Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Written Communication
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SMAGORINSKY, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

An Apology for Structured Composition Instruction

PETER SMAGORINSKY

University of Chicago

Many researchers in composition instruction assume that free and journal writing exclusively and necessarily produce "meaningful" writing. This is not substantiated in their limited case study research, or in the research of anyone else. We need to establish a precise definition of "meaningful" writing, determine its place in the curriculum, and determine better means of designing instruction that produces writing that is both meaningful and of high quality. The meta-analysis of Hillocks (1984) indicates that structured composition assignments produce better writing than nondirectional writing experiences. This article explores the reasons for this, and establishes hypotheses based on these reasons for developing a theory of composition instruction. The hypotheses support a need for structured instruction, rather than student-generated direction.

Written Communication, Vol. 3, No. 1, 105-121 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/0741088386003001008
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Written CommunicationHome page
P. Saunders and C. T. Scialfa
The Effects of Pre-exam Instruction on Students' Performance on an Effective Writing Exam
Written Communication, April 1, 2003; 20(2): 195 - 212.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Written CommunicationHome page
P. SMAGORINSKY and J. COPPOCK
Cultural Tools and the Classroom Context: An Exploration of an Artistic Response to Literature
Written Communication, July 1, 1994; 11(3): 283 - 310.
[Abstract]

Home page
 REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHHome page
P. Smagorinsky and M. W. Smith
The Nature of Knowledge in Composition and Literary Understanding: The Question of Specificity
Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1992; 62(3): 279 - 305.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Written CommunicationHome page
P. SMAGORINSKY
Graves Revisited: A Look at the Methods and Conclusions of the New Hampshire Study
Written Communication, October 1, 1987; 4(4): 331 - 342.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Written CommunicationHome page
N. TEICH
Transfer of Writing Skills: Implications of the Theory of Lateral and Vertical Transfer
Written Communication, April 1, 1987; 4(2): 193 - 208.
[Abstract]