Defining Classroom Writing Competence

Defining Classroom Writing Competence: A Paradigmatic Perspective Author(s): Peter Mosenthal Reviewed work(s): Source: Review of Educational Research,
Vol. 53, No. 2 (Summer, 1983), pp. 217-251 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170385 . Accessed: 18/09/2012 21:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of Educational Research.
http://www.jstor.org
Review of Educational Research Summer 1983, Vol. 53, No. 2, Pp. 217-251
Defining ClassroomWriting Competence: A ParadigmaticPerspective

Peter Mosenthal Syracuse University As variouscompeting definitionsof classroomwritingcompetence emerge, must essentiallyconfrontthe question, "On what basis does researchers To one selectone definitionoveranother?" answerthis question,thispaper arguesthe need to considerthe sociopoliticaldimensionof this construct, in addition to the conceptualand design criteriadimensions.The paper begins by noting that all definitions of classroom writing competence represent partially specified, or simplified, definitions. To illustratethe principlesof partial specificationin writingresearch,six emergingparadigms of writingresearchare considered.It is shown that each of these claims as to whatconstitutes principal the paradigmsmakes contradictory causative context of classroom writing competence. The sociopolitical implications each of these paradigm'spartial specificationsare disfor cussed in terms of five purposes of education. The paper concludesby the reiterating need to select definitionsof classroomwritingcompetence in termsof sociopolitical criteria. In many instances,the most troublesomeproblemsof any disciplinecenter on its most basic terms and fundamentalconceptsand not aroundits more sophisticated concerns.To the extent that everythingis derivedfrom a discipline'sbasic terms and fundamentalconcepts, problemsat higherlevels can alwaysbe traced back to problemsat a more fundamentallevel (Mitroff& Sagasti, 1973). This is true particularly in writingresearch. One of the most troublesomeproblemsin writingresearch that thereis no one is adequate definition of writing competence. The problem is similar to the one at Simons (1971) noted over a decade ago in readingresearch; that time, Simons observedhow difficult it was to conduct readingcomprehensionresearchin the A a absenceof any leadingparadigms. paradigmrepresents mutuallyagreedupon set of criteriathat enables one to separaterelevantfrom irrelevantfacts (Kuhn, 1970;Weimer,1979).In addition,paradigms provideguidelinesfor how definitions of basic conceptsare to be formulated (Mosenthal,1982b, 1983). is Writingresearch now in a stagesimilarto the stageof readingcomprehension that Simons describeda decade ago. Given the absence of paradigmsin writing research, it is difficult to determine which facts are relevant and which are nonrelevant. And, more important,it is difficultto determinewhich definitionsof writingcompetenceare adequateand which are inadequate. I wish thank to Kroll theanonymous and reviewers helpful for in Barry suggestions revising themanuscript. 217
PETER MOSENTHAL
of Althoughfew paradigms writingcompetenceexist, this does not eliminatethe need to understand as writingcompetence,particularly it is developedin schools. and Within the past few yearsresearchers educatorsalike have begun to acknowlchildren's classroomwritingcompetence.Childrenare edgethe need to understand taughtand acquirewritingcompetencein school settings(Graves, 1982) and it is & therethat childrenmost often engagein writingtasks(Scribner Cole, 1981).It is also in school settings that writing competence is most closely associatedwith measuresof children'sachievement,for example,how well childrenlearnto write for the teacheras audience(Florio, 1979), learnto meet the minimal state writing & (Freedman Calfee,1983),and learnto writein content competencyrequirements areas.This, in turn,influenceschildren'slevel of educationalobtainmentand their economic and social statuslaterin life (Gumperz,1981). classroomwritingcompetenceis obvious, the Althoughthe need to understand question of how one should proceedto define this term remainsproblematic.In it the absenceof paradigms, is difficultto determinehow definitions,or constructs, of classroom writing competence should be formulatedto best understandthis for term in school settings.As Messick (1981) suggests,the requirements understandinga constructcan be defined accordingto three levels of understanding. These levels include understanding"the evaluative overtones of the construct rubricsthemselves,the value connotationsof the broadertheoriesor nomological networksin which the constructsare embedded,and the value implicationsof the still broaderideologiesabout the nature of humanity and society that frame the constructtheories"(p. 12). Severalresearchers (Bereiter,1980; Brittonet al., 1975; Graves, 1982; King & Rentel, 1979; Loban, 1976) suggesthow classroomwritingcompetencemight be features examples, and definedat Messick'sfirstlevel,thatis, the level of identifying terms for classand criteriathat qualifyas representative replacement procedures, room writingcompetence(see Rudner, 1966, on the notion of term replacement). In contrast,few researchers have consideredhow definitionsof classroomwriting at competencemightbe formulated Messick'ssecondand thirdlevels.Hence, therehave been few attemptsto formulatedefinitionsof classroomwritingcompetence according to social science design criteria (Bereiter & Scardamalia,1983; de 1981) or the sociopoliticalpurposesof education(Bernier,1981). Beaugrande, To define classroomwritingcompetencein termsof sociopolitical purposes,one of attemptsto determinewhich interpretation a constructis most compatiblewith the attainment of a particulareducational and, concomitantly, societal goal (Churchman,1971; Mitroff& Sagasti, 1973). On the basis of this determination one can then identify an instructionalprogramthat optimally relates a given definitionof classroomwritingcompetenceto a given societalgoal or end. Because questionsof instructional programeffectivenessare intimatelylinked to the question of how one defines classroomwritingcompetenceat the sociopoliticallevel, decisionsof instructional are programs more likely to be made and debatedwhen constructs have been formulatedin a manner that reflects sociopoliticalgoals (Kelly, 1980). Becausewritingresearchers have yet to define classroomwritingcompetencein terms of sociopoliticalpurposes,there has been little attemptto determinewhich of interpretation classroomwritingcompetenceis most compatiblewith the attain218
CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE
ment of differenteducationaland societalvalues(Resnick& Resnick,1977).Given the absenceof such criteria,writingresearchers have no basis(and will continueto have no basis) for developing a systematicstudy of the effectivenessof writing programs.Hence, there is (and will continue to be) no researchprogramthat investigateshow instructionalmeans for promoting a particulardefinition of classroomwritingcompetenceare relatedto societalends, and thereis no research that providesa rationalefor why one instructional can program servesocietybetter than another. In light of these problems,this paperexaminesthe relationship betweenpossible definitionsof classroomwritingcompetenceand the sociopoliticalgoals that such definitionspresuppose. is First,the notion of partialspecification discussed.Partial select representative featuresand specificationis the processwherebyresearchers examples, procedures,and criteria from a universe of features and examples, and criteriafor formulating procedures, descriptiveand operationaldefinitionsof some phenomenon. Second, partialspecificationis discussedin terms of formulatingdefinitionsof classroomwritingcompetence.In this section the parallelbetweensix established of of paradigms readingresearchand six emergingparadigms writingresearchare considered.For purposesof this paper,a paradigmis defined as a set of features and examples,procedures, and criteriathat represent sociallyaccepted,partially a specifieddefinitionof some phenomenon. Finally, the relationshipsamong different emerging paradigmsof classroom writingcompetenceand differentsociopoliticalpurposesof educationare considered. Here it is arguedthat different,partiallyspecifieddefinitionsof classroom writingcompetencesuggestdifferentsociopoliticalpurposesof education. The paperconcludesby reiterating need to considerdefinitionsof classroom the writingcompetence-interms of their sociopoliticalimplications. The Problem of Partial Specification in Defining Classroom Writing Competence To define a phenomenon, researchers two types of definitions:descriptive use and operational (Hempel, 1966; Rudner, 1966). In formulatinga descriptive and definition,one selectsthose features examplesthat epitomizethe phenomenon and renderthis phenomenon unique from others. In formulatingan operational and definition,one definesa phenomenonin termsof a set of procedures a criterion to be met (see Mosenthal,1983, for furtherdiscussion). In formulatingdescriptiveand operationaldefinitions of a phenomenon, one wouldideallylike to formulatefullyspecifieddefinitions.Thesearedefinitionsthat consistof all the distinguishing all features, the representative examples,and all the a proceduresand criteriathat have been identifiedas representing phenomenon. In reality,however,phenomenaare defined using partialspecifications. These are definitionsthat consistof only a select sampleof distinguishing features, examples, and criteriathat have been identifiedas representing given term. In a procedures, short, a partiallyspecified definition consists of samples of features,examples, and criteriathat are assumedto approximatea fully specifieddefiniprocedures, tion's population of features,examples, procedures,and criteria(Mosenthal,in press). 219
PETER MOSENTHAL
Partial Specification and the Contexts Pyramid of Classroom Writing Competence To approximatea fully specified definition of classroomwriting competence, Mosenthal (1982b, 1983) developed a Contexts Pyramid Model of Classroom Writing Competence, presentedin Figure 1. Each context representsclasses of and criteriafrom a varietyof social science parafeatures,examples,procedures, that have been used (or could possiblybe used) to define classroomwriting digms competence. Hence, the WriterContext representsthose classes of featuresand writeror groupsof writers.For examplesthat definethe uniquenessof a particular define writersin termsof example,in the WriterContext,one might descriptively scholasticability,gradelevel sex, background age, knowledge,IQ, readingability, in school, and the processeswritersuse to producewrittentext. Thereare two aspectsto the MaterialsContext.One aspectincludesall relevant featuresand examplesof some physicalstimulusservingas input (i.e., Materials as or Input),for example,a picturethat the writeris describing a selectionof text that a writeris trying to paraphrase. Significantfeaturesof a picture stimulus might include the objectsin the picture,how they are arranged relativeto one another, their features,and how they fill the picture space (Mandler& Robinson, 1978). Significantfeaturesof text to be recalledmightincludethe numberof propositions (Kintsch, 1974), the theme (Meyer, 1977) and episode structure(Stein & Glenn, 1979), or the type of relationsbetweenpropositions(Frederiksen, 1977).A second aspectof the MaterialsContext includesall relevantfeaturesand examplesof the writer'stext output (i.e., Materialsas Output). These featuresand examples are usuallydescribedas linguisticvariables. The Task Context includes the features and examples characterizingsome directive for writing. In addition, the Task Context includes specificationof a criterionthat defineswhethera writerused the appropriate and procedure whether the writer achieved the appropriategoal specified by the directive. Directives the representing Task Context might be: Writea descriptionabout what you did last summer;Summarizethis book; and Writea short storyabout flowers. Therearetwo aspectsto the SituationOrganizer Context.The firstis the Situation as Organizer the personresponsiblefor havingthe writerwrite. The second is the Situation Organizeras the audience for whom the writer is writing. While the SituationOrganizer usuallyboth prompterfor and evaluatorof a writer's is writing, this need not alwaysbe the case. Significant features a SituationOrganizer of might includethe age, sex, or authoritative powerof the SituationOrganizer. and Finally,the SettingContextis comprisedof those classesof features examples characteristic wherethe writerwritesand wherethe situationorganizer of prompts and evaluatesthe writer's differenttypes of writing.Hence, one mightcharacterize writing in terms of whether it was done in school or at home, in a group or individually,and the physical distance between the situation organizerand the writer. The significance the ContextsPyramidModel is its illustration of that classroom a writingcompetenceas a fullyspecifiedtermrepresents multicontextphenomenon (Mosenthal, 1982b, 1983); one cannot define one context without somehow involving the other contexts. For example, the contexts of classroomwritingcom220
u U
Task
Q 0
09 V) V)
Situation Organizer
Writer (Mean
a. Input Organizer b. Output Organizer
Materials a. External Stimulus I b. Written Output (Meaning Sources in Prior Text, Current Text, Future Text
FIGURE 1. The ContextsPyramidModel of classroomwritingcom
PETER MOSENTHAL
