National Council of Teachers of English Research in The Teaching of English

Cognitive and Linguistic Demands of Analytic Writing
Author(s): Russel K. Durst

Source: Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 347-376
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171123
Accessed: 30-04-2020 15:14 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Research in the Teaching of English
This content downloaded from 37.17.142.61 on Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:14:13 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cognitive and Linguistic Demands
of Analytic Writing
Russel K. Durst, University of Cincinnati
Abstract. To investigate the thinking processes students employ and the

text structures they produce in analytic writing, this study contrasted
eleventh grade students' analytic and summary writing. Ten high and ten
average ability writers each participated in two composing-aloud sessions,
writing one analytic and one summary essay based on their reading of
history passages. Think-aloud protocols were divided into individual
communication units, which were analyzed for three categories repre-
senting underlying features of the writing process. Essays were examined
for the genre conventions governing students' writing. Multivariate
analysis of variance techniques explored results of the protocol and essay
analyses. In analytic writing, students employed more varied and complex
thinking operations than in summary writing, asking more complicated
questions, making higher-level plans, and spending more time interpret-
ing the readings and evaluating their own essays. Results suggest ways in
which writing serves as a heuristic - a tool for critical thinking about
subject matter.
In secondary school and beyond, a considerable portion of students' writing

assignments can be characterized as analytic. Ranging from interpretations
of literary works to discussions of historical, social, and scientific issues, these
assignments involve moving beyond summary restatement of content to more
focused examination of relations among ideas and events. In high school,
the most common form of analytic writing is the thesis/support essay, where
students employ a pattern of generalization and supporting detail to explain
a point of view (Applebee, 1984; Durst, 1984). It has become a truism in the
field of composition, and a central tenet of "writing across the curriculum"
advocates (Fulwiler & Young, 1982; Martin, 1984), to say that such activities
help develop critical reasoning skills. Yet despite a widespread belief in the
heuristic value of analytic writing, we know little about how students actually
approach such tasks.
Two lines of research have studied analytic writing, the first focusing on
students' written texts. Britton, Burgess, Martin, McCloud, and Rosen (1975)
and Applebee (1981, 1984) examined school writing using an "abstractive
scale" for expository prose. At the lower end of the scale are summaries of
The author would like to thank Arthur Applebee, Judith Langer, and Siusan Durst for
their help with this project.
Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 1987
347
348 Research in the Teaching of English
ongoing experience while the upper end includes a

arguments. Britton and Applebee view analysis a
demanding logical modes of argument and organ
it apart from forms of writing such as narrative or
as generically simpler tasks, relying largely on fam
works. Both Britton in the United Kingdom and
States found that secondary school writing is do
analysis.
Other studies have looked closely at the difficulties of analytic writing.
Durst ( 1984), investigating the development of three students' analytic writing
from third through twelfth grades, found a tendency for students to rely
heavily on summary formats even when asked to analyze. Similarly, the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (1981) found that, while most
American high school students could summarize narrative passages, few
were able to effectively present and defend their own interpretations of
passages. In addition, Prater and Padia (1983), Hidi and Hilyard (1983), and
Beach (1985) found that elementary, junior high, and college students
performed less well on a variety of measures (including coherence, holistic
quality, and mechanics) when writing persuasive and explanatory essays than
when writing narratives.
But while these studies show problems in students' analytic writing, they
say little about the structure of such essays. Except for Durst (1984), which
is limited by a small sample size, they center mainly on essay content, rather
than on such genre conventions as the ways in which evidence and arguments
are presented. Moreover, they focus on written texts and do not examine the
thinking strategies students employ in analytic writing. To investigate such
issues, we must turn to composing process research, a body of work which
includes studies of elementary students (Graves, 1973), high school students
(Bridwell, 1980; Emig, 1971), college students (Perl, 1979), and adults (flower
& Hayes, 1980, 1981, 1984). However, the main focus of this work has been
on providing a general description of composing; thus, few researchers have
looked specifically at analytic writing. Studies most often contrast types of
writer (e.g., variation across age or ability groups) rather than writing tasks.
Moreover, investigators typically ask students to write narrative or description
(e.g., Flower & Hayes' "Describe your job for the readers of Seventeen"),
rather than analysis (see also Bridwell, 1980; Emig, 1971; Faigley & Witte,
1981;Langer, 1986).
Yet one line of research does focus on students' analytic writing processes.
This includes Matsuhashi's (1981) study of high school seniors' pauses while
writing; Pianko's (1979) investigation of college freshmen's composing
processes; and Sommers' (1980) study of revision in college freshmen and
professional writers - all of which contrast students' analytic and narrative
writing processes. Results indicate that analysis requires more planning,
Cognitive and Linguistic Demands of Analytic Writing 349
pausing, and revising than does narrative writing, providing further evidence
that students find analytic writing more difficult than narrative.
But these studies focus mainly on writers' rhetorical strategies, such
audience awareness and revising, largely ignoring facets of the writ
process that involve thinking about subject matter itself. They do not examin
writers' ways of thinking through content in forming, refining, and elaborat
ing ideas - that is, they ignore the critical thinking about subject matt
which many educators view as so important. Also, these studies do
examine the genre conventions writers use, at both local and global levels
text, in constructing analytic essays. Such considerations are central
studying school-sponsored analytic writing, the purpose of which is primarily
to help students master both content information and writing skills. Th
the present study focuses on the cognitive and linguistic properties of analyt
writing by examining secondary students' composing processes as they wr
and by analyzing the structure of their texts. So the specific characterist
of analytic writing can be clearly shown, the study contrasts analytic
chronological summary writing about material presented in history read
passages, as history is one of the content areas that most strongly emphasizes
analytic writing.
Method
Students
Twenty high school juniors, ten boys and ten girls, took part in the study. All
were enrolled in one of three sections of one teacher's eleventh grade
American History class at a suburban high school near San Francisco. This
teacher had been through inservice training by the Bay Area Writing Project
and used writing activities regularly in his classes. Half of the boys and half
of the girls were classified as high ability and half as average ability student
writers, based on the teacher's overall appraisal of their writing.
The Reading Passages
Each student read and wrote essays on two passages from popular eleventh
grade American History textbooks. "The Great Depression" (1580 words)
focused on the impact of the Depression on the U.S. economy, while
"Questions of Loyalty" (1713 words) discussed the impact of the McCarthy
Era on U.S. political life. Both had an llth/12th grade readability level (Fry,
1968). Passages were organized chronologically rather than analytically, so
that students would need to construct their own analyses, rather than simply
repeating analyses presented in the passages. Thus, the use of chronological
passages, while allowing us to examine how students summarize and analyze
narratives, provides no information on how students repond to analytic texts.
The Writing Tasks
Prompts were designed to reflect two categories o

