Tierney, R. J., Soter, A., O'Flahavan, J. F., &
McGinley, W. (1989) The Effects of Reading and Writing Upon Thinking Critically.
Reading
Research Quarterly, 24 (2) 134-173.
Introduction
The study examines the effects of writing, reading, and answering questions
both separately and in combination with one another.
This study questions whether writing in combination with reading prompts
more critical thinking than reading or writing done separately, or in
combination with questions or a knowledge activation activity.
The study examines the amount and type of reading that learners engage in
as they read, as they write, or as they both read and write.
Method
This study involved 137
undergraduate students from two universities in the Midwestern United States.
Each student was randomly assigned to one topic and experimental
treatment combination. The two
reading topics were referred to the “Baby Fae” passage that dealt with the
infant who received the world's first nonhuman heart transplant and “Woman
in the Movies”. Each experimental
treatment combination involved an introductory activity, reading condition, and
question condition. The three
conditions that were combined to form various treatment groups were: (1) introductory
activity where the students were to write a letter to the editor on the
assigned topic, or complete a knowledge activation activity on the assigned
topic, or no activity; (2) reading
condition where students either read or did not read an editorial on the
assigned topic, and (3) question condition
where the students either answered or did not answer selected open-ended and
multiple-choice questions on issues raised by the topic.
Upon completion of the tasks, all treatment groups were asked to write an
essay to the editor on the selected topic, or if they had already written this
letter/essay as part of the introductory activity they were to revise it.
Thus, producing two versions/drafts of the same essay.
Once the essay was written, students responded to a series of written debriefing questions about how the task facilitated their thinking. Answers to the questions were transcribed and analyzed according to what reasoning operation, i.e. accessing, altering, clarifying, evaluating, acquiring momentum, organizing, and reacting the students were using. The debriefing questions were designed to capture the students' thinking at the point of reading, at the point of answering questions, and at the point of revising.
The writing samples were analyzed as both quantitative and qualitative measures. The quantitative analysis was the count of the number of words used and the number of T-units presented in each essay. For those students who wrote and revised their essay, the two versions were analyzed for the types of revisions (addition, deletion, rewording, mechanics) and its effect on the content. The qualitative analysis was rated using a scale adapted from the holistic/analytic scoring scheme for persuasive writing by the International Evaluation of Assessment of Written Composition. The six categories of scoring are: Scope and Quality of Content; Organization; Style, Tone and Appropriate Wording; Mechanics and Usage; General Impression Score; and Overall Effect.
To address the question of the effects of writing with and without reading, the results focused on those students who wrote two versions of the same essay. Between drafts, some students read editorials and answered question, some didn't read and answered questions, some read and didn't answer questions, and some neither read nor answered questions. By analyzing the changes in the two drafts with the debriefing comments, the effects of writing, reading, and answering questions, separately and in various combinations with each other can be compared. The analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there were significant differences between groups for changes in the number of words and T-units and the changes in quality rating between two versions of the essay.
Results
The analyses of variance (ANOVA) for the change in total number of words
from first draft to second draft, found no significant difference between
students who wrote on the topic of “Women in the Movies”.
However, students that wrote on “Baby Fae”, there were significant
differences in the number of changes between both drafts depending upon whether
the students read or not and whether subjects answered questions.
The analyses found that students who read an editorial on the topic
generated more T-units and made more changes in content. In other words,
regardless of the topic read, students who read an editorial made more additions
to their drafts than those who didn't read.
The analyses of variance (ANOVA) for the change in quality ratings from the first draft to the second draft presented different results for the two topics. Students that wrote on “Baby Fae”, there were significant differences in the quality rating for scope and quality of content from the first draft to the second draft across reading conditions and there were some differences found on the rating for organization and style. In contrast, differences in change in quality rating across the two drafts were less significant for the “Women in the Movies” topic. An examination of these differences in quality rating reveals that reading appears to make a significant contribution to improvements in student performance. The quality rating for scope and quality of content improve significantly more when students had read an editorial compared to those students who had not. The quality rating for content and for style and general impression were significantly higher on the drafts for those students who answered questions in combination with reading and writing.
The results of the analyses of the types of reasoning reported from the students' debriefing comments revealed that those students who wrote prior to reading were thinking more evaluatively than those who did not write prior to reading. Students who wrote only one draft of the essay and did not perform any other activity before writing or wrote for the first time after reading or answering questions, presented little evaluative thinking. In sum, the reasoning operations of students engaged in both reading and writing were more sophisticated than those of students who engaged in only reading and writing.
Discussion
In conclusion, the students who read and wrote were engaged in a great deal
more evaluative thinking and perspective-shifting than those who just wrote or
those who just read. The thinking
readers and writers engaged in as they read and wrote.
Also, reading and writing in combination contributed to a wide range of
revisions and to higher quality of drafts than writing alone. The study
presented a view of reading and writing working together for goals which transcend either just reading and
writing for their own ends. The study supports the view that reading and writing
in combination have the potential to contribute in powerful ways to thinking.
One limitation of this present study involved the conditions that the study was conducted. Students were asked to complete a reading-writing task under experimental conditions which are not found in real reading-writing situations. Future studies should provide more authentic settings, such as a classroom or school-based environment, where time constraints are not imposed and scaffolding is provided.
Another limitation of this study was that students were involved with the topics for a short period of time. To think critically over an extended period of time or how thinking can transfer to other situations needs to be explored in long-term measures.
The findings of this study supports educators regarding the value of instruction of reading and writing together in the classroom. When readers engage in writing and writers engage in reading , a “symbiotic” relationship is established. In this reading-writing connection students are provided the opportunities to think more critically.
Future research studies should be less restrictive when examining the type of thinking used when students use various reading and writing tasks. More time should be devoted to a unlimited number of drafts, readings, and revisions as in writing a term paper, thus the restriction of predetermined tasks for exploring topics are void.