A Case Study of Two College Students’ Reading Strategies and Their Writing Styles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v5i7.972Keywords:
Accuracy, focus-on-form, focus-on-meaning, fluency.Abstract
The importance of integrating reading and writing has aroused many people’s interest, and how to bridge the gap between input (reading) and output (writing) is regarded as an urgent necessity. However, input does not equal to intake, and to achieve the stage of intake, the reader’s conscious attention to the input is necessary, which is commonly realized in the reading process, either by intensive reading (focus-on-form) or extensive reading (focus-on-meaning). Previous studies put more emphasis on extensive reading, while this study is based on the assumed different effects of reading strategies upon writing styles, that is, intensive reading may guarantee accurate writing and extensive reading may promote fluent writing. Therefore the relationship between two college students’ reading strategies and writing styles is the focus of this study. The research lasts for 16 months (August, 2014 - December, 2015), during which all their journal writing pieces, their term papers, together with their compositions in the final exams, are used as the written data, while materials concerned with their reading strategies are collected by a questionnaire, two interviews, as well as their written self-reflections. Results show that extensive reading with a subconscious focus-on-meaning tends to enhance the fluency of writing while intensive reading with a conscious focus-on-form is more likely to promote the writing accuracy. Findings suggest that production is based on intake, which is the result of either the subconscious or conscious attention to both the language meaning and language form.
References
Berninger, V. W. et al. (2002). Reading and Writing: Connections between Language by Hand and Language by Eye. Journal of Disabilities, 35 (1): 39-56.
Cavdar, G. & Doe, S. (2012). Learning through Writing: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in Writing Assignments. PS: Political Science and Politics, (2): 298-306.
Condon, W. & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing Writing, (9): 56-75. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003
Cumming, A. (2013). Assessing integrated writing tasks for academic purposes: Promises and Perils. Language Assessment Quarterly, (1):1-8.
Day, R. & Bamford, J., (1998). Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elbow, P. (2004). Putting writing before reading is an effective approach to teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 5: 8-13.
Gao, Qiuping. (2013). The Development of Chinese English Majors’ Thinking in Argumentative English Writing. Beijing: Foreign Language Press.
Gebhard, M. et al., (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy, and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, (22): 107-124. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.005
Grabowski, J. (2010). Speaking, writing, and memory span in children: Output modality affects cognitive performance. International Journal of Psychology, 45 (1): 28-39. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/00207590902914051
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4): 459–479. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1362168807080963
He, Wu. (2013). From English Novel Reading to English Writing — Report on a LSA-driven EFL Writing Pedagogical Experiment. Foreign Language Research, (5): 125-129.
Hirvela, A. & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?” Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (12):87-98. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005
Hood, S. (2008). Summary writing in academic texts: implicating meaning in processes of change. Linguistics and Education, (19): 351-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2008.06.003
Ji, X., (2009). A Comparative Study of the Impact of Writing-only and Reading-to-write. Tianjin Foreign Language Xuebao, (5): 65-71.
Lee, Hye-Jung & Lim, C. (2012). Peer Evaluation in Blended Team Project-based Learning: What do Students Find Important? Educational Technology and Society, (15): 214-224.
Li, B., (2012). A Comparative Study of the Approaches for Integrating Reading and Writing in China and America. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method, (10): 116-120.
Li, J., (2013). Reading and Writing: The Gap between Input and Output. Shaanxi Jiaoyu (Gaojiao), (12): 55-57.
Li, Z., (2014). Reading-to-write: A Practice of Critical Thinking. The Journal of Arts and Humanities, (5): 67-71.
Li, Z., (2015). Connecting Reading and Writing: A Case Study. English Language Teaching, (6): 150-158.
Mannion, G. (2001). Journal Writing and Learning: reading between the structural, holistic, and post-structural lines. Studies in Continuing Education, 23 (1): 95-115.
Mayo, L. (2000). Making the Connection: Reading and Writing Together. The English Journal, 89 (4): 74-77.
Montgomery, W. (2001). Journal Writing: Connecting Reading and Writing in Mainstream Educational Setting. Reading & Writing Quarterly, (17): 93—98.
Murray, R. (2013). ‘It’s not a hobby’: reconceptualizing the place of writing in academic work. Higher Education, (1): 79-91.
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, (13): 111-129.
Plakans, L. & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigating into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, (7): 18-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016.j.asw.2011.09.002
Plakans, L. & Gebrial, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, (22): 217-230. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.02.003
Saxton, E., Belinger, S. & Becker, W. (2012). The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric (CTAR): Investigating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a scoring mechanism for critical thinking performance assessments. Assessing Writing, (17): 251-270. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.asw.2012.07.002
Thompson, C., Morton, J, & Storch, N. (2013). Where from, who, why, and how? A study of the use of sources by first year L2 University students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, (12): 99:-109. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.004
Truscott, J. & Sharwood Smith, M. (2011). Input, Intake, and Consciousness: The Quest for a Theoretical Foundation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, (33): 497–5 28. doi:10.1017/S0272263111000295
Wang, C., (2012). The Continuation Task: An Effective Way of Learning English. Foreign Language World, (5): 2-7.
Weissberg, R. (2013). Critically Thinking about Critical Thinking. Acad. Quest, (26):317–328.
Yang, L., (2010). The English Teachers’ Beliefs of Writing and Their Teaching Practices: A Case Study of Two Experienced Teachers. Foreign Language Teaching Theory and Practice, (2):59-68.
Zhang, X., (2009a). An Interface between Critical Thinking and Reading-to-writing Instruction. Journal of the Second Foreign Languages of Beijing, (10): 73-78.
Zhang, X., (2009b). Studies of Task-based Writing. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Languages, (1):75-80.
Zhang, X., & Yang, Li. (2010). The Impact of Journal-writing upon English Capability and Self-evaluation. Foreign Language World, (2):71-76.
Zhou, L., & Peerasak S., (2010). The Impact of Task-based Writing upon Reading. Foreign Language and Teaching, (6):53-56.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
