DOCUMENT RESUME ED 258 135 AUTHOR TITLE SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE GRANT NOTE PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS IDENTIFIERS CS 008 012 Langer, Judith A. Reading and Writing in School-Age Children: A Developmental View. National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Ill. Research Foundation.; Natioaal Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC. [84] NIE-G-82-0025 331p. Reports - Research/Technical (143) MF01/PC14 Plus Postage. *Cognitive Development; Elementary Secondary Education; *Language Processing; Language Skills; Linguistics; Reading Instruction; *Reading Research; *Reading Skills; Reading Strategies; Writing Instruction; Writing Processes; Writing Research; *Writing Skills *Reading Writing Relationship ABSTRACT The reading/writing project described in this document examined the basic cognitive activities children engage in when reading and writing, involved 67 children from grades 3, 6, and 9, and addressed these questions: Since reading and writing both involve the development of meaning, is there a common language core, or routines, that children systematically use when they are reading and writing? Pow do these routines interrelate with one another? and, How do these routines grow in scope and complexity from grade 3 to grade 9? The chapters deal with the following topics: an introduction to language and reasoning; children's experience of reading and sriting; parents', teachers', and students' views on literacy; children's sense of genre; the elaboration of ideas in story and _eport; making meaning while reading and writing; And students' awareness of what they do while reading and writing. The summary includes findings indicating that reading and writing tap similar processes and show strong correlations in the cognitive strategies called upon, and that across the school years children deve..op growing control of the linguistic and communicative forms, along with an enhanced awareness of the representational properties of their own interpretations and the meanings they symbolize. This document contains extensive tables and eight pages of references. Appendices include the following: (1) samples of reading materials used with the children; (2) aids for analyzing the structure of the readings and children's construction of meaning; (3) supplementary tables; and (4) the effect of childrens' mode differences (verbalized or retrospective). (EL) *******************************w************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. **************************i*********k**1*********w***N**************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION I DLICATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION' CEN I ER IERICI Iles document has been reproduced as er awed born the person or organization ongimiting it Minor changes have been made to improve wprodOC11011 011itlitY Ln Pr\ Points Of %HOW or opinions staled in this dOCU in nt do not necessarily reptusent official NIE position Or Reading and Writing in School-Age Children: A Developmental View Final Report National Institute of Education Grant Number NIE-G-82-0025 and The Research Foundation National Council of Teachers of English Principal Inves"cigator Judith A. Langer School of Education Stanford University Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgments iii vi 1. Language and Reasoning: 2. The Research Plan: Children Reading and Writing 18 3. Views Toward Literacy: Students 35 An Introduction 1 Parents, Teachers, and 4. Children's Sense of Genre 62 5. The Elaboration of Ideas in Story and Report 93 6. Making Meaning: While Reading 7. 8. 9. A Study of Behavior and Writing Reading and Writing: What They Do 123 Students' Awareness of 173 Developing Text Worlds: Two Children Reading and Writing 199 Reading, Writing, and Meaning: A Summary 225 References "42 Appendices 1. Story and Report Passages 2. Analysis of Structure: Scoring Manual 3. Analysis of Meaning Construction: Coding Definitions 4. Supplementary Tables: Meaning Analysis ST1. Reasoning Operations ST2. Awareness of Own Approaches ST3. Use of Self Regulating Mechanisms 3T4. Reading and Writing Strategies ST5. Attention to Global Units ST6. Data Source ST7. Attention to Process 5. Mode Differences 3 List of Ta.)les 2.1 2.2 Design Mean Percentile Scores in Reading and Language 3.1 3.13 Number el Comments in Pe ponce to Common Questions Types of Comments by students, Parents, and Teachers Students' Comments ray Grade..., Rating Students as Readers and Writers Criteria in Judging Student Reading and Writing Abilities What it Takes to be a Good Reader or Writer Do Students Like to Read and Write? What Students Like Best and Least About Reading and Writing Views of Easiest and Hardest Aspects of Reading and Writing Why Students Read and Write at Home and School What Students Read and Write at Home and School How Do You Think Reading and Writing Are Best Taught? Do You Help? 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Use of Top Level Structures Internal Structure in Student Writing Length of Student Writing Length of Retellings Recall of Higher Level Structures Percent of Content Units Recalled 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Lower Level Structures Used in Student Writing Tense Used in Students' Writings and Retellings Tense Shifts Control Over Beginnings Control Over Endings Stance 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Correlations, Reasoning Operations Reasoning Operations Over Time Correlations, Total Awareness and Use Monitoring Behaviors Correlations, Writing Strategies Reading and Writing Strategies Over Time 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 4 List of Figures 1.1 Systematic Approaches to Reading and Writing 4.1 Structural Diagram - Jackie 4.2 Structural Diagram - The New Kid 4.3 Structural Diagram - The Mole 4.4 Structural Diagram - Prairie Dog (The Crowd-Pleasing Water Conservationist) 6.1 Analysis of Meaning Construction 6.2 Reasoning Operations 8.1 Maggie's Story: Analysis of Meaning Construction... Acknowledgments Many people contributed to the success of the project reported in this volume. Most important are the students who so willingly and gracefully participated in our study, their parents who took the time and interest to respond to our interviews, and their teachers who tolerated our frequent visits, questions, and interruptions. It is every bit as much their study as ours. I hope the findings reported here in some measure justify any inconveniences we may have caused. The success of field-based studies such as these depend upon the keen professionalism and sensitivity of each research team member. Leann Parker carried the lion's share of the work through all aspects of the project, along with Pamela Downing and Richard McCallum. Our ordeal of data analyses and codings were lightened and enriched by the perseverance of Mary Sue Ammon, Fatima Badry, Margaret Boothroyd, Russel Durst, Brien Gong, James Marshall, Deborah Swanson-Owens, William Sweigart, and David White. Without their assistance we would still have tape recorders to our ears and myriad transcripts before us. would like to thank the faculty and staff members at the University of California at Berkeley, the National Institute of Education, and the National Council of Teachers of English who helped in our effort. Their support permitted us to go about our work with greatest ease. I also The research conducted and reported herein was supported in part by the National Institute of Education, Department of Education and by the Research Foundation of the National I am particularly grateful Council of Teachers of English. Without them, for their support. work of this magnitude However; would not have been possible. the views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of either funding agency, and no endorsement should be inferred. vi 6.8 6.9 6.13 Correlations, Attention to Global Aspects of Text Emphasis on Global Units Over Time Correlations, Data Source Correlations, Attention to Process 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 How Students Use Genre Knowledge Familiarity With Genre Beginnings and Endings Sense of Author and Audience what Students Know About Structure Approaches to Writing How Students Handle Difficult Parts. 6.7 7 "...books are like a picnic to which the author brings the words and the reader the meaning." (Northrop Frye, Fearful Symmetry: A Study of William Blake Boston, 1967.) Chapter One Language and Reasoning: An Introduction Reading and Writing Reading and writing. we use all the time. master. Still, interpretations Common enough words. Activities Skills even young children learn what do they mean? For me their center around three interrelated language, thought, and communication. to richest concepts: Susanne Langer (1942) writes that. ...language is, without a doubt, the most marvelous and at same time the most mysterious product the human mind....In language we of the have the free, accomplished use of symbolism, the record of articulate thinking; without language there seems to be nothing like explicit thought whatever. (p. 103) She suggests essentially it is inaccurate communicative, and to view language suggestE rather that as the and expressions of language lies in the formulation of essence conceptions at symbolic a more highly and abstract Language is used to conceptualize experience, not to level. elaborate signals and symptoms; symbolic, it is primarily and only sometimes functions as a sign. Although children's language under develops the influence of adult models, language is acquired not only for communicative purposes, but for an entire system of personal thought. The strength of language liras in its ability transmit subtle Although these intuitions ideas are, and to conceptions to others. learned in specific in part, contexts of communication, they also serve the more abstract symbolic functions that Susanne Langer describes. begin I because this volume with reference to offers it conceptuathation than to simply a somewhat broader Langer's work basis for of the intricacies of reading and writing accept any of the currently popular notions of the two as similar processes of communication, composing, or meaning construction. How Meanings Develop Iser (1978) helps to elaborate upon this sense of intricacies of meaningful language use. process of reading a text, account not thoughts and In describing the he considers it only for the text itself, the but necessary also for actions involved in the reader's response to the to that text: The text offers different schematized views through which the subject matter of the work can come to light, but the actuality of bringing it to light is an act of "realization" on the part of the re The with meaning ler. is not completely identical with the text the reader's realization of the must always remain "virtual." and text, therefore Interpretations and responses are properties neither of the text nor of the text nor reader; represents the (idealized) potential that is the realized during the process of reading. The and must writer's plan begins with a comunicative its path is marked by a range of specific guides be understood by the reader; instructions both purpose the writer includes the and the reader construes them. reading and writing are perceived as activities: the construes, writing writer constitutes, need to be charts and which a presuppositions underlying those acts. way, meaning-building course, reading light in reader the Both builds. interpreted In this and of the "To understand is to interpret" (Sontag, 1956). In literature, from the New Criticism moved attention representative meanings, elements operating away toward the functions of within each work. However, as the Iser points out, a function is not in itself a meaning; it brings about an effect and needs to be studied and treated as such. Meaning, on the other hand, development--in its unfolding. the text unfolds, and as is experienced in its Meanings change and build as meanings are clarified integrated they lead to interpretations and realizations. 3 10 and I (see "envisionments" tc these unfolding texts Fillmore, 1981; Langer, in press-a, b) which represent the momentary text refer that worlds as as they began with experience readers develop meanings through their reading or writing. project upon which this book is based The this dynamically constructive view of reading and writing as meaning-making activities. A brief review of some of the recent work that influenced the intellectual focus more Jf the Reading/Writing Project follows. Language Development the During late some 1950s and early 1960s development landmark American studies in the field of child and child language (Bruner et al., Bellugi, along that to reaching way the 1963; Menruk, 1969) made us aware adult normal stages that eventually lead Further, (Inhelder natural thought; to the learning became clear from the work it Piaget. & from 1958), the of body Bruner, followers train models and Elkind from the work Harvard American Piaget's forms. helpful components of the child's of the child forms is necessary, 4 to adult Although training -bill 17en to emulate thew) forms is not. understanding work that it is unproductive and Flavell, children to reproduce adult are by Piaget of accomplished at the Center for Cognitive Studies at under of many although they are different from them in adult forms, ways. are there forms "child" forms of language and legitimate and Flavell, 1964; Brown and 1976; 1956, the of environment, Rather, an as is the opportunity children for to use and these upon enlarge forms, appear to be two distinct ways to look at child There sees the child as functioning with a faulty One language. or primitive imitation of the adult system, in which case it is criterion. brought radical shift in perspective the Yet, adult an appropriate to judge a child's speech against about by the child language studies of 20 years ago requires us to analyze the child's system of language and thought as different governed by its own rules which are qualitatively from those of the adult. than and these child approaches are rule governed the adult's, systematic Although simpler and less powerful their own in To right. treat them as approximations of an adult system is to miss their essential character and to misjudge the significance of advances in child overgeneralization behavior example, for as, such major the regular formation of past of the tense endings for English verbs (producing runned instead of ran). Rather than backwardness, such signal errors grammatical in children's learning of certain developments regularities, although they have not yet major learned the exceptions to those grammatical rules. While the this research has been of critical importance in educational and child development studies that have followed, it is surprising to find the developmental aspects of learning so completely absent in recent reading and writing. 5 1.2 work regarding The Expert/Novice Paradigm During the pass: decade, a number of researchers compered the differing strategies used by expert and readers and writers characterization skills. some of the in to order nature provide reading of focussed experience and conceptualized on adults with skill (the have poked 1979). useful. various made it reading complex, clearly and some or more at higher and lower achievers at one They 15r7; I Flower 6; Hayes, 1980; The results of these studies have been very have increased our understanding processes at work in reading or writing, clear of distinction), have contrasted younger And older learners, Peri, studies: degress some 1979; writing and most version of the expert/ novice ages (Markman,, broad and differing original novice a There have been several versions of such have have that any attempt to or writing experience will specify of the have and stages in a misrepresent the highly recursive processes people actually engage in when they read or write (Bereiter & Scardamalia, in press; Flower & Hayes, 1980 alb; Perl, 1979). But in recent work, lost focus. the expert/ novice distinction has The helpful distinction among endpoints (of what constitutes knowing and not-knowing within a particular area of contrast reading competence) has blurred, anu the expert/novice has become a model of the developmental course or writing processes. but critical: This distinction is of subtle the problem of what constitutes knowilig does 6 1.3 not tell us how that knowledge is best-- or even usually- - acquired, and extrapolating from the endpoints to a model of development the or acquisition Is likely to learning process. have seriously Even in cabas where the researchers been aware of this distinction and results appropriately, research-- often distort interpreted their later readers-- those who cite the treat expert/novice differences as studies of the davelopmental process. When our distinctions concerns switch expert/novice from to the developmental course of learning, what becomes critical is a thorough understanding of how children learn, and how children's approaches change devflop and along the way to becoming mature readers and writers. is This not to say that we have exhausted the usefulness of expert/novice distinctions developmental are our in studies; but the and these issues have hardly been looked p.t, critical for those of us who wish to make a the difference in schooling. A number of researchers have been studying the reading, writing, and Burke, first; and language behaviors of young children. Woodward (1983) have found that by the start of grade children use clearly mark genre. work clearly letters, Harste, organizational structures that Much before grade 1, children's written resembled maps, and lists. the surface forms of stories, King and Rentel (1981, 1982), in their longitudinal study of coherence in children's writing, found that by the time children enter first grade, they have 7 a fundamental understanding of the various cohesive devices that hold a text together, and that such knowledge varies by genre. In addition, by the time they 'agin formal schooling children have (Applebee, learned the anderlying structure of Stein 1978, & Glenn, 1979). Bissex describes how, preceeded reading and how exposition had its place functional Dyson her son's in messages of early (1980) writing development, youthful hiw stories the in communications. (1982) exploras ways in which four to seven year olds make sense of reading and writing. She suggests that vr'iting serves as thought-generating a activity children in their understandings of language. assists that Further, when children read their own writing, the conncetions between the two language domains become explicit. what children do know, These explorations of combined with the rich research the invented spellings of young children Read, (Henderson, on 1981; 1975), stimulated the present inquiry into children's knowledge of reading and writing, and how these function as the child gets older. Reading and Writing Research The early interrelationships studies and saw 1980s among renewed language instructional skills; a began to articles reading/writing relationships, as interest in the of flock deal with well as with oral/written differences. Because conceptualized as language activities which emanate from common conceptual core, reading and writing a few researchers have 8 can begun be a to investigate the relationships between reading writing and (Flower & Hayes, 1983; Graves & Hansen, 1983; Olson, Duffy & Mack, 1980; Olson, Mack & Duffy, 1981; LaZansky, Raphael, Pearson 1983; better Cohen, & Tierney, & in press; Tierney & Pearson, All are attempting 1984). understand the roles of the writer and Olson investigating is readers use Tierney et authors' the principles constructing in are al. story examining that and readers' the and writers essay to reader. meanings. perspectives intentions and the effects of communicative on discourse structure. both Shuy, 1980; Tierney, of modes Tierney and Pearson are looking at reading and writing as "composing" processes, and are attempting to develop a model of composing that is based on the meaning-generating relationship between the two domains. Flower and Hayes (1983) are investigating reading processes in light of their strategic model of writing, and Craves and Hansen (1983) are investigating relationships reading and writing in the classroom context. investigators is, in some way, examining between Each of these the cognitive processes which operate when readers and writers are engaged in somewhat similar tasks. Each investigator reflects the growing interest in understanding ways in which children and adults use language, how language use is similar or differer: in use across domains, and how the strategies used in one domain inform cognitive decision-making in the other domains. Stotsky (1984), in a comprehensive review of research on reading correlational relationships, writers tend to be better consistently" tend to read more than poorer writers, readers tend writing better and to produce more eyntactir;ally mature writing Experimental studies which have taught used writing exercises or better readera, writers than poorer writers. that shows studies have indicated "almost better that writing and primarily improve to writing have not found significant effects on reading. almost all studies specifically aiming to comprehension Yet reading improve or retention through writing activities have found significant gains on reading. Unfortunately, from much the recent work has of lack of a firm conceptualization of a under study-- it has, comparisons contrasts and understanding for the most part, (or across specifying) the the suffered phenomena attempted to make the domains ways in before which those behaviors differ based on their real-life contextualization. The challenge reading for studies into the relationships among and writing is to embed the investigations within a broader view of the differentiation of a variety of language functions, and the use of strategies that are appropriate to the particular tasks. becomes to of understanding the personal one with them, histories, and the linguistic and cognitive resources available individuals different With this in mind, the research issue ways and contexts of those language resources use are -- whether used in reading, writing, speaking, or listening. A review of the current litelature 10, 17 indicate4 three directions the research has taken. writing and Page, as related processes 1974; Shanahan, conceptualizes two as & Pearson, Atwell, research A moves developmental beyond body second composing 1984, Graves & Hansen, 1961; Jacobs, (Chall & 1980). the Tierney 1983; One body defines reading (Calkins, Petrosky, 1984; 1982; The third body of 1983). the composing process to the and work of processes view of reading and writing as meaning-making 1984; communication eocio- a processfas ideas of of (Harste, Burke, & Woodward, 1983; Bissex, 1980; de Ford, 1981; Teale, 1984). requires This third focus, still that research issues in its infant be anchored in the contexts in which reading and writim' occur, the direction needed stages, multiple surely and is before instructional issues can be reading or view of addressed in any meaningful way. The Development of Systematic Strategies Although writing may development many of the earlier studies have been itself, Reading/Writing too the Project narrow studies of their in undertaken grew out of and depend for the upon the previous work; they simply push in different directions. One of the most productive areas of recent research has focussed in and on metacognitive processes in reading or writing- - particular, the use comprehension on the development of cognitive of self-regulatory mechanisms and mastery (Bransford, Flavell & Wellman, 1977; Markman, 1979; 1978). 11 18 strategies to Brown, monitor 1978; Two consistent findings emerge from this research. poor achievers) have fewer task-relevant strategies (or organize aware transform information. and performances strategic awareness performance Novices (Brown, on comprehension and less strategies that deficits These 1978). highly are the with correlated in poor problem-solving seem not to know enough about their own requirements of the task, to also They are aspects of the task and of of affect the young children First, tasks. abilities, or the effectiveness of the various strategies (Brown & Deloache, 1978; Flavell, 1978). Flower and Hayes (1980a,b) have found that good writers formulate subgoals have their own task goals and develop a which shapes their work. some awareness and activities when they read. the control structure Effective readers of readers. self-awareness Bake: and Brown (1980) describe processes These ur also cognitive their metacognitive problems encountered by immature achieving of fall into two reflection on one's or categories: own low 1) cognitive and 2) self-control or the use of self-regulatory mechanisms. addition In above, use to the metacognitive skills described reading and writing tasks also require awareness and of 1982). grammars, certain kinds of linguistic knowledge (Applebee, Stories, for example, have been described by formal and these grammars have been generated from or related to the manner in which people perceive or comprehend stories (Handler, 1977; Rumelhart, 1975; Stein & 12 19 Glenn, Thorndyke, 1979; growing described the of story structures created by end Applebee 1977). sophistication (1978) responded to Discourse structures have also been characterized in of b7 "scripts, structures plans, select two sequences actions of terms conceptual as (Schank suggest what one is doing and the appropriate and meaningful behaviors aspects seventeen. to goals," that is, strands of research monitor to age & . various These from and explaining Abelson, 1977) ability subjects of every reading and writing that the ability important are experience. systematic organizing and monitoring processes, to Through individuals recognize, avoid, problems. Writers can monitor whether they have said correct comprehension and composing and what they meant to say and can revise as they judge it necessary. Readers was monitor if the text says what they thought can going to interpretation necessary. say of and can more it) Successful examine the carefully if systematic text (or they routines in their judge any it it domain involve personal awareness, decision-making, and monitoring. In reading and writing, they also involve awareness of language structures relevant to the task at hand. The strategies and approaches selected for scrutiny in the Reading/Writing Project include understanding one knows, of when the what awareness of what the options are, and knowledge and novice/expert work, of how to studies primary use those provided a While the starting place for this options. concern was not to 13 itemize 20 children's but deficits, to identify the strategies they in fact use when they read and write. Although I focussed on the systems underlying students' overall approaches to each task, the previous work suggested many of the mental processes that were important to study. These were diviied into two distinct areas: procedural (Figure 1.1). Awareness of what one knows or has is considered to be repertorial, done repertorial and in that there repertoire of processes which are potentially which reader or writer may or may not the is helpful, be aware. a of The self-control or self-regulatory category is considered to be procedural in that there are procedures or self-checks which readers things are monitor whether perform in order to writers and going well. These, on the and how they are focus of course, knowledge and use of specific strategies, related to reading and writing performance and success. Insert Figure 1.1 addition In approaches to the about here repertorial described by the first two and procedural categories, reading and writing tasks also require awareness of certain kinds of linguistic information. the The content related aspects of the reading or writing task. linguistic procedural (text These add clarity and structure to components (in both repertorial terms) include knowledge of discourse level), grammatical routines (sentence lexical repertoire (word level). The Project 14 21 and structure level), and Reading/Writing The based focussed descriptive book Project upon which this on these issues studies which examined strategies school age children through the a series is of approaches and used when they were engaged in a variety of reading and writing tasks. The project team examined some of the basic activities engaged cognitive children cf differing ages (grades 3 through in when they were composing or comprehending 9) text. The questions that were addressed focussed on the very roots of the development of reading and writing ability: 1) Since reading and writing both involve the development of meaning, is there a common language core of routines systematically children that use when they are reading and writing? How do these routines interrelate with one another? How do these routines grow in scope and 2) and 3) complexity from grade 3 to grade 9 ? Reading and Writing: Reading creating and Structures and Strategies writing are, above all else, meanings and communicating them to means others. of Th,,y are two of the many forms of interaction I have developed in our exchanges with one another. and Characteristics of reading writing need to be analyzed in terms of their roles communication events -- the intentions of the in participants, the topics addressed, the forms and conventions that mediate what is chapters In the I will describe the workings of the understood by both readers and that follow, wri:;ers. Project in more detail, and discuss the notions the children 15 22 had about reading and writing, the functional roles reading and writing played in their lives, the strategies they used to construe and constitute and build their meanings, and the structures they produced. Figure 1.1 SYSTEMATIC APPROACHES TO READING AND WRITING REFLECTING ON OWN COGNITIVE APPROACHES (repertorial) 1. awareness and formulation of task goal 2. awareness of what is known and needs to be known 3. awareness of helpful and unhelpful strategies REGULATING ACTIONS (procedural) 1. changing approaches when stuck 2. checking problem solving attempts 3. anticipating what to do next KNOWING LANGUAGE (repertorial) 1. awareness of discourse structure 2. awareness of flexible grammatical routines 3. awareness of available vocabulary USING LANGUAGE (procedural) 1. planning and adjusting to structural demands 2. using grammatical routines flexibly 3. choosing appropriate language Chapter 2 The Research Plan body of work reported in this volume grows out Tha the concerns discussed in previous the chapter. of The Project's overriding goal was to examine the basic cognitive activities students comprehending students by engage different in when they kinds of writing are By text. during particular reading and writing examining tape recordings of strategies self-reported their reading they used and awarenesses and writing, observing activities, thoughts and behaviors when reading and writing, the or by probing had while they and by examining the pieces they had written as well as their retellings of what they had read, I hoped the to learn more about the many complexities involved in constructive, meaning-making aspects of reading and writing. This gathering interviews, and chapter describes the general procedures used data -- the parent, the reading and writing tasks, retrospective procedures, the 18 and student, teacher the think-aloud cognitive 25 in probes, the text-based auestions -- and the ways in which I examined the data that resulted. Sample Selection The studies analyses in this book are based on intensive of (approximate students, fror. the students drawn from 67 ages 11, 8, and parents, students, the Schools of a well-to-do suburban of meaning principals, teachers, and school In this early phase of my district in northern California. on 9 selecting In 14). and 6, 3, I was fortunate to have had excellent cooperation Superintendent work grades case development, I wished examine to what students were capable of knowing and doing under the best of circumstances. I deliberately chose to work with Thus a student body whose general performance scores were above the national average both in reading and language. elementary Superintendent of Schools provided access to two schools (kindergarten through grade 5), (grades 6 through 8), and a high school (grades 9 12). selected I workable grades 3, developmental range middle a school through and 9 as representating 6, across the a years. school Because all classes were heterogeneously grouped, differentiate The I did not among class-types within any one grade level. The principal of each school referred the project team to 11 teachers who had expressed interest in working with us, whose classes were representative of those school. These teachers were arked to recommend ninth within and each 16 third and graders and 36 sixth graders (an equal number of boys 19 26 and girls) representative as their of student general population in performance and achievement, to act as student participants. All 68 all accepted, project; students were invited to join the but last minute ucheduling problems made !..t n'::essary for one ninth grader to be eliminated from the sample. Research Insttuments A variety of research instruments and procedures developed for schedules, reading tasks, the study. passages These interview inclu%:4ed and writing prompts, think-aloud and retrospective reporting were recall procedures, probe questions, and text-based questions tied to particular reading passages. Interview Each of these is described briefly below. Schedules. Separate student, teacher interview schedules were prepared to group's perceptions their parent, explore of reading and writing in general judgments of each student as a reader and particular. comparisons perceptions writer and each and in The interview schedules were designed to permit between the adults' and the students' proficiency of the students' reading in and writing, the students' uses of reading and writing at school and at home, and their general notions of what it takes to read and write. Briefer the but parents general The student schedule was quite overlapping schedules were also or caretakers. schedule The teachers extensive. completed completed of questions about their notions 20 27 of by one the teaching brief and learning of reading and writing, about set achievement reading the individual each of writing and student. another and behavior and of the (Each interview schedules is available in full in Langer, 1984-c.) Responses to the interview questions were examined both at the level by questions the of individual question, quantifying the extent of attention general characteristics of reading and writing: conveyed, liking, and the and and effort required, skill across and to four the meaning the degree of the relationship between the literacy activity Results the context in which it occurred. from the interviews are presented in Chapter 3. Passages and writing discourse and Prompts. prompts Reading passages were chosen developed to reflect The function categories were functions. from among those described by Applebee (1981), imaginative different two writing (represented here by and chosen include stories) and writing in order to convey information (represented here reports). suspected These they discourse types were selected because create very different cognitive as well rhetorical tasks for both readers and writers, by and I as because both are free f ,!roly encountered in school as well as out-of- school settings. For the reading and writing tasks, I wished identify reading passages and develop writing prompts focussed on topics familiar to and read by students our span. age To the project this end, 28 21 team to that across revicwed reading materials textbooks, fiction anthologies, and sixth, third, in magazines; and ninth examined grade library and non-fiction books available to the children for their school and personal reading; and interviewed teachers, school librarians, and children's librarians in local public libraries to learn of the topics children aged 8, 11, and 14 tended to read and write about. "first day," The sources concurred that "friend," "family," and "school" were story themes that were readily found in child and adolescent books magazines and comfortably were write. readily interviewed like and about which children For the report tasks, available across the ages animal and could reports the people advised that students in the'e age groups read and write about their to most hobbies, also sports, or other special interests. For the story reeding task, two passages wex I selected, both about "first days." Handstands, and from third grade basal reader published by Allyn a Bacon "Jackie" is a passage taken year old youngster who moves to a new neighborhood and is put to the before test summer day (1978). It being is about a nine or accepted by the local ten After boys. of growing friendship and shared pranks, of surprise, the first to their their new friend isn't a boy at all. "The school arrives and the boys that a find, much New Kid" is a passage taken frog. Black Boy by Richard Wright and is published Edition, included by the 1979). ninth in the Webster This grade Division of anthology McGraw story is about a teen age 22 29 Insights Hill boy (3rd who moves to a new neighborhood and during his very first day at school the must prove himself to the "tough guys" who social story passages are Both scene. dominate included in Appendix I. writing The prompt developed to parallel the "first day" stories was as follOws: Make up a story about going doing somewhere, something, or meeting somebody for the first time. Write the make-believe story for other students your age to read. For the passages one report Bacon (1971). informational one about moles and "The Mole" was found in Ideas and John of and "The Crowd Pleasing Conservationist" (Prairie O'Rear, (December 1977). behavior two third grade basal reader published by Allyn a by task, about animals were selected, about prairie dogs. Images, Dog), reading was found in Boy's Life magazine Both reports describe the life styles and the animals. The report passages are also presented in Appendix I. The report writing prompt was as follows: Think of something you know a lot about. be something you studied in school, something report you're just interrIted can It a hobby, in. about that topic for someone your or Write age a to read. The reading passages were grouped into two sets, one to be used with samples of third and sixth grade 23 readers, the other The readers. at used with samples of sixth be to easier approximately ninth grade passages ("Jackie" and "Mole") were third grade and and more the difficuic passages ("New Kid" and "Crowd Pleasing Conservationist") at approximately eighth grade readability levels as measured by the Fry formula. Retellings. For the reading tasks, students were told in advance that they would be asked bo retell what they were about After completing a reading to read. they passage, were asked: everything Tell you remember about what you've just read. Their responses were tape recorded for later analysis of Data. In what they remembered from the passage. Think-Aloud gathering project, and reading a and Retrospective Sources of and writing strategy data during this number of resources were used to provide a rich multifaceted A data-base. think-aloud self-report procedure was used by half the students as they were reading and writing. to The During their first session, they were trained verbalize all their thoughts when reading other retrospective half of the procedure: students to read were or and writing. trained write in a without disturbance, but to report their thoughts as best they could as soon as they completed the task. The prompts for the two conditions were similar: 24 31 Tell everything about the topic, about: about your reading or writing -- all the ideas that come/came into your mind while you are/were getting ready to you are/were read/write, reading/writing, are/were thinking, After thinking are/were you or any while you time even when you are/were done. reading each passage and telling their thoughts, students retrace the in retrospective condition were their reading passages (line-by-line) the to asked or writing samples as an aid in remembering what they had been thinking when they were reading or writing. think-aloud, sessions was were strategies taught during the recorded tape This procedure, like the first for later the students used, analysis the knowledge All session. of sources the they called upon, and the meanings and structures they created. detailed A Construction, system, was codification and the specially analysis the of Analysis Meaning of developed permit to children's "on-line" attempts to construct meaning when they read and wrote. this procedure each self-reported think aloud retrospection was transcribed and segmented into communication categorized units, or comments. on the and individual Each comment was along two major dimensions: In then reasoning operations, and on the monitoring concerns that occur during a reading or writing activity. examined the text An additonal five analyses 1) the strategies used in meaning development, unit focussed upon, 3) the data source used 2) in making meaning, 4) the reader's or writer's focus on process 25 or product, experience and 5) time the that particular when comment Appendix III for coding definitions. manual is presented in Langer, reading/writing the in occurred. The complete (See scoring Results from 1984-c.) the Analysis of Meaning Construction are reported in Chapter 6. Questions. Probing for Probing questions were developed use after the think-aloud or retrospection activity had been completed. These questions examined six aspects of the students' understanding: 1) genre (stories and reports), 2) author/audience communicator, 3) organization of ideas, language used content, and 6) surface features of language. probing in questions expressing dealt meanings, with the 4) task-specific 5) Some of the notions students' of reading and writing strategies in general; others dealt with their awarenesses and behaviors when engaged particular reading or writing task they had just the in completed. The probing questions were developed as a guide for the researcher. The children included in the form. questions not were not asked Instead, they were spontaneously addressed verbal reports or general conversation. explain awarenesses decisions they reading and made, writing, they had, behaviors and their question each asked only those children's the in They were asked to knowledge they they engaged reasons for used, in doing when so. Analyses of these data are reported in Chapter 7. Text-based Questions. Specific text-based Or 26 questions students' developed to focus on the ways in which the were text-world changed or "envisionment" (see keyed directly press-a,b) in writing developed as the reading or and activity For the reading tasks, questions roved towards completion. were Langer, to the text passage; each of for writing, questions were prompted by what each student wrote. The students' developing meanings were examined to learn how by the they were influenced by the specific genre, content (and schemata evoked by the content), and by such linguistic material as syntax, punctuation, and cohesive ties. Results from these questions are interspersed throughout the present report. The Research Design design permitted examination of a variety mixed A between- and within-subject effects. two passage sets were For the reading tasks, constructed the from passages passages described above: ("Jackie" and "Mole") and the other set contained the difficult one set contained the passages Conservationist"). ("New In Kid" each of and passage easier "Crowd half set, more Pleasing of the students were randomly assigned to the think-aloud procedure and the other half to the retrospection procedure. All of the third and half of the sixth graders read and reported on passage set while half of the sixth and all the easier the ninth graders read and reported on the passage set. story/report In this differences design, more 27 difficult reading/writing were within subject 34 of effects and and easy/hard passage set, age, and thirk-aloud/retrospection differences were between subject effects (see Table 2.1). Insert Table 2.1 about here The Students The 84.9 67 students had an average percentile reading in measured and 87.3 in general language the Comprehensive Test of Basic by score of skills as scores for each separate grade level are percentile The Skills. listed in Table 2.2. Insert Table 2.2 about here Procedures Half the students were assigned at random to the thinkprocedure. aloud They were trained to provide information and about their thoughts and behaviors as they were reading The writing. the retrospective condition. retell) as they but to report their best they could as soon as they completed the After completing their reading or writing task, the as in the retrospective condition were encouraged students retrace They were trained to read (and or write without disturbance, thoughts task. to other half of the students were assigned to (line by line) the reading passage or written text thinking when were tape an aid in remembLring what they had been were reading or writing. All sessions recorded for later analysis. 28 35 gathAing began Data through was June 1983. October in 1982 and continued each student During that time period, seen individually by a member of the project separate five sessions, each team approximately one for hour in length. During the first session, background information was gathered the orally and the students were trained to engage think-aloud or retrospection procedures they would in use during the next four sessions. The succeeding four sessions were devoted to writing, story reading, report writing, story a or report reading activity using either the retrospective or think-aloud selfreport procedure. story Thus, and a report, and shared his or her thoughts during, or directly after, activity each activity. In each case, the writing preceded the reading activity lest writing the student's be influenced by the characteristics of the reading passage; the randomized. after each student read and wrote both a order of the report story and tasks was Probing and text-based questions, administered retrospection the provided completed, or think-aloud additional data procedure not was spontaneously reported by the students. Analyses main sources of data for the The the following: interviews, 2) 1) the the the student, think-aloud reports, 3) responses to text-based questions, parent, and analyses and 5) the student sam-L.Aes, and 6) the student retellings. 29 teacher retrospective responses tq probing questions, were self4) the writing the project gathered some 320 hours of process In all, from the students' think-aloud and retrospective selE- data reports and the follow-up probing questions. great the In addition, a deal of product data was collected -- the 134 children wrote, and the 134 retellings reported they immediately after they had read each passage. process papers Combined, the and product data provided a particularly rich base for examining data the strategies the students used and the meanings they developed when reading and writing; both how these change across the years and how they differ within and between genre. Although all of the retellings were of the process data were analyzed directly from the transcripts Full stages of were category used primarily during development. much transcribed, Although the tapes. initial strongly grounded in my constructivist notions of meaning change and development, the categories in all analyses were directly from the data collected: developed the project team members analyzed the transcripts, listened to the tapes and referred to the field notes during the initial stages development, and then of tested and modified the category categories based on still other tapes and transcripts. Tests of Significance A even study such as this generates a large amount of data, when question considering one or another within the study as a whole. relatively Where appropriate, multivariate tests of significance have been used, 30 37 specific or total scores that provide an overall test before specific differences variables, the grade (3, (story, 6, greater mode (talk-aloud, 9), report), domain retrospective), genre writing), (reading, for it, analyses task Analysis scores was and interaction terms were included in the tests of significance. square and hard passage sets at grade 6). variance was used where the distribution of appropriate selected For detail. more design allowed tests of the main effects of difficulty (easy, of in examining For categorical variables, chi- were used with categories combined where necessary to raise expected frequencies to 5. For the within-subject effects (genre and domain), tests of significance were based on within-subject contrasts in both the analyses. analyses of variance and the chi-square Tests of association (or correlation) calculated for these variables; extent and were also these provide a test of the to which individual students apprcach their writing (or their story and report) tasks reading in similar findings, tabled ways. To simplify the presentation of results emphasize the factors which had the most (genre, grade, and domain). influence Mode effects, though rare, are pointed out when they occurred. The chapters that follow have been planned to highlight the ways most interesting issues that emerged in studying in which reading and writing processes are interwoven with the meanings being developed in the mind of the 31 38 the reader or writer. The individual analyses, are sometimes then, divided across several chapters, and elaborative descriptive data are presented when helpful. In Chapter 3, views students' I will examine parents', teachers', and of reading and writing-- that is, general context within which their literacy learning place. Chapters 4 and 5 look at the both takes structures underlie the students' sense of story and report, the that including global structures and their elaboration and linking of Chapters 6 and 7 turn to the strategies that govern ideas. their reading and writing processes, as revealed both in the protocol data and in their responses to follow up questions. Chapter 8 brings the two 4pes of analysis together in context of children. the reading and writing of the particular two The final chapter summarizes what I have learned in the context of my initial concern to explore the nature of the relationships between reading and from the project as a whole, writing when they are viewed interpretive, symbolic processes. 32 39 as active, Table 2.1 Design Within Subject Story Report Read X X Write X X Between Subject Easier Passages Think-Aloud Retrospection More Difficult Passages ThIEk:Aloud Retrospection Grade 3 8 8 6 8 8 9 16 8 8 32 8 8 16 Table 2.2 Mean Percentile Scores in Reading and Language Language Reading Grade 3 78.3 84.9 6 8i .1 86.4 9 87.0 93.7 v 41 Chapter 3 Views Toward Literacy: literacy The Parents, Teachers, and Students environment that surrounded readers and writers I studied overarches, affects, a all the other analyses. the ways Numerous researchers from in which significant adults behave, Heath, 1981, 1983; Scollon, 1981; Further, reading Cazden, 1976; with the communicate, and 1980; Halliday, 1978; Labov, 1972; Leichter, 1974; Scollon & Scribner Cole, & 1981; Wells, a language activity communicate with words. are that requires and teaching ability the that to Teachers and parents who can do but unable to talk about whal; they do, likely 1981). and writing are language activities involve overt oral and written communication, is perceptions world around them are very much entwined think (Bruner et.al., ways 'end in some variety of fields have shown that children's of young the and why, to be effective in setting an instructional are less context for reading, writing, and language learning. While reliable reports indicators of what people say they do of knowledge than what people 35 42 are do less do, caution in their use applies in a different way teaching and learning of language skills (i.e., writing) and the button (i.e., facility teaching and learning buttoning flourishes in or zipper instructional the the of the reading and motor zippering). language is talked with and talked about. point, of to skills Language environments where From this vantage it is important to examine what people Thus, say. project would be incomplete without an examination of literacy context that influenced the children's notions reading and Among writing. parents/caretakers, other questions, the and the students themselves were asked about reading and writing in general; about what teachers, they thought it takes to learn to read and write; reasons the for learning to do them at all; and about individual children liked to read and write, about the whether what they found hard and easy, and why. The Interviews For research purposes, posed to each group, some of the same questions were but parents, teachers, and children were also asked certain questions only they could answer. Student Interviews. of 28 questions: writing. The student interviews consisted 14 about reading and a comparahle 14 about The questions divided into four major categories: 1) how successful the students perceived themselves to be as readers and writers, and what they found hard or easy about the two tasks, 2) what the students thought it takes to be good reader or writer and what it takes to learn to do 36 43 a it, 3) how the students felt about reading and writing and they liked best or least about each, and what what 4) the students tended to read and write--as well as where and why. The student interview meeting with each child. took place during the first After describing the project and explaining the kinds of student participation hoped for, the researcher recorded asked the the prepared conversation, interview and took field interview took approximately 20 minutes. tape questions, notes. Each Sixty-six of the possible 67 interviews were completed. Parent Interviews. consisting The parent interviews were briefer, of eight questions each for reading and writing. These questions fell into six question categories, four which 1) were successful comparable to the student was the questions: child as a reader/writer he/she finds hard or easy about it, a good reader/writer, 3) how the child feels about reading The areas provided a parent view of literacy: and 4) remaining how the 5) though.L reading/writing ought to be taught child's grade level, and what 2) what it takes to be what the child tends to read/write at home. parent how -- and and writing and what is best/least liked about each, two of at that 6) how the parent helped the child to read and write. The school parent year, September. interviews took place at the of of the beginning in late June and continuing through At first, letters were sent home appended to the list of questions to be answered. 27 end the 67 responses had 37 After a month had passed, been rIceived. 44 Each parent/caretaker who telephoned. researcher gathering The had failed to respond was who was responsible of these data conducted the interviews then the for times at convenient to each respondent, often calling first to make a phone appointment. and the full 67 These parent interviews were completed. Teacher Interviews. schedules eight were teachers (four reading-related related questions) of Two brief but separate prepared for the questions eight phone calls were well received, interview including: and writing- four that focussed on general issues, questions that focussed on the teachers' their individual students. 1) and 2) perceptions completed (One of these was for each student.) Questions areas: on the general schedule divided into four 1) what it took to be a good reader/writer, 2) how reading/writing was best taught at that grade level, 3) how that teacher helped students read/write better, the teacher thought students, in general, and 4) what found easiest or hardest about reading and writing. Questions on the student-focussed schedule dealt 1) the teacher's perceptions of whether or not each liked to teacher read or write (what and why), with student how the and how distributed to and 2) rated each student as a reader and writer those judgments were made. Both schedules of questions were teachers during the third week in June. nearing summer recess, the Since schools completed forms 38 45 were were to be returned who After a month had elapsed, the teachers by mail. had not responded were reached by telephone in the same manner mail, as the parents. and necessary In all, by phone. 3 data 8 teachers By the end of were collected from all 11 responded by September, the teachers; all were most cooperative in providing answers to the questions. Because only 11 teachers were involved in project, the results from the teacher interviews will be reported across, rather than within, grade level groups. Categorizing the Responses After the data had been collected, the research read through the many responses collected for each question. individual respondents, I also wished to permit set of common categories to emerge around each The separate While I was very much interested in the language used by the a team resulting coding sheets included up to 14 question. possible responses for each question (see Langer, 1984c for interview A schedu'es). that indicated four more series exploratory factor analyses these specific responses in turn reflected of general dimensions of response that seemed to und?.rly the comments of all three groups (parents, teachers, and students): 1) ideas and imagination - responses that grow out of a focus on knowing language-- e.g., or using meaningful anticipating, chunks of developing, or organizing ideas, or comprehending text; 2) skill and effort - responses that grow out of a focus on e.g., a parts of the reading focus on words, or writing or other surface mechanics, features that are not in themselves meaning on process - - the effort involved in reading and laden; or writing-- e.g.y concentration and practice; enjoyment 3) - responses that grow out of a focus on the topic or personal reactions to, or judgments of, activity-- e.g., attitudes. context - responses that grow out of a focus on the 4) context for reading and evaluation, literacy writing-- e.g., grades and role models and personal support, specific activities (such as book reports) required by and specific literacy materials the school, available at home, school, or elsewhere in the child's life. each respondent, For of the percent of responses in each these dimensions was calculated, that were common interviews. Data measures design, to the teacher, across the student, questions and parent were analyzed as a multivariate repeated with grade level (3rd, 6th, or 9th) as a between-subject factor and domain (reading vs. writing) and group factors. for parent, (student, the or teacher) as within-subject These across-question analyses provided a context examination of specific responses to individual questions. Perceptions of Reading and Writing Frequency students', of To provide an Responses. parents', and teachers' overview views of reading 40 47 of and writing, the mean number of responses to the questions asked across all three groups were first examined (see Table 3.1). In responding to these questions, more (offered <.001). when a greater number of comments) reading about as opposed to writing (F[1,63] However, spoke groups all three = talking 25.79, none of the groups differed significantly from the other groupss in the total number of comments made when (neither p focussing separately reading on writing or the main effect for group nor the group by interaction was significant). they domain The domain rather than the people made the difference. Insert Table 3.1 about here 41. Significant total number 4.18, p <.02); than interaction <.07). grade differences were also of comments increased with grade The found. (F[2,63] = this trend was more marked for the students their for grade was parents or teachers (the nearly significant, grade F[2,126] = x group 2.26, The fact that the number of comments increases is not surprising; however, p with the indication that all groups generated more language in response to the reading as opposed may to the writing questions suggests that all groups have been more comfortable and therefore more fluent in talking about reading than writing. learn To focussed terms of their the more about the ways responses, in which each group the data were also analyzed extent of concern with the four 41 4b in dimensions introduced earlier: ideas and imagination, skill and effort, enjoyment, and context (see Table 3.2). Insert Table 3.2 about here General A Patterns. review of percents mean the presented in Table 3.2 indicates that across all groups, the smallest proportion enjoyment The teachers emphasized ideas more often than other two more Parents, teachers, reference while groups, focussed less context on or while the largest proportion focused on ideas and skills. the responses focused of their of the comments parents on children and and skill did effort. and children talked more about ideas in to writing as compared with reading, talked and of enjoying (liking or disliking) writing as compared with reading. Domain Differences. The analysis of mean frequency of responses (see Table 3.1) indicated that all 3 more say to discussing in discussing writing. they reading they than also emphasized different topics in their three groups, all likely to focus did had in The results in Table 3.2 indicate that of the two domains (multivariate F[6, For groups 44] = 8.68, p <.001). comAents about on the ideas being discussions writing were expressed than more were comments about reading. Group Differences. significant teachers) domain effects The multivariate analyses indicated for (F[6,44] = 5.11, group (students, parents, p <.001) and for the interaction (F[6,44] = 15.96, 42 p <.001). 49 group or by For both reading and writing, the teachers talked significantly more about ideas than did the other two groups. teachers focussed (evaluation, students (and about skill vocabulary, their while parents) effort and context on materials), a lesser extent to more concentration, comments their of instruction, grades, significantly and more For reading, the talked (decoding, For writing, students memory). parents were relatively more concerned with skill effort were than the teachers, the and also somewhat more multivariate analyses also and concerned with context. Grade Differences. The indicated significant grade, group by domain concentrated grade by group, differences. largely These and grade were effects in the patterns of student by comments, which are displayed by grade in Table 3.3. insert Table 3.3 about here For reading, the students' emphasis on skill and effort remains percent. reading constant However, seem to across their the grades, comments diminish across about the comments about ideas increase somewhat. students' averaging about enjoyment years while 50 while their In comparison, the comments about writing show a similar increase in concern with ideas between grades 3 and 9, and a decrease in Most of this shift seems to concern with skill and effort. occur between grades 3 and 6, with a levelling off between 6 and 9. 43 50 models, this follow, and necessarily to be the case. not order help and support, literacy environments, I found I In the sections to will examine responses to specific questions in to describe the patterns presented above more to identify other and teachers' parents', important aspects understanding fully, students', of reading of and writing. Because so many individual questions were included in the interviews, response to questions how it would be tedious to trace the each. I have Instead, of particular selected with which to further examine the issues of just firmly each group had a clear and consistent notion of what reading aid writing entail. to patterns these questions The patterns of parallel those in the response larger set of questions from which they were selected. Rating Students as Readers and Writers series One of questions asked the students, think you are a good reader? "Do How can you tell?" you think you are a good writer? Parents (low), And later, you and teachers were also asked to respond to questions writing How can about each student. ability and were Judgments about coded on a scale of 1 you "Do tell?" similar reading (high) to or 5 either of the top two ratings was considered to be a "good" response. In response to the question about reading performance (Table 3.4), the students rated themselves more poorly (76.2 percent rating themselves as "good") than did their 45 51 parents (92.1 percent) or their teachers (87.2 percent). conjectured own that reading experience It can be the students were more critical of achievement because of their own with the larger world of readers; their limited the students in our study were well above average performers attending school where achieving relation adults their classmates were likely to be as themselves. to these interviewed The students saw high achieving themselves classmates, had the perspective to as while judge a high in the student performance in terms of the larger world of student readers. insert Table 3.4 about here Judgments about writing performance follow a similar pattern (Table 3.4), writing, the stub performance; with a revealing somewhat twist. For is were again most critical of their own 62.4 percent rated themselves as good writers. This was followed by the teachers, who rated 77.8 percent as good writers, good writers. and the parents, who rated 70.3 percent as Although a goodly percent of each group rated the students well, performance in writing was rated somawhat lower than that in reading at each grade level by all three groups. Our initial performance question focussed on whether writing was judged in substantively different ways than reading performance, and if so, were the criteria for making these judgmeAts also different. entire body This led us to compare the of responses given for these two 46 reading and writing Table guesc.ions. presenting each 3.5 the summarizes results, of the criteria that was mentioned least 10 percent of the by at respondents in each group. Insert Table 3.5 about here Turning (Table to 3.5), students' concerns: their mistakes" which first ranged comments ability (error free, they the judgments of to read "smoothly and the in Table 3.5), extent Parents' were Teachers' comments, dispersed over "understanding" ranked a to both ranked high. parents felt that liking reading was an important indicator of their success. any comments though freedom from errors still Unlike either of the other groups, two without over a much wider variety of criteria, and ability dominated by were understood what they read. understanding fpr reading children's like those of the variety highest, of parents, criteria, with closely followed by "grades " -- reflecting test scores and class rankings. All of three groups were somewhat less sure of the their judgments of writing ability (Table 3.5) specific group, bases -- fewer criteria were mentioned by even 10 percent of each and those that were mentioned were consistently children were than the were the criteria most vague: 24 mentioned less reading. The for percent based judgment on whether or not they liked to write, their and another 17 percent mentioned the grades they received as indicators oC their success (or lack of it). The most 47 53 important parents was for mentioned by only a quarter of the impressed more though imagination, criterion was it Teachers were by the factual knowledge the students drew group. upon in their writing ("he knows so much about his topics"), students the "imagination" and the extent to which though enjoyed writing also figured high in their judgments. responses: points are worth highlighting in these Two criteria the difficulty all three groups had in enunciating for writing as opposed to reading, to reflect the adults' concern students' the and the failure of imagination with and content knowledge. pattern if they are part of a larger only informative differences in the ways in which our informants viewed, therefore spoke about, at and to this single question are interesting Responses and I looked next reading and writing. "What a set of questions that asked more generally, you think it takes to be a good reader?" of do "What do you think it takes to be a good writer?" responding to this question, In more all three groups had to say than they had in commenting or the abilities of students in the previous individual All agreed vocabulary, and liking to read were the most that practice, important question. attributes of a good reader -- with parents teachers agreeing that liking reading was considerably important again, pattern, than there in the other two criteria (Table was the less agreement, responses to the writing a common question. students and their parents considered imagination to be 48 54 more Once 3.6). of and less and The the important most teachers attribute considered important. good a while writer, practice and liking to write the most as The teachers included a number of comments about instructional such of concerns audience develop!,ng being as awareness, self-critical, proper learning and organizational forms. Insert Table 3.6 about here Attitudes toward Reading and Writing The writing questions examined so far dealt with abilities; the next series focussed oil toward reading and writing. to the question, and attitudes Table 3.7 summarizes responses "Do you (your child/ student) like to read The results from this question are interesting and write?" in reading cerms of the reading/ writing discrepancy that seems to be emerging in response to several of our questions. For all three grades, that students liked to read more than the write. both the students and their parents indicated they liked to Teachers, on the other hand, indicated they thought their students liked writing about is well as reading. Insert Table 3.7 about here In contrast with general attitudes toward reading writing, particular the next set questions focussed on features of reading and writing that were the liked responses reflected the that writing places the writer in control of the best and least (Table 3.8). awareness of and Here, 49 r literacy event, while reading provides a specific content or experience Comments content negative (which about turn may be in enjoyed rejected). or reading dealt most often with the of what was being read, specific even if the reaction (when it is "boring"). about Comments were writing similarly were concerned with the ideas being expressed, but a different perspective: from the best part of writing had to do with the ability to "control" or "develop" the being that written about. writing assumes) than This difference may reflect the sense is an activity that requires (or more overt control over the activities does reading. inherently and the reactions did offer focussed on those aspects of the task control getting as less sure: started ideas All groups had moxe trouble commenting on what they liked least about writing; they topics and of in particular, adhering to the the that where problems of conventions of written language. insert Table 3.8 about here The Easy and the Difficult When students, parents, and teachers were asked about the easiest and hardest aspects of reading and writing, three hive groups had difficulty responding, and all seemed to more difficulty telling what they thought was than easiest (Table 3.9). Insert Table 3.9 about here 50 all hardest For the students, the easiest aspects of both reading and writing had to do with their control over the activities or ideas involved, pleasure own stories," often assimilating this control to their my It is "fun to create the task. in own Others liked reading because commented one. it involves "thinking of the ideas," or "it's whatever you want to do." Students' claimed that the hardest parts of stemmed from vocabulary problems ("words I don't know") or, in a more general form, in the parts they did not understand. previous question, places reading where were they problems in not fully writing As reflected control-- getting in started and chooc,ing a topic headed the list. Parents' responses to these questions were if more limited than their children's, the comments "Understanding" remarks and about they make did anything though the emphases in were quite in a very generalized way similar. dominated the hardest and easiest aspects of their reading, the concern with control over the task dominated their remarks about writing. The teachers' those of about what teachers it takes to be a good embedded that students "understanding reaeer or from remarks writer, their remarks within their sense of "content "exposition." considerably As seen in their students and parents. instruCcional context; involved differed responses paralleled in writing They also tended to mention specific the gist the Thus the hardest aspects of reading area texts," found the easy of or a 51 difficult, passage" 57 in by skills such reading, as or "getting the ending right" in writing. of their Such terms are technical repertoire as teachers, part much and come more quickly to mind than they do for parents or students. In all, difference each responses to this question reinforced a group that was not as evident in the earlier enalyses: group tended to make sense of reading and writing in terms of their own personal experiences and interactions -- students in terms of their own control of the activity teachers meaning, school objectives, undersandings discussing described terms in and their what the they instructionally-focussed of parents children had read shared or of terms in with written. hardest and easiest aspects of writing in terms of what they, and the them when Each group reading and within the literacy context, perceived as the factors over which they had some control. Reasons for Reading another In series of questions, the students in study were asked to tell us why they read and write at and school. in Their responses to this question additional indication that reading and writing are and school, to differently used reading complete additional (Table 3.10). At both the home provide regarded home and is used primarily as a pastime activity or assignments. reading at The home students because report others some do it ("environment in Table 3.10) or to obtain information, and Fome hind, in school "to learn to read." Writing, on the other is undertaken primarily because it is assigned, or to 52 56 perform some sending a communicative or functional thank you note to a reading, school decision to assignments write, task as Compared with relative). figure (such more heavily and writing as a pastime or in the for the pleasure of it figure much less prominently. Insert Table 3.10 about here A few grade level differences were also apparent in the students' reasons for reading and writing (Table 3.10). reading school, as a pastime activity is reported percent of the third graders, ninth grade sample. In by 69 but drops away to zero in the Since reading as a activity pastime remains constant (or even rises slightly) in reports on home reading, the organizational fully decline at school may be due to the different patterns of middle and high schools where departmentalized day leaves little time for a leisure reading. For uses of writing, writing as a means of communication by ninth as opposed third and sixth graders. older there is an increased emphasis on This may be a direct result of the students' greater skill, contexts opening a broader range The influence of assignments on writing also increases with age, while both at school and at home, use of writing to learn to write drops away. are direct reflections of instructional patterns: of of where writing can serve as a successful vehicle of communication. deal to third grade school time is spent 53 59 trends Both in the the a good formal teaching writing of writing (apart from content), and the use as part of the various academic subjects of (science, social studies) increases in the upper grades. What Students Read Because students seem to have different ways of talking about reading and writing, of reading and also report that their and writing differ, I also analyzed uses student responses to the questions, "What do you tend to read/ write at home? In school?" Their responses, reflecting a mixture of genre and functional categories, Once 3.11. and writing again, there were differences between reading well as between as are suiamarized in Table home and Home school. reading was quite varied, with fiction being reported by the highest percentage newspapers, of students, followed by functional reference books, magazines, nonfiction, and school texts. Their school reading was more restricted, with most of it being fiction or school texts, followed by nonfiction, reference books, and maga, ines. Insert Table 3.11 about here The students reported that their home writing consisted largely of one or another type of functional writing responded "letters" or "cards"), school writing ("stories"). assignments, (many followed by completion then fiction %ool writing was dominated by of writing assignments, followed by fiction writing and functional writing. Compared with reading, writing was 54 f() used for more utilitarian purposes both at home and at school, although it was also used (less frequently) for fiction writing. In addition, to the home uses of reading and writing appear have been more varied than school uses, and less focussed on instructional texts and activities. Helping Students Learn to Read and Write The last two interview questions I will discuss in this chapter focus on the parents' and teachers' views of roles as helpers-in-learning. you feel reading/writing is best different 3.12). The first question, responses taught?" "How do received from parents and teachers (see very Table The items both groups elected to report clearly came from their own separate "worlds" -keeping their the activities the parents focussed on interesting, ,while focussed on developing appropriate skills, materials, and (particularly for the teachers providing varied writing) insisting on "drill and practice." Hence, parents commented that students "must "things learn to to write emphasized enjoy "taking fun activity." about reading," and they that they know must be about." given Some the work out of writing and creating Teachers, on the other hand, cited a "daily practice," and "regular practice combined with the stv.dy and discussion of the tools of writing." Insert Table 3.12 about here A similar pattern emerged when asked how 55 6 I. they help their youngsters/students 3.13). The parents better to read or write focussed providing on environment and on offering encouragement: in the world is to read to her"; "1 encourage the teachers (Table the right "The best thing "I take her to libraries"; him when I see something that's good," focussed cn homework while varied assignments, materials, and reading to the class or being a good audience for their writing. students needed reading, and Both parents and teachers seemed to feel more direct help with writing than with placed more emphasis on developing skills or providing assistance. Insert Table 3.13 about here Summary Across students, the interview teachers, and questions parents have I reviewed, interpreted reading writing from their own special vantage point in the literacy context; and could 2) students on controlling the reading and writing themselves in their attempt tc master them, they not, child's 1) teachers focussed on school objectives used school language to state their views, focussed and activities and when used their teachers' language of they school instruction, and 3) parents focussed on the environment they can influence described the and the interests they can effort (or lack of it) that stimulate, their or children seemed to put into their literacy tasks. Overall, the teachers' focussed most on 56 (2 th3 meaning inherent in any literacy activity: was being read, writing. They students, about vocabulary, or developed, things as such talk both in decoding ability, When they This difference them. in talked of the nature of and teachers' views can be explained in two ways. describes it, It may be learning; Leont'ev as Or it may be a function of the way instruction is organized, in which the purpose of a the ultimate concern with meaning, activity, overridden by the immediate focus on developing skills. a learning begins with conscious acts that then become internalized operations. often their to it was usually in the context of their failure function teaching emphasis spelling and mechanics. understand students' overriding The studen'ai were more likely to writing: about ideas, direct this skills they had or had not and in seem to have been only partially successful however. the reading to and on communicating what was intended communicating in on understanding of what Some of this appears even in the is new teachers' responses, in their concern with the instructional goals and evaluation they criteria use in school. that are part of the texts Or it may be a function of both, which case it would be interesting to study whether, which the cases, acts" children skills being taught coincide tests and in and in with are learning--and how these interact the with meaning. Writing three groups. was perceived differently than reading by In students general, 57 were rated all less competent as writers than as readers, and were felt to enjoy writing less. image (Here there may be an early emergence of the of writing as a difficult and unpleasant keeping with likely these general attitudes, write to than they were to task.) In students were read for less their own pleasure; even their writing at home was driven for the most part by school assignments. Across a variety of questions, teachers students, parents, and had less to say about writing than they did about reading, having more difficulty in ennumerating criteria for success well as as in describing how it is best taught. What they did have to say about writing, however, emphasized the extent to which a writing event is under control things when the writer's and direction; this was a source of pleasure when were going dell, as well as a source of frustration the control was uncertain. contrast, reflected a Comments on more passive image, reading, one in in which control was relinquished to the constraints of the text. Recent 1982, tool studies of secondary school writing 1984) have suggested that writin' for instrument teachers instruction; of evaluation. who activities transmute wish Further, to focus on the process all even it exercises processes becomes an well-intentioned intellectual activities into learning when writing, somewhat mindless where the behaviors rather lnarnings are the focus. similar used at .s seldom used as a and processes students engage in the mechanical when (Applebee than the The findings reported here suggest may be at work even the in 58 4 elementary school. The students' comments about writing are certainly consistent with those of their older teachers' comments may be as well: studies, peers, and the in the secondary school the teachers also said they placed a high value on the content or ideas in student writing, but taught in ways that emphasized skills and mechanics. In proce4ses the following chapters, explore students engage in when they read and write, describe the structures they produce. from will I the and The focus will shift what the students and the adults around them say about reading and writing, to the knowledge students reveal they actually read and write. 65 when Table 3.1 Number of Comments in Response to Common Questions Mean Frequencies Reading M SD Writing M SD Students 3.6 1.2 3.1 1.4 Parents 3.4 1.4 2.8 1.5 Teachers 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.6 Significant Effects Grade: F[2,63] = Domain: F[1,63] = Grade x Group: F[2,126] = N= 66 students. 4.18, p 25.79, p 2.26, p > > > .02 .001 .067 Table 3.2 Types of Comments by Students, Parents, and Teachers Reading Student Ideas and M Imagination SD Parent Writing Teachers Students Parents Teachers 27.1 24.6 40.3 36.6 39.7 54.7 (16.2) (17.7) (33.9) (22.2) (21.7) (36.1) Skill and Effort M 51.2 38.0 29.9 38.7 42.0 29.3 SD (18.5) (19.6) (33.2) (24.4) (24.3) (29.0) Enjoyment M SD 20.1 26.8 12.1 (18.9) (21.6) (15.6) (15.9) 9.3 (12.3) (24.0) 1.6 10.6 22.8 12.5 (4.5) (13.8) (29.7) (11.9) Context M SD Significant Multivariate Effects df Grade 6,94 Domain 3,47 Grade x Domain 6,94 6,44 Group 12,88 Grade x Group Domain x Group 6,44 Grade x Group x Domain 12,88 7.0 F-Statistic 4.95 8.68 2.81 5.11 2.58 15.96 4.69 67 Probability .001 .001 .015 .001 .006 .001 .001 8.2 (11.9) 14.5 1.5 (5.8) Table 3.3 Students' Comments by Grade Mean Percents Reading Mean Ideas and Imagination Grade Skill and Effort Grade SD Mean SD 3 6 9 26.3 25.7 31.6 (17.4) (16.9) (13.3) 23.8 42.5 36.1 (26.1) 3 50.0 51.1 14.8 (19.4) (20.0) (14.6) 57.7 31.9 16.8 (30.0) (19.1) (15.2) 0.1 1.6 2.3 (3.6) 7.8 14.7 12.6 (13.3) 6 9 Context Grade Writing 3 6 9 (4.3) (6.1) (20.6) (15.7) (9.9) (14.3) Significant Multivariate Effects Grade Domain Grade x Domain df 6,122 3,61 6,122 F-Statistic 2.59 20.40 2.60 Probability .021 .001 .021 Table 3.4 Rating Students as Readers and Writers Percent of Students Rated "Good" By Grade: Students 9 6 3 By 6 3 By Teachers Parents All 9 As readers 75.1 75.0 78.6 93.8 91.7 93.3 87.2 As writers 56.3 66.7 64.3 65.5 72.2 73.3 77.8 16 36 14 16 36 15 37 n of reports Table 3.5 Criteria in Judging Students' Reading and Writing Abilities Percent of Respondents Students (n=66) Parents (n=67) Teachers (n=67) Criteria for Reading 47% 46% 26% Error free Understanding Grades 38% 38% 30% 25% 24% 19% 18% 12% Liking it Understanding Amount read Grades Discuss ideas Memory Effort 25% 15% 15% 10% Imagination Grades Organization Effort Error trcxt 31% 34% 19% 18% 13% 13% Understanding Grades Discuss ideas Error free Liking it Amount read 36% 31% 30% Content knowledge Liking it Imagination Effort Vocabulary Criteria for Writing 24% 17% Liking it Grades 27% 13% All topics mentioned by 10% or more of the respondents are tabled. Table 3.6 What It Takes To Be a Good Reader or Writer Percent of Respondents Students (n=66) Parents Teachers (n=67) (n=67) Good Reader 33% 32% 29% 14% 14% Practice Vocabulary Liking it Concentration Decoding 51% 24% 22% 19% 16% 13% 12% 10% Liking it Vocabulary Practice Decoding ?fight environment 27% 24% 19% 18% 16% 15% 15% 13% Imagination Concentration Liking it Reading a lot Intelligence Practice Vocabulary Role models .axle models 55% 27% 27% 27% 27% 18% Liking it Vocabulary Practice Decoding Right environment Imagination 45% 36% 36% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% Practice Liking it Vocabulary Reading a lot Imagination Self critical Role models Audience awareness Organization Imagination Concentration Good Writer 39% 23% 21% 18 17% 11% Imagination Practice Concentration Liking it Vocabulary Handwriting All topics mentioned by 10% or more of the respondents are tabled. 71 Table 3.7 Do Students Like to Read and Write? Percent of Students Rated as "Liking" By Students Grade: 6 3 By Teachers By Parents 9 All 9 6 3 Like Reading 87.5 94.5 78.6 93.8 91.7 66.7 87.5 Like Writing 68.8 61.2 57.1 56.3 83.4 66.7 85.7 n of reports 16 36 14 16 36 15 67 Table 3.8 What Students Like Best and Least about Reading and Writing Percent of Respondents Students (n=66) Reading: 59% 33% 14% Pastime Imagination 21% 17% 17% 17% 15% 28% 57% 19% 15% Content Imagination Challenge 15% goring material 17% 13t Assignments Boring material 34% 22% 12% Controlling ideas Developing ideas Choice of topic 25% 10% 10% Controlling ideas Controlling activity Imagination Spelling/mechanics Getting started 13% Spelling/mechanics Aspects Liked Best Controlling ideas Choice of topic The product Controlling activity Developing 'deal Writing: Content Pastime Imagination 37% 37% 16% Aspects Liked Least Boring material Difficult material Writing: Teachers (n=67) Aspects Liked Best Cc :cent Reading: 36% 21% Parents (n=67) Aspects Liked Least Getting started 30% 10% All topics mentioned by 10% or more of the respondents are tabled. Table 3.9 Views of Easiest and Hardest Aspects of Reading and Writing Percent of Respondents Students (n=66) Reading: 17% 14% 12% 11% Parents (n=66) Teachers (n=66) Easiest Aspects Control activity Decoding Control ideas Interesting topics 16% 12% 10% understanding Interesting topics Control activity 33% 17% 17% Interesting topic Gist Decoding 57% 14% Understanding Vocabulary 61% 14% Content reading Understanding 42% 17% 11% Control ideas Spelling/mechanics Control activity 44% 19% Descriptive writing Choosing topic 37% 18% Spelling/mechanics Getting ideas down 44% 17% 11% Exposition Revision Endings Reading: Hardest Aspects 36% 27% Vocabulary Understanding Writing: 38% 14% Control ideas Spelling/mechanics Writing: 24% 20% 17% 15% Easiest Aspects Hardest Aspects Getting started Choosing topic Getting ideas down Spelling/mechanics All topics mentioned by 10% or more of the respondents are tabled. Table 3.10 Why Students Read and Write at Home and School Percert of Students Grade: 3 6 9 Chi-square for grade (df=2) (n=16) (n=36) (n=14) Home Pastime Assignments Environment information 68.8 25.0 6.3 12.5 72.2 8.3 22.2 5.6 78.6 7.1 14.3 14.3 School Pastime Assignments Learn to read 43.8 56.3 6.3 61.1 72.2 2.8 85.7 7.1 15.28*** 3.20 0.58 6.3 6.3 31.3 18.8 0.0 25.0 8.3 13.9 25.0 11.1 42.9 57.1 14.3 14.3 7.1 5.47 18.2*** 2.43 0.77 1.96 37.5 86.1 8.3 2.8 2.8 71.4 0.0 7.1 0.0 12.77*** 1.23 6.70* 1.01 Reading 0.0 0.37 3.30 2.11 1.22 Writing Home Assignments Communication Functional Enjoyment Environment School Assignments Pastime Learn to write E:Tress ideas *p <.05 6.3 25.0 6.3 **p <.01 p <.001 Table 3.11 What Students Read and Write at Home and at School Percent of Students Grade: 3 6 9 (n=.16) (n=35) (n=14) 87.5 18.8 50.0 18.8 43.8 94.4 25.0 69.4 38.9 19.4 16.7 92.9 21.4 92.9 64.3 7.1 21.4 63.9 22.2 11.1 0.0 16.7 80.6 44.4 92.9 35.7 0.0 0.0 21.4 71.4 7.1 38.9 2.8 22.2 58.3 44.5 21.4 0.0 7.1 71.4 57.1 44.5 5.6 0.0 19,4 9/.5 42.8 0.0 0.0 21.4 92.9 Read Home Fiction Nonfiction Magazines Newspapers Functional/Ref Texts School Fiction Nonfiction Magazines Newspapers Reference Texts Library Books 6.3 68.7 6.3 6.3 6..3 0.0 43.8 6.3 Write Home Fiction Nonfiction Journal/Diary Functional Assignments School Fiction Nonfiction Journal /Diary Functional Assignments 50.1 0,0 0.0 68.8 25.0 83.3 0.0 1?..5 43.8 75.1 Table 3.12 How Do You Think Reading and Writing Are Best Taught? Percent Responding Parents Teachers (n=67) (n=11) Interesting Probing Questions Self Selection Read to Students Help Homework Varied Materials Develop Skills Encourage Assist 30.3 14.5 8.8 4.9 4.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 75.0 30.6 11.0 11.0 Write Often Creative Writing Drill and Practice Logic and Ideas Structure and Mechanics Develop Skills Interesting Topics 31.0 22.3 16.5 16.1 0.0 0.0 80.6 0.0 15.4 0.0 13.0 0.0 22.2 11.1 Reading Writing Table 3.13 How Do You Help? Percent Responding Parents Teachers (n=67) (n=11) Encourage Set environment Read to child Role model Assist Homework Varied materials 54.0 47.7 28.4 20.9 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 44.3 0.0 47.2 41.7 Assistance Environment Creative audience Develop skills Varied assignments Interesting topics Feedback Subject writing 67.3 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.1 41.7 19.4 16.7 16.7 11.1 Reading Writing Chapter 4 Children's learned from of Genre dAcribe what I and those that follow, chapter, This Sense the children - what they said and Here, I will discuss the extent to which the children did. were able chether to differentiate between story and these differences manifested themselves has been written about children's notions mucqh Applebee, 1978; Stein & Glenn, 1979), (e.g., one the few researchers who of attention to young children's uses of Although (Applebee, two modes expository how to go about flying to the their real friends all they 1978) stars, of forms. that From early and Previous know. share studies have indicated that children as young a half use story telling patterns and systematic tell their imaginary on they recount the events of the day, with Bissex (1980) children share information all the time. playmates stories it would ueem From a functional notion of discourse, young the in of given has and report, structures they produced when they read and wrote. is they what discourse. However, in children's imaginative uses informational discourse has remained less well oxplored. 