Reading/Writing Relationships: An Intervention Study
Mots-clés :
Persuasive writing, Writing instruction, Reading instruction, Elementary education, Discourse structureRésumé
Des élèves inscrits dans deux classes de sixième année mais fréquentant des écoles différentes (N=104) ont fait l'objet d'une stratification en fonction de leur sexe et ont été répartis au hasard dans quatre groupes : 1. Un premier groupe a reçu un enseignement sur l'art d'argumenter dans un texte, suivi d'exercices de composition; 2. Un deuxième groupe a reçu un enseignement sur l'art d'argumenter dans un texte, suivi d'exercices de lecture; 3. Un troisième groupe a effectué des exercices de lecture sans avoir reçu un enseignement sur l'art d'argumenter dans un texte; 4. Un quatrième groupe a discuté en équipes (groupe de contrôle). Dans les prétests et les post-tests, les élèves devaient écrire un protocole basé sur la lecture d'un texte comprenant une argumentation et rédiger deux compositions comprenant aussi une argumentation. Les groupes 1 et 2 ont obtenu des résultats nettement supérieurs à ceux du groupe de contrôle, au post-test, mais non au prétest, les groupes 1 et 2 fournissant moins de raisons, mais utilisant plus d'arguments par 100 mots et énonçant plus de conclusions que le groupe de contrôle. Il n'y a pas eu de différences significatives entre les groupes du point de vue du nombre d'idées évoquées. J'en conclus que l'enseignement peut amener les enfants à rédiger de meilleurs textes dans lesquels une argumentation est développée.
Références
Anderson, R. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterpris
Anderson, R. Spiro, & W. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisitio knowledge (pp. 415-431). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Applebee, A.N., Langer,J.A., & Mullis, I.V.S. (1986). Writing: Trends across the 1974-1984. Princeton, NJ: The National Assessment of Educational Progr
Belanger, J.F. (1987). Theory and research into reading and writing connec Reading-Canada-Lecture, 5 (1), 10-21.
Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg, Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 73-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bereiter. C. (1978, April). Discourse type, schema, and strategy: A view from the sta of instructional design. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ame Educational Research Association, Toronto.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructionalpsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bretzing, B., & Kulhavy, R. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 145-153.
Calfee, R., & Curley, R. (1983). Structures of prose in the content areas. InJ. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, languages, and structure of prose (pp. 161-180). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Carlman, N. (1984). The effect of topic, mode, and scoring method on the quality rating of grade 12 students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC.
Conry, R., & Rodgers, D. (1978). The British Columbia assessment of written expression: Summary report. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Cooper, C.R., Cherry, R., Copley, B., Fleischer, S., Pollard, R., & Sartisky, M. (1984). Studying the writing abilities of a university freshman class: Strategies from a case study. In R. Beach & L.S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 19-52). New York: Guilford Press.
Crismore, A. (1982). Cognitive processes in the composition and comprehension of written texts. Evaluation in Education, 5, 231-246).
Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 21, 185-201.
Crowhurst, M. (1986). Revision s Quarterly, 19, 217-226.
Crowhurst, M. (1983a, April). Per developmentalperspective. Paper Educational Research Association
Crowhurst, M. (1983b, April). A developmental perspective on persuasive writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit.
Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. Canadian Journal of Education, 5 (1), 6-13.
DeVries, T. (1970). Reading, writing frequency, and expository writing. Reading Improvement, 7, 14, 15, 19.
Diederich,P.e., French, S.W., & Carlton, S.T. (1961). Factors in judgements of writing ability (Research Bulletin No. RB-61-15). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Dixon, W.J. (Ed.). (1983). BMDP statistical software: 1983 printing with additions. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ebel, R.L. (1979). Essentials of educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Falk, J.S. (1979). Language acquisition and the teaching and learning of writing. CollegeEnglish, 41, 436-447.
Gates McGinitie Reading Tests, Survey D--Form 1. (1964). New York: Teachers College Press.
Glover,J., Plake, B., Roberts, B., Zimmer,J., & Palmere, M. (1981). Distinctiveness of encoding the effects of paraphrasing and drawing inferences on memory from prose.Journal ofEducational Psychology, 73, 736-744.
Hidi, S., & Hildyard, A. (1981). The comparison of oral and written productions in two discourse types. Discourse Processes, 6, 91-105.
Johnson, R.E. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of structural importance of the linguistic unit. Journal of Verbal Behavior, 9, 12-20.
Kulhavy, R., Dyer, J., & Silver, L. (1975). The effects of notetaking and test expectancy on the learning of text material. Journal of Educational Research, 68, 363-365.
Meyer, B. (1982). Reading research and the composition teacher: The importance plans. College Composition and Communication, 33, 37-49.
Meyer, B., & McConkie, G.W. (1975). What is recalled after hearing a passage Journal ofEducational Psychology, 65, 109-117.
Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Moffet,J., & Wagner, B.J. (1976). Student-centered language arts and reading, K-13 (2n ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1980). Writing achievement: Resultsfr the third national writing assessment. Vols. 1-3. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Nold, E.W., & Freedman, S.W. (1977). An analysis of readers' responses to essays. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 11, 164-174.
Petrosky, A.R. (1982). From story to essay: Reading and writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 19-36.
Pringle, I., & Freedman, A. (1985). A comparative study ofwriting abilities in two modes at the grade 5, 8, and 12 levels. Toronto: Ministry of Education.
Rosen, H. (1969). An investigation of the effects of differentiated writing assignments on the performance in English composition of a selected group of lished doctoral dissertation, University of London.
Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks o Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in read 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Squire, J.R. (1984). Composing and comprehending: process. InJ.M.Jensen (Ed.), Composing and compreh University of Texas.
Stotsky, S. (1984). Research on reading/writing rela suggested directions. In J.M. Jensen (Ed.), Composin 7-22). Austin: University of Texas.
Taylor, B., & Beach, R.W. (1984). The effects of text str grade students' comprehension and production of Research Quarterly, 19, 134-146.
Taylor, B., & Berkowitz, S. (1980). Facilitating children material. In M. Kamil & A. Moe (Eds.), Perspective instruction (pp. 64-68). Twenty-Ninth Yearbook of th ence. Washington, DC: National Reading Conference
Tierney, R.J., & Leys, M. (1984). What is the value of con (Reading Education Report No. 55). Urbana, IL: Reading.
Tierney, R.J., & Pearson, D. (1984). Toward a composing model of reading. InJ.M. Jensen (Ed.), Composing and comprehending (pp. 33-45). Austin: University of Texas.
Wilkinson, A., Barnsley, G., Hanna, P., & Swan, M. (1980). Assessing language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
La Revue canadienne de l’éducation utilise la licence CC BY-NC-ND de Creative Commons.
