JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE 27, 261-278 (1988)

Cognitive Operations in Constructing Main Points in

Written Composition

CARLBEREITER, P. J. BURTIS,ANDMARLENE SCARDAMALIA

Centre for Applied Cognitive Science, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Two experiments were conducted. In the first, thinking-aloud protocols were collected
from students in Grades 4,6, and 8 and from adults who were planning an argument essay.
Older writers constructed more sophisticated main points and took longer. Protocols re-
vealed six types of problem-solving moves which a path analysis showed could account for
the sophistication of the main point. In the second experiment, children in Grades 5 and 11
were asked to choose between good and bad paraphrases of a main point they had written.
The choices and justifications of younger students suggested that they had not intended to
produce a main point when they wrote. The results are interpreted in terms of knowledge-
telling and knowledge-transforming models of composition. 8 1988 Academic PESS. IIIC.

Comparisons of the composing processes sometimes profess surprise at what they

of skilled and less skilled writers typically find themselves having written and refer to
show differences in the operations per- writing as a process of discovery (Emig,
formed on knowledge. Less skilled writers 1977; Nystrand & Wiederspiel, 1977;
appear to do relatively little transformation Wason, 1980).
of knowledge when processing it into The studies to be reported in this paper
written form, with the result that the selec- focus on an aspect of written composition
tion and arrangement of content reflect in which operations on one’s existing
what is salient in the mind of the writer knowledge are especiahy significant-the
(Flower, 1979). More skillful writers are establishment of a main or central point in
found to carry out a variety of problem- what is being written. Self-reports of
solving operations involving content- skilled writers suggest that this is a major
identifying goals and constraints, preoccupation and that it is the focus of
searching, testing, revising goals, and mod- much of the searching and rethinking that
ifying knowledge in response to gaps, in- goes on when they write (Murray, 1978).
consistencies, and the like that are encoun- Thinking-aloud protocols of novice writers,
tered in the course of writing (Flower & in contrast, show little in the way of con-
Hayes, 1980, 1981; Scardamalia & Ber- cerns about main point (Burtis, Bereiter,
eiter, 1987). As a result, skilled writers Scardamalia, & Tetroe, 1983; Perl, 1979).
Research on identification of main points
in reading has exhibited a similar diver-
The three authors contributed equally to the work gence in findings. Kieras (1982) has ob-
reported in this paper. They are grateful to Clare Brett
for her contributions to Study 2. The research was tained good tit to data on the identification
funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Re- of main points in simple expository texts
search Council of Canada and by the Ontario Ministry with a model that uses mostly information
of Education under its block transfer grant to the On- from the surface structure of the text and
tario Institute for Studies in Education. Requests for involves relatively little inference from
reprints should be addressed to Dr. Burtis at the
Centre for Applied Cognitive Science, Ontario Insti- world knowledge. On the other hand,
tute for Studies in Education, 252 Bloor St. W., To- Johnston and Afflerbach (1985), studying
ronto, Ontario, Canada M5S IV6. skilled readers dealing with difficult texts,
261
0749-596X/88 $3.00
Copyright 0 1988 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form rexrved.
262 BEREITER, BURTIS, AND SCARDAMALIA

found evidence of extensive problem- the mental activities that appear to play a
solving and inferential acitivity. In the case vital role in composing as it is carried out
of reading, then, it appears that difficulty of by experts. The knowledge-telling model
the text can dramatically affect the kind of attempts to solve this problem by repre-
process that is involved in identifying main senting an alternative route to the attain-
points. ment of coherence, organization, and top-
The available evidence on writing sug- ical relevance in writing-a route that does
gests, by contrast, that the principal deter- not depend on problem-solving activities
minant of process is the expertise of the directed toward such outcomes but that
writer. This is consistent, however, with produces them as a by-product of proce-
the more ill-defined character of writing dures for generating text content. Experts
tasks. In composition tasks, as Green0 are assumed to have flexible access to both
(1978) has observed, much depends on the knowledge-telling model and to the
constraints that are added by the problem- more complex and effortful knowledge-
solver. Expert-novice comparisons indi- transforming model, using whichever is ap-
cate that, given the same assignment, ex- propriate to task demands, whereas
pert writers tend to elaborate a more de- novices are assumed to follow the simpler
manding set of constraints, thus in effect model for the most part, and to have access
creating a more difficult task for them- to the problem-solving model only under
selves than is faced by novice writers facilitative conditions.
(Flower & Hayes, 1980). The knowledge-telling and knowledge-
The present studies are motivated by the transforming models are depicted in Figs. 1
hypothesis that different models underlie and 2. We will not attempt a full explication
construction of main points by expert and of the models here, nor discuss evidence
novice writers. The models are the knowl- bearing on their validity (see, however,
edge-telling and knowledge-transforming Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1985a, 1985b,
ones of Bereiter and Scardamalia (1985a, 1987; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986, 1987;
1985b, 1987; Scardamalia & Bereiter, Scardamalia & Paris, 1985). For present
1987; Scardamalia 8z Paris, 1985). These purposes, attention may be restricted to the
contrastive models provide idealized de- heuristic value of the models in suggesting
scriptions of two structures for controlling alternative executive structures to account
the process of generating text content. The for observed differences in treatment of
rationale for proposing two models, rather main point.
than attempting to explain expert-novice According to the knowledge-telling
differences by variations within a single model (Fig. l), content is generated by
model, is elaborated in Bereiter and Scar- probing memory with topical cues, ex-
damalia (1987). If the task were simply to tracted from the task assignment or from
explain the deficiencies of novice writing, text already generated, and with structural
then a single model would suffice. That cues drawn from knowledge of the in-
model might, for instance, represent the tended text genre. The coherence, organi-
planning and problem-solving operations zation, and topical appropriateness of the
involved in skilled composing (cf. Hayes & text depend on the prior organization of
Flower, 1980), and the weaknesses of memory and on the effect of discourse con-
novice writing could be attributed to a ventions. Given a familiar topic and a well-
lesser frequency or to a more primitive practiced genre (such as narrative or argu-
form of such operations. The more chal- ment), a sensible and well-formed text can
lenging problem, however, is to explain emerge even though the writer’s attention
how novice writers manage to write as well is occupied only with problems of thinking
as they do, given how little they manifest of of enough to say and of how to express it.
 MAIN POINTS IN WRITTEN COMPOSITION 263

MENTAL REPRESENTATION
OF ASSIGNMENT

KNOWLEDGE TELLING

1
CONTENT PROCESS DISCOURSE
K.NOWLEDGE :NOWLEDGI

- +--

t---

RUN TESTS
OF FAIL -
APPROPRIATENESS
t

t’ PASS! ‘,

WRITE
INOTES. DRAFT, ETC.1

FIG. 1. Structure of the knowledge-telling model. This model is an adaptation of a model first
presented in Bereiter and Scardamalia (1985a).

