kigo4789 - aare · australian association for research in education- aare international education...
TRANSCRIPT
1
KIGO4789
THE TEACHING OF NARRATIVES
AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION- AARE
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE
28TH Nov-2ND Dec 2004
Melbourne Australia
Doing the Public Good: Positioning Education Research
MUTUOTA KIGOTHO
MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY
SYDNEY NSW 2109
AUSTRALIA
Email: [email protected]
2
Abstract
This paper presents a case for the use of narrative as an instructional tool. Available
literature on the narrative and reviewed within the last thirty years seems to suggest
that narrative might be a significant tool of instruction. Given the variety of uses that
researchers in narrative have explored so far, the paper suggests that the narrative has
the potential to influence the school system and that the public might be better served
by enhancing and encouraging students and teachers to continue the practice of using
narrative in teaching and learning especially in the lower secondary school.
Introduction
Knowledge of narrative structure assists students to improve their narrative writing
skills and studies have shown that teaching narrative structure to students improves
their narrative writing skills. This has been shown in instances where English
narratives have been used to assist students whose mother tongue is English to create
and write compositions. The current study extends the parameters of previous studies
in using a similar methodology to assist Kenyan students to improve their writing of
narratives in English. Based on accepted findings that the structure of Kenyan
narratives is similar to that of other narratives it was believed that teaching the
structure of the Kenyan narrative to students, their writing of narratives in English
would improve considerably.
Several teaching methods have been used to teach structure in narratives. These
methods fit within the two broad frameworks of modelling and the story map.
Straight-forward modelling (e.g. Sipe; 1993; Cairney, 1990) has been used
extensively. The term 'modelling' has been defined as the process of offering behavior
for imitation through showing or telling (Hung, 2002; Gallimore and Tharp, 1990;
Tharp, 1993). Sipe (1993) uses modelling as a narrative teaching strategy by assisting
students to imitate aspects of the plot to create narratives 'deliberately modelled on
older ones' (Sipe, 1993 p. 18). Sipe (1993) prefers to use the term 'transformations'
since the students are allowed to adjust the plot giving it a twist in whatever direction
they wished. Sipe's version of modelling is exemplified below.
3
In addition to Sipe's modelling the various uses of the story map as a narrative-
teaching strategy will also be exemplified. The story map is a graphic representation
of the structure of the story. There is a significant amount of literature related to the
story map available and thus this paper discusses the less available strategy referred to
as modelling (Sipe 1993) as well as the use of intertextual links as a form of
modelling (Cairney, 1990).
The narrative teaching strategies are illustrated in figure I below.
Modelling Modelling (Sipe, 1993; Cairney, 1990)
The story map Story maps (Beck and McKeown, 1981; Davis and McPherson, 1989)
Story schema/flow charts) Mandler and Johnson, 1977; Gordon and Braun,1982, 1983; Kroll and Anson, 1984; Geva, 1983; Ollson, 1989)
Story Maps with Character Perspectives- SMCP (Emery and Mihalevich,1992; Emery, 1996)
Character Perspective Charts -CPC (Shanahan and Shanahan, 1997)
Figure 1 Narrative teaching strategies
Modelling
The basic form of modelling is used as follows: First the teacher identifies what is to
be modelled. An example of this could be the writing process model suggested by
Hayes and Flower (1980a). This model views the composing process as comprised of
three phases namely, planning, translating and reviewing. As in the discussion of this
model above, these phases have sub-processes for instance planning has organizing
and goal-setting as sub-processes while reviewing has reading and editing. Secondly,
the teacher applies the model in teaching the composing process by offering
instruction based on the three named aspects while monitoring student progress. By
imitating a model as explained by the teacher students learn to create texts such as a
written narrative.
As a narrative teaching strategy, modelling includes the use of transformations (Sipe,
1993), and establishing intertextual links (Cairney, 1990).
4
The use of transformations as a form of modelling
According to Sipe (1993) transforming a story involves retelling it. However
transformations are distinguishable from retellings in that a retelling attempts to be
faithful to the original story while a transformation can range farther afield. Using the
terms adapted by Sipe (1993) transformations manifest themselves in four forms
namely; parallelism, deconstructions, extended versions of the original tale, and the
use of illustrations (Sipe, 1993 p.18).
The first form of transformation is the parallel method. As the name suggests, the
parallel model denotes the creation of a new story written as a parallel to an old tale.
For example: Calmenson's (1989) The Principal's New Clothes has been written as a
parallel of The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen. Sipe (1993)
indicates that the new story's humour depends in part on their knowledge of the old
story (p. 19). The students imitate the plot but change the names of characters and
adjust the action of the story.
The second form of transformation is deconstruction. The term 'deconstruction' as
used by Sipe (1993) refers to the creation of new stories loosely based on traditional
stories. For example, Sleeping Ugly by Jane Yolen (1981) is a deconstruction of
Sleeping Beauty. 'Only the title, a magic spell, a long sleep and a kiss remind us or the
original story' (Sipe, 1993 p. 19). In this example of imitation, 'Beauty' -a noun- is
substituted by 'Ugly'- an adjective turned into a noun.
The third form of transformation refers to the 'conscious manipulations of a traditional
story, a form of extended language play (Martinez and Nash, 1992, cited in Sipe, 1993
p.19). The "Chicken Little" story is one example of a traditional story that has been
transformed by various writers. William Stobbs (1968) has the protagonist Henny-
Penny picking up corn in the courtyard when she is hit by something from the sky.
She runs scared and sets out to tell the King that "the sky's a-going to fall". Along the
way, she comes across a variety of the bird flock such as the cock, duck, the goose
and the turkey and all join in the trip to see the King. Then they come across the
cunning fox. Intending to kill and eat them, the fox tricks them into entering his cave.
One by one, the fox cuts their heads off dumping them in a waiting van as he waits for
his next victim. But the hen is lucky since in an attempt to snap her head, the fox
5
injured her but not fatally. She runs away and forgoes her mission to inform the King
about the "falling sky". Stephen Kellog's Chicken Little (1988) has been cited in Sipe
(1993 p. 19) as an example of a conscious manipulation of this traditional story.
While remaining faithful to the original story Kellog gives his story a new twist when
he radically alters the ending so that in the new story the fox is arrested and put in jail.
The fourth form of transformation involves the story being transformed only by the
use of new illustrations. Sipe (1993 p. 19) cites the example of Hansel and Gretel by
Anthony Browne (1990) where the words of Brothers Grimm story are retained. The
illustrations in the new story set the story in modern-day England giving an entirely
different feeling to the old tale (Sipe, 1993 p. 19).
Other modelling techniques used by Sipe (1993) included addressing literary issues of
style, theme, characterization and topic in text. By the use of modern colloquial
language students composed an imitation of the story of Goldilocks. By retaining
details and the organization of the original story, the students gave the story a modern
version by turning it into a written version of rap.
Additional questions of literary style were dealt with by comparing and contrasting
pairs of stories- the old story and the new story. Students were provided with large
pieces of paper on which they drew charts where they could 'compare and contrast the
written versions of each pairs of stories visually' (Sipe, 1993 p. 20).
The researcher then got the students to draw a chart that summarized the kinds of
transformations that in their view were possible with stories. The students arrived at
nine modes of transformations. These are given as-
• the use of language to alter the style from an old tale to a modern one
• change or add the details in the plot
• change a few of the main events in the plot
• keep a few of the main events but change most of the plot
• change the setting
• characters and detail
6
• alter occupations of characters, their gender, reversal of roles, write a sequel to the
original story, and finally, keep the words of the original story but change the
illustrations (Sipe, 1993 p. 22).
Sipe (1993) offers a summary of their finding stating that-
"We were impressed by the quality of the writing that resulted and by the degree to
which students' stories forged intertextual links (Cairney, 1990) with what they had
read". Following De Beaugrande (1980) and Kristeva (1980), Cairney (1990 p. 480)
explains 'intertextuality' as the process of interpreting one text by means of a
previously composed text.
Intertextual links as a form of modelling
According to Cairney (1990 p. 478) "the germs of writing can often be traced to
previous literary experiences with texts written, read or heard". Cairney seems to
suggest that what children read or hear influences what they write about. In an attempt
to establish the existence or otherwise of intertexual links, Cairney asked eighty grade
six students from the Riverina region of New South Wales to report on whether they
ever thought of stories they have read when writing a story. If students gave a positive
response, the researcher asked to be given an example. The student was further asked
at what point they recalled the earlier story, and they were also expected to provide
the name of the earlier story they were referring to. Ninety per cent of the students
indicated that they were aware of intertextual links, while ten per cent could not recall
any specific instances.
Cairney (1990) found that there were those students that had attempted to copy or
reproduce a genre they had read. However, other students came up with an original
plot. Some students also indicated that they had based their writing around a central
character borrowed from a story they had read. Some students used specific ideas
without copying the plot of a story. An idea or event from a story triggered the writer's
memory of another text. Some students copied the plot and ideas, essentially copying
the story. Students attempted to rewrite the story they had read. There were other
students that attempted to transfer content from expository to narrative texts. Such
students 'attempted to reduce the complexity of the writing process by concentrating
7
upon a topic for which they saw themselves as expert' (Cairney, 1990 p. 482). There
were other students that created a narrative from several other narratives. Such
students considered by the researcher as being of high ability (they constituted the top
six per cent) evidenced an awareness of writing a story based upon a number of other
stories (Cairney, 1990 p. 482).
