Development of ideational writing throug

Running head: DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING Early draft of: Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C (2011) Development of ideational writing through Knowledge Building: Theoretical and empirical bases In Elena Grigorenko, Elisa Mambrino, & David Preiss (Eds.) Handbook of Writing: A Mosaic of New Perspectives (pp 175-190) NY: Psychology Press Development of Ideational Writing through Knowledge Building: Theoretical and Empirical Bases Maria Chuy Marlene Scardamalia Carl Bereiter Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) – University of Toronto DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING Development of Ideational Writing through Knowledge Building: Theoretical and Empirical Bases As noted by Rijlaarsdam and van den Bergh (2004), “The most frequent cliché about writing is that writing is a complex task” (p 3) — not easy to learn and not easy to understand through research into its processes and products According to U.S National Assessment of Educational Progress 2007, only 33 % of 8th grade students and only 24% of 12th grade students were evaluated as proficient writers (Schneider, 2008) The majority of the students did not exceed basic achievement-level and, thus demonstrated only partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and writing skills that are fundamental for proficient work More and more jobs involve what Peter Drucker (1969) has termed “knowledge work.” Representing and communicating knowledge, although by no means limited to writing, inevitably requires ability to use writing or an equivalent form of carefully crafted language Written communication through web-sites, blogs, e-mails, text-messages plays an increasing role in people’s social and work lives Thus, literacy is no longer considered desirable, but vital for our society Within this perspective, the questions that remain central to writing research and instruction are: What are the attributes of writing expertise and under what conditions and contexts can these attributes be acquired at school? There is an obvious distinction between fiction, poetry, drama, and the like and the large and varied population of types of writing that include reports, editorials, instructions, factual expositions, and so on The first type can be characterized as “literary” writing The second type is often, although inexactly referred to as “expository” writing The most profound difference between the two types is in terms of locus of value The value of literary writing lies in the quality of the writing itself and of the reader’s experience (Rosenblatt, 1978) Although a literary DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING work may have auxilliary value—such as teaching a moral lesson or illuminating a social issue— this is secondary to the literary experience of the reader (cf Nell, 1988) The value of the second kind of writing, however, lies in the ideas it communicates Accordingly, following Halliday’s identification of the relevant component of communications as “ideational” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), we may label the second type of writing “ideational.” Complaints about the low level of writing ability, whether in students or in society at large, are almost exclusively focused on ideational writing They are complaints about the idea content and about how effectively it is communicated (In practice it is difficult to separate the two, and evaluation rubrics typically merge the two aspects.) The present chapter focuses exclusively on ideational writing This is not to deny that the development of literary writing abilities is an interesting and fertile field of investigation (cf McKeough, Palmer, Jarvey & Bird, 2007) or that linguistic skills acquired through literary writing may transfer positively to ideational writing (although evidence on this is slight) This division of writing into two broad types goes against a trend that has been growing over recent decades—a trend toward increasingly fine differentiation of genres (cf Hyland, 2003 for a review of genre-based pedagogies) Writing standards and curriculum outlines today will often list a dozen or more genres, ranging from “letters to the editor” to haiku to “compare-andcontrast” essays, each of which is expected to receive specific attention in language arts instruction On one hand, recognizing the varied functions that writing can perform is surely a good thing and it could well go even further On the other hand, excessive differentiation of genres has two drawbacks It tends to focus attention on structural characteristics, giving short shrift to purposes (What constitutes a successful, as distinct from merely well-crafted haiku or letter to the editor? Although comparing and contrasting can serve many purposes, what role DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING does “compare-and-contrast” as an essay genre play in the world outside the classroom?) More importantly, it tends to obscure the forest by planting so many trees Literary genres and ideational genres may be mixed together indiscriminately or divided in an unhelpful way (The distinction between fiction and nonfiction, for instance, may be helpful in a library, but in writing development it obscures that fact that a dominant genre in children’s writing is nonfictional narrative—children writing about their own experiences.) Most important, we believe, is loss of the distinction between literary and ideational writing This distinction is profound enough that it calls into question any educational approach that treats writing in these modes as simply a matter of different genres Literary writing is appropriately treated as a craft As with any other