THE EFFECT OF EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION ON THE WRITING ATTITUDE AND
ABILITY OF FOURTH GRADE WRITERS
Barbara D. Sanders
B.A., University of La Verne, 1996
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Language and Literacy)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2010
THE EFFECT OF EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION ON THE WRITING ATTITUDE AND
ABILITY OF FOURTH GRADE WRITERS
A Thesis
by
Barbara D. Sanders
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Porfirio Loeza, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Cid Gunston-Parks, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Barbara D. Sanders
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Department Chair ___________________
Rita M. Johnson, Ed.D.
Date
Department of Education
iii
Abstract
of
THE EFFECT OF EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION ON THE WRITING ATTITUDE AND
ABILITY OF FOURTH GRADE WRITERS
by
Barbara D. Sanders
Students often see writing as a school related activity that is done for their teacher. They
do not see themselves as authors composing real work. This lack of authentic purpose
and limited view of writing can result in students having a negative view towards this
important skill. Students’ self-efficacy towards writing, however, can be an important
factor in their ability, their motivation, and their engagement. A good attitude, though, is
not enough. Beginning writers also need to learn how to write. One way to develop
those skills is with explicit teaching. Students also need good writing modeled. This
intervention looked at using explicit writing instruction and its impact on student attitude
and ability, specifically in the area of summary writing. To this end, eight fourth grade
students participated in a pullout writing program consisting of journal writing, SelfRegulated Strategy Development instruction, and composing of two I-search reports.
Four sources of data informed the researcher during this intervention. Students
completed both an attitude survey and a pre- and post assessment on summary writing.
Also, the researcher took anecdotal records of four students. Finally, the classroom
iv
teachers were informally interviewed. The findings of these instruments show that while
students had a high self-efficacy in writing, they were unsure of what good writing
actually is. They did demonstrate growth in their ability to plan and write a summary of
expository text. Both the anecdotal records and the teacher interviews indicate that
student attitude improved in the areas of engagement, motivation, and confidence.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Porfirio Loeza, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is definitely not a paper that I could have accomplished on my own. I give
great thanks to all the people who have listened to me talk at length about my thesis, and
a special thanks to those who were actually brave enough to ask me questions regarding
my progress and findings. Specifically, though, this paper would never have been
completed without the explicit help of Dr. Loeza and Dr. Gunston-Parks. Dr. GunstonParks helped me through the planning stages and was there as I took my first steps. It
was only through her guidance that I was even able to begin such a paper. Dr. Loeza then
provided invaluable attention, help, and feedback. His incredibly supportive approach to
being a thesis advisor was often the only thing that kept me motivated and engaged in the
writing of this paper. A heartfelt thank you is extended to my husband, Thurrell. His
artistic talent led to the inspiration of the PIE strategy, and he generously illustrated the
pictures used. Finally, I thank my family for living with me throughout this process. I
know I have been difficult and neglectful at times. Your understanding and patience
were of great benefit. Thank you so much.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 2
Rationale ..................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 5
Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................... 7
Limitations and Delimitations....................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Thesis ............................................................................................ 9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 10
Self-Efficacy .............................................................................................................. 10
English Language Learners and Writing ................................................................... 14
Journal Writing ........................................................................................................... 16
Formulaic Writing....................................................................................................... 19
Self-Regulated Strategy Development ........................................................................ 21
I-Search ....................................................................................................................... 24
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 27
Sample Population ...................................................................................................... 27
Instruments.................................................................................................................. 28
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 31
Procedures................................................................................................................... 34
4. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 37
Student Attitude Survey .............................................................................................. 37
Summary Writing Assessment .................................................................................... 46
Anecdotal Records ...................................................................................................... 50
Teacher Interviews ...................................................................................................... 53
vii
5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 57
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 58
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 60
Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 63
Appendix A. Student Attitude Survey ................................................................................. 64
Appendix B. Summary Writing Rubric ................................................................................ 66
Appendix C. PIE Student Page ............................................................................................. 67
References ............................................................................................................................... 68
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Figure 1: Pretest results for psychological state survey questions ............................ 39
2. Figure 2: Pretest results for general writing progress survey questions ................... 40
3. Figure 3: Pre and Post test results for psychological state survey questions ........... 41
4. Figure 4: Pre and post results of general writing progress survey questions ........... 42
5. Figure 5: Pretest scores for summary writing assessment ........................................... 47
6. Figure 6: pre and post test scores for summary writing assessment ......................... 47
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In today’s society, writing is an essential skill. Yet it is a subject with which
many students struggle. The act of putting their thoughts onto paper eludes them. They
need not only instruction in the art of writing, but also need to better their own view of
themselves as writers.
More and more school districts are turning to formulaic writing programs in the
hopes of quickly and effectively developing better writers. The problem with formulaic
writing programs, however, is that it inhibits creativity and freedom in student writing
(Lannin & Fox, 2010). Writing is the art of putting your thinking onto paper. In order to
produce genuine writing, authors need the freedom and opportunity to express their
individual thinking.
In addition, research shows that the more students know about themselves as
writers, the better able they are to write (Harris, Graham, Mason & Saddler, 2002). Lucy
Calkins (1986) researched the idea of writing being a process, not just a final product. To
promote better understanding of the writing process she suggests writing workshops that
enable students to work individually, collaboratively, and at their own pace. Donald
Graves (1996) found four key components to a good writing program. These include
giving the students time, choice when choosing a topic, the opportunity to hear responses,
and helpful evaluation by the teacher.
2
Keeping in mind that writing is a process, and that students need time, choice, and
evaluation, a pull-out writing program was designed to help students not only become
better authors, but see themselves as such. For this reason, the pullout writing program
combines process writing with explicit instruction.
Statement of the Problem
Writing is used in such a wide variety of ways by so many different
people that it would be near impossible to categorize it all. From email to grocery store
lists to school assignments, a large amount of personal writing is expository in nature.
Though this style of writing is so prevalent, it continues to be an area in which students
struggle (Read, 2005).
While most students engage in some form of writing daily, few think of
themselves as writers. Many believe that writing is a talent which they do not possess
(Saddler & Graham, 2007). When students view writing as a talent with which certain
people are born, they struggle to believe that they can better their own writing and be
successful authors themselves.
When students have a negative view of themselves as a writer, their written work
is negatively affected. Conversely, a positive view of themselves as a writer benefits the
students (Meier, McCarthy, & Schmeck, 1984). As a student’s mental disposition has
such great bearing on writing ability, it behooves the teacher to do what is possible to
better students’ view of themselves as writers. Through modeling and through
3
experiencing success, a student's self-efficacy may be improved (Pittam, Elander, Lusher,
Fox, & Payne, 2009).
For most elementary school teachers, time management is of constant concern
(Morton & Dalton, 2007). Teachers are continually juggling their schedule in an attempt
to make the best use of their time. In order to teach writing in the time allotted many
educators have adopted formulaic writing programs. One fault with such programs is
they emphasize the finished product (Brannon et al., 2008). Effective writers see writing
as a process, focusing on the process not the outcome (Calkins, 1986). An effective
writing program should combine several elements. Students need choice, time, and
evaluation (Graves, 1996). They also need effective models and activities that promote
success. In addition, it is imperative that students have a positive self-efficacy when it
comes to writing. Such a program requires ample instructional and workshop time. This
study attempted to address the following question: Would the proposed pullout writing
program help students to not only become better writers, but to see themselves as such?
Rationale
It is the students themselves who have large influence on the teaching of writing.
The students’ view of themselves as writers greatly influences their ability to write
(Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). One way to improve their self-efficacy in writing is to
provide modeling of writing and to give students various opportunities to experience
success (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Writers’ Workshop not only provides for these
opportunities, but also gives the writers a chance to explore their individual roles as
4
authors through progressing through the writing process (Harris, Graham, & Mason,
2006). The process for writing depends upon the genre in which the author is writing.
Expository writing requires a different skill set than narrative. In addition, expository
often has research as a requirement, yet another skill that students must learn. Of special
concern in the classroom are the English Language Learners. They are navigating
through the process of writing while at the same time learning to speak, read, and write in
a new language (Schulz, 2009). It is therefore especially important that these students
develop a positive self-efficacy when it comes to writing.
To help develop well-rounded and confident writers, students should engage in
both structured and unstructured writing (Calkins, 1986). One form of unstructured
writing is independent journals. When journaling, students have the freedom to write on
any topic and in any manner, they choose. This academic freedom enables growth in
writing (Lambirth & Goouch, 2006). Through expressing personal reflections, students
are able to better understand what it is they are learning (Hettich, 1990).
Writing time consists of both unstructured writing (journals) and structured
writing, or writing that is revised and edited. A popular form of structured writing time is
writers’ workshop. However, many students, when faced with the freedom and
independence of writers’ workshop do not know where to begin, or how to progress
(Santangelo, Harris, & Graham, 2008). Explicit instruction would be of benefit to such
students (Santangelo, Harris, & Graham, 2007). A form of explicit instruction that was
designed to not only help with student writing, but also student attitude, is Self-Regulated
Strategy Development (SRSD) (Zito, Adkins, Gavins, Harris, & Graham, 2007). The
5
skills learned through SRSD are not a formula to follow, but rather knowledge to use
while writing. Students take this knowledge to writers’ workshop and experience more
success (Harris et al., 2006).
Teachers face not only the demands of teaching writing, but also the hardship of
having limited class time and curriculum. The classroom environment changes over
time, and the emphasis placed on academic subjects varies. Currently the emphasis lies
with helping students pass the state test (Pederson, 2007). As writing is not testable in
most grade levels, its teaching has, unfortunately, had to take second place to testable
subjects (McCarthey, 2008). In an effort to continue a writing program despite the lack
of emphasis in this area, a pullout program may be used.
Methodology
The researcher selected the participating students from an elementary
school in the Sacramento City Unified School District. This particular school has
students ranging from kindergarten through sixth grade. Located in South Sacramento,
the school is rich in cultural diversity. The student population consists of many English
Language Learners; they make up almost 50% of the school. For this study, eight fourth
grade students participated in the pullout writing program. The eight students selected
were representative of the school as a whole in regards to gender and ethnicity.
