A SURVEY OF WRITING INSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSROOMS

This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 22 November 2014, At: 18:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading PsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

A SURVEY OF WRITINGINSTRUCTION INELEMENTARY LANGUAGEARTS CLASSROOMSKathryn L. Laframboise a & Janell Klesius aa University of South FloridaPublished online: 15 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Kathryn L. Laframboise & Janell Klesius (1993) A SURVEY OFWRITING INSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSROOMS, ReadingPsychology, 14:4, 265-284

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/027027193140401

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/027027193140401

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A SURVEY OF WRITING INSTRUCTIONIN ELEMENTARY LANGUAGE ARTSCLASSROOMS

KATHRYN L. LAFRAMBOISE and JANELL KLESIUS,University of South Florida

Abstract

The purpose of the study was (1) to determine to what extent children,in a large southern state, are given opportunities to engage in processwriting, and (2) to determine whether teachers have incorporatedactivities and strategies supported by current research findings onprocess writing into their language arts programs. A survey ofteachers in randomly selected counties was conducted to determineand analyze the following information:

1. sources of content and instructional materials used in thelanguage arts curriculum.

2. organizational patterns used in language arts instruction.3. time spent in various types of writing.4. time spent in each of the stages of process writing.

Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 14:265-284, 1993 265Copyright © 1993 Taylor & Francis0270-2711/93 $10.00 + .00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

266 K. L. LAFRAMB01SE AND J. KLESIUS

Data collected from the surveys indicated a textbook orientation tolanguage instruction, small amounts of time spent in prewriting orwriting activities, and a preference for teacher-controlled writingprocesses, such as teacher selection of writing topics and teacherediting of student writing. Factors that mitigate for or against thechange process and models for teacher inservice that facilitate newinstructional practices are discussed.

Introduction

Research to determine the process children use as they write wasinitiated by Emig in 1971. She was guided by the premise that thereare elements, moments, and stages within the composing processwhich can be distinguished and characterized. Using case studies ofeight twelfth grade students, she found that while prewriting andplanning were used by individuals in self-sponsored writing, little orno time was provided for them during school-sponsored writing. Thestudies also revealed that students did not voluntarily make revisionsin their writing.

After this landmark study, other researchers began to explore thecomposing process used by children at various grade levels (Bean,1974/1975; Biberstine, 1977; Graves, 1973; Keeney, 1975/1976;Metzger, 1976; Mischel, 1974; Sawkins, 1974; Stallard, 1974).Graves (1973) was the first to study the writing processes used byyoung average-ability children (mean age of seven years and sevenmonths). He observed that high percentage of unassigned writingoccurred in informal classrooms and that children's behavior whilewriting could be classified as reactive or reflective.

Grave's book entitled "Writing: Teachers and Children at Work,"published in 1983, informed elementary teachers how to put researchfindings on the writing process into practice. As elementary teachersbegan to use process writing, numerous books and workshopsprovided suggestions for implementing process writing. By 1988 thewhole language philosophy of instruction advocated the integration of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

LANGUAGE ARTS SURVEY 267

reading and writing and embraced writing as a means of developingchildren's understanding of the alphabetic principle. Goodman (1986)stated that children would learn the alphabetic principle through themanipulation of writing.

It appears that the stage has been set for a change in the language artsprogram. A look into classrooms today might reveal a large amountof writing going on during language arts as well as throughout theschool day. Writing activities would grow out of thematic units,student self-select topics, and teachers use textbooks as referencesources rather than as curriculum guides. Workbook and otherseatwork exercises would play a minor role.

The purpose of this study was (1) to determine to what extentchildren, in a large southern state, are given opportunities to engage inprocess writing, and (2) to determine whether teachers haveincorporated activities and strategies supported by current researchfindings on process writing into their language arts programs. Asurvey was conducted to determine and analyze the followinginformation:

1. sources of content and instructional materials used inthe language arts curriculum.

2. organizational patterns used in language artsinstruction.

3. time spent in various types of writing.4. time spent in the stages of process writing.

