Students find compare-contrast writing more difficult than other expository formats (Hiebert, Englert, & Brennan, 1983). Difficulties include problems with acquiring source information, with organizing information into compare-contrast format, or both. This study examined instruction in each area: (a) Summarization Skills supporting acquisition of source information, (b) Compare-Contrast Text Structure supporting organization of information, and (c) Summarization Skills and Text Structure for both processes. Students read two descriptive passages and wrote a compare-contrast essay. Students receiving Text Structure instruction had significantly higher scores on compare-contrast Structure but lower ones on Content than did those in the other groups. Students receiving Summarization Skills instruction had significantly lower scores on Structure than did students in the other groups. Explicit instruction in text structure is recommend for compare-contrast writing, including specific strategy instruction to match learning goals and tasks. Further research is recommended about the interaction of content knowledge and writing strategy knowledge, as well as the role of text structure in reading-writing expository text.
References
1.
AlexanderP. A.JettonT. L.KulikowichJ. M.WoehlerC. A. (1994). Contrasting instructional and structural importance: The seductive effect of teacher questions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 19–45.
2.
AlexanderP. A.JudyJ. M. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375–404.
3.
AndersonL. W.KrathwohlD. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
4.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A.MullisI. V. S.LathamA. S.GentileC. A. (1994). NAEP Writing 1992 Writing Report Card. (Report 23–W01). Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress.
5.
ArmbrusterB. B.AndersonT. H.OstertagJ. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 331–346.
6.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
BrownA. L.DayJ. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.
8.
BrownA. L.DayJ. D.JonesR. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968–979.
9.
BrownA. L.SmileyS. S. (1977). Rating the importance of structural units of prose passages: A problem of metacognitive development. Child Development, 48, 1–8.
10.
BruningR.HornC. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35, 25–38.
11.
BuehlM. M.AlexanderP. A.MurphyP. K.SperlC. T. (2001). Profiling persuasion: The role of beliefs, knowledge, and interest in the processing of persuasive texts that vary by argument structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 269–301.
12.
DicksonS. V.SimmonsD.KameenuiE. J. (1995). Instruction in expository text: A focus on compare/contrast structure. LD Forum, 20, 8–15.
13.
EnglertC. S.HiebertE. H. (1984). Children's developing awareness of text structure in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65–74.
14.
EnglertC. S.RaphaelT. E.AndersonL. M.AnthonyH. M.StevensD. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–372.
15.
EnglertC. S.ThomasC. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93–105.
16.
FitzgeraldJ.ShanahanT. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39–50.
17.
GarnerR. (1985). Text summarization deficiencies among older students: Awareness or production ability. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 549–560.
18.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.
19.
GronlundN. E. (1993). How to make achievement tests and assessments (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
20.
HalpernD. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 449–455.
21.
HiebertE. H.EnglertC. S.BrennanS. (1983). Awareness of text structure in recognition and production of expository discourse. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 63–79.
22.
JitendraA. K.HoppesM. K.XinY. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139.
23.
KardashC. M.NoelL. K. (2000). How organizational signals, need for cognition, and verbal ability affect text recall and recognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 317–331.
24.
KintschW.van DijkT. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–416.
25.
KirklandM. R.SaundersM. A. P. (1991). Maximizing student performance in summary writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 105–121.
26.
LangerJ. A. (1984). The effects of available information on responses to school writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 27–44.
27.
LangerJ. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 837–880.
28.
LangerJ. A.ApplebeeA. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning (Research Report No. 22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
29.
MaloneL. D.MastropieriM. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270–279.
30.
McCutchenD. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–24.
31.
MeyerB. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In BrittonB. K.BlackJ. B. (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
MeyerB. J. F. (1987). Following the author's top-level organization: An important skill for reading comprehension. In TierneyR. J.AndersP. L.MichellJ. N. (Eds.), Understanding readers' understanding (pp. 59–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33.
MeyerB. J. F. (1999). The importance of text structure in everyday reading. In RamA.MoormanK. (Eds.), Understanding language understanding: Computational models of reading and understanding (pp. 227–252). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
MeyerB. J. F.PoonL. W. (2001). Effects of structure training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141–159.
35.
MeyerB. J. F.YoungC. J.BartlettB. J. (1989). Memory improved: Reading and memory enhancement across the life span through strategic text structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
MullisI. V. S. (1984). Scoring direct writing assessments: What are the alternatives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 3, 16–18.
37.
MurphyP. K.AlexanderP. A. (2002). What counts: The predictive powers of subject-matter knowledge, strategic processing, and interest in domain-specific performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 197–214.
38.
RaphaelT. E.EnglertC. S. (1990). Writing and reading: Partners in constructing meaning. The Reading Teacher, 43, 388–400.
39.
RaphaelT. E.KirschnerB. W. (1985). The effects of instruction in compare/contrast text structure on sixth-grade students' reading comprehension and writing products. (Research series 161). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
40.
RaphaelT. E.KirschnerB. W.EnglertC. S. (1986). Text structure within process-writing classrooms: A manual for instruction. (Occasional Paper 104). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
41.
RosenshineB.MeisterC. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49, 26–33.
42.
RosenshineB.MeisterC. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in reading. In StahlS. A.HayesD. A. (Eds.), Instructional models in reading (pp. 85–107). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
RosenshineB.StevensR. (1986) Teaching functions. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.
44.
SitkoB. M. (1998). Knowing how to write: Metacognition and writing instruction. In HackerD. J.DonloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 93–115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45.
SpiveyN. N. (1984). Discourse synthesis: Constructing texts in reading and writing. (Outstanding Dissertation Monograph Series). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
46.
SpiveyN. N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7, 256–287.
47.
SpiveyN. N. (1991). The shaping of meaning: Options in writing the comparison. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 390–418.
48.
WongB. Y. L. (2000). Writing strategies instruction for expository essays for adolescents with and without disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 29–44.
49.
ZimmermanB. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP. R.ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). New York: Academic Press.
