Writing-to-learn

Definition

• Writing-to-learn refers to a family of instructional design models that postulate positif effects of pedagogical scenarios that engage learners in writing activities.

• Writing-to-learn is also known as the writing across the curriculum movement (WAC) movement, in particular in science teaching. According to Keys, WAC was inspired by Britton's (1970) work.

Overview

Research reveals that one learns both from and with interactive technology. Writing-to-learn focuses on the use of ICT as social expressive digital media. In this cognitive tools approach, interactive expressive tools are given directly to learners to use for expressing what they experience and know to themselves and also to others.

(1) "Writing-to-learn" has a long research tradition that initially focused mostly on the effects of individual writing and related cognitive issues. Klein's (1999) detailed research review identifies four major research lines and associated main hypothesis:

1. The "point of utterance" hypothesis: writers spontaneously generate knowledge when they write (Galbraith, 1999).
2. The "forward hypothesis": writers externalize ideas in text, and then reread them to generate new inferences.
3. The "genre hypothesis": writers use genre structures to organize relationships among elements of text, and thereby among elements of knowledge (Newell, 1984).
4. The "backward hypothesis": writers set rhetorical goals, and then solve content problems to achieve these goals (Flower & Hayes, 1994).

These four hypotheses invoke different aspects of writing and are in principle compatible with regard to the learner's competence matrix. According to Klein (1999:252) there are plenty of supportive studies, but only the genre hypothesis has been systematically tested against measures of writers' learning, and shown to have generally positive effects. See also the debate on genres

(2) More recent research mainly conducted in the CSCL (computer-supported collaborative work) community focused on collaborative learning mechanisms, its impact on individual learning and development of tools that enhance collaborative and social learning. Learners can be co- located, e.g. in computer-integrated classrooms (Tewissen, 2001).

Writing activities are essential to many different CSCL paradigms. While mainstream "writing-to-learn" research focuses on the production of larger texts or at self self-contained entries, writing in the CSCL perspective concerns rather producing short texts in various genres (questions, arguments, definitions, etc.). Learner productions plus interactions are meant to provoke various meta-cognitive mechanisms beneficial to learning e.g. conceptual change and deeper understanding. "Restructuring learning environments" (Flower & Hayes, 1994; Erkins et al. 2003) are based on the main hypothesis is that knowledge transformation leads to knowledge constitution (Galbraith, 1999).

Restructuring and knowledge building can be enhanced through computer-supported "knowledge building communities". Writing then contributes to a larger collective body of knowledge whose elements can be edited, manipulated and put in relation. A good example are so-called computer-supported intentional learning environments (CSILE) (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), that aim at reframing classroom discourse to support knowledge building in ways extensible to out-of-school knowledge- advancing enterprises and make school education more situated (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In one scenario, records made at the place of work (knowledge in action) "ground" reflective activities in the classroom.

Many compatible instructional models, like inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning or project-based learning can integrate research results from successful experimental of clinical studies.

(3) Co-construction enhanced by collective knowledge management is also related to organizational learning. Community memories are to communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) what human memories are to individuals. They make use of explicit, external, symbolic representations that allow for shared understanding within a community. They make organizational learning possible within the group (Stahl, 2000). Conversely, such communities need a social infrastructure around the technical infrastructure (Hakkarainen 2003; Bielaczyc, 2001). Interest in knowledge-building communities is both shared by education and the business literature (Snyder, 2003; Bereiter, 2002; Paavola, 2002). In other words, individual learning in school and workplace, life-long learning, and organizational learning are related issues in this perspective (Scardamalia, 2001).

