Freedman, Aviva A Comparative Study of Writing Abilities in Two Modes Public

144 Pages·2007·2.06 MB·English

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 258 202
CS 208 964
AUTHOR
Pringle, Ian; Freedman, Aviva
TITLE
A Comparative Study of Writing Abilities
in Two Modes
at the Grade 5, 8, and 12 Levels.
INSTITUTION
Ontario Dept. of Education,
Toronto.
REPORT NO
ISBN-0-7743-9974-0
PUB DATE
85
NOTE
145p.; For earlier studies,
see ED 217 412-413.
AVAILABLE FROM
Publications Service, 880 Bay
St., 5th Floor,
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1N8, Canada.
PUB TYPE
Reports - Research/Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Elementary Secondary Education; Foreign
Countries;
Grammar; *Narration; Personal Narratives;
*Persuasive
Discourse; Punctuation; Spelling;
Story Telling;
Syntax; Writing (Composition); Writing
Instruction;
*Writing Skills
IDENTIFIERS
Ontario; Writing Strategies
ABSTRACT
The third of three studies involving
a comparative
analysis of transactional and narrative
writing of selected samples
of students in two Ontario districts, this
study addressed questions
arising from the earlier studies and
examined tit writing skills
of
students in grades 5, 8, and 12. Writing
samples were examined for
conformity to the norms of story
structure and argumentation, and the
subject matter of the transactional writing
was analyzed. The level
of affective development manifested in
subsamples of both the stories
and the arguments was rated. All the
papers in the sample were
analyzed for syntactic complexity
scores and for mechanical and
conventional errors. Comparisons of the first
and second versions of
the papers were made to
assess skills in revising and editing.
Findings indicated the need of students
to learn how to write an
argument and to revise a paper. Other iinplications
were (1) that
since the level of difficulty of
one aspect of a writing task
may
decrease the lack of control in another,
teachers must take into
account the nature of difficulties in the tasks
they set students and
make their assessments accordingly; (2) that
students at all levels
should be given occasions to write narratives;
(3) that the model of
persuasive discourse should be countered;
and (4) that writing
strategies recommended by authorities need
to be implemented. (EL)
***********************************************************************
*
Reproductions supplied by EDRS
are the best that can be made
*
*
from the original document.
*
***********************************************************************
Tir
fl
.
tj
t.
I V.
.1
A.
li
A COMPARATIVE
STUD
OF wRFI.Np.
ABILITIE
IN TWO
MODES AT
THE
t
GRADE 5,
8,
12 LEVELS
'
UAL DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION
;
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OP EDUCATION
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC,
This docun. ent has boon reproduced as
*coved from the person or organisation
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to improve
.
reproduction quality.
Principal Investigators
IAN PRINGLE
Points of view or at:moors stated in this dczu
merit do not necessarily represent official HIE
AVIVA FREEDMAN
position or policy.
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Lesley V. Lewis
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).
This research project was funded under
contract by the Ministry of Education, Ontario.
It reflects the views of the authors
and not necessarily those of the Ministry.
Hon. Keith C. Norton,
D.C., Minister
George R. Podrebarac, Deputy
Minister
Ministry
Ministry of
of
Colleges and
Education
Universities
Ontario
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF WRITING
ABILITIES I.
TWO MODES AT THE
GRADE 5, 8, AND 12 LEVELS
Ian Pringle and Aviva Freedman
This research was funded under contract
by
the Ministry of Education, Ontario.
This
report reflects the views of the authors
and not necessarily those of the ministry.
The Minister of Education, Ontario, 1985
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
Canadian Cataloguing in Publication
Data
Pringle, Ian.
A comparative study of writing abilities in
two
modes at the grade 5, 8, and 12 levels
Co-published by Ontario Ministry of Colleges and
Universities.
Bibliography: p.
ISBN 0-7743-9974-0
1. English language --Writing--Study and teaching.
I. Freedman, Avive. II. Ontario. Ministry of
Education. III. Ontario. Ministry of Colleges and
Universities. IV. Title.
LB1576.P7 1985
0850930065
421'.07
ON02668
Additional copies may be ordered from:
Publications Salo
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
252 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5S 1V6
or from:
The Ontario Government Bookstore
(Mail orders)
880 Bay Street
Publication Centre
Toronto, Ontario
880 Bay Street, 5th Floor
M7A 1N8
Toronto, Ontario
.
M7A 1N8
4
Contents
Page No.