The knowledge-transforming model (Fig. 2) processes are provided in Scardamalia &

is more complex in that content generation Bereiter, 1985). This process of reciprocal
is subordinated to activity in two problem activity in linked problem spaces is hy-
spaces: a content space in which problems pothesized to account for the experiences
of belief, logical consistency, and the like of surprise and discovery reported by ex-
are worked out, and a rhetorical space in pert writers.
which problems related to attaining goals of Establishment of a main point in the
the composition are dealt with. The model knowledge-transforming model entails in-
posits a dialectical process whereby goals tentional pursuit of a main point as a goal.
in one space may be translated into This would typically involve the interactive
problems in the other space. For example, solving of content problems (for instance,
the rhetorical goal of strengthening an ar- deciding what is the crucial issue relevant
gument might be translated into the content to the topic at hand) and rhetorical
problem of finding an example for a belief, problems (for instance, deciding which
and attempts to solve this content problem point would be most convincing). Through
might then lead to a revision of the belief, such problem-solving efforts the main point
and back to a change in the original rhetor- would be expected to take shape gradually
ical goal. (Other examples of dialectical in the course of planning. The writer would
264 BEREITER, BURTIS, AND SCARDAMALIA

I MENTAL REPRESENTATION
OF ASSIGNMENT
I

KNOWLEDGE

CONTENT RHETDRICAI
PROBLEM PROBLEM
SPACE SPACE

PROBLEM
TRANSLATION

KNOWLEDGE

FIG. 2. Structure of the knowledge-transforming model.

be expected to engage in knowledge-di- Educational Progress, 1980; Nordberg,

rected operations that contribute to the de- 1981). This suggests an alternative route,
velopment of the main point, to arrive at a implying the need for an alternative model
main point that represents a refinement of of composing to account for main points in
the writer’s initial knowledge for the pur- novice writing. The knowledge-telling
poses of the composition, and to be aware model provides several ways in which a
of the main point that emerges. main point could emerge in the absence of
If these problem-solving procedures rep- procedures for deliberately searching for or
resented the only way that a main point constructing one. For example, when
could be produced, then it would be ex- memory content is elicited by topical cues,
pected that novice writing would be char- then the information that is most salient
acterized by absence of a main point. Al- would be likely to be retrieved early and to
though such writing does occur, large-scale provide cues for the retrieval of related in-
assessments indicate that the common formation, thus assuming a dominant place
problem is failure to develop or support in the composition. Or if the structural re-
points adequately, not absence of a main quirements of a particular genre include a
point altogether (National Assessment of dominant element, for example, a position
 MAINPOINTSINWRIlTENCOMPOSITION 265

supported by reasons, then a consequence ably be expected to correlate with writing

of probing memory with these structural expertise across its full range. By contrast,
cues might be that the dominant element the more usual ways of discriminating ex-
assumes the status of a main point. In any pertise-for instance, identifying profes-
event, the main point that emerged would sional writers as experts or students as-
represent knowledge already available in signed to remedial writing courses as
memory rather than knowledge con- novices -tend to pick out extreme groups
structed during the composing process-a and not to provide scalable measures.
result that is consistent with the findings
concerning lack of development and sup- STUDY 1
port of main points in novice writing.
The alternative routes to main point con- The purpose of this study was to test hy-
struction suggested by the knowledge- pothesized relationships between pro-
telling and knowledge-transforming models cesses and products, as implied by the
should yield observable differences along knowledge-telling and knowledge-trans-
at least three dimensions: (a) the degree to forming models. Process variables were
which problem-solving effort is directed to- drawn from thinking-aloud protocols col-
ward the development of a main point, (b) lected during the course of planning an
the degree to which the main point repre- opinion essay. These were related to
sents a refinement or development of the ratings of the main points actually achieved
writer’s initial knowledge as opposed to a in the essays. On the process side, the use
straightforward application, and, in conse- of a knowledge-transforming as opposed to
quence, (c) the degree of awareness that a knowledge-telling approach was expected
the writer has for the main point of the to be revealed by the following: (1) a
composition. greater length of time taken to arrive at a
The two studies which follow test more statement of main point during planning, as
specific versions of these general predic- a result of the greater amount of rhetorical
tions and provide in addition details of the and content-related problem-solving re-
way in which writers go about constructing quired by a knowledge-transforming proce-
main points. In these studies school grade dure, (2) a higher frequency of specific
level (ranging from fourth grade to graduate moves indicating pursuit of a main point as
school) was used as the a priori basis for a goal or translating between rhetorical
identifying groups differing in their likeli- problems and content problems, these
hood of following the two models. The use being distinguishing characteristics of the
of school grade level as a sorting criterion knowledge-transforming process.
contrasts with the more typical procedure On the product side, it was predicted that
in writing research of using subjects who main points arising from knowledge-telling
are all adults but who differ markedly in procedures would be closely tied to the ex-
their accomplishment as writers (e.g., plicit task assignment and to genre conven-
Flower & Hayes, 1981; Schumacher, tions, these being the initial sources of
Klare, Cronin, & Moses, 1984). No matter probes for retrieving memory content to
how differences in writing expertise are es- use in the essay. Main points arising from
tablished, however, experts are sure to knowledge-transforming processes, on the
differ from nonexperts in a variety of other other hand, were expected to represent
nonrandom ways that are difficult to assess novel constructions that were compatible
and control. Educational level is no more with the assignment and with genre con-
free of this difficulty than any other sorting ventions but that went beyond them in
criterion, but it has the advantage of pro- some textually appropriate way. It was pre-
viding a continuous scale that can reason- dicted that the process measures would ac-
266 BEREITER, BURTIS, AND SCARDAMALIA

