The Relationship Between Students’ Writing Process, Text Quality, and Thought Process Quality in 11th-Grade History and Philosophy Assignments

IF 1.9 1区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Written Communication Pub Date : 2021-07-14 DOI:10.1177/07410883211028853
Lieke Holdinga, T. Janssen, Gert Rijlaarsdam
{"title":"The Relationship Between Students’ Writing Process, Text Quality, and Thought Process Quality in 11th-Grade History and Philosophy Assignments","authors":"Lieke Holdinga, T. Janssen, Gert Rijlaarsdam","doi":"10.1177/07410883211028853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Source-based writing is a common but difficult task in history and philosophy. Students are usually taught how to write a good text in language classes. However, it is also important to address discipline-specificity in writing, a topic likely to be taught by content teachers. In order to design discipline-specific writing instruction, research needs to identify which reading and writing activities during the source-based writing process affect students’ thought process quality and text quality, as assessed by content teachers. We conducted a think-aloud study with 15 (11th grade) students who performed two source-based writing assignments, each representative of its discipline. From the data, we derived 11 activities, which we analyzed for duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. Results showed that the disciplines required different approaches to writing. For philosophy, the writing process was dominant and influenced quality, leading us to conclude that philosophical thinking and writing are intertwined. For history, the planning process appeared to be paramount, but it influenced text quality only and not the quality of the thought process. In other words, historical thinking and writing appear to be separate processes. Our findings can be used to develop strategy instruction that reinforces better writing, adapted to discipline-specific writing processes.","PeriodicalId":47351,"journal":{"name":"Written Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/07410883211028853","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Written Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211028853","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Source-based writing is a common but difficult task in history and philosophy. Students are usually taught how to write a good text in language classes. However, it is also important to address discipline-specificity in writing, a topic likely to be taught by content teachers. In order to design discipline-specific writing instruction, research needs to identify which reading and writing activities during the source-based writing process affect students’ thought process quality and text quality, as assessed by content teachers. We conducted a think-aloud study with 15 (11th grade) students who performed two source-based writing assignments, each representative of its discipline. From the data, we derived 11 activities, which we analyzed for duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. Results showed that the disciplines required different approaches to writing. For philosophy, the writing process was dominant and influenced quality, leading us to conclude that philosophical thinking and writing are intertwined. For history, the planning process appeared to be paramount, but it influenced text quality only and not the quality of the thought process. In other words, historical thinking and writing appear to be separate processes. Our findings can be used to develop strategy instruction that reinforces better writing, adapted to discipline-specific writing processes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
11年级历史哲学作业中学生写作过程、文本质量和思维过程质量的关系
源头写作是历史和哲学中一项常见但困难的任务。在语言课上,学生们通常被教导如何写出一篇好文章。然而,在写作中解决学科的特殊性也很重要,内容教师可能会教授这个话题。为了设计特定学科的写作教学,研究需要确定内容教师评估的基于来源的写作过程中的哪些阅读和写作活动会影响学生的思维过程质量和文本质量。我们对15名(11年级)学生进行了一项大声思考的研究,他们完成了两项基于来源的写作作业,每项作业都代表了各自的学科。根据这些数据,我们得出了11项活动,并对其持续时间、频率和发生时间进行了分析。结果表明,不同的学科需要不同的写作方法。对于哲学来说,写作过程是主导和影响质量的,这使我们得出结论,哲学思维和写作是交织在一起的。在历史上,计划过程似乎是至高无上的,但它只影响文本质量,而不是思想过程的质量。换句话说,历史思维和写作似乎是分开的过程。我们的研究结果可用于制定策略指导,以加强更好的写作,适应特定的写作过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Written Communication
Written Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
15.80%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Written Communication is an international multidisciplinary journal that publishes theory and research in writing from fields including anthropology, English, education, history, journalism, linguistics, psychology, and rhetoric. Among topics of interest are the nature of writing ability; the assessment of writing; the impact of technology on writing (and the impact of writing on technology); the social and political consequences of writing and writing instruction; nonacademic writing; literacy (including workplace and emergent literacy and the effects of classroom processes on literacy development); the social construction of knowledge; the nature of writing in disciplinary and professional domains.
期刊最新文献
Student Experiences With Peer Review and Revision for Writing-to-Learn in a Chemistry Course Context Prolepsis and Rendering Futures in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports. The Current Landscape of Studies Involving Intergenerational Letter and Email Writing: A Systematic Scoping Review and Textual Narrative Synthesis Teachers’ Implementation of the Writing Curriculum in Grades 7-8 of Chilean Public Schools: A Multiple Case Study Tracing Discursive Turbulence as Intra-active Pedagogical Change and Becoming
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1