petence might involve the following factors. The Situation Organizermight be Contextas Input represented the teacher.In the youngergrades,the Materials by might be represented the teacher'sbasalreaderlesson guide, the students'basal by readertexts, students'workbooks,and otherteacher-prepared stimuli such as flash cards, dittos, word charts, and blackboardexercises.The MaterialsContext as Outputmight be represented students'differentclassroomwrittenproductions, by such as writtenstories.The WriterContextmightincludestudents(and sometimes a the teacher)representing broad range of ages, intelligence,backgroundexperiand levelsof maturation.The TaskContextmightbe represented various ences, by and performance criteriaidentifiedby the lesson outline instructions,procedures, in the teacher'sbasal readermanual.The SettingContext mightbe the classroom itself or the instructional groupswithin the classroom. Meaning Sources and Writing Processes in the Contexts Pyramid Within this Context Pyramid Model of Writing, one can identify different meaning sources and writing processes.A meaning source representsa set of writtentext output semanticinformationthat could be usedto producemeaningful at some point in time (Mosenthal,in press). In other words, a meaning source a represents set of semanticinformationthat a writermay drawupon to produce writtenlinguisticoutput. The four meaningsourcesinclude:(a) meaningin prior knowledge,(b) meaningin the externalstimulus,(c) meaningin the writtentext, and (d) meaning in the social situation (Mosenthal,in press).Meaning in prior knowledgeis the meaning source a writerbringsto a writingsituation;in short, this source is the set of semanticinformationderivedfrom previousthought and experiencesbefore a writingsituation is encountered(Voss, Vesonder,& Spilich, 1980). Meaning in the externalstimulus refersto the content of some stimulus aboutwhicha personmay be writing.Meaningin writtentext is the set of semantic information produced by the writer composing at some point in time. Three sourcesof meaningin text include meaningin priortext, meaningin currenttext, in and meaningin futuretext (de Beaugrande, press).Meaningin priortext refers to the semantic informationa writerhas producedsometime before the point of the writer'scurrentwriting.Meaningin currenttext refersto the semanticinformation that is being producedas the writerwrites.Finally,meaningin futuretext refersto the semantic informationthat a writerwill producesometime after the writer'scurrentwriting. Meaning in the social situation (Mosenthal, 1979, in press) is information the associatedwith the interactionsamong the SituationOrganizer, Setting,and the Writer.In classroomlessons, this source of meaning also often includes the interactionbetweenstudentswithinthe WriterContext.Generally,meaningin the of social situationrefersto the informationin the structure participant interactions withina given setting. For example,severalresearchers (Mehan, 1979;Mosenthal,in press;Sinclair& Coulthard,1975) have defined social meaningin terms of the initiation-responseevaluation cycles that characterizethe structureof teacher-student interactions duringclassroomreadinglessons. Duringthe initiationphase, the teacherbegins Then the teacherpresents by identifyinga meaning source to be comprehended. students with a task to be applied to this meaning source. The task is usually 222
presentedin the form of a directive and/or a question (e.g., the teacher saying, "Read [directive]the next paragraph [meaningsource] and answerthe following questions[questions]about this paragraph"). The second part of the instructionalcycle involves the students (or teacher) actingon some meaningsourcein responseto a teacher's(or a student's)directive and/or question. In the third part of the instructional cycle, the teacherevaluates how successfully studentshave met a task'scriterionby responding the directive to and/or question. If a student correctlymeets the task'scriterion,the teachermay accept or praise the student's response. If the student fails to meet the task's criterion,the teachermay rejectthe student'sresponse(e.g., by callingon another studentfor the correctresponse),or the teachermay promptthe student,providing the studentwith additionalinformationthat the student may use to revise his or her response. In additionto these sourcesof meaning,therearethreetypesof writingprocesses indigenousto the ContextsPyramidModel of Writing.Differentwritingprocesses referto the possibleways a writermay recruitand integratesemanticinformation from the different meaning sources to produce written text. In other words, a writing process representsthe way a writer maps or transformsthe semantic informationin a meaningsource(or in a combinationof meaningsources)into a writtenlinguisticoutput.The threetypesof writingprocesses includereproduction, is and reconstruction, embellishment.Reproduction the processby which a writer produces written text by literally extractingfeatures of meaning from a given meaningsourceor from a combinationof meaningsources(Mosenthal,in press). is Reconstruction the processby whicha writerproduceswrittentext by drawing of inferencesthat are permissibleinterpretations a meaningsource(or a combinawould includemakingboth tion of meaningsources).For example,such inferences propositional,or logical, inferencesand enabling inferences(Hildyard& Olson, inferences thoseinferences are 1978;Mosenthal& Na, 1980a, 1980b).Propositional true or falseby virtueof the logicalform of the statementfrom that are necessarily whichthese inferencesarederived(Ackerman,1978;Hildyard,1979),for example, derivedfromthree-term the inferences syllogismproblems(Mosenthal,1976-1977) or factive statements(Mosenthal, 1978). Enablinginferencesare those that must be drawnto makean event or a seriesof eventscohesiveand coherentand therefore comprehensible (Halliday& Hasan, 1976;Hildyard& Olson, 1978).In additionto these examples,one might include writingby analogyas a type of reconstruction & & (Schustack Anderson, 1979;Sternberg,1977;Verbruggel McCarrell,1977). is Embellishment the processby which a writerproducesinferencesthat have no identifiableantecedentin a meaningsourceor a combinationof meaningsources. As such, embellishmenttends to produce meaning source elaborationsand/or distortions(Steffensen,Joag-Dev,& Anderson, 1979) that apparentlyare derived independentlyof a given meaning source's(or combinationof meaning sources') content and/or structure. In additionto applyingwritingprocessesto meaningin priorknowledgeand in text, teachers and students apply processesto meaning in social situations(see Mosenthal, in press, for furtherdiscussion). For example, in initiating lessons, teachersmay reproducebasal readerlesson guides by using the same tasks, task criteria,and task consequencesas stated in the guide. Teachersmay reconstruct 223
PETER MOSENTHAL
basalreaderlessonguidesby usingdifferentbut relatedtasks,taskcriteria, task and lesson sequencesas statedin the guide.Finally,teachersmay embellishbasalreader guidesby usingdifferentand unrelatedtasks,task criteria,and task sequences. Teachersand studentsmay embellishpriorknowledgeand text meaningsources by drawinginferencesthat have no identifiableantecedentin a meaningsourceor in a combinationof meaning sources.As such, embellishmenttends to produce meaning source elaborationsand/or distortions(Steffensenet al., 1979) that are derivedindependentlyof a given meaningsource's(or a combinationof meaning sources')content and/or structure. Finally, studentsmay reproducemeaningin social situationsby adoptingtask goals identicalto the teacher'sand by attemptingto arriveat the teacher'stask criteria.Studentsmay reconstruct meaningin social situationsby adoptingrelated but differenttask goals from those of the teacherand by attemptingto arriveat task criteriathat are relatedbut differentfrom the teacher'stask criteria.Students may embellishmeaningin social situationsby adoptinggoals differentfrom and unrelatedto those of the teacherand by attemptingto arriveat task criteriathat are differentfrom and unrelatedto the teacher'stask criteria. In sum, the Contexts Pyramid Model ideally representsthe major classes of variablesthat could possibly be used to define classroom writing competence. thatwriters apply can Associatedwith thesecontextsarevariousmeaningprocesses to variousmeaningsourcesto producelinguisticoutput in time. All the variables that influence associatedwith the ContextsPyramidrepresent possibleconstraints a writer'suse of meaningprocessesand meaningsources. neverreallydefineclassroomwritingcompetence Note, however,thatresearchers in terms of the fully specified Context Pyramid;instead, they always define classroom writing competence in terms of partiallyspecified definitions of this and ContextsPyramid.The notion of partialspecification how it appliesto writing research considerednext. is Partial Specification in Formulating Definitions of Classroom Writing Competence An importantfunction of researchis to orderand simplify(Rudner, 1966). In the attemptto achievethese ends, writingresearchers the problemof reducing face the ContextsPyramidto a manageablenumberof features,examples,procedures, and criteriato arriveat an orderedand simplifieddefinitionof classroomwriting competence.Hence, insteadof attemptingto defineclassroomwritingcompetence in terms of the fully specifiedContexts Pyramid,writingresearchers must inadvertentlypursuea secondgoal;they must attemptto formulatethe most adequate, yet simplest,partially specifieddefinitionof classroomwritingcompetencepossible. In pursuingthis goal, writing researchers must ultimatelyemploy proceduresof of partialspecification.These procedures partialspecificationcan be summarized as the followingset of directives(Mosenthal,1983): 1. Select one favoritecontext from among the five PyramidContexts;identify this context as the CausativeContext. 2. Select a second favorite context from among the five Pyramid Contexts; identifythis context as the EffectContext. 224
3. Establisha partiallyspecifieddescriptivedefinitionof writingand classroom writingcompetence by: (a) selectinga set of featuresand/or examples representativeof the CausativeContext identified;(b) selectinga set of featuresand/or examples representativeof the Effect Context identified. (This completes the definitionof writingand classroomwritingcompetence.) descriptive definitionsfor: (a) the set of features 4. Establish and/orexamples operational definitionas causativeand, (b) the set of featuresand/ identifiedin the descriptive definitionas effect. or examplesidentifiedin the descriptive 5. Adopt the following argument: (a) if the partiallyspecified descriptive definition is valid, then the operationaldefinition is valid; (b) if the operational then the partially definitionis valid(as provenby analysisof statistical differences), specifieddescriptivedefinition is valid (and the featuresand/or examplesof this definitionare thereforefacts). Whatthis heuristicmeansis that in theirattemptto simplify,writingresearchers must begin by deciding which descriptivefeaturesand examples to include in formulatinga descriptivedefinition of classroomwritingcompetence. The ideal here would be to specifyjust enough featuresand examplesso that the partially specified descriptivedefinition would adequately epitomize the fully specified is definition.(Note that this specificationprocedure similarto selecting descriptive of a randomsampleassumedto be representative a population.) Once one has arrivedat a partiallyspecifieddescriptivedefinitionof classroom writingcompetence(in procedures1-3), one then facesthe problemof establishing an operationaldefinition of classroomwritingcompetence.In this instance, one definiattemptsto link featuresand examplesin the partiallyspecifieddescriptive tion to observableproceduresand criteriain the operationaldefinition. Features Context definitionof a Causative and examplesin the partially specifieddescriptive featuresand examplesin the descriptive as are represented independentvariables; as definitionof an EffectContextare represented dependentvariables. The important point to note here is that in formal experimentalsituations, neverwill define classroomwritingcompetencein termsof the writingresearchers full Contexts Pyramidand fully specifieddescriptivedefinitions;they will always defineclassroomwritingcompetencein termsof simplifiedversionsof the Contexts Pyramidand partiallyspecifieddescriptivedefinitions.By reducingthe numberof contexts and, concomitantly,the number of featuresand examples used to formulate descriptiveand operationaldefinitionsof classroomwritingcompetence, writing researchersdo two things: (a) They reduce the number of potentially and (b) significantcausativevariablesthat may influence a writer'sperformance, type of writingin termsof meaningsources they restrictthemselvesto a particular and writingprocesses.As a result, differentdefinitionsand differentmodels and theoriesof classroomwritingcompetencewill always presupposedifferentexplanations of how differentcontexts are relatedduringwriting;also, they will always posit different explanations of how different writing processes are applied to differentmeaningsources. 225
PETER MOSENTHAL
