CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS
THESIS SIGNATURE PAGE
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
EDUCATION
THESIS TITLE
Literary Analysis through Writing:
Strategies and Instruction for Success in High School English
AUTHOR:
Jennifer A Franey
DATE OF SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE:
April3, 2006
THE THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION
Dr. Anne Rene Elsbree
THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR (TYPED)
4/3/06
DATE
Dr. William DeJean
THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER (TYPED)
SIGNATURE
4/3/06
DATE
THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER (TYPED)
SIGNATURE
DATE
Literary Analysis through Writing:
Strategies and Instruction for Success in High School English
Jennifer A. Franey
California State University San Marcos
Literary Analysis Through Writing
i
Abstract
This teacher action research examined 11th grade high school students and
strategies that support their literary analysis. The study focused upon scaffolded
instruction and incorporated frequent writing practice in the form of one page writing
responses. Students were also shown how to analyze literature using the acronym of
DIPSS-diction, imagery, point of view, syntax, and structure. During the first unit
of instruction, students were taught how to analyze difficult pieces of literature and
wrote five writing responses. In the second unit of instruction, they wrote five
writing responses as well; however, at this time, the students were taught the
academic vocabulary of literary analysis and shown how to use the acronym of
DIPSS when analyzing text and composing their writing responses. One hundred and
six students' writing responses were collected, scored using a rubric, and analyzed.
Analysis of the data from the rubric scoring showed an improvement in student
writing from the first to the second unit for all groups analyzed. Students' reflective
journals showed evidence of validation for the strategies used in the study and the
comments in these journals illustrated that they believed their writing improved as a
result of the study. The students also believed that frequent writing and the DIPSS
strategy helped improve their writing. Further research is needed to determine if
student writing would continue to improve, and if so, how much improvement would
occur over a longer period of time.
KEY WORDS: scaffolded instruction, writing, high school English, literary analysis
Literary Analysis Through Writing
n
Acknowledgements
Two years ago, I began a masters program at Cal State San Marcos, never
expecting that my life would change so fully and completely. This thesis is the
product of two years of hard work, work that was supported by very special people in
my life. I must first thank my husband, John James Franey. We met on the first day
of class and began our life together that very night. Thank you for your continual
love and encouragement. You are always there for me, supporting me in every
decision. I love you. Thank you also to my parents, Barry and Cecelia Fleming.
You taught me what education really means and showed me that I can do anything;
thank you for being my first and best teachers. To my sister Allison - thank you also
for your support and love. In addition to family, I must also thank some very special
educators and friends. Thank you Christine Stempson - you are my friend and
admired mentor, a true teacher who is always there for me. Thank you also to Kym
Atkins and Megan Logreco - teachers who epitomize the concept of collaboration
and who define the spirit of all kids learning. To Anne Rene Elsbree and William
DeJean- thank you for always supporting me through the research and writing
process; you lead by example and show your students how their voices can be heard.
And finally, to my students-past, present and future-! teach for you. I teach so that
one day you will go out into this world armed with the ability to think critically, to
write eloquently, and to appreciate the power of words.
Literary Analysis Through Writing iii
Table of Contents
List of Tables...................................................................................... v
List of Figures... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. vi
Chapter One
Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Statement of the Problem...........................................................
Purpose to the Study....................................................................
Definition of Terms...................................................................
Brief Overview of Study.................................................................
1
1
3
5
9
Chapter Two
Review ofLiterature ......................................................................... 12
Preview of Chapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 12
Theory and Research Studies ....................................................... 12
And So ... I Began ..................................................................... 16
Chapter Three
Methodology............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Questions ... Once Again......................................................
Participants ...........................................................................
Procedures.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....
Putting It All Together............................................................
Materials and Instruments ..........................................................
Ethics .................................................................................
In Conclusion ........................................................................
18
18
19
23
28
32
40
41
Chapter Four
Results .......................................................................................... 43
The Questions ... Once Again ...................................................... 43
Quantitative Data ..................................................................... 44
Qualitative Data ...................................................................... 50
In Conclusion ......................................................................... 56
Chapter Five
Recommendations ................................................................................ 57
Summary ofFindings ................................................................ 57
Limitations and Humility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 60
My Findings in the Context of Past Research .................................... 61
Implications and Future Directions ................................................ 62
In Conclusion .......................................................................... 64
Literary Analysis Through Writing iv
References ...................................................................................... 65
Appendix A- Vocabulary Graphic Organizer. ............................................ 68
Appendix B- Weekly Scaffolded Instruction ............................................. 69
Appendix C- Pre Data Writing Response Prompts. Pre DIPSS Instruction ........... 70
Appendix D- Post Data Writing Response Prompts. Post DIPSS Instruction ....... 72
Appendix E- Sample Writing Response Handout for Students ......................... 74
Appendix F- Literary Analysis Rubric .................................................... 75
Literary Analysis Through Writing
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Ethnicity at Hidden High ........................................................... 19
Table 2. Demographics of Subgroups at Hidden High .................................. 20
Table 3. Participants within My Study According to Subgroups ...................... 22
Table 4. Participants within My Study According to Class and Gender .............. 23
Table 5. Six Point Rubric for Literary Analysis ...................................... 38, 46
Table 6. Results According to Class ....................................................... .48
Table 7. Results According to Gender ..................................................... 49
Table 8. Results According to Subgroups ................................................. 50
Table 9. Number of Students Who Wrote a Post Study Reflective Journal .......... 51
Table 10. Students' Comments on their Writing and Possible Improvement........ 51
Table 11. Students' Comments on the DIPSS Strategy ................................. 53
Table 12. Students' Comments on Writing Responses ................................. 53
Literary Analysis Through Writing vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. My Research Questions ........................... 11, 18, 28, 32, 35, 41, 43, 57
Figure 2. Pre Data (unit one) Writing Response .......................................... 36
Literary Analysis Through Writing
1
Chapter One
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
The kids who started it all. As I began my teaching career with optimism and
a sense of empowerment, I quickly began to realize, like so many other teachers, how
daunting my daily tasks of education really were. I looked around my college prep
ninth grade students and saw a multitude of inequities and an incredible lack of basic
skills. My students seemed to lack the basic vocabulary of literature to help them
navigate through the stories we read. They did not know how to question the text and
they rarely seemed engaged with the characters or plot. I attended conference after
conference looking for ways to help my floundering students. I joined forces with
three other teachers and ran a year-long teacher-researcher group which focused on
basic reading skills and strategies. And then my world changed.
I switched assigned teaching duties and began teaching eleventh grade
American Literature while at the same time starting my two-year masters program.
The difference I saw in the students' skills from the 9th to the 11th grade was
profound; yet, many 11th grade students seemed, for a lack of a better word, stuck.
They now could read the story and had opinions to express, but they lacked the ability
to focus in their writing. It seemed as though they understood, and yet on paper, their
thoughts appeared trite and obvious.
As a result of my observations, I decided to reflect on my students and their
obstacles to writing. How can students grow as writers and express themselves more
Literary Analysis Through Writing
2
eloquently? How can I use literature as a catalyst so that my students are not just
aware of writers and styles, but more importantly, so that they might learn to truly
analyze and problem-solve? How can I support students and their writing through
scaffolded instruction and teaching strategies? These were the questions that haunted
me throughout the beginnings of my masters program. I was exhausted by the
research that professed that a K-W-L chart (Ogle, 1986) or a simple Venn-diagram
(Daniels & Bizar, 2005) would solve the current mediocrity of our most senior public
education students - high school juniors and seniors. So now they can compare and
contrast. So now they have learned to question the text. As wonderful and as
fundamental as this achievement is, I wanted more for my students.
Wanting more. I wanted them to write. I looked at Jose, a junior who has
lived in America since first grade, yet who lacked the academic language to support
him in his writing ability. I looked at Sara, a student who seemed to possess great
thought yet had always suffered from the pattern of earning high D's or low C's on
her essays and in English class. How could I most help these struggling students?
How could I close the achievement gap and support their success in not only getting
to college, but also, staying there and being successful? The inspiration in my work
has been those students, my students-the students who lack confidence in writing
because they don't know what they are supposed to "say." I would tell students that
they needed to analyze a story. Unfortunately, many do not know how to analyze a
story. And so, I was inspired by many students, but most especially the students that
depended upon scaffolded instruction and a toolkit of strategies.
Literary Analysis Through Writing
3
The problem. As evidenced by the focus of many professional growth
development sessions and trainings I attended throughout the first years of my
teaching career, a recurring trend seemed to develop- high school students seem to
lack the skills necessary for literary analysis. Yes, they can summarize, find the main
idea, and are often great at connecting the "text to self' or the "text to text"; however,
I found that they cannot truly analyze the literature-be it prose or nonfiction. For
the purpose of this study, the term analyze refers to the process by which the reader
breaks down a passage and determines the author's purpose, style, reason for word
choice, etc. This process will be more fully explained in the definition of terms.
Higher level thinking skills for the purpose of this study refers to the students' ability
to analyze: to think, to question, and then to critique. This ability is indeed used in
higher education as well as in the work force. In order to be successful, however,
students need the help of their teachers. They need to rely on teachers who know
how to scaffold instruction so that they truly understand the analysis process and all
of the higher level thinking skills involved in it.
Purpose to the Study
The purpose of this action research is to determine how specific strategies and
lessons can increase students' ability to analyze literature in terms of the author's
style and the selected devices that he uses to create that particular style. I have
created my study and explored this topic because of the previous work by teachers
and researchers alike. Numerous studies in the past have focused on reading
Literary Analysis Through Writing
4
comprehension and whether students can make sense of the words, whether they can
recall information, or whether they can summarize and identify facts.
Past mere reading comprehension. Harvey and Goudvis (2000) explore the
idea of reading comprehension and believe that the goal of comprehension is to
construct meaning. Allen (2000), however, explores the idea of connecting reading to
one's life and believes in the power of questioning. It seems more crucial (perhaps
once these basic skills have been taught) to address the analysis skills specifically.
Can students interpret the nuances of an author's style and connect this style to his
message, his audience, and his purpose for writing? I believe that many students
cannot see past the basics of story plot maps and main idea web charts.
From my teaching experience, I noticed that students could not analyze
abstract texts and did not have the ability to critique the complexities of the material.
This skill, analysis-the understanding of the nuances of writing-can be critical for
a student's success. First, analysis in all disciplines is necessary for success at the
college and university level; and second, the ability to analyze literature transfers to
the ability to analyze in the work force and other areas of life. Thus, this ability to
question and examine complex issues is a critical skill. Students need the ability to
examine the subtleties and specifics of a text such as diction, imagery, tone and
syntax. This needed ability is the justification for conducting research that
specifically targets literary analysis skills.
Literary Analysis Through Writing
5
Definition ofTerms
My hope is that by using specific strategies, students' achievement in the area
of literary analysis will increase. Before explaining the procedure and sampling for
the research, the operational definitions must first be established for the terms used in
this action research.
Action research. So what is action research? Action research is the process
of teachers creating research questions and developing a plan of action to find the
answers. Hubbard and Power write, "Teacher research is research that is initiated and
carried out by teachers in their classrooms and schools" (1999, 2). Many classroom
teachers acknowledge the power of traditional educational research yet criticize such
work as not being relevant to their classrooms (Hubbard & Power, 1999). Instead,
they look to past research as support for creating their own action research. I have
done this; I have used past research studies and findings as the basis for creating my
own research questions, methodology, and data collection. I then used my analysis of
the process and results to make future recommendations.
