Writing & Reading Connections

Steve Graham
Arizona State University
Steve.graham@asu.edu
Common Assumption
It is commonly assumed that reading and writing are
related, but this relationship is not perfect.

For example, students who are good writers are almost

always good readers, but –

Weaker writers are not always weaker readers.

Good readers are not always good writers.

Why Study Reading & Writing
Connections

 Reading and Writing are connected, as

they draw upon common knowledge and
cognitive processes. Consequently,
improving students’ writing skills should
result in improved reading skills, and vice
versa.
SHARED KNOWLEDGE THEORY
Reading and writing draw on the same pools of knowledge

1. Content or domain knowledge.

2. Meta-knowledge about written language, as readers and writers
collectively draw upon what they know about the purposes and functions
of written language and how writers and readers interact to help them
interpret an author’s message and construct their own message for
others to read.
3. Pragmatic knowledge of text attributes, including knowledge of the
features of text, words, syntax, and usage, as writers and readers draw on
these as they decode/encode words and comprehend/construct
sentence or larger units of text.
4. Procedural knowledge which includes knowledge about how to access
information purposefully, set goals, question, predict, summarize, visualize,
and analyze.
Why Study Reading & Writing
Connections

Reading and Writing are both

communication activities, and writers
should gain insight about reading by
creating their own texts, leading to better
comprehension of texts produced by
others. Likewise, readers should gain insight
about writing by reading what authors have
written.
RHETORICAL Relations Theory
Engaging in reading or writing provides you with ideas and
information about the other.

 The purposes of reading and writing are to communicate. This

involves specific processes that can each inform the other.
Reading-writing relations act as a kind of conversation, and the
key variables include insights about and awareness of the
conversational partners and their purposes.

 For example, readers may acquire important insights into

writing, as they think about why an author used a particular
word, phrase, sentence, or rhetorical device to deliver their
intended meaning.
Why Study Reading & Writing
Connections

Reading and Writing are both

functional activities that can be
combined to accomplish specific
goals, such as learning new ideas
presented in a text or reading to
gather information for reading.
FUNCTIONAL THEORY
Reading and writing can be applied conjointly to meet
literacy goals in a functional manner.

 Reading and writing are tools that can be used together

much as a carpenter might use a spirit level and sabre saw
alternately when building something.

 For example, students might generate questions about

material read and answer them in writing to help them
focus their attention on specific ideas in the text.
Likewise, they might read to gather information to write
about.
Activity
 Read the passage and complete the activity.

 Discussion Question:
 What did you think of the passage?
 Do you think the writing task added to your comprehension of
the text? If so, in what ways?
1. Write a 2-4 sentence summary of the text.

2. Write and answer 3-4 questions about the text.

3. Take 3-4 lines of notes about the text.

A growing body of literature in education psychology advocates combining writing
with reading as a profitable study technique. Beach and Bridwell (1984), Flower (1979),
Kintsch and van Dijk (1978), Page (1974), and others argue that, when combined with
reading, writing fosters the identification of significant information in a text and
encourages reflection on that information as it is organized into a coherent written
response. Wittrock (1983) asserts that writing generates relations among the parts of
a text and between a text and its reader’s experience. Eanet and Manzo (1976) and
Odell (1980) further claim that by varying the writing task in response to reading, a
teacher can exercise control over the way students think about the content of a text
(emphasis added).
If the demands of organizing language account in some measure for the positive effects
of combined reading and writing activity, it would seem that the organizing demands
associated with different writing tasks might contribute to these effects differentially. A
demonstration of differential effects across variant writing tasks would lend support
for methods intended to guide students through a lesson by having students respond
to reading with different written responses. Currently, such methods are
recommended without empirical justification. If writing tasks are going to be
recommended rationally as instructional accompaniments to reading that provide a
way of directing students’ thinking about subject matter, more needs to be known
about how different
 How did writing a summary foster comprehension?

 How did writing and answering questions about text

foster comprehension?

 How did note taking foster comprehension?