62 79 as of The of limited recent research looking at the development competence with different types of discourse fall into two categories: seems those studies which look at to the capabilities of very young children, and those which look at cognitive aspects first category, Paul writing his function. In the was found that across predominantly these informational in Paul used writing as a way of showing evidence of growing his types. Bissex (1980), in her case study of her son between the ages of 5 and 9, years world. as of different discourse body of knowledge both of himself and of the He wrote "all-I-know" books and newspapers as well stories, and through the years he explo-ed different (e.g., newsp4per and parts) more presentations to develop and share his ideas. vein, Harste, study of Burke, new complex In a similar and Woodward (1983) report in 3 to 6 year olds' world of reading forms and their writing, that even before they started first grade, the children they studied all had strong notions of genre could identify particular genres letter, and story) characteristics as Harste, and Burke, structures provide understandings, lnarning) Hidi graders' and grouping Woodward organizational such and page believe that significant these They (e.g., birthday list, map, by responding to letter differences. cues placement. organi ational to understandings functional drive (whicb are sociologically and contextually rooteu, and Hildyard (1983) examined fifth differing cognitive behaviors rl 63 b0 and they seventh wrote narratives and opinion essays, across the two genrea. discourse genre-specific. is schema for schema for narratives, than distinctions report Their data indicate that children's production arguments presentations and children's The was less well developed and their semantic structural and in narration seemed to develop more their essay writing counterparts. their than steadily Hidi and Hildyard did not find comparable distinctions in their comparisons of and written structures; oral the written structures were similar to those the children produced orally. They conclude difficulties that the discourse with writing seem to be based more form itself than on the mode (oral or written). with Olson, production of and Duffy's (1981) Mack, college students similarly points to strong differences induced by varying genres. how readers approach story and essay reading, the knowledge readers have about the underlying surface conventions of the two genres, work cognitive Their work, at upon looking describes forms how and and this structural knowledge is used t., assist comprehension. Although sparse, the relevant research strongly supports thL notion that the strategies readers and employ differ with genre. Findings regarding control of expository forms are less clear; (1983) argue expository that forms, children's Harste et children have mastery of a for example, writers while Hidi and variety al. of Hildyard's (1983) work may suggest that expository skills cAavelop later as well as more slowly than narrative competence. The goal of the work reported in this chapter 64 t. 81 was to explore this sensitivity last narrative to reflected in describes the characteristics the expository and their writing children's comparing by issue and reading sensitivity children's structures activities. to It structural the of stories and reports in the passages they read and the pieces they wrote. The focus here was on the kinds of organ...zing features the children created and there was never an expectation of structure notions across since cultures. permitted finding used; "universal" a cultural experiences affec:t structural form, of as the earliest and these differ within and system used examination of the varieties of structures used, Instead, the analytic without comparing or confining them to an expected form. Analyses The analyses reported here are based on comments during the general interview, collected-- 134 and on the product data that were writing samples and 134 retellings rscorded i=ediatel,, after the students had read each passage. Writing. particularly Analyses of writing samples upon issues of overall rhetorical structure ways in which the students organized totality of their internal structure of content to focussed organize written work - and and also on - of ways in which they and manage the framed complexity the issues segmented of - of the their Lories and reports. Each of the texts the students wrote was analyzed using on adaptation of Meyer's (1975, 1980, 1981) prose analysis 65 cr Meyer's analysis of content structure describes ihe system. ways in which information within a piece of writing has been organized by hierarchical the writer. tree interrelationships This is which structures between top and d(weloping by done represent lower level the content information. (See Appendix 2 for scoring manual.) analysis The and stories were based upon t-unit reports each text and organized according to top both Analyses and lower level content relationships. level of used in this study identified of representations operational the definitions presented below: Topmost Lwel Rhenrical organizing predicates frames functioned below which all content hierarchy were subsumed. a levs1J the of Lexical predicates which a or the thesis (of a report) were chosen to represent story) top level other overall the as rhetorical predicates representing the gist (of acted the as level structure only when none of the other top rhetorical predicates listed below could be perceived dominating the rhetorical structure of the text. Rhetorical Predicates a. Causal - antecedent and consequent specified at equal levels in the content hierarchy - these were not attributed to the text without explicit causal markers (e.g. so, because) b. Response - proble /solution; remark/reply; question/ answer specified at equal leveldin 66 the hierarchy Alternative c. - two weighted or more equally views or options compared or contrasted Sequence - steps, episodes, or events ordered d. by time at equal hierarchy; .evel3 in the other rhetorical predicates could serve as events Lower Levels Embedded under the top level predicates were any number of further structural levels. be composed above, of any of tho Nodes in these levels rhetorical predicates could listed well as 5 further types that occur only at lower as levels: e. Description - a variety of types of subordinate elaborations, specific, including equivalent, manner, setting, attribution, identification, epil. due f. Evaluation - opinion or commentary about other ideas or events expressed elsewhere in the text g. Evidence - supporting argument h. Explanation - causal antecedents subordinate in staging to the main idea or event being explained (required e.plicit causal marker) i. Adversative - comparison between alternatives, where one was leas favored and subordinate - the dominant alternative was related to a higher node TermLnal Level 67 q4 Each branch of the content structure terminated with lexical a predicate representing the content of the sentences (t-unitsl comprising the text. reports All and stories were diagrammed and by one of the project team members. completed, a they were second analyst. hierarchies analyzed When all analyses were checked, and revised if necessary, by Finally, resulting the content were checked and remaining differences resolved by myself. The tree diagrams were quantified by coding the nature of the topmost structure, as well as the specific rhetorical structures used at lower levels. scores were computed: In addition, the following deepest level (lowest level the in content hierarchy), broadest level (level having the largest number of linked items (those rhetorical predicates or content individual content nodes), number of deeply items branching downward to more than one rhetorical predicate content and item), shallowly linked items or (rhetorical predicates or content items branching to only one rhetorical predicate or to a single content item). (See pages 74-79 for examples of this procedure.) Retellings. diagrammed above. scored in The four accordance reading with the passages procedures were also described After transcribing the retellings, the project team each presentation transcript for the following characteristics: of the tup level structure, presentation the overall gist, of presentation of the title, recall of each 68 85 particular content number and item, words of the in .retelling. Interrater agreement across two raters was 93.3 percent identification of items in content The retold. appeared each student remembered were marked as they items within the tree structure. content recalled This permitted analysis of in terms of its place within the the content hierarchy of the passage. examining In reports, writing I will first own comments about differences children's and results, then the differences at the discuss between reflected stories the in and finally at the extent to which they completed, these features influenced their reading (as reflected in the retelling tasks). What Children Say About Stories and Reports During directly the children often the sessions, about some of the be,:ween stories and reports. differences spoke they quite perceived As early as third grade, the children had a firm notion of reports as being distinct f7om stories: A report tells something. A story just tells story...it's made up. --Carol, Trade 3 Reports are real and stories aren't. you can make animals taik a In a can't report because real animal-. .4on't talk. --gala, grade 3 a story in a In a report you just write until you can't think of anything else. Mere is no 'the and' like in stories. --Ana, grade 3 Repoi:s are about something. 69 It 86 gives you It really doesn't matter the order. information. the information can be Because it's about things, in any order. - -Tai, grade 3 From these examples, quite aware: that reports stories are make- believe. had were it call be seen that the children are information-giving r.ome third graders, while like Ana, some notion of story markers and recognized differences such as "no the end" in reports, were able while others, like to talk about how information was likely to be structured within the piece. By grade 6, the children had begun to develop a more sophisticated language to talk about the differences between story and report: You stick to In a report it has to be all facts. the truth. cannot give opinions, except maybe in the conclusion. --Kali, grade 6 you're reading a report you're ready to pick up any facts. When you read a story you kinda might have to skip over some things that might not seem important and maybe aren't, and it won't matter. it might really be But in a report, i.f drastic you don't read a certain fact or you won't understand that it's a report. --Stan, grade 6 When When I write a report I look back into the facts in my wilid about what I had remembered or thought When I'm waiting a story, I'm just kind of of. remembering what other books had written and In a story I try to whatever I was thinking. think of what the actors are like. - -Paul, grade 6 Stories don't usually have a conclusion gathering They just have a everything in the story. Usually it conclusion saying what happened next. isn't as neatly organized and all put together in It just sort of happens, what specal order. a happens to t)%e characters. --Beth, grade 6 70 87 In their comments the sixth graders continued to focus on the dichotomy between facts and make believe, and also began to describe differences in organization (for example, Beth's and Kali's references to the conclusion and Stan's caution about unread bits). Ninth and graders used still more sophisticated language, went beyond the fact-fantasy distinction in a couple of ways. First, they showed a more sophisticated awareness of the internal as well as macro-orginizational the genre. discuss Also, they were more going outside themselves, features metacognitivc; of they such as using the medium of writing to help them learn and remember. You learn from reports. A report has to tell the reader something about what it is about. A story doesn't tell you something you have to know. A report is usually more organized. You write an outline and stuff. There's no plan for stories. - -Jo, grade 9 In report writing you can list and plan, but in a story you have to go along with what sounds right. - -Jim, grad 9 a report you hive to gather facts from an outside source, but in 1 story the ideas are your own. It's like collecting things:. together. You have to take all the facts and piece them together like a puzzle. In - -Peter, grade 9 A good story has realistic characters that readers can relate with. A story is different from a report in that it must be entertaining and have adjectives to make it interesting and really hold the reader. Once you get rolling, I think a story is easier to write 'cause the events - -Lora, grade 9 Because students are likely t, 71 use their knowledge of genre differences in their writing even they if clearly verbalize what those differences might be, next at the topics they chose to write about, cannot I looked and then at the structures embedded in the writing completed in response to story and report tasks. The Topics the Students Chose to Write About The topics considerably from chosen for the story differed tasks and also those for the reports, some shifts in emphasis as grade level increased. showed The t%ird grade stories were predominantly about friends and relatives percent) (33 or a first day at school (25 percent). By si "th grade, both cpncerns had dwindled (to 17 percent for a first day at school and 14 percent for family and replaced being involving as going percent). stories new experiences, many ninth By about such Hc;rown-up" first time activities on a date or to a concert were most First popular (47 day of school stories also regained lost popularity (33 percent), gathered about a great deal of fantasy (39 percent. stories grade, by friends), some perhaps because the data were daring these students' first year in high school. Report r.opics were more widely distributed, with sports or hobbie3 le ling at all three grades (51 percent at 3, grade 22 percent at grade 6, and 34 percent at grade 9). Most of the remainder of the children's reports dealt with a wide variety have of topics about which individual writers seemed particularly gradually detailed information. A increasing proportion of the children 72 small relied to but on topics they had recently studied in school as the basis for what they wree (13 percent at grade 3, 16 percent at grade 6, and 20 percent: at grade 9). How the Students Organized the Stories and Reports They Wrote Findings from analysis of the structure the students' story and report writing, presented the of below, also make it apparent that as early as grade 3, the students made clear significant and distinctions between and stories reports. To illustrate the analytic procedures, I will begin by examining third grade Ana's story in response the to "first day" writing task. Sarha and Her Adventure (1) One day Sarha was walking down the street when she heard a horrible noise in the sky (2) all of a sidden a witch on her broom stick care right down, down right in front of me. "who are you", to her, am Glinda" (5) I'm said. could (8) - well I'm supposed to I don't know" (9) of I just never (12)my (13) so for the rest: the after noon they spent looking for a (14) at about 8:P.M. a Sarha said. she said as she jumped up magic book is right inside. he (7) how come" (10) "I'll help you if I can", (11) All right, I said (4) she sigh and said, "I witch (6) but I can't do any trick" she (3) fall cure. they finally found the cure. (15) But! they had to go a lemk:, 'lay to get it (16) ackshaly they had to go to the end of the 73 50 world. "let's take my broom stick" (18) "ok," Sarha (17) (19) they had to get 5 clover and rud them said. on the little witch. graded (21) they and day to the clover patch (22) key a mean and fishes traveled the (20) BUT! the clovers where night DRAGON! dragon was asleep (23) we kreeped in to the clover patec away. (24) clover on the witch who became very powerful (25) picked the clover and when swiftly ran rubed they got home they the she said thank you to sarha and flew away. The end Sequence I II Ey Ev 1 III Resp Resp Resp 2 Ev Ev 13 14 Resp 21 A Q A Rem Rep 3 Coll 7 Coll 10 Coll Desc Coll 11 12 15 19 Q 5 4 IV 8 9 Adver Ev Ev Ev 23 24 25 Ev Rem Rep Desc 17 18 22 Desc Desc 16 6 20 Ana's top level structure is a sequence, reflecting the time-ordering the piece. Her lower level structures are responses remark/reply elaborate that provides the major rhetorical pattern of of or her amplify dialogue) and earlier items, descriptions as well adversative marking a less favored alternative. her content nodes are made up of collections (the that as an A number of of related ideas; them appear as collections of items under particular rhetori7a1 predicates. The deepeAt level of structu:'e 74 91 in her story is 4; rhetorical linked or lexical predicates) is 2. items superordinate shallowly her broadest level (the level with the most (underlined in the tree She has 9 linked (with 1 directly remainder are unlinked. directly diagram, to 2 or more lower-level nodes); deeply 5 items are subordinate node); the The main episodes occur when Glinda shares her problem with Sarha, and later when they work out how to solve the problem. Ana clearly knows a good deal about story writing. has set a problem, and has embedded some dialogue an characters go about solving the witch's power problem. She her She has created tension along the way to the story's resolution. And she has flagged "the end" -- a conventional marking completion in children's stories. presents a picture of a way The tree well-organized of diagram and Zairly sophisticated third grade story. Reports, organizational on the other hand, took on a very pattern. Ninth different grade Peter's report is a fairly typical example. Mvsical Mayhem (I) uprising different In England in the early 70's there was of a new kind of unusual music that was than anything ever heard before. (2) The songs were longer than usual (20 30 minutes in some) and had odd lyrical content (riot the normal "I want to get you into bed" lyrics). to the strangeness, (3) To add the musicians were incredibly 75 2 average superior to the exceedingly proficient, rock musicians of the day. music This (4) progressive rock, has been and (5) anything albums that bordered more 1968 else Longer of pop on than succession (8) but through a of they improved as musicians and songwriters wrote more and more meaningful and its fits (7) They released an this is a group called Yes. in name its (6) A good example characteristics perfectly. album termed loosely more complex music and album progressed they as lyrics. (9) arose with each incredible to musicianship. (10) Progressive rock was quite popular, to so called "cult audience" not a audience. heard anything anything, quick quite a mass different than though, death to of before (12) and that might for getting into it. reason one was It (11) in this the As (13) public eye. (14) some of the most innovative musical around today. 76 93 be with musical art form died progressive rock musicians and music still as but a But remain products Progressive Rock Descr II (Coll) 1 Descr III Eval (Coll) 2 6 10 Seq Causal 4 14 Adver 13 5 3 IV Ev Ev 7 8 V Ant Cons 11 12 Descr 9 Peter's top level structure is a lexical predicate. (We can treat this top level as simply the existential asserti.ln that progressive rock exists.) descriptions include time-ordered sequence, adversative presenting deepest that elaborate on a less-favored earlier items, a an alternative. His level is level 5 and his broadest level is level 3. other 2 nodes, directly superordinate to and 7 shallowly linked directly subsume 1 lower level node. cluster group structures a cause/effect relationship and He has 4 deeply linked items, least His lower level His main at that items information occurs in the second paragraph where Peter uses the Yes as an example of how progressive rock music developed in musical excellere. The which piece itself follows a thesis-elaboration form the collection thesis of is stated and facts, then elaborated with displaying Peter's knowledge of in a the subject. The description (collection) organizational pattern that results was frequently found in the 77 students' 94 report writing, as way of presenting loosely -Plated items a topic-relevant information. In Peter's case, the of thesis- elaboration works as a fairly simple informational form. argument real with compared found similar is set up, and any other kind of progressive music. rock the not is Applebee structures in the writing of No (1984) secondary school students he studied, often as a way to recite content knowledge to a teacher who would use the information as a basis upon which to grade the student's knowledge. Peter obviously knew a good deal about progressive rock and music, the concatenation of tree diagram information exemplifies the he used to present simple what he knew. Group Results for Student Writing Level Top Structures. Table 4.1 summarizes level structures used in the students' writing. the top At all ages studied, students were more likely to organize their writing around lexical as opposed to rhetorical predicates. Since rhetorical predicates are highly organized structures represent presented even the the formulation of logically arguments or relationships, or which temporally it can be seen high achieving students in this study tended that to rely on simpler organizational forms. Insert Table 4.1 about here In contrast, consistently the lone rhetorical form used by the students was sequence; 78 this at was all used extensively grade by the story writers, level. The temporal especially at the organization sixth implicit in a sequence is less consistently appropriate in report writing tasks; instead, organized the reports students' around information clusters. tended The few to be sequences found in student reports occurred in "Ilmi to" reports which presented start-to-finish directions. Most frequently, the students used the title of piece as an organizing frame; often served a conceptual as about-it this occurred almost twice as reports as in stories. in reports, the Often the organizer for report title tell-all-you-know- similar to Peter's "Musical Mayhem." The remainder of the stories and reports were organized around a main idea, stated or implicit, without a title. Chi-square tests of significance indicate overall genre difference (p < .001) in top level although The there were no comparable grade level major distinction between the story clear a structure, differences. report and structures was the reliance on temporal sequence to organize stories node and for on titles to provide a reports. differences in Because mode superordinate there (between were the retrospective self report conditions), no content significant think-aloud and the tio sets of data are combined in Table 4.1. Internal Structure. of Table 4.2 :wmmarizes a variety other aspects of the internal structure of the students' writing, including the deepest level and broadest level 79 f; in content the number the and structure, deeply of and (Larger values for all shallowly linked content nodes. of these indices reflect a greater degree of internal structure within the samples analyzed.) As did their use of top level structures, significant genre multivariate effect). significant (p < .027), Although increased. roughly Genre for the by grade effects were also (p < eater changes in reflecting grade the level the indices of internal structure are equivalent for stories and reports at grade by 3, than 9 the means for reports are considerably higher grade a .001 difference of reports as opposed to stories as structure showed use of internal struct,re students' those for stories across all four measures. Insert Table 4.2 about here Comparative Length. total sentences, grades in the total words, the are significant gains in all of there stories both effect). grade (e.g., Loban, longer papers, and these reports (p < .001 for that t- multivariate the research children has shown that for indices, These findings reinforce previous 1976) total Not surprisingly, number of words per t-unit. and units, across Table 4.3 presents changes with greater syntactic complexity, as write they get older. Insert Table 4.3 about here As with were distinctly evident (p < wards per genre the measures of organization, t-unit was greater .001). for effects Overall, the ratio of reports, 80 97 suggesting a greater as use of syntactically complex writing in the reports compared with the stories. note that longer were in grades 3 and 6, than their reports, longer. It is also interesting the students' stories yet by grade 9, their This is reflected in the nearly to were reports significant genre x grade interaction (p < .10). General Patterns. It is interesting to note that across analyses, stories showed less change than reports in general organization. notions of firmly in this place This particular type of story as early as grade 3. function of schooling; not may be becauo- the their students' structure It may also be perhaps the more complex story taught (nor are alternative story forms taught), "academic" exposition Structurally, the was receives students' instructional stories did not a are while focus. change as dramatically as did their reports, which became considerably more longer, content laden, better elaborated, more and highly structured across the grades. These may have differences suggest that although report writing one early more Here, I knowledge the story form, knew (typically mainstream Ahrr can exposition. have Clearly, they also used in school; culture), this was not the case will speculate that young ubiquitous exposure to the 81 their these were less helpful in than was their narrative for story writing. already children developed some forms by which to structure early oral expository discourse, their the more of they was with children "adult" story structures Although than to their expository counterparts. children make functional use of exposition in daily more formal written report structures are less familiar the to speech, them For this than story structures. the as reason, findings indicate, the learning of organizational structures for reports takes place at school, and thus exposition seems to progress rapiCly across the school years while the story forms showed a relatively slower rate of change. How Students Structured their Retellings The they of the passages retellings students' structures provide a way to examine the extent to which the they Figures 4.1 through 4.4 present the reading. diagrams for the four reading passages. individual passage. Jackie First, tree They illustrate the across the genres as well as the uniqueness differences each performance use in their writing also influence their while read of each differed in length: New Kid contained 71 content items (557 words), 72 content items items (573 words), and Prairie Dog 35 content items (409 words). The stories contained the reports, words), (680 passage of structure of of each was a story each report (represented by the title). first person; stories used was a while lexical rhetorical the top predicate The New Kid was written in the the others were in the third sequences overall and difficulty, sequence than items The top level averaged more words per passage. structure content separate content more regardlesr Mole 48 made up of events 82 person. and P9 Both rhetorical predicates reflecting predicates rhetorical remark/reply dialogue structures) to while along, response (primarily them .i the reports were developed primarily through descriptions And description/collections. Insert Figures 4.1 through 4.4 about here Average retelling Length one is remembered; Table four passages. Number of words of Retellings. simple measure of how much did difficult text remember. (p However, the did not increase in suggesting this was for even the oldest students effect for mode (talk aloud vs. .05), < the others, .tellings and mode by genre (p < the than though condition, stories. those This associated more with the so for the reports and there was a retrospective) .01), with retellings associated with the talk- clouds in general longer most read to For the more difficult passage set, significant been has the total words in the Overall, ninth graders' retelling of Prairie Dog as a 4.4 summarizes the relevant data for the tended to increase across passages across age. length in the being retrospective than may be because in }hp think aloud for the condition the extra activity occurred before the recall was requested, while of in the retrospective condition the extra manipulation content (which might be expected to improva recall of difficult material) occurred after the recall request. In general, reports, .001). stories led to longer retellings than significantly Across agesv so for the easier passages did (p < the students' average story retelling 83 length was 211.8 words (the average story passage length was words) as compared with 125.2 for reports (the 618 report length expressed however, was words). 491 the retellings than these averages as a percentage of the original number of pattern looks somewhat different "percent retold"). 4.4, If average are are words, Table (see For the easier passages, the story clearly closer in length to are the report passages, the report retellings retellings; but the originals the for harder percentage are some 12.5 points more complete than the story retellings. Insert Table 4.4 about here Recall summarizes of the Higher of Level Structures. Table three other aspects of overall recall: the use the original top-level rhetorical structure as retelling; extent inclusion part of the original title; which the retelling reflected the to 4.5 gist of and the of the original. Patterns for the two genre were quite students around tended significantly reports (p < .001). more likely Across organize their retelling original top level structures, the structure to different. passages, students retelling on the other hand, to be included in the retellings stories used but less often in their Titles, of of The this of were much reports. were more likely to recall the original gist of the stories than they were of the reports. Between increase grades 3 and 6, the children tended 84 101 to their use of top level structures as well as their recall of the gist, for both stories and reports. Between grades 6 however, attention shifted more toward recall of the and 9, gist, and use structures of the top level declined for stories and increased only slightly for reports. Insert Table 4.5 about here Content Units Recalled. content units, of the Table 4.6 summarizes recall overall as well as at each level within hierarchical content structure of the original passage. The percentage of content units recalled increased with age, both for stories and reports particular passage set (p < < .066 the for significantly more of content passage sets, passages, content .007); reports reported was also units were also for recalled the where each set was completed by Genre effects on overall significant though the pattern differed. children units Recall set). greater for the easier passages than for of the children (p < .032). recall a .004 for the easier passages, p difficult harder passages at grade 6, half compared within when a higher for both For the easier proportion the of the stories than for the reports (p < for the harder passages, recall was better for the (p < .002). earlier, These findings parallel the results for the number of words retold expressed as a percentage of the number of words in the original. Insert Table 4.6 about here 85 and are displayed in Table are of particular interest, recall, there levels as grade differences. reliant across significant genre increases, In particular, percent percent at level 6. percent recalled recalled the percent content at level 2 to than less the levels. were stories to organize their retellings, better formed than the these reports, or that the making the more was better for reports than for stories in the difficult passage set suggests that was responsible for the Some students' sensitivity rather than the memorability of the passages, to structure, varied. better However, the fact that overall structures more memorable. recall the This of story structures and therefore use representations 10 which included no more than suggests either that the students of all ages have a representation from level, This pattern was less dramatic in the content from any of of more story recall seems to be students' retelling of reports, 32 and steadily with diminishing 70 total reasonably consistent increases upon the content structure: decreased nearly are 4.6 As with with the results for overall recall. along levels of recall at the various hierarchical Patterns examples patterning in the recalls. will illustrate third-grade First, how the retellings Ana's retelling of the Jackie story: Well, to town comes then out there is this new kid Jackie who came want - and she and plays with these three boys. An - and these three boys they eh - and then they ask him if he 86 103 wants be to in the club and they say he has alright, they say you have to do a task. told him to meet him at the And he And so what would I have to do. says corner. - and well, at And so they empty em corner, the corner at midnight - when it gets dark. em mid - at he went Anyways, there and he said all right now what would I have to do? And then they took him a few blocks-houses down and they told him they have to go and ring pull the string in the old house. he did. and the bear And so she climbed up on the porch , what they called it, bit him and he goes back and it's a joke And And so he - she I can --- I don't know what to call him or her or it. it. You just barely made so then she says - and then they roamed the streets for a while or something and they all - those things. And when school started did they were waiting outside for her, for him, or it. And so he came out- and this little girl came out with a green dress with a green ribbon in her head and they said, "Who are you?" or "Get Jackie." she said, "I'm Jackie". in that dresa?" "I'm," "Well, what are you doing "Mama wouldn't let me wear pants to school." And they didn't know it. Ana's story. Her retelling includes all the major parts presentation reflects the top level of the rhetorical structure (sequence) used to structure the original passage. 87 104 Her account captures the gist of the original, a high proportion of the rhetorical structures. content items and includes and lower level She included 30 content items in her retelling, 42.2 percent of the content units in the original text. Sixth grade Jim's retelling of Prairie Dog an is example of a retelling of a less well understood passage, in this case a report. a story about how the prairie It's um dogs play around and what their basic day is like, and how they saved - how they lived through uhm when the many gallons they guys came over and dumped gallons of water on them to wipe them were amazed that the water had all of a sudden. A few days. An and And out. disappeared Not all that quickly, I guess. uhm it tells how they help save water when droughts occur and things like that. Jim did not use the top level structure to guide presentation, nor did he relate the gist or title. he retold information last the few isolated bits he Instead, remembered. The he presented was primarily clustered within the description/collection presented in the passage. his had his retelling, episode (items - 32) 27 He included four content items in representing 12.5 percent of those in the original. In general, those who remembered less from the passages were less verbose, and in lieu of a more comprehensive retelling, gave the title or presented some very generalized F 105 statement about the piece. While they always included some content units in their retellings, the percentage of content items retold was low and they did not piesent them either in rhetorical structures like those presented in the in might created structures of their own that newly or text, have provided evidence of integration of the given information. Conclusion The findings clearly suggest that the children had very firm sense of stories and reports. a From third grade on they responded in clearly different ways to story and report The tasks. differed, the different, the were the kinds and amounts of elaborations were level While the younger students had less control also different. of organizing content structures highest and the were organized differently, two reports general organization of adult forms of opposed to stories, this gap narrowed considerably sometime between grades 6 and 9. Much growth seems to have occurred grades in organizational and syntactic skills between these -- more as more became the structures embeddings were used, highly organized, more elaborations were presented. These children's changes occurred even more dramatically reports than in their stories. organization. third, the as Clearly, They used this knowledge well as their retelling. well However, the from story the students had a well formed notion of grade 3 on, writing In their in while the and even sixth, graders demonstrated less control of adult forms of report organization, 89 they 106 tended nonetheless The use. series and to be consistent in the report forms they more youthful version of report upon relied of description/collections to move the piece tended did a along, to be organizationally dominated by the title. While dramatic changes occurred in the student use of report form between grades 6 and 9, is the findings suggest that too simplistic to assume that before that time they it did not have control of any, report form. How can conjectured these developments be explained? It can be that from an early age children are exposed to stories that use the same general forms as the stories that they are later expected to read and write in school. reports, spoken the other hand, on versions typically children may rarely encounter that correspond to the required For in school. types (How this reports of differs across different cultural groups would be yet another study.) functional forms they serve as their models, hear and use in their daily The lives and these may be the source of the simple forms they use to structure their reading and writing in the early grades. It will take more data than is available in the present study, of ;ourse, to bear this out. 90 107 Table 4.1 Use of Top Level Structures Frequencies Genre: Grade: Story Report 6 9 All 3 6 9 All 0 0 0 23 1 1 0 16 0 3 0 4 4 0 1 5 Title 6 7 6 19 10 20 5 35 Main Idea 6 13 6 25 4 12 9 25 16 36 15 67 16 36 14 66 3 Rhetorical Predicates Response Sequence Lexical Predicates Totals Significant effects' Genre: 1 Chi-square = 12.04, df = 1, p < .001 Comparing use of sequence, title, or main idea; omits response. On tests of significance, see Chapter 2. Table 4.2 Internal Structure in Student Writing Means Genre: Grade: Deepest level Broadest level Deeply linked nodes Shallowly linked nodes n Story 3 Report 6 3 9 6 9 3.25 2.31 4.00 2.56 3.36 2.08 4.56 3.39 3.40 2.20 4.27 4.47 3.31 2.25 2.19 2.31 4.28 2.78 3.69 4.36 5.21 3.29 6.00 5.71 16 36 14 16 36 14 Sig iificant Multivariate Effects Grade: Genre: Genre x Grade: Genre x Mode: F[8,114] F[4,57] F[8,114] F[4057] = = = = L.92, 10.73, 2.27, 2.47, 109 p p p p <.063 <.001 <.027 <.055 Table 4.3 Length of Student Writing Means Grade: No. of words No. of sentences No. of T units Words per T unit n Report Story Genre: 108.56 11.31 12.81 8.43 202.19 17.89 21.50 9.38 225.27 16.13 19.33 12.26 72.31 7.25 8.06 9.03 175.61 12.89 14.39 12.46 243.86 16.00 18.43 13.33 16 36 14 16 36 14 Significant Multivariate Effects Grade: Mode: Genre: Genre x Grade: Genre x Mode: 9 6 3 9 6 3 F[8,114] = F[4,57] F[4,57] = = F[8,114] = F[4,57] = 6.93, 1.71, 11.98, 1.74, 1.70, p p p p p <.001 <.159 <.001 <.096 <.163 Table 4.4 Length of Retellings Means - Easier Grade 3 Words retold SD More Difficult IMMIONMI.1 Grade 6 Grade 6 Grade 9 Jackie Mole JacKie Mole New Kid Prairie Dog New Kid Prairic Dog 129.3 93.6 56.4 33.5 203.7 60.6 144.67 57.3 145.4 77.6 150.2 195,5 183.1 63.1 149.5 92.4 23.2 9.8 36.6 23.2 21.4 36.'/ 26.9 36.6 15 14 11 10 15 17 14 13 % Retold n Signi)icant Effects Easier Passage Set (Grades 3 & 6) Grade: Genre: F[1,17] = 17.11, p < .001 F[1,17] = 18.54, p < .001 More Difficult Passage Set (Grades 6 & 9) Mode: Genre x Mode: F[1,20] = F[1,20] = 4.12, p < .056 7.11, p < .015 Easy vs. Difficult Passage Sets (Grade 6) Genre x Passage Difficulty x Mode: F[1,17] = 5.57, p < .030 111 Table 4.5 Recall of Higher Level Structures Perce't of Protocols Story Passage: Grade: Jackie 3 Report New Kid 6 6 Mole 6 3 9 Prairie Dog 6 9 Structure Top Gist Title 60.0 40.0 0.0 81.8 81.8 0.0 55.3 60.0 20.0 28.6 78.6 21.4 0.0 35.7 78.6 40.0 60.0 70.0 5.9 29.4 52.9 15.4 61.5 23.1 15 11 15 14 14 10 17 13 n Significant Effects Top Genre: Chi-square = 14.81, df = 1, p <.001 Gist Grade Stories: Reports: Chi-square = Chi-square = 4.92, df = 2, p <.086 2.12, df = 2, nn Chi-square = 4.05, df = 1, p <.044 Chi-square = Chi-square = 3.76, df = 2, ns 8.70, df = 2, p <.013 Genre: Title Grade Stories: Reports: Genre: Chi-square = 16.00, df = 1, p <.001 Table 4.6 Percent of Content Units Recalled Means Story Passage: Grade: TOTAL Level Level Level Level Level Level Jackie 3 19.8 2 3 4 5 6 7 Report New Kid 6 28.4 9 6 15.7 Mole 3 Prairie Dog 6 6 9 20.7 11.8 25.2 20.8 30.7 59.1 93.3 71.4 43.3 22.4 32.1 27.9 12.6 14.3 15.2 3.7 6.3 12.1 3.3 12.5 Passage stops at level 6 26.5 38.6 25.0 28.0 20.0 17.5 5.0 27.9 23.0 21.0 10.3 8.8 23.5 37.5 29.5 35.2 23.1 30.8 23.1 53.3 29,0 20.6 7.1 10.0 8.9 12.1 6.3 14.3 0.0 lffsgtal. T2142 Bvc_412 Easier Passage Set (Grades 3 & 6) Grade: F(1,17] = 11.21, p Mode: F[1,17] = 3.75, p Genre: F[1,17] = 9.24, p < < < .004 .070 .007 More Difficult Passage Set (Grades 6 & 9) Grade: F[1,24] = 3.70, p < .066 Genre: F[1,24] = 12.75, p < .002 Easy vs. Difficult Passage Sets (Grade 6) Passage Set: F[1,20] = 5.29, p Mode: F[1,20] = 4.06, p Genre x Grade: F[1,201 = 4.49, p < < < .032 .057 .047 Sign, ficant Mujitlyaslte Elfectsz Reca/ at Ieselg Easier Passage Set (Grades 3 & 6) Grade: F(5,13) = 4.15, p < .018 Genre: F[5,13) = 8.25, p < .001 More Difficult Passage Set (Grades 6 & 9) Grade: F[5,20] = 2.26, Genre: F[5,20] = 20.15, Grade x Genre: F[5,20] = 2.51, Genre x Mode: F[5,20] = 2.84, p p p p Easy vs. Difficult Passage Sets (Grade 6) Genre: F[5,16] = 18.75, p Passage: F[5,16] = 2.41, p Genre x Passage: F[5,16] = 4.53, p .089 .001 < .064 < .043 < < .001 < .083 < .009 < Chapter 5 The Elaboration of Ideas in Story and Report The previous chapter described the organizational structures the children used in their writing as well as their recollections of stories and reports. conceptual sophistication which features structure. the However, of a piece is often evident are embedded at levels much below the in top Ideas that are loosely linked around a top level sequence or elaborated lexical predicate can be These information in simpler structures can help presentational and interwoven upon through a variety of unifying structures. lower organize forms. level complex S. Langer (1972) suggests that writing involves the simplification reality in of through use of organizing structures that unify the complexities of the ideas the author wishes to convey: The appearances fragmentary, (writer's) of events in our transient, business "experiences," and actual often lives are indefinite....the is to create the appearances of the semblance of events lived and felt, 93 114 to organize them and which But its distinguishing mark, makes it quite different from any actual segment of life, is that the events in it are simplified. (p. 212) As demonstrated in chapter 4, around complexities can be organized unifying higher level rhetorical structures, though the students I studied rarely used any but the simplest of such top structures. structure, students' examine breadth, chapter will and depth, delve length those and and beyond as growing control of discourse forms, elaborate syntax, This indices in order to lower level structures the students used link their ideas. of Genre-related to language, tense structures will also be examined as they relate to the particular genres studied. Lower Level Structures in Student Writing In addition to enumerating the top level structure in each writing sample, the rhetorical structures introduced in the previous chapter were used to examine ways in which the students elaborated presented in their stories and predicates identified these analyses as well, description, adversative. level was upon the overall reports. structures The rhetorical and defined in chapter 4, and used in were causal, evaluation, evidence, response, sequence, explanation, and Use of these rhetorical structures at the top discussed in the previous chapter (Table their use at lower levels will be discussed here. summarizes they 4.1); Table 5.1 the percent of students who made any use of each 94 115 of and the lower level elaborating structures in their reports; top level structures, stories already presented in Table 4.1, are excluded from these data. Insert Table 5.1 about here Narrative structures Structures. Sequence used primarily are to response and impose sequential a ordering on analyses of lower level elaborating structures (Table 5.1), the information being presented. the In the students tended to use sequences more than responses move their stories and reports forward; designating sequential markers actions ordered in time ( "and then...") to dominate this type of rhetorical structure. grades, the students relied stories than in their reports. to Across the more on sequences tended in their Although more students used sequences in grade 9 as opposed to grade 3, the increase was not significant students used since even in grade 3, sequences to organize the 56 percent of lower the levels of form of their stories. Response structures, primarily remark/reply and question/answer dialogue, the in were used in the stories written by half of the third graders and 38 of the sixth graders. percent The students at these grades tended to use dialogue as a way to sequence their stories and the action along. percent this Their use of responses decreased from 50 in grade 3 to 13 percent in grade 9. shift move reflected the third graders' use 95 116 In general, of response structures control in their experiments with their newly developing of dialogue-- before they acquired a broader of structures from which to select. array Mayes story is such an example: day a little girl went One (1) to (2) When she got ther she was scared. not know what to do. felt like crying. At (4) Then she went came (7) But then she did not. up to her. wath is your name? littl sead (11) "My name is Carrie. (12) (13) Marry. you (15) Yes. play with me? (9) A (8) (10) The littl girl What is your name. (17) So they start playing. of fun. her to (6) Then she reacse there were lots of kids. girl (14) Marry will Thank (16) you. (18) Carrie had lots The End. Sequence I II (3) She did (5) She was in first grade. desk. school. Ev Ev Ev Ev Ev Ev Ev 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 Desc Desc III 3 5 Resp Resp Resp Ev 17 Q A 10 11 Q A 12 13 QA Desc 14 15 18 Resp IV V Rem Rap 16 In May's story, as with most third grade pieces, is greeted with a thin and rapid series of toward a predictable end. events leading This is reflected in the diagram of the rhetorical structure, the the reader tree which is dominated top level sequence rhetorical predicate. 96 117 Lower by level elaboration is sparse, with the occasional descriptions and response structures adding little depth to her work. Simple Elaborations. descriptions Two types of rhetorical predicate, and evaluations, information-- information without setting events. equivalency, provide by function in manner, elaborative more about other identity, setting, ideas variety a Neither of imposes imposed opinions) elaborative firm structural relationships by time sequence, ways, Evaluations simple of or attribution, and epilogue. type topic a subordinate evaluation (usually personal structure those tells specifying commentary. or that simple it firmly in relation to Descriptions elaborating provide causality (such or as comparison among alternatives). Description predicates rhetorical were primary the device used to elaborate upon both stories and reports. of description increase used from grades 3 to but 9, was rather small since 94 percent of the lower percent increased level descriptions in their in their reports as early as grade grades elaborated their ideas. As ninth grade said, "I see. I want them to know my imagination." and across Arleen want the person who reads my story to see what students, the elaboration of stories tended through description more than any other One percent of the students 97 I For these older accomplished hundred 88 Description appeared to be the primary way in which the students ',he that students stories 3. Use included 118 to be form. description rhetorical predicates in the stories they descriptions well as as sequences Arleen's wrote. helped elaborate the following story: Getting Accepted at a New School was my third day at Forest High It (1) School. (2) Although there was a substitute teacher, would have the History still handing out substitute, Miss tests, gave directions. While (3) Johnson, the (4) The test looked (5) and, I could see one boy eying my paper. hard, (6) the test. they I looked him in the eye (7) and he gave me look had never seen before. I a me made (8) It uncomfortable. The silence in the classroom was (9) when suddenly three boys behind broken were me whispering. (10) Soon questions were being thrown around room. the shoulder. (12) borrow an eraser, (11) I felt someone Hoping they would just I turned around. tap my need to (13) "What's number seven," the boy asked. There was a lump in my troat. (14) was stumbling for something to say, out, I don't know, hands again. were (15) I and blurted (16) ask someone else. (17) My dripping with sweat as he tapped me (18) I ignored him and tried to think of another consistent excuse. His bothersome (20) and I turned 98 around. 