Strategies. A key component to my action research was the teaching of
specific reading and writing strategies so that students were more thoughtful about
their literary analysis. Strategies are actions selected deliberately to achieve
particular goals (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). Olson expounds upon this definition
and adds, "The teacher's job is to help all students to become strategic-that is, to be
able to purposefully select tactics to achieve particular goals" (Olson, 2003).
Literary Analysis Through Writing
6
Strategies are the focus of my action research-teachers carefully selecting strategies
that assist students with their analysis of difficult text.
Higher level thinking skills. The concept of literary analysis connects to that
of higher level thinking skills. Higher level thinking skills are those of critique and
evaluation as opposed to the more simplistic level of thinking required to answer a
simple "yes or no" question (Bloom, 1956). Higher level thinking skills include
analysis and evaluation.
Analysis and evaluation. One must also address the term analysis. What does
it mean to analyze, and how can analysis be identified, or even measured? Analysis
is the process by which the reader breaks down the reading passage or literature
sample into its components (Olson, 2003). This process then allows the passage to be
more easily understood, and the reader can evaluate the whole in terms of its parts.
To evaluate a piece of literature is to judge it for a given purpose (Olson, 2003). In
other words, analysis involves the reader moving past basic reading comprehension;
readers must instead dive into the issues of style, author's purpose, word choice,
sophisticated writing devices such as syntax (sentence structure), and tone within a
written passage.
Achievement. The other necessary definition related to this research is that of
achievement. Achievement can take on many forms, and it is extremely subjective in
most cases. For the purpose of this research, achievement will be defined as
increased writing performance as evidenced by a rubric score. Wiggins ( 1998)
defines an achievement target as taking a vague teaching goal and establishing
Literary Analysis Through Writing
7
measurable terms. In this study, achievement will be measured by assessments in the
form of writing responses: one page timed-writings in which students are asked to
respond to a literary analysis prompt. The writing responses will then be measured
according to a rubric.
Strategic reading. The students will be asked to practice strategic reading
which for the purposes of this study will be defined as the students paying particular
attention to the words of the passage and how they create imagery and establish the
author's tone and purpose. Harvey and Goudvis (2000) explore the benefits of
students knowing how to make inferences, determine importance, and synthesize
information. These skills and implementing such methods of reading are the
backbone to literary analysis - the investigation of words and meaning within the
context of the study of literature.
Instructional scaffolding. The term instructional scaffolding for the purpose
of this study refers to a series of lessons based on skill-building to assist students in
the writing process. Instructional scaffolding is built upon the concept of "chunking
up" an idea or concept so that students understand the part before being asked to
make sense of the whole (Olson, 2003). By using instructional scaffolding, teachers
will be able to support students and their ability to illustrate their comprehension of
the text (or passage) through their writing responses. Olson (2003) believes it is the
teacher's obligation to scaffold instruction. Finally, repeated instruction is used to
refer to the practice of using the same or similar activities with students. Oftentimes,
teachers utilize a myriad of strategies and practices. This research will examine the
Literary Analysis Through Writing
8
practice of using a pattern of activities to assist the students in their literary analysis;
this repeated instruction, or pattern of instructional activities, will then be used as the
students attempt to analyze different pieces of literature.
Rubric. In order to assess the students' writing in my action research, I will
be using a rubric. A rubric is a set of scoring guidelines to evaluate students' work,
typically containing a scale of possible points and descriptors that indicate the level of
performance. A high number is assigned to best performances, and the descriptors
indicate what that entails (Wiggins, 1998).
DIPSS. While DIPSS was created by a group of students several years ago
and does not "exist" in research literature, I feel it necessary to define it here with the
other essential terms of my action research. DIPSS is an acronym created to help
students remember what to look for specifically when attempting to analyze a piece
of literature. The D stands for diction, the specific words an author chooses to use;
diction can include adjectives, nouns, colors, figurative language, sound devices, etc.
Imagery is the next portion of DIPSS. Imagery is created through the use of similes,
metaphors, and other literary devices. The next part of DIPSS is point of view.
Often, the point of view the author chooses to create his work is essential to how the
theme or content is delivered. Is the story told in the first person point of view(/ then
went to the store ... ) or is the story explained through a third person point of view (The
boy then went to the store ... )?
The final letters of the DIPSS acronym stand for
syntax and structure. Syntax relates to the structure, length, and style of the
sentences. Does the author write in declarative, short sentences or compound-
Literary Analysis Through Writing
9
complex sentences, full of sophisticated conjunctions and punctuation? Finally, the
structure of a text is essential (flashbacks, chapters, stanzas within a poem, etc.), and
the students are reminded to examine the author's method of presenting the content of
his piece by using DIPSS.
Brief Overview of Study
Data driven and objective research is immensely valuable to the educational
realm, but one must also consider the benefits of teacher action research. My study,
while founded in data and based on the research findings of previous educators, is
action research. It is an attempt to look at not only my practice, but also the practices
of my students-what they understand and how I can better support their writing.
The strategies one uses and the way in which teachers plan and students learn go hand
in hand. Hubbard and Power contend that "Many teachers have found the process of
generating research questions to be a healthy way to stretch toward new
understanding, and to avoid having the gaps become gulfs between students and
colleagues" (Hubbard & Power, 1999, pg. 25). Clearly, questions are at the center of
my research, and the process of examining my practice and the writing of my students
were one in the same.
I began to reflect. And so, as a teacher of writing, and someone who is
concerned with the lack of success many of our students experience in regards to
writing and literary analysis, I began to wonder, "How can I best plan units of literary
instruction that will support my students' writing?" My experience led me to ask,
"How can I educate my students so that their writing demonstrates close-reading and
Literary Analysis Through Writing 10
a deeper understanding of literary devices such as diction, point of view, imagery, and
a writer's syntactical style? How can a teacher mold multiple best practices (Daniels
& Bizar, 2005) and curriculum backwards design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) so that
students are successful in writing?" I didn't just want my students to pass eleventh
grade English; I wanted them to learn the skill of analysis and examine a piece of
literature for its detail.
And so, in the spirit of teacher research, I focused once again. I noticed that
while many students can begin to "sense" how stylistic devices contribute to a piece
of literature or non-fiction, they have trouble verbalizing it and even more trouble
expressing literary analysis in their writing. Throughout this study, achievement will
be measured by formative assessments in the form of writing responses. The
students' achievement (their writing responses) will be measured on a 6-point rubric
that focuses on clarity, depth of thought, and specific attention to literary devices as
evidenced by their writing responses. For the purpose of this research, the student
will not be evaluated for grammatical errors or spelling; however, severe issues with
English language conventions can often cloud the writer's point and make it difficult
for the reader to assess the writer's understanding of the analyzed piece of literature.
My research questions. Therefore, I had to focus on a few essential thoughts.
Doing so was incredibly difficult as reading and writing are so very complex. By
carefully creating units of study where students are guided throughout the analysis of
each piece of literature, by providing students with terminology and strategies to
dissect the author's writing style and purpose, by supporting students with vocabulary
Literary Analysis Through Writing 11
instruction and background knowledge of the topic, students will increase their
achievement in literary analysis as evidenced by their writing responses. This
increase in achievement was what I hoped I could claim as a result of my study and
work with students. And thus, my questions collide upon one another while at the
same time, supporting one another. My questions are:
Figure 1. My Research Questions.
3
1
2
1. How does scaffolded instruction and
backwards design support student
achievement in writing, specifically
literary analysis?
2. How does the teaching strategy of
"DIPSS" (diction, imagery, point of
view, syntax, structure) support
students in their writing of literary
analysis?
3. How does the instructional use of
writing responses (frequently repeated
one page writing practice, completed
in class) help student writing?
Literary Analysis Through Writing 12
Chapter Two
Review of Literature
Preview of Chapter
This chapter will explore the past and current research that connects to the
fundamental ideas of my own action research. The idea of scaffolded instruction, and
numerous reading and writing strategies have been thoroughly examined. Reading
comprehension, direct instruction, backwards design, and repeated instruction have
also been analyzed. This chapter will acknowledge past research while also
establishing the need for my own study.
Theory and Research Studies
Reading comprehension. The literature and research pertaining to the idea of
reading comprehension and a student's ability to discern is extensive to say the least.
Gallagher (2002) suggests that readers who read more achieve a significant growth in
fluency, comprehension, and enjoyment. Keene and Zimmermann (1997), however,
explored and examined this idea of "comprehension" extensively; they looked at the
strategies involved in reading comprehension and improved student understanding of
the basics of reading. They explored strategies such as text-to-self connections,
predicting, and visualizing. They concluded that reading comprehension improved
with strategies designed to connect the reader with the text. These same strategies
were again explored by Harvey and Goudvis (2000); their research stemmed from
that of Durkin (1979), and Fielding and Pearson (1994). Durkin challenged the
Literary Analysis Through Writing 13
effectiveness of simplistic worksheets; she concluded that students were not really
demonstrating thought, but rather simple literal understanding.
Questioning the text. Furthermore, Harvey and Goudvis (2000) outlined the
advantages of questioning and illustrated the benefits of students pushing past the
obvious within the text and looking for answers to questions that they themselves
generated: "Questions are at the heart of teaching and learning ... Questioning is the
strategy that propels readers forward"(Harvey & Goudvis, 2000, pg. 22). Whereas
the research of Harvey and Goudvis focused upon the reader and his understanding,
teachers of college prep literature must develop their students' literary analysis skills
and focus upon the higher-level thinking skills of upperclassmen in high school.
Harvey and Goudvis (2000) believe that authors intend to capture readers' attention.
But how do they do it? What are the stylistic devices that the authors employ and
how do techniques such as diction and syntax lend themselves to both the authors'
abilities as well as our own understanding of the text and its purpose. The skill of
literary analysis is where the research is lacking; the research serves the classroom
teachers attempting to assist their students in reading comprehension-to give their
students basic strategies to deepen their understanding. But what is next? For high
school students attempting to prepare themselves for the academic world of the
university, they must be able to ask the deeper questions related to literary style and
complex writing devices.
High school writing. Newell ( 1996) explores tenth grade classrooms and
analyzes what the students wrote and learned when their teachers used either reader-
Literary Analysis Through Writing 14
based or teacher-centered instructional tasks for literary analysis writing. The
students were middle-tracked; the demands of college writing and methods through
which teachers at the high school level could prepare students were examined. The
sample of 45 students wrote essays, and the data concluded that significant
differences favored the reader-based tasks over the teacher-centered tasks (Newell,
1996). Reader-based tasks consisted of activities where the students guided
themselves through the passage of literature, questioning the passage, while teachercentered activities often included the teacher creating and asking the questions and
guiding the students in their analysis.
However, other research studies disagree with these findings. Casazza (1993)
supports using a model of direct instruction to teach and claims it to be a natural
framework until students become capable of working more on their own. She cites
Vygotsky' s (1978) "zone of proximal development," where students continually push
and challenge their knowledge and development of a skill. This study accounts for
these findings in the design and methodology, yet, it also takes into account the idea
of student understanding of the importance of literary analysis. Benton, Corkill,
Sharp, Downey and Khramtsova ( 1995) examined the writing of over three hundred
ninth grade participants and the role of knowledge and interest in writing. They
believed that they were the first to investigate gender and grade level and the effects
of those two variables on knowledge and interest. Their hypothesis was confirmed:
older students are more successful than younger students in expressing their thoughts
through writing (Benton et al., 1995).
Literary Analysis Through Writing 15
Instructional scaffolding. Carol Booth Olson also looked at the connection
between reading and writing. Olson (2003) referred to Vygotsky and the concept of
communicative activities and Bruner's coining of the phrase "instructional
scaffolding." Through a series of specific activities and scaffolded lessons, students
can use the writing process to illustrate their comprehension of the text. This
scaffolded instruction and repeated writing practice is the basis of this proposed
study: the idea that carefully sculpted questions (on the part of the instructor) and
focused writing prompts can enable a high school student to dive into the deeper and
more sophisticated ideas of literary analysis. While reading and writing are
connected, Jackson and Doellinger's (2002) study illustrated how students, even older
university students, could be poor decoders and yet still comprehend the text.
Connected to this idea, Olson (2003) supports the contention that higher level reading
comprehension is directly linked to writing and to students analyzing a passage in
terms of style, diction, syntax, imagery, and tone.
Backwards design. Finally, one must look to the research described by
Wiggins and McTighe (1998), that of backwards design. They state "one starts with
the end-the desired results (goals or standards)-and then derives the curriculum
from the evidence of learning (performances) called for by the standard and the
teaching needed to equip students to perform"(Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pg. 8).
Backwards design is another key to my action research. How can we combine best
practices to best support student writing, specifically analysis? I believe that while
much research is devoted to student-generated questions (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000),
Literary Analysis Through Writing 16
equal power lies in teacher-created questions when those questions are specific and
limited. In other words, rather than ask a student a fact-based low level question
(Bloom, 1956), support the student in his or her analysis of the text with thought
provoking and insightful questions. Rather than ask the student to write one essay
every few months, support the student with frequent writing that addresses one
passage or excerpt of a text.
Repeated instruction. Finally, my methodology takes into account the
benefits of repeated instruction and frequent writing opportunities. Johnstone,
Ashbaugh, and Warfield (2002) believe that general, repeated-writing experience is
important, even for high school and college-aged students. They also found that after
controlling for repeated writing experience, students' writing skills continued to
improve. However, their participants were college students; my participants are high
school students. Does the use of repeated instruction and scaffolded activities support
high school students in their achievement of written literary analysis? It is because of
previous research that educators need to continue exploring how students write at the
high school level and how their deeper-level thoughts are expressed through writing
and literary analysis.
And So ... I Began
And thus, I used previous research and studies as the foundation for my own
action research. Reading and writing instructional methods have indeed been
explored, yet I felt as though my research would address a need in the educational
world. Much of the research that exists explores students' ability to read or write; I
Literary Analysis Through Writing 17
wanted to explore how the two skills combine and how, for high school students,
literary analysis can be improved. And so, with much enthusiasm and a hearty
knowledge of supporting research attained, I began to design and implement my own
action research.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 18
Chapter Three
Methodology
The Questions ... Once Again
Before Ijump into the description of my many weeks conducting the study, I
must remember the essential questions that this methodology was created to answer.
The following questions are the backbone of my action research and thus, served as
the focal points throughout this entire process. The questions, once again, were:
Figure 1. My Research Questions.
3
1
2
1. How does scaffolded instruction
and backwards design support
student achievement in writing,
specifically literary analysis?
2. How does the teaching strategy of
"DIPSS" (diction, imagery, point
of view, syntax, structure) support
students in their writing of literary
analysis?
3. How does the instructional use of
writing responses (frequently
repeated one page writing
practice, completed in class) help
student writing?
Throughout this chapter, I will describe in detail who my participants were and how I
decided to ascertain whether or not instructional scaffolding, repetitious and frequent
writing, along with a clever acronym, DIPSS, helped to serve my students in
achieving more detailed literary analysis.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 19
Participants
Participants: The school. In regards to the issue of implementation and
methodology, this study explored the question concerning literary analysis and
students' achievement by using the students in three different sections (classes) of
eleventh grade American Literature. I teach at a diverse urban high school in
Southern California-Hidden High. There are 2, 718 students that attend this school
and the ethnic diversity is as follows: Hispanic: 52%; White: 37.2%; African
American: 3.3%; Asian American: 2.9%; Filipino: 2.7%; American Indian: 1.0%;
Pacific Islander: 0.3%; Other: 0.7%.
Table 1. Ethnicity at Hidden High
Ethnicity
Percentage
Hispanic
52.0
White
37.2
African American
3.3
Asian American
2.9
Filipino
2.7
American Indian
1.0
Pacific Islander
0.3
Other
0.7
Hidden High is a large comprehensive high school; a few years ago it was
labeled "underperforming" according to the State of California. However, our school
Literary Analysis Through Writing 20
scores have consistently improved, and many teachers have used a variety of
strategies to help all students succeed.
Last year, after much work on the part of students and staff alike, we were
designated a California Distinguished School as well as a Title I Distinguished
School. The contagious and inspirational attitude on campus served, in a way, as the
catalyst for this study. At Hidden High there are 2,718 students: 1,342 males (49% of
the school population) and 1,376 females (51% of the school population). The school
serves many different socio-economic levels; 468 students ( 17% of the school
population) participate in the Free and Reduced Lunch program. However, what truly
distinguishes Hidden High is the large student population of English Language
Learners and the success of our English Language Development program. There are
1, 182 students (44% of the student population) that are either current!y enrolled as an
English Language Leamer or who have been reclassified and are now taking classes
with supported instruction. Here is a table illustrating the number of students and the
percentages of the different subgroups at Hidden High.
Table 2. Demographics of Subgroups at Hidden High
Subgroup
Number of Students
Percentage
Males
1,342
49
Females
1,376
51
English Language Learners
1,182
44
468
17
Free and Reduced Lunch program
Literary Analysis Through Writing 21
Participants: The students. There are approximately thirty-five to forty
students per class at Hidden High. After mortality threats of students changing
schedules, dropping out from our school, or choosing not to participate in the study, I
had a total of 106 students participate. While not random, this convenience sample
(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003) allowed for more frequent assessments and more control.
All three classes of my American Literature course were college prep with students
possessing varying levels of ability.
College prep courses are those designed to meet the needs of all students
while also meeting the "A through G requirements" (approved courses which students
must take to apply for and enroll in California State Universities and University of
California schools). Former English Learners (EL students), English-only students
and former honors (or GATE) students all take college prep English. The majority of
students at Hidden High take college prep English courses.
There are two options, besides college prep, for students at Hidden High.
English Learners who are still developing their English language acquisition skills
(and are not yet mainstreamed into college prep) need a "sheltered" environment
where they can have access to the course curriculum and content but with English
Learner supported instruction. They cannot yet read, write, and speak proficiently in
English. This school also offers AP Language and Composition for the 11th graders.
And while we have different programs to address and serve all learners, there is still,
however, a wide variety of language abilities and reading levels for the mainstream
students who enroll in College Prep American Literature.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 22
The participating students of this study were in the 11th grade and therefore
were fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years of age. My study included 106 students
total: 54 males (51% of the participants in the study) and 52 females (49% of the
participants in the study). These percentages are consistent with the school's
population, and thus my participants were a reflective sampling. In addition, 37 of
the 106 participants (35% of the participants in the study) were classified as English
learners; they were in need of strategies to help them access the difficult texts and
standards that serve as the backbone to this college prep course. Finally, my study
included 10 students (9% of the participants in the study) who were enrolled in the
Free and Reduced Lunch program. The following illustrates the number of students
and percentages of each of the subgroups within my study:
Table 3. Participants within My Study According to Subgroups
Subgroup
Number of Students
Percentage
Males
54
51
Females
52
49
English Language Learners
37
35
Free and Reduced Lunch program
10
9
Clearly, the 106 students (while not a random sampling) represent the student
population at Hidden High. In addition, each class had a fairly equal distribution of
males and females. The class demographics according to gender are:
Literary Analysis Through Writing 23
Table 4. Participants within My Study According to Class and Gender
Number of Students
Gender
Class
Males
One
19
Two
18
Three
17
One
18
Two
14
Three
20
Females
In class one, there were 19 males and 18 females; in class two there were 18 males
and 14 females; and in class three there were 17 males and 20 females. Each of the
three classes had a fairly equal distribution of males and females. In addition, the
class demographics were all consistent with the school demographics.
Procedures
Praxis. As I began this school year, I was excited for the opportunity to put
theory into practice, to create praxis- action informed by theory (Lather, 1996). All
throughout year one of my masters program, I watched my students and realized that
there was so much more to understanding than what the research shows-it is about
being supported throughout the entire process.
Vocabulary instruction. As such, a critical component to my design was
vocabulary instruction. A supportive colleague (who also teaches American
Literature at my school) and I spent the weeks directly following the end of the
school year to decipher words that would directly support the students in their
Literary Analysis Through Writing 24
analysis of the texts. For example, we begin the year with a study of Native
American literature, and as such, we made sure to include words that fit thematically.
We selected words such as benevolent, cunning, and conniving; thus, the students
added power to their writing when analyzing the Trickster stories ("The Coyote and
the Buffalo"). We cross-referenced many of the words to ensure that they were highfrequency words (seen often in text and high-stakes tests such as the SAT). We
created a graphic organizer tool that provided the students with the word and the
definition; they then were asked to supply their own sentence as well as a visual or
picture that exemplified the meaning of the word. See Appendix A.
Backwards design. In addition, during our summer months of planning we
designed each week so that the stories could be read in class. While in theory 11th
graders should be experienced in the reading strategies that promote questioning of
the text and seeking clarification, they do not always know how to stay focused in
their thinking. As a result, we read the texts in class; the students were to reread them
at home. Once students read it and they can make connections and they question the
text (Keene & Zimmermann, 1997), what is next? I was very interested in the
average C+ student-the one who always seems neglected in research. It seemed as
though throughout my entire credentialing process and coursework for my masters
program, the research focused on the weakest of students. But what of the high
school junior who is average? What strategies are there to implement in taking "not
bad" writing to impressive and stellar? This is where I wanted to focus and this is
where the procedures in my classroom vary from so many others.
------
-~-------~-~------~
Literary Analysis Through Writing 25
From personal observations, I had realized that we teach in a cycle. Read the
book. Take a test on the book. Write an essay on the book. Next book. Where is the
constant feedback? Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) illustrate that the timing
of feedback appears to be critical to its effectiveness. However, even with constant
feedback, my students were writing only a few times a semester, often with no
pressure. Students took the prompt home, procrastinated until the night before the
due date, and then sat down to the temptation of the Internet and hopefully decided to
write something of their own. I realized, after a few years of teaching, that it was the
procedure of such an educational system that seemed to get in the way.
And thus, I devised a method to get students writing-there in class. Reading
and writing in class is a seemingly basic concept, and yet having completed hundreds
of hours of observation in my apprenticeship as a teacher, I rarely saw this. Most
classes consisted of the "sage on the stage" style of teaching. Instead, I worked to
backwards design my lessons and units (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) and created a
weekly schedule that embraced students discussing, questioning, reviewing, and
finally writing about the literature. This schedule of scaffolded instruction was a key
element to my design. See Appendix B.