Method

Sample

A random sample of the 67 counties in the state was taken. In spite ofthe large range in the counties' school populations (833 to 253,720),the distribution does not approximate a normal curve. The median forthe 67 counties is 9,970. The mean is 25,678; 16 counties have schoolpopulations above the mean, and 53 counties are below the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

268 K. L. LAFRAMBOISE AND J. KLESIUS

mean. Counties were stratified to insure that counties of differentsizes would be represented in the sample. The researchers made theassumption, based on their experiences working in the schools, thatdifferent factors influence the implementation of curriculum incounties of different sizes. Some of these factors include the county'sproximity to a university, whether the county is within the mainstreamof publishing companies, and the presence or absence ofreading/language arts supervisors or staff development personnelwithin the county. Additionally, the state department of education hadprovided grant money to state universities to provide inservicetraining to the counties. Although funding was provided for allcounties, availability of university personnel for teacher training andexpenses related to the inservice were influenced by the counties'distance from a state university.

The following determinations were made after examining a rankordering by school population.

1. Large counties have school populations over 80,000.2. Counties with school populations between 40,000 and

80,000 were excluded from the sample.3. Medium counties have school populations between

20,000 and 40,000.4. Counties with school populations between 10,000 and

20,000 were excluded from the sample.5. Small counties have school populations under 10,000.

Two groups of counties were excluded between the strata to createdistinct categories by size. Table I reports the number and size of thecounties in each stratum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 1Selection of Sample

Category Range N nLarge 88,866-253,720 7 5Excluded counties 41,829 - 61,391 5Medium 21,541 - 37,708 9 6Excluded counties 10,190 - 19,832 12Small 833 - 9,970 34 7

Counties and schools were randomly selected from each stratum usinga table of random numbers. School principals were identified throughthe state directory of schools and contacted by letter to ask assistancein having the surveys completed. In some instances an individualknown by one of the researchers through the state reading associationwas contacted to disperse the surveys to several schools in the schooldistrict. Five large counties, six medium counties, and seven smallcounties were surveyed. An assumption was made that smallercounties would have smaller schools; therefore, more small countiesand fewer large counties were surveyed in an attempt to balance thenumber of survey responses across counties. A reminder letter wassent to schools that did not respond. Response rate was 72.2%.Surveys were received from five large counties (n=116), four mediumcounties (n=76), and four small counties (n=95), for a total of 287.

Survey

The survey asked teachers to self-report on the organization of thelanguage arts curriculum within individual classrooms, sources ofcurriculum content, and types and time allotments of writingactivities. The survey was initially drafted by the researchers andreviewed by faculty in the reading/language arts department of theuniversity. Revisions were made based on the feedback from thereviews. The survey was then pilot tested with 18 classroom teachersenrolled in a master's level language arts course. These teacherstaught in kindergarten through grade 6 and brought to the survey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


experiences and viewpoints representative of elementary schoolteachers. Teachers were asked to answer the survey questions andwrite comments about items that were ambiguous or did not reflectactual classroom practice. The feedback from content specialists andfrom classroom teachers was considered an efficient way of gainingoutsider viewpoints on the content of the survey and the clarity ofitems within time and cost restraints. The final survey contained 19items and took 10-15 minutes to complete. (See Appendix).

In October, a letter explaining the purposes of the survey and askingfor participation in the project was sent to the contact person in eachcounty. A month later a packet of 25 surveys was sent and distributedto faculty teaching grades K through 6. Teachers responded on avoluntary basis. Reminder letters were sent in January to schools thathad not returned the surveys.

Surveys supplied the following information:

1. demographic information on the teacher and school.2. organizational patterns of language arts programs.3. amount of time allotted to reading and language arts.4. sources of content and instructional materials.5. amounts of time spent on various types of writing and

prewriting activities.6. descriptions of various components of the writing

process.7. amount of time spent on textbook, workbook, and

worksheet exercises.