by Applebee (1981): analysis and summary. Applebe
as generalization and classification concerning a sit
with logical or hierarchical relations among poin
writing as generalized narrative or description of
There were two writing topics for each reading
summary, from which each student was randomly
tasks were designed to elicit a structure of thesis
detail, while summary tasks asked students to re
retrospective account of the events discussed in t
Depression passage, the analytic prompt was:
Explain what you think is the main economic lesson
the events discussed in the reading. Be certain to defe
specific evidence and examples from the passage.
For the passage on the McCarthy era, the analytic

parallel; wording was identical except that this p
discuss a political, rather than an economic lesson
summary prompt was:
In your own words, summarize the events discusse

passage.
Prompts were examined by a knowledgeable colleague, then pilot tested

on a group of eleventh grade students, and were found to elicit the desired
types of writing.
Instruments
Analysis of Think- Aloud Protocols
Each of the 40 protocols was transcribed verbatim, then broken into separate
communication units (defined as segmentable, distinct comments concerning
an idea or action, typically corresponding to T-units; Hunt, 1965). Each
contained a main clause and all the subordinate clauses attached to it.
However, because of all the false starts and pauses common in oral speech
communication units were not always grammatical sentences. Remark
directed toward the researcher, which comprised less than one percent of
total communication units, were not analyzed.
A detailed coding system was employed to analyze the protocols. This
system, based on Langer's (1986) study of the reading and writing processe
of third, sixth, and ninth grade students, was designed to capture th
particular differences in high and average eleventh grade writers' processe
Cognitive and Linguistic Demands of Analytic Writing 35 1
in analytic and summary writing. Several of Langer's sub-categories which

focused primarily on reading strategies were dropped, and other su
categories were added to distinguish between restatements of reading passa
content and interpretations, questions, or plans based on passage content
The scheme consisted of three dimensions, focusing on different aspects
the composing process, each with its own sub-categories. Thus, commun
cation units were each coded three times, once per dimension. The
dimensions are discussed below.
Cognitive Operations. The thinking strategies students employed while writing.
1 . Lower Level Questioning. Uncertainties the writer expresses concerning

ideas or information directly retrievable or easily deduced from the
reading passage.
"When did Hoover become president?" "What's his first name?"
"Where does it say about overproduction?"
2. Higher Level Questioning. Expressing lack of understanding about aspects
of the writing task itself or about points not directly stated in the
reading passage.
"I'm trying to think what lesson is to be learned." "Should I put a
transition between these two points?"
3. Lower Level Planning. Local plans on what will be written that center
around what the writer intends to say next, "shaped at the point of
utterance."
"I'm going to write about atomic secrets next." "It talks about the
Cold War, so I'll write about the Cold War."
4. Higher Level Planning. More global or abstract plans focusing on the
writing process, written text structure, or the need for connections
between unrelated ideas and events from the reading.
"I want to show how bank failing relates to the entire topic." "I've
gotta come up with a good, solid thesis."
5. Restating Content. Repeating what is in the reading passage or writers'
own texts.
"Hoover tried helping business." "In 1954, the full senate vo

condemn McCarthy."
6. Constructing Meaning. Forming new ideas or relations among ideas
concepts and information in the reading. Generalizing, suppo
generalization, classifying, relating content to personal know
making an inference.
"The passage shows that, in financial matters, one must alwa
for the future."
"Overproduction is a good example of the not planning."
7. Evaluating. Judging the appropriateness of the

writer's own behaviors. Assessing meaning or la
validating.
"Wait, my thesis doesn't make any sense!" "I'm checking to see if I
supported all my points."
Text Unit. Concern with the overall message or intermediate or local aspects
of meaning development. This category includes process-oriented comments
not specifically discussing text but provoked by a certain aspect of the text.
1 . Global. Attention is directed toward the overall structure or message of

the essay.
"I need a thesis, three supporting ideas, and a conclusion."
2. Intermediate. Attention is directed to the paragraph or multi-sentence
level.
"This next paragraph is going to be on Hoover's policies."
3. Local. Attention is directed to the sentence or word level, reflecting a
concern with individual points.
"I would say the stock market was rising." "What's another way of
saying paranoid?"
Focus. Concern with writing behaviors as opposed to the written text itself.
1. Process. The writer focuses on strategies that could be or have been

employed, or discusses his or her own thinking. Such comments
normally do not concern specific aspects of the content.
"I think I'll go over what I've written." "I need to outline my points
before I start out."
2. Product. The writer discusses the piece itself, focusing on the develop-
ment and shaping of the written message.
"McCarthy was finally condemned by the entire Senate." "This is
sort of a vague beginning."
The protocols were analyzed several times, first to establish the category
system, then to refine the system, and then to validate it and check the
analyses. Interrater agreement was checked by a second trained coder, who
analyzed 120 randomly selected communication units, three from each
protocol. Percent of exact agreement for categorizing communication units
was 91 for cognitive operations, 89 for text unit, and 91 for focus.
Essay Analyses
Three separate analyses were carried out on the 40 student essays collected
during the study. They involved 1) an examination of level of abstractness;
2) a measure of the hierarchical organization of content; and 3) an analysis
of cohesive devices students used to connect pieces of text.
Level of Abstractness. This procedure involved holistic coding of each essay fo

the degree to which the writer went beyond chronological discussion of event
to more focused interpretation. The analysis has four categories in ascend
order of abstractness, as described below:
1 . Generalized Summary. Chronologically-ordered rendering of events dis-

cussed in the reading, with some focus on patterns of events and cau
and effect relations embedded within the overall narrative framework.
2. Foregrounded! Backgrounded Summary. A chronological summary which

begins and ends with a distilled meta-summary of content, which is
elaborated on in the essay's body.
3. Unfocused Interpretation. An essay which begins with a thesis statement
but then reverts to more of a summary restating of the passage, with
little evidence brought to bear in favor of the generalization. Or, the
writer may string together a series of points without explicitly support-
ing, elaborating, or connecting them.
4. Focused Interpretation. The writer moves away from a concrete discussion
of events by forming a generalization based on these events and
providing evidence and arguments for it.
After the essays were coded for level of abstractness, the entire sample was
coded again by a trained rater. Percent of exact agreement was 88. Differences
between raters were resolved through discussion for final coding.
Hierarchical Content Organization. Each of the essays was examined for
hierarchical structuring of information, using a procedure based on Meyer
(1975, 1981) and Langer (1986). This procedure depicts essay content arrayed
in a tree diagram representing text organization. Interpropositional relation-
ships are depicted by rhetorical predicates specifying hierarchical relations
among propositions. The text is first divided into T-units, then each T-unit
is coded as representing a particular type of predicate. The categories are
defined below:
1 . Evaluation. An opinion or commentary statement.

