FACTORS THAT HELP IN FORMING GOOD WRITERS
A MAJOR PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF LETTERS
AND THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF BILKENT UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS IN
THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
BY
NUKTE OCAL
August, 1989
S c i i t
tuia^ndan hn'’:
-V-İ.İ ^ее
' 0 ^ 3 4 0 δ θ
S
BILKENT UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
MA MAJOR PROJECT EXAMINATION RESULT FORM
August 31, 1989
The examining committee appointed by the
Institute of Economics and Social Sciences for the
major project examination of the MA TEFL student
NUKTE OCAL
has read the project of the student.
The committee has decided that the project
of the student is satisfactory/unsatisfactory.
Project Title:
FACTORS THAT HELP IN FORMING GOOD WRITERS
Project Advisor:
Dr.
John R.
Aydelott
Bilkent University, MA TEFL Program
Committee Member:
Dr.
James G.
Ward
I certify that I have read this major project and that in my
opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a major
project for the degree of Masters of Arts.
ClXl
John R.
Ayd)elott
(Advisor)
I certify that I have read this major project and that in my
opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as a major
project for the degree of Masters of Arts.
Approved for the
Institute of Economics and Social Sciences
*5 tt. I ^ •a'/'
»>1—U-u/-tr
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sections
Pages
I. INTRODUCTION... 1
II. WHAT DOES A GOOD WRITER DO?... 4
A.
Change in Research on Writing Pedagogy... 4
B.
A Review of Experiments on Composing Processes... 6
1.
Planning...
6
2.
Rescanning... 8
3 .
Revising... 8
4 .
.
Summary... 11
C.
Awareness of Audience... 11
III. THE EFFECT OF READING ON WRITING... 13
A.
Review of
Research...
13
B.
What Does the Theory Tell Us?... 16
IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA..,...18
A.
Characteristics of the Data... 18
B.
Composing Processes... 19
C .
Audience... 21
D.
Reading and Writing... 22
V. THE ROLE OF INSTRUCTION IN
DEVELOPING THE
WRITING
SKILLS... 26
A.
Introduction... 26
B.
The Complexity Argument... 28
C.
The Problem of Approach... 29
D.
Two Main Issues: Frequency of Writing
and Grammar Teaching... 31
1.
Frequency... 31
2.
Grammar... 32
VI. IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH FOR THE
CLASSROOM... 34
A.
Teaching Strategies... 34
B.
Evaluation...
37
VII.
CONCLUSION... 38
VIII.
REFERENCES... ... 41
IX. APPENDIX... ’ ... ... 44
A.
Questionnaire... 45
B.
Letters... 47
X. CURRICULUM VITAE...50
FACTORS THAT HELP IN FORMING GOOD WRITERS
I. INTRODUCTION
The field of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)
now recognizes the importance of writing as one of the major
means of communication.
Thus, communicative language teaching is
more and more concerned with improving students' writing skills.
Especially in academic settings such as the teaching of English
at universities, one of the main goals is to develop students'
writing abilities.
Although research on writing and the teaching
of writing in foreign language has been late and sporadic, with
the increasing interest in the field, it has become one of the
attractive areas in TEFL.
This study is based upon two main issues both related to
the cognitive dimension of composition writing.
One of the
concerns is the composing processes of second language student
writers and the other one is the acquisition of writing style
through reading.
On the one hand, composing strategies that good
writers effectively use are studied.
On the other hand, the
influence of the amount and quality of pleasure reading on
writing ability is researched.
When we think of an EFL context
where Turkish students write in English we are immediately
interested in the implications of the above issues for the
teaching of writing.
Thus, the areas this paper touches upon can
be expressed by the following questions:
- What kinds of composing processes do good writers use?
- Does reading in the first or second language affect second
language writing?
-- Is deliberate instruction of writing influential on the
development of writing skills?
- What type of instruction is more effective?
As a result of these considerations I preferred a general
statement for my topic: "Factors That Help In Forming
Good Writers."
The research process includes several components.
A part
of it is based on library research.
For this study, I have
reviewed accounts of related, recent research.
I realize that
empirical investigation on second language writing is rare and
still very limited; therefore, I also concentrated on and got
insight from the research done on first language writing.
The
other component of this study consists of the description of a
group of EFL student writers.
A questionnaire was given to
students and results were used as data.
Through a comparison of
the research on effective writing and the description of student
writers, I have made some suggestions for teachers of EFL
writing.
Analyzing and clarifying the variables that lead to good
writing are of primary importance in developing students'
communicative writing skills.
If some consistent results are
obtained, teaching methodologies and approaches can be rearranged
to suit students' needs.
If the required changes are within the
material possibilities, then, there will be hope for teachers and
administrators in forming good writers out of Turkish English
1a n g u a g e s t u d e n t s
-The g r o u p w h o will b e n e f i t m o s t from this p r o j e c t is s t u d e n t w r i t e r s of E n g l i s h - H o p ef u l l y , the p r o j e c t will sho w them g u i d e l i n e s for c h o o s i n g the best s t r a t e g i e s in the
a c q u i s i t i o n and d e v e l o p m e n t of the s e c o n d l a n g u a g e w r i t i n g skill. The o t h e r g r o u p that can b en e f i t from the p r o j e c t is o b v i o u s l y the w r i t i n g t e a c h e r s w h o plan c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s . A c t i v i t i e s
can be r e a r r a n g e d and r e s c h e d u l e d to i n c l u d e the c o m p o n e n t s that w o ul d c r e a t e the m o s t f a v o r a b l e c o n d i t i o n s for the i m p r o v e m e n t of w r i t i n g skills. A n o t h e r g r o u p of p r o f e s s i o n a 1s that may take a d v a n t a g e of this s t u d y is c u r r i c u l u m d e s i g n e r s who d e s i g n the w r i t i n g p r o g r a m s w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the o b j e c t i v e s of overall
l a n g u a g e
program-Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and the a n a l y s i s of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s form the c ru c i a l part of the project- I g a v e a g r o u p of u n i v e r s i t y
s t u d e n t s q u e s t i o n n a i r e s in o r d e r to find out a b o u t their c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s and their r e a d i n g habits. A f t e r the c o l l e c t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , s t u d ents' i n s t r u c t o r s we r e c o n s u l t e d for a c o m p a r i s o n of e a c h s t u d e n t ' s q u e s t i o n n a i r e
r e s u l t s and the i n s t r u c t o r ' s h o l i s t i c e v a l u a t i o n of the s t u d e n t ' s w r i t i n g . Data a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w e r e s u p p l e m e n t e d w i t h l ib r a r y r e s e arch. It s h o u l d be n o t e d h o w e v e r that the
q u e s t i o n n a i r e was n o t d e s i g n e d w i t h i t ems r e f e r r i n g to students' p r e s e n t or p r e v i o u s i n s t r u c t i o n in w r i t i n g - For this project, i n d i v i d u a l s t r a t e g i e s and h a b i t s are of co n c e r n - I n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e s are d e a l t w i t h in the last part of the pa p e r as
A n o t h e r s o u r c e of i n f o r m a t i o n is the letters and a r t i c l e s o b t a i n e d from w e l l - k n o w n n a m e s in the field. L e t t e r s and
m a t e r i a l s r e c e i v e d from Jann H u i z e n g a , V i v i a n Zamel and Ilona Leki a re v a l u a b l e g u i d e s and s u p p o r t for the project.
