Teachers for a New Era
Writing Project, Year 2
Research Team: Elizabeth Adams, Ian Barnard, Suzanne Scheld, Steve Wexler
Graduate Assistant: Diana Shamiryan
Table of Contents:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Introduction and Overview….2
Research Questions and Methods….4
Analysis of Class Topics and Observation Comments….9
Philosophies of Teaching Writing….12
Perceptions of Students….13
Teacher Identity….14
Approaches to Responding to Student Writing….16
Politics of the Study….18
Conclusion and Directions for future research….18
Appendices
A. Pre-Interview Survey….19
B. Observation Instrument….23
C. Post Observation Interview Questions (observation 1)….28
D. Post Observation Interview Questions (observation 2)….33
E. Post-Observation Interview Write-Up Form….38
F. Observation Tallies…40
A. Introduction and Overview
This year’s project was a continuation of last year’s project. The same research
questions continue to drive the study:
1. Are writing expectations the same across subject matter and
education?
2. Are all Liberal Studies pathways equal in success in candidates’
ability to write and teach writing?
3. What pieces of the Liberal Studies curriculum are most helpful in
improving students’ writing abilities?
Our study had three components, first was shelved, the second is underway, the
third was the bulk of the work done for the year.
A. We proposed that we would follow students from last year’s project into
ENGL 305 (maximum N for this project will be 25) and reevaluate their
writing after ENGL 305 to see what changes have occurred as a result of
that class. Only a few students (less than 10) enrolled in English 305 and
we were unable to collect writing samples from them. Instead, we will
collect writing samples from the students in the Year 1 study from the
student teaching courses (EED 477B and EED 579) to compare to their
initial samples from Fall 2006
B. We began the development of an observational protocol in Spring 08 for
observing and assessing elementary school writing teaching in Fall 08 and
beyond. Using the principles and instruments from the TNE Math project
and ethnographic research methods more broadly and adapting them as
appropriate for observing writing instruction, we have begun work on this
protocol.
C. The bulk of our work this year focused on an examination of ENGL 305
(Intermediate Composition) to get a snapshot of how Liberal Studies
students are being instructed in composition at the upper division level.
We collected syllabi from all the sections of ENGL 305 taught in Spring
2008.
The principle work of the research team was observing and documenting the
content of ENGL 305 classes. We observed six sections of the course using an
observational protocol. Before the observations, we gathered demographic data
on the instructors and asked them about their professional backgrounds,
preferences in teaching composition, and professional preparation. After the
observations, we interviewed the faculty about the class sessions we had
observed and the thinking that had gone into the class session itself and ENGL
305 more broadly. We observed each of these faculty a second time, asking to
visit a class session where a different type of session might be observed. Most
of these visits were done by pairs of faculty and the observations were normed.
In addition, we asked faculty for samples of student work with feedback on it and
for their assignments and other material that might help us get a sense of the
content of the course.
This study continues along a multi-pronged pathway. By examining where our
students writing is (Year 1) and what they’re being taught at CSUN about writing
(Year 2), we can follow them out into the classrooms to see what connections
they make to their own writing process and education. By beginning with the 0607 sample, we should have a chance to do a longitudinal study to see what
correlations there are between writing ability and skill in teaching writing. This
year’s work allows us to connect their university writing instruction to the writing
instruction they do in K-5 settings.
We will continue to work with the English department, the Elementary Education
department, and the candidates themselves in understanding what the best
practices are in composition instruction and how those can be improved.
The larger question of how and under what circumstances we can have
productive and substantive discussions with our K-12 partners about how we
teach writing, how they teach writing and what affect it has on our candidates and
their pupils can be a direct result of the work this study has begun and will
continue into Year 3 and beyond.
In 2008-2009, our plan is to follow all of the students in both ITEP programs
(junior option and freshman option) who were in the 06-07 study into their student
teaching experience. We will observe their writing teaching and interview them
about their preparation for teaching writing and about their experiences in the
classroom with writing instruction. We will work with the instructor in the second
reading and writing methods class (EED 477B) to embed assignments and data
gathering into that course.
This study is part of the on-going Teachers for a New Era (TNE) Initiative that
explores the impact of teacher education programs at CSUN. This is an
exploratory project which documents the aspects of Liberal Studies curriculum
that are most helpful in improving students’ writing abilities. We assume that in
order to determine what would be most helpful a baseline study of current and
typical classroom practices is needed. This study, therefore, seeks to document
and analyze classroom practices and related discourse from the point of view of
instructors teaching English 305 (Intermediate Composition). We assume
students’ abilities to write and eventually teach writing to others are influenced by
the structure of their undergraduate courses, the nature of teaching strategies
employed in these classes, and instructors’ philosophies of teaching writing. We
recognize that other factors shape students’ writing abilities as well, such as the
amount of time students’ put into their writing assignments, and individuals’
capabilities for teaching and learning. We were unable to include an assessment
of these factors, however, due to limited time and resources.
Our study adopts a mixed methods approach and emphasizes an ethnographic
perspective on teaching practices. In a mixed methods design, qualitative and
quantitative data are concurrently collected in the investigation of one question
(cite). The final outcomes of our study are based on an integrated analysis of
qualitative and quantitative sets of data which were gathered through systematic
classroom observations, semi-structured interviews and by a content analysis of
course syllabi.
This project benefits from research tools which were developed for a previous
mixed methods study carried out by researchers in the TNE initiative at CSUN.
The study examines teaching practices implemented by graduates from the
single-subject math credential program (Gainsburg, Rothstein-Fish, Scheld,
Spagna, von Mayrhauser 2008). The study quantifies the amount of time and
frequency that teachers spend implementing certain “best” practices that they
were exposed to in CSUN courses. It analyzes perceptions of practice and
experience, and derives its findings from anthropological analytical methods. For
our study of writing, we adapted the observation and interview protocols to fit the
flow of behavior in composition classes. We discuss the benefits and limitations
to these protocols in the method’s section.
B. Research Questions and Methods
Research Question
This study addresses the following research question:
o What aspects of the Liberal Studies curriculum are most helpful in
improving students writing abilities?
Sample
Our sample included seven sections of English 305 (Intermediate Expository
Writing) from a total of 15 offered during the Spring 2008 semester.
The participants in our study were drawn from a pool of instructors teaching
English 305: Intermediate Expository Writing in spring 2008. There were a total of
14 instructors scheduled to teach English 305 during the semester. Our sample
is comprised of 7 instructors (n=7). Classes were capped at 27 students and
either met three days per week for 50 minutes, two days per week for 75
minutes, or one day per week for 165 minutes. Some classes were held online.
Invitations were emailed to selected English 305 instructors. We excluded PACE
sections of the course and one DF section because we felt that these sections
would not be representative of the course as a whole. From the 14 emailed
invitations, 8 initially replied Yes. From the initial 8, 1 later declined. A second
email was sent notifying that a $100.00 stipend would be paid to participating
instructors.
Several on-line versions of English 305 are offered at CSUN. We included at look
at one section of the on-line classes in order to describe the broadest range of
teaching practices that students encounter when taking writing courses at CSUN.
In the descriptions below, we include characteristics of the instructor in the
summary of our sample, but we do not include the outcomes from observing the
on-line course in the summary of course characteristics. We discuss these
outcomes in a separate section.
Additional characteristics of the sample include:
All instructors are women
5 have taught at CSUN for more than 10 years.
2 have taught at CSUN between 5 and 10 years.
0 have taught at CSUN less than 5 years.
1 has more than 10 years of relevant teaching experience at other institutions.
5 have between 5 and 10 years of relevant experience.
1 has less than 5 years of relevant experience.
1 is a tenured professor and 6 are lecturers at CSUN.
7 are native speakers of English
2 have other native languages including Afrikaans and Italian
1 identify themselves as professional writers who publish in non-academic
forums.
6 write primarily for academic audiences.
Context on Research Design and Procedures
As a means of addressing the study’s research question, we adopted an
anthropological approach for ensuring validity of qualitative data drawn from a
small sample. This approach, which involves taking an inductive “multiple-look”
(triangulated) approach to answering research questions, has been proven useful
in anthropology for highlighting emergent themes and providing a sound
foundation on which to rest suggestions for further research. In our case,
research triangulation involved the concurrent assessment of several data
streams produced from behavioral, interview, text-based, and survey-based
inquiry. While we are fully aware that a small sample is not “robust” enough to
warrant full-scale policy change recommendations, we do find use here for
anthropology’s inductive triangulation approach as we pursue an understanding
of the aspects of the Liberal Studies curriculum that are most helpful in improving
students writing abilities. This report will share the themes that emerged from this
inductive triangulation and indicate how the themes in themselves are clues for
what to focus on in future research.
In this study we approach curriculum as an ethnographic phenomenon. From an
anthropological perspective, curriculum is a set of teaching and learning
“practices.” Typically, practice may be taken to mean exercising a technique,
strategy or art. Putting into effect a technique often entails use of the body, mind,
and verbal communication. From an anthropological perspective, practice is
more encompassing. It is a concept that emphasizes how humans are versatile
in different situations and can change forms of action quickly, unpredictably,
consciously and unconsciously. The study of “cultural practice” entails
consideration of patterned human social interactions, accommodations,
adjustments and worldviews (or perceptions). Expressions of identity are an
enactment of negotiated social conduct; therefore, they are also considered to be
a patterned form of cultural practice.
In the pages below, we describe the particular methods and procedures
employed in this project. We also describe the rationale for these methods, their
limitations and other reflections on the research process.
Background Information Surveys
Prior to observing instructors, we collected background information about them
and the class to be observed. With respect to instructors, we collected
information about their education backgrounds, previous teaching experiences,
and identity (see appendix A).
With respect to the class, we collected information about the number of students
in the class, their gender, ethnic, language backgrounds, and skill level. We were
also interested in knowing how many students in the class were transfer
students, worked more than 20 hours, and were taking the class to pass the
WPE, and exhibited any noteworthy attendance patterns. These circumstances
tend to influence how teachers choose and implement teaching strategies (see
appendix A).
Quantitative survey of classroom practices
As previously mentioned, the observation protocol was modeled after an
instrument used in a study of math teachers. It was also informed by faculty
members on the research team who have taught English 305. The instrument
was designed to take an inventory of the teaching practices implemented and the
amount of time practices are put into play. For example, observers record the
presence of procedural tasks (P), direct instruction by instructor (D), group, nonwriting/non-reading activity (G), student presentation (S), in-class writing such as
brainstorming, drafting, revising, etc. (I), in-class reading, including reading in
groups, instructor reading aloud, and students taking turns reading aloud (R),
conferences (C), and other (O). For each of these activities, the time started,
stopped and elapsed was noted. Observers also made notes about compelling
language that was used as part of the practice.
Observations were conducted for the duration of a class meeting (between 50
and 75 minutes).
In addition to taking an inventory of practices, observers made general notes of
class room behaviors, including making a note of the overall impression of
student engagement, attitudes towards writing, nature of teacher talk, nature of
student talk, sequencing of lesson sections, and the classroom atmosphere.
A note about the relative amount of time spent on writing related issues was also
recorded. For example, observers noted if particular issues were dominant,
significant, minimal, or not present in the classroom. These issues include:
critical thinking, content, purpose, audience, organization, development of thesis,
prose style, and conventions (grammar).
The observations were conducted by pairs of observers. Before the collection of
data began, the research team members participated in a norming session
conducted in the context of an English class. The instrument was also piloted
and adjusted before data collection began. Norming and testing the instrument
strengthened the reliability of our data.
Post-Observation Interview
The interview was designed to collect information on the day’s lesson and the
sources for its design, the implementation of particular classroom practices and
the thought-processes behind them (e.g. writing groups, a grammar lesson, etc.),
instructor’s expectations and interpretations of the students’ reaction to the day’s
lesson, and the “ingredients” that shape the instructors’ teaching philosophy and
teacher identity. For example, we asked teachers to describe their philosophy of
teaching writing and the basis for it. We asked about the scholarship,
conferences and experiences that have informed the instructors’ overall
approach to teaching writing. We also asked instructors what they thought they
needed in order to develop as a teacher of writing.
The interviews were designed to be conducted within 45 minutes or less. Some
were conducted immediately after a class was observed. Many were conducted
within a week after the observation.
Responses to questions were typed up and coded for analysis.
Group debriefings after the interviews served as a means to cross-check
meaning and to strengthen the reliability of the data.
Second Wave Observations and Interviews
We conducted a second round of interviews in order to capture the broadest
range of teaching writing practices occurring in English 305. We considered that
writing is a process that occurs in different stages (although the stages may not
be linear). We assumed that different teaching practices might be implemented
during different stages of the process, and that by observing instructors during at
least two points in the process, we would see a diverse set of practices.
During the second visit we repeated the inventory of teaching practices and
made notes on our overall impressions of the class. During the post-observation
interview we collected information about the lesson for that day and its sources of
design. Because we were not asking instructors to repeat their teaching
philosophies, we asked instructors to describe their philosophy and approaches
towards responding to student papers. We also collected samples of instructors
responses to student writing.
We conducted 7 observations and interviews with instructors during the second
wave of our study. This number was based on the number of instructors from the
first wave who volunteered to be observed a second time.
Methodological Limitations and other Reflections on Fieldwork
There were challenges to adapting the methodology from the math study for this
one. For example, observers found it difficult to distinguish between some
categories of interaction (most notably the tendency of many of the faculty to
switch quickly from direct instruction to whole class discussion and back).
This study also entails an usual dynamic in ethnography which is that we were
“studying up” in a politically charged situation—that is, we are examining
authorities who command a lot of power in shaping students—but these
individuals have varying degrees of power within the system. They also happen
to be our colleagues, some of whom are of higher and lower rank than ourselves.
These power dynamics mediated instructors’ participation to a certain extent.
