TIONS AND REVISION OF NARRATIVES BY SIXTH-
“knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them .... Metacognition refers, among other things, to the active monitoring and con- sequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation to the cognitive ob- jects or data on which they bear, usually in the service of some concrete goal or objec- tive”
Concerning the relevance of this concept for writing instruction, several questions must be raised: what conditions are required in order to optimize metacognitive regulation of writing in a classroom context? In other words, which types of instruc- tional situations favor metacognitive processes that are likely to regulate writing?
The present study examines peer interaction as a means of fostering metacogni- tive regulation processes. If we consider that metacognitive processes regulate cog- nitive processes at varying levels of consciousness, then peer interactions could be particularly effective as a means of stimulating active self-regulation. They offer occasions for verbalization that bring processes situated at the threshold of aware- ness to an explicit, conscious level, thereby progressively enabling the learner to use these processes as tools. A dialogue implies repeated verbalizations that the subject would not otherwise make on his own, and can thus induce metacognitive processes leading to automization of new forms of self-regulation. Previous research has shown effects of peer interactions on production processes in the course of a col- laborative writing condition, but most studies have not verified whether this condi- tion can assure transfer effects to a subsequent individual writing task.
In our study, several aspects of the effects of peer interaction on the regulation of writing are studied through experimentation comparing individual and dyadic condi- tions of text production, but this chapter focuses on results concerning revision. The general hypothesis of the study is defined as follows. In a situation of narrative text production, a dyadic condition (implying cooperative interactions between students writing a joint text) will induce qualitative and quantitative differences in the regula- tion of the writing processes, as compared to an individual condition (in which each student writes a text without peer interaction). These differences will be observed not only during the initial situation involving texts produced under dyadic and indi- vidual conditions, but will also transfer to a second situation of text production, about 10 days later, in which all subjects write a text individually.
Studies such as those conducted by Gilly (1988) have shown that when two chil- dren work together this does not necessarily imply an authentically interactive work sequence. It is necessary for learners to cooperate actively, confront their answers and argue about their positions in order for their reciprocal reactions to have a mutu- ally beneficial impact. This consideration lies at the basis of our study and leads us to design an instructional situation so as to promote cooperative exchanges between the members of a dyad who have to produce a jointly composed text.
2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The conceptual framework has been constructed on the basis of two related areas of research. The first relationship concerns the articulations between processes of writ- ing, such as planning, monitoring, reviewing, translating, as defined by Hayes &
Flower (1980) and general aspects of metacognitive functioning (self- regulation and
metacognitive knowledge). The second relationship concerns the effects on writing processes of the interactions of the student writer with his environment: that is, with his peers, with instructional material, with the teacher. Here we will briefly review the major references that have helped us to understand each relationship.
2.1 Metacognition and Writing
Although metacognition needs to be considered as a system including regulation processes, metacognitive knowledge, and the dynamic relationships between the two, the study presented in this chapter focuses on regulation processes without fur- ther inquiry into the construction of metacognitive knowledge.
Several authors classify different types of regulation processes (Brown & Palin- scar, 1982; Kluwe, 1987; Allal & Saada-Robert, 1992). From a functional view- point, Brown & Palinscar (1982) consider that regulations – which are implicit and automatized – can become conscious when difficulties or new situations are encoun- tered. In this perspective, it can be hypothesized that social interaction can increase the probability of active confrontations and thus raise the subject’s awareness of his mode of functioning. The model adopted here (Allal & Saada-Robert, 1992) distin- guishes three operations of regulation (planning, monitoring, adjustment) which run continually in a non-linear manner, and can be activated at different levels of com- plexity: on-line task execution, as well as management of relations between task, situation and context.
In research on writing, and especially in models derived from theories of prob- lem-solving, metacognitive processes are often present, even though they are not necessarily designated as such. For example, in the well-known model of Hayes &
Flower (1980: 11), three operations – “planning, monitoring, reviewing” – interact directly with the text ‘produced so far’ in order to guide the central operation of
“translating”. Espéret (1984: 180) distinguishes two levels of organization of the processes involved in writing: the overall monitoring of the writing activity (acti- vated by the writer’s representations) and the operations linked to text generation, He assumes that there is a functional dependence of the second level on the first, but postulates reciprocal influences between the two levels. In the interactive model proposed by Allal (1993: 5), the operations of metacognitive regulation, which in- tervene in both a top-down and bottom-up manner, constitute “an ‘interface’ which assures the coordinated functioning of two other components of the subject’s cogni- tive activity: his representational network of task-relevant concepts and of contex- tual factors, and the production processes mobilized to accomplish the task”.
