This study evaluated a method for teaching writers to anticipate readers' comprehension needs. The method, called reader-protocol teaching, involves asking writers to predict readers' problems with a text and then providing them with detailed readers' responses (in the form of think-aloud protocol transcripts) to illustrate how readers construct an understanding of the text. Writers in five experimental classes critiqued a set of ten poorly written instructional texts and then analyzed the protocol transcripts of readers struggling to comprehend these texts. Writers in five control classes were taught to anticipate the reader's needs through a variety of audience-analysis heuristics and collaborative peer-response methods. Pretests and posttests were used to assess improvements in experimental and control writers' ability to anticipate and diagnose readers' comprehension problems. Pretest and posttest materials were expository science texts. Writers taught with the reader-protocol teaching method improved significantly more than did writers in control classes in the number of readers' problems they accurately predicted. In addition, in contrast to writers in control classes, writers taught with the reader-protocol method significantly increased in their ability to (a) diagnose readers' problems caused by textual omissions, (b) characterize problems from the reader's perspective, and (c) attend to global-text problems. Moreover, writers' knowledge of audience acquired in one domain (instructional text) transferred to another (expository science text).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atlas, M. A.
(1979). Addressing an audience: A study of expert-novice differences in writing (Tech. Rep. No. 3). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 192338)
2.
Bartholomae, D.
(1980). The study of error. College Composition and Communication, 31, 253-269.
3.
Bartholomae, D.
(1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can't write: Studies in writer's block and other composing-process problems (pp. 134-165). New York: Guilford.
4.
Bartlett, E. J.
1982). Learning to revise: Some component processes. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and the structure of written discourse (pp. 345-363). New York: Academic Press.
5.
Beach, R.
(1976). Self-evaluation strategies of extensive revisers and non-revisers. College Composition and Communication, 27, 160-164.
6.
Beach, R.
, & Liebman-Kleine, J. (1986). The writing/reading relationship: Becoming one's own best reader. In B. T. Petersen (Ed.), Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
7.
Bereiter, C.
, & Scardamalia, M. (1984). Learning about writing from reading. Written Communication, 1, 163-188.
8.
Bereiter, C.
, & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Berkenkotter, C.
(1981). Understanding a writer's awareness of audience. Composition and Communication, 32, 388-399.
10.
Bloom, L. Z.
(1985). Anxious writers in context: Graduate school and beyond. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can't write: Studies in writers' block and other composing problems (pp. 116-133). New York: Guilford.
11.
Bracewell, R.
, Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1978). The development of audience awareness in writing. Resources in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 154 433).
12.
Bransford, J. D.
(1979). Human cognition: Learning, understanding, and remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
13.
Bridwell, L. S.
(1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students: Transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 107-122.
14.
Brown, A. L.
, & Campione, J. C. (1981). Inducing flexible thinking: A problem of access. In M. Friedman, J. P. Das, & N. O'Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and learning (pp. 515-529). New York: Plenum.
15.
Bruffee, K. A.
(1985). A short course in writing (3rd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
16.
Burke, K.
(1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
Calkins, L. M.
(1980). Notes and comments: Children's rewriting strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 331-341.
18.
Crowhurst, M.
, & Piche, B. L. (1979). Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic complexity in writing at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 101-109.
19.
Eden, R.
, & Mitchell, R. (1986). Paragraphing for the reader. College Composition and Communication, 37, 416-430.
20.
Faigley, L.
, & Witte, S. (1984). Measuring the effects of revisions on text structure. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 95-108). New York: Guilford.
21.
Fitzgerald, J.
, & Markham, L. (1987). Teaching children about revision in writing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(1), 3-24.
22.
Flower, L. S.
(1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41(1), 19-37.
23.
Flower, L.
, Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K. A., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37, 16-55.
24.
Graves, D. H.
(1981). A case study observing the development of primary children's composing, spelling, and motor behaviors during the writing process (Final Report, NIE Grant No. G-78-174). Durham: University of New Hampshire.
25.
Hairston, M.
(1981). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage. College Composition and Communication, 43, 794-806.
26.
Hayes, J. R.
, Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Vol. II: Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 176-240). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Hays, J. N.
(1982). The effect of audience considerations upon the revisions of a group of basic writers and more competent junior and senior writers (ERIC Document 204). Urbana, IL: Educational Resources Center.
28.
Hillocks, G.
(1986). Research on written composition. New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and NCRE.
29.
