Although studies of writing and literary understanding have demonstrated the value of analytic essay writing for enhancing story understanding, these studies have focused on student's initial interpretations without considering the effects of a teacher's support and direction. The purpose of this study was to explore how 9th- (n = 6) and 11th- (n = 6) grade students reformulated and extended their initial written analyses of two short stories through revisions fostered by two different kinds of between-draft written comments. After revising initial drafts in two response modes (directive and dialogue), the students wrote paragraph-length responses to posttest questions of story understanding. Results indicated significant (p < .05) main effects for response condition and grade level, with the dialogue condition enhancing story understanding more than the directive condition, and the 11th graders attaining higher posttest scores than the 9th graders. Data from composing-aloud protocols revealed that the dialogue condition supported the students' reformulation of their own interpretations constructed in the initial drafts, while the directive condition seemed to shift the students away from their own initial interpretations of the stories.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrasick, K. D.
(1990). Opening texts: Using writing to teach literature. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2.
Applebee, A. N.
(1978). The child's concept of story. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Applebee, A. N.
(1981). Writing in the secondary school. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
4.
Applebee, A. N.
(1982). Writing and learning in school settings. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know (pp. 365-381). New York: Academic Press.
5.
Applebee, A. N.
(1984). Contexts for learning to write. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
6.
Applebee, A. N.
(1993). Literature in the secondary school (NCTE Research Report No. 25). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
7.
Beach, R.
(1976). Self-evaluation strategies of extensive revisers and nonrevisers. College Composition and Communication, 27, 160-164.
8.
Beach, R.
(1979). The effects of between-draft teacher evaluation versus student self-evaluation on high school students' revising of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 111-119.
9.
Beach, R.
(1989). Showing students how to assess: Demonstrating techniques for response in the writing conference. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 127-148). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
10.
Beach, R.
, & Eaton, S. (1984). Factors influencing self-assessing and revising by college freshmen. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 149-170). New York: Guilford.
11.
Beach, R.
, & Hynds, S. (1991). Research on response to literature. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 453-489). New York: Longman.
12.
Britton, J.
(1984). Viewpoints: The distinction between participant and spectator role language in research and practice. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 320-331.
13.
Britton, J.
, Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
14.
Butler-Nalin, K.
(1984). Revising patterns in students' writing. In A. N. Applebee (Ed.), Contexts for learning to write (pp. 121-133). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15.
Connors, R. J.
, & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers' rhetorical comments on student articles. College Composition and Communication, 44, 200-223.
16.
Earthman, E. A.
(1992). Creating the virtual work: Readers' processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 351-384.
17.
Fitzgerald, J.
(1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481-506.
18.
Flower, L. A.
, & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.
19.
Galda, L.
(1990). A longitudinal study of the spectator stance as a function of age and genre. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 261-278.
20.
Gere, A. R.
(1980). Written composition: Toward a theory of evaluation. College English, 42, 44-58.
21.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1970). Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (pp. 140-165). Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
22.
Galda, L.
(1990). A longitudinal study of the spectator stance as a function of age and genre. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 261-278.
23.
Gere, A. R.
(1980). Written composition: Toward a theory of evaluation. College English, 42, 44-58.
24.
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1970). Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (pp. 140-165). Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
25.
Herrington, A. J.
(1988). Teaching, writing, and learning: A naturalistic study of writing in an undergraduate literature course. In D. A. Jolliffe (Ed.), Advances in writing research: Vol. 2. Writing in academic disciplines (pp. 133-166). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
26.
Hillocks, G.
(1986). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
27.
Langer, J.
(1984). The effects of available information on school writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 27-44.
28.
Langer, J.
(1986a). Learning through writing: Study skills in the content areas. Journal of Reading, 27, 400-406.
29.
Langer, J.
(1986b). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
30.
Langer, J.
, & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning (NCTE Research Report No. 22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
31.
Langer, S.
(1967). Mind: An essay on human feeling. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32.
Marshall, J. D. (1985). Writing and learning about literature (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 3638A.
33.
Marshall, J. D.
(1987). The effects of writing on students' understanding of literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 30-63.
34.
McGinley, W.
, & Tierney, R. (1989). Traversing the topical landscape: Reading and writing as ways of knowing. Written Communication, 6, 243-269.
35.
National Assessment of Educational Progress
. (1981). Reading, thinking, and writing: Results from the 1978-80 national assessment of reading and literature (Report No. 11-L-01). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
36.
National Governors Association
. (1990). National goals for education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
37.
Newell, G. E.
(1984). Learning from writing in two content areas: A case study/protocol analysis. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 265-287.
38.
Newell, G. E.
, & Durst, R. K. (Eds.). (1993). Exploring texts: The role of discussion and writing in the teaching and learning of literature. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
39.
Newell, G. E.
, & MacAdam, P. (1988). Teachers' perceptions of the role of process in writing about literature. Quarterly for the Center for the Study of Writing, 10, 4-8.
40.
Newell, G. E.
, Suszynski, K., & Weingart, R. (1989). The effects of writing in a reader-based and text-based mode on students' understanding of two short stories. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 37-57.
41.
Newell, G. E.
, & Winograd, P. (1989). The effects of writing on learning from expository text. Written Communication, 6, 196-217.
42.
Nystrand, M.
, & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261-290.
43.
Penrose, A. M.
(1992). To write or not to write: Effects of task and task interpretation on learning through writing. Written Communication, 9, 465-500.
44.
Petrosky, A. R.
(1982). From story to essay: Reading and writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 19-36.
45.
Rosenblatt, L.
(1978). The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
46.
Sheeran, Y.
, & Barnes, D. (1991). School writing: Discovering the ground rules. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
47.
Sohn, D.
(Ed.). (1978). Ten modern American short stories. New York: Bantam.
48.
Sommers, N.
(1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148-156.
49.
Spivey, N. N.
(1990). Transforming texts. Written Communication, 7, 256-287.
50.
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, 134-173.
51.
Vosniadou, S.
, & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge of restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57, 51-67.
52.
Ziv, N. D.
(1984). The effects of teacher comments on the writing of four college freshmen. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 362-380). New York: Guilford.