Although metacognitive regulations are necessarily present in all aspects of writ- ing, they are reflected in a particularly salient way in the activities of planning and revision. Studies of planning shed light on the representations and processes of an- ticipation which guide writing (Burtis, Bereiter, Scardamalia & Tetroe, 1983; Fayol
& Schneuwly, 1987; Higgins, 1992).
Studies of revision examine reflective and decision-making processes leading to transformations of a text that is being produced or has already been produced. Sev- eral models have been developed to account for these processes and can provide
elements for interpreting children’s revision processes. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987), for example, define three basic operations articulated in a cyclical model (compare, diagnose, operate), while Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey (1987) study links between judgment activity, the writer’s intention, his knowledge base and other external elements.
One important point to note is that planning and revision can be facilitated by the writer’s degree of mastery of various components of the writing task. Since the quantity and kind of monitoring during writing vary according the type of text being produced (Rijlaarsdam, Van den Bergh & Breetvelt, 1993), the writer’s knowledge of text superstructure is likely to affect his revision activity.
With respect to the type of text considered in our study (i.e., narration), existing studies suggest that the superstructure is mastered, at least orally, by 11-year-olds (Espéret, 1984; Fayol, 1983). For Gordon & Braun (1985: 63), knowledge of the narrative superstructure facilitates planning: it is a “composing framework which provides children with metacognitive control over comprehension (and writing)”, improving children’s access to prior knowledge. Roussey (1990) shows that the writer’s mastery of the notion of superstructure considerably improves his perform- ance on text revision tasks. Research by Espéret (1989) shows that knowledge of the narrative framework facilitates performance on all structural levels of text produc- tion. In the sequential model he has developed, fundamental questions are raised regarding the role of the narrative framework (Espéret, 1984: 193), e.g., “est-il une représentation relativement statique activée par un processus métacognitif ..., ou constitue-t-il lui-même une structure opérative ...?”
2.2
According to Menez (1984: 171), the social structure of exchanges determines social relations and meanings which, in turn, elicit cognitive regulations. In the more re- stricted field of school learning, research has dealt with three dimensions of interac- tions which provoke regulations (Allal, 1988): interactions between teacher and stu- dent (e.g., Crahay, 1981), interactions between student and instructional material (e.g., Salomon, Perkins & Globerson, 1989) and interactions between students (e.g., Allal, 1985). Concerning peer interactions in classroom settings, Cazden (1986) dif- ferentiates three situations: spontaneous help, peer tutoring and collaborative situa- tions. For Stodolsky (1984), it is important to distinguish two forms of collaboration:
“complete cooperation” involving a common goal and a joint task, and a more lim- ited form of “cooperation” in which there is a division of labor to attain a common goal. In addition, peer interactions have been studied with respect to their effects on different aspects of learning: products, results or performances (Skon, Johnson &
Johnson, 1981), operations or cognitive processes (Doise, Mugny & Perret- Clermont, 1975), regulation of one’s own and others’ activity (Allal, 1985).
In the field of written text production, Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) point out that writing usually suffers from a lack of the interaction which stimulates oral pro- duction in conversation. Since, from their point of view, regulations result from dis- crepancies between the text being produced and the intended text, greater dissonance
Peer Interaction and Writing
can be expected when two persons focus on the same text, providing that their inter- action involves appropriate forms of confrontation (without excessive dependence of one student on the other). According to Daiute (1989; in Roussey & Gombert, 1992) interactions can replace the internal dialogue on which expert control of production is based.
A literature review by DiPardo & Freedman (1988) reveals interesting findings concerning the effect of collaboration on text production. Nystrand (1986), for ex- ample, states that children working in a group approach the revision of their text at a reconceptualization level, whereas children working alone remain at a “correction of mistakes” level. Other studies are concerned with the conditions of efficient interac- tion. Freedman (1987) notes that subjects collaborate much better when they work on a joint task, whereas Bruffee (1985) and Elbow (1981) show the importance of the process leading to consensus.
