Approaches To Writing 2011

This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES]
On: 24 June 2014, At: 07:28

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Pedagogies: An International Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hped20
Approaches to writing instruction

a
Sarah J. McCarthey & Yeon Sun (Ellie) Ro
Department of Curriculum and Instruction , College of

Education, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign ,
Champaign, IL, USA
b
Instruction 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 (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and 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 sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial 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/termsand-conditions

Vol. 6, No. 4, OctoberDecember 2011, 273295
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014
Sarah J. McCartheya* and Yeon Sun (Ellie) Rob

a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, University of Illinois at
UrbanaChampaign, Champaign, IL, USA; b Instruction 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 to
understand their approaches to writing instruction and influences on their instruction.
Through classroom observations and interviews with teachers, the authors identified
four approaches to writing instruction: writers workshop, traditional skills, genre-based
instruction and hybrid/eclectic. The data demonstrate that process writing in the form
of writers workshop and traditional skills instruction are still occurring in schools.
However, the study showed a newer trend in writing instruction many teachers
are using graphic organizers and attending to specific genres. The study showed
that professional development and state standards are major influences on teachers
instruction.
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 writing, not enough time devoted to writing, inadequate assessment of writing and not enough
professional development. The Commission has made recommendations that include comprehensive 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 of
Educational 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 instruction 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 of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB; US Department of Education, 2001) and the emphasis on standards and
*Corresponding author. Email: mccarthe@illinois.edu
ISSN 1554-480X print/ISSN 1554-4818 online
2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/1554480X.2011.604902
http://www.informaworld.com
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 instruction 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 instruction 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 observational 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 professional 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 categories: traditional instruction and writing workshop (or process approaches for Cutler and
Graham). 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 typically 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 of
process approaches is consistent with Pollington et al.s (2001) description of writing workshops. Calkins (1986) and Graves (1994) are the best known proponents of the writing
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 findings 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 particular 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 middleclass 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 language 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 processoriented 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 constructivist 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 ensuring 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 texts
when they had support through scaffolding. However, the metaphor itself has been critiqued for its misuse in schools such as supporting teachers intentions rather than students
276
needs (Searle, 1984) and its emphasis on teachers unilateral, pre-planned actions instead
of reciprocity (Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989). Dyson (1990) pointed out the limitations 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 revising. 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 instruction 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 century 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 systems. 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, expository and poetic structures has helped elementary students understand genre (Donovan
& Smolkin, 2002). Children as young as in the fourth grade can engage in argumentative 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 classroom 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 classroom represented their official (classroom) and unofficial (out of school) worlds in their
writing 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
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 influence 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 WilsonKeenan (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 elementary 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 important 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 contexts 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 mathematics and employ a statewide accountability system (www.ed.gov.esea). The policies and
related practices had a number of unintended consequences including lowering teacher
morale (Darling-Hammond, 2007), affecting student learning and motivation (McCaslin,
2006), narrowing the curriculum (Center on Education Policy, 2007) and limiting teachers abilities to address individual needs (Harper, Platt, Naranjo, & Boyton, 2007). The
unintended consequences were particularly noticeable in low-income schools where teachers 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 goals
for student learning and assessment. All 50 states have established language arts standards; most have separate reading and writing standards. The writing standards include a
278
focus on purposes and audience, the writing process (drafting, revising, editing), organization 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 reading 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 curriculum. Slavin and Maddens (2001) Success for all includes 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 teachers from rubrics to score student work (Spandel, 2005), has been used as the basis for
staff development programmes. Calkins et al. (2006) have developed Units of study for
primary writing with a focus on specific genres to provide systematic writing instruction 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 emergence 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 programme 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 individualized 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 process 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
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 observations 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 portfolio 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 requires
state 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 contacted 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 fourthgrade 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 thirdand fourth-grade levels at each of the eight schools volunteered. Sixteen teachers were from
high-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 language arts instruction. Teachers also provided demographic information including years
of experience, degrees earned and so on. A district administrator or person who provided
professional development was also interviewed to provide the larger context for writing
instruction.
280
Table 1.

