Focusing on what is “ Effective and Meaningful”
Preservice Teachers’ Changing Perceptions and Knowledge of Young Children’s
Writing
Leslie La Croix, llacroix@gmu.edu, Nedra Cossa, ncossa@gmu.edu, David Lojkovic,
dlojkovi@gmu.edu
George Mason University
Paper Presented at the Literacy Research Association Annual Meeting
Thursday December 5th in Dallas, Texas
Teachers play a critical role in developing students’ writing proficiencies, (Graham, 2006). Yet,
inservice teachers report varying degrees of initial preparedness to teach writing (Gilbert & Graham,
2010; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Grisham & Wolsey, 2011) and preservice teachers (PSTs) continue to
enter preparatory programs with underdeveloped self-efficacies as writers and teachers of writing
(Morgan, 2010; Norman & Spencer, 2005; Street & Strang, 2008).
The body of literature exploring essential questions within the field of writing continues to evolve
as a contemporary line of research (Shanahan, 2013). However, the field documenting how PSTs acquire
the relevant knowledge, skills, and dispositions to support the development of students’ writing
proficiencies remains shallow (Grisham & Wolsey, 2011; Morgan & Pytash, 2011; Shanahan, 2013;
Zimmerman, et al., 2013). Moreover, the number of studies exploring the preparation of early childhood
educators is even narrower (Grisham & Wolsey, 2011; Juzwik et al., 2006; Morgan & Pytash, 2011).
This exploratory study examines how preservice teachers’ perceptions and knowledge of young
children’s writing evolved while immersed in a semester long pen pal exchanged with second grade
writers.
Procedural Overview
Over the course of the semester participants composed four letters to second grade pen pals. The
PSTs followed the writing process approach for each letter composed, including brainstorming, drafting,
peer editing, revising, and publishing. Reciprocally, each participant received three student-composed
letters along with the students’ rough drafts. Following each composition, the participants completed a
reflection protocol to support their analysis of the experience. Reflection protocols synthesized journal
reflection procedures employed across the literature (Moore, 2000; Moore & Seeger, 2009; Rankin, 1992).
Additionally, the PSTs completed a survey asking them to predict how frequently they would
incorporate specific writing practices into their instructional routines. The Anticipated Practice Survey
modified Cutler and Graham’s (2008) national survey of inservice elementary school teachers. The PSTs
completed the survey on two occasions, once at the beginning of the course and once at the end of the
course. By pairing the quantitative survey with qualitative journal reflections, we sought to reveal a
multifaceted understanding of PSTs’ conceptualizations of writing as it relates to young children (Bryman,
2006).
Research Questions
1. How did PSTs represent their knowledge of young children’s writing development and
the writing process?
2. What instructional practices did the PSTs anticipate utilizing to support young children’s
writing development in their future classrooms?


Participants
13 Graduate Students
o Seeking degree in Early Childhood Education, Pre-K to grade 3 teacher licensure
o Caucasian Females; 2 Multilingual; 2 Career Switchers
Second Grade Cooperating Teacher

o 17 years of teaching experience, Writer’s Workshop, Differentiation Instruction
Second Grade Students
o 22 Linguistically Diverse students, Majority were bilingual, Title 1 Suburban elementary school
Data Collection and Analysis
Journal Reflections
We utilized a modified constant comparative analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Glesne, 2011;
Merriam, 1998) procedure to expose PSTs’ characterizations of children’s writing over time. We first
analyzed the journal entries randomly across all cases and utilized a uniform analysis sheet to capture
salient details of the participants’ reflective journals.
Surveys
We employed the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to explore possible changes in anticipated practices.
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test does not assume a normal distribution and is preferable for ordinal data
sets and smaller sample sizes (Dimitrov, 2010; Fields, 2009). To control for Type I errors and manage
data for a small sample size, we report critical T values, rather than z-statistics, and we rejected the null
hypothesis if the p value was less than .01 (Dimitrov, 2010).
Findings
Anticipated Practice Surveys were used to add texture and provide insight into instructional writing
practices that PSTs may utilize in the future. PSTs characterized the children’s writing as progressing along a
developmental continuum. PSTs also believed development occurred with the strategic support of the teacher.
