The Importance of the Reading and Writing Connection

Vol. ane.No. 1

A-3

April 1994

The Office of Topic and the Reading/Writing Connection

Barbara L. Kennedy
UUniversity of Kentucky
<pengblk@ukcc.uky.edu>

Abstruse

This report was originally constructed to examine the effect of content-area reading on ESL writing proficiency. The experiment was restructured and extended because composition topics proved to be confounding factors. Although the results raise several issues, the most pregnant are 1) the influence of topic on the acquisition of ESL limerick skills and 2) the influence of topic on the cognitive job of demonstrating ESL writing proficiency. More specifically, an information-process explanation is offered for some of the confounding factors the topic variable introduced into the equation.

Composition courses based on the connection between reading and writing were first adult for native English writers. There are numerous textbooks which prepare native English language-speaking students to write beyond disciplines by presenting topics on which students will read articles and then write compositions. The number of ESL (English as a Second Language) composition textbooks of this nature is insufficiently small (Shih, 1986, pp. 635-36). Recently, still, the "reading/writing connection" has also get a buzz phrase in ESL composition pedagogy.

In a 1988 study of professors' reactions to nonnative-speaker academic compositions, Santos found that university professors grade more harshly on content deficiencies than they do on language usage; they are much more lenient with errors of linguistic form. Santos concludes that composition educational activity that deals more than strongly with content is indicated.

Shih (1986) discusses v approaches to instructing students in content-based writing. The present study examines the approach used in what Shih has termed "content-based academic writing courses" (pp. 635-37), in which students read sets of passages that relate to the topic areas of their writing assignments. Prior to the reading and writing, report questions for reading and discussion are introduced to stimulate the students' close test of the topic. These prereading questions help the reader to build appropriate schemata (Taglieber, Johnson, and Yarbrough, 1988, p. 466). [-ane-] According to Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert, and Goetz, "Every act of comprehension involves one's knowledge of the world as well" (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983, p. 553). In other words, these questions help to fix students to comprehend the new information from the reading passages, and to utilize what they already know, both when they read and when they write.

Zamel (1987) stresses that a process arroyo to writing gives learners an optimal opportunity to develop their ideas by allowing them to put concerns about linguistic form aside until the editing phase of composing, the terminal pace earlier the final draft. Reading is one style of generating ideas in a process approach to writing. Shih says, "Empirical data are needed to support the belief held by many that content-based instruction can help ESL students to become more confident and competent when they tackle bookish writing" (p. 642). Thus, a preliminary question is to what extent reading in the content area contributes to the quality of the limerick. In the case of the nowadays study, reading is defined as outside-the-classroom input in the content area. Other forms of receiving outside-the-classroom information were non examined. Therefore, information technology is not clear whether other types of exterior input, e.g., lectures on the topic area, would accept the same effect that reading has. Thus, the question becomes: is it possible for students to improve their ability to write constructive compositions without outside-the-classroom input (in this case, without reading) to the aforementioned caste that it is possible for them to meliorate with this input?

This written report was constructed to examine the quality of writing both with content-area readings and without content-expanse readings. Notwithstanding, it became apparent that some other question must also exist asked in conjunction with the question of whether or not reading contributes to the quality of writing students produce.

Carson, Carrell, Silberstein, Kroll, and Kuehn (1990) reported on a study they conducted using Japanese and Chinese subjects. They wanted to know if the proficiency levels of reading and writing in the subjects' L1 would predict the reading and writing proficiency levels in the subjects' L2. The following was noted:

In improver to the weak relationship noted in the L1-L2 writing correlations for both groups, the multiple regression analyses bespeak that although reading scores predict reading scores in either language for both groups, writing never appears every bit a variable that predicts writing. (p. 260)

Although this report does non relate to any connection betwixt reading in the content area and the quality of writing, information technology does point to a potentially misreckoning factor that must exist ferreted out in the experimental design equally a variable. In the Carson et al. study the writing topics differed in the L1 writing task and the L2 writing chore. Could the divergence in topics explain the lack of [-two-] connectedness between writing scores in the two languages? Moreover, by extension, within the same linguistic communication, if the topics differ, will the quality of i writing predict the quality of another writing? If groups of students start out at approximately the aforementioned level in writing ability, might the topics that are used throughout the course make up one's mind how much they will ameliorate?

Witte (1988) reported that when native speakers were asked to write compositions in response to various prompts (topics), it became obvious that not all prompts produced similar results beyond groups, even though the prompts had been devised to be topics with which all students would be familiar.

The topics to which students are asked to reply in composition would announced to make a difference in the quality of writing that students produce; withal, enquiry in the expanse of topic is sorely lacking. As Hoetker (1982) says, "there is niggling hard evidence anywhere that students will write any worse (or any better) on topics such as those I have just criticized than on the most thoughtfully considered and carefully edited topics" (p. 14).