A pullout writing program was created using information from the research
regarding writing and the best practices for teaching expository writing. This program
consisted of time spent on both writing instruction and actual writing time. The writing
6
instruction focused on the area of teaching and modeling expository writing. In addition
to the teacher modeling the process of expository writing, exemplary student work served
as a model. The actual writing consisted of three main components. First, students were
encouraged to write independently in their journals on self-selected topics. Next,
students learned how to use Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) skills to write
summaries of non-fiction expository texts. Finally, the students authored two expository
texts, in the form of I-search reports, which they took through the writing process and
published. The students first interviewed a partner and created a book about their
partner’s favorite things. The next book found the students writing a research paper
about a topic of their choosing.
The researcher used several measuring tools to help evaluate the growth of these
eight students. Writing samples were collected and analyzed, using a rubric, at both the
outset and the conclusion of the writing program. Students also completed a written
survey regarding how they see themselves as writers. The students completed the same
survey on the first and last day of the intervention. This survey helped to evaluate if the
students had a positive increase in their self-efficacy. During the course of the program,
four of the students were further evaluated using selective anecdotal notes. These notes
followed the process and development of the selected students a. Finally, the researcher
interviewed the classroom teachers of these eight students. During the interview, these
teachers discussed their perceived changes of the participating students.
7
Definition of Terms
This research involves the creating and implementing of a pullout writing
program. For the purposes of this research, the following definitions are used.
Journal – For the purpose of this study, journal writing occurred independently. Students
were free to select the topic and format of their journal entries. The only
requirement was that some form of written expression did occur.
I-Search paper – The I-search is a research method, originally designed for high school
students, which was modified for use in an elementary school pullout program
setting. This method encouraged students to use prior knowledge when writing,
and to develop a clear plan for creating the report.
Self-Efficacy – In his social learning theory, Albert Bandura set forth the idea of selfefficacy being an individual’s belief in how well he or she will succeed in any
given situation (Bandura, 1977). For this research, self-efficacy was looked at in
terms of writing and how students see themselves as authors.
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) – This instructional model is taken from
the work of such researchers as Steve Graham, Karen Harris, and Linda Mason.
The purpose of this model is to teach the students strategies through a series of six
stages, starting with activating prior knowledge, and ending with independent
work. The strategies taught for the purpose of this intervention were in the area of
summary writing.
8
Limitations and Delimitations of the Research
The supplemental writing program, once created and implemented, did contain
some limitations that possibly affected the outcome of the research. The time of day had
the potential to hamper the results. The intervention occurred directly after recess.
Students often entered the room still reacting to situations that had occurred on the yard.
In an attempt to counteract, and even harness, any possible high emotions, the
intervention period began with free journal writing. Students were encouraged to write
on any topic, and many chose to write about their recess experiences.
Another limitation was the short duration of the intervention. As it only lasted for
twenty days, it is unclear if more time devoted to the learned strategies would have
yielded stronger results. Also, as the treatment occurred at the beginning of the school
year, the participants needed some time to adjust to being back in school and not on
summer vacation.
While the researcher made every attempt to ensure that the participating students
were a representational sample of the whole school, delimitations occurred which effect
the study’s generalizability. There were few students in the study, only eight
participated. There was a small number of participating students so that the researcher
could keep anecdotal records and have a more detailed analysis of each individual’s
growth. Though the sample was representational, it was not random. The eight chosen
participants came from a pool of fourth grade students. Predetermined criteria were the
basis for this selection. English Language Learners with a score below intermediate on
the California English Language Development Test, and special education students were
9
excluded from participating. Once it was determined that four students from each fourth
grade class would be involved, the selection focused on students representative of the
school as a whole: an even number of boys and girls, three English Language Learners,
three Hispanic students, two African American students, two Asian students, and one
White student. The four selected for the anecdotal record were a representational sample
of the intervention group: two boys and two girls, two English Language Learners, and
one from each ethnic group.
Organization of the Thesis
Chapter 1 provided an introduction to this thesis. Therein the problems of
insufficient time for writing programs and the students’ struggles with self-efficacy in
writing were introduced. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the relevant literature in the
following areas: how students see themselves as writers, including self-efficacy; writers’
workshop and Self-Regulated Strategy Development; English Language Learners and
writing; independent journals; and I-Search and the research writing process. Chapter 3
will discuss the methodology used during the course of the treatment. Chapter 4 will
show the results of the research. Finally, chapter 5 will connect the study to related
literature and discuss the implications for further research.
10
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Self-Efficacy
Writing is not only a set of acquired skills. Much is required of the budding
author in order to learn to be a skilled writer. There are, of course, the written
conventions that must be followed. In addition, however, is the author’s voice and
purpose. For these more abstract components, it is necessary that students see themselves
as writers. A positive perception of self as writer enables better writing.
Self-efficacy
Having high self-efficacy in writing has cyclical benefits for the student author.
A student’s self-efficacy results in intrinsic motivation to write more. The resultant
increase in writing has the benefit of having a positive impact on writing performance
(Walker, 2003). The students’ beliefs concerning their self-efficacy have an important
impact with regards to writing. Researchers have postulated that a positive attitude
towards writing influences a writer’s outcome (Pajares, 2003). Attitude can be the
determining factor as to how much effort a student will exert and how they will respond
to difficulties that arise (Pajares & Valiante, 1997). Those students with high selfefficacy are not only more motivated to write, but they also write longer and strive for
higher levels of achievement (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). It is true, however, that a
11
positive self-efficacy may result in an exaggerated self-estimation of a student’s writing.
While the actual writing ability may be lower than writer thinks it is, a positive
perception of self does indicate that the student will have a higher writing level than the
one with a negative perception of self as a writer (Meir, McCarthy, & Schmeck, 1984).
Most importantly, regardless of high self-efficacy, students need the pertinent knowledge
and skills to truly become competent writers (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007).
As a positive self-efficacy is important to writing performance, strategies that
promote it are essential in a well-planned writing program. Modeling is one effective
way to promote a student’s perception of self (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). With the
proper modeling of strategy instruction, students can gain confidence in how they view
themselves as writers (Schunk & Swartz, 1993). Such modeling includes explicit
instruction with the instructor explaining strategies and then demonstrating them. After
the instruction, students have the opportunity to try the new strategy on their own.
Teachers or peers do the modeling. Seeing that a peer can accomplish a task may help
the learning writer realize that it is indeed possible to succeed (Schunk & Zimmerman,
2007).
In addition to modeling, another effective strategy is positive encouragement. A
caveat to this encouragement, however, is that it must be truthful and specific (Schunk &
Zimmerman, 2007). If the student is repeatedly told they can be successful, but the
success is not forthcoming, the positive influence on self-efficacy will not last. Properly
given, positive encouragement has the additional benefit of helping a student’s affect.
Bandura’s social-cognitive theories (1977) have shown that a person’s social
12
surroundings have an impact on learning. If students are nervous and stressed, they will
have a lower self-efficacy. Through honest praise and positive reinforcement, a teacher
can increase a student’s positive affect, which in turn increases positive self-efficacy
(Meir, McCarthy, & Schmeck, 1984.)
Student choice is also important in developing a stronger self-efficacy. Giving a
student choice is beneficial in a variety of ways. First, student choice increases
motivation (Harris et al., 2006). As was noted above, motivation is important to writing
propensity. When students are given choice, they perceive the lesson as having more
personal value (Turner, 1995). This perception leads to a final benefit of personal choice,
which is engagement. Engaged students will work harder and not be as discouraged by
difficulties (Turner, 1995).
The benefits of a positive self-efficacy cannot be underestimated. Through
carefully planned teaching practices, teachers can help students develop a better
perception of themselves as writers. Students’ beliefs influence their ability. Positive
beliefs result in higher academic achievement.
Authorial Identity
Students do not often think of themselves as authors (R. Graham, 1999).
Therefore, it can be a difficult task to determine an individual’s sense of themselves as a
writer, or their authorial identity. Students perceive authors as professionals who produce
published text. Students do not see academic writing as real writing. Instead, they see it
as merely an assignment (Pajares & Valiante, 1997).
13
One reason that students do not see themselves as authors is that they do not
perceive that they have ownership of their written work (Fisher, 2006). One way to
increase feelings of ownership is to increase interest (Pittam et al., 2009). Students
should also be encouraged to voice their own opinions, when appropriate, instead of
repeating others (Pittam, et al., 2009). Another important component of ownership is
choice. When students have choice in selecting the topic, and choice in determining how
they will handle the topic, they are more likely to see themselves as authors (Macrorie,
1988).
Authors understand that writing is a process and that the written work changes
through that process (Calkins, 1986). It is important for students to take ownership of
writing and to see that writing has a purpose (Graves, 1996). Students must understand
their role as an author. Such knowledge informs good writing.
Writing Knowledge
In addition to not seeing themselves as authors, students are further hampered by
the belief that writing is a talent with which you are born, not a learned ability. Yet
writing skills can be taught, and such knowledge facilitates the process by which students
become more able writers (Saddler & Graham, 2007). Saddler and Graham (2007) have
shown that more advanced writers do have more knowledge about writing than less
skilled writers. In short, writing is not an innate ability, and it would benefit all students
if they understood that writing strategies can be learned and used to better their personal
writing.
14
More competent writers not only have more knowledge regarding writing, they
also are more likely to ask for help when needed (Saddler & Graham, 2007). This
indicates that such writers have a better understanding not only of strategies, but also of
the entire writing process (Saddler & Graham, 2007). They know enough to know when
their own writing is missing something.
Writing knowledge can be learned, therefore it can be taught. Some knowledge
occurs implicitly through reading good writing (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1982). Of even
more benefit is when a teacher uses good writing as a model for writing students (Read,
2010). Teachers should explicitly teach the writing strategies which they want to be
learned. Free writing alone will not make better writers (Fitzgerald & Teasley, 1986).
These strategies may occur in the form of mini-lessons. Another form of instruction is
through modeling good writing to the class. The teacher or other competent writer can
write for the students, explaining the process as it occurs (Read, 2010).
It is imperative that students understand that writing can be learned. If students
believe that they cannot become a better writer, they will be discouraged before the
process even begins. Such discouragement would most definitely have a negative effect
on self-efficacy and therefore writing performance.
English Language Learners and Writing
Non-native English speakers or English Language Learners (ELLs) have an
increased difficulty when it comes to learning to write in English. Coming from a wide
variety of backgrounds, abilities, and proficiencies in their first language, these learners
15
are not all the same. The ELLs in America’s schools represent a wide array of cultures
and languages. Also, some students arrive at school with little to no schooling in their
primary language, while others do have academic knowledge in their first language.
