A structural analysis of an explanatory text written by a 12-year-old pupil is discussed to demonstrate how the PISA technique (the Procedures for Incremental Structural Analysis; Sanders & Van Wijk, 1996a) may contribute to the understanding of conceptual processes in writing. First, the validity of PISA is supported by showing that the hierarchical text structure corresponds with the (idiosyncratic) punctuation conventions of the writer. Then, it is explained how the writer's strategies and procedures can be reconstructed from the text structure. Evidence for the validity of these inferred cognitive plans is obtained from the distribution within the text of spelling errors, language errors, and self-corrections. Finally, the generalizability of these results is discussed together with the desirability of combining this off-line method with on-line techniques such as pause measurements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bereiter, C.
, & Scardamalia, M. (1983). Levels of inquiry in writing research. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 3-25). New York: Longman.
2.
Bereiter, C.
, & Scardamalia, M. (1984). Information-processing demand of text composition. In H. Mandl, N. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 407-428). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Bracewell, R.
, & Breuleux, A. (1994). Substance and romance in analyzing think-aloud protocols. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 55-88). London: Sage Ltd.
4.
Cooper, C.
, & Matsuhashi, A. (1983). A theory of the writing process. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language (pp. 3-39). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
5.
Cronbach, L.
, Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. (1963). Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16, 137-163.
6.
Frederiksen, C.
, Donin-Frederiksen, J., & Bracewell, R. (1987). Discourse analysis of children's text production. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modelling production processes (pp. 254-290). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7.
Greene, S.
, & Higgins, L. (1994). “Once upon a time”: The use of retrospective accounts in building theory in composition. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 115-140). London: Sage Ltd.
8.
Mann, W.
, & Thompson, S. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 9, 57-90.
9.
Mann, W.
, & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243-281.
10.
Matsuhashi, A.
(1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113-134.
11.
Paris, C.
, & McKeown, K. (1987). Discourse strategies for describing complex physical objects. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology, and linguistics (pp. 97-115). Dordrecht: Nijhoff.
12.
Sanders, T. (1992). Discourse structure and coherence: Aspects of a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
13.
Sanders, T.
, Janssen, D., Van der Pool, E., Schilperoord, J., & Van Wijk, C. (1996). Hierarchical text structure in written products and writing processes. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models, and methodology in writing research (pp. 473-492). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
14.
Sanders, T.
, & Van Wijk, C. (1996a). PISA—A procedure for analyzing the structure of explanatory texts. Text, 16, 91-132.
15.
Sanders, T.
, & Van Wijk, C. (1996b). Text analysis as a research tool: How hierarchical text structure contributes to the understanding of conceptual processes in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 251-269). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Schilperoord, J. (1996). It's about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
17.
Schilperoord, J.
, & Sanders, T. (1997). Pauses, cognitive rhythms, and discourse structure: An empirical study of discourse production. In A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 247-267). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
18.
Van den Bergh, H.
, & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). The dynamics of composing: Modeling writing process data. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 207-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Van Dijk, T.
, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
20.
Van der Pool, E. (1995). Writing as a conceptual process: A text-analytical study of developmental aspects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
21.
Van der Pool, E.
, & Van Wijk, C. (1995). Proces en strategie in een psycholinguïstisch model van schrijven en lezen [Process and strategy in a psycholinguistic model of writing and reading]. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 20, 200-214.
22.
Van Wijk, C.
(1992). Information analysis in written discourse. In J. de Jong & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), The construct of language proficiency (pp. 85-99). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
23.
Van Wijk, C.
(1998). Conceptual processes in argumentation: A developmental perspective. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Cognitive perspectives on conceptual processes in text production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
24.
Witte, S.
, & Cherry, R. (1986). Writing processes and written products in composition research. In C. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 112-153). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Zwaan, R.
(1996). Processing narrative time shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1196-1207.