An Illustration of Partial Specification in the Formulation of Sample Paradigms of Classroom Writing Competence In formulatingdescriptive and operationaldefinitions of classroom writing must invariablyformulatedefinitionsthat reprecompetence,writingresearchers sent some sort of partial specificationof the Contexts Pyramid.Given this, an important question is, How does one determine which featuresand examples, procedures,and criteriato include and exclude in formulatingpartiallyspecified As definitionsof classroomwritingcompetence? notedearlier, questionis often this resolved at Messick'sfirst level of construct formulationby involving different paradigms.In the absence of well-definedparadigmsin writing researchat this stage in this discipline'sdevelopment,one can only speculatehow differentparadigms, or different definition classes (Broadbent, 1973), of classroom writing competence could evolve. If writing researchshould develop the way reading in researchhas, one can predictthat paradigms writingresearchwill be developed by borrowingfrom the paradigmsof linguistics,psychology,and sociologyjust as in have been developed. paradigms readingresearch To illustrate how the effectsof partialspecification mightoperatein formulating definitionsof classroomwritingcompetence,six paradigms readingcompetence of are areidentified.Theseparadigms used as examplesof partialspecification because the as conducted they appearto represent majorthrustsof writingresearch currently (see TableI). The Materials-as-Output ContextParadigm.One readingresearch has paradigm defined readingcompetence in terms of the Materials-as-Output Context and is based on assumptionsof behaviorism(Skinner, 1957), Hulleanism(Hull, 1943), and taxonomiclinguistics(Fodor,Bever,& Garrett,1974).These assumptionsare are (a) languageis hierarchically (b) organized; the linguisticlevels of this hierarchy discreteand can be defined independentlyof other levels;(c) in processinglevels, one begins with the level comprisedof the smallestunits (e.g., letter featuresand whole letters)and moves throughsuccessivelevels (e.g., syllablesand morphemes) until the level comprisedof the largestunits (e.g., words,phrases,or sentences)is units withinand proceedsas a processof associating processed; comprehension (d) betweenlevels in the mannerspecifiedin (c); and (e) comprehensioneffectiveness variesas a function of speed of matchinga stimulusto a responseas a functionof associationspeed. These assumptionsare perhapsbest reflectedin writinginstructionand research that have definedclassroomwritingcompetencein termsof one's abilityto master the rules of prescriptive grammars.Prescriptive grammarsrepresenta set of conventionalgrammarrules that define a prioria set of well-formedness conditions, which specify the proper conventions for spelling, punctuation, capitalization, usage,and syntacticform (Mosenthal,1982b, 1983). To develop students'classroomwriting competence under such assumptions, teachersstress that students must first learn the simpler grammaticalrules and move to the more complex rules. This typicallyinvolves moving from the lower levels in the skill hierarchy (e.g., masteryof correctspelling),to higherlevels (e.g., masteryof grammatical usage)(Irmscher,1976). (EducationalTesting Service, 1975; Hackman & Johnson, Writingresearchers 1976) who operate under such assumptionsoften use prescriptive grammarsto 226
TABLE I
PartialSpecification ClassroomWriting by Competence SociopoliticalPurposeof Education,PYrami of Sources,and MeaningProcesses Sociopolitical Purpose Academic Utilitarian Romantic Co Sociopolitical goal: Pyramidcontexts: Social science theories: Meaning sources: of Reproduction moral and culturalvaluesof society Materials Hulleanism,behaviorism, taxonomic linguistics Currenttext of Reproduction skills for survivalin society Task or Task and Materials Levelsof processing; transfer appropriate processing theory text Current Nourishmentof individualself-worth and self-understanding Writeror Materials-asWriter Conceptualand textual schematheory Priorknowledgefor conceptualschema theory;priorand current text for textual schema,some future text reconReproduction, struction
Dev vi w so Wri
Piag ni
Prio te
Writing processes:
Reproduction
reconReproduction, struction
Rep st
PETER MOSENTHAL
define operationalcriteriaof classroomwritingcompetence. These criteriaform the basis of standardized writingtests. In such tests, studentsgenerallyare required to select a correctresponsefrom severaloptions. The correctresponseis the one that most closely conforms to the well-formednessrules of some prescriptive define classroomwritingcompetenceas grammar.Hence, such tests operationally the abilityto recognizethe correctform of spelling,punctuation,and grammatical usage from among several options, which comply or fail to comply with the of well-formedness conditions. specifications some grammar's Note that by definingclassroomwritingcompetencein termsof students'ability have partially to produce the correct linguistic form, teachers and researchers specifiedclassroomwritingcompetenceto the point that only surfacestructureis consideredin the definition;meaning processesand meaning sources associated Contexthave been eliminatedor "stripped" with the Materials-as-Output (Mishler, 1979) as relevantfeatures. The Reader ContextParadigm.Anotherreadingresearchparadigmhas defined readingcompetencein terms of the ReaderContext.Most closely associatedwith are this paradigm researchers (Anderson& Pichert,1978;Rumelhart,1980;Spiro, 1980) who have defined readingcompetence in terms of schema theory, which in arguesthat informationin a reader'smind is organizedhierarchically superorslots or frames.Comprehension dinate and subordinate proceedsby instantiation, or filling in these variousslots or frames.How and what informationis encoded, is is stored,and retrieved assumedto varyas a functionof whatinformation present in schema and the available means for accessing this schema. Several reading researchers (Rumelhart,1980;Spiro, 1980;Woods, 1980)discussmeansof schema accessin termsof goal settingand problemsolving. The assumptionsof the ReaderContext Paradigmare perhapsbest reflectedin writinginstructionand researchthat have definedwritingas problemsolvingand goal setting.For example,Graves(1982) arguesthat classroomwritingcompetence can best be developed in those situations where students are confronted with productionproblems,and teachershelp studentsdiscovermeans for dealingwith them. Similarly,Hayes and Flower (1980) include the followingfeaturesin their descriptivedefinition of writing:(a) writingis goal directed,(b) writingprocesses are hierarchically organized,(c) some writingprocessesmay interruptother processes over which they have priority, (d) writing processes may be organized and recursively, (e) writinggoals may be modifiedas writingproceeds. In such instanceswhere practitioners and researchers define classroomwriting the competencein termsof the variables representing WriterContext,they tend to focus on meaning in prior knowledgeand the writingprocessesof reproduction and reconstruction they apply to this meaning source. Generally,meaning in as prior knowledgeis defined in terms of goal structureand content; reproduction and reconstruction defined as the processesof generatingand organizingideas is and new goal structures and content from an existinggoal structureand content. In this paradigm,little attention is given to meaning in social situations, nor is much attentionpaid to meaningin text and the writingprocessesassociatedwith this meaningsource. The Materials-as-Reader ContextParadigm.A thirdreadingresearch paradigm focuses on the MaterialsContext and the Reader Context. Researchers (Cirilo, 228
1981;de Beaugrande,1981;Frederiksen,1977;Goetz, 1979;Kintsch& van Dijk, 1978; Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Meyer, 1977; Stein & Glenn, 1979; Vipond, 1980)who endorsethis paradigmdefine readingcompetenceby adoptingmany of the assumptions underlyingearly psycholinguisticstudies, which attempted to validatethe psychologicalrealityof generativegrammars(see Fodor et al., 1974, and for furtherdiscussion).In essence,these assumptionssuggestthat the structure of content of some text (representative the MaterialsContext)reflectthe structure of and content of some reader'smind (representative the ReaderContext)(Clark these assump& Haviland,1974;Hutchinson,1974).Frederiksen (1977) illustrates tions when he notes: the One strategyfor investigating natureof semanticknowledgeis to investigate the semantic structureof texts under the assumption that a text's structureis a reflectionof the knowledgestructureof the speakeror writer, who producedthe text. The argumentis that if a semanticdistinctionor a an structureis manifestin language,it must also represent aspectof human (p. memorystructure. 5) In brief,the assumptionsof the Materials-as-Reader Context paradigmare that (a) the structureand content of a text has a parallelform in the reader'sschema, (b) psycholinguistic grammarscan be constructedthat representvalid descriptive and operationaldefinitionsof a reader'sschema and a reader'srecall,and (c) the processesa readeruses to relate his or her cognitive input to his or her recall as validatedby matchingdescriptionsof input to output can be psycholinguistically output. The assumptions underlying the Materials-as-Reader Context Paradigm are in of perhapsbest illustrated the writingresearch Voss et al. (1980), who arguethat writerscompose differentlyfrom low-knowledgewritersdue to high-knowledge differencesin their respectiveproblem spaces and differencesin the ability to monitor the selected solution paths. Problem space refers to the quantity and topic (e.g., one's knowledgeof quality of knowledgea person has of a particular the rules and conventions of baseball).Monitoringselected solution paths is the processof selectingdifferentsets of informationto solve a particular problem,such as writingan account of a half inning of a fictitiousbaseballgame. definitionof writing,Vosset al. formulated grammar a To validatethisdescriptive the of baseballconsistingof a set of rulesdescribing content and organization a of werethen given a recognition schema for a baseballgame. Writers high-knowledge test to determinehow many rulesof the baseballgrammar they knew.On the basis definedas being high-or lowof theirperformance, writerswerethen operationally wereaskedto describe writers. Next, writers (eitherfrompriorknowledge knowledge or from priortext) a half inning of a baseballgame. The structure and content of the writers'text werethen analyzedaccordingto the rulesof the baseballgrammar. of The operational werethen descriptions the text outputyieldedby theirgrammar matchedagainstthe operationaldescriptionsof the writers'initial inputs. In other words, what writerswrote about in describinga half inning of baseball(i.e., the writers'output) was comparedto what the writersoriginallyknew about baseball input).By comparingthe writers' priorknowledge inputto writers' (i.e., the writers' written output, Voss et al. were able to determine which aspects of the prior229
PETER MOSENTHAL
knowledgemeaningsourcewritersdrew upon and whetherthe writersreproduced or reconstructed these differentaspects to produce a written text. Note that in theiroperational definitionof writing,Voss et al. beganwiththe notion formulating that the inputs from the WriterContextand the Materials-as-Input Contextcan be representedin a psycholinguistic grammar,which is then used to operationally definewriters' Context.By comparing inputs the outputsin the Materials-as-Output to outputs, these researchersinferredwriting processes. This is similar to the use procedurethat readingresearchers to compare variablesin the Materials-asContextfrom which Reader InputContextto variablesin the Materials-as-Output Contextprocessvariables inferred(Mosenthal,1982b). are In sum, by adoptinga Materials-as-Reader Context Paradigmas a framework for defining classroomwriting competence, one would equate the structureand content of meaningin priorknowledgewith the structure content of meaning and in the written text. Under this paradigm,one would focus on meaning in prior knowledgeand meaningin priorand currenttext;in addition,one would focus on the meaning processesof reproductionand reconstructionas they apply to the threeacknowledged meaningsources. The TaskContextParadigm.A fourthreadingresearch definesreading paradigm comprehensionusing the Task Context. Most closely associatedwith the Task Contextparadigm researchers are (Bransford, Franks,Morris& Stein, 1979;Craik & Lockhart,1972;Doyle, 1977, 1980;Heath, 1980;Kirsch& Guthrie,1977-1978; Scribner& Cole, 1981) who define readingcomprehensionin terms of levels of processingor in terms of transfer-appropriate processingtheory. Althoughthese theories make differentclaims, they both acknowledgethat becausetasks specify differentgoals and requiredifferentproceduresfor meeting these goals, readers encode, store,and retrieveinformationdifferently. The assumptionsunderlyingthe Task Context Paradigmare perhapsbest illustrated in the writing researchof Doyle (1981), Odell, Goswami and Herrington (1983), and Scribnerand Cole (1981). Doyle and Scribnerand Cole define classroom writingcompetenceas students'abilityto performadequatelythe universe of writingtasks in school society. Odell et al. define writingas a person'sabilities to adequatelyperformtasksin differentreal-world settings. In focusingon differentschool and real-world tasks, these researchers typically focus on tasks that requirea writerto reproduceand reconstructcurrenttext or priorknowledge(e.g., writinga memo or signingone's name). The Reader-Materials-Task ContextsParadigm.This paradigmdefines reading in and comprehension termsof the interactionamong the Reader,Materials, Task Contexts. Most closely associatedwith this paradigmare researchers who define readingcomprehensionaccordingto Piagetiantheory (e.g., Elkind, 1976), neoPiagetiantheory (Case, 1978), or metacognitivetheory (Baker& Brown,in press; Brown, 1980; Paris, 1981; Raphael et al., 1981). These theories emphasizethat readingcomprehensioninvolves the interactionof task and materialcomplexity with the individual'slevel of development.For example,Brown(1980) arguesthat to comprehendeffectivelyreadersmust have (1) informationconcerningtheircurrentstateof knowledge... (2) knowledge of the fine gradationof importanceof variouselements of text ... and (3) 230
