Students deprived of composition instruction—because reading took higher priority—comprise a special population of writers. They profit from a program that builds discourse units, uses student-generated language, and incorporates self-evaluation. Such a program leads inexperienced writers systematically into increased productivity as they progress toward more global planning of compositions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ApplebeeA. (1981). Writing in the secondary school. (Research Monograph No. 21). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
2.
BentonS., & BlohmP. (1986). Effect of question type and position on measures of conceptual elaboration in writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 98–108.
3.
BondS., & HayesJ. (1984). Cues people use to paragraph text. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 147–167.
4.
DaiuteC. (1984). Performance limits on writers. In BeachR. & BridwellL. (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 205–224). New York: Guilford Press.
5.
D'AngeloF. (1986). The topic sentence revisited. College Composition and Communication, 37, 431–439.
6.
DeBeaugrandeR. (1984). Forward to the basics. College Composition and Communication, 35, 358–367.
7.
ElbowP. (1985). The shifting relationships between speech and writing. College Composition and Communication, 36, 283–303.
8.
FahnestockJ. (1983). Semantic and lexical coherence. College Composition and Communications, 34, 400–416.
9.
GereA., & AbbottR. (1985). Talking about writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 362–385.
10.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. (1987). Improving composition skills of inefficient learners with self-instructional strategy training. Topics in Language Disorders, 7, 66–77.
11.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. (1988). Instructional recommendations for teaching writing to exceptional students. Exceptional Children, 54, 506–512.
12.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. (in press). Cognitive training: Implications for written language. In HughesJ. & HallR. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive behavioral approaches in educational settings. New York: Guilford Publishing Co.
13.
GravesD. (1978). Balance the basics: Let them write. New York: Ford Foundation.
14.
GreenbergK. (1987). Defining, teaching, and testing basic writing competence. Topics in Language Disorders, 7, 31–41.
15.
HilgersT. (1986). How children change as critical evaluators of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 36–55.
16.
HillocksG. (1986). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English.
17.
HullG. (1987). The editing process in writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 8–29.
18.
HuntK. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35(134), 1–44.
19.
KauferD.HayesJ., & FlowerL. (1986). Composing written sentences. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 121–140.
20.
McCarthyP.MeierS., & RindererR. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing. College Composition and Communication, 36, 465–471.
21.
MoranM. (1987a). Individualized objectives for writing instruction. Topics in Language Disorders, 7, 42–54.
22.
MoranM. (1987b). Options for written language assessment. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19, 1–10.
23.
MoranM. (in press). Facilitating literacy in the primary grades. In SchiefelbuschR. & McCormickL. (Eds.), Early language intervention (2nd ed.), Columbus, OH: Merrill.
24.
O'HareF. (1973). Sentence combining. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
25.
RubinD. (1987). Divergence and convergence between oral and written communication. Topics in Language Disorders, 7, 1–18.
26.
ShaughnessyM. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford Press.
27.
ShuyR. (1986). Changing linguistic perspectives on literacy. In OrasanuJ. (Ed.), Reading Comprehension (pp. 77–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
StotskyS. (1986). On learning to write about ideas. College Composition and Communication, 37, 276–293.