The enquiry that exists is non only far from conclusive, but ofttimes produces conflicting results. Hoetker cites White in a give-and-take of the extreme differences in quality that were establish in the compositions produced by students taking the California State University and College Equivalency Examination betwixt the years 1973 and 1974. White concluded that the 1974 topic, which produced lower scores, was more cognitively enervating, i.e., required abstract reasoning, that the 1973 topic relied more on personal experience, and that this difference accounted for the extreme difference in scores. Pytlik (1986), however, reports on a study conducted by Jones, whose findings showed that students performed meliorate with textbook topics than with topics of their own (p. 7). Moreover, Greenberg, expecting that topics that asked students for their personal experience would produce better compositions, was surprised to find that students' writing performance was not significantly afflicted by the type of essay question to which they responded (Pytlik, 1986, pp. vii-8).

O'Donnell (1984) cites Hoetker and his colleagues in a give-and-take of topics that are offensive to students. She says that there are three subjects that students found "hard, uninteresting, or inappropriate, and that required special cognition. . . (ane) neglect of the urban environment, (two) favorite gadgets, and (3) dream homes" (p. 246). However, she says that there are besides topics that produce favorable results; she cites Brossell and Ash who found that students wrote "more than organized, more sharply focused, and more fluent" essays on the topic of violence in the schools (p. 246). [-3-]

Some researchers have questioned the employ of topic options for composition exams. Hoetker states that "the strongest argument for options is that we know so little about topics that information technology is presumptuous for u.s. to say we tin know which topic will elicit student's [sic] all-time performance" (p. 18). However, he cites a written report conducted by DuCette and Wolk who found that when students were given more topic options, they performed less well than when they were given a single topic. Some other question that arises in regard to providing students with options is whether or not students are able to estimate which topic will show their best writing. Hoetker cites Meyer, who argues that students do not have the ability to select topics that arm-twist their best operation (p. 17). In thinking about the question of whether or non to provide topic options in an essay exam, ane must consider how much time students will give to choosing the topic, rather than to actually writing. Pytlik says Jones concludes that students might perform better when provided with a few, rather than with many, options.

These studies on topic and limerick proficiency have been conducted entirely with native speakers of English, except for the Carson et al. report, which does not actually examine the function topic plays. There is trivial research that provides much insight into the ways topics influence native-speaker writing, and the movie is even bleaker when it comes to nonnative-speaker writing. As Hoetker (cited in O'Donnell, 1984) states:

[West]e know little about topic variables because research attention has been devoted almost entirely to issues of rater reliability, ignoring for the part [sic] the effect of validity as well as the other two sources of error in an essay examination--thetopics and the writer. (p. 4)

The question to be examined by this enquiry is whether reading in the content area contributes more to students' quality of writing, or whether topic contributes more.

The results of this study propose that the topic assigned, or chosen by the students, plays a significant role in the quality of writing students are able to produce, whereas reading in the content-surface area appears to contribute little to students' quality of writing. Information-processing theory offers a possible caption for the influence topic has on composing. Data-processing theory may likewise explain why reading contributes piffling to L2 students' quality of writing.

Subjects

The subjects of this written report were all members of an avant-garde ESL composition class in the Center for English language as a Second Language at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, Kentucky. The students' advanced-level placement was determined either past their scores on the Michigan Placement Test or past promotion from an intermediate [-four-] level into an advanced level based on teachers' evaluations. The subjects were from varied language backgrounds. Of the 31 students in the study, the largest percentage were Asian: at that place were eight native speakers of Japanese, 9 of Chinese, two of Korean, i of Indonesian, one of Thai, and one of Bengali. There were besides two Spanish speakers, and vii Arabic speakers. The students ranged in age from 17 to 47 years former, but the majority were in their mid-twenties. They had all studied English in their dwelling house countries, also equally subsequently arriving in the United states. Their length of English study ranged from 2 to fourteen years. At the showtime of this study, the length of the students' exposure to a predominantly English-speaking social club ranged from zippo to four years. The number of other languages they spoke, in improver to English and their native language, ranged from nada to two. All of the students, evaluated with the Jacobs et al. (1981) composition profile canvas, were within the aforementioned range of English composition proficiency at the beginning of the course. Of the 31 students that participated in the report, thirty of them had scores in the sixties and seventies, and one student had a score in the eighties, on a 100-point scale. The lowest score was 62 and the highest score was 85.

These students were divided into three groups, Group A, Grouping B, and Group C. There were viii students in Grouping A (four females and four males), 11 students in Grouping B (three females and eight males), and 12 students in the Group C (eleven males and one female). Group A contained four Japanese speakers, two Chinese speakers, 1 Thai speaker, and ane Korean speaker; Group B contained three Japanese speakers, five Chinese speakers, and three Arabic speakers; and Grouping C contained two Spanish speakers, i Indonesian speaker, one Korean speaker, four Arabic speakers, ane Bengali speaker, 1 Japanese speaker, and two Chinese speakers. Caution should be used when drawing conclusions based on this study, since the sample size is minor.

Method

Since the classes at the University of Kentucky'due south Eye for English every bit a Second Linguistic communication are small, and there is only one advanced-level section, all three groups were enrolled in unlike quarters. The primary goal of the ESL composition form for all three groups was to teach/larn effective expository writing which utilized various strategies of essay evolution: description, narration, cause and effect, comparison/contrast, persuasion, analysis of a process, and then on. Group A was given relevant content-expanse readings which illustrated expert form and in which these various strategies were utilized. In add-on, the readings came from both professional writers and student writers, and from both native and nonnative speakers of English language. The reason for using nonprofessional writers, also equally professional person writers, is suggested by Hairston (1986): [-5-]

[B]ecause they [teachers] worry about the perennial problem of devising good theme topics, teachers sometimes resort to using professional essays as models for the students to imitate in their ain writing. For practiced reasons, the results are usually non happy. Faced with the prospect of trying to understand an essay by Virginia Woolf or E. B. White and so of imitating it, most students are going to exist more intimidated than instructed. Often, as consolation for what they see as their own incompetence, they take refuge in the myth that real writers can write because they are inspired, not because they were ever taught to write. (p. 180)

Students were not expected to use the readings as models, but as sources of information; still, it was felt that information technology would boost the confidence of the students to read other students' writing that not only conveyed data, merely conveyed it in good class. This same reasoning explains why readings by both nonnative and native speakers were used. Moreover, the use of readings by nonnative speakers communicated the idea that the topics were culturally relevant to people of both the United states and other countries. The method of teaching composition, the process approach, was held constant for all groups. The students in all 3 groups constructed multiple drafts of compositions with instructor feedback and peer critiques before the concluding draft. The drafts prior to the concluding drafts did not receive grades, simply constructive feedback. The same teacher taught all three sections, Group A, Group B, and Group C.

Learning to synthesize information was a major component in all three classes. However, the Groups B and C were limited to synthesizing information from class/small-group discussions about personal experiences or near data they had gained previously related to the topic, whereas Grouping A synthesized information received from readings on the topic and from class/small-group discussions. Guided questions followed each reading (for Group A) and each word session (for all three groups) to aid the students in integrating what they had learned from these interactions with what they already knew about the topic.

Each group wrote multiple drafts of papers on three topics during the 8-week session; ii of the topics served as daily grade piece of work, and 1 served as the terminal exam. The concluding examination newspaper was written in grade, although the other compositions were constructed at home. The final exam incorporated all pre-final draft steps that the other two papers included, except peer editing. The final draft of the final exam, the in-course writing, was the writing used to judge the improvement in the students' ESL composition writing proficiency, and the resulting scores were used [-6-] in the criterion measures for this report. For Group A, all readings for the two daily assignment topics were provided, and of the two readings for the concluding exam, 1 was of their own choosing. Each student provided the instructor with the reading s/he chose for constructing the final-exam essay.

Different topics were used in Groups B and C, whereas the aforementioned topics were used in Groups A and C. The topics given to Group B were "Music" and "Ecology." The topics given to Groups A and C were "Medical Ideals" and "Education." The readings for the Medical Ethics and Pedagogy units, used by Group A, were written by people of various cultures.

In Grouping A, the questions used for the Medical Ideals unit'southward pre-first-draft discussion focused the students on the patient's/patient's family unit'southward right to know the truth about the illness and its treatment. Students were asked to write a first draft of their paper, getting their own personal ideas down in written course, before they did any reading. The Medical Ethics unit contained 2 readings. Ane, an excerpt from a book, was past a Russian doctor who gave a curt narration on an unsuspected mistake he made when administering treatment that resulted in an elderly, terminally-ill patient'southward death. The other was by an Iranian freshman composition student who explained why Iranians prefer that the patient not be told the truth if the disease is terminal. The questions used for the Education unit of measurement's pre-first-typhoon word focused students on academic education. Four readings were used for the Education topic, one by an American who had interviewed a Japanese pupil in Japan about the stress involved in preparing for the Japanese university archway exams; one past a foreign student from Nippon, recently graduated from an American university, who contrasted American education values with Japanese educational activity values; one by a Norwegian journalist who was analyzing an educational problem in Norway; and one by a Saudi Arabian announcer who was describing the teaching of females in Saudi Arabia. The readings from both units were each followed past a set of word questions that non only focused discussion on the ideas from the readings, but also led students to consider how these ideas had influenced their ain thoughts on the topic.

Although Groups B and C did not use readings, the students used pre-get-go-typhoon class discussions in the Music and Ecology units, for Group B, and Medical Ethics and Education units, for Group C, to stimulate students' thinking and to gather information from each other about the topics. All three groups wrote the same number of revisions; between revisions they discussed what they had written with each other, and group members responded to their ideas (i.east., they responded to content, suggesting new, related information whenever possible). Written questions following the discussions were used to lead the students to consider how they [-7-] might integrate any new, relevant data they had gained from their grouping's members.

All three groups used peer critique sessions prior to their final draft, and, once the concluding draft was written, they used peer-editing sessions. The drafts resulting from the peer-editing sessions were then turned in for a class. This allowed the instructor to distinguish between the changes made past students related to content, and the changes fabricated related to form.

The topics for the final exams were "Impressions of America," chosen by Group B, and "Discrimination," chosen past Groups B and C. The only differences betwixt the last examination and the compositions constructed for daily piece of work were 1) students wrote the terminal draft of the exam in class, rather than at home; 2) the students did not have the peer-editing sessions--they were required to practise their ain editing within the exam period; and 3) Group A chose the 2nd reading used in writing their terminal exams. The first reading, consisting of a dictionary definition of discrimination followed by a general examination of the relationships of discrimination to prejudice and rumor, was provided for Group A.

