Full version

What is the impact of peer-assisted sentence-combining teaching on primary pupils' writing performance?

Introduction

Authors

Publisher

How can sentence construction skills improve a child's whole-school performance?

This US-based study adds to the growing body of evidence about the importance of mastering sentence construction in learning to write effectively.  As the researchers point out, writing ability also has an impact on the improvement of pupil achievement across the whole curriculum. Yet, they say, writing has been neglected in the current US educational reform agenda No Child Left Behind, 2001 (NCLB) which focuses on improving children's reading and mathematics.

The study focused on pairs of mixed ability pupils and compared the impact of two methods of teaching writing skills: sentence-combining and grammar instruction. Both of these methods were integrated with a peer support technique. The research found that peer-assisted methods which focused on sentence combining led to greater improvements in sentence construction than teaching based on grammar approaches. 

Keywords:
USA; Primary schools; Literacy; Writing; Teaching and learning; Peer tutoring

What impact did sentence-combining instruction have on pupils' writing skills?

The study found that sentence-combining instruction integrated with a peer-assisted approach had a positive impact on young writers of all abilities. Pupils in this group were:

• twice as likely to combine two sentences using a grammatically correct structure than their counterparts who received grammar instruction; and
• more likely to revise their papers by combining sentences. These revisions improved the quality of their writing.
  

Back to top^

What techniques were used in the intervention?

The teachers involved in the intervention directly taught the pupils how to produce more sophisticated sentences using the sentence-combining teaching method in conjunction with the peer-assisted technique.

The children were taught sentence-combining in five units, with six lessons per unit. The units focused on the following areas:

• Unit 1 – combining two related sentences into a compound sentence using the connecting words and, but and because.
• Unit 2 – embedding an adjective or adverb from one sentence into another. e.g. “They run to a cave” and “They run quickly” combined to “They run quickly to a cave.”
• Units 3 & 4 – creating complex sentences by embedding an adverbial clause (unit 3),  and an adjectival clause (unit 4) from one sentence into the other e.g. “The students all cheered” and “The movie stopped” combined to “They all cheered when the movie stopped”,
• Unit 5 – embedding multiple adjectives and adverbs, to create adverbial and adjectival clauses e.g. “Ralph stuck his head out,” “Ralph was in Ryan’s pocket,” “Ralph looked around,” and “Ralph did not know where he was” combined to “Ralph, who was in Ryan’s pocket, did not know where he was, but stuck his head out and looked around”.

For all thirty lessons, pupils were put into pairs and took it in turns to coach one another.  More able pupils were paired with less able pupils.  The peer assisted strategy was integrated into the usual daily literacy lessons.

The researchers described the sequence involved in teaching sentence-combining as follows:

• pupils need to be taught about sentence formulation and grammar;
• once the pupil becomes accustomed to the process of sentence formation, it is suggested that there is less mental strain which frees capacity to concentrate on other writing processes such as planning or revising;
• the process of combining sentences is primarily a revising skill which is useful for writers in making improvements to existing text.
  

Back to top^

How were all the lessons designed?

In each teaching group (sentence-combining and grammar) there was a combination of:

• teacher instruction;
• teacher-guided practice; and
• peer-directed independent practice.

The teacher would first explain and model the new writing procedure.  The pair then practiced orally followed by writing down their sentences individually with assistance from the instructor.  For example, grammar pupils would discuss the best words to complete a sentence in which target parts of speech were missing, pupils in the sentence-combining group would apply their new procedure for combining sentences they had been taught first orally and then in writing. The pairs then took it in turns to coach each other with the coach being provided with instruction cards, these included the following directions:
1) first, read the sentence aloud;
2) second, decide either the best word to fit in the gap in the sentence, or the best way to combine the sentences;
3) third, write the answer on the sheet; and
4) fourth, read the new sentence.

The coach would offer suggestions of changes if the sentence was not grammatically correct.  The pair would then swap roles once the sentence was written correctly.

Back to top^

How did the teaching in the two groups (sentence combining and grammar) differ?

Scaffolding was provided in the form of cues that prompted pupils to write and make revisions to their own work as they moved towards using the sentence-combining processes.

Students were given two sentences to combine.  A section of the second sentence was underlined and there was a cue in parentheses at the end of the sentence.  The pupils were instructed to ensure the cue in parentheses preceded the underlined section of text in the newly combined sentence.  For example:

They tried to put the worm in their bag.

The worm did not fit in their bag. (but)

These sentences might be rewritten as “They tried to put the worm in their bag, but the worm did not fit.”

The grammar instruction lessons focused on teaching how parts of speech (e.g. descriptive nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, subjects and predicates) can improve writing.  Pupils were given sentences with a target part of speech missing; the pupils would then take it in turns to provide a solution to complete the sentence.

