Alice Benningfield1 Postsremodule 3 Dq 1: What Are The Prima

Alice Benningfield1 Postsremodule 3 Dq 1what Are The Primary Differen

What are the primary differences in the learning process between learning to read English, learning to write grammatically in English, and describing newly learned skills using English writing? Why are these differences significant? How might these differences affect instruction? The differences primarily arise between learning to read and write because of underlying issues relating to mechanics, text, syntax, as well as the lexical choices when writing as compared to reading English (Önal, E., & İseri, 2012). In order for the act of writing to be adequately realized, the individual should be improved cognitively, affectively and kinesthetically.

When writing, learners are typically concerned with setting goals. This is why some learners develop grammar issues, whereas reading learners focus more on the content and validation of the text they aim to develop. Children acquire reading through subconscious processes; during this time, many are not aware of grammatical rules. Writing in English, on the other hand, is not merely communicative—it requires the direct application of grammatical rules (Önal, E., & İseri, 2012). The process of learning how to write correctly takes conscious effort on the part of the student. Writing must be filtered through a systematic process that can be phonemic, representational, or structural.

According to Önal and İseri (2012), when learning to read, not only does the learner need to recognize the oral meaning of words, but also must go through the process of transcribing the sound of the words read. These differences are significant because reading and writing differ markedly in their strategies, purpose, and activities. Furthermore, these differences influence student performance because they determine the approaches students use and their behaviors in reading and writing (Önal, E., & İseri, 2012).

Similarly, Lisa Baldwin (year not specified) highlights that the learning process varies depending on the task. For reading, visuospatial memory, complex verbal memory, and short-term memory are crucial for decoding accuracy (Arina, Gathercole, & Stella, 2015). Rapid phonographic mapping depends on the correct sequential order of graphemes, which is vital for fluent decoding. During writing and spelling, challenging processes involve phonological processing, letter knowledge, phoneme awareness, syllable awareness, and letter-sound knowledge (Yeong & Rickard Liow, 2011). These processes hinge on exposure to the language (Vanderberg & Swanson, 2007). During writing formation, the working memory model—which includes the central executive, visuospatial sketchpad, and phonological loop—is actively engaged (Vanderberg & Swanson, 2007).

These differences are significant because successful mastery of each task requires activation of specific cognitive components. Ensuring that all components are engaged during instruction is vital; lack of activation can lead to gaps in learning, especially if the teacher is unaware of these individual cognitive processes. In effect, understanding these differences guides educators in designing targeted instruction that enhances reading and writing skills effectively and prevents learning gaps (Arina, Gathercole, & Stella, 2015; Yeong & Rickard Liow, 2011; Vanderberg & Swanson, 2007).

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding the cognitive and procedural differences between learning to read, learning to write grammatically, and describing newly acquired skills in English writing is essential for effective language instruction. Each aspect involves distinct processes and challenges that influence how educators should approach teaching these skills and how students absorb and apply them.

Differences in Learning Processes

To begin with, learning to read in English primarily involves subconscious mechanisms. Children typically develop reading skills by exposure and pattern recognition, relying heavily on visuospatial memory, verbal memory, and short-term memory (Arina, Gathercole, & Stella, 2015). Reading comprehension requires decoding graphemes, recognizing words, and understanding meaning, often without explicit awareness of grammatical rules. This process emphasizes recognition and understanding of text, with less conscious focus on syntax or grammatical correctness during initial stages (Önal & İseri, 2012). The focus is on extracting meaning, which over time consolidates into fluent reading ability.

In contrast, learning to write grammatically in English involves deliberate, conscious effort. Writing competence requires mastery over grammar rules, syntactic structures, and lexical selection. This process demands active application of linguistic rules, including spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure. Teachers often emphasize rules-based practice because writing involves manipulating language structures intentionally, making it more cognitively demanding than reading (Önal & İseri, 2012). The learner must consciously internalize these rules and then apply them in various contexts, which can be challenging for learners at different proficiency levels.

Describing newly learned skills using English writing adds another layer of cognitive complexity. This task involves not only accurate expression but also organization of ideas, coherence, and appropriate lexical choices. When students articulate new skills, they must integrate their understanding of the concept with their language production capabilities. This process involves both metacognitive awareness and linguistic skills, making it a higher-order cognitive operation. It requires learners to retrieve information from their memory, structure it coherently, and employ suitable language forms (Yeong & Rickard Liow, 2011).

Significance of These Differences

The differences among reading, writing, and describing skills are significant because they influence instructional design and learning outcomes. Reading relies heavily on recognition, memory, and comprehension strategies, often acquired subconsciously. Therefore, early reading instruction can focus on phonemic awareness, decoding strategies, and fluency building (Vanderberg & Swanson, 2007). Conversely, writing requires explicit teaching of grammar rules, syntactic structures, and spelling conventions. As writing is more conscious, it necessitates more direct instruction, guided practice, and feedback (Önal & İseri, 2012).

Furthermore, accurate description of newly learned skills depends on the learner’s ability to organize information and use language effectively, which demands higher-level cognitive skills. These differences influence not only the content of instruction but also pedagogical strategies—such as scaffolded learning for writing and decoding practice for reading (Arina, Gathercole, & Stella, 2015). Recognizing these distinctions helps educators develop targeted interventions that address specific deficits, thereby improving overall language proficiency.

Implications for Instruction

An understanding of these differences highlights the importance of differentiated instruction tailored to developmental stages and individual learner needs. For example, early literacy instruction should prioritize phonemic awareness and decoding strategies for reading. As students progress, explicit teaching of grammar, syntax, and composition skills becomes crucial for writing development (Önal & İseri, 2012). When students are expected to describe skills or explain concepts, instruction should include opportunities for structured practice, scaffolding, and feedback to foster coherence and linguistic accuracy (Yeong & Rickard Liow, 2011).

In addition to targeted content, teachers should incorporate strategies that explicitly connect reading and writing processes, fostering metacognitive awareness. For instance, encouraging students to reflect on their reading comprehension strategies or to revise their writing based on guided feedback helps bridge these skills. Such integrated approaches support the development of comprehensive language proficiency, emphasizing the unique cognitive processes involved in each task (Vanderberg & Swanson, 2007).

In conclusion, recognizing the distinct learning processes for reading, writing, and describing skills using English informs more effective instructional practices. It underscores the necessity of tailored pedagogical strategies that address specific cognitive demands and promotes balanced language development. As educators become more attuned to these differences, they can design more impactful lessons that foster fluency, accuracy, and expressive competence in English learners.

References

• Arina, S., Gathercole, S., & Stella, G. (2015). The role of the working memory in the early phases of learning to read. BPA - Applied Psychology Bulletin, 273, 31-52.
• Önal, E., & İseri, K. (2012). Analysis of the relationship between reading and writing attitudes of teacher candidates and their academic achievements through the structural equation model. Ilkogretim Online, 11(4).
• Vanderberg, R., & Swanson, H. L. (2007). Which components of working memory are important in the writing process? Reading and Writing, 20(7), 697–714. doi:10.1007/s11145-006-9070-6
• Yeong, S. H. M., & Rickard Liow, S. J. (2011). Cognitive–linguistic foundations of early spelling development in bilinguals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 448–460. doi:10.1037/a0022690
• Gathercole, S. E., & Alloway, T. P. (2007). Working Memory and Learning: A Practical Guide for Teachers. John Wiley & Sons.
• Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to Read and Write: Developmental and Instructional Considerations. In S. Graham & C. A. MacArthur (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 191-208). Guilford Press.
• Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22(1–2), 6–17.
• Scarborough, H. S. (2005). Developmental risks and phonics instruction. In S. Graham & C. A. MacArthur (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 203-219). Guilford Press.
• Snow, C. E. (2002). reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program. RAND Corporation.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.