Honing the Art and Craft of Writing Instruction:
Teachers’ Journeys in Implementing Writer’s Workshop
By
Betty Coneway, B.S., M.Ed.
A Dissertation
In
Curriculum & Instruction
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Approved
Dr. Kathryn Button
Chair of the Committee
Dr. Margaret Johnson
Dr. Peggie Price
Dr. Dominick Cassadonte
Interim Dean of the Graduate School
May, 2013
Copyright 2013, Betty Coneway
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to first thank my dear husband, Tom, who has been my devoted chauffeur,
coach, cheerleader, and constant supporter throughout this dissertation journey. When I
wanted to quit or was discouraged, he always kept encouraging and believing in me. We
work so well as a team that his name should be on the diploma right beside mine. Please
always know how much I love you!
To Dr. Katie Button, who has been so gracious and helpful, even from our first
informal discussion in the Lubbock airport back in the summer of 2006, thank you for
always believing in me and helping me through the many ups and downs over the past six
years. I will remain eternally grateful to you and hope to honor you by “paying it
forward” to other educators that I may work with in the future.
To the “Peggies” on my committee, I respect and admire both of you so very
much. Dr. Johnson, thank you for sharing your vast knowledge about teaching writing
with me. Your genuine kindness and calmness helped me more than you will ever know.
Dr. Price, you are amazing! Thank you for supporting me through this dissertation
process with your honesty and wit.
To my participants - Bess, Meg, Helen, Sarah and their wonderful students:
Thank you for opening your classroom and sharing your sincere opinions and thoughts
with me during a very stressful time of year - the last days of the school year.
Also, lots of love and gratitude goes to my awesome family who has stood by me
through it all. I want to pay a special tribute to my mother and daddy who were there
when I started my educational journey many years ago. I know they are smiling down
from heaven and I hope this accomplishment honors their memory in a special way.
ii
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
To my wonderful children – Lisa, Christopher, Holly, Ben and Jamie – thank you for
your continual support and encouragement. I hope this proves you are never too old to
follow your dreams - so keep dreaming! And, to my sweet grandchildren – Paige, Lauren,
Sam and Olivia- always remember that Grammy loves you very much. I hope to always
be your special supporter and fan as you develop your own unique personalities, and
accomplish your own personal goals.
Most of all, I want to give thanks and gratitude to Almighty God for His abundant
blessings that have been bestowed upon me. I am humbled and grateful for His manifold
blessings every day and hope to always serve and be a blessing to others.
iii
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………… ii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………… vii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………… viii
CHAPTERS:
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………… 1
Background of the Problem……………………………………………….
Problem Statement…………………………………………………………
Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………
Significance of the Study………………………………………………….
Key Terms…………………………………………………………………
Assumptions……………………………………………………………….
Limitations…………………………………………………………………
Summary…………………………………………………………………...
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE…………………………………………….. 13
Adult Learning……………………………………………………………..
Professional Development…………………………………………………
Literacy Learning………………………………………………………….
Writing……………………………………………………………………..
Research on the Development of Writing………………………….
History of Writing Research……………………………………….
Writing Instruction…………………………………………………
Writer’s Workshop…………………………………………………………
14
17
22
24
24
27
28
33
3. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………….... 36
Review of the Problem and Purpose……………………………………… 36
Research Design…………………………………………………………… 37
Type of Study……………………………………………………………… 39
Participants………………………………………………………………… 40
Data Sources……………………………………………………………….. 42
Data Collection Methods…………………………………………………… 44
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………. 46
Trustworthiness……………………………………………………………. 52
Limitations………………………………………………………………… 55
Summary…………………………………………………………………… 55
4. CONTEXT OF THE STUDY………………………………………………….. 57
iv
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
The Researcher……………………………………………………………… 57
Site Selection and Access…………………………………………………… 59
The School District and the Community……………………………………. 61
Schools……………………………………………………………………… 62
East Elementary School……………………………………………... 62
North Elementary School……………………………………………. 63
South Elementary School……………………………………………. 64
West Elementary School……………………………………………. 65
Participants………………………………………………………………….. 65
Bess…………………………………………………………………. 66
Helen………………………………………………………………... 71
Meg…………………………………………………………………. 76
Sarah………………………………………………………………… 81
Context of the Study………………………………………………………… 86
5. REPORTING OF THE DATA AND PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS…. 89
Findings……………………………………………………………………… 89
Classroom Culture…………………………………………………………… 90
Routines …………………………………………………………...... 91
Interactions …………………………………………………………. 94
Writing in the Classroom……………………………………………………. 104
Writing Process……………………………………………………………… 110
Freedom …………………………………………………………………….. 117
Development………………………………………………………………… 120
Connections…………………………………………………………………. 123
Staff Development………………………………………………………….. 124
Teacher Ideology…………………………………………………………… 128
Summary……………………………………………………………………. 130
6. RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS……………………………………………… 132
Classroom Culture………………………………………………………….. 133
Writing in the Classroom…………………………………………………… 134
Writing Process……………………………………………………………… 135
Freedom…………………………………………………………………….. 137
Development…………………………………………………………………. 138
Connections………………………………………………………………….. 139
Staff Development…………………………………………………………… 140
Teacher Ideology……………………………………………………………. 141
Research Questions………………………………………………………….. 142
Implications for Further Research…………………………………………… 146
Improvements to the Study………………………………………………….. 147
Final Thoughts……………………………………………………………….. 147
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………. 149
v
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
CHILDREN’S LITERATURE…………………………………………………… 168
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Script for Recruitment of Participants……………………… 169
APPENDIX B - Archival Data Form………………………………………… 171
APPENDIX C - Interview Guide…………………………………………….. 173
APPENDIX D - Example of Transcribed Observation Field Notes…………. 176
APPENDIX E - Example of Researcher’s Reflective Journal……………….. 178
APPENDIX F - Example of Participant’s Reflective Journal…………………179
APPENDIX G - E-mail Message to Principals………………………………..180
APPENDIX H - Informed Consent Form…………………………………….. 181
vi
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
ABSTRACT
Writing is used as a means of communication and also as a way to creatively
express our innermost thoughts and feelings. The act of teaching writing can be
envisioned as helping students to craft and construct grammatical, easy to read sentences
and compositions. Conversely, writing instruction can also be seen as providing other
writers with the encouragement to create beautiful and meaningful ideas. Writer’s
Workshop is an organizational framework for teaching, which allows students the time to
practice using the writing process in a variety of authentic, meaningful ways.
This research study examined how four elementary teachers responded to a
training session on Writer’s Workshop as they sought to strengthen their instructional
practices. Data for the qualitative inquiry was collected through interviews, classroom
observations, reflective journals, and student writing samples.
The findings revealed that the overall classroom culture greatly impacts writing
instruction. Also, teachers’ personal ideologies drive their decisions; therefore, to change
classroom practice, one must first make philosophical shifts. The results also highlighted
the ongoing and multi-faceted nature of professional growth. Overall, when teachers are
given choice and flexibility regarding areas they want to study, they develop the initiative
to learn through a multitude of opportunities.
vii
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
LIST OF FIGURES
3.1
Axial Coding……………………………………………………………….. 50
3.2
Analysis of Themes Chart………………………………………………….. 51
3.3
Audit Trail Coding Chart…………………………………………………… 54
4.1
View of Bess’s Classroom………………………………………………….. 69
4.2
Map of Bess’s Classroom………………………………………………….. 70
4.3
View of Helen’s Classroom………………………………………………… 73
4.4
Map of Helen’s Classroom………………………………………………… 75
4.5
View of Meg’s Classroom…………………………………………………
78
4.6
Map of Meg’s Classroom………………………………………………….
80
4.7
View of Sarah’s Classroom………………………………………………… 84
4.8
Map of Sarah’s Classroom………………………………………………….. 85
5.1
Student #19’s Mr. Kitty Story……………………………………………. 96-97
5.2
Student #6’s Ely the Elephant Story……………………………………….. 101
viii
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
How can teachers live a more “writerly life” (Calkins, 1994) in order to encourage
their students to think and act like writers?
Literacy development lies at the heart of educational achievement, and one of the
most important skills is the ability to communicate effectively using written language. To
support students’ development in writing, teachers must learn how to implement effective
instructional strategies within their classrooms. Often, this growth in a teacher’s
knowledge is attained through some form of staff development activity. Wei, DarlingHammond, Andree, Richardson and Orphanos (2009) confirmed, “teacher professional
development as a key component of change and as an important link between the
standards movement and student achievement” (p. 1). This study examined the
connections between professional learning and teachers’ authentic practice while
teaching writing.
Writer’s Workshop is an instructional routine that can help students learn how to
write more effectively, but it has also been linked to the development of other qualities as
well. According to Fletcher and Portalupi (2001), “A writing workshop creates an
environment where students can acquire these skills, along with fluency, confidence, and
desire to see themselves as writers” (p. 1). Researchers agree that teaching writing is a
difficult process because there are so many skills to teach, and there are no absolute
correct answers (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Ray & Laminack, 2001; Graves, 2003).
Writer’s Workshop can also be viewed as a philosophy that encourages student
1
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
independence and choice while lessening the teacher’s control over selecting topics and
genres of writing. Professional development can be a way to support teachers as they
shift from more traditional ways of teaching writing to a focus on the processes used in
writing.
Background of the Problem
At times there appears to be weak connections between the goals of professional
development and the actual classroom outcomes. Guskey (2002) explained that
uncertainty about teacher motivation and difficulties with how the change process is
facilitated and sustained are crucial factors in the success of professional development
efforts. Darling-Hammond (2005) acknowledged that instruction should be conducted
by “teachers who understand learning as well as teaching, who can address students’
needs as well as the demands of their disciplines, and who can create bridges between
students’ experiences and curriculum goals” (p.5). Therefore, research needs to be
conducted on how to provide motivation, support change, and strengthen instructional
connections for teachers.
An important relationship exists between a teacher’s beliefs and how instruction
is carried out. This connection is necessary in all areas of the curriculum, but is vital to
the creative subject of written composition. Calkins (1994) described the heart of
teaching writing with these words, “It is essential that children are deeply involved in
writing, that they share their texts with others, and that they perceive themselves as
authors” (p. 3). However, to achieve these lofty expectations, teachers must first embrace
this pedagogical belief and then set up their classroom routines accordingly. After
2
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
developing a deeper understanding of the many complex processes involved in learning
to write and being exposed to the characteristics and belief systems of Writer’s
Workshop, teachers must internalize this knowledge in some manner before actually
implementing it in their own classroom. This instrumental case study explored how staff
development on Writer’s Workshop impacts teachers’ professional growth and
investigated ways in which teachers’ personal philosophies and experiences determine
instructional decisions regarding the teaching of writing.
The scope of this study considered the extent to which staff development
activities impact teachers’ reflective practice and how educators go about incorporating
new knowledge into their existing understandings about writing instruction. Teachers
must first recognize the skills students need in order to learn to write at various
developmental stages and then provide a supportive environment that encourages them to
create and compose (Smith, 1994). As teachers begin to appreciate the power of writing
throughout the curriculum, their position and attitudes may be altered. Romano (1995)
explained, “Writing is a worthy human experience…. We grow and become more
complicated as our literacy evolves. Our lives are enriched by the doing. Never forget
that” (p. 198).
There are many factors to examine when considering the professional growth of
teachers. As Hargreaves (1998) pointed out, “[Teachers] are emotional, passionate
beings who connect with their students and fill their work and their classes with pleasure,
creativity, challenge and joy” (p. 836). Eisner (1998) used the term “educational
connoisseurship” to describe this heightened sense of awareness, which focuses on the
3
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
subtle processes occurring in the educational setting. The research study explored how
teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions influence their decisions when setting up
instructional routines to foster writing development. The aim was to reveal some of the
processes and concepts influencing those decisions. Information gleaned from this study
adds to the existing literature regarding teachers’ professional growth and inform
decisions about the design of staff development activities.
Problem Statement
Even though many professional learning opportunities are offered and attended
across the nation in schools, districts, regional offices, and state conferences, the change
we expect and envision is not fully realized. Michael Fullan (2007) believed this is so
because “external approaches to instructional improvement are rarely powerful enough,
specific enough, or sustained enough to alter the culture of the classroom and school” (p.
35). Therefore, we need to investigate positive, effective ways to support teachers’
internal academic growth and learning attempts.
Easton (2008) reiterated, “Educators must be knowledgeable and wise. They must
know enough in order to change. They must change in order to get different results. They
must become learners, and they must be self-developing” (p. 756). This change process
can seem complex and daunting in the midst of day-to-day teaching responsibilities.
Hence, research is needed to identify approaches that encourage teachers to seek out
ways to become more self-developing within their profession. If we are able to clearly
articulate how teachers respond and interact with new learning ideas, then these positive
attributes can be reinforced.
4
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future reported, “Teacher
expertise is the most significant factor in student success” (National Writing Project &
Nagin, 2006, p. 59). In the area of writing instruction, teachers have to be knowledgeable
in both the art and craft of writing. Bintz and Dillard (2004) explained, “Teachers are
artists who teach what they value” (p. 111). However, students must also learn the
specific grade-level writing standards and basic concepts of standard written
communication. As writing teachers begin to reflect upon their ideals and learn new
instructional strategies, they will be able to hone the two demands of teaching writing.
Graves (2003) reiterated that the processes of teaching and writing require constant,
ongoing, and painstaking revisions. When framing their teaching in this manner, teachers
begin to teach living, breathing writers, not the subject of writing (Calkins, 1994).
Existing research identifies many effective strategies to teach writing and
provides a plethora of evidence regarding the importance of teachers’ continued
professional growth. However, little research has examined what teachers do as they
adopt new learning and how they begin to implement the new teaching strategies. This
case study explored how teachers learn to value the use of a more process-based approach
to writing time in their classrooms and how they begin to act upon those beliefs.
Conceptual Framework
A theoretical framework of social constructivism guided the inquiry with research
being mostly interpretive in nature and relying heavily upon the contextual framework of
the classroom. Duke and Mallette (2004) explained that this approach is “concerned with
coming to understand the world from the participants’ perspectives” (p. 96).
5
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
A philosophy of social constructivism provided a basis for the discovery of
meaning and the formation of ideas throughout the study. Lev Vygotsky is the theorist
most closely associated with the constructivist stance, which places critical importance on
culture and stresses the importance of the social context. Jaramillo (1996) explained
Vygotsky’s sociocultural view of learning with these words, “To learn concepts, the
learner must experience them and socially negotiate their meaning in the authentic
context of a complex learning environment” (p. 135). During the research study, this
philosophical viewpoint was experienced on many levels. The researcher identified key
issues by interview and direct observation in the context of actual classrooms. The
participants constructed meaning from their staff development session by analyzing the
strategies they had used in implementing Writer’s Workshop, and the students were
involved in a learner-centered environment as they acquired important writing skills.
Knowledge of these philosophical beliefs influenced and guided the research
decisions along the way. Since the main goal was to investigate how teachers utilize their
learning to set up Writer's Workshop routines, the inquiry was dependent upon social
interactions within a contextualized setting. Glesne (2006) explained, “The ontological
belief that tends to accompany qualitative research approaches portrays a world in which
reality is socially constructed, complex and ever changing” (p. 6). Since clarification was
sought to identify ways in which teachers personally conceptualize new professional
learning, a naturalistic paradigm was suited for this inquiry.
The contextualized setting provided rich interactions between the participants,
students, and other adults in the classroom. Observations of actual learning experiences
6
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
afforded the researcher with opportunities to notice how teachers acted upon their new
knowledge while working with students during writing time. As the teachers interacted
with their students, they encouraged and assisted their students’ learning of new writing
strategies. The researcher saw examples of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development
(ZPD) in action. The ZPD refers to the difference between what problems learners can
solve independently and what they are able to accomplish with the help of a more
knowledgeable other (Vygotsky, 1978). During mini-lessons the teachers modeled
writing and while conferencing they went about assisting individual students as they
composed text. During share time, the students celebrated and gave suggestions to their
peers. These activities helped to promote students’ writing development.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine ways that teachers used information
gained during staff development activities to shift pedagogical beliefs and make
meaningful instructional choices when teaching writing.
The specific research questions addressed were:
•
How do teachers respond to staff development on Writer’s Workshop in order to
internalize the new knowledge to implement these strategies in their classroom?
•
How does staff development impact teachers’ reflective practice?
•
In what ways do teachers’ personal attitudes toward writing influence their praxis
in writing instruction?
7
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Significance of the Study
The research findings expanded knowledge in the area of professional
development by qualitatively describing how teachers internalized new learning about
Writer’s Workshop and how they went about applying the knowledge into their own
instructional practices. This information will benefit district or campus administrators
who are interested in the development of teachers’ writing instruction and students’
literacy skills. Administrators who are instrumental in designing professional
development activities can benefit from the knowledge gained from this research as they
plan, implement, and support teachers’ instructional knowledge development.
Specifically, this investigation explored how staff development on the Writer’s
Workshop approach can impact teachers’ reflective practice and ultimately improve
students’ writing abilities.
Information learned from this exploration may also assist those who carry out
staff development sessions. By knowing how teachers acquire new teaching strategies
and what types of ongoing support they actually utilize after the session presenters can
embed more effective methods in their trainings.
The findings realized from this research focus on describing how teachers learn
new teaching strategies. Duffy (2002) challenged teachers to have a passionate vision
and commitment. The case study will provide information that will emphasize the
exploration of beliefs as a necessary prerequisite to changing practice (Richardson,
Anders, Tidwell & Lloyd, 1991). When teachers experience the many complex processes
8
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
involved in learning to write, they will be better able to design effective instruction for
their students (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Ray & Laminack, 2001; Routman, 2005).
Conclusions resulting from this study may inform requirements regarding staff
development. They highlight the need for ongoing staff development and explain how
teachers respond to staff development activities. This study specifically answers the call
for future research described by Guskey (2002), “We need to explore the specific teacher
attitudes and beliefs most crucial to professional growth and development” (p. 389).
Key Terms
Conferring: While students are busy writing, the teacher moves about the room asking
questions to individual students about their writing. The teacher then carefully listens and
responds to the students’ ideas and thoughts. This time is used to guide and encourage
students’ writing and to record brief anecdotal notes.
Drafting: A phase of the writing process when the writer “get[s] ideas down without
regard to final product” (Routman, 2005, p. A-17).
Editing: “Editing refers to the changes and corrections a writer makes so that her work
conforms with conventions” (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001, p. 64).
Mentor Texts: Pieces of literature used to provide examples and models for writing.
Mini-Lesson: A short, concise, focused lesson using authentic examples to explain an
important writing concept or skill.
Pedagogy: The principles and theories associated with the profession of teaching.
9
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Praxis: The practical application of knowledge and beliefs.
Revising: “Revision means going back to a written work and looking at it with new eyes,
literally to ‘re-see’” (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001, p. 63). Revision refers to improving or
amending the ideas in a piece of writing.
Share Time: A structured opportunity for students to share their writing products with
peers or others. Suggestions, questions and encouragement are provided by other students
and the teacher.
Staff Development: The processes, programs, or activities to improve teachers’
knowledge and understanding. “A comprehensive, sustained, and intensive approach to
improving teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness in raising student achievement”
(National Staff Development Council website).
Writer’s Workshop: A way to organize instructional writing time that provides students
with meaningful, authentic exposure to the craft of writing.
Assumptions
As the researcher in this qualitative study, I began this study with some
preconceived ideas about what I would encounter. These inherent thoughts cannot be
overlooked within this gathering of data. Before beginning this investigation I held a few
assumptions regarding what might be encountered in the study, and it is necessary that
these presuppositions be presented to the reader at this time. Since the four participants
had all attended the same training and heard the same information, I expected their
implementation of Writer’s Workshop to be very similar. Also, given that the training
10
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
was mainly focused on the process-approach to teaching writing, I anticipated seeing
lessons on strategies for composing written text and less of an emphasis on writing
products or projects. Because the participants taught at different grade levels, I expected
to notice marked differences in the depth of expectations held for their students’ writing.
I presumed that teachers had more understanding about the developmental stages of
writing acquisition. Finally, I thought teachers relied more on formal rather than informal
staff development for professional growth.
Limitations
The small scope of this study, with only four participants, may or may not
sufficiently reflect the thoughts and feelings of all teachers who implement Writer’s
Workshop strategies in their classroom. The specifics of this contextualized case study
were directly tied to a particular staff development session and may not be generalizable
to other groups or settings. To combat this limitation, multiple sources of data were
collected and thick, rich descriptions were provided to allow the voices of the particular
teachers to be heard. By utilizing purposeful sampling, the participants were carefully
chosen to ensure maximum variation. A thorough description of the case provides insight
into the complex issue of learning how to teach writing effectively in the classroom.
Stake (2003) affirmed, “The purpose of a case report is not to represent the world, but to
represent the case” (p. 156).
The researcher provided the actual staff development session and this fact may
have caused some bias or apprehension for the participants. The collected data was also
filtered through the personal understandings and beliefs of the researcher and, therefore,
11
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
could be prone to bias (Merriam, 1988). As suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985),
prolonged engagement and persistent observation may help alleviate some of the bias as
well as an awareness that distortions can occur when collecting data in the naturalistic
setting.
Summary
When teachers attend staff development activities to learn about the instructional
strategy of Writer’s Workshop, they internalize and process the learning in various ways.
This instrumental case study documented and analyzed the thoughts, strategies, struggles
and successes of four teachers as they implemented a new method of teaching writing in
their classrooms.
Chapter two provides a review of the literature related to this study. The
methodology plan is explained in detail in chapter three. Chapter four will give
information regarding the context of the study. The findings resulting from the analysis of
the data are given in chapter five. The report concludes by providing a discussion of the
results and implications in chapter six.
12
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this research study was to examine ways that teachers learn how
to become more effective with their writing instruction. This chapter conveys pertinent
information on the existing research related to topics associated with the inquiry.
Literature cited in this chapter will include research on adult learning, professional
development, literacy learning, writing, and Writer’s Workshop. This review of literature
serves to deepen the readers’ understanding and situate the research within the greater
body of knowledge.
Teachers must have a passion to continue learning because they have the great
responsibility of educating the next generation of citizenry. As adult learners, educators
are motivated to learn new skills that will help them solve their own unique instructional
challenges (Lyons & Pinnell, 2001). An approach used by teachers to enhance their
knowledge of instruction is professional study aimed at enhancing, refining, and updating
the skills needed to stay abreast of current educational research and pedagogy. Since
reading and writing are embedded within the development of expertise in all content
areas, enhancing instruction in the area of literacy is essential. Writing to share ideas with
others is one of the most powerful means of communication. Writer’s Workshop is a
classroom framework that allows students’ voices to be heard and gives value to their
written communication. This research study investigated how four elementary teachers
enhanced their skills in teaching writing by learning about implementing a Writer’s
Workshop in their classrooms.
13
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Adult Learning
Every person, regardless of age, has the potential to learn. Learning begins at birth
and is a lifelong process. All learners have some of the same characteristics: l) they use
prior knowledge to acquire new understandings, 2) they must be interested and motivated
to learn, and 3) they need to be actively engaged in the discovery process (Lyons &
Pinnell, 2001). Educational thinker John Dewey (1938) theorized that the quality of
experiences impact intellectual growth. He wrote, “The most important attitude that can
be formed is that of a desire to go on learning” (Ch. 3).
According to Friend and Cook (2000), adult learners exhibit some different
characteristics that distinguish them from younger learners. These differences include: 1)
Adults have vast amounts of prior knowledge, extensive experiences, and many
widespread skills which influence their learning. 2) Their ideas, beliefs, and values about
learning are based upon both positive and negative previous school experiences. 3) Their
learning is focused on a specific goal, problem, or issue. 4) Since adults have had many
experiences in varied educational contexts, they are more flexible in their approach to
learning. 5) They have high expectations for the knowledge-building activity. 6) Adults
have numerous demands on their time, so they want the activity to be organized and
efficient. 7) They are usually motivated to learn about topics that they find interesting.
The term “andragogy” was coined by Malcolm Knowles (1980) to describe the
art and science of how adults learn. He described how mature learners develop an indepth knowledge of self while learning new strategies and acquiring analytical abilities.
According to Knowles (1980), there are four foundational assumptions regarding the
14
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
adult learners’ ability, need, and desire to take responsibility for their learning: 1) Adults’
self-concept moves from dependency to independency. 2) Their experiences can be used
as a basis for learning. 3) Their readiness to learn becomes increasingly associated with
social roles. 4) Their time and curricular perspectives change from postponed to
immediacy of application and from subject-centeredness to performance-centeredness
(pp. 44-45).
Adults participate in learning activities for practical rather than academic reasons.
They focus on the application of knowledge more than theoretical concepts, and they
desire to gain skills rather than wisdom (Johnstone & Rivera, 1965). Research by Cross
(1981) confirmed these conclusions and reiterated that learning remains a lifelong pursuit
in today’s changing world. According to the National Research Council (2000), “The
principles of learning and their implications for designing learning environments apply
equally to child and adult learning” (p. 27). Therefore, when planning staff development
activities for teachers, providers need to highlight practical ways that teachers can
tangibly integrate new knowledge into their classroom practice (Sharp, 1993).
Theories of andragogy have continued to shift and change with time. Knowles
even modified his position on the differentiation between childhood and adult learning.
As Merriam, Caffarella and Baumgartner (2007) explained, " Knowles himself changed
his position on whether andragogy really applied only to adults and came to believe that
pedagogy-andragogy represents a continuum ranging from teacher-directed to studentdirected learning and that both approaches are appropriate with children and adults,
depending on the situation” (p. 87). Currently, learning theories continue to expand to
15
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
include personality differences, learning styles, cultural variations and generational
tendencies (Tucker, 2010).
Most of the research has been done on adult’s formal learning; however, people
learn far more through informal means (Connor, 2004). We learn from conversations
with peers, by reading books or articles, while Internet searching (Facebook and
Pinterest), watching television, and through trial and error. According to Dewey (1938),
this “collateral learning” may be more important to concept formation than traditional
lessons. As teachers learn, their knowledge, attitudes, and classroom practice are
enhanced in order to positively impact student outcomes (Desimone, 2011). Adult
educators utilize both formal and informal learning as they seek to improve their
professional practice.
Kosova (2010) found differences between other adult professional learning
situations and teachers’ attitudes toward professional development activities. She related
that some of these differences may be due to the nature of the educator’s job. Since
teachers have been educated in schools all of their lives, they assume they are
knowledgeable and, thus, appear less motivated to learn new strategies. Kosova (2010)
reported, “Teachers very often prefer courses and seminars organized by external
educational entities, they demand good lectures clarifying everything, the goals of
education should be clear in advance and they should be formulated by an educator, they
demand ready-made practical topics that can be used at schools immediately” (p. 176). In
contrast to other professions, adult educators’ uncertainty may be due to feelings of
16
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
isolation or a lack confidence in their own professional skills, yet many do not feel
comfortable in asking for help (Mucchielli, 1996).
Professional Development
In order for teachers to develop a positive professional self-image, essential tools,
effective strategies, and necessary information, they must continually be exposed to
quality professional development activities, which ultimately can influence student
achievement. Desimone (2011) asserted, “Teacher professional development is one of
the keys to improving the quality of U.S. schools” (p. 68). There is agreement among
researchers that the quality of a student’s education is directly affected by the
characteristics and expertise of the individual teacher in the classroom (DarlingHammond, 1997; Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001; Sparks, 2002). This crucial
growth of teachers’ pedagogical understanding and improvement of instructional practice
remains a continual process in the field of education.
One of the most common ways to provide career enrichment is through staff
development sessions. Expanding teachers’ knowledge base in specific content areas and
enhancing their repertoire of instructional strategies are some key purposes undergirding
the need for quality professional development. According to Guskey (2002), “Teaching
and learning are influenced by a multitude of situational and contextual variables” (p.
387). Guskey (2002) reported that in order for teachers to become committed to new
instructional approaches they must see positive evidence that the teaching principles
work with their students. The primary goal of training teachers is always and ultimately
to improve student learning. Sparks (2002) explained this important connection by
17
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
saying, “Teacher expertise is one of the most important variables affecting student
achievement” (p. 1-1). For this critical competence to develop, powerful and effective
professional training approaches need to be implemented and sustained.
When teachers see that a strategy is truly effective with their own students, they
are most often excited and eager to adopt the instructional approach. As Guskey (2002)
explained, “It is important to note that, for the vast majority of teachers, becoming a
better teacher means enhancing student learning outcomes” (p. 382). For personal career
enrichment, teachers also desire to enhance their craft of teaching. Through experience,
teachers are able to identify areas that they want to learn more about. Staff development
is a way to aid teachers in evaluating their teaching in order to target areas of desired
instructional growth.
Not only do teachers require support from others, such as coaches, mentors,
colleagues, or administrators, they also need to become “conscious of their own
professional development” (Graves, 2004, p. 88). Duffy (2002) described this personal
responsibility to learning as “visioning - a teacher's conscious sense of self, of one's
work, and of one's mission” (p. 334). Teachers with vision have an innate ability to take
ideas gleaned from different sources and mesh them together to make effective
instructional adjustments. These teachers do not simply follow along with a common
trend, they think creatively and independently to do what works to enhance student
learning (Duffy, 2002).
Standards for professional learning can be useful as guides in helping to build the
capacity of educators (NSDC, 2011). “The standards make explicit that the purpose of
18
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
professional learning is for educators to develop the knowledge, skills, practices, and
dispositions they need to help students perform at higher levels” (NSCD, 2011,
webpage). Three factors that are valuable in understanding high quality professional
learning are context, process and content (Guskey & Sparks, 1996). Tucker (2010)
explained that “context includes every aspect of the learning environment, process
includes the method, strategies, and activities used to teach the information, and content
deals with the knowledge and skill to be taught” (p. 18).
“Context refers to the “who”, “when”, “where” and “why” of staff development”
(Guskey & Sparks, 1996, p. 2). Teachers are always learning; this learning can occur in
their classrooms, in the community, in staff development workshops, in a hallway
conversation, or at home with their own children (Borko, 2004). Most professional
development activities are designed to influence teachers’ beliefs and change
instructional practices (Guskey, 1979, 1982; Huberman & Miles, 1984). In order for the
change to occur, several components must come together for teachers. Guskey (2002)
identified three main principles of effective professional development programs: 1)
recognize that change is a gradual and difficult process for teachers, 2) ensure that
teachers receive regular feedback on student learning progress, and 3) provide continued
follow-up, support and pressure (pp. 386-388).
Content refers to the “what” of staff development. While teachers work to refine
their general instructional practices, they also hone teaching skills in particular content
areas. Educators learn the language and specific skills necessary to teach valuable
content as well as understand important pedagogical concepts. For example, in the area
19
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
of writing, instructors must learn how to effectively educate their students in the craft of
writing. They have to know and understand specific skills associated with composing,
revising, and editing as well as the rules and mechanics of written expression. They have
to focus not only on these important craft lessons but honor the art of writing as well.
Lucy Calkins (1994) exhorted teachers to be reflective practitioners with these words,
“To teach well, we do not need more techniques and strategies as much as we need a
vision of what is essential” (p. 3). The delicate balance of determining the essential is
what remains difficult for teachers. Enderlin-Lampe (2002) reported that teachers are
experiencing a general sense of powerlessness and lack self-efficacy within today’s
educational scene. To combat this sense of isolation and bolster deep, transformational
learning, Sparks (1998) urged schools to implement professional learning communities to
improve instructional practices. According to Sparks (1998), a team-based approach to
professional development is most effective.
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) are based upon Vygotsky’s
constructivist philosophy. “Constructivism is the theory that suggests that human
knowledge is constructed within the minds of individuals and within social communities”
(Richardson, 2003, pp. 403-404). In a professional learning community, small groups of
teachers collaborate to understand the curriculum better. During regular meetings, these
teams focus on standards to be taught and disaggregate data collected from frequent
common assessments (Little, 1990; Eaker, 2002; Schmoker, 2006). From this social
collaboration, knowledge is co-constructed and new learning occurs.
20
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Process refers to the “how” of professional learning. The actual design of the
professional development activity must be taken into consideration as well as the
intensity and consistency of additional expectations. Guskey and Sparks (1996) pointed
out the importance of how the activity is carried out and the “value of substantial followup activities such as coaching, action research, or focused study groups” (p. 2). In
addition to variations in the context and content of professional development, the process
of learning can now occur in a myriad of ways. With additional modes of 21st century
communication, teachers may now access professional development sessions at any time
through webinars, screen casts, wikis, blogs, videos, and other Web 2.0 applications.
It is important to understand that a balance needs to be in place between
individual inquiry and the communitarian approach (Richardson, 2003; Gabriel, Pareira
& Allington, 20ll). Consideration should be given to maintaining a balance between
individual and group learning modalities because some teachers describe attempts of
forced cooperation as “contrived collegiality” (Hargreaves & Dawe, 1989). Sometimes,
the best way to learn is informally from peers. As Gabriel, Pareira and Allington (2011)
explained, “To have somebody right next door to you that you can go and peek in and say
‘Let me see how you’re doing this’” (p. 40).
Effective staff development is not something that is “done to teachers” but rather
provided to help professional educators continue learning throughout their career (Easton,
2008). There are many different ways that teachers can go about improving their
instructional practice in addition to traditional staff development sessions. In fact,
Allington (2006) argued that “most teachers’ learning occurs on the job, not at
21
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
workshops” (p. 143). This knowledge transpires through professional reading, individual
or group inquiry projects and conversations with colleagues (Allington, 2006).
A major theme appearing in the literature on professional learning is that staff
development efforts need to be reformed in order to improve teaching practices
(Cochran-Smith, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 1998). Researchers, professional
development leaders, and teacher educators discuss a broken system that is in need of
repair (Richardson, 2003; Guskey, 2002). Hill (2009) called for a complete restructure or
overhaul of the professional development system with Allington (2006) commenting,
“There can be few less organized aspects of education than professional development” (p.
143).
According to Hargreaves, Lieberman, Fullan and Hopkins (1998), there is an
overabundance of educational change occurring in education today and this pattern
presents teachers with “changes that are multiple, complex and sometimes contradictory”
(p. 5). Some of the criticism attributed to professional development initiatives is that
there is no consistency or follow-through to the learning (Rodgers & Pinnell, 2002).
Along with this bombardment of new strategies and programs, teachers feel pressure for
higher student performance while experiencing a multitude of time constraints in the
classroom (Dearman, 2005).
Literacy Learning
Leaders in literacy education echo the belief that the qualities of the individual
teacher impact student achievement the most (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Shanahan &
Neuman, 1997; Harwayne, 2001, National Commission on Teaching and America’s
22
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Future, 2003). Poulson and Avramidis (2003) reported, “Teaching literacy effectively
was achieved through the interweaving of different kinds of experience, rather than
through specific training or in-service courses” (p. 549). Educators in the field of reading
and writing strive to acquire this ongoing interconnection of learning when adopting new
instructional practices into their own teaching procedures yet, “the great debate” (Chall,
1967) remains regarding the most effective ways to promote effective literacy
development.
As teachers work to develop these important student literacy habits, they must
also expand what they know about quality instruction in general. Effective classroom
instruction hinges on developing mutual respect between the teacher and students in the
classroom (Payne, 2005). Healthy, positive classroom culture provides students with a
rich learning environment (Whitaker, 2004; Tomlinson, 1999). Danielsen (2007)
identified five components that can influence the educational atmosphere: 1) An
environment of respect and rapport, 2) Establishing a culture for learning, 3) Managing
classroom procedures, 4) Managing student behavior, and 5) Organizing physical space
(pp. 64-76).
Allington (2006) reiterated, “Effective schools are simply schools in which there
are more classrooms where high-quality reading and writing instruction is regularly
available” (p. 142). There are many different ways that teachers learn how to provide
this caliber of literacy instruction. According to Routman (2003), one of the best ways of
staying up-to-date on effective pedagogical ideas is through professional reading and
conversations with colleagues. In fact, the National Writing Project’s staff development
23
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
model is based upon teachers teaching their colleagues about effective ways to enhance
writing instruction (National Writing Project & Nagin, 2006).
Successful literacy classrooms need to have a mix of whole-class, small-group,
and side-by-side instruction (Pressley, 2006; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000).
According to Boushey and Moser (2009), the goal of teaching is to meet students where
they are by providing intense, explicit teaching along with necessary support using the
gradual release method. However, researchers explain that very little of this type of
quality reading and writing instruction is actually occurring in our schools (Jones, 1995;
Kameenui & Carnine, 1998). Allington’s teams of researchers report that a fraction of
classroom time is spent on actual reading and writing and most of the time is spent on
“stuff” (2001, p. 27). Not only do students require scaffolded assistance to meet the state
and national English Language Arts and Reading standards, teachers also need guidance
in learning how to teach new literacy skills effectively. According to Roskos, Risko and
Vukelich (1998), “Learning to teach requires many and varied opportunities for building
mental models of classrooms, teaching and learning” (p. 229). They reiterated one of the
most common principles of effective teaching – students understand and “learn by doing”
(p. 229).
Writing
Research on the Development of Writing:
Children begin to develop an interest in writing at a very early age. They want to
share their thoughts and communicate with others. Graves (2003) explained this innate
desire:
24
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Children want to write. They want to write the first day they attend school. This is
no accident. Before they went to school they marked up walls, pavements, newspapers
with crayons, chalk, pens or pencils… anything that makes a mark. The child’s marks
say, “I am.” (p. 3)
Writing is a complex developmental process occurring on a flexible continuum
that is dependent upon many variables such as environment, expectations, attitudes,
memory, and experiences. Tolchinsky (2006) explained the value by sharing, “Writing is
not merely a tool for transmitting knowledge; it is also a source of knowledge; it is not
only a problem space but also a resource for dealing with language and thought” (p. 84).
As young children learn about written language, this new knowledge helps them to
expand their social world and embrace their symbolic life (Dyson, 2003).
The roots of writing actually begin with the pre-speech gestures made by infants.
However, we must remember that students may plateau, regress, or leap forward along
the way as they develop as writers (Berninger & Winn, 2006), while Gunning (2010)
cautioned that “children can and do move back and forth between the stages, and the
stages overlap” (pp. 508-509).
Russian neuro-psychologist Alexander Luria (1970) analyzed the complexities of
written language from a more scientific stance. His research found that different parts of
the brain are responsible for controlling specific movements, processing speech and
coding sounds into letters. Luria and his co-workers (1970) demonstrated the close link
between speech and writing in an experiment with Russian students. They found that if
the children were unable to articulate the words, they made many more spelling errors.
25
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Sulzby and Teale (1985) identified common stages of writing development. The
emergent phase is characterized by children drawing pictures to tell their stories on paper.
Next, the child begins to scribble wavy marks across the page. Soon, these marks begin
to form letter-like units, but they are not grouped into identifiable words at this point.
When students start to learn and recognize letters, they begin writing non-phonetic strings
of letters, then some recognizable patterns begin to appear in writing such as their own
name or familiar words. At this time, children may begin copying known words from the
environment and trying out invented spelling. The final stage of development occurs
when the child can write using conventional spelling and mechanics. The ultimate goal of
writing is to become what Gunning (2010) called an “Extending Writer.” This writer goes
above and beyond to craft original pieces using creative and novel language containing
rich details and figurative language. These stages are not static, and writers move
between the stages depending upon what they are writing, the audience for their writing,
or the form of writing (Sulzby, 1990).
In her study of five-year-old children in New Zealand, Clay (1975) noted that
children gradually develop an awareness of the “arbitrary customs” used in written
language. Her seminal research points out the subtleties of children’s development as
writers. Her technique of close observation of students encourages teachers to notice
concepts and principles that the children are using or ignoring as they progress in their
writing behaviors. There are many details of print for the child to learn as they negotiate
orientation, directionality, spacing, and sequence. Through careful examination of their
actual writing, Clay (1975) found that young children begin to learn using “gross
approximations,” which later become more refined (p. 15). Young writers’ knowledge is
26
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
also very “specific” and inflexible in the beginning. As Clay (1975) elaborated on the
positive connections between language, reading, and writing development, she explained
that good readers and writers can fluently work with sentences, phrases, words and
sounds.
History of Writing Research:
Prior to Janet Emig’s groundbreaking study, research on written composition in
America was sparse and unsubstantiated (Nystrand, 2006). The majority of pioneer
research on writing was conducted in England prior to 1970. The conclusions of the
Dartmouth Seminar in 1966, attended by American and British educators, fostered an
emphasis on “generative and active meaning-making processes of engaged writing and
reading” (Nystrand, 2006, p. 13). Emig (1971) investigated how twelfth grade students
wrote by asking them to compose aloud. She classified the students’ writing into two
categories: reflexive and extensive. Emig (1971) described reflexive writing as more
personal, having to do with individual thoughts, feelings, or experiences. She labeled
writing that related to formal, more impersonal communication of ideas to others as
extensive writing. Emig found that most school writing was categorized as extensive.
Calkins (1994) also concluded that people write for a myriad of different reasons – to
learn, plan, remember, organize, and learn.
Shaughnessy (1977) studied 4,000 New York City College writers and
determined that effective writing instruction is linked to language patterns and social
discourse. Research by Flower and Hayes (1980) provided insight into the recursive
nature of writing. They found that writers move back and forth through the sub-processes
27
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
of planning, drafting, evaluating and revising their writing. The research of both Emig
(1971) and Flower and Hayes (1980) focused on the cognitive processes used in writing
by utilizing think-aloud protocols.
Hillock's (1987) meta-analysis revealed that composing text requires at least four
components of understanding: 1) knowledge of the content to be written about; 2)
procedural knowledge which allows the writer to control the composition; 3) knowledge
of discourse structures, including forms of writing, punctuation, and usage; and 4)
procedural knowledge of how to produce a piece of writing.
Writing Instruction:
In the past, writing instruction focused mainly on teacher-directed instruction,
lessons on isolated skills, contrived writing assignments, short compositions, and
attention placed on mechanics or conventions (Troia, Lin, Cohen & Monroe, 2011).
However, researchers such as Atwell (1987), Calkins (1998), and Graves (2003)
influenced teachers to begin using a more process-oriented approach (Troia, Lin, Cohen
& Monroe, 2011). Teachers who exhibit a strong professional self-efficacy are more
likely to attempt this type of teaching. According to Guskey (1988), teachers with a high
self-efficacy in their teaching “tend to be more likely to adopt innovative teaching
practices” (Troia, Lin, Cohen & Monroe, 2011, p. 158).
In the process approach to writing, teachers and students construct text based
upon the recursive series of steps used by professional writers (Gunning 2010). This
process approach to writing instruction emerged as a pedagogical approach in the 1970s
(Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006). Much of the research has been focused on the practical
28
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
application of how to implement this methodological philosophy while teaching writing.
Prichard and Honeycutt (2007) identified that all the stages of the writing process must be
taught in a structured, sequential manner instead of a “smorgasbord” or “piecemeal”
approach (p. 705). By implementing this type of writing instruction, students are able to
understand how real writing is constructed.
Pressley, Mohan, Fingeret, Reffitt and Raphael-Bogaert (2007) described the
importance of a positive instructional setting for teaching writing where students are
engaged in real reading and writing tasks instead of workbooks or isolated skill practice.
These researchers also report that effective writing was taught daily by teachers who
were passionate about their work. Additionally, Rose (1985) reported that students’
emotions have a great impact upon the development of writing skills. When students are
part of a positive writing community within the classroom, they feel more confident to
explore their unique style.
Writers go through a cyclical process when producing text. As Hillocks (1986)
described, “The process begins when the writer consciously or unconsciously starts a
topic and is finished when the written piece is published” (p. 8). The composing process
is very flexible and non-linear with the writer moving back and forth between the
components. Calkins (1994) referred to these components as rehearsal, drafting, revising,
editing and publishing. In order to practice these components again and again, children
must be given ample time to write in the classroom. According to Graves (2003),
students should write at least four days a week in order to make progress in their writing
skills. Graves (1975) observed seven-year-old children as they wrote and found that they
29
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
wrote more and were able to include more details when given a choice in their writing
topics. Ray and Laminack (2001) concurred on this key point by explaining, “At the very
heart of needing to write well is personal topic selection” (p. 7).
In findings from their longitudinal study of children at risk conducted in Chicago
public schools, Mavrogenes and Bezruczko (1993) offered two important
recommendations for writing instruction, “First and most important is that more
composition must be included in the school curriculum and it must be taught by teachers
who know about writing” (p. 244). Writing needs to be conceptualized as a means of
communication rather than a specific subject. Therefore, writing should be included in
all content areas. The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and
Colleges (2003) agreed with this critical need, “As a nation, we can only imagine how
powerful K-16 education might be if writing were put in its proper focus” (p. 14).
Mavrogenes and Bezruczcko (1993) continued their suggestions for writing
instruction by stating, “The second recommendation is that schools should pay more
attention to affective factors such as teachers’ expectations and students’ self-confidence”
(p. 244). Teacher’s sensitivity in how they approach writing instruction is a key to the
effectiveness of instruction. Calkins (1994) explained, “If our teaching is to be an art, we
must draw from all we know, feel, and believe in order to create something beautiful” (p.
3).
Ray (2006) encouraged teachers to also learn about the craft of writing because “a
growing knowledge base gives teachers ‘new eyes’ to see what students are trying to do
in their writing” (p. 244). This insight helps teachers interact more positively with
30
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
learners because they focus on what their students are doing well instead of what they
have not accomplished yet (Ray, 2006). Graves (2004) also valued the expertise of
teachers when he writes, “They recognize that the teacher makes a far greater difference
than any methodology” (p. 89).
Pajares, Johnson, and Usher (2007) conducted a correlational study that examined
the sources of students’ writing self-efficacy beliefs. They found that “students’
perceived mastery experience accounted for the greatest proportion of the variance” (p.
114). Therefore, students need to hear positive, uplifting, encouraging feedback from
their teachers in order to stay motivated in their writing development (Bomer, 1995).
Encouraging students to have positive attitudes about writing, developing authentic goals
and contexts, providing students with writing support, and creating a rich, effective
classroom culture are the conditions that determine students’ motivation to write
(Bruning & Horn, 2000).
When educators deeply understand a specific content area, like writing, they will
then be able to think and act like a practitioner of the craft. Thus, they will be freed to
teach their students to actually compose like writers (Sparks, 2002). As teachers more
deeply understand the overarching value of this vital communication skill, they will
naturally emphasize it more in their own teaching. Bintz and Dillard (2004) illustrated
this by stating, “Teachers are artists who teach what they value” (p. 111). By framing
their teaching in this manner, teachers begin to teach living, breathing writers, not the
subject of writing (Calkins, 1994)
31
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Teachers play a vital role in demonstrating the writing process, encouraging
student exploration, and acknowledging children as writers (Smith, 1994). In order for
teachers to feel confident in teaching writing, they must value the skill and be involved in
writing themselves. The National Writing Project and Nagin (2006) relied on the
expectation that “writing teachers must write” (p. 65). Findings from research on the
National Writing Project concluded that this exemplary model of professional
development clearly impacts teachers’ attitudes, their confidence as writers and positively
influences instructional practices (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006).
In order to effectively demonstrate the writing process, teachers must intimately
appreciate the messy struggles and demands of the writing task. Smith (1994) explained,
“Teacher understanding is more important than any system, because no method or
program can be guaranteed to teach students to write, and also because even the best of
ideas can be misused in the hands of a misguided or insensitive teacher” (p. 218).
There is no one, correct, or guaranteed way to get students to write effectively.
Teachers must gently nurture their students’ halting attempts, listen and respond carefully
to their ideas, and display sincere faith in them (Calkins, 1994). Murray (1982) painted
this picture as he shares, “It is a matter of faith, faith that my students have something to
say and a language in which to say it” (p. 160). A case study conducted at the Hudson,
Massachusetts High School highlights the importance of teachers and students speaking
and understanding the language of the writing process. They found that when teachers
began writing with students and discussing their own work, students were able to
32
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
articulate the process and expectations of writing more consistently (National Writing
Project & Nagin, 2006).
Teachers and students should perceive themselves as writers in order to become
confident in their composing abilities (Smith, 1994; Calkins, 1994). Armed with this
positive self-perception, students are then enabled to experiment, explore, and discuss the
possibilities of written communication. Accordingly, for teachers to share their
perception of students as writers, they must first recognize and embrace their students as
individuals. They should get to know their students by sharing thoughts and listening to
their ideas. In this apprenticeship style of instruction, there is much give and take
between the teacher and students. Graves (1990) corroborated the importance of this way
of thinking:
Listening is at the heart of learning for both children and teachers. Unless we
listen we have no window on their world… But if we are to live the life of words in our
teaching and in our writing, we need to hear the words of children and adults, both when
they speak and when they write (p. 83)
Writer’s Workshop
In order to create a classroom environment that fosters writing development, a
“workshop” analogy is appropriate. In the writing workshop philosophy, students and
teachers are busily engaged in the actual act of creating texts. Within this environment,
students learn from their errors, celebrate successful attempts, and give encouragement to
one another along the way. Ray and Laminack (2001) explained the essence of the
33
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
workshop approach by writing, “The focus is on writers who use writing to do powerful
things in the world in which they live” (p. 5).
During a Writer’s Workshop, the teacher sets up the classroom structure, provides
students with support, allows plenty of choice for the learners, and encourages their
writing (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001). The students then become actively involved in
creating their own authentic texts. There are three main components associated with
Writer’s Workshop: 1) Whole group mini-lesson, 2) Time for students to write and
teachers to confer, 3) Share time with the whole class or small group (Fletcher &
Portalupi, 2001). Calkins (1994) urges teachers to select “rituals, arrangements, and
classroom structures” that will influence the students into ever-deepening involvement (p.
183).
Mini-lessons are short, focused lessons on specific writing skills or strategies that
the whole class needs. These lessons are most often categorized as procedural, writer’s
process, and qualities of good writing or editing skills (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001).
Teachers introduce a particular writing concept or skill, but when the students begin their
writing time, they continue with their writing and do not have to immediately apply the
skill introduced in the lesson (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001).
The majority of the Writer’s Workshop time is devoted to students’ writing time.
While the children go about the process of composing their texts, the teacher moves
about the room and confers with individual students as they write (Fletcher & Portalupi,
2001). Ray and Laminack (2001) referred to conferencing during Writer’s Workshop as
34
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
“the essential act” because this deliberate, methodical, individualized teaching helps
move students along in their writing development (Ray & Laminack, 2001).
The workshop time ends with a time for students to share their writing and
respond to their peers’ writing (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001). Dyson (2003) wrote about
the importance of providing opportunities for students to share their written texts within
the classroom. This process allows students to receive feedback from their friends.
Dyson (2003) explained that “children’s giggles, laughs, scrunched up faces, and rolled
eyes are often not polite,” (p. 138) yet these interactions provide students and teachers
with reflections on social appropriateness while valuing students’ unique ideas.
We have learned much about the relationship between teaching and learning from
Donald Graves. He believed that “teachers must be the chief learners in the classroom,
spending a significant amount of time modeling their own learning and showing students
how” (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000, p. 7). As teachers learn about the benefits of the
Writer’s Workshop approach and gain confidence in their own writing expertise, they
begin to value their students’ writing even more. The teacher and the student are truly
working together towards improvement in the craft of writing. Graves (2003) explained
this special collaborative relationship with these words, “There is a road, a journey to
travel, and there is someone to travel with us, someone who has already made the trip”
(pp. 5-6).
35
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The research study focused on exploring how teachers’ participation in
professional development impacted their instructional practices when teaching students
how to write. The purpose of the study was to gain insight into teachers’ experiences by
describing and interpreting strategies that the participants used as they implemented a
process approach to teaching writing. The goal of this naturalistic inquiry was to
specifically examine how participants who attended a summer training session on the
topic of Writer's Workshop utilized their learning while setting up classroom writing
routines. This chapter reviews the problem and elaborates on the methodology of the
study. It includes the following primary elements: an overall design of the research; a
description of the specific type of study; inclusion and exclusion criteria of the
participants; data sources, collection methods and analysis processes along with a
description of how the researcher addresses the issue of trustworthiness. The chapter
concludes by addressing the limitations of the study and providing a summary of the
main information regarding the methodology.
