Writing

Annotated Research

Question: How do successful and unsuccessful writers respond to writing assignments?

Answer: “Successful writers use social and academic knowledge to write; unsuccessful writers adopt formulas taught them or invent their own.” SA Gerring. 1990. P. 243.

Comment: Sounds like successful writers focus on content, but already know how to organize their writing. Sounds like unsuccessful writers struggle with the organizational schemes, rather than content. That sounds a bit simplistic. Probably unsuccessful writers struggle not only with organization, but with grammar, spelling and surface problems of writing. They don’t have time to focus on content with these worries on their minds. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1991), 236.

Writing Assignments

Annotated Research

Question: What do students respond to when given writing assignments?

Answer: “Found that students’ responses to assignments depended on what they were actually rewarded for producing.” J Nelson. 1990. P. 241.

Comment: Makes sense. Should lead to more careful analysis of writing assignments before they are given. Have students construct rubrics consisting of expectations. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1991), 236.

Friendly Letters and Learning

Annotated Research

 Question: What can Sixth-graders learn from writing letters to teacher education students and vice-versa?

Answer: “Writing letters to teacher education students was rewarding both personally and as a learning experience for sixth graders.” M Crowhurst. 1990). P. 239.

Comment: From this summary, no details about what the students wrote to the teacher education students. What were the topics? What did the students learn from the teacher education students? What did the teacher education students learn from the sixth-graders? I think the possibilities of this activity are enormous. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1991), 236.

Parents

Annotated Research

Question: What roles can parents play in their children’s learning in language arts?

Answer: “Parents could serve as models as readers, writers, and learners while…in a home setting.” EB Teat. 1990. P. 238.

Comment: I think this role for parents is perhaps not emphasized enough. RayS.

 Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1991), 236.

Young Children's Writing of Exposition

Research

Question: How do young children differ in their knowledge of narrative forms of writing and expository forms of writing?

Answer/Quote: “Very little is known about children’s knowledge of critical features of expository text…, especially with regard to their use of that knowledge  in writing…. This is in stark contrast to the extensive information that exists about children’s understanding of narrative forms…. “ p. 179.

 Quote: “Our tentative conclusion, that children learn to write exposition, at least the more complex forms of it, through reading experiences leads us to challenge the well documented practice of severely limited exposure of children to exposition during the elementary school years…. That children, even at an early age, could learn important information about expository text suggests that there is no legitimate reason for protecting children from experience with such text. In fact, it would seem wise to provide children with substantial opportunities to read and use a variety of well written expository texts.” P. 207.

Comment: In the past, research has been very clear that the amount of narrative reading in the elementary school is much greater than exposure to expository reading. The consequences are that children have little understanding of the kinds of reading and writing that increase with grade levels. I wonder if that has changed in 2012? RayS.

Title: “Children’s Knowledge of Organization, Cohesion, and Voice in Written Exposition.” BE Cox, T Shanahan, and MB Tinzmann. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1991), 179-218,

Constructivism in Reading and Writing

Research

 Question: How do you define “constructivism” in reading and writing?

Answer/Quote: “Constructivism has been proposed as a theory which accounts for the role of prior knowledge in reading and writing….. Readers and writers construct meaning in that readers bring their intentions, prior knowledge, and prior textual experiences to bear on ideas and linguistic cues in source texts while writers compose a draft which reconciles prior knowledge and textual experience with their rhetorical and linguistic aims…. Reading comprehension and composing processes in writing are comparable in that both processes result in a mental representation of a new text…. with writing additionally resulting in a tangible product.” Pp. 133-134.

Comment: I’m a little out of my comfort zone here. What I do understand is that prior experience of a topic leads to constructing meaning in reading and writing.

What I also have learned is that more prior experience with a topic leads to better comprehension in reading, making it important to build up the students’ knowledge of a topic before having them read about a topic. With writing, the more you know about a topic, the better you understand what you don’t know, leading to new knowledge. That’s it so far as my knowledge of “constructivism” goes. RayS.