the strategicknowledgeto select from retrievalcues informationthat they have missed previously.For it is not just the deploymentof a strategyand the knowledgebase upon which it must operate.The knowledgebase must include at least some form of self-knowledge (i.e., myself as a memorizer), task knowledge (gist recall features),and text knowledge (importancevs. of and trivia,organization text, etc.). The orchestration coordinationof these forms of knowledgedemand a sophisticatedlearnerand it is thereforenot that efficientperformance so late in emerging.(p. 468) is surprising Writingresearchthat uses assumptionssimilarto those underlyingthe ReaderContextsParadigmconsistsof modified syntacticmaturitystudies Materials-Task and processstudies. Syntacticmaturitystudies reflectassumptionsof the Reader ContextParadigm (Hunt, 1977;Loban, 1976;O'Donnell,Griffin,& Norris, 1967) and defineclassroomwritingcompetencelargelyin termsof the WriterContextas Contextas the EffectContext. the CausativeContextand the Materials-as-Output For example,Hunt (1977) studiedthe relationship betweena writer's chronological developmentand T-unit structure.Accordingto Hunt, a T-unit is a "single clausesor main clause (or independentclause...) plus whateverother subordinate nonclausesare attachedto, or embeddedwithin, that one main clause. Put more briefly,a T-unit is a single main clause plus whatevergoes with it" (pp. 92-93). According to Hunt, a clause is any string of words containing a subject (or coordinatedsubjects)with a finite verb(or coordinatedfinite verbs). definitionof writtenoutput, To validatethe conceptof the T-unitas a descriptive Hunt beganwith the assumptionthat as school childrenmature,they tend to write longerT-unitswhen lengthis measuredas the mean numberof wordsper T-unit. Hunt's second assumption was that, as school children mature, they tend to the consolidatemore sentenceconstituentsinto T-units,therebyincreasing number definitionof classroom of dependentclausesper T-unit. Hence, Hunt'sdescriptive writingcompetenceis comprisedof two salient features.The principalfeatureof the WriterContext is writer maturity;the principalfeature of the Materials-asdefined Output Context is syntacticcomplexity.Writermaturityis operationally defined in termsof the mean number as age;syntacticcomplexityis operationally of wordsand dependentclausesper T-unit in a given writingsample. such as Crowhurst Piche (1979), Piche, Michlin, and Severalwritingresearchers, Johnson, and Rubin (1975), and Rubin and Piche (1979), modified syntactic maturitystudiesin a way that makes them sharemany of the assumptionsof the Theseresearchers students' ContextsParadigm. Reader-Materials-Task investigated abilities to modify their written output as a function of age and awarenessof definedthe WriterContext audiencedifferences.In their studies,these researchers and in termsof chronological differences the interactionbetweenthe Situation age Organizerand the WriterContextsin terms of intimacy differences(e.g., writing for someone whom the author knew very well vs. writingfor someone whom the the authordidn't know very well). In additionto definingoperationally Materialsas-OutputContextaccordingto variousT-unit analyses(e.g., numberof wordsper T-unit, number of words per clauses, and number of clauses per T-units),these the formulatedadditionaloperationaldefinitionsfor representing conresearchers tent of persuasivemessages(e.g., total numberof appealsand numberof different 231
PETER MOSENTHAL
foundthat syntacticcomplexityvaries typesof appeals).Generallytheseresearchers both as a functionof age and audienceintimacy. In short, while reading researcherstypically define development in reading competencein terms of the Reader,Materials,and Task Contexts,severalwriting researchers define developmentin writingcompetencein terms of the Writerand Contexts, as well as the interactionbetween the Situation Materials-as-Output and WriterContext. While readingresearchers, who operateunder the Organizer Reader-Materials-Task Paradigm,define reading competence as the ability to reproduceand reconstructboth prior knowledgeand currenttext while reading undera varietyof reader, who task,and text conditions,writingresearchers, operate under the correspondingWriter-Materials-Situation-Organizer Paradigm,define writingcompetenceas the abilityto producemore complex T-unitsand the ability to use more appealsand differentappealtypes while writingundervariouswriter and audiencefamiliarity conditions. In additionto these modified syntacticmaturitystudies,certainprocessstudies in writing research(e.g., Bereiter, 1980; Bereiter & Scardamalia,1978, 1982; Bracewell,1980, 1983;Brittonet al., 1975) focus on how childrenacquiredifferent writingprocessesin relationshipto differentwritingtasks. In brief, these studies define classroomwritingcompetenceas the developmentallevel of the writerand the complexityof a given writingtask. The Situation-Organizer-Reader-Setting Contexts Paradigm. A sixth reading researchparadigmdefines readingcomprehensionas the interactionbetween the SituationOrganizer, Reader,the Setting,and the TaskContexts.Most researchthe ers using this paradigmeither endorse some version of academic expectations theory(e.g., Allington, 1980;Au & Mason, 1981;Borko,Shavelson,& Stern, 1981; McDermott, 1977; McDermott & Aron, 1978; Rist, 1970) or some version of classroomcompetence theory (Cherry,1978; Mehan, 1979; Mosenthal,in press; Mosenthal& Na, 1980a, 1980b;Wilkinson,1981).Underlying these theoriesis the in notion that differences the way teachersand studentsinteractinfluencesstudent The academicexpectationstheoryarguesthat teachersteach accordperformance. Studentsthen ing to differentexpectationsthey have for student performances. internalizeand behave according to these expectations(see Brophy, 1979, for further discussion). Classroom competence theories argue that comprehension involves learning not only how to comprehend text but also how to interact in appropriately the classroom,that is, knowing with whom, when, and where studentsshould speakand act. Mosenthal(Mosenthal,Davidson-Mosenthal, Krieger,1981;Mosenthal& Na, & similarto those underlying Situation-Organizer-Readerthe 1981)usesassumptions that children SettingContextsParadigmin his writingresearch.In demonstrating compose text differentlydependingon the type of verbalinteractionpattern,or register(Halliday, 1978), childrenmost often maintainwith their teacher,Mosenthal identifies three types of response registers:imitative, noncontingent, and contingent. Childrenwho employan imitativeresponseregister tend to add new information to a teacher'sprecedingutteranceand tend to repeat verbatimor paraphrase a teacher'spreceding utterance(i.e., they reproducethe teacher'sinitiated task). These children also tend to compose by reproducingthe current text of some 232
and stimulus,such that the structure content of theirwrittentext outputreflectthe structure and content of the stimulus. Children who employ a noncontingent response registeroften respond to a a teacher'sutteranceby introducing new topic of conversation bearinglittle, if any, relation to the topic in the teacher'sprecedingutterance(i.e., they embellish a teacher'stask); in this sense, these children introduce new informationwithout old utterance. Thesechildren preceding acknowledging informationin the teacher's theirprior tend to compose theirwrittentext by reproducing and/or reconstructing knowledge,such that the structureand content of their writtenoutput reflectthe and content of their own knowledgeor schema. structure often respondto a teacher's Childrenwho employ a contingentresponseregister utteranceby introducingnew informationto clarifyor add to the old information the in a teacher'sprecedingutterance initiatedtask). (i.e., they reconstruct teacher's and Thesechildrentend to composetheirwrittentext by reproducing reconstructing and priorknowledgeas well as currenttext, such that the structure content of their and writtenoutput reflecta combinationof the structure contentof a stimulusand schema. To account for these findings,Mosenthalarguesthat childrenview their interactions with their teacherdifferentlyduringroutineclassroomlessons and, subseresponse. quently, develop different notions of what constitutes an appropriate Imitativechildren view their interactionwith their teacheras formal, or high in risk(Doyle, 1977).To minimizedistortingnew informationand to minimizebeing the wrong,these childrenattemptto preserve integrityof a text, a picturestimulus, or a teacher'sgiven verbalinformation(Spiro, 1980). When given the instructions to describe or write a story about a picture, these children tend to write more descriptiveessays, that is, episodic recordsor reportswith little theme structure (Brittonet al., 1975), and more often reproducethe stimulusthan the other two responseregister groups.When imitativechildrendo writestories,they do not use motives (Grueneich& Trabasso, their personalconstructsto develop a character's 1979; Heider, 1958) but instead adopt the stimulus'sconstructto portraysome type of story outcome (Mosenthal & Davidson-Mosenthal,1982). In addition, when thesechildrendo adopta narrative point of view,they developthe narrative's structure by focusing on outcomes and failing to identify specifically a goal character's goal or motive of behavior. In contrast,noncontingentchildrenview their interactionwith their teacheras informalor low in risk. These childrenacknowledgenew meaningonly to update their own knowledge(Spiro, 1980), reduce uncertainty(Smith, 1971), or impose their personalconstructson a stimulus(Heider, 1958).In using schemato process information,these children reconstructor embellish stimulus informationmore to than do the othertwo register groups.When instructed describea picture,these than the other two registergroups.When childrentend to write more narratives childrenmore to instructed describeor writea storyabouta picture,noncontingent often tend to reproduceand reconstructprior knowledgethan do the other two responseregistergroups. In writingstories,these childrenfocus primarilyon the the story motive;they impose their personalconstructson a stimulus,interpreting character'smotive accordingto their own schema; they often fail to mention outcomes in their stories. 233
PETER MOSENTHAL
Finally,contingentchildrenview their interactionwith their teacheras cooperative;they add new informationin a mannerthat complies with the demandsof the teacher'stask structure(Doyle, 1980). When instructedto describea picture, thesechildrentend to writemore interpretive essays,that is, speculative paragraphs with well-identifiedtheme structure(Britton et al., 1975) and tend to integrate more often meaningin the stimuluswith meaningin priorknowledgethan do the to othertwo groups(Mosenthal& Na, 1981). When instructed writea storyabout a picture, these children tend to develop outcomes that are relatedto the story stimulus construct.However,they will also impose their personalconstructsby motive that is usuallycausativelyrelatedto this outcome. developinga character's This appearsto representa cooperativestrategyto the extent that both stimulus and personalconstructs,or meaningin text and in priorknowledge,are integrated to comply with a teacher'stask demands. In addition, contingent children most consistentlyuse prior text information when they revisetext from a secondpoint of view. In writingfirstfrom one picture character's perspectiveand then from another's,contingentchildrenincorporate more priortext informationfrom the originalpoint of view in developingcurrent text informationin the second point of view than do the othertwo register groups. Moreover,in shiftingperspective,contingentchildrentend to maintainthe same children and characters situationacrosspointsof view;imitativeand noncontingent tend to be inconsistentin this respect. In sum, in adoptingmany of the assumptions the Situation-Organizer-Readerof in how differences interaction ContextsParadigm, Mosenthaldemonstrates Setting Contextand the WriterContextresultin different betweenthe Situation-Organizer Setting Contexts, or differentresponse registergroups. Because teachers,as the situationorganizers, students,as writers, and negotiatemeaningin a socialsituation on responseregistergroup, or SettingContext, studentsare differentlydepending assumedto developdifferentnotionsof whatconstitutes use appropriate of meaning sourcesand writingprocesses.These differencesare reflectedin the way students in the differentresponse registergroups differentlyrelate meaning processesto meaningsourcesin producingtext output. Summary. The precedingdiscussion has related what appearto be emerging classesof definitionsof classroomwritingcompetencewith many of the paradigms currentlyused to define readingcompetencein readingresearch.The purposein identifyingthese paradigmswas not to provide an exhaustiveclassificationof all emergingthrusts in writing researchor all the significantparadigmsin reading research.Rather,the purposeof this classification to provideexamplesof how was partial specification operates in formulatingdefinitions of competence, either readingcompetenceor classroomwritingcompetence.While partialspecification is a necessaryprocedurein the formulationof any descriptiveand operational definitionof classroomwritingcompetence,the selectionof one partiallyspecified descriptiveand operationaldefinition over another has a profoundyet generally This significanceis discussedin termsof the sociopolitunrecognized significance. ical implicationsof partialspecification. 234
Partial Specification as a Function of Sociopolitical Purposes of Education It has been argued that descriptiveand operationaldefinitions of classroom differwritingcompetencerepresent only partiallyspecifieddefinitions;invariably ent descriptiveand operationaldefinitionsof classroomwritingcompetencerepresent differentselections from among the universeof features,examples,procedures, and criteriaof some fully specifieddefinition of classroomwritingcompemust tence, such as the ContextsPyramidsuggests.Becauseall writingresearchers invariablyuse partiallyspecifieddefinitions,an importantyet unresolvedquestion is, How does one know which features,examples, procedures,and criteria to includein formulating definitionof classroomwritingcompetence? a As suggested earlier,this questionis often answered simplyby arbitrarily selecting a paradigm. As Kuhn (1970) and Weimer (1979) suggest, paradigmsprovide established a guidelinesfor partialspecification.Hence, paradigms represent set of criteriathat specify:(a) what contexts are to be defined as CausativeContexts,(b) what contextsare to be definedas EffectContexts,(c) what featuresand examples of a Causativeand an EffectContextto considerin formulating partially a specified and criteria descriptivedefinitionof some phenomenon,and (d) what procedures are to be used in operationalizingthe features and examples in a descriptive definition. Unfortunately,given that there are few paradigms writingresearch, in thereare few guidelinesfor conductingpartialspecification. have attemptedto solve this problemlargelyby focusingon Writingresearchers Messick's (1981) first level of construct development, that is, consideringthe constructrubricsof writingcompetence.Littleattempthas been made to relatethe selectionof constructrubrics larger to issuesof socialsciencedesigncriteria (Bereiter & Scardamalia,1983; de Beaugrande,1981). Yet even if this level of construct in this developmentwas adequatelyaddressed writingresearch, would only enable one to identify the relative design strengths and weaknesses of the different definitions.Despite the fact that differentdefinitionsmight have differentdesign strengthsand weaknesses,these definitions may all be logically and internally consistentand, hence, have the same verificationcapabilities(Weimer, 1979). As such, definitions at the design level representa form of partial specificationin which one selects his or her favoritedesign criteriaratherthan his or her favorite context and features.In other words,in analyzingconstructsat the designcriteria level,one merelypushesthe partialspecification problemup one level.The question thus remains, Why select one partiallyspecified definition of classroomwriting competenceover another? One way this question can be answeredis by analyzingthe variousdefinition classes of classroomwritingcompetencein light of the sociopoliticalpurposesof education that these definition classes presuppose(Churchman,1971; Messick, 1981;Mitroff&Sagasti,1973).Althoughdifferentnotionsof sociopolitical purposes of educationhave been advanced(Bernier,1981;Churchman,1971;Kelly, 1980; Messick,1981;Mosenthal,1983,in press;Walmsley,1981),these notionsall define sociopoliticalpurposeas a world view of what the goal of education should be. Becausedifferentsociopoliticalpurposespresupposedifferentgoals, and different goals presupposedifferentmeans-endsrelationships,differentsociopoliticalpurstatusto differentmeans-endsrelationships. Those meansposes assigndifferential 235
PETER MOSENTHAL
that are likely to promotethe realizationof an educationalgoal ends relationships thosethatarenot likelyto promote(orarelikelyto undermine) aregivenhighstatus; the realizationof an educationalgoal are assignedlow status. in Given the educationalenterprise generaland writinginstructionin particular, one can identifyfive sociopoliticalpurposesof education(Mosenthal,1982a, 1983; (c) Walmsley,1981):(a) academic,(b) utilitarian, romantic,(d) cognitivedevelopdifferentgoals of educationand mental, and (e) emancipatory.Each presupposes instruction.Each of these sociopoliticalpurposesalso identifiesdifferentmeansends relationshipsas being the most propitiousfor obtaining some stated goal. Hence, each assigns differentialstatus to differentmeans-endsrelationshipsdepromote or underminethe realizationof pending on whethersuch relationships the specifiedgoals. To formulatepartiallyspecified definitions of classroomwriting competence, in and writingresearchers practitioners implicitlydefine means-endsrelationships terms of which contexts are assignedcausativestatus, which are assignedeffect In status,and whichareexcludedaltogether. this process,different meaningsources and differentmeaning processesare assigneddifferentialstatus values depending on the status assignedto the differentPyramidContexts.This processof partial of specification,in turn, suggestsdifferentmeans-endsrelationships how certain different sociopolitical purposes, may be fulfilled (Mosenthal, goals, reflecting 1982a). This can be illustratedby consideringthe five sociopoliticalpurposesof educationmentionedabove (see Table I). an Partialspecification from an academicpurpose.Underlying academicpurpose of education is the goal of one generationto pass on to the next the knowledge, skills,and socialand moralvaluesof the culturethatit deemsimportant.To realize of this goal, certainindividualsare identifiedas the guardians cultureand serveas authoritiesto determinewhat is good, what is bad, what is right,what is wrong, what is a good choice, and what is a bad choice (Apple, 1979). The Materials ContextParadigm promotesthe goal of the academicpurpose. best Associated with this paradigmare the cognitive and linguistic assumptionsof behaviorism,Hulleanism, and taxonomic linguistics (Mosenthal, 1983). These assumptionslend themselvesto the argumentthat meaningoccursexternalto the writer;that is, meaning occurs in the MaterialsContext (Olson, 1977; Olson & thata personhas learned Torrance,1981).Behaviorism (Skinner,1957)emphasizes to write when he or she can correctlymatch a responseto a stimulus;Hulleanism (Hull, 1943) emphasizesthat learninginvolves the Socraticmethod, wherebyan individualis led to a conclusionthrougha structured of associations set (Anderson, 1977). Note that in both cases, it is the authorityof society that determineswhen a responsecorrectlymatchesa stimulusor when an individualmakes the correct associationsto arriveat the rightanswer. Given the academic purpose'sassumptionsthat meaning is in the Materials Contextand thatthereis only one rightresponse,or association, a givenstimulus, to of this purposeacknowledge of currenttext (Carter, proponents only reproduction 1977), if they acknowledgeany meaning source and writing process at all. To and reconstruction reproduction wouldbe to allow for the possibility acknowledge that interpretations otherthan the authority's werepossible.To acknowledge prior or futuretext would contradictthe notion that writinginvolvesonly execution;in 236
turn, it would suggestthat writing involves goal setting, planning,and revision. Because the focus of meaning is assumed to be in the MaterialsContext, the in meaningsourcesof priorknowledgeand social situationare not considered any definitionof classroomwritingcompetence,nor are the meaningprocessesassociated with these meaningsources. The assumptionsof the academicpurposearereflectedin instructional programs (Applebee,Auten, & Lehr, 1981) that define classroomwritingcompetenceas the abilityto write accordingto the rules of some prescriptive grammar.In addition, such programs emphasizethat writinginvolvesusingeitherthe correctform or the teach studentsto reproducecorrectformsby first incorrectform. These programs of teachingthe lowest level of the taxonomichierarchy (e.g., correctrepresentation the alphabetand correctspelling)and then workingtheir way up to largerlevels (e.g., correctphrasing,correctsyntacticpunctuation,and correctexpositoryform). Partialspecification purpose.A utilitarian purposeis similarto from a utilitarian an academicpurposein that both stressthe importanceof culturalreproduction. However, they differ on why cultural reproductionis important.The academic to purposestressesculturalreproduction inculcate conformityto societal norms; the utilitarianpurposestressesculturalreproductionto teach real-worldsurvival skills. In short, in a utilitarianpurpose,the goal is to pass from one generationto the next the knowledgeand skills necessaryfor survivalin variousreal-lifesettings (Carroll& Chall, 1975;Heath, 1980;Scribner& Cole, 1981). The Task Context Paradigmbest promotesthis goal of the utilitarianpurpose. Associatedwith this paradigmare the assumptionsof levels of processingtheory (Adams, 1980; Craik, 1979; Doyle, 1980), which emphasizesthat disparatetasks occur in disparatesettings.To writeeffectivelyin differentsettings(and, hence, to function effectivelyin society)one must be able to follow correctlythe procedures and adequatelymeet the criteriaof varioussettingtasks(Heath, 1980). Although the utilitarian purpose acknowledgesthe importance of the Task Contextby Setting,the proponentsof this ideologytend to defineclassroomwriting eitherreproduction and/orreconstruction competencein termsof tasksthat require of meaning in current text (e.g., completing one's income tax, filing for social security).The main assumptionsof this ideology are not so much that classroom meaningsourcesandwriting writingcompetenceinvolvesthe abilityto use different processesper se; rather,classroomwritingcompetenceinvolves the abilityto use different meaning sources and writing processes relative to the broad range of possiblewritingtasksone could identifyas necessaryfor survivingin society. The assumptionsof the utilitarian ideologyare reflectedin studies(Heath, 1980; Scribner& Cole, 1978, 1981) that emphasizethat literacyis a culturallyorganized systemof skillsand valueslearnedin specificsettings.Thesestudiesemphasizethat tasks, which are usually quite literacyacquisitionis a function of society-specific differentfrom those found in formalschooling.Hence, accordingto this ideology, what makes an effectivewriteris his or her ability to effectivelymeet the writing of task requirements differentsettingsin society. In addition, these assumptions are reflected in instructionalprogramsthat emphasizethe need to writein orderto meet any and all the tasksthat societymay impose on differentwriters.Underlyingthese programsis the notion that writing 237
PETER MOSENTHAL
should be taught and learnedin the broad context of society and not just in the these assumptionsby arguing: context of school. Heath (1980) illustrates The extent to which physiologicallynormal individualslearn to read and writedependsgreatlyon the roleliteracyplaysin theirfamilies,communities, and jobs. Research... suggeststhat all normalindividualscan learn to read and write,providedthey have a settingor context in which thereis a need to be literate,and they are exposed to literacy,and they get some help from those who are already literate. This help, however, need not be formal follow what are frequently believedto be instruction,nor must it necessarily the basic tenets of readinginstructionin schools:gradedtasks, isolatedskill and hierarchies, a tightlinearorderof instructionof sets and subsetsof skills. Within this system of instruction, a student's success is measured by a sequenced move through the hierarchyof skills, and it is believed that acquiringthese skills, i.e., learningto read (or write)is necessarybefore a studentis reading(or writing)to learn.(p. 130;italicsoriginalauthor's) Related to levels-of-processing theory is transfer-appropriate-processing theory & et (Bransford al., 1979;Morris,Bransford, Franks,1977;B. Stein, 1978), which maintainsthat readersand writersdifferentially encode, store, and retrieveinformation as a function of how they are taughtto solve tasks,the natureof different and task requirements, the complexityof the materialused in teachingthe task. In this regard,transfer-appropriate-processing theory identifiesthe causativecontext of readingand writingas the interactionbetweenthe MaterialsContext and the TaskContext. the Becausethis theoryincorporates MaterialsContextof the academicpurpose and the Task Context of the utilitarianpurpose,it promotesboth their goals. In and sum, this theorystresseslearningfor purposesof culturalreproduction survival in society. Partialspecification purpose.Underlyingthe romanticpurpose from a romantic or of education is the goal to develop an individual's"autonomy,""self-worth," "self-ownership" (Spring, 1975). This purpose stresses the need for children's education to be free from the pressuresand beliefs of society (Neill, 1960) and stressesthat the individual,ratherthan society, should define what is good and bad, rightand wrong,what is a good choice, and what is a bad choice. Context Paradigm The WriterContext Paradigmand the Materials-as-Reader best promote the goal of the romanticpurposeof education.Associatedwith the are of firstparadigm assumptions conceptualschematheory,whichlend themselves that is, meaningoccurs to the argumentthat meaningoccursinternalto the writer; in the WriterContext(Olson, 1977).Proponentsof conceptualschematheory(e.g., Spiro & Tirre, 1980) emphasize the importance individual differencesplay in becausedifferentwritershave differentbackground behavior; experiences, perspectives, and depth of topic knowledge,writerswrite differently.In addition,proponents of conceptual schema theory (e.g., Anderson & Pichert, 1978) argue the importanceof perspectivetaking and the ability to shift perspectiveas the need arises.Spiro (1980) describesthis ability to shift perspectives terms of schema in accessibility. Many of these assumptionsof conceptual schema theorists can be found to 238
the such parallelmany of the assumptionsunderlying workof currentrhetoricians, the of as Young (1980). In additionto stressing importance priorknowledge, Young (1980) describesthe notion of schema accessibilityin terms of the writer'sability to control his or her intellectualexploration;one way to make this control more effectiveis to ask the inquirerto changehis mode of perceptionof the same unit; viewing it as a static, sharplydefined particle,as a wave of activity,and as a field of In features, relationships. each mode he is askedto note the unit'scontrastive In variations,and distributions. this way he is led througha set of complementarylines of inquirythat direct his attention to featuresof the unit he mightotherwiseoverlook,help him bringto bearinformationthat he already Jerome has in his memory,and identifywhathe does not know. "Discovery," mind (1965, p. 82)." We can see Brunerobserves,"favorsthe well-prepared the exploratoryprocedureas a way of moving the mind out of its habitual pastthat wantsto be retrieved, grooves,of shakingit loose froma stereotypic of helping the writer get beyond the superficialto levels tapped by the romanticmuse. (p. 347) In sum, conceptualschematheoristsas well as certainrhetoricians definewriting competencein terms of priorknowledge.Note, however,that while certainrhetoriciansemphasizeembellishmentof priorknowledge,conceptualschematheorists assigna low statusto this writingprocess.In part,this is becauseconceptualschema theorists use operationaldefinitions, which set predetermined criteriafor writer as performance.Because operationalcriteriaare always set by the researcher an authority,external to the writer'smind, it is difficult to determineexactly why writersmay produceanswersthat do not lend themselvesto operationalclassification. To overcome this problem of assigningembellishmentto a low functional status because of operationallimitations, several researchers (Collins, Brown & and Larkin, 1980; Hayes & Flower, 1983; Mosenthal,in press)use ethnographic on-line interviewsto determinehow and why writersembellishpriorknowledge. Associatedwith the Materials-as-Reader ContextParadigm the assumptions are of textualschematheory.In their strongestform, these assumptionsclaim that the structure content of mind for producingtext are identicalto the structure and and text. Hence, the structure contentof text itself contentof mind comprehending and as written output reflectsthe structureand content of the mind producingand text (McKoon, 1977;Mosenthal,in press;Mosenthalet al., 1981; comprehending Mosenthal& Na, 1981;Voss et al., 1980). Other theories of textual schema are less inclined to posit an isomorphism betweenthe structureand content of text and the producingand comprehending mind. For example,the given-newtheory(Clark& Haviland, 1977) views writing as an interactiveprocesswherebythe writerattemptsto find the best fit between of and his or her expectations a reader's expectations how text shouldbe structured. In his summary of textual schema theories, de Beaugrande(1981) notes that differentstatusto whethermeaningis in priorknowledge different theoriesattribute or in text; different theories also attributedifferent status to reproductionand as reconstruction they apply to meaningin priorknowledgeand/or to meaningin 239