2. Sequence. Events ordered chronologically at equal levels in the passage
hierarchy.
3. Causal. Cause and effect both specified at equal levels in the hierarchy.
4. Description. Various kinds of illustrations, such as manner, attribution,
setting, and identification.
5. Explanation. Causal statements, lower in the hierarchy than the event
being explained.
6. Evidence. A statement supporting a previous point.
The Meyer system distinguishes between top level, superordinate predicates,

around which an entire text may be organized, and lower level predicates,
which elaborate on previous points. Thus, Explan

ments, by definition, can only serve as lower leve
which in the Meyer system can just function as a low
here treated as a possible top level predicate as w
student's essay about the reading passage is st
description or synthesis of the passage. A separa
system, Collection, was here treated as an option
category. Thus, a cause could have a collection of e
of causes. Because this analysis focused on overal
on text microstructure, only the top two levels of
were examined, with a level consisting of all predi
from the essay occurring at the same point in the hi
After the 40 essays were analyzed, a second rat
12 essays, counterbalanced for writing task, readin
Percent of exact agreement on categorization of th
Cohesive Conjunctions. The analysis of cohesive con
and Hasan (1976), was employed to determine wh
students used in their analytic and summary essay
across tasks. Four categories of conjunctions were
of instances of each was calculated. The categorie
1. Additive. Indicates coordination; two sentenc
weight. Examples include conjunctions such as
more," "not," "or."
2. Temporal. Conjunctive relation showing chro
amples include "after," "then," "when."
3. Causal. Indicating cause and effect relation
cause," "so," "therefore," "thus."
4. Adversative. Indicates that what follows contrast
said. Examples include "in fact," "but," "howeve
The counterbalanced sub-sample of 12 essays was

percent of exact agreement was 84 for additive conju
88 for causal, and 77 for adversative.
Design
The study used a factorial design involving repeated measures and random-
ized blocks. Repeated measures contrasted the writing tasks themselves
(analysis vs. summary). Fixed factors included writing ability (high, average),
sex, reading passage (1,2), and passage-task sequence (four possibilities).
The sequence in which students were given the passages and writing tasks
was counterbalanced to avoid confounding passage, task, and sequen

Toward this end, a blocking factor was employed, with five students randoml
chosen from within each sex-ability combination placed in each of the fo
blocks (representing passage-task sequence combinations).
Procedures
The data were collected over a two month period, with a member of th
research team meeting with each student individually for each of thre
sessions. In the first meeting, the project was explained, then students w
given training in the techniques of thinking aloud while writing. (See Dur
1985, for detailed training procedures.) In the next two sessions, stude
first read a history passage on material they had not studied in class, th
composed aloud on a topic based on their reading. Sessions took place in
quiet room and lasted 50 minutes.
The student sat at a table across from the researcher, who described t
session format and asked the student to read one of the two passages. Af
completing the passage, the student was given a writing prompt and ask
to read it carefully. If there were no questions, the tape recorder was tur
on, a microphone placed beside the student, and composing aloud began
Because students had considerable practice in the technique, they showe
little anxiety at composing aloud and being recorded. Students were tol
they could refer back to the reading if they wished. They wrote for 3
minutes while the researcher sat across the table taking notes on th
writing. Because not all composing processes are revealed in think-aloud
protocols, five minutes were spent at the close of each session in retrospectiv
interviewing, with students answering questions about their writing behavior
The retrospective discussions and the think-aloud protocols were ta
recorded and transcribed.
Data Analysis
Multivariate analysis of variance procedures were used to test hypotheses for

the study's factorial design. Follow up univariate analysis of variance was
employed when the multivariate significance level was .10 or better. For the
analyses, because protocols and essays varied in length, the percent of
comments in each coding category per protocol or essay was calculated. To
stabilize variances and normalize the data, a square root transformation was
carried out for all percent scores (Winer, 1971); these transformed scores
were used in all statistical tests. However, for ease of interpretation, the
untransformed mean percents and standard deviations are displayed in all
tables. For categorical variables, chi-square analysis was used.
Results and Discussion
Composing-Aloud Protocols
Forty protocols containing 5723 communication units were analyzed. Ana

protocols were on average longer than summaries (M = 150.8 units, SD
22.5 vs. M = 135.3 units, SD = 21.7), and high ability protocols were lo
than average ability ones (M = 147.0 units, SD = 49.1 vs. M = 139.2 unit
SD = 48.9). Protocols were examined for cognitive operations, text unit,
focus.
Cognitive Operations
Assuming that analysis places greater demands upon the writer than
summary, we would expect more use of such operations as higher-
questioning and higher-level planning. Similarly, we would anticipate m
construction of new meanings and more evaluation in response to ana
writing prompts, where students should have to pay closer attention to
developing ideas than in response to summary writing prompts, where
could rely more on reading passage content. Thus, we would expect m
restating of passage content and more lower-level questioning and plan
in summary writing. Table 1 lists mean percent of communication units
cognitive operations in analytic and summary writing by task and ability.
As expected, the multivariate effect for differences between cogni
operations in response to analytic and summary writing prompts was h
significant (F[7,8] = 10.06, p < .002). These differences were expl
further in univariate analyses of variance. Restating of passage conten
occurred much more often in summary writing than in analysis (F[l,
26.87, p < .001), as did lower-level planning (F[l,14] = 19.70, p < .001
contrast, while writing analytically, students asked more higher-level questi
(F[l,14] = 20.11, p < .001), made more statements indicating higher-
planning (F[l,14] = 11.21, p < .005), did far more constructing of n
meanings from passage content (F[l,14] = 30.76, p < .001), and did m
evaluating of their writing (F[l,14] = 3.19, p < .096).
Taken together, these results strongly indicate that students writin
analytically employed a more varied and complex set of cognitive operat
than when writing summaries. These contrasting patterns are illustrat
the following excerpts from the composing-aloud transcripts of Marian
high ability student writer. The first example is from near the end of
analysis of "The Great Depression" reading, while the second is from la
her summary of the "Questions of Loyalty" passage. On the left side of
page the communication units are listed; the right side lists the cogn
operations she engaged in.
Marianna's Analysis
Communication Units Operations