count for variance in product ratings over Coding of Constructive Moves

and above variance accounted for by age. The thinking-aloud protocols were exam-
ined for instances of six different types of
Method moves that could be inferred as character-
Subjects istic of a knowledge-transforming as op-
posed to a knowledge-telling model of
Twelve subjects from Grade 4, eleven composition. The features of the knowl-
from Grade 6, thirteen from Grade 8, and edge-transforming model used as a basis
six adults participated in the stu,dy. Chil- for inferring these characteristic moves
dren were randomly selected from were (a) the problem analysis and goal-set-
classrooms at a middle class school in sub- ting component of the model, which leads
urban Toronto; adults were volunteers from to the expectation that goal-directed ac-
a university course in education. tivity specifically directed toward estab-
lishing a main point will be observed, and
Instructions (b) the two problem spaces, content and
All students were instructed to write a rhetorical, with the expectation that activi-
composition of about a page on the topic ties will be observed that take the results of
“Should children be able to choose the operations performed in one problem space
subjects they study in school?” and to plan and subject them to operations in the other
as much as possible before writing. Chil- problem space, The six types of moves,
dren were introduced, through brief discus- which we will refer to generically as con-
sion and demonstration, to five things that stixctive moves, are as follows:
they might consider while planning: con- 1. Search. Search involves explicit pur-
tent, goals, reader, problems, and integra- suit of a main point as a goal, either in the
tion. These five types of planning were also rhetorical space, where it is treated as the
mentioned to adults, but without discus- focus of the composition, or in the content
sion and demonstration, which were con- space, where it is treated as a problem of
sidered inappropriate. All subjects were determining what the writer actually be-
given pencil and paper and encouraged to lieves. Instances of search included spe-
make notes during planning. They were cific statements of intention to find a main
also instructed briefly in thinking aloud and point, evaluation of prospective main
asked to continuously do so while plan- points, and generation of ideas leading to-
ning. Prompts to talk were given during
ward identification of a main point.
planning whenever the subject fell silent. In 2. Delimit. The writer decides to restrict
order to encourage planning, a single attention to a particular subset of ideas.
prompt was given to try to plan more, at Explicit delimiting of the topic was consid-
the point when the subject was first ready ered a knowledge-transforming move be-
to write. cause it represents a rhetorical decision
that imposes a constraint on search through
Procedure
the content space.
Each student was seen individually for a 3. Fit. The writer considers how partic-
single session, during which the instruc- ular content could tit with a particular main
tion, planning, and writing took place. A point. This may vary from simply drawing
typical session lasted 45 min to an hour. a connection between the main point and
The thinking-aloud (planning) segment was another idea to deciding on how to recon-
tape recorded, and the tapes were subse- cile a conflict. Solutions to problems of lit
quently transcribed. may be rhetorical (for instance, rephrasing
 MAIN POINTS IN WRITTEN COMPOSITION 267

the statement of main point so that it fits identified: (1) There was no clear main
the content) or they may involve search for point, or the main point was just a state-
content that is compatible with the main ment of the topic, or a minor variation of it
point. (for example, “No, I don’t think students
4. Cohere. The writer considers or as- should choose”). (2) The main point was an
sesses how or whether all the various ideas extension or qualification of the topic (for
that have been generated might fit together. example, “Children in high school should
This type of move fits the knowledge- choose, but not in grade school”). (3) The
transforming model in that it involves main point was a point about the topic but
taking the results of operations in the con- one that was essentially different from the
tent space and operating on them in pursuit topic itself and that expressed some dis-
of the rhetorical goal of coherence. Such a tinct theme or insight that could serve as
process is to be contrasted with the direct the basis for the argument developed in the
translation of content into text statements, essay (for example, “The degree of choice
which is characteristic of the knowledge- should increase with age”).
telling model. A level 1 main point corresponds to what
5. Structure. The writer chooses an or- would be expected from planning carried
ganizing structure for text content, such as out according to the knowledge-telling
“pros and cons,” or “early years, middle model, where the main point would typi-
years, and late years.” This is another ex- cally be a by-product of retrieving content
ample of a rhetorical move that constrains using cues based on the assignment and on
search for content. genre conventions. Thus the most common
6. Review. The writer reviews the ideas level 1 main point was simply a positive or
that have been decided on so far. Back- negative response to the question posed in
tracking over a few ideas does not count: the topic assignment, “Should children be
The writer must be looking at how the allowed to choose the subjects they study
whole effort stacks up so far. This type of in school?” A level 3 main point, on the
reviewing may be thought of as a problem- other hand, would be unlikely to result
finding move in which problems may be from such a process but would rather result
identified that require further work of any from problem-solving activity directed to-
of the previously mentioned kinds. Review ward establishing a main point. A level 2
is thus indicative, in a nonspecific way, of main point is indeterminate as to which
planning carried out according to a knowl- model it might reflect. The writer might al-
edge-transforming model. ready have in memory an elaborated or
qualified belief about the assigned topic,
Two raters inspected each thinking-aloud which could simply be retrieved and incor-
protocol for the occurrence or absence of porated into the text plan according to the
each of the six constructive moves, with knowledge-telling model. Alternatively,
90% agreement. The number of different elaboration or qualification of the belief
moves, out of six possible, was then scored could reflect knowledge-transforming oper-
for each protocol. The correlation between ations carried out during composition plan-
raters for this score was 88. ning, but not carried so far as to attain the
distinctive kind of main point that would be
Rating of Main Point
scored as level 3.
Each thinking-aloud protocol was exam- Two raters independently rated all pro-
ined for evidence of a main point that the tocols following the above description of
student was planning to use in his or her the scale (Y = .71), and disagreements were
essay. Three levels of main point were resolved in conference. The same scale was
268 BEREITER, BURTIS, AND SCARDAMALIA