Results

Surveys were returned by 287 teachers in 23 schools in 13 counties.Twenty-two kindergarten, 39 first grade, 59 second grade, 57 thirdgrade, 45 fourth grade, 48 fifth grade, and 17 sixth grade teachersresponded. Some chose not to answer certain questions on the survey,so some questions have an n of less than 287.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Teacher and Organizational Descriptions

Of the 273 who provided information on years of teaching experience,32.6 (n=89) had taught five or fewer years, 18.7% (n=51) six to tenyears, 31.9% (n=87) 11 to 20 years, and 16.8% (n=46) more than 20years.

Teachers were asked to describe the organizational set-up of theirlanguage arts instruction. 6.4% (n=18) of the teachers wrote that thecomponents of language arts instruction, e.g., reading, writing,grammar, spelling, and handwriting, were taught by more than oneteacher. In 23.0% (n=65) of the classes, one teacher was responsiblefor the language arts instruction but the components were taught indifferent time blocks. An additional 21.6% (n=61) described theirlanguage arts instruction as occurring during a single block of time,although the instruction of the several components was separate.Language arts instruction was taught within a single block of time andwith the components integrated by 45.2% (n=128) of the teachers. Inthis organizational set-up, the children's reading materials and theirown writing provide the content for spelling, grammar, andhandwriting instruction. Finally, 3.9% (n=l l ) of the teachersindicated that instruction was organized in some other manner, such asin theme units throughout the day.

Determination of Curriculum Content

Teachers were asked to report how the content of language artsinstruction in their classrooms was determined. Teachers usuallyindicated more than one choice. The county-adopted text determinedthe content of the language arts curriculum in 81.18% of theclassrooms, while 41.11% of the teachers reported county-developedmaterials and state and/or county lists of objectives as a primarydeterminer. A small percentage of teachers (7.67%) indicated othersources of content, such as theme units and students' needs andinterests. Teachers' responses reflected the responsibility the countiesand state have taken in directing what is taught in individual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


classrooms, but 65.51% of the teachers also reported they had a majorrole in determining language arts content. The latter finding probablyindicates that although directives are imposed from outside theclassroom, many teachers believe they still have choices to make.

Implementation of Curriculum Content

Teachers were asked what they used to implement the curriculumonce it had been determined. Again, textbooks were a major influenceon classroom instruction with 72.47% of the teachers reporting thattextbooks were the main resource they used for language instruction.Process writing was also reported as primary to instruction in themajority of the classrooms (see Table 2). Process writing wasdescribed for the teachers as writing in which students engaged in fivesteps: prewriting, draft, revision, editing, and publishing. All writingdoes not have to go through each of the steps. For instance, thejournals described in the survey are examples of prewriting duringwhich students may develop ideas and rehearse language for writingbut are not themselves edited or published. Computers were used forskill drill and practice in slightly less than half of the classrooms, butthe use of computers for word processing was dramatically less(16.72%).

Table 2Percentage of Teachers Using Various Instructional Materials as aPrimary Source of Curriculum Content

Material PercentageLanguage arts textbook 72.47Workbook 39.025-step writing process 62.24Computer/skills practice 45.64Computer/word processing 16.72Other 5.23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Time Spent on Writing Activities

Teachers reported that an average of 122.75 minutes per day wereallocated to reading and language arts instruction. Teachers estimatedhow many minutes per week were spent in various prewriting andwriting activities. Weekly averages were considered a more accurateindicator since many teachers in the pilot study said their classes didnot engage in all types of writing each day. Table 3 reports theaverage amount of time students spend in various types of writing.Survey questions categorized three types of writing. Journals and logsare personal and dialogue journals, logs kept in content subject areas,reading response journals, and writing logs. Creative and expressiverefers to writing such as stories, poems, and personal letters. Afterexamining the data, we decided to report informative writing for onlygrades 2-6. While kindergarten and first grade teachers used othertypes of writing in their classrooms as frequently as did the uppergrade teachers, informative writing was rarely used. Including timesof the K-l teachers would have masked the information provided bythe 2-6 teachers.

