Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A comparison group study on the effects of instruction in writing heuristics on the expository writing… Strong, Gregory Butler 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 S77.pdf [ 7.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055221.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055221-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055221-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055221-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055221-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055221-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055221-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055221-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055221.ris

Full Text

A COMPARISON GROUP STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTION IN WRITING HEURISTICS ON THE EXPOSITORY WRITING OF E.S.L. STUDENTS by GREGORY BUTLER STRONG B.F.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1978 P r o f e s s i o n a l Y e a r , F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS I N EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES C e n t r e f o r C u r r i c u l u m and I n s t r u c t i o n We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA December 1990 @ G r e g o r y B u t l e r S t r o n g , 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Centre for Studies in Curriculum and Instruction The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada December 25, 1990 DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Th i s r e s e a r c h addressed two major q u e s t i o n s : (1) what e f f e c t does i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s have on the e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g of E.S.L. students? (2) i s one w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c b e t t e r than another? In an experiment i n v o l v i n g 116 t w e l f t h - g r a d e r s i n e i g h t c l a s s e s , the s u b j e c t s were randomly a s s i g n e d w i t h i n c l a s s e s to one of three groups. Each o f the three groups r e c e i v e d ten hours of i n s t r u c t i o n : two groups i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s , and a t h i r d group which served as an experimental c o n t r o l r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n i n grammar. The study was a p r e t e s t / p o s t t e s t d e s i g n where essays were ad m i n i s t e r e d as the t e s t s . The s t u d e n t s ' essays were scored f o r q u a n t i t y (number of words) and q u a l i t y . Scores were analyzed i n a repeated measures des i g n . The r e s u l t s r e v e a l e d t h a t there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the three groups on e i t h e r the q u a n t i t a t i v e or q u a l i t a t i v e measures. Although a review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e d support f o r the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with E.S.L. studen t s , the experimental evidence i n t h i s study does not s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s view. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t i i Table o f Contents i i i Acknowledgement v i Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 2. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM 1 3. NEED FOR THE STUDY 5 4. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 7 4.1 E f f e c t on W r i t i n g Quantity 7 4.2 E f f e c t on W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y 7 5. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 7 5.1 Experimental Terminology 7 6. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 9 Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11 1. STUDIES OF THE COMPOSING PROCESS 11 1.1 Pla n n i n g i n the Composing Process 14 2. WRITING HEURISTICS 21 2.1 I n s t r u c t i o n i n W r i t i n g H e u r i s t i c s 22 2.2 I n s t r u c t i o n i n Computer-generated W r i t i n g H e u r i s t i c s ...31 3. RESEARCH IN WRITTEN INSTRUCTION IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 40 3.1 St u d i e s of Composing Processes 41 3.2 W r i t t e n I n s t r u c t i o n i n H e u r i s t i c s 47 4. SUMMARY AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY 49 Chapter I I I DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 57 1. SUBJECTS 57 2. THE MATERIALS 58 2.1 Student A c t i v i t y Booklets 58 2.2 Lea r n i n g Packages 58 2.2.1 E i g h t - v e r b s 59 2.2.2 F i v e - q u e s t i o n s 62 2.2.3 P o i n t s of Grammar 64 i v 2 . 3 Lesson Aids 64 3. THE PROCEDURE 65 3.1 P r e t e s t s and P o s t t e s t s 65 3.2 The I n s t r u c t i o n a l Procedures 56 3.2.1 Experimental Group #1 68 3.2.2 Experimental Group #2 70 3.2.3 Experimental Group #3 70 4. THE SCORING OF DATA 70 4.1 W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y 71 4.2 W r i t i n g q u a l i t y 71 4.2.1 Adjusted Scores 72 5. THE ANALYSIS OF DATA 73 Chapter IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 74 1. EFFECT OF WRITING QUANTITY 74 2. EFFECT OF WRITING QUALITY 76 3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 78 3.1 The E f f e c t on W r i t i n g Quantity 78 3.2 The E f f e c t on W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y 78 Chapter V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 79 1. FINDINGS DISCUSSED 79 2. CONCLUSIONS 90 3. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE 90 4. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY 94 APPENDIX A - TEACHER SCHEDULE 108 APPENDIX B - DIRECTIONS TO TEACHERS 109 APPENDIX C - LESSON PLANS FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP #1 119 APPENDIX D - LESSON PLANS FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP #2 133 APPENDIX E - LESSON PLANS FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP #3 146 APPENDIX F - ESSAY TEST QUESTIONS 161 V APPENDIX G - PRETEST AND POSTTEST PROCEDURES 162 APPENDIX H - DIRECTIONS FOR HOLISTIC MARKING SESSION 160 APPENDIX I - RUBRIC OR SCORING GUIDE 163 APPENDIX J - EXEMPLARS FOR TRAINING SESSION 165 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thi s t h e s i s r e p r e s e n t s three and a h a l f years of graduate s t u d i e s as a p a r t - t i m e student, and 905 hours i n the development, and r e v i s i o n of a t h e s i s . Of g r e a t use were the u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s , and the years of r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i e s so w e l l documented i n s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s . But I am humbled by the g e n e r o s i t y of my p r o f e s s o r s , c o l l e a g u e s , and f r i e n d s . With t h i s i n mind, I would l i k e to thank them: Marion Crowhurst f o r her p a i n s t a k i n g a n a l y s i s of the many r e v i s i o n s of t h i s m a t e r i a l , and f o r her d i r e c t i o n and encouragement; Joe Belanger, f o r h i s advice i n d e v i s i n g experimental designs, and knowledge of composition r e s e a r c h ; Wendy Sutton, f o r her h e l p f u l comments while s e r v i n g as a member of my t h e s i s committee; and Graeme Chalmers, an e a r l y i n s p i r a t i o n i n graduate s t u d i e s ; Jim C l a r k , the p r i n c i p a l of the YMCA C o l l e g e who advised me to undertake a graduate degree, Don Dashwood-Jones whose e a r l y l e a d e r s h i p i n high school composition i n s t r u c t i o n i n s p i r e d h i s students, and teachers l i k e myself who were f o r t u n a t e enough to work with him; The teachers p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n my experiment: C o l l e e n Sunderland, the Vancouver YMCA C o l l e g e ; Denis Roberts, Columbia C o l l e g e ; Roger Kopf, J u d i t h Robson, Coquitlam C o l l e g e ; the markers who scored the s t u d e n t s ' papers: Louise Dyer, E l s p e t h Gadsby, J a c k i e H a r r i s , Dave Jones, Jim K i t e l y , Howie Labrum, John Lawrence, G l o r i a Lowe, Moraig Meyer, Ian Morton, Caron P e n h a l l , Mike Quinn, C o l l e e n Sunderland, and T e r r y Vander Sar; My f r i e n d s , Rene Fountain, Denis F a f a r d , and Manuel Santos, who shared the excitement of the d i s c o v e r y of new ideas i n e d u c a t i o n , and the d i f f i c u l t i e s of w r i t i n g a graduate t h e s i s ; My parents, G l o r i a and Ed, my b r o t h e r , Derek, who a s s i s t e d me i n l e a r n i n g s t a t i s t i c s , a d m i n i s t e r e d my h o l i s t i c marking s e s s i o n , and o u t l i n e d p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r what I was l e a r n i n g , and my s i s t e r , Lorna, a g r e a t source of support; And to a l l the students from whom I have l e a r n e d so much. INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The present study examines the hypothesis that i n s t r u c t i o n i n a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c has a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on the w r i t i n g performance of E n g l i s h as a Second Language (E.S.L.) students. The two s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n were to measure the e f f e c t of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c on the e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g o f E.S.L. students, and to determine whether one type of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c was b e t t e r than another. 2BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM In t h e i r review o f 504 s t u d i e s o f E n g l i s h , Braddock., L l o y d -Jones & Schoer (1963) c a l l e d f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the a c t of w r i t i n g and the nature of w r i t i n g s k i l l . Subsequent r e s e a r c h (Emig, 1971; M i s c h e l , 1974; Metzger, 1977; P e r l , 1978, 1980; Matsuhashi, 1981) e s t a b l i s h e d a new view of w r i t i n g and of the pla n n i n g p a r t of the a c t i v i t y . W r i t i n g has s i n c e been viewed as a l a r g e l y r e c u r s i v e behaviour and one where plann i n g occurs throughout the composing process. Perhaps the most i n f l u e n t i a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h i s process i s the proble m - s o l v i n g model developed by Flower and Hayes (1981a). The model d e s c r i b e s the mental o p e r a t i o n of p l a n n i n g as i t occurs i n w r i t i n g . The importance of plann i n g i n the composing process i s i d e n t i f i e d by numerous i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( B u r t i s , B e r e i t e r , Scardamalia, and Tetroe, 1983; Emig, 1971; Flower & Hayes, INTRODUCTION 2 1981b). B u r t i s et. al_. (1983) found t h a t the a b i l i t y to p l a n i s developmental and l i n k e d to age. Flower and Hayes (1981b) determined that the a b i l i t y to p l a n i s a l s o one of the d i f f e r e n c e s between expert w r i t e r s and u n s k i l l e d or novice w r i t e r s . U n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s tend to occupy themselves with s e n t e n c e - l e v e l s t r a t e g i e s while expert w r i t e r s employ more g l o b a l p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g i e s such as a d d r e s s i n g the meaning of t h e i r w r i t i n g , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r audience, and shaping t h e i r communication. W r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s have been suggested f o r use with young and u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s as an a i d to plann i n g and g e n e r a t i n g content (Burke, 1969; Rohman, 1965; Young, Becker, & Pike, 1970). Scardamalia and B e r e i t e r (1986) i d e n t i f y t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n as one of the most a c t i v e areas of composition r e s e a r c h . F a i g l e y , Cherry, J o l i f f e , and Skinner (1985) maintain t h a t every experiment they reviewed of i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s (Burns, 1979; O d e l l , 1974; Woodruff, Scardamalia & B e r e i t e r , 1981, Young & Koen, 1973), c o n t r i b u t e d to some improvement i n student w r i t i n g . Educators have subsequently focused on (a) the development of a b i l i t i e s to p l a n , and (b) the e f f e c t s o f i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on st u d e n t s ' w r i t i n g . The present study c e n t r e s on the second of these two focuses, and i n v e s t i g a t e s the n o t i o n t h a t w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s have a pedagogical value to students. T h i s n o t i o n i s d e r i v e d from the idea that w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s a s s i s t students i n g e n e r a t i n g ideas d u r i n g t h e i r INTRODUCTION pl a n n i n g processes. Proponents of t h i s view (e.g. Burke, 1969; Young, Becker, and Pike, 1970) c l a i m that w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s o f f e r students a sy s t e m a t i c approach to the d i s c o v e r y and e x p l o r a t i o n of ideas. Research i n t o w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s has ce n t r e d on such q u e s t i o n s as: What are the e f f e c t s on student w r i t i n g of the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s ? What are the e f f e c t s on student w r i t i n g of the use of computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s ? How much time does i t take to l e a r n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s ? What are the e f f e c t s o f l e a r n i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s a t d i f f e r e n t ages? Which i s the most e f f e c t i v e h e u r i s t i c ? (Burns, 1979; Dutch, 1980; Ebbert, 1980; H i l g e r s , 1980, 1981; Nugent, 1980; O d e l l , 1974; S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986; Woodruff, B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia, 1981; Young & Koen, 1973). Stud i e s suggest that under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s may have a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on w r i t i n g (Dutch, 1980; Ebbert, 1980; H i l g e r s , 1980, 1981; Nugent, 1980; O d e l l , 1974; S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986; Young & Koen, 1973). The c l a i m that w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s a i d student w r i t e r s has been supported by numerous s t u d i e s ; however, experimental c o n d i t i o n s and measures vary c o n s i d e r a b l y and make the r e s u l t s of t h i s r e s e a r c h hard to e v a l u a t e . Questions of p a r t i c u l a r importance to the present study were: a. what type o f h e u r i s t i c i s most l i k e l y to succeed, b. how long should the d u r a t i o n of the treatment be, c. what experimental measures should be employed. Var i o u s types of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s have been used, f o r example, A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s (Dutch, 1980; Burns, 1979; INTRODUCTION 4 Leibman-Kleine, 1987) and the pentad (Ebbert, 1980; Burns, 1979; Leibman-Kleine, 1987). The d u r a t i o n of treatments i n v o l v i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s has v a r i e d from 30 minutes to 14 hours; improvement has been found i n w r i t i n g over as l i t t l e as 2 hours (Burns, 1979). Various measures have been used i n c l u d i n g idea counts (Burns, 1979; S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986), and word counts (Woodruff e t al_. , 1981). A second experimental measure, one of q u a l i t y on st u d e n t s ' essays was a l s o used (Burns, 1979; Dutch, 1980; H i l g e r s , 1980, 1981; Nugent, 1980; S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986; Woodruff e t a l . , 1981). While r e s e a r c h on composing processes has focused l a r g e l y on f i r s t language composing, emerging evidence i n d i c a t e s s i m i l a r i t i e s between composing i n a f i r s t language and a second (Arendt, 1987; Cumming, 1988; Edelsky, 1982; G a s k i l l , 1984, 1986; Jones & Tetroe, 1987; Lay, 1982; Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1982, 1983). This suggests that methods u s e f u l i n f i r s t language composition i n s t r u c t i o n may be u s e f u l i n second language i n s t r u c t i o n as w e l l . Cumming (1988), G a s k i l l (1986), Spack (1984), and Zamel (1983) have each c a l l e d f o r s t u d i e s of the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with E.S.L. students. I t was to meet t h i s need f o r r e s e a r c h t h a t Leibman-Kleine (1987) conducted an ethnographic study of E.S.L. s t u d e n t s ' use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s to determine which h e u r i s t i c students l i k e d and were able to use, and which seemed to be the most e f f e c t i v e l y a p p l i e d i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . Due to the nature of the study, Leibman-Kleine was not able to provide s t a t i s t i c a l INTRODUCTION J evidence f o r the f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t s of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on stud e n t s ' w r i t i n g but she c o l l e c t e d evidence which suggested both the d i f f i c u l t y of using h e u r i s t i c s and t h e i r p o t e n t i a l value i n i n s t r u c t i o n . The present study i n v o l v e s ten hours of i n s t r u c t i o n of E.S.L. students i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . The p e r i o d o f i n s t r u c t i o n was longer than t h a t i n s e v e r a l s t u d i e s which r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s (Burns, 1979; H i l g e r s , 1980, 1981). P r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t essays were judged f o r the number of words students wrote and the q u a l i t y of t h e i r w r i t i n g . The word count i n the present study i s d e r i v e d from Woodruff §_t al_. , (1981), and the q u a l i t y measure from numerous other r e s e a r c h e r s (Burns, 1979; Nugent, 1980; Dutch, 1980; Ebbert; H i l g e r s , 1980, 1981; S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986; Woodruff e t a l . , 1981). The present study c o n t r i b u t e s to the comparisons made between w r i t i n g i n a f i r s t language and w r i t i n g i n a second language. I t extends the re s e a r c h i n t o the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i n a f i r s t language by conducting r e s e a r c h with E.S.L. students as s u b j e c t s . I t a l s o p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r r e s u l t s f o r the e f f e c t s o f us i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with E.S.L. students. 3. NEED FOR THIS STUDY The present study adds to the r e s e a r c h on the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with E.S.L. students. Despite c a l l s f o r s t u d i e s i n t o the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with E.S.L. students (Cumming, 1988; G a s k i l l , 1986; Spack, 1984; Zamel, 1982, 1983), onl y one study (Leibman-Kleine, 1987) has been undertaken. In INTRODUCTION 6 a d d i t i o n , the present study uses b e t t e r experimental c o n t r o l s than much of the previous r e s e a r c h i n t o the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with students w r i t i n g i n a f i r s t language. H i l l o c k s (1986) notes that many of these s t u d i e s employed no c o n t r o l groups or had d i f f e r e n t p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t measures whereas the present study i n c l u d e s these f e a t u r e s i n i t s design. For these reasons, the present study may make a u s e f u l c o n t r i b u t i o n to r e s e a r c h i n composition i n s t r u c t i o n . There i s a need f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the e f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s upon E.S.L. students so that recommendations from a sound t h e o r e t i c a l base can be made to t h e i r teachers (Cumming, 1988; G a s k i l l , 1986; Spack, 1984; Zamel, 1983). To date, o n l y one study (using w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s ) — a n ethnographic study which obtained mixed r e s u l t s --has been undertaken (Leibman-Kleine, 1987). This study was a l s o designed so that s t a t i s t i c a l a nalyses of students' w r i t i n g was not p o s s i b l e . The present study employs l a r g e numbers of students making t h i s a n a l y s i s p o s s i b l e . As w e l l , Leibman-K l e i n e ' s study d i d not c o n t r o l f o r i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s such as e t h n i c i t y and language while the present study does. Furthermore, i n t e r e s t i s i n c r e a s i n g i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of E n g l i s h language t e a c h i n g to the academic needs of E.S.L. students. Seminal work by C o l l i e r (1987), Cummins (1980, 1982), E l l i s (1986), S a v i l l e - T r o i k e (1984), and Wong-Fillmore & Valdez (1986) i n d i c a t e s t h a t while E.S.L. students a c q u i r e a communicative competence w i t h i n two years, academic competence INTRODUCTION r e q u i r e s from f i v e to seven years o f exposure to modes of academic d i s c o u r s e . The present study has been designed to c o n t r i b u t e to t h i s process through t e a c h i n g E.S.L. students more e f f e c t i v e w r i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s . I t s purpose i s to examine the e f f e c t s o f t r a i n i n g i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on the w r i t i n g of E.S.L. students i n the t w e l f t h grade. 4. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES F o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n of pre v i o u s theory and r e s e a r c h , two n u l l hypotheses were made concerning: (1) the e f f e c t of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y , and (2) the e f f e c t of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on W r i t i n g q u a l i t y . 4.1 E f f e c t on W r i t i n g Quantity The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s proposes t h a t there w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e f o r W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y among groups of students using w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and a group of students which i s not us i n g them. 4.2 E f f e c t on W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y The n u l l h y p o thesis proposes t h a t there w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e f o r W r i t i n g q u a l i t y among groups of students u s i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and a group of students which i s not u s i n g them. 5. DEFINITION OF TERMS The f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s apply to the terms used i n the proposed study: 5.1 Experiment Terminology Composing process - a d e s c r i p t i v e term f o r the mental INTRODUCTION 8 a c t i v i t y o f w r i t i n g which o r i g i n a t e d i n composition r e s e a r c h with Emig (1971) . E i g h t - v e r b s - the f i r s t of two w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s used i n t h i s study. I t i s adapted from D'Angelo (1984) who l i s t e d A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s from the Rhetor i c , ( A r i s t o t l e , t r a n s . 1954). H e u r i s t i c - a term used i n c o g n i t i v e psychology to r e f e r to a procedure which a i d s i n the performance of a g i v e n task. H o l i s t i c assessment - a s c o r i n g procedure used i n t h i s study to ensure a quick and accurate r a t i n g of students' compositions. T h i s i s a q u a l i t a t i v e measure of w r i t i n g which allows f o r an assessment of high l e v e l w r i t i n g s k i l l s a c c o r d i n g to Cooper (1977), D i e d e r i c h (1974), and Myers (1980). I t measures the a b i l i t y to w r i t e on the b a s i s of "one's a b i l i t y to d i s c o v e r what one wishes to say and to convey one's message through language, syntax, and content t h a t are a p p r o p r i a t e f o r one's audience and purpose" ( O d e l l , 1981: p. 103). I n t e r m e d i a t e - l e v e l E.S.L. students - these are students whose f i r s t language i s not E n g l i s h but who have had s u b s t a n t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n i n composition and i n other language s k i l l s , and who are completing s e n i o r high school E n g l i s h courses. They are students who have obtained a score i n the Test o f E n g l i s h as a F o r e i g n Language (TOEFL) of between 420 and 580 p o i n t s . Pentad - a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c developed by Burke (1969) which c o n s i s t s of f i v e q u e s t i o n s about a s u b j e c t . For example, one q u e s t i o n a student would answer would be r e g a r d i n g the agent of an a c t i o n . In the present study, a d e r i v a t i v e o f the pentad-INTRODUCTION y -the f i v e - q u e s t i o n s — w a s the second w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c used i n t h i s study. The f i v e - q u e s t i o n s i s a h e u r i s t i c which c o n s i s t s of f i v e i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms i n E n g l i s h and i s d e r i v e d from Burke's (1969) pentad and subsequent f u r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s f o r a p r e w r i t i n g a c t i v i t y by Irmscher (1971), B e r t h o f f (1982). W r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c - a procedure f o r g e n e r a t i n g ideas f o r w r i t i n g about a t o p i c which occurs before students a c t u a l l y commit t h e i r ideas to paper. A w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c u s ing f r e e w r i t i n g i s one of many h e u r i s t i c s and i n t h i s case, students w r i t e as much as they can think of r e l a t e d to a s u b j e c t . A computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c i s one which i s used with a computer t h a t i n t e r a c t s with students by a s k i n g them ques t i o n s about t h e i r i d eas. The h e u r i s t i c i s produced by the computer software and i s d i s p l a y e d on the screen of a computer monitor. W r i t i n g q u a l i t y - the h o l i s t i c score assigned a student's paper i n t h i s study. W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y - the number of words w r i t t e n by a student i n t h i s study. 6. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The study i s conducted with a p o p u l a t i o n of I n t e r m e d i a t e -l e v e l e t h n i c Chinese E.S.L. students i n the f i n a l year of a s e n i o r secondary school E n g l i s h program. According to many s t u d i e s c i t e d elsewhere i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , many of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of students l e a r n i n g to w r i t e i n a f i r s t language are shared by E.S.L. students. S t i l l , care should be taken by those making g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from t h i s p o p u l a t i o n to INTRODUCTION 10 other p o p u l a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those t h a t i n c l u d e E.S.L. students o f mixed e t h n i c i t y and heterogenous l e v e l s of language a b i l i t y , or to E.S.L. students of younger ages. This study measures the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a s e r i e s o f ten le s s o n s i n t r o d u c i n g two w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s to be used i n p r e w r i t i n g . To o b t a i n s i m i l a r r e s u l t s with the h e u r i s t i c s ' use, a s i m i l a r pedagogy should be used. As the mode o f d i s c o u r s e chosen f o r the t o p i c s i n t h i s study i s e x p o s i t o r y , the e f f e c t s of u s i n g a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c may be d i f f e r e n t i n other modes such as argument or n a r r a t i o n . Thus, i t may not be p o s s i b l e to g e n e r a l i z e any f i n d i n g s beyond the mode chosen f o r t h i s study. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Three major bodies of l i t e r a t u r e r e l e v a n t to the present study are reviewed: f i r s t , l i t e r a t u r e on students' composing processes, and i n p a r t i c u l a r , on p l a n n i n g i n t h e i r composing process; second, r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e on the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s ; and t h i r d , l i t e r a t u r e on E.S.L. students w r i t i n g i n a second language. The f i r s t body of l i t e r a t u r e i s important because i t e s t a b l i s h e s a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r the use of a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . The second body of l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s that while w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s have been used i n composition r e s e a r c h b e f o r e , t h e i r value has not been e s t a b l i s h e d due to mixed r e s u l t s and weaknesses i n experimental methodology. The t h i r d body of l i t e r a t u r e i s r e l e v a n t to t h i s study because i n order to use the conceptual and r e s e a r c h base provided by s t u d i e s of n a t i v e speakers of E n g l i s h , a r e l a t i o n s h i p must be e s t a b l i s h e d between the w r i t i n g of n a t i v e speakers of E n g l i s h and the w r i t i n g of E.S.L. students. 1. STUDIES OF COMPOSING PROCESSES In t h e i r review of 504 s t u d i e s of E n g l i s h , Braddock, L l o y d -Jones & Schoer (1963) c a l l e d f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the a c t of w r i t i n g and the nature of w r i t i n g s k i l l . An e a r l y response was Emig's (1971) s e m i n a l l y important case study of the composing processes of e i g h t t w e l f t h - g r a d e students of above average and REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12 average w r i t i n g a b i l i t y . Each s u b j e c t met four times with the i n v e s t i g a t o r , composed aloud, and wrote a s h o r t p i e c e . Then the s u b j e c t was d i r e c t e d to t h i n k about a t o p i c f o r the next s e s s i o n , and to b r i n g i n any prepared notes. The s u b j e c t gave a w r i t i n g biography d u r i n g the t h i r d s e s s i o n , and f o r the f i n a l s e s s i o n , brought i n a p i e c e of i m a g i n a t i v e w r i t i n g and d i s c u s s e d the w r i t i n g process which had been used to develop i t . The d e s c r i p t i o n of w r i t i n g which emerged from t h i s study was d i f f e r e n t from the p revious view of w r i t i n g as a s e q u e n t i a l a c t i v i t y where m a t e r i a l was c o l l e c t e d , o r g a n ized, w r i t t e n , and r e v i s e d . Emig found that the e i g h t s u b j e c t s had a composing process which was not l i n e a r but r e c u r s i v e . Planning d i d not precede w r i t i n g but o c c u r r e d throughout the a c t i v i t y with the amount of p l a n n i n g v a r y i n g a c c o r d i n g to the w r i t i n g task. P l anning was l a r g e l y mental r a t h e r than i n the form of w r i t t e n notes. Much of the w r i t i n g a c t i v i t y was r e c u r s i v e where the w r i t e r s reread what they had w r i t t e n and r e f o r m u l a t e d t h e i r ideas through c o r r e c t i n g , r e v i s i n g , and r e w r i t i n g them. Emig's study made another s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to r e s e a r c h on composition by i n i t i a t i n g f u r t h e r study i n t o the process of w r i t i n g . The case study approach had not been employed i n c o l l e c t i n g data f o r composition r e s e a r c h u n t i l Emig proposed examining w r i t i n g through the o b s e r v a t i o n of w r i t e r s and by an examination of a " t h i n k i n g - a l o u d " p r o t o c o l or r e c o r d of what they thought while w r i t i n g . REVIEW OF LITERATURE x o Other r e s e a r c h e r s ( M i s c h e l , 1974; Metzger, 1977; P e r l , 1978; Matsuhashi, 1981) a p p l i e d a case study method and used t h i n k i n g -aloud p r o t o c o l s to i n v e s t i g a t e the composing processes of s u b j e c t s drawn from other p o p u l a t i o n s . T h e i r f i n d i n g s supported Emig's d e s c r i p t i o n of the composing process. Mischel (1974) examined the composing process of a Black grade 12 s u b j e c t of above-average s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y . Metzger (1977) i n v e s t i g a t e d the composing processes o f four high school students and two c o l l e g e students who had f a i l e d to l e a r n to w r i t e and found t h a t although they spent a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e amount of t h e i r composing time on mechanics t h e i r composing processes had the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as those d e s c r i b e d by Emig. P e r l (1978) s t u d i e d the composing processes of f i v e u n s k i l l e d c o l l e g e w r i t e r s . Matsuhashi (1981) pr o v i d e d f u r t h e r v a l i d i t y f o r Emig's c o n c e p t i o n of the composing process through examining the composing processes of four s k i l l e d high school students' w r i t i n g i n three d i f f e r e n t modes of d i s c o u r s e . Perhaps the most i n f l u e n t i a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the composing process has been the one developed by Flower and Hayes (1981a) based on a pro b l e m - s o l v i n g model from c o g n i t i v e psychology. Not only i s t h i s model among the most e x p l i c i t i n i t s account of mental o p e r a t i o n s d u r i n g composing processes but i t has been the most widely c i t e d ( F a i g l e y , Cherry, J o l i f f e , & Skinner, 1985; H i l l o c k s , 1986; Scardamalia, 1986). The s t r e n g t h o f t h i s model l i e s i n i t s a b i l i t y to express the complexity o f the w r i t i n g process e c o n o m i c a l l y through the REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14 i n t e r a c t i o n of p l a n n i n g , t r a n s l a t i n g , and reviewing. Any one of these three subprocesses can be engaged through a c o n t r o l s t r u c t u r e or "monitor." Through t h i s c o n t r o l s t r u c t u r e , a student who i s " t r a n s l a t i n g " may switch to the p l a n n i n g subprocess. According to Flower and Hayes (1981a, 1981b) t h i s " r e c u r s i v e " f e a t u r e of the model accounts f o r the a p p a r e n t l y r e c u r r e n t aspects of w r i t i n g where one does not proceed to w r i t e i n stages of o u t l i n i n g , d r a f t i n g , and r e w r i t i n g , but attends to these tasks i n t e r m i t t e n t l y throughout the a c t of w r i t i n g . In b r i e f , s t u d i e s of the composing process i n d i c a t e that p l a n n i n g occurs throughout w r i t i n g and t h a t w r i t i n g i s a r e c u r s i v e a c t i v i t y (Emig, 1971; M i s c h e l , 1974; Metzger, 1977; P e r l , 1978; Matsuhashi, 1981). The c o g n i t i v e processes model of Flower and Hayes (1981a) has become the most widely accepted d e s c r i p t i o n of the composing process ( F a i g l e y , Cherry, J o l i f f e , & Skinner, 1985; H i l l o c k s , 1986; Scardamalia, 1986). 1.1 P l a n n i n g i n the Composing Process Flower and Hayes (1981a) t h e o r i z e t h a t p l a n n i n g i n the composing process c o n s i s t s of three subprocesses: g e n e r a t i n g ideas or content, o r g a n i z i n g the m a t e r i a l , and s e t t i n g g o als f o r the w r i t i n g task. The importance of p l a n n i n g i n the composing process has been noted by s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s ( B u r t i s , B e r e i t e r , Scardamalia, and Tetroe, 1983; Emig, 1971; Flower & Hayes, 1981b). In the case study of composing p r o c e s s e s , d e s c r i b e d i n the preceding s e c t i o n of s t u d i e s of composing, Emig (1971) found that REVIEW OF LITERATURE X J p l a n n i n g was frequent throughout the composing process. T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n was supported i n subsequent r e s e a r c h ( M i s c h e l , 1974; Metzger, 1977; P e r l , 1978; Matsuhashi, 1981). Flower and Hayes 1 (1981b) r e s e a r c h a l s o shows that p l a n n i n g occurs throughout the w r i t i n g process. The r e s e a r c h e r s analyzed the t h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s f o r three expert w r i t e r s and one novice w r i t e r . Among t h e i r f i n d i n g s were t h a t throughout the composing processes, there were episodes of p l a n n i n g which ranged from 7 seconds to 12 minutes i n l e n g t h . The r e s e a r c h e r s a l s o found that the expert w r i t e r s generated 60% of t h e i r content ideas i n response to the r h e t o r i c a l problem of w r i t i n g — m a k i n g plans to generate ideas, o r p l a n n i n g how to produce a paper. In c o n t r a s t , the novice w r i t e r generated 70% of h i s ideas i n response to e i t h e r the t o p i c assignment or to the l a s t item of content. Flower and Hayes conclude t h a t p l a n n i n g occurs throughout the composing process and that expert w r i t e r s are more e f f i c i e n t at p l a n n i n g than novice w r i t e r s because t h e i r p l a n n i n g i s d i r e c t e d toward the r h e t o r i c a l problem r a t h e r than toward s e n t e n c e - l e v e l concerns. Other s t u d i e s support the f i n d i n g t h a t u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s experience d i f f i c u l t y i n w r i t i n g due to t h e i r problems i n p l a n n i n g ( A t w e l l , 1981; Henderson, 1980; P e r l , 1979; Pianko, 1979; Warters, 1979). A t w e l l (1981) found that of 20 c o l l e g e students w r i t i n g i n a b l i n d c o n d i t i o n (where they c o u l d not read what they wrote), the 10 b a s i c w r i t e r s had the l e a s t developed of p l a n s , and were the most a f f e c t e d . Henderson (1980) analyzed the REVIEW OF LITERATURE 16 w r i t i n g processes of 12 p r o s p e c t i v e teachers and found t h a t 6 poor w r i t e r s planned l e a s t . P e r l (1979) notes that the f i v e u n s k i l l e d c o l l e g e w r i t e r s i n her study f r e q u e n t l y had d i f f i c u l t y i n p l a n n i n g . In a comparison of c o l l e g e students who were s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d at w r i t i n g , Pianko (1979) observed t h a t few students planned the content they might c o n s i d e r i n t h e i r w r i t i n g and t h a t ten remedial w r i t e r s i n the study had the l e a s t developed p l a n n i n g . Warters (1979) s t u d i e d three b a s i c w r i t e r s and one of s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y at a community c o l l e g e and found t h a t only the s u p e r i o r student showed evidence of pla n n i n g . B u r t i s , B e r e i t e r , Scardamalia, and Tetroe (1983) designed an experiment to determine whether young students had the a b i l i t y to pla n . These r e s e a r c h e r s s e l e c t e d 24 students a t random from each of grades four, s i x , and e i g h t , aged 10, 12, and 14 and d i v i d e d them i n t o three experimental c o n d i t i o n s and a c o n t r o l group. A l l of the s u b j e c t s were encouraged to p l a n while w r i t i n g a paragraph and were shown pl a n n i n g guides. Regardless of the c o n d i t i o n under which students wrote, they seemed unable to p l a n . However, the r e s e a r c h e r s found a c l e a r e f f e c t f o r age i n conceptual p l a n n i n g . Older students were more aware of the use of p l a n n i n g than younger students. The experiment was repeated with s i x undergraduates and the f i n d i n g s were that whereas 10 percent of the c h i l d r e n ' s t h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s were p l a n n i n g , 33 percent of the a d u l t s ' p r o t o c o l s were p l a n n i n g . The remaining time for both groups was spent on g e n e r a t i n g content f o r w r i t i n g and even here the a d u l t group showed more evidence of planning.-REVIEW OF LITERATURE B u r t i s §_t al_. suggest not only t h a t c h i l d r e n don't do much pl a n n i n g f o r t h e i r w r i t i n g , but t h a t t h e i r a b i l i t y to p l a n develops with age. U n t i l c h i l d r e n are o l d e r and b e t t e r able to pl a n , they make almost e x c l u s i v e use of a " k n o w l e d g e - t e l l i n g s t r a t e g y " where they write down e v e r y t h i n g they know about a s u b j e c t r e g a r d l e s s o f whether the m a t e r i a l i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r e i t h e r the w r i t i n g task or t h e i r audience. B u r t i s e t al_. conclude that young c h i l d r e n can only p l a n t e x t whereas maturer students can p l a n s t r a t e g i e s and goals to c r e a t e t e x t . P lanning i n w r i t i n g i s a developmental process. With m a t u r i t y , w r i t e r s can ask themselves q u e s t i o n s about t h e i r composing process and begin to formulate goals and problems that are more s u i t a b l e to the r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n . F urther support f o r t h i s study i s found i n other r e s e a r c h (Anderson, Smart & B e r e i t e r , 1980; B e r e i t e r & Scardamalia, 1982; Sawkins, 1971). According to B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia, c h i l d r e n i n grades four and s i x w r i t i n g o p i n i o n essays made almost e x c l u s i v e use of a "what next s t r a t e g y " where t h e i r f i r s t statement acted as a t r i g g e r f o r the next, and i t , i n t u r n , f o r another. They d i d not make up plans f o r w r i t i n g and used any suggestions f o r p l a n n i n g as prompts f o r f u r t h e r p r o d u c t i o n of t e x t . Sawkins found that of 60 f i f t h - g r a d e students i n t e r v i e w e d , l i t t l e p l a n n i n g was done and the s t o r i e s requested of them were made up as the w r i t e r s went along. As a r e s u l t of the d i f f i c u l t y t h a t young students experience i n pl a n n i n g and w r i t i n g content, Anderson, Smart & B e r e i t e r (1980) found that even the simple REVIEW OF LITERATURE ' 18 procedure of teaching students to l i s t words t h a t they thought they might use i n w r i t i n g before a c t u a l l y w r i t i n g helped them to w r i t e twice as much, to use almost three times as many uncommon words, and to use more ideas, and more e l a b o r a t e d ideas i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . Some r e s e a r c h e r s have noted the d i f f e r e n c e between the lengths of time b e t t e r w r i t e r s and poorer w r i t e r s spend on p l a n n i n g and l i n k e d t h i s with t h e i r w r i t i n g performance. In a n a t i o n a l assessment of w r i t i n g i n the U.S., Applebee, Langer, M u l l i s (1986) found t h a t while there was l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the amount of p l a n n i n g and w r i t i n g achievement fo r students i n grades f o u r , e i g h t , and eleven, those students who r e p o r t e d more p l a n n i n g , had s l i g h t l y higher l e v e l s of achievement. In summary, r e s e a r c h on p l a n n i n g i n w r i t i n g i n d i c a t e s t hat i t i s an important p a r t of the composing process ( B u r t i s , B e r e i t e r , Scardamalia, and Tetroe, 1983; Emig, 1971; Flower & Hayes, 1981). S t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s cannot p l a n w e l l ( A t w e l l , 1981; Flower and Hayes, 1981b; Henderson, 1980; P e r l , 1979; Pianko, 1979; Warters, 1979). This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s shared by young w r i t e r s ( B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia, 1982; B u r t i s §_t al_. , 1983; Sawkins, 1971). F i n a l l y , there i s l i m i t e d evidence of a l i n k between b e t t e r p l a n n i n g and b e t t e r w r i t i n g (Applebee, Langer, M u l l i s , 1986). Because young and u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s cannot p l a n w e l l , they need a s s i s t a n c e with p l a n n i n g i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . One suggested s t r a t e g y to a i d i n p l a n n i n g i s the use of w r i t i n g REVIEW OF LITERATURE ± y h e u r i s t i c s to help with g e n e r a t i n g ideas i n the w r i t i n g process (Burke, 1969; Rohman, 1965; Young, Becker, &= Pike, 1970). Research on w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i s reviewed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . 2. WRITING HEURISTICS Scardamalia and B e r e i t e r (1986), c i t i n g numerous r e s e a r c h e r s , ( C o r b e t t , 1971; Kinneavy, 1980: Winterowd, 1975; Young, Becker, & Pike, 1970, and a survey by Young, 1976), d e s c r i b e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s as the search f o r a "teachable technique f o r d i r e c t i n g and e l a b o r a t i n g thought about composition content," (p.779). Scardamalia and B e r e i t e r (1986) a l s o i d e n t i f y t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n as one of the most a c t i v e areas of composition r e s e a r c h . F a i g l e y , Cherry, J o l i f f e , and Skinner (1985) maintain t h a t every experiment they reviewed of i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s (Burns, 1979; O d e l l , 1974; Woodruff, Scardamalia & B e r e i t e r , 1981, Young & Koen, 1973) c o n t r i b u t e d to some improvement i n student w r i t i n g . W r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s may be a v a l u a b l e a i d to students i n ge n e r a t i n g ideas f o r w r i t i n g . But seldom have they been used with students. For th a t matter, two major s t u d i e s , and a p r o v i n c i a l survey i n d i c a t e t hat l i t t l e w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n of any k i n d i s undertaken i n school ( B r i t t o n , Burgess, M a r t i n , McLeod, & Rosen, 1975; Applebee, 1981, 1984a, 1984b, B.C. M i n i s t r y of Education, 1989). B r i t t o n , Burgess, M a r t i n , McLeod, and Rosen (1975) found t h a t among 500 B r i t i s h school c h i l d r e n s t u d i e d , the purpose of REVIEW OF LITERATURE 20 school w r i t i n g tasks was n e a r l y always to demonstrate that the students knew c e r t a i n f a c t s from p r e v i o u s l e s s o n s . They conclude t h a t the k i n d of w r i t i n g r e q u i r e d of students i n school t y p i c a l l y demonstrates student knowledge of course content and i s employed as e v a l u a t i o n on r e p o r t s , essays, and t e s t s . I n s o f a r as t h i s study i s concerned, there was l i t t l e w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n school because the focus of student w r i t i n g was on course content. Applebee (1981, 1984a, 1984a) reached the same c o n c l u s i o n about the w r i t i n g i n American s c h o o l s . In a two-part study i n a n a t i o n a l assessment of w r i t i n g , Applebee examined the l e s s o n s of two E n g l i s h teachers i n a u n i v e r s i t y - r u n l a b o r a t o r y school of 250 students, as w e l l as the l e s s o n s of 11 E n g l i s h teachers i n a t y p i c a l mid-western school of mixed e t h n i c i t y , and then surveyed 754 secondary school teachers of s i x d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s i n grades nine, and eleven. Applebee (1981, 1984a, 1984b) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t the focus of w r i t i n g i n school was on course work and that w r i t i n g was used f o r e v a l u a t i o n . Some 44 percent of observed c l a s s time was devoted to "paper-and-pencil a c t i v i t i e s , " but most of that time was spent i n e x e r c i s e s t h a t r e q u i r e d students to r e c o r d responses without even composing t e x t , and that only 3 percent of students' time, f o r c l a s s work or f o r homework, was spent on w r i t i n g of a paragraph or longer (1981: p.30). In a d d i t i o n , a teacher's r e a c t i o n to the completed work focused on accuracy, r a t h e r than on any development of student i d e a s , and the w r i t i n g was used REVIEW OF LITERATURE ' p r i m a r i l y f o r e v a l u a t i o n . Applebee (1981, 1984a, 1984b) a l s o found t h a t any p r e w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s undertaken i n c l a s s were minimal. These a c t i v i t i e s were o f t e n no more than an e x p l a n a t i o n of the t o p i c , and i n s t r u c t i o n s as to l e n g t h and form. Applebee concludes that there i s l i t t l e i n s t r u c t i o n i n p r e w r i t i n g i n s c h o o l . S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were obtained i n a B.C. p r o v i n c i a l assessment of the r e a d i n g and w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n of a random sample of 100,000 students i n grades 4, 7, 10. The assessment i n c l u d e d a t t i t u d e s c a l e s f o r w r i t i n g and found t h a t students engaged i n l i t t l e p r e w r i t i n g . Among the r e p o r t ' s recommendations were that students "explore, e l a b o r a t e , and extend t h e i r ideas before they begin w r i t i n g a d r a f t " (p.10). W r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s were f i r s t e v a l u a t e d as an a i d to student w r i t i n g by Lauer (1967). Lauer r a t e d the h e u r i s t i c procedures d e s c r i b e d i n composition t e x t s i n order of t h e i r u s e f u l n e s s , s i m p l i c i t y , and sequence. Lauer (1967) assesses A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p a i , Burke's pentad, and Pike's tagmeme as the most powerful of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . The f i r s t of these w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s , A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s from the Rhetor i c ( A r i s t o t l e , t r a n s . 1954), c o n s i s t s of 28 d i f f e r e n t ways i n which a s u b j e c t should be c o n s i d e r e d . As d e l i n e a t e d by D'Angelo (1984), examples of these are: o p p o s i t e s , p a r t s to whole, simple consequences, and c o n f l i c t i n g f a c t s . These 28 t o p i c s are d e s c r i b e d by Winterowd (1973) as q u e s t i o n s one might ask about a s u b j e c t i n order to say something about i t . REVIEW OF LITERATURE 22 The second of these w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i s Kenneth Burke's pentad (1969), f i v e q u e s t i o n s about the a c t , scene, agent, agency, and purpose of a g i v e n s u b j e c t . Answering such q u e s t i o n s as where something happened, what happened, who caused what happened to happen, by what means has something happened, and why something happened i s a method for a w r i t e r to thoroughly explore an idea. The t h i r d w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c i s P ike's tagmeme ( E n g l i s h , 1964; Pike, 1964a, 1964b). I t was f u r t h e r r e f i n e d by Young and Becker (1967), Young, Becker and Pike (1970). This w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c i s a 3 x 3 matrix of q u e s t i o n s which asks students to d e s c r i b e phenomena from the p e r s p e c t i v e s of a p a r t i c l e , wave, and f i e l d ; i n c o n t r a s t i v e terms; and from the p e r s p e c t i v e s of v a r i a t i o n , and d i s t r i b u t i o n . Questions are generated through the matrix. For example, a t the j u n c t i o n of " p a r t i c l e " and " v a r i a t i o n , " a student responds to the q u e s t i o n "What are the f e a t u r e s that make i t [the u n i t under a n a l y s i s ] d i f f e r e n t from s i m i l a r t h i n g s ? " (Young, Becker & P i k e , 1970, p. 127). 2.1 I n s t r u c t i o n i n W r i t i n g H e u r i s t i c s Research i n t o the i n s t r u c t i o n a l use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i n d i c a t e s mixed r e s u l t s (Dutch, 1980; Ebbert, 1980; H i l g e r s , 1980, 1981; Nugent, 1980; O d e l l , 1974; i n review. H i l l o c k s , 1986; Young & Koen, 1973). This a l s o has been p a r t l y the case with the use of computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s (Burns, 1979). Nonetheless, experimental c o n d i t i o n s and measures vary c o n s i d e r a b l y and make the r e s u l t s of t h i s r e s e a r c h hard to REVIEW OF LITERATURE *° e v a l u a t e . One of the f i r s t experimental o b s e r v a t i o n s on the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i n i n s t r u c t i o n was a study by Young and Koen (1973). These r e s e a r c h e r s found t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n i n the tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c ( E n g l i s h , 1964; Pike, 1964a, 1964b; Young, Becker & P i k e , 1970) improved the w r i t i n g of 12 c o l l e g e freshmen i n a course on r h e t o r i c . The students were taught the h e u r i s t i c through example and d i s c u s s i o n i n c l a s s . They read s t o r i e s and essays and i n classroom e x e r c i s e s a p p l i e d the h e u r i s t i c to essay t o p i c s based on these m a t e r i a l s . In one l e s s o n , for example, students might be asked to c o n t r a s t the theme of one s t o r y with another. There were three types of data i n the study. Each student kept a j o u r n a l e x p r e s s i n g f e e l i n g s about r e a d i n g , and a l s o wrote a p r e t e s t and a p o s t t e s t d u r i n g the f i r s t and l a s t weeks of the semester, r e s p e c t i v e l y . In the p r e t e s t , students l i s t e d any problems of which they p e r s o n a l l y were aware. In the p o s t t e s t , the students l i s t e d problems that came to mind about two s h o r t s t o r i e s . The r e s e a r c h e r s read the students' j o u r n a l s . The two t e s t s were judged f o r the number and kind of statements expressed. Through comparing p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t essay r e s u l t s . Young and Koen (1973) claimed t h a t by the end of the course, students showed "more s y s t e m a t i c t h i n k i n g , more c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s , and more p r e c i s e statements," suggesting b e t t e r g e n e r a t i o n of i d e a s " (p.22). However, there are l i m i t a t i o n s to c o n c l u s i o n s one may draw REVIEW OF LITERATURE 24 from t h i s study ( H i l l o c k s , 1986). Only twelve s u b j e c t s were i n v o l v e d i n the experiment. The p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t were d i f f e r e n t . For the former, students drew upon t h e i r p e r s o n a l experience to l i s t problems; on the p o s t t e s t , they r e l a t e d problems suggested by two s t o r i e s they had read. Furthermore, there was no c o n t r o l group i n the experiment so there i s no way to determine the i n f l u e n c e of time on the group, and there was no c o n t r o l f o r teacher e f f e c t . A r e l a t e d study by O d e l l (1974) of a tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c based on Pike's work (Pike, 1964a, 1964b) demonstrated a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on the w r i t i n g of 46 c o l l e g e freshmen i n two E n g l i s h c l a s s e s . O d e l l ' s c l a s s e s were taught how to use the h e u r i s t i c over ten l e s s o n s i n a twelve-week course. They used i t to e x p l o r e t h e i r readings and to formulate new ideas. The students were assigned f i v e essays o u t s i d e of c l a s s time and used the h e u r i s t i c to write on problems they saw i n l i t e r a r y works. The d i s c u s s i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of the essays took the form of w r i t t e n comments from the i n s t r u c t o r , three c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s , and two i n d i v i d u a l conferences between each student and the i n s t r u c t o r , a l l about the problems students had i d e n t i f i e d through a p p l y i n g the h e u r i s t i c to t h e i r r e a d i n g . O d e l l used no c o n t r o l group but measured students' progress a g a i n s t a s e r i e s of p r e d i c t i o n s suggested by Pike's theory (1964a, 1964b). O d e l l made three p r e d i c t i o n s about the p o s t t e s t essays of the students: t h a t students would examine data more thoroughly through performing more i n t e l l e c t u a l o p e r a t i o n s such REVIEW OF LITERATURE " as c o n t r a s t and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ; t h a t they would perform these o p e r a t i o n s more f r e q u e n t l y , t h a t t h e i r essays would be b e t t e r o r g a n i z e d , t h a t the students would support t h e i r ideas through more s p e c i f i c uses of evidence. O d e l l found t h a t students d i d not perform more of the i n t e l l e c t u a l o p e r a t i o n s but those that they d i d perform, they performed more f r e q u e n t l y . The students a l s o used more evidence i n t h e i r p o s t t e s t essays. O d e l l c a l l e d f o r r e s e a r c h i n t o the use of other w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and f o r the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s a t d i f f e r e n t academic l e v e l s . There are numerous problems with O d e l l ' s study. There i s a l a c k of a random sample, and the l a c k of a c o n t r o l group; i n a d d i t i o n , the l i m i t e d number of students i n t h i s study makes i t s r e s u l t s d i f f i c u l t to g e n e r a l i z e . Furthermore, students wrote the f i v e essays which were p a r t of the experimental treatment under the unsupervised c o n d i t i o n s of home study. Nugent (1980) compared the i n s t r u c t i o n a l use of O d e l l ' s v e r s i o n of the tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c with Rohman and Wlecke's w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c (1964). The l a t t e r h e u r i s t i c , c o n s i s t s of a s e r i e s of e x e r c i s e s to promote t h i n k i n g about the s u b j e c t matter such as p r e p a r i n g j o u r n a l e n t r i e s , and w r i t i n g a n a l o g i e s . Two c l a s s e s of c o l l e g e freshmen were s u b j e c t s f o r the experiment. Each c l a s s was taught one of the two w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s over a semester. Students wrote p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t essays which were scored u s i n g a m o d i f i e d D i e d e r i c h s c a l e . In a d d i t i o n , two students were s e l e c t e d from each c l a s s f o r p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t REVIEW OF LITERATURE 26 p r o t o c o l a n a l yses through r a t i n g t h e i r work f o r evidence of 30 d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e processes i n c l u d i n g c o n t r a s t s and a n a l o g i e s . The major f i n d i n g of t h i s study, a f t e r employing an a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e to a d j u s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n c l a s s s i z e , was t h a t a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e favoured the O d e l l group on w r i t i n g s c o r e s . A f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n from the study was that there was an i n c r e a s e i n the type and number of student c o g n i t i v e processes through the use of e i t h e r w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . The students u s i n g the Rohman and Wlecke h e u r i s t i c used a l l the c o g n i t i v e processes i d e n t i f i e d i n the study while the two students u s i n g the O d e l l h e u r i s t i c f a i l e d to use a n a l o g i e s . On the other hand, students using the O d e l l h e u r i s t i c used more c o g n i t i v e processes per word than the other group. There are weaknesses i n t h i s experiment, however, which q u a l i f y the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of i t s r e s u l t s . F i r s t , there was an absence of a c o n t r o l group. Second, there was no random assignment, and no c o n t r o l f o r teacher e f f e c t . Furthermore, only four students were s e l e c t e d f o r p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s . C r i t i c i s m of the experimental designs of the p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s was p a r t i a l l y addressed i n the work of Dutch (1980), Ebbert (1980) and H i l g e r s (1980, 1981). These three s t u d i e s compared the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and Ebbert (1980) examined the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s a t d i f f e r e n t academic l e v e l s . These s t u d i e s a l s o used l a r g e r numbers of s u b j e c t s and b e t t e r experimental c o n t r o l s making i t e a s i e r to g e n e r a l i z e from t h e i r r e s u l t s . REVIEW OF LITERATURE *' Dutch (1980) compared the use of two w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s by 144 c o l l e g e freshmen i n a 13-week. E n g l i s h course. Three s e c t i o n s of students used a t h r e e - t o - f i v e - q u e s t i o n , student-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c and two s e c t i o n s o f students used a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c developed by Larson (1968) from A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s ( t r a n s . 1954). The 85 students i n the f i r s t three s e c t i o n s developed t h e i r own w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s through d e v i s i n g three to f i v e q u e s t i o n s o u t s i d e o f c l a s s and then a p p l y i n g these to t h e i r w r i t i n g . The other 59 students used Larson's w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . Students wrote t h i r t e e n i n - c l a s s essays on s u b j e c t s g i v e n to them one week i n advance. The f i r s t two themes, of d e f i n i t i o n r e q u i r i n g w r i t t e n examples, and of i l l u s t r a t i o n s , were used as the p r e t e s t . For the p o s t t e s t , the l a s t two themes which students wrote on comparison-contrast were used. The essays were r a t e d and no d i f f e r e n c e was found between the p r e t e s t scores and p o s t t e s t s cores of the students using the Larson w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . The scores of the students u s i n g the student-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c d e c l i n e d . Dutch found that students u s i n g the Larson w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r on the p o s t t e s t essay than those who generated t h e i r own w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . There was, however, no d i f f e r e n c e between t h i s group's p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t score. Dutch's experiment s u f f e r e d from a l a c k of i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y . Some students were r e q u i r e d to work at home i n deve l o p i n g a h e u r i s t i c . T h i s i s an unsupervised s e t t i n g and i t s e f f e c t on the study i s d i f f i c u l t to gauge, l e t alone c o n t r o l , for REVIEW OF LITERATURE 28 the e f f e c t of p r a c t i c e . As w e l l . H i l l o c k s (1986) notes that p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t measures were not the same. In the former case, d e f i n i t i o n , w r i t t e n examples, and i l l u s t r a t i o n s were r e q u i r e d ; i n the l a t t e r , comparison-contrast themes. These essays were r a t e d f o r t h e i r q u a l i t y and the p o s t t e s t r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that n e i t h e r group of students showed an improvement over the p r e t e s t . Dutch r e p o r t e d t h a t the students i n the group using the Larson w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c maintained the same score as they had on the p r e t e s t while the students i n the group using w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s t h at they had developed themselves, a c t u a l l y had t h e i r scores d e c l i n e . The r e s u l t s from t h i s study seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t while one w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c might be b e t t e r than another, n e i t h e r seems to have had a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on the q u a l i t y of student wr i t i n g . Ebbert (1980) i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t of two d i f f e r e n t i n v e n t i o n h e u r i s t i c s on the w r i t i n g of s i x t h graders. S i x t h graders i n nine E n g l i s h c l a s s e s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the ten-week study. A tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c based on Young, Becker, and Pike (1970) was t e s t e d i n three c l a s s e s at one s c h o o l . Burke's pentad (1969) was used with three c l a s s e s i n another s c h o o l , and three c l a s s e s i n a t h i r d school served as the experimental c o n t r o l and worked with the l o c a l E n g l i s h c u r r i c u l u m . The three groups wrote p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t compositions which were r a t e d on a modified D i e d e r i c h s c a l e (1974) a c c o r d i n g to the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : audience a n a l y s i s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , and d e t a i l . In terms of audience a n a l y s i s , Ebbert found no d i f f e r e n c e REVIEW OF LITERATURE between the three groups. On d e t a i l , the pen t a d i c group's scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the c o n t r o l group's scores which i n t u r n were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the tagmemic group. In o r g a n i z a t i o n , the c o n t r o l group scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than e i t h e r o f the other two groups. Ebbert concludes t h a t the pentad w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c e l i c i t s d e t a i l i n student w r i t i n g . However, t h i s study f a i l e d to provide c o n t r o l f o r e i t h e r teacher e f f e c t or school e f f e c t . Each of the treatments was c o n f i n e d to a s i n g l e school and to the grade s i x teachers i n i t . In a d d i t i o n , the tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c may have been too d i f f i c u l t f o r s i x t h graders to use. This w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c was o r i g i n a l l y developed f o r use with c o l l e g e students (Young, Becker, and Pi k e , 1970). Kinney (1971) notes i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s but found i t d i f f i c u l t to use with c o l l e g e students. Katz (1984) observes that the w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c had to be s i m p l i f i e d f o r use by c o l l e g e freshmen. Winterowd (1986) used the tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c i n te a c h i n g composition c l a s s e s of c o l l e g e freshmen and comments th a t i t was so d i f f i c u l t for students to use th a t i t proved "a hinderance" (p. 43). H i l g e r s (1980, 1981) compared the use of a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c of f r e e w r i t i n g with a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c which addressed such d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s as t h e s i s , audience, and v o i c e . In t h i s study, 41 c o l l e g e students were randomly assigned to one of two experimental treatments over a three week p e r i o d . The students r e c e i v e d s i x hours i n s t r u c t i o n i n one of the two w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . A l l the students wrote an i n - c l a s s essay as a p r e t e s t REVIEW OF LITERATURE 30 and a t the end of the f i f t h c l a s s , they were r e q u i r e d to complete a take-home assignment of w r i t i n g a l e t t e r and t h i s served as a p o s t t e s t . At the end of the s i x t h c l a s s , the students were requested to complete a s e l f - r e p o r t . In the f o l l o w i n g c l a s s , the students wrote a speech as another p o s t t e s t . H i l g e r s determined that students a s s i g n e d to the fre e w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c demonstrated s u p e r i o r w r i t i n g p r o f i c i e n c y as measured by a h o l i s t i c r anking of the l e t t e r s . On the s e l f -r e p o r t , there was no consensus among students over a p a r t i c u l a r advantage i n using the fre e w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . There are s e v e r a l problems with the experiment. The p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s were d i f f e r e n t . The p r e t e s t was an essay and the p o s t t e s t was a l e t t e r which students wrote under the c o n d i t i o n s of p r i v a t e study. There was no c o n t r o l f o r teacher e f f e c t and o n l y two c l a s s e s of students were used. F i n a l l y , H i l g e r s (1980) suggests t h a t the mere q u a n t i t y of w r i t i n g done by the f r e e w r i t i n g group may have l e d to t h e i r s u p e r i o r i t y over the other group which was p r a c t i c i n g decision-making s k i l l s . Taken as a whole, s t u d i e s of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i n d i c a t e an experimental e f f e c t with t h e i r use i n i n s t r u c t i o n . However, for a number of reasons, care must be taken i n i n t e r p r e t i n g these r e s u l t s . F i r s t , there are d i f f e r e n c e s i n experimental measures: O d e l l (1974) and Young & Koen (1973) used a measurement of c o g n i t i v e processes while Burns (1979), Dutch, (1980), Ebbert (1980), H i l g e r s (1980, 1981), Nugent, (1980), S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986), and Woodruff ejt §_!_., (1981) used a h o l i s t i c assessment of REVIEW OF LITERATURE Second, the number of s t u d i e s i s small and those few s t u d i e s which have been undertaken are spread over v a r i o u s grade l e v e l s . Ebbert (1980) and Woodruff e t a l . (1981) s t u d i e d the e f f e c t s of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on the w r i t i n g of s i x t h - g r a d e r s , whereas i n a second study. Woodruff e_t al_. examined t h e i r e f f e c t on the w r i t i n g of e i g h t - g r a d e r s , and i n other s t u d i e s . Burns (1979), Dutch (1980), H i l g e r s (1980, 1981), Nugent (1980), O d e l l (1974), S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986), and Young and Koen (1973) s t u d i e d the e f f e c t s of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on the w r i t i n g of c o l l e g e freshmen. T h i r d , there have been d i f f e r e n c e s i n the type of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c used: from the use of a tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c (Burns, 1979; Ebbert, 1980; O d e l l , 1974; Nugent, 1980; Young & Koen, 1973), to Rohman and Wlecke's p r e w r i t i n g (Nugent, 1980), A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s (Burns, 1979; Dutch, 1980), the pentad (Burns, 1979; Ebbert, 1980), a student-generated h e u r i s t i c (Dutch, 1980), f r e e w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and h e u r i s t i c s a n a l y z i n g elements of d i s c o u r s e ( H i l g e r s , 1980, 1981; S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986, and f i n a l l y , a h e u r i s t i c to a s s i s t i n p l a n n i n g argument (Woodruff e_t a l . , 1981). C o n s i d e r i n g these c r i t i c i s m s , more r e s e a r c h i s needed i n t o the i n s t r u c t i o n a l use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . In a d d i t i o n , as H i l l o c k s (1986) p o i n t s out, the r e s u l t s of r e s e a r c h i n t o the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s are i n c o n c l u s i v e due to weakness i n experimental methodology. H i l l o c k s suggests f u r t h e r study with b e t t e r c o n t r o l s . 2.2 I n s t r u c t i o n i n Computer-generated W r i t i n g H e u r i s t i c s S t u d i e s of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l use of computer-generated REVIEW OF LITERATURE 32 w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s , have produced c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s (Woodruff, B e r e i t e r & Scardamalia, 1981; S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986). Burns (1979) measured the e f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n i n computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on four d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s of c o l l e g e freshmen u s i n g three d i f f e r e n t computer software programs which asked them open-ended q u e s t i o n s . The 69 v o l u n t e e r s i n t h i s experiment were g i v e n a two hour treatment on the b a s i s of the random assignment of t h e i r c l a s s to one of the four groups. One c l a s s of 19 students used a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c based on A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s ( t r a n s . 1954). A second c l a s s of 17 students used one based on Burke's pentad (1969), and a t h i r d c l a s s of 17 students used a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c based on Young, Becker and P i k e ' s tagmemic d i s c o v e r y approach (1970). The s u b j e c t s i n these three groups were a l s o g i v e n a 30-minute p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n i n which to use the computer and preview t h e i r w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . A f o u r t h c l a s s of 16 students was the c o n t r o l group and r e c e i v e d l e c t u r e s on c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g i n s t e a d of i n s t r u c t i o n i n computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . In a 15-minute p r e t e s t , s u b j e c t s were asked to make a composition p l a n and l i s t as many of t h e i r ideas as p o s s i b l e . For the p o s t t e s t , a d m i n i s t e r e d one week l a t e r , the s u b j e c t s i n the experimental groups were g i v e n 30 minutes with the computer-generated h e u r i s t i c to help them to develop t h e i r ideas while the s u b j e c t s w r i t i n g i n the c o n t r o l group were gi v e n 30 minutes of c l a s s time to develop t h e i r ideas. F o l l o w i n g K i n t s c h ' s p r e p o s i t i o n a l system (1974), composition REVIEW OF LITERATURE plans were scored f o r the number of ideas i n them. The p r e t e s t scores of a l l four groups were doubled f o r comparison with the p o s t t e s t scores i n order to allow f o r d i f f e r e n c e i n p l a n n i n g time. Counts were made of the number of times the students i n the experimental groups answered a q u e s t i o n generated by the computer program and the number of times they extended t h e i r answers. The students u s i n g the computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s were a l s o g i v e n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The students' composition plans were a l s o g i v e n a h o l i s t i c r a t i n g f o r t h e i r q u a l i t y a c c o r d i n g to four f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e s of f a c t u a l i t y , s u r p r i s e value, i n s i g h t f u l n e s s ; comprehensiveness, i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o c e s s i n g , and o v e r a l l s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . There were no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the experimental groups on any of the experimental measures. The experimental groups scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the c o n t r o l group on the number of ideas on the p o s t t e s t . Subjects i n the c o n t r o l group d e c l i n e d from the p r e t e s t to p o s t t e s t i n the number of ideas c r e a t e d . D i f f e r e n c e s between experimental groups were i n favour of the group u s i n g the A r i s t o t e l i a n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . In terms of answering t h e i r q u e s t i o n s , students i n t h i s group answered them 97.25 percent of the time and extended t h e i r answers 90.02 1 percent of the time. The students i n the group using Burke's w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c answered t h e i r q u e s t i o n s 91.24 percent of the time and e l a b o r a t e d t h e i r answers 69.25 percent of the time. Subjects i n the t h i r d experimental group (which used the tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c ) answered t h e i r q u e s t i o n s 92.28 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 34 percent o f the time and s u p p l i e d a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 77.73 percent o f the time. On the w r i t i n g s c a l e s f o r i n s i g h t f u l n e s s , comprehensiveness, i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y , and o v e r a l l q u a l i t y , a h o l i s t i c e v a l u a t i o n of the essays showed s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t q u a l i t a t i v e gains were a l s o made by students i n the experimental groups, with a s l i g h t l y b e t t e r performance by the students i n the group using the A r i s t o t e l i a n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . Students i n the experimental groups a l s o showed a p o s i t i v e o v e r a l l a t t i t u d e toward computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . Burns concludes that computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s may help students " a r t i c u l a t e , r e f i n e , and preserve t h e i r i d e a s " (1979: p . l ) . Burns employed b e t t e r experimental c o n t r o l s than many of the other s t u d i e s i n t h i s area. To a l a r g e extent, the b r e v i t y o f the experiment, and the use of computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r o l l e d for teacher e f f e c t . The measures i n the study examined new aspects o f the e f f e c t s o f w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on student w r i t i n g - - g e n e r a t i o n o f ideas, and the degree of e l a b o r a t i o n i n student answers. One problem with t h i s experiment i s t h a t the c o n t r o l group had no access to computers. The r e s u l t i n g comparison would have e s t a b l i s h e d a d i f f e r e n c e between the use of computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and the use of computers. In a study of 72 c o l l e g e freshmen i n four c l a s s e s , S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986) compared two d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and the use of a computer to generate each one of them. The f i r s t REVIEW OF LITERATURE J J h e u r i s t i c c o n s i s t e d of a s e r i e s of que s t i o n s r e l a t i n g to d i s c o u r s e f e a t u r e s such as t h e s i s , audience, and v o i c e . The second h e u r i s t i c was a s e r i e s of f r e e w r i t i n g techniques. Each c l a s s was assi g n e d to one of four groups--to a group u s i n g the f i r s t h e u r i s t i c , a group u s i n g the second h e u r i s t i c , a group using a computer-generated v e r s i o n o f the f i r s t h e u r i s t i c , or a group using a computer-generated v e r s i o n of the second. Students worked on t h e i r h e u r i s t i c s weekly over an e n t i r e semester. The data f o r the experiment were p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t essays, and a h e u r i s t i c e x e r c i s e w r i t t e n before the p o s t t e s t . Essay scores were a h o l i s t i c q u a l i t y r a t i n g and an idea count. A comparison was made between the number of ideas generated by the h e u r i s t i c e x e r c i s e and the number a c t u a l l y used i n the p o s t t e s t . S t r i c k l a n d found no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among any of the groups on e i t h e r the h o l i s t i c assessment or the idea count. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , however, i n the performance of the four groups on the h e u r i s t i c e x e r c i s e . The students i n the group which used fre e w r i t i n g techniques used a higher percentage of t h e i r ideas i n t h e i r w r i t i n g than the students who were working with a s y s t e m a t i c w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . The students i n the l a t t e r group produced many more ideas than they were able to use i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . The use of computers i n the other two groups d i d not prove s i g n i f i c a n t . S t r i c k l a n d suggests that the ideas produced f o r f r e e w r i t i n g are probably e a s i e r to i n t e g r a t e i n t o a new t e x t than those produced through a REVIEW OF LITERATURE 36 s y s t e m a t i c procedure. S t r i c k l a n d e x p l a i n s the d i f f e r e n c e s between the r e s u l t s of t h i s study and that of Burns as due to computer access and to the measures employed by Burns. The p o s t t e s t was 15 minutes longer than the p r e t e s t and S t r i c k l a n d c l a i m s that t h i s d i f f e r e n c e favoured the experimental groups. L i s t i n g ideas i s b i a s e d toward the students answering the s y s t e m a t i c q u e s t i o n s generated by the computer. Weaknesses i n S t r i c k l a n d ' s study are a f a i l u r e to c o n t r o l f o r teacher e f f e c t — t w o d i f f e r e n t teachers being used to examine four d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s — a n d a f a i l u r e to randomly a s s i g n s u b j e c t s to treatments. Woodruff, B e r e i t e r , and Scardamalia (1981) examined the use of computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with elementary school students. S i x males and s i x females who were randomly s e l e c t e d from two c l a s s e s used computer software t h a t o f f e r e d help with p l a n n i n g an argument. The program a l s o o f f e r e d a s s i s t a n c e with word c h o i c e , and s p e l l i n g . The s u b j e c t s p r a c t i c e d u s i n g the computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c f o r one and a h a l f hours. W r i t i n g an argument served as the p r e t e s t and as the p o s t t e s t . The s u b j e c t s wrote a one-hour p r e t e s t using p e n c i l and paper. Then the s u b j e c t s wrote a one-hour p o s t t e s t u s i n g the computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . The data f o r the study was analyzed through a word count of the p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s , a h o l i s t i c assessment of these t e s t s on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e , and post hoc i n t e r v i e w s of the students. REVIEW OF LITERATURE J / Woodruff e t al_. found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n e i t h e r the q u a n t i t y or q u a l i t y of student w r i t i n g . The i n t e r v i e w s r e v e a l e d t h a t while 75 percent of the s u b j e c t s f e l t t h a t they c o u l d w r i t e b e t t e r using computers, only 33.3 percent thought they had a c t u a l l y w r i t t e n a b e t t e r composition. The r e s e a r c h e r s suggest t h a t students were not s u c c e s s f u l i n using the program because of the c o g n i t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of p l a n n i n g w r i t i n g at t h e i r age. Weaknesses i n the study are the small number of s u b j e c t s and the b r e v i t y of the i n t e r v e n t i o n . In a second study of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s , Woodruff, B e r e i t e r , and Scardamalia (1981) randomly s e l e c t e d e i g h t e e n males and e i g h t e e n females from three grade e i g h t c l a s s e s . These s u b j e c t s were r o t a t e d between three d i f f e r e n t experimental c o n d i t i o n s and wrote a one-hour essay i n each one. The f i r s t experimental c o n d i t i o n used a computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c which posed que s t i o n s to the s u b j e c t s at the end of each sentence, prompting the students to c o n s i d e r the r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n more thoroughly. The second experimental c o n d i t i o n employed a word p r o c e s s i n g package to c o n t r o l f o r the e f f e c t of computer use. The t h i r d experimental c o n d i t i o n c o n s i s t e d of a paper and p e n c i l w r i t i n g c o n d i t i o n . The experimental data c o n s i s t e d of the compositions w r i t t e n d u r i n g the treatment and c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s . I t was analyzed through a word count, a h o l i s t i c r a t i n g of the essays on an e i g h t - p o i n t s c a l e , and post hoc i n t e r v i e w s of the s u b j e c t s . There was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between REVIEW OF LITERATURE 38 groups f o r the number of words produced or f o r q u a l i t y . The students ranked t h e i r paper-and-pencil essays as the best w r i t i n g and the essays w r i t t e n with the computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c as the worst but found w r i t i n g with paper-and-pencil to be the hardest c o n d i t i o n and w r i t i n g with the program to be the e a s i e s t c o n d i t i o n . The r e s e a r c h e r s a l s o noted that although only 11 percent of the s u b j e c t s thought about the kinds of q u e s t i o n s the computer posed d u r i n g t h e i r w r i t i n g , two-thirds f e l t they would i n f u t u r e . Woodruff §_t al_. suggest t h a t using the computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c f o r c e d the s u b j e c t s to develop a new w r i t i n g s t r a t e g y which helped them, but a l s o made i t more d i f f i c u l t f o r them to use t h e i r former w r i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s e f f i c i e n t l y . The study leaves unresolved the c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n of whether the s t udents' w r i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s might improve with i n c r e a s e d f a m i l i a r i t y with computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . The r e s u l t s of the small number of s t u d i e s of computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s are i n c o n s i s t e n t and c o n t r a d i c t o r y . Burns (1979) found t h a t h e u r i s t i c s enabled c o l l e g e freshmen to produce more ideas. Woodruff, B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1981) found no improvement i n e i t h e r the q u a n t i t y or q u a l i t y of the w r i t i n g of elementary school c h i l d r e n and j u n i o r high school students through the use of h e u r i s t i c s . S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986) found t h a t w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s were more e f f e c t i v e when not generated by computer. Such d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s are not s u r p r i s i n g g i v e n major d i f f e r e n c e s between s t u d i e s . F i r s t , the w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s v a r i e d REVIEW OF LITERATURE J y i n type: f o r example, the use of elements of p e r s u a s i v e d i s c o u r s e (Woodruff §_t al_. , 1981), versus f r e e w r i t i n g techniques ( S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986). Second, experimental tasks c a l l e d f o r d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s of w r i t i n g s k i l l s ; f o r example, p r e p a r i n g a h e u r i s t i c e x e r c i s e ( S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986) and w r i t i n g a composition (Woodruff et. al_. , 1981). T h i r d , the s u b j e c t s were of d i f f e r e n t ages such as the s i x t h graders i n the f i r s t study by Woodruff e_t al.. (1981) and the c o l l e g e freshmen i n Burns' (1979) study. Fourth, the s t u d i e s used d i f f e r e n t treatment p e r i o d s of i n s t r u c t i o n : for example, no i n s t r u c t i o n but a t e s t - r e t e s t under d i f f e r e n t experimental c o n d i t i o n s (Woodruff §_t al_. , 1981), a two — hour-length treatment (Burns, 1979) or a semester-length treatment ( S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986). O v e r a l l , r e s e a r c h i n t o the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s suggests t h a t they a i d students i n g e n e r a t i n g ideas (Burns, 1979; Nugent, 1980; O d e l l , 1974; Young & Koen, 1973). There i s a l s o some support f o r the use of h e u r i s t i c s i n improving the q u a l i t y o f s t u d ents' w r i t i n g (Burns, 1979; H i l g e r s , 1980, 1981). Apparently c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s have been made about the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with young c h i l d r e n . Ebbert (1980) found t h a t h e u r i s t i c s helped younger students w r i t e with more d e t a i l . In c o n t r a s t , however, i n two s t u d i e s . Woodruff e t a l . , (1981) found that h e u r i s t i c s d i d not help younger students i n i n c r e a s i n g the q u a n t i t y of t h e i r work or i n improving i t s q u a l i t y . The d i f f e r e n c e i n these r e s u l t s can be e x p l a i n e d through the treatment and the l e n g t h of time i n each study. Ebbert's REVIEW OF LITERATURE 40 c o n t r o l group d i d not do as much w r i t i n g as her experimental groups as the former group worked on the l o c a l c u r r i c u l u m and the l a t t e r group on the pentad which i s a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c designed to i n c r e a s e students' d e s c r i p t i v e w r i t i n g . As f o r d i f f e r e n t l e n gths of the treatment time i n each experiment, the s u b j e c t s worked on using t h e i r h e u r i s t i c s over an e n t i r e semester, and i n the f i r s t of the two s t u d i e s by Woodruff et_ al_. , the treatment p e r i o d was one and a h a l f hours while i n the second study, there was no treatment p e r i o d j u s t an experimental c o n d i t i o n where students used a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . 3. RESEARCH ON WRITTEN INSTRUCTION IN A SECOND LANGUAGE The t r a d i t i o n a l approach to w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n E.S.L. has focused on teaching students grammar. Numerous r e s e a r c h e r s i n the f i e l d of E.S.L. have documented the p r e o c c u p a t i o n with c o r r e c t language use i n t e a c h i n g composition (Diaz, 1986; Jones & Tetroe, 1987; L i n g , 1986; Raimes, 1979, 1985; S i l v a , 1987; T a y l o r , 1981; Zamel, 1976, 1982, 1983). Consequently, w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n E.S.L. has been almost e x c l u s i v e l y concerned with e r r o r (Cumming, 1983). Reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e , Zamel (1983) notes t h a t E.S.L. w r i t i n g has been taught as i f c o r r e c t language usage were more important than communication. C o r r e c t language use has taken p r i o r i t y over w r i t i n g concerns such as the content of student communication and awareness of the student's c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . These same pedagogical assumptions were once p r e v a l e n t i n composition i n s t r u c t i o n i n a f i r s t language, grammar i n s t r u c t i o n being viewed as an a i d to w r i t i n g although i t s value REVIEW OF LITERATURE was never s u b s t a n t i a t e d (Applebee, 1984a; Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer, 1963; E l l e y , 1976; H a r r i s , 1962; Sherwin, 1969). Recently, i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n the f i e l d of E.S.L. have drawn comparisons between the w r i t i n g processes of E.S.L. students and those students f o r whom E n g l i s h i s a f i r s t language (Arendt, 1987; Cumming, 1988; Diaz, 1986; Edelsky, 1982; G a s k i l l , 1984; G a s k i l l , 1986; Heuring, 1984; Jones, 1982; Lay, 1982; Raimes, 1985, Zamel, 1983). As a r e s u l t , there has been a r e - d i r e c t i o n of the r e s e a r c h i n E.S.L. to the study o f the w r i t i n g processes of students i n a second language. 3.1 Studi e s of Composing Processes While f i n d i n g s of p r o c e s s - c e n t e r e d s t u d i e s and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s for the classroom are prominent i n the c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e on the te a c h i n g of w r i t i n g i n a f i r s t language, r e s e a r c h i n t o the composing processes of E.S.L. students has been l i m i t e d . In l a r g e p a r t , t h i s has been due to the nature of ed u c a t i o n f o r E.S.L. students which makes i t d i f f i c u l t to c o n t r o l f o r p o t e n t i a l l y i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s (Cumming, 1988). I n s t r u c t i o n i s undertaken i n c l a s s e s with students of d i f f e r e n t ages, with d i f f e r e n t n a t i v e languages, and v a r i e d e d u c a t i o n a l and c u l t u r a l backgrounds. As a r e s u l t , r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d has been l a r g e l y c o n f i n e d to case s t u d i e s based on the t h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s o f E.S.L. students. These s t u d i e s o f the w r i t i n g processes of E.S.L. students i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i r composing s t r a t e g i e s are the same as those of students w r i t i n g i n a f i r s t language (Arendt, 1987; Cumming, 1988; Edelsky, 1982; G a s k i l l , 1986; Jones & Tetroe, REVIEW OF LITERATURE 42 1987; Lay, 1982; Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1982, 1983). This s i m i l a r i t y i s found r e g a r d l e s s of whether the E.S.L. students were s k i l l e d i n using E n g l i s h as a second language (Arendt, 1987; Cumming, 1988; G a s k i l l , 1986; Jones & Tetroe, 1987; Zamel, 1982, 1983), were u n s k i l l e d c o l l e g e students (Cumming, 1988; G a s k i l l , 1986; Lay, 1987; Raimes, 1985), or even u n s k i l l e d and very young (Edelsky, 1982). Zamel (1982) s t u d i e d e i g h t p r o f i c i e n t E.S.L. students (one Japanese, one H i s p a n i c , two A r a b i c , two I t a l i a n , and two Greek), who had s u c c e s s f u l l y completed E.S.L. courses a t u n i v e r s i t y . The data c o n s i s t e d of s e l f r e p o r t s of t h e i r w r i t i n g behaviour. Zamel found t h a t students d e s c r i b e d the same k i n d of a c t i v i t i e s as w r i t e r s i n a f i r s t language. Zamel (1983) c o r r o b o r a t e d these f i n d i n g s i n a second study of the w r i t i n g process of s i x s k i l l e d E.S.L. students. The s i x s u b j e c t s who had Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Hebrew, and P e r s i a n as f i r s t languages, were observed as they wrote an essay ass i g n e d i n c l a s s . F u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n was obtained through d i s c u s s i o n with the students a f t e r the w r i t i n g s e s s i o n s . Zamel found t h a t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s i n w r i t i n g s k i l l between the E.S.L. students i n the study, a l l of them engaged i n such c o g n i t i v e behaviours as r e r e a d i n g t h e i r work and making d e c i s i o n s about t h e i r w r i t i n g . In a d d i t i o n , the s k i l l e d E.S.L. w r i t e r s i n the study e x p l o r e d and c l a r i f i e d t h e i r ideas f i r s t , and attended to l a n g u a g e - r e l a t e d concerns afterward which i s e x a c t l y what has been found i n r e s e a r c h on students w r i t i n g i n a REVIEW OF LITERATURE f i r s t language ( P e r l 1979, 1980). G a s k i l l (1986) examined the composing and r e v i s i n g behaviours of four E.S.L. students who were n a t i v e speakers of Spanish. The s u b j e c t s who were c a t e g o r i z e d as "more p r o f i c i e n t " or " l e s s p r o f i c i e n t " wrote an argumentative essay i n Spanish and one i n E n g l i s h over two 90-minute w r i t i n g s e s s i o n s for the p i e c e i n each language. The s u b j e c t s were videotaped while they were t h i n k i n g - a l o u d . G a s k i l l found that r e g a r d l e s s of which language they were u s i n g , students' composing behaviours were the same. Arendt (1987) i n v e s t i g a t e d the composing processes of s i x Chinese graduate students who were i n her E.S.L. course. The s u b j e c t s wrote a one-hour composition i n Chinese and one i n E n g l i s h . Regardless of language, each student's composing process was the same. Arendt observes that s t udents' c h i e f problems were c r e a t e d by "the c o n s t r a i n t s of the composing a c t i v i t y " r a t h e r than simply language d i f f i c u l t i e s (p. 258). These c o n s t r a i n t s were an inadequate awareness of the demands of language p r o d u c t i o n , l a c k of s e l f - e x a m i n a t i o n as w r i t e r s , l a c k of awareness of t h e i r audience, and i n s u f f i c i e n t e v a l u a t i o n of the d e v e l o p i n g t e x t . Jones and Tetroe (1987) examined the w r i t i n g of s i x Spanish-speaking graduate students who were l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as a second language i n an i n t e n s i v e nine-month course. In November, the s u b j e c t s wrote two p i e c e s i n E n g l i s h and one i n Spanish. They d i d the same i n February. In A p r i l , they wrote four p i e c e s i n E n g l i s h , and two i n Spanish. T h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s were REVIEW OF LITERATURE 44 produced c o n c u r r e n t l y with each p i e c e . These p r o t o c o l s were analyzed to determine the t o p i c s , the meaning or " g i s t " of the paper, u n i t s of the g i s t , m a n i p u l a t i o n of the elements of the genre such as the i n t r o d u c t i o n , or arguments, and w r i t i n g i n t e n t i o n s . A h o l i s t i c assessment was a l s o done on the essays. The r e s e a r c h e r s found that although second-language p r o f i c i e n c y a f f e c t s the q u a l i t y of a t e x t , i t has " l i t t l e r o l e i n c o n s t r a i n i n g the p l a n n i n g process" (p. 55). Cumming (1988) assessed 23 Francophone students st u d y i n g at a b i l i n g u a l u n i v e r s i t y f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p of w r i t i n g e x p e r t i s e i n a f i r s t language with w r i t i n g performance i n a second language. Students at three l e v e l s of w r i t i n g e x p e r t i s e and two l e v e l s of second language p r o f i c i e n c y p r o v i d e d t h i n k i n g - a l o u d data as they performed three w r i t i n g tasks i n E n g l i s h — a n i n f o r m a l l e t t e r , an e x p o s i t o r y argument, and a summary. The p r o t o c o l s were t r a n s c r i b e d and r a t e d f o r content, d i s c o u r s e o r g a n i z a t i o n , and language use. The p r o t o c o l s were a l s o coded for f i v e aspects of decision-making d u r i n g composing: language use, d i s c o u r s e o r g a n i z a t i o n , g i s t , i n t e n t i o n s , procedures f o r w r i t i n g . A t h i r d a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e d coding the p r o t o c o l f o r s i x problem-s o l v i n g behaviours: engaging i n a search r o u t i n e , d i r e c t e d t r a n s l a t i o n , g e n e r a t i n g and a s s e s s i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s , a s s e s s i n g i n a r e l a t i o n to a standard, r e l a t i n g p a r t s to a whole, and s e t t i n g a g o a l . Cumming found t h a t s u b j e c t s with the g r e a t e s t w r i t i n g e x p e r t i s e and the g r e a t e s t p r o f i c i e n c y i n E.S.L. r e c e i v e d the REVIEW OF LITERATURE hi g h e s t r a t i n g s on a l l t h e i r compositions, p a r t i c u l a r l y on the more c o g n i t i v e l y demanding tasks of w r i t i n g an e x p o s i t o r y argument and w r i t i n g a summary. Subjects with g r e a t e r w r i t i n g e x p e r t i s e and l e s s language a b i l i t y scored lower, but demonstrated the same decision-making s k i l l s i n the second language as the previous s u b j e c t s . U n s k i l l e d E.S.L. w r i t e r s , r e g a r d l e s s of language p r o f i c i e n c y , showed the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s i n a f i r s t language. They planned from one phrase to the next r a t h e r than i n terms of the e n t i r e d i s c o u r s e and t h e i r c h i e f concern with language was not f o r meaning but f o r grammatical accuracy. Cumming concludes t h a t composing i n a second language does not appear to be a f f e c t e d by second-language p r o f i c i e n c y . W r i t e r s with s u p e r i o r second language e x p e r t i s e w i l l produce b e t t e r t e x t s i n a second language but w r i t e r s a t a l l l e v e l s of a b i l i t y and language e x p e r t i s e use s t r a t e g i e s t y p i c a l of w r i t e r s i n a f i r s t language. Lay (1982) examined the w r i t i n g processes of two u n s k i l l e d Chinese E.S.L. students as they wrote about an essay i n t h e i r n a t i v e language and then i n E n g l i s h . Lay notes that many of the s t r a t e g i e s used by students w r i t i n g i n a f i r s t language are the same f o r students w r i t i n g i n a second language, i n c l u d i n g r e r e a d i n g t o p i c s , r e c u r s i v e w r i t i n g behaviours, r e - e v a l u a t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n , and e d i t i n g . Raimes (1985) s t u d i e d the w r i t i n g of u n s k i l l e d a d u l t E.S.L. s t u d e n t s — f o u r Chinese, two Greek, one Spanish, and one Burmese student. Subjects provided t h i n k i n g - a l o u d data while performing a REVIEW OF LITERATURE 46 n a r r a t i v e task. The essays were h o l i s t i c a l l y scored, and the w r i t e r s a l s o answered a 12-page q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and responded to h e a r i n g the r e c o r d i n g of t h e i r t h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s . As i n the case of students w r i t i n g i n a f i r s t language, the E.S.L. students c a r r i e d out such composing a c t i v i t i e s as r e a d i n g , r e h e a r s i n g , and pausing, and engaged i n l i t t l e p r e w r i t i n g . Raimes concludes t h a t even students whose work i s judged i n s u f f i c i e n t for academic course work, "generate language and ideas i n the same way as more p r o f i c i e n t students" (p.250). Edelsky (1982) s t u d i e d the w r i t i n g of students i n three primary c l a s s e s a t three grade l e v e l s i n a b i l i n g u a l (Spanish-E n g l i s h ) program. The classroom w r i t i n g of nine f i r s t - g r a d e r s , nine second-graders, and e i g h t t h i r d - g r a d e r s with l i t t l e f l u e n c y i n E n g l i s h was c o l l e c t e d four times d u r i n g one year. The w r i t i n g was analyzed f o r code s w i t c h i n g , invented s p e l l i n g s , language conventions such as p u n c t u a t i o n , s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s of d i s c o u r s e such as beginnings and endings, f e a t u r e s such as c h a r a c t e r s or s e t t i n g , and r a t e r s ' impressions of q u a l i t y . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t these aspects of language were found i n students' w r i t i n g r e g a r d l e s s of which of the two languages they were usi n g . Edelsky observed t h a t what a young c h i l d knows about w r i t i n g - i n a f i r s t language forms the b a s i s of knowledge i n a second language. St u d i e s of E.S.L. st u d e n t s ' composing processes i n d i c a t e t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y to those of students w r i t i n g i n a f i r s t language (Arendt, 1987; Cumming 1988; Edelsky, 1982; Jones & Tetroe, 1987; Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1982, 1983). However, Cumming (1988) and REVIEW OF LITERATURE Raimes (1985) each c a u t i o n t h a t second language l e a r n e r s may have to be a t a s u f f i c i e n t l e v e l of p r o f i c i e n c y to s u s t a i n the w r i t i n g performance r e q u i r e d of them. Zamel (1982) a s s e r t s t h a t case s t u d i e s of the w r i t i n g processes of E.S.L. students suggest t e a c h i n g composition i n ways t h a t "E.S.L. teachers may have f e l t were only a p p r o p r i a t e for n a t i v e speakers" (p. 203). 3.2 W r i t i n g I n s t r u c t i o n i n H e u r i s t i c s One of the t e a c h i n g approaches suggested f o r i n s t r u c t i n g E.S.L. students i n w r i t i n g i s the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s (Cumming, 1988; Daubney-Davis, 1982a, 1982b, 1982c; Leibman-K l e i n e , 1987; McKay, 1981; Spack, 1984; Zamel, 1982, 1983). Zamel (1982) notes t h a t E.S.L. students are seldom provided with a s s i s t a n c e i n composing. Studying the composing processes of s i x advanced E.S.L. w r i t e r s , Zamel (1983) suggests that teachers i n t r o d u c e w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i n t o classroom work: When students are i n c a p a b l e of g e n e r a t i n g l i s t s or notes which seemed to be the case f o r the l e a s t s k i l l e d w r i t e r i n t h i s study, classroom time needs to be devoted to b r a i n s t o r m i n g ( e i t h e r o r a l or w r i t t e n ) and the development of p r e w r i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s . . . ( p . 182) A d d i t i o n a l support f o r the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s comes from Spack (1984), G a s k i l l (1986), and Cumming (1988). Spack r e p o r t s t h a t the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i n her c l a s s e s helped students to t h i n k and write a t the same time and that they l e a r n e d how to express t h e i r ideas f r e e l y without regard f o r essay form. G a s k i l l REVIEW OF LITERATURE 48 concludes t h a t the l e s s p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s i n h i s study would b e n e f i t from i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c because they needed s t r a t e g i e s t h a t would help them to generate and develop t h e i r ideas. In a study of the w r i t i n g processes of 23 Francophones, Cumming (1988) found that the most s k i l l e d o f the E.S.L. w r i t e r s had the most e f f e c t i v e h e u r i s t i c searches f o r the content of t h e i r w r i t i n g . Yet only one study has examined the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i n the w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n of E.S.L. students. Leibman-Kleine (1987) conducted an ethnographic study of the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s by 48 E.S.L. students i n three s e c t i o n s of a 16-week freshman composition course. The data c o n s i s t e d of stud e n t s ' papers, notebooks, comments on h e u r i s t i c s , and the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a Myer-Briggs Type I n d i c a t o r p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t to d e s c r i b e the st u d e n t s ' l e a r n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The r e s u l t s of the p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t i n d i c a t e d some c o r r e l a t i o n between p e r s o n a l i t y type, e t h n i c i t y , and preference f o r a type of h e u r i s t i c . Leibman-Kleine expresses r e s e r v a t i o n s about the use of the tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c , the pentad, or A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s because the s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study who were predominantly Middle E a s t e r n or Malaysian p r e f e r r e d u s i n g t r e e i n g techniques. However, the i n f o r m a l nature of t h i s study, the d i f f i c u l t y of a s s e s s i n g e t h n i c i t y as a confounding f a c t o r , and a l a c k of i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the type of i n s t r u c t i o n make i t d i f f i c u l t to assess these f i n d i n g s . In a d d i t i o n , Leibman-Kleine's advocacy of the use of t r e e i n g as a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c has not been REVIEW OF LITERATURE ^ researched f u r t h e r . No study e x i s t s of i t i n e i t h e r E n g l i s h as a f i r s t language, or f o r that matter, as a second language. In summary, there i s support f o r r e s e a r c h i n t o the i n s t r u c t i o n a l use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with E.S.L. students. F i r s t , a c c o r d i n g to s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s , there are s i m i l a r i t i e s between the w r i t i n g processes o f students i n a f i r s t language and E.S.L. students (Arendt, 1987; Cumming, 1988; Edelsky, 1982; G a s k i l l , 1986; Jones & Tetroe, 1987; Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1982, 1983). Second, by i m p l i c a t i o n , because of these s i m i l a r i t i e s , w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n which has been s u c c e s s f u l with n a t i v e speakers of E n g l i s h should prove u s e f u l with E.S.L. students. Numerous r e s e a r c h e r s i n the f i e l d of E.S.L. have c a l l e d f o r t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n (Cumming, 1988; Daubney-Davis, 1982a, 1982b, 1982c; G a s k i l l , 1986; Leibman-Kleine, 1987; McKay, 1981; Spack, 1984; Zamel, 1982, 1983). The one study of the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with E.S.L. students (Leibman-Kleine, 1987) was ethnographic i n nature and expressed r e s e r v a t i o n s about t h e i r use. F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed to e s t a b l i s h the u t i l i t y and l i m i t a t i o n s of i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i n a second language. C o n s i d e r i n g p o t e n t i a l language d i f f i c u l t i e s with w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the present study used a s i m p l i f i e d v e r s i o n of them. 4. SUMMARY AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY In summary, the background to t h i s study e s t a b l i s h e s p l a n n i n g as an important p a r t of the w r i t i n g process and a c o n s i d e r a b l e problem faced by students when they are w r i t i n g . REVIEW OF LITERATURE 50 Emig (1971) observed that p l a n n i n g occurs throughout the w r i t i n g process. Flower and Hayes (1981b) conclude that novice w r i t e r s are poor planners because they d i r e c t t h e i r a t t e n t i o n to s e n t e n c e - l e v e l concerns r a t h e r than to the r h e t o r i c a l problem. B u r t i s e t a l . (1983) found t h a t c h i l d r e n and u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s have d i f f i c u l t y p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g i e s and g o als to c r e a t e t e x t . A review of the l i t e r a t u r e suggests i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s as a p o t e n t i a l a i d to students w r i t i n g i n E n g l i s h as a f i r s t language. Young and Koen (1973) found that w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s enhanced s t u d e n t s ' t h i n k i n g about w r i t i n g . O d e l l ' s (1974) s u b j e c t s performed c e r t a i n i n t e l l e c t u a l o p e r a t i o n s more f r e q u e n t l y . Nugent (1980) had s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s . Ebbert (1980) found t h a t w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s helped students to w r i t e u s i n g more d e t a i l . H i l g e r s (1980, 1981) found improvement i n w r i t i n g through the use of h e u r i s t i c s . Burns (1979) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t students who employed a computer-generated h e u r i s t i c produced more ideas and improved the q u a l i t y of t h e i r work. S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986) found that s u b j e c t s who were us i n g a h e u r i s t i c used a l a r g e r p o r t i o n of t h e i r ideas i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . D i f f e r e n t but not incompatible f i n d i n g s were made by Dutch (1980) and Woodruff e t a l . (1981). The former noted a s l i g h t d e c l i n e i n w r i t i n g q u a l i t y a f t e r students had been taught a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c . The experimental measures on the p o s t t e s t , however, were d i f f e r e n t than on the p r e t e s t and, as Matsuhashi (1981) notes, c e r t a i n types of p l a n n i n g i n an essay such as d e v i s i n g s t r a t e g i e s f o r g e n e r a l i z i n g or persuading are more REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5 i d i f f i c u l t and time-consuming than o t h e r s . In the l a t t e r case. Woodruff e t a l . probably found that w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s d i d n ' t help the c h i l d r e n and young a d u l t s i n t h e i r two s t u d i e s because the c o g n i t i v e demands of pl a n n i n g d u r i n g w r i t i n g are too d i f f i c u l t a t t h e i r ages. This i s suggested by f u r t h e r experiments on p l a n n i n g among c h i l d r e n by B u r t i s e t a l . (1983), c i t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter i n the s e c t i o n o f p l a n n i n g i n the composing process. I t appears that the composing processes of E.S.L. students are s i m i l a r to those of students f o r whom E n g l i s h i s a f i r s t language. Zamel (1982) found t h a t E.S.L. students p r o f i c i e n t i n E n g l i s h r e p o r t e d the same composing processes as n a t i v e speakers of E n g l i s h . Zamel (1983) noted the same w r i t i n g behaviours as n a t i v e speakers among E.S.L. students who developed t h e i r ideas f i r s t and then attended to l a n g u a g e - r e l a t e d concerns afterward. Raimes (1985) concludes t h a t even u n s k i l l e d E.S.L. w r i t e r s generate w r i t t e n language i n the same way as students who were p r o f i c i e n t i n the language. Edelsky (1982) found t h a t what young c h i l d r e n know about w r i t i n g i n one language forms the b a s i s of t h e i r knowledge i n another language. G a s k i l l (1986), Arendt (1987), and Jones and Tetroe (1987) found t h a t w r i t e r s have the same composing processes i n e i t h e r t h e i r f i r s t language or t h e i r second. Cumming (1988) noted the s i m i l a r i t y of composing i n a f i r s t language with that of a second language, but a l s o concluded t h a t e x p e r t i s e i n a second language enhanced w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . Given that i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s may have a REVIEW OF LITERATURE 52 f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on students' w r i t i n g and t h a t there are s i m i l a r i t i e s between composing i n a f i r s t language, and i n a second, w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s may a l s o have a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on E.S.L. students' w r i t i n g . The present study was designed to examine the c o n d i t i o n s under which w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s appear to f a c i l i t a t e E.S.L. s t u d e n t s ' w r i t i n g . In an ethnographic study, Leibman-Kleine (1987) sought to a s c e r t a i n whether or not E.S.L. students found w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s of help i n composing. Although Leibman-Kleine f a i l e d to f i n d support among the s u b j e c t s i n the study f o r the use of most h e u r i s t i c s , she d i d f i n d evidence that students found at l e a s t one w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c of he l p . The present study, by employing a quasi-experimental design, extends t h a t r e s e a r c h by c o n t r o l l i n g v a r i a b l e s such as e t h n i c i t y , type of i n s t r u c t i o n , and teacher e f f e c t . B e t t e r experimental c o n d i t i o n s c o u l d provide experimental evidence that c o u l d help r e s o l v e the iss u e of whether or not w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s might be an e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l a i d to E.S.L. students. The present study focuses on the use of two d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s — A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s and Burke's pentad, both of which were modified i n the present study f o r use with E.S.L. students. T h i s choice of h e u r i s t i c s was made because a review o f the l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l e d t h a t these were among the three most f r e q u e n t l y employed h e u r i s t i c s . A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s were employed i n s t u d i e s by Dutch (1980), Burns (1979), and Leibman-Kleine (1987), and the pentad by Dutch (1980), Ebbert (1980), Burns (1979), Leibman-Kleine (1987). A t h i r d frequently-employed REVIEW OF LITERATURE J J w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c , the tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c , was not t e s t e d i n the present study f o r two reasons. One reason was c r i t i c i s m of i t f o r i t s complexity by Kinney (1971), Katz (1984), and Winterowd (1986). A second reason why the tagmemic w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c was not used i n the present study i s t h a t some experimental evidence i n d i c a t e s that i t i s i n f e r i o r i n performance to A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s . Burns (1979) found t h a t on the measures of q u e s t i o n s answered and the degree of e l a b o r a t i o n i n answers, and on four d i f f e r e n t h o l i s t i c r a t i n g s , the A r i s t o t e l i a n group was s l i g h t l y favoured over i t . Ebbert's (1980) f i n d i n g s were t h a t the p e n t a d i c group outperformed the tagmemic group on d e t a i l . T h e r e f o r e , the present study chose A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s and Burke's pentad as the w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s which would determine whether there would be any f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on student w r i t i n g under d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s and with a d i f f e r e n t group than p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s . The review of the l i t e r a t u r e suggested a treatment p e r i o d i n the present study of ten hours over a semester. O d e l l (1974) obtained p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s with the use of a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c over ten l e s s o n s . Ebbert (1980) found that s u b j e c t s used more d e t a i l a f t e r a ten-week treatment. H i l g e r s (1980, 1981) found improvement i n w r i t i n g over f i v e hours. Burns (1979) employed only two hours of treatment and found a v a r i e t y of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . Other s t u d i e s which achieved s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s with the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s , Nugent (1980), Dutch (1980), and S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986), each employed REVIEW OF LITERATURE 54 w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s over a semester-length p e r i o d w i t h i n s e v e r a l hours o f the d u r a t i o n of the present study. The review of l i t e r a t u r e a l s o r e v e a l e d a number of problems with the experimental designs i n pre v i o u s s t u d i e s of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . These problems were the l a c k of c o n t r o l groups i n s t u d i e s by Young and Koen (1973), Dutch (1980), H i l g e r s (1980, 1981), and S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986), or with a c o n t r o l group which c o u l d not be p r o p e r l y compared to experimental groups as i n the case of Burns (1979) and the f i r s t of two s t u d i e s by Woodruff e t a l . (1981) where s u b j e c t s i n the c o n t r o l group d i d not have equal access to computers. In three s t u d i e s , O d e l l (1974), Dutch (1980), and H i l g e r s (180, 1981), students worked on h e u r i s t i c s i n the unsupervised c o n d i t i o n s o f home study. Experimental measures d i f f e r e d from the p r e t e s t to the p o s t t e s t i n s t u d i e s by Dutch (1980) who used d i f f e r e n t types of essay themes and H i l g e r s (1980, 1981) who adm i n i s t e r e d an essay as a p r e t e s t , and a take-home essay as a p o s t t e s t . I t should a l s o be noted t h a t the frequency of c o g n i t i v e processes which was used as the measure i n two of these s t u d i e s ( O d e l l , 1974; Young & Koen, 1973), may not a f f e c t s t u d e n t s ' w r i t i n g performance on an essay. These problems were c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d i n the d e s i g n and methodology of the present study. Experimental measures employed i n the present study were a measure of stu d e n t s ' w r i t i n g q u a n t i t y through a word count of students' p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s , and a measure of w r i t i n g q u a l i t y score through a h o l i s t i c assessment of stud e n t s ' essays on p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t essays. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Support f o r these measures i s found i n a number of the r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s . Word counts were used i n the two s t u d i e s by Woodruff e t a l . (1981) c i t e d e a r l i e r . I n v e s t i g a t i o n suggests t h a t the degree of e l a b o r a t i o n i s a good i n d i c e of b e t t e r w r i t i n g (Benton, Blohm, 1986; Hendrickson, 1980). The l e n g t h of a time-c o n t r o l l e d composition i s a good i n d i c a t i o n of i t s q u a l i t y a c c o r d i n g to Belanger and M a r t i n (1984), Grobe (1981), Stewart and Grobe (1979), M a r t i n (1968), M i l l e r and Ney (1968), Obenchain (1971), Palmer (1971), Z a n o t t i (1970). In terms of the w r i t i n g q u a l i t y s c ore, w r i t i n g s c a l e s and h o l i s t i c assessment were used by Nugent (1980), Dutch (1980), H i l g e r s (1980, 1981), Burns (1979), S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986) and i n two s t u d i e s by Woodruff et a l . (1981). A d d i t i o n a l support i s found i n Homburg (1984) and Kaczmarek (1980) each of whom notes the widespread use of h o l i s t i c e v a l u a t i o n among E.S.L. i n s t r u c t o r s who c o n s i d e r i t to be a v a l i d t e s t of student a b i l i t y . Homburg (1984) notes a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between i n c r e a s e d use of s u b o r d i n a t i o n , and r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i n the papers of E.S.L. students and higher scores through h o l i s t i c e v a l u a t i o n , as w e l l as i n c r e a s e s i n the number of subordinate c o n j u n c t i o n s , and t r a n s i t i o n a l adverbs and as might be expected, the fewer the grammatical e r r o r s i n a composition, the higher i t s ranking. Kaczmarek (1980) found high c o r r e l a t i o n s between h o l i s t i c assessments of E.S.L. students' papers and o b j e c t i v e measures such as type and frequency of grammatical s t r u c t u r e s , and the type and frequency of e r r o r . The present study compares two experimental groups using REVIEW OF LITERATURE 56 w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with a c o n t r o l group. The r e s e a r c h e r developed a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c adapted from a d e s c r i p t i o n of A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s by D'Angelo (1984) and another w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c from Kenneth Burke's pentad (1969), as f u r t h e r adapted by Irmscher (1971), and B e r t h o f f (1982). Each h e u r i s t i c was taught to a d i f f e r e n t experimental group, and grammar which has no e f f e c t on w r i t i n g (Applebee, 1984a; Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, & Schoer, 1963; E l l e y , 1976; H a r r i s , 1962; Sherwin, 1969) was taught to the c o n t r o l group. The r e s e a r c h e r employed both a q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e assessment to measure the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the experimental treatment. The q u a n t i t a t i v e measure was W r i t i n g  Q u a ntity or the number of words that students wrote i n essays for both the p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s . The q u a l i t a t i v e measure was an assessment of W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y on essays f o r both the p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s . DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 57 CHAPTER I I I DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The present study was designed and conducted to examine the e f f e c t s o f i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on the e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g of E.S.L. students. T h i s r e s e a r c h addressed two major q u e s t i o n s : (1) what e f f e c t does i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s have on the e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g o f E.S.L. students? (2) i s one w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c b e t t e r than another? 1. SUBJECTS The s u b j e c t s i n the study were 116 I n t e r m e d i a t e - l e v e l E.S.L. students from lower, middle, and upper socio-economic backgrounds. The s u b j e c t s were e n r o l l e d i n e i g h t d i f f e r e n t grade 12 E n g l i s h c l a s s e s i n three s e n i o r secondary schools of e x c l u s i v e l y E.S.L. students. These schools were chosen f o r two reasons. The f i r s t reason was the unique language c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r student p o p u l a t i o n . The E.S.L. students at these three schools were l a r g e l y of the same e t h n i c i t y , Chinese. They were g e n e r a l l y from Hong Kong, and spoke Cantonese as a f i r s t language. The second reason that these schools were chosen was because o f t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n r e s e a r c h and t h e i r consequent a v a i l a b i l i t y to the r e s e a r c h e r . The s u b j e c t s from these schools hoped to continue t h e i r s t u d i e s a t post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s and were eager to p a r t i c i p a t e i n i n s t r u c t i o n which might help them to improve t h e i r use of E n g l i s h . Students i n each c l a s s were randomly assi g n e d to three DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 58 d i f f e r e n t groups. Two of these groups were experimental and the t h i r d was a c o n t r o l . I n i t i a l l y , the te a c h i n g p o p u l a t i o n i n the study was 180 students. Of these students, 19 were non-Chinese students who were assig n e d to groups f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes but whose data were excluded from the study. The p o p u l a t i o n which was examined was 161 students. Data from one of these students was d e l e t e d from the study because of a missing p r e t e s t . A d d i t i o n a l data from 44 Chinese students i n the c l a s s e s were e l i m i n a t e d because they missed more than two of the ten l e s s o n s i n the treatment. There was no d i f f e r e n t i a l r a t e of students dropped from the three groups: 16 students dropped from the f i r s t experimental group, 10 from the second, and 18 from the the c o n t r o l group. The e x c l u s i o n of these s u b j e c t l e f t 116 students i n the study. 2. MATERIALS The f o l l o w i n g m a t e r i a l s were used as p a r t of the experimental i n t e r v e n t i o n i n the present study: (1) A c t i v i t y B o o k l e t s , (2) Learning Packages, (3) Lesson A i d s . The use of these m a t e r i a l s was p i l o t e d on grade 12 E.S.L. students by the r e s e a r c h e r . 2 . 1 A c t i v i t y Booklets Booklets were prepared f o r each student i n each of the e i g h t c l a s s e s i n v o l v e d i n the study. These c o n s i s t e d of duotang f o l d e r s with sheets of l i n e d paper i n them. They were to be used as stud e n t s ' workbooks where students would put the answers to t h e i r l e s s o n s and the d r a f t s o f t h e i r essays. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY J J 2.2 Le a r n i n g Packages There were three d i f f e r e n t types of l e a r n i n g p ackages—one for each i n s t r u c t i o n a l g r o u p — a n d these were organized i n t o c l a s s s e t s f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n i n each c l a s s . Each type of bo o k l e t c o n t a i n e d d i r e c t i o n s f o r i t s use, and e x e r c i s e s and procedures fo r students to f o l l o w i n l e a r n i n g about one of the two w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s ( e i g h t - v e r b s , f i v e - q u e s t i o n s ) or about grammar. A l l the l e a r n i n g packages contained the t o p i c s f o r w r i t i n g three d i f f e r e n t essays: "Making d e c i s i o n s , " "Education i s a l i f e l o n g e x p e r i e n c e , " and "The meaning of success." These t o p i c s were drawn from a bank of essay exam ques t i o n s developed by the B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of Educat i o n f o r use i n the 55-minute e s s a y - w r i t i n g component of i t s examination program for grade 12 E n g l i s h . The three types of l e a r n i n g packages were colour-coded f o r ease o f han d l i n g . Experimental group #1 was is s u e d a p i n k -c o l o u r e d l e a r n i n g package of 15 pages on the w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c of the e i g h t - v e r b s . Experimental group #2 was is s u e d a b l u e -c o l o u r e d l e a r n i n g package of 15 pages on the w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c of the f i v e - q u e s t i o n s . Experimental group #3 which was the c o n t r o l group, was is s u e d a goldenrod-coloured l e a r n i n g package of 26 pages on p o i n t s of grammar. B r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the l e a r n i n g  packages f o l l o w . (For a f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n of the three l e a r n i n g  packages see Appendices C, D, E.) 2.2.1 E i g h t - v e r b s The e i g h t - v e r b s i s a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c that the re s e a r c h e r DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 60 d e r i v e d from s e v e r a l sources. I t c o n s i s t s of the verb form of e i g h t of the 28 t o p i c s i n the c l a s s i c a l r h e t o r i c of A r i s t o t l e ( R h e t o r i c and p o e t i c s , t r a n s . 1954) as l i s t e d by D'Angelo (1984). These p a r t i c u l a r e i g h t t o p i c s were s e l e c t e d because they most f r e q u e n t l y appear i n d i r e c t i o n s f o r paragraph w r i t i n g i n contemporary composition t e x t s , f o r example, as d i r e c t i o n s to compare and c o n t r a s t s u b j e c t s , (Applebee, 1984; Young, 1978). Only e i g h t items were used because i t was hoped t h a t students would be b e t t e r able to memorize a h e u r i s t i c of only e i g h t items. M i l l e r (1956) notes t h a t l i m i t a t i o n s of human memory suggest a maximum of seven or e i g h t d i f f e r e n t items on a l i s t . As a f u r t h e r a i d to memory, the verb forms f o r each of the e i g h t t o p i c s were chosen f o r the h e u r i s t i c by the re s e a r c h e r . Each one of the e i g h t - v e r b s has a s e r i e s of quest i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with i t . These que s t i o n s were s e l e c t e d by the res e a r c h e r from those c r e a t e d f o r A r i s t o t l e ' s t o p i c s by Larson (1968) and Burns (1979). The use of quest i o n s i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s has been a fe a t u r e of much of the re s e a r c h i n the area (Burns, 1979; Dutch, 1980; Ebbert, 1980; H i l g e r s , 1981; O d e l l , 1974; S t r i c k l a n d , 1985; Young, 1973). B u r t i s , B e r e i t e r , Scardamalia, and Tetroe (1983) observe t h a t the use of quest i o n s enhances the thought content o f students' w r i t i n g . T h i s w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c c o n s i s t e d of e i g h t d i f f e r e n t t o p i c s or viewpoints from which to co n s i d e r a s u b j e c t . From these view p o i n t s , c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n s can be developed about a s u b j e c t and employed i n w r i t i n g (Applebee, 1984; Co r b e t t , 1965; D'Angelo, DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY o x 1984; Larson, 1968; Winterowd, 1986). The c a t e g o r i e s and general q u e s t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with the e i g h t - v e r b s were as f o l l o w s : E i g h t - v e r b s 1. cause and e f f e c t . What causes t h i s t h i n g ? What are i t s e f f e c t s ? 2. compare. What compares with t h i s thing? In what ways can i t be compared to other t h i n g s ? 3. c o n t r a s t . What c o n t r a s t s with t h i s thing? In what ways does i t c o n t r a s t ? 4. d e f i n e . How can you d e f i n e t h i s thing? How do other people d e f i n e t h i s thing? What i s a synonym f o r t h i s thing? What i s i t used f o r ? What i s i t made of? 5. g e n e r a l i z e . What a c t i o n does i t suggest? How i s i t t y p i c a l o f s i m i l a r t h i n g s ? Into what general c l a s s of t h i n g s does i t belong? What p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l , and economic i m p l i c a t i o n s does i t have? 6. exempli f y . What e x e m p l i f i e s i t ? What's unusual about i t ? ' What s p e c i a l experience makes you i n t e r e s t e d i n i t ? 7. time. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 62 How does time change i t ? Is i t p a r t of a s e r i e s o f thi n g s happening? 8.rank. Which t h i n g s rank b e t t e r than i t ? Which things rank worse than i t ? Students l e a r n i n g t h i s w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c were i s s u e d l e a r n i n g packages with d i r e c t i o n s for i t s use. The e x e r c i s e s i n the l e a r n i n g b o o k l e t s a l s o i n c l u d e d t a l k - w r i t e a c t i v i t i e s ( L i n g , 1986; R a d c l i f f e , 1972; Wixon & Stone, 1977; Z o e l l n e r , 1969). Talk-wr i t e i s a tea c h i n g s t r a t e g y where students work i n p a i r s , d i c t a t i n g w r i t i n g to one another. The second teaching s t r a t e g y f o r the w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c was the use of performance s c a l e s to develop student w r i t i n g ( C l i f f o r d , 1981, Coleman, 1982; Cumming, 1985; H i l l o c k s , 1986; Sager, 1973). In t h i s study, the s c a l e s were a s e r i e s of c r i t e r i a to judge whether a student was e i t h e r employing a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c ( i f the student was i n an experimental group), or employing v a r i o u s p o i n t s of grammar ( i f the student was i n the c o n t r o l group). P a i r s of students used these s c a l e s to d i s c u s s one another's work. The students were a l s o g i v e n a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t s to r e c o r d t h e i r notes. The bo o k l e t s were used to r e c o r d rough d r a f t s for the essay t o p i c s , as w e l l . 2.2.2 F i v e - g u e s t i o n s The f i v e - g u e s t i o n s i s a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c d e r i v e d i n p a r t from Burke's (1969) pentad f o r n a r r a t i o n or summary. H a r r i n g t o n , DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 63 D., K e i t h , P., Kneupper, C., T r i p p , J . , Woods, W. (1979) note that Burke's work r e q u i r e s e x t e n s i v e and imaginative t r a n s l a t i o n or t r a n s f o r m a t i o n to become e f f e c t i v e pedagogical p r a c t i c e . Burke's pentad was subsequently modified for p e r s u a s i o n by Irmscher (1971), and f o r e x p o s i t i o n by B e r t h o f f (1982), whose w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c i s used i n t h i s study. This h e u r i s t i c c o n s i s t s of the f i v e i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms i n E n g l i s h : how, who, what, where, and why. A s e r i e s of c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n s about a giv e n s u b j e c t can be developed about any su b j e c t u s i n g the c a t e g o r i e s of the f i v e - v e r b s and the general q u e s t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with i t : 1. how. How i s i t done? 2. who. Who does i t ? Who i s a f f e c t e d by i t ? 3. what. What i s i t ? What i s important about i t ? 4. where. Where i s i t found? 5. why. Why i s i t important? Why must i t be done? Why do people do i t ? Why does i t occur i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s ? Students l e a r n i n g t h i s w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c were issued a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t s , and l e a r n i n g packages with d i r e c t i o n s f o r i t s use, and e x e r c i s e s . The e x e r c i s e s i n c l u d e d t a l k - w r i t e a c t i v i t i e s . DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 64 the use of performance s c a l e s , and a w r i t i n q - t o - l e a r n s t r a t e g y . The t e a c h i n g methodology was the same f o r the f i v e - q u e s t i o n s as i t was f o r the students u s i n g the e i q h t - v e r b s . 2.2.3 P o i n t s of grammar The p o i n t s of grammar i s a study and review of grammatical r u l e s on a r t i c l e s , gerunds, the continuous tenses, o b j e c t s , and pronouns. Grammar study was chosen as the s u b j e c t of study f o r the c o n t r o l group because r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t has no e f f e c t on students' w r i t i n g (Applebee, 1984a; Braddock, L l o y d -Jones, & Schoer, 1963; E l l e y , 1976; H a r r i s , 1962; Sherwin, 1969). The l e a r n i n g package f o r the p o i n t s was s l i g h t l y longer than the other two packages because i t a l s o i n c l u d e d l i s t s of grammatical r u l e s and e x e r c i s e s of the f i l 1 - i n - t h e - b l a n k v a r i e t y . These e x e r c i s e s were l a r g e l y drawn from Dixson, R. (rev.) (1983) Graded E x e r c i s e s i n E n g l i s h , with supplemental work from the student workbook, Pronoun-antecedent usage, of the W r i t i n g 44 program (1981) . Students l e a r n i n g the p o i n t s of grammar were i s s u e d a c t i v i t y  b o o k l e t s , and l e a r n i n g packages with d i r e c t i o n s f o r i t s use, and e x e r c i s e s . The e x e r c i s e s i n c l u d e d t a l k - w r i t e a c t i v i t i e s , the use of performance s c a l e s , and a w r i t i n g - t o - l e a r n s t r a t e g y . The tea c h i n g methodology was the same f o r the p o i n t s as i t had been for the f i v e - q u e s t i o n s and the e i g h t - v e r b s . 2.3 Lesson Aids I n c i d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s were d i s t r i b u t e d to each of the teachers i n t h i s study. These i n c l u d e d f i v e 18" X 11 3/4" X 14" DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY b 5 heavy-duty cardboard boxes f o r storage of the a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t s . There were laminated c o l o u r e d c h a r t s f o r both of the h e u r i s t i c s , and p o r t a b l e t r i p o d s to d i s p l a y the c h a r t s . There was a schedule to i n d i c a t e to each teacher how much time to spend with each of the three groups i n a c l a s s . T h i s schedule a l s o o u t l i n e d an order of r o t a t i o n f o r te a c h i n g each of the three groups i n a d i f f e r e n t order each l e s s o n . See Appendix A f o r a copy of the schedule. F i n a l l y , a package of teacher d i r e c t i o n s , and a c l a s s r e g i s t e r were p l a c e d i n a binder f o r each teacher. See Appendix B f o r the teacher d i r e c t i o n s . 3. THE PROCEDURE 3.1 P r e t e s t s and P o s t t e s t s P r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t essays of 55 minutes each were adm i n i s t e r e d to the students before and a f t e r the i n s t r u c t i o n a l p e r i o d . For both essays, students were i n s t r u c t e d to read the t o p i c s c a r e f u l l y . They a l s o were r e q u i r e d to remain i n the classroom f o r the d u r a t i o n of the t e s t i n g p e r i o d . The two t o p i c s ("Learning from mistakes" and "Nothing i s as important as...") were drawn from a bank of essay examination t o p i c s d e s c r i b e d p r e v i o u s l y i n the s e c t i o n on l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s . These t o p i c s were counterbalanced by a random p r e t e s t d i s t r i b u t i o n to the students i n each c l a s s . Each of the two t o p i c s had been p r i n t e d on a paper with a space f o r the student's name and c l a s s . These papers were then d i s t r i b u t e d . A student w r i t i n g on "Learning from mistakes" f o r a p r e t e s t wrote on "Nothing i s as important as..." f o r a p o s t t e s t . (See Appendix F DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 66 fo r a copy of the essay q u e s t i o n papers.) 3.2 The I n s t r u c t i o n a l Procedures The r e s e a r c h e r taught two c l a s s e s o f E.S.L. students a t one c o l l e g e i n the s p r i n g s e s s i o n , 1989. Another teacher taught two c l a s s e s i n the summer s e s s i o n , 1989. A t h i r d teacher i n s t r u c t e d two c l a s s e s at a second c o l l e g e i n the summer s e s s i o n , 1989. A f o u r t h teacher and a f i f t h teacher taught one c l a s s each i n the summer s e s s i o n of 1989 at a t h i r d c o l l e g e . The ch o i c e of these teachers was based on t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y to the r e s e a r c h e r . In each c l a s s , the three i n s t r u c t i o n a l groups met c o n c u r r e n t l y and the teacher spent an equal amount of time with each group a c c o r d i n g to the schedule d e s c r i b e d p r e v i o u s l y . For a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes, (such as t a k i n g attendance, and d i s t r i b u t i n g student b o o k l e t s ) , there was a f i v e minute i n t e r v a l a t the beginning of each l e s s o n . T h i s time was a l s o used f o r room set-up which i n v o l v e d moving the students' desks i n t o three small groups, and d i s t r i b u t i n g the students' a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t s and l e a r n i n g packages. The groups were s i t u a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t areas of t h e i r classrooms to minimize c r o s s - i n s t r u c t i o n . Each i n t e r v e n t i o n c o n s i s t e d of ten one-hour l e s s o n s . The le s s o n s took p l a c e over a 9 to 11 week p e r i o d . Each l e s s o n was comprised of 15 minutes of teacher i n s t r u c t i o n f o r each group. The teacher r o t a t e d through each group. The order of r o t a t i o n was d i f f e r e n t each l e s s o n . (See Appendix A f o r the sch e d u l e ) . When not r e c e i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n , the students i n each group worked on the e x e r c i s e s i n t h e i r l e a r n i n g packages. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY D / An i n t e r v e n t i o n p e r i o d of ten hours was chosen because i t seemed an a p p r o p r i a t e l e n g t h o f time to allow students to l e a r n the h e u r i s t i c . I t was g r e a t e r than or equal to the i n t e r v e n t i o n p e r i o d i n numerous s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s (Burns, 1979; Dutch, 1980; Ebbert, 1980; H i l g e r s , 1980, 1981; O d e l l , 1974; Woodruff e t a l . , 1981). A longer i n t e r v e n t i o n would have been very d i f f i c u l t to f i t i n t o the courses of the teachers who had agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. To promote student l e a r n i n g , a v a r i e t y of responses were g i v e n to them d u r i n g the study. The re s e a r c h e r v i s i t e d each c l a s s once to ensure t h a t d i r e c t i o n s f o r these responses were f o l l o w e d . F i v e of the nine t y p i c a l teacher responses to student w r i t i n g i d e n t i f i e d by Cumming (1985) were employed. These were margin  commentary, o r a l responses, d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n , c h e c k l i s t i n g , and peer responses. Of the f i v e responses, the r e s e a r c h e r s u p p l i e d the margin  commentary when examining each s t u d e n t s ' a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t and commenting i n the margins of the pages on one o c c a s i o n . These comments were e i t h e r i n regard to how completely and e f f e c t i v e l y the students had answered the quest i o n s they had d e r i v e d from the e i g h t - v e r b s or the f i v e - q u e s t i o n s , or as to how f r e q u e n t l y they had used p o i n t s of grammar i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . F o l l o w i n g C o r d e l l , Corno (1981), these comments about student work were s t a t e d i n p o s i t i v e terms i n order to i n c r e a s e student performance. The comments had nothing to do with the q u a l i t y of the w r i t t e n express i o n . DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 68 The other four kinds of responses were s u p p l i e d by teachers and students. Each teacher i n the study gave o r a l responses, and d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n to the students about t h e i r w r i t i n g . The students s u p p l i e d two responses to one another, c h e c k l i s t i n q , and peer responses. (See Appendix B f o r d i r e c t i o n s to teachers, and Appendices C, D, and E f o r co p i e s o f the d i r e c t i o n s to the students i n the a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t s . ) In order to ensure that the teachers followed the procedure a p p r o p r i a t e l y , the r e s e a r c h e r maintained weekly communication with each teacher i n the study, and, i n a d d i t i o n , monitored each c l a s s once near the beginning o f the ten-hour i n t e r v e n t i o n . The re s e a r c h e r observed each teacher's use of the two w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and recorded h i s impressions of the l e s s o n . These o b s e r v a t i o n s were d i s c u s s e d with each teacher immediately f o l l o w i n g the l e s s o n . 3.2.1 Experimental Group #1 In the f i r s t l e s s o n , students were presented with a c h a r t showing the c a t e g o r i e s and the gen e r a l q u e s t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with the e i g h t - v e r b s . Three simple mnemonics were used to a i d students i n r e c a l l i n g t h i s h e u r i s t i c . (See the copy o f the l e a r n i n g package f o r the e i g h t - v e r b s i n Appendix C.) The students r e f e r r e d to the copy of the e i g h t - v e r b s w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c i n t h e i r a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t s and to the f i r s t of ten les s o n s i n t h e i r l e a r n i n g packages. Next, the teacher and the students d i s c u s s e d the f i r s t of three t o p i c s i n t h e i r l e a r n i n g  packages "Making d e c i s i o n s " and the group went through a DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY d i s c u s s i o n o t the s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s a student using the w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c c o u l d generate about the t o p i c . For example, the teacher r e f e r r e d to #8, "Why i s making d e c i s i o n s b e t t e r than having d e c i s i o n s made f o r you," or "Why i s making d e c i s i o n s b e t t e r than simply w a i t i n g f o r t h i n g s to work out by themselves." F o l l o w i n g t h i s , the students answered f i v e of the questions generated i n c l a s s i n t h e i r a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t s . Over the next seven l e s s o n s , students i n t h i s group p r a c t i c e d w r i t i n g e x p o s i t o r y essays u s i n g the e i g h t - v e r b s . For the second l e s s o n , students i n p a i r s used a t a l k - w r i t e procedure to support them i n w r i t i n g answers to t h e i r q u e s t i o n s . T h e i r teachers had been g i v e n c o p i e s of an a r t i c l e on talk-wr i t e (Wixon & Stone, 1977) and a d d i t i o n a l d i r e c t i o n s f o r i t s use. (See the d i r e c t i o n s to teachers i n Appendix B, and the l e a r n i n g packages i n Appendices C, D, and E.) For the t h i r d l e s s o n , students expanded t h e i r notes i n t o f i r s t d r a f t s of essays. For the f o u r t h , seventh, and tenth l e s s o n s , students were asked to form small groups of two to three persons, and use performance s c a l e s . In these groups, students checked one another's f i r s t d r a f t f o r evidence t h a t the w r i t e r had answered f i v e of the quest i o n s that he or she had posed i n response to the t o p i c . The students were asked to comment on ideas t h a t were e s p e c i a l l y wel1-developed, and, where a p p r o p r i a t e , make suggestions f o r f u r t h e r development. Students used the remainder of the l e s s o n to r e v i s e t h e i r work. The f i f t h and s i x t h l e s s o n s , and i n t u r n , the e i g h t h , and n i n t h l e s s o n s , were used to f u r t h e r DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 70 develop two of the three essay t o p i c s i n the treatment. For the tenth l e s s o n , besides u s i n g performance s c a l e s , students undertook, a s e l f - t e s t of t h e i r knowledge of the e i g h t - verbs and p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a t e a c h e r - l e d b r a i n s t o r m i n g s e s s i o n on the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e i r h e u r i s t i c . 3.2.2 Experimental Group #2 In the f i r s t l e s s o n , students were presented with a c h a r t showing the c a t e g o r i e s of the f i v e - v e r b s and the general q u e s t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d with i t . The teacher o f f e r e d three mnemonics to a i d students i n r e c a l l i n g the f i v e - v e r b s . See the copy of the l e a r n i n g package f o r the f i v e - q u e s t i o n s i n Appendix D. From t h i s p o i n t , the sequence of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r t h i s group was the same as f o r experimental group #1 except that the students i n experimental group #2 were l e a r n i n g the f i v e - q u e s t i o n s i n s t e a d of the e i g h t - v e r b s • 3.2.3 Experimental Group #3 The i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s used i n the c o n t r o l group were the same as i n the other groups. The c o n t r o l group a l s o r e c e i v e d the same amount of teacher i n s t r u c t i o n and d i d as much w r i t i n g . However, i n s t e a d of stu d y i n g the e i g h t - v e r b s , or the f i v e - q u e s t i o n s , s u b j e c t s i n t h i s group s t u d i e d p o i n t s of grammar. 4• SCORING OF THE DATA There were 232 student papers i n c l u d i n g both p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s . These were numbered, randomly arranged, and then c a r e f u l l y read by the r e s e a r c h e r who rewrote any words where the handwriting would be d i f f i c u l t f o r a t y p i s t to read. The student DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY papers were typed using a word p r o c e s s i n g software package. The s p e l l i n g on the papers was c o r r e c t e d u s i n g the s p e l l - c h e c k f e a t u r e o f the same program. The student papers were then p r i n t e d u sing a l a s e r p r i n t e r . These a c t i o n s were taken to av o i d p r e j u d i c i n g the r e a d e r s ' judgments o f a paper's q u a l i t y through s u p e r f i c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as appearance and s p e l l i n g (Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer, 1963; Charney, 1984; D i d e r i c h , 1974; McColly, 1970). The papers were scored i n two d i f f e r e n t ways. The f i r s t s c o r i n g was through a q u a n t i t a t i v e measure of p r o d u c t i v i t y , W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y . The second s c o r i n g was through a q u a l i t a t i v e measure of an essay's q u a l i t y . W r i t i n g q u a l i t y . 4.1 W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y The number of words on each student p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t was counted through a computer software program which counts the spaces between words (WordPerfect 5.0). In t h i s way, an accurate and e f f i c i e n t word count was d e r i v e d . 4.2 W r i t i n g q u a l i t y The s t u d e n t s ' e x p o s i t o r y essays were scored on the b a s i s of a s i x - p o i n t h o l i s t i c s c a l e a f t e r Myers (1980) and the 1988 W r i t i n g Committee of the E n g l i s h 12 P r o v i n c i a l Examination, Student Assessment Branch, B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y of Education who f u r t h e r r e f i n e d i t f o r use with t h e i r essay examination t o p i c s . D e s c r i p t o r s which were added to the s c a l e for the present study were d e r i v e d from D i e d e r i c h (1974). (See Appendix I_ for t h i s h o l i s t i c s c a l e . ) DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 72 Each student's p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t essay was scored f o r w r i t i n g q u a l i t y f o l l o w i n g the treatment of the t e s t papers a c c o r d i n g to c o n d i t i o n s o u t l i n e d by Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer (1963), Cooper (1977) and Myers (1980). For t h i s treatment, p r i n t o u t s of the students' papers, i d e n t i f i e d o n l y by s e r i a l numbers, and randomly gathered i n t o bundles of ten papers were d i s t r i b u t e d to the marking committee. The marking committee of 11 teachers, and 3 graduate students was convened by the r e s e a r c h e r . To e s t a b l i s h common standards d u r i n g the h o l i s t i c assessment, the markers underwent a 45-minute t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n to f a m i l i a r i z e themselves with the h o l i s t i c s c a l e and with i t s c r i t e r i a . The exemplars f o r the t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n were drawn from 12 student t e s t papers t h a t were not i n c l u d e d i n the study due to student absences. These student papers were org a n i z e d i n t o two s e r i e s of s i x exemplars each to i l l u s t r a t e the s i x steps on the h o l i s t i c s c a l e . An assessment procedure was e s t a b l i s h e d . Each paper was marked twice by two d i f f e r e n t markers drawn from the committee. 4.2.1 Adjusted scores According to procedures o u t l i n e d i n D i e d e r i c h (1974), where there was a di s c r e p a n c y l a r g e r than two steps on the s i x - p o i n t s c a l e , the paper was subsequently marked by a t h i r d r a t e r , the re s e a r c h e r . The three scores were compared and the d i s c r e p a n t score o f the three was e l i m i n a t e d . In cases where there was no agreement between the three markers, the t h i r d r a t i n g was m u l t i p l i e d by two and used f o r the q u a l i t y score. The top DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY p o s s i b l e score of the two r a t i n g s was 12 and the lowest p o s s i b l e score was 0. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the r a t i n g s was t e s t e d through computing a Pearson (zero-order product moment) c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , and a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n o f +.8903 (p <.05) on the p r e t e s t , and +.8323 (p <.05) was obtained on the p o s t t e s t . I t was concluded t h a t there was an ac c e p t a b l e r a t e of r e l i a b i l i t y between the r a t i n g s g i v e n a paper. 5. ANALYSIS OF DATA: The data (n=116) y i e l d e d scores on two dependent v a r i a b l e s : (a) W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y and (b) W r i t i n g q u a l i t y . The two dependent v a r i a b l e s were analyzed i n a separate a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) i n a (2). X (3) f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n with repeated measures on the f i r s t f a c t o r . The w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r was Test ( P r e t e s t or P o s t t e s t ) and the between-subjects f a c t o r was Group ( E i g h t - v e r b s , F i v e - q u e s t i o n s or C o n t r o l ) . There were 34 s u b j e c t s i n the E i g h t - verbs by Test c e l l and 32 s u b j e c t s i n the F i v e - q u e s t i o n s by Test c e l l . The C o n t r o l by Test c e l l had 50 s u b j e c t s . R e s u l t s were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .05 l e v e l . ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 74 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The purpose of t h i s study was to examine the e f f e c t s of the use of a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c on the e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g of E.S.L. students. Two dependent v a r i a b l e s were a n a l y z e d — t h e v a r i a b l e of W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y from the p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t scores and the second v a r i a b l e of W r i t i n g q u a l i t y from the p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t s c o r e s . Each dependent v a r i a b l e was analyzed i n a separate a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) i n a 2(Test) X 3(Group) f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n with repeated measures on the f i r s t f a c t o r . For both a n a l y s e s , the w i t h i n - s u b j e c t f a c t o r s were p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t scores and the between-subject f a c t o r was Group. S t a t i s t i c a l computations were made on UBG:SPSS: 3 ( L a i , 1986). R e s u l t s were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .05 l e v e l . Two d i f f e r e n t r e s e a r c h hypotheses were t e s t e d i n the present s t u d y — o n e d e a l i n g with the e f f e c t of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c on W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y , and the other with the e f f e c t of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c on W r i t i n g q u a l i t y . A c c o r d i n g l y , the f i n d i n g s of the present study are r e p o r t e d under the two headings: 1. E f f e c t on W r i t i n g Q u antity 2. E f f e c t on W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y 1. EFFECT ON WRITING QUANTITY The n u l l h ypothesis i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study i s as ANALYSIS AND RESULTS f o l l o w s : there w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e f o r W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y among groups of students using w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and a group of students which i s not u s i n g them. There was no e f f e c t f o r group on w r i t i n g q u a n t i t y F(l,116) = 0.44, p_ > 0.65. D i f f e r e n c e s between means at p o s t t e s t time were small and n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . Therefore, the n u l l h y p othesis cannot be r e j e c t e d . P r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t means for group are shown below i n Table I. TABLE I Means (and Standard D e v i a t i o n s ) f o r Three Groups on W r i t i n g Quantity Group P r e t e s t P o s t t e s t D i f f e r e n c e s E i g h t - v e r b s (n = 34) 312. 24 (81.0) 375. 53 (102.98) 63. 29 F i v e - q u e s t i o n s (n = 32) 307. 84 (107.2) 367. 47 (118.82) 59. 63 C o n t r o l (n = 50) 307. 38 (112.18) 343. 02 (89.85) 35. 64 There was, however, a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r t e s t F(1,116) = l 27.74, p_ > 0.05. A l l groups showed a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e from p r e t e s t to p o s t t e s t i n the number of words w r i t t e n . P r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t means for a l l groups on W r i t i n g g u a n t i t y are a l s o shown below i n Table I. R e s u l t s of the ANOVA are presented below i n Table I I . ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 76 TABLE II A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Wr i t i n g Q u a n tity Source df Mean Square F T a i l P r o b a b i l i t y (A) GROUP 2 6731.81 0. 44 0.65 (B) TEST 1 155842.88 27. 74 0.001* A X B 2 4194.60 0 . 75 0.48 * p<.05 2. EFFECT ON WRITING QUALITY The n u l l h y p o thesis i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study i s as f o l l o w s : there w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e f o r W r i t i n g q u a l i t y among groups of students u s i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and a group of students which i s not u s i n g them. There was no e f f e c t f o r group on w r i t i n g q u a l i t y F(l,116) = 0.60, p_ > 0.55. At p o s t t e s t time, d i f f e r e n c e s between means were small and n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e r e f o r e , the n u l l h ypothesis cannot be r e j e c t e d . P r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t means fo r group are shown below i n Table I I I . ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 77 TABLE I I I Means (and Standard D e v i a t i o n s ) f o r Three Groups on W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y Group P r e t e s t P o s t t e s t D i f f e r e n c e s E i g h t - v e r b s (n = 34) 5. 91 (2. 58) 6. ,5 (2.33) . 6 F i v e - q u e s t i o n s (n = 32) 6. 44 (2. 55) 6. ,78 (2.35) . 34 C o n t r o l (n = 50) 5. 86 (2. 69) 6, ,50 (2.20) . 64 There was a d i f f e r e n c e between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t scores f o r a l l groups but i t was not s i g n i f i c a n t F(l,116) = 3.191, p_ > 0.077. R e s u l t s o f the ANOVA are presented below i n Table IV. TABLE IV A n a l y s i s o f Variance for W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y Source df Mean Square F T a i l P r o b a b i l i t y (A) GROUP 2 4. 31 0 . 60 0.55 (B) TEST 1 15. 32 23. 20 0 . 08 A X B 2 0.47 0 . 10 0.91 * p<.05 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 78 3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 3.1 F i n d i n g Regarding The E f f e c t s o f W r i t i n g H e u r i s t i c s on  W r i t i n g Q uantity (1) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups on W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y . The n u l l h ypothesis c o u l d not be r e j e c t e d . There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y among groups that have been taught a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c and a c o n t r o l group which has not been taught one. 3.2 F i n d i n g Regarding The E f f e c t o f W r i t i n g H e u r i s t i c s on  W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y (2) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups on W r i t i n g q u a l i t y . The n u l l h y p o thesis c o u l d not be r e j e c t e d . There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n W r i t i n g g u a l i t y among groups that have been taught a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c and a c o n t r o l group which has not been taught one. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER V 79 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In t h i s chapter the f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 4 are d i s c u s s e d and e v a l u a t e d . C o n c l u s i o n s drawn from the study are r e p o r t e d and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h are proposed. The present study was designed to answer two q u e s t i o n s about the e f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on E.S.L. stu d e n t s ' w r i t i n g , namely: (1) Is there a d i f f e r e n c e f o r W r i t i n g q u a n t i t y among groups of students u s i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and a group of students which i s not using them? (2) Is there a d i f f e r e n c e f o r W r i t i n g q u a l i t y among groups of students u s i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and a group of students which i s not u s i n g them? 1. THE FINDINGS DISCUSSED With regard to the f i r s t q u e s t i o n , no d i f f e r e n c e f o r q u a n t i t y of w r i t i n g was found between groups of students. Students i n a l l groups wrote more on t h e i r p o s t t e s t s . T h i s r e s u l t may p o s s i b l y be a t t r i b u t a b l e to the s t r e n g t h of the w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s and accompanying m a t e r i a l s which drew upon numerous s t u d i e s ( t a l k - w r i t e ; R a d c l i f f e , 1972; performance s c a l e s ; C l i f f o r d , 1981; Coleman, 1982; Cumming, 1985) as w e l l as evidence from r e s e a r c h i n E.S.L. (Arendt, 1987; Cumming, 1988; Edelsky, 1982; G a s k i l l , 1984; G a s k i l l , 1986; Jones & Tetroe, 1987; Lay, 1982; Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1983) which i n d i c a t e d t h at DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 80 these s t r a t e g i e s would be e f f e c t i v e with E.S.L. students. The f i n d i n g t h a t w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s d i d not a f f e c t the q u a n t i t y of stud e n t s ' w r i t i n g may be i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the grammar treatment employed i n the present study was at l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e as the w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . The present study's f i n d i n g f o r the e f f e c t o f w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on st u d e n t s ' p r o d u c t i v i t y i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s o f Woodruff e t a l , , (1981) and S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986). In two s t u d i e s . Woodruff e_t §1_. found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of words w r i t t e n by students who had used w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and those who had not. S t r i c k l a n d observed no increase i n p r o d u c t i v i t y e i t h e r , although the measure employed i n h i s study was the number of ideas r a t h e r than the number of words students used i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . T h i s f i n d i n g i s a p p a r e n t l y c o n t r a r y to the f i n d i n g s o f Burns (1979) and Ebbert (1980) r e g a r d i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y . S e v e r a l d i f f e r e n c e s are to be noted, however, between the present study and the Burns and Ebbert s t u d i e s . In the f i r s t p l a c e , a l l three used d i f f e r e n t measures of q u a n t i t y . Burns used an idea count while Ebbert used a D i e d e r i c h s c a l e m o d i f i e d f o r the c r i t e r i a of audience a n a l y s i s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , and d e t a i l , and the present study employed a word count to measure student p r o d u c t i v i t y . Secondly, d i f f e r e n t treatments were used; i n the Burns' study, where the experimental groups had access to computers while the c o n t r o l group d i d not, the r e s u l t s may i n d i c a t e a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t f o r the use of computer programs r a t h e r than w r i t i n g DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 81 h e u r i s t i c s i n g e n e r a t i n g ideas f o r w r i t i n g . The f i n d i n g of the present study of no f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on the q u a n t i t y of student w r i t i n g a f t e r a much longer treatment p e r i o d seems to lend support to t h i s c o n t e n t i o n . T h i r d l y , i n Ebbert's study, the s u b j e c t s were grade s i x students and, as B u r t i s et_ al_. (1983) have found, students a t t h i s age have d i f f i c u l t y i n p l a n n i n g and are l i k e l y to use any d i r e c t i o n f o r p l a n n i n g t e x t i n order to produce t e x t . B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1982) have a l s o i n d i c a t e d how younger students use v i r t u a l l y any prompts of a w r i t t e n type, as well as those g i v e n v e r b a l l y by an a d u l t or by another student, as an a i d to t e x t p r o d u c t i o n . These r e s e a r c h e r s have shown how students can double t h e i r t e x t p r o d u c t i o n by these simple means. Anderson, Smart, B e r e i t e r (1980) taught s i x t h graders to prepare l i s t s of words t h a t they might use i n a composition with the r e s u l t t h a t the students wrote twice as much as p r e v i o u s l y . Burke's pentad was used i n Ebbert's study as an a i d to d e s c r i p t i o n and i t may have been a c t i n g as t h i s type of prompt. At the same time, the c o n t r o l group i n Ebbert's study used e x i s t i n g c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s with no such prompts and d i d not r e c e i v e the same emphasis on w r i t i n g as d i d the experimental group u s i n g Burke's pentad. In other words, p r a c t i c e i n w r i t i n g r a t h e r than w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s was probably the c r i t i c a l f a c t o r . The second q u e s t i o n examined i n the present study was: i s there a d i f f e r e n c e i n q u a l i t y among students u s i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and those who are not? No d i f f e r e n c e i n the q u a l i t y of t h e i r w r i t i n g was found between groups of students. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS «^ The f i n d i n g of the present study f o r the e f f e c t of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on the q u a l i t y of students' w r i t i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of other r e s e a r c h by Dutch (1980), S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986) and Woodruff §_t al_. , (1981). Dutch found no d i f f e r e n c e between the p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t scores of one group using a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c and he found a s l i g h t d e c l i n e i n the scores of a second group. S t r i c k l a n d compared four d i f f e r e n t groups using h e u r i s t i c s and found no improvement i n w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . In two s t u d i e s . Woodruff et_ al_. noted there was no improvement i n w r i t i n g q u a l i t y a f t e r students used w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . T h i s f i n d i n g i s c o n t r a r y to Burns (1979), H i l g e r s (1980) and Nugent (1980), however, as each found q u a l i t y improvements i n t h e i r s t u d i e s . As suggested above. Burns' r e s u l t s may be a t t r i b u t a b l e to the use of computers. Ne i t h e r H i l g e r s (1980) nor Nugent employed c o n t r o l groups which makes t h e i r f i n d i n g s d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t . Furthermore, H i l g e r s 1 study used f r e e w r i t i n g as a h e u r i s t i c for one group. Due to the nature of t h i s treatment, as H i l g e r s h i m s e l f notes, students d i d more w r i t i n g than the other experimental group which used a h e u r i s t i c a n a l y z i n g d i s c o u r s e elements such as audience, and w r i t i n g purpose. In a d d i t i o n , f r e e w r i t i n g on an essay t o p i c i s s i m i l a r to p r e p a r i n g a d r a f t of the essay so the group using the f r e e w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c was a l s o able to i n c o r p o r a t e i n t o t h e i r essays more of the ideas they generated than the group answering q u e s t i o n s about d i s c o u r s e . I t cannot t h e r e f o r e be concluded that the balance of the small body of e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h supports an DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 83 e x p e c t a t i o n of q u a l i t y e f f e c t s as a r e s u l t of using w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . I t must be s a i d , then, t h a t d e s p i t e c a l l s f o r r e s e a r c h i n t o the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the present study was not s u c c e s s f u l i n f i n d i n g s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n e i t h e r q u a n t i t y , as measured by the number of words, or i n q u a l i t y i n students' w r i t i n g as a r e s u l t of u s i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . T h i s study i s to be added to a number of s t u d i e s that were s i m i l a r l y u n s u c c e s s f u l . C e r t a i n t h e o r e t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s have been d e s c r i b e d by B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1982, 1985) i n c o n n e c t i o n with young and/or u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s , and by ot h e r s (Cumming, 1988; Leibman-Kleine, 1987) i n c o n n e c t i o n with E.S.L. w r i t e r s . B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1982) b e l i e v e t h a t the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i s l i m i t e d by two important f a c t o r s : t h a t students must f i r s t be able to assess a r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n and s e t g o a l s ; secondly, they must be able to manipulate c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s c o n s c i o u s l y . B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia c h a r a c t e r i z e young and u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s as being l i m i t e d i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to do e i t h e r . A review of the s t u d e n t s ' a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t s i n the present study suggests t h a t students f r e q u e n t l y l a c k e d these c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s . The weakest students i n i t i a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d the ques t i o n s from t h e i r w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i n t o t h e i r essays. They f a i l e d to use these q u e s t i o n s to generate t h e i r own ideas. One student who had been taught the f i v e - q u e s t i o n s w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c simply used the que s t i o n s as the i n t r o d u c t i o n to an essay on DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 84 "Making d e c i s i o n s " : Before we make a d e c i s i o n , who makes a d e c i s i o n ? what k i n d of people make a d e c i s i o n ? why we need to make a d e c i s i o n before we do our work? The work of t h i s student and o t hers showed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of what Flower & Hayes (1981a) term the r e l u c t a n c e of b a s i c w r i t e r s to move from "the l o c a l concerns" of sentences to "more g l o b a l d i s c u s s i o n s " about p l a n n i n g (p. 371). The w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c i n t h i s case was not being used to address the r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n . Students who c r e a t e t e x t i n t h i s way share the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the young u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s s t u d i e d by B u r t i s e_t al_. ( 1983) who i n c o r p o r a t e d d i r e c t i o n s f o r p l a n n i n g i n t o t h e i r t e x t s . A second problem a s s o c i a t e d with students' use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s i s t h e i r l e v e l of g e n e r a l i t y . In commenting on the mixed experimental r e s u l t s of students u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s , H i l l o c k s (1986) f a u l t s h e u r i s t i c s t r a t e g i e s f o r being e i t h e r too a b s t r a c t or too complex to meet the p a r t i c u l a r demands of each l e v e l of a w r i t i n g task. B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1985) note that a w r i t i n g s t r a t e g y may be as s p e c i f i c as a d e t a i l e d s e r i e s of d i r e c t i o n s or as g e n e r a l as a broad d e s c r i p t i o n . P a r a d o x i c a l l y , as i n s t r u c t i o n s become more d e t a i l e d and complex, they are more d i f f i c u l t to r e c a l l and manipulate and there are fewer s i t u a t i o n s to which they can be a p p l i e d . On the other hand, a broad d e s c r i p t i o n of w r i t i n g or a s e r i e s of g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s about a s u b j e c t such as were used i n the h e u r i s t i c s i n the present study, i s easy to remember and apply, but o f f e r s students l e s s help i n w r i t i n g . DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS O J When some of the s u b j e c t s i n the present study used h e u r i s t i c s , they a p p l i e d them as i f they were formulas f o r ge n e r a t i n g essays i n s t e a d of s t r a t e g i e s f o r g e n e r a t i n g ideas. These s u b j e c t s d i d not understand that t h e i r ideas would have to be o r g a n i z e d and shaped f o r t h e i r w r i t i n g purposes. These students wrote l i s t s of examples r a t h e r than s e l e c t i n g t h e i r best examples and dev e l o p i n g these. At other times, students seemed able to use the h e u r i s t i c s e f f e c t i v e l y i n g e n e r a t i n g ideas but were unable to do much i n deve l o p i n g them i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . Burns (1982) comments t h a t even when students s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t e r a c t with t h e i r computer-generated w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s , they s t i l l may wr i t e "garbage" (p. 6). The r e s e a r c h e r ' s classroom o b s e r v a t i o n s c o n f i r m t h i s l i m i t a t i o n on the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . F r e q u e n t l y , even a f t e r thorough d i s c u s s i o n s l e d by teachers, students were not able to d i s c r i m i n a t e between b e t t e r and poorer a p p l i c a t i o n s o f the h e u r i s t i c s i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . In a c l a s s where the group using the e i g h t - v e r b s was d i s c u s s i n g a t o p i c about educa t i o n , the responses ranged from the' p r o s a i c remark by one student that "Most of the g r e a t l e a d e r s had a good e d u c a t i o n " to a metaphor by a second student that "Education i s a t r e e and i t s branches are course s " and the quip by a t h i r d student t h a t "Education i s l i k e a stock i n v e s t m e n t — y o u r parents i n v e s t i n your body." Despite the p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n from the teacher and the other students to the l a s t two responses, the students who had brought them up i n d i s c u s s i o n seemed unable to t r a n s l a t e these r i c h metaphors i n t o DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 86 e f f e c t i v e examples i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . In f a c t , no one i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s attempted to deal with t h i s m a t e r i a l i n t h e i r essays. Sweeder (1981) had a s i m i l a r f i n d i n g with s i x a d u l t remedial w r i t e r s whose use of a v a r i e t y of h e u r i s t i c s t r a t e g i e s , had l i t t l e impact on t h e i r w r i t i n g . They seemed unable to decide when t h e i r w r i t i n g was s u c c e s s f u l or when i t was not. H e u r i s t i c s may help i n g e n e r a t i n g ideas but they c o n t a i n no suggestions f o r o r g a n i z i n g and e x p r e s s i n g the m a t e r i a l . According to Kinney (1978) g e n e r a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n with v a r i o u s h e u r i s t i c s s t i l l l e a v es the w r i t e r with t h i s c e n t r a l problem of e x p r e s s i o n . These two problems are compounded f o r E.S.L. students. While numerous i n v e s t i g a t o r s have recommended the use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s as a means of a s s i s t i n g E.S.L. students (Cumming, 1988; Daubney-Davis, 1982a, 1982b, 1982c; McKay, 1981; Spack, 1984; Zamel, 1982, 1983), some have a l s o expressed r e s e r v a t i o n s (Cumming, 1988; Leibman-Kleine, 1987). Cumming (1988) observes t h a t w r i t i n g e x p e r t i s e i s as e a s i l y a t t a i n e d i n a second language as a f i r s t language because st u d e n t s ' l e v e l s of second-language p r o f i c i e n c y do not make a s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e to the c o g n i t i v e processes a s s o c i a t e d with w r i t i n g . As a consequence, a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . i n a f i r s t language i s l i k e l y to be s u i t a b l e f o r w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n a second language. However, while w r i t i n g e x p e r t i s e may be a t t a i n e d i n e i t h e r a f i r s t or second language, students' performance i n a second language depends upon t h e i r language p r o f i c i e n c y i n i t . Cumming (1986, 1988) notes that the a d d i t i o n a l DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 8 7 c o g n i t i v e demands of w r i t i n g i n a second language might make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r students to use a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c e f f e c t i v e l y . Cumming suggests t h a t when students need to concern themselves l e s s with a v o i d i n g language e r r o r s , they are b e t t e r able to atten d to aspects of t h e i r w r i t i n g , and i n t u r n , produce b e t t e r t e x t s . In the present study, even when students a p p l i e d h e u r i s t i c s s u c c e s s f u l l y , t h e i r w r i t i n g o f t e n seemed c o l o u r l e s s , l a c k i n g i n s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s , and even r e p e t i t i v e . T h i s was the case of one student u s i n g the e i g h t - v e r b s to make an en t r y i n h i s a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t on "Making d e c i s i o n s " : D e c i s i o n s are caused when an i n d i v i d u a l i s put i n t o a s i t u a t i o n whereby he has to make a number of c h o i c e s . Sometimes he may not even have c h o i c e s which then r e s u l t s i n him pursuing or not pursuing a that c h o i c e . A f t e r making a d e c i s i o n , an i n d i v i d u a l e i t h e r 'harvests the f r u i t s ' o f making a r i g h t c h o i c e or s u f f e r s the consequences of a bad one. In terms of ' p r i z e s , ' a r i g h t d e c i s i o n may mean l i f e , money, or l o v e ; i n the same ways, making a wrong d e c i s i o n may mean a c t u a l y l o s i n g what we may have hoped to g a i n . No matter how much more t h i s w r i t e r develops h i s d i s c u s s i o n of d e c i s i o n s , h i s use of common nouns and very general terms i s u l t i m a t e l y f r u s t r a t i n g to a reader. The ' h e u r i s t i c seems to have helped him to generate ideas but a l i m i t e d vocabulary c o n s t r a i n s DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 88 the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of h i s w r i t i n g and the w r i t e r seems unable to provide s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s and e v o c a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with claims by Leibman-Kleine (1987) and Witte and F a i g l e y (1981) that a weakness i n vocabulary i n a language may reduce s t u d e n t s ' success i n us i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . Many r e s e a r c h e r s suggest that E.S.L. students a c q u i r e a n a t i v e - l i k e language p r o f i c i e n c y only a f t e r years of language use ( C o l l i e r , 1987; Cummins, 1980, 1982; E l l i s , 1986; S a v i l l e -T r o i k e , 1984; and Wong-Fillmore & Valdez, 1986). Given the slow r a t e of w r i t i n g improvement f o r E.S.L. students, an improvement i n w r i t i n g q u a l i t y would not be expected over the s h o r t d u r a t i o n of the present study. Most students i n the present study d i d not develop t h e i r examples very thoroughly or competently, but even i f they had done so, the q u a l i t y of t h e i r work might not have been of a very high order. The r e s e a r c h e r noted another aspect of the stu d e n t s ' d i f f i c u l t y with vocabulary while o b s e r v i n g teachers i n s t r u c t i n g t h e i r c l a s s e s . I n i t i a l l y , students i n the experimental group us i n g the e i g h t - v e r b s had t r o u b l e understanding such verbs as " g e n e r a l i z e , " "exemplify," and "rank" even though they r e c o g n i z e d these words when they were expressed i n other forms such as the a d j e c t i v e " g e n e r a l " or the nouns "example" and "rank." As a r e s u l t , i t took the students u s i n g t h i s h e u r i s t i c a longer time to l e a r n i t than students i n the group which was us i n g the f i v e -q u e s t i o n s . Students' a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t s i n the present study suggest an DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 89 a d d i t i o n a l language problem. Some students were not able to apply h e u r i s t i c s a p p r o p r i a t e l y to t h e i r work, because they d i d n ' t understand c e r t a i n essay t o p i c s . One student, completing one of the l e s s o n s on the t o p i c "Education i s a l i f e l o n g p r o c e s s " only responded to the word "education." A s i m i l a r problem e x i s t e d with the phrase "The meaning of success" and the gerund phrase "Making d e c i s i o n s . " In each case, although the students r e c o g n i z e d a l l the words i n a t o p i c , they f a i l e d to a p p r o p r i a t e l y address the t o p i c and simply r e p l i e d to a key noun i n the phrase. These examples i n d i c a t e the degree of s o p h i s t i c a t e d l i n g u i s t i c knowledge o f t e n i m p l i c i t i n an essay t o p i c . Though these p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s i l l u s t r a t e the demands of r e a d i n g comprehension i n a second language r a t h e r than the problem of u s i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s , they demonstrate how knowledge of a language might a f f e c t a student's a b i l i t y to respond to an essay t o p i c . T h e r e f o r e , a program of w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n f o r E.S.L. students might need to be supplemented by a c t i v i t i e s to improve read i n g s k i l l s . E l l e y and Mangubhai (1983), and Krashen (1984) note t h a t w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n a second language needs to be supplemented by an e x t e n s i v e and longterm r e a d i n g program and by other p u r p o s e f u l language a c t i v i t i e s . F i n a l l y , with regard to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s u b j e c t s i n the present study, an i n f o r m a l examination of students' a c t i v i t y b o o k l e t s a l s o i n d i c a t e d that E.S.L. students of l e a s t a b i l i t y had t r o u b l e u s i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s to produce m a t e r i a l f o r t h e i r essays a t l e a s t i n p a r t because they d i d n ' t understand DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS y u the essay form. Although the students i n the present study were a l l i n the same grade, there was c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to w r i t e e x p o s i t o r y essays. 2. CONCLUSIONS On the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s presented i n Chapter 4 and the d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s presented i n t h i s chapter, s e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s are o f f e r e d . They are as f o l l o w s : (1) There are no d i f f e r e n c e s on w r i t i n g q u a n t i t y among groups of students u s i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and a group of students which i s not using them. (2) There are no d i f f e r e n c e s on w r i t i n g q u a l i t y among students u s i n g w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and a group of students which i s not u s i n g them. 3. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM PRACTICE W r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s d i d not appear to a i d students i n w r i t i n g . H e u r i s t i c s d i d not have any s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the q u a n t i t y or the q u a l i t y of s t u dents' w r i t i n g . U s e f u l work. i n a i d i n g student w r i t i n g has been done by B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1985) who suggest t h a t g r e a t e r i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s may l i e i n p r o v i d i n g students with r o u t i n e s and a i d s f o r w r i t i n g and i n s e t t i n g more concrete goals for w r i t i n g . Students might become more aware of p l a n n i n g i n w r i t i n g through the use of teachable r o u t i n e s and d i s p l a y s of the p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g i e s of expert w r i t e r s . As f o r g o a l - s e t t i n g , educators might a s s i s t students by p r o v i d i n g them with more s p e c i f i c w r i t i n g tasks such as w r i t i n g f o r s p e c i f i c audiences. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 5 1 These measures would focus students' a t t e n t i o n on the goals of t h e i r w r i t i n g . Teachers may wish to i n c o r p o r a t e the w r i t i n g process a c t i v i t i e s developed f o r t h i s study i n t o t h e i r classroom r o u t i n e s . A c t i v i t i e s such as t a l k - w r i t e , performance s c a l e s , and peer response that were used i n the i n s t r u c t i o n o f the students i n a l l three groups i n the present study may have i n c r e a s e d t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y because there was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on w r i t i n g q u a n t i t y f o r a l l groups on the p o s t t e s t . But while these a c t i v i t i e s may help students to generate content, teachers a l s o need to a s s i s t students i n i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h i s m a t e r i a l i n t o t h e i r wr i t ing. 4 . IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH No e f f e c t s were found f o r the classroom use of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s as c u r r e n t l y d e s c r i b e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e i n composition r e s e a r c h . There are, however, other q u e s t i o n s concerning t h e i r e f f e c t s . One q u e s t i o n which might be researched i s the e f f e c t of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of w r i t i n g a b i l i t y . Although the students i n the present study were a l l i n the same grade, there was c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n t h e i r a b i l i t y . Cumming (1988) suggests t h a t h o l i s t i c assessments i n E.S.L. may confound w r i t i n g e x p e r t i s e with second language a b i l i t y . Separate t e s t s of language a b i l i t y and of w r i t i n g a b i l i t y might address t h i s concern i n a p r e l i m i n a r y s c r e e n i n g . Therefore, i t would be v a l u a b l e to examine c e r t a i n ranges of a b i l i t y through p r e l i m i n a r y DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 92 sc r e e n i n g with r e a d i n g or w r i t i n g assessments. T h i s would be u s e f u l even i f subsequent i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were of n e c e s s i t y c a r r i e d out with small groups of E.S.L. students. A r e a d i n g comprehension t e s t and a w r i t i n g t e s t might be admi n i s t e r e d to the experimental s u b j e c t s i n advance of the p r e t e s t . T h i s data might provide more i n f o r m a t i o n about the e f f e c t of using w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s . I t would a l s o be v a l u a b l e to c o n s i d e r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and c e r t a i n aspects of the a f f e c t i v e domain of students. T h i s type of i n v e s t i g a t i o n might i n c l u d e student l e a r n i n g s t y l e , i n t e r e s t i n w r i t i n g , and i n the case of E.S.L. students, a t t i t u d e towards l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h . When d e s i g n i n g f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on the e f f e c t s of h e u r i s t i c s on w r i t i n g , the treatment p e r i o d c o u l d be extended from the 10 hours examined i n the c u r r e n t study to 14 hours over a semester. T h i s was the case with two pre v i o u s s t u d i e s o f w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s (Dutch, 1980; S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986) that r e p o r t e d some w r i t i n g improvement i n t h e i r experimental groups. In a d d i t i o n , w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s themselves should be f u r t h e r examined. Would a d i f f e r e n t type of h e u r i s t i c than those used i n the present study produce a f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t on students' w r i t i n g ? In terms of E.S.L. students, the i s s u e o f vocabulary i s important so perhaps a h e u r i s t i c i n v o l v i n g vocabulary i n s t r u c t i o n might be u s e f u l . Vocabulary i n s t r u c t i o n has a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the q u a l i t y of e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g i n young c h i l d r e n a c c o r d i n g to Thibodeau (1963) and Duin & Graves (1986, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 93 1987). However, t h i s l i n k has only been demonstrated between w r i t i n g t o p i c s which are r e l a t e d to the vocabulary s t u d i e d . I t might be v a l u a b l e to i n v e s t i g a t e whether vocabulary i n s t r u c t i o n might a i d s t udents' w r i t i n g where there was no d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the vocabulary s t u d i e d and the essay t o p i c s . F i n a l l y , there i s the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n of whether or not a w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c might a i d students i n d e veloping t h e i r p l a n n i n g . Developing more content was the focus of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n but f u t u r e r e s e a r c h might undertake t h i s more fundamental q u e s t i o n . Generating content i s p a r t of the process of p l a n n i n g so study of the e f f e c t s of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s on p l a n n i n g might l e a d to more i n s i g h t i n t o the nature of p l a n n i n g . In terms of measures employed i n the present study, a word count d i d not e s t a b l i s h d i f f e r e n c e s between w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s and grammar p r a c t i c e and i t i s probably not reasonable to expect s t u d e n t s ' w r i t i n g q u a l i t y to improve over a s h o r t p e r i o d of i n s t r u c t i o n . I t may be more reasonable to assess the e f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s through measuring idea u n i t s as was done by Burns (1979) and S t r i c k l a n d (1985, 1986). An even b e t t e r measure might be to use r e l e v a n t - i d e a u n i t s i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h as s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s have commented that h e u r i s t i c s o f t e n generate many ideas t h a t a w r i t e r engaged i n a s p e c i f i c w r i t i n g problem cannot use (Burns, 1979; H i l g e r s , 1980, 1981; S t r i c k l a n d , 1985, 1986). Fur t h e r r e s e a r c h on the e f f e c t s of w r i t i n g h e u r i s t i c s with a d i f f e r e n t measure such as t h i s one might prove v a l u a b l e . REFERENCES 94 REFERENCES: Anderson, V., Smart, D., B e r e i t e r , C. (1980). A c t i v a t i o n of semantic networks i n w r i t i n g : Teaching students how to do i t t h e m s e l v e s — . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Boston. Applebee, A. N. (1981). W r i t i n g i n the secondary s c h o o l : E n g l i s h  and the content areas. N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h : Research Report #21. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Applebee, A. N. (1984a). Contexts f o r l e a r n i n g to w r i t e : S t u d i e s  of secondary school i n s t r u c t i o n . Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Applebee, A. N. (1984b). W r i t i n g and reasoning. Review of  E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 54, 577-599. Applebee, A. N. (1985). Musings... w r i t i n g processes, r e v i s i t e d . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 19, 213-215. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J . , M u l l i s , I. (1986). The w r i t i n g  r e p o r t c a r d : W r i t i n g achievement i n american s c h o o l s . N a t i o n a l Assessment of E d u c a t i o n a l Progress a t E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e : P r i n c e t o n , N.J.: Report No. 5-W-02. Arendt, V. (1987). A p r o t o c o l - b a s e d study of LI and L2 w r i t i n g . E n g l i s h Language Teaching J o u r n a l , 41, 257-267. A r i s t o t l e . (1954). The r h e t o r i c and p o e t i c s of A r i s t o t l e . (W. R. Roberts, t r a n s . ) New York: Random House. A t w e l l , M.A. (1981). The e v o l u t i o n of t e x t : The i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g i n the composing process. D i s s e r t a t i o n  A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 42: 116A. B a r n e t t , J . Di Vesta, F., R o g o z i n s k i , J . (1981). What i s l e a r n e d i n note taking? J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 73, 181-192. Bator, P. (1980) The impact of c o g n i t i v e development upon audience awareness i n the w r i t i n g process. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41: 653A. Belanger, J . , M a r t i n , G. (1984). The i n f l u e n c e of improved r e a d i n g s k i l l on w r i t i n g s k i l l . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, xxx, 194-212. B e r e i t e r , C , Scardamalia, M. (1982). From c o n v e r s a t i o n to composition: The r o l e of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a developmental process. In R. G l a s e r (Ed.) Advances i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l psychology, ( v o l . 2), 1-64. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . REFERENCES 95 Benton, S., Blohm, P. (1986). E f f e c t of q u e s t i o n type and p o s i t i o n on measures of conceptual e l a b o r a t i o n i n w r i t i n g . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 20, 98-108. B e r l i n , J . A. (1982). Contemporary composition: The major pedagogical t h e o r i e s . C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 44, 765-777. B e r t h o f f , A. E. (1982). Forming, t h i n k i n g , w r i t i n g : The composing  imagination. M o n t c l a i r , N.J.: Boynton/Cook. Bowden, S.P. (1979). The e f f e c t s of formal, t r a d i t i o n a l grammar study on the w r i t i n g a b i l i t y of secondary school students. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 40: 13899-A. Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R. and Schoer, L. (1963). Research i n  W r i t t e n Composition. Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . B r i t t o n , J . , Burgess, T., M a r t i n , N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s (11-18). London: Macmillan. Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Burns, H. (1979). S t i m u l a t i n g r h e t o r i c a l i n v e n t i o n i n E n g l i s h  composition through computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n . D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of Texas a t A u s t i n . (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 188 245). / Burns, H., Culp, G. H. (1980). S t i m u l a t i n g i n v e n t i o n i n E n g l i s h composition through computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l  Technology, 8, 5-10. Burns, H. (1982). Computer-assisted p r e - w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s : Harmonies fo r i n v e n t i o n . In Computers i n composition i n s t r u c t i o n . In J . Lawlor (Ed.) Computers i n composition i n s t r u c t i o n . Proceedings of a r e s e a r c h / p r a c t i c e conference a t South West Regional Laboratory, E d u c a t i o n a l Research and Development (SWRL), Los Alamitos, C a l i f o r n i a , A p r i l 22-23, 19-30. B u r t i s , P., B e r e i t e r , C. Scardamalia, M., Tetroe, J . , (1983). The development of p l a n n i n g i n w r i t i n g . In B. K r o l l Se G. Wells, E x p l o r a t i o n s i n the development of w r i t i n g : Theory, r e s e a r c h and  p r a c t i c e . C h i c h e s t e r , U.K: John Wiley & Sons. C a r d e l l , M., and Corno, L. (1981). E f f e c t s on second language l e a r n i n g of v a r i a t i o n s i n w r i t t e n feedback on homework assignments. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y : 15, 251-261. REFERENCES 96 C l i f f o r d , J . (1981). Composing i n stages: The e f f e c t s of a c o l l a b o r a t i v e pedagogy. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 15, 37-53. Coleman, D. (1982). The e f f e c t of p u p i l use of a c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g s c a l e as an e v a l u a t i v e and i n s t r u c t i o n a l t o o l by primary g i f t e d s tudents. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 42: 3409A. C o l l i e r , V. (1987). Age and r a t e of a c q u i s i t i o n of a second language f o r academic purposes. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 2_, 617-641. Cooper, C. R. (1977). H o l i s t i c e v a l u a t i o n of w r i t i n g . In C. R. Cooper, & L. O d e l l (Eds.) E v a l u a t i n g w r i t i n g : D e s c r i b i n g ,  measuring, judging. Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . Cooper, C. R. , and O d e l l , L. (1977). E v a l u a t i n g w r i t i n g :  D e s c r i b i n g , measuring, judging. Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . Cooper, P. (1984). The e v a l u a t i o n of w r i t i n g a b i l i t y : A review of  r e s e a r c h . P r i n c e t o n , N.J.: E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e . C o r b e t t , E. P. J. (1971). C l a s s i c a l r h e t o r i c f o r the modern  student. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Crowhurst, M. (1979). The w r i t i n g workshop: An experiment i n peer response to w r i t i n g . Language A r t s , 56, 757-762. Crowhurst, M. (1988). W r i t i n g : Can we teach i t ? Reading-Canada- Lecture , 6_, 5-11. Crowhurst, M. (unpublished). I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g p e r s u a s i v e d i s c o u r s e . Vancouver, B.C., Department of Language Education, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Cumming, A. (1983). Teacher's procedures f o r responding to the w r i t i n g of students of E n g l i s h as a second language. Paper presented a t the 16th Annual Canadian C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h , Montreal, May, 1983. Cumming, A. (1985). Responding to the w r i t i n g of e . s . l . students. Highway One: Canadian C o u n c i l Teaching E n g l i s h : 1-2, 58-75. Cumming, A. (1986). I n t e n t i o n a l l e a r n i n g i n e . s . l . w r i t i n g . TESL  Canada J o u r n a l [ S p e c i a l I s s u e ] l : Nov. 69-83. Cumming, A. (1988). W r i t i n g e x p e r t i s e and second language p r o f i c i e n c y . Language Lea r n i n g , 38, 1-71. REFERENCES 97 D'Angelo, F. (1976). Notes toward a semantic theory of r h e t o r i c w i t h i n a case grammar framework. In C o l l e g e Composition and  Communication, 27, 359-362. D'Angelo, F. (1984). The e v o l u t i o n of the a n a l y t i c t o p a i . In R. J . Connors, L. S. Ede, A. A. Lunsford. (Eds.) Essays on c l a s s i c a l  r h e t o r i c and modern d i s c o u r s e . IL: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 50-68. Daubney-Davis, A. (1982a) Using i n v e n t i o n h e u r i s t i c s to teach w r i t i n g . P a r t I: An i n t r o d u c t i o n to h e u r i s t i c s . TECFORS Newsletter, 5, 1-3. Daubney-Davis, A. (1982b) Using i n v e n t i o n h e u r i s t i c s to teach w r i t i n g . P a r t I I : A look a t methods. TECFORS Newsletter, 5, 1-3. Daubney-Davis, A. (1982c) Using i n v e n t i o n h e u r i s t i c s to teach w r i t i n g . P a r t I I I : More methods to t r y . TECFORS Newsletter, 5, 5-7 . Diaz, D. (1986, November 23). The a d u l t e . s . l . w r i t e r : The process and the context. Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . San Antonio, Texas. ED 281235. D i e d e r i c h , P. (1974). Measuring growth i n E n g l i s h . Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . Dixson, R. J . (1983). Graded e x e r c i s e s i n e n g l i s h . (rev. ed.) New York: Regents, 49, 50, 52, 53, 68, 83. Duin, A., Graves, M., (1986). E f f e c t s of vocabulary i n s t r u c t i o n used as a p r e w r i t i n g technique. J o u r n a l of Research and  Development i n Education, 20, 7-13. Duin, A., Graves, M., (1987). I n t e n s i v e vocabulary i n s t r u c t i o n as a p r e w r i t i n g technique. Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , XXII, 311-330 . Dutch, W. L. (1980). A comparison of the use of student-generated h e u r i s t i c s with the use of a Larson-generated h e u r i s t i c i n a c o l l e g e classroom. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 40: 6177-A. Eastman, R. M. (1984). W r i t i n g and r e a d i n g as the d i s c o v e r y of  outlook. (3rd Ed.) New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y . Ebbert, G. M. (1980). A comparison of three i n s t r u c t i o n a l approaches f o r teaching w r i t t e n composition: P e n t a d i c , tagmemic, and c o n t r o l treatment. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41: 1985-A. REFERENCES 98 Eblen, C. (1983). W r i t i n g a c r o s s the c u r r i c u l u m : A survey of a u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y ' s views and classroom p r a c t i c e s . Research i n  the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 17, 343-348. Edelsky, C. (1982). W r i t i n g i n a b i l i n g u a l program: The r e l a t i o n o f LI and L2 t e x t s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 16, 211-228. E l l e y , W., Barham, H., Lamb, H. & Wylie, M. (1976). The r o l e of grammar i n secondary school e n g l i s h c u r r i c u l u m . Research i n the  Teaching of E n g l i s h , 10, 5-21. (Reprinted from New Zealand  J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l S t u d i e s , 10, (May, 1975): 26-42. E l l e y , W. (1983). The impact of r e a d i n g on second language l e a r n i n g . Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 19, 53-67. E l l i s , R. (1986). P o l i c y and p r o v i s i o n f o r e . s . l . i n s c h o o l s . Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon. Emig, J . (1971). The composing process of t w e l f t h graders. Urbana, I L . : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . E n g l i s h , H. (1964). L i n g u i s t i c theory as an a i d to i n v e n t i o n . C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, 15, 136-140. F a i g l e y , L., Cherry, R. D., J o l i f f e , D. A., Skinner, & A. M. (1985). A s s e s s i n g w r i t e r s ' knowledge and processes of composing. Norwood, N.J: Ablex. F i n d l a y , K. (1974). Teaching i n v e n t i o n by h e u r i s t i c procedures: A model for high school composition. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 35: 400A. Flower, L., & Hayes, J . R. (1977). Problem-solving s t r a t e g i e s and the w r i t i n g process. C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 39, 449-461. Flower, L. & Hayes, J . R. (1980). The c o g n i t i o n of d i s c o v e r y : D e f i n i n g a r h e t o r i c a l problem. C o l l e g e Composition and  Communication, 31, 21-32. Flower, L., & Hayes, J . R. (1981a). A c o g n i t i v e process theory of w r i t i n g . C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387. Flower, L., & Hayes, J . R. (1981b). The pregnant pause: An i n q u i r y i n t o the nature of p l a n n i n g . Research i n the Teaching of  E n g l i s h , 15, 229-244. Flower, L., & Hayes, J . (1981c). Plans t h a t guide the composing process. In C H . F r e d e r i c k s e n & J.F. Dominic (Eds.), W r i t i n g : The  nature, development, and teaching of w r i t t e n communication. 39-58, H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. REFERENCES 99 Flower, L. (1981d). Problem-solving s t r a t e g i e s f o r w r i t i n g . New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. G a s k i l l , W. (1984). Problems and r e v i s i o n s i n the composing process of a taiwanese e . s . l . student. Paper presented a t the 18th Annual TESOL Convention, Houston. G a s k i l l , W. (1986). R e v i s i n g i n S p a n i s h and e n g l i s h as a second language: A p r o c e s s - o r i e n t e d study of composition. D i s s e r t a t i o n  A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 47: 3747-A. Gere, A. R. (Ed.). (1985). Roots i n the sawdust: W r i t i n g to l e a r n  a c r o s s the d i s c i p l i n e s . Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . G l a s s , G. V., Hopkins, K. D. (1984). S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n  e d u c a t i o n and psychology. (2nd ed.) N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Gould, J . (1980). Experiments i n composing l e t t e r s : Some f a c t s , some myths, and some o b s e r v a t i o n s . In L. Gregg and E. S t e i n b e r g (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e processes i n w r i t i n g . H i l l s d a l e , N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Grobe, C. (1981). S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , mechanics, and vocabulary as p r e d i c t o r s of q u a l i t y r a t i n g s . Research i n the Teaching of  E n g l i s h , 15, 75-76. H a i r s t o n , M. (1981). S u c c e s s f u l w r i t i n g : A r h e t o r i c f o r advanced  composition. New York: W. W. Norton. H a r r i n g t o n , D., K e i t h , P., Kneupper, C , T r i p p , J . , Woods, W. (1979). A c r i t i c a l survey of resources f o r teaching i n v e n t i o n . In C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 40, 641-661. H a r r i s , R. (1962). An experimental i n q u i r y i n t o the f u n c t i o n s and value of formal grammar i n the teaching of e n g l i s h , with s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e to the t e a c h i n g of c o r r e c t e n g l i s h to c h i l d r e n aged twelve to f o u r t e e n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of London. Hatch, E., Faraday, H. (1982). Research d e s i g n and s t a t i s t i c s f o r  a p p l i e d l i n g u i s t i c s . Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Haynes, E. (1978). Using r e s e a r c h i n p r e p a r i n g to teach w r i t i n g . E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , LXVIII, 82-88. Henderson, M. (1980). The composing process of p r o s p e c t i v e elementary school t e a c h e r s : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a treatment program f o r the poor w r i t e r s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41: 2424-A REFERENCES 100 Heuring, D. (1984). The r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s of s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d e . s . l . w r i t e r s : F i v e case s t u d i e s . Paper presented a t the 18th Annual TESOL Convention, Houston, March 1984. H i l g e r s , T. (1980). T r a i n i n g c o l l e g e students i n the use of f r e e -w r i t i n g and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g h e u r i s t i c s f o r r h e t o r i c a l i n v e n t i o n . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 14, 293-307. H i l g e r s , T. (1981). Short-term t r a i n i n g of c o l l e g e composition students i n the use of f r e e w r i t i n g and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g h e u r i s t i c s f o r r h e t o r i c a l i n v e n t i o n : A comparative e v a l u a t i o n . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 42: 2977A. H i l l o c k s , G., J r . (1982). I n q u i r y and the composing p r o c e s s : Theory and r e s e a r c h . C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 44, 659-673. H i l l o c k s , G., J r . (1986). Research on w r i t t e n composition: New  d i r e c t i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g . Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l f o r Research i n E n g l i s h : ERIC. Homburg, T. (1984). H o l i s t i c e v a l u a t i o n of e . s . l . compositions: Can i t be v a l i d a t e d o b j e c t i v e l y ? TESOL QUARTERLY: 18, 87-107. Hoover, R. (1978). Review: R h e t o r i c : Discovery and change. C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, 22, 65-67. Irmscher, W. F. (1972). The h o l t guide to e n g l i s h . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston. Johnson, N. (1986). O r i g i n and a r t i f a c t : C l a s s i c a l r h e t o r i c i n modern composition t e x t s . E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y , 3., 207-215. Jones, S. (1982). Composing i n a second language: A process study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Teachers to Speakers of Other Languages, Honolulu. Jones, S., Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing i n a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.) W r i t i n g i n r e a l time: M o d e l l i n g p r o d u c t i o n  processes. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Kaczmarek, C. (1980). S c o r i n g and r a t i n g essay tas k s . In J . O i l e r & K. P e r k i n s (Eds.) Research i n Language T e s t i n g . Newbury House: Mass., 151-159. Katz, S. (1984). Teaching the tagmemic d i s c o v e r y procedure: A Case study of a w r i t i n g course. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l : 45: 1320A. Kemp, F. (1987). The u s e r - f r i e n d l y f a l l a c y . C o l l e g e Composition  and Communication, 38, 32-39. Kinneavy, J . (1980). A theory of d i s c o u r s e . New York: Norton. REFERENCES 101 Kinney, J . (1978). Tagmemic R h e t o r i c : A r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . C o l l e g e  Composition and Communication, 29, 351-355. K i n t s c h , W. (1974). The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of meaning i n memory. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Krashen, S. (1984). W r i t i n g : Research, theory, and a p p l i c a t i o n s . Oxford, United Kingdom: Pergamon. L a i , C. (1986). UBC SPSSX: S t a t i s t i c a l package f o r s o c i a l  s c i e n c e s , extended v e r s i o n 2.0 (under mts). Vancouver: UBC Computing Centre. Langer, J . A., Applebee, A. N. (1987). How w r i t i n g shapes  t h i n k i n g : A study o f teaching and l e a r n i n g . Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers o f E n g l i s h . Langston, M. (1986). The o l d paradigm i n computer a i d s to i n v e n t i o n : A c r i t i c a l review. R h e t o r i c S o c i e t y Q u a r t e r l y , XVI, 261-284. Larson, R. L. (1968). D i s c o v e r y through q u e s t i o n i n g : A p l a n f o r tea c h i n g r h e t o r i c a l i n v e n t i o n . C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 30, 126-134. Larson, R. L. (1971). I n v e n t i o n once more: A r o l e f o r r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s . C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 32, 665-672. Lauer, J . M. (1967). I n v e n t i o n i n contemporary r h e t o r i c :  H e u r i s t i c procedures. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan. Lauer, J . M. (1970). H e u r i s t i c s and composition. In C o l l e g e  Composition and Communication, 21, 396-404. Lauer, J . M. (1984). Issues i n r h e t o r i c a l i n v e n t i o n . In R. J . Connors, L. S. Ede, A. A. Lunsford, (Eds.) Essays on c l a s s i c a l  r h e t o r i c and modern d i s c o u r s e . IL: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 127-139. Lay, N. (1982). Composing process of a d u l t e . s . l . l e a r n e r s : A case study. TESOL QUARTERLY, 16, 406. Leibman-Kleine, J . (1987). Teaching and r e s e a r c h i n g i n v e n t i o n : Using ethnography i n e . s . l . w r i t i n g c l a s s e s . E n g l i s h Language  Teachers J o u r n a l , 41, 104-111. L i n g , S. (1986). T a l k - w r i t e i n the composing p r o c e s s : From p r e w r i t i n g to w r i t i n g . TESL Canada J o u r n a l , 4_, 55-75. REFERENCES 102 M a r t i n , R. G. (1968). A p r e d i c t i o n formula f o r a sample of "good" w r i t i n g . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of South C a r o l i n a . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 29: 1221-A Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and p l a n n i n g : The tempo of w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e p r o d u c t i o n . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 15, 113-134. McKay, S. (1981). P r e w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s . TECFORS Newsletter, 4, 1-2. Metzger, E. (1977). Causes of f a i l u r e to l e a r n to w r i t e : E x p l o r a t o r y case s t u d i e s a t grade seven, grade ten, and c o l l e g e l e v e l . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 38: 3346-A. M i l l e r , B.D., and Ney, J.W. (1968). The e f f e c t of s y s t e m a t i c o r a l e x e r c i s e s on the w r i t i n g of fourth-grade students. Research i n  the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 2_, 44-61. M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n : Student Assessment Branch. (1989). E n g l i s h 12 p r o v i n c i a l examinations essay: H o l i s t i c s c o r i n g procedures. V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Queen's P r i n t e r . M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n : Student Assessment Branch. (1989). Assessment update: R e s u l t s of the 1988 r e a d i n g and w r i t t e n  e x p r e s s i o n assessment. (September, FCG 121). V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Queen's P r i n t e r . M i s c h e l , T. (1974). A case study of a twelfth-grade w r i t e r . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 8: 303-14. Myers, M i l e s . (1980). A procedure f o r w r i t i n g assessment and  h o l i s t i c s c o r i n g . Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h : ERIC. Myers, M i l e s . (1985). The t e a c h e r - r e s e a r c h e r : How to study  w r i t i n g i n the classroom. Urbana: IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h : ERIC. Newell, A., Simon, H. (1972). Human problem s o l v i n g . Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e H a l l . Nugent, S. (1980). A comparative a n a l y s i s of two methods of i n v e n t i o n . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41: 4018A. Obenchain, A. (1971). E f f e c t i v e n e s s of the p r e c i s essay q u e s t i o n  i n programming the s e g u e n t i a l development of w r i t t e n composition  s k i l l s and the simultaneous development of c r i t i c a l r e a d i n g  s k i l I s . (Master's t h e s i s , George Washington U n i v e r s i t y ) . O d e l l , L. (1974). Measuring the e f f e c t of i n s t r u c t i o n i n p r e -w r i t i n g . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 8_, 228-240. REFERENCES 103 O d e l l , L. (1981). D e f i n i n g and a s s e s s i n g competence i n w r i t i n g . In C h a r l e s Cooper (Ed.), The nature and measurement of competency  i n e n g l i s h . Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . Palmer, W.S. (1971). Reading, w r i t i n g , and the realm of reason. Phi D e l t a Kappan, 52, 473-475. P e r l , S. (1978). F i v e w r i t e r s w r i t i n g : Case s t u d i e s of the  composing processes o f u n s k i l l e d c o l l e g e w r i t e r s . D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . New York U n i v e r s i t y . ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s 78-24, 104) . P e r l , S. (1979). The composing processes o f u n s k i l l e d c o l l e g e w r i t e r s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 13, 317-336. P e r l , S. (1980). Understanding composing. C o l l e g e Composition and  Communication, 31, 363-369. Pianko, S.H. (1979). A d e s c r i p t i o n o f the composing a c t s of c o l l e g e freshmen w r i t e r s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 13, 5-22. Pike , K. (1964a). A l i n g u i s t i c c o n t r i b u t i o n to composition. C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, 15, 8 2-88. Pike, K. (1964b). A l i n g u i s t i c c o n t r i b u t i o n to composition. C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, 15, 129-135. R a d c l i f f e , T. (1972). T a l k - w r i t e composition: A t h e o r e t i c a l model proposing the use of speech to improve w r i t i n g . Research i n the Teaching o f E n g l i s h , 6, 187-199. Raimes, A. (1979). Problems and tea c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n e . s . l . compositions. In Language e d u c a t i o n : Theory and p r a c t i c e 14. A r l i n g t o n , VA: Center f o r A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s . Raimes, A. (1983). T r a d i t i o n and r e v o l u t i o n i n e . s . l . t e a c h i n g . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 17, 535-552. Raimes, A. (1985). What u n s k i l l e d ESL students do as they w r i t e : A classroom study o f composing. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 19, 229-258. Rohman, D., Wlecke, A. (1964). P r e - w r i t i n g : The c o n s t r u c t i o n and  a p p l i c a t i o n o f models to concept formation i n w r i t i n g . East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y , ED 001 273. Rohman, D. (1965). P r e - w r i t i n g : The stage of d i s c o v e r y i n the w r i t i n g process. C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, 16, 106-112. REFERENCES 104 Runnals, A. (1987). An i n t r o d u c t i o n to mts. Vancouver: UBC Computing Centre. Sager, C. (1973). Improving the q u a l i t y of w r i t t e n composition through p u p i l use of a r a t i n g s c a l e . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 34: 1496-A. S a v i l l e - T r o i k e , M. (1984). What r e a l l y matters i n second language l e a r n i n g f o r academic achievement. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 18, 199-219. Sawkins, M. (1971). The o r a l responses of s e l e c t e d f i f t h grade c h i l d r e n to q u e s t i o n s concerning t h e i r w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 31: 6287-A. Scardamalia, M., B e r e i t e r , C , Woodruff, E. ( 1980). The e f f e c t s  of content knowledge on w r i t i n g . Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Boston. Scardamalia, M., B e r e i t e r , C. (1985). F o s t e r i n g the development of s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n i n c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge p r o c e s s i n g . In R. G l a s e r , S. Chipman, J . Segal (Eds.) T h i n k i n g and l e a r n i n g s k i l l s . H i l l s d a l e : N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum: 563-577. Scardamalia, M., B e r e i t e r , C. (1986). W r i t t e n composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of r e s e a r c h on t e a c h i n g . (3rd ed.) New York: Macmillan, 778-803. School D i s t r i c t 44, North Vancouver. (1981). W r i t i n g 44: Pronoun-antecedent Usage ( l e a r n i n g package), Vancouver: School D i s t r i c t 44, North Vancouver, 2, 3, 5, 6. Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). E r r o r s and e x p e c t a t i o n s . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Sherwin, J . S. (1969). Four problems i n t e a c h i n g e n g l i s h : A  c r i t i g u e of r e s e a r c h . P e n n s y l v a n i a : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h . S i l v a , T. (1987, March) E . s . l . composition: A h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . A paper presented a t the 33rd conference on C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, A t l a n t a , Georgia. ED282442. o Spack, R. (1984). I n v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s and the e . s . l . student. TESOL QUARTERLY, 18_, 649-670. S t a l l a r d , C. K. (1974). An a n a l y s i s of the w r i t i n g behaviour of good student w r i t e r s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 8_, 206-218. Stewart, M. F., Grobe, C. (1979). S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , mechanics of w r i t i n g , and t e a c h e r s ' q u a l i t y r a t i n g s . Research i n the  Teaching of E n g l i s h , 13, 20 7-216. REFERENCES 105 S t r i c k l a n d , J . (1985). A comparative study of s y s t e m a t i c and unsystematic h e u r i s t i c s t r a t e g i e s i n computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n and t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 45: 2749A-2750A. S t r i c k l a n d , J . (1986, March 13). Computers, i n v e n t i o n and the power to change student w r i t i n g . A paper presented at the 37th annual conference on C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, New Orleans, 15pp. ED267449. S u l l i v a n , J . L. (1969). A study of the r e l a t i v e m e r its of t r a d i t i o n a l grammar, g e n e r a t i v e - t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar, or no grammar i n an approach to w r i t i n g i n communication one a t Colorado s t a t e c o l l e g e . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 39: 1197-A. Sweeder, J . (1981). A d e s c r i p t i v e study of s i x remedial w r i t e r s : T h e i r composing processes and h e u r i s t i c s t r a t e g i e s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 42: 2004A. T a y l o r , B. (1981). Content and w r i t t e n form: A two-way s t r e e t . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 15, 5-12. Thibodeau, A. (1963). A study of the e f f e c t s of e l a b o r a t i v e t h i n k i n g and vocabulary enrichment e x e r c i s e s on w r i t t e n composition. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Boston U n i v e r s i t y . Warters, S. (1979). The w r i t i n g process of b a s i c w r i t e r s . Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the Canadian C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h , Montreal. Whatley, C. (1982). Focusing i n the composing p r o c e s s : The development of a theory of r h e t o r i c a l i n v e n t i o n . ED 247 570. White, E. (1985). Teaching and a s s e s s i n g w r i t i n g . San F r a n c i s c o , CA: Jossey-Bass. White, R. H. (1965). The e f f e c t of s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s on improving e n g l i s h composition compared to that of p r e s c r i p t i v e grammar or the absence of grammar i n s t r u c t i o n . D i s s e r t a t i o n  A b s t r a c t s , 25: 5032. Whitehead, C. E., J r . (1966). The e f f e c t of grammar-diagraming on student w r i t i n g s k i l l s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s 26: 3710. Widdowson, H. (1987). Teaching language as communication. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Wiersma, W. (1986). Research methods i n e d u c a t i o n : An  i n t r o d u c t i o n . (4th ed.) Newton, MASS: A l l y n and Bacon. REFERENCES 106 Winer, B. J . (1971). S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n experimental  des i g n . (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill. Winterowd, W. R. (1973). Topics and l e v e l s i n the composing process. In C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 34, 701-709. Winterowd, W. R. (Ed.). (1975). Contemporary r h e t o r i c . New York: Harcourt Brace. Winterowd, W. R. (1980). Developing a composition program. In A. Freedman, I. P r i n g l e (Eds.) R e i n v e n t i n g the r h e t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n . Canadian C o u n c i l of Teachers o f E n g l i s h : L. & S. Books, 151-171. Winterowd, W. R. (1986) C o m p o s i t i o n / r h e t o r i c : A s y n t h e s i s . Carbondale and E d w a r d s v i l l e : Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y Press. Witte, S., F a i g l e y , L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204. Wixon, V., Stone, P. (1977). G e t t i n g i t out, g e t t i n g i t down: Adapting z o e l l n e r ' s t a l k - w r i t e . E n g l i s h J o u r n a l . 9_, 70-73. Wong-Fillmore, L. Valdez, C. (1986). Teaching b i l i n g u a l l e a r n e r s . In M. Wi t t r o c k , (Ed.) Handbook of r e s e a r c h on t e a c h i n g . (3rd Ed.). New York: Macmillan, 648-685. Woodruff, E., B e r e i t e r , C , & Scardamalia, M. (1981). On the road to computer-assisted compositions. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l  Technology Systems, 10, 133-148. Woodruff, E. (1982, A p r i l ) . Computer-assisted p r e - w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s : Harmonics f o r i n v e n t i o n . In Computers i n composition  i n s t r u c t i o n . In J . Lawlor (Ed.) Computers i n composition  i n s t r u c t i o n . Proceedings of a r e s e a r c h / p r a c t i c e conference at South West Regional Laboratory, E d u c a t i o n a l Research and Development (SWRL), Los Alamitos, C a l i f o r n i a . Woods, D. (1984). A process o r i e n t a t i o n i n e . s . l . w r i t i n g . C a r l e t o n Papers i n A p p l i e d Language S t u d i e s , 1_, 101-138. Young, R., Becker, A., (1967). Toward a modern theory of r h e t o r i c : A tagmemic c o n t r i b u t i o n . In J . Steinman (Ed.) New  R h e t o r i c s . New York: C h a r l e s S c r i b n e r ' s & Sons. 78-107. (Reprinted from Harvard E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1965: 35., 450-468). Young, R., Becker, A., Pi k e , K. (1970). R h e t o r i c , d i s c o v e r y , and  change. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Young, R. Koen, F. (1973). The tagmemic d i s c o v e r y procedure: An  e v a l u a t i o n o f i t s uses i n the t e a c h i n g o f r h e t o r i c . Ann Arbor, MI: U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan. ERIC 084 517. REFERENCES 107 Young, R. (1976). I n v e n t i o n : A t o p o g r a p h i c a l survey. In G. Tate (Ed.) Teaching composition: Ten b i b l i o g r a p h i c essays. F o r t Worth, Texas: C h r i s t i a n U n i v e r s i t y Press. Young, R. (1978). Paradigms and problems: Needed r e s e a r c h i n r h e t o r i c a l i n v e n t i o n . In C. R. Cooper & L. O d e l l (Ed.), Research  on composing: P o i n t s of departure. Urbana, IL: N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h , 29-47. Young, R. (1980). A r t s , c r a f t s , g i f t s and knacks: Some disharmonies i n the new r h e t o r i c . In A. Freedman, I. P r i n g l e (Eds.) R e i n v e n t i n g the r h e t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n . Canadian C o u n c i l of Teachers of E n g l i s h : L. & S. Books, 53-61. Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition i n the e . s . l . classroom: What we can l e a r n from r e s e a r c h i n the t e a c h i n g of e n g l i s h . TESOL  Q u a r t e r l y , 10, 67-76. Zamel, V. (1982). W r i t i n g : The process of d i s c o v e r i n g meaning. TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 16., 195-209. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL s t u d e n t s : Six case s t u d i e s . TESOL Q u a r t e r l y , 17, 165-187. Z a n o t t i , R.J. (1970). A study of the use of the tape r e c o r d e r as an a i d to w r i t t e n composition a t the s i x t h - g r a d e l e v e l . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 31: 1520-A. APPENDIX A 108 APPENDIX A - TEACHER SCHEDULE SCHEDULE OF TEACHER ROTATION AMONG GROUPS OVER THE TEN WEEKS 1. A 15 minutes C 15 minutes B 15 minutes 2. A 15 minutes B 15 minutes C 15 minutes 3. C 15 minutes B 15 minutes A 15 minutes 4. C 15 minutes A 15 minutes B 15 minutes 5. A 15 minutes B 15 minutes C 15 minutes 6. A 15 minutes B 15 minutes C 15 minutes 7. C 15 minutes A 15 minutes B 15 minutes 8. B 15 minutes C 15 minutes A 15 minutes 9. B 15 minutes A 15 minutes C 15 minutes B 15 C 15 A 15 minutes minutes minutes 109 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B - DIRECTIONS TO TEACHERS In your b i n d e r , you w i l l f i n d c o p i e s o f the i n s t r u c t i o n s and m a t e r i a l s f o r each group f o r each of the ten l e s s o n s . I t i s important f o r you to preview each l e s s o n ' s m a t e r i a l f o r the three groups i n advance of each l e s s o n . In a d d i t i o n , i n terms of other i n s t r u c t i o n a l support, i n t h i s b o o k l e t , you w i l l a l s o f i n d an a r t i c l e e x p l a i n i n g the use and a p p l i c a t i o n o f the t a l k - w r i t e technique. A s h o r t e x p l a n a t i o n of each l e s s o n i s a l s o i n c l u d e d i n t h i s b o o k l e t . F u r t h e r support w i l l be a v a i l a b l e through meetings you can arrange with the r e s e a r c h e r . Students should be f r e q u e n t l y reminded t h a t they must date each j o u r n a l e n t r y and t h a t t h e i r mark f o r t h e i r j o u r n a l s w i l l be based on the e f f o r t they put i n t o w r i t i n g i t , and that they w i l l be p e n a l i z e d f o r missing days and incomplete a c t i v i t i e s . They should a l s o be t o l d t h a t the best o f t h e i r essays, e i t h e r the p r e t e s t or p o s t t e s t w i l l form p a r t of t h e i r term mark. In t h i s way, t h e i r involvement i n the task w i l l be f a r g r e a t e r than i t would be were none of these a c t i v i t i e s to form p a r t o f t h e i r assessment f o r the course. Lesson 1 O b j e c t i v e s For the two groups u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher's o b j e c t i v e i s to help the students to understand and apply the h e u r i s t i c . For the group stu d y i n g grammar, the teacher's o b j e c t i v e i s to demonstrate the r u l e s governing the use of a r t i c l e s and to help students understand and apply these r u l e s to t h e i r w r i t i n g . Should t h i s group or any other group be so l a r g e t h a t i t i s i m p r a c t i c a l to get o r a l responses from each student, then the teacher should aim f o r sampling some o f the students' work i n order to make a p o i n t . Set-up The desks i n the classroom are rearranged i n t o three d i s t i n c t groups. A l l students are g i v e n a c o l o u r e d duotang f o l d e r with a l a b e l on i t and are asked to w r i t e down t h e i r name and group on the l a b e l . T h e i r d a i l y l e s s o n s are d i s t r i b u t e d to them i n a s t a p l e d bundle, as are papers o u t l i n i n g t h e i r h e u r i s t i c , a mnemonic f o r t h e i r h e u r i s t i c , or grammar e x e r c i s e s . The students are asked to l a b e l t h e i r bundle of l e s s o n s , and i f they have a h e u r i s t i c and a mnemonic, to i n s e r t these i n t o t h e i r b o o k l e t s , adding t h e i r own l i n e d paper to the b o o k l e t s . APPENDIX B 110 2 Once more, they are reminded t h a t t h e i r b o o k l e t s w i l l be assessed to gauge t h e i r performance, and th a t they are to hand them i n to the teacher a t the end o f each l e s s o n . While the set-up i s going on, students should be encouraged to date the day's work i n t h e i r b o o k l e t s , and to read over the f i r s t l e s s o n i n t h e i r bundle o f handouts. Procedure The teacher w i l l l i k e l y f i n d t h a t the set-up i n the f i r s t l e s s o n w i l l take ten minutes. T h i s i s a long p e r i o d of time, but as students become more accustomed to work i n t h e i r groups, set-up should take a maximum of f i v e minutes. Important data f o r t h i s experiment i s the teacher's d a i l y r e c o r d o f attendance and any remarks or o b s e r v a t i o n s recorded d u r i n g the progress of the l e s s o n . As f a r as i n s t r u c t i o n goes, the teacher w i l l f o l l o w the o b j e c t i v e s l i s t e d i n t h i s b o o k l e t , and move from group to group d u r i n g each l e s s o n . As the teacher i s f a m i l i a r with the r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h s and the p e r s o n a l i t y types o f the students i n each group, the teacher should d i r e c t a p a r t i c u l a r student to be the timekeeper f o r each group, and to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e t u r n i n g b o o k l e t s at the end of the l e s s o n . In e f f e c t , t h i s student becomes the group l e a d e r . The teacher and the student group l e a d e r s should allow f i v e minutes a t the beginning of c l a s s f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of b o o k l e t s , the students i n i t i a l r e a d i n g of t h e i r l e s s o n , the r e t u r n to the teacher of the books of those students who are absent, (and the teacher's subsequent r e c o r d i n g of these absences on the form i n the teacher's notebook). While i n s t r u c t i n g the two groups u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher should i n i t i a l l y ask the students i n these groups to dev i s e q u e s t i o n s about "Making d e c i s i o n s , " such as "How does making d e c i s i o n s change with time," u s i n g the e i g h t / v e r b s , or "How does one make d e c i s i o n s " u s i n g the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s . C o l l e c t i o n of bo o k l e t s i s a student r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . To prevent wear on the b o o k l e t s , e l a s t i c bands, and group l a b e l s , the teacher should take these o f f before g i v i n g the m a t e r i a l s to the students. APPENDIX B 111 3 Lesson 2 These should be r e p l a c e d a f t e r the students r e t u r n the b o o k l e t s a t the end of each l e s s o n . O b j e c t i v e s For the two groups u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher's o b j e c t i v e i s to review the h e u r i s t i c f o r the students. For the group s t u d y i n g grammar, the teacher's o b j e c t i v e i s to review the r u l e s governing the use of a r t i c l e s and assess student knowledge of these r u l e s . Set-up The classroom i s s e t up i n e x a c t l y the same way as i n the pre v i o u s l e s s o n with three d i s t i n c t groups. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f students b o o k l e t s i s as before as well as are other p r e l i m i n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n s . Procedure The procedure i s much as before with the teacher p r o v i d i n g a thorough review o f the h e u r i s t i c s with the students. Lesson 3 O b j e c t i v e s For the two groups u s i n g a h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher's o b j e c t i v e i s to i n f o r m a l l y assess student r e c a l l o f t h e i r h e u r i s t i c . For the group stu d y i n g grammar, the teacher's o b j e c t i v e i s to intr o d u c e the r u l e s governing the use of gerunds i n w r i t i n g . A l l students should have completed t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t of the essay. Set-up The classroom i s s e t up i n e x a c t l y the same way as i n the pre v i o u s l e s s o n with three d i s t i n c t groups. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f students b o o k l e t s i s as before as wel l as are other p r e l i m i n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n s . Procedure As the students are to f i n i s h the essays they began e a r l i e r , the teacher should emphasize t h i s to a l l groups before the l e s s o n begins. With each group, the teacher i s undertaking a general review, t r y i n g to see that every student understands a h e u r i s t i c , i n c l u d i n g a l l i t s terms, or t h a t every student understands the r u l e s governing the use of a d j e c t i v e s and a r t i c l e s . APPENDIX B 112 Lesson 4 O b j e c t i v e s The teacher's o b j e c t i v e s are to ensure t h a t the students s t u d y i n g grammar can understand and apply a r t i c l e s a c c o r d i n g to the r u l e s they have been is s u e d . T h e i r understanding of these p o i n t s of grammar should be such t h a t they can e a s i l y t r a n s l a t e one p a r t o f speech to another, f o r example, change verbs i n the past or present tense i n t o gerunds, and to understand the i m p l i c a t i o n s of u s i n g d e f i n i t e and i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s . For the groups using h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher must emphasize t h a t they not only generate g e n e r a l statements i n response to t h e i r q u e s t i o n s , but th a t they a l s o p rovide very s p e c i f i c examples of these g e n e r a l statements. For a l l three groups, these o b j e c t i v e s w i l l be r e i n f o r c e d by the teacher or r e s e a r c h e r responding to the stu d e n t s ' w r i t i n g i n t h e i r j o u r n a l s a f t e r l e s s o n four. In a l l groups students w i l l a l s o be usi n g s c a l e s to i n d i c a t e t h e i r r e l a t i v e performance i n a p p l y i n g t h e i r h e u r i s t i c or i n usi n g grammar c o r r e c t l y . A l l students must f i n i s h a r e v i s i o n o f t h e i r essays i n t h i s c l a s s . Procedure Working i n p a i r s , the students i n a l l three groups w i l l be monitoring one another's use of grammar, or a p p l i c a t i o n o f a h e u r i s t i c . They are to do t h i s through u s i n g t h e i r PERFORMANCE SCALES. The teacher i s to spend an equal amount of time with each group. Each student i n the group l e a r n i n g grammar i s to go through a s e r i e s of w r i t t e n d r i l l s on the use of o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e case pronouns, with the teacher c a l l i n g on each student to provide examples of these grammatical p o i n t s , and then examining w r i t t e n examples by each student i l l u s t r a t i n g these grammatical p o i n t s . As the teacher examines each student's w r i t t e n work, the other students are to continue working on t h e i r essays. With the two groups u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher w i l l examine each student's w r i t t e n work to see whether they have developed a p p r o p r i a t e examples i n t h e i r essays to i l l u s t r a t e the answers to t h e i r p r e - w r i t i n g q u e s t i o n s on the essay t o p i c . APPENDIX B 113 5 The teacher should ask. the students who are studying grammar to w r i t e example f o r the r u l e s governing the use of a r t i c l e s , and to w r i t e an example of a verb, then use t h a t same verb as a gerund. A f t e r a l l o w i n g some time for students to develop t h e i r answers, the teacher then asks some of the students f o r t h e i r answers. As a review of the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s h e u r i s t i c , the teacher asks each member of the group to provide a q u e s t i o n on the t o p i c , and then, to w r i t e a gene r a l statement answering t h e i r q u e s t i o n , and to provide a s p e c i f i c example with t h e i r q u e s t i o n . When a students brainstorms p o s s i b l e responses to the q u e s t i o n "Who makes d e c i s i o n s ? " the teacher asks f o r a gen e r a l statement and then a s p e c i f i c example. For "Who makes d e c i s i o n s ? " a student might answer g e n e r a l l y "People i n board rooms, i n government, and i n sc h o o l s make d e c i s i o n s " and the teacher would ask the student to g i v e a s p e c i f i c example l i k e "Company d i r e c t o r s make d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g many people. At the Bank of Hong Kong, for example, company d i r e c t o r s had to decide whether or not they would purchase the Bank of B.C. and d i v e r s i f y t h e i r a s s e t s i n Canada. The teacher should examine the e i g h t / v e r b s with students by a s k i n g each member of the group to ask a q u e s t i o n , and then a f t e r w a r d , to w r i t e a general statement answering t h e i r q u e s t i o n , and to provide a s p e c i f i c example with t h e i r q u e s t i o n . T h i s i s a s i m i l a r procedure to the one j u s t d e s c r i b e d . O b j e c t i v e s The teacher should ensure t h a t the students apply t h e i r new knowledge of h e u r i s t i c s , or of grammar to a new w r i t i n g t o p i c "Education i s a l i f e l o n g p r o c e s s " while the group l e a r n i n g grammar w i l l r e c e i v e i n s t r u c t i o n i n the present continuous tense. Here the teacher w i l l f o l l o w the same procedure as with the f i r s t t o p i c , a s k i n g students to apply t h e i r h e u r i s t i c s to i t , emphasizing s p e c i f i c examples. A l l groups should r e c e i v e a very b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n o f the meaning of the t o p i c i n the f i v e minutes d u r i n g papers are being d i s t r i b u t e d to students i n each of the groups. APPENDIX B 114 Set-up As before Procedure G e n e r a l l y , the procedure should be as i n l e s s o n #1. The teacher should t r y to ins u r e t h a t a l l groups w r i t e as much as p o s s i b l e . When d i s c u s s i n g the h e u r i s t i c with the two groups u s i n g one, the teacher should ask. each student to come up with a s i n g l e q u e s t i o n . Then a f t e r a s k i n g each student h i s or her q u e s t i o n , and commenting on each q u e s t i o n , the teacher should ask each student to wri t e an answer to t h e i r q u e s t i o n and a s p e c i f i c example. Lesson 6 O b j e c t i v e s The students u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s are to see that t h e i r h e u r i s t i c may be u s e f u l f o r t o p i c s besides the f i r s t one they have w r i t t e n , and t h a t i t i s not o n l y important to answer the qu e s t i o n s they pose themselves, but a l s o to develop s p e c i f i c examples f o r t h e i r answers. The groups s t u d y i n g the use of the present continuous tense are to r e c e i v e reinforcement of t h e i r knowledge of t h i s tense, and they are to be int r o d u c e d to the past continuous tense. Set-up As be f o r e . Procedure With the groups u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher i s t r y i n g to ensure that the students apply as many of the qu e s t i o n s from t h e i r h e u r i s t i c s to deve l o p i n g examples f o r "Education i s a l i f e l o n g p r o c e s s . " Whenever p o s s i b l e i n d i s c u s s i n g the t o p i c with the students, the teacher should d i r e c t students toward answering the q u e s t i o n , and then p r o v i d i n g a very s p e c i f i c example of t h e i r answer. The students w i l l tend to develop general statements i n response to t h e i r q u e s t i o n s , but they must be d i r e c t e d toward being s p e c i f i c when they are p r o v i d i n g an example. There are some s p e c i a l concerns here r e g a r d i n g the group u s i n g the • f i r s t h e u r i s t i c . The teacher should get the students to formulate q u e s t i o n s u s i n g the verbs they r a r e l y apply, l i k e " c o n t r a s t " or "rank." APPENDIX B 115 7 This t o p i c "Education i s a l i f e l o n g p r o c e s s " i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t than the pre v i o u s one as the e n t i r e phrase must become p a r t of the q u e s t i o n . For example, a student a s k i n g a comparison q u e s t i o n would phrase i t "Why i s e d u c a t i o n a l i f e l o n g process compared to g e t t i n g a high school c e r t i f i c a t e ? " Because f o r m u l a t i n g t h i s statement causes a change i n the placement o f the verb, students should be made aware of t h i s ; otherwise, they w i l l formulate q u e s t i o n s u s i n g j u s t "education" such as "What i s the d e f i n i t i o n of education?" r a t h e r than reformulate the q u e s t i o n which i s a more d i f f i c u l t procedure. S e v e r a l examples should be o f f e r e d by the teacher before a s k i n g students to d e r i v e t h e i r own. Once more, the students should be d i r e c t e d toward p r o v i d i n g general statements and then more s p e c i f i c examples. For the groups l e a r n i n g grammar, the teacher w i l l i n t r oduce the past continuous tense, get the students to do s e v e r a l d r i l l s with i t , and then ask them to examine t h e i r essays and see the number of p l a c e s where they might use i t . The procedure w i l l be that t y p i c a l to o r a l language d r i l l s , with the teacher q u e s t i o n i n g the students r e g a r d i n g c e r t a i n grammatical forms. As w e l l , while d i s c u s s i n g the use of continuous form, the students may f o l l o w the format o f the example on the page, w r i t i n g t h e i r own examples f o r t h i s grammatical p o i n t i n t h e i r b o o k l e t s . Lesson 7 O b j e c t i v e s The c h i e f o b j e c t i v e f o r t h i s l e s s o n i s to get the students to monitor one another's a p p l i c a t i o n of e i t h e r t h e i r h e u r i s t i c or t h e i r use of the continuous tense. T h i s i s to . be accomplished through peer t u t o r i a l and i n d i v i d u a l s u p e r v i s i o n by the teacher. Set-up As u s u a l . Procedure Working i n p a i r s , the students i n a l l three groups w i l l be monitoring one another's use of grammar, or a p p l i c a t i o n of a h e u r i s t i c . They are to do t h i s through u s i n g t h e i r PERFORMANCE SCALES. APPENDIX B 116 8 The teacher i s to spend an equal amount of time with each group. Each student i n the group l e a r n i n g grammar i s to go through a s e r i e s of w r i t t e n d r i l l s on the use of o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e case pronouns, with the teacher c a l l i n g on each student to provide examples of these grammatical p o i n t s , and then examining w r i t t e n examples by each student i l l u s t r a t i n g these grammatical p o i n t s . As the teacher examines each student's w r i t t e n work, the other students are to continue working on t h e i r essays. With the two groups u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher w i l l examine each student's w r i t t e n work to see whether they have developed a p p r o p r i a t e examples i n t h e i r essay to i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r answers to t h e i r p r e - w r i t i n g q u e s t i o n s on the essay t o p i c . Lesson 8 O b j e c t i v e s The teacher's o b j e c t i v e f o r the groups u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s i s to have them see yet another a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e i r p r e - w r i t i n g technique to a w r i t i n g problem. For the group l e a r n i n g grammar, the teacher i s to coach students i n the use of d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t o b j e c t s and o b j e c t and r e l a t i v e pronouns. Set-up As u s u a l . Procedure With the students u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher should encourage them to come up with general statements and s p e c i f i c examples, as u s u a l . With the group u s i n g the e i g h t / v e r b s , the teacher should encourage the students to t r y f o r m u l a t i n g q u e s t i o n s with verbs they use l e s s f r e q u e n t l y l i k e "compare" and " g e n e r a l i z e . " Meanwhile, with the group l e a r n i n g grammar, the teacher should f o l l o w the same procedure as i n p r e v i o u s l e s s o n s , a combination of o r a l d r i l l s and students r e c o r d i n g answers i n t h e i r b o o k l e t s . APPENDIX B 117 Lesson 9 O b j e c t i v e s The f i r s t o f the two o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h i s l e s s o n i s to have the students complete t h e i r essays. Secondly, while working with the groups u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher should t r y to encourage students to e i t h e r develop s p e c i f i c examples f o r t h e i r essays, or i n the case of the group l e a r n i n g grammar, to develop examples of the use of d i f f e r e n t types of pronouns i n E n g l i s h . Set-up As u s u a l . Procedure A l l groups are to complete t h e i r essays i n t h i s l e s s o n . With the groups u s i n g the h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher i s to examine each student's work, and to d i s c u s s the student's a p p l i c a t i o n of the h e u r i s t i c to the student's essay, emphasizing the student's use of s p e c i f i c examples. With the group l e a r n i n g grammar, the teacher w i l l go over the student's use of pronouns, a c c o r d i n g to an e x e r c i s e d i s t r i b u t e d to the students. Lesson 10 O b j e c t i v e s The c h i e f o b j e c t i v e f o r t h i s l e s s o n i s to get the students to monitor one another's a p p l i c a t i o n of e i t h e r t h e i r h e u r i s t i c or t h e i r use of d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t o b j e c t s , and s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e case pronouns. T h i s w i l l be accomplished through teacher s u p e r v i s i o n of student w r i t i n g , and through peer t u t o r i a l . Set-up As u s u a l . Procedure Working i n p a i r s , the students i n a l l three groups w i l l be monitoring one another's use of grammar, or a p p l i c a t i o n of a h e u r i s t i c . They are to do t h i s through u s i n g t h e i r PERFORMANCE SCALES. The teacher i s to spend an equal amount of time with each group. Each student i n the group l e a r n i n g grammar i s to go through a s e r i e s of w r i t t e n d r i l l s on the use of o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e case pronouns. APPENDIX B 118 10 with the teacher c a l l i n g on each student to provide examples of these grammatical p o i n t s , and then examining w r i t t e n examples by each student i l l u s t r a t i n g these grammatical p o i n t s . As the teacher examines each student's w r i t t e n work, the other students are to continue working on t h e i r essays. With the two groups u s i n g h e u r i s t i c s , the teacher w i l l examine each student's w r i t t e n work to see whether they have developed a p p r o p r i a t e examples i n t h e i r essays to i l l u s t r a t e the answers to t h e i r p r e - w r i t i n g q u e s t i o n s on the essay t o p i c . APPENDIX C 119 APPENDIX C - LESSON PLANS FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP #1 These q u e s t i o n s form a h e u r i s t i c , an a i d to help you think, of more ideas while you are w r i t i n g . There are s e v e r a l ways f o r you to remember each of the c a t e g o r i e s i n t h i s h e u r i s t i c . 1. Remember the name e i q h t / v e r b s because there are e i g h t d i f f e r e n t verbs. 2. Other ways to remember the e i g h t / v e r b s are to t h i n k of a s i l l y phrase where the f i r s t l e t t e r o f each word stands f o r each of the e i g h t verbs cause and e f f e c t , compare, c o n t r a s t , d e f i n e , g e n e r a l i z e , exemplify, time, rank. a) "Captain Cucumber's c u r i o u s daughter gazed eas t to R u s s i a . " b) "Colonel Custard's c a v a l r y d i d n ' t g a l l o p e a g e r l y to Rome." c) "Candy's can-can dancers g l i d e §_f f or t l e s s l y through r o u t i n e s . " d) "Cleo's c u r i o u s cucumber garden exploded twice r e c e n t l y . " APPENDIX C 120 DAY ONE: GROUP 1 I. Label your b o o k l e t with your name. I n s e r t a l l the pages you are g i v e n i n t o the book, then add your l i n e d paper. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . With the teacher, examine the e i g h t / v e r b s . b) 30 minutes Using your p r e - w r i t i n g notes, w r i t e as much as you can on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : Making d e c i s i o n s c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX C 121 DAY TWO: GROUP 1 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your booklet. Add s e v e r a l sheets of l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your booklet. With the teacher, review the e i q h t / v e r b s and exp l o r e some a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s you might ask with i t . b) 15 minutes Choose a partner f o r " t a l k - w r i t e . " One of you w i l l do most of the t a l k i n g . The other w i l l be doing a l l of the w r i t i n g . Exchange your j o u r n a l s with each other. The person w r i t i n g asks the person speaking d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n s u s i n g each of the e i g h t / v e r b s , i e . "What causes people to make d e c i s i o n s , " and the person speaking answers. The person w r i t i n g r e c o r d s each answer i n as much d e t a i l as p o s s i b l e . The person w r i t i n g t r i e s to get the speaker to be as s p e c i f i c as p o s s i b l e , perhaps s a y i n g , "Can you gi v e me an example." c) 15 minutes Use " t a l k - w r i t e " again, but change p o s i t i o n s with your p a r t n e r . d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX C 122 DAY THREE: GROUP 1 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your b o o k l e t . Add s e v e r a l sheets o f l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 30 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Using any notes you may have made a f t e r you began the essay i n the f i r s t l e s s o n , and usi n g your notes from t a l k - w r i t e , complete your essay. I t should be a standard m u l t i -paragraph essay between 300 and 500 words. b) 15 minutes With the teacher, review the e i g h t / v e r b s . See i f you can remember each of the e i g h t / v e r b s without r e f e r i n g to your l i s t . c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX C 123 PERFORMANCE SCALE #1: GROUP 1 Reader: W r i t e r : 1) Which three of the e i g h t / v e r b s has t h i s w r i t e r used i n h i s or her essay? 2) Each of the - e i g h t / v e r b s should be used i n a general statement followed by a s p e c i f i c example. You might read something l i k e t h i s f o r time: "Making d e c i s i o n s changes over a person's l i f e t i m e . A young man w i l l make very d i f f e r e n t d e c i s i o n s about t r a v e l l i n g than he would as an o l d man. A young man might decide to t r a v e l through Europe with a pack on h i s back and without knowing i n advance where he was going to s l e e p a t n i g h t . But a o l d e r man would choose to t r a v e l with more comfort and s e c u r i t y . He would probably choose to go on a tour with h i s h o t e l r e s e r v a t i o n s booked f a r i n advance." Another example f o r rank might be a personal one, "Making a d e c i s i o n i s b e t t e r than making no d e c i s i o n a t a l l . I f a student can't make up h i s mind whether he wants to study a t SFU or a t T r i n i t y Western U n i v e r s i t y , he might end up g e t t i n g i n t o n e i t h e r because he has waited too long to apply. No more a p p l i c a t i o n s would be accepted so making e i t h e r d e c i s i o n would have been b e t t e r than making no d e c i s i o n a t a l l . " Is there a s p e c i f i c example f o r each one of the three q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s w r i t e r ' s work? Note the s t r o n g e s t example below. What do you l i k e about i t ? 3) Write a s u g g e s t i o n below f o r improving the weaker of the answers to three q u e s t i o n s . APPENDIX C 124 DAY FOUR: GROUP 1 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your b o o k l e t . Add s e v e r a l sheets of l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . -Choose a partner and exchange b o o k l e t s . -Using your PERFORMANCE SCALE analyze your p a r t n e r ' s work to see i f they have been able to use three of the e i g h t / v e r b s i n w r i t i n g the essay. Complete the PERFORMANCE SCALE and g i v e i t to your p a r t n e r . Return your p a r t n e r ' s b o o k l e t and take your own with your p a r t n e r ' s comments. E x p l a i n any comments that your p a r t n e r does not understand. b) 15 minutes With the teacher, review the e i g h t / v e r b s . See i f you can remember each of the e i g h t / v e r b s without r e f e r i n g to your l i s t . c) 15 minutes -Using your p a r t n e r ' s suggestions, r e w r i t e the e n t i r e p i e c e . d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX C 125 DAY FIVE: GROUP 1 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . With the teacher, examine the e i g h t / v e r b s . b) 30 minutes Using your p r e w r i t i n g notes, w r i t e as much as you can on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : E d u c a t i o n i s a l i f e l o n g process c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX C 126 DAY SIX: GROUP 1 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your booklet. Add s e v e r a l sheets o f l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes With the teacher, review the e i g h t / v e r b s . See i f you can apply each of the e i g h t / v e r b s to your t o p i c without r e f e r i n g to your l i s t . b) 30 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Using any notes you made du r i n g the l a s t l e s s o n , w r i t e a standard m u l t i -paragraph essay between 300 and 500 words. c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX C 127 DAY SEVEN: GROUP 1 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your booklet. Add s e v e r a l sheets of l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . -Choose a partner and exchange b o o k l e t s . -Using your PERFORMANCE SCALE analyze your p a r t n e r ' s work to see i f they have been able to use three of the e i g h t / v e r b s i n w r i t i n g the essay. Complete the PERFORMANCE SCALE and g i v e i t to your p a r t n e r . Return your p a r t n e r ' s b o o k l e t and take your own with your p a r t n e r ' s comments. E x p l a i n any comments that your p a r t n e r does not understand. b) 15 minutes The teacher w i l l come by to a s s i s t you i n d i v i d u a l l y as you complete the essay. c) 15 minutes -Using your p a r t n e r ' s suggestions, and those of the teacher, r e w r i t e the e n t i r e p i e c e . d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX C 128 PERFORMANCE SCALE #2: GROUP 1 Reader: W r i t e r : 1) Which three of the e i g h t / v e r b s has t h i s w r i t e r used i n h i s or her essay? 2) Each of the e i g h t / v e r b s should be used i n a general statement f o l l o w e d by a s p e c i f i c example. You might read something l i k e t h i s f o r cause and e f f e c t : "Education i s a l i f e l o n g process because the t h i n g s you l e a r n have many e f f e c t s over your l i f e t i m e . " A student who has a f i r s t language other than E n g l i s h may f i n d l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h i s something t h a t changes h i s e n t i r e l i f e . The study of E n g l i s h might expose him to d i f f e r e n t ideas than he would otherwise have had. And perhaps i f he goes abroad to study E n g l i s h , then the experience of s t u d y i n g i n another country might change h i s some of h i s a t t i t u d e s i n a way t h a t would never have happened had the student remained a t home. I f he were s t u d y i n g i n Canada, he might f i n d he developed a love f o r nature, or perhaps even a f e e l i n g of s e l f - r e l i a n c e t h a t would not have been p o s s i b l e at home, l i v i n g with h i s parents and extended f a m i l y . " Another example might be one u s i n g c o n t r a s t : "Education i s a l i f e l o n g process but g r a d u a t i o n from u n i v e r s i t y i s not. These two k i n d of e d u c a t i o n are very d i f f e r e n t . We are always l e a r n i n g new t h i n g s , whether i t be how to operate a new p i e c e of computer software or how to cook a new r e c i p e . E d u c a t i o n c o n t i n u e s thorughout our l i f e t i m e though some experiences i n e d u c a t i o n are more shortterm. Graduating from u n i v e r s i t y i s something t h a t happens to us once, a f t e r a c e r t a i n number of years of study." Is there a s p e c i f i c example f o r each one of the three q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s w r i t e r ' s work? Note the s t r o n g e s t example below. What do you l i k e about i t ? 3) Write a s u g g e s t i o n below f o r improving the weaker of the answers to three q u e s t i o n s . APPENDIX C 129 DAY EIGHT: GROUP 1 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 30 minutes Using your p r e w r i t i n g notes, w r i t e as much as you can on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : b) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . With the teacher, examine the e i q h t / v e r b s . The meaning of success c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX C 130 DAY NINE: GROUP 1 One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Continue your essay. I t should be a standard multi-paragraph essay between 300 and 500 words. Once you have f i n i s h e d the essay, count three l i n e s , d i v i d e by three f o r your average number of words per l i n e and m u l t i p l y the number of l i n e s i n your essay f o r a t o t a l number of words i n your essay. b) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . The teacher w i l l examine your essay to see how you have a p p l i e d the e i g h t / v e r b s and developed examples. c) 15 minutes Complete your essay. d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX C 131 DAY TEN: GROUP 1 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 30 minutes -Choose a pa r t n e r and exchange b o o k l e t s . -Using your PERFORMANCE SCALE analyze your p a r t n e r ' s work to see i f they have been able to use three of the e i q h t / v e r b s i n w r i t i n g the essay. Complete the PERFORMANCE SCALE and gi v e i t to your p a r t n e r . Return your p a r t n e r ' s b o o k l e t and take your own with your p a r t n e r ' s comments. E x p l a i n any comments th a t your p a r t n e r does not understand. -Using your p a r t n e r ' s suggestions, r e w r i t e the essay. b) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . The teacher w i l l come by to a s s i s t you i n d i v i d u a l l y by re v i e w i n g how you used the e i q h t / v e r b s i n your essay. c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX C 132 PERFORMANCE SCALE #3: GROUP 1 Reader: W r i t e r : 1) Which three of the e i g h t / v e r b s has t h i s w r i t e r used i n h i s or her essay? 2) Each o f these three be used as a general statement f o l l o w e d by a s p e c i f i c example. You might read something l i k e t h i s f o r "compare success to something e l s e . " "Success might be compared to s a t i s f a c t i o n because success means d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s to d i f f e r e n t people. To someone l i k e m i l l i o n a i r e L i Ka-Shing, a q u i r i n g the v a l u a b l e inner c i t y p r o p e r t y of the o l d Expo s i t e was a gr e a t commercial success, and a t r i b u t e to h i s s k i l l a t n e g o t i a t i o n . On the other hand, for an o r d i n a r y man or woman l i v i n g on the North Shore of Vancouver, paying o f f the mortgage on t h e i r house might be a gre a t success. In t h i s way, success i s to a l a r g e degree, a measure of someone's per s o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n with what they have a c h i e v e d . " Another example might be one using " g e n e r a l i z i n g about what success i s l i k e . " "The a c t i o n suggested by success i s t h a t o f c l i m b i n g a mountain, l e a p i n g over a hur d l e , or perhaps winning a race. Each o f these a c t i o n s imply a change i n s t a t u s . The climber begins the climb and when he reaches the top of the mountain, r e f l e c t s on h i s achievement and views the world from a new p e r s p e c t i v e , from a higher vantage p o i n t than b e f o r e . The a t h l e t e l e a p i n g h u r d l e s or winning a race i s someone who has achieved a v i c t o r y by overcoming o b s t a c l e s or through d e f e a t i n g h i s competitors. The a t h l e t e , l i k e anyone who has achieved success has proved h i m s e l f to be b e t t e r than h i s o b s t a c l e s or h i s opponents, and t h i s i s e x a c t l y the k i n d of reward that one f e e l s i f one succeeds." Is there a s p e c i f i c example f o r each one of the three q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s w r i t e r ' s work? Note the s t r o n g e s t example below. What do you l i k e about i t ? 3) Write a answers s u g g e s t i o n below f o r improving the weaker of the to three q u e s t i o n s . APPENDIX D 133 APPENDIX D - LESSON PLANS FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP #2 These q u e s t i o n s form a h e u r i s t i c , an a i d to help you think, of more ideas while you are w r i t i n g . There are s e v e r a l ways f o r you to remember each of the c a t e g o r i e s i n t h i s h e u r i s t i c . 1. Remember the name f i v e / q u e s t i o n s because i t means f i v e and there are f i v e d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n words. 2. Other ways to remember the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s are to th i n k of s i l l y phrases where the f i r s t l e t t e r of each word stands f o r one o f the f i v e d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n words: how, who, what, where, why. a) One phrase might be Henry w e a r i l y wanders West, Wednesday." b) "How does who do what, where, and why?" (H.D.W.D.W.W.W.) i s yet another. c) Another way to remember the words i s a b b r e v i a t i o n "H-4-W, d) A f i n a l phrase might be to use the phrase "How we w i l l win words." APPENDIX D 134 DAY ONE: GROUP 2 Label your b o o k l e t with your name. I n s e r t a l l the pages you are g i v e n i n t o the book, then add your l i n e d paper. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 30 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Write the c u r r e n t date i n your notebook Write as much as you can on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : Making d e c i s i o n s c) 15 minutes With the teacher, examine the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher once you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX D 135 DAY TWO: GROUP 2 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your b o o k l e t . Add s e v e r a l sheets o f l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Choose a partner f o r " t a l k - w r i t e . " One of you w i l l do most of the t a l k i n g . The other w i l l be doing a l l of the w r i t i n g . Exchange your j o u r n a l s with each other. The person w r i t i n g asks the person speaking d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n s u s i n g each of the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s , i e . "Where do people make d e c i s i o n s , " and the person speaking answers. The person w r i t i n g r e c o r d s each answer i n as much d e t a i l as p o s s i b l e . The person w r i t i n g t r i e s to get the speaker to be as s p e c i f i c as p o s s i b l e , perhaps s a y i n g , "Can you gi v e me an example." b) 15 minutes With the teacher, review the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s and ex p l o r e some a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s you might ask with i t . c) 15 minutes Use " t a l k - w r i t e " again, but change p o s i t i o n s with your p a r t n e r . d) Return your bo o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX D 136 DAY THREE: GROUP 2 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your b o o k l e t . Add s e v e r a l sheets o f l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Using any notes you may have made a f t e r you began the essay i n the f i r s t l e s s o n , and usi n g your notes from t a l k - w r i t e , continue your essay. I t should be a standard m u l t i -paragraph essay between 300 and 500 words. b) 15 minutes With the teacher, review the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s See i f you can remember each of the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s without r e f e r i n g to your l i s t . c) 15 minutes F i n i s h your essay, d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX D 137 DAY FOUR: GROUP 2 r I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your b o o k l e t . Add s e v e r a l sheets of l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . -Choose a partner and exchange b o o k l e t s . -Using your PERFORMANCE SCALE analyze your p a r t n e r ' s work to see i f they have been able to use three of the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s i n w r i t i n g the essay. Complete the PERFORMANCE SCALE and g i v e i t to your p a r t n e r . Return your p a r t n e r ' s b o o k l e t and take your own with your p a r t n e r ' s comments. E x p l a i n any comments that your partner does not understand. b) 15 minutes -Using your p a r t n e r ' s suggestions, r e w r i t e the essay. c) 15 minutes With the teacher, review the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s . See i f you can remember each of the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s without r e f e r i n g to your l i s t . d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX D 138 DAY FIVE: GROUP 2 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . -Using the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s t o make some notes before you s t a r t w r i t i n g , w rite as much as you can on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : E d u c a t i o n i s a l i f e l o n g process b) 15 minutes With the teacher, examine the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s . c) 15 minutes Complete your essay. d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher once you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX D 139 DAY SIX: GROUP 2 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your b o o k l e t . Add s e v e r a l sheets of l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Using any notes you made du r i n g the l a s t l e s s o n , begin w r i t i n g a standard m u l t i -paragraph essay between 300 and 500 words. b) 15 minutes With the teacher, review the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s . See i f you can apply each of the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s to your t o p i c without r e f e r i n g to your l i s t . c) 15 minutes F i n i s h your essay. d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX D 140 DAY SEVEN: GROUP 2 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your b o o k l e t . Add s e v e r a l sheets o f l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . -Choose a partner and exchange b o o k l e t s . -Using your PERFORMANCE SCALE analyze your p a r t n e r ' s work to see i f they have been able to use three of the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s i n w r i t i n g the essay. Complete the PERFORMANCE SCALE and gi v e i t to your p a r t n e r . Return your p a r t n e r ' s b o o k l e t and take your own with your p a r t n e r ' s comments. E x p l a i n any comments th a t your partner does not understand. b) 15 minutes -Using your p a r t n e r ' s suggestions, begin r e w r i t i n g the essay. c) 15 minutes The teacher w i l l come by to a s s i s t you i n d i v i d u a l l y as you complete the essay. d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX D 141 PERFORMANCE SCALE #2: GROUP 2 Reader Jr i t e r : 1) Which three of the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s has t h i s w r i t e r used i n h i s or her essay? 2) The w r i t e r ' s answer should be a general statement f o l l o w e d by a s p e c i f i c example. You should read something l i k e t h i s f o r why ed u c a t i o n i s a l i f e l o n g p r o c e s s : "Education i s a l i f e l o n g process because we are always l e a r n i n g , whether we are young or o l d , or whether we are l e a r n i n g something important or t r i v i a l . An o l d woman might be l e a r n i n g a new language, or she might be l e a r n i n g a new r e c i p e , but she i s s t i l l engaged i n l e a r n i n g . " APPENDIX D 142 DAY EIGHT: GROUP 2 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes With the teacher, f i v e / q u e s t i o n s . examine your use of the b) 30 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Using the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s to make some notes before you s t a r t w r i t i n g , w rite as much as you can on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : The meaning of success c) Return your bo o k l e t to the teacher once you are f i n i s h e d . Another example might e x p l a i n where e d u c a t i o n can occur as a l i f e l o n g p r o c e s s : "Education can occur anywhere, depending on whether someone i s l e a r n i n g about knowledge i n a school or i n a u n i v e r s i t y , or i n t h e i r own home. A student might be l e a r n i n g about higher mathematics and q u a d r a t i c equations. A homeowner might be s i t t i n g a t home l e a r n i n g from a neighbour a t r o o f r e p a i r , or simple household e l e c t r o n i c s . " Is there a s p e c i f i c example f o r each one of the three q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s w r i t e r ' s work? Note the s t r o n g e s t example below. What do you l i k e about i t ? 3) Write a su g g e s t i o n below f o r improving the weaker of the answers to three q u e s t i o n s . APPENDIX D 143 DAY NINE: GROUP 2 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . The teacher w i l l examine your essay to see how you have a p p l i e d the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s and developed examples. b) 30 minutes Complete your essay. I t should be a standard multi-paragraph essay between 300 and 500 words. Once you have f i n i s h e d the essay, count three l i n e s , d i v i d e by three f o r your average number of words per l i n e and m u l t i p l y the number of l i n e s i n your essay f o r a t o t a l number of words i n your essay. c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX D 144 DAY TEN: GROUP 2 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 30 minutes -Choose a pa r t n e r and exchange b o o k l e t s . -Using your PERFORMANCE SCALE analyze your p a r t n e r ' s work to see i f they have been able to use three of the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s i n w r i t i n g the essay. Complete the PERFORMANCE SCALE and gi v e i t to your p a r t n e r . Return your p a r t n e r ' s b o o k l e t and take your own with your p a r t n e r ' s comments. E x p l a i n any comments that your partner does not understand. -Using your p a r t n e r ' s suggestions, r e w r i t e the essay. b) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . The teacher w i l l come by to a s s i s t you i n d i v i d u a l l y by reviewing how you used the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s i n your essay. c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . 145 APPENDIX D PERFORMANCE SCALE #3: GROUP 2 Reader: W r i t e r : 1) Which three of the f i v e / q u e s t i o n s has t h i s w r i t e r used i n h i s or her essay? 2) Each o f these three be used as a general statement followed by a s p e c i f i c example. You might read something l i k e t h i s f o r "what i s the meaning of succes s ? " "Success means d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s to d i f f e r e n t people. Everyone has t h e i r own standards f o r pers o n a l achievement. To someone l i k e m i l l i o n a i r e L i Ka-Shing, a q u i r i n g the va l u a b l e inner c i t y p r o p e r t y of the o l d Expo s i t e was a gre a t commercial success, and a t r i b u t e to h i s s k i l l a t n e g o t i a t i o n . On the other hand, for an o r d i n a r y man or woman l i v i n g on the North Shore of Vancouver, paying o f f the mortgage on t h e i r house might be an achievement. In t h i s way, success i s to a l a r g e degree, a measure of pers o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n which i s r e l a t e d to what an i n d i v i d u a l expects from t h e i r l i f e and economic circumstances." Another example might answer the q u e s t i o n "how can we re c o g n i z e s u c c e s s ? " "We might be able to judge success i n s e v e r a l ways. One method o f f judging success, and probably the most important, would be the degree o f pers o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n we experience when we are s u c c e s s f u l . An e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t , Thorn Henley who helped save a huge f o r e s t from the d e s t r u c t i v e c l e a r c u t l o g g i n g which threatened i t , f e l t g r e a t s a t i s f a c t i o n from saving something he lov e d . Another c r i t i e r i a f o r success might be how others see us, and from t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , our power, and apparent wealth would be important. Vancouver m i l l i o n a i r e Jimmy P a t t i s o n was the chairman of Vancouver's very s u c c e s s f u l l EXPO 86. He owns a mansion i n the B r i t i s h P r o p e r t i e s with e l e v a t o r s , and an indoor swimming p o o l , and he used to own the R o l l s Royce t h a t belonged to pop s i n g e r John Lennon. P a t t i s o n has both power and wealth." Is there a s p e c i f i c example f o r each one of the three q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s w r i t e r ' s work? Note the s t r o n g e s t example below. What do you l i k e about i t ? 3) Write a s u g g e s t i o n below f o r improving the weaker of the answers to three q u e s t i o n s . APPENDIX E 146 APPENDIX E - LESSON PLANS FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP #3 DAY ONE: GROUP 3 I. Label your b o o k l e t with your name. I n s e r t a l l the pages you are g i v e n i n t o the book, then add your l i n e d paper. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Write as much as you can on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : Making d e c i s i o n s b) 15 minutes Under your teacher's d i r e c t i o n , make notes i n your b o o k l e t of the four r u l e s governing the use o f a r t i c l e s . P u t t i n g a l l the answers i n your book, complete the e x e r c i s e s on the use of a r t i c l e s . C o r r e c t the e x e r c i s e with the teacher. c) 15 minutes Complete your essay, d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher once you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX E 147 DAY TWO: GROUP 3 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your b o o k l e t . Add s e v e r a l sheets o f l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Choose a partner f o r " t a l k - w r i t e . " One of you w i l l do most of the t a l k i n g . The other w i l l be doing a l l of the w r i t i n g . Exchange your j o u r n a l s with each other. The person w r i t i n g asks the person speaking about a l l the d i f f e r e n t r u l e s governing the use of a r t i c l e s . One example might be to ask, "What i s the r u l e concerning the use of d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e s ? Can you gi v e me an example?" The person speaking answers. The person w r i t i n g r e c o r d s each answer i n as much d e t a i l as p o s s i b l e . T h i s i s done f o r each of the four main r u l e s governing the use of a r t i c l e s and f o r the two or three d i f f e r e n t cases f o r each r u l e . b) 15 minutes Use " t a l k - w r i t e " again, but change p o s i t i o n s with your p a r t n e r . c) 15 minutes With your teacher, review the use of a r t i c l e s i n E n g l i s h . d) Return your bo o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX E DAY THREE: GROUP 3 148 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your b o o k l e t . Add s e v e r a l sheets of l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . The teacher w i l l go over the m a t e r i a l on gerunds with you. b) 30 minutes Complete the essay you began i n the f i r s t l e s s o n , u s i n g your notes from t a l k - w r i t e , and t r y i n g to apply gerunds i n your w r i t i n g . I t should be a standard multi-paragraph essay between 300 and 500 words. c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX E DAY FOUR: GROUP 3 149 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your booklet. Add s e v e r a l sheets of l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . The teacher w i l l go over the m a t e r i a l on a r t i c l e s and gerunds with you. b) 30 minutes -Choose a pa r t n e r and exchange b o o k l e t s . -Using your PERFORMANCE SCALE analyze your p a r t n e r ' s work to see i f how many a r t i c l e s and gerunds they have been able to use and whether they have used them c o r r e c t l y . Complete the PERFORMANCE SCALE and gi v e i t to your p a r t n e r . Return your p a r t n e r ' s b o o k l e t and take your own with your p a r t n e r ' s comments. E x p l a i n any comments t h a t your partner does not understand. c) 20 minutes -Using your p a r t n e r ' s suggestions, r e w r i t e the e n t i r e essay. d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX E 150 DAY FIVE: GROUP 3 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 30 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Write as much as you can on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : E d u c a t i o n i s a l i f e l o n g process b) 15 minutes With the teacher, make notes and answer qu e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the use of the present continuous tense. c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher once you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX E 151 DAY SIX: GROUP 3 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your booklet. Add s e v e r a l sheets o f l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 30 minutes Complete the essay you began i n the l a s t l e s s o n , t r y i n g to apply the present continuous tense as f r e q u e n t l y as you can i n your w r i t i n g . Your essay should be a m u l t i -paragraph essay between 300 and 500 words. b) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . The teacher w i l l go over m a t e r i a l with you on the past continuous tense with you. c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX E DAY SEVEN: GROUP 3 152 I. I n s e r t the new pages i n t o your b o o k l e t . Add s e v e r a l sheets of l i n e d paper. Read the i n s t r u c t i o n s q u i c k l y . One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time f o r the group to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Write i n your b o o k l e t the answers to the q u e s t i o n s on the f u t u r e continuous tense and the present p e r f e c t continuous tense. The teacher w i l l a s s i s t you with the q u e s t i o n s you cannot answer. b) 30 minutes -Choose a partner and exchange b o o k l e t s . -Using your PERFORMANCE SCALE analyze your p a r t n e r ' s work to see i f how many times they have used continuous tenses and whether they have used them c o r r e c t l y . Complete the PERFORMANCE SCALE and g i v e i t to your partner Return your p a r t n e r ' s b o o k l e t and take your own with your p a r t n e r ' s comments. E x p l a i n any comments t h a t your p a r t n e r does not understand. -Using your p a r t n e r ' s suggestions, r e w r i t e the e n t i r e essay. c) Return your bo o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX E 1 0 0 PERFORMANCE SCALE #2: GROUP 3 Reader: W r i t e r : 1) How many times are continuous tenses used i n t h i s essay? 2) How many times i s t h i s tense used i n c o r r e c t l y ? 3) Provide three other sentences where the w r i t e r has not used a continuos tense but c o u l d use one. 4) I f you have not found an example f o r each o f the continuos tenses past continuous, present continuous, f u t u r e continuous, and present p e r f e c t continuous, please w r i t e an example f o r each o f the mis s i n g tenses below. APPENDIX E 154 DAY EIGHT: GROUP 3 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your booklet, Write as much as you can on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : The meaning of success b) 15 minutes With the teacher, make notes and answer qu e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the use of o b j e c t pronouns, d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t o b j e c t s . c) 15 minutes Complete your essay. d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher once you are f i n i s h e d , APPENDIX E 155 DAY NINE: GROUP 3 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 30 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . Resume work on your essay. I t should be a standard multi-paragraph essay between 300 and 500 words. Once you have f i n i s h e d the essay, count three l i n e s , d i v i d e by three f o r your average number of words per l i n e and m u l t i p l y the number of l i n e s i n your essay f o r a t o t a l number of words i n your essay. b) 15 minutes With the teacher, go over the e x e r c i s e s on the use of pronouns i n E n g l i s h . c) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX E 156 DAY TEN: GROUP 3 I. One person i n each group serves as a timekeeper and n o t i f i e s other group members when i t i s time to change a c t i v i t i e s . a) 15 minutes Record the date i n your b o o k l e t . -Choose a pa r t n e r and exchange b o o k l e t s . -Using your PERFORMANCE SCALE analyze your p a r t n e r ' s work to see how many times they have used d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t o b j e c t s , and s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e case pronouns and whether they have used them c o r r e c t l y . Complete the PERFORMANCE SCALE and give i t to your p a r t n e r . Return your p a r t n e r ' s boo k l e t and take your own with your p a r t n e r ' s comments. E x p l a i n any comments th a t your partner does not understand. -Using your p a r t n e r ' s suggestions, r e w r i t e the essay. b) 15 minutes The teacher w i l l come by to a s s i s t you i n d i v i d u a l l y by reviewing your use of d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t o b j e c t s and s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e case pronouns i n your essay. c) 15 minutes Complete your r e w r i t e of the essay. d) Return your b o o k l e t to the teacher when you are f i n i s h e d . APPENDIX E 157 PERFORMANCE SCALE #3: GROUP 3 Reader: W r i t e r : 1) How many times are d i r e c t o b j e c t used i n t h i s essay? 2) How many times are i n d i r e c t o b j e c t s used i n t h i s essay? 3) To show the w r i t e r how he or she might w r i t e t h e i r sentences d i f f e r e n t l y , r e w r i t e three examples of d i r e c t o b j e c t s as i n d i r e c t ones. 4) How many times are s u b j e c t i v e case pronouns used i n t h i s essay? 5) How many times are o b j e c t i v e case pronouns used i n t h i s essay? 6) To show the d i f f e r e n t l y , pronouns as w r i t e r how he or she might r e w r i t e three examples o b j e c t i v e case pronouns. w r i t e t h e i r sentences of s u b j e c t i v e case APPENDIX F APPENDIX F - ESSAY TEST QUESTIONS 158 Name TOEFL Score (Date) IN-CLASS ESSAY You have 55 minutes to wr i t e an i n - c l a s s essay. J r i t e as much as you can and use the standard essay format, You must w r i t e on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : L e arning from mistakes Name TOEFL Score (Date) IN-CLASS ESSAY You have 55 minutes to write an i n - c l a s s essay, Write as much as you can i n a multi-paragraph essay, You must w r i t e on the f o l l o w i n g t o p i c : Nothing i s as important as. APPENDIX G APPENDIX G-- PRETEST AND POSTTEST PROCEDURES 159 1. Check the s e a t i n g arrangements so t h a t students w i l l not be i n p o s i t i o n s where they may view one another's papers. 2. A l l student books and p e n c i l cases should be l e f t a t the f r o n t of the room. 3. Scrap paper should be d i s t r i b u t e d to the students. 4. Lined sheets of paper may be s u p p l i e d i n advance by the students or provided by t h e i r teacher. 5. Each student w i l l be g i v e n one of two essay t o p i c s to write as a p r e t e s t or p o s t t e s t . For the p r e t e s t , the papers with the t o p i c s on them w i l l be d i s t r i b u t e d to the students as bundled. For the p o s t t e s t , the students w i l l r e c e i v e the t o p i c s with t h e i r names l i s t e d on them. Each student i s a l s o asked to f i l l i n h i s or her most r e c e n t TOEFL scor e . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l remain c o n f i d e n t i a l and w i l l l a t e r be used only f o r s t a t i s t i c a l purposes and not f o r any student i d e n t i f i c a t i o n f o r the purposes of grading. 6. Once the t o p i c s have been d i s t r i b u t e d and the students s t a r t w r i t i n g , the 55 minutes f o r the t e s t begin. Any latecomers, i f admitted, must be g i v e n the same 55 minutes to w r ite the t e s t . The students must be t o l d t h a t they must remain i n the room f o r the e n t i r e 55 minutes and t h a t the papers w i l l only be c o l l e c t e d from them at the end of the t e s t p e r i o d . No student w i l l be p e r m i t t e d to leave the classroom d u r i n g the t e s t p e r i o d . T h i s i s a very important  p a r t of the experimental procedure. A l l of the students must have had e x a c t l y the same amount of time to w r i t e . 7. During the t e s t , the teacher should monitor the students w r i t i n g the t e s t by walking down the a i s l e s of desks, and i n every manner t r e a t i n g the t e s t a c c o r d i n g to r e g u l a r examination procedures. 8. Halfway through the examination, the teacher the time and encourage the students to m a t e r i a l once they f i n i s h . should announce r e d r a f t t h e i r APPENDIX H 160 APPENDIX H - DIRECTIONS FOR HOLISTIC MARKING SESSION H o l i s t i c s c o r i n g i s a method of a t t r i b u t i n g scores to student compositions i n which a marker judges a p i e c e of w r i t i n g f o r i t s o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The whole paper i s more important than the sum of i t s p a r t s ; t h e r e f o r e , i n e v a l u a t i n g a p i e c e of w r i t i n g , no one f a c t o r i s weighted more than another. Markers are encouraged NOT to focus on such s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s such as grammar, usage, s t y l e , tone, vocabulary, and so f o r t h , but r a t h e r to read f o r o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The procedure f o r h o l i s t i c s c o r i n g i n v o l v e s a t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n d u r i n g which markers are i n t r o d u c e d to a d e s c r i p t i v e s c a l e or r u b r i c and g i v e n a s e t of "anchor papers" which r e p r e s e n t achievement on the s c a l e . In the i n t e r e s t of marker r e l i a b i l i t y , markers much attempt to conform to the standard e s t a b l i s h e d by d e s c r i p t i v e s c a l e and the anchor papers. Markers score each student essay on a s c a l e of one to s i x . The score i s i n i t i a l l y recorded i n the upper r i g h t hand corner on the r e v e r s e s i d e of the essay and then a second marker scores the paper out of s i x . The s e s s i o n l e a d e r then compares the two s c o r e s . I f the two scores are i d e n t i c a l , or i f they d i f f e r from one another by j u s t a s i n g l e p o i n t , then they are added together. I f the scores are d i s c r e p a n t , ( d i s a g r e e i n g by two or more p o i n t s than the s e s s i o n leader must determine the true score. The student w r i t i n g being e v a l u a t e d i n t h i s h o l i s t i c marking s e s s i o n w i l l enable us to determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a s e r i e s of 10 w r i t i n g l e s s o n s which f i v e i n s t r u c t o r s at three d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l s taught to 192 E.S.L. students (students who have E n g l i s h as t h e i r second language) i n e i g h t grade twelve c l a s s e s i n the s p r i n g and summer of t h i s year. The marking s e s s i o n w i l l a l s o be a measure of how much improvement g e n e r a l l y occurs i n student w r i t i n g over a school term. The 230 papers you are about to a s s i s t i n s c o r i n g are the p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s of 115 students i n v o l v e d i n t h i s study. The i d e n t i t y of the students and of t h e i r s c h ools have been n u m e r i c a l l y coded to ensure anonymity and the papers have a l s o been randomly arranged. Both measures are to ensure t h a t our s c o r i n g i s as unbiased as p o s s i b l e . As such f a c t o r s as poor student s p e l l i n g and handwriting have o f t e n been found to d i s t r a c t markers and d i s t o r t student s c o r e s , each student paper has been typed and i t s s p e l l i n g c o r r e c t e d where the s p e l l i n g d i d not i n t e r f e r e with a grammatical e r r o r the student may have made. Each paper w i l l be scored twice and perhaps as many as 20% of the papers w i l l have to be scored three times. Our c h a l l e n g e as educators i s to apply the c a t e g o r i e s of student w r i t i n g performance as o u t l i n e d on the d e s c r i p t i v e s c a l e or r u b r i c . APPENDIX H 161 2 DIRECTIONS TO MARKERS: I. Awareness of B i a s i n g F a c t o r s Markers must c o n s t a n t l y remind themselves of f a c t o r s which can p o t e n t i a l l y b i a s the s c o r i n g of essays. The purpose of h o l i s t i c marking i s to e l i m i n a t e marker u n r e l i a b i l i t y . Two markers working with the same s c a l e , a t any time, a t any l o c a t i o n , should agree on the score of a p a r t i c u l a r paper. There are many f a c t o r s which can i n f l u e n c e a marker to s t r a y from the marking c r i t e r i a i n e i t h e r a p o s i t i v e or negative d i r e c t i o n . Any of the f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s of a student's w r i t i n g may b i a s a marker's e v a l u a t i o n : -handwriting - l i g h t n e s s or darkness of w r i t i n g -format ( i e . , margins, double sp a c i n g , use of a t i t l e ) - l e n g t h - p e r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s of a marker as to s t y l e and usage - t r a n s f e r e n c e of standards of other marking s e s s i o n s , or of school or c l a s s standards to another s e s s i o n - u n r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s of students w r i t i n g under exam c o n d i t i o n s , i n t h i s case, 55 minutes -assumptions about what the student might have w r i t t e n were the student g i v e n more time A f i n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of b i a s i s t h i s : the papers i n t h i s s e s s i o n are those of E.S.L. students who have d i f f i c u l t y i n e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r ideas i n E n g l i s h . The s c a l e we are u s i n g to e v a l u a t e them has been s p e c i a l l y developed to d e s c r i b e t h e i r work. G i v i n g a paper a score of s i x does not mean t h a t i t i s a p e r f e c t paper. You don't even have to c o n s i d e r s i x as a top mark. Si x r e p r e s e n t s the h i g h e s t e x p e c t a t i o n we c o u l d have f o r these papers. I I . Rules f o r H o l i s t i c S c o r i n g A. READ QUICKLY AND SCORE. Speed, r e l i a b i l i t y and accuracy of s c o r i n g w i l l a l l be enhanced i f the f o l l o w i n g r u l e s are a p p l i e d : - a v o i d r e r e a d i n g - r e c o r d score immediately APPENDIX H 162 3 B. DO NOT USE A MARKING PEN. Marking i n d i v i d u a l e r r o r s i s too slow and leads to in a c c u r a c y because c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l e r r o r s w i l l be over-emphasized. C. DO NOT SECOND-GUESS A SCORE. F i r s t impressions are more r e l i a b l e . D. IF UNSURE ? - r e f e r to the s c o r i n g s c a l e -check the anchor papers -give the paper to another marker -pass the paper to the s e s s i o n l e a d e r E. REMEMBER: ANY ONE BUNDLE c o u l d c o n t a i n a l l the top papers or a l l the bottom papers; t h e r e f o r e , a v o i d c r e a t i n g a "normal" d i s t r i b u t i o n of sc o r e s ; do not assume that the papers i n the bundle w i l l range from the top to bottom of the s c a l e . F. REMIND YOURSELF OF BIASING FACTORS. G REMIND YOURSELF t h a t the w r i t i n g i s the r e s u l t of a 55 minute t e s t under exam c o n d i t i o n s . In other words, you are marking a FIRST DRAFT with some quick r e v i s i o n s and c o r r e c t i o n . H. REMIND YOURSELF that s c o r i n g papers as f i v e or s i x does not mean t h a t the work i s good or even above the average of what you might expect of students i n grade twelve E n g l i s h c l a s s e s . In f a c t , our score of f i v e might w e l l be the average mark were the s c a l e to i n c l u d e l a r g e numbers of students whose f i r s t language was E n g l i s h . I. I n i t i a l l y , TRY CLASSIFYING PAPERS AS A TWO-STEP PROCESS: - c l a s s i f y a paper as e i t h e r upper h a l f or lower h a l f - p l a c e the paper w i t h i n the s c a l e p o i n t i n the a p p r o p r i a t e h a l f . APPENDIX I 163 APPENDIX I - RUBRIC OR SCORING GUIDE UPPER THIRD PAPERS are c l e a r and r e l a t i v e l y w e l l - c o n t r o l l e d although with minor e r r o r s i n grammar and word c h o i c e . They have a s a t i s f a c t o r y use of t r a n s i t i o n s . They a l s o r e v e a l w r i t e r s who s t i l l experience f i r s t language i n t e r f e r e n c e while u s i n g E n g l i s h but who have l a r g e v o c a b u l a r i e s and a high degree of f l u e n c y . SATISFACTORY C l e a r c e n t r a l idea or t h e s i s Thoughtful ideas and d e t a i l s or examples 6 E f f e c t i v e i n t r o d u c t i o n , body and c o n c l u s i o n Reasonably f l u e n t , v a r i e t y i n sentence p a t t e r n and le n g t h , and good vocabulary Minor e r r o r s i n grammar and p u n c t u a t i o n do not impede communication ACCEPTABLE Conventional c e n t r a l idea and d e t a i l s or examples Adequate i n t r o d u c t i o n , body and c o n c l u s i o n 5 Some v a r i e t y i n sentence l e n g t h and p a t t e r n , Minor e r r o r s i n grammar and pu n c t u a t i o n do not impede communication MIDDLE THIRD PAPERS r e v e a l poor i m i t a t i o n s of essay form. The papers range from b a r e l y a c c e p t a b l e to below standard. Due to the low l e v e l o f language s k i l l s or of o r g a n i z a t i o n , the m a t e r i a l or ideas never move beyond s u r f a c e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s . PASS Few ideas and d e t a i l s or flawed e x p r e s s i o n of them S u p e r f i c i a l i n t r o d u c t i o n , body and c o n c l u s i o n 4 B a r e l y f u n c t i o n a l sentences, l i t t l e v a r i e t y i n le n g t h , r e p e t i t i o u s or i n a p p r o p r i a t e word ch o i c e Both major and minor e r r o r s i n grammar, pun c t u a t i o n and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , clumsy w r i t i n g UNACCEPTABLE R e p e t i t i v e ideas and d e t a i l s Inadequately developed i n t r o d u c t i o n , body and c o n c l u s i o n ; t r a n s i t i o n a l phrases used me c h a n i c a l l y 3 Sentences with l i m i t e d and o c c a s i o n a l l y i n a c c u r a t e word ch o i c e Major e r r o r s i n grammar, p u n c t u a t i o n and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n impede communication APPENDIX I 164 2 LOWER THIRD PAPERS i n d i c a t e w r i t e r s who have g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y responding to the t o p i c with an essay. Examples are t h i n and development i s i n c o n s i s t e n t . W r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n i n E n g l i s h may be flawed to the p o i n t o f incomprehension. POOR Unclear ideas and d e t a i l s Confused p a t t e r n of emphasis and development 2 Frequent sentence fragments, run-on sentences and i n c o r r e c t use of words Frequent e r r o r s i n grammar, p u n c t u a t i o n and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n s e r i o u s l y impede communication VERY POOR Very undeveloped i d e a s , t r i t e , i r r e l e v a n t d e t a i l s No apparent p l a n of development 1 No sense of sentence s t r u c t u r e with very l i m i t e d vocabulary, very poor use of standard E n g l i s h Constant e r r o r s i n grammar, p u n c t u a t i o n and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n thwart communication APPENDIX J 165 APPENDIX J - EXEMPLARS FOR TRAINING SESSION EXEMPLAR 101: NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT AS... F i v e years ago, Johnny l i v e d i n a small house with h i s mother who was my classmate i n secondary s c h o o l . He was always t a l k i n g about money and He always s a i d t h a t nothing i s as important as money. His f a t h e r d i e d many years ago and h i s mother a l s o seem to be d i e . That time, I d i d n ' t know anything about h i s f a m i l y . That years, we a l s o graduated school and then I d i d n ' t see him u n t i l today. Today, I met him i n the c o f f e e shop beside the b u i l d i n g I work. He looks so r i c h and very d i f f e r e n c e . APPENDIX J 166 EXEMPLAR 10 2: LEARNING FROM MISTAKES... Every student must have a problem to face i s l e a r n i n g and i t easy from a mistake when we study i n s c h o o l . How can we s o l v e the problem and why we a l s o have mistakes when we are l e a r n i n g . In our whole l i f e , we must spend for our study do a t l e a s t ten years. Everyone have a chance f o r l e a r n i n g and improve our knowledge. I t mean that we w i l l from mistakes when we are l e a r n i n g . In some case, every f o r e i g n student must from a mistake when they t r a v e l abroad. Because they go to other country and they must face a problem's language. G e n e r a l l y , we a l s o have mistake from s p e l l i n g , r e a d i n g and d i f f e r e n t vocabulary, but e q u a l l y important, we h a v e , c o n f 1 i c t with myself i t mean we cannot co n c e n t r a t e f o r our l e a r n i n g and we d i d n ' t use know how to b e t t e r use of time. For example, you t h i n k something when you l e a r n i n g , so you cannot c o n c e n t r a t e . F i n a l l y , we must face a problem i s l e a r n i n g from mistakes, but we need to s o l v e i t and y o u r s e l f f e e l happy. APPENDIX J 167 EXEMPLAR 10 3: LEARNING FROM MISTAKES Mistakes means wrong o p i n i o n , idea or a c t . In t h i s world, everybody have chances to make some mistakes. But we must aware our mistakes and l e a r n i n g from i t . John i s a student, i n a high s c h o o l , with such a complicated f a m i l y background, so i t cause him to f a l l i n t o e r r o r . But he aware that he takes a wrong t u r n i n g so he l e a r n i n g from mistakes, become a new man. Peter i s John schoolmate, a l s o has a complicated f a m i l y background and f a l l i n t o e r r o r . But he hasn't mend or c o r r e c t , e r r o r s s t i l l make many mistakes i n h i s l i f e . Some years l a t e r the p o l i c e charge him with l o i t e r i n g and c a r r y i n g an o f f e n s i v e weapon. John and Peter i s a example of l e a r n i n g from mistakes. No one w i l l care about our past when we t r y to c o r r e c t e r r o r s . L earning from mistakes i s good f o r us to keep our mind r i g h t . APPENDIX J 168 EXEMPLAR 104: LEARNING FROM MISTAKES From the time i n the pass u n t i l now, everybody c o u l d have done something r i g h t or wrong and may have a mistake even though the government, the p o l i t i c i a n or the p r e s i d e n t of country sometimes we have done some th i n g s wrong i t we can know a t once and f i n d out whats wrong then we can make i t c o r r e c t a t once and t r y again. For example, the s c i e n t i s t c r e a t i n g t h i n g s a t the f i r s t time, and he make mistakes then he can know at once what i s gone wrong and t r y agai n once more and so on u n t i l i t ' s success. But sometimes, we don't know what we have make mistake i s we don't c o r r e c t i t a t once and c o r r e c t afterwards i t may be too l a t e . Anyway, everybody i s not p e r f e c t i n the world. Because people may have make th i n g s wrong. I f we c o u l d l e a r n i n g t h i n g from the mistake to the t r u t h f a c t s then i t may be a good t h i n g to l e a r n . APPENDIX J 169 EXEMPLAR 105: LEARNING FROM MISTAKES I remembered when I was s t u d y i n g grade f i v e i n high s c h o o l , the teacher has s a i d , "Don't worried about how many mistakes you made i n you homework or t e s t . Because you can l e a r n the new knowledge from the mistakes." Nowadays, I s t i l l remember what the teacher t o l d me. I have conf i d e n c e to t r y anything t h a t I haven't t r y b e f o r e . I don't a f r a i d of f a i l u r e or i t because I can l e a r n more. The c h i l d h o o d of Washington can be r e f e r e n c e on the d e f i n i t i o n of "Learning from mistake." Washington cut down a t r e e i n the backgarden of h i s home. He was a f r a i d of h i s f a t h e r went to punish him, but he s t i l l t o l d the t r u t h when h i s dad asked him. He d i d the wrong t h i n g but he l e a r n e d to be honest to people. Everybody knows the advantages to l e a r n the news from mistakes, so the people l i k e to r e t r y to do a same job. The s c i e n t i s t s are the good examples to proof the p r e v i o u s l y . Have you p l a y a video games (tv games) before? I t i s a very a t t r a c t i v e a c t i v i t y nowadays. There are few f a c t o r s can a t t r a c t people who put the q u a r t e r s i n t o the tv games machine. For sure, the p l a y e r s want to f i n i s h the whole program and they want to have the f e e l i n g of a winner. The other reason i s the p l a y e r who i n t e n d to r e t r y on the games. The TV games are d i f f i c u l t to p l a y and easy to game over because there are many problems i n each stage. When the p l a y e r s meet the problems and game over, they a l r e a d y how to s o l v e the problems from the l a s t experiment. Then the p l a y e r s put i n the c o i n s a g a i n and a g a i n u n t i l they can go through a l l stages and f i n i s h the whole program. Not only the human knows how to l e a r n from mistake but the animals. For example, a l i o n was hunted by a hunter when he was t a k i n g r e s t under a t r e e . L u c k i l y , he escaped and h i d i n g away. The l i o n never go back to that t r e e again. We can proof t h a t "Learning from mistakes" i s the n a t u r a l a b i l i t y of human being and animals. APPENDIX J 170 EXEMPLAR 10 6: NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT AS... Nothing i s as important as my b i r t h d a y . Because i n my l i f e , I f i n d t h a t there are many problems around my e n t i t y . T h i s problems i s the examination. Because from elementary to high s c h o o l , I had f a c i n g a l o t of exams, that I d i d n ' t want. And my b i r t h d a y a l s o was on June. So d u r i n g t h i s time, mostly was the exam month, my b i r t h d a y i s spend i n the textbook. Then, I always ask my mother some s i l l y q u e s t i o n s . Why you born me on June. Can I change my b i r t h d a t e . My mother always s a i d I am so s i l l y . However, a f t e r I graduated high s c h o o l , I decided to work i n t h i s s o c i e t y . I found my f i r s t job i n a Company. This summer, I was so happy, because t h i s was my f i r s t time to c e l e b r a t e my b i r t h d a y , and d i d n ' t need to spend on the textbook. So I i n v i t e d my best f r i e n d to make a p a r t y . A f t e r t h a t , now I r e t u r n e d to school again. I l e a r n e d more ed u c a t i o n was important than the other. Because I understand what i s the exam stand f o r . A c t u a l l y , i t s h e l p i n g remember a l l we have l e a r n . T h e r e f o r e , when I r e t u r n e d to s c h o o l , I t h i n k examination i s very funny. J u s t s i m i l a r a game, we can c a t c h up. Furthermore, I f I change my mind, I w i l l t h i n k nothing i s as important as the examination. Because I re c o g n i z e that i t i s not t e r r i b l e . Some day I a l s o f i n i s h e d my study, I a l s o have a happy b i r t h d a y . T h e r e f o r e , I p r e f e r to s a c r i f i c e my happy t h i n g s , to face a s e r i o u s t h i n g s . Even when I grow up I know what t h i n g s i s important than the other. I can compare the those t h i n g s . I always keep my mother words i n my mind. She s a i d "Exam i s good for you, when you l e a r n more, you should be t e s t y o u r s e l f , Are you q u a l i f i e d to be graduate." When I f i n i s h e d the high s c h o o l , I s t i l l not understand what i t means. When I went to worked, I thought my e d u c a t i o n was not enough. C e r t a i n l y , working experience a l s o i s important. However, i f you have o p p o r t u n i t y to continue study. Why don't we choose "back to s c h o o l . " We can f i n d t h a t school l i f e i s more i n t e r e s t i n g . APPENDIX J 171 EXEMPLAR 107: NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT AS... Nothing i s as important as st u d y i n g . ALthough I am not John S t e i n b e r g or W i l l i a m G o l d i n g , I know whenever I study a book or a novel I t h a t I am being feeded with super n u t r i e n t which helps me growing to be an educated person. By examining the importance of stu d y i n g , I f i n d i t i s q u i t e h e l p f u l f o r us i n some way s e l f -s a t i s f a c t i o n and d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n f a c t s . T r u l y , people r e c e i v e s happiness and success because he s a t i s f i e s what he has done on h i s job or what he has known the answer of the q u e s t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , by the a d d i t i o n a l knowledge from s t u d y i n g books or a f t e r r e a d i n g , we can u p r i s i n g our a b i l i t i e s or so l v e or overcome problems. For example, one who reads a l l over and understand h i s t e x t book to apply h i s examination. By the way he can understand the q u e s t i o n so e a s i l y and have higher chance to pass the examination. A l s o , he would be s a t i s f y to r e c e i v e h i s goals by paying the e f f o r t on h i s study. Aside the s a t i s f a c t i o n , s t u d y i n g can help us to determine the o b j e c t s are good or bad. Because human beings only has l i m i t e d memories, he can not know e v e r y t h i n g and every t r u t h of any o b j e c t s . T h e r e f o r e , people have to keep studying i n order to in c r e a s e t h e i r determining a b i l i t i e s . For i n s t a n t , a f i v e years o l d boy may not have good d e t e r m i n a t i o n of good or bad t h i n g s than a twenty years o l d man. I t i s because a f i v e years o l d year o n l y s t u d i e s one or two years i n s c h o o l . To sum-up, stu d y i n g help us a l o t i n our l i f e . Without s t u d y i n g , we may l i k e a f o o l who always h i t s a n a i l on h i s f o o t and does th i n g s wrong. The r e f o r e , we do have to keep studyi n g . APPENDIX J 172 EXEMPLAR 108: NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT AS... Nothing i s as important as f a m i l y , money, and freedom. However, maybe some people w i l l t h i n k t h a t t h e i r c a r s , or t h e i r dogs i s the most important. Because they haven't l a c k o f f a m i l y , money and freedom. Family i s very important to everyone. Father, mother, b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s spend the whole l i f e with us. They look a f t e r us, they care us and they love us. And our most of our time i s stay with them. Everyone has i t s own f a m i l y , every f a m i l y has t h e i r s t y l e . But the same p o i n t i s they love each other. I t ' s m i r a c l e t h a t X i s not your f a t h e r or Y i s not your mother. This i s the idea of God. U n l u c k i l y some c h i l d r e n haven't t h e i r parents or b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s , t h i s k i n d o f c h i l d r e n are need f a m i l y very much. Someone a f t e r t h e i r marriage, they l e f t t h e i r f a m i l y , but at l a s t when they separate, they w i l l r e t u r n to t h e i r f a m i l y ' s arm. Family i s our whole l i f e ' s s h e l t e r , we can enter i t a t anytime. No one w i l l prevent you. Family g i v e love and warm to us. Money i s very important, without i t , you w i l l be d i e . We need money before we born, we need to pay when our mother f o r monthly c h a r t . A f t e r we have born, we need to pay the fee of the h o s p i t a l . E v e r y t h i n g i s need money, except the s u n l i g h t , sea, r a i n , rainbow. I f you have no money, you cannot do anything. You can't buy a c l o t h e s , food, e v e r y t h i n g . L i v i n g can't without money. Money can make your l i f e h appier, to help you to get the g o a l s . Money can make the bl a c k become white i n the law, you can used the money to buy your l o v e r i f you he or she l i k e s the money. Money can the d i s a b l e person walk f i n d the most good doctor to help him. Money can l e t you fo anything t h a t you l i k e . I f you have money, the people w i l l l i k e , n e i t h e r you are ugly or bad. Money i s a magic, can change e v e r y t h i n g . Nothing i s as important as freedom. I f you without the freedom, you can't do anything. You j u s t s i t on the f l o o r w a i t i n g the ending o f your l i f e . People l i k e freedom. Everyone i s eq u a l , when the other w r i t e the r u l e and ask us to f o l l o w the r u l e . Use the r u l e to c o n t r o l our behaviour. For example, i n China, many people escape to Hong Kong because they want the freedom. They don't scare of dead, they j u s t need a f r e e l i f e s t y l e . Every country, every people always c r y f o r freedom. Freedom can g i v e them happiness and hope. In Hong Kong, the government permit the freedom to them. They have a chance to choose t h e i r l i f e s t y l e , so the people immigrate to another country. Family, money, and freedom. They don't want to l a c k o f one of i t . Without one of t h i s , they w i l l be sad, no more g o a l . However, we need to c a t c h i t and save i t or de s t r o y i t . APPENDIX J 173 EXEMPLAR 10 9: LEARNING FROM MISTAKES I t i s a t r u t h t h a t everyone makes mistakes. However, there i s too much to be counted the mistakes you make i n your l i f e . T h e refore, to f e e l g u i l t y i s meaningless. The most important I would l i k e to p o i n t our i s that we must l e a r n from every mistake and improve o u r s e l v e s next time. There are q u i t e a l o t examples to a d v i s e you how you c o u l d l e a r n from a mistake. When I f i r s t l e a r n e d d r i v i n g and got my l i c e n c e , e v e r y t h i n g was i n a mess. As we a l l know, i t i s very dangerous to be i n v o l v e d i n a t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t . I always f o r g o t "shoulder-check." When I was changing lane. T h i s l e d to a t e r r i b l e e xperience. I h i t another car when • I was changing because I was not aware of i t . From t h i s experience I have l e a r n e d that a l l s a f e t y r u l e s must be obeyed i f I c o n s i d e r the s a f e t y of me and o t h e r s . Now I remember "sh o u l d e r -check" every time as I am changing lanes. Another example i s a l s o very c l e a r . To s o l v e the problems i n Algebra needs c l e a r mind and accuracy. You w i l l not s o l v e a problem i s you make a l i t t l e mistake. Students always mistake the p o s i t i v e as negative s i g n or f o r g e t to put u n i t s a f t e r the answers. Such mistakes I t h i n k i s f o o l i s h . Why you put so many e f f o r t on a problem but you can not s o l v e i t ? Because you j u s t f o r g e t to put a negative s i g n . So we should keep i n mind t h a t one l i t t l e mistake may l e d to the f a i l u r e o f whole matter. Another t h i n g I would l i k e to mention i s t h a t some people should l e a r n to accept mistake. They j u s t not admit t h e i r mistake and say i t i s o t h e r s ' s f a u l t . Those people must change t h e i r mind completely as they w i l l never l e a r n from mistakes i f they th i n k so. No improvement w i l l be shown on t h e i r work. Never. F i n a l l y , i f you meet someone made mistakes, don't blame him. You should say to him "Everyone has to make mistakes to improve h i m s e l f . " However, i n my mind, making mistakes are the q u i c k e s t way to improve. APPENDIX J 174 EXEMPLAR 110: LEARNING FROM MISTAKES In our l i f e t i m e , l e a r n i n g i s very important. We have to l e a r n from c h i l d r e n to a d u l t s . Even an o l d man, he has to l e a r n . Probably, people w i l l t h i n k t h a t l e a r n i n g i s o n l y depended on the r i g h t s i d e . When we are f a i l e d to do something, we may t h i n k t h a t we l e a r n the wrong t h i n g . T h i s i s a wrong ide a . Sometimes, we have to l e a r n from mistakes. There are s e v e r a l b e n e f i t s f o r us i f we l e a r n from mistakes: improve o u r s e l v e s , get more experiences and take a c h a l l e n g e to mistake. L e a r n i n g from mistakes can help us to improve o u r s e l v e s . A f t e r we f a i l to do our work, we have to f i n d out the reason. U s u a l l y , there are some mistakes t h a t we f o r g e t to concern about. Then, we must remember i t and do not l e t i t e x i s t s again. An accountant makes a mistake i n b a l a n c i n g the account, he has to f i n d out the mistake and c o r r e c t i t . Next time, he w i l l be more c a r e f u l i n b a l a n c i n g the account. T h i s i s an improvement of h i s work because he w i l l not get the same mistake. T h e r e f o r e , l e a r n i n g from mistakes can help us to improve o u r s e l v e s . Another b e n e f i t of l e a r n i n g from mistakes i s g e t t i n g more exp e r i e n c e s . Experiences are good f o r us because they w i l l decrease the chance of making mistakes. I f we have l e a r n from mistakes, a f t e r a p e r i o d of time, i t w i l l become our experiences. The v o l l e y b a l l p l a y e r s has to be t r a i n e d for sometimes. When they f i r s t j o i n the c o m p e t i t i o n , they may f a i l . They do not have enough experiences and do not know how to a v o i d from mistakes. For i n s t a n c e , the p l a y e r s always f a i l the c o m p e t i t i o n and they do not know the reason. But, a f t e r they get the experiences i n j o i n i n g the c o m p e t i t i o n , they w i l l know what the mistake i s . T h e i r experiences w i l l h e lp them to s o l v e the problem. I f we l e a r n from mistakes to get more ex p e r i e n c e s , we w i l l be more s u c c e s s f u l . Aside from improving o u r s e l v e s and g e t t i n g more ex p e r i e n c e s , t a k i n g a c h a l l e n g e to mistake i s a l s o good fo r us. We must brave enough to r e c e i v e the mistake and c o r r e c t i t next time. We may not know what mistakes we have made, i f we t r y to get r i d of i t , we w i l l be the f a i l u r e . The t h i n g what we must do i s b r a v e l y f a c i n g the mistake and l e a r n from i t . A famous a c t o r i n Hong Kong and Japan, Jacky Chan, has c h a l l e n g e d many d i f f i c u l t a c t i o n s i n the movie. He has t r i e d to jump from the top of s i x f l o o r s b u i l d i n g . The f i r s t time he f a i l s to do so and h u r t s h i s l e g , but he does not get away from i t . He f i n d s out the mistake t h a t when he jumps down from the r o o f , the angle i s wrong. APPENDIX J 175 2 So, he t r i e s i t again. T h i s time he get i t s u c c e s s f u l l y . He has c h a l l e n g e d h i m s e l f by l e a r n i n g from mistakes. The mistake i s not always stayed beside us i f we t r y to l e a r n from i t . I t i s not r e a l l y bad f o r us. Sometimes, i t i s even u s e f u l to us. Therefore, i t can improve o u r s e l v e s , get us more experiences and take a c h a l l e n g e s u c c e s s f u l l y . APPENDIX J 176 EXEMPLAR 111: NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT AS... I f I were to choose to keep only one t h i n k I have, I would p r e f e r my h e a l t h . Nothing i s as important as h e a l t h because everyone can be happy only when they are he a l t h y ; you can success o n l y i s you have a he a l t h y body; you are alone when you are s i c k . As everyone knows, i l l n e s s i s p a i n f u l . Even as minor as a toothache can make you weak; have no mood to do what you l i k e to. On the c o n t r a r y , i f you have a good h e a l t h , you can go jo g g i n g , r i d i n g a b i k e , p l a y i n g f o o t b a l l whatever you l i k e . That i s why someone s a i d , "Health i s the source o f happiness." Health i s not important o n l y f o r a s h o r t time enjoyment, but a l s o necessary f o r a long own success. Of course, not everyone has to be as s t r o n g as C a r l Louise not everyone wants to success on the running t r a c k . Even a manager who does not have to run f a s t e r than nine seconds, does not have to l i f t three thousand pounds, does not have to work with a s t r o n g body, must be h e a l t h y because he must always have a c l e a r mind, must always be e n e r g i z e . You can imagine what w i l l h i s s t a f f response as they see t h e i r boss i s always sleep y i n the o f f i c e . A l s o , a bad h e a l t h can i s o l a t e you from your f r i e n d s . When you are s i c k , you must s t a y i n you bed, you cannot go out and have a f o o t b a l l game with your f r i e n d s . I had an embarrassing experiment t h a t when I was l y i n g s i c k on my bed, I through window, saw my f r i e n d s p l a y i n g f o o t b a l l on a g r a s s l a n d . I r e a l l y l i k e d to j o i n them but I c o u l d not. I was s i c k . H e a l t h i s the most v a l u a b l e t h i n g . We must keep i t good so t h a t we do whatever we l i k e t o , success i n our goal and enjoy our days with our f r i e n d s . So f r i e n d s , j o i n me with a he a l t h y body. APPENDIX J 177 EXEMPLAR 112: LEARNING FROM MISTAKES "Learning from mistakes" i s one of the best known proverbs. However, a few people i s r e a l l y " l e a r n i n g from mistake." Therefore, with a view to understand and to l e a r n t h i s proverb, three important t o p i c s should be d i s c u s s e d : the d i f f e r e n c e between people who l e a r n from mistakes and the people who do not l e a r n from mistakes, the meaning of l e a r n i n g from mistakes, how to l e a r n from mistakes. Nowadays, Japan i s the r i c h e s t c o u n t r i e s i n the world s u r p a s s i n g even America. You may a s t o n i s h Japan's accomplishment. WHat causes make Japan become the r i c h e s t country i n the world? The on l y reason i s that Japanese i s l e a r n i n g from mistakes. They're l e a r n e d t h a t m i l i t a r i s m and i m p e r i a l i s m are wrong. As a r e s u l t , they devoted themselves on i n d u s t r y . On the c o n t r a r y , Germany d i d not l e a r n s from mistake i n the World War I and they continue making mistakes and s t a r t World War I I . T h e r e f o r e , "Learning from mistakes" can improve o n e s e l f and become success and v i c e v e r s a . Furthermore, the meaning of " l e a r n i n g from mistake" should be c l a r i f i e d . Admittedly, l e a r n i n g from mistake i s important. However, one may l o s e by mistakes and he may l o s e a g a i n by making another mistakes. In other words, "Learning from mistakes" i s s i m i l a r to s e l f - e x a m i n a t i o n . L a s t l y , how to l e a r n from mistakes i s more important than the o t h e r s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , everyone w i l l make mistake. Then, he l e a r n s " h i s mistake" t r y i n g to become success. However, i n my o p i n i o n , l e a r n i n g o t h e r s mistakes i s more important that l e a r n i n g y o u r s e l f mistakes. Why? A famous proverb says "Wise man l e a r n from o t h e r s ; f o o l l e a r n s from h i m s e l f . " Furthermore, many good statesmen and good emperors r u l e t h e i r c o u n t r i e s with the l e s s o n s of h i s t o r y . To sum up, one who want success w i l l always self-examine h i m s e l f t r y i n g to f i n d out h i s mistakes. Moreover, he w i l l accept o t h e r s ' advice and t r y to improve h i m s e l f . He w i l l be a l e r t e d when he see someone makes mistakes. At t h i s p o i n t , I w i l l say he i s r e a l l y l e a r n i n g from mistakes. APPENDIX J 178 EXEMPLAR 113: NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT AS... From the time we enter to t h i s t e c h n o l o g i c a l world, we s t a r t to i n s e r t pages of knowledge i n t o our empty bin d e r . As the e a r t h r o t a t e s , new t h i n g s a r i s e i n every minute or even t h i n g s change i n every second. In order to be an up-dated one, everyone, i n c l u d e l i t t l e c h i l d r e n and e l d e r l y people, t r i e s to l e a r n t h i n g s around them. Nowadays, nothing i s as important as g a i n i n g more knowledge. The reasons are t h a t we have to l e a r n i n order to achieve our p e r s o n a l g o a l , we have to l e a r n how to get along with people i n order to communicate with our s o c i e t y , we have to l e a r n i n order to f u l f i l l our s p i r i t u a l needs. During our d a i l y l i f e , we study and work so hard f o r what? People do so because they want to achieve t h e i r g o a l . For i n s t a n c e , students s t u d y i n g i n high school work so hard i n order to graduate and then apply to u n i v e r s i t y f o r f u r t h e r s t u d i e s . Or, even a businessman has to study a degree i n a n i g h t - s c h o o l , g a i n i n g more knowledge through the b u s i n e s s - c l a s s so that he can improve h i s e f f i c i e n c y of h i s job. Somehow, the main purpose of l e a r n i n g i s to be r e s i l i e n c e , f l e x i b l e and up-date to f i t t h i s changing world. Aside from a c h i e v i n g our p e r s o n a l g o a l , seeking f o r knowledge can a l s o i n c l u d e g a i n i n g l e c t u r e s about how to get along with o t h e r s . G e t t i n g along with people i s not an easy job. So, we have to l e a r n s o c i a l behaviour and moral as w e l l . For example, i n s c h o o l , teachers and p r i n c i p a l teach the students always be p o l i t e , have s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e i n order to s u r v i v e i n t h i s s o c i e t y . For those mature one, f o r example a w a i t r e s s , she l e a r n s how to serve the customers and the way that shows her f r i e n d l i n e s s and kindness. Consequently, moral knowledge can help us to communicate with d i f f e r e n t l e v e l i n the s o c i e t y . Furthermore, o c c a s i o n a l l y , we l e a r n and g a i n experience i n order to f u l f i l l our s p i r i t u a l needs. Sometimes, people l i k e to read b i b l e when they have spare time. Through the words of God, they g a i n s p i r i t u a l s i l e n t n e s s and l e c t u r e . In a d d i t i o n , i n a moment of s i l e n c e , people r e g r e t and repent f o r what they d i d . T h i s k i n d of p r e c i o u s s e l f - l e c t u r e or s e l f - s t u d y i s the most powerful and e f f i c i e n t way of c o r r e c t i n g our own mistakes. On the whole, before doing anything, we need to l e a r n or g a i n the experience. So, nothing i s as important as g a i n i n g more knowledge i n our d a i l y l i f e s i n c e we have to l e a r n i n order to achieve our g o a l , we have to l e a r n how to get along with others i n order to keep i n touch with t h i s world, we have to l e a r n i n order to f u l f i l l our s p i r i t u a l needs. APPENDIX J 179 EXEMPLAR 114: NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT AS... Nothing i s as important as l o v e . Love i s a kind of strange a f f e c t i o n growing i n s i d e your mind. I t cannot be seen and touched. You can only f e e l i t i n the a i r , i n your he a r t . With l o v e , we have peace on e a r t h and warmth among men. Love g i v e s hopes to our f u t u r e , c r e a t i n g m i r a c l e s i n t h i s world. Without l o v e , we onl y have wars, s e l f i s h h e a rts and v i o l e n c e . L-O-V-E. These four l e t t e r s come together and make i t s e l f a s p e c i a l magic. Many n o v e l i s t s , poets and composers w r i t e about i t . Yet i t s mystery i s s t i l l not known. In s p i t e o f t h a t , we only know t h a t love i s e v e r y t h i n g . E v e r y t h i n g depends on i t . The human being, the animals and even the t r e e s are l i v i n g under i t . With l o v e , e v e r y t h i n g grows; without i t , e v e r y t h i n g d i e s . I t i s love t h a t g i v e s us peace i n t h i s world. In the mankind h i s t o r y , many wars and f i g h t i n g happened and keep on happening. I f you ask why, there i s only a reason t h a t h a t r e d i s put to our he a r t s . "Love and Peace" i s always the slog a n f i g h t i n g a g a i n s t h a t r e d and war. Without l o v e , we see how people hurt and k i l l o t h e r s . I f there i s no love i n t h i s p l a n e t , war i s the onl y t h i n g we see and the mankind w i l l s u r e l y fade away. Love i s l i k e the sun which g i v e s us warmth. How can we l i v e without the heat o f the sun. Many novels t e l l us how warm the love i s . Without l o v e , we w i l l not take a look a t the dying beggar In the s t r e e t and we w i l l not f e e l s o r r y f o r a poor, l o n e l y o l d man. Warmth i s a cheap t h i n g yet i t i s only c r e a t e d by lo v e . Love i s a l s o l i k e the oxygen i n the a i r . I t i s everywhere. A person who loves beyond the love i s a c t u a l l y l i v i n g without oxygen. Nobody can l i v e without the oxygen f o r a few minutes. There was once a f r i e n d of mine who j u s t cared about h i m s e l f . He s u f f e r e d from a strange i l l n e s s which made him hard to c a t c h h i s breath. When f r i e n d s knew t h a t , they came o f t e n to see him. Later on he recovered and he no longer l i v e d on h i s own i n the i s o l a t e d , c o l d world. This t e l l s us t h a t love i s j u s t l i k e the sun and oxygen. Love i s gr e a t . I t breaks the s e l f i s h h e a r t s and c r e a t e s m i r a c l e s . In the novel of "A Tale of Two C i t i e s , " a E n g l i s h man s a c r i f i c e s h i m s e l f f o r the one he l o v e s . The love becomes i n c r e d i b l e . In "Wuthering Hei g h t s , " C a t h e r i n e waits f o r H e a t h c l i f f ' s love coming back. APPENDIX J 180 2 There i s g o l d and s i l v e r . Diamond i s a l s o s a i d to be f o r e v e r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , nothing i s as important as l o v e . People always search f o r p a r a d i s e and heaven. In f a c t , p a r a d i s e , heaven, Eden or Ut o p i a i s a p l a c e which can be found on e a r t h where love i s e v e r y t h i n g . APPENDIX J 181 EXEMPLAR 115: NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT AS... The power of love c o u l d break a l l the o b s t a c l e s . In the world today, people become more and more m a t e r i a l i s t i c than b e f o r e . For some of the people, they may t h i n k money, a good oc c u p a t i o n , a c a r , a house are the most important t h i n g s i n t h e i r l i v e s . For my o p i n i o n , love i s the most important and nothing can r e p l a c e i t . As we can see, love seems to be born with us and grow with us. Right from the beginning of our l i v e s ( b a b i e s ) , we need a l o t of love and care and a l l these cares are come from our parents. L a t e r we w i l l s t a r t to develop our love between b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s . When we enter the s c h o o l , the r e l a t i o n s between f r i e n d s and us are d e v e l o p i n g , may be these f r i e n d s h i p s can l a s t f o r ten, or even twenty years long. A f t e r we leave the c o l l e g e , we w i l l go out to work, then we begin to develop our r e l a t i o n s with the c o l l e a g u e s and the boss. A f t e r t h a t , we w i l l marry and have our own c h i l d r e n . We can f i n d t h a t l i f e i s a g r e a t c y c l e , and love i s surrounding us a l l the time from one g e n e r a t i o n to another. Love has no boundary. I t w i l l not r e s t r i c t only between parents and c h i l d r e n , f r i e n d s and c o l l e a g u e s . I t can a l s o extend from one country to another and make the world to be a g l o b a l one. L i k e the famine which happened i n A f r i c a which drew the a t t e n t i o n from the r e s t of the c o u n t r i e s . They a l l eager to help those people by donating l o t s and l o t s of money, food and help to A f r i c a . They h e l d f u n d r a i s i n g by h o l d i n g L i v e - A i d . Some c o u n t r i e s even sent h e l p e r s to A f r i c a f o r emergency r e l i e f and longterm developments. A l l these works were done by v o l u n t e e r s . A c t u a l l y i f t h i s i s not the power of l o v e , what c o u l d r e a l l y draw these c o u n t r i e s together f o r work and c o - o p e r a t i o n ? Sometimes, we f i n d t h a t a person although he i s not t h a t wealthy, has a warm f a m i l y , some good and understanding f r i e n d s , i s l i v i n g happier than the one who have l o t s of money with a b i g house and four c a r s . Maybe f o r some people, r i g h t now they are c h a s i n g for money, eager to earn b i g money, when they reach t h a t stage, they w i l l chase back to the stage of hoping f o r love again. The one t h a t i s without love or For a l l the t r o u b l e s , he need share the f e e l i n g with him. l a c k s of to face love i s a l o n e l y by h i m s e l f ; no person, one can APPENDIX J 182 2 Love i s extremely important to everybody. I t can i n f l u e n c e the whole l i f e of a person. Normally, the c h a r a c t e r s of a person are a l s o depending on the l e v e l s o f love that he got when he was young whether h i s f a m i l y was a complete and happy one or a broken and suppressed one. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055221/manifest

Comment

Related Items