Hull, G. (1984). A performance study of the editing process in writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
30.
Hull, G.
, & Rose, M. (1990). “This wooden shack place”: The logic of an unconventional reading. College Composition and Communication, 41, 287-298.
31.
Kinneavy, J. L.
(1971). A theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
32.
Kirsch, G.
(1991). Writing up and down the social ladder: A study of experienced writers composing for contrasting audiences. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 33-53.
33.
Kroll, B. M.
(1978). Cognitive egocentrism and the problem of audience awareness in written discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 269-281.
34.
Kroll, B. M.
(1984). Audience adaptation in children's persuasive letters. Written Communication, 1, 407-427.
35.
Kucer, S. L.
(1985). The making of meaning: Reading and writing as parallel processes. Written Communication, 2, 317-336.
36.
Lannon, J. M.
(1985). Technical writing (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Little-Brown.
37.
Lauer, J. M.
, Montague, G., Lunsford, A., & Emig, J. (1981). Four worlds of writing. New York: Harper & Row.
38.
Lawrence, P.
(1975). Error's endless train: Why students don't perceive errors. Journal of Basic Writing, 1(1), 23-42.
39.
Lindsay, P. H.
, & Norman, D. A. (1972). Human information processing: An introduction to psychology. New York: Academic Press.
40.
Mathes, J. C.
, & Stevenson, D. W. (1976). Designing technical reports: Writing for audiences in organizations. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
41.
Meyer, B.J.F.
(1982). Reading research and the composition teacher: The importance of plans. College Composition and Communication, 34, 37-49.
42.
Murray, D. M.
(1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
43.
Newkirk, T.
(1981). Barriers to revision. Journal of Basic Writing, 3(3), 50-61.
44.
Nold, E.
(1982). Revising: Intentions and conventions. In R. Sudol (Ed.), Revising: New essays for teachers of writing (pp. 13-23). Urbana, IL: ERIC/National Council of Teachers of English.
45.
Nystrand, M.
(1986). The structure of written communication. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
46.
Odell, L.
, & Goswami, D. (Eds.). (1985). Writing in nonacademic settings. New York: Guilford.
47.
Pearsall, T. E.
(1969). Audience analysis for technical writing. Beverly Hills, CA: Glencoe.
48.
Perl, S.
(1979). The composing processes of unskilled writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336.
49.
Piaget, J.
(1955). The language and thought of a child (M. Gabain, Trans.). New York: New American Library. (Original work published in 1926)
50.
Redd-Boyd, T.
, & Slater, W. H. (1989). The effects of audience specification on undergraduates' attitudes, strategies, and writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 77-103.
51.
Rubin, D. L.
, & Piche, G. L. (1979). Development in syntactic and strategic aspects of audience adaptation skills in written persuasive communication. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 293-316.
52.
Rummelhart, D. E.
(1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance, VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
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). New York: Wiley.
54.
Schriver, K. A. (1987). Teaching writers to anticipate the reader's needs: Empirically-based instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 01A: 8905259.
55.
Schriver, K. A.
(1989a). Document design from 1980 to 1989: Challenges that remain. Technical Communication, 36(4), 316-331.
56.
Schriver, K. A.
(1989b). Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. IEEE Transactions in Professional Communication, 32, 238-255.
57.
Schriver, K. A.
(1991). Plain language through protocol-aided revision. In E. R. Steinberg (Ed.), Plain language: Principles and practice (pp. 148-172). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
58.
Shaughnessy, M.
(1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford.
59.
Sommers, N. I.
(1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College Composition and Communications, 31, 378-387.
60.
Spilka, R.
(1988). Studying writer-reader interactions in the workplace. The Technical Writing Teacher, 15, 208-221.
61.
Spivey, N. N.
(1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7, 256-287.
62.
Swaney, J. H.
, Janik, C. J., Bond, S. J., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). Editing for comprehension: Improving the process through reading protocols (DDC Tech. Rep. No. 14). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Communications Design Center.
63.
Sweller, J.
, & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.
64.
Thibadeau, R.
, Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1982). A model of the time course and content of reading. Cognitive Science, 6, 157-203.
65.
VanLehn, K.
(1986). Arithmetic procedures are induced from examples. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 133-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
66.
Witte, S. P.
(1987). Pre-text and composing. College Composition and Communication, 38, 397-425.
67.
Zhu, X.
, & Simon, H. A. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 137-166.
