Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constructing instruction for struggling writers: what and how

  • Published:
Annals of Dyslexia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To respond to the articles in the current issue, I begin with an amalgamated conception of a transactional universe of reciprocal reading and composing processes that includes cognitive and social processes. Next, I situate the four studies in the current issue according to their epistemological emphases in the transactional conception. Three focal epistemological questions are framed as a way of situating each study: (a) what knowledge or processes do researchers emphasize most in the universe of composing processes? (b) Where do the researchers think that knowledge or those processes reside(s)? (c) How does one get or create that knowledge or those processes? Next, beneficial contributions to the field from the four studies are highlighted, and finally, future research directions are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allington, D. L. (2007). Intervention all day long: New hope for struggling readers. Voices from the Middle, 14(4), 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56, 851–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahktin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’t write (pp. 134–165). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, S. P. (2003). Process assessment of the learner (PAL) research-based reading and writing lessons. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., & Hart, T. (1992). A developmental neuropsychological perspective for reading and writing acquisition. Educational Psychologist, 27, 415–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Begay, K., Byrd, K., Curtin, G., Minnich, J., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bizzel, P. (1982). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. PRE/TEXT, 3, 213–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracewell, R. J., & Witte, S. P. (2003). Tasks, ensembles, and activity. Written Communication, 18, 80–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English, 48, 773–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, M. (1988). Problem solving reconsidered: A pluralistic theory of problems. College English, 50, 551–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P. (1987). Information-processing psychology and mathematics education—A constructivist perspective. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 6, 3–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, S. S., & Tharp, R. G. (2002). Standards for pedagogy: Research, theory and practice. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 181–194). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 62–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, A. (1987). The value of “time-off task”: Young children’s spontaneous talk and deliberate text. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 396–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, A. H. (1992). The case of the singing scientist: A performance perspective on the “stages” of school literacy. Written Communication, 9, 3–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, A. H. (1995). Writing children: Reinventing the development of childhood literacy. Written Communication, 12, 4–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S. (1992). Writing instruction from a sociocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and social enterprise of writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., & Dunsmore, K. L. (2004). The role of dialogue in constructing effective literacy settings for students with language and learning disabilities. In E. R. Silliman & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools (pp. 201–238). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 208–221). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (1990). Reading and writing as ‘mind meeting. In T. Shanahan (Ed.), Reading and writing together: New perspectives for the classroom (pp. 81–97). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Towards knowledge in writing. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescent middle and high school students. Alliance for Excellence in Education, Washington, DC (Commissioned by the Carnegie Corporation of New York).

  • Green, J. L., Dixon, C. N., & Zaharlick, A. (2003). Ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of teaching the English language arts (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, L. A. (2009). Struggling reader, struggling teacher: An examination of student-teacher transactions with reading instruction and text in social studies. Research in the Teaching of English, 43, 286–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, L. A. (2011). The negative consequences of becoming a good reader: Identity theory as a lens for understanding struggling readers, teachers, and reading instruction. Teachers College Record, 112, 1792–1829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (2006). New directions in writing theory. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 28–40). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R. (2009). Measuring maturity. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 349–362). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huot, B., & Neal, M. (2006). Writing assessment: A techno-history. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 417–432). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Langauge Writing, 7, 255–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J. A. (1986). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loban, W. (1976). Language development. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (2000). “To be part of the story”: The literacy practices of “gangsta” adolescents. Teachers College Record, 102, 652–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B., & Dillon, D. R. (2006). Adolescent identities as demanded by science classroom discourse communities. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacy in adolescents’ lives (pp. 85–106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando, FL: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 66–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, R., Hulslander, J., Christopher, M., Keenan, J. M., Wadsworth, S. J., Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., & DeFries, J. C. (2011). Generic and environmental influences on writing and their relations to language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia. doi:10.1007/s11881-011-0055-z.

  • Ortner, S. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26, 126–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 184–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M. I., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Does work inhibit cognitive development during college? Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 20, 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, K. R., Frost, S. J., Sandak, R., Gillis, M., Moore, D., Jenner, A. R., & Mencl, W. E. (2006). What does reading have to tell us about writing: Preliminary questions and methodological challenges in examining the neurobiological foundations of writing and writing disabilities. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 433–448). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, D. R. (2006). Historical studies of composition. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change (pp. 243–275). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, P., Vander Lei, E., & Roen, D. (1999). Audience considerations for evaluating writing. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 93–113). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, K. (2006). Qualitative research on writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 357–373). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading–writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 466–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 368–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smagorinsky, P. (2006). Overview (pp. 1–47). In P. Smagorinksy (Ed.), Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatum, A. W. (2006). Adolescents’ multiple identities and teacher professional development. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacy in adolescents’ lives (pp. 65–79). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M. J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993). Improving written communication through perspective-taking. Language & Cognitive Processes, 8, 311–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troia, G. A. (2006). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 324–336). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampton, J. M. (1998). Literary instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wollman-Bonilla, J. (2001). Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience awareness? Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 184–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. Y. L. (2000). Writing strategies instruction for expository essays for adolescents with and without learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low-achievers to plan, write and revise compare-contrast essays. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 2–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. E., Becker, A., & Pike, K. L. (1970). Rhetoric: Discovery and change. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MetaMetrics and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Emeritus, 8565 Nicholson Farm Lane, Graham, NC, 27253, USA

    Jill Fitzgerald

Authors
  1. Jill Fitzgerald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill Fitzgerald.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fitzgerald, J. Constructing instruction for struggling writers: what and how. Ann. of Dyslexia 63, 80–95 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-011-0063-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-011-0063-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation