Cognitive Demands And the EFL Writer: Observations on Kind, Degree, and Agency

Juan David Gómez González

doi:10.17533/udea.ikala.16040

Autores

Juan David Gómez González Universidad de Antioquia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.16040

Palavras-chave:

teoria do processo dual, processo de redação, redação em inglês como língua estrangeira

Resumo

Pesquisas que procuram compreender o processo por meio do qual os escritores EFL focam a revisão de seus textos em questões de grau: de capacidade cognitiva e complexidade ou volume de tarefas. Este ensaio estuda alguns dos nexos entre “dual process theories” e composição em EFL para argumentar quais tipos de temas podem ser de igual pertinência. Seu objetivo é demonstrar que, com frequência, os tipos de processos cognitivos relacionados com a etapa de revisão definem que tipo de informação é processada, de que maneira, e, posteriormente, como se sente o escritor perante suas decisões.

|Resumo

= 131 veces | PDF (ENGLISH)

= 77 veces|

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Biografia do Autor

Juan David Gómez González, Universidad de Antioquia

Profesor visitante. Escuela de Idiomas.

Referências

Bloodgood, J. (2002). Quintilian: A classical educator speaks to the writing process. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(1), 30–43.

Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1982). Tests results are what you think they are. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky, (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 239–248) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Connor, U., & Farmer, M. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 126–139). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

Erickson, T., & Mattson, M. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 540–551.

Flower, L., & Hayes, R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.

Gilbert, D. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119.

Gómez, R., Parker, R., Lara-Alecio, R., & Gómez, L. (1996). Process versus product writing with limited English proficient students. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 209–233.

Graham, S. (2008). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald, (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.187–207). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hayes, J. (2004). What Triggers Revision? In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9–20). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition. Illinois, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.

Hume, D. (2007). An enquiry concerning human understanding and other writings. London, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Ferrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kellogg, R. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 355–365.

Kellogg, R. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing, theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kellogg, R. (2001). Long term-working memory in text production. Memory and Cognition, 29(1), 43–52.

Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Johns, A. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 247–266.

Jones, C. S., & Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time (pp. 34–57). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

Liebman-Kleine, J. (1986). In defense of teaching process in ESL composition. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 783–788.

Mendonca, C., & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction, TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.

National Writing Project. (2012). History of NWP. National Writing Project. Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/doc/about/history.csp

Olive, T., & Piolat, A. (2002). Suppressing visual feedback in written composition: Effects on processing demands and coordination of the writing process. International Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 209–218.

Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Reid, J. (1989). English as a second language composition in higher education: The expectations of the academic audience. In D. Johnson and D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 220–234). New York, NY: Longman.

Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald, (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 41– 53). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11–23). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & Mac Gregor, D. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman, (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397–420). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Spack, R. (1984). Invention strategies and the ESL college composition student. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 649–670.

Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Random House.

Torrence, M., & Galbraith, D. (2008). The processing demands of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald, (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67–80). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 67–76.