PETER MOSENTHAL
of text. The point is that the more statusa theory assignsto reconstruction prior knowledge,the more stronglya theoryreflectsa romanticideology. Consonantwith the romanticpurposeare the assumptionsthat writingcompetence involves the abilityto set and revisegoals and to resolveproblemsbased on of the structureand content of one's understanding goals (Elbow, 1973; Graves, 1982;Hayes& Flower, 1980;Voss et al., 1980). In additionto these assumptions,one finds the assumptionsof the new rhetoric (Rohman, 1965) consonant with the goals of the romantic purpose.Proponents (D'Angelo, 1975; James, 1934; Miller, 1972) of the new rhetoricmaintain that writingis, or should be, relativelyfree of deliberatecontrol and that imagination or (i.e., reconstruction embellishmentof prior knowledge)is the most important dimensionof writing.Theseassumptions underlieMiller's(1972) observations that The mysteryof languageis, in largepart,the mysteryof the processesof the imagination.... For too long the assumptionhas been made that language in used by an individualoriginates the orderlyprocessesof his rationalmind, in his reason, in his faculty of systematiclogic. Instructionin language-use has thereforebeen largelyaimed at this logical faculty,in the belief that the teachingof orderlyprocesseswill resultin good writing.The result,though, has too often been not good writingbut dead writing, obedient to all the drilledinto the reason,but generallydehumanized inhibitionsand restraints and unreadable. (pp. 3-4) In short,when classroomwritingcompetenceis definedin termsof the assumptions consonant with the goals of a romantic purpose,the teacher is no longer viewed as the guardianof correctnessor as a purveyorof informationabout the mechanicsof writing;ratherthe teacheris viewed as a designerof occasionsthat stimulatethe creativeprocesses reconstructing embellishing of and priorknowledge. Partial specification from a cognitive-developmental purpose.Underlyinga cognitive-developmental purposeis the goal to nourish"the child'snaturalinteraction with a developingsociety or environment"(Kohlberg& Mayer, 1972, p. 454) to promote intellectualgrowththroughoutthe child's development.In general,this purposestressesthat learningdoes not involve so much the amassingof new facts but ratherthe developmentof new cognitive mechanismsthat allow the child to progresstoward the understandingof increasinglycomplex reading materials (Walmsley,1981). The paradigm bestpromotesthe goalof the cognitive-developmental that purpose is that definedas the interactionamong the Writer,Task, and MaterialsContexts. Associated with this paradigmare the assumptions inherent in Piagetian and metacognitivetheory. Both theories(Brown, 1980; Elkind, 1976) emphasizethat classroomwritingcompetenceinvolvesthe interaction amongthe writer's cognitive and some authority'stask structure.What the structures, author'stext structures, differsbetweenthese theoriesis their explanationof how meaningin priorknowledge becomes relatedto text output. Piagetiantheory emphasizesthe importance of cognitivestructure(Barritt& Kroll, 1978;Kroll, 1978);metacognitionemphasizesthe importanceof consciousawareness controlof one's cognitiveprocessand ing relative to the audience and task demands placed on the writer (Bracewell, 1983). 240
The assumptionsof the cognitive-developmental purposeare apparentin those & studies (Crowhurst Piche, 1979; Piche et al., 1975; Rubin & Pich6, 1979) that define writingcompetence in terms of "an increasein social sensitivitywith age, parallelinggenerativecognitive trends towards decentrationand differentiation. and concrete With maturity,childrenbecome free from the pressof intermediate perception,and consequentlymore able to integrateinformationconsistentwith alternativeperspectiveson a single event" (Rubin & Pich&,1979, p. 293). In addition, the assumptions of this purpose are reflected in those instructional for (Moffett, 1973) that providegenuineopportunities writersto interact programs with tasks and social situations of sufficient difficulty so that mechanisms for or growth-be they cognitivestructures consciousstrategies-can be enhanced. Bracewell(1980) advocates the use of proceduralfacilitation techniques for enhancingconscious strategygrowth;he describesan instanceof such procedural facilitationtechniquesin termsof teachingchildrenhow to revise: that one reasonfor and Bereiter, Scardamalia Bracewell, (1980) hypothesized children'swell-documentedinability to revise their compositions... might be lack of skill in deliberatelyapplyingtheir discourseknowledgeto their alreadywrittentexts. Therefore,in orderto facilitaterevisingin this study, decisions about the applicationof discourseknowledgewere made by the as experimenter a child revisedhis or her composition.Childrenaged nine and eleven years wrote an argument composition on a self-selected help. First, the experitopic... and then revisedit with the experimenter's menter underlinedand labeledthe sections of the child's originalcomposition.... Second, as the child revised,the experimenter suggestedadditional units that might be added to the composition. The interventionsfollow a procedurethat led to a composition consideringpositions and pre-planned evidenceon both sides of the topic. (p. 414) The importantpoint to note in the cognitive-developmental purposeis that it identifiesthe causativecontext of writingin terms of the interactionamong the Writer Context, the Task Context, and the Materials Context. This therefore this that concomitantwith the goal of developingnew cognitivestructures, suggests endorses:(a) assumptions of the academic purpose and definitions of purpose writing competence related to the Materials Context, (b) assumptions of the utilitarianpurpose and definitions of writing competence related to the Task Context, and (c) assumptionsof the romanticpurposeand definitionsof writing competencerelatedto the WriterContext. an Partialspecification purpose.Underlying emancipatory from an emancipatory so purposeis the goal to changethe educational,social, and politicalstructure that with their oppressors the oppressedmay forgea new, more egalitarian relationship (Freire, 1970; Walmsley, 1981). Proponents(e.g., Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Freire, 1970) of the emancipatorypurposeclaim that a principalfunctionof schools in a capitalistsociety is to maintainthe class distinctionsof this society. These proponentsthus arguethe need to changethe educationalsystemso thatclassdistinctions are eliminatedand a more egalitarian societyis established. The paradigm ideologyis the Context generallyassociatedwith the emancipatory definedby the interactionamongthe SituationOrganizer, Reader,Task, Paradigm 241
PETER MOSENTHAL
and the SettingContexts. Underlyingthis paradigmare the assumptionsof academic expectationsand classroomcompetencetheories;both theoriessuggestthat interactions. example, For classdistinctions developas a functionof teacher-student the academic expectationstheory (Allington, 1980; Au & Mason, 1981; Brophy, 1979;McDermott& Aron, 1978) arguesthat teachershave lowerexpectationsfor are some studentsthan for others.Theseexpectations often basedon students'SES, IQ, or ability group level. Hence, teachersare said to have lower expectationsfor lower SES, lower IQ, and lower abilitygroupstudentsand higherexpectationsfor higherSES, higherIQ, and higherabilitygroupstudents.Becauseteachersteachto these expectations,they differentially interactwith lower and higherSES, IQ, and students. ability-group is in interaction reflected suchmeasures engagedinstructional as Suchdifferential and teacherinterruption instructional behaviors.Engaged time, general emphasis, time studies(Au & Mason, 1981;Berliner,1981;Brophy& Evertson, instructional 1981;Good & Beckerman,1978;Guthrie,Martuza,& Seifert, 1979) suggestthat teachersengagehigherSES,higherIQ, and higherabilitygroupstudentsin learning tasks more often than they engagelower SES, lower IQ, and lower ability group studentsin such tasks. Studieson instructional emphasis(Alpert, 1974;Gambrell, Wilson, & Gantt, 1981) suggestthat teachersare more likely to focus on more meaningfultaskswith higherSES, higherIQ, and higherabilitygroupstudents;in contrast,teachersare more likely to focus on rote taskswith lower SES, lower IQ, behaviors(Allingand lowerabilitygroupstudents.Studiesof teacherinterruption ton, 1980; Eder, 1982; Niles, Graham, & Winstead, 1976) suggestthat teachers more often followingerrorsin lower ability groupsthan interruptproportionally in higherabilitygroups. Based on such differentialinteraction,lower and higher SES, IQ, and ability group students develop different expectationsabout their respectiveabilities to succeedin school. Becausestudentsperformaccordingto theirexpectations, lower SES, lower IQ, and lower ability group students performin a way that insures school failure(as reflectedin theirlow achievementtest scores);higherSES,higher IQ, and higherabilitygroupstudentsperformin a way that insuresschool success (as reflectedin their high achievementtest scores). In sum, the assumptions of academic expectationstheory suggest that how teachersinteractwith studentsis responsiblefor whetheror not studentssucceed in school. Becausesuccessin schoolis relatedto successlaterin life, teacher-student interactionscan determinewhethera studentwill fill a loweror higherclass role. Hence, given these assumptions,the primarymeaningsourcein an emancipatory purpose is meaning in social situation;the principalmeaning processesinclude and reconstruction, embellishmentof this meaningsource. reproduction, Althoughno writingstudieshave been conductedthat define classroomwriting competencein terms of the academicexpectationstheory,severalstudies(Mosenthal, in press;Mosenthalet al., 1981; Mosenthal& Na, 1981) define classroom classroomcompetence writingcompetencein termsof the assumptionsunderlying theory.These assumptionsare consonant with the emancipatorypurpose'sclaim thatteachersinteractdifferentially with studentswhich,in turn,influencesstudents' thesestudiessuggest successin school.In particular, thatin instanceswherestudents processesto meaningsourcesin a way that is not consonantwith a apply writing 242
teacher's notion of appropriateuse of meaning sources and writing processes, with these studentsin a way that conferslowerachieveteachersinteractdifferently ment status on these students. This lower achievement status may result in differentialevaluationsor in assigningstudentsto lower ability groups(Borko et al., 1981). In sum, definitionsof classroomwritingcompetencethat suggestan emancipatory purposeidentify the causativecontext of writingin terms of the interaction Writer,Task, and SettingContexts.Becausethis among the SituationOrganizer, interactionincludes the causativecontexts associatedwith the romanticpurpose (i.e., the WriterContext)and the utilitarianideology (i.e., the Task Context),the emancipatorypurposeincludesthe goals of the romanticand utilitarianpurposes as well. Becausethe classroomcompetencetheory also acknowledges importhe tance of the MaterialsContext, this also suggeststhat the emancipatorypurpose includesthe goals of the academicpurpose. Hence, while those who argue for an emancipatorypurposestressthe need to change the educational,social, and political structureso that the oppressedmay these emancipatory advocatesalso forge a new relationshipwith their oppressors, subscribeto some of the basic tenets of the academic utilitarianand romantic purposesand thus sponsorpartialspecificationaccordingto these purposes.In this the then, the interactivenatureof the causativecontextsunderlying emanregard, like the cognitive-developmental exists as a purpose purpose, cipatory purpose, partiallydistinct from other purposesbut also contains goals that are found in otherpurposes. Conclusion The precedingdiscussionsuggeststhat to understanda concept like classroom writingcompetence,one must be ableto answerthreequestionsaboutthis concept: What is classroom writing competence?What are the possible ways to define classroom writing competence?What ought to be the definition of classroom writingcompetence?To deal with the second question,a ContextsPyramidModel of Classroom Writing Competence was first proposed to illustratethe possible contexts from which one could constructpossible, partiallyspecifieddescriptive and operationaldefinitionsof classroomwritingcompetence.In discussingpartial it specificationfrom a sociopoliticalperspective, was noted that to answerthe first researchers havechosenone or two different contextsfromamong question,writing the set of possible contexts. This selection process always entails a different ideologicalassumptionof whatthe goal of educationshouldbe and how education, as a means, should relateto societalends. Hence, the question,Whatis classroom writingcompetence?,is, in part,the question, What ought to be the definitionof classroomwritingcompetence? Whatthis ultimatelymeans is that decisionsof how to define classroomwriting competence are not purely objective decisions; they are also value decisions (Churchman,1971; Messick, 1981). This being the case, the question of partial is specification only halfthe designquestionof whichcontextsto includeand which to exclude (Mishler, 1979), and which writingprocessesand meaningsourcesare to be given a high or low status (de Beaugrande,1981) in formulatingpartially specifieddescriptiveand operationaldefinitionsof classroomwritingcompetence. 243