Lesson, lesson, gotta get back to lessons! Higher Level Plan
Trying to think how to put lessons back in the paper. Higher Level
Question
Okay, buying on margins, this one's all right. Evaluation
I'm checking over my paragraphs to make sure I put Evaluation

a lesson in.
People lost tremendous amounts of money. Restatement
The banking system failed, causing even more peopleRestatement

to lose their life savings.
Yeah, this showed that banks, er, banking systems had Constructing New
to have a way of being insured. Meaning
Marianna's Summary
Communication Units Operation

China became communist, instilling more fear of Restatement
communist expansion.
Uh, the McCarren-Walter Act was proposed and Restatement
passed by Truman.
Restatement
Wait, proposed and passed by Congress, not Truman
Restatement
It stated, it regulated foreign subversives out of the
U.S.
God, the writing's terrible. Evaluation
Uh, McCarthyism developed . . . Restatement
What was his first name? Lower Level

Question
As these examples suggest, Marianna engages in richer and more

complicated thinking operations while writing analytically than while sum-
marizing. In her summary excerpt, direct restating from the reading is
punctuated only by a brief lament about her writing style and a simple
question about a name. In her analysis, however, we see a range of complicated
questions, plans, and evaluations, culminating in the construction of a
generalization that arises directly from the material with which she has been
wrestling.
|
1
J
bo
*I3 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^.^ °9"^

fS o<Soo t^-3 ifi^ Tj^'cvi <£>c4
C
.2 ^
D
2 .2 -S^S P^ ^P O4Cvl ^^ ^^
5 '5 bOcuJS oovd t^^ ood c^tjh' xniri
H«S vm ® J -i^ iTJ0<S 0O0O !fi^ t^C£)
6 g
^ I s
to
Sis o
o o o' 3* S~
^ C C SS C C
^.Q iôo
«oo ^.Q iôo
s,Q ^c^)
^ Q^ ^.Q
<c^
| S^ !$ £^ | i2S IS
9OC5 rt^ 00
O> <£> © CO
O4 ^ C) ~*
o<S rt^ t^ ©
00 orj ^
? ^ |
5 tOOO'ÔOOOOOVO
cmo csjoi; k. 9^.9C><«^00.00.00.
^ s
*^* t/5 s«^ 00 <-^ "- ^ 00 00 00^ 00^ 00^ 00^
^ T ^ S
T oo^ ooo ^
i^
3 i^ta
w >r
a 5^
5 x
x
~ o »n oo ^ ^ >* So ^pfi" S
3 rrt -jQ £ c« ^ rrt rc« cs c«
i>- oo oqo
a^ ^ri oo *n
■I I
£r
■si -
Text Unit
Overall, we would expect the majority of students' comments to center on

local concerns, which would be consistent with research suggesting that only
highly skilled writers can move comfortably between global, intermediate,
and local concerns (e.g., Flower & Hayes, 1981). However, we would anticipate
more attention to global and intermediate levels in response to the analytic
than to the summary writing prompts, as students work on integrating their
theses and supporting points, which would require a focus on large units
of text. In summary writing, on the other hand, we would expect more
attention to local matters, as students develop individual points in chronolog-
ical order. In addition, we would expect higher ability student writers to
attend more to global and intermediate concerns than average student writers,
who might be less able to consider aspects of the writing task that go beyond
the immediate point being discussed (Bereiter, 1980), and less likely to be
guided by a strong, overarching plan. Results of the text unit analysis are
summarized in Table 2.
Overall, we see that the vast majority of comments center, as anticipated,
on local issues, reflecting a concern with individual sentences and words. Far
fewer focus on intermediate matters, such as the development of paragraphs,
and just a fraction center on global issues about the overall message. However,
these patterns vary markedly across task and ability levels. There was a
nearly significant multivariate effect for ability (^[3,14] = 3.02, p < .065).
Univariate analyses show that this difference centered mainly around con-
trasting patterns of attention to global issues (F[l,16] = 5.82, p < .028). High
ability students focused somewhat more on global issues than did average
students in both summary and analysis. In addition, there was a significant
multivariate effect for randomized block (F[9,83] = 2.22, p < .028), with
students in one of the blocks attending more to global and intermediate
concerns, and less to local matters, than students in other blocks.
There were also significant differences in text unit in analysis and summary
CF[3,12] = 4.85, p < .020). Results were as expected, with students focusing
more on local concerns in summary (F[l,14] = 13.88, p < .002), and in
analysis more on intermediate levels (F[l,14] = 10.10, p < .007) and global
levels (F[l,14] = 9.56, p < .008). These results strongly suggest that in
analysis students pay more attention to the overall framework and message
of the text than in summary. This finding may be due to the requirement in
analytic writing that different parts of text, such as thesis and supporting
evidence, should be closely connected, and that evidence supporting a
generalization must be consistent with that generalization; in order to achieve
this, these connections must be kept closely in mind. The following excerpts
from the analytic and summary protocols of Isaac, an average student writer,
reflect these patterns of attention to text units. The first comes from his
Table 2
Text Unit
Mean Percent of Communication Units
(n) Local Intermediate Global

Analysis
High M (10) 83.4 11.5 5.1
Ability SD 8.0 6.3 2.5
Average M (10) 88.7 7.5 3.8

Ability SD 10.0 7.2 3.4
Total M (20) 86.1 9.5 4.4

Analysis SD 9.2 6.9 3.0
Summary
High M (10) 90.1 6.2 3.7
Average M (10) 93.0 5.5 1.4

Total M (20) 91.6 5.8 2.6

Summary SD 5.5 4.2 2.2
Total M (40) 88.8 7.7 3.5

SD 8.0 5.9 2.8
Multivariate Ef
Effect df F P
Task 3,12 4.85 .020
Ability 3,14 3.02 .065
Sex 3,14 0.91
Passage 3,12 1.47
Block 9,83 2.22 .028
Task by Ability 3,12 1.37
Task by Sex 3,12 0.31
Passage by Ability 3,12 0.19
Passage by Sex 3,12 1.46
analysis of "Questions of Loyalty," the second fr