craft, the focus is on the concrete artifact and its effect Accordingly, there is much to be said for the various workshop approaches in which students help one another perfect their written products and the teacher provides guidance and instruction as needed In ideational writing, however, the proper focus is on the ideas If students are going to help one another, it should be help in perfecting their ideas Effective communication of the ideas becomes a by-product of idea development The main body of this chapter is devoted to evidence that this can work Writing Development: From Knowledge Telling to Knowledge Transformation In 1984, Scardamalia, Bereiter, and Steinbach published a model of writing development, explaining differences in mental processes between novice and expert writers In this model, two writing strategies represent two ends of the development continuum: Knowledge Telling— adopted by young novices—and Knowledge Transforming—adopted by mature writers Knowledge telling consists in writing down ideas as they come to mind, under constraints of topic and genre Writing relies on discourse-production skills and the resulting text resembles an DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING oral production By contrast, the knowledge transforming strategy is much more complex and involves formulating and solving problems Ideas are not stated as they come to mind but are improved through the effort to reformulate and revise them as gaps, problems of understanding, and other challenges arise The transformational aspect of this strategy results from the interaction between two problem spaces: content space, where the problems of knowledge are worked out, and rhetorical space, where problems of achieving goals of composition are dealt with The interaction between these two spaces is reflected in questions such as “Is my argument clear enough?” “How can I define the term I’m using” or “What is the information that can support my argument?” Such an interaction between content and rhetoric problem spaces leads to transformation and development of already existed knowledge Thus, the ability to take over goal-setting, context-creating, analytical and inferential actions is a prerequisite of writing expertise Can children acquire the knowledge-transforming strategy under appropriate conditions? Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987b) argued that even young students from low literacy environments could acquire higher-order literate competencies However, writing instruction does not necessarily result in a shift from knowledge telling to knowledge transforming We present the following section on different models of instruction to clarify conditions under which instruction may lead only to improved knowledge telling rather than to knowledge transformation Knowledge telling could improve through increasing adherence to writing conventions and increasing attention to genre constraints For instance, students may master genre formulas, such as the five-paragraph essay structure These formulas may improve writing performance by conventional standards while pushing knowledge transforming further into the background DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING Teaching Models Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987b) distinguished three teaching models—A, B and C— only one of which had a potential to make expert writing an attainable goal Model A—an exercise model— represented a typical way of handling writing and reading in North American schools at that time The teacher would assign workbook pages or give a writing assignment with little preparation, grade the papers according to content and language, and suggest improvements without proposing further revision This model offered little opportunity for developing higherorder skills for students It focused instead on task completion and the product, rather than on the development of mental operations necessary for writing expertise Model B represented a more advanced version of Model A, with focus on activating relevant background knowledge in students prior to the writing activity For example, the teacher guides a discussion with students in regard to the topic of the essay, teaches them unfamiliar concepts, reads appropriate books and documents, helps them draw inferences, and generally works to ensure that students have relevant information to draw on while writing their composition Teacher-mediated dialogue, such as Socratic questioning, is an important tool for achieving this goal Although the teaching model B represents major improvements as compared to the model A, both models have the teacher as director of the process Instead of transferring higher-order skills to students, the teacher assumes cognitive responsibility for writing improvement This encourages students to remain as passive actors rather than taking charge of high-level functions Instead of developing goal-setting, analytical and strategic processes in students, the approaches mentioned above improve text quality through enhanced knowledge-telling— thinking of more to say and writing more For instance, in model B, activating recall of DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING information facilitates long-term memory retrieval, allowing more text to be generated with minimal effort Indeed, there is now considerable evidence that structured and rich content knowledge enables long-term memory retrieval with information accessible in readily available structured chunks, lowering the processing cost and improving text quality (Caccamise, 1987; Benton, Corkill, Sharp, Downey & Khramtsova, 1995; de Groff, 1987; Kellogg, 1987; McCutchen, 1986; Voss, Vesonder & Spilich, 1980) Teacher models A and B are accordingly