Learning to write in English, however, does not automatically follow learning to
speak in English. Learning to write is a developmental process for all children,
regardless of their language status, and there is not a single pattern for this process
(Edelsky, 1982). Students need time and support as they progress from being less skilled
writers to more skilled writers (Samway, 2006).
When given the opportunity to engage in process writing, ELL students are more
able to develop their writing skills (Li, 2007). This type of writing includes modeling,
some freedom in topic selection, and peer support. Frequent conversations about writing
and the evaluation of writing also benefit students learning to write (Samway, 2006).
It is of greatest benefit to those students who are allowed and encouraged to use
their primary language in addition to English (Solsken, Willet, & Wilson-Keenan, 2000).
The use of their primary language is a powerful support for ELLs. They are using what is
already known to help construct meaning in a new language (Samway, 2006). To best
suit these students’ needs, such process writing should be combined with explicit
instruction (Schulz, 2009).
16
Journal Writing
Effectiveness of Journal Writing
Students participating in journal writing have the chance to write independently
and personally. When students are given choice, they are more engaged in their writing.
This engagement, coupled with the individual’s personal thoughts, fosters a student’s
growth as a writer (Connor-Greene, 2000). Thoughts, expressed in writing through a
journal, help students to connect on a more personal level (Hettich, 1990). Such
connections enable students to more fully understand what they are learning (Hettich,
1990).
Journals would not take the place of explicit teacher instruction. Such instruction
is invaluable and necessary to student writing development (Barrs, 2000). Instead,
journals should be used as a supplement to explicit instruction. Journals give students the
opportunity to learn not only through directed lessons, but also through expressing and
developing their own ideas (Rickabaugh, 1993).
Journals are also effective because they provide writing practice, and can be a
transition from informal to more formal forms of writing (Creme, 2008). As such,
journals allow students to write freely while learning how to write conventionally.
Graves (1996) emphasized that writing is a process, not a product. He states that students
should be given varied opportunities to practice and learn writing. One such opportunity
is the chance to write journals. Graves compared the development of writing to the
development of learning to speak. He states that writing, like spoken language, should
focus first on the content before on conventions. Calkins (1986) further explains that
17
writers should begin with their ideas and decisions on how to express these ideas.
Journal writing allows the freedom of process over product. As personal reflections,
students concern themselves with writing, not writing conventions. Thus, through
practice, students are better able to master the writing process and become better writers
(Graves, 1983).
Journal Writing as a Motivator
Motivating students to write more can be a useful tool in the advancement of
engaged and able writers. Students who participate in journal writing find it to be a
valuable tool (Connor-Greene, 2000). Students enjoy the freedom found within journals
of not only selecting their own topic, but of also selecting the form and amount of time
spent on that topic (Lambirth & Goouch, 2006). This interest functions as a way to
increase effort and engagement, which in turn can result in higher quality writing
(Connor-Greene, 2000).
Journal writing is a time of personal reflections. It is during this time that the
students are able to write about their own interests. They are also able to express their
own thoughts and ideas. It is a time when students communicate who they are, not just
what they know (Lambirth & Goouch, 2006).
As part of expressing who they are, students can use journals to communicate
their home culture. Students are able to write about their home life and families.
Journals give them the ability to do so while mimicking the literacy style of their cultural
background (Johnson, 2003). The home literacy style includes speech patterns, music
18
heard, books read, movies watched, etc (Johnson, 2003). The culture of the classroom
does not have to dominate during journal writing time. Instead, it can be intertwined with
the home culture to produce more culturally rich and rewarding writing (Bearne, 2003).
Journal writing, which allows for independent writing and thought, can be an experience,
which permits the students to present their home culture (Graham & Johnson, 2003).
Such an experience can be a motivator for students to write more (Lambirth & Goouch,
2006).
Journal Writing Method
Journal writing often provides students with motivation and writing practice. The
way journaling looks in the classroom, however, can vary greatly. Journals should be a
place where students have freedom of topic and expression, a place where students are
encouraged to include personal stories (Creme, 2008). As mentioned earlier, this
freedom should include freedom from conventions as well as freedom of ideas (Calkins,
1986; Graves, 1993). Such freedom may mean the journal writing consists of
disconnected text, pictures, and doodles as well as writing (Graves, 1993). Journals
provide an outlet for creativity and motivate writing (Grainger, Goouch, & Lambirth,
2005).
Journal writing should be part of the day’s scheduled activities, not as a
transitional activity to be completed when all else is done (Connor-Greene, 2000). This
is to ensure that the students have the chance to benefit from journal writing. It also
deters students from seeing journals as just busy work (Mills, 2008). The scheduling of
19
journal time offers both teachers and students the opportunity to experience independence
in teaching and learning (Graves, 1993). While journals have been shown to be effective,
relegating them to the second rate status of what to do when you finish the important
stuff, can have a detrimental effect on their benefit (Mills, 2008).The perceived value of
an assignment can have a tremendous impact into the amount of time and effort spent
completing it.
While journals are good practice for more formal writing, they should not be held
to the same standard as formal writing. It has already been stated that students should be
given freedom from following written conventions. In addition, teachers should not
provide an evaluation of the work completed (Graham & Johnson, 2003). Students may
be invited to share what they have written. However, they should be given the choice to
decline, and anything shared would not be critiqued (Graham & Johnson, 2003).
Formulaic Writing
When students learn formulaic writing, they learn a formula to follow. One
prominent example is the five-sentence paragraph: a topic sentence, detail sentences, and
concluding sentence. The goal behind such writing instruction is to help the students to
understand what is needed in good writing, and provide a framework to help them get
there (Schaffer, 1995). Formulaic writing instruction has experienced an upswing as the
educational climate has changed. As the nation strives to improve education, standards
have been developed and accountability, through state testing, has taken center stage
(Pederson, 2007). Many professionals in the educational field see the use of formulaic
20
writing instruction as a way to meet the writing needs of the students, while also giving
them the tools necessary for passing the state test (McCarthey, 2008).
A common concern for this type of writing instruction, however, is that it does not
allow for freedom in critical thinking (Rico, 1988). The focus in structure so inherent in
formulaic writing results in hampering the critical thinking and creative freedom of
writers (Wiley, 2000). While teachers and administrators sometimes see formulaic
writing programs as a stepping stone for beginning writers, it has all too often become the
only method used by writers of all skill levels (Nunnally, 1991). The result is writing
which is stifled in order to fit into the frame provided. While the structure, or form, of
the writing product is correct, the content is often unimpressive, unimaginative, and plain
ordinary (Nunnally, 1991).
Process writing, in contrast to formulaic writing, focuses on the steps involved on
the writing process more than on the final product. Instruction that focuses on the
process allows for independence, motivation, and much practice (Calkins, 1986). One
shortcoming of the process writing instructional approach, though, is that teachers do not
supply struggling writers with enough assistance and support (Harris et al., 2006). It is
this particular shortcoming that has made formulaic writing look so attractive to teachers
and students (Nunnally, 1991). The demonstrated need is for an explicit writing program
that allows for critical thinking and authorial freedom (Harris, & Graham, 2006).
21
Self-Regulated Strategy Development
Writing allows people to communicate through distances in time and space.
Writing is also of great value in the work force. Most employers list effective writing as
an important component of nearly all living-wage jobs (National Commission in Writing,
2004). This important tool, however, is something that many students have a hard time
mastering. Beginning writers often do not know where to start, and find the idea of a
written assignment to be daunting. These novice writers do not focus on the process of
writing, but rather focus on getting text onto paper (S. Graham, 1990).
Conversely, experienced writers see writing as a process that includes the
planning stage, drafting, revising, and editing (Harris & Graham, 1996). As beginning or
struggling writers do not focus on the process behind writing, they often create text that is
just a series of sentences that they feel are related to the topic, with little regard given to
organization and revision (McCutchen, 1988). In an attempt to help learning writers
better understand and use the writing process, the Self-Regulated Strategy Development
model was developed.
Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) is a model of explicit writing
instruction which is strategy based (Baker, Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Apichatabutra, &
Doabler, 2009). The instructional format of this model follows six stages. These six
stages progress from building background knowledge in stage one, to independent use of
the strategy in stage six, with much teacher support and scaffolding in-between. During
stage one, the teacher activates and develops any relevant background knowledge. If
students lack fundamental information needed for the strategy, knowing main idea versus
22
supporting detail for example, it is at this point that the teacher builds this knowledge.
Discussion is the focus of stage two. The students and the teacher discuss the possible
benefits that could arise from using this strategy. The strategy is then modeled in stage
three. This modeling may be done by the teacher or by skilled students. Memorization
occurs during stage four, when students memorize the steps and the mnemonics used to
teach the strategy. There is much teacher support at stage five. During this stage the
students practice using the strategy. The support is gradually reduced as students become
more confident in their use of the strategy. Finally, stage six is when students use the
strategy independently. Students and teachers also evaluate the effectiveness of the
strategy.
Through the use of SRSD, the teacher supports the students with such
components as modeling and memorization of the strategy. Memorization is often
assisted by mnemonics. In addition to the strategy instruction, students learn to use selfregulatory techniques. These techniques include goal setting, time-management, and
knowing when to ask for help (Zimmerman, 1998). SRSD has the goal of not only
teaching effective writing strategies and self-regulation skills, but of also enhancing
attitudes about writing (Graham, Harris, & Troia, 2000). An improved attitude can
contribute to increased motivation (Zito et al., 2007). In addition to being motivated, a
positive attitude could benefit the self-efficacy of the students. Such self-efficacy can
benefit the writer in such a way that he or she actually writes better (Fangley, Cherry,
Jolliffe & Skinner, 1985).
23
The SRSD instructional model has some shared characteristics with Writers’
Workshop. Both models emphasize the process of student writing over the product.
Students have some amount of literary freedom, and must write frequently. Students are
also encouraged to work together and with the teacher (Harris et al., 2006).
However, SRSD and Writers’ Workshop differ in substantial and important ways.
Most notably, SRSD consists of explicit and systematic instruction, as opposed to minilessons. As a result, SRSD is a less student centered approach to teaching writing. Also,
though the writing process is central to SRSD, there is more emphasis given to the end
product than is normally seen in Writers’ Workshop (Harris et al., 2006).
While Writers’ Workshop has been a valuable tool for teachers and students, it
may not have enough instructional power to help all students (Saddler, Moran, Graham,
& Harris, 2004). Through the integration of explicit lessons, such as seen with SRSD, it
is possible for students to show more growth in writing (Danoff, Harris, & Graham,
1993).