The study by Cairney (1990) suggests that what children hear, for instance, oral
narratives might influence what they write. Orr (1986) holds a similar view in stating
that
No literary text is written in a vacuum. Besides the general culture surrounding thetext, and the author's own horizon, (i.e. his experiences, prejudices use of languagesystem worldview and so on), there are perhaps more importantly, other textsespecially literary texts (p. 814), (cited in Cairney, 1990 p. 480)
Similar sentiments are found in the work of Kristeva (1980) who is cited in Cairney
(1990, p. 480) as seeing intertextuality as a form of dialogue with the total texts of
reader's experiences. The work of Sipe (1993) and Cairney (1990) demonstrates
modelling as a useful narrative teaching strategy where teachers encourage students to
use imitation to create stories. This strategy has its limitations, some of which include
the high dependence on the availability of published stories for imitation.
The story map
The story map (Beck and McKeown, 1981; Davis and McPherson, 1989) has been
extensively used to teach narrative writing. While retaining a basic typology, a
variety of terms are used to describe the story map. Such terms include the story
schema, (Gordon and Braun, 1982), and flow-chart (Geva, 1983; Ollman, 1989), the
Story Map with Character Perspectives- SMCP (Emery and Mihalevich, 1992; Emery,
1996), and Character Perspective Charts- CPC (Shanahan and Shanahan, 1997). This
information is represented in Figure I above. The story map is a widely recognized
area of narrative research and a significant number of researchers agree on the vital
part the story map has played in this area of study. That literature is widely available
and it will not be discussed in much detail in the current study. The story map can be
summed up in a brief mention of ‘the story schema’ below.
8
The story schema
A ‘story schema’ has been defined as ‘an individual’s mental representation of story
components and the way these components fit together’ (Whaley, 1981). Story
schema has also been defined as ‘an idealized internal representation of the parts of a
typical story and the relationships among those parts’ (Mandler and Johnson, (1977).
To obtain a visual representation of the schema, the details of a story are reorganized
in such a manner as to form a tree diagram as shown in figure 2 below.
STORY
setting event structure
episode
beginning development ending
Figure 2 The story structure (Source: Kroll and Anson, 1984 p. 156)
Kroll and Anson (1984) have relied on Mandler and Johnson (1977) story grammar
model to draw this representation of structure. In this model the teacher begins by
explaining the story elements to the students. Such elements include ‘title’, ‘setting’,
‘theme’, ‘plot’, ‘characters’, ‘resolution’ and ‘episode’. The pupils are shown a
schematic representation of the story in the form of a tree diagram.
Figure 3 shows the network of story categories and the main relationships –then,
cause or and, connect episodes. Terminology according to the authors was also
adapted for classroom use so that story parts and relationships could be discussed in
terms familiar to the students.
9
Figure 3 Story Title
Setting Theme Plot Resolution
Goal of main character, or
Intended message of author.
Major
Setting
Minor setting A Episode A
1.Location 1. Starter event (Initiating
event)
2.Time 2. Inner response (internal response)
3.Characters 3. Action (Attempt)
4. Outgoing state 4. What happens ? (Outcome )
Cause or then or and
Minor Setting B Episode B
1.
2
3.
4.
Minor setting C Episode C
1.
2.
3.
4.
Figure 3 Schematic representation of the story structure (Source: The Reading Teacher Nov. 1983
pp.117
When using story schema as a model for teaching narratives, several roles have been
suggested for the teacher, (Gordon and Braun, 1983). Since the analysis is complex
there is need to select well-formed narratives as they have clear structure. There is
also need to rewrite stories so that they are made more suitable for story grammar
instruction since as Reedy and Riley (2000 p. 66) explain, there is a danger of children
being left to infer that telling a story chronologically is the same thing as writing a
10
'narrative'. The two researchers state that children write 'narrative' as opposed to
'recounts' when the resulting stories bear evidence of the crucial move to "describing a
dramatic disruption of the ongoing events which leads to a final resolution" (p. 66).
The visual representation in the form of a diagram is also important. Psychologists are
generally agreed that children tend to recall what they see more than they recall what
they hear. This seems to stress the power of vision. Another task would be related to
the fact that the teacher needs to formulate questions that would be asked to assist
students develop expectations about contents of the story. The teachers need to
distinguish narratives that have plots as opposed to personal experience narratives
(Reedy and Riley, 2000 p.66). In narratives for instance, characters are depicted as
fitting within an event structure or plot. It is for the teacher to point out this
relationship, and not leave it to the pupil to infer. At this point it is crucial that
students grasp knowledge of the structure of the story. Knowledge of the structure and
its visual representation will assist in recall (Mandler and Johnson, 1977). This will
have a positive effect on the pupils since the instruction about narrative structure was
intended to activate the pupils’ passive knowledge of structure and then get the pupils
to practice the use of such knowledge of narrative structure in composing their own
narratives. This will assist in making the students implicit knowledge of structure
explicit.
The step-by-step method of teaching narrative writing suggested by Gordon and
Braun (1983) presents a practical approach that teachers could use to teach writing.
Given below is a summary of the use of the schema as a narrative teaching strategy.
• The students are exposed to a story to be used for instruction. The teacher can read
such a story in class or post it on the wall for the students to read at their own free
time. Students receive instruction on the structure of a familiar narrative.
• Expose the students to a simplified global organization structure of a narrative. A
simple tree diagram showing story, setting, an event structure and episodes with a
beginning, a development and an ending. This provides the basic structure to be
used as a model for instruction.
• The teacher explicitly relates story content to the story structure pointing out to the
student elements of story structure targeted for instruction.
11
• Student practices writing story parts such as orientation, the main event and a
closure the application of such story elements in the narratives they write. Each
part is practiced well enough before moving to the next part.
Owing to the clarity of the steps used the current study adopted this method of
instruction and used it along with transposition. The third form of transposition, one
that involves the 'conscious manipulation of a traditional story, a form of extended
language play' has been selected as the most appropriate additional model. This model
gives the student a free hand to create a narrative bearing a twist of ones choice.
Factors that affect quality in narrative are given as characterization- the creation of a
central protagonist with individual motives, traits and dispositions (Kroll and Anson,
1984 p. 179). Good characterization also meant giving the central character a motive
for his or her action. "Several children gave special attention to creating a rich and
interesting central character" (p. 179). Some children - a relatively small number -
used dialogue to create the central character, most often a comic characterization (p.
180). Another factor affecting quality include- starting a story with dialogue. Kroll
and Anson give an example of a writer that appears impressive by opening a story
with the stream of action, moves back to provide background, and then commence the
main events of the narrative. There were other writers that employed short sentences
quite deliberately to achieve the effect of suspense. Still other writers tried
experimenting with words for instance, one writer states "On a Sunday when all the
animals would be hanging around 'boringly'". Then there were writers that used a
device common in animal tales: use of alliterative names for the animals (for example
'Larry the lion', 'Eric the elephant'). Kroll and Anson (1984) have listed the elements
listed above as factors other than structure that serve to determine quality in writing.
A possible limitation of story schema is that events in the story are likely to focus on
what happens to the main character in the story. This might lead to the other
characters in the story being ignored (Shanahan and Shanahan, 1997). Such a
criticism might not be valid since it has been shown that by the use of embedding, it is
possible to chart out events in a story to include more than one character.
12
Arising from the analyses of narratives written by children (Kroll and Anson, 1984), it
can be concluded that the story schema is a suitable model for teaching narrative
writing among children with a view to enhancing structure in stories. The current
study extends Gordon and Braun (1982, 1983) and aims at raising schema awareness
among Kenyan secondary school pupils.
The story map particularly the story schema has been selected as the principal model
to be used in explicating narrative structure. This model was reinforced by the use of
scaffolding as suggested by Vygotsky's (1978) social cultural theory known as the
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Vygotsky has defined the ZPD as- 'the
distance between actual developmental level as determined by independent problem
solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving
under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers' (Vygotsky, 1978
p.86). Vygotsky's theory would be useful in assisting students use local narratives as a
model for 'awakening' or make active their passive knowledge of narrative structure.
The ZPD represents a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to
operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in
cooperation with his peers (Vygotsky, 1978 p. 90). The term 'scaffold' has been used
to represent a process wherein an adult provides support to a child learning to master a
problem. In the case of this intervention, the researcher provided the scaffolding. In
the current study the intervention was aimed at activating students’ knowledge of
structure so that they might use that knowledge to create narratives that were elaborate
and more coherent. This is made credible since as Vygotsky (1978) argues 'what a
child can do with assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow' (p. 87).
Method
The subjects
The subjects were 177 Form one students from Kenya from two public rural girls'
schools aged between 15 and 18. School A had 92 students while school B had 85.
This age group was selected because the children are in their first year of secondary
school, and at this age, oral narratives still generate significant attention among
students. The children selected for this study had eight years of exposure to English
language in the primary school. In Kenya children undergo four years of secondary
school and four years of university learning. In the secondary school, the students are
13
taught narrative writing and then tested in the national examinations. Forms one and
two constitute the lower secondary and would be the Australian equivalents of Years
Nine and Ten. In developing countries, children begin school at various ages.
The research design
The aim of the current study was to determine whether the implementation of a
teaching strategy designed to activate students' implicit knowledge of the structure of
the traditional Kenyan oral narratives, could enable Kenyan students to write better
quality narratives. At the beginning of the program, the students were required to
write three narratives as part of a pretest in order to establish their narrative writing
competence in English. As part of the intervention, the researcher spent six weeks
teaching one class of students in each school. These two classes comprised the
experimental group. At the end of the instruction period, the students were required to
write another three narratives known as the posttest. This was done to verify whether
the intervention had improved the quality of the narratives the students wrote. Quality
ratings were obtained by having raters, blind to the conditions and nature of
instruction, provide ratings for the stories. Measures used to determine the writing
quality of the narratives included structure, coherence and cohesion. These measures
are discussed below. To ensure that any improvement in quality could be attributed to
the intervention, a second class of pupils from each school was tested at the same time
as the experimental groups using similar instruments and in similar conditions. These
two classes comprised the control group, and during the intervention period they
received only their regular classroom program. The quality of narratives written by
the control group was not expected to improve significantly between the two times
they were tested. Campbell and Stanley, (1966) have called a scheme such as the one
described here as an intervention study comprising a pretest posttest control group
design.
