Abstract
The claim that writing facilitates students’ learning, although widely accepted, has little support from empirical research. A possible explanation for the lack of empirical evidence is that writing-to-learn research has disregarded that students use different writing strategies. The purpose of the present experimental study is to test whether it is effective to adapt writing-to-learn tasks to different writing strategies when teaching literature. A course “Learning to write argumentative texts about literature” was developed in two different versions: one adapted to a planning writing strategy, the other to a revising writing strategy. Participants were 113 tenth-grade high school students in the Netherlands. Our hypothesis is an adaptation hypothesis: we expect that the more a student will use a planning writing strategy, the more the student will profit from the lessons in the planning condition, and that the more a student uses a revising writing strategy, the more beneficial the revising condition will be. However, results show that for improving literary interpretation skill, a course adapted to the planning writing strategy is more effective for almost all students.
Résumé
L’affirmation selon laquelle l’écriture favorise l’apprentissage chez les collégiens est largement acceptée mais peu soutenue par des résultats de recherches empiriques. Une explication possible à ce manque d’évidences empiriques tient au fait que la recherche relative à l’apprentissage de l’écrit a négligé l’étude des différentes stratégies d’écriture des collégiens. L’objectif de cette étude expérimentale est de voir s’il est efficace d’adapter une stratégie d’écriture réécrivant et une stratégie planifiant à des activités d’apprentissage de production écrite dans l’enseignement de la littérature. Un cours intitulé “Apprendre à écrire un texte argumentatif sur la littérature” a été proposé sous deux formes différentes: l’une pour la stratégie d’écriture planifiant, l’autre pour la stratégie réécrivant. Les participants étaient 113 collégiens en classe de troisième aux Pays-Bas. Notre hypothèse est une hypothèse d’adaptation: on s’attend à ce qu’un collégien ayant une stratégie d’écriture planifiant profitera davantage des leçons adaptées à cette stratégie et que les leçons de type sculptural seront bénéfiques pour les lycéens ayant une stratégie d’écriture réécrivant. Cependant, les résultats montrent que, pour améliorer la compétence d’interprétation littéraire, un cours adapté a une stratégie d’écriture planifiant est plus efficace pour quasiment tous les collégiens.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackerman, J.M. (1993). The promise of writing to learn.Written Communication, 10(3), 334–370.
Anson, C. (2004).Writing-to-learn versus learning-to-write: An international perspective. Featured session at the Seventh National Writing Across the Curriculum Conference, St Louis, MO (May).
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Hurley, M.M. & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn on academic achievement: A meta-analysis.Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.
Biggs, J.B., Lai, P., Tang, C., & Lavelle, E. (1999). Teaching writing to ESL graduate students: A model and an illustration.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 293–306.
Boscolo, P., & Carotti, L. (2003). Does writing contribute to improving high school students’ approach to literature?LI — Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3(3), 197–224.
Bridwell-Bowles, L., Johnson, P., & Brehe, S. (1987). Composing and computers: Case studies of experienced writers. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.),Writing in real time: Modelling production processes (pp. 81–107). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Elbow, P. (1973).Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Galbraith, D. (1996). Self-monitoring, discovery through writing, and individual differences in drafting strategy. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.),Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 121–141). Amsterdam: University Press.
Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a Knowledge-Constituting Process. In G. Rijlaarsdam, E. Espéret (Series Eds.), D. Galbraith, & M. Torrance (Vol. Eds.),Studies in Writing: Vol. 4. Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–159). Amsterdam: University Press.
Janssen, T. (1998).Literatuuronderwijs bij benadering. Een empirisch onderzoek naar de, vormgeving en opbrengsten vanhet literatuuronderwijs Nederlands in de bovenbouw van het havo en vwo [Approaches to literature teaching: A study of the form and results of literary education in Dutch secondary schools] Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
Janssen, T., & Overmaat, M. (1990).Tekstopbouw en stelvaardigheid. Een onderzoek naar de effecten van twee experimentele methoden voor tekstopbouw [Text structure and writing competence. A study on the effects of two experimental methods for text structure]. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Couzijn, M. (2003).Reading for points and problems. A study of students’ literary interpretation processes. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Padova, Italy (August).
Kieft, M., & Rijlaarsdam G. (2002).Writing about literature in modern textbooks: An analysis and proposal. Paper presented at Writing 02. 8th International Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Stafford, England (July).
Klein, P.D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn.Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203–270.
Lavelle, E., Smith, J., & O’Ryan, L. (2002). The writing approaches of secondary students.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 399–418.
Levy, C.M., & Ransdell, S. (1996) Writing signatures. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing. Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 149–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Little, R.J.A., & Rubin, D.B. (1987).Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Marshall, J.D. (1987). The effects of writing on students’ understanding of literary texts.Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 30–63.
Moffett, J. (1983).Teaching the universe of discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. [Original work published 1968)
Newell, G.E., Suszynski, K., & Weingart, R. (1989). The effects of writing in a reader-based and text-based mode on students’ understanding of two short stories.Journal of Reading Behaviour, 21, 37–57.
Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (1996). The dynamics of composing—An agenda for research into an interactive compensatory model of writing: Many questions, some answers. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.),The science of writing. Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 107–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Skeans, S. (2000). Reading… with pen in hand!English Journal, 89(4), 69–72.
Spender, S. (1952). The making of a poem. In B. Ghiselin (Ed.),The creative process (pp. 112–145). New York: New American Library.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G.V., & Robinson, E.J. (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research students in the social sciences.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 27, 379–392.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G.V., & Robinson, E.J. (2000). Individual differences in undergraduate essay-writing strategies. A longitudinal study.Higher Education, 39, 181–200.
Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (2001). Writing as a learning tool: An introduction. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.). P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Vol. Eds.),Studies in Writing: Vol. 7. Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 7–22). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van den Bergh, H. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). The dynamics of idea generation during writing: An online study. In G. Rijlaarsdam, E. Espéret (Series Eds.), D. Galbraith, & M. Torrance (Vol. Eds.),Studies in Writing: Vol. 4. Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 99–120). Amsterdam: University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992).Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. & van den Bergh, H. Writing as a learning tool: Testing the role of students’ writing strategies. Eur J Psychol Educ 21, 17–34 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173567
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173567