Does perspective taking matter for writing? Perspective taking in source-based analytical writing of secondary students

Cho, Minkyung; Kim, Young-Suk Grace; Olson, Carol B.

doi:10.1007/s11145-021-10136-7

Published: 19 February 2021

Does perspective taking matter for writing? Perspective taking in source-based analytical writing of secondary students

Reading and Writing volume 34, pages 2081–2101 (2021)Cite this article

620 Accesses
2 Citations
1 Altmetric
Metrics details

Abstract

Perspective taking, one’s knowledge of their own mental and emotional states and inferences about others’ mental and emotional states, is an important skill for writing development. In the present study, we examined how perspective taking is expressed in writing and how it is related to overall writing quality. We analyzed seventh graders’ source-based analytical essays (N = 195) to investigate (1) the extent to which students incorporated perspective taking in their essays, (2) how the extent of perspective taking in essays differ by students’ sex and English learner status, and (3) the extent to which perspective taking in writing is associated with overall writing quality. Findings revealed that students wrote more from their own perspective than that of others. Moreover, the results of multi-level analyses suggested that female students exhibited more varied perspectives but there was no meaningful difference by English learner status. Lastly, greater extent of perspective taking, particularly that of higher level of perspectives (i.e., dual perspective), was associated with better writing quality, after accounting for students’ demographic backgrounds (e.g., sex, poverty status, English learner status) and essay length. These results underscore the importance of writing from multiple perspectives on writing quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

