Recent data indicate that less than 50% of American secondary students are able to demonstrate grade-level proficiency in reading, writing, and science (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2007, 2011, 2012a, 2012b). Secondary students* are expected to develop advanced literacy skills, especially in writing, in order to be ready for college and careers. Students are expected to develop these advanced literacy skills, within all academic subjects. In other words, they are expected to develop disciplinary literacy skills. The statistics are alarming overall, but they are particularly alarming in the area of science. Students need strong literacy skills, including written expression, to be prepared for employment opportunities in science fields, which currently are being filled by graduates of other industrialized nations, who have a more advanced skill set. This loss of occupational opportunity poses a threat for the U.S. to remain globally competitive in science innovation and advancement, which ultimately secures economic prosperity. Despite these staggering concerns, there is little research conducted to evaluate effective instructional methods to develop complex writing skills in academic disciplines such as science. To address this critical issue, the present study examined the effects of a metalinguistic approach to the writing intervention of sentence combining with eighth-grade students who struggle with literacy. The researcher conducted the study in a typical science classroom in an urban American school setting. The focus of the intervention was to increase students* metalinguistic awareness of science text, to improve written sentence complexity in science, as well as the written expression and determination of comparison and contrast of science content. The study employed a quasi-experimental design. The participants consisted of an experimental group (two classes) who received the treatment during typical science instruction and a comparison group (three classes) who did not receive treatment, but participated in their typical science instruction. There were four participating teachers and 84 participating students. The researcher conducted the study over a period of seven weeks within regularly scheduled science classes. Twenty intervention sessions were conducted for a length of 20 minutes each, totaling 400 minutes or 6.6 hours. Hierarchical repeated measures ANOVA and hierarchical repeated measures MANOVA analyses revealed that the experimental group performed significantly better than the comparison group on their ability to determine similarities and differences (compare and contrast) related to science content, with a medium effect. The experimental group achieved a slightly higher marginal mean over the comparison group on their ability to combine sentences, with a small effect. Multiple statistical analyses revealed a trend of higher marginal means in favor of the experimental group over the comparison group on several measures of written sentence complexity on both the science compare and contrast writing prompt (small-medium effect) and the science expository essay (medium to large effect). One experimental class also demonstrated higher scores in their overall sentence correctness on science expository essay as compared to all the other classes. These findings suggest that sentence combining, utilizing a metalinguistic approach, may hold promise as an effective writing intervention in a content area classroom, for secondary students who struggle with literacy. Furthermore, the findings suggest that a metalinguistic approach to sentence combining can be successfully embedded within a content area class, which may result in increased concept knowledge and writing skills in that academic discipline. Implications for practice and future research directions are discussed.

Developing syntactic complexity in writing is an important goal for many adult language learners. However, little is known about the effect of different writing practice tasks on the development of syntactic complexity. Furthermore, it is unclear to what degree syntactic complexity is related to writing quality. The main purpose of this study was to compare the longitudinal effects of three types of writing tasks on the development of syntactic complexity and writing quality. In order to investigate these relationships, a mixed-methods design was used. A quantitative component that was a quasi-experimental, longitudinal investigation was combined with an embedded qualitative component which involved eliciting stimulated recalls from participants from two of the experimental groups in the study. For the quantitative component, the participants (N = 105) were first-year, non-English majors at a four-year, co-educational university in western Japan. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: a sentence-combining group and a translation group. These two experimental groups were compared to an intact timed-writing group, which served as a comparison group. Writing samples were collected at three points throughout the year and analyzed based on five measures of syntactic complexity: mean length of sentence, mean length of T-unit, mean length of clause, clauses per T-unit, and T-units per sentence. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were used to analyze the five measures to investigate statistical differences across time for each group. One-way ANOVAs were used to analyze the five measures to ascertain differences between groups at each time. Furthermore, all the writing samples were evaluated by human raters for writing quality using an analytic rubric. Ratings were analyzed and investigated for changes in quality across time and between groups, as well as to examine the overall relationship between syntactic complexity and quality. For the qualitative component, seven participants were selected from the experimental groups to participate in stimulated recalls. The data were analyzed and coded to investigate the cognitive processes underlying each task. The results of the quantitative study indicated that the participants in the translation and sentence-combining groups made small, but significant gains in syntactic complexity across time. The translation group made significant growth on clauses per T-unit while the sentence-combining group made significant growth across time on mean length of sentence, mean length of T-unit, and T-units per sentence. The timed-writing group was not able to sustain significant growth across time. In the between-groups analyses, there were significant differences between the sentence-combining group and the other groups on mean length of sentence and T-units per sentence, indicating that the participants in that group demonstrated more coordination, and to a lesser degree, more subordination in their writing. In terms of quality of writing, the results indicated an overall weak, statistically significant positive correlation between measures of syntactic complexity and human rating judgments. Among all of the syntactic measures, T-units per sentence correlated the strongest with rating scores. The results of the qualitative component indicated that the participants practicing sentence-combining tasks focused most of their attention toward syntactic aspects of language while the participants in the translation group focused their attention on lexical aspects of language while performing the tasks. The findings of this study show that the development of syntactic complexity is influenced by writing practice tasks and that tasks that direct learners’ attention toward features of the language are more likely to hasten the development of syntactic complexity. Among the tasks, sentence-combining showed the most potential in developing syntactic complexity, particularly for increasing the use of compound sentences. However, none of the writing practice tasks led to significant gains in writing quality, in part because syntactic complexity was shown to have a moderately weak relationship to overall writing quality. / Teaching & Learning