Supporting Experts’ Written Knowledge Communication Through Reflective Prompts on the Use of Specialist Concepts
Abstract
Communicating expert knowledge to a lay addressee in writing is a demanding task that requires a great deal of mental effort. This article reports on a study in which experts were prompted to reflect either on a text they had produced (content focus condition) or on its comprehensibility to a layperson (recipient focus condition). A software tool highlighted the specialist terms or concepts used by the expert writers and guided the reflection process. Subsequent to this reflection phase, writers had the opportunity to revise their texts. Experts in the recipient focus condition significantly expanded their texts and made more meaningful revisions. For example, they were more likely than experts in the content focus condition to explain central concepts in their revision. Results are discussed from the perspective of writing theories and in terms of their practical implications for written knowledge communication.
References
(2001). Studies in writing: Vol.9. Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
(1999). Lehrbuch der molekularen Zellbiologie [
Essential cell biology: An introduction to the molecular biology of the cell ]. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.(2000). Metacognitive regulation of writing in the classroom. In , Studies in writing: Vol.6. Metalinguistic activity in learning to write (pp. 145–167). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
(2004). Integrated writing instruction and the development or revision skills. In , Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (Vol. 13, pp. 139–156). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
(1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2004). Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
(1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 103–123.
(2002). Rezipientenorientierung in der netzgestützten, schriftlichen Kommunikation zwischen Experten und Laien [
Recipient orientation in web-based, written communication between experts and laypersons ]. Unpublished DFG grant application, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.(2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated expert-layperson communication: An overview and insights into the field of medical advice. In , Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication – and how they may be overcome (pp. 89–119). New York: Springer.
(2005). How to refer to “diabetes”? Language in online health advice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 569–586.
(1996). Using language. Cambridge, IL: Cambridge University Press.
(1991). Grounding in communication. In , Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington: APA Books.
(1984). Measuring the effects of revisions on text structure. In , New directions in composition research (pp. 99–108). New York: Guilford.
(2006). Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives. In , The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 41–68). Cambridge, NJ: Cambridge University Press.
(1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481–506.
(1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41, 19–37.
(2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2, 52.
(2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In , Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford.
(2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
(1994). Text revision: Detection and correction of errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 65–78.
(1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In , Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In , Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Vol.2: Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 176–240). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(2004). Audience perspective in young writers’ composing and revising. In , Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 87–102). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
(
in press ). Lexical entrainment in written discourse – Is Experts’ word use adapted to the addressee? Discourse Processes.(2007). Choice of words in doctor-patient communication: An analysis of health-related Internet sites. Health Communication, 21, 289–297.
(2007). Explaining with nonshared illustrations: How they constrain explanations. Learning and Instruction, 17, 204–218.
(2005). Detecting and processing inconsistencies in narrative comprehension. In , Progress in experimental psychology research (pp. 67–90). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
(1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
(2006). Professional writing expertise. In , The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 389–402). New York: Cambridge University Press.
(1998). The egocentric bias of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 46–50.
(2000). Medical communication: Do our patients understand? American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18, 764–766.
(2006). Analysing online revision. In , Computer keystroke logging: Methods and applications (Vol. 18, pp. 157–188). Oxford: Elsevier.
(2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In , Handbook of writing research (pp. 248–274). New York: Guilford.
(2005). Concepts and categories: Memory, meaning and metaphysics. In , The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 37–72). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(1996). Facilitating college writers’ revisions within a generative-evaluative computerized prompting framework. Computers and Composition, 13, 93–108.
(2005). Psychology and the teaching of writing in 8000 and some words. Pedagogy: Learning for Teaching, BJEP Monograph Series II, 3, 127–153.
(1988). The effects of audience awareness on drafting and revising. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 75–88.
(2004). Metacognitive regulations, peer interactions and revision of narratives by sixth-graders. In , Studies in writing: Vol.14. Effective teaching and learning writing: Current trends in research (pp. 77–89). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
(2006). Effects of audience awareness on procedural text writing. Psychological Reports, 99, 51–73.
(1992). Teaching writers to anticipate readers’ needs. Written Communication, 9, 179–208.
(1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
(1992). Expertise and the organization of knowledge: Unexpected differences among genetic counselors, faculty, and students on problem categorization tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 179–206.
(1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378–388.
(1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1992). Improving written communication through minimal feedback. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 1–22.
(1993). Improving written communication through perspective-taking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 311–334.
(2003). Revision of form and meaning in learning to write comprehensible text. In , Studies in writing: Vol.13. Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
(2005). How to make good texts for learning: Reviewing text revision research. In , Focus on educational psychology (pp. 277–306). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
(1991). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 54–66.
(1996). Better revision in eight minutes? Prompting first-year college writers to revise globally. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 682–688.