Abstract
vi
Preface
1
1
The Design of the Study
4
2
Rhetorical Structure
12
Story Structure
12
Pedagogic Implications
25
The Arguments
26
3
The Transactional Writing: Its Subject Matter
37
4
Affective Development
47
The Affective Model: The Wilkinson Model
48
The Arguments: The Harrison Model
53
Analysis of the Stories
53
The Arguments
58
Pedagogic Implications
63
Syntactic Resources
5
64
6
Mechanics and Conventions
74
Types of Errors
75
Distribution of Errors
80
Proportional Frequency of Errors
82
Patterns of Errors
94
Discussion
101
7
Revision Analysis
103
Method of Analysis
103
Findings
104
Grade 8 Revision Analysis
109
8
Editing Strategies
116
Pedagogic Implications
121
9
Teaching Implications
122
Argumentative Discourse
124
Revision
126
Story Writing
126
Balancing Demands
127
References
128
Appendices
130
DemographiC Instrument
130
I
Syntactic Scores for Syntactic Complexity Analysis
II
131
III
Instrument for Error Analysis
132
5
Page No.
LIST OF TABLES
4
Participating Students: N's
1.1
8
Description of Sample, by Grade and Mode
1.2
Length of Papers, by Grade and Mode
9
1.3
14
Story Structure
2.1
Percentage of Stories Containing at Least One Instance
2.2
16
of Each Category or Subcategory
16
Number of Direct Consequences as Actions per Story
2.3
Percentage of Stories Satisfying Minimal
2.4
17
Criteria for Completeness
10
Percentage of Stories Satisfying Criteria for Completeness
2.5
Percentage of Essays Approximating Conventional
2.6
26
Argumentative Structure
Percentage of Essays Written in Response to Argumentative
2.7
32
Stimulus Classified by Aim
Percentage of Essays Written in Response to Argumentative
2.8
33
Stimulus Classified by Britton's Functions
37
Percentage of Total Essays Written in Each Category
3.1
38
Percentage of Arguments Dealing With Selected Broad Topics
3.2
War/Economy/Pollution Topics as Percentage of
3.3
39
World-Based Topics
40
Number of Points per Essay
3.4
43
Degree of Elaboration
3.5
49
Wilkinson Affective Model
4.1
52
Harrison Affective Model
4.2
Percentage of Stories at Each Level of Affective
4.3
53
"Self" Scale
Percentage of Stories at Each Level of Affective
4.4
53
"Other People" Scale
Percentage of Stories at Each Level of Affective
4.5
54
"Reader" Scale
Percentage of Stories at Each Level of Affective
4.6
54
"Environment" Scale
Percentage of Stories at Each Level of Affective
4.7
55
"Reality" Scale
59
Affective Development in Arguments
4.8
Mean Syntactic Complexity Scores at the Grade 5 Level
5.1
69
and Comparative Data
iv
Page. No.
5.2
lean Syntactic Complexity
Scores at the Grade 8 Level
and Comparative Data
70
5.3
Mean Syntactic Complexity Sores
at the Grade 12 Level
and Comparative Data
71
6.1
Percentage of Papers Containing
Instances of Grouped
Punctuation Errors, by Mode
81
6.2
Percentage of Papers Containing
Instances of Grouped
Spelling Errors, by Mode
82
6.3
Percentage of Papers Containing
Other Mechanical and
Conventional Errors, by Mode
- Grade 5
83
6.4
Percentage of Papers Containing
Other Mechanical and
Conventional Errors, by Mode
- Grade 8
84
6.5
Percentage of Papers Containing
Other Mechanical
and Conventional Errors, by
Mode - Grade 12G
85
6.6
Percentage of Papers Containing Other
Mechanical and
Conventional Errors, by Mode
- Grade 12A
85
6.7
Proportional Frequency
per Sentence of Grouped
Punctuation Errors, by Grade and
Mode
87
6.8
Proportional Frequency
per Word of Grouped Spelling
Errors, by Grade and Mode
88
6.9
Proportional Frequency
per Sentence of Pronoun Errors,
by Grade and Mode
89
6.10 Proportional Frequency
per T-unit of Errors Resulting
from Distancing Problems, by Grade and
Mode
90
6.11 Proportional Frequency
per T-unit of Errors in Adverbial
Usage, by Grade and Mode
91
6.12 Proportional Frequency
per T-unit of Errors in Veil) Usage,
by Grade and Mode
92
6.13 Proportional Frequency
per T-unit of Violated Shibboleths,
by Grade and Mode
93
6.14 Patterns of Error Subsample: N's
94
6.15 Number of Papers in Each Error
Pattern, by Grade and Mode.
