Crowhurst, M. (1991). Interrelationships Between Reading
and Writing Persuasive Discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 25
(3),
314-335.
Introduction
This study examined students' poor performance in the writing of
persuasive discourse and the reading-writing relationship. The study's purpose
was to determine whether the writing of persuasive discourse could be improved
by instruction and the effect of reading on writing and of writing on reading
within the mode of persuasion. The study investigated three questions: (1) Can
sixth graders' ability to write persuasion be improved by instruction?, (2)
Will instruction and practice reading persuasive discourse improve the writing
of persuasion ? and, (3) Will instruction and practice of writing persuasive
discourse improve the reading of persuasion?
Method
This study involved 100 students in two sixth grade classes. The students
were randomly divided to four groups (25 per group): 1) the writing group:
instruction in persuasive writing plus persuasive writing practice; (2) the
reading group: instruction in persuasive writing plus guided reading of
persuasive literature that focused on content and structure; (3) the
single-lesson group: reading novels and writing book reports plus one lesson in
persuasive writing without practice in either reading or writing persuasive
discourse, and (4) the control group: reading novels and writing book reports.
Instruction was administered for 45 minutes twice a week over a five-week period
to the reading and writing groups and one 45-minute lesson to the single-lesson
group. One reading and two writing
pretests and posttests were conducted the week before and after the
instructional period. The reading tests involved writing a recall of what could
be remembered after reading. The
reading tests were scored on (1) number of propositions (idea units) recalled,
and (2) evaluation of the recalled propositions in relation to content (compared
to the original text), organization, and general persuasiveness.
The writing tests involved writing two persuasive compositions.
The written compositions were scored on (1) the overall quality which
included content, organization and structure, expression, and sentence
structure; (2) the organization of the compositions; and (3) the structural
elements which included reasons, elaborations of reasons, conclusions, test
markers (such as “first”), and the total number of words.
Results
The reading and writing scores were analyzed using a multivariate analysis
of variance (MANOVA). The results
of the reading tests revealed no differences among groups for either the number
of propositions recalled or evaluation of recalled propositions.
The results on the pretest of the overall quality of the writing revealed
that the writing group and single-lesson group scored higher than the control
group. However, the results from the posttest, the writing group, the reading
group, and the single-lesson group scored significantly higher than the control
group. The results on the pretest
of the organization of the written compositions revealed that the writing group
scored higher than the control group. But on the posttest, the writing group and
the reading group scored significantly higher than the single-lesson group and
control group. The results on the
pretest of the structural elements of the written compositions presented no
significant differences in any of the groups; yet, on the posttest both the
writing and reading groups scored significantly higher than the control group.
In addition, the presentation of the model of persuasion alone, as in the
single-lesson group, resulted in no successful improvement in the written
compositions.
Discussion
In addressing the three research questions, the first concerning the
teachability of persuasive writing, the study found that both the writing group
and reading group improved significantly on the writing quality from pretest to
posttest compared to the control group. Since there were no initial differences
between the reading group and writing group compared to the control group in the
pretest, the posttest differences must be attributed to instruction in
persuasive discourse. Even though the single-lesson group scored significantly
higher than the control group on the posttests; the differences were being
contributed to pre-existing abilities and not to instruction.
The persuasive writing improvement in the reading group and writing group
revealed longer compositions, more conclusions and text markers, more
elaboration on content, and better overall organization compared to the control
group. The second question concerning reading persuasive discourse to
improve writing, the study found a significant improvement in the writing
quality, organization, use of conclusion and text markers, and elaboration of
writing in the reading group compared to the writing group and control group.
The single-lesson group did not show any improvement in the writing
quality from pretest to posttest. The third question concerning writing
persuasive discourse to improve reading, the study found no support for the
reading/writing relationship. In conclusion, the reading group's reading
of persuasive discourse played a significant role in the improvement of writing
and the instruction of the persuasive model helped in the development of a
schema for persuasion which were evident in the students' written
compositions.
The study's results reveals important implications for more research in the reading/writing connection. The fact that students transferred knowledge gained in reading and instruction in persuasive writing led to significant improvements in writing compositions should be taken as evidence for the more general idea that reading affects writing. If the effect of reading upon writing is to be demonstrated, then other related studies need to be conducted to contribute to the support of the relationship of reading/writing.
[Return to Additional References]