What is the difference between writing strategies and writing applications

Means and SDs of academic writing skills, text structure knowledge application skills, and summarization skills in the strategy treatment groups. Table 3. Means and SDs of academic writing skills, text structure knowledge application skills, summarization skills, and overall text quality of undergraduates and postgraduates. As postgraduates outperformed undergraduates, the results confirm the expectations about the difference in writing experience between novice and experienced writers.

See Table 4 for means and SDs. Table 4. Means and SDs of text quality measured at three time points, reducing text and adding relevant information while revising text, and coherence in the feedback groups. This was true for each treatment group: language use group i. Hypothesis 1a, strategy hypothesis , proposed that training the text structure knowledge application strategy or the summarization strategy affects the acquisition of academic writing skills more than training the language use strategy.

Planned contrasts revealed that acquisition of academic writing skills was significantly lower in the language use group i. Hypothesis 1b, text structure strategy hypothesis , proposed that training the text structure knowledge application strategy affects the skill of using genre specific structures to find and assign information more than training the summarization strategy or the language use strategy.

An ANCOVA was calculated using pretest outcome on prior knowledge of text structure knowledge application as control variable. Hypothesis 1c, summarization strategy hypothesis , proposed that training the summarization strategy affects the skill of reducing text content while maintaining coherence more than training the text structure knowledge application strategy or the language use strategy.

Furthermore, it was assumed that academic writing skill, coherence skill, text quality of the draft, reducing text while revising, and adding relevant information while revising influence the text quality of the abstract. Academic writing skill, coherence skill, text quality of the draft, reducing text while revising , and adding relevant information while revising were considered as third variables. See Tables 2 — 4 for means and SDs.

Hypothesis 2b, level of graduation hypothesis , proposed that undergraduates and postgraduates benefit differently from receiving feedback while revising the texts they have written so far. The findings are presented in Figure 5. Hypothesis 3, combination hypothesis , proposed that undergraduates benefit more from receiving informative tutoring feedback after training to apply text structure knowledge concerning text quality of the abstract than from receiving informative tutoring feedback after training summarization or training language use.

Concerning the cognitive writing strategy hypothesis , it was found that the groups that received cognitive strategy writing training outperformed the control group in terms of the acquisition of academic writing skills. This effect was found for the group that received the text structure knowledge application strategy training in the zone of desired effects Hattie and Timperley, More specifically, first, concerning the text structure strategy hypothesis , the group that received training on how to apply text structure knowledge significantly outperformed the control group in terms of using genre specific structures to find and assign information; however, contrary to the assumption, no differences were found between the group that received summarization training and the group that received a text structure knowledge application strategy training.

Second, concerning the summarization strategy hypothesis , the group that received training on how to summarize a text did not outperform either the control group or the group that received the text structure knowledge application strategy. All groups already had high summarization values in the pretest, which increased further in the posttest. Furthermore, the result pointed out that deleting text and adding relevant information were not related to text quality.

This result is in line with findings by Brown and Day and Hidi and Anderson who could show that the low text quality of beginning academic writers can be explained by deleting text. Concerning the level of graduation hypothesis , the result is in line with the findings of Hanna and Clariana Indeed, we extend their findings, as we found an expertise reversal effect Kalyuga et al.

According to this effect, there is an interaction between the level of writing experience and the effectiveness of different instructional methods.

In this sense, feedback that is effective for undergraduates can lose its effectiveness and even have negative consequences for postgraduates and vice versa.

The text quality of the abstracts drafted by undergraduates who received informative tutoring feedback was higher than that of the undergraduates who received try-again feedback. On the other hand, the text quality of the abstracts drafted by postgraduates who received try-again feedback was higher than that of the postgraduates who received informative tutoring feedback.

As a consequence, support for postgraduates might begin with elaborated feedback after writing Shute, , which is individually aligned and administered Zimmerman and Kitsantas, , whereas for undergraduates, elaborated feedback with guidance is already helpful while writing. Concerning the combination hypothesis , the results did show no differences between the three groups.

However, in contrast to the group that received a training to apply text structure knowledge text quality of the control group that received a language use strategy training was significantly higher. This result is unexpected. Rather, the results indicate, first, that feedback for revising is not beneficial for text quality in combination with a cognitive writing strategy such as summarization strategy or text structure application strategy, and second, that feedback for revising might be promising if it is administered in combination with a less complex writing strategy such as language use strategy.

In sum, the results confirm that undergraduates and postgraduates need support in academic writing. According to the findings of this study, support in text structure knowledge application, summarization, and revision should be aligned to the writing experience. Hence, undergraduates should be prepared to know and apply the text structure of relevant genres. Although most postgraduates in this study were aware of the text structure, they should be encouraged to check their writing in terms of correct application of the text structure.

Although both undergraduates and postgraduates reached high values in text summarization skills, the reduction of information in the revision process did not significantly contribute to the text quality. The question arises of what the reasons may be for the lacking efficacy of summarization skills on text quality and how summarization should be trained to be effective for improving text quality.

Generally, first, the results confirm the notion that revision contributes to improving text quality.

MacArthur could define revision as a problem-solving process in which writers detect discrepancies between current and intended level of text quality and consider alternatives. In this study, it became apparent that undergraduates and postgraduates did benefit from feedback that was tailored to their needs in the revision process.

Specifically, undergraduates benefited from informative tutoring feedback in terms of higher text quality. The reason for this might be that informative tutoring feedback offered guidance to draw attention on discrepancies between actual and intended level of text quality.

Furthermore, from the improved text quality one could conclude that feedback encouraged considering alternatives. Hence, one can see feedback as a suitable means to improve text quality. Second, the results revealed that feedback that accompanies the writer deliberately while revising does not complement training a certain writing strategy such as text structure knowledge application or summarization strategy in terms of improving text quality.

This finding is in contrast to Wischgoll who could show that training one cognitive and one metacognitive writing strategy results in improved text quality, and thus, confirmed that cognitive and metacognitive strategy training complement each other Veenman and Beishuizen, However, results revealed that feedback did correspond well with training the language use strategy.

One can reason that applying strategies recently learnt and reply to feedback while revising might be overwhelming for beginning academic writers.

Writing trainings that are sequenced in this way—training a cognitive writing strategy and receiving feedback while text revision—might lack a phase of consolidation. Thus, one can conclude that feedback should be administered in writing trainings independently to strategy trainings or only in combination with strategies, which are less complex such as the language use strategy. Third, the study took into account writing performance of undergraduates and postgraduates.

Results revealed that depending on the level of writing experience writers benefited from different kinds of elaborated feedback. He distinguished advanced writers into knowledge transformers and knowledge crafters. Whereas knowledge crafters already can rely on stored writing plans and writing experience, knowledge transformers have still to develop and consolidate these skills. Consequently, support has to be tailored according to writing experience.

Thus, results confirmed that writing experience is a crucial indicator for aligning writing support. The conclusion might be derived that undergraduates benefit from support during text revision as they lack the writing experience to be able to rely on stored writing plans.

Feedback that provides orientation in terms of juggling processes of planning, translating, and reviewing helps novice writers to master the demands of writing. Thus, postgraduates might benefit from individually tailored feedback after finishing the text to their satisfaction. The learning environment did allow each individual learner to process in his or her own pace. Observation was operationalized by reading learning journals and practicing by writing and revising the own text; thus, learners could emphasize their learning and writing process according to the individual needs.

Therefrom one can derive that e-learning courses that offer support to develop single aspects of academic writing such as text structure knowledge or language use might be an attractive proposition for beginning academic writers. The presented research is limited by several aspects.

First, writing is a complex process and training can only apply single aspects at a time. Further strategies in combination with experience-related feedback might also affect writing skills and text quality. Second, academic writing skill, coherence skill are multifaceted and in some ways related, which makes the assessment challenging.

To meet these requirements, the instruments need further refinement respectively further instruments need to be developed. Third, as the participants were primarily female and the group of postgraduates was small, the generalizability of the results is limited. This would enable the requirements for supporting academic writing development on a more elaborated level to be determined.

Furthermore, research on combining writing strategies and feedback aligned to writing experience is still needed. This could be accomplished by contrasting case studies or by including a greater number of postgraduate participants. Establishing coherence of an academic text comprises the same challenges in all genres; thus, the studies could also be designed in a multidisciplinary manner. Combination studies on academic writing could also include peer support instead of general feedback aligned to writing experience.

Peer tutoring Slavin, ; Topping, , in higher education might be beneficial for postgraduates: they might feel less inhibited to discuss writing-related problems with their peers, who are more in tune with the current challenges in becoming an academic writer.

Moreover, co-constructive discussions can promote the writing process. On the other hand, peer mentoring Topping, might be supportive for undergraduates. From a more experienced peer, undergraduates can receive consolidated support on how to master basic challenges in academic writing such as structuring the text and revising the text. Furthermore, metacognitive regulation in mentoring and tutoring De Backer et al.

The study showed that even short-time practice can promote text quality. In addition, in terms of writing development, the notion of Kellogg and colleagues Kellogg and Raulerson, ; Kellogg, ; Kellogg and Whiteford, that expertise in writing develops with practice was supported. The results imply that writing strategies such as text structure knowledge application strategy should be trained to achieve skills that promote coherence, and that feedback should be aligned to writing experience to improve text quality.

All participants volunteered and provided written informed consent. All data were collected and analyzed anonymously. The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication. The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author would like to thank the student project assistants E. Ryschka, N. Prinz for their dedicated contribution.

Bandura, A. Google Scholar. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman. Pajares and T. Bereiter, C. The Psychology of Written Composition. Braaksma, M. Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. We believe that our study contributes to the understanding of how combined strategies can work for novice academic writers.

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication. The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. I especially thank Eva Ryschka for assisting in conducting this study. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Google Scholar.

Adams, P. The accelerated learning program: throwing open the gates. Basic Writ. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman. Pajares and T. Bereiter, C. The Psychology of Written Composition. Boekaerts, M.

Self-regulated learning: where we are today. Braaksma, M. Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. What observational learning in writing courses entails: a multiple case study. L1 Educ. Literature 6, 31— Brown, A.

Macrorules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise. Bryson, M. Fostering reflectivity in the argumentive thinking of students with different learning histories. Butler, D. Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis.

Chang, K. The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Cho, K. Self-monitoring support for learning to write. Commenting on writing typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Collins, A. Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics.

Essays honor Robert Glaser 18, 32— PubMed Abstract Google Scholar. Cresswell, A. Self-monitoring in student writing: developing learner responsibility. ELT J. Danoff, B. Incorporating strategy instruction within the writing process in the regular classroom: effects on the writing of students with and without learning disabilities.

DGP Englert, C. Connecting the dots in a research program to develop, implement, and evaluate strategic literacy interventions for struggling readers and writers. Macarthur, S. Graham, and J. Fitzgerald, J. Flavell, J. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving.

Weinert and R. Fleiss, J. Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. Flower, L. Images, plans, and prose: the representation of meaning in writing. Glaser, R. The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research.

Goldman, S. Otero, J. Graham, S. Fitzgerald New York: Guilford Press. Writing: importance, development, and instruction. Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: the effects of self-regulated strategy development. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.

CrossRef Full Text. Harris, K. Fidaolgo, K. Harris, and M. Braaksma Leiden, NL: Brill. Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: replication and cross-task comparison studies. Hayes, J. Allal, L. Chanquoy, and P. Largy Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Modeling and remodeling writing. Gregg and E. Steinberg Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum , 3— Rosenberg Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hidi, S. Producing written summaries: task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction.

Hillocks, G. Urbana, IL: Eric. Kellogg, R. Levy and S. Ransdell Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum , 57— Training writing skills: a cognitive developmental perspective. Training advanced writing skills: the case for deliberate practice. Working memory in written composition: an evaluation of the model. Kirschner, F.

A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: united brains for complex tasks. Li, J. MacArthur, C. Self-regulated strategy instruction in college developmental writing. McCutchen, D. A capacity theory of writing: working memory in composition. Meyer, B. Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Paz, S. Managing cognitive demands for writing: comparing the effects of instructional components in strategy instruction. Pintrich, P.

Reder, L. Reid, R. Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: effects on attention and academic performance. Reynolds, G. A comparison of text structure and self-regulated writing strategies for composing from sources by middle school students.

Rijlaarsdam, G. Largy Netherlands: Springer. Rosenthal, T. Social Learning and Cognition. New York: Academic Press. Always write with your audience in mind, and it can also help to bear in mind the medium in which you plan to publish.

This knowledge will help you to decide whether you need to write in a formal style or a more informal one , and will also help you to decide on a suitable structure. Finally, have a look at our page on Common Mistakes in Writing and Gender Neutral Language to help you avoid falling into some easy traps.

They exist because they explain exactly what we want to say in easy-to-understand terms. But some people find them very annoying, and you need to use them with care. There are many times in your life when you will be asked to write something very specific.

Whether this is to take notes of a conversation, write the minutes of a formal meeting, or prepare a report, all these types of writing require specific skills, and usually a particular style. Many people would say that the art of letter-writing is dying out. However, there are still many times when you need to put pen or word processor to paper. See our page on How to Write a Letter for more.

Being able to write well is a skill which will get you a long way in the workplace, partly because it is fairly rare in many places. However, when taken to extremes, writing shorter sentences leads to very choppy writing. Ideally, the sentences used should be a mix of long and short. The best balance differs between fields, but an interesting and novel idea written in short, simple sentences is more readable than the same idea written in long sentences. Err on the side of brevity. Because substitute teachers often work with students without knowing what those students actually know as they have not been teaching them throughout the year, they are likely to be worse at assessing student performance.

Compact cars and commercial delivery trucks are smaller and larger than average-sized vehicles and therefore require less and more resources, respectively. We then cooled it for 1 h and assessed crystallization. Substitute teachers often work with students without knowing what those students actually know. This is because the substitute teachers do not teach the students throughout the year. Because of this, they are likely to be worse at assessing student performance.

Compact cars are smaller than average-sized vehicles and therefore require less resources. In contrast, commercial delivery trucks are larger than average and require more resources. Too many short sentences in succession creates choppiness in your writing and can make the writing seem too simple.

As a rule of thumb, limit the number of new ideas in a sentence to one or two. Using two ideas in a sentence creates a sense of rhythm and progression that can be lacking when using only one idea per sentence. One simple way to spot areas that can be smoothed is to look for sentences that have the same grammatical subject. We kept it at that temperature for 2 h. We cooled it for 1 h. We assessed crystallization. Substitute teachers often work with students they have not been teaching throughout the year.

Substitute teachers often do not know what the students know. Substitute teachers are likely to be worse at assessing student performance. Compact cars are smaller than average-sized vehicles.

Commercial delivery trucks are larger than average-sized vehicles. Compact cars require less resources than average-sized vehicles. Commercial delivery trucks require more resources than average-sized vehicles.