Topic Sentences in Academic Writing

Annotated Research

 Question: Do students use topic sentences in academic writing?

Answer: “Found a heavy reliance on topic sentences and topic sentence-like features, such as headings.” RL Popken. 1987. P. 432.

Comment: Of course. Aids in readability, flow from beginning to end, organization. Why wouldn’t students use topic sentences in academic writing? [Well, one reason they might not is when the paragraph is broken up in order to reduce length of the paragraph. Then the paragraph is an extension of the original topic sentence.] RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” RK Durst and JD Marshall. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 422-443.

Persuasive Writing

Annotated Research

Question: What is an effective method for preparing students to write persuasive essays?

Answer: “Found that role playing with partners was more effective than lectures and examples in improving persuasive writing.” BJ Wagner. 1986. Pp. 428-429.

Comment: Did not reveal the nature of the role-playing. Scripted? Unscripted? Still an interesting idea. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” RK Durst and JD Marshall. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 422-443.

Models in Writing

Annotated Research

Question: How prevent students from reproducing content when using models?

Answer: “Found that model-reading will not result in content reproduction if students select their essay topics before reading a model.” JN Shimabukurd. 1986. P. 428.

Comment: Makes sense. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” RK Durst and JD Marshall. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 422-443.

Revision

Annotated Research

Question: Can teachers’ comments help children to revise?

Answer: “Indicated that prompting revision by teacher probes can produce better writing than can more generalized comments.” A Robinson. 1985. P. 427.

Comment: Not sure what is meant by “teacher probes.” But I can guess. If the comments produce revision, they are “teacher probes.” RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” RK Durst and JD Marshall. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 422-443.

Revision

Annotated Research

Question: Does instruction in revising help with revising?

Answer: “Found that revision instruction influenced revision behaviors.” VLB Olson. 1986. P. 427.

Comment: Teaching students how to revise works. A number of other research studies confirm it. This annotation does not specify which revision behaviors were taught. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” RK Durst and JD Marshall. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 422-443.

Peer Response Groups

Annotated Research

Question: What attitudes help peer response groups help student writers?

Answer: “Groups exhibited trust, support, and helping and these behaviors carried over into other class activities.” MVH McManus. 1986. P. 427.

Comment: Maybe part of the training for peer response needs to be training in a positive attitude. One thing is for sure: peer response groups need to be trained in how to help student writers grow. A negative response attitude won't do it. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” RK Durst and JD Marshall. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 422-443.

Word Processing

Annotated Research

Question: What is the value of word processing in writing?

Answer: “Showed that students learned basic word processing skills quickly and that the use of word processing had motivational value.” RJ Kurth. 1986. P. 426.

Comment: I didn’t need this research to tell me the value of word processing in improving attitude toward writing. The positive attitude of my students demonstrated word processing’s value to students. Whether it improves the quality of writing is another question. RayS,

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” RK Durst and JD Marshall. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 422-443.

Feedback on Writing

Annotated Research

Question: What are the different effects between peer and teacher feedback on writing?

Answer: “Found no significant differences in writing development between students who received peer feedback and students who received teacher feedback.” RS Boss. 1986. Pp. 424-425.

Comment: One way of interpreting this finding is to let students provide feedback on other students’ writing, thus saving teacher time. I’ll have to test this finding myself. But first I need to know what is meant by “writing development.” Raises more questions than it answers. RayS.

Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” RK Durst and JD Marshall. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 422-443.

Professions

Annotated Research

Question: When it comes to communication needs, how do professions differ?

Answer: They don't. “Found few differences among professions with all those surveyed stressing communication skills.” LR Smeltzer and KA Gebert. 1986. P. 424.

Comment: Take the time to think about a list of communication skills. RayS.

 Title: “Annotated Bibliography of Research in the Teaching of English.” RK Durst and JD Marshall. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 422-443.

Editing

Question: What is the nature of editing?

Answer: One finding of this research study was that “editing may be a more cognitively complex task that theorists and practitioners have thought.” P. 398.

Quote: “Future studies might alter the design used in this study to verify what can only be inferred here: that editing, rather than being easier than revising, is a complex task that requires editors to draw on and coordinate as many aspects of rhetorical and cognitive processes as writers do when they approach a totally new rhetorical problem.:” p. 419.

Comment: Editing has always been thought of as strictly “surface features” like grammar which are easier to correct than revision. Maybe those “surface features” are more complex to correct than has been originally thought. I have always wondered how revision and editing could be separated. In some cases, the problem involves both. RayS.

Title: “A Study of Professional and Experienced Writers Revising and Editing at the Computer and with Pen and Paper.” Jean A Lutz. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 398-421.

Word Processing and the Writing Process

Question: How does word processing affect the writing process?

Answer/Quote: “The qualitative data from the interviews also indicate that participants felt using the computer affected their composing and editing strategies.

“Participants described the influence of the computer on their composing strategies in this way: ‘When I’m on the computer, I work out text as I go, and it’s much mushier.’ And another added. ‘The computer  is fast; I evolve a text rather than draft a text.’ Thus, the follow-up interviews with participants indicated that they were willing to plan less and write, in Elbow’s (1973) terms, more freely when using the computer. For example, when writing at the computer more than half the participants said they had begun without a plan and were willing to just ‘see how it [the text] would go.’ One writer, for instance, noted that she ‘would begin a sentence, discover it was not so wonderful and rewrite immediately.’ Said another, ‘I can enter nearly as quickly as I can think,’ and still another added in praise of the computer, ‘The UNDO command lets you try out ways of saying things.’ Thus writers pointed to the speed and facilitating power of the computer, the machine lending itself to a try-it-out pattern…..” p. 415.

Comment: Other research has pointed out that writers who use word processing plan less than those who write with paper and pen/pencil. I can also recognize that students who use word processing “write and edit as they go,” rather than writing a draft and then going back to revise and edit. On the other hand, a good many writers say that getting the draft down as quickly as possible helps to complete the composition, whereas editing and revising as you go may keep you from producing a finished product.

I think the meaning of this research is that we should not be too hasty in abandoning paper and pen/pencil writing. Students should experience both word processing and paper and pen/pencil to determine what works best for them. Or a combination of both. I have found that when I do not know what I am going to write, I use paper and pen/pencil. When I write memos which I have already thought through I compose on the computer.  RayS.

Title: “A Study of Professional and Experienced Writers Revising and Editing at the Computer and with Pen and Paper.” Jean A Lutz. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 398-421.

Analytic Thinking and Writing

Research

Question: What do students do when they write analytic papers?

Answer: Evidence in this research suggests that students when writing analytic papers are actually using or summarizing the analysis of others (the teacher or expert), rather than completing their own analysis.

Comment: Makes sense. Students are actually listening to, absorbing, and summarizing  the analysis of others, teachers and “experts,” whom they have heard or read. They are not themselves actually analyzing. Why not? Isn’t that what most Americans do? How to correct this situation? Give them a set of facts and have them analyze and interpret those facts? Have students analyze other people’s analysis and reasoning? Using other people’s analysis and reasoning is a hard habit to break. RayS.

Title: “Cognitive and Linguistic Demands of Analytic Writing." Russel K Durst. Research in the Teaching of English (December 1987), 347-376.

Fluency in Reading

Research

Question: What are the three elements in fluent reading?

Note: The following article involves significant information about training in fluent reading. Like other articles before it, this article emphasizes prosody, oral expression, rather than speed because excellent oral prosody signals excellent comprehension. RayS.

Abstract

Quote: “Over the past decade, fluent reading has come to be seen as a central component of skilled reading and a driving force in the literacy curriculum. However, much of this focus has centered on a relatively narrow definition of reading fluency, one that emphasizes automatic word recognition. This article attempts to expand this understanding by synthesizing several key aspects of research on reading fluency, including theoretical perspectives surrounding automaticity and prosody. It examines four major definitions of reading fluency and their relationship to accuracy, automaticity and prosody. A proposed definition is presented. Finally, the implications of these definitions for current assessment and instruction are considered along with suggestions for reinvisioning fluency’s role within the literacy curriculum.” P. 230.

History of the Emerging Emphasis on Fluency in Reading

Quote: “Over the past decade, the field of literacy education has seen a major shift in fluency’s role in the literacy curriculum, moving from a rarely encountered instructional component to one that is often responsible for driving major instructional decisions…. This shift is due, in part, to the identification of fluency as one of the areas reviewed by the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). It also results from a broader reconsideration of the role of oral reading in the development of skilled reading….” P. 230.

Our Definition of Fluency

Quote: “Fluency combines accuracy, automaticity, and oral reading prosody, which, taken together, facilitate the reader’s construction of meaning.  It is demonstrated during oral reading through ease of word recognition, appropriate pacing, phrasing, and intonation. It is a factor in both oral and silent reading that can limit or support comprehension.” P. 240.

Quote: “It is critical that we establish assessments, and instruction, that assist learners in becoming truly fluent readers rather than just fast ones.” P. 246.

Comment: An important article because it relates oral reading to silent reading. RayS.

Title: “Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody, and Definitions of Fluency.” MR Kuhn,  PJ Schwanenflugel, EB Meisinger,et. al.  Reading Research Quarterly (April/May/June 2010), 230-251.

Urban Schools and Academic Vocabulary

Research

Question: What do we know about the reading performance of large urban school districts?

Quote: “Students attending schools in urban settings rarely experience the same opportunities to learn literacy skills as their counterparts in suburban settings….. Urban schools—schools located in large city centers and characterized by high concentrations of students of color and students from low-income backgrounds—have historically suffered from limited educational resources (e.g., shortages of qualified teachers, high teacher turnover, large class sizes, inadequately rigorous curriculum…. It is thus not surprising that students in urban schools disproportionately demonstrate below-average outcomes on large-scale assessments.

“For example, a recent analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data from large city districts demonstrated that 10 of the 11 participating districts had high—in some cases staggeringly high—proportions of learners scoring below established proficiency levels…. I 6 of the 11 districts studied, more than 50% of students scored below basic in reading as compared with the national rate of 34%.

“These differences in student outcomes …raise questions about what types of instructional and curricular resources can be brought to bear to improve reading performance in settings characterized by low performance; increasing opportunities to learn for students in urban schools are imperative for their personal and academic success.

“Of particular concern is the growing population of language minority learners, who often have even fewer opportunities to learn than their native-English-speaking peers within the same schools…; a large proportion of these learners demonstrate reading comprehension difficulties, particularly after the primary grades….” Pp. 196-197.

Question: What would happen if teachers in all disciplines in urban schools concentrated on teaching the academic vocabulary specific to the discipline?

Answer: These researchers suggest that teachers in all disciplines focus on academic vocabulary specific to each individual discipline. “Although future research in this area is clearly needed, these findings highlight the promise of improving academic vocabulary instruction as a key ingredient in increasing opportunities to learn for students in urban middle schools.” P. 223.

Comment: Increasingly, especially with English language learners, recommendations on developing academic vocabulary rather than conversational vocabulary be emphasized. I suggest that this particular piece of research bears promise because it enlists teachers of all disciplines in emphasizing the academic, specialized vocabulary of each separate discipline. The same would be an excellent idea in all schools, not just urban schools.

I was surprised at the 34% nationally falling “below basic” level in reading. That strikes me as being a very high percentage, nationally. RayS.

Title: “The Effectiveness and Ease of Implementation of an Academic Vocabulary Intervention for Linguistically Diverse Students in Urban Middle Schools.” NK Lesaux, MJ Kieffer, SEF, JG Kelley. Reading Research Quarterly (April/May/June 2010), 196-228.

Teaching

Annotated Research

Question: Do teachers reflect on their teaching?

Answer: “Found that teachers rarely distanced themselves from daily routines to reflect upon their teaching.” FM Owen. 1990. P. 253.

