Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The influence of story schema on reading response and writing process Puharich, Katherine C. 1989-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1989_A8 P83.pdf [ 7.83MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078265.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078265+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078265.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078265+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078265+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078265+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0078265 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0078265.txt
Citation
1.0078265.ris

Full Text

THE I N F L U E N C E OF STORY  SCHEMA  ON R E A D I N G R E S P O N S E AND W R I T I N G  PROCESS  By K A T H E R I N E C. P U H A R I C H A., T h e U n i v e r s i t y  of British  Columbia,  THESIS SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L FULFILLMENT THE R E Q U I R E M E N T S  FOR THE DEGREE  MASTER OF  OF  ARTS  in THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE (Department  We  o f Language  accept t h i s to  thesis  the required  STUDIES Education)  as  conforming  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  M a r c h 1989 © K a t h e r i n e C y n t h i a P u h a r i c h , 1989  1982  OF  In  presenting  degree  this  at the  thesis  in  partial fulfilment  of  University of  British Columbia,  I agree  freely available for reference copying  of  department  this or  publication of  and study.  thesis for scholarly by  this  his  or  her  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  April  5,  purposes  1989  that the  may be It  thesis for financial gain shall not  English Education  requirements  I further agree  representatives.  permission.  Department of  the  that  advanced  Library shall make it  by the  understood be  an  permission for extensive  granted  is  for  that  allowed without  head  of  my  copying  or  my written  ABSTRACT The of  purpose  story  o f t h e s t u d y was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e i n f l u e n c e  schema  Although  a  on r e a d i n g  small  structures  number  response  and t h e w r i t i n g  of researchers  (schemata) i n f l u e n c e r e a d i n g  suggest  that  current  schema;  study:  1)  a n d 2) d e s c r i b e d  students  reading  1  identified  the influence  requiring  them  short  story  stories with  story;  written  and  think-aloud  think-aloud  products)  story: mood.  eight  pieces  o f datum  students'  constituent theme; p o i n t  using  findings  overall  story  o f view,  genre; 5)  eighthsessions  story  "The  their  disagree  stories.  s i xt r a d i t i o n a l  was  elements  of view,  1) b r i g h t , comprised  concepts o f p l o t , character, tone  or  a  o f t r a n s c r i p t i o n a n d 15  emerged:  schema  4) w r i t e  revise  a n d 6) a g r e e  s e t t i n g , theme, p o i n t  general  schemata:  short  changes t o t h e i r  (25 h o u r s  were analyzed  story  procedures;  procedures;  plot, character, Three  processes.  one-hour  Saroyan's  story  schema h a d on  five honour-roll,  the short  t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s proposed Forty  of  William  of  i n 12 s e g m e n t s ; 2) w r i t e a c o n c l u s i o n t o  3) d i s c u s s  using  using  this  participated i n five  t o : 1) r e a d  Great Leapfrog Contest" Saroyan's  that  responses and t h e i r w r i t i n g  subjects  characterized.  t h e components  Using a case-study approach with grade students,  cognitive  and w r i t i n g , t h e v a r i o u s  schemata t h a t a f f e c t both processes have n o t been The  process.  tone  grade-  of  four  s e t t i n g and  a n d mood w e r e n o t a c c o u n t e d  f o r ; 2)  the v a r i a b l e s which c h a r a c t e r i z e d each schemata were s i m i l a r f o r  i i  both reading helping  and  students  interfered  with  writing;  and  3)  these  schemata,  in addition  construct meaningful representations students'  reading  i i i  and  writing.  of  to  print,  T A B L E OF  CONTENTS  Chapter  Page  ABSTRACT  i  T A B L E OF CONTENTS LIST  i v  OF T A B L E S  v i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I.  v i i i  I N T R O D U C T I O N TO THE STUDY  1  A. T h e P r o b l e m  1  B. B a c k g r o u n d C. O v e r v i e w  t o t h e Problem  1  o f t h e Problem  D. D e f i n i t i o n  II.  i  2  o f Terms  3  E. L i m i t a t i o n s  6  F. S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e S t u d y  7  R E V I E W OF THE L I T E R A T U R E  8  A. C o r r e l a t i o n a l S t u d i e s  9  1. R e a d i n g A b i l i t y  and W r i t i n g  2. R e a d i n g E n v i r o n m e n t a l Skill 3. R e a d i n g A b i l i t y 4. T h e R e a d i n g B.  Influence  Factors  and W r i t i n g 11  and t h e W r i t i n g  Process.  on Reading  1. T h e E f f e c t s o f S e n t e n c e - C o m b i n i n g and W r i t i n g 2. T h e E f f e c t o f W r i t i n g and W r i t i n g 3. T h e I n f l u e n c e and W r i t i n g  9  and S y n t a c t i c Maturity  Process  of Writing  Ability  13 15 17  on Reading 18  I n s t r u c t i o n on Reading  of Writing  19 P r a c t i c e on Reading 22  iv  Chapter  Page C.  Influence 1.  of Reading  on W r i t i n g  The E f f e c t o f R e a d i n g Ability  P r a c t i c e on  2. T h e E f f e c t s o f R e a d i n g Ability  III.  D.  Reading,  E.  Summary  RESEARCH  Writing  Writing 24  I n s t r u c t i o n on  a n d Schema T h e o r y  Writing 26 31 36  DESIGN  A. T h e P i l o t  39  Study  40  B. T h e S a m p l e  41  C. D a t a  42  1.  C o l l e c t i o n Procedures  Session  One  42  2. S e s s i o n  Two  44  3. S e s s i o n  Three  45  4. S e s s i o n  Four  45  5. S e s s i o n  Five  45  D. A n a l y s i s IV.  24  o f t h e Data  47  A N A L Y S E S AND R E S U L T S OF THE DATA  52  A.  53  Plot  B. C h a r a c t e r  60  C. S e t t i n g  73  D.  Theme  77  E.  Point  o f View  84  F. T o n e a n d Mood  91  G.  99  Summary  v  Chapter V.  Page SUMMARY, C O N C L U S I O N S AND  IMPLICATIONS  103  A. S u m m a r y  103  1. P l o t  104  2. C h a r a c t e r  106  3. S e t t i n g  108  4. T h e m e  109  5. P o i n t  o f View  I l l  6. T o n e a n d M o o d  112  B. C o n c l u s i o n s  114  C. I m p l i c a t i o n s  f o rFurther  D.  f o rTeaching  Implications  Research  118 119  REFERENCES  125  APPENDIX A  140  APPENDIX B  147  APPENDIX C  150  APPENDIX D  152  APPENDIX E  154  APPENDIX F  162  vi  L I S T OF  TABLES  Table  Page  1  Character  Description  60  2  Character  Conflict  (Reading)  68  3  Character  Conflict  (Writing)  69  4  Character  Change  72  v i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Appreciation Belanger,  a  and  mentor  gratitude  and  students  inspires  guidance  and continued  and  be l o n g  will  I would Slade  like  thanks  assurances  will  n o t be would  t h e Surrey David  enabled  father, labour,  h i s His  appreciated  both  the  Kenneth original  of the report. also  to  Bob  Hodgins  suggestions  t h e course  f o r  and  o f t h e masters'  word  and h i s program  following  District;  Doug  f o r their  Pearson,  the  Bisbey, teachers; and  P a t a n d M e l i s s a , t h e f i v e s t u d e n t s whose  t o my  conducted.  friends  helped  Rosa  Audia  and  Sally  me m e e t d e a d l i n e s b y n o t  invitations. thanks  and Srecko  however arduous,  however humble,  the  C a r t e r and E l a i n e  of crisis  and s p e c i a l  Marija  thank  School  a r e extended i n times  to  t h e study t o be  t e m p t i n g me w i t h s o c i a l Final  on  editorial  like  Brent, Jennifer,  who  greatly  H i s patience, h i sunderstanding  also  participation  Audia,  f o r  Dr. Roy B e n t l e y and Dr.  are expressed  throughout  school principal;  Thanks  regard  Joseph  forgotten.  cooperation:  Jacob,  Dr.  i n themselves.  were  suggestions  drafts  services.  calm  I  helpful  transcriptions,  processing  high  the best  encouragement  t o thank  and t h e f i n a l  protocol  whose  to  remembered.  also  Sincere  friend,  them t o e x p r e s s  f o r their  proposal  a r e extended  a r e extended  Puharich,  who  t o my taught  mother and me  that  no  i s i n s u r m o u n t a b l e ; and t h a t no l a b o u r ,  i sd i s h o n o u r i n g . v i i i  1  CHAPTER  I  A N I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E  A. T h e  Problem  The of  problem  influence  responses  addressed  of  For  story  1  theorists  sensory  whether  They they  and  have  symbolic  have  argued  are reading  inter-related;  and  that  structured  a n d s t o r e d i n memory.  efforts Current  association, been  Although  experiences  reading  made  however,  to  study  that  the  through  mind  personal  (Rosenblatt, 1938; Vygotsky,  individuals that  readers  experiences,  and  memories  Despite only  compose  reading  meaning,  and  writing  writers  create  and data  that are  long-standing  r e c e n t l y have  reading-writing  and composing a r e complementary theorists posit  the  determined.  support  significant  relationships.  nature  While  of  processes.  these  relationships  has  a l a r g e body o f r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s  proficiency  and  that  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between r e a d i n g and  between reading and w r i t i n g a b i l i t y reading  their  i n v e s t i g a t o r s are suggesting with greater frequency  comprehending  writing,  on  contended  or writing;  wholes  this  from  that  meaningful  for  schema  i s t h e degree  processes.  a s s o c i a t i o n s and c o g n i t i v e schemata 1962).  study  t o t h e Problem  decades  processes  by t h e current  students  and w r i t i n g  B. B a c k g r o u n d  are  STUDY  syntactic  yet  be  correlations  (e.g., Loban, 1976), maturity  to  (e.g.,  between Hartman,  2 1984)  ,  and  (e.g.,  between  reading,  Weathermon,  1984),  demonstrated  a  writing.  small  A  schemata  (Kelley,  describe  the  writing  knowledge  empirical  &  Beach, that  that  both  1984),  affect  have  reading  suggest  influence  factors  studies  between  studies  schemata  story  identify  to:  1)  students  knowledge  production  of  and  various  reading  but the  no  and  studies  reading  and  the  that  many s c h e m a t a  of  story  and  characterize  story  and  has  2) on  the  both  schema.  the  their  More  s i x elements  distinct  determine  which  the  components  influence  their  one-hour  sessions  writing.  In the  subjects  that  comprehension  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  concept of  story,  the  students  and  reading  1  study examined  h o n o u r - r o l l , e i g h t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s as t h e y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n  story  a  Procedures  i n v e s t i g a t e the  w r i t i n g and  short  of  stories.  Overview of To  of  i n v e s t i g a t i o n uses  schema;  of  one  concepts,  current  story  1  examines  of  the  and  Taylor  study  specifically,  C.  of  structures)  specific  current  underlie  this  few  environmental  relationship  number  1984;  and  processes.  The  of  very  causative  (cognitive  writing  writing  which first  "The  short  story  genre  using  think-aloud  session,  Great  responded  upcoming events.  a c t i v e l y engaged  Leapfrog  after  In and  the  subjects  each  segment  by  Students  in  story  five,  reading  parts;  predicting  discussed of  and  Saroyan's  twelve  orally  subjects  began w r i t i n g a  procedures.  in  read William  Contest"  second session,  then  them  five  the  their  own  finished writing  the  3 first this  drafts of their point  session, final  began  subjects  document.  responded which  to  to revise finished During  made  addition t o agreeing  during  drafts.  revising  their  to their  stories  hours  of  stories,  which and  their  revisions—were plot, D.  character,  Definition  accompanied  setting,  1.  to  students changes  the investigator; i n changes,  reading,  subjects  based. writing  responses,  theme, p o i n t  short  o f view,  and  think-aloud  the investigator's  f o rtraditional  a  proposed  story tone  their  elements: a n d mood.  o f Terms  Throughout t h e study defined  fourth  t h e w r i t i n g and r e w r i t i n g o f  responses  analyzed  session,  d e c i s i o n s were  reading  the  inappropriate  by  transcribed  and a t  d r a f t s and produced  o r disagreeing with these  d i s c u s s i o n — m a d e up o f s t u d e n t s ' protocols  and  session,  During  and f i n a l  neutral  r a t i o n a l e s on which t h e i r  Twenty-five  the third  their  the fifth  appropriate,  had been  provided  stories  various  c e n t r a l terms w i l l  be used as  below.  Schema Schema  Stored  r e f e r s t o knowledge  i n memory  concepts.  a r e schemata  According  that  i s packaged  representing  t o Rumelhart  (1977),  into  knowledge  a  unit.  about a l l  schemata a r e  •the b u i l d i n g b l o c k s o f c o g n i t i o n . • They a r e t h e fundamental elements upon which a l l i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g depends. Schemata a r e employed i n t h e process of interpreting sensory data (both linguistic and nonlinguistic), i n retrieving i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m memory, i n o r g a n i z i n g a c t i o n s , i n determining goals and subgoals, i n allocating resources, and, g e n e r a l l y , i n g u i d i n g t h e flow o f p r o c e s s i n g i n t h e system, [p. 34]  4 2.  Story  Schema  Story  schema r e f e r s t o a g e n e r a l i z e d  knowledge o f s t o r i e s .  Embedded w i t h i n a s t o r y schema a r e c o n s t i t u e n t s u b s c h e m a t a  which  define  these  and  describe  subschemata typical 3.  of  story.  Combined,  a r e an i d e a l i z e d representation  of the parts  of a  story.  Making  This  t h e concept  Meaning  phrase  i s used t o describe  comprehending processes,  one a s p e c t o f t h e composing and  whereby both  readers  and w r i t e r s  make  meaning o f t h e p r i n t they encounter.  The metaphor c a n be t r a c e d  to  who  Louise  Rosenblatt  (1938,  1976),  t e r m s o f a two-way t r a n s a c t i o n — a s reader  and t e x t .  language,  people  experiential read  during  reading  meaning t h a t happens  i n  between  The r e a d e r — d r a w i n g  from past  encounters  with  and t h e world—makes  meaning  by meshing  this  matrix  aesthetically,  written  discusses  with  t h e w r i t t e n word.  t h e reader  by t h e author,  does  but rather  When  literature i s  not respond  to the story  t o t h e s t o r y he o r she evokes  thetransaction with thetext.  Rosenblatt  (1982) s t a t e s ,  ...the aesthetic stance, i n shaping what i s understood, produces a meaning i n which c o g n i t i v e and affective, referential and emotive, denotational and connotational, a r e intermingled, [p.273] This it  response  i s this  sees  i s t h e meaning  response  as t h e l i t e r a r y  evocation  that  that  becomes  i s made b y t h e r e a d e r ; shaped  into  work, o r i n R o s e n b l a t t ' s  corresponding  to the text.  what  the  and, reader  (1985) t e r m s , t h e  5 4.  Plot Plot  events 5.  i s defined  as the plan,  i n a work o f  design,  fiction.  stated,  individuals 6.  character  presented  i n a  refers  t o t h e major  and  minor  story.  Setting As  defined  by S t e i n  and Glenn  (1979),  introduction  of a s p e c i f i c protagonist  that  to the physical,  refers  which 7.  a story  setting includes the  and contains  temporal  and  information  social  context  i n  occurs.  Theme This  of  term r e f e r s t o e i t h e r t h e d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t statement  a story's "unifying  8. P o i n t  its  Omniscient  view,  from  o f view.  of view  author,  idea.  generalization  point  point  points  central  As stated about  by Perrine  life."  (1966),  i t i s  [p. 117]  o f View  The  1)  of  Character Simply  a  scheme o r p a t t e r n  using  which  i s seen  or told  i s known a s  A l t h o u g h many v a r i a t i o n s a r e p o s s i b l e ,  are referred point  o f view,  the third  where t h e s t o r y  characters  a story  where  person;  i stold  i n the story.  t o i n the current the story  a n d 2)  first  i nthe first  two  investigation: i s told person  by t h e  point  of  p e r s o n by one o f t h e  6 9.  Tone The  and/or of  audience  an  author  has towards  constitutes  h i s or her  o r determines  t h e tone  material  i n a  piece  fiction.  10.  Mood The  literary E.  attitude  atmosphere  established  work i s defined  by t h e t o t a l i t y  of a piece  of  study  be  a s i t s mood.  Limitations The  generalizability  interpreted  of the results  i n light of limitations  environment;  3) t h e p r o c e d u r e s ;  of this  of:  must  1) t h e s a m p l e ;  2) t h e  a n d 4) t h e v a r i a b l e s c h o s e n f o r  examination. The two m a j o r the  subjects  sampling limitations  (honour-roll  students)  are the intelligence and  These s t u d e n t s appear t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e eight  students  however,  must be l i m i t e d  suburban, The are  i n British  middle-class standard  applicable  that  Columbia.  limitations  here.  might  find  processes hand, rather  this  articulation  and products.  do n o t e than  that  alters  Formal  grade  generalization,  sampled;  that  i s , a  district. ascribed  F o r example,  s t u d e n t s who a r t i c u l a t e  grade-level.  of honour-roll,  t o the population  school  their  of  t o the process  logically,  i twould  what t h e y do a s t h e y to interfere  Hayes and Flower  interference merely i tsignificantly.  with (1983),  slows  approach appear  are doing i t , their  writing  on t h e  down t h e  other  process,  7 A  final  examine  s t o r y schema.  different  The  on  the  in  by  the  v a r i a b l e s chosen  i s possible that story  schema  a  researcher  to  using  might  come  up  with  i s the  light  i t sheds  results.  major  the  Study  c o n t r i b u t i o n of  interrelationships  question least  of  S i g n i f i c a n c e of  The  i s imposed It  categories  different F.  limitation  which  two  which  influenced supplement  has  reading by  recent  the  s t r u c t u r e of prose  The  study  understood  should  This  subject's  work  showing on  study  and  will  the  writing,  theorists  for  i n v e s t i g a t e the  writing  schema,  and  and  process  findings  importance  students' a b i l i t i e s  also help  correlations  reading  researchers  response  the  study  between  intrigued  thousand years.  the  of  at  ways  are  both  which  will  knowledge  of  and  write.  to e x p l a i n the well-known but  poorly  between reading  and  to read  a  writing  processes.  8  CHAPTER I I R E V I E W OF T H E  The  behaviourial  nature  LITERATURE  of reading  sharp d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two a c t s . the  process  process  of "putting  of  "getting  discrepancy this  meaning  i s apparent.  i s not the case,  f o r over  majority  2000  of  since  Yet i n terms  years  studies  these  r e s u l t s o r consensus.  behaviourial  of cognitive  activity,  between t h e two have  (Belanger  &  Martin,  to  been  1984).  demonstrate  as  The  that  a  h o w e v e r , h a s e m e r g e d w i t h i n t h e p a s t 25 Lloyd-Jones  t o explore  Unfortunately,  the  as t h e  and w r i t i n g a r e regarded  attempting  Braddock,  upon r e s e a r c h e r s  and reading  paper,"  Relationships  r e l a t i o n s h i p does e x i s t , years,  from  suggests  I f w r i t i n g i sviewed as  on paper"  f o r reading  closely related skills. noted  meaning  and w r i t i n g  and Schoer  (1963)  called  the interrelation. studies  have  not l e d to  definitive  Investigators' d i f f e r e n c e s i n background,  c u r r i c u l a r emphasis, and t h e o r e t i c a l stance have produced a body of  research  knowledge, these  reading  of four  although  suggests  differences  between one  which,  that  though,  1)  examine  the influence  examine  the influence  us with  much h a s y e t t o b e research  and w r i t i n g  areas:  supplying  deal  learned.  examining  can generally  a great  be  of  Despite  the relationship categorized  into  correlational studies;  2)  studies  which  o f w r i t i n g on r e a d i n g ;  3)  studies  which  of  reading  on  writing;  and  4)  studies  9 which  speculate  on  the  nature  of  the  reading-writing  relationship. A.  Correlational  Studies  Correlational, reading-writing  relationship  investigation.  Similar  (1983),  these  ability  and w r i t i n g  writing  skill,  reading  and w r i t i n g  1. R e a d i n g The  1966,  fact  Thomas  1967)  reading  and  students  a  and s y n t a c t i c  between  those  ability  (1980),  does  Bippus  As documented  between  found  (1978),  by Belanger  students  through  by Loban  D'Angelo (1978),  (1963,  (1977), Loban  writing  12,  abilities  Loban  commented  at various  t h e grade two l e v e l ,  he  grade  found  high  on  poorly  also  at the ninth-grade  (Belanger,  who  write level,  read well poorly";  he s a i d  i n from  students  levels:  1  f o r  correlations of sixth-  also write and  and  (1963,  the reading-writing relationship  grade  between r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g pass"  reading  Monitoring students over a 13-year p e r i o d ,  read  and  m a t u r i t y , and t h e  exist  has been  s t u d e n t s he s t a t e d , "those who  reading  factors  between r e a d i n g scores and r a t i n g s o f w r i t i n g q u a l i t y ; grade  Stotsky  Ability  correlation  investigated  above  by  reading-environmental  and W r i t i n g  Leone  greatest depth. kindergarten  outlined  of  processes.  that  (1977).  1966,  categories  ability  and w r i t i n g  1967),  to  ability,  reading  r e s e a r c h on t h e  g e n e r a l l y deals with four areas  s t u d i e s examine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  Ability  achievement  d e s c r i p t i v e and ethnographic  of  the  well; same  that "Relationships  become more p r o n o u n c e d a s t h e y e a r s  1978, p.56-57).  Significant  correlations  have  10 also by  been  reported  Bippus  D'Angelo with  (1978)  with  fourth-  college students.  listening measures  and  studies  (Shanahan,  have  errors  students  relationship  been  two  i s different  described  a  a n d a b o v e was  relationship.  grade  level,  comprehension  and  students'  concept  reflected  i n their  relationship  production  and  a  writing,  between  37  five  and  f o r different reading  writing story  writing.  at a  Froese, i n a  1986), college  (1980) e x a m i n e d t h e  suggested  second  production  grammar Pitts  that  levels.  grade  over the The  level  was  relationship;  reading at thefifth-grade comprehension-prose  non-experimental  ability  the  &  grade  as a reading  In a  concluded  learning to write  grades  Shanahan  f o rstudents  between  with  final  Schewe and F r o e s e  of  (1977)  and l e a r n i n g t o w r i t e w i t h  and  described  production  by  conducting  and have  (Schewe  recognition-word  whereas t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  (1980),  specific  ability  o f l e a r n i n g t o read  word  a n d b y Thomas  correlations  (Taylor, 1981).  f o r students  four  more  1985)  relationship as  students,  writing.  (Pitts,  i n grade  students,  correlated reading,  reported  writing  course  relationship  the  sixth-grade  has c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y 1980),  composition  level  kindergarten  Hammill and McNutt  speaking,  of reading  reading  spelling  and  o f 89 s t u d i e s w h i c h  and  Other that  (1980) w i t h  (1977) w i t h n i n t h g r a d e - s t u d e n t s ,  meta-analysis  500  by Leone  (1986) were  found  reading  on t h e  that  reading  related,  i n their (1984)  study  reading  sought scores  but was  that not  to  determine  and  spelling  o f 71 u n d e r - p r e p a r e d , c o l l e g e freshmen and found  that  11 capable  r e a d e r s make s i g n i f i c a n t l y  phonological Taylor  errors  (1981)  reading  examined  comprehension  students reading  enrolled alone  students  students'  final  students' reliably student  i n  of  be  grade l e v e l .  argumentative, seventh-grade  third  they read,  fifth-  Reading  the  investigated  graders and  and  Felland  Barnes  examining correlated from  to  levels  samples  reading  level  from  the  Barnes  292  ten  relationship factors.  (1980)  have  similar  reading  Writing  very between  few  could grade  a on  level  recently  fifth-  and  although  to that  which  approximately  level.  Skill researchers  writing  Weathermon more  of  (1984),  that  students write  below t h e i r  years  third-,  concluded  F a c t o r s and  the  samples i n the e x p o s i t o r y ,  write at a level  seventh-grade  last  the  investigate  obtained  work.  that  grades.  (1976),  level  d e s c r i p t i v e modes f r o m  reading-environmental (1983)  grade  college  a g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n c e between r e a d i n g  Environmental  Within  one  that  gathered w r i t i n g  four grade  final  formulae  concluded  students.  individual  and  readability  and  found  fourteen,  scores  a piece of written  He  and  through  readers.  78  He  Lozdowski  with  predicted within  the other hand, found  three  seven  He  r e c e i v e d on  of  have a l s o been employed t o  scores  writing.  with  and  listening  grades  course.  significantly  grades  eight  disabled  between  course  composition  formulae  reading  application  2.  a  or  relationship  with  in  orthographic errors  adequate  reading-writing relationship.  3 38  and  did  the  correlated  Readability the  than  fewer  skill  (1984), examined  have and  McConnell writing  12 achievement exposure  and  a n d number  reports  by  examining  by  o f books  (1984)  teachers  writers.  The  were  home  from  children  holistic  the  first  environments  into  by  four  that  groups  earlier  studies  students  documented  he  earlier  higher  (1980),  writers studies  were  noted f o r ratings  exposure  and  randomly s e l e c t i n g  gathered  read  second-  elements,  holistic  questionnaire  that  on  literature  were  literature  on t h e data  superior  of  story structure  a  concluded  144  w r i t i n g samples  no d i f f e r e n c e s  distributed  writers,  students,  on amount  high  writers  and value  based  Felland  effective"  the better  emphasis  Narrative  evaluated  "less  categorized  significantly  Based  or  that  to the  who w e r e  (1983)  with  years.  questionnaire  placed  Although  students  schools,  average  a  for vocabulary,  writing practice.  department-heads.  (1978)  literature  b u t as seen i n  of  effective"  McConnell  two measures,  high  average  number  investigator concluded  ratings.  received  frequent  and  "more  and w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e .  and  950  the  administered  as  c o l l e c t e d and analyzed  were  background,  by students,  s i x and seven  and w r i t i n g .  exposure  read  (1978)  o f 160 g r a d e  reading  t o home  such r e l a t i o n s h i p s surpasses those o f recent  their  grade  relation  Belanger  Weathermon parents  i t s  to  English  on 456  superior  i n comparison more  (Donelson,  books.  t o the Belanger  1 9 6 7 ; Monk, 1 9 5 8 ;  Maloney, 1967;Bargig,  1 9 6 8 ; Hyndman, 1 9 6 9 ; Woodward & P h i l l i p s ,  1967;  and  Wyatt,  populations conclusions:  1960;  Lacampagne,  o f d i f f e r e n t grade good w r i t e r s were  levels likely  1968)  which  and a r r i v e d t o read  more  examined at  similar  frequently,  13 have  more  books  i n  their  homes  and  have  parents  who  read  extensively. 3. R e a d i n g A b i l i t y  and S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y  Another l a r g e group o f c o r r e l a t i o n a l statistically ability type,  and v a r i o u s T-unit  written, found  Johnson,  length,  between  maturity.  total  Sentence  number  of  and a d j e c t i v e and adverb use have with various reading 1982; L e d f o r d ,  1981; Bushner,  reading  measures  a l l been  (Kuntz,  1 9 8 4 ; Zeman  1980; Simon,  words  1969;  1975; Perron,  1 9 8 0 ; Wade,  1982;  1980).  Kuntz reading  exist  of syntactic  clause  1984; H i l l ,  Heller,  of  length,  to correlate  correlations  measures  mechanics,  Hartman, 1976;  significant  s t u d i e s h a s shown t h a t  (1975)  reported  achievement  confidence.  significant  and s y n t a c t i c Hartman  correlations  complexity  (1984)  between  a t t h e .001  analyzed  116  level  ninth-grade  students'  written retellings  of a short narrative selection  concluded  that  qualitative  writing  variables  comprehension examined writing  the  seventh-  and  phrase  .05  factors.  (1984),  between  level  of  writing  and  five quantitative  correlated  students' quality  i n writing  examining  reading  Hill  reading (1982)  compositions  factors that  and  for  nominal  reading  was  performance."  fifth-grade  significant  with  confidence.  She a l s o c o n c l u d e d  factors  statistically  correlations  seven  eighth-grade  factors,  to "specific  Ledford reported  measured,  at  mechanics  modifying related  of the five  and  (.05  achievement  students'  level and  of  stories,  confidence)  students'  use of  14 mechanics,  a d j e c t i v e s , adverbs,  conjunctions,  lexical  Zeman  using  found  (1969),  cohesion,  grade  and  and above  sentences.  Perron  clause  students  average (1976)  used  readers  at the third-,  investigation  fourth-  number  students  other  of  words.  as s u b j e c t s ,  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more more  and Johnson  length correlated with  references,  total  two and t h r e e  t h a t below average readers  sentences  and  comparative  compound  (1981)  and  found  the reading  simple complex  that  T-unit  comprehension  and f i f t h - g r a d e  levels.  of  I n an  o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between u n i v e r s i t y  freshmen's  r e a d i n g comprehension and s y n t a c t i c elements o f t h e i r  expository  writing,  Heller  (1980) c o n c l u d e d  t h a t whereas poor readers  s h o r t e r T - u n i t s t h a t were u s u a l l y expanded by adding clauses,  s t r u c t u r e s as p r e p o s i t i o n a l  the  good  intra-T-unit Bushner eighth-grade significant readers words  (1980) levels.  syntactic relation response.  writing  examined Her  phrases.  and p a s s i v e verb  included  words  per T-unit,  reading,  that  phrases.  and words  t o reading  however,  comprehension,  Simon concluded types  of  rather  reading  response  and poor reading,  per clause.  Simon  as t h e s o l e index  than  examine  she r e l a t e d  that there  and  statistically  inferential  t h e number o f words p e r T - u n i t maturity;  were  a t the seventh-  indicated  reading, l i t e r a l  such  characteristics  12 0 s t u d e n t s  data  Also  d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t among v e r y g o o d , a v e r a g e ,  i n total  (1980) u s e d  readers'  coordination of detail  written,  specific  subordinate  good readers wrote l o n g e r T - u n i t s expanded through  non-clausal among  wrote  i t to  this  of i n  reading  i s an a s s o c i a t i o n between and  syntactic  writing  15 maturity  when  engagement:  response  i s  involvement,  defined  i n  four  perception,  interpretation  evaluation.  Using pictures t o e l i c i t  Wade  (1982)  investigated the relationship  oral  and  written  scores. their  He  oral  written  language  found  that  and  better  their  reading  Based  Process  Investigations This  research  draw  parallels  on h i sd a t a ,  an  Lowe  and  (1981),  during  proficiency of  other  writing  proficiency  role  between  i n  findings  T-units i n  i ntheir  Wade c o n c l u d e d  o r a l and t h a t "The  single predictor  reading  behaviours  and w r i t i n g  one  were  Scott  that reading i s  approach,  fourth-  and  process.  related  Atwell  i n the composition  (1981),  and  process.  and w r i t i n g  process  (1984) t o  processes,  l e d Atwell  study of  oriented.  and Ryan  (1985) t o c o n c l u d e  using a case  of  to  (1981), text,  examined t h e eighth-grade Ratings  of  ratings  of  examining t h e videotaped  20  w h i l e they were w r i t i n g a n a r r a t i v e essay  and b l i n d  revealed  Process  (1981)  has  i nthe other process.  visible  products  the reading  the reading  average undergraduates under  Birnbaum  component o f t h e w r i t i n g  Birnbaum  students  response,  comprehension  fewer  i st h e best  and  children's  o f t h e e i g h t i e s have been process  (1986) a n d Dahl  important  reading  used  and t h e W r i t i n g  has enabled  various  (1985),  between  of  comprehension."  4. T h e R e a d i n g  among  and w r i t t e n  reading  readers  number o f words p e r w r i t t e n c l a u s e of  oral  language a n d more words p e r c l a u s e  language.  categories  little.  writing  conditions.  Analysis  Analysis  of t h e process,  of the  however,  16 revealed that with their texts visible, they  wrote  written their  more  texts  reading  as  examining revised  an  important  they  quality.  relationships  as  essays  four  development  of  role  planning  re-read and  by  four  consisted of their  college course  students  different then  capable  fifth-grade  students' because  of  of  producing  of  of  the  and  reading  task,  revision  thus  their  text  produced  found  process. than  work  of  the reading-writing processes  for  played  of  insure that B a s e d on  use  four  semester  reading  and  as  a  in  very  and the  small  revision  They d i d  not  a l l parts  connected  t h e d a t a , Lowe  concluded  writing purpose  aloud  Participants'  surface features.  methodology,  one  composed  papers.  to  and  they  Pre-writing  i n r e a d i n g and  i s adversely to  affected  c o n s t r u c t meaning."  Dahl they  (1985)  observed  participated  writing.  s e l e c t i o n s about s i m i l a r t o p i c s , the  writing  composing  as  correcting  combined  summarized  students'  o f d e t e c t i n g more e r r o r s  the  and  ethnographic  which  writers,  investigating  essays.  to determine  Using  When  (1986) examined s t u d e n t s as t h e y r e a d  written  "Performance  failure  better  transactional  in  formed a cohesive whole.  that  writers.  component  revealed  reacted  mainly  a  In a study  Lowe  i n the  60  c o r r e c t e d more  c o l l e g e freshmen, to  the  readers were capable  readers,  superior  i n view,  they  be  Since better poor  able  what  text.  (1985),  to  less  t o p l a n m e n t a l l y , were s t i l l  more c o h e r e n t  processes  did  were not  ability  Scott  than  better writers read  Students  d r e w a s c h e m a map  information i n a written  essay.  Dahl  in  a  read and noted  17 that  students  noted  that  reread  students  extensively while wanted  their  passage read,  and  that they  text  own  compositions.  in their  "Writing (1984)  p e r f o r m a n c e was  observed  investigate these  the  students  text.  and  summaries  The  shaped  and  wrote  by  reading  sound  also  like  the  s t r u c t u r e of  read  that  experiences".  fifth-grade  linguistic  and  she  investigator concluded  interviewed eight  they  to  but  o f t e n used the author's  cognitive as  composing,  Ryan  students  strategies  e x p o s i t o r y and  to  used  by  narrative  S i x s t r a t e g i e s — d e f i n e d by t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r as r e p o r t i n g ,  conjecturing,  contextualizing,  repairing—were  identified  structuring,  in  both  monitoring,  reading  and  and  writing  processes. B.  I n f l u e n c e o f W r i t i n g on Studies  be  divided  influence  examining into  of  performance H o w i e 1979; 1983;  effects and  Bravick, 1972; 1982;  three  1981;  areas:  ability  Nagle,  1982; the  Levine,  (Taylor  on  1977;  1986);  1978;  those  Walker-Lewis, Kelley,  effects  of  1984;  1967; 1981;  and  1982;  activities 1980;  1978;  with  Wolfe,  Lee,  1986;  1975; 1989;  Oehlkers,  O b e n c h a i n , 1971;  on  the  reading  McCarthy,  practice  the  Trivelli,  on  1986);  can  writing  1981;  Raphael,  writing  examining  concerned  Berkowitz,  Reed,  reading  Sullivan,  Mackie,  Zimmer & P a l m e r e , 1972;  those  or writing &  on  reading  Callaghan,  instruction  C a l h o u n , 1971;  investigating  1979;  Evans,  Plake, Roberts,  Hinton,  different  1979;  of writing  1986;  influence of w r i t i n g  sentence-combining  Phelps,  writing  Glover,  the  (Menendez,  McAfee,  Reading  Yasuf,  and  reading  those and  18 writing La  skill  Rosa,  which  1979;  have  regularly The  Arthur,  generally  significant  1.  (Collins,  and  with  to  of  asserts  that  appears stated,  results  (1986)  of  obtained  and  reading  research  expect  from  syntactic  Menendez  (1979)  reading  sessions  as  Writing and  and  writing  (1983), and  and  assess  leads  an  what  to  That  writing yet  as  Phelps  the  i s , the generally  previously and  reading  (1979), Callaghan (1979)  (1983), McAfee  (1978),  found  or writing quality;  sentence-combining  i n  sentence-combining,  significant;  (1982), T r i v e l l i  found that  no  whereas  (1981)  contributed  to  and  gains  comprehension. (1977), exposing a t h i r d - g r a d e e x p e r i m e n t a l group of  transformational  a  on  sentence-combining  Howie  (1977), Mackie  written  Reading  resources.  (1978),  Levine 96  on  Crowhurst  significant gains i n reading ability  in  been  students'  and  findings,  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sentence-combining  Sullivan  Evans  not  De  studies,  their  practice  and w r i t i n g remains u n c l e a r .  Levine  i n  sentence-combining  positive  1989;  studies.  i t s effects  years  Decker,  correlational  have  inconclusive.  between be  1987;  consistent  realistically  of  to  and  s y n t h e s i z e 20  may  relationship  been  Unlike  Sentence-Combining  remain  teachers  development  1981).  consistent  Sentence-combining  attempt  Marshall,  these experimental  Effects  performance  1980;  sentence-combining sentence-combining  c o m p o s i t i o n and  standardized  test.  treatment, had  positive  r e a d i n g comprehension Mackie  (1982)  concluded effects  that upon  when measured  exposed  to  by  fourth-grade  19 subjects found  to  an  sentence-combining  increase  comprehension the  effect  and  of  twelfth-grade  in  writing  overall  syntactic  sentence  maturity.  and  30  of  30  students  20  weeks  well  Evans  on  most  for  as  as  students,  low  examining  juniors, found  influenced the  with  and  reading  (1986),  college  sixth-grade  instruction  development  quality  combining  students  sentence-combining  instruction  71 that  reading  abilities  in  and  these  areas. Callaghan results  with  (1978)  (1978) ninth-  had  580  of  an  gains  Sullivan  lessons, reading  graders  that  The  ability Effect  r e a d i n g and  activities retention, Reed  found  the  the  did  and  o f one  (1981),  and found  written  school  quality.  not  year.  experimental no  group evidence  Paralleling  contribute  on  Reading  to  and  influence of w r i t i n g t e n d t o be  (1980), Wolfe  contributed  (1967)  Callaghan  this or  gains  3 0 in  quality.  writing ability  recall  oral  similar  t h a t w h e t h e r s u b j e c t s d i d 15  combining  examining  Zimmer, & P a l m e r e  on  course  Writing Instruction  Taylor & Berkowitz  find  subjects.  work  although  or writing  of  d i d not  i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , t h e r e was  (1978)  sentence  Studies  and  eleventh-grade  increase i n reading or writing  study,  2.  (1978)  exercises f o r the  indicated  demonstrated  Sullivan  and  ninth  sentence-combining Results  and  and to  that  Glover,  writing  Plake,  (1989) f o u n d  significant  achievement.  instruction  on  somewhat more c o n s i s t e n t .  (1975),  McCarthy  Writing  Bravick  gains (1986),  activities  and  Roberts,  that in Nagle  writing reading (1972)  instruction  led  to  improvement  i n reading  (1972)  Calhoun  Oehlkers  and  influence of writing  comprehension, (1971)  i n s t r u c t i o n on both  been i n v e s t i g a t e d by Walker-Lewis instruction Obenchain  led to  (1984),  growth  i n both  by Raphael  increase  reading (1986),  who f o u n d  single-sentence  significantly  more  reported  college  that  words  difficult  i n sentences Glover,  instructed  groups  paraphrase  an  essay.  Results  recalled  by students  o f 81 s t u d e n t s , of  three groups:  Plake,  indicated  Bravick  passages.  who  after  the  reading  d i d not. remedial when  Roberts,  Zimmer  students  (1975)  reading  course  writing them &  the  as p a r t  Palmere to  while  significantly the  recalled  Wolfe  either  key words  paraphrased  attempting  helped  that sixth-grade students  reading  that  instruction  of  better  or to write  achievement;  expository  when  college  who  and w r i t i n g  i n a  vocabulary  (1982) and  effect  who  students  of  essay  a study  those  rather than  sentence.  In  found  by  i n written  Hinton  examining  summaries  than  t o gains  that writing  (1980),  on r e a d i n g ,  writing  instruction contributed to  t o summarize  Berkowitz  that  comprehension;  (1982),  comprehension  ability  and  summary w r i t i n g  remembered  i t lead  who c l a i m t h a t w r i t i n g  students  Taylor  wrote  that  The  reading and w r i t i n g has  i n reading  b u t n o t r e a d i n g ; by Yasuf  Kelley  and  found  (1986),  i t d i d not.  ( 1 9 8 1 ) , who f o u n d  improvement  ( 1 9 7 1 ) , who  composition  that  but Lee  more  new of a  (1981)  read  and  reading  the  ideas  were  essay.  t o improve t h e reading  comprehension  (1986) r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d s u b j e c t s t o one  a reading  only group,  a group w r i t i n g  opinion  responses, of  15  weeks,  groups on  or a group w r i t i n g  a  results  in total  structural  indicated  comprehension  standardized  test.  responses.  significant and  The  At  understanding A  recent  writing  in inferential  investigator  comprehension  concluded  that  study  two  experimental  the  control  that  confidence  was  on  have  both  comprehension  and  through  found  level  of  writing  McCarthy process  (1989)  approach.  for writing,  indicated  the  level  difference at  ability  attempting  the  .05  to  ability  of  d i f f e r e n c e s between c o n t r o l comprehension,  program  respectively,  and on  but  not  evaluation.  significant  (1982)  reading  but  gains not  writing  performance.  improve  the  reading  under-prepared  college  detected  (1982),  in  both  found groups  ability  (1971),  on  measures  the  at  the  when other .001  comprehension.  examining  ninth-graders gains  experimental  writing  Obenchain  in writing  Hinton 1024  and  in  i n reading  of  group.  influence of  and  and  Results  integrated reading-writing strategies,  confidence,  Yasuf  computer-assisted  the  tools.  a l s o examined  writing  measured by h o l i s t i c hand,  using  traditional  writing  (1981) ,  reading  writing  significant  Walker-Lewis  in  in  used  a  increase  i n the reading achievement of the experimental  instruction  significant  that  group used the word processor  Investigators  students  demonstrated  i n f l u e n c e s r e a d i n g as w e l l .  group  there  has  groups  The  the  of w r i t t e n discourse.  positively  instructed  end  d i f f e r e n c e s between  Structural-Response I n s t r u c t i o n a l Model helped students their  the  and  the  703  reading  impact  of  a  tenth-graders and  writing.  Kelley  (1984)  treatment  found gains i n both reading and w r i t i n g  groups  were  Sentence/Paragraph Approach.  exposed  Structure  After  to writing Approach  twenty-three  also.  instruction  using the  and t h e Six-Step  40-minute  Two  Writing  periods,  Kelley  c o n c l u d e d t h a t b o t h methods o f c o m p o s i t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d t o growth in  reading  scores  being  students silent  spent  reading.  text  instruction  summarize 3.  that  a writing  increased  expository  The I n f l u e n c e  practice,  as opposed  159  instruction ability  have  Practice  examined  the  five  and s i x  i n text to  structure  compose  and  and  Writing  of  t o a structured continuous writing  writing  that  practice  Decker  and A r t h u r  text  and production  influence  (1987)  not,  of  emphasizing peer  on Reading  Collins  comprehension,  scores of  text.  on r e a d i n g a n d w r i t i n g a c h i e v e m e n t . found  mean  i n sustained  grade  environment  students'  of Writing  Investigators  with  t h e impact  comprehension  from  and/or  of time  examined  on students'  and p u b l i c a t i o n  significantly  amount  (1986)  gathered  achievement,  (p.>.01) t h a n mean  equivalent  Data  indicated  editing  an  higher  Raphael  also.  students  and w r i t i n g  significantly  who  structure of  comprehension  (1981)  (1989) that  i n  a n d De L a R o s a i tneither  (1980)  influenced  program,  and Marshall  improved (1979)  writing  that  reading i t d i d  reading  nor  writing. Collins  (1980)  found t h a t reading i n s t r u c t i o n combined  expressive writing practice comprehension  significantly  improved c o l l e g e more  than  freshmen's  d i d reading  with  reading  instruction  alone.  The e x p e r i m e n t a l  grade-point  averages  matriculation,  on  analytic  total  that  scores  o f 35 s t u d e n t s  required  significant as  i n the personal  associated  restricted  by  short  with  a  continued f o r  standardized  of three  writing  stories.  analytic  significantly  writing  with  differences  the effect of  f o r  mean  measured  understanding  was  than  that  examined  writing  modes  consisting  score  (1987)  students'  indicated  test  and  Marshall  tasks  below  displayed  comprehension test.  group,  Results  and  formal  higher  i n t h e form o f s h o r t  post answer  questions. Decker  (1989),  significant component tenth,  findings.  was  added  average  De  to  of  Rosa  and experimental  considered,  writing  gains  sessions  a 10-minute reading  significant  including measures, period  writing found  i n  which  participated they  wished)  as  found  groups  as w e l l .  similar  well  no  subjects  i n daily  i n  or reactive writing  and  of  There  control  two  than  Arthur  six-week  experimental  (writing  (writing  scores  i n creative  performance a  between  reading  engaged  reading.  After  sustained writing  subjects.  better  reading  the  instruction  When  significantly  results.  writing  differences  by a group  as  report  daily  subjects  (1979)  produced by a group i n sustained s i l e n t  not  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e  experimental  not  d i d  grade experimental  produced  were  hand,  the remedial  t o conclude  La  other  F o r 16 w e e k s ,  performance  subjects.  were  the  eleventh and t w e l f t h  was no e v i d e n c e  control  on  about  stimulated  gains (1981), as  her  treatment groups whatever through  lesson  plans),  instruction,  Arthur  concluded  that  without  w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e alone d i d not  feedback  or  influence reading  or  writing. C.  Influence of Reading A  third  influence  area  of  practice effect  on  of  studies  on  writing  i n the  and  the  studies  divided effect  of  concerned  subcategory  suggest  that reading  to  composition  but  another  sub-category skill  of  through  unsuccessful  in  group  reading  reporting  reading  A  those  the  number  of  practice  suggests  studies,  two  with  ability.  writing,  the  into  writing  second  been  with  i s  examining  on  The  generally  research  ability,  concerned  ability  does not. improve  writing  instruction  first  one's  Writing  investigation,  studies  reading  influences  of  reading  subcategories:  on  that  i t  attempting  instruction,  measurable  have  writing  growth. 1.  The  Effect  In and  an  year the  attempt  writing  examined  academic of  writing  DeVries students  Practice  investigate  practice from  on  year,  while  Although  (1970),  the  nine  the  Heys he  Ability  influence of quality,  through  control  reading  employing  the  Writing  g r o u p s w r o t e one  of his results, group,  on  composition  grades  Experimental  time.  significance the  to  students  period.  amount  of Reading  groups  d i d not concluded  twelve  i n a nine-week experiment,  reading  Heys  (1962)  over  a  one  theme each week f o r read  report the  f o r the  same  statistical  t h a t i n comparison  g r o u p made t w i c e  similar  free  as  methodology w i t h  many fifth  found t h a t students  to  gains. grade  assigned  additional a  r e a d i n g and  no w r i t t e n w o r k i m p r o v e d t h e i r w r i t i n g  greater extent than  It  should  be  significant (1973)  d i d students  noted,  at  the  however,  .05  demonstrated  significantly To  that  their writing,  the  Eckhoff  from  two  literary  B,  employed the use  wrote  prose;  showed  contained  subordinate  texts.  Basal In  Contrary  of a very  B  the  of  clauses,  claims  students  who  Glazer  contributed  Wyllie  Examining high the had  transformational  of  school  and  style. the  37  additional  using  t o as  Basal  studied  A  children  complex  and  the  verb  participial  format  of  their  one-line-sentences. above  (1976)  did  not  literature  effects  of  found  study  led to  Elley,  that  results improved  different  Zealand  instead wrote  studies, re-affirm  three  i n New  reading study  complexity  f i n d i n g s of  Basal  the  investigators  texts,  children  texts.  by  students  The  infinitive  wrote  and  the  grammar  of  and  on  writing  the  referred  sentences,  made  that free reading  period,  and  One  usually copied  they  claiming  year  by  not  children's reading  other text,  reading  complex  Lamb,  on  study  classes.  writing  children  to  of  simplified  their  Barham,  programs  literature  study  c l o s e l y matched the s t y l e  other words,  composition.  oral  A  week.  was  (1983) a n a l y z e d r e a d i n g t e x t s and  that  features  phrases.  themes a  difference  confidence.  whereas the  linguistically  forms,  this  of  second-grade  of  study  that  possible effects  r e f e r r e d t o a s B a s a l A,  the  w r o t e two  t o b e t t e r w r i t t e n work.  explore  samples  level  who  to  over  after of  English a  one  three year,  traditional  sightly  (but  or not  significantly) year,  better  the reading  compositions.  group  A t t h e end o f t h e  d i d n o t make  made b y t h e t w o grammar g r o u p s .  gains  Rather,  superior  they  third  to  those  displayed  equal  competence. Nielsen on  (1980)  examined  children's narrative writing  found  that  stories,  although  as  well  students  as  extent,  there  quality  of students'  read  to.  was  Louque  stimulus,  writing  followed  The by  combined w i t h guided writing  gender,  by  grade  as  treatments  did.  Michener  children,  reading,  effects  Using  found  47  that  maturity  proficiency  students'  reading,  free  reading  attitude  and  children's  12 w e e k  period  randomly  was  selected  reading  on semantic  aloud  maturity,  style.  I n s t r u c t i o n on W r i t i n g  reading  of  reading  the  (1978) documents e a r l y a t t e m p t s  through  of  reading  (1985).  syntactic  Belanger  were  f o rdifferences i n  of  h a d no s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t s  The E f f e c t s o f R e a d i n g  or  and newspaper  treatment  2.  literary  silently  o f newspaper  day f o r a  and w r i t i n g  i n the  t h e source  every  she  greater  l i t e r a t u r e a c t i n g as  d i d not account  The  f o r 15 m i n u t e s  investigated fourth  served  writing  better  interested i n the effects  but rather than  newspaper  s e s s i o n s and  act to a  read  quality—reading ability,  however,  literature  also  they  literature  were w r i t i n g  difference  when  was  t h e newspaper  material.  overall  writing  quality,  t e n treatment  t h e composing  significant  (1984)  reading  over  of reading  believed they  enjoying  no  r e a d i n g on o v e r a l l a  the effects  instruction  Ability  t o improve  writing  ( E u r i c h , 1931; Mathews,  27 Larsen,  &  Butler,  1945)  instruction  i n reading  on  ability.  writing  studies  by  Campbell whether and  or  skill  Perry  prose  composition  in  significant  difference  scores,  but  treatment,  called  grade-nine  and  experimental  w h i c h was  T-unit  at  three  expository  there  influence  a  on  for  total showed  this  significant  change  on his  should  month  change any  of  of  reading  a  a  study not  by  expect  at  d i d not  stating  reading  Four  samples.  treatment,  to the pre-testing  syntactic the  between  produce  four  the  standardized  Although  change  the  a  writing  intervals.  quality,  significant  of  total  s i x month p e r i o d .  number o f words.  groups,  concluded  overall  was  students  administered  six  (1974),  small.  exposed t o the  and  later  questioning  of  that  post-testing identical  analyzed  t h a t one  in  improvement  subjects'  over  effect  Miller  the  Reading Technique,  experimental  suggest  on  the  levels  obtained  assigned t o p i c s which e l i c i t e d w r i t i n g  l e n g t h and  Belanger  gain  groups were then  samples  in  studies  significant  (1978),  concluded  c l a s s e s were i n i t i a l l y  above  were  reading  SOS  f o l l o w e d by  mentioned samples  the  grade-ten  r e a d i n g t e s t and Experimental  result  examined  these  comprehension  i m p r o v e m e n t was  (1978)  in  (1974),  Maat  i n the  in  a  were  O'Donnell  modes,  that this  Belanger  results  would  these  that  have  (1980).  improvement  argumentative  d i d not  (1971),  and  not  concludes  Similar  Schneider (1976)  and  density, combined  control  and  statistically  writing that  Writing  measures.  "these  to teach writing  by  results indirect  28 methods:  i f writing  i s  to  improve,  i t should  be  taught"  [p.  223] . Three r e c e n t s t u d i e s examined the e f f e c t to  Read  the  program  context  Stevenson  (which  of words which they (1988),  kindergarten  and  based  282  reading gains but obtained students.  than  in  completing  made w i t h The  regard  twelve  relationship of  between  contrary  to  1987;  Reagan,  Martin, reading  Whitmer and  kindergarten  that  subjects  scores  control  in  total  Writing to to writing  Hart,  and  with  findings  Martin  group  comprehension (1989)  i n vocabulary, test  Significant  and  do  not  writing  have  scores  claims  of  were  demonstrate  skill.  obtained  (Belanger  A u s t i n , 1984;  students  (1989), in  1984), examined the and  skill  1980;  IBM  Misenheimer  above  s t u d i e s , however, these  (1987)  achievement.  described  reading  241  first-grade  the  achievement  Read.  from  significant  and in  in  writing).  Miller  reading  group.  reading  sounds  obtained reported  Writing  &  A  small  results  that  Martin,  Mavragones  &  a  1989; Padak,  1985).  Belanger conducted  scores  students,  with  the  studies  recent  Crowhurst, 1982;  i n t h e i r own  use  phonetic  t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found  students  are  then  gains.  indicated  r e c o g n i t i o n and  number  42  test  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  concluded  not  results  subjects  students  first-grade  Scores  did  word  on  not w r i t i n g  similar  received  teaches  o f t h e IBM  writing  grades effect  ability  of  replicating nine  and  an ten  earlier (Belanger  of a reading treatment 164  grade  study  eleven  on  and the  students.  29 Following the adminstration of a phonic-based the  investigators  group  showed  achievement concluded ability  found  statistically and  writing  that these  f o u r months t h e  significant  gain  proficiency.  gains resulted  treatment,  experimental i n  The  reading  investigators  "from t h e students'  improved  t o decode w r i t t e n words a u t o m a t i c a l l y and f l u e n t l y "  from an environment and  that after  reading  evaluated  as  English"—thus, reading  i n which  part  of  students •  supporting  ability  provided  " w r i t i n g was  their  taught s y s t e m a t i c a l l y  regular  earlier  a foundation  and  classroom  claim  work  that  i n  improved  on w h i c h w r i t i n g  could  be  taught. Crowhurst in  her  (1987) a l s o o b t a i n e d  examination  writing  of  instruction  hundred  on  sixth-grade  treatments: writing  the  reading  subjects  1) i n s t r u c t i o n  practice;  effect  or  2)  i n  although  a  persuasion  were  groups  improved  reading  i n  to  one  a  One  of  persuasion  two  schema  group r e c e i v e d  Crowhurst  concluded  i n writing  when  one that  differences i n reading,  significantly  and  schema combined w i t h  The c o n t r o l  schema.  persuasion.  exposed  instruction  results  instruction  writing  i n a persuasion  t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t  treatment  of  and  combined w i t h reading p r a c t i c e . lesson  significant writing  both judged  qualitatively. Hart method helping  of  (1980), teaching  students  population  interested  of  selected  improve 177  i n determining reading  reading  tenth-grade  skills  and w r i t i n g subjects.  whether was  a  direct  effective  i n  skills,  tested  Students  i n  a  the  experimental and  group  one  composition  studied selected reading s k i l l s .  reading  comprehension,  evidenced skills.  among  essays  definition  appears  incorporated  taught  they  composition  skill.  ability  use  to  writing.  She  lessons and  exposed  The  analysis  of  experimental the  Austin  of  study,  so  level.  readers control  group  concerned  with  techniques  i n  received  Although  group and  i n the  to  a  scale  f o r the  control  Padak  instruction, included on  but  both  (1982) were n o t rather with  a  reading  students'  achievement  were  levels  levels.  the  treatment of  these in  suggest  of  None  of  the  groups  a  and  at  on  end  post  in the  with  program  syntactic  maturity  ninth-grade  differed  that  Gains  and  disabled  s e r v e d as s u b j e c t s f o r t h r e e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s and group.  the  at the  concerned  syntactic  Fifty-five  in  significant  effects  of  analysis  group.  solely  own  series  used  scores  in  their  instruction  control  their  students'  a thorough  no  post-test  students  students  improvement  techniques  were  Mavragones and  manipulation  shown  experimental  composition  i f  skill,  organization of  have  rhetorical  only  was  reading  writing  s t u d e n t s were w r i t i n g more mature e s s a y s  .05  reading  the  essays.  composition  which  the  reading of essays  control  the  reading  into  skill  in selected  for  weeks  improvement i n  encompasses  limited,  to  for ten  writing  practice  (1984) was  the  week  and  what  considered  requiring the  essays.  of  skills  selected  discussion  had  somewhat  the  were  who  a  Significant  vocabulary  students  Hart's  however,  of  wrote  one  reading  31 measure.  Among  differences  in  the  favour  Those groups r e c e i v i n g and  daily  day  for  study  measures,  of  experimental  24  weeks)  by  more  total  or  (1985)  effects  through audio  change  in  writing, her  direct  and  writing and  reading-writing compositions,  literacy,  also  the  D.  Reading. With  assumption educators  that  she  per  per used  T-unit.  attempted  freshman b a s i c w r i t e r s .  of  to  as  she  well  suggesting  felt  attendance,  that  a  with that  of  environmental  a t t i t u d e toward  students  students  other  1  factors— self  background, and  to  combined  m o t i v a t i o n , a t t i t u d e toward  and  toward  regards  improve  number  positive  attitude  Yet  helped  samples,  detected  as  on  Gathering  interviews, writing  composing,  analysis  Reagan  and the  subject—were  influential. W r i t i n g and empirical that  have  relationship. functions  listening  treatment  in  composing process.  educational  highly  this  differed  proficiency,  i n s t r u c t o r ' s r o l e and  of  found.  f o r 55 m i n u t e s  more words  instruction  content,  were  (reading while  as  observation,  statistical  course  groups  well  o f 13  video-tapes  self,  as  significant  of combined r e a d i n g - w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n  the composing processes  and  treatment  variations  T-units,  Reagan  describe the  data  the  however,  exercises i n syntactic manipulation  significantly A  syntax  are,  Schema  and  correlational  reading  and  naturally How and  these what  Theory  writing  are  speculated  on  language s k i l l s instructional  data  supporting  interrelated the  skills, of  this  are l e a r n e d , what  their  bearing  nature  the  they  have  on  the  classroom  are questions  attempting reading  exposure oral  language,  many  cannot  are  are  between  suggesting  and stored  that  as u n i t s  or  processes.  oral  language  believe  that  be taught  i s learned  reading  through  and  writing,  i n the traditional  must be l e a r n e d through that  Researchers  the tacit  sense.  internalization  are acquired through  extensive  experience w i t h t h e use o f language i n  situations.  through  the  both  that  t o and p r a c t i c a l  Smith  write  so,  i s organized  p a t t e r n s and p r i n c i p l e s  actual  many.  the relationship  i n doing  guide  on t h e view  they  exposure  In  that  t o language,  Rather, of  and  frameworks)  Based  like  writing,  (knowledge  cognitive  by  t o d e f i n e and c h a r a c t e r i z e  and  schemata  addressed  (1983)  reading.  like  one must  (1983)  of children,  know  i n o r d e r t o l e a r n how t o a  writer.  engage w i t h t h e a u t h o r  i n what  this  share  event  they  this claim  i n reading, they use i n writing.  large  amount o f v a r i e d  sense  of control  becoming  a l l they  like  Smith  states,  b i t , one t h i n g a t a t i m e , b u t enormous o f t h i n g s over t h e passage o f time,' t h e learns through "reading" l i k e a w r i t e r t o l i k e a w r i t e r , [p. 564]  Speaking  observe  learn  how t o r e a d  In describing  Goodman a n d Goodman doing.  writers  learn  t h e r e a d e r must  i swriting.  Bit by numbers learner "write"  that  H i s argument i s t h a t  a writer,  other words, author  asserts  literate.  Development  that  of learning what  children  by  students  Through engaging  reading and w r i t i n g ,  o v e r them and f i n d  view  i n a  develop  a  a personal significance f o r  i n r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g  occurs  only  i f students  experiences  actively  which  have  participate in  significant  and  reading  and  personal  writing  meaning  for  them. Reading  and  transactional  writing  process  p r o d u c e r and  are  discussed  in  terms  i n which communication between a  receiver takes  relationship  also  between  place.  reading  Bazerman  and  of  language  (1980) p r e s e n t s  writing  in  a  terms  of  the a  " c o n v e r s a t i o n a l model," s t r e s s i n g t h a t w r i t i n g occurs  within  context  of  writing i s  seen  a  as  first  previous response  begins  statements" the  pursue,  considers  an  this  view,  finally  accurate  i t , define  develop  students'  and  a  conversation."  Holt  reading-writing  relationship  in  to  issues  they  wish  to  written  form.  Bazerman  to  on-going  also  an  alliance  that through reading  communicate  a  people  This  a c t i o n and  hand,  regards  language  structure Other  i s acquired.  reading  ways o f m o d i f y i n g Both  for  a  Moffett  w r i t i n g as  forms  "inner speech" or our  acts  i t , or  and  by  control  inner  structuring i t to  theorists refer  to  reading  and  the  based  on  writing  we  by  purposes.  things i s the (1983), of  on  the  other  a  w r i t i n g as  as  consciousness.  allowing  create  source  "meditation,"  stream of  speech  and  of  v a r i e t y of  i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h p e o p l e and  from which knowledge  an speak  They express v a r i e t y of  "prior react  communication. to  of then  (1981)  as  response  Students  "contribution  Vacca  This  understanding  those  these  writing  student  have w r i t t e n .  "written conversation." evaluate  and  In  t o what others  with  of  reading,  writing.  the  a  text  to  text. processes  of  meaning  construction.  reading-writing "composing  Tierney  and Pearson  relationship  model  of  i n  reading."  their  From  a  (1983)  discuss the  presentation reader's  wants  with  the author's  cues  h i m t o t h i n k o r do and w i t h  creates  f o rhimself.  From  a text,  writer  decides  and  t o generate  ideas, and i n producing  do o r t h i n k , and makes judgments a b o u t what he c o n s i d e r s h i s background are  recursive  "transactions"  receptive goals  seen  will  composing  inner  as  selves,  and d e s i r e s .  be.  among  making meaning. and  scripts)  control  stating  content,  which  knowledge  of  writers, o f each  to this  asserts that  i s rooted  our perceptions  their  n o t i o n as  the  connection  (plans,  format  and  other's  i n t h e fundamental  of both  of  and  frames content  (1982) e x p r e s s e s  schemata  organize  c o n t e x t u a l and  i n turn help  students  produce w r i t t e n t e x t s and  that  a  act of  Hennings  comprehend m a t e r i a l s they Recently,  and  perceptions  also  acts  recurring,  H i s e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t schemata  o u r reading and w r i t i n g .  view,  readers  (1982) r e f e r r i n g  approach,  these  continuous,  and t h e i r  Petrosky  schema-theoretic  Essentially,  involving  between r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g  in  the reader  the  c o n s i d e r s what he wants t o s a y , what he wants t h e r e a d e r  reader's  a  what  a t what  experience  a w r i t e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , he uses h i s  own b a c k g r o u n d o f e x p e r i e n c e  to  to arrive  a  perspective,  meaning i s c r e a t e d as a reader uses h i sbackground o f together  of  similar  relational  read.  psychologists stories—or  comprehension and production  have  story  been  interested  schema—contributes  of stories.  Much o f t h i s  i n  how  to  the  research  has  generated  d e f i n i t i o n s of  s t o r y forms. the  One  type  attaining Stein  of a  and  a  protagonist  goal-directed  goal  1981;  1979;  who  outline  1975;  Johnson  S t e i n and  i s motivated  action,  (Rumelhart,  Glenn,  Trabasso,  which  prototypical  o f t h e main components o f t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s i s  i n c l u s i o n of  some  story  with  the  Mandler  and  to  P o l i c a s t r o , 1984).  out  intention  and  Mandler,  carry  Johnson, 1980;  of  1977;  Stein  and  Although there  are  v a r i a t i o n s i n these d e f i n i t i o n s , the b a s i c s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s are  described  in highly  According has  s i m i l a r terms.  t o S t e i n and  Glenn  s i x major c o n s t i t u e n t s :  event  which  contains  protagonist's includes  the  1)  the  s e t t i n g ; 2)  information  environment;  3)  protagonist's  or the protagonist's  (1979), the p r o t o t y p i c a l s t o r y  about  the  emotional  goal;  classified and  and  i n t o one  cognitive  term  6)  reaction,  of three  responses to  consequences  attainment,  the  or  that  the  5)  4)  the  the  goal  occur  moral,  as  attempt,  that  attainment, direct  summarizing  which  succeeded i n a t t a i n i n g  information  a  the  consequences,  areas—the protagonist's  the  in  response  response;  plan to a t t a i n a goal;  initiating  change  internal  s i g n i f y i n g whether or not the p r o t a g o n i s t the  a  the  can  emotional  future  or  result  what  the  be  of  long goal  character  learned. M a n d l e r and define also  a  Johnson  goal-directed  propose  description  a of  (1977) and  story  definition their  of  in a  J o h n s o n and  Mandler  s i m i l a r terms. nongoal-directed  nongoal-based  story  (1980)  However, story.  allows  for  they The the  occurrence the  o f unplanned  following  protagonists; initiating  components: (2)  beginning;  the  protagonist's  embedded  elements that  E.  of story  setting,  similar  that  within of  a n d (5) a n these  an  story.  introducing  however,  may  emotional  response  and  writers  structure  and o f what they  use  of a  definitions of  mind,  represent  structure  knowledge  t o make  sense  an  of  a  contain a l l  I t i s therefore  their  story  to  r e s u l t i n g from  necessarily  story.  Glenn's  ending.  surface  not  the  and  prototypical  The  includes  to Stein  individual's  of the prototypical  prototypical read  argue  story,  readers  a  type  the protagonist's  emotions;  schema  particular  (1)  beginning,  (3)  This  (4) a n a u t o m a t i c u n p l a n n e d a c t i o n  Researchers  idealized  a  event;  the  story,  actions.  assumed  about  the  o f what  they  write.  Summary Investigations  relationship  concerned  are of four  types:  attempt  t o demonstrate  that  writing  does  studies  e x i s t ; 2)  or  not writing  3)  studies  instruction readers  activities  which  production  which  influence  make s e n s e  schema,  of stories.  reading-writing  a r e l a t i o n s h i p between  on w r i t i n g s k i l l ;  their  the  1) c o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d i e s  seek  a n d 4)  studies  of text—how  contributes  and w r i t i n g  of reading  to their  which  reading  t o determine  reading  examine t h e i n f l u e n c e  and w r i t e r s  stories,  with  and  whether skill;  p r a c t i c e and  interested  i n how  t h e i r knowledge o f comprehension  and  The  41 c o r r e l a t i o n a l  relationship confidently  between assert  reading  that  t h a t good w r i t e r s tend writers, complex  and  that  studies  good  discussed  and  writing  readers  tend  readers  tend  exists.  t o be  t o have more r e a d i n g  good  demonstrate  write  correlational  research,  conclusive  results.  t o be  Sentence-combining,  a positive influence  necessarily  appear  a t the elementary,  Although  of the studies  five  studies  found  reading  achievement.  appears  to  outlined  be  that  more  retention  longer,  more  lead or  to  either  recall.  demonstrate  significant  Experimental yield  students  results  Twelve  that  receiving  i n  no  the  reading  levels. five  effect  hand, studies  and/or  writing  comprehension,  not  serve  as  differ  S i x studies  achievement.  from  those  Generally,  conclude  that  i n f l u e n c e s w r i t i n g and f o u r conclude t h a t  a  guidance  examining the influence of reading  which  on  15  i n s t r u c t i o n and  i n reading  reading  the other  of  does  does  i tdid,  had  activities  writing  i n f l u e n c e o f w r i t i n g on reading. positive.  found  improved  growth  studies  gain  i n s t r u c t i o n on  Free  generally  or college  combining  writing  studies  f o r example,  secondary  sentence  that  only  as  poor  have not produced  significant  beneficial.  substitute;  writing  than  syntactic maturity,  reviewed  Writing  demonstrate  instruction  on  t o produce  comprehension  other  can  writers,  experimental  examining t h e i n f l u e n c e o f w r i t i n g on r e a d i n g  not  good  a  sentences.  Unlike  agreed  We  experience  to  that  examining  on the  the results are not practice  i n  i t does n o t .  reading A  ruling  38 majority studies reading writing  cannot  their  practice skill. on  here,  i s found  treatments  treatments,  these  improve w r i t i n g final  processes rely  of  12  i n  reading  l e d to  studies  studies  that  improvement  which None  sought claim  composition  hand, r e p o r t schemata  claim  the s i x that i n  the ineffectiveness of  improved students'  various  of  significance  instruction.  