Introduction
Reading and writing relations, as this concept applies to academic learning contexts, whether as a major way to learn language or academic content, is a pervasive issue in English for academic purposes (EAP) contexts. In many cases, this major link between reading/writing and academic learning is true even though explicit discussions of this relationship are commonly identified in other ways. For example, research on summarizing skills is an aspect of abilities that come under reading-writing relations. Similarly, topics including synthesis writing, note-taking, plagiarism, content-driven essay exams, term papers, theses, and dissertations, among other topics, are all aspects of reading-writing relations. These core academic skills become even more complex aspects of reading and writing together, when we add electronic texts, web page resources, and other media sources.
Issues covered under reading-writing relations can include academic reading abilities, academic writing abilities, reading to write, writing to read, reading and writing to learn, and reading and writing to synthesize and evaluate. One interesting observation, most probably due to first language (L1) contributions from writing and composition research, is that writing is most often the focus of reading/writing studies. Reading is often seen as the input for writing, and reading comprehension is treated as relatively unproblematic. However, we know that in second language (L2) contexts, reading is every bit as problematic as writing when exploring reading-writing relations.
The history of reading and writing as literacy skills that work together goes back a very long way, perhaps even to the early commentaries on religious texts and subsequent hermeneutics, but we are interested in the modern pathways of research on reading-writing relations. The best starting point, then, is the expansion of cognitive sciences and mental theories of language in the 1970s. Practical instruction perspectives from English for Science and Technology (EST) and English for special purposes (ESP) also became more prominent in the 1970s.Footnote 1
Many topics can be included in our effort to identify landmark publications over the past 35 years. We are necessarily constrained in our selection of texts that have guided L2 scholarly thinking. Otherwise, we would be citing hundreds of publications. We reference certain key L1 research sources because they have had a major impact on how L2 scholars have approached reading-writing relations. Key L1 references can be divided into cognitive/educational psychology, composition/rhetoric, and K-12 education literacy development. L2 research contexts can also be divided into an ESP category and an EAP/writing category, although there has been much blending across these two categories in the past 15 years. We code our selections under one (or more) of five categories:
L1 Educational psychology (L1 EP)
L1 composition and rhetoric (L1 C&R)
L1 K-12 education literacy (L1 KEL)
L2 ESP
L2 EAP/writing
We also then code references in terms of presenting evidence or arguments into the relevant categories below:
Exploratory studies (ES)
Instructional studies (IS)
Quantitative evidence (Quant)
Qualitative evidence (Qual)
Overview/survey of research (OS)
Book or edited volume (B-EV)
One consequence of asking two North American scholars to synthesize key references in reading-writing relations is that the North America reading-writing context will dominate. This emphasis is not simply due to a myopic view of how reading-writing relations are practiced around the world, although there might be a touch of this seeping in (and we humbly apologize). More prominently impacting our review are the facts that (1) North American post-secondary institutes are mostly insistent on required writing courses as preparation for subsequent university coursework, (2) international students have come to North America in large numbers for university study since the 1960s and then had to work through the ubiquitous freshman composition requirements, and (3) composition studies (in L1 and L2 contexts) became a major academic field of study in the U.S. beginning in the 1970s.
This topic is complex to conceptualize because major research studies and extended book coverage have significantly impacted subsequent research in either writing or reading. We will not reference major works that focus almost solely on one or the other literacy skill, but not both. Moreover, in discussing key sources in reading-writing history, we will not only be highlighting research articles from journals. Some of the most compelling resources that have impacted subsequent thinking have been books written on the topic of reading-writing relations (Carson & Leki 1993; Johns 1997; Hirvela 2004; Leki 2007; see timeline for all authors).
A number of key themes have emerged over the past 35 years that deserve mention as a final summary statement:
1. Even though reading and writing are not explainable as mirror-image literacy skills, they have bidirectional developmental paths. They are two aspects of literacy abilities that mutually support each other.
2. Reading is a very common source of input for writing tasks in academic settings, and university writing tasks almost overwhelmingly require the use of textual input of some type (including electronic texts).
3. Direct instruction in multiple reading-writing skills significantly improves abilities to work from texts and improve in various academic writing tasks.
4. Reading and writing should be taught as integrated skills in EAP contexts.
5. Students’ combined reading and writing abilities develop through stages as their academic literacy develops.
6. Understanding the organizational structure in reading texts will not only improve students’ reading comprehension but also writing production.
7. Effective instruction integrating reading and writing often involves the use of appropriate text models, especially in more advanced academic contexts.
8. The approach to understanding reading and writing integrated tasks by Spivey (1990, 1997: see timeline) has held up well as a formulation of effective use of sources for writing tasks in L1 and L2 contexts. That is to say, discourse synthesis abilities seem to be guided by organizing, selecting, and connecting relevant input for a given writing task.
William Grabe is Vice President for Research at Northern Arizona University, and Regents’ Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of English. Recent books include Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice (Cambridge University Press, 2009) and Researching and teaching reading (with F. Stoller, 2nd edn, Routledge, 2011). He served as editor of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics for ten years (Cambridge University Press, 1990–2000). In 2005 he received the Distinguished Scholarship and Service Award from the American Association for Applied Linguistics.
Cui Zhang is Assistant Professor in the Department of English and Theatre at Eastern Kentucky University. Her research interests are second language writing development and reading-writing relations. She has conducted a semester-long, instructional study on English as a second language (ESL) students’ synthesis writing and collaborated with Dr Grabe on several articles on second language reading and writing relations.