This r e s e a r c h is limited to T e a c h i n g E n g l i s h as a F o r ei g n L a n g u a g e . A l t h o u g h the body of r e s e a r c h on the t e a c h i n g of
c o m p o s i t i o n in n a t i v e E n g l i s h c l a s s e s has been of m u c h help, the a ctual d a t a w e r e c o l l e c t e d from B i l k e n t U n i v e r s i t y , P r e p a r a t o r y S c h ool. The s u b j e c t s w e r e a d u l t l e a r n e r s of E n g l i s h who aged
from 18 to 25. T h e i r p r o f i c i e n c y level was high i n t e r m e d i a t e . Again, the r e s e a r c h w as limited to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the
w r i t i n g skill. A l i m i t a t i o n that can a f f e c t the o u t c o m e s of the s t u d y is the q u a l i t i e s of the w r i t i n g t e a ch e r s w ho e v a l u a t e d the w r i t i n g of the s t u d e n t s s e r v i n g as s u b j e c t s . Here, I have m a i n l y r e l i e d on p e r s o n a l j u d g e m e n t of t e a c h e r s w h o have n ot had m u c h e x p e r i e n c e in t e a c h i n g and e v a l u a t i n g writ i n g .
II. WHA T DOES A G O O D W R I T E R DO? A . C h a n g e in R e s e a r c h on W r i t i n g P e d a g o g y
When o n e m e n t i o n s " f a c t o r s that m a k e good w r i t e r s " this b r i n g s to m i n d the d e s c r i p t i o n of a good w r i t e r and the
d e s c r i p t i o n of the s t r a t e g i e s he or she uses. In r e c e n t y e a r s th e r e has been a s h i f t in the r e s e a r c h on w r i t i n g p e d a gogy. In the past y e a r s r e s e a r c h was c a r r i e d out in o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s to the t e a c h i n g of writing. R e s e a r c h of this s o r t c o m p a r e d o n e kind of i n s t r u c t i o n wi t h
a n o t h e r in the e f f o r t to find the best method. But these e f f o r t s w e r e based on the f a u l t y a s s u m p t i o n s that there was a best m e t h o d
of t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g and that good w r i t i n g c o n f o r m e d to a p r e d e t e r m i n e d and ideal model. H o w e v e r , now, w i t h p r o ce s s
s t u d i e s we u n d e r s t a n d the c o m p l e x i t y of w r i t i n g better. P r o c e s s s t u d i e s c o n s i s t i n g of c a s e s t udies, i n t e r v i e w s and s u r v e y s have r e v e a l e d the ’'complex," " r e c u r s i v e , " and " n o n l i n e a r " n a t u r e of c o m p o s i n g (Zamel, 1907). R e s e a r c h e r s are m o r e and m o r e
i n t e r e s t e d in the b e h a v i o r s , s t r a t e g i e s and d i f f i c u l t i e s of w r i t e r s . Thus, the r e s e a r c h in p e d a g o g y is, now, d o m i n a t e d by the a t t e m p t s to i n v e s t i g a t e the c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s , w i t h s t u d i e s that e x a m i n e the w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s of s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d
w r i t e r s - I n v e s t i g a t o r s focus on the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n : W h a t do p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s do?
We u n d e r s t a n d that good w r i t e r s have d e v i s e d e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s for c o m p o s i n g and c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h is c o n c e r n e d w i t h these. R e s e a r c h e r s e x p l o r e w a y s p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s g e n e r a t e
ideas, r e c o r d them and r e f i n e them in o r d e r to form a text. They are m o r e and m o r e c o n v i n c e d that by s t u d y i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g the p r o c e s s of c o m p o s i n g o n e can gain i n s i g h t into how to teach i t (Z a m e 1, 1907) .
