Approaches to Writing 2011

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    1/24

    This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES]On: 24 June 2014, At: 07:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

    Pedagogies: An International JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and

    subscription information:

    http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hped20

    Approaches to writing instructionSarah J. McCarthey

    a& Yeon Sun (Ellie) Ro

    b

    aDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction , College of

    Education, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign ,

    Champaign, IL, USA

    bInstruction Curriculum Leadership, College of Education,University of Memphis , Memphis, TN, USA

    Published online: 09 Sep 2011.

    To cite this article:Sarah J. McCarthey & Yeon Sun (Ellie) Ro (2011) Approaches to writing

    instruction, Pedagogies: An International Journal, 6:4, 273-295

    To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2011.604902

    PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

    Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content

    should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

    This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

    and-conditions

    http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2011.604902http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hped20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2011.604902http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hped20
  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    2/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal

    Vol. 6, No. 4, OctoberDecember 2011, 273295

    Approaches to writing instruction

    Sarah J. McCartheya*and Yeon Sun (Ellie) Rob

    aDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, University of Illinois atUrbanaChampaign, Champaign, IL, USA; bInstruction Curriculum Leadership, College of

    Education, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

    (Received 2 July 2009; final version received 19 March 2010)

    The study investigated 29 third- and fourth-grade teachers from four US states tounderstand their approaches to writing instruction and influences on their instruction.

    Through classroom observations and interviews with teachers, the authors identifiedfour approaches to writing instruction: writers workshop, traditional skills, genre-basedinstruction and hybrid/eclectic. The data demonstrate that process writing in the formof writers workshop and traditional skills instruction are still occurring in schools.However, the study showed a newer trend in writing instruction many teachersare using graphic organizers and attending to specific genres. The study showedthat professional development and state standards are major influences on teachersinstruction.

    Keywords: writing; instruction; teachers

    Introduction

    Studies from different theoretical frameworks have examined childrens writing processes,

    the development of genre in young children and the social contexts that support writing

    (Bazerman, 2008; Chapman, 2006). Despite the continued interest in research on writing,

    the National Commission on Writing in American Schools and Colleges (2003) found that

    writing is the neglected R and that there is a lack of a comprehensive policy on writ-

    ing, not enough time devoted to writing, inadequate assessment of writing and not enough

    professional development. The Commission has made recommendations that include com-

    prehensive policies to support writing, the need for standards, integration of technology

    and professional development. Applebee and Langer (2009) examined current trends in

    student achievement, amount of writing, technology use and professional development for

    English teachers at the middle and high-school levels using the National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) data. They suggest that on-demand writing for assessment

    purposes does not align with instruction that emphasizes process writing and revision.

    In the light of the Commissions call for school reform and the findings of Applebee and

    Langer for secondary students, it is important to understand the types of writing instruc-

    tion that occur at the elementary level, where laying the foundation of writing strategies

    and motivation for writing is essential. As Applebee and Langer noted, the context of

    schooling in the United States has changed with the federal legislation ofNo Child Left

    Behind (NCLB; US Department of Education, 2001) and the emphasis on standards and

    *Corresponding author. Email:[email protected]

    ISSN 1554-480X print/ISSN 1554-4818 online

    2011 Taylor & Francis

    DOI: 10.1080/1554480X.2011.604902

    http://www.informaworld.com

    mailto:[email protected]://www.informaworld.com/http://www.informaworld.com/mailto:[email protected]
  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    3/24

    274 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    assessment. It is important to understand how these policies have influenced elementary

    teachers writing instruction. The focus of this study was to document the practices of

    a small sample of elementary teachers to understand their approaches to writing instruc-

    tion and the factors that influenced their instruction. The research questions that guided

    the study were (a) What approaches to writing instruction are teachers from selected

    classrooms using in the United States? (b) What are the influences on teachers writing

    instruction? and (c) What patterns occur across teachers and schools?

    To frame the study, the literature review begins with a focus on trends in writing instruc-

    tion such as the process approach and its critics who have argued that more attention needs

    to be paid to strategies for teaching writing, the role of genre and the social context in which

    writing occurs. Because shifting policy contexts have the potential to influence teachers

    writing instruction, a brief review of the consequences of NCLB including the development

    of state standards and mandated curricula are reviewed. The Methods section delineates

    the demographics of the 29 participating teachers and the ways in which the observa-

    tional and interview data were collected and analysed to understand teachers instruction

    and influences on their practices. The findings are presented under two major themes: (a)approaches to writing instruction, which identifies four different categories of teachers with

    exemplars from each; and (b) influences on instruction, which focuses on the role of pro-

    fessional development and standards in teachers instruction. Patterns across teachers and

    schools are discussed, emphasizing the trend towards teachers in similar schools adopting

    similar practices.

    Writing instruction

    Several researchers in the field of writing (e.g. Cutler & Graham, 2008; Pollington, Wilcox,

    & Morrison, 2001) have characterized writing instruction as falling into two main cate-

    gories: traditional instruction and writing workshop (or process approaches for Cutler andGraham). Traditional instruction is typically based on textbooks or worksheets, organized

    around a series of skills defined by the teacher, and emphasizes grammar and conventions.

    Instruction is determined by the teacher and provided to the entire class. Students do not

    select topics and the audience is limited to the teacher. In contrast, writers workshops typ-

    ically begin with teachers sharing writing and providing a mini-lesson, based on what the

    teacher has determined students need, to the entire class or small groups. The students

    work independently, with peers or with the teacher in any phases of the writing process

    (pre-writing, drafting, revising). Students choose their own topics and genres and may be

    involved in a variety of activities including teacherstudent or peer conferences (Pollington

    et al., 2001).

    Process approaches

    Definitions about what constitutes a process approach to writing have been debated

    (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006). For example, some see process writing as steps in creating

    a text that involves pre-writing, drafting and revising; others view process writing as a set

    of theories, procedures and activities to accomplish writing (Cramer, 2001). Despite this

    lack of consensus, Boscolo (2008) claimed that consistent features of process approaches

    include minimizing lectures and allowing small-group work; motivating children to write

    about topics they choose; viewing the teacher as an audience who provides feedback rather

    than as an evaluator; and encouraging a social dimension. Boscolos characterization ofprocess approaches is consistent with Pollington et al.s (2001) description of writing work-

    shops. Calkins (1986) and Graves (1994) are the best known proponents of the writing

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    4/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal 275

    workshop model that includes writing for real audiences, developing revision strategies

    and sharing work with peers. Conventions are taught through mini-lessons and within the

    context of students own writing; the teachers role is to organize the workshop and provide

    support for individual writers. As teaching strategies for writing workshops were refined,

    many teachers across the United States began to implement aspects of the workshop

    (Dahl & Farnan, 1998). Applebee and Langer (2009) found that by 1992 process-oriented

    instruction had become conventional wisdom (p. 24) with over 71% of grade 8 teachers

    reporting it was a central part of their instruction. However, Hasit and Sullivan (1995) found

    that although many elementary teachers talked about using more child-centred practices

    such as writing process, workshop strategies were not widely used. Yet, some teachers are

    adding specific features such as collaborative conferences to their workshops to facilitate

    dialogue (Hsu, 2009). When evaluating the effectiveness of process-writing approaches,

    Pritchard and Honeycutt (2006) found that the approach has its weaknesses and is not

    a panacea, but may be a better approach for improving instruction than the traditional

    model.

