Cover not available

Article published In: Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 6:1 (2025) ► pp.1–22

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

A course of free voluntary reading on linguistic principles for average to below-average writers in university

ORCiD logo with link | York University
Published online: 12 September 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.23001.huc
Abstract
This article describes an experiment in pedagogy for general writing improvement at the university level consisting of a course of Free Voluntary Reading (FVR), which can be offered either independently of or together with standard courses on writing. Evidence so far supporting the efficacy of FVR in helping students to improve their writing skills has largely come from the K-12 grades and university-age foreign language students, so whether it would prove useful for university students in general is open to question. A linguistic perspective is adopted, which entails a methodology for the experiment that differs in major respects from that which is typical in composition studies. The results of the experiment showed that a course of FVR, independently of instruction in writing, may be effective in improving university students’ grammatical fluency in writing.
Article outline
  • 1.Background
    • 1.1Introduction
    • 1.2Linguistic principle 1: Extensive exposure is both necessary and sufficient to learn a language
    • 1.3Linguistic principle 2: Different natural language modalities do not require different learning regimens
    • 1.4Linguistic principle 3: Every mature fluent (native) speaker/writer knows intuitively what constitutes grammatical fluency in his or her language and can identify instances of ungrammaticality in others’ linguistic expressions instantly and without reflection
    • 1.5Linguistic principle 4: A person’s performance of a linguistic act needs to be distinguished from his or her grammatical competence, or unconscious knowledge of the grammar of a language
    • 1.6The expression of the linguistic principles in the experimental course design
  • 2.The experiment
    • 2.1Goals
    • 2.2Experimental design
    • 2.3Reading groups
    • 2.4Readings
    • 2.5Replication
    • 2.6Assessment
    • 2.7Analytical method
    • 2.8Analysis
  • 3.Discussion
    • 3.1Results
    • 3.2Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (48)
References
Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavioral Research Methods, 40(1), 278–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonvillian, J. D., Orlansky, M. D., & Novak, L. L. (1983). Developmental milestones: Sign Language acquisition and motor development. Child Development, 54(6), 1435–1445. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, J. & Goldberg, A. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in A-Adjective production. Language 87(1), 55–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (2015) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Ravenio Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carillo, E. C. (2014). Securing a place for reading in composition: The importance of teaching for transfer. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1969). Language and philosophy. In Hook, S. (Ed.), Language and philosophy: A symposium (51–94). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2015). Learnability. In MacWhinney, B. & O’Grady, W. (Eds.), Handbook of language emergence. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, A. & Lappin, S. (2011). Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flurkey, A. & Xu, J. (Eds.), (2003). On the revolution in reading: The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gambrell, L. (2011). Seven rules of engagement: What’s most important to know about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 172–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1), 131–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Boyd, J. K. (2015). A-adjectives, statistical preemption, and the evidence: Reply to Yang. Language 91:4, 184–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, S. & Perrin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology 99:3, 445–476. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, S. & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research 104:6, 396–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huck, G. J. (2015). What is good writing? Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan 831:119–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research: Second edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). The Goodman-Smith Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, the Comprehension Hypothesis, and the (even stronger) case for Free Voluntary Reading. In Anders, P. (Ed.), Defying convention: Inventing the future in literacy research and practice: Essays in tribute to Ken and Yetta Goodman, (pp. 46–60). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Free voluntary reading. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. & Henner, J. (2021). Acquisition of sign languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 71, 395–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. & Pichler, D. (2005). Acquisition of syntax in signed languages. In Schick, B., Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. E. (Eds.) Advances in the sign language development of deaf children. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2002). Language emergence. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T., & Rohde, A. (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 17–42). Trier: Wissenschaftliche Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics. (pp. 245–259). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, J. (2006). Spoken and written English. In Aarts, B. & McMahon, A. (Eds.) The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 670–691). Malden, MA & Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, M. & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: Item response theory analysis of the Author Recognition Test. Behavioral Research Methods, 47(4), 1095–1109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction, Report of the Subgroups, Section 3: Fluency. Washington: NICHD.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, D., Zaromb, F., Pomerantz, J. R., Williams, J. C., & Park, Y. S. (2017). Improvement of writing skills during college: A multi-year cross-sectional and longitudinal study of undergraduate writing performance. Assessing Writing 321, 12–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schreuder, M.-C. & Savitz, R. S. (2020). Exploring adolescent motivation to read with an online YA book club. Literary Research and Instruction 59(3), 260–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schütze, C. (2016). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Language Science Press. Originally published 1996 by the University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scruggs, T. E., & Casto, B. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Remedial and Special Education (RASE) 81, 24–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1988). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22(3), 221–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shanahan, T. E. (2004). Critiques of the National Reading Panel Report: Their implications for research, policy, and practice. In McCardle, P. & Chhabra, V. (eds.). The voice of evidence in reading research, pp. 245–265. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly 14(4), 402–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sylvan, L. (2018). Bringing book club to class: Engaging college students in reading content-specific books written for popular audiences. College Teaching 66(4), 225–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). A usage-based approach to child language acquisition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 26(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue