DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 373 344 CS 214 468

AUTHOR Baer, Matthias; And OthersTITLE How Do Expert and Novice Writers Differ in Their

Knowledge of the Writing Process and Its Regulation(Metacognition) from Each Other, and What Are theDifference in Metacognitive Knowledge betweenWriters of Different Ages?

PUB DATE Apr 94CONTRACT 11-27673-89NOTE 44p.; Paper presented _ _..: Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association (75th, NewOrleans, LA, April 4-8, 1994) and the EuropeanAssociation for Research on Learning and InstructionConference (5th, Aix-en-Provence, France, August31-September 5, 1993).

PUB TYPE Speeches/Confe7ence Papers (150) ReportsResearch /Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Adolescents; AdJlts; Comparative Analysis; Foreign

Countries; Inte....mediate Grades; *Metacognition;Secondary Education; Writing (Composition); WritingAchievement; *Writing Processes; Writing Research

IDENTIFIERS Collaborative Writing; Switzerland

ABSTRACTA study diagnosed the nature of different text

production abilities of Swiss grade 5 and grade 9 students, and ofadults, and diagnosed good and poor writers' differences within eachof these three age groups. Subjects, 36 in all, were uniformlydivided between 11- and 15-year-cdd students from the Bernesesecondary school and high school teachers. The 12 subjects of eachage group were made up of six good and six poor text writers. Eachsubject worked with an additional person as a pair. Each pair wasgiven the task of writing an article about the art and personage of awell-known Swiss iron-sculptor. The "tutor" guided the "tutee"through the task of writing the text. The tutee had to follow thetutor's advice and w., responsible for the formulation and writingdown of the surface structure sentences. Subjects were videotaped asthey wrote the text. Results indi.:ated that the most dominant factorfor the differences among subject's was the age factor. On the whole,the subjects from grade 5 and grade 9 were generally far more similarthan expected. Grade 9 subjects, who have almost finished school, didnot seem to possess a well- developed metacognitive knowledge base forwriting compared to that of the adult subjects. (Contains 17 figuresillustrating various aspects of data gathering, correlation analyses,and the model underlying the research.) (RS)

**************************** ******************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the or..ginal document.

*********************************W*************************************

r6

OHP Transparency 0: Title of Contribution with Names and InstitutionalAffiliation

How Do Expert and Novice Writers Differ in Their Knowledge of the Writing

Process and Its Regulation (IVIetacogni.00n) From Each Other, and What Are

the Differences in Metacognitive Knowledge Between Writers of Different

Ages? 1

Matthias BAER, Armin HOLLENSTEIN, Margaretha HOFSTETTER, Michael FUCHS &

Monika REBER-WYSS, Department of Pedagogical Psychology, University of Berne,

Switzerland 2

Abstract:This study is a diagnosis of the nature of different text production abilities of grade 5 and

grade 9 students, and of adults. It is further a diagnosis of good and poor writers'

differences within each of these three age groups. More specifically, this study

investigates the following: (1) How do younger and older writers differ from each other in

their metacognitive knowledge of writing? (2) What are the differences in metacognitive

knowledge between good and poor writers in each of the three Ege groups? The study

also gives (3) an idea of how the metacognitive knowledge of writing develops from

grade 5 to grade 9 and in adult writers. In addition, it provides (4) insic. into the

understanding and management of the writing processes of regular school students.

Results of this kind should be considered in intervention programs aimed at improving

students' writing abilities.U S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION

Ofl,ce of Educattonal Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asrecynyed Iron the person or otganizationortginafing it

Cl Minor changes bane bean made to improvereproduCbon quality

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Points of new or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

Overview: OERI Poston or POI,CY IN cOHMAT ION CENTER (ERIC)

The study is part of a three year research project which is supported by the Swiss

National Science Foundation (Grant # 11-27673.89). It is a cognitive-psychological study

and deals with metacognitive aspects of writing. The aim of the project is:

OHP Transparency 1: The Three Parts of the Project

C--/1 1 Paper presented at 5th Conference of European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Aix-en-Provence, France, August 31 - September 5, 1993.

2 The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Erja BAER-HEIKKILA, Sam HIRSBRUNNER, MartinSTADELMANN, and Susanne RIDEGG.

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

1 to further develop a constructive structural model of writing (theoretical part);

2) to analyse the production process related cognitive and metacognitive abilities of

writing which school students of different ages and adults have (analytical part),

and

3) on the basis of 1) and 2) to develop a cognitive and metacognitive intervention

program to foster students' ability to write texts (intervention part).

Today, we concentrate on the analytical part of the study. In as far as it is necessary tounderstand this, we will also deal with the theoretical part. The intervention will not be

dealt with. In the analytical part of the project we investigated the following two questions:

OHP Transparency 2: The Two Questions for Analysis

1) How do younger and older writers differ in their self-regulatory knowledge of thewriting process (metacognition) and in their knowledge of the characteristics of textproducts (text organization)? This is what we call diachronical comparison.

2) How do aood and poor writers differ in their self-regulatory knowledge of the textproduction process and in their knowledge of the characteristics of text products?This is what we call synchronical comparison.

The investigation is therefore based on a 2 x 3 factors design.

OHP Transparency 3: 2 x 3 Factors Design

Theoretical Framework:

In the last one and a half decades the expert-novice research in various academic fieldshas discovered considerable differences in metacognitive knowledge between subjectsof higher and lower abilities. To mention just very few, in writing research BEREITER &SCARDAMALIA's (1987) distinction between so-called "knowledge telling" and"knowledge transforming" is a well-known characteristic differentiating novice and expertwriters. Despite being a well-known distinctior, it can, however, hardly obscure the factthat it only identifies differences between good and poor writers in a very general way:Novices write associatively, following the model "and then". They report, as it were,everything that comes into their mind concerning a particular topic, hence the term

3

"knowledge telling". Experts, on the other hand, apply their knowledge to create new

structures. In this way they alter existing structures or transform their knowledge as the

term "knowledge transforming" conveys.

The American research group associated with ENGLERT and RAPHAEL (ENGLERT et

al.(1989)) then investigated the metacognitive knowledge of writing in school students of

different text production abilities. Their comparison of learning disabled, low-achieving

and high-achieving school students points out clear distinctions between the three

different student groups. It is mainly the learning disabled students, who write clearly

qualitatively poorer texts, who are distinguished by less comprehensive and less

developed metacognitive knowledge. Similar differences, though to a lesser degree,exist between low-achieving and high-achieving students.

Although the research done by ENGLERT and RAPHAEL extends our understanding ofdifferent writing abilities, we still do not fully know the reason for the existing differences

in the ability to write texts. In particular, we know little about the differences which existbetween good and poor writers in a normal class concerning the knowledge how the

complex problem of writing a text can be overcome. We can also say little about the sortof metacognitive knowledge adults have at their disposal and whether differences existbetween adults who are professionally engaged in writing and those who are not. In ouropinion, analyses, just like the one presented here, are necessary for the development ofintervention programs - and later for their application in schools.

A text production model is also part of the theoretical framework of our analysis. We willnow briefly explain this model in order to give an idea which parts of the task have to becarried out and co-ordinated with each other in the course of a text production process.

OHP Transparency 4.0: Orchestra Model of Text Production

This model consists of four main components, a test component as well as an executivecomponent.

The "executive" component co-ordinates the main and test components in such a waythat it activates the components in an appropriate way. It has a wide range of knowledgeconcerning the ideal text production process and the text product characteristics at itsdisposal and makes use of this knowledge as a guiding idealized model for the co-ordination of the components. The components carry out various parts of the functions inthe text production process. They are aware of the results of the activities of other

components and can request to be active from the executive component and, if thepossibility exists, to intervene with its own function in the continuing process. The

components ai-e, however, continually called on by the executive component or, as the

case may be, activated through this. The activities of the components do not take place in

the chron-logical order of the description presented here, but are to be seen as a

complex to and from between them. This can be established from the comparison of

available and targeted results through the executive.