Table 3Percentage of Teachers Reporting Time Spent in Writing Activities

Type of Writing

Range (min./wk.) Journals/Logs | Creative/Expressive | Informativea

0 24.47 10.84 31.565-15 19.50 19.93 19.11

30-45 20.92 24.23 26.2260-75 19.15 26.22 18.8890+ 15;% 1O8 8.44

Percentages reflect reports from teachers of grades 2-6 only.

Teachers estimated how much time they spend preparing students forwriting activities. Prewriting activities were classified as thosedeveloping vocabulary (e.g., listing or brainstorming words students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


will use in writing) and activities used to develop concepts andorganize ideas and relate ideas to prior experiences. Table 4 presentsthe amounts of time teachers estimated was spent in preparingstudents for the writing activities reported previously.

Table 4Percentage of Teachers Reporting Time Spent in Prewriting Activities

Range (min./wk.)0

5-1530-4560-7590+

Type of Prewriting

Development ofVocabulary

18.8825.1730.7717.837.34

Development ofIdeas19.7224.6528.1720.07

7.39

Data was grouped by county size. Differences were noted in theamounts of time spent in prewriting and writing. Students in smallcounties had noticeably fewer opportunities to write and to prepare forwriting than did students in either the medium or large counties (seeTable 5).

Table 5Comparison of Time Spent in Writing Activities by County Size

Activity Small CountyJournals/logsCreative/Expressive

WritingInformative WritingVocabulary

DevelopmentIdea Development

Seatwork

12.26

23.0310.59

14.9314.1344.37

Mean (min./wk.)

Medium County

41.15

57.9727.66

35.5739.4338.47

1 Large County

50.35

58.3930.09

42.2237.7839.13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Teachers reported the number of minutes per day their students spendin seatwork activities, such as workbooks, blackline masters,worksheets, and textbook exercises. The mean was 40.71 minutes perday, approximately one-third of the total time allocated to languageinstruction. The mean number of minutes per week spent in journalsand logs, creative and narrative writing, and informative writing are35.21, 46.45, and 22.93, respectively. Therefore, while some teachersfavored one type of writing over another, the means indicate thatapproximately twice as much time is spent in traditional seatworkactivities as in process writing activities, 203.55 minutes per weekcompared to 104.59.

Choices of Writing Topics and Types of Editing

The final section of the survey asked teachers to indicate how topicsare generated for student writing (see Table 6). Few teachersindicated that they "always" relied on one method. Teacher selectionof topics was the most frequent source of writing topics for students.Frequencies also indicated that most students seldom took part intopic selection, that is 81.63% sometimes or never selected from a list,and 65.71% sometimes or never self-generated topics.

Table 6Percentage of Teachers Reporting Freauencv of Use of Sources ofWriting Topic

Source

Teacher-selectedText exercisesStudents select from

listSelf-generated by

students

Always

3.532.10

.71

4.24

Frequency

Frequently

44.5225.52

17.68

30.04

Sometimes

39.9345.80

45.94

51.59

Never

12.0126.57

35.69

14.13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Editing is an essential part of the writing process. Many respondentsindicated that they used more than one type of editing with theirstudents (see Table 7). The two most popular types of editing wereboth teacher-directed: 42.40% of the teachers always or frequentlyedited student work and then returned it for rewriting, and 43.96%always or frequently conducted teacher-student conferences to discussneeded changes. Peer editing was the least frequently used form ofediting, with almost half of the teachers indicating that their studentsnever engaged in it.

Table 7Percentage of Teachers Reporting Frequency of Use of Types ofEditing

TypesStudents self-editTeacher editsTeacher-student

conferencePeer editing

Always

11.4712.01

13.196.05

Frequency

Frequently15.7730.39

30.7714.95

Discussion

Organization and Sources of the Curriculum

Sometimes40.8631.45

32.9730.96

Never31.9026.15

23.0848.04

While approximately half of the teachers in the survey indicated thattheir classrooms were organized so that language arts and readinginstruction were integrated, 81.8% of the teachers reported that thelanguage arts textbook was a major source of curriculum-content.This lack of consistency may indicate confusion about whatintegration entails. Some responders may have equated allocation of asimultaneous time block with integration of reading and language arts.The holistic approach to literacy instruction involves the mutualsupport of reading, writing, and oral language within the context of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


authentic language. The strong focus on textbook use by teachers inthe survey raises the concern that the primary emphasis in writing isstill on grammar, print conventions, and activities isolated from real-life language experiences.

