Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T22:58:15.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Writing as a Learning Activity

from Part III - Reading and Writing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2019

By
Perry D. Klein  and
Aartje van Dijk
Edited by
John Dunlosky  and
Katherine A. Rawson
John Dunlosky
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Katherine A. Rawson
Affiliation:
Kent State University, Ohio
Get access

Summary

This chapter focuses on cognitive, experimental research concerning writing as a learning activity. Typical research designs in this literature are discussed. Particular attention is given to variables that mediate and moderate the effects of writing on learning. Three bodies of research are identified as most promising: teaching summary writing and discourse synthesis; prompting cognitive and metacognitive processes during journal writing; and the Science Writing Heuristic.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education , pp. 266 - 291
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, J. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10, 334–370.Google Scholar
Akkus, R. (2006). The impact of writing on students’ performances on the post test. In Alatorre, S., Cortina, J. L., Sáiz, M., & Méndez, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (p. 326). Mérida: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.Google Scholar
Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry‐based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1745–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkus, R. & Hand, B. (2005). Mathematics reasoning heuristic: Writing-to-learn. In Lloyd, G. M., Wilson, M., Wilkins, J. L. M., & Behm, S. L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (pp. 1–3). Roanoke, VA: Virginia Polytechnic and State University.Google Scholar
Applebee, A. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577–596.Google Scholar
Atasoy, Ş. (2013). Effect of writing-to-learn strategy on undergraduates’ conceptual understanding of electrostatics. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (2009). Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to learn. Pratiques. Linguistique, littérature, didactique, 143–144, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2003.) Fostering the application of learning strategies in writing learning protocols. In Schmalhofer, F. & Young, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the European cognitive science conference 2003. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577.Google Scholar
Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2015). Multimodality, learning and communication: A social semiotic frame. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boscolo, P. & Carotti, L. (2003). Does writing contribute to improving high school students’ approach to literature? L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3, 197–224.Google Scholar
Boscolo, P. & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (eds.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 7. Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 83–104). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britton, J. (1982). Writing-to-learn and learning to write. In Pradl, G. M. (ed.), Prospect and retrospect: Selected essays of James Britton (pp. 94–111.). Montclair, NJ: Boynton and Cook Publishers. (Reprinted from The Humanity of English: NCTE Distinguished Lectures 1972.)Google Scholar
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). School councils research studies: The development of writing abilities (pp. 11–18). London: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
Cantrell, R. J., Fusaro, J. A., & Dougherty, E. A. (2000): Exploring the effectiveness of journal writing on learning social studies: A comparative study. Reading Psychology, 21, 1–11.Google Scholar
Childers, P. B., Gere, A. R., & Young, A. (eds.), (1994). Programs and practices: Writing across the secondary school curriculum. Montclair, NJ: Boynton and Cook Publishers.Google Scholar
Corcelles Seuba, M. & Castelló, M. (2015). Learning philosophical thinking through collaborative writing in secondary education. Journal of Writing Research, 7, 157–200. https://doi.org/10.17239 jowr-2015.07.01.07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De La Paz, S. & Felton, M. K. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drabick, D. A., Weisberg, R., Paul, L., & Bubier, J. L. (2007). Keeping it short and sweet: Brief, ungraded writing assignments facilitate learning. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 172–176.Google Scholar
Duke, N. K., Purcell‐Gates, V., Hall, L. A., & Tower, C. (2006). Authentic literacy activities for developing comprehension and writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2009). Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29, 417–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galbraith, D. (2009). Writing about what we know: Generating ideas in writing. In Beard, R., Myhill, D., Riley, J., & Nystrand, M. (eds.), The Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 48–64). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Galbraith, D., Ford, S., Walker, G., & Ford, J. (2005). The contribution of different components of working memory to knowledge transformation during writing. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5, 113–145.Google Scholar
Gelati, C., Galvan, N., & Boscolo, P. (2014). Summary writing as a tool for improving the comprehension of expository texts: An intervention study in primary school. In Klein, P. D., Boscolo, P., Kirkpatrick, L. C., & Gelati, C. (eds.), Studies in writing. Vol. 28: Writing as a learning activity (pp. 191–216). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (2003). Why we’re so smart. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195–235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gere, A. R. (ed.). (1985). Roots in the sawdust: Writing to learn across the disciplines. Urbana: IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Hebert, M. (2014). High school teachers’ use of writing to support students’ learning: a national survey. Reading and Writing, 27, 1043–1072.Google Scholar
Gingerich, K. J., Bugg, J. M., Doe, S. R., Rowland, C. A., Richards, T. L., Tompkins, S. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Active processing via write-to-learn assignments learning and retention benefits in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glogger, I., Holzäpfel, L., Schwonke, R., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2009). Activation of learning strategies in writing learning journals. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, 23, 95–104.Google Scholar
Glogger, I., Schwonke, R., Holzäpfel, L., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by journal writing: Prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 452–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Gunduz, S. (2006). Comparing student understanding of quantum physics when embedding multimodal representations into two different writing formats: Presentation format versus summary report format. Science Education, 90, 1092–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19, 354–367.Google Scholar
Hand, B., Gunel, M., & Ulu, C. (2009). Sequencing embedded multimodal representations in a writing to learn approach to the teaching of electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 186–210.Google Scholar
Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on year 10 biology students’ understanding of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35, 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006–9012-3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Hand, B., Yang, O. E. M., & Bruxvoort, C. (2007). Using writing-to-learn science strategies to improve year 11 students’ understandings of stoichiometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 125–143.Google Scholar
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of the writing processes. In Gregg, L. W. & Steinberg, E. R. (eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hebert, M., Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2013). Comparing effects of different writing activities on reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 26, 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebert, M., Graham, S., Rigby-Wills, H., & Ganson, K. (2014). Effects of note-taking and extended writing on expository text comprehension: Who benefits? Learning Disabilities – A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), 43–68.Google Scholar
Hewitt, J. & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 75–96.Google Scholar
Hohenshell, L.M. & Hand, B. (2006). Writing‐to‐learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübner, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Writing learning journals: Instructional support to overcome learning-strategy deficits. Learning and Instruction, 20, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, J. H. (1990). A comparison of summary and journal writing as components of an interactive comprehension model. In Zuttell, J. & McCormick, S. (eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction: Fortieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 67–82). Chicago: National Reading Conference.Google Scholar
Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065–1084.Google Scholar
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing as a learning tool: Testing the role of students’ writing strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 17–34.Google Scholar
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2013). Using the Science Writing Heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43, 1645–1663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012–9326-xGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 203–270.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. & Boscolo, P. (2016). Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of Writing Research, 7, 311–350.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D., Haug, K. N., & Arcon, N. (2017). The effects of rhetorical and content subgoals on writing and learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 85, 291–308.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2010). A framework for content area writing: Mediators and moderators. Journal of Writing Research, 2(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. & Leacock, T. L. (2012). Distributed cognition as a framework for understanding writing. In Berninger, V. W. (ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 133–152). New York: Psychology Press and Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D., Piacente-Cimini, S., & Williams, L. A. (2007). The role of writing in learning from analogies. Learning and Instruction, 17, 595–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konopak, B. C., Martin, S. H., & Martin, M. A. (1990). Using a writing strategy to enhance sixth-grade students’ comprehension of content material. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of the Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Leopold, C. & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22, 16–26.Google Scholar
Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., & Leutner, D. (2013). Learning with summaries: Effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linton, D. L., Pangle, W. M., Wyatt, K. H., Powell, K. N., & Sherwood, R. E. (2014). Identifying key features of effective active learning: The effects of writing and peer discussion. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13, 469–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional program on learning, reading, and writing processes, and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2), 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, L. & Tornatora, M. C. (2016). Analogical encoding with and without instructions for case comparison of scientific phenomena. Educational Psychology, 36, 391–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, M. A. & Hand, B. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding. Instructional Science, 41, 217–246.Google Scholar
Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1111–1133.Google Scholar
Nevid, J.S., Pastva, A., & McClelland, N. (2012). Writing-to-learn assignments in introductory psychology: Is there a learning benefit? Teaching of Psychology, 39, 272–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312456622Google Scholar
Newell, G. E. (2006). Writing to learn. In MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235–247). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Nückles, M., Hübner, S., Dümer, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effects in writing-to-learn. Instructional Science, 38, 237–258.Google Scholar
Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nückles, M., Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2004). The use of public learning diaries in blended learning. Journal of Educational Media, 29, 49–66.Google Scholar
Ong, J. (2013). Discovery of ideas in second language writing task environment. System, 41, 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petko, D., Egger, N., & Graber, M. (2014). Supporting learning with weblogs in science education: A comparison of blogging and hand-written reflective writing with and without prompts. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 7(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
Pineda, L., & Garza, G. (2000). A model for multimodal reference resolution. Computational Linguistics, 26, 139–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336643Google Scholar
Prain, V. & Hand, B. (2016). Coming to know more through and from writing. Educational Researcher, 45, 430–434.Google Scholar
Reynolds, G. A. & Perin, D. (2009). A comparison of text structure and self-regulated writing strategies for composing from sources by middle school students. Reading Psychology, 30, 265–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., & Erickson, L. G. (1986). Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 422–438.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L., & Tones, M. (2011). Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 685–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420–442.Google Scholar
Rivard, L.P. & Straw, S.B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.Google Scholar
Roelle, J., Krüger, S., Jansen, C., & Berthold, K. (2012). The use of solved example problems for fostering strategies of self-regulated learning in journal writing. Education Research International, 12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/751625Google Scholar
Rouse, A., Graham, S., & Compton, D. (2017). Writing to learn in science: Effects on Grade 4 students’ understanding of balance. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(4), 366–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. M. & Goldenberg, C. (1999). Effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on limited and fluent English proficient students’ story comprehension and thematic understanding. Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 277–301.Google Scholar
Schwonke, R., Hauser, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, R. (2006). Enhancing computer-supported writing of learning protocols by adaptive prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.002Google Scholar
Stewart, T. L., Myers, A. C., & Culley, M. R. (2010). Enhanced learning and retention through “writing to learn” in the psychology classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280903425813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Drie, J., Braaksma, M., & Van Boxtel, C. (2015). Writing in history: Effects of writing instruction on historical reasoning and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7, 123–156. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.06CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, C.S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Wäschle, K., Gebhardt, A., Oberbusch, E. M., & Nückles, M. (2015). Journal writing in science: Effects on comprehension, interest, and critical reflection. Journal of Writing Research, 7(1), 41–64.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.Google Scholar
Wong, B. Y. L., Kuperis, S., Jamieson, D., Keller, L., & Cull-Hewitt, R. (2002). Effects of guided journal writing on students’ story understanding. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022067020959658Google Scholar
Yildiz, A. (2012). Prospective teachers’ comprehension levels of special relativity theory and the effect of writing for learning on achievement. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n12.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×