Procedure
The first school was visited in the second half of term two, while the second school
was visited in the first half of term three. At the first meeting, the researcher stated the
purpose of the research. This was given as: to investigate the relationship between
students' understanding of oral narrative structure and their ability to compose written
14
narratives. Students would choose whether they wished to participate in the study or
not. Students that accepted to take part in the study would be required to write six
narratives as part of the study. Three narratives would be written before the teaching
took place, and three at the end. It was also made clear that those who chose to
participate were free to withdraw at any point in the study if they so wished. Consent
was sought from those pupils aged over sixteen, while parents of younger students
gave consent on behalf of their children. Within the intervention period, including
testing, each of the experimental groups received thirty-six forty-minute lessons
within a period of six weeks. The writing tasks were comprised of three story types.
Story type one required that students write a narrative with a traditional setting. In
story type two students were required to develop a story from a given prompt. Story
type three was free writing where students were given topic headings and asked to
write on a theme of their choice.
Instruction and the lesson plan
The researcher selected seven local narratives known to the students, typed them and
then posted them at the back of the class. The students were encouraged to read the
narratives for familiarity of plot, characterization, content, form, narrative structure,
morals and themes.
Given below is a summary of the lesson plan-
The teacher introduces the lesson by referring to the copy at the back of the
classroom. The teacher then guides the students through the story pointing out to them
the various story elements as they appear in the text allowing for some discussion in
class. The teacher poses questions as the story is covered in class.
The key instructional areas focus on the orienting background information that aims
at providing detailed information regarding foreshadowing, and then characterization
in the narrative. The issue of the complicating action and the conflict resolution is also
highlighted. In narratives that have more than one episode, the teacher identifies the
episodes guiding the students through how the main character deals with all issues
raised in the story. The students are guided in relating the story structure with the
composing process.
It was intended that as a result of this strategy, the following would result. The
students would be able to predict a story content prior to or during the instructional
15
period. Further, the strategy would guide students’ comprehension by serving as a
framework for organising what is learned, as well as framing oral and written story
recall. The strategy would also aid in planning a story before, as well as during
writing. The strategy would assist in revising a story at the local level (one aspect of
the structure), or at the global level (the whole organisational framework). Finally,
the students would use questions based on text structure to monitor meaning during
writing.
Measures
In this section, structure, coherence and cohesion as measures that were used to judge
the quality of the scripts written are examined. In the current study, the primary
consideration was to investigate the impact of an intervention based upon instruction
that involved making explicit students' implicit knowledge of narrative structure, the
current study investigated what effect such an intervention would have upon students'
writing competence.
Story structure
Story structure was measured using a slightly modified scale for scoring the inclusion
and quality of the parts of a story (Graham and Harris, 1996). The scale was intended
to measure the schematic structure of written stories and it has eight story parts and a
possible total score of nineteen points. The story parts include: introduction of the
main character; description of the locale or place where the narrative is set,
information about the time of the story, an initiating event (or starter event), the goal
formulated by the main character in reaction to the initiating event, a planned action in
an effort to achieve a goal, the ending result, and the final reaction of the main
character to the outcome. Each story element receives a numerical score for its
inclusion and quality of development. In the modified form of this scale, three
elements of expression including vocabulary, grammar and voice, as well as
multiplicity of episodes and chaining have been included. Character has also been
expanded to cover the protagonist and the antagonist. The total possible score has
been revised and brought to thirty-eight. The scale is given as appendix 1.
16
Major Setting - The orienting background information gives a setting that provides
elaborate details of the time and place of a narrative. The major setting provides
general background information about when and where the narrative happened. For
instance a narrative could begin thus-
Example 1 an elaborate setting
1) In Kikuyuland long before our parents were born,
2) there lived a famous hunter known as Mwangi.
3) He was a six-foot, well-built and strong man respected among the Kikuyu.
4) He came from the Anjiku clan.
5) He loved his family and neighbours.
6) One day, Mwangi woke up feeling excited and in need of an adventure.
Minor setting- Line 6 in example one above constitutes the minor setting. This
provides more specific information about a particular day or event. It is usually
marked by the phrase "One day…" For instance- "One day Mwangi woke up feeling
excited and in need of an adventure".
Line 1-5 in example one above represents an elaborate setting. The major setting is
covered by the first five sentences. A writer that gives such an elaborate major setting
is awarded two points. A writer that includes a minor setting in the story gets two
marks. An elaborate setting earns a total of four marks two marks for the major setting
and two marks for the minor setting.
The abstract- this part of the orientation indicates to the reader what will happen or
what might happen in the narrative without giving the narrative away. There is usually
a mention of something that is significant in the narrative. Berman and Slobin, (1994)
use the term foreshadowing. Though not always present in a narrative, researchers
such as Berman and Slobin have suggested that when they appear, story items that
foreshadow what will follow in the story- (abstracts) - make narratives clearer-
Every narrative is about something. The abstract, if there is one, tells us what a
narrative is about. It is usually about the maximally reportable event, though the
relocation of the orientation section can alter this perception on the part of the
listeners.
17
Usually the abstract comes quite early in the story, though it could also be slipped in
at a latter point in a narrative. The abstract summarises the point in advance or states a
general proposition that the narrative will exemplify (Cortazzi & Jin, 2000, p. 104).
These researchers have suggested the example given below-
Something terrible happened to me… at the weekend. I locked my baby in the car.
Another illustration is derived from the study reported by Labov (1982)-
- My brother put a knife in my head. Like kids, you get into a fight, and I twisted his
arm from behind him (Labov, 1982, p. 226).
Writers that include an abstract in their narratives are awarded two marks. If a
narrative has no abstract, then a mark of zero is scored.
Characters
When a character is introduced in a narrative, it would be expected that the writer use
linguistic features that reveal traits that make the character stand out. One way of
doing this is by providing an adjective (or adjectives) describing the character(s). To
illustrate this point several examples of adjectives are given below.
-Hawk’s patience was unequalled.
- Hen was careless.
- The King of El Molo was vindictive, rash and impatient.
-The foolish, greedy and gluttonous hyena got on her feet.
-The witty and cunning hare refused to give up. His resilience was admirable.
- Mweru, the tortoise was a cool and calculating animal.
Another way by which characters manifest themselves is by writers using
comparisons that can either be similes or metaphors. Some examples to illustrate this
point are suggested below
Similes Metaphors
Mwai is as cunning as a fox. The fox smiled (used in reference to Mwai)
Joe is as treacherous as Judas was. Judas was leaning on the wall (referring to Joe)
Jo was as cute as Cleopatra was. Cleopatra leaped to her feet (referring to Jo)
18
Kamau was as stupid as a goat. The goat blurted out (referring to Kamau).
Examples
Mwangi was a famous hunter in Kambaland.
He was well known for his hunting skills and gigantic body.
Mwangi was also a generous and helpful person.
In the current study, a total of nineteen elements were scored. Three of these elements
were judged as either being present or absent. These included the abstract, multiplicity
at the point of the main event, and multiplicity at closure. A narrative will either have
an abstract or have none at all. Similarly, a narrative will either be a single episode
narrative or have multiple episodes. Such elements were judged either as zero when
they were absent, or judged as two when they were present. For all other story
elements, a score of zero was assigned if the element was absent, a score of one if the
element was included and not elaborated, and a score of two if the element was
mentioned and elaborated. By totalling the scores for the individual elements, a total
score was calculated at 38 possible points.
In this study, it was intended that students would use the activated implicit knowledge
of the structure of traditional narratives to assist them create new narratives based on
such knowledge. The objective remained to determine how students applied such
knowledge of structure in creating new narratives. Once the narratives were written,
they had to be assessed for writing quality. Coherence and cohesion were used to
determine the quality of the written narratives.
Coherence
Coherence refers to the overall discourse level property of unity or how well a text
held together. Coherence depends on how ideas are linked so that they are easily
understood (compare Bamberg, 1984; Van Dijk, 1977; Brostoff, 1981). Coherence is
defined as the logical transition, or flow, of ideas or events throughout a story.
Coherence in text was measured by a scale designed by Bamberg (1984). With slight
modifications, the scale has been followed by other researchers and found to be
effective (Fitzgerald & Spiegel, 1986; Fitzgerald & Teasley, 1986). The scale to
measure coherence is given as Appendix 2. The current study adopts seven
dimensions of the text (e.g. Fitzgerald and Spiegel (1986, p. 268) and has used them
19
in making scoring decisions on a six-point scale. The seven dimensions were the
degree to which: (a) the writer identified the theme or topic; (b) the writer stayed on
the topic or theme and did not digress; did not shift topics or digress; (c) the writer
oriented the reader by creating a context or situation; (d) the writer organized details
according to a discernible plan and sustained it throughout the composition; (e) the
writer used cohesive ties to link sentences and/or paragraphs together; (f) the writer
concluded with a statement that created a sense of closure; and (g) the discourse
flowed smoothly as indicated by the lack of grammatical and/or mechanical errors.