Title: “Reading, Writing, and Knowing: The Role of Disciplinary Knowledge in Comprehension and Composing.” John M. Ackerman. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1991), 133-178.

An Untapped Resource for Explaining Teaching

Question: Why should teachers tell their stories about teaching?

Answer/Quote: “Remember the power you have as a teacher—the power of a smile, a touch, a look, an encouraging word. Through telling our stores, we collectively are telling the truth—a powerful accomplishment, because story is the most powerful way to get an idea across. We need to tell our stories for the sake of our children, our profession, this country, and its future. We are teachers and we touch the future and we are in this for the long haul, not the quarterly report.”

“I challenge you. I implore you. Go forth and tell your stories far and wide.”

“Believe me, telling your stories will not be for naught. You all matter, because teaching is a calling not just a job—as we all know.” P. 328.

Comment: This eloquent call for teachers to tell their stories, to tell what they do, was taken from a speech by the president of the National Council of Teachers of English, Yvonne Siu-Runyan. Many of these stories, of course, appear in professional journals as teachers introduce problems that they will attempt to solve in the articles that follow. I told my stories about my life as an English teacher and as an English K-12 supervisor in a book entitled, Teaching English, How To…. (2004, Xlibris). Nobody read it. Not even my “friends.” The stories are good. In conversations, people listen, spellbound, as I repeat the stories that I put in the book, but they will not read them. I guess I just have not found the right vehicle for telling my stories.

I have stories about how I learned to teach grammar, how I published my first article in a professional journal, how I learned to teach spelling effectively, how I learned to teach speed reading, how I learned to teach writing, how I learned to help students develop their reading skills in the content areas, how I learned to be an effective K-12 English supervisor, etc. RayS.

Title: “The 2011 NCTE Presidential Address: Telling Our Stories….” Yvonne Siu-Runyan. Research in the Teaching of English (February 2012), 317-329.

Spanglish

Research

Question: How can “Spanglish” be used as a literacy tool?

Note: “The 2011 Alan C. Purves Award Committee is pleased to announce this year’s award recipient, Ramon Antonio Martinez. His article, “Spanglish as Literacy tool: Toward an Understanding the Potential Role of Spanglish-English Code-Switching in the Development of Academic Literacy (Research in the Teaching of English Vol. 25, No. 2, November 2010, provides compelling and relevant perspective on Spanglish as a pedagogical resource, not merely a linguistic or cultural phenomenon.” P. 314.

Answer/Quote: “Ramon Martinez’s fine-grained qualitative study, conducted in a sixth-grade English language arts class in East Los Angeles, illustrates the substantial linguistic complexity and sophistication employed by bilingual middle school students. As he observes the students speaking, joking, arguing—sometimes in English, sometimes in Spanish—Martinez focuses on the ways they utilize Spanglish to create meaning, rather than merely to compensate for lack of proficiency in one language or the other. This ‘deficit rationale[ theory about Spanglish—that code-switching is a response to lack of linguistic skill—is so dominant that even students in Martinez’s previous studies have cited it to explain why they employ Spanglish. In fact, as Martinez amply demonstrates through first-hand observational data and solid application of theory, code-switching is a sophisticated linguistic skill that instructors and students can employ to further academic literacy. His article provides a blueprint for leveraging students’ code-switching skills into greater meta-cognitive awareness and new learning.” P. 314.

Comment: A different way of looking at a phenomenon that has always been considered a deficit in learning a language. And code-switching can be used in other situations as well. Interesting. Note a previous article about having English learners translating the textbook in English into their native language and what this teaches the students about English. RayS.

Title: “Announcing the 2011 Alan C. Purves Award Recipient.” Research in the Teaching of English (February 2012), 314-316.

College Remediation

Research

Question: What is the cost of remediation for students accepted into college but requiring remediation services?