mainly helpful for producing texts in which domain knowledge is to be presented “as it is” without major modifications (i.e., procedural texts, such as instructions or recipes) However, the limitations of these models are evident when it comes to the development of creative and mature writing According to Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987b, 1989; see also Scardamalia, 2002), the model with potential for supporting high-order literate competencies in students is a model C that “… can be best described as taking all the things that Teacher B does and trying to teach students to them for themselves” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987b, p 10) Thus, approach C aims to turn strategic decisions over to students, to as great an extent as they can handle, to allow the development of critical competencies for assuming agency in knowledge construction Thus rather than giving instructions and asking questions, the teacher models the process of writing, creates scaffolds to enable students to take over these processes, and encourages peer collaboration in an effort to create a supportive community for sustained knowledge work Students’ own initiative in carrying out high-order cognitive processes is the main requirement of the model C teacher In model C, relevant knowledge is not simply activated for each student, to better support individual knowledge-telling, but the teacher models, and engages students in DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING making their ideas explicit and the objects of discussion and improvement to better support knowledge-transforming processes Although teacher model A finds no explicit support in the literature, the ubiquity of workbooks, worksheets, and workbook-like computer software suggests that it continues to characterize much instruction, in writing as in other subjects However, the idea of improving writing competence by repetitious practice does receive some indirect support from what has come to be called “capacity theory” (Just & Carpenter, 1992) It has long been recognized that, because of the number of subtasks, constraints, and items of content and that must be held in mind, written composition imposes a significant burden on the limited information processing capacity of human beings, especially young ones (Beaugrande, 1981; Scardamalia, 1981) By continual practice of lower-level parts of the writing process (e.g., handwriting or keyboarding, spelling), learners may free up cognitive capacity for dealing with higher-level processes (McCutchen, 1996) However, a complaint against the teacher A model of learning through exercise, during the decades when it was most prominent, was that it often involved very little actual writing (Graves, 1978), often limiting student response to single words, short phrases, or check marks Other instructional approaches, which may be characterized as following the teacher B model, have taken a more systematic approach to developing automaticity of lower-level processes and moving from there to higher-level ones Some of these approaches focus on automation of handwriting and spelling in order to minimize their cognitive cost and free resources for coordination of higher-order processes Graham et al (2008) suggest that handwriting should be taught in elementary school several times a week or daily though consistent instruction On the one hand, this would prevent schools from having children who DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING avoid writing because of the motor skills difficulties and, on the other hand, this would help to improve sentence construction skills and writing quality Overall, handwriting has been found to be an important predictor of general writing achievement (Graham, 2006) Of course, it is not expected that automation alone will cause high-order skills to appear Two writing instruction methods aimed at higher-level skills have won recognition in the past decade: the Self-Regulated Strategy Development Mode (SRSD) proposed by Harris and Graham (1996), and the Social Cognitive Model of Sequential Acquisition (SCM) developed by Zimmerman (2000) Both models emphasize the importance of “self-regulated learning”, “selfcontrol”, “self-instructions”, “self-monitoring” and “self-reinforcement” for effective writing development The SRSD and the SCM models have been tested and proved helpful with various writing skills (Garcia & Fidalgo, 2008; Graham & Harris, 2003; De La Paz & Graham, 2002) While there are differences in these approaches, both models fall within the scope of the teacher B model They favor use of explicit instruction and well-defined steps, with the teacher guiding the discussion to help students acquire relevant background knowledge, providing feedback, and instructing students in writing processes Independent use of the strategy by students starts during the final steps of the lesson Thus, although the concept of self-regulation is central and students are actively and constructively engaged, the main cognitive responsibility remains within the teacher This might explain why the SRSD and SCM models sometimes fail to develop an adequate sense of self-efficacy (Sawyer, Graham & Harris, 1992; Garcia & Fidalgo, 2008), that found to be highly related to strategic learning and motivation (Wang & Wu, 2008)   DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 10 Two decades ago the teacher C model was an emerging model tested only within experimental settings (e.g., Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Steinbach, 1984) Since then, there has been increasing recognition of the importance of developing students’ independence in carrying out higher-level parts of the composing process Englert, Mariage and Dunsmore (2006), presented three educational design principles developed within a socio-cultural theory of writing instruction The first principle concerns the creation of socio-cognitive apprenticeship in the writing classroom, which involves interactive dialogues about written products and their contents (from teacher to student, and from student to student) The second principle requires the use of tools that would facilitate and support cognitive performance, by making outcomes of the activity more visible and accessible Finally, the third principle refers to the establishment of communities of practice, with focus on knowledge construction and its dissemination (In the next section, we present an approach that respects these three principles and additionally aims to enculturate students into a knowledge-creating enterprise.) Where does this leave the problem of adapting writing instruction to the cognitive limitations of the learners? Beaugrande (1981) declared that the impression gained from vast empirical evidence was that “discourse production routinely operates near the threshold of overloading” (p 2, emphasis in the original)  Since that time, many researchers have highlighted the instructional importance of writing process efficiency (see Nystrand, 2006, for a review) Capacity theory, developed by Just and Carpenter (1992) to explain the role of working memory in comprehension, was extended by McCutchen (1996) to written composition Capacity theory emphasizes the role of working memory in the interaction between various writing processes Being overloaded by “basic” processes, young students would not be able to coordinate different knowledge, rhetorical and linguistic processes (McCutchen, 1996) A number of experimental DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 24 sentences through the connective “and” Other types of relations, especially causal ones (e.g., “if…then”, “because” or “therefore”), are of a higher cognitive cost and take longer to appear in children’s discourse (Bloom et al., 1980; Spooren & Sanders, 2008) Overall, the diversity of coherence relations and linguistic connectives in the text could be used as an indicator of complexity and maturity of the cognitive system To test whether Knowledge Building contributes to the formation of a complex cognitive system in children, a statistical analysis was carried out on the indexes of coherence relation diversity and connective diversity, which were assessed through Type/Token Ratio (TTR)5 Analysis of results showed that both diversity indexes were significantly higher in the texts written by students in the knowledge-building class than in the comparison class Presumably, by taking responsibility for higher-level cognitive processes, as suggested above, students in the knowledge-building classroom learn to form a coherent representation of the phenomena and to express it by means of diverse linguistic markers, helping the reader to re-construct this representation from the text surface Vocabulary Growth Sun, Zhang and Scardamalia (2010) examined the growth of vocabulary in a knowledgebuilding class Vocabulary knowledge is recognized as a good predictor of writing quality (Astika, 1993; Lemmouh, 2008) In a 2-year study, Sun et al followed the same students from grade to grade On-line contributions of 22 students (11 boys and 11 girls) were analyzed in terms of vocabulary level Changes in the number of academic terms over the years were examined, using the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 1998) As reported by Sun et al., analysis of                                                                                                                  The index of coherence relation diversity corresponded to the number of unique relations (relation types) divided by the number of all relations (tokens) In the same manner, the index of connective diversity referred to the number of unique connectives (connective types) divided by the total number of connectives (tokens)   DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 25 variance showed a consistent increase in percentage of academic words from semester to semester The results suggest that, with appropriate teaching practices, academic words, such as “theory”, “design”, “debate”, “evidence”, “hypothesis”, “identify approach”, “conclude” and others, can be actively used in written communication by grade 3-4 students Using the Basic Spelling Vocabulary List for Grade 1-5 (Graham, Harris & Loynachan, 1993), the researchers identified grade levels of the words that were used for the first time by the students in each of the three last semesters Analysis showed that an important proportion of these words was beyond grade 4, and that this proportion significantly increased across two years Further, a correlation analysis revealed a positive relationship between Canadian Test of Basic Skills scores and students’ activity in Knowledge Forum Total number of notes written over two years was found to be correlated with spelling, vocabulary, and reading scores In sum, examination of results revealed a significant vocabulary growth associated with sustained Knowledge Building practice “Scientificness” of Ideas In order to assess changes in quality of ideational content in students’ science writing, Zhang, Scardamalia, Lamon, Messina and Reeve (2007) employed a measure of “scientificness.” A four-level Scientificness Scale was developed, where level corresponded to pre–scientific ideas containing a misconception while applying a naïve conceptual framework; level referred to hybrid ideas containing misconceptions that have incorporated scientific information; level corresponded to scientific ideas containing conceptions based on a scientific framework, but not