Cohesion
In the current study, cohesion refers to the visible linguistic features of a text that
enable a reader to refer back to an item mentioned earlier so that the reader sees the
text as hanging together (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, pp.5-10). Cohesion analysis
suggests that what makes a text hang together are visible features of language. In
contrast, coherence analysis posits that what makes a text hang together is the
connectedness of ideas in a text. Ideas are not visible features of text, but the writer
presents cues that the reader shares with the writer.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) refer to the linguistic features of cohesion as 'cohesive
ties'. The ties that have been pointed out by Halliday and Hasan (1976), as most
significant ties include pronominals (e.g. he, she they, us, me), demonstratives (e.g.
these those), the definite article - the-, additives (e.g. and, also), adversatives (e.g. but,
however, yet), causals (e.g. because, if), temporals (e.g. when, sometimes, finally,
then), similar lexical items (the hen, the hen, the hen), collocations (e.g. the boy, the
lad, the young man). All these cohesive ties were counted and examined against the
total number of words in a story. Following Cooper, (1983) all the variables were
controlled for length of protocol by calculating them per 100 words (see also
Fitzgerald and Spiegel, 1986). Isaacson, (1988) has used a count of words as a means
of determining fluency of text.
20
Results and discussion
Structure
The data below demonstrates the general patterns of the results of an analysis of
structure from the stories written in both schools. In this section, the question of
whether the intervention improved the structure of children's stories will be
considered. This question will be examined in three ways. Firstly, some scripts that
children produced were judged not to be stories (i.e. non-story scripts). Therefore, it is
important to consider the question of whether the intervention decreased the incidence
of non-story scripts. A second way to address the question is to determine whether the
intervention influenced structure in a global sense. Finally, it is important to ascertain
which specific aspects of structure the intervention influenced.
The effect of the intervention on non-story production
Shown below are three tests Pearson's Chi square, Cochran's Q and McNemar's test
carried out to analyse the data to determine: whether any differences were observable
at pretest, and to determine if any differences in performance existed between the
experimental and control groups.
Pearson Chi square was used at pretest to determine if any differences existed
between experimental and control groups on each story type. The Chi square was
further used at posttest to determine whether there were any differences between
experimental and control groups on each story type.
Cochran's Q was used at pretest to determine whether any differences existed between
the story types for experimental and control groups separately. The test was further
used at posttest to determine whether differences existed between story types for
experimental and control groups examined separately.
McNemar's test was conducted to determine whether the stories produced any
differences between pretest and posttest, and if so, determine the nature of change if
any on each story type for experimental and control group separately. Results from
these three tests are shown below. The figure 4 below shows percentage of students
producing non-stories. It is suggested that Figure 4 is viewed alongside Table 1
below.
21
Figure 4 Differences between experimental and control group on each story type atboth pretest and posttest
At pre-test the two groups did not differ significantly on any of the three story types.
However, there is a trend for the control group to produce fewer non-stories than the
experimental group on story type 1.
Table 1 Results of Chi-square test (X2 and p values shown) comparing the experimental and controlgroups on each story type at pretest
Story type 1 Story type 2 Story type 3
X2 2.810 0.080 0.074
P 0.094 0.476 0.516
This trend is important because it is responsible for the fact that the effect of story
type on non-story production was different for the two groups (See figure 1 above).
For the control group the most difficult task (i.e. more non-stories) was story type 2,
the easiest task (i.e. fewer non-stories) was story type 1, and the difference between
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
exppre cntlpre exppost cntlpost
% s
tude
nts
prod
ucin
g no
n-st
orie
s
story type 1story type 2story type 3
22
them was statistically significant. In terms of difficulty, story type 3 was in between
these two extremes and was not significantly different from either. Table 2 below
shows Cochran's Q test
Table 2 Results of Cochran's Q test (Q and p values shown) comparing differences between the threestory types at pretest for experimental and control groups separately.
Experimental
Control
Q P Q P*Between 3story types
1.909 0.491 8.778 0.011
**Between1&2
8.333 0.006
**Between1&3
1.286 0.453
**Between2&3
2.882 0.143
*Df=2 Degrees of freedom**Df=1There were differences between the three story types for the control group (Story type
1 > story type 3>story type 2). However, pairwise multiple comparisons revealed that
only the extreme difference (i.e. between 1 and 2) was significant.
There were no differences between the three story types for the experimental group.
However, the fact that the experimental group tended to produce more non-stories in
story type 1 tended to close the gap between the two extremes, thereby eliminating the
effect of story type on non-story production seen in the control group.
The only significant change over time was that the experimental group produced
fewer non-stories for story type 1. (See Table 3 below)
Table 3: Results of McNemar's tests (p values shown) comparing pretests and posttest scores on eachstory type for experimental and control groups separately.
Experimental Control
Story 1 0.016 0.500
Story 2 0.629 1.000
Story 3 0.435 0.754
23
The experimental group produced significantly fewer non-stories at post-test than they
did at pre-test. The trend towards a difference between the two groups observed at
pre-test was eliminated, with neither group producing any non-stories on story type 1
at post-test.
At post-test the two groups did not differ significantly on any of the three story types,
and there was an impact of story-type non-story production for the experimental
group as well as for the control group.
Table 4 Results of Chi-square test (X2 and p values shown) comparing the experimental and controlgroups on each story type at post test
Story type 1* Story type 2 Story type 3
X2 - 0.021 1.797
P - 0.526 0.155
* No student produced a non-story for story type 1
No significant differences between experimental and control groups on story types 2
and 3.
For both the experimental and the control groups (NB like for the control group at
pre-test) the most difficult task (i.e. more non-stories) was story type 2, the easiest
task (i.e. fewer non-stories) was story type 1, and the difference between them was
statistically significant. In terms of difficulty, Story type 3 was in between these two
extremes for both groups however, because of slight differences in relative
performance of the two groups, the pattern of significance was different. For the
experimental group there were fewer non-stories with story type 3 than with story
type 2, there being no difference between story type 1 and story type 3. However, the
converse was true for the control group, there were fewer non-stories with story type 1
than with story type 3, there being no difference between story type 2 and story type
24
3. Cochran's Q shown in Table 5 below demonstrates the effect of the intervention on
what students wrote.
Table 5 Results of Cochran's Q test (Q and p values shown) comparing differences between the threestory types at posttest for experimental and control groups separately.
Experimental Control
Q P Q P*Between 3 storytypes
21.733 0.000 14.111 0.000
**Between 1&2 14.000 0.000 13.000 0.000**Between 1&3 3.000 0.250 7.000 0.016**Between 2&3 9.308 0.003 2.250 0.210
*Df=2 Degrees of freedom**Df=1
There are significant differences between story types for both experimental and
control. Pairwise multiple comparisons revealed that, for both the experimental and
control groups, significantly more non-stories were produced on story type 1 than for
story type 2 (i.e. the extremes). Differences for story type 3 were also significant, but
the pattern was different for the two groups. For the experimental group there were
fewer non-stories with story type 3 than with story type 2, there being no difference
between story type 1 and story type 3. However, the converse was true for the control
group, there were fewer non-stories with story type 3 than with story type 1, there
being no difference between story type 2 and story type 3.
In terms of non-stories, the intervention improved the performance of children in the
experimental group on a story that was administered at pre-test, taught explicitly in
the intervention, and tested again at post-test, but not on the other two story types.
The effect of the intervention on the global structure of stories
Only on those scripts that were judged to be stories were ratings made on the 19
characteristics of structure. For the purpose of this second analysis, each characteristic
was coded as being either present or absent. For each story script, these ratings were
summed to produce a global structure score (range 1-19). An analysis of variance was
then conducted to explore the difference in these global structure scores between pre-
test and post-test (time), between the experimental and control groups (group),
25
between the three story types (story type). Only those children who never produced a
non-story were included in this analysis (nexperimental=57, ncontrol=71).
There was a significant effect for time (F1,116=23.95,p=0.000) however, the
significant time by group interaction (F1,116=23.022,p=0.000) indicated that the
change over time was different for the two groups (figure 1: NB there were no other
significant effects).
15.4
15.6
15.8
16
16.2
16.4
16.6
16.8
17
17.2
pre post
experimentalcontrol
Figure 5 Mean global structure for experimental and control groups at pretest and posttest
Figure 5 shows mean structure scores, averaged across story type, for the
experimental and control groups at pre-test and post-test
Pairwise multiple comparisons (i.e. with bonferroni adjustment and overall
alpha=0.05) revealed that there was no significant difference between the groups at
pre-test (F1,116=.006,p=.938). However, the fact that the experimental group
improved significantly over time (F1,116=45.428,p=0.000) whereas the control group
did not (F1,116=.005,p=.945), resulted in a significant difference between the groups
at post-test (F1,116=14.705,p=.000).
In summary, the intervention served to improve the structure of children's stories in a
global sense. Unlike the non-story analysis, there was no significant effect of story-
type. This means that for some children (i.e. most likely the weaker students) story
type influences the likelihood producing a story, but for the better students (i.e. those
26
who don't produce non-stories) story type does not affect the structure of the stories
they produce.
The effect of the intervention to specific aspects of the structure of stories
Given that the previous analysis indicated that there was a global effect of the
intervention on the structure of stories children produce, it remains to determine just
which aspects of structure are affected.
For both groups on all story types, all indicators other than abstract in orientation,
multiplicity and chaining in both the main event and at conflict resolution, and
perhaps character orientation and action of the primary character at conflict
resolution, are present in the vast majority of student stories at pre-test. Therefore it is
only on these indicators that there is room for improvement over time.
Pre-test post-test comparisons (i.e. McNemar's tests) were conducted separately for
each group on each story type separately, on each of the 19 binary structure variables
(NB because of the large number of tests a conservative error rate of alpha=0.01 is
adopted). The sample size varies across group and story type because of a difference
in the numbers of non-stories (table 6).Table 6: Probability values (p) associated with McNemar's test of pre-test post-test differences for thetwo groups and the three story types separately
Story1 Story2 Story3
Experimental
n=81
Control
n=84
Experimental
N=67
Control
n=66
Experimental
N=80
Control
n=75
q1 - 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.375 1.000
q2 - 0.250 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.625
q3 0.000 0.541 0.625 1.000 0.349 0.571
q4 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 0.500 1.000
q5 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 - 0.500
q6 1.000 0.500 0.125 0.688 1.000 0.625
q7 0.453 0.453 0.003 0.453 0.508 0.727
q8 1.000 0.016 0.008 0.453 1.000 0.727
q9 1.000 - 0.125 1.000 0.375 1.000
q10 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.357 1.000 1.000
q11 1.000 - 0.219 0.424 1.000 0.180
q12 0.500 1.000 1.000 1.000 - 1.000
q13 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.850 0.030 0.584
q14 0.027 1.000 0.002 0.855 0.216 0.458
q15 0.039 0.238 0.143 0.815 0.035 0.248
q16 1.000 0.791 1.000 0.227 0.031 1.000
q17 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.727 1.000 1.000
q18 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.289 1.000 0.688
q19 0.063 0.031 0.250 0.453 0.549 0.118
27
- indicates instances where the measure was present in all children (i.e. in 100% of
cases).
The only significant effects (i.e. where p<0.01) are for the experimental group on
story types 1 and 2. However, trends (i.e. where 0.01<p<0.05) are apparent for the
experimental group on story type 3 and for the control group on story type 1.
On story type 1, the experimental group exhibited significant improvement on the
abstract in the orientation, and on multiplicity during conflict resolution. There was
also a trend to improvement during conflict resolution for both chaining and primary
character orientation.
On story type 2, the experimental group improved on both multiplicity and chaining
during both the main event and the conflict resolution.
On story type 3, there was also a trend to improvement for children in the
experimental group for multiplicity, and orientation and action of primary character at
conflict resolution.
In contrast with the results for the experimental group, the only features worth noting
for the control group were the trend toward improvement for chaining during the main
event, and for voice in expression on story type 1.
The children in the experimental group were better able to reproduce the hen and
hawk story that they were trained on. They also improved on story type 2. The
strongest effects of the intervention are on multiplicity and chaining.
28
Coherence
Dimensions of measuring coherence
The purpose of this section is to examine the question of whether the intervention
improved the coherence of the scripts students produced. In chapter three, coherence
was shown to be one of the main criteria for judging quality of narratives. In the
literature reviewed, it was suggested that coherence research (Bamberg, 1984;
Fitzgerald & Spiegel, 1986; Fitzgerald & Teasley, 1986) has identified seven
dimensions that could be used to judge coherence in a text. The elements include:
topic (identification of topic or theme), digression (how well a writer stayed on topic
or theme), orientation (provided a context or setting), organisation (story details were
planned and well organised), cohesive ties (the sentences were linked to paragraphs),
conclusion (the story was brought to a closure) and grammar (the quality of grammar
used in the narrative was accurate). Scripts produced in response to story types 2 and
3 were analysed according to these seven dimensions of coherence.
Two independent trained raters, one being the experimenter, assessed all scripts on
each of the coherence dimensions (see appendix 2). The level of agreement between
these two raters (i.e the interrater reliability) was assessed using intraclass correlation
coefficients as shown in table 8. The average intraclass correlation coefficient was
0.516 (range 0.03662-0.6121) which indicates a moderate level of agreement between
the two raters.
Separate analyses of variance were conducted on the seven coherence variables (topic,
digression, orientation, organisation, cohesive ties, conclusion and grammar)
exploring the effects of group, story type and time, and their interactions.
Coherence measures across the story types
The main effect for story type was significant for cohesive ties, conclusion and
grammar (Table 9). For both cohesive ties and grammar better results were found with
story type 2, (yet this was the one with many non-stories) whereas for conclusion
better results were found with story type 3 (Table 10).
29
Table 7.: Average rating (sd in brackets) for 7 dimensions of coherence
Story type 2 story type 3
Topic 3.753 3.784
(0.074) (0.067)
Digression 3.68 3.784
(0.075) (0.069)
Orientation 3.729 3.819
(0.08) (0.074
Organisation 3.372 3.43
(0.077 (0.072)
Cohesive ties 3.384 3.606
(0.068) (0.069
Conclusion 3.972 3.682
(0.085) (0.076)
Grammar 3.539 3.844
(0.081) (0.068)
The main effects for time and group were significant for all coherence variables,
however so was the time by group interactions (table 7 above). This latter finding
indicated that the effect of time was different for the two groups.
Pair-wise multiple comparisons, exploring the significant time by group interactions,
revealed a similar pattern for topic, digression, orientation, organisation and
conclusion (see figure 7). On each of these measures (table 8), there was no
significant difference between the two groups at pre-test; the experimental group
showed significant improvement over time whereas the control group did not; and the
experimental group significantly outperformed the control group at post-test.
A slightly different pattern was observed for cohesive ties and grammar (see figure 6).
On both of these measures (table 9), the experimental group significantly
outperformed the control group at pre-test; the experimental group showed significant
improvement over time whereas the control group did not; and the experimental group
significantly outperformed the control group at post-test.
30
DISCUSSION
Structure:
A significant finding is that the intervention appeared to assist the students in writing
structurally better narratives: that is they wrote stories that had a conflict, and the
conflict was resolved and hence there was a reduced incidence of non-stories and
recounts. These findings add to related research that has indicated that when students
are offered instruction about the way narratives are structured and as they are guided
through the composing process, they are able to write in 'the true narrative form'
(Riley & Reedy, 2000). This research therefore builds on other significant and related
research that has stressed the central role played by instruction focusing upon the
structure of narratives. Instruction in narrative structure has been found to assist both
in organising and connecting those ideas to one another (Gordon & Braun, 1982;
Kroll & Anson, 1984; Fitzgerald & Spiegel, 1986, Fitzgerald & Teasley, 1986;
Yoshinaga-Itano & Downey, 1992; O'Brien, 1996).
A significant number of students in the experimental group were able to write
narratives with abstracts. Where the idea of the abstract was provided, as was the case
with story type two, the students completed the given prompt and developed the story
coherently after instruction about narrative structure (Labov, 1972, 1982; Kernan,
1977; Wu, 1995; Cortazzi & Jin, 2000).
A significant number of narratives written after the intervention had more developed
characters. Character traits identified in the orientation were clearly elaborated upon
within the main event and in the conflict resolution. In a significant number of
narratives, the characters retained their stated character traits, while in instances where
the narrative called for a character change, the writers stated this explicitly.
Students wrote narratives that had multiple events and episodes both at the main event
and at the conflict resolution. There was increased evidence of chaining of events. The
students related the orientation to the main event and to the conflict resolution. This
contributed to narrative coherence that was an interesting development since it had
not been seen adequately in the pretest narratives or in the control group at posttest.
31
This is in accord with related findings available in the research and explained in the
literature review (Bamberg, 1997; Yang, 1989; Witte & Faigley, 1981; Neuner, 1987;
O'Brien, 1992; Kroll & Anson, 1984; Allen et al., 1994).
Narratives written by the experimental group after the intervention were judged to be
better in quality and in structure. The narratives were judged to be more elaborate
particularly at the level of orientation.
There were story elements that the students were able to produce at pretest, and so
even after the intervention, such elements could only be marginally improved or there
could be no change at all. These elements include: action, antagonist, protagonist,
along with aspects of expression including vocabulary, grammar and voice. There was
no room for improvement.
There were some instances of modelling where the students used ideas drawn from
the traditional narratives, gave them new names, new settings and then modified the
tales to create their own narratives. Students used ideas from a traditional story and
gave the story a new twist. In doing so, they responded to the requirements of the
writing task. Such a strategy demonstrated that students have shifted from knowledge
telling to knowledge transforming.
A significant number of traditional narratives begin with the stock phrase "Once upon
a time" Such a stock phrase appeared to be problematic when the students were
provided with prompts in story type two. As the prompts stated "Write a story
beginning with…": some students were unable to develop such prompts probably
because of over-reliance on the traditional way of telling a narrative. This could be
explained as a problem of transferring from the oral to the written interface.
Coherence:
The students in the experimental group outperformed those in the control group in the
coherence variables of topic identification, staying on topic without digressing,
providing orienting background information, organisation of content, using cohesive
ties to link sentences to paragraphs, providing a conclusion, and using correct
32
grammar. Further, in terms of fluency, students in the experimental group wrote
narratives that were longer demonstrating confidence and maturity in their writing.
Results from this data suggest that the intervention assisted the students in various
ways. Students wrote more coherently and hence better quality stories in English.
Their stories were clear and logical and had elaborate orienting background
information. They wrote without digressing and stayed on topic.The data also
suggests that the students developed writing skills that enabled them to write stories
that had logical conclusions.
The intervention appears to have led to improvement in the organization of their
written narratives as the intervention equipped the students with the cognitive skills of
planning. The intervention also seems to have led to the development of logical
thinking, clarity of ideas and application of the knowledge of the world. The
implication would appear to be that if one can plan a narrative, then one has the
potential to plan other types of written text including expository, explanatory,
description and argumentation.
The intervention appeared to assist students create characters that resolved problems.
