Susan Lareau, Central Connecticut State University
Joseph Pandolfio, Kennelly School-Hartford
Deborah Rand, Windham Center School-Windham
Carolyn Turner, Dr. Joseph J. Bellizzi Middle School-Hartford
Introduction
“The face of content area literacy instruction is changing. Once associated exclusively with middle and high school instruction, today, as never before, educators are directing their attention to the importance of encouraging content area literacy instruction at even the earliest levels” (Moss, 2005, p. 46). In the article, “Searching Informational Texts: Text and Task Characteristics That Affect Performance” the author states, “Informational texts deal with relatively less familiar content and use text organizational patterns (e.g., compare and contrast, cause/effect) different from the traditional narrative structure.”(Brown, 2003, p.1 ). With the current academic focus on reading instruction across the curriculum we were interested to see if expository text structure knowledge would affect students’ expository writing.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of our research, The Impact of Expository Text Structure Knowledge on Fifth and Eight Grade Student’s Expository Writing focuses on the relationship between student knowledge of expository text structures and the transfer of that knowledge to the students’ expository writing.
Review of Literature
Currently an “ever-deepening crisis in adolescent literacy” exists according to a position statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association (1999). The expectations of adolescent students to comprehend complex content are unlike any expectations set for previous generations of students, due in part to the complex technological demands of today’s workplace. Alarming statistics from the 1998 Reading Report Card by National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that approximately only sixty percent of U.S. adolescents could understand factual statements and less than five percent could elaborate on the meaning of the material read (Meltzer, 2001). NAEP writing assessments also showed that few adolescents could write material with the amount of detail needed to support their main points. If students can’t understand the science they are reading, how can they be expected to draw a correlation for an experiment, understand a scientific argument or write about cause/effect? These same questions can be asked with different disciplines such as history or mathematics. Students must learn how to distinguish, identify and interpret the most important expository content and succeed in transferring this information into their expository writing. As students are being pushed to read and understand more content, many students struggle with not only what the text is about but also how to read it. Students who are unfamiliar with expository reading have difficulty understanding how to negotiate these texts because they lack schema for such genre and topics (Villano, 2005).
Today’s adolescents in the 21st century working world will read and write more than at any time in human history (Vacca, 2002). They will need advanced literacy levels to succeed in managing the vast quantities of information they will be confronted with in their professional and personal lives. Compounding the problem is students entering middle and high school receive little or no instruction in using reading and writing strategies to learn with texts (Vacca, 2002).
As reported by Vacca, a recent report by the Carnegie Corporation of New York finds that more than 50% of students entering high school in the 35 largest cities in the United States read at or below the sixth grade level. While appearing skillful at reading, some students are only going through the rote process of reading and writing while they are unable to interpret the meaning of content area subject matter. Although students receive instruction in rhetorical writing, they rarely associate writing with learning “by using writing to explore and interpret meaning that they encounter in texts and class discussions,” (Vacca, 2002, p. 3).
Because of the importance of text structure in comprehension and writing, the issue is not whether text structure instruction is effective but what type of instruction is most effective (as cited in Englert & Hiebert, 1984; Horowitz, 1985; McGee, 1982). Students that were aware of text structure while reading produced better structure in their writing and were better comprehenders (as cited in McGee, 1982). Research findings suggest the importance of leveraging reading and writing relationships when creating text structure interventions or lesson plans. In their analysis of textbooks Kragler (2005) noted, that the social studies and science texts primarily focused on assessing student understanding rather than a focus on comprehension instruction. Comprehension instruction that was offered was inadequate.
In “Integrating Reading and Writing to Teach Compare-Contrast Text Structure: A Research-Based Methodology”, Shirley Dickson (1999) states that “Research in text structure, writing process, and integrated reading and writing provides evidence that these instructional components mutually support each other” (p.1 ). Dickson’s statement is an affirmation of our research of the relationship between student knowledge of expository text structures and the transfer of that knowledge to the students’ expository writing.
A study conducted by Williams, Hall and Lauer (2004) on the benefits of teaching expository text structure to young at-risk learners demonstrated that even second grade students benefited from specific instruction in expository text structure. Some of the conclusions drawn from the study were that knowledge of text structure organization improves comprehension and positively affects the ability to transfer this knowledge both orally and in written summaries. This instruction, especially if it is geared toward a single text structure such as cause and effect that was used in the study, is effective in improving students’ comprehension of expository text.
Some of the lessons taught in the Williams, Hall and Lauer study {2004) are similar to lessons used in our research. These include the use of graphic organizers, teaching compare and contrast strategy questions, summarization, and instruction in “clue” words used in the cause/effect text structure.
Solutions to Address the Problem
Vacca (2002) points out that while content literacy programs are emerging in middle and high schools he believes it is important that all subject teachers share the responsibility in literacy development. More teachers, he writes, are aware of the needs of their adolescent students, and are finally beginning to use instructional strategies that incorporate content literacy.
Sinatra (2000) points out that, in order to effect change, teachers need to model the use of concept maps; providing guided practice in concept mapping, and encouraging progression toward using concept mapping independently. This should be done as part of teaching expository text structure and allowing for more student led discussion.
Jacobs (2002) states that teachers need to activate and organize students background knowledge and that they must effectively use strategies that bridge known to new knowledge, such as brainstorming, using graphic organizers, doze passages and encourage the development of students’ own questions through writing or interactive writing. Along with Vacca, Jacobs too talks of staff development, where content area teachers must examine their instructional goals to see how reading and writing to learn in the content areas can lead to a stronger development and a clearer understanding for students.
Limitations in Existing Research
After an extensive search, few studies were found that paralleled our research, The Impact of Expository Text Structure Knowledge on Fifth and Eighth Grade Student’s Expository Writing. The majority of the studies focused on the need for expository text structure knowledge and its relationship to reading comprehension. Few studies were found with supporting material for the transfer of text structure knowledge from reading to the expository writing process.
Numerous studies approached the topic of teaching reading strategies in the content areas and went on to propose that reading instruction is the responsibility of all teachers, including content area teachers, due to the fad that, unfamiliarity with expository text structure interferes with student’s ability to understand the “to-be-learned” material (Bakken & Wheldon, 2002). Students need direct instruction in expository text structure; and that concept mapping aids in the writing process Sinatra (2000). The article does not claim direct instruction in expository text structure improved students’ expository writing with a transfer of strategies from the reading process to the writing process.
We attempted to answer two questions during our research:
- Do students possess background knowledge of text structure from their reading?
- With direct instruction of the cause/effect expository text structure will we see a transfer of knowledge to the students’ expository writing?
Method
Participants:
This qualitative study involved two classes, one fifth grade, and one eighth grade located in the same urban district. The participants consisted of 9 elementary and 7 middle school students. All participants were from inclusion classrooms and no distinctions were made between special education students and regular education students during the study. Students were chosen through convenience sampling. Our study was designed to measure the students’ expository text structure knowledge on their expository writing using cause/effect genre.
Instrumentation:
Baseline data was collected through the triangulation of two types of instruments. The first instrument was (a) modified Cloze of an expository cause/effect passage. This modified Cloze consisted of 200-250 words. The second instrument (b) an open ended visual cue provided the participants with two pictorial representations of a cause/effect relationship. These visuals were used to elicit an open ended written response which provided evidence of the students’ expository writing knowledge using the cause/effect structure. Visuals provided a modification for inclusion students to respond with their peers. Participant responses to visuals were critically viewed through the use of a rubric. This rubric measured participants’ understanding and application of necessary key elements of cause/effect writing.
To allow for consistency in the scoring of student work, each researcher participated in the development of the parameters used in the rubric. Scoring was based on the format used on the Connecticut Mastery Test-Third Generation. Each student’s writing score was based on two separate readings each producing a score between 0 and 4. A third scorer was used when there was a discrepancy of more than one point between the judgments of the first two scorers. The two scores for each essay were added to produce the final score for each student with a maximum score of 8. In order to control bias due to student familiarity. the classroom teacher, as well as an objective scorer/researcher assessed the data.
Prior to instruction both instruments were administered in order to establish a baseline of the participants’ knowledge of expository text structure and its impact on their expository writing. In order to establish fair baseline data all participants involved were assigned a number. Every third number was then selected from this list, thus allowing for a fair distribution of participants from the high, middle, and low ranges. This process also allowed for the inclusion of special education students from both classrooms.
At midpoint of the study, the students’ knowledge of cause/effect text structure and its effect on their writing was re-evaluated using different versions of each instrument. These instruments were administered only after the students had been exposed to the cause/effect text framework along with sufficient modeling, guided practice and independent application of the cause/effect writing framework.
For the final assessment a change was made to the visual cue instrument. Instead of providing the participants with two pictorial representations of a cause/effect relationship, only one was provided. This was done in order to ascertain whether or not participants had internalized the instruction of cause/effect genre. In regard to the Cloze passages all three fifth grade passages had a number of cause/ effect signal words eliminated from the text. However, for grade eight the third Cloze passage had an elimination of phrases indicating cause/ effect relationships.
Results
In exploration of our research topic, The Impact of Expository Text Structure Knowledge on Fifth and Eighth Grade Students’ Expository Writing our random sample group of participants consisted of 9 fifth grade students and 7 eighth grade students selected from a pool of 50 students that participated in our study (see table below).
Visual Prompt and Cloze Passage scores from 5th and 8th grade random sample
Discussion
Consistent with the findings of several other researchers; Moore (1996), Jacobs (2002), Sinatra (2000), Dixon (1999), Williams, Hall and Lauer (2004), our research findings strongly suggest that specific instruction in expository text structure positively affects students’ comprehension of material read with a transfer of text structure skills to the students’ writing.
Data analysis of results from both the visual prompt as well as the Cloze passage demonstrate an increase in student scores for both fifth and eighth graders. When comparing baseline to final scores for the visual prompt assessment, there was an increase of 62% in correct student responses. Cloze passage assessment also showed a significant increase of 75% from the baseline to the final assessment.
Interestingly, when viewing the results of the fifth and eighth grades separately, 67% of the fifth graders and 29% of the eighth graders showed a significant drop in their visual prompt responses when comparing from baseline to mid-point. A factor that may have contributed to this decline in scores was that CMT testing occurred during this time period which adversely affected pacing of instruction and delivery of assessments.
Limitations
The primary limitations of the study were the limited amount of time allocated in conducting the research and lesson design. Also, the research was conducted during the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and was administered around the CMT test schedule.
Initially, lesson design for both 5th and 8th grade was identical but was modified to meet the individual needs of each class. “Modifications made must be based on sound knowledge of the learner: what he 16 or she knows and can do, as well as his or her learning style” (as cited in McMackin & Witherell, 2005, p. 249). The fifth grade students required more practice in cause/effect because of their limited exposure to the structure. The eighth grade students had previous experience using cause/effect and thus became bored with the amount of lessons administered. The lesson design and the number of lessons had to be modified. Also, the fifth grade needed more explicit instruction in application and use of a rubric, whereas the eighth grade did not.
Strengths
The primary strengths of the research include the sample size, use of students in the same urban school district, use of visual prompts and continuous weekly meeting of the researchers.
The sample size of fifty participants from which our random group of sixteen was selected was manageable and allowed the researchers to conduct an in-depth analysis of each participant’s work. Using students from the same urban school district allowed for a fair comparison of students from the same socio-economic background.
The use of visual prompts allowed ESL, struggling readers and special education students to complete the assignment of writing an expository passage using cause/effect that was not dependent on their reading ability. As a result of the cause/effect lessons included in the research study all participants were exposed to the cause/effect structure and had additional practice in using cause/effect. This enabled them to have prior knowledge that may have aided them in the Cloze portion of the CMT.
Implications
Our results strongly suggest that instruction in cause/effect text structure positively affected the students’ expository writing with a transfer of knowledge from reading to writing. Resulting from an indepth analysis of participants’ work, we identified significant improvement over time in students’ baseline to final assessment scores for the random sample of students selected.
With our findings in mind we agree with Sinatra (2000) that a shift in teaching style is needed in order to address content area reading instruction. “Teachers need to move from the ‘broad brush’ approach of covering content to focusing on selected topics in depth.” According to Moss (2005) students receive limited exposure to exposition and get little instruction in how to comprehend information text. We assume students can transfer their ability to read narrative into competent reading of non-narrative, upon which much of their further education and capacity to deal with adult life will depend.
Suggestions for Future Research
Suggestions for future research would include the replication of this cause/effect text structure study in other urban districts within Connecticut to establish validity for this research project. Another area of productive research might be the study of other expository text structures such as: compare/contrast, sequence, and description to see if knowledge of these structures is transferred to academic areas other than in which they were learned.
References
Bakken, J. P., & Wheldon, C. K. (2002). Teaching Text Structure to Improve Reading Comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 229-233. Retrieved February 4, 2006, ERIC database.
Brown, G. I L (2003). Searching Informational Texts: Text and Task Characteristics That Affect Performance. Reading Online, 7(2).Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp
Dickson, S. ( 1999). Integrating Reading and Writing to Teach Compare-Contrast Text Structure: A Research-Based Methodology. The Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, p50.
Jacobs, V. A. (2002). Reading, Writing and Understanding. Educational leadership. 60(3),58-61. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from ERIC database.
Kragler, S., Walker, C. A., & Martin, L. E. {2005). Strategy instruction in primary content textbooks. The Reading Teacher, 59, (3).
Meltzer, J. (2001). Supporting Adolescent literacy across the Content Areas. Perspectives on Policy and Practice. Retrieved February 4, 2006, ERIC database.
McMackin, M. C., & Witherell, N. l. (2005}. Different routes to the same destination: Drawing conclusions with tiered graphic organizers. The Reading Teacher, 59, (3).
Moore, S. R. (1996). Collaboration and the Reading-Writing Relationship: Implications for Building Schemata for Expository Text. New York, NY. Retrieved February 15, 2006, ERIC database.
Moss, B. (2005). Making a case and a place for effective content area literacy instruction in the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 59(1).
Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Teaching learners to Think. Read, and Write More Effectively in Content Subjects. The Gearing House, 73(5), 266-273. Retrieved February 4, 2006,from ERIC database.
Vacca, R. I (2002). From Efficient Decoders to Strategic Readers. Educational leadership, 60(3), 6-11. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from ERIC database. 18
Villano, I l. (2005). Should social studies textbooks become history? A look at alternative methods to activate schema in the intermediate classroom. The Reading Teacher, 59 (2).
Williams, J.P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K.D. (2004). Teaching Expository Text Structure to Young At-Risk learners: Building the Basics of Comprehension Instruction. Exceptionality 12(3), 129-144.