OHP Transparency 4.1: Enlarged Section of "Task Analysis" and"Construction of the Semantic Deep Structure"

The component "task analysis" analyses the text production task with regards to the

pregiven requirements and conditions to produce the text. It specifies the text production

task concerning its intentions of effect, its addressee reference, its text organization as

well as its rhetorical-stylistic characteristics and determines a detector model or text

anticipation which schematically anticipates the text which is to be produced (SELZ1913, 1922; DUNCKER, 1935).

The component "construction of the semantic deep structure" constructs the deep

structure which semantically constitutes the text. It does this by recalling suitable

semantic elements (idea generation) on the basis of the text anticipation from internal

(memory) and external stored knowledge (illustrations, books, media etc.). It then links

these elements with one another with the aid of appropriate relation concepts. The result

is a hierarchically organized network of semantic set-in-relations which are composed ofmicro and macro structures and the superstructure which combine these structures and

represents the "message" of the text.

OHP Transparency 4.2: Enlarged Section "Language Coding/Formation ofthe Surface Structure" and "External Representa-tion"

The component "Language Coding/Formulation of the Surface Structure" has twofunctions. On the one hand, it determines the order of thoughts for the linear surfacestructure of the text which appears in sequences. This we call imposing a chronology. Onthe other hand, it generates the correct, rhetorical-stylistic suitable, (etc.) syntax of thetext. This subfunction we call syntactising. The components, in other words, determinehow the hierarchical network of semantic set-in-relations, which are formed through

4 5

constructive processes, can be brought into a linear sequence and generate thelinguistic surface of the text so that sentences are formed. The result of imposing achronology is a list of hierarchically ordered propositions. The result of syntactisina is thecohesive linguistic text surface.

The component "external representation" represents the results of the activity of othercomponents externally. It presents, for example, the result of the relational linking of theconstruction of the semantic deep structure in a network type of form, adheres to theresult of the imposition of chronology a hierarchical list of micro and macro propositionsor represents the result of the syntactising as a sequence of linguistic surface sentences.

OHP Transparency 4.3: Enlarged Section "Test Component"

The "test component" examines, in a variety of ways, whether conditions which havebeen attained at that point and those to be attained correspond: a) Does the textanticipation correspond to the text production task in question? b) Does the constructedsemantic deep structure conform to what the text anticipatioi :equines? c) Does thegenerated surface structure or the text really express the semantic deep structure? d)Does the graphical text representation render the surface structure correctly in a writtenform? e) Does the generated text correspond to the text anticipation and thereby theoriginal writing task? The result of investigation at this particular point is transmitted tothe executive which makes use of this information when determining the future course ofthe text production processes.

The model consists of three further components, namely the components "factclarification'', "emotional/motivational state" and "internal representation".

OHP Transparency 4.4: Enlarged Section "Cognition" and "Self-Perception"

In connection with text production, it may be necessary to clarify facts which havebecome a cognitive problem. In this situation the executive brings the text productionprocess to a halt and activates the component "fact clarification". This clarifies thecognitive structure of the misunderstanding or, as the case may be, the problematic facts.Then, the executive sets the text. production process in motion again. The "factclarification" component, strictly speaking, does not belong to the text productionprocess. It is a component which also functions outside text production processes. Italways goes into action if the cognitive structure of a thing or fact has become a problem.

The component "emotional/motivational state" becomes active similar to "fact

clarification" not only in connection with the text production process, but also when a

cognitive activity acts on affective aspects. The existing "emotional/motivational state" is

transmitted to the executive. This decides what measures have to be taken and

interrupts, for example, the text production process in order to recuperate.

OHP Transparency 4.0: Orchestra Modc' of Text Production

Finally, we consider the component "internal representation" as covering the area of

mental activity which involves the internal storage and recalling of elements and

structures of knowledge.

Just as the art of playing well together exists in an orchestra in order to interpret music in

well co-ordinated interaction between the musicians and the conductor and in the

disciplined collaboration of individual musicians, so the crucial point in the outlined text

production model exists in the sensible co-ordination of individual main components

among themselves and through the executive in order to generate the text product.

Relating to this metaphor, it is comprehensible to speak about an "orchestra model of text

production".

We now turn to the analytical part of the study.

OHP Transparency 5: Experimental Design

Experimental Design:

All in all, 36 subjects took part in this study. They are uniformly divided between 11 and

15 year old school students from the Bernese secondary school (which is attended

between the ages of 11 16) and adults. The twelve subjects of each age group were

made up of six good and six poor text writers. In the student group the group of good

writers was formed from the three best writers from each of two parallel classes. The

three poorest writers from each of these classes were combined to make up the group ofpoor writers.

High school teachers co-operated in being the adult subjects. In this group the divisioninto experts or novices depended on whether the subject was professionaily involved inwriting texts or not. Those high school teachers who taught their mother-tongue

language German formed the expert group. Novices consisted of high school teachers

who did not teach German and therefore were not professionally involved in textproduction. However, they were academically trained like the experts.

For the data collection we made use of the so-called Turku-table.

OHP Transparency 6: Experimental set up: Turku-table

This table was developed at the Institute of Education of the University of Turku inFinn land, and was used in reading research. It is a specially constructed table with aglass surface and a slightly forward tilted mirror underneath this glass surface. A videocamera is positioned in front of the mirror so that pictures of a person writing at this tablewhile sitting at the opposite end of the table's camera-side can be taken as well aspictures of what the person is writing on the sheet of paper lying on the glass surface.

Each subject worked with an additional person as a pair in the experiment. For theschool student subjects this was a fellow student who was known but didn't belong to thesubject's class. For the adult subjects the additional person originated from a higher levelclass of the school (teacher training college) in which the adult subject taught. Differentroles were assigned to the two people of each pair: the subject became the tutor, theadditional person the tutee. Each pair were given the task of writing an article about theart and personage of the well-known Swiss iron-sculptor, Berhard Luginbuhl, for aschool or daily newspaper.

OHP Transparency 5: Experimental Design

The tutor and tutee had various functions as a consequence of the allocated roles: thetutor, the actual subject, had to (as senior reporter) guide the tutee (as junior reporter)through his/her task of writing a text. The tutee, on the other hand, had to follow the tutor'sadvice and was responsible for the formulation and writing down of the surface structuresentences. By organising, guiding, monitoring and giving his/her opinion on the resultsgenerated, the tutor took charge of the metacognitive or self-regulatory functions. Thetutee, on the other hand, was responsible for various cognitive functions in the textproduction process.

A twelve minute video film about the iron-sculptor Bernhard LuginbOhl and his art wasshown in order to give the subjects common content subject matter. In addition, each pairreceived six pictures of Luginbuhl himself and of some of his best known wrrks.

8

OHP Transparency 7a: Colour Picture "Luginbuhl with Butterfly-Screw onhis Head"

OHP Transparency 7b: Colour Picture of One of Luginbuhlts iron Sculp-tures

(possibly only Transparency 7b shown)

The video film was shown to the tutor and tutee prior to their carrying out the textproduction task together. It was prepared in such a way that, although it contained clearcontent material, it did not have any structured order of sequences to make a simpleretelling of the events in the film possible. In the joint session of tutor and tutee the videofilm was no longer available. However, the tutor and tutee could look at the six pictures ofLuginbOhl and his work again at any time.

OHP Transparency 8: Chronological Arrangement of the Experiment

In the first session the tutor himself wrote an informative text about LuginbOhl and hiswork. In the second session with the tutee he could therefore, corresponding to hisfunction, concentrate on the metacognitive aspects of the text production process andguide the tutee through the text production process. The video film about LuginbOhl andhis art was also shown to the tutee before the session with the tutor. The tutee, however,had no opportunity to write his/her own text before the session together. He/She wastherefore encouraged to follow the advice of the tutor in the session with him/her.

