The Relationship of Reading Comprehension to Written Production of Transformationally Lengthened Prose

Evans, Ronald V.

doi:10.1080/10862967709547231

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, correlational efforts (Evans, 1977; Hiebert, Englert, & Brennan, 1983; Langer, 1984) usually have measured the relations of pairs of reading and writing measures. The results of these correlational studies are entirely consonant with the experimental findings because they have indicated that a number of relations unite reading and writing, each associated with a small to moderately sized correlation.…”

Section: Theoretical Models Of the Reading-writing Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship.

Shanahan

Lomax²

1986

Journal of Educational Psychology

190

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared and evaluated three alternative theoretical models of the readingwriting relationship. The reading dimensions of these models included word analysis, vocabulary, and sentence and passage comprehension components. The writing dimensions included spelling, vocabulary, sentence structure, and story organization components. The models differed with respect to the sequential orderings of relationships of the reading and writing dimensions. The interactive model permits the use of reading knowledge in writing, as well as the reverse. The other models (reading-to-writing; writing-to-reading) only allow knowledge to move in a single direction. These models were evaluated on their ability to account for the relationships found in an extensive corpus of reading and writing data collected from 256 second graders and 251 fifth graders (Shanahan, 1984). The interactive model fit the data better than did the reading-to-writing model at the second-grade level and the writing-to-reading model at both grade levels, and the reading-to-writing model was superior to the writing-to-reading model. Specific relationships are examined, and pedagogical and research implications are drawn.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Models Of the Reading-writing Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship.

Shanahan

Lomax²

1986

Journal of Educational Psychology

190

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These studies have found that (a) spelling and reading are related, especially in the primary grades (E. Horn, 1960;T. D. Horn, 1969;Spache, 1940); (b) the best writers have the most highly developed reading vocabularies (Maloney, 1967;Vairo, 1976); (c) reading comprehension is related to the syntactic complexity of writing (Evans, 1977;Heil, 1976;O'Hare, 1973;Stotsky, 1975;Zeman, 1969;Brooks, 1977); and (d) reading comprehension is related to the structure or organization used in writing (Gordon & Braun, 1982;Stein, 1978), Because of these findings, measures of the phonemic and orthographic components of print, lexical and syntactic information, and prose structures in reading and writing were included in the study reported here.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature of the reading–writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis.

Shanahan¹

1984

Journal of Educational Psychology

131

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple reading measures (i.e., vocabulary, word recognition, sentence comprehension, passage comprehension) and writing measures (i.e., vocabulary diversity, syntactic complexity, qualitative and quantitative measures of spelling and organization) were administered to 256 second graders and 251 fifth graders. An exploratory analysis of these variables was made using canonical correlational analysis. Separate analyses were performed for each grade level sample and for two additional cohorts, beginning and proficient readers, derived from the original samples. The word recognition factors drawn from the reading set were most related to the spelling variables of the writing set at both grade levels and at the beginning reader level. Substantial differences were found across reading level cohorts, however. For proficient readers, the ability to structure prose in complex ways and to use a variety of vocabulary in writing was related to a prose comprehension factor. In none of the analyses was reading or writing found to explain more than 45% of the variance in the opposite test set.Recently, there has been renewed interest in the nature of the relation between learning to read and learning to write. One reason for this upsurge in interest has been a fundamental shift in the theoretical orientations of education and psychology (Anderson, Spiro, & Montague, 1977;Calfee, 1981;Curtis & Glaser, 1981; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Reading is no longer described as a passive activity in which subjects, essentially with accuracy, decode and record traces of external reality (i.e., text) in memory. Instead, according to the constructivist notions that currently predominate, readers construct or create messages through a variety of active processes (i.e., schema construction and elaboration, prediction, construction of meaning parameters, information strategies, etc.). Such theories suggest that learners actively use prior knowledge to create information in reading and writing. These explanations are This study is based in part on a doctoral dissertation completed at the College of Education at the University of Delaware. The author wishes to thank

show abstract

The Relationship of Reading Comprehension to Written Production of Transformationally Lengthened Prose

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship.

An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship.

Nature of the reading–writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About