119 tapping was (21) All around me people were talking. their book open. (22) Two girls had reading (23) Other kids were whatever was written on their arms and legs. thought I if I didn't give him would think I was a sissy. answer, the would he (25) I knew that I was a new kid and that I needed friends, was a good time to start. (24) and (26) now (27) I whispered that I tell him the number if he would tell me the number. (28) We exchanged answers like everyone else. (29) At lunch, on the playground, they wanted me to pitch in the softball game. (30) I seemed to get along with just about everybody. Getting Accepted at a New School I Descr II Sequence Descr (Coll) 1 III IV 21 24 25 26 2 EvEvEvEvEv Ev Ev Resp Ev Ev Ev 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 17 18 20 Desc Desc 4 V Sequence (Cell) 8 Ev Ev Ev 27 28 29 A Desc De3C (Coll) 19 (Coll) 13 15 16 22 23 Q Desc 30 Desc 14 Arleen uses her sequences to move her story on, and her descriptions to enlarge her message. The response structure she uses not only moves the story forward (as Amy's but it also highlights her fear and frustration ("There was a lump in my throat," "...stumbling for something to 99 120 does), say"). used Arleen carefully selected language and structure to "let the reader know Iler imagination." Although the proportion of students using at least description was high even at grade 3, multiple levels average their their terdency to use descriptive structures increased across the studied. of For the third graders stories, 2.3 descriptive structures at lower stories. This even more dramatic, 5.3 at grade 6, grade used an levels in increased to 3.4 in the sixth and 4.8 by grade 9. stories, one grade For reports, the increase was rising from a mean of 1.7 at grade 3 to and finally to 5.6 descriptions per report at grade 9. Evaluations, on the other hand, played a relatively minor role in story writing, and were used more in the lower than the upper grades in the students' reports. In general, these :valuations were offered as commentary rather than a summation, bring often serving to get the writing started or to to it a sophisticated hummingbirds," creep" close routines before and they had more learned structures. like "I "Swimming is a fun sport," and "Jaimie is are typical of the evaluations that occurred in children's early evaluations likely as were stories used and reports. more By selectively-- and reflect an integrated evaluation to ninth were a the grade, more of a provide a instead place holder. Causal stronger Structures. organizational Causal framework 100 relationships than do 121 the simple elanorative structures discussed so far. relationships causal were Three types identified analysis: the in of causal rhetorical predicates (used to relate antecedent consequent equal at levels content the in and hierarchy); explanations (used antecedent); and evidence (used to support an argument). In gehral, the utructures This to students more in introduce used subordinately a the their reports than in was particularly true by grade 9, the types three causal .:12 their stories. when 43 percent reports (but only 13 percent of the lower level causal rhetorical predicates. and causal rhetorical staged stories) included Use of evidence predicates both increased significantly in report writing between grades 3 and 9. explanation of frequently, and predicates rhetorical of occurred showed an erratic pattern of changes Use less with grade level. Comparisons. predicates contrast provide of structures be Alternative ideas, and frameworks objects, adversative the for or rhetorical comparison events. and Alternative call for two or more equally weighted options to while presented, the adversative structure permits a comparison between alternatives where one is favored and the other subordinate. comparisons story writing. adversatives grades. played Like the causality a bigger role in report as In showed report writing, significant gain in structures, opposed alternatives use across to and the By grade 9, some form of comparison occurred in all 101 122 of the reports the students wrote. General Patterns story P-)r writing, established by grade 3: structure, which report writing, change across reports were on the other hand, an showed for considerable At grade structured primarily using example description pattern The the grades studied here. evaluation rhetorical predicates. is well Growth in story writing took place these two cateories. within was time orderings governed the overall then elaborated through was rhetorical predicates. primarily the structural pattern 3, the description and Third grade Mark's paper of a particularly simple piece elaborated exclusively through description rhetorical predicates. How to be a Good Goaly (1) To be a good goaly is to move quickand keep an eye on the basil (2) and you have to be good kicker. a Also you have to be smart to tell the kids to guard who (4) and you hold on to the of ball your hand. (3) tight because kids can kick it out (5) and that's how to be a good goaly. How to be a Good Goaly 5 Description 11 (Coll) 1 Mark's report is an 2 3 4 example of the simplest thesis/elaboration form (described in the previous chapter), 102 123 listing all the information he seems to know (or has chosen to write) about soccer. Although rhetorical piece is very description simple, predicates can also be used to develop a structure. almost Mark's Third grade for example, Carl, richer relied also exclusively on description rhetorical predicates in his report about chipmunks: A chipmink lives in a farm and (1) gardens. meadows, (2) They eat all kinds of nuts, (3) you can feed them from your hand (4) They have pouches in there mouths that carry food in. (5) Chipmunks make there homes in burrows. they sleep (7) and sometines they wake up to something. mate. born. for (8) (6) In the the spring they look In winter for eat a (9) A chipmunks baby has no fur when it is (10) white Aft you can see five black stripes and (11) A chipmunk is ones. considered full grown when it is about two months old. Chipmunks I Description II (Coll) 1 2 5 Descr III 6 8 9 11 Descr Adver (Coll) 3 4 In this case, knows beyond 10 7 while Carl too has attempted to tell all wishes to say) about chipmunks, he he has moved the simple description form (at level 2) and added (or 103 124 additional descriptive elaborate upon structures the ideas he has already has also included one adversative, much more prevalent the in level 3) that presented. Carl (in a form that will written reports become by older children. By grade 9, continued play to sophisticated levels. and 9 There were being a variety used at of more lower the was a significant increase between grades percent the in an important role, structures alternatives, growing although description rhetorical predicates evidence, of students and who used adversatives, causals, suggesting control of the structures which permit linking elaboration of information, 3 a and leading towards a more complex as well as more coherent piece. Ninth grade Terrence used a greater variety of lower level structures in his report about driving. (1) Driving is harder than people think. (2) People think of driving as steering a wheel in the direction pedal they want the car to go and to go faster or slower. the least of it. one place to another in a car, driver gets there. of driving. cars or (3) Well,this (4) Driving is not going a is from (5) it's how the (6) The driver has to be aware the things that could happen while he all along pushing is (7) For instance, if someone is driving a busy street, he has to watch the parked to see if one will pull out in front of if a person opens the door toward the 104 125 him street. (8) While doing this, being cars he also has to be aware pedestrians. operated parallel) (not that people and A driver has to think that the (9) worst possible situation will come up. problem of driving hard makes One (10) that most is don't take it as seriously as they should. (11) This makes it harder for all other (12) One road in everyone has to have his full attention order who seriously drivers. to be a drives and safe driver. a car would concentrated on (13) take the on If more it road, the maybe driving could become a little easier for everyone. Driving is harder than you think 3. II Adver Evid 5 2 III Descr Adver 3 4 Descr (Coll) 6 IV 9 12 Adver Desc Descr (Coll) 7 13 Causal 8 Ant Cons 10 Terrence's 11 report contains about the same number of content units as third grade Carl's. However, presented that in interrelationships structures his information suggest among the issues he raisea; are made across his ideas. 105 126 is interesting more links The story and report structures presented abovft suggest that beyond the top level structure, student of structures writing can that aro used. the growing complexity be examined in lower the It is not surprising leval the that story forms show less evidence of change and growth than the report forms. As was discussed in the previous chapter, mastery of simple story forms is evident from early on, sequences these and and descriptions are often used to elaborate upon forms. Tho growth in lower level report structures may reflect school experience-- both with structures in models do the the directly students read and with those they are taught to incorporate in their writing. It is important to remember, that these more however, complex forms, while apparent in the lower levels of student reports, do not work their way into the top level rhetorical structures (see manageable for Chapter It may be that it 4). students to use these forms more is elaborate to their ideas at lower structural levels, and that structuring an entire piece around any one of the argumentative forms is a much more difficult matter. explore that Further data are needed and to see whether in fact this issue, to structures emerge first at the lower levels eventually work their way into the top level structures in students' writing. Children's Use of Genre-Related Language and Syntax In addition structures language the use examining to students that I wrote, the I expected to be 1 6 hierarchical examined content aspects influenced 127 by of the children's sense of genre. tenses they used, This included analysis of the different kinds of language they used to begin and end their work, second, (first, themselves. and the to express aspects of each piece of student writing third or Five stance and the presentational person) each retelling were analyzed: use and control of tense shifts, they used the primary tense used, type of beginning, type of ending, and the narrator's stance with respect to the action (e.g., first, scored by four raters who worked as a group first to refine second, the scoring procedure, interrater Initial The papers or third person). and later to negotiate agreement were differences. was .89 across this set of measures. This set of analyses revealed marked age in the use students' reports. Further, language use of language in their differences stories there were clear genre distinctions and in evident at all grade levels. Primary Tense. The primary tense used in the students' retellings and writings was scored as past, present, future, or no clear primary tense. Results are summarized in Table 5.2. In general, the students in this study treated the past tense as most appropriate for stories, and the present tense as most appropriate for their reports. expectations well escablished in were writing by grade 3, significant for These patterns the students' of own and the differences between genres were both the writing and the retelling 107 128 tasks. Patterns in the retellings were similar to those for the students' own writing, though they were complicated somewhat by the interaction between the students' genre and the actual passages. expectations patterns of tense use encountered in the These complications were greatest for retellings of the report about prairie dogs, which was itself a mixture of past and present information. mixed Future and tenses were rarely evident at any grade level. Insert Table 5.2 about here Ana's story and Peter's report, in the section discussed in Chapter 4 on recall of content, tense presentations. are examples of past In contrast, third grade Robin's story shows a less clear primary tense. The First Day at School This she gril went to school for her first was schaered. time and Her name was Luara she had no day everbody would like fraeind. That with her. But at the end of the day some one does want to now where she lives. will not to paly And Luara said no I tell you where I live because I do not like you. Because presentations like Robin's inability to control appropriate shifts in were did reflected tenae, passages examined for the extent to which tense shifts did not take place, as well as the degree to shifts that did occur were well controlled. 108 129 an which and the Tense Shifts. In both writing and the retelling, students' use of tense shifts increased with age, along with the ability to control those shifts (see Table 5.3). tasks, percent 21 controlled use of the students' Across presentations of tense shifts et grade 3, showed rising to 42 percent at grade 6, and then rising somewhat more sharply to 71 by percent similar stories in original not levels and writing Uncontrolled some grade 9. Management of tense reports, in compared and with within tended the their and mixed-shifts (with some occur in cases like students' retellings. controlled the same story or report) at to was shifts all Robin's and grade where the confusion grew out of relating the time of the event to the moment of speech or writing. Insert Table 5.3 about here Lora, attempt a ninth grader, had a similar problem in to insert her own point of view into a piece her that she began as a story. Lisa what looked out of the car window practicing sne would do when she met her new teacher as she always did when we meet new people. person time who she terribly despises meeting new has pale to meet a and shakey. She's Every people. stranger she a becomes I've never had that problem, but my sister seems to be born with a shy personality. Lora uses an action-in-progress beginning to her story, 109 13 0 and it works to immediately carry the reader into story expectations. transition to her However, her difficulty in making from her presentation of the past tense first-hand narrative commentary on genre her the opening sister's shyness leads to her uncontrolled shifts in tense. It is interesting to note that the control of shifts in tense grows evenly across the ages the natural ages This genre. suggests development and is not influenced by that such control in general language skill reflects across a the studied, rather than increasing familiarity with the conventions of one or another genre. Beginnings. important Susanne role Langer (1972) indicates "beginnings', play as introductions to the the genre of a piece: (illusion)...is at least tentatively established by the very first sentence, or hearer's literary which has to switch the reader's attitude from conversational interest interest, fiction....Children i.e., from actuality to to listen with the same readiness to stories and verses, just as they are always prepared to look at pictures. Because many students, work within their (p. 213) like Lora, marked the genre of their first few words, ways in which the students began and ended their stories and reports were also examined; provide it was anticipated that these analyses would another view of the students' notions of the genres and their ability to control them. 110 analyses of ways in which the students began their The stories and reports in writing as well as retelling pointed, as with the tense analyses, to a developmental break between presents a detailed breakdown of Table 5.4 grades 6 and 9. the kinds of beginnings used by the students, grouped into 3 more general categories (formulaic, and weak). structural, Weak beginnings were considered to be those that provide clear before being beginnings the and require the reader to read introduction determine to able the no further Formulaic genre. used conventional phrasings that clearly marked without genre, being integrated the into overall rhetorical structure of the work (e.g., "Once upon a time"). Structual beginnings both provided a clear indication of the genre and were integrated into the the niece, of overall structure (as a report or provision of a setting information in a story). Tests of significance with were categories, a based reflect and students had reports (rather over thesis statement the than these on in three more the degree of beginnings cf the that the stories and control their particular general that types were appropriate within each genre). Insert Table 5.4 about here In general, beginnings as age there was a decreasing use with a increased, of movement formulaic in writing toward the presentatJon of setting information, in report writing toward a thesis statement. were similar for the students' 111 writing story and These patterns and 132 retellings, except that retellings were more likely to begin with formulaic topic-starter, (Beginnings "This is a report/story about.,.." classified as topic starters in the specific changes general thesis but simply subject matter rather that would be apparent are analysis this had something of the form of a thesis statement, announced discussed.) than the Although age in moving from grade 3 to grade development is more drErnatic between grades 6 and 9. mode effects (retrospective discussion versus appeared the for retellings of stories, 6, Slight talk - clouds) not with parallel but significant effects for retellings of reports. In general, the retellings were more likely to use a formulaic beginning after the retrospective which alouds, were condition than after the more likely to lead to weak or talk- poorly defined beginnings. we look at specific openings, If number of third and sixth graders a topic starter "Horses are traditional the thesis more often These presentation structure this They began their stories with In opening contrast, (story) retellings than seem to have been used as a way when their students' students were uncertain presentations. occurred, 11 133 much the into about or their in The frequency with particularly in the or such Topic starters occurred (report). the in with horses" graders began either with a setting statement writing. about formulas as "Once upon a time." ninth greatest began their reports such as "I know a lot animals." by far the how to which retelling of reports, suggests either that many of the unclear about how to begin their report they were less confident were students retellings, or that relating the factual information they had just read. Among the stories and reports I have examined already, Lora's (see above) begins with an action-in-progress ("Lisa looked out of the car window"), and Peter's (chapter 4) with a thesis statement ("In England in the early 70's there uprising of a new kind of music that was anything ever heard before"). (chapter walking the different Third grade Ana's was than beginning 4) is an early form of setting ("One day Sahra was down the street"), reflecting the transition formulaic "once upon a time" toward the more situational settings provided by older students, from specific, suc} as ninth grade Wes's "It was a rainy day." Endings. The endings students' provided for their reports and stories were similarly categorized c.s formulaic, structural (with a clear resolution), or weak. Table 5.5 presents the results. Insert Table 5.5 about here As Table 5.5 each the indicates, about half of the students at grade level ended their story retellings by recounting thematic resolution of the plot from the passages had read ("So he finally came to the conclusion that he accepted "). was Students who could not resolve the action used a scattering of other strategies, somewhat they though third graders were more likely to simply stop after reciting the last 113 134 action they could remember, and the ninth graders were more likely to provide an ending based on a natural closing down of the action (e.g, " By the end of the day he had made Lary fr4.ends") . endings Students' development across about sample, end" ("the percent their own stories this grade span. half showed the students used a or "they lived happily ever story. none used In the ninth grade sample, a formulaic ending, break in the action, grade ending formulaic only 14 theme of after"); on the other hand, 42 percent and 25 more third In the managed a strong resolution based on the the natural to stopped percent at a provided a thematically-driven resolution. Endings to reports showed similar development, retellings as well as the students' own writing. in the In both, the third graders were most likely to end their reports with a final fact about their topic; the otherwise they made use of formulaic "the end" or let the report run down with clear ending at all. usually had no By ninth grade, students' own reports a clear resolution (usually a or summary an evaluation), though this was less likely in their retellings they where were less familiar with the material they were rPporting about. A students comparison had a across genres suggests better understanding of that story because structure, tl,ey were more likely to end these with Fl resolution of conflict or problem. On the other hand, the the report forms 114 135 with which they were less familiar showed less they relied more on use of personal evaluations ("I like swimming") or last facts ("Swimming makes you get breath") of significant to end retellings for (p < .001), as yell -- really out were differences Genre these. closure as for The design of the study also allowed us to examine the original writing (p < .04). extent to which students' control over endings was the story and report tasks, for retelling. similar as well as for writing and For the students' writing, performance in one genre was significantly associated with their performance in the other (Cramer's V = .36, those students their stories writing In other p < .002). who were able to provide strong endings were There task. also likely to do so were similar, though associations between students were able to provide strong their who the writing and the on retell) similar strong endings in strong, tasks: retelling. conclusions the in report less own stories and reports were more likely to (and words, for remember stories and reports they read (Cramer's V = .24 and .25, p < .09 and p < .08, respectively). Stance. Our last analysis of structure focussed on presentational stance, that is, whether the author adopted a first, second, or third person point of view (see Table 5.6). Insert Table 5.6 about here Students of all ages were most likely to 115 136 write and retell in the third person; well as reports. likely more contributing retelling younger the ninth graders to mix their to a significant grade level effect As with their use of tense tasks. students stance, foi in both for the shifts, over had not yet gained complete control they adopted. genre Strong differences These occurred for writing (p >.008) and reading (p >.001). resulted as However, the third and sixth graders were than perspective the this held 'crue for stories primarily from the work of the younger whom the third person perspective was students, well-established but whose reports were just as lAely to their stories, adopt a first-person or mixed point of view. Although some the biggest development wls evident between grades 3 and 6, shift toward a consistent third person perspective occurred between grades 6 and 9. Before at Ana's let us look back leaving this set of analyses, (grade 3) and Peter's (grade primary tense (excluding dialogue) was past, controlled tense shift as she moved for the dialogue she presented. introduced setting beginnings stance ("One by and day") w Is mixed, an Ana's papers. 9) and she used a from past present to She began her story with a ,o of formulaic earlier 'L.,:1,ed with end." "the changing from third person Her narrator to first person speaker. Peter, like Ana, wrote his report in the past tense and used the a controlled tense shift to the present progressive in last sentence. He began his piece 116 with 137 a thesis statement and ended it with an evaluation. It was written Ho%aver, the age in the third person throughout. Both and as are strong pieces of writing. genre differences are clearly evident in the well as the content. Ana appears to be structure experimenting with her new found ability to create dialogue. She does it quite successfully although she has still not masered the rules of written mechanics dialogue. accompany that Peter thesis/support report, the has written a presentation well of structured has used quite a sophisticated tense shift, and has generally kept control over the syntax of his piece. However, he must too still master some the of mechanical conventions needed in his more mature writing. Both samples of student work remind us that across the grades, the students stretched first to present the meanings they wished to structures. stance), mechanical within the to those genre appropriate Next, they stretched to include appropriate features tense, convey new forms and genres (dialogue, syntax, and last seemed to refine their control of features that are generally associated with the "finished'. presentation. Summary ftom can be seen the analyses presented in Chapters 4 and that from third grade on the students 5, it approach stories and reports in clearly different ways. They organize them differently, different include different superordinate structures, 117 content, and rely on 13s choose differing kinds and students amounts While elaborations. younger the have less control of the more sophisticated reports of of opposed as considerably to this stories, gap sometime between grades 6 and 9. forms narrows Much growth seems to occur both in overall organizational and in surface linguistic are used, features between these grades-- more embeddings the structures become more highly organized, more elaborations are presented. These changes occur even more dramatically children's reports than they do in their stories. from grade 3 on, ory as well as their retelling. report version writing and report of description/collections to be organizationally dramatic between changes grades of They use this knowledge well in their Similarly, third graders are consistent in forms they use to their Clearly, the students have a well formed notion organization. writing in retelling. relies on the it is clearly too of and tends While title. occur in the student use of 6 and 9, youthful series a the structure more The to move the piece along, dominated by even report form simplistic to assume that before that time they do not have control of any, report form. The were the story forms the students used in the early grades very similar to those forms they used in ninth grade- stories structure stories, grew more elaborate, remained the same. third but the As with their basic story knowledge of graders had a good deal of knowledge of one type of expository form, based on a simple thesis 118 139 followed by descriptive elaborations. a rumber Although this was only one of of forms the sixth and ninth grade teachers they taught their students to use, report other it continued to dominate writing even among the ninth grade forms structures that were taught, such as comparison of alternatives, solution, The students. based around problem/ said more complex and causality, did not emerge consistently as top level structures in any of the tasks studied here. In the analyses that looked beyond the top level global patterns, however, the higher level structures that were being taught in school (but that did not affect their global organization of text) gradually appeared in the lower level structures level the children And used. these lower rhetorical structures gained in frequency and variety across the grades. Clearly learning was taking place, where instruction was being focussed. but not necessarily This suggests possibility that children begin to use new and more the complex structures in limited and probably more manageable contexts, before they particularly use them to structure entire texts. This interesting since instruction rarely focusses is directly on teaching students how to use those structures at the lower compare/ levels; contrast cause/effect, problem/solution, are usually taught as major structures-- in reading as well as in writing. 140 119 and organizing Table 5.1 Lower-Level Structures Used in Student Writing Percent of Students Story Report Grade 3 6 Grade 9 Chisquare 3 6 Chisquare 9 (df=2) (df=2) Narrative Structures Sequence Response 56.3 50.0 58.3 38.9 73.3 13.3 1,22 4.85 18.8 22.2 0.0 8.3 50.0 7.1 4.69 1.39 88.9 100.0 25.0 13.3 1.94 1.56 87.5 97.2 43.8 25.0 92.9 21.4 1.88 2.37 0.56 10.40** 0.00 12.5 8.3 6.3 13.9 12.3 2.8 42,8 7.1 28.6 Descriptive Elaborations Description 93.8 Evaluation 12.5 Causalities Causal 18.8 Explanation 0.0 Evidence 0.0 11.] 0.0 13.3 13.3 0.0 0.0 47.2 0.0 46.7 36 15 38.9 8.91** 0.91 7.15** Comparisons Alternative 0.0 Adversative 37.5 n of students *p < .05 16 **p < .01 0.00 0.45 12.5 30.6 18.8 52.8 16 *** p < .001 1 &L 36 57.1 6.92* 92.9 16.47*** 14 Table 5.2 Tense Used in Students' Writings and Retellings Percent of Students Task: Story Retelling Passage: Grade: Jackie 3 Primary tense None deport Retelling New Kid 6 Mole Prairie Dog 6 9 8.3 13.3 10.0 38.5 25.0 83.3 13.3 20.0 23.1 58.3 3 6 6 9 40.0 16.7 0.0 60.0 75.0 91.7 Present 0.0 8.3 8.3 8.3 66.7 70.0 38.5 16.7 Future 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 7.7 0.0 15 12 12 12 15 10 13 12 Past n of students Task: Story Writing Grade: Primary tense None 6 3 Report Writing 9 3 6 9 14.3 26.0 8.3 0.0 13.6 0.0 71.4 76.0 83.3 14.3 18.2 27.3 ?resent 7.1 4.0 8.3 85.7 59.1 72.7 Future 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 14 25 12 14 22 11 Past n of students Significant Effects Grade Reading: Stories Reports Chi-square = 7.74, df = 4, p <.102 Chi-square = 8.81, df = 4, p <.066 Genre biting: Reading: Chi-square = 27.27, df = 1, p <.001 Chi-square = 18.38, df = 1, p <.001 1 4! Table 5.3 Tense Shifts Percent of Mdents Task: Story Retelling Passage: Grade: Jackie Report Retelling New Kid Mole Prairie Dog 3 6 None 40.0 27.3 42.9 0.0 63.6 30.0 0.0 25.0 Controlled 20.0 36.4 57.1 66.7 27.3 20.0 22.2 50.0 Uncontrolled 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 9.1 10.0 33.3 0.0 40.0 27.3 0.0 33.3 0.0 40.0 44.4 25.0 10 11 7 3 11 10 9 4 6 9 3 6 6 9 Tense Shifts Mixed n of students Task: Grade: Story Writing 6 3 Report Writing 9 3 6 9 Tense Shifts None 60.0 30.8 0.0 45.5 36.4 11.1 Controlled 20.0 46.2 85.7 18.2 54.5 77.8 Uncontrolled 20.0 11.5 0.0 18.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 11.5 14.3 18.2 4.5 11.1 9 26 7 11 22 9 Mixed n of students Table 5.3 (continued) Tense Shifts Significant Effects Grade Writings Reading: Domain Stories: Reports: Stories Reports Stories Reports Chi-square Chi-square Chi-square Chi-square = 8.65, = 8.41, = 4.33, = 12.34, df df df df = 4, == 4, = 4, = 4, p <.070 p <.078 ns p <.015 Chi-square = Chi-square = 0.00, df = 1, ns 3.48, df = 1, p <.071 Task Difficulty (Grade 6 Reading) Stories: Chi-square = Reports: Chi-square = 3.27, df = 2, p <.195 3.29, df = 2, p <.193 144 Table 5.4 Control over Beginnings Percent of Student:3 Task: Story Retelling Report Retelling Passage: Jackie Grade: 3 6 6 9 3 6 6 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 8.3 0.0 50.0 8.3 30.8 7.7 78.6 7.1 60.0 0.0 92.3 0.0 53.8 30.8 64.3 58.3 33.3 53.8 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 33.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Formulaic Fbrmulaic This is a story/ report about Topic starters New Kid Mole Prairie Dog Structures, Beginning Setting Action/dialogue in progress Thesis statement Beginning of action Weak 21gginaing Dialogue Evaluation Hello Generalized opening Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 30.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 n of students 14 12 12 13 14 10 13 13 Task: Grade: Formulaic Formulaic This is a story/ report about Topic starter Story Writing 3 6 Report Writing 9 3 6 9 57.1 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 14.3 35.7 8.0 0.0 9.1 36.0 Table? 5.4 (continued) ftuctur4,1 Igginaing Setting Action/dialogue in progress Thesis statement Beginning of action 35.7 24.0 66.7 0.0 16.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 16.0 4.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 32.0 0.0 72.7 7.1 0.0 8.3 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 4.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 25 12 14 25 11 Hes IL( Beginning Dialogue Evaluation Hello Generalized opening Other n of students Significant Effects Grade Writing: Mode Reading: Stories Reports Chi- square = Stories Reports Chi-square = 5.75, df = 2, P <.057 Chi-square = 3.55, df = 2, p <.170 8.57, df = 4, p .073 Chi-square = 10.67. df = 4, p <.031 Genre Writing: Reading: Chi-square = 0.32, df = 1, ns Chi-square = 26.28, df = 1, p <.001 Domain Stories: Reports: Chi-square = 0.00, df = 1, ns Chi-square = 21.81, df = 1, p <.001 Task Difficulty (Grade 6 Reading) Stories Chi-square = 7.72, df = 2, p <.021 Reports Chi-square = 5.64, df = 2, p <.060 Table 5.5 Control over Endings Percent of Students Task: Story Retelling Report Retelling Passage: Jackie Grade: 3 6 6 9 3 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 7.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 8.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 Formulaic Formulaic The end That's how you do it Structural Solution/ resolution Natural end Evaluation Moral Summary New Kid Mole Prairie Dog 6 6 9 0.0 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 53.8 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 7.7 23.1 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 8.3 8.3 7.7 0.0 42.9 21.4 33.3 11.1 53.8 23.1 15.4 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 7.7 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 44.4 15.4 0.0 14 12 12 13 14 9 13 13 Nok Last fact No clear ending End to begin again That's all I know about n of students Task: Grade: Formulaic Formulaic The end That's how you do it Story Writing 3 6 Report Writing 9 3 6 9 7.1 42.9 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 Table 5.6 Stance Percent of Students Task: Story Retelling Passage: Jackie Grade: 3 1st Person 3rd Person 2nd Person Mixed Person Report Retelling New Kid 6 6 9 Mole 3 Prairie Dog 6 9 6 0.0 93.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 83.3 0.0 16.7 25.0 58.3 0.0 16.7 9.1 90.9 0,0 0.0 25.0 33.3 8.3 33.3 70.0 10.0 0.0 20.0 46.2 46.2 0.0 7.7 16.7 83.3 0.0 0.0 15 12 12 11 12 10 13 12 n of students Task: Story Writing Grade: 6 3 1st Person 3rd Person 2nd Person Mixed Person n of students Report Writing 9 0.0 71.4 0.0 28.6 20.0 72.0 0.0 25.0 66.7 0.0 8.0 14 25 3 9 6 8.3 35.7 35.7 7.1 21.4 4.0 56.0 4.0 36.0 18.2 72.7 0.0 9.1 12 14 25 11 Significant Effects Grade Writing: Reading: Genre Writing: Reading: Stories Reports Stories Reports Chi-square Chi-square Chi-square Chi-square = 0.04, = 3.90, = 7.48, = 11.83, df df df df = = = = 2, 2, 2, 2, ns p <.140 p <.024 p <.003 Chi-square = 7.03, df = 1, p <.008 Chi-square = 14.09, df = 1, p <.001 Task Difficulty (Grade 6 Reading) Stories Chi-square = 1.32 df = 1, ns Reports Chi-square = 2.75, df = 1, p <.097 Table 5.6 (conidnued) Structural Solution/ resolution Natural end Evaluation Moral Summary Agit Last fact No clear ending End to begin again That's all I 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.1 21.7 34.8 0.0 0.0 25.0 41.7 8.3 0.0 14.3 14.3 7.1 know about n of students 4.2 12.5 37.5 0.0 8.3 9.1 9.1 27.3 9.1 8.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 29.2 8.3 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 23 12 14 24 11 36.4 Significant Effects Grade Writing: Reading: Genre Writing: Reading: Domain Stories: Reports: Stories Reports Stories Reports Chi-square Chi-square Chi-square Chi-square = = = = 24.39, 31.72, 3.64, 18.89, df df df df = = = = 4, 4, 4, 4, p <.001 p <.001 ns p <.001 Chi-square = 4.05, df = 1, p <.044 Chi-square = 20.48, df = 1, p <.001 Chi-square = 0.13, df = 1, ns Chi-square = 11.28, df = 1, p <.001 Chapter 6 Making Meaning: While Chapters products and 4 A Study Reading Of Behavior and Writing 5 described differences of children's reading and writing. the in end A variety of differences appeared in the structures the children produced when they wrote as well as in the structures they present From their ideas when they retold what they third grade on, the children responded to used had to read. story and report tasks in very different ways -- the content differed, the highest level organizing structures were different, the syntactic features were different, and the kinds and amounts of lower level elaborating and linking devices also differed. genre the In general, differences they used these analyses indicated that were more responsible for variations in ways in which the children structured their work than were domain differences between reading and writing. While this consistent evidence might lead one to conclude that in some generalized way genre is more powerful than domain in affecting children's approaches to meaning development, such 123 15o a conclusion would be premature without the strategies meaning. the children used in careful analysis of the act making of This chapter, then, will present a discussion of the on-line strategies the readers and w:Aters employed when developing and presenting their ideas in each genre. The Construction of Meaning When readers and writers develop their ideas, they rely on various kinds of knowledge: and genre, evolution discourse. structure of the knowledge about the content, and how these work together conceptualization of an entire the in unit of Iser (1975) says: ...there is an active interweaving of anticipation and retrospection. The impressions that arise as a result of the process will vary from individual to individual, but only within the limits imposed by the opposed to the unwritten text may continually expanded, written as While expectations be modified, and images continually the reader (and author) will strive, even if unconsciously, to fit everything together in a kinds cf consistent pattern. (pp. 287-288) I was interested in learning more about the knowledge the children used when contemplating such "written and unwritten texts" to build their own consistent patterns of meaning and experience: their ideas originated, how their knowledge grew, where and when and how their ideas used. 151 124 were Thi3 grows constructivist out production view that the of approach to the use of involve active 1972; Britton, the part Bransford & 1932; and Johnson, Spiro, 1975; and that the 1980) meaning that develops is the consequence of a wide range textual, contextual, been adopted Fillmore, 1972; psychologists of and attitudinal forces continually at play in the human mind. has of Iser, 1978; Kuhn, 1962; Rosenblatt, 1970; Rumelhart, 1978; 1938, comprehension language participation on readers and writers (Bartlett, knowledge This view of language comprehension by many contemporary linguists (Chafe, Halliday, 1977; van Dijk, 1975) and 1981; (Minsky, Shank 1975; & Abelson, 1977; Anderson, 1977; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977; Spiro, 1977). This be it work reminds us that the construction of meaning, reading in or writing, a is function interrelationships among a variety of complex suggests that described by the act of meaning a model-- interpretation and change the sources, and construction cannot be a simply recursive, are deeply interwoven or even by linear, of every step of the way. The Analysis of Meaning Corstruction For this study, categorize revealed the in I developed an extensive kinds of strategies and types of the children's reading and writing system to knowledge protocols. The analysis is the outgrowth of earlier work (Langer, 1984 c; in press-a, analysis b) in which various components of the final were developed, although all 125 portions 152 underwent extensive this revision for study. The overarching framework grows out of a body of with done Fillmore envisionment developed or experience reader and Kay (note 1) and is tied world that a reader text envisionment of the or writer is continues the to has particular writer's or reader's "message" --the total understanding has developed at any particular point time (Langer, in preas-a, b). shaped the work writer or at any point in reading or writing a The text. is gathered ba:.ed upon the protocols a in The envisionment is fluid; it by how earlier segments were to develop in change and interpreted light and later of information and ideas. analysis of meaning construction I The this study strategies, describes and knowledge the general developed sources, approaches the children for specific used to develop their envisionments as they progressed through their reading and writing tasks. knowledge rather and The focus throughout is on skills the children are bringing into the play, than on the specific envisionments that they may developing; the analyses are concerned with how be children make meaning. Scoring the Protocols Each transcribed each unit retrospective report was and segmented into communication units, where think-aloud was and a separately identifiable thought or behavior. remark about a Due to the frequent pauses typical of 126 1 53 the judgment were but generally coder required segmentations self-report activities, with associated t-unit boundaries (Hunt, 1965). analysis The and supplementary five The analyses. first analysis describing the and writing process in terms of a concern with such reading operations as hypothesis-generation, questioning, and validation stating of meaning, interpretations. of previous second analysis characterized the protocol behavior in of the specific kinds of concerns being monitored by terns the categorizations major on the reasoning operations used, focussed The consisted of two children: lexical were choices, concerned they specific content, with the goal-setting, conventions Since all protocol comments mechanics of wr!.tten language? this reflect some degree of conscious monitoring, distinguished also between or those comments that analysis simply reported what was or had been done, and those that reflected a more conscious awarenIss of the choices available. The remaining analyses examined a variety oZ aspects of the reading or writing process that have been important previous concern studies. Analysis of strategies addresses in writing process studies with separate phases in the of idea generation, revising, and the like, here generalized to reading as well as writing. Analysis of text unit describes the extent of concern with the global text world in contrast to more local aspects of meaning development. describes Data source the particular type of information acted upon the various reasoning operations; 127 in hypotheses, for example, 154 can be generated about aspects of the genre, content or set of ideas being developed, material of the text itself. the of specific the or the linguistic Analysis of focus describes extent to which protocol comments reflect an awareness the reader's or writer's own behavior while dealing with the text (the "process"), or focus instead only on the emerging envisionment or text world itself (the "product"). Finally, each communication unit was also coded to indicate where it occurred in time-- before, during, or after the reading or writing experience. Each these of dimensions was more specifically operationalized through a variety of sub-categories, in Figure 6.1. listed These will be explained in more detail as results from each analysis are presented; coding definitions are included as Appendix III. Insert Figure 6.1 about here The and project team members transcribed each think retrospective into communication of the seven definitions the to examples. from a remarks. refine the Interrater averaged scores high A scoring of the sub-categories, children's together dimensions. of then once for each guide provided and several examples of The project team categories, reliabilities members worked definitions, for .97 across the various .99 for text unit tc, a 128 and units, analyzed each communication unit seven times, aloud 155 total analyses, low of and protocol ranging .89 for the monitoring Agreement on the categorization behaviors. of single protocol comments (as opposed to correlations between ranging from a high of protocol total scores) averaged .84, .91 for the categorization of text unit to a low of .68 for categorization of the 14 individual monitoring behaviors. The Sample As noted in earlier chapters, in children each of the 67 the study was asked to complete 2 reading and 2 writing tasks, with approximately half of the children assigned to a think-aloud condition. to procedure and the other half to a retrospective Those who completed think-aloud tasks were asked throughout tell about "everything they were doing" the task, thus yielding on-line protocols of reading and writing Those behavior. assigned condition to the retrospective completed the initial reading or writing task uninterrupted, and then were led through what they had done, line by line, and asked to explain what they had been doing, and why. The design included between-suk)ect contrasts for grade retrospective); there and mode of reporting (talk aloud vs. was also a between-subject contrast for passage for sixth grade reading tasks. included domain (reading vs. report). The several final factors: mechanical sample loss contrasts Within-subject writing) and genre (story vs. of protocols some tape was reduced recordings failures or background noise that made transcription Apossible; were of difficulty by through accurate missing data for some tasks which not completed due to absence or 129 scheduling 156 problems; and difficulty experienced by some students (particularly at grade in commenting on their own behavior in either 3) think-aloud or retrospective procedures. the Sixty-one of the children were included in the final sample of protocols; the protocols were distributed as follows: Between subject: Grade Grade Grade Talk aloud 48 45 a communication protocols Writing Reading Story Report all, 14 50 20 13 61 22 3 6 9 Within subject: In Retrospective total units of 44 43 protocols 180 were included in containing the analysis. averaged 26.2 communication units in length, 4821 The but there were significant differences for mode (F[1,51] = 4.52, p <.04), genre (F[1,105] = 3.17, linear [1,51] = 4.24, protocols were p <.04). longer and grade (F In general, the think aloud than communication units versus 18); than p <.001), retrospectives the (33 story protocols were longer report (25.8 versus 21.6); and ninth grade protocols were longer than third grade (28.4 versus 15.8). Treatment of Data Because the protocols differed in length, were calculated for each category in prorated by the length of the protocol. consisted the each total scores protocol, and The raw data, then, of the percent of comments categorized in each of categories, for each of the protocols. 130 L" After initial examination of the data, applied to all scores, the variances (Winer, used accompanying These transformed scores were 1971). analyses. untransformed interpretation, standard stabilize to normalize the data and statistical all for was a square root transformation mean deviations) percents are simplify To their (and presented in the tables. Four-factor out carried multivariate for each of the major univariate analysis; analyses multivariate tests of were variance within the effects were examined only when the were dimensions significant at the .10 level or better. Grade and mode (talk aloud vs. retrospective) were analyzed as between subject effects, (reading vs. and genre and writing) as within subject effects. domain With the specific pattern of missing data, the within subject effects could be tested precisely, but between subject effects slightly and underestimated conservative not approximations. significant, should be regarded Interactions were in are as general but will be discussed when they occurred. Mode differences (talk aloud versus retrospective procedures for gathering protocols) turned out to be of rather than substantive interest, and are methodological discussed in Appendix V. Reasoning Operations Readers and writers use a number of different reasoning operations as they develop c_misionments of a ask questions, generate hypotheses, 131 text. They make assuApticns about 15e what they and others know, from their general schematic knowledge, use information or ideas and seek validation of their ideas. the thoughtful readers change reasoning give evidence studies become behaviors that take (Langer, integrated and press-41 in b), refined. I In and particular texts. categories grow For the present study, were generalized to writing as well as protocols analyses collected. these individual across The coding manual used for presented in this chapter is provided in the reading, and used to provide profiles of the approaches taken the and previous traced have of when place reasoning operations in detail as they relate to readers for These are all part and writers make sense-- make ideas that and drawn all Appendix ID"; it includes definitions and examples for each category. reasoning The operations summarized Figure in 6.1 capture the variety of operations the children engaged in as they were reading and writing their story and reports. reading and writing are, processes, would one reasoning in fact, both active expect to find similar differences occur at all, the prediction heavily on such operations as of If domain would reading operations would be more text-based, composing patterns operations appearing in the protocols. If be that focussing more schemata, evidence, assumptions, and validations, while writing operations would include a higher proportion of hypotheses and reflecting a more creating a text. of report forms, metacomments, conscious attention to the process of Since the children had more restricted use one might expect to find 3.32 some 159 resulting differences across differences between diminish older with age, story and report Any remarks. story and report might be expected since, as reported in Chapter chi?dren have begun to use more elaboruted to the 5, more and fluently linked forms to organize and express their ideas in reports as well as in stories. General Patterns. might be expected, As comments in the largest proportion of the all of the protocols dealt directly with the meaning of the text being written or read; percent the of (representing children's remarks an average of 43 focussed on various aspects of the content), twice as much as any of the other operations. schemata more than The remaining comments were split primarily among hypotheses (16 percent), metacomments questions about (9 (13 percent), percent). validations (12 Comments reflecting what the reader or writer knew were less than 2 percent per protocol. percent), analysis of standard deviations separately for reading and grades 3, 6, and 9.) Reading/writing <.00L), with individual averaging (Supplementary Table 1, IV, signific,' reasoning operations, assumptions rare, Appendix summarizes from the and presents means and effects writing differences operations. operations in differences were highly significant (p appearing in almost all Schemata (operations of compared with only 36 percent of 133 160 the reflecting direct statements of meaning) represented 49 percent of reading and the those for writing. The reading protocols also showed more concern with evidence in support of citing formulated, interpretations. reflected The with and more validations writing The being interpretations protocols, attention to hypotheses previous of metacomments. and emphasis on met 2omments and hypotheses contrast, in suggests that children are more aware of the strategies they use to get at mea/ing when they are writing than when they are reading. multivariate The analysis showed marginally a significant effect for grade level differences (p <.065; see Supplementary that occurred involved comments reflecting hypotheses about the evolving meaning. For Vas reading protocols, these increased from an average of Table 1). The major change 9 percent at grsde 3 to 20 percent by grade for the writing tasks, 9; hypothesis-making increased from 13 percent at grade 3 to 25 percent by grade 9. childrenia The across genres, comments were show significant genre more differences in the use of in reports (averaging 8 percent versus 10 frequently in in stories (19 percent versus 12 percent). stories) and hypotheses more Both of these with the findings reported earlier that students have a firmer grasp of story than of use hypotheses questions with questions occurring perccnc consistent consistent However, univariate analyses <.02) and hypotheses (p <.02), frequently quite showing no significant multivariate effects for story/ report differences. (p also 134 suggest report; when they have a notion of how the 1(3.1 are they meaning will evolve and ask more open-ended questions when they are less certain. Associations between Reading So far patterns have been considering I of and Writing differences operations across differing in conditions. the The repeated measures design also makes it possible to examine similarities in performance across different tasks: to what extent do individuals have consistent patterns of reasoning operations across tasks that vary in genre or domain? presents 6.1 relevant the correlations, Table between reasoning operations used in reading and writing, and the also between those used in story and report tasks. Insert Table 6.1 about here results The variation about consistent, tasks. assumptions of schemata cperation. are relatively and between reading and writing between domain with while and questions show some degree of within domain It is of particular interest to find that the reading/writing spite and to consistency, consistency. the operation considerable other operations show less of a pattern, showing hypotheses than within indicate 6.1 from validations both The Table consistency in Comm..nts in associations are only slightly less associations between story and report the stronger reading/writing Changes in Reading and Writing Behavior Over Time i5 tasks-- in effects analyses of group differences. 