We name the process described here as data collection based on diadic instruction. Theso-called tutor doesn't solve the problem him/herself, but instructs the tutee step by stepwith the aim of enabling him/her to solve the problem. In order to do this, the tutor has tofall back on his self-regulatory knowledge of the text production process, as well ashis/her own ideas on the characteristics of text products. It is of interest to note whatadvice of a process and product related type the tutor gives the tutee or how the tutorguides the tutee through the text production task.

It was possible, with the technical apparatus described, to tape on video the problemsolving dialogue between the tutor and tutee at the same time as the notes and text werewritten down by the tutee. The session of a tutor/tutee pair lasted up to 90 minutes.

8

OHP Transparency 9: System of Categories

The 36 video tapes were transcribed. Then the statements of the tutor in each transcript

were analysed into propositions. Each proposition was assigned one of 32 categories of

a system of categories which was developed on the basis of our theoretical concepts and

the empirical data collected.

Results:

Diachronical Comparison

On the whole, adult and student sul:jects significantly differ from each other in more than

20 out of the 27 relevant categories of our category system, for example concerning (1)

the analysis of the writing task, (2) the construction of the semantic deep structure of the

text, (3) the imposing of a chronology on the constructed semantic deep structure, (4) the

test operations for evaluating the quality of the results of different writing subprocesses,

and (5) the different kinds of external representations of the results of these

subprocesses. Other differences concern (6) the way in which tutors organize their

writing process, and (7) whether they take emotional and motivational aspects intoconsideration during the writing process.

Correlation Analysis: Age and Categories

a) Ability: Good WritersAge: Grade 5, Grade 9, Adults

OHP Transparency 10: Correlation Analysis: Age and CategoriesSubjects: Good Writers of Grade 5, Grade 9, Adults

b) Ability: Poor Writers

Age: Grade 5, Grade 9, Adults

OHP Transparency 11: Correlation Analysis: Age and CategoriesSubjects: Poor Writers of Grade 5, Grade 9, Adults

The two student subject groups are altogether far more similar . They differ from eachother mainly in the attention that is paid to (1) the formulation, (2) the revision of surface-sentences, and (3) the revision of written text representation, as well as in relation to a

I9

few aspects of (4) the task analysis and (5) the linking (set in relation) of collected

knowledge elements.

Correlation Analysis: Age and Categories

c) Ability: Good Writers

Age: Grade 5, Grade 9

OHP Transparency 12: Correlation Analysis: Age and CategoriesSubjects: Good Writers of Grade 5, Grade 9

d) Ability: Poor Writers

Ability: Grade 5, Grade 9

OHP Transparency 13: Correlation Analysis: Age and CategoriesSubjects: Poor writers of Grade 5, Grade 9

Synchronical Comparison

Novice and expert adult tutors differ from each other (1) in whether they have the tuteeconsider the characteristics of the writer's audience, (2) in the kinds of test operation thetutee has to execute, (3) in the hints the tutors gives concerning the formulation of

surface-level sentences, and (4) in the tutor's hints concerning the symbolic-iconicrepresentation of generated knowledge elements.

Correlation Analysis: Ability and Categories

a) Ability: Poor and Good WritersAge: Adults

OHP Transparency 14: Correlation Analysis: Ability and CategoriesSubjects: Poor and Good Writers of Adult Subjects

Among student subjects, novice and expert tutors differ from each other in their hint.,about (1) external sources of information for generating ideas, (2) the hints aboutformulating surface-level sentences, (3) the revision of surface-level sentences, and (4)the revision of the written text representation, as well as (5) the attention they pay to the

10 11

determination of the purpose of the text to be written. However, grade 9 students differsurprisingly little from the subjects of grade 5.

Correlation Analysis: Ability and Categories

b) Ability:

Age:

Poor and Good Writers

Grade 9

OHP Transparency 15: Correlation Analysis: Ability and CategoriesSubjects: Poor and Good Writers of Grade 9

c) Ability:

Age:Poor and Good Writers

Grade 5

OHP Transparency 16: Correlation Analysis: Ability and CategoriesSubjects: Poor and Good Writers of Grade 5

Conclusion:

Our study aimed at a better understanding of the competences and deficits of writers ofdifferent ages and abilities. The most dominant factor for differences among the subjectswas the age factor. However, the observed differences are predominantly due to theadults subjects only. Much less important is the ability factor.

On the whole, the subjects from grade 5 and grade 9 are generally far more similar thanexpected. Grade 9 subjects who have almost finished school do not seem to possess awell-developed metacognitive knowledge base for writing compared to that of the adultsubjects. It seems as if students of grade 5 do not gain an elaborated metacognitiveknowledge base for writing while moving toward the end of their years at school (grade9). On the other hand, we also expected more differences between the experts andnovices among the adult subjects.

The more we understand the metacognitive knowledge base that writers rely on whiletackling writing tasks the better we will be able to design intervention programs which areintended to improve students' problem solving ability in writing. It was the aim of thisstudy to shed more light on this knowledge. The comparison of the results of the studentsubjects with those of the adult subjects gives an idea about where students' strengthsand weaknesses are in coping with writing tasks.

11 12

Reference

BEREITER, C. & SCARDAMALIA, M (1987) The Psychology of Written Composition.

Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

DUNCKER, C (1935) Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens. Berlin: Springer(1974).

ENGLERT, C.S., RAPHAEL, T.E., FEAR, K.L. & ANDERSON, L.M. (1988) Students'

Metacognitive Knowledge About How to Write Informational Texts. LearningDisability Quarterly,1 1, 18-46.

SELZ, 0. (1913) Ober die Gesetze des geordneten Denkverlauff Stuttgart: Spemann.SELZ, 0. (1922) Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens and des lrrtums. Bonn:

Cohen.

For more detailled results write to:

Matthias BAER e-mail: BAER@AFP.UNIBE.CHAbteilung Padagogische Psychologie (APP) fax: 0041 31 + 65 37 73University of Berne

Muesmattstrasse 27

CH-3012 Berne, Switzerland

1312

How Do Expert and Novice Writers

Differ in Their Knowledge of the

\Writing Process and Its Regulation

(Metacognition) From Each Other,

and What Are the Differences in

Metacognitive Knowledge Between

Writers of Different Ages?

Matthias BAER, Armin HOLLENSTEIN, MargarethaHOFSTETTER, Michael FUCHS & Monika REBER-WYSS

Department of Pedagogical Psychology,University of Berne, Switzerland

Research supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, Grant # 11-27673.89

Transparency 014

The Three Parts of the Project

1 to further develop a constructive structuralmodel of writing

2 to analyse the production process relatedcognitive and metacognitive abilities of writingwhich school students of different ages andadults have and

3 on the basis of 1 and 2 to assist the ability towrite texts with the aid of a longer termcognitive and metacognitive interventionprogramme

Transparency 115

Formulation of the Two Questions forAnalysis

First Focus: Young vs. Old(diachonical Comparison)

How do younger and older writersdiffer in their self-regulatory knowledge ofthe writing process (metacognition)

and in their representation of thecharacteristics of text products (textorganization)?

Second Focus: Novice vs. Expert(Synchronical Comparison)

How do good and poor writersdiffer in their self-regulatory knowledge ofthe text production process

and in their representation of thecharacteristics of text products?

16Transnnrpncni

Diagram with 2 x 3 Factors Design

A q e Ability

Expert writers Novice writers

11 year old

regular schoolstudents

grade 5

15 year old

regular schoolstudents

grade 9

adults

Transparency 3 17

EXECUTIVE

A TN H

A EL

N TG A

SK

purpose

audience

genre,kind of text,text organi-sation

linguisticaspects (style,rhetorics)

generatingknowledgeelements

relatinggeneratedknowledgeelements

micro levelset in relation

- macro levelset in relation

CONSTRUCTINGTHESEMANTIC DEEPSTRUCTURE

revising theconstructedsemantic deepstructure- missing

knowledgeelementsor relationscontradic-tions withinthe semanticdeepstructuresuperfluousknowledgeelements orrelations

Transparency 4.1Task Analysis & Construction of the Semantic Deep Structure

18

EXECUTIVE

imposing achronologyon thesemanticdeepstructure

formula-ting sur-face levelsentences(buildingspokentext)

revising thesur-face levelsentences(cohesion)

LANGUAGE

C0D

NG

Transparency 4.2 1 9Language Coding & External Representation of Products

E

symbolic/ Xiconicrepresen-tation ofknowledgeelements

networkrepresen-tation of thesemanticdeepstructure

hierarchi-cal list re-presentationof the se-mantic deepstructureproposi-tions

writtentext repre-sentation

AL

REPRESENTAT

0

EVALUATING

the proper match of

writing text anticiption semantic deep text surface final draftassignment and semantic structure and structure and and textand text deep structure text surface linguistic anticipationanticipation structure aspects

I I I I I

Transparency 4.3Test Component

EXECUTIVE

20

SEL

F

ERCEPTI

0N

emotion

motivation

C0GN

I

TI

0N

generatingknowledgeelements

=141.111

relatingknowledgeelements

21Transparency 4.4Self Perception & Cognition

EXECUTIVE

Experimental Design:

Tutors®

(,::::;)Tutees

Tutors0

high achievingwriters

average achievingwriters

low achievingwriters

11-year old regularschool students

grade 5

6 pairs

re

6 pairs0 C) C=)

15-year old regularschool students

grade 9

6 pairs

-N. e6 pairs :'') c=)

TutorsFaculty members(prof. writers) *)

TuteesTeacher studen.3(kindergarden)

TutorsFaculty members

(not prof. writers) ")

adults

6 pairs

c

N 6 pairs

(=>") Teaching: ") Teaching: Piano,Composition and Dance, Art (Painting),Literature Gymnastics, Sports,

Biology, Chemistry

22

Transparency 5

Experimental setup: Turku-table

AudioTutee

Tutor

Transparentdesktop

23Transparency 6

r

.1

rY.r

,'

....

....-

1.-4

,'

ifktt

,4p,

k-''',

)" \

'';'

erN

:t,/i

ti

'r.

4 ,,

,:

tti

f:14

1

Is!

...40

7A16

*1;0

,441

"1 t

11.,P

.,skt

efiZ

tavi

p.,7

,111

1,PA

T'4

3

'414

101.

ie

-

,.....

.:, :,

ii,,

,t

:,:.

.- ,

'.,.

....,.

....

,' y

.li..\

.,st*

,a1;

,'...)

,t,',4

). ,i

vey

....:

c ,,,

,.

., ,

' 1.(

tt'..'

,'v

t.,:i.

3,ii

.oe

f.; V

IOP4

1.,

'

1:..,

,, ,,f

,,f.c

i<1,

.. j,,

:,/',t

./;..`

'111

".:y

o?;:c

:

;.:11

:4.4

!,4,

...',/

..i.v

io,,t

,ixi

a. r

i:

',!..,

,.

...1

.,

.,

.,. p

in.0

,'''

" 1`

..77'

4k

''. t'

itt".

s't

i1

l'.//'

' Ok

''

....e

.9"

4111

'.i/.

'1.4

%.'(

,11.

4V

o 51

4 1

I,,,

,,,y

1,,..

..

iri J; 1

1.1(

ti.

.T

..(IP

,at

.. ,..

.,

..,t

.,,(.

...,..

.,

,.v.

4

t

ansp

areY

cy7a

.641

-1,1

4.1

4404

0.11

1.11

r.

t;c

r.,

0,14

1005

1,

VJ'

it01

11,1

/:,V

,1ok

ittel

'i1.

,k

.I,

'r

01?

'

!F''

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE40

1,, ih, a,-1

inSo

....

f ,'1:114. ieke , Z

4/1 .. 1401:10.1',,,NA

TI.bleiPihr

..-e3.-07. ...tq 44, . ,I.

No

A ,,,th'4 W

ri 1i" P i ,i.r-,,A, :-."-JC

":.` :.tia.,,;,..c.,...v,,'...44't 4%;:,tg.e,t,,,,A

V,:t:IN

11: triA".4:,,i,:y.er;g4".;-1,Z

411SivP ''

13.,,,,,.."...,..,,;:.0:;0. ,.,,, ,

.N

1ri... ''14.

.1.....

;../ , ., N,

4 ....:.i

y..

lI

,,,

V,...,...1100.1.4.,,

it - it 44 4 ...r9 ,.;,

..,.:.- ,

.,...

..

.,.; ,.....,, .22.

.,2i,..

, .2.

. ,".

...

21 .

, .1,,..

,,..- .

,.....

...,

....,.,,,...

.., ,,.

,.,........

.4,, ; ( It'fr a,,,

e n0401,: ,T

he ,_:

rt.,'" 'r,.0,....

,_ ,,10, ...?..1,

'..

.'., r. fr, a ' ...'-., rt.t.'"-k

.041. - kkt V

,'

'r ' /'( ?' I, S 4+

' --. s 's ..t1'pKtiti

16'&11..irV

):k

:10"-'1.'"ei r.t. l'..1"..:VI ''' 4 '''''.'..;t- .:17 ..14,rlit''00r.'

4 ;Attriti, 41i; .ilti %

PI .e14.4 i S.,di.t.4.z. 4,;?:.,.., N

)1..1%

, ..111.

.i,k:',:..

::. ).'1 4'.0. I.: )c .....: rt: 3 x

/1....%.o..,.411.1%

,14,.... itr.P jr stN

., 11.,,Y

10M

I{

11`;; 01;;,;1;.1.:.

! t' ......,-A,';ir.i.t.,A

'r;a1 II:14?.V Ili,.

11'1414))11101''1:'7 (.16>

kr 1. itr

iikdi 41;w

4 ii.it)'.1-ileti'4i. "Iiiij 4111"r"t er I iv. I 0 .. .

04. t..i

,i

A 41-...11

'v %,,to

I. rA",

,

tij,4

11

wrl

...;)"

itdr.'

N ', e

:4tii,

.

...,et..

1e.y

4s.41

4.t...A

.P 4+

t#Ikti

A...,ay'.

iti

At,

,(I 4! -

A.

it7-1111,i...17,::::Art.-.1". ....27.:

....7,16.kt.'s'i A

r2L`,..W

ArA

..

V. A

4!..4 I

04

Vt

0 Vt

.? I 7. %.

th.a,

:PA

4.1"41(titlh.44,./.. WA

S° I An. .

.

.77

4.1)11Id

Iry

gm

i

fitltA

'?..0.

lb4,t

t.41

S..r

L in.,

411,

ar.:t

+.

.1:.

Vlik

tieJO

.

93L

.I

s

..

''

,A t041%

..

.. A

.. , :...

-!'"e,

kvc....>tie4

. 410, , .1

'1!1r '

1)0:4;1,0 07V

f.1)XP

g

)

It

fib s/..1"Tilliy.rierV

7'tr.ictth(.0

:4

.14.4erti.. 1.10"

1'1

"".

r.

4.4 ,I /W

,VI

.1NO

)tr. 4.

..

.!IF

.I

I. .

.:1'1,L

..1,,rcA

U..1.,11J

!!:;ht.. tV

.S.

'

,

v..'

1.'

.7.,:

.4,4%

.j.500IiiiA

:(,12

;.,.Y

t

1"

Wi;i:11-41'.',

"

..t'..;.r;11

.'411i.;&°e

%,

.1'

.:,

..t

..'

'. ..

1,,

,,,,..priA

! 04,

...ir

-....:#16...''..

." '''''.:"

'c,,,,

...,

..

";.

...; .

..,, -,-.,e..: ;,.'4,,,,,..

,,t11

'.

...,

.....

.,,,o:"4, ..3.);; ...;.!,1 :.!: ltr.11,;;4. liit'i.3tP

''

'.

.'.

,-L

14,01..,ort ..1,

.tr.

