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).