Performance Operating Units and Meaning. Many investigations of writing pedagogy and students’ writing performance have focused on gaining a better understanding of language production, commonly based on handbook dicta relate to sentence-level concerns. The easy availability of computers in the 1980s offered a new way to examine student writing and sentence-level concerns by studying “performance units” characterized by various writing behaviors, such as starting, stopping, substitutions, deletions, and revision. Given that revision is central to effective writing, computer analyses allowed researchers to investigate not only the frequency and types of student revisions but also the duration of their performance units. Various studies, however, have reported that the insights drawn from performance units research has not resulted in either better pedagogy or better student writing. Drawing on sociolinguist theory as well as Fusion Theory, this paper examines the value of performance units in writing pedagogy from a linguistic perspective that emphasizes the interactional and transactional nature of writing.
| Published in | Science Journal of Education (Volume 12, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.sjedu.20241202.12 |
| Page(s) | 25-31 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Fusion Theory, Intention, Intentionality, Interaction, Language Acquisition, Meaning, Performance Units, Pragmatics, Transaction
| [1] | Christenson, F. (1967). Notes toward a new rhetoric: six essays for teachers. New York: Harper & Row. |
| [2] | Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. National Council of Teachers of English. |
| [3] | Hunt, K. (1970). Syntactic Maturity in Schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 35, No., pp. iii-iv+1-67. |
| [4] | United States Census Bureau. (1999). Statistical abstract of the United States: 20th Century Statistics. Retrieved on10/20/2023 from https//www.cesju.gov/prod/99pubs.sec31.pdf |
| [5] | Williams, J. (1993). Rule-governed approaches to language and composition. Written Communication, 10, 543-568. |
| [6] | Williams, J. (2014). Assessing the Effect of WAC/WID Composition on Content-Area Course Grades. Conference Proceedings on Writing Research. University of Amsterdam & Utrect University. |
| [7] | Williams, J. (2019). The Decline in Educational Standards: From a Public Good to a Quasi-monopoly. Lanham, MD.: Roman & Littlefield. |
| [8] | Williams, J. (2023). Language Acquisition and Academic Writing. New York: Routledge. |
| [9] | Pew Research Center (2016). American’s Shrinking Middle Class: A Close Look at Changes Within Metropolitan Areas. Retrieved on 10/22/23 from http://pewsocialtrends.org/2016.05.11.america-shrinking-middle=class-a-close-look-at-chan-within-metropolitican-areas |
| [10] | Eagle, P. & Black, M. (2008). The effect of poverty on child development and educational outcomes. Retrieved on 10/16/23 from https://doe.org/101196/annal.1425.0231196/annals.1425.023 |
| [11] | Krashen, S. (2012). Academic Proficiency (Language Content) and the Role of Strategies. TESOL Journal 2.4: 381-393. |
| [12] | Loveless, T. (2021). Why Common Core Failed. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved on 10-21-2023 from www.brookings.edu/articles/why-common-core-failed/ |
| [13] | Hays, J. R. & Berninger, V. W. (2014). Cognitive Processes in Writing: A Framework. In B. Arfé, J. Dockrell, & V. Berninger (Eds.), Writing Development in Children with Hearing Loss, Dyslexia, or Oral Language Problems: Implications for Assessment and Instruction (pp. 3–15). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199827282.003.0001 |
| [14] | Quigley, A. Five Reasons Why Students Fail with Revision. Retrieved from Theconfidentteacher.com, 11/20/2021. |
| [15] | Paul, N. (2021). Here’s Why Students Don’t Revise What They Write—and Why They Should. Retrieved on 12/3/23 from https://theconversation.com/heres-why-students-dont-revise-what-they-write-and-why-they-should-157563 |
| [16] | Adams, A., Simmons, F., & Pawling, S. (2010). Undergraduate Students’ Ability to Revise Text Effectively: Relationships with Topic Knowledge and Working Memory. Journal of Research in Reading. Retrieved on 9/22/23 from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01432.x |
| [17] | Hayes J. R., Flower L., Schriver K. A., Stratman J., Carey L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In Rosenberg S. (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading writing and language processing (pp. 176-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [18] | Adams, A., Simmons, F., Willis, C., & Pawling, R. (2010). Undergraduate Students’ Ability to Revise Text Effectively: Relationships with Topic Knowledge and Working Memory. APA PsycNet. Retrieve on 11/30/2023 from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-02628-005 |
| [19] | MacArthur, C. (2007). Student Revision with Peer and Expert Reviewing. Learning and Instruction. Retrieved on 12/1/2023 from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006 |
| [20] | Williams, J. & Hattori, M. (2017). First-year Composition and Transfer: A Quantitative Study. Journal of Pedagogic Development, 7, 8-21. |
| [21] | Swann, W., & Buhrmester, M. Identity Fusion. Psycholocial Science, Vol. 24(1), 52-57. |
| [22] | Purzycki, B., & Lang, M. (2019). Identity Fusion, Outgroup Relations, and Sacrifice: A Cross-Cultural Test. Cognition, 186, 1-6. |
| [23] | Umejima, K., Ibaraki, T., Yamazaki, T. (2021). Paper notebooks vs. mobile devices: brain activation differences during memory retrieval. Frontiers in Behavior Neuroscience. Retrieved on 12/20/2022 from https:/doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.634158 |
