THE CONNECTION BETWEEN READING AND WRITING: THEORETICAL
FOUNDATIONS AND SOME TECHNIQUES
par Roseanne Rocha Tavares
(Laboratorio Clinico de Leitura - UFSC)
In re c e n t years many authorities have called for the
neces sity t o introduce reading and wr iting in an integrated
way,
beg i n n i ng from
home instructions, going
through
elementary and secondary schools, up to college education
(Shanahan,
1988;
Rubin and Hansen,
1984; Spac k,
1985;
Ti erne y and Leys,
1 9 6 4 ; Ha ye s ,
1987). Th ey claim that by
u s i ng ma s si vil y t h i s i n t e r c o n ne c t i o n , students will enhance
t he ir vo c a bulary, r e ading and writing skills, c ritical
t hi nk ing a nd ac q u i s i t i o n of content area.
The purpos e o f
is to
synthesize the
basic
assumptions
t h is pa pe r
un d e r lying th e c o n ne c t i o n between reading and writing as
we l l as t o poi n t o u t th e ir
similarities and differences.
Moreover , we wi l l di s c us s some research undertaken based on
th is co n n ec t ion a nd t he t e c h niq ue s used to apply it.
BRIEF HISTORY OF READING AND WRITING STUDIES
Reading
Read ing research has not been a continuous along the
year s. Ins t e ad, it has started a nd stopped for some years.
Some i de a s were strongly pursue d and then abandoned being
r ediscovered later while others were totally disregarded
lVenesky, in Pearson
(ed.), 1984). Out of the innumerable
attempts to explain the reading proc ess,
fo ur
mode l s
sprouted supporting important ide as. Th e two f i r s t model s ,
"Bottom up" and "Top down", appe a r e d a r o u nd the s ame pe r i o d
despite their opposed assumptions. I n the bottom-up r e a d i ng
model, researche rs claim that r e ading is a l e t t er - by- l e t t e r
process in which the reader starts with printed s t i mu l i a nd
works its way up to higher-level stages
(syntacti c and
the r e ader relie s more o n the
s e ma nt i c meaning). Thus,
graphic display and his grapho-phonemic know l e d ge, and
proficient reading is decoding l etter or words a u t omat ical l y
(Gough, in Singer and Rudell (eds.) ,1970). Con ve r s e l y,
the
top-down model
considers r eading
a
"psyc ho l ingui stic
gu e s sing game" (Goodman, in Singer a nd Rude l l (e d s .),
1970 )
whic h involves an in t eraction between l angua ge a nd t hought .
The reader, then, starts with hipotheses and pre d i c t i o ns and
attemp ts to verify them by working down to t he pri nted form.
Re rel i e s more on his e x i s t i ng syntac t i c and sema ntic
knowledge a nd tries to construc t me aning with t he l e a s t
amount o f time and e ff or t.
In t he late 70'S, Rume l ha rt
propos es a n interacti ve readi ng mode l which s u ppo r t s the
view that
r e ading "comprehen sion
i s the
resu lt
of
simultaneous i n t e r a c t i o ns of t he f o l l owi ng knowledge s o u r c e s
for the reade r: featural knowledge, l etter- level k nowl e d ge,
letter-clust er knowledge, l e xi c a l l e vel kn owledge, syntacti c
knowledge, sema n t i c know l e d g e and p ragmatic
knowledge "
(ed.), 1977) . In acco u nt of the
(Rumelhart, in Dornick
r elat i o n between lower and higher l evels o f processing
pres ented by Rumelhart, Stanovich (1980) develo ps a more
accurate conceptua l i z ation of reading perfo r ma nc e :
t he
compensatory model. In this model Stanovich s t a t e s t hat "a
deficit in any knowledge sourc e results in a he a v i e r
r e l i a nc e on other knowledge sources, regardless o f their
le ve l in the processing hierarchy" (Stanovich, i n Ande rson
and Pearson
(eds.), 1984). This last model s t r e s s e s the
necessity to build bridges between the new and the kn own fo r
comprehension to occur
(P earson and J ohnson in Wi l s o n,
1983), that is, readers need to activate their s che ma t a to
re late the ideas of a text with t he i r own know l e d ge . Onl y
then can comprehension occur. We ca n observe t h r o ug h t he s e
models that the reading process wa s viewed a s a me c h a n i c al
sk i l l up to the last conceptio n whi ch give s pro mi ne nc e to
the interaction between the r eaders' knowl e d g e and the text .