    Various critics have challenged the process-writing approach based on research find-ings and conceptual grounds. For example, Smagorinsky (1987) reported that Graves

    discussion of effective writing practices based on 16 students was not researched, but

    a description of an approach to writing instruction that was effective only in a partic-

    ular setting. Delpit (1988), Reyes (1992) and Valds (1999) suggested that the lack of

    attention to explicit features of writing can result in students from diverse backgrounds

    being denied access to power. Newkirk and Tobin (1994) found that implementation has

    resulted in a view of writing as a rigid sequence of pre-writing, writing, and revision. In

    a fifth- and sixth-grade workshop, McCarthey (1994) found that the teacher emphasized

    personal narrative and valued certain students texts over those of other students from

    diverse backgrounds. Lensmire (1993) described differences in working-class and middle-class students responses to their peers writing; he suggested rethinking both the concept

    of voice and the practice of workshops to be more socially situated and responsive to

    issues of race, class and gender (Lensmire, 2000). Cope and Kalantzis (1993) claimed

    that the expression of personal voice that typifies process approaches reproduces inequities

    in power relations and recommended a genre approach to be explicit about the way lan-

    guage works. Others have claimed that students need more guided practice, an emphasis

    on tools and procedural facilitators to enhance cognitive processing and the establishment

    of a community of practice (Englert, Mariage, & Dunsmore, 2006). Critics of process-

    oriented classrooms suggest that instruction based on views that writers develop in natural

    stages is inadequate. They emphasized a need for scaffolding including strategy instruction,

    attention to genre and consideration of the role of social context in classrooms.

    Scaffolding and explicit strategy instruction

    Scaffolding, a term used by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) was derived from social con-

    structivist views that highlight the role of the adult in assisting younger or less expert

    learners to carry out tasks they cannot do independently. Rogoff (1990) suggested that

    scaffolding involved the adult breaking down the tasks into smaller ones while still ensur-

    ing the childs meaningful participation. Modelling, demonstrating, questioning or using

    dialogue are examples of instructional scaffolds that can assist young writers (Chapman,

    2006). Kamberelis and Bovino (1999) found that young children produced better textswhen they had support through scaffolding. However, the metaphor itself has been cri-

    tiqued for its misuse in schools such as supporting teachers intentions rather than students

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    5/24

    276 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    needs (Searle, 1984) and its emphasis on teachers unilateral, pre-planned actions instead

    of reciprocity (Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989). Dyson (1990) pointed out the limita-

    tions of the scaffolding metaphor, suggesting that weaving better describes how teachers

    can use young writers literacy resources to support their learning. However, scaffolding

    has persisted as a metaphor for instruction and several writing interventions have invoked

    it as an umbrella term that includes explicit strategies for planning, drafting and revis-

    ing. Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, &

    Stevens, 1991) included the teacher thinking aloud about planning, organizing, drafting

    and editing writing; joint construction of text with students; think sheets and other tools

    for assisting students; and graphic organizers for each genre. Concept-oriented reading

    instruction (Guthrie et al., 1996) was designed to help elementary students improve their

    texts and increase awareness of their composing processes. Research on strategy instruction

    has demonstrated positive effects on students strategy use, motivation and texts (Graham,

    2006; Raphael & Hiebert, 1996; Troia & Graham, 2002). The work on strategy instruc-

    tion highlighted the importance of scaffolding students understanding of composing and

    pointed to the increased use of writing in specific genres.

    Genre

    Rhetorical traditions that rely on classifications of text types persisted in the twentieth cen-

    tury with a particular emphasis in college and secondary classrooms (Britton, Burgess,

    Martin, McLeod, & Rosen, 1975). However, more social traditions have broadened the

    view of genre from solely text based to highlight the role of the reader (Rosenblatt,

    1938) and the community (Bakhtin, 1981). Cope and Kalantzis (1993) suggested that we

    move beyond the formalities of structures to see genres as texts in use, and Beach (2000)

    explained that current theories consider genres as tools to aid writers across activity sys-tems. However, research on childrens understanding of genre has suggested that it emerges

    as they experience different text types in their reading and writing. Primary grade children

    are able to write both narrative and non-narrative texts; direct teaching of narrative, expos-

    itory and poetic structures has helped elementary students understand genre (Donovan

    & Smolkin, 2002). Children as young as in the fourth grade can engage in argumenta-

    tive writing (Ferretti, Lewis, & Andrews-Weckerly, 2009). Older children have substantial

    knowledge about persuasive writing (McCann, 1989). However, Donovan and Smolkin

    (2006) pointed out that there are few studies of teachers instruction of particular genres

    within classrooms.

    Classroom contexts

    Research conducted from a social constructivist perspective has suggested that social

    contexts shape classroom activities and student learning (Lipson, Mosenthal, Daniels, &

    Woodside-Jiron, 2000). Dahl and Farnan (1998) found that students in a writers workshop

    environment wrote longer, more complex texts than students in a skills-based class-

    room who wrote in workbooks and did fill-in-the-blank activities. Gutierrez (1992) found

    that responsive/collaborative environments provided students with more opportunities to

    engage with one another in discussions and writing activities than recitative (traditional)

    classrooms. Dyson (2003) documented the ways in which students from a first-grade class-

    room represented their official (classroom) and unofficial (out of school) worlds in theirwriting through a Bakhtinian frame. By drawing extensively on popular culture such as

    sports, cartoons, rap music and other features of the media and through their interactions

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    6/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal 277

    with a small circle of friends, students developed complex texts that rearticulated their

    literate identities. Dyson (2006) highlighted the tensions between the official language

    of school and the first graders linguistic resources in their writing. McCarthey, Garca,

    Lopz-Velsquez, Lin, and Guo (2004) reported that the tasks, expectations and rules

    for governing interactions differ according to individual classroom contexts and influ-

    ence students views of audience and purpose for writing. Creating a sense of purpose

    and meaningfulness as well as coherence are hallmarks of teachers who create effective

    writing environments (Parr & Limbrick, 2010).

    Recent studies have used a critical frame to consider issues of race, social class,

    gender and ethnicity within classroom contexts. For example, Solsken, Willett, and Wilson-

    Keenan (2000) found that a Latina student interwove her home, school and peer languages

    in her writing to serve a variety of social and personal agendas. Lewison and Heffernan

    (2008) have provided opportunities for students to engage in critique of issues around race,

    class and gender in their writing workshops. Bomer and Bomer (2001) involved elemen-

    tary students in activities to identify problems within their communities, conduct research

    projects together and write to specific audiences to raise awareness of the community.Smagorinsky (2006) has noted the emergence of teacher research, multi-modal conceptions

    of composition, and family and community literacy as well as writing in the workplace and

    professions as important areas of writing research that have become increasingly impor-

    tant in the twenty-first century. However, it is not clear how pervasive these trends are in

    mainstream classrooms in the light of the changing political landscape in the United States.

    Changing contexts for writing instruction

    Applebee and Langer (2009) reported that not only have technologies for creating texts

    and resources for information shifted dramatically in the last 30 years, but also the con-

    texts of schooling have changed. An emphasis on standards and assessment has been part

    of increasing demands for accountability, and federal policies have shifted to prioritize

    reading and math over writing.

    Policy contexts

    During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the federal policy of NCLB was

    implemented. To receive federal funding, states were required to have academic content

    standards, administer standards-based assessments in reading-language arts and mathe-

    matics and employ a statewide accountability system (www.ed.gov.esea). The policies and

    related practices had a number of unintended consequences including lowering teachermorale (Darling-Hammond, 2007), affecting student learning and motivation (McCaslin,

    2006), narrowing the curriculum (Center on Education Policy, 2007) and limiting teach-

    ers abilities to address individual needs (Harper, Platt, Naranjo, & Boyton, 2007). The

    unintended consequences were particularly noticeable in low-income schools where teach-

    ers were narrowing their literacy curriculum in response to NCLB and suffered from low

    morale and fear of losing their jobs if their schools did not make Adequate Yearly Progress

    (AYP; McCarthey, 2008).

    State standards

    In response to policies such as NCLB, states have developed state standards to set goalsfor student learning and assessment. All 50 states have established language arts stan-

    dards; most have separate reading and writing standards. The writing standards include a

    http://www.ed.gov.esea/http://www.ed.gov.esea/
  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    7/24

    278 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    focus on purposes and audience, the writing process (drafting, revising, editing), orga-

    nization and structure and conventions. In addition, the standards in the states studied

    (Illinois, Utah, West Virginia and Vermont) also name specific genres such as narrative,

    expository, research or argumentative; however, they have varying degrees of emphasis

    on understanding genre as an objective. While many states have developed assessments to

    measure students progress in writing, the scores do not contribute to whether schools make

    AYP since only reading and math scores were considered through 2007. Although writing

    assessments do not directly affect schools accountability, the overall policy context of

    NCLB and state writing standards may affect teachers writing practices. Hillockss (2002)

    study of curriculum and testing in four states found that state standards and prompts in

    state writing tests influenced teachers instruction, restricting the types of assignments and

    the types of texts students wrote. Applebee and Langer (2009) suggested that high-stakes

    testing with their on-demand writing tasks may be restricting students opportunities to

    engage in revision processes and write more extended texts.