I n v e s t i g a t i o n s on u n s k i l l e d and s k i ll e d w r i t e r s have shown that w r i t i n g is a p r o c e s s of d i s c o v e r i n g and m a k i n g mean i n g . T h r o u g h the act of w r i t i n g itself, id e a s are e x p lo r e d , c l a r i f i e d and r e f o r m u 1 ated - As this p r o c e s s c o n t i n u e s , n e w ideas a p p e a r and they are i n c o r p o r a t e d into the p a t t e r n of thouglit. S k i l l e d w r i t e r s w h o u n d e r s t a n d that w r i t i n g m ay be r e c u r s i v e and n o n
l inear are a b l e to m o d i f y or ev e n a b a n d o n big c h u n k s of d i s c o u r s e or t h eir o r i g i n a l plan as they r e v i e w their w r i t i n g in terms of
its f u n c t i o n and their readers' e x p e c t a t i o n s - H o w e v e r , u n s k i l l e d and b e g i n n i n g w r i t e r s r a r e l y e x p e r i e n c e w r i t i n g as a c o n t i n u o u s p r o c e s s of g e n e r a t i n g and i n t e g r a t i n g ideas- Ra t h e r , they are c o n v i n c e d that w r i t e r s know b e f o r e h a n d w h a t they are go i n g to say- Th e s e u n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s are s c a r e d of e x p l o r i n g their t h o u g h t s on paper. As F l o w e r p o i n t s out, their e a r l y d e c i s i o n s to p r o c e e d in a c e r t a i n d i r e c t i o n lock them into a p r e m a t u r e
s o l u t i o n b e f o r e they e n t e r the p r o b l e m (cited in Zamel, 1903, The C o m p o s i n g P r o c e s s e s ) . They base t h eir w r i t i n g on i n f l e x i b l e
p l a n s in a d d i t i o n to c o n s t a n t c o n c e r n w i t h m e c h a n i c s , corr^ectness and
form-B - A R e v i e w of E x p e r i m e n t s on C o m p o s i n g P ro c e s s e s
In this part I w a n t to p r e s e n t a r e v i e w of the s t u d i e s c a r r i e d out on the c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s - I m p o r t a n t f i n di n g s of
these s t u d i e s b e l o n g to the field of t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h
c o m p o s i t i o n to n a t i v e s p e a kers. Still, som e o t h e r s t u d i e s have th e i r o r i g i n in E F L / E S L c o m p o s i t i o n c l a s s e s . R e s e a r c h , in
g e n e r a l , s h o w s that good w r i t e r s d i f f e r from poor w r i t e r s in
their c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s in that they iiave b e t t e r p r o c e d u r e s for g e t t i n g their i d eas down on paper. Good w r i t e r s d i f f e r m a i n l y in
three ways: p l a n ning, r e s c a n n i n g and r e v i sing.
1. P l a n n i n g
R e s e a r c h s h o w s that the g o o d w r i t e r p lans m o r e than the poor w r i ter. Th i s n e i t h e r m e a n s that good w r i t e r s work on a
formal plan n o r that they a l w a y s " p r e w r i t e - " In 1975, Emig did a s t ud y on p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s . This s t u d y r e v e a l e d that v e r y few
p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s us e d the s t a n d a r d o u t l i n e form, but all
r e p o r t e d s o m e kind of p l a n n i n g of c o n t e n t and o r g a n i z a t i o n b e f o r e w r i t i n g - In 1974, S t a l l a r d found that good and a v e r a g e high
school w r i t e r s did not d i f f e r in o u t l i n i n g beh a v i o r , but good w r i t e r s took m o r e time r e g a r d l e s s of w h e t h e r they j u s t t h o u g h t or w r o t e notes, b e f o r e a c t u a l l y w r i t i n g , o n c e they w e r e g i ven the
topic in an i n - c l a s s e s s a y s i t u a t i o n - In 1979, P i a n k o r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s in a s t u d y of " t r a d i t i o n a 1" and " r e m e d i a l "
c o l l e g e freshmen: the b e t t e r w r i t e r s took m o r e time b e f o r e
w r i t i n g - But in both s t u d i e s few s t u d e n t s r e p o r t e d u s i n g formal o u t l i n e s . In 1901, Wall and P e t r o v s k y found that m o r e of their best f r e s h m a n w r i t e r s r e p o r t e d s p e n d i n g a long time b e f o r e
b e g i n n i n g to write. Again, this s t u d y r e v e a l s that poor w r i t e r s r a r e l y m a k e any w r i t t e n plans or notes, p r e f e r r i n g to begin by "just b e g i n n i n g " (cited in K r a s h e n , 1904).
V i v i a n Zamel (1903) c a r r i e d out c a s e s t u d i e s on the c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s of ESL s t u d e n t s . M o s t of the d a t a was c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the o b s e r v a t i o n s e s s i o n s when s t u d e n t s w e r e e n g a g e d in real c l a s s r o o m w r i t i n g tasks. H o w e v e r , a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t these students' w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r was o b t a i n e d at the end of the s e s s i o n s , when s t u d e n t s d i s c u s s e d i n f o r m a l l y their w r i t i n g e x p e r i e n c e s . The least s k i l l e d w r i t e r s a d m i t t e d that o n c e they c o n s t r u c t e d a plan at the b e g i n n i n g , they v i e w e d their e s s a y as a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d e x p a n s i o n of this plan. On the o t h e r hand, the s k i l l e d w r i t e r s ga v e a ver y d i f f e r e n t a c c o u n t of the process. T h e y had f l e x i b l e pl a n s and w e r e a w a r e that they c o u l d leave ha 1f - f i n i s h e d t h o u g h t s and r e t u r n to them
later-T h e s e w r i t e r s al s o t a lked a b o u t h a v i n g some ge n e r a l s e n s e of d i r e c t i o n , but n ot k n o w i n g in p a r t i c u l a r w h a t they w o u l d say. Th e y w e r e w i l l i n g to c h a n g e their i d eas as they w r o t e and to r e v i s e their o u t l i n e as new ideas and a r g u m e n t s e m erged.
2. R e s c a n n i n g
S t u d i e s reveal that good w r i t e r s p a use m o r e d u r i n g w r i t i n g and r e r e a d their text more. In S t a l l a r d ' s s t u d y good high school w r i t e r s s t o p p e d to r eread an a v e r a g e of 3 . 7 3 times per s t u d e n t d u r i n g the w r i t i n g of an essay, w h i l e r e r e a d i n g o c c u r r e d less than o n c e per s t u d e n t a m o n g the poor w r i t e r s - Again, P i a n k o ' s
" t r a d i t i o n a 1" s t u d e n t s p a u s e d n e a r l y twice as o ften d u r i n g w r i t i n g as r e m e d i a l s t u d e n t s and r e s c a n n e d their work n e a r l y three times as often. Wall and P e t r o v s k y a l s o r e p o r t a t e n d e n c y for m o r e f r e q u e n t r e r e a d i n g a mong t h eir m o r e a d v a n c e d w r i t e r s
(cited in Krashen, 1984).
In her c a s e s t u d i e s (Zamel, 1903, The C o m p o sing P r o c e s s e s ), Zamel r e p o r t s that o n e of her s k i l l e d w r i t e r s e x p r e s s e d the need to r e r e a d and e v a l u a t e her wr i t i n g :
When I r e r e a d , I find out that I d i d n ' t w r i t e w h a t I had in mind. The thing that I w a n t e d to say w a s not w h a t I wrote- I r eread to see if the w o r d s fit the idea- If it does, I go on .
K ra s h e n e x p l a i n s the need for r e s c a n n i n g w i t h the p r o b l e m of “ losing the place" that all w r i t e r s have. W r i t e r s face the
p r o b l e m of losing a s e n s e of the w h o l e e s s a y w h i l e in the act of w r i t i n g - Goo d w r i t e r s are a w a r e of this problem. They reread and r e s c a n for the p u r p o s e of r e v i e w i n g their initial plan, c o n s i d e r i n g c h a n g e s , i m p r o v e m e n t s and i n c o r p o r a t i n g ,new ideas.
3 - R e v i s i n g
The focus of the r e v i s i o n s has been found m o r e s i g n i f i c a n t than the n u m b e r of r e v i s i o n s - W h a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e good w r i t e r s from bad w r i t e r s a r e the a r e a s they c o n s i d e r w h i l e revising. R e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s tell us that b e t t e r w r i t e r s focus on c o n t e n t and less a b l e w r i t e r s on s u r f a c e
form-In her work of 1900, S o m m e r s c o m p a r e s s t u d e n t s and
e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s s u c h as j o u r n a l i s t s , s c h o l a r s and e d i tors- S he r e p o r t s that s t u d e n t w r i t e r s a s s u m e that the a i med m e s s a g e and m e a n i n g a re p r e s e n t in their first draft. R e v i s i o n is s i m p l y a m a t t e r of f i n d i n g the best w o r d s to e x p r e s s them- On the o t h e r hand, Sommers' e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s v i e w r e v i s i o n d i f f e r e n t l y .
For them the a im of the r e v i s i o n is to r e c o n s i d e r the d e v e l o p m e n t of t h eir a r g u m e n t s . T h e i r first d r a f t g i v e s them a g e n e r a l view of the topic they w a n t to explo r e . S u b s e q u e n t r e v i s i o n s help e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s c o n t i n u e to c r e a t e m e a n i n g .
In 1901, F a i g l e y and W i t t e s t u d i e d six p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s , six a d v a n c e d c o l l e g e w r i t e r s and six i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s ( c o l l e g e f r e s h m e n d e f i c i e n t in w r i t i n g skills). T h e i r s u b j e c t s w r o t e on an a s s i g n e d topic in three s e s s i o n s , p l a nn i n g the f i rst d a y and w r i t i n g d r a f t s on the s e c o n d and third day. F a i g l e y and W i t t e r e p o r t e d s t a r t l i n g d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the g r o u p s w i t h r e s p e c t to the r e v i s i o n type- As S o m m e r s found, the m o r e a d v a n c e d w r i t e r s m a d e m o r e c o n t e n t r e v i s i o n s of the
" m a c r o s t r u c t u r e " type; that is, there was a m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e in the m e a n i n g of the essay- E x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s m a d e an a v e r a g e of
19.6 m a c r o B t r u c t u r e c h a n g e s per 1000 w o r d s of text, a d v a n c e d
w r i t e r s m a d e an a v e r a g e of 23-1 suc h c h a n g e s , w h i l e i n e x p e r i e n c e d s t u d e n t w r i t e r s m a d e o n l y 1.3 m a j o r c h a n g e s per 1000 w o r d s of text. F a i g l e y and W i t t e al s o r e p o r t e d that the g r o u p s d i f f e r e d w i t h r e s p e c t to whe n they m a d e c h a n g e s . The two m o r e a d v a n c e d g r o u p s d e l a y e d m e c h a n i c a l and word c h o i c e c h a n g e s until the
s e c o n d draft. First, they p r e f e r r e d to deal s a t i s f a c t o r i 1y w i t h their s ub j e c t s . I n e x p e r i e n c e d s t u d e n t s s t o p p e d r e v i s i n g by the s e c o n d d r a f t and d e a l t w i t h m e c h a n i c s o n l y (cited in K r a s h e n ,
1904)-In their s t u d y on c o l l e g e f r e sh m a n s t u d e n t s Wall and
P e t r o v s k y r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r results- T h e i r best f r e s h m a n w r i t e r s u t i l i z e d r e v i s i o n m o r e for a d d i n g n e w ideas, m o d i f y i n g large s e c t i o n s and r e o r g a n i z i n g them. A v e r a g e s t u d e n t s did m o s t
rev i s i o n , but their r e v i s i o n was limited to the c 1a r i f i c a t i o n on initial ideas (e.g., a d d i n g e x a m p l e s , r e w o r d i n g ) . The least abl e g r o u p m a d e the f e w e s t word and p h r a s e c h a n g e s but w e r e w i l l i n g to add m at e r i a l (cited in Krashen, 1904).
In 1900, Perl c a r r i e d out a c a s e s t u d y w i t h five u n s k i l l e d c o l l e g e w r i t e r s - She found that poor w r i t e r s focus m u c h m o r e on form and less on c o n t e n t in r e vision. Perl r e p o r t s that her five w r i t e r s w e r e u n d e r the i m p r e s s i o n that r e v i s i n g was e s s e n t i a l l y e d i t i n g , the a p p l i c a t i o n of c o n s c i o u s r u l e s to small p o i n t s of g r a m m a r , s p e l l i n g and p u n c t u a t i o n and that s u c h e d i t i n g was a s u p r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t part of the c o m p o s i n g process. Perl n o t e s
that their " p r e m a t u r e " e d i t i n g b r oke "the r h y t h m g e n e r a t e d by t h i n k i n g and w r i t i n g " , c a u s i n g these w r i t e r s "to lose track of
t h eir ideas" (cited in K r a s h e n , 1984).