Writing
The writing process followed a s i mi la r d e ve l o pmen t
to
that of re ading. Until the 60's, writing was con side r e d "a
one-way transmission from writers' minds to the wor k i ng o u t
of a graphic display" (Shankl in, 1981 in Ru b in a nd Hansen ,
19B7:3). Students were supposed to write outli ne s be f ore
really carrying out the wr it ing task; they ha d t o write
e s s a ys based on previous ones and there was a grea t e mphas i s
tha n
on form. The attention was given to t he product r athe r
to the process .
Howev er, writing r esearch change d the way t o tea c h
writing. It is not a linear process, si nc e a wri t i ng tas k
58
re qu i r e s o ne to go backward and f o rwa r d . Wh i le writing one
ha s to reflec t upo n wha t he h a s wr i tten an d s omet imes change
and d e v e l o p the i de as, tak i ng i n to a c c o u n t hi s a u d i e nc e .
It
wa s a r e f l ec t i ve
proce ss wh i c h fo s t e r e d
independence
(M u rra y , 196 8 ; Emi g 197 1; Pe a r l
19 79 in Sadow a nd Spack,
198 3 ) .
Th r o ug h t he h i s t o r y o f r eadi ng a nd writ ing we conclude
that , curre ntly , bo t h s k ill s value tha soc ia l rol e played by
reader s an d wr i t e r s. Th i s
i n t e r c h a nge
in fluenc ed
the
c o n nec t i on betwe e n th e s e s k i lls.
THE INTERRELATION BETWEEN READING AND WRITING
Readin g an d writ i ng r a t h e r than b ein g private acts are
social e ve n t s . We u s ua l l y pe r c e i v e r eading as a way of
o b t a in ing informati o n wi th f r iend s . I n writ i ng we also have
t he ro l e
of
"dispen s e r s of in f ormation"
(Rupert and
Bru eggeman ,
19 8 6 :
26)
whe n we tr an s mit o u r
ideas .
In
c l a s s r o o m teach i ng , s tud e nts s houl d ha ve t he op po r t u n i t y to
make u s e of th i s ki nd o f s h aring. By conn e c t ing r e a d i ng and
wr i t i ng they can incor pora t e th e ide a o f r e a l
communication
in wh i ch reade r s a nd wri t e r s i n t e r a c t . Mor e o v er the s e two
sk i l ls in vol ve s o me analogou s a s p e c t s i n two level s: the
surface and d e ep l evel s .
Th e surfac e le v e l involves the mechanical skills which
s t u de n t s ar e r e q u i r ed to mas t e r. In r e ading t hey focus
at tenti o n o n dec o din g and subsk i l l s , while in writing they
ha ve t o master p unc t u a t i o n , spe lli ng , g ramm a r , etc.,
these
mec han i cal simila r iti e s, how ever, do no t
go beyond the
i mp o r t a n c e of
d ee pe r
s i mila r it ies
whic h i n vo l v e
the
tra nsa c tion b etwe e n read e r and wr i t e r.
Bo t h s k i lls en t a i l
composing : we ha ve to r ef l e c t , r e r e ad, make t he mess ag e
me ani ng ful .