    Textbooks and materials

    As part of the move to meet state standards, many districts have adopted commercial read-

    ing and writing programmes; in many instances, these have been mandated for use with all

    students (Carbone & Orellana, 2010; Dutro, 2010). Textbook publishers have responded

    to increased demands for pragmatic approaches to the teaching of writing by offering

    instructional materials and professional development. For example, the National Center for

    Education and the Economy developed a writing programme, Americas Choice: Writers

    Advantage(Americas Choice School Network, n.d.), which offers a sequenced writing cur-

    riculum. Slavin and Maddens (2001)Success for allincludes a separate writing component

    along with its reading programme. The Six-Trait model (ideas, word choice, organization,voice, word choice, sentence fluency and conventions), which was developed by teach-

    ers from rubrics to score student work (Spandel, 2005), has been used as the basis for

    staff development programmes. Calkins et al. (2006) have developedUnits of study for

    primary writing with a focus on specific genres to provide systematic writing instruc-

    tion in grades K6. Specific techniques such as the four-square writing method (Gould

    & Gould, 1999) that are aligned with specific genres as well as state standards have also

    proliferated.

    Given the current policy context, the construction of new text materials and the emer-

    gence of state standards, it is important to document what types of writing instruction

    teachers are actually using in their classrooms. In their survey of 174 primary grade

    teachers writing practices, Cutler and Graham (2008) found that 72% of teachers used

    a process approach combined with a skills approach, 20% a process approach and 6%

    a skills approach. They also found that 65% of teachers did not use a commercial pro-

    gramme to teach writing, while 35% of teachers used commercial programmes that varied

    from teaching handwriting, to basal language arts programmes, to 6+1 traits. Teachers

    organized their instruction using mostly whole group, then small group, then individual-

    ized help. They allowed invented spelling and used graphic organizers, writing prompts and

    writing conferences. Teachers reported that they taught basic skills and focused on writing

    strategies including modelling and text organization. Although Cutler and Graham found

    that most teachers combined skills instruction and process writing, they noted that one of

    the limitations of their study is that they did not define traditional skills instruction or pro-cess writing. They also suggested that teachers did not apply each approach equally; that

    is, practices associated with traditional skills instruction occurred more often than those

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    8/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal 279

    associated with the process writing approach (p. 916). This study addresses some of the

    limitations of Cutler and Graham by providing examples of actual practices through obser-

    vations of teaching, examining the larger contexts of teachers practices through interviews

    and discussing some of the influences on the teaching of writing.

    Methods

    This study was part of a larger study examining teachers writing instruction in relation

    to NCLB (McCarthey, 2008). Twenty-nine 3rd- and 4th-grade teachers from four states

    participated in this study. The four states of Illinois, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia

    were selected because all had state standards and a state writing assessment. However,

    they represented diverse geographic settings; had different stances towards NCLB (e.g.

    Utah had considered opting out of the NCLB money on state versus federal government

    control issues); and had different histories of assessing writing (e.g. Vermont used portfo-

    lio assessment previous to NCLB). In addition, the researcher had contacts for recruiting

    teachers in each of the states. Third-grade teachers were selected because NCLB requiresstate testing of all students beginning in third grade. NAEP assessments and state-by-state

    comparisons begin at the fourth-grade level; thus, fourth grade has been a popular target

    for research (Allington & Johnston, 2002). Combining third- and fourth-grade teachers in

    a school provided a larger sample of teachers at each school.

    Selection process and participants

    The primary researcher selected districts and schools by first examining data provided by

    states on the Internet to look for contrasts in income levels. She contacted colleagues at

    universities and school districts to recommend schools that met the criteria of having a

    large number of students from either high- or low-income backgrounds. Next, she con-tacted districts with schools that had either a large percentage of students who were on

    free or reduced lunch (75% or more) or a lesser percentage of students on free or reduced

    lunch (25% or less) and explained the study to the district official who made decisions

    about research. Once the district personnel and principals agreed, all third- and fourth-

    grade teachers at those schools were invited to participate in the study in hopes of getting a

    range of writing philosophies and practices. All participants were volunteers and were paid

    $50 for participation.

    Although the sample was too small to make generalizations about teachers in their

    states, the teachers were representative of their schools; almost all the teachers at the third-

    and fourth-grade levels at each of the eight schools volunteered. Sixteen teachers were fromhigh-income schools (fewer than 25% students on free lunch) and 13 teachers were from

    low-income schools (more than 75% on free lunch). Table 1 provides a list of participating

    teachers, grade levels and years of experience. One teacher participated in the interview,

    but did not want to be observed during her language arts instruction because she was not

    teaching writing that day; therefore, the researchers relied on her interview data.

    Data sources

    The design of the study included interviews with teachers and observations of lan-

    guage arts instruction. Teachers also provided demographic information including years

    of experience, degrees earned and so on. A district administrator or person who providedprofessional development was also interviewed to provide the larger context for writing

    instruction.

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    9/24

    280 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    Table 1. Demographics of participating teachers.

    Teacher grade level Ethnicity, gender Highest degree Years teaching

    Utah: High-income schoolMarcy, fourth grade White, female MA 29

    Lucy, fourth grade White, female MA+40 (credits) 12Ruth, fourth grade White, female MS 19Daniel, third grade White, male MA 21Sarah, third grade White, female MA equivalent 22

    Utah: Low-income schoolAmy, fourth grade White, female MA 23Kristen, fourth grade White, female MA+40 (credits) 26Susan, third grade White, female BA 10James, third grade White, male BS 5

    Illinois: High-income schoolJackie, fourth grade White, female MA 8Sally, third grade White, female MA 14

    Tom, third grade White, male MA 9Illinois: Low-income school

    Sharon, fourth grade White, female BSE 16Rhonda, fourth grade White, female BA 2Dana, fourth grade White, female BA 3Olene, fourth grade African American,

    femaleMA 1 (as a certified

    teacher)Shauna, fourth grade African American,

    femaleBA 20

    Brenda, fourth grade White, female BS 14West Virginia: High-income school

    Carla, fourth grade White, female BS+ 33

    Connie, third grade White, female MA 25Alice, third grade White, female Masters 7West Virginia: Low-income school

    Anna, fourth grade White, female BA+ 8Mary, fourth grade White, female Masters+ 31Wanda, third grade White, female Masters+ 5Cynthia, third grade White, female BS 8

    Vermont: High-income schoolMary, fourth grade White, female BA 34Wanda, third grade White, female BA+ 33Cynthia, third grade White, female BA+ 20Anna, fourth grade White, female Masters+ 19

    Observations

    Teachers were informed the study focused on writing instruction and asked if researchers

    could observe one typical language arts lesson. Narrative field notes, typed on lap-

    tops, focused on the classroom environment, participation structures, teachers role,

    tasks/activities and content/focus of instruction. Within each school context, the primary

    researcher and a graduate assistant divided the data collection responsibilities by teacher.

    When schedules permitted, the graduate assistant also observed and participated in the

    interviews the professor conducted to provide an additional perspective.

    InterviewsEach teacher was interviewed for 45 minutes before or after writing instruction (depend-

    ing on the teachers schedule) using a semi-structured interview protocol. The protocol

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    10/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal 281

    consisted of three parts: teachers writing instruction, teachers orientations towards

    writing and the influences of policies and professional development on their writing

    instruction. The writing instruction section focused on goals of the lesson observed,

    how the lesson fit into ongoing curriculum with prompts about materials, frequency

    of writing instruction, responding to writing and opportunities for student sharing.