precisely scientific, and finally, level referred to scientific explanations containing explanations DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 26 that are consistent with scientific knowledge This scale was applied to Knowledge Forum notes written by grade students during the course of a unit on optics Analysis of variance showed a significant increase of idea “scientificness” across three equal time periods There was progress from level-1 naïve ideas (e.g., “I think the shadows exist because they show you things are there”) to the emergence of some level-4 conceptions (e.g., “a shadow is created by the sun or artificial light hitting an opaque level”) Although Zhang et al (2007) presented these results as evidence of conceptual growth, there can be little doubt that in a formal writing assessment higher “scientificness” would mean higher scores on writing quality Conclusion Societal concern about writing quality is primarily a concern about the quality of what we have termed “ideational writing.” (Arguably, the supply of highly competent fiction writers is greater than it has ever been.) We have proposed that ideational writing does not belong in writing or language arts classes at all but should be carried out in subject matter courses where the writing is instrumental to idea production and improvement—in short, where its main role is to aid in the progress of knowledge creation Knowledge Building is an educational approach that gives writing (and other forms of knowledge representation) this instrumental role Although the evidence reported here is limited in terms of sample sizes and experimental controls, it serves to make plausible the claim that substantial improvement in ideational writing can be achieved without writing instruction or any specific attention to writing at all Instead improvement comes from students’ efforts to create and improve knowledge and ideas of value to their community— an effort in which writing plays a varied and important part DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 27 Acknowledgments This research was funded by a Canadian Council on Learning grant entitled “Understanding the Nature of Science and Scientific Progress: A Theory-Building Approach” 2007-2009 We would like to express our gratitude to the students, teachers and principals of participating schools for the insights and the opportunities enabled by their involvement References Alamargot, D., Chanquoy, L., & Chuy, M (2005) L'élaboration du contenu du texte: de la mémoire long terme l'environnement de la tõche Psychologie Franỗaise, 50(3), 287304 Astika, G G (1993) Analytical assessment of foreign students’ writing RELC Journal, 24(1), 371-389 Beaugrande, R de (1981) Modeling the operations of the writing process Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, USA 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(1), 66-79 Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M (1984) Information-processing demand of text composition In H Mandl, N Stein, & T Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and Comprehension of Text (pp 407428) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M (1987a) The psychology of written composition Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M (1987b) An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9-30 DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 28 Bereiter, C & Scardamalia, S (1989) Intentional learning as a goal of instruction In L B Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp 361-392) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M (2005) Technology and literacies: From print literacy to dialogic literacy In N Bascia, A Cumming, A Datnow, K Leithwood, & D Livingstone (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp 749-761) Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K., & Fiess, K (1980) Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode Journal of Child Language, 7, 235-261 Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M (2002) Even in adults, written production is still more costly than oral production International Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 219-227 Butterfield, E C., Hacker, D J., & Plumb, C (1994) Topic knowledge, linguistic knowledge, and revision processes as determinants of text revision In E C Butterfield (Ed.), Advances in cognition and Educational Practice (pp 83-141) Greenwich (CT): JAI Press Caccamise, D J (1987) Idea generation in writing In A Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modeling production processes (pp 224-253) Norwood (NJ): Ablex Case, R (1985) Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood Orlando, FL: Academic Press Chanquoy, L (2001) How to make it easier for children to revise their writing? A study of text revision from 3rd to 5th grades British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 15-41 Chanquoy, L., & Negro, I (1996) Subject-verb agreement errors in written productions: A study of French children and adults Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 553-570 DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 29 Chuy, M & Rondelli, F (2010) Traitement des contraintes linguistiques et cognitives dans la construction de la cohérence textuelle Langages, 177(1), 83-111 Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C (2009) Knowledge Building and writing development Paper presented at the Association for Teacher Education in Europe Conference (ATEE), Palma de Mallorca, Spain Coxhead, A (1998) An Academic Word List ELI Occasional Publications #18, School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington: Wellington de Groff, L C (1987) The influence of prior knowledge on writing, conferencing and revising The Elementary