Rece n t r es e a r c h s ug g e s t s t ha t r e ade rs a nd writers share
fi ve k i nds o f kn o wled g e whe n the y c o mpose : 1 ) In fo rmation
knowle dge , whi c h i nc l ud e s world knowl edge and c o n c e p t s that
a reader needs f rom t he te x ts a nd f rom t h e i r own background
of experience to com prehe nd
t he t e x t s; a nd th e in formati on
t ha t t he wr ite r
ha s a nd us es t he tex t to convey it. The
i n f o r ma t i o n ga i ned i n r e ad i ng b e nefits writ ing a nd , at th e
same time , wr it i ng gi v e s a nd cl a r if i es t h is i n f ormation .
2)
Struct u r a l k no wl e d g e wh i ch has be e n tr a ditionally taught
throug h wri t ing
progra ms and
comp r i s e s knowledg e
of
structu re
of
di s co u r s e
a nd
writing
formulas
(p r o b l e m- s o l ut i o n f rame s , cohe s i o n and coherenc e de vices,
etc . ) . Wr i t er s us ua l ly p r o du c e t e x t s with s t r u c t u r e and
r e a de r s u s e t his s t r u cture when t he y convey me an i ng . In this
kn ow l e d ge , however, it i s d i ffi c ul t t o ass e ss the r e a d i ng
Transactional
a n d wr i t i ng effec t s as se para te pro c e s se s. 3)
k no wle d ge wh i c h involv e s t he conc eptu aliza tion of a text as
a medi um o f c o mmu n i c a ti o n b e t we en a u tho r and r eader and
makes peo p l e co n s i de r the a ud i e nc e which a l s o influences the
writer's topic choice and revision. On t h e other hand,
r e a de rs ma k e use o f it by inves tig a t i ng a nd ques t i o ni n g the
a uthor 's pu r pos e a nd s t y l e.
4) Ae sth e t i c k no wl e d ge which
59
implies certain alliterate styles,
interjections,
length
which echo in the readers and writers cars and affect their
choices.
5)
Process knowledge which makes readers and
writers aware of their writing/reading process which helps
then to make conscious decisions about revising and the
strategy to use in rereading (Rubin and Hansen, 1984).
By uncovering these deeper similarities, many t e c he r s
and curriculum designers have posed a question:
s i nc e
reading and writing are so closel y related, why do n ' t
students receive instruction only in one or the othe r 5 i1 ?
The answer is that these two skills do not overlap e c h
other and they are "at least as different as they a r e
similar"
(Shanahan,
1988:637).
If
these skills
we r e
identical there should not exist good readers who are poor
writers and vice-versa.
This apparent contradiction reli e s
on the fact that reading and writing are commonly taught i n
schools, when they are taught,
as separate subjects and . n
different ways. Teachers do not t<lke for granted th t
t he
combination of these two skills
one influencing t h e
other-,
gives a positive outcome in terms of overall
improvement and content arca acquisition (Shanahan,
1988,
Tierney and Leys, 1987; Thelen, 1982).
The next section of this paper deals parti cu l r ly with
the contribution that reading and writing give to each other
and to content area learning.
The theoretical assumptions
will be followed by the description of some studies and
techniques applied in the area.
It is worth adding that in
spite of these techniques being described separately,
they
can be used in combination in classroon teaching.
THE INFLUENCE OF READING IN
AREA ACQUISITION
~TING
AND CONTENT
It is not an easy task to separate the effects that
reading or writing bring separately when we deal with a
connected reading-writing program. However, by orienting the
students to read in search of meaning, th e type and amount
of reading material to which they are exposed will influence
their choice of topic, writing styl e and vocabu l r y while
writing. Writers make use of r eading in a numb er of
different ways: as they develop drafts, a s they r eview their
notes during writing, as they compare their style wi th that
of other authors, as theyr work and e v a l ua t e their a rguments
(Tierney and Leys, 1984). The following discussion of some
studies will offer support for such suppositions.
Geva and Tierney (1984, in Tierney and Le y s 1984)
had
high school students read different types of comp a r e and
contrast texts and then write summaries or recalls of the
information in the texts. They found that the format of the
students' writing were influenced by the format of th e
text
read. In a similar way, studies by Spivey (1983); Gordon and
Braun (1982) and Birnbaum, (1981, 1982 in Tierney and Leys,
1984) found that the students' writing improved when th e
60
structural c ha rac t e r i s t i c s of stories were highlighted and
that t he q u a l ity of wr it i ng produced by fourth and seventh
gr a d e r s was d i r ec t l y related to their qua lity of r eading.