Demographics of participating teachers.
Teacher grade level

Utah: High-income school
Marcy, fourth grade
Lucy, fourth grade
Ruth, fourth grade
Daniel, third grade
Sarah, third grade
Utah: Low-income school
Amy, fourth grade
Kristen, fourth grade
Susan, third grade
James, third grade
Illinois: High-income school
Jackie, fourth grade
Sally, third grade
Tom, third grade
Illinois: Low-income school
Sharon, fourth grade
Rhonda, fourth grade
Dana, fourth grade
Olene, fourth grade
Shauna, fourth grade
Brenda, fourth grade
West Virginia: High-income school
Carla, fourth grade
Connie, third grade
Alice, third grade
West Virginia: Low-income school
Anna, fourth grade
Mary, fourth grade
Wanda, third grade
Cynthia, third grade
Vermont: High-income school
Mary, fourth grade
Wanda, third grade
Cynthia, third grade
Anna, fourth grade
Ethnicity, gender
Highest degree
Years teaching
White, female
White, female
White, female
White, male
White, female
MA
MA+40 (credits)
MS
MA
MA equivalent
29
12
19
21
22
White, female
White, female
White, female
White, male
MA
MA+40 (credits)
BA
BS
23
26
10
5
White, female
White, female
White, male
MA
MA
MA
8
14
9
White, female
White, female
White, female
African American,
female
African American,
female
White, female
BSE
BA
BA
MA
BA
16
2
3
1 (as a certified
teacher)
20
BS
14
White, female
White, female
White, female
BS+
MA
Masters
33
25
7
White, female
White, female
White, female
White, female
BA+
Masters+
Masters+
BS
8
31
5
8
White, female
White, female
White, female
White, female
BA
BA+
BA+
Masters+
34
33
20
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 laptops, 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.
Interviews
Each teacher was interviewed for 45 minutes before or after writing instruction (depending on the teachers schedule) using a semi-structured interview protocol. The protocol
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 lowachieving 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 opportunities 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 of
the 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. wholegroup 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; organization of writing such as including topic sentences and paragraph structure; qualities of
writing 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 then
combined those into larger charts to examine the data across teachers, schools and
states.
282
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 instruction: a writers workshop, skills and genre. A writers workshop approach resembled the
types of workshops promoted by Calkins (1994) that included 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. The skills approach consisted
of whole-group lessons that focused on isolated skills such as sequencing, paragraphing 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 provided specific prompts; students wrote within specified genres (narrative, descriptive,
research or expository); teachers used graphic organizers; and teachers provided feedback 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 corroboration (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 category. 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 the hybrid/eclectic
group. The interview data supported this hybrid designation because there were teachers who resisted certain approaches and/or described making up their own prompts and
materials, or borrowing from a number of sources.
The researchers then examined the interview data to understand influences on teachers 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 professional 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 larger
context of the district goals and curriculum, staff development opportunities and requirements 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 understand 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 presented in table form, followed by examples of teachers within each group. Major influences
on writing instruction are identified in the next section.
283

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 workshop, 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 used
a 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 workshop 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)
Self-selected topics
Genre (narrative,
research, expository,
descriptive)
Basal textbook or
mandated
programme
Borrowed from
many sources
Graphic organizer
Any genre
Teacher-led
Created their own

prompts,
assignments
Focus on leads,
voice (Six Traits)
Marcy (UT, HI)
Lucy (UT, HI)
James (UT, LI)
Susan (UT, LI)
Amy (UT, LI)
Prompts
Skills such as
paragraphs, parts of
speech, mechanics
Whole-group
instruction
No conferences or
peer interaction
Dana (IL, LI)
Rhonda (IL,LI)
Olene (IL, LI)
Shauna (IL, LI)
Sharon (IL, LI)
Cynthia (WV, LI)
Jackie (IL, HI)

Tom (IL, HI)
Sally (IL, HI)
Brenda (IL, LI)
Anna (WV, LI)
Mary (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)
Sarah (UT, HI)