The pairs moved on to write and revise a short story using the parts of speech they had been taught in previous lessons.  The pupils were given a planning facilitator which provided two options for characters, settings and topics.  In addition, pupils were given five sentences that could be used for their ending.

The final grammar instruction lessons involved the pupils independently writing a story inspired by a picture.  They were then asked to make revisions to at least three sentences of their work using the parts of speech that they had been taught in prior units.

Both teaching techniques were combined with the peer assisted learning strategy.

Back to top^

How was the research carried out?

The researchers investigated whether teaching aimed at improving children's sentence - constructing skills would benefit 9 -11 year olds of all abilities.

They focused on sentence construction skills for two reasons:

• teachers' assessment of academic performance is often based on the quality of pupils' writing, therefore evaluations are influenced by sentence structure; and
• the researchers believed that early mastery of sentence construction could free up children's mental capacity for other aspects of writing, such as creative writing.

Eleven year-olds from nine classrooms in three schools were screened using a written language test to identify their ability levels. Forty-four pupils were identified through this process and then divided into more and less skilled categories. Results were confirmed with teachers. The pupils were then randomly assigned to two groups: sentence combining or grammar instruction, so there was an equal number of more and less skilled writers in each group. Baseline tests showed that there were no significant differences in reading and oral language skills between pupils in the two groups or between pupil ability levels.

In the intervention phase in each of the groups, each pupil pair, was taught individually by student teachers for 30 lessons - three a week for ten weeks, each lesson lasting 25 minutes. All the student teachers had been trained to teach using both methods and taught an equivalent number of pairs in each group. They followed pre-planned scripts containing a check list to ensure one method wasn't favoured over the other.

Back to top^

How were the findings measured?

Researchers used extensive measures to ensure that both treatments were applied rigorously, including tape recording 30% of lessons, which were scored for accuracy in terms of the procedure and quality.  The ratings were conducted by two people independently. In order to assess development of pupils’ writing skills measures were taken at various points throughout the intervention.  Pupils were required to complete a five-item progress monitoring test during the fifth lesson of each unit.  Writing quality was assessed by scoring the first and second drafts of a story.  Great care was taken to ensure that the examiners analysed the work accurately.

Pupils' writing skills were measured in relation to:

• sentence combining;
• quality and length of writing; and
• number and type of revisions made to improve the work.

According to the researchers there are few validated practices beyond teaching sentence-combining to improve children’s sentence-construction skills.  They suggest that further research is needed to examine other approaches to improving children’s ability in this area.

Back to top^

What are the implications of this study for my practice?

In completing this digest its authors began to ask the following questions about implications for practitioners:

• explicit tuition in, and practice of, sentence combining helped pupils in the study to improve their story writing – could you try out the techniques described in your own classroom and evaluate the effects on your own pupils’ progress?
• peer tutoring seemed to be an effective way of helping pupils to understand and practise new skills – could you extend your pupils’ use of similar paired activities?
• teachers in this American study used a three-part lesson structure that seemed quite effective: direct instruction in a new skill, teacher-guided practice and practice in pairs (peer assisted practice) – how does this compare with your own experience of literacy teaching?
• the tuition which gave explicit instruction in parts of speech and other aspects of grammar, practise in choosing apt and interesting words to complete gaps in sentences, and which encouraged pupils to be consciously aware of all this whilst story writing led to disappointing results in this study – to what extent do you agree with the researchers’ suggestion that the young writers simply had too much to think about?

In completing this digest its authors began to ask the following questions about implications for school leaders:

• the programme of instruction on sentence combining was effective, but lasted for thirty lessons – in view of teachers’ anxiety to cover National Curriculum requirements, what support could you offer staff who might wish to learn from the study?  What revisions might be necessary to implement useful aspects of the study efficiently? 

Back to top^

Where can I find out more?

Other digests that are available on the subject of young pupils' writing skills are:

• Peer tutoring in writing - A school systems approach

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/themes
/assessment_for_learning/peer_tutoring_writing/

• A classroom investigation of the growth of metacognitive awareness in kindergarten children through the writing process

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/themes
/early_years/metacognitive/study_findings

The EPPI systematic review entitled 'The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year olds' accuracy and quality in written composition’  looks at the effect of teaching sentence combining on writing by primary and secondary pupils. This can be found on the weblink below:

http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=/reel
/review_groups/english/review_seven_abstract.htm

If you would like to draw the attention of Governors or other colleagues unlikely to have time for a full digest to this work you might like to turn to…

A very short summary of the EPPI study can be also found in Issue 3 of the NERF Evidence Bulletin on page 14, which can be downloaded from:
http://www.nerf-uk.org/bulletin/

You could also find a short summary on the links between different aspects of home background and children's developing writing skills on the Learning Exchange Online. The abstracts and summaries on this site can be a useful introduction to a whole range of topics although they are not necessarily based on empirical research.
http://nlg.systemassociates.co.uk/portal/researchcuree/

Back to top^