then used by both raters to rate main points Time to Main Point
in the written texts (r = .83), with disagree- An indicator of amount of problem-
ments again being resolved in conference. solving activity going into the development
Although both the coding of constructive of main points is the amount of time that
moves and the rating of main points were elapses between the beginning of planning
derived from the same set of theoretical ex- and the earliest statement of the main
pectations, they are empirically distinct; point. Elapsed time was taken from the
that is, there is nothing in the scoring tape recordings as the time from the begin-
scheme for level of main point which en- ning of the thinking-aloud protocol to the
sures that a highly rated main point will be main point identified by coders for the ear-
associated with a high frequency of con- lier rating. The distribution of these times
structive moves or that a low-rated point to main point was positively skewed and
will not be accompanied by such moves. bimodal, with one mode at less than 1 mitt,
For instance, a writer could carry out delib- and the other mode at about 6 min. The
erate search for a main point, delimit the skew was removed by taking the square-
topic, devote attention to fit, coherence, root. The correlation between the level of
and structure, review the plan several main point achieved and the (square-root
times, and still end up with a main point of) time taken to achieve it was .67 (df =
such as, “I don’t think that kids in grade 40, p < .Ol). For students reaching a main
school should be able to choose,” which point of level 1, the median time to main
would be rated as level 1. point was about 15 s, while for those
Results reaching a main point of level 2 or 3, it was
about 6X min. Thus, the writers who
Level of Main Point reached high levels of main points achieved
The level of main point reached by stu- them only after extended periods of effort.
dents in their texts and plans is shown in
Table 1. The correlation between rated Constructive Moves
level of main point in the plan and text is The strategies of students reaching high-
high (r(40) = .79, p < .Ol), considering that and low-level main points were compared
the plans and texts were rated completely by classifying students according to the
independently. In 34 of the 42 cases (81%), level of the main point in their plan and also
the level of main point reached in the text classifying them according to whether they
was the same as that reached in the plan, did or did not make use of each of the six
and in the remaining cases there was a dis- constructive moves described in the
crepancy of one level. Method section. Table 2 shows the mean
number of different types of moves used at
TABLE 1 each level. Students who achieved higher
NUMBEROFSTUDENTSWITHMAINPOMTATEACH levels of main point in their plans used sig-
LEVELINPLANAND TEXT
nificantly more types of moves (F(2,39) =
Level of main point 51.20, p < .Ol), showing that these types of
Level of
main point
in text whole-text considerations are related to the
in plan 1 2 3 Total achievement of high-level main points. Fur-
thermore, this relationship carries over to
1 19 5 0 24
11 0 14
the text. Students who achieved higher
2 3
3 0 0 4 4 levels of main point in their texts used sig-
nificantly more types of moves in planning
Total 22 16 4
those texts (F(2,39) = 42.79, p < .Ol). Use
 MAIN POINTS IN WRITTEN COMPOSITION 269

TABLE 2 TABLE 4
MEAN NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF LEVEL OF MAIN POINT AND NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
CONSTRUCTIVE MOVES (MAXIMUM = 6) AS A CONSTRUCIWE MOVES AS A FUNCTION OF GRADE
FUNCXION OF LEVEL OF MAIN POINT
Level of Level of Number of
Number of moves main point main point different
Level of in plan in text moves
main point n M SD Range
Grade M Range M Range M Range
In plan
1 24 0.17 0.38 O-l 4 1.17 l-2 1.25 l-2 0.25 o-2
2 14 1.14 1.23 o-4 6 1.36 1-2 1.27 l-2 0.55 o-2
3 4 4.75 1.26 3-6 8 1.46 l-2 1.62 l-2 0.31 O-l
In text A 2.67 2-3 2.67 2-3 4.33 3-6
--
1 22 0.23 0.43 o-1
2 16 0.94 1.24 o-4
3 4 4.75 1.26 3-6
main point in plan (F(3,38) = 14.00, p
Cl .Ol), for level of main point in text
of the six types of constructive moves that (F(3,38) = 13.53, p < .Ol), and for number
we are considering is therefore highly asso- of different kinds of constructive move
ciated with the achievement of high-level (F(3,38) = 54.24, p < .Ol). As indicated by
main points. the F values, however, the age-related dif-
Data for individual moves are presented ference in use of constructive moves was
in Table 3, which shows the number of stu- much greater than the differences in level
dents using each of the six types of con- of main point.
structive moves according to rated level of To determine whether there was a rela-
main point in the plan. Each of the six tionship between constructive activity and
types shows a steep increase in relative fre- main point independent of grade level,
quency at higher levels of main point. Thus within-grade correlations were examined.
level of main point does not seem to be as- The pooled within-grade correlation of
sociated with any particular kind of con- number of constructive moves with main
structive move, but rather to be associated point in the plan was significant (r(37) =
with all relevant kinds. .49, p < .Ol), showing an effect of con-
structive activity on reaching a high-level
Grade main point apart from the common grade
effect. The corresponding value for main
Developmental data on level of main point in the text was lower, but also signifi-
point and use of constructive moves are cant (r(37) = .33, p < .05). It should be
shown in Table 4. Grade-level differences noted that these within-grade correlations
were significant in each case-for level of underestimate the actual relationship be-

TABLE 3
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS USING EACH TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIVE MOVE AS A FUNCXION OF LEVEL OF MAIN
POINT IN PLAN

Constructive Move
Level of main
point in plan n Search Delimit Fit Cohere Structure Review
1 24 0 0 4 4 8 0
2 14 28 14 7 21 21 21
3 4 50 75 75 100 75 100
270 BEREITER, BURTIS, AND SCARDAMALIA

tween constructive moves and level of Problem-

main point because they eliminate that part Solving
(Moves)
of the variance in constructive activity
arising from maturation and educational
experience. The path analysis, to be re-
ported next, was aimed at identifying the
I
causal role of such factors. Grade .23 . Main Pant
(Text)

Path Analysis
60’
Correlations between all variables are
shown in Table 5. The correlations are all v
significant (df = 40, p < .05). In these cor- Main Point
relations, age was coded as 1, 2, 3, and 6, (Plan)

for Grades 4, 6, 8, and Adult, respectively.