The genres debate

Writing-to-learn refers to different instructional design models. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) introduced the difference between writing as "knowledge telling" and writing as "knowledge transformation". For Bereiter and Scardamalia, the rhetorical goal of a text incites exploration that leads to discovery of new knowledge/ideas. They distinguish between two processes are used used, depending on the capacities and knowledge of the author:

• Knowledge-telling: ideas that respond to the rhetorical goal are retrieved from long-term memory and transferred directly into written text. This process of writing is used by those knowledgeable in the topic being considered.
• Knowledge-transforming: ideas retrieved from memory are transformed by the effort to resolve a conflict between the ideas and the rhetorical goal resulting in the generation of new ideas, content and a deeper understanding of the subject. This is the process of writers that lack expertise in the topic of the text being produced.

Scrutinizing and reworking Bereiter & Scardamalia's model, Galbraith introduces writing as a knowledge-constituting process (Galbraith, 1998), where content is derived from a "dispositional dialectic" (Galbraith 1996 in Galbraith, 1998): the translation process that takes place during a cycle of “spontaneous articulation of thought… during text production” that responds to the stimulus of the emerging text – Galbraith (1998). The subject and the task at hand invoke a network of ideas referred to as "units". If an idea is satisfactory, other ideas are suppressed. If an idea does not meet the needs of the task at hand, other ideas are examined. During the repetition of this cycle there is an emergence of new or contradictory ideas that lead the writere to a broader and deeper understanding of the subject. Galbraith points out that rhetorical planning is only a “reorganization of existing ideas”… “retrieved from episodic memory” (p.140). The resolution of rhetorical problems leads to neither a deeper understanding, nor the development of new ideas.

The process and the number of times the cycle will be repeated is dependent on the author's knowledge of the subject, as this will determine the quantity of ideas generated, the complexity of the semantic network invoked and the author's capacity to express the ideas linguistically.

The product will also be affected by the "translation" strategies used by the author, i.e. the form in which ideas will be represented. The type of planning used for the writing process, (outline vs. free flow), the format of the output (notes, prose, graphic) and the rhetorical goal will all play a determining role in which ideas will be selected and developed (Galbraith, p.147-148).

Galbraith in 1996 (Galbraith, 1998) looked at the writing process of different personality types. Based on Snyder's scale of personality types (in Galbraith, 1998), he devided subjects into High self-monitors (those who regulate their behaviour based on stimulus from their environment) and Low self-monitors (those whose behaviour is regulated by their inner state). He found that High self-monitors tended to generate most of their ideas during note-taking prior to writing, while Low self-monitors generated most of their ideas while writing.

Catel (2001) distinguishes several dimensions of research according to genre:

1. Expository writing refers to process that engages a learner in reusing existing knowledge, e.g. to test his knowledge in an examination.
2. Scientific writing: learners are engaged into different kinds of academic writing, like lab notes, field notes, presentation (including report and explanation) in poster or paper form.
3. Interpretative (expressive) writing in different genres focusses on exploration of personal thinking, like conceptual cards, stories, slogans
4. Social (collaborative, cooperative and collective) writing social pratice, usually computer-mediated and often referring to practices of the scientific community.

Many authors seem to agree that diversification of genres is important. E.g. Prain & Hand (1998: 158) argue that " ...results indicate that diversification of writing types enhances opportunities for students to develop higher order thinking skills, including metacogntive understandings.".

For some authors it is important that learners write in their own language (Prain & Hand). Others authors claim that all writings should refer to scientific practice (e.g. Keys). These two views may conflict, but may also be sequenced in a learning experience.

Examples

• This Wiki will be used in some of courses for student writing activities, e.g. they have to improve articles, add new ones, add cases studies, and so forth [more details will follow]

• Keys (1999) discuss a "science writing heuristic" tool for learning from laboratory activities in secondary science and which can be used by teachers as a framework from which to design classroom activities. "There is evidence that use of the science writing heuristic facilitated students to generate meaning from data, make connections among procedures, data, evidence, and claims, and engage in metacognition. Students' vague understandings of the nature of science at the beginning of the study were modified to more complex, rich, and specific understandings." (Keys 1999:1065).