The use of SRSD was originally designed for use with struggling writers and
learning disabled students. However, several studies have shown that average writers can
also benefit from SRSD instruction (Glaser & Brunstein, 2007). Even students who are
making adequate academic progress show that they benefit from explicit and teacher
directed lessons (De La Paz & Graham, 2002). One of the great benefits of SRSD
instruction is its ability to be used with a wide range of children. With varying degrees of
support and intensity, this method has shown to benefit the special needs child as well as
the average child (De La Paz & Graham, 2002).
24
I-Search
Ken Macrorie, a college professor of English composition, was frustrated with the
quality and type of research paper his students were composing. He found that many
students merely rewrote already known information in their own words. They were not
making any effort to bring anything new to the topic (Macrorie, 1988). His solution was
to develop the I-search paper. The main goal of the I-Search model is to personalize the
research. The students self -select a topic that has great meaning to them. This
individualism and choice contributes greatly to motivation (Nolen, 2007). This
motivation translates to writers at all skill levels (Reigstad, 1997). Motivation is of great
import because it effects how well a student will write. Motivated students will put more
effort into their writing. They also show more resolve in accomplishing new and
complex tasks (Pajares, 2003).
Macrorie’s I-search paper follows a five step format. First, writers find a topic in
which they have high interest. Next, the writers consider what they already know about
this topic as a springboard for their paper. The third step allows for personalization of the
process by including why the writer chose the topic. Students continue this in
documenting the search, and telling the reader how the information was discovered. The
final step is writing down what has been learned through research (Macrorie, 1988). This
format gives the writers the opportunity to individualize their reading (for the research)
and writing (Joyce & Tallman, 1997).
25
Though this research method was originally designed with college students in
mind, teachers have modified it and used it in nearly all grade levels. Elementary
students may be more limited in the resources they employ, but the general format is
accessible to them (Bowen, 2001). These young writers showed more independence
when writing. There also was a marked increase in student interest and motivation
(Bowen, 2001). An added perceived benefit was that students had less difficulty in the
process of actually putting words onto paper. The narrative style of the writing facilitated
a greater ease with translating thought into text (Duncan & Lockhart, 2000).
While this method of teaching research reports does help students with
motivation, it does not directly instruct in the how-to aspect of writing research papers
(Joyce & Tallman, 1997). As this method was designed for more advanced writers, this
skill is assumed to already be learned. An added need for most elementary classrooms it
to initially teach the process of writing research (Bowen, 2001). Students motivated to
write about a topic will still need training and teacher support. The high interest level,
though, may be what learning writers need to keep their attention and focus.
Conclusion
This chapter familiarized the reader with some of the research in regards to selfefficacy and how it relates to writing, specifically in the area of summary writing using
SRSD. The following chapter will discuss the methodology used in the course of this
research. The selected students participated in a writing program that consisted of journal
writing time, summary writing instruction using SRSD methods, and expository writing
26
using a modified I-search process. Chapter 4 will discuss the results of the treatment. In
the concluding chapter, this treatment will be connected to related literature, and
implications for further research will be explored.
27
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
The teaching of writing is a common goal of fourth grade teachers. With limited
time in the day, and the great push to focus on the standardized tests, many teachers
struggle to meet that goal. In addition to the difficulty of finding time to properly teach
writing, students themselves see writing as something too difficult to accomplish. The
goal of this intervention was to provide a pullout program for fourth grade students in an
attempt to help to develop not only their writing skills, but also improve their attitude of
themselves as writers. Through clear, well-defined steps, students learned to summarize
in writing. Clearly defined expectations and procedures could assist the students and
increase their confidence. This chapter includes information about the intervention in
terms of sample population, instruments used, the methodology, and the procedures
associated with this treatment.
Sample Population
All individuals involved in the treatment identify with an elementary school in
Sacramento City Unified School District. This school consists of about 400 students. As
a culturally and linguistically diverse school, roughly 40% of students are English
Language Learners. The students attending the school represent the following groups:
African American (21%), American Indian or Alaskan Native (1%), Asian (22%),
Hispanic or Latino (40%), and White (6%). Located in South Sacramento, about 90% of
28
the population is socioeconomically disadvantaged. On average, the teachers at this
school have twelve years teaching experience, and all are fully credentialed.
For the purposes of this study, only fourth grade students and teachers were
selected to participate. Both of the fourth grade teachers, a male teacher with eleven
years experience, and a female teacher with eight years experience, were included.
Students were selected the first week of school, based on predetermined criteria. In order
to be eligible for the treatment, students had to be in fourth grade, be an English only
student, or have a Level 4 or higher English Language Learner status, and not be enrolled
in special education. The researcher selected eight students to meet the following criteria
as determined by an effort to reflect the statistics of the student population: four boys,
four girls, and three English Language Learners. The intervention group was culturally
representative of the school as a whole with three Hispanic students, two African
American students, two Asian students, and one White student.
Instruments
A variety of instruments measured the students in the areas of writing ability and
attitude. They were given the following pre and post tests: a self-efficacy survey to
gauge their attitude about themselves as a writer, and a summary writing assessment to
note any growth in writing a summary to an expository text. In addition to the student
measures, the fourth grade teachers participated in a series of interviews regarding their
observations of the participating students. Finally, the researcher kept anecdotal records
throughout the study.
29
Self-Efficacy Survey
The Writer Self-Perception Scale informed the modeling of the student attitude
survey. Diane Bottomley, William Henk, and Steven Melnick wrote and researched this
scale in 1998. They devised their survey in order to give teachers a tool to help assess a
student writer’s individual attitudes and perceptions of self as a writer. The researcher
modified the Writer Self-Perception Scale, for the purpose of this study, to contain
similar content, but present it differently. While the original survey consisted solely of
multiple-choice questions, this study’s survey consisted of nine multiple-choice questions
and eight free response, or open-ended, questions. The modified survey assessed fewer
domains than the original. The original survey asked questions regarding the domains of
general progress, specific progress, observational comparison, social feedback, and
physiological states (Bottomley, Henk, & Melnick, 1998). The survey administered in
this intervention asked questions only in the domains of general progress and
physiological states (see Appendix A). A five point Likert scale measured the multiplechoice questions.
Summary Writing Assessment
Students completed a pre and post summary writing assessment, which the
researcher administered. Students read a fourth grade level expository text reading
passage from the Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006). First, they
read a passage about Amelia Earhart for the pretest, then a passage about Jonny
30
Appleseed for the posttest. Students independently read the passage and wrote a
summary. The assessment was not timed. Upon completion of the assessment, the
summaries were scored using a five point rubric. Both the fourth grade teachers and the
researcher provided a score, and the average of the three given scores was the one used.
When necessary, the scores were rounded down.
The rubric score was determined by content, not mechanics, as content is the
focus of this study. Braxton (2009) designed the rubric for fourth graders demonstrating
their ability to properly summarize. As listed in the rubric, students are expected to
identify the main idea, show supporting details, leave out irrelevant information, write in
their own words, and include everything in a logical order in order to receive a five on the
assessment (see Appendix B).
Teacher Interview
The researcher asked the fourth grade teachers of the participating students to
answer questions during an informal interview. The interviews gave an idea of what the
teachers thought of the students as writers. The teachers also shared any perceived
writing growth noticed in the participating students.
Anecdotal records
While the treatment was ongoing, the researcher took anecdotal records of four
participating students. These notes focused on on-task/off-task behavior, class
participation, and amount of work completed.
31
Methodology
Students participating in this study were involved with the researcher for nearly
five weeks of assessment and instruction. Upon completing the pretest, students worked
for one hour a day, five days a week. The instructional time was divided into three broad
categories: journal writing, Summary writing using Self-Regulated Strategy Development
(SRSD) strategies, and writing research using a modified I-Search strategy.
Journal Writing
The first ten minutes of every lesson consisted of writing in journals, on whatever
topic was of interest to the student. The students were encouraged to view this time as an
opportunity to exercise their writing and engage in authorial freedom. The participants
understood that journals were to be used as graded writing, but a chance for each person
to express themselves in words. In order to model writing behavior and attitudes, the
researcher also participated in journal writing at this time.
Summary Writing Instruction
Following the journal writing, the students learned about summary writing. The
researcher modeled the SRSD instruction after the TWA strategy for expository reading
and writing (Mason, Snyder, Sukhram, & Kedem, 2006). The first week focused on how
to properly read expository text using the SRSD strategy of modeling with teacher thinkalouds, memorizing the strategy steps, and working collaboratively with the teacher until
the students are ready to be independent. The students learned the PIE strategy to help
32
them with better comprehension of the text. PIE is the researcher’s updated, modified
version of TWA (Think before reading, think While reading, think After reading). As
picture clues and mnemonics are an important component of SRSD, the researcher
decided that most students would not associate TWA with airplanes anymore. The
modified version represents the same strategy as the original – Prepare: think before you
read; Interact: think while you are reading; and Examine: think about what you have read.
The resultant pictures associated with PIE are familiar to the students (see Appendix C).
Students heard about PIE, discussed its uses, and saw it modeled before they
independently used the strategy.
Presented with picture reminders, the students learned about PIE being a three
step process. The first step, preparing to read, consists of thinking about the text with
which you have been presented and trying to determine the author’s purpose. Students
also learned to think about what it is they already know about the subject, and what
information they would like to learn.
The second step is to interact with the text while reading. Students were
encouraged to be aware of how fast or slow they were reading. They knew that they
could return to any part of the passage and re-read as necessary. Students paid attention
to the content they were reading. They were to check if what they thought they knew was
true, and to see if the passage included the desired information.
Finally, students had to examine what they had read. In this step, the students
learned to identify the main idea and its supporting details. They were also to
contemplate what it is that they have learned from reading the passage.
33
Starting in week two, the students learned the writing portion of PIE. During this
stage, through modeling and instruction, students started to take what they had been
doing orally and/or mentally while reading and write it down. Each step of the PIE
process was repeated, this time modeled with writing along with the teacher think-alouds.
During the interact portion of reading, students were taught how to take notes while
reading. While they examined what they read, students were encouraged to organize
those notes. During the final step of this process, started in week three, the students
proceeded to turn those organized notes into a summary paragraph about the written text.
Research Writing
The final twenty minutes of the treatment consisted of direct instruction and
independent writing, and gave the students an opportunity to put into action the
information they have been learning. Over the course of the four week intervention the
participating students had the opportunity to create two research papers, using strategies
modified from the I-search method.