PETER MOSENTHAL
The other half of this questionis the questionof which purpose(or purposes)does for one choose as the best framework reducingthe fully specifieddescriptiveand operational definitions of classroom writing competence to partially specified definitions. In brief, this paper argues that purposes of education provide an important and practitioners. Different purposesof frameworkfor both writing researchers educationsuggestdifferent writingresearch goalsfor conductingand implementing relative to promoting some societal end. In addition, these purposes suggest specifiedand guidelinesfor how classroomwritingcompetenceshouldbe partially suggestguidelinesby which one can assigneithera high or low functionalstatusto differentmeaningsourcesand writingprocesses. In conclusion, while this paperarguesthat the question of "Whatis classroom needs to be consideredrelativeto educationalpurposes,this writingcompetence?" paperraisesa much largerquestion,namely,"On what basisdoes one choose one When one asks this question,one is no longer educationalpurposeover another?" with defining classroom writing competence in terms of a simply preoccupied system; single mode of inquiry or in terms of choosing a single fact-generating rather,one is concernedwith the question of why does one make certainchoices over others. As Mitroffand Sagasti(1973) note, it is this question that is at the heartof any inquiring discipline.In examiningthe notionsof stimulusand response from an Inquiry-Systems perspective (Churchman,1971),the researchers argue In the long run the most importantconsequenceof this exercisemay not be that it provides us with a single, satisfactoryanswer for every important but the questionthat we can raiseregarding natureof stimuliand responses, that it providesus with an (not the) interesting way for posingquestionsand for contemplating how to go aboutsettlingthem. The fundamental questions of any science are too importantto be settledby any one mode of inquiry. When will we realizethat to raise the question of the definition of fundamentaltermsis to raisea policy-information question?Forin effect,Gibson's questions (of what constitutesa stimulus and a response)are policy mateffect the fundamentalcourse and developmentof ters... whose "answers" Sciences.It is in this sensethat definitionsarefarfrom being the Behavioural and are not "mere conventions."Definitions have a strongpragarbitrary matic import. They are among the most importantconceptualinstruments at the scientist'sdisposal. The choice of a definition is as crucial and as importantas the choice of any other aspect of a scientificinvestigation.To choose one definition over another is potentially to make one kind of or and "possible" another"impossible," at best, "lesspossible." investigation (p. 131) One might add to this that becausedefinitionsof classroomwritingcompetence are ultimately tied to educationalpurposesand purposesare tied to a society's as goals, whose definition of classroomwritingcompetenceis regarded the basic affectsthe fundamentalcourseand developmentof society. In addition, paradigm to chooseone definitionof classroomwritingcompetenceoveranotheris potentially to makeone kindof writinginstructional possibleand anotherimpossible, program or at best, less possible. 244
WRITING COMPETENCE CLASSROOM As Ayn Rand once observed (The Fountainhead), "We have freedom of choice but not freedomfrom choice." As researchers and practitioners, we must ultimately make important choices that will shape the direction of writing research as well as educational policy. We need to examine not only what we choose but also why we choose in formulating definitions of classroom writing competence. Given this consideration, writing research, as an emerging field of inquiry, will perhaps not be beset with the problems that undermine so many social science disciplines: a multiplicity of paradigms with a paucity of rationale for choosing one competing paradigm over another. References of information: Ackerman,B. P. Children'scomprehension presupposed Logicaland pragmatic inferencesto speakerbelief. Journalof ExperimentalChild Psychology,1978, 26, 92-114. in Adams,M. J. Failuresto comprehendand levels of processing reading.In R. J. Spiro,B. C. Bruce,& W. F. Brewer issues in readingcomprehension: (Eds.),Theoretical Perspectives and from cognitive psychology,linguistics,artificialintelligence, education.Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum,1980. behaviorsduringprimarygradeoral reading.Journalof Allington,R. Teacherinterruption Educational Psychology,1980, 72, 371-377. Alpert,J. L. Teacherbehavioracross ability groups:A considerationof the mediationof Pygmalioneffects.Journalof Educational Psychology,1974, 66, 348-353. In Anderson,R. The notion of schemataand the educational enterprise. R. C. Anderson,R. J. Spiro,& W. E. Montague(Eds.),Schoolingand the acquisitionof knowledge. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum,1977. informationfollowinga Anderson,R. C., & Pichert,J. W. Recallof previouslyunrecallable Journalof Verbal shift in perspective. Behavior,1978, 17, 1-12. Learningand Verbal London:Routledgeand KeganPaul, 1979. Apple,M. W. Ideologyand curriculum. Applebee,A. N., Auten, A., & Lehr, F. Writingin the secondaryschool:English and the contentareas.Urbana,Ill.:NationalCouncilof Teachersof English,1981. factorsin learningto read:The balanceof Au, K. H., & Mason, J. M. Social organization 1981, 17, 115-152. rightshypothesis. ReadingResearchQuarterly, skills of reading.In P. D. Pearson,R. Barr,M. Baker,L., & Brown, A. L. Metacognitive Kamil, & P. Mosenthal(Eds.), Handbookof readingresearch.New York: Longman,in press. of for Barritt, & Kroll,B. Some implications cognitive-developmental L., psychology research on composing.In C. Cooper& L. Odell(Eds.),Researchon composing: Pointsof departure. Urbana,Ill.:NationalCouncilof Teachersof English,1978. Bereiter,C. Developmentin writing.In L. W. Gregg& E. R. Steinberg(Eds.), Cognitive Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum,1980. processesin writing. M. Bereiter,C., & Scardamalia, Cognitivedemandsof writingas relatedto discoursetype. at Research Paperpresented the annualmeetingof the AmericanEducational Association, Toronto,Ontario,1978. M. to Bereiter,C., & Scardamalia, From conversation composition:The role of instruction in a developmental process.In R. Glaser(Ed.),Advancesin instructional (Vol. psychology 2). Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum,1982. M. Bereiter,C., & Scardamalia, Levels of inquiryin writingresearch.In P. Mosenthal,L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley(Eds.), Researchon writing:Principlesand methods.New York: Longman,1983. 245
PETER MOSENTHAL
Berliner,D. C. Academic learning time and reading achievement.In J. Guthrie (Ed.), and teaching. Research reviews. Newark, Del.: InternationalReading Comprehension Association,1981. context identification: Some thoughtsfor extendingthe Bernier,N. R. Beyondinstructional and analysis of deliberateeducation. In J. L. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography languagein educational settings.Norwood,N.J.:Ablex, 1981. Borko, H., Shavelson, R. J., & Stem, P. Teachers'decisions in the planning of reading instruction. 1981, 16, 449-466. ReadingResearchQuarterly, Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. Schooling in capitalist America:Educational reform and the contradictions economiclife. New York:BasicBooks, 1976. of the R. Bracewell, J. Investigating control of writingskills. In P. Mosenthal,L. Tamor, & S. and Principles methods.New York:Longman,1983. (Eds.),Researchon writing: Walmsley R. Bracewell, J. Writingas a cognitiveactivity. VisibleLanguage,1980, 14, 400-422. M. R. Bracewell, J., Bereiter,C., & Scardamalia, How beginningwriterssucceedandfail in moreconvincing. at Paperpresented the annual meetingof the makingwrittenarguments AmericanEducational Research Association,Boston,April 1980. J. Bransford, D., Franks,J. J., Morris,C. D., & Stein, B. S. Some generalconstraintson In and learning memoryresearch. L. S. Cermak& F. I. M. Craik(Eds.),Levelsofprocessing in humanmemory.Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum,1979. Britton,J., Burgess,T., Martin,N., McLeod,A., & Rosen, H. The development writing of abilities(11-18). London:MacMillanEducation,1975. London:Methuen,1973. D. Broadbent, E. In defenseof empirical psychology. Psychology,1979, 71, Brophy,J. E. Teacherbehaviorand its effects.Journalof Educational 733-750. and Brophy,J., & Evertson,C. M. Studentcharacteristics teaching.New York: Longman, 1981. Brown,A. Metacognitive developmentand reading.In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce,& W. F. issues in readingcomprehension. Brewer Hillsdale,N.J.:Erlbaum,1980. (Eds.),Theoretical In J. Bruner, The act of discovery. Onknowing. Essaysforthelefthand.New York:Atheneum, 1965. 1975. a J. Carroll, B., & Chall,J. S. (Eds.).Towards literatesociety.New York:McGraw-Hill, Carter,J. F. Commentson chapter6 by Meyer.In R. C. Anderson,R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague(Eds.), Schoolingand the acquisitionof knowledge.Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. based theory and technologyof Case, R. Piaget and beyond: Toward a developmentally instruction.In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advancesin instructional psychology(Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum,1978. Cherry,L. J. A sociolinguisticapproachto the study of teacher expectations.Discourse Processes,1978, 1, 373-394. C. Churchman, W. Thedesignof inquiring systems.Basic conceptsof systemsand organization. New York:BasicBooks, 1971. Journalof Cirilo, R. K. Referentialcoherenceand text structurein story comprehension. VerbalLearningand Verbal Behavior,1981,20, 358-367. and Clark,H. H., & Haviland,S. E. Comprehension the given-newcontract.In R. O. Freedle and (Ed.),Discourseproduction comprehension (Vol. 1). Norwood,N.J.:Ablex, 1977. as In Clark,H. H., & Haviland,S. E. Psychological processes linguistic explanation. D. Cohen D.C.: Hemisphere,1974. (Ed.),Explaininglinguistic phenomena.Washington, in In Collins,A., Brown,J. S., & Larkin,K. M. Inference text understanding. R. J. Spiro,B. C. Bruce,& W. F. Brewer(Eds.), Theoretical issues in readingcomprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum,1980. Overviewand closingcomments.In L. S. Cermak& F. Craik,F. J. M. Levelsof processing: J. M. Craik(Eds.),Levelsof processing humanmemory.Hillsdale,N.J.:Erlbaum,1979.
246
CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE A Craik, F. J., & Lockhart,R. S. Levels of processing: frameworkfor memory research. Journalof Verbal Behavior,1972, 11, 671-684. Learningand Verbal effectsof syntactic Crowhurst, & Pich6,G. L. Audienceand mode of discourse M., complexity in writingat two gradelevels. Researchin the Teachingof English, 1979, 13, 101-109. Mass.:Winthrop,1975. theoryof rhetoric. Cambridge, D'Angelo,F. J. A conceptual R. for de Beaugrande, Designcriteria processmodelsof reading. ReadingResearchQuarterly, 1981, 16, 261-315. R. de Beaugrande, Text, attention, and memory in readingresearch.In R. J. Tierney, P. readers'understanding. Anders,& J. Mitchell(Eds.), Understanding Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum, in press. Doyle, W. Accomplishingwritingtasks in the classroom.Paper presentedat the annual Research Association,Los Angeles,April 1981. meetingof the AmericanEducational In on for Doyle, W. Paradigms research teachereffectiveness. L. S. Shulman(Ed.),Reviewof research education(Vol. 5). Itasca,Ill.: Peacock, 1977. in (Final Report,Grant No. Doyle, W. Studentmediatingresponsesin teachingeffectiveness. Denton:North Texas StateUniversity,March1980. NIE-G-76-0099). in Eder,D. Differences communicative stylesacrossabilitygroups.In L. C. Wilkinson(Ed.), in Communicating the classroom.New York:AcademicPress, 1982. EducationalTesting Service. The test of standard written English: Preliminaryreport. Princeton,N.J.:Author, 1975. Elbow,P. Writingwithoutteachers.New York:OxfordUniversityPress,1973. Elkind, D. Cognitive development and reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), modelsand processesof reading.Newark,Del.: International Theoretical ReadingAssociation, 1976. Florio, S. The problem of dead letters:Social perspectiveon the teachingof writing.The SchoolJournal,1979,80, 1-7. Elementary M. Fodor,J. A., Bever,T. G., & Garrett, F. Thepsychology language.New York:McGrawof Hill, 1974. text. In R. O. Freedle(Ed.), C. Frederiksen, H. Semanticprocessingunits in understanding and Discourseproduction comprehension (Vol. 1). Norwood,N.J.:Ablex, 1977. Freedman,S. W., & Calfee, R. Holistic assessmentof writing:Experimental design and cognitivetheory.In P. Mosenthal,L. Tamor,& S. Walmsley(Eds.),Researchon writing: and Principles methods.New York:Longman,1983. New York:Searbury Press, 1970. Freire,P. Pedagogyof the oppressed. of Gambrell,L. B., Wilson, R. M., & Gantt, W. N. Classroomobservations task-attending Journalof Educational behaviorsof good and poor readers. Research,1981, 74, 400-404. from text: Some factorsinfluencingwhich inferenceswill be made. Goetz, E. T. Inferring DiscourseProcesses,1979,2, 179-196. T. Good, T. L., & Beckerman, M. Time on task:A naturalistic studyin sixthgradeclassrooms. SchoolJournal,1978, 78, 193-201. Elementary Graves,P. H. Researchupdate:How do writersdevelop?LanguageArts, 1982,59, 173-179. inferenceand classroomlearning.In J. L. Green& C. Wallat Gumperz,J. J. Conversational and settings.Norwood,N.J.: Ablex, 1981. (Eds.),Ethnography languagein educational Children'scomprehension Grueneich,R., & Trabasso,T. The story as social environment: and evaluation of intentions and consequences(Technical Report No. 142). UrbanaCenterfor the Studyof Reading,Universityof Illinois,September1979. Champaign: time in reading.In L. B. Guthrie,J. T., Martuza,V., & Seifert,M. Impactsof instructional Resnick & P. A. Weaver(Eds.), Theoryand practiceof early reading(Vol. 3). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum,1979. How well do they write? New Haven, Hackman,J. D., & Johnson,P. Yalecollegefreshmen: Conn.:Yale University,1976.