Th e more ab l e c omprehenders were better organized and more
c o n ne c t e d i n their wri t i ngs .
Mo s t r e a d i ng technique s invo lve a prereading activity.
Thi s acti v ity helps t h e s t u de n t s t o act iva t e their existing
schema ta r e l a ted t o t heir current reading a s s i g nme n t s .
Mo r e ov e r , it i s a good way of asses sing the students'
k nowl e d ge of the topic. The t eacher c an u s e thi s device to
add some ba c kg r o u nd i n f o r ma t i o n a nd vocabulary that wil l
be
ne eded fo r s ucc es s f u l compr e h e n sion of the text. Among
o t he rs ,
the
f o r t h c omi ng
r e ading
t e chniques
include
pr ereading acti v i t ies as well as highlight the structure of
t he t e x t wh i ch wi l l h elp the students'
later writing a nd
learn i n g o f t h e su b j ec t.
1. The P.O.S.S.E. Sy stem (Adel stein and Pivel, 1978)
This technique is divided in three parts:
Pre-reading,
Analyti c a l r e ading and reflecting. In the pre- r eading parts,
th e student has to skim over the text to help him construct
a c o n t e x t for what he reads. One can understand better what
he r e a d s when h e knows what to expect. The analytical
r e a d i n g is cha r a cterized by a constant refle ction upon the
t e xt . The stu de n t should k eep in mind basic concepts such as
audi e nce, purpo s e, cont ext, voice, tone, etc. The last part
inc l udes q ue stio ns to be a s k e d after: organization
(problem
solut io n, c au s e
eff ect, e t c . ) , support
(examples,
r e a sons, etc.) o f the t ext and proceeds by asking questions
rel a t e d to s ynthesis and evaluation.
2. The s elf- q ue s t i o n i n g study technique (Anderson,1 97B)
I t is u s e f ul to learn f a c t u a l content and to write a
paper . Th e reade r has to make up questions about what h e is
r e a d i ng , t o wri t e t hem d own a nd them q uiz z himself on them.
Th i s t e c h n i q u e f o r ce s t he rea d e r to con ce n t r a t e o n wh at he
i s r eading bes ide s d e mand ing from him the ability to choose
ma i n ideas f rom the t e x t .
3. PR e P technique (Langer, 19B1 in Sanacore, 1983)
It involves a three-step assessement procedure d e s i g n e d
f o r u s e be f o r e re a d i ng a texbook. The teache r e n c o u r a g e s
~ ss o c i a t i o n s wi t h a key word , phra s e o r picture . conc erning a
in t h e t e xt, then the students reflect on
na jo r c onc e p t
t he i r as soc i at i o ns a nd ,
f i na l l y ,
they r e f o r mu l a te their
knowl e d ge of the material to be read.
By
using this
t echnique the te a c h e r
is able to asse ss the students'
~nowle d g e abo u t the a r ea and to assign appropriate
material
t o the m.
4.
PQ4R (Th omas and Robinson, 1977 in Sanacore, 1983)
61
This s trategy stimulates students' prior knowledge by
us i ng six s t e p s : preview (acti vat 5 prior
knowl d ge ) ,
qu s t i on , r e
reflect, recite and review. These la tter
s t e p g c on fi r m the kno wledge acti v a t e d in the preview an~
esta b li ~ h
a bri d ge with the new knowled ge .
5 . Relating
Shugarman, 1988)
prereading and
prewri t ing (Oberlin
and
Th a e i v i t y s h ows the i mp o r t a nc e o f relating thes e two
sk i l l s . Studen t s are guided to view prer e ading dS ~imilar to
prewr iting by going through the step s an author
goes
through before wr it ing a text. The students, then, ask
questions a bo u t t he t o p i c , the audi ence and the orga~ization
of the text a nd make a list including these aspects.