Qualitative Themes
Knowledge of Self as
Writer
Knowledge of Young
Children as Writers
Knowledge as Teachers of
Writing
Survey
The survey underscores a commitment to writing experiences the PSTs found
valuable in their own experiences drafting and publishing letters. Over the course
of the semester, there was a significant increase in supporting student writers
through student-teacher conferences and opportunities for revision. There was a
significant decrease in graphic organizers and writing prompts.
The survey provided insight into the aspects of writing development these PSTs
may attend to in the future to make instructional decisions to support their
students’ writing proficiencies. There was a significant increase in PSTs’ emphasis
on both student monitoring and teaching basic writing skills and a significant
decrease in writing portfolios, text organization, and planning
Two philosophies of practice emerged: 1) Differentiating instruction, and
2) Providing students with strategic models. There was a significant increase in
preservice teachers’ emphasis on mini lessons and modeling lessons.
Implications
Results of this investigation provided insight into one pedagogical avenue teacher educators may
pursue to support PSTs’ knowledge, skills, and reflective dispositions supporting young writers.
Moreover, the mixed strategy approach provides an example of how complementarity research designs
(Greene et al., 1989) enhance teacher educators’ understanding of practices that support the professional
development of preservice teachers. We suggest longitudinal studies would contribute a deeper
understanding of how coursework experiences inform future instructional practices.
References
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2009). What is happening in the teaching of writing? English Journal
98(5), 18-28.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research,
6(1), 97-113. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058877
Ceprano, M. A., & Garan, E. M. (1998). Emerging voices in a university pen-pal project: Layers of
discovery in action research. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(1), 31-56.
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor
procedures. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-418.
doi:10.1177/0013164404266386
Dimitrov, D. M. (2008). Quantitative research in education: Intermediate and advanced methods.
Oceanside, NY: Whittier Publications.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixedmethod evaluation designs’. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2011). Writing instruction for teacher candidates: Strengthening a weak
curricular area. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(4), 348-364. DOI:
10.1080/19388071.2010.532581
Juzwik, M. M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K. D., Dimling, L. M., & Shankland, R. K. (2006).
Writing into the 21st century: An overview of research on writing 1999-2004. Written
Communication, 23(4), 451-476.
Marshall, C. S., & Davis, R. A. (1999). Beginners learning together: Literacy collaboration between
preservice teachers and first-grade students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 27(1), 53-56.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, D.N., & Pytash, K. E. (2011, December). A research synthesis of preservice teachers and writing.
Paper presented at the 61st Annual Conference of the Literacy Research Association, Jacksonville,
FL.
Moore, R. A. (2000). Preservice teachers explore their conceptions of the writing process with young pen
pals. Reading Research and Instruction, 40(1), 17-33.
Moore, R. A., & Seeger, V. (2009). Dear sincerely: Exploring literate identities with young children and
preservice teachers through letter writing. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(2), 185-205.
doi:10.1080/19388070802226246 The National Commission on Writing for America’s Families,
Schools, and Colleges. (2006). Writing and School Reform Including The Neglected “R”: The
Need for a Writing Revolution. New York: The College Board. Retrieved September 23, 2013,
from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-school-reform-natlcomm-writing.pdf
The National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges. (2006). Writing and
School Reform Including The Neglected “R”: The Need for a Writing Revolution. New York: The
College Board. Retrieved September 23, 2013, from
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-school-reform-natl-commwriting.pdf
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, and J. Fitzgerald (Eds).,
Handbook of Writing Research (54-66). New York: Guilford Press.
Rankin, J. L. (1992). Connecting literacy learners: A pen pal project. The Reading Teacher, 46(3), 204214.
Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L., & Flood, J. (2008). A
critical analysis on research in reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 25288. dx.doi:org/10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3
Shanahan, T. (2013). Section I: Writing research. In P.J. Dunston, S.K. Fullerton, C.C. Bates, K. Headley,
& P.M. Stecker (Eds.), Sixty-first Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association (101-102). Oak
Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association Inc.
Terrell, S.R., (2012). Mixed-methods research methodologies. Qualitative Report. 17(1), 254-280.
Zimmerman, B. S., Morgan, D. N., Kidder-Brown, M. K., Batchelor, K. E. (2012). Exploring poetry
writing in a methods course: Changes in preservice teachers’ identities as teachers of writing. In
P. A. Dunston, S. K. Fullerton, C. C. Bates, K. Headley, & P. M. Stecker (Eds.), Sixty-first
Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association. (pp. 145-157). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research
Association, Inc.