247
PETER MOSENTHAL of Halliday,M. A. K. Languageas a social semiotic. The social interpretation languageand meaning.Baltimore,Md.:UniversityParkPress, 1978. Halliday,M. A. K., & Hasan,R. Cohesionin English.London:Longman,1976. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. Uncoveringcognitive processesin writing:An introductionto protocolanalysis.In P. Mosenthal,L. Tamor,& S. Walmsley(Eds.),Researchon writing. and Principles methods.New York:Longman,1983. Hayes,J. R., & Flower,L. S. Writingas problemsolving. VisibleLanguage,1980, 14, 388399. Heath, S. B. The functionsand uses of literacy.Journalof Communication, 1980, 30, 123133. relations.New York:Wiley, 1958. Heider,F. Thepsychologyof interpersonal of Hempel,C. G. Philosophy naturalscience.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1966. A. Hildyard, Children's productionof inferencesfrom oral texts. DiscourseProcesses,1979, 2, 33-56. of A., Hildyard, & Olson,D. R. Memoryand inferencein the comprehension oraland written discourse.DiscourseProcesses,1978, 1, 91-118. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943. Hull, C. L. Principles behavior. of In Hunt, K. W. Earlybloomingand late bloomingsyntacticstructures. C. R. Cooper& L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluatingwriting.Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachersof English, 1977. as Hutchinson,L. G. Grammar theory.In D. Cohen(Ed.),Explaininglinguistic phenomena. D. Washington, C.: Hemisphere,1974. W. Irmscher, F. TheHolt guide to English(2nd ed.). New York:Holt, Rinehart& Winston, 1976. James,H. Theart of the novel.New York:Scribner,1934. and public sectorproductivity: With illustrations from Kelly, R. M. Ideology,effectiveness, the field of highereducation.Journalof Social Issues, 1980, 36, 76-95. King, M. J., & Rentel, V. Towarda theory of early writingdevelopment.Researchin the Teachingof English, 1979, 13, 243-253. Kintsch,W. Therepresentation meaningin memory.Hillsdale,N.J.:Erlbaum,1974. of Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. Towarda model of text comprehensionand production. Review,1978,85, 363-394. Psychological Kirsch, I., & Guthrie, J. The concept and measurementof functional literacy.Reading ResearchQuarterly, 1977-1978, 13, 485-507. Kohlberg,L., & Mayer, R. Developmentas the aim of education. HarvardEducational Review, 1972, 42, 449-496. and in Kroll,B. Cognitiveegocentrism the problemof audienceawareness writtendiscourse. Researchin the Teachingof English, 1978, 12, 269-281. of Kuhn, T. S. Thestructure scientificrevolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press, 1970. Loban,W. Languagedevelopment: Kindergarten through gradetwelve(Research ReportNo. 18). Urbana,Ill.: NationalCouncilof Teachersof English,1976. McDermott,R. P. Social relationsas contextsfor learningin schools. HarvardEducational Review, 1977, 47, 198-213. McDermott,R. P., & Aron, J. Pirandelloin the classroom:On the possibilityof equal educationalopportunityin Americanculture.In M. C. Reynolds(Ed.), Futuresof exceptionalstudents.Emergingstructures. Reston,Va.:Councilfor Exceptional Children,1978. of McKoon, G. Organization informationin text memory.Journalof Verbal Learningand Verbal Behavior,1977, 16, 247-260. J. of and Mandler, M., & Johnson,N. S. Remembrance thingspassed:Storystructure recall. Cognitive Psychology,1977, 9, 111-151.
248
CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE Mandler,J. M., & Robinson,C. A. Developmentalchangesin picturerecognition.Journal ChildPsychology,1978,26, 122-136. of Experimental in Mass.:Harvard Mehan,H. Learninglessons.Socialorganization theclassroom. Cambridge, UniversityPress, 1979. Messick,S. Evidenceand ethics in the evaluationof tests. Educational Researcher, 1981, 10, 9-20. of Meyer,B. J. F. The structure prose:Effectson learningand memoryand the implications for educationalpractice. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum,1977. Schoolingand the acquisitionof knowledge. Miller,J. E., Jr. Word,self, reality:The rhetoricof imagination.New York: Dodd Mead, 1972. Educational Mishler,E. Meaningin context.Is thereany otherkind?Harvard Review,1979, 49, 314-324. as to Mitroff,I. I., & Sagasti,F. Epistemology generalsystemstheory:An approach the design of complexdecision-making experiments. Philosophyof Social Science, 1973, 3, 117-134. K-12. Boston, Mass.: HoughtonMoffett, J. A student-centered language arts curriculum: Mifflin, 1973. C. J. J. versustransfer Morris, D., Bransford, D., & Franks, J. Levelsof processing appropriate Journalof Verbal Behavior,1977, 16, 519-534. processing. Learningand Verbal for Mosenthal,P. Children'sstrategypreferences resolvingcontradictory story information under two social conditions.Journalof ExperimentalChild Psychology,1979, 28, 323343. Mosenthal,P. On definingwritingand classroomwritingcompetence.In P. Mosenthal,L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley(Eds.),Researchon writing.Principlesand methods.New York: Longman,1983. for An Mosenthal,P. On designingtrainingprograms learningdisabledchildren: ideological and TopicalIssues in LearningDisabilities: perspective. Metacognition LearningDisabilities, 1982,2, 97-107. (a) of as Mosenthal,P. Psycholinguistic properties auraland visual comprehension determined 1976-1977, ReadingResearchQuarterly, by children'sabilitiesto comprehendsyllogisms. 12, 55-92. of Mosenthal,P. The influence of social situationon children'sclassroomcomprehension SchoolJournal,in press. text. Elementary of in Mosenthal,P. The new and given in children's comprehension presuppositive negatives two modes of processing. Journalof ReadingBehavior,1978, 10, 267-278. Mosenthal,P. Towardsa paradigmof children'sclassroomwritingcompetence.In B. A. Hutson (Ed.), Advancesin reading/language research(Vol. 1). Greenwich,Conn.: JAI Press, 1982. (b) R. in differences children's of new and use Mosenthal,P., & Davidson-Mosenthal, Individual old information SchoolJournal,1982, 83, 24-34. duringreadinglessons.Elementary V. Mosenthal,P., Davidson-Mosenthal, & Krieger, How fourthgraders R., developpoint of view in classroomwriting.Researchin the Teachingof English, 1981, 15, 197-214. in Mosenthal,P., & Na, T. J. Classroomcompetenceand children'sindividualdifferences Psychology,1981, 73, 106-121. writing.Journalof Educational Mosenthal,P., & Na, T. J. Quality of children'srecall under two classroomtesting tasks: model of reading comprehension.Reading Research Towards a socio-psycholinguistic 1980, 15, 504-528. (a) Quarterly, Mosenthal,P., & Na, T. J. Quality of text recall as a function of children'sclassroom ChildPsychology,1980,30, 1-21. (b) competence.Journalof Experimental A to New York:Hart, 1960. Neill, A. S. Summerhill: radicalapproach child rearing. in on Niles, J. A., Graham,R. T., & Winstead,J. C. The effectsof teacherfeedback responses
249
PETER MOSENTHAL
at children's oral reading Paperpresented the annualmeetingof the National performance. Atlanta,Ga., December1976. ReadingConference, A. interview:A procedurefor Odell, L., Goswami,D., & Herrington, The discourse-based exploringthe tacit knowledgeof writersin nonacademicsettings. In P. Mosenthal,L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley(Eds.),Researchon writing.Principlesand methods.New York: Longman,1983. and O'Donnell, R. C., Griffin,W. J., & Norris, R. C. Syntax of kindergarten elementary A schoolchildren: transformational ReportNo. 8). Urbana,Ill.:National analysis(Research Councilof Teachersof English,1967. Olson, D. R. From utteranceto text: The bias of languagein speech and writing.Harvard Educational Review,1977, 47, 257-281. to of Olson, D. R., & Torrance,N. Learning meet the requirements writtentext: Language & developmentin the school years.In C. H. Frederiksen J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: and Process,development communication. Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum,1981. Paris, S. G. Comprehensionmonitoring,memory, and study strategiesof good and poor readers. Journalof ReadingBehavior,1981, 13, 5-22. betweenfourth Piche, G. L., Michlin,M. L., Johnson,F. L., & Rubin, D. L. Relationships on tasksandreferential communication performances selectedrole-taking graders' accuracy tasks.ChildDevelopment, 1975, 46, 965-969. Raphael,T. E., Myers,A. C., Tirre,W. C., Fritz, M., & Freebody,P. The effectsof some known sourcesof readingdifficultyon metacomprehension comprehension. and Journal of ReadingBehavior,1981, 13, 325-334. An Resnick,D. P., & Resnick,L. B. The natureof literacy: historicalexploration.Harvard Educational Review, 1977, 47, 370-385. The in Rist, R. C. Studentsocialclassand teacherexpectations: self-fulfilling prophecy ghetto education.Harvard Educational Review,1970, 40, 411-451. The in Rohman,D. G. Pre-writing: stageof discovery the writing process.CollegeComposition and Communication, 1965, 16, 106-112. Rubin, D. L., & Piche, G. L. Developmentin syntacticand strategicaspects of audience skillsin writtenpersuasive communication. Researchin the Teaching English, adaptation of 1979, 13, 293-316. Rudner,R. S. Philosophy social science.Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1966. of D. The buildingblocksof cognition.In R. J. Spiro,B. C. Bruce,& Rumelhart, E. Schemata: W. F. Brewer issues in readingcomprehension. (Eds.),Theoretical Hillsdale,N.J.:Erlbaum, 1980. Schustack,M. W., & Anderson,J. R. Effectsof analogyto priorknowledgeon memoryfor new information. Journalof Verbal Behavior,1979, 18, 565-583. Learningand Verbal Scribner, & Cole, M. Literacywithoutschooling:Testingfor intellectualeffects.Harvard S., Educational Review,1978, 48, 448-461. Mass.:Harvard Scribner,S., & Cole, M. The psychologyof literacy.Cambridge, University Press, 1981. The need for a new perspective. Simons, H. D. Readingcomprehension: ReadingResearch 1971, 6, 338-363. Quarterly, Sinclair,J., & Coulthard,R. M. Towardsan analysis of discourse:The English used by teachersandpupils.London:OxfordUniversityPress, 1975. behavior. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957. Skinner,B. F. Verbal Smith, F. Understanding reading.New York:Holt, Rinehart& Winston, 1971. and Spiro,R. J. Constructive processesin prosecomprehension recall.In R. J. Spiro,B. C. issues in readingcomprehension: Bruce,& W. F. Brewer(Eds.), Theoretical Perspectives and from cognitive psychology,linguistics,artificialintelligence, education.Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum,1980.
250
CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE Spiro, R. J., & Tirre, W. C. Individualdifferencesin schema utilizationduringdiscourse Journalof Educational Psychology,1980, 72, 204-208. processing. education.New York:Free Life Editions,1975. Spring,J. H. A primerof libertarian The effectsof the precisionof encodingand Stein, B. S. Depth of processingre-examined: Journalof Verbal test appropriateness. Behavior,1978, 17, 165-174. Learningand Verbal Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. An analysis of story comprehensionin elementaryschool children.In R. O. Freedle(Ed.),New directionsin discourse (Vol. 2). Norwood, processing N.J.: Ablex, 1979. on perspective reading Steffensen,M. S., Joag-Dev,C., & Anderson,R. C. A cross-cultural 1979, 15, 10-29. comprehension. ReadingResearchQuarterly, R. processing,and analogicalreasoning:The compoSternberg, J. Intelligence,information nentialanalysis of humanabilities.Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum,1977. Studiesin reminding and N. R. comprehension: Verbruggel, R., & McCarrell, S. Metaphoric Psychology,1977, 9, 494-553. resembling. Cognitive in Journalof VerbalLearning Vipond, D. Micro-and macroprocesses text comprehension. and Verbal Behavior,1980, 19, 276-296. Voss, J. F., Vesonder,G. T., & Spilich,G. J. Text generationand recallby high-knowledge individuals.Journalof VerbalLearningand VerbalBehavior,1980, and low-knowledge 19, 651-667. An Walmsley,S. A. On the purposeand content of secondaryreadingprograms: educational Curriculum Inquiry,1981, 11, 73-93. ideologicalperspective. Weimer,W. B. Notes on the methodologyof scientificresearch.Hillsdale,N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979. interaction:Expectationscommunicatedby Wilkinson, L. C. Analysis of teacher-student In and structure. J. L. Green & C. Wallat(Eds.),Ethnography languagein conversational educational settings.Norwood,N.J.: Ablex, 1981. Woods,W. A. Multipletheoryformationin speechand reading.In R. J. Spiro,B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer(Eds.), Theoreticalissues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum,1980. Young, R. E. Arts,crafts,gifts,and knacks.VisibleLanguage,1980, 14, 341-350.
AUTHOR PETER MOSENTHAL, Associate Professor, Reading and Language Arts Center, Syracuse University, 170 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY, 13210. Specializations: Reading and writing research, advertising effectiveness research.
251

Defining Classroom Writing Competence

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Defining Classroom Writing Competence

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Defining Classroom Writing Competence: A Paradigmatic Perspective Author(s): Peter Mosenthal Reviewed work(s): Source: Review of Educational Research,

Defining ClassroomWriting Competence: A ParadigmaticPerspective

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

a. Input Organizer b. Output Organizer

FIGURE 1. The ContextsPyramidModel of classroomwritingcom

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

Вам также может понравиться