FROM PROBLEM TO POSSIBILITIES: SHIFTS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ NOTICING OF K-1 WRITERS
A dissertation submitted to the Kent State University College of Education, Health and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
By
Dawn R. Roginski
December 2020 A dissertation written by
Dawn R. Roginski
B.S., Kent State University, 1988
M.L.I.S., Kent State University, 2003
Ph.D., Kent State University, 2020
Approved by
, Director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Lori G. Wilfong
, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Amy L. Damrow
, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Janice Kroeger
Accepted by
, Director, School of Teaching, Learning Alexa L. Sandmann and Curriculum Studies
, College of Education, Health and Human James C. Hannon, Services
ii ROGINSKI, DAWN R., Ph.D., December 2020 Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Studies
FROM PROBLEM TO POSSIBILITIES: SHIFTS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ NOTICING OF K-1 WRITERS (251 pp.)
Director of Dissertation: Lori G. Wilfong, Ph.D.
Responding to a writer, a core practice for writing teachers begins when the teacher notices the author of a written product. The purpose of this study was to understand how early childhood (EC) preservice teachers (PSTs) in a literacy methods course noticed the K-1 writers responsible for seven written products. Twenty PSTs approximated taking notice of a writer using writing samples.
The participants provided Lists of Noticing for each Writing Sample that were recorded in a master matrix. Through an examination of the matrix, shifts in the PSTs’ noticing of the K-1 writers became evident. Through semi-structured interviews and written course assignments, an understanding of how the PSTs experienced the practice of noticing was possible.
The PSTs’ noticing is not meant to be generalized beyond the context of this study. However, their experiences do potentially inform our understanding of the challenges PSTs encounter when negotiating their own EC writing memories and the process of writing understandings presented in EC literacy methods courses. Given the lack of research regarding how PSTs take notice of the writer, this qualitative study adds insight into what EC PSTs identify as significant in young writers’ work. Further, the experiences significant in disrupting the EC PSTs’ engrained noticing patterns are presented. The implications of this study indicate the value in requiring all EC PSTs of writing to complete a teacher preparation course focused on writing. In that course, it would be ideal for PSTs to practice responding to writers. In the absence of writers, teacher educators might use writing samples so that PSTs can approximate responding to writers. As the PSTs come to understand that they are responding to the writer responsible for a writing product, the PSTs might envision ways to nudge forward the writer using encouragement. As a writer’s writing proficiencies are limited [only] by the abilities of teachers to teach [writing] well” (Gallavan & Bowles, 2007, p. 61), continued emphasis on preparing PSTs to attend to the “surplus of possibilities” (Bomer et al.,
2019, p. 140) of a writer holds great promise for educating the next generation of writers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Drs. Wilfong, Damrow, and Kroeger continually provided feedback and encouragement on this project. I offer immense gratitude for the time they invested in reading drafts and offering suggestions to improve my work. Without the commitment and encouragement of these wise mentors, this dissertation would be incomplete. With the greatest of respect, I thank these scholars for their mentorship, patience, and willingness to share their wisdom.
Dr. Denise Morgan was involved in this project for many months. Due to a planned sabbatical, she was not able to serve as a committee member. However, Dr.
Morgan pushed me more than I have ever been pushed. If not for her tough love, this endeavor may have collapsed or been non-existent. Because of Dr. Morgan’s early commitment to me during this project, I experienced the impact a professor can make on a student. I hope to inspire students as she inspired me eventually.
I offer gratitude to Dr. Karl Kosko for his willingness to serve as the Graduate
Faculty Representative on the Dissertation Committee. Dr. Kosko’s thought provoking questions have quietly guided the next steps I visualize for the tremendous data I gathered in this investigation.
A special thank you to Shannon Stewart and Sherry Emsberger for assistance in answering questions and providing helping hands throughout my years in the TLC program. Their insider-knowledge on all things White Hall made my work easier.
iii
DEDICATION
The completion of this dissertation was not a solitary endeavor. It required the faith of many. The completion of this project is owed in part to:
My parents, Richard and Nancy Turocy, who have always shown an unwavering belief in me. When my determination has waned, it has been the support and prayers from my parents that propelled me forward.
My three children sustained me in different ways throughout this journey--
Rachel, the tenacity you have shown in achieving your own credentials reminded me to work hard and then even harder. I am proud of you and hope you are proud of yourself.
Leah, your willingness to talk about systemic issues and current events allowed me to feel confident in my world beliefs. Although, at times, our ideals differed, your intelligence inspired me to look at things differently. Thank you for being my ever-ready sounding board.
Alex, you are a born leader and the bravest individual I know. Your confidence shows no bounds. From watching you, I have learned to “swing for the fences.” Your willingness to take a shot at a dream that few realize has inspired me to fulfill mine. I found my dream, and I believe you will find yours as well.
Bob, completing this endeavor was blocked with moments of self-doubt and self- pity. You kept me in check. I love you for constantly bringing me perspective and reminding me, “You’re so close.”
iv
To my doctoral cohort with whom I wrote, rewrote, and sometimes commiserated.
It was your loud and continual cheering that propelled me to become a novice scholar.
Thank you for being “my people.”
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii
DEDICATION ...... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xi
LIST OF TABLES...... xiv
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 A Need to Practice Responding for EC Teachers of Writing ...... 2 Noticing: A Precursor to Responding...... 3 Using Writing Samples to Practice Noticing...... 3 Purpose of Study...... 4 Research Questions...... 5 Statement and Significance of the Problem ...... 5 Conclusion...... 6 Definition of Terms...... 7 Abbreviations...... 12
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 13 Writing Instruction – The Neglected “R” ...... 14 Writing Instruction in Teacher Preparation...... 15 Product Vs. Process Writing Instruction...... 28 The Writing Workshop-a Process Approach to Writing Instruction. 29 Preparing Preservice Teachers for Early Childhood Writing Instruction...... 30 Themes in Emergent Literacy...... 32 Teachers Should Not Delay Writing Instruction...... 34 Emergent Reading and Writing are Reciprocal Processes. . 34 Young Students Need Explicit Writing Instruction...... 35 Emergent Writers Require Authentic Contexts for Their Writing...... 35 Emergent Literacy is a Continuum That Includes Drawing and Play...... 36 Children Benefit From Handwriting Fluency and Invented Spelling...... 36 Peer and Teacher Talk Serve Important Roles in Writing Development ...... 37 Early Literacy Skills...... 37 vi
The Social Nature Of Learning to Write ...... 39 Noticing: A Precursor to Responding...... 40 Decomposing Teacher Noticing...... 41 A Call for Additional Research in Noticing...... 41 What to Notice- Product or Process? ...... 41 The Use of Writing Samples to Approximate a Rehearsal...... 43 Theoretical Orientation – Social Constructivism...... 43 Scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development...... 45 Scaffolding and Emergent Writing...... 45 Scaffolding and Writing Samples...... 46 Summary ...... 46
III. METHODS 48 A Case for Preservice Teacher Noticing in K-1 Writing...... 48 The Present Study...... 48 Study Design and Rationale...... 49 Pilot Study...... 50 Participants...... 50 Context of the Research Site...... 51 The Early Childhood Education(ECE) Program...... 52 Block Two...... 52 The Course, ECED 30123...... 53 Class Sessions...... 54 COVID-19...... 54 Data Sources...... 55 PST Lists of Noticing – Writing Samples 1-7...... 55 Writing Case Study Assignment...... 64 Reflection Assignment, Part One...... 65 Reflection Assignment, Part Two...... 67 Semi-Structured Interviews...... 67 Data Collection and Rationale...... 69 Data Analysis...... 72 Lists of Noticing...... 72 Writing Case Study Assignments, Interview Transcripts, and Reflection Assignments...... 73 Phase One: First-Cycle Codes ...... 74 Lists of Noticing (Seven Writing Samples)...... 74 Writing Case Study Assignments, Interview Transcripts, and Reflection Assignments...... 86 Phase Two: Second-Cycle Pattern Coding...... 88 Lists of Noticing (Seven Writing Samples) ...... 88 Writing Case Study Assignments, Interview Transcripts, and Reflection Assignments...... 96 vii
Summary of Methods...... 106
IV. FINDINGS 107 Informing Research Questions...... 109 What Do EC PSTs Notice About K-1 Writers in K-1 Writing Samples?...... 109 Writing Sample 1, Myself ...... 109 Writing Sample 2, Nysia...... 114 Writing Sample 3, Peanut Butter And Jelly ...... 118 Writing Sample 4, My Cousin Is A Nuisance ...... 122 Writing Sample 5, A Pig Kissed Me...... 127 Writing Sample 6, Go Patriots! ...... 131 Writing Sample 7, My Birthday Party...... 137 Summary of Noticing in Writing Samples 1-7...... 143 Conventional Writing Skills...... 145 Early Literacy Skills...... 147 Process Writing Skills...... 149 Tone of Language...... 151 How Do EC PSTs Shift in Their Noticing of the Writer in K-1 Writing Samples?...... 153 Shift One: From Convention to Process...... 154 Shift Two: Recognizing Possibilities Over Problems. . . . 156 There is a Difference Between Noticing the Writer and the Writing...... 157 Writing Needs to be Done More Than it Needs to be Taught...... 159 Learning to Write Requires All Writers to Engage in a Process...... 160 Shift Three: Young Writers Can Approximate Before Displaying a Readiness to Write...... 161 Individual Writing Development Proceeds Through Stages and is Mediated by a Child’s Oral Language Development ...... 161 Scribbles Carry Meaning...... 162 Handwriting is Not the Same as Writing and Legibility Does Not Constrain Writing Development...... 163 What Experiences Influence EC PSTs’ Noticing of the Writer in Writing Samples? ...... 164 Writing Samples ...... 164 Writing Case Study Assignment ...... 165 Traditional Teacher-Driven Instruction...... 165 Writing Journal...... 166 viii
Summary...... 167
V. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 169 Overview of the Study...... 169 Theoretical Considerations...... 171 Discussion of the Findings...... 173 Teacher Noticing...... 175 Shift One: From Convention to Process...... 176 Shift Two: Recognizing Possibilities Over Problems. . 177 The Writer Versus the Writing...... 177 Writing Requires Writers to Write...... 177 Shift Three: Writers Can Approximate Writing Before Appearing Ready to Write ...... 178 Writing is More Than Handwriting...... 179 All Writers are Ready to Write...... 180 Writing is Social...... 180 Acceptance of Spelling Approximation...... 181 Implications ...... 182 Implications for Teacher Preparation Programs...... 182 Implications for Teacher Educators of EC PSTs. . . . . 183 Implications for EC Writing Instruction...... 185 Limitations...... 187 Context of Study...... 187 Role of Researcher...... 187 Duration...... 188 Sample Size...... 188 Coding...... 188 Recollection of EC Writing Instruction...... 188 Removed Social Relationship...... 189 Effect of Course Activities...... 189 Areas for Further Study...... 190 Conclusion...... 191
APPENDICES ...... 193 APPENDIX A. INFORMED CONSENT...... 194 APPENDIX B. COURSE SYLLABUS...... 197 APPENDIX C. REVISED SYLLABUS – REMOTE LEARNING...... 208 APPENDIX D. WRITING SAMPLE 1...... 213 APPENDIX E. WRITING SAMPLE 2...... 215 APPENDIX F. WRITING SAMPLE 3...... 217 APPENDIX G. WRITING SAMPLE 4...... 219 APPENDIX H. WRITING SAMPLE 5...... 221 ix
APPENDIX I. WRITING SAMPLE 6 ...... 223 APPENDIX J. WRITING SAMPLE 7...... 225 APPENDIX K. WRITING CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT PROTOCOL FOR COLLECTING WRITING SAMPLE FROM CHILD...... 227 APPENDIX L. REFLECTION ASSIGNMENT...... 232
REFERENCES ...... 234
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Class Environment by Semester Week...... 54
2. Class Environment by Semester Week, Revised Due to COVID-19 Pandemic...... 55
3. Reflection Data...... 66
4. Data Collected by Semester Week...... 72
5. Phases of the Data Analysis Process...... 73
6. Lists of Noticing in Writing Sample 4 from Emily & Kris in Excel Matrix...... 75
7. First-Cycle Coding of Noticing for Writing Samples 4 through 6, Emily...... 76
8. Photograph of First-Cycle Codes from Writing Case Study Assignments, Reflection Assignments, and Interview Transcripts. . . . . 88
9. Grouping of First-Cycle codes into Second-Cycle codes for Writing Sample 4...... 93
10. Data Network Map of First- Cycle Codes from All Data Sources...... 97
11. Writing Sample 1, Myself ...... 110
12. Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 1...... 110
13. Writing Sample 2, Nysia...... 114
xi
14. Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 2...... 116
15. Writing Sample 3, Peanut Butter and Jelly ...... 119
16. Percent of skills noticed in Writing Sample 3...... 120
17. Writing Sample 4, My Cousin is a Nuisance ...... 123
18. Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 4...... 124
19. Writing Sample 5, A Pig Kissed Me ...... 127
20. Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 5...... 129
21. Writing Sample 6, Go Patriots! ...... 132
22. Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 6...... 134
23. Writing Sample 7, My Birthday Party...... 138
24. Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 7...... 139
25. Frequency of Second-Cycle Pattern Code Noticed by Writing Sample. . 144
26. Frequency of Noticing – Conventional Writing Skills by Writing Sample...... 146
27. Conventional Writing Skills, Trend in Noticing by Writing Sample. . . . 147
28. Early Literacy Skills, Trend in Noticing by Writing Sample ...... 148
29. Frequency of Noticing – Early Literacy Skills by Writing Sample. . . . . 148
xii
30. Process Writing Skills, Trend in Noticing by Writing Sample ...... 150
31. Frequency of Noticing, Process Writing Skills by Writing Sample. . . . 150
32. Tone of PSTs’ Language by Writing Sample...... 153
33. Trends in PSTs’ Noticing Across the Seven Writing Samples...... 155
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Descriptions of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing ...... 18
2. Participant Demographics...... 51
3. Writing Samples 1 Through 7...... 57
4. Interview Guide...... 69
5. Artifacts Collected from Participants...... 70
6. Data Collected to Inform Each Research Question...... 71
7. Master List of First-Cycle Codes...... 77
8. Summary Row of First-Cycle Codes Applied in Writing Sample 4. . . . 86
9. First-Cycle Codes Sorted into Second-Cycle Pattern Codes...... 91
10. Codes Applied by Writing Sample...... 94
11. Percent of Codes Identified in Writing Samples by Second-Cycle Pattern Code...... 95
12. Percent of Negative Noticing in Writing Sample 4...... 96
13. Narrative Paragraphs Using First-Cycle and Second-Cycle Codes to Answer Research Questions...... 99
14. Items Noticed in Writing Sample 1, Myself ...... 111
15. Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 1...... 112
16. Items Noticed in Writing Sample 2, Nysia ...... 115
17. Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 2...... 117 xiv
18. Items Noticed in Writing Sample 3, Peanut Butter and Jelly...... 119
19. Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 3...... 121
20. Items Noticed in Writing Sample 4, My Cousin is a Nuisance...... 123
21. Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 4...... 125
22. Items Noticed in Writing Sample 5, A Pig Kissed Me...... 127
23. Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 5...... 129
24. Items Noticed in Writing Sample 6, Go Patriots! ...... 133
25. Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 6...... 135
26. Items Noticed in Writing Sample 7, My Birthday Party ...... 138
27. Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 7...... 141
28. Second-Cycle Pattern Codes of Skills Noticed in Writing Samples 1-7. 144
29. Trends in Noticing by PST...... 152
xv 1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Writing is “the quintessential 21st-century skill” (The National Council of
Teachers of English [NCTE], 2009, p. 4). Ninety percent of mid-career professionals recognized the “need to write effectively” as a skill “of great importance” for daily living
(National Commission on Writing [NCW], 2003, p. 11). The ability to write well influences students’ grades, likeliness to attend college, and future employment opportunities (Graham & Perin, 2007; Tracy, Reid, & Graham, 2009).
Teachers need to develop the writing skills of students (Graham & Perin, 2007) as students’ abilities across many disciplines are judged through their writing (Calkins,
2003b). Preparing preservice teachers (PSTs) to support students’ writing development is vital because of the enduring consequences of writing ability. Myers et al. (2016) suggested that the lack of data about the “current state of writing instruction in university teacher preparation programs is a barrier obstructing the improvement of writing instruction” (p. 309). Research investigating the preparation of future writing teachers is warranted.
Writing is the curricular area short-changed in Language Arts classrooms (Martin
& Dismuke, 2015) with reading instruction emphasized over writing instruction (Collier,
Scheld, Barnard, & Stallcup, 2015; Gardner, 2014; Grisham & Wolsey, 2011; Hall &
Grisham-Brown, 2011; Norman & Spencer, 2005). Few states require PSTs to complete a writing methods course (Batchelor, Morgan, Kidder-Brown, & Zimmerman, 2014;
Hall, 2016; Martin & Dismuke, 2015) despite a call from the NCW (2003) to do so. Ray
2
(2002) commented that because of the privileging of reading methods, “there [remains] a lot to learn about writing and students need teaching that supports their writing” (p. 11).
Writing methods courses bridge what PSTs understand about the theory and the practice of writing. Further, the writing activities presented and modeled for PSTs during literacy methods courses hold the potential to improve future teachers’ writing praxis (Draper,
Barksdale-Ladd, & Radencich, 2000). Therefore, it is important to investigate potential instructional models that teacher educators might implement to improve the writing pedagogy of the writing teachers who will prepare students for the writing tasks of the
21st century (Myers et al., 2016).
A Need to Practice Responding for Early Childhood Teachers of Writing
This is a study concerned with PST learning. I approach this study from a social constructivist perspective in line with Vygotskian tradition. During teacher preparation,
PSTs need experiences that encourage them to “think like a teacher, know like a teacher, feel like a teacher, and act like a teacher as they apply professional knowledge” (Lenski et al., 2013, p. 6). The NCTE (2016) recommended that PSTs gain an understanding of how to respond to writers and Ballock, McQuitty, and McNary (2018) added that experiences, where PSTs respond to writers, are necessary during teacher preparation. I contend that before a PST can respond to a student writer, they must note “the surplus of possibilities” (Bomer, Land, Rubin, & Van Dike, 2019, p. 140) that exist in students’ writing.
3
Noticing: A Precursor to Responding
Little research has examined responding to “student writing as a practice or how novice teachers become skilled in it” (Ballock, McQuitty, & McNary 2018, p. 57).
Ballock et al. (2018) found the variability in how PSTs respond to student writing troubling. The PSTs in Hall and Grisham-Brown’s (2011) methods course acknowledged that responding to student writers is their weakness despite Teaching Works (2109) insistence that responding to student writers is a literacy core practice. Breaking down, or “decomposing a skill” into the “special knowledge, skill, and orientations needed for enactment” assists novices in approximating a core practice (Ballock et al., 2018, p. 57).
Sherin, Jacobs, and Phillips (2011) offered noticing as the starting point for decomposing the practice of responding.
Calkins (2003b) emphasized the importance of noticing skills when she explained to early childhood (EC) writing teachers:
Once we have invited them [young writers] to draw things that have happened to
them and to write and tell us their stories, we will watch closely to see what they
do. As we watch and talk with them, we’ll learn what our children understand
about literacy and what they do as storytellers, writers, spellers, and readers (p.
8).
Using Writing Samples to Practice Noticing
Morgan and Pytash (2014) concluded that working with writing samples allowed
PSTs to practice offering supportive feedback to student writers. Therefore, the use of writing samples in a methods course to practice noticing emergent writers’ skills and
4 understandings may serve as the starting point for developing PSTs’ skills in responding by first noticing the child writer.
Purpose of the Study
The NCTE (2008) asked teacher educators to prepare PSTs to respond to writing, and Teaching Works (2019) identified responding as a core practice for teachers of writing. However, “Little research has examined reading and responding [to writing] as a practice or how novice teachers become skilled in it” (Ballock et al., 2018, p. 57). This study addressed the need for research into how EC PSTs became skilled in noticing the writer. Taking notice in writing samples allowed PSTs to practice their responding skills.
Grossman, Valencia, Evans, Thompson, Martin, and Place (2000) suggested that novices engage in “approximations” of a decomposed skill through rehearsals (p. 283).
Rehearsing responding to a writer, by noticing the possibilities in a writing sample during a methods course allows a PST to engage in an approximation of a “high-level practice”
(Teaching Works, 2019).
Learning happens when PSTs interact in university courses. The instructor, as the expert, assists the novice PSTs in using the tools that will constitute the PSTs’ teaching practices. In this study, future EC writing teachers approximated noticing the writer in writing samples during a literacy methods course. To date, what EC PSTs notice in writing samples was an unexplored theme. A study investigating what PSTs notice in K-
1 writing and how noticing shifts, if at all, during a semester-long literacy course filled a research gap to meet the “ever-present call for more research in teaching writing” (Scales
5 et al., 2019, p. 79). Consequently, it was valuable to examine course experiences that might assist EC PSTs’ rehearsals of a core literacy practice
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the investigation:
1. What do EC PSTs notice about the writer in K-1 writing samples?
2. How do EC PSTs shift, if at all, in their noticing of the writer in K-1 writing
samples during a semester-long literacy methods course?
3. What experiences in a semester-long methods course, if any, influence EC
PSTs’ noticing of the writer in K-1 writing samples?
Statement and Significance of the Problem
Despite the national emphasis on improving writing instruction, Graham and
Perin (2007) concluded that American students were not meeting basic writing standards, and teachers were at a loss for how to help them. The NCW (2003) proposed that the remedy be through teacher-education (Norman & Spencer, 2005). However, research on how to prepare PSTs to teach writing is unexplored (Morgan & Pytash, 2014).
It is worthwhile to consider the activities in teacher preparation that lead PSTs’ to feel confident in responding to student writers given the increased “need [for students] to write effectively” (NCW, 2003, p. 11). Simon said, “Activities in teacher education. . .
[should] require PSTs to respond to student writing, increase attentiveness, questioning, and analysis towards student meaning-making [to] see student work as a surplus of possibilities rather than a collection of deficits” (as cited in Bomer et al., 2019, p. 140).
6
Examining the potential of a literacy methods course to impact how EC PSTs shift, if at all, in their noticing of the writer using K-1 writing samples is valuable.
Because PSTs’ methods courses are a forum to define curricular visions and subsequent instructional practices (Hall, 2009), documenting the potential of shifting PSTs’ noticing habits and the course experiences that contribute to their noticing is justified.
Teacher education will benefit from an understanding of how EC PSTs notice the possibilities in writing samples and how teacher educators can best assist the PSTs’ developing noticing skills. Scholars advocate for PSTs to practice responding to writing, and I contend that using writing samples as the tool to do so is practical.
Conclusion
I believe that PSTs learn as they work to understand and create meaning out of their experiences situated within the social setting of their teaching method courses.
Vygotskian inspired studies are motivated by consideration of human mental functioning within the human’s social context (Graue, 1993). Vygotsky wrote, “We need to concentrate not on the product of development but the very process by which higher forms are established.” (1978, p. 64). PSTs develop their pedagogical understandings about teaching writing when they interact with more knowledgeable others (MKOs) in the context of their teacher preparation program.
Ballock et al. (2018) stated, “Research is needed to further clarify how teachers develop skill in analyzing students’ writing” (p. 66). This research, investigating how teacher educators might assist PSTs in noticing the possibilities in emergent writers’ work filled the demand. In Chapter Two, I discuss the importance of developing
7 students’ writing skills in EC classrooms. I examine the existing research about writing methods courses for EC PSTs and the knowledge necessary for the PSTs to become effective writing teachers. Chapter Two lays the foundation for the study. I describe the qualitative methods used to collect and analyze the data in Chapter Three. Chapter Four details the conclusions of 20 PSTs who engaged in noticing K-1 writers during a semester-long literacy methods course. Based on the experiences of those 20 PSTs,
Chapter 5 suggests how the findings of this study might contribute to a greater understanding of how teacher educators might prepare PSTs to become effective teachers of writing.
Definitions of Terms
Approximated spelling: When young writers attempt to apply their phonological abilities, and awareness of letter sounds to their writing. Typically, children move from spelling words by a beginning consonant sound, to writing both the beginning and ending letters, to writing words with a beginning, middle, and ending sound. The inclusion of vowel sounds along with the consonant sounds is usually the final stage of approximated spelling (Clay, 1975).
Conventional writing skills: Aspects of a written text that focus on correctness and assure “clarity and logic” for the reader (Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara & Harris,
2012, p. 4). Applebee (1986) itemized “patterns of organization, spelling, and grammar” as important conventional skills contributing to “what the final product looks like” (p.
96).
Decomposing: Breaking down a skill into the “special knowledge, skill, and
8 orientations needed for enactment” (Ballock et al., 2018, p. 57).
Early childhood pre-service teachers: EC PSTs are the professionals who are training students in either a self-contained or departmentalized setting at the pre- kindergarten or primary school levels.
Early literacy skills: Early literacy skills are the pieces of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that precede learning to read and write in the primary grades (Roskos,
Christie, & Richgels, 2003).
Letter knowledge: Recognition of the young reader or writer that the alphabet contains a set of symbols, and each symbol represents a sound (Roskos et al., 2003).
Phonological awareness: The ability to attend to the small sounds of language
(Roskos et al., 2003).
Print awareness: Understandings of how print functions such as text moves from the top to the bottom and from the left to the right of a page (Roskos et al., 2003).
Narrative skill: The ability to tell a story (Roskos et al., 2003).
Vocabulary skill: A knowledge of word meanings with a curiosity for using novel words in written texts (Roskos et al., 2003).
Emergent literacy: Emergent literacy is a term coined by Marie Clay (1975) describing young children’s beginning understandings of reading and writing that exist before their formal instruction in reading and writing. Throughout this study, I use
‘emergent literacy’ and ‘early literacy’ interchangeably.
Emergent literacy themes:
• Teachers should not delay writing instruction (Clay, 2005; Durkin, 1966;
9
Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Goodman, 1986);
• Emergent reading and writing are reciprocal processes (Clay, 2005; Shanahan,
2006);
• Young students need explicit writing instruction (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000;
Puranik, Al-Otaiba, Sidler, & Greulich, 2014; Shanahan & Lonigan, 2013);
• Emergent writers require authentic contexts for their writing (Dewey, 1902;
Goodman & Goodman, 2003; Rosenblatt, 2013; Vygotsky, 1978);
• Emergent literacy is a continuum that includes drawing and play (Clay, 1975;
Dyson & Genishi, 2013; Ray & Glover, 2008; Sulzby & Teale, 1996; Vukelich,
1993);
• Children benefit from handwriting fluency and invented spelling (Goodman &
Goodman, 2003; Henderson & Templeton, 1986; Ray & Glover, 2008);
• Peer and teacher talk serve important roles in writing development (Calkins,
1994; Dyson, 2002; Dyson & Genishi, 2013).
Emergent writing assumptions:
• K-1 students can write (Goodman, 1986; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984;
Sulzby & Teale, 1996).
• K-1 approximations are valuable (Calkins, 2003b; Ray & Glover, 2008).
• Young writers do not require the complexity of writing to be simplified
(Vygotsky, 1978).
• Writing requires foundational and compositional skills (Flower, 1990; Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
10
Invented spelling: When emergent writers, using conventional letters, cluster letters together to make word forms. The letters are random and do not look or sound like real words (Clay, 1975).
Methods courses: University courses designed for PSTs which focus on the developmentally appropriate and evidence-based strategies necessary for instruction in a specific content area.
National Writing Project (NWP): A consortium of sites providing professional development aimed at improving the teaching of writing by involving teachers in a national model of writing instruction. Research studies have confirmed improved writing performance by the students of teachers who have participated in the project.
Noticing: The practice of identifying critical moments within instruction and using prior knowledge to explain why student moves are important (Sherin, Jacobs, &
Phillips., 2011).
Preservice teachers (PSTs): Participants in a teacher preparation program seeking teacher certification.
Process writing: An approach to writing that emphasizes prewriting, writing, post-writing, proofreading, and editing. Murray (1972) wrote Teach Writing as Process
Not Product producing a shift in teaching writing from a focus on writing conventions to a focus on writing processes.
Process writing skills: Applebee (1986) suggested that process writing is “a way to think about writing in terms of what a writer does” (p. 96). Examples of skills related to what the writer does include planning, revising, and the like.
11
Product writing: An approach to teaching writing that focuses on the skills and mechanics necessary to produce a correct written product. Students' final text or product is prioritized.
Scaffolding: Support provided to promote student learning. As learners become more proficient, the support is removed (Bruner, 1966).
Scribbling: The first stage in emergent writing, where young toddlers explore making marks with a writing utensil that goes beyond drawing (Clay, 1975).
Teacher-educators: Instructors that guide PSTs through their university coursework preparing them to teach a specific subject.
Writing: “Symbolic representations of meaning,” which may include letters and drawings (Yoon, 2014, p. 110).
Writing Workshop: The Writing Workshop popularized by Lucy Calkins and other writing scholars from the Reading and Writing Project at Columbia is a framework for teaching writing that includes group mini-lessons, independent writing, conferencing, and sharing. The goal is to provide students time and opportunities to use the writing process to create written texts (Calkins, 2003b; Ray & Cleaveland, 2004).
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): The distance between the actual developmental level and the level of the potential development of a learner under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978).
12
Abbreviations
CCSS: Common Core State Standards
EC: Early Childhood
ECE: Early Childhood Education Program
ECED 30123: KSU course 30123 Language and Literacy for the Preschool Child
ELEM: Elementary Education grades K-3
IRB: Institutional Review Board
K-1: Kindergarten through First Grade
KSU: Kent State University
MKO: More Knowledgeable Other
NCLB: No Child Left Behind Act
NCTE: National Council of Teachers of English
NCW: National Commission on Writing
PSTs: Preservice Teachers
ZPD: Zone of Proximal Development
13
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The “need to write effectively” is “of great importance” in day-to-day life (NCW,
2003, p. 11) yet writing instruction is the curricular area short-changed in Language Arts classrooms (Martin & Dismuke, 2015). There is a general need to improve writing instruction (Graham & Perin, 2007). Students’ achievement of national standards has brought increased attention to the writing ability of the youngest writers (Bomer et al.,
2019). EC PSTs voiced concern about their ability to teach writing (Gallavan, Bowles, &
Young, 2007). Norman and Spencer (2005) suggested that the way to remedy the weak curricular area of writing is through improved teacher education. A review of the previous research regarding the preparation of EC PSTs to teach writing begins this chapter.
The 2019 review of literature published by Bomer, Land, Rubin, and VanDike recommended that PSTs of writing be prepared to teach writing using a process approach.
The authors concluded that “it is necessary for PSTs to have a higher-degree of visibility of writing as a process” (Bomer et al., 2019, p. 198). Writing Workshop is the most popular process approach to teaching writing. I will examine the “Writing Workshop and the influence it has placed on literacy instruction around the globe” (George, 2019).
Beyond experiencing a process approach methods course, the NCTE (2016) suggested that teacher educators offer PSTs the opportunity to respond to writers. I will present the application of writing samples to teach PSTs to respond to writers. According to Bomer et al. (2019, p. 140), the ability of EC PSTs to respond to students relies on the
14
PSTs’ ability to notice the “surplus of possibilities” (Bomer et al., 2019, p. 140) in the emergent writer’s product.
I used a sociocultural framework to guide the data collection necessary to answer the research questions which I asked to fill the need for “more research . . . to clarify how teachers’ [develop] skill in analyzing student writing” (Ballock et al., 2018, p. 66).
Chapter three outlines the naturalistic research method I used to conduct this qualitative inquiry.
Writing Instruction – The Neglected “R”
Graham and Perin (2007) suggested , “Students today are not meeting even basic writing standards and their teachers are often at a loss for how to help them” (p. 2).
Practicing teachers of writing consistently informed researchers that they lack confidence in their writing abilities and feel they will “never be able to teach their students to write well” (Street & Stang, 2009, p. 76). Few states require a writing methods course for PSTs
(Batchelor et al., 2014; Hall, 2016; Martin & Dismuke, 2015) despite the NCW’s (2003) recommendation that “universities . . . help advance common expectations by requiring courses in teaching writing for all prospective teachers” (p. 32).
Teacher education programs across the country vary the amount of coursework required in writing pedagogy (Chambless & Bass, 1995; Daisey, 2009; Morgan, 2010).
Teacher preparation programs insert writing method instruction into a literacy curriculum dominated by reading methods (Collier et al., 2015; Gardner, 2014; Grisham & Wolsey,
2011; Hall & Grisham-Brown, 2011; Norman & Spencer, 2005). PSTs reported that they find writing the curricular area they feel least prepared to teach (Grisham & Wolsey,
15
2011; Hall, 2016; Zimmerman, Morgan, & Kidder-Brown, 2014). PSTs’ lack of confidence to teach writing comes during a time when effective writing is a skill of immense importance for all students (Graham & Perin, 2007).
The lack of attention to the “neglected R” (NCW, 2003, p. 9), namely writing, is not new. More than four decades ago Newsweek’s cover story read “Why Johnny Can’t
Write” (Sheils, 1975). More recently, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 listed only reading and mathematics as skills necessary for academic success (Colby &
Stapleton, 2006) with no mention of writing ability.
Ironically, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), adopted by 41 states, reflect an emphasis on writing across grade levels and throughout the curriculum
(Ballock et al., 2018; Martin & Dismuke, 2015). The CCSSs require students to “devote significant time and effort to writing, producing numerous pieces over short and long- time frames throughout the year” and across curricular areas to assure students are
“college and career-ready writers” (CCSS, 2019, pp. 63-64). However, Cutler and
Graham (2008) documented that first, second, and third-grade students spent a mere 21 minutes of their school day writing. Previously, the NCW (2003) stated that writing
“skills cannot be picked up from a few minutes here, and a few minutes there” (p. 20).