Several problems result from this textbook orientation to language artsinstruction. Allington (1991) states that cognitive confusion ariseswhen the various aspects of language are taught separately. Theconfusion is the result of the fragmentation of the literacy curriculum.Fragmentation occurs, for example, when there is one focus forphonics in spelling and another for phonics in reading, or when thereis one spelling list derived from a textbook with other spelling needsdeveloping during writing lessons. Most teachers have witnessedexamples of cognitive confusion when students spell words correctlyon the weekly spelling test while spelling the same words incorrectlyin other writing tasks.

A second problem is the lack of reinforcement when the various areasof language arts are not integrated. For example, when spellinglessons grow out of needs expressed in writing activities, students aremore likely to see the reason for correct spelling. Since the studentsare also using strategies within real contexts, they have immediateopportunities to practice and internalize the strategies. Skills taught inthis manner are an outgrowth of students' needs and are on anappropriate level of difficulty.

Teaching isolated writing skills and grammar also takes away fromtime that could be more productively used to develop writing fluency.Children become fluent writers by writing in much the same way theylearn to speak fluently by talking. Students learn by what they do.Allington ( 1991 ) points out that tasks focusing on language at theword level or on the mechanics of writing do not foster fluency.While larger amounts of writing do not guarantee higher quality,extended writing experiences offer more opportunities to practicestrategies and skills and provide a context for literacy development(Rueda, 1991).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Time Spent in Writing and Types of Activities Selected

In spite of the importance of developing vocabulary and exploringideas during the prewriting stage, teachers did not devote substantialtime to these essential processes. Approximately one-fifth reported notime spent in vocabulary or idea expansion. Only about 25% saidmore than 10 minutes per week was used for vocabulary developmentand slightly less than 30% spent more than 10 minutes per weekdiscussing and organizing ideas before writing.

Teachers were asked how much time was spent in actual writingactivities. Although there is evidence that reading and writing ofinformation may tap into early literacy experiences of many childrenfrom culturally diverse groups better than story writing (Heath, 1983,Heath & Branscombe, 1985), we did not include the reports by K-lteachers of informative writing because its limited use masked thedistribution of times in grades 2-6. Nevertheless, informative writingwas used more than 10 minutes per week in only 27% of classrooms,while over 30% said they never used this text structure in their writingactivities.

Times reported by teachers may have, in fact, overstated the amountof writing that occurs in the classroom. The researchers collectedsurveys using schools identified through the state directory andthrough contact persons in the state reading association. Surveyresults from the two groups were examined for differences becausereading association contact persons might distribute surveys toexemplary schools. Systematic differences were not noted. Cautionin accepting the times reported by all teachers, however, must be usedsince desirable behaviors targeted on surveys tend to be overreportedby respondents (Borg & Gall, 1983).

Mismatch Between Stated Curriculum and Classroom Practice

While there appears to be a strong research and theoretical basis forrestructuring the language arts program and the guidelines for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


facilitating that restructuring are available, we have learned thatchange isn't always the result. Sometimes there is only a loose fitbetween county or state level guidelines and the curriculum actuallyimplemented in the classroom.

Ruddell and Sperling (1988) discussed four factors that mitigate for oragainst change in the classroom. First, they determined that thechange should not conflict with the knowledge and beliefs the teacheralready possesses. Process writing has been implemented in manycounties using a massive effort at staff development through inservice,workshops, and conferences. These formats may be inadequate forhelping teachers make the transition from theory to practice becauseof their limited time-frame and setting away from the classroom.Teachers need solid reasons for engaging students in extensive writingactivities (e.g., to develop understanding of the alphabetic principle,phonemic awareness, writing fluency, reading vocabulary andcomprehension, and spelling ability). A firm grasp of the rationaleand conceptual framework of literacy development helps teachersmake sound instructional decisions during the difficult transitionstages. The disparity in prewriting and writing times among thecounties may reflect this factor. Differences noted in the amounts oftime spent in prewriting and writing in small versus medium or largecounties may be accounted for, at least in part, by the availability ofresources for staff development. Counties closer to universities and/ormetropolitan areas may be better able to meet inservice needs as anon-going process while outlying districts may have to rely more onworkshops and conference attendance.

Second, Ruddell and Sperling (1988) state that the change must beseen as preferable to available alternatives. Because of the distinctnature of many of the new curricula, e.g., process writing, literature-based reading programs, and whole language instruction, teachers mayfeel uncomfortable with the mismatch they perceive between the newcurricula and the more traditional methods of accountability.Language arts textbooks may be seen as a closer match to the formatof standardized tests and other measures used to evaluate students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Third, the complexity of the new cognitive structure should not makeit difficult to implement (Ruddell & Sperling, 1988). Theimplementation of process writing is multi-leveled. Understandingand integrating prewriting strategies, conferencing, revising andediting demands, and peer interactions for process writing arecomplicated indeed. Added to this are the difficulties teachersencounter while making change, any change within the classroom.This aspect of instruction is often misunderstood. Answers to surveyquestions on editing and topic selection indicated teachers preferred toremain as the locus of control during process writing. Responses mayreflect concerns with classroom management. Whenever groups mustbegin new procedures, the period of transition is marked by increasedactivity and noise levels. Because process writing and many of theactivities associated with integrated literacy development arecharacterized by interactions among students, classrooms have moreactivity and oral language than classrooms with more traditional typesof language arts instruction. Without a firm understanding of what isexpected during transition, teachers may retreat to the comfort of triedand true teaching practices rather than accept a period of agitation asnormal and necessary for growth.

A fourth factor complicating the change process is the neededopportunities to observe and practice the new method before making afull commitment. Ruddell & Sperling (1988) report that the mostsuccessful staff development models provide opportunities forteachers to observe new practices modeled, try out the new strategieswith feedback from both instructors and peers, and observe otherteachers who are implementing the innovations. This network ofsupport from colleagues enables teachers to develop a theoreticalmodel of literacy development and to understand the stages oftransition from which informed instructional decisions can be made.

This study suggests that we have made strides in implementingprocess writing in classrooms. However, it also indicates a need tosearch for effective inservice models that better facilitate puttingtheory into practice. Problem solving with peers while making

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


innovations may be critical. Alternative strategies can be identifiedfor other groups of students, for various classroom contexts, and forsmoother implementation of the innovations. Input from peersstrengthens teachers' resolve to continue working through problemsand to create a dynamic model for change.

References

Allington, R. L. (1991). Children who find learning to read difficult:School responses to diversity. In E. H. Helbert (Ed.), Literacy fora diverse society: Perspectives. Practices, and Policies (pp. 237-252). New York: Teachers College Press.

Bean, A. S. (1974/1975). A descriptive study of creative writing atthe junior high school level (Doctoral dissertation, BrighamYoung University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International.36, 5802A.

Biberstine, R. D. (1977). A study of selected areas of teacherinfluence upon the written composition of fourth grade students.Language Arts. 54, 791-2.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders (ReportNo. 13). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Graves, D. L. (1973). Children's writing: Research directions andhypotheses based on an examination of the writing processes ofseven year old children (Doctoral dissertation, State University ofNew York at Buffalo) Dissertation Abstracts International. 34,6255A.

Graves, D. L. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work.Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Wavs with words. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Heath, S. B., & Branscombe, A. (1985). Intelligent writing in anaudience community: Teacher, students, and researcher. In S.Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language (pp. 3-32).Norwood, N.J: Ablex.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Keeney, M. L. (1975/1976). An investigation of what intermediate-grade children say about the writing of stories (Doctoraldissertation, Lehigh University, 1975). Dissertation AbstractsInternational. 36, 5802A.

