Currents in Literacy

Journal Response to Content Area Textbook Reading

By Elaine M. Bukowiecki

Introduction

Reading, understanding, and responding to content area textbooks are often difficult tasks for many intermediate grade, middle school, and secondary school students. Unlike basal readers and trade books of elementary school reading programs, content area textbooks are characterized by unfamiliar rhetorical structures and various patterns of paragraphs and chapter organization (cause and effect, chronological sequence, for example); by technical and often abstract vocabulary; and by new and different syntactical patterns. In recent years, varying instructional strategies and techniques have been developed to help students better understand and respond to the content area textbooks they are reading. These include various prereading exercises to activate students' schemata regarding the topic being studied; specific activities to guide students' understanding of unfamiliar vocabulary and concepts; questioning and discussion techniques that link students' prior knowledge of a topic to textbook comprehension of the same topic; study skills strategies that guide students' comprehension of content area texts as well as aid students in applying this text information to new learning situations; and innovative written response such as the writing of journals and learning logs in which students state their understanding of the material that has just been read.

This connection between content area reading and writing has often been the subject of research studies and academic journal articles in recent years (Bazerman, 1979; Ediger, 1992; Gladstone, 1987; Goggin, 1985; Greene, 1991; Hamilton-Wieler, 1983; Heller, 1986; Langer, 1986a, 1986b; Nakamura, 1984; Newell & MacAdam, among many others). Therefore, with the knowledge of the difficulty content area textbooks pose to students and with the awareness of current research regarding the effectiveness of written response to content area reading, my doctoral dissertation study focused on ascertaining if a particular type of written response was instrumental to students' comprehension of content area textbook information.

Purpose for Study

The purpose of this study was to discover the effect of student free-response and teacher-directed question-response upon fourth and fifth grade students' comprehension of content area textbooks. Both types of responses were written in students' content journals and were read and responded to by a reader not directly connected to this study.

A subordinate purpose for this study was to ascertain if the nature of the students' journal responses (the words which the students wrote) reflected the students' gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and/or the type of journal response (student free-response or teacher-directed question-response) made.

Selection of Classes

This eight-week study took place at the Hardy Elementary School and the Thompson Elementary School in Arlington, Massachusetts during the fall of 1998. Both of these schools were chosen for this study due to the socioeconomic, ethnic, linguistic, and racial diversity found at these schools. Socioeconomic, ethnic, racial and gender factors were concentrated on in the qualitative examination of the students' journals to ascertain whether or not these differences in student population were reflected in the nature of the journal responses (the words the students wrote). Three fifth-grade classrooms from the Thompson School; one fourth-grade classroom from the Thompson School; and three fourth-grade classrooms from the Hardy School were involved in this study.

Establishment of Treatment Groups

I randomly selected the classrooms which were involved in Treatment 1 or Treatment 2. At the Thompson School, the students in one fifth-grade classroom received Treatment 1 (teacher-directed question-response journal writing), the students in two fifth-grade classrooms received Treatment 2 (student free-response journal writing), and the students in one fourth-grade classroom received Treatment 1 (teacher-directed question-response journal writing). At the Hardy School, the students in two fourth-grade classrooms received Treatment 2 (student free-response journal writing), and the students in one fourth-grade classroom received Treatment 1 (teacher-directed question-response journal writing). The students in the three fifth-grade classrooms read Chapter 11, "The Revolutionary War," in the social studies textbook, The United States - Its History and Neighbors (Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1988), and the students in the four fourth-grade classrooms read Chapter 3, "Passage to a New World" and Chapter 4, "Major Indian Groups" from the same social studies textbook. (The fourth-grade and fifth-grade students in the Arlington Public Schools used the same social studies textbook. However, the fourth grade studied the first half of the textbook, and the fifth grade studied the second half of the book.) Also, all students involved in this study created a written response to the text that was read. These responses were transcribed in a journal.

Development of Program

In the classrooms in which the students received Treatment 2, journal response to the textbook reading was a student-directed free response. In order to ascertain if specific directions would influence the students' self-directed journal response, Treatment 2 was further divided into two sub-treatments. In one fourth-grade classroom and in one fifth-grade classroom where the students received Treatment 2, the direction to the students was: "Write down your feelings, reactions, impressions of the text section just read." In the second fourth-grade classroom and in the second fifth-grade classroom where the students received Treatment 2, the direction to the students was: "Write in your journal about the textbook section you just read."

