Understanding One Writer's Growth: Case Study Materials. Elementary Subjects Center Series No. 66 (original) (raw)
Related papers
On Teaching Writing: A Review of the Literature. Occasional Paper No. 20
Finally, since writing is a developmental process, one in which today's ways of composing change in complex ways into tomorrow's, we review research on the development of writing. Such knowledge may help teachers appreciate the signs of progress that may be hidden amidst students' sighs and scratch-outs. Too, such knowledge may support teachers' efforts to understand the questions students cannot articulate and to appreciate the answers they figure out for themselves. Further, knowledge about developmental processes may guide teachers to see the 'finds of support individual students might find most helpful. The research we review can provide information for teachers, but it cannot provide prescriptions to follow, techniques proven to work for all learners. Rather, it can offer information that might help focus teacher observations, deepen insights, and, in the end, inform the crucial decision-maldng that is the daily work of all teacherswhen to push a student for more, when to praise what may seem to be "errors," when to encourage students to write collaboratively, when to call a parent in.
Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers: A Practice Guide. NCEE 2012-4058
What Works Clearinghouse, 2012
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in education to bring the best available evidence and expertise to bear on current challenges in education. Authors of practice guides combine their expertise with the findings of rigorous research, when available, to develop specific recommendations for addressing these challenges. The authors rate the strength of the research evidence supporting each of their recommendations. See Appendix A for a full description of practice guides.
Teachers' Orientations toward Writing Instruction
Journal of Writing Research, 2013
In the 1970s a shift in the dominant theory of writing instruction began, away from a focus on the written product and form of writing toward an emphasis on the writing process in all of its complexity (Freedman, Dyson, Flower, & Chafe, 1987). Several overlapping but distinct definitions and theories of process writing arising from cognitive, social constructivist, and naturalistic frameworks have evolved. For instance, Hayes and Flower (1980; 1986) have seen writing as a goal-directed cognitive activity involving planning, translating, and reviewing that requires rhetorical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, and strategic knowledge. Other researchers emphasize writing as a social activity associated with particular practices (Bruffee, 1984; Freedman, Dyson, Flower, & Chafe, 1987; Scribner & Cole, 1981). As a social process, the features of audience and purpose are highlighted. Shaunessey (1977) sees composing as a socialization process in which the writer brings his/her thinking in line with discourse conventions of the community of readers. Nystrand (1989) argues in a similar way that writing is a social interactive process between readers and writers within discourse communities. Educators and researchers from a more naturalistic tradition see writing as a natural process that can be activated by encouraging environments (e.g., Emig, 1981). Graves (1983) and Calkins (1986) also see the establishment of a literate environment as crucial to teaching students how to express themselves. Although these theories of writing and their links to process approaches dominate the literature, a gap remains between the theories and how they are enacted in classrooms (Applebee, 1986). Applebee found that writing was used primarily to assess learning, that prewriting activities constituted a minimum amount of time, and that peer response groups occurred in only a minority of classrooms. District-wide writing tests, minimal support for instructional innovation, and system-wide pressure for improving achievement tests scores are some of the reasons researchers have suggested for the difficulties of changing classroom norms that would support process approaches (Florio-Ruane, 1991; Michaels, 1987; Ulichney & Watson-Gegeo, 1989). Additionally, teachers' views about writing may play a role in how they implement writing programs within classrooms similar to the relationship between teachers' stated beliefs about the reading process and their classroom practices (Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991). If teachers hold traditional views of writing as consisting of appropriate syntax, grammatical structures,
Teachers' Changing Conceptions of Writing Instruction
1992
In the 1970s a shift in the dominant theory of writing instruction began, away from a focus on the written product and form of writing toward an emphasis on the writing process in all of its complexity (Freedman, Dyson, Flower, & Chafe, 1987). Several overlapping but distinct definitions and theories of process writing arising from cognitive, social constructivist, and naturalistic frameworks have evolved. For instance, Hayes and Flower (1980; 1986) have seen writing as a goal-directed cognitive activity involving planning, translating, and reviewing that requires rhetorical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, and strategic knowledge. Other researchers emphasize writing as a social activity associated with particular practices (Bruffee, 1984; Freedman, Dyson, Flower, & Chafe, 1987; Scribner & Cole, 1981). As a social process, the features of audience and purpose are highlighted. Shaunessey (1977) sees composing as a socialization process in which the writer brings his/her thinking in line with discourse conventions of the community of readers. Nystrand (1989) argues in a similar way that writing is a social interactive process between readers and writers within discourse communities. Educators and researchers from a more naturalistic tradition see writing as a natural process that can be activated by encouraging environments (e.g., Emig, 1981). Graves (1983) and Calkins (1986) also see the establishment of a literate environment as crucial to teaching students how to express themselves. Although these theories of writing and their links to process approaches dominate the literature, a gap remains between the theories and how they are enacted in classrooms (Applebee, 1986). Applebee found that writing was used primarily to assess learning, that prewriting activities constituted a minimum amount of time, and that peer response groups occurred in only a minority of classrooms. District-wide writing tests, minimal support for instructional innovation, and system-wide pressure for improving achievement tests scores are some of the reasons researchers have suggested for the difficulties of changing classroom norms that would support process approaches (Florio-Ruane, 1991; Michaels, 1987; Ulichney & Watson-Gegeo, 1989). Additionally, teachers' views about writing may play a role in how they implement writing programs within classrooms similar to the relationship between teachers' stated beliefs about the reading process and their classroom practices (Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991). If teachers hold traditional views of writing as consisting of appropriate syntax, grammatical structures,