THE INFLUENCE OF WRITING IN READING AND CONTENT
AREA ACQUISITION
In a s i milar vein, wri ting improves r eading and cont_~ t
area acquisition. I t occurs
mainl y by using
writing
techniq ues before, during and
aftor r e a d i n g a
text.
Accordi ng to Thelen
(1982), the primary r e s po n s i b i l i t y of
t e a c he G i s to h I p students understand the concepts of
sub j e c 5 that the y will le a r n . Many educ ators suggest that
by i n c orp o r a t i n g writing activities into r e ading l essons,
s t u dent H are encouraged to approach reading i n the sam e way
wr iters do it, when they research a topic, deve lop a draft,
r e s e a r c h and develop their text. Thus, wh en
students
pe r c e i v e th e structure of a text, t he y compre he nd be t t e r
what they are r eading as well as learn the subject easi ly.
Some st ud i e s in writing programs ha ve prov e d t he
contribution th at writing gives to a re ade r . Taylo r and
B a ch (1984, in Ti erne y and Leys, 1984) improved st ude n s'
r e a d i ng of ~xpo s itory t exts by involvin g them in wr it in g
pa ra graphs with the same structure g, whi l e Pe t r o s ky (] 82,
i n Ti er n y nd Le ys, 1984) found t hat t h qu al i t y o f r e a d i ng
o f hi s stu dents was enhanced by ha vi ng hem wr e e. s a y
r e s pon s e u to s t o r i e s they had r e a d. Ano ther s ug ge s ed
wr i ti g p r o g r a m c mp ha s i z i ng the in t e g t i o n of wri ti ng
nd
r e a d i n g c a n be f o u nd in Raphael, Kirschner a nd Eng e rt
( 198 8). Th i s p r o j e c t
showed that go od and poo r r.e a d e r s
bo u t t he roc e s s e s u nde r l y i ng r ad i ng and
1 rn e d more
wr i ti ng a nd improved in their ab i lity t o c ompo s e
nd
c o mpr eh ~nd informational t exts. The fol lowi ng a ct ivities are
on ly some of the practices that can be u s e d be for,
during
and a fter reading d text:
1. Writing techniques used be fore rea d i ng a text:
The s e techniques p r epare student s t o meet un f amiliar
words a
t exts which may im pede th ~i r u tI c o mp r e he n sion o f
the text. Among others we citc the di c t a i on
method
(St o t s k y, 19 8 2 ) i n wh ic h the te a c h e r
re a d s a s e l e c t e d
pa ss a g e o f the t ext to b e r e a d a nd unf ami l iar ter ms a r e
dis played and di scussed . The n s t ud e nts wr i t e a p a s s a g e
similar t o the one t he y l i s t e ne d t o an d f i na l l y com p are t hem
a n d edi t t hei r wr it ing . The y are r e a dy, the n t o r ead t h e
te x t . Bre wer (1 9 80, in Sa n a c o r e , 19 8 3 ) propo s e s tha t one way
o f pr e ve n ti ng ne g a t i ve o u t c ome s in r ead in g i s t o u nd er s t a nd
wri t t en d i s cours e : description , narratio n , a nd e x po sit ion
a nd the i r di s cou r s e for ce s : t o i n f o r m, t o e n t e rta in , t o
persuade , a nd to pr o v i d e reade r wit h l i t er a r y -ae stheti c
kn o wledge . Teache r s shou ld p res en t mod e l s o f these dis c ourse
ty pes a nd f o r c e s , so t h a t
stu dents c a n i d e nt i fy t hem wh i l e
be t te r. Mo r e o v e r, whi l e
r e ad ing a nd c omp re he nd the t ex t
noteta k ing t e chn i q u e wh i c h
r e a d i ng , stude n t s c an us e the
he lps t he m i n se lec ti ng t he rele v ant points in the te x t .
2. Wri ti ng tec h ni q u e s used after re a d i n g
The re are a great numbe r o f po s t - r e a di n g t e c h n i q u e s .
Mos t o f them are no t e t a k i ng p r oced u res wh i c h f o r c e s tud e n t s
to conden se and summa r ize what t he y read i n an o r g a n i z e d and
somet imes i n h i e rarc h ical ways. S t o t sk y ( 19 8 2) sug g e s t s s ome
of these a c t i v i t i e s , spe c i a l l y thos e t hat requ i re con s c i o u s
a t te nt ion to d i f f e r e n t aspe c t s o f t he writ t e n l a ngua ge o f
a r e : dicta t i o n
(me n t io ne d befo r e ) ;
t he
o t he rs . The y
reprod u c tion exer c i s e whi c h is do ne wi t ho u t t h e t e x t in v i e w
a nd d evelops compre he n s ion, me mor y a n d power of e x p ress i o n ;
paraphase writ i ng wh i c h assesse s how we l l
t he student
unders tands t he l e x i c al and s yn tac t i c unit s i n t he o r i g ina l
passage ; s e ntenc e c o mb i n i ng whi c h e nha nc e s yn t ac t i c f l ue nc y
i n wr i t i ng; sentence p a t t e rn exe r c i s e s an d pric i s wri t ing,
wh i c h is "a paraph r a s e o r a b s t r ac t
t ha t c o nde n s e s an
o r i g i n a l compos i t i on but reta i n s i t s in forma t ion"
essence
and po in t of v i e w"
(Ebbit a n Ebb it , 19 7 8 in Br oml e y and
Mc Kever y , 198 6 ) . A de t a i l e d d e sc r i p t i o n o f t he s e t echniques
c a n be Yo und in S t o t s ky (198 2).
Mapp i ng a nd g r a p hic orga n ize r s a re al s o t wo e x e r c i s e s
whi ch se r ve a s ve hi c l e s f o r mak i ng mea n i ng s i nc e they p u l l
toge t her tho u ght s e ith e r f o r r e a d i ng o r wr i t i ng" (Mi c c i n a t i,
1988 ) . The s e e xe r c i s e s r eq u i r e ide n tif i cation of ma i n ideas
a nd supporti n g d e tail s i n a pass a ge .
I t i s po ss ible that a l l thes e a c t i viti es wi l l d evelop
st ude nt s ' co nsc i o us n e s s o f the r e a d ing a nd wri t ing ab i l it ies
bo t h i n the f i r s t an d second la n gu age l ea r ning . Howev e r ,
accordi ng to Es key
(1 9 8 6 ) peop le r e a d f o r
i n t e l l e c t ua l
pro fi t o r p le a s u r e . Te a c he r s , the n ,
"ha v e t o cre a t e, o r
fi nd , a body o f mate r ia l t ha t hi s par ticula r stu de n t s mi ght
f i nd inte r e sting to r e a d , an d t he n do eve r y t h i ng i n h i s
powe r t o re l a te tha t ma t e r i a l to the i r rea l conc e r n s a nd to
make i t a s compre he n s i b l e to t hem a s he c a n " (p.4). The s a me
ha s to be do ne in wr i t i ng, people are alwa ys i n terested i n
the c o nte nt o f wh at t h ey ar e writing an d r e a d i ng , they need
som e mot i v a t i o n t o use thes e t wo skill s me a n ing f ull y .
There is no sure-fine formula to teach these two
skills, but anyone can learn how to use them through some
guidance. real opportunities and non-threatening contexts.
The use of journals in the classroom can a l s o provide this
le a r n i ng .
They
empha s i z e
the
reading
and
writing
i n t e r a c t i o n , give students opportunities to express their
ideas and help them us e their re ading materials as well as
to s ee the value of the ir own responses to what they read.
Teachers, on the other hand, can use journals not only as
instructional tools but also as diagnostic tools which ca ll
the teachers' attention to their students' difficul ti es.
