Palavras-chave
Como Citar
Resumo
En las últimas tres décadas, la investigación en el campo de la composición y de la comprensión del texto se ha ocupado de dilucidar los procesos cognitivos y los condicionantes sociales y culturales que caracterizan a las tareas híbridas que requieren comprender y sintetizar múltiples fuentes para escribir textos académicos. El presente artículo tiene por objetivo presentar una revisión de los principales resultados de esta investigación. Para ello, en primer lugar se abordan las diferentes representaciones que las tareas híbridas pueden suscitar tanto en los estudiantes como en sus profesores. En segundo lugar, nos ocupamos de los procesos de búsqueda, comprensión y síntesis de la información que implican dichas actividades, remarcando aquellos aspectos que la investigación ha señalado como más problemáticos para los estudiantes. Concluimos señalando algunas de las implicaciones educativas que se desprenden de la revisión anterior.
Abstract:
In the past three decades, research in the field of text writing and reading comprehension has been concerned to elucidate the cognitive processes and social and cultural conditions that characterize the hybrid tasks that require understanding and synthesizing multiple sources to write academic texts. This article aims to present a review of the major research findings To do this, first we addressed the different representations of hybrid tasks made both by the students and their teachers. Secondly, we deal with the search processes comprehension and synthesis of information associated with such activities, emphasizing those aspects identified by the research as the most problematic for students. We conclude by pointing out some of the educational implications that derive from the previous review.
Key words: Comprehension of various texts. Discourse synthesis. Academic writing. Higher education
Referências
BJORK, L. et al. Teaching academic writing in european higher education. Kluwer: Dordrecht, 2003, 236 p.
CAREY, L. et al. Differences in writers’ initial task representations. 1989. Disponible en: <http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/nwpr/621>. Consultado el: 7 ago. 2010.
CASTELLÓ, M. Aprender a escribir textos académicos ¿Copistas, escribas, compiladores o escritores? En: POZO, J.I.; DEL PUY PÉREZ, M. (Eds.). Psicología del aprendizaje universitario: la formación en competencias. España: Morata, 2009. p. 120-133.
CASTELLÓ, M. El proceso de composición de textos académicos. En: CASTELLÓ, M. et al. (Eds.). Escribir y comunicarse en contextos científicos y académicos: conocimientos y estrategias. España: Graó, 2007. p. 47-82.
CASTELLÓ, M. Las estrategias de aprendizaje en el proceso de composición escrita. En: MONEREO, C. (Ed.). Estrategias de aprendizaje. España: Visor, 2002. p. 147-184.
CASTELLÓ, M. Usos estratégicos de la lengua en la universidad. Tácticas de regulación de la escritura en estudiantes de doctorado. En: CAMPS, A.; MILIAN, M. (Coords.). Miradas y voces: Investigación sobre la educación lingüística y literaria en entornos plurilingües. Barcelona: Graó, 2008. p. 75-90.
CASTELLÓ, M. et al. La voz del autor en los textos académicos: construyendo la identidad como escritor. En: MONEREO, C.; POZO, J. I. (Eds.). La identidad en Psicología de la Educación: enfoques actuales, utilidad y límites. Barcelona: Edebé, 2009.
CASTELLÓ, M.; BAÑALES, G.; VEGA, N. Enfoques en la investigación de la regulación de la escritura académica: estado de la cuestión. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, v. 8, n. 3, dec. 2010.
CERDÁN, R.; VIDAL-ABARCA, E. The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, v. 100, n. 1, p. 209-222, 2008.
COIRIER, P., ANDRIESSEN, J.E.B; CHANQUOY, L. From planning to translating: the specificity of argumentative writing. En: ANDRIESSEN, J.E.B; COIRIER, P. (Eds.). Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1999. p.1-29.
DANSAC, C.; ALAMARGOT, D. Accessing referential information during text composition: when and why? En: TORRANCE, M.; GALBRAITH, D. (Eds.). Knowing what to write: conceptual processes in text production. Amsterdam: University Press, 1999. p. 76–97.
DRABENSTOTT, K. Do non-domain experts enlist the strategies of domain experts? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 54, n. 9, p. 836-854, 2003.
DYSTHE, O. The multivoiced classroom: interaction of writing and classroom discourse. Written Communication, v. 13, n. 3, p. 385-425, 1996.
ENGLERT, C.S. Connecting the dots in a research program to develop, implement, and evaluate strategic literacy interventions for struggling readers and writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, v. 24, n. 2, p. 104–120, 2009.
FAVART, M.; COIRIER, P. Acquisition of the linearization process in text composition in third to ninth graders: effects of textual superstructure and macrostructural organization. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, v. 35, n. 4, p. 305-328, 2006.