    Additionally, teachers brought samples of student writing from high-, middle- and low-

    achieving students to discuss the types of instruction and assessment conducted and to

    understand their orientations and concerns. The influences on writing section focused

    on changes in writing instruction since NCLB was implemented; opportunities for

    professional development; and the influences of policies, standards and materials on

    instruction.

    The primary researcher conducted a 45-minute interview with a district administrator

    or curriculum coordinator in each setting. Questions focused on the writing curriculum,

    assessment, state standards and the type of professional development programmes offered

    to teachers.

    Data analysis

    Observations

    The researchers began with methods suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) that were

    appropriate for qualitative inquiry to document teachers writing instruction. To analyse the

    observational data, each researcher wrote up her field notes and shared them with the other.

    Situations in which both researchers had observed the same classroom provided opportuni-

    ties to expand the field notes and corroborate the interpretations of the classroom activities.

    After each observation, the researchers wrote summaries addressing the features of (a)

    tasks/activities, (b) participation structures including the organization and management ofthe lesson, (c) the teachers role and (d) focus and content of instruction. Writing tasks and

    activities consisted of what students were assigned to accomplish during the lesson (e.g.

    composing texts, filling out worksheets, using graphic organizers). Participation structures

    included the organization and management of instruction for specific purposes (e.g. whole-

    group sessions for lessons or sharing of writing), small-group interaction including peer

    conferences or individual teacherstudent conferences. The teachers role focused on the

    teachers actions during the lesson (e.g. model strategies, provide feedback to individual

    students, share her/his own writing). The focus and content of instruction included what

    the major topic was for the lesson (e.g. features of a genre such as narrative elements; orga-

    nization of writing such as including topic sentences and paragraph structure; qualities ofwriting such as leads, voice, using the senses to include descriptive language; grammar and

    punctuation).

    Interviews

    Analyses of interview data began by organizing responses about instruction. Researchers

    used the questions from the interview to create the categories of (a) curriculum (e.g.

    use of textbook, writers workshop format), views of writing (e.g. as a process, set

    of skills); (b) opportunities for writing (e.g. daily, infrequently); (c) activities and

    format (e.g. teacher conferences, sharing time); and (d) tasks (graphic organizers,

    worksheets). Researchers organized responses from each teacher on a chart and thencombined those into larger charts to examine the data across teachers, schools and

    states.

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    11/24

    282 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    Combining observation and interview data

    The observation summaries of each teacher were used to identify clusters of practices

    that occurred in classrooms (e.g. graphic organizers tended to be used in classrooms

    where the focus of instruction was on learning the elements of a genre). From these

    clusters the researchers identified three major types of approaches to writing instruc-tion: a writers workshop, skills and genre. A writers workshop approach resembled the

    types of workshops promoted by Calkins (1994) that included students choice of writ-

    ing topics, mini-lessons on a particular technique, writing time that included teacher input

    and sharing with peers in small- and large-group settings. The skills approach consisted

    of whole-group lessons that focused on isolated skills such as sequencing, paragraph-

    ing and mechanics followed by students filling out worksheets or writing answers to

    questions individually. There was no evidence of conferences with students or sharing

    writing with peers. The genre approach had the following components: teachers pro-

    vided specific prompts; students wrote within specified genres (narrative, descriptive,

    research or expository); teachers used graphic organizers; and teachers provided feed-

    back in the form of brief individual conferences. The researchers then consulted the

    analysed interview data to provide a larger context for the observation and for corrob-

    oration (or lack of) of the observation data in characterizing each teachers approach

    to writing instruction. For example, teachers who demonstrated a writing workshop

    approach also discussed the importance of teacherstudent conferences and writing for an

    audience.

    Once the researchers identified these approaches, they placed each teacher in a cate-

    gory. However, there were four teachers who did not fit into any of the three groups and

    seemed to combine approaches. The researchers labelled these teachers thehybrid/eclectic

    group. The interview data supported this hybrid designation because there were teach-

    ers who resisted certain approaches and/or described making up their own prompts andmaterials, or borrowing from a number of sources.

    The researchers then examined the interview data to understand influences on teach-

    ers instruction. They summarized and placed on a chart each teachers response from the

    questions focused on policies such as NCLB, state expectations and testing, and on pro-

    fessional development, colleagues and materials. They examined the responses across all

    teachers, established categories and counted their responses in each category (professional

    development, state standards and testing and materials). Teachers often responded that

    there was more than one influence (professional development and mandated curriculum)

    so their responses were counted in each relevant category. Administrators/instructional

    leaders interview data were added to the analysis when appropriate to provide a largercontext of the district goals and curriculum, staff development opportunities and require-

    ments and implementations of policies at the district level. The interview data were then

    examined to determine whether there was a relationship between teachers approaches

    to writing and the influences on their practices that they reported. The researchers

    looked across the teachers for patterns in their practices and influences to under-

    stand whether teachers from the same schools or districts had similar approaches to

    instruction.

    Findings

    To document teachers approaches to writing instruction, the data across teachers are pre-sented in table form, followed by examples of teachers within each group. Major influences

    on writing instruction are identified in the next section.

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    12/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal 283

    Approaches to writing instruction

    In general, the analyses of data support what Cutler and Graham (2008) found some

    teachers are using predominantly a writers workshop (or process approach); some are

    using a skills approach; and others are using a combined or hybrid approach. However,

    almost half of the teachers are using a genre approach that draws from writing work-shop, introduces more explicit instruction in the form of graphic organizers and focuses on

    teaching the elements of genre. Table 2 shows the distribution of teachers across groups.

    Writers workshop

    There were five teachers, all from Utah, who used a writers workshop approach that

    resembled those promoted by Calkins (1994) and Graves (1994). The teachers focused on

    students choice of writing topics, mini-lessons on a particular technique, writing time that

    included teacher input and sharing with peers in small- and large-group settings. Several of

    the teachers were particularly influenced by Graves (2003) and focused their mini-lessons

    on getting students to begin their writing with effective leads. Although the teachers useda workshop approach, they also integrated features of Six-Traits writing (Spandel, 2005)

    with a particular emphasis on voice. For example, Lucy1 (UT, HI) used the writers work-

    shop format beginning with a picture book, Voices in the park (Browne, 1998) to focus

    on the aspect of voice, and then students wrote stories in the voices of characters. James

    (UT, LI) also began with a mini-lesson on voice drawing from the picture book,The paper

    Table 2. Approaches to writing.

    Writers workshop Genre Skills Combined /hybrid

    Workshop format(mini-lesson,writing time,conferences,sharing)

    Genre (narrative,research, expository,descriptive)

    Basal textbook ormandatedprogramme

    Borrowed frommany sources

    Self-selected topics Graphic organizer Skills such asparagraphs, parts ofspeech, mechanics

    Created their ownprompts,assignments

    Any genre Teacher-led Whole-groupinstruction

    Focus on leads,voice (Six Traits)

    Prompts No conferences orpeer interaction

    Marcy (UT, HI) Jackie (IL, HI) Dana (IL, LI) Sarah (UT, HI)Lucy (UT, HI) Tom (IL, HI) Rhonda (IL,LI) Ruth (UT, HI)James (UT, LI) Sally (IL, HI) Olene (IL, LI) Kristen (UT, LI)Susan (UT, LI) Brenda (IL, LI) Shauna (IL, LI) Daniel (UT, HI)Amy (UT, LI) Anna (WV, LI) Sharon (IL, LI)

    Mary (WV, LI) Cynthia (WV, LI)Wanda (WV, LI)Carla (WV, HI)Connie (WV, HI)Alice (WV, HI)Andrea (V, HI)Jill (V, HI)

    Sherry (V, HI)Tierney (V, HI)

    Note: IL, Illinois; UT, Utah; V, Vermont; WV, West Virginia; HI, High income; LI, Low income.

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    13/24

    284 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    bag princess. Students were allowed to write in any genre on any topic, but they were

    to weave voice into their texts. Susans (UT, LI) mini-lesson focused on leads. As stu-

    dents wrote narratives, she conferred at length with individual students. Amy (UT, LI)

    demonstrated the unique features of voice with examples she shared with the class before

    having students continue working on their texts. Marcys third-grade classroom (UT, HI)

    was illustrative of teachers who used the writers workshop approach.