162 strong in the Thus we far, have looked at a series composite of portraits of children's behaviors while reading and writing. This has allowed differences but examination of some between reading and writing in differing tasks, I have also argued that reading and writing, being static activities, are both dynamic would expect meaning to find that patterns construction, are The analysis since it is based on sequential allows a fine-grained look at how these processes change in the course of chapter single reading a will I 8, indivi(ual step, changing behavior of coding of every communication unit in a protocol, very from If this is so, different at different points in the process. of far and processes with their own history over time. one broad the of or writing experience. trace these shifts in protocols; a I will take an here, In sampling of intermediate looking at patterns before, during, and after reading and writing, cumulated across the full sample of children. Although a number of researchers have shown that reading and writing are not linear activities with inviolate sequences or stages of processing behaviors (Flower & Hayes, 1980; Perl, 1980; Sommers, 1980; Spiro, 1979, 1980), none of these researchers has investigated patterns of behaviors in parallel reading and writing tasks, For this analysis-over-time, cognitive over time. I assigned each communication unit to one of three categories: Before - before the first word has been written or read During - during the period when text 136 is 1C3 consiously being read or words written After - thoughts read or reported after the text the prpAl laid down at end of the draft To permit an even finer examination of the effects of on approaches overt thirds. segments: the each protocol was divided Thus, activity during which the segments divided into five reading writing or and comments after the last word took place, the comments during comments before the task began, three time the time during which towards meaning, reading and writing behaviors took place was into been has was read or the pencil put down to rest. To simplify the presentation and reduce repetition, the discussion 3 and 9. below will emphasize comparisons between grades results were pooled across For these analyses, protocols for each grade and task; the tabled values 3ercents of all of the communication units sampled, are rather than mean percents across children. Table operations grades 3 summarizes 6.2 over and time, 9. the distribution of writing for reading and The table is constructed so reasoning tasks that at each column will sum to 100 percent, thus emphasizing the pattern of operations within each of the time periods displayed. general, reading following the pattern of operations in preparation or writing differed from the pattern of the task, and both patterns differed during the reading or writing experience. Insert Table 6.2 about here 137 1C4 In for operations from that the third graders' reading In this analysis, Before. with the least variation seemed most restricted, protocols The in operations reported from one time period to another. third plunging graders began their reading tasks by simply without any preparatory musings about what the passages in, might hence involve; pattern. of there is no before reading at grade 3. however, these Before writing, children made a variety of comments. same operations Some 42 percent were questions, usually focussed on how to get started--what were and 19 comments about content they would include in metacomments percent were writing. their percent Another 23 to write about and how to present it. about the options facing Only 10 percent of their them, made comments predictions about how the piece would develop. Kevin's comments reflect the generalized questions typical of third graders' initial thoughts about the task: 1) I about. don't know how to write what I'm going to write I don't even know what I'm going to write 2) about. Protestons aside, he then found a topic and began to writE. rhe rillth graders were more reflective, even before the reading tasks (Table 6.2). of Before reading, some 40 percent their comments involved hypotheses about what would another be about; 33 percent drew on related the schemata, text and 20 percent were questions that lac17 the clear sense 138 1i 5 . of direction writing implicit in hypotheses. at grade 9 showed similar concern (46 percent) and questions (17 percent), metacomments percent), and percent). percent) (14 less The with hypotheses together with some and seeking of attention to before Comments validation schematic (10 knowledge (9 shift in emphasis from question-asking to hypothesis-making probably reflects the ninth graders' greater familiarity with all aspects of reading and writing, a familiarity which provides them with firmer hunches directions their emerging ideas or the text about itself will take. Ninth grade Lora's protocol, about before she began to write her shy sister preparing to meet a new teacher (see p. xxx), looked like this: 1)1'11 just write about someone meeting someone. specific person at a specific time. a name for this person. should meet. what happens, don't write specific? time. if 5) I 8) 3) I have to find 4) I'm thinking of who I don't know if I should write about the meeting. stories. 7) Are they 6) about usually I supposed Like she meets a teacher for she be to the first 9) I really don't know where to start off, like should start out "One morning she woke blah" or think I'll school, or 2) A up like (writes notes -- no comments). start it like she's in her car blah 10) riding I to 11) In between here and here (referring to her notes) I'm going to put what happened. 139 -1-C6 12) Three main things like riding in a car to school, walking into the room, meets the teacher, and that's the last one if she likes the teacher. teacher. after Lcra's what meets the teacher (then begins comment, go into the piece. it writing). comments are dominated by her many hypotheses might the Or maybe I'll just want to conclude 14) she 13) I'll give impressions of about While the majority of focus on the content she will write about, we her can also see her concern for organization. After. After they had completed reading a passage, the third graders shifted their attention to specific ideas they had drawn from the text or their own experience representing 51 percent of the comments), accuracy the (validations, their of information representing writing, these 36 same operations (71 percent), just writing, half concerned specific "ended." was Lonny, with even after the to tasks had "That mole graders' concerns after reading or wx ting were specific for mind commenting after reading the Mole passage, He sure works hard." different from those of the third graders. percent schema for both reading and of the ideas that came content, must do a lot of work. gather finishing emphasized typically concerned with specific content: Ninth understood or metacomments (18 percent) about Put another way, than and After percent). what they had done. more or to reaffirming read children (schemata, cont'_nt reading played a lesser and writing 140 role (19 respectively), 16"i Concern and 23 though validation of previous interpretations was important in both domains Much (32 percent for reading, more than comments at grade 3, following extensions 23 percent for by reading grade writing). children's the 9 hypotheses involved of the meaning of the text (23 and while percent), their comments following writing included metacomments about what they had hypotheses done extending (35 percent) they text the well as had further as developed (15 percent). Lora's ninth comments after reading Prairie Dog grades' organization reflections. thought She typify the about the as well as the content: That last sentence summed up everything. good concluding sentence. too. I guess I wonder if other animals, I It's a learned things like mice or rats, live like prairie dogs. When During. during-writing we examine the patterns across during-reading and the there segments, 3 is considerable consistency from one segment to the next (Table 6.2), with Questions comments and expectations about content (schemata) hypotheses, about what reflecting to will follow, from large do show decrease from the first to the final third, writing tasks at both grade levels, a dominating. These operations shift third of to 15 percent during 18 141 general for reading and 36 percent of the caments during the first the comments whip: writing at grade 3, a extent the final third. There are corresponding increases in the proportion of comments focussing on specific content. Robin's graders. After story, at comments are typical those of from third hearing the request to write a "first day" she immediately wrote her title and said, "First Day School the is title." Then she commented, thinking of when I first went to school." was "I She then went on wri'-ing her piece. Summary: Patterns of Reasoning during Reading and Writing Throughout their reading and writing children of were they twice as reasoning all three ages were concerned with creating; their protocols contained many comments about meaning as operation examined. the experiences, about the ideas more than any other the patterns However, behavior were somewhat different at different points in of the process -- with more questions and hypotheses being reported at the beginning and more comments about the content being reported at later points in time. This focus on ideas was even more predominant in children's reading than writing comments. In reading the they focussed on gaining support for their interpretations, while in writing create they their operations focussed on the strategies they meanings. In each case, they used relied that helped them make sense -- either of to upon their own or someone else's ideas. The analysis of operations-over-time indicated that the third cfraders were less reflective than thu 14: ninth graders throughout each reading and writing experience. More than ninth graders were more younger their the schoolmates, likely to reflect forward or back on both in their ideas, reading and writing. Monitoring Behaviors The second major meaning of aspect of the analysis Reading and construction focussed on monitoring behaviors. are cognitive activities that involve a variety writing of self-regulatory mechanisms which monitor envisionment-making as meaning develops. Monitoring behaviors serve as a "third see that meanings make sense and to flag problems support meaning eye" to when messages become confused. construction in two ways. readers writers and to develop, ability to engage in When necessary, become aware of their and 2) help them activities, organize, They and they monitor what one is doing, appropriate meaning their cognitive own strategies to use particular transform help 1) The ideas. and the ability fix-up or production to reading and the very nature of the protocol data gathered, all strategies, are important aspects of every writing experience. By of comments recorded represent some the awareness or writing. degree of or monitoring of what one is doing while Within those comments, however, self- reading some reflect use of one or another idea or strategy, while others reflect d mnre conscious awa,'Priess of what one is doing. "I'll call it 'My First Day at Camp"' with "It is a 143 (Compare story, so I need oomment, to find an interesting title." the In first the writer is simply monitoring what she is doing, her own use of a writing strategy; in the others she is more consciously aware of the choices available, and her need to choose among these alternatives in a strategic way.) For the analysis of reflecting awareness separately from meaning of cognitive those reflecting construction, comments were operations This use. permitted analysis of the balance between awareness and use, as analyses of across monito2,3d, monitoring task the task goals, as well that were being combined. The used for this set of analyses were: awareness categories lexicon, subgoals, and genre use mechanics, structure, refinements of meaning, and statements of meaniAlg. These categories, in kinds of behaviors coded Appendix with examples of their use, III as part the of are included Analysis of Meaning Construction Coding Manual. Based on constructive, monitoring the view focus mist refinements of meaning, findings that reading and writing meaning-making activities, one to manipulation of of the frequently on would expect statements are or since these involve development and ideas themselves. Also, from the analysis of reasoning operations students as more aware of their because suggest strategies when writing than when reading, we would axpect the proportion of comments than that, reflecting awareness to be greater in the the reading activities. overall, Finally, one would writing lxpect the proportion of comments about use would 144 1 71 exceed the proportion of those reflecting awareness. General Patterns. Combining awaremss and use, 33 percent of the comments focussed on refinements of meaning, and 50 percent involved statements of monitoring occurred with great frequency: categories None of the other meaning. of some 10 percent of the comments dealt with goals or subgoals, 3 percent with genre than features, 2 3 ')ercent with lexical choices, percent with one or another aspect of and less mechanics. Overall, comments reflecting use of one or another idea or strategy exceeded those fourfold. present reflecting Supplementary Tables awareness and 2 3 these data and summarize significant by about (Appendix IV) effects from the analyses of variance. For both proportionately reading awareness and use, tasks promoted more direct concern with the meaning itself (reflected in comments coded as statements or refinements of meaning), while writing led to more concern with all of the other categories (goals, lexical choices). subgoals, Differences in concern with subgoals were particularly dramatic: percent for mechanics, genre, reading, compared goals and and these averaged under 2 percent with some 19 for writing. Neither grade nor genre :thowed significant multivariate main effects. (reading Grade did interact significantly with domain versus -;ategories. writing), Behavior however, for the awareness while reading was relatively constant 145 172 across the giades. However, behavior while writing showed some significant grade-related changes: writing while dropped awareness of goals from 14 percent at grade to 3 4 percent in grade 9, while awareness of statements of meaning dropped from 11 percent at grade 3 to 3 percent at grade 9. drops (These in awareness while writing corresponding refinements that writing as in use, of meaning.) pro; ,ortion use increases for both Together, routines were statements by and these changes suggest become more the familiar, of comments reflecting awareness as declines (see Leont'ev, matched opposed to 1973 for a distinction between conscious activities that later become unconscious habits or skills). Associations between Reading and Writing. I also behaviors examined were the extent consistent across story/report tasks; in is which monitoring reading/writing and the relevant correlations are presented Table 6.3 for awareness and use pattern to somewhat erratic, combined. Again, with high correlations the both within and between domains for refinements and statements of meaning, and inconsistent patterns for the other, lower- frequency categories. As with the correlations for reasoning operations, the correlations between same general most interesting result is that the reading and writing tasks are of magnitude as those between story tanks within the same domain. Insert Table 6.3 aliout here 146 173 and the report Patterns over Time at different combining There operations 6.4 provides a summary of monitoring Table points the the in reading the task, and use. comments made parallel categories for awareness again marked differences in are writing and before, during, and after the reading or writing task. Insert Table 6.4 about here As we saw in the previous analysis, the third Before. graders plunged directly into their reading; thus there were no monitoring they emphasis considerable gave Before some writing, and goals setting to and comments), (representing 42 percent of their subgoals paid operations before reading. attention to the nature of the genre with which they would be dealing (10 percent). The remainder of their In comments dealt with statements of meaning (45 percent). comparison, the ninth graders also set goals and subgoals (47 percent) and made statements of meaning (53 percent) Writing showed a similar concern with goal setting reading. (42 percent for goals and subgoals combined), concern for and split the specific meaning between stating (29 and refining (24 percent). writing in percent) Lora's extensive comments before (see above) typify the ninth graders' goal setting behaviors, and their awareness of genre constraints. After. state,,ents 3, Comments after reading were dominated and refinements of meaning (89 percent at 100 percent at grade 9), by grade with the older children giving 147 174 more attention to further refinement of their ideas. Writing tasks followed with a similar concern are meaning percent at grade 3, (87 though 54 percent at older children continue to the other features of their writing, goals and Together, and st'bgoals, thase specific about grade 9), attention give to including their network of particular lexical choices. comments may represent a concern with what they had actually written, as well as what they had meant to write. Kevin and Lora's comments (cited above) illustrate the third graders' statement and the ninth graders' extension of the ideas they had when they piece Lora's comments after typify the older students' attention writing and read. lexical choices mechanics to as well as their refinements the of as a whole: Oh, I the reader will know what is going now So, always get the verb mixed tenses on. That up. doesn't sound right, but.... But I did it so the reader would know I was her sister and knew her well, so I could explain her problems. During. children's refinements across both age groups, During reading, attention focussed primarily on of meaning all three during the statements and phases the of reading or writing experience; other concerns dropped almost completely out of the protocols. were varied. more attention Both age Concerns during groups gave at least to each of the seven monitoring cathgories 148 175 writing some while they were writing, meaning continued to dominate. the of In general, concerns during with similar, during-writing segments were three refinements though statements and no systematic variations between them. Lora's during-writing comments reflect her concern with the way the piece is developing, as well as her awareness of the need to refine what she is saying in light of her goals and subgoals, and her expectations about her audience: 20) That's not too good a start. 21) I was thinking of making her like she always has to meet new teachers and stuff. But want I practicing So 24) it's a should like she moves from town to town. 23) 22) So, let to reader think been she's what she would do when she met the teacher. and the reader will know she's in a car new teacher. pretens think 25) I'm trying to 26) Right now I'm like if I Lisa's like I'm looking at Lisa of if one explaining. the the telling more 27) So, about Lisa than Lisa's telling about herself. guess I'll just go on that way.... Patterns in Monitoring Operations Summary: predicted, As occurred indicating statements more frequently than any of the other a focus on the development and the ideas themselves. time, the and with domain. ninth and refinements of meaning categories, manipulation of However, these changed some\hat over While the third graders plunged in, graders were more reflective; 149 they 17( were more likely with to set goals and subgoals, refining the ideas and were more were they children's during - reading generalized concern with meaning, concerned developing. comments showed while their The more a during - writing comments showed a broader array of concerns. Strategies Used in Reading and Writing When people read strategies to get at, strategies and write, develop, variety and refine meaning. of though most researchers now that these strategies or phases are interrelated rather recursive, (Flower & Hayes, 1980). The 1980; coding representing than Perl, 1979; a linear Sommers, system developed for the and sequence 1980; Spiro analysis of meaning construction identified four strategies readers writers use generating evaluating, and revising. Generating of These are frequently discussed as stages or phases the reading or writing process, argue they use a ideas, formulating and meaning, Definitions follow: ideas - getting started, relevant ideas and experiences, becoming aware of and beginning to plan and organize the material in an appropriate fashion. Formulating meaning considering audience, choosing language, - developing the message, drawing on personal experience, linking concepts, summarizing, and paraphrasing Evaluating - reviewing, reacting, and monitoring the development of the message and the piece itself 150 17;' Revising - reconsidering and restruamring the message; knowing meaning has broken down, and taking appropriate action General Pattern. Remarks most focussing frequently percent), (53 percent), The including (22 and generating ideas (10 formulating category is a rather large one aspects of stating all simply getting category that getting message out. the Generating, by definition, and developing meaning and started -- it is the represents that occurred followed by evaluating revising (15 percent), percent). beyond on formulating meaning process of the is a rather small category, one is used only at certain times throughout the relates Both mostly generating to aspects of and process, brainstorming revising can occur meaning. anywhere in the process of needed. Results for the four reading and writing strategies reading or writing, but they occur only are summarized in detail in Supplementary Table 4, whin Appendix IV. The multivariate differences between the analyses indicated strategies used in significant reading and writing. These primarily involved generating ideas (p <.001) and formulating occurring versus 15 less meaning (p < .054), with oftv, in the reading protocols percent fo): writing) and formulating less often in the writing protocols (50 percent, 151 176 generating (6 percent occurring versus 55 percent It is not surprising that for reading). develop to new ideas occurs stopping proportionately lore frequently in writing than in reading, since the writer must constantly The provide new material to carry the piece forward reader, on the other hand, always is somewhat constrained by the author's attempts to convey meaning, this focusses more on adapting the developing and envisionment to fit the author's message. The grade multivariate aralyses also effects, differences For but between reading, the indicated significant these were complicated by significant the patterns for reading and proportion of comments writing. concerned with generating ideas rose between grades 3 and 9, from 1 percent to percent; 8 generating The during the same period, the proportion comments in writing fell from 22 to grade domain interaction for x significant, though the 9 evaluating pattern was more of percent. was also erratic. For reading tasks, evaluating rose somewhat between grades 3 and 6 (from 16 to 23 percent), afteL which it remained constant. For writing tasks, a similar rise occurred between grades 6 and 9 (from 20 to 29 percent). Associations between Reading and Writing TaN.e 6.5 presents correlations within and between domains reading of reading/writing analyses of correlations and writing, strategies. meaning for use of the the four Consistent with the preceding construction, the between-domain between reading and writing are only 752 179 slightly strong less within-domain than the story and report tasks. are correlations between Revising and formulating strategies used most consistently, with somewhat erratic patterns .or evaluating and generating. Insert TaL.e 6.5 about here Patterns over Time Table 6.6 summarizes variation over time in use of the four reading and writing strategies. Insert Table 6.6 about here Before. a Comments before reading and writing indicated general focus on generating ideas (44-65 percent time). ninth The graders gave considerable attention formulating meaning (47 percent) before they read, elaborated on of their initial expectations even as prior the to they to reading. After :;lancing at the two pages of The Crowd Conservationist, science. Or save things. ninth grade Evan said, Pleasing "It might be about maybe about environmentalists and people who But it seems to be about an animal, so it will probably be scientific." After. The concerns of the third and ninth graders after they had read or wrote were quite different. The third graders continued to folAulace their ideas and develop their interpretations after reading (53 percent) and after writing (74 percent). commento af..;er On the both other reading hand, and 153 ninth the writing 10 graders' focussed on evaluation suggests This strategies text revision of their developing and that after the they had completed the reflective used students older worlds. while task, the third graders continued to develop ideas rather than review those already developed. after reading or writing differed little from The third strategies graders' those they used during the tasks. Third grade after reading the Kevin, Jackie story, continued to formulate his thoughts: "I guess it was a girl. Sure looked like a boy, moved Evan beyond tha text as he reflected habits of the prairie dogs. Adults think take the Sometimes In contrast, ninth grade I bet." the life He said, turns guarding the parents on are more, the parents will leave, or father will take care of 'cm, together. guess, I might You burrows. and then the mother but they take turns. with their You can sort of see them living together special barking. Strategies During. reflected formulating As with meaning, among between writing, reading the three revising, evaluating, there ware few during-task was systematic segments. the third graders showed more concern not replicated in eithlr the sixth and generating. generating during the first segment than later on, pattc!rn writing and with lesser attention to monitoring behaviors, differences their balance a during In with but this or ninth grade protocols (in which generating continued at a constant 154 11 but. much lower level in all 3 segments). Summary: Reading and Writing Strategies These analyses indicate the variety of strategies children used as they read and wrote, in the of frequency: generating. different process formulating, patterns across revising, while used throughout, took time. While generating of becoming aware of relevant knowledge) throughout reading and writing, the beginning of the process, an array of possible meanings. developing meaning), (the continued it occurred more frequently at used order evaluating, These strategies, the when the children scanned Formulating (getting and appeared as the strategy the children to get their ideas out. However, the third graders continued to formulate ideas after they had finished reading and writing, while the older children increased their use of evaluation and revision. Text Unit When people read or write, their attention often shifts between the overarching meaning that frames the entire piece and way. more localized points of meaning tat occur along the This dimension of the analysis of meaning construction categorizes each communication unit P. _Letting to a unit or to the global frame of the entire text. local Definitions follow: Local - attention is focussed on within the text 155 localized points Global - attention is focusses on the overall message of the entire piece Although every reading and writing experience calls for both local and global attention, children's total comments. It need the local comments to one would expect global their surpass the could also expected that writing, becatiqe of to embed each new idea within a total would evidence more concern with the global would reading, in which each new bit of framework, meaning than would text the return attention to local concerns. General Patterns. overall, just over third (34 a percent) of children's comments pertained to global text units. evoked did the Writing significantll more attention to global concerns than reading (39 percent versus 30 percent). This suggests that when the children read, they were more closely bound to the words of the text -- to meanings of the text. frequently findings kept overall of (primarily reading and category local) occurred more frequently fog. In general, harder and framework in writing strategies, "formulating These mind. previous for meaning," the which 'eading than for writing. there was little variation in the with grade, evolving when they wrote, they more However, the emerging are similar to those that emerged in the analysis pattern the overall though the sixth graders whu read passages reduced their attention to global (17 percent of their comments were global, the concerns compalad with 39 196 V.4:3 percent the of Supplementary comments Table 5, easier the about Appendix IV, passage). presents the relevant data. Associations between Reading Writing and Correlations between and within domains indicate a high degree of consistency in the extent of attention to aspects of evolving the consistency meaning (Tatar! global This 6.7). in approach parallels what was found in each of the previous analyses. Insert Table 6.7 about here Patterns over Time Table units of attention 6.8 summmrizes attention to global versus as it develops over text, to time. As local expected, global aspects of meaning was highest before and after the reading or writing tasks, at each of the grade Activities levels. vainly on during writing reading and local units of text, on the sm' .ler focussed units of meaning that were being deve:.oped along the way. Insert Table 6.8 about here Text Unit Summary: Approximately two-thirds of the students' focussed on local aspeac.s of text. to global writing, actual units and They patio. more attention of meaning before and after more attention to local meanings times they read and wrote. comments In reading and during the addition, writim evoked a greater focus on global meaning than read.mg. 157 184 Data Source The analysis of meaning construction also distinguishes among three sources of data which the reader or writer upon draw and which simultaneously affect envisionment. can developing the These are knowledge of the genre, knowledge of the content or ideas themselves, and knowledge drawn from the linguistic material of the text Definitions itself. follow: Genre - reference organizational to the structure genre specific and presentation an0 of the ideas peculiar to that genre Content - reference to the topic itself Text - reference to the linguistic material contained in the text such as syntax, vocabulary, cohesive ties Based on the findings from the earlier parts of the meaning analysis, greatest presented predominantly would also comments it would be expected that proportion of student comments would since based, above, be there is compounding evidence that concerned expect with the a slightly developing higher contentthey ideas. number of to occur during reading as compared with the are One content writing, and a s.ghtly higher proportion of text comments in writing compared with reading. General Patterns. Consistent with earlier analyses, 156 185 the greatest proportion category the of f genre percent communication units fell content 1. percent) and the smallest p oportion fell into category with (3 percent), reflecting text. the into remaining the concern with one or another (Supplementary Table 6, Appendix aspect 25 of presents the IV, detailed results.) A multivariate analysis of variance indicated significant reading /writing differences (p <.003) three categories. often more content all The children focussed on genre and text when they wrote than when more for often they and read, when they read than when they on wrote. Third graders were more likely to focus on content when they discussing were percent versus grades the reports than when discussing 70 percent), stories sixth whereas at and (58 ninth proportion of content comments was similar for the two genres. Readii.j With Writina, (2onsistent with the patterns already very described, strong relationships were found to exist between reading and writing, These two genre and between story and report were particularly evident for most frequently used sources of information, comments overall, which was not (see Table 6.9). text and content, information. averaged only 3 percent consistent within Insert Table 6.9 about here 159 1 86 o.c Use of the of the between Summary: Data Source As predicted, more than 70 percent of the students' comments focussed on content, indicating a primary focus on the topic they were reading and writing about. students Further, the focussed on content more often when they read than when they wrote. Reader's or Writer's Focus Much chapters almost said is of this about process and book; product some chapters in various themselves limit exclusively to my researchly interrretatia-s of the children's writings and retellings, the outcomes or products that resulted Other from their particular chapters language activities. are limited to discussion of the means by which the children worked their ways towards those products. It this distinction I wished to capture is dimension Each in this in the analysis of the development of last meaning. communication unit was assigned to either a process or product comment. category based upon the focus of that particular Coding definitions follow: Process - comments about strategies that have been or could be used, or thinking about thinking in general Product - comments about the piece itself Based upon the findings previously reported, we would expect the children's comments to focus more frequently on than process, and more so in reading than writing. General Pattern. 160 product IS only 31 percent of the communication Overall, units fell into the process category, the remainder focussing more direc..ly on the product (the meaning of the produced by previously writer reported or reader). This is in findings that the concern is with their developing ideas. whether text, keeping with primary children's During reading, 26 percent of the comments were process oriented, compared with 37 percent during writing. Supplementary Table 7, Appendix IV, presents the detailed results. In a concern with process was writing, such comments as reflected in : "If I keep saying first day, first day, something will come to mind" and "I want to keep it in a mood." In reading, similar concerns were apparent in such convents as: "That goes against my idea, my idea again, so I have to think of wondering whether which one is right or wrong." Reading With Writing. Consistent with the findings reported above, the correlations between story and report and between reading and writing were very high (see Table 6.10). Insert Table 6.10 about here Summary: Reader's or Writer's Focus Approximately focussed on product, 70 percent of the students' once again indicating the 161 18s comments children's primary focus on the text being read or written. Overall Summary general, In strongly the analysis consistently and meaning of supports construction the following conclusions: When they read and wrote, 1. concern was on the meanings they were various the their the children's dominant focus developing. dimensions of the analysis, on schemata, product, this Across emerged in formulating content, ideas, and statements and refinements of meaning. 2. children Underlying tended this toward overall focus a slightly "bottom-up" issues such as mechanics, choices, and local text units meaning, on higher the concern with syntax, text, lexical when writing as compared with reading. 3. the The children were more aware of and concerned with strategies they used to get at meaning when they wrote as compared with when they read. comments about process, This was evident in their generating ideas, setting goals and subgoals, and awareness of monitoring behaviors. 4. thoughts In general, about the children's comments focussed use-- about what they were actually on doing rather than about the options they might have available. 5. The envisionments stable and Consistently approaches the children used to (their developing cons!.stent strong across text worlds) a variety build the3.r were quite of relationships were found both 162 189 contexts. between reading and writing and between story and report tasks. The 6. reading and writing tasks differed; reading writing and activities, were ways in which the children both are their approached that despite the fact meaning-making active, the children's concerns, behaviors, and actions not same in reading the and Significant writing. domain effects occurred in each of the categories tested. different writing and text, text, reading Before on questioning and hypothesizing, comments involved the protocol comments focussed on global units and on goal setting. ideas, activities patterns of behavior over time. and writing, of reading The 7. After reading and writing, the still included some attention to but also generatImg on validating included global units of invoking meaning, schemata, and formulating and refining meaning. meaning construction graders, the approaches general The 8. behaviors and more restricted were at all points in time. the hand, approaches studied, and and ninth behaviors There was lass variety in graders used in third t'e in operations in which they engagsd at any time. other during a each of variety wide time the On the of segments varied the balance among these approaches at different points in the task. 9. The protocols indicated a lack reflective of ability on the part of the third graders, particularly after they ninth had completed their reading and graders, in contrast, writing tasks. reflected on and The evaluated their work during as well as after they had finished reading 163 1, 0 and writing. Conclusion began the analysis of meaning construction wanting to see genre if affecting was the development, really more children's as powerful approaches The toward analysis of the varieties of behaviors meaning in meaning Findings reported in chapter lead to the rejection of any such toward domain suggested by the findings of the "product" studies reported in Chapters 4 and 5. this than lead me to conclude: varied and complex, conclusion. and approaches 1) the behaviors are 2) they change with age and difficulty, and 3) they vary consistently between reading and writing. Further, of the findings confirm the belief that children all ages are cwicerned primarily with ideas, the text world or envisionment they create, reading and writing. children most of developing their rely in both As they construct these envisionments, on a variety of strategies and approaches, of which seem to be useful (and used) across a variety specific reading and writing tasks. however, the emphasis they place on At the same specific time, approaches varies systematically in response to the nature of the task. The that data reported in this chapter provide reading and writing invoke different strong evidence behaviors approaches, even when the tasks and topics are parallel. and Figure 6.1 ANALYSIS OF MEANING CONSTRUCTION REASONING OPERATIONS Questions Hypotheses Assumptions Schemata Metacomments Evidence Validations MONITORING BEHAVIORS (Awareness and Use) Task Goals Task Subgoals Genre/Discourse Structure Mechanics Lexicon Statements of Meaning Refinements of Meaning STRATEGIES Generating Ideas Formulating Meaning Evaluating Revising FOCUS Process Product TEXT UNIT Local Global TIME Before During After DATA SOURCE Genre Content Text Table 6.1 Correlations, Reasoning Operations correlatione Between Domains Reading witb Writing Story Report Within Domains Storied Reading Writing mithitwito (11=36) (n=381 (n=371 Questions .232 .064 .129 .647 Hypotheses .021 .024 .424 .428 Assumptions .457 .694 .032 -.010 -.002 -.044 .375 .350 Evidence .247 .139 .236 .057 Validations .811 .904 .953 .962 Scbewata .388 .604 .703 .641 Metacomments Table 6.2 Reasoning Operations Over Time Percent of gonnunication Units Writing During During J3efore 2 2 3 After Before Questions - 9 10 15 0 Hypotheses - 14 14 3 Assumptions - 0 0 Metacoments - 5 Evidence - Validations Schemata 2 2 3 After 42 12 16 5 5 7 10 24 13 10 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 7 8 0 23 24 18 26 18 0 0 3 7 3 0 5 3 0 - 26 21 26 36 0 5 3 5 0 - 47 48 45 51 19 36 45 51 71 100 100 100 58 58 62 100 106 100 31 100 100 100 42 38 39 100 38 Grade 3 TOtal n Grade .2 Questions 20 4 6 3 3 17 6 1 5 0 Hypotheses 40 34 24 23 23 46 24 26 17 15 Assumptions 0 1 1 1 10 2 0 1 0 4 Metacomments 0 2 7 3 7 14 22 23 23 35 Evidence 7 12 8 11 7 2 11 1 4 0 Validations 0 13 17 13 32 1.0 12 11 14 23 33 34 38 45 19 9 25 38 37 23 100 100 100 187 182 203 100 100 93 100 100 100 162 158 165 100 31 Schemata Total n 100 15 194 26 Table 6.3 Correlations, Total Awareness and Use Correlations Between Domains Within Domains Reading Writing storiqo b Reports Story Report Reading Writing (0=36) (a=36) Task Goals .102 Task Subgoals Genre St...ucture (n=38) (nm37) .007 .480 .337 .294 .287 .604 .027 .222 .336 -.050 .37]. -.106 .058 -.034 .428 Lexicon .465 .427 .030 .364 Refinements of Meaning .746 .760 .890 .562 Statements of Meaning .566 .745 .832 .548 Mechanics Table 6.4 Monitoring Behaviors Over Time 2 Percent of Commgnication Mite Writirn .3 After 2 3 1 Before Reading Before 2 After Grade 3 Task Goals - 3 0 0 1 39 19 5 3 8 Task Subgoals - 0 0 0 0 3 10 13 3 5 Genre Structure - 0 0 0 9 10 5 0 3 0 Mechanics - 2 0 0 0 0 2 11 0 0 Lexicon - 2 2 0 3 Refinement of Meaning - 50 52 61 50 3 33 37 46 8 43 Ai 19 ..9 Statement of Meaning Total 100 100 100 100 32 29 215 100 100 19 41 100 100 100 Grade 9 Task Goals 40 2 0 0 0 29 6 7 Task Subgoals 7 0 0 0 0 13 7 Genre Structure 0 3 1 1 0 3 Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 Lexicon 0 0 n 4 2 Refinement of Meaning 0 37 53 57 100 100 Statement of Meaning Total ] 12 11 11 15 0 2 7 4 1 3 2 4 0 0 1 7 5 9 15 39 35 81 29 28 33 38 42 48 63 19 24 41 41 31 1.2 100 100 700 100 100 100 100 100 n Table 6.5 Correlations, Writing Strategies Correlations Between Domains Reading with Writing Story Report (n=36) (n=36) Within Domains Stories with Reports Writing Read ng (n=38) (n=37) Generating Ideas -.100 -.107 .110 .452 Evaluating -.086 .429 .500 .407 Revising .924 .753 .934 .622 Formulating Meaning .591 .750 .740 .846 Table 6.6 Reading and Writing Strategies Over Time Percent of Corrtnunicatign yead,inq lits Writing Before 1 2 3 2 2 3 After Generating Ideas 5 0 0 1 65 29 5 0 5 Evaluating 21 19 29 10 3 17 26 36 18 Revising 22 24 21 36 3 12 13 8 3 52 57 50 53 29 43 55 56 74 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Before After Grade 3 Formulating Meaning - Total Grade 9 Generating Ideas 47 6 1 1 0 44 6 9 3 0 Evaluating 0 19 19 18 36 18 40 36 42 65 Revising 7 23 23 19 48 9 14 13 18 19 47 51 57 63 16 29 41 42 36 15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Formulating Meaning Total 100 Table 6.7 Correlations, Attention to Global Aspects of Text Correlations Between Domains Within Domains Reading with Writing Stories with Reports Story Report Reading Writing (n=36) (n...36) (n=38) (n=37) .756 .790 .858 .764 Table 6.8 Emphasis on Global Units Over Time Percent of Communication Units During Before 1 2 3 After Reading Grade 3 011, 36.2 34.4 32.3 47.2 6 83.6 20.5 17.9 15.9 43.0 9 40.0 30.5 28.0 23.6 61.3 3 80.6 42.9 31.6 30.8 68.4 6 68.3 28.1 22.2 20.5 25.3 9 73.1 42.6 37.5 36.4 50.0 Writing Grade 20o Table 6.9 Correlations, Data Source Between Domains Reading with Writing Story Report Within Domains Stories with Reports Reading Writing (n=36) (n=36) (n=38) Genre .642 .308 .055 -.116 Text .922 .885 .928 .921 Content .910 .896 .923 .914 201 (n=37) Table 6.10 Correlations, Attention to Process Between Domains Reading with Writing Story Report Within Domains Stories with Reports Reading Writing (n=36) (n=36) (n=38) (n=37) .851 .852 .949 .853 Chapter 7 Reading and Writing: Students' Awareness of What They Do Throughout the project, and children in meetings with the separate examinations of their reading and in writing I sought to describe the various ways in activities, which the children created and interpreted meaning when they read and wrote. Chapters 3 through 6 discuss the children's context for literacy, their notions of genre, the structures they produced and retold, and the knowledge relied upon to produce their meanings. focus they questions called reading which probed the organizing upon and the strategies they used writing tasks that were set and particularly, explanations the of chapte:7 will they This chapter will the children's responses to the post reading on writing sources for describe structures during them. the More children's the how they used structure and and strategy to think-aloud or help when they read and wrote. After the retrospective students' completed self-report their (analyzed 173 in the 203 previous chapter), about they issues prepared for were asked a variety of probing had they not spontaneously questions series of probing questions served as a each researcher questions focussed to on use during students' each checklist session. awareness The of: 1) distinctions in their use of genre, 2) audience/author, organizing and 5) features, strategies. 