The I-search method breaks the research writing process down into manageable
steps. The first consists of listing what you know, the second listing of what it is you
wish you know, and then finally listing your plan for acquiring that knowledge
(Macrorie, 1988).
For the first research paper, the researcher scaffolded the instruction to assist the
students with learning the process of writing a research paper by this method. Students
divided themselves into pairs for the purpose of interviewing their partner and
34
subsequently writing a paper about the partner’s favorite things. Students were able to
choose the topic of their second research paper. They then used the learned I-search
process to complete their project.
The favorite things research paper was completed during week one. During this
week, the researcher guided the whole group through the process of listing known
information, writing the questions that they want answered, and devising a plan for the
paper. The purpose of this paper was to guide students through the process. The students
and teacher/researcher completed much of the work whole group, excepting the actual
writing.
Starting the second week, students began the research project on the topic of their
choice. The process continued to be modeled, and then the students demonstrated
understanding of the modeled process by completing the task for their individual topic.
After the planning stage, the actual writing of the research paper coincided with
instruction on writing summary paragraphs so the students would have a better idea as to
how to approach reading and representing the researched material.
Procedures
The intervention described took place over the course of five weeks. The first
week consisted of identifying participating students and administering the pre-treatment
assessments. The second week is when the program went into action. Students worked
with the researcher for fifty minutes a day, five days a week in the school library. The
actual intervention lasted twenty days, with the last two being assessment days.
35
Students wrote in their journal for the first ten minutes. Journal writing was a
time to write freely, and the procedure did not change throughout the four week period.
The next twenty minutes found the students learning summary writing. On day
one, the students learned about the PIE strategy through the use of picture cards and
posters. There was also a discussion regarding the usefulness of the strategy and ways in
which it could prove useful. On day two, the researcher modeled the strategy using a
short expository text. On days three through five the researcher continued to model, with
more and more student input. By day five, the researcher facilitated the reading of the
text, but the students generated the thoughts used while reading.
Starting on day six the researcher began modeling the process with writing.
Through the rest of the week, through day ten, students participated in whole group
activities in which they read expository texts followed by creating written summaries.
Starting on day eleven, and continuing through day eighteen, students read
expository texts and completed the process individually. They continued to receive
support where needed.
Following summary writing, during the last twenty minutes of the intervention,
the students worked on their research papers. On days one through five, the whole group
listened to the lessons in order to learn the process. On day one, the students learned
about the I-search strategy and the favorite things paper. As a whole group, students
created questions to ask of a partner (not yet selected) and devised a plan as to the steps
they would take during the writing process. Students selected a partner and began partner
work on day two. They asked each other the predetermined questions while taking notes
36
regarding the answers. Days three, four, and five, consisted of the students learning the
writing process while they completed their paper.
Starting on day six, the students began their research paper on a self-selected
topic. In the interest of time, students determined the topic, but the researcher provided
the materials used to gather the information needed for the report. Much time was spent
the second week reviewing the planning and prewriting process. Actual writing did not
begin until week three. Students were able to work independently, with their peers, and
with the researcher while writing their paper.
Conclusion
The above described intervention occurred in the hopes of improving the writing
skills and attitude of fourth grade writers. The sample population was composed of
students from a socio-economically diverse school in the urban area of South
Sacramento. These students completed pre and post tests regarding their attitudes their
writing, and their ability to write a summary of an expository text. Teacher interviews
were also conducted and anecdotal notes taken. The intervention included twenty days of
instruction in the areas of summary writing using a Self-Regulated Strategy Development
method, and research using the I-search model, modified for elementary school. An
analysis of the treatment and the administered instruments is provided in the following
chapter.
37
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
The treatment involved in this study hoped to determine the effect of an explicit
writing program on not only the ability of fourth grade writers, but on their attitude as
well. The utilization of four instruments helped to gauge possible growth in these areas.
Students took a pre and post attitude survey and summary writing assessment. Four
students were more closely followed using anecdotal records. Finally, the researcher
informally interviewed the fourth grade teachers. The data gathered insinuated five
claims regarding the writing ability and attitude of the participating students. These
claims are the result of looking at the statistics of the writing attitude summary, and the
scores rewarded on the summary assessment. Furthermore, the researcher analyzed the
summary assessment, open-ended survey questions, the anecdotal notes, and teacher
interviews to determine further growth in writing. The findings are presented below.
Student Attitude Survey
Self-efficacy in writing is an attitude and belief an individual has about his or her
ability as a writer. In an attempt to better understand the self-efficacy of the participating
students, they completed a survey at the beginning and the ending of the treatment. This
survey, modeled after the Writer Self-Perception Scale (Bottomley et al., 1998), assessed
students in the areas of psychological state and general writing progress. In the area of
psychological state, students answered questions regarding how they felt about writing.
38
The general writing component asked questions in the area of how well the students
believed they wrote.
Multiple-choice section of student attitude survey
The first nine questions on the survey consisted of multiple choice questions
based on a five point likert scale. Each question has a possibility of earning forty points.
Seven questions, questions 1 – 4, 6, 7, and 9, asked questions regarding the students
attitude toward writing, or their psychological state (See Figure 1). Questions 5 and 8
asked the students about their perceived ability as writers, or their general writing ability
(See Figure 2). This survey is the grounds for three assertions about the student’s selfefficacy found below.
( I ) High student self-efficacy was evident prior to the intervention
The initial student attitude survey intimated that students began the treatment with
a relatively high self-efficacy towards writing. The psychological states portion of the
multiple-choice questions yielded a 66% positive result. The least favored form of
writing was in writing reports, with only a 48% positive attitude in this area. With a
positive score of 75%, writing at home was the most favored. Students liked writing at
school almost as much. They indicated a 73% positive rating in this area. Most of these
students suggested, with a 70% positive rating, that there should be more writing in the
classroom.
39
40
35
30
25
20
15
Physcological State
10
5
0
I like writing I like writing I like writing I like writing Writing is
stories
reports
at school
at home
fun
I wish I had
more time
to write at
school
I like to
write
Figure 1: Pretest Results for Psychological State Survey Questions
For the general writing component, there was a 55% positive rating for how well
students felt they wrote. Students were mainly confident in their ability as a writer, 75%
positive rating. However, they were unsure of what to include when writing, 35%
positive rating. The open-ended portion of the survey helps to explain this discrepancy.
The student answers indicate that they are unclear as to what constitutes good writing.
Students focus on the first survey was in regards to their paper’s appearance. Further
discussion on this subject is made later in the chapter.
40
40
30
20
General Writing
Progress
10
0
I have trouble I think that I
knowing what am a good
to write
writer
Figure 2: Pretest Results for General Writing Progress Survey Questions
Following the intervention, both areas on the multiple choice section of the survey
showed growth. The psychological state questions improved 10% to receive a 76%
positive rating. All questions in this area, except one, showed at least a modest
improvement in student attitude (See Figure 3). The one question to experience a slight
decline in positive attitude was question four, regarding writing at home. However, it
dropped only one point between the two assessments, not a significant difference. The
students’ attitude about writing at home remained high, while their attitude about writing
at school showed an increase.
The question experiencing the highest growth was question two, how students felt
about writing reports. This question showed a growth of 38%. Prior to the treatment,
report writing received a 47% positive attitude rating. The posttest revealed an 85%
positive attitude rating for the same question. Students participated in writing two reports
during the course of the treatment. These reports allowed for author choice and freedom.
The first report, writing about your partner’s favorite things, included much partner
41
participation and teacher support. The second report, an I-search paper on a self-selected
topic, was taken through the writing process independently, with as much peer
participation and teacher support as each individual author requested.
Another area of high growth was the attitude toward writing stories. This area
found a 23% increase in positive attitude even though story writing was not directly
involved in the treatment. The focus of the intervention was on expository writing.
Several students did decide to write stories during journal time, but narrative writing was
not a topic of instruction. Journals were a period of unstructured, free writing. The selfselected topics ranged from autobiographical experiences, usually about recess, to
invented stories. The format of the journal was also unstructured, and students were free
to continue a previous entry, or start a new one, each day. At least two students took
advantage of this freedom to write one long story, unrevised and unedited.
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pre-test
Post-test
I like
writing
stories
I like
writing
reports
I like
I like
Writing is I wish I had
writing at writing at
fun
more time
school
home
to write at
school
I like to
write
Figure 3: Pre and Post Test Results for Psychological State Survey Questions
42
The students’ attitude about their general writing ability showed a 26% increase.
The increase is the result of more students feeling that they were capable in the area of
knowing what to write (See Figure 4). This question had an increase of 45%. The
answers on the second survey showed that students think they are good at writing and
they are confident in their ability to know what to write. This is a marked difference
from the first survey, where students felt they wrote well, but were not sure of what they
should write. It is of interest to note that students showed a different understanding as to
the nature of writing in the two surveys, as discussed below, but do not show a difference
in how well they think they write.
40
35
30
25
20
Pre-test
15
Post-test
10
5
0
I have trouble I think that I
knowing
am a good
what to write
writer
Figure 4: Pre and Post Results of General Writing Progress Survey Questions
Research has shown that students value choice and personalization when writing
(Fisher, 2006; Harris et al., 2006; Turner, 1995). The I-search method of report writing
allows a high level of academic freedom. The results of the survey, specifically the
increase in favor seen in report writing, support this research. Students had the freedom
43
of not only the topic, but also of which content they would include in their report.
Students chose a high interest topic, and wrote with authorial freedom on that topic. The
survey implies that students responded to the I-search model of writing positively.
Free choice in writing, however, is not enough to ensure good writing. Students
learning to write often do not know what to do with the freedom given to them
(McClutchen, 1988). Students learned components of the Self-Regulated Strategy
Development (SRSD) instructional model. This model assists students by explicitly
teaching the writing process without following a formula (Zimmerman, 1998). The
answers given on the student survey indicate that the participating students found this
model to be helpful. The students specified that they had less difficulty knowing what to
write at the conclusion of the treatment than they did at the beginning.
Open-ended questions of student attitude survey
The second half of the attitude survey consisted of eight open-ended questions in
two areas: psychological state and general writing ability. Questions 1, 4, and 5 revolve
around perceived writing ability, the remainder around writing attitude. Students worked
independently to answer these questions. The answers to these open-ended questions
give a good idea as to how students feel about writing, and their ability to do so. These
answers also help to explain the thought process behind the answers given in the multiple
choice section of the survey.
