Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Methodological issues in using sequential representations in the teaching of writing

By Chien-Ching Lee, Jeannette Bopry and John Hedberg


This study looks at a specific application of Ainsworth’s conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations in the context of using multiple sequential graphic organizers that are student‐generated for a process‐writing task. Process writing refers to writing that consists of multiple drafts. It may be a process of re‐writing without feedback or re‐writing based on feedback where the teacher or peers will provide feedback on the original draft and then the students will revise their writing based on the feedback given. The objective was to explore how knowledge of students’ cognitive processes when using multiple organizers can inform the teaching of writing. The literature review analyzes the interaction of the design, function and task components of the framework; culminating in instructional approaches for using multiple organizers for classes with students of different writing abilities. Extended implications for designers of concept mapping tools based on these approaches are provided

Topics: LB Theory and practice of education, LC1022 - 1022.25 Computer-assisted Education
Publisher: Taylor and Francis Ltd
Year: 2007
DOI identifier: 10.1080/09687760701482234
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1986). (Eds) Cognition and instruction doi
  2. (2000). A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theories, Interactive Multimedia Electronic
  3. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory, doi
  4. (1993). An account of how readers search for information in diagrams, doi
  5. (1981). Analyzing revision, doi
  6. (2002). Assimilating complex information, doi
  7. (2001). Cognitive science approaches to understanding diagrammatic representations, doi
  8. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals, doi
  9. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals, Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 177–189.Methodological issues in using sequential representations 141 doi
  10. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge, doi
  11. (2002). Conditions and effects of example elaboration, doi
  12. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation, doi
  13. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations, doi
  14. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students, doi
  15. (1993). Encoding and externalstorage effects on writing processes, doi
  16. (1998). Enhancing the recall of text: knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer, doi
  17. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics, doi
  18. (1998). Feedback on student writing: taking the middle path, doi
  19. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning, doi
  20. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture, doi
  21. (1992). Knowledge representation, content specification and the development of skill in situation-specific knowledge assembly: some constructivist issues as they relate to cognitive flexibility theory and hypertext,
  22. (2001). Multimedia learning (Cambridge, doi
  23. (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions?, doi
  24. (1976). Peer correction procedures for intermediate and advanced ESL composition lessons, doi
  25. (2005). Students’ choice of organizers based on their perceptual operations, paper presented at the E-Learn Conference,
  26. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations, doi
  27. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies, doi
  28. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers,
  29. (1980). The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints, in:
  30. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing, doi
  31. (1989). The effects of different types of organizers on students’ learning from text, doi
  32. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality, doi
  33. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision, doi
  34. (1990). The language teaching matrix (Cambridge, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.