Abstract
This study investigated the effects of writing models on students’ writing of research texts. The models used by participants varied in quality and in labeling cues. Ninety-five psychology majors were given basic facts, including relevant and irrelevant information, for writing a Method Section for one of two experiments. The control group (N = 22) saw no models. The models groups (N =73) saw three student-written Method sections—either 3 good models (AAA) or 1 good, 1 moderate, and 1 poor model (ABC). Half of each quality group saw the models labeled with grades; the other half saw them unlabeled. Following holistic ratings of the students’ texts, the texts were analyzed for content. The models groups’ texts were rated as better organized than those of the control group. The models also influenced text content. Seeing a proposition in the models increased the likelihood that students would include it in their texts, with the effect being smaller for propositions that appeared only in moderate or poor models. For the writing topic deemed more difficult, the models group included more topical information than the control group, including more essential propositions but also more unnecessary propositions. No systematic benefits emerged from labeling the models or from providing only good models. Students seemed able to judge the relative quality of the models, even without labels. Overall, providing models seems to increase the salience of the topical information considered by student writers for inclusion in their texts