,,;..

.' st

..

VIC

.A

- .r1,"

cC

'..4rt

.o.

,....0,

V

.:..4

..,--,

,,..,,

''c -.

1'711;1. .1;i

'11-' ,4.."

4.IN; rve

,

.).?

r.JO

.0

4'

,.

';

0,r

1.

411.1: f't.1 r

-

t.

,I

/441-

.1..t':1

r4.014,114,

tO).

..11.

`,

Chronological Arrangement

Time Tutor Tutee

1 . Session 1 Presentation ofVideo-tape andPictures of the Iron-Sculptor LuginbOhland His Work

2 Writing anInformative TextAbout LuginbOhland His Work

2. Session 1 Presentation ofVideo-tape andPictures of theIron-SculptorLuginbOhl and HisWork

2 Advising the Tutee Writing an

About How to Write Informative Text

an Informative Text About LuginbOhland His Work withthe Advice of theTutor

23

Transparency 8

Sal

t-pe

rcep

tions

,fe

elin

gs,

mot

ivat

ion

Org

anis

ing

the

writ

ing

proc

ess

29

]nsp

aren

cy9

Sub

ject

s' m

etac

ogni

tive

prop

ositi

ons

refe

rto

:

Tas

k an

alys

is(s

ettin

g up

text

antic

ipat

ion/

dete

ctor

mod

el)

Pur

poso

Aud

ienc

e

Gen

re, k

ind

of te

xt, t

ext

orga

nisa

tion

Ling

uist

icas

pocL

s(s

tyle

,rh

olor

Ics)

Col

lect

ing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

Sou

rces

of

info

rmat

ion

Inte

rnal

sour

ces

(mem

ory)

exte

rnal

sour

ces

(phe

nom

enon

,bo

oks,

med

ia

Pro

cess

of

writ

ing

Con

stru

ctio

nof

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Gen

erat

ing

idea

s

Set

inre

latio

n:R

elat

ing,

linki

ngco

llect

edkn

owle

dge

elem

ents

Mic

ro-le

vel

sot I

n re

latio

n(lo

cal

cohe

renc

e)

Mac

rolo

vol

sot i

n re

latio

n(g

loba

lco

here

nce)

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Rev

isin

g th

ese

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e

Mis

sing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rm

issi

ngre

latio

ns

Inco

here

nce

(con

trad

ictio

nsw

ithin

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure)

Sup

erflu

ous

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rre

latio

ns(s

triv

ing

for

sirin

g on

ce)

Pro

duct

,ex

tern

alre

pres

en-

tatio

ns

Lang

uage

codi

ng/

For

mat

ion

ofth

e su

rfac

est

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Impo

sing

ach

rono

logy

on

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re(-

Fin

ding

apa

in th

roug

hth

e co

nstr

ucte

dse

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e-)

Syn

tact

isin

g:F

orm

ulat

ing

surla

co-lo

vel

sent

ence

s,(b

uild

ing

spok

en te

xt)

Rev

isin

g th

esu

rfac

e-le

vel

sert

ence

s(c

ohes

ion)

Eva

luat

ion

ofpr

oper

mat

chbe

twee

n ...

Writ

ing

assi

gnm

ent

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

Tex

tan

ticip

atio

nan

d se

man

ticde

ep s

truc

ture

Sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

and

text

sur

face

stru

ctur

e

Tex

t sur

laco

stru

ctur

e an

dch

osen

lingu

istic

aspe

cts

Fin

al (

kali

and

loxi

antic

ipat

ion

30

sym

bolic

/Ic

onic

repr

esen

ta-

tion

ofkn

owle

dge

elem

ents

not w

ork

repr

esen

tatio

nof

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re

hier

arch

ical

list

repr

esen

ta-

tion

of th

ese

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

epr

opos

ition

s

Writ

ten

text

ropr

oson

lalio

n

Rev

isin

g th

ew

ritte

nte

xtre

pro

sont

a-lio

n

Sub

ject

s' m

etac

ogni

tive

prop

ositi

ons

refe

rto

:

\x\\\

\\\z\

\..\

\-\\;

\\\.:

\S

ell-

\ ,\pe

rcep

tions

,fe

elin

gs,

mot

ivat

ion

\\ x\ .\

\\\\\\

\\\\\\

\\\\w

Lege

nd:

Sig

nific

ant

posi

tive

cotr

elat

ion

sign

ilica

nt n

egat

ive

corr

elat

ion

\\\\\\

\\\\\\

\\\\\\

\\\\

\\ ne

arly

sig

nilic

ant p

ositi

ve to

r:.

\s'7

..\\..

\\\.\\

\.\\.\

\*\\.

\:.\\\

..\\\.

\\:\\\

*.\\

.41/

/////.

/./.4

4/7/

.////7

/././.

/74

/7ne

arly

sig

nific

ant n

egat

ive

eon.

4///

//////

//////

//////

////

Cor

rela

tion

Ana

lysi

s A

gean

d C

ateg

orie

s

Abi

lity:

goo

d w

riter

s

Ago

. gra

de 5

grad

e 9

adul

ts

Cor

rela

tion

of A

go a

ndC

ateg

orie

s (p

oor

writ

ers

not

incl

uded

)

31n

,n

Org

aniz

ing

the

writ

ing

proc

ess

Tas

k an

alys

is(s

ettin

g up

text

antic

ipat

ion/

dete

ctor

mod

el)

Aud

ienc

e

Col

lect

ing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

Con

stru

ctio

nof

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

\\\ \\

\\\\\N

"G

ener

atin

gm

illio

n\

Idea

s\\\

\\\\\\

\\st

Sou

rcos

of

info

r

Set

inre

latio

n:R

elat

ing,

linki

ngco

llect

edkn

owle

dge

elem

ents

Rev

isin

g th

ese

man

tic d

eep

Str

uctu

re

Lang

uage

codi

ng/

For

mat

ion

of

the

surf

ace

stru

ctur

eof

the

text

inte

rnal

Sou

rces

(mem

ory)

Mic

role

vel

set I

n re

latio

n(lo

cal

cohe

renc

e)

Mis

sing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

r

mis

sing

rota

tions

Impo

sing

ach

rono

logy

on th

ese

man

ticde

epst

ruct

ure

(*F

indi

ng a

path

thro

ugh

the

cons

truc

ted

sem

antic

deep

stru

ctur

e')

Writ

ing

assi

gnm

ent

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

Tex

tan

ticip

atio

nan

d

sem

antic

deep

stru

ctur

e

Gen

re, k

ind

of te

xt, l

est

orga

nisa

tion

Inco

here

nce

(con

trad

ictio

nsw

ithin

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure)

Sem

antic

clix

epst

ruct

ure

and

text

surf

ace

stru

ctur

e

exte

rnal

Sou

rces

(phe

nom

enon

,bo

oks,

med

ia,..

)

Mac

roLe

vel s

ot in

rota

tion

(glo

bal

cohe

renc

e)

Ling

uist

icas

poct

s(s

tyle

,rh

elor

lcs)

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

,\\\\N

\\\\-

`Sup

erflu

ous

\

\know

ledg

e or

.\\-\

rela

tions

\--

*,(s

triv

ing

for

\` s

irIng

ence

)X

\\\*\

\\\\\\

\

Syn

lact

isin

g:F

orm

ulat

ing

eurf

ace

leve

lse

nten

ces,

(bui

ldin

gsp

oken

text

).