4) language, A discussed. 3) meaning-getting (The complete schedule of probing questions is available in Langer, 1984c.) Each specific probing question was used only when the answer had not already been given the If student's self-report, or during general conversation. the student had already supplied the data, response was coded. analysis came from Thus, in the earlier data for the "probing question" comments students' throughout each session. The probing questions were used four times with student: report after story reading, reading, recordings and report writing. of each session and pertinent field used to code responses. completed: reading, after after story writing, 65 and after The tape notes were In all, 254 probing interviews were story reading, 64 story writing, 63 report writing. the full set of categories. comparisons 62 report Interrater agreement completing the coding was 89.9 percent, within-subject each in for 2 raters across The completed coding permitted across genre between-subject comparisons across grade, and domain, and mode, and passage difficulty. Like the interview questions summarized in Chapter 174 204 3, much the probing questions gclerated large amounts of data, of which served simply as a check on the results methods push presents through all of the chapter this results, a selection of responses chosen to illustrate compounding major Rather than of data collection used in the study. tediously other of evidence conclusions. multiple that accumulated in like the Also support interview of the our responses, responses were coded in response to each question, so that tabled percentages often total more than 100. In general, the students' showed awareness significant (49.5 of the effects tested were significant at at least Domain differences (rea%.....ng versus writing) in importance (34.7 percent of the effects next significant). occurring 13.9 percent with significant grade effects difficulty effects and passage occurring less than 2 percent of the time. the questions for grade WE Grade level and passage difficulty showed the fewest significant effects, that knowledge effects the .05 level). were questions, genre of their use of greatest number of the percent across the analyses of probing This posed in this part of level differences made relatively little suggests the study, difference, while the students' notions of stories and reports, and to a slightly lesser extent: their notions of reading and writing, were more critical. those presented in Chapters 4, although report) grade and with These findincr; are consistent differences 5, and 6 which indicate that occur, genre (story domain (reading versus writing) 175 205 versus effects are more widespread. How Students Use Genre Knowledge The set of probes concerned first students' genre knowledge about what would follow (see Table 7.1). about their understanding of the task as involving or nonfiction, genre, to formulate ideas and shape use cf expectancies They were asked fiction about the features they used to identify the and about the point in their reading when the nature of the genre became clear. Results are summarized in Table 7.1 Insert Table 7.1 about here More than 90 percent of the third and sixth grade s and all of the ninth graders correctly identified the genre the pieces they were asked to read and exhibited explain to asked were stories knowledge their their criteria most markers (i.e., of genre of They also characteristics when write. genre for frequently identified by designation: their genre type of beginning, nature of the characters, presence of dialogue, nature of the plot) while reports were identified by their presentations of reality. concern with "truth-telling" Ninth graders were significantly more likely than sixth graders to rely on genre markers their were identification of stories (p < n059), though for there no other significant grade level effects for this of variables. report features than Genre markers were used less extensively story identification; differences used to identify the two genres were 176 206 in set in the significant for both reading and writing (p < .001). in story Domain differences reading and writing were also found (p .012); < students were more likely to be aware of the make believe in stories they wrote, the and to pay more attention to genre markers in the stories they read. Initial recognition of the genre when reading took basic the forms: either the judgment was made on the basis of first few words, or on the basis of the overall For both stories and reports, title the paragraph was information and (first decisions. words few contained and within beyond) to title first make their usually when found and difficult to interpret the clues provided by tl*'e or opening words. Let students of the A more genel:al approach (a glance at the format) used by a smaller proportion of students, more form. the majority of students used they were less familiar with a particular genre, it two genre. look us at a variety of specific across the grades used to explain their In her responses to New Kid, approaches judgments sixth grade Stacey revealed hur expectations about both stories and reports, This is because all a sort of story. It's not it doesn't have a bunch of about feelings--about what might a report facts. happen. It's It tells it all. She continued later: It's a story because of the way it's put together and it's one person's point of view. how someone feels. 177 20 Stories tell Stacey used her knowledge of story structure to her guide understanding of New Kid. Stacey's Garth's clear expectations contrast with third essentially unexamined explanations. grade his In responses to Jackie, Garth said, It just looks like a story. Stories are about people and they just look like this one. Ninth grade Lora's comments while reading Prairie indicated the still other ways in which the students identified genre. text. Dog Her reactions focussed on the language of the After having read just a few sentences, she said, sounds It like history book. something I'd be Really boring. about the prairie dog, not using response title. a It's just talking just information. , in and Ijectives They're stuff like Sort of like ugh. that. Third that many reading grade Tom's discussion of genre expectations to Moles was content bound, and focussed on in the He said, It can't be a story or it would say Sammy the Mole but it just says the Mole, so it can't be a story. From Lhese examples, we see that the children not only could identify approaches the genre very variety of and drew upon a variety of kinds of evidence in well, but used a making their decisions. 178 2O Findings from this analysis corroborate those reported in Chapter 4, that the students across all three grades had a firm sense of genre. reports and appropriately textual, content, They distinguished between and and stories appropriate attributed linguistic characteristics to each Further, they seem to have been aware of the genre as form. they read, the language using clues provided by the title, of the first paragraph, and the overall format. Familiarity With Genre After examining their identifications of the genre they were reading or writing, I moved on to explore the extent to which they were familiar with the form. The children were asked such questions as whether they had read passages like that before, things often, writing. of whether they read or wrote whether they enjoyed such such reading or Table 7.2 summarizes the results. Most before, and written or students claimed to have completed similar tasks though the third graders were somewhat less certain this. Responses to a question about whether they often react or wrote a particular genre, however, indicated greater familiarity with story tasks than with reports, particularly at the earlier grade levels. diminished considerably, By grade 9, story writing had with only percent 10 of the students reporting they completed such tasks "often." Insert table 7.2 about here Responses indicated similar differences attitudes toward the two genres studied. 179 in students' Across .,:he grades, the students said they preferred reading and writing stories by from 67 to 100 percent in the various samples) to (liked reports was (liked by 36 to 50 percent); difference the genre significant for both reading and writing (p <.001 and students felt the passages they had .005, respectively). general, In the just read or wrote to be typical of their genre. exceptions, however. Some students felt Prairie Dog was an atypical report because, It doesn't "It begins and ends like a belong that way." hand, took think it There were Sally (grade 3), on the other the Jackie story quite literally. She was a typical story because it did not resolution she expected. story. Jackie, she felt, didn't have the was a boy with a strange mother who made him wear a dress to school because his pants had been ripped by the dog. This was not what Sally expected: "She should have bought him a new pair." sixth and ninth graders, organization and passage "typical" of tha was in general, focussed language choice in discussing genre. In on whether contrast, a third graderr, were more concerned with the content. Beginnings and Endings In Chapter 5, we saw that how well students beginnings and developing sense of genre. undings was a good indicator In Chapter 6 we saw managed of their that they made less overt reference to genre knowledge than to text and making. content features during their In the present analyses, ongoing meaning- I asked directly 180 210 other about their expectations about beginnings and endings their in reading and writing. Looking notion of purposes of introducing characters or establishing 7.3). Students begin with story beginnings setting. the students had a firm both story and report beginnings as serving functional or first at beginnings, general content of expectations settings, will Table (see all ages were aware that while content expectations ("this the be reports about"), generally introduce the character or the Genre differences were significant for all 3 sets of expectations. Insert Table 7.3 about here A look at students' awareness of endings (Table indicates they resolution and third the usual report ending beyond a all you know." third be summation; about a the report citing "the end" or noting that "you just Significant grade effects for summation in stories and reports with story ending to graders had more difficulty in talking endings, tell thought the usual 7.3) were (p < .003, p < graders showing no awareness of the found .001), notion of summary in either genre. The data displayed in Table 7.3 were gathered after the students were had completed their own writing; the questions also repeated in the context of the reading passages, providing a measure of the consistency of response indivicl-,11 students across genres and across domains. 181 211 from There was considerable consistency in response in both reading/writing story and report (p < .039, V Cramer's = associations (p <.020, were relationships significant Cramer's V = .37; respectively), .63, contexts: and p <.001, and story/report were significant for both reading and Cramer's V = .43; respectively). writing Cramer's V =.47, Though based on a nonparametric measure association rather similar the to and p <.003, both for than Pearson's r, within- and results these between- domain of are correlations discussed in the previous chapter. It seems, then, that children's awareness of the use of summation was one of the more sensitive effects of grade, not indicate genre, and domain. measures while ninth graders referred to it exclusively as the to be expected; individuals the The third graders did knowledge of this type of ending, way to end reports. of the appropriate Genre distinctions on this measure were and the domain associations suggest that have similar notions of the appropriateness of summations in their reading and writing tasks. The students' use of endings can be further examined by referring back to the discussion in Chapter 5 of the endings they used analysis less their own writings and retellings. of written structure indicated that they closure in reports than difference students' report in existed that was stories. produced A grade and attributed to the The genre younger general unfamiliarity with the more sophisticated forms. The findings reported in this 182 212 section indicate in addition to the that produce inability students' well- formed report endings, to they were also unable to talk about them. The Reader's Sense of Author and Writer's Sense of Audience number A reader's the questions of asked focussed the on sense of author or the writer's sense of audience. Results are summarized in Table 7.4. Insert Table 7.4 about here Responses to questions about sense of author that the students did not often think about wrote was the pieces they were reading. similarly rare, their own (There was a Attention to audience talking moderate individual students' awareness of audience stories and Cramer's V = about relationship between in who the person when the students were writing. indicated the reports they were writing (p the in < .004, though this was not replicated in their .42), comments about authors when they were reading.) Though the students did not overtly attend to author or audience, quite there were a number of indications that they were aware of the communication process. have been writers) different written with roles these of had author the (or the in When asked whether the piece would themselves different audience in students answered in the affirmative. see in a moment, partners mind, as most Moreover, as we will they were able to go on to specify how the text would have been different, as well as the effect they or the author had intended. 183 21 that Sixth author grade and the Maggie was evidently quite aware author's point of view Prairie Dog passage. After as of the the read she reading, she thought the author was a conservationist: If a livestock owner had written it he would have stresssd the bad things about prairie dogs while a conservationist would concentrate on the good things. In reference to her story writing, You have really she said, to picture what the other person would think. I had to keep changirg my mind because I wanted to be precise and make it a clear picture in the person's mind. Sixth grade Lin was even more specific about how her audience shaped her story from the very beginning: Well, just sat I just sat there. You saw me. there and kinda made a bunch of And then I sat there and I thought, have I facts. "Well, gee, I this little girl and people are gonna wanna know how she feels first. aren't--they'd you know, Cuz, be bored in the people And beginning. then I had to think about, well, maybe they're not going to understand this if I just go into last paragraph about how they got together. had to make the facts. there's only the So, I And the!. I thought, one way to end this and leave a person in a good mood. that's well to An so you've gotta 184 214 have 'em all happy. In contrast, third grade Jason paid little attention to audience while writing his story: I didn't think of who I was writing for because was I so full of ideas that I didn't want to forget them. He also managed to revise without worrying about a specific audience: If So, that's what I change. can. Students' accommodate can't understand what I wrote 3 a how nobody That's all. text might awareness of different audience is a probably indication of their understanding of audience. how the author (or would they) else change vary the When the to best asked piece to accommodate to a different audience, most students responded that the language could be changed, be written audience to (Table and also that it better address interests 7.4). In general, the specific the younger students of showed less concern with details of language, neatness, could and more with than did the older students studied. (They were also less sure that the piece could be changed at all.) When the asked about the effect that had been intended author (or themselves), stories as informative, responses entertaining although indicated a that the majority of or amusing and students saw reports as low but consistant percentage no particular 185 by effect had of been intended. for Tests of significance indicated a grade story writing (p < .029). graders effect While the third and sixth meant their stories to be entertaining, the ninth graders wanted them to be informative in some way. Students' reports expectations about the effects stories and should have are illustrated in the comments of two students, Lora and Lin. Lora (grade 9) observed that A good story entertains you. It's not at all scientific writing that tells you all the facts. Lin (grade 6) had an equally typical view: For my report but facts, I just thought about a for my story I thought a bunch bit of longer about what was gonna happen and about something to make it different. When you read, though, mostly it tries to tell you something. Findings of students from these analyses suggest that the majority did author/audience writing. of the pay not relationship overt when attention to were reading they the or Nonetheless, they had an underlying understanding author's role in cormunicating messages, with particular effects, to a particular audience. What Students Know About Structure Chapters 4 and 5 structures writing presented an analysis of the kinds of the students formulated in their own reading and a,Jtivities. The analyses presented here 186 216 examined like the students' awareness of the structures about or created, they had read as well as the control they felt they had over the structures (see Table 7.5). Insert Table 7.5 about here One series perceptions of questions asked about students' of the kinds of ordering appropriate to stories and reports. While students felt that in general there was a usual order within each of the genres, this response was stronger for stories than reports, in both their reading and writing of the (p < .001). third After reading the Mole passage, graders felt there was usual a none order to reports, though after writing their own reports one-third of the In of same students discovered that there was such an general, order. students seemed more aware of typical patterns after writing organization reading/writing than after reading; differences were significant for stories (p < .001), and showed a similar trend for reports (p <.149). Responding to this questions, third grade Tai said, I don't think reports have parts. Like a story has a beginning, a middle and an end, but a report it's animal parts just all facts --unless if you're doing reports and the teacher says you should do like a part on food, and where they live, and things like that. When asked about the order presented in the piece they had just read or written, 187 particular the students generally 21' respondeel that stories were chronological and rolports more logically ordered less (general to more specific, to important), although the third graders' responses were split across the two. The genre differences were significant for both reading and writing. Ninth grade Jake said, In a report, you can list and plan, but in a story you have to go along with what sounds right, with the way it happens. In writing her story, ninth grade Lora said she usually gets specific about everything that happened: don't I know whether I should morning when she wakes generally up, or from start what... the Stories have plots but you have to organize the information in a report in a different way. Sixth 'irade Elizabeth said, Stories usually aren't so neatly organized and all put together in a special order -- it just sort of happens, what happens to the characters. When asked whether, written, percentage the parts in the piece they had just read or could be switched around, a greater of the students said "yes" for reports than for stories. Genre differences were significant for both reading Responses for individual students again somewhat consir,tent across reading and writing. and writing (p < .005). were The association between reading and writing responses 188 218 was significant for stories (p < .042, V Cramer's = .47), though not for reports (V = .13). Third grade Tai said, It really report matter about the order doesn't because it's information about information can be in any order. sometimes it matters, right? in things a -- Like in a story, Like you can't have the ending at the beginning 'cause that would give away the story. When students but switch would change the piece, felt that the stories would no longer make were reports. asked such a less certain Tests it would make sense, difference a of significance for the "not make the for sense" response showed genre differences for both reading (p <.001) and writing (p <.032). A related indicating that the change in c,Aer also set of responses would not really matter showed significant genre effects for both reading and writing (p < .003, p < .009). Students were also asked which parts of the piece had just read or written had been students hardest. did not report much difficulty with they Overall, the reading, but found all aspects of writing difficult, with getting started the hardest. of Reading/writing differences in the difficulty getting started were significant for stories and reports (p < .026, p < .001). In general, the students' comments about their gave evidence of their subtle, if not overt, 189 awareness 21j work of structure. Some read as models. 6) used works they had students previously In reflecting on her writing, Maggie (grade said, think about what I've read and kinda put it the I way I read it, flip back to the way I had seen it written. the books I've read and the I way they've positioned them. Others thought of the clearest way to state their message: I just think of how the parts will fit together to make sense and say what I want. Still others relied on some scheme they had been taught: always start I by asking specific questions and then answering them. It interesting to note that acrLas is and more van more, 1, responses were evoked by the writing as opposed to reading questions. that once process formed students they were more aware of the the in writing they had and the control they had exercised in producing the Approaches the This may reflect the fact had actually engaged piece than they were after In analyses, all structures eading. o Writing addition to their awareness and use children were also asked about strategies the strtdents used. the of structure, decision-making One set of questions focussed specifically on the strategies the students used to organize their writing. Results for these questions are 190 2(4o summarized in Table 7.6 When some students were asked about how they got started, two-thirds of the students indicated they based writing 7.7). the on first topic that came to mind their Table (see Sixth grade Elizabeth explained the process: sort I character do. get an idea for of story...I a get and I decide what the character's gonna I think about stories I know and things that happened. Then I start and keep on ideas keep going on. topic. It's My going. Then for an essay I usually get a topic and I decide what I'm gonna put that a sort of the same under kind of thinking... for completely different things. Grade effects with .003), were significant writing for story (p the ninth graders choosing their first < ideas more often than the younger students. Insert Table 7.6 about here Students were also asked about the extent to which they thought of ideas that were never included in pieces of writing. they older went students. actual The majority of students were aware that through some such filtering students their with process, rejecting more ideas than did the the younger Ninth grade Peter said, It's like collecting things together. take You have to all the facts and piece them together like a puzzle. You never use the leftovers. 191 221. Another question planning students do. in series this asked about the Most showed evidence of some planning before they actually began, though this was less evident for third more grade report writing than for the other interesting continued was the large amount each Peter, Even planning that during the actual writing experience, students had pen to page. at of tasks. of while Some 80 percent of the the three ages were aware of such the students planning. our Music Mayhem report writer (see Chapter 4), was aware of the changing nature of what he intended to write: you're As writing, the ideas come. waking up in the morning. It's like Things start waking up and the ideas keep coming. Handling Difficult Parts One set of strategies that children need to develop has to with do reading how to handle difficulties writing. or Reports summarized in Table 7.7. approach difficulty; was simply of that such while arise strategies are In their reading, the most typical to move on, skipping over the if they did not move on, the students were most likely to just "stop and think." Insert Table 7.7 aboy*. here During troublesome times in their writing, the students tended to stop and think, or (particularly in grades) to abandon the whole task for a time. the upper Approaches to 192 222 reading and writing were significantly different for "moving on" (p and p < .007 < respectively); significant stories for .026 reading/writing and reports, were differences for abandoning the tam;; for a while (p also < .005 for stories, p <.004 for reports). It is interesting to note that the third graders almost never abandoned the task, even when they were quite stuck. Grade effects for willingness to abandon the task for a while were significant for both story and report writiuj (p < .016, p < .021). Other strategies for dealing with difficulties included using words difficult one's read that parts, came before or (in rereading major after reading) ideas in order to make better sense of what was being or written. For all of these I found significant associations between genres in the ways in which students approached significant students in changing and segments, the their their stJIT And report tasks, associations between difficulties and a different set of in their writing; but Each domains. seemed to have a general approach to reading, individual of no the difficulties approaches to they used the same set of approaches for stories as well as reports. What These were the difficult parts the are also summarized in Table 7.7. students In their reported? reading, the students' concerns dealt primarily with meaning, whether of words or longer sections. In contrast, their difficulties in writing were primarily caused by such as spelling and punctuation. to hard parts, mechanical problems As with their approaches I found significant associations 193 223 between story and students report in the types of reported, but no difficulties relationship individual between the difficulties reported in reading and writing. Using Background Knowledge Students were also asked about the knowledge they were drawing upon in their reading and writing-- whether based on "factual" students knowledge or personal experience. were aware that were drawing on In general, their previous experiences (67 percent) and things they knew (96 for their writing tasks. somewhat were less In their reading, aware of the relevance already knew (63 percent), their percent), however, they what they of and significantly less sure that previous experience could be any use in understanding what they were reading (38 percent). Students' comments reflected their awareness usefulness of their topic knowledge. of the As sixth grade Stacey put it, Reports are easy when you have the information in your head. Buddy, also a sixth grader, Well, expanded on this image: I had it in my head. I mean all this stuff is locked up somewhere in a little locker. go think to myself, whale I'll open 'Let's see. locker'. Out pours the stuff. And I sort through it and see what I need. Summary 194 I just 224 the just A strong and continuing pattern emerges students' responses to the probing questions. differences were apparent across most of the from First, genre the questions, though they were less strong for questions about strategies they were than sense for questions dealing with the of structure. writing also accounted significant effects, with the domains of Second, for a large students' reading portion Grade were effects less dealing frequent, reflecting the consistent strategies and a well-developed sense of between fact grades 3 that and 9, even ,the had graders the development that centered around more advanced skills, and planning. third the of particularly so for questions strategies. and genre; did occur such as summarization In general, these distinctions parallel those explored in earlier chapters. Although informants, greater the the aware keener richness of their and response verbose was often after they had engaged in a writing as opposed to a reading task. more students were very willing After completing a writing task, of what they knew about sense they showed structures, of distinctions between audience and and had a sharper sense of were a author, their use of relevant background knowledge. In this chapter, students' underlying I have probed more deeply understandings of the examining the extent to which they were aware of structures and into the genres by particular strategies when directly asked about 195 22:i them. Findings indicate that they wore indeed able to many of the distinctions between story and report and to these understandings in turn affected their structuring manipulating the their setting content, understandings, and discuss passages, approaches expectations, controlling the meanings they formulated as they read and wrote. This chapter the is last of four in which I attempted to present what I learned from the children the structures and strategies they knew and used when read and wrote. has permitted comparisons, individual have about they While analyzing the work of many children me to search for patterns and make it has prevented me from sharing the tales of children portraits can bring. - and the insights that can only such In the next chapter I will tell about two children. 196 22e Table 7.1 How Students Use Genre Knowledge Percent of Students Reading: Story Passage: Grade: Genre Identification Fiction Nonfiction Jackie 3 Report New Kid Mole Prairie Dog 6 6 9 8.3 92.9 7.1 90.5 9.5 100.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 57.1 0.0 42.9 42.9 7.1 50.0 23.8 23.8 52.4 8.3 0.0 91.7 0.0 73.3 26.7 0.0 73.3 26.7 0.0 90.0 10.0 7.1 85.7 7.1 12.5 37.5 30.8 38.5 27.8 38.9 36.4 36.4 30.8 23.1 15.4 38.5 10.5 73.7 7.7 69.2 25.0 25.0 0.0 30.8 16.7 16.7 0.0 27.3 23.1 23.1 38.5 7.7 5.3 10.5 7.7 15.4 91.7 3 6 9 6 0.0 fig= Cbaracteristio Make believe Tells truth Genre markers When identified fgag Title 1st paragraph General approach Other Writing: Story Grade: 3 6 Report 9 3 6 9 Genre Identification Fiction 100.0 Nonfiction 0.0 97.1 2.9 100.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 0.0 100.0 92.9 Genre Characteristics Make believe Tells truth Genre Markers 62.5 12.5 25.0 70.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 9.7 77.4 12.9 7.1 85.7 7.1 50.0 25.0 25.0 7.]. Table 7.1, continued Significant Effects (by variable) Chi-square df Genre characteristics Grade effect: story reading (6 vs 9) report reading (6 vs 9) Domain effect: stories reports Genre effect: reading writing 5.63 1.52 6.26 0.40 10.08 24.04 When identified genre Mode effect: report reading story reading 10.65 2.59 1 Probability Level .059 1 ns 1 .012 1 ns 1 1 .001 .001 3 .059 3 ns Table 7.2 Familiarity with Genre Percent of Students Reading: Story Passage: Read genre before Likes to read it Reads genre often Passage was typical New Kid Jackie Grade: 3 6 77.8 83.3 77.8 80.0 Writing: Report 6 100.0 66.7 44.4 61.5 9 94.7 91.7 86.7 90.0 83.3 40.0 77.8 100.0 Mole 3 Prairie Dog 6 72.7 40.0 27.3 100.0 92.3 36.4 28.6 85.7 Story Grade: Wrote genre before Likes to write it Writes genre often Passage was typical 3 100.0 100.0 71.4 87.5 6 88.2 83.3 58.3 68.8 6 9 90.5 41.2 20.0 82.4 100.0 36.4 27.3 69.2 Report 9 92.9 78.6 10.0 83.3 6 3 71.4 37.5 25.0 55.6 9 88.6 50.0 30.4 86.2 100.0 50.0 36.4 69.2 Significant Effects (by variable) Chi-square df 11.25 1 .001 Reads genre often Genre effect: 2.72 1 .090 Likes to write genre Genre effect: 7.58 1 .005 16.79 11.30 8 8 .032 .185 Likes to read genre Genre effect: Writes genre often Grade effect: story report 229 Probability Level Table 7.3 Beginnings and godings Percent of Students Story Grade: Beginning Introduces character Introduces setting Sets content expectations 3 Report 6 3 6 9 44.4 57.1 46.2 0.0 6.5 0.0 22.2 53.6 38.5 0.0 9.7 0.0 11.11 35.7 23.1 62.5 80.6 61.5 0.0 60.0 18.2 52.9 57.1 21.4 0.0 0.0 48.4 0.0 92.9 0.0 INIA1 Wing Summation Resolution Significant Effects (by variable) Chi-square Of Introduces character Genre effect 20.04 1 .001 Introduces setting Genre effect Mode effect: story report 15.43 5.13 0.00 1 1 1 .001 .024 Content expectations Genre effect 15.70 1 .001 Summation Grade effect: report story Genre effect 15.98 12.00 9.00 2 2 .001 .003 .001 230 1 Probability Level ns Table 7.4 Sense of Author and Audience Reader's Sense of Author Percent of Students Story Passage: Grade: Jackie 3 Report Mole New Kid 6 6 9 3 Prairie Dog 6 6 9 Think of author 13.3 6.7 36.8 42.9 15.4 45.5 Different for diff. audience 50.0 91.7 80.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 86.7 100.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 66.7 8.3 16.7 66.7 0.0 16.7 62.5 0.0 25.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 87.5 0.0 040 80.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 50.0 41.7 33.3 62.5 0.0 25.0 26.7 66.7 Effect author wanted Amusing 42.9 Entertaining 42.9 Informative 14.3 None 0.0 14.3 71.4 0.0 14.3 0.0 22.0 44.4 33.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 81.8 9.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 93.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.9 9.1 How? Language Neater Longer Meet their interests 26.7 7.7 Table 7.4 (continued) Writer's Sense of Audience Story Grade: 3 6 Report 9 3 6 9 Think of audience 18.8 35.3 13.3 21.4 45.5 42.9 Different for Jiff. audiences 44.4 81.8 84.6 66.7 80.0 100.0 How? Language Neater Longer Meet their interests 40.0 40.0 0.0 40.0 64.5 25.8 23.3 16.1 81.8 27.2 45.5 36.4 33.3 66.7 66.7 33.3 60.0 37.9 31.0 6.9 100.0 21.4 50.0 35.7 Effect you wanted Amusing Entertaining Informative None 25.0 37.5 0.0 37.5 22.2 37.0 7.4 33.3 8.3 8.3 0.0 50.0 33.3 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 Chi-square df 7.1 67.9 25.0 Siqnificant Effects (by variable) Think of author/audience Domain effect: story report Different for different audiences Grade effect: story writing report writing Language Domain effect: story report Neater Domain effect story report Effect wanted Grade effect: Domain effect: story writing report writing story report Probability Level 0.00 4.50 1 ns 1 .030 6.11 4.34 2 2 .047 .114 0.08 3.72 1 ns 1 .054 4.00 6.75 1 .045 .009 14.03 9.73 1.50 7.11 6 1 6 .029 .137 1 ns 1 .008 232 Table 7.5 What Students Know About Structure Percent of Students 'heading: Story Jackie Passage: Grade: 3 6 Report New Kid 6 9 Mole 3 6 Prairie Dog 6 9 Has usual order 66.7 100.0 81.8 100.0 0.0 50.0 61.5 27.3 What order? Chronological Logical 50.0 50.0 100.0 0.0 90.0 10.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 16.7 83.3 33.3 66.7 Parts can be switched 20.0 18,2 20.0 0.0 54.5 38.5 62.5 44,4 How change piece? Not make sense 100.0 No real change 12.5 80.0 10.0 69.2 23.1 90.0 0.0 42.9 66.7 45.5 54.5 33.3 53.8 25.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 5.9 11.8 35.3 0.0 15.4 30.8 Hardest parts Getting started 0.0 Introduction 12.5 Conclusion 12.5 8.3 Table 7.5, continued Significant Effects (by variable) Chi-square Has usual order Genre effect: df Probability Level reading writing story report 10.32 6.72 10.32 2.08 reading writing 9.09 7.03 1 reading writing 7.58 7.68 1 reading writing 10.32 4.55 1 reading writing 8.64 6.72 1 Hardest parts-getting started Domain effect: story report 4.92 13.14 1 1 .026 .001 Hardest parts-conclusion Domain effect: story report Passage effect: story report 4.00 0.00 0.01 3.74 1 .045 1 1 1 ns ns Domain effect: What order? Genre effect: Could parts switch? Genre e'fect: Not make sense Genre effect: No real change Genre effect: 234 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .001 .009 .001 .149 .002 .008 .005 .005 .001 .032 .003 .009 .050 Table 7.6 Approaches to Writing Percent of Students Story Grade: 6 3 Getting started Use first idea Any ideas not used Planning times Before writing During writing Report 9 3 9 6 87.5 54.3 100.0 66.7 67.6 81.8 44.4 62.5 36.4 57.1 74.2 81.8 56.3 81.3 61.8 82.9 50.0 21.4 85.7 86.7 69.4 86.1 76..9 69.2 nificailt Effects (by variable) Chi-square Use first idea Grade effect: Plan before Grade effect: df story report 11.87 0.90 2 2 story report 0.58 10.33 2 2 Probability Level .003 ns ns .006 Table 7.7 How Students Handle Difficult Parts Percent of Students Reading Story Passage: Grade: Approaches to difficult parts Move on Stop and think Abandon task for a time Use words before Use words following Change ideas afterwards Reread any parts Difficult parts Mechanics Meaning None Jackie 3 Report New Kid 6 6 Mole 9 3 Prairie Dog 6 6 9 87.5 42.9 33.3 33.3 57.9 21.1 38.5 46.2 70.0 40.0 0.0 37.5 46.7 43.8 61.5 53.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 36.8 7.7 0.0 12.5 31.3 0.0 14.3 0.0 36.8 7.7 0.0 12.5 18.8 0.0 25.0 37.5 10.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 22.1 66.7 21.4 45.5 70.0 42.9 15.4 61.5 61.1 35.7 35.7 50.0 30.8 14.3 62.5 25.0 47.1 82.4 5.9 15.4 84.6 7.7 28.6 78.6 16.7 10.0 60.0 30.0 47.4 84.2 11.1 7.7 69.2 30.8 Table 7.7 (continued) Writing: Story Grade: 3 Approaches to difficult parts Move on Stop and think Abandon task for a time Use words before Use word:, following Change ideas afterwards Reread any parts Difficult parts Mechanics Meaning None 6 Report 9 3 9 6 0.0 80.0 0.0 84.6 7.7 69.2 20.0 80.0 0.0 92.9 l .7 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 7.7 7.7 69.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 7.1 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 50.0 28.1 53.3 40.0 85.7 0.0 42.9 15.4 56.7 50.0 69.2 40.0 10.0 40.0 30.0 15.0 47.4 14.3 7.1 71.4 55.6 0.0 44.4 35.3 11.1 33.3 0.0 8.3 75.0 df Probability Level Significant Effects (by variable) Chi-square Move on Domain effect: story report Abandon task for a time Grade effect: story writing report writing Domain effect: story report Reread Grade effect: Meaning Domain effect: 7.36 4.92 1 8.25 2 2 1 .007 .026 1 .016 .021 .005 .004 story reading (3 vs 6) 1.63 report reading (3 vs. 6) 4.06 1 1 .044 story report 19.05 19.05 1 story report 10.56 3.27 7.72 7.69 8.10 1 1 ns .001 .001 Mo difficult parts Domain effect.: 237 1 1 .001 .071 Chapter 8 Developing Text Worlds: Maggie and Charles Two Children Reading and Writing are two of the children who participated in the project; sessions to the the in the interview retrospective reporting procedure; each read the They are both 12 years and are average students in their school. grade Maggie was assigned to the think-aloud and Charles more difficult sixth grade passages. old, sixth 36 better-than-average Maggie scored in the 77th percentile in reading and 95th percentile in total language, and Charles in 88th percentile total language While both children opt to read and write more in reading and in the 98th percentile on the Comprehensive Test of Basic the in Skills. often than most children, in their everyday lives as well as in school, Maggie prefers better than writing This (he she reads) thinks chapter development writing to reading (she thinks will of and Charles he is a better explore meaning reading, through the prefers reader of children. Attitudes and Understandings 199 238 writes reading than writing, eyes she to writer). and the these two Maggie. a Throughout all our meetings, Maggie conveyed particular sense of enjoyment in writing. Although she surely reads a great deal, the attitudes of those around her seem to have affected her perspective. is For Maggie, writing "fun" and "creative" while reading is mom wants me to get better at reading. "practice." I'm not in the high group this year, and I'm terrible at spelling...." " to spend "My a half hour reading after I finish my I have homework, before going to bed." Maggie's school and home environment count although she is well above great deal; a her age mates on a national scale, she is only adequate in her local environment -- and in this environment, adequate is never enough. Despite her lack of enthusiasm for reading, Maggie actually likes to read "if it's not too hard." "I like a book that's exciting like Judy Blume and Encyclopedia Brown, and mysteries, Maggie's and books with sad endings." responses to some of the reading Below are interview questions: Q If someone asked you to explain what reading was, what would you tell them? A You read a story that's not supposed to be true, but usually is and sometimes you learn stuff. It explains life. Q What do reading A you think the easiest about is? When you get to relax and don't have to think and the story just comes to mind. Q thing The hardest? 200 239 hard A Spelling and book reports. I hate them, and I get bad grades. Q What does a person have to do to learn to readr A Learn to spell, punctuation and word stuff, meanings, know how to check out a book (from library), the know the how to write so you'll know what author wrote. Q What does it take to be a good reader? A You need a good average (school to grade) understand the topic or type of book. Although Maggie talked enthusiastically, and with good comprehension, about some Judy Blume and mystery books she had although she has a good reader's and read, 'curling often up with a good book', the sense lesson-typo of practice assigned to less successful readers (such as herself) permeates herself her views toward reading. as a good speller, so she She doesn't think attributes of spelling knowledge to reading as opposed to writing success. On the other hand, Maggie "love(s) creative writing." "I like the writing and I like the grades I get." she is dawdle." a good writer. "I like Encyclopedia Browns. to "I usually just do write stories, it She knows and mysteries, don't and I write a lot for my free time at home. When I'm angry I write about someone who's angry. I've been doing it (personal wri't.ing) since I was 6 or 7 ." Below are Maggie's responses to some of the questions writing: 201 240 asked about If Q someone asked you to explain what wr".ting was, what would you tell them? A Writing is like someone to talk to. It's to get rid of your feelings. (Sometimes I concentrate on what I read to get rid of my feelings too. Just not so much.) Q What do you think is the easiest thing about writing? A Looking at what you've accomplished. Q The hardest? A Writing it. It takes concentration to know if it's going to be a good story or not. Q What does a person have to do to learn to write? A Have good penmanship, usually think about it first. I think of the beginning and end and then write it through. I usually have happy endings. Q What does it take to be a good writer? A It takes skill to make it so other people would like to read it. Maggie That's what good writers do. thinks of herself as a good uses writing for her own purposes. seem to writer, and Her likes and dislikes be in responce to what makes her feel successful, and her yardstick for success is based upon school Her responses different from to the writing questions her reading she responses. are As grades. qualitatively a successful writer, she shared her ideas and notions about her craft. Charles. Charles, like standardized achievement tests, Maggie, high on but unlike Maggie he is in scores 202 241 the top reading group. reader Charles thinks of himself as a good as well as a good writer, writing. For Charles school. He like it. writing Charles, reading. but he prefers reading to "harder is reads a great deal, both in and out reads "for the fun of it. into the book and expand your imagination." He can tell he is good because "I read a lot and I read pretty fast. can understand books, science humorous books, a lot." He likes to I You can just put Charles thinks of himself as a good reader. I of When I'm bored I like to pass the time with it. yourself than work' read Also, "scientific children my age, and books that tell you information." Once books fiction, about he starts a book, "...when I'm into the plot, I want to rush to read it through. reading." I keep thinking about it until I finish In response to the reading interview questions, Charles said: Q If someone asked you to explain what reading was, what would you tell them? A It's a form of art. You can but movie, Q What paint do You need it to get by in life. a picture it's your in your mind like in own you think the easiest imagination. thing about reading is? A You can stop when you want and you can pick you want. Q The hardest? A Putting the book down. Q What does a person have to do to learn to read? 203 242 what a Know the alphabet, A understand vocabulary, and have a degree of intelligence to figure out tilt meanings. What does it take to be a good reader? Q A A good imagination. Although Charles sometimes likes to write, unlike reading he doesn't choose to do it on his own; teacher says so." can that rewrite thinks he is a good writer "only sometimes." does write, fiction, acid he likes to write about "other "you he doesn't like it "when you know what to say" or "when you have to Charles he Although he likes the notion write your own thoughts," don't he writes only "if the fantasy, Following humans." are it." When science Charles' responses to some of our writing questions: Q If someone asked you to explain what writing was, what would you tell them? A It's work. You use your imagination, but it has to be planned to sound interesting and come out right. Q What do you think is the easiest thing about writing? A No one telling you what to do and stopping when you want to. Q The hardest? A Thinking about a plot. Q What does a person have to do to learn to write? A Learn the alphabet, spell, and make sentences and to connect sentences so it makes sense. Q What does it take to be a good writer? 204 21 3 A Lots of imagination and skill. understand. You want people to When I write, I want it to be realistic so the readers will have a picture in their minds like I have in my mind. While others consider Charles a good reader and writer, seems to writing more find Planning laborious. organizing are a bit bothersome for him; he and he doesn't like to take the time. For Maggie, writing is a creative, expressive activity while reading is more laborious. Conversely, reading is a creative and expressive activity, writing is a bit of a chore. reading and for Chat les, and for him I will examine some writing they actually did -- to of the compare what they thought and said with what they actually did. The Writing They Did First, and let us look at Maggie's and Charles' then at the reports they wrote. stories, Maggie's story looked like this: Jill (1)When (2) it her shoe. Her mother taught her (3) but she could not figure out. accedentily in was 7 she could not tie (4) One day her ties her shoe and (5) steped on her shoe lace (6) and it to a knot. (7) She tried to untie it (8) would not come loose. she turned but it (9) She tied little bows on the knot (10) and she thought that she had tied her shoes. (11) The next day she learned correctly. 