In the classrooms where the students received Treatment 1, the students answered a specific question as a means of response to the textbook reading. This question was written by me and all students who received Treatment 1 in each grade responded to the same question.

In each of the treatment groups, each student received a written copy of the directions regarding the textbook reading and journal writing. Thus, three time a week, the students independently read a specific textbook selection and wrote a journal response based upon the printed directions the students were given.

I collected these response journals at the end of the fourth week of the study. A person not associated with this study read the responses and wrote a general remark such as "Good," "Right on Track," or "Keep Up the Good Work." This journal feedback was given to the students not as a means for judging their writing but rather to keep their interest flowing for the remainder of the study.

Measure of Student Comprehension

The students' comprehension of the social studies textbook material they were reading was assessed at the end of the study by means of a content specific achievement test that I designed. This test consisted of three separate sections. The first section contained ten multiple-choice answer, factual (literal knowledge) questions. The second part consisted of five questions which called for short essay answers. These questions required the students to interpret the textbook information they had read. Finally, the third part of this content specific achievement test consisted of one question which needed a more in-depth essay answer than the questions in section two of this test. This question required the students to analyze and synthesize the textbook material they had read.

The students received a separate score for each section of this content specific achievement test as well as a total score. These achievement tests were scored by both me and another reader not directly associated with this research study.

Once these content specific achievement tests were scored, these tests were statistically analyzed by means of a t-Test of Significance. This statistical analysis was completed to test the prime hypothesis of this study: Students who respond to social studies textbooks by means of student-free response will achieve higher scores on an achievement test than students who respond to social studies textbooks by answers to teacher-directed questions.

Additionally, the students' journal responses were examined to address the subordinate purpose for this study: To ascertain if the nature of the students' journal responses (the words the students wrote) reflected the students' gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and/or the type of journal response the students made. I and another reader not directly associated with this study read and coded each student's response journal. Codes were: G=gender, R=race, E=ethnicity, SES=socioeconomic status, F-R=free-response, T-Q-R=teacher-question-response. I then analyzed these coded journals and looked at the statistical analysis of the students' achievement test scores to see if there was any relevance between the coded journal responses and the students' achievement test scores.

Results of Study

The results of the t-Test indicate a significant difference and higher Mean when the two student-directed response groups were separately compared to the teacher-directed response group on part one, part three, and on the entire fifth-grade test, and a significant difference and higher Mean when both student-directed response-groups were collectively compared to both teacher-directed question response groups on part two, part three, and on the entire fourth-grade achievement test. However, a significant difference was not found when the different treatment groups were compared on part two of the fifth-grade test and on part one of the fourth-grade test.

A qualitative evaluation of the various codes on the students' journals was completed to see if the students' gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and/or treatment groups were reflected in the students' journal responses. This evaluation indicates the students in this study made more gender and racial references than ethnic and socioeconomic references in their journal responses. Also, the students who wrote self-directed entries included more opinions and reactions to their reading than the students who wrote responses in direct answer to specific questions.

Conclusions

First, students who were given the opportunity throughout this study to write free, self-directed journal responses regarding the social studies textbook selection they had read had higher comprehension and received higher test scores on the entire content specific achievement test than students who responded throughout this study to textbook reading by means of direct answers to an instructor's questions. Thus, the personal reflections, opinions, and questions which the students from the student-directed journal writing groups included in each journal entry appeared to aid the students in not only recalling the textbook facts they were reading but in analyzing and synthesizing this textbook information as well.

Second, the particular journal response treatment group the students took part in throughout this eight-week study could not always be directly linked to students' higher scores on a particular part of the content specific achievement test. When students who wrote student-directed journal responses were compared to students who wrote teacher-directed question responses, the test scores were higher for the student-directed journal writing groups on part one (ten literal multiple-choice questions) of the fifth-grade test, part two (five short interpretative essays) of the fourth-grade test, and part three (one long evaluative essay) of both the fifth-grade and fourth-grade achievement test. However, no significant difference was noted between treatment groups when test scores for student-directed journal writing groups were compared to the scores for the teacher-directed journal writing group on part two of the fifth-grade achievement test. Likewise, no significant difference was noted between treatment groups when test scores for student-directed journal writing groups were compared to the scores for the teacher-directed journal writing groups on part one of the fourth-grade achievement test. While concrete conclusions can not be drawn from this study regarding a clear connection between teacher-directed literal level journal writing and student-directed interpretative/evaluative journal writing to higher test scores when answering literal questions and writing interpretative essays on these fourth-grade and fifth-grade content specific achievement tests, implications to classroom questioning techniques seem evident. Thus, instructors should give students numerous opportunities to answer questions both in writing and through oral discussions at different levels of comprehension (literal, interpretative, evaluative).

Third, students who wrote free, self-directed journal responses tended to include more personal feelings, opinions, reactions, and references to past experiences along with facts from their social studies textbook reading in their journal entries than did students who simply wrote factual journal responses to answer particular questions. By not being asked to answer a specific question, the students in the student-directed journal response groups appeared not obligated to just state facts but rather appeared to have the freedom to think more about the textbook reading and to give more personal reflections of this information.

Fourth, students who were directed to "write about the textbook section they just read" ( a general journal response) tended to write more factual journal responses to the social studies textbook reading than did the students who were admonished to "write about your feelings, reactions, impressions of the textbook section you just read." It seems from the journals the fourth and fifth graders penned in this study that unless the students were directly told to write about their feelings, reactions, impressions of the textbook reading, often these students would write a factual answer instead. This conclusion has a direct connection to classroom instruction. Teachers should carefully think about the directions they give students regarding response to content area work in order for students to respond to the reading in an effective manner for optimal learning as well as in a way which will allow the students to apply classroom learning to their own lives.

Fifth, the particular type of student-directed journal response group (reaction/opinion or general) the students participated in throughout this study did not lead to higher test scores on the content specific achievement test when the two student-directed responses groups were compared to each other. Thus, this conclusion can be directly applied to the classroom. Teachers should carefully consider the assignments they ask students to complete. Perhaps by orally discussing a textbook section before journal writing, brainstorming information on a graphic organizer or by taking marginal notes during the textbook reading, students will write more critical, reflective journal responses which would combine facts from the reading with prior experiences and personal feelings/reactions.

Sixth, the journal responses the students wrote which clearly reflected a reference to gender and race were directly connected to the content of the textbook selection which was read. For example, the fifth graders' journal entries which were coded for gender and race were in direct response to Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence regarding all men being created equal, the role of women and African Americans in the American Revolutionary War and during the Colonial Period in American history, the issues of war versus peace, and the type of weapons employed by both the Continental and British armies. Likewise, the fourth graders' journal responses which were coded for gender and race reflected the students' direct response to textbook chapter reading concerning the early Native American tribes who once inhabited North and South America. These fourth graders remarked about the number of animals being killed, the role of both men and women in certain Native American tribes, the changes to the Native Americans' way of life once the European settlers arrived, and the types of homes and artifacts various Native American tribes had. Only rarely did either a fourth-grade or fifth-grade student refer to his/her own race or gender in these journal entries. This conclusion brings to the forefront the importance for classroom teachers and curriculum developers to employ curricula and materials which are relevant and meaningful to all students' lives.

Finally, the students who participated in this study wrote few journal responses which reflected references to ethnicity (their own or a particular ethnic group they were reading about) and a specific socioeconomic status. In drawing conclusions regarding the small number of journal entries regarding the students' own ethnicity and socioeconomic status, the age of the students, the textbook content the students were reading about, and the suburban area where the students live could account for the minor references to ethnic group and socioeconomic status found in these journal responses. Once again, this conclusion can be directly tied to classroom instructional materials and curricula. The more relevant classroom materials and instruction are to the children's own lives, the more direct connections students can make between themselves and school learning.

Limitations of Study

There were some limitations to this study. First, there was the small number of students who participated in each treatment group. Fourteen students participated in this study from each of the three fifth-grade classrooms. Eighteen students took part in this study from each of the four fourth-grade classrooms. When it came time for the administration of the content specific achievement test at the conclusion of this study, one student from each classroom (both fourth and fifth grade) was absent from school on that particular day.

A second limitation of this study was the small amount of racial, ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic diversity found in each treatment group. Although the two elementary schools which participated in this study contained the most diverse student population in the school district, ethnic, racial, linguistic, and socioeconomic diversity was not as noticeable as it might have been if this study had taken place in an urban community.