This activity also emphasizes the interaction
between
teacher/student through texts. (Rupert and Bru eg g ~man, 1986;
Frager ~ n d Malena, 1986; Browning, 1986; Simpson, 1986).
CONCLUSION
All these studies and techniques discussed above
support the idea of connecting reading and writing. This
connection rather than hampering the students instruction,
aids their development throughout their school
years.
Shanahan
(1988)
proposes seven instructional principles
which explain how reading and writing can be combined to
best enhance students' learning. They include: 1) The
teaching of both reading and writing; this idea has been
discussed before i n the sense that it highlights the
l earners' instruction when they have the knowledge of both
skills to share; 2) The introduction of reading and writing
from earliest grades; research has demonstrated that the
d elay in introducing either reading or writing constrains
the possibility of using one to understand the other; 3) The
refl ection of the developmental nature of the read ing
relationship in instruction ; at each level the relationship
has to be exploited in different ways; 4) the making of the
reading-writing connection explicit; students improve their
ability to transfer
the reading /writing knowledge
b~
reorganizing the similitaries of these two skills; 5) The
focu sing on conte nt and process relations; 6) The emph a s i s
on communications; texts are created individually in ord r
to have a n e f fe c t on others; 7) The teaching of readi ng and
writing in me aningful contents.
In losing, it seems that by foll owing the theoretical
links b tween r ea d i ng and
writing and by using
the
techniq ~ s discussed above teachers can ~mprove
t he ir
classes s well as the student's achievement. Moreover, we
are certain that those teachers who consider these ideas
more readily will have better responses to their classroom
problems. By integrating reading and writing we provide
tools for the learners to comprehend better what they a r e
learning. Finally we conclude this paper by asking whether
teachers and curriculum
designers are
aware of
the
importance of this interconnection and to what extend they
have been using it.
REFERENCES
ADELSTEIN, Michael and PIVAL, Jean. 1978. The Reading
Commioment. New York: Ha r c o u r t Brace Jovanovich, 6-10.
fu~ DERS ON,
T . H. 1 9 7 8 . Another look at the Self-Questioning
S t ud y Te c h n i q u e . Reading Education Report, 6.
Champa ign : Un i ve r si t y o f Illinois. Center for the Study of
Readi ng .
BROWNI NG, F . Nan c y . 1986. Journal writing: one assignment
d o e s mo r e than i mpr o v e reading, wr iting and thinking.
Journal of Reading, vol . 30, I, 39-44.
D'ANGELO BROMLEY, Kar e n a nd McKEVENY, Lauri e. 1986. Precis
Wri t i ng : Su g g e s t i o n f o r in structor in Summa ri z i ng .
Journal of Reading, vo l. 29, 5, 392-395.
ESKEY, David . 19 86 . Th eore t i ca l Fo u nd a t i on s i n F . Dubin et
al (o r gn s.) Teaching Second Language Reading for
Academic Purposes. Re a d ing, MA: Add i son - Wesley, 3-23.
FERRI S , A. Judit h an d SNYDER, Gerry. 1986. Writing as an
influence on readi n g . Journal of Reading, May, 750 - 7 5 6 .
FRAGER , M. Alan and MALENA, F. Ri c h a rd . 1986. Re ading
betwee n the lines i n c o l le ge stude nt journ a l s.Journal of
Reading, vol. 30, I, 34-38 .
GOOD~~ ,
S. Ke nn e t h . 1970. Reading: A psyc holinguistic
g ues s i n g gam e . I n : Sin g e r and Rud e l l (eds.) Theoretical
Mo d e l s and Processes of Reading. Newark, Delaware:
I n t e r na t i o na l Reading Association
GOUGH, B . Phi l i p . 19 7 8. One Second o f Re a d i n g . In: Singer and
Rude l l le d s.) Theoretical Models and Process of Reading.
Newa r k , De l a ware : In t e rn ational Reading Association.