Applebee, A. N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577–596.
Article Google Scholar
Atkinson, L., Slade, L., Powell, D., & Levy, J. P. (2017). Theory of mind in emerging reading comprehension: A longitudinal study of early indirect and direct effects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 164, 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.04.007.
Article Google Scholar
Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.12.003.
Article Google Scholar
Barzilai, S., & Weinstock, M. (2015). Measuring epistemic thinking within and across topics: A scenario-based approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.006.
Article Google Scholar
Bazerman, C., Applebee, A. N., Berninger, V. W., Brandt, D., Graham, S., Matsuda, P. K., et al. (2017). Taking the long view on writing development. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(3), 351–360.
Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). Two models of composing process. In Psychology of written composition (pp. 3–29). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carvalho, J. B. (2002). Developing audience awareness in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(3), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00175.
Article Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (2009). Complements enable representation of the contents of false beliefs: The evolution of a theory of theory of mind. In S. Foster-Cohen (Ed.), Language acquisition (pp. 169–195). London: Palgrave Macmillan. (in Linguistics).
Chapter Google Scholar
Diazgranados, S., Selman, R. L., & Dionne, M. (2016). Acts of social perspective taking: A functional construct and the validation of a performance measure for early adolescents. Social Development, 25(3), 572–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12157.
Article Google Scholar
Ferretti, R. P., & Fan, Y. (2016). Argumentative writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 301–315). New York: The Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Ferretti, R. P., & Graham, S. (2019). Argumentative writing: Theory, assessment, and instruction. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32, 1345–1357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09950-x.
Article Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5.
Article Google Scholar
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2017). Reading and writing connections: How writing can build better readers (and vice versa). In Improving reading and reading engagement in the 21st century (pp. 333–350). Singapore: Springer.
Howlin, P., Baron-Cohen, S., & Hadwin, J. (1999). Teaching children with autism to mind read. Chichester: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Hughes, C. (1998). Finding your marbles: Does preschoolers’ strategic behaviour predict later understanding of mind? Developmental Psychology, 34, 1326–1339.
Article Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1965). A synopsis of clause-to-sentence length factors. The English Journal, 54, 300+305-309.
Article Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1.
Article Google Scholar
Kim, H. Y., LaRusso, M. D., Hsin, L. B., Harbaugh, A. G., Selman, R. L., & Snow, C. E. (2018). Social perspective-taking performance: Constructs, measurement, and relations with academic performance and engagement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 57, 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.05.005.
Article Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-S.G. (2015). Language and cognitive predictors of text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate analysis. Child Development, 86, 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12293.
Article Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-S.G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking the simple view of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643.
Article Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-S.G. (2020a). Structural relations of language, cognitive skills, and topic knowledge to written composition: A test of the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW). British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12330.
Article Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-S.G. (2020b). Interactive dynamic literacy model: An integrative theoretical framework for reading and writing relations. In R. Alves, T. Limpo, & M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading-writing connections: Towards integrative literacy science (pp. 11–34). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38811-9_2.
Chapter Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Wanzek, J., & Gatlin, B. (2015). Towards an understanding of dimension, predictors, and gender gaps in written composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037210.
Article Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-S.G., & Park, S. (2019). Unpacking pathways using the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW) and the contributions of higher order cognitive skills to writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32(5), 1319–1343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9913-y.
Article Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-S.G., & Schatschneider, C. (2017). Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000129.
Article Google Scholar
Klare, G. R. (1974). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62–102.
Article Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7.
Article Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402512.
Article Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., & Moore, W. (2015). Argumentation as core curriculum. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2015.994254.
Article Google Scholar
Lapsley, D. K., & Murphy, M. N. (1985). Another look at the theoretical assumptions of adolescent egocentrism. Developmental Review, 5(3), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(85)90009-7.
Article Google Scholar
LaRusso, M., Kim, H. Y., Selman, R., Uccelli, P., Dawson, T., Jones, S., et al. (2016). Contributions of academic language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning to deep reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(2), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1116035.
Article Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. F., Niiya, M., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Narrative writing in digital formats: Interpreting the impact of audience. Psychology of Language and Communication, 19, 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1515/plc-2015-0012.
Article Google Scholar
MacArthur, C. A. (2007). Best practices in teaching evaluation and revision. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 141–162). New York: Guilford.
Google Scholar
Magnifico, A. M. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition, motivation and a writer’s audience. Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.493470.
Article Google Scholar
Maki, H. S., Voeten, M. J. M., Vauras, M. S. M., & Poskiparta, E. H. (2001). Predicting writing skill development with word recognition and preschool readiness skills. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 643–672.
Article Google Scholar
McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children’s writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 115–130). New York: The Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth- and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(1/2), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9067-9.
Article Google Scholar
National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSIELA%20Standards.pdf.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). The Nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Washington, D.C: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Google Scholar
Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157.
Article Google Scholar
Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6(1), 66–85.
Article Google Scholar
Olson, C. B., Matuchniak, T., Chung, H. Q., Stumpf, R., & Farkas, G. (2017). Reducing achievement gaps in academic writing for Latinos and English Learners in grades 7–12. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000095.
Article Google Scholar
Pitts, L. (2010). Sometimes, the earth is cruel. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2010/01/14/leonard-pitts-sometimes-the-earth-is-cruel/.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, T. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Google Scholar
Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Gender differences in reading and writing achievement: Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). American Psychologist, 74(4), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000356.
Article Google Scholar
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. C. (2009). Measurign argumentative reasoning: What's behind the numbers? Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 2019–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001.
Article Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, R. (1982). The man in the water. Time. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925257,00.html.
Rubin, D. (1984). Social cognition and written communication. Written Communication, 1(2), 211–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088384001002003.
Article Google Scholar
Ruffman, T., Slade, L., Rowlandson, K., Rumsey, C., & Garnham, A. (2003). How language relates to belief, desire and emotion understanding. Cognitive Development, 18, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(03)00002-9.
Article Google Scholar
Selman, R. L. (1981). The development of interpersonal competence: The role of understanding in conduct. Developmental Review, 1, 401–422.
Article Google Scholar
StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release 15. College Station: StataCorp LLC.
Google Scholar
Taylor, K. S., Lawrence, J. F., Connor, C. M., & Snow, C. E. (2019). Cognitive and linguistic features of adolescent argumentative writing: Do connectives signal more complex reasoning? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32, 983–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9898-6.
Article Google Scholar
Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). Locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780701527674.
Article Google Scholar
Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2001). Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience awareness? Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.2.4.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant No. P50HD052120), and Institute of Education Sciences (Grant No. R305A180055) awarded to the second author, and Institute of Education Sciences (Grant No. R305C190007) awarded to the second and the third author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Education, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, USA
Minkyung Cho, Young-Suk Grace Kim & Carol B. Olson

Authors

Minkyung Cho
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Young-Suk Grace Kim
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Carol B. Olson
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young-Suk Grace Kim.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cho, M., Kim, YS.G. & Olson, C.B. Does perspective taking matter for writing? Perspective taking in source-based analytical writing of secondary students. Read Writ 34, 2081–2101 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10136-7

Download citation

Accepted: 01 February 2021
Published: 19 February 2021
Issue Date: October 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10136-7

Keywords

Perspective taking
Adolescent writing
Higher order thinking skill
Writing quality