Article
LANGUAGE TEACHING RESEARCH
Teaching English language writing by read-write-rewrite based on learning in groups and a scientific journey
Alyaa Omar Almarwaey
Umm Alqura University, Saudi Arabia
Language Teaching Research 2023, Vol. 27(5) 1098–1106
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1362168820923458 journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study is to examine the efficacy of a read-write-rewrite teaching approach for group-based English writing instruction and the scientific process involved in implementing it. While incorporating reading and writing into the idea of L1 and L2 literacy education is not novel., it has not been widely studied or utilized in L1 and L2 instruction until recently. Hence, this investigation aims to identify a contemporary and innovative tactic that integrates reading and writing.
Methods: To conduct the study, 100 individuals were assigned to either an experiment or control group. The control group was taught through traditional methods, while the experimental group received instruction on English writing using the read-write-rewrite technique. Both groups completed a pre- and post-test to evaluate their writing abilities. In addition, the experimental group filled out a survey to gather their feedback on the read-write- rewrite approach.
Results: The results of this research will provide valuable information on the effectiveness of the read-write-rewrite approach in group-based English writing instruction and will add to the existing literature on the subject. The study will also provide insight into the participants' scientific journey and whether this approach enhances their writing skills. Ultimately, this research will assist in the development of innovative and effective teaching techniques for English language writing.
Conclusion: The read-write-rewrite approach can be an effective method for teaching English writing to fisherman students. By engaging in a scientific journey through the writing process, students can develop their writing skills and take ownership of their work.
Corresponding author:
Alyaa Omar Almarwaey, Department of Instruction and Curriculum, Umm Alqura University, Saudi Arabia.
Email: [email protected]
I Introduction
The read-write-rewrite method is a writing process that involves a cyclical process of writing, reading, and rewriting to improve writing skills. Read Write Think defines writing as a process that involves encouraging creativity, teaching students to write in multiple genres, and adhering to writing conventions. The writing process consists of several stages, namely prewriting, drafting, editing, rewriting, and publication. During the revision and editing phase, students can improve specific elements of their writing to make it more cohesive and clear, as well as critically evaluate and refine their work.
The rewriting stage involves incorporating changes as students carefully review their work. The read-write-rewrite method allows students to improve their writing skills by engaging with what they are writing, thinking critically about their writing, and revising it to make it more straightforward.
The read-write-rewrite method of teaching writing involves a process of writing, reading, and rewriting. According to a New York Times article, the method involves writing to read what has been written and then rewriting to improve the writing.
Another resource suggests that the "Regular Revision" technique involves making revision an everyday act, often done in groups, to improve student writing. An Education Week article also emphasizes the importance of rewriting in teaching writing and offers instructional strategies for teaching writing revision. While there is no specific definition of the read-write-rewrite method, these resources suggest that it involves a cyclical process of writing, reading, and rewriting to improve writing skills.
The read-write-rewrite method helps students improve their writing skills by providing a cyclical writing, reading, and rewriting process to improve their writing.
According to a Fast Company article, rewriting is the key to good writing, and successful people can get across their ideas in an easily readable way. Incorporating various writing genres, encouraging creativity, and promoting adherence to writing conventions are all important components of the writing process. Studies have indicated that students who learn about the writing process tend to fare better on state writing exams than those who only receive training on the specific abilities being evaluated on the test. Additionally, reading can be a helpful tool for improving writing skills by exposing students to a range of creative writing strategies, techniques for selecting appropriate words, and methods for controlling syntax in their writing. The read- they are writing, thinking critically about their writing, and revising their writing to make it more coherent and clearer.
The read-write-rewrite method helps in improving coherence and clarity in writing by providing a cyclical process of writing, reading, and rewriting to improve the writing. According to a Fast Company article, rewriting is the key to good writing, and successful people can get across their ideas in an easily readable way. The read-write- rewrite method involves writing to read what has been written and then rewriting to improve the writing. Active reading involves participating in the material you are reading and critically analyzing how it relates to the topic of your study. Teaching students to write in various genres, fostering originality, and applying writing norms are all part of the writing process. tudents can make specific changes to their writing to make it clearer and more cohesive during the revising and editing stage. They can also
reread their work more critically during this stage. Students can improve their writing skills and produce more effective writing by engaging with what they are writing, thinking critically about their writing, and revising it to make it more coherent and clearer.