Teachers College Record, 2018
Background: Numerous reports have highlighted problems with writing instruction in American schools, yet few examine the interplay of teachers' preparation to teach writing, the instructional policies they must navigate, and the writing development of the students in their classrooms. Purpose: This study examines high school English teachers' instruction of writing while taking into account their preparation for teaching writing-both preservice and inservice, the instructional policies in place, and the learners in their classrooms. Setting: Data used come from public high school English teachers teaching in Northern California. These data were collected in 2011-2012, when teachers were sill complying with the mandates of the No Child Left Behind legislation. Research Design: I use year-long qualitative case studies of five high school English teachers to highlight various ways teachers used their knowledge of writing instruction to negotiate the pressures of accountability policies and their students' needs as writers to teach writing. Data collected include beginning-and end-of-year interviews with each teacher, four sets of 1-to 2-day observations of each teacher's instruction of writing, and instructional documents related to each teacher's writing instruction. These data were analyzed using the constant comparative method to look for themes within the data collected from each teacher and then make comparisons across teachers. Findings from the case studies are supported by findings from a survey of 171 high school teachers who taught a representative sample of California high school students at 21 schools in 20 districts. The survey included 41 multiple-choice items that asked about teachers' instructional practices and their perceptions of high-stakes accountability pressures and their students as writers. Survey data were analyzed quantitatively using descriptive statistics and principal components analysis. Findings: Findings illustrate that significant differences existed in how the five teachers approached their writing instruction. These differences were due to both the teachers' varied preparations to teach writing and the contextual factors in place where each taught. Those teachers with more developed knowledge of writing instruction were better able to navigate the policies in place at their sites and more equipped to plan appropriate instruction to develop their students as writers. Recommendations: Findings indicate teachers would be better served by opportunities to develop their knowledge of writing instruction both prior to and once they begin their teaching careers. Additionally, the findings add to an existing body of research that demonstrates the limiting effect high-stakes assessments can have on teachers' instruction of writing.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 2016
Given the interrelated role of writing and the development of early literacy skills, recommendations have been made to increase instructional writing experiences in K-2 classrooms. In an effort to increase the amount of writing in the primary grades that leads to later literacy success, it is important that teachers engage in instructional practices that align with how early writing skills develop in young children. To this end, early childhood teachers and teacher educators can benefit from an enhanced understanding of the writing instructional practices teachers have engaged in and the associated challenges they have experienced as they respond to the expectation to increase writing experiences in their classrooms. Thus the purpose of this study was to examine how five K-2 teachers perceived, implemented, and reflected on writing instruction in their classrooms. Using a case study design, researchers examined interview, survey, and observational data, resulting in an in-depth description and analysis of the writing instructional experiences of these five teachers. Qualitative analyses identified two meta-themes related to writing instruction: opportunities and obstacles. Implications for K-2 teacher preparation and professional development are discussed.
Students and Their Writing: Perceptions, Motivations, and Behaviors
1987
A study examined the perceptions elementary school students hold toward writing and writing instruction, and questioned whether these perceptions vary by the kind and nature of instruction provided. A total of 96 students in grades three and four in a large midwestern middle class school took part in the study. The students were divided into two groups: (1) one group participated in a traditional approach to writing instruction defined in terms of separate, sequential skills being taught during an assigned period using a basal reader; and (2) the second group participated in a more informal approach allowing students to negotiate with the teacher concerning the choice of themes, book genres, writing and reading assignments, etc. Student answers on forced-choice questionnaires designed to probe their perceptions, interests, and their behavior toward writing indicated that students' perceptions do vary with the kind and nature of the instruction. Students in the informal classes appeared to have an advantage over their counterparts in the traditional :lasses across all prober employed in the study, and they saw writing as an enjoyable and meaningful activity that was initiated for their own purposes. Findings suggest that teachers and curriIlum specialists need to evaluate critically the methods and tasks used in writing instruction. (Five tables of data are included.) (NH)
1988
Designed to examine the experiences of writing teachers and their students in the United States and the United Kingdom, a comparative study administered questionnaires to "successful" teachers and secondary school students and conducted observational studies in a small number of classrooms in both countries. The sample of 560 U.S. teachers was gathered through the National Writing Project (NWP), which yearly identifies successful local teachers. Each teacher was asked to select two high achieving and two low achieving students to answer the questionnaire, with 715 students responding. In the U.K., 218 teachers were surveyed from a variety of geographical areas, grade levels, and types of schools, and 244 student questionnaires were administered. Topics for the teacher questionnaires included: (1) teacher training; (2) teaching conditions; (3) length of time, amount, and length of writing; (4) teachers' reasons for teaching writing; (5) teaching practices; (6) types of writing taught; and (7) keys to achieving success. The student questionnaire covered school leaving age, grading and examinations, amount of writing, and students' opinions about their teachers' practices. Results showed that U.K. teachers were student-centered while U.S. teachers were curriculum-centered. The U.K. teachers emphasized imaginative writing, while U.S. teachers emphasized analytic writing and critical thinking. Teachers from both countries believed in individualizing instruction, and students were CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF WRITING