This quasi-experimental intervention study examines the effect of genre-based instructional practices on 90 primary students' narrative writing achievements and is a result of six teachers' action to meet the educational goals of the Swedish national curriculum. Specifically, the authors examine the effects of Joint Construction, the phase in the genre pedagogical model of the Sydney School known as the Teaching and Learning Cycle, in which teachers and students work together to co-construct texts. Joint Construction has been put forward as the most powerful part of the Teaching and Learning Cycle. The authors challenge this argument, presenting findings that are inconsistent with this widely held belief. Using a pretest-posttest control group design, the study shows that the Joint Construction stage did not significantly improve the quality of students' narrative writing or increase the text length of their writings.

Writing has been identified as a challenge for students with reading difficulties. This study contributes to previous research by exploring argumentative writing in L1 (Swedish) and L2 (English) in a group of students with reading difficulties in upper secondary school. Participants were 19 students with typical reading, 19 students with poor decoding, and 9 students with poor comprehension. A majority of students attended vocational programmes. Written text quality was assessed by using an adapted version of Jacobs et al.’s (1981) analytic scoring scheme including content, organisation, cohesion, vocabulary, language use, spelling, and punctuation. Students with reading difficulties (regardless of reader subgroup) were found to perform poorly in all categories in both L1 and L2, with spelling being particularly challenging in L1, and cohesion, language use, spelling, and punctuation in L2. Significant differences were found between students with poor comprehension and students with typical reading in cohesion, language use and spelling in L2. Few other significant differences were identified possibly due to an overall poor writing outcome also for students with typical reading. This general poor outcome in writing is discussed in relation to previous studies on writing among students with reading difficulties and writing in vocational programmes.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of systematized phonics on word reading in Swedish second grade poor readers. Forty-nine children who performed at or below the 25th percentile on pseudoword reading and/or sight word reading at the beginning of second grade participated in the study. The study had a cross-over design exploring within-and between-group effects of two different conditions: systematized phonics and classroom instruction. Overall, systematized phonics proved more effective than classroom instruction. At pre-intervention, no child performed above the 30th percentile in pseudoword reading or sight word reading. At post-intervention, corresponding numbers were 69% for pseudoword reading and 35% for sight word reading. Implications for a policy change in Sweden towards mandatory systematized phonics in primary school are discussed.

Purpose: Learning new vocabulary has been identified as a challenge for students with (developmental) language disorder ((D)LD). In this study, we evaluate the effects of two active learning methods, (a) retrieval practice (RP) and (b) rich vocabulary instruction (RVI), in a group of students with (D)LD in secondary school. Method: A quasi-experimental counterbalanced within-subject design was used to compare and evaluate the effect of RP and RVI on learning Tier 2 vocabulary, with target and control words as dependent measures. Eleven students with (D)LD ( M age = 14.9 years) attending a language unit participated. RP and RVI were implemented in regular classroom activities during 16 lessons (eight lessons/instructional condition). Learning was assessed by comparing performance on a pretest session 1–2 weeks prior, with posttest performance 1 week after each instructional condition. Results: The learning gain for RP was superior to that for RVI, both with respect to the Bayesian probabilistic estimations for target words relative to control words and in direct comparison with RVI. Only weak evidence was found for RVI with respect to the Bayesian probabilistic estimations for target words relative to control words. Conclusions: All participants showed positive learning gains following RP, whereas the outcome for RVI was more diverse. This initial work suggests that RP promotes larger learning gains relative to RVI and promotes learning across language profiles. This study extends previous studies by exploring the implementation of RP in regular classroom activities and by using more complex to-be-learned material (Tier 2 words).

No abstract