Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fostering topic knowledge: essential for academic writing

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several researchers emphasize the role of the writer’s topic knowledge for writing. In academic writing topic knowledge is often constructed by studying source texts. One possibility to support that essential phase of the writing process is to provide interactive learning questions which facilitate the construction of an adequate situation model by initiating macro-strategies. In order to examine whether the provision of interactive learning questions during studying source texts leads to better results in academic writing both writing process and performance of a group supported by interactive learning questions was compared to a study-only group which read the source texts without learning questions. Results revealed that students provided with interactive learning questions wrote longer essays and spend significantly more time prewriting and writing/revising their essays than did the students of the study-only group. Studying source texts with learning questions resulted in text products of better readability and partly better accuracy and coverage of content. These findings suggest that engaging students in answering learning questions when reading source texts can positively affect both writing process and performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, J. M. (1991). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 133–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). Hilgard’s Introduction to Psychology (13th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger, R., & Rabin, A. T. (1984). New approaches to readability: Austrian research. Reading Teacher, 37, 512–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, S. L., Corkill, A. J., Sharp, J. M., Downey, R. G., & Khramtsova, I. (1995). Knowledge, interest, and narrative writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 66–79. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.1.66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25, 313–339. doi:10.1080/02702710490522658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80002-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35, 25–37. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, K. R., & Kintsch, W. (2001). Support of content and rhetorical processes of writing: Effects on the writing process and the written product. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 277–322. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 239–297. doi:10.1007/BF01464075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19, 13–27. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dansac, C., & Alamargot, D. (1999). Accessing referential information during text composition: When and why? In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 79–97). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durst, R. K. (1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 347–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eigler, G., Jechle, T., Merziger, G., & Winter, A. (1990). Knowledge and text production. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, S. N. Bennett, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Context. Analysis of Complex Skills and Complex Knowledge Domains (pp. 341–356). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

  • Groeben, N. (1982). Leserpsychologie: Textverständnis—Textverständlichkeit [Reader psychology: Text comprehension - text comprehensibility]. Münster, Germany: Aschendorff.

  • Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242. doi:10.2307/1170376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammann, L. A., & Stevens, R. J. (2003). Instructional approaches to improving students’ writing of compare-contrast essays: An experimental study. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 731–756. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3502_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 473–493. doi:10.2307/1170342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Motivation and writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 144–157). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jucks, R. (2001). Was verstehen Laien? Die Verständlichkeit von Fachtexten aus der Sicht von Computer-Experten [What do laypersons understand? The comprehensibility of scientific texts out of experts’ perspective]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.

  • Kapp, F., Narciss, S., Körndle, H., & Proske, A. (2011). Interaktive Lernaufgaben als Erfolgsfaktor für E-Learning [Interactive learning questions as a success factor for e-learning]. Zeitschrift für E-Learning, 6(1), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory & Cognition, 15, 256–266. doi:10.3758/BF03197724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Long-term working memory in text production. Memory & Cognition, 29, 43–52. doi:10.3758/BF03195739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful questions. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 51–64. doi:10.1097/00011363-200501000-00006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucer, S. L. (1985). The making of meaning: Reading and writing as parallel processes. Written Communication, 2, 317–336. doi:10.1177/0741088385002003006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, I., Schulz von Thun, F., & Tausch, R. (1993). Sich verständlich ausdrücken [Comprehensible verbal expression]. München, Germany: Reinhardt.

  • Loftus, E. F. (1979). The malleability of human memory. American Scientist, 67, 312–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy Young, K., & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from primary documents. Written Communication, 15, 25–68. doi:10.1177/0741088398015001002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431–444. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90036-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Francis, M., & Kerr, S. (1997). Revising for meaning: Effects of knowledge and strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 667–676. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Wooldridge, C. (2012). The science of learning and its applications. In W. Buskist & V. A. Benassi (Eds.), Effective College and University Teaching: Strategies and Tactics for the New Professoriate (pp. 49–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 51, pp. 297–384). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. doi:10.1007/BF02505024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 59–92. doi:10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parodi, G. (2007). Reading-writing connections: Discourse-oriented research. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 225–250. doi:10.1007/s11145-006-9029-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proske, A. (2007). Wissenschaftliches Schreiben. Konzeption und Realisierung computerbasierter Trainingsaufgaben [Academic Writing. Conception and realisation of computer-based training tasks]. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.

  • Proske, A., Körndle, H., & Narciss, S. (2012). Interactive learning tasks. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 1606–1611). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rae, G. (1988). The equivalence of multiple rater kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 367–374. doi:10.1177/0013164488482009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7, 256–287. doi:10.1177/0741088390007002004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 7–26. doi:10.1598/RRQ.24.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Dijkstra, S. (1997). The Four-Component Instructional Design Model for training complex cognitive skills. In R. D. Tennyson, N. Seel, S. Dijkstra, & F. Schott (Eds.), Instructional Design: International Perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 427–445). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Anna Kamphausen and Katharina Abel for their excellent work in preparing and conducting the study, as well as in rating the written products. Furthermore, we are grateful to Annemarie Hilbig and Gregor Damnik for their assistance during data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology of Learning and Instruction, TU Dresden, Zellescher Weg 17, 01062, Dresden, Germany

    Antje Proske & Felix Kapp

Authors
  1. Antje Proske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix Kapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antje Proske.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Proske, A., Kapp, F. Fostering topic knowledge: essential for academic writing. Read Writ 26, 1337–1352 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9421-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9421-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation