Preview this article: The Relationship Between Children's Concept of Word in Text and Phoneme Awareness in Learning to Read: A Longitudinal Study, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/27/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15413-1.gif

Preview this article: The Effect of Portfolio-Based Instruction on Composition Students' Final Examination Scores, Course Grades, and Attitudes Toward Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/27/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15414-1.gif

The purpose of this study was to examine how different writing tasks influence students’ thinking in reading and writing. The tasks used in this study, writing either a report or a problem-based essay, required students to integrate prior knowledge with information from six sources in order to create their own texts. The 15 undergraduates, enrolled in a seminar on European history, were randomly assigned to one of two task conditions, report or problem. Analyses focused on students’ acquisition of topic knowledge and the ways writers structured meaning as they organized and selected information. For insights into how writers approached these two tasks, all students provided think-aloud protocols and kept reading-writing logs. Classroom observations also provided information about contextual factors that can influence the strategies students use in reading to create their own texts. Comparisons made between the two groups revealed that they differed significantly in their interpretations of the two tasks and in their approaches to restructuring information from sources. However, there was no difference between the amount of prior knowledge that students writing reports and problem-based essays included in their essays, nor were there differences in learning. Both groups of students improved their understanding of a given historical event. Possible directions for future research are discussed.

Researchers have frequently examined the effects of sentence combining (SC) practice upon writing and found positive results. Researchersh ave also investigatedt he effects of writing practice on reading comprehension. But these results have been mixed because of problems in design, the measures used, instructional variables, and the lack of a theoretical base to explain divergent outcomes. The purpose of the current study was to identify effects of SC practice upon reading comprehension and to determine whether cohesion knowledge would be augmented and, if so, whether enhanced cohesion knowledge would affect comprehension. Sixty- five grade 4 students met with a researcherf or 16 instructional sessions. Students in the experimental group devised narratives from sets of cued and uncued kernel sentences, while the control group read compiled narratives developed by the experimental group and then completed crossword puzzles, a “placebo” treatment. The study found statistically significant results on the Stanford Reading Test, positive results approaching significance on cloze passages with structure /function word deletions, but no positive results on passages with content word deletions. These results indicate that SC practice may have enhanced cohesion knowledge and general comprehension. They also suggest that children may effectively learn to attend to semantic and syntactic repetitions that form “chains of cohesion” following SC practice but not after merely reading the same texts.

This paper focuses on the literacy development of 26 children who were prenatally exposed to crack or cocaine. It reports observations of them during the first year of a six year longitudinal study of their literacy development. Among the specific literacy behaviors targeted for the monthly observations of the children were storybook reading behaviors, writing development, book handling skills, and orthographic knowledge. At the end of the first year, the literacy development of these children appeared to be within the parameters of what might be considered normal literacy development.

This study investigated the effectiveness of an approach to improving revising skills that integrated strategy instruction, peer response, and word processing. Seventh and eighth grade students with learning disabilities were taught a systematic strategy for working in pairs to help each other revise their writing. The strategy was designed to guide students in both the social and cognitive aspects of response and revision. Cognitive support included a set of evaluation criteria, specific revision strategies, and an overall strategy for regulating the revision process. Social interaction was guided by a predictable structure for listening and responding to each others’ writing. A multiple probe design across pairs was used to assess instruction. On the pretests, students made few substantive revisions and did not improve the quality of their papers by revising them. Following instruction, all students made more substantive revisions, the proportion of revisions rated as improvements increased from 47% to 83%, and second drafts were rated as significantly better than first drafts. Furthermore, the overall quality of final drafts increased substantially from pretests to posttests. The gains were maintained at one and two-month maintenance testing and generalized to handwritten compositions.

Preview this article: Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/4/researchintheteachingofenglish15429-1.gif

Preview this article: Teachers in Transition: An Exploration of Changes in Teachers and Classrooms During Implementation of Literature-Based Reading Instruction, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/4/researchintheteachingofenglish15428-1.gif

Preview this article: Creating the Virtual Work: Readers' Processes in Understanding Literary Texts, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/4/researchintheteachingofenglish15426-1.gif

Preview this article: How English Teachers See English Teaching, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/4/researchintheteachingofenglish15427-1.gif

Preview this article: External and Diagnostic Validity of the NTID Writing Test: An Investigation Using Direct Magnitude Estimation and Principal Components Analysis, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15436-1.gif

Preview this article: The Influences of Mode of Discourse, Experiential Demand, and Gender on the Quality of Student Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15437-1.gif

Preview this article: The Effects of Word Processing on Students' Writing Quality and Revision Strategies, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15434-1.gif

Preview this article: Writing To Be Read: Young Writers' Ability to Demonstrate Audience Awareness When Evaluated by Their Readers, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15435-1.gif

Preview this article: Can Growth in Writing Be Accelerated? An Assessment of Regular and Accelerated College Composition Courses, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15443-1.gif

Preview this article: Readers Responding - and Then?, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15440-1.gif

Preview this article: Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15444-1.gif

Preview this article: The Effects of Revising with a Word Processor on Written Composition, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15442-1.gif

Preview this article: Locally Developed Writing Tests and the Validity of Holistic Scoring, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15441-1.gif

Preview this article: Gender-Typical Style in Written Language, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/1/researchintheteachingofenglish15447-1.gif

Preview this article: Promising Research: An Historical Analysis of Award-Winning Inquiry, 1970-1989, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/1/researchintheteachingofenglish15448-1.gif