Did We miss Anything?
 Writing fosters explicitness, as the writer must select which
ideas in text are most important.

 Writing enhances understanding, as the writer must put ideas

about text into their own words, making them think carefully
about what the ideas mean.

 Writing is integrative, as it encourages the writer to organize

ideas from text and about text into a coherent whole,
establishing specific relationships between these ideas.
Return to Science -- Why Study Reading
& Writing Connections

 If these theories are true –

 We can leverage each of these skills to facilitate the success

and the development of the other

 Will this work with students who find literacy challenging?

 Does this mean that we no longer need to dedicate specific

time to the teaching of each of these skills?
DATA, DATA, DATA
 So, are the Shared Knowledge, Rhetorical Relation, and
Functional Theories of Reading & Writing Relationships
valid?

 Are integrated reading/writing programs effective?

 Does all of his work for those who have literacy

challenges?
What Is Meta-analysis?
 Survey Research in which research reports, rather than
people, are surveyed –

 A coding form (survey protocol) is developed

 A Sample or Population of research reports are gathered

 Each report is interviewed by a coder who extracts important

information about its characteristics and quantitative findings

 The resulting data are then analyzed using special adaptations

of conventional statistics to investigate and describe the
pattern of findings
More --

Meta-Analysis represents each studies findings in the form

of effect sizes.

An effect size is a statistic that encodes the critical

quantitative information from each relevant study finding.
In essence, it standardizes the effects for each relevant
study finding. The goal is to make the resulting numerical
values interpretable across all the variables and measures
involved. This allows us to compare outcomes from
different studies and analyzes them statistically.
Shared Knowledge Theory – Writing to
Reading

 Teaching Students the Writing Process,Text

Structures for Writing, Paragraph or Sentence
Construction Skills Improves Reading
Comprehension (grades 1 -4)

 Average Weighted Effect Size = 0.22 Published

Standardized Norm-Referenced Tests (Based on 12
Studies)
 Average Weighted Effect Size = 0.27 Researcher-
Designed Tests (Based on 5 Studies)
Shared Knowledge Theory – Writing to
Reading

 Teaching Sentence Construction and Spelling

Skills Improves Reading Fluency (grades 1- 7)
 Average Weighted Effect Size = 0.66 Published
Standardized Norm-Referenced and Researcher-
Designed Tests Combined (Based on 5 Studies)

 Teaching Spelling Skills Improves Word Reading

Skills (grades 1- 5)
 Average Weighted Effect Size = 0.62 Published
Standardized Norm-Referenced and Researcher-
Designed Tests Combined (Based on 6 Studies)
Shared Knowledge – Reading to
Writing
Shared Knowledge? Teaching phonological
awareness, phonics, comprehension, fluency,
vocabulary

Average Weighted Effect Size = 0.57 Combined writing

assessments (Based on 52 Studies)

Writing quality = 0.63 (12 studies)

Spelling = 0.56 (40 studies)
Output = 0.37 (5 studies)
Shared Knowledge – Reading to
Writing
Teaching phonological awareness = 0.69 (20
studies)

Phonics Instruction = 0.39 (14 studies)

Comprehension Instructions = 0.66 (12 studies)

Multi-Component = 0.47 (4 studies)

Important to Know
 The average weighted effect size for
lower achieving students was 0.39 (26
studies) for Reading to Writing for
Shared Knowledge

 Not able to compute this for Writing to

Reading, but the analyses did include a mix of
students in the study –
Rhetorical Relations Theory – Writing to
Reading

 Increasing How Much Students Write Improves

Students’ Reading Comprehension (grades 1 – 6)

 Average Weighted Effect Size = 0.35 Published

Standardized Norm-Referenced Tests (Based on 9
Studies)
Rhetorical Relations Theory – Reading to
Writing

Average Weighted Effect Size = 0.33 Combined writing

assessments (Based on 41 Studies)

Writing quality = 0.41 (29 studies)

Spelling = 0.34 (20 studies)
Rhetorical Relations – Reading to
Writing

More Reading = 0.24 (12 studies)

Self-Teaching = 0.28 (15 studies)

Read & Analyze = 0.43 (5 studies)

Observe Readers = 0.62 (8 studies)

Important to Know
 The average weighted effect size for
lower achieving students was 0.55 (27
studies) for Reading to Writing for
Rhetorical Relations

 I was not able to determine this for

Writing to Reading
Functional Theory – Writing to Reading –
CANNOT DO READING TO WRITING

 Average Weighted Effect Size = 0.37 Published

Standardized Norm-Referenced Tests (Based on
11 Studies)

 Average Weighted Effect Size = 0.50 Researcher-

Designed Tests (Based on 55 Studies)
Important to Know
 94% of the studies yielded positive results
 The studies involved students in grades 2 to 12
 In 55% of the studies students wrote about Science and
Social Studies text

 The average weighted effect size for

lower achieving students was .64 (12
studies) for Writing to Reading for
Functional Theory
Question Generation
(Andre & Anderson, 1978-1979)

 Content Area: Psychology

 Grade Level(s): 11-12
 ES = 0.51

 Students were given models of questions written by experts

 Students taught to identify main ideas to serve as core of the
questions
 Students directed to form questions which asked for new
instances of ideas or concepts
 When generating a new instance was inappropriate, questions
could be about the text, but in a paraphrased format.
Note-taking: Concept Maps
(Chang, Sung, & Chen, 2002)
 Content Area: Science
 Grade Level(s): 5
 ES = 0.52

 Scaffolded instruction:
 Student were introduced to expert created models
 Students filled in partially filled in expert models
 Students were given word lists and concept links to help them
create their own concept maps
 Students independently created concept maps independently
 Macrorules for Summarizing
(Weisberg & Balajthy, 1990)

 Content Area: Social Studies

 Grade Level(s): 10-12
 ES = 0.44

1. Delete material that is unimportant

2. Delete material that it repetitive
3. Substitute a superordinate term for subordinate ones
(i.e., collapse lists)
4. Select a topic sentence
5. If there is no topic sentence, invent one

*Students were taught to underline and cross out information using

different colors. Summary writing was modeled and
explained
Analysis or Interpretation Essays
(Licata, 1993)
 Content Area: Science
 Grade Level(s): HS
 ES = 0.56 Analytic Essay
 ES = 0.33 Application Essay

 Analytical Essay (Compare/contrast): Students wrote

about the similarities and differences between the
pressure-volume and volume-temperature relations
 Application Essay: Students wrote about a concrete
situation in which a balloon of gas is subjected to varying
conditions
READING/WRITING INTEGRATED
 EFFECTS ON READING

 ES = 0.39 (38 studies)

 EFFECTS ON WRITING

 ES = 0.37 (37 studies)

Important to Know
 The average weighted effect size for
lower achieving students was 0.35 (13
studies) for Writing for Writing/Reading
Integrated

 The average weighted effect size for

lower achieving students was 0.41 (15
studies) for Reading for Writing/Reading
Integrated
So What?
READING & WRITING CONNECTIONS ARE REAL – AND
SUPPORTED FROM MULTI-THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

READING CAN BE USED TO SUPPORT WRITING AND VICE

VERSA

WE CAN PROFITABLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF READING &

WRITING CONNECTIONS TO SUPPORT STRUGGLING
READERS AND WRITERS (Some Caveats)
So What?

Reading & Writing combined instruction produces

modest, but significant effects. I would interpret this to
mean that we want to leverage integration what we
can, but we also need to dedicate time just to reading
and just to writing learning.
Catalysts That Drive Writing/Reading
Development
Catalysts That Drive Writing/Reading
Development

Strategic Prowess
Catalysts That Drive Writing/Reading
Development

Knowledge
Catalysts That Drive Writing/Reading
Development

Motivation
 Pavlov studied the salvation of dogs.
Catalysts That Drive Writing/Reading
Development

Skills
Questions?