Great Depression."
Isaac's Analysis
Communication Units Text Unit
Intermediate
Okay, I have it, the first paragraph, down.
It just sums up what I'm going Intermediate
to write about.
And I have to go into differentIntermediate
ideas.
Intermediate
I should look over the essay, to see what stuff to
include.
I sort of wrote a vague beginning. Intermediate
Isaac's Summary
Communication Units Text Units
I'm just gonna go in the order of the essay. Intermediate
Just summarizing each separate passage. Intermediate
Trying to think what else other than stocks went up. Local
Guess I'll say money. Local
I'm just gonna support the sentence. Local
Just crossing out something I repeated early in the Local

sentence.
Though both excerpts reflect attention to intermediate levels of text, such

attention is more sustained in the analytic example, where Isaac seems more
concerned with the overall shape and plan of his essay. In the summary, he
appears more caught up in smaller scale details about which he is writing,
with less of a sense of the larger patterns he is using to organize his text.
Focus
We would assume that students' comments overall would focus mainly on

issues of product. However, as research suggests that more difficult writing
tasks require more attention to the writing process (Langer, 1986; Matsuhashi,
1981), we would expect more stress on process in analysis. Moreover, we
would expect higher ability student writers to attend more to process than
average student writers, particularly in analytic writing. Table 3 lists the
mean percent of communication units focusing on process.
As anticipated, only 13.2 percent of communication units focused on
process, which is consistent with earlier findings (Langer, 1986). In addition,
strong ability differences were found. Higher ability writers attended to
process almost twice as much as average writers (F[ 1,16] = 7.49, p < .015).
Table 3
Focus on Process
(n) Mean Percent of Communication Units
Analysis
High M (10) 20.0
Ability SD 6.9
Average M (10) 10.6

Ability SD 10.6
Total M (20) 15.3

Analysis SD 9.8
Summary
High M (10) 14.0
Ability SD 6.4
Average M (10) 8.1

Ability SD 7.7
Total M (20) 11.0

Summary SD 7.5
Total M (40) 13.2

SD 8.9
Multivariate Ef
Effect df F P
Task 1,14 14.62 .002
Ability 1,16 7.49 .015
Sex 1,16 1.31
Passage 1,14 1.46
Block 3,36 0.96
Passage by Ability 1,14 0.89
Passage by Sex 1,14 0.08
Univariate analyses also revealed a significant difference in focu

analysis and summary (F[l,14] = 7.02, p < .009), supporting the co
that analytic writing required students to attend more to their own th
than did summary. The following protocol examples from Kenda
ability student writer, illustrate these patterns. The first is from
middle of his analysis of "Questions of Loyalty," the second from
point in his summary of "The Great Depression."
Kendall's Analysis
Communication Unit Focus
Trying to get back to my thesis. Process

Things learned from events? Product
Trying to look over everything to see if I can say Proce
anything about it.
I'm stuck. Process
Wanna say this was bad and shouldn't be done. Product

But I don't have any supporting evidence. Product
Kendall's Summary
Communication Unit Focus
Guess I'll use the automobile example. Product

An example of this would be ... Product
I'm gonna reread the paragraph to get the facts Process
straight.
Okay, it says the automobiles were in high demand Product
before the depression.
Then it says but the demand declined. Product
Then they had too many, so they had overproduction. Product
In the first example, Kendall focuses on process in half the communication

units, as he attempts to move from the particular events discussed in t
reading to an overarching thesis statement. In the second excerpt, only o
of the six units focuses on process, and it concerns the more straightforward
matter of "getting the facts straight." In summary writing, he is able to spen
the bulk of his time focusing on content, as he already appears to have
structure, a chronological one, in which to slot his information. But in
analysis, he must construct the overall framework of thesis and supporti
detail in which to fit his points, and so devotes more attention to thinki
through strategies for setting up that framework.
Essay Analyses
Level of Abstractness
Coding of level of abstractness reflects the position each essay occupies on

an abstractive scale ranging from strictly chronological presentation to
interpretation of content. We would expect the analytic essays to fall into the
top two categories (focused and unfocused interpretation), while the summary
essays would be placed in the lower two categories (foregrounded/back-
grounded and generalized narrative).
Table 4 reveals a significant difference in level of analysis between essa

in response to the analytic and summary prompts Ot2 [1] = 20.91, p < .00
All summary essays were coded as one of the lower two categories, indicat
mainly chronological discussion. However, only 15 of the 20 analytic essa
were identified as moving away from narrative to a more interpretive stance
Thus, a quarter of the analytic essays were coded as narrative. These we
all cases in which students misinterpreted or ignored the analytic writ
prompt, responding to it with a summary of the reading passage rather t
an interpretation of it. Those who did were average student writers; th
higher group all produced analytic essays when called upon to do so. Th
several of the average group wrote summaries instead of analyses is consisten
with findings from Durst (1984) and from Applebee, Durst, and New
(1984). They found that less proficient writers, when called upon to analy
Table 4
Level of Abstractness in Student Essays
Number of Essays
Summary Analysis Total
Generalized 9 4 13
Narrative
Foregrounded/
Backgrounded 11 1 12
Narrative
Unfocused 0 8 8
Interpretation
Focused 0 7 7
Interpretation
Total 20 20 40
Effect df Chi-square* P
Task 1 20.91 .001
Ability 1 1.71
Sex 1 0.00
Passage 1 0.00
Block 1 0.32
♦Because of empty and near empty cells, sig

categories into two, one consisting of the t
interpretive categories.
often fell back on summary writing, primarily

strategies were less well developed than those for s
Looking at students who did produce analyses,
in the type of analysis employed, with as many st
as writing focused interpretations. Focused differe
the former contained an overarching generalizatio
discussed in the reading and supported with ex
offered a thesis but little support, shifting instea
the reading or to a series of generalizations, never di
body. The following excerpts from the essays of
contrast. The first is from the beginning of Roy's
"The Great Depression"; the second from Tyne's
of "Questions of Loyalty."
The Government did not Regulate the Stock Market