DIPSS is created and shared. I did not want my students just to read and then
write about the stories and essays of American Literature. I wanted it all. I wanted
my students not only to figure the story out for themselves (the theme, the symbolism,
the characterization), but also to look at the style of the writing. A good friend and
colleague at Hidden High, who has taught Advanced Placement English for years and
Literary Analysis Through Writing 26
attended numerous conferences on advanced writing and analysis, shared with me her
tips of wisdom: "The students need to really look at the words used by the author.
They call that diction. They need to look at how sentences are formed. They call that
syntax. They need to analyze why similes and metaphors are used. They call that
imagery." I knew that. Why had I never thought to explicitly say it to my students?
This AP teacher joked, "We call it DIPSS- diction, imagery, point of view, syntax,
structure."
"Where can I find this DIPSS?" I wondered, and discovered that like all things
in the educational world-the students themselves had created the acronym years ago
in one of her classes. Suddenly I realized that this strategy was another key; scaffold
the instruction and get students writing about the intricacies of style and why they are
there. Again, this repetitious and scaffolded instruction was key to my design; the
students were given multiple opportunities to look at short texts (instead of novels) as
a way to practice both literary analysis and their writing skills. In other words, the
students were asked to read a sample of literature and then address a prompt with a
writing response. I define the term writing response as a one page (front and part of
the back) written composition that addresses, or rather answers, all aspects of the
prompt.
Writing responses. The students composed their responses in class; they were
given thirty to forty-five minutes. Of course, some students needed additional time
because of special education or language modifications made to their learning plans.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 27
And while many students seem intimidated to write under timed and pressured
conditions, this aspect to my research design epitomizes my very beliefs as a teacher.
First and foremost, I believe that such timed writing helps prepare students for
high-stake tests such as college entrance examinations and placement tests.
Secondly, and most importantly, students are often not supported for their work at
home. I have many students who work in the evening; others are plagued with family
issues and disputes, while still others simply never learned the determination and
focus required of a writer. And thus, for my first few years of teaching, I was stunned
at how apathetic students seemed to be about writing. I took it personally when they
came to class without their essays. If they knew that writing was such a large
component of their grade, how could they come to school empty-handed? I have
come to the realization that for some, yes, it is sheer laziness. But for others, life just
happens to get in the way.
I will neither condemn this phenomenon nor embrace it. Rather, I will
overcome it and schedule writing time within the context of class. I liken the
situation to sports. Rarely do we see a football coach talk and lecture for two hours
and then assign his players the task of practicing their moves and techniques at home,
isolated and without support. Instead, practice is just that - practice. It is a time
where athletes are supported in their craft, and coaches illustrate where improvements
can to be made. The need for support and feedback is the reasoning behind my
methodology and design; these observations and beliefs epitomize my research
questions and the essence of action research. Again the questions were:
Literary Analysis Through Writing 28
Figure 1. My Research Questions.
3
1
2
1. How does scaffolded instruction
and backwards design support
student achievement in writing,
specifically literary analysis?
2. How does the teaching strategy of
"DIPSS" (diction, imagery, point
of view, syntax, structure) support
students in their writing of literary
analysis?
3. How does the instructional use of
writing responses (frequently
repeated one page writing
practice, completed in class) help
student writing?
Putting It All Together
There is more, however, to my design and research than mere practice writing
in class. It is a combination of several best practices. My students were held
accountable for vocabulary, both content vocabulary as well as academic vocabulary.
Not only did they need to use their weekly vocabulary words within the context of
their writing responses and review questions, they were also directly taught the
meaning of academic words that would enable them to go deeper with their insight
and analysis. Words such as mood, tone, diction, and syntax were explained time and
time again. It is my belief that students cannot probe deeper into the complexities of
a text if they are not given the tools to do so; thus, they must understand the academic
vocabulary related to literary analysis. These words are taught to our Advanced
Placement students, students taking college level courses in high school. Why not
teach such academic vocabulary to our college prep students?
Literary Analysis Through Writing 29
Pre data. In addition to the vocabulary strategies, activities must be
scaffolded. Thus, I established a schedule that fit into the school schedule while
supporting students in literary analysis. The weekly schedule at Hidden High School
consisted of one traditional day (Monday) and four block days (Tuesday through
Friday). On traditional Mondays, the students attended all of their six classes (each
fifty-eight minutes in length) while on block days, they had three longer classes (each
block class consists of one hour and fifty-three minutes of instruction time). For the
purposes of this study, on the block days of each week, participants read a sample
piece of literature and composed a writing response. Of course, this schedule varied
depending on the school schedule or students' need (because of assembly schedules,
absenteeism, etc.).
For the first unit of study, the students composed five writing responses.
However, even from the beginning, I never asked my students simply to respond to
the writing prompt without first preparing them for the task. Each story was read in
class and dissected by students in a sort of open-forum. They were allowed to ask for
clarification and to respond to the text, much like Keene and Zimmermann advocate
(2000). After the students read the text, they were given a few specifically directed
review questions to answer. These review questions were often the homework for the
evening, thus allowing my students to reflect and to think about the text more.
Oftentimes, I would create five to ten questions that required depth of thought. Why
does the author use the diction he does in order to establish the mood of the story?
What imagery (words, similes and metaphors) is used to assist the author in
Literary Analysis Through Writing 30
expressing his theme? The students and I then shared our responses to the review
questions in class, and they could take notes and expand their ideas.
It was then that students wrote. They wrote using their vocabulary lists
(preloaded with words that correlated to the theme and topic of the text). They used
their review questions, and I encouraged them to refer to their textbook and their
notes from class. This basic approach to supported and scaffolded instruction lasted
approximately one month-our first unit of study, Introduction to American
Literature: Native Americans, Colonialists and Puritans. Each student produced five
writing responses as a result of their hard work and efforts.
Post data. The next phase of the study was several weeks long as well.
During this portion, the students again received a sample of literature. Like the
literature in the first unit of study, the students explored short stories and essays from
early American Literature. I specifically used the works for two reasons. First, the
pieces of literature are part of our district's core list, and all 11th grade students are
expected to study them. More importantly however, was the pedagogy which
supported their use. I wanted to use pieces that were short enough to read in class.
With low reading levels and outside influences, many of my students become
discouraged at home with difficult and long reading assignments. In my early years
of teaching, I came to understand that often my assessments of student learning were
unfounded and weak. Their writing looked as though they did not understand the text
whereas I estimated it was more that they did not do the reading.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 31
However, before my students were asked to respond to the prompt during this
portion of the research, they answered a set of guided questions that focused upon the
following elements of higher-levelliterature analysis: diction, imagery, point of view,
syntax, and structure. The students also received modeling and participated in
structured activities that focus on literary analysis. During weeks four, five, and six, I
continued to deliver mini-lessons on DIPSS and incorporated more scaffolded
instruction. These three weeks of instruction were focused on close reading strategies
and pushing students to analyze the author's purpose, the mood of the passage and the
literary devices of DIPSS.
This time the review questions pushed students to use their higher-level
thinking and to focus on the author's style and purpose. Why does the author use the
diction he does in order to establish the mood of the story? What imagery (words,
similes and metaphors) is used to assist the author in expressing his theme? They still
wrote their writing responses using their review questions; they still read the pieces
with me in class, and they still incorporated vocabulary into their writing.
However, this time they wrote using their knowledge of style and better
understood how an author's choice ofliterary devices creates a mood for the reader,
allows a reader to understand a theme, or perhaps even implies the author's purpose
for writing the piece. These are what we referred to as our DIPSS (diction, imagery,
point of view, syntax, and structure) handouts - a series of handouts that listed
different words used to describe varied tones and moods of a text, an explanation of
syntax, structure, diction, and other advanced academic vocabulary terms. Again, the
Literary Analysis Through Writing 32
students read a sample piece of literature and composed a writing response (repeated
instruction), but this time there was more direct instruction of what to look for, and
they were provided with a more in-depth toolkit as they analyzed the author's style,
purpose, and thematic focus.
Materials and Instruments
My materials reflect my research questions. While the design of my study is a
direct product of my action research questions, the materials and instruments were
also a perfect reflection of those driving questions, probing me to analyze how I teach
literary analysis. Again, they were:
Figure 1. My Research Questions.
3
1
2
1. How does scaffolded instruction
and backwards design support
student achievement in writing,
specifically literary analysis?
2. How does the teaching strategy of
"DIPSS" (diction, imagery, point
of view, syntax, structure) support
students in their writing of literary
analysis?
3. How does the instructional use of
writing responses (frequently
repeated one page writing
practice, completed in class) help
student writing?
Scaffolded instruction and DIPSS. The most instrumental of my materials
would most likely be the backwards design of my units and the writing prompts
themselves. A fellow teacher and I created the units' schedules throughout the
summer before my study began. We worked through the pacing of each unit and how
we would constantly assess the students and expose them to in-class writing. Because
Literary Analysis Through Writing 33
we wanted to promote comparable data, we used similar prompts for both the pre data
and post data writing responses, units one and two respectively. The main difference
in the writing prompts was that the post data writing responses included academic
vocabulary that reflected the scaffolded instruction of unit two, the post data unit.
Throughout that unit, I used mini-lessons to teach the students the higher-level
thinking skills necessary for literary analysis. Part of the philosophy behind my
study, and what I hoped to discover, is that students should not be exposed to a
remediated program, but instead to an enriched curriculum. My colleague had
experienced success using the acronym ofDIPSS (diction, imagery, point of view,
syntax, structure) with her Advanced Placement students, and I believed that specific
instruction of academic vocabulary could help my college prep students understand
the complexities of literary analysis. As previously stated, a group of high school
seniors created the acronym in their Advanced Placement Literature course.
I could offer my students, college prep students with huge differentials in their
learning styles and strengths, these same AP strategies-things to look for when
analyzing a piece at the higher level. In other words, I could use DIPSS with my
students. I could use DIPSS in a classroom where reading and writing levels varied
and greatly differed, in a classroom where many of the students were just recently
reclassified from our English Language Learners program, in a classroom where,
according to our system, all students are college prep. And so, I specifically and
explicitly taught them five key academic terms that would assist them with analysis:
diction, imagery, point of view, syntax, and structure. Throughout unit two (the post
Literary Analysis Through Writing 34
data unit), the students were taught to look specifically for these literary devices as
they attempted to analyze a piece of literature.
Class discussion and graphic organizers. Another instrument that I used
throughout both units was graphic organizers focused on DIPSS. The students were
asked to read the piece in class; often we listened to it on CD while reading it. Other
times, I read it aloud to the class, or students would volunteer and take turns reading
the piece. Supporting students through varied teaching strategies is another variable
to the study. All of the pieces used throughout units one and two were short enough
to read during a one hour and fifty three minute class session. The students typically
read the piece and took notes in some sort of graphic organizer as we did so. Often, I
would use a graphic organizer that had been provided through the textbook company;
other times, I would create the note-taking graphic organizer myself. I constantly
focused on the specificity of the piece and had students focus on the choice of words
(diction) or the syntactical pattern of the sentences within the work (syntax).