Tex

tsu

rfac

est

ruct

ure

and

chos

en

lingu

istic

aspe

cts

Rev

isin

g th

esu

rfac

elov

else

nten

ces

(coh

esio

n)

Fin

al d

raft

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

32

Pro

duct

,ex

tern

alre

pre

sen-

tatio

ns

sym

bolic

/ic

onic

repr

esen

talie

n of

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

net w

ork

repr

esen

tatio

nof

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re

\\\N

\hi

erar

chic

allis

tss

z:\

\ rep

rese

nta

\\ b

on o

f the

\se

man

tic

`\

sc".

stru

ctur

epr

opos

ition

sX

\ \\ \

Writ

ten

text

repr

esen

talio

n

Rev

isin

g th

ew

ritte

nte

xt

repr

osen

talio

n

Sub

ject

s' m

etac

ogni

tive

prop

ositi

ons

refe

rto

:

Sel

f-pe

rcep

tions

,fe

elin

gs,

mot

ivat

ion

Lege

nd:

Pro

cess

of

writ

ing

sign

ilica

nt p

ositi

ve c

orre

latio

n

sign

ifica

nt n

egat

ive

corr

elat

ion

ww

ww

N\

near

ly s

igni

fican

t pos

itive

\\\. \

\\\\\\

*\\\.

\\ .\\

\\\\.

\\.(

71/ 7

./////

, 4 //

/////:

/////7

.4 /.

/./ne

atly

sig

nific

ant n

egat

rve

4/*

//////

//////

//////

//////

///r

Cor

roia

tion

Ana

lysi

s A

gean

d C

ateg

orie

s

Abi

lity:

poo

r w

riter

s

Ago

. gra

de 5

grad

e 9

adul

ts

Cor

rela

tion

of A

go a

nd;a

tego

nes

(goo

d w

riter

s no

tin

clud

ed)

nsoa

renc

v 11

Org

aniz

ing

the

writ

ing

proc

ess

3'

Tas

k an

alys

is(s

ettin

g up

text

an ti

cipa

lion

/de

tect

orm

odel

)

Con

stru

ctio

nof

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Lang

uage

codi

ng/

For

mat

ion

ofth

e su

rfac

est

ruct

ure

ofth

e te

xt

Eva

luat

ion

ofpr

oper

mat

chbe

twee

n ...

Col

lect

ing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

Sot

inre

latio

n:R

elat

ing,

linki

ngco

llect

edkn

owle

dge

elem

ents

Rev

isin

g th

ese

man

tic d

eep

Str

uctu

re

Sou

rces

of

info

rmat

ion

Inte

rnal

sour

ces

(mem

ory)

Mic

ro.

leve

l set

inre

latio

n(lo

cal

cohe

renc

e)

Mis

sing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rm

issi

ngre

latio

ns

Impo

sing

ach

rono

logy

on

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re('F

indi

ng a

path

thro

ugh

the

cons

truc

ted

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure'

)

Writ

ing

assi

gnm

ent

and

text

antic

ipat

ion \\.n

Tex

tan

ticip

atio

nan

d

\se

man

ticde

ep\

\ str

uctu

re \

\\\\\.

\\\

Gen

re. k

ind

of te

xt. t

ext

orga

nisa

tion

exte

rnal

sources

(phe

nom

enon

,bo

oks,

med

ia...

)

Mac

role

vel s

et in

rela

tion

(glo

bal

cohe

renc

e)

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \\ N;

(con

trad

iclio

ns w

ithin

the

sem

antic

deep

stru

ctur

e)\

\\\\\\

\\\\.\

\

Syn

tact

icin

g:F

orm

ulat

ing

surf

ace

leve

lso

ntor

cos,

(bui

ldin

gsp

oken

text

)

Sem

antic

deep

stru

ctur

ean

d te

xtsu

rfac

est

ruct

ure

Ling

uist

icas

pect

s(s

tyle

,rh

o to

rtes

)

\\\\\\

\\\\:

Sup

erflu

ous

\kn

owle

dge

elem

ents

or

rela

tions

(str

ivin

gfo

rst

ringo

nco)

\\\\\\

\\.\\\

\

Hav

iSin

g th

esu

rfac

elev

else

nten

ces

(coh

esio

n)

Tex

tsu

rfac

est

ruct

ure

and

chos

en

lingu

istic

aspe

cts

34

Fin

al d

roll

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

Pro

duct

,ex

tern

alre

pres

en-

tatio

ns

\\.\\\

\\\\\\

W\ s

ymbo

lic/

N:

icon

icre

pres

enta

-tio

n of

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts\

\\\\\\

*\.\\

\

net w

ork

repr

esen

tatio

nof

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re

hier

arch

ical

list

repr

osen

talio

n of

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

prop

ositi

ons

Writ

ten

lext

repr

osen

talio

n

Rev

isin

g th

ew

ritte

nte

xtre

pres

enia

lion

_J

Sel

f-pe

rcep

tions

,fe

elin

gs,

mot

ivat

ion

Lege

nd:

269n

:110

n/it

posi

tive

corr

elat

ion

$lor

obco

ol n

egat

ive

corr

elat

ion

\\N\\\

\\\\\\

\\\\\\

\\\\\\

near

ly is

ond.

canl

pO

stliv

e C

orr

...\\.

\\*\.\

\.\\\.

\\*\.\

-\\\\

*\.\\

\\\\.\

\.

neal

.y S

igni

licai

neg

ativ

e C

ot'

"::e

//////

//////

//////

//////

////

Cor

rela

tion

Ana

lysi

s A

gean

d C

ateg

orie

s

Abi

lity.

goo

d w

riter

s

Age

. gra

oe 5

grad

e 9

Cor

rela

tion

01 A

ge a

nd;a

tego

nes

(poo

r w

riter

s no

tin

clud

ed)

Org

aniz

ing

the

writ

ing

proc

ess

35

Sub

ject

s' m

etac

ogni

tive

prop

ositi

ons

refe

rto

:

Tas

k an

alys

is(s

ettin

g up

text

antic

ipat

ion/

dete

ctor

mod

el)

Gen

re. k

ind

of le

st, t

ext

orga

nisa

tion

Ling

uist

icas

pect

s(s

tyle

.rn

olo

tics)

Col

lect

ing

know

iedg

eel

emen

ts

Sou

rces

of

info

rmat

ion

Into

rna

lso

urce

s(m

emor

y)

//////

//.ex

tern

also

urce

s/;

(pho

nom

en-7

/bo

oks.

////

/////.

1//

Pro

cess

of

writ

ing

Con

stru

ctio

nof

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Gen

erat

ing

idea

s

Set

inre

latio

n:R

elat

ing,

linki

ngco

llect

edkn

owle

dge

elem

ents

Mic

ro d

ove!

set i

n re

latio

n(ic

cal

cohe

renc

e)

Mac

ro -

leve

lse

t in

rela

tion

(glo

bal

coho

renC

e)

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Rev

isin

g th

ese

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e

Mis

sing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rm

issi

ngre

latio

ns

Inco

here

nce

(con

trad

ictio

nsw

hith

In th

ese

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e)

Sup

erflu

ous

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rro

tatio

ns(s

triv

ing

for

strin

genc

e)

Lang

uage

codi

ng/

For

mat

ion

ofth

e su

rfac

est

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Impo

sing

ach

rono

logy

on

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re('F

indi

ng a

Rat

h th

roug

hth

e co

nstr

ucte

dse

man

tic d

eep

s tr

c lu

re")

Syn

tact

istn

g:;.

For

mul

atin

gsu

rfac

e-le

vel

sent

ence

s,(b

uild

ing

spok

en lo

x°

Rev

isin

g th

esu

rfac

ele

vet

sent

ence

s(c

ohes

ion)

Eva

luat

ion

ofpr

oper

mat

chbe

twee

n ...