Review of the Problem and Purpose
Even though professional development activities are planned to nurture the
pedagogical growth of teachers, most often very little progress is actually achieved
(Slepkov, 2008). The implementation of the desired change may be hidden to the casual
observer because it discreetly happens inside the teacher’s head. This study sought to
shed light on some of the mental processes utilized by teachers on their way to becoming
36
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
more self-developing within their profession. Specifically, the study investigated how
teachers internalized new learning about the framework of Writer’s Workshop.
The findings from this study identify various procedures and methods used by
teachers after attending a professional development activity. The knowledge gained may
guide educators, administrators, and professional development providers as they strive to
deliver effective instructional support to teachers. The specific research questions
addressed by this study include:
•
How do teachers respond to staff development on Writer’s Workshop in order to
internalize the new knowledge to implement these strategies in their classroom?
•
How does staff development impact teachers’ reflective practice?
•
In what ways do teachers’ personal attitudes toward writing influence their praxis
in writing instruction?
Research Design
Since this investigation sought to understand ways that teachers adopted
knowledge about the instructional process of Writer’s Workshop in response to staff
development, a qualitative research design was a good fit for this type of inquiry.
Creswell (2007) illuminated the interpretive stance with these words, “In this worldview,
individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. They develop
subjective meanings of their experiences…” (p. 20). In order to investigate how the
learning is being lived out within the classrooms, all the observational data was collected
within the natural environment.
37
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
This focus upon being in the field is another hallmark of qualitative methodology.
As Lincoln and Guba (1985) explained, “Realities are wholes that cannot be understood
in isolation from their contexts, nor can they be fragmented for separate study of the
parts” (p. 39). In an effort to keep the context unsullied, the site for data collection was
not manipulated in any way (Eisner, 1998).
An important feature of qualitative methodology is that the researcher is essential
for the ongoing collection and examination of the data (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, I was
involved in all aspects of the data collection process, which ensured a “people-oriented
inquiry” (Patton, 2002, p. 27). Data was collected and then analyzed in an iterative
manner during the study. Collecting information and conducting preliminary analysis
while continuing to gather additional data in the field is another feature of the qualitative
research paradigm.
Primary examinations both informed and enlightened the subsequent data
collection, thus enhancing the quality of the evidence. Inductive analysis was utilized
throughout the study in an effort to portray the essence of the participants’ experiences by
allowing ideas and themes to emerge from the collected data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The methodology of building concepts and ideas from contextual information is the basis
of the naturalistic research paradigm. Merriam (2009) explained how “bits and pieces of
information from interviews, observations, or documents are combined and ordered into
larger themes as the researcher works from the particular to the general” (pp. 15-16). By
using this process, the research design is allowed to develop and morph in response to
interactions that truly occur (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
38
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Inclusion of thick, rich descriptions was used in reporting the findings of the
analysis (Geertz, 1973). Clear communication of the data served to enhance the readers’
understanding of the identified issues. According to Merriam (2009), “Words and
pictures rather than numbers are used to convey what the researcher has learned about a
phenomenon” (p. 16). By careful observation and authentic descriptions of specific
details, the data were enriched and the flavor of the story enhanced. Written accounts of
events evoke feelings from the readers as if they are peering into the classroom and
listening in on the teachers and students as they read the text of the narrative. While
crafting the account of these discoveries, personal voice and meaningful language was
included whenever possible to promote an evocative response. Eisner (1998) explained
this quality of empathy as the “ability to don the shoes of another human being” (p. 37).
Type of Study
Since the group to be researched was clearly defined, a case study approach was
best suited for this inquiry. Merriam (2009) defined a case study as an “in-depth
description and analysis of a bounded system” (p. 40). The bounded system of this study
was limited to the attendees at a summer staff development session on Writer’s
Workshop. After selecting the participants using specific reasons, aspects of the case
were illuminated using a variety of established research methods.
An instrumental case study design was used because the goal of the research
study was to provide insight into how teachers internalize learning as a result of staff
development on writing. Therefore, the focus was not so much on the actual elements of
the specific case but on the common processes identified for adopting meaning from staff
39
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
development. Stake (1995) explained an instrumental case study as one in which the
particulars of the case move to the background because it is being used to actually
understand something else.
This research was characterized as descriptive and nonexperimental (Merriam
1988). Case study methodology ensures exploration of the phenomenon within a specific
context using multiple data sources. This assures that the topic will be investigated
through a variety of lenses, allowing germane factors to be revealed and understood in
more depth (Baxter & Jack, 2008).
Four additional criteria are critical to case study investigations. This type of
inquiry should be inductive, descriptive, heuristic, and particularistic (Merriam, 1988).
Conclusions drawn from the study were developed through analysis of specific aspects of
the case in order to identify broader themes and concepts (inductive). Data were collected
from multiple sources and clearly explained (descriptive). The research findings
enlighten and deepen the readers’ knowledge of how teachers internalize learning in
order to implement new classroom strategies (heuristic). Finally, the inquiry adheres to
these standards because it is focused on a particular group of teachers who attended a
specific staff development training (particularistic).
Participants
The researcher identified a small, purposeful group to study by applying specific
inclusion and exclusion criteria. The selection of participants for this study was
intentionally limited and nonrandom since they were chosen from a group of teachers that
attended a summer staff development session on the topic of Writer’s Workshop. The
40
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Morning Glory Independent School District (MGISD) sponsored this professional
learning opportunity, and teachers signed up for any sessions that they wished to attend.
During the one-day training workshop, information was given about the basic structure of
Writer’s Workshop to a group of 22 teachers. Therefore, the inclusion criteria for this
instrumental case study consisted of a bounded system of 22 teachers who attended a
summer staff development on the topic of Writer’s Workshop. Purposeful sampling
techniques were used to further narrow down the group to include the four teachers who
explicitly wanted to be included in the research study. Exclusion criteria were applied to
teachers who did not attend the summer training session on Writer’s Workshop and those
who did not wish to participate in the research study. The term participant is used in
qualitative research to explain “connotations of inclusion and willing cooperation”
(Merriam, 2009). To obtain maximum variation sampling (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) for
this study, the participants were selected from different grade levels and campuses.
In order to begin the study, approval was obtained from school officials to get
appropriate authorization for conducting research at the sites. After obtaining the proper
permissions, the researcher approached the teachers who attended the Writer’s Workshop
training to individually explain the scope of the research topic. They were given a careful
description of what would be expected of them if they elected to take part. The script for
recruitment (Appendix A) was used to describe specifically how the study would be
conducted. After explaining the procedure, the teachers gave their permission to
participate by signing a consent form (Appendix H).
41
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Data Sources
A hallmark of case study research is the use of multiple data sources, a strategy
that also enhances data credibility (Patton, 1990). Interviews, observations, examination
of documents, reflections recorded in a researcher’s journal, and participants’ journals
were all used as methods to unlock meaning on the topic. Archival data were gathered
from all the teachers who attended the summer training. The attendees were asked to fill
out a survey form regarding what they already knew about Writer’s Workshop and what
they hoped to gain from the training (Appendix B). Information from this survey
provided the researcher with useful prior knowledge and generated additional insight that
was helpful while selecting research participants and analyzing data as well as writing the
final report.
An important data source utilized was the technique of interview. According to
Seidman (2006), “Interviewing provides access to the context of people’s behavior and
thereby provides a way for researchers to understand the meaning of that behavior” (p. 4).
By asking thoughtful questions and using the observations as a guide, the participants
were able to reveal their experiences and tell their stories more easily. A process of
ongoing analysis assured that the interviews were meaningful and informative.
Another helpful source of information for this inquiry came from classroom
observations. The researcher assumed the role of participant-observer during the data
collection process. Spradley (1980) asserted that “the participant observer comes to an
organization with two purposes (1) To engage in activities appropriate to the situation
and (2) to observe the activities, people, and physical aspects of the situation” (pp. 5342
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
62). This role was beneficial in learning about the participants in relationship and in
context to their students. Field observations were valuable in the enhancement and
enrichment of the narrative account.
Documents pertaining to the research topic were also collected and analyzed.
Merriam (2009) explained that data found in documents can “furnish descriptive
information, verify emerging hypotheses, advance new categories and hypotheses, offer
historical understanding, track change and development” (p. 155). Contextualized data
used to further enhance the descriptive stance of the investigation included photographs
and maps of the classrooms and student writing samples. The photographs of the
classrooms helped in clearly describing the contextual setting of each classroom while the
maps were useful in understanding the relative locations of people and materials within
the narrative account. A variety of student writing samples were collected to aid in
making connections between instruction and student outcomes. According to Lincoln and
Guba (1985), documents provide a rich data source that is “contextually relevant and
grounded in the contexts they represent” (p. 277).
The researcher wrote in a reflective journal throughout the study. This written
account of problems, thoughts, and experiences during the study was used to hold the
researcher more accountable (Altheide & Johnson, 2011). The introspective document
also served as an effective tool for personally analyzing the research process as well as
reasoning through data analysis.
43
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Participants were also asked to keep a reflective journal throughout the 7-week
study. This provided them a way to document their personal thoughts and record events
when the researcher was not present.
Data Collection Methods
Data collection is the process of accumulating a myriad of relevant information,
which is then used during the analysis (Bogdan & Biklin, 2003). An iterative approach
allows data to be collected and then analyzed with the examination then informing the
subsequent collection of data. While making plans for the study, the researcher
systematically organized how each piece of data would be collected. Detailed field notes,
audio recordings, and transcriptions were constructed and then thoroughly analyzed using
a constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The collection of multiple
sources of information helps to ensure that the issue is seen through a variety of lenses
and analyzed from several points of view.
Four semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the participants. The
session lasted approximately 30 – 45 minutes and was conducted over the 7-week study.
The first interview consisted of grand tour questions (Spradley, 1979). These types of
questions provide “a verbal description of significant features of the cultural scene”
(Spradley, 1979, p. 87). The next interviews were continually more specific as the
researcher sought to clarify and understand the participants’ experiences. The interview
guide (Appendix C) provides an example of the types of questions used during each of
the interviews. The question and answer dialogue was audio recorded and transcribed
precisely for data analysis. According to Seidman (2006), “Interviewing, then, is a basic
44
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
mode of inquiry” used to understand other people’s story (p. 3). Information gleaned
from the interviews assisted in bringing the participants’ ideas to life in the report.
The researcher also collected data from four descriptive observations in the
participants’ classrooms during their Writer’s Workshop instructional time. The
observations each lasted for approximately 30 – 90 minutes and were conducted on one
day per week over a period of seven weeks. During the classroom visit, extensive notes
were typed. Any mention of student names during the observation was recorded only
with the assigned student number. The field notes from the observations were transcribed
to facilitate member checking and data analysis (Appendix D). After each session, the
collected data were thoughtfully analyzed prior to conducting subsequent observations.
Use of the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987) allowed
the observations to be continually more focused and informative.
Merriam (1998) explains that documentary data is a “product of the context in
which they were produced and therefore grounded in the real world” (pp. 126-127). As a
result of observing in the classrooms, the researcher sketched maps of each classroom
and later constructed them more formally using shapes and labels in the Microsoft Word
program. Photographs of the classroom were taken when no students were present to
assist the researcher in clearly remembering and describing the learning environment.
Exemplar student writing samples were collected and used to examine how teachers’
instruction was realized with the students. No student names or identifying information
were used in the report. The teacher participants assigned numbers to each of their
students to de-identify any student information. Therefore, in the interview and
45
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
observational records, the students are only identified by a number. The examination of
student writing samples assures that another viewpoint is included. These documents
were used to clarify and confirm issues in the analysis of the data. Lincoln and Guba
(1985) explained that this type of referential adequacy (Eisner, 1998) enhances the
dependability of the study by providing ways to capture snippets of authentic classroom
life.
The researcher recorded personal thoughts and ideas about the study in a
reflective journal which introduced yet another data source. Ideas, thoughts, and reactions
were hand-written in a simple spiral notebook throughout the investigation (Appendix E).
This journal collected deliberations, feelings, and decisions regarding the inquiry
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It was also helpful in processing the data and recording first
impressions.
Similarly, the teacher participants were asked to keep a reflective journal during
the study to record their thoughts and any memorable classroom observations that
happened when the researcher was not in the classroom (Appendix F). The researcher
provided each participant with a clearly labeled notebook filled with paper, and a
description of the study along with an explanation of the purpose of a reflective journal.
Data Analysis
According to Miles and Huberman (1994), examination of qualitative data is a
continuous process. Analysis entails carefully describing the case and research setting
and then probing the multiple sources of data to look for patterns and/or generalizations.
To understand the outcomes of the investigation, it is important to appreciate the
46
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
processes used to make these meaningful connections. Wolcott (1994) described three
ways in which these connections can be made – description, analysis, and interpretations.
Description relies upon allowing the data to “speak for themselves” (p. 10). Wolcott
(1994) defined the second category of this transformation as analysis. Analysis occurs
when essential features are identified and determinations are made regarding how the
specific qualities interact. Interpretation is the third process utilized by Wolcott (1994) to
explain the transformation of raw data to meaning. He clarified this interpretation phase
as when the researcher “transcends factual data and cautious analysis and begins to probe
into what is to be made of them” (p. 36). Holiday (2002) described this process as
moving data from “messy reality” to “thematic organization of data” (p. 100). The next
section attempts to explain the complex step of analysis and clarifies how connections
were made to transform the massive amounts of collected information into cohesive
thoughts.
The analysis of the evidence actually began during the process of data collection.
Each encounter with the participants informed the subsequent interview or observation
time. By using this constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of processing
information, more relevant data could be gathered. According to Merriam (2009), “The
constant comparative method involves comparing one segment of data with another to
determine similarities and differences” (p. 30). The evaluation of the data in this manner
led to more focused gathering of information on the topic.
While interviewing the participants, I audio recorded their responses and logged
their answers into a field notebook. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim
47
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
by the researcher. During this transcription phase, the first informal analysis occurred
while listening to the recordings again and again to check for accuracy of transcription.
The multitude of repetitions began the process of highlighting key ideas and significant
concepts within the data.
Additionally, the typed field notes written during the classroom observations were
edited, revised, and carefully organized. Copies of the transcribed interviews and field
notes were given to each participant for member checking. After the second interviews,
pictures of the participants’ classrooms were taken to facilitate a clear description of the
activities in the field notes and final report. Maps of each classroom were also
constructed to aid in exact reporting. The participants were asked to record their
reflections about Writer’s Workshop and their implementation of it into a journal.
Teacher-selected student work samples were also photocopied and labeled using only an
assigned student number in order to protect student identities. Finally, the researcher
wrote extensive reflexive notes in a researcher’s journal throughout the exploration of the
data.
Coding of the collected information was conducted using an iterative process.
Systematic data analysis began by obtaining a sense of the whole while carefully
rereading the transcribed data and recording thoughts into the researcher’s reflection
journal as main ideas emerged (Tesch, 1990). Merriam (2009) explained that these
preliminary findings are the “bits of data that strike you as interesting, potentially
relevant, or important to your study” (p. 178). The interview transcripts were reread
several times to become immersed in the raw data prior to beginning the process of
48
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
unitizing. Notes were made on the data, as well as in the researcher’s journal, as thoughts
and impressions surfaced in response to the multiple interactions with the data. Then, the
participants’ answers to the interview questions were cut into meaningful segments while
again highlighting important words, recurring statements, or germane thoughts. The
small chunks of texts were sorted and grouped according to common issues. Tentative
labels were assigned to the issues and these category names were written on the front of
basic white envelopes. This overall scrutiny of the data is generally called open coding
(Merriam, 2009).
Concepts were also identified in the observational data in a similar manner. As
the accounts of each observation were read, notes were written to identify major ideas
that began to emerge. When categories began to develop, a category name was assigned
and written on a sticky note to describe the classification. Documents were perused to
confirm or deny these major points as well. Triangulation of heuristic pieces of data was
used to establish categories and significant themes (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). Denzin and
Lincoln (2011) explained that “triangulation reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth
understanding of the phenomenon in question” (p. 5). By looking for patterns in more
than one place, the conclusions become stronger and more clearly defined (Patton, 2002).
As the ideas began to overlap or saturate (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003),
decisions were made about how to clearly identify the major themes. This grouping of
open codes into themes is referred to as axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2007; Merriam,
2009). In order to physically organize this coding step, the information on the sticky
49
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
notes was placed onto colored cardstock along with the corresponding envelope filled
with interview data (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1 – Axial Coding
The systematic analysis continued by identifying recurring ideas within the entire
data set. To aid in this step, the coding was transferred from the card stock and envelopes
to a matrix chart in order to provide an easy to read visual model of the analysis
(Creswell, 2007). Construction of this chart also helped to verify conceptual congruence
(Merriam, 2009). As the reader can tell, the ongoing inductive process went through
several phases in order to further enhance, refine and define the common themes (Figure
3.2).
50
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Classroom Culture
Writing in the Classroom
Routines
Interactions
Journaling
Writer’s Workshop
Materials
Teacher’s
Assistant/Teacher
Free write
Implementation of main components
Transitions
Teacher’s
Assistant/Student
Journal writing vs. Writer’s
Workshop
Materials
Behavior
Student/Student
Teacher journaling
Mini-lessons
Expectations
Teacher/Student
Student attitudes
Conferencing
Time Management
Acknowledgement
& Praise
Share Time
Communication
Interruptions
Teacher modeling
Writing Process
Staff Development
Teacher Ideology
Topic
Mechanics
Editing
Organization
Pacing
Presenter
Attitude
Support
Creativity
Handwriting
Teacher
Hands-On
Time
Knowledge
Internet
Prompts
Spelling
Student
Level
Speed
Experience
Desire to
learn
Choice
Suggestions
Punctuation
Process
Chunking of
material
Topic
matches
pedagogical
philosophy
Professional
Reading
Student
uncertainty
Capitalization
Ability to
connect
Peers
Freedom
Development
Connections
Staff Development selection
Drawing and writing skills
Mentor Texts
Choices
Mechanics of writing
Reading-Writing
Student Autonomy
Stages of development
Text - to - World
Topic selection
Impact of writing on cognition
Art-Writing
Vocabulary Development
Writing across the Curriculum
Figure 3.2 – Analysis of Themes Chart
51
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Trustworthiness
To ensure that the research was true, applicable, consistent, and neutral, standards
of trustworthiness must be addressed (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As this naturalistic inquiry
was conducted, measures were embedded into the research design to safeguard the
consistency and legitimacy of the study. The research was conducted in a “balanced, fair,
and conscientious” manner (Patton, 2002).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) identified eight techniques used in qualitative research
to ensure trustworthiness: 1) prolonged engagement and persistent observation, 2)
triangulation, 3) peer debriefing, 4) negative case analysis, 5) clarification on researcher
bias, 6) member checking, 7) rich, thick description, and 8) external audit (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Glesne, 2006). Glesne (2006) clarifies that researchers do not have to attend
to all eight criteria, but they should carefully address the important issue of validity in
their research. Specifically, the trustworthiness of this study was safeguarded in the
following ways.
Credibility was established by prolonged engagement with the participants and
persistent observation within the specific context of the classroom. Triangulation of
multiple data sources was used to confirm the researcher’s interpretive coherence. To
further ensure credibility, assistance from a peer debriefer was utilized. Peer debriefing
helped to keep the researcher honest and exposes the inquiry to another viewpoint
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Also, frequent member checks before, during, and after the data
collection were conducted. Both informal and formal member checks were performed
during all phases of the inquiry. Stake (1995) defined member checking as “presenting
52
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
draft materials to actors for confirmation and further illumination” (pp. 171-172).
Additionally, in the limitations section, researcher bias is discussed and clarified for the
readers.
Dependability was addressed by the construction and inclusion of an audit trail
that distinctly showed information about the multiple sources of data. The audit trail is
reported in a clear, easy to read format. By using the method of triangulation of the data
and the presence of an audit trail, the reader is assured that the data can easily be traced
back to its original source. This “overlap method” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) is a sound
way in which to address the issue of dependability. Documents such as maps,
photographs, and student samples were collected or constructed to enhance the written
descriptions.
Transferability of the data was guaranteed by employing purposeful, nonrandom
sampling techniques when selecting the participants. Thick, rich descriptive data
conveyed in the report enables the readers to draw additional assumptions in addition to
the conclusions that the researcher gleaned from the information. Furthermore, the
context and setting of the study was clearly and accurately described to allow for possible
transfer.
A trail of data showed that the investigator’s comments are free of bias and reflect
the participants’ actual words, which is a hallmark of confirmability. To verify that the
“findings are grounded in the data” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), an audit trail is included in
the report (Figure 3.3). By including exact page and line citations from the field notes, the
data can be quickly linked back to the actual transcription of the observation, interview,
53
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
or document. Open access to field notes, recordings, transcriptions, and documents is
readily available in order to enhance confirmability.
The following audit trail codes were used when conveying data in the written
account. This enables the reader to easily connect the exact source of raw data to the
reported information. This clear record enhances the trustworthiness of the study (Figure
3.3).
Data Source
Participant 1
Bess
Participant 2
Helen
Participant 3
Meg
Participant 4
Sarah
Source Name
Code - Date
Conducted
Code - Date
Conducted
Code - Date
Conducted
Code – Date
Conducted
Archival Data
Form
Unavailable
HADF
6/10/11
MADF
6/10/11
SADF
6/10/11
Participant
Information Form
BPIF
4/16/12
HPIF
4/11/12
MPIF
4/05/12
SPIF
4/10/1/2
Interview
BI1
BI2
BI3
BI4
4/16/12
4/17/12
6/11/12
6/11/12
HI1
HI2
HI3
HI4
4/15/12
5/09/12
5/21/12
5/30/12
MI1
MI2
MI3
MI4
4/16/12
5/08/12
5/12/12
5/29/12
SI1
SI2
SI3
SI4
4/12/12
5/22/12
5/25/12
5/29/12
Classroom
Observation
BCO1
BCO2
BCO3
BCO4
4/23/12
5/04/12
5/07/12
5/09/12
HCO1
HCO2
HCO3
HCO4
4/25/12
4/27/12
5/02/12
50/3/12
MCO1
MCO2
MCO3
MCO4
4/25/12
4/26/12
5/02/12
5/03/12
SCO1
SCO2
SCO3
SCO4
5/02/12
5/10/12
5/15/12
5/21/12
Documents:
Student Writing
Sample
Code
BSWS
Code
HSWS
Code
MSWS
Code
SSWS
Participants’
Reflective Journal
BRJ
HRJ
MRJ
SRJ
Researcher’s
Reflective Journal
RRJ
Figure 3.3 - Audit Trail Coding Chart
54
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Limitations
A limiting factor for this study was the length of time that occurred between the
professional development session and the actual data collection. Due to scheduling
conflicts and committee timetables, this factor could not be avoided. Therefore, the data
collection window for this study happened during the last month of school, which was
not an optimal time. To overcome this limitation, the participants were very willing and
able to explain, during interview sessions, what had transpired in their classrooms in the
interim months prior to the classroom observations.
Another limitation to this study was the researcher’s direct involvement in the
case. Since the researcher presented the Writer’s Workshop training session, this may
have inadvertently introduced bias into the minds of the participants. This bias may have
affected or inhibited the data collection in some ways. Conversely, this close association
may also have strengthened and deepened the results of the inquiry.
Summary
Qualitative data was collected for this instrumental case study to explore how
teachers responded to staff development on Writer’s Workshop while implementing these
instructional strategies in their classroom. Purposeful sampling was used to identify four
teacher participants. The data sources used to triangulate the data included interviews,
observations, documents, and journals. Throughout the seven-week study, sixteen semistructured interviews, along with sixteen classroom observations, were conducted.
Documents were collected to enhance data from the interviews and observations.
Reflective journals were also utilized by both the researcher and the participants as a way
55
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
to record events, thoughts, and analyses. Informal and formal data analysis occurred
throughout the study in varying forms. In order to derive meaning from the multiple data
sources, themes and categories were continually examined and refined in a cyclical
manner. Approved measures were used to guarantee the trustworthiness of the research,
and all collected data can be clearly linked back to the original sources by following the
audit trail.
56
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
CHAPTER 4
CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
Several events coming together led to the selection of this particular dissertation
study. My own experiences with using Writer’s Workshop, and an in-depth study on the
topic of teaching writing coupled with an opportunity to teach other educators about the
process led me to this topic of inquiry. Curiosity about how staff development activities
impact teachers’ practice created a desire to know more. In this chapter, the reader will
learn about my personal connections to the subject, find out details about the research
sites, and be introduced to the participants. This information is provided to help clarify
the background of the study.
The Researcher
During my fourteen years of teaching first grade, I was exposed to the concept of
Writer’s Workshop through several different seminars and conferences. I was inspired by
the fundamental philosophy of the workshop approach, which puts more focus on the
writer rather than the product (Ray & Laminack, 2001). The more I observed, read, and
experienced the power of this methodology for teaching writing, the more I wanted to
implement. So each school year, I added to my repertoire in this area, adjusting and
trying new things along the way. Throughout my last few years in the classroom, I passed
on this child-centered teaching philosophy to several student teachers and colleagues.
I have been employed by the Morning Glory Independent School District
(MGISD) for 20 years. The first 14 years were spent as a first grade teacher, and the last
six years have been devoted to the roles of Reading Coach and Intervention/Curriculum
Specialist. One responsibility of the current job is to provide continuing education to the
57
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
district’s teaching staff, especially in the area of English Language Arts. In this capacity,
I conducted a staff development training session on Writer’s Workshop as part of the
MGISD Summer Staff Development offerings in June of 2011
In the spring of 2011, as the assistant superintendent was making plans for
summer training, she asked the five elementary principals if they had specific training
needs for their staffs. These administrators discussed possible areas of desired growth
and subsequently requested training on Writer’s Workshop. I was pleased to be invited
to present the training session because it was one of my passions. Consequently, I began
preparing the training session on Writer’s Workshop.
At about this same time, I was finishing a graduate level course at Texas Tech
University on Literacy Coaching with Dr. Button. After a Saturday class, we met for an
advising time and began a conversation regarding my research interests. In this
discussion, I expressed my enthusiasm for Writer’s Workshop and told of my
preparations for the upcoming training session. Coincidentally, one of my final course
requirements for the upcoming summer session would be “Developing Writing Programs
K-12” with Dr. Johnson. The class description explained that it would be an “application
of in-depth studies of research and instructional practices in the teaching of writing to
guide development of effective writing programs” (Johnson, EDLL 5355 Syllabus,
2011). It sounded perfectly suited as a means to increase my knowledge on the subject as
well as providing a solid research background on the topic. After meeting with Dr.
Johnson during the summer course, I felt confident that this research study would be
worthwhile and meaningful. With this convergence of information about Writer’s
58
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Workshop in my own life, I was curious to discover how the teachers attending the
summer workshop would adopt this new knowledge into their personal teaching
philosophies.
Even though I work with teachers in a variety of ways, my role is never
evaluative, and I do not conduct any formal appraisals of teaching. My main focus is to
provide support to teachers through coaching or mentoring practices. In addition, the
participants were made aware that they could remove themselves from the study at any
time. Their involvement in the study was entirely voluntary, and no negative
consequences would result from the district or campus administrators, nor would any
special treatment be given to those who did choose to participate.
While conducting observations for the study, I was again reminded about the
intuitive ways that students explore writing and the joy they exhibit when sharing texts
that they have created on their own. Additionally, it was thrilling to see many of the
techniques presented in the summer workshop being implemented in the participants’
classrooms.
Site Selection and Access
I had natural access to the research sites due to the responsibilities and duties of
my job. An ongoing working relationship and existing rapport with the MGISD
superintendent, principals and teachers helped make the initial contacts a little easier. I
first acquired approval from the superintendent and assistant superintendent to conduct
research in the school district and gained their written consent to contact principals and
teachers at each campus. I e-mailed the elementary principals and clearly explained the
59
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
scope of the research study and asked their permission to contact the teachers on their
campus who had attended the staff development session on Writer’s Workshop the
previous summer (Appendix G). I also gained consent from the local parochial school
administrator/principal to invite the teachers who attended the session from the
community’s Catholic school. I then met individually with every teacher who attended
the session, carefully explaining the study and personally inviting them to participate in
the research study using the IRB-approved script for recruitment of participants
(Appendix A). Five teachers responded positively to this invitation. To obtain maximum
variation sampling (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), I further narrowed the participants down to
four by selecting teachers from four different grade levels and separate campuses. The
selected teachers gave their informed consent by signing the official agreement to
participate in the study (Appendix H).
Before collecting data for this inquiry, I submitted an official proposal to the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Texas Tech University. An official review of the
study’s design was necessary in order to assure that there would be no more than minimal
risk to any human subject. Approval was granted by the Texas Tech University
Protection of Human Subjects Committee on April 1, 2012. To confirm that all
contributors agreed to the conditions of the study, the IRB asked that the participants sign
an informed consent document (Appendix H) prior to beginning the data collection.
With access to the research sites obtained, participant selection accomplished, and
appropriate consent secured, collection of the data began. To insure anonymity,
pseudonyms were used for all the participants, the school district and community, and
60
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
each elementary school throughout the paper. Any mention of students is by number
only.
The School District and the Community
Morning Glory Independent School District (MGISD) is a rural Title I district
located in the southwestern part of the United States. It has grown from a one-teacher
schoolhouse in the early 1890’s to employing a teaching staff of approximately 600
educators (Waters, 2004). MGISD has one high school, one junior high, five elementary
campuses (K-5), and one alternative education campus housing several special programs.
A local community college also trains approximately 350 students at a branch facility
located in the town of Morning Glory.
According to the 2010-2011 Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)
report compiled by the Texas Education Agency (TEA), MGISD serves 4, 265 students
from three year olds in the Early Childhood Education program through 12th grade.
According to the compiled TEA data (2011), 3,656 (85.7%) of the students are Hispanic,
552 (12.9%) are White, 34 (.8%) are African- American, 8 (.2%) are Asian, 5 (.1%) are
American Indian and 10 (.2%) of the students are reported as having two or more races.
Three-thousand four-hundred forty-five (80.8%) students are considered economically
disadvantaged while 2,555 (59.9%) are identified as at-risk and 700 (16.4%) are listed as
Limited English Proficient (TEA, 2011).
The town of Morning Glory has a population of approximately 15,000 people and
the surrounding countryside has more than three million head of cattle. The cattle feeding
business takes a prominent place in the area due to the multitude of cows! Farming and
61
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
ranching are also major businesses in this rural community, and recently there has been
growth in the dairy and ethanol industries. Since it is a relatively small town, the
residents of the community know each other well and support community and schoolrelated activities wholeheartedly.
Schools
East Elementary School:
East Elementary School has a total population of 426 students according to the
2010-2011 Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) report compiled by the Texas
Education Agency (TEA). According to the state AEIS database (2011), of the 426
students at East Elementary, 398 (93.4%) are Hispanic, 22 (5.2%) are White, 3 (.7%) are
African-American, 2 (.5%) are American Indian, and 1 (.2%) is Asian. Of the total school
population, 379 (89 %) are identified as economically disadvantaged and 304 (71.4%) are
considered at-risk according to the most recent AEIS information (TEA, 2011). At this
school there is a ratio of 14.3 students per teacher.
As the name implies, the school is located on the east side of Morning Glory. The
school opened its doors to students in 1956. It is a one story, light tan building, which
houses Kindergarten-5th grade students. Visitors walk past the large school marquee sign
and the flagpole before entering the front doors of the large L-shaped building. There are
a couple of comfortable park benches and a large bulletin board posted with anti-bullying
signs near the front doors.
62
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
North Elementary School:
North Elementary School has a total population of 308 students according to the
2010-2011 Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) report compiled by the Texas
Education Agency (TEA). According to the state AEIS database (2011), of the 308
students at North Elementary, 284 (92.2%) are Hispanic, 22 (7.1%) are White, and 2
(.6%) are African-American. Of the total school population, 274 (89 %) are identified as
economically disadvantaged and 221 (71.8%) are considered at-risk according to the
most recent AEIS information (TEA, 2011). At this school there is a ratio of 12.3
students per teacher.
Just down the street from the local Wal-Mart store, one can find North
Elementary School on the northernmost edge of the town of Morning Glory. The
researcher was actually a second grade student at this campus when the doors were
opened in 1965 and attended there through the 6th grade. North Elementary is
constructed as a one-story, red brick building with light beige trim, which now houses
students in grades Kindergarten-5th grade. The building is designed in a large,
rectangular shape with the library located in the middle of the school flanked by the two
main hallways. Scattered throughout the halls are comfortable, colorfully upholstered
chairs and small sofas along with motivational quotes and sayings sprinkled along the
walls. Several portable buildings are also located adjacent to the main building. Upon
entering the school, one notices the homey furnishings and the life-sized cutouts of some
students along with a lighted movie marquee sign announcing the “Featured Family of
the Week.”
63
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
South Elementary School:
South Elementary School has 385 students according to the 2010-2011 Academic
Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) report compiled by the Texas Education Agency
(TEA). According to the state AEIS database (2011), of the 385 students at South
Elementary, 345 (89.6%) are Hispanic, 35 (9.1%) are White, and 5 (1.3%) are AfricanAmerican. Of the total school population, 371 (96.4 %) are identified as economically
disadvantaged and 260 (67.5%) are considered at-risk according to the most recent AEIS
information (TEA, 2011). At this school there is a ratio of 14 students per teacher.
Located a few yards from the southern city limits sign of Morning Glory is South
Elementary School. The school was built without interior walls according to the openspace school concept and opened its doors for the first time during the 1969-70 school
year. Over the ensuing years, interior walls were erected, resulting in oddly shaped small
classrooms without windows. The building is hexagonal-shaped with the library space
situated in the middle of the school. Spoke-like halls lead from the library to an outer
hallway that goes around the perimeter of the building. The researcher was employed as
a first grade teacher on this campus for 14 years. The campus is surrounded on three
sides by the large playground area, a wheat field, and golden pastureland. When entering
the building, visitors are greeted by the brightly painted murals of school children painted
on the vivid blue wall in the front hallway. The other outside hallways also hold murals
of Texas symbols, color words, and shapes.
64
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
West Elementary School:
West Elementary School has 480 students according to the 2010-2011 Academic
Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) report compiled by the Texas Education Agency
(TEA). According to the state AEIS database (2011), of the 480 students at West
Elementary, 376 (78.3%) are Hispanic, 94 (19.6%) are White, 6 (1.3%) are AfricanAmerican, 1 (.2%) is white, and 3 (.6%) are reported with having two or more races. Of
the total school population, 359 (74.8 %) are identified as economically disadvantaged
and 230 (47.9%) are considered at-risk according to the most recent AEIS information
(TEA, 2011). At this school there is a ratio of 13.7 students per teacher.
Although the name is West Elementary School, the school is located more in the
middle of the town due to the westward growth of Morning Glory. The school first
opened its doors to students in 1959. The researcher’s three children all attended school
at this campus in Kindergarten-3rd grades. The building is constructed of light brick
topped with a green metal roof holding several air conditioner units. The square-shaped
building has six short hallways stemming from the two main halls. Four of the short
hallways are on the east side and two are located on the west side of the building. The
cafeteria/gymnasium is situated in the middle of the building. There are two wellequipped playground areas situated around the building with the MGISD football stadium
and training gym located next door.
Participants
During the spring of 2011, MGISD teachers were offered a selection of various
staff development opportunities available to them during the upcoming summer.
65
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Teachers were encouraged to select and register for training sessions that they were
interested in attending. Twenty-two teachers elected to sign up for the seminar to learn
more about the interdisciplinary writing technique of Writer’s Workshop. The
participants of the study were then selected from this group. Therefore, the bounded
system (Creswell, 2007) for this research study was limited to the persons who actually
attended the specific summer training session. All twenty-two teachers who attended the
session were then invited to take part in the research study and four were selected. The
participants of this study were four teachers employed by Morning Glory Independent
School District who attended the Writer’s Workshop training, had implemented Writer’s
Workshop in their classrooms in some manner during the school year, and who also
agreed to be a part of the research study. I will now introduce you to each of them.
Bess:
Bess holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Elementary Education and has been
teaching for a total of six years. She taught for one year in a private Head Start preschool
program in another state prior to teaching at East Elementary School (BI1, line 15; BPIF,
#1). She explained that the instruction in the preschool setting was very child-centered,
utilizing hands-on learning at centers most of the time. She was the only preschool
teacher at the school with no curriculum and limited funds, so she had to be very creative
(BI1, lines 11-18). When her husband changed jobs, their family moved, and Bess made
the shift to the more academically focused, structured setting of East Elementary (BI1,
lines 23-30). She has been a Kindergarten teacher there for the past five years (BPIF, #1).
66
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Bess noted that the differences in academic expectations and instructional
approaches were very hard for her at first, saying, “It was really difficult for me to switch
my mindset” (BI1, lines 37-38). However, over the past five years, she has made the
transition and is now part of a strong team of Kindergarten teachers who work effectively
together to plan their weekly lessons (BI3, lines 8-13). For the past five years, she has
taught Kindergarten at East Elementary School. Bess is very outgoing and loves to visit.
She speaks with a lively conversational tone, inserting questions and exclamations while
talking. Her curly black hair is shoulder-length and she has a warm, engaging smile.
Being a mother and grandmother keeps her very busy outside of school hours
“I think we should never stop learning or improving our craft of teaching” states
Bess (BPIF, question #6). She especially values professional development activities that
pertain to teaching Kindergarten students (BI1, lines154-157). In addition to
participating in the MGISD staff development session on Writer’s Workshop, Bess also
attended training in writing instruction through The Writing Academy (BI1, lines 48).
From both of these training sessions, she gleaned the importance of students writing
about matters that are important or relevant to them. Therefore, in her writing
instruction, she continually focuses on writing topics that have special importance to her
Kindergarten students (BI1, line 53-58).
Bess initiates the foundational training in writing with the introduction of letters
and sounds during the first few months of Kindergarten. By November, she starts
instruction on the basic components of the sentence and in January her students begin to
copy a sentence from the board before illustrating it. Next, Bess writes a sentence starter
67
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
on the board and her students complete the sentence using their own ideas. Toward the
end of the school year, in April and May, she provides her students with a subject or topic
that is relevant to them and they write about the topic on their own before illustrating
their story (BI2, lines 25-34).
The blending of CSCOPE information and activities from the district-adopted
ELAR textbook provide Bess and her colleagues with the scope and sequence for writing
instruction in their classrooms. Daily lessons are then adjusted according to the specific
standards being addressed and the finite resource of time (BI2, lines 89-102). In addition
to selecting relevant topics for students to write about, she utilizes books from her
extensive classroom library as motivation for students to read and write (BI2, lines 7584).
For the past five years Bess has been teaching five and six-year-old students at
East Elementary School. Bess’s classroom is located a few doors down from the front
door on the left side of the hallway. There are 22 students (11 boys and 11 girls) assigned
to Bess’s classroom. The students sit at hexagonal or rectangular tables with three-five
students at each table. Two students occupy individual desks placed apart from the table
groups. There is a bank of windows on the north wall, looking out onto the tree-lined
playground. There is a large ABC rug on the floor made up of light and dark blue
squares. Each square is embellished with a picture of an opened book and a letter of the
alphabet. On the rug is a large rolling easel with a white dry-erase board attached. The
easel holds a variety of big books, markers, erasers, and papers. The room is filled with
posters, shelves of books and several colorful bulletin boards. Over all this, a cardboard
68
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
bald eagle stands watch in the corner of the room with its wings outstretched between the
American and state flags. On the west wall of the classroom, near the large rug stands a
black bookcase. The students in Bess’s classroom store their spiral notebook journals
inside individual black magazine holders sitting on the top two shelves of the bookcase.
Nearby, basic sight words are posted on a bulletin board entitled, “Our Word Wall.” On
the wall above the closets on the south wall, number words and color words are posted in
both English and Spanish. Student writing papers, along with cutouts of birds, butterflies,
suns and bees, flutter in the air, hung by clothespins attached to strings on the ceiling
(Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
Figure 4.1 – View of Bess’s classroom
69
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
West
Teacher’s
Desk
Rug
#20
#22
#11
#15
#13
#5
#16
#7
#21
#3
#8
#9
#4
#14
South
#12
#2
#10
#1
#19
North
#6
#18
#17
East
Figure 4.2 – Map of Bess’s Classroom
70
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Helen:
Helen has taught first grade for four years at North Elementary School. This is the
only school that she has worked in since becoming a teacher. She earned a Bachelor’s
degree in Mass Communications. After graduation she worked as a newspaper journalist
and also as the executive director for a non-profit organization that helped victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault. She went through the Panhandle Alternative
Certification for Educators (PACE) program to obtain her teaching certificate. Helen’s
passion for literacy development has also fueled her desire to begin working on her
Master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis on Literacy Studies.
The ability to learn in many different ways is exhibited by Helen. She enjoys
attending hands-on training sessions, but she is equally capable of reading and learning
on her own. Observing other teachers is also an effective way that she achieves
professional growth (HPIF, question #5). Helen’s first exposure to Writer’s Workshop
was a short one-hour breakout session at the Panhandle Literacy Conference (HPIF,
question #4; HI1, lines 25-26). After attending the session, she was enthralled and
requested more training on the topic while talking with her principal. As a result of this
request, the summer Writer’s Workshop training was scheduled (HI1, lines 26-29).
Her students write in both an unstructured journal time and a more structured
workshop session each day. Mentor texts are used as a way to get her students thinking
about ideas. During mini-lessons, Helen teaches and models a writing concept or skill
and then she sends her students off to write. She conferences with, and monitors students
71
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
while they are writing at their desks. Afterwards, the students share their writing with
their peers and teacher(s) during a lively Author Share time (HCO 1, 2, 3, 4).
Helen uses the students’ own writing as a guide for what to teach during Writer’s
Workshop mini-lessons. By examining their work and knowing where her students are,
she is then able to plan activities and lessons that meet them where they are (HI3, lines
93-98; HCO3, lines 188-194). CSCOPE provides her with a general scope and sequence;
however she adjusts the amount of scaffolding according to her students’ specific
academic, behavioral and developmental needs (HI2, lines 72-77).
Helen, a teacher leader at her campus and in the school district, is always willing
and able to share information with others on a variety of school-related topics. She is very
poised, happy, and sociable. Helen’s natural self-confidence radiates when she speaks,
especially about matters that she finds interesting. She has light brown hair and offers a
ready smile to everyone she meets. She is married and she and her husband have 2 young
daughters.
Helen’s classroom is located in the middle of the north hallway of North
Elementary School. Her room can easily be found by looking for the Texas Tech fabric
on the door and the Red Raider sign with her name displayed beside the entrance. There
are 19 students (9 boys and 10 girls) in Helen’s classroom. Her students’ individual desks
are arranged into three main groups. The clusters of desks are named the Dolphins,
Cheetahs and Gold groups. There are also three individual student desks arranged in a
row located between the Dolphin and Cheetah groups. Another student desk is located
between the teacher’s desk and the horseshoe-shaped table. This desk has a large privacy
72
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
screen set up on top of the desk. The north wall of the classroom has several windows
with bookcases underneath. On the windows, white glass paint is used to display phonics
rules and letter blend combinations. There are 4 bulletin boards located at each corner of
the room, with 2 large white dry-erase boards between them. The south wall holds closets
where students store their coats and backpacks. The words for the class Word Wall are
displayed on the double closet doors in the Southeast corner of the room (Figure 4.3)
Figure 4.3 – View of Helen’s Classroom
Along the East side of the room are three circular tables. The one nearest the door
is designated as a writing center with a large red and white mug in the center holding
pencils. Above the table, posters about capital letters, punctuation, and nonfiction text
features are displayed. The middle round table holds a computer and printer, while the
third table, designated as the reading center, holds a reading chart and is located near a
small bookcase filled with books. Between the writing center and computer table is a
purple bookcase holding a variety of paper, containers of markers and a green plastic bin
holding file folders with students’ spiral notebook journals and writing work. Beside the
purple bookcase is a silver floor lamp with five colorful lampshades sticking up.
Between the computer table and reading center is the designated space for the students to
73
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
congregate on the floor. The Author’s Chair is located next to the west wall. It is painted
blue with pink, green, purple, and yellow polka dots adorning the seat (Figure 4.4).
74
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
North
Gold Group
#19
#9
#17
#14
Reading
Center
#10
Cheetah Group
#16
Teacher’s
Desk
#2
#11
#13
#1
Computer
& Printer
West
East
#12
#4
#3
Dolphin Group
Writing
Center
#15
#6
#7
#18
#5
#8
South
Figure 4.4 – Map of Helen’s Classroom
75
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Meg:
Meg has a Bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education and has been teaching for a
total of seven years. Her first year of teaching was in another school district where she
taught Kindergarten-aged students. At the time of this research study, Meg had taught
second grade at South Elementary School for six years. She is looking forward to
teaching first grade in a different school district in the coming academic year. Meg is
energetic, fun-loving, and a very hard worker. She has short, light brown hair and eyes
that twinkle when she smiles, which is most of the time. Meg is married and has one
daughter. She spends her time away from school enjoying life with her family.
Meg fondly remembers doing interactive writing using lots of “boo-boo tape”
while teaching Kindergarten and felt as though teaching writing was easier in
Kindergarten than in second grade (MI1, lines 194-202). Currently, her strong second
grade team effectively plans lessons together and tries to do many of the same activities
(MI2, line109). Meg strives to improve her teaching and is always willing to learn new
strategies. She admits to being “a perfectionist” (MI1, line 219) and always encourages
her students to do their best work.
College course work and a short one-hour breakout session at the Panhandle
Literacy Conference provided Meg with the basics of Writer’s Workshop prior to
attending the summer staff development session (MADF, #3). At the beginning of the
workshop, she rated herself as having a Writer’s Workshop in her classroom but needed
additional information to gain more confidence in the strategy. Specifically, she came to
the training in order to get ideas regarding the conferencing component and to gain
76
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
insight on planning mini-lessons (MADF, #5, #7). Meg personally finds modeling of
strategies, observing other teachers, and collaborating with colleagues as the most
effective ways for her to grow professionally in her craft of teaching (MPIF, question #5).
Meg’s Writer’s Workshop time typically opens with her students retrieving their
spiral notebook journals from two colored file boxes. She then teaches a short minilesson on a specific writing skill before the students begin writing for about 15-20
minutes. While the students are working at their desks, Meg circulates around the room,
helping and encouraging them. Afterwards, she selects three or four students to share
their writing with the class. The other students put away their journals and move to the
rug for Share Time. The selected students share their writing one at a time. After reading
their story aloud, other students and/or Meg tell something they liked about the students’
story and give them suggestions about how to make it better or provide ideas on how to
expand the story. Share Time ends with the student receiving a “cheer” from all their
classmates and teacher (MCO1, 2, 3, 4).
Meg uses CSCOPE to get ideas for her mini-lessons but also feels confident in
inserting tried-and-true lessons or incorporating some cross-curricular writing themes
throughout the year (MI2, line 47). She reports that she thought the guidelines given by
CSCOPE were helpful, especially in the areas of punctuation and parts of speech (MI2,
lines 60-61); however, she would appreciate more examples for the teacher and a wider
variety of ways to introduce some of the skills (MI2, lines 67-73).
77
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Meg’s classroom is located on one of the spoke halls in the middle of South
Elementary School. Meg’s classroom has 17 students (10 boys and 7 girls) and a myriad
of toy penguins. Meg displays her stuffed bird collection atop the large bookshelf in the
back of the room. Below the family of penguins are bins and baskets of books separated
and stored by author, genre, or topic (Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.5 – View of Meg’s Classroom
The class CAFÉ Menu is posted to the right of this large bookshelf. Green paper
lily pads present the components of the CAFÉ – Comprehension, Accuracy, Fluency and
Expanding Vocabulary; along with frog cutouts displaying each of the student’s names.
The individual desks are arranged together into three groups. There are also two student
desks pushed up to the sides of the teacher’s desk. A horseshoe-shaped reading table is
positioned on one side of the classroom and a large rug displaying the United States can
be found on the other side of the room. Vestiges of the open-concept are still visible with
two large openings in the room – one covered with a purple curtain and the other leading
into a coat/backpack closet and restroom area.
78
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Meg’s students store their writing journals in two brightly colored plastic file
boxes. These green and pink boxes hold dark green hanging file folders labeled with each
student’s name. Inside the file folder is the student’s journal and other writing papers.
Above the colored file boxes to the left of a sink is a bulletin board labeled with
“Metacognition – Thinking About Our Thinking.” Posted on the Metacognition bulletin
board are class made charts about fables, adjectives, verbs and context clues. Along the
north wall is the class word wall posted on a large yellow piece of paper framed by a
colorful polka-dot border. The posted alphabet letters are made from coordinating polkadot paper. Under each letter, words are posted on brightly colored cardstock. Toward the
front of the room, on the east wall, a large white interactive white board is mounted. This
is where Meg projects the Elmo document camera and LCD projector while she does
model writing and other lessons (Figure 4.6).
79
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
North
U. S. Rug
#12
#5
#17
#16
#10
#11
#15
#6
#9
#3
#7
West
#13
#14
Teacher’s
Desk
#4
#2
#8
#1
Reading Table
South
Figure 4.6 – Map of Meg’s Classroom
80
East
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Sarah:
Sarah has been teaching third grade for four years at West Elementary School.
This is the only school that she has worked in since becoming a teacher. She earned a
Bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education and recently completed her Master’s degree
in Educational Leadership along with obtaining a principal’s certification. Spirited,
vibrant and animated are words that clearly describe Sarah’s personality. She has short,
blond hair and a compelling giggle that is contagious to everyone around her. Sarah was
pregnant at the beginning of the school year and was out for six weeks of maternity leave
with the birth of her first child, so she has been navigating the joys of motherhood while
also learning about implementing Writer’s Workshop. She is anxious and excited to make
the change to teaching second grade students next school year at West Elementary
School.
Since beginning her career as a teacher, Sarah had not attended any specific
training or staff development on writing instruction prior to the summer staff
development session on Writer’s Workshop (SADF, #4). She had some knowledge about
the topic from her university education coursework but rated her comfort level at the
beginning of the training as a ‘1’, “I have tried to establish a Writer’s Workshop but have
had little success. I am frustrated” (SADF, question #4). She signed up for the training to
help establish a daily writing framework for her classroom and get ideas about minilessons (SADF, question #1, #5).
The most effective way that Sarah learns is through hands-on practice and
experience. She explains, “I am a more hands-on, kinesthetic learner. I need to practice
81
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
what I’m learning” (SI1, lines 28-29). She enjoys staff development sessions that are
relevant and useful, with ideas that you can take back and use in your classroom (SI1,
lines 87-89). Sarah also values the support of good mentors in order to become the very
best teacher that she can be (SI1, line 302).
Sarah started off the year carefully following the Writer’s Workshop framework
and had effective classroom structure and routines in place. However, while she was out
on maternity leave, the substitute teacher did not follow the same procedures, so when
Sarah returned to her class, she had to re-establish the classroom expectations and writing
habits. Sarah reflected upon this consequence with these words, “It’s been tough!” (SI3,
line 76). To help establish or revisit the workshop routines, Sarah used a flip chart to
create anchor charts of what the students were expected to do during their writing time.
She also used the flip chart as a record of their mini-lessons. This resource was very
helpful when she needed to redirect a student, re-teach a skill, or when re-establishing the
classroom procedures (SI3, lines 41-51). In her workshop, Sarah taught whole group
mini-lessons before students were dismissed to do their own writing. While her class was
working at their desks, Sarah walked around and monitored the students. After
approximately 20 minutes of writing time, Sarah would select some of her students to
share their writing with the class. Three or four students would read their writing;
afterwards, Sarah would ask questions and the students applauded (SCO1, 2).
In addition to Writer’s Workshop framework, Sarah incorporates other types of
writing throughout the year. She told of the Weekend News in which students write what
they did over the weekend or longer holiday break in a journal (SI2, lines 122-124). She
82
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
also integrates writing into other subject areas whenever possible, for example, the annual
science and history fairs sponsored by the school district (SI2, lines 124-130). During the
observation times, the researcher also observed Sarah’s class involved in a pen pal letter
writing response (SCO2), a Mother’s Day card/writing activity (SCO2), a group add-on
story cooperative learning structure (SCO3), and students’ written response to an art
design (SCO4).
Sarah uses CSCOPE as a guide for what to teach during her mini-lessons but
wants the workshop to have more freedom for students to explore with writing (SI2, lines
37-38). She also collaborates closely with one of the 4th grade teachers in her building in
order to scaffold her students in preparation for the next grade level and to keep her on
the right track with writing instruction (SI3, lines 88-91).
Her classroom is located in the first hallway toward the west upon entering West
Elementary. Her class has 21 students (6 boys and 15 girls). There is a row of windows
with low bookcases underneath located on the south wall. The students’ desks are
arranged into four groupings. A horseshoe-shaped table in the middle of the classroom
holds an Elmo document camera and also has blue student chairs scooted up under it. A
long, white dry-erase board spans the front wall. Across the room, the teacher’s desk is
tucked over toward the side of the classroom surrounded by bookcases, desks, and tables.
The other long wall displays a cursive alphabet strip and an interactive math review
board. A brown leather loveseat is positioned on the floor below the math bulletin board.
In the corner, another bulletin board with a large cardboard cutout of a hamburger entices
the students to “Beef Up Your Writing” (Figure 4.7).
83
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Figure 4.7 – View of Sarah’s Classroom
Sarah’s students keep their writing workshop folders inside their desks and get
them out when it is time for writing. Inside the folder are rules for Writer’s Workshop,
lists of ideas about what to write about, and a plastic bag containing photographs brought
from the student’s home. Behind these items, each student keeps the stories they are
working on in their individual folders. As they need more paper, they go to the blue
cardboard paper organizer to select what they need. This organizer is located on the shelf
under the windows on the south wall. Meg uses a flip chart to record mini-lessons and
model writing. This flip chart is stored on a writing desk at the back of the room. (Figure
4.8)
84
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
South
#14
#17
#12
#8
#2
#7
#3
#5
#16
#21
Teacher’s
Desk
East
West
#19
#20
#15
#4
#10
#18
#6
#11
#1
#9
#13
North
Figure 4.8 – Map of Sarah’s Classroom
85
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Context of the Study
Bess, Helen, Meg, and Sarah all chose to attend the summer staff development on
Writer’s Workshop. They signed up for training, which was targeted to teachers in
grades K-3, in April of 2011 after looking through the summer staff development
offerings. They were notified of their summer training schedules when they received their
summer staff development agendas in May. The participants were among 22 teachers
who elected to attend the training to learn more about the framework/methodology of
Writer’s Workshop and were paid a stipend from the school district for attending the
session.
At the beginning of the June training session, the attendees were asked to fill out a
survey in order to provide some preliminary information to better facilitate the session
(Appendix B). This information was used to find out why they chose to attend the
workshop, what the attendees already knew about the Writer’s Workshop methodology
and their comfort level with the various components of the Writer’s Workshop approach.
This survey is referred to as the Archival Data Form (ADF) in the audit trail.
Informal information from this survey revealed that four of the teachers attending
the session felt somewhat comfortable teaching writing using the workshop approach.
Nine attendees rated themselves as still a bit uneasy with teaching writing using Writer’s
Workshop; whereas, five of the teachers attending the session said they didn’t know
anything about it and were apprehensive but wanted to learn more.
The training session addressed the benefits of using Writer’s Workshop,
explained how the framework fit into the CSCOPE exemplar lessons, and helped teachers
86
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
learn about the basic components of Writer’s Workshop. As each component was
presented, resources for a variety of ideas were shared, videos of effective teaching using
Writer’s Workshop were shown, and demonstrations were provided for the group.
Toward the end of the day, they requested that I send several copies of handouts for
setting up students’ writing notebooks to them. While the teachers in attendance filled
out evaluation forms, I offered to come to their rooms in the fall for personal coaching
sessions on Writer’s Workshop. A sign-up sheet was passed around for this purpose, but
no one signed up or expressed interest in being coached.
The evaluation summary of the training session indicated that the teachers were
actively engaged in the workshop an average of 94.8% of the time. Written responses on
the evaluations consisted of positive comments about strategies they had learned during
the day. Suggestions for improvement included having more examples, videos and
practice.
A few weeks after the session, I sent the requested copies of handouts to the
attendees about setting up the writer’s notebook and reminded them that I was available
for coaching or if they needed assistance in setting up their workshop. At the beginning
of November, I again emailed the teachers who had attended the training and offered
coaching and assistance with Writer’s Workshop, if they were interested. I received no
responses from either of these two contacts.
The MGISD Language Arts curriculum is provided by CSCOPE. This curriculum
tool uses a balanced literacy approach in the English Language Arts and Reading (ELAR)
exemplar lessons and relies upon a guided writing approach to instruction. According to
87
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
the CSCOPE ELAR Teacher’s Guide, students use the steps of the writing process with
an emphasis on getting their thoughts down on paper (TESCC, 2012). The exemplar
lessons in CSCOPE use the same framework as Writer’s Workshop to help students grow
as writers. The lesson begins with the teacher modeling a concept or skill in a minilesson. Then students have time to write in their writer’s notebooks while the teacher
confers with individual students. At the conclusion of the lesson, an Author’s Chair share
time is suggested.
MGISD teachers are expected to follow the scope and sequence of CSCOPE but
have the professional flexibility to design effective instruction for their students. The
teachers who attended the Writer’s Workshop staff development session were seeking
ways to organize their writing time and striving to develop more confidence using the
balanced literacy framework for teaching.
This contextual information about why the topic was selected, when and where
the study was conducted, and who was involved in the inquiry was provided to further
enhance the understanding of the findings which will be presented next.
88
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
CHAPTER 5
REPORTING OF THE DATA AND PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to discover ways that teachers personally adopt the
Writer’s Workshop instructional framework in response to information gleaned from staff
development activities. This investigation used multiple forms of relevant data on the
specified topic. After a thorough examination of the gathered information, the findings
from this research investigation are presented here. The chapter provides a detailed
discussion of each major theme identified from the data and concludes with a summary of
the findings.
Various types of qualitative information were collected throughout the study.
Four semi-structured interviews were held with each participant and classroom
observations were conducted during their instructional writing time. Pertinent documents
were examined and reflections were recorded in journals by both the researcher and the
participants. The assembled data were then carefully organized, analyzed, coded, and
synthesized to identify cogent themes. The findings from the analysis will now be
reported.
Findings
As Pritchard and Honeycutt (2006) pointed out, there are many factors that
influence classroom writing practice. This study highlights how four teachers used newly
acquired information about the framework of Writer’s Workshop to enhance instruction
in their classrooms. In this section of the chapter, the salient themes that emerged from
89
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
the collected data are described and supported by selected exemplar evidence. These
precise and accurate descriptions, quotes, or excerpts are lifted directly from transcribed
notes in order to enhance the trustworthiness of the report and value the participants’
unique voices. The main themes that emerged from the data analysis were classroom
culture, writing in the classroom, writing process, freedom, development, connections,
staff development, and teacher ideology. Each of these themes will be introduced,
discussed, and supported with data in the following sections.
Classroom Culture
The culture of the classroom is directly influenced by the teachers’ viewpoints as
well as their inherent personal teaching style. Educator’s beliefs and assumptions about
learning guide their curricular and instructional decisions (Calkins, 1994). These
distinctions were noticed in both the observations and in the interview sessions with the
research participants.
Teachers’ individual beliefs and philosophies have a significant impact upon what
they emphasize in their teaching and how they set up instructional routines in their
classrooms. The participants in this study readily shared how their personal pedagogical
values and attitudes influenced their classroom practice. Here are some examples in the
participants’ own words that illustrate this idea:
Meg: “My expectations are real high, but I know that they can do it!” (MI1, liens 215216)
Helen: “I just always want to find something that gets [my students] excited and
interested and wanting to come back every day, you know, ‘what are we going to learn
today?’ and excited about it” (HI1, lines 161-163). “I have the expectation for my kids to
90
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
write, like I said earlier, so I have tried to write something every day” (HI2, lines 117118).
Bess: “I’m a very structured teacher – that’s just my style” (BI2, lines 172-173). “I think
the reading and writing is something that is very important…that’s just my style… this is
where I focus because this is what I think is important” (BI3, lines 69-74).
According to Stuhlman and Pianta (2009), “Teacher’s ability to engage with
children in a sensitive, responsive manner and a positive classroom emotional climate are
crucial to children’s academic and social development” (p. 326). Implementation of
Writer’s Workshop relies heavily upon positive relationships between teachers and
students, assistants, and other stakeholders. Writer’s Workshop also requires effective
management of materials, time, and behaviors. Throughout this study, the influence of
classroom environment and culture was noted within two main categories: routines and
interactions.
Routines:
A variety of organizational procedures were noted in the four classrooms. Time
management routines were clearly evident during the observations with all the
participants regularly using timers, clocks, and alarms or frequently referring to time.
Helen: “You have about 25 minutes to write and then we will share. If you get through,
you can work on your word work” (HCO1, lines 283-284).
Meg: The timer on the teacher’s desk beeped and Meg announced, “10 minutes. OK Hurry! OK – 10 minutes. You better get your story down” (MCO2, lines 97-98).
91
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Bess: “I’m going to give you until the big hand is on the nine then I will start checking
[your journals]. That will be 10:45 when the big hand is on the nine” (BCO1, lines181183).
Sarah: “You have 45 seconds left. Please be sure that you get a title on the paper. When
you have a title written, please hold it up in the air” (SCO3, lines 261-262).
In our interviews, Meg honestly shared her frustrations with keeping a teacher’s
conferencing log and attributed her difficulties to lack of time. She said, “I admire the
teachers that can do that, but, oh, I just can’t find the time!”(MI3, line 30) Later, she
recounted that one of the difficulties she experienced in implementing Writer’s
Workshop in her classroom was the time element (MI3, lines 108-110).
Established classroom management procedures were very apparent as well. Each
participant’s classroom had specific rules for behavior, routines for materials, and
strategies for transition times. These procedures not only had an impact on student
performance and writing behaviors but also reinforced the culture of each classroom. The
participants agreed that overall classroom management was an important aspect of
establishing an effective Writer’s Workshop:
Sarah: “[Classroom management] can impact it a lot. So if you have your students that
forget the rules or who don’t follow the rules, you have to take away from time with
others to redirect those students. But, I think in my case, with the students I had this year,
it’s a constant manage. And if you don’t manage, then the other students around them are
distracted” (SI2, lines 134-137).
Helen: “If you don’t have classroom management, it won’t work. I mean, very simple,
your kids are going to have to know your expectations. Because a lot of it is so student92
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
centered, and they work at their own pace they need to know what your expectation is.
What do they do when they’re done? Because if they don’t know, they’re going to be in
trouble. You’re going to have all sorts of issues so classroom management is the key”
(SI2, lines 146-154).
Meg: “That’s very important. I don’t like them digging through their desks. So maybe
that’s another reason I have [their folders] in their box. If they’re not organized and
ready to go or if they don’t know where their stuff is, it really makes it hard because
people are hearing them dig through things. I don’t mind if it’s at the end when it’s
drawing time, that doesn’t bother me, but when people are writing, they need it quiet. I
like to put on thinking music, and that seems to help them relax, especially after coming
in from PE and music. But if you are not organized and ready to go, they are going to get
rowdy and out of control real fast” (MI2, lines 233-239).
Management techniques were utilized to maintain classroom orderliness in regard
to restroom and drink breaks, choosing students for share time, and organization of
materials. Here are some selected examples of observed methods:
Bess: “When you are finished writing, you will have a bubble in your mouth” (BCO1,
line 50). “You’re not listening [Counting] 1, 2, 3 Why are we still standing?” [Bess
moved to the light switch and turned off the classroom lights.] “Student #14, now! I will
not over-talk 22 of you. We are not having a very good day – we are antsy. We will have
recess after lunch. We are still learning. Student #7, I am moving your name down [Bess
moved the student’s clothespin with their name on it on the colored behavior chart.] “The
light is off and you are supposed to be quiet.” [Bess then turned the light back on.] “Are
we ready to listen?” (BCO2, lines 12-24)
93
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Sarah: “Give me a thumbs up if you have read theirs.” [Sarah waited as the students
began to put their thumbs in the air; she pointed to one of the table groups that was still
reading and did not have all their thumbs up.] “Looking for this group right here” (SCO3,
lines 46-49). “Does anyone else have theirs completely finished? Move it to the side and
all eyes up here right now. Put your crayons away. Nothing on your desk. Card in the
corner [of your desk]. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Bring it to me if you are finished. If you
are not through, put it in the corner” (SCO2, lines 238-241).
Helen: “If you can hear me, touch your ears, nose, clap once, clap twice.” The students
responded to her commands and looked at Helen (HCO4, lines 90-92). “I’ll put our music
on.” [Helen plugged her phone into a cord connected to small speakers on her desk and
soft Christian music began to play.] “Gold group – you may go get your journals.
Cheetahs – you may get your journals. Dolphins – go.” Some of the students lined up to
get their pencils sharpened. Helen took one of the student’s pencils and stuck it into an
electric pencil sharpener for a few seconds. She repeated the process until all of the
students in the line had a sharpened pencil (HCO1, lines 27-39).
Meg: “OK, you need to be writing, not drawing. I will put on thinking music. Do you
want the soft music?” Students responded, “Yes!” Meg went to the computer and opened
up i-Tunes and started the music (MCO4, lines 39-44).
Interactions:
Not only does the teacher have an impact on classroom discourse, the interactions
between students, and relationships with other adults in the classroom, play a part in
shaping the culture as well. Notice how the students relate to one another in the following
excerpts collected during classroom observations:
94
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
At their table group, Student #11 leaned over and asked Student #20 how to make
the /ch/ sound. Student #20 answered, “c-h” (BCO4, lines, 71-72). Student #22 turned
and spoke to Student #5 at another table group, “Hey, I put swimming!” He then read
aloud from his journal to the other student, “Mat Man is swimming” (BCO4, lines 7475).
Toward the end of the second observation in Helen’s room, Student #19 jumped
up to sit in the Author’s Share Chair to read her story called “Mr. Kitty.” As she read,
“Mr. Kitty wants to be a cop when he grows up,” all the students laughed. Student #19
smiled as she continued to read the Mr. Kitty story. Afterwards, Student #5 responded, “I
liked how he kept changing his mind and when he said, ‘mind your own beeswax.’”
Another student replied, “I like how he said, ‘you’re driving me crazy.’” (HCO2, lines
446-457) (Figure 5.1).
95
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
96
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Figure 5.1 – Student #19’s Mr. Kitty story
97
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
The presence of students with special needs adds another dimension to the
interactions within the classroom environment. Sarah explained, “The hardest part for
me this year was that the students with special needs needed more attention. So, I wasn’t
always getting to conference about what I wanted to, but I was rather busy helping them
out. So that’s a challenge in itself” (SI3, lines 124-126). During an observation, Sarah
responded to a student that needed a learning accommodation. Student #3 said, “It’s too
bright. I can’t see.” Sarah got a clipboard, put it on the student’s desk and said, “Come sit
over here, it will be more shaded” [Sarah pointed to a spot under a nearby desk.] Student
#3 replied, “If I cover it up that might help.” [The student continued to write with his left
hand tilted vertically to shield his paper from the glare of the fluorescent lights.] (SCO4,
lines 221-231).
Bess reflected upon the unique challenge of having a student with special needs
for the past two years explaining, “It was really neat to see that progression because I’ve
had him for two years” (BI3, line 59). I was able to observe the unique bond she had
formed with the student during one of the observation times. Bess said, “Student #17, see
if you can write your name” [The student, wearing a blue protective helmet, wrote his
first name and some scribbles on his journal page.] “Show me with a crayon, Student
#17! Pick a color. Maybe two colors… two colors” [The student picked crayons from his
school box and began coloring on the page in his spiral notebook.] “Hey, you’re using
three colors. I am proud of you. Good!” [Bess noticed that the paper on the student’s
crayon was impeding his coloring.] “Here, let me help you.” Bess picked up the orange
crayon and peeled the paper off the end of the crayon then handed it back to the student
saying, “Hey, it’s magic – now it will work!” After moving around the classroom for a
98
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
few minutes, Bess went back to Student #17 and peeled the paper from his black crayon.
Bess smiled and teased, “Oh, are you being silly?” In a few more minutes, Student #17
brought Bess another crayon for her to peel the paper. When she was finished, she
handed the crayon back to the student and said, “I like all the colors. Good job!” (BCO2,
lines 42-99).
Helen and Bess both had part-time teaching assistants in their classrooms. The
addition of another adult into the teaching environment influenced the culture of the
classroom. I was curious how they worked with their assistant during Writer’s Workshop
time, so I asked these two teachers to describe these additional interactions in one of our
interviews:
Helen: “[The teacher’s assistant] usually will come in and sit with some of my
kids that are maybe struggling and help them get their thoughts out. And then she
encourages them just like I would. If they need help or if they aren’t sure how to spell a
word, she makes sure they do it on their own. She knows my expectations” (HI2, lines
170-173).
Bess: She kind of helps me out, or she’ll read to them. And there’s a couple of students
that she will hone in on and she’s already use to those students. She knows to help them
one-on-one with getting the thought process. They’ve got it up here, but they just don’t
know how to transfer it onto paper. So that’s what she helps them with now” (BI2, lines
198-201).
Interactions of the teaching assistant within the context of the classroom culture
were documented through observations as well. They each worked in tandem with the
classroom teacher to encourage and help students.
99
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
In Bess’s room, the assistant urged a student to “draw some more details. You’ve got to
add some more stuff.” Then, speaking to Bess, she asked, “Have you seen Student #8’s
roller coaster? They are going ‘Ahhh….’ With their hands up!” [Acting it out with her
hands held up in the air] (BCO1, lines 177-179). In Helen’s classroom, the assistant
joined in during author’s share time. After Student #6 read and shared pictures of her
story entitled “Ely the Elephant,” Helen invited her assistant to “tell something you liked
about the story.” The assistant replied, “I really liked the mustache and the unibrow!”
They both enjoyed the camaraderie as they shared a laugh about a first grade student
writing about a unibrow (HCO1, line 470) (Figure 5.2).
100
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Figure 5.2 – Student #6’s Ely the Elephant Story
101
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Part of the classroom culture can be understood through the interactions and
communication between the students and teachers. The participants used terms of
endearment such as “Sweetie” (HCO 4, line 147) or “Dear” (SCO4, line 295) in natural
conversation with their students. Helen referred to her students as “authors” (HCO1,
lines 180-181) frequently during Writer’s Workshop. After sharing their writing, students
received acknowledgement from their peers with clapping and/or cheers (SCO, HCO,
MCO). Students seemed comfortable in sharing individually with one another also. For
instance, Student #16 leaned over, showed her writing to Student #19, and said, “Look, I
did good on this one!” (SCO4, lines 335-336). During group share time in Helen’s room,
Student #15 got up to close the classroom door so it would be quieter while Student #10
shared with a soft voice (HCO2, lines 426-427). Meg affirmed one of her student’s work
and progress in an interview as she exclaimed, “Hers was amazing! And she was one of
my lowest readers coming in here and now she’s above level. She writes so well now and
she has an imagination. It just gave me goose bumps – I’m just so proud of her!” (MI2,
lines 281-284).
Inevitably, there were interruptions during lessons as well. Other teachers popped
into the classroom to ask questions (HCO2, line 352), schedule picture retakes (BCO3,
lines 228-232), and sign cards (SCO4, lines 268-271). A student announced, “I’m
bleeding!”(HCO3, line 198), or someone came into the room saying, “I need the people
that go to dyslexia class” (HCO4, line 404). These classroom interludes are a natural part
of real classroom life and play a role in the environment of each classroom.
Hispanic influences were evident as part of the culture in the classrooms. For
example, Bess referred to aunts as “tias” as her students worked on their Mother’s Day
102
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
writing activity. She said, “There are lots of nice things you can say about your mothers,
sisters, tias, or grandmothers” (BCO3, lines 82-83). A student wrote “Te quiero” (I love
you in Spanish) on the special card he made for his mother who speaks and reads in
Spanish (SCO2, lines 151-152). Later, as Sarah’s students were writing their pen pal
letters, the intercom crackled and the school secretary announced, “Student _, Venga la
oficina” (SCO2, line 385).
During the observations, it was noted that teaching styles also varied according to
the goal of the lesson. For example, in the first observation in Sarah’s classroom, the
students were allowed much more freedom to select their own paper and topic for writing
(SCO1, lines 96-157), whereas in the other observations in her classroom, the writing
activities were more teacher directed. When the goal of the lesson was for the students to
create a specified artifact, such as a Mother’s Day card, group story, or published book,
then the teacher’s focus was more on the product versus the process. Consequently, the
student-centered writing activities concentrated on the development of writing skills,
while the teacher-centered writing activities focused on completing an activity involving
writing within a specified amount of time.
After Helen taught a mini-lesson on the strategy of brainstorming and modeled
how to think about and record attributes of her main character, she sent her students off to
practice and explore the writing strategy with these words:
Helen: “I want you to think about a character that you could write about and all the
things they could do. Does everyone have a picture in your head? I want you to go back
and write about that character” (HCO2, lines161-164).
103
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Sarah carefully gave detailed instructions to her students about how to make a
heart-shaped Mother’s Day card using handprints cut out of construction paper. After a
few minutes, she stopped them and said:
Sarah: “On the outside, you will write your message to mom. I’m going to write Happy
Mother’s Day on the outside” [Sarah sat down and began writing with a crayon on the cut
out of her hands. Students watched the projected image as she wrote, talked, and asked
the class questions about the writing.] (SCO2, lines 93-97). After the students had worked
a few more minutes on their handprints, she stopped them again and said:
Sarah: “Open up your card to the inside. This is how you can personalize your card any
way you want. You can write her a message or a poem. You can be as creative as you
want to be” (SCO2, lines133-135).
The individual educational and emotional climate influenced the writing
experiences of the students. This unique culture impacted both the establishment of
routines and the development of relationships that set the tone within the classroom.
Various strategies for managing time, student behavior, and materials also influenced the
distinct atmosphere of each class involved in the study. Meaningful interactions were
noted between the teacher and her students, among student peers, and with teacher
assistants. Additionally, the teachers’ expectations and goals for the lesson factored into
the overall atmosphere of learning.
Writing in the Classroom
The National Commission on Writing explained that “writing requires students to
stretch their minds, sharpen their analytical capabilities, and make valuable and accurate
distinctions” (2003, p. 13). The participants valued writing as a means to the development
104
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
of cognitive skills and also an outlet for students’ creativity and imagination. Their
comments reflected their understanding that writing in the classroom was a positive
learning experience for their students:
Sarah: “Writing is an important role because it helps [students] to acquire more
cognitive skills. I think the more you write the better your reading is, and I think the more
you read the better your writing can be” (SI2, lines 7-9).
Meg: “[Writing] helps them read and use their imagination. Once they can read and get
into different thinking or using their imagination, they can start writing about it and
creating. If you can read, you can write. If you can write, you can read” (MI2, lines 1315). “[Writing] helps [students] with reading I think too. Seeing both of those gets their
ideas out. Imagination – that’s a hard one for them. Trying to get them to imagine, that’s
our struggle” (MI1, lines 18-19).
Bess: “[Writing] teaches [students] to work through their ideas and write them down. A
lot of times we’ve got it in our minds but we just don’t know how to transfer it from what
we’re thinking to paper, so I think that writing helps that process” (BI2, lines 8-10).
Since this study was focused on the curriculum area of writing, with an emphasis
on the implementation of Writer’s Workshop, it is not unusual that one of the major
themes had to do with writing in the classroom. An interesting discovery was the
distinction the participants made between a more structured Writer’s Workshop time and
a less controlled free writing time with journals. From their comments and actions, one
can see the separation between these two modes of written response:
105
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Meg: “We were going to do free writing today, but I think that I’m going to let you take a
vote. I’m going to let you decide whether you want to do free writing or the story starter
machine” [Meg sat down at her desk and logged onto the Internet on the computer
attached to the LCD projector on her desk.] “Free writing, raise your hand.” [Student #8
raised his hand.] “OK, I guess that we will do Story Starters. Student #8, you can go
ahead and do free write” (MCO4, lines 22-29). “I think more than anything they like
their journals and when it’s free write. Every Friday this year, if we weren’t doing a big
book, class book, story, or something, they got to do free writing on Fridays, which was
in their journals. They really liked that” (MI3, lines 62-65).
Bess: “On your journals, just give me short sentences. Don’t worry about it because the
Mother’s Day writing was the real writing for the day. [Journal writing] was just because
not everyone was through” (BCO3, lines 322-323). “It just depends on what intrigues
them that day. The other day, we wrote about the rain because it was raining. So they
love journal time. They love, love, love it. They are like, “Yes!” (BI1, lines 61-64).
In Helen’s classroom, there was a clear separation between journal writing time
and the beginning of Writer’s Workshop time each day. This transition between putting
away their journals and listening to the mentor text was intentional and part of her
instructional plan. This is the way she described her journal time:
Helen: “Usually I start off by doing a 10-15 minute just journal [time]. They can write
about whatever they want. You know, maybe they have something that they did that they
really just want to get written down. They write it, and I usually try to write while they
are writing. I type, but I write while they are because I want them to see that it doesn’t
106
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
matter what age you are, you still are going to need to write. So, I try to model that. And
then we take just a few minutes to share, those that want to share what they wrote in their
journal. We don’t do the TAG – the Tell something you liked, Ask a question, or Give a
suggestion with that. This is just a real quick share from their journal” (HI2, lines 86-93).
“I’m going to let you finish up your thoughts and then we will put up our journals and go
back there to read a story, so finish up your thoughts” (HCO2, lines38-39).
Ray and Laminack (2001) acknowledged that all kinds of writing practices may
occur under the name of Writer’s Workshop; therefore, I think that it is wise to hear some
illustrative thoughts from the participants regarding their understanding of a workshop
approach to teaching writing:
Helen: “You know, a workshop, it’s interactive. It’s kind of like when we go, it’s a work
in progress. You know, you’re constantly learning something. It’s structured but not so
structured that kids lose interest” (HI3, lines 80-82).
Sarah: “With a workshop you’re all going to come together for the mini-lesson part of it.
And then you are going to send them [the students] off and they are going to each do their
writing. For me it was easier, instead of pulling a child up individually to conference, to
just kind of walk around and talk. Then you have a share time. Throughout the time, they
are working on their writing. It’s not something that, day one, they’re perfect. You just
keep working on it. Kind of like a workshop, you are learning things, so they are learning
things in their workshop” (SI3, lines107-113).
Each of the participants had implemented their understanding of Writer’s
Workshop according to their teaching styles, using methods that worked best for them
107
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
and their unique students. Through interviews and observations, they discussed or
displayed how and why they implemented various components of Writer’s Workshop:
Meg: “This year I did a lot more mini-lessons. I think because I got my ideas more from
CSCOPE. Last year, I was struggling with where to get my ideas for the mini-lessons.
Either CSCOPE didn’t have those or I didn’t realize they were there. I also did a lot more
modeling [of writing] than I did in the previous year, and that helped a lot” (MI4, lines
19-24).
Helen: I think the more [the students] do, the more they see their peers do, and seeing
some of that good modeling, not just from me, but from their equals. Like, if she can do it
then I can do it. I’ve seen how they want to do better and better. So, I think it is a gradual
process. I’ve taught the writing process two ways. I’ve taught it, ‘OK, we’re going to
write about this. OK, we’re going to prewrite, we’re going to edit,’ all the five steps of
writing. It doesn’t seem to have as much value as now” (HI2, lines125-130).
After reading the mentor text, Emma Kate by Patricia Polacco, to the class and
inviting students to share their thoughts about their best friend with their elbow buddy,
Helen modeled writing a story about her best friend:
Helen: “I am going to do a story called “Best Friends.” I think I would start off – My best
friend loves me for me. I can be silly. I can cry. I can laugh. I think that they know what
I’m thinking. They know when you need a Coke. I think a best friend is someone who
makes you smile. I think a best friend is going to be your friend no matter what.” Her
students gave her a double thumbs up. Helen continued, “Remember, that’s what authors
108
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
do. They think about their audience. Think about who they are writing for” (HCO1, lines
103-181).
Meg: “Another thing I did was I used to call them back to my table and I started doing
[conferencing] at their groups instead. That still bothers me. I don’t know why. I want
them to keep writing, but I know they are learning from what I’m saying to someone else
because I can see them looking and they immediately start erasing” (MI4, lines 57-61).
Meg then went to Student #14’s desk and bent down beside the student’s desk. She
helped the student with editing her writing. Student #14 responded and talked to Meg in a
quiet voice. While they were talking, Student #1 was also listening in to the editing
conference. As Meg finished the conference with Student #14, she stood up and said to
the student, “I knew that’s what you were going to say! [Laughed] Very good!” (MCO3,
lines 154-161).
Sarah: “When we go to the sharing time, it’s like a fight for who gets to share first. They
get so excited and the class enjoys it. You can tell there is an attitude about them, it is just
pure joy for them to share those things” (SI1, lines 55-61).
Meg: “They love the cheers! I try to do the positives and how to make it better so,
hopefully, eventually, that carries on into their writing” (MI2, lines 242-243). Student #2
got up to share a story about the grasshopper and a spider while the other students
listened. Another student responded, “I liked that she didn’t know what to wear.” Meg
said, “OK, Very good! Her grasshopper had two problems, she didn’t know what to wear,
and she was scared of spiders. Let’s give her a roller coaster!” (MCO4, lines 243-251).
109
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Writing is a multi-faceted tool used for developing thinking skills and expressing
creative ideas and thoughts. The participants all had an instructional writing time that
they called “Writer’s Workshop,” yet each one was very unique and was set up quite
differently. Their personal philosophies, teaching styles, and expectations for their
students really affected the instructional decisions made regarding writing in the
classroom. Whether it was conceived as a teacher-directed writing activity, journal
writing endeavor, free-write, or workshop approach, the students in these classrooms
were using words to communicate their ideas.
Writing Process
Fletcher and Portalupi (2001) described a personalized, non-linear cycle of getting
words onto paper. This messy process is composed of different stages that all writers
must go through, no matter the age of the writer.
The participants referred to various procedures used during the different phases of
writing. I observed instructional strategies for topic selection, mechanics of writing,
editing, and revising. Several different approaches were noted for helping students select
a topic by supporting the student who says, “I can’t get anything in my mind. I can’t
think of anything. My mind is blank” (SCO3, lines 19-20). Participants seemed to have
their own unique way of addressing this important prewriting step.
Meg was very intent on encouraging her second grade students’ creativity in
writing imaginative stories. She valued her students’ “thinking outside the box” (MI1,
line 90); however, she felt they had difficulty with this on their own. Meg told of a time
when she was modeling a story about her daughter eating bubbles in the bathtub, and her
students were very engaged and wanted to add to her story, yet when they went back to
110
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
write their own story, “they were like lumps on a log” (MI3, lines 40–48). So Meg
believes her students still need some help in coming up with ideas for inventive pieces.
She utilized a website that she felt was beneficial in helping her students with ideas for
creative writing: http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/story-starters/.
At the other end of the spectrum, Helen was more focused on allowing her
students free choice on their written responses. She felt that students should write every
day “Whether it’s something as simple as 10 minutes for them to sit and reflect in a
journal, or go back and be creative” (HI2, lines16-17). When one of her students asked,
“What do I write about?” Helen answered, “Whatever you want. This is not pair/share. It
is you stopping and writing whatever you want to” (HCO1, lines 47-50). Helen explained
the progression throughout the year, “At the beginning of first grade I give them a lot of
prompts. They have to write at least a sentence and draw a picture to go with it. We just
keep adding more and more and they become more of a self-thinker”(HI2, lines 162166).
Bess concentrated on writing topics that were relevant to Kindergarten students.
She explained, “Letting it be about them – always about them. Whatever it is, what I hear
them talking about that morning or maybe the weekend. If we were in school right now,
I’m sure that most of them would have been to the carnival so we would’ve written about
that. I just try to make it relevant to them, and I’ve always done that” (BI4, lines 19-22).
Bess explained how she listened and observed her students to select age-appropriate
topics, such as going to Disneyland or the park, and then all the students wrote about the
same topic in their journals (BI3, lines35-36).
111
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Sarah encouraged her students to bring personal photographs from home to spark
ideas for writing (SCO1, SSWS). She also had her students fill out a 2-page paper on
“Ideas for Writing” that was included in the front of their individual Writer’s Workshop
folder (SSWS). In one of our interviews Sarah explained how her students go about
creating a topic, “Like as far as in our class, [students] can use their pictures, they can use
something they’ve thought about. So, through the writing process, with the pictures and
different idea charts and stuff that we’ve used, we’re having them pick what they are
going to write about” (SI2, lines 109-112).
Prewriting strategies were observed in Meg and Helen’s classrooms. Meg’s
students used a bubble map graphic organizer to help them plan their All About Me books
(MCO1). Helen employed the strategy of pair-share with an elbow buddy to allow her
students to talk about what they were going to say about their best friend prior to writing
their story (HCO1, lines148-153).
An emphasis on the mechanics of writing was noted in all the classroom visits.
The participants referenced spelling, handwriting, capitalization, and punctuation many
times during the classroom observations. Here are just a few examples of these instances:
Helen: Student #5 came up to Helen’s desk. As Helen read the student’s story, she came
to the word dinosaur and said, “I don’t remember how to spell it. Let’s look it up.” Helen
quickly picked up her phone and found ‘dinosaur’ on the dictionary app. to show the
student how to spell it correctly. Helen continued to read the story and then laughingly
responded, “Do you think my husband would like that?” As she read more of the story,
she asked the student, “How do you spell ‘when?’ -/wh/-…. ‘just’ – how do you spell
just?” The student spelled j-o-s-t. Helen made the /u/ sound. “Eats – it has a vowel
112
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
combination.” Helen looked toward the windows where a vowel combination chart was
posted. Student #5 also looked at the vowel combination chart and said, “e-e?” Helen
answered the student, “It’s beside the e-e.” Student #5 said, “ea.” The student spelled,
“e-a-t-o-n.” Helen answered, “eats,” and the student spelled “east.” Helen prompted,
“switch” [gesturing using a hand signal for switch]. The student spelled “e-a-t-s” and then
moved back to her desk (HCO2, lines 269-301).
Sarah: As the students were working on their writing, some got up to copy words from
around the room. Student #11 got up to ask Sarah how to spell her pen pal’s name. Sarah
spelled it out loud for her. Sarah then spoke to the class, “You can write your pen pals’
name in cursive, and you can write parts of your pen pal letter in cursive as long as you
are spelling the words correctly.” Sarah then sat down on the floor in front of Student
#15’s desk in order to help him find his pen pal’s name in his desk. She continued to
spell more pen pal names for her students.
Bess: “Remember, my sentence should definitely not have a bunch of upper case letters
in it. Only one at the beginning of the sentence, unless it is the ‘I.’” Bess walked over and
looked at Student #5, “May does not begin with a ‘W,’ it begins with an “M” (BCO4,
lines 60-66).
Meg: “Put periods instead of getting the ‘and disease.’ Instead of saying and, and, and,
we are going to say ___ is my mom. ___ is my dad. ___ is my sister” (MCO4, lines 140142).
The editing processes observed were mostly teacher directed. During
observations, the participants provided suggestions to students, reminded them to edit, or
113
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
actually edited the student’s paper while the student observed. Here are some excerpts
from the observations which illustrate this:
Sarah: [talking to Student #14] “Can you go back and edit your letter for spelling? I want
you to go back and check for spelling mistakes.” Several students then lined up to have
Sarah check their letters. To one of these students, Sarah asked, “Are you going to draw a
picture for your pen pal or are you done?” The student answered, “I’m done!” (SCO2,
lines 433-442).
Meg: Meg moved on to Student #11, looked at his paper, and said, “There is no ‘a’ in
they! You need to remember those when you are writing” (MCO3, lines 69-70). Later on
in the observation, Meg worked with Student #7 to help him write about a monster truck.
She used her pen to mark some things on his paper while he watched with his hands in
his lap. “OK, here we go. I can’t read this about these little blue creatures that go…”
(MCO3, lines 120-124).
Bess: [Bess sat down at the horseshoe-shaped table and took out a marker.] “I’m going to
call you over by tables instead of boys and girls.” Five students from one of the table
groups moved over to the horseshoe-shaped table. Bess read their sentences just as they
were written. She asked them questions and sent them back to their tables to fix certain
things in their writing. “This is what I see,” Bess said while she read the students’ work.
When one of the student’s writing did not need any revisions, Bess said, “Give me five!”
and they slapped each other’s hands” (BCO1, lines 199-209).
Helen: Helen called Student #10 up to her desk to work on editing a story from another
day. The student leaned over, listened, and watched as Helen read her story, pointing to
specific parts. Helen used a mechanical pencil to write and erase some things on the
114
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
student’s story. Helen handed the story back to Student #10 and said, “You don’t have to
edit it right now, but it will be ready whenever you finish with your other story” (HCO2,
lines 219-233).
Participants expressed that their students did not enjoy editing their work or
seemed to have a negative feeling towards that particular step of the writing process:
Meg: “I think they have a negative idea about editing. That’s why I said, ‘Don’t worry,
it’s OK, we all make mistakes.’ Because I think they have such a negative idea. I just tell
them that it’s OK to have think time. I just let them know that they have think time and
then you need to be writing. We edit, we read each other’s. A lot of times I do the
editing” (MI2, lines 183-189).
Sarah: [The students] are doing their rough drafts and we have been trying to emphasize
going back and editing, but a lot of times at this age, they still just want to write
something new every day. And they are struggling with that editing piece because they
want to move on to something new” (SI2, lines 112-117).
Bess: “If you mess up, I don’t get mad at you, you’re not in trouble, nothing happens to
you. Erase it and fix it, simple as that. I will read exactly what they wrote and then they
will look at me. ‘But that’s what you wrote – is that what you wanted it to say? OK, go
fix it’” (BI1, lines 68-72).
Helen: “It’s really hard to not want to correct all their mistakes and show them this is
what it really should look like. So, I have a hard time finding that balance because I don’t
want it to never be checked, but I also don’t want to change so much of it that they feel
like they did it wrong. So that’s something I struggle with” (HI3, lines132-135).
115
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Meg was the only participant that mentioned publishing the students’ writing. I
also observed her class going through the publishing process with their All About Me
books. In our second interview, Meg carefully explained the progression of creating these
books (MI2, lines 121-197) along with information about other classroom books and
individual writing samples that her students had published throughout the year (MI2,
lines 200-212).
Meg: We did another class book, My First Day Jitters. I really want to do Last Day
Blues and take a picture of the students in the same position because I have the same
kiddos. So my next idea for the last week of school is our Last Day Blues. So each
student will create a page and then illustrate it at the top. So they love it!” (MI2, lines
214-218).
When asked about their own personal writing, the participants were hesitant.
They did not elaborate or give examples from their own experiences of working through
the writing process. When the question was posed, “Do you consider yourself a writer?”
here is how they responded:
Meg: “I can write funny kid stories. For myself – no. I can help kids come up with
something creative by giving them examples of what I would do and what I would say.
Yeah – for kids. But I wouldn’t write anything for an adult to read” (MI4, lines 95-97).
Bess: “No, writing was not my favorite thing in college. I was the run-on queen and I had
to work through all of that in order for my writing to be…. The concept of the story was
always pretty good, but the actual written part of it was always red marks everywhere”
(BI4, lines77 – 79).
116
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Sarah: “I consider myself a text messager, a list maker, an email answerer, but no – not a
writer” (SI4, lines 84-85).
Helen was the only participant who talked about her own writing development
and answered the question in a positive way. She replied:
Helen: “I have the expectation for my kids to write, so I have tried to write something
every day. And even at home, I’ve seen my writing change. So yes, I would say that I am
a writer. Probably nothing will ever be published, but I am a writer” (HI2, lines 117-120).
The process of learning to write is developed over a lifetime. Recursive steps are
used again and again to create written texts. In this study, participants seemed more
focused on some stages of the writing process, demonstrating a strong emphasis on
editing for the mechanics of writing. Even though the teachers were confident and selfassured while teaching writing to their young students, most seemed uncertain about their
own abilities as writers.
Freedom
The impact of free choice was seen from the perspective of the teachers as well as
the students. Teachers highly valued having freedom to select their own learning
opportunities for summer staff development. In their classroom writing time, the
participants made a clear distinction in free writing or journal time when students
experienced a more open written response time. They also seemed to appreciate how
Writer’s Workshop allowed their students more writing freedom within a structured
framework. Another facet of this theme was seen in the amount of freedom and
autonomy the students had within the different classroom environments.
117
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
From the teachers’ perspective, the impact of staff development is partially
dependent upon whether teachers were given a choice on attending the session. When
teachers are allowed to make their own professional decisions regarding what types of
staff development they are interested in, they tend to have a better attitude and learn more
from the training activity. Professional learning is deepened when teachers are given the
autonomy to consider their students’ strengths and weaknesses and then personally
identify the most effective ways to develop new teaching strategies that will meet their
students’ needs (Sparks, 2002). The study participants were very clear in stating their
personal feelings regarding the power of self-selection of staff development activities:
Sarah: “The [staff development sessions] during the summer, those are a choice. You are
signing up for something. I am normally very interested because they are something I
chose because it is something that I felt I needed more of” (SI1, lines 189-191). “I enjoy
it more when getting a choice on what I get to do rather than being told, ‘This is what you
need to attend’” (SI1, lines 200-201).
Meg: “Some of them are good. I think if we get to choose the ones we like, you can get a
lot out of them. You can learn a lot. I think if you are made to go to one, you kind of have
a bad attitude about it, but if you choose it, a lot of times you get a lot out of it” (MI1,
lines 57-61).
When the participants reflected upon student writing activities in their classrooms,
they all referenced the importance of freedom in relationship to writing:
Bess: “[Journal time] is just them. It’s all about [the students]. So I guess that’s why they
like it so much, they can be free to think” (BI1, lines 66-68).
118
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Helen: “Writing is such a personal thing that if a kid feels threatened they are just going
to shut down on you” (HI4, lines 77-78). During the third classroom observation in
Helen’s room, a student asked her what they should write in their journal and Helen
responded, “Whatever you are inspired to write” (HCO3, lines 13-14).
Meg: “I like Writer’s Workshop. It’s more them doing it. They are getting to talk about
their own [writing]” (MI3, lines 94-96).
Sarah: “We didn’t always do the CSCOPE part of it during our Writer’s Workshop time
because I wanted them to have a little more freedom during that time” (SI2, lines 37-38).
“I like [Writer’s Workshop] better because it gives the children some freedom” (SI3, line
117).
Additionally, the theme of freedom was witnessed in regard to autonomy that
students experienced within each classroom as well. For example, in the Kindergarten
classroom, the actions of the students were more controlled by the teacher. During the
last observation in Bess’s room, some students got up from their tables to copy the words
Mat Man from a book sitting on the easel. In a few minutes, a couple of others also
moved across the room to look at the Mat Man book. When other students began to move
from their seats toward the book, Bess responded, “Sit down; you can sound out the
words mat and man” (BCO4, lines 88-124). In the other classrooms, the older students
seemed to have more freedom to move about. In Helen’s first grade classroom her
students moved from their desks to get pencils, crayons, Kleenex, and hand sanitizer
while others went to the word wall and copied words as needed (HCO3, lines 28-43).
Freedom of movement and autonomy were also noticed in Meg’s second grade
119
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
classroom. Her students got drinks from the water fountain, selected pens and pencils
from storage boxes, and one student was asked to turn off the LCD projector (MCO4,
lines 50-74). At the end of Writer’s Workshop time, Sarah invited her third grade
students to “get out your library book and read wherever you would like to in the room”
(SCO1, lines 227-228). The variation in the amount of choice and movement within the
classroom may be due in part to the established classroom environment as well as the
developmental stages of the individual students.
Free choice about learning opportunities, writing activities, topic choice and
classroom independence was noted throughout the study. Teachers valued getting to
select their own staff development activities. Students were given more free choice in
some types of writing activities than others and seemed to enjoy when less restriction
were placed upon their creativity. There was variation in the amount of freedom for
students to move about within the different classroom structures.
Development
Since the participants were all primary grade teachers, they believed they were
setting the foundation for their students’ future writing development. Overall, there
appeared to be a tentative, ambiguous awe regarding the development of writing skills.
Even though they had access to CSCOPE documents, highlighting the vertical
progression of writing skills, their comments seemed vague regarding their students’
writing development:
Bess: “You can only go so far with my grade level because [the students] are little and
just starting. Maybe if I taught an older grade that would be for them” (MI4, lines 50-52).
120
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
“Some of [the students] are going to get it a lot faster than the others, especially when
they have the home support” (BI3, lines 132-133).
Meg: “[The students] are just now learning the very basics of writing. By second grade
you think they should know that it’s the beginning [of a sentence] and it needs a capital
letter. Maybe that’s what it is. You think that Kindergarteners know nothing about
writing” (MI1, lines 205-208).
Helen: “It’s really interesting to see where [the students] start and where they finish.
Every year, it’s kind of the same thing – it’s, ‘Oh, my goodness, are we ever going to get
them to the point that they need to be?’ It’s through the whole process, it’s kind of like a
little light clicks on somewhere along the way, and they just amaze you. I just think the
whole journey is really, really interesting – where they start and where they finish” (HI3,
lines 50-55).
The teachers seemed especially interested in getting their students ready for the
following grade level. For example, these participants’ comments illustrate their desire to
have their students prepared and ready to move up to the next grade level:
Bess: “Don’t write this big” (gesturing with her hands). “We are not in preschool; we are
almost in first grade” (MCO1, lines 82-83).
Sarah: “One of the most important things by the time you are almost going to 4th grade –
make sure the holes go on the left side of the paper” (SCO1, lines 39-40).
The development of handwriting and spelling skills was also noted in the
findings. For example:
121
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Bess: “How do we sit for handwriting? They sit up, they scoot their chair in, legs are
straight, and they are comfortable. Because I tell them that when they are wiggling in
their chair, getting up and moving, or leaning – all of that shows in their handwriting”
(BI2, lines 174-176).
Sarah: Students looked at their Handwriting Without Tears alphabet strip attached to
their desks as they wrote. Sarah walked around the room watching the students as they
wrote on their lined handwriting paper. She commented, “Your cursive looks very good,
Student #8!” (SCO4, lines 211-217).
In our second interview, Bess described differences between her philosophy of spelling
development compared to some of her colleagues. She explained:
Bess: “They have to inventive spell before they can spell” (BI2, line 96).
Helen shared another teacher’s success with using the Writer’s Workshop framework:
Helen: “From the time she started it until the end of the year her scores went up
significantly, especially in spelling because they actually have to practice and use their
spelling” (HI3, lines 62 -64).
The participants were interested in student’s growth in different writing
components, with a strong desire to make sure the children in their class were ready for
the next grade. The teacher’s expectations for writing composition and mechanics were
similar in the four classrooms studied. The focus seemed to be more on the development
of handwriting, spelling and mechanics than on growth with writing strategies or ideas.
122
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Connections
Many types of learning connections to writing were seen throughout this study.
The National Commission on Writing stressed the importance of this association by
saying, “Writing is how students connect the dots in their knowledge” (2003, p. 3).
While observing in the classrooms, writing skills were coupled with reading, art, science,
history, and vocabulary development. Teachers and students were seen making
connections to mentor texts, other students’ stories and to their own families through the
act of writing:
Sarah: “For History Fair, [the students] had to write about the different people they were
studying and for Science Fair we did more scientific-type writing as far as writing up
their projects. They did a project over The Mouse and the Motorcycle where they had to
write letters to Ralph, persuading him to come live with them” (SI2, lines 124-129).
Bess: “As [my colleagues and I] are teaming, we’ll talk about whatever it is that we are
teaching and see how we can extend it through their writing” (BI3, lines 13-14). “You
can get really far in life if you are a good writer and well-spoken. So, both of them go
hand in hand because you write the way you speak” (BI4, lines 91-92).
Meg: “An important part of writing is the reading because if they can read, most of the
time they can write stories” (MI1, lines 226-228).
While I was observing in Helen’s classroom, she stopped while reading aloud to
the class in order to explain the meanings of the words: encore, leotard, pirouette, and
wallow as she read the story Hilda Must Be Dancing aloud to her students. The children
123
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
used the skill of visualizing while imagining a hippo dancing (HCO4, lines 6-48). Later
on in the lesson, the students drew a picture of Hilda dancing (HCO4, lines 100-138).
One time, as Helen was reading Lily’s Purple Plastic Purse, she stopped and
asked the class, “Do you notice how the author puts words in the picture? Why do you
think he did that?” Student #5 responded, “It was just like when Student #19 wrote…”
(HCO2, lines 102 – 105). On another day, a student got up to share his journal writing
with the class. He put his notebook under the Elmo document camera and read, “Today
my dad is going to New York.” The student then explained that his dad was moving to
New York and he would be staying with his mom (HCO1, lines 88-90).
Children learn to write through practice, hard work, success and failure, and from
the books they love (Prose, 2006). Therefore, these types of connections assist students in
learning how to improve and develop their own writing. The collected data showed
teachers making writing links to different subject areas, books read aloud to the class,
other student’s stories, and to their families.
Staff Development
The organization and pacing of staff development activities was of utmost
significance to teachers. As much as 70 percent of a presentation’s impact is related to
the way in which it is delivered (Garmston &Wellman, 1992). The data from this study
corroborated that the pacing, timing and style of the presentation all made a difference in
how well the information was absorbed and internalized:
124
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Sarah: “Learning over a period of time – that was good because you are able to revisit it.
You were able to learn some then practice a little bit and then you went back to learn a
little bit more. They kind of chunked it” (SI1, lines149-151). “If I’m up and doing
something, I enjoy it more. If I’m sitting down, I notice that I am tired. You think, ‘Oh
my gosh, the person is still talking!’” (SI1, lines187-188).
Bess: “Sometimes if they are after school or after a long day, oh, I don’t want to go sit
and listen to anything right then but during the summertime or whenever the kids are not
in school, [those sessions] are good” (BI1, lines 133-137). “We as Kindergarten teachers
have to bring it down a notch because sometimes it’s way above [the students], so we
have to do that. So, that’s what makes it hard too. When we see K-1 on any of the staff
developments, we’re like, ‘Yes! - Hopefully it’s a Kindergarten one! Sign up for it!’”
(BI1, lines 154-157).
Meg: “Hands-on. Seeing examples. Watching somebody model it. Or different ways of
doing the classroom management part of it. Like the Writer’s Workshop, seeing all the
different writing process steps that you showed us. The way different people do it. I can’t
just sit there and listen” (MI1, lines 131-134).
Helen: “I think [staff development sessions] need to be engaging because I think if
they’re engaging, the teachers are going to remember them and want to take that back.
After listening to colleagues after exciting staff developments and not so exciting, you
can definitely see that there’s a big difference between the ones that were and weren’t
engaging” (HI1, lines 75-78).
125
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
The trainer or presenter is also very influential in how well the teacher assimilates
the new knowledge. If the presenter is knowledgeable, passionate, and organized, the
learning is perceived as more valuable, thus the teacher is more willing to spend time in
self-reflection as a result. The person who facilitates the training session has a definite
influence upon how teachers respond. Sharp (1993) identifies three essential
characteristics of expert facilitators: 1) A thorough understanding and passion for the
subject 2) Flexibility 3) Genuine sincerity (pp. 9-10). The participants in the study
commented how a presenter can impact their experience within the staff development
activity:
Meg: “Someone that knows their stuff that can come in and model lesson and help with
ideas, too. [Someone] that is available!” (MI1, lines 183-184).
Sarah: “[The staff development presenters] are people who have actually been in the
classroom and tried out those ideas” (SI1, line 263).
Helen: “The people who presented them were not passionate about what they did. It was
kind of… ‘OK, I have this to show you and you can take it back.’ You could tell who
really enjoyed their craft and who really enjoyed what they did and was knowledgeable
about it versus those that seemed to be just kind of being put on the spot – like, ‘Hey, can
you come share?’ So I think that makes a big difference” (HI1, lines 145-150).