School Journal, 88, 105-118 De La Paz, S., & Graham, S (1997) Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on the composing of students with writing and learning problems Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203-222 Drucker, P (1969) The age of discontinuity; Guidelines to our changing society New York: Harper and Row Englert, S., Mariage, T V., & Dunsmore, K (2006) Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research In C A MacArthur, S Graham & J Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp 208-221) New York: Guilford Press Faigley, L., & Witte, S P (1981) Analyzing revision College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414 Fayol, M., & Miret, A (2005) Ecrire, orthographier et rộdiger des textes Psychologie Franỗaise, 50, 391-402 DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 30 Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T (2000) Reading and writing relations and their development Educational Psychologist, 35, 39-50 Garcia, J N., & Fidalgo, R (2008) Writing self-efficacy changes after cognitive strategy intervention in students with learning disabilities: The mediational role of gender in calibration The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11(2), 414-432 Graham, S (2006) Writing In P Alexander & P Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp 457-478) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Graham, S., & Harris, K R (2003) Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies In H L Swanson, K R Harris & S Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp 323-344) New York: Guildford Press Graham, S., Harris, K R., & Loynachan, C (1993) The basic spelling vocabulary list Journal of Educational Research, 86, 363-368 Graham, S., Harris, K.R., Mason, L.H., Fink, B., Moran, S., & Saddler, B (2008) Teaching handwriting in the primary grades: A national survey Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 49-69 Graham, S., MacArthur, C A., & Schwartz, S S (1995) The effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230-240 Graves, A., Montague, M., & Wong, Y (1990) The effects of procedural facilitation on the story composition of learning disabled students Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 88–93 Graves, D H (1978) Balance the basics: Let them write! New York: The Ford Foundation Halliday, M A K., & Hasan, R (1976) Cohesion in English London: Longman DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 31 Harris, K R., & Graham, S (1996) Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation Cambridge, MA: Brookline Hayes, J R., Flower, L S., Schriver, K., Stratman, J., & Carey, L (1987) Cognitive processes in revision In S Rosenberg (Ed.), Reading, writing, and language learning: Advances in applied psycholinguistics (pp l76-240) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Holliway, D R., & McCutchen, D (2004) Audience perspective in young writers composing and revising Reading as the reader In G Rijlaarsdam, L Allal, L Chanquoy & P Largy (Eds.), (Vol 13 Studies in writing Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes, pp 87 -101) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Hyland, K (2003) Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29 Jacobs, E M (2003) Reproductive writing - writing from sources Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 893-906 Just, M A., & Carpenter, P A (1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in Working Memory Psychological Review, 99(1), 122-149 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 Kennedy, M L (1985) The composing process of college students writing from sources Written Communication, 2, 434-456 Kintsch, W (1998) Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition New York: Cambridge University Press DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 32 Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T A (1978) Toward a model of text comprehension and production Psychological Review, 85, 363-394 Langer, J A., & Flihan, S (2000) Writing and reading relationships: Constructive tasks In R Indrisano & J Squire (Eds.), Writing and Research/Theory/Practice Newark, DE: International Reading Association Lemmouh, Z (2008) The relationship between grades and the lexical richness of student essays Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 163-180 Mann, W., & Thompson, S (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization Text, 8, 243-281 McCutchen, D (1986) Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444 McCutchen, D (1996) A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299-325 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 McCutchen, D., Francis, M., & Kerr, S (1997) Revising for meaning: Effects of knowledge and strategy Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 667-676 McKeough, A., Palmer, J., Jarvey, M., & Bird, S (2007) Best narrative writing practices when teaching from a developmental framework In S Graham, C MacArthur, & J Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp 50-73) New York: Guilford Nell, V (1988) The psychology of reading for pleasure: Needs and gratifications Reading Research Quarterly 23, 6-50 DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 33 Nelson, J., & Hayes, J R (1988) How the writing context shapes the students' strategies for writing from sources (Tech Rpt No 16) Berkeley, CA: National center for the study of writing and literacy at the University of California, and Carnegie Mellon University Nystrand, M (2006) The social and historical context for writing research In C MacArthur, S Graham & J Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp 11-27) New York: Guilford Olive, T., Favart M., Beauvais, C., & Beauvais, L (2009) Children’s cognitive