The value of 6 for adults, although some- FIG. 3. Path analysis of variables contributing to
what arbitrary, represents an effort to take level of main point in text. *p < .05.
into account both the greater absolute size
in years of the interval between Grade 8 level can affect the other three variables,
and adult, as compared to the intervals be- but not the reverse. It may be noted that, in
tween Grades 4, 6, 8, and also the tapering principle, level of main point in the text
off in growth of most mental abilities after could influence constructive moves and
adolescence (cf. Bloom, 1964). Again, the level of main point in planning, as well as
square-root of time to main point was used. the reverse; that is, what is written can af-
A path analysis was carried out to obtain fect the planning process, as well as the
a more coherent picture of the causal rela- planning process affecting what is written
tionships among variables in the study. (Flower and Hayes, 1981). In the present
Time to main point was not included be- study, however, protocol data pertain only
cause preliminary regression analysis indi- to planning carried out before writing actu-
cated that it did not add any predictive ally began, and so the causal influences
power to that provided by number of con- were necessarily unidirectional.
structive moves. Figure 3 shows the path coefficients ob-
Bath analysis requires prior assumptions tained, based on standardized regression
of causal ordering. The assumptions made weights. The causal path shows that grade
in the present analysis are shown by the level affects constructive activity, which in
arrows in Fig. 3. Most of these assump- turn affects level of main point in the plan,
tions are natural-for example, that grade and this affects the level of main point in
the text. Each of these path segments has a
TABLE 5 statistically significant weight and none of
PEARSON CORRELATES BETWEEN MEASURES the others do. Grade level has relatively
Main point little direct effect on level of main point in
Grade Moves Time in plan plan or text. Rather, its effects are almost
entirely mediated through amount of con-
Moves .79**
Time .37* .50** structive activity.
Main point
in plan .70** .78** x57**
Discussion
Main point Two results of Study 1 are particularly
in text .70** .72** .53** .79** relevant to the issue of whether different
* p < .05. processes are at work in the production of
** p < .Ol. main points in expert and novice writing.
 MAIN POINTSINWRITTENCOMPOSITION 271

One is the bimodal distribution of times to the two-model hypothesis is that process-
main point, with the two modes differing by tracing methods should reveal distinctly
an order of magnitude. The other is the al- different ways that writers go about gener-
most total absence of constructive moves ating main points in composition planning.
in the protocols of writers producing the This implication was investigated in Study
lowest level of main point. Both results are 1. However, if the two models validly de-
consistent with the models presented in the lineate different ways the composing pro-
introduction. Those models provide one cess runs, then the models should have
way of reaching a main point (knowledge- other, less obvious empirical implications
telling) that is quick and relatively free of as well. In Study 2 we test model-based
effort directly involved with achieving a predictions concerning memory for main
main point, and another Cknowledge-trans- points.
forming) that is slower and characterized Previous research (Scardamalia & Paris,
by a variety of planning and problem- 1985) indicated that there was little age-
solving operations. related difference in writers’ verbatim
The very sharp separation of the data in memory for recently written text, but that
accordance with the two models is sur- differences appeared in (a) memory for
prising, since one would not expect that more abstract characteristics, such as in-
expert main point construction would in- tention and gist, and in (b) the text features
variably require extended problem-solving. that were referred to in the process of
A writer might, for instance, have pre- trying to recall particular details. In the
viously argued the same issue and there- present study, more specific predictions
fore be able to retrieve a level 3 main point were tested concerning the accuracy of
from memory intact (cf. Murray, 1983). writers’ memory for main points and the
The assigned topic, whether children evidence they would appeal to in sup-
should be allowed to choose the subjects porting their judgments of main point state-
they study in school, is one that we have ments.
used in a number of other studies because In Study 2 writers were asked to eval-
it appeared to be motivating to writers over uate statements of the main point of a com-
a large range of ages. Perhaps this means position they had written previously. These
that it provides a sufficiently novel issue statements were specially prepared, some
that writers are unlikely already to have to be accurate and some to be inaccurate in
well-formed arguments available in that they emphasized subsidiary rather
memory, so that writers who have knowl- than main points. One prediction was that
edge-transforming procedures available are writers using a knowledge-transforming ap-
likely to use them. The particular opera- proach would, because of problem-solving
tions uncovered in the thinking-aloud pro- efforts directed toward establishing a main
tocols are consistent with the premise that point, be able to discriminate between ac-
knowledge-transforming involves the inter- curate and inaccurate statements of their
active solution of content-related and rhe- main point. In contrast, it was expected
torical problems. That these operations are that writers using a knowledge-telling ap-
instrumental in formulating main points is proach, and whose main point therefore
indicated by the path analysis results, emerged incidentally, would be less able to
which show constructive moves to be the distinguish an accurate main point state-
principal determinant of main point ratings, ment from statements of secondary points,
mediating the effect of age differences. provided both kinds of statements de-
scribed content actually in the text. The
STUDY 2 second prediction concerned writers’ justi-
The most direct empirical implication of fications for why particular statements
272 BEREITER, BLJRTIS, AND SCARDAMALIA

were or were not good statements of their paraphrased version of their own statement
main point. Writers using a knowledge- of their essay’s main point.
transforming approach were expected to 2. Upgraded condition. Students re-
show a greater tendency to appeal to their ceived a statement intended to bring the
own intentions at the time of writing as a main point into sharper focus than was
basis for accepting or rejecting a suggested done either in the original essay or in the
main point statement. For writers following student’s own statement of main point.
a knowledge-telling procedure, such inten- 3. Downgraded condition. Students re-
tions would not have played a role in the ceived a statement that highlighted a subor-
original production of the main point and dinate point of the original essay.
therefore they would be less likely to be 4. Three-choice condition. Students re-
available as a basis for judgment. ceived statements of all three of the pre-
As in Study 1, age was used as a sorting ceding types.
criterion. Previous research had indicated
An example of the three different kinds
no age difference in writers’ verbatim
of main point statements is given in Table 6.
memory for what they had written (Scarda-
In the first three conditions (own, up-
malia 8z Paris, 1985). Consequently, the
graded, and downgraded) students were in-
main point statements used in the present
formed that someone had read their essay
study were all accurate in that they re-
and had written a statement of what they
flected content actually included by the
though the main point was. They were
writers, but they varied in focusing on con-
asked to read the statement and discuss
tent that was central or incidental to the
how well the statement fitted the main
text. The previous research had also indi-
point of what they were trying to say in
cated that adults readily recalled their in-
their essay. Thus students were required to
tentions for previously written texts, while
make a judgment with nothing to compare
this was more uncertain for school-age
a statement to except their memory for
writers. Accordingly, the present study fo- their own composition. In the three-choice
cused on an age range (Grades 5 to ll),
condition, students were asked to read the
where it was expected that discrimination
three versions and rate them from best to
of accurate and inaccurate main point
worst according to how well each one ex-
statements would present a challenge and
pressed the main point of their essay, and
where the extent of prior thinking about
to explain their choices. Thus the three-
main point could be expected to have a sig-
choice condition permitted a finer discrimi-
nificant effect on performance.
nation of students’ accuracy in judging
Method main point statements, but at the same time
it provided them with more information to
Participants were 32 students from Grade go on. Students did not have their original
5 and 32 from Grade 11 from middle-class essays available, so that in all conditions
urban elementary and secondary schools. they had to rely on their memory for what
After writing a one-page essay on the topic they had done while writing.
“An occupation that is not appreciated
enough,” in group sessions, students were Results
asked to write down what they considered Evaluations of Main Point Statements
to be the main point of their essay. They
were then randomly assigned to one of the In the three-choice condition, each stu-
dent’s ranking of the three main point
following individually administered treat-
ments (n = 8 per condition per grade): statements was correlated with the in-
tended ranking (upgraded > own > down-
1. Own condition. Students received a graded). In Grade 5 the mean rank-order
 MAIN POINTS IN WRITTEN COMPOSITION 273

TABLE 6 whether their main point was made more

EXAMPLE OF ORIGINAL. ESSAY AND EXPERIMENTAL clearly in their original essay or in the main
VmwnoNs OF MAIN POINT STATEMENTS
point statement provided by the experi-
Original Essay menter. If students were aware of their own
The work of the “Caretakers” or “Janitors” in main points, it was expected that those in
Canadian schools is not fully appreciated by students the downgraded condition should strongly
or teachers. These “Caretakers” have a seemingly
never ending list of jobs that must be done to keep a prefer their own text, those in the own con-
school clean, presentable, in some ways comfortable dition should have mixed reactions, those
but most importantly, they keep our schools in the upgraded condition should tend to
functioning. These tasks include taking care of the prefer the presented main point, and those
lawns and fields surrounding the schools, shoveling in the three-choice condition should show
snow, looking after furnace rooms, replacing bumt-
out lights, and in the case of many high schools, an even stronger preference for the pre-
keeping a swimming pool warm, safe, and hygienic. sented statement, since they would have
In short, these “Caretakers” do take care of our chosen it as the best among three possibil-
schools. ities.
Unfortunately, almost all students and teachers do Table 7 shows that the choices of Grade
not appreciate the effort being made by the Janitors
of their school. Students make the job much more 11 students conformed to the predicted
tedious; garbage is tossed onto the floor or stuffed rank order: three-choice > upgraded >
into odd spaces (e.g., behind a banister), and vandals own > downgraded. Among Grade 5 stu-
knock holes in walls, break glass doors, and carve dents the order is nearly the opposite. A
into everything. Students and teachers should not statistical test was provided by converting
take “Caretakers” for granted; imagine the mess our
schools would be in if they ever went on strike. the choices shown in Table 7 to scores as
follows: preference for presented main
Paraphrase of Own Statement
It seems to me that the main point Jesse is trying point = + 1; equivocal preference = 0;
to make is that caretakers should be appreciated preference for original essay = - 1. A two-
more by students and teachers because they are way analysis of variance (Grade x Condi-
necessary to keep the schools running. They do a lot tion) on these scores, including tests for the
for our schools, yet the people who use the schools hypothesized linear trend, showed that for
sometimes make it more di!%icult for them.
the two grades combined there was vir-
Upgraded tually no overall linear trend (f/w = 0.075,
The most important point I get from Jesse’s essay
is that caretakers should be appreciated more for
F( 1,56) < 0.1; variables are as defined in
keeping our schools comfortable and functioning. Hays, 1963, p. 556). For Grade 11, how-
They do this by performing a never-ending list of ever, there was a positive linear trend (q/w
jobs. This job is made harder, however, by students, = 1.05) while in Grade 5 there was a neg-
teachers, and vandals who create unnecessary work ative trend (I@ = -0.90). The difference
for them through carelessness. between trends is significant at the .02 level
Downgraded (F(1,56) = 6.69).
I think the main point Jesse is getting at is that Students in Grade 11 thus behaved as
caretakers should be appreciated more because
vandals create so much unnecessary work for them would be expected of writers who had a
that their job is never done. Vandals knock holes in definite idea of their main point. When
walls, break doors, and generally make lie more given several main point statements they
difficult than it needs to be. Janitors also have all the tended to choose them appropriately, and
regular school jobs to do, so they are kept constantly their judgment of whether the main point
busy.
was made more clearly in the statement or
in the original text varied according to the
correlation was exactly zero. In Grade 11 quality of main point statement provided.
the mean was 0.56. The difference in means Grade 5 students, however, showed no in-
is significant at the .05 level (t(14) = 2.18). dication of valid discriminations among
In all conditions, students were asked main point statements. Their ranking did
274 BEREITER, BURTIS, AND SCARDAMALIA

TABLE 7
DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENTS AS TO WHETHER MAIN POINT WAS MADE MORE CLEARLY IN THE PRESENTED
STATEMENTS OR IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT

Grade 5 Grade 11
Statement Text Statement Text
Condition clearer clearer Equivocal clearer clearer Equivocal

Own 5 3 0 3 3 2
Upgraded 6 1 1 3 0 5
Downgraded 7 1 0 1 2 5
Three-choice” 2 3 3 6 1 1
D In the three-choice condition, comparison is between original text and the preferred one of the three main
point statements.

