Support of Content and Rhetorical Processes of Writing: Effects on the Writing Process and the Written Product

The effects of content and rhetorical prompts on writing process activities and the quality of written products were examined. We also examined the usefulness of latent semantic analysis (LSA; Landauer & Dumais, 1997)-a computational technique for representing the content of documents-as a tool for assessing texts. Participants used varied combinations of prompts designed to support content and rhetorical processes. In Experiment 1, content and rhetorical processes were supported only during composition. In Experiment 2, content and rhetorical processes were supported during domain learning and writing. Time spent in 3 writing activities (planning, drafting, revising) was measured, and professional writing instructors and LSA assessed text quality. Content prompts extended time spent writing and were related to improved text quality; rhetorical prompts demonstrated some influence on planning and global text quality only when presented during domain learning. In both experiments, LSA generated consistent judgments of writing quality that resembled human grading.

[1]  Alice J. Corkill.  Advance organizers: Facilitators of recall , 1992 .

[2]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  Learning from text: Matching readers and texts by latent semantic analysis , 1998 .

[3]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  The Measurement of Textual Coherence with Latent Semantic Analysis. , 1998 .

[4]  D. Ausubel.  The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. , 1960 .

[5]  R. T. Kellogg.  The Psychology of Writing , 1994 .

[6]  Peter W. Foltz,et al.  An introduction to latent semantic analysis , 1998 .

[7]  D. McCutchen.  Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability , 1986 .

[8]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[9]  Mark Torrance,et al.  Finding something to write about: strategic and automatic processes in idea generation , 1996 .

[10]  J. Hayes.  A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. , 1996 .

[11]  T. Landauer.  Learning and Representing Verbal Meaning , 1998 .

[12]  J. Hayes,et al.  On the nature of planning in writing. , 1996 .

[13]  Gerry Stahl,et al.  Developing Summarization Skills through the Use of LSA-Based Feedback , 2000, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[14]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  The psychology of written composition , 1987 .

[15]  Jill Fitzgerald,et al.  Research on Revision in Writing , 1987 .

[16]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech : Implications for the structure of working memory , 1982 .

[17]  N. Sommers.  Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers , 1980, College Composition & Communication.

[18]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

[19]  Deborah McCutchen,et al.  Revising for Meaning: Effects of Knowledge and Strategy. , 1997 .

[20]  J. Hayes,et al.  Writing Research and the Writer. , 1986 .

[21]  C. Michael Levy,et al.  The Science of Writing : Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications , 1996 .

[22]  An application of multilevel analysis on writing process data , 1996 .

[23]  Hayes.  identifying the organization of wi iiing processes , 1980 .