Writing Instruction in Teacher Preparation
Practicing teachers affirmed that they received little preservice instruction in writing pedagogy (Graves, 2002). PSTs noted that their training in reading instruction surpassed their preparation for writing instruction (Hall & Grisham-Brown, 2014;
Norman & Spencer, 2005). Moreover, for most teachers, their teacher certification did
16 not require a course focused solely on writing theory and practice (Norman & Spencer,
2005). The failure of teacher preparation programs to require a writing methods course conflicts with the NCW’s (2003) appeal that every PST completes a course in writing theory and practice before obtaining a teaching license.
To improve writing skills at any level, opportunities for regular writing are necessary (Colby & Stapleton, 2006). Morgan (2010) found the PSTs in her writing methods course benefitted from involvement in frequent writing. To teach writing effectively, future teachers benefitted from being writers during teacher preparation
(Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Morgan, 2010; NCW, 2003; Street, 2003; Street & Stang,
2009). Murray (1972) summarized:
Teachers should write so they understand the process of writing from within.
They should know the territory intellectually and emotionally: how you have to
think to be a writer, how you feel when writing. Teachers of writing do not have
to be great writers, but they should have frequent and recent experience in writing
. . . If you experience the despair, the joy, the failure, the success, the work, the
fun, the drudgery, the surprise of writing you will be able to understand the
composing experiences of your students and therefore help them understand how
they are learning to write (p. 74).
In addition to experiencing the writing process, Smith (1983) added that future writing teachers must view themselves as writers. He compared adopting self-efficacy in writing to achieving membership in the literacy club. Smith (1983) explained:
17
The first responsibility of teachers is to show children that writing is interesting,
possible, and worthwhile. But there is also no way of helping children to write if
the teacher does not think writing is interesting, possible, and worthwhile.
Teachers who are not members of the club cannot admit children to the club (p.
566).
The examination into the preparation of EC and elementary (ELEM) PSTs of writing lags that of middle and secondary PSTs of writing. In Morgan and Pytash’s
(2014) twenty-year (1990-2000) review of the literature on preparing PSTs of writing, they reported that 20 of the 31 articles published applied to ELEM PSTs. Two of the articles designated an ELEM focus on the EC grades of pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, first, second, or third grade. The authors concluded that the preparation of ELEM PSTs of writing is unexplored (Morgan & Pytash, 2014).
More recent research into writing instruction investigated PSTs’ attitudes about teaching writing (Hall, 2016); PSTs’ perceptions of learning from engagement in a writing methods course (Martin & Dismuke, 2015); PSTs’ changing beliefs about writing instruction because of literacy methods courses; and how PSTs implemented writing in the field during student teaching and into their first years of teaching (Grisham &
Wolsey, 2011). Few research studies focus on the assignments that writing methods course instructors use to help undergraduate EC teacher candidates become classroom teachers of writing. Research that addressed how EC PSTs learned to respond to emerging writers could not be located.
I summarize the research articles considered for this review in Table 1
18
Table 1
Description of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing
AUTHOR(S) AND DATA TITLE LEVEL DESCRIPTION THEME(S) YEAR COLLECTED Ballock et al., 2018 An Exploration of ELEM 45 PSTs content knowledge of writing is Responding Interviews Professional not enough for effective practice. (and Knowledge Analyzing a writing sample is a way to apprehension Needed for bridge the gap between the necessary toward) to Reading and knowledges. Specific needs are student writers Responding to understanding of core practices of process Student Writing writing and the need to rehearse responding to a writer.
Batchelor, Morgan, Investigating the EC 35 PSTs learnings from a methods course Learning Survey, Kidder-Brown, and Unit of Study using a poetry unit of study. Findings: 1) opportunities in Reflection, Zimmerman, 2014 Approach to Teach Unit of Study format led to genre a methods Artifacts Writing to EC awareness; 2) Engaged students in writing course Education PSTs process; 3) Supported use of mentor texts in improved genre knowledge.
Chambless and Bass, Effecting Changes ELEM 7 ELEM student teachers. Formal Applying the Pre-Post 1995 in Student instruction in process writing and writing process writing Evaluations Teachers’ experiences improved PSTs’ attitude toward experience to Attitudes Toward writing. changing the Writing. writing attitudes of PSTs
19
• Table 1 (continued)
Description of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing
AUTHOR(S) AND DATA TITLE LEVEL DESCRIPTION THEME(S) YEAR COLLECTED • Colby and Stapleton, PSTs Teach ELEM 52 first semester and 26 second semester• Perceptions of Reflections, 2006 Writing: PSTs’ perceptions about teaching writing.• teaching Course Implications for Findings: 1) Writing Workshop was writing Evaluations Teacher Educators challenging; 2) Practice is required; 3) Working with small groups is helpful.
Collier, Scheld, The Negotiation ELEM 21 PSTs dedication to Writing Workshop Commitment to Survey, Barnard, and and Development during methods course. Findings: 1) Writing Interview (10), Stallcup, 2015 of Writing Teacher Recognize importance despite ability to Workshop Observations Identities in implement 2) Student teaching sites did not ELEM offer quality writing instruction.
Dempsey, Helping PSTs to MS 109 PSTs’ abilities and confidence in Ability and Response to PytlikZillig, and Assess Writing: (grade assessing student writing using a Web-based confidence in Samples, Bruning, 2009 Practice and 4) tool. Findings: 1) Self-efficacy was raised assessing Exit Question Feedback in a for assessing student writing; 2) Gained student writing Web-Based awareness of writing traits. Environment
20
Table 1 (continued)
Description of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing
AUTHOR(S) AND DATA TITLE LEVEL DESCRIPTION THEME(S) YEAR COLLECTED Dreher (1990) Preservice Early EC 38 PSTs became more comfortable in a Attitudes Questionnaires Childhood process-writing atmosphere, began to toward process Teachers’ support the Writing Workshop approach, writing Attitudes Toward and wanted to use the process model in their instruction the Process future classrooms. Approach to Writing.
Florio-Ruane and Transforming ELEM 6 PSTs and their reaction to nontraditional Perceptions of Interviews, Lensmire, 1990 Future Teachers’ writing instruction in Writing Workshop. writing Work Samples Ideas About Findings: 1) Changed perceptions of writing instruction Writing Instruction instruction; 2) Resisted implementation of a nontraditional approach; 3) PSTs moved from instructor to facilitator role.
21
Table 1 (continued)
Description of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing
AUTHOR(S) AND DATA TITLE LEVEL DESCRIPTION THEME(S) YEAR COLLECTED Gallavan, Bowles, Writing to Learn ELEM, 112 PSTs at the start of the methods course. Self-as-writer, Survey and Young, 2007 and Learning to MS, HS, Findings: 1) Saw self as a poor writer; 2) self-as-writing Write: Insights Did not know how to teach writing; 3) teacher from Teacher Unable to integrate writing into instruction. Education
Gardner, 2014 Becoming A ELEM 115 PSTs during methods course using Self-as-writer; Interviews Teacher of Writing Workshop. Findings: 1) 50% had Self-as-writing (focus Writing: Primary no pleasure from writing; 2) The experience teacher groups), Student Teachers of being a writer aided the teaching of Reflections Reviewing Their writing; 3) Gained understanding of Relationship with relationship between teacher feelings and Writing student performance.
Gibson, 2007 PSTs’ Knowledge ELEM How do 28 PSTs develop their Analyzing Dialogue of Instructional understanding of writing instruction? Are writing journals Scaffolding for they able to combine students’ skills with samples Writing Instruction students’ needs? Findings: 1) Students brought from believed modeling would lead to improved the field writing; 2) Students did not address writing skills specifically but could develop future writing pedagogy.
22
Table 1 (continued)
Description of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing
AUTHOR(S) AND DATA TITLE LEVEL DESCRIPTION THEME(S) YEAR COLLECTED Grisham and Wolsey, Writing Instruction ELEM PSTs before and after methods course. Self-as-teacher Survey, 2011 for Teacher Findings: 1) Before the course, little of writing Observation, Candidates: confidence in teaching writing; 2) Little Reflections Strengthening a confidence in self-as-writer; 3) Following Weak Curricular writing methods course identified with Area writing process.
Hall, 2009 A Necessary Part ELEM 58 PSTs learning about literacy instruction Self-as-literacy Surveys, of Good Teaching: with diverse populations. Use of teacher teacher Class Using Book Clubs book clubs to understand self-as-literacy Discussions, to Develop PSTs’ teacher. Findings: 1) 86% did not think Reflections Visions of Self they had abilities to enact their visions of a ‘good’ teacher.
23
Table 1 (continued)
Description of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing
AUTHOR(S) AND DATA TITLE LEVEL DESCRIPTION THEME(S) YEAR COLLECTED Hall and Grisham- Writing EC and 14 PST how their beliefs and attitudes Beliefs and Focus Brown, 2011 Development Over ELEM toward writing developed. Found attitudes Group Time: Examining commonality in reasons for negative (and toward PSTs’ Attitudes positive) attitudes toward writing, teaching and Beliefs About writing Writing
Helfrich and Clark, A Comparative EC and Examined if the number of grades addressed Self as writing The 2016 Examination of ELEM in a writing methods course contributed to teacher Teachers’ PST Self-Efficacy the 87 PSTs’ self-efficacy to teach writing. Sense of Related to Literacy Findings: 1) More grade bands in the Efficacy for Instruction methods course led to higher self-efficacy Literacy for teaching writing; 2) PSTs feel more Scale prepared for teaching reading than writing.
Lenski and Pardicek, Improving PSTs’ ELEM 42 PSTs taught in methods course set up as Beliefs Based Survey 1999 Attitudes Toward Writing Workshop. Writing attitude on Experiences Writing improved.
24
Table 1 (continued)
Description of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing
AUTHOR(S) AND DATA TITLE LEVEL DESCRIPTION THEME(S) YEAR COLLECTED Martin and Dismuke, Teacher ELEM 37 PSTs’ perceived depth of learning in a Role of Surveys, 2015 Candidates’ writing methods course. Findings: 1) Teacher Reflections Perceptions of Learning occurred across social settings; 2) Education Their Learning Small group settings particularly engaged and Engagement candidate learning; 3) Overlapping learning in a Writing roles as writers and teachers influenced Methods Course learning.
Moore, 2000 PSTs Explore EC 44 PSTs paired with pen-pals to explore the Conceptions of Survey, Their Conceptions influence of the children’s writing on the the Writing Letters, of the Writing PSTs’ conceptions of writing as a complex Process Journal Process with growth process. The PSTs understood it Reflections Young Pen Pals was necessary to write authentically for an audience.
25
Table 1 (continued)
Description of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing
AUTHOR(S) AND DATA TITLE LEVEL DESCRIPTION THEME(S) YEAR COLLECTED Morgan, 2010 PSTs as Writers EC 42 PSTs taught in methods course set up as Writing Essays, Writing Workshop. Findings: 1) Initial Workshop Interviews, discomfort with writing; 2) Appreciation for Reflections, Writing Workshop approach to instruction; Course 3) Improved confidence in writing. Evaluations Activities in the course that the PSTs found helpful included reading like a writer, writing regularly, choice in writing topic, and writing mini-lessons to use with student writers.
Norman and Spencer, Our Lives as ELEM 59 PSTs before taking writing methods Self-as-writer Auto- 2005 Writers: course. Findings: 1) 50% believed they biographies Examining PSTs’ were writers; 2) Differentiated between Experiences and teaching writing and encouraging students Beliefs About the as writers; 3) PSTs believed writing Nature of Writing instruction does not influence writing and Writing ability. Instruction
26
Table 1 (continued)
Description of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing
AUTHOR(S) AND DATA TITLE LEVEL DESCRIPTION THEME(S) YEAR COLLECTED
Stockinger, Living In, ELEM 4 PSTs teaching Writing Workshop during Self-as-writer; Interviews, 2007 Learning From, a methods course. Findings: 1) Writing Self-as-writing Auto- Looking Back, activities developed a more positive image teacher biographies, Breaking Through of self-as-writer; 2) Writing activities Journal in the English developed more positive image of self-as- Entries Language Arts teacher of writing; 3) PSTs learned from Methods Course: teaching demonstrations; 4) PSTs envision A Case Study of their future instruction from their own Two PSTs experiences.
