1. bookVolume 19 (2015): Issue 3 (December 2015)
Journal Details
First Published
01 Jan 1997
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Open Access

Narrative Writing in Digital Formats: Interpreting the Impact of Audience

Published Online: 12 May 2016
Volume & Issue: Volume 19 (2015) - Issue 3 (December 2015)
Page range: 201 - 221
Journal Details
First Published
01 Jan 1997
Publication timeframe
1 time per year

Alamargot, D., Caporossi, G., Chesnet, D., & Ros, C. (2011). What makes a skilled writer? Working memory and audience awareness during text composition. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 505–516. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.001Search in Google Scholar

Applebee, A.N. & Langer, J.A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100 (6), 14–27.Search in Google Scholar

Bangerter, A. & Clark, H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27 (2), 195–225.10.1207/s15516709cog2702_3Search in Google Scholar

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Berninger, V.W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process model of writing development across the life span. Educational Psychology Review, 8 (3), 193–218.10.1007/BF01464073Search in Google Scholar

Biesenbach-Lucas, S. & Weasenforth, D. (2001). E-Mail and word processing in the ESL classroom: How the medium affects the message. Language, Learning & Technology, 5 (1), 135–165.Search in Google Scholar

Black, R.W. (2009). English-language learners, Fan Communities, and 21st-century skills. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52 (8), 688–697.10.1598/JAAL.52.8.4Search in Google Scholar

Bos, N. & Krajcik, J. (1998, April). Students’ awareness of audience in web-published science writing. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Search in Google Scholar

Brennan, S. & Clark, H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22 (6), 1482–1493.10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482Search in Google Scholar

Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The Development of Writing Abilities. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Search in Google Scholar

Carvalho, J.B. (2002). Developing audience awareness in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 25 (3), 271–282.10.1111/1467-9817.00175Search in Google Scholar

Clark, H.H. (1996). Using Language (pp. 221–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539Search in Google Scholar

Clark, H. (2003). Pointing and placing. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet (pp. 243–268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, H. & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, H. & Fox Tree, J. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84 (1), 73–111.10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3Search in Google Scholar

Clark, H. & Krych, M. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50 (1), 62–81.10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004Search in Google Scholar

Clark, H. & Marshall, C. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding (pp. 414–465). New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, H. & Murphy, G. L. (1983). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J.F. LeNy & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and Comprehension (pp. 287–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland PublishingSearch in Google Scholar

Clark, H. & Murphy, G. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. Language and Comprehension, 9, 287–299.10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60059-5Search in Google Scholar

Clark, H. & Schaefer, E. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13 (2), 259–294.10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7Search in Google Scholar

Clark, H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22 (1), 1–39.10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, M. & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26 (2), 143–159.10.3102/00028312026002143Search in Google Scholar

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 213–238.10.2307/3587951Search in Google Scholar

da Cunha Recuero, R. (2008). Information flow and social capital in weblogs: A case study in the Brazilian blogosphere. In P. Brusilowsky & H. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 97–106). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.Search in Google Scholar

DeVoss, D.N., Eidman-Aadahl, E., & Hicks, T. (2010). Because Digital Writing Matters: Improving Student Writing in Online and Multimedia Environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

Ericsson, K.A. & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102 (2), 211–245.10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211Search in Google Scholar

Fahey, K., Lawrence, J., & Paratore, J. (2007). Using electronic portfolios to make learning public. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50 (6), 460–471.10.1598/JAAL.50.6.4Search in Google Scholar

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365–387.10.2307/356600Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (3), 445–476.10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445Search in Google Scholar

Hayes, J.R., & Nash, J.G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Heisler, J.M. & Crabill, S.L. (2006). Who are “stinkybug” and “Packerfan4”? Email pseudonyms and participants’ perceptions of demography, productivity, and personality. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12 (1), 114–135.10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00317.xSearch in Google Scholar

Holliway, D. (2004). Through the eyes of my reader: A strategy for improving audience perspective in children’s descriptive writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18 (4), 334–350.10.1080/02568540409595045Search in Google Scholar