Answer/Quote: “Disjuncture between secondary and postsecondary writing proficiency expectations results in remediation for many first-year students admitted to community colleges, colleges, and universities….. The cost associated with the remediation is staggering. Michigan researchers estimate a cost of $601 million for that state…, and the College Board has recently estimated that $17 billion is spent annually on remediation each year….” P. 285.

Comment: Not to mentions disruption in the students’ college careers, extending them to five years or more. RayS.

Title: “Placement of Students into First-Year Writing Courses.” N Elliot, P Deess, A Rudniy, and K Joshi. Research in the Teaching of English (February 2012), 285-313.

Why Literature?

Research

Question: Why study literature in school?

Answer: “…so students can examine their lives, the ultimate learning target of literature study.” P. 257.

Comment: Well, that’s one purpose for studying literature—one of many. I wonder if we have ever told students that learning about their own lives is a purpose for studying literature, and I wonder, if we did tell them, whether they would believe it? I even wonder if we have given students a purpose for reading a literary selection? Have we asked them what they think is the reason is for the teacher’s selecting a literary work to read? Have we asked them “What have you learned about yourself as a result of reading this piece of literature?”  If students are reading a “realistic” Young Adult novel, these questions might be answered more easily. What about the classics? RayS.

Title: “Permeable Textual Discussion in Tracked Language Arts Classrooms.” Kristine Gritter. Research in the Teaching of English (February 2012),232-259.

Social Inequality and Schools

Research

Question: How do school mechanisms contribute to social inequities in the treatment of students.?

Answer/Quote: “The articles in this issue of Research in the Teaching of English highlight the ways in which mechanisms of schooling such as tracking, portfolios, and assessment continue to sort students in inequitable ways.” P. 229.

Quote: . “…the authors all point to the sorting mechanisms that are embedded within American education. They suggest that tracking—as well as most forms of assessment, including portfolios and tests—act as markers of continued social stratification within schooling.” P. 231.

Comment: Gee, I was under the impression that tracking had gone the way of the dodo bird. When I was teaching, tracking was a means to put students together who had high IQ’s and/or better motivation together for quicker learning. It didn’t work then. There were still students who were at the bottom of the Academic A track who were moved into the Academic B track the next year. And no matter how they were grouped, students were still individuals with strengths and weaknesses. However, I can understand that tests and even portfolios can result in sorting students into “homogeneous” groupings. On the surface, it’s not a humane way to deal with human beings. But football coaches routinely do it. And the inequities stand out regardless of the groupings. It’s a dilemma. RayS.

Title: “Editors’ Introduction: Tracking, Assessment, and Persistent Problems of Inequity. M Dressman, S McCarthey  and P Prior, editors. Research in the Teaching of English (February 2012), 229-231.

Censorship

Annotated Research

Question: What percentage of books which people objected to were removed or restricted?

Answer: [English department chairs in Arizona] “…reported that about 25 percent of objections to books resulted in removal or restrictions of the books.” DD Melichar. 1988. P. 222.

Comment: That’s a higher “success” rate than I would have expected. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.

Writing in Kindergarten after Read-Alouds

Annotated Research

Question: How do books read aloud affect the writing of kindergartners?

Answer: “Children were strongly affected by the kind of book read to them.” JM Mason. 1988. P. 220.

Comment: My wife, Barbara Stopper, created paperbacks in which her first-grade students wrote. Barbara folded sheets of 8 1/2” x 11” paper in half, lengthwise. Stapled them. The results? The students copied the formats of the books read to them. They would write on one-half of each sheet and illustrate on the other half of each sheet. They created their own covers. Of course, they used their own experiences, not the books’. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.

Reading, Writing and Thinking

Annotated Research

Question: What are the relationships among reading, writing and thinking?

Answer: “Found a strong relationship between reading, writing, and thinking.” JJF Harrington. 1987. P. 220.