C. Analysis of Class Topics and Observation Comments
Class Topics:
Issue
dominant
significant minimal
none
unsure
Critical thinking
2 classes
9 classes
Content (e.g., topics to be
addressed in
writing assignments)
Purpose/genre (e.g., instruction in
how to construct an argument, how
to write a letter)
Audience
5 classes
6 classes
4 classes
3 classes
4
classes
2
classes
1 class
4 classes
5
classes
Organization
1 class
4 classes
Research
1 class
5 classes
Development (including using
examples and specific details)
Prose style (including transitions,
sentence structure, diction)
Conventions/grammar
3 classes
2 classes
3
classes
8
classes
4
classes
4
classes
9
classes
7
classes
Other:
3 classes
1 class
2
classes
1 class
3
classes
4
classes
1 class
5
classes
2 classes
Relative amount of time spent on the following writing issues (total classes
observed: 12). Note that in one case where students were doing group work,
responses differed depending on which groups were observed. In the case of
this class, both observers’ ratings have been included (total rating for 13
classes).
Discussion:
We will focus on two notable conclusions that we draw from the above data:
1) First, it should be noted that all the issues listed in the observation protocol
were indicated as present in some form in the classes observed. In fact, none of
the issues were observed in fewer than 4 classes. This suggests the wide range
of issues that are consistently treated in the classes observed, and that English
305 is not systematically ignoring any of the issues commonly addressed in
composition courses or focusing on one issue to the exclusion of all others.
2) Second, and conversely, the privileging of certain issues over others is of note.
The highest numbers are 9 (number of classes observed in which prose style
was not addressed at all, and number of classes observed in which critical
thinking played a significant component in the lesson), 8 (number of classes
observed in which organization of writing was not addressed), and 7 (number of
classes observed in which there was no treatment of conventions/grammar). In
11 of the 13 classes, critical thinking played a dominant or significant part, and
attention to content of student writing was dominant or significant. Conversely,
1 class
treatment of the more mechanical issues associated with writing was less in
evidence: 10 of the 13 classes paid little or minimal attention to prose style, 12
paid little or no attention to conventions/grammar, and 8 paid no attention to
organization. These observations, if they represent the course as a whole, can
be read as
 confirming the validity of the compositionists’ rubric developed and used in
Year 1 of this study, in which critical thinking and quality of ideas
addressed in student writing are given precedence over mechanical
matters,
 suggesting the validity of the initial hypothesis of this study that writing
expectations are different between compositionists and educational
professionals (provided that it can be shown that educational
professionals would not also teach writing classes in which critical thinking
and content of student writing are privileged over attention to prose style,
organization, and conventions/grammar), and
 evidence that English 305 instructors are teaching writing in accordance
with most current research, scholarship, and practice in the field of rhetoric
and composition that argues for and demonstrates the efficacy of seeing
critical thinking as crucial to development in writing and of working with
grammar in the context of student writing and last-stage revision rather
than as isolated drills and course focus.
Observers’ Comments on Classes Observed:
Question 1: Overall impression of student engagement level
Observers noted that, in general, students seemed more engaged when they
were interacting with each other (e.g., in peer workshops, when responding to
other students’ presentations). This kind of effective interaction does not obviate
the need for careful teaching, since students had to be well-prepared by the
instructor to interact effectively with each other. Where interaction was mainly
between instructor and students, the students seemed less engaged (with the
exception of one class, where the instructor’s manner of speaking and interacting
with the students seemed to hold their attention).
Question 2: Overall impression of students’ attitudes toward writing and toward
their own writing
Varied widely. In many cases, observers were not able to ascertain students’
attitudes toward their writing; in some cases students seemed overly concerned
with pleasing the instructor and/or completing the assignment “correctly,” while in
a few cases students did seem to have a sense of ownership of their writing.
Question 3: Overall impression of the nature of teacher talk
Observers noted a wide range of teacher talk: instruction giving, coaching,
commenting, facilitating, using humor to connect with students, asking questions,
and synthesizing students’ comments. In some cases, instructors were quite
directive, but the observers commented frequently on instructors’ non-patronizing
attitudes toward their students.
Question 4: Overall impression of student talk
In some cases, student talk was limited to responding briefly to the instructors’
questions; in other cases, students initiated and/or directed and/or dominated
discussion, giving presentations to peers, elaborating on opinions, giving
substantial responses to teacher questions, and applying concepts taught in the
course.
Question 5: Describe the classroom atmosphere
In general, the atmosphere in English 305 classes is comfortable and students
are encouraged to take risks. In almost all cases, it seems that the instructor
wants to create a “meeting of the minds” approach in the classroom, an ideal
whose achievement is in evidence in some classes, though in other cases this
seems to be an as yet unrealized hope.
Discussion:
While the observers noted great variety in the type of instructions, talk, and
discussion in the classes observed, overall it is clear that there is a considerable
amount of interaction between teacher and students and among students in
these classes, and that class atmosphere is generally friendly. These
observations are in keeping with the findings of the tallies of time spent on
primary activities in these classes, in which discussion dominates as a mode of
instruction. English 305 demonstrates the dialogic nature of effective education
and the potential for all disciplines to challenge higher education's current testing
ethos and the return to direct instruction at all educational levels, an ethos and
return that have many students entering classes burdened by institutional
expectations and constraints, and failing to engage in learning experiences in the
classroom. It may be inferred from our observations that the most productive
classroom experiences are those where both the instructor's and student's voice
are recognized as legitimate and relevant to the topic at hand. While our
observations noted some degree of pedagogical variance, it is clear that
instances of student participation, group activity, and student-led discussions
resulted in a more effective pedagogical environment. Finally, our observations of
English 305 suggest that studies such as this warrant closer and continued
examination, not only for a better understanding of writing studies but of all
disciplines and the craft of teaching itself.
D. Philosophies of Teaching Writing
When asked directly about their teaching philosophies, instructors seemed to
share of view of writing as a form of empowerment. Several described writing as
a powerful tool for understanding the self and the world, and a means for
transforming the self into a “citizen”. One instructor revealed that her view of
writing is influenced by Paulo Freire, a Brazilian philosopher of education who is
credited with laying the foundations of “critical pedagogy” (a Marxist, anticolonialist paradigm). Thus, the relations of power and issues of inclusion and
exclusion are on the minds of 305 instructors and guiding their work in the
classroom.
In contrast to these views, others defined the power of writing in more
individualistic and less moral terms. For example, some described writing as a
tool for generating ideas, a mode that fosters critical thinking, and a means for
reaching and shaping an audience.
In all of these descriptions, only one instructor described writing as “a process.”
This was surprising because in response to other interview questions, the notion
that writing is a process was consistently revealed. For example, when asked to
define their course objectives, several explicitly said how teaching “writing is a
process” is their primary objective. Others had variations on this answer and said
they aimed to teach that writing is a lifelong process, that it is something that
can’t be learned in the span of one course, and it is an activity that entails
revision. The notion that writing is a process is also reflected in instructors’
comments on valuable scholarship. Several mentioned valuing Peter Elbow and
Donald Murray’s work, and workshops given by their colleague, Irene Clark,
whose work in composition s strongly informed by these theorists. In sum, it is as
if the “writing as a process” notion is taken for granted since few explicitly
addressed it in their comments, yet many responses revealed that most of the
instructors are taking this approach when teaching.