Preview this article: Outside-In and Inside-Out: Peer Response Groups in Two Ninth-Grade Classes, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/1/researchintheteachingofenglish15449-1.gif

Preview this article: Reflections on Research and Assessment in Written Composition, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/26/1/researchintheteachingofenglish15450-1.gif

This naturalistic study, coauthored by a composition specialist and a philosopher, explores the learning experiences of college students in an Introduction to Philosophy course and the learning experiences of the research collaborators themselves. The researchers identify conflicting ways of knowing in class discussion, student writing, and within their own interdisciplinary collaboration. They then ask questions about how these ways of knowing interact and with what effects. In order to answer these questions the researchers drew upon student data they collected in two consecutive semesters as well as the close records they kept of their own collaborative work. Four research methods were used: observation, interviews, composing-aloud protocols, and text analysis. Conclusions are drawn from the data regarding the benefits for students and researchers of juxtaposing multiple epistemological perspectives. Also presented are conclusions about the learning contexts that promote epistemic growth. The textual form of this study is “heteroglossic,” that is, certain sections are written by the researchers, certain sections by the teacher-researcher, and others are coauthored by both.

When composing, writers give shape to the meaning they construct, and they signal a possible configuration for meaning through the organizational patterns they supply for their readers. This study examined writers’ options in organizing comparisons–texts that are often considered to have a canonical pattern. Thirty college students wrote their comparisons through discourse synthesis, integrating content cued by two informative texts, each text dealing with one of the two topics to be compared. Analyses focused on the organizational patterns the writers generated and on the content they included. Of the two major ways of organizing comparisons–organization by aspect and organization by object–organizing by aspect was the format used by most writers in this study. However, there was much variability within this format in how writers combined material for the comparison. Writers could focus on specific aspects, could separate aspects into those that were similarities and those that were differences, or could generate macro-aspects to subsume several related aspects. In selecting source material the writers preferentially included content that was symmetrical, in that it related information that was available for both objects being compared. And almost half of their additions also contributed to symmetry by balancing their treatments of the two objects. Chunking of content in a systematic way, especially by generating macro-aspects for topical focus, was a strong predictor of holistic quality ratings, stronger than measures for the nature of the content that was included. These higher-rated papers providing readers with macro-aspects tended to be written by students with higher verbal ability and more extensive topic knowledge. The study points out the variability within comparison discourse and demonstrates the complexity of the choices writers must make in structuring comparison texts

Preview this article: Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/25/4/researchintheteachingofenglish15458-1.gif

Fifty-eight, college-preparatory twelfth-grade students and their English teacher participated in this study of whether exploratory talk in small groups can help students assimilate new information on complex topics more effectively than can participation in a class discussion or a lecture. Of the three treatments (lecture, class discussion, student-led small-group discussion), the small-group discussion was significantly more effective in improving the students’ knowledge as they prepared to write. Similarly, differences in the quality of analytic, opinion essays (scored for clear thesis and elaboration of ideas) revealed that small-group discussion was consistently superior for both weaker and stronger writers. Data from composing-aloud protocols revealed that following the talk conditions students were better able to remain on task while composing their opinion essays, and that students made significantly fewer negative comments about their essay production. Attitude measures revealed that students preferred the treatments that allowed them to talk when developing their understanding of complex ideas. Results from all data sources converge to indicate that exploratory talk in student-led small groups can provide a powerful means for developing understanding of complex topics and can facilitate writing about these ideas.

This study used on-line protocol analysis to contrast the effects on the writing process of knowledge taught in three instructional treatments: Models (declarative knowledge of form), General Procedures (declarative knowledge of form plus general procedural knowledge related to content plus procedural knowledge related to form), and Task-Specific Procedures (declarative knowledge of form plus task-specific procedural knowledge related to content plus procedural knowledge related to form). Pretest and posttest protocols from six students in each treatment measured treatment effects on the processes of students writing essays involving extended definition. Students in the Models treatment made weak improvements in relating the elements of definition and did not think critically about the concepts being defined. Students in the General Procedures treatment made gains in linking ideas according to particular task constraints and improved their critical thinking skills. Students in the Task-Specific Procedures integrated their ideas purposefully, thought critically about the concepts being defined, and appeared to establish a conversational voice to anticipate composing needs.

The study was conducted in a classroom that used a process approach to literacy. Ten case studies examined the ability of 6th grade Hispanic bilingual students to construct meaning in dialogue journals and literature logs in first and second language. Journals and literature logs were coded and analyzed for language code (L1/L2), topic, codeswitching, sensitivity to audience, writer’s voice, spelling, and grammatical structures. Findings indicate that students were more effective in constructing meaning in dialogue journals than in literature logs. Success in the journals revealed positive self-images while failure with literature logs evoked poor self-concepts. Findings also suggest that implementation of process approaches can pose its own set of instructional problems that need to be addressed, especially when effectiveness is judged in terms of the particular students involved. For example, although the students in this study were able to write in English before having complete control of the language, their development of complex ideas and the construction of meaning suffered considerably. The length and quality of the writing also degenerated when the topic was imposed, when students found no relevance in the literacy activity, and when they were not assisted in contextualizing writing tasks in their own terms. Overall, mere exposure to standard writing conventions did not improve the students’ use of them. The practice of implementing popular instructional programs without incorporating appropriate social, cultural, and linguistic adaptations appears to be ineffective with L2 learners.