An experiment comparing traditional instruction in college freshman composition with instruction employing learning cycles based on Piagetian theories.

Abstract

The control group was taught the modes primarily by lecture with textbooks, and the students wrote nine or ten papers. Both experimental and control groups wrote pre- and posttest essays which were graded holistically. The experimental group had a higher mean gain than the control group. In addition, attitude surveys given both groups demonstrated better attitude by the experimental group than the control group toward content, instructor, and methods, as well as greater confidence in their writing and improvement of their attitude toward writing.

The experimental group wrote only three or four papers during the semester, spending a great deal of time revising each paper in small peer groups as well as in entire-class discussions, the students' own writing experiences serving as sources for Piagetian learning cycles. Each learning cycle began with concrete explorations which were designed to lead students to invent and expand upon various concepts--such as audience, specificity, thesis, structure--for themselves, with instructors serving as guides instead of lecturers. The experimental group used no textbooks and had no explicit instruction in traditional modes of writing such as narration, description, exposition, or argumentation.

Contending that traditional instruction in college freshman composition is ineffectual because it does not combine accurate theories of learning with appropriate theories of composition, this study attempts to accomplish such a combination, beginning with the developmental theories of John Piaget and meshing them with composing processes. The resultant curriculum was compared with traditional instruction in a one-semester experiment with college freshmen at the University of Oklahoma.