effort and fluency in writing: Effects of genre and of handwriting automatization Learning and Instruction, 19, 299-308 Pinto, M (2004) Looking at reading and writing through language In G Rijlaarsdam, H van den Bergh & M Couzijn (Eds.), Effective learning and teaching in writing (2nd ed., pp 31-46) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 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: Theory, methods, individual differences and applications (pp 93-106) Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erbaum Associates Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Raedts, M., Van Steendam, E., Toorenaar & Van den Bergh, H (2008) Observation of peers in learning to write, Practice and Research Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 53-83 Rijlaarsdam, G & van den Bergh, H (2004) Effective learning and teaching of writing: Student involvement in the teaching of writing In G Rijlaarsdam, H van den Bergh, & M Couzijn, (2nd ed.), Effective learning and teaching of writing: Current trends in research (pp 1-16) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 34 Rosenblatt, L (1978) The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press Sanders, T., & Noordman, L G M (2000) The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37-60 Sawyer, R J., Graham, S., & Harris, K R (1992) Direct teaching, strategy 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, 34(3), 340-352 Scardamalia, M (1981) How children cope with the cognitive demands of writing In C H Frederiksen & J F Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication (Vol 2, pp 81-103) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Scardamalia, M (2002) Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge In B Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp 67-98) Chicago: Open Court Scardamalia, M (2004) CSILE/Knowledge Forum® In Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp 183-192) Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C (1983) The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children's composing In M Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language: Developmental and educational perspectives (pp 67-95) London: John Wiley & Sons Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C (1985) Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing In S F Chipman, J W Segal, & R Glaser (Eds.), DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 35 Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions (Vol 2, pp 563-577) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C (2003) Knowledge building In Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp 1370-1373) New York: Macmillan Reference, USA Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C (2006) Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology In K Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp 97118) New York: Cambridge University Press Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Chuy, M., Prinsen, F., Resendes, M., & Teplovs, C (2010) Understanding the nature of science and scientific progress: A theory-building approach [Research Report] Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council of Learning (CCL) Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Research/FundedResearch/201008ScardamaliaScience.html Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goelman, H (1982) The role of production factors in writing ability In M Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse (pp 173-210) New York: Academic Press Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R (1984) Teachability of reflective processes in written composition Cognitive Science, 8(2), 173-190 Schneider, M (2008) National Assessment of Educational Progress The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007 Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks2008/4_3_2008.asp Spivey, N N (1991) Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing Written Communication, 7, 256-287 Spooren, W., & Sanders, T (2008) The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 2003-2026 DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING 36 Sun, Y., Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M (2010) Knowledge Building and vocabulary growth over two years, grades and Instructional Science, 38(2), 247-271 Teale, W., & Yokota, J (2000) Beginning reading and writing: Perspectives on instruction In D S Strickland & L M Morrow (Eds.), Beginning reading and writing Language and literacy series (pp 3-21) Newark, DE: International Reading Association Voss, J F., Vesonder, G T., & Spilich, G T (1980) Text generation and recall by highknowledge and low-knowledge individuals Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 651-667 Vygotsky, L S (1987) The collected works of L S Vygotsky Vol Problems of general psychology (Norris Minick, Trans.), (R.W Rieber & A S Carton Eds) New York: Plenum Press Wang, S., & Wu, P (2008) The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The social cognitive perspective Computers & Education, 51, 1589-1598 Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R (2007) Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9- and 10-year-olds Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 117-145 Zimmerman, B J (2000) Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective In M Boekaerts, P R Pintrich & M Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp 13-39) San Diego: Academic Press DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING Figure An example of student-constructed view in Knowledge Forum with an opened student’s note 37 38 DEVELOPMENT OF IDEATIONAL WRITING Figure A notes’ thread as it appeared in the Knowledge Forum view (examined notes are highlighted)