By extension, the students became better at problem solving. With consistent training,
the method of sensitising students about narrative structure seems to have the
potential to turn novice writers into expert writers (Scardamalia and Bereiter (1987).
Cohesion:
Narrative literature seems to emphasise the place of causal and temporal ties in the
creation of better narratives (Stein & Trabasso, 1984; Ozyurek & Trabasso, 1997).
Data from this study does not show this. The cohesion analysis shows a drop in the
use of pronouns while increasing the use of the definite article "the". No other
cohesive ties appear significant. Such findings are in line with what other studies have
found (for instance Neuner, 1987; Tierney & Mosenthal, 1983).
Witte and Faigley (1981) indicate that texts that have been rated highly are denser in
the cohesive ties of synonymy, hyponymy and collocation. This study does not show
33
this. It is possible that the number of essays analysed might have been a factor since
Witte and Faigley analysed only ten essays while Tierney and Mosenthal (1983)
analysed 24 essays. A total of 177 essays were analysed for cohesion in the current
study.
The point made through cohesion data analysed is that cohesive ties are significant
when they are used to add semantic and syntactic quality to a story, but seen in
isolation, they might not add to the quality of a narrative. The researcher would not
recommend counting of ties as a way of determining quality in a text since the notion
would appear wasteful. Counting of items in a text is one way of assessing writing,
but as Isaacson, (1988) has observed "the procedure is time consuming, sometimes
requiring several passes through the composition".
It can be argued that activating students' implicit knowledge of narrative structure
making it explicit may assist them to generate, plan and organise the content of the
narratives they write in English. To achieve this, it is suggested that the teachers of
English use local materials to develop programs that allow students to re-examine the
structure of oral narratives and then offer instructions about the composing process
alongside instructions about narrative structure. Children appear to love storytelling
since it is a familiar cultural activity. They can identify with storytelling. It is
suggested in this study that when children know that what they are writing is correct,
they develop self-confidence and such an action enhances the children's self esteem.
This study has the potential to make these children improve their narrative writing
skills and in doing so develop a passion for writing.
This study stresses the central role of structure in assisting students write better
narratives. It also demonstrates that a good story relies on structure, causal relations,
temporal relations, clarity of goals of the main character as well as a world-knowledge
of plausible events. Quality in a written text relies on coherence brought about by
logic, clarity and cohesion. This study agrees with Riley and Reedy (2000) when they
suggest that as a starting point "children must explicitly be taught the features of plot
distinctive to narrative" (p. 68). Only then will they be able to write in the true
narrative form.
34
The subjects in this study were required to generate content, organise and plan such
content. The traditional narratives were not analysed for cohesion and coherence. The
current research attempted to overcome such criticism by introducing another story
type requiring a writer to produce dynamic narratives by developing a given prompt
along suggested lines. It was expected that learning the structure of the traditional
narratives would generalize to the constructive ones. The data analysis seems to
justify such expectations.
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (1986) suggests that students learn faster
when the teacher assists them in the identification of what they already know, before
they are assisted in the creation of new texts. In this study, the researcher used
traditional narratives to activate students’ knowledge of structure in narratives.
Vygotsky refers to this type of learning as “assisted learning”. This study used
narratives as a source of content (words), agreeing with Vygotskian psychology that
posits that: “words fulfil a crucial role in thought and problem-solving activity”
(Vygotsky, 1986, p. 13). This study suggests that by activating students’ passive
knowledge of narrative structure, the teacher assists students to enhance their creative
faculties and hence write coherent narratives that have a clear structure. The teacher
awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only
when the child is interacting with people in his or her environment while examining
traditional narratives. Vygotsky’s (1978) argument is that “once such processes are
internalised they become part of the child’s independent developmental achievement”
(p. 90). In this study, students created narratives that were independently judged to be
of quality that was better than the narratives they wrote prior to the intervention.
This study might have produced in-depth results if the researcher had more time and
resources. In a follow-up study, it would be of interest to see whether the results
would be different were the researcher to train serving high school teachers to do the
intervention and then train another set of teachers to do the rating. Such a method
might eliminate the fact that the researcher was the person carrying out the
intervention. The fact that he was an outsider may have had an impact on the students'
35
Reference List
Abrahamson, C. E. (1998). Storytelling as a pedagogical tool in highereducation. Education, 118(3), 440-453.
Alexander, P.A., Schallert, D.L. & Hare, U.C (1991). Coming to terms: Howresearchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review ofEducational Research , 61, 315-343.
Allen, M.S, Haden, Kertoy, M.K. Sherblom J.C. & Pettit, J.M. (1994) Children'snarrative productions: A comparison of personal event and fictionalstories. Applied Psycholinguistics, (15), 149-176.
Applebee, A. N. (1978). The Child's Concept of Story. Chicago and London:University of Chicago Press.
Bacia, J. (1994). Creating Popular Fiction: How to Write Novels that Sell.Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Bain, A. (1867) English composition and rhetoric: a manual. New York: DAppleton and company.
Bamberg, B. (1983). "What Makes a Text Coherent?" College Compositionand Communication, 34(4), 417-429.
Bamberg, B. (1984). Assessing Coherence: A Reanalysis of Essays Writtenfor the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1969-1979.Research in the Teaching of English, 18(3), 305-319.
Bamberg, M. G. W. (1987). The Acquisition of Narratives: Learning to useLanguage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bamberg, M. (Ed.). (1997). Narrative Development: Six Approaches. Mahwah,and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in Experimental and SocialPsychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauman, R. (1986). Story, Performance and Event: Contextual studies of oralnarrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. (1981) Introduction to text linguistics. London:New York. Longman.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1981). Developing Questions That PromoteComprehension: The Story Map. Language Arts, 58(8), 913-918.
Ben-Amos, D. (1973). Besprechungen. Journal of American Folklore, 86, 232-234.
36
Benson, M. S. (1996). Structure, Conflict, and Psychological Causation in theFictional Narratives of 4- and 5-Year-Olds. Merrill-Parmer Quarterly,42(2), 228-247.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From Conversation to Composition:The Role of Instruction in a Developmental Process. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in Instructional Psychology. Hillsdale: Lawrence ErlbaumPublishers. Vol. 2 pp. 1-64.
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: Acrosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Biakolo, E. (1999). On the Theoretical Foundations of Orality and Literacy.Research in African Literatures, 30(2).
Birney, R. C., Burdick, H., & Teevan, R. C. (1969). Fear of Failure. New York:Reinhold Company.
Bishop, W. (1992). Working words: The process of Creative Writing.California: Mayfield Pub. Co.
Brewer, W. F. (1985). The Story Schema: Universal and Culture SpecificPurposes. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy,Language and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Britton, B. K., & Pelligrini, A. D. (Eds.). (1990). Narrative Thought andNarrative Language. Hillsdale, N.J: Earlbaum.
Brostoff, A. (1981). Coherence: "Next to" Is Not "Connected to". CollegeComposition and Communication, 32, 278-294.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J (2002) Making Stories. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Cairney, T. (1990). Intertextuality: Infectious echoes from the past. TheReading Teacher, 43, 478-484.
Cairney, T.H. (1995) Pathways to literacy. London: Casell.
Calkins, L. M. (1986). The Art of Teaching Writing. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1966) Experimental and Quasi-experimentaldesigns for research. Chicago: Rand Nally
Capps, L. & Ochs, E. (1995) Out of Place: Narrative Insights Into AgoraphobiaDiscourse Processes, 19, 407-439.
37
Carter, K. (1993). The place of Story in the Study of Teaching and TeacherEducation. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5-12.
Cassady, M. (1994). The Art of Storytelling: Creative ideas for preparation andperformance. Colorado Springs: Meriwether.
Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definitness, subjects, topics,and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic New York:Academic Press. (pp. 25-55).
Champion, T. B. (1998). "Tell Me Somethin' Good": A Description of NarrativeStructures among African American Children. Linguistics andEducation, 9(3), 251-286.
Charolles, M. (1983). Coherence as a principle in the interpretation ofdiscourse. Text, 3(1), 71-97.
Cooper, C. R., & Odell, L. (Eds.). (1977). Evaluating writing: Describing,measuring, judging. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers ofEnglish.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (2000). Evaluating evaluation in narrative. In S. Hunston& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. (pp. 102-120).
Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in Argument and Narration at Three GradeLevels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(2), 185-201.
Crowley, S. (1977). Components of the composing process. CollegeComposition and Communication, 28(2), 166-169.
Davis, Z. T., & McPherson, M. D. (1989). Story Map instruction: A road mapfor reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 232-240.
DeBeaugrande, R. (1984). Forward to the Basics: Getting Down to Grammar.College Composition and Communication, XXXV(3), 358- 367.
DeBeaugrande, R. (1984). Text production: Toward a science of composition.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
DeBeaugrande, R. (1984). Writer, Reader, Critic: Comparing Critical Theoriesas Discourse. College English, 46(6), 533-559.
Doyle, A. E. (1982). The limitations of Cohesion. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 16, 390-393.
Emery, D. W., & Milhalevich, C. (1992). Directed Discussion of CharacterPerspectives. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(4), 51-59.
Emery, D. W. (1996). Helping readers comprehend stories from thecharacters' perspectives. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 543-541
38
Enkvist. (1990). Coherence in writing. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.),Coherence in Writing: Teachers of English to speakers of otherlanguages.
Ervin-Tripp, S.M. and Kuntay, A (1997) Occasioning and Structure ofConversational Stories. In T. Givon (Ed.) Conversation: CognitiveCommunication and Social Perspectives. Armsterdam. J. BejaminsPublishing Company
Fairbanks, C. M. (1996). Telling Stories: Reading and Writing ResearchNarratives. Journal of Curriculum Supervision, 2(4), 320-340.