not correlate with intended ones, and when whereas a text-based justification could be
given a single statement, they tended to ac- made by any reader. Thus intentional justi-
cept it as a better representation of their fications were typically signaled by phrases
main point then their essay itself. As Table such as “what I really meant” or by expla-
7 indicates, this tendency was as high with nations of why a particular text statement
downgraded statements as with upgraded was made (for example, “That was some-
ones. thing I just put in to make it interesting”).
Two students in each grade were omitted
Justifications of Downgraded Versions from this analysis because of inadequate
Support for the conclusion that Grade 5 tape recordings.
students did not discriminate statements The great majority of justifications (88%
of subsidiary points from statements of in Grade 5, 68% in Grade 11) contained no
main point comes from justifications in the reference to the writer’s intention. Conse-
two conditions where students were ex- quently, students were classified as to
posed to a downgraded version of their whether they showed any intentional justi-
main point. These justifications show that fications in response to either question.
85% of the Grade 11 students made refer- This analysis was carried out at three levels
ence to an idea being peripheral or only a of probing: spontaneous remarks of the
detail, whereas only 20% of the Grade 5 subject, responses to the first probe, and
students did so (x2(1,N = 32) = 11.63, p < responses to later probes. The first probe
,001). was a simple request for further explana-
tion, while later probes often used phrases
Appeal to Intention such as “what you meant” and “what
Students were probed for justifications you were trying to say,” and thus were
of their answers to two questions: how well somewhat directive for intention-related
the presented statement interpreted the statements. Interrater agreement on wheth-
main point of their essay, and whether the er a student showed appeal to intention
statement or the original essay better ex- was .90.
pressed their main point. These justifica- Table 8 shows the frequency of students
tions were independently scored by two for whom both raters noted at least one ap-
raters as to whether or not they appealed to peal to intention. After the first probe, 20%
the writer’s intention. A justification based of Grade 5 students showed an appeal to
on intention was defined as one that could intention, while 60% of the Grade 11 stu-
be made with warrant only by the writer, dents did so (x*(l,N = 60) = 10.00, p <
 MAIN POINTS IN WRITTEN COMPOSITION 275

TABLES quent responses to main point statements.

CLASSIFICATIONOF STUDENTS ACCORDING TO USE
The differences observed in Study 2 are
OF APPEALTO OWN INTENTION IN JUSTIFYING MAIN
POINT EVALUATIONS
not as clear-cut as in Study 1. This may be
partly attributed to the restricted age range,
Grade 5 Grade 11 but more importantly to the fact that Study
Appeal to Appeal to
Intention Intention 1 dealt with process differences, which
should fairly directly reflect model differ-
Condition Some None Some None ences, whereas Study 2 dealt with perfor-
own 1 5 4 4 mance differences, which are subject to
Upgraded 2 6 6 I many additional influences. It is therefore
Downgraded 2 6 3 4 the reliability and the fit of results to
Three-choice I I 5 3 model-based predictions rather than the
magnitude of the differences that is rele-
vant.
.Ol). Under further probing, these propor-
Although the quality of main points was
tions increased to 47% and 84% respec-
not an issue in this study, it is worth noting
tively, and for spontaneous statements
that experimenters charged with producing
only, the proportions are 20% and 50%.
the various statements of main point used
The differences between grades remain sig-
in the experimental procedures never found
nificant beyond the .05 level by either crite-
themselves unable to locate a main point in
rion. Even under probing, therefore, the
a student’s text. This observation speaks to
percentage of Grade 5 students who made
any reference to their own intentions in the need for a model that shows how main
their essays remained below 50%, and points can be produced even by writers
who fail to recognize their own main points
without specific probing the percentage
and who show no evidence of having in-
was 20%.
tended to produce one.
Discussion
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Both model-based predictions were sup-
ported by statistically significant differ- The present results on the development
ences between the Grade 5 and Grade I I of main point in writing are consistent with
groups: (1) the younger students could not the general view of the organization of the
reliably distinguish accurate from inaccu- writing processes that was suggested in the
rate statements of main points in their own introduction. The essential difference rep-
compositions, whereas the older students resented in the knowledge-telling and
could; and (2) the older students tended to knowledge-transforming models is the dis-
appeal to prior intentions in justifying their tinction between composing as a routine
evaluations of main point statements, process of content generation and com-
whereas few of the younger students did posing as a problem-solving process con-
so. The second finding is important for in- cerned with the joint solution of rhetorical
terpreting the first. The age differences in and content-related problems. The results
ability to discriminate among main point of the present studies extend this view of
statements could be attributed to compre- differences in writing approaches to the
hension differences rather than writing pro- area of a writer’s concern with the main
cess differences. However, the reasons point of a composition.
given for the discriminative judgments sup- In Study 1, writers were classified ac-
port the hypothesis that mental activities cording to the extent to which they devel-
during writing played a part in the subse- oped a distinctive main point that served to
276 BEREITER, BURTIS, AND SCARDAMALIA

integrate their composition. It was found only be evaluated, of course, against some
that behind the highly rated main points lay putative alternative. The most likely alter-
a variety of problem-solving activities con- native, we suppose, would be a unitary
cerned with identifying, focusing, evalu- model of composing, which specifies ex-
ating, and linking information to a main pert procedures (perhaps including those
point. In agreement with the two proposed we identified in Study 1) and which charac-
models, such activities were almost wholly terizes novice composing by its lack of or
missing from the protocols of students pro- deviation from those expert procedures.’
ducing low-rated main points. As would be In simplest terms, a unitary model would
expected, age differences were found in imply that experts and novices are trying to
both process and achievement, but within- do the same thing but that novices have in-
group correlations and a path analysis indi- ferior procedures. What we have proposed
cated that problem-solving activity was sig- instead, again in simplest terms, is that
nificantly associated with main point devel- novices are not trying to do the same things
opment independently of age and that the that experts are, but that they nevertheless
effect of age was almost entirely mediated achieve many of the same results. In order
through its effect on problem-solving ac- to explain how this is possible, a different
tivity. model must be constructed, which shows
In Study 2, developmental differences how such text characteristics as coherence,
were observed that were predicted from organization, and topical relevance can be
the assumption that the younger writer’s achieved without the goal-directed activity
approach to writing tends to follow the shown by experts. As regards the findings
knowledge-telling model whereas the older of the present studies, there is no problem
writer’s approach tends more often to in finding alternative explanations for the
follow the knowledge-transforming model. deficiencies shown by the less advanced
Although the knowledge-telling process is writers -for their very low frequency of
capable of generating texts that have an constructive moves, for their difftculties in
identifiable main point, it does not involve discriminating their own main points, and
effortful construction of or operations on for their lack of reference to prior inten-
such a point. Accordingly, most of the tions. What is problematic within a unitary
younger students were not able to discrimi- conception of the composing process is to
nate between accurate and distorted state- explain how, in spite of these deficiencies,
ments of their main points, and in de- students manage to produce compositions
fending the judgments they did make they with identifiable main points.
did not appeal to their own intentions in It is perhaps worth reiterating that the
writing. A majority of the older students, sharp distinctions we have been drawing
on the other hand, gave indications of are between idealized models of writing
having devoted prior attention to the main and not between groups of real people. No
point of what they had written. They could one could expect subject samples selected
accurately judge the validity of different according to a crude criterion such as age
expressions of their main point and they
made at least some appeal to their prior in- i General models of the composing process, such as
tentions in defending their judgments. that of Hayes and Flower (1980), do not constitute
The present studies are thus supportive such an alternative because they can accommodate a
of the knowledge-telling and knowledge- variety of qualitatively different specific models. Both
the knowledge-telling and the knowledge-transforming
transforming models and suggest that they models could be accommodated as variants. In fact,
provide a promising starting point for a the knowledge-telling model closely resembles Hayes
fuller explanation of expert and novice and Flower’s model of the generating process (1980,
writing processes. This conclusion can pp. 12-14).
 MAIN POINTS IN WRITTEN COMPOSITION 277