Street, 2003 PSTs’ Attitudes MS 5 PSTs’ attitudes between the final Beliefs and Survey, About Writing and semester of coursework and student attitudes Interviews, Learning to Teach teaching. Findings 1) Negative attitudes toward Observation, Writing: interfere with instruction; 2) Supportive teaching Journals Implications for course environment encourages more writing Teacher Educators positive attitude development.
27
Table 1 (continued)
Description of Studies: PSTs Learning to Teach Writing
AUTHOR(S) AND TITLE LEVEL DESCRIPTION THEME(S) DATA YEAR COLLECTED Street and Stang, In What Ways Do MS & 28 graduate teachers in writing courses Relationship Class 2009 Teacher Education HS modeled after NWP. Findings 1) Writing between Assignment, Courses Change confidence related to prior school writing writing self- Papers, Teachers’ Self- experiences; 2) Class able to negate prior efficacy & Discussions Confidence as negative feelings toward writing. writing Writers? instruction
Zimmerman, The Use of EC How a writing methods course mediated Self-as-writer; Reflections Morgan, and Kidder- Conceptual and PSTs’ knowledge of the tools necessary for Self-as-writing Brown, 2014 Pedagogical Tools them to be successful teachers of writing teacher as Mediators of and how 43 PSTs’ development as teachers PSTs’ Perceptions of writing changed. Findings 1) Shift in the of Self-As-Writers perception of self-as-writer; 2) Learned and Future through writing; 3) Discovered writing is Teachers of time-consuming and requires student- Writing choice.
28
Product vs. Process Writing Instruction
In Writing In the 21st Century (2009), the NCTE wrote that nineteenth-century EC writing instruction involved little more than handwriting (Yancey, 2009), spelling ability
(Graves, 1994), or “the physical act of putting ink to paper” (Hawkins & Razali, 2012, p.
306). During the twentieth-century, classroom writing teachers added grammar and punctuation conventions to writing instruction, but the experience of writing was little more than “sentence correction exercises” (Hawkins & Razali, 2012, p. 310).
John Dewey’s progressive education movement encouraged writing teachers to alter the priorities in writing instruction to reflect “individualism and self-expression”
(Hawkins & Razali, 2012, p. 310). Writing teachers encouraged writers to compose from personal experience and write for authentic purposes. However, writing teachers continued to focus on “inauthentic word and sentence level instruction” (Hawkins &
Razali, 2012, p. 311). Teachers continued to view writing as an activity that “was assigned and then corrected” (Calkins, 1994, p. 13).
The complex and contradictory contexts that PSTs experience while becoming
Language Arts teachers “includes pressure for divergent views of literacy: traditional foci on text, skills, and. . . literacy rooted in the every day” (Bomer et al., 2019, p. 197).
Teachers who “assign and then correct” (Calkins, 1994, p. 13) assume a traditional approach to teaching writing with a focus on correctness and conventions (Graham
McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris, 2012). Hallmarks of traditional writing pedagogy include marking errors with red ink and writing notes about the “clarity and logic of a product”
(Graham et al., 2012, p. 4).
29
Contrasting a product approach to writing instruction is a process approach.
Donald Murray published an article titled Teach Writing as a Process Not Product
(1972). Murray’s declaration began a shift in writing instruction. Writing instruction shifted from a focus on a final written product to the process undertaken by the writer while crafting the product. Applebee (1986) summarized the process approach of writing as “providing a way to think about writing in terms of what the writer does (planning, revising, and the like) instead of in terms of what the final product looks like (patterns of organization, spelling, and grammar)” (p. 96).
More recently, the NWP and Nagin (2003) quoted Donald Graves in their explanation of process writing by reiterating,
The writing process is anything a writer does from the time the idea came until
the piece is completed or abandoned. There is no order. So, it is not effective to
teach writing process in a lock-step, rigid manner. . . If you provide frequent
occasions for writing, then students start to think about writing when they are not
doing it. I call it a state of constant composition (p. 23).
The Writing Workshop: A Process Approach to Writing Instruction
Bomer et al. (2019) suggested that writing educators involve PSTs in Writing
Workshop to disrupt the PSTs’ preconceived ideas of writing instruction. Writing
Workshop is a rigorous learning environment with roots in the belief that apprentices learn their craft working alongside a master writer (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001). The apprentice gradually assumes the responsibility for learning.
30
Lucy Calkins, who has “influenced literacy instruction around the globe for more than thirty years” (Heinemann, 2019) referred to Writing Workshop as “the generative part of the day, with kids actively involved in creating their own texts. . . [it] requires us
[the teachers] to engage in responsive teaching rather than relying on preset lesson plans”
(as cited in Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001, p. 2). Graham, Harris, and Mason (2005) added that Writing Workshop is a popular teaching approach for emergent writers.
Many authors have published guidebooks offering guidance to teachers for implementing the Writing Workshop in an EC classroom (Calkins, 2015; Fletcher &
Portalupi, 2001; Glover, 2009; Ray, 2010; Ray & Cleaveland, 2004, Ray & Glover,
2008). The guidebooks offer variations, but Writing Workshop models include: 1) time for whole-group instruction in a mini-lesson; 2) sustained time for individual writing projects, and 3) time for sharing writing compositions (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001).
In Writing Workshop: The Essential Guide (2001), Fletcher and Portalupi, summarize Writing Workshop:
Kids in Writing Workshop do see themselves as writers. They develop a genuine
feel for writing – its power and purpose. They know what it means to write for
themselves – in a writer’s notebook, for example – but they also know what it
means to write for an audience of interested readers, they understand the heavy
lifting that writing requires in the real world (p. xi).
Preparing Preservice Teachers for Early Childhood Writing Instruction
In Writing: Teachers & Children at Work (1983), Graves started, “Children want to write” (p. 3). Subsequent researchers have confirmed Graves’s belief (Calkins, 1994;
31
Ray & Glover, 2008). Calkins (1994) quantified Graves’ belief stating, “Ninety percent of children come to school believing they can write” (p. 62). Despite young children’s innate desire to write, American education devalues writing instruction in the early years
(Yancey, 2009).
Historically, writing instruction in EC included transcription and handwriting. EC educators overlooked young children’s ability to write because they perceived young children as lacking the necessary fine motor abilities. The work of Chomsky (1971), Clay
(1975), Durkin (1972), Goodman (1986), and Heath (1983) corrected the fallacy that young children needed to be at a prescribed level of readiness to begin writing instruction.
A core recommendation of the U.S. Department of Education in Teaching
Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers (2012) encouraged EC teachers to implement the process approach of writing instruction in classrooms (Graham et al.,
2012). The NCTE and the International Reading Association (IRA) also encouraged EC teachers to implement the Writing Workshop framework (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006).
The NCTE and IRA (2006) explained that the process approach to teaching writing works and is developmentally appropriate for EC emergent writers.
In What Did I Write? (1975) Clay revealed patterns of writing development she observed in young children’s writing. Clay (1975) theorized that young writers use four strategies as they perfect independent writing ability. The strategies included
• a recurring principle when young children understand that patterns are a part of
written language;
32
• A generative principle when young children create unique messages using a small
set of letters or words;
• A sign principle when young children link concrete objects to the accompanying
written work;
• An inventory principle when young children apply the repertoire of words they
know to a writing product (Clay, 1975).
In addition to uncovering these strategies, Clay (1975) suggested that young writers proceed through stages as they perfect their writing ability. The stages revolve around the young child’s ability to compose written symbols and arrange those symbols in the correct order. The writing stages identified in What Did I Write? (Clay, 1975) included: scribbling, mock handwriting, mock letters, conventional letters, invented spelling, approximated spelling, and conventional spelling. PSTs exposed to Clay’s
(1975) writing principles and stages, infer about young children’s understanding of written language and readiness for further writing instruction. PSTs of young writers notice more about young writers when they are familiar with emergent literacy theories.
Themes in Emergent Literacy
The concept of emergent literacy addresses the range of abilities now understood to be a part of children's development of literacy competence. Emergent literacy suggests that children learn as they are engaged in language activities that are foundational to learning to read and write in more formal settings (Saracho & Spodek, 1993). This view of literacy learning represents a shift from a readiness perspective that emphasized proficiency in discrete skills to an appreciation that children develop a set of behaviors
33 and concepts about literacy that precede the development of conventional literacy skills
(Sulzby, 1989).
Clay (1966) coined ‘emergent literacy’ to describe children’s exploration with language in informal settings. Emergent writers have understandings about writing because they are “apprenticeships of observation” (Lortie, 1975, p. 61). Clay (2005) observed preschool children using the print that appeared on signs, cereal packets, and television in their writing explorations. Clay (2005) concluded that young children know how print works (from top to bottom and left to right of a page for example) because of exposure to written words in the environment.
An emergent literacy perspective encourages PSTs to value what young children understand about writing before beginning formal instruction. The social context where young children acquire beginning literacy understandings is important (Sulzby & Teale,
1996). Emergent writers’ beginning understandings lead to writing proficiencies and literacy achievement (Mackenzie & Hennings, 2014). PSTs require a foundation in emergent literacy themes and emergent writing assumptions to assist their noticing of the possibilities in their young writers’ work. The emergent literacy themes essential to EC educators of writing include:
• Writing instruction begins when children enter the classroom.
• Emergent reading and writing are reciprocal processes.
• Emergent writers need explicit writing instruction within authentic contexts for
writing.
• Emergent literacy is a continuum beginning at birth and includes drawing and
34
play.
• Emergent writers benefit from handwriting fluency and invented spelling.
• Talking among writers, teachers, and peers contributes to writing development
(Clay, 1966).
Teachers Should not Delay Writing Instruction
Children do not have to read before they can begin to write. Durkin (1966) observed children coming to school already writing. Goodman (1986) suspected that children have an innate ability to become literate. Fitzgerald and Shanahan (2000) explained, “Schools, in fear of doing harm, delay[ed] writing instruction until reading behaviors [were] firmly established” (p. 39). Clay (2005) wrote,
There are probably many reasons why it [early writing instruction] is neglected,
but the most obvious is a common belief that children must learn to read before
they learn to spell and then subsequently, they will learn to write (p. 97).
Scholars agree that emergent writing instruction is not harmful, and it is “unnecessarily inefficient” to delay writing instruction to focus instead on reading skills (Jones &
Reutzel, 2015, p. 298).
Emergent Reading and Writing are Reciprocal Processes
Shanahan (2006) explained that reading and writing share a “common cognitive substrata of abilities…and anything that improves these abilities may have implications for both reading and writing development” (p. 174). Because of the reciprocal link between reading and writing, writing is a gateway to reading for young students. Clay
(2005) explained that a reader might ignore some of the information in print when
35 reading and rely on what he or she already knows. However, a writer must attend to the analytical composition of letters and ignoring individual words is impossible.