s t u d i e s , on t h e other  the • study  The  study  support regarding  w r i t i n g through  Through  f o r three  statistical  literature  Further  reading  writers  or  writing  Five recent  as  established  were unable t o c l a i m w i t h  reading improve  be  to that  skills.  contrary results.  and  reading  text-structure  i n s t r u c t i o n does  skill. category  o f meaning on t h e i r  of l i t e r a t u r e views reading  and w r i t i n g  construction,  readers  whereby both  and  background o f knowledge and experience t o  make s e n s e o f w h a t t h e y r e a d a n d w r i t e .  Many o f t h e s e t h e o r i s t s  believe  i s stored  that  schemata—knowledge  frameworks—determine students' prose.  Recently, of  production  of stories.  of  have  been  to  the  contribute This  these  story  story  structure,  composition  schemata  cognitive  research  interested  include  and consequently  i n  understanding  how and  has generated d e f i n i t i o n s  s t o r y which o u t l i n e p r o t o t y p i c a l s t o r y forms.  that  and  stories  as  comprehension and composition o f  investigators  knowledge  that  definitive determine  of a particular story.  I t i s believed conceptions  the  of  comprehension  39  CHAPTER I I I RESEARCH  Using  a  case-study  DESIGN  approach,  the  current  investigation  examined t h e r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g processes  of junior  students.  between  writing,  To the  describe  study  relationships  explored  how  students'  knowledge o f s t o r y s t r u c t u r e i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r composition suggests aids  1981; 1)  that  them  Mandler  of short  students  & Johnson,  affected  whether only  on  language,  basic  these  of  as  overt  a  and  story  (Rumelhart,  study  of  teachers  Jackson  proposes  that 1975;  attempted t o :  schema;  components,  which  Trabasso,  or  and  narratives but  well.  Jackson  as  active  the reading (1982)  process  meaning  makers  focuses through through  f r o m t r u s t i n g t h e i r own v o i c e  i n a school context, t o expanding perspectives, t o r e f l e c t i n g and  finally  to  was  i n Continuity i n  a model w h i c h moves s t u d e n t s  four s i g n i f i c a n t phases o f growth:  experience,  2)  schemata,  In developing English curricula that  and  tacit  schema  1979; S t e i n &  comprehension  and  comprehension and  of story  t o examine  David  reading  of research  narratives  components  students'  t h e work  students  internalized  not  designed  Secondary E n g l i s h . on  or  w r i t t e n composition Methodology  the basis  1984), t h e present  the students'  not  On  1977; S t e i n & Glenn,  Stein & Policastro,  investigate  based  have  i n comprehending  identify  their  stories.  high-school  thinking  aloud  i n public.  on The  present asked  study  adopted  Jackson's  "predicting"  h i s students to read a passage s i l e n t l y  c l u e s c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the passage, might to  happen  rely  on  next.  their  investigator from  story,  to  Because t h i s interpretive  determine  the  present  Examination  of  the  the  composing act  Bereiter  &  t h i s procedure, of  students  to  think  were  were  followed  classroom  in  process  1971; Hayes  in  the  present school  presence  while  enable  the  meaning  procedure.  relied  methodology  on  to gain  insights 1980;  1983).  Using  relatively small  samples  Flower,  composed.  o f an  Similar  subjects  they  Generally,  observer while  videotaped.  their  students  Bridwell,  they  where  thought  making  1979;  and  study:  force  on  Jackson's  Perl,  while  or  of  have attempted  i n the presence  audiotaped  their  investigator's  aloud  then, based  thereby  methods  these researchers asked  students wrote alone responses  1983;  would  and  replicated  writing  (Emig,  Scardamalia,  activity  students'  study  and  Jackson  t o p r e d i c t what they  systems,  e m p l o y e d b y m a n y r e s e a r c h e r s who into  strategy.  their  procedures  reported  wrote  aloud  verbalizations  to  in  were  a the  audio-  taped. A.  The To  was that  Pilot  Study  assess p o t e n t i a l problems w i t h the design, a p i l o t  conducted  with  outlined  investigator response. conclude  i n  with More  that:  1)  one  student.  Section insights  C  Using  below,  relating  specifically, David Jackson's  i t  a  the  schedule pilot  procedure  was  similar  provided  to methodology allowed  study  the  and  to the  student  examiner  to  f e a s i b l e on  the  41 grade-eight somewhat capable the a  level;  unusual  2) for  total  of  As  a  study's  five  original  final  designated  design.  they  a  adapt  The  project at  pilot,  one  of  product  task  to  this  volunteered  study.  selecting  In  sources:  1)  confirmation were capable grade-point on  within complete  first  hour.  being  second  used  session,  f o r homework.  district  subjects  students' from  their  r e a d e r s and average  the  overall  examiner  academic  at  Only  least  that  first  and  second  considered.  With  the  English teachers'  potential  candidates  were  progress  "good"  these  students  (from  in  relied  record;  those  6.625  from  to participate  English teachers writers.  of  students  their  a  consent  involvement.  was Three  requested females  of and  and  2)  students receiving score  the  year  endorsements  that  students,  subjects  a l l subjects prior two  the two  possible  reports of  a  on  approached regarding t h e i r voluntary p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Parental  the  Sample  school  these  devote  made  a s s i g n m e n t was  metropolitan  were  was  f o r discussion i n the this  are  complete  s e s s i o n t o remain  honour-roll  7.0)  to  s u b j e c t must  during  this  t o complete  3)  and  subjects could not  them of  initially  hand.  eighth-grade,  of  i s  quickly  change  For the f i r s t  required  springboard  Five,  a  aloud  t a s k s , each  one-hour time-frame,  s u b j e c t s were asked B.  the  since the  as  to the  of  task  Therefore, solely  students,  hours  result  designated  the  composing  o f p r o d u c i n g p r o s e u s i n g t h i s method; and  investigation's  the  although  males  were  were  study.  to  their  granted  42 permission  to  participate.  identity  would  Jennifer,  Melissa, Brent  To  remain  verify  investigator measured by  These  concealed, and  students' examined  long-term, each  and  one-half  seventh  year  prior  study. the  Subjects'  fourth  to  eighth  high  years to  grade,  A's  or  B's  in  science,  social  studies  and  language  Generally,  students  "dedicated", C.  Data Each  sessions. each  the  discussion.  the from  subject  areas—math,  to  Teachers'  academic  as  success.  "conscientious",  and  "scholarly."  Procedures  five  subjects  Working with the  student  in  consistently  arts/English.  "outstanding"  the  students  subjects'  referred  "cooperative"  Collection of  were  were  in  participation  a l l core  further verified  As  a l l students  above grade l e v e l  these  the  file.  reports disclosed that  either  comments  student  their  received  written  Pat,  academic standing,  Reading Test,  academic progress  the  their  pseudonyms:  individual's  r e a d i n g a t l e a s t one one  adopted  that  Jacob.  the Gates-MacGinitie  grade,  subjects, knowing  participated  i n v e s t i g a t o r on  was  engaged  in five  The  procedures  hours  of  in  an  five,  one-hour  individual  reading,  o u t l i n e d below were  basis,  writing  and  applied to a l l  participants. 1.  Session a)  One  Subjects'  first  Saroyan's  s h o r t s t o r y "The  segments story,  (see  t a s k was  Appendix A  divided  in  this  to  read  Great  and  respond  Leapfrog  to  William  Contest"  f o r a p r e c i s e breakdown). manner,  was  taken  from  in  12 The  David  43 Jackson's being  book  tape-recorded  students  read each  contained  within  i n Secondary  f o r  English.  approximately  segment s i l e n t l y  t h e passage,  While  45  minutes,  and, based  on events  predicted  upcoming  events  (see  Appendix B f o rthe schedule o f questions directed a t  each  student).  Saroyan's they  was  Although subjects  tale  were  i n i t se n t i r e t y  not  Jackson's  provided  rationale  t o demonstrate  incompleteness  b)  Continuity  thought they had read  by  with  the twelfth  the  story's  f o r not including that  because  conclusion.  Saroyan's  students would of their  segment,  respond  narrative  finale to  this  expectations,  w h i c h , when v i o l a t e d , p r o v o k e d them t o r e a c t w i t h  extreme  dissatisfaction.  Appendix  story's  original  as w r i t t e n  conclusion  Following session,  this  C  interrupted  students wrote  their  contains  by  the  Saroyan.  reading own  and  brief  conclusion  S a r o y a n ' s s t o r y f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 15 m i n u t e s . the  investigator  subjects' whether  was  attempting  conclusions would their  versions  to  prediction  With  determine  to  this,  whether  have a "sense o f an ending,"  would  f u l f i l l  their  narrative  expectations. c) A t t h e end o f t h e s e s s i o n s t u d e n t s w e r e g i v e n a homework assignment write  a  establish  i n which  descriptive continuity  they  were  paragraph between  verbally  instructed  (sec Appendix their  reading  D) . and  to To this  44 writing topic 2.  Session a)  assignment,  similar  t o Saroyan's:  were  asked  unfairness  to write  on  a  and c r u e l t y .  Two  The second m e e t i n g recorded  perception asked,  based  Initially,  on  story  "What i s a s h o r t s t o r y ? " features  short  story,  described  which, they  were  or negative  followed with  students'  genre,  minds,  asked, a  the investigator  Once s u b j e c t s  short  determined  characterized the  "Is  this  event  story?"  responses t o t h i s  45 t o 50 m i n u t e s ,  t h e i r paragraphs  not receive  any  tape-  homework  i n short  instruction  you  Students'  question,  t h e i n t e r r o g a t i v e , " W h y ? " o r "Why  For the remaining re-write  i n their  f o r homework  affirmative  a 10 t o 15 m i n u t e  i n an attempt t o g e t a t students'  of the short  those  did  started with  discussion  assignment.  b)  students  students  were  not?"  began t o  s t o r y form. i n writing  Subjects the  short  s t o r y , b u t r a t h e r were t o l d t h a t based on t h e i r knowledge of  what  the  a short  same  incident  composing aloud first the  story  were  their  into  permitted  interruptions  from  ended,  students  writing  their  paragraph  short  During  to  a story dealing dealt  a tape recorder,  drafts of their  investigator.  i s , to write  ask  stories  this  the investigator.  were  stories  told  students  that  wrote the  although they  would  session.  of  subjects  received  When t h i s  they  i n t h e upcoming  While  i n the presence  period,  questions,  with.  with  no  session continue  45 Session During first All  Thrpg the third  drafts  aloud  finished  hour,  and  revise  their  upon  their  students  session, students while  talking  stories  continued  were  During  to  into  at various  completion,  stories.  continued  t h e tape intervals  verbally this  compose  writing  aloud  their  recorder. within the  instructed  phase  of  while  to  revision,  being  tape-  recorded. Session  Four  This session started with students being t o l d drafts  of  their  investigator the  hour,  a)  students  continued  were  be  submitted  to  the  For the duration of  to revise  aloud  while  their  tape-recorded.  Five  In the fifth their  must  by t h e end o f t h e p e r i o d .  verbalizations Session  stories  that the final  s e s s i o n students were d i r e c t e d  stories  editorial  aloud  changes.  and, i f necessary,  t o read  t o make  final  As i n p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d s e s s i o n s ,  students were tape-recorded w h i l e completing these t a s k s . b)  Prior  to this  student's changes These as  story that  changes  changes  view,  meeting,  tone  and  were  the investigator  made  to  be  both  discussed  included simple  i n plot, and  weak  To  knowledge o f s t o r y s t r u c t u r e ,  each  and c o n s t r u c t i v e with  editorial  character, setting,  mood.  examined  explore  the  student.  changes theme,  as  well  point of  students'  t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r asked  tacit them  to  agree  or  disagree  with  these  expressing their decisions, would The of  not  go  along with  appropriate  change,  a  stylistically  i .  Appropriate An  four  the  story.  paragraph. of  Neutral  the  or  below i l l u s t r a t e investigator:  a  three  types  stylistically  neutral  change,  and  change,  was For  one  example,  student that and  which  she  instead  was  the  deemed  investigator  eliminate  begin  unnecessary story  material  was  more  to  with  her  first  her  fifth  paragraphs  concerning  a  minor  effective without  the  information,  Change  neutral  enhance  they would  eliminating these f i r s t four  the  superfluous  A  one  By  character,  besides  recommendations.  stylistically  change  paragraphs  comprised  the  and,  Change  suggested to  i i .  these  inappropriate  appropriate  enhance  a  ,  t o i n d i c a t e why  suggested changes l i s t e d changes p r o p o s e d by  changes  c h a n g e was  nor  mar  investigator  the  one  w h i c h was  story.  rewrote  For a  deemed t o  example,  sentence  in  neither one  concerning  case the  The investigator anticipated that subjects might expect t e a c h e r s t o make i m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e i r w r i t i n g ; t h e r e f o r e , t o a v o i d a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e s u b j e c t s v i e w e d t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r as an e x p e r t and thereby accepted a l l revisions, students were t o l d that the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s proposed changes were not " c o r r e c t i o n s , " but s i m p l y d i f f e r e n t methods of p r e s e n t a t i o n — n o n e of which were n e c e s s a r i l y b e t t e r t h a n t h e i r own m e t h o d s . The f a c t t h a t s t u d e n t s w o u l d say, a s one d i d , t h a t some c h a n g e s w e r e " k i n d o f . . . d u m b , " s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e y d i d n o t v i e w t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r as an a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e .  47 description that  he  of  change  M a r k ' s head big  tree."  swung  a tree.  it  to  iii.  was  swiftly  into  to  be  from the  suggested:  milque-toast.  she  tree."  into  the  of  Mark's  hold  stump  As t h i s  change story.  was  In the  which  of  of  a  head  and  change  had  and  the  was  following  inconsistent  F o r example,  it  one  story,  deemed  to  example,  a  with the  a charming c h a r a c t e r  passage  include  a hold  a  student  Change  inappropriate  following  "He g r a b b e d  swiftly  the  a  neutral.  character description was  suggested to  b e a r i n g on t h e m a i n e l e m e n t s o f  deemed  detract  it  "He g r a b b e d  Inappropriate An  was  sentence,  a n d swung  no s i g n i f i c a n t it  his  It  in  student's  contrast  investigator  suggested  to  the  to  wrote  student  a  the that  i n her seventh paragraph.  She was one of the most beautiful g i r l s I had ever seen. Her g r e e n i s h h a z e l e y e s a n d d a r k brown h a i r w e r e a stunning combination. Her face was perfect. She h a d s m o o t h , flawless s k i n t h a t p e o p l e wanted t o t o u c h , and her high cheek-bones... Additional  examples  of  appropriate,  i n a p p r o p r i a t e c h a n g e s c a n be D.  Analysis  of  the  of  five  subjects.  reading,  responses  to  found i n Appendix E .  examined e i g h t p i e c e s o f  data  Each s t u d e n t ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n  writing "The  and  Data  The i n v e s t i g a t o r the  neutral  and  Great  discussion Leapfrog  in  produced: Contest";  2)  f o r each five  of  hours  1)  reading  a  written  48 conclusion the  short  aloud  story  Great  genre;  protocols  version the  t o "The  Leapfrog 4)  an  corresponding  Contest";  original  decisions  short  to  story;  refuse  revisions  fortheir  of  were  datum  products  and  and  8)  a  revised  corresponding  suggested  Therefore, five  of  to  investigator's  story.  of  6)  think-  subject's  short  hours  5)  of  the  the  the  story;  story;  rationales  accept  from  a discussion  protocols  or  gathered 25  short  to the short  o f t h e s t o r y ; 7) t h i n k - a l o u d  revised  3)  i n total,  subjects:  tape-recorded  40 15  reading,  pieces written  writing  and  discussion. Prior the  to analyzing  verbal  protocols  transcriptions student  alone  Flower's  the data,  were  (1983)  mentioned  extensive,  running  the investigator transcribed  to  106  observation  above.  the  resulting  pages.  that  The  This  one  page  resulting  data  confirms of text  for  one  Hayes  and  may  produce  20 p a g e s o f p r o t o c o l . Using defined (1968),  by  traditional Brooks  and M e t c a l f  evidence of plot, and  mood.  established  For by  and  classifications  of  Warren  Perrine  (1959),  (1980)—each piece  character, setting, the  setting,  i n  author's  the  short  story—as  (1966),  Aloian  o f datum was a n a l y z e d theme, p o i n t o f v i e w ,  conjunction listed  with  above,  for tone  the  definition  an  additional  49 component,  as defined  to  the data.  analyze All  40 p i e c e s  by Stein  and P o l i c a s t r o  o f datum were i n d e p e n d e n t l y  elements  one  element p e r reading o f each p r o t o c o l ,  of story.  Since  readings  constituted  the  are as outlined  1)  The e i g h t analyzed  240.  the investigator  examined focused  for the on  only  t h e number o f combined  The p r o c e d u r e s  followed  i n analyzing  below:  as a u n i t Each  student  was r e a d  connection  f o ra s i n g l e  sentence that  and c l o s e l y  interpreted  be construed  under  were (i.e.,  o r spoken by t h e f o rreference  observation—in  this which was  on t h e o r i g i n a l document and r e w r i t t e n  and  onto  a data  subject's  the  specific protocol  as p l o t ,  or  t h i s statement  the  A p p e n d i x F) .  examined  of story  I f t h e s t a t e m e n t made a n y r e f e r e n c e  possibly  colour-coded  element  was w r i t t e n  t o t h e element  example, p l o t .  the  used  p i e c e s o f datum g a t h e r e d from one s u b j e c t  plot).  could  was  2  six  data  (1984),  sheet  with  name, t h e e l e m e n t i n which  headings  under  containing  examination,  i thad been  and  found (see  I f t h e s t a t e m e n t made n o r e f e r e n c e t o p l o t ,  investigator  proceeded  to  read  on.  Identical  According t o S t e i n and P o l i c a s t r o (1984), a p r o t o t y p i c a l s t o r y h a s s i x m a j o r c o n s t i t u e n t s : 1) t h e s e t t i n g ; 2 ) t h e i n i t i a t i n g event; 3) the internal response; 4) t h e attempt; 5) t h e consequence; a n d 6) t h e r e a c t i o n . The s e t t i n g , t h e y claim, "includes t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a s p e c i f i c animate p r o t a g o n i s t and normally contains information that refers t o the physical, social, or temporal context i n which t h e remainder o f t h e story occurs."  procedures were  followed  f o r e a c h s t a t e m e n t made b y  the  sub j e c t . 2)  Once  the  i n v e s t i g a t o r completed  analysis  of  procedures followed  With  for  identical in  concept of 3)  plot  one to  analyzing  this  observation  subject's  those the  unit  described  remaining  of  a l l five  of  the  subjects'  various  the  five  investigator for  of  data  sheets.  subjects  analyzed  plot.  and as  These and  for  were  by  plot  For the  remaining  study  classified  a  students,  two  procedures  which  segments,  1,  assessed 2)  2  and  respond  and  included to  subjects  The  looking patterns  subjects'  concept  components  comprise  were  subjects'  each  of  outlined  then,  were:  1)  the  data  collection  high-ability,  three  females;  having  the  segment,  steps  setting,  repeated.  with  five  (character,  mood), t h e  3 were  problems  sample  males  to  each  side.  Consistent of  elements of story  major components of the d e s i g n ,  procedures;  for  schemata.  subsections  which  across  constituent  theme, p o i n t o f v i e w , t o n e and  The  side  for  information  laid  differences.  various  plot,  sheets  characteristic  further  overall  in  subjects'  These data  compared responses  classified  combined  4)  data  similarities  were  were  plot.  example, the i n v e s t i g a t o r then c l a s s i f i e d the on  data,  above  four  and  3)  and  write  grade  data  students  read a  a  pilot  eight  collection a  story  conclusion  in for  51 the  story; discuss their  story  using  think-aloud  think-aloud proposed students' story  procedures;  r e v i s i o n s ; and  concept of story; w r i t e t h e i r procedures; and 4)  a  revise  comment data  on  the  analysis  r e s p o n s e s i n w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g  schema.  their  short  story  using  investigator s 1  which  using  own  categorized  s i x elements  of  52  CHAPTER I V A N A L Y S E S AND R E S U L T S OF  Analyses  of  the  five  case  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between reading analyzed: "The  1) t w e l v e  Great  t o "The G r e a t  discussion  of the short  of  accompanied  the  that  subject's  reaction  To  reading-response 2)  story  3)  a  7)  the  a  and w r i t i n g ,  traditional  point  o f view, The  draft;  tone  to  schemata c o n s i s t e d guide  o f t h e above  students  draft that  think-aloud and  8)  the  by t h e investigator.  that  this  variables  story elements: p l o t , character,  students'  corresponding  each  first  protocol  transcribed  proposed  transcribed  revised  think-aloud  revised  written  the subject's  5) t h e s u b j e c t ' s  draft;  t o revisions  4)  segments t o  subject's  Contest";  genre;  story;  accompanied  the  schema a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e i n f l u e n c e  reading  to  variables  i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these h i g h - a b i l i t y  story  for  and w r i t i n g on t h e e i g h t  6) a t r a n s c r i b e d  first  protocol  moderate  Leapfrog  o f h i so r h e r short  h i so r h e r s t o r y ;  revealed  Contest";  conclusion  draft  studies  transcribed  Leapfrog  DATA  students'  schema h a s on was  analyzed  s e t t i n g , theme,  a n d mood. overall story  these  story  schema was made u p o f s c h e m a t a elements.  of a configuration i n both  their  Furthermore,  these  o f variables which  served  reading  and  writing.  For  example, w i t h  respect  t o p l o t s c h e m a t a , s t u d e n t s made m e a n i n g o f  their reading  and w r i t i n g by r e l y i n g on subschemata comprised o f  53 conflict, and  c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n and happiness b i n d i n g .  w r i t i n g about  included  character,  character  character  conflict  students'  description,  and character  constituent character  change.  In reading subschemata  presentation,  I n terms  of  setting,  subjects constructed meaningful representations of the text read  and wrote  by  focusing  on t h e p r o t a g o n i s t  e n v i r o n m e n t ; whereas i n terms o f theme, t h e i r variables  which  generally  referred  setting that  and theme,  students  create  story  knowledge  conflict.  then,  when  theme  as  the current  on t h e i r reading  frameworks  a  and h i s s o c i a l  schemata  didactic  Regarding  generated  cliche  plot,  that  character,  investigation established  conceptual  knowledge  and w r i t i n g .  schema d i d n o t appear  of story to  However,  students'  to include distinguishable  f o reither point  o f view,  tone  o r mood.  Plot Analysis  reading  schemata  students'  conflict  revealed  f o rplot.  reading  resolution  investigation these  o f the data  that  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  and w r i t i n g were found i n a c a d e m i c a l l y - a b l e ,  students' in  to  relied  meaning  overall  A.  identified  they  The most d i s t i n c t  and w r i t i n g were t h e i r and  happiness  a l s o found t h a t ,  schemata  often  grade  eight  elements  found  notion  binding.  of The  i n addition to helping  interfered with  both  conflict,  their  current students,  reading  and  writing. Reading of  conflict  Contest."  f o r p l o t vas s t r o n g l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e notion i n After  students' reading  responses the  to  story's  "The  first  Great segment,  Leapfrog eleven  54 sentences  that  revealed  introduced  their  versus-man  the  character  a n t i c i p a t i o n of  type.  A l l  students  immediately  with  an  opposing  force.  guessed  that  her  opponent  would  be  get  into  that  "Rosie  will  something l i k e that"; Subject frogs  and  has  Subject  3,  contest  and  initially quickly the  a  contest  Jennifer, beats  felt  a  that  corrected  a l l  between Rosie  of  wrote.  and  their  minds  this could  sentences.  and  this  with  5,  Brent be  the  Jacob,  a  great  would  point,  accurately  1,  the  and  after reading  At  correctly  another  wins 4  Rosie's  assumed t h a t  opposition  conflict  that  similar to  boy  the  1  or  "she  gets  boy";  and  leapfrog and  Pat,  female,  second  assessed  external, be  Three  pits  the  i n f e r r e d from  students  implied  drafts  that  their  text  would  exact  nature.  In  their  opening  man  but  segment:  story's the  fourth  collision  against  conflict  physical  final  respectively  fight  man-  Rex.  t h e y r e a d was That  Rex.  Subject  "she  Subjects  Rosie's  students  Anticipating story  that  guy."  male:  her  the  predicted students  a  students  of  Three  Melissa,  between  themselves  introduction  paragraph,  2,  stated  a l l  conflict—conflict  contact  asserted  Rosie,  i n the  conflict  their in deal  lines,  was  stories*  both with Pat,  their  man  in  stories  the they  foremost  on  introductory initial  conflict Melissa  of  and  and this Brent  wrote:  Subjects i n the study chose the pseudonyms Jacob, M e l i s s a , J e n n i f e r , B r e n t and P a t . I n t h e t e x t s u b j e c t s w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o by t h e i r pseudonyms.  55 One d a y when M a r k was s i t t i n g o n a s w i n g a t s c h o o l J o r d y came u p t o M a r k a n d s a i d , " G e t o f f t h a t swing or I ' l l push you o f f ! " ; The S o u t h A f r i c a n p o p u l a t i o n i s s u f f e r i n g t h e u n j u s t takeover of their country's government by White officials; Today a l l through fight. All on  s c h o o l t h e r e was t a l k  three examples demonstrated t h e importance students'  and  plots.  Jennifer's  immediate which  each  written  with  other  work;  followed  their  the  o f i t confirmed  component  of  influenced  students'  Conflict an  to  ending,  reading,  resolution, was  also  made  and  stories,  that  Leapfrog  pattern  i n  and  the tension  a  Jennifer  between  wrote  t o be  an  was  an  which  writing with  as  that bugged  not  only  well. sense  component  Students'  combined w i t h  essential  students'  important  reading and w r i t i n g . Contest,"  mad  introducing conflict,  component  but their  then  dad had been  conflict  i n conjunction  found  an  T a n i s was w e i r d a n d a l w a y s  schemata,  schemata i n both  "The G r e a t  they  plot  make  and s e t t i n g ,  "He a n d my  awhile,"  than  traditional  Despite the decision t o wait before  inclusion  plot  that  Jacob wrote,  f o r quite  a  rather  characters  "Everyone i n t h e c l a s s thought her."  however,  statements  obvious.  t h a t c o n f l i c t had  s i g n i f i c a n c e was s e e n a l s o i n J a c o b ' s  they  introduced  this  characters at  This  statement,  they  followed  of  about t h e b i g  their  of  responses own  short  indicated that along with the anticipation of c o n f l i c t ,  also anticipated resolution of conflict.  However,  equated r e s o l u t i o n o f c o n f l i c t w i t h a "happy e n d i n g . "  subjects Students'  56 early  reading  solution assumed Rosie  to  responses the  expect  emerge; their  however,  demonstrated  Jennifer  a n d P a t made s t a t e m e n t s v e r y by  Jacob  included  when  a  asked,  discovering  that  and  displeasure  served.  the conflict  had  made  author  that  happy  they  "What  Four  not  of the  have  ending.  do  began  were  could  similar  a  they  expectations  had n o t been  of  Naturally,  ruthlessness,  these  resolved  comment  the  upon  disappointment  b u t when  justice  expectation  situation.  1  t o them  students  their  In recognizing Rosie s  her downfall,  fulfilled, five  would  victorious,  became e v i d e n t . to  Rex-and-Rosie  a winner  was  indicated  been  Melissa,  to the following  you t h i n k  of  this  ending?": I t h i n k i ts o r t o f l e f t i t hanging a b i t . L i k e , they c o u l d ' v e l e t R e x g e t up a f t e r a w h i l e a n d s o r t o f l e t us s e e what he's l i k e a f t e r t h a t . Clearly,  t o the student  Jacob,  as with  ending  would  continued:  the other have  "They  Jennifer, both  been  should've  become  leaders,"  expectations conclusions  should've  and M e l i s s a are."  to rewrite  with  friends  hand, thought  to the story,  felt to  that  a  harmonious  Saroyan's. up  Jacob  and probably  just  f r i e n d s , " a s d i d P a t who and  "they  reported  These f o u r  Saroyan's  happiness  a sense o f ending, but  gone  o f become  become  f o rwhat they  opportunity  also  preferable  and...sort  on t h e o t h e r  each other the  students  "Rex a n d R o s i e  been more normal said,  the story lacked  not  should that  In  a l l had t h e c h a r a c t e r s  anymore."  both  fall  "they  students,  ending,  binding.  fight  respect  when  fulfilled their  and  given their  written  "make u p . "  57 Subjects their  own  short  resolution Conflict  writing  1  of  conflict  happy  cases  happiness  after  they  result, more  the  Outcomes  prevailed.  became  happy not  friends";  and  Jennifer's  Melissa,  indicated  who  i n her  and  For  appeared  ending  l i t t l e wrote  methods  final  were  feel  that  synonymous. resolved;  varied, Jacob's  but  through  but  in a l l  characters,  protagonist died,  waif  In  l o n g e r enemies...went  l o t nicer  an  to  of completion  example,  Pat's  schemata.  necessarily  w e r e no  a n t a g o n i s t "...was a  friends";  story,  and  c h a r a c t e r s was  endings.  the  friend";  a l l students  " . . . a p o l o g i z e d and  and  complimentary  a l l students c r e a t e d a sense  their  dinner  stories,  between  nonetheless,  revealed  and  he  began  "...finally  essay  session  of  but  the  study  as  a  getting  found  rather than  to  a a  true short  that  she  would change [her] s t o r y so i t had p e o p l e i n i t . A white p e r s o n w o u l d make a d i f f e r e n c e f o r t h o s e S o u t h A f r i c a n p e o p l e who d i d l o s e hope i n a l l w h i t e people. I t w o u l d p r o v e t o be t h a t w h i t e p e o p l e c a n be good. Brent,  t h e o n l y s t u d e n t who  d i d not  demand a h a p p y  was,  n o n e t h e l e s s , c o n s i s t e n t i n h i s r e a d i n g and  than  look  "twist"  f o r a happy  would  disappointed  ending  i n h i s reading, Brent  have been more a p p r o p r i a t e . he  writing.  Looking  felt  ending, Rather that  puzzled  said,  I t seems t o c a r r y on l i k e R o s i e ' s g o i n g t o w i n , and I was j u s t t h i n k i n g t h a t maybe t h e y ' l l c h a n g e i t f o r a twist i n the end. But they didn't. They just [...PAUSE...] t h e y j u s t d i d w h a t l o o k e d l i k e would happen...If they d i d i t r i g h t , i t would have been a l i t t l e more e x c i t i n g i f he c h a n g e d i t a r o u n d .  a  and  58 When g i v e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o w r i t e h i s c o n c l u s i o n t o "The Leapfrog Contest," declared short  a  winner.  story,  for  unexpectedly honest." In  terms of  for  plot  and  a  "twist"  after  was  losing  the  the  narrative  also  a  logic,  f a r , d i s c u s s i o n has  his  "because other  he  hand,  revealed that  ending.  This  influencing  stories,  Although  often  schemata,  students'  interfered  students'  sense  own  protagonist  was  fought  and  had  friends."  been  served.  students' conflict  comprehension  and  plot  fair  no  i n  both  anyone  Brent's  however,  with  of  in  "had  justice  i s g e n e r a l l y composed o f c o n f l i c t ,  happy  not having  found  fight,  winner  a n t a g o n i s t , on  Brent's  positively of  A  declared  The  Thus  Brent c r e a t e d t h i s t w i s t by  Great  reading  enhanced  schemata  resolution addition  to  composition and  writing.  their  literal  comprehension, these  narrative  expectations also prevented  them  from  conscious  understanding  A l l  extending  students Rosie  their  agreed  and  Rex,  harmonious  that and  ending.  there a l l used  But,  l o g i c were u n f u l f i l l e d , subjects  focused  rather  than  or  the  why  attempt  coming t o him.  die  and  tale.  can  scoundrels not  be  their  when  their  story  their  sense  collision sense  to  expectations  of  to understand  In real flourish,  relinquish  early  between  predict  of  the  why  felt  life, but  unfulfilled Rosie  t h a t Rex students  i n the  stock  conventions  as  she  g e t t i n g what  accept  world  A l l  expectations,  behaved was  a  narrative  students reacted to t h i s v i o l a t i o n .  "gang" i n t h e s t o r y  had  they  on  would  of the print.  of of  t h a t good  did he men  make-believe, the  popular  59 Similar patterns unwillingness reactions was  t o deviate  from  t o Jacob  g o t t o have  Likewise,  Jennifer  that  a  happy  felt  i n their  by t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r .  When i t  h i sstory  end t r a g i c a l l y  ending.  Every  story  the investigator's  with  continued  t o s a y , " I don't want i tt o be i r o n i c . a happy  happy?"  Brent,  were  ending.  he  include  also  preferred  investigator's  "kind  Don't  of  a  you think  dumb  demonstrated  t o order  events  recommendation t h a t  the protagonist's  that  death,  he  has  said, that."  suggestion ending."  Tanis  who i n d i c a t e d i n h i s r e a d i n g  n o t mandatory,  making,  was  Their  was s e e n  conclude  ending,  suicide  that  w r i t t e n work.  "theexpected"  t o r e v i s i o n s proposed  suggested  "It's  emerged i n s t u d e n t s '  to She  I want a good deserves  t o be  t h a t happy  endings  i n a world  o fh i s  aright.  Rejecting  the conclusion  the  be a l t e r e d t o  he s a i d :  I l i k e the idea of having i ta l i t t l e b i t d i f f e r e n t . But, um, t h e o n l y t h i n g i s , I t h i n k i t ' s m a y b e a l i t t l e b i t unrealistic. One k i c k i n t h e h e a d a n d t h e g u y ' s d e a d ? . . . L i k e maybe h e c o u l d b e s e v e r e l y hurt, but, ah, I don't t h i n k he'd die. As  with  the  t h e other  study,  conflict -not the  only  academically  Brent's  notion  talented grade eight  of p l o t — h i s  concept  r e s o l u t i o n and t h e happy ending a s s o c i a t e d  students i n  of  conflict,  with  prevented him from t a k i n g h i s readers and himself  deeper structures o f f e e l i n g and thought, b u t also  him  from  s e l e c t i n g events  and  profundity  that  would  o f h i s own w r i t t e n  enhance  work.  theseinto  prevented  the significance  B.  