1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pedagogical Linguistics
  4. Volume 6, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23001.huc
2023-09-12
2026-07-21

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pl.23001.huc
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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. 10.3758/BRM.40.1.278
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.278 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, J. R.
    (1993) Rules of the mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bonvillian, J. D., Orlansky, M. D., & Novak, L. L.
    (1983) Developmental milestones: Sign Language acquisition and motor development. Child Development, 54(6), 1435–1445. 10.2307/1129806
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1129806 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyd, J. & Goldberg, A.
    (2011) Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in A-Adjective production. Language87(1), 55–83. 10.1353/lan.2011.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0012 [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C.
    (2015) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Ravenio Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (1969) Language and philosophy. InHook, S. (Ed.), Language and philosophy: A symposium (51–94). New York: New York University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2000) New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511811937
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811937 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, A.
    (2015) Learnability. InMacWhinney, B. & O’Grady, W. (Eds.), Handbook of language emergence. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118346136.ch17
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346136.ch17 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, A. & Lappin, S.
    (2011) Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell 2011 10.1002/9781444390568
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444390568 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T.
    (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cowart, W.
    (1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. London: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Flurkey, A. & Xu, J.
    (Eds.) (2003) On the revolution in reading: The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gambrell, L.
    (2011) Seven rules of engagement: What’s most important to know about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 172–178. 10.1002/TRTR.01024
     https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01024 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics22(1), 131–153. 10.1515/cogl.2011.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.006 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, A. E. & Boyd, J. K.
    (2015) A-adjectives, statistical preemption, and the evidence: Reply to Yang. Language91:4, 184–197. 10.1353/lan.2015.0052
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0052 [Google Scholar]
  18. Graham, S. & Perrin, D.
    (2007) A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology99:3, 445–476. 10.1037/0022‑0663.99.3.445
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445 [Google Scholar]
  19. Graham, S. & Sandmel, K.
    (2011) The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research104:6, 396–407. 10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.488703 [Google Scholar]
  20. Huck, G. J.
    (2015) What is good writing?Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212957.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190212957.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Krashen, S. D.
    (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (1993) The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2001) More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan831:119–123. 10.1177/003172170108300208
     https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108300208 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2004) The power of reading: Insights from the research: Second edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. (2010) The Goodman-Smith Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, the Comprehension Hypothesis, and the (even stronger) case for Free Voluntary Reading. InAnders, 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]
  27. (2011) Free voluntary reading. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lillo-Martin, D. & Henner, J.
    (2021) Acquisition of sign languages. Annual Review of Linguistics71, 395–419. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑043020‑092357
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-043020-092357 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lillo-Martin, D. & Pichler, D.
    (2005) Acquisition of syntax in signed languages. InSchick, B., Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. E. (Eds.) Advances in the sign language development of deaf children. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195180947.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195180947.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  31. MacWhinney, B.
    (2002) Language emergence. InBurmeister, 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]
  32. McCawley, J. D.
    (1978) Conversational implicature and the lexicon. InCole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics. (pp.245–259). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Miller, J.
    (2006) Spoken and written English. InAarts, B. & McMahon, A. (Eds.) The handbook of English linguistics (pp.670–691). Malden, MA & Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch28
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch28 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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. 10.3758/s13428‑014‑0534‑3
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0534-3 [Google Scholar]
  35. National Reading Panel
    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]
  36. 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 Writing321, 12–27. 10.1016/j.asw.2016.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. O’Grady, W.
    (2005) Syntactic carpentry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410612571
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612571 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Schreuder, M.-C. & Savitz, R. S.
    (2020) Exploring adolescent motivation to read with an online YA book club. Literary Research and Instruction59(3), 260–75. 10.1080/19388071.2020.1752860
     https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2020.1752860 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schütze, C.
    (2016) The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Language Science Press. Originally published 1996 by theUniversity of Chicago Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603356
     https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603356 [Google Scholar]
  41. Scruggs, T. E., & Casto, B.
    (1987) The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Remedial and Special Education (RASE)81, 24–33. 10.1177/074193258700800206
     https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258700800206 [Google Scholar]
  42. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A.
    (1988) Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22(3), 221–242. 10.1177/01454455980223001
     https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455980223001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Shanahan, T. E.
    (2004) Critiques of the National Reading Panel Report: Their implications for research, policy, and practice. InMcCardle, P. & Chhabra, V. (eds.). The voice of evidence in reading research, pp.245–265. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Smith, F.
    (1988) Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F.
    (1989) Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly14(4), 402–433. 10.2307/747605
     https://doi.org/10.2307/747605 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sylvan, L.
    (2018) Bringing book club to class: Engaging college students in reading content-specific books written for popular audiences. College Teaching66(4), 225–234. 10.1080/87567555.2018.1518892
     https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2018.1518892 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. (2014) A usage-based approach to child language acquisition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society26(1). 10.3765/bls.v26i1.1123
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v26i1.1123 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23001.huc
Loading
A course of free voluntary reading on linguistic principles for average to below-average writers in university
Pedagogical Linguistics 6, 1 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.23001.huc
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23001.huc
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23001.huc
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): free voluntary reading; freshman composition; writing assessment; writing skill

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error