Concerning revision, Cohen & Scardamalia (1983; in Olson, 1990: 24) state that
“children (who do not often revise) do not suffer from a lack of competence but rather a lack of understanding of processes relevant to revision”. In a comparative study of four writing conditions (presence/absence of peer interaction and of revi- sion lessons), Olson concludes that peer interaction has a stronger influence on type and amount of revision than does a revision lesson. Peer conferencing seems to be effective for poor as well as good writers, but poor writers tend to remain dependent on other students’ questions, whereas good writers can adopt a critical perspective when revising texts on their own (Russel, 1985).
3. METHOD
3.1 Subjects
The subjects are students from three sixth-grade classes (age 11-12 years) from pub- lic schools in Geneva. The population attending these schools is representative of the canton as a whole as far as the children’s nationality and the socio-economic distribution of their families are concerned. The teachers of these classes have adopted the instructional approach to text production suggested by Bronckart and collaborators (Bronckart et al., 1985; Pasquier & Dolz, 1990). All the children in each class participated in the writing sequences, but those whose mother tongue was not French and who had not attended school in Geneva for at least three years were not included in the sample of 15 students per class selected for the experimentation.
In each class, children were divided into five strata on the basis of their first-term grades in French. This criterion, which provides a global measure of the child’s lan- guage performance in school, was considered preferable to a writing pretest. Within each stratum, two children were assigned to the dyadic condition and a third child to the individual condition. The assignments were made in agreement with the teacher, taking into account affinities between children so as to favor constructive interac- tions within each dyad. The sample was thus composed of 5 dyads (10 subjects) and 5 matched individual subjects in each of the three classes.
3.2 Experimental Design
The experimentation took place in a classroom setting. Although measures were taken to match the children assigned to the two experimental conditions, the com- plexity of the variables affecting classroom learning does not guarantee that the two groups are fully equivalent. Nor can we be sure that optimal interactive functioning was present in all dyads. In other words, an overall instructional “treatment” was designed in the context described, and then the ways were sought to analyze rela- tions between variables intervening in the treatment.
The experimentation consisted in two narrative text production sequences. In each sequence, text production was based on ten pictures corresponding to the epi- sodes of the classical narrative superstructure. The use of pictures was intended to restrain the range of content so that the children could concentrate on text composi- tion (in the sense of “mise en texte”, Fayol & Schneuwly, 1987). Both sequences involve texts written for real audiences (i.e., production of storybooks for second- grade classes in the same school).
Each sequence was organized in four successive phases. The sequence began with discussions – in small groups and with the entire class – discussions aimed at defining the conditions of text production (aim, audience, type of text, etc.) and at activating relevant knowledge and skills. In the second phase, the children wrote a story outline and then produced a complete first draft. In the third phase, the children revised their drafts (which had been typed with their errors by the experimenter so as to encourage revision). In the last phase, the storybooks were communicated to the second-grade classes.
For the first text production sequence, three different series of pictures were dis- tributed systematically across subjects in order to avoid the effect of a particular story. Under the dyadic condition, two students were involved in collaborative plan- ning and revision of a joint text which was composed of individually drafted parts (one student drafted the first half, the other student the second half). This procedure was chosen to increase the necessity for verbalization between children and to make revision more dynamic due to the necessary coordination of the partial texts pro- duced by each child. Under the individual condition, each subject carried out all phases of the instructional sequence on his own, with – at most – some brief, inci- dental interactions with nearby classmates.
In the second production sequence, all subjects produced a narrative text indi- vidually on the basis of one set of pictures (unknown to all). This sequence consti- tutes a posttest which allows us to determine whether there is evidence of transfer of the competencies developed under the dyadic condition to subsequent individual production. In addition, an interview was conducted with each subject in order to obtain indications of his metacognitive awareness of writing processes.
3.3 Method of Analysis
The analysis presented here will focus on the transformations carried out between the drafts and the final versions of the texts. The transformations were analyzed by a
method developed on the basis of studies carried out by our research group (Allal, 1993; Allal, Michel-Rouiller & Saada-Robert, in press).
More than 1700 transformations were identified in the 75 texts produced by the students. The method of analysis provides a precise means of identifying the trans- formation units, each of which is then classified along four dimensions simultane- ously: level of language affected by the transformation, type of transformation, func- tion of the transformation, optional vs. conventional transformation. The sub- categories of each dimension are listed in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Dimensions of classification.
Transformation units are defined as observable differences between the draft and the final text. Figure 3 shows the five transformations from the record of subject 2341.
The non-transformed elements appear in parentheses, the transformation outside the parentheses; for example, the first transformation involves addition of the word
1 Sub categories adopted from Schneuwly (1988).
2 Sub categories adapted from Betrix-Köhler (1991), on the basis of work by Catach (1980).
“jour” between the words “un” and “son”. This transformation concerns the text written for the second picture (col. P). It is coded as a transformation affecting the group (col 1.), carried out by addition (col. 2), having a cohesive function (col. 3), and it is a conventional correction.
Figure 3. Illustration of coding.
The data were coded by the author on the basis of a detailed eight-page protocol. A separate blind coding was carried out on a sample of 150 transformations by an ex- ternal rater. An acceptable degree of inter-rater agreement was attained: 87.3% for unit identification and respectively 90.8%, 96.2%, 84.7, 94.7% for classifications along the four dimensions.
The effect of experimental conditions on the products (text 1 and text 2) was analyzed by F tests (on number of transformations, and number of words) and by chi2 tests on the dimensions of transformations. Results of the F and the chi tests were considered as significant at p < .05.
4.
The tables showing the effects of the experimental conditions on student revisions all have the same structure: in the first column are the data for the first production sequence (initial text – P1), during which the students produced under either indi- vidual or dyadic conditions; in the second column are the results for the second text (posttest – P2) written individually by all subjects who had previously composed a text under individual or dyadic conditions.
RESULTS
4.1 Number of Transformations
If we consider the number of transformations carried out by the children during the first sequence (Table 1), we see that the texts revised in collaboration contain sig- nificantly more transformations than those revised individually (F (1, 28) = 4.8266, p_= .0365). In the second production sequence, students from both conditions carry out a comparable number of transformations, and the difference between conditions is no longer significant (F(l, 43) = .0949, p = .7596)
The mean number of words written under each condition is remarkably similar for each text (see Table 2): no significant differences were observed in P1 or P2. This means that the larger number of transformations for the texts written in collaboration cannot be explained by the length of the text, but by a higher density of transforma- tions.
4.2 Function of Text Transformations
As shown in Table 3, the differences between the experimental conditions are sig- nificant both during the initial text production sequence and during the second post-
test sequence (statistics respectively
During the initial sequence, the proportions of transformations affecting the se- mantic-lexical dimension are similar under both production conditions. On the other hand, the individuals revise more than the dyads with respect to spelling, whereas the dyads carry out relatively more revisions with respect to textualisation. When we analyze the distribution of the textualisation transformations across the sub- categories of this dimension (segmentation/connection, cohesion, modalization), we find that there are no significant differences between individuals and dyads: this means that although dyads carry out more textualisation transformations, they are of the same types as those carried out by individuals.
In the second sequence, the individuals’ percentage of spelling transformations de- creases, while their percentages of semantic-lexical and textualisation transforma- tions increase (+5% in both cases). On the other hand, the distribution of the per- centages for the dyads remains stable. It can be noted that, in both sequences, textu- alisation is a major concern for the children having worked under the collaborative condition, while spelling is the dominant concern for those having worked individu- ally. This preoccupation for spelling revisions by individuals can perhaps be ex- plained by the usual organization of classroom activities linked to writing: textuali- sation is rarely worked on as a specific focus of revision and therefore needs a col- laborative structure of interaction to support it, whereas numerous individual exer- cises in the classroom focus on spelling.
4.3 Types of Spelling Transformations
Spelling transformations are classified in three major categories. Phonogramic trans- formations involve phoneme-grapheme transcriptions (correct use of the alphabetic code, omissions, confusions). Morphogramic transformations concern both gram- matical and lexical morphemes (agreements, derivation affixes, etc.). The category
“other aspects” includes logogramic aspects (e.g., homophones), ideogramic aspects