This study explores the assumption that writing is a way to learn by examining the influence of task interpretation on writing and studying as learning aids. Forty college freshmen performed two tasks: reading-to-write and reading-to-study. Approaches to each task were categorized to test for effects of task interpretation. Students answered passage-specific comprehension questions after each task and gave think-aloud protocols as they worked. To assess learning processes, protocol transcripts were analyzed using a taxonomy of cognitive operations. Writing led to lower scores than studying on two of four comprehension measures. Writing and studying led to different patterns of cognitive operations when students worked with a fact-based source passage, but (a) these differences interacted with task interpretation, and (b) virtually no effects of task were observed on a more abstract passage. Results indicate that task interpretation and the nature of the material to be learned are important mediating variables in the relationship between writing and learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, J. M.
(1991). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(2), 133-178.
2.
Anderson, J. R.
(1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
3.
Anderson, T. H.
(1980). Study strategies and adjunct aids. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 483-502). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Applebee, A. N.
(1981). Writing in the secondary school: English and the content areas (NCTE Research Report No. 21). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
5.
Applebee, A. N.
(1984a). Contexts for learning to write: Studies of secondary school instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
6.
Applebee, A. N.
(1984b). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577-596.
7.
Britton, J.
(1981). Language and learning across the curriculum. Fforum, 2, 55-56, 93-94.
8.
Brown, A. L.
, Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968-979.
9.
Copeland, K.
(1985). The effect of writing upon good and poor writers learning from prose. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Philadelphia.
10.
Durst, R. K.
(1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 347-376.
11.
Durst, R. K.
(1989). Monitoring processes in analytic and summary writing. Written Communication, 6, 340-363.
12.
Emig, J.
(1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
13.
Faigley, L.
, & Hansen, K. (1985). Learning to write in the social sciences. College Composition and Communication, 36(2), 140-149.
14.
Flower, L.
, Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M. J., McCormick, K., & Peck, W. C. (1990). Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford.
15.
Hayes, D. A.
(1987). The potential for directing study in combined reading and writing activity. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 333-352.
16.
Herrington, A.
(1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(4), 331-359.
17.
Kantz, M.
(1990). Helping students use textual sources persuasively. College English, 52(1), 74-91.
18.
Konopak, B. C.
, Martin, S. H., & Martin, M. A. (1990). Using a writing strategy to enhance sixth-grade students' comprehension of content material. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 19-37.
19.
Langer, J. A.
(1980). Relation between levels of prior knowledge and the organization of recall. In M. L. Kamil & A. J. Moe (Eds.), Perspectives on reading research and instruction, 29th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 28-33). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.
20.
Langer, J. A.
(1984). The effects of available information on responses to school writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(1), 27-44.
21.
Langer, J. A.
, & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
22.
Marshall, J.
(1987). The effects of writing on students' understanding of literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 30-63.
23.
Mayer, R. E.
, & Cook, L. K. (1981). Effects of shadowing on prose comprehension and problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 9(1), 101-109.
24.
Murray, D.
(1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T. R. Donovan & B. W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 3-20). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
25.
Nelson, J.
(1990). This was an easy assignment: Examining how students interpret academic writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 34, 362-396.
26.
Nelson, J.
, & Hayes, J. R. (1988). How the writing context shapes college students' strategies for writing from sources (Technical Report No. 16). Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing.
27.
Newell, G.
(1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 265-287.
28.
Newell, G.
, & Winograd, P. (1989). The effects of writing on learning from expository text. Written Communication, 6, 196-217.
29.
Penrose, A. M.
(1989). Strategic differences in composing: Consequences for learning through writing (Technical Report No. 31). Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing.
30.
Penrose, A. M.
(in press). Writing and learning: Exploring the consequences of task interpretation. In A. M. Penrose & B. M. Sitko (Eds.), Hearing ourselves think: Cognitive research in the college writing classroom. New York: Oxford.
31.
Rosenshine, B. V.
(1980). Skill hierarchies in reading comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 535-554). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
Schumacher, G. M.
, & Nash, J. G. (1991). Conceptualizing and measuring knowledge change due to writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 67-96.
33.
Schwegler, R. A.
, & Shamoon, L. K. (1982). The aims and process of the research paper. College English, 44, 817-824.
34.
Sherrard, C.
(1986). Summary writing: A topographical study. Written Communication, 3, 324-343.
35.
Taylor, C. A. (1984). The relative effects of reading or writing a prose or diagrammatic summary upon the comprehension of expository prose (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1085A.
36.
Tierney, R. J.
, & Shanahan, T. (1990). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 2 (pp. 246-280). New York: Longman.
37.
Tierney, R. J.
, Soter, A., O'Flahavan, J. F., & McGinley, W. (1989). The effects of reading and writing upon thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134-173.
38.
Walvoord, B. E.
, & McCarthy, L. P. (1990). Thinking and writing in college: A naturalistic study of students in four disciplines. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
39.
Weinstein, C. E.
, & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
40.
Young, R.
, & Sullivan, P. (1984). Why write? A reconsideration. In R. J. Connors, L. S. Ede, & A. A. Lunsford (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse (pp. 215-225). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
