The Role of Instructional Method on Efficiency of Academic Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58213/ell.v3i2.38Keywords:
Observational learning, learning by doing, academic writing, writing preferenceAbstract
In this study, we focused on which method of teaching university students how to write academic papers is most beneficial. In this study, we looked at the impact of writing preference (planning versus rewriting) on academic writing ability, as well as the distinctions between observational learning and learning by doing. In one experiment, 145 undergraduates were divided into two groups and given the choice between two different methods of learning: learning by action or learning by observing. In observational learning, students were able to obtain insight into the writing processes of both strong and weak models. They learned by doing, and this was accomplished via writing tasks. After completing a questionnaire about their writing style, participants were divided into two groups: planners and revisers. Learning by doing, planning, and revising were all components of a 2x2 between-subjects design used to examine the impact of the sessions on students' writing preferences (observational learning). Academic writing abilities were assessed by requiring participants to compose an abstract for an empirical research paper. Neither teaching method nor writing choice had a significant impact on our study results. Despite the fact that both groups profited from observational learning, simple effect analyses showed that revisers benefited slightly more than planners. Planners outperformed their peers in both observational learning and hands-on training. It appears that planners who learn by doing outperformed revisionists who learn by doing. Students participating in academic writing courses may benefit from observational learning, according to our research. On the other hand, further investigation into instructional methods is necessary.
References
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-ef•cacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
• Braaksma, M. A. H. (2002). Observational learning in argumentative writing (Doctoral Dissertation). Amsterdam: Graduate School for Teaching and Learning, University of Amsterdam.
• Braaksma, M. A., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.405
• Braaksma, M. A., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2201_1
• Couzijn, M. (1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: Effects on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 9(2), 109-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959- 4752(98)00040-1
• De Smet, M. J., Brand-Gruwel, S., Leijten, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). Electronic outlining as a writing strategy: Effects on students' writing products, mental effort and writing process. Computers & Education, 78, 352-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.010
• Elbow, P. (1998). Writing without teachers (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
• Froese, A. D., Gantz, B. S., & Henry, A. L. (1998). Teaching students to write literature reviews: A meta-analytic model. Teaching of Psychology, 25,102-105.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2502_4
• Galbraith, D., & Torrance, M. (2004). Revision in the context of different drafting strategies. In Revision cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 63-85). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1048-1_5
• Galbraith, D., Torrance, M., & Hallam, J. (2006). Effects of writing on conceptual coherence. InProceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1340-1345). Graham, S., &Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.Journal of educational psychology, 99(3), 445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445 Granello, D. H. (2001). Promoting cognitive complexity in graduate written work; Using Bloom’staxonomy as a pedagogical tool to improve literature reviews. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40, 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2001.tb01261.x
• Green, R., & Bowser, M. (2006). Observations from the field: Sharing a literature review rubric.Journal of Library Administration, 45(1-2), 185-202. https://doi.org/10.1300/j111v45n01_10 Kellogg, R.T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal ofWriting Research, 1(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1
• Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing as a learning tool: testing the role of students’ writing strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173567
• Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude–treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 379-390.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.004
• Murray, D. M. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure (pp. 85-103). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
• Raedts, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van Waes, L., &Daems, F. (2007). Observational learning through video-based models: impact on student’s accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs, task knowledge and writing performances In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and P. Boscolo& S. Hidi (Volume Eds.), Studies in Writing, Volume 19, Writing and Motivation (pp. 219–238). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781849508216_013
• Raedts, M., Daems, F., Van Waes, L., &Rijlaarsdam, G. (2009). Observational learning through peer models in a complex writing task. TijdschriftvoorTaalbeheersing, 31(9), 142-165. https://doi.org/10.5117/tvt2009.2.obse357
• Rijlaarsdam, G., &Couzijn, M. (2000). Writing and learning to write: A double challenge. In R. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 157-189). Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47614-2_9
• Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Raedts, M., Van Steendam, E., Toorenaar, A., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). Observation of peers in learning to write, Practice and Research. Journal of Writing Research, 1 (1), 53-83. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.3
• Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of educational research, 57(2), 149-174. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057002149
• Tillema, M. (2012). Writing in first and second language: Empirical studies on text quality and writing processes (Doctoral Dissertation). Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
• Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (2000). Individual differences in undergraduate essay-writing strategies: A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 39(2), 181-200. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003990432398
• Van Weijen, D. (2009). Writing processes, text quality, and task effects: Empirical studies in first and second language writing (Doctoral Dissertation). Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
• Zimmerman, B. J., &Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 660. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.660