Comment: I guess we all knew that didn’t we? Still it’s nice to have the relationships verified. Would like to know how thinking was measured. The title mentions “inference.” RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.

Reading and Writing in Journals

Annotated Research

Question: What did students write about reading in their journals?

Answer: “A content analysis of students’ journal entries about texts indicated that such entries made students more aware of what they did not understand.” A Crismore. (1987). P. 219.

Comment: Another reason to have students respond in writing to what they read. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.

Punctuation

Annotated Research

Question: What is the relationship between punctuation marks and auditory “imagery”?

Answer: “Found a relation between punctuation units (stretches of language between punctuation marks and the intonation units of speech, based in part on the auditory imagery of intonation, accents, and hesitation that both readers and writers experience.” W Chafe. 1988. P. 219.

Comment: Suggests that students internalize the “imagery” of intonation, accents and hesitation when reading aloud. Interesting. Can use as a basis for teaching punctuation. Might begin a unit on punctuation by having students read aloud, noting the punctuation in the material read. Remember that spoken essay by the pianist who was so funny, Victor Borge? He invented sounds of the various punctuation marks. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.

Predictor of Reading Achievement

Annotated Research

Question: What is the best predictor of reading achievement?

 Answer: “Reading books outside of school was the best predictor of reading achievement, but on most days, children did little or no book reading.”  RC Anderson, PT Wilson and CG Fielding. 1988. P. 218.

Comment: I’m not surprised that reading of books outside of school is a good predictor of reading achievement. Obviously, if they read outside of school, they know how to read. And have an interest in reading. However, the second part of the finding—that on most days, children did not read books outside of school—negates the predictability. If they don’t read books outside of school, you have nothing to use to predict. I guess it’s a kind of Catch-22. Discouraging. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.

Reading Comprehension

Question: How much does prior knowledge affect reading comprehension?

Answer: “Indicated the important role of prior knowledge in reading comprehension.” JA Adames. 1987. P. 217.

 Comment: The more students know about a topic before reading, the better they will comprehend what they read about that topic. Points up the importance of teachers’ preparing students with background information for what they are about to read. An important element in the directed reading assignment. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.

Science and Literature

Question: How do science articles and literary criticism differ in their approach to argument?

Answer: “Science articles open and reopen questions of fact, classification and cause ,,,while literary critical articles seem to concern issues of value  that are to a great extent already granted by their audience.” J Fahnestock and M Secor. 19988. P. 217.

Comment: Highlights the differences between scientific criticism and literary criticism. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.

Audience

Question: Which audiences do students adapt for: non-academic or academic?

Answer: “Writing for a non-academic audience, college students perceiving differences in audience’s knowledge adapted their texts, while students writing for an academic audience did not adapt their texts despite perceiving differences in audience knowledge.” E Odoroff. 1987. P. 215.

Comment: Well, I guess audience differences in knowledge of non-academics was perceived as significant, while academics are academics regardless of differences in knowledge. The students probably perceived that essential knowledge is present that enables the audience to understand what is written. I guess. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.

Revision

Annotated Research

Question: Does revision on word processors affect the quality of students’ writing?

Answer: “Total number of revisions made by students who wrote using computers was significantly greater than for those students who wrote by hand, but this difference did not influence the analytic scale for overall quality.” MJ Lytle. 1987. P. 214.

Comment: Increased number of revisions did not add up to better quality writing. Interesting. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.

Word Processing and Planning

Annotated Research

Question: How much planning occurs when using word processing?

Answer: “When word processing, writers did less planning.” C Haas. 1988. P. 213.

Comment: That’s the second study I have read concerning word processing and planning. Both agree. There is less planning when using the word processor. The corollary is that more planning occurs when using paper and pencil. When I don’t know what I am going to write, I always begin by brainstorming with paper and pencil. When I know what I am going to write, like memos, I use the word processor. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” Ed. JD Marshall and RK Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (May 1989), 208-222.