Young Students Need Explicit Writing Instruction
Because reading and writing are complementary processes, PSTs may assume that young children learn to write by reading. However, Fitzgerald and Shanahan (2000) explained that reading and writing are only correlated and so students do require explicit instruction in both processes. Puranik, Al-Otaiba, Sidler, and Greulich (2014) added,
“Writing requires the management and coordination of multiple cognitive, linguistic processes simultaneously, and [writing] is more difficult than reading. Thus, it stands to reason that writing also requires explicit, systematic, and sustained instruction for its mastery” (p. 231).
EC practicing teachers and PSTs are hesitant to include direct instruction in the
EC curriculum. Shanahan and Lonigan (2013) defended that this hesitation is ill-founded.
The researchers highlighted a strong correlation between code-related skill instruction and literacy proficiency.
Emergent Writers Require Authentic Contexts for Their Writing
Students learn the skills necessary for writing through authentic communication tasks. Goodman and Goodman (2003) clarified:
We believe that maintaining the balance between invention and convention in
developing reading and writing is a major factor in whether pupils come to
consider themselves as insiders or outsiders, members of the literacy club or
excluded from club benefits (p. 233).
36
Authentic writing is intrinsically motivated (Dewey, 1902; Goodman & Goodman, 2003;
Vygotsky, 1978). Traditional assign-and-assess product instruction creates an artificial, imposed writing process. Conversely, Writing Workshop, and process writing offer emergent writers the context to write from experience.
Emergent Literacy is a Continuum That Includes Drawing and Play
Writing development follows a predictable pattern beginning with scribbling and picture drawing (Clay, 1975). Emergent writers proceed from drawing pictures to forming letter-like marks, and end with the production of conventional letters.
Conventional letters appear first individually, in words, and then in sentence sequences
(Sulzby & Teale, 1996). Clay (1975) noticed that children navigate these stages of writing through three common actions: tracing, copying, and generating. The process- focused approach to teaching writing acknowledges Clay’s (1975) emergent literacy understandings and recognizes each writer following an individual path on the writing development continuum.
The current educational environment overlooks and undervalues the value of play and drawing (Dyson & Genishi, 2013) in early childhood. Progression along the EC writing continuum is from play and drawing not from direct instruction. During play, young children practice writing in authentic contexts (Ray & Glover, 2008; Vukelich,
1993). As they draw, emergent writers discover that the marks they make carry meaning allowing them to share a message with a play partner (Clay, 1975).
Children Benefit from Handwriting Fluency and Invented Spelling
Writing places physical demands on emergent writers. When young writers
37 focused on processes like handwriting and spelling, the higher-level skill of composing became limited. Young children benefited from explicit instruction in higher and lower- level writing skills (Edwards, 2003).
Emergent writers who cannot spell conventionally wrote by creating invented spellings. Young children’s invented spelling followed a typical progression (Henderson
& Templeton, 1986; Lombardino, Bedford, Fortier, Carter, & Brandi, 1997; Richgels,
2002). Goodman and Goodman (2013) suggested that young children’s spelling miscues revealed much about their understanding of writing and the language system. Ray and
Glover (2008) encouraged PSTs to envision EC as the time for young writers to get their ideas on paper with conventional spelling a secondary concern.
Peer and Teacher Talk Serve Important Roles in Writing Development
Emergent writers benefited from talking with peers and teachers (Rowe, 2008).
Social talk about their writing occurred among EC writers (Dyson & Genishi, 2013).
Talking about writing helped emergent writers understand that writing is a tool for human interaction (Dyson, 2002). Calkins (1994) referred to the necessary conversations among writers, peers, and teachers as the “heart of teaching writing” (p. 223).
Early Literacy Skills
Roskos, Christie, and Richgels (2003) suggested that the early literacy themes discussed above contain the essentials of early literacy instruction. The skills are indicative of what young children need to know “if they are able to enjoy the fruits of literacy, including valuable dispositions that strengthen their literacy interactions” (p. 52).
The researchers adopted the term “’early literacy [skills]’ as the most comprehensive yet
38 concise description of the knowledges, skills, and dispositions that proceed learning to read and write in the primary grades” (p. 53). The early skills discussed as essential by
Roskos et al. (2003) include:
• Letter knowledge whereby young children discover that language is comprised of
a series of symbols that represent sounds. Other experts refer to this
understanding as the alphabetic principle.
• Young children also require recognition of basic text structure known as print
awareness.
• Phonological awareness allows young children to hear the smaller sounds of
language.
• Strong narrative skills, or the ability to retell a story, lay the foundation for
reading comprehension.
• Finally, a large knowledge of words, or vocabulary, is foundational to literacy
development.
Early literacy skills such as these have gained empirical ground and belong in the early childhood curriculum (Roskos et al., 2003, p. 54).
Early literacy is a developing system of relationships between reading and writing. Children’s early reading and writing skills are embedded in a larger developing system of oral communication. Together with speaking and listening, the early literacy skills gained from reading and writing experiences allow young children to make sense of their world. As Roskos et al. (2003) wrote, “Young children need writing to help them learn about reading, they need reading to help them learn about writing, and they need
39 oral language to help them learn about both” (p. 54). Oral language is further embedded in children’s social contexts.
The Social Nature of Learning to Write
Recent research on the processes involved in early writing focused on the social nature of learning to write (Dyson, 1993; Gundlach, 1982). This body of research described learning to write as a process of learning the social roles, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values necessary to participate in communities of writers (Gundlach, 1982).
Bereiter and Scardamalia (1982) concluded that children must adapt oral language skills to written conventions. Once children make the connection between talk and writing, they are capable of a transition toward more formal and independently produced written language.
A child learns to write through a complex social process whereby the child constructs a social self in relation to others. This is in keeping with the sociocultural theory of learning. The child’s written product connects their social world with the worlds of others. Writing is mediated through talk (Dyson, 1987,1989,1992,1993) and the talk around text gives writing meaning (Dyson, 1993).
Further, teachers cannot consider a child’s writing apart from the talk and interaction that happened during the writing process (Dyson, 1993). While engaged in writing activities at school, children use talk to create social roles by listening and responding to the voices of others (Dyson, 1993). Writing expands as each child adds to the social activity. Knowledge from drawing, writing, and talk among peers becomes the underlying structure upon which learning takes place.
40
Noticing: A Precursor to Responding
PSTs voiced concern about their abilities to respond to writers (Hall & Grisham-
Brown, 2011). Morgan and Pytash (2014) reported that PSTs who practiced responding to writers found the activity helpful. Morgan and Pytash (2014) concluded that learning to respond to writers is a critical skill for future writing teachers. More recently, Ballock et al. (2018) found that PSTs continue to feel unprepared to respond to student writers.
Ballock et al. (2018) remarked that “little research has examined reading and responding
[to writing] as a practice or how novice teachers become skilled in it” (p. 57). Ballock et al. (2018) asserted that “research is needed to further clarify how teachers develop skill in analyzing students’ writing” (p. 66). Ballock et al. (2018) further suggested that for PSTs to assist writers in achieving the writing goals of the CCSSs, PSTs must master “reading and responding to student writing” (p. 57).
Noticing is an important skill for teachers of writing. Expert writing teachers see meaningful patterns in their students’ writing (Lesgold et al., 1988). Sherin et al. (2011) defined “professional teacher noticing as attending to particular events in an instructional setting and making sense of those events” (p. 5).
Teaching Works, a website maintained by the Department of Education at the
University of Michigan, aims to develop answers to the questions, “What is the core work of teaching, and what is required to learn it and to do it?” (Teaching Works, 2019).
Teaching Works (2019) identified providing written feedback to students as a core practice. According to Ballock et al. (2018), PSTs more easily manage core practices when teacher educators break them down into constituent parts to specify the “special
41 knowledge, skill, and orientations needed for enactment” (p. 57). Grossman et al. (2000) advised teacher educators to engage novices in “approximations” of decomposed skills through rehearsals (p. 283).
Decomposing Teacher Noticing
Sherin et al. (2011) decomposed the act of responding to writers with noticing being the first requirement. Ballock and colleagues further decomposed noticing to include: 1) attention; 2) reasoning; and 3) determining a response (2018). Ballock et al.
(2018) explained that writing teachers need to:
• Focus attention on the salient features of a student’s writing;
• Reason about the instructional significance of the salient features; and
• Determine the appropriate response (p. 57).
What PSTs “select and ignore” hinges on their sense making (Sherin et al., 2011, p. 5).
Different PSTs look at different features of a writing product to interpret the author’s intention. (Ballock et al., 2018).
A Call for Additional Research in Noticing
Ballock et al. (2018) investigated the skills that assist PSTs in responding to student writers and concluded that “more research is needed to further clarify how teachers develop skill in analyzing children’s writing” (Ballock et al., 2018, p. 66). This research study filled the need identified by Ballock et al. (2018).
What to Notice? Product or Process?
Ballock et al. (2018) found that what PSTs notice in students’ writing is variable.
Some PSTs attended to the writer’s conventions while others attended to the writer’s
42 intentions. PSTs’ foci depended on their “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975, p.
61) during traditional elementary school literacy instruction. Lortie (1975) explained that during their own schooling PSTs had only a partial view of a teacher’s job seeing only the “front and center’ actions that teachers take. . . [but are not] privy to the teacher’s private intentions and personal reflections on classroom events (Lortie, 1975, p. 62).
Consequently, PSTs do not place the teacher’s actions in a pedagogically-oriented framework. Lortie concluded that PSTs return to the recollections of their own schooling as a default option when they have no other strategy to employ.
Experience in the Writing Workshop model of writing instruction during methods courses offered PSTs’ positive experiences with process writing that influenced what they subsequently noticed in their students’ writing. Because of experiences in methods course dominated by process writing, the PSTs in Lortie’s study recognized that
• Learning to write involved more than conventional writing skills;
• Writing required physical skills, like holding a pencil;
• Writing required meta-cognitive skills that enabled young writers to use what they
knew about sounds, stories, and markings to express their original ideas and
messages.
PSTs who experienced a methods course that also addressed features of emergent writers along with experiences in process writing noticed
• A child’s intention to write, not just the conventions (Harste et al., 1984);
• A child’s movement through writing stages (Clay, 1975);
43
• A child’s independent use of the writing process - doing something along with
accepting the responsibility to try (Calkins, 2003b);
• The developmentally appropriate foundational skills (transcription, directionality,
alphabetics, sentence production, and simple punctuation) which are pre-cursors
to compositional skills.
Decomposing the core practice of responding to a student’s composition allows a
PST to engage in an approximation of the practice.
The Use of Writing Samples to Approximate a Rehearsal
Responding to writers is a core practice for writing teachers (Ballock et al., 2018).
Before responding to a writer, a PST must first notice the possibilities for the writer.
Noticing, the first piece of attending is where PSTs begin to approximate responding to a writer.
Dempsey et al., (2009) used fourth-grade writing samples to offer PSTs practice in assessing student papers. The researchers speculated that practice in providing feedback to writers requires authentic writing samples. However, the researchers added that authentic writing samples are not easily attainable by teacher educators. Dempsey et al. (2009) acknowledged that while the use of writing samples may impose limitations on a study “structured practice [using writing samples] . . . produce gains in knowledge, assessment skill, and self-efficacy for PSTs” (p. 57).
Theoretical Orientation – Social Constructivism
Erickson (1982) expressed that context “mediates” learning. Mediation is different from “constitution” (p. 170) which provides the form for what is learned.
44
Meanings are socially constructed from both mediation and constitution. Meaning is a result of the context and the interactions among those within the context.