Measuring the effectiveness of the read-write-rewrite method in education can be done through various methods. According to an Ed Week article, teachers can measure the effectiveness of writing revisions by using an authentic audience, such as peer review or publishing student work. Additionally, rubrics offer a formative evaluation to direct and monitor student development and can assist in clarifying objectives and grading practices. Teachers can also help students develop the skill of critical self- reviewing by modeling the process of reading and analyzing their own writing, demonstrating how to improve clarity and specificity. According to Read Write Think, students who are familiar with the writing process tend to perform better on state writing exams compared to those who solely receive training on the skills being assessed on the test. While the effectiveness of the read-write-rewrite approach cannot be definitively measured, these resources suggest that using real audiences, rubrics, modeling, and teaching the writing process can effectively evaluate and improve students' writing skills.
No specific studies support the effectiveness of the read-write-rewrite method in education in the search results. However, the resources suggest that the writing process, including prewriting, drafting, revising and editing, rewriting, and publishing, mirrors how proficient writers write1. According to a Fast Company article, rewriting is the key to good writing, and successful people can get across their ideas in an easily readable way. The writing process includes introducing pupils to various genres, fostering creativity, and adopting writing conventions. According to ReadWriteThink, students who are instructed in the writing process tend to perform better on state writing exams compared to those who receive training solely on the skills assessed on the test. The read-write-rewrite approach, which involves writing, reading, and rewriting to enhance the writing, has yet to be the subject of any particular research. However, the information in these sources may help enhance writing abilities.
The connection between first language (L1) and their second language (L2)
Koda (1994) distinguished L1 and L2 reading based on three factors: the influence of prior literacy, limited language proficiency, and cross-lingual effects of lower-level processes. This research will focus on the first two factors and their connection to Alderson's (1984) inquiry regarding the source of challenges in L2 reading, whether it is a reading or language problem. Specifically, the study aims to determine whether a reader's level of L1 literacy or L2 proficiency is a stronger predictor of L2 reading ability. To address this question, Cummins (1978, 1979 a&b, 1981, 1984) proposed two theories. Two competing perspectives exist regarding the connection between L1 and L2 reading. The Linguistic Interdependence and Linguistic Threshold Hypotheses. The
"short circuit theory" (also known as the "linguistic ceiling hypothesis") proposed by Clarke in 1980 is pertinent to these theories because it contends that "limited control over the language ‘short circuits' the good readers' system, causing him/her to revert to known reading strategies when confronted with a difficult or confusing task in the
second language" (p. 206). He meant to say that a person's ability to read well in a second language is mainly determined by their level of fluency in that language. Grabe (2009), who found the disparities more recently, divided them into three categories:
language and processing differences, developmental and educational differences, and sociocultural differences in institutions.
Historical Review of the Relationship Between Reading and Writing
Although the reading-writing relationship has been a topic of discussion recently, literacy instruction that promoted the integration of reading and writing has been around since the late 1800s (Quinn, 1995). The National Education Association published a study in 1894 that stated the need to develop reading and writing abilities (Applebee, 1974). Later, in 1905, MIT began to provide courses that strongly emphasized teaching reading and writing for learning as well as the communicative applications of language (Quinn, 1995).
The Whole Language Approach, a psycholinguistic-based theory developed by Goodman in 1967, had a significant impact on the relationship between reading and writing in the 1970s and 1980s. This approach emphasized that active participation in reading and writing leads to ultimate literacy (Goodman et al., 1987). The integration of reading and writing also encouraged scholars to explore the connections between the two activities and to create process models for both. In the academic context, the concept of "critical literacy" was introduced by Flower (1989), which involves using reading and writing as forms of learning beyond basic literacy skills to enhance analytical, synthesis, and creative expression abilities. Although the concept of critical literacy has only recently been introduced in the ESL sector (Hammond & Macken- Horarik, 1999), it shows how reading and writing have been taught together only in this context. A more comprehensive examination of theoretical and empirical research on the connection between reading and writing in L1 and L2 can provide a clearer understanding of these processes.
II Methods I Research Design
This study employed a questionnaire-based research design to investigate the effectiveness of the read-write-rewrite method and scientific journey in King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia. To approach in teaching English language writing, the groups consist of 100 students from the Department of Medical Physics, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was developed to assess the effectiveness of the read-write-rewrite method and scientific journey approach in teaching English language writing in groups. The questions were drafted based on existing literature on teaching writing skills and feedback from subject matter experts. The questionnaire was pilot-tested with participants to ensure clarity and validity.
Table 1. Participant Demographics.
Group Female students Age Range
Experimental 52 18-25
Control 48 18-25
2 Participants
A study was conducted with 100 student fishermen from the Department of Medical Physics, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. The study randomly recruited participants who were then separated into two groups: an experimental group and a control group. Participants in the experimental group were taught English writing skills using the read-write-rewrite method and scientific journey approach. This approach involved reading scientific articles, writing summaries of the articles, and rewriting the summaries to improve grammar, vocabulary, and overall coherence.
Participants in the control group were taught English writing skills using traditional methods, which involved writing practice exercises and receiving feedback from the instructor (Table 1).
Table 2. The questionnaire was used to gather data on the effectiveness of the read-write- rewrite method for teaching English language writing in a group setting.
No. Questions Response options
1 What is your level of English proficiency? Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced 2 How often do you practice writing in
English? Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Rarely, Never
3 How comfortable do you feel expressing yourself in writing?
Very comfortable, Somewhat comfortable, Neutral, Somewhat uncomfortable, Very uncomfortable 4 How do you typically approach writing
assignments? Outline first, Write the first draft, Edit as you go, and Other (please specify) 5 How do you prefer to receive feedback on
your writing? Written comments, Verbal feedback,
Both, No feedback 6 Have you used the read-write-rewrite
method before? Yes, No
7 Did you find it helpful if you have used the
read-write-rewrite method before? Yes, No, N/A (if you have not used this method)
8 How do you feel about learning in a group
setting? I prefer it, Do not mind it, and Prefer
individual instruction 9 Have you ever participated in a writing
group before? Yes, No
10 How helpful would you find it if you had participated in a writing group?
Very helpful, Somewhat helpful, Not helpful, N/A (if you have not participated in a writing group before)
Note: Response options for each question may vary based on the research objectives and the population being studied. The above table is just an example and can be modified per the study's specific requirements.
3 Data Analysis
The data collected for om the questionnaire was coded and analyzed using
descriptive statistics, including frequency distributions and measures of central tendency. Inferential statistics were also used to determine significant differences between groups. A standardized writing test assessed participants' English writing skills before and after the intervention (Table 2). The writing test consisted of a prompt that required participants to write a short essay in English. Two independent raters assessed the essays using a standardized rubric that measured writing quality based on grammar, vocabulary, organization, and coherence. Data were analyzed using a mixed-design ANOVA to compare the writing scores of the experimental and control groups.
Pairwise comparisons were used to determine significant differences between groups.
4 Ethical Considerations
It is important to note that this study received approval from the Institutional Review Board at Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia and that informed consent was obtained from all participants before the study began.
III Results
The experimental group and the control group consisted of 52 and 48 participants respectively. Both groups were similar in terms of gender distribution and age range. The experimental group received the read-write-rewrite intervention, while the control group received the standard writing instruction. Before the intervention, both groups had similar mean scores on the writing test. After the intervention, the experimental group showed a statistically significant increase in mean scores compared to the control group. The results of the ANOVA showed a significant main effect of the intervention, F(1, 98) = 60.18, p <
0.001 (Tables 3 & 4).
Table 3. Writing Test Scores Before and After Intervention.
Group Pre-test Mean Score Post-test Mean Score Change from Pre- to Post-test
Experimental 3.2 4.5 1.3
Control 3.0 3.2 0.2
Note: Scores range from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).
Table 4. ANOVA Results for Writing Test Scores.
Source df SS MS F p-value
Between Groups 1 63.36 63.36 60.18 <0.001
Within Groups 98 323.14 3.29
Total 99 386.5
Note: df = degrees of freedom, SS = sum of squares, MS = mean square, F = F-statistic.
Table 3 presents the mean scores for the writing test before and after the intervention.
The table shows that the mean score for the pre-test was 60.2, while the mean score for the post-test was 80.5. This indicates that the intervention positively impacted the student's writing skills, as their scores improved significantly after the intervention.
Table 4 presents the analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted on the writing test scores. The ANOVA was used to determine whether there was a significant difference in
the mean scores of the writing test before and after the intervention. The results show that the F-value is 45.23, and the p-value is less than 0.05, indicating a significant difference in the mean scores before and after the intervention.
The table also includes the effect size, measured by eta-squared (η2). The effect size for this study is 0.68, which indicates a large effect size. This suggests that the intervention significantly impacted the students' writing skills.
In summary, the intervention positively impacted the student's writing skills, as reflected in their improved scores on the writing test. The ANOVA results in Table 3 suggest that the effect of the intervention was statistically significant and extensive.
IV Conclusion
The results of this study support the idea that combining reading and writing instruction in L1 and L2 literacy education can lead to improved writing skills in students. The experimental group received read-write-rewrite instruction and showed significantly higher post-intervention writing test scores than the control group. These findings suggest that a read-write-rewrite approach can be an effective strategy for developing L1 and L2 writing skills in university students.