Using the eighteen compositions at the cease of Testing ESL Composition (Jacobs, et al., 1981), iii outside readers were trained to evaluate ESL compositions. Two of the readers accept taught ESL composition at the university level, and two accept been tutors for ESL university-level composition students. All iii concur Yard.A. degrees, two in English and one in Education. The reader with the 1000.A. in Education also holds a secondary teaching document with an ESL endorsement. For each composition evaluated, the readers' totals on the composition profile sheet were not allowed to differ by more than than ix points. If a x-point or greater spread was present, the score furthest from the other two was discarded. The spread between at least two of the readers' scores was never greater than nine points. Inter-rater reliability correlation coefficients were calculated. The correlation coefficient between reader I and reader II was .98, between reader 2 and reader III was .89, and between reader I and reader III was .88. The scores inside the nine-point spread were averaged. The composition contour canvas is broken into five subcomponents: content, system, vocabulary, language apply, and mechanics. The subcomponents are weighted: content is worth a maximum of thirty points and a minimum of xiii, organization is worth a maximum of 20 points and a minimum of vii, vocabulary is worth a maximum of twenty points and a minimum of seven, language use is worth a maximum of xx-v points and a minimum of 5, and mechanics is worth a maximum of five points and a minimum of two. Thus, there is a possible full of 100 points. The content subcomponent is based on the following criteria: knowledge of the subject, substantial ideas, development of thesis, and relevance to the assigned topic. The organization subcomponent is based on [-8-] fluency of expression, clarity of ideas, supporting evidence for ideas, succinctness, logical sequencing, and cohesiveness. The vocabulary subcomponent is based on sophistication of vocabulary range, effective word/idiom choices and usage, word-class mastery, and appropriate register. The language-apply subcomponent is based on use of constructions (simple or complex) and grammatical accuracy, i.due east., advisable use of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, and prepositions. The mechanics subcomponent is based on mastery of conventions, i.e., appropriate spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing. Analytical scoring, as the Composition Contour Sheet is, was used rather than holistic because, every bit Omaggio (1986) points out, it tends to be less subjective.

Results

The probability level of significance was established at .05. 1-way ANOVAs were run to make up one's mind if, indeed, there were whatever significant differences between the three groups. Outset, a ane-mode ANOVA was run on the scores of initial compositions, which students wrote earlier taking the grade, to make up one's mind whether or not the students in each grouping were starting at the aforementioned level. At that place was no significant difference among the groups (p > .25); the mean score for Group B was 73.182, the mean score for Group A was 70.875, and the mean score for Grouping C was 71.833. The initial compositions that are written before students accept a writing course vary in topic from term to term. However, there was no pregnant correlation between the topics used for these three groups and the scores on these initial compositions. Next, a one-way ANOVA was run on the scores of the final compositions written for the final exams. There was a significant difference in scores between the Group B and Group A; the mean score for the Group B was 75.364, and the mean score for Group A was 84.125. Not simply was at that place a significant difference between these two groups, but additional one-way ANOVAs revealed that there was a significant difference between the initial scores and the final scores for Grouping A, simply no significant difference between the initial scores and last scores for Grouping B. Thus, Grouping A had demonstrated significant improvement, whereas Group B had non. A one-manner ANOVA did not bear witness a meaning divergence between Groups B and C, the ii groups that did non use readings. As reported, the mean score for Group B was 75.364, whereas the hateful score for Grouping C was lxxx.917. When a one-way ANOVA was run on Group A and Group C, the 2 groups that used the same topics, there was no significant difference betwixt their terminal scores (p > .25); the mean score for Group C was 80.917, compared to Grouping A'due south hateful score of 84.125. I-style ANOVAs as well indicated that Group A and Grouping C showed significant improvement over their initial scores.

Other predictor variables also as the group assignment (whether topics were used and whether readings were used) were [-9-] examined in multiple regression analyses for all three groups: 1) the historic period when the students were first exposed to English, 2) Japanese native language background, 3) Chinese native language groundwork, 3) Arabic native linguistic communication background, 4) gender, 5) length of time spent in a predominantly English-speaking social club, 6) nowadays historic period, 7) number of other languages acquired besides English and the native linguistic communication, 8) length of time English language had been studied in an bookish surround, and nine) topics used for composition. In order to guard against collinearity among predictor variables, correlations were run. A .6 cut-off bespeak was used. If two predictor variables had a correlation of .6 or greater, one would be discarded. However, in that location was no collinearity amongst the variables used in these regression analyses.

The three variables that showed a significant interrelationship with the total improvement in composing skill (i.e., difference betwixt initial and last scores) were the age when students were first exposed to the English, students' gender, and topics used for composition. The statistics revealed that the younger the students were when they were offset exposed to English, the more than they improved; females improved more than males; and students who wrote their concluding examination compositions on "Bigotry," Groups A and C, showed more improvement than students who wrote their last exam compositions on "Impressions of America," Group B.

