This study highlights the use of the writing process not only to enhance preservice teachers' skills as writers of classroom experiences, but also as a tool to combat the stereotypes with which many preservice teachers enter urban field experiences with diverse learners.

Abstract: Since the early 1970s, many educators have touted writing as a means of enhancing learning. Several reasons have been suggested for this purported enhancement: that writing is a form of learning, that writing approximates human speech, that writing supports learning strategies. Alternatively, some researchers have cautioned that the educative effects of writing may be contingent on the contexts in which it occurs. The research on writing's effects on learning is ambiguous. This meta-analysis of 48 school-based writing-to-learn programs shows that writing can have a small, positive impact on conventional measures of academic achievement. Two factors predicted enhanced effects: the use of metacognitive prompts and increased treatment length. Two factors predicted reduced effects: implementation in Grades 6-8 and longer writing assignments.

A brief review of this study of 20 writers over four years at Pepperdine is at: http://chronicle.com/teaching/books/2003030401b.htm "Focusing on first-year writing courses as a point of transition, not a final destination or a detour to fix literacy problems before students begin their real journey, means that many types of courses can be effective as long as they truly challenge students to move beyond their comfort zones and solve problems that are just beyond their reach."

Meta-analyses were performed on 26 studies conducted between 1992–2002 which focused on the comparison between K–12 students writing with computers vs. paper-and-pencil. The analyses indicate that, on average, instructional use of computers for writing has a positive effect on the quantity and quality of writing students produce. Studies focused on revision behaviors between these two writing conditions (n=6) revealed mixed results. Others studies collected for the meta-analysis which did not meet the statistical criteria were also reviewed briefly. These articles (n=35) indicate that the writing process is more collaborative, iterative, and social in computer classrooms as compared with paper-and-pencil environments. For educational leaders questioning whether computers should be used to help students develop writing skills, the results of the meta-analyses suggest that on average students who use computers when learning to write are not only more engaged and motivated in their writing, but they produce written work that is of greater length and higher quality.

Abstract: Writing produces generally positive, but inconsistent, effects on learning. The reasons for this inconsistency are unknown. This review examines four hypotheses about writing-to-learn: Writers spontaneously generate knowledge "at the point of utterance" (Britton, 1980/1982); writers externalize ideas in text, then reread them to generate new inferences (Young and Sullivan, 1984); writers use genre structures to organize relationships among elements of text, and thereby among elements of knowledge (Newell, 1984); and writers set rhetorical goals, then solve content problems to achieve these goals (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; Flower and Hayes, 1980a). These four hypotheses invoke different aspects of writing, and so are mutually compatible. The genre hypothesis has been supported by empirical research; the other three hypotheses have been tentatively supported by research concerning writing-to-learn, or indirectly supported by other research concerning learning or writing. Further investigation is needed concerning: The empirical validity of the four hypotheses, and interactions among the processes that they identify; the declarative and procedural knowledge that underpins writing-to- learn; and the educational effectiveness of applying cognitive strategy instruction to learning through writing.

“Describes a two-year study of one college student's efforts to produce appropriate content area writing in different disciplines. Using observation, interviews, composing-aloud protocols, and text analysis, evaluates the student's performance according to the Gricean rubric of conversation. Concludes that success was affected by unarticulated social aspects of classroom contexts for writing as well as explicitly stated requirements and instructions.” (ERIC)

Available online as part of the Academic.Writing series, Landmark Publications in Writing Studies, this collection of thoughtful, thoroughly grounded essays explores the design of writing-across-the-curriculum programs in new and maturing programs. The collection also contains an appendix listing the results of the first comprehensive survey of writing-across-the-curriculum programs in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada.

“Examines how school writing tasks (notetaking, answering study questions, and essay writing) interact with three measures of learning (recall, concept application, and gain in passage-specific knowledge).” (ERIC)

“Discusses the contributions of Polanyi, Ziman and Kuhn toward a conception of a scientific community and offers a rhetorical perspective on the construction of scientific knowledge. Outlines a scheme for analyzing scientific discourse and illustrates its application.” (ERIC)

This article reports on how a computer science professor and a Ph.D. student in English turned a graduate seminar into a vehicle for teaching reviewing to graduate students. The evaluation and conclusions may help others do likewise. This is an extended version of the article, available on the first author's Web site.

Describes an experiment using a writing assistant (fellow) in an upper-division sociology course, details the benefits and costs of the experience for the assistant and for the faculty educator, as well as the "practicality of the experiment."