Finally, since the students involved in this study were in pre-determined, non-randomized classrooms (the students in each classroom were assigned to the classrooms before the study began), the researcher could not control for a specific number of students being in each treatment group, a higher rate of maturation in one treatment group as compared to another, and the loss of students from treatment groups during the course of the study.

Recommendations

Based upon the conclusions drawn from this study, the following future research in content area reading, journal response, and reading comprehension is recommended.

1. Replication of this study needs to take place with a larger number of students at the fourth-grade and fifth-grade levels. In this way, the significance of the findings from this study can be compared to the findings from a larger study.

2. Replication of this study needs to take place with students beyond the intermediate grade level, perhaps at the middle school and secondary school levels. It would be informative to see if older students' journal responses would be more reflective of the students' gender, race, ethnicity, and/or socioeconomic status than the journal responses of the fourth-grade and fifth-grade students who took part in this study.

3. Replication of this study needs to take place in an urban area which has a diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic population as well as citizens who come from a variety of socioeconomic classes. In this way, students' journal responses to their content area reading might be more reflective of a variety of races, ethnic backgrounds, languages, and socioeconomic classes than were the journal responses of the students who participated in this study.

4. Replication of this study needs to take place in other content area subjects such as mathematics and science. In this way, the connection between journal writing and higher comprehension on a content specific test, which was pointed out in this study, might be linked to other content area subjects.

5. Much research has been conducted regarding a variety of teacher-directed and student-directed written response activities to content area reading (Bromley, 1983; Downey, 1994; Dreher, 1995; Gladstone, 1987; Greene, 1991; Hamilton-Wieler, 1983; King, 1992; Langer, 1984; Newell & McAdam, 1987, among others).This present study will add to previous research concerning written response and content area reading and will hopefully lead to further research in this field.

6. Research needs to continue to take place regarding reading comprehension in order to ascertain if particular instructional strategies, writing activities, and discussion techniques will allow students to be more able to respond to new learning and the reading they are doing at all levels of comprehension (literal, interpretative, evaluative).

References

Bazerman, C. (1979). Written Language Communities: Writing in the Context of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 232 159)

Bromley, K. (1983). Precise Writing and Outlining: Aids to Learning Social Studies Content. Paper presented at the University Reading Association Conference, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 236 561)

Downey, M. T. (1994). Writing to Learn History in the Intermediate Grades: Defining and Assessing Historical Writing Thinking. National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, Berkeley, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 513)

Dreher, M. J. (1995). Sixth-grade Researchers: Posing Questions, Finding Information, and Writing a Report. National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 384 104)

Ediger, M. (1992). Writing in Social Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 519)

Gladstone, C. (1987). Thinking, Reading, and Writing Across the Curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 291 089)

Goggin, W. F. (1985). Writing to Learn: A Message for History and Social Studies Teachers. Social Studies, 76, 170-173.

Greene, S. (1991). Writing from Sources: Authority in Text and Task. Center for the Study of Writing, Berkeley, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 068)

Hamilton-Wieler, S. (1983). How Does Writing Emerge from the Classroom Context? A Naturalistic Study of the Writing of Eighteen-Year-Olds in Biology, English, Geography, History, History of Art, and Sociology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N. ED 284 209)

Heller, M. F. (1986). Directed Reading and Writing in the Content Areas. Reading Psychology, 7, 173-182.

King, C. M. (1992). Creating a Literate Environment for Learning Social Studies Content. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association, Orlando, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 645)

Langer, J. A. (1984). The Effects of Available Information on Responses to School Writing Tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 27-44.

Langer, J. A. (1986a). Learning Through Writing: Study Skills in the Content Areas. Journal of Reading, 29, 400-406.

Langer, J. A. (1986b). Writing to Study and Learn. Stanford University School of Education, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 297 316)

Nakamura, C. (1984). Write to Learn: Writing Across the Curriculum at Kapiolani Community College. Papers presented at the Pacific Western Division Conference of the Community College Humanities Association, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 252 252)

Newell, G. E., & McAdam, P. (1987). Writing and Learning from Text: Case Studies of Process and Product. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 101)

Elaine Bukowiecki is an Assistant Professor at Lesley University and has taught classes on literacy there for eight years. She is also a language arts coordinator for the Putnum, Connecticut Public Schools.