HAY ES, Ch r i s t o p her, 19 8 7 . Te a c h i ng basic r ead ing to basic
wr i t e r s. Jou r n a l of Reading, vo l.3l, 2, 101- 107.
MICCINATI , L. Jean nette , 19 8 8 . Mapping t h e terrain:
connec ting r eading wi t h aca dem ic wr i ti ng . Journal of
Reading. March , 542 - 552 .
OBERLIN , J . Kelly and SHUGARMA N, L . Sh er r i e . 1988.
Purposefu l writing acti v ities fo r students in middle
school . Journal o f Reading, vo l. 3 1 , 7 20- 72 3 .
RAPHAEL , E . Ta f f y , Kirsc h ner , W. Be c k a nd ENGLERT , Sue
Carol . 1988 . Expository Wr i t i ng Pr o g r a m: Ma ki ng
Connections between reading an d wr i t i ng, The Reading
Teacher, Ap r i l , 790 -7 95 .
65
RUBI N, Andr ~
How rc t h e
Report, 5 1 .
Ca n t e r f o r t
nd HAN SEN, ~ nc o 1 9 8 4 . Re a d i n9 an Wr i t i n :
fi rst
wo " 'S " r 1a ed? Re ad i n g Edu c a t i o n
Cha mp ai gn: Uni v e rsit y o f I l l i n o i s,
e S udyy o f R a d l ng .
R MELHART , E . Da v i d .
19 77. Tow ar d n in t e r c t i v e . ode L
r e a d i ng . I n: S . Do r n i c k l e d . ) ,At en t i o n a nd Pe r f o rm ance
1 V. H ll s d a le , l. J . Ca r l s b a urn As s o ci a t e s , 5 73 -603 .
of
R PERT , R. Pam
a nd B EGGEMAN, A.
ar ha . 1 B6 , Re d i n g
J o ur n a
mak ing th languag e
c o n n e t io n
i n ca l l g
Journal of reading, v ol . 30 , 4, 57 5 - 5 3 .
SANACORE I J o s e p h . 198 3 . Irnpr o v i.n q r e a din g t hrou g h p r Lo r
o wl c d g and writin g. Journal of Reading, Ma y, 7 14 -7 1.
SHAN' HAN , Ti mo h y . 1 8 . Th e r ead i n g - wr i t i n g r e l at i o ns h i p:
S mv a n i nst ruc iona l p r in c i p l e s Th e Reading Te acher, Vo l .
41 , 7 ,
36 - 6 4 7 .
5 1 P5 0 N, K. Ma r y . 1 9 8 6 . A t e a c h e r ' s gi ~ : Ora l read i ng
t h r a d ing r e'po nse j o u r n a l . Journal of Reading, v o l.
30 , 1, 45 - 50 .
an .
STOTS KY , S and r a . 1 9 8 2. TI c r ole o f wr i t ing i n dev c l o pmc n t a
ea 1ng . J o ur n a l of Read ing, 330- 3 41.
THELEN, J o d c . 1 982. P r ~pa r i n S tu d ent ~ f o r c o n n
ass i g nmen ts . Journal of Reading, M r c h , 5 4 4- 5 4 9 .
r ea di ng
TIE R EY, J . Ro b e r t a n d Le y s, Marg i e . 1 9 8 4 .
h t is t he v i u
of con n e c t i ng r e a d i n g . n d wr i t i ng ? R ad i ng Re a d ing
Ed u c a t i o n a l Report 55, Champa ig n : Un i e rs i t y o f
I l i no i s . Ce n t e r for th e S tud y O L R e a d i n g ~.
VENEZKY , L Ri ch a r d. 1 9 84. Th e his tory of read ing r e s e r c h in
P . D. Pe
5 n l e d.), Handbook of Reading Research . Ne w
Yo r k : Longma n , 3-3 8 .
WI LSON. 19 8 3 . T c h i n g r ead i ng c o mp re h ension b y c o n n e c t in g
the k no wn to t h e c wo The Reading Te c her , vo l . 36 ,
4 , 3 6 2- 3 90 .
66