In addition, the responses reveal that the group of instructors generally
approaches teaching writing as a “doing” subject. Only one or two instructors
occasionally directly lecture about the process. Most, however, actively engage
by getting them to do the writing process. Sometimes this entails writing and
reading critically in class, critiquing each others’ work and formulating
suggestions for revision. In classes where teachers did most of the talking,
generally, teacher talk was aimed at generating a whole class discussion and at
taking students through an aspect of the writing process such as brainstorming
and rethinking and clarifying arguments.
A number of instructors view teaching writing as a form of coaching. This was
evident in some of the teacher talk during lessons. For example, one instructors
frequently attempted to encourage her students to keep on with their writing by
providing supportive advice. For example, she was observed saying to her class,
“trust that you have some insight into the world when you write.” On another
occasion said to the class, “I’m in love with your writing!” The coaching approach
is also visible in teachers’ comments about their views of the day’s lesson and
their views on what helps students to learn. Several instructors said that they aim
to create a supportive and nurturing environment. They do this because in their
view writing is “hard work” and students need to cope with the struggle in order to
improve. One instructor went so far as to describe her support for students as
“giving them permission to write badly.” This comment reflects the notion that
writing is difficult and requires support. It also reflects the idea that writing is a
process: one learns to turn “bad” writing into “good” writing.
E. Perceptions of Students
Overall, a picture of student-oriented instructors emerged from this study. Across
the board, instructors appeared to have given their students’ needs a good deal
of thought. The attention that instructors give to their students needs is evident
in a long list of very specific responses to the question, “What would best help
your students to learn?” Instructors feel that students would learn if class were
fun, if they had opportunities to share with classmates and to work in groups, if
they built self-esteem, if they read and wrote in class, if they had conferences
with instructors, if they had focused on content and form, if they clarified the
objective of their assignments, if they learned organizational skills, and they
engaged reading as critical and active learners. The long list of possibilities
suggests that these teachers pay close attention to their students, and try to
reach them using multiple strategies.
Teachers also perceive a number of constraints that mediate students’ abilities to
perform. Some of these issues appear to be circumstances that are beyond the
control of teachers. For example, when asked how one would differentiate
instruction, teachers responded by saying that some students work too many
hours at their jobs and do not put enough time into their studies, some have
misaligned expectations of the course and of university learning in general and
therefore do not benefit from instruction. Some teachers view students as having
unequal backgrounds and therefore a number are disadvantaged in the
classroom. Some teachers noted that students have ELL issues and are
therefore also disadvantaged in the class.
All instructors expressed the view that students have valuable insights that
students can help and benefit from each others’ experiences. This view of
students is expressed in teachers’ approaches to providing feedback . Nearly all
felt that peer small-group work was very productive . One instructor notes,
“Students like working in groups. They serve as a real audience for one’s writing.
They help students figure out where other examples are needed. They feel
comfortable when working in groups. They like to work with each other, help one
another.” That said, not all instructors are sure how to organize groups so that
students benefit from each others’ input. In fact, one teacher notes that some
students ignore their peers’ input. For this reason, she prefers to hold individual
conferences with her students.
Across the board, it appears that teachers genuinely appreciate their students
and see them as human beings with feelings, experiences, and points of views
that deserve respect and thoughtful and purposeful teaching. That said, the view
that teachers could only do so much for students also emerged. One instructor
laments that she gives students the option to revise their papers for a higher
grade, however, very few take her up on this offer. She also does not provide
extensive feedback on first drafts because students usually haven’t done enough
work to make it worthwhile. Another teacher notes that she had to change her
lesson plan because students did not do the homework. In short, it appears that
teachers are willing to and enjoy investing their time, energy, and creativity into
teaching and it is their perception that their work pays off for a portion of the
students. They see others in their classes as not being reached and attribute
some of this to the student contribution to the writing process dynamic.
F. Teacher Identity
In our interviews with teachers, we posed questions about teachers’ views of
themselves as instructors, writers and as developing professionals. In this
section, we will comment on the picture that emerges for each of these
categories.
Instructor as Pedagogue:
It is interesting to observe that the instructors are highly fluent when it comes to
articulating pedagogy, despite the limited formal training that most of them have
had in education. The instructors were able to clearly articulate and express with
nuance their course objectives, knowledge of a broad range of teaching
strategies, knowledge of how to set up these strategies in the classroom ( i.e. in
order for groups to work one has to have guiding questions, train the students to
a certain extent, etc.). Where instructors have limited knowledge of pedagogy is
in the area of assessment. Most could say how they would assess learning (e.g.
scoring essays, quizzes, etc.). However, limited strategies were mentioned.
Moreover, many seem to rely on assessing students’ verbal expressions in class.
This approach tends to produce a biased and incomplete picture of assessment.
Instructors also exhibited a limited ability to express their approach to
differentiated instruction. They tended to mention general qualities of students
that impeded learning (e.g. students work too many hours at their jobs, student
have unequal backgrounds, students are not completely socialized into university
culture, etc.). None of the instructors were able to outline how they would
differentiate instruction in the case that students exhibited different levels of
understanding of the writing process (e.g. difficulties developing a sensitivity
towards audience, or an uneven grasp of the concept of argumentation, etc.).
The above two findings are not unusual, however. They echo findings in the
CSUN TNE study of new math teachers (Gainsburg, et. al. 2008), which shows
that individuals who have had exposure to assessment and differentiated
learning also struggle to articulate their teaching approach in these areas.
Assessment and differentiation may be areas that in general are infrequently
addressed in teacher training and on-going professional development.
Several instructors approach teaching as they approach writing—it is a process
that entails reflection, creativity, hard work, on-going learning and engagement.
The view of teaching as a process was expressed by several instructors who
spoke openly with interviewers about their interest and fears of adopting new
pedagogical approaches. One instructor expressed an interest in experimenting
with peer workshops in the class. However, she is concerned that students will
not appreciate the value of each others’ feedback. Another instructor spoke of
her desire to improve her ability to lead whole class discussion. She described
needing to learn how to ask the “right” questions. And, another instructor invited
us to observe a new lesson on writing abstracts. That instructors shared with us
their misgivings, self critiques and experiments with pedagogy reflects how
engaged instructors are, and how they view teaching as something that is
learned and improved upon with time.
Teacher as Writer
We considered it important to ask teachers if and how they personally identified
with the craft of writing. Indeed, all of our instructors see themselves as writers.
Half of our sample writes fiction and/or poetry. Others write for academic
audiences. Some discussed other ways in which writing has special meaning in
their lives. For example, one said emails and organizing her datebook are
important uses of writing in her life. Another pointed out that writing has
importance in her life because she trained her children to do it.
The instructors have a variety of terms for describing themselves as writers.
These terms include: poetic, lyrical, resisting boundaries, passionate, witty,
academic writer, storyteller, feminist and working class writer, and not verbose.