Writ

ing

assi

gnm

ent

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

\\\\

\\T

ext

\ ant

icip

atio

n\

and

\\ s

eman

tic \

deep

:"'s

stru

ctur

e

Sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

and

text

sur

face

stru

ctur

e

\\.\\*

.\\\.\

\\*,

\T

ext

\\S

urfa

ce\N

and

s t r

uot

\\

\\lin

guis

tic:.\

\

s\s.

aspe

cts

N\\\

\\:\\

Fin

al d

raft

anC

text

antic

ipat

ion

3C

Pro

duct

,ex

tern

alre

pres

en-

tatio

ns

sym

bolic

/ic

onic

repr

esen

ta-

tion

ofkn

owle

dge

elem

ents

001

wor

kre

pro

sonl

atio

nof

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re

hior

arch

;cal

list

repr

esen

taLi

on o

f the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

prop

ositi

ons

Writ

ten

text

repr

esen

ta;Io

n

Rev

isin

g th

ew

ritte

nte

xtro

pres

enta

lion

Iran

snar

Rnr

y 1R

Lege

nd:

sign

illea

repo

litiv

e co

nela

tlen

sign

itica

nl n

eg n

ye te

net/W

on

,,\\\\

\\\\\N

\ \\\\

\\\N

\\\\\

near

ty s

igni

fican

t pos

itive

non

,\\\

.\\\

.N.\\

,/////

//////

///, (

//////

//////

/ nea

tly e

igni

lienn

l neg

ativ

e co

n///

//////

//////

//////

//////

X

Cor

rela

tion

Ana

lysi

s A

gean

d C

ateg

orie

s

Abi

lity:

poo

r w

riter

s

Age

. gra

de 5

grad

e 9

Cor

rela

tion

of A

go a

ndC

ateg

orie

s (g

ood

writ

ers

not

incl

uded

)

Org

aniz

ing

the

writ

ing

proc

ess 37

Sub

ject

s' m

etac

ogni

tive

prop

ositi

ons

refe

rto

:

Pro

cess

of

writ

ing

Tas

k an

alys

is(s

ettin

g up

text

antic

ipat

ion/

dete

ctor

mod

el)

Con

stru

ctio

nof

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Col

lect

ing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

Sot

inre

latio

n:R

elat

ing,

linki

ngco

llect

edkn

owle

dge

elem

ents

Rev

isin

g th

ose

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

el'u

rpos

e

Aud

ienc

e

Sou

rces

01

info

rmat

ion

Gen

erat

ing

Idea

s

Mis

sing

know

ledg

eel

omen

ts o

rm

issi

ngre

latio

ns

\\\X

\\\N

\ Mic

ro.

\\le

vel s

et In

ss

rela

tion

(loca

lco

here

nce)

\\\

X\\\

\\\\\\

\\\::

Inte

rnal

30=

05m

o ry

)(m

emor

y)G

enre

. kin

dof

text

, tex

tor

gani

satio

n

Inco

here

nce

(con

trad

ictio

nsw

hIlh

In th

ese

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e)

Mac

rolo

vel

sot I

n re

latio

n(g

loba

lco

here

nce)

exte

rnal

sour

ces

(phe

nom

enon

,bo

oks,

med

ia)

Ling

uist

icas

pect

s(s

tyle

,rh

olor

ics)

Sup

orflu

Ous

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rre

latio

ns(s

triv

ing

for

atrin

genc

e)

Lang

uage

codi

ng/

For

mat

ion

ofth

e su

rfac

est

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Impo

sing

ach

rono

logy

on

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re('F

Indi

ng a

path

thro

ugh

the

cons

truc

ted

sem

antic

:Jee

pst

ruct

ure"

)

Syn

tact

isin

g:F

orm

ulat

ing

surf

acel

eval

sent

ence

s,(b

uild

ing

spok

en te

xt)

Rev

isin

g th

esu

rlace

leve

lse

nten

ces

(coh

esio

n)

38

Eva

luat

ion

ofpr

oper

mat

chbe

twee

n ...

Writ

ing

aosi

gnm

ent

and

WI

antic

ipat

ion

Tex

tan

ticip

atio

nan

d se

man

ticde

ep s

truc

ture

Sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

and

text

sur

face

Str

uctu

re

Tex

t sur

taco

Stil

lClu

ro a

ndch

osen

lingu

istic

aspe

cts

Fin

al d

rat(

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

Pro

duct

,ex

tern

alre

pres

en-

tatio

ns

sym

bolic

/ic

onic

repr

uSen

talio

n of

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

not w

ork

repr

esen

tatio

n01

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re

hier

arch

ical

list

repr

esen

talio

n of

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

prop

ositi

ons

Writ

ten

lox;

rO p

rose

nla

lion

Rev

isin

g th

ew

ritte

nte

xt

repr

esen

ta-

tion

Sub

ject

s' m

etac

ognI

tive

prop

ositi

ons

refe

r to

:

//////

////1

7////

/////

% /S

elf-

// p

erce

ptio

ns,

/ /,fe

elin

gs,

//

mot

ivat

ion

/ /

Org

aniz

ing

the

writ

ing

proc

ess

Lege

nd.

sign

ifica

nt p

ositi

ve c

orre

latio

n

Sig

nific

ant n

ap 'A

live

corr

elat

ion

\\\N

\\\-

\\\N

\\\\\\

\\N\\

near

ly s

igni

fican

t pos

itive

cor

r...\

\\ ...

\\\\.\

\ .\\

.\\ .\

\N.\\

s

/1/

//.//.

/////

/1/ n

early

sig

nilic

ant n

egat

ive

corr

//441

////,%

&%

%/7

/2X

XX

X.4

61,X

XO

Cor

rela

tion

Ana

lysi

sA

bilit

y an

d C

ateg

orie

s

Abi

lity:

poo

r an

dgo

od w

riter

s

Age

: adu

lts

Cor

rela

tion

01A

bilit

y an

dC

ateg

orie

s (g

rade

5 a

ndgr

ade

9 no

t inc

lude

d)

39ns

par

e nc

y14

Tas

k an

alys

is(s

ettin

g up

text

antic

ipat

ion/

dete

ctor

mod

el)

Pur

pose

Oon

ro, k

ind

of te

xt, t

ext

orga

nisa

tion

Ling

uist

icas

pect

s(s

tyle

,M

oiet

ies)

Col

lect

ing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

Sou

rces

of

info

rmat

ion

Inte

rnal

sour

ces

(mem

ory)

exte

rnal

sour

ces

(phe

nom

enon

,bo

oks,

med

ia...

)

Pro

cess

of

writ

ing

Con

stru

ctio

nof

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Gen

erat

ing

idea

s

Set

inre

latio

n:R

elat

ing,

linki

ngco

llect

edkn

owle

dge

elem

ents

Mic

ro lo

ve

Ise

t In

rota

tion

(loca

lco

here

nce)

Mac

roov

else

t In

rota

tion

(glo

bal

cohe

renc

e)

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Rev

isin

g th

ese

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e

Mis

sing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rm

issi

ngre

latio

ns

inco

here

nce

(con

trad

ictio

nsw

hIth

in th

ose

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e)

Sup

erflu

ous

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rre

latio

ns(s

triv

ing

lot

strin

gonc

e)

Lang

uage

codi

ng/

For

mat

ion

ofth

e su

rfac

est

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

n

Impo

sing

ach

rono

logy

on

the

sem

antic

doop

str

uctu

re('F

indi

ng a

path

thro

ugh

the

cons

truc

ted

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure"

)

%7/

//// S

ynla

ctis

ing:

For

mul

atin

g,

surf

ace

--//

leve

l/ s

ente

nces

,(b

uild

ing

/ spo

ken

text

) /

//////

////.

Rev

isin

g ,h

esu

rfac

elev

else

nten

ce!:

(coh

esio

n)

40

Eva

luat

ion

ofpr

oper

mat

chbe

twee

n ...

Will

ing

assi

gnm

ent

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

Tex

tan

ticip

atio

nan

d se

man

ticde

ep s

truc

ture

Sem

antic

deep

Str

uctu

rean

d te

xtsu

rfac

est

ruct

ure

Tex

tsu

rfac

est

ruct

ure

and

chos

enlin

guis

ticas

pect

s

Fin

al d

raft

and

loxl

antic

ipat

ion

Pro

duct

,ex

tern

alre

pres

en-

tatio

ns

sym

bolic

/ic

onic

repr

osen

taeo

n of

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

not w

ork

repr

esen

tatio

nof

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re

hie

rarc

hica

list

repr

osen

ta-

I--

lion

of th

ese

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

epr

opos

ition

s

Writ

ten

text

repr

esen

talion

Rev

isin

g th

ew

ritte

nte

xtre

pres

onla

lion

Sel

f -pe

rcep

tions

,fe

elin

gs,

mot

ivat

ion

Legend:

sign

ifica

nt n

egat

ive

corr

elat

ion

\\\\\\

\\\\\\

\N\\\

\\\N

\\\\\

\N n

early

sio

nil c

ant p

ositi

ve c

orr

:\ .\\

\.\\N

\\: \\

Ns.