Comment: If there is one thing that I regret about my teaching career, it is that I failed to take the time to reflect on my lessons in secondary English. Teacher pre-service programs should emphasize this practice. It would have made me a much better teacher. Sort of like what I am doing now with my blogs. For most articles that I summarize, I comment or reflect on the ideas presented. These comments are as significant to me as the ideas themselves. They tell me what I would do with the idea in my classroom. 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.

Literature in Elementary Schools

Annotated Research

Question: What is the favorite technique for exposing students to literature in elementary schools?

Answer: “Reading aloud to students was the most widely used activity for involving students in literature in elementary schools.” SA Walmsley and TP Walp. 1989. P. 252.

Comment: I used to love being read to in elementary school. Sister Mary Rupert in fourth grade was my favorite story reader. But this finding, suggests that reading children’s literature aloud is a favorite technique for elementary teachers. I don’t recall having what would be considered classic children’s literature read aloud. It could have made a difference in my enjoyment of children’s literature. Of course, I don’t recall reading children’s literature in elementary school under any circumstances. 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.

Whole Language

Annotated Research

Question: How do “most” teachers feel about “whole language”?

Answer: “Most teachers accepted whole language as effective, but as a supplement to skill-based instruction.” BJ Brunean, RP Ambrose. 1989. P. 249.

Comment: If whole language is an emphasis on using children’s literature as part of reading instruction, then I heartily agree. But this finding would suggest that the step-by-step approach to phonics and the directed- reading -assignment approach to comprehension are keys to success in learning to read. That’s known as the “basal” approach. 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.

Processes in Reading and Writing

Annotated Research

Question: When do students relate reading and writing?

Answer: “When the classroom enables children to engage in the processes of reading and writing, the children then have opportunities to relate learning in one area with the other.” ME MacMillan. 1990. P. 249.

Comment: I’m well aware of the writing process. But what exactly is the process of reading? Levels of comprehension? I’ll have to give this some thought. 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.

Sensitivity to Usage Errors in Writing

Annotated Research

Question: Who are more sensitive to usage errors in writing: business people or educators?

Answer: “Found that business persons were more sensitive to error than educators.” LA Spiegel. 1990. P. 246.

Comment: So what? If anything, it just means that educators should emphasize with their students usage errors that count. 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.

Learning Disabled Writers

Annotated Research

Question: What are the characteristics of writing by learning-disabled students?

Answer: “Learning disabled students’ writing was shorter, contained fewer sentences with more words per sentence, included fewer long words, and had more spelling and capitalization errors.” CK Houck and BS Billingsley. 1989. P. 244.

Comment: My experience with learning-disabled writers was that sentences were disordered as was the entire composition. Of course they would have fewer longer words because they are most conscious of spelling and long words would defeat them. However, it was the lack of sensible organization at the sentence and whole composition levels that stood out for me.

What did I do about it? I had them write for ten minutes a day. I reordered their sentences and connected them into a whole composition that made sense, I also corrected spelling and grammar. The next day, the students re-wrote their corrected sentence structure, composition , spelling and grammar and then wrote another ten-minute essay. I had modest success with this method. By the time they finished the semester, they were able, on their own, to write a comprehensible piece of writing. 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.

Evaluating Writing

Annotated Research

Question: What are three methods of evaluating student writing?

Answer: “Characterizes three methods for evaluating text quality, text –focused, expert-judgment-focused and reader-focused.” KA Schriver. 1990. P. 244.

Comment: At first I passed over this finding, But then I took a second look. This is annotated research, which means it is brief. Details are missing. However, I interpret “text-focused” as an attempt to describe the characteristics of the text, including organization, coherence, types of sentences, punctuation, etc. “Expert-judgment focused” would mean that an “expert” passes judgment on the quality of the writing, and “reader-focused” would mean the judgment of the ordinary reader.

Why would these types of judgment be significant? They are different and could produce different judgments as to the quality of the writing. “Expert-judgment-based would be the teacher, usually, or the raters in holistic scoring. Text-based would be the description provided by a researcher. And the reader-based judgment would be an ordinary reader. I’m not sure of the significance of the distinction. But I thought it was worth thinking about. 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.