All the while, we continued our vocabulary and grammar instruction to
support our reading and writing. This teaching strategy was utilized throughout all of
unit one (pre data) and unit two (post data); however, in unit two I made the strategy
obvious to the students. I would say, "Here we are going to find examples of parallel
structure in Patrick Henry's speech, and we're going to try to decipher why that
pattern is being used. That's syntax. We have to figure out why it's there - what tone
it creates for the reader or how it evokes emotion." In unit two, as I taught the
academic terms (diction, imagery, point of view, syntax, structure) to the students,
Literary Analysis Through Writing 35
they organized their thoughts, their notes, and their observations about the text into
their graphic organizers.
Oftentimes for homework, the students would then go home, review or reread
the text, and answer a few review questions. The questions were typically higherlevel thinking questions that focused the student towards analysis rather than
regurgitation of fact, a story plot summary. These questions were then once again
reviewed by the students in class. Then, only after these discoveries had been shared
and recorded, would students write their analysis in a more formal sense. With this
repeated and scaffolded instruction in place, the students were supported next with
constant writing. I wanted to stay focused on my research questions-once again,
they were:
Figure 1. My Research Questions.
1
3
2
1. How does scaffolded instruction
and backwards design support
student achievement in writing,
specifically literary analysis?
2. How does the teaching strategy of
"DIPSS" (diction, imagery, point
of view, syntax, structure) support
students in their writing of literary
analysis?
3. How does the instructional use of
writing responses (frequently
repeated one page writing
practice, completed in class) help
student writing?
More instruments-the writing prompts. While the explicit instruction of
DIPSS was a major instrument in the design of my study, the writing responses
served as the backbone of my data collection. The DIPSS strategy was the writing
Literary Analysis Through Writing 36
instruction; the writing responses served as the writing assessment. And thus, the
puzzle seemed complete. My supportive colleague and I, not only backwards planned
the lessons and units (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998), we also wrote the writing response
prompts with the DIPSS strategy and vocabulary in mind. I wanted to pack the
prompts full of terminology that would remind the students what and how to write
thought provoking analysis. Here is one example of the writing prompts we created:
Figure 2. Pre Data (unit one) Writing Response.
Writing Response: "From the Interesting Life of Olaudah Equiano"
(slave narrative - Olaudah Equiano)
Prompt: "This wretched situation was again aggravated by the galling of the chains ... The
shrieks of the women, and the groans of the dying, rendered the whole scene of horror
almost inconceivable." Explain how the underlined words help establish the mood in this
part of the slave narrative. Remember, mood is the feeling or atmosphere that a writer
creates for the reader. Think about what all the underlined words have in common. What
does using these images help Equiano to do? How do these words make the reader feel?
Use 3 vocabulary words in your response.
The complete ten prompts and an example writing response handout can be found in
the appendix. See Appendix C, D, and E. The prompts were printed on lined paper
and given to the students so that they could write beneath the prompt of the front side
of the paper and on the back of the paper as well. The students were asked to write at
least a paragraph and to consider the writing activity as though they were writing the
"meat" or the body of an essay. I instructed them to not worry about an introduction
or a conclusion but to instead focus on analysis.
Most of the prompts, be they pre data or post data prompts, instructed the
students to use their notes, their worksheets (graphic organizers) or their review
questions. Notice, that as we reached the post data instruction, unit two, the students
Literary Analysis Through Writing 37
were reminded of DIPSS and the strategies I had taught them. This technique was
intended to remind students to use their new knowledge so that I could assess whether
the strategy of DIPSS was effective.
Rubric scoring. The literature read and examined by the students and the
writing responses assigned throughout this study were in alignment with the standard
course of instruction for American Literature at Hidden High School. Each of the
writing response prompts was written using the same academic language and asked
the students to focus on literary analysis. Then, each of the ten pieces (five during the
pre data and five during the post data) was scored on a six-point rubric. This sixpoint scale was used in Marshall's (1987) study of literary understanding; it was used
once again in Newell's study (1996) to judge whether students were able to write
analytically about the features of a text using the text to support and elaborate on their
interpretation.
By using a previously created and research-based rubric, I was better able to
define the criteria by which I was to evaluate the students' analysis. In addition, I
adapted the rubric to reflect the past several years of my school's work in writing and
analysis. I melded my school's documents to that of Marshall's and in doing so,
created a specific and detailed rubric focused only on literary analysis, as opposed to
the entire piece.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 38
Table 5. Six Point Rubric for Literary Analysis
Score
Criteria
1
brief, shallow answer; no analysis of evidence
2
summarizes the text; does not address or interpret the whole prompt
3
one or more inferences; little specific response; very simple and basic
analysis
4
one or more inferences, but incomplete inferences with some specific
support; predictable yet solid
5
reports and associates details (textual support/evidence) with
inferences; thoughtful and strong analysis
6
one or more elaborate inferences with specific support from text;
extremely perceptive and insightful
(The six-point scale from Marshall's 1987 study was also adapted in that there is now
a numerical value for each level; this lends itself more towards statistical data and
analysis. Marshall used an "a" through "g" system to designate the different levels.)
The reason for using a six-point rubric lies in the students' familiarity with such a
device and its importance in their other academic assignments. All students at
Hidden High take a series of Common Assessments, tests created and monitored by
the English Department. These tests are scored on a six-point rubric; a four-point
rubric was initially used but many teachers found that the more limited scale made it
difficult for the students to see growth or progress in their writing. In addition, the
Literary Analysis Through Writing 39
newly adapted version ofthe SAT utilizes a six-point rubric and thus, the students can
see the relevance of how and why they are being assessed in this manner. This
scoring system can then transfer to more high-stake assessments. This aspect of the
research design also addressed the issue of ethics in research. The students were not
going to be exposed to any extraneous teaching methodologies by participating in this
study. They were already accustomed to such rubric grading.
In order to ensure anonymity for each student when grading, the students
labeled each writing response with their name and student identification number. I
would then photocopy each writing response and remove their name; this way, when
grading the writing responses, I would not score the papers with a bias. By not
having the names, I removed (as best I could) the validity threat of teacher bias. To
help and support students in their writing, I then graded the original writing responses
and provided immediate feedback: need more analysis, perhaps quote the text,
provide insight into the inference made, develop the analysis further. I was fearful
that if I graded the writing responses according to the rubric as I went through the
study, I would naturally see improvement and again, my results would be threatened
by teacher bias.
Oftentimes, teachers will grade differently in one session than in another; and
thus, I waited until the end of the pre data and the students had composed all five
writing responses before scoring them. I spent two days in grading mode and
diligently compared their pieces to the rubric. Then, I repeated the laborious process
with the post data after the second unit had concluded. Each portion, the pre data and
Literary Analysis Through Writing 40
post data, took approximately three to four weeks of instruction, with the total study
lasting two and half months.
Ethics
In regards to the issue of ethics, the students and their parents were given
letters explaining that their writing responses were to be analyzed and that the content
would be evaluated. The letter also explained that the study would not cause any
threat to the students' education. The writing responses were given a separate grade
from that of the rubric score. Again, I did not want to give a student with a writing
response that had scored a "one" or "two" a failing grade. While such a writing
response failed to analyze the literature, and instead summarized the plot of the story,
the student needed feedback and encouragement. Thus, the students never saw the
rubric score.
Instead, I could give them a grade based on their academic skill of analysis,
their effort, and their improvement. The grade could be more subjective and holistic
while the rubric could be more objective, and hopefully, more reliable data in terms
of assessing the results of my study. This portion of my instruction and feedback,
their non-rubric score, is not included in my results. Furthermore, the details of the
procedure were not explained so as to not create an internal validity threat to the
study; however, if parents or students had objections or concerns, they could have
opted out of the study. Once the consent forms were collected and the study began,
no one opted out.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 41
There were students, however, that transferred to other schools during the
study; thus, they did not have sufficient data to be considered a participant in the
writing response data. Other students suffered from truancy issues and did not
produce enough writing responses to be considered a participant in that portion of the
study. However, all students, even those who did not complete the consent forms,
completed the expected reading and writing assignments for my course.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, my methodology was a direct reflection of my research
questions.
Figure 1. My Research Questions.
3
1
2
1. How does scaffolded instruction
and backwards design support
student achievement in writing,
specifically literary analysis?
2. How does the teaching strategy of
"DIPSS" (diction, imagery, point
of view, syntax, structure) support
students in their writing of literary
analysis?
3. How does the instructional use of
writing responses (frequently
repeated one page writing
practice, completed in class) help
student writing?
The design of the study, the materials, the instruments, and the data collected were all
created to confirm my beliefs regarding scaffolded instruction and frequent
opportunities for specific and focused writing. To determine the success of frequent
writing responses, I created two units each composed of literature that could be read
Literary Analysis Through Writing 42
and explicated in class. The students were given an opportunity to work through the
piece and they were supported with scaffolded instruction. I modeled for them how
to look for the more sophisticated elements of literature and taught them DIPSS.
Throughout the two units, the activities supported literary analysis and the prompts of
unit two (the post data unit) specifically reminded the students to use DIPSS-to look
for elements such as diction, imagery, point of view, syntax, and structure. In that
search, students were thus reminded to focus in on the author's style and purpose, and
instead of summarizing the text, to truly analyze the piece. This is literary analysis;
the results of my action research further demonstrate the way in which such strategies
and instruction supported student writing.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 43
Chapter Four
Results
The Questions ... Once Again
Before I can address the results of my study, I must first reflect upon my data
and analyze what it illustrates. My data was collected over several weeks, and I tried
diligently to collect multiple measures which might confirm or deny my suspicions
regarding student writing and how best to support students in their attempts to
analyze literature. Once again, I must return to my research questions:
Figure 1. My Research Questions.
1
3
2
1. How does scaffolded instruction
and backwards design support
student achievement in writing,
specifically literary analysis?
2. How does the teaching strategy of
"DIPSS" (diction, imagery, point
of view, syntax, structure) support
students in their writing of literary
analysis?
3. How does the instructional use of
writing responses (frequently
repeated one page writing
practice, completed in class) help
student writing?
First, I collected the writing responses and scored them according to a six point
rubric. In addition to this numerical data, I also asked the students for their opinions
and feelings regarding my instructional strategies and practices. These journals were
then analyzed and I coded their free responses in order that I might organize and
explore their thoughts. I looked especially for comments regarding my research
questions. Did frequent writing responses help their writing? Did the acronym
Literary Analysis Through Writing 44
DIPSS help them to remember to look for specific literary devices when attempting to
analyze a piece of literature? I used my research questions as the lens through which
I read the students' journals and thus, my results are their results. This chapter will
present both quantitative and qualitative data to thoroughly interpret the effectiveness
of the teaching strategies and methods used within the course of my study.
Quantitative Data
Does scaffolded instruction and backwards design, combined with strategy
instruction help improve a student's writing? That was the essence of the study and
my driving force. If I explicitly taught my students the power vocabulary of literary
analysis (diction, imagery, point of view, syntax, structure) and also showed them
through supported lessons that were directly linked to the writing prompts how to
analyze a piece of literature, could their written analysis improve?
Criteria. In order for a student to be considered for the quantitative data
(other than signing the consent forms), they had to compose at least two of the five
writing responses for both the pre data and the post data. One hundred and six
students participated in the study. The first class had 37 students as part of their data;
the second class had 32 students as part of their data; and the third class had 37
students as part of their data. The averages for each class were computed using these
students' writing response scores.