Before 1932 the economic policy of the US was laisse
which meant the government would leave business alo
money as they could. The event that changed the g
towards business was the stock market crash of 1929.
Had the government advised the people better as to
and had it not left business so free to do as they wan
have been avoided. For instance, the government cou
consequences of an exaggerated growth, and that th
lead to a downfall of the prices. One important cau
overproduction. This was because there was an exc
goods. So the prices fell, the profits decreased, un
Overproduction and people selling what they owne
been avoided. For instance, if the government had sa
only be bought for their full price, people that didn
would have abstained from buying.
Roy's essay clearly puts forward an overall thesis,

out himself, thinking through and forming o
discussed in the reading. He goes on to support his
from the reading. We see a shifting back and for
and supporting detail, as Roy places an interpret
events laid out, but not analyzed or opined about
has read. In contrast, Tyne's approach is quite differe
The main political lesson to be learned from the eve

passage "Questions of Loyalty" is that most politica
communist enemies.
Some examples of how political parties don't trust community enemies
are the committees that they set up. For example, the CIA (Central
Intelligence Agency). This committee was formed to gather information
about foreign threats to the U.S. Another committee that was formed
was called the HUAC (House Committee on UnAmerican Activities).
This committee was set up to investigate activities by the Nazis, Fascists,
and Communists. Another example of how political parties don't trust
the communist enemy is the Alger Hiss trial.
Leaving aside the comparative depth in which the two students explore th
topics and the level of detail they use to support their respective theses,
see that, in the second example, Tyne provides more of a summary of
certain aspect of the reading than an analysis of it. That is, she relates p
of the passage, about politicians' mistrust of communists, rather th
thinking through the details and extracting a critical lesson from them
Clearly then, the types of analysis characterizing students' analytic ess
varied considerably.
Hierarchical Organization of Content
Six types of organizing predicates were identified as comprising the top

levels of students' essays - sequence, evaluation, description, causal, exp
nation, and evidence. The higher level structures examined for this stu
reflect the superordinate content structures government the writing.
would predict differences between analytic and summary writing similar
those seen in Applebee, Durst, and Newell (1984), who found that analy
were typically organized at the top levels around thesis statements, wh
summaries were often structured globally as sequences of events. Table
contains results for the analysis of the highest level of the content hierarchy
for students' analytic and summary essays.
Table 5
Use of Top Level Structures
Number of Essays
Predicates Summary Analysis Total
Evaluation 0 14 14
Description 15 5 20
Sequence 5 16
Total 20 20 40
Effect df Chi-square* P
Task 1 18.57 .001
Ability 1 2.75
Sex 1 0.00
Passage 1 0.11
♦Because
Descrpit
predicat
As the table shows, the analytic and summary essay

in top-level organization (x2 [1] = 18.57, p < .00
primarily organized around evaluative thesis state
of view, while summaries mainly used a descriptio
the highest level, an introductory statement synthes
rather than a statement about a particular event.
organization are depicted in the opening rhetorical pr
essays. The first example is an evaluation predica
Seth's analysis of "Questions of Loyalty." The sec
the opening of his summary of "The Great Depres
Seth's Top-Level Evaluation Predicate: Analys
A political lesson that can be learned from the passa
can become so caught up in a fear of foreign influenc
how it is hurting its people.
Seth's Top-Level Description Predicate: Summ
The passage "The Great Depression' describes the
of the 20's and how they led to the economic depres
These examples differ in that the first is a statem

framework for the supporting evidence which fo
more a highly distilled description of the events
setting the stage for the detailed passage summary in
In addition to these global differences, the essays
in terms of second-level structures. These sec
represent, in a thesis/support essay, the main poi
as layed out in the opening paragraph. Or, in a summ
the main events discussed, mentioned at the outset of
in the body. Table 6 summarizes the results of multiv
explanation, causal, and description predicates
empty cells, evaluation and evidence were not in
analyses. Instead, these variables were tested by ch
As in the analysis of top-level structure, we see
between students' essays in response to analyti
(^[4,11] = 3.44, p < .047). Somewhat surprising
writing the most common means to elaborate on
sequence statements relating events. This finding s
a considerable amount of narrative relating of events
The next most common means was the use of evalu
ing and elaborating upon the opening generalizat
Students used such evaluative predicates significan
than in summary writing (x2 [1] = 13.30, p <
statements of evidence supporting their thesis in ana
(X2 [1] = 3.66, p < .05). Sequence was the prim
Table 6
Predicates in Second Level of Content Hiearachy
Number of Predicates
Analysis Summary All

(n = 20) (n = 20) (N = 40)
Sequence M 2.05 4.75 3.40

SD 3.27 5.78 4.83
Explanation M 0.20 0.50 0.35

SD 0.41 0.94 0.73
Causal M 0.15 0.15 0.15

SD 0.37 0.49 0.43
Description M 0.30 0.50 0.40

SD 0.57 0.61 0.59
Evaluation M 0.95 0.05 0.50

SD 0.89 0.22 0.78
Evidence M 0.25 0.00 0.12

SD 0.44 0.00 0.33
Multivariate Effects* df F P
Task 4,11 3.44 .047

Ability 4,13 1.00
Sex 4,13 0.77
Passage 4,11 3.33 .051
Block 12,88 1.04
Passage by Ability 4,1 1 0.70
Passage by Sex
•Evaluation
summary
writing
summar
accompa
content
"Question
Deparess
occupy in
Don's Analysis: Top Two Levels of Hierarchy

The main lesson to be learned from the reading is h
accusations (false sometimes). [1] Also, that when a fear
publicized enough, people will believe it and sometime
This lesson is proven in the reading by showing how,
War with the USSR, the people dreaded communist pol
ment. [3] There were many investigations into governm
many accusations of people being spies. [4]
Don's Summary: Top Two Levels of Hierarchy
The Great Depression was a period in American hist
1920's where the economy of the U.S. dropped severe
Depression was discussed in the reading as being c
different problems. [2]
The Depression began because of an incredible rise i
stocks and money. [3] This was sure to be followed by
couldn't improve much more. [4] The crash that follo
selling of stocks at a very low rate [5].
In Figure 1, we see that in Don's analysis he first s

then elaborates upon it with another, related general
evidence supporting his thesis, which he elaborates u
Figure 1. Examples of content organization for top two levels of

essay
Cognitive and Linguistic Demands of Analytic Writing 37 1
of events from the reading. The pattern exhibited in Don's summary essay
is quite different. Here he begins with a description of time period, followed
by a description of the causes of the Depression, as discussed in the reading.
The next three statements, though chronological in nature, are coded as
part of an explanation [collection], since their primary purpose seems to be
not simply to relate events, but to discuss the causes of particular events.
In addition to the strong task differences, there was also an unexpected
significant difference for reading passage (F[4,ll] = 3.33, p < .05), due
primarily to students' greater use of explanation predicates when writing
about the passage "The Great Depression," as we in fact see in the excerpts
from Don's essays. Univariate analysis reveals that this was the only passage
difference to achieve significance (F[l,14] = 11.21, p < .005). This finding
can perhaps best be explained by examining the passages themselves. The
Depression passage largely concerned the causes of the Great Depression,
with a major section of the reading devoted to discussing its causes. The
passage "Questions of Loyalty," on the other hand, focuses more on the
events surrounding Joseph McCarthy's rise to power, rather than on a detailed
explanation of the causes of his rise. This emphasis on causes is reflected in
Don's essay on the Depression passage. Hence, the evidence suggests that,
whether analyzing or summarizing, students were often strongly influenced
in the points they made by the passages which they were writing about.
Cohesive Conjunctions
As analytic writing requires a focus on cause and effect relations and on