205 2, 4 how to tie them Th,.1 end. Learning to tie shoes I Descr II Descr 1 Sequence 2 III 5 4 6 8 7 Advers Descr 10 3 Maggie's top level structure is a lexical the on dominates her story, episode, although adverr.ative to use Her lower level person setting, an She presents her She begins with the setting, "When narrative, and episode, single and was 7...." and ends with a resolution, third her descriptions present her background. she learnes to tie them correctly." a based and constitutes does she story in the past tense. Jill predicate, unstated main idea of her piece. sequence 11 9 and day "The next The piece is written as although resolution, includes it the story a lacks elaboration, and with it, vividness and tension. Maggie spent some time thinking before she began to write: (1) "I'm thinking of writing about a that happened to me. something. (3) when I was 8. I'll first something (2) Like the first time I caught do about my first time at (4) So I'll start off like camp this...When I....(5) I think I'll start over again and make it more imaginary. time. (i) (6) Maybe about whistling for the I'll do someone tying their shoes for 206 245 first the first the about (8) When Jill was 7 - that's time. right age...." The analysis protocol these first eight of presented is Figure in segments the for 8.1, Maggie's of various dimensions in the Analysis of Meaning Construction. insert Figure 8.1 about here Her first thoughts brainstorming are much like She explores a number of possibilities, ideas. one out. her mind thinks She begins to write about camp writing the first couple after again, rejects the "whistling" topic, strategies switch from setting goal changes She words. and finally Her monitoring to the "shoe tying" topic she keeps. gets tries and and and of for statements to of meaning, to refinements of meaning, and back to goal setting and statements of meaning. Her strategies flex forth from generating to formulating. -- the global putting down. she switches to the specific ideas she itself, neitl.er dimensions meaning. as stages Hypothesizing, play she is Similarly, her original planning focusses on the writing process, paper at first are but when topic of the entire piece --, begins to write, and to revising, and then The text units she deals with to generating. back but she focusses more on product, the ideas are written. nor generating, patterns and all Time is become the their pelts in a larger other the fluid; regulated. cognitive orchestration of They play differently in different pieces, and in different portions of a each piece. Maggie's general, In schemata seldom percent) and hypotheses (62 rtirlects her own personal experiences, the her development of her writing interview, when asked asked She meaning into knowledge of the Clearly, all three piece. In post- the about writing stories, Maggie said, "Writing a story is fiction. You her Also, Maggie's protocol depicts her use content, and her knowledge of the genre. influenced by percent). (31 and most frequently plunges without evaluation. of dominated protocol is don't have to do research. It's all your own ideas. It's all original." if she was pleased with this story, When she said it was "OK, but sometimes I write better." Maggie's report looked like this: English Horseback Riding (1) I used to take English horseback riding. (2) The way you get on a horse english or western is on the left side. (3) You put your left foot in the stir ups (Ind swing your left foot over the horse. (4) and (5) The difference between the saddle of english western is the english saddle doesn't have a and western does. (6) Western has bogger horn stirups (7) and the english saddle is smaller. (8) The clothes you must wear to ride english is boot with about a one inch heel, breeches, which is the pants that tighten up at the ankle, and 1 hard hat that has a snap underneath the chin. (9) The difference between 208 2 4 'is wesiern and english riding is western has walking, running, and trotting, galloping and in english you walk, rising trot, trot, and cantering. English Horseback Riding I Descr II Descr 1 Alternat 2 8 Descr III Comp 3 IV Maggie's Comp Cont 4 5 Adv Adv 7 6 lexical the title she gave her piece, Her lower lever structures are descriptions, her se-lond comparison. diagram predicate, adversatives, Her one main information cluster is in more and thesis is presented, real elaborated the reflects the rather loosely presented bits knowledge. is 10 "English Horseback Riding." paragraph where she sets up a No tree her of The report is written in a mixed tense form that controlled. beginning, Cont 9 top level structure is a and one alternative. Alternat Descr and She ends with opens a simple with a "last fact." fact" "first Maggie clearly knows quite lacks sufficient knowledge of report form to present a well a bit about English and Western riding, but developed informative piece. About writing is story report and hardar. First you have to Writing a story is fiction, to research it. writing It's she 209 24 "Report information. find your own ideas. all original." says, You don't have After a bit of discussion, when reports about "That's easier. Maggie realized information she could already she also write she said, knew, But still you have to work hard to say it all right." The beginning of Maggie's report protocol looks like this: "(1) Skunk - just did a report on that, do it again. 'cause (3) I'll choose English horseback riding it's one of my hobbies. good beginning. horse. on the left. side. English I'll tell the and Western saddles. about clothes. a wear. (7) (8) You have to running. (9 )You can het hurt on Then (10) of (5) I think I'll write how to get on a write about trotting, get (4) I'll think Then I'll write about what to (6) I'll (1) Won't the right between differences (11) And then I'll talk (12) I used to take English horseback riding...." Maggie writing. thought a lot before picking up her pencil She thought about the information include, and about how the paper would be planned the writing. Then, the lines dominated percent). finished three important hypotheses (42 she would She horseback she kept on along As before, her protocol was percent) and schemata (33 She made no revisions lt all. writing organized. about when she began to write, she had planned. by segments she and explained that she After she had liked to plan reports carefully, "it helps me organize the information and 210 24j give me plan a organization, switched she around writing." probed When about said that the three paragraphs could because all the but important, for then information introduction her equally was and be paragraph transitions would need to change. Charles realized all along that story writing might require research, and be difficult to do: Writing a story is usually easier because ideas are your head usually and you just write about requires information same the first. more work. A them. You need to report get the But you could write a story about topic as a report. I could write a story about hammerhead sharks and it would be different the report. a shark detective in from I'd write about some people searching for and trying to catch and kill it -- a sort or mystery story with action. know all the facts, of I'd need but also use my imagination. to That would be hard to do well. Charles' hammerhead shark report looked like this: The Hammerhead Shark (1) The hammerhead shark dangerous sharks of the world. is one of the most (2) It usually lives in warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean. (3) It is called a hammerhead, shovelhead names (5) shark. hammer, shovel, or (4) People call this shark these because its head looks like a T from a top view. Its eyes are on the side of the 211 2,-)11 head. (6) The mouth is located under the head. Hammerheads usually eat fish - any sizes (7) but sometimes they are known to sometimes they attack (8) humans. come "farther into the land (9) most than people think they would. Once a hammerhead came into 3 feet of (10) water and attacked a bather at Maui beach at Hawaii. Scientists (11) hammerhead are trying to find out why the came so far into the land (12) but have not found out anything yet. Hammerhead Shark I II Descr Descr Descr Descr Descr Deacr 1 2 3 7 8 9 11 Descr Advers III Descr (Coll) This Maggie's paper paper. 10 4 5 6 has a more The topic Descr sophisticated 12 "feel" is more academic it and organized in a thesis-support school-like fashion. topic Charles researched for a school paper, report than is It is a while Maggie's dealt with a topic quite apart from her school life -- about a hobby she has. To many, Charles' paper "feels" to be better written than Haggles' 1) because the content seems hardermore carefully beyond the academic, structured surface, and 2) because and limited to analysis of the 212 251 the the paper seems topic. However, Pcructural features the two papers to be similar in many shows Maggie's his lexical structures, His lower level title. in like are predominantly descriptions, with one adversative hers, in Charles' top level structure is a paper, predicate, As ways. contrast to her two adversatives plus one Her passage is more deeply embedded: three alternative. his deepest level is compared with her 4, and he uses all shallowly linked structures paper as compared with her 2 deeply linked ones. is not organized around an information more closely resembles the "and then, younger children's stories. His but cluster, and then" pattern of he presents no Like Maggie, real thesis; both base their reports upon the commonly found tell-all-you-know pattern described in chapter 4. The look protocol first segments of Charles' retrospective like this: (1) I'll write about a hammerhead shark. last report. don't know (3) most characteristics. (7) That (8) That's the danger one is why of was they're I a the main its (9) The hammerhead shark sharks. largest in the world. about (5) It (4) (6) The hammerhead shark is one of dangerous. hammerhead I looked in a lot of books. what else to write about. recent report. (2) It was my called is the (10) I wanted this part to tell (11) then I'd describe the shark (12)then I'd tell what it eats...." Althoug. Charles decides to use the topic of a report he recently wrote, his attention to organization is evident. Unlike Maggie, hypotheses some percent). so his protocol has few schemata (14 percent), (29 percent), and many evaluations (50 Afterwards, he said, "You have to plan the parts each paragraph has its own topic. Then you think what you know to go with that topic." Charles, Comparing wciting like his to to report about hammerhead he said, write sharks stories. with "The one about sharks is easy. write down what you know. where prefers Maggie, story You just Stories are harder than reports you know the information and just give it -- you need use your imagination and make them interesting." Following is Charles' story: The First Time I Went on an Airplane At (1) first I was scared because I've heard storys of airplane crashes and how everyone dies. But this was different, myself. year You see, (4) (3) I was going to go (2) up by I've been taking lessons for a and today I was going to go (5) of up without my teacher. (6) mine. Well if I crashed it would be my fault and only (7) My teacher was going to be on the landing strip and radio me wvery once every while and I if was in any trouble I was to call same (8) him immdeiately. (9) When T was getting in the plane I almost checked out (10) but my teacher urged me on. the plane all the things my teacher taugnt me. (11) I got and started it up while trying to 214 2F: (12) into remember I finally got moving faster and airborne. faster and into the the down went, (13) and down I air. runway, (14) (15) It was great because I was in was I charge, noone to tell me what to do. then it was all over. But (17) I landed. (18) But for that short time I felt wonderful! (19) My teacher for mi (16) fine went over to me and congratulated me (20) I said "thanks" and "bye" work. and (21) When I got home I flopped into bed, home. went tired with a hard days work. The First Time I Went in an Airplane I II III Descr Descr Descr 1 6 7 Advers Sequence 9 11 12 15 16 17 19 20 21 Descr 2 Des 10 8 IV Explan Des Des (Coll) 13 14 18 Descr 4 3 Descr V 5 Charles' story is written as While it appears at first reading to be less than his report, elaborated. It Maggie's story. predicate sophisticated it is actually better organized and better more elaborately also developed than Charles said that in writing this piece he wanted "to create tension." lexical a first person narrative. His top level structure is he used as his title. 215 254 Hir lowQr the level structures are a mixture of descriptions for his background and setting, and his sequence (elaborated with descriptions) that presented his episode. an explanation. He also uses an adversative and He begins with a setting, natural end-of-the-day (weak) conclusion. report, tense shifts are uncontrolled, school-like a Compared with his Charles' story has more presentational flaws: there are more punctuation, and spelling errors. is and ends with a elaboration, successful would, try "to major of points story represents his not valiant) (but syntactic, However, while his report presentation Charles' to attempt to do what maka the the story without altogether he said interesting he and suspenseful." Retelling What They Had Read children's The understand how reading protocols provide a their text worlds developed as way they to read. Both Maggie and Charles used their own knowledge to interact with the ideas interpretations. in text the Maggie's formulate and New their own Kid talk-aloud looks like this: (1) new The way they treat a new kid who comes to neighborhood. differently. (3) (2) has to they'll treat it's a kid talking. So, early in the morning. Maybe a him (4) It's (5) Probably a new school, so he be introduced to the priricipal....(13) He's thinking how he can be fr4,ends with them. (14) They're probably look big and stuff. (15) And they 216 250 pretty strong. He's (16) doesn't have any friends yet. if he (16) They're should be allowed in their trying group. to pretend he's all tough like they wondering (17) He's are. (19) He's probably from more places than that though. The boy wanted a fight. he had to fight. he probably sitting alone 'cause (29) I hate fights. (34) So it was done. (28) (30) So They (35) thought he was OK. From the very first sentence, would have to undergo some sort of initiation test being accepted. Kid before Rather than asking questions or generating her hypotheses, statements Maggie knew the New of protocol meaning, is by dominated and formulating schemata, meanings. She seemed to be so familiar with the circumstances of the story that the New Kid's experiences were already familiar to her. Her recall was complete, the episodes, she telling a bit about the and the conclusion. setting, In discussion afterward, said," A story's much more interesting to read report. just You don't feel like you're learning new stuff. tells other hand, you about people in interesting ways." much about them except they dig burrows. extinct, understand On a It the she said she had to "think and figure out a lot more" when reading the Prairie Dog report. alm st than but "I didn't know I knew they were not how they were killed. about the subsurface and things." New Kid protocol, more hypotheses Maggie's Prairie Dog protocol and questions, 217 2 G5 I didn't Unlike her contained a good many comments that concerned with refining meaning, and revising and evaluating strategies. Prairie Charles' Doc protocol reflects similar a pattern: (1) I didn't know what to do with the title. This is kind of a research report. didn't I (4) paragraph. didn't until (9) (7) (10) I wanted to know I didn't know that. kind of conservation was meant here. what to do with that sentence. home. (33) supper. (35) conservationist. I (34) (36) know high tide line. a happened to the water. without about water must be like a wildlife (40) I kept reading (44) I tried (45) (38) on. (43) Maybe its I don't know what a water table is. like bed to I didn't know what to do. didn't make sense to me. I've (27) That reminds m's of didn't It (22) (25) I didn't know I've never been sent conservationists. (42) reading I kept on (8) I thought that was seen one and they're fascinating. It (5) I (19) Conservationist means... (20) I didn't know more. my second the (5) I knew the prairie dog barks. 'cause it struck my attention. what (3) So I just read. really have an idea know he wags his tail. funny. (2) to guess what I know there was a drought in California too.. Charles, They both amusing like Maggie, found was interested in the the human qualities of the and wanted to learn more about the i4218 passage. prairie animals. dog They accommodated curiosity, Although to and until their information learned the the information with last section about the water table. reading to procedure of relating the what they already knew worked in the part of the passage, they were less successful in at meaning towards the end. but new new first arriving Maggie said, "I tried to guess, there just wasn't enough information for me to use. I to reread it but that didn't help ....I even tried to tried use the title. like I thought about it pretty much through, um, when I got down here and 1 thought well this is water conservationists and crowd pleasing. help me figure it out." But it about didn't felt the piece wasn't written She for a &ild hei age because "If the author was really trying to make it for a sixth grader, he'd probably make that part about the subsurface stuff easier." Children and Meaning Maggie Charles and Charles Although befriend him, Chinese-American smoothly, and his classmates likq him with his older and convincingly. He thinks he is very presents himself accordingly. He is He generally knows what will get him a and give intelligent. to Charles speaks brother. wise." "I try and by often Charles prefers to play thinking games Monopoly) bright of children. He reads a great deal and is a bit of a loner choice. sofigy, different is a very neat and polite boy descent. (like are very the teacher what I'm supposed "school- good to. If I have an idea I'm not sure of, grade That's I usually write (say) it." don't also but he is Charles is bright, He likes good grades and takes safe routes. cautious. He writes reports about information he has recently researched, writes using forms he knows will more easily serve he him, he saves his "artful" thoughts for reading time when he and does not have to show or share them with anyone at all. Maggie's socks are creeps out of her skirt. bundle of "uhs", "likes" and "you knows." motion. without off horseback sure She likes bicycle riding and playing outdoor sports. have trail riding and She is less and communicates in everything she does, what She alc4o says she what topics, She to to always be "right" --she doesn't expect She writes In her own way, Maggie takes more chances. about interests her, tries to a with She is less self - conscious about her ideas. doesn't be. and noisy, Her sentences often insecurities in many ways. thinks. blouse punctuated conversation is completion. of herself, these She is plump and Her her and always falling new use new forms, and new language when these seem appropriate -- and she expects to be "corrected when things aren't so good." Charles his also In base uses the world around him as a data own purposes. While he loves to read for escape, for he uses the books he reads as models for his own writing. conversation he frequently reflects upon a particular book, or author -- commenting on ways in which the piece was organized sentence or the my last just like the good Maggie is less reflective and al.7.4o less language presented, always to be short and crisp, mysteries 1 read." 220 2 5'.) "1 want driven to succeed. standardized tests, very different Although they both score similarly and are both capable students, they are individuals. Their worlds real different -- as are their text worlds. meaning, on are Their approaches to and ways in which they form interpretions are also different. Yet, with similarities reflective all the differences, there are some strong their approaches toward meaning in that of patterns seen in all of the children in are this study. 1) Their approaches were meaning-based. the pieces they read and wrote to make They expected sense, and their approaches towards text reflected that expectation. 2) They expected to know something about what they read and wrote. They tried to connect what they already knew with their ideas at hand. 3) They expected their text worlds-- whether those from reading their writing-- to or those they created their own be organized in a pattern that would help the through bits and pieces cohere. 4) They expected their reading and writing strategies to vary as their understandings developed. 5) along They expected to misunderstand the way, and miscommunicate and they expected to notice these and to repair the meanings. problems 6) They knew ideas change and grow, is sometimes incomplete. to be and that knowledge Therefore they were not surprised left with some unresolved questions and hypotheses even after the reading or writing experience ended. 222 261 Figure 8.1 Maggie's Story: Analysis of Meaning Construction, beginning segments C-Unit 1 2 Reasoning operation H H 4 S S 5 6 H H 7 S 8 H 3 Strategy G G G F RV G F F Text Data unit source G G G L G G G L C C C C G C C C Focus PS PS PS PD PS PS PD PD Time B B B D D D D D Monitor UGOAL UGOAL UGOAL USTATE UREF UGOAL USTATE USTATE Chapter Nine Reading, Writing, and Meaning: The last writing: on eight chapters hive focussed on reading the students' awareness pertinent structluas and strategies, they A Summary wrote and remembered. and control and the actual In closing, and of pieces it will be useful to synthesize the major findings and reexamine them in light of our notions of reading, writing, and the development of meaning. Synthesis of Findings General Ieflections Above reading all, and writing are interpretive and symbolic activities, incorporating the use of the linguistic and interactional aspects of language conceptual and interpretive uses of knowledge. school years, linguistic awareness and as the Across the well as the children developed growing control of the communicative forms along with an of the representational properties of 225 0 2e ) t) enhanced their own Throughout interpretations and the meanings they symbolize. their and writing reading formulated and interpreted their ideas using both content As readers and writers form to carry their meanings. and students the experiences, at once, both produced and interpreted the text; they, and content were processed simultaneously as form the part of the whole creative experience. Findings indicate that reading and writing tap similar underlying processes. Overall, reading and writing showed strong correlations in the cognitive strategies called when children engaged in each task. equally strong domain. This These correlations were for reading and writing within the notion corroborates reading and writing are across and reading that writing are strongly related cognitive behaviors. although upon undoubtedly and However, cognitively related attempts to create meaning, they operate differently in different activities. the students Across the grades, approached reading and writing tasks differently, based upon their reasons for doing them in the first similar they critical ways their Although skills were called upon when the children read wrote, tIle place. ways went about using them in different ways. factors that seem to have made the in which they organized, underlie -- were found developed, in the The difference in which the children approached their ideas and tasks in -- and communicated functional those reading and writing activities uses (e.g. that their intent to read 0/ write a story versus a report). While reading and writing both operated as 226 2 generative activities, need readers were more constrained because of to adapt their developing envisionments to interpretations their their fit of what the author wished to convey interpretation of these constraints were the -- and signalled early on by the function (or genre) of the message. On the other hand, while the writers felt fewer constraints, continually engaged in an interplay of content and form they in their attempts to formulate and clarify their own meaningful Across texts. present the particular features the meanings the students wished they genre structure, of interpretation, thought to stretched and to convey within and to include new appropriate to those genre. interplay forms a and It is this continual language -- symbol and intermingled with form -- that orchestrated relationships al] grades, between reading and writing and between stricture and strategy across all the grades studied. The Context for Literacy From the analyses of parents', teachers', and students' notions groups of reading and writing, interpreted activities, point reading and writing as meaning-based 1) the teachers focussed school objectives and used "pedagese" to state their 2) tne students focussed on controlling the had difficulty, classroom, and 3) they resorted to th the parents 227 26'5 on and and when language of focussed on views, reading writing activities in their attempt to make sense, they all they viewed each from their own special vantage the child's life: in I learned that while the the home environment they could "arrange" or the interests they could and see try foster to Of the three groups, their in individual children. the teachers focussed most often and most consistently on the meaning inherent in all reading writing activities. and zalk The students were more likely to about the skills they felt they needed to call upon in the act of creating meaning, going wrong. concerns particularly when things were The parents fell between the two, sharing some with each of the other two The groups. parents, teachers, and students all seemed to regard writing in ways that were substantively different from reading. had less to say about writing, All and when they did talk, each group felt while reading was a more passive activity in which meanings were constrained writing was directly under at characteristics of author's by the the particular person's the and intent text. control The students regarded writing in more utilitarian ways than reading--both at more home and at school--while they saw reading varied purposes. Despite these as differences, serving their actual uses of both reading and writing were more varied at home than at school. Reading and writing throughout these ana'Lyses. writing waz were evident While the nature of reading and as conceptually meaning -laden and thought-producing generally writing differences in experienced any left undeveloped, sc,,,y1P. greater failed to consistent emerge. notions All difficulty talking about how to 128 of groups judge good performance in writing than reading; their language was more restricted, were more particular, responses finding comfortable writing. that The teachers, and student reading than about student about their responses fewer. fluent responses Perhaps related to this the students' self ratings, their in their in in was the as the as well ratings they were given by their parents and teachers, were consistently lower for writing than reading. Children's Sense of Stories and Reports contrast to their notions of reading and writing, children had a very firm sense of stories and reports. 111 the From third grade on, they saw stories distinct as from reports in the purposes for which they are used, the consent they include, and the ways in which they are structured. structures The stories The and children began and ended their sophisticated their ideas, retell reports grew in complexity across the and older they used to write ways, used pieces grades. in more complex syntax to and creatod better linked and more their more present elaborated structures. While the students' notions of stories and reports were firm and consistent, their sense of report was more restricted and less inclusive of adult structures than their sense of stories stories; stories. Third grade as well ninth as contained the basic elements of well-formed they Temre canonical, episodic, worked grade simple toward resolution, and generally presented an interesting conflict. 229 2 7 (IN In contrast, a the reports of even the ninth graders followed restricted (although legitimate) form. writing, In their the students generally selected a topic, told all they knew. sophisticated students, report and then While the ninth graders presented more thesis/support papers than younger the even they did not use more complex organizational patterns to structure an argument-- they did not write cause and effect or problem/solution papers. Langer (1984a) in her work on the effects of background knowledge on informational writing, found that the choice of organizational structure is partly a function knowledge students have about their writing topic. who know a great deal the of Students about a topic elect to use a simple thesis/support organizational structure when their knowledge is poorly organized, requested tactic. by the prompt itself. They abundance when a even cause/effect It is a form helpful choose this form because in using of knowledge will make a difference, is coping it their and their lack of organization will not, In the arwlyses reported here, students' it is possible that the almost unan....mous selection of the thesis/support form may reflect a comparable lack of knowledge. selected topics possible the organizational information While they about which they knew a good deal, students structures in other forms; were unfamiliar necessary to is with the present this their structural topic knm :.nige may have been less developed. 230 it 2C6 instead of we If children are exposed to from early on, hear well as see (in as young think about the kinds of discourse forms books, television, they that we find and movies) countless stories-- all using the basic story structure they later are expected to read and write. used those forms. thesis/support children Similarly, I posit, the students used the form because they already hear graders The third this (mainstream American), form knew Young it. conversational in speech see it in letters, how-to books, and television documentaries. associated with expository reports are, The other rhetorical forms in any real sense, unavailable to them as models during the early years. forms are riot maturational necessarily developing later sense (although this may be so), These in but in any any case may need to be presented in a broad context of language modeling, much as children's early exposure to stories, for the structures to become familiar, and finally learned. The Elaboration of Ideas When children we look across genre, at the internal use to organize their reading and writing, children's that taught appear consistent. to structures use of the structural to be different from features adult we see they forms, are but Examination of the structures the students used elaborate and link their ideas indicates that the higher level rhetorical structures such as problem/solution, cause/effect, and compare/contrast (those that are gererally tAught in school but that did riot show up in the 231 children's organization of discourse) gradually appeared in the global lower level structures they level structures school years. taking It suggests that, as begin new use to in early language more and complex embedded in smaller units of thought before they them to structure entire texts. use the gain in frequency and variety across children structures lower these Further, This suggests that clearly some learning was place. learning, used. particularly This is interesting since instruction almost n3ver focusses directly on teaching students how to use those levels; lower compare/contrast organizing almost always taught and major as structures -- in reading as well as in It is possible that, the at problem/solution, cause/effect, are structures writing. in terms of general genre structure as well as the elaboration of ideas, instruction does not begin with the instead knowledge children already have; and may on aspects of structure they are not yet focus ready to learn. The Knowledge Sources Children Use Despite active their the fact that reading and meaning-making activities, writing the children reading and writing tasks in different are both approached their ways; patterns of concerns, behaviors, and approaches were not the same, and their behaviors over time differed as well. When they read and wrote, the children were primarily concerned with the meanings they were developing. This was evide,it in the operations they used and the approaches took. 2 232 they Third graders approaches were and behaviors during meaning construction ninth graders. the general their were more restricted in They used a smaller than variety of operations to get at and develop meaning. The third graders were also less reflective graders reflected throughout the the The ninth upon and evaluated their evolving ideas graders about their developing meanings. ninth than reading and writing while processes, third graders tended not to review their ideas at all, the even after having completed the task. Students' Awareness of What They Do From the analyses of children's notions of genre, there is a strong and consistent indication that they had a of the differences between stories and sense able to use each in a different way. were knowledge report their accounted reading differently, and writing of reports, and Their story and differences for the major approaches to the tasks given them. their firm approached They and stories in reports used their knowledge of language, content, and structure in different ways, and controlled their developing meanings differently on a variety of levels. Although cognitively variety they and writing related constuctive language to function in somewhat different appear fluent reading of analyses, undoubtedly activities, ways. they Across a the students provided richer and more reports of the knowledge they produced, are had, the structures and the strategies they used after they had AT completed writing as opposed to writing as opposed to reading, to reading the students were more able discuss the ideas they had and the ways in writing changed; seemed to bring about and active awareness of structure, After tasks. which these a more accessible actual and strategies, content. Implications recent In reading and focus there has been a growing years, writi.ig activities and how they are on related. The analyses presented here suggest that reading and writing (process or It is appropriate, but too limited, to suggest that sense. both are active composing activities. functional activities, how and why they difference both produced. The suggest that of portions writing promise focus Beyond that, they are and the students' understandings function as they how they do are used make and and text difficulty themselves made the greatest for that operate within the child. small reading and associated The greatest for future reading and writing research m,y not primarily on reading/writing tIlationships decontextualized sense, or difference. studies will need to look at particulr conventions, is volume reading the genre and the the variance; what this account of critical a in series of studies reported in with all the contexts, functions to in age tasks Additional tasks, general some cannot be examined in product) in be a but on how childr n's understanding 23% of reading the genres and functions within and across each and/or writing activity approaches used, meaning the affect the meanings conveyed, and the making learnings that ensue. WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED All 1. organize and primary were meanings and elaborate upon developing as they read and wrote. talk metalinguistic awareness. of Their meanings They also they showed They were able about the ways in which they used reading and means of personal thought as well as a develop them. and consistent concern was with the evidence as the children we studied were able to to to writing communicate their ideas to others. The 2. had them, a view of reading and meaning-based activities. took a more activities used and the adulte children we studied, writing as around purposeful, Beyond that however, the teachers consistently meaning-based view while the students focussed on the of literacy skills in trying to make sense when they read and wrote. parents were somewhere between -- a bit like each of they The the other two groups. 3. In general, the parents, teachers, and students were uncertain about the strategies involved in reading writing. passive However, they all activity than writing, regarded reading as a and more constrained by the author's 27;i 235 intent and the structure of the regarded writing Conversely, text. as an activity where meaning they development was more under the individual's control and direction. All groups seemed to be more comfortable (and were 4. therefore more fluent) in talking about reading than about writing. They spoke more often and more frequently about reading they It could be that because they than writing. had a clearer sense of what reading involved, felt they could call upon more specific language in speaking about it; for writing, In turn, their comments were more general and diffuse. the parents, teachers, and students regarded the individual children as being more successful at reading than writing. The students, parents, and teachers all interpreted 5. reading and child's literacy reading and should control. writing from their own vantage context; all relied point upon aspects experiences they felt they writing teachers The focussed in on could the of or school instructional objectives they taught arl judged progress by, the parents focussed on the environment they could regulate, and the children focussed on the skills they felt they could (or could not) call upon in their efforts to create meaning. The 6. reports, and children they had a firm sense of stories 1,ut this knowledge to good use in and the stories ani reports they read and wrote. This was evident in their notions of the functions of reading and 236 274 writing, in the content they presented, and in the structures they used. Between 7. organizational grades syntactic and embeddings were organized, and and 6 skills were elaborationd in occurred; more more highly the structures became used, more grcwth much 9, presented. This change was particularly dramatic in the students reading and writing of reports. Overall, story forms showed less evidenue of change 8. and The story forms used by the growth than report forms. graders third used similar to those by remained 1-.ructures with the Although same. a firm knowledge of story ninth the the basic While the stories grew more elaborate, graders. school were children structure, enter it is possible that lack of instruction in more complex and varied story is responsible for restricted growth forms this in genre. 9. story the children weLe flexible in their While they forms, complex exnository problem/solution, story and dEyelopmental 17:Inied to devices writing the in syntactic elab^ration generally unfamiliar with extent intricacy, and While this phenomenon, even the the the more grades, quantitatively organization, of ideas. of Across differed of cause/effect, (e.g., compare/contrast). report qualitatively len,jth, were use complex may, simplest organizational relative linking part, in ninth and graders forms ror and be a were their reports. It complex expository children that lack of possible is exposure forms during the early of useful models, to deprives foals thereby creating an more impediment to learning. Across 10. expository devices they However, the the years, gained appeared in use frequency as lower level more of complex variety. and elaborations upcn meaning rather than as major organizing devices to structure entire texts. control new meaning before using them as more global unifying This expository suggests that children may structures ewbedded within particular interest to of is This forms compare, /contrast as are cause/effect, taught smaller learn to units of devices. since educators problem/solution, as macrolevel such and unifying structures and their roles as elaborating devices within and between sentences are rarely the focus of instruction. Across 11. the grades, the children expected to use what they already knew to make new neanings as they read and wrote. They expected to write ideas in an organized manner and read to language that was presented in an organized Further, they expected to vary the operations and fashion. strategies they used as they moved through each reading and writing task. 12. The strategies the students used to read and write were strongly and consistently related; tended to tp-,e similar strategies in individual students approaching parallel reading and writing tasks. reading and that This supports the notion writing are interrelated cognitive behaviors that tap similar underlying processes. 13. However, the underlying patterns the strategies tc)k differed reading from diffirent writing. to The students had They primary concerns when they read and wrote. ol-rmi4ed, developed, and communicated their ideas differently -- even when the topics and tasks were parallel. The third graders general approaches during meaning 14. construction were more restricted than the older children's. Also, they there used less variety in the reasoning was in any activity. operations used The ninth graders the widest variety of cognitive approaches and behaviors, at all points in time. 15. than The third graders were consistently less reflective older the children. evaluate their work 16. The The ninth graders tended to and extend their ideas. students felt they had greater control of writing than of the reading task. the They could plan, develop, and change their ideas more readily, and could abandon the They did task for a while when things were not going well. not see similar options for themselves when reading. 17. Students of all ages talked more about the knowledge the; ha(1 completing gained their and the strategies they writing as compared with 23S 27' had used their after reading tasks. While reading and writing both are dynamic activities, the act of writing seems to work in special ways to enhance students' awareness of the strategies and the meaningful ideas they develop. activities focus on may he As particularly useful to they such, help their developing understandings of the use writing students subject matter they are asked to learn. notion of "writing to learn" takes on special promise as an With this in instructional tool for content area classrooms. mind, the References (1977). The notion of schemata and the R.C. educational enterprise. In Anderson, R., Spiro, R, & Schooling and the acquisition of Montague, W (Eds.), knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Anderllon, ages Applebee, A.N. (1978). The child's concept of story: two vo seventeen. Ch[ago, IL: UniversTEj of Chicago PresE. Writing in the secondary -'ohool: Applebee, A.N. (1981). En lish and the content areas. Urbana, IL: Nay: 7Eil council of Teachers of English. Applebee, A.N. (1982). Wr4.ting and learning in school settings. In P. Martin Nystrand (ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press. Applebee, A.N. (1984). Contexts for learning to write: Norwood, NJ: S';udies of secondary school instruction. ABLEX. Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1980). Metacognitive skills and reading. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 195 932.) Remembering. Bartlett, F.C. Press. London: Cambridge University Beaugrande, R. Criteria for models of reasoning. (1981). Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 261-315. Beaugrande, R. (1984). Text production: of composition. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX. Toward a science Bereiter, M. C., & Scardamalia, From (in press). conversation to composition: The role of instruction Glazer (Ed.), in a developmental pror.iss. In R. Vol. 2. Advances Instructional Psychology in Hillsdale, rJ: F-lbuum. Gnys at Wrk. Harvard University Press. Bissex, G. (19C0). L. Cambridge, Mass.: Dransford, J.D.(1979). Human cognition: learning; remembering. understanding,, and Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Franks, J.J., Morris, C.D., & Stein, B.S. general constraints on ]earning and of memory research. In Cermak & Craik Levels processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lowrance Bransford, (1979). J.D., some 252 2 7:J Erlbaum. Bransford, J.D. & Johnson, M.K. (1973). Consideration of some problems of comprehension. In W. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing. NY: Academic Press. Brifton, J. (1970). Language and learning. Lane, The Penguin Press. Brown, Allen London: (1977). Development, schooling acquisition of knowledge about knowledge. and A.L. In the R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro & W.E.'Montague (eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, A.L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem, of metacogvition. In R. Glaser (ed.), Advances psychology. in instructional Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. A.L. & De Loache, J.S. (1978). Skills, plans and self-regulation. In R. Siegler (ed.), Carnegie-Mellon symposium on cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, R., & Bellugi, U. acquisition of syntax. 133-151. Brown, Three processes in the Harvard Education Review, 34: (1964). Bruner, J., Jolly, A., & Sylva, K. (1976). Play: Its role in development and evolution. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Bruner, J.S., Goodnow, J.J.r & Austin, B.A, (1956). A study of thinking. New York: John Wiley & ' 1V3. Calkins, L. McCormick. (1983) Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Lessons from a child. C. ;1980). Peek-a-boo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and school. Papers and reports LIf child language development, 17, 1-29. Cazden, Chafe, (1982). The pear stories. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Writing and reading in J.S. & Jacobs, V.A. (1984) Developmental trends among low the elementary grades: (Ed.) Composing and SES children, In J.M. Jensen Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse for comprehending. Reading and Communication Skills. Chali, (1981). Referential coherence and te:t Journal of Verbal in stork comprhension. rearn:l.nci and Verbal Behavicr. 20,3,358-367. cirillo, R. structure 253 2bo Collins, A., (1980). Inference Brown, J.G., & Larkin, J. in text understanding. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, am W. Brewer Theoretical (Eds.), issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lockhart, Levels of R.S. (1972). A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 11,671-684. Craik, F.I.M. processing: Literace: Readinr, writing, and other essentials, Language Arta, 58,6,652-558. De Ford, D.E. (1981). Dyson, A.H. (1982). Reading, writing, and language: Young children solving the language puzzle, Language Arts. Fillmore, C.J. (1981). Ideal Geor4etown University Proceedings. readers and real readers, Conference Roundtable Flavell, J.H, (1963). The developmental psychology cf JeEll Piaget. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold. .H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J.M. Scanduran & L.J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural process theories of complex human behavior. Sijthoff. Leyden: Flavell, Flavell, J.H. & Wellman, H.M (1'17). Metamemory, In R.V. Kail & J.W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (1983, December). The writer's planning process Paper presented at the and the hidden logic of texts. National Reading Conference, Av'stin, TX. Flower, L. L. A., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L.W, Gregg and E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Flower, Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg and E.R. Steinberg (eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fiowei, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). Graesser, A.C., Robertson, S.P., Lovelace, E.R. & Swinehart, (3980). D.M. Answers to why questions expose the oiyanization of story plot, and predict recall of actions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal *behavior, 19,1,110-119. D., & Hansen, O. (1983). Language Arts, 60, 2, 176-183. Graves, The author's Halliday, M.A.K. (1977). Learning how to mean: 254 21 chair. Explorations in the development of language. New York: Elsevier. Halliday, ".A.K. (1978) Lnauaae as Pk social Baltimore, MD: University Park Prese. . semiotic. Harste, J.C., Burke, C.L., & Woodward V.A. (1983). The young child as writer-reader and informant, Final Report, National Institute of EducatI6E-Number NIE-G80-0121. Heath, S.B. (1981). Toward an ethnohisory of writing in American education. In M. Whiteman (ed.), Variation in writing: Functional and cultural linguistic, differences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Heath, (1983). S. B. Ways with words. London: Cambridge University Press. Henderson, E. (1981). knowledge of words. Press, Hidi, Hunt, Learning to Rpell: The child's IL: Northern Illinois University & Hildyard, A. (1983). The comparison of oral and written productions in two discourse modes. Discourse Processes, 6,2, 91-105. S. X.W. (965). grade levels. Grammatical structures written at three Urbana, IL: NCTE. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures. (Translated by Anne Parsons & Stanley krIgram). London: Routiedge & Kegan Paul. Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading. Hopkins University Press. Iser, (1975). The phenemomenological approach. 279-299. W. Baltimore, MD: Johns reading process: New Literary History. A 7, King, M. & Rentel, V. (1981). How children learn to write: A longitudinal study. National Institute of Education Grant Number G-79-0137 and G-79-0039. Ohio State University. , King, M., & Rental, V. (1982). Transition to writing. National Institute of Education Grant Number G-79-0137 and G-79-0039. Ohio State University. -A1,11,avy, J. L. cliffs, NJ: Kuhn, T.S. (1971). A theory of !Lkioourse, Prentice-Hall. (1970) Englewood The Gtructure of sci.mtific revolutions. 255 2,.c,) ti Chicago: Chicago University Press. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the black En1;f-sh vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of PennsylvaniiPress. Langer, J.A. (19E.4a) The effects of available information on responses to school writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 18 (1), 27-44. . Langer, J.A. (1984b). Examining background knowledge and text comprehension. Reading Research quarterly, 19 (4), 468-481. Langer, J.A. children: National Reading and writing in school-age A developmental view. Final Report, Institute of EduciEron Grant No. NIE-G-82(1984,c) 0025. Langer, J.A. (in press, a). How readers construct meaning: An analysis of reader performance on standardized test items. In R. Freedle (ed.), Cognitive and li-juistic analyses of standardized test performance. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX. Langer, J.A. (in press, b). Levels of questioning: An alternative view. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 4. S.K. (1942). Philosophy in a new key. MA: Harvard University Press. Langer, Langer, S.K. A. essay on human feeling. Johns Hopkins University Press. (1972). Baltimore, MD: Cambridge, Mind: Leichter, H. J. (1974). The family as educator. Teachers College Press. New York: Leont'ev, A.A. (1973) Some problcms in learning Russian as a foreign language, Soviet Psychology, 11, 1-117. (1976). Language development. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Loban, r,unzer, E., & :reading. Gardner, N. (1.979). The effective use of Loneon% Heinemann Educatronal Books. Mandler, Rememberance of J.M., & Johnson, N.S. (1977) . things parsed: Story structur' and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111 -15].. October). Comprehension monitoring. Markman. (1978, E.M. Paper presented at the Conference on Children's Oral Communication Skills, Univel:sity of Wisconsin. MarkRin, E.M, (1979). Rcolizing that you don't und3rstand: 256 Elementary school children's awareness inconsistencies. Child Development, 30, 653-655. Menyuk, P. (1969). Sentences children use. MIT Press. of Cambridge, MA: Meyer, B.J.F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland. Meyer, B.J.F. (1980). Comprehensin of expository text, Poetics 9, 203-211. stories and Meyer, B.J.F. (1981). Prose analysis procedures, purposes, and problems. Dept. of Educational Psychology, Arizona State University. Minsky, (1975) M. A framework for representing knowledge, In P. Winston & R. Brown (Eds.), Artificial intelligence. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Miyake, L. & Norman, D.A. (1979). To ask a question, one must know enough to know what is not known, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 357-364. Olson, G.W., Mack, R. L. & Duffy, S.A. (1981). Cognitive aspects of genre. Poetics, 10, 283-315. Olson, G.W., (1980). Applying knowledge of writing conventions to prose comprehension and composition. New Reflections for Teaching and Learning, 2, 68-95. Page, W.D. and Duffy, (1974). reading. S.A. & Mack, R.L. The author and the reader in writing Research in the Teaching of English. 8,2,170 -183. Paris, (1980). Metacogni.tion and reading comprehension. Ne'ional Institute of Education Grant Number 80-0148. S, Pearson, P.D. & Tierney, R.J. (1984). On becoming a thoughtful reader: Learning to read like a writer, In Purves, A.C. \7 Niles, 0. (Eds.) Becoming Readers in a Complex Society. Chicago, University of Chicago IL: Press. Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336. Petrosky, A.R. (1982). writing. College 3311119-36. From story to essay: Reading and Composition and Communication. Read, C. (1975). Children's categorization of speech sounds in English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers 2S4 257 of English. Rosenblatt, L.M. (1938). Literature as exploration. D. Appleton-Century Co. Rosenblatt, poem. Press. L.M. (1978). Carbondale, NY: The reader, the text_i_ and the Southern IllIiois University IL: Rumelhart, D. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D.G. Bobrow & A.M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic Press. Rumelhart, D. & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory, In R. Anderson, R. Spiro, & W. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethniv communication. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX. Scribner, S. literacy. The psychology Cambridge, MA: Harvard UnIVirsity Press. & Cole, M. (1981). of Shanahan, T. (1984). The nature of the reading-writing relation: An analysis. exploratory multivariate Journal of Educatinal Psychology. 76. 466-477. Shank, R.C. & Abelson, R.P. goals, and understanding. Erlbaum. (1977). Hillsdale, Scripts, NJ: Sommers, N.I. (1980). Revision strategies of writers and experiences writers, adult Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388. plans, Lawrence student College Sontag, S. (1956). Against interpretation and other essays. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. Spiro, R.J. Constructive processes in prose (1980). Spiro, B.Bruce, & W. comprehension and recall. In R. Brewer (Eds.), in reading issues Theoretical comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Remembering information from text: The "state of schema approach, in R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro, & W. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Lawrence Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Spiro, R.J. (1977). (1979). Etiology of reading comprehension In M. Kamil & A. Moe (Eds.), Perspectives in reading research and instruction. Washington, D.C.: Spiro, R.J. style. 258 National Reading Conference, 118-122. How children understand stories: A developmental analysis. In L. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education, Vol. 2, Hillsdale, Stein, NJ: N.L. (1979). ABLEX. Stein, N.L. & Glenn, An analysis of story C.C. (1979). In R. C comprehension in elementary school children. Freedle (ed.), New directions! in discourse processing II. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX. Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Language Arts. Shuy, R. National Institute of Education Grant Number G-80-0122, Center for Applied Linguistics. (1980). Teale, W.T. (1982). Toward a theory of how children learn to read and write naturally. Language Arts. Thorndyke, P.W. (1977). in Cognitive structures comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110. Thorndykc, P.W. (1976). The role of inference in discourse comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 15, 437-446. Tierney, R., & Cohen, P. Paper presented at the (1980). National Council of Teachers of English Annual Convention, Cincinnati, OH. Tierney, R.J., (1983). LaZansky, J., Rafael, Authors' Intentions Interpretations. Technical Report Center for the Study of Reading. and Cohen, P. Readers' 276. Urbana, IL: T., and & Pearson, (1983). Toward a Composing P.D. Model of Reading, Language Arts, 60, 568-580. T2.erney, R.J, Van Dijk, T.A. Text and contest: Explorations in (1977). the semantics and plagmiirEs of dTcourse. London: Longman. Voss, J.J. (1980). Low Vesonder, G.T., & Spillich, G. knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19,6,657-657. G. (1981). Learning through Cambridge University Press. Wells, 2cT 259 interaction. London: APPENDIX 1: Stories: The Passagesl Jackie The New Kid Reports: The p1e The Crowd-Pleasing Water Conservationist 1. T-unit segmentation added. JACKIF 1 two weeks before school began was It family moved in./ everyone before the the new 2W1th this new family came a new kid whom anxious was when to see./ new kid came out, 3And it didn't saying, "Hi, take my long name is Jackie."/ 4$ 5 6 7 8 9 I am Larry."/ My name's Stanley."/ "They call me Jonash."/ "What ya doing'?" asked Jackie./ "We're playing 'King-o-the-Hill'," Stanley said./ "Wanna play?"/ 10 11 12 "OK," said Jackie./ Here was their chance to really "check the kid out,"/ and they did./ 14 15 17 19 13 Jackie was "king" all afternoon./ "You're all right," said Larry./ 16 "Yeah. "OK, 18 Yuh wanna join our club?" asked Stanley./ What do I have to do?" asked Jackie./ "Meet us in the empty lot at the corner," said Jonash with a grin that just wouldn't wait./ 21 22 20 "You'll seel"/ When?" asked Jackie./ "Tonight, after dark," said Larry./ 2 2.48 23 That Jackie night, was the last to arrive at the corner./ 24 "This 25 had better be good./ ad to sneak out I of the house," Jackie complained./ 26 27 "Oh it isl" grinned Jona-h./ "Come on," said Larry./ 28 A few houses down the block, they stopped./ 29 "See that 30 redbrick house?" said Stanley./, "All you have to do is go on the porch, pull the string, and turn the porch light out."/ 31 "What's so hard about that?" began Jackie./ 32 "Well, there's this little dog in the yard," grinned Jonash./ 33 34 "Oh, I'm not afraid of dogs," said Jackie./ "We'll see," said Stanley./ 35"Go on, now,/ 36we haven't got all night."/ 37 Jackie crawled to the fence while the others watched, thinking, "This is gonna be easy."/ Jackie fence, saw 38 But looking over the that the "little dog" was an oversized mutt./ 39"His name is Bearl" yelled Jonash./ 40 "Wonder why?" teased Jackie, trying to hide a sudden fright./ 41 The yard didn't have anything to hide behind./ reminded Jackie of a huge, empty cage./ 3 43 42 It The distance from the porch to the fence was just a little too far in Jackie's eyes./ 45 44 Bear seemed to be sleeping in front of the porch./ Whatever quickly./ Jackie was going to do, "Jumping over the fence, it had be to Jackie counted to done 10, ran up on the porch, and pulled the string./ 47 Then, springing off the porch and starting over the fence, Jackie was bitten in the pants by Bear./ 48 49 pulled Jackie ana 50 Something ripped. kicked with great force./ Jackie fell over the fence and raced for the corner./ 51 52 53 Larry, "Man, said Larry, "you just barely made it! "/ "Yeah," said Jackie, trying to appear calm.? The Jonash, neighborhood football./ old two weeks went next and looking 56 Jackie for by were 54 quickly./ always something new./ Stanley, roaming 55 played They They made a scooter out of a crate the and some roller skates,/ 57and they decorated it with old bottle caps./ 60 58Finally, that Larry, Stanley, and day came./ and 59 Jonash School was were to start,/ waiting outside Jackie's house./ 61 "Hurry upl' yelled Jonash./ 62 "Wanna be late the first day?"/ 63 Just then, out came a skinny girl in a green with a green ribbon in her hair./ 4 2,90 dress 64 65 "OK, I'm ready," she said./ 66 you?' asked Stanley./ are "Who Jackie "Tell to come out."/ 67 Jonash "I am Jackie," she said./ just stood there, 68 Larry, dead in their Stanley, 69 tracks./ and Larry finally spoke,/ 70 71 "Jackie, what are you doing with a dress on?"/ "Mamma wouldn't me let answered Jackie./ 5 wear pants to school," THE NEW KID 'After introduced school breakfast, me Uncle Clark to the principal./ took me anxiety life 12 keep up./ 8Each new school meant a new to be conquered./ did they fight?/ a Sand I felt that I could the boys./ the 4The subjects 6My was still in met/ 71 was wondering how I would with on of 31 sat looking at the strange reading book, following the lessons./ simple,/ school, 2The first half day passed without incident./ seemed to 9Were the boys tough?! area 10How get of hard 11I took it for granted that they fought./ At noon recess I went into the school grounds,/ 13 and group of boys sauntered up to me, head to my feet, looked at me from whispering among themselves./ 14 I my leaned against a wall, trying to conceal my uneasiness./ 15 16 "Where you from?" a boy asked abruptly./ "Jackson," I answered./ 17 "How come they make you people so ugly in Jackson?" he demanded./ 18 19 There was loud laughter./ "You're not any too good-looking countered instantly./ 20 21 22 "OW/ "Aw1"/ "You hear what he told 'im?"/ 6 292 yourself," I 23 "You think you're smart, don't you?" the boy asked. Sneering./ 24,1 25N 26 As smart as you."/ Do you know who you can tell that to?" he asked me./ "And you know who you can tell it back to?" I asked./ 27 "Are you talking about my mamma?" he asked, edging forward./ 28 "If you want it that way," I said./ 29 failed at school, in 30 This was my test./ If I failed now, I would have for the first trial came not in books but how one's fellows took one, what value they placed upon one's willingness to fight./ 31 32 33 "Take back what you said," the boy challenged me./ "Make me," I said./ The crowd howled, sensing a 34 fight./ The boy hesitated, weighing his chances of beating me./ 35N You ain't gonna take what that new boy said, is you?" someone taunted the boy./ 'The boy came close./ 37 I stood my ground./ 38 Our faces were four inches apart./ 39 40 41 pushed "You think I'm scared of you, don't you?" he asked./ "I told you what I think," I said./ Somebody, eager and afraid that we would not fight, the boy,/ 42and he bumped into me./ away violently./ 7 43 I shoved him 44 45 46 right "Don't push me!" the boy said./ "Then keep off me!" I said./ was He and pushed again,/ 47and I struck caught him in the mouth./ with out 48The crowd my yelled, milled, surging so close that I could barely lift my arm to land blow./ 49 a other, we "Every boys./ 51 would Knowing When either of us tried be thrown off balance strike to by the the screaming of delight./ blow landed elicited shouts that if I did not win or make a good showing, I would have to fight a new boy each day, I fought tigerishly, trying to leave a scar, I was not 52The a coward, s -eking to draw blood as proof that that I could take care myself./ of bell rang,/ 53and the crowd pulled us apart./ The 5 fight seemed a draw./ 55"I ain't through with you!" the boy shouted./ 56 the In myself./ classroom the boys asked me questions 571 was someone worth knowing./ rang for school to be dismissed, 59 When the I was set to fight again,/ On my way home I found a cheap ring in the streets,/ and at once I knew what I was going to do with it./ ring had a red stone held by tiny prongs which I took the stone out, up./ 64 bell but the boy was not in sight./ 60 61 58 about Now 63 leaving the sharp tiny prongs I slid the ring on to my finger and let a bully come,/ 65 and I would show 8 62 The loosened, jutting shadow-boxed./ him how to 66 fight;/ would leave a crimson streak on his face I with every blow./ 67 But exhibited never had to use the ring./ I my new weapon at school, spread among the boys./ 69 72 After a description I challenged my enemy to fight,/ M but he would not respond./ necessary./ 68 I had been accepted./ 9 71 I of had it another Fighting was now not THE MOLE 1 Some winding morning you may wake up and find a mound of dirt all small, across your front yard./ furry animal underground./ called 2It was made by 3 mole lives mole./ a The 4That mound on your lawn is the roof of a one of its underground tunnels./ 5 The mole chat made that tunnel wasn't going any place special./ 7 6It was just hunting for food--such as worms./ 8 The mole has a busy day hunting--and eating./ 10 doesn't weigh very much,/ 9but it must eat a lot./ day, eats it 11Think aboutone half of its own weight A mole Every food./ in what that would mean to you if you ate enough food every day to match one half of yggs weightl/ 12 The furry, little mole is perfectly made for its life of digging and living underground./ strong legs fairly well,/ outside 13It has short, for pushing the dirt about./ 15 but of its head./ 14It can its tiny ears cannot be seen 16 stout, hear on the Larger ears would only get in its way when it was digging./ 17Since moles live their lives underground where it dark, they have very small,/ 20 little use for sight./ 18Their eyes 19and the animals can "see" only light Moles do not like the light,/ 21 and is are dark./ and they stay away from it if they can./ 22 The mole can travel easily 10 in both directions./ 23 Because its short furry coat brushes both ways, travel back and forth./ 24 its way with its nose./ 25 When it is going ahead, The hairs on its front "hands," also help to signal direction./ 26 can it it feels feet, or When it is going back, its tail "tells" it which way to go./ 27 Moles tunnel in the soft, plenty worms of and wet soil, insects./ where there are 28Usually kinds two of diggings are made--a home tunnel and a food tunnel./ 29 The 30This home tunnel may be dug two feet tunnel, the easily 31 where the mole lives./ is strong below In diggning the home front feet Then the mole pushes this dirt front claws on the mole's loosen the dirt./ 32 ground./ back under its body and gives a kick with its hind fee./ 33 the load of dirt is ready, 34 no wider than its body./ space push When the dirt to the opening./ the mole turns in a Now the mole is ready 35The dirt that spills of the opening is called a molehill./ 36You may have to out heard the saying, "Don't make a mountain out of a molehill."/ 37 that made the mound on your lawn--is a food tunnel./ there only tunnel that was dug nearer the surface--the The is not much food along a surface tunnel, once./ 39 But usually there are plenty it is of one 38 If used worms nearby./ 40 dirt In the surface tunnel, to the mole kicks and pushes the one side as it makes its way./ 11 297 41 The animal may burrow spent 12 in to 15 feet in an hour!! resting and eating, 42Some of the of course,/ time is it is 43but something to think aboutl/ 44 45 Today Yesterday, there your lawn 47 made, his flat may be a mound a hundred feet back and forth across your yard./ why./ was 46 and smooth./ long Now you can running understand And even if you may not like the tunnels the time was well spent, for he was eating cutworms and other things that harm flowers and seeds./ 12 298 mole THE CROWD-PLEASING WATER CONSERVATIONIST 1 Although belongs he to the squirrel family, the prairie dog got to be called a "dog" because he barks./ 2He wags also feasted his stubby tail when excited./ 4 on prairie dogs./ However, 3lndians often being labeled a "dog" may have saved many prairie dogs from the colonists' dinner table./ 5 6 Prairie They dogs' numbers have declined over the 7 are almost extinct./ the turn of the century./ livestock, wasn't 8 There were billions of them at But as settlers brought in their the prairie dog got in the way./ enough grass years./ 9 There for both cattle and prairie simply dogs to eat./ 10 Recently, dog's rescue./ conservationists have come to the 11 prairie The prairie dog is protected in many parks and country areas./ 13 12Prairie dogs are fascinating to watch./ a lot of time out of their burrow./ 14 They spend They meet with their neighbors in dog "towns," which are made up of zany burrows crisscrossing the land./ 15 antics/ 18 He's uses The 17 prairie 16 dog is a crowd-pleaser./ and you'll marvel at his almost human family-oriented and keeps his burrow 299 his behavior./ neat./ strict discipline and divides up the work./ 13 Watch 19 He 20Mom and Pop are boss./ 21 take turns guarding their special have 23 Adults barking observers Some signals when an nearby./ claim to have seen prairie dogs spanking 24 They punish their pups stuffing them down their burrows--"sent to supper! " / 27 enemy 26 2They is their pups for wandering too far./ by 2 burrows./ They without bed have their own playful version of Squealing in delight, tag./ they rush from burrow to burrow and roll each other around./ 28 The prairie dog is considered a water conservationist 29 in the dry Southwest./ the several thousands of gallons of water were poured in on "towns," group In an attempt to wipe out of prairie dogs./ 30 But to naturalists' water disappeared almost at once./ 31 a amazement, Then the prairie dogs popped out of their burrows, none the worse for it./ 32 The water, it turned out, had plunged down the 10- to 20-foot burrows that the prairie dogs had built in the subsurface./ ground 33 There the water passed hard into the underground water table./ 34 Except rainfalls 35 Thus, the burrows, for would be the infrequent unable to penetrate the but heavy subsurface./ the prairie dog became something of a hero in drought-plagued areas./ 36 1t proved yet another dramatic example of every creature's role in the delicate balance nature./ 14 many of APPENDIX II Analysis of Structure: Scoring Manual Coding Sheet Operational Definitions Reading/Writing Project Analysis of structure 1 I 301 SCORING MANUAL FOR STORIES AND REPORTS Analyses of the organizational structure of both reports and stories are based on T-unit representations in terms Each T- tree diagrams including the nodes described below. consists of a main or coordinate unit clause. of Coordinate clauses are marked by such coordinating conjunctions as but, therefore, thus, and, function but's as or also, So's that ant in addition. thus's are to considered be as coordinating conjunctions. TOPMOST LE'JEL 1. RhetcrAcal organizing frames predicates function below which all as other the levels content hierarchy are subsumed. act rhetorical predicates representing the gist as overall the of Lexical predicates which (of a story) or the thesis (of a report) should be used only when predicates (see none cf below) structure the can other top level be of the perceived text. rhetc tcal dominating as These lexical the rhetorical predicates are selected in descending order of preference by the centrality of 1) the title, 3' 2) the first or main sentence (t-unit), or an implied lexical predicate created from the full piece when there is no title and a stated main idea is not present in the text. Why the Elephant's Nose is Big Sequence Description 2 302 Rhetorical Predicates a. - antecedent and consequencent specified at Causal - should not be attributed to the text levels without explicit causal markers (e.e. so, because) Response b. question/answer remark/reply; - problem/solution; specified at equal levels in the hierarchy c. Alternative - 2 or more equally weighted views or options compared or contrasted d. episodes, Sequence - steps, or evcAts ordered by time at equal levels in the hierarchy; other rhetorical predicates can serve as events LOWER LEVELS Embedded under the top level predicates are any number of levels composed of nodes of the following types: a. causal (causal markers are required) b. response c. alternative (equally weighted) d. sequence (temporal order) e. description elaborations, - a variety including of manner, types of subordinate attribution, specific, equivalent, setting, identification, epilog f. evaluation writer about - opinion or commentary expresses by other ideas or eventl expressed elsewhere the text g. evidence - supporting argument 303 3 the in explanation - causal antecedents subordinate in h. staging to the main idea or event being explained (requires explicit causal marker) adversative - comparison between alternatives, where one i. favored less is subordinate and (one alternative be indirectly stated) - thn dominant alternative is related to a higher node description 9 eats a lot adversative 8 doesn't weigh much TERMINAL LEVEL Each branch terminates with a lexical predicate representing the content of the sentences (t-units) comprising the text. Level Labelling predicates All structure will occurring at the denoted as be topmost level 1. level All ...etc. The content the of predicates level immediately subordinate to level 1 will be denoted as 2, falls at the same level as the structure which governs it. Texti may will be analyzed to the level of the units comprising it. Special Cases 304 4 individual t- 1. Treatment of descriptive material embedded in a SEQUENCE may be subordinated to a constituent step, episode, or event in the sequence before or after which it is presented and to which it bears the closest semantic bond. However, if material intrudes into the sequence that is not part of that sequence, it should be assigned to a DESCRIPTION external to that sequence. node Nodes beneath a description should be headed by an EVENT structure or by another rhetorical predicate, to reflect the time-ordering structure imposed by the SEQUENCE. 2. Quotations Speech turns occurring should be treated sequential as within a sequence unless they function rhetorical events in other predicates such as CAUSAL or RESPONSE and serve to further the progress of the plot or presentation. 3. When a structure has an ambiguous representation, t-unit should diagrammed be using the less that structured alternative. 4. Content Collection can exist within any lower level node; grouping form any e.g. 1, 14. level, 5. structure reiterations can be combined at a of identical lexical or rhetorical predicates collection. diagram, Collections cannot stand alone in but are used to designate repitition of any structural element collection (e.g. elemonts any must (e.g, description description be equal. If they 5 are not, 305 and the other [collection]). [collection]) all can In collected another element intrudes, it be diagrammed must in a separate collection or node of its own. adversative 10 but I have lots of things to do description description (collection) 11 have to swim 12 13 16 14 cub practice do homework scouts violin I'm not sure I'll have time These analyses have been revised for our use based on those developed by Meyer (1975, 1981). Reading/Writing Project CODING SHEET-ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE Student Number Sex B-1, G-2 Reading %ile Language %ile Story-1, Report-2 TA-1, R-2 TOP LEVEL 1.0 Rhetorical Predicate . 1 causal 2 response . 3 alternative 4 sequence 2.0 Lexical Predicate (check text for source) 1 title stated main idea . 2 implied main idea . 3 3.0 mixed . . . LOWER LEVELS Rhetorical Predicates Causal Response (1/response category) (1/leg) problem/solution 63N; remark/reply (1/leg) question/answer (1/leg) Alternative 1/alternative category) Sequence Description Evaluation Evidence Explanation Adversative COLLECTIONS Causal Response Alternative Description Evaluation Evidence Explanation Adversative DEEPEST LEVEL BROADEST LEVEL(S) NUMBER OF SEPARATE NODES # deeply linked ( in single collections, sequences, or rhetorical units # shallowly linked (separate sequences, description/collsletc.) # total collections + sequences total items (content + rhetorical predicates) # total items in largest collection # total items in largest sequence # total content nodes # rhetorical predicates at level 2 depth of episodes or information clusters: 1 4 3 4 5 6 TOTAL WORDS TOTAL SENTENCES TOTAL T-UNITS Appendix III ANALYSIS OF MEANING CONSTRUCTION Coding Manual 1 30 8 Reading/ Writing Project ANALYSIS OF MEANING CONSTRUCTION Each student's reading think-aloud writing and communication units. Each remark that expresses an to segmented is unit is report retrospective or a into distinguishable separately identifiable idea about a thought or behavior. the frequent pauses typical of the self-report activity, researcher needs exercise to judgment in in determining Due the the boundaries of each particular remark; however, it is typically to be associated with the t-unit. Each communication unit is categorized seven separate times to permit analyses of the 1) general operations, 2) the strategies, 3) the text unit, 4) the data source, and 5) the focus reported by each student, as well as 6) the time in the activity that the remark was made, and 7) the monitoring or regulatory basis of that remark. Each communication unit is assigned (by identifying numbers) to each category based on the following: REASONING OPERATIONS IN READING AND WRITING The first decision is about comment is about reading or writing. whether particular For writing, the first digit is a 1, and for reading it is a 2. 2 the text--related reader or writer has at any point in the to the genre, or text (no specified guess or content, expectation; moving in no spscific direction) Writing: "What will I write about?" don't "I know what I'm going to do." "Now I'm kind of wondering about where did it come from.""Let's see, what are some other things they have." (coded 1.1) Reading: sort can't tell what it means." "... and I got "I the prairie dogs saved the land." suppositions the how (coded 2.1) writer makes at including choice of words, utterance, the wondering of confused around there." "I was point the predictions or reader makes about what the genre is of about, what the fun,:tion of a particular piece of text is, or about the answer to a question, based on that specific portion of the text. "When Jill was, let's say seven." Writing: goes into a knot." had a bad 'toffee'." Reading: its "Maybe, it "If I should describe it or say reputation." "I'm just going to it say (coded 1.2) "They're probably big and stuff." "So maybe about a new kid coming to a new school." 3 "I just found out that this could be an essay." what (coded 2.2) will be "said" in succeeding portions of the text including choice of words, makes or predictions the reader about what will be "said" in succeeding portions of the text Writing: "I'm going to write about something exciting happening." "I think it will be a tall man." Reading: stuff." (coded 1.3) "It'll probably tell what they're doing "Maybe later on, the boys will realize and she's ok." (coded 2.3) what might now be "said" in preceding portions of text, the including word choice, or hunches the reader has about past meanings Writing: of "Maybe I should change Western to both kinds saddles." "I might (now) describe the person in the shuttle or something." (coded 1.4) Reading? "Maybe it meant like rain and stuff." (coded 2.4) explanation or elaboration, or meanings the reader takes for granted without textual evidence Writing: "That sort of tells it all." "In 4 311 a little short story, it's not enough really." (coded 1.5) Reading: "There's nothing to think about." "Right there I knew it was a weapon." (coded 2.5) based on the genre, content, or text Writing: "The hammerhead shark is the world." "She largest in the thought she had tied her shoe." "They have populations of really small cities." (coded 1.6) Reading: "There are hardly any left." "This tells me the mole has wierd ears." "A different school might be different from her school." drawn upon by Writing: (coded 2.6) the writer or reader "Those were the kind I liked." "I practice a lot everyday." "Sports are my main interest." "I don't remember when I went to nursery school." (coded 1.7) Reading: "I've never been sent to bed without dinner." "I can see this kid going to my teacher and saying hi." (coded 2.7) and judgments being made about what is written or read. Writing: "That's not right." "That sounds dumb." "They are different ideas." "Oh, I was wrong..." (coded 1.8) Reading: "That's not so." "It's pretty "That's funny." good." (coded 2.8) 5 312 writer or reader Writing: "The flying and jumping could go together to make a great big flying leap." (coded 1.9) Reading: "They talked tough and acted tough and fought with him". (coded 2.9) writer's or reader's use or non-use particular of content information Writing: "I decided not to use it." "No, I won't do that. "I might put these things in different words." coded 1.10) Reading: "I kept on reading (the ideas)." "That's the only thing I can think of." (coded 2.10) or reader's use or non-use of particular surface features of the text itself Writing: choppy "Some and of these sentences are short and some different order." are long." "I might put "I put we instead of when." these in "Put a comma there." (coded 1.11) Reading: "The quotes mean she's talking." (coded 2.11) the explanations the writer provides, the writer develops or the to answer a question, 6 313 evidence carry out a hypothesis, or fill in a schemata, or information the reader gathers or explanations the reader provides answer a question, hypothesis. or to confirm or to disconfirm a Includes all direct or implied statements of causality. Writing: "...because you can get hurt on the right side." "cause its expensive." "That's how I know how to spell penny loafers." (coded 1.12) Reading: to make "You can tell he's the leader." "He's trying a fight." "Cause it says it was small furry animal called a mole." made by a (coded 2.12) the plan was fulfilled or a decision made Writing: they're "That's like." what it was." "So he had a fight." "I to." "All right, that's about it." Reading: "Well, that's what decided not (coded 1.13) "So, the prairie dog was a hero." "I've seen it before." "OK, that tells me the same thing." "So the title doesn't fit really." )coded 2.13) 7 STRATEGIES USED IN READING AND WRITING 1.(G) Generating Ideas - getting started, becoming aware of reIeva:.: ideas and experiences, and beginning to plan and organize the material in an appropriate fashion. 2.(RF) Refining Meaning consid3ring choosing developing the message, audience, language, drawing linking on personal concepts, experience, summarizing, and paraphrasing 3.(EM) Evaluating Meaning - reviewing, reacting, and monitoring the development of the message and the piece itself 4.(RV) Revising - reconsidering and restructuring the message, knowing meaning has broken down, and taking appropriate action Text Unit 1.(L) Local attention is Locussed on localized points - within the text 2.(G) Global - attention is focusses on the overall message of the entire piece DATA SOURCE 1.(G) Genre - reference organizational to the specific Content and the structure and presentation of ideas peculiar to that genre 2. (C) genre reference to the topic is self 8 315 Text - reference to the linguistic material contained in the 3.(T) text--syntax, vocabulary, cohesive ties READER'S OR WRITER'S FOCUS 1.(PS) Process - thoughts about strategies that have been or could be used, or thinking about thinking in general 2.(PD) Product - thoughts about the piece itself TIME IN READING OR WRITING EXPERIENCE 1.(B) Before - before the first word has been written or read 2.(D) During - during the period when text is consiously being read or words written After - thoughts reported after the text has been 3.(A) read pen laid down at end of draft Monitoring Behaviors in Reading and Writing 1. Awareness of Own Approaches . 1 Aware of task goals/demands "I'll think of a ti le." "It was like my last report." "IlY not really sure what I'm going to write about." . 2 Awe_'- of sub-goals "So I don't know how to start the next part." "I don't know how to get to him giving the answer." or . 3 Aware of genre/discourse structure "If it's a report, let's see." "Now I want a good summary sentence." "I need to do that to develop the paragraph." . 4 Aware of grammatical routines and mechanical features "I don't know what to so with this sentence." of these sentences are short and choppy." "Its pretty "Some hard to spell 'goalie.' . 5 Aware of available (or unavailable) lexical repertoire "I can't think of the word I want." "I didn't know what that word meant." . 6 Aware of statements of meaning "I didn't know what to do with that topic." "I don't know how to write what I'm going to write about." . 7 Aware of refinements of meaning "I know that." "I didn't know what to do that topic." "So I've taken the information from the text and re-worded it." 2. Uses Self-Regulating Mechanisms . 1 Formulates task/topic goals "I'll write a report about sharks." . with 2 Formulates sub goals 10 317 I'll tell how to get on them and then how to "First ride "If I should describe it or say it had a bad them." reputation." . 3 Uses genre/discourse features "I want to say she learned to tie her shoes in story talk." . 4 Uses grammatical routines or mechanical features "He were, say 'he letter." I mean, he was." "I don't know if I should or 'he was." "See, is' "And I didn't put a I put a comma lower case after 'great.'" . 5 Makes lexical choices "Now, the right word." "Antics probably means his what's way of doing things." . 6 states Meaning "I want to say she learned to tie her shoes." "He wants to figure out how to be friends with them." . 7 Refines Meaning "I'll keep reading." "It's a bow, start oft with forget the people, technology." a large influx of not a knot." "So I people--no, that's not as important as improved "That sounds strange." "Maybe it goes into a knot." "I'm just stuck." 11 If a comment to notions more than one subsection within both may be listed on the coding sheet. category, is includes be are avoided whenever possible and used directly stated and connot be a However, this only separated both when into two communication units that can stand on their own. Certain above, remarks will not fall into any of the categories and listed some may be applicable for all but one category more). These are to be coded as "0" for other. 12 (or Appendix rsz Supplementary Tables 1 320 Supplementary Table 1 Reasoning Operations Mean Percent (n) Questions Mean SD (14) 5.4 11.8 9.2 16.4 0.0 0.0 7.5 21.4 Grade 6 Mean SD (58) 6.4 8.1 12.2 12.4 3.1 4.9 Grade 9 Mean (21) 8.8 19.2 19.6 15.5 Mean SD (93) 6.8 11.9 Mean SD (13) Grade 6 Mean SD Grade 9 Reading Grade 3 Validations Schemata 2.7 4.7 29.3 42.7 45.9 45.6 6.6 13.5 7.5 8.G 11.4 24.0 52.8 30.9 2.4 5.5 4.6 7.9 7.7 8.4 16.9 26.2 40.0 32.8 13.4 14.1 2.5 4.7 6.3 13.8 6.8 8.2 15.3 28.4 48.9 33.9 18.5 25.2 13.3 19.9 1.6 23.2 17.1 2.0 3.1 4.8 13.8 37.8 39.0 (53) 12.1 16.9 16.9 16.7 1.7 5.9 22.0 16.6 4.3 6.1 7.6 17.5 35.4 30.4 Mean SD (21) 4.0 6.7 24.6 22.5 .3 1.0 16.4 15.9 4.0 7.6 15.9 29.9 34.7 32.7 Mean (87) 11.1 17.1 18.2 18.8 1.2 4.7 20.9 16.5 3.9 6.1 9.2 20.9 35.6 32.0 (180) 8.9 14.8 15.7 16.7 1.8 4.7 13.3 16.8 5.4 7.4 12.4 25.1 42.5 33.6 SD Taal Reading Writing Grade 3 Total Writing Hypoth- Assump- MetaEvieses tions Comments dence SD .5 Total Mean SD Significant Multivariate Effects (transformed variables)1 Grade: Domain: F[14,90] = 1.72, p <.065 F[7,99] mg 11.30, p <.001 Mode x Domain: F[7,99] = 3.63, p <.002 lOn tests of sigrtficance, see Chapter 2. 2 321 Supplementary Table 2 Awareness of Own Approaches Mean Percent Reading Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 9 Total Reading Writing Grade 3 (n) Goals SubGoals Mean SD (14) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 5.6 .6 .2 2.2 .6 Mean SD (58) .8 .2 .9 .7 2.8 1.2 1.9 4.8 4.1 Mean SD (21) 1.6 4.4 0.0 0.0 Mean (93) 1.8 4.8 .6 .6 3.4 SD .3 .1 1.2 .6 Genre Mechanics Lexicon .5 .2 2.3 1.0 13.6 27.0 4.8 12.7 3.3 2.5 6.2 Refine State Meaning Meaning 22.0 29.6 22.5 2.3 15.3 18.4 4.7 8.8 .6 19.5 3.1 20.4 9.1 23.5 2.4 17.2 20.7 15.6 0.0 0.0 19.5 29.3 10.5 14,3 8.3 6.3 Mean SD (13) Grade 6 Mean SD (53) 2.7 7.6 5.5 8.9 2.2 4.2 2.3 6.0 1.9 5.1 10.4 12.5 10.3 12.7 Grade 9 Mean SD (21) 4.3 12.0 4.8 9.4 2.8 4.2 1.1 2.3 .6 1.6 13.3 13.7 2.9 5.9 Mean SD (87) 4.7 13.6 5.2 9.5 2.1 4.1 2.0 5.4 1.3 4.1 12.4 16.4 12.0 Mean SD (180) 2.6 9.8 2.6 7.1 2.0 4.4 1.3 4.5 1.0 3.3 14.9 18.9 7.4 14.0 Total Writing .9 8.6 Total Significant Multivariate Effects (transformed variables) Male: Domain: Grade x Domain: F[7,45] = 2.03, p <.072 F[7,99] = 6.35, p <.001 F[14,198] = 1.95, p <.023 3 Supplementary Table 3 Use of Self Regulating Mechanisms Mean Percent Reading Grade 3 Mean (n) Goals Subgoals (14) .7 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.2 1.2 2.4 SD Grade 6 Grade 9 Total Reading Writing Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 9 Total Writing Mean SD (58) Mean SD (21) Mean (93) SD Mean SD (13) Mean SD (53) Mean SD (21) Mean SD (87) Mean SD (180) Genre Mechanics Lexicon Refines Meaning 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .2 .3 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.8 States Meaning .6 26.9 41.7 39.7 39.7 0.0 0.0 .1 .5 18.6 26.7 55.2 34.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .2 .7 22.3 34.0 45.0 40.6 .2 .8 .2 .8 0.0 0.0 .1 .6 20.7 30.8 50.6 36.8 4.4 7.1 3.6 6.9 1.5 .6 3.8 2.1 1.3 4.6 10.4 17.4 26.4 32.5 3.6 6.1 5.9 9.1 2.0 4.7 .4 3.0 4.9 14.3 22.1 35.4 31.8 3.2 6.8 4.5 6.2 .4 .8 1.1 2.3 4.3 7.6 20.9 27.8 36.3 29.8 3.7 6.3 5.2 8.2 1.5 4.0 .5 3.0 5.6 15.3 23.0 34.3 31.3 2.3 5.0 2.6 6.2 .8 .3 2.9 1.2 1.5 4.2 18.1 27.4 42.7 35.1 1.4 1.7 .2 Total Significant Multivariate Effects (transformed variables) Domain: Mode x Genre: F[7,99] = 9.15, p <.001 F(7,99) = 3.86, p <.001 4 323 Supplementary Table 4 Reading and Writing Strategies Mean Percent (n) Reading Grade 3 GenEval- Revising Formulating erating uating Mean SD (14) 1.4 4.0 16.6 21.9 27.8 42.2 54.2 44.0 Grade 6 Mean SD (58) 5.6 10.9 22.9 19.4 12.5 24.7 59.0 34.3 Grade 9 Mean SD (21) 8.1 19.4 22.7 25.1 23.8 39.2 45.4 36.9 Mean SD (93) 5.5 12.7 21.9 21.1 17.4 31.7 55.2 36.5 Mean SD (13) 22.1 19.8 22.6 28.2 10.4 22.1 44.9 38.0 Grade 6 Mean SD (53) 15.7 17.8 19.6 17.1 12.6 26.3 52.1 33.2 Grade 9 Mean SD (21) 8.5 17.6 29.3 19.2 15.8 27.6 46.4 36.1 Mean SD (87) 14.9 18.4 22.4 19.7 13.0 25.8 49.7 34.4 Mean SD (180) 10.1 16.4 22.1 20.4 15.3 29.0 52.5 35.5 Total Reading Writing Grade 3 Total Writing Total Significant Multivariate Effects (transformed variables) Grade: Domain: Grade x Domain: Mode x Genre: F[8,96] F[4,102] F[8,204] F[4,102] = = = = 5 2.23, 7.55, 2.19, 4.61, 324 p p p p < < < < .032 .001 .030 .002 Supplementary Table 5 Attention to Global Units (Y.) Reading Grade 3 Mean (14) 37.6 48.6 (58) 26.3 34.8 SD Grade 6 Mean Mean Percent SD Grade 9 Mean SD (21) 33.6 45.0 Total Reading Mean SD (93) 29.7 39.3 Writing Grade 3 Mean (13) 52.8 36.7 SD Grade 6 Mean SD (53) 35.0 38.0 Grade 9 Mean SD (21) 42.4 39.1 Total Writing Mean SD (87) 39.4 38.2 Mean SD (180) 34.4 39.0 Total Significant Effects (transformed variable) Domain: Grade x Genre: Grade x Domain: Mode x Domain: Passage Difficulty (grade 6): 6325 F[1,105] F[2,105] F[2,105] F[1,105] F[1,25] = 25.20, p <.001 = 2.86, p <.062 = 3.81, p <.025 = 4.56, p <.035 = 6.33, p <.017 Supplementary Table 6 Data Source Mean Percent (n) Genre Text Content Mean SD (14) 1.8 5.6 35.0 47.9 63.2 47.0 Grade 6 Mean SD (58) 2.8 6.0 17.9 34.3 79.3 35.7 Grade 9 Mean SD (21) .7 3.4 31.8 43.6 67.4 44.6 Mean SD (93) 2.2 5.5 23.6 39.0 74.2 39.9 Mean SD (13) 7.1 15.0 26.9 42.2 65.9 41.P Grade 6 Mean SD (53) 4.0 8.8 25.0 34.7 71.0 34.7 Grade 9 Mean SD (21) 4.2 6.6 32.7 40.5 63.1 41.3 Total Writing Mean SD (87) 4.5 9.4 27.1 37.0 68.4 36.0 Mean SD (180) 3.3 7.7 25.3 38.0 71.4 38.5 Reading Grade 3 Total Reading Writing Grade 3 Total Significant Multivariate Effects (transformed variables) Mode: Domain: Grade x Genre: Passage Difficulty (Grade 6): 7 F[3,49] F[3,103] F[6,206] F[3,29] = = = = 2.52, 4.96, 2.73, 2.52, p p p p <.069 <.003 <.014 <.078 Supplementary Table 7 Attention to Process (n) Mean Percent Reading Grade 3 Mean SD (14) 35.6 45.2 Grade 6 Mean SD (58) 22.2 35.5 Grade 9 Mean SD (21) 28.5 41.7 Total Reading Mean SD (93) 25.6 38.3 Grade 3 Mean SD (13) 42.8 43.5 Grade 6 Mean SD (53) 35,6 34.0 Grade 9 Mean SD (21) 35.2 39.6 Total Writing Mean SD (87) 36.6 36.5 Mean SD (180) 30.9 37.8 Writing Total Significant Effects (transformed variable) Domain: Grade x Genre: F[1,105] = 33.79, p <.001 F[2,105] = 4.20, p <.018 432'7 Appendix V Mode Effects Effects of Mode (Talk-aloud versus Retrospective) on Results for the Analysis of Meaning Construction 32s 1 'I 1. .1.-=11611, including mode, Significant multivariate effects, noted supplementary in mode Since occurred. metPodological explicated tables 1 through 6 whenever effects were minimal, and rather than in chapter are of are category For 6. they they rather than substantive interest, here are see chapter 6 and descriptions and details of the analyses, appendix X. Reasoning operations. Differences between the retrospective and think-aloud modes occurred infrequently, in interaction multivariate pith effect reading/writing differences validations significant, for mode x domain was (F[1,105] = 10.91, = (F[1,105] procedure p <.001) p <.04). 4.28, occur more general p frequently metacomments and which validations, For in the on-line increased the proportion of comments for reading in reading, while having no effect on 10 percent to 20 percent), results for writing (9 and 10 percent for talk retrospective conditions, respectively). procedure increased )roportion of and the on- comments for while slightly writing (from 18 to 24 percenl..) aloud For metacomments, which in general occur more frequently in writing, line (the Univariate interaction effects were significant for <.002). (from and then only decreasing the proportion for reading (from 8 to 5 percent). Monitoring. In the multivarim:e analyses, mode effects were significant for awareness (p <.07), awareness and use (p <.08). condition tended to as well as for combined In general, the retrospective increase the amount of 2 _ 329 attention to simple statements of meaning (F[1,51] = 4.80, about percentage 3 points for attention and corresponding decreases in-process decisions about such monitoring operations, comments pattern: For use domain x reflecting a similar use about general genre mechanics, of as individually the multivariate mode interaction was significant, in features or lexical choices (though genre, percentage 5 shifts were not statistically significant). these of with reading, to mechanics, points for writing by p <.033), characteristics, or lexical choices were more likely in the talk-aloud the retrospective condition than for writing, though for reading such comments hardly occurred at all in either condition. Univariate effects were significant at the .05 level or better for each of these aspects of use. Reading and Writing Strategies. significant not was there in the multivariate Univariate in revising (F[1,105] both analyses = 13.36, p >.001) percent however, p genre x that >.004) categories. evaluating remained constant for stories of modes (at betYleen 20 and 21 sharply indicate the evaluating (F[1,105]=8.49, occurred proportion analyses; significant multivariate mode a interaction. Main effects for mode were percent), but this and The in decreased in the retrospective condition for reports (from 20 in the retrospectives). remaining think to clouds Revising showed 16 the the percent in opposite pattern, constant for reports (at 14 to 15 percent), but declining for stories from 22 percent in the think aloucls to 10 percent in the retrospectives). 3 330 Text Mode Unit. interaction with proportion in percent domain (p were sig_ificant In <.04). only for (38 percent for the the but retrospectives), in the constant alouds think in writing, of global comments remained relatively modes both effects vs. 41 reading the proportion of global comments dropped from 34 percent in the think alouds to 25 percent in the retrospectives. Data Source. seemed be caused by a greater number to comments Mode effects were significant, p <.07. in the talk-aloud mode, of These text-focussed particularly for writing; the univariate mode x domain interaction was significant, [1,105] = 3.77, p >.055. F This difference, as similar mode differences presented above, seems to reflect the fact that surface or mechanical features dealt with by writers as they through pass problems. the a text usually pose relatively transient These are more likely to be commented on actual act of writing, and are not well during remembered afterwards. Focus. The mode x domain interaction was significant. For concern with process averaged 37 percent for both writing, the think aloud and the the retrospective on-line condition; think-aloud for procedure reading, however, increased the proportion of process oriented comments ho 32 percent (versus 19 percent for the retrospective condition).