Character Relationships  also  found  schemata  i n their  character  that  of students'  As  characters  a l l five  they  seen  be  i n Table  as e i t h e r  students  they  good  Students'  character  were  character character  conflict  and  as "good" o r "bad",  major 1,  four  or of  minor, the  were  five  and two-  students  o r bad i n t h e s t o r y they  had good and bad c h a r a c t e r s  read,  i n the stories  wrote.  Character Reading  1  Description Writing  Jacob  Good/Bad  Good/Bad  Brent  Good/Bad  Good/Bad  -  2  Good/Bad  Jennifer  Good/Bad  Good/Bad  Melissa  Good/Bad  Good/Bad  a blank  writing  r e a d i n g responses and w r i t t e n work  TABLE  Pat  and  c o n s t i t u e n t subschemata:  t h a t c h a r a c t e r s were d e s c r i b e d  dimensional.  and  of character.  presentation,  a l l characters,  viewed  reading  change.  Examination revealed  students'  concept  consisted of four  description, character  between  S i n c e t h e s t u d e n t was n o t m a k i n g j u d g m e n t s s p a c e was l e f t i n t h e r e a d i n g c o l u m n .  while  reading,  61 While and  reading  Melissa  either  "The G r e a t  made  direct  good o r bad.  Leapfrog  reference  When a s k e d  Contest,"  to  Jacob,  Brent  the characters'  being  by t h e investigator  t h i n k Rex i sgoing t o l o s e [the c o n t e s t ] ? " Jacob sort  o f t h e bad guy i n t h e s t o r y . . . "  p l a c e when B r e n t  was  A  a n s w e r e d , "He's  similar  of  him  Brent: F o r n o t saying anything about i t ? W e l l , he's p r e t t y good then. He's a good guy.  that  Investigator:  So what interrupts)  do  A n d how a b o u t  you  think  Although good  through  insinuated  that  Rosie  was.  about  characters  like  s t a t e d who t h e v i l l a i n As  R e x was b a d , w h e r e a s  When  then,  she d i r e c t l y  her reading.  asked  i f s h e was  she said,  t h e bad person."  student,  whacking  Melissa did not i n i t i a l l y describe the characters  o r bad terms,  way  took  Rosie?  Brent: W e l l s h e ' s n o t v e r y n i c e now. S h e ' s his head a g a i n s t t h e ground.  half  exchange  questioned:  Investigator: for...(student  in  "Why d o y o u  had t o be e i t h e r  later  unfolded  she reported  she that  reformulating her opinion  "A l i t t l e ,  Characters  the story  was  because  for this  now R o s i e  seems  talented grade-eight  good o rbad.  Responding t o what she had read, J e n n i f e r d i d n o t d i r e c t l y identify  t h e hero  and v i l l a i n ;  i n d i c a t e d t h a t she e i t h e r viewed unfavourable  however,  h e r comments  clearly  thecharacters i nfavourable or  terms:  Jennifer: ...he h a s p r a c t i c a l l y no f e e l i n g s . I t seems l i k e he d o e s n ' t c a r e a b o u t a n y t h i n g e x c e p t f o r himself...He's r e a l l y self-righteous, conceited. He t h i n k s he's t h e best a t everything, and i f he gets  62 l o w e r e d a t t h e b e s t t h e n h e g e t s mad a n d w a n t s t o p u l l down t h e g u y a t t h e t o p a n d g e t t h e r e h i m s e l f . Investigator: about her?  A n d how  about Rosie,  how  do y o u  feel  Jennifer: Well I don't t h i n k s h e ' l l do anything d r a s t i c t o g e t t o t h e t o p . She j u s t wants t o f i t i n . L i k e , i f s h e ' s j u s t a member o f t h e g a n g t h a t ' s f i n e , but i fshe can be t h e leader o f t h e gang, t h a t ' s f i n e too. B u t s h e won't do a n y t h i n g l i k e h u r t somebody. Observations seen  i n  character fell  similar  students'  t o those  written  work.  descriptions clearly  into  the  paragraphs  from  realm  of  Brent's  or  above  Brent's  indicated that  good  short  described  bad.  were  also  and  Jennifer's  their  characters  The  following  story demonstrate t h i s  two  point:  A f t e r school today everybody r a n t o t h e c l e a r i n g i n t h e woods where t h e f i g h t was g o i n g t o t a k e p l a c e . Mark was one o f t h e p e o p l e f i g h t i n g a n d he was q u i t e well liked. He was a g o o d f i g h t e r a n d w h e n h e won, i t was a l w a y s f a i r . Dave h i s o p p o n e n t h a d a r r i v e d a n d h e was s t a n d i n g w i t h h i sgroup. He w a s v e r y mean a n d h e w a s n ' t r e a l l y v e r y n i c e t o anyone. He was r u t h l e s s a n d h e d i d n ' t c a r e how h e won a f i g h t j u s t a s l o n g a s h e won n o m a t t e r what. In addition t o t h i s ,  Brent's  aside  this  and  from  planning  Dave's r u t h l e s s n e s s  think-aloud protocols  good-bad  element,  revealed  Mark's  popularity  determined upcoming events i n h i s s t o r y .  A f t e r w r i t i n g t h e s e p a r a g r a p h s and t h i n k i n g a b o u t what was to  happen  next,  that  he s a i d t o himself:  the the um let's see Davie was t h e mean o n e , a n d M a r k was t h e n i c e r o n e s o Mark w i l l be t h e one t h a t gets h u r t .  going  63 Like  Brent, Jennifer's  which were c l a s s i f i e d s h e made t h i s  responses t o reading also had characters as good o r bad.  In the following  passage  evident t o her readers.  . . . T a n i s w a s t h e k i n d o f g i r l who p u t u p w i t h a l o t . She i s u s u a l l y n i c e t o everyone... She has a funny laugh which everyone imitates...She helps around our c l a s s r o o m when s h e f i n i s h e s h e r work... T h e n e x t d a y we w e r e a l l i n t h e g i r l s c h a n g i n g room a n d Kim and T e r r i t h e c l a s s b u l l i e s s t a r t e d t o make f u n o f T a n i s ' brown r u n n e r s . Kim often pushed Tanis around and i n s u l t e d h e r and h e r brother. 1  The  remaining  incorporated however,  three t h e good  rather  than  implications. hero  her  characters  were.  speak  Mark was s i t t i n g  and Melissa) their  this,  work;  t h e y made  subtle  d i dnot t e l l  swing  Writing  r e a d e r s t o deduce  the by  character  o r I ' l l push  the actions of "One d a y w h e n  you off!'"  r e f e r e n c e a s t o who w a s " g o o d " a n d  h i s story  that  was r e i n f o r c e d  i n first  person  the narrator's  by t h e poor  about  father,  father  would  This  judgment  Unlike rather  father:  the others,  than a short  "What a  be t h e  description  calls  made b y made  goof!"  Melissa—who  story—did  two  enabled  o t h e r coach and w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g character assessment the narrator's  who  o n a s w i n g a t s c h o o l , J o r d y came up t o M a r k a n d  good coach and t h e o t h e r f i g u r e t h e bad coach. of  her readers  She w r o t e ,  b a s e b a l l c o a c h e s , o n e o f whom w a s t h e n a r r a t o r ' s his  also  written  She d e c i d e d t o have  a l s o made i n d i r e c t  good."  into  state  f o rt h e m s e l v e s .  "'Get o f f that  "not  and t h e bad  specifically  and v i l l a i n  Jacob  ( P a t ,Jacob  P a t , f o r example,  the  said,  students  wrote  an expository  n o t have any s p e c i f i c  essay  characters  64 in her writing work,  Yet despite the  expository nature  M e l i s s a a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h e d between the  Discussing she  sample.  the  made c l e a r  current who  the  Black-White villains  situation  good  and  in  South  of  her  the  bad.  Africa,  were.  The w h i t e p o p u l a t i o n has i n v a d e d t h i s c o u n t r y , taken o v e r i t s government and m i s t r e a t e d i t s p e o p l e . I t i s a l s o v e r y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g b e c a u s e t h e S. A f r i c a n s a r e , in a sense being punished for having a different colour of skin, a different religion, customs or because of a d i f f e r e n t language. In terms  addition to of  opposite  students'  showing traits,  r e a d i n g and  that data  writing,  dimensional.  That i s , besides  to  characters,  describe  detail. rather  As  a  than  result,  round  and  students also  revealed  characters that  in  thinking  characters complex.  were  This  two-  i n t e r m s o f good and  provided  l i t t l e  flat  and  bad  depth  and  stereo-typed,  two-dimensional  seen i n a l l f i v e  in both  c h a r a c t e r d e s c r i p t i o n s were  students  c h a r a c t e r d e s c r i p t i o n was  view  aspect  students' reading  of and  writing. A f t e r reading the Great  Leapfrog  impression following "She's not going." further do  you  of  students  Rosie?"  The  "She's  really a girl"; the  insight feel to  introductory paragraphs to  Contest,"  remarks:  As  continued  f i r s t two  story into  about view  Rosie  five  kind  of  subjects a  "What's  responded  butch";  "Sort  "She's mean"; "She's l i k e  progressed,  the  were a l l asked:  providing  characters, students now?"  characters  Answers  with  of  verified  really  two-dimensionally:  asked,  that  your the  bossy";  i t s readers were  "The  free with "How  students  "She's  s t i l l  65 kind  o f pushy";  unfairly"; witty not  [she's]  weird";  "She's smart.  static  l i t t l e  w r i t t e n work.  detail  only  Brent  League  very  included  Pat provided  was a l s o t h e c a s e i n very  The f o l l o w i n g two s e n t e n c e s  were  "Brian a  used  Donnely coach  was a  Canadian  i n the  football  read:  "She  with  investigator also  author's  reading direct  reading;  Based  evidence  presentation likewise,  interpreted "ruthless"  w i t h o n l y one d e s c r i p t o r : "silly" had  Rex's  head  and Pat concluded  of  A l l five  and "weird,"  green  eyes  also  and  dark  a l lfive  events  students  that  students  i n their  between on t h e  inferences  employed  direct  written material. they  read  (e.g.,  Jacob,  Brent,  was t h e " s m a r t e r "  of the  t h e pavement),  Rosie  relied  t o make  i n the story  against  presentation,  relationships  of character  presentation  on observable  hitting  Jennifer  saw  and w r i t i n g .  methods o f c h a r a c t e r  Rosie  that  hair."  students'  while  terms  "mean,"  In terms o f t h e second subschemata, character the  h i s temper."  students  "nice,"  her readers  description:  story  when  J e n n i f e r , who u s e d t h e t e r m s physical  were  A l l characters  h i s readers  of h i s short  they  — j u s t  with  also  t o t h e type  i n the story  "large."  "wimp."  the readers  similar  characters  brown  and  This  provided  descriptors:  official  beings.  a n d "My d a d a l w a y s h a d t r o u b l e c o n t r o l l i n g  provided  were  Jacob  about character.  character  Football league"  and two dimensional.  She's  l i t t l e  C l e a r l y , students  t h i n k i n g of characters as developing  students'  and  " I think  "She's p l a y i n g a  and Rex i s a b i g chunk o f bone."  remained  his  "She's p r e t t y though";  66 two  characters.  Students  made  no  reference  to  motive,  c o n s e q u e n c e s , o r human b e h a v i o r — l a r g e l y , p e r h a p s , b e c a u s e would  have  required  presentation  of  examination  character.  of  Melissa,  attempted  t o understand  what motivated  they  nevertheless,  when d o i n g  on  did;  t h e obvious.  the  author's  on  the  characters  so, she based  When a n s w e r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n  indirect  other  was n o t r e l y i n g  on g i v e n  information,  hand,  t o behave  as  her decisions  "What d o y o u t h i n k  makes Rex a c t t h e way he d o e s ? " , h e r answer r e v e a l e d she  this  s h e was  that,  when  stereotyping.  Well seeing he's probably from Texas, he probably hasn't seen a girl act like Rosie has, l i k e a tomboy, and he doesn't r e a l l y l i k e i t . H i s p a r e n t s probably taught him the place of a g i r l i n society, and h e ' s s o r t o f c o n f u s e d a b o u t why R o s i e i s m o r e l i k e a boy than a girl...Texas s o r t o f has g i r l s like h o u s e w i v e s , a n d b o y s l i k e b o y s , a n d men l i k e c o w b o y s who g o w o r k o n t h e l a n d a n d r i d e h o r s e s . Reading-writing above r e a d i n g samples, on  responses were  methods  b u t when  reading,  of  students  stated,  by  rather  telling,  protocols characters' confronting to  direct  revealed names,  their  examined  specifically  that  character  writing  that  by  own  when  students' relied  stories  not as  i n terms  or implying.  writers  writing  only  well. of  when While  what  was  character Think-aloud  they  put  importance  attributes  and  the  c h a r a c t e r s — a l l aspects Thus,  the  completely  writing, they revealed  physical  presentation.  with  presentation  showing  as  apparent  students  character  and w h i l e than  became  juxtaposed  f o r i t became o b v i o u s  direct  reading  interrelations  which  lend  i n addition  conflict  themselves  to  on  telling  well their  67 readers a  that  girl,"  "Dave was r u t h l e s s " a n d t h a t  students  were important beginning  demonstrated  when p l a n n i n g  to write,  that  "Sally  these  Stockwell  aspects  their stories.  of  was  character  F o r example,  before  Pat said to herself,  O k a y . . . t h i s b o y , h i s name i s M a r k , i s i n g r a d e s e v e n . He's s m a l l f o rh i s age a n d l o o k s s o r t o f wimpy. H i s clothes are a l i t t l e o u t o f s t y l e and he walks a l i t t l e funny. Brent's  think-aloud  protocols  shaping  h i s characters,  directly  observable.  "Stop!  That  think  of  different  was  put  doesn't  sound  over-doing  i t . "  i t was  necessary  detail.  that while  emphasis  on  mentally what  was  w i t h what he had w r i t t e n , he right"  descriptors:  h e was t o o h y p e r  that  his  also  Dissatisfied  said,  like  he  revealed  and then  "...he  proceeded t o  was  too  wild-  h e was t o o i n t o i t  One o f t h e f i v e t o provide  students  he  d i dn o t even  h i s readers  with  feel  character  When t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s u g g e s t e d t o J a c o b t h a t h e r e v i s e  story  and p h y s i c a l l y describe  h i scharacters,  he  stated:  There's no need f o rd e s c r i p t i o n . I could've put i t , like where they were and e v e r y t h i n g . . .They're n o t m a k i n g comments o n what t h e y l o o k l i k e o r a n y t h i n g . There's j u s t n o t h i n g t h a t you need i tf o r . Despite  Jacob's  think-aloud character hence, gotta  resistance  protocols he  was  write Thus  something  far,  revealed  also  t h e statement,  t o include that  preoccupied  "Brian Donnely about  when with  description,  he  was  thinking  superficial  i sa baseball  h i s of  detail;  umpire,  so I  and w r i t i n g  have  that."  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  been examined w i t h regard  more  t o character  reading  d e s c r i p t i o n and character  68 presentation. surfaced of  i n the  students'  examination conflict  was  confronting was  Strong area  reading-writing  of character c o n f l i c t ,  c h a r a c t e r schemata. of  students'  always  As  r e a d i n g and  of the  c h a r a c t e r s was  r e s o l v e d i t was  interrelations  "man  Character  component  i n Tables  2  means o f  and  3,  revealed that:  1)  type;  physical;  TABLE  the t h i r d  writing  v e r s u s man"  always  r e s o l v e d by  seen  also  and  2) 3)  selecting  the i f  danger  conflict  a  "winner."  Resolution (Student  version)  2 Conflict  Reading Type  Danger  Jacob  Man  v s Man  Physical  1 winner Resolved  Brent  Man  v s Man  Physical  Tie Not  Resolved  Pat  Man  v s Man  Physical  1 winner Resolved  Jennifer  Man  v s Man  Physical  1 winner Resolved  Melissa  Man  v s Man  Physical  Tie Resolved  69 3  TABLE Character  Conflict  Writing  Type  Danger  Resolution  Jacob  Man  v s Man  Physical  Tie Resolved  Brent  Man  v s Man  Physical  1 Winner Not Resolved  Pat  Man  v s Man  Physical  1 Winner Not Resolved  Jennifer  Man  v s Man  Physical  1 Winner Not Resolved  Melissa  Man  v s Man  Physical Not  Conflict referred  to  predicted it  was  they  between as  most  the  versus  consistently  only type  wrote.  story,  "man  individual  After  those which  reading  the  within  story,  the  introduced the  another  predicted after  that  the  between story's  The  the  short  first  three  traditionally  element  story  found w i t h i n  they  the  students read,  short  and  stories of  the  character Rosie, three of  the  paragraphs  i n t r o d u c e d t o any  character  character.  conflict  reading  this  was  i n the  students predicted, before being in  characters,  man,"  of c o n f l i c t  Resolved  would  remaining  come two  c h a r a c t e r s ; however, fourth  paragraph:  other into  person  conflict  students they that  also  did  so  which  introduced  t h e c h a r a c t e r Rex.  s i m i l a r t o Jacob's: something  like  conflicts  "Rosie w i l l  that."  other than  was n o t s u r p r i s i n g conflict and  A l l s t u d e n t s made  Since  g e t i n t o a f i g h t w i t h a boy, o r students  d i d not  that they  e m p l o y e d o n l y t h e "man v e r s u s  they wrote.  In their  Brent focused on c o n f l i c t between boys; girls;  Melissa  Jacob  on c o n f l i c t  Furthermore,  speculate  on  conflict  J e n n i f e r on  between  male  subjects  always  viewed  o r " t h e c o m p e t i t i o n " between R o s i e and Rex.  there  was  work,  about  Mark was s i t t i n g said,  'Get  on a swing  also  their  readers  their  stories'  confronting and by  writing, means  story.  Students  to  resolve  the  felt  differences,  "One  school  d a y when  I ' l lpush  you  the remaining  aware  of  characters.  the  off.'"  By  three  students  physical  dangers  I n both  their  reading  was r e s o l v e d f o r s i x o f t h e t e n s u b j e c t s a winner(s)  d i d not feel  conflict that  or  of threat,  of determining  the  generally  conflict  Pat wrote,  were  a t s c h o o l , J o r d y came u p t o M a r k a n d  swing  an element  Likewise, i n  "Today a l l t h r o u g h  the b i g fight";  o f f that  between  confronting characters  Brent wrote,  introducing made  and  W h i l e r e a d i n g , s t u d e n t s saw o n l y " t h e  the conflicts  threatening. talk  adults;  opposition  fight"  physically  conflict  between groups o f people.  i n p h y s i c a l terms.  written  man"  w r i t t e n work, P a t  people  their  on  "man v e r s u s m a n " i n t h e s t o r y t h e y r e a d , i t  i n the stories  between  comments v e r y  between  whether  i t was n e c e s s a r y  or loser(s)  a t t h e end o f  t h a t i twas a l w a y s characters;  or not characters f o r "winners"  necessary  however, settled  and/or  they their  "losers"  to  emerge  a t t h e end o f t h e s t o r i e s  students the  were g i v e n  story  they  remaining  In  single  between winners  differences antagonist  students  on one's  one  three  but  one  win, decided  the  people  for  the place  "winners,"  they  of  that  this  the five  who  d i d  a n d a new w i n n e r  the fight  of winning  the  students  had  settle  character  resolve  character  because  be s t r i p p e d  crowned—the  loser.  "Pretty well a l l  was u n f a i r s o t h e y  the fight  who h a d t h e  should  h i s s t o r y with t h e statement: felt  either  resolved  Even Brent,  character  and t h e  of a t i e .  student  d i d not  student  of winning  there  When  characters  interpretation  wrote,  characters; emerge,  had  d i d s o b y means o f a t i e .  concluded  and wrote.  implying that both  students  The  t h e honour  Brent  three  depending  differences.  of  read,  the stories  conflict  read  t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o change t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f  two had " t i e s , "  won o r l o s t ,  they  he  favored  fought  fair  Mark and  honest." In of  addition t o reading  character  conflict, found  and w r i t i n g  description, character  strong  i n the area  reading  c h a r a c t e r schemata.  necessary  f o rc h a r a c t e r s t o change.  for  The r e m a i n i n g them  story.  three,  t o see change  and  areas  character were  also  t h e f o u r t h component o f  Not a l l students  however,  i n the  interrelations  change,  students'  not.  presentation  and w r i t i n g  of character  relations  felt  t h a t i t was  As seen i n Table felt  that  i t was  i n c h a r a c t e r when r e a d i n g  4,  two d i d necessary  and w r i t i n g  a  72 4  TABLE  Change  Character  Writing  Reading  Change  Jacob  Wanted  Brent  Indifferent  No  Pat  Wanted  Change  Change  Jennifer  Wanted  Change  Change  Melissa  Indifferent  Although required, writing  Change  No  not a l l students  relationships  made n o r e f e r e n c e  these  clearly  to the fact  that  s t o r y d i dn o t change, nor d i dthey growth  when w r i t i n g  static  element  Neither  Melissa  developing a  static  they  own  also  detected  nor  Brent  they  with  development Jennifer.  evident.  reading  Brent  the characters  i n their  Just  and M e l i s s a i n Soroyan's  their  as they  unchanging  story.  written  This  stories.  characters  were content  i n the story they  and  and  a l l o w f o rc h a r a c t e r change o r  presented  Rosie  static  students'  conclusion to this  beings.  and unchanging  as with  read,  so were  characters  i n the  wrote.  Relationships  students  their  o r changing  content  stories  was  Change  f e l t t h a t c h a n g e i n c h a r a c t e r was  between  were, nonetheless,  Change  were None  between also of  found  these  was s a t i s f i e d  reading  and  i n t h e work  academically  with the static  writing of  character  Jacob,  talented  P a t and  grade  eight  characters of h i s or her  reading  material;  Soroyan's  short  therefore, story  students'  versions,  example,  Pat wrote  she  didn't  promised "Rosie  "Rosie  want t o k i l l  he would  their  conclusion.  In  made c h a n g e s f o r t h e b e t t e r .  For  own  came t o h e r s e n s e s  best  person";  of friends  indicated  stories that  that  ever  Similar patterns  were  wrote.  changed  experience they had undergone i n t h e s t o r y . wrote,  "Neither  Dad  nor I  ever  someone, b u t i n s t e a d  talked  things  fighting"; lot self  and P a t wrote,  nicer. so he  He  over  a while be  of these  them u n d e r s t a n d  able  characters  often  three  a basic,  A l l three  as a r e s u l t  of the  F o r example,  d i d something instead Jordy  Jacob  to  harm  of yelling started  to live  t o a d i f f e r e n t person."  i n t h e work  schema h e l p e d story—that  knew he w o u l d n ' t  changed  demonstrated  "After  again  wrote,  o f them  students  characters  that  "[Rex]  and Jacob  and n e i t h e r  o r anyone e l s e again."  i n the short  and r e a l i z e d  anymore p e o p l e " ; J e n n i f e r w r o t e ,  t r y t o be a b e t t e r  and Rex were  students  writing  characters  fought each other, found  when  a l l o f them changed t h e outcome o f  students,  t o be a  with  Clearly,  h i s then,  their  but important,  and  o l d as  story  aspect of  undergo a change i n p e r s o n a l i t y  or  outlook. C.  Setting Ordinarily,  1968;  Metcalf,  s e t t i n g c o n s i s t s o f "time" and "place" 1980).  conceptual organization broader 1979;  Recent  to  describe  the  o f s t o r y knowledge, however, have l e d t o  d e f i n i t i o n s o f t h e concept  Stein  attempts  (Aloian,  & Policastro,  1984).  of setting Stein  (Stein  &  Glenn,  and P o l i c a s t r o  (1984)  describe setting  the and  prototypical  an  episode.  story  as  one  which  In defining  the  former  consists they  of  a  state,  The s e t t i n g i n c l u d e s t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a s p e c i f i c a n i m a t e p r o t a g o n i s t and n o r m a l l y c o n t a i n s i n f o r m a t i o n that refers to the physical, social, or temporal context i n which the remainder of the s t o r y occurs, [p. 118] The  current  investigation,  analyze of the data, found reading  and  writing:  applying  two  1)  the  above  definition  significant relationships  grade-eight,  honour-roll  to  between  students'  s c h e m a t a f o r s e t t i n g p l a c e c o n s i d e r a b l e e m p h a s i s on p r o t a g o n i s t s and  their  l i t t l e  social  e m p h a s i s on  In  "The  previously  to  Great  and  summer;  material,  students  focused  on  reading  the  Rosie  and  In  the  story's  terms  taken by  from  Jacob's  a l l students  setting.  definition  of  of  of  the  County; the temporal  context:  a  past  the  the  introduction context  their  and  of  very  conforms t o a l l v a r i a b l e s  includes the  social  efforts on  a  her  segment,  to  involved i n the  were  Saroyan's  schemata  encounters.  a l l students As  girl/boy  understand  social  that After  commented  they read they  on  refined  she w o u l d f i n d h e r s e l f i n .  progression,  transcript,  context:  configuration of  about the s i t u a t i o n  content  aspects  Policastro's  the element of competition.  of  schemata p l a c e  physical  and  first  these  Contest"  p r o t a g o n i s t and  their predictions In  and  Mahoney;  relied  2)  temporal  Its setting  Rosie  confrontation.  and  Leapfrog  the slums of Fresno  winter  and  Stein  outlined.  protagonist:  story:  physical  relation  setting,  a  environment;  the  similar  study:  following to  comments,  statements  made  75 Segment  1:  Segment  2:  I t h i n k she along.  would  S h e ' l l get F o l g e r guy.  into  a  a n y b o d y who  fight  with  comes  that  Rex  S e g m e n t 3:  R o s i e and leapfrog somehow.  Segment  5:  Maybe t h e y won't f i g h t . Instead,they'11 have a l e a p f r o g c o n t e s t and t h e l a s t p e r s o n to drop out w i l l win.  Segment  6:  T h e y ' l l keep on g o i n g f o r a l o n g t i m e Rex w i l l f i n a l l y g e t t i r e d and l o s e .  In  segments  students  one,  responded  Rex and  fight  two,  to  i n  w i l l b o t h b e i n t h i s game o f they'll get into a fight  three, the  five  quotes  and  above,  and  s i x , those Saroyan  which  not  only  provided h i s readers with information pertaining to the  girl/boy  confrontation,  relating  to  t i m e and  Rosie  that  they  also provided h i s readers with clues  place.  f a s h i o n e d by that  he  these  and  Rex  were  Students'  interpretations,  factors.  Four  lived  children  overlooked  Saroyan's  Jennifer,  used  motivated  Rosie.  guys",  this  and  of  temporal  time  why  Likewise,  to  disregarded hence  students  one  student,  determine  her  not  these  Only  Rosie wanted t o  reflected of  entirely  neighbourhood"—and  statements.  information  answer  the  "slum  poverty.  When a s k e d  Jennifer's  neighbourhood  in a  students  however, were  that  which  "play with  sensitivity  to  year:  B e c a u s e w i n t e r ' s r e a l l y d r a b b y — y o u know d r a g g y . d o n ' t w a n t t o s t a y home. She p r o b a b l y w a n t s t o go and h a v e some f u n . I t ' s w i n t e r and she j u s t wants j o i n i n . . . I t ' s the slum neighbourhood o f town so they p l a y s o f t b a l l or whatever, l i k e they can get wrecked and nobody'11 say a n y t h i n g .  You out to i f i t  the the  The  insignificance  schemata  by  students,  interaction, their  was  writing  written  not  as  alloted  combined only  well.  conclusions  to  time  with  the  evident  and  i n students' this  "The  Leapfrog  Great  was  Saroyan,  to  one  and  of  human  reading, but i n  they  four of the and  five  While  elaborated  a n i m o s i t y , as  Focusing  b e h a v i o r a l changes, Jacob  on  the  expressed  similar  than  intended  students changed the s o c i a l  camaraderie.  in  their  Contest."  setting  characters  wrote:  R o s i e . . . h e l p e d Rex up. T h e n we a l l walked to c o r n e r s t o r e , and g o t i n l i n e w i t h our cans o f When i t was R o s i e ' s time t o pay f o r h e r pop, s t e p p e d up and s a y e d " I ' l l buy it". Jennifer  setting  i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n the s t o r y ; however, r a t h e r  o f harmony  their  i n  observed  reference to location,  m a i n t a i n an atmosphere o f c o m p e t i t i o n and by  place  significance  Initially,  s t u d e n t s made i n c i d e n t a l on t h e s o c i a l  to  changes  in social  the pop. Rex  setting:  ...she t o l d Rex she would share t h e p o s i t i o n with him...When R o s i e came up t o shake Rex's hand..Rex shook h e r hand c h e e r f u l l y and t h o u g h t t h e i r gang i s g o i n g t o be t h e b e s t i n t h e neighbourhood. Like  Jacob  and  Jennifer,  change i n s o c i a l social,  stories  included  Saturday"; playground Africa  atmosphere,  but  physical  the at  students and  "clearing recess"; the  today."  documented though,  also  focussed  o f c o m p e t i t i o n and  wrote  revealed  temporal in  Pat  upon  B r e n t , w h o s e e m p h a s i s was  chose t o maintain a l e v e l  Short All  M e l i s s a and  the  "grade  setting:  woods... a f t e r seven  Once  physical  and  their  f u n c t i o n and  findings.  "ballpark school";  classroom"; temporal  also  animosity.  similar the  a  and  "the "South  setting  relevance ceased.  on  were  Setting  77 d i d not not  serve  to develop plot,  suggest  habits,  income,  gloom.  Rather,  cheerfulness  or  priority  given  hatred and  was  to  the  peer-pressure Black  to  b e t w e e n two  Dave;  baseball  as  on  were  with and  coaches;  t h r e a t s M a r k was  placed  Tanis;  to  eccentricity,  preceding  social the  I t did  evidence,  mileau:  fight  to  to the  Mark  to  the  i n j u s t i c e wrought upon  happening"  while  the  between  r e c e i v i n g from Jordy;  and  "What was  primary,  t h e m e o r mood.  temperament,  protagonists  South A f r i c a n s .  happening"  character,  and  "where"  " t o whom i t  and  "when"  was  merely  secondary. D.  Theme Within  writing  theme  were  responses  story  evident.  to  conclusions  "The  to  genre,  protocols,  schemata,  Examination  Great  Saroyan's their  and  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  their  Leapfrog tale,  own  of  data—students'  Contest",  their  written  reactions  of  revisions  written the  their  schemata  subschemata:  a  generalization Analysis by  a l l five  identified didactic that of  subjects  were  samples.  Student  Contest"  was  in  i n terms  pronouncement,  referred to  the  statements  theme  found  data as  proposed  in  the  form  that  "lesson  their  response  cliche,  theme a  t h e m e was  to  reading  to of  a  three  by  the  students'  constituent and  a  broad  conflict.  revealed a  of  short  think-aloud  investigator—confirmed that honour-roll, grade-eight story  and  reading  their  discussion  stories,  to  reading  be  learned."  responses in  didactic  interpreted  "The  and  Great  Moral writing Leapfrog  pronouncement.  In  78 answering story  that  friends."  have 2)  "not  way  to  author settle  t o be  an  was an  being  two a  "What do  to  taught  a  1) will  argument."  important  two  this  students  Brent  " i f you give  felt think  you  more  o f f and...fight everybody  t h a t " f i g h t i n g " was  "telling  think  lesson.  declarations:  show  you  d e c l a r e d and  technique... i t  Pat a l s o thought the  fighting  were  making  and  that  good  was  o u t . . . and  advantage";  question  three students openly  readers  Saroyan  things  and  investigator's  i s about?"  implied that  the  the main subject  you.. .that. .. i t ' s Jacob,  component,  who  felt  for  not  also  a  very  considered  that the  author  was  saying, M i n d y o u r own b u s i n e s s . T r y n o t t o l e a d e v e r y o n e . . .so t h a t someone d o e s n ' t f i n a l l y come a l o n g a n d b e a t you up. Melissa,  whose i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  differed,  felt  that the  story  was  about . . . n o t j u d g i n g a p e r s o n on what t h e y a r e , l i k e . . . b e i n g a g i r l o r a boy o r any p a r t i c u l a r r a c e . . . j u s t j u d g i n g them on b e i n g a p e r s o n . And  Jennifer,  outcome, gained,  felt  reacting that  readers  with  despite  learned  disappointment the  l i t t l e  to  knowledge  the  story's  characters  that,  [Cheating] doesn't prove a n y t h i n g . . . I t ' s l i k e cheating on a t e s t . You d o n ' t l e a r n a n y t h i n g i f you c h e a t on a t e s t . . . E v e r y t h i n g goes t o w a s t e , a l l t h e homework and e v e r y t h i n g . Examination  of students' w r i t i n g samples confirmed t h a t  o n l y a r e theme and also  when t h e y  moral  write.  i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e when s t u d e n t s r e a d , Students'  written  texts  and  not but  think-aloud  protocols  revealed  perceived  the writer's  stories  that,  as  authors  role  as  w r i t t e n by t h e students  of  one  of  short  stories,  "teacher."  had lessons  A l l five  i n them—ones  d e a l t w i t h such t o p i c s as f r i e n d s h i p , honesty, r a c i a l change and compromise. revealed  that three  incorporate ideas,  these  Jacob  said  Furthermore,  of the five  lessons  into  their  of  Brent  stories.  While  "...he'll him  come  fairly."  theme  dad'11 wrongs  a s h e was p l o t t i n g t h e e v e n t s  I n reference  t o t h e main character,  he  stated,  i n and teach  the other  by  beating  Melissa,  a r e synonymous,  educate  generating  emphatically:  made s i m i l a r p l a n s  h i s story.  protocols  consciously planned t o  Ah h a ! I ' l l g e t s u s p e n d e d f r o m s c h o o l a n d my g e t s u s p e n d e d f r o m t h e game. And then two d o n ' t make a r i g h t . Likewise,  which  prejudice,  the think-aloud  students  they  confirming  implied that  her reader.  Looking  guy a  lesson  the notion  that  moral  h e r i n t e n t i o n s were  back  on  h e r work  she  and  also to said  to  herself: The m o r a l i s n o t t o j u d g e p e o p l e o n how t h e y l o o k , a n d j u d g e them upon what t h e y a r e . . . T h e theme i s n o t t o j u d g e p e o p l e o n how t h e y l o o k , how t h e y t a l k , how t h e y d r e s s , b u t o n who t h e y r e a l l y a r e . Aside reading this  from  and w r i t i n g ,  message  discussing reference Melissa  equating  was  of  story  to didacticism. replied,  to a didactic  discussions  one  the short  theme  a  with  students  story's  genre, When  key  one  asked  message  revealed  that  ingredients.  In  student  what  i n their  a  made  short  specific  s t o r y was,  80 A short story teaches a lesson, l i k e a f a i r y tale would. I n a way t h a t i t w o u l d be u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t o d i f f e r e n t types of people. When d i s c u s s i n g t h e of  the  five  p o s s i b i l i t y of changing t h e i r  students  disagreed  liked a  the  point  He  i d e a because " i t sounds more l i k e y o u ' r e t r y i n g t o  get  agreed  to  than t r y i n g j u s t to  the  substituted  tell  a  investigator's suggestion  for  one  written  by  the  fight  story."  that  her  did  not  fully  and  thus  place,  [PAUSE]....but that  he  did  become  anything."  bad  was  In terms this  of  "bad"  decided  under her she  the  Despite  Jennifer  and  statement  then to  was  the  to  of  idea  of  suggestion would  mean  consider  the  that her  sort  Brent  changing  that  her  that  had  said,  paragraph...and  the  she  be also  some a l t e r a t i o n s .  she  Unlike  also  conclusion  learning  change  this reluctance, to  moral  transfer  people."  conditions:  addition a  this  the  agree  with  that  hearing  simplify  not  along  suddenly  only  upon  convinces  Jennifer Going  explain  Melissa  i n v e s t i g a t o r , but  f e l t t h a t t h i s newly formed paragraph r e q u i r e d It  initially  dirty."  across  off to  not  the  i n c l u d i n g a death i n h i s story because i t would a s s i s t " I t d o e s n ' t pay  B r e n t was  of  averse to  that  story's moral.  because  i t had  demonstrating  the  or  three  influence  in  on  e i t h e r agreed  stories,  "Yea....  of  explain  and  her  Melissa,  conclusion.  "good"  "nobody  taken  character  would  learn  h o w e v e r , a f t e r much t h o u g h t possibility  of  change,  but  main character  "realize  how  apologize." finding  principle, often  in  that  students  expressed  the  investigator  the  form  of  a  also  cliche,  theme  found or  i f  in  that not  81 stated verbatim, predicting students would  believed  come  that  t o some  one female,  a t l e a s t one o f t h e two main  sort  of realization.  a l l five  I n s t a t i n g what t h e two males "Mind  The r e m a i n i n g two f e m a l e s t u d e n t s saw t h e  confrontation  as t h e story's  s t o r y ' s male character  than boys"  and that  Familiar students' familiar leave  central  teach  issue.  his  n o t be  son's  their  wrongs  why  by  said  theme  don't  the elder  made  protocols. four  i n the  protocols  h i s father  reprimanded  students  implicit,  can be b e t t e r  story's  right,"  conclusion.  that  to a  Rather  than  students  actual  text.  he s e t o u t t o  explained  The n a r r a t o r ,  f o r fighting at school,  could  found i n  reference  of the five  revealed  make a  that  too."  think-aloud  i n the story's  punished  understand and  "Two  audience  been  A l l five  statement  stated  "Girls  Uttering  and ready-made p h r a s e s were a l s o  whose t h i n k - a l o u d that  have guts  i n their  moral  explicitly Jacob,  sayings  phrase  would l e a r n that  "Girls  w r i t t e n work.  this  your  "Don't be a b u l l y " and " F i g h t i n g i s n ' t t h e answer  phrases often heard from c h i l d r e n t h e i r age, t h e g i r l s the  In  characters  said the following f a m i l i a r phrases:  s o l v i n g problems."  boy/girl  Contest"  w o u l d l e a r n , t h o s e who f o c u s e d o n f i g h t i n g ,  own b u s i n e s s , " to  was a t l e a s t a f a m i l i a r one.  t h e outcome o f "The G r e a t L e a p f r o g  characters and  then the idea  this  who h a d d i dnot  d o t h e same a t a b a s e b a l l  f o r h i s actions.  to  I n response  inquiry, the father replied, . . . I t h i n k y o u ' r e r i g h t , i fy o u ' r e grounded f o r w h a t y o u d i d , I s h o u l d b e g r o u n d e d f o r my i n c i d e n t .  game  toh i s  82 F o r t h e n e x t two d a y s ( S u n d a y a n d Monday) Dad I h a d t o s t a y h o m e . . . We were v e r y b o r e d . . . and learned our lessons. Dad a n d I made a p r o m i s e ; 1. Dad w o u l d n ' t s w e a r a t p e o p l e and 2. Brent's teach  his  I wouldn't  the  Brent  people.  t h i n k - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s r e v e a l e d t h a t he  readers  Consequently, on  punch  ground  that  " I t doesn't  pay  off  a s h i s s t o r y ' s m a i n c h a r a c t e r was after  directly  having  informed  and had  been  beaten  h i s readers  of  by the  the  to  planned  fight  lying  dirty."  motionless  resident  effects  to  of  bully,  fighting  dirty. As a r e s u l t o f t h e u n f a i r f i g h t i n g o f Dave he had h a r d l y a n y f r i e n d s a n d M a r k was h u r t b a d l y . Pretty w e l l a l l t h e p e o p l e t h e r e f e l t t h e f i g h t was u n f a i r s o they f a v o r e d Mark f o r the p l a c e of winning the f i g h t b e c a u s e he f o u g h t f a i r and h o n e s t . J u s t as B r e n t ' s message i m p l i e d t h a t "the good guy  always  Pat's  his  suggested  " c o r r e c t what he P a t made t h i s  that was  the  like."  explicitly  bad  guy  As  seen  could  "mend  who  somebody  when  said they  concluded  her  during need  story  or  clear:  discussion  i t , " made  her  that  "You  readers  He was Jordy correct  hafta aware  p e r s o n a l s a t i s f a c t i o n s g a i n e d w h e n a s s i s t i n g t h o s e who She  ways"  i n the following quotation,  J o r d y changed because of what happened t o him. a l o t f r i e n d l y e r and d i d n ' t f i g h t as much. r e a l i z e d what he had done and so he t r i e d t o w h a t h e was like. Jennifer,  wins,"  with the  following  two  help  of  the  need  you.  sentences:  S o o u t o f f r i e n d s h i p a n d p i t y I l e n t my gym s h o e s , she w a s r e a l l y t h a n k f u l a n d t o l d me s h e w a s g l a d t o h a v e a f r i e n d l i k e me. I f e l t happy t h a t I c o u l d h e l p out my n e w friend.  83 Jacob, Brent, of  their  Although judge  the  stories. her  by  on  how  asking  current  Melissa,  thoughts  people  message  P a t and J e n n i f e r e x p l i c i t l y on  revealed  they  Black-White  that  look,"  her audience  the  other  her  she  s t a t e d t h e themes hand,  message  implicitly  d i d not.  was  "not t o  conveyed  a key question.  In  s i t u a t i o n i n South A f r i c a ,  this  discussing  she  wrote:  I t looks as though t h e white population would p r e f e r i t i f e v e r y o n e was t h e same. But i f you walk i n t o a r o s e garden would you want a l l t h e f l o w e r s t o l o o k alike? Thus commented explicit  f a r , i t has on  their  moral  examination  Great  perceived were  more  reading  statement  of these  generalizations "The  that  that  a n d saw  All  s t o r i e s were  statement  this  emerged  they  With the  conflict  were  five two  i n terms  from  among t h e s e o f theme.  i n question.  they were r e a d i n g  the tension  broad  dealing  f i n d i n g s was  with  the lack  A l l declarations accounted  within  students  made b y  for l i t t l e  a  and that  story.  but a l l of  human of  to  students  o f male  of plot,  an  Further  reference  the other  d i f f e r e n t i n terms  broad generalizations that story  that  of  fighting;  themes were s i m i l a r i n t h e i r Included  cliche.  of  Students' w r i t t e n work f u r t h e r demonstrated  statements  in  three  students  consisted  a  referred to conflict.  thematic  their  revealed  contest",  whether  theme  o r i g i n a t i n g from  story dealt with  specific  that  or writing,  statements  Leapfrog  female r o l e s .  five  been demonstrated  conflict.  specificity students  of the  were  specific  S t u d e n t s d i d n o t f o c u s n a r r o w l y on t h e s t o r y or writing.  R a t h e r t h a n make s t a t e m e n t s  which  84 accounted  for  comments "Mind "Two to  a l l of  which  your  a  story's  applied  own  to  business";  w r o n g s d o n ' t make a depict  theme  theme,  inhibited  analysis  to  a  E.  of  View  Point  that  of  point  of  students  d i d not  maintain  consistency  writing.  to  and  view.  appear to  solely  or  point  that  writing  of  statements boys";  relying their  by  on  and  cliches  schemata  restricting  and  writing  samples  in  students•  overt  high-ability,  schemata which  e f f e c t i v e n e s s when of  the  made  for  their  statement.  These  have  they  better than  demonstrated  appeared  Examination  relating  By  responses  f u r t h e r weaknesses  knowledge  right."  be  predetermined  reading  details,  stories—hence can  reading  general,  Students'  many "Girls  students their  specific  revealed and  grade-eight  allowed  either  the  data  revealed  view  were  sparse,  tacit  them  reading  that  to or  comments  immature  and  inconsistent. Analysis overt  voiced  "The  cognizance  necessarily responses, the  mid-point  Great of  Leapfrog  the  and As  writing seen  more  t o them. and  narrator,  with  However, as t h e  i s then one  abruptly might  view.  revelations  concerned  none o f t h e  of  s i n c e t h e s t o r y a p p e a r s t o be the  reader  in  One  subjects would  students'  characters  l i t t l e reading  written in third  not  initial person  and  events  approaches the  story's  introduced  expect  disclosed  i n students'  Contest,"  story's point  a n t i c i p a t e such  reader  relating  plural  subjects' reading  knowledge of p o i n t of view.  responses to  and  of  students  to to  the  first  detect,  person in  some  85 manner, t h i s  change i n v o i c e .  of the subjects the  Y e t , as p r e v i o u s l y  took advantage o f t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y  narrator's  identity, credibility  or  stated,  none  t o comment o n  consistency.  V e r b a l d e c l a r a t i o n s and i n s i n u a t i o n s a l l u d i n g t o awarenesso f - n a r r a t o r were a b s e n t from s t u d e n t s ' short  story  genre.  Explaining  student o v e r t l y included her  s h o r t s t o r y schema.  aloud  protocols  stories,  point  discussion ofthe  t h e elements  o f t h e genre,  also  that  when  failed  writing  to  of their  take  their  into  own  short  account  and c o n s i s t e n c y  since point  o f view does n o t f i t i n t o t h e i r  short  story  it  natural  point  o f view  f o r them  narrator,  think-  credibility  i s only  no  o f v i e w as a component o f h i s o r  S i m i l a r l y , analysis o f students'  revealed  students  general  not t o take  suggesting  the that  schema, into  account. In point  addition  o f view  students' became  was  tacit  evident  reading  to finding that weak,  knowledge as  students'  the current of point  inconsistencies  overt  study  also  o f view appeared  knowledge o f  was  found weak.  i n both  that This  students'  and w r i t i n g .  Examination indicated  that  o f responses although  some  t o "The G r e a t students  were  unconsciously  t o t h e n a r r a t o r when r e a d i n g ,  identify  him  when  included  the  first  questioned. person  plural  Leapfrog able  responses j u s t as t h e n a r r a t o r entered  to  refer  t h e y were u n a b l e t o  Interestingly, narrator  Contest"  two  i n their  students reading  t h e s t o r y i n segment s i x .  As  seen  i n the  Contest,"  following  the narrator's  passage  persona  from  "The  Great  Leapfrog  i s evident:  They g o t t o l e a p i n g over one another, q u i c k l y , t o o , u n t i l t h e f i r s t t h i n g we k n e w t h e w h o l e g a n g o f u s w a s out on t h e s t a t e highway... Naturally, we were sure Rex would win the contest. B u t t h a t w a s b e c a u s e we h a d n ' t t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t t h e f a c t t h a t h e was a s i m p l e p e r s o n , w h e r e a s R o s i e was c r a f t y a n d s h r e w d . . . A f t e r a w h i l e , about t h r e e m i l e s o u t o f F o w l e r , we n o t i c e d t h a t s h e w a s c o m i n g down o n R e x ' s n e c k , i n s t e a d o f o n h i s b a c k . Despite articulated  the this.  narrator's In addition,  of  the effectiveness  of  view.  That  limitations point  example, yet  identity, of  view  they  d i d not  i s not a  comment  criterion  students judge  not a  on  student  t o be  unaware  by which  component  suggests  these  unaware  she demonstrated  of her short  story  ofh i s  that point  schemata  Pat: W e l l , Rosie c o u l d w i n , because i f she keeps jumping over Rex l i k e she i s , then i t ' s making h i m weaker, so....[PAUSE]....so she could win. But then....[PAUSE]....they could disqualify Rosie. Who's  "they"?  Pat: U m . . . . [ P A U S E ] . . . . t h e p e o p l e who a r e f o l l o w i n g , l i k e t h e g a n g who a r e w a t c h i n g t h e m . Probably, Rex's b i g gang t h a t he's in....[PAUSE].... cause he o r j u s t some p e o p l e w a n n a w a t c h t h e m . Jacob,  like  f o r  passage;  reading.  Investigator:  that  Pat,  i n this  s h e was  and  honour-roll,  as readers.  presence  exchange,  Clearly,  t h e advantages  by Saroyan  short stories  i n the following  r o l e o r purpose.  was  no  and appropriateness o f t h e v a r i o u s p o i n t s  was aware o f t h e n a r r a t o r ' s  as seen  presence,  students appeared  o f t h e p o i n t o f view chosen  o f view  grade-eight  obvious  P a t , a l s o b e g a n t o make r e f e r e n c e t o " t h e y "  when  87 immediately Pat, than  Jacob  a f t e r the identified  characters  like  the  Pat,  the  schema when he  of  was  Rex  was  as  introduced;  the  author of  story.  As  however,  the  seen  in  i d e n t i t y would appear to  view  was  not  included  get  tired  in  unlike  story, the  rather  following  Jacob r e f e r r e d to the narrator, h i s  narrator's  point  Jacob:  "they"  from  exchange, although to assess  narrator  inability  indicate that,  his  short  story  reading.  will  Investigator:  finally  Why  do  you  think  and  lose.  that?  Jacob: He's s o r t o f t h e bad guy i n t h e s t o r y . The way t h e y s a y i t . Him b e i n g s i m p l e and everything. T h e y a l w a y s do that... They t a l k about the good people. You know, t h e y s a y s h e ' s s m a r t , and t h e n t h e y say he's dumb. Investigator: Jacob:  Well,  Students'  the  as  their  understanding the  child,  or  "they"?  author.  inability  story  telling  a  Who's  to  one of  of  the  identify the  the  gang  story.  members,  By  s t o r y , they were unable t o  o f a c h i l d - n a r r a t o r , and  i t was  narrator  not  coming  what  down  three  miles  Rosie  leaped  on so  he  saw Rex  in  the  Folger's  that his  o v e r him."  neck  " h e a d was The  interfered  consider  because of t h i s  leapfrog  "a  The  ton  bumping the  he  who  was  credibility to  child-narrator Rosie of  Mahoney  bricks"  ground every  narrator recognized  g o o d l o u d bumps t h a t . . . w e r e p a i n f u l , " b u t  the  with  insensitivity  contest:  like  Saroyan's  recognizing  c r e d i b i l i t y that they misinterpreted events. reported  in  that  failed to  for time  "They were recognize  88 the  s e v e r i t y and  subjects  i n the  neglected with the  to  having end,  straightened questioned  not  perceive  the  gravity  out,  at  Jacob  and  knocked  his  Brent  accurate  like  he  has  Jennifer, injuries  and  narrator,  "hard  cement"  arms  and  legs  that,  "A  declared  asserted  "he  that  exhaustion"; very  much  merely  at  felt  and  was  that  Pat  energy  superficial.  t h a t Rex's  student  the  "He  saw  no  length,  going  to of  exhausted,  so  fainted,  remaining she  the  danger  " i t doesn't  yet  felt  when  one  j u s t probably  The  "body  none of  p r o b l e m t o be  that  In  but  isn't  just really  thought  She  head  the  left."  greater  for miles.  of Rex's i n j u r i e s ,  bump o n  too,  associated  twitched,"  One  because  they,  consequences  Three students  commented as  the  assessment.  j u s t l a y down"; M e l i s s a from  on  seriousness  claimed  someone."  mostly  assess  Consequently,  narrator casually t o l d h i s readers  made a n  he  action.  did  about the  fatigue:  this  study  students  k i l l  of  one's head  the  a l l :  danger  seem  student,  too  saw  the  that  Rex probably has a b i g b r u i s e on h i s h e a d and he p r o b a b l y has a headache o r s o m e t h i n g , c a u s e when you go down t h e b l o o d r u s h e s and t h e n y o u g e t a h e a d a c h e and a bump a n d everything, and you don't f e e l too good. A n a l y s i s of students'  w r i t i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t , as w i t h  reading,  inconsistencies  and  students'  tacit  of  students'  first  consistent  point  consideration. Contest,"  knowledge  uncertainties point  w r i t i n g assignment of  view  Following  a l l students  when their  of  view.  revealed  writing reading  were  was of  their  found  Examination  that not "The  were asked t o w r i t e t h e i r  maintaining  in of a  an  important  Great  Leapfrog  own  conclusion  89 to  the  story.  consistency  In  doing  so,  by c o n t i n u i n g t o  only  write  one  i n the  student first  maintained  person  plural.  The r e m a i n i n g f o u r s t u d e n t s s w i t c h e d from f i r s t p e r s o n p l u r a l third  person  omniscient.  Although  students  when w r i t i n g t h e i r of  view  were  required  students'  point none  with the  of  them  consistent  phase  agree  of  the  or  the  the  investigator  indicated  that  agreed  investigator.  were  asked  neither taken you're  of t h i s  "How h a v e  stated  place.  the  that  they  e x p l a i n the  their  student change.  we  replied,  aware  "It  sounds  across,  simply s a i d ,  this  of  the  and s e n t e n c e s indirectly  stories  suggested concerned  story  a change  in  from  Without h e s i t a t i o n ,  by  by  the  with  the  more  students  doing  in point like,  of  this?"  view more  than t r y i n g j u s t  U n l i k e B r e n t , Pat vas not s p e c i f i c she  changes  F u r t h e r m o r e , when t h e your  subtle  allowed  their  as  seemed  changed  make a p o i n t  change,  with  were  change  proposed  The  investigator  stories  obvious—that  Brent  t r y i n g to  a story."  revise Neither  ineffectiveness  with  By i n t r o d u c i n g new p h r a s e s  and B r e n t  to  which  students  t h i r d person to f i r s t person point of view. both  investigation  dealt  they  view point  investigator.  Whether o r n o t  of in  disagree  person pronoun " I , " the  Pat  point  inconsistencies  by  view.  change.  first to  of  by  a  stories,  the  either  made  nature of the  implied  to  suggested  discrepancies  change,  own s h o r t  seen d u r i n g  them  revisions  maintained  to  to  had like tell  i n her attempts  "Now i t ' s  better."  to  Recommendations  for  revision  students;  were  also  i n  their  remaining  three  indirectly  suggested t h a t they change from f i r s t  person  omniscient point  agreed  to  the  articulate  of view.  change,  and  exact  nature  the  one-hundred  as  which  Melissa,  with  of  the  this  Pat  others,  was  an e s s a y w r i t t e n  introduced a fictitious  the  i t  was  person to  like  change.  for  case,  and  After  i n first  third Brent,  unable  Her  person,  immediate  a  Melissa  c h a r a c t e r whose t h o u g h t s  r e v e a l e d t h r o u g h an o m n i s c i e n t n a r r a t o r .  to  hearing  word p a r a g r a p h composed by t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ,  agreed t o change her s t o r y , one  however,  made  to  were  response  was, Yeah, I l i k e that...I think that's a really good introduction...Because i t ' s s o r t of showing through t h e e y e s o f a y o u n g c h i l d how h e f e e l s a b o u t i t , a n d i t ' s more o f a p e r s o n a l v i e w t o t h e p r o b l e m . . . i n any story i t ' s important to feel...how the people f e e l i n the s t o r y , and so you c a n s o r t o f become a p a r t o f i t so you r e a l l y enjoy i t . Aside  from not  did  not  the  third  change,  r e c o g n i z i n g the change i n p o i n t  appear  t o be  person  rather  concerned  point  than  of  with  view.  the  changed t o a f i r s t  did  not  recognize that  her  decision  following  to  go  this  along  exchange took  a  the  f i r s t person  person plural  change would  with  following  above  omniscient narrator,  i n v e s t i g a t o r recommended t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l n a r r a t o r be  Melissa  maintaining consistency of  Shortly  continue with  of view,  third  be  narrator.  singular Melissa  inconsistent  person  the  narrator.  place:  Investigator: On t h e t h i r d p a g e y o u s a y , " A t this time I cannot s t a t e a s o l u t i o n . . . " I was wondering what you would t h i n k of changing the " I " t o a "We".  with The  91 Melissa: ....[PAUSE]....1 suppose. Yea, because I d o m e n t i o n a. c o u n t r y , a n d I g u e s s me b e i n g p a r t o f a country. I t w o u l d n ' t r e a l l y b e me s t a t i n g a s o l u t i o n . I t w o u l d be Canada I s u p p o s e . Yea, I w o u l d agree t o that. The agree  remaining  to  two  changes  subjects,  in  point  experimenter;  yet  despite  indicated  by  disagreeing  of  the  that  nature  maintaining Jennifer  of  the  and  the  of  view  their with  shift,  consistency  Jennifer  or  as  the  in  as  did  not  by  the  neither  changes they  of view.  i n v e s t i g a t o r was  Jacob,  proposed  refusals,  that  in point  and  doing The  student  were  so  aware  they  dialogue  were  between  follows:  Investigator: The p e r s o n who's t e l l i n g t h e s t o r y i s c a l l e d " I " throughout. I t h o u g h t we c o u l d g i v e t h a t p e r s o n a name, l i k e M i c h e l l e . Jennifer:  Ohhh!  Investigator:  Do  you  t h i n k t h a t w o u l d be  Jennifer: No. I don't t h i n k makes s e n s e r i g h t now. Jacob,  responding  refusal  was  not  investigator narrator's story.  in a  based  re-read identity,  Names a r e n ' t  similar on  i t ' s necessary  manner,  awareness of  his  story  Jacob  also  replied,  an  cause i t  of  view.  obvious  "It  There's  idea?  indicated that  point  with  important.  a good  When  shift  doesn't  add  j u s t nothing  his the  in  the  to  the  that  you  need them f o r . " F.  Tone and As  Yet, these  Mood  l i t e r a r y terms,  despite terms  their share  " t o n e " and  differences, congruent  "mood" a r e many  features  distinct  authors (Duffy  &  concepts.  recognize  that  Pettit,  1952;  Frye,  Baker  1985) .  Both  deal w i t h a t t i t u d e and f e e l i n g :  tone  attitude the a  & Perkins,  toward  h i smaterial  of  fiction  They  are different,  tone  relating  story's of  include clear of  a n d mood d e f i n e d  character,  i n terms  t o the author's voice,  data,  setting,  of their  the investigator subjects'  a n d mood  relating  found  overall  students'  reading  awareness  i n the analysis  that  i n both  story  responses  of tone revealed  with  to the  schema  their  d i d not  a d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e knowledge framework t o suggest  and o v e r t o r t a c i t  as  theme).  emphasis:  Applying these definitions  and w r i t i n g ,  they  aroused by t h e v a r i o u s factors i n  plot,  however,  atmosphere.  t h e raw  reading  (i.e.,  i n that  i s defined as t h e author's  and audience;  general pervasive feeling  piece  are similar  either  a n d mood.  Analysis  that  d i d not  they  d i s c e r n o r respond t o e i t h e r t h e s t o r y ' s emotional atmosphere o r the  author's  students  tone.  Similarly,  d i d not firmly  distinctive  voice  i n their  establish  to characterize  either their  own  written  an emotive  work,  mood  or a  compositions.  N o t h a v i n g f o r m u l a t e d a s c h e m a t a f o r t o n e o r mood p r e v e n t e d subjects  from  examining  Leapfrog Contest".  further  story  example, that did  t h e emotive  the author's  attitude  i n reading the following  Rosie  devised a "crafty"  not closely  elements  on t h e n a r r a t o r ' s l i t e r a l  establishing  o r by  of these  Students created meaningful  of t h e text by r e l y i n g by  either  examine  toward  statements, not conveyed  by t h e  h i s subject.  and  For  understood  o f w i n n i n g t h e game; language  Great  representations  excerpt, students  method  Saroyan's  attitude  i n "The  realize  they that  despite in  i t s young speaker  and  simple nature,  i t s somewhat p a r a d o x i c a l  i t s complexity  lies  characteristics.  Naturally, we were sure Rex would win the contest. B u t t h a t w a s b e c a u s e we h a d n ' t t a k e n into a c c o u n t t h e f a c t t h a t he was a s i m p l e p e r s o n , w h e r e a s R o s i e was c r a f t y a n d s h r e w d . R o s i e k n e w how t o f i g u r e angles. She had d i s c o v e r e d how t o jump o v e r Rex F o l g e r i n a way t h a t w e a k e n e d h i m . For  the  child  players,  based  "simple." test a  narrating, on  For  their  hierarchy  their  among  future.  nature  of  current  strategic  Saroyan,  o f endurance and  l e a p f r o g was  the  the  children  for children  study,  however,  at  and  She's, "Well  she's  whole smarter  since  Rex.  "smart";  this  was  and  Rex  i s just  to  used He's the  for  of  perceive  s t o r y ' s tone  more a  of  simple  a  sort  feel  her  big of  these  and  implied  devious, cunning through  an  said mood.  empathy f o r  "She's chunk  smarter  of  "She's  Contrary  and  ironical  smart. bone";  about  s t u d e n t s ' r e p o r t s , R o s i e was  s h e was  the  characters—on  brain";  person."  a  competitive  Subjects  feeble-mindedness:  b e g i n n i n g t o be  "Rosie  game, b u t  implications  slums.  the  or  only established  had  unable  the  "crafty"  idle  not  and  i n t e r p r e t e d what the n a r r a t o r  Rex's  witty  remarks and  " c r a f t y " nor  an  the power s t r u g g l e between  Rosie's  thing";  narrator's  but  just  say  than  the  misconstrued  c l e v e r n e s s and  I'd  not  also  fun,  either  four of the subjects, rather than  r e p o r t e d o n l y on  Rosie's  from were  Instead, they thus  but  of  attempting t o convey the  implications.  Rex,  tactics,  c o n t e s t was  life  Consequently,  game  determination, which  S a r o y a n was  face value,  a  the  a  lot  to  the  neither  unscrupulous, tone  which  students these  were unable  characteristics  alluded  insensitivity  reading  responses  compositions. Contest"  tone  revising  was  story's  neither  oppressive  a n d mood  detected  reflected  conclusions inability  short  to  to  mood  i n students'  their  written  "The  Great  Leapfrog  and  In  maintain  stories  they  added  consequently  revealed  to  these  weaknesses  a n d mood.  a n e u t r a l element imparted  a  suggestions  addition  o f generating d i s t i n g u i s h a b l etone  which  that  i n  detect  stories.  analysis of their  r e p o r t i n g events,  perceive  t o man.  also  their  their  the process  compositions,  the  could  a n d mood, a s d i d t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s  inconsistencies,  merely  students  t o tone  Students'  revealed  consistent  in  nor  t o man's i n h u m a n i t y  The  for  t o grasp,  a  high  inconsistencies  were  By  to their  degree  of  indistinctiveness. As  previously  observed  i n  Contest." conform sharply  altered  statements  and  notions the  "The  happiness  t o one o f merriment  original  binding,  atmosphere  of  and content.  t h e emotive  attitude  t h a t "Rosie and Rex were best and agreed  t o be f r i e n d s , "  " n e i t h e r o f them e v e r  fought  initially  Great  and  each other  thereby  sadness  and  Clearly,  this  e s t a b l i s h e d by  of friends," t h a t "they  Leapfrog outcome t o  Contrary t o Saroyan's sequence o f events,  laughed that  of  to  Saroyan's  story's  d i d not perpetuate  the author.  both  conclusions  subjects rewrote  their  commiseration change  students'  Four to  stated,  students' that  shook  "they  hands,"  o r anyone  else  95 again," and  provided  pain  a sudden turnabout,  t o one o f c a m a r a d e r i e  Additional awareness short  of  evidence  consistency  and  Africa  tried  projecting injustice  a n d mood  i n reporting  authoritative  and corruption,  tone.  With  physically  abused  established  sense  Realizing shifted  false  actual in  after, put  of  however,  that  shot  at  j a i l  f o r there  she might  i s a  suggestions Melissa,  when  f o r revision  i n addition  authority incompatible  and  with  tone  of  i n  the  a  i n my  to  expository  helplessness  two  i n  of  concluding informed,  of contingency information  the  and could  o f what t h e  similar  errors  investigator's  stories.  Once  incongruent  form,  Her  tone  single  demonstrated  i n t h e i r short  "these killed),  her  knowledge  include  South  police."  with  t o one  to transmitting  doubt  by  "Some o f t h i s  lacking  agreeing  (sometimes  n o t be t h o r o u g h l y  d e t a i l s are." A l l students  judgment  education";  coupled  destroyed  are being  of skin"; "[Black]  proper  i n  stating that,  examples  a  tragedy,  were  South  simultaneously  "South A f r i c a n s  her officious'tone  d o u b t when f i n a l l y be  " f a c t s " about  emotions  lacking  and  by the  she appealed t o h e r reader's  children  chased  i n their  bigotry,  African  people...are  of  of  f o rhaving a d i f f e r e n t colour  Melissa  appeared  many  punished  are  lack  t o r e v i s i o n s proposed  t h r o u g h o u t h e r 500-word c o m p o s i t i o n :  remark.  students'  t o evoke f e e l i n g s o f sympathy w h i l e  an  expertise,  of suffering  mirth.  i n tone  Melissa,  a state  demonstrating  s t o r i e s and t h e i r r e a c t i o n s  investigator.  from  included  narrative  again,  tones a  form  of  third when  96  agreeing  to  include  the  following  passage  written  by  the  investigator: K i n t a , w i t h h i d d e n b o d y and t e a r - f i l l e d eyes, g l a r e d w i t h h o r r o r and d i s b e l i e f a s he w a t c h e d h i s m o t h e r and f a t h e r b e i n g c l u b b e d t o d e a t h . He h a d b e e n e x p o s e d t o v i o l e n c e and death a l l of h i s t h i r t e e n y e a r s , b u t t h i s was t h e f i r s t t i m e i t was a f f e c t i n g him so d e e p l y . P a i n and a n g u i s h t o r e t h r o u g h h i s b o d y a s he w a t c h e d h i s p a r e n t s r e c e i v e t h e i r f a t a l b l o w s . Brent  demonstrated  deciding  to  follow  investigator  with  by  The  himself.  his  lack  two  s t a l e d i d a c t i c sentences w r i t t e n  an  of  original  following  awareness  for  frenzy-filled  exchange  consistency  paragraph  by  when the  written  ensued:  I n v e s t i g a t o r : Brent, r a t h e r than s t a r t your s t o r y with t h i s p a r a g r a p h h e r e , I t h o u g h t t h a t p e r h a p s we could s t a r t o f f w i t h t h e s e s e n t e n c e s t h a t I'm a b o u t t o r e a d t o you: " I t h i n k t h a t f i g h t i n g i s one o f t h e w o r s t t h i n g s y o u c a n do. Not j u s t b e c a u s e you c a n g e t y o u r face bashed i n , but because i t causes a lot of trouble." B r e n t : Um.... [LONG PAUSE ( r e a d s h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n ) ] . ... Yeah, t h a t ' s a good t h i n g t o s t a r t o f f w i t h b e c a u s e a f t e r y o u s a y , " F i g h t i n g i s one o f t h e w o r s t t h i n g s y o u c o u l d do", y o u c o u l d s a y " I remember when..." and t h e n p u t my p a r a g r a p h and s a y "...when a l l t h r o u g h s c h o o l t h e r e was t a l k a b o u t t h e b i g f i g h t . 'Are you g o i n g t o go?' 'Who's f i g h t i n g ? ' 'Where's i t g o i n g t o be?'... 'He's going to k i c k h i s h e a d ' and 'Dead Meat.•" Investigator: o r t h i s way?  W h i c h do  you  prefer—your  original  way  B r e n t : P r o b a b l y t h i s way b e c a u s e . . . i t ' d make i t s o u n d more l i k e , more l i k e y o u ' r e t r y i n g t o make a p o i n t across, than j u s t t r y i n g to t e l l a story. The  remaining  Because variables  their which  students, schemata  made for  sensitized  similar  tone them  and to  the  errors mood  did  subtle  in not  judgment. include  attitudes  and  atmosphere communicated through w r i t t e n language, they combined and  their  feeling  from  Further that  written that  by these  conventional  means  were that  could  situation fight  prose  students'  i s very  was u n f a i r " ;  young  as word  o u t my  sense  of  communicated  stimulate  following  an  passage,  tone  a n d mood.  two  baseball  suspense  and  and  mood  by  such  felt  of  A l l attitudes "I felt  " I n my  the people  happy  opinion  there  b a d " ; a n d "My  this  felt  dad  the  always  Students d i dnot establish  remorse  but since  f o r example,  n o t conveyed  statement.  friend";  s t i l l  emotional  coaches,  t h e tone  a s i m p l e remark:  "...all  messages,  Jacob,  revealed  phrasing, or selection  expressed through choice o f language, not  stories  choice,  joy, injustice, their  i n style  were  had t r o u b l e c o n t r o l l i n g h i s temper." a  differed  authors  new  unfair"; "Jordy  short  inconsistencies,  contained within help  that  own.  b u t r a t h e r b y means o f d i r e c t  generally I  of  t o these  communicated  with  of their  examination  i n addition  detail,  work  willingly  or  restraint.  these messages were n o t  s t y l e o r imagery,  reaction failed  They  i n  the  they d i d  reader.  to establish  a sense  The of  who w a s f o c u s i n g o n t h e a n i m o s i t y b e t w e e n tried  to  establish  an  atmosphere  fear:  W h i l e d a d w a s a t w o r k , a n d mora a n d I w e r e a s l e e p Donnely l e f t a rude message on o u r answering machine. I t was i n some s o r t o f a r i d d l e f o r m s o , I s p e n t t h e n e x t t w o d a y s t r y i n g t o f i g u r e i t o u t . When i t was f i n a l l y d e c o d e d i t m e a n t , t h a t o n S a t u r d a y we w o u l d l o s e a n d g e t h u r t a t t h e same t i m e .  of  98 With  mother  while  they  deciphering, physical events  and c h i l d are  asleep,  and  the  at night,  the  threat  ensured  although  from  effectively  relay  intruding  that  the  requires  protagonist's  h i s passage  contained  His lack of detail  o f mystery and suspense, however, experiencing  Jacob's  code to  that  l e a d i n g t o f e a r a n d t h e unknown.  reader  the villain  mysterious  impending  well-being, Jacob  language suggestive the  alone  intentions h i s plans  these were  because  prevented  feelings. apparent,  Therefore, he  h i s schemata  could f o r tone  mood d i d n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o a t h o r o u g h ,  cognizant  of  i n literature.  how v o i c e a n d e m o t i o n a r e g e n e r a t e d Like Jacob,  effective. behavior, as  seen  with  By  Pat's tone having  a  and  not and  understanding  a n d mood w e r e n e i t h e r p e r s u a s i v e n o r  teacher  reprimand  a  student  f o r h i s  Pat introduced a scenario suggestive of authority, but  i n the following  her authoritative  passage,  figure  were  t h e tone  and aura  ineffectively  associated  conveyed.  [Jordy] pushed Mark t o t h e ground and then him and h i s g r o u p r a n o f f . A t e a c h e r came o u t t o s e e w h a t had happened. Mark t o l d t h e t e a c h e r and t h e t e a c h e r went o f f t o l o o k f o r J o r d y and h i s group. When t h e t e a c h e r found them he s a i d , " I f y o u don't l e a v e Mark alone I ' l l have you a l l suspended." Despite  the authority a teacher  mere p r e s e n c e intended project  by  Pat.  figure  language,  threat detail,  could not experience  represents, the  d i d n o t produce t h e sense o f power  Similarly,  i t s expected  appropriate reader  of this  stereotypically  the teacher's and  message  intimidation.  emphasis  and  d i d not  Without  expression,  the Pat's  t h e a u t h o r i t y , t h e anger, t h e t h r e a t  99 and  the intimidation this  Similar  to previously  weaknesses from  effectively  written G.  i n Pat's  scene  was  discussed  schemata  developing  designed  reading  f o r tone either  and w r i t i n g a n d mood  of  these  short  o f t h e data  story elements:  investigation  d i d  corresponding  to point  To  revealed  similar  conflict,  t h e story they  not  find  o f view,  concepts  her  i n her  read  sense o f an ending  character described "bad."  character  generally  read  on t h e i r  resolved  wrote,  notion  of character  by  as  characters  means  of  elements  conflict  needed  to  of be  was r e s o l v e d , a n d binding. character  presentation  description,  dimensionally, these  That i s ,  elements:  character  of  them t h a t t h e p l o t  through happiness four  students  these  conflict  conflict  incorporated  two  between  this  conflict,  The  schemata  and wrote,  (more s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  that this  I n terms  characters  Conflict  they  A l l relied  that  created,  schemata  change.  and theme.  a n d mood.  s t o r y schema t o l d  type),  story  traditional  distinguishable  tone  conflict  and furthermore,  description,  t o four  setting  and t h e s t o r y they  Students'  man-versus-man  Character  overall  r e s o l u t i o n and happiness binding.  each s t o r y required  resolved,  and  character,  p l o t schemata.  conflict  were u n i v e r s a l .  the  prevented  that subjects'  plot,  make s e n s e o f t h e s t o r i e s  employed  the  examples,  Summary  schema c o n s t i t u t e d subschemata c o r r e s p o n d i n g  of  communicate.  work.  Analysis  in  to  either  and  students  "good"  or  was a l w a y s p h y s i c a l ,  selecting  a  "winner."  100  Furthermore, relied  i n terms  of character  on  direct  methods.  