Ruth (UT, HI)
Kristen (UT, LI)
Daniel (UT, HI)
Note: IL, Illinois; UT, Utah; V, Vermont; WV, West Virginia; HI, High income; LI, Low income.
284
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 students 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 during 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 the
students 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 working
on it a little bit last week and this week, where as we read stories, we think about how the
authors started their story out. So its not so boring. So some of the kids have been Do you
think 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 writing 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 pattern 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 just
having them do writing plans. I can actually think of lessons, and I can use literature that has
good examples of all of those things. Five years ago I dont think I ever talked about word
choice, or I didnt talk about voice and getting your personality into it. The humor. I never
talked 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 writers
workshop is still occurring; however, the influence of Six-Traits writing materials is also
evident.
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 was
whole group with students filling out worksheets or writing answers to questions individually. 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 consisted 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 working 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 some
students 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; rather
they 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 provide 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 practices that were consistent with either a process/writers workshop approach or a skills
approach, more teachers tended to use a genre approach.
286
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 instruction 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 instructions 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 organizers 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 writing 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, shelter, 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 to
create 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
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 workshop 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 expectations 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 format; 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 at
more 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 descriptive 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 wrote
a 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 will
have given me ideas over the year. And I make it fit with whatever is happening in their life at
that time: vacation, like, Tell me about one thing that you did on vacation.
288
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 the
same 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 professional 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 Literacy
Standards. 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 internal
coaches, [and] theres an external coach, too, that works with the Americas Choice Company.
And thats when theyre given the support that they need to work with those types of strategies
with 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
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 program 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) and
tremendously helped kids get organized. In the first paragraph, its like the red. Okay, then you
get your blue or yellow. Those are going to be your supporting (details) from your opening
sentence. 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 colleagues has really helped. Jill (VT, HI) went on to explain how the university person had
come to work with them two years ago:
We meet as a whole group, and you have assignments in the reading books by well-known
authors . . . . 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 teachers in other states and schools mentioned one-time workshops as helping them with their
writing. 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 classroom, 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 foursquare writing that influenced her instruction:
This has made an impact on me. I remember sitting at the in-service saying this is what I want
to do. I can get into it. I understood paragraph writing from this. It does work. Each box is a
paragraph. They (the students) seem to see that. I saw that last year where they did well on the
writing 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 had
influenced their writing instruction. Jackie (IL, HI) described her school coming together
to develop rubrics from the state standards:
290
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 helps
more than anything to develop a common language so that kids see the colors and they realize
what 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 in
compliance 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 the
writing assessment has been the biggest influence and just the school, because one of the
school goals is to improve writing. So the school-wide push for writing has been an influence
also.
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 school
expects. 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 centred
on 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 the
narrative. Heres how to get them to pass the persuasive. Heres how to get them to pass this
and that. And so, its not to say there arent, you know, just gems of writing teachers still out
there, but its been really easy to abandon all that you know about best practice when your
kids 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 the
Six Traits as part of their instruction. In Utah, the writing assessment (Directed Writing
Assessment) was based on the Six Traits.
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 standards 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 pockets 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 finding that almost half of the teachers focused on teaching specific genres (e.g. narrative,
expository, persuasive) and used graphic organizers in their writing instruction demonstrates 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 simply 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 meaning 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 finding 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
292
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 development 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 procedures 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 particular approach) was any evidence of using technology (Chapman, 2006) or engaging in any
dialogic 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 multimodal 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 writing 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 influential, it seems imperative to have professional opportunities for teachers to engage in
writing themselves, work with other colleagues and have input in the curriculum to provide experiences for children to use technology and engage in critique. Thus, the next
step is to conduct research to understand the relationship between professional development 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, having only one observation and interview prevented the researchers from obtaining in-depth
information about each teachers instruction over a period of time. Because the discussion 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.
293
References
Allington, R.L., & Johnston, P.H. (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary fourth-grade
