This study focused on 12th-grade Chilean students’ ability to produce locally coherent persuasive texts and on the cognitive basis that underlies this ability. All the participants wrote persuasive texts and answered a test of recognition of incoherent sequences. A subsample wrote another persuasive text while thinking aloud and had a semistructured interview about the text composed. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze local coherence (LC) in students’ writing and the relation between products and students’ ability to recognize, explain, and self-regulate LC. The majority of students composed texts that were mostly coherent although ideas were presented in long unstructured sequences that did not use the more sophisticated LC resources to construct their reasons and opinions in writing. Findings suggest an association between being able to recognize incoherent sequences, using more sophisticated LC resources in writing, and being able to explain and self regulate LC during writing.
Amengual, A.M. ( 2002). Evaluacion de la expresion escrita en alumnos de Pedagogia en Castellano. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Santiago de Chile, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Facultad de Educacion .
2.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Bialystok, E.( 1992). Attentional control in children’s metalinguistic performance and measures of field independence. Developmental Psychology, 28, 654-664.
4.
Camps, A., Guasch, O., Milian, M. & Ribas, T. ( 2000). Metalinguistic activity: The link between writing and learning to write. In A. Camps & Milian, M. (Eds.), Metalinguistic activity in learning to write (pp. 103-124).). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
5.
Carlino, P. ( 2007). Escribir, leer y aprender en la universidad: Una introducción a la alfabetización académica [Write, read and learn at the university: An introduction to academic literacy]. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina S.A.
6.
Charolles, M. ( 1983). Towards a heuristic approach to text-coherence problems . In Nebauer, F. (Ed.), Coherence in natural-language texts. Hamburg, Germany: Buske, Helmut Buske VerlagHamburg.
7.
Couzijn, M. ( 1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: Effects on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 9, 109-142.
8.
Crowhurst, M. ( 1981, ). Cohesion in argumentative prose written by sixth, tenth and twelfth graders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.
9.
Crowhurst, M. ( 1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15, 348-359.
10.
Cuenca, M. ( 2003). Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1069-1093.
11.
Cutchen, D., & Perfetti, C. ( 1983). Local coherence: Helping young writers manage a complex task. Elementary School Journal, 84(1), 71-75.
12.
Dolz, J., & Erard, S. ( 2000). Metaverbal activities as an approach to teach spoken and written genres. In A. Camps & M. Milian (Eds.), Metalinguistic activity in learning to write (pp. ). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
13.
Durst, R. ( 1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of academic writing. In J. Langer & A. Applebee (Eds.), Research in the teaching of English , 21, 347-375.
14.
Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. ( 1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Revised ed.) . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1984)
15.
Galambos, S., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1990). The effects of learning two languages on levels of metalinguistic awareness. Cognition , 34(1), 1-56.
16.
Grize, J., Pieraut-Le Bonniec, G. ( 1995). The use of contradiction in argumentative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 17-34.
17.
Halliday, M.K., & Hasan, R. ( 1976). Cohesion in English. Longman Group .
18.
Hobbs, J.R. ( 1983). Why is discourse coherent? In F. Nebauer (Ed.), Coherence in natural-language texts pp. 29-69). Hamburg , Germany: Buske, Helmut Buske Verlag Hamburg.
19.
Jacobs, S. ( 1990). Building hierarchy: Learning the language of the science domain, ages 10-13. In Connors U.,Johns, A. (Eds.) Coherence in writing (pp. 151-169). Alexandria, VA: Library of Congress Catalog.
20.
Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J., Sims, K., Jones, M., & Cuckle, P. ( 1996). Rethinking metalinguistic awareness: Representing and accessing knowledge about what counts as a word. Cognition , 58, 197-219.
21.
Kiess, H. ( 2002). Statistical concepts for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394
23.
Knott, A., & Sanders, T. ( 1998). The classification of coherence relations and their linguistic markers: An exploration of two languages. Journal of Pragmatics , 30, 135-175.
24.
Langer (1986). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
25.
Lee, I. ( 2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry . Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159.
26.
Matsuhashi, A., (1981, May). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. In Haley, J. (Ed.) Research in the teaching of English (Vol. 15[2], pp. 113-134). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
27.
McCutchen, D. ( 1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444.
28.
Ministerio de Educación. (1998). Currículum de la educación media: Objetivos fundamentales y contenidos mínimos obligatorios [Middle school curriculum: Key objectives and minimum content required]. Ministerio de Educación, República de Chile.
29.
Ministerio de Educación. (2000). Lengua castellana y comunicación: Programa de estudio de tercer año medio [Castilian language and communication: Third study program average year] . Ministerio de Educación, Gobierno de Chile.
30.
Olson, D. ( 2009). Education and literacy. Infancia y aprendizaje , 32, 141-151.
31.
Parodi, G. ( 2000). La evaluación de la producción de textos escritos argumentativos: Una alternativa cognitivo/discursiva [The evaluation of the production of argumentative texts: An alternative cognitive/discursive] . Signos, 33, 151-166.
32.
Piaget, J. ( 1976). The grasp of consciousness: Action and concept in the young child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
Piolat, A., Roussey, J.Y., & Gombert, A. ( 1999). The development of argumentative schema in writing. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing . Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
34.
Simpson, J. ( 2000). Topical structure analysis of academic paragraphs in English and Spanish. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 293-309
35.
Stein, N.L., & Bernas, R. ( 1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill . In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
36.
Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. ( 1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
37.
Van Dijk, T. ( 1998). Texto y contexto: Semantica y pragmatica del discurso [Text and Context: Semantics and pragmatics of discourse] (6th ed.). Madrid, Espana: Catedra Linguistica .
38.
Victori, M. ( 1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27, 537-555.
39.
Vygotsky, L. ( 2002). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
40.
Wikborg, E. ( 1990). Types of coherence breaks in Swedish student writing: Misleading paragraph division. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 131-149). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
41.
Wright, R., & Rosenberg, S. ( 1993). Knowledge of text coherence and expository writing: A developmental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 152-158.