Fang, Z. (1998). A Study of Changes and Development in Children's WrittenDiscourse Potential. Linguistics and Education, 9(4), 341-367.
Feez, S. & Joyce, H. (1998) Writing skills: Narrative and Non-Fiction TextTypes Phoenix Education Pty. Ltd.
Finnegan, R. Oral literature and writing in the South Pacific. Pacific QuarterlyMoana, 7(2), 22-35.
Finnegan, R. (1967). Limba Stories and Storytelling. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Finnegan, R. (1970). Oral Literature in Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Finnegan, R. (1974). How oral is oral literature? Bulletin of the School ofOriental and African Studies, 35, 52-64.
Finnegan, R. (1977). Oral Poetry: Its Nature, Significance and Social Context.New York and London: Cambridge University Press.
Finnegan, R. (1988). Literacy and Orality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Finnegan, R. (1990). What is Oral Literature Anyway? Comments in the Lightof Some African and Other Comparative Material. In J. M. Foley (Ed.),Oral Formulaic Theory: A Folklore Casebook. New York: GarlandPublishing Inc.
Finnegan, R. (1991). Oral traditions and the verbal arts: a guide to researchpractices. London: Routledge.
Finnegan, R. (1998). Tales of the city: a study of narrative and urban life.Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press.
Fitzgerald, J., & Spiegel, D. L. (1986). Textual Cohesion and Coherence inChildren's Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 20(3), 263-280.
Fitzgerald, J., & Teasley, A. B. (1986). Effects of Instruction in NarrativeStructure on Children's Writing. Journal of Educational Psychology,78(6), 424-432.
39
Fivush, R., Haden, C. A., & Adam, S. (1995). Structure and coherence ofpreschooler's personal narratives over time: Implications for childhoodamnesia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 32-56.
Fleckenstein, K. S. (1992). An Appetite for Coherence: Arousing and FulfillingDesires. College Composition and Communication, 43, 81-87.
Fletcher, R. (1993). What a Writer Needs. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980a). The cognition of discovery: Defining arhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication,3 (2), 21-32.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980b). The dynamics of composing: Makingplans and juggling constraints. In L. E. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). The pregnant pause: An Inquiry into thenature of planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 229-244.
Foley, J. M. (1995). The Singer of Tales in Performance. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Fowler, R. (1971). The Languages of Literature: Some linguistic contributionsto criticisms/with an essay written in collaboration with Peter Mercerand two essays by F.W. Bateson. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Freckenstein, K. S. (1992). An Appetite for Coherence: Arousing and FulfillingDesires. College Composition and Communication, 43(1), 81-87.
Gallimore, & Tharp. (1990). A Theory of Literacy. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotskyand Education: instructional implications and applications ofsocialhistorical psychology (pp. 192-). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Gardill, C. M., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced Story Map Instruction:Effects on the Reading Comprehension of Students with LearningDisabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33(i1), 21.
Gee, J. P. G. (1989). Two styles of narrative construction and their Linguisticand Educational Implications. Journal of Education, 171(1), 97-115.
Gee, J. P. G. (1989). The narrativization of experience in the oral style.Journal of Education, 171(1), 75-96.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego:Academic Press.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Givon, T. (Eds.). (1995). Coherence in SpontaneousText Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Geva, E. (1983). Facilitating reading comprehension through flowcharting.
40
Reading Research Quarterly, XVIII(4), 384-405.
Goldenhersh, B. (1994). Story ladders: A Reading Writing Connection. OhioReading Teacher, XXIX(2), 10-13.
Gordon, C. J., & Braun, C. (1982). Story Schemata: Metatextual Aid toReading and Writing. Paper presented at the New Inquiries in Reading:Research and Instruction., Rochester, New York.
Gordon , C.J. & Braun, C. (1983) Using story schema as an aid to reading andwriting. The Reading Teacher pp. 116-121.
Gordon, C. J. (1989). Teaching Narrative Text Structure: A Process Approachto Reading and Writing. In D. K. Muth (Ed.), Children's Comprehensionof Text: Research into Practice (pp. 79-102). Newark: InternationalReading Association- IRA.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing: An AppliedLinguistic Perspective. London: Longman.
Graham, S., & Harris, J. (1989). Improving learning disabled student's skills atcomposing essays: self-instructional strategy training. ExceptionalChildren, 56(3).
Graves, D. (1986). Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Gumperz, J. J., Kaltman, H., & O'Connor, M. C. (1984). Cohesion in Spokenand Written Discourse: Ethnic Style and the Transition to Literacy. In D.Tannen (Ed.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse (Vol. XII,pp. 3-31). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Haden, C. A., Haine, R. A., & Fivush, R. (1997). Developing NarrativeStructure in Parent-Child Reminiscing Across the Preschool Years.Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 295-307.
Halliday, M.A.K., (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar London. NewYork. Sydney. Auckland: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Singapore:Longman Singapore Publishers Ltd.
Hardy, B. (1968) "Towards a Poetics of fiction: An Approach throughnarrative" Novel, 2, 5-14.
Hardy, B. (1977) Towards a poetics of fiction: An approach through narrative.In M. Meek, A. Warlow, G. Barton, (eds) The Cool Web. The Pattern ofchildren's Reading. London: Bodley Head.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the Writing Process WorK:Strategies for composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA:Brookline Books.
41
Harris, R. (2000) Rethinking writing, The Athlone Press: London.
Harris, R. (1986) The Origin of Writing, Duckworth: London.
Harris, J., & Reitchl, K. (Eds.). (1997). Prosimetrum: Cross-culturalPerspectives on narrative in prose and verse. Suffolk: Brewer.
Haswell, R. H. (1989). Textual Research and Coherence: Findings, Intuition,Application. College English, 51(3), 305-319.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the Organization of WritingProcesses. In L. E. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), CognitiveProcesses in Writing (pp. 3-30). New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Publishers.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on Written Composition. Urbana, IL: NationalCouncil of Research in English.
Hillocks, G. (1987) "Synthesis of Research on Teaching Writing". InEducational leadership vol. 44 No. 8 pp 71-82.
Hoggan, K. C., & Strong, C. J. (1994). The Magic of "Once Upon a Time":Narrative Teaching Strategies. Language, Speech, and HearingServices in Schools, 25, 76-89.
Hoover, M. (1997). Effects of Textual and Cohesive Structure on DiscourseProcessing. Discourse Processes, 23, 193-220.
Houston, G., Goolrick, F., & Tate, R. (1991). Storytelling as a Stage inProcess Writing: A Whole Language Model. Teaching ExceptionalChildren, 40-43.
Hudson, J. A., Fivush, R., & Kuebli, J. (1992). Scripts and Episodes: theDevelopment of Event Memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 483-505.
Hudson, J. A., & Shapiro, L. R. (1991). Effects of task and topic on children'snarratives. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), New Directions indeveloping narrative structure (pp. 89-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Hung, D. W. L. (2002). Learning through Video-Based Narratives within theCultural Zone of Proximal Development. International Journal ofInstructional Media, 29(1), 125-140.
Hunt, K. W. (1977). Early Blooming and Late Blooming Syntactic Structures.In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating Writing (pp. 91-104).Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hunt, K. W. (1983). Sentence combining and the teaching of writing. In M.Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language: A developmentalapproach (pp. 99-125). New York: J. Wiley.
42
Hymes, D. (1998). When is oral narrative poetry? Generative form and itspragmatic conditions. Pragmatics: International PragmaticsAssociation, 8(4), 475-500.
Idol, L. (1987). Group Story-Mapping: A Comprehension Strategy for BothSkilled and Unskilled Readers. Journal of Reading Disabilities, 20(4),196-205.
Isaacson, S. (1988). Assessing the writing product: qualitative and quantativemeasures. Exceptional Children, 54(6), 528 (527).
Johnson, N. S., & Mandler, J. M. (1980). A Tale of Two Structures: Underlyingand Surface forms in Stories. Poetics, 9, 51-86.
Kabira, W. M. (1983). The Oral Artist. Nairobi: East African EducationalPublishers.
Kabira, W. M., & Adagala, K. (Eds.). (1985). Kenyan Oral Narratives. Nairobi:East African Educational Publishers.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (Ed.). (1980). Some fundamental aspects of languagedevelopment after age 5*. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (Ed.). (1981). The grammatical marking of thematicstructure in the development of language production. New York:Academic Press.
Kellogg, R. (1973). Oral literature, New Literary History (pp. 55-66).Charlottesville Virginia: University of Virginia.
Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The Psychology of Writing. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Kernan, A. B. (1973). The idea of Literature, New Literary History.
Kernan, K. T. (1977). Semantic and expressive elaboration in children'snarratives. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C. Mitchell (Eds.), Child discourse (pp.91-102). New York: Academic Press.
Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the Zone of Proximal Development in USForeign Language Education. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 240-261.
Kintch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a Model of Text Comprehensionand Production. Psychological Review, 85(4), 363-394.
Knappert, J. (1984). Reflections on the study of oral literature. PacificQuarterly Moana, 8(4), 16-20.
Krause, K.L.D (1997) Planning, Writing apprehension and essay writingcompetence. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Macquarie University,Sydney
43
Kroll, B. M., & Anson, C. M. (1984). Analysing Structure in Children's FictionalNarratives. In H. Cowie (Ed.), Development of Children's ImaginativeWriting (pp. 153-182). London and Canberra: Coom Helm.
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral Versions ofPersonal Experience. Seattle,: University of Washington Press.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black Englishvernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, U. (1982). Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative. In D.Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 219-247).Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Larson, J. (1971). Toward a linear rhetoric of essay. College Composition andCommunication, 22, 140-145.