classrooms. 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? English
Journal, 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 designs
for 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 writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 293309). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing
abilities. 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-5
students 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 development. 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.
294
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 instruction research. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing
research (pp. 208221). New York, NY: Guilford.
Englert, C.S., Raphael, T., Anderson, L.M., Anthony, H., & Stevens, D. (1991). Making strategies
and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms, American
Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 337372.
Ferretti, R., Lewis, W., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students
argumentative 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 with
learning 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 during
Concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 306332.
Gutierrez, K. (1992). A comparison of instructional contexts in writing: Process classrooms with
Latino 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 teachers
and 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 learning 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 classrooms 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 Behind on teachers writing instruction. Written
Communication, 25, 462505.
295
McCarthey, S.J., Garcia, G.E., Lpez-Velsquez, A., Lin, S., & Guo, Y. (2004). Understanding
writing contexts for English Language Learners. Research in the Teaching of English, 38,
351394.
McCaslin, M. (2006). Student motivational dynamics in the era of school reform. Elementary School
Journal, 106, 479490.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Commission on Writing in Americas Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected R:
The need for a writing revolution. Reston, VA: The College Board.
National Writing Project, & Nagin, C. (2003). Because writing matters. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 6092.
Newkirk, T., & Tobin, L. (Eds.). (1994). Taking stock: The writing process movement in the 90s.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in
school. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Parr, J.M., & Limbrick, L. (2010). Contextualising practice: Hallmarks of effective teachers of
writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 583590.
Pollington, M.F., Wilcox, B., & Morrison, T.G. (2001). Self-perception in writing: The effects of writing workshop and traditional instruction on intermediate grade students. Reading Psychology,
22, 249265.
Pritchard, R.J., & Honeycutt, R.L. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction: Examining
its effectiveness. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing
research (pp. 275290). New York, NY: Guilford.
Raphael, T.E., & Hiebert, E.H. (1996). Creating an integrated approach to literacy instruction. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
Reyes, M. (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: Literacy instruction for linguistically different
students. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 427446.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York, NY: Appleton-Century.
Searle, D. (1984). Scaffolding: Whos scaffolding whose building? Language Arts, 61(5), 480483.
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N. (2001). One million children: Success for all. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Smagorinsky, P. (1987). Graves revisited: A look at the methods and conclusions of the New
Hampshire study. Written Communication, 4(4), 331342.
Smagorinsky, P. (Ed.). (2006). Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of
change. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Solsken, J., Willett, J., & Wilson-Keenan, J. (2000). Cultivating hybrid texts in multicultural
classrooms: Promise and challenge. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(2), 179212.
Spandel, V. (2005). Creating writers through 6-trait writing assessment and instruction (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Troia, G.A., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit teacher-directed strategy
instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 35, 290305.
US Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www.
ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html
Valds, G. (1999). Incipient bilingualism and the development of English language writing abilities in the secondary school. In C.J. Faltis & P.M. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents,
bilingualism, and ESL in the secondary school (pp. 138175). New York, NY: Teachers College.
Whitney, A. (2008). Teacher transformation in the National Writing Project. Research in the Teaching
of English, 43(2), 144187.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89100.

Approaches To Writing 2011

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Approaches To Writing 2011

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES]

On: 24 June 2014, At: 07:28

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Approaches to writing instruction

Sarah J. McCarthey & Yeon Sun (Ellie) Ro

Department of Curriculum and Instruction , College of

Instruction Curriculum Leadership, College of Education,

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Approaches to writing instruction

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

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

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

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

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

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

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

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

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

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

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

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

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

Teacher grade level

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

Pedagogies: An International Journal

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

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

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

Combining observation and interview data

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Approaches to writing instruction

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

Created their own

Jackie (IL, HI)

Sarah (UT, HI)

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

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

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

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

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

Pedagogies: An International Journal

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

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

Patterns within and across schools

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

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

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014

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

more secondary teachers were involved in professional development activities focused on

Pedagogies: An International Journal

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 07:28 24 June 2014