44
( II) Students experienced growth in their understanding of what constitutes good writing
The survey answers indicate that students learned more about what good writing
entails during the course of the pullout writing program. The greatest area of change in
the pretest, posttest results of this component of the survey assessment was the way in
which student’s perceived writing. Answers on the first survey show that students
viewed good writing in terms of looks and spelling. The second survey shows that
students started to learn that good writing is about content.
When responding to the question “how do you feel about writing?” students
responded positively. They wrote that writing made them feel good and happy when
answering the first survey. The second survey did not show much change in their
answers. Students claimed that they felt that writing is fun and that they liked it. One
student, on both surveys, said that writing bored him. The other seven had positive
comments to make. Students entered the intervention, as already indicated by the first
half of the survey with a relatively high opinion about writing. For most of them, their
answers show that classroom writing is a positive experience.
The survey answers showed considerable change, however, when students
answered questions about their writing strengths and areas in need of improvement. The
original survey showed a stronger focus on the way their writing looked, with the second
survey showing a stronger focus on content. The strengths listed on the first survey
included variations on the idea of neatness and spelling: my writing is neat, I have good
handwriting, and I spell good. The second survey resulted in more content specific
45
answers: I think how I write details is good, I show action in my book that I make, and I
write good sentences.
Another area that showed some change was in the idea of why writing is
important. For both assessments, students did feel writing is important. However, the
pretest focus was on the importance of getting good grades. On the posttest, good grades
were still of import. There were some answers, though, that included that writing was
important so that you can share your thoughts with someone who is not there, and so one
day you can sell your stories and make money. There appeared to be some growth in
understanding the purpose of writing. Students no longer saw it as being done solely for
good grades. The young authors were beginning to understand that writing might have
importance outside of the classroom.
The students did not explicitly discuss what makes good writing during the
intervention. Students, however, did see good writing modeled. The SRSD instructional
method included much teacher modeling of good writing strategies. Students listened
and learned while the teacher/researcher modeled good writing through the SRSD
process. The change in understanding regarding the nature of good writing may have
been a result of such instruction (Zimmerman, 1998).
Students also participated in free and independent writing during journal time.
During this time, they learned that they were the authors of their text, and had complete
freedom over content. Research has indicated that journals allow students to focus on
content rather than form when writing (Calkins, 1986). The better understanding of the
importance of writing content may have developed as a consequence of this freedom.
46
Summary Writing Assessment
The second instrument involved scoring an independently written survey.
Students read a fourth grade level biographical text and wrote a summary of its contents.
They did not have a time limit for this assessment. The papers were scored using a five
point rubric. The rubric focused on the content of the papers, not on mechanics. Both of
the fourth grade teachers and the researcher scored each paper. The average of the three
scores was the final score, with results rounded down when necessary. The following
claim is based on the results of these assessments.
( III) Students showed progress in their ability to use the writing process
The assessment indicated some growth in the student’s ability as a summary
writer. The students’ use of the writing process, however, reflected the most growth.
The pretest scores show that none of the eight students passed the assessment with a
score of four or five (See Figure 5). Five students received a score of two; three students
received a score of three. Following the treatment, 50% of the students received a
passing score of four or five (See Figure 6). Three students earned a score of four, one
student earned a score of five, three students earned a score of three, and one student
earned a score of two.
47
5 points
4 points
3 points
Number of students
2 points
1 point
0
2
4
6
8
Figure 5: Pretest Scores for Summary Writing Assessment
5 points
4 points
Post-test: Number of students
3 points
Pre-test: Number of Students
2 points
1 point
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Figure 6: Pre and Post Test Scores for Summary Writing Assessment
48
A significant difference in the pre and posttests is found in the planning stages.
While not one of the eight students used a plan when writing for the pretest, seven of
them included some sort of plan for the posttest. Students were also stronger in the
writing of topic sentences. Only two students had a topic sentence for the pretest,
compared to six for the posttest. An example of one student’s pre- and posttest follows.
They have been modified to show correct spelling, but otherwise the content and format
are as written by the student.
Pretest (Score of 2):
Amelia Earhart was a nurse in World War I. She didn’t do thing that other
women did. Amelia Earhart was a adventurer and a pioneer in the field. She
watched planes take off. Amelia Earhart wanted to fly a plane. For four years,
Amelia Earhart trained to be a pilot. In 1932 she flew a plane across the Atlantic
to Ireland. Amelia Earhart flew around the world.
Posttest (Score of 4)
This passage is about Johnny Appleseed who plants apple seeds. Johnny
Chapman was born in Massachusetts in 1774. He was a farmer who was
thinking about growing apples. He thought apples were good and had a lot of
uses. He traveled west so that he could plant apples where they were not
growing. He went on no matter what the weather. He would not stop from
growing apples. People gratefully accepted the apple seed and said thanks to
Johnny Appleseed. They had apples now.
Some people thought that Johnny Appleseed was a rumor (meaning he
wasn’t true). Many legends grew up about him. We know that he was true.
America has many apple trees now because of him.
While both passages include important details, the posttest shows growth in key
areas. A topic sentence is included. Also, the details are written in an order that make
sense. No prewrite was included in the first assessment. For the second assessment, the
student writer used a web for her prewrite. The student numbered the web to show a
49
plan. An interesting note about this prewrite is the form it took. While prewriting and
planning were an important component of the treatment, the prewriting did not take the
form of a web. This student took the known web, something that the fourth grade
teachers said is strongly used in third grade, and added to it the numbers of the outline
type plan used during the summary writing instruction component of this treatment.
The initial assessment was completed the second week of school. One possible
reason for the growth in scores could have been that students were so close to summer
vacation for the first assessment. Time spent at school would have helped to raise the
scores. In addition, the students were also receiving a minimal amount of writing
instruction during the school day from their fourth grade teachers. This instruction was
in the form of feedback when writing occurred across other disciplines. This instruction
may also have served to help improve the scores.
During the remainder of the school day, however, little to no instruction occurred
in the area of the writing process. Including the prewrite with the assessment appears to
be a result of direct instruction during the intervention. Students learned about prewrites
during lessons that the researcher explicitly taught and modeled following the SRSD
instructional method. The increased summary scores and evident use of the writing
process, as seen in creating and developing prewrites, suggests that students benefited
from the SRSD instructional model.
50
Anecdotal Records
A third instrument used during this treatment was analytical records. The
researcher chose and kept analytical records during the course of the treatment. Records
were kept in regards to on task behavior, choices made while working, and collaboration
with others while working. Notes were made twice for each section of the instructional
period: journals, summary writing, and I-search report writing.
( IV) An evident increase in motivation and engagement was noted
The anecdotal records suggest that students had an increase in on task behavior as
the intervention progressed. The three instructional periods revealed distinct writing
behaviors. The notes taken indicated that students responded to the different instructional
periods in different ways. Journal writing, SRSD instruction, and their I-search report all
had varying student behaviors. A look at these behaviors follows.
The records kept during journal writing show that all four of the students were
unsure of journal writing at first. On task behavior increased greatly as students became
used to not having an explicit topic. As the researcher was modeling journal writing, the
notes for journal writing consisted solely of on task/off task behavior. Student behavior
was recorded twice during each journal writing. Notations showed how each of the
observed students participated during journal writing time.
At the beginning of the intervention, students stared at the walls, tapped pencils
on the desk, and looked down at their paper while not writing. While thinking is an
essential component of the writing process, the number of non-writing moments was
51
much higher the first weeks. By the fourth week, journal writing consisted of more on
task behavior. Students were observed writing, circling writing, and looking back and
reading previously written text. The amount of writing on the page also increased.
During the first week, it was not uncommon for the journal entry to consist of only a line
or two. The actual amount of writing was hard to observe, as format freedom was also
part of the process and many students continued previous entries rather than start a new
one. However, two observed students, who consistently started a new entry, showed that
their entries increased to practically filling a page a day.
During the second instructional period, summary writing, the beginning weeks
began as explicit instruction and later weeks moved to independent work. Students
learned to use the PIE strategy while reading and writing about expository text. After
they saw the strategy modeled, students were encouraged to use the strategy
independently, with teacher intervention and instruction as needed. It was during this
instructional period that the most on-task behavior was recorded. Perhaps due to the
explicit nature of the instruction, students followed the prescribed steps with little
deviation.
The notes show that students often referred to the poster on the wall and the
worksheet in their folders as they completed their work (same information on both
sources). There was the occasional question directed at a peer, however the majority of
time the students asked questions of the teacher/researcher. Students were allowed to
interact, but rarely did so. The recorded peer interactions mainly comprise of students
asking for help with spelling or speaking with each other off topic.
52
The questions asked of the researcher, however, did vary as the treatment
progressed. The first questions dealt with formatting: how do I write the title?, and Do I
have to indent? were frequent questions. The subsequent questions dealt with more
substance: Do I have enough details?, and Is this a good topic sentence?. Students also
asked occasional questions about the content of the expository text, asking if the written
information was true. These questions were accompanied by following the SRSD plan
while writing summaries. Students wrote their prewrite during their first read of the
passage, and referred to that plan while writing their summary.
The final instructional period was the I-search paper. During this time the
students worked independently on their paper, though they were encouraged to speak
with their peers. The notes show that the students did interact with each other. Usually
the interaction dealt more with the reading than with the writing. As students came
across an interesting tidbit in his or her research, they often wanted to share it with a
neighbor. When students shared their writing, it was generally at the researcher’s
instigation, and the responses were usually shallow: I like that, and it is nice.
Given the increase of on-task behavior, it would appear that the
intervention had a positive influence on student motivation and engagement. The kinds
of on-task behavior were clearly different given the different instructional tasks. The
notes indicate that students felt differently about the use of peer interaction during
different instructional modes. The instructional period most laden with explicit
instruction, SRSD summary writing, showed the least peer support and talk. Conversely,
the period most like writers’ workshop, I-search reports, had the most peer interactions.
53
The high interest of the self-selected topics appeared to be the motivating factor behind
most peer talk. More peer talk, though, did not translate to more writing. The
conversations amongst the student authors were in regards to what they were reading
more than what they were writing. The talk did have a positive effect on motivation.
Such motivation is believed to help improve self-efficacy, and thus writing ability
(Pajares, 2003).
Teacher Interviews
The final instrument used was teacher interviews conducted between the
researcher and the fourth grade teachers. During the informal interview, teachers spoke
about their writing program and about the writing performance and attitude of students
participating in the program. The final claim is a result of these interviews.
