & Steinberg, E. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. F., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication.Google Scholar
Horowitz, R. (1987). Rhetorical structure in discourse processing. In Horowitz, R. & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 117–160). San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Van, Dijk T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozma, R. B. (1991). The impact of computer-based tools and embedded prompts on writing processes and products of novice and advanced college writers. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leight, K. A., & Ellis, H. C. (1981). Emotional mood states, strategies and state-dependency in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1985). How to analyze science prose. In Britton, B. K. & Black, J. B. (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 305–312). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62–76.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In Britton, B. K. & Black, J. B. (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 11–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. J. F., Young, C. J., & Bartlett, B. J. (1989). Memory improved: Reading and memory enhancement across the life span through strategic text structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rohman, G. (1965). Pre-writing: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 16, 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, M. (1984). Writer's block: The cognitive dimension. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, S., & Wright, R. E. (1988, November). Ideas in writing: Effects of topic familiarity. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rossi, J. P. (1990). The function of frame in the comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 727–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlosberg, J. (1993). The writer's digest article-writing blueprint step 1: Laying the foundation. Writer's Digest, 73, 26–31.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction in middle-grade students' comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, L. (1990). SYSTAT. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT, Inc.Google Scholar
Wright, R. E., & Rosenberg, S. (1993). Metacognitive aspects of expository writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar