Defining Classroom Writing Competence: A Paradigmatic Perspective

Defining Classroom Writing Competence: A Paradigmatic PerspectiveAuthor(s): Peter MosenthalSource: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Summer, 1983), pp. 217-251Published by: American Educational Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170385 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 07:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Review of Educational Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 82.146.44.67 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:52:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170385?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Review of Educational Research Summer 1983, Vol. 53, No. 2, Pp. 217-251

Defining Classroom Writing Competence: A Paradigmatic Perspective

Peter Mosenthal

Syracuse University

As various competing definitions of classroom writing competence emerge, researchers must essentially confront the question, "On what basis does one select one definition over another?" To answer this question, this paper argues the need to consider the sociopolitical dimension of this construct, in addition to the conceptual and design criteria dimensions. The paper begins by noting that all definitions of classroom writing competence represent partially specified, or simplified, definitions. To illustrate the principles of partial specification in writing research, six emerging paradigms of writing research are considered. It is shown that each of these paradigms makes contradictory claims as to what constitutes the principal causative context of classroom writing competence. The sociopolitical implications for each of these paradigm's partial specifications are discussed in terms of five purposes of education. The paper concludes by reiterating the need to select definitions of classroom writing competence in terms of sociopolitical criteria.

In many instances, the most troublesome problems of any discipline center on its most basic terms and fundamental concepts and not around its more sophisticated concerns. To the extent that everything is derived from a discipline's basic terms and fundamental concepts, problems at higher levels can always be traced back to problems at a more fundamental level (Mitroff & Sagasti, 1973). This is particularly true in writing research.

One of the most troublesome problems in writing research is that there is no one adequate definition of writing competence. The problem is similar to the one Simons (1971) noted over a decade ago in reading research; at that time, Simons observed how difficult it was to conduct reading comprehension research in the absence of any leading paradigms. A paradigm represents a mutually agreed upon set of criteria that enables one to separate relevant from irrelevant facts (Kuhn, 1970; Weimer, 1979). In addition, paradigms provide guidelines for how definitions of basic concepts are to be formulated (Mosenthal, 1982b, 1983).

Writing research is now in a stage similar to the stage of reading comprehension that Simons described a decade ago. Given the absence of paradigms in writing research, it is difficult to determine which facts are relevant and which are nonrelevant. And, more important, it is difficult to determine which definitions of writing competence are adequate and which are inadequate.

I wish to thank Barry Kroll and the anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions in revising the manuscript.

217



PETER MOSENTHAL

Although few paradigms of writing competence exist, this does not eliminate the need to understand writing competence, particularly as it is developed in schools. Within the past few years researchers and educators alike have begun to acknowledge the need to understand children's classroom writing competence. Children are taught and acquire writing competence in school settings (Graves, 1982) and it is there that children most often engage in writing tasks (Scribner & Cole, 1981). It is also in school settings that writing competence is most closely associated with measures of children's achievement, for example, how well children learn to write for the teacher as audience (Florio, 1979), learn to meet the minimal state writing competency requirements (Freedman & Calfee, 1983), and learn to write in content areas. This, in turn, influences children's level of educational obtainment and their economic and social status later in life (Gumperz, 1981).

Although the need to understand classroom writing competence is obvious, the question of how one should proceed to define this term remains problematic. In the absence of paradigms, it is difficult to determine how definitions, or constructs, of classroom writing competence should be formulated to best understand this term in school settings. As Messick (1981) suggests, the requirements for understanding a construct can be defined according to three levels of understanding. These levels include understanding "the evaluative overtones of the construct rubrics themselves, the value connotations of the broader theories or nomological networks in which the constructs are embedded, and the value implications of the still broader ideologies about the nature of humanity and society that frame the construct theories" (p. 12).

Several researchers (Bereiter, 1980; Britton et al., 1975; Graves, 1982; King & Rentel, 1979; Loban, 1976) suggest how classroom writing competence might be defined at Messick's first level, that is, the level of identifying features and examples, procedures, and criteria that qualify as representative replacement terms for classroom writing competence (see Rudner, 1966, on the notion of term replacement). In contrast, few researchers have considered how definitions of classroom writing competence might be formulated at Messick's second and third levels. Hence, there- have been few attempts to formulate definitions of classroom writing competence according to social science design criteria (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1983; de Beaugrande, 1981) or the sociopolitical purposes of education (Bernier, 1981).

To define classroom writing competence in terms of sociopolitical purposes, one attempts to determine which interpretation of a construct is most compatible with the attainment of a particular educational and, concomitantly, societal goal (Churchman, 1971; Mitroff & Sagasti, 1973). On the basis of this determination one can then identify an instructional program that optimally relates a given definition of classroom writing competence to a given societal goal or end. Because questions of instructional program effectiveness are intimately linked to the question of how one defines classroom writing competence at the sociopolitical level, decisions of instructional programs are more likely to be made and debated when constructs have been formulated in a manner that reflects sociopolitical goals (Kelly, 1980).

Because writing researchers have yet to define classroom writing competence in terms of sociopolitical purposes, there has been little attempt to determine which interpretation of classroom writing competence is most compatible with the attain-

218



CLASSROOM WRITING COMPETENCE

ment of different educational and societal values (Resnick & Resnick, 1977). Given the absence of such criteria, writing researchers have no basis (and will continue to have no basis) for developing a systematic study of the effectiveness of writing programs. Hence, there is (and will continue to be) no research program that investigates how instructional means for promoting a particular definition of classroom writing competence are related to societal ends, and there is no research that provides a rationale for why one instructional program can serve society better than another.

In light of these problems, this paper examines the relationship between possible definitions of classroom writing competence and the sociopolitical goals that such definitions presuppose. First, the notion of partial specification is discussed. Partial specification is the process whereby researchers select representative features and examples, procedures, and criteria from a universe of features and examples, procedures, and criteria for formulating descriptive and operational definitions of some phenomenon.

Second, partial specification is discussed in terms of formulating definitions of classroom writing competence. In this section the parallel between six established paradigms of reading research and six emerging paradigms of writing research are considered. For purposes of this paper, a paradigm is defined as a set of features and examples, procedures, and criteria that represent a socially accepted, partially specified definition of some phenomenon.

Finally, the relationships among different emerging paradigms of classroom writing competence and different sociopolitical purposes of education are considered. Here it is argued that different, partially specified definitions of classroom writing competence suggest different sociopolitical purposes of education.

The paper concludes by reiterating the need to consider definitions of classroom writing competence-in terms of their sociopolitical implications.

The Problem of Partial Specification in Defining Classroom Writing Competence

To define a phenomenon, researchers use two types of definitions: descriptive and operational (Hempel, 1966; Rudner, 1966). In formulating a descriptive definition, one selects those features and examples that epitomize the phenomenon and render this phenomenon unique from others. In formulating an operational definition, one defines a phenomenon in terms of a set of procedures and a criterion to be met (see Mosenthal, 1983, for further discussion).

In formulating descriptive and operational definitions of a phenomenon, one would ideally like to formulate fully specified definitions. These are definitions that consist of all the distinguishing features, all the representative examples, and all the procedures and criteria that have been identified as representing a phenomenon. In reality, however, phenomena are defined using partial specifications. These are definitions that consist of only a select sample of distinguishing features, examples, procedures, and criteria that have been identified as representing a given term. In short, a partially specified definition consists of samples of features, examples, procedures, and criteria that are assumed to approximate a fully specified definition's population of features, examples, procedures, and criteria (Mosenthal, in press).

219



PETER MOSENTHAL

Partial Specification and the Contexts Pyramid of Classroom Writing Competence To approximate a fully specified definition of classroom writing competence,

Mosenthal (1982b, 1983) developed a Contexts Pyramid Model of Classroom Writing Competence, presented in Figure 1. Each context represents classes of features, examples, procedures, and criteria from a variety of social science paradigms that have been used (or could possibly be used) to define classroom writing competence. Hence, the Writer Context represents those classes of features and examples that define the uniqueness of a particular writer or groups of writers. For example, in the Writer Context, one might descriptively define writers in terms of age, sex, background knowledge, IQ, reading ability, scholastic ability, grade level in school, and the processes writers use to produce written text.

There are two aspects to the Materials Context. One aspect includes all relevant features and examples of some physical stimulus serving as input (i.e., Materials as Input), for example, a picture that the writer is describing or a selection of text that a writer is trying to paraphrase. Significant features of a picture stimulus might include the objects in the picture, how they are arranged relative to one another, their features, and how they fill the picture space (Mandler & Robinson, 1978). Significant features of text to be recalled might include the number of propositions (Kintsch, 1974), the theme (Meyer, 1977) and episode structure (Stein & Glenn, 1979), or the type of relations between propositions (Frederiksen, 1977). A second aspect of the Materials Context includes all relevant features and examples of the writer's text output (i.e., Materials as Output). These features and examples are usually described as linguistic variables.

The Task Context includes the features and examples characterizing some directive for writing. In addition, the Task Context includes specification of a criterion that defines whether a writer used the appropriate procedure and whether the writer achieved the appropriate goal specified by the directive. Directives representing the Task Context might be: Write a description about what you did last summer; Summarize this book; and Write a short story about flowers.

There are two aspects to the Situation Organizer Context. The first is the Situation Organizer as the person responsible for having the writer write. The second is the Situation Organizer as the audience for whom the writer is writing. While the Situation Organizer is usually both prompter for and evaluator of a writer's writing, this need not always be the case. Significant features of a Situation Organizer might include the age, sex, or authoritative power of the Situation Organizer.

Finally, the Setting Context is comprised of those classes of features and examples characteristic of where the writer writes and where the situation organizer prompts and evaluates the writer's writing. Hence, one might characterize different types of writing in terms of whether it was done in school or at home, in a group or individually, and the physical distance between the situation organizer and the writer.

The significance of the Contexts Pyramid Model is its illustration that classroom writing competence as a fully specified term represents a multicontext phenomenon (Mosenthal, 1982b, 1983); one cannot define one context without somehow involving the other contexts. For example, the contexts of classroom writing com-

220



Source: Prior Knowledge)

a. Input Organizer b. Output Organizer

Materials a. External Stimulus Input b. Written Output

(Meaning Sources in a and b: Prior Text, Current Text, Future Text

FIGURE 1. The Contexts Pyramid Model of classroom writing competence.