to differ in an all-or-none fashion. Further- GRAVES, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and chil-
more, evidence already exists that under dren at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educa-
facilitating conditions children begin to ex- tional Books.
GREENO, J. G. (1978). Natures of problem-solving
hibit problem-solving activity of a knowl- abilities. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of
edge-transforming kind (Graves, 1983; Learning and Cognitive Processes: Vol. 5. Hills-
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1985). There is dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
also evidence that with instructional help HAYS, W. L. (1963). Statisticsfor Psychologists. NY:
children can begin to adopt knowledge- Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
HAYES, J. R., & FLOWER, L. S. (1980). Identifying
transforming procedures while still largely the organization of writing processes. In L. W.
adhering to a knowledge-telling approach, Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive pro-
which suggests that intermediate states are cesses in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
possible (Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Stein- JOHNSTON, P., & AFFLERBACH, P. (1985). The pro-
bath, 1984). The issue, therefore, is cess of constructing main ideas from text. Cogni-
tion and Instruction, 2, 207-232.
whether the two models are helpful in un- KIEFUS, D. E. (1982). A model of reader strategy for
derstanding expert-novice differences in abstracting main ideas from simple technical
writing, not whether they provide appro- prose. Text, 2, 47-81.
priate categories for sorting people. MURRAY, D. M. (1978). Internal revision: A process
of discovery. In C. R. Cooper & L. Ode11 (Eds.).
Research on composing. Urbana. IL: National
REFERENCES Council of Teachers of English.
BEREITER, C., & SCARDAMALIA, M. (1985a). Cogni- Murray, D. M. (1983). Response of a laboratory rat-
tive coping strategies and the problem of “inert Or, being protocoled. College Composition and
Communication, 34, 169-172.
knowledge.” In S. E Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R.
Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 2. National Assessment of Educational Progress (1980).
Research and open questions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- Writing achievement, 1969-79: Results from the
baum. third national writing assessment: Vol. 1. 17-
BEREITER, C., & SCARDAMALIA, M. (1985b). Year-Olds (Tech. Rep.). Denver, CO: National
Wissen-Wiedergeben als ein Model1 fur das Assessment of Educational Progress. (ERIC Doc-
Schreiben von Instruktionen durch ungeubte ument Reproduction Service No. ED 196 042)
Schreiber [Knowledge telling as a model for be- NORDBERG, B. (1981). The reading-writing-thinking
ginning writers to write instructions]. Unterrichts connection. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Wissenschaft, 4, 319-333. Fall Conference of the Wisconsin State Reading
BEREITER, C., & SCARDAMALIA, M. (1987). The psy- Association, Stevens Point, WI. (ERIC Document
chology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Reproduction Service No. ED 208 374)
Erlbaum. NYSTRAND. M.. & WIEDERSPIEL, M. (1977). Case
BLOOM, B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human study of a personal journal: Notes towards an
characteristics. New York: Wiley. epistemology of writing. In M. Nystrand (Ed.),
BURTIS, P. J., BEREITER. C., SCARDAMALIA, M., & Language as a way of knowing: A book of
TETROE, J. (1983). The development of planning readings. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for
in writing. In G. Wells & B. M. Kroll (Eds.), Ex- Studies in Education.
plorations in the development gf writing. Chich- PERL, S. (1979). The composing processes of un-
ester: Wiley. skilled college writers. Research in the Teaching
EMIG, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of discovery. Cal- ofEnglish. 13, 317-336.
lege Composition and Communication, 28, SCARDAMALIA, M., & BEREITER, C. (1985). Develop-
122-128. ment of dialectical processes in composition. In
FLOWER, L. S. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cogni- D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.),
tive basis for problems in writing. College En- Literacy, language and learning: The nature and
glish, 41, 19-37. consequences of reading and writing. Cambridge:
FLOWER, L. S., & HAYES, J. R. (1980). The cognition Cambridge Univ. Press.
of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. Cot- SCARDAMALLA, M., & BERE~TER, C. (1986). Research
lege Composition and Communication, 31, on written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
21-32. Handbook ofresearch on teaching (3rd ed.). New
FLOWER, L. S., & HAYES, J. R. (1981). A cognitive York: Macmillan Education Ltd.
process theory of writing. College Composition SCARDAMALIA, M.. & BERE~TER, C. (1987). Knowl-
and Communication, 32, 365-387. edge telling and knowledge transforming in
278 BEREITER, BURTIS, AND SCARDAMALIA

written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Ad- SCHIJMACHER,~. M., KLARE,G. R.,CRONIN,F. C.,
vances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. & MOSES, J. D. (1984). Cognitive activities of be-
Reading, writing, and language learning. Cam- ginning and advanced college writers: A pausal
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18,
SCARDAMALIA, M., BEREITER,C.,&STEINBACH,R. 169- 187.
(1984). Teachability of reflective processes in WASON, P C. (1980). Specific thoughts on the writing
written composition. Cognitive Science, 8, process. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg
173-190. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale,
SCARDAMALIA, M., & PARIS, P. (1985). The function NJ: Erlbaum.
of explicit discourse knowledge in the develop-
ment of text representations and composing strat- (Received March 11, 1987)
egies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, I-39. (Revision received November 24, 1987)