Larson, J., & Maier, M. (2000). Co-Authoring Classroom Texts: ShiftingParticipant Roles in Writing Activity. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 34, 469-497.
Le Guin, U. K. (1981). It Was a Dark and Stormy Night; or, Why Are WeHuddling about the Campfire? In W. J. T. Mitchell (Ed.), On Narrative(pp. 187-195). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Lord, A. B. (1960). The Singer of Tales. New York: Atheneun.
Macdonald, M. R. (Ed.). (1999). Traditional storytelling today: an internationalsourcebook. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.
Maimon, E. (1979). Talking to strangers. College Composition andCommunication, 30, 364-369.
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things passed:Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 111-151.
Mandler, J. M. (1978). A Code in the Node: The Use of a Story Schema inRetrieval. Discourse Processes, 1, 14-35.
Markels, R. B. (1983). Cohesion Paradigms in Paragraphs. College English,45(5), 450-464.
Matsuhashi, A. (1982). Explorations in the real-time production of writtendiscourse. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language,process and structure of written discourse (pp. 269-290). New York:Academic Press.
McCabe, A. (1992). All Kinds of Good Stories. Paper presented at theSpeeches/ conference papers-ERIC Document ED355474, Annualmeeting of the National Reading Conference (42nd, San Antonio, TXDecember 2-5, 1992.
44
McCrimmon, J. M. (1963). Writing with a purpose. Boston: Houghton MifflinCompany.
McCulley, G. A. (1985). Writing Quality, Coherence and Cohesion. Researchin the Teaching of English, 19(3), 269-282.
McKamey, E. S. (1991). Storytelling for Children with Learning Disabilities: AFirst-hand Account. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46-48.
Miles, J. F. (Ed.). (1981). Oral traditional literature: A Festschrift for AlbertBates Lord. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.
Ministry of Education English Syllabus - Kenya (1984) Jomo KenyattaFoundation. Nairobi.
Murray, D. M. (1982). Learning by teaching: Selected Articles on Writing andTeaching. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers Inc,.
Muth, K. D. (Ed.). (1989). Children's comprehension of Text: Research intoPractice. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association Inc.
Mwangi, R. (1982). Kikuyu Folktales. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau.
Nandwa, J., & Bukenya, A. (1983). African Oral Literature for Schools.Nairobi: Longman.
Nelson, K., & Grundel, J. (1986). Children's scripts. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Eventknowledge: Structure and function in development (pp. 231-247).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Neuner, J. L. (1987). Cohesive Ties and Chains in Good and Poor FreshmanEssays. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 92-105.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood CliffsNJ: Prentice Hall.
Njururi, N. (1966) Agikuyu folk tales London : Oxford University Press.
Nipold, M. A. (1988). Later Language Development; Ages Nine throughNineteen. Boston, MA: College Hill Press.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergrast, C. (1997). Openingdialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in theEnglish classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
O'Brien, D. (1992). Writing in the Primary School. Melbourne: LongmanCheshire Pty Ltd.
O'Brien, D. (1996). Writing for Zambian Schools. Lusaka: Zambia EducationalPublishing House.
Obiechina, E. (1975). Culture, Tradition, and Society in the West African
45
Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Okpewho, I. (1992). African Oral Literature: Backgrounds, Character, andContinuity. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Ollman, H. E. (1989). Cause and effect in the real world. Journal of Reading,33, 224-225.
Olson, D.R. (1996) Language and literacy: What writing does to language andmind. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 3-13.
Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. (Eds.). (1991). Literacy and Orality. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and Literacy: Technologizing of the Word. London:Methuen.
Ong, W. J. (1995). Orality and Literacy. London: Routledge.
Perl, S. (1979). The composing process of unskilled college writers. Researchin the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics: Threeways of looking at at a child's narrative. New York: Plenum Press.
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1992). Parental styles of narrative elicitation:Effect on children's narrative structure and content. First Language, 12,299-321.
Propp, V. (1968). The Morphology of the Folktale(Original published in 1928 inRussian) (L. Scott, Trans. 2nd ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Purves, A. C. (1984). In search of an Internationally- Valid Scheme for ScoringCompositions. College Composition and Communication, XXXV(4),426-438.
Richmond, J. (1990). What Do We Mean by Knowledge About Language? InR. Carter (Ed.), Knowledge About Language and the Curriculum LINCReader. London: Hodder and Stroughton.
Riley, J., & Reedy, D. (2000). Developing Writing for Different Purposes:Teaching about Genre in the Early Years. London: Paul ChapmanPublishers.
Rimmon-Kenan, S. (1983). Narrative fiction: Contemporary Poetics London,New York. Methuen.
Rosenberg, S. (1987) (Ed.) Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Reading,writing and language learning Vol. 2 Cambridge: New York. CambridgeUniversity Press.
46
Rubright, L. (1996) Beyond the beanstalk: Interdisciplinary learning throughstorytelling. Portsmouth: NH.Heinemann.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on the schema for stories: In D. Bobrow & A.Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitivescience. New York: Academic Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Understanding and Summarizing Brief Stories. In D.Laberge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic Processes in Reading:Perception and comprehension (pp. 265-303). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goelman, H. (1982). The role of productionfactors in writing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: Thelanguage, process and structure or written discourse (pp. 173-210).New York: Academic Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). 'Research on Written Composition'. InM. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 778-803). New York: Longman.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledgetransforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advancesin Applied Psycholinguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 142-175). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Scheub, H. (1975). The Xhosa Ntsomi. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Selzer, J. (1984). Exploring Options in Composing. College Composition andCommunication, 35(3), 276-284.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, S. (1997). Character Perspective Charting:Helping children to develop a more complete conception of story. TheReading Teacher, 50(8), 668-677.
Shapiro, L. R., & Hudson, J. A. (1991). Tell me a make-believe story:coherence and cohesion in young children's picture-elicited narratives.Developmental Psychology, 27(6), 960-974.
Shapiro, L. R., & Hudson, J. A. (1997). Coherence and Cohesion in Children'sstories. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing InterclausalRelationships: Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp.23-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shrubshall, P. (1997). Narrative Argument and Literacy: A Comparative Studyof the Narrative Discourse Development of Monolingual and Bilingual5-10-Year-Old Learners. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment, 18(5), 402-421.
Shuman, A. (1986). Storytelling Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
47
Silva, T. (1992). L1 vs L2 writing: ESL graduate students' perceptions. TESLCanada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 10(1), 27-45.
Sipe, R. S. (1993). Using transformations of traditional stories: Making thereading-writing connection. The Reading Teacher, 47(1), 18-26.
Stein, N. L. (Ed.). (1979). How Children Understand Stories: A DevelopmentalAnalysis (Vol. 2). Norwood: Abex.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An Analysis of Story Comprehension inElementary School Children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New Directions inDiscourse Processing (pp. 53-120). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Stein, N. L., & Policastro, M. (1984). The concept of a story: A comparisonbetween children's and teacher's viewpoints. In H. Mandl & N. L. Stein& T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 113-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stein, N. L., & Albro, E. R. (Eds.). (1997). Building Complexity andCoherence: Children's Use of Goal-Structured Knowledge in TellingStories. In Michael Bamberg (Ed.) Narrative Development: SixApproaches (pp. 5-44) Hillsdale, NJ: London: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Publishers.
Stromqvist, S., & Day, D. (1993). On the development of narrative structure inchild L1 and adult L2 acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(2), 135-158.
Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1982). Analyzing discourse: Text and Talk. Washington,DC: Georgetown University Press.
Thiong'o, N. (1972) Homecoming: essays on African and Caribbean Literatureculture and politics. London: Heinemann.
Thiong'o, N. (1971) A Grain of Wheat. London: Heinemann.
Tierney, R. J., & Mosenthal, J. H. (1983). Cohesion and Textual Coherence.Research in the Teaching of English, 17(3), 215-229.
Todorov, T. (1973) The notion of literature. In R. Cohen New LiteraryHistory,1, pp. 5-15,
Toolan, M.J. (1988) Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. London; NewYork. Routledge.
Trabasso, T. Secco, T. & van den Broek, (1984) Causal cohesion and storycoherence. In H. Mandl, N.L Stein & Trabasso, T. (Eds.) Learning andcomprehension of text (pp. 83-111). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence EarlbaumAssociates.
Vallecorsa, A. L., Ledford, R. R., & Parnell, G. G. (1991). Strategies forTeaching Composition Skills. Teaching Exceptional Children, 52-55.
48
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics andPragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society (M. Cole & S. John-Steiner & S. Scribner& E. Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1983). The Prehistory of Written Language. In M. Martlew (Ed.),The psychology of written composition (pp. 279-291). New York:J.Wiley.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (E. Haufmann & G. Vadar,Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wellek, R. & Warren, A. (1962) Theory of literature. Harmondworth,Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). "Coherence, Cohesion and Writing Quality".College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.
Witte, S. P., & Cherry, R. D. (1986). Writing Processes and Written Productsin Composition Research. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.),Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches (Vol. 1, pp. 112-153). BeverlyHills: Sage Publications.
Wu, S. (1995). Evaluating Narrative Essays: A Discourse AnalysisPerspective. Regional English Language Centre - RELC Journal, 26(1),1-26.
Yang, A. W. (1989). Cohesive chains and writing quality. Word, 40(1-2), 235-247.
Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Downey, D. M. (1992). When a Story Is Not a Story: AProcess Analysis of the Written Language of Hearing-ImpairedChildren. The Volta Review, 95, 131-158.