I n t e r e s t i n g l y , in her c a s e s t u d i e s w i t h ESL s t u d e n t s , Zamel had s i m i l a r results. H er s k i l l e d w r i t e r s r e c o g n i z e the
i m p o r t a n c e of m e a n i n g - 1 e v e 1 c h a n g e s and e x p r e s s their c o n c e r n a b o u t them (Zamel, 1903, The C o m p o s i n g P r o c e s s e s );
I get a n g r y at m y s e l f when I c r o s s out an e n t i r e p a r a g r a p h a f t e r s p e n d i n g so m u c h time on it, but I know I have to do it if it d o e s n ' t m a k e s e n s e
-4. S u m m a r y
L i m i t e d r e s e a r c h into the s e c o n d l a n g u a g e c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s s e e m s to para l l e l w h a t we learn from r e s e a r c h in first l a n g u a g e w r i t i n g . Of c o u rse, m u c h f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h into the s e c o n d
l a n g u a g e c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s is n e c e s s a r y to d e t e r m i n e the e x t e n t to w h i c h t h ese f i n d i n g s are g e n e r a l i z e d . H o w e v e r , a c c o r d i n g to the e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h c o m p o s i n g in a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e is an
e x t r e m e l y c o m p l e x u n d e r t a k i n g , but it s e e m s that this c o m p l e x i t y has m o r e to do w i t h the c o n s t r a i n t s of the c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s tlian w i t h l i n g u i s t i c d i f f i c u l t i e s . W h i l e E S L X E F L s t u d e n t s mus t
c e r t a i n l y deal w i t h c o n c e r n s that are 1i n g u i s t i c - s p e c i f i c , it s e e m s that it is their w r i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s and b e h a v i o r s and not p r i m a r i l y l a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y that d e t e r m i n e c o m p o s i n g skills. Thus, like i n e x p e r i e n c e d or basic n a t i v e l a n g u a g e w r i t e r s ,
u n s k i l l e d E F L / E S L w r i t e r s s e e m to have a ver y limited n o t i o n of w h a t c o m p o s i n g invo l v e s , and s k i l l e d E S L / E F L wr i t e r s , like good n a t i v e l a n g u a g e w r i t e r s , s e e m to be a w a r e of the v a r i o u s
d i m e n s i o n s and d e m a n d s of c o m p o s i n g
с . A w a r e n e s s of A u d i e n c e
A p a r t from the c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s we need to c o n s i d e r a n o t h e r i s sue c r u c i a l for p r o f i c i e n t w r i t i n g - It can be c a l l e d the s e n s e of a u d i e n c e . This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c is s t a t e d among the mai n f ac t o r s w h i c h form a good writer. H u i z e n g a (personal
c o m m u n i c a t i o n , M a r c h 28, 1989) e x p r e s s e s it as an a b i l i t y to e m p a t h i z e w i t h a reader- The w r i t e r s s h o u l d st e p out of their own s h o e s and read their w r i t i n g o b j e c t i v e l y .
In 1980, F l o w e r and H a y e s e x a m i n e d in detail c o m m e n t s w r i t e r s m a d e as they c o m p o s e d - Th e y used the "think aloud" t e c h n i q u e s w h i c h r e q u i r e that w r i t e r s v e r b a l i z e w h a t they are t h i n k i n g w h i l e w r i t i n g . F l o w e r and H a y e s found c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g " e x p e r t w r i t e r s , " t e a c h e r s of w r i t i n g and "novice"
w r i t e r s , c o l l e g e f r e s h m a n s t u d e n t s w h o have w r i t i n g problems- E x p e r t w r i t e r s are m u c h m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h their a u d i e n c e than poor s t u d e n t w r i t e r s . Th e y spend m u c h m o r e time th i n k i n g a b out the e f f e c t they w a n t to m a k e on their reader- They a re m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h the c h o i c e of the style, the b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e the r e a d e r will need and w h a t m i g h t i n t e r e s t the reader- On the o t h e r hand, s t u d e n t s w i t h w r i t i n g p r o b l e m s are a b s o r b e d in the
topic and sp e n d little time t h i n k i n g a b o u t the r e a d e r (K r a s h e n , 1984).
F l o w e r (1984) o p p o s e s writer— based p r ose to r e a d e r - b a s e d prose. She p o i n t s o u t that a l t h o u g h we o f t e n e q u a t e w r i ti n g w i t h the s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d act of "saying w h a t we mea n , " the mental s t r u g g l e s w r i t e r s go t h r o u g h and the m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s r e a d e r s still m a k e s u g g e s t that we need a b e t t e r model of this process. M o d e r n c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h e o r y and p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e a g r e e on the
f o l l o w i n g point: w r i t i n g p r o s e that a c t u a l l y c o m m u n i c a t e s w h a t we m e a n to a n o t h e r p e r s o n d e m a n d s m o r e than a s i m p l e act of s elf- e x p r e s s i o n . E f f e c t i v e w r i t e r s do n ot s i m p l y e x p r e s s t hought but
t r a n s f o r m it in c o m p l e x w a y s for the n e e d s of a reader. C o n v e r s e l y , i n e f f e c t i v e w r i t e r s are m e r e l y " e x p r e s s i n g "
t h e m s e l v e s by o f f e r i n g an u n d e r p r o c e s s e d v e r s i o n of their own thought- W r i t e r - b a s e d prose is c h a r a c t e r i z e d w i t h a m b i g u o u s r e f e r e n t s , w o r d s w h i c h have s pecial m e a n i n g for the writer,
u n d e r d e v e l o p e d i deas and lack of o r g a n i z a t i o n - Good w r i t e r s are a b l e to t r a n s f o r m w r i t e r - b a s e d p r o s e into r e a d e r - b a s e d prose- The y are s e n s i t i v e to the r e a d e r s ' n e e d s and p r o v i d e rich
c o n t e x t s to hel p the a u d i e n c e u n d e r s t a n d their me s s a g e . In o t h e r words, good w r i t e r s can m o v e from e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g to
i n t e r a c t i o n a 1 w r i t i n g - They see the i m p o r t a n c e of taking a social role and social p e r s p e c t i v e - T h e y can p r o d u c e d i s c o u r s e w h i c h is s e 1f - c o n t a i n e d w i t h all the n e c e s s a r y i n f o r m a t i o n
i n c l u d e d .
III. THE E F F E C T OF R E A D I N G ON W R I T I N G A . R e v i e w of R e s e a r c h
A v a r i e t y of s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e that r e a d i n g e x p o s u r e c o n t r i b u t e s to the d e v e l o p m e n t of w r i t i n g a b i lity- Pleading e x p o s u r e is m a n i f e s t e d in s everal ways. K r a s h e n s u g g e s t s the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s , i n c l u d i n g both r e a d i n g in school and o u t s i d e s c h o o l :
1. S u s t a i n e d S i l e n t R e a d i n g p r o g r a m s 2. " S e l f - s e l e c t e d " r e a d i n g p r o g r a m s
3. L i v i n g in a "print" e n v i r o n m e n t
4. P l e a s u r e r e a d i n g as r e p o r t e d by the r e a d e r s t h e m s e 1ves
5. R e a d i n g aloud to c h i l d r e n (K r a s h e n , 1985).
In this se c t i o n , I will m o s t l y deal w i t h the e f f e c t of v o l u n t a r y p l e a s u r e r e a d i n g upon w r i t i n g r e f e r r i n g to s o m e s t u d i e s d on e on "type 3," living in a pr i n t e n v i r o n m e n t and "type 5," r e a d i n g a l o u d to c h i l d r e n .
In 1978, a s t u d y c a r r i e d out by K i m b e r l i n g , Wi n g a t e ,
R o s s e r , D i c h a r a and K r a s h e n e x a m i n e d d i r e c t l y the c o n t r i b u t i o n of v o l u n t a r y p l e a s u r e r e a d i n g to the d e v e l o p m e n t of w r i t i n g ability. S i x t y - s i x f r e s h m a n u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s w e r e g i v e n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s k i n g them to i n d i c a t e the a m o u n t of p l e a s u r e r e a d i n g they had d o n e at d i f f e r e n t times in their lives. They w e r e a l s o asked to w r i t e an e s s a y w h i c h was e v a l u a t e d by two raters. O n l y the
e s s a y s j u d g e d to be h i g h l y s u c c e s s f u l and ver y poor w e r e r e t a i n e d for f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . The a n s w e r s to q u e s t i o n n a i r e s s h o w e d some c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n good w r i t e r s and poor w r i t e r s - Good w r i t e r s r e p o r t m o r e p l e a s u r e r e a d i n g at all ages, e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g hig h school (cited in Krashen, 1984).
In a s t u d y d o n e in 1967 by W o o d w a r d and P h i l l i p s good f r e s h m a n w r i t e r s r e p o r t e d m o r e r e a d i n g of the d a i l y n e w s p a p e r than poor w r i t e r s . In 1978, A p p l e b e e s u r v e y e d 48i good high school w r i t e r s , w i n n e r s of a c h i e v e m e n t a w a r d s in wr i t i n g . This s t u d y f u r t h e r s u p p o r t s the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t of r e a d i n g on writing. A p p l e b e e s t a t e s that s u c c e s s f u l w r i t e r s are also r e g u l a r
r e p o r t e d an a v e r a g e of 14 books o v e r the s u m m e r v a c a t i o n . R y a n ' s r e s e a r c h c a r r i e d o ut in 1977 c o m p a r e d r e g u l a r c o l l e g e f r e s h m a n w r i t e r s w i t h those w h o a t t e n d sp e c i a l c l a s s e s b e c a u s e of their w r i t i n g problem- A f t e r c o n d u c t i n g home i n t e r v i e w s , Ryan r e p o r t e d that the "reg u l a r " writers' homes had m o r e books and a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of books. But this r e s u l t is w e a k l y s u p p o r t e d by
Wookward. and P h i l l i p s who found that an equal n u m b e r of good and poor w r i t e r s r e p o r t e d m a n y b o oks in the home- A p a r t from the i n f l u e n c e of the pr i n t e n v i r o n m e n t Rya n al s o d e a l s w i t h the fifth type of r e a d i n g e x p o s u r e , that is, r e a di n g a l oud to c h i l d r e n - He r e p o r t s that the p a r e n t s of good w r i t e r s read m o r e f r e q u e n t l y to t heir c h i l d r e n than p a r e n t s of poor writ e r s - In 1976, McNeil e v a l u a t e d the r e s u l t s of a p l e a s u r e r e a d i n g p r o g r a m ("Hooked on Books") on boys aged from 12 to 17 in a school in M i c h i g a n ove r a t w o — y e a r period- He us e d a c ontrol g r o u p w ho did n o t go t h r o u g h s u c h a program- He r e p o r t s that " r eaders" g a i n e d g r e a t e r w r i ti n g f l u e n c y and w r o t e w i t h g r e a t e r c o m p l e x i t y than did the c ontrol s u b j e c t s - He a l s o r e p o r t s that " r e a ders" g a i n e d s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e and d e v e l o p e d b e t t e r a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g (cited in Krashen, 1984).
Ho w e v e r , one s t u d y did not find p l e a s u r e r e a d i n g - w r i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p . Illo r e p o r t s that c o r r e l a t i o n s of s e l f - r ep o r t e d p l e a s u r e r e a d i n g and f r e s h m a n c o m p o s i t i o n g r a d e s at S h i p p e n s b u r g S t a t e C o l l e g e s e e m e d weak. But Illo d o e s not p r o v i d e f u r t h e r de t a i l s - O t h e r s t u d i e s r e p o r t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n r e a d i n g a b i l i t y and w r i t i n g ability: G r o b e and Grobe, 1977, M a t h e w s , L a r s e n , and Butler, 1945, Zemdin, 1969, E v a n e c h , Ollilj and A r m s t r o n g , 1974 (cited in Krashen,
B .
What Does the Theory Tell Us?
Krashen provides a theory that explains the reading-writing
relationship.
In his theory, he separates writing competence
which is the abstract knowledge the proficient writer has about
writing from performance which is the ability to put this
knowledge to use in an actual piece of writing.
It is
hypothesized that writing competence comes only from large
amounts of seIf-motivated reading for interest or pleasure.
Writing competence is acquired subconsciously; readers are
unaware they are acquiring it while they are reading.
It is
reading that gives the writer the sense for the look and
structure of reader-based prose.
Smith (1983) has come to similar conclusions.
He notes
that good writers have a great deal of knowledge of conventional
or formal features of reader-based prose they can call upon
whenever they need to perform.
Different
kinds of texts they
have read provide them with options that they can use to organize
and express their ideas.
Krashen expresses the theory as follows
(Krashen, 1984):
This hypopthesis does not predict a perfect correlation
between the amount of pleasure reading done and writing
ability.
It maintains only that all good writers will
have done large amounts of pleasure reading, not simply
" the more reading, the better the writing." There is,
in other words, a minimum amount of reading that every
good writer has done.
The reading hypothesis thus does
not distinguish excellent writers from merely good
writers-other factors such as creativity and experience
certainly play a role.
leather, good writers and
excellent writers have both read enough to have acquired
the code of written language.
Smith is concerned with the ways the written code is
acquired.
He points out that the conventions of written language
are too complex to learn deliberately.
Even the basic rules of
punctuation, capitalization and grammar cannot be entirely taught
to others.
When it comes to subtle considerations such as style
and the intricate registers that written language itself demands
in different circumstances the attempts of deliberate instruction
are even more useless.
Trial and error cannot account for what
writers know.
No one could write enough and get sufficient
feedback to discover even a fraction of all relevant conventions.
The only place all the demonstrations are available is in the
text produced by others.
Smith argues that children must learn
to write by being accepted and by accepting themselves as members
of the club of written language users.
He goes on pointing out
that children learn what has sense and meaning.
The reading and
writing are for a purpose, not an exercise.
The learning is
unconscious and effortless; no one at the time would know that it
was actually taking place.
The learning is incidental; the child
is reading and writing for the sake of the reading and writing,
not for the sake of learning.
The learning is collaborative,
with the author being employed actively as guide and source of
knowledge (Smith, 1983).
All the research studies and theories mentioned above
belong to the field of first language composition.
Unfortunately, there is no research exploring the relationship
between LI reading and L2 writing that is available to me.
However, in her letter, Leki (personnel communication. Hay 5,
1989) mentions the accounts of the results of recent research on
LI r e a d i n g and L2 w r i t i n g - A c c o r d i n g to Leki r e s e a r c h sh o w s no r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s po i n t is i m p o r t a n t for the a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the d a t a that I p r e s e n t in the n e x t section.
IV. P R E S E N T A T I O N A N D A N A L Y S I S OF THE D A T A A . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Data
The d a t a w e r e c o l l e c t e d t h r o u g h q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see
A p p e n d i x ) that was g i v e n to a g r o u p of B i l k e n t P r e p a r a t o r y School s t u d e n t s - T w e n t y - e i g h t s t u d e n t s from two d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s
c o m p l e t e d the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w i t h their n a m e s on it. The
s t u d e n t s w e r e at h i g h - i n t e r m e d i a t e level and a l t h o u g h they had two d i f f e r e n t t e a c h e r s they wen t t h r o u g h the same type of w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . A f t e r the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e c o m p l e t e d and
c o l l e c t e d , students' i n s t r u c t o r s w e r e c o n s u l t e d for their h o l i s t i c e v a l u a t i o n of eac h s t u d e n t ' s writ i n g . I n s t r u c t o r s e v a l u a t e d e a c h s t u d e n t as "poor," "good," or " a v e r a g e . " They a l s o p o i n t e d out the on e s w h o w e r e ver y good and those w ho w e r e r e a l l y weak- Then, am o n g these 20 s t u d e n t s the best five w r i t e r s and the p o o r e s t five w r i t e r s w e r e chosen. In sum, ten
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e s e l e c t e d for a n a l y s i s .
In the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s I p r e s e n t e d a r e v i e w of l i t e r a t u r e on the c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s , a u d i e n c e a w a r e n e s s and the r e a d i n g -
w r i t i n g re 1 a t i o n s h i p . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e items f o l l o w e x a c t l y the o r d e r in w h i c h the r e v i e w is p r e s e n t e d . The first three items re f e r to the c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s , p l a n ning, r e s c a n n i n g and
r e v i s i o n r e s p e c t i v e l y - The fou r t h item asks s t u d e n t s to i n d i c a t e how o f t e n they think a b o u t the reader- I terns 5, 6, 7 and 8 ask
s t u d e n t s to p o i n t out the f r e q u e n c y and a m o u n t of r e a d i n g they do or did (see A p p e n d i x ) .
In this s t u d y w h a t is d i f f e r e n t from p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d s t u d i e s is that we a r e in an E n g l i s h as a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e
c o n t e x t . The s u b j e c t s are T u r k i s h s t u d e n t s w h o w r i t e in English. E s p e c i a l l y the d a t a c o l l e c t e d in the " r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g "
s e c t i o n p r o v i d e us w i t h new i n f o r m a t i o n b e c a u s e so far onl y the r e a d i n g - w r i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p in the n a t i v e la n g u a g e has been e x t e n s i v e l y r e s e a r c h e d . In fact, the q u e s t i o n n a i r e items do not r e s t r i c t the l a n g u a g e of the r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l . It is s t a t e d that the r e a d i n g can be in "any language". The p u r p o s e of the r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g s e c t i o n is to look for the c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n
r e a d i n g in the f i rst or s e c o n d l a n g u a g e and w r i t i n g in the s e c o n d language. Ho w e v e r , i n t e r v i e w s w i t h s t u d e n t s and t e a c h e r s s u g g e s t that in p l e a s u r e r e a d i n g and d a i l y n e w s p a p e r r e a d i n g T u r ki s h
r e s o u r c e s d o m i n a t e .