Technology

• Different sorts of cognitive tools
• Wikis
• C3MS Portals
• Knowledge Forum
• Concept maps
• Writing tools

Links

• The WAC Journal (Academic open-access journal)

• By Request December 2004: Writing To Learn, Learning To Write: Revisiting Writing Across the Curriculum in Northwest Secondary Schools. By Request is a booklet series produced at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, two times per year.

References

• Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

• Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in a knowledge society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

• Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Designing social infrastructure: The challenge of building computer-supported learning communities. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. The proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 106-114).

• Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. New York: Penguin.

• Catel, Laurence (2001), Ecrire pour apprendre ? Ecrire pour comprendre ? Etat de la question. in Fillon, Pierre et Vérin, Anne (eds.) Ecrire pour comprendre les sciences, Aster, recheres en didactique des sciences expérimentales 33.

• Connally, P. (1989). Writing and the ecology of learning. In P. Connally & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 1-15). New York: Teachers College Press.

• Donahue, Christiane, Writing and Teaching the Disciplines in France - Current Conversations and Connections, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, 59-79 (2004), DOI: 10.1177/1474022204039645 PDF

• Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., Prangsma, M., & Jaspers, J. (2003). Computer Support for Collaborative and Argumentative Writing. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (eds). Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 157- 176). Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science.

• Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication 1: 120-160.

• Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance and D. Galbraith (eds.), Knowing What to Write: Conceptual Processes in Text Production Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. (pp. 139-160).

• Hand Brian, Prain Vaughan, Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study, Science Education 86 (6), 737 - 755. DOI 10.1002/sce.10016 [1]

• Hand Brian, Carolyn W. Wallace, Eun-Mi Yang (2004). Using a Science Writing Heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects, nternational Journal of Science Education, 26 (2) 131 - 149. [2]

• Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English . London: Longman.

• Hawisher, G. E., & Pemberton, M. A. (1997, March). “Writing across the curriculum encounters asynchronous learning networks or WAC Meets Up With ALN.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), 1(1). PDF

• Holliday, W., Yore, L, & Alvermann, D. (1994). The reading-science learning - writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-893.
• Klein, P.D. (1999). "Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in Writing-To-Learn", Educational Psychology Review, 11 (3), 203-270.

• Keys Carolyn W., Brian Hand, Vaughn Prain, Susan Collins, (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a Tool for Learning from Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science, Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, 36 (10) 1065-1084. [3]

• Keys Carolyn W. (1997). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science, Science Education, 83 (2), 115 - 130. [4]

• Lovejoy, K.B., & Lance, D.M. (1991). Information management and cohesion in the study of written discourse. Linguistics and Education, 3, 251-273.

• Newell, G. E. (1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English 18: 265-287.

• Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer- supported collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference (pp. 24-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

• Prain, Vaughan and Hand, Brian (1996), Writing for Learning in Secondary Science: Rethinking Practices, Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 (6), 609-626. ISSN 0742-051X

• Prain, Vaughan and Hand, Brian (1998) Students Perceptions of Writing for Learning in Secondary School Science, Science Education, Volume 83, Issue 2 (p 151-162). [5]

• Scardamalia, M. (2003). Knowledge Forum (Advances beyond CSILE). Journal of Distance Education, 17 (Suppl. 3, Learning Technology Innovation in Canada), 23-28.

• Scardamalia, M. (2004a). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In Education and technology: An Encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

• Scardamalia, M. (2004b). Knowledge technologies in education: Beyond learning environments. In Education and technology: An Encyclopedia (pp. 393-400). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

• Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly, ed., Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

• Snyder, W. and E. Wenger (2003), Our world as a learning system. A community of practice approach. in Clawson, J. and Conner, M. (eds.) Creating a Learning Culture: Strategy, Practice, and Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press

• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Wenger, E., R. McDermott and W. Snyder (2002). Cultivating communities of practice, A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.