Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 887–915 | Cite as

Text-based writing of low-skilled postsecondary students: relation to comprehension, self-efficacy and teacher judgments

  • Dolores Perin
  • Mark Lauterbach
  • Julia Raufman
  • Hoori Santikian Kalamkarian
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Summarization and persuasive writing are important in postsecondary education and often require the use of source text. However, students entering college with low literacy skills often find this type of writing difficult. The present study compared predictors of performance on text-based summarization and persuasive writing in a sample of low-skilled adult students enrolled in college developmental education courses. The predictors were general reading and writing ability, self-efficacy, and teacher judgments. Both genre-specific and general dependent variables were used. A series of hierarchical regressions modeling participants’ writing skills found that writing ability and self-efficacy were predictive of the proportion of functional elements in the persuasive essays, reading ability predicted the proportion of main ideas from source text in the summaries, and teacher judgments were predictive of vocabulary usage. General reading and writing skills predicted written summarization and persuasive writing differently; the data showed relationships between general reading comprehension and text-based summarization on one hand, and between general writing skills and persuasive essay writing on the other.

Keywords

Writing skills Reading skills Self-efficacy Adults with low literacy Remedial education Developmental education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for the research reported here was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University under a project entitled “Analysis of Statewide Developmental Education Reform: Learning Assessment Study.”