In addition to formal staff development activities, teachers learn from a myriad of
other informal sources. They learn from one another, read professional books, and
conduct their own action research. Educators’ professional growth is influenced by
technological resources as well. In fact, all four participants responded in interviews with
126
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
the words, “I Google it!” when asked about where they get ideas to enhance their
pedagogical growth. Many receive ongoing daily support from mentors and colleagues
that they teach with. In addition to traditional staff development sessions, these other
avenues encourage reflective practice as well:
Bess: “Collaborating – definitely! I did not have that in the other state where I taught. So
when I got here, I was like, ‘Oh, somebody that can help me – bounce ideas off each
other’” (BI1, lines 245-246).
Meg: “Probably with my peers. Sit and talk and throw ideas out about what we could do
to make it better or make it work. I like the Internet. I like to look it up too to see what
else” (MI1, lines108-109). “I usually do blogs – teacher blogs. We did the CAFÉ or The
Sisters one that had a lot of good information on it” (MI1, lines115-117).
Sarah: “My latest thing I’ve gone to is Pinterest. It has tons of school ideas for things
you can do in your class” (SI1, lines 277-278). “You need good mentors and you need
administration that is supportive of new and innovative ideas. You want someone who’s
going to support you on going out there and trying something new. And you know, it may
not work as well as you want it to, but you want them to know that you are doing what is
best for your kids. Sometimes having a team that you can talk to and share. When you
have someone else that’s also doing it, you can talk to that person and say, ‘this is what
I’m seeing’. You’re able to collaborate and discuss the progress” (SI1, lines 301-309).
Helen: “If I have a question about something, honestly, I Google it and see whatever
comes up. Sometimes it’s a journal or something another teacher has posted or it leads
me to a book to read. But, usually, I Google it because it’s the biggest resource to find
127
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
something quickly” (HI1, lines 173-178). “I would benefit from a coach coming into my
classroom and observing and giving me that positive feedback and seeing if what I’m
actually reading is what I’m actually applying. That would be beneficial” (HI1, lines 183186).
The participants in this study sought a community of support for their work. By
utilizing technological resources, they were able to receive encouragement at any time.
According to Grossman and Arnold (2011), the use of “technology to build collegial
support for professional development can help alleviate the recurring issues of teacher
isolation, teacher retention, and teacher collaboration” (p. 312). Associating with other
teachers, gaining insight from mentors and sharing ideas within a professional learning
community are ongoing ways that teachers develop pedagogical knowledge and acquire
new teaching skills.
The delivery of the staff development activity was very important to the
participants in this study. Timing, pacing, organization, and style of the presentation all
impacted the effectiveness of the training. Also, the person(s) conveying or facilitating
the activity had a bearing on whether or not the information was credible. Although
formal training is still the most typical type of staff development, informal collaboration
and on-line support were utilized frequently.
Teacher Ideology
Desimone (2011) clarified how successful professional development increases
teachers’ knowledge and changes their ideology, which in turn improves their instruction
and boosts students’ learning. Teachers’ personal philosophies have a significant impact
128
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
upon what they emphasize in their teaching and how they set up instructional routines in
their classrooms. Therefore, as teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about learning change,
their practice usually follows. The research participants explained how their educational
values and attitudes influenced their classroom practice:
Bess: [In response to the question, “What do you notice about other teachers’ writing
instruction?”] Our differences. How important it is to me versus how important it is to
them (BI3, line 65).
Helen: I think when you teach [a mini-lesson] whole group, sometimes they don’t feel
like you’re calling them out because, just like anybody, when you write something, it’s
personal. Whether it’s a story about a family member, something fun, something funny –
it comes from you. And so when you go and “red ink” everything or “you did that
wrong” every time then, just like we would do, kids are going to naturally turn inward
and shut down, and so it’s a safe approach to correcting something (HI3, lines 104-109).
When teachers attend staff development, they bring along with them their prior
experiences, which is another specific characteristic of adult learners. The teachers in this
study shared their usual reactions to staff development activities:
Bess: [In response to the question, “How do you typically respond to professional
learning activities?”] “It depends on my mood. Sometimes, I’m like, ‘Yea!’ Sometimes,
I’m like, ‘Oh, no – another one?’ It depends on the week, what’s been going on. For the
most part I do enjoy them” (BI1, lines 131-133).
129
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Sarah: “I try to take something from every [staff development session] even if it’s
boring. I try to make sure there is some little something I can use or apply” (SI1, lines
227-228).
Helen: “I think you can sit in a workshop with 20 people and 20 people leave with
different ideas. Some people walk out of room and feel like they really haven’t learned
anything, and some people walk out of the room and can’t wait to take it back. It has to
do with our attitudes before we come in and our perceptions – are we excited to be here
or is this just another training that somebody has asked me to go to. I think all of those
attitudes play a part in our willingness to absorb it. I always think if you can take away
one thing, it was a successful training. And that’s always been my thought on it, even
before I was a teacher” (HI1, lines 193-200). “There’s always something you can learn at
staff development. I think that if you’re willing to learn, there’s always something that
you can take away” (HI1, lines 186-187).
Teachers’ beliefs drive their decisions regarding classroom instructional practices,
which ultimately influence student learning. As people mature, they store up more and
more experiences, which become an ever-expanding resource for learning (Knowles,
1984). These existing memories, philosophies, and attitudes may hinder or assist them as
they strive to learn more about a particular instructional strategy.
Summary
Teachers’ personal values, professional philosophies, and expectations for their
students influence the creation of unique classroom cultures. As teachers and students
interact within the established learning environment, the routines and behaviors may have
130
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
an influence on the development of students’ writing skills. Composing text is a vital
means of communication, yet it is also a highly artistic and creative endeavor. The
process of putting words on paper can develop cognitive skills, improve relationships and
stir the imagination. This freedom to create and relate to others is an important
characteristic of the Writer’s Workshop approach to teaching writing in the classroom.
The framework allows students to practice methods of writing in a safe environment.
Staff development activities on writing development and the process approach to
teaching writing can help teachers feel more competent as they institute this type of
learning in their classrooms. As educators learn more, their pedagogical development
then influences their ideology. Therefore, the sequence goes round and round in a spiral
of positive professional growth. The implications of this cyclical journey in teaching
writing will be discussed in the following chapter.
131
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS
The final section of this report presents a brief review of the study along with a
summary of the major findings presented in previous chapters. Next, meaningful insights
connected to the research questions are offered. Afterwards, implications for further
research are shared with the readers. Lastly, improvements to the study are
recommended, and final thoughts regarding the research are provided at the end of the
chapter.
A variety of methods were used to enhance the professional development of
teachers resulting in varying outcomes. Ultimately, the success or failure of staff
development endeavors rests on the extent to which teachers incorporate the new
knowledge to adjust their instructional practices. This research study specifically
investigated ways in which staff development on the strategy of Writer’s Workshop
impacts teachers’ instructional practices while teaching writing.
Educators rely on professional development activities as a key component to
enhance teachers’ growth and develop new teaching strategies. However, this change in
teachers’ practice is highly complex with a variety of stages along the way (Fullan, 1991;
Guskey & Sparks, 1996). The purpose of this instrumental case study was to provide
greater understanding into issues that may influence teachers’ integration of new
knowledge about writing instruction. The focus of this research was designed to identify
ways that teachers take steps along their journey in implementing instructional change.
Specifically, the study examined how four teachers who had attended a staff development
132
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
session on Writer’s Workshop used the information to implement the strategy in their
classrooms. Three research questions guided the inquiry. The specific questions
addressed were:
•
How do teachers respond to staff development on Writer’s Workshop in order to
internalize the new knowledge to implement these strategies in their classroom?
•
How does staff development impact teachers’ reflective practice?
•
In what ways do teachers’ personal attitudes toward writing influence their praxis
in writing instruction?
Qualitative analysis of the data was utilized in an effort to understand how teachers
adopt new knowledge. Purposeful sampling techniques were used to select four
participants who provided the contextualized information for this inquiry. Sources of the
data included interviews, observations, documents, and reflective journals.
Through an iterative process of data analysis, eight general themes emerged from
the collected data. The key issues identified were:1) classroom culture, 2) writing in the
classroom, 3) writing process, 4) freedom, 5) development, 6) connections, 7) staff
development, and 8) teacher ideology. Since the goal of an instrumental case study is to
gain a deeper understanding of a phenomenon (Stake, 1995), the lessons learned
regarding these major findings will now be discussed.
Classroom Culture
The personal values and beliefs of teachers influence how their classrooms are
organized and the strategies they choose to use during writing instruction. The teachers’
133
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
unique teaching style also impacts their interactions with students. They must value
what their young writers have to say and then give them ample time to explore writing.
According to Routman (2005), “A successful writing program requires a knowledgeable,
organized teacher with excellent classroom management skills” (p. 173). Philosophies,
procedures, and communication style all come together to create a distinct classroom
environment. The general culture of the classroom and instructional discourse play an
essential part in understanding writing instruction (Nystrand, 2001). Since a vital part of
improving students’ writing skills hinges upon the development of a positive classroom
culture of learning, it is imperative that teachers consider how they will provide this
structured, engaging atmosphere. Before an effective Writer’s Workshop can be
implemented, teachers must first reflect upon the general atmosphere of their classroom.
Writing in the Classroom
Even though the participants in the study reported that they considered writing to
be a very difficult subject to teach, they valued the skill and incorporated writing into
many lessons. When teachers value the importance of writing, they naturally emphasize it
more in their instructional day. Writing is a useful skill in developing students’ creativity
and cognitive abilities in all areas. The skill of writing is a vital means of communication;
moreover, it is a mechanism for creative expression and development of thinking skills.
A deep understanding of how writing can impact development in many areas is critical in
helping students enhance and improve their abilities to compose. Smith (1994) explained
it using these words, “Teacher understanding is more important than any system, because
no method or program can be guaranteed to teach students to write” (p. 218). This
134
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
investigation uncovered a need for more information in the area of writing to bolster
teachers’ confidence and enhance knowledge about writing development.
Study participants believed that writing was important for both the development
of intellectual skills and as a means for creative expression. The process of writing helps
students develop metacognitive awareness and higher order thinking skills (Kuhrt &
Farris, 1990). Schmoker (2006) reiterated that writing has an impact on learning at high
levels. He states, “Writing literally makes students smarter” (pp. 62-63). Additionally, as
teachers use the act of putting pen to paper in order to foster students’ creativity, it
becomes a tool of the imagination. Thus, the conclusion can be made that both the art
and craft of writing are inextricably bound together. The data collected in this study
confirm and highlight both ways of envisioning writing in the classroom.
Writing Process
Writers go through recursive steps when composing a piece of writing. The
stages of writing overlap and go back and forth as meaning becomes more refined and
clarified (Graves, 2003). The essence of quality writing can be broken down into
different areas. Selecting a topic to write about, putting ideas on paper, revising and
editing usually occur before the final piece is published. All of these writing process
steps were observed while collecting data for this study; however a clear emphasis was
seen on the editing step. The participants seemed more focused on the mechanics of
writing – spelling, capitalization, and punctuation than on any other component of the
writing process.
135
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
The data from this investigation supports findings from Glasswell, Parr and
McNaughton (2003) which reported that conferences with struggling writers were more
focused on surface features such as spelling, mechanics, or grammar while high-progress
student conferences were more focused on deeper features of text. My findings also
mirrored the conclusions of Glasswell, Parr and McNaughton (2003) by identifying how
teachers may unintentionally take over the responsibility of editing students’ writing.
Beach and Friedrich (2006) recommended that teachers’ editing feedback should
encourage students to self-correct while providing specific support on teaching students
how to accomplish the task. They reiterated that teachers must be trained on effective
methods of reacting to student writing and that rubrics for observation are helpful. The
findings from this research concur with that statement. Through observing in the
classrooms and interviews with the participants, it was clear that the conferencing
element of Writer’s Workshop was more difficult for the participants to carry out and
they needed more information and practice with that component.
In regard to teachers’ personal use of the writing process and their individual
attitudes toward writing, the study found that three out of the four participants did not
consider themselves to be writers. The National Writing Project and Nagin (2006)
recommended that “teachers must know their subject areas deeply and be able to use that
knowledge to teach well” (p. 59). Therefore, a suggestion resulting from the findings of
this research study is to encourage teachers to personally write more. This may help
develop their scholarly life and lead to a deeper, more personal understanding of the
writing process.
136
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Freedom
A key characteristic of adult learners is that they desire to have control over their
own learning. Teachers want to make individual decisions about the content, time, place
and style of their learning activities (Speck, 1996). They know best what their
instructional weaknesses are; therefore, most educators seek out necessary information on
those topics in a variety of ways. When provided with this autonomy in learning,
teachers’ reflective practice can be enhanced.
Freedom and choice are also important to students. One of the major tenets of
Writer’s Workshop is that students select their own writing topics. Fletcher and Portalupi
(2001) reiterated the importance of student choice by stating, “Letting them choose their
own topics and set their own purposes make it a lot more likely they’ll be engaged and
receptive” (p. 10). This independence can be both liberating and a little scary for
students. When they have lots of ideas for writing, they can feel empowered; however,
when ideas are fleeting or the process is frustrating, students may lack confidence to
continue. Skillful teachers are able to gauge the fine balance between freedom and
support as they encourage their student’s writing development.
Teachers that chose to attend the staff development session on Writer’s Workshop
may have elected to attend this type of session because their philosophy of teaching and
learning were already aligned with the tenets of choice and autonomy. Their instructional
style may have been more at ease with allowing student choice and movement. Thus, the
findings of this study point to the reality that, when given freedom, teachers usually select
staff development that fits their individual philosophies.
137
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Development
Children develop gradually over time and their writing behaviors go through
changes as the child matures and learns new skills. This development is a very complex
process with many factors (Hayes, 1996). As children progress through developmental
stages, they may grow in one area but not another. This may lead to a lack of fluent text
production (McCutchen, 1996). According to McCutchen (2011), teachers’
understanding of linguistic skills and writing development are not well understood.
An unforeseen finding highlighted in this study was the teacher’s general lack of
knowledge regarding writing development. Throughout the study, it was noted that the
type and level of writing instruction was very similar across the four grade levels. From
Kindergarten to third grade, there were few differences noted in the depth of teacher
instruction or student writing fluency. Differences seemed to be more dependent upon
the teacher’s classroom management expertise rather than in-depth knowledge of the
writing curriculum. The teacher participants were uncertain what they should expect
from their students, except their desire to have them ready for the next grade level.
Therefore, the findings suggest a lack of understanding about writing development and
perhaps points to teachers’ need for more knowledge of linguistic development in
general.
The CSCOPE curriculum documents were developed to help support teachers’
understanding in this area. The Vertical Alignment Document (VAD) and the
Convention Alignment Tools trace the development of student expectations through each
grade level and are available for teachers’ use. However, a cursory knowledge of these
138
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
documents may not be enough to help teachers develop their pedagogical knowledge of
writing development. The results of this study reveal that teachers need more information
on how to move their class along the continuum of writing development through the use
of powerful mini-lessons, experienced modeling, and targeted conferencing with
students.
Connections
It is difficult to isolate the language students are exposed to in reading from the
ideas they are writing about. According to Clay (1975), “Writing plays a significant part
in the early reading progress” (p. 70). Reading has a positive impact on learning about
writing because published authors provide the learner with models of good writing
techniques. Smith (1994) explained his understanding of the transaction with text in this
way, “I have depicted text as a two-sided mirror rather than a window, with writers and
readers unable to see through to each other but gazing upon reflections of their own
minds” (p. 87). Thus, students’ writing and reading development is intricately linked.
Mentor texts can provide a means for students to learn about the craft of writing
from being exposed to high quality texts. The results of this study clearly reveal how
teachers rely upon quality published works to explain the craft of writing, demonstrate
different styles, develop interesting vocabulary, and spark ideas for composition.
Students also learn from one another, and begin to gain a sense of what it means to be an
author, as they help each other compose during writing time, listen in on the teacher’s
conference with another child, or by share their personal writing with their peers.
139
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Writing is also routinely used as a tool for learning across content areas. It helps
students slow down and analyze their thinking in miraculous ways. According to Kuhrt
and Farris (1990), the upper levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy cannot be attained without
some type of writing. Consequently, it is important for teachers to encourage learning
through writing within these natural connections that occur throughout the school day.
Staff Development
As teachers develop their craft of teaching, they naturally want to improve. Staff
development is a way to aid teachers in evaluating their teaching and to target areas of
desired instructional growth. Professional development activities that are well designed
and presented effectively are more relevant to teachers. When the session’s design
matches the participant’s style of learning, they will take on the new learning more easily
and have a more positive attitude about it.
After attending a staff development session, follow-up support for the attendees is
needed in order for adult learners to facilitate the transfer of knowledge (Speck, 1996).
As a literacy leader and coach for MGISD, I assumed and believed that some of this
support should come from me. When staff development participants were hesitant to sign
up for coaching sessions, were uncertain about asking for help, or indecisive in answering
questions, I wrongly assumed that they did not need or want help. What I have
personally learned from this research is that additional support comes from a myriad of
resources and my help may never be needed or only required at appropriate times, which
does not suggest that teachers are unmotivated or not receiving necessary support from
other avenues.
140
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
The data collected in this research study highlighted the power of technology
support for teachers’ pedagogical growth. Teacher blogs, websites, and chat rooms on the
Internet all provide teachers with ongoing, 24-hour support at the touch of a button. The
accessibility and availability of this mode of communication provides teachers with
ongoing information at the most convenient times. It can also help to alleviate the sense
of isolation that accompanies the teaching profession since the support is always there
(National Staff Development Council, 2001).
Encouragement also comes from the individual’s colleagues, peers, friends, and
family. Participants shared how much they relied upon their grade level teams for ideas
and support. Results from this research reiterated that collaboration with other likeminded individuals can definitely be a catalyst for professional growth.
Teacher Ideology
Teachers respond and interact with new knowledge through the lens of their
unique educational beliefs or guiding philosophies. According to Tisdell and Taylor
(1999), “One’s educational philosophy is embedded both in what one believes about
teaching and learning, and what one actually does in their practice” (p. 6). Beliefs are
inextricably linked to action, but there remains a question as to which comes first (Price,
1999). Do philosophies inform practice or does our work develop our beliefs?
Connections of philosophy and practice were observed in both directions within
the collected data for this study. At times, teacher beliefs may influence a specific
curricular or instructional decision. In other instances, making changes in classroom
strategies can lead to new belief systems. As teachers implemented the Writer’s
141
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Workshop framework in their classrooms and observed how their students reacted, then
their beliefs about teaching writing began to change.
Therefore, the findings from this research study support the close link between
beliefs and practice - confirming that the impact can go in either direction. These results
also support an attribute of the constructivist theory of education, which upholds that
beliefs affect our interactions with others and impact learning (Steffe & Gale, 1995).
Research Questions
•
How do teachers respond to staff development on Writer’s Workshop in order to
internalize the new knowledge to implement these strategies in their classroom?
As a result of the training session, the participants attempted to make instructional
adjustments that would positively enhance instruction in order to benefit their students’
writing development. However, for the knowledge to transfer into regular, meaningful
use in the classroom, teachers must practice in order to feel confident with the new
strategy. As Knowles (1984) pointed out, a characteristic of adult learners is that they
learn experientially. The participants in this study wanted to implement all the
components and strategies of Writer’s Workshop, but the reality is that they felt
constrained by limited time devoted to writing in their classrooms.
Teachers’ response to professional development can also be impacted by their
prior experiences and depth of knowledge on the topic. For example, Meg had some prior
knowledge on the topic and had already implemented a Writer’s Workshop framework
for a couple of years prior to attending this training; therefore, she had worked through
142
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
the basic concepts and was ready to begin refining the mini-lesson and conferencing
components. Sarah, however, only had a vague understanding of Writer’s Workshop and
had little prior training focused specifically on writing instruction, so at the training she
was focused on the basic organizational strategies of a workshop approach.
Student progress positively impacts teachers’ response to staff development. As
teachers see that a strategy is truly effective with their own students, they are excited and
eager to learn more about an instructional strategy or resource. If teachers do not observe
growth in student learning as a result of implementing new instructional strategies, they
usually do not continue with the strategy. According to Guskey (2002), “Demonstrable
results in terms of student learning outcomes are the key to the endurance of any change
in instructional practice” (p. 384). The participants in the study eagerly shared their
success stories and believed that their students were practicing more authentic writing by
using the Writer’s Workshop approach. Therefore, the findings from this study were
aligned with Guskey’s seminal research in this area.
The relevance of this conclusion to the staff development facilitator is significant
because the burden of proof lies in documenting student improvements. Therefore,
during staff development activities, it is always important to share with participants how
the strategy enhances student knowledge. Guskey (2002) reiterated this concept and
points out, “Attitude and belief changes occurred only when training and implementation
were combined with evidence of improved student learning” (p. 385). In conclusion,
teachers respond to staff development on Writer’s Workshop by actually experiencing it
and implementing the framework then they continue to respond by observing student
143
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
growth in writing, and finally they respond through ongoing reflection on ways to
improve and refine the process.
•
How does staff development impact teachers’ reflective practice?
Staff development is a way to aid teachers in assessing their own teaching and target
areas of desired instructional growth. As teachers reflect and self-evaluate their
professional learning goals, they begin to define what types of activities will benefit their
own pedagogical growth. Hence, teachers need to have opportunities that encourage
personal self-reflection as a part of the continuous process of professional improvement
and growth (Lieberman & Miller, 2001). Reflecting upon instructional practice is
important to becoming a more effective educator because “teacher thinking is unlikely to
change unless and until teachers consciously reflect on their own thinking” (Teacher
Mind Resources, 2002-2006, p. 6).
The participants in this study made an intentional decision to sign up for the
summer session on Writer’s Workshop due to previous exposure to the strategy or a
specific interest in improving writing instruction in their classroom. The teachers had all
read or heard about Writer’s Workshop prior to attending the staff development session.
One of the characteristics of adult learners is that their ever-expanding source of prior
experiences impacts their learning. These existing memories, philosophies and attitudes
may either hinder or assist them as they strive to learn something new (Knowles, 1984).
When teachers come together to learn and collaborate within a staff development
activity, the synergism that can occur assists them in learning even more. Discussions and
sharing of ideas among educators spark personal reflective practice and provide
144
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
motivation to try new things. The findings from this study demonstrate that teachers can
learn from one another during formal trainings, in casual interactions, or through
electronic media. As a result of these different types of interactions teachers’ reflective
practice and professional growth is enhanced.
•
In what ways do teachers’ personal attitudes toward writing influence their praxis
in writing instruction?
While the participants valued the skill of writing in their students and made time
to teach it, they did not feel confident in their own writing capabilities. They seemed to
view writing as simply another subject to complete rather than as a vehicle for learning
and processing thoughts. One of the surprises discovered while analyzing the data was
the uncertainty and inhibition the participants exhibited when asked about their own
writing skills. This perceived lack of confidence may have inhibited the participants
while model writing during mini-lessons or lessened their effectiveness while
conferencing with students.
As The National Writing Project and Nagin (2006) espoused, “Writing teachers must
write” (p. 65). The Project’s intensive brand of staff development requires that
participating teachers must actually practice writing and experience the difficulties with
composing in order to improve writing instruction in schools. Consequently, the findings
from this study highlight a growing problem – teachers do not understand the subject area
of writing well enough to teach it effectively. “We cannot build a nation of educated
people who can communicate effectively without teachers and administrators who value,
understand, and practice writing themselves” (The National Writing Project, 2006, p. 60).
145
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Additionally, teachers’ uncertainty about their own writing abilities may hamper
their praxis in writing instruction. Therefore, we need to encourage and give time not
only for students to practice writing but staff members as well. As Harwayne (2000)
expressed, “The lesson is quite simple: Writing improves the quality of life in a school”
(p. 71). So, a conclusion resulting from this study is that teachers need to be given time
and encouragement to practice and refine their own writing skills in order to improve
their students writing.
Implications for Further Research
This study confirmed many concepts of adult learning and staff development
practices that are routinely used. However, it also revealed some interesting new
questions for future research. One area identified by the study was the general impact of
technological resources on adult learning. Some questions associated with this issue that
come to mind are: What types of support do blogs, chat rooms, or wikis provide to
teachers?; How do online resources improve or enhance staff development?; Or a more
specific current, cutting-edge question, how do teacher ideas pinned on Pinterest boards
impact teachers’ practice?
Another area for further research was exposed through the data collected for this
study. The idea of how teachers speak up for topics they need or want in terms of staff
development would be another relevant issue for inquiry.
On a more personal note, I wondered why the teachers who attended the staff
development session did not feel confident in asking for coaching sessions in their
classrooms. This service was offered to them on three separate occasions, yet no one
146
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
signed up or seemed interested in coaching. Therefore, further research on developing
effective ways to initiate instructional coaching would be beneficial to me.
Improvements to the Study
One way to improve the study would be to conduct the investigation at a more
appropriate time of the school year. The data was collected during the last month of
school. At that time of year the teachers were focused on finishing the year and the
students’ routines were affected due to end-of-year activities. Therefore, some of the data
may not have been as authentic as it could have been earlier in the school year.
Also, perhaps the investigation may have had elements of bias since the
researcher actually facilitated the staff development session on Writer’s Workshop. The
participants may have been hesitant to report negative thoughts or ideas since the
researcher and presenter were the same person.
Final Thoughts
Careful planning of effective staff development is critical to developing teachers’
pedagogical knowledge, increasing their professional reflective practices, and positively
influencing praxis in writing instruction. When teachers understand the theories and
background of what they teach, their beliefs and philosophies change, which impacts the
actual classroom routines. Staff development sessions are one way to begin this change
process. However, the overall design of professional development activities influence
how teachers react to the content being presented. After the session is over, the teacher
requires some assistance or encouragement to continue learning. This ongoing teacher
147
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
support can come in a variety of ways. And finally, incorporating more writing in the
classroom can help students develop their creativity and cognition.
As teachers continue to make the journey toward developing their art and craft of
teaching writing, it is the researcher’s hope that the findings from this study will provide
direction to help them reach their ultimate destination.
148
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing researchbased programs (2nd ed.). Boston, Mass.: Pearson.
Altheide, D. L. & Johnson, J. M. (2011). Reflection on interpretive adequacy in
qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Research (pp. 581-594). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Auerbach, C. F. & Silverstein, L.B. (2003). Qualitative data, an introduction to coding
and analysis. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report (13), 4, 544-559.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf
Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In C. Macarthur , S. Graham , &
J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222-234).
Berninger, V. W. & Winn, W. D. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research
and technology for writing development, writing instruction and educational
evolution. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of
Writing Research (pp. 96-114). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Bintz, W. P. & Dillard, J. (2004). Seeing writing instruction differently: Lessons with
149
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
lasting impressions. Language Arts, 82, 110-119.
Bogdan, R. & Bicklen, S. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bomer, R. (1995). Time for meaning: Crafting literate lives in middle and high school.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33 (8). 3-15.
Boushey, G. & Moser, J. (2009). The CAFÉ Book: Engaging all students in daily literacy
assessment and instruction. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational
Psychologist. 35, 25-37.
Calkins, L. M. (1994). The art of teaching writing (new ed.). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Calkins, L. M. (1998). Raising lifelong learners: A parent’s guide. Jackson, TN: Perseus
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Beginning writing behavior. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). The report of the teaching commission: What’s really at risk?
Journal of Teacher Education 55 (3). 195-200.
150
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Connor, M. L. (2004). Informal Learning. In Goldsmith, M., Morgan, H., & Ogg A. J.
(Eds). Leading Organizational Learning: Harnessing the Power of Knowledge.
Leader-to-Leader Institute. Jossey-Bass.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA :Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cross, P.K. (1981). Adults as Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd
Ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.
New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: testing policy hypotheses from a
national commission report. Educational Researcher, 27 (1), 5-15.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Developing professional development schools: Early
lessons, challenge, and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional
development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp. 1-27). New York:
Teachers College Press.
151
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Dearman, C. R. (2005). The changing face of education: Teachers cope with challenges
through collaboration and reflective study. Reading Teacher, 58(7), 634-640.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative
Research (pp. 1-19). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Desimone, L. M. (2011). A Primer on Effective Professional Development. Phi Delta
Kappan, (92)6, 68-71.
Dewey, John (1938). Experience And Education. Simon & Schuster: Kindle Edition.
Duffy, G. G. (2002). Visioning and the Development of Outstanding Teachers. Reading
Research and Instruction, 41 (4), 331-344.
Duke, N.K. & Mallette, M. H. (2004). Literacy research methodologies. New York, NY:
The Guildford Press.
Dyson, A. H. (2003). Writing and children’s symbolic repertoires: Development
unhinged. In Neuman, S. B. & Dickinson, D. K. (Eds.) Handbook of early literacy
research, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Easton, L. B. (2008). From professional development to professional learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, June. 755-761.
Eisner, E. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
152
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders (Research Rep. No. 13).
Urbana, IL: National of Teachers of English.
Enderlin-Lampe, S. (2002). Empowerment: Teacher perceptions, aspirations and
efficacy. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 29(3), 139
Fletcher, R. & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes, In L.
Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers grades 3-6. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Friend, M. G. & Cook, L. (2000). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school
professionals. New York: Longman.
Fullan, M. G. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff
Development, 28(3), 35-36.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Gabriel, R., Pareira, J. D. & Allington, R. (2011, May). Exemplary teacher voices on
their own development. Phi Delta Kappan(92) 8. 37-41.
153
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Garmston, R. J. & Wellman, B. (1992). How to make presentation that teach and
transform. Alexandria VA: ASCD.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture: Selected essays. New York: Basic
Books.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Glasswell, K., Parr, J.M. & McNaughton, S. (2003). Four ways to work against yourself
when conferencing with struggling writers. Language Arts (80), 4. 291-297.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Graves, D. H. (1975). An examination of the writing processes of seven-year-old
children. Research in Teaching of English (9), 227-241.
Graves, D. H. (1990). Discover your own literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, D. H. (2003). Writing: Teachers & children at work. (20th Anniversary Ed.)
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, D. H. (2004). What I’ve learned from teachers of writing. Language Arts, 82, 8894.
Grossman, E. & Arnold D. (2011). A habit of collaboration: Using technology while
building professional relationships during teacher preparation. International
Journal Of Instructional Media, 38(4), 311.
154
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Gunning, T.G. (2010). Creating literacy instruction for all students (7th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Guskey, T. R. (1979). In-service education, classroom results, and teacher change.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago, IL.
Guskey, T. R. (1982). The effects of change in instructional effectiveness upon the
relationship of teacher expectations and student achievement, Journal of
Educational Research, 75(6). 345- 349.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education(4).
63–69.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teachers and
Teaching: theory and practice, (8) 3/4. 381-391.
Guskey, T. R. & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development
and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 3438.
Harwayne, S. (2000). Lifetime guarantees: Toward ambitious literacy teaching.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education(14), 8. 835-854.
155
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Harwayne, S. (2001). Writing through childhood: Rethinking process and product.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1989). Coaching as unreflective practice: Contrived
collegiality or collaborative culture. San Francisco, CA: American Educational
Association.
Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D. (1998). International
Handbook of educational change. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to
enhance understanding. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.
Hayes, J. R., and Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In
Cognitive Processes in Writing, (Ed.) Jere Brophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing.
In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.). The science of writing (pp. 1-27). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Hill, H. C. (2009, March). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta
Kappan(90) 7. 470-477.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching.
Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
Hillocks, G. (1987, May). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational
Leadership, 44(8). 71-82.
156
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Hirsh, S. & Killion, J. (2007). The learning educator: A new era in professional learning.
Oxford, Ohio: National Staff Development Council.
Hirsch, S. & Killion, J. (2009). When educators learn, students learn: Eight principles of
professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 464-469.
Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Jaramillo, J. A. (1996). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and contributions to the
development of constructivist curricula. Education, 117(1), 133.
Johnstone, J.W.C., and Rivera, R. (1965). Volunteers for Learning. Chicago: Aldine.
Jones, R. (1995, April). Writing wrongs. The Executive Educator, (17)4, 18-24.
Kameenui, E.J. & Carnine, D. W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate
diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Killion, J. R. (1991). A process for personal theory building. Educational Leadership,
48(6), 14-16.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to
andragogy. Wilton, Connecticut: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
157
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Knowles, M. S. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and
human resource development (5th ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Kosova, B. (2010). Andragogical reflections on teachers’ Lifelong education and
learning. The New Educational Review, (20)1. 173-182.
Kremer-Hayon, L. (1993). Teacher Self-Evaluation: Teachers in their own mirror.
Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kuhrt, B.L. & Farris, P.J. (1990). Empowering students through reading, writing, and
reasoning, Journal of Reading, 33(6), 436-441.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional
development that matters. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Luria, A. R. (1970). The functional organization of the brain. Scientific American, March.
Lyons. C.A. & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to
professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mavrogenes, N. A. & Bezruczko, N. (1993). Influences on writing development. Journal
of Educational Research, (86) 4. 237–245.
158
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
McCutchen, D. (1996). Capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition.
Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299-324.
McCutchen, D. (2011). From novice to expert: Implications of language skills and
writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill.
Journal of Writing Research, 3(1), 51-68.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murray, D.M. (1982). Learning by teaching: Selected articles on writing and teaching.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mucchielli, R. (1996). Le travail en équipe. Paris: ESF.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2003). Reprinted and adapted
from Elmore, R. F. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and
159
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City.
New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 8-13.
National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2003). The
neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. College Entrance Examination
Board.
National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Staff Development Council (2001). E-learning for educators: Implementing the
standards for staff development. Oxford, OH.
National Staff Development Council (NSDC) (2012). Standards for professional
learning. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.learningforward.org/standards
National Writing Project & Nagin, C. (2006). Because writing matters: Improving
student writing in our schools (Revised and Updated ed.) San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Nystrand, M. (2001). Report in argument's clothing: An ecological perspective on writing
instruction in a seventh grade classroom. Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 479.
Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In C.
MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research
(pp.83-95). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
160
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Pajares, F., Johnson, M. & Usher, E. (2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of
elementary, middle and high school students. Research in the Teaching of
English, 42, 104-120.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Payne, R.K. (2005). A framework for understanding poverty (4th Ed.) Highlands, TX:
aha!Process, Inc.
Poulson, L. & Avramidis. (2003). Pathways and possibilities in professional
development: Case studies of effective teachers of literacy. British Educational
Research Journal, (29)4, 543-560.
Pressley, M. (2006, April 29). What the future of reading research could be. Paper
presented at the Reading Research Conference, Chicago.
Pressley, M., Mohan, L., Fingeret, L.,Reffitt, K. & Raphael-Bogaert, L. (2007). Writing
Instruction in Engaging and Effective Elementary Settings. In S. Graham, C. A.
MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best Practices in Writing Instruction: Solving
Problems in the Teaching of Literacy (pp. 373-697). New York, NY: Guilford
Press. Kindle Edition.
Price, D. W. (1999). Philosophy and the Adult Educator. Adult Learning, 11(2), 3.
161
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Pritchard, R. J. & Honeycutt, R. L. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction:
Examining its effectiveness. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 275-290). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Pritchard, R. J. & Honeycutt, R. L. (2007). Best Practices in Implementing a Process
Approach to Teaching Writing. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald
(Eds.), Best Practices in Writing Instruction: Solving Problems in the Teaching of
Literacy (pp. 705-1170). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kindle Edition.
Prose, F. (2006). Reading like a writer: A Guide for people who love books and for those
who want to write them. New York: Harper Collins.
Ray, K. W. & Laminack, L.L. (2001). The writing workshop: Working through the hard
parts (and they’re all hard parts). Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Ray, K. W. (2006). Exploring inquiry as a teaching stance in the writing workshop.
Language Arts, 83, 238-247.
Richardson. V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd. C. (1991). The relationship between
teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American
Educational Research Journal (28). 559-586.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy, Teachers College Record 105(9), 1623–
1640.
162
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Rogers, E. M., & Pinnell, G. S. (2002). Professional development scenarios: What is and
might be. In E. M. Rogers & G. S. Pinnell (Eds). Learning from teaching in
literacy education: New perspectives on professional development Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Romano, T. (1995). Writing with passion: Life stories, multiple genres. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Rose, M. (Ed.). (1985). When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other
composing-process problems. New York: Guilford Press.
Rossman, G. & Rallis, S. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative
research. (2nd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Routman, R. (2003). Reading essentials: The specifics you need to teach reading well.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Routman, R. (2005). Writing essentials: Raising expectations and results while
simplifying teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Roskos, K., Risko, V.J. & Vukelich, C. (1998). Head, heart and the practice of literacy
pedagogy. Reading Research Quarterly 33(2). 228-239.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in
teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
163
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Schultz, K. (2006). Qualitative research on writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp.357-373). New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and social science. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shanahan, T. B. & Neuman, S. B. (1997). Literacy research that makes a difference.
Reading Research Quarterly, (32)2, 202-210. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sharp, P.A. (1993). Sharing your good ideas: A workshop facilitator’s handbook.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. London: Oxford University Press.
Slepkov, H. (2008). Teacher Professional Growth in an Authentic Learning Environment.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 85.
Smith, F. (1994). Writing and the writer (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Sparks, D. (1998, March/April). Professional Development. AEA Advocate. 18-21.
Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and
principals. National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from:
www.nsdc.org/sparksbook.html.
Speck, M. (1996). Best practice in professional development in sustained educational
change. ERS Spectrum, 33-41.
164
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College Publishers.
Stake, R. E. (1994, 'Case studies', in N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 236-247.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steffe, L & Gale, J. (1995). Constructivism in Education. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stuhlman, M. C. & Pianta, R.C. (2009). Profiles of Educational Quality in First Grade.
Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 323.
Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. (1985). Writing development in early childhood. Educational
Horizons, Fall, 8-12.
Sulzby, E. (1990). Assessment of emergent writing and children’s language while
writing. In L. M. Morrow & J. K. Smith (Eds.), Assessment for instruction in
early literacy (pp. 83-108). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P.D., Clark, K. & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and
accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary grade reading instruction in lowincome schools. Elementary School Journal (101)2. 121-166.
165
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Teacher’s Mind Resources (2002-2006). Teacher quality and teacher qualifications.
Retrieved from: http://www.teachersmind.com
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York:
Falmer.
Tisdell, E. J. & Taylor, E.W. (1999). Adult Education Philosophy Informs Practice. Adult
Learning, 11(2), 6.
Tolchinsky, L. (2006). The Emergence of Writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp.83-95). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Troia, G.A., Lin, S. C., Cohen, S., & Monroe, B. W. (2011). A Year in the Writing
Workshop. The Elementary School Journal, (112), 1. 155-182.
Tucker, G. (2010). Teaching and training for learning: Leading adult learners. Amarillo,
TX: GKT Publishing.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waters, Carolyn. A Brief History of Hereford Independent School District, Paper, [2004];
digital images, (http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth46556/ : accessed
August 08, 2012), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas
166
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
History, http://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Deaf Smith County Library,
Hereford, Texas.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher
development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff
Development Council.
Whitaker, T. (2004). What great teachers do differently: Fourteen things that matter
most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and
interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications.
167
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
CHILDREN’S LITERTURE
Cleary, B. (2001). The Mouse and the Motorcycle. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Danneburg, J. (2000). First Day Jitters. Dallas, TX: Whispering Coyote.
Danneburg, J. (2006). Last Day Blues. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge Publishing.
Henkes, K. (1996). Lily’s Purple Plastic Purse. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Pollacco, P. (2008). Emma Kate. Westminster, London: Puffin Books.
Wilson, K. (2008). Hilda Must Be Dancing. New York, NY: Margaret K. McElderry.
168
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
APPENDIX A
Script for Recruitment of Participants
I am here to invite you to take part in a research study. This is part of the
requirements for my graduate studies at Texas Tech University. The title of the study is:
“Honing the Art and Craft of Writing Instruction: Teachers’ Journeys in Implementing
Writer’s Workshop.” The goal of this study is to help learn more about how teachers use
information acquired from staff development activities. The knowledge gained from this
study will help us learn more about teaching writing. The results may also help with
decisions about staff development activities.
If you would like to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a page
about your teaching background. This should take about 10 minutes. Your personal
information will be kept private.
Information will be collected by conducting four interviews with each participant.
These interviews will be audio recorded and transcribed. Also, I will observe in your
classroom four times during your writer’s workshop time. These observations will each
last about 30 – 45 minutes. They will be conducted over the span of 7 weeks. Field notes
will be typed during the observations. I will also ask to look at copies of your lesson
plans for writer’s workshop. I will ask to see copies of your writing notes and conference
logs. I may also examine samples of your students’ writing. To ensure the privacy of
your students, I will ask that you de-identify any student writing samples before sharing
them with me. Students will be referred to only by their assigned number throughout the
study.
All of your information will be kept private. It will be viewed only by me and the
members of my committee at Texas Tech University. They are, Dr. Kathryn Button, Dr.
Peggy Johnson, and Dr. Peggie Price. In any publications developed from this research,
your privacy will be protected by the use of a fictitious name.
I want to tell you that the methods and design of this study have been carefully
reviewed through the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board for the
Protection of Human Subjects, Office of Research Services.
You have the right to make your own decision whether to participate or not. Your
decision to be a part of this study is up to you. You may choose to withdraw at any time.
There will be no consequences from the school district or campus if you decide not to
participate. If you choose to take part, your honest ideas will be highly encouraged.
169
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
If you have questions about participating, please feel free to ask me or my dissertation
chairperson at Texas Tech University, Dr. Kathryn Button. If you are interested in
participating, please sign the consent form and fill out participant information page.
Thank you!
170
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
APPENDIX B
Archival Data Form
Professional Development Survey: Writer’s Workshop
Name: _____________________________________Grade Level: _________________
To better facilitate this professional development session on Writer’s Workshop, I would
appreciate your honest thoughts on the following items.
Thank you ~ Betty Coneway
1. Why did you choose to learn more about Writer’s Workshop?
2. What knowledge do you already have about Writer’s Workshop?
3. How did you learn about Writer’s Workshop? (University classes?
Professional Development? Colleagues? Articles? Books? Videos? ~ Please
be as specific as possible).
4. Please rate your comfort level as it relates to the teaching of writing using a
Writer’s Workshop approach.
0
I have never
attempted
Writer’s
Workshop with
students. I don’t
know anything
about it. I am
terrified!
1
I have tried to
establish a Writer’s
Workshop but have
had little success. I
am frustrated.
2
I use parts of Writer’s
Workshop in my
classroom. I am still a bit
uneasy teaching writing
using this framework. I
am unsure.
3
I have a Writer’s
Workshop in my
classroom. I feel
somewhat
comfortable
teaching writing
using this
framework. I want
to feel more
confident.
4
I have a wellestablished
Writer’s
Workshop in my
classroom. I feel
very comfortable
using this
framework. I
want to refine this
technique.
5. What goal(s) do you have related to the implementation or refinement of
Writer’s Workshop in your classroom next year?
171
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
6. What does writing instruction presently look like in your classroom? Please
describe as vividly as possible.
7. What are your most pressing questions related to Writer’s Workshop?
172
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
APPENDIX C
Interview Guide
Interview #1 Protocol:
What are your personal ideas about staff development activities? What areas seem to be
working well for you? On what topics do you still need more information?
How do you typically respond to professional learning activities? Explain.
How do you personally process new information gained from staff development events to
incorporate the new information into your own instructional routines?
What workshops or professional development sessions have you attended that you
consider
the most beneficial to you in your literacy instructional practices? What attributes made
these sessions helpful?
What workshops or professional development sessions have you attended that have been
the least beneficial to your literacy instructional practices? Why do you think this is so?
What attributes made these sessions less helpful?
What types of things make the most impact in your teaching practices?
How do you go about obtaining information to inform your teaching practices?
What do you need in terms of education or support to become the best teacher that you
can become?
Interview #2 Protocol:
In your opinion, what role does writing have in a student’s cognitive development?
How would you explain your beliefs about teaching writing?
Explain how you typically teach writing in your classroom?
Please describe some resources you normally use during writing instruction and how you
typically use them.
How do the resources and information in CSCOPE impact writing instruction in your
classroom?
Please explain the normal classroom routines you use during writing instruction.
173
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
How is your writing instruction different than other teachers? How is it the same?
Interview #3 Protocol:
Can you show me your lesson plans for writing and expound on how you developed these
plans?
Give me an example of how your students normally respond during your instructional
writing time.
Can you tell me about some experiences you have had while teaching writing?
What do you notice about other teachers’ writing instruction? How does observing other
teachers during instruction influence your instructional practices?
How would you explain a “workshop approach” to teaching writing?
What are the benefits of teaching writing using Writer’s Workshop? What are some
difficulties with using Writer’s Workshop in your classroom?
What is your level of understanding of the components of Writer’s Workshop? Please
explain.
Interview #4 Protocol:
What changes have you made in your writing instruction since attending the staff
development on Writer’s Workshop last summer?
What has stayed the same from last year to this year in regard to your writing instruction?
Explain.
What ongoing or unanswered questions do you still have about Writer’s Workshop?
What have you done differently in your writing instruction as a response to the Writer’s
Workshop staff development session? Why?
What types of training do you need in the future to support a process-approach to
teaching writing? How would this new information impact your writing instruction?
Is there anything else you would like to share with me about writing instruction or
professional development?
What are your thoughts about writing in your personal life? When do you write? Why?
How often?
174
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
What have you learned about writing by experience? What have you learned about
writing by studying or reading? What have you learned about writing from others
(teachers, colleagues, students)?
175
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
APPENDIX D
Example of Transcribed Observation Field Notes
Helen – (H)
Observation #2
April 27, 2012
10:00 – 11:30
H: Read the page from Lily’s Purple Plastic Purse, by Kevin Henkes about how Mr.
Slinger puts the students into a circle. She explained to the students, “He was a creative
teacher. He wanted it to be fun.”
H: continued reading Lilly’s Purple Plastic Purse. She stopped after a few more pages
and asked, “How many of you know what you want to be when you grow up?”
Students responded: “Teacher, Sea World, vet, police officer, work for the city,
ambulance driver, army, artist…”
H: explained that “someone that works for an ambulance is called a paramedic.”
H: “How many of you have changed your mind along the way? [some students raised
their hands].
H: [also raised her hand]. “I didn’t think I wanted to be a teacher. At one time, I thought
I wanted to be a doctor, but the sight of blood made me sick! She continued to explain
that at one time she also wanted to be a singer, lawyer, etc.
H: “Is it OK to have dreams about what you want to be? Close your eyes a minute. I
want you to think about a character that you could write about and all the things they
could do. Does everyone have a picture in your head? I want you to go back and write
about that character. Next week we are going to read a book, one of my favorites. I’m
going to give you some help. Sometimes writers brainstorm. We have done it before on
the balloon things. I’m going to show you how to do it on just a scratch piece of paper.
Go back to your desks.”
[students moved back to their desks and Helen walked to the front of the room towards
the Elmo document camera.]
H: “I’m going to show you really quick, how to brainstorm. This is really easy. [She
went to get a piece of paper.] “I’m going to come up with some things that I want my
readers to know about. I want my readers to get a good idea of what my character is
going to be like. Now, I’m going to draw 5 bubbles. [she drew five circles on the paper
under the document camera]. “I’m going to do 6 because I have room for them. [she drew
one more circle on the paper]. “These are for all my thoughts so I don’t forget them. The
first thing I want my character to be is funny. [she wrote the word funny in the first
circle]. “I want my character to be brave. What does brave mean? I want them to be brave
176
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
like a firefighter. Do they have to be brave to go in there?” [she then wrote the word
brave in the second circle]. “I want my character to be kind. They will help others
around them.” [she wrote the word kind in the third circle]. “Let’s see what else could I
have with my character? Smart! My character is smart” [she wrote the word smart in the
fourth circle]. “What can they do that is smart? Student #19.”
Student #19: “They can read brains.”
CS: “I didn’t say a super hero. What else could they do? Maybe my character could be
creative [she wrote the word creative in the fifth circle]. Do you kind of get the idea
about how to brainstorm? I am going to give you about 30 minutes to write today. If you
finish, you can work on word work, read your book or look back over some of your
stories to add more to them. OK. Gold, go get the supplies that you need.”
177
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
APPENDIX E
Example of Researcher’s Reflective Journal
178
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
APPENDIX F
Example of Participant’s Reflective Journal
179
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
APPENDIX G
E-mail Message to Principals
180
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
APPENDIX H
Informed Consent Form
What is this project studying?
We invite you to take part in a research study. The title is, “Honing the Art and
Craft of Writing Instruction: Teachers’ Journeys in Implementing Writer’s Workshop.”
Dr. Kathryn Button of the College of Education at Texas Tech University is the primary
researcher. Betty Coneway, a doctoral student, will conduct this study. She can be
reached at (806) 364-4021 or (806) 679-1949.
The purpose of the research is to help learn how teachers use information from
staff development on Writer’s Workshop. This research will look at how teachers make
decisions about teaching writing. It will explore how teachers’ feelings about writing
influence their writing instruction. What we discover may help us learn to teach writing
better. The results may also help inform decisions about staff development activities.
What would I do if I participate?
If you would like to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a page
about your teaching background. You will be asked to let Mrs. Coneway watch in your
classroom four times during your writer’s workshop. Each observation will last for 30 –
45 minutes. The observations will be conducted over a 7-week time frame. Mrs.
Coneway will type notes during the observations and later import the typed documents to
her home computer. You may review these notes and make changes at any time.
Mrs. Coneway will conduct four interviews with you during this study. During
these interviews, you will be asked to answer questions about the study. For example,
you might be asked to tell how you teach writing. Mrs. Coneway will pose questions to
help you think about a topic. If there is a question that you do not want to answer, just let
her know and she will move on to the next question. Mrs. Coneway may contact you to
clarify your answers. All interviews will be audio recorded and transcribed.
You will be asked to allow Mrs. Coneway to look at copies of your lesson plans
for writer’s workshop. She will ask to see copies of your writing notes or conference
logs. She may also examine samples of your students’ writing. To ensure the privacy of
your students, you will be asked to de-identify any student writing samples before giving
them with Mrs. Coneway. Students will be referred to only by their assigned number
throughout this study. All of the information you share will be kept private.
You will also be asked keep a journal to record your thoughts about this study. In
the journal, you can record your ideas even if the researcher is not present. You will be
one of 4 participants who will take part in this research study.
181
Texas Tech University, Betty Coneway, May 2013
Can I quit if I become uncomfortable?
Yes. Dr. Button, Betty Coneway, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) have
carefully reviewed the plans for this study. They believe it will not be harmful to you in
any way. However, you may stop participating at any time. If you quit, the recordings of
your interviews and observations will be erased. Any materials you have shared will be
returned to you. Participating is always your choice.
How long will participation take?
Each interview and observation will last between 30 – 45 minutes. Therefore,
about 6 hours of your time will be needed. This time will be spread out during the 7
weeks of the study.
Risks: There are no risks beyond the risks of everyday life.
Benefits: By participating, you may help others learn to teach writing better. Your ideas
may help staff development activities be more beneficial to teachers.
How are you protecting my privacy?
Neither your name nor your students’ names will appear anywhere in the paper
written about this study. Materials you share will be stored in a locked file drawer at the
researcher's house. The audio files of your interviews and notes from the observations
will be kept on the researcher's personal home computer in a password protected account.
All audio files of the interviews will be erased after the transcript has been typed. Once
the typed observation notes have been transferred to the secure home computer, they will
be deleted from the laptop.
Subjects’ Rights:
Dr. Kathryn Button will answer any questions you have about this study. You can
call her at (806)742-1997 or email her at [email protected]. If you have questions,
you can also ask the IRB Coordinator of the Texas Tech University Institutional Review
Board. You can call 806-742-2064 or contact the Texas Tech University Institutional
Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, Office of the Vice President for
Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409.
By signing this sheet, it means that you have read the information. You understand what is being
asked of you. You would like to participate in this research study.
Signature____________________________________________________ Date_____________
Printed name __________________________________________________________________
This consent form is not valid after March 31, 2013.
182