narrator's  direct  statements  and  writing,  while  discernible. necessary those they  read,  had  Conversely, change in  with  schemata  the the  Three  students  examined  t o make  a l lstudents  change who  read,  the  inferences,  by  stating  felt  that  the  i t was  t o change  i n the  i n the story  story  d i d not expect d i d n o t have  they  wrote.  characters  characters  to  change  wrote.  subjects'  plot  was  and  character  identical  i n both  schemata, their  their  reading  c o n s t i t u e n t c o m p o n e n t s made u p t h i s  and  schemata:  s t o r y ' s p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g ; t h e s t o r y ' s temporal s e t t i n g ; and protagonist  however,  wrote.  o f time  social In  learned;  students  and place,  reading  2)  that  placed  very  subjects  thematic  a didactic  l i t t l e deal  they  students read  and  s i g n i f i c a n c e on  o f s i g n i f i c a n c e on  story.  employed as  Nota l l ,  i n which  of the text  and a great  and w r i t i n g  environment.  t h e way  found w i t h i n a  i n their  theme was  to  representations  o f theme,  students  that  equally  interaction  terms  their  guided  coherent  Overall,  setting  both  i n h i s or her social  contributed  constructed  the  they  f o r setting  writing.  they  character  characters  students  t h e story they  a l l  t o change by t h e end o f a s t o r y , b u t  characters  those  of character  not  expected  i n the story  As  1)  who  reading,  developed  f o ra character  students  While  they  Finally,  presentation,  similar  schemata i n  Three  assumptions  well.  interpretation of  pronouncement,  t h e theme was a l w a y s  stated  or a  stories:  lesson  i n t h e form  t o be of a  101  cliche;  3)  and  generalization students' was  that  that  this  cliche  referred  r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g  reduced  to  statements  "Cheating doesn't prove  to  was  usually  conflict.  as  "Mind  broad  Examination  revealed that  such  a  i n a l l cases your  own  anything", and t h e c l a s s i c ,  of  theme  business",  "Don't  judge  a book by i t s cover." Schemata characterize students' not  a  students'  to  consistant  stories  story  schema.  judged  the narrator  of  i n their  formulated  read  a  overall  Because  them  with cognitive  Students'  story  schemata  they  schema,  i n their  students  and theme,  elements  point o f view Subjects  story  writing.  d i d not  Examination  prose.  students• a  mood  or  o f tone  f o r either  of  these concepts  had  then,  reading concepts  approached  their  frameworks which  appeared  a  and these  i n the  and w r i t i n g of plot, reading  sensitized  to  schemata  f o r plot,  f o r example,  both  of short  character, and  them  writing t o these  allowed  wrote.  them  recognize the important role that c o n f l i c t plays within a  a story's  were  findings  i n t h e s t o r i e s they read and i n t h e s t o r i e s they  Consequently,  was  maintain  Similar  concepts  of  and wrote.  and a s s i s t  stories.  and  revealed that  they  to  tone  prevented students from examining they  setting  which  i n relation  Students' hinder  view,  overall  point o f view  Not having  elements  tasks  by  identify  observed  mood.  of  r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g  criterion  unable  were  f o r point  to  story.  s t u d e n t s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o n f l i c t was e s s e n t i a l t o  sequence o f e v e n t s , be i ti n a s t o r y t h e y were r e a d i n g  102 or  writing.  students' notion theme  I n another  reading and w r i t i n g  of the didactic i n the material  material thematic  example,  they  by providing  f o r theme them w i t h  component  of story.  they  and  wrote.  read  sought  theme  i n the  generalizing  their  students understood the  n e c c e s s i t y t o l o o k beyond t h e immediate  events i n a s t o r y and t o  global  however,  significance  which  writing,  complexity  diminished As  of  these  as w e l l .  the  form  stories.  on t h e e s s e n t i a l the significance  suggested  (1980)  i n  influenced  influenced  of stories  generalizations  t o these event.  postively  negatively  composition  elaborate  i t appeared  by  a general  Students  included  Furthermore,  enhanced  that  attach  statements,  schemata  students'  their Because  of  Students  meaning  (1977),  their  they  Other  negative  that  s t u d e n t s d i dn o t have.  tone  a n d mood  eight  influences Because  had not y e t developed  students, they  could  them make m e a n i n g o f t h e i r  not rely  reduced  d i d not  bother  and  the to  therefore  they read and wrote. Baker  and Brown  o f a p p r o p r i a t e schemata  c o n t r i b u t e d t o weaknesses i n t h e comprehension stories.  and  students stated  (1973),  weakness  reading  and  o f t h e work  of the fiction  schemata,  comprehension  cliches,  by B r a n s f o r d and Johnson  and Rumelhart  This very  were  and p r o d u c t i o n of  found  i n t h e schema  schemata f o r p o i n t o f view, i n these  talented,  on these  concepts  r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g .  gradet o help  103  CHAPTER  V  SUMMARY, C O N C L U S I O N S , AND  A.  Summary The  c u r r e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n examined t h e i n f l u e n c e t h a t  schema h a s on r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g . with  five  sessions and  twelve  were  subjects  continued  story  with  investigator. would  accept The  eight  final  pieces  transcribed a written  subject to  Students  were  also  of  reading  h i s  or  asked  of the study f o r each  responses  her  i n  individual wrote  tacit to story  to indicate  their  sessions, aloud.  knowledge agree by  or the  why  they  recommendations.  the  t o "The G r e a t  c o n c l u s i o n t o "The G r e a t  read  excerpt, t o  stories  involved close of  to  Contest"  and fourth  requested  the investigator's  datum  and then  student's  was  writing  subjects  and r e w r i t e t h e i r  made  phase  one-hour  session,  the third  changes  or reject  five  Leapfrog  genre  session, t o explore each  approach  t h e reading o f each  story  story  study  i n reading,  required  "The G r e a t  During  to write  structure,  students,  I n t h e second  the short  aloud.  i n the fifth  disagree  2)  events.  discussed story  story  a case  subjects  session  and f o l l o w i n g  upcoming  short  first  short  Using  honour-roll  t o engage  The  segments,  students  of  designed  Saroyan's  predict  And  eighth-grade,  discussion.  William  own  IMPLICATIONS  five  analysis  of  subjects:  1)  Leapfrog  Leapfrog  Contest";  Contest";  3)  a  104 transcribed draft  discussion  of h i s or her  protocols draft;  and  investigator's  short  s t o r y ; 5)  his  8)  or  story the  her  the  proposed  analyzed  for  tone  mood.  1.  the  genre;  4)  the  transcribed  first  draft;  first  think-aloud  6)  a  revised  the t r a n s c r i b e d t h i n k - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s accompanying draft;  and  short  accompanying  7)  revised  of  plot,  transcribed  revisions.  character,  responses  Each  setting,  piece  theme,  to  the the  of  datum  point  of  was  view,  Plot The  investigation  students'  schemata  subschemata: binding. that  for  Furthermore,  the  to  data  that  plot  conflict,  commitment  effects,  found  consisted  conflict  particular  reports  schema  that  of  Didactic that  plot  conflict All  discussions  consists  ( B r o o k s and  students  declaration  sequence  W a r r e n , 1959;  manifested  the  cases:  man  versus  after  being  this  a  of  man.  character  and  the  this  story  to  a  would  another.  and  events  study  in their  own  conflict "The  single centre In  happiness  have  story  of  and  students,  w r i t i n g as generally that  Aloian,  reading  identical  Great Leapfrog character, on  their  the own  a l l  friction short  from 1968).  that  and  well.  declare  arise  revealed  was  (1977)  debilitating  aiding  P e r r i n e , 1966;  In reading  introduced the  in  itself  nature  that  short  constituent  Rumelhart  i n addition to  the  participating  Moreover,  predicted  of  of  by  may  p l o t schemata i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e i r reading  honour-roll  three  resolution  confirming  revealed  eighth-grade,  this  writing. in a l l Contest," students between stories,  105 students  incorporated  versus-man  type.  deviate  from  As  with  conflict  When  this,  that  i t was  a l l refused  t h e concept  was  suggested  resolution  was u n i v e r s a l .  The l a t t e r ,  synonymous  with  binding.  ending,"  as  inclusion  coined  by  winning, narrative  violated.  This  between t h e two c h a r a c t e r s . the to  w r i t t e n work o f these Saroyan's  completion  story  Although in  stories  schemata and  Great  This  four  schemata  commitment  Rather  Contest,"  to their deeper  a  have  they  sense  t o be of  with  Leapfrog  t o simply  own  short  the  students  a l l five  declare conflict  their  a sense  of  ending.  t o view  incidents this  students'  reading  comprehension  o f "The  students  narrative expectations of the text.  into  conclusions  as completed wholes,  t o handicap  up) were  extended  stories,  u s e o f t h e happy  enhance  the  In their  an  Contest"  ending  resolved  1  conflict  created  narrative logic  allowed  structures  that  appeared  happy  students  to the stories  than  was  students.  a l s o g e n e r a l l y appeared  Leapfrog  examining  plot  i n relation  writing.  of  would  through  man-  and n e i t h e r o f them making  and i n t h e i r  was c r e a t e d  the  of  i s , "a  I n "The G r e a t  expectations  conclusion  however, That  l e dfour of the five  a harmonious  them  the notion  (1967),  Rex l o s i n g ,  students•  that  Kermode  o f a "happy e n d i n g . "  (with Rosie  to  of  the investigator's proposal.  of conflict,  happiness  solely  demonstrated prevented  them  Similarly,  that from  because  As noted i n C h a p t e r I I I , t h e r e j e c t i o n o f some o f t h e p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s s u g g e s t s t h a t s u b j e c t s ' e a s y a c c e p t a n c e o f some o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s c h a n g e s was n o t s i m p l y i n r e s p o n s e t o a n authoritative figure.  106 they  could  written  not relinquish  work  opportunity chose  also  lacked  to alter  this  not t o , f o r i n a  these  stock  sufficient  conventions, depth.  by concluding universe  students'  When  tragically,  of their  given they  making,  the s t i l l  happiness  prevails. 2.  Character Within  t h e concept  consistent  i n  description, character  five and  character  regard  reading  and  presentation,  variables  writing:  character  to  character  description,  perceived  2) a l l s t u d e n t s  made e i t h e r  direct  characters  described  o f hero  dimensional  reference  Although  of protagonist  students  level  on a  and  this  and v i l l a i n .  element  of  helped  t o examine Likewise,  character  described physical aspects  exclusively  of the data  on d i r e c t  students  i n both  also  methods  they  their  i n their  i t was  limiting  characters  beyond  a n a l y s i s o f t h etwo-  revealed  that  students'  adjectives which  of characters i nthe stories  as w e l l as i n t h e s t o r i e s Analysis  that  students  and antagonist,  d i d not venture  of  two-dimensional  to this  descriptions generally consisted of single-word  read,  conflict  i n terms o f "good" o r "bad";  characters  or indirect  and w r i t i n g .  understanding because  character  1) f o u r o f t h e  A n a l y s i s o f t h e good-bad element r e v e a l e d  reading  remained  examination  reading and w r i t i n g demonstrated that:  students  level.  the  students'  four  change.  With students'  of character,  students  wrote.  revealed  that  of presentation  students i n their  relied reading  107 and  writing.  A l lf i v e  presentation  of  students  character  utilized  t o make  the author's  inferences  while  Similarly,  a l l employed d i r e c t methods o f c h a r a c t e r  in  written  their  observable.  material.  I n reading  f o rcharacter,  inferences  on t h e n a r r a t o r ' s  action.  In  their  character  by  directly  names,  physical  characters. flat  reading  type;  2)  t h e danger  winner.  I n a l l cases,  conflict  between  reading,  by  students  characters,  were  Similarly,  students'  antagonist, "winner"  Finally,  contending  who,  the their and  developed characters'  conflict  confronting  (major and minor) were  relationships Examination 1) c o n f l i c t confronting  was r e s o l v e d  different  characters  students  students  perceived  characters.  but they with  by  For  failed  included  t h e end o f a  of  i n  students'  w a s o f t h e "man characters  only  was  the physical  example,  while  of the conflict  t o recognize  emotional  w r i t t e n work  emerged  b y means o f s e l e c t i n g a  t h e y were aware o f t h e c o r p o r a l n a t u r e  encountered  on  based  discernible:  the  conflict.  a n d 3) c o n f l i c t  either  and  reading-writing  character  man"  placed  developed.  physical;  and  the  and w r i t i n g d i s c l o s e d that:  versus  same  Consequently, a l l characters  to  presentation  a l l students  these  stating  attributes  Additional  was  reading.  d i r e c t statements o f character  writing,  and i n s u f f i c i e n t l y  relation  Emphasis  direct  conflict a human  story,  were  as  that well.  protagonist labelled  as  or "loser."  character  i n either their  change was n o t a n e c e s s a r y c r i t e r i o n f o r reading  or writing.  I t i sof interest,  108 however, change story  that  i n  the  they  story  to  characters  three  wrote,  characters  3.  the  they and  change  change  subjects read,  the in  i n the  who  had  two  characters  characters  subjects  who  the  story  they  story  they  wrote.  change  did  read,  in  not  did  to the  expect  not  have  Setting Gathered  evidence  c o n s t i t u t e d elements  suggested  that  & Trabasso, both  1982;  their  students'  present  with  and  In  would win the  the on  on  reading  and  these  1979;  a  a  specifically,  bright,  eighth-grade  he  physical  obtained  observations,  she  were  outsiders,  in relation made  in  not to  their  physical, the  meaningful  read  or  wrote,  that  placed  variables  and  great  environment.  and  were slums,  a l l subjects  "the  fight."  of primary and  students' written  Who  concern;  consequently  consideration.  written  animate  finding, a  Contest"  Rosie  the a  this  schemata  social  would win  was  of  Leapfrog with  story's  they  temporal  their  from  to  i t print  and  Great  or  be  a  constructing  configuration  preoccupation how  in  Stein  More  to  addition  that  print,  "The  children  impoverished were  found  In  p r o t a g o n i s t s and  demonstrated  that  of  relied  on  context.  also  emphasis  emphasis  writing,  information pertaining  social  representation  l i t t l e  and  1984).  schemata  researchers  (Stein & Glenn,  Stein & Policastro,  reading  study  students  setting  schemata f o r s e t t i n g c o n t a i n e d r e f e r e n c e t o an  protagonist temporal  total  i d e n t i c a l t o those d e s c r i b e d by  questing t o d e f i n e the story concept  in  expected  Similar work.  conclusions  to  data  Initial Saroyan's  109 tale, to  r e v e a l e d t h a t a l l f i v e s u b j e c t s made i n c i d e n t a l  locale while  e l a b o r a t i n g on c h a r a c t e r  Likewise,  i n their  own  and  place  and then  proceeded  in  association  with  short  stories,  "hatred,"  and  constituent  structure of their  temporal  subschemata  setting,  but mainly  setting that  relied  atmosphere.  documented  on animate  "fights,"  "injustice"—thereby  of  social mileau  students  by focusing  pressure"  configuration  and s o c i a l  references  characters  "threats,"  affirming schemata  time  "peer-  that  the  consisted  recognized  of a  physical  and  on an animate c h a r a c t e r  t o c o n s t r u c t m e a n i n g when w r i t i n g ,  and  a s w e l l a s when  reading. 4.  Theme The  study  revealed  embodied t h r e e  basic  interchangeable; a  cliche;  As  with  assumptions:  3) that  that  referred to the conflict thus  with their  theme  far, this  were  i n t h e form o f were  within  a  broad story.  configuration not  i n t e r p r e t a t i o no f s t o r i e s , but  making  story  anything";  was  subjects  as a "lesson t o  Furthermore, subjects generally r e l i e d this  didactic  pronouncement.  S a r o y a n ' s s t o r y "The G r e a t L e a p f r o g the  f o r  interfered with i t .  learned."  when  expressed statements  Theme was i n t e r p r e t e d b y a l l f i v e be  schemata  1) t h a t t h e m e a n d m o r a l  thematic  a l l schemata d i s c u s s e d  only assisted students also  students'  2) t h a t t h e m e w a s b e s t  and  generalizations  that  telling  i t s readers:  " M i n d y o u r own b u s i n e s s " ;  Contest,"  In  on a  response  students  "[Cheating]  cliche  felt  doesn't  and "Don't judge  to that  prove  a book by  110 its  cover."  Students'  they perceived written  by  their  text.  revealed  that  lessons moral  but  had  lessons  Furthermore, they  o f my  story  another  people  shouldn't  o n who  captured search  they  the basic  f o r a  t o be  judge  to  are."  wrongs  In  Since  account  found that  that  t o t h e above  students'  thematic  referred to conflict.  three as  the significance of their  addition  these  my  theme look  with  stories  of  fighting;  whereas  the  phrases d i d not central  reading,  statements  were  encounter  two  also  generalizations  to their  specifically  other  they  work.  reading, the  t h e c o n f l i c t w i t h i n Saroyan's  that  a  dress,  findings, the investigation  the physical  made s t a t e m e n t s o f theme  or  students  of their  make  and say  ready-made  stories,  With reference  s t u d e n t s who p e r c e i v e d  one d e a l i n g  these  don't  o n how t h e y  of their  thorough  'Two  meaning; and i n doing so, as demonstrated i n t h e i r diminished  the  protocols  incorporate  not forget  people  meaning  more  within  think-aloud  planned  " I better  really  stated  stories  F o r e x a m p l e , o n e s t u d e n t s a i d , "The  i s going  said,  as w r i t e r s ,  A l lf i v e  directly  students'  consciously  into their stories.  right'"; that  stories disclosed that,  r o l e as one o f "teacher."  students  stories'  short  between  dealt  students,  tale  characters  with  the issue  who  saw t h e  conflict  a s o n e o f g e n d e r , made t h e m a t i c s t a t e m e n t s t h a t  related  to  and  further  male  demonstrated conflict.  female that  A l lfive  roles. theme  was  Students' directly  stories written  written linked  by subjects  work to were  a  story's  different  I l l in  terms  their 5.  of their  but their  d e a l i n g w i t h human  themes  were  a l l similar i n  conflict.  Point o f View Analysis  o f t h e data  roll  students•  weak  i n both  students a  plot,  discussion.  writing  hours  relating o f tape  awareness  and consistency  Similar  tacit  knowledge  twenty-five was  no  incorporated  hours  was  into  Examination  students' o f students'  Leapfrog  Contest," were  Futhermore, tacit  unable none  knowledge  to  child  students, identify  of the subjects  interpretation assess  the  o f events.  the credibility  Close  provoked  regard  to  examination  re-affirmed  point  and  of  view  that was  schema.  as  well  implied  story Because  i n "The  as  Saroyan's  of the effectiveness  narrating  writing identity,  with  to the narrator  p o i n t o f view s e l e c t e d by Saroyan. the  that  during  a l l reading  made  further  five  reading r e v e a l e d t h a t although two  c a s u a l l y made r e f e r e n c e these  o f view  responses  o f view.  was  the  reading,  from  were  story  of  narrator's  these  indicate short  a  absent  of point  students  three,  of  findings  to  to point  honour-  of view  None  recorded  of transcripts  evidence  of point  and w r i t i n g .  statements  Overt  unprovoked.  there  reading  eighth-grade,  knowledge  r e s p o n s e s made b y s t u d e n t s — b e  students' of  and t a c i t  twenty-five  credibility  or  their  made o v e r t  combined  and  overt  disclosed that  that  the  child  remaining narrator.  they  possessed  and consistency  This  inability  interfered they  Great  i n the  t o comment on  with  students'  d i d not identify  of the child-narrator, students  and  d i d not  112 recognize  that  seriousness of  the  the  narrator  the  Consequently,  in  observed  to  students' in their  Contest."  writing. written  students their  students  the  student  to  omniscient  stories allowed  stories'  narrator.  of  also  initially  Great  successfully  Leapfrog maintained  f i v e students  Further  wrote.  shifted  view  e v i d e n c e was  change p o i n t Without  investigator to  point  was  f i r s t - p e r s o n p l u r a l point of view to  students  the  change  from t h i r d  to  of  agree  to  plural  any  and  changes  third-person  but  despite  view  hesitation,  in two  inappropriately  first  person;  omniscient;  their  a  found  agreed t o change from f i r s t - p e r s o n s i n g u l a r t o a c o m b i n a t i o n first-person  to  end.  were  "The  one  failed  story's  Inconsistencies  i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s attempts to  short  understand  consistency  of p o i n t of view, four of the  third-person  the  and  conclusions  one  from Saroyan's o r i g i n a l ,  the  a l l five  effectiveness  Although  consistency  during  to  e n o r m i t y o f what happened i n t h e  Insensitivity found  failing  and t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d by  characters.  perceive  was  two  one of  did  not  refusals, could  not  a r t i c u l a t e r a t i o n a l e s b a s e d on t a c i t k n o w l e d g e o f p o i n t o f v i e w . 6.  T o n e and  Mood  Analysis revealed  that  of  eighth-grade  these  students'  high-ability  students'  for  t o n e a n d mood was  and  t a c i t a w a r e n e s s o f b o t h c o n c e p t s was  and  writing  investigation.  tasks  reading  and  writing  cognitive  schemata  the weakest schemata i n the  performed  during  study.  Overt  absent from a l l reading twenty-five  hours  of  113 Examination  of reading  Contest"  disclosed  that  examined  Saroyan's  attitude.  for  the story's  competitive children  overall  nature  from  responses  Hence,  atmosphere, serious  t h e slums.  Rather  in  students'  conclusion  to  demonstrated an  own  their  hostility found  i n students'  students  d i d  characterized  five  of  such  the feeling  example,  to  work.  word  rewriting  that  of  conveyed  as " I f e l t that  i n trying  they  Saroyan's students  were  and  proposed  w r i t t e n work  own  overall than  and  attempting  by  the with  contained a tone and  or through  a sense  adding  tension  short  stories,  attitude  that  communicate  their  phrasing or selection  happy"  t o convey  that  attitudes  based  S i m i l a r examples were  In their an  on  appeared  four  the  revisions  Rather  choice,  a n d mood  Contest,"  passages own.  f o r  interpretations  combined t h e i r  establish  their  subjects  statements  their  not  messages through all  responses  from  life's  statements.  In  to  whereby s u b j e c t s  different  that  t o maintain c o n s i s t e n c y by  camaraderie  i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s passages,  mood  base  a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d by Saroyan.  investigator, the  of  account  consequences  f o rtone  Leapfrog  inability  implied  literal  i n schemata  Great  of the text  a n d mood, a l l s t u d e n t s  compositions.  "The  atmosphere  which  than  on t h e n a r r a t o r ' s  weaknesses  Leapfrog  students d i d not  life-long  messages communicated through tone  Similar  "The G r e a t  no s t u d e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s  had  interpretations  to  of  feelings events  detail, through  suggestive  to establish.  of fear  and suspense,  For one  114 student  wrote  message...it B.  that  after  spending  two  meant t h a t on Saturday  days  decoding  we w o u l d . . . g e t  a  "rude  hurt".  Conclusions Evidence  account  by showing  schema.  eighth-grade  how  Under  investigation,  each  three general  correlations depends  study  between  on s t u d e n t s  f i n d i n g s emerged:  overall  story  s t o r y grammars: p l o t ,  i tlacked three  case  others:  schema  helps  o f view,  and  knowledge  of  i n the current 1) h o n o u r - r o l l ,  encompassed  character, setting  point  to  reading  1  the conditions described  students'  traditional and  i n the present  f o r t h e well-known  writing story  gathered  tone  four  and theme,  a n d mood;  2)  the v a r i a b l e s which c h a r a c t e r i z e d each c o n s t i t u e n t schemata were similar  f o r both  addition  reading and w r i t i n g ;  to  helping  representations  of print,  a n d 3) t h e s e  students  schemata, i n  construct  interfered with  meaningful  students'  reading and  writing. On t h e p o s i t i v e was  that  and  writing  allowed read, the  processes.  students  sequence  a major f i n d i n g  facilitated Students'  t o recognize that  o f events  students' concept  conflict  students  they  of the investigation reading  of plot, within  the story  include this  created  was  example  a l l but necessary  o f how  students'  element  i n the stories  to the plot  schema  w r i t i n g was r e v e a l e d i n t h e i r c o n c e p t  responses  f o r example,  they  made m e a n i n g w i t h g r e a t e r e a s e b e c a u s e t h e y  conflict  Another and  schema  and i tensured  Students that  story  side,  enhanced  within wrote.  understood of  stories.  their  o f theme.  they  Even  reading though  115 they  had  a  limited  generalization, beyond the  comprised  of  the  character  i n the  the  schema had  a  stories  limitations  conflict,  of  rather  students'  reading  tone  alerted  them  to  informed  t h e m t h a t p l o t was  means o f  read  and  a  their  own  short  students' both  and  theme)  and  mood).  tools and  reading the  and  by  that  this  and  This  Students  stories  on  to to  and  trace develop  that  and  those  story  writing.  schemata  they  they  did  had not  schemata—embodied  happiness the  and  b a s e d on  ending.  of  subschemata  presentation  read  by  Having  shape  binding—  effectiveness  formulated internal  a  rhythm  of  schemata of  a l l  expectations  conflict  t h a t was  resolved  assumption  coloured  a l l they  naturally  outcome i n S a r o y a n ' s s t o r y , and to  schemata  demonstrated that t h e i r n a r r a t i v e  happy  wrote.  on  writing.  students  look  concept  i n v e s t i g a t i o n found  strengthened,  stories,  by  the  the  to  wrote.  resolution  than  broad  Additional  students'  they  a  attach global  wrote.  sufficient  plot revealed  and  and in  stories  revealed  conflict  impaired,  had  effect  setting  view,  thereby  into their  they  side,  were  character,  read  as  students  description, character  i n the  limiting  (point of  which  theme  helped  revealed  students  negative  Examination by  they  incorporated  development  characters  (plot,  theme  material  change,  character  have  to  Having  character  These  of  r e l a t i o n s h i p s were  character.  On  knowledge  of  i m m e d i a t e e v e n t s i n a s t o r y and  significance positive  understanding  anticipated  l i k e w i s e based t h e i r similar  expectations.  a  peaceful  conclusions Herein  lay  116 the  snare,  make  however;  sense  of  for t h every  what  contributed t o their students'  as their  whom  particular  person through having  plot  own s h o r t events  incorporated into  students  in  both  black-white  two  insights  their  or inferior.  schemata  incapable  a  into  life  In  Contest,"  with  than  of  a  as  person t o  certain  kind of  are revealed. that  and l i f e a r e  searching  beyond  the  as  good  they  Students  the notion  schemata.  c h a r a c t e r s were  described  o r bad, honest  As readers,  as writers,  character  they  perceived  created  or  dishonest,  characters as that  were  had not y e t incorporated  into  that  characters  characters  paragons o f v i r t u e o r monsters o f e v i l . did  and w r i t e r s .  s t o r y schema t h e n o t i o n  reading and w r i t i n g ,  two dimensional.  their  rather  simultaneously  Leapfrog dealt  them t o  concept.  terms:  dimensional;  also  wrote  i n t e r f e r e n c e r e s u l t e d from  students'  superior  plot  allowed  revelations of character  were  "happily-ever-after"  In  happen,  whom p a r t i c u l a r  Additional  and  o f "The G r e a t stories,  i s a means b y w h i c h  presented,  read  ineffectiveness as readers  interpretation  well  Not  they  schemata which  were  more  Their existing  than  schemata  n o t a l e r t them t o e x a m i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i nterms o f c o n s i s t e n t  behaviour, that does,  motivation  character  i sn o t developed  They  by simply  d i dn o t r e a l i z e  telling  what a  person  b u t r a t h e r by d e s c r i b i n g what a p e r s o n i s . Students'  their  and p l a u s i b i l i t y .  reading  whether  existing  c o n c e p t o f theme imposed l i m i t a t i o n s  and w r i t i n g  students  as well.  were seeking  a moral  I n a l l cases i nt h e story they  on  observed, read o r  117 d e p i c t i n g a moral and  i n the s t o r i e s they wrote,  conventionalized the stories  ready-made  phrases  speculating. and  Students  i n doing  outlook. them  so  of view  paralleled identify  of  of  their  interpretation  child  narrating  the  he was  narrator's  misunderstanding reading  was  writing. l i t t l e  thought  credibility the  As  young of  was  of  i n  elaborating  a  given  students'  new  to  or  students'  child  i n the  or  fresh  story  Students'  i n reading  was  inability  to  to  recognize  outcome  found  students  The  of  their  own  i n students' i n  students'  demonstrated  that  to the consistency, effectiveness  and  Students' willingness t o accept  revisions  i n their  insensitive  story's point of  to the  ineffectiveness  changes c r e a t e d i n t h e i r written  the  to perceive  i n  weakness  with  read.  failure  those  the  interfered  resulted  This  work  of  they  the  direct  concept  and  comprehend  events. nature  or  behaviour.  Students'  awareness  written  inconsistency these  their  purpose  a  reporting.  of their narrators.  result,  gaining  narrator clearly  fully  r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e y were  a  as  events  of these  their  of  i n writing.  i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s proposed  view and  In  a  lack  similar  further  These  experiences into o l d formulas,  pertaining  d i d not  on w h i c h  cliches.  schemata f o r theme d i d n o t  narrator  such  on  oversimplified  r e a f f i r m e d t h a t weakness  weakness  Saroyan's  from  motive,  data  relying  chance  existing  further  by  limitations  events  the  investigating  Compilation  them  f o r c e d new  lost  Students*  towards  point  prevented  by  they  products  p r e s e n t a t i o n of p o i n t of view.  Not  were  written  work.  ineffectual  having  formulated  i n a  118 schemata which limitations, reading  enabled  effectiveness  responses  interpretations  writers,  to  their  writing  stories the  they  students'  processes.  read  various  writing  identity,  and c o n s i s t e n c y r e s t r i c t e d  and  of  insensitivity Likewise,  them t o c o n s i d e r a n a r r a t o r ' s  were  aspects  suffered  from  Thorough  thwarted  of  point  this  by of  this view.  deficiency.  As  t h e y were n e i t h e r aware o f t h e scope t h a t p o i n t o f view  permitted  n o r were  Consequently, potential  they  aware  students'  breadth  and  of the limitations  written  work  d i d not  i t imposed. achieve i t s  depth.  C. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r  Research  Based on t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t academically t a l e n t e d , e i g h t h grade  students  story  schema,  that  further  nature  comprise  character, eight  specific  weaknesses  i n their  i ti s i n the opinion of the current research  developmental which  display  be  directed  students'  of story:  theme, p o i n t o f v i e w ,  insensitivity  grammars  t h e elements  of plot,  tone  processes  r e q u i r e d f o rt h o r o u g h l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g  whether necessary with If  t h e r e f o r e recommended or  not  students  cognitive  specific  concepts  of  structures,  students a t t h e grade  maturation  that, this a  a n d mood.  of these  attributable  i s  low  concepts  of  similar  may  be  cognitive  these  concepts.  level study  t o determining possess be  the  replicated  nine, t e n ,eleven and twelve  develop  Grade  the  i n addition grade  the  story  directly  It  to  t o many  investigator  examining  of the various traditional  students' concept  setting,  towards  overall  levels.  with cognitive maturation, then i t  119 becomes  necessary  patterned, way  of  t o determine  reflective  coming  whether  or not heading  response t o o e a r l y i n h i b i t s  to  terms  with  their  f o r a  the students'  reading  and  writing  experiences. Further sample  research  populations  current  might  with  investigation  future  focused  First, with  outlined  i n the present  be  schema  these  and w r i t e .  descriptor), this D.  lower  necessary  that  on  ability  levels.  students  with  students  possess  Since  high  the  ability,  o f average  schemata  I f these  f o r researchers rely  And f i n a l l y ,  examining  o r low  t o determine whether o r nott h e  study.  students  ability  examine  i t i snecessary  students  read  differing  investigations could  ability.  will  a l s o be d i r e c t e d towards  identical  students  t o then  do  describe  o n t o make  sense  to that not,  i t  the story  o f what  (in conjunction with this  they  detailed  i n v e s t i g a t o r s need t o determine t h e i n f l u e n c e t h a t  schemata has on students'  reading  and w r i t i n g .  I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Teaching Findings  terms  of  curricula  the current  pedagogy, account  in students' schema,  from  teachers'  f o r three  existing  investigation planning  specific  of  suggest  that  secondary  variables: the  i n  English strengths  s t o r y schema, t h e weaknesses f o u n d i n t h i s  and t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s  between  the reading  and  writing  that  within  processes. Among students' create  the  study's  cognitive  meaningful  findings  frameworks  i s the  notion  l i e schemata  representations  which  of the stories  they  help read  them and  120 write. have  Years of  shaped  a  interpretive the  reading,  set  on  fuller  this  use  isolated closer the  of  arises  the  (Moffett,  such  1968).  In  of  statement  doing  the  so,  to  existing The with  the  classroom  systems of  reading  investigator instruction Policastro  Curley  (1983), of  exposition  grades,  understanding help  have  of  students  they  the  they  do  in  on  bring  us  structure  of  individual" students  to  Students  bring  i t through  their  internalized story of  short  (1982)  and  and  that  same way  to  l i t t l e  and  believe  patterns  to  exposition  opportunity  expository compose  to  prose. lengthy  and  Glenn  Calfee  comprehend e x p o s i t o r y  exposure  s t r u c t u r e of  Stein  S t e i n and  (1975)  the  receive  that  helpful,  these  helps  leads  students  Meyer that  schema  stories  are  comprehend  Making  focusing  encourage  patterns  have  which  "...the  (1982) and  l i t t l e  programs  than  Trabasso  exist  Thus,  language.  Much i n t h e  i f students are  students  elementary  story  Hennings  internalization  to  that  write.  exercises,  that  suggest  ( 1 9 8 4 ) , S t e i n and  believe  Because  further  rather  an  thinking.  writing  in exposition.  (1979)  grammars  students'  and  to  and  as  interpretation.  teachers  what  language  finding that  the  and  stories  serve  s t r u c t u r e of the  become a c t i v e meaning makers t h r o u g h meaning  which  develop  vocabulary  meshed w i t h  hearing  s t u d e n t s r e a d and  teachers  as  and  expectations  students have,  Moffett's  must be  telling  framework  skills  skills  James  subject  that  existing  word  to  narrative  system f o r a l l that  implication  build  of  watching,  and that  require prose. in  develop  the an  Therefore, or  complex  121 pieces  of  exposition,  schemata  which  conceptual  and  sensitizes relational  Recognizing is  essential.  deficiencies suggesting  teachers  the  must  students  develop to  the  intellectual  context  within this  framework.  students  be  Therefore,  encouraged  to  develop  t h i s schema.  grade  eight  s e t t i n g and  this  Rumelhart  and  students'  although  composing  existing  use be  their  students'  for  (1977)  or  mode  of  story  schema  assists  these  bright,  processes,  schemata  the  made t o f u r t h e r  plot,  character,  schemata might prove b e n e f i c i a l .  modification,  of  i n addition to  theme a l s o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e i r r e a d i n g and  Modification of t h i s to  Clearly,  comprehending  a  work w i t h i n  i s to recognize  i t i s a l s o recommended t h a t a t t e m p t s  the  organization  students  schema,  with  refine  content.  E q u a l l y i m p e r a t i v e , however,  that  and  learning,  as  writing. Referring "tuning",  states that,  ...tuning involves r e p l a c i n g a constant p o r t i o n of a schema w i t h a v a r i a b l e o n e — t h a t i s , adding a new variable to a schema. This sort of schema modification amounts t o "concept generalization"— making a schema more generally applicable. Presumably, the occasion f o r such l e a r n i n g i s the d i s c o v e r y , a t some p o i n t i n t i m e , t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r schema w o u l d o f f e r a good account for a particular s i t u a t i o n i f o n l y some p r e s u m a b l y c o n s t a n t f e a t u r e o f t h e schema w e r e a l l o w e d t o v a r y . [p. 53] For  example,  conflict, students and  viewing  conflict from  writers.  in  resolution  relying In  plot  on  order  become more t h o r o u g h  and  the for  terms and  scope the  of  three  happiness required  quality  searching, they  of  subschemata—  binding—prevents of  mature  their  readers  thinking  must become  to  acquainted  122 with  various  tragedy  and  contribute what  patterns  to  would  to  mood, t h e  of  available  Columbia  and  expand  new  of  Plattor,  that  eight,  students'  schemata  for  nine  Glatthorn,  of  In of  light  point  (Lawrence, requiring  and  these  Lechelt, the  and  mood  Roe,  students  to  ten  of  of  selective and  likely  i t  i s  the  tone  terms  F l e m i n g , 1980; and  Medd,  1973); write  in  to  approach  At  the  their  senior  of  students reading  British  these  three used  disregard  Donlan,  Brennan have  designated  second  some  glossaries  Others  despite  1974;  while  their  Lechelt,  first,  secondary  in  1971),  in  however, the  &  198 0 ) .  objective  review  Many o f t h o s e  Williams  and  account A  completely  incidentally  Clark  plans.  on  also  marked  view,  i s placed  level  (Cline,  p e r s o n , none of t h e s e books p r o v i d e  critically.  i n terms  students  K r e i d l e r & Heiman,  teaching  1973;  them  may  of  of  instructional  emphasis  Brown, B r e n n a n and  view  this  schemata,  junior-high  l i t t l e  1973;  1980;  with  writing.  knowledge  tone  (Lechelt,  allows  thinking habits  schemata.  view,  address  cope  how  acquiring  existing  in their  material  grade  to  i n v e s t i g a t o r recommends t h a t t e a c h e r s  formation  reveals  story,  and  modifying  how  asking  elements i n c u r r e n t l y used t e x t books.  the  point  to  present  schemata  Brown,  further  i n students'  for  merely  made,  create  deficiencies  point  are  Learning  fiction,  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  addition  necessary  story  in  more e f f e c t i v e r e a d i n g  In  at  the  revelations  lead  narration.  unhappiness  to  attention  of  and made  chapters activities and  third  with  a schema  which  and  writing  tasks  level,  Perrine  (1966)  123 provides readers  students  with  of short  understand  and  questions:  stories.  evaluate  Who  w r i t e r chosen  his  material?  story  of view  level  meaningful  should  generated  be  eighth-grade  concepts  new s c h e m a t a a r e c r e a t e d ,  with  experiences  read  and w r i t e through t h e i r  with  o f view,  tone  new e x e m p l a r s ,  evolution so,  which allow  will  tasks  with  students  requires o f view.  possess  an  an understanding  of  First,  new s c h e m a t a  learning  by  analogy.  of view,  tone  a n d mood  on  existing  should  schemata.  then be  provided they  formed c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s o f  As students  the process  o f schemata, w i l l allow  f o r both  them t o make m e a n i n g o f p r i n t  a n d mood.  and  called restructuring,  them  students  newly  Has  i n R u m e l h a r t a n d Norman's  of point  patterning  Once  point  fairly  them  students  mode o f l e a r n i n g ,  by  of  revelation of  of view  of answering  generation"—or  Initially,  series  are a beginning  o f cognitive maturation,  "patterned  to  developed schemata f o r p o i n t  that  This  ask a  that  of the story?  " r e s t r u c t u r i n g " and "tuning".  be created.  suggests  f o r maximum  o f v i e w , t o n e a n d mood r e q u i r e s ,  involves  he  t h e reader  but the task  have a f u l l y  (1978) t e r m s , must  a  Clearly, these questions  Assuming  point  F o r example,  h i spoint  and w r i t e r s ,  appropriate  i s p e r t i n e n t t o them as  Has t h e a u t h o r u s e d h i s p o i n t  consistently?  that students  that  i s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e events  the  readers  information  of tuning,  upgrade t h i s  t o approach  gain  more  responsible  schemata,  their  experience  reading  a d d i t i o n a l frameworks o f knowledge.  f o r the  and i n doing and w r i t i n g  124 Final  teaching  investigation's cognitive reading  conclusion  processes.  and  implications  He  to  the  based  r e a d i n g and  James S q u i r e  writing  relationship.  that  are  on  writing  are  (1983) a t t r i b u t e s  schools'  failure  to  the related  ineffective  recognize  this  states,  Our f a i l u r e t o t e a c h c o m p o s i n g and comprehending as p r o c e s s impedes our e f f o r t s not o n l y t o t e a c h c h i l d r e n t o r e a d and w r i t e , b u t our e f f o r t s t o t e a c h them how t o t h i n k , [p. 23] Learning  to  on  a  as  these  read  series  context,  of  a  to  well  as  as  Teachers,  facilitators  remember,  the  and  as  as  reading,  well  editors  other  relegate  and  a  writing  of and  thinking  process.  strategies  processes  levels.  By  enables at  the  encouraging  connect, in  as  guess  the  and  reading,  component w h i c h  according  Students  to  begin  "writers";  as  well  as  to  as  their  thinking.  that  as  publishers.  more e f f e c t i v e  strategies  to  perceive  listeners  proud  relinquish  themselves  elicitors  holistic  students  as  hand,  a  anticipating  support,  engage  focusing Important  in  such  thinking  essential.  "readers"  on  authorities  effective  is  tellers;  own  processes,  the  and  by  skills.  taught  through  metacognitive  "actively"  (1986)  themselves  their  be  ignore  questioning,  and  thinking  not  accomplished  writing  must  writing  predict,  teachers  Hillocks  and  cognitive  and  does  be  and  they  which  explore  wonder,  writing  be,  reading  cannot  reading  clustering,  emotional,  play,  may  context  imagining, learners  write  isolated  skills  Integrating  them t o  and  lead  roles  as  roles to  as  more  125  REFERENCES  A l o i a n , D. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . S t o r i e s and s t o r y t e l l e r s . A d d i s o n - W e s l e y P u b l i s h i n g Company.  Don  Mills,  Ontario:  A r t h u r , S.V. (1981). The e f f e c t s o f two w r i t i n g t r e a t m e n t s on the reading and writing of third graders (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of G e o r g i a , 1980). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41, 4278A-4279A. Atwell, M.A. (1981). The evolution of t e x t : The interrelationships of r e a d i n g and writing i n the composing process (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Indiana University,1981). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 42, 116A. Austin, D.E. (1984). Reading to w r i t e : The e f f e c t of the a n a l y s i s o f e s s a y s on w r i t t e n s i l l s i n c o l l e g e c o m p o s i t i o n c l a s s e s ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , the U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama, 1983) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 45, 771A Barbig, E. (1968). An exploration of growth in written composition to determine the relationship of selected v a r i a b l e s t o p o o r w r i t i n g i n g r a d e s 9 and 12 (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Tennesee, 1968). Dissertation A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 29, 2140A. B a r n e s , J.A. (1984). An a n a l y s i s and c o m p a r i s o n o f r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g l e v e l s o f t h i r d , f i f t h , and s e v e n t h g r a d e s t u d e n t s as m e a s u r e d by r e a d a b i l i t y f o r m u l a e D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Oregon, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 45, 78A. Bazerman, C. writing: 656-661.  (1980). A relationship The c o n v e r s a t i o n a l m o d e l .  between College  reading English,  and 41.  B e l a n g e r , J . F . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . R e a d i n g s k i l l as an i n f l u e n c e on w r i t i n g skill. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , Edmonton. B e l a n g e r , J . , & M a r t i n , R.G. (1984). The i n f l u e n c e o f i m p r o v e d r e a d i n g s k i l l on w r i t i n g s k i l l . The A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of Educational Research 30. 194-212. f  B e l a n g e r , J . , & M a r t i n , R.G. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . The i n f l u e n c e o f a r e a d i n g t r e a t m e n t on t h e w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n s o f g r a d e 11 s t u d e n t s : A research update. The Alberta Journal of Educational R e s e a r c h , 35, 36-48.  126 Bereiter, C, & S c a r d a m a l i a , M. (1983). Levels of i n q u i r y i n writing research. I n P. M o s e n t h a l , L. Tamor, and S.A. Walmsley (eds.), R e s e a r c h on w r i t i n g : Principles and methods. New Y o r k : Longman I n c . Bippus, A.C. (1978). The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the quality of students' written language, p r o d u c t i v i t y of w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n i n g r a d e s f o u r and six (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of V i r g i n i a , 1977). Dissertation A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 38, 3993A. B i r n b a u m , J . C . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . A s t u d y o f r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s of selected fourth grade and seventh grade students (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 1981). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 42., 153A. B r a d d o c k , R., L l o y d - J o n e s , R.,& S h o e r , L. ( 1 9 6 3 ) . Research i n written composition. Champaign, Illinois: National c o u n c i l of teachers of E n g l i s h . B r a n s f o r d , J.D., & J o h n s o n , M.K. (1973). Consideration o f some problems of comprehension. I n W. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing. New York: Academic P r e s s . Bravick, J. (1986). The development, implementation, and evaluation of an instructional model to increase comprehension through w r i t t e n s t r u c t u r a l - r e s p o n s e to text. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 281 178) Bridwell, L.S. (1980). Revising processes i n twelfth grade students* t r a n s a c t i o n a l w r i t i n g . Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 40, 5765-A. B r o o k s , C., York:  & W a r r e n , R.P. (1959). Understanding A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , Inc.  fiction.  New  B u s h n e r , D.E. (1980). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e reading c o m p r e h e n s i o n a b i l i t y o f s e v e n t h and e i g h t h g r a d e s u b j e c t s and the s y n t a c t i c complexity of t h e i r w r i t t e n language (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University School of E d u c a t i o n , 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 4878A. C a l f e e , R. , & C u r l e y , R. (1983). Structures of prose i n the content area. In J . Flood (Ed.), Understanding r e a d i n g comprehension: Cognition, l a n g u a g e s and structures of p r o s e , Newark, DE: International reading association. Calhoun, J.L. (1971). The e f f e c t of a n a l y s i s of essays i n c o l l e g e c o m p o s i t i o n c l a s s e s on r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g s k i l l s (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1971). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 32, 1971A.  127 C a l l a g h a n , T.F. (1978). The e f f e c t s o f s e n t e n c e combining exercises on t h e s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , q u a l i t y o f w r i t i n g , reading ability, and a t t i t u d e s o f n i n t h grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, State University o f New Y o r k a t B u f f a l o , 1 9 7 7 ) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 39., 637A. C a m p b e l l , D.B. (1976). A study o f two methods o f t e a c h i n g English i n a community college setting (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnical I n s t i t u t e and S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International. 37, 4808A. Cline, J . , Williams, K. l i t e r a t u r e , language and Company.  & Donlan, D. (1974). Voices i n and c o m p o s i t i o n ( 3 ) . Canada: Ginn  Collins, CD. (1980). The e f f e c t o f w r i t i n g e x p e r i e n c e s i n t h e e x p r e s s i v e mode u p o n t h e r e a d i n g s e l f - e s t e e m , attitudes, and a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t o f f r e s h m e n i n a c o l l e g e reading c o u r s e ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , T h e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f New Jersey (New B r u n s w i c k ) , 1979). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 40, 3804A-3805A. C o u t u r e , B.A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Reading t o write: An e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h e uses of a n a l y t i c reading t o teach composition (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 41, 4021A. Crowhurst, M. (1983). Sentence combining: Maintaining realistic expectations. College Composition and C o m m u n i c a t i o n , 3_4, 6 2 - 7 2 . C r o w h u r s t , M. (1987). The e f f e c t o f r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n and writing i n s t r u c t i o n on r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g persuasion. ( E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e N o . ED 2 8 1 1 4 8 ) D a h l , K.L. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Reading and w r i t i n g as t r a n s a c t i n g p r o c e s s e s (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1984) . Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 46, 111A. D'Angelo, J.L. (1977). Predicting reading achievement i n a senior high school from intelligence, listening, and informative w r i t i n g (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Pittsburgh, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 2027A.  128 D e c k e r , N.C. (1989). The e f f e c t s o f w r i t i n g i n t h e expressive mode u p o n t h e r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t o f r e m e d i a l r e a d e r s i n the secondary school (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of W y o m i n g , 1988) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 49., 1746A. De  La  R o s a , M.C. (1979). The e f f e c t s on r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t o f s t u d e n t s engaged i n c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g and s t u d e n t s e n g a g e d i n s u s t a i n e d s i l e n t r e a d i n g and c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 40, 663A-664A.  D e V r i e s , T. (1970). Reading, w r i t i n g frequency, writing. R e a d i n g I m p r o v e m e n t , 7, 14-15.  and  expository  Donelson, K.L. (1967). Variables distinguishing effective and ineffective writers at the tenth J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l E d u c a t i o n , 35, 37-41. D u f f y , C., & P e t t i t , H. ( 1 9 5 2 ) . A dictionary U n i v e r s i t y of Denver Press. E c k h o f f , B. (1983). How reading L a n g u a g e A r t s . 60, 607-616.  affects  of  between grade.  literary  children's  terms.  writing.  E l l e y , W.B., Barham, I.H., L a m b , H., & W y l i e , M. (1976). The r o l e o f grammar i n a s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l E n g l i s h curriculum. R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 10, 5-21. Emig, J . (1971). The c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s o f t w e l f t h ( R e s e a r c h R e p o r t No. 13). U r b a n a , 111.: National Teachers of English.  graders Council  fo  E u r i c h , A.C. (1931). The r e a d i n g a b i l i t i e s o f c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s : An experimental study. College program Series, Minneapolis, Minnesota: U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota Press. E v a n s , R. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The e f f e c t s o f s e n t e n c e c o m b i n i n g i n s t r u c t i o n on controlled and free writing and on scores for standardized tests of sentence structure and reading comprehension. (ERIC D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 269 739) Felland, N. (1981). A national survey of the level of composition achievement (superior/average) of twelfth grade composition students and selected personal characteristics/environmental factors (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41, 3037A.  129 Frye,  N., B a k e r , S., & P e r k i n s , G. (1985). Harper handbook to literature: With a chronology of l i t e r a t u r e and world e v e n t s b y B a r b a r a M. P e r k i n s . New York: H a r p e r and Row.  Glazer, J.I. (1973) . The e f f e c t of l i t e r a t u r e study ability of 4th and 5th grade p u p i l s to create stories. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. 538) Glatthorn, A.A., dynamics of Company.  Kreidler, language  C.W., (1) .  & Heiman, Toronto:  E.J. D.C.  on the written ED 095  (1971). Heath  The and  G l o v e r , J . , P l a k e , B., R o b e r t s , B., Zimmer, J . , & P a l m e r e , M. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The e f f e c t s o f p a r a p h r a s i n g and d r a w i n g inferences on memory f r o m p r o s e . Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 73, 736-744. Goodman, K. , & Goodman, Y. relationships: Pragmatic 590-599.  (1983). functions.  Reading and writing Language A r t s . 60,  H a m i l l , C. & M c N u t t , G. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Language a b i l i t i e s and reading: A review of the literature of their relationship. E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l , 80, 269-277. Hart,  E.J. (1980) . The e f f e c t of a knowledge of selected r e a d i n g s k i l l s on t h e a c q u i s i t i o n and r e t e n t i o n of these skills in written composition (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41. 1510A.  H a r t m a n , D.M. (1984). An i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the predictive r e l a t i o n s h i p of ten w r i t i n g assessment v a r i a b l e s to reading comprehension (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , The University of C o n n e c t i c u t , 1984) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s International, 45, 1353A. H a y e s , J.R., & Flower, L.S.J. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S.A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research i n w r i t i n g : P r i n c i p l e s and methods. New York: Longman I n c . Heller, M.F. (1980). The reading-writing connection: An a n a l y s i s of the w r i t t e n language of u n i v e r s i t y freshmen at two i r e a d i n g l e v e l s ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , O k l a h o m a S t a t e University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International. 40, 4452A.  130  Hennings, D.G. (1982). A writing approach comprehension—schema theory i n action. In (Ed.), C o m p o s i n g and comprehending, Urbana, c l e a r i n g h o u s e on r e a d i n g and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on Research i n English,  to reading J.M. Jensen 111: ERIC l l s , and The 1984.  Heys,  F. (1962). experiment.  report  Hill,  S.S. (1982). Relationships between performance: A c o r r e l a t i o n a l study of s u b s c o r e s and n a t i o n a l a s s e s s m e n t w r i t dissertation, The University of Dissertation Abstracts International,  The theme-a-week a s s u m t i o n : A E n g l i s h J o u r n a l . 51, 320-322.  Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Urbana, II: ERIC communication skills, Research i n English.  of  an  r e a d i n g and writing metropolitan reading ing scores (Doctoral Florida, 1982). 43, 1862A-1863A.  R e s e a r c h on w r i t t e n composition. Clearinghouse on reading and and the National Conference on  H i n t o n , P.R. (1982). Basic s k i l l s : Reading performance t e s t scores and the impact of a writing program (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1982) . Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 43., 7 5 O A . Holt,  S.L., & Vacca, writer: Writing 58, 937-941.  J.L. with  a  (1981). Reading with a sense of sense of reader. Language A r t s ,  H o w i e , S.M. (1979). The e f f e c t s o f s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g p r a c t i c e on t h e w r i t i n g a b i l i t y and reading l e v e l of n i n t h grade students Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado at Boulder, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 1980A. H y n d m a n , R. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . Some f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o w r i t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e of tenth-grade students (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of California at Los Angeles, 1969) . Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 30, 1468A. J a c k s o n , D. (1982). Continuity M e t h u e n & Co. Ltd.  in  Secondary  English.  London:  Johnson, N.R. (1981) . A comparison of syntactic writing maturity with reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1980). D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41, 4346A. Johnson, N.S., structures: P o e t i c s , 9,  &  Mandler, J.M. Underlying and 87-89.  (1980). surface  A tale forms in  of two stories.  131  Kelley, K.R. (1984). The e f f e c t of w r i t i n g instruction on r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n and s t o r y w r i t i n g a b i l i t y (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 45, 1703A. K e r m o d e , F. theory  (1967) . The sense of of f i c t i o n . New York:  an e n d i n g : Studies in the Oxford University Press.  Kuntz, M.H. (1975). The relationship between syntactic a t t a i n m e n t and r e a d i n g a b i l i t y i n s e v e n t h g r a d e (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 36, 2159A. Lacampagne, R.J. (1968). A national and approaches to w r i t i n g of superior writing performance w r i t i n g performance (Doctoral I l l i n o i s , 1968). D i s s e r t a t i o n 212A.  study of selected attitudes twelfth-grade students with versus those with average dissertation, University of Abstracts International, 30,  Lawrence, E. (1973). Action English Educational Publishing, Ltd.  2.  Toronto:  Gage  L a z d o w s k e , W.P. (1976). Determining reading grade l e v e l s from a n a l y s i s of w r i t t e n compositions (Doctoral dissertation, New M e x i c o s t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 6 ) . Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 37, 1504A. Lechelt, D. , B r o w n , H. , B r e n n a n , P., & Fleming, J. (1980). T e l l i n g t h e w o r l d (1) . T o r o n t o : Oxford University Press. Lechelt, D. , B r o w n , H. , B r e n n a n , P. , & F l e m i n g , J . (1980) . T e l l i n g t h e w o r l d (2). Toronto: Oxford University Press. Lechelt, D. , C l a r k , (3). Toronto:  D. , & M e d d , G. (1980). Telling Oxford University Press.  the  world  L e d f o r d , S.Y. (1984). The r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s e l e c t e d sixthgrade students' reading schemata, reading achievement, and w r i t i n g s o p h i s t i c a t i o n (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , East Texas State University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 45, 797A. Lee,  C. (1986) . The effects of instruction in the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s o f w r i t i n g on c o m p r e h e n s i o n . (ERIC D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 2 69 744)  L e o n e , A.H. writing reading  (1980). A study of the interrelationships of a b i l i t y , writing interest, reading readiness and performance of a given kindergarten population  132 (Doctoral dissertation, The University of 1979) Dissertation Abstracts International,  Connecticut, 41, 525A.  L e v i n e , S.S. (1977). The e f f e c t s o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l sentencecombining exercises on the reading comprehension and written comprehension of third-grade children (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 37, 6431A. L o b a n , W.D. (1963). The l a n g u a g e o f e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l ( N C T E R e s e a r c h R e p o r t No 1 ) . Urbana, I l l i n o i s : Council of Teachers of English. L o b a n , W.D. nine.  children National  (1966). Language a b i l i t y : Grades seven, eight, W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e .  L o b a n , W.E. (1967). Language a b i l i t y : Grades ten, twelve. W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. Government P r i n t i n g  eleven, Office.  and  and  L o u q u e , M.P. (1984). E f f e c t s of newspaper r e a d i n g , f r e e w r i t i n g , and g u i d e d w r i t i n g on o v e r a l l w r i t i n g q u a l i t y o f seventh grade students (Doctoral dissertation, University of H o u s t o n , 1983) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 44., 2698A. L o w e , W.G. (1986). R e a d i n g / w r i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s as r e v e a l e d i n the composing processes of beginning college freshmen (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , the U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 46, 3333A. Maat,  D.W. (1978. An inquiry into empirical relationship b e t w e e n t h e r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g o f e x p o s i t i o n and argument (Doctoral dissertation, State University o f New York at A l b a n y , 1977) . Dissertation Abstracts International, 38., 4631A.  Mackie, B.C. (1982). The effects of a sentence-combining program on the reading comprehension and written composition of fourth-grade students (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 42, 4779A. Maloney, H.B. (1967). An identification of excellence in expository composition performance in a selected 9a population with an analysis of reasons for superior performance (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Columbia University, 1967) . Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 29., 2 4 3 2 A . M a n d l e r , J.M. & J o h n s o n , N.S. (1977). parsed: S t o r y s t r u c t u r e and r e c a l l . 9, 111-151.  Remembrance of things Cognitive psychology,  133  Marshall, J.D. (1987). The effects understanding of l i t e r a r y t e x t s . o f E n g l i s h . 21, 30-63.  o f w r i t i n g on students' Research i n the Teaching  M a t h e w s , E.G., L a r s e n , R.P., & B u t l e r , G. (1945). Experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n r e a d i n g t r a i n i n g and achievement i n college composition classes. Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 38, 499-505. M a v r o g e n e s , N.A. , & P a k a k , N.D. (1982). The reading road to writing. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 75, 334-339. M c A f e e , D.C. (1981). E f f e c t of sentence-combining i n s t r u c t i o n on the r e a d i n g and writing achievement of fifth grade children in a suburban school district (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 42, 156A. M c C a r t h y , I.D. (1989). The e f f e c t o f t e c h n o l o g y on t h e t e a c h i n g of writing in the middle school and i t s impact on achievement in reading and language arts (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 49. 1775A. M c C o n n e l l , M.A. (1983). The e f f e c t o f l i t e r a t u r e e x p o s u r e and writing practice on the original narrative writing of second-grade c h i l d r e n (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio state U n i v e r s i t y , 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International. 41, 2619A. Menendez, S.D. (1979). The effect of sentence-combining p r a c t i c e on r e m e d i a l c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ' s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , punctuation skills and reading ability (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 38, 6599A. Metcalf, J . (1980). Limited.  New  worlds.  Toronto:  Meyer, B.J.F. (1975). The o r g a n i z a t i o n on memory. The Hague: Mouton.  of  McGraw-Hill p r o s e and  i t s  Ryerson effect  Michener, D.M. (1985). A quasi-experimental study of the effects of reading aloud to third-grade students as reflected in their written composition s k i l l s (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 46., 1 5 4 5 A .  134 Miller, T.J.A. (1974). A q u a l i t a t i v e study of the "free m o d i f i e r s " i n n a r r a t i v e - d e s c r i p t i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by Black c o l l e g e freshmen a f t e r l e a v i n g the i n f l u e n c e of the C h r i s t e n s e n P r o g r a m and a s t u d y o f t h e i r a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d written composition (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International. 3_3, 3 4 8 3 A . Misenheimer, J.F. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . The e f f e c t o f t h e IBM w r i t i n g t o r e a d p r o g r a m on r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g a c h i e v e m e n t t e s t s c o r e s o f primary students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1988). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 49, 1722A. Moffett, J. Boston:  (1968). Houghton  Moffett, J. (1983) . L a n g u a g e A r t s . 60, Monk,  Teaching Mifflin. Reading 315-332.  the  universe  and  writing  of  as  discourse.  meditation.  F.J. (1958). A study to determine the relationship between children's home e n v i r o n m e n t s and their school achievement in written English. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington.  Nagle, J . (1972). The e f f e c t s o f a d i r e c t e d w r i t i n g a c t i v i t y i n e i g h t h - g r a d e s o c i a l s t u d i e s i n s t r u c t i o n on g e n e r a l r e a d i n g achievement and on social studies reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1972) . Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 33, 1523A. Nielsen, B.F. (1980). narrative writing U n i v e r s i t y , 1980). 41, 99A.  Effects of reading (Doctoral dissertation, Dissertation Abstracts  on children's Brigham Young International,  Obenchain, A. (1971). Effectiveness of the precise essay question in programming the sequential development of w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n s k i l l s and t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s d e v e l o p m e n t of c r i t i c a l reading s k i l l s . Unpublished Master's thesis, George Washington U n i v e r s i t y . (In Belanger, J.F. (1978). Reading skill as an influence on writing skill. Unpublished doctoral dissertation). O'Donnell, J.F. (1974). An e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y o f t h e e f f e c t s o f the supplemental use of a psycholinguistic remedial t u t o r i a l p r o g r a m on t h e r e a d i n g - w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s of B l a c k h i g h - r i s k c o l l e g e f r e s h m e n , and on t h e i r a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d reading, writing and other college-related stimuli (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1974). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 35, 1552A.  135 O e h l k e r s , W. (1971). The c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g t o reading achievement i n the language experience approach (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 32, 6689A. Perl,  S. (1979). The composing processes of u n s k i l l e d college writers. R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 13., 3 1 7 - 3 3 6 .  P e r r i n e , L. Press.  (1966).  Story  and  structure.  Toronto:  Academic  P e r r o n , J.D. (1976). The i m p a c t o f mode on w r i t t e n syntactic complexity: Part 3 f i f t h grade report. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 126 5 1 1 a n d 126 531) P e r r y , M.L. (1980). A study of the e f f e c t s of a l i t e r a r y models a p p r o a c h t o c o m p o s i t i o n on w r i t i n g and r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University School of Education, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International 40, 6137A. f  P e t r o s k y , A.R. writing.  (1982). From s t o r y C o l l e g e C o m p o s i t i o n and  to essay: Reading and C o m m u n i c a t i o n . 33. 1 9 - 3 6 .  Phelps, S.F. (1979). The e f f e c t s of integrating sentencec o m b i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s and g u i d e d r e a d i n g p r o c e d u r e s on the r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e o f e i g h t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 40, 179A. Pitts, S.J.K. (1985). Spelling as a correlate of reading a b i l i t y i n under-prepared c o l l e g e freshmen: Measures and e r r o r t y p e s ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y o f New Mexico, 1984). D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts International. 45, 2358A. Plattor, E.E. (1973). Action Educational Publishing Ltd.  English  1.  Toronto:  Gage  R a p h a e l , T. (1986). The impact of t e x t s t r u c t u r e instruction and social context on students' comprehension and production of expository t e x t . (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 275 990) R e a g a n , S.B. (1985). Double exposure: combined reading-writing instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1984) . Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 45, 2863A. Reed,  E. (1967). Improving comprehension through study of s y n t a x and paragraph structure i n seventh-grade classes. F o r g i n g a h e a d i n r e a d i n g , 12, 575-579.  136  Roe,  M. (1973). Publishing,  Action Ltd.  R o s e n b l a t t , L.M. (1938). N o b l e and Noble. R o s e n b l a t t , L.M. New York:  (1976). N o b l e and  English  3.  Literature  Toronto:  as  L i t e r a t u r e as Noble.  Gage  exploration.  exploration,  Educational  New  York:  (3rd  ed.).  R o s e n b l a t t , L.M. (1982). The l i t e r a r y t r a n s a c t i o n : Evocation and r e s p o n s e . T h e o r y i n t o P r a c t i c e . 21, 268-277. Rosenblatt, L.M. (1985). Viewpoints: Transaction versus i n t e r a c t i o n — A terminological rescue operation. Research i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h . 19, 96-107. R u m e l h a r t , D.E. (1975) . Notes Bobrow & A. Collins understanding. New York:  on  schema (Eds.), Academic  for stories. In Representation Press.  R u m e l h a r t , D.E. (1977). Schemata: The building cognition. I n R.C. A n d e r s o n , R . J . S p i r o & W.E. (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of H i l l s i d e , New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.  D.G. and  blocks of Montangue knowledge.  R u m e l h a r t , D.E., & N o r m a n , D.A. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: T h r e e modes o f l e a r n i n g . I n J.W. Cotton & R.L. Klatsky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ryan,  S.N. (1984). An examination of reading and writing strategies of selected fifth-grade children (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University-College of Education, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44/ 2105A.  Schneider, V. (1971). A study of the effectiveness of emphasizing the teaching of reading skills to improve composition s k i l l s i n remedial E n g l i s h c l a s s e s at Kansas Community C o l l e g e (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 6369A. S c h e w e , A., & F r o e s e , V. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . comprehension, quality and R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED  Relating reading & writing via structure. (ERIC Document 281 141)  S c o t t , K.F. (1985). Children's revision a b i l i t i e s : R e a d i n g and r e w r i t i n g as component p r o c e s s e s ( D o c t o r a l dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, 1985) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 46, 1237A.  137 S h a n a h a n , T.E. (1980). A canonical correlational analysis of the reading-writing relationship: An exploratory investigation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, 1980). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41, 1007A. S i m o n , P.E. (1980). An e x p l o r a t o r y s t u d y o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between reading r e s p o n s e and syntactic writing maturity ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1980) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 41, 2533A. S m i t h , F. (1983). 558-567.  Reading  Like  a  Writer.  Language  Arts,  60,  S q u i r e , J.R. (1983). Composing and c o m p r e h e n d i n g : Two s i d e s o f t h e same b a s i c p r o c e s s . I n J.M. Jensen (Ed.), Composing and comprehending (pp. 23-31). Urbana, ILL: ERIC Clearinghouse on R e a d i n g and C o m m u n i c a t i o n S k i l l s . Stein, N.L., & Glenn, C.G. (1979). An a n a l y s i s of story comprehension i n elementary school children. In R.O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing. Volume 2 i n the s e r i e s , Advances i n discourse processes. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. S t e i n , N.L., & P o l i c a s t r o , M. (1984). The c o n c e p t o f s t o r y : A c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n c h i l d r e n ' s and t e a c h e r s ' v i e w p o i n t s . In M a n d l , H., S t e i n , N . L . , & T r a b a s s o , T. ( E d s . ) , L e a r n i n g and comprehension of text (pp. 113-55). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , P u b l i s h e r s . S t e i n , N.L., & T r a b a s s o , T. (1982). What's i n a s t o r y : An a p p r o a c h t o c o m p r e h e n s i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n . I n R. Glaser ( E d . ) , A d v a n c e s i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g y (pp 213-67). H i l l s d a l e , . New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Sternglass, M.S. (1976). Composition teacher as teacher. C o l l e g e C o m p o s i t i o n and C o m m u n i c a t i o n . 382 .  reading 27, 378-  Stevenson, Z. (1988). Achievement i n the writing program: A comparative evaluation study. (ERIC R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 2 9 3 147)  to read Document  S t o t s k y , S. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . R e s e a r c h on r e a d i n g / w r i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s : A s y n t h e s i s and s u g g e s t e d d i r e c t i o n s . L a n g u a g e A r t s , 60., 627-642.  138  Sullivan, M.A. (1978). The e f f e c t s of sentence-combining exercises on syntactic maturity, quality of writing, reading a b i l i t y , and a t t i t u d e s o f students i n grade eleven (Doctoral dissertation, State University o f New Y o r k a t B u f f a l o , 1977). D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 39, 1197A. Taylor, B., & B e a c h , R. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . The e f f e c t s o f t e x t structure i n s t r u c t i o n on m i d d l e - g r a d e s t u d e n t s ' comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 132-146. Taylor, H.W. (1981). Listening comprehension and reading comprehension as p r e d i c t o r s of achievement i n college comprehension (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 66A-67A. Taylor, B. , & B e r k o w i t z , S. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Facilitating children's c o m p r e h e n s i o n on c o n t e n t m a t e r i a l . I n M. K a m i l & E . M o e (Eds.), P e r s p e c t i v e s on r e a d i n g r e s e a r c h and i n s t r u c t i o n . Twenty-ninth yearbook of t h e national reading conference. W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: National Reading Conference, I n c . Thomas, F.L. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The e x t e n t r e a d i n g achievement and w r i t i freshmen (Doctoral disserta C a r o l i n a , 1976). D i s s e r t a t i o n 6320A-6321A.  o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between n g a c h i e v e m e n t among c o l l e g e tion, University of South A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 37,  T i e r n e y , R . J . , & P e a r s o n , P.D. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Toward a composing of reading. Language A r t s , 60, 568-580.  model  Trivelli, E.A. (1983). A study of the effects of sentence combining on e i g h t h - g r a d e students' written syntactic a b i l i t y and reading comprehension (Doctoral dissertation, the U n i v e r s i t y o f Akron, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 44, 383A. V y g o t s k y , L.S. (1962). MIT P r e s s .  Thought  and Language.  Cambridge,  MA:  W a d e , W.A. (1982). Relationships o f e l i c i t e d o r a l and w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e w i t h r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n s c o r e s among nine-totwelve-year-old children (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Northern Illinois University, 1981) . Dissertation Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 4 2 , 3434A.  139 W a l k e r L e w i s , H.D. (1981). Using w r i t i n g t o improve the r e a d i n g comprehension abilities of academically underprepared college students (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra U n i v e r s i t y , 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2053A. Weathermon, C.J. (1984). Unpublished masters' Columbia, Vancouver.  The home thesis,  backgrounds University  W h i t m e r , J . E . , & M i l l e r , M. (1987). The e reading a b i l i t i e s : A comparison of programs w i t h and without computer Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED W i t t r o c k , M.C. (1983). L a n g u a g e A r t s . 60,  Writing 600-606.  and  the  of of  writers. British  f f e c t s o f w r i t i n g on f i r s t grade writing technology. (ERIC 289 157)  teaching  of  reading.  W o l f e , R.F. (1975). An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t s o f t e a c h i n g a r e a d i n g v o c a b u l a r y upon w r i t i n g v o c a b u l a r y i n s t u d e n t compositions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 3337A-3338A. Woodward J . C , & P h i l l i p s , A.G. (1967). selected characteristics to poor Research i n the Teaching of English.  The r e l a t i o n s h i p of writing in college. 1, 4 1 - 5 3 .  W y a t t , N. (1960). A study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of extensive reading t o c e r t a i n w r i t i n g s k i l l s of a s e l e c t e d group of sixth-grade c h i l d r e n (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Kansas, 1960). Dissertation Abstracts International, 21, 2643A. Y a s u f , D.R. (1982). Reading performance t e s t s c o r e s and the impact o f a w r i t i n g program ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Temple U n i v e r s i t y , 1982) . Dissertation Abstracts International. 43, 745A. Zeman, S.S. (1969). Reading comprehension 2nd and 3 r d g r a d e r s . Reading Teacher,  and 23.  the w r i t i n g 144-150.  of  140  APPENDIX A "The  Great  Leapfrog  Contest"  141 THE  GREAT LEAPFROG By  Segment  avoided  had  take  If an  fight  style  and  to  of  was  be  that stay  Segment  Two  was  was  cry  by  of  Rosie,  much  so  the  the  that  make she  even  from  equal  superior  was  going  after  the  to  i t was  E a c h s e g m e n t was t o s u b j e c t s one a t  while  Two  a  She  was  very  boy  who  in  the  to. boy  many  understand  at  regular  any  any  of  of  them.  years.  that  she  It had  stay.  south  months a f t e r  u n d e r s t o o d by  t y p e d on a time.  not  of  arrival  somewhere i n t h e  leader.  a  It  neighbourhood three  everybody  was  fought the  on  idea.  favour.  opening. after  crazy fight  i t  point  always  or  every  She  found  was  daring  fought  possible  made i t a  She  away, d e c i d e d  l i v e d i n the to  too;  she  every  naturally  long  any  as  but  she  did.  up  far  boys,  say,  i f hurt.  chase her  she  a natural-born  neighbourhood,  given  to  and  and  did, who  boys  take  as  for  i s to  the to  and  a s l i g h t edge i n R o s i e ' s  or  hurt  just  after  come t o  Folger,  use  That  advantage  trying  Especially  She  first  girl-style  neighbourhood,  her  them.  everything  took  humiliating  took  less  h o n e s t draw, w i t h  She  girls,  d i d n ' t w h i p e v e r y boy  didn't  thought  avoid in  for  had  always the  she  use  She  to  part  and  least  little  them.  undesirable  hand,  Saroyan  One  Rosie  to  William  CONTEST  of  a  of  Texas.  his  everyone t h a t  separate  sheet  boy  named  Rex  This  boy  arrival i f Rex  of  in  the  wasn't  paper  and  142 the  leader  fought or  o f t h e g a n g , he was v e r y  and l i c k e d  another  had  every  himself  leader.  without  any n o t i c e a b l e i l l - f e e l i n g ,  Segment  Three  that  for  leaped get  boys  over  on  down  again  This  didn't  travelled  as cared  by every  up and b e g i n  the other  side  walked  Segment  Four  Rosie,  of  of three  along,  watching  course,  one o f t h e l a s t  was  players until or  always  t o drop  boys,  miles  i n on  out, too.  The i d e a was  But  inasmuch  that  a s he seemed  t o b e a member  and be  himself to bend  exhausted.  two p l a y e r s while  the  had  other  bets.  t h e game.  She  was  A n d s h e was t h e o n l y and  t h a t was much t o o h u m i l i a t i n g e v e n t o t h i n k  i n some way o r a n o t h e r  Segment  down  and then  p e r s o n i n t h e neighbourhood Rex F o l g e r hadn't fought He f e l t  so  of the tracks, i n  h a d become  and making  done  t o p l a y i n g a game  the last  four  time  ambition.  t o bend  a l l the other  sometimes,  distance  He h a d  had  b o y i n t h e game, a n d t h e n  a l l the other  happen,  a  other  he  Leapfrog.  to participate,  leaping over  until  players  always  pride or  slum neighbourhood o f t h e town:  a s many  And  t h e whole neighbourhood took  h a d become p o p u l a r  another  the leader.  b o y i n t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d who a t o n e  fancied  One w i n t e r ,  nearly  o f t h e gang,  he ought t o prove  beaten. about. he  felt  h i s superiority.  Five  One summer d a y d u r i n g v a c a t i o n , a n a r g u m e n t b e t w e e n R e x a n d Rosie  developed  challenged  and Rosie  him t o a  p u l l e d o f fh e r t u r t l e - n e c k s w e a t e r and  fight.  Rex  told  Rosie  he  wasn't  i n the  143 habit  of  boxing to  hitting  your  mother.  compete  oblige  with  to  and R o s i e  south  especially  one  another,  towards Fowler.  and  He  before  said  deeply  more  he  quickly,  I t was  he  was  i f Rosie  i t was  leaped  and  squatted,  g i v e up  That  Rosie  on t h e hot  them was  Segment  or  sweating  to  had  was Rex  was  we  first  S t a t e Highway  was  talked  Rosie  tougher a  good  like  than deal,  and  half-way were  a girl.  to  ever  I t grieved  to the p o i n t of  t o , so she had  squatted  and  we  Fowler.  going  to  down  Rex.  exert herself He h a d  and  got  to. out  to  I t didn't get  They  tired.  Sam seem They  although  each  contest.  But  a great deal.  were  b e c a u s e we  to figure  sure  hadn't  a simple person,  knew how  They  Seven  Naturally,  was  glad  the  day.  l i k e one  t o a guy  j u s t t o o bad. leaped  until  h a d n ' t e v e n b e g u n t o show s i g n s o f g r o w i n g t i r e d ,  that  be  to  cared  t h a t she w o u l d h a v e t o f a l l  t o h a v e t o make a g i r l  Day's v i n e y a r d .  out  s o r r y h i s o p p o n e n t was  but  either  They  insisted  she'd  death,  of  amounted  would  too,  a very  i t looked  stubborn.  R o s i e , who  unconscious  like  said,  sport,  knew t h e w h o l e g a n g o f u s was  other  him  other  that  f o u g h t i t o u t i n t h i s game L e a p f r o g .  w e r e i n g r e a t s h a p e , and  the  from  t h e o t h e r hand, he  i n any  l e a p i n g over  t h i n g we  Rex  him  came  Six  So Rex  going  On  he  her.  Segment  got  women—where  Rex  taken  would into  w h e r e a s R o s i e was  angles.  She  had  win  account  the the  c r a f t y and  fact  that  shrewd.  d i s c o v e r e d how  t o jump  he  Rosie over  144 Rex  F o l g e r i n a way t h a t weakened h i m .  three miles on  Rex's  o u t o f F o w l e r , we n o t i c e d  neck,  hurting  him  herself  squatted  for  that  the blood  rush  i n s u c h a way t h a t  Naturally  down  this  was  t o h i s head.  Rosie  i t was i m p o s s i b l e ,  almost,  near h e r neck w i t h h i s hands.  Eight  Before  long,  was g e t t i n g  we n o t i c e d  that  Rex was w e a k e n i n g .  c l o s e r and c l o s e r t o t h e ground.  o f F o w l e r , we h e a r d R e x ' s h e a d bumping  Rosie  about  s h e was c o m i n g  o f on h i s b a c k .  and making  Rex t o g e t anywhere  Segment  out  instead  And a f t e r a w h i l e ,  leaped  were p a i n f u l ,  o v e r him.  T h e y were g o o d  b u t Rex w a s n ' t  H i s head  About h a l f  a mile  t h e ground every time  l o u d bumps t h a t  complaining.  we  knew  He was t o o p r o u d t o  complain. Rosie him  a l l she had.  solidly fight sun,  on t h e o t h e r hand, She was  knew h e r man,  bumping  i n the  next  exhausted h e r s e l f  t e n minutes  up v e r y d a z e d a n d v e r y a n g r y .  i f he wasn't  squatted moment.  as  l a y him o u t c o l d , or  so,  she  i n the hot  would  fall  down  Nine  ever seen him fuming. him,  on t h e g r o u n d  and l o s e t h e c o n t e s t .  S u d d e n l y R o s i e bumped Rex's got  h i s head  giving  a s s h e c o u l d , b e c a u s e s h e knew s h e d i d n ' t h a v e much more  i n h e r , and i f she d i d n ' t  Segment  a n d s h e was  i n front  head  a real  I t was t h e f i r s t  By God, t h e g i r l  He  came  one.  He  t i m e we h a d  was t a k i n g a d v a n t a g e o f  m i s t a k e n and he d i d n ' t o f him.  powerful  up  like groggy  Then he gave R o s i e a v e r y e f f e c t i v e  it. and  kick that  Rosie  was  paused  a  sent her  145 sprawling.  Rosie  g a n g jumped  i n and  tried  agreed  t h a t t h e L e a p f r o g c o n t e s t must n o t  I t was a  fight.  Not  jumped up  any  and  to establish  more.  Not  m i n u t e s away.  The  gang r u l e d  to  and  that  k i c k Rosie  squared Segment  the matter,  on  i n smacking  and  the  and  very t i r e d  t h a t Rex  how  was  he  bad  could  Nobody b u t  of.humiliating Segment  to  five  had  i n the  had  or no  ten  right  mouth R o s i e  had  continue.  so had  feel  of us.  Rosie  s o was  a g a i n we  saw  Rex. Rosie  bumping t h e  f o r t h e boy  from  They  began  c o m i n g down  ground.  Texas.  We  couldn't  much p u n i s h m e n t .  We  a l l felt  c o m i n g t o him,  badly  but  about R o s i e ,  Of c o u r s e , t h a t was  c o u l d have  a very powerful  than a hundred yards  g r e a t and That paved  admirable  and  figured  superior  was  where t h e  main  street  to  brittleness.  serve,  but  from  artistry, dirt  of  w i t h cement, n o t a s p h a l t . soft  only  change t o  out  at the  a girl,  same doing  w h e r e we  were  t h a t smart  way  boy.  Eleven  Less with  him  s o r e ; and  take  seemed t o  t h e j o b i n s t e a d o f one  too  and  g e t t i n g what he  everybody  wrong.  Fowler  c o n t e s t was  s q u a t t i n g a g a i n ; and  looked pretty  understand  time  The  order.  f u r t h e r t h a t Rex  R e x ' s n e c k s o t h a t h i s h e a d was It  the  with  i n t h e mouth.  Ten  R o s i e was leaping  smacked Rex  of  Fowler  the  highway  began.  Asphalt,  when he  finished  the  cement h a d  I t h i n k Rex  the h e a r t of Fowler, job.  siding  This  Rosie,  street  ended, was  and  paved  i n t h e heat, would have been e x a c t l y the  right  degree  squatted over the hard  of  cement,  146 k n e w t h e game w a s u p .  B u t he was b r a v e  over  and w a i t e d  the hard  He s q u a t t e d  f o r the worst.  Behind  him,  R o s i e M a h o n e y p r e p a r e d t o make t h e s u p r e m e e f f o r t .  In this  next  leap,  cement  t o t h e end.  she intended t o give her a l l , which  Segment She  Twelve came  down  on Rex F o l g e r ' s neck  His  head banged  and  h i s arms and l e g s t w i t c h e d .  a g a i n s t t h e cement,  He w a s o u t l i k e Six  paces  a  i n front  of  J i m Talesco counted  for  leap.  The Mahoney.  like  h i s body  a ton of  bricks.  s t r a i g h t e n e dout,  light.  waited. each  she d i d .  him, Rosie twenty,  which  Mahoney  squatted  was t h e t i m e  and  allowed  Rex d i d n ' t g e t up d u r i n g t h e c o u n t .  c o n t e s t was o v e r .  The w i n n e r  o f t h e c o n t e s t was  Rosie  APPENDIX B Schedule of Questions "The  Great Leapfrog  for  Contest"  Segment One Go o n t h e n . What's y o u r  What's g o i n g t o h a p p e n n e x t ? impression  How do y o u t h i n k Segment  of Rosie?  a story like this  might  end?  Two  What do y o u t h i n k  i s g o i n g t o happen next?  What do y o u t h i n k  o f Rex?  Segment  Three  Now what do y o u t h i n k m i g h t h a p p e n ? What made y o u d e c i d e t h a t Segment  Four  Go o n .  What do y o u t h i n k  this  i s g o i n g t o happen?  How do y o u f e e l  about Rosie?  How do y o u f e e l  a b o u t Rex?  Segment  would happen next?  Why? Why?  Five  What do y o u e x p e c t m i g h t h a p p e n now? Segment S i x Now what do y o u t h i n k m i g h t h a p p e n o u t o f a l l o f t h i s ? What makes y o u t h i n k  that?  Segment S e v e n Now w h a t ? Segment  Eight  What do y o u t h i n k  i s g o i n g t o h a p p e n t o b o t h o f them i n t h e e n d  Who's g o i n g t o be t h e w i n n e r ? Segment  Nine  What do y o u t h i n k w i l l h a p p e n a t t h e e n d o f t h e s t o r y ?  Why?  Segment Ten What a r e y o u t h i n k i n g Segment  Eleven  What a r e y o u r Segment So, Is  thoughts  at this  time?  Twelve  what do y o u t h i n k this  now?  a good  ending?  of  this?  Why/why  not?  APPENDIX Conclusion  to  "The  Great  C Leapfrog  Contest"  151 Rex he  was  didn't get  until  horse  was  a deeply  imagined  we'd  couldn't the  eyes of  said I  he  Mahoney, on  was  going  He  day  i t seemed took  time.  hear  the  other  so  back.  I  he  tragic  to  He  was  also  anything  a  about  Every  now  and  he  did,  but  guess  what  him  had  to  say,  he  t h a t t e a r s came  to  gang. hand, t a l k e d a l l the  too.  of  winter She  i f he  way  home.  glasses. Rosie had  a  M o r e human.  any  rate,  i n the  activities  looked  Mahoney flair  broken  stopped  f o r weeks  His gaze would landscape,  He  and  hanging  f o r making  an  was  freeze and  going,  came t o  he he on  half  o f t h e gang, and  away a l l t o g e t h e r . He  After  have been because  d i d n ' t know w h e r e he  part i n the stayed  At  i n a dream. f a r away  Rex.  I t may  f o r some t i m e .  as  little  wearing  That gang,  to  and  where  face.  speechless.  talk,  b e t t e r man  object  f o l l o w i n g w i n t e r he one  and  to  ready  around  insignificant  why.  his  stayed  carried  couldn't understand  dazed  the  on  a l l t h e way  a g e n t l e r sort of soul.  seemed t o be  time  water  him  just  everything.  very well  the  He  members o f  c o u l d n ' t see  some  and  lifted  made a g e s t u r e  t h i n k i t made a  t h a t he  o f us  wanted  He  eleven  He  y o u n g man  looked  a l l gotten  speak.  Rosie She  just  himself at a l l .  splashed  a confused  He  we  after  w h e r e we  h u m i l i a t e d one.  anything. then  by  a half-dozen  trough, Rex  up  or the  school  pathetic. around  exit  at  with the  the  right  APPENDIX D Verbal  Homework  Instructi  153 All  subjects  following For  received  passage  was r e a d  homework, I w o u l d  which you think real  identical t o each like  verbal student:  you t o w r i t e about  i sunfair or cruel.  o r made-up.  I t may  instructions.  be based  an event  T h i s e v e n t may on something  be  that  h a s h a p p e n e d t o y o u , t o someone y o u know o r t o someone you  don't  something  know. that  make s o m e t h i n g Any  questions  I f you  i sreal,  don't  want  t h e n b y a l l means f e e l  up. about  to write  this  assignment?  about free to  The  APPENDIX Examples  of Appropriate, Proposed  E  Neutral  and  Revisions  Inappropriate  155  A. A p p r o p r i a t e Example  Suggestions  One  Investigator:  How a b o u t i n c l u d i n g s o m e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e characters. M a y b e s o m e t h i n g o n how t h e y look. I d o n ' t know w h a t Mr. D o n n e l y l o o k s l i k e , a n d I d o n ' t know w h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r Dad l o o k s l i k e .  Jacob:  I  Investigator:  No?  Jacob:  Nothing's needed. You d o n ' t n e e d t o know w h a t they look l i k e . T h e r e ' s no need f o r d e s c r i p t i o n . l i k e where they were and I could've put i t , I d i d n ' t want t o . everything, but.  Investigator:  So why d o n ' t y o u t h i n k y o u n e e d some d e s c r i p t i o n ?  Jacob:  J u s t ah there's nothing t h a t t h e s t o r y needs description for. The p e o p l e aren't making comments on what t h e y l o o k l i k e o r anything. There's j u s t nothing t h a t you need i t f o r .  Investigator:  Mm h u h . How a b o u t t h e c h a r a c t e r Mom, s h e was mentioned. Do y o u t h i n k t h a t s h e n e e d s t o b e described at all?  Jacob:  No. Minor character. nothing that you r e a l l y  Example  don't t h i n k  i treally  matters.  There's nothing, need a f t e r t h a t .  Two  Investigator:  M e l i s s a , i n t h e s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h y o u s a i d , "They were f o r c e d t o l i v e i n very rural areas and r e s t r i c t e d t o these areas." Do y o u t h i n k we c o u l d add t h e s e two s e n t e n c e s t o t h a t : "Kinta's d i r t - f l o o r e d , home c o n s i s t e d o f f o u r corrugated t i n w a l l s s h e l t e r i n g 56 s q u a r e f e e t o f s p a c e . His parents, unfortunately, went beyond t h e p e r m i t t e d boundaries, and as a r e s u l t had p a i d the consequences.  Melissa:  I ' l l agree t o that because i t , i t ' s l i k e one t h i n g I d i d n ' t l i k e a b o u t t h i s was t h a t there wasn't really any a c t u a l characters i n [my story]. And w i t h introducing Kinta i n the beginning, r i g h t , I t h i n k i t ' s a good idea t o l i k e c a r r y on t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t o r y .  Investigator:  Mm  huh.  Any o t h e r  reasons  why?  156 Melissa:  A l s o because i t s o r t o f shows, i t g i v e s an a c t u a l example o f what i s h a p p e n i n g and i t ' s more f u l l y described.  Investigator:  Is  that  Melissa:  Mm  huh.  Investigator:  Why?  Melissa:  Because, l i k e I s a i d b e f o r e , i t ' s more p e r s o n a l , n a m i n g h i m a n d t a l k i n g a b o u t how h e f e e l s , and y o u s o r t o f b e g i n t o know t h e p e r s o n and y o u f e e l f o r them.  Example  important?  Three  Investigator:  One l a s t s u g g e s t i o n t h a t I h a v e B r e n t r e l a t e s t o your ending. In your s t o r y , Mark l o s e s the f i g h t b u t i s d e c l a r e d t h e w i n n e r b e c a u s e he f o u g h t f a i r and h o n e s t . Right?  Brent:  Yeah.  Investigator:  I n t h e end you s a y , "With t h i s , J o h n , t h e l a r g e f r i e n d o f Mark, r a n o v e r t o Dave and b e a t w i l d l y on him, so wildly Dave ran. ...[student interrupts].... .... t o g e t  Brent: Investigator:  away.  Yes, " t o g e t away," but what would you t h i n k i f we c h a n g e d t h a t a n d s a i d , " W i t h t h i s , J o h n , t h e l a r g e f r i e n d o f M a r k ' s r a n o v e r t o Dave t o b e a t h i m up, b u t he h a d no s u c h l u c k . Dave gave him a quick, powerful kick i n the face. John fell back a n d was out cold, or at least everyone t h o u g h t he was. T h a t was b e f o r e t h e y r e a l i z e d t h a t Mark and John were dead."  Brent:  Ahhh....Mark and John? Um, t h e r e w a s , M a r k a n d J o h n w e r e , um how m a n y t i m e s d i d h e , d i d h e j u s t k i , p u n c h e d him o r d i d he k i c k h i m ?  Investigator:  He  Brent:  Um, I, fight.  Investigator:  Ah  "gave him a q u i c k , p o w e r f u l k i c k  ha.  I  like  the  idea  of,  um,  of  i n the  face."  having  them  157 Brent:  I , I l i k e t h e i d e a o f h a v i n g , maybe a l i t t l e b i t o f a d i f f e r e n t f i g h t , b e c a u s e i f I d e s c r i b e Dave some m o r e — l i k e w h a t h i s Dad was d o i n g t o h i m and t h a t he was m o r e m e a n — h e w o u l d n ' t r u n a w a y . So I think that's better that they fight. But the p a r t a b o u t t h e m d y i n g , um I l i k e the idea of having i t a l i t t l e b i t d i f f e r e n t . But, um, t h e o n l y t h i n g i s , I t h i n k i t ' s maybe a little bit unrealistic. One k i c k i n t h e h e a d and the guy's dead?  Investigator:  Ah  Brent:  L i k e maybe he I don't t h i n k  Investigator:  O k a y t h e n , how a b o u t i f we s a i d , "He g a v e h i m a number o f e x t r e m e l y p o w e r f u l k i c k s — i n t h e f a c e , i n t h e s t o m a c h and i n t h e h e a d . "  Brent:  Y e a h , may maybe he p i c k s s o m e t h i n g up and hits him t o o . But h a v i n g them b o t h d i e i n the end, that's unrealistic. Maybe j u s t one o f them c o u l d die.  Investigator:  Do y o u l i k e t h e i d e a o f h a v i n g s o m e o n e d i e i n end, o r w o u l d you r a t h e r n o t ?  the  Brent:  It kind I guess  and  Investigator:  So  Brent:  Ahh, n o . . . . [ P A U S E ] . . . . b e c a u s e I ' v e f i n a l i z e d i t , you know c o n c l u d e d i t , w i t h o u t h a v i n g someone die.  B.  Neutral  Example  ha. c o u l d be s e v e r e l y he'd die.  of f i n a l i z e s i t a l i t t l e i t ' s more dramatic.  would you  include  a death  hurt,  but,  ah,  b i t more,  i n your story  then.  Suggestions  One  Investigator:  I n o t i c e d t h a t you w r o t e " G ' n i g h t " i n s t e a d of "Good n i g h t . " How about c h a n g i n g t h a t t o "good night?"  Jacob:  I t h o u g h t i t was o k a y t h e way i t was. Nobody really says, "good night" now. It's just "g'night. So I was j u s t d o i n g i t l i k e I w o u l d do i t . 1 1  Investigator:  Like  you  would w r i t e  it?  158 Jacob:  No, l i k e i f I was s a y i n g "good n i g h t " parents t h a t ' s e x a c t l y what I would s a y .  Investigator:  Mm h u h .  Jacob:  So  Example  to  my  t h a t ' s t h e way I w r o t e i t .  Two  Investigator:  What do y o u t h i n k o f c o m b i n i n g p a r a g r a p h s t w o a n d three? Would y o u go a l o n g w i t h t h a t i d e a ?  Jennifer:  Instead  Investigator:  Mm h u h .  Jennifer:  Yeah, I guess sentences.  Investigator:  Mm h u h . eight?  Jennifer:  ....[PAUSE]....Urn, w e l l . . . . [ P A U S E ] . . . . i n t h i s one S a l l y i s t a l k i n g about v o l l e y b a l l , and i n t h i s one, i t ' s a l labout Tanis, and t h i s one i t d o e s n ' t have n o t h i n g t o do w i t h T a n i s . That's what I thought. You should have another paragraph f o r i t . I t i s s h o r t , b u t t h i s one's j u s t a l l about T a n i s and t h i s one has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h T a n i s . T h a t ' s why I t h o u g h t I should have another paragraph.  Investigator:  S o , s h o u l d we i t longer?  Jennifer:  N o , I t h i n k we s h o u l d j u s t l e a v e i t b e c a u s e t h i s has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h i n j u s t i c e , and we're j u s t t a k i n g up room t h e n . Cause I don't t h i n k i t ' s necessary t o e x p l a i n a l l about v o l l e y b a l l and that.  Example  of having  How  we  two s e p a r a t e  could,  about  keep  It's  paragraphs  paragraphs?  just  like  two  six,  seven  and  i t a s i t i s ? Or  maybe  make  Three  Investigator:  I was l o o k i n g t h r o u g h y o u r s t o r y a n d I n o t i c e d t h a t from t h i s p o i n t on y o u a b b r e v i a t e d " s o u t h " b y p u t t i n g a n " S . " I w a s t h i n k i n g t h a t we c o u l d continue t o w r i t e "south" instead of abbreviate it.  Melissa:  Well, I guess. I j u s t used i t so I wouldn't have t o w r i t e o u t t h e e n t i r e w o r d , b e c a u s e i t was getting a l i t t l e tiring. So i t was e a s i e r t o  159 abbreviate i t . C.  Inappropriate  Example  Suggestions  One  Investigator:  Throughout your s t o r y Mark i s being bugged by Jordy. J o r d y i s n ' t v e r y n i c e t o him b e c a u s e he's a b i t o f a wimp. Do y o u t h i n k we c o u l d c h a n g e t h a t so t h a t s o m e t h i n g e l s e g i v e s Mark g r i e f ? Do y o u t h i n k t h a t c o u l d b e t h e m a i n p a r t o f t h e story?  Pat:  You mean l i k e on h i m ?  Investigator:  No, I was thinking that a n i m a l i n t h e woods, and with this animal.  from  he c o u l d then get  school  pick  encounter an into a fight  Oh.  Pat: Investigator:  C o u l d we  do  that?  We c o u l d . . . . [ P A U S E ] . . . . b u t I d o n ' t t h i n k i t w o u l d be v e r y g o o d . B e c a u s e , l i k e i f he was t o meet a b e a r o r s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h a t e v e r y b o d y knows t h a t the b e a r ' s gonna win. I t ' s kinda weird having a person fight with an animal ....[PAUSE]....I like i t better with Jordy bugging him.  Pat:  Investigator:  Why's  Pat:  I  Investigator:  What's  Pat:  It's  Example  h a v e a n o t h e r boy  that?  d o n ' t know.  It's  easier.  easier?  easier  to  write.  Two  Investigator:  Another suggestion i s to eliminate the f i r s t two f u l l p a r a g r a p h s and s t a r t w i t h t h e s e c o n d full p a r a g r a p h on p a g e two.  Jennifer:  Mm  Investigator:  What do  Jennifer:  ....[PAUSE]....Yeah....[PAUSE]....That might more p r o f e s s i o n a l . T h e r e a r e some s t o r i e s  huh. you  think  of  that? look that  160 I read, l i k e t h e y do a l l t h i n g s t h a t happened i n the beginning, and then they say, "Well t h i s a l l happened." I t makes i t sound more l i k e a d i a r y or something. So t h a t m i g h t sound p r e t t y good. Yeah. That's a good i d e a . Investigator:  Why  Jennifer:  Cause, l i k e , I want e v e r y t h i n g t o be p e r f e c t f o r t h e r e a d e r s o t h a t t h e y g e t t h e i d e a r i g h t away.  Investigator:  Mm h u h .  Jennifer:  S o we c a n p u t t h e e n d f i r s t , a n d t h e n I g u e s s I s t a r t i n t r o d u c i n g i n t h e back so that t h e reader g e t s t h e i d e a r i g h t away, a n d t h e y w o u l d n ' t be so b o r e d i n t h e b e g i n n i n g . On t h e f i r s t page they'Id have a l l t h e ideas t h a t were happening. . .  Investigator:  Mm h u h . So d o y o u t h i n k t h a t w o u l d r u i n story? Would i tconfuse your r e a d e r s ?  Jennifer:  No, no. Because t h i s i s j u s t s o r t o f a l l t h e introductory: about what she i s ; what I d i d ; a b o u t a l l my f r i e n d s a n d a l l t h a t . And t h e back i s a l l about T a n i s and what happened, t h e r e a l meat o f t h e s t o r y . So I d o n ' t t h i n k i t ' l l c o n f u s e them. T h e y ' l l j u s t t h i n k , "Oh! She's j u s t doing t h e a c t i o n f i r s t and s h e ' l l introduce later."  Example  do y o u l i k e  the  idea?  your  Three  Investigator:  T h i s s t o r y e n d s w i t h t h e n a r r a t o r ' s f a t h e r , who I t h i n k i s j u s t c a l l e d Dad, a n d Mr. D o n n e l y making up. They have an argument i n the b e g i n n i n g a n d t h e n t h e y make up i n t h e e n d . Do you t h i n k t h a t we c o u l d change t h a t so that r a t h e r than have t h e two c h a r a c t e r s make u p , become f r i e n d s a n d go o u t f o r d i n n e r , t h e y g e t i n t o a f i s t f i g h t and hurt each other. And then end t h e s t o r y w i t h Mr. D o n n e l y h o s p i t a l i z e d .  Jacob:  But t h e n we'Id have t o go on, and y o u have t o end i t somewhere. I don't t h i n k you could j u s t end i t with t h e guy l y i n g i n the hospital cause y o u ' l l wonder what's gonna happen, and j u s t what they s t i l l t h i n k o f each other.  Investigator:  W e l l , what things?  i fMr. D o n n e l y d i e d .  Would  that  end  161 Jacob:  Y e a h . . . . [ P A U S E ] . . . . b u t I d o n ' t k n o w how y o u c o u l d a p o l o g i z e f o r k i l l i n g someone. I t h i n k i t a l m o s t has t o end l i k e t h a t .  Investigator:  Like that?  Jacob:  W e l l , w i t h them b o t h b e i n g f r i e n d s . L i k e I don't t h i n k you c o u l d end w i t h them j u s t b e i n g e n e m i e s .  What do  you  mean " l i k e  that?"  APPENDIX  F  Example of A n a l y s i s  Sheet  163 Story  Element Under A n a l y s i s :  S u b j e c t ' s Name:  Responses t o  Subject's  "The  Great  Conclusion to  Leapfrog  "The  Contest"  Great  Leapfrog  Contest"  164  Subject's  Text  Discussion of  from Subject's  the  Short  Short  Story  Story  Genre  165 Think-Aloud  Reactions  P r o t o c o l s from  to  Proposed  Subject's  Revisions  Short  Story  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 20 2
China 5 5
France 4 0
Nigeria 2 0
United Kingdom 2 2
Canada 2 0
Sweden 1 0
India 1 0
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 11 8
University Park 5 0
Kansas City 3 0
Ashburn 3 0
Hefei 2 0
Shenzhen 2 5
Redmond 2 0
Halifax 2 0
Ilorin 2 0
Beijing 1 0
Stockholm 1 0
Mountain View 1 0
Delhi 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078265/manifest

Comment

Related Items