References

  1. Armstrong, S. L., Stahl, N. A., & Kantner, M. J. (2015). What constitutes ‘college-ready’ for reading? An investigation of academic text readiness at one community college (Technical Report Number 1). DeKalb, IL: Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literacy and Language, Northern Illinois University. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/cisll/_pdf/reports/TechnicalReport1.pdf.
  2. Bailey, T. R., Jeong, D.-W., & Cho, S.-W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 255–270. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begeny, J. C., Krouse, H. E., Brown, K. G., & Mann, C. M. (2011). Teacher judgments of students’ reading abilities across a continuum of rating methods and achievement measures. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
  4. Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 206–219. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boylan, H. R. (2002). What works: Research-based best practices in developmental education. Boone, NC: Continuous Quality Improvement Network and the National Center for Developmental Education, Appalachian State University.Google Scholar
  6. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. B. (1984). Survey of academic writing tasks. Written Communication, 1(2), 247–280. doi: 10.1177/0741088384001002004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. S. (1993). The Nelson-Denny reading test, forms G and H. Itasca, IL: Riverside/Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Bruning, R., Dempsey, M. S., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 25–38. doi: 10.1037/a0029692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cantrell, S. C., Correll, P., Clouse, J., Creech, K., Bridges, S., & Owens, D. (2013). Patterns of self-efficacy among college students in developmental reading. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 44(1), 8–34. doi: 10.1080/10790195.2013.10850370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson, J. G., Chase, N. D., Gibson, S. U., & Hargrove, M. F. (1992). Literacy demands of the undergraduate curriculum. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(4), 25–50. doi: 10.1080/19388079209558094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caverly, D. C., Nicholson, S. A., & Radcliffe, R. (2004). The effectiveness of strategic reading instruction for college developmental readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35(1), 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cobb, T. (n.d.). The compleat lexical tutor website. Retrieved November 13, 2015, from http://www.lextutor.ca.
  15. Conley, D. T., & French, E. M. (2014). Student ownership of learning as a key component of college readiness. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), 1018–1034. doi: 10.1177/0002764213515232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De La Paz, S., Ferretti, R., Wissinger, D., Yee, L., & MacArthur, C. A. (2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication, 29(4), 412–454. doi: 10.1177/0741088312461591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doolan, S. M. (2014). Comparing language use in the writing of developmental generation 1.5, L1, and L2 tertiary students. Written Communication, 31(2), 215–247. doi: 10.1177/0741088314526352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fallahi, C. R. (2012). Improving the writing skills of college students. In E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 209–219). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Feinberg, A. B., & Shapiro, E. S. (2009). Teacher accuracy: An examination of teacher-based judgments of students’ reading with differing achievement levels. Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 577–589. doi: 10.1037/a0014702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 694–702. doi: 10.10377//0022:2-0663.92.4.694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010a). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 157–173. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010b). Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: Summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology, 31(1), 30–68. doi: 10.1080/02702710902733600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(2), 78–98. doi: 10.2307/1511268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hale, G., Taylor, C., Bridgeman, B., Carson, J., Kroll, B., & Kantor, R. (1996). A study of writing tasks assigned in academic degree programs (RR-95-44, TOEFL-RR-54). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Hoge, R. D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 297–313. doi: 10.3102/00346543059003297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holschuh, J. P., & Aultman, L. P. (2009). Comprehension development. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (2nd ed., pp. 121–144). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Hughes, K. L., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2011). Assessing developmental assessment in community colleges. Community College Review, 39(4), 327–351. doi: 10.1177/0091552111426898.Google Scholar
  33. Jackson, J. M. (2009). Reading/writing connection. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (2nd ed., pp. 145–173). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Johns, A. M. (1985). Summary protocols of ‘underprepared’ and ‘adept’ university students: Replications and distortions of the original. Language Learning, 35(4), 495–517. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb00358.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250–266. doi: 10.1080/00461520903213600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2009). College students’ homework and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory beliefs. Metacognition and Learning, 4(2), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Kelley, J. G., & Harris, J. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194. doi: 10.3102/0002831214532165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacArthur, C. A., & Lembo, L. (2009). Strategy instruction in writing for adult literacy learners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(9), 1021–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacArthur, C. A., & Philippakos, Z. (2010). Instruction in a strategy for compare-contrast writing. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 438–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacArthur, C. A., Philippakos, Z. A., & Graham, S. (2016). A multicomponent measure of writing motivation with basic college writers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(1), 31–43. doi: 10.1177/0731948715583115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MacArthur, C. A., Philippakos, Z. A., & Ianetta, M. (2015). Self-regulated strategy instruction in college developmental writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 855–867. doi: 10.1037/edu0000011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Macaruso, P., & Shankweiler, D. (2010). Expanding the simple view of reading in accounting for reading skills in community college students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 454–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 615–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin, S. D., & Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Examining the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of DIBELS performance. Psychology in the Schools, 48(4), 343–356. doi: 10.1002/pits.20558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martinez, C. T., Kock, N., & Cass, J. (2011). Pain and pleasure in short essay writing: Factors predicting university students’ writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 351–360. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.54.5.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mateos, M., Martin, E., Villalon, R., & Luna, M. (2008). Reading and writing to learn in secondary education: Online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 675–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McAlexander, P. J. (2003). From personal to text-based writing: The use of readings in developmental composition. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 19(2), 5–16.Google Scholar
  49. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86. doi: 10.1177/0741088309351547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. National Governors’ Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards: English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/.
  51. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  52. Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M. (2007). Measuring written language ability in narrative samples. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23(3), 287–309. doi: 10.1080/10573560701277807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Olinghouse, N. G. (2008). Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(1), 3–26. doi: 10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 45–65. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Neill, P., Adler-Kassner, L., Fleischer, C., & Hall, A. (2012). Creating the framework for success in postsecondary writing. College English, 74(6), 520–533.Google Scholar
  56. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 158–170). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  57. Paulson, E. J. (2014). Analogical processes and college developmental reading. Journal of Developmental Education, 37(3), 2–13.Google Scholar
  58. Perin, D., Keselman, A., & Monopoli, M. (2003). The academic writing of community college remedial students: Text and learner variables. Higher Education, 45(1), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Perin, D., Bork, R. H., Peverly, S. T., & Mason, L. H. (2013). A contextualized curricular supplement for developmental reading and writing. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 43(2), 8–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Perin, D., Raufman, J. R., & Kalamkarian, H. S. (2015). Developmental reading and English assessment in a researcher-practitioner partnership (CCRC Working Paper No. 85). New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Available from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/developmental-readingenglish-assessment-researcherpractitioner-partnership.html..
  61. Proctor, C. P., Daley, S., Louick, R., Leidera, C. M., & Gardner, G. L. (2014). How motivation and engagement predict reading comprehension among native English-speaking and English-learning middle school students with disabilities in a remedial reading curriculum. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 76–83. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. P. (2008). Assessing the microstructure of written language using a retelling paradigm. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(2), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ritchey, K. D., Silverman, R. D., Schatschneider, C., & Speece, D. L. (2015). Prediction and stability of reading problems in middle childhood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(3), 298. doi: 10.1177/0022219413498116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III assessment service bulletin number 2. Retrieved from Itsaca, IL: WJ III technical abstract.Google Scholar
  65. Scott-Clayton, J. (2012). Do high-stakes placement exams predict college success? CCRC Working Paper No. 41. Retrieved from New York, NY.Google Scholar
  66. Selinger, B. M. (1995). Summarizing text: Developmental students demonstrate a successful method. Journal of Developmental Education, 19(2), 14–20.Google Scholar
  67. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith, D. K. (1998). Review of the Nelson-Denny reading test, forms G and H. In J. C. Impara & B. S. Plake (Eds.), Thirteenth mental measurements yearbook. Buros Institute of Mental Measurement. Retrieved from the Burros Institute’s Mental Measurements Yearbook online database.Google Scholar
  69. Sparks, D., & Malkus, N. (2013). Statistics in brief: First-year undergraduate remedial coursetaking: 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08 (NCES 2013-013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013013.pdf.
  70. Speece, D. L., Ritchey, K. D., Silverman, R., Schatschneider, C., Walker, C. Y., & Andrusik, K. N. (2010). Identifying children in middle childhood who are at risk for reading problems. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 258–276.Google Scholar
  71. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762. doi: 10.1037/a0027627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Troia, G. A., Harbaugh, A. G., Shankland, R. K., Wolbers, K. A., & Lawrence, A. M. (2013). Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: Effects of grade, sex, and ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 17–44. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9379-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62. doi: 10.1177/0741088312469013.Google Scholar
  74. Wang, D. (2009). Factors affecting the comprehension of global and local main idea. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Westby, C., Culatta, B., Lawrence, B., & Hall-Kenyon, K. (2010). Summarizing expository texts. Topics in Language Disorders, 30(4), 275–287. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181ff5a88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wolfe, C. R. (2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28(1), 193–219. doi: 10.1177/0741088311399236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III tests of achievement and tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  79. Yancey, K. B. (2009). The literacy demands of entering the university. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 256–270). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  80. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86(5), 672–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health and Behavior Studies, Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Early Childhood Education and Art Education, Brooklyn CollegeCity University of New YorkBrooklynUSA
  3. 3.Community College Research Center, Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options