When the total scores were cleaved into their component parts and improvement (difference between initial scores and final scores) was statistically examined, the post-obit predictor variables interacted significantly with the scores:

1. Improvement in content interacted significantly with gender and the number of other languages acquired besides English language and the native linguistic communication. Females improved more than than males; and the fewer languages acquired besides English and the native language, the more than improvement in the content scores.
2. Improvement in arrangement interacted significantly with Chinese native language, gender, and topics used for limerick. Chinese students improved more than students of other linguistic communication backgrounds, females improved more males, and students who wrote their final test compositions on "Discrimination" showed more than improvement than students who wrote their concluding examination compositions on "Impressions of America."
3. Improvement in vocabulary interacted significantly with only one variable, Chinese native language. Chinese students improved more than students of other language backgrounds.
4. Improvement in linguistic communication use interacted significantly with the age that students were starting time exposed to English and Chinese [-ten-] native linguistic communication. Students who were exposed to English before, improved more; and Chinese students improved more other linguistic communication backgrounds.
5. Comeback in mechanics interacted significantly with Chinese native language and topics used for composition. Chinese students improved more than than students of other language backgrounds and students who wrote their final test compositions on "Discrimination" improved more than students who wrote their final test compositions on "Impressions of America."

Disregarding comeback and focusing only on Last-Exam scores revealed, through multiple regression analyses, the post-obit statistically significant interrelationships:

1. The final-exam total scores interacted significantly with gender and topics used for composition. Females performed ameliorate than males, and students who wrote their final examination composition on "Bigotry" performed meliorate than students who wrote their final examination composition on "Impressions of America."
2. The final-examination content scores interacted significantly with gender, length of fourth dimension spent in a predominantly English-speaking society, and topics used for composition. Females performed better than males. The less time students spent in an English-speaking social club, the ameliorate they performed. Students who wrote their concluding-examination compositions on "Discrimination" performed better than students who wrote their terminal-test composition on "Impressions of America."
3. The final-exam arrangement scores interacted significantly with gender, the length of time spent in a predominantly English-speaking society, and topics used for composition. Females outperformed males, students who had been in an English-speaking order for less time performed better, and students who wrote their final-exam compositions on "Discrimination" performed amend than students who wrote their final-test compositions on "Impressions of America."
4. The terminal-test vocabulary scores did not interact significantly with any predictor variable.
5. The final-examination language-utilize scores interacted significantly with gender, length of time spent in a predominantly English language-speaking society, and topics used for limerick. Females performed amend than males, students who had spent less fourth dimension in an English-speaking society performed better, and students who wrote their concluding-test compositions on "Bigotry" performed better than students who wrote their last-exam compositions on "Impressions of America." [-11-]
6. The final-exam mechanics scores interacted significantly with Chinese native language, gender, and topics used for composition. Chinese students performed better than students of other language backgrounds, females performed ameliorate than males, and students who wrote their final-exam compositions on "Discrimination" performed ameliorate than students who wrote their final-test compositions on "Impressions of America."

Give-and-take

The results of this report not only call into question the reading/writing connection, but as well illustrate the importance of the human relationship between the topics used for writing assignments and the acquisition of L2 composition skills.

Every bit reported in the results section of this paper, there was no significant difference between the 1989 Fall II experimental group and the 1990 Summer control group in this report. When the initial hateful score was subtracted from the final mean score of each of the two groups, the differences were not the same; even though the experimental group appeared to accept improved more than (a 13-betoken mean-score gain past the experimental grouping versus a 9-point proceeds by the control grouping), this could be due to gamble. However, an 8-week session is not very long. It would be interesting to come across what would happen in a program that has 16-week semesters. It might exist possible that improvement is cumulative; a significant difference betwixt the groups might be evident if the writing courses were diffuse.

Since the function of the written report in which the experimental and control groups used different topics showed such different results from the part of the study in which the experimental and control groups used the same topics, the role of topic in the composition classroom requires exam. In the results department of this paper, it was reported that the topics-used-for-composition predictor variable interacted significantly with eight of the twelve criterion measures, iii of the six criterion measures of improvement in scores and v of the six criterion measures of final composition scores. Topics used for composition, along with gender, showed meaning interaction with more benchmark measures than whatever of the other predictor variables.

In the 1989 Fall I and Fall Two parts of this researcher'southward study, the experimental group'southward scores were based on compositions most discrimination, whereas the command grouping's scores came from their writing on their impressions of America. Since all of these students were living in the United States and, thus, dealing with a foreign environment physically, socially, culturally, and psychologically, the topic of their impressions of America was, in all likelihood, one that they had discussed at to the lowest degree a few times [-12-] among friends and classmates. It is a personal topic, rather than academic; the content of the students' compositions revealed the personal nature of the topic.

Interestingly, the topic of bigotry appeared to exist approached from a much more than academic viewpoint, fifty-fifty though 1 might have expected the command grouping to take a more personal approach, since they were writing without readings. They could have written on discrimination they had faced equally foreigners in the United states of america, for example. Still, since their teacher was an American, they may have thought it would be impolite to submit a composition of that nature about their instructor'south fellow Americans. The majority of the students from both the 1989 experimental and 1990 command groups who wrote on this topic analyzed particular discriminatory practices in their own countries.

This raises the question of what role familiarity with the topic plays. Langer and Weinman conducted a written report in which half of the people in a Boston unemployment line "were asked to speak about why it was difficult to notice a job in Boston," and "half were asked to speak virtually finding a chore in Alaska" (Langer, 1989, p. 21). These researchers assumed that the sometime topic was 1 about which their subjects had previously deliberated, whereas the latter was well-nigh probable a topic their subjects had non given much consideration. One-half of each group was given time to call back about and plan what they wanted to say, while the other half spoke extemporaneously. Langer reports the results:

Subjects were much more fluent when they were discussing a novel issue afterward existence given fourth dimension to think about it first or when they spoke about a familiar topic right away, with no time to recollect about it. Thinking virtually a very familiar topic disrupted their operation. (1989, p. 21)

Langer goes on to compare these results to the interference which could be expected in typing skills. She gives a hypothetical example of an experienced typist and a novice typist, saying that if each is asked "to blazon a paragraph without the usual spaces separating words. . ., information technology is likely that the person with less experience volition take an edge" (p. 21).

The parallel which can be fatigued with the present study is that extremely familiar ideas and skills get automated and resist conscious examination and/or alteration. The students who wrote on their impressions of America may accept discussed this topic and/or thought nigh the topic oft enough that their responses to it had become routinized. From an information-processing perspective, automatized or routinized cerebral processes cannot exist consciously examined without disrupting functioning; they respond automatically [-xiii-] to environmental cues. For these students to analyze and reorganize their thoughts on a very familiar topic of conversation would be much more than difficult than analyzing and organizing less familiar ideas. Much time was given for planning and organizing the "Impressions of America" and "Discrimination" compositions. Moreover, even if time had not been allotted for planning and organisation and both groups had written impromptu papers, the "Impressions of America" papers may have been rated more highly than the "Discrimination" papers, just, in terms of rhetoric, would have most likely not been rated equally highly every bit the planned papers on discrimination, due to the differences in spoken and written discourse. Topics which have been mentally organized and routinized for spoken discourse would not meet written discourse standards, since written discourse is not but writing every bit one speaks.

The 1989 Autumn Two experimental group used medical ethics, educational activity, and discrimination as topics for composition, just the Fall I control grouping used music, ecology, and impressions of America. It would exist interesting to run a different experimental grouping, ane which would use readings with the topics, "Music," "Environmental," and "Impressions of America," to see if differences surface between the two groups, the new experimental group and the 1989 Fall Two command group. Ane might hypothesize, considering the results of this report, that a grouping that used readings with the topics, "Music," "Ecology," and "Impressions of America," would non improve significantly in their composition scores either, just as the Autumn I control group did non. However, it is not clear whether the two groups that wrote their last exams on discrimination were able show significant improvement over their initial composition scores because they had been taught composing skills using the topics, "Medical Ethics" and "Education," or because the topic, "Discrimination," is a cognitively easier topic for students to demonstrate their proficiency in composing. This could be tested by using the topics, "Music" and "Ecology," for daily assignments and "Discrimination" for the final examination. How much departure, and what kinds of differences, does topic brand? Moreover, between similar groups, does one topic elicit more differences betwixt the groups than some other topic does? These are the problems.

Although other predictor variables correlated significantly with the criterion measures, the interaction of the topic and gender variables showed more significant correlations with the criterion measures than any other of the remaining variables. Unfortunately, the express enquiry that had been conducted on gender differences related to 2nd language acquisition or related to the use of first language yields piffling insight into the gender-differences results of this study. Please consult the appendix for a give-and-take of gender and other predictor variables which showed significant correlations with the criterion measures. [-14-]

Determination

The results of this report need to be examined cautiously due to the small sample size. Yet, the study did produce a most important upshot: information technology points to the need for more research on 1) the influence of assigned topics on acquiring greater composition proficiency in the L2 writing classroom, and 2) the contribution of topic to students' ability to demonstrate gains in writing proficiency. Moreover, it calls into question the use of personal, familiar topics when evaluating composition skills. White's remarks concerning the extreme difference in scores between 1973 and 1974 on the California Country Equivalency Examination (Hoetker, 1982) reflects the long-held assumption that personal experiences which are extremely familiar to students are cognitively less enervating topics for writing than less familiar, more abstruse topics. It is not clear that this is the case when students are given time to plan their writing. But when we know more about the function that topic plays volition nosotros be able to examine the reading/writing connection in any kind of conclusive mode.

Acknowledgments

I thank Shelda Hale-Roca, the teacher of the ESL composition classes used in this written report, for her unfailing cooperation with me in this project. I am besides extremely grateful to Patsy Lanigan, Melinda Thompson, and Diane Lamon, the readers and evaluators of the ESL student compositions.

References

Carrell, P.50. & Eisterhold, J.C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17, pp. 553-573.

Carson, J.Eastward., Carrell, P.Fifty., Silberstein, Due south., Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P.A. (1990). Reading-writing relationships in get-go and second linguistic communication. TESOL Quarterly, 24, pp. 245-266.

Grabe, W. & Kaplan R. (1989). Writing in a second linguistic communication: Contrastive rhetoric. In D. Johnson and D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 263-283). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Hairston, M. (1986). Using nonfiction literature in the composition classroom. In B.T. Petersen (Ed.), Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing (pp. 179-188). Urbana, IL: National Quango of Teachers of English language.

Hoetker, J. (1982). Effects of essay topics on student writing: A review of the literature. ERIC ED 217 486. [-15-]

Jacobs, H., Zingraf, S.A., Wormuth, D.R., Hartfiel, V.F., & Hughey, J.B. (1981). Testing ESL Composition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Kaplan, R.B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, pp. 1-20.

Kennedy, B.L. (1988). Developed versus kid L2 conquering: An information-processing approach. Language Learning, 38, pp. 477-495.

Krashen, Southward.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. NY, NY: Longman, Inc.

Krashen, Southward.D. & Terrell, T. (1981). The Natural Approach: Language Conquering in the Classroom. London: Cambridge Academy Press.

Langer, Due east.J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Long, Yard.H. (1983). Does 2nd language instruction brand a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17, pp. 359-382.

Moragne, K. (1981). Cultural organizational patterns in the ESL classroom. TESOL Summertime Meeting. Columbia University, 25 July.

Moragne, M. (1983). Essentials in cantankerous-cultural education. Currents: Issues in Education and Human Development, 2, pp. xi-13.

O'Donnell, H. (1984). ERIC/RCS written report: The effect of topic on writing performance. English Education, 16, pp. 243-249.

Oyama, South. (1976). A sensitive menstruum for the conquering of a nonnative phonology system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, pp. 261-285.

Oyama, S. (1978). The sensitive period and comprehension of speech. Working Papers on Bilingualism, xvi, pp. 1-17.

Patkowski, Chiliad. (1980). The sensitive catamenia for the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language Learning, 30, pp. 449-472.

Pytlik, B.P. (1986). Designing constructive writing assignments: What practice nosotros know? ERIC ED 291 107. [-16-]

Santos, T. (1988). Professors' reactions to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, pp. 69-90.

Seliger, H.W. (1978). Implications of a multiple critical periods hypothesis. In: 2d Language Acquisition Inquiry: Problems and Implications (pp. 11-xix). Northward.Y., N.Y.: Academic Press.

Shih, G. (1986). Content-based approaches to didactics academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, twenty, pp. 617-648.

Snow, C. & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1977). Age differences in pronunciation of strange sounds. Language and Speech, 20, pp. 357-65.

Snow, C. & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). Historic period differences in second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition (pp. 333-44). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Taglieber, 50.K., Johnson, L.L., & Yarbrough, D.B. (1988). Effects of prereading activities on EFL reading by Brazilian college students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, pp. 455-472.

Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (1983). Linguistic communication, gender and society: Opening a 2d decade of enquiry. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, and N. Henley (Eds.), Linguistic communication, Gender, and Society (pp. vii-24). Rowley, MA: Newbury Business firm.

Witte, South. (1988). The influence of writing prompts on composing. Newspaper presented at CCCC, St. Louis.

Zamel, V. (1988). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, pp. 697-715. [-17-]

Appendix

With regard to variables other than topic, the multiple regression results of this experiment testify several things. Showtime, the predictor variable of gender showed meaning interaction with viii of the twelve criterion measures examined. The fact that women performed better than men in these eight aspects of composition remains problematic. Research is very thin in the area of gender and second-language acquisition. The state of affairs is non much ameliorate in the case of outset language. In the area of first-linguistic communication English usage, there is niggling consensus on usage differences between men and women.

A review of the literature shows that very few expected sex differences take been firmly substantiated by empirical studies of isolated variables. Some pop behavior about differences between the sexes appear to have little basis in fact, and in a few cases research findings actually invert the stereotypes (Thorne, Kramarae, and Henley, 1983, p. 13).

The Chinese native language variable significantly interacted with five benchmark measures. The first four benchmark measures which correlated significantly with the Chinese native language variable came from subtracting initial-composition scores from concluding-exam scores: vocabulary improvement, system improvement, linguistic communication use improvement, and mechanics improvement. The 5th benchmark measure which interacted significantly with the Chinese native language variable was the final-test mechanics score. Chinese students consistently improved more, in the cases of the first four criterion measures, or performed meliorate, in the cast of the fifth benchmark measure, on these five benchmark measures than students of other linguistic communication backgrounds. The Chinese language background is a cistron that demands more research. The initial question which arises, of class, is "Did the Chinese speakers perform significantly worse in these five areas on their initial-limerick scores. The answer is no, they did non.

Chinese speakers typically do not use the same type of rhetorical organization that native English language speakers use. Native English writers prefer a direct and to-the-bespeak system, whereas oriental writers prefer an indirect, talk-around-the-point rhetorical organization. This might pb ane to believe that their superior comeback on the organization subcomponent score of their final-examination composition was due to the fact that they recognized, as they progressed through the class, that English language demanded a unlike rhetorical structure. However, not merely Chinese, but also other oriental-linguistic communication writers, Semitic-language writers, and Romance-language writers typically employ dissimilar rhetorical structures from English (Kaplan, 1966; Moragne, 1981; Moragne, 1983; Grabe & Kaplan, 1989). Since the didactics in the [-xviii-] classes was the same for all students, why did students of other language backgrounds not improve as much?

