March 2007, Volume 3

Hirvela, A. (Ed.). (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann 

           Arbor:  University of Michigan.

by Korakote Natiladdanon

This book is a recent publication in Michigan Series on Teaching Multilingual Writers. Hirvela (2004) follows his previously co-edited book, Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (2001) that discusses some aspects of reading-writing relations. However, Hirvela’s recent book provides more in depth discussions regarding theories, research findings, and pedagogical ideas. In this review of Hirvela (2004), I summarize and critique the main content of the book based on my view points as an EFL teacher in a university setting in Thailand.

Hirvela explains in the introduction that the book is written to discuss reading and writing connections theories and research findings from the early period that these concepts emerged until the present, and also to give some suggestions on how such connections can be applied for actual classroom practice. The book is aimed to readers who are second language writing teachers. However, Hirvela states that the core concepts of the book can be adapted to courses that there is a mix of non-native and native English speakers. He says this book can be used by “anyone who teaches writing” (p. 6).

The first chapter, "An Overview of Reading-Writing Connections", reviews the major perspectives underlying the core notion of reading and writing. Primary themes that have directed the growth of the field of reading-writing connections are discussed and presented in chronological order, starting from early 1980s up until the present. Hirvela opens the chapter with a quotation from Tierney and Pearson (1983) as a way to explain what his book, Connecting Reading and Writing, is all about. Here is the quotation:

We believe that at the heart of understanding reading and writing connections one must begin to view reading and writing as essentially similar processes of meaning construction. Both are acts of composing. (as cited in Hirvela, 2004, p. 9)

Hirvela explains that early reports of reading-writing connections have been influenced by L1 perspectives. The number of research regarding the relations between reading and writing were also quite a few. He states that one of the research studies that played an important role in further development of the reading-writing connections field in both research and classroom practice was Stotsky’s (1983). Stotsky’s correlational studies looked at possible relationships between reading and writing abilities. Stotsky reported that “the correlational studies show almost consistently that better writers tend to be better readers (of their own writing as well as of other reading material), that better writers tend to read more than poorer writers, and that better readers tend to produce more syntactically mature writing than poorer readers” (p. 636, as cited in Hirvela, 2004, p. 13). Although Stotsky’s summary of the relations between writing and reading abilities may sound convincing, the words “more syntactically mature writing” were quite vague. The clarification of such words was not at all provided.

Hirvela cited Tierney (1992) which reflected significant changes in 1970s and 1990s in viewpoints about reading-writing relations, and how these changes affected in classroom practice. This information is helpful for readers to see how these changes draw the directions of the recent research and pedagogy in L2 reading-writing connections. Evidence is seen in Grabe’s (2001) research which gives the implications on reading and writing relations that they should be taught together and that the combination of both literacy skills enhancing learning in all areas. This chapter is ended with a list of principles on reading-writing connections that are going to be examined in the following chapters.

Chapter Two, "Linking Reading and Writing through Reader-Response Theory", explores both theory and practice of reader-response theory that posits a connection between reading and writing when writing is used in relationship to what has been read. Hirvela explains reader-response theory as “an approach to reading that primarily examines and values readers and how readers read texts, not how or why authors wrote them or how they are organized” (p. 46). In a reader-response framework, reading, like writing, is an act of “composing,” not just decoding the meanings from texts. Thus, different readers can have different “composing processes,” (p. 55) which create different interpretations of the texts they read. In other words, this approach is based on the supposition that the readers control the reading process, and construct the meaning of the texts based on their rhetorical and cultural background experiences.

Hirvela also provides some ideas of how reader-response theory can be applied in two types of classroom practice: high school and college levels. For both settings, pre-reading and post-reading exercises are suggested to examine students’ experience with the text, as well as the strategies they will use when encountering some problems reading that text. Hirvela contends that students’ responses would help teachers be aware of any difficulty that students may have in reading the texts and whether or not the reading strategies that students will employ in their reading are effective. Even though Hirvela argues that ESL teachers could gain some benefits from of the application of reader-based response in their classroom practice, I have found that some questions in pre-and post-reading phases mentioned in this chapter seem to work with L1 rather than L2 students as the questions seem too difficult and complicated for L2 students to answer.

Chapter Three is a different mode of reading-writing connections namely "writing to read.” It discusses how students can benefit from the teachers’ pedagogical application of writing to support reading. Hirvela shares his own experience writing this book chapter as an example of writing to read, which he asserts that “writing served as a means of creating better reading—and better reading hopefully has led to better writing” (p. 77). Hirvela provides another example by citing the work of Flesch (1981) to support the framework that writing should be used to teach reading. Flesch claims that in learning of other language system like shorthand, people do not learn how to read it, but learn how to write it (p. 80). I consider both examples quite interesting and as good supporting evidence for the writing to read notion.

With regard to the use of writing to enhance reading in teaching practice, Hirvela discusses classroom activities that can be employed in either writing to read, or reading to write modes. These activities include summary writing, syntheses writing, journal writing, and response writing. However, for students who are struggling as L2 readers and may need longer time to improve their skills, Hirvela suggests two more approaches, the sequential model and content-based instruction. The sequential model is “an approach in which students engage in a series of writing tasks revolving, usually, around the reading of a single text or a few texts on the same topic” (p. 102). The writing tasks given to students would help increase their understanding of their reading as they move from one task to another within the sequence. Another approach, content-based instruction, which is also known as “adjunct model” (p. 106), involves a link between an ESL course and a content course in a way that ESL teachers will use their class as a place for students to investigate, and later, be familiar with the reading and writing skills necessary in the content course or in academic writing.

Chapter Four, "Reading to Write", emphasizes the role of meaningful input, as derived from reading that can influence writing development. To explore the basis of this approach, Hirvela cited Stephen Krashen’s work (1984) that links the distinction between “competence” and “performance,” to acquisition of writing skills. Krashen asserts that:

We gain competence in writing the same way we gain competence in

oral language: by understanding messages encoded in written language, by reading for meaning. In 

this way we gain a subconscious “feel” for written language, we acquire this code as a second

dialect. (Krashen, 1984, p. 27-28, as cited in Hirvela, 2004, p. 112).

        This citation from Krashen’s supports the main theme that Hirvela tries to portray in this chapter quite well. It gives a concrete belief that knowledge of writing is derived from the input provided by reading. Based on this statement, Hirvela leads the audience to a further issue, the role of input. In this case, he raises two questions: what kinds of input should teachers provide students, and in what form should that input appear and be treated? He suggests two models, direct and indirect models, to answer these questions. Both models consider the importance of the use of reading to enhance writing.

        The direct model works on the belief that students will gain knowledge of writing consciously by seeking out some features of writing from the texts they read. In contrast, the indirect model works on the belief that knowledge of writing is “a natural outcome of reading” (p. 129). This is again that Hirvela referred to Krasken’s concepts of “comprehensible input,” “free/voluntary and extensive reading” (1984), and “reading input hypothesis” (1993), to support the crucial point that reading (in a certain amount), as a source of input, will help students gain ability in their writing. Hirvela provides some classroom activities and teaching strategies based on these models that ESL teachers may use with their students.

        The last chapter, Models of Reading-Writing Pedagogy, focuses on pedagogical possibilities related to the notion of reading-writing connections. Much of information in this chapter is already mentioned in the last three chapters. Thus, I consider this chapter somewhat redundant even though Hirvela asserts that he wants to add more depth in pedagogical discussions to the previous chapters. He discusses five pedagogical models, which are computer-mediated model, literature/response-base model, collaborative model, content based model, and sequential model. He also provides some comments in text and task selection for each model, which I think would be good guidelines for teachers to design tasks or classroom activities that are appropriate for their students’ levels of English proficiency.

        Another point I like about this chapter is Hirvela’s assertion that raises contextual awareness among teachers who have to decide which pedagogical models they should adopt. Hirvela says, “what we do with respect to adopting a model to work with and selecting texts and tasks will depend to a large extent on the kinds of students we’re working with, the school level or setting in which we see them, and what they need to accomplish in their L2 writing and reading” (p. 141).

        On the whole, this book is a valuable contribution to the filed of L2 writing. Part of this reason is because it is written by the author who has remarkable knowledge and experiences in L2 writing teaching and research. Hirvela demonstrates nicely transformation of research and theories into actual classroom practice. Important theories and research findings discussed in the book can be applied into real teaching of L2 writing. Pedagogical approaches including classroom activities and assignment would be good advice for L2 writing teachers and educational administrators who want to design courses that combine reading and writing.

        This book would also be a rich resource for graduate students in TESL/TESOL who are interested in doing research on reading-writing relations. Compared to the other book in the same series, Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction by Christine Pearson Casanave, the content of Hirvela’s book seems to be more limited as it focuses only on one single topic, reading-writing connections. Thus, this book would be appropriate for readers who are interested in this specific area, rather than those who seek a wide range of issues on L2 writing.