Protagonist of a message--论文代写范文精选​

一方面,所涉及领域知识的性质可能影响其方式表达，什么可以被认为更容易清楚地表达。领域专家阐述了文本和结构良好的书面消息。下面的paper代写范文讲述了这一问题。

Nevertheless, the comprehension by a protagonist of a message produced by another participant is not the only vector to knowledge acquisition. The companion track of the communication route, that is, the production of the message itself, may also imply or even require, on the part of the writer, a restructuring of his own knowledge. So, even if the activities of language comprehension and production are subordinated to reasoning and problem solving processes (e.g. Voss, Wiley and Sandak, 1999), we would like to argue that especially language production activities are not neutral with respect to knowledge construction. The fact that you have to elaborate a message is not a simple translation activity. In point of fact, there is a complex interaction between the process of written language production and the knowledge that is mediated. 

On the one hand, the nature of the domain knowledge involved may affect the way in which the domain is expressed: what can be thought of clearly is expressed more easily. A domain expert constructs elaborated texts and well-structured written messages with more ease than novices do (Kellogg, 1987; Caccamise, 1987; Alamargot, 1997, etc.). On the other hand, the fact that domain knowledge is expressed, particularly as written text, leads to modification and even growth of that knowledge (Eigler, Jechle, Merziger and Winter, 1991; Galbraith, 1996, 1999; Alamargot, Favart and Galbraith, 2000). Seen in this way, the production activity contributes to knowledge construction, in the sense of strengthening existing domain knowledge as well as allowing the generation of new domain knowledge. In fact, the main point we are trying to make has also been stated elsewhere, by Schwartz (1999): “Language and linguistic representations play a particular role in generating new knowledge and may be a primary mediator of learning effects, whether alone or in combination” (Schwartz, 1999; p. 211). 

Schwartz discusses the process of learning from texts. He starts with the observation that the presence of a physical object does not ensure a common ground between two people who both have access to that object. Language may help to construct this common ground, but common meaning and learning between individuals is not assured either. The point is that (oral) language can serve as a construction tool, perhaps up to the point of what is (socially) accepted as common understanding. Schwartz specifically discusses the 7 power of language with regards to structure, more precisely, as a mediator for restructuring understanding. For example, language may help resolve an ambiguity simply by giving something a name, or calling for an abstract concept that captures or clarifies the meaning of several lower level ones. For social reasons members of a group move to conceptually safe places to communicate, where interpretation differences do not tend to get in the way. Because of this, group communication tends to move towards abstraction and structure, and this restructuring may be an important effect of language use during collaboration. 

This helps students to discover specific features that allow differentiating chunks or classes of concepts, much as a botanist can distinguish sub-species of a given flower. In his conception, it is the combination of language comprehension and production activity that fosters learning. Given the important role of language in learning, in the next sections, we discuss the role of the comprehension and production of written language in problem solving. Note that these days, electronic communication essentially is written communication, and even if in the near future audio would become commonplace in such cases, we would still be interested in the specific role of the written communication mode. Our final constraint is that we primarily consider the case of synchronous communication, that is, protagonists act together during the same time slot to solve the problem. 2.2 Comprehending written messages as a tool for modeling activities The processes of language comprehension involve the modification (adaptation) of a protagonists’ model of the situation, based on external information and feedback from the partner. Partners may jointly explore a problem space, but may also instruct one another during the process. Furthermore, there may be modeling involved in collaborative problem solving, in the sense that partners may capture and copy ways of communication and problem solving from the other. 

Within the cognitive perspective we are taking here, learning is viewed as updating of memory representations by linking new information to information already in memory. If this leads protagonists to apply information to accomplish new things, or to do something in a different way, learning may be said to 8 be successful. The issue of the extent to which a teacher, a learner, or a context decides what is successful or not, is left open here (for a discussion: Andriessen & Sandberg, 1999). Memory for a particular concept is a function of its individual properties as well as of its relations to other concepts. Current cognitive views on discourse understanding (e.g. Fletcher, 1994, for a review) still rely on the distinction made by van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) between three levels of mental representations. The most superficial and short-lived of these represents the surface form of the discourse. 