96
6.16 Proportion of Papers by Error
Pattern in Each Grade
(per cent)
97
7.1
Revisions: Percentage of Papers
with No Instances of Each
Category
105
7.2
Instances of Revisions per Paper, by Level
106
7.3
A Comparison of Means at the
Grade 8 Level
111
8.1
Total Spelling Errors (Means)
118
8.2
Total Punctuation Errors (Means)
118
8.3
Mean Proportional Frequency of Spelling
Errors per Word
118
8.4
Mean Proportional Frequency of
Punctuation Errors
per T-Unit
119
8.5
Editing for Spelling Errors (Means
per Word)
119
8.6
Editing for Punctuation Errors
(Means per T-Unit)
119
7
Page No.
SAMPLE ESSAYS
20
1 Why Did I Stop? (Grade 12A)
22
2 Dreams (Grade 12A)
23
3 Keith (Grade 12A)
28
4 Wasted Food (Grade 12A)
28
5 [Canadian Armed Forces] (Grade 12A)
30
6 [Changes to the School System] (Grade 12A)
31
7 [People on the Streets] (Grade 8)
41
8 [Acid Rain] (Grade 8)
41
9 [Acid Rain] (Grade 8)
42
10 [Acid Rain] (Grade 12)
44
11 The Quarter-Round Finals (Grade 8)
12 A Plea for a Simpler World: Directed at the Four Billion
46
Odd Inhabitants of the Planet Earth (Grade 12)
57
13 [A Narrative] (Grade 12)
14 Problems that are happening around me (Example of Expressive
60
and Reflexive Stage)
15 This Composition is mainly for Game Hunters (Example of
61
Identifying Stage)
62
16 [Physical Education] (Example of Organizing Stage)
68
17 [A Narrative] (Grade 5)
68
18 [Agai.st Shipping Nuclear Fuel to Argentina] (Grade 5)
68
19 [Desiderata] (Grade 5)
68
20 [Russia and Nuclear Weapons] (Grade 5)
99
21 [Desiderata] (Grade 8)
100
22 [Problems in the School System] (Grade 8)
107
23 [Inflation] (Grade 8)
113
24 [Poor Countries] (Grade 8)
114
25 [Foreign Aid] (Grade 8)
INSTRUMENTATION
Page No.
Prompts
5
Story Structure (Table 2.1)
14
Kinneavy's Taxonomy of Discourse
27
Wilkinson Affective Model (Table 4.1)
49
Harrison Affective Model (Table 4.2)
52
Scope and Nature of Revisions (Table
7.1)
105
Demographic Instrument (Appendix I)
130
Syntactic Scores for Syntactic Complexity
Analysis (Appendix II)
131
Instrument for Error Analysis (Appendix III)
132
vii
9
Abstract
education
In spring 1982 the entire population of Grades 5, 8, and 12 in two Ontario boards of
Half the population were assigned an argumentative
was asked to undertake a writing task.
Of those writing narratives, half were asked to
task and the other half a narrative task.
All the participating
write a personal narrative and the other half an invented narrative.
On a subsequent day they were
students were told in advance what their assignment was to be.
revising.
given class time to complete it, and then on a third day it was returned to them for
A 10 per cent sample was drawn randomly from the completed papers for analysis.
A subsample was analysed for its conformity to the norms of story structure and argumentation.
of affective
The level
The subject matter of the transactional writing was analysed.
All the
development manifested in subsamples of both the stories and the arguments was rated.
and the computed scores
papers in the sample were analysed for syntactic complexity scores,
All
students at the same level.
were compared to the scores achieved by other populations of
sample were also analysed intensively for mechanical and
the original
the papers
in
the
conventional errors, and both raw and proportional scores were computed in order to assess
For a subsample, a comparison was made of the kinds of differences
level of performance.
in revising
apparent in the first and second versions of the papers, and the students' skill
On the basis of these analyses the researchers came
and editing was assessed on this basis.
students sampled:
to the following conclusions about the writing abilities of the
There is no basis for any concern
1. The students' syntactic resources seem to be very high.
as to their tacit knowledge of English grammar.
There is no basis for
high.
2. The level of control of mechanics and conventions is also very
mechanical
claiming that the population represented by these students is lacking in basic
skills.
early as Grade
3. Students showed considerable mastery of the conventions of story grammar as
Even at the Grade 8 level,
5 when the kind of narrative undertaken was an invented story.
not impose the conventions of story structure on
some students could still
however,
narratives based on their personal experience.
4. The narratives written by Grade 12 students were often masterly.
affective development there
5. The students' invented narratives revealed a higher level of
self
the
explore
in
and
present
to
ability
Their
narratives.
personal
than
in
writing was fostered through their personal writing.
writing showed that even at the
6. The analysis of the subject matter of the transactional
liveliness about
level many students, if given the opportunity, can write with
Grade 5
their personal experience.
political and moral issues not obviously related directly to
viii
10