Transforming Pre-service and Practicing Teachers’ Writing
with Wordless Picture Books and 6+1 Traits
Roundtable presentation
ALER Conference
November 3, 2012
Roberta Linder, Ed.D.
Wittenberg University
rlinder@wittenberg.edu
Related Literature



pre-service and practicing teachers lacked confidence in their writing abilities, did not see
themselves as writers, and were reluctant to write and/or implement lessons related to
writing (Grossman, Valencia, Evans, Thompson, Martin, & Place, 2000; Morgan, 2010)
students developed a greater sense of efficacy when they had participated in methods
courses that focused on writing instruction (Grossman et al., 2000; Morgan, Zimmerman,
Kidder-Brown, & Dunn, 2011)
literacy teacher educators need to utilize explicit instruction, examples, guided practice
(Risko, Roller, Cummins, Bean, Block, Anders, & Flood, 2008), explicit demonstrations
and modeling (Risko et al., 2008; Wold, Young, & Risko, 2011), and knowledge building
(Wold et al., 2011)
Background of the Study and Research Questions
This investigation has taken place at a small liberal arts college located in a Midwestern
state. At the present time, the Education Department curriculum does not offer a separate
writing methods course, nor does it address writing instruction to the same degree as reading
instruction in the courses. The researcher is an instructor for the language arts 4/5 endorsement
course, and she has used this course as a means to address the language arts other than reading,
particularly writing. Providing a conceptual framework for the writing instruction have been the
writing process and the 6+1 Traits framework.
The investigation was guided by these questions: (a) How is the writing of pre-service
and practicing teachers impacted by instruction and activities that emphasize writing instruction?
(b) How are students’ perceptions of themselves as writers and teachers of writing impacted by
instruction and activities that emphasize writing instruction?
Research Design
A formative experiment design (Bradley & Reinking, 2011; Reinking & Bradley, 2008)
was employed due to the iterative nature of this design that allows the researcher to utilize
recurrent data collection and analysis to guide instructional modifications. This design aligned
with my intent to continually make adjustments to my instruction from one session to the next.
Multiple sources of data were collected throughout the investigation: copies of students’ initial
drafts, revision drafts, and final drafts; copies of completed 5-point rubrics (Culham, 2003) with
Teachers’ writing with wordless picture books
1
feedback in ratings and written comments; end-of-course responses to the writing activity;
researcher’s ratings of student writing; and the researcher’s field notes about the changes she has
made to her instruction throughout the study. The qualitative sources of data were analyzed
throughout the study using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Participants in this study have been 28 students who were enrolled in a methods course
for 4/5 endorsement in language arts. Of these 28 participants, three were post-baccalaureate
candidates with early childhood licensure, one was post-baccalaureate with middle childhood
licensure, and the remaining 24 students took the course as undergraduates. The study began in
the summer of 2011 and concluded in the fall of 2012, with sessions being taught in the summer
and fall of 2011 and 2012 for a total of four sessions. For the assignment, students were required
to write a story to accompany a wordless picture book. They were guided through the steps of
the writing process over the course of the class, writing multiple drafts and also peer-assessing
drafts of other class members. With each draft, they were instructed to focus on one or two of
the traits. During a class period, the writing instruction was delivered in a similar manner each
session after students completed their first draft: (a) mini-lesson and/or hands-on activities
related to ways candidates could teach the selected trait(s) to students in a classroom setting, (b)
time for peer assessment and feedback using the selected 6 Traits rubric(s), and (c) concluding
by distributing the next rubric along with an explanation of the next selected trait(s). Appendix
A lists the adjustments I made as I collected and analyzed data from each of the sessions in 2011
and the summer session in 2012.
Findings
The preliminary findings being reported for this part of the study are based on these
sources of data: first and final drafts written by the students, end-of-course survey, and
researcher’s field notes about changes to her instruction.
Teachers’ writing with wordless picture books
2
How is the writing of pre-service and practicing teachers impacted by instruction and
activities that emphasize writing instruction?
Summary of Word Counts for Students’ First and Final Drafts
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Words
First draft (Final
draft)
1498 (1327)
1413 (1565)
1078 (1974)
1797 (1822)
1449 (1457)
1604 (1567)
487 (988)
961 (1006)
524 (1113)
583 (694)
519 (594)
269 (385)
706 (1074)
985 (1122)
No.
15
16
17
Me
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Words
First draft (Final
draft)
510 (960)
391 (597)
771 (968)
683 (1339)
332 (820)
444 (1192)
1039 (1343)
731 (1296)
447 (597)
453 (1157)
501 (800)
339 (740)
324 (420)
230 (449)
249 (362)
**26 of the 28 students increased the number of words in their stories from the first to the final
draft
**5 of the 28 students doubled the number of words in their stories from the first to the final
draft (i.e., students7, 9, 18, 19, 23)
I plan to also look at factors such as number of sentences, types of sentences to determine
changes in writing.
How are students’ perceptions of themselves as writers and teachers of writing impacted by
instruction and activities that emphasize writing instruction?
These are some of the themes that are emerging from the results of the end-of-course survey.
What thing(s) did you learn about yourself as a writer as a result of this assignment?
The largest number of comments were related to learning about the benefits of engaging
in all stages of the writing process (10 comments), and most of these comments were related to
writing multiple drafts of a piece. Some students commented on the need to engage in the
prewriting step or in closer editing/proofreading. Six respondents commented on their use of the
6 Traits and how they felt that their revision process was more focused when using only one or
two traits at a time. Five students commented on their ability to be creative writers, three
Teachers’ writing with wordless picture books
3
students found that they improved as writers from peer or self-assessment, and two students
learned that there is always room for improvement.
In which trait do you think you showed the greatest improvement?
By far the greatest number of students felt they improved the most in voice as a result of
this writing assignment, most likely because they needed to decide on a point of view for the
narrative to accompany their picture book (11 students). When writing in the first person, they
were challenged to clearly articulate the voice of the character telling his/her story. Five students
responded that they improved in word choice, three in sentence fluency, and two in ideas.
What did you find to be the most difficult part of this assignment?
The largest number of responses was related to students’ engagement in writing multiple
drafts of their stories (7 students). Many of them indicated that they have never been required to
do more than a single draft until this assignment. A number of students indicated experiencing
some difficulty related to individual traits of writing: voice (5 students), sentence fluency, word
choice, conventions (1 student each), or Ideas/Organization (5 students). Four of the students
commented on their difficulty with getting their stories started, three discussed struggles with
providing feedback, and two students had difficulty finding a book for their story.
Do you feel more confident, less confident, or the same when you consider yourself as a teacher
of writing? Explain.
All students responded that they feel more confident as teachers of writing. Their reasons
for feeling more confident related to their engagement in the steps of the writing process (11
students) and specifically the revision process (2 students), learning about the 6 traits of writing
(10 students), receiving teaching ideas related to the writing process and the 6 traits (7 students),
and engaging in the peer editing process, through which they received helpful feedback (5
students).
Conclusions
Research question 1: As a result of engaging in instruction and activities emphasizing writing,
pre-service and practicing teachers were able to increase the length of their written work from
the first to the final draft.
Research question 2: Students’ perceptions of themselves as writers and teachers of writing
were positively impacted by instruction and activities that emphasized writing instruction. They
felt more confident in approaching instructional situations in which they would teach writing and
felt that their knowledge about the writing process, the 6 Traits, and different writing activities
would be helpful. Many of the students felt that they had shown the greatest improvement in
adding voice to their stories and that the most difficult aspect of the project was engaging in the
revision process by writing multiple drafts. They discovered that the stages of the writing
process did, indeed, lead to a better piece of writing, that focusing on one or two traits at a time
helped them revise their pieces, and that they were creative in their writing.
Teachers’ writing with wordless picture books
4
Implications
Explicit instruction and practice with writing can help pre-service and practicing teachers feel
more confident about their abilities as writers and as teachers of writing.
Although pre-service teachers may read about the writing process in methods courses, many of
them have not had personal experience with writing multiple drafts for reports or stories. When
taken through the stages of the writing process, pre-service teachers see first-hand the
improvements that are possible with multiple drafts of writing.
Future Research
Focus on the writing of argument essays and expository/informational essays (Common Core).
Finish examination of students’ feedback on rubrics and written feedback on the various drafts.
Follow-up with pre-service teachers to see how instruction may have impacted their student
teaching or classroom instruction.
Teachers’ writing with wordless picture books
5
References
Bradley, B. A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Revisiting the connection between research and practice
using formative and design experiments. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallett (Eds.), Literacy
research methodologies (2nd ed.) (pp. 188-212). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Culham, R. (2003). 6+1 traits of writing: The complete guide grades 3 and up. New York, NY:
Scholastic.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Grossman, P. L., Valencia, S. W., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (2000).
Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond.
Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 631-662.
Morgan, D. N. (2010). Preservice teachers as writers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4),
352-365.
Morgan, D. N., Zimmerman, B. S., Kidder-Brown, M. K., & Dunn, K. J. (2011). From writing
methods to student teaching: Vision development and the implementation of conceptual
and practical tools by preservice teachers. In P. J. Dunston, L. B. Gambrell, K. Headley,
S. K. Fullerton, P. M. Stecker, V. R. Gillis, & C. C. Bates (Eds.), The 60th Yearbook of
the Literacy Research Association (pp. 100-112). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research
Association.
Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). Formative and design experiments. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L., & Flood, J.
(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education, Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(3), 252-288. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3
Wold, L. S., Young, J. R., & Risko, V. J. (2011). Qualities of influential literacy teacher
educators. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 156-172.
Teachers’ writing with wordless picture books
6
Appendix A
Adjustments Made to Course Instruction
Revisions I made to the study
After summer 2011


Added more books to my collection of wordless picture books
Added reflection question about which trait they felt was strongest for them
After fall 2011






Added more books
Provided graphic organizer for pre-writing
Wrote along with the students
Allowed students to decide how they wanted to do the peer review (the members of the
summer 2012 class chose to stay with one person as a peer reviewer; because there was
an odd number of students in the class, as served as the reviewer for one of them)
Added more specificity about saving each draft
Moved writing instruction and peer review to the end of the class from the beginning of
the class
After summer 2012



Combined the ideas and organizations traits for the first draft; had one less draft
Provided feedback on some of the drafts; I had not provided feedback on any of the drafts
in the previous class & felt that the improvement made by some of the writers may have
been limited by the peer reviewer they used throughout the course
Again allowed students to decide how they wanted to do peer review (many in the fall
group preferred to have different peer reviewers)
Teachers’ writing with wordless picture books
7