similarities and differences between disparate ideas and events, causal and
adversative conjunctions could be expected to occur more often in students'
analytic than summary essays. Conversely, temporal and additive conjunctions
indicate a less interpretive stance, reflecting a less interrelated discussion of
ideas and events instead of an examination of the relations, both causal and
contrastive, between pieces of subject matter. Hence, temporal and additive
ties should occur more frequently in summary writing.
Mean frequencies of the use of cohesive devices per 100 words are
displayed in Table 7, with results of multivariate tests of significance. As the
table shows, differences between the cohesive devices students employed in
analytic and summary writing were not statistically significant. Contrary to
expectations, students used essentially the same types of cohesives across
writing tasks. There was, however, a significant multivariate effect for reading
passage (^[4,11] = 3.3, p < .05). This effect centered around students' use
of causal conjunctions, the only category to show significance on the univariate
analysis of variance (F[l,14] = 15.62,/? < .001). Essays on the reading passage
"The Great Depression" used considerably more causals than essays on the
passage "Questions of Loyalty." This finding dovetails with results of the
analysis of the hierarchical organization of content. Again we see that
Table 7
Cohesive Conjunctions Per 100 Words by Task
Number of Predicates
Analytic Summary All

(n = 20) (n = 20) (N = 40)
Additive M 0.82 0.73 0.77

SD 0.60 0.54 0.57
Temporal M 1.09 0.95 1.02

SD 0.67 0.56 0.61
Causal M 1.27 1.20 1.23

SD1.14 0.70 0.93
Adversative M 0.78 0.70 0.74

SD 0.68 0.52 0.60
Multivariate Effects df F P
Task 4,11 0.27
Ability 4,13 1.56
Sex 4,13 1.91
Passage 4,11 3.30 .05
Block 12,88 0.71
Task by ability 4,11 1.91
Task by sex 4,11 0.58
Passage by ability 4, 11 0.86
Passage by sex 4,11 1.12
students focused more on causality i

than about "Questions of Loyalty." A
paid to cause and effect relations in
not at all surprising. These results fo
suggest that in both analytic and
language similar to that of the passa
Discussion
This study began with a question: What are the particular demand
analytic writing? More specifically, what composing processes do stud
employ in analytic writing, and how can their written products be character
ized? To investigate these issues, the study contrasted students' respons
prompts asking for analytic and summary essays. We have seen that ana
clearly invoked a different set of writing behaviors than chronolo
summary. In constructing and defending their own interpretations of

readings, students formed and supported generalizations, made inference
devised plans, asked complex questions and attempted to answer them,
spent considerable time assessing the quality and appropriateness of th
ideas and language. Students' analytic writing was also characterized by
focus on the composing process itself, as they consciously worked o
strategies to navigate through the writing episode, and by a concern w
large units of text, reflecting attention to the overall consistency of th
essays. These findings indicate that analytic writing encourages the kinds
critical thinking that educators such as Dewey (1938), Bruner (1973), an
Barnes (1977) view as crucial for schooling, and that it promotes the use
metacognitive, self-regulatory behaviors, which Brown (1978) characteri
as important problem-solving strategies.
Conversely, when summarizing, students rarely moved beyond an inter
in retrieving and relating content direct from the reading; they appea
satisfied with a more superficial grasp of the material, and less monitor
of their writing processes. Overall, their summary writing processes reflecte
a narrower focus on individual bits of information, and less concern w
how these pieces related to one another, or to the text as a whole.
Differences in the analytic and summary protocols are clear, but wh
students' written products are concerned, the study's results are m
ambiguous. As we have seen, most of the students approached analytic
summary writing differently, using more critical and abstract thought
analysis. However, except for students' use of argumentative thesis statement
in analytic writing, the analytic and summary essays show surprisingly l
difference. Analysis of hierarchical organization of content (particularly
second level) and of cohesive conjunctions suggests that students relied fa
heavily on narrative in both forms of writing. Yet earlier work (Appleb
Durst, & Newell, 1984; Durst, 1984) indicates that more mature anal
writing does move away from narrative frames, emphasizing argument
more limited discussion of events to support particular points.
This finding suggests a paradox- that students' analytic thinking did n
always translate into analytic writing, that connections students were makin
in their minds, as between thesis and supporting details, were often n
explicitly stated in their essays. Frequently, narrative took on a life of its ow
as students seemed to shift unconsciously at times into a chronological m
It appears that, to cope with the difficult analytic format, many studen
relied on their more highly developed narrative skills, embedding larg
chunks of chronology within the analytic framework, without directly linki
these sections with their theses. Some even eschewed the analytic form
altogether, writing narrative summaries instead, which is perhaps
strongest indication we have of the difficulty of analytic writing.
This paradox, that students' analytic thinking often seemed to resul
un-analytic writing, may be due in part to the nature of the analytic thinkin
students employed. Analytic writing requires not ju

thesis/support essay structure, but an awareness
argument and an understanding of the issues sur
matter. To analyze a text one must place it in a broad
a frame of reference or stance outside the text. As P
skilled analytic thinker is able to say "From the perspect
is effective, but from the standpoint of y it is not." An
require the writer to understand and manipulate thes
to have adopted what Perry calls a relativistic point o
writer of analysis thus "plays" with these multiple
against the other, examining their strengths and we
as we have seen, students did analyze, their actual a
cases somewhat superficial. This is perhaps not so
difficulty of the analytic writing task, the demands o
the constraints of writing an essay in less than a class
Along the same lines, it could be that the paucity of
we saw in summary writing is due in part to the nat
students were given in this study, which was to sum
students had instead been asked to summarize an arg
key points and supporting details they may have
examine the passage critically. Similarly, if for the analy
been asked to examine an argument instead of a nar
strategies might have been different than those evid
protocols. Thus, a future study might build in such a
gauge the extent to which the kind of intellectual a
interaction between the material being written abou
the assigned writing task.
But the present study's findings, when viewed in t
research on school writing, reflect another, even mor
On the one hand, we have seen that when students ar
they may not be writing very analytically; their texts m
critical reasoning they have engaged in. On the o
secondary school writing (Applebee, 1981, 1984) sugg
when students are asked to write analytic pieces, th
directly from lectures or readings. That is, student
summaries of somebody else's analyses. Thus, when
be writing analytically in school, they may not be think
they may be restating content without themselves critic
would account for findings such as those of the Nat
Educational Progress (1981) that American high
"genuinely puzzled" (p. 2) when asked to give evid
judgments about reading passages, and are largely unab
It may well be that they are not getting the opportuniti
their own interpretations of subject matter if they
well. If, as educators, we truly wish to foster in students the use of higher-
level thinking processes, then we need to encourage writing tasks in which
students do their own analyzing, rather than finding a ready-made interpre-
tation to summarize. We must not undermine the power of writing to act as
a heuristic - a tool for critical thinking.
References
Applebee, A. N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school. Research Monograph No. 21

Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Applebee, A. N. (1984). Contexts for learning to write. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Applebee, A. N., Durst, R., & Newell, G. (1984). The demands of school writing. In
A. N. Applebee, Contexts for learning to unite (pp. 55-78). Norwood, NT: Ablex.
Barnes, D. (1977). From communication to curriculum. New York: Penguin Books.
Beach, R. (1985). The use of rhetorical strategies in narrative and expository modes
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.
Bridwell, L. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students' transactional writing
Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 197-222.
Britton, J., Burgess, T, Martin, N., McCleod, A., 8c Rosen, H. (1975). The development
of writing abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of
metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Vol. 1 (pp
77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bruner, J. (1973). The relevance of education (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Durst, R. (1984). The development of analytic writing. In A. N. Applebee, Contexts
for learning; to write (pp. 79-102). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Durst, R. (1985). Cognitive and linguistic dimensions of secondary students' analyti
writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. (University Micro-
films, No. 86-02,47)
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Research Monograph No. 13
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Faigley, L., 8c Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communi-
cation, 32, 400-414.
Flower, L., 8c Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans an
juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in
writing (pp. 31-50). Norwood, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flower, L., and Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. ColUge
Composition and Composition, 32, 365-387.
Flower, L., 8c Hayes, J. (1984). Images, plans, and prose: The representation o
meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1, 120-160.
Fry, E. B. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513-516
575-578.
Fulwiler, T, 8c Young, A. (1982). Language connections: Writing and reading across the
curriculum. Urbana, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English.
Graves, D. (1973). Children's writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stat
University of New York at Buffalo. (University Microfilms No. 74-83,75)
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman Grou
Ltd.
Hidi, S., & Hilyard, A. (1983). The comparison of oral

productions in two types. Discourse Processes, 6, 91-105.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at thr
Monograph No. 3. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teache
Langer, J. L. (1986). Children reading and writing: Structures
NJ: Ablex.
Martin, N. (1984). Writing across the curriculum pamphlets. Montclair, NJ: Boynton
Cook.
Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse
production. Research in the Teaching; of English, 15, 113-134.
Meyer, B. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. New York: Elsevier.
Meyer, B. (1981). Prose analysis: Procedures, purposes, and problems. Department
of Educational Psychology, College of Education, Arizona State University.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1981). Reading, writing, and thinking.
Denver: Educational Commission of the States.
Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the
Teaching of English, 13, 317-336.
Perry, W. G. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Pianko, S. (1979). A description of the composing processes of college freshman
writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 5-22.
Prater, D., & Padia, W. (1983). Effects of mode of discourse on writing performance
in grades four and six. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 127-134.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult
writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-387.
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in research design. New York: McGraw Hill.

National Council of Teachers of English Research in The Teaching of English

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Council of Teachers of English Research in The Teaching of English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cognitive and Linguistic Demands of Analytic Writing

Author(s): Russel K. Durst

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

Abstract. To investigate the thinking processes students employ and the

In secondary school and beyond, a considerable portion of students' writing

Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 1987

ongoing experience while the upper end includes a

The Reading Passages

The Writing Tasks

Prompts were designed to reflect two categories o

For the passage on the McCarthy era, the analytic

In your own words, summarize the events discusse

Prompts were examined by a knowledgeable colleague, then pilot tested

Analysis of Think- Aloud Protocols

in analytic and summary writing. Several of Langer's sub-categories which

Cognitive Operations. The thinking strategies students employed while writing.

1 . Lower Level Questioning. Uncertainties the writer expresses concerning

"Hoover tried helping business." "In 1954, the full senate vo

7. Evaluating. Judging the appropriateness of the

1 . Global. Attention is directed toward the overall structure or message of

1. Process. The writer focuses on strategies that could be or have been

Level of Abstractness. This procedure involved holistic coding of each essay fo

1 . Generalized Summary. Chronologically-ordered rendering of events dis-

2. Foregrounded! Backgrounded Summary. A chronological summary which

1 . Evaluation. An opinion or commentary statement.

The Meyer system distinguishes between top level, superordinate predicates,

which elaborate on previous points. Thus, Explan

The counterbalanced sub-sample of 12 essays was

was counterbalanced to avoid confounding passage, task, and sequen

Multivariate analysis of variance procedures were used to test hypotheses for

Results and Discussion

Forty protocols containing 5723 communication units were analyzed. Ana

Communication Units Operations

I'm checking over my paragraphs to make sure I put Evaluation

People lost tremendous amounts of money. Restatement

The banking system failed, causing even more peopleRestatement

Communication Units Operation

God, the writing's terrible. Evaluation

Uh, McCarthyism developed . . . Restatement

What was his first name? Lower Level

As these examples suggest, Marianna engages in richer and more

*I3 ^^ ^^ ^^ ^.^ °9"^

H«S vm ® J -i^ iTJ0<S 0O0O !fi^ t^C£)

Overall, we would expect the majority of students' comments to center on

Mean Percent of Communication Units

(n) Local Intermediate Global

Average M (10) 88.7 7.5 3.8

Total M (20) 86.1 9.5 4.4

Average M (10) 93.0 5.5 1.4

Total M (20) 91.6 5.8 2.6

Total M (40) 88.8 7.7 3.5

analysis of "Questions of Loyalty," the second fr

I sort of wrote a vague beginning. Intermediate

I'm just gonna go in the order of the essay. Intermediate

Just summarizing each separate passage. Intermediate

I'm just gonna support the sentence. Local

Just crossing out something I repeated early in the Local

Though both excerpts reflect attention to intermediate levels of text, such

We would assume that students' comments overall would focus mainly on

(n) Mean Percent of Communication Units

Average M (10) 10.6

Total M (20) 15.3

Average M (10) 8.1