    Marcy read a Judy Blume book to her class of 23 students (mostly white students and

    two Asian or Asian American) and asked them about patterns they saw the author use. She

    then focused students attention on leads and asked students to share theirs. She then

    said, If you have not tried to make an interesting lead, try to do a catchy one, get your

    reader interested.

    Students wrote either fiction or non-fiction, individually or collaboratively dur-

    ing writing time. Marcy circulated around the class and made comments to individuals.

    Students then joined a large group on the floor for sharing time. Students decided whether

    to share a part of their story aloud and other students made comments. Both the teacher

    and students responded to the work read aloud. Marcy focused on specific aspects of thestudents stories, asking clarification questions and providing ideas for connections to texts

    or the mini-lesson.

    The session was consistent with Marcys goals and practices where she stated, I have

    done writers workshop for a very long time. She explained her goals for the lesson:

    Ive been trying to get them to do better lead sentences for their stories. So weve been workingon it a little bit last week and this week, where as we read stories, we think about how theauthors started their story out. So its not so boring. So some of the kids have been Do youthink this is a good lead? so today I just thought Id have a couple of kids share those.

    The tasks were consistent with workshop approaches as students had the opportunity to

    write on self-selected topics for a known audience and decided whether to share their writ-

    ing with peers (Chapman, 2006). The participation structures of whole class discussions

    about writing, sharing with peers and writing with peers or individually also fit the pat-

    tern of child-centred classrooms. The teacher did not provide explicit instruction on how

    to compose; she regarded her role as more of a facilitator, responding to students during

    conferences and sharing time. However, in reflecting about changes in her practices, Marcy

    noted that she had increasingly incorporated Six-Traits writing into her workshop format.

    She said:

    I think I do a better job at because of the six traits. These are more specific to me than justhaving them do writing plans. I can actually think of lessons, and I can use literature that hasgood examples of all of those things. Five years ago I dont think I ever talked about wordchoice, or I didnt talk about voice and getting your personality into it. The humor. I nevertalked about leads. I use literature more as good models for my kids in their writing.

    Marcys statement suggests that she, like other teachers, had found ways to incorporate Six

    Traits (Spandel, 2005) into the workshop format. All five of the teachers using the writers

    workshop format mentioned its influence on their instruction and displayed the posters in

    their rooms. Their mini-lessons with students incorporated the language of Six Traits, in

    particular the focus on leads and voice. These five teachers demonstrated that writersworkshop is still occurring; however, the influence of Six-Traits writing materials is also

    evident.

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    14/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal 285

    Skills instruction

    Six teachers who used a skills approach to writing did not have daily writing instruction.

    When they taught writing, they tended to focus on isolated skills such as sequencing,

    paragraphing and mechanics that came directly from the district-mandated curriculum

    (Americas Choice) or textbook (Harcourt School Publishers, 2003). Most instruction waswhole group with students filling out worksheets or writing answers to questions individu-

    ally. There was no evidence of conferences with students or sharing writing with peers. For

    example, Rhondas (IL, LI) language arts lesson came directly from the textbook and con-

    sisted of a teacher-led lesson on pronouns and did not include any writing. She explained,

    with all the pressure of the ISAT (Illinois Standards Achievement Test) were really work-

    ing on our reading and math skills, and we really we havent done writing on a consistent

    basis for awhile. Students in Shaunas (IL, LI) class listened to a tape on immigration and

    answered questions on a worksheet.

    Characteristic of the teachers who focused on skills was Cynthia (WV, LI) who taught

    at a low-income school in West Virginia. Her background had been working with special

    education students before teaching in a third-grade classroom. She noted that her lesson

    was language arts rather than writing and focused on antonyms and synonyms.

    Cynthia passed out worksheets in which students were to cut strips out, turn questions

    into statements and statements into questions and then glue them onto the paper. Once that

    was completed, students were to write whether the bolded word was a synonym or antonym

    to one of the spelling words on the board. Students spent most of the time cutting out and

    gluing their strips. Students asked the teacher throughout the lesson to explain the task to

    them individually. For example, one student asked, What is antonym, I forget. Students

    continued for 30 minutes to work on the sheet, which contained the sentences: I like bright

    sunshine; The stone dropped with a thud; Who ate the whole melon?; and You can

    follow me on the playground. The teacher went round checking their work and gave somestudents candy corn, praising them for being quiet.

    Students had very little opportunity to write connected text in Cynthias classroom;

    they spent more time gluing than demonstrating their understanding of the task and

    were so confused they had to ask for individual help repeatedly. Writing played a minor

    role in her language arts curriculum and there were few opportunities to write extended

    texts.

    Similar to other teachers who used a skills approach, Cynthia focused on isolated skills

    that were only tangentially related to composing texts. The teachers in this group tended

    to provide little instruction; instead, they handed out worksheets for students to complete.

    Students had few opportunities to participate in small groups or talk to partners; ratherthey listened to the teacher or completed assigned work. There were few opportunities

    to engage in pre-writing, drafting, writing or revising. In short, their approach to writing

    resembled the classrooms critiqued by both process advocates (e.g. Calkins, 1986) and

    proponents of the use of strategies (e.g. Graham & Harris, 1993) they appeared to pro-

    vide few opportunities for motivation, provided little explicit teaching of how to write and

    focused on conventions out of context. These data demonstrate that some teachers are still

    implementing approaches to writing that reflect little attention to process approaches or

    strategy instruction.

    While the observations demonstrated that there were teachers who implemented prac-

    tices that were consistent with either a process/writers workshop approach or a skills

    approach, more teachers tended to use a genre approach.

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    15/24

    286 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    Genre

    Fourteen teachers used an approach that had the following components: They taught a

    specific genre (narrative, descriptive, research or expository), used a prompt and provided

    some instruction on how to complete the task. They tended to structure their lessons using a

    workshop format such as having an initial whole-group lesson with a pre-writing activity,providing time for student writing and giving feedback to students. However, their instruc-

    tion differed from Calkins (1986) formats (before Units of Study for Primary Writing,

    2006) because (a) students wrote within specified genres (narrative, descriptive, research

    or expository); (b) students were often given prompts; (c) lessons often included instruc-

    tions on completing a particular task; and (d) feedback to students tended to be brief and

    teacher-led (rather than a student leading a lengthy conference with the teacher or peers).

    Most teachers used graphic organizers for planning such as four square or a web for

    organizing ideas. For example, Jackie (IL, HI) said, Because we do so much of writing

    to a prompt . . . . I dont want to say its formulaic but it really is teaching structure

    and working within the framework of the structure. Sally (IL, HI) used graphic organiz-

    ers when she introduced descriptive writing to reach her goals, that they will become

    proficient writers, and they will learn how to use grammar and punctuation, and capitals;

    that they will learn the differences between a narrative piece, expository, persuasive; and

    that theyll enjoy writing. Andrea (VT, HI) taught report writing using a web to generate

    information about reports on individual US states; Jill (VT, HI) used a graphic organizer to

    focus students attention on the structure of a narrative; and Sherry (VT, HI) used a poetry

    book for students to identify elements of a writers craft to write their paragraphs in the

    response to literature genre. While the participation structures tended to be teacher-led

    and whole group, students had opportunities to provide their ideas in these settings. Toms

    (IL, HI) third-grade classroom captures the participation and task structure representative

    of teachers who focused on genre.In Toms third-grade classroom composed of 20 white students, the focus was on writ-

    ing an expository text on penguins. He began the lesson by asking students why they were

    learning about penguins and students provided responses including learning how to write

    an expository text, learning about animals in other continents and map skills. Tom told

    students they were learning about penguins to learn more about non-fiction texts. He then

    asked students to give him topics they had researched about penguins including food, shel-

    ter, habitat and descriptions and told them they will write a paragraph about each using

    topic sentences. He focused on topic sentences and how to make them more interesting to

    the reader.