Task U u z

0 u

z

0 0 Q 09

V)

V)

Situation Organizer

Writer (Meaning



PETER MOSENTHAL

petence might involve the following factors. The Situation Organizer might be represented by the teacher. In the younger grades, the Materials Context as Input might be represented by the teacher's basal reader lesson guide, the students' basal reader texts, students' workbooks, and other teacher-prepared stimuli such as flash cards, dittos, word charts, and blackboard exercises. The Materials Context as Output might be represented by students' different classroom written productions, such as written stories. The Writer Context might include students (and sometimes the teacher) representing a broad range of ages, intelligence, background experiences, and levels of maturation. The Task Context might be represented by various instructions, procedures, and performance criteria identified by the lesson outline in the teacher's basal reader manual. The Setting Context might be the classroom itself or the instructional groups within the classroom.

Meaning Sources and Writing Processes in the Contexts Pyramid Within this Context Pyramid Model of Writing, one can identify different

meaning sources and writing processes. A meaning source represents a set of semantic information that could be used to produce meaningful written text output at some point in time (Mosenthal, in press). In other words, a meaning source represents a set of semantic information that a writer may draw upon to produce written linguistic output. The four meaning sources include: (a) meaning in prior knowledge, (b) meaning in the external stimulus, (c) meaning in the written text, and (d) meaning in the social situation (Mosenthal, in press). Meaning in prior knowledge is the meaning source a writer brings to a writing situation; in short, this source is the set of semantic information derived from previous thought and experiences before a writing situation is encountered (Voss, Vesonder, & Spilich, 1980). Meaning in the external stimulus refers to the content of some stimulus about which a person may be writing. Meaning in written text is the set of semantic information produced by the writer composing at some point in time. Three sources of meaning in text include meaning in prior text, meaning in current text, and meaning in future text (de Beaugrande, in press). Meaning in prior text refers to the semantic information a writer has produced sometime before the point of the writer's current writing. Meaning in current text refers to the semantic information that is being produced as the writer writes. Finally, meaning in future text refers to the semantic information that a writer will produce sometime after the writer's current writing.

Meaning in the social situation (Mosenthal, 1979, in press) is information associated with the interactions among the Situation Organizer, the Setting, and the Writer. In classroom lessons, this source of meaning also often includes the interaction between students within the Writer Context. Generally, meaning in the social situation refers to the information in the structure of participant interactions within a given setting.

For example, several researchers (Mehan, 1979; Mosenthal, in press; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) have defined social meaning in terms of the initiation-response- evaluation cycles that characterize the structure of teacher-student interactions during classroom reading lessons. During the initiation phase, the teacher begins by identifying a meaning source to be comprehended. Then the teacher presents students with a task to be applied to this meaning source. The task is usually

222




presented in the form of a directive and/or a question (e.g., the teacher saying, "Read [directive] the next paragraph [meaning source] and answer the following questions [questions] about this paragraph").

The second part of the instructional cycle involves the students (or teacher) acting on some meaning source in response to a teacher's (or a student's) directive and/or question. In the third part of the instructional cycle, the teacher evaluates how successfully students have met a task's criterion by responding to the directive and/or question. If a student correctly meets the task's criterion, the teacher may accept or praise the student's response. If the student fails to meet the task's criterion, the teacher may reject the student's response (e.g., by calling on another student for the correct response), or the teacher may prompt the student, providing the student with additional information that the student may use to revise his or her response.

In addition to these sources of meaning, there are three types of writing processes indigenous to the Contexts Pyramid Model of Writing. Different writing processes refer to the possible ways a writer may recruit and integrate semantic information from the different meaning sources to produce written text. In other words, a writing process represents the way a writer maps or transforms the semantic information in a meaning source (or in a combination of meaning sources) into a written linguistic output. The three types of writing processes include reproduction, reconstruction, and embellishment. Reproduction is the process by which a writer produces written text by literally extracting features of meaning from a given meaning source or from a combination of meaning sources (Mosenthal, in press).

Reconstruction is the process by which a writer produces written text by drawing inferences that are permissible interpretations of a meaning source (or a combination of meaning sources). For example, such inferences would include making both propositional, or logical, inferences and enabling inferences (Hildyard & Olson, 1978; Mosenthal & Na, 1980a, 1980b). Propositional inferences are those inferences that are necessarily true or false by virtue of the logical form of the statement from which these inferences are derived (Ackerman, 1978; Hildyard, 1979), for example, the inferences derived from three-term syllogism problems (Mosenthal, 1976-1977) or factive statements (Mosenthal, 1978). Enabling inferences are those that must be drawn to make an event or a series of events cohesive and coherent and therefore comprehensible (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Hildyard & Olson, 1978). In addition to these examples, one might include writing by analogy as a type of reconstruction (Schustack & Anderson, 1979; Sternberg, 1977; Verbruggel & McCarrell, 1977).

Embellishment is the process by which a writer produces inferences that have no identifiable antecedent in a meaning source or a combination of meaning sources. As such, embellishment tends to produce meaning source elaborations and/or distortions (Steffensen, Joag-Dev, & Anderson, 1979) that apparently are derived independently of a given meaning source's (or combination of meaning sources') content and/or structure.

In addition to applying writing processes to meaning in prior knowledge and in text, teachers and students apply processes to meaning in social situations (see Mosenthal, in press, for further discussion). For example, in initiating lessons, teachers may reproduce basal reader lesson guides by using the same tasks, task criteria, and task consequences as stated in the guide. Teachers may reconstruct

223



PETER MOSENTHAL

basal reader lesson guides by using different but related tasks, task criteria, and task sequences as stated in the guide. Finally, teachers may embellish basal reader lesson guides by using different and unrelated tasks, task criteria, and task sequences.

Teachers and students may embellish prior knowledge and text meaning sources by drawing inferences that have no identifiable antecedent in a meaning source or in a combination of meaning sources. As such, embellishment tends to produce meaning source elaborations and/or distortions (Steffensen et al., 1979) that are derived independently of a given meaning source's (or a combination of meaning sources') content and/or structure.

Finally, students may reproduce meaning in social situations by adopting task goals identical to the teacher's and by attempting to arrive at the teacher's task criteria. Students may reconstruct meaning in social situations by adopting related but different task goals from those of the teacher and by attempting to arrive at task criteria that are related but different from the teacher's task criteria. Students may embellish meaning in social situations by adopting goals different from and unrelated to those of the teacher and by attempting to arrive at task criteria that are different from and unrelated to the teacher's task criteria.

In sum, the Contexts Pyramid Model ideally represents the major classes of variables that could possibly be used to define classroom writing competence. Associated with these contexts are various meaning processes that writers can apply to various meaning sources to produce linguistic output in time. All the variables associated with the Contexts Pyramid represent possible constraints that influence a writer's use of meaning processes and meaning sources.

Note, however, that researchers never really define classroom writing competence in terms of the fully specified Context Pyramid; instead, they always define classroom writing competence in terms of partially specified definitions of this Contexts Pyramid. The notion of partial specification and how it applies to writing research is considered next.

Partial Specification in Formulating Definitions of Classroom Writing Competence An important function of research is to order and simplify (Rudner, 1966). In

the attempt to achieve these ends, writing researchers face the problem of reducing the Contexts Pyramid to a manageable number of features, examples, procedures, and criteria to arrive at an ordered and simplified definition of classroom writing competence. Hence, instead of attempting to define classroom writing competence in terms of the fully specified Contexts Pyramid, writing researchers must inad- vertently pursue a second goal; they must attempt to formulate the most adequate, yet simplest, partially specified definition of classroom writing competence possible. In pursuing this goal, writing researchers must ultimately employ procedures of partial specification. These procedures of partial specification can be summarized as the following set of directives (Mosenthal, 1983):

1. Select one favorite context from among the five Pyramid Contexts; identify this context as the Causative Context.

2. Select a second favorite context from among the five Pyramid Contexts; identify this context as the Effect Context.

224




3. Establish a partially specified descriptive definition of writing and classroom writing competence by: (a) selecting a set of features and/or examples representative of the Causative Context identified; (b) selecting a set of features and/or examples representative of the Effect Context identified. (This completes the descriptive definition of writing and classroom writing competence.)

4. Establish operational definitions for: (a) the set of features and/or examples identified in the descriptive definition as causative and, (b) the set of features and/ or examples identified in the descriptive definition as effect.

5. Adopt the following argument: (a) if the partially specified descriptive definition is valid, then the operational definition is valid; (b) if the operational definition is valid (as proven by analysis of statistical differences), then the partially specified descriptive definition is valid (and the features and/or examples of this definition are therefore facts).

What this heuristic means is that in their attempt to simplify, writing researchers must begin by deciding which descriptive features and examples to include in formulating a descriptive definition of classroom writing competence. The ideal here would be to specify just enough features and examples so that the partially specified descriptive definition would adequately epitomize the fully specified descriptive definition. (Note that this specification procedure is similar to selecting a random sample assumed to be representative of a population.)

Once one has arrived at a partially specified descriptive definition of classroom writing competence (in procedures 1-3), one then faces the problem of establishing an operational definition of classroom writing competence. In this instance, one attempts to link features and examples in the partially specified descriptive definition to observable procedures and criteria in the operational definition. Features and examples in the partially specified descriptive definition of a Causative Context are represented as independent variables; features and examples in the descriptive definition of an Effect Context are represented as dependent variables.

The important point to note here is that in formal experimental situations, writing researchers never will define classroom writing competence in terms of the full Contexts Pyramid and fully specified descriptive definitions; they will always define classroom writing competence in terms of simplified versions of the Contexts Pyramid and partially specified descriptive definitions. By reducing the number of contexts and, concomitantly, the number of features and examples used to formulate descriptive and operational definitions of classroom writing competence, writing researchers do two things: (a) They reduce the number of potentially significant causative variables that may influence a writer's performance, and (b) they restrict themselves to a particular type of writing in terms of meaning sources and writing processes. As a result, different definitions and different models and theories of classroom writing competence will always presuppose different explanations of how different contexts are related during writing; also, they will always posit different explanations of how different writing processes are applied to different meaning sources.

225



PETER MOSENTHAL

An Illustration of Partial Specification in the Formulation of Sample Paradigms of Classroom Writing Competence In formulating descriptive and operational definitions of classroom writing

competence, writing researchers must invariably formulate definitions that represent some sort of partial specification of the Contexts Pyramid. Given this, an important question is, How does one determine which features and examples, procedures, and criteria to include and exclude in formulating partially specified definitions of classroom writing competence? As noted earlier, this question is often resolved at Messick's first level of construct formulation by involving different paradigms. In the absence of well-defined paradigms in writing research at this stage in this discipline's development, one can only speculate how different paradigms, or different definition classes (Broadbent, 1973), of classroom writing competence could evolve. If writing research should develop the way reading research has, one can predict that paradigms in writing research will be developed by borrowing from the paradigms of linguistics, psychology, and sociology just as paradigms in reading research have been developed.

To illustrate how the effects of partial specification might operate in formulating definitions of classroom writing competence, six paradigms of reading competence are identified. These paradigms are used as examples of partial specification because they appear to represent the major thrusts of writing research as currently conducted (see Table I).

The Materials-as-Output Context Paradigm. One reading research paradigm has defined reading competence in terms of the Materials-as-Output Context and is based on assumptions of behaviorism (Skinner, 1957), Hulleanism (Hull, 1943), and taxonomic linguistics (Fodor, Bever, & Garrett, 1974). These assumptions are (a) language is hierarchically organized; (b) the linguistic levels of this hierarchy are discrete and can be defined independently of other levels; (c) in processing levels, one begins with the level comprised of the smallest units (e.g., letter features and whole letters) and moves through successive levels (e.g., syllables and morphemes) until the level comprised of the largest units (e.g., words, phrases, or sentences) is processed; (d) comprehension proceeds as a process of associating units within and between levels in the manner specified in (c); and (e) comprehension effectiveness varies as a function of speed of matching a stimulus to a response as a function of association speed.

These assumptions are perhaps best reflected in writing instruction and research that have defined classroom writing competence in terms of one's ability to master the rules of prescriptive grammars. Prescriptive grammars represent a set of con- ventional grammar rules that define a priori a set of well-formedness conditions, which specify the proper conventions for spelling, punctuation, capitalization, usage, and syntactic form (Mosenthal, 1982b, 1983).

To develop students' classroom writing competence under such assumptions, teachers stress that students must first learn the simpler grammatical rules and move to the more complex rules. This typically involves moving from the lower levels in the skill hierarchy (e.g., mastery of correct spelling), to higher levels (e.g., mastery of grammatical usage) (Irmscher, 1976).

Writing researchers (Educational Testing Service, 1975; Hackman & Johnson, 1976) who operate under such assumptions often use prescriptive grammars to

226



r- rq

TABLE I Partial Specification of Classroom Writing Competence by Sociopolitical Purpose of Education, PYramid Contexts, Social Science Theories, Meaning

Sources, and Meaning Processes

Sociopolitical Purpose Academic Utilitarian Romantic Cognitive-developmental Emancipatory

Sociopolitical Reproduction of moral Reproduction of skills Nourishment of indi- Development of indi- Overcoming class dis- goal: and cultural values of for survival in society vidual self-worth and vidual in keeping tinctions to form a

society self-understanding with development of truly egalitarian society society.

Pyramid con- Materials Task or Task and Writer or Materials-as- Writer, Materials, Task Situation Organizer, texts: Materials Writer Writer, Setting, Task,

Some Materials Social science Hulleanism, behavior- Levels of processing; Conceptual and textual Piagetianism, metacog- Academic expectations

theories: ism, taxonomic lin- transfer appropriate schema theory nition theory; classroom guistics processing theory competence theory

Meaning Current text Current text Prior knowledge for Prior knowledge, prior Social situation sources: conceptual schema text, current text

theory; prior and current text for textual schema, some future text

Writing Reproduction Reproduction, recon- Reproduction, recon- Reproduction, recon- Reproduction, some processes: struction struction struction reconstruction



PETER MOSENTHAL

define operational criteria of classroom writing competence. These criteria form the basis of standardized writing tests. In such tests, students generally are required to select a correct response from several options. The correct response is the one that most closely conforms to the well-formedness rules of some prescriptive grammar. Hence, such tests operationally define classroom writing competence as the ability to recognize the correct form of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical usage from among several options, which comply or fail to comply with the specifications of some grammar's well-formedness conditions.

Note that by defining classroom writing competence in terms of students' ability to produce the correct linguistic form, teachers and researchers have partially specified classroom writing competence to the point that only surface structure is considered in the definition; meaning processes and meaning sources associated with the Materials-as-Output Context have been eliminated or "stripped" (Mishler, 1979) as relevant features.

The Reader Context Paradigm. Another reading research paradigm has defined reading competence in terms of the Reader Context. Most closely associated with this paradigm are researchers (Anderson & Pichert, 1978; Rumelhart, 1980; Spiro, 1980) who have defined reading competence in terms of schema theory, which argues that information in a reader's mind is organized hierarchically in superor- dinate and subordinate slots or frames. Comprehension proceeds by instantiation, or filling in these various slots or frames. How and what information is encoded, stored, and retrieved is assumed to vary as a function of what information is present in schema and the available means for accessing this schema. Several reading researchers (Rumelhart, 1980; Spiro, 1980; Woods, 1980) discuss means of schema access in terms of goal setting and problem solving.

The assumptions of the Reader Context Paradigm are perhaps best reflected in writing instruction and research that have defined writing as problem solving and goal setting. For example, Graves (1982) argues that classroom writing competence can best be developed in those situations where students are confronted with production problems, and teachers help students discover means for dealing with them. Similarly, Hayes and Flower (1980) include the following features in their descriptive definition of writing: (a) writing is goal directed, (b) writing processes are hierarchically organized, (c) some writing processes may interrupt other processes over which they have priority, (d) writing processes may be organized recursively, and (e) writing goals may be modified as writing proceeds.

In such instances where practitioners and researchers define classroom writing competence in terms of the variables representing the Writer Context, they tend to focus on meaning in prior knowledge and the writing processes of reproduction and reconstruction as they apply to this meaning source. Generally, meaning in prior knowledge is defined in terms of goal structure and content; reproduction and reconstruction is defined as the processes of generating and organizing ideas and new goal structures and content from an existing goal structure and content. In this paradigm, little attention is given to meaning in social situations, nor is much attention paid to meaning in text and the writing processes associated with this meaning source.

The Materials-as-Reader Context Paradigm. A third reading research paradigm focuses on the Materials Context and the Reader Context. Researchers (Cirilo,

228




1981; de Beaugrande, 1981; Frederiksen, 1977; Goetz, 1979; Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Meyer, 1977; Stein & Glenn, 1979; Vipond, 1980) who endorse this paradigm define reading competence by adopting many of the assumptions underlying early psycholinguistic studies, which attempted to validate the psychological reality of generative grammars (see Fodor et al., 1974, for further discussion). In essence, these assumptions suggest that the structure and content of some text (representative of the Materials Context) reflect the structure and content of some reader's mind (representative of the Reader Context) (Clark & Haviland, 1974; Hutchinson, 1974). Frederiksen (1977) illustrates these assumptions when he notes:

One strategy for investigating the nature of semantic knowledge is to inves- tigate the semantic structure of texts under the assumption that a text's structure is a reflection of the knowledge structure of the speaker or writer, who produced the text. The argument is that if a semantic distinction or a structure is manifest in language, it must also represent an aspect of human memory structure. (p. 5)

In brief, the assumptions of the Materials-as-Reader Context paradigm are that (a) the structure and content of a text has a parallel form in the reader's schema, (b) psycholinguistic grammars can be constructed that represent valid descriptive and operational definitions of a reader's schema and a reader's recall, and (c) the processes a reader uses to relate his or her cognitive input to his or her recall as output can be psycholinguistically validated by matching descriptions of input to output.

The assumptions underlying the Materials-as-Reader Context Paradigm are perhaps best illustrated in the writing research of Voss et al. (1980), who argue that high-knowledge writers compose differently from low-knowledge writers due to differences in their respective problem spaces and differences in the ability to monitor the selected solution paths. Problem space refers to the quantity and quality of knowledge a person has of a particular topic (e.g., one's knowledge of the rules and conventions of baseball). Monitoring selected solution paths is the process of selecting different sets of information to solve a particular problem, such as writing an account of a half inning of a fictitious baseball game.

To validate this descriptive definition of writing, Voss et al. formulated a grammar of baseball consisting of a set of rules describing the content and organization of a high-knowledge schema for a baseball game. Writers were then given a recognition test to determine how many rules of the baseball grammar they knew. On the basis of their performance, writers were then operationally defined as being high- or low- knowledge writers. Next, writers were asked to describe (either from prior knowledge or from prior text) a half inning of a baseball game. The structure and content of the writers' text were then analyzed according to the rules of the baseball grammar. The operational descriptions of the text output yielded by their grammar were then matched against the operational descriptions of the writers' initial inputs. In other words, what writers wrote about in describing a half inning of baseball (i.e., the writers' output) was compared to what the writers originally knew about baseball (i.e., the writers' input). By comparing the writers' prior knowledge input to writers' written output, Voss et al. were able to determine which aspects of the prior-

229



PETER MOSENTHAL

knowledge meaning source writers drew upon and whether the writers reproduced or reconstructed these different aspects to produce a written text. Note that in formulating their operational definition of writing, Voss et al. began with the notion that the inputs from the Writer Context and the Materials-as-Input Context can be represented in a psycholinguistic grammar, which is then used to operationally define writers' outputs in the Materials-as-Output Context. By comparing the inputs to outputs, these researchers inferred writing processes. This is similar to the procedure that reading researchers use to compare variables in the Materials-as- Input Context to variables in the Materials-as-Output Context from which Reader Context process variables are inferred (Mosenthal, 1982b).

In sum, by adopting a Materials-as-Reader Context Paradigm as a framework for defining classroom writing competence, one would equate the structure and content of meaning in prior knowledge with the structure and content of meaning in the written text. Under this paradigm, one would focus on meaning in prior knowledge and meaning in prior and current text; in addition, one would focus on the meaning processes of reproduction and reconstruction as they apply to the three acknowledged meaning sources.

The Task Context Paradigm. A fourth reading research paradigm defines reading comprehension using the Task Context. Most closely associated with the Task Context paradigm are researchers (Bransford, Franks, Morris & Stein, 1979; Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Doyle, 1977, 1980; Heath, 1980; Kirsch & Guthrie, 1977-1978; Scribner & Cole, 1981) who define reading comprehension in terms of levels of processing or in terms of transfer-appropriate processing theory. Although these theories make different claims, they both acknowledge that because tasks specify different goals and require different procedures for meeting these goals, readers encode, store, and retrieve information differently.

The assumptions underlying the Task Context Paradigm are perhaps best illustrated in the writing research of Doyle (1981), Odell, Goswami and Herrington (1983), and Scribner and Cole (1981). Doyle and Scribner and Cole define classroom writing competence as students' ability to perform adequately the universe of writing tasks in school society. Odell et al. define writing as a person's abilities to adequately perform tasks in different real-world settings.

In focusing on different school and real-world tasks, these researchers typically focus on tasks that require a writer to reproduce and reconstruct current text or prior knowledge (e.g., writing a memo or signing one's name).

The Reader-Materials-Task Contexts Paradigm. This paradigm defines reading comprehension in terms of the interaction among the Reader, Materials, and Task Contexts. Most closely associated with this paradigm are researchers who define reading comprehension according to Piagetian theory (e.g., Elkind, 1976), neo- Piagetian theory (Case, 1978), or metacognitive theory (Baker & Brown, in press; Brown, 1980; Paris, 1981; Raphael et al., 1981). These theories emphasize that reading comprehension involves the interaction of task and material complexity with the individual's level of development. For example, Brown (1980) argues that to comprehend effectively readers must have

(1) information concerning their current state of knowledge ... (2) knowledge of the fine gradation of importance of various elements of text ... and (3)

230




the strategic knowledge to select from retrieval cues information that they have missed previously. For it is not just the deployment of a strategy and the knowledge base upon which it must operate. The knowledge base must include at least some form of self-knowledge (i.e., myself as a memorizer), task knowledge (gist recall features), and text knowledge (importance vs. trivia, organization of text, etc.). The orchestration and coordination of these forms of knowledge demand a sophisticated learner and it is therefore not surprising that efficient performance is so late in emerging. (p. 468)

Writing research that uses assumptions similar to those underlying the Reader- Materials-Task Contexts Paradigm consists of modified syntactic maturity studies and process studies. Syntactic maturity studies reflect assumptions of the Reader Context Paradigm (Hunt, 1977; Loban, 1976; O'Donnell, Griffin, & Norris, 1967) and define classroom writing competence largely in terms of the Writer Context as the Causative Context and the Materials-as-Output Context as the Effect Context.

For example, Hunt (1977) studied the relationship between a writer's chronological development and T-unit structure. According to Hunt, a T-unit is a "single main clause (or independent clause...) plus whatever other subordinate clauses or nonclauses are attached to, or embedded within, that one main clause. Put more briefly, a T-unit is a single main clause plus whatever goes with it" (pp. 92-93). According to Hunt, a clause is any string of words containing a subject (or coordinated subjects) with a finite verb (or coordinated finite verbs).

To validate the concept of the T-unit as a descriptive definition of written output, Hunt began with the assumption that as school children mature, they tend to write longer T-units when length is measured as the mean number of words per T-unit. Hunt's second assumption was that, as school children mature, they tend to consolidate more sentence constituents into T-units, thereby increasing the number of dependent clauses per T-unit. Hence, Hunt's descriptive definition of classroom writing competence is comprised of two salient features. The principal feature of the Writer Context is writer maturity; the principal feature of the Materials-as- Output Context is syntactic complexity. Writer maturity is operationally defined as age; syntactic complexity is operationally defined in terms of the mean number of words and dependent clauses per T-unit in a given writing sample.

Several writing researchers, such as Crowhurst and Piche (1979), Piche, Michlin, Johnson, and Rubin (1975), and Rubin and Piche (1979), modified syntactic maturity studies in a way that makes them share many of the assumptions of the Reader-Materials-Task Contexts Paradigm. These researchers investigated students' abilities to modify their written output as a function of age and awareness of audience differences. In their studies, these researchers defined the Writer Context in terms of chronological age differences and the interaction between the Situation Organizer and the Writer Contexts in terms of intimacy differences (e.g., writing for someone whom the author knew very well vs. writing for someone whom the author didn't know very well). In addition to defining operationally the Materials- as-Output Context according to various T-unit analyses (e.g., number of words per T-unit, number of words per clauses, and number of clauses per T-units), these researchers formulated additional operational definitions for representing the content of persuasive messages (e.g., total number of appeals and number of different

231



PETER MOSENTHAL

types of appeals). Generally these researchers found that syntactic complexity varies both as a function of age and audience intimacy.

In short, while reading researchers typically define development in reading competence in terms of the Reader, Materials, and Task Contexts, several writing researchers define development in writing competence in terms of the Writer and Materials-as-Output Contexts, as well as the interaction between the Situation Organizer and Writer Context. While reading researchers, who operate under the Reader-Materials-Task Paradigm, define reading competence as the ability to reproduce and reconstruct both prior knowledge and current text while reading under a variety of reader, task, and text conditions, writing researchers, who operate under the corresponding Writer-Materials-Situation-Organizer Paradigm, define writing competence as the ability to produce more complex T-units and the ability to use more appeals and different appeal types while writing under various writer and audience familiarity conditions.

In addition to these modified syntactic maturity studies, certain process studies in writing research (e.g., Bereiter, 1980; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1978, 1982; Bracewell, 1980, 1983; Britton et al., 1975) focus on how children acquire different writing processes in relationship to different writing tasks. In brief, these studies define classroom writing competence as the developmental level of the writer and the complexity of a given writing task.

The Situation-Organizer-Reader-Setting Contexts Paradigm. A sixth reading research paradigm defines reading comprehension as the interaction between the Situation Organizer, the Reader, the Setting, and the Task Contexts. Most researchers using this paradigm either endorse some version of academic expectations theory (e.g., Allington, 1980; Au & Mason, 1981; Borko, Shavelson, & Stern, 1981; McDermott, 1977; McDermott & Aron, 1978; Rist, 1970) or some version of classroom competence theory (Cherry, 1978; Mehan, 1979; Mosenthal, in press; Mosenthal & Na, 1980a, 1980b; Wilkinson, 1981). Underlying these theories is the notion that differences in the way teachers and students interact influences student performance. The academic expectations theory argues that teachers teach according to different expectations they have for student performances. Students then internalize and behave according to these expectations (see Brophy, 1979, for further discussion). Classroom competence theories argue that comprehension involves learning not only how to comprehend text but also how to interact appropriately in the classroom, that is, knowing with whom, when, and where students should speak and act.

Mosenthal (Mosenthal, Davidson-Mosenthal, & Krieger, 1981; Mosenthal & Na, 1981) uses assumptions similar to those underlying the Situation-Organizer-Reader- Setting Contexts Paradigm in his writing research. In demonstrating that children compose text differently depending on the type of verbal interaction pattern, or register (Halliday, 1978), children most often maintain with their teacher, Mosen- thal identifies three types of response registers: imitative, noncontingent, and contingent.

Children who employ an imitative response register tend to add new information to a teacher's preceding utterance and tend to repeat verbatim or paraphrase a teacher's preceding utterance (i.e., they reproduce the teacher's initiated task). These children also tend to compose by reproducing the current text of some

232




stimulus, such that the structure and content of their written text output reflect the structure and content of the stimulus.

Children who employ a noncontingent response register often respond to a teacher's utterance by introducing a new topic of conversation bearing little, if any, relation to the topic in the teacher's preceding utterance (i.e., they embellish a teacher's task); in this sense, these children introduce new information without acknowledging old information in the teacher's preceding utterance. These children tend to compose their written text by reproducing and/or reconstructing their prior knowledge, such that the structure and content of their written output reflect the structure and content of their own knowledge or schema.

Children who employ a contingent response register often respond to a teacher's utterance by introducing new information to clarify or add to the old information in a teacher's preceding utterance (i.e., they reconstruct the teacher's initiated task). These children tend to compose their written text by reproducing and reconstructing prior knowledge as well as current text, such that the structure and content of their written output reflect a combination of the structure and content of a stimulus and schema.

To account for these findings, Mosenthal argues that children view their interactions with their teacher differently during routine classroom lessons and, subse- quently, develop different notions of what constitutes an appropriate response. Imitative children view their interaction with their teacher as formal, or high in risk (Doyle, 1977). To minimize distorting new information and to minimize being wrong, these children attempt to preserve the integrity of a text, a picture stimulus, or a teacher's given verbal information (Spiro, 1980). When given the instructions to describe or write a story about a picture, these children tend to write more descriptive essays, that is, episodic records or reports with little theme structure (Britton et al., 1975), and more often reproduce the stimulus than the other two response register groups. When imitative children do write stories, they do not use their personal constructs to develop a character's motives (Grueneich & Trabasso, 1979; Heider, 1958) but instead adopt the stimulus's construct to portray some type of story outcome (Mosenthal & Davidson-Mosenthal, 1982). In addition, when these children do adopt a narrative point of view, they develop the narrative's goal structure by focusing on outcomes and failing to identify specifically a character's goal or motive of behavior.

In contrast, noncontingent children view their interaction with their teacher as informal or low in risk. These children acknowledge new meaning only to update their own knowledge (Spiro, 1980), reduce uncertainty (Smith, 1971), or impose their personal constructs on a stimulus (Heider, 1958). In using schema to process information, these children reconstruct or embellish stimulus information more than do the other two register groups. When instructed to describe a picture, these children tend to write more narratives than the other two register groups. When instructed to describe or write a story about a picture, noncontingent children more often tend to reproduce and reconstruct prior knowledge than do the other two response register groups. In writing stories, these children focus primarily on the story motive; they impose their personal constructs on a stimulus, interpreting the character's motive according to their own schema; they often fail to mention outcomes in their stories.

233



PETER MOSENTHAL

Finally, contingent children view their interaction with their teacher as cooperative; they add new information in a manner that complies with the demands of the teacher's task structure (Doyle, 1980). When instructed to describe a picture, these children tend to write more interpretive essays, that is, speculative paragraphs with well-identified theme structure (Britton et al., 1975) and tend to integrate more often meaning in the stimulus with meaning in prior knowledge than do the other two groups (Mosenthal & Na, 1981). When instructed to write a story about a picture, these children tend to develop outcomes that are related to the story stimulus construct. However, they will also impose their personal constructs by developing a character's motive that is usually causatively related to this outcome. This appears to represent a cooperative strategy to the extent that both stimulus and personal constructs, or meaning in text and in prior knowledge, are integrated to comply with a teacher's task demands.

In addition, contingent children most consistently use prior text information when they revise text from a second point of view. In writing first from one picture character's perspective and then from another's, contingent children incorporate more prior text information from the original point of view in developing current text information in the second point of view than do the other two register groups. Moreover, in shifting perspective, contingent children tend to maintain the same characters and situation across points of view; imitative and noncontingent children tend to be inconsistent in this respect.

In sum, in adopting many of the assumptions of the Situation-Organizer-Reader- Setting Contexts Paradigm, Mosenthal demonstrates how differences in interaction between the Situation-Organizer Context and the Writer Context result in different Setting Contexts, or different response register groups. Because teachers, as the situation organizers, and students, as writers, negotiate meaning in a social situation differently depending on response register group, or Setting Context, students are assumed to develop different notions of what constitutes appropriate use of meaning sources and writing processes. These differences are reflected in the way students in the different response register groups differently relate meaning processes to meaning sources in producing text output.

Summary. The preceding discussion has related what appear to be emerging classes of definitions of classroom writing competence with many of the paradigms currently used to define reading competence in reading research. The purpose in identifying these paradigms was not to provide an exhaustive classification of all emerging thrusts in writing research or all the significant paradigms in reading research. Rather, the purpose of this classification was to provide examples of how partial specification operates in formulating definitions of competence, either reading competence or classroom writing competence. While partial specification is a necessary procedure in the formulation of any descriptive and operational definition of classroom writing competence, the selection of one partially specified descriptive and operational definition over another has a profound yet generally unrecognized significance. This significance is discussed in terms of the sociopolitical implications of partial specification.

234




Partial Specification as a Function of Sociopolitical Purposes of Education

It has been argued that descriptive and operational definitions of classroom writing competence represent only partially specified definitions; invariably different descriptive and operational definitions of classroom writing competence represent different selections from among the universe of features, examples, procedures, and criteria of some fully specified definition of classroom writing competence, such as the Contexts Pyramid suggests. Because all writing researchers must invariably use partially specified definitions, an important yet unresolved question is, How does one know which features, examples, procedures, and criteria to include in formulating a definition of classroom writing competence?

As suggested earlier, this question is often answered simply by arbitrarily selecting a paradigm. As Kuhn (1970) and Weimer (1979) suggest, paradigms provide established guidelines for partial specification. Hence, paradigms represent a set of criteria that specify: (a) what contexts are to be defined as Causative Contexts, (b) what contexts are to be defined as Effect Contexts, (c) what features and examples of a Causative and an Effect Context to consider in formulating a partially specified descriptive definition of some phenomenon, and (d) what procedures and criteria are to be used in operationalizing the features and examples in a descriptive definition. Unfortunately, given that there are few paradigms in writing research, there are few guidelines for conducting partial specification.

Writing researchers have attempted to solve this problem largely by focusing on Messick's (1981) first level of construct development, that is, considering the construct rubrics of writing competence. Little attempt has been made to relate the selection of construct rubrics to larger issues of social science design criteria (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1983; de Beaugrande, 1981). Yet even if this level of construct development was adequately addressed in writing research, this would only enable one to identify the relative design strengths and weaknesses of the different definitions. Despite the fact that different definitions might have different design strengths and weaknesses, these definitions may all be logically and internally consistent and, hence, have the same verification capabilities (Weimer, 1979). As such, definitions at the design level represent a form of partial specification in which one selects his or her favorite design criteria rather than his or her favorite context and features. In other words, in analyzing constructs at the design criteria level, one merely pushes the partial specification problem up one level. The question thus remains, Why select one partially specified definition of classroom writing competence over another?

One way this question can be answered is by analyzing the various definition classes of classroom writing competence in light of the sociopolitical purposes of education that these definition classes presuppose (Churchman, 1971; Messick, 1981; Mitroff& Sagasti, 1973). Although different notions of sociopolitical purposes of education have been advanced (Bernier, 1981; Churchman, 1971; Kelly, 1980; Messick, 1981; Mosenthal, 1983, in press; Walmsley, 1981), these notions all define sociopolitical purpose as a world view of what the goal of education should be. Because different sociopolitical purposes presuppose different goals, and different goals presuppose different means-ends relationships, different sociopolitical purposes assign differential status to different means-ends relationships. Those means-

235



PETER MOSENTHAL

ends relationships that are likely to promote the realization of an educational goal are given high status; those that are not likely to promote (or are likely to undermine) the realization of an educational goal are assigned low status.

Given the educational enterprise in general and writing instruction in particular, one can identify five sociopolitical purposes of education (Mosenthal, 1982a, 1983; Walmsley, 1981): (a) academic, (b) utilitarian, (c) romantic, (d) cognitive developmental, and (e) emancipatory. Each presupposes different goals of education and instruction. Each of these sociopolitical purposes also identifies different means- ends relationships as being the most propitious for obtaining some stated goal. Hence, each assigns differential status to different means-ends relationships depending on whether such relationships promote or undermine the realization of the specified goals.

To formulate partially specified definitions of classroom writing competence, writing researchers and practitioners implicitly define means-ends relationships in terms of which contexts are assigned causative status, which are assigned effect status, and which are excluded altogether. In this process, different meaning sources and different meaning processes are assigned differential status values depending on the status assigned to the different Pyramid Contexts. This process of partial specification, in turn, suggests different means-ends relationships of how certain goals, reflecting different sociopolitical purposes, may be fulfilled (Mosenthal, 1982a). This can be illustrated by considering the five sociopolitical purposes of education mentioned above (see Table I).

Partial specification from an academic purpose. Underlying an academic purpose of education is the goal of one generation to pass on to the next the knowledge, skills, and social and moral values of the culture that it deems important. To realize this goal, certain individuals are identified as the guardians of culture and serve as authorities to determine what is good, what is bad, what is right, what is wrong, what is a good choice, and what is a bad choice (Apple, 1979).

The Materials Context Paradigm best promotes the goal of the academic purpose. Associated with this paradigm are the cognitive and linguistic assumptions of behaviorism, Hulleanism, and taxonomic linguistics (Mosenthal, 1983). These assumptions lend themselves to the argument that meaning occurs external to the writer; that is, meaning occurs in the Materials Context (Olson, 1977; Olson & Torrance, 1981). Behaviorism (Skinner, 1957) emphasizes that a person has learned to write when he or she can correctly match a response to a stimulus; Hulleanism (Hull, 1943) emphasizes that learning involves the Socratic method, whereby an individual is led to a conclusion through a structured set of associations (Anderson, 1977). Note that in both cases, it is the authority of society that determines when a response correctly matches a stimulus or when an individual makes the correct associations to arrive at the right answer.

Given the academic purpose's assumptions that meaning is in the Materials Context and that there is only one right response, or association, to a given stimulus, proponents of this purpose acknowledge only reproduction of current text (Carter, 1977), if they acknowledge any meaning source and writing process at all. To acknowledge reconstruction and reproduction would be to allow for the possibility that interpretations other than the authority's were possible. To acknowledge prior or future text would contradict the notion that writing involves only execution; in

236




turn, it would suggest that writing involves goal setting, planning, and revision. Because the focus of meaning is assumed to be in the Materials Context, the meaning sources of prior knowledge and social situation are not considered in any definition of classroom writing competence, nor are the meaning processes associated with these meaning sources.

The assumptions of the academic purpose are reflected in instructional programs (Applebee, Auten, & Lehr, 1981) that define classroom writing competence as the ability to write according to the rules of some prescriptive grammar. In addition, such programs emphasize that writing involves using either the correct form or the incorrect form. These programs teach students to reproduce correct forms by first teaching the lowest level of the taxonomic hierarchy (e.g., correct representation of the alphabet and correct spelling) and then working their way up to larger levels (e.g., correct phrasing, correct syntactic punctuation, and correct expository form).

Partial specification from a utilitarian purpose. A utilitarian purpose is similar to an academic purpose in that both stress the importance of cultural reproduction. However, they differ on why cultural reproduction is important. The academic purpose stresses cultural reproduction to inculcate conformity to societal norms; the utilitarian purpose stresses cultural reproduction to teach real-world survival skills. In short, in a utilitarian purpose, the goal is to pass from one generation to the next the knowledge and skills necessary for survival in various real-life settings (Carroll & Chall, 1975; Heath, 1980; Scribner & Cole, 1981).

The Task Context Paradigm best promotes this goal of the utilitarian purpose. Associated with this paradigm are the assumptions of levels of processing theory (Adams, 1980; Craik, 1979; Doyle, 1980), which emphasizes that disparate tasks occur in disparate settings. To write effectively in different settings (and, hence, to function effectively in society) one must be able to follow correctly the procedures and adequately meet the criteria of various setting tasks (Heath, 1980).

Although the utilitarian purpose acknowledges the importance of the Task Context by Setting, the proponents of this ideology tend to define classroom writing competence in terms of tasks that require either reproduction and/or reconstruction of meaning in current text (e.g., completing one's income tax, filing for social security). The main assumptions of this ideology are not so much that classroom writing competence involves the ability to use different meaning sources and writing processes per se; rather, classroom writing competence involves the ability to use different meaning sources and writing processes relative to the broad range of possible writing tasks one could identify as necessary for surviving in society.

The assumptions of the utilitarian ideology are reflected in studies (Heath, 1980; Scribner & Cole, 1978, 1981) that emphasize that literacy is a culturally organized system of skills and values learned in specific settings. These studies emphasize that literacy acquisition is a function of society-specific tasks, which are usually quite different from those found in formal schooling. Hence, according to this ideology, what makes an effective writer is his or her ability to effectively meet the writing task requirements of different settings in society.

In addition, these assumptions are reflected in instructional programs that emphasize the need to write in order to meet any and all the tasks that society may impose on different writers. Underlying these programs is the notion that writing

237



PETER MOSENTHAL

should be taught and learned in the broad context of society and not just in the context of school. Heath (1980) illustrates these assumptions by arguing:

The extent to which physiologically normal individuals learn to read and write depends greatly on the role literacy plays in their families, communities, and jobs. Research ... suggests that all normal individuals can learn to read and write, provided they have a setting or context in which there is a need to be literate, and they are exposed to literacy, and they get some help from those who are already literate. This help, however, need not be formal instruction, nor must it necessarily follow what are frequently believed to be the basic tenets of reading instruction in schools: graded tasks, isolated skill hierarchies, and a tight linear order of instruction of sets and subsets of skills. Within this system of instruction, a student's success is measured by a sequenced move through the hierarchy of skills, and it is believed that acquiring these skills, i.e., learning to read (or write) is necessary before a student is reading (or writing) to learn. (p. 130; italics original author's)

Related to levels-of-processing theory is transfer-appropriate-processing theory (Bransford et al., 1979; Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977; B. Stein, 1978), which maintains that readers and writers differentially encode, store, and retrieve information as a function of how they are taught to solve tasks, the nature of different task requirements, and the complexity of the material used in teaching the task. In this regard, transfer-appropriate-processing theory identifies the causative context of reading and writing as the interaction between the Materials Context and the Task Context.

Because this theory incorporates the Materials Context of the academic purpose and the Task Context of the utilitarian purpose, it promotes both their goals. In sum, this theory stresses learning for purposes of cultural reproduction and survival in society.

Partial specification from a romantic purpose. Underlying the romantic purpose of education is the goal to develop an individual's "autonomy," "self-worth," or "self-ownership" (Spring, 1975). This purpose stresses the need for children's education to be free from the pressures and beliefs of society (Neill, 1960) and stresses that the individual, rather than society, should define what is good and bad, right and wrong, what is a good choice, and what is a bad choice.

The Writer Context Paradigm and the Materials-as-Reader Context Paradigm best promote the goal of the romantic purpose of education. Associated with the first paradigm are assumptions of conceptual schema theory, which lend themselves to the argument that meaning occurs internal to the writer; that is, meaning occurs in the Writer Context (Olson, 1977). Proponents of conceptual schema theory (e.g., Spiro & Tirre, 1980) emphasize the importance individual differences play in behavior; because different writers have different background experiences, perspectives, and depth of topic knowledge, writers write differently. In addition, proponents of conceptual schema theory (e.g., Anderson & Pichert, 1978) argue the importance of perspective taking and the ability to shift perspective as the need arises. Spiro (1980) describes this ability to shift perspectives in terms of schema accessibility.

Many of these assumptions of conceptual schema theorists can be found to

238




parallel many of the assumptions underlying the work of current rhetoricians, such as Young (1980). In addition to stressing the importance of prior knowledge, Young (1980) describes the notion of schema accessibility in terms of the writer's ability to control his or her intellectual exploration; one way to make this control more effective is to

ask the inquirer to change his mode of perception of the same unit; viewing it as a static, sharply defined particle, as a wave of activity, and as a field of relationships. In each mode he is asked to note the unit's contrastive features, variations, and distributions. In this way he is led through a set of comple- mentary lines of inquiry that direct his attention to features of the unit he might otherwise overlook, help him bring to bear information that he already has in his memory, and identify what he does not know. "Discovery," Jerome Bruner observes, "favors the well-prepared mind (1965, p. 82)." We can see the exploratory procedure as a way of moving the mind out of its habitual grooves, of shaking it loose from a stereotypic past that wants to be retrieved, of helping the writer get beyond the superficial to levels tapped by the romantic muse. (p. 347)

In sum, conceptual schema theorists as well as certain rhetoricians define writing competence in terms of prior knowledge. Note, however, that while certain rhetoricians emphasize embellishment of prior knowledge, conceptual schema theorists assign a low status to this writing process. In part, this is because conceptual schema theorists use operational definitions, which set predetermined criteria for writer performance. Because operational criteria are always set by the researcher as an authority, external to the writer's mind, it is difficult to determine exactly why writers may produce answers that do not lend themselves to operational classification. To overcome this problem of assigning embellishment to a low functional status because of operational limitations, several researchers (Collins, Brown & Larkin, 1980; Hayes & Flower, 1983; Mosenthal, in press) use ethnographic and on-line interviews to determine how and why writers embellish prior knowledge.

Associated with the Materials-as-Reader Context Paradigm are the assumptions of textual schema theory. In their strongest form, these assumptions claim that the structure and content of mind for producing text are identical to the structure and content of mind comprehending text. Hence, the structure and content of text itself as written output reflects the structure and content of the mind producing and comprehending text (McKoon, 1977; Mosenthal, in press; Mosenthal et al., 1981; Mosenthal & Na, 1981; Voss et al., 1980).

Other theories of textual schema are less inclined to posit an isomorphism between the structure and content of text and the producing and comprehending mind. For example, the given-new theory (Clark & Haviland, 1977) views writing as an interactive process whereby the writer attempts to find the best fit between his or her expectations and a reader's expectations of how text should be structured.

In his summary of textual schema theories, de Beaugrande (1981) notes that different theories attribute different status to whether meaning is in prior knowledge or in text; different theories also attribute different status to reproduction and reconstruction as they apply to meaning in prior knowledge and/or to meaning in

239



PETER MOSENTHAL

text. The point is that the more status a theory assigns to reconstruction of prior knowledge, the more strongly a theory reflects a romantic ideology.

Consonant with the romantic purpose are the assumptions that writing competence involves the ability to set and revise goals and to resolve problems based on the structure and content of one's understanding of goals (Elbow, 1973; Graves, 1982; Hayes & Flower, 1980; Voss et al., 1980).

In addition to these assumptions, one finds the assumptions of the new rhetoric (Rohman, 1965) consonant with the goals of the romantic purpose. Proponents (D'Angelo, 1975; James, 1934; Miller, 1972) of the new rhetoric maintain that writing is, or should be, relatively free of deliberate control and that imagination (i.e., reconstruction or embellishment of prior knowledge) is the most important dimension of writing. These assumptions underlie Miller's (1972) observations that

The mystery of language is, in large part, the mystery of the processes of the imagination.... For too long the assumption has been made that language used by an individual originates in the orderly processes of his rational mind, in his reason, in his faculty of systematic logic. Instruction in language-use has therefore been largely aimed at this logical faculty, in the belief that the teaching of orderly processes will result in good writing. The result, though, has too often been not good writing but dead writing, obedient to all the inhibitions and restraints drilled into the reason, but generally dehumanized and unreadable. (pp. 3-4)

In short, when classroom writing competence is defined in terms of the assumptions consonant with the goals of a romantic purpose, the teacher is no longer viewed as the guardian of correctness or as a purveyor of information about the mechanics of writing; rather the teacher is viewed as a designer of occasions that stimulate the creative processes of reconstructing and embellishing prior knowledge.

Partial specification from a cognitive-developmental purpose. Underlying a cognitive-developmental purpose is the goal to nourish "the child's natural interaction with a developing society or environment" (Kohlberg & Mayer, 1972, p. 454) to promote intellectual growth throughout the child's development. In general, this purpose stresses that learning does not involve so much the amassing of new facts but rather the development of new cognitive mechanisms that allow the child to progress toward the understanding of increasingly complex reading materials (Walmsley, 1981).

The paradigm that best promotes the goal of the cognitive-developmental purpose is that defined as the interaction among the Writer, Task, and Materials Contexts. Associated with this paradigm are the assumptions inherent in Piagetian and metacognitive theory. Both theories (Brown, 1980; Elkind, 1976) emphasize that classroom writing competence involves the interaction among the writer's cognitive structures, the author's text structures, and some authority's task structure. What differs between these theories is their explanation of how meaning in prior knowledge becomes related to text output. Piagetian theory emphasizes the importance of cognitive structure (Barritt & Kroll, 1978; Kroll, 1978); metacognition emphasizes the importance of conscious awareness and control of one's cognitive processing relative to the audience and task demands placed on the writer (Bracewell, 1983).

240




The assumptions of the cognitive-developmental purpose are apparent in those studies (Crowhurst & Piche, 1979; Piche et al., 1975; Rubin & Pich6, 1979) that define writing competence in terms of "an increase in social sensitivity with age, paralleling generative cognitive trends towards decentration and differentiation. With maturity, children become free from the press of intermediate and concrete perception, and consequently more able to integrate information consistent with alternative perspectives on a single event" (Rubin & Pich&, 1979, p. 293). In addition, the assumptions of this purpose are reflected in those instructional programs (Moffett, 1973) that provide genuine opportunities for writers to interact with tasks and social situations of sufficient difficulty so that mechanisms for growth-be they cognitive structures or conscious strategies-can be enhanced.

Bracewell (1980) advocates the use of procedural facilitation techniques for enhancing conscious strategy growth; he describes an instance of such procedural facilitation techniques in terms of teaching children how to revise:

Bracewell, Bereiter, and Scardamalia (1980) hypothesized that one reason for children's well-documented inability to revise their compositions... might be lack of skill in deliberately applying their discourse knowledge to their already written texts. Therefore, in order to facilitate revising in this study, decisions about the application of discourse knowledge were made by the experimenter as a child revised his or her composition. Children aged nine and eleven years wrote an argument composition on a self-selected topic... and then revised it with the experimenter's help. First, the experimenter underlined and labeled the sections of the child's original composition.... Second, as the child revised, the experimenter suggested additional units that might be added to the composition. The interventions follow a pre-planned procedure that led to a composition considering positions and evidence on both sides of the topic. (p. 414)

The important point to note in the cognitive-developmental purpose is that it identifies the causative context of writing in terms of the interaction among the Writer Context, the Task Context, and the Materials Context. This therefore suggests that concomitant with the goal of developing new cognitive structures, this purpose endorses: (a) assumptions of the academic purpose and definitions of writing competence related to the Materials Context, (b) assumptions of the utilitarian purpose and definitions of writing competence related to the Task Context, and (c) assumptions of the romantic purpose and definitions of writing competence related to the Writer Context.

Partial specification from an emancipatory purpose. Underlying an emancipatory purpose is the goal to change the educational, social, and political structure so that the oppressed may forge a new, more egalitarian relationship with their oppressors (Freire, 1970; Walmsley, 1981). Proponents (e.g., Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Freire, 1970) of the emancipatory purpose claim that a principal function of schools in a capitalist society is to maintain the class distinctions of this society. These proponents thus argue the need to change the educational system so that class distinctions are eliminated and a more egalitarian society is established.

The paradigm generally associated with the emancipatory ideology is the Context Paradigm defined by the interaction among the Situation Organizer, Reader, Task,

241



PETER MOSENTHAL

and the Setting Contexts. Underlying this paradigm are the assumptions of academic expectations and classroom competence theories; both theories suggest that class distinctions develop as a function of teacher-student interactions. For example, the academic expectations theory (Allington, 1980; Au & Mason, 1981; Brophy, 1979; McDermott & Aron, 1978) argues that teachers have lower expectations for some students than for others. These expectations are often based on students' SES, IQ, or ability group level. Hence, teachers are said to have lower expectations for lower SES, lower IQ, and lower ability group students and higher expectations for higher SES, higher IQ, and higher ability group students. Because teachers teach to these expectations, they differentially interact with lower and higher SES, IQ, and ability-group students.

Such differential interaction is reflected in such measures as engaged instructional time, general instructional emphasis, and teacher interruption behaviors. Engaged instructional time studies (Au & Mason, 1981; Berliner, 1981; Brophy & Evertson, 1981; Good & Beckerman, 1978; Guthrie, Martuza, & Seifert, 1979) suggest that teachers engage higher SES, higher IQ, and higher ability group students in learning tasks more often than they engage lower SES, lower IQ, and lower ability group students in such tasks. Studies on instructional emphasis (Alpert, 1974; Gambrell, Wilson, & Gantt, 1981) suggest that teachers are more likely to focus on more meaningful tasks with higher SES, higher IQ, and higher ability group students; in contrast, teachers are more likely to focus on rote tasks with lower SES, lower IQ, and lower ability group students. Studies of teacher interruption behaviors (Alling- ton, 1980; Eder, 1982; Niles, Graham, & Winstead, 1976) suggest that teachers interrupt proportionally more often following errors in lower ability groups than in higher ability groups.

Based on such differential interaction, lower and higher SES, IQ, and ability group students develop different expectations about their respective abilities to succeed in school. Because students perform according to their expectations, lower SES, lower IQ, and lower ability group students perform in a way that insures school failure (as reflected in their low achievement test scores); higher SES, higher IQ, and higher ability group students perform in a way that insures school success (as reflected in their high achievement test scores).

In sum, the assumptions of academic expectations theory suggest that how teachers interact with students is responsible for whether or not students succeed in school. Because success in school is related to success later in life, teacher-student interactions can determine whether a student will fill a lower or higher class role. Hence, given these assumptions, the primary meaning source in an emancipatory purpose is meaning in social situation; the principal meaning processes include reproduction, reconstruction, and embellishment of this meaning source.

Although no writing studies have been conducted that define classroom writing competence in terms of the academic expectations theory, several studies (Mosen- thal, in press; Mosenthal et al., 1981; Mosenthal & Na, 1981) define classroom writing competence in terms of the assumptions underlying classroom competence theory. These assumptions are consonant with the emancipatory purpose's claim that teachers interact differentially with students which, in turn, influences students' success in school. In particular, these studies suggest that in instances where students apply writing processes to meaning sources in a way that is not consonant with a

242




teacher's notion of appropriate use of meaning sources and writing processes, teachers interact differently with these students in a way that confers lower achievement status on these students. This lower achievement status may result in differential evaluations or in assigning students to lower ability groups (Borko et al., 1981).

In sum, definitions of classroom writing competence that suggest an emancipatory purpose identify the causative context of writing in terms of the interaction among the Situation Organizer, Writer, Task, and Setting Contexts. Because this interaction includes the causative contexts associated with the romantic purpose (i.e., the Writer Context) and the utilitarian ideology (i.e., the Task Context), the emancipatory purpose includes the goals of the romantic and utilitarian purposes as well. Because the classroom competence theory also acknowledges the importance of the Materials Context, this also suggests that the emancipatory purpose includes the goals of the academic purpose.

Hence, while those who argue for an emancipatory purpose stress the need to change the educational, social, and political structure so that the oppressed may forge a new relationship with their oppressors, these emancipatory advocates also subscribe to some of the basic tenets of the academic utilitarian and romantic purposes and thus sponsor partial specification according to these purposes. In this regard, then, the interactive nature of the causative contexts underlying the emancipatory purpose, like the cognitive-developmental purpose, exists as a purpose partially distinct from other purposes but also contains goals that are found in other purposes.

Conclusion

The preceding discussion suggests that to understand a concept like classroom writing competence, one must be able to answer three questions about this concept: What is classroom writing competence? What are the possible ways to define classroom writing competence? What ought to be the definition of classroom writing competence? To deal with the second question, a Contexts Pyramid Model of Classroom Writing Competence was first proposed to illustrate the possible contexts from which one could construct possible, partially specified descriptive and operational definitions of classroom writing competence. In discussing partial specification from a sociopolitical perspective, it was noted that to answer the first question, writing researchers have chosen one or two different contexts from among the set of possible contexts. This selection process always entails a different ideological assumption of what the goal of education should be and how education, as a means, should relate to societal ends. Hence, the question, What is classroom writing competence?, is, in part, the question, What ought to be the definition of classroom writing competence?

What this ultimately means is that decisions of how to define classroom writing competence are not purely objective decisions; they are also value decisions (Churchman, 1971; Messick, 1981). This being the case, the question of partial specification is only half the design question of which contexts to include and which to exclude (Mishler, 1979), and which writing processes and meaning sources are to be given a high or low status (de Beaugrande, 1981) in formulating partially specified descriptive and operational definitions of classroom writing competence.

243



PETER MOSENTHAL

The other half of this question is the question of which purpose (or purposes) does one choose as the best framework for reducing the fully specified descriptive and operational definitions of classroom writing competence to partially specified definitions.

In brief, this paper argues that purposes of education provide an important framework for both writing researchers and practitioners. Different purposes of education suggest different goals for conducting and implementing writing research relative to promoting some societal end. In addition, these purposes suggest guidelines for how classroom writing competence should be partially specified and suggest guidelines by which one can assign either a high or low functional status to different meaning sources and writing processes.

In conclusion, while this paper argues that the question of "What is classroom writing competence?" needs to be considered relative to educational purposes, this paper raises a much larger question, namely, "On what basis does one choose one educational purpose over another?" When one asks this question, one is no longer simply preoccupied with defining classroom writing competence in terms of a single mode of inquiry or in terms of choosing a single fact-generating system; rather, one is concerned with the question of why does one make certain choices over others. As Mitroff and Sagasti (1973) note, it is this question that is at the heart of any inquiring discipline. In examining the notions of stimulus and response from an Inquiry-Systems perspective (Churchman, 1971), the researchers argue

In the long run the most important consequence of this exercise may not be that it provides us with a single, satisfactory answer for every important question that we can raise regarding the nature of stimuli and responses, but that it provides us with an (not the) interesting way for posing questions and for contemplating how to go about settling them. The fundamental questions of any science are too important to be settled by any one mode of inquiry. When will we realize that to raise the question of the definition of fundamental terms is to raise a policy-information question? For in effect, Gibson's questions (of what constitutes a stimulus and a response) are policy mat- ters... whose "answers" effect the fundamental course and development of the Behavioural Sciences. It is in this sense that definitions are far from being arbitrary and are not "mere conventions." Definitions have a strong prag- matic import. They are among the most important conceptual instruments at the scientist's disposal. The choice of a definition is as crucial and as important as the choice of any other aspect of a scientific investigation. To choose one definition over another is potentially to make one kind of investigation "possible" and another "impossible," or at best, "less possible." (p. 131)

One might add to this that because definitions of classroom writing competence are ultimately tied to educational purposes and purposes are tied to a society's goals, whose definition of classroom writing competence is regarded as the basic paradigm affects the fundamental course and development of society. In addition, to choose one definition of classroom writing competence over another is potentially to make one kind of writing instructional program possible and another impossible, or at best, less possible.

244




As Ayn Rand once observed (The Fountainhead), "We have freedom of choice but not freedomfrom choice." As researchers and practitioners, we must ultimately make important choices that will shape the direction of writing research as well as educational policy. We need to examine not only what we choose but also why we choose in formulating definitions of classroom writing competence. Given this consideration, writing research, as an emerging field of inquiry, will perhaps not be beset with the problems that undermine so many social science disciplines: a multiplicity of paradigms with a paucity of rationale for choosing one competing paradigm over another.

References

Ackerman, B. P. Children's comprehension of presupposed information: Logical and prag- matic inferences to speaker belief. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1978, 26, 92-114.

Adams, M. J. Failures to comprehend and levels of processing in reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

Allington, R. Teacher interruption behaviors during primary grade oral reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1980, 72, 371-377.

Alpert, J. L. Teacher behavior across ability groups: A consideration of the mediation of Pygmalion effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 348-353.

Anderson, R. The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17, 1-12.

Apple, M. W. Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979. Applebee, A. N., Auten, A., & Lehr, F. Writing in the secondary school: English and the

content areas. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1981. Au, K. H., & Mason, J. M. Social organization factors in learning to read: The balance of

rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 1981, 17, 115-152. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. Metacognitive skills of reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.

Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman, in press.

Barritt, L., & Kroll, B. Some implications of cognitive-developmental psychology for research on composing. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1978.

Bereiter, C. Development in writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. Cognitive demands of writing as related to discourse type. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, 1978.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1982.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. Levels of inquiry in writing research. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman, 1983.

245



PETER MOSENTHAL

Berliner, D. C. Academic learning time and reading achievement. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching. Research reviews. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1981.

Bernier, N. R. Beyond instructional context identification: Some thoughts for extending the analysis of deliberate education. In J. L. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1981.

Borko, H., Shavelson, R. J., & Stem, P. Teachers' decisions in the planning of reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 1981, 16, 449-466.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books, 1976.

Bracewell, R. J. Investigating the control of writing skills. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman, 1983.

Bracewell, R. J. Writing as a cognitive activity. Visible Language, 1980, 14, 400-422. Bracewell, R. J., Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. How beginning writers succeed and fail in

making written arguments more convincing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April 1980.

Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Morris, C. D., & Stein, B. S. Some general constraints on learning and memory research. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels ofprocessing in human memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979.

Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. The development of writing abilities (11-18). London: MacMillan Education, 1975.

Broadbent, D. E. In defense of empirical psychology. London: Methuen, 1973. Brophy, J. E. Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 71,

733-750. Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. M. Student characteristics and teaching. New York: Longman,

1981. Brown, A. Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F.

Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980. Bruner, J. The act of discovery. In On knowing. Essaysfor the left hand. New York: Atheneum,

1965. Carroll, J. B., & Chall, J. S. (Eds.). Towards a literate society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Carter, J. F. Comments on chapter 6 by Meyer. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E.

Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

Case, R. Piaget and beyond: Toward a developmentally based theory and technology of instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.

Cherry, L. J. A sociolinguistic approach to the study of teacher expectations. Discourse Processes, 1978, 1, 373-394.

Churchman, C. W. The design of inquiring systems. Basic concepts of systems and organization. New York: Basic Books, 1971.

Cirilo, R. K. Referential coherence and text structure in story comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1981, 20, 358-367.

Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (Vol. 1). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1977.

Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. E. Psychological processes as linguistic explanation. In D. Cohen (Ed.), Explaining linguistic phenomena. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1974.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Larkin, K. M. Inference in text understanding. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

Craik, F. J. M. Levels of processing: Overview and closing comments. In L. S. Cermak & F. J. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing human memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979.

246




Craik, F. J., & Lockhart, R. S. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 671-684.

Crowhurst, M., & Pich6, G. L. Audience and mode of discourse effects of syntactic complexity in writing at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 1979, 13, 101-109.

D'Angelo, F. J. A conceptual theory of rhetoric. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1975. de Beaugrande, R. Design criteria for process models of reading. Reading Research Quarterly,

1981, 16, 261-315. de Beaugrande, R. Text, attention, and memory in reading research. In R. J. Tierney, P.

Anders, & J. Mitchell (Eds.), Understanding readers' understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erl- baum, in press.

Doyle, W. Accomplishing writing tasks in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981.

Doyle, W. Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 5). Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, 1977.

Doyle, W. Student mediating responses in teaching effectiveness. (Final Report, Grant No. NIE-G-76-0099). Denton: North Texas State University, March 1980.

Eder, D. Differences in communicative styles across ability groups. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom. New York: Academic Press, 1982.

Educational Testing Service. The test of standard written English: Preliminary report. Princeton, N.J.: Author, 1975.

Elbow, P. Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. Elkind, D. Cognitive development and reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.),

Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, Del.: International Reading Associ- ation, 1976.

Florio, S. The problem of dead letters: Social perspective on the teaching of writing. The Elementary School Journal, 1979, 80, 1-7.

Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. The psychology of language. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1974.

Frederiksen, C. H. Semantic processing units in understanding text. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (Vol. 1). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1977.

Freedman, S. W., & Calfee, R. Holistic assessment of writing: Experimental design and cognitive theory. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods. New York: Longman, 1983.

Freire, P. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Searbury Press, 1970. Gambrell, L. B., Wilson, R. M., & Gantt, W. N. Classroom observations of task-attending

behaviors of good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 1981, 74, 400-404. Goetz, E. T. Inferring from text: Some factors influencing which inferences will be made.

Discourse Processes, 1979, 2, 179-196. Good, T. L., & Beckerman, T. M. Time on task: A naturalistic study in sixth grade classrooms.

Elementary School Journal, 1978, 78, 193-201. Graves, P. H. Research update: How do writers develop? Language Arts, 1982, 59, 173-179. Gumperz, J. J. Conversational inference and classroom learning. In J. L. Green & C. Wallat

(Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1981. Grueneich, R., & Trabasso, T. The story as social environment: Children's comprehension

and evaluation of intentions and consequences (Technical Report No. 142). Urbana- Champaign: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois, September 1979.

Guthrie, J. T., Martuza, V., & Seifert, M. Impacts of instructional time in reading. In L. B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979.

Hackman, J. D., & Johnson, P. Yale collegefreshmen: How well do they write? New Haven, Conn.: Yale University, 1976.

247



PETER MOSENTHAL

Halliday, M. A. K. Language as a social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press, 1978.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to

protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing. Principles and methods. New York: Longman, 1983.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. Writing as problem solving. Visible Language, 1980, 14, 388- 399.

Heath, S. B. The functions and uses of literacy. Journal of Communication, 1980, 30, 123- 133.

Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Hempel, C. G. Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1966. Hildyard, A. Children's production of inferences from oral texts. Discourse Processes, 1979,

2, 33-56. Hildyard, A., & Olson, D. R. Memory and inference in the comprehension of oral and written

discourse. Discourse Processes, 1978, 1, 91-118. Hull, C. L. Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943. Hunt, K. W. Early blooming and late blooming syntactic structures. In C. R. Cooper & L.

Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1977.

Hutchinson, L. G. Grammar as theory. In D. Cohen (Ed.), Explaining linguistic phenomena. Washington, D. C.: Hemisphere, 1974.

Irmscher, W. F. The Holt guide to English (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976.

James, H. The art of the novel. New York: Scribner, 1934. Kelly, R. M. Ideology, effectiveness, and public sector productivity: With illustrations from

the field of higher education. Journal of Social Issues, 1980, 36, 76-95. King, M. J., & Rentel, V. Toward a theory of early writing development. Research in the

Teaching of English, 1979, 13, 243-253. Kintsch, W. The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1974. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. Toward a model of text comprehension and production.

Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363-394. Kirsch, I., & Guthrie, J. The concept and measurement of functional literacy. Reading

Research Quarterly, 1977-1978, 13, 485-507. Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational

Review, 1972, 42, 449-496. Kroll, B. Cognitive egocentrism and the problem of audience awareness in written discourse.

Research in the Teaching of English, 1978, 12, 269-281. Kuhn, T. S. The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1970. Loban, W. Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve (Research Report No.

18). Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1976. McDermott, R. P. Social relations as contexts for learning in schools. Harvard Educational

Review, 1977, 47, 198-213. McDermott, R. P., & Aron, J. Pirandello in the classroom: On the possibility of equal

educational opportunity in American culture. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Futures of exceptional students. Emerging structures. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1978.

McKoon, G. Organization of information in text memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16, 247-260.

Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. Remembrance of things passed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 111-151.

248




Mandler, J. M., & Robinson, C. A. Developmental changes in picture recognition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1978, 26, 122-136.

Mehan, H. Learning lessons. Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979.

Messick, S. Evidence and ethics in the evaluation of tests. Educational Researcher, 1981, 10, 9-20.

Meyer, B. J. F. The structure of prose: Effects on learning and memory and the implications for educational practice. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

Miller, J. E., Jr. Word, self, reality: The rhetoric of imagination. New York: Dodd Mead, 1972.

Mishler, E. Meaning in context. Is there any other kind? Harvard Educational Review, 1979, 49, 314-324.

Mitroff, I. I., & Sagasti, F. Epistemology as general systems theory: An approach to the design of complex decision-making experiments. Philosophy of Social Science, 1973, 3, 117-134.

Moffett, J. A student-centered language arts curriculum: K-12. Boston, Mass.: Houghton- Mifflin, 1973.

Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16, 519-534.

Mosenthal, P. Children's strategy preferences for resolving contradictory story information under two social conditions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1979, 28, 323- 343.

Mosenthal, P. On defining writing and classroom writing competence. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing. Principles and methods. New York: Longman, 1983.

Mosenthal, P. On designing training programs for learning disabled children: An ideological perspective. Topical Issues in Learning Disabilities: Metacognition and Learning Disabili- ties, 1982, 2, 97-107. (a)

Mosenthal, P. Psycholinguistic properties of aural and visual comprehension as determined by children's abilities to comprehend syllogisms. Reading Research Quarterly, 1976-1977, 12, 55-92.

Mosenthal, P. The influence of social situation on children's classroom comprehension of text. Elementary School Journal, in press.

Mosenthal, P. The new and given in children's comprehension of presuppositive negatives in two modes of processing. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1978, 10, 267-278.

Mosenthal, P. Towards a paradigm of children's classroom writing competence. In B. A. Hutson (Ed.), Advances in reading/language research (Vol. 1). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1982. (b)

Mosenthal, P., & Davidson-Mosenthal, R. Individual differences in children's use of new and old information during reading lessons. Elementary School Journal, 1982, 83, 24-34.

Mosenthal, P., Davidson-Mosenthal, R., & Krieger, V. How fourth graders develop point of view in classroom writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 1981, 15, 197-214.

Mosenthal, P., & Na, T. J. Classroom competence and children's individual differences in writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1981, 73, 106-121.

Mosenthal, P., & Na, T. J. Quality of children's recall under two classroom testing tasks: Towards a socio-psycholinguistic model of reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 1980, 15, 504-528. (a)

Mosenthal, P., & Na, T. J. Quality of text recall as a function of children's classroom competence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1980, 30, 1-21. (b)

Neill, A. S. Summerhill: A radical approach to child rearing. New York: Hart, 1960. Niles, J. A., Graham, R. T., & Winstead, J. C. The effects of teacherfeedback in responses on

249



PETER MOSENTHAL

children's oral reading performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Atlanta, Ga., December 1976.

Odell, L., Goswami, D., & Herrington, A. The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing. Principles and methods. New York: Longman, 1983.

O'Donnell, R. C., Griffin, W. J., & Norris, R. C. Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children: A transformational analysis (Research Report No. 8). Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1967.

Olson, D. R. From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 1977, 47, 257-281.

Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. Learning to meet the requirements of written text: Language development in the school years. In C. H. Frederiksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: Process, development and communication. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1981.

Paris, S. G. Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1981, 13, 5-22.

Piche, G. L., Michlin, M. L., Johnson, F. L., & Rubin, D. L. Relationships between fourth graders' performances on selected role-taking tasks and referential communication accuracy tasks. Child Development, 1975, 46, 965-969.

Raphael, T. E., Myers, A. C., Tirre, W. C., Fritz, M., & Freebody, P. The effects of some known sources of reading difficulty on metacomprehension and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1981, 13, 325-334.

Resnick, D. P., & Resnick, L. B. The nature of literacy: An historical exploration. Harvard Educational Review, 1977, 47, 370-385.

Rist, R. C. Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 1970, 40, 411-451.

Rohman, D. G. Pre-writing: The stage of discovery in the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 1965, 16, 106-112.

Rubin, D. L., & Piche, G. L. Development in syntactic and strategic aspects of audience adaptation skills in written persuasive communication. Research in the Teaching of English, 1979, 13, 293-316.

Rudner, R. S. Philosophy of social science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1966. Rumelhart, D. E. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, &

W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

Schustack, M. W., & Anderson, J. R. Effects of analogy to prior knowledge on memory for new information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 565-583.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. Literacy without schooling: Testing for intellectual effects. Harvard Educational Review, 1978, 48, 448-461.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Simons, H. D. Reading comprehension: The need for a new perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 1971, 6, 338-363.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Skinner, B. F. Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957. Smith, F. Understanding reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971. Spiro, R. J. Constructive processes in prose comprehension and recall. In R. J. Spiro, B. C.

Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

250




Spiro, R. J., & Tirre, W. C. Individual differences in schema utilization during discourse processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1980, 72, 204-208.

Spring, J. H. A primer of libertarian education. New York: Free Life Editions, 1975. Stein, B. S. Depth of processing re-examined: The effects of the precision of encoding and

test appropriateness. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1978, 17, 165-174. Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school

children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1979.

Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. C. A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 1979, 15, 10-29.

Sternberg, R. J. Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The compo- nential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.

Verbruggel, R. R., & McCarrell, N. S. Metaphoric comprehension: Studies in reminding and resembling. Cognitive Psychology, 1977, 9, 494-553.

Vipond, D. Micro- and macroprocesses in text comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 276-296.

Voss, J. F., Vesonder, G. T., & Spilich, G. J. Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19, 651-667.

Walmsley, S. A. On the purpose and content of secondary reading programs: An educational ideological perspective. Curriculum Inquiry, 1981, 11, 73-93.

Weimer, W. B. Notes on the methodology of scientific research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1979.

Wilkinson, L. C. Analysis of teacher-student interaction: Expectations communicated by conversational structure. In J. L. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1981.

Woods, W. A. Multiple theory formation in speech and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

Young, R. E. Arts, crafts, gifts, and knacks. Visible Language, 1980, 14, 341-350.

AUTHOR PETER MOSENTHAL, Associate Professor, Reading and Language Arts Center,

Syracuse University, 170 Huntington Hall, Syracuse, NY, 13210. Specializations: Reading and writing research, advertising effectiveness research.

251



Documents

Defining Classroom Writing Competence: A Paradigmatic Perspective