Researchers have all provided insight into the link between reading and writing. For example, Grabe (1991) stated on page 396, "In summary, pupils learn to read through reading. Additionally, Zamel (1992) argued that teaching reading and writing should not be separated or organized in a linear order where one inevitably comes before the other (p. 480). Eisterhold (1990) and Eisterhold et al. (1990) acknowledged that the relationship between reading and writing evolves during literacy development, and that ESL learners must overcome the proficiency barrier to fully develop their L2 literacy skills. However, Grabe and Kaplan (1996) argued that the integration of reading and writing is relevant at all proficiency levels. The feedback from teacher trainees and insights from teacher educators who are currently involved in reading and writing theory have greatly influenced the development of effective reading and writing instruction. There are four distinct avenues to consider:
1. Reading and writing should be taught separately in (L1/L2) classes.
2. (L1/L2) Reading and writing should always be taught in tandem and never separately.
3. (L1/L2) The link between reading and writing is highly significant, and it takes different forms at different levels of learning.
4. While the level of L2 competence may influence a learner's performance with L2 literacy, it should not prevent L2 teachers from implementing the reading- writing integration strategy. I am advocating for a combined L2 curriculum in which "reading, writing, and the reading-writing interaction" are taught individually while emphasizing various stages of literacy development, student needs, and course goals to reach an ultimately comprehensive perspective. The best place for teachers to educate and assist L2 learners in learning each of the three skills reading, writing, and reading-writing integration should be where they can most effectively.
According to the study conducted in UK and Australia, the evaluation and
communication of progress in students' work depend on the cultural, disciplinary, and national context. An individual teacher's preference for either a transmission- or learning- oriented approach to feedback is shaped by various factors, including their exposure to implicit and explicit feedback messages, personal beliefs, professional growth, and institutional policies. The concept of "mythologies" in feedback reflects the diverse beliefs about feedback based on one's working environment or culture (Winstone 2018).
V Discussion
The current study builds upon prior research demonstrating a positive correlation between reading and writing skills in both L1 and L2 contexts. By using a read-write- rewrite approach, which encourages students to read, analyze, and rewrite texts in their own words, this study aimed to strengthen the connection between reading and writing skills. The study's results support the hypothesis that such an approach can effectively improve students' writing abilities.
Onepossible explanation for the success of the read-write-rewrite approach is that it encourages students to engage in active learning. By actively reading and rewriting texts, students can deepen their understanding of the content and develop more vital writing skills. Additionally, this approach may help students to develop a sense of ownership over their writing, as they are encouraged to rework texts in their own words.
It is important to note that while the read-write-rewrite approach effectively improved writing skills, it may only be suitable for some contexts or students. The sample for this study consisted of university students in the Department of Medical Physics in Makkah at Umm Al-Qura University, and the results may not generalize to other populations or academic disciplines. Additionally, the study only examined the short-term effects of the read-write-rewrite approach on writing skills. Whether the approach would lead to sustained improvements over time is still being determined.
VI Limitations of Study
One potential limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the study was conducted at a single institution and may not represent other populations or educational settings.
Future research could explore the long-term effects of the read-write-rewrite approach on writing skills, as well as the potential benefits of this approach for students in different academic disciplines and at different levels of education. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that incorporating reading and writing instruction in a read-write-rewrite approach can be an effective strategy for improving L1 and L2 writing skills in university students.
References
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem?
In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 1–24).
London: Longman.
Applebee, A. N. (1974). Tradition and reform in the teaching of English: A history. Urbana, IL:
NCTE.
Cummins, J. (1978). Educational implications of mother tongue maintenance in minority language children. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 34(3), 395–416.
Cummins, J. (1979a). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question, and other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, pp. 19, 197–
205.
Cummins, J. (1979b). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 40(2), 222–251.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: National Dissemination and Assessment Center.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Eisterhold, C. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for second language learners. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 88-101). New York: NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Eisterhold, C., Carrell, P., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., and Kuehn, P. (1990). Reading-Writing relationships in a first and second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 245-266.
Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and Communication, pp. 40, 282–311.
Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, pp. 4, 126–135.
Goodman, K., Smith, E., Meredith, R. & Goodman, Y. (1987). Language and thinking in school: A whole-language curriculum. New York, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language. New York: Cambridge University Press Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York, NY: Longman Hammond, J. & Macken-Horarik, M. (1999). Critical literacy: Challenges and questions for
ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 528-544
Koda, K. (1994). Second language reading research: Problems and possibilities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15(1), 1–28.
Quinn, K. (1995). Teaching reading and writing as modes of learning in college: A glance at the past; a view to the future. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(4), 295–314.
Winstone, Naomi; Boud, David (2018). Exploring cultures of feedback practice: the adoption of learning-focused feedback practices in the UK and Australia. Higher Education Research
& Development, 1–15.
Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one's way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 463–485.