    Students gave ideas and the teacher wrote them on the board. Tom told students tocreate topic sentences using the words they created on their graphic organizer a page with

    boxes indicating categories. He instructed students to come see him when they had written

    a topic sentence. Students lined up to show Tom what they had written. His responses

    focused on whether they had a topic sentence. Tom then instructed the entire class to write

    three sentences a topic sentence and two more. He then reminded them that they were

    doing research reports or expository writing, not narrative.

    In Toms class there was a focus on students learning the features of a specific genre,

    in this case, expository. Students used graphic organizers to write facts about penguins

    and then were to transfer their information to paragraphs with topic sentences. While

    Tom responded to students individually, children were lined up to have their initial work

    checked. He focused on specific features and gave students corrective feedback about

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    16/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal 287

    whether they were meeting the terms of the task. Toms ideas for teaching writing came

    from his colleagues at the school and from the state standards, You know, weve had our

    set curriculum. Were trying to get them prepared for the ISATs. Trying to meet the state

    standards. We do certain assignments. Teachers at the school had decided on which genres

    and topics to teach at specific grade levels. He then used those as a guide for his teaching,

    assuming that he would start with the genre, Is it going to be expository, narrative, what

    do I want them to be capable of when Im teaching them?

    Toms lesson illustrates teachers whose approach differed from both the writers work-

    shop and skills groups of teachers. They used the lesson format of a teacher-led lesson

    with student input; used specific tools for their instruction such as graphic organizers and

    prompts to help students learn the aspects of a genre; and were explicit in their expecta-

    tions for writing. Their instruction differed from skills-based instruction as they involved

    students in composing texts on a daily basis using a pre-writing, drafting and revising for-

    mat; gave students feedback on their writing; and provided opportunities for students to

    share with peers.

    Hybrid/eclectic: combining practices

    There were also teachers who combined practices from different approaches who did not

    fit into any categories. They were eclectic in their approaches and borrowed from several

    areas. Students in Sarahs third-grade classroom (UT, HI) created their own books about

    a particular dragon based on the popular book, Dragonology (Drake & Steer, 2003). She

    conducted a whole class lesson in which students generated descriptive words for dragons;

    then students wrote in different genres such as descriptive or creating a legend about the

    dragon. She liked to create thematic units, but also adopted practices from process writing

    such as, Im not looking to edit . . . [but] How do they become writers? In addition,

    she focused on Six Traits when talking about student work, Probably the thing I look atmore than anything else is voice. Ruth (UT, HI) organized students in pairs to identify

    story structures in picture books to transfer to their own stories. Her lessons fit with her

    interest in integrating reading and writing throughout the school day with a variety of

    assignments including literature logs, identifying story structures and underlining nouns

    when appropriate.

    Kristens third-grade classroom (UT, LI) focused on units or themes that integrated

    writing across the school day. During the whole-group lesson students generated descrip-

    tive phrases about the candy she gave them, and then met in pairs to read the phrases

    expressively. To create group poems, students wrote words or phrases on papers labelled

    desert sunsets or Navaho flutes, then passed their papers to another student who wrotea new phrase. During sharing time the teacher modelled how to read with a student and then

    asked for volunteer pairs to read their poems aloud. Kristen developed her own curriculum

    and explicitly rejected writers workshop saying, I dont do writers workshops like all the

    other teachers in here. That bores me . . . . Because I just dont think its fun. Its got to be

    fun for kids. Theyve got to think its a game. Kristen included journal writing, persuasive

    writing and poetry in her writing curriculum depending on the focus of her units, which

    she felt built on the interests of her students.

    Daniel was eclectic in his approach: He had students doing a variety of assignments

    such as letter writing, writing up field trips and doing book reports,

    Thats just what Ive made up. I have one for every week, and once in awhile the students willhave given me ideas over the year. And I make it fit with whatever is happening in their life atthat time: vacation, like, Tell me about one thing that you did on vacation.

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    17/24

    288 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    He did not organize instruction around particular genres, but invented his own prompts

    based on what he saw as relevant. The teachers in this eclectic group tended to develop

    their own curriculum; they did not rely on specific materials, but drew from a number of

    sources. They often rejected specific approaches such as process writing/workshop but

    tended to use their own ideas or what they perceived students needed.

    Patterns within and across schools

    When examining Table 2 to look for patterns in instructional approaches across teachers

    and schools, the researchers identified several patterns. First, teachers who shared similar

    practices tended to be from the same school or district. For example, teachers who used a

    writing workshop approach were from the same school district in Utah. Second, teachers

    who developed their own curriculum and used a more hybrid eclectic approach were also

    from the same district in Utah. Third, teachers who implemented skills approaches were

    all from low-income schools, all but one from Illinois schools where mandated curriculum

    had been adopted by the school. Fourth, teachers who used a genre approach were from thesame school in Illinois where teachers gathered together to align their writing instruction to

    the rubrics they created, the schools in West Virginia or from the school in Vermont. Why

    did teachers at the same school seem to implement similar approaches? What influenced

    their writing instruction? The researchers found that the influences on teachers instruction

    tended to be tied to the approaches described above.

    Influences on writing instruction

    When asked to discuss the influences on their writing instruction, teachers identified pro-

    fessional development opportunities and state standards as the major influences (materials

    and colleagues were the other influences they cited).

    Professional development

    Nineteen teachers reported that professional development influenced their instruction to

    some degree. However, the type of professional development varied: Some were imposed

    by the district and came as part of mandated programmes, others were voluntary, while

    still others were one-day workshops focused on specific activities. In some schools,

    professional development tended to be voluntary and part of a larger focus. For example,

    the coordinator of language arts in the Utah School District emphasized that professional

    development had been based on the National Reading Panel Report and National LiteracyStandards. The five full-day workshops focused on writing, oral language, comprehension

    and fluency. These workshops were not mandatory; however, the coordinator noted that the

    attendance rate was 95%.

    In contrast, teachers in schools that had a mandated curriculum were required to

    participate in workshops that accompanied that curriculum. They also had a literacy coach:

    Yes, and we have ongoing staff development. There are three different coaches internalcoaches, [and] theres an external coach, too, that works with the Americas ChoiceCompany.And thats when theyre given the support that they need to work with those types of strategieswith children, the conferencing type strategies. (Morley, Assistant Superintendent, IL, LI)

    Part of the role of the coaches was to monitor teachers use of the curriculum and to ensure

    that their classroom environments reflected the programme. Staff development activities

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    18/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal 289

    revolved around learning how to use the materials and teachers were required to hang

    posters in their room showing the writing process.

    The professional development activities in other schools were offered rather than

    imposed by the district. For example, in Vermont, the school had a bridging pro-

    gram led by a faculty member from the local university. Teachers learned about the

    painted essay that involved using coloured markers to indicate different parts of the

    essay:

    Nan (university instructor) left this painted essay. I think that has brought us (together) andtremendously helped kids get organized. In the first paragraph, its like the red. Okay, then youget your blue or yellow. Those are going to be your supporting (details) from your openingsentence. And then, the green is the conclusion. (Andrea, VT, HI)

    Her colleague, Sherry, believed that staff development focused on the painted essay had

    influenced her instruction, I think this painted essay and working as a team with my col-

    leagues has really helped. Jill (VT, HI) went on to explain how the university person hadcome to work with them two years ago:

    We meet as a whole group, and you have assignments in the reading books by well-knownauthors . . . . And then, youll break into small groups and discuss the books that youve read.Nan meets individually. She might come in and watch the class.

    In the Vermont example, the university person modelled writing instruction and met with

    the teachers; this was a very different role from the literacy coaches who monitored the

    implementation of a specific curriculum in the Illinois example.

    While the efforts at the Vermont school were long term and sustained, several teach-

    ers in other states and schools mentioned one-time workshops as helping them with theirwriting. In West Virginia, workshops focused on the four-square graphic organizer were

    popular with teachers. Connie said, We went to a training [to learn] about four square . . . .

    I cant remember who did it, but we also have a book that kind of helps us with ideas and

    reproducibles. Along with the workshop another teacher came to model its use in her class-

    room, I would have to say the four square way of doing it. We have an academic coach

    that comes and she was trained in it first. She kind of modelled it for us and I watched her

    model it in another teachers room and watched how she did it.