( V ) An increase in confidence and motivation was noticed by classroom teachers
The classroom teachers indicated that they saw a positive increase in the
participating students’ writing attitude. Both teachers gave the intervention credit for this
increase. As the intervention occurred at the beginning of the school year, the classroom
writing programs were still in their initial stages. The teachers gave the pullout
intervention credit for their observations regarding motivation because the classrooms
were not doing much, at that time, to foster a positive writing attitude.
In regards to classroom instruction, the classroom teachers’ writing programs
were in their early stages. Both teachers intended to eventually use a writing program
54
that incorporates the stages of the writing process. However, at this point in the school
year they focused on grammar points. The teachers were reviewing the parts of speech
and the parts of a sentence. Mr. S. said that he could not teach the students how to be
better writers until they had the vocabulary and everyone was able to speak the same
academic language. Mrs. G. felt the writing program should be a blend of the district
prescribed formula writing program and the writing process. However, she was still
getting to know the students and assessing them to help determine the shape that her
eventual instruction would take. Both teachers felt that the writing process should be the
emphasis of their program.
Of the eight students participating in the writing program, four each were from the
two fourth grade teacher’s classroom. While the teachers were not directly teaching
writing to these students, they were able to observe them when writing in other curricular
areas. While the teachers did not see a noticeable improvement in the participating
students writing, as opposed to non-participating students, they did notice some behaviors
common to these eight. The teachers felt they saw an increased confidence in writing
about academic subjects. They thought that the intervention’s focus on expository texts
helped the students feel more comfortable in that genre than their peers.
Participating students were allowed to take their journals and report work home
with them if they wanted. Most took advantage of taking the work home, but the
returning work did not seem to have any additions or improvements. The fourth grade
teachers said the students would share their research with other students. Most of what
the students shared was the researcher provided data, not the work of the student author.
55
However, the teachers stated the topics were of such interest that the participating
students did talk about them outside of class time.
Mr. S. noticed that one student was especially fond of his journal. This one
student, the researcher observed, was the only one to take his journal home. The student
said he was writing a story and wanted to continue it at home. Mr. S. said that this
student would share his journal with some select classmates, and seemed very excited
about it. This student, as seen by the survey results, was one of the students who had a
higher opinion of story writing after the intervention than he did before it started.
Overall, the teachers were impressed with the motivation instilled in the students
as a result of picking their own topics. The teachers expressed concern regarding the
self-selection of topics in the classroom because of the difficulty obtaining information.
The format of the report would have to change to include the teaching of research skills
for it to be feasible with a large number of participants. Given time, however, they did
not see that as a problem. Both teachers felt that a student’s attitude is important while
learning, no matter the subject. They appreciated the concern for motivation expressed
during the intervention and said that the students enjoyed participating in the pullout
writing program.
This chapter has looked at the four instruments used for this treatment.
The results of the attitude survey, summary writing assessment, anecdotal records, and
interviews were recorded. Students entered the program with a relatively high selfefficacy in writing, but those scores showed improvement. Student skills in summary
writing also showed improvement, especially in the area of the planning. Given the
56
choice of topic and the time to write on their papers, the students showed an increase in
motivation while writing. This motivation was enough to translate into an increased
confidence noticed by the classroom teachers. The following and final chapter will look
at these results and consider the implications for future research.
57
Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of self-efficacy on fourth grade
writers, and to try to determine if explicit instruction, partnered with choice and time,
would have an impact on self-efficacy. Participating students engaged in a variety of
writing activities designed to teach summary writing with motivation and engagement.
Four instruments were employed to get a better picture of student’s attitudes and ability
as writers. These instruments included a student attitude survey, a summary writing
paper, anecdotal records, and teacher interviews.
The instruments indicate that the students did experience a growth in selfefficacy, as well as growth in writing ability. Other trends were also noted. While the
self-efficacy did improve, it was not very low to start with. In exploring the answers to
their open-ended questions on the survey, and reviewing the anecdotal notes, it is clear
that several of the students did not have a good idea of what constitutes good writing.
Students viewed good writing as being neat and spelled correctly. As the students were
using these criteria as a basis for determining their own ability as a writer, a high selfefficacy rating did not necessarily partner with a high ability rating.
Modeling was used throughout the treatment, as indicated by the Self-Regulated
Strategy Development method of teaching writing. It is possible to speculate that such
modeling may have had a positive impact on the students’ awareness of good writing.
The second survey did give signs that there was a better understanding of writing as a
58
process. However, as this area was not explicitly assessed, it is not possible to efficiently
determine if students actually made much growth in this area.
The ability of the students to write a summary improved over the course of this
treatment. The explicit instruction appears to have had a positive impact regarding
planning and summary writing. Anecdotal records and teacher interviews indicate that
students exited the intervention with increased confidence in this area. Students also
were able to carry over the summary writing knowledge while writing a research paper
on a topic of their own choice.
Recommendations
The information gathered in the literature review and data gathered from the four
instruments used in this study informed the following recommendations. In addition to
addition to recommendations, implications for further study are included.
In an attempt to get a clear picture of each individual student participating in the
study, the number of participants was low. Only eight students were involved. A repeat
of the study, with modifications and with a larger number of students, is indicated to
determine if results could be sustained in a regular classroom. In particular, the small
number of students may have had a positive impact on engagement scores. To develop a
better picture of the intervention’s impact on engagement, a whole class study would be
helpful.
It was clear that one important aspect of writing self-efficacy is the students’
knowledge of what good writing is. The age of the students and their relative
59
inexperience with writing greatly influenced their thoughts on what constitutes good
writing. Their knowledge of good writing appeared to be limited and undeveloped. An
instrument designed to determine that knowledge help the researcher. With such an
instrument, it would be possible to more fully understand what the students mean when
they claim that they are a good writer. Without that instrument, the survey is hampered
in showing equitable results. The students appeared have a better perception of good
writing at the end of the intervention. It is unknown how the students would have
responded to the self-efficacy portion of the first survey had they possessed the same
writing knowledge as they did on the second administration of the survey. Another
possibility is to reword the survey so as to ask specifically about writing content.
Another limitation to determining true self-efficacy was the nature of the student
survey. As a result of wanting to see how each child’s self-efficacy changed over time,
the survey was not anonymous. Putting a name to the paper may have hindered the
truthfulness of the survey outcome. While students were encouraged to be truthful, it is
possible that a student answered in such a way that would make the teacher happy. An
anonymous survey would have its limitations and benefits. It would no longer be
possible to track individual student changes. However, students may be more willing to
share possible negative attitudes if they did not have to put their name on their paper.
Another limit on the scope of this treatment was time. Due to the time allotted, it
was not feasible to instruct the students regarding the whole process of completing an Isearch paper. The teacher/researcher provided the research materials. Though outside
sources were welcome and encouraged, there was no direct instruction involved in the
60
procuring of those sources. The final format of the paper did loosely resemble an ISearch paper, but certain modifications were made. The students were able to write
about the process they used when writing their paper, and why they chose their topic.
However, the actual researched content resembled a series of summaries rather than a
cohesive report. As the focus was on summary writing, time was not taken to teach the
students how to incorporate different research materials into one essay. With more time,
however, this could be accomplished with a modification of the planning stage of the PIE
strategy and may be indicated for future research.
Finally, the anecdotal records showed that peer interaction was limited and not
used to its best potential. The importance of modeling while instructing cannot be
overstated. The instructional program would have benefitted from explicit modeling in
regards to helping peers through the revision process.
Conclusion
Writing is a complex and wondrous process. While some children fear and
assume otherwise, it is a process that can be taught and learned. As a student’s sense of
self as a writer, or self-efficacy, has been shown to be a contributing factor in ability, it is
important that teachers consider this component. An additional benefit of high selfefficacy is that it increases student engagement and motivation.
Once motivated to learn, students need the proper tools and support. In an
attempt to avoid formula writing programs, another explicit writing approach was
explored. Self-Regulated Strategy Development gives students strategies for writing
61
which are clear and explicit. While this instruction follows steps, it does not follow a set
formula.
Moreover, as writing is not just a tool for school use, independent journal writing
was employed to allow for freedom of expression and culture. Giving complete authorial
freedom to the students was an attempt to allow students to explore themselves as
authors. Such independent writing should have a dedicated space, and be modeled for the
students.
Students participated in a pullout writing program with the focus of improving
student writing in terms of ability and attitude. A positive attitude improves ability, and
an improved ability improves attitude. This cycle must be used to its full potential if it is
to benefit student authors. Journals allow a student to have authorial freedom and to
focus on content. They also allow students to express their home cultures and beliefs,
without compromise, in classroom setting. SRSD instruction allows students to learn
valuable writing strategies without using a formulaic writing style. This is essential to
foster critical thinking skills, and it allows students to have ownership of their writing. In
addition, student choice and motivation are important components in an effective writing
program.
The pullout writing program suggested that positive results, both in self-efficacy
and writing knowledge, are possible with certain key components. Students need to have
time, choice, modeling, and experience success in writing. It is also important to provide
explicit instruction in areas not already known. Free, unstructured writing benefits the
62
learning writer greatly. However, it does not take the place of structured writing.
Explicit, modeled instruction is still necessary for most students to experience success.
When students understand that they do have the ability to learn to write well, they
will rise to the occasion and learn. Writing is a personal expression, full of independent
thinking and decisions. Through writing instruction and practice, students can learn to
get their thoughts on paper in such a way that their reader understands. Such ability is
critical to the future of students, and needs to be fostered and taught.
63
APPENDICES
1.
Appendix A: Student Attitude Survey………..…....……………………..…..….64
2.
Appendix B: Summary Writing Rubric…..……….……...……………………….....66
3.
Appendix C: PIE Student Page……...………….……….……………………...…..67
64
APPENDIX A
Student Survey
Modified from the Writer Self-Perception Scale (Bottomley, Henk, and Melnick, 1998)
Please carefully read the following questions. Circle the answer response
which best suits you. There are no incorrect answers.
1. I like writing stories.
not at all
a little
some
a lot
a whole lot
2. I like writing reports.
not at all
a little
some
a lot
a whole lot
3. I like writing at school.
not at all
a little
some
a lot
a whole lot
4. I like writing at home.
not at all
a little
some
a lot
a whole lot
5. I have trouble knowing what to write.
not at all
a little
some
a lot
a whole lot
6. Writing is fun.
not at all
a little
a whole lot
some
a lot
7. I wish I had more time to write at school.
not at all
a little
some
a lot
a whole lot
8. I think that I am a good writer.
not at all
a little
some
a lot
a whole lot
9. I like to write.
not at all
a little
a whole lot
some
a lot
65
Writing Survey
Please answer each of the following questions on a separate piece of paper.
