PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
Acta Colombiana de Psicología complies with international intellectual property and copyright laws, and particularly with Article No. 58 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, Law No. 23 of 1982, and the Agreement No. 172 of September 30, 2010 (Universidad Católica de Colombia Intellectual Property Regulation).
Authors retain their copyright and grant to the Acta Colombiana de Psicología the right of first publication, with the work registered under Creative Commons attribution license, which allows third parties to use the published material, provided they credit the authorship of the work and the first publication in this Journal.
Abstract
The processes of planning, transcription, revision, metacognition and affection involved in the construction of an argumentative essay written by 11 university students were examined. Several assessment instruments designed by the authors were administered: The Verbal Protocol, The Essay-writing Strategies Questionnaire and the Self-Perception Scales on Writing Efficacy and Attitude Toward Writing. A frequency count per component of the textual data obtained by means of the Verbal Protocol and based on a content analysis was carried out. Later, the percentages within each category were calculated for each subject, based on his/her performance with respect to the group. Finally, a descriptive analysis of the self-reports was done. At the time of observation of the above mentioned processes using the Verbal Protocol, six participants showed evidence of planning, transcription, revision and meta-cognition during the writing process. However, when doing revision, none of them presented revision by others, and on the metacognition component only two participants demonstrated their awareness of the essay structure. With respect to self-reports, the participants expressed moderate to high levels of planning, revision and metacognition strategies, as well as moderate to high scores on attitudes toward writing and self-perception of writing efficacy when elaborating an essay.
Keywords:
References
Camps, A. Miliam, M. (2000). La actividad metalingüística en el aprendizaje de la escritura. M. Miliam & A. Camps (eds.) El Papel de la Actividad Metalingüística en el Aprendizaje de la Escritura. Rosario, Santafé, Argentina: Homo Sapiens.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Writen Composition. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Breetvelt, I, Van den Bergh, H. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations Between Writing Processes and Text Quality: When and How? Cognition and Instruction 12, 103-123.
Cho, Y. (2003). Assesing Writing: Are we Bound by Only One Method?. Assessing writing, 8, 165-191.
Díaz R., A. (2002). La argumentación escrita. (2ª.ed.) Medellín: Universidad de Antioquia.
Díaz Rodríguez , A. (1999). Aproximación al texto escrito. (4ª.Ed.). Universidad de Antioquia.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (rev.ed.) Cambridge, MA:Bradford.
Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R., (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R., (1980). The Dynamics of Composing: Making Plans and Juggling Constraints. In L. W. Greeg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. 31-50. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Graham., S., Shwartz, S. y MacArthur, C. (1993). Learning Disabled Students and Normally Achieving Student´s Knowledge of Writing and the Composing Process, Attitude Toward Writing, and Self-effi cacy for Students with and without Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237-249.
Hayes, J.R. (1996). A New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in Writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the Organization of Writing Process. In L. W. Greeg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Process in Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Cardas, C. N. (2005). The Effects of Goal Instructions and Text on the Generation of Counterarguments During Writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157-169.
Rau, P. S., & Sebrechts, M. M. (1996). How Initial Plans Mediate the Expansion and Resolution of Options in Writing. The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 616-638.
Read, B. & Francis, B. (2001). Playing Safe: Undergraduate Essay Writing and the Presentation of the Student Voice. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 22, 387-399.
Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M. & Kieft, M. (2006). Writing Experiment Manuals in Science Education: The Impact of Writing, Genre, and Audience. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 2-3, 203-233.
Salvador Mata, S. (2005). Procesos cognoscitivos en la expresión escrita: modelos teóricos e investigación empírica. F. S. Salvador Mata (ed.). La expresión escrita de alumnos con necesidades especiales: Procesos Cognoscitivos. Archidona (Málaga): Ediciones Aljibe.
Tolchinsky, L. (2000). Distintas perspectivas acerca del objeto y propósito del trabajo y la reflexión metalingüística en la escritura académica. M. Miliam & A. Camps (eds.) El Papel de la Actividad Metalingüística en el Aprendizaje de la Escritura. Rosario, Santafé, Argentina: Homo Sapiens.
Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The Processing Demands of Writing. In MacArthur, C. , Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). Handbook of Writing Research. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., Robinson, E. J. (2000). Individual Differences in Undergraduate Essay-writing Strategies: A Longitudinal Study. Higher Education, 39, 181-200.
Tuning Educational Estructures in Europe (2003). Vol.1. Bilbao, País Vasco, España: Universidad de Deusto.
Van den Bergh, H. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). The Dynamics of Idea Generation During Writing: An Online Study. In M. Torrance, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Studies in writing. Vol.4. Knowing what to write: Cognitive perspectives on conceptual processes in text production (p.99-120) Amsterdam University Press.
Whitaker, D., Berninger, V. Johnston, J. & Swanson, H. L. (1994) Intra Individual Differences in Levels of Language in Intermediate Grade Writers – Implications for the Translating Process. Learning and Individual Differences 6, 107-130.