| [24] | Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2017). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [25] | Ferreira, A. & Zappa-Hollman, S. (2019). Disciplinary Registers in a First-Year Program. Retrieved on 12/22/2022 from https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00007.fer |
| [26] | Arum, R. & Roksa, J. (2010). Academically Adrift. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [27] | Zahner, D. et al. (2022). The Collegiate Learning Assessment—Performance Based Assessment of Generic Skills: Does Higher Education Teach Student to Think Critically? Retrived on 12/28/2023 from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6c58ae81-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/6c58ae81-en |
| [28] | Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center. (2022). Learning Principles. Retrieved on 9/12/23 from https://www.cmu.edu/teaching. |
| [29] | 29] Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. |
| [30] | Berkely, G. (1734/1982). A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [31] | Scientific American (1884). What is sound? Vol. 50, No. 14. April 5. |
| [32] | Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [33] | De Boysson-Bardies, B. (2001). How Language Comes to Children. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. |
| [34] | Milton, J. (1644). Areopagitica. Retrieved 10/22/23 from https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/jebb-areopagitica-1644-jebb-ed |
| [35] | White, E. B. (1918). Elements of Style. Mineola, NY: Dover. |
| [36] | Williams, J., Huntley, D., & Banks, C. (1992). The Interdisciplinary Reader. New York Harper-Collins. |
| [37] | Tarski, A. (1956). Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
APA Style
Williams, J. D. (2024). Performance Operating Units and Meaning: Fusion Theory and Writing Pedagogy. Science Journal of Education, 12(2), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241202.12
ACS Style
Williams, J. D. Performance Operating Units and Meaning: Fusion Theory and Writing Pedagogy. Sci. J. Educ. 2024, 12(2), 25-31. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20241202.12
AMA Style
Williams JD. Performance Operating Units and Meaning: Fusion Theory and Writing Pedagogy. Sci J Educ. 2024;12(2):25-31. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20241202.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.sjedu.20241202.12,
author = {James Dale Williams},
title = {Performance Operating Units and Meaning: Fusion Theory and Writing Pedagogy},
journal = {Science Journal of Education},
volume = {12},
number = {2},
pages = {25-31},
doi = {10.11648/j.sjedu.20241202.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241202.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sjedu.20241202.12},
abstract = {Performance Operating Units and Meaning. Many investigations of writing pedagogy and students’ writing performance have focused on gaining a better understanding of language production, commonly based on handbook dicta relate to sentence-level concerns. The easy availability of computers in the 1980s offered a new way to examine student writing and sentence-level concerns by studying “performance units” characterized by various writing behaviors, such as starting, stopping, substitutions, deletions, and revision. Given that revision is central to effective writing, computer analyses allowed researchers to investigate not only the frequency and types of student revisions but also the duration of their performance units. Various studies, however, have reported that the insights drawn from performance units research has not resulted in either better pedagogy or better student writing. Drawing on sociolinguist theory as well as Fusion Theory, this paper examines the value of performance units in writing pedagogy from a linguistic perspective that emphasizes the interactional and transactional nature of writing.
},
year = {2024}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Performance Operating Units and Meaning: Fusion Theory and Writing Pedagogy AU - James Dale Williams Y1 - 2024/03/13 PY - 2024 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241202.12 DO - 10.11648/j.sjedu.20241202.12 T2 - Science Journal of Education JF - Science Journal of Education JO - Science Journal of Education SP - 25 EP - 31 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2329-0897 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241202.12 AB - Performance Operating Units and Meaning. Many investigations of writing pedagogy and students’ writing performance have focused on gaining a better understanding of language production, commonly based on handbook dicta relate to sentence-level concerns. The easy availability of computers in the 1980s offered a new way to examine student writing and sentence-level concerns by studying “performance units” characterized by various writing behaviors, such as starting, stopping, substitutions, deletions, and revision. Given that revision is central to effective writing, computer analyses allowed researchers to investigate not only the frequency and types of student revisions but also the duration of their performance units. Various studies, however, have reported that the insights drawn from performance units research has not resulted in either better pedagogy or better student writing. Drawing on sociolinguist theory as well as Fusion Theory, this paper examines the value of performance units in writing pedagogy from a linguistic perspective that emphasizes the interactional and transactional nature of writing. VL - 12 IS - 2 ER -
Soka University, University Writing Program, Aliso Viejo, California, United States of America
Information