A Case Study of Two College Students’ Reading Strategies and Their Writing Styles

Zhanfang Li

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. 


Keywords


Accuracy, focus-on-form, focus-on-meaning, fluency.

Full Text:

PDF

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.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18533/journal.v5i7.972

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




.............................................................................................................................

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

.............................................................................................................................

If you find difficulties in submitting manuscript please forward your doc file to support@theartsjournal.org. Our support team will assist you in submission process and other technical matters.

In order to get notifications on inbox please add theartsjournal.org in your email safe list.

Journal of Arts and Humanities (Print) ISSN:2167-9045

Journal of Arts and Humanities (Online) ISSN: 2167-9053

[Journal of Arts and Humanities previously published by MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, MD, USA. From February 2018 this journal is published by the LAR Center Press, OR, USA]