Holliway, D. & McCutchen, D. (2004). Audience perspective in young writers’ composing and revising. Revision: Cognitive and Instructional Processes, 13, 87–101.Search in Google Scholar

Horton, W. & Gerrig, R. (2002). Speakers’experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language, 47 (4), 589–606.10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0Search in Google Scholar

Huffaker, D. (2004). The educated blogger: Using weblogs to promote literacy in the classroom. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 9 (6), 91–98.10.5210/fm.v9i6.1156Search in Google Scholar

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., Horst, H.A., Lange, P.G., Mahendran, D., Martinez, K.Z., Pascoe, C.J., Perkel, D., Robinson, L., Sims, C., & Tripp, L. (2009). Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8402.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Kellogg, R.T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1 (1), 1–26.10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1Search in Google Scholar

Kroll, B.M. (1984). Writing for readers: Three perspectives on audience. College Composition and Communication, 35 (2), 172–185.10.2307/358094Search in Google Scholar

Kurcz, I. (2004). Communicative competence and theory of mind. Psychology of Language and Communication, 8 (2), 5–18.Search in Google Scholar

Lam, W.S.E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (3), 457–482.10.2307/3587739Search in Google Scholar

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 307–322.10.1093/applin/16.3.307Search in Google Scholar

Magnifico, A.M. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition, motivation, and a Writer’s audience. Educational Psychologist, 45 (3), 167–184.10.1080/00461520.2010.493470Search in Google Scholar

Marwick, A.E. & Boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13 (1), 114–133.Search in Google Scholar

McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8 (3), 299–325.10.1007/BF01464076Search in Google Scholar

McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35 (1), 13–23.10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3Search in Google Scholar

McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S., & Mildes, K. (1994). Individual differences in writing: Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (2), 256–266.10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.256Search in Google Scholar

Piche, G. & Rubin, D. (1979). Development in syntactic and strategic aspects of audience adaptation skills in written persuasive communication. Research in the Teaching of English, 13 (4), 293–316.Search in Google Scholar

Piché, G., Rubin, D., & Michlin, M.L. (1978). Age and social class in children’s persuasive communication appeals. Child Development, 49 (3), 773–780.10.2307/1128247Search in Google Scholar

Potter, J. (2012). Digital Media and Learner Identity: The New Curatorship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137004864Search in Google Scholar

Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Kieft, M. (2006). Writing Experiment Manuals in Science Education: The impact of writing, genre, and audience. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2-3), 203–233.10.1080/09500690500336932Search in Google Scholar

Rubin, D. (1982). Adapting syntax in writing to varying audiences as a function of age and social cognitive ability. Journal of Child Language, 9 (2), 497–510.10.1017/S0305000900004839Search in Google Scholar

Rubin, D. (1997). Writing for readers: The primacy of audience in composing. Yearbook-National Society for the Study of Education, 2, 53–73.Search in Google Scholar

Russell, J., Bachorowski, J., & Fernandez-Dols, J. (2003). Facial and vocal expressions of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 54 (1), 329–349.10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145102Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696–735.Search in Google Scholar

Shippen, M.E., Houchins, D.E., Puckett, D., & Ramsey, M. (2007). Preferred writing topics of urban and rural middle school students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34 (1), 59–66.Search in Google Scholar

Traxler, M. & Gernsbacher, M. (1992). Improving written communication through minimal feedback. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7 (1), 1–22.10.1080/01690969208409378Search in Google Scholar

Traxler, M. & Gernsbacher, M. (1993). Improving written communication through perspective-taking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8 (3), 311–334.10.1080/01690969308406958Search in Google Scholar

West, K. (2008). Weblogs and literary response: Socially situated identities and hybrid social languages in English class blogs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51 (7), 588–598.10.1598/JAAL.51.7.6Search in Google Scholar

Witte, S. (2007). “That’s online writing, not boring school writing”: Writing with blogs and the talkback project. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51 (2), 92–96.10.1598/JAAL.51.2.1Search in Google Scholar

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1 998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy & complexity. Honolulu, Hawai’i: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i (University of Hawai’i Press).Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD