Reading in the composition classroom

Transforming texts
Spivey suggested that task design can trigger a particular form which create a certain gap
required to be filled by either selecting information from souce materials or by adding
readers/writers previous knowledge on the topic. Another possibility would be writers organize
structure and content in their writings based on their intentions and goals in constructing
meaning. He also proposed three central operations to meaning constructing process in reading
and writing: organizing, selecting and connecting. Each category was divided into subcategories
relating to constructing of meaning and texetual transformations through composing. In
organizing, on the one hand, the readers get text cues which provided information as to how
meaning was built in source materials through relations in the texts. They based on previous
knowledge on the topic and discourse patterns, as well as the text cues to perceive or form
relations and content in the texts. On the other hand, writers often dismantle source texts, and
reconfigure content from the sources in consideration to their discourse goals; they will structure
a frame to fit the content in accordance with their communicative purposes and the use of source
materials. The textual transformations may vary from mere reordering and recombining to
changes in global patterns; different ways of structuring writings and selective content reflect
writers uniqueness.(p.8-9).
Selection of information is also heavily influenced by what readers bring with them while
entering a dialogue with the text. The criteria for selection may reflects readers educational or
cultural background, motivational factors, attitudes, interest, readers brings in terms of beliefs,
attitudes, motives.
. These criteria for selecting may be related to readers cultural background (Steffensen, Joag-
Dev, & Anderson, 1979), prior knowledge (Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert & Goetz, 1977),
and/or some notion of interestingness (cf. Hidi & Baird, 1988; Kintsch,1980), and may even be
characteristic ways of responding to a particular kind of text (Hayes, Waterman, & Robinson,
1977). Bazerman (1985), for instance, studied


The reader organizes textual meaning, selects textual content for the representation, and connects
content cued by the text with content generated from previously-acquired knowledge.
the reading process-influence so strong that boundaries between the two processes tend to blur.
When writers compose from sources, reading and writing processes blend, making it is difficult,
if not impossible, to distinguish what is being done for purposes of reading from what is being
done for purposes of writing.
Because reading and writing processes blend and co-occur, it would be inaccurate to try to
portray these intentional acts of composing from sources as a linear two-step kind of procedure
in which a person reads a source text simply for comprehension in a textdriven kind of way
before beginning the process of writing. In organizing process, the author specified organization
in terms of constructing meaning and textual transformation.

THE MAKING OF MEANING R-W AS PARALLEL PROCESSES DOI:
10.1177/0741088385002003006 1985 2: 317Written Communication STEPHEN L. KUCER
Leki and Carson emphasize the importance of considering source texts as scaffold for the rhetorical and
In reading, meaning is built from text; and in composing, meaning is built for texts(p.279)

These collaborators include those whose work a writer has read at some other point and draws on
when writing as well as those whose work he or she reads as part of the composing process (275)
Thomp Hudson teaching reading 2007
the second language user frequently already has literacy skill developed from the first language
experience (280)s
there is much less empirical work in the second language literature than the first language literature
(279)s
The two famous book on reading and writing relationships from second language perspective


Barks, D. & Watts, P. (2001). Textual borrowing strategies for graduate-level ESL writers. In D.
Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing
connections (pp. 246-267). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others words: Using background reading text in academic
compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom
(pp. 211-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carson, J. (1993). Reading for writing: Cognitive Perspectives. In Carson, J., & Leki, I (Eds.),
Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives. Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Carter, M. (1990). The Idea of Expertise: An Exploration of Cognitive and Social Dimensions of
Writing. College Composition and Communication 41(3), 265-86. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/357655
Flahive, D. & Bailey, N. (1993). Exploring reading/writing relationships in adult second
language learners. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second
language perspectives (pp. 128-140). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Flower, L. (1990). The role of task representation in Reading-to-Write. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J.
Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, W. Peck (Eds.), Reading to Write: Exploring a
Cognitive and Social Process (pp.35-73). New York: Oxford University Press.
Greene, S. (1991). Mining Texts in Reading to Write (Occasional Paper No. 29). Berkeley, CA:
National Writing Project.
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. NewYork: Oxford Univeristy Press.
Kennedy, M. L. (1985). The Composing Process of Students Writing from Sources. Written
Communication 2, 434-456. Retrieved from http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/2/4/434
Kucer, S. (1985). The making of meaning: Reading and writing as parallel processes. Written
Communication, 2(3), 317-336. Retrieved from http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/2/3/317
Langer, J. & Flihan. (2000). Writing and Reading Relationships: Constructive Tasks,
International Reading Association. Retrieved from
http://cela.albany.edu/publication/article/writeread.htm
Leki, I. & Carson, J.G. (1994). Students perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing nee
ds across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (1), 81-101.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Completely different worlds: EAP and the writing experiences of
ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39-70.
Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. C. (1998a). The readingwriting connection. In N. Nelson & R. C.
Calfee (Eds.), Ninety-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part
II , (pp.152). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Newell, G., Garriga, M. C., & Peterson, S. S. (2001). Learning to assume the role of author: A
study of reading-to-write ones own ideas in an undergraduate ESL composition course. In D.
Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections
(pp. 164-185). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources.
Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7-26
Spivey, N. (1991). Transforming texts: Constructive process in reading and writing. Written
Communication, 7, 256-287.
Stein, V. (1990). Elaboration: Using What You Know. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J.
Kantz, K. McCormick, W. Peck (Eds.), Reading to Write: Exploring a Cognitive and Social
Process (pp.119-143). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tierney, R. & Pearson, P. D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language Arts,
60(5), 568-580. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41961506