Explaining the calculations. Results were determined using the rubric scores
of the first five writing responses for the pre data and the second set of five writing
responses for the post data. The average score of the writing response scores was
Literary Analysis Through Writing 45
calculated. The highest score on the rubric is a six, so a student with all five writing
responses scoring a six would earn a 6.0 average. I did not want to skew the data and
calculate an "absent" or "non-score" into a student's data because of student illness,
poor attendance or failure to make up the work. So, for example, if a student was
only able to compose four of the five writing responses, the scores were added and
then divided by four to attain a true average. Thus, it was possible for a student to
also earn the high score of a 6.0 if he or she had only written four of the five writing
responses but had scored a six (as determined by the rubric) on all four of those
pieces.
If I had only included students with all five writing responses for the pre data
and post data, my mortality rate would have risen greatly and the generalizability of
the study would have been in jeopardy. I would have had far less students
participating in the study and thus, far less data. The writing was completed in class
as part of the study's design in the attempts to ascertain if in-class strategy practice
and support could serve as a variable with a positive effect on students' writing. Most
students were absent at some point of the pre or post data collection and thus to
exclude them from the results would have greatly reduced the number of students
eligible to participate in the study. Again, there were 106 students in my study: 54
males, 52 females, 37 English Language Learners and 10 students that participated in
the school's Free and Reduced Lunch Program.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 46
Explaining the rubric further. As stated in the methodology section, I used an
adapted rubric and scored each of the students' writing response as I looked for
literary analysis. The six possible scores on my rubric are as follows:
Table 5. Six Point Rubric for Literary Analysis
Score
Criteria
1
brief, shallow answer; no analysis of evidence
2
summarizes the text; does not address or interpret the whole prompt
3
one or more inferences; little specific response; very simple and basic
analysis
4
one or more inferences, but incomplete inferences with some specific
support; predictable yet solid
5
reports and associates details (textual support/evidence) with
inferences; thoughtful and strong analysis
6
one or more elaborate inferences with specific support from text;
extremely perceptive and insightful
Typically, a student scored a one if his answer was only a few written sentences or if
the student failed to address the prompt. Many students scored a one when they
failed to make any point concerning the literary piece. While this occurred, it was the
writing responses that scored a two with which I was most intrigued. These students
summarized the text for the most part and while some of the answers were a
paragraph and other were a page in length, the common denominator in such a score
was the retelling feature of the writing response. In fact, this "summary" or
Literary Analysis Through Writing 47
"retelling" writing was a part of my inspiration to focus on literary analysis. For my
first few years of teaching I was constantly amazed by the number of students who
did not seem to know how to analyze but instead retold the story in their high school
essays.
The three and four scores were typically those that challenged me most as I
attempted to score the writing responses. In both writing responses, students were
able to use evidence from the text and explain its significance. Students who did not
fully explain that significance were awarded the three score while students who could
expound upon why the example was used in support of their claim received the four
score. For example, if the prompt asked the students to analyze the imagery of a
piece and the students discovered a simile or metaphor used and then explained that it
was there to provide imagery-such an answer would receive a three. These students
had provided insight into the literary device used, yet the analysis was not complete.
The students who explained why the simile or metaphor was used would thus receive
the four: The author uses this metaphor to create imagery for the reader and thus
invokes a sense of empathy for the main character.
A score of a five would be awarded to students that kept the analysis going
and became even more specific in regards to the evidence selected for analysis. They
would need to focus on specific words (diction) or how a sentence is constructed
(syntax) as they dive into the complexity of the piece. The final score, a six, is
awarded to students who are able to do all of the other skills; such students have
selected specific examples and not only identified the literary devices used but have
Literary Analysis Through Writing 48
fully explained why the author used them. The analysis is specific rather than vague
and thought provoking. These students have also looked at multiple passages from the
text and have provided a quality analysis for each of those passages. This then was
my rationale when scoring the writing responses.
In class one, the average score for the first five writing responses (my unit
one, pre data unit) was a 2.69. The students' second five writing responses (my unit
two, post data unit) averaged a 3.44 score on the rubric. This was a 0.75 positive
effect. For class two, the pre data scored 2.79 while the post data averaged 3.43
yielding a positive effect of 0.63. Finally, the third class also yielded a positive
effect-this time of 0.80 value. Their pre data scored a 2.77 while their post data
scored a 3.58. Each class improved. That to me, as a teacher researcher, spoke
volumes. In addition, my subgroups also improved; I compiled statistics for my male
and female students as well as those students who participate in the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program and those that are currently or formally a part of English Language
Learners program.
Table 6. Results According to Class
Pre Data
Post Data
Effect
1
2.69
3.44
+0.75
2
2.79
3.43
+0.63
3
2.77
3.58
+0.80
Class
Literary Analysis Through Writing 49
The above table illustrates that all three classes showed a positive effect when I
compared the average of the second five writing responses (post data) to the first five
writing responses (pre data).
Table seven further supports the positive gain in writing as evidenced by the
average rubric score; the male and female averages were computed to ascertain
whether the strategies and instructional scaffolding proved beneficial for both groups.
Table 7. Results According to Gender
Class
Gender
Pre Data
Post Data
Effect
1
Male
2.45
3.19
+0.74
Female
2.94
3.70
+0.76
Male
2.64
3.28
+0.65
Female
2.99
3.61
+0.62
Male
2.61
3.42
+0.82
Female
2.91
3.70
+0.79
2
3
In addition to the gender subgroups, I also wanted to analyze my data in light of
English Language Learners and students who participate in our Free and Reduced
Lunch program. Often, students who are of low socio-economic levels or who are
challenged with learning English as a second language can be considered at-risk in
our educational system. To ensure that these students were also seeing gains in their
writing, I examined the averages of the writing response scores for both these
subgroups. The averages were computed for all the students of the three classes
combined. The results are as follows:
Literary Analysis Through Writing 50
Table 8. Results According to Subgroups
Subgroup
Pre Data
Post Data
Effect
Free and Reduced Lunch Program
2.60
3.20
+0.60
English Language Learners
2.57
3.25
+0.68
All writing response averages increased, whether the data was organized by class,
gender, or subgroups. Such data will be analyzed in more detail in the discussions
and recommendations section of my study.
Qualitative Data
Student feedback. In addition to numerical, quantitative data, I also collected
qualitative data that could support my contentions and add to the discussion of
research pertaining to students' writing at the high school level. At the end of the
post data portion of the study, I asked students to comment on my teaching and their
learning for the past two units of study. What strategies are helping you this year
with reading and writing? Does it help you to do your writing in class- in the form
of a writing response instead of an essay? Which do you prefer? What about the
DIPSS strategy? Has that strategy helped you? How? While I posted a series of
questions to the students, I reminded them that they could answer some, all, or none
of the questions. Instead, I wanted them to simply reflect on their learning for the
past few months. We discussed the meaning of metacognitive journals and defined
the activity as "thinking about our thinking"-the students immediately dove into
their reflections, and the results were affirming. The following results have been
taken from all students who chose to write a post study reflective journal, that is, a
Literary Analysis Through Writing 51
journal once both units had been completed. Even if they had not been included in
the numerical data of the writing responses, I included the students' responses in this
portion of my data. Some students chose to participate while others did not want to
complete the metacognitive journal. A total of 76 students wrote a post study
reflective journal.
Table 9. Number of Students Who Wrote a Post Study Reflective Journal
Class
journal
Number of students who wrote a post study reflective
1
19
2
25
3
32
After both units (pre and post data) were completed, I asked the students to share with
me their opinions regarding their writing. I coded the journals looking for whether or
not the students thought their writing had improved as a result of the past two units of
study. Here are those results:
Table 10. Students' Comments on their Writing and Possible Improvement
My writing ...
Class
Improved a Lot
Improved
Improved a Little
Did Not Improve
No Mention
1
8
9
0
0
2
2
10
9
4
2
0
3
8
11
2
3
7
Literary Analysis Through Writing 52
One student in class three commented that he thought his writing had become worse;
there was no mention of this occurrence in either class one or class two. Of the 76
students who chose to write a post study reflective journal, 55 students, a surprising
72.3%, commented that they believed their writing had improved or improved "a lot"
as a result of the study. This finding impressed me and leads me to wonder about the
extraneous variables of student motivation and determination; I will explore such
implications and variables in my discussions chapter.
Once I searched the journals for mention of students' belief in their writing
and whether or not their writing had improved, I analyzed the responses to see
whether teaching the students DIPSS (how to look for diction, imagery, point of view,
syntax, and structure) had helped. I also looked to see whether they believed the
writing responses helped. Did they prefer writing shorter pieces of literary analysis
(writing responses) more frequently in comparison to writing a longer analysis, an
essay, at the end of the unit? The essay is a more typical approach to writing
instruction, thus I was interested in the students' beliefs and preferences. Once again,
I did not specifically pole opinions or beliefs; rather, I asked the students to journal
about whatever they decided was most important to them in terms of their writing and
the strategies and teaching methods that had been used for the two units we had just
completed. I prefaced the activity by saying that I would use the results to help
improve my instruction and that they should feel free to be honest as long as they
were also respectful and appropriate in their criticism and reflection. Here are those
results:
Literary Analysis Through Writing 53
Table 11. Students' Comments on the DIPSS Strategy
The DIPSS strategy ...
Class
Helped a Lot
Helped
Helped a Little
Did Not Help
Don't Understand
No Mention
1
2
6
0
1
1
9
2
4
11
1
0
2
7
3
6
5
2
2
6
11
Of the 76 students, 34 students, 44.7%, commented that using the DIPSS strategy and
knowing how to look for specific literary devices helped or helped "a lot" in regards
to their writing abilities. Their beliefs regarding the teaching strategy of writing
responses were even more affirming.
Table 12. Students' Comments on Writing Responses
The strategy of writing responses ...
Class
Helped a Lot
Helped
Helped a Little
Did Not Help
Don't Understand
No Mention
1
4
10
0
0
0
5
2
3
13
0
1
0
8
3
4
11
0
1
1
15
Of the 76 students, 45 students, 59.2%, believed that the practice of writing responses
helped their writing ability. In addition to mentioning how writing responses helped
them, many of the students commented that they also preferred writing more
Literary Analysis Through Writing 54
frequently and receiving feedback more often, rather than writing an essay at the end
of the unit and waiting a few weeks before they got to be assessed again on their
writing skills.
Anecdotal support. While the numerical presentation of the student journals
adequately displays the students' beliefs and opinions, their personal comments are
invaluable to me as both teacher and researcher. I cannot illustrate their emotions
properly without including their direct comments as well. Some of the comments
directly support the purpose of this study and what I had hoped to prove. Many
students focused on how the writing responses allowed for more frequent feedback
and that they had the opportunity to practice their writing more: "My writing has
improved so much. I truly believe that writing several writing responses with
feedback is better than writing a lot of essays and not getting feedback until the end."
Another student said it well with the comment, "Past years in English, the teachers
would give us the essay ... and expect us to write a first class essay. We didn't really
get any practice on improving our writing. I like this way better." However, I didn't
just want to hear about what they preferred; I was hoping to come across comments
that validated that such a teaching strategy could perhaps instill confidence. I was
pleased to discover such comments: "I have progressed so much more compared to
last year."
