A“cognitive discourse analysis” was employed to analyze instructions for using a word processor written by eighth-grade students. The approach analyzes text structure in order to specify underlying semantic and conceptual knowledge structures. Our analyses revealed that the written instructions produced by the student writers were deficient in providing a reader with the information necessary for performing the task in two distinct ways. First, the group of students as a whole presented insufficient content information in their texts, particularly with respect to the subprocedures required to use the word processor. Second, the organization of students' texts did not parallel the hierarchical structure of the procedures described. These results suggest the importance of looking at writing from the point of view of the knowledge structures being expressed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bazerman, C.
(1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
2.
Bereiter, C.
, & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of “inert knowledge.” In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds), Thinking and learning skills. Vol. 2: Research and open questions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Bereiter, C.
, & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Bracewell, R. J.
, & Breuleux, A. (1989). La diagnostic cognitif dans la rédaction. In G. Denhière & S. Baudet (Eds.), Questione de logopedie: Le diagnostic du fonctionnement cognitif dans la compréhension de textes. Braine-Comte, Belgium: Union professionnelle des logopedes francophones.
5.
Brewer, W. F.
, & Dupree, D. A. (1983). Use of plan schemata in the recall and recognition of goal-directed actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 117-129.
6.
Brown, J. S.
, Moran, T. P., & Williams, M. D. (1982). The semantics of procedures: A cognitive basis for training procedural skills for complex machine maintenance. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox CIS Working Paper.
7.
Dixon, P.
(1982). Plans and written directions for complex tasks. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 70-84.
8.
Dixon, P.
(1987). The processing of organizational and component step information in written directions. Journal of Language and Memory, 26, 24-35.
9.
Donin, J.
, Doehring, D. G., & Browns, F. (1991). Text comprehension and reading achievement in orally-educated hearing-impaired children. Discourse Processes, 14, 307-337.
10.
Faigley, L.
(1985). Nonacademic writing: The social perspective. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings. New York: Guilford.
11.
Flower, L.
, & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1, 120-160.
12.
Flower, L.
, Schriver, K. A., Carey, L., Haas, C., & Hayes, J. R. (1989). Planning in writing: The cognition of constructive process (Tech. Rep. No. 34). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University, Centre for the Study of Writing.
13.
Frederiksen, C. H.
(1975). Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 371-458.
14.
Frederiksen, C. H.
(1986). Cognitive models and discourse analysis. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Written communication annual. Vol I: Linguistic approaches to the study of written discourse. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Frederiksen, C. H.
(1989a). Text comprehension in functional task domains. In D. Bloom (Ed.), Learning to use literacy in educational settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16.
Frederiksen, C. H.
(1989b). The representation of procedures: Acquisition and expression of procedural knowledge. Paper presented at the Colloque Internationale sur l'Informatique cognitives des Organizations, Québec, Canada.
17.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, Bracewell, R. J., Breuleux, A., & Renaud, A. (1988). The cognitive representation and processing of discourse: Function and dysfunction. In Y. Joanette & H. Brownell (Eds.), Discourse ability and brain damage: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag.
18.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, Bracewell, R. J., & Cook, V. (1981). Considering the reader's comprehension in document design. Paper presented at the symposium on Document Design and Revision, American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
19.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, & Breuleux, A. (1989). Monitoring cognitive processing in semantically complex domains. In N. Frederiksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M. Shafto (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, & Dominic, J. (1981). Perspectives on the activity of writing. In C. H. Frederiksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, & Donin, J. (1991). Constructing multiple semantic representations in comprehending and producing discourse. In G. Denhière & J. P. Rossi (Eds.), Texts and text processing. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
22.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, Donin-Frederiksen, J., & Bracewell, R. J. (1986). Discourse processing in children's written and oral production. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
23.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, & Renaud, A. (1987). On-line processing of text propositions: Linking reading time, on-line interpretation, and recall. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association and the British Psychological Society, Oxford University.
24.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, & Roy, M. (1990). Effects of prior knowledge and linear vs. hierarchical topicalization structure on acquisition of knowledge from procedural text. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa, Canada.
25.
Hayes, J. R.
, & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Kieras, D.
, & Polson, P. G. (1985). An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 365-394.
27.
McCutchen, D.
(1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444.
28.
Minsky, M.
(1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Nystrand, M.
(1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 66-85.
30.
Olson, J. R.
, & Biolsi, K. J. (1991). Techniques for representing expert knowledge. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Rumelhart, D. C.
(1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D. Q. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic Press.
32.
Stein, N. L.
(1986). Knowledge and process in the acquisition of writing skills. Review of Research in Education, 13, 225-258.
33.
van Dijk, T.
, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
34.
Voss, J. F.
, Vesonder, G. T., & Spilich, G. J. (1980). Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 651-667.