    Across the town Mary (WV, LI) had attended a one-time workshop focused on four-

    square writing that influenced her instruction:

    This has made an impact on me. I remember sitting at the in-service saying this is what I wantto do. I can get into it. I understood paragraph writing from this. It does work. Each box is aparagraph. They (the students) seem to see that. I saw that last year where they did well on thewriting assessment, scores higher than ever.

    Many teachers found specific workshops that were tied to the state standards helpful. This

    emphasis on state standards was reflected in teachers discussions about influences on their

    practices.

    State standards

    Almost half of the teachers (14) found that state standards and/or related assessments hadinfluenced their writing instruction. Jackie (IL, HI) described her school coming together

    to develop rubrics from the state standards:

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    19/24

    290 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    Theres one persuasive and expository in its narrative, and it ties in with the state standards. . . . And district-wide weve kind of embraced that, which is new the past few years. It helpsmore than anything to develop a common language so that kids see the colors and they realizewhat youre expecting of them, so that every year theyre not having to learn a new term.

    Her colleague, Sally, concurred with this view and found that it was important to be incompliance with the state, So its just now something, if anything, one more thing that the

    state says make sure youre doing it, then we say okay, were doing it.

    In West Virginia, many teachers also referred to the state standards as having an impact

    on their curriculum. Mary (WV, LI) said, Yes, we have writing assessment in February or

    March and I am getting them ready for that, what is expected in paragraph writing [for the]

    statewide assessment. Other teachers found that the push to align their curriculum to the

    state standards resulted in their meeting together as a school to discuss the standards. Carla

    (WV, HI) said:

    I think because there is a writing assessment, which has forced me to focus on writing and

    think about how Im teaching it and work with the kids one-on-one. I think probably thewriting assessment has been the biggest influence and just the school, because one of theschool goals is to improve writing. So the school-wide push for writing has been an influencealso.

    In Vermont, teachers noted the state standards having an influence on their curriculum. For

    example, Jill stated that she used to have more freedom in what she taught, but now felt

    constrained by state expectations:

    And so, now I think its more dictated by expectations, like of the state or what your schoolexpects. And you have to build in nouns and verbs and things like that in your writing . . . its

    not as free to do what you wanted, just because you want to do it. You know? Its more centredon what other people expect you to do.

    In discussing what she saw happening at the state level, Katey believed that the emphasis

    from the state standards and school scores becoming public had resulted in recipes for

    writing:

    And so, slowly but surely, these recipes emerged: Heres how to get your kids to pass thenarrative. Heres how to get them to pass the persuasive. Heres how to get them to pass thisand that. And so, its not to say there arent, you know, just gems of writing teachers still outthere, but its been really easy to abandon all that you know about best practice when yourkids writing scores are published in the paper and they might not have done so well. (Katey,

    District Personnel, VT)

    While professional development and state standards were the most widely cited influences

    across the 29 teachers, there were contrasts among teachers who used a process approach,

    a skills approach or a genre approach.

    Contrasts within groups

    Teachers who used a workshop approach tended to participate in district or school-run

    workshops on a voluntary basis. They also cited professional books by Calkins (1994),

    Fletcher (1992), Graves (1994) and other proponents of writing workshop as influences

    on their instruction. In addition to the workshop approach, teachers in this group cited theSix Traits as part of their instruction. In Utah, the writing assessment (Directed Writing

    Assessment) was based on the Six Traits.

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    20/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal 291

    Most teachers who used a skills approach were required to attend workshops that went

    along with their prescribed curriculum. They cited those programmes as having an effect

    on their curriculum, as stated by Olene (IL, LI), I pretty much follow step by step. Some

    teachers resisted these requirements but felt pressured to attend the workshops and have

    literacy coaches in their classrooms. The teachers in the genre group cited meeting stan-

    dards as a major influence on their instruction. They also cited the materials that came

    with workshops such as four square or specific graphic organizers as influencing their

    instruction. The teachers who used an eclectic approach tended to come up with their own

    ideas and did not participate in specific professional development activities. For example,

    Sarah (UT, HI) said, Im pretty out of the loop. To be honest, I just hide away in my room

    and do what I want to do, as much as I can. Daniel (UT, HI) found that workshops were

    not helpful to him and that his own experiences as a student influenced him, Certainly not

    workshops . . . the more I think about it my teaching is structured the way I was taught.

    Kristen (UT, LI) cited 2 weeks at a university-run institute in another state as the most

    important influence on her instruction.

    Discussion and conclusion

    The study of 29 third- and fourth-grade teachers across four states in the United States

    suggests that process writing in the form of writers workshop is still alive in pock-

    ets in US classrooms; yet, some teachers are implementing skills instruction aligned

    with textbooks or mandated programmes. These findings are not surprising and they

    tend to support Cutler and Grahams (2008) survey of primary teachers who reported

    using process approaches, skills or a combination of approaches. However, the find-

    ing that almost half of the teachers focused on teaching specific genres (e.g. narrative,

    expository, persuasive) and used graphic organizers in their writing instruction demon-strates that a shift has occurred in the way that many teachers are approaching writing

    in elementary classrooms. The genre approach appears to be more than teachers sim-

    ply combining activities (Cutler & Graham, 2008), because the teachers in this group

    shared similar practices including daily writing instruction, use of graphic organizers

    and prompts with teacher-led lessons, brief conferences with students and time to share.

    These practices are aligned with the organization of standards by expectations in particular

    genres (http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pubs/framework.html). However, the focus

    on genre did not appear to reflect changing conceptions of genre as tools (Beach, 2000) and

    as texts in use (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993), or to emphasize the social context in which mean-

    ing is constructed (Bakhtin, 1981). Rather, the teaching of genre appeared formulaic with

    the focus on producing writing that matched ideal texts posted on state test sites. The find-

    ing supports Applebee and Langers (2009) analysis by demonstrating how standards and

    accountability are influencing elementary teachers instruction as well.

    The study also identified a significant pattern in teachers practices. Teachers who used

    a workshop approach were situated in the same school district in Utah. All the teachers

    at the high-income schools in Illinois, Vermont and West Virginia used a genre approach.

    Only teachers at low-income schools were categorized as using skills instruction; they

    tended to use mandated curriculum programmes focused on skills and writing conventions.

    These emerging patterns suggest a break with the past in terms of teachers work: no longer

    are teachers isolated in their classrooms as in previous decades (Little, 2003; Little &

    McLaughin, 1993), some are developing professional learning communities (Lieberman& Mace, 2009). Professional development efforts and meeting district, state and national

    standards appear to be influencing instruction. Applebee and Langer (2009) found that

    http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pubs/framework.htmlhttp://education.vermont.gov/new/html/pubs/framework.html
  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    21/24

    292 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    more secondary teachers were involved in professional development activities focused on

    literacy and that their states language arts standards support good teaching (p. 25). This

    study reflects a similar pattern with elementary teachers who cite professional development

    and standards as affecting their instruction.

    Whether this shift to focusing on specific genres and providing professional devel-

    opment to meet standards is a move in a positive direction is not clear. If, for example,

    genre becomes reified and the teaching of writing becomes a rigid sequence of proce-

    dures for elementary students to master, it is doubtful that schools will produce thoughtful,

    critical and creative writers. It is noteworthy that the four teachers in the hybrid group,

    who developed their own curriculum and writing assignments using a variety of strategies

    and materials, seemed to be impervious to standards and testing, instead focusing on their

    own classrooms. This suggests that not all teachers are placing high-stakes testing or the

    movement towards standards as the highest priority. More studies need to follow teachers

    who are resisting the norms to understand their views and practices.

