This study examines the monitoring strategies eleventh-grade students employ in analytic and summary writing. Ten high and ten average ability writers each took part in two composing-aloud sessions, writing one analytic, thesis/support essay and one chronological summary essay based upon their reading of history passages. Students' composing-aloud protocols were broken down into individual communication units, which were examined for the kinds of monitoring, self-regulatory behaviors students engaged in to guide themselves through the composing process. The study analyzed students' monitoring at different points in the composing process and for the process as a whole. Multivariate analysis of variance procedures were used to study results of the protocol analyses. The study found that, while writing analyses, students devoted considerable attention to figuring out the demands of the writing task, to examining their own understanding of the topic and its significance, and to assessing the effectiveness of their own writing strategies. However, while writing summaries, students did far less monitoring of their composing processes and reflecting about their subject matter, spending most of their time mainly paraphrasing the readings. Results suggest that both high and average ability student writers employ a wide range of metacognitive strategies in writing, and that students vary those strategies both across writing tasks and at different points within the writing process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Applebee, A. N.
(1981). Writing in the secondary school. Research Monograph No. 21. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
2.
Applebee, A. N.
(1984). Contexts for learning to write. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
3.
Baker, L.
, & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills of reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
4.
Beach, R.
(1979). The effects of between-draft teacher evaluation versus student self-evaluation on high school students' revision of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 111-119.
5.
Bereiter, C.
, & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Bereiter, C.
, & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Bereiter, C.
, Scardamalia, M., Anderson, V. A., & Smart, D. (1980). An experiment in teaching abstract planning in writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
8.
Bialystok, E.
, & Ryan, E. B. (1985). A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, & human performance (pp. 207-252). New York: Academic Press.
9.
Bracewell, R.
, Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1979). A test of two myths about revision. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
10.
Bracewell, R. J.
, Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1978). The development of audience awareness in writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 154 433)
11.
Brown, A. L.
(1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Brown, A. L.
, & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
13.
Cavanaugh, J. C.
, & Perlmutter, M. (1982). Metamemory: A critical examination. Child Development, 53, 11-28.
14.
Dobrin, D. N.
(1986). Protocols once more. College English, 48, 713-725.
15.
Durst, R. K.
(1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 347-376.
16.
Emig, J.
(1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Research Monograph No. 13. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
17.
Fitzgerald, J.
(1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481-506.
18.
Flavell, J. H.
(1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural/process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 213-245). Alphen a. d. Rign. The Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoff.
19.
Flavell, J. H.
(1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of psychological inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
20.
Flower, L.
, & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg and E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Norwood, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Flower, L.
, & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Composition, 32, 365-387.
22.
Flower, L.
, & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1, 120-160.
23.
Flower, L.
, Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37, 16-55.
24.
Fry, E. B.
(1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513-516, 575-578.
25.
Garner, R.
(1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
26.
Gere, A. R.
(1987). Writing groups: History, theory, and implications. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
27.
Hunt, K. W.
(1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Research Monograph No. 3. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
28.
Kennedy, M. L.
(1985). The composing processes of college students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2, 434-457.
29.
Langer, J. L.
(1986). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
30.
LeFevre, K. B.
(1987). Invention as a social act. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
31.
Loper, A. B.
, Hallahan, D. P., & Lanna, S. O. (1982). Meta-attention in learning disabled and normal students. Learning Disabled Quarterly, 5, 29-36.
32.
Markman, E. M.
(1979). Realizing that you don't understand: Elementary school children's awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643-655.
33.
Markman, E. M.
(1981). Comprehension monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills. New York: Academic Press.
34.
Marshall, J. D.
(1984). Schooling and the composing process. In A. N. Applebee (Ed.), Contexts for learning to write (pp. 79-102). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
35.
Matsuhashi, A.
(1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113-134.
36.
Matsuhashi, A.
(1987). Writing in real time: Modelling production processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
37.
Miller, P. H.
, & Weiss, M. G. (1981). Children's attention allocation, understanding of attention, and performance on the incidental learning task. Child Development, 52, 1183-1190.
38.
National Assessment of Educational Progress
. (1981). Reading, writing, and thinking. Denver: Educational Commission of the States.
39.
Palincsar, A. S.
(1988). Review of Metacognition and reading comprehension, (1987), by R. Garner, Norwood, N J.: Ablex. In Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 274-277.
40.
Perl, S.
(1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336.
41.
Pianko, S.
(1979). A description of the composing processes of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 5-22.
42.
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: A developmental approach (pp. 67-95). London: Wiley.
43.
Schneider, W.
(1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior relationship: An integrative review. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 57-110). New York: Academic Press.
44.
Sommers, N.
(1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-387.
45.
Winer, B. J.
(1971). Statistical principles in research design. New York: McGraw Hill.
46.
Winograd, P.
, & Johnston, P. (1980). Comprehension monitoring and the error detection paradigm. Technical Report No. 145. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
47.
Yussen, S. R.
(1985). The role of metacognition in contemporary theories of cognitive development. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, & human performance (pp. 253-284). New York: Academic Press.