FLOWER, L. The role of task representation in reading to write. Junio, 1987. Disponible en: <http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/nwpr/607>. Consultado el: 10 ago. 2010.
FLOWER, L. Negotiating academic discourse. Enero, 1990. Disponible en: . Consultado el: 10 ago. 2010.
FLOWER, L.; HAYES, J.R. The cognition of discovery: defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, v. 31, p. 21-32, 1980.
FLOWER, L., et al. Planning in writing: the cognition of a constructive process. 1989. Disponible en: http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/620. Consultado el: 10 ago. 2010.
GRAESSER, A.C.; LEÓN, J.A.; OTERO, J. Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. En: OTERO, J.; LEÓN, J.A.; GRAESSER, A.C. (Eds.). The psychology of science text comprehension. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2002. p. 1-15.
GREENE, S.; LIDINSKY, A. From inquiry to academic writing; a practical guide. Boston, USA: Bedford / ST. Martin´s, 2008. 244 p.
HAAS, C.; FLOWER, L. Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of meaning. College Composition and Communication, v. 39, p. 167-183, 1988.
HARVEY, G. Writing from sources: a guide for students. Indianapolis, USA: Hacket Publishing Company, 2008. 96 p.
HYLAND, K.; SALAGER-MEYER, F. Scientific writing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, p. 297-339, 2008.
IVANIC, R.; ROACH, D. Academic writing, power and disguise. En: CLARK, R. et al. (Ed.).
Language and power. Clevedon, Avon: BAAL and CIL, 1990. p. 103-121.
KANTZ, M. Shirley and the battle of agincourt: why it is so hard for students to write persuasive researched analyses. Noviembre, 1989. Disponible en: <http://www.nwp.org/cs/ public/print/resource/709>. Consultado el: 16 ago. 2010.
KINTSCH, W. Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. p. 463.
LAZONDER, A.W.; ROUET, J-F. Information problem solving instruction: some cognitive and metacognitive issues. Computers in Human Behavior, v. 24, p. 753-765, 2008.
LEMKE, J.L. Talking science: language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1990. 276 p.
LONKA, L. Helping doctoral students to finish their thesis. En: BJORK, L. et al. (Ed.). Teaching academic writing in european higher education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers., 2003. p.113-131.
NELSON, N. The reading-writing nexus in discourse research. En: BAZERMAN, C. (Ed).. Handbook of research on writing. New York: Erlbaum, 2008. p. 435-450.
PIOLAT, A.; OLIVE, T.; KELLOGG, R.T. Cognitive effort during note taking; applied Cognitive Psychology, v. 19, p. 291–312, 2005.
ROUET, J-F. The skills of document use: from text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2006. 227 p.
ROUET, J-F. et al. Studying and using multiple documents in history: effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, v. 15, n. 1, p. 85-106, 1997.
SCHRIVER, K.A. Teaching writers to anticipate readers’ needs: a classroom- evaluated pedagogy. Written Communication, v. 9, p. 179–208, 1992.
SEGEV-MILLER, R. Writing-from-sources: the effect of explicit instruction on college students’ processes and products. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, v. 4, n. 1, p. 5- 33, 2004.
SEGEV-MILLER, R. Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: the case of intertextual processing strategies. En: GALBRAITH, D.; TORRANCE, M.; VAN WAES, L. (Eds.). Writing and cognition. Netherlands: Elsevier, 2007. p. 231-250.
SLOTTE, V.; LONKA, K. Note taking and essay writing. En: RIJLAARSDAM, G.et al. (Eds.). Studies in writing, writing as a learningtool: integrating theory and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. p. 131–141.
SPIVEY, N. Transforming texts: constructive processes in reading and writing. Febrero, 1991. Disponible en: <http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/667>. Consultado el: 10 ago. 2010.
STRØMSØ, H.I.; BRÅTEN, I.; BRITT, M.A. Reading multiple texts about climate change: the relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, v. 20, n. 3, p. 192-204, 2010.
TYNJALA, P.; MASON, L.; LONKA, K. (Eds.). Writing as a learning tool: integrating theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. 226 p.
WALTERS, M.; HUNTER, S.; GIDDENS, E. Qualitative research on what leads to success in professional writing. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and learning. v. 1, n. 2, Jul. 2007. Disponible en: <http://academics.georgiasouthern. edu/ijsotl/v1n2/articles/ walters/media/>. Consultado el: 10 ago. 2010.
WILEY, J. et al. Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, v. 46, n. 4, p. 1060-1106, 2009.
A Proposições utiliza a licença do Creative Commons (CC), preservando assim, a integridade dos artigos em ambiente de acesso aberto.