In addition, I wanted to see how and why the DIPSS strategy worked. Many
students specifically commented on DIPSS: "I have gone from writing what I
thought was only necessary to actually analyzing and going [into] detail on what [I]
Literary Analysis Through Writing 55
am saying." Another student wrote, "My writing really has improved dramatically.
When I was a freshman I had trouble writing about the diction and imagery in a story;
not because I couldn't identify it, but because [I] didn't know how to analyze it. My
strategies that I use now are very helpful; now I can just focus on one sentence and
write a paragraph on its diction, syntax and imagery." This idea, that DIPSS allowed
students to focus more, was expressed by many students: "I think understanding
DIPSS makes it a lot easier for me to write. By knowing what diction, imagery ... etc.
really means it gives me the capacity to focus in on what the authors of stories/novels
are attempting to have us-the reader-understand."
It seemed as though many students embraced the DIPSS strategy because it
gave the students something to look for; thus, students who suffered from the problem
of I don't know what to write about became empowered with a series of literary
devices that they could analyze. One of my struggling English Language Learners
shared this sentiment in his journal: "My writing so far I think has improved because
now I know what to write about and how. I now know how to take a little passage
[and] turn it into an essay, by using diction, imagery, tone and archetypes. Also, all
those writing responses we did helped me." Another student wrote, "DIPSS has
definitely helped me. Whenever I read anything, I find myself picking out diction,
syntax, and imagery without even realizing I'm doing it. I focus on what the author
was trying to say and how [he] delivered it. I feel like [my] writing has improved."
Looking at these comments, I feel the acronym of DIPSS helped serve as a reminder
Literary Analysis Through Writing 56
to the students so that they had a purpose in their analysis. I will further explain this
finding in my study's discussion.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, the writing responses of 106 students were collected and scored
according to a six-point rubric. The results have been analyzed according to class,
gender, and two other subgroups: English Language Learners and students who
participate in the school's Free and Reduced Lunch program. Each sub group
improved as evidenced by the average rubric score. In addition, the students reflected
upon their writing and wrote metacognitive journals. Many commented on how their
writing had improved. Others also wrote about how frequent writing in the form of
one page writing responses helped them; they wrote about their preference for
repeated practice and feedback. Finally, other students reflected on how they applied
the acronym of DIPSS and how it helped them to remember to focus on analysis and
to examine the intricacies of the piece of literature they were studying.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 57
Chapter Five
Recommendations
Summary of Findings
The questions ... once again. As I begin my final chapter and attempt to
analyze the data in light of past research, I must once again return to my original
action research questions.
Figure 1. My Research Questions.
3
1
2
1. How does scaffolded instruction
and backwards design support
student achievement in writing,
specifically literary analysis?
2. How does the teaching strategy of
"DIPSS" (diction, imagery, point
of view, syntax, structure) support
students in their writing of literary
analysis?
3. How does the instructional use of
writing responses (frequently
repeated one page writing
practice, completed in class) help
student writing?
In summary, I dove into my teaching practice and attempted to push my instruction
by combining different teaching strategies and practices into my own. I was
constantly asking myself these research questions so that I stayed focused and
deliberate in my design and collection of data. By carefully creating units of study
where students are guided throughout the analysis of each piece of literature, by
providing students with terminology and strategies to dissect the author's writing
style and purpose, by supporting students with vocabulary instruction and background
Literary Analysis Through Writing 58
knowledge of the topic, students will increase their achievement in literary analysis
as evidenced by their writing responses.
Summary of writing response data. Through my two units of study, the
second post data unit included specific direct instruction of DIPSS. Both units
included the strategy of writing responses. I discovered that all three classes
improved in their writing. In class one, the students rose from an average score of
2.69 to 3.44, a positive increase of 0.75; in the second class the average rose from
2.79 to 3.43, yielding a positive effect of 0.63. Finally, the third class also yielded a
positive effect; their average writing response score grew 0.80, from 2.77 to 3.58.
My subgroups also saw a positive effect in their writing response scores. The average
for the students who participate in the Free and Reduced Lunch program rose from
2.60 to 3.20, a positive gain of 0.60. Those students who were or currently still are
English Language Learners also saw a gain; their average increased from a 2.57 to a
3.25 -a positive growth of 0.68.
Interpreting the writing response data. What does this mean and what are the
implications of this quantitative data? First, writing improved as proven by the
numerical data. The interesting aspect to the scores is that all classes and subgroups
started with an average of two on the rubric. When analyzing the criteria of that
score, the main factor is that such writing responses consisted primarily of plot
summary. This means that most students at the beginning of the study focused more
on the text rather than the analysis of it. Instead of using high level thinking skills
such as analysis and evaluation, the students summarized the piece of literature.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 59
Furthermore, the averages of all classes and subgroups then rose to a three score for
the post data. While not a huge gain numerically, it is significant that all classes and
subgroups did indeed experience a positive gain in their written analysis. Student
data reveals that students jumped into analysis. The limitation of this study is that it
only lasted two units and that the student data only included ten writing responses,
five for the pre data and five for the post data. If the study had continued longer, one
could have determined if the writing scores would have continued to improve. This is
cause for a further study.
Summary of students' journal data. Another finding was the staggering, and
to be honest, somewhat unexpected number of students who wrote in their journal
that they believe their writing had improved. Of those 76 students, 55 students, a
surprising 72.3%, commented that they believed their writing had improved or
improved "a lot" as a result of the study; 34 students, 44. 7%, commented that the
DIPSS strategy and knowing how to look for specific literary devices helped or
helped "a lot" in regards to their writing abilities; 45 students, 59.2%, believed that
the practice of writing responses helped their writing ability.
Interpreting the students' journal data. The data from the students' journals
is perhaps the most convincing. While not as scientific as the writing response rubric
and data, it provides incredible insight into the minds of my students. After the study,
I could adapt my instruction and focus even more on re-teaching DIPSS and the
specific literary terms. A few students wrote they that didn't quite "get it"; and while
I take a certain responsibility for that discovery, I also wonder if they wanted to "get
Literary Analysis Through Writing 60
it." One of the limitations to my study is that student motivation is not addressed
specifically. The study does not test for the effect of the variable of motivation.
However, many students commented that they believe more in themselves as writers
(as a result of the two units of instruction) or that they believe that their writing
improved. This inspires me to continue bringing theory and research into my
teaching practice. It also leads me to other research questions. Could students be
more motivated to write shorter pieces and thus an improvement was detected as a
result of their attitude towards the task versus their ability to complete it? Again,
such possibilities are perplexing and grounds for further research.
Limitations and Humility
In reality and all honesty, there are a few weaknesses to my study. The first
and most eminent is the large number of extraneous and uncontrollable variables. I
could not account for student motivation or determination. I also could not control
the mortality rate of my students. For example, many students did not get included in
the writing response portion of my data because they did not produce enough writing
responses. So what about that type of student? Do my strategies work for students
who are labeled by our system as at-risk-kids that do not attend school very often or
transfer from school to school? If those students had been included in my data, would
it have significantly altered the results?
Another limitation is that I, as the teacher, scored my students' writing
responses. This is considered researcher-bias because I know my students and could
be considered a biased evaluator of their work. However, I scored the pre data all in
Literary Analysis Through Writing 61
one session, and then I later scored the post data all in one session. I believe that this
battled the internal validity threat of researcher bias since I could be more objective
and keep my rationale clear. I knew what I was looking for in each of the six scores
on the rubric and stayed consistent by scoring the writing responses in two large
quantities. There was no time lapse, for instance, between the scoring of the third
writing response and the forth writing response within the first unit of instruction (pre
data). In addition, I hid the identity of the students, calibrated my scoring, and
completed the process in two controlled sessions; yet, my justification for scoring the
writing responses stemmed from my philosophy of teaching. I wanted to remain an
integral part of the study and did not want to have another (but perhaps more neutral
teacher) score the writing responses.
My Findings in the Context of Past Research
In context of past research, my findings remain consistent to the research of
those who profess the power of best practices. Harvey and Goudvis (2000) contend
that "Proficient readers infer implicit notions from the text and create meaning based
on those notions. If readers don't infer, they will not grasp the deeper essence of texts
they read" (pg. 23). I believe my data supports this contention. My students pushed
themselves to make inferences and to really analyze the reasons why an author chose
particular diction and syntax. They were supported throughout this process and each
lesson built upon past lessons. I worked to backwards design my lessons and units
(Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) and created a weekly schedule that embraced students
discussing, questioning, reviewing, and finally writing about the literature.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 62
Paris, Lipson and Wixon (1983) believe that teachers must scaffold instruction
to build knowledge; this was a key design to my methodology. Students were
supported with intense and meaningful vocabulary instruction so that they were
armed with a myriad of words to use in their powerful analysis. In addition, the
pieces of literature were read in class and discussed repeatedly. I gave my students
multiple opportunities to look at the text, to question it, and to discuss it. Such
exploration is integral for English Language learners. Olson (2003) illustrates how
the teacher must provide both the guidance and the opportunities for less experienced
writers to think and act like more experienced writers. This is what my scaffolded
instruction allowed. The students felt empowered by the guidance and preferred the
frequent opportunities for writing, instead of the typical "essay after reading the
book" method of assessment. Johnstone, Ashbaugh, and Warfield (2002) believe
that general, repeated-writing experience is important, even for high school and
college-aged students. My action research supports their contentions and illustrates
how student writing can improve when students are given repeated-writing
experience.
Implications and Future Directions
I have learned that action research allows teachers to dive into the
complexities of their classroom instruction. My data supports my belief that
scaffolded instruction allows students a better foundation for learning a strategy.
Through backwards design (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998) and supported instruction
Literary Analysis Through Writing 63
(Olson, 2003), teachers can arm their students with strategies. Furthermore, strategies
assist students in their attempts to analyze and interpret a piece of literature.
All three of my classes improved in their writing; all subgroups improved.
The implications of these findings are cause for more action research. Will student
writing continue to improve? If so, will writing improve for all students? The
averages for the writing responses increased from a two to a three on the rubric. This
means students moved from plot summary to true analysis. If a third, fourth, and
even fifth unit of instruction (a longer study) was created in the same fashion (with
scaffolded instruction, frequent writing, and the teaching and re-teaching of the
DIPSS strategy), would student writing eventually improve to a five or a six on the
rubric? Would student writing (as a result of a long term study) eventually be
characterized as "one or more elaborate inferences with specific support from text;
extremely perceptive and insightful"? My study began at the beginning of the school
year. Were my results influenced by that variable? I chose to conduct this action
research with my 11th graders because I felt they needed to advance their basic
reading and writing skills; however, would these same strategies work at the 9th grade
or college level?
My research implies that students' writing will improve if students are given
multiple and frequent opportunities to write; in addition, they need scaffolded
instruction and strategies as they attempt to analyze literature. Future research,
however, is needed to confirm such implications.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 64
In Conclusion
I created an action research study that examined 11th grade high school
students and strategies that support their literary analysis. The study focused upon
scaffolded instruction and incorporated frequent writing practice in the form of one
page writing responses. I collected 106 students' writing responses after two
different units of instruction. The second unit (the post data unit) differed from that
of the first unit; during the second unit of instruction, the students were shown how to
analyze literature using the acronym ofDIPSS-diction, imagery, point of view,
syntax, and structure. The students embraced this acronym of DIPSS as a method for
remembering the varied and intricate aspects to higher level literary analysis.
Reflective journals were also used as evidence of student beliefs and validation for
the strategies used during the study. Students' comments illustrate that they believe
their writing improved as a result of the study. They also believed that frequent
writing and the DIPSS strategy helped improve their writing. Further research is
needed to determine if student writing would continue to improve, and if so, how
much improvement would occur over a longer period of time. However, I believe I
found the answers to my research questions. Scaffolded instruction, backwards
design, frequent writing, and the DIPSS strategy helped students to improve their
writing of literary analysis.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 65
References
Allen, J. (2000). Yellow brick road: Shared and guided paths to independent reading
4 - 12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Benton, S. L., Corkill, A. J., Sharp, J. M., Downey, R. G., & Khramtsova, I. (1995).
Knowledge, interest, and narrative writing. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87(1), 66-79.
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive
domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Casazza, M. E. (1993). Using a model of direct instruction to teach summary writing
in a college reading class. Journal of Reading, 37(2), 202-208.
Daniels, H., & Bizar, M. (2005). Teaching the best practice way: Methods that
matter, K-12. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Durkin, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading instruction.
Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533.
Fielding, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works?
Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62-67.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in
education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gallagher, K. (2003). Reading reasons: Motivational mini-lessons for middle and
high school. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to
enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 66
Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1999). Living the questions: A guide for teacherresearchers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Jackson, N., & Doellinger, H., (2002). Resilient readers? University students who are
poor readers but sometimes good text comprehenders. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(1), 64-78.
Johnstone, K. M., Ashbaugh, H., & Warfield, T. D. (2002). Effects of repeated
practice and contextual-writing experiences on college students' writing skills.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 305-315.
Keene, E. 0., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching
comprehension in a reader's workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research pedagogy with/ in the
postmodern. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marshall, J.D. (1987). The effects of writing on students' understanding of literary
texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 30-63.
Newell, G. E. (1996). Reader-based and teacher-centered instructional tasks: Writing
and learning about a short story in middle-track classrooms. Journal of
Literacy Research, 28(1), 147-172.
Olson, C. B. (2003). The reading writing connection: Strategies for teaching and
learning in the secondary classroom. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 67
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository
text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 594-570.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic
readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (2), 609-640. New York: Longman.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and
improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Vygotsky, L., (1984). Thought and language. (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.).
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 68
Appendix A. Vocabulary Graphic Organizer
Name:
Date:
Period:
American Literature: VOCABULARY - List #
WORD,
part of
speech,
+or1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DEFINTION
SENTENCE
VISUAL
(picture
or
symbol)
Literary Analysis Through Writing 69
Appendix B. Weekly Scaffolded Instruction
Monday
(58 minutes)
• Vocabulary
Instruction
• Vocabulary
Quiz
• Grammar
Instruction
Tuesday/Wednesday
(1 hour, 53 minutes)
• Review of
vocabulary
• Review of
grammar
Author's
Study
•
and Background
Information (era
of American
Literature)
• Preview reading
questions
• Literature - read
piece (text) in
class
• Pause and clarify,
question, and
predict while
reading piece of
literature
• Graphic organizer
to review and
process content
(piece of
literature)
• Reading/review
questions - begin
in class, teacher
work with
individual
students (circulate
through the class)
• Homeworkfinish
reading/review
questions
Thursday/Friday
(1 hour, 53 minutes)
• Review of
vocabulary
• Review of
grammar
• Another graphic
organizer to
review and
process content
(piece of
literature)
• Review
homework
assignment reading/review
questions in
order to clarify
any issues or
concerns of
students
Writing
•
Responserevtew
language of
prompt
• Writing
Responsestudent writing
time
Literary Analysis Through Writing 70
Appendix C. Pre Data Writing Response Prompts. Pre DIPSS Instruction.
Pre Data Writing Response #1
Writing Response: "The World on the Turtle's Back"
(Native American Creation Myth)
Prompt: What archetypal symbolism is represented by the left-handed and righthanded twins? How does this relate to "our" ("our" meaning modem America's)
traditional concept of good and evil? What archetype does the mother represent?
Think about how images and symbolism play a significant role in this historical
Native American creation myth. Expand your thoughts and perhaps refer to multiple
perspectives (i.e. different cultures and religions)! Make sure to use 3 vocabulary
words!
Consider different views on: 1.) heaven versus hell 2.) Jesus versus Satan (devil)
Pre Data Writing Response #2
Writing Response: Coyote Stories
(Native American Trickster Tales)
Prompt: Wile E. Coyote [wily= cunning, clever, conniving] is a famous cartoon
character that most people associate as a trickster or clever deceiver. However, his
enemy the Road Runner always (ironically) outwits Coyote. This makes Wile E.
Coyote seem like a numbskull or buffoon. The Coyote in "Coyote and the Buffalo"
and the Coyote in "Fox and Coyote and Whale" have two very different personalities.
Contrast the different Coyote characters - examining their traits or charac;teristics in
each trickster tale.
BE SURE to cite the text and provide words (adjectives or descriptive phrases) to
support your claims. ALSO, make sure to use 3 vocabulary words when stating your
"claims" - topic sentences!
Pre Data Writing Response #3
Writing Response: "Of Plymouth Plantation"
(William Bradford)
Prompt: In the section "Their Safe Arrival at Cape Cod" (pg. 82- 83), what
adjectives and literary devices does Bradford use to describe the 1) ocean, 2) weather,
3) wilderness, and 4) Native Americans?
Literary Analysis Through Writing 71
How do these descriptions contribute to the author's opinions and assumptions about
the Puritans' journey to the New World? What do they believe the New World will
be like? What biases does Bradford have? Be sure to use 3 vocabulary words in your
response.
Pre Data Writing Response #4
Writing Response: "From the Interesting Life of Olaudah Equiano"
(slave narrative- Olaudah Equiano)
Prompt: "This wretched situation was again aggravated by the galling of the chains ...
The shrieks of the women, and the groans of the dying, rendered the whole scene of horror almost inconceivable." Explain how the underlined words help establish the
mood in this part of the slave narrative.
Remember, mood is the feeling or atmosphere that a writer creates for the reader.
Think about what all the underlined words have in common. What does using these
images help Equiano to do? How do these words make the reader feel? Use 3
vocabulary words in your response.
Pre Data Writing Response #5
Writing Response: "Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God"
(Jonathan Edwards)
Prompt: Edwards chooses his language very carefully to achieve his purpose. He
wants to create a great effect on the emotions of his audience. However, his audience
changes throughout the sermon; at times, he speaks to the sinners and at other times,
he speaks to those who would repent.
In the beginning of his sermon, WHY does Edwards use phrases such as "loathsome
insect" and "worthy of nothing else"? What is his purpose for using this language?
Who is he trying to convince? NOW, examine the last two paragraphs of his sermon
on page 156. (REREAD THOSE PARAGRAPHS!)
Edwards has a new audience at this point in his sermon. Contrast the language (tone)
in the beginning of his sermon to that of the language (tone) in the concluding
moments of his sermon. Why does he use phrases such as 1) "door of mercy wide
open", 2) "happy state", 3) "hearts filled with love", 4) "rejoicing in hope of the glory
of God", and 5) "singing for joy of heart"?
Literary Analysis Through Writing 72
Appendix D. Post Data Writing Response Prompts. Post DIPSS Instruction.
Post Data Writing Response #1
Writing Response: "What is an American?" Crevecoeur
Critics have noted that when de Crevecoeur writes, "here individuals of all nations are
melted into a new race," he anticipates the "melting pot" metaphor commonly used to
describe America. Explain why Crevecouer's use of diction (word choice) "melted
into a new race" is an appropriate image for the melting pot metaphor. In doing so,
consider the following:
• What does the word "melt" mean literally?
• What is implied by the use of "melt" in his text?
• What is meant by the use of the word "pot" in terms of the phrase "melting
pot"?
Finally, do you think that the melting pot metaphor is a good one for the United
States of America? Why or why not? Be sure to cite examples from modern society
and culture as well as from Crevecouer' s text. Also, you need to include 3
vocabulary words! (Remember DIPSS!)
Post Data Writing Response #2
Writing Response: Patrick Henry
Persuasive techniques
Prompt: Using the skillbuilder and review questions, analyze Henry's use of
language (structure) and imagery to persuade his audience. What is Patrick Henry
trying to convince his audience to do? How effective is he in making his argument?
Analyze the persuasive techniques (logical, ethical, and emotional appeals) Henry
uses to make his point. Make sure to cite the text as well as to use 3 vocabulary
words. (Remember DIPSS!)
Literary Analysis Through Writing 73
Post Data Writing Response #3
Writing Response: "Devil and Tom Walker"
Washington Irving
Prompt: Using your take home quiz, analyze how Irving utilizes diction and imagery
to create the mood of this story.
What do the (archetype) colors red and black symbolize and how do they contribute
to the overall mood (effect) of the story? Use specific examples from the story and
your "tone words"; also you need to include 3 vocabulary words. (Remember
DIPSS!)
Post Data Writing Response #4
Writing Response: "The Raven"
Prompt: Poe is known as a Brooding Romantic because of his dark and melancholy
themes. Using the "Raven" questions, analyze the ways in which Poe stresses his
theme. Examine how he uses diction, imagery and structure to create the mood and
tone of the poem. Use specific examples from the story (and worksheet) and your
"tone words"; also you need to include 3 vocabulary words. (Remember DIPSS !)
Post Data Writing Response #5
Writing Response: "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment"
(Nathaniel Hawthorne)
Prompt: Reread the passage (including and between) line 37 (pg. 502) to line 71 (pg.
503) of Dr. Heidegger's Experiment. Start with line 37: "If all the stories were true,
Dr. Heidegger's study must have been a very curious place ... "(502).
Analyze the diction and imagery that Hawthorne uses to describe Dr. Heidegger's
study. How does this help to establish the mood of the passage?
You may use your class notes and questions to help you when providing specific
examples from the story. Also, use your "tone words" and include 3 vocabulary
words. (Remember DIPSS !)
Literary Analysis Through Writing 74
Appendix E. Sample Writing Response Handout for Students
Name:
--------------------
Period:
Writing Response: "From the Interesting Life of Olaudah Equiano"
(slave narrative- Olaudah Equiano)
Prompt: "This wretched situation was again aggravated by the galling of the
chains .•. The shrieks of the women, and the groans of the dying, rendered the
whole scene of horror almost inconceivable."
Explain how the underlined words help establish the mood in this part of the slave
narrative. Remember, mood is the feeling or atmosphere that a writer creates for the
reader. Think about what all the underlined words have in common. What does
using these images help Equiano to do? How do these words make the reader feel?
Use 3 vocabulary words in your response.
Literary Analysis Through Writing 75
Appendix F. Literary Analysis Rubric
Literary Analysis Rubric
Score
Description
1
brief, shallow answer; no analysis of
evidence
2
summarizes the text; does not address or
interpret the whole prompt
3
one or more inferences; little specific
response; very simple and basic analysis
4
one or more inferences, but incomplete
inferences with some specific support;
predictable yet solid
5
reports and associates details (textual
support/evidence) with inferences;
thoughtful and strong analysis
6
one or more elaborate inferences with
specific support from text; extremeIy
perceptive and insightful
[Source used for adaptation of rubric: Marshall's 1987 study]