Metzger, E. (1976). The composing process of students in gradeseven, grade ten, and college. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the New York State English Council. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 132 589.

Mischel, T. (1974). A case study of a twelfth-grade writer. Researchin the Teaching of English. 8, 303-314.

Ruddell, R. B., & Sperling, M. (1988). Factors influencing the use ofliteracy research by the classroom teacher: Research review andnew directions. In J. E. Readance & R. S Baldwin (Eds.),Dialogues in literacy research (pp. 319-329). Chicago, IL:National Reading Conference.

Rueda, R. (1991). Characteristics of literacy programs for language-minority students. In E. H. Heibert (Ed.) Literacy for a diversesociety: Perspectives. Practices, and Policies (pp. 93-107). NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Sawkins, M. (1974). The oral responses of selected fifth gradechildren to questions concerning their written expression.Elementary English. 54(1), 145-147.

Stallard, C. K. (1974). An analysis of the writing behavior of goodstudent writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 206-218.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Appendix

Teacher Survey

School Grade Level

School Address County

Tears Teaching

FOR EACH QUESTION. INDICATE THE RESPONSE THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR CLASSROOM PROGRAM.AAAAAAAAXAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

1. How Is your present language arts program organized? (Choose the best descriptor.)

Reading and language arts are taught by different teachers.

Reading, writing, and spelling are taught by the same teacher but in separate

time blocks.

^_^__ Reading, writing and spelling are scheduled in the same time block but

instruction is separate.

Reading, writing, and spelling lessons are integrated.

Other. Please describe.

2. If reading and language arts are taught separately, how much time is spent on eachcomponent per day?

Reading: 15 min. 30 min. 45 min. 1 hr. 1-1/2 hrs. 2 hrs.

Lang Arts: 15 min. 30 min. 45 min. 1 hr. 1-1/2 hrs. 2 hrs.

3. If reading and language arts are integrated, how long is the total block of time?

1 hr. 1-1/2 hrs. 2 hrs. 2-1/2 hrs. 3 hrs. Other

FOR QUESTIONS « AND 5 CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.

4. What determines the primary content of the language arts curriculum?

Adopted text County-developed instructional materials

Teacher Other. Please describe.

5. What type of instructional materials do you use for teaching language arts?

language arts text

language arts workbook

curricular materials that use a 5-step writing process (prewriting,

drafting, revising, editing, publishing)

Computer-assisted materials:

programs that provide practice in basic skills

word processing programs

Other. Please describe.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Appendix, Continued

6. During the average week, how much time is spent on Hours par weekstudent-generated writing in reading/language artsblock and the content subject areas? other

journals/learning logs 1/4 1/2 1 1-1/2

creative/expressive writing (other than journals) 1/4 1/2 1 1-1/2--stories, poetry, etc.

informative writing (other than learning logs) 1/4 1/2 1 1-1/2-•essays, reports', etc.

7. During the average week, how much time is spent Hours Tier weekon the following writing-related activities?

other

prewriting activities to develop vocabulary to be 1/4 1/2 1 1-1/2used on a specific writing assignment

prewriting activities to develop ideas for a 1/4 1/2 1 ' 1-1/2specific writing assignment

FOR QUESTIONS 8 AND 9, USE THE FOLLOWING TZHE SCALE TO INDICATE HOW FREQUENTLY EACH

TYPE OF INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY IS USED.

1 - AIVAYS 2 - FREQUENTLY 3 - SOMETIMES 4 - NEVER.

8. How do students in your classes identify a topic for writing?

teacher-selected

text exercises

students choose from preselected list

student-generated topic

9. How is editing of student writing accomplished?

Students edit own work.

Teacher edits student writing and returns to student for revisions.

Teacher edits writing with student during conference.

Students peer edit.

10. During the average day, how much time do students spend completing exercises(textbook, boardwork, workbook, worksheets) during the language arts block?

15 min. 30 min. 45 min. 1 hr. 1-1/2 hrs. 2 hrs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

18:

01 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

A SURVEY OF WRITING INSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSROOMS