Article

Le rôle de la mémoire de travail dans la production écrite de textes

Psychologie Française (Impact Factor: 0.3). 09/2005; 50(3):373-390. DOI: 10.1016/j.psfr.2005.05.002

ABSTRACT Integration of capacity (Just and Carpenter, 1992) and componentiel (Baddeley, 1986) conceptions of working memory in models of text composition (Hayes, 1996 ; Kellogg, 1996 ; McCutchen, 1996) has allowed studying several facets of the role of working memory in writing acquisition and in expert management of the writing processes. This article presents these two conceptions and examines their respective contribution in the field of writing research from two perspectives: The demands of the writing processes (in terms of processing and transient storage) and the influence of working memory capacity on the control of production. The conclusion underlines the importance of investigating the on-line management of text production, the role of the visuo-spatial sketchpad, and to link strategies for allocating the working memory resources with text quality.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
166 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This research emerges from the world-wide problematic concerning student’s failure. It particularly analyzes the meta-cognitive competences in the writing process of this population. Based on Flavell’s (1992) viewpoint about meta-cognition and the socio-cognitive approach of self-regulation, two variables were measured: meta-cognitive knowledge and self-regulation strategies. A qualitative study was conducted on a sample of 12 French students at first year university. This study uses a specific technique of interview known as "explicitation interview". The data analysis included the categorization, codification and quantification of the information obtained with the interviews. In conclusion, even though the students had metacognitive knowledge related to the written tasks, they did not show strategies that could help to go beyond the descriptive modality of written discourses by taking into account the readers’ expectations. Their writing processes focused on transcription of ideas with little control on the planning and revision phases.
    Avances en Psicologia Latinoamericana 12/2010; 28(2):265-277.
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to describe educationally relevant differences in literacy use among three subject-matter disciplines—history, chemistry, and mathematics. These analyses were drawn from an investigation of the teaching of disciplinary literacy in high schools. The purpose of the overall project was to improve the literacy-teaching preparation in a secondary preservice teacher education program, but this study sought to identify specific features of literacy and literacy use only in the three disciplines. It is the first expert-reader study to consider the reading of mathematicians and chemists (though other kinds of scientists have been studied in this way). To conduct this investigation, three teams were assembled, one for each discipline, including two disciplinary experts (historians, chemists, and mathematicians), two teacher educators who prepare high school teachers to teach those disciplines, and two high school teachers from each discipline. Using think-aloud protocols, transcripts from focus group discussions, a recursive process of member checking, and a cross-disciplinary consideration of reading approaches identified in each discipline, the study identified important differences in the reading behaviors of the six disciplinary experts. Although much of the work was based on think-aloud protocols and interviews with the disciplinary experts, the teachers and teacher educators participated with the disciplinary experts in focus-group discussions of the protocols, and their reactions and insights helped the disciplinary experts to articulate their approaches and to determine implications of the reading behaviors that were observed. Differences were evident in sourcing, contextualization, corroboration, close reading and rereading, critical response to text, and use of text structure or arrangement and graphics.
    Journal of Literacy Research 12/2011; 43(4):393-429. · 0.71 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
135 Downloads
Available from
May 30, 2014