    What was missing from all classrooms studied (even those who did not use a particu-

    lar approach) was any evidence of using technology (Chapman, 2006) or engaging in anydialogic or liberatory critique (Bakhtin, 1981; Freire, 1970). No writing lessons reflected

    the use of any computers for generating ideas or revision much less in creating multi-

    modal texts (Bezemer & Kress, 2008; New London Group, 1996). Nor did any teachers

    involve students in a critique of texts or discuss the possibilities of using writing for social

    action (Bomer & Bomer, 2001). These absences may result in a narrowing of the writ-

    ing curriculum to one-draft assignments without extended opportunities for children to

    write about their lives (Dutro, 2010), argue for human rights (Carbone & Orellana, 2010),

    learn to harness technology for writing or use their own linguistic resources in writing

    (Dyson, 2006). Because professional development appears to be more prevalent and influ-

    ential, it seems imperative to have professional opportunities for teachers to engage inwriting themselves, work with other colleagues and have input in the curriculum to pro-

    vide experiences for children to use technology and engage in critique. Thus, the next

    step is to conduct research to understand the relationship between professional develop-

    ment opportunities like the National Writing Project (National Writing Project & Nagin,

    2003; Whitney, 2008) and specific programmes offered by districts and programmes (e.g.

    Calkins et al., 2006) that do provide opportunities for teachers to write and reflect on their

    instruction.

    Limitations

    The study was limited by a small sample of teachers in different contexts. In addition, hav-ing only one observation and interview prevented the researchers from obtaining in-depth

    information about each teachers instruction over a period of time. Because the discus-

    sion of influences on instruction came from self-reported data, there may have been a

    number of other contextual factors that affected teachers instruction. However, the study

    provides a snapshot of teachers from several states across the United States to understand

    the increasingly complex terrain that they are negotiating in a time of policies, standards

    and materials that are affecting their writing instruction. Future studies can examine the

    effects of teachers instruction on students and the effects of professional development on

    their practices.

    Note

    1. All names of teachers, schools and students are pseudonyms.

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    22/24

    Pedagogies: An International Journal 293

    References

    Allington, R.L., & Johnston, P.H. (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary fourth-gradeclassrooms. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Americas Choice School Network. (n.d.). Americas choice: Writers advantage. Washington, DC:The National Center on Education and the Economy.

    Applebee, A.N., & Langer, J.A. (2009). What is happening in the teaching of writing? EnglishJournal,98(5), 1828.

    Bakhtin, M.M. (1981).The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas.Bazerman, C. (Ed.). (2008).Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual,

    text. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Beach, R. (2000). Using media ethnographies to study response to media as activity. In A. Watts

    Pailliotet & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Reconceptualizing literacy in the media age (pp. 339).Stamford, CT: JAI.

    Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designsfor learning.Written Communication,25, 166195.

    Bomer, R., & Bomer, K. (2001). For a better world: Reading and writing for social action.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Boscolo, P. (2008). Writing in primary school. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writ-ing: History, society, school, individual, text(pp. 293309). New York, NY: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

    Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writingabilities. London: McMillan.

    Browne, A. (1998).Voices in the park. London: DK.Calkins, L.M. (1986).The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Calkins, L.M. (1994).The art of teaching writing(2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Calkins, L.M., & The Teachers College Reading and Writing Project. (2006). Units of study for

    primary writing: A yearlong curriculum, K-2. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Carbone, P.W., & Orellana, M.F. (2010). Developing academic identities: Persuasive writing as a tool

    to strengthen emergent academic identities.Research in the Teaching of English,44(3), 292316.Center on Education Policy. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction

    in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Author.Chapman, M. (2006). Preschool through elementary writing. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Research

    on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change (pp. 1547). New York, NY:Teachers College.

    Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993).The powers of literacy. London: Falmer.Cramer, R.L. (2001).Creative power: The nature and nurture of childrens writing. New York, NY:

    Longman.Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of

    Educational Psychology,100(4), 907919.Dahl, K., & Farnan, N. (1998). Childrens writing: Perspectives from research. Newark, DE:

    International Reading Association/National Reading Conference.Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of No

    Child Left Behind.Race Ethnicity and Education,10(3), 245260.Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other peoples children.Harvard Educational Review,58(3), 280298.

    Donovan, C.A., & Smolkin, L.B. (2002). Childrens genre knowledge: An examination of K-5students performance on multiple tasks providing differing levels of scaffolding. Reading

    Research Quarterly,37, 428465.Donovan, C.A., & Smolkin, L.B. (2006). Childrens understanding of genre and writing develop-

    ment. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research(pp. 131143). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Drake, E., & Steer, D. (Eds.). (2003). Dragonology. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick.Dutro, E. (2010). What hard times means: Mandated curricula, class-privileged assumptions, and

    the lives of poor children.Research in the Teaching of English,44(3), 255291.Dyson, A.H. (1990). Weaving possibilities: Rethinking metaphors for early literacy development.

    Reading Teacher,44(3), 202213.Dyson, A.H. (2003).Brothers and sisters learn to write. New York, NY: Teachers College.

  • 7/25/2019 Approaches to Writing 2011

    23/24

    294 S.J. McCarthey and Y.S. (Ellie) Ro

    Dyson, A.H. (2006). On saying it right (write): Fix-its in the foundations of learning to write.Research in the Teaching of English,41(1), 842.

    Englert, C.S., Mariage, T., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruc-tion research. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writingresearch(pp. 208221). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Englert, C.S., Raphael, T., Anderson, L.M., Anthony, H., & Stevens, D. (1991). Making strategiesand self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms, AmericanEducational Research Journal, 28(2), 337372.

    Ferretti, R., Lewis, W., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of studentsargumentative writing strategies?Journal of Educational Psychology,101(3), 577589.

    Fletcher, R. (1992).What a writer needs. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Freire, P. (1970).Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury.Gould, J.S., & Gould, E.J. (1999). Four square writing method. Carthage, IL: Teaching & Learning.Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C.A.

    MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187207).New York, NY: Guilford.

    Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1993). Self-regulated strategy development: Helping students withlearning problems develop as writers. Elementary School Journal,94, 169181.

    Graves, D. (1994).A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Graves, D. (2003).Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Guthrie, J.T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A.D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C.C., & Mitchell,

    A.M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies duringConcept-oriented reading instruction.Reading Research Quarterly,31, 306332.

    Gutierrez, K. (1992). A comparison of instructional contexts in writing: Process classrooms withLatino children.Education and Urban Society,24, 244252.

    Harcourt School Publishers. (2003). Trophies: Grade 3 teacher edition collection themes Vols. 16.Orlando, FL: Author.

    Harper, C., Platt, E., Naranjo, C., & Boyton, S. (2007). Marching in unison: Florida ESL teachersand No Child Left Behind. TESOL Quarterly,41(3), 642651.

    Hasit, C. & Sullivan, J. (1995). Recent changes in instructional practices in the teaching of literacy

    in New Jersey schools.Reading Instruction Journal,38, 918.Hillocks, G. (2002).The testing trap: How state assessments of writing control learning. New York,

    NY: Teachers College.Hsu, C. (2009). Teaching tips: Writing partnerships. Reading Teacher,63(2), 153158.Kamberelis, G., & Bovino, T.D. (1999). Cultural artifacts as scaffolds for genre development.

    Reading Research Quarterly,34, 138170.Lensmire, T. (1993). Following the child, socioanalysis, and threats to the community: Teacher

    response to childrens texts.Curriculum Inquiry,23, 265299.Lensmire, T. (2000).Powerful writing, responsible teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College.Lewison, M., & Heffernan, L. (2008). Rewriting writers workshop: Creating safe spaces for

    disruptive stories.Research in the Teaching of English,42(4), 435465.Lieberman, A., & Mace, D.H. (2009). The role of accomplished teachers in professional learn-

    ing communities: Uncovering practice and enabling leadership.Teachers and Teaching,15(4),459470.

    Lipson, M., Mosenthal, J., Daniels, P., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2000). Process writing in the class-rooms of eleven fifth-grade teachers with different orientations to teaching and learning.

    Elementary School Journal,101(2), 209232.Little, J.W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers

    College Record,5(6), 913945.Little, J.W., & McLaughlin, M. (1993). Teachers work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. New

    York, NY: Teachers College.McCann, T.M. (1989). Student argumentative writing at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching

    of English,23(1), 6276.McCarthey, S.J. (1994). Authors, talk, and text: The internalization of dialogue from social

    interaction during writing.Reading Research Quarterly,29(3), 201231.

    McCarthey, S.J. (2008). The impact of No Child Left B