B . C o m p o s i n g P r o c e s s e s
The c h a r t b e l o w (Table 1) e x h i b i t s the three c o m p o s i n g s t r a t e g i e s use d by w r i t e r s in gene r a l . The n u m b e r s i n d i c a t e the n u m b e r of s t u d e n t s w h o c h e c k e d p a r t i c u l a r items. The first
s e c t i o n is c o n c e r n e d w i t h the time for p l anning, the s e c o n d w i t h the f r e q u e n c y of r e s c a n n i n g and the third w i t h the level of r e v i s i o n .
C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n the q u a l i t y of the w r i ters and the s t r a t e g i e s they use Table 1 Good W r i t e r s P o o r W r i t e r s P 1ann ing - o ne m i n u t e 3 ~ th r e e m i n u t e s 1 2 - six m i n u t e s 4 1 R e s c a n n i n g - n e v e r 2 - r a r e l y 1 - o c c a s i o n a l 1 y 4 2 - c o n t i n u a l l y 1 R e v i s i o n - m a c r o s t r u e t u r a l c h a n g e s 1 - r e p h r a s i n g 3 g r a m m a r & s p e l l i n g 1 5
Analysis
S t r i k i n g l y , all poor w r i t e r s r e p o r t e d that they e x c l u s i v e l y deal w i t h the m e c h a n i c s w h i l e w r i t i n g their s e c o n d draft. This is c o m p l e t e l y in line w i t h the f i n d i n g s b e c a u s e poor w r i t e r s were found to focus on the form or " m i c r o s t r u e t u r e " when they revise. On the o t h e r hand, o n l y one good w r i t e r r e p or t e d e d i t i n g i nstead of m e a n i n g f u l r e v i s i o n - T h r e e of the good w r i t e r s r e p or t e d that
they do rewording in order to better express their ideas.
Only
one good writer reported macrostruetural change.
Good student
writers in this study do not seem to reach the competency level
of experienced writers who view revision as a reconsideration of
the ideas and orientation of the composition.
Four good writers against two poor writers indicated that
they pause and reread their text occasionally.
On tlie other
hand, two of the poor writers reported that they never rescan.
One does it rarely.
Also, not one poor writer rescans
continually.· Contrastingly, there was not any good writer who
reported lack of rescanning or rare rescanning.
In the planning section we can again observe a contrast
between good and poor writers.
Three poor writers reported that
they think only one minute before starting to write.
In other
words, these poor writers showed no sign of planning.
They begin
by "just beginning" (see p. 7).
On the other hand, four good
student writers indicated six minutes of planning, which is the
maximum amount of time stated in the questionnaire.
Not one good
writer reported one minute of planning.
However, planning time
does not seem decisive of writing competency as two poor writers
against one good writer reported "thinking three minutes" and one
poor writer reported thinking for six minutes.
C . Aud.ieniiLe
The chart below (Table 2) shows how frequently the subjets
think about the effect they want to make on the reader.
Relationship between the Quality oi
of the Audience
Table 2
Considering
the Reader
Good Writers
Poor Writers
always
2
1
sometimes
2
3
never
1
1
The data above do not indicate a significant difference
of attitude between good and poor student writers.
This is not
in line with research findings, according to which good writers
are much more concerned with their audience than poor writers.
The chart shows that eight out of ten student writers
somewhat think about the effect they want to make on the reader.
This result may be due to the fact that the audience for the
students
in the study is mainly their teacher.
Whether they are
good or poor writers they feel they need to please their teacher
even if it is simply for a higher grade.
Still, it is remarkable
that two students reported that they never think of the reader.
It seems that a writer-based, egocentric style is a problem
university composition teachers need to be aware of.
D .
Reading and Writing
The charts below (Table 3, 4, 5 and 6) illustrate the
relationship between the subjects' reading habits and their
writing ability in four parts; the first part (Table 3) presents
the correlation between students' current frequency of pleasure
reading and their writing ability.
The second part (Table 4)
relates the number of books read during summer vacation to the
present writing ability.
The third part (Table 5) illustrates
the relationship between the frequency of pleasure reading done
at high school and the present writing ability of the subjects.
Finally, the last part (Table 6) exhibits the relationship
between the frequency of newspaper reading and the writing
quality.
Table 3
Current Reading Frequency
Good Writers
Poor Writers
every day
1
five times a week
1
twice a week
1
once a week
2
twice a month
2
once a month
1
Ihs Amount of Books Read
Table 4
Good Writers
none
Poor Writers
12-4
4
1
5-8
1
2
more than 8
1
Table 5
Reading Frequency at High School
Good Writers
Poor Writers
©very day
1
twice a week
1
once a week
2
1
twice a month
2
3
Table 6
HsH.apapar.J&aading-ii'requencxevery day
several times a week
once a week
other
Good Writers
5
AjcLBiixajLs.
When
vieconsider the answers to item 5 (Table 3) we notice
that all
of the good writers read more frequently than poor
writers.
It is worth noting that two of the poor writers did not
report any pleasure reading.
One of them checked the option no
and the other student, although she opted for yes, did not
indicate the frequency of reading and could not name a book she
had recently read.
On the other hand, three good writers
reported
reading for pleaure more frequently than once a week.
Here, we
can draw a parallel between poor writing
and deficient
reading habits.
Item 6 (Table 4) does not differentiate poor writers from
good writers.
While one poor writer did not report any pleasure
reading during summmer vacation, another one reports having read
more than eight books.
On the other hand, not one good writer
indicates more than eight books.
It seems that the amount of
books read has no effect on developing the writing skills.
Another factor may be that the books read during summer vacation
were in Turkish.
This result can thus be interpreted as first
language reading having no effect on second language writing.
Although in research literature pleasure reading at high
school appears as a strong factor in developing writing skills,
the chart above indicates little relationship.
Two good writers
against one report that they read once a week.
But otherwise
there is not a significant difference.
This result can be
interpreted as the low correlation between LI reading and L2
writing, tiLS students mainly read in Turkish during high school.
Similarly, it is possible to explain the contrast between good
and poor writers in item 5 (see Table 3) as the effect of second
language reading on second language writing as three of the good
students gave the title of the book they read in English while
not one poor writer gave any English title.
This shows that some
of the good student writers do their pleasure reading partially
in English.
V
