This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by SCHRIVER, K. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Teaching Writers to Anticipate Readers' Needs

A Classroom-Evaluated Pedagogy

Carnegie Mellon University

This study evaluated a method for teaching writers to anticipate readers' comprehension needs. The method, called reader-protocol teaching, involves asking writers to predict readers' problems with a text and then providing them with detailed readers' responses (in the form of think-aloud protocol transcripts) to illustrate how readers construct an understanding of the text. Writers in five experimental classes critiqued a set of ten poorly written instructional texts and then analyzed the protocol transcripts of readers struggling to comprehend these texts. Writers in five control classes were taught to anticipate the reader's needs through a variety of audience-analysis heuristics and collaborative peer-response methods. Pretests and posttests were used to assess improvements in experimental and control writers' ability to anticipate and diagnose readers' comprehension problems. Pretest and posttest materials were expository science texts. Writers taught with the reader-protocol teaching method improved significantly more than did writers in control classes in the number of readers' problems they accurately predicted. In addition, in contrast to writers in control classes, writers taught with the reader-protocol method significantly increased in their ability to (a) diagnose readers' problems caused by textual omissions, (b) characterize problems from the reader's perspective, and (c) attend to global-text problems. Moreover, writers' knowledge of audience acquired in one domain (instructional text) transferred to another (expository science text).

Written Communication, Vol. 9, No. 2, 179-208 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0741088392009002001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. De Jong and D. Rijnks Dynamics of Iterative Reader Feedback: An Analysis of Two Successive Plus-Minus Evaluation Studies Journal of Business and Technical Communication, April 1, 2006; 20(2): 159 - 176. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Wolfe Marginal Pedagogy: How Annotated Texts Affect a Writing-From-Sources Task Written Communication, April 1, 2002; 19(2): 297 - 333. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Sperling Revisiting the Writing-Speaking Connection: Challenges for Research on Writing and Writing Instruction Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1996; 66(1): 53 - 86. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. P. ROZUMALSKI and M. F. GRAVES Effects of Case and Traditional Writing Assignments on Writing Products and Processes Journal of Business and Technical Communication, January 1, 1995; 9(1): 77 - 102. [Abstract]