The meaning of the discourse is represented as an interconnected network of ideas called the propositional text base, constructed on the basis of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic interpretation of the sequence of words. The most enduring level of representation is referred to as the situation model. This would be similar to the representation that would result from directly experiencing the situation that the discourse describes (Fletcher, 1994). It involves an ‘integrated structure of episodic information, collecting previous episodic information about some situation as well as instantiated general information from semantic memory’ (van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983). Situation models are dynamic and are updated by inferential processes. Conversely, the nature of inferences that are made during interpretation is based on the already constructed situation model. 

The ease with which a model is constructed depends, among other things, on the coherence of the information, that is, for example, the consistency of the information and of coreferences between information units in a text, all of which supports inference making. Concerning the nature and amount of inferential processing during comprehension it seems that this depends on several characteristics of task and comprehender. One of the consequences is that for some researchers (for a discussion: Garrod and Sanford, 1999) it seems impossible to describe one unique interpretation of the information in a text, because mental representations are the result of an interaction between text and reader. Another consequence is that inferences are an essential aspect of comprehension, because without inferences, no mental models will be constructed. Minimal viewpoints on inferencing stress the economic tendency of readers to infer as little as possible, only to comprehend what is necessary (McKoon and Ratcliff, 1992). Comprehension is seen as an incremental process, in which much processing is shallow, based on perceived semantic relatedness of words in a sentence (van Oostendorp, 1994), or on activated scenarios of real-world knowledge (Garrod and Sanford, 1999). 

A related proposal by van Dijk 9 (1999) involves the activation of event models, that is, models that represent the subjective interpretation of discourse or text, in which only relevant properties of a situation are represented. The extent to which such properties are shared between participants in a situation is part of the common ground participants develop and extend during joint discursive and other action (Clark & Brennan, 1991). Van Dijk (1999, p. 124) supposes that these subjective representations exert overall and local control over all processes of discourse comprehension and production. This subjective component seems to be very important, and it appears that the effects of collaboration on comprehension depend to a large extent on subjective factors, that affect the depth to which a student is engaged in comprehension activities. Comprehension seen as a learning process is quite sensitive to individual and situational differences and types of knowledge. As a consequence, models of text comprehension do not explain learning. 

The factors that determine the degree of activation of concepts during comprehension, the amount of related concepts that are activated during reading, and what is learned and to what degree as a result, are to be found outside the model itself, in the attitudes of readers toward the learning situation, and in other characteristics of readers, situations and instructions (e.g. van den Broek, Young, Tzeng and Linderholm, 1999). What is learned is determined to a degree by what is useful for the reader, for example for maintaining comprehension to a degree sufficient to continue a dialogue. With respect to learning, a minimalist option for comprehension activities is undesirable, as learning requires all kinds of constructive processing activities by the learner, not just the minimal ones (e.g. Goldman, 1996). In addition, it seems not easy to decide what is useful or necessary, neither by a learner (what criterion, where does it come from?), nor by a teacher, because it requires a teacher to decide what is necessary for the learner, leading to problems of responsibility and authenticity (Petraglia, 1998), and, of course, of student modeling. 

In addition, it seems that so far nobody has come up with a clear conception about what it means to understand something, nor of the notion of depth of understanding. Here, we suppose that semantic understanding is something gradual, which cannot be pinpointed to specific concepts being understood, but more to a sense of easy recognition of something, feeling more familiar, being able to undertake some more or less intelligent action with it, etc. (Bereiter, in press). Understanding is also much related to the situation, that is, the collaborators local and overall goals (Baker, Hansen, Joiner and Traum, 1999). It is in this sense too, that groups can understand. This may also be a reason why we often do not observe much explicit understanding, or signs of knowledge transformation in electronic discussion groups (compare Veerman, 2000; p. 159). To conclude, while it seems obvious that the activity of language comprehension in individual as well as in synchronous collaborative situations, can lead to learning, whatever its nature, a whole series of conditions have to be met before deep learning can be realized. We will now turn to the case of (written) language production, where we may end up with quite a different conclusion.(论文代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。(论文代写)
更多论文代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有论文代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X(论文代写)