The Chinese orthographic system differs greatly from English; the script is ideographic, rather than phonetic, and the script reads from top to bottom rather than from right to left. Again, ane might hypothesize that the Chinese students recognized, equally they progressed through the course, that spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and paragraphing differed considerably from their native language, and realized that they would need to acquire these conventions. Yet, English language mechanics also differ from Japanese and Standard arabic conventions. Moreover, Japanese kanji was borrowed from the Chinese. Yet, neither the Japanese nor the Standard arabic language groups showed the same caste of improvement. Chinese is a subject-verb-object language, simply equally English is, which may accept some effect on the Chinese students' ability to meliorate more on the linguistic communication use subcomponent; they could transfer some of the basic grammatical structures from their native language. Nevertheless, the reasons for their superiority on any of these subcomponents is non clear. Nearly Chinese students have studied English language from inferior high school on. The focus of that report in their home land is predominantly on grammar, reading, and writing. The differences betwixt English and Chinese have, most likely, long been apparent to the Chinese speakers in this study. Two of the questions that Long (1983) raises in his give-and-take of whether 2nd language instruction makes a difference are, "Does type of learner brand a difference?" and "Does type of pedagogy collaborate with blazon of learner?" Some role of the answers to these questions may lie within the human relationship between the native-Chinese-speaker variable (e.g., possibly, native-Chinese-speaker has a strong human relationship with blazon-of-learner?) and the scores Chinese students achieved, but the nature of those answers is unclear.

Iii criterion measures, the terminal-examination content-, organization-, and language-use-subcomponent scores, showed meaning interaction with the length of time spent in a predominantly English language-speaking society. In all cases the less fourth dimension spent in an English-speaking environment, the amend the scores in these subcomponent areas. This goes against all intuition. Based on the natural arroyo to language acquisition (Krashen & Terrell 1981) and Krashen's The Input Hypothesis (1985), one would think that the more than fourth dimension spent in an English-speaking environment, the better. These students are beyond the intermediate level in their L2, English, and are capable of eliciting input. Therefore, being in a native-English-linguistic communication environment should be an advantage, at least in the language-utilise area. One possible explanation might be that the students who take been in an English-speaking society longer have determined the corporeality of grammar needed to exist communicative and take ceased to be concerned about further grammatical accuracy, whereas students who have spent less fourth dimension in the environment are unsure about the level of grammatical [-19-] proficiency they volition need to survive well. Therefore, they give more attention to linguistic forms.

2 criterion measures, improvement on the final-exam limerick score over the initial composition score and improvement on the final-exam language-use-subcomponent score over the initial language-utilize-subcomponent score, had meaning interaction with the age at which the students were offset exposed to English. In both cases, those students who were exposed to English before, improved more. This finding does non seem unusual when i considers that childhood L2 acquisition produces greater ultimate accomplishment in the L2 than does L2 acquisition that begins later on (Oyama, 1976; 1978; Patkowski, 1980; Seliger, 1978). Although Snowfall and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1977, 1978) accept shown that later learners have an initial brusque-term advantage in their rate of L2 conquering, they likewise say that in terms of ultimate accomplishment, the earlier learners bear witness greater L2 proficiency. An data-processing analysis would predict results such every bit these (Kennedy, 1988). Notwithstanding, the question that arises is, why is the improvement not in all areas? Oyama discusses the "waxing and waning" of sensitive periods, and it may be that a number of these students were in a sensitive menstruation for acquiring grammar skills. Moreover, although an L2 learner, equally well equally an L1 learner, acquires soapbox ability in the linguistic communication, spoken conversational discourse does not apply nearly as rigorous requirements for organisation equally does written discourse. All the same, even though language use differs to some extent from spoken to written forms (eastward.thou., written soapbox demands more than conciseness and less back-up), the grammar rules used for spoken discourse still use to written. Thus, it may be that learning the grammar of a linguistic communication is a significantly different procedure than learning composition skills, such as system and mechanics. Nosotros certainly see native speakers in L1 composition classes who brand few grammer errors, just nonetheless, lack composition skills. This may parallel what we encounter with early L2 learners; they can acquire grammer skills much more rapidly than other composition skills.

Ane benchmark measure, improvement on the final-exam content-subcomponent scores over the initial content subcomponent scores, showed significant interaction with the number of other languages students had acquired besides English and the native language. The results of this assay revealed that students who had acquired fewer languages improved more. If, indeed, language is a reflection of how 1 views the world, and if unlike language populations view the world differently, coming to terms with these differences in the area of content for a composition may cause issues. The more languages a person has acquired, the more potential there may be for exposure to conflicting viewpoints. Withal, if interference among the languages that the students know is going to occur in the area of content, what prevents it from occurring in other subcomponent areas as well? [-20-] Every bit this word reveals, there are many unanswered questions raised by this study. The beauty and the frustration of research is that, even though it sometimes answers some of our questions, information technology so ofttimes asks and then many more!

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

Editor's Note: Dashed numbers in square brackets indicate the end of each page in the paginated ASCII version of this commodity, which is the definitive edition. Delight utilise these page numbers when citing this work.

chofiresom.blogspot.com

Source: http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej01/a.3.html

Share this post