Article published In:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 6:1 (2025) ► pp.1–22

A course of free voluntary reading on linguistic principles for average to below-average writers in university

ORCID logo | York University
This article describes an experiment in pedagogy for general writing improvement at the university level consisting of a course of Free Voluntary Reading (FVR), which can be offered either independently of or together with standard courses on writing. Evidence so far supporting the efficacy of FVR in helping students to improve their writing skills has largely come from the K-12 grades and university-age foreign language students, so whether it would prove useful for university students in general is open to question. A linguistic perspective is adopted, which entails a methodology for the experiment that differs in major respects from that which is typical in composition studies. The results of the experiment showed that a course of FVR, independently of instruction in writing, may be effective in improving university students’ grammatical fluency in writing.
Keywords: free voluntary reading, freshman composition, writing skill, writing assessment
Article outline
  • 1.Background
    • 1.1Introduction
    • 1.2 Linguistic principle 1: Extensive exposure is both necessary and sufficient to learn a language
    • 1.3 Linguistic principle 2: Different natural language modalities do not require different learning regimens
    • 1.4 Linguistic principle 3: Every mature fluent (native) speaker/writer knows intuitively what constitutes grammatical fluency in his or her language and can identify instances of ungrammaticality in others’ linguistic expressions instantly and without reflection
    • 1.5 Linguistic principle 4: A person’s performance of a linguistic act needs to be distinguished from his or her grammatical competence, or unconscious knowledge of the grammar of a language
    • 1.6The expression of the linguistic principles in the experimental course design
  • 2.The experiment
    • 2.1Goals
    • 2.2Experimental design
    • 2.3Reading groups
    • 2.4Readings
    • 2.5Replication
    • 2.6Assessment
    • 2.7Analytical method
    • 2.8Analysis
  • 3.Discussion
    • 3.1Results
    • 3.2Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 12 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.23001.huc
References (48)
References
Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavioral Research Methods, 40 (1), 278–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bonvillian, J. D., Orlansky, M. D., & Novak, L. L. (1983). Developmental milestones: Sign Language acquisition and motor development. Child Development, 54 (6), 1435–1445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J. & Goldberg, A. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in A-Adjective production. Language 87 (1), 55–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (2015) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Ravenio Books.Google Scholar
Carillo, E. C. (2014). Securing a place for reading in composition: The importance of teaching for transfer. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1969). Language and philosophy. In Hook, S. (Ed.), Language and philosophy: A symposium (51–94). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (2015). Learnability. In MacWhinney, B. & O’Grady, W. (Eds.), Handbook of language emergence. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. & Lappin, S. (2011). Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Flurkey, A. & Xu, J. (Eds.), (2003). On the revolution in reading: The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Gambrell, L. (2011). Seven rules of engagement: What’s most important to know about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 65 (3), 172–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1), 131–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Boyd, J. K. (2015). A-adjectives, statistical preemption, and the evidence: Reply to Yang. Language 91 :4, 184–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. & Perrin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology 99 :3, 445–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research 104 :6, 396–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huck, G. J. (2015). What is good writing? Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
(1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
(2001). More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan 831:119–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research: Second edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
(2010). The Goodman-Smith Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, the Comprehension Hypothesis, and the (even stronger) case for Free Voluntary Reading. In Anders, P. (Ed.), Defying convention: Inventing the future in literacy research and practice: Essays in tribute to Ken and Yetta Goodman, (pp. 46–60). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2011). Free voluntary reading. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. & Henner, J. (2021). Acquisition of sign languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 71, 395–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. & Pichler, D. (2005). Acquisition of syntax in signed languages. In Schick, B., Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. E. (Eds.) Advances in the sign language development of deaf children. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2002). Language emergence. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T., & Rohde, A. (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 17–42). Trier: Wissenschaftliche Verlag.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Pragmatics. (pp. 245–259). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (2006). Spoken and written English. In Aarts, B. & McMahon, A. (Eds.) The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 670–691). Malden, MA & Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: Item response theory analysis of the Author Recognition Test. Behavioral Research Methods, 47 (4), 1095–1109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction, Report of the Subgroups, Section 3: Fluency. Washington: NICHD.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, D., Zaromb, F., Pomerantz, J. R., Williams, J. C., & Park, Y. S. (2017). Improvement of writing skills during college: A multi-year cross-sectional and longitudinal study of undergraduate writing performance. Assessing Writing 32 1, 12–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schreuder, M.-C. & Savitz, R. S. (2020). Exploring adolescent motivation to read with an online YA book club. Literary Research and Instruction 59 (3), 260–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C. (2016). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Language Science Press. Originally published 1996 by the University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scruggs, T. E., & Casto, B. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Remedial and Special Education (RASE) 8 1, 24–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1988). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22 (3), 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shanahan, T. E. (2004). Critiques of the National Reading Panel Report: Their implications for research, policy, and practice. In McCardle, P. & Chhabra, V. (eds.). The voice of evidence in reading research, pp. 245–265. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.Google Scholar
Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly 14 (4), 402–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sylvan, L. (2018). Bringing book club to class: Engaging college students in reading content-specific books written for popular audiences. College Teaching 66 (4), 225–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2014). A usage-based approach to child language acquisition. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 26 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar