THE PRACTICE: Reading and Writing
Content Presented By:
Center for Resource Management (CRM)
The Education Alliance at Brown University

Research summary

Sections II and III in the research summary below are direct excerpts from Julie Meltzer and Edmund Hamann's Meeting the Literacy Development Needs of Adolescent English Language Learners Through Content Area Learning, Part II (2005). This is a publication of the Education Alliance at Brown University funded by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory.

General Research on Component B: Strategies

The best practices associated with each of the five headings below are based on an extensive research base and must be used synergistically, in combination with one another, in order to be effective (e.g. Alvermann & Phelps, 1998; Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1993; Langer, 1999, 2001; Schoenbach et al, 1999; Tharp, 1999).

Promising Practices Related to the Roles of the Teacher

Promising Practices Related to Reading and Writing

Promising Practices Related to Speaking and Listening

Promising Practices Related to an Emphasis on Thinking

Promising Practices Related to Creating a Student-Centered Classroom

[top]

Research on Reading and Writing

The second recommendation from the research is an increased emphasis on reading and writing instruction within the context of content-area learning. The research supports the common-sense notion that time spent reading and writing will improve those skills (Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1993; Duke & Pearson, 2002). For example, regularly scheduled time for sustained silent reading, when effectively implemented either school-wide or as a regular element of a course, has been linked to building a positive literacy culture. Sustained silent reading time supports reading practice, addresses the needs and interests of a variety of learners, and improves reading skills, including among ELL students (Flaspeter, 1995; Ivey & Broaddus, 2000; Mosher, 1999; Pilgreen, 2000; Schoenbach et al., 1999). Effective implementation seems to be a key qualifier, however, because there are some studies in this area that do not show consistent positive gains (e.g., Yoon, 2002).

Chances to practice are not enough; there is growing consensus that to support students' abilities to maximize learning from texts, content-area teachers need to provide content-area reading instruction as part of teaching in the content-focused classroom (e.g., Jacobs, 1999; Langer, 2002; Moore, Alvermann, & Hinchman, 2000; Vacca, 2002). Opportunity and expectations to read and write, while essential, will not by themselves ensure the development of academic literacy habits and skills.

Newer scholarship shows an increased understanding of the ways that reading and writing reinforce one another and contribute to content learning (e.g., Yore, Shymansky, Henriques, Chidsey, & Lewis, 1997). This represents a shift; traditionally, reading and writing have been conceptualized as related but sufficiently different that one could be engaged without conscious reference to the other. The literature differentiates between writing instruction and writing to learn, although both are acknowledged as inextricably related to reading, thinking, and content learning. There is a growing body of research emphasizing the efficacy of using writing to learn strategies. In conjunction with the use of written texts, there is evidence that writing to learn can contribute to improved reading comprehension and content learning (e.g., Boscolo & Mason, 2001; Pugalee, 2002; Spanier, 1992; TePaske, 1982). Thus, both discussion of texts and production of texts are seen as important to developing content-area literacy and learning.

Examples of writing to learn strategies that simultaneously increase content understanding and improve reading and writing skills include paired reading, quick writes, peer conferencing, creation of Reader's Theatre scripts, use of Jigsaw groups to discuss different short readings on the same topic, use of a Readers' Workshop approach, use of a Writers' Workshop approach, rereading assignments for a different purpose, rewriting text from other points of view, use of literature circles, dialogic journals, use of learning logs, and connecting text with other media using a critical literacy perspective. The literature suggests that before, during, and after reading comprehension strategies should be linked to provide scaffolding for struggling and average readers as they work with advanced texts.

Effective writing instruction gives students frequent opportunities to write, accompanied with feedback and opportunities to edit and revise, along with guidance in how to do so (Williams, 2003). However, in lower track high school classes that have more students needing to develop their literacy skills, instruction is much less likely to focus on advanced writing tasks (like revising text and writing based on multiple sources) that would enhance literacy. More likely is a focus on dictations, short answer activities, and other similar tasks that limit writing practice (Harklau et al., 1999; Oakes, 1985). In this context, Callahan's (2005) finding that track placement is a better predictor of ELLs' academic success than their measured English proficiency is not surprising.

Research suggests that opportunities to create, discuss, share, revise, and edit a variety of types of texts helps develop content-area understanding and familiarity with the types of texts found in a particular content area, as well as developing reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills. Encouraging students to pursue these opportunities improves written communication skills, thinking skills, and memory (Alvermann & Phelps, 1998; Cotton, 1991; Langer, 1999; Schoenbach et al., 1999). The literature, however, warns that in order to provide helpful feedback to students about their writing, teachers need to know their students' writing strengths and challenges and they need to have a plan for helping students develop academic writing skills. This may be especially true for those students who speak non-standard varieties of English-for example, African American Vernacular English or Appalachian English (Ball, 1998; Ball & Farr, 2003; Baugh, 2002; Moore et al., 2000; Perry & Delpit, 1998).

Several researchers have identified essential components of the classroom that successfully supports increased reading and writing (e.g., Duke & Pearson, 2002; Ivey & Broaddus, 2000; Langer, 1999, 2002; Ruddell & Unrau, 1996). Some have provided explicit descriptions of good instruction that elicits quality reading and writing from reluctant readers and writers by engaging students in their own literacy development (e.g., Schoenbach et al., 1999) or building directly on the literacies that students bring with them to school (e.g., Lee, 2004). However, researchers who have studied the ecological interactions-that is, the combined environmental conditions and discourse patterns that characterize classrooms-note that developing and sustaining a classroom that truly fosters critical reading and writing habits is a far more complex endeavor than the lists of elements cited as part of effective reading and writing instruction would suggest (e.g., Nystrand & Graff, 2001).

[top]

Research on Using This Practice With English Language Learners

Traditional approaches to teaching reading to students of diverse backgrounds have not been effective. Instead, these traditional approaches, such as grouping and tracking and a heavy emphasis on skill instruction, have formed systems or patterns that put students of diverse backgrounds at a continued disadvantage in learning to read. . . . The solution to the problem seems to be that we must put new systems or patterns in place. . . . We must make sure that students of diverse backgrounds have the opportunity to participate in literature-based instruction and the readers' workshop, following a continuum of teaching strategies that involves them in motivating, meaningful reading experiences. The continuum of strategies is supplemented with intensive instruction, as needed, in areas such as decoding and comprehension (p. 409).

Peregoy and Boyle (2000) note that with intermediate ELL readers, the deliberate and purposeful uses of before (e.g., purpose for reading, activating background knowledge, introduction of vocabulary), during (e.g., teacher and student co-reading, prediction, paired reading, student response logs, use of graphic organizers such as story maps), and after strategies (e.g., mapping, dramatization, creating a mural, writing reader's theatre scripts) are critical for supporting comprehension and content recall (p. 245-246).

Text itself emerges in the ELL literature as a key instructional aid for content-area learning. Scarcella (2002) identifies it as essential input for advanced literacy development. Harklau (2002) notes that the act of producing text (writing) in addition to speaking and listening activities seems to be more effective than lecture or discussion alone for enhancing content-area learning and academic literacy development. She also notes that the reviewability of text is a key and often preferred feature for ELLs. Unlike oral communication (which, unless recorded, disappears as fast as it is spoken), written text is available for ongoing examination, which allows ELLs (and other learners) to reread, to check emergent interpretive hypotheses, to compare to L1 literacy rules and conventions they may know, and to practice repeatedly.

Peregoy and Boyle (2000) note that transfer of literacy ability from one language to another depends on the similarities and differences between their writing systems, including the unit of speech symbolized by each character, directionality, and spacing conventions. They suggest that specific differences among writing systems must be explicitly addressed when teaching English reading to students who are literate in their primary language (p. 241). At the very least, the fact that there are differences and what the conventions of print are in English need to be explicitly taught.

Schleppegrell (2004) finds that Silva's (1993) synthesis of 72 research reports comparing the composing processes and written text features of native versus second language adult writers of English and a number of reports on writing by speakers of English as a second language or dialect (i.e., Hinkel, 2002; Kutz, 1986; Schleppegrell, 1996; Shaugnessy, 1977; Whiteman, 1981) all raise an interesting point: In developing an academic style of writing, most ELLs rely heavily on oral language features in their writing. In adults, the writings of ELLs are less fluent (fewer words), less accurate (more errors), and less effective. They use longer clauses, more conjunctions as connectors, less noun modification, and fewer lexical ties-less sophistication and overall cohesion. L2 writers of English also rely more on personal anecdotes rather than on reasoned arguments in persuasive writing. Schleppegrell (2004) also notes that second language English writers tend to use because clauses more often than L1 English speakers. The use of because is often illogical, or makes the writing too informal or underdeveloped (p. 107). She posits that this likely reflects a transfer from oral language habits and notes that Goldman and Murray (1992) also found that second language writers overused causal connectors and similarly suggested that this was likely a transfer of habits developed in informal conversational contexts. Most importantly, Schleppegrell suggests that students who produce such sentences need explicit instruction and new strategies for introducing their judgments and assessments and that they need help recognizing that the forms they are using are less effective in academic writing than in informal interaction. They need to be shown how oral and written registers of English differ from each other. Writing in English often presents a major challenge for ELLs, even for those who have mastered academic writing in their first language. These challenges overlap with those faced by users of non-standard dialects of English. Supportive explicit instruction helps these learners master the conventions of standard, academic language use (Delpit, 1995).

In another example, Schleppegrell (2004) references how ELLs' writing also can reflect common training and activities from ESL classes. For example, if in such settings students are often encouraged to write personal narratives, it follows that a first impulse in writing in any content area is to write as if the genre calls for a personal narrative (p. 150). She cites Hinkel's (2002) work to support this assertion, adding, Teachers need to create opportunities for students to write different types of texts and help them focus on how those texts are most effectively constructed so that students can extend their repertoires and make register choices that realize new and more challenging genres (p. 151).

[top]

References

Alverman, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content Reading and Literacy: Succeeding in Today's Diverse Classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Alvermann, D., & Moore D. (1991). Secondary School Reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. Vol. II, 951-983). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Billmeyer, R., & Barton, M. L. (1998). Teaching Reading in the Content Areas: If not Me, Then Who? Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory.

Chow, P. & Chou, C. (November 2000) Evaluating sustained silent reading in reading classes. The Internet TEST Journal, Vol. VI, No. 11. Available at:http://iteslj.org/Articles/Chow-SSR.html

Christen, W. L., & Murphy, T. J. (1991, March). Increasing Comprehension by Activating Prior Knowledge. ERIC Digest on Reading Comprehension, ED328885. Available: http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9219/prior.htm.

Collins, N. D. (1996, June). Motivating Low Performing Adolescent Readers. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, 112. Available: http://www.ericdigests.org/1997-1/low.html.

Collins, N. (1994, June). Metacognition and Reading to Learn. ERIC Digest #96, EDO-CS-94-09. Available:http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d96.html.

Collins, V.L., Dickson, S.V., Simmons, D.C., & Kameenue, E.J. Metacognition and Its Relation to Reading Comprehension: A Synthesis of the Research. Available: http://idea.uoregon.edu/%7Encite/documents/techrep/tech23.html.

Cotton, K. (1988, February). Teaching Composition: Research on Effective Practices. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/2/topsyn2.html.

Davidson, J., & Koppenhaver, D. (1993). Adolescent Literacy: What Works and Why. Second Edition. Garland Reference Library of Social Science (Volume 828). Garland Publishing Company: New York & London.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, D. P. (In press). Effective Practices for Developing Reading Comprehension. Available:http://www.scholastic.com/dodea/Module_1/resources/dodea_m1_pa_duke.pdf.

Flaspeter, R. (1995). Sustained Silent Reading: Implementation in the LEP Classroom Based on Research Results. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Jacksonsville, FL.

Garner, R. (1992). Metacognition and Self-Monitoring Strategies. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 236-252). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberh, H. J. (1988). Can Comprehension be Taught: A Quantitative Synthesis of "Metacognitive" Studies. Educational Researcher, 17(9), 5-8.

Krogness, M. M. (1995). Just Teach Me, Mrs. K.: Talking, Reading, and Writing With Resistant Adolescent Learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Langer, J. (2001). Guidelines for Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement. Available: http://cela.albany.edu.

Langer, J. (1999). Beating the Odds: Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well. Available:http://cela.albany.edu/guidetext.pdf.

McCombs, B., & Barton, M. (1998). Motivating Secondary School Students to Read Their Textbooks. NASSP Bulletin, 82 (600), 24-33.

Ozburn, M. (1995, Spring). A Successful High School Sustained Silent Reading Program. English in Texas, 26(3), 4-5.

Palinscar, A. S. (1986). The Role of Dialogue in Providing Scaffolded Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 78-98.

Paris, S., Lipson, M., & Wixson, K. (1994). Becoming a Strategic Reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 788-810). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pilgreen, J., & Krashen, S. (1993, Fall). Sustained Silent Reading with English as a Second Language High School Students: Impact on Reading Comprehension, Reading Frequency, and Reading Enjoyment. School Library Media Quarterly, 22(1), 21-23.

Rosenshine, B. (1997, March 24 - 28). The Case for Explicit, Teacher-led, Cognitive Strategy Instruction. Presented at the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. Available: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/barak/barak1.html.

Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman S. (1996, Summer). Teaching Students to Generate Questions: A Review of the Intervention Studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994, Winter). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the Research. Review of Educational Review, 64(4), 479-530.

Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (1994). Reading as a Meaning-Construction Process: The Reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 996-1056). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle and High School Classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tharp, R. (1999, January). Proofs and Evidence: Effectiveness of the Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy. In Effective Teaching Series #2 [Online]. Available:http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/standards/effectiveness.shtml.

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1992). A Revisionist Perspective on Learning to Learn from Text: A Framework for Improving Classroom Practice. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 514-519). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Tierney, R. J., & Person, P. D. (1981). Learning to Learn from Text: A Framework for Improving Classroom Practice. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 496-513). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Valeri-Gold, M. (1995, Feb). Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading Is an Effective Authentic Method for College Developmental Learners. Journal of Reading, 38(5), 385-86.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The Teaching of Learning Strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: MacMillan.

Alvermann, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in today's diverse classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Au, K. H. (2002). Multicultural factors and the effective instruction of students of diverse backgrounds. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed. pp. 392-414). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.

Ball, A. F. (1998). Evaluating the writing of culturally and linguistically diverse students: The case of the African American vernacular English speaker. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: The role of teachers' knowledge about text, learning, and culture (pp. 225-248). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English Press.

Ball, A. F., & Farr, M. (2003). Language varieties, culture, and teaching the English language arts. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jenson (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 435-445). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baugh, J. (2002). African American language and literacy. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi, (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 177-185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2001). Writing to learn, writing to transfer. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 83-104). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Callahan, R. (2005). Tracking and high school English language learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328.

Cotton, K. (1991). Teaching thinking skills. School Improvement Research Series, Close-up #11. Portland, OR: NorthWest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu11.html

Davidson, J., & Koppenhaver, D. (1993). Adolescent literacy: What works and why (2nd ed.). Garland Reference Library of Social Science (Vol. 828). Garland Publishing Company: New York & London.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people& children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995b). English-as-a-second-language reading instruction in the United States: A research review. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(2), 115-152.

Flaspeter, R. (1995). Sustained silent reading: Implementation in the LEP classroom based on research results. Presented at the annual meeting of the Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Jacksonville, FL.

Goldman, S. R. & Murray, J. D. (1992). Knowledge of connectors as cohesion devices in text: A comparative study of native English and English-as-a-second-language speakers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 504-519.

Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329-50.

Harklau, L., Losey, K. M, & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S. educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2000). Tailoring the fit: Reading instruction and middle school readers. The Reading Teacher, 54, 68-78.

Jacobs, V. A. (1999, July/August). What secondary teachers can do to teach reading: A three-step strategy for helping students delve deeper into texts. Harvard Education Letter. Retrieved August 5, 2005 from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/1999-ja/secondary.shtml

Kutz, E. (1986). Between students' language and academic discourse: Interlanguage as middle ground. College English, 48(4), 385-396.

Langer, J. A. (1999). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. (Research Rep. No. 12014). Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, State University of New York at Albany.

Langer, J. A. (2002). Effective literacy instruction: Building successful reading and writing programs. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Lee, C. (2004, Winter/Spring). Literacy in the academic disciplines. Voices in Urban Education, 3, 14-25.

Moore, D. W., Alvermann, D. E., & Hinchman, K. A. (2000). Struggling adolescent readers: A collection of teaching strategies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Mosher, D. J. (1999). Improving vocabulary knowledge and reading attitudes in 4th grade students through direct vocabulary instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL.

Nystrand, M., & Graff, N. (2001) Report in argument's clothing: An ecological perspective on writing instruction in a seventh-grade classroom. Elementary School Journal, 101, p. 479.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2000). English learners reading English: What we know, what we need to know. Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 237-247.

Perry, T., & Delpit, L. (Eds.). (1998). The real ebonics debate. Boston: Beacon Press.

Pilgreen, J. L. (2000). The sustained silent reading handbook. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pugalee, D. K. (2002, April). The effects of writing on eighth grade students' mathematical communication. American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved August 29, 2005 from: http://edtech.connect.msu.edu/Searchaera2002/searchsessions.asp?sessID=318

Scarcella, R. (2002). Some key factors affecting English learners' development of advanced literacy. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 209-226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schleppegrell, M.J. (1996). Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 271-285.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shaugnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford Press.

Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.

Spanier, B. (1992). Encountering the biological sciences: Ideology, language, and learning. In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines (pp. 193-212). New York: Modern Language Association.

TePaske, E. R. (1982, February). Writing in biology: One way to improve analytical thinking. American Biology Teacher, 44, 98-99.

Vacca, R. T. (2002). Making a difference in adolescents' school lives: Visible and invisible aspects of content area reading. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 184-204). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.

Whiteman, M. F. (1981). Dialect influence in writing. In M. Whiteman (Ed.), Variation in writing: Functional and linguistic cultural differences (pp. 153-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Williams, J.D. (2003). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Yoon, J. (2002). Three decades of sustained silent reading: A meta-analytic review of the effects of SSR on attitude toward reading journal article. Reading Improvement, 39(4), 186-195.

Yore, L., Shymansky, J., Henriques, L., Chidsey, J., & Lewis, J. (1997). Reading and writing to learn science-activities for the elementary classroom. Co-presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Cincinnati, OH.

[top]

This resource is developed and maintained by The Education Alliance at Brown University. Seed funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Education. Send comments to: loom@alliance.brown.edu