\\.\\

.\\*

..\\\

;/////

//////

//////

//////

//////

,ne

arly

sig

nific

ant n

egat

ive

con.

;,///

//////

//////

//////

//////

Cor

rela

tion

Ana

lysi

sA

bilit

y an

d C

ateg

orie

s

Abi

lity:

poo

r an

dgo

od w

riter

s

Age

. gra

de 9

Cor

rela

tion

ofA

bilit

y an

dC

ateg

orie

s (g

rade

5 a

ndad

ults

not

incl

uded

)

ansp

aren

cy 1

5

Sub

ject

s' m

etac

ogni

tive

prop

ositi

ons

refe

rto

:

Pro

cess

of

writ

ing

Org

aniz

ing

the

writ

ing

proc

ess

41

Tas

k an

alys

is(s

ettin

g up

text

antic

ipat

ion/

dete

ctor

mod

el)

Pur

pose

Con

stru

ctio

nof

ILO

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Col

lect

ing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

Aud

ienc

e

Sou

rces

of

in fo

r m

a lio

n

Gen

re, k

ind

of te

xt. t

ext

orga

nisa

tion

Inte

rnal

sour

ces

(mem

ory)

Ling

uist

icas

pect

s(s

tyle

,rh

olor

ics)

exte

rnal

sour

ces

(phe

nom

eno

n, b

ooks

,m

odla

...)

Gen

oiat

ing

idea

s

Set

inro

la li

on:

Rel

atin

g,lin

king

colle

cted

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

Mic

role

vel

sot I

n re

latio

n(lo

cal

cohe

renc

e)

Mac

role

vel

set I

n re

latio

n(g

loba

lco

here

nce)

RE

ST

CM

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Rev

isin

g th

ese

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e

Mis

sing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rm

issi

ngre

latio

ns

Inco

here

nce

(con

Ira

d ic

lions

with

inth

e se

man

ticde

ep

stru

ctur

e)

Sup

erflu

ous

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rro

tatio

ns(s

triv

ing

for

sirin

genc

e)

Lang

uage

codi

ng/

For

mat

ion

ofth

e su

rfac

est

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

impo

sing

ach

rono

logy

on

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re("

Fin

ding

apa

th th

roug

hth

e co

nstr

ucte

dse

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e')

Syn

lact

isin

g:F

orm

ulat

ing

surf

acee

vel

sent

ence

s,(b

uild

ing

spok

en te

xt)

Rev

isin

g th

esu

rfac

edev

else

nten

ces

(coh

esio

n)

Eva

luat

ion

ofpr

oper

mat

chbe

twee

n ...

Writ

ing

assi

gnm

ent

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

Tex

tan

ticip

atio

nan

d se

man

ticde

ep s

truc

ture

Sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

and

text

sur

face

stru

ctur

e

Tex

t sur

face

stru

ctur

e an

dch

osen

lingu

istic

aspe

cts

Fin

al d

raft

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

42

Pro

duct

,ex

tern

alre

pres

en-

tatio

ns

sym

bolic

/ic

onic

repr

osen

talio

n of

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

not w

ork

repr

esen

tatio

nof

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re

hier

arch

ical

list

repr

osen

tato

n of

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

prop

ositi

ons

Writ

ten

text

repr

osen

talio

n

Rev

isin

g th

ew

ritte

nte

xtre

pro

sent

slio

n

Sub

ject

s' m

etac

ogni

tive

prop

ositi

ons

refe

rto

:

Sel

f-pe

rcep

tions

,fe

elin

gs,

Mot

ivat

ion

Org

aniz

ing

the

writ

ing

proc

ess

Lege

nd:

eign

hcan

l pos

mve

cor

reia

lion

men

dica

nt n

egat

ive

corr

elat

ion

.\\\\\

\\\\\\

\\.\\\

-\\\\

\\\\\

near

ly S

igni

fican

t poS

ttNe

Cot

tk.

\\N\\.

\\N

\\\\ .

\\\\ \

N. \

\\\r/

//////

//////

://///

//////

/.,e

;ne

arly

ign4

ican

t neg

ativ

e 55

t.///

//////

//////

/////

7n.

Cor

rela

tion

Ana

lysi

sA

bilit

y an

d C

ateg

orie

s

Abi

lity.

poo

r an

dgo

od w

riter

s

Age

. gra

de 5

Cor

rela

tion

ofA

bilit

y an

dC

ateg

orie

s (g

rade

9 a

ndad

ults

not

incl

uded

)

4)

)nsp

aren

cy 1

6

Tas

k an

alys

is(s

ellin

g up

text

antic

ipat

ion/

dete

ctor

mod

el)

Aud

ienc

e

Gen

re, k

ind

of te

xt, t

ext

orga

nisa

tion

t--

Ling

uist

icas

pect

s(s

tyle

,rh

utor

ics;

Col

lect

ing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

Sou

rces

of

info

rmat

ion

inte

rnal

sour

ces

(mem

ory)

exte

rnal

sour

ces

(phe

nom

enon

,bo

oks,

med

ia...

)

Pro

cess

of

writ

ing

Con

stru

ctio

nof

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Gen

erat

ing

idea

s

Set

inre

latio

n:R

elat

ing,

linki

ngco

llect

edkn

owle

dge

elem

ents

MIc

rolo

vel

set i

n re

latio

n(lo

cal

cohe

renc

e)

Mac

role

vel

set i

n re

latio

n(g

loba

lco

here

nce)

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Rev

isin

g th

ese

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e

Mis

sing

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rm

issi

ngre

latio

ns

Inco

here

nce

(con

trad

ictio

nsw

ithin

the

sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure)

Sup

erflu

ous

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts o

rre

latio

ns(s

triv

ing

for

strI

ngen

ce)

Lang

uage

codi

ng/

For

mat

ion

ofth

e su

rfac

est

ruct

ure

ofth

ete

xt

Impo

sing

ach

rono

logy

on

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re("

Fin

ding

apa

th th

roug

hth

e co

nstr

ucte

dse

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

e')

X/

////

Syn

lacl

Isin

g:F

orm

ulat

ing

surf

ace-

leve

lse

nten

ces,

(bui

ldin

g/ s

poke

n te

xt)

4///

//////

///

Rev

isin

g th

eS

urfa

ce-

leve

lse

nten

ces

(coh

esio

n)

Eva

luat

ion

ofpr

oper

mat

chbe

twee

n ...

Writ

ing

assi

gnm

ent

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

Tex

tan

ticip

atio

nan

d se

man

ticde

ep s

truc

ture

]Sem

antic

dee

pst

ruct

ure

and

text

sur

face

stru

ctur

e

44

Tex

t sur

face

stru

ctur

e an

dch

osen

lingu

istic

aspe

cts

Fin

al d

raft

and

text

antic

ipat

ion

if

Pro

duct

,ex

tern

alre

pres

en-

tatio

ns

sym

bolic

/ic

onic

repr

esen

talio

n 01

know

ledg

eel

emen

ts

not w

orn

repr

esen

tatio

nof

the

sem

antic

deep

str

uctu

re

hier

arch

ical

list

repr

o se

nta

tion

of th

ese

man

tic d

eep

stru

ctur

epr

opos

ition

s

Writ

ten

text

repr

esen

talio

n

Rev

isin

g th

ew

ritte

nte

xtre

pres

enta

lion