The academic writing of community college remedial students: Text and learner variables

Community college remedial reading studentscomposed an informational report from sources,a task commonly assigned in higher educationthat integrally combines reading and writingprocesses. Productivity, use of source text,reproductions, accuracy, and inclusion of keyideas were analyzed as a function of twoexogenous variables, text density (high, low)and domain (health, business), and twoendogenous variables, prior knowledge andgeneral literacy skill. Text densityinteracted with literacy skill forproductivity, and with prior knowledge foraccuracy. Individuals with lower literacy orprior knowledge scores were at a disadvantagewith high but not low density source text. Domain affected productivity, use of source,and inclusion of key ideas: health text wasassociated with superior performance. Domaineffects may be explained by metacognitive ormotivational variables, or differences in thereadability of the source texts. The resultshave implications for instruction aimed atimproving community college students'preparedness for the academic demands of highereducation.

[1]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables , 1975 .

[2]  P. Alexander,et al.  What Responses to Domain-Specific Analogy Problems Reveal about Emerging Competence: A New Perspective on an Old Acquaintance. , 1998 .

[3]  Donald F. Egan,et al.  Egan's Fundamentals of Respiratory Care , 1990 .

[4]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Learning From Social Studies Texts , 1989 .

[5]  Sense of audience and the adult writer: A study across competence levels , 1996 .

[6]  D. Kieras.  Initial mention as a signal to thematic content in technical passages , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[7]  Timothy J. O'Leary,et al.  Microsoft Word 97 , 1997 .

[8]  M. Kennedy.  The Composing Process of College Students Writing from Sources , 1985 .

[9]  Suzanne E. Wade,et al.  Effect of Self-Selected Study Methods on Learning. , 1989 .

[10]  Peter N. Winograd.  Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts , 1984 .

[11]  K. B. Whitaker.  Comprehensive Perinatal and Pediatric Respiratory Care , 1992 .

[12]  Jeanne Sternlicht Chall,et al.  Writing and Reading in the Elementary Grades: Developmental Trends among Low SES Children. , 1983 .

[13]  W. Norton Grubb,et al.  Honored but Invisible : An Inside Look at Teaching in Community Colleges , 2001 .

[14]  Janice F. Almasi,et al.  Beyond Direct Explanation: Transactional Instruction of Reading Comprehension Strategies , 1992, The Elementary School Journal.

[15]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Mapping prior knowledge: A framework for discussion among researchers , 1995 .

[16]  Bruce K. Britton,et al.  Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice. , 1992 .

[17]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Getting at the Meaning: How to Help Students Unpack Difficult Text , 1998 .

[18]  R. P. Fishburne,et al.  Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel , 1975 .

[19]  G. Schumacher,et al.  Conceptualizing and Measuring Knowledge Change Due to Writing , 1991, Research in the Teaching of English.

[20]  C. Adelman.  The New College Course Map and Transcript Files: Changes in Course-Taking and Achievement, 1972-1993. Based on the Postsecondary Records from Two National Longitudinal Studies. , 1995 .

[21]  P. Alexander,et al.  The Role of Subject-Matter Knowledge and Interest in the Processing of Linear and Nonlinear Texts , 1994 .

[22]  John E. Readence,et al.  Content Area Literacy: An Integrated Approach. Fifth Edition. , 1995 .

[23]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Interactive effects of text-based and task-based importance on learning from text , 1993 .

[24]  M. S. Sternglass.  Time To Know Them: A Longitudinal Study of Writing and Learning at the College Level , 1997 .

[25]  Margaret G. McKeown,et al.  Giving a text voice can improve students' understanding , 1995 .

[26]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  The role of importance and interest in the processing of text , 1996 .

[27]  Richard G. Lomax,et al.  An Analysis and Comparison of Theoretical Models of the Reading-Writing Relationship. , 1986 .

[28]  Thomas M. Duffy,et al.  Models for the Design of Instructional Text. , 1989 .

[29]  Robert C. Calfee,et al.  The reading-writing connection , 1998 .

[30]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Macrorules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise , 1983 .

[31]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[32]  J. Baumann,et al.  The Frequency and Placement of Main Ideas in Children's Social Studies Textbooks: A Modified Replication of Braddock's Research on Topic Sentences , 1984 .

[33]  N. Spivey.  The Shaping of Meaning: Options in Writing the Comparison. , 1991 .

[34]  Barry M. Selinger,et al.  Summarizing Text: Developmental Students Demonstrate a Successful Method. , 1995 .

[35]  Thea van der Geest.  Studying 'Real-life' Writing Processes: A Proposal and an Example , 1996 .

[36]  Hiller A. Spires,et al.  Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. , 1998 .

[37]  George J. Spilich,et al.  Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. , 1979 .

[38]  Victoria Chou Hare.  Text Effects on Main Idea Comprehension. , 1989 .

[39]  Bruce K. Britton,et al.  Instructional texts rewritten by five expert teams: Revisions and retention improvements. , 1989 .

[40]  C. Michael Levy,et al.  The Science of Writing : Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications , 1996 .

[41]  Ann M. Johns,et al.  SUMMARY PROTOCOLS OF “UNDERPREPARED” AND “ADEPT” UNIVERSITY STUDENTS: REPLICATIONS AND DISTORTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL , 1985 .

[42]  Michelle Kelly,et al.  Using Think-Alouds to Examine Reader-Text Interest , 1999 .

[43]  John McDermott,et al.  The Formative Years , 1981 .

[44]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[45]  Jeanne D. Day,et al.  The development of plans for summarizing texts. , 1983 .

[46]  Richard T. Vacca,et al.  Content Area Reading: Literacy and Learning Across the Curriculum , 1998 .

[47]  S. Lenski.  Strategic Knowledge when Reading in Order to Write. , 1998 .

[48]  Sybil B. Carlson,et al.  Survey of Academic Writing Tasks , 1984 .

[49]  D. Speece,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching Goes to College: Effects for Postsecondary Students at Risk for Academic Failure. , 1998 .

[50]  T. Shanahan,et al.  Reading and Writing Relations and Their Development , 2000 .

[51]  James F. Baumann,et al.  Effect of Rewritten Content Textbook Passages on Middle Grade Students' Comprehension of Main Ideas: Making the Inconsiderate Considerate , 1986 .

[52]  Keith Davis,et al.  Human resources and personnel management , 2005 .

[53]  M. Segers,et al.  The Relation Between Assessment Practices and Outcomes of Studies: The Case of Research on Prior Knowledge , 1999 .

[54]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Thematic Processes in the Comprehension of Technical Prose. , 1982 .

[55]  Margaret J. Johnson,et al.  Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students. , 1999 .

[56]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition , 1998 .

[57]  Fred L. Pincus,et al.  The American Community College. , 1983 .

[58]  N. Spivey,et al.  Readers as Writers Composing from Sources. , 1989 .

[59]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  Paragraphing, reader, and task effects on discourse comprehension , 1995 .

[60]  Deborah Mutnick.  Writing in an Alien World: Basic Writing and the Struggle for Equality in Higher Education , 1995 .

[61]  Martin B. Spear,et al.  The Academic Crisis of the Community College , 1991 .

[62]  R. F. Lorch,et al.  On-Line Processing of Summary and Importance Signals in Reading. , 1986 .