The broad range of responses demonstrates the diversity and creativity of 305
instructors. It also demonstrates that instructors have an important connection
with writing, which according to some, factors into their role as teachers. For
example, when asked what teachers need in order to further develop as
instructors, more than one person expressed the desire to have more time to
publish her own writing. One teacher explicitly said that she wanted more time to
write in order to apply her personal experiences as a writer to teaching writing.
Another person said that she desired to evolve as a professional writer. It
appears that instructors believe that it is important to write in order to teach
writing.
At the same time, it came across in the interviews that a few teachers are
frustrated writers. Several want time to write and are not actually writing very
much due to their teaching loads and administrative responsibilities.
Teacher as Professional
All of the instructors in our sample articulated a desire for on-going training and
exposure to new ideas. Several would like the opportunity to attend the CCCC
conference, the premier professional meetings in the field of Composition and
Rhetoric. Some wish that they could receive department support for this
opportunity. At least two feel it is necessary to become more proficient with
technology. Others wished for the conditions for teaching to change. For
example, some believe that having a classroom with the appropriate amount of
furniture and space would improve their teaching. Others want fewer students,
less grading, and more time for preparation.
Of the obstacles that block teachers from becoming the best professionals
possible, teachers reported relatively few issues. Two mentioned that there are
few opportunities to go to conferences. Others noted that there is too much
administrative work to do and a lack of financial support for professional
development. These responses may reflect how our sample is comprised of part
time instructors (some of whom are in the process of finishing their doctorates
and thus have a strong interest in going to professional conferences), and full
time faculty (some of whom are given many administrative responsibilities).
G. Approaches to Responding to Student Writing
We felt that it was important to ask instructors about their approaches to
responding to student writing. How teachers respond to student writing helps fill
in a crucial piece of the picture of what teaching in 305 looks like.
We found that all instructors feel that responding to student writing is crucial to
the learning process. Most instructors reported using at five different approaches
to providing feedback. The most popular strategies are writing comments on
paper drafts, writing comments on final versions, holding conferences with
students, and organizing peer small group workshops. No instructors reported
recording audio comments and few hold group conferences with students.
These varied approaches suggest that teachers are aware that students learn in
different ways, and need input from instructors. It also reflects the belief that
students also benefit from peer input.
According to the responses, most instructors spend 15-20 minutes per paper
writing responses. At least two have spent 45 minutes commenting on a single
students’ draft. This is an impressive amount of time considering the number of
essays that are typical assigned in 305, the number of students in a 305 class
(~27), and that many instructors teach multiple courses.
The approach to these responses raises some important questions: How will
new teachers from the Liberal Studies program compare with these instructors in
terms of their ability to articulate pedagogical strategies, and things like
assessment and differentiated instruction, given that pedagogy is a part of their
training when it has not been a part of these instructors’ training.
Summary and Analysis of Instructor Comments on Student Papers
Two instructors provided a total of five sample student papers with instructor
comments. In addition to marginal and end comments, corrections, and
annotations, these papers contained scores/grades ranging from C- to A+.
Instructor writing on the student papers included the following:
 highlighting of phrases/sentences
 marginal comments (including questions, evaluative comments,
suggestions, and engagement with student’s ideas)
 end comments
 circling of words/phrases
 corrections (mainly of style and mechanics problems)
 smiley/frowny faces
One instructor wrote about 10 marginal comments per page while the other wrote
about 3 marginal comments per page. End comments were each about one
paragraph in length and focused on content and organization of papers. While
the end comments did refer to specific aspects of the particular paper, they never
gave specific examples or specific revision suggestions. The two instructors
differed in their approach to a weaker vs. a stronger paper. One instructor did
not give significantly different types or amounts of feedback on her students
papers, while the other mostly praised the stronger paper and explained what the
student was doing well, and included more suggestions and explanations of
errors in the case of the weaker paper.
Given the small sample, it is difficult to draw conclusions about paper
commenting in English 305 as a whole.
One thing that clearly merged in the follow-up interviews, which were dedicated,
in large part, to instructors’ approach to student feedback was a sense of the
time-commitment they have to evaluating and critiquing student work. Instructors
reported spending anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour per essay, focusing
(according to the self report) on content issues primarily.
H. Politics of the Study
We began this project aware of the sensitive nature of classroom observation.
Like an uncertainty principle, we recognize that an observer’s presence
influences the classroom dynamic. We decided that we would remove ourselves
as much as possible from that dynamic. We agreed that there would be only two
observers per class visit; each observer would sit quietly in the back of the room.
That only seven of a total of fourteen instructors agreed to participate in this
study could suggest several tangential and immediate problematics tied to
institutional observation. For example, while some instructors are open to
observations, others see the study as an intrusion on their privacy, and some
worry that their students will see institutional observation that way, too. Some
instructors are concerned that these observations will result in hasty or wrongful
conclusions based on one or two observations, abstracting comprehensive
pedagogy rather than a “teaching moment.” The nature of writing and writing
instruction is varied enough where some instructors focus on one specific aspect
of writing at one point in the semester and other instructors at another point.
Some instructors, for example, introduce grammar exercises at the semester’s
end and others at the beginning. Some instructors spend a greater amount of
time on in-class writing in the beginning of the term and others at the end. This
difference in teaching could result in generalizations about how English 305 is
taught. Without consideration of such differences, our tallies of class activities
would be skewed.
Furthermore, our lecturers, like other casual laborers that comprise the
university’s flexible labor base, are particularly aware of their exploitative
situation, and many are not comfortable participating in a study that benefits the
university; that is, many lecturers, adjuncts, and teaching assistants work on a
part-time basis with little or no benefits, e.g., no healthcare, office, telephone, or
computer. These flexible laborers believe that they are already functioning as a
cost-effective strategy for the university and feel that their labor is not adequately
compensated for. They find the voluntary exercise of observation further
exploitative. We recognize that the one-hundred-dollar gift certificate payment
could be part of the problem.
I. Conclusion and Directions for future research
The larger goal in this study has and continues to be to examine how we teach
writing K-16 and what approaches are most effective in helping both candidates
and pupils to be better writers. In 08-09, we’ll follow teacher candidates into
classrooms to begin to study how well good writing (and good University writing
instruction) correlates with pupil performance. Long term, we’ll want to continue
to follow the teachers in this sample to see what impacts writing scores on
quantitative measures and what qualitative improvements students make based
on teacher practice.
All the researchers on this project were struck by how dedicated and thoughtful
the faculty who teach ENGL 305 are. They’ve thought a lot about writing, what it
means, and how to teach it to students. Their approach to teaching is thoughtful
and extremely articulated. They work tirelessly at making their classrooms
learning-centered and find the need for improvement critical. They know what
they want to accomplish in their classes, have a plan for accomplishing it, and
work throughout the semester to make that plan happen.
Where there does seem to be some breakdown is the ability to assess student
progress beyond grades. Perhaps a larger assessment instrument for writing
within composition classes (and across the disciplines) might be examined as a
University-level effort. We do need to be able to track students’ progress in
acquiring writing skills, as it is one of the core competencies at the University.
Appendix A:
Pre-Interview Survey
Background Information About You
1. Name: ______________________________________________________________
2. Languages other than English that you speak: _______________________________
3. If you speak other languages, what is your level of fluency?:
_________ (fill in language); (circle): completely fluent/ somewhat fluent/
conversational
_________ (fill in language); (circle): completely fluent/ somewhat fluent/
conversational
4. How do you identify yourself culturally and/or ethnically? ___________
5. Please describe your education beginning with high school:
Institution/Address
Dates
Degree
Attended
Earned
Any special programs/classes
such as A.P., BA
major/minor,
special research projects.
Please note your specialty of
graduate studies
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
________
________
________
________
________
________
______
______
______
______
______
______
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
6. Describe your teaching experience:
Ex. In what schools have you taught including CSUN? What other formal or
informal teaching experiences have you had?
School/Institution/Organization
Students
Years
Courses Taught
Grade or Level of
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
____
____
____
____
____________
____________
____________
____________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
____
____
____
____
____________
____________
____________
____________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
7. What additional coursework/workshops have you taken relevant to teaching
composition?
Thank you for telling us about your background.
Background Information About the Class To Be Observed
1. Meeting time and place of the course:
________________________________________________________________________
____
2. Number of students officially enrolled in the class:
_________________________________
3. Ethnic or cultural characteristics of your students:
__________________________________
4. Number of English Language Learners in the class and languages spoken by students:
________________________________________________________________________
_____
5. Gender composition of the class:
________________________________________________
6. How many are transfer students?
_______________________________________________
7. If known, how many students are working more than 20 hours a week while taking a full
load of
courses?__________________________________________________________________
8. How many students are taking the class to pass the WPE? _____________________________
9. How would you describe the overall skill level of the students (relative to other
sections of the course you have taught before) ?
________________________________________________________________________
______
________________________________________________________________________
______
10. How would you describe the overall patterns of attendance and participation in this
class?
________________________________________________________________________
______
________________________________________________________________________
______
11. Is there anything unusual or special about the students we will observe? Please
describe.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________
________________________________________________________________________
______
12. Other comments you’d like to add about yourself or the class that we will observe:
________________________________________________________________________
______
________________________________________________________________________
______
________________________________________________________________________
______
Thank you for telling us about your class.
Appendix B:
Observation Instrument
1) Record the main components of the lesson, using the codes below. For each time
block, note the dominant code. Subordinate code may be indicated in parentheses. Use
multiple dominant codes only if class is separated into distinct groups with different
modes (e.g., 10 advanced Ss work ahead in the book while I leads review for 20 others).
P
procedural tasks (e.g., taking roll, collecting papers; do not include
explaining assignments
here)
D
direct instruction/lecture by instructor
WI whole-class discussion led by instructor (in description column, specify
instructor speaks
most of the time, students speak most of the time, instructor
asks open-ended questions, instructor asks non-open-ended questions, etc.)
WS whole-class discussion led by student(s)
G
group non-writing non-reading activity
S
student presentation/performance
I
in-class writing (in description column, specify brainstorming, drafting,
revising, editing,
individual writing, group writing, etc.)
R
in-class reading (in description column, specify individual silent reading,
student take turns reading aloud in whole class, reading in groups,
instructor reading aloud, etc.)
C
conference (in description column, specify individual or small groups
conference, instructor does most of the talking, students do most of the talking,
etc.)
X
coaching
O
other (write in)
Start
Stop
time
time
Example:
8:35 am 8:40 am
Elapsed
time
Component
(use codes)
5:00
D
Description
Instructor explains how students should prepare for the
following writing assignment
Start
time
Stop
time
Elapsed
time
Component
(use codes)
Description
Start
time
Stop
time
Elapsed
time
Component
(use codes)
Description
Observation Overview (complete immediately after the observation has ended)
1) Overall impression of student engagement level:
Depth? Widespread involvement? Overall impression of impact on student
learning?
2) Overall impression of students’ attitudes toward writing and toward their own writing:
3) Overall impression of the nature of teacher talk:
Mainly information giving? Problem posing? Facilitating student talk and work?
Managing behavior?
4) Overall impression of student talk:
Mainly short answer to teacher questions? Explanations of procedures? Choral
response or individuals? Student-to-student?
5) Describe the classroom atmosphere:
Are students encouraged to take risks? Are they encouraged to share? What kind
of rapport does
the teacher have with students? What tensions are there in the
room (if any)?
6) Relative amount of time spent on the following writing issues (check one rating for
each issue):
Issue
Example:
Content
Critical thinking
dominant
significant
minimal
none
x
Content (e.g., topics to be addressed in
writing assignments)
Purpose/genre (e.g., instruction in how
to construct an argument, how to write a
letter)
Audience
Organization
Research
Development (including using examples
and specific details)
Prose style (including transitions,
sentence structure, diction)
Conventions/grammar
Other:_________________________
Commentary:
Here please comment on the issues checked above. Were they treated explicitly or
implicitly? Were they addressed in the context of specific writing examples from students
in the class? Were they addressed in the context of specific examples of professional
writing? Were they addressed in more general terms? Etc.
Appendix C:
Post Observation Interview Questions (1)
Post-First Observation Interview Questions
Script: “I just had the opportunity to observe your lesson. Thank you very much. Now I have some
questions for you about your class, experiences in teacher education at CSUN, and specifically about
today’s lesson. You may skip any question if it causes any stress. Remember that your comments are strictly
confidential and none of your remarks will be associated with you by name. Do you have any questions
before we begin?”
A. Today’s Lesson
1. How would you define the objective of today’s lesson? (Lesson Objective)
2. How does today’s lesson relate to previous and forthcoming lessons? (Lesson
Relationship)
3. In planning and teaching today’s lesson, what experiences and information sources
were you drawing upon? (Today’s Sources)
√
Item
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
How you were taught in high school or college (Pre-teaching Education)
Experiences w/in your family (as a sibling, mother, daughter, father, son) (Family Experience)
Previous teaching (Previous Teaching)
Lessons from your coursework (Coursework)
Professional development (please describe) (Pro Development)
Suggestions from department chair (School Authority)
Suggestions from peers (Peers)
Knowledge of students (Students [“Pupils”])
Your own reading about teaching writing (Independent Reading on Writing)
Conferences (Conferences)
Scholarship in the field (Publications)
Other (Other)
Comments on the above items:
Pre-teaching Education:
Family Experience:
Previous Teaching:
Coursework:
Professional Development:
School Authority:
Peers:
Students:
Independent Reading on Writing:
Conferences:
Publications:
Other:
4. What kinds of experiences and information sources do you usually draw on when
planning and teaching? (refer to probes above) (Usual Teaching Sources)
√
Item
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
How you were taught in high school or college (Pre-teaching Education)
Experiences w/in your family (as a sibling, mother, daughter, father, son) (Family Experience)
Previous teaching (Previous Teaching)
Lessons from your coursework (Coursework)
Professional development (please describe) (Pro Development)
Suggestions from department chair (School Authority)
Suggestions from peers (Peers)
Knowledge of students (Students [“Pupils”])
Your own reading about teaching writing (Independent Reading)
Conferences (Conferences)
Scholarship in the field (Publications)
Other (Other)
Comments on the above items:
Pre-teaching Education:
Family Experience:
Previous Teaching:
Coursework:
Professional Development:
School Authority:
Peers:
Students:
Independent Reading on Writing:
Conferences:
Publications:
Other:
5. When you are planning class sessions what kinds of constraints, if any, prevent you
from teaching the way you’d like? (Constraints)
6. I saw you use [group work, certain technology, real-world connections, etc…]. Tell
me more about what it is like to use that in this class with this group of students.
(Reflections on Practice)
****Ask for each practice observed
What do you like about using this method? What challenges do you face?
What constrains you from using this method more often?
7. How did this class session turn out differently from what you planned?
(Unanticipated Outcomes)
8. What do you think these students learned from this lesson? (Pupil Learning)
9. How do you or will you assess what these students learned from this lesson? (Pupil
Assessment)
10. What do you think helps these students learn best? (Pupil Aids)
11. What challenges do these students encounter in their learning and how do you
modify instruction to address these needs? (Differentiated Instruction)
B. Teaching Philosophy and Teacher Identity
12.What are the main lessons that you want students to learn about writing from your
course? (Main Course Objective)
13. How would you describe your overall teaching of writing philosophy? (Teaching of
Writing Philosophy)
Probe: What do you believe students must do in order to write well? What must
teachers do in order to help students achieve their potential?
14. What scholarship has been valuable to you in teaching writing? (Valuable
Scholarship)
15. Have you found any conferences valuable? (Valuable Conferences)
16. How important is writing to you in your life/career? (Identification with Writing)
Probe: How do you use writing in your own life?
17. How would you describe yourself as a writer? (Writer Identity)
18. How do you expect to develop as a teacher of writing in the future? (Professional
Development)
Probe: What are your goals? What practices are you hoping to acquire/build
upon/eliminate?
19. What do you think would help you develop the most as a teacher of writing?
(Teacher Aids)
Probe: Additional knowledge, alternative structures, additional experience, additional
resources
20. What currently stands in your way of developing as a teacher of writing? (Teacher
Obstacles)
C. Additional Comments
21. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about your experiences teaching
writing, or about today’s class session? (Other)
Thank you very much for talking with us and letting us see your class. We hope that
you had as positive an experience as we did. We would very much like to come back to
visit again. Would you be open to another visit in a few weeks? What would be the best
way to contact you about scheduling this?
Thank you once again.
Appendix D:
Post-Second Observation Interview Questions
Script: “I just had the opportunity to observe your lesson. Thank you very much. Now I have some
questions for you about today’s lesson and about the feedback your students receive on their writing. You
may skip any question if it causes any stress. Remember that your comments are strictly confidential and
none of your remarks will be associated with you by name. Do you have any questions before we begin?”
A. Today’s Lesson
1. How would you define the objective of today’s lesson? (Lesson Objective)
2. How does today’s lesson relate to previous and forthcoming lessons? (Lesson
Relationship)
3. In planning and teaching today’s lesson, what experiences and information sources
were you drawing upon? (Today’s Sources)
√
Item
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
How you were taught in high school or college (Pre-teaching Education)
Experiences w/in your family (as a sibling, mother, daughter, father, son) (Family Experience)
Previous teaching (Previous Teaching)
Lessons from your coursework (Coursework)
Professional development (please describe) (Pro Development)
Suggestions from department chair (School Authority)
Suggestions from peers (Peers)
Knowledge of students (Students [“Pupils”])
Your own reading about teaching writing (Independent Reading on Writing)
Conferences (Conferences)
Scholarship in the field (Publications)
Other (Other)
Comments on the above items:
Pre-teaching Education:
Family Experience:
Previous Teaching:
Coursework:
Professional Development:
School Authority:
Peers:
Students:
Independent Reading on Writing:
Conferences:
Publications:
Other:
4. I saw you use [group work, certain technology, real-world connections, etc…]. Tell
me more about what it is like to use that in this class with this group of students.
(Reflections on Practice)
****Ask for each practice observed
What do you like about using this method? What challenges do you face?
What constrains you from using this method more often?
5. How did this class session turn out differently from what you planned?
(Unanticipated Outcomes)
6. What do you think these students learned from this lesson? (Pupil Learning)
7. How do you or will you assess what these students learned from this lesson? (Pupil
Assessment)
B. Feedback on Writing
8. We would like to find out about the kinds of feedback your students receive on their
writing. Please indicate which kinds of feedback the students in your class receive on
their writing:
(Check all that apply)
a) Instructor writes comments on paper draft
b) Instructor writes comments on final version of paper
c) Individual instructor conferences with students
d) Instructor holds group conferences with students
e) Peer small group workshops
f) Peer whole-class workshops
g) Recorded audio comments (e.g., on a cassette tape, on YackPack)
h) Written comments sent via email/WebCT (i.e., not written on student papers)
i) Other (write in):
j) Other (write in):
9. Please comment on each of the checked items above. What do you see as the value of
this method of providing feedback to your students on their writing? How do you feel
your students benefit from this type of feedback? What do you see as the drawbacks to
this type of feedback?
a) Instructor writes comments on
paper draft
b) Instructor writes comments on
final version of paper
c) Individual instructor conferences
with students
d) Instructor holds group conferences
with students
e) Peer small group workshops
f) Whole-class workshops
g) Recorded audio comments
h) Written comments sent via
email/WebCT
i) Other (write in):
j) Other (write in):
10. If you write comments in response to student papers, please tell us a bit about your
philosophy of writing these comments.
a) What kinds of comments do you write and why?
b) Do you usually write marginal comments or end comments or both? Why?
c) How much time to you usually spend responding to each paper?
d) Do you usually write drafts of your responses? Do you reread your responses after
you have written them?
e) What do you worry about when writing comments on/about student papers?
f) What kinds of responses do you receive to your written comments on/about student
papers?
g) Do you make use of these responses to your comments? If so, how?
h) If there anything else you’d like to say about the feedback your students receive on
their writing?
11. We’d like to collect sample student papers with instructor comments. Would you be
willing to give us two student papers with your comments on them?
Appendix E:
Post-Observation Interview Write-Up Form
Instructor Interviewed:
Interviewer’s Name:
Date of Interview:
Place of Interview:
Time of Interview:
Observation # (e.g. first observation, second observation):
Context: (sometimes there is contextual information that doesn’t fit into the categories
below but is important to capture. For example, a fire alarm goes off in the middle of the
interview and you aren’t able to finish…or the instructor has an emotion reaction to the
interview questions and aborts the process, or you learn something about the instructors’
views on writing/rationale for teaching a certain way from a previous, informal
conversation, or the interview is conducted over the phone….among other sorts of useful
contextual information….it all goes in this section of the write-up form.)
A. Today’s Lesson
1. Lesson Objective:
2. Lesson Relationship:
3. Today’s Sources:
√
Item
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
4.
√
(Pre-teaching Education)
(Family Experience)
(Previous Teaching)
(Coursework)
(Pro Development)
(School Authority)
(Peers)
(Students [“Pupils”])
(Independent Reading on Writing)
(Conferences)
(Publications)
(Other)
Usual Teaching Sources:
Item
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Comments
(Pre-teaching Education)
(Family Experience)
(Previous Teaching)
(Coursework)
(Pro Development)
(School Authority)
(Peers)
(Students [“Pupils”])
(Independent Reading on Writing)
Comments
J
K
L
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
(Conferences)
(Publications)
(Other)
Reflections on Practice:
Unanticipated Outcomes:
Constraints:
Pupil Learning:
Pupil Assessment:
Pupil Aids:
Differentiated Instruction:
B. Teaching Philosophy and Identity
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Main Course Objective:
Teaching of Writing Philosophy:
Valuable Scholarship:
Valuable Conferences:
Identification with Writing:
Writer Identity:
Professional Development:
Teacher Aids:
Teacher Obstacles:
Other
Interviewer’s Reflections:
(Your analysis, if any at this point, of what you heard, and a discussion of any questions
that you think would be interesting to explore given the information you just typed up)
Appendix F:
ENGLISH 305 OBSERVATIONS
Tallies
SPRING 2008

12 class sessions observed (11 in-person classes and 1 online class)

Total class time observed: 13 hours, 51 minutes

Because of the D bleeding into WI problem, I have appended two tables that
use a combined D/WI category for places where the observers noted a
problem disentangling the two
TALLIES, EXCLUDING ONLINE CLASS, OF PRIMARY ACTIVITIES
P
D
WI
WS
G
S
I
R
C
X
O
O
TOTAL
Minutes
Observed
55
Percentage of
Total Time
7.8
89
12.7
234
33.4
Whole-Class
Discussion Led
by Students
Group NonWriting NonReading
Activity
Student
Presentation /
Performance
100
14.3
54
7.7
8
1.1
In-Class
Writing
In-Class
Reading
Conference
Coaching
Other (small
talk)
Other (students
engage with
instructor after
class)
82
11.7
39
5.6
28
2
6
4
0.3
0.9
4
0.6
701 minutes
(note that total
does not equal
673 because of
28 minutes of
simultaneous
C/R)
100.1% (note
that total does
not equal 100%
because of
rounding)
Procedural
Tasks
Direct
Instruction
Whole-Class
Discussion Led
by Instructor
Comments
It’s often
difficult to
distinguish WI
from D
In the cases of
two classes, it
was difficult to
distinguish
between WS
and S
TALLIES, EXCLUDING ONLINE CLASS, OF PRIMARY ACTIVITIES
P
D
WI
WS
G
S
I
R
C
X
O
TALLIES, INCLUDING ONLINE CLASS, OF PRIMARY ACTIVTIES
P
D
WI
WS
G
S
Procedural
Tasks
Direct
Instruction
Whole-Class
Discussion Led
by Instructor
Whole-Class
Discussion Led
by Students
Group NonWriting NonReading
Activity
Student
Presentation /
Performance
Minutes
Observed
55
Percentage of
Total Time
6.4
89
10.4
234
27.2
100
11.6
54
6.3
8
0.9
I
In-Class
Writing
195
22.7
R
In-Class
Reading
Conference
Coaching
Other (small
talk)
Other (students
engage with
instructor after
class)
Other (students
write
independently
before class
begins and
during first part
39
4.5
28
2
6
3.3
0.2
0.7
4
0.5
45
5.2
C
X
O
O
O
Comments
In the cases of
two classes, it
was difficult to
distinguish
between WS
and S
In the case of
the online class,
almost all
categories are
subsumed
under I
of class)
TOTAL
859 minutes
(note that total
does not equal
831 because of
28 minutes of
simultaneous
C/R)
99.9% (note
that total does
not equal 100%
because of
rounding)
TALLIES, INCLUDING ONLINE CLASS, OF PRIMARY ACTIVTIES
P
D
WI
WS
G
S
I
R
C
X
O
TALLIES, EXCLUDING ONLINE CLASS, OF PRIMARY ACTIVITIES, USING A
COMBINATION D/WI CODE
D/WI
P
D
WI
WS
G
S
I
R
C
X
O
O
TOTAL
Combination of
Direct
Instruction and
Whole-Class
Discussion Led
by Instructor
Procedural
Tasks
Direct
Instruction
Whole-Class
Discussion Led
by Instructor
Whole-Class
Discussion Led
by Students
Group NonWriting NonReading
Activity
Student
Presentation /
Performance
In-Class
Writing
In-Class
Reading
Conference
Coaching
Other (small
talk)
Other (students
engage with
instructor after
class)
Minutes
Observed
60
Percentage of
Total Time
8.6
55
7.8
59
8.4
204
29.1
100
14.3
54
7.7
8
1.1
82
11.7
39
5.6
28
2
6
4
0.3
0.9
4
0.6
701 minutes
(note that total
does not equal
100.1% (note
that total does
not equal 100%
Comments
In the cases of
two classes, it
was difficult to
distinguish
between WS
and S
673 because of
28 minutes of
simultaneous
C/R)
because of
rounding)
TALLIES, EXCLUDING ONLINE CLASS, OF PRIMARY ACTIVITIES, USING A
COMBINATION D/WI CODE
D/WI
P
D
WI
WS
G
S
I
R
C
X
O
TALLIES, INCLUDING ONLINE CLASS, OF PRIMARY ACTIVITIES, USING A
COMBINATION D/WI CODE
D/WI
P
D
WI
WS
G
S
Combination of
Direct
Instruction and
Whole-Class
Discussion Led
by Instructor
Procedural
Tasks
Direct
Instruction
Whole-Class
Discussion Led
by Instructor
Whole-Class
Discussion Led
by Students
Group NonWriting NonReading
Activity
Student
Presentation /
Performance
Minutes
Observed
60
Percentage of
Total Time
7
55
6.4
59
6.9
204
23.7
100
11.6
54
6.3
8
0.9
I
In-Class
Writing
195
22.7
R
In-Class
Reading
Conference
Coaching
Other (small
talk)
Other (students
engage with
instructor after
39
4.5
28
2
6
3.3
0.2
0.7
4
0.5
C
X
O
O
Comments
In the cases of
two classes, it
was difficult to
distinguish
between WS
and S
In the case of
the online class,
almost all
categories are
subsumed
under I
class)
Other (students
write
independently
before class
begins and
during first part
of class)
O
TOTAL
45
5.2
859 minutes
(note that total
does not equal
831 because of
28 minutes of
simultaneous
C/R)
99.9% (note
that total does
not equal 100%
because of
rounding)
TALLIES, INCLUDING ONLINE CLASS, OF PRIMARY ACTIVITIES, USING A
COMBINATION D/WI CODE
D/WI
P
D
WI
WS
G
S
I
R
C
X
O