I approach this study from a social constructivist perspective of learning in line with the Vygotskian tradition and Erickson’s (1982) assertion that context mediates learning. A social constructivist theoretical orientation acknowledges that every interaction may change a person’s perspective and knowledge (Vygotsky, 1986). A sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978) acknowledges the need for learners’ languages, backgrounds, cultures, and collective stories to have a centrality of place in classrooms. Students and teachers construct bits of knowledge from relationships, experiences, institutional supports, and the tools available (Graue, 1993). PSTs gather the pieces of knowledge necessary to respond to young writers during the social activity of their methods courses.
Literacy has always been a social construct (Bomer et al., 2019). The social constructivist view proposes that language and knowledge constitute each other, and neither can stand alone. The structure of language is “tied to what is rendered as knowledge” (Graue, 1993). Social-constructivists believe that spoken language is the foundation necessary for writing experience (Clay, 2004; Heath, 1983). Writing to social constructionists is more than an arbitrary system of rules. Instead, writing is a process through which people engage in a dialogue.
Vygotsky (1978) maintained that students learn through social interactions. He stated, “Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level” (p. 57). Social interactions are critical for
45 learning and development in writing. Vygotsky (1978) commented
Psychology has conceived of writing as a complicated motor skill. It has paid
remarkably little attention to the question of written language as such, that is, a
system of symbols and signs whose mastery heralds a critical turning-point in the
entire cultural development of the child (p. 106).
Scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development
Another aspect of Vygotsky’s theory of learning that applies to emergent writing development is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky defined the ZPD as
“the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem- solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky,
1978, p. 86). Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) applied the word, “scaffolding,” to fit
Vygotsky’s description of what teachers do for their students within the ZPD. Like scaffolds used by builders, instructional scaffolds provide support to promote students’ learning. Teachers gradually remove instructional supports as students become more proficient (Bruner, 1986).
Scaffolding and Emergent Writing
The work of Vygotsky (1978,1986) has transformed our understanding of learning in early childhood. Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) notion that learning can occur before development in the ZPD situates learning within the social context of the learner.
This model accounts for the emergent nature of literacy development.
PSTs can scaffold writing instruction in preschool, kindergarten, and first-grade
46 classrooms (Gentry, 2005). In a balanced writing program, a PST teacher can scaffold and model writing for emerging writers specifically in a Writing Workshop context.
Through the MKO’s mini-lesson and conferencing, young writers receive support in the social context of their written compositions. The MKO can notice the strength of the writer through the social interactions surrounding the writer’s composition.
Scaffolding and Writing Samples
Methods courses foster subject matter knowledge and effective practices that together become a PSTs’ pedagogy (Martin & Dismuke, 2015). PSTs can rehearse their noticing skills using writing samples. The approximation serves as a scaffold that fosters confidence in the teaching of writing (Martin & Dismuke, 2015).
Writing is a complicated and symbolic process. Writing teachers must consider form, function, audience, purpose, story structure, imagery, vocabulary, letter formation, and spelling. During teacher preparation, PSTs need experiences noticing the student writers’ strengths and needs. To take notice of the writer, PSTs require not only knowledge of emergent writers’ development and early literacy concepts but must also actively rehearse responding to writers to unpack the complexity of teaching K-1 students to write.
Summary
An emergent writer who enters an EC classroom believing they can write has their ability to write limited only by the ability of the classroom’s writing teacher
(Gallavan et al., 2007). Of concern is that PSTs report that their ability to teach writing is weak (Grisham & Wolsey, 2011; Hall, 2016; Zimmerman et al., 2014). However,
47 methods courses taken during teacher preparation do shape PSTs’ eventual teaching pedagogy (Collier et al., 2015). Consequently, as reported by writing researchers, involving PSTs in courses specific to writing methods and process writing are beneficial in improving PSTs efficacy to teach writing (Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Morgan, 2010).
National concern has placed improving writing instruction as a critical need in our teacher education programs (Ballock et al., 2018; Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Morgan &
Pytash, 2014). The NCTE (2016) called for teacher educators to assure that all PSTs are prepared to respond to student writers. PSTs report that they are uncomfortable responding to writers. Teacher educators can deconstruct the core practice of responding and start PSTs on noticing the writer through approximations (Ballock et al., 2018).
Noticing what is represented by the markings and message of a K-1 writer can be approximated and rehearsed using writing samples.
The following chapter relates how I designed a literacy methods course to offer
EC PSTs opportunities to approximate noticing the strengths and needs of young writers.
I sought to understand the noticing experiences of the PSTs. The research questions that guided the qualitative research study included
1. What do EC PSTs notice about the writer in K-1 writing samples?
2. How do EC PSTs shift, if at all, in their noticing of the writer in K-1 writing
samples during a semester-long literacy methods course?
3. What experiences in a semester-long literacy methods course influence EC
PSTs’ noticing of the writer in K-1 writing samples?
48
CHAPTER III
METHODS
A Case for Preservice Teacher Noticing in K-1 Writing
Scales et al. (2019) advised teacher educators to consider the needs of future writing teachers who have voiced a need for guidance in responding to student writers.
Despite the knowledge that successful noticing assists future writing teachers in being
“able to teach their students to write well” (Street & Stang, 2009, p. 76), researchers have not examined the noticing habits of EC PSTs. Consequently, the paramount objective of this study was to understand what PSTs notice about K-1 writers and how, if at all, their noticing shifts during a literacy methods course. I also aimed to understand any shifts that might occur. The three research questions that guided the study were
1. What do EC PSTs notice about the writer in K-1 writing samples?
2. How do EC PSTs shift, if at all, in their noticing of the writer in K-1 writing
samples during a semester-long literacy methods course?
3. What experiences in a semester-long literacy methods course influence EC
PSTs’ noticing of the writer in K-1 writing samples?
To date, there exists minimal knowledge to inform our understanding of how EC
PSTs sharpen their noticing skills using writing samples in a literacy methods course.
This is a valid endeavor as writing scholars have suggested that inquiry into PSTs’ responses to writers is vital “to further clarify how teachers develop skill in analyzing students’ writing” (Ballock et al., 2019, p. 66).
The Present Study
49
This study responded to prior research noting PSTs’ reticence to respond to student writers (Ballock et al., 2018; Hall & Grisham-Brown, 2011). I researched within my semester-long EC literacy methods course. I examined the noticing of 20 PSTs as they practiced noticing the K-1 writer. As shifts in the PSTs’ noticing occurred, I sought to understand the shifts and the course activities that contributed to the PSTs’ noticing patterns.
I analyzed the PSTs’ noticing of writing samples because authentic writing samples are not easily attainable by teacher educators, but “structured practice [using writing samples] . . . can produce gains in knowledge, assessment skill, and self-efficacy for PSTs” (Dempsey, PylikZillig, & Bruning, 2009, p. 57).
PSTs construct meaning as they interact with others in their world (Merriam,
2002). Teaching writing and the process of writing are inherently “active and constructive process[es]” (Dewey, 1916, p. 46). Therefore, research into how PSTs come to experience noticing the writer requires inquiry of PSTs who are actively constructing such knowledge.
I originally considered a mixed-methods research design to investigate the problem. However, I did not start the research with an initial hypothesis connecting PSTs and patterns of noticing. Further, I sought to understand the PSTs’ explanations of what they noticed. To explain the noticing, I needed to discover what the PSTs did notice.
However, the study focused on the why and how aspects of PST’ noticing and refrains from suggesting numerical correlations among the items noticed.
Study Design and Rationale
50
Pilot Study
I taught the literacy methods course for five semesters before the semester under study. I observed that the PSTs often changed in their expectations of young writers over the semester. I hoped to understand what the PSTs noticed about young writers that led to their changing expectations. I considered involving the PSTs in noticing activities using writing samples to explore the phenomenon. With an emerging sense of the questions that guided my investigation, I began testing instruments that might reveal patterns of noticing in the Fall of 2019. I vetted multiple Writing Samples, Reflection assignment,
Writing Case Study assignment, and semi-structured interview questions. I wanted to assure that the PSTs understood the assignments and that the responses provided would be applicable to my line of inquiry.
During pilot testing, I taught two sections of the course and tested variations of the instruments with 53 PSTs. The interview questions, Writing Case Study assignment, and Reflection assignment required slight change. However, I sought the writing samples that offered the PSTs the opportunity to notice much about the writer. I offered different writing samples to each course section allowing me to pilot test 16 different writing samples. From the 16 samples, I selected the seven writing samples that spanned genres common for young writers and that illustrated multiple writing features of the K-1 writer for the PSTs to notice.
Participants
Twenty PSTs enrolled in one literacy course during the Spring semester of 2020 comprised the participants. The sampling was a purposive one “to yield the most
51 information about the phenomenon of interest” (Merriam, 2002, p. 20). The sample was also one of convenience as it included all students enrolled in the language and literacy methods course where I was the instructor. Enrollment in the course included 20 PSTs who provided their demographic information (Table 2).
Table 2
Participant Demographics
NAME AGE RACE SEX CLASS NAME AGE RACE SEX CLASS RANK RANK
Alli 23 W F S Julie 19 W F J Colleen 20 W F J Molly 20 W F J Jill 22 W F S Devin 21 W F J Megan 21 W F S Abby 20 W F J Allyson 21 W F J Alex 19 W F J Victoria 22 W F S Andrea 20 W F So Katie 25 W F S Laura 20 W F J Katy 20 W F J Bri 20 W F J Hal 22 W M S Rachel 19 W F J Emily 20 B F J Kris 24 W F S Note. W=white, B=black, F=female, M=male, S=senior, J=junior, and So=sophomore.
Denizen and Lincoln (1998) offer that, “Qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (p. 3). The entirety of the literacy course was the context that focused and bound the participants and me into a single case (Miles, Huberman &
Saldaña, 2014). The PSTs all consented to participate during the Spring 2020 semester by signing an Informed Consent Letter (Appendix A). The PSTs acknowledged that I would retain class assignments and interview transcriptions for my research.
Context of the Study – The Research Site
52
I conducted the research in an undergraduate EC methods course at Kent State
University (KSU) in northeastern Ohio. The 2018-2019 undergraduate enrollment at
KSU was 23,178. KSU accepts 88% percent of applicants (U.S. News and World
Reports, 2019). The College of Health and Human Services houses the Education
Department. Early Childhood Education (ECE) is one of the 18 education majors available. The KSU website (2019) elaborates
The Bachelor of Science in Education degree in EC education focuses on
professional preparation and application of current theory, methods, and practices
for future teachers of preschool to grade five classrooms. Students form a cohort
and complete the five-block sequence of courses while gaining teaching
experiences linked to coursework. All students complete field and practicum
experiences in diverse settings, including urban and inclusive programs, and
accumulate 1,200 clock hours of field experience in preschool and elementary
classrooms (KSU Catalog, 2019).
The Early Childhood Education (ECE) Program
During the research, the grades an EC teacher in Ohio could teach included preschool. However, future changes to Ohio teaching licensing reflected new CAEP K-6
Elementary Teacher Preparation Standards. As a result, during the Spring of 2020 EC courses began to integrate methods for teaching K-1 students into the courses still centered on preschool education.
Block Two
KSU arranged the PSTs into a Block system. Blocks of students attend classes
53 and fieldwork together. The methods course under discussion was a part of Block Two.
Block Two students are primarily Juniors who completed one semester of teacher preparation. In addition to ECED 30123, the PSTs completed ECED -Experiences in
Mathematics and Science, ECED 30142 Partnerships and Guidance for Preschool
Children, and ECED 40165 Integrated Application of Preschool Curriculum. Each course met one afternoon a week from 2:15 to 5:00 PM. During morning hours, the cohort fulfilled the requirements of ECED 40192 Internship in Preschool in field classrooms. ECED 30123 was a requirement at KSU for EC education majors seeking an
EC teaching certificate from the state of Ohio.
The Course, ECED 30123
Lincoln and Guba (1985) stressed that when a researcher conducts an inquiry in a natural setting, the phenomenon takes meaning from the context and participants.
Consequently, separating the PSTs’ noticing of a writer from the entirety of course experiences including those of emergent literacy, emergent reading, and emergent writing is not possible.
In the course catalog, KSU describes ECED 30123 as “an examination of the process of language and literacy development in preschool children. The course focuses on how preschool teachers integrate the knowledge of development with early school and family literacy learning” (University Catalog, 2019). Appendix B contains the course syllabus used during the Spring of 2020.
Two of the ten goals for the course pertained to preparing EC PSTs to teach young writers. Goal number five required that PSTs identify best practices in teaching
54 writing to young children and goal number seven expected EC PSTs to develop strategies that encourage early writing development. To become efficient teachers of writing and fulfill the course goals, the PSTs’ needed to approximate taking notice of the writer, which is a core practice for writing teachers (Teaching Works, 2019).
Class Sessions. Three weeks in the original syllabus contained on-line weeks with the remaining 13 weeks face-to-face in the classroom (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Class Environment by Semester Week
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 4 Week 8 In- In- In- In- In- In- On-line On-line Person Person Person Person Person Person
Week 9 Week 10 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Week 16 Week 11 Week 15 In- In- Spring In- In- In- In- On-line Person Person Break Person Person Person Person
COVID-19. A historic pandemic impacted the context of the world, nation, state, and university operations during the Spring of 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic unexpectedly interrupted the semester. The university and the course were responsive to
Ohio Governor Michael DeWine’s COVID-19 orders. To assure the safety of all campus personnel and students, the University announced a modified spring semester. Mandated adjustments to instruction included:
55
§ March 10-15 (Week 9): Cancellation of face-to-face classes. (Scheduled as an on-
line week at the beginning of the semester. Consequently, ECED 30123
completed the previously planned on-line module.)
§ March 16-20 (Week 10): Classes held via remote instruction.
§ March 23-29 (Week 11): Spring break occurred as scheduled.
§ March 30-End of Spring Semester (Week 12-16): Classes held via remote
instruction (Figure 2).
I revised the course syllabus to accommodate the changes (Appendix C). Figure 2 illustrates the adjustments.
Figure 2
Class Environment by Semester Week, Revised Due to COVID-19 Pandemic
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 4 Week 8 In- In- In- In- In- On-line In- On-line Person Person Person person person person
Week 9 Week 11 Week Week 10 Week 12 Week 14 Week 15 In- Spring 13 Week 16 On-line Remote Remote Remote person Break Remote Remote
Data Sources
PSTs’ Lists of Noticing - Writing Samples 1-7
Vygotskian tradition recognizes that individuals learn principles in tandem with
“empirical demonstrations, observation, or activity” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 170).
Consequently, I emphasized rehearsing the noticing necessary for K-1 writing teachers in the course. I asked the PSTs at seven points during the semester to
56
Imagine this writing is from a K-1 writer in your future classroom. Please list
what you notice about the writer. Then, suggest what you might do next to
encourage writing growth of the writer” (Writing Sample 1, 2020) (Appendices D
through J).
I selected the writing samples that were pilot tested from texts containing course readings and the writing exemplars analyzed in class. The seven writing samples selected for the present study, and the source for each sample are below in Table 3.
57 Table 3
Writing Samples 1-7
WRITING SAMPLE 1 RATIONALE CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCLUSION FOR ORDER OF PLACEMENT
Calkins, L. M. (2003a). The The sample demonstrates the writer’s PSTs have yet to receive any formal conferring handbook. Portsmouth, knowledge of print awareness, use of instruction in emergent literacy themes NH: Firsthand. invented spelling, letter knowledge, or emergent writing assumptions. This and understanding of the functions of sample offers the PSTs many print. opportunities to notice the writer. However, the sample also contains writing convention needs that PSTs may be more inclined to notice.
58 Table 3 (continued)
Writing Samples 1-7
WRITING SAMPLE 2 RATIONALE CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCLUSION FOR ORDER OF PLACEMENT
Calkins, L.M. & Mermelstein, L. When sample 2 was pilot tested, the PSTs At this point in the semester, PSTs (2003). Launching the Writing were most concerned with the writer’s were immersed in process writing Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: handwriting and print awareness. experiences for seven weeks but Firsthand. However, the writer also is demonstrating have not been exposed to emergent an understanding of adding details to an writing instruction. This sample idea. Making lists is characteristic of allows the PSTs the opportunity to emergent writers as they begin to make apply their learnings of emergent letter-to-sound correspondences. literacy themes. They may also Emergent writers enjoy writing repetitive apply their personal experience of statements that they have mastered. the process approach to writing.
59
Table 3 (continued)
Writing Samples 1-7
WRITING SAMPLE 3 RATIONALE CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCLUSION FOR ORDER OF PLACEMENT
Horn, M. & Giacobbe, M.E. (2007). Talking, The writer is writing This sample may offer the PSTs the drawing, writing: Lessons for our youngest for purpose. The writer opportunity to notice a writer’s writers. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse Publishers. understands that the intention. They have been immersed reader must follow the in the writing process and have steps in order. The experienced the “insider knowledge’ of [the] writing process,” which is a invented spellings are prerequisite for teaching writing approximations for the (Gardner, 2014, p. 129). There also words. It is a different are convention errors that PSTs who genre then the PSTs cling to a Product approach might have already identify. considered. The writer Additionally, over the past two is applying what is weeks, PSTs have brought their Case known about how Study Writing sample to the Smart language works to Board. The PST offered their create a message. noticing and classmates contributed questions and comments. The PSTs can apply what they have learned about young writers to a writing sample immediately after discussion.
60 Table 3 (continued)
Writing Samples 1-7
WRITING SAMPLE 4 RATIONALE CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCLUSION FOR ORDER OF PLACEMENT
Horn, M. & Giacobbe, M.E. (2007). Talking, This sample was pilot tested. This sample illustrates drawing, writing: Lessons for our youngest The vocabulary in this sample emergent writing writers. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse Publishers. demonstrates the young child’s assumptions that relate to the ability to “write like we talk.” class readings, discussions, The child also uses a and activities of the week. comparison between a person Additionally, over the past and a dog, which may suggest two weeks, PSTs have familiarity with simile and brought their Case Study metaphor, which is a technique Writing sample to the Smart often found in books for young Board. The PST offered their children. Young writers use noticing and classmates mentor texts when writing contributed questions and independently comments. The PSTs can apply what they have learned about young writers to a writing sample immediately after discussion.
61
Table 3 (continued)
Writing Samples 1-7
WRITING SAMPLE 5 RATIONALE CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCLUSION FOR ORDER OF PLACEMENT
Calkins, L.M. & Mermelstein, L. (2003). Launching the This sample was pilot tested. This sample may offer the Writing Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Firsthand. The PSTs noticed narrative PSTs the opportunity to skills and the writer’s use of notice a writer’s intention. dialogue. The sample also They have been immersed offers the PSTs the opportunity in the writing process for to notice the writer’s print 13 weeks and have knowledge, use of invented experienced the “insider spelling, inclusion of many knowledge’ of [the] details, and a connection writing process,” which is between illustration and story. a prerequisite for teaching writing (Gardner, 2014, p. 129). However, there also are convention errors that PSTs who cling to a Product approach might identify.
62 Table 3 (continued)
Writing Samples 1-7
WRITING SAMPLE 6 RATIONALE CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCLUSION FOR ORDER OF PLACEMENT
Freeman, M.S. (1998). Teaching the youngest writers. This sample illustrates The PSTs noticed the Gainesville, FL: Maupin House Publishing. emergent writing author’s ability to write assumptions that relate to their ideas on paper. The the class readings, PSTs might be more discussions, and activities of familiar with the process the week. This week we of writing and Writing practiced using picture Workshop’s focus on books and paired picture message. books as mentor texts for writing. The class discussed reading like a writer as an entry point into writing for young children.
63 Table 3 (continued)
Writing Samples 1-7
WRITING SAMPLE 7 RATIONALE CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCLUSION FOR ORDER OF PLACEMENT
Calkins, L.M. (2003c). The nuts and bolts of teaching writing. This sample was pilot This sample has much to notice. I Portsmouth, NH: Firsthand. tested. The sample placed this sample last to offer the demonstrates the writer’s PSTs an opportunity to demonstrate knowledge of print all that they have learned about K-1 awareness, use of writers during the sixteen-week invented spelling, letter semester. This sample may offer the knowledge, strong PSTs the opportunity to notice a narrative skills, and writer’s intention. They have been immersed in the writing process for understanding of the 15 weeks and have experienced the functions of print. The “insider knowledge’ of [the] writing writer is sharing what he process,” which is a prerequisite for knows about a topic, acts teaching writing (Gardner, 2014, p. as an expert, and shows 129). However, there also are stamina for writing. The convention errors that PSTs who author is writing with cling to a Product approach might purpose and needed to identify. decide what to present on each page. The child I collected this sample after the PSTs appears to have selected a participated in the semi-structured topic important to him. interview. It is possible that the interview conversation influenced their noticing of the K-1 writer.
64
Writing Case Study Assignment
Children’s stories gain meaning through the talk that accompanies the mechanical task of writing. Dyson (1987, 1989, 1992, 1993) presents evidence of a link between talk and emergent writing. However, the seven writing samples that I provided to the PSTs did not allow for consideration of any social interactions with the authors of the Writing
Samples.
To account for the social nature of children’s writing experiences, I assigned two
Case Study Writing Assignments where the PSTs would collect two writing samples from a case study student in their field location. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
PSTs collected only one writing sample. The Case Study Assignment (Appendix K) included a scripted protocol for collecting pieces of writing from their student over three days.
On the first day, the PST asked their student to “Write your name for me”
(Writing Case Study, 2020). After the child finished, the PST asked, “Are there any other words you can write for me?” (Writing Case Study, 2020). After the child finished, the
PST prompted the student to read back and point to their written words.
On the second day of the Writing Case Study data collection, the PST worked with the same child. The PST began with, “Today, I would like you to make up a story to tell me. Let’s sit for a few moments so you can think about the story you want to tell.
Now, tell me your story and write it down on this piece of paper. What will you write first?” (Writing Case Study, 2020). Immediately after the child told the story, the script guided the PST to hand the child the paper and ask them to read back the story.
65
On the third day, the assignment instructed the PST to show the child their work from the earlier days and ask the child to read it aloud.
In small groups, the PSTs discussed their experience. Following group discussion, each PST completed the Writing Case Study assignment paper which required them to apply a reading from Language Stories and Literacy Lessons (Harste et al., 1984) to what they noticed about their Case Study child. The PSTs submitted their assignments through
Blackboard.
Reflection Assignment. Part 1
During week 16 of the semester, I emailed to each PST a review of the Lists of
Noticing they submitted for the Writing Samples (Figure 3). I instructed the PSTs to reflect on their history of noticing and mark any additional observations of the writer. I also allowed the PSTs to cross off any items they no longer considered worthy of note. I encouraged the PSTs to look for any patterns in their Lists of Noticing. After self- reflection, I required the PSTs to write a two-paragraph reflection using the prompt, “I used to think that K-1 writers required their teachers to. . . but now I believe they need their teachers to . . .” (Appendix L).
66
Figure 3