Please be honest with your answers. There are no incorrect responses.
1. How do you feel about writing?
2. Why or why not do you think it’s important to be a good writer?
3. How do you feel about yourself as a writer?
4. What do you think is good about your writing?
5. What improvements would you like to make in your writing?
6. Is writing important to you? Why or why not?
7. What type of writing is your most favorite and why?
8. What type of writing is your least favorite and why?
66
APPENDIX B
Summary Writing Rubric
Score
Descriptors
5
Clearly identifies main idea
Uses relevant details to support main idea
Does not include irrelevant information
Briefly stated in own words
All ideas are in a logical order
4
Clearly identifies main idea
Uses relevant details to support main idea
Does not include irrelevant information
Most of ideas are in a logical order
3
Main idea is unclear or partially identified
Does not use relevant details to support main idea
Includes irrelevant information
Copies some sentences from the text
Ideas are not in a logical order
2
Does not identify the main idea
Includes irrelevant information
Copies almost all sentences directly from text
Ideas are not in logical order
1
No response or response does not correlate with the
text
67
APPENDIX C
P.I.E.
Prepare – think before reading
Think about:
The author’s purpose
What you know
What you want to learn
Interact – think while reading
Think about:
Reading speed
Linking knowledge
Rereading parts
Examine – think after reading
Think about:
The Main Idea
Summarizing information
What you learned
68
REFERENCES
Baker, S.K., Chard, D.J., Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., Apichatabutra, C., & Doable, C. (2009).
Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated
strategy development. Council for Exceptional Children, 75 (3), 303-218.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
Barrs, M. (2000). The reader in the writer. Reading, 34 (2), 54-61.
Bearne, E. (2003). End piece: building professional capital. In L. Graham and A.
Johnson (Eds.), Children’s writing journals (15-24). Royston: United Kingdom
Literacy Association.
Brannon, L., Courtney, J.P., Urbanski, C.P., Woodward, S.V., Reynolds, J.M., Iannone,
A.E., … Kendrick M. (2008). “EJ” extra: The five paragraph essay and the deficit
model of education. English Journal, 98 (2), 16-21.
Bottomley, D.M., Henk, W.A., & Melnick, S.A. (1997). Assessing children’s views
about themselves as writers using the writer self-perception scale. The Reading
Teacher, 51 (4), 286-296.
Braxton, D.M. (2009). The effects of two summarization strategies using expository text
on the reading comprehension and summary writing of fourth- and fifth- grade
students in an urban, title 1 school. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
Digital repository at the University of Maryland. (2010-02-19T06:52:52Z)
69
Bowen, C. (2001). A process approach: The I-search with grade 5: They learn!, Teacher
Librarian, 29 (2), 14-19.
Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Educational Books Inc.
Connor-Greene, (2000). Making connections: Evaluating the effectiveness of journal
writing in enhancing student learning. Teaching of Psychology, 27 (1), 44-46.
Creme, P. (2008). A space for academic play: Student learning journals as transitional
writing. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education: An International Journal of
Theory, Research, and Practice, 7 (1), 49-64.
Danoff, B., Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (1993). Incorporating strategy instruction into
the school curriculum: Effects in children’s writing. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 25 (3), 295-323.
De La Paz, S & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge:
Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94 (4), 687-698.
Duncan, D. & Lockhart, L. (2000). I-search, you search, we all learn to research. New
York, NY: Neal-Schuman.
Edelsky, (1982). The development of writing in a bilingual program. NIE final report.
Tempe: Arizona State University.
Fangley, L., Cherry, R.D., Jolliffe, D.A., & Skinner, A.M. (1985). Assessing writer’s
knowledge and process of composing. Norwood, NJ.: Ablex.
70
Fisher, R. (2006). Whose writing is it anyway? Issues of control in the teaching of
writing. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36 (2), 193-206.
Fitzgerald, J. & Teasley, A.B. (1986). Effects of instruction in narrative structure on
children’s writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 (6), 424-432.
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J.C. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students’ composition
skills: Effects of strategy and self-regulation procedure. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99 (2), 297-310.
Graham, R.J. (1999). The self as a writer: Assumptions and identities in the writing
workshop. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43 (4), 358-365.
Graham, L. & Johnson, A. (2003). Children’s writing journals. Royston: United
Kingdom Literacy Association.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’
compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 781-791.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., & Troia, G.A. (2000). Self-regulated strategy development
revisited: Teaching writing strategies to struggling writers. Topics in Language
Disorders, 20 (4), 1-14.
Grainger, T, Goouch K, & Lambirth, A. (2005). Creativity and writing, developing voice
and verve in the classroom. London: Routledge.
Graves, D.H. (1993). Let’s rethink children’s entry points into literacy. Dimensions of
early childhood, 21 (3), 8-10.
Graves, D.H. (1996). Teaching writing: Spot the lifetime writers. Instructor, 105 (7),
26-27.
71
Harris, K.R. & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for
composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Harris, K.R., Graham, S., & Mason, L.H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and
motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy
development with and without peer support. American Educational Research
Journal, 43 (2), 295-337.
Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Mason, L.H., & Saddler, B (2002). Developing self-regulated
writers. Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 110-115.
Hettich, P. (1990). Journal writing: Old fare or nouvelle cuisine. Teaching of
Psychology, 17 (1), 36-39.
Johnson, A. (2003). Why writing journals. In L. Graham and A. Johnson Children’s
writing journals (27-36). Royston: United Kingdom Literacy Association.
Joyce, M.Z., Tallman, J.I, (1997). Making the writing and research connection with the
I-search process. New York, NY, Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.
Lambirth, A., & Goouch, K. (2006). Golden times of writing: The creative compliance
of writing journals. Literacy, 40 (3), 146-152.
Lannin, A.A. & Fox, R.F. (2010). Chained and confused: Teacher perceptions of
formulaic writing. Writing & Pedagogy, 2 (1), 39-64.
Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory – 4. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Li, X. (2007). Identities and beliefs in ESL writing: From product to process. TESL
Canada Journal, 25 (1), 41-64.
72
Macrorie, K. (1988). The I-search paper: Revised edition of searching writing.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Mason, L.H., Snyder, K.H., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). TWA + PLANS
strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine fourth grade
students. Council for Exceptional Children, 73 (1), 69-89.
McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children’s writing: A problem of
metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5 (3), 306-324.
McCarthey, S.J. (2008). The impact of no child left behind on teachers’ writing
instruction. Written Communication, 25(4), 462-505.
Meier, S., McCarthy, P.R., & Schmeck, R.R. (1984). Validity of self-efficacy as a
predictor of writing performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8 (2), 107120.
Mills, R. (2008). It’s just a nuisance: Improving college student reflective journal
writing. College Student Journal, 42 (2), 684-690.
Morton, B.A. & Dalton, B. (2007). Changes in instructional hours in four subjects by
public school teachers of grades 1 through 4. Stats in brief. NCES 2007-305.
National Center for Education Statistics.
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out: A
survey of business leaders. Manhattan, NY: College Board.
Nunnally, T. (1991). Breaking the five-paragraph-theme barrier. English Journal, 80
(1), 67-71.
73
Nolan, S.B. (2007). Young Children’s motivation to read and write: Development in
social contexts. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2), 219-270.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: a
review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.
Pajares, F. & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’
writing. Journal of Educational Research, 90 (6), 353-360.
Pederson, P.V. (2007). What is measured is treasured: The impact of no child left behind
on nonassessed subjects. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues, and Ideas, 80 (6), 287-291.
Pittam, G., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2009). Student beliefs and
attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing. Studies in Higher
Education, 34 (2), 153-170.
Read, S. (2005). First and second graders writing informational text. Reading Teacher,
59 (1), 36-44.
Read, S. (2010). A model for scaffolding writing instruction: IMSCI. Reading Teacher,
64 (1), 47-52.
Reigstad, T. (1997). I search, you search, we all search for I-Search: Research alternative
works for advanced writers, too. Composition Chronicle: Newsletter for Writing
Teachers, 10(7), 4-7.
Rickabaugh, C.A. (1993). The psychology portfolio: Promoting writing and critical
thinking about psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 20 (3), 170-173.
Rico, G.L. (1988). Against formulaic writing. The English Journal, 77 (6), 57-58.
74
Saddler, B. & Graham, S. (2007). The relationship between writing knowledge and
writing performance among more and less skilled writers. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 23 (3), 231-247.
Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2004). Preventing writing
difficulties: The effects of planning strategy instruction on the writing
performance of struggling writers. Exceptionality, 12, 13-17.
Samway, K.D. (2006). When English language learners write: Connecting research to
practice, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Santangelo, T., Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (2007). Self-regulated strategy development:
a validated model to support students who struggle with writing. Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5 (1), 1-20.
Santangelo, T., Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (2008). Using self-regulated strategy
development to support students you have “trubol giting thangs into werds”.
Remedial and Special Education, 29 (2), 78-89.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1982) Assimilative processes in composition planning.
Educational Psychologist, 17 (3), 165-171.
Schaffer, J. (1995). Teaching the multiparagraph essay: A sequential nine-week unit.
(3rd ed.). San Diego: Jane Schaffer Publications.
Schulz, M.M. (2009). Effective writing assessment and instruction for young English
language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37 (1), 57-62.
75
Schunk, D.H. & Swartz, C.W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on selfefficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18
(3), 337-354.
Schunk, D.H. & Zimmerman, B.J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and selfregulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 23 (1), 7-25.
Solsken, J., Willett, J., Wilson-Keenan, J. (2000). Cultivating hybrid texts in
multicultural classrooms: Promise and challenge. Research in the Teaching of
English, 35 (2), 179-212.
Turner, J.C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation
for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410-441.
Walker, B.J. (2003). The cultivation of student self-efficacy in reading and writing.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19 (2), 173 – 187.
Wiley, M. (2000). The popularity of formulaic writing (and why we need to resist).
English Journal, 90 (1), 61-67.
Zito, J.R., Adkins, M., Gavins, M., Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (2007). Self-regulated
strategy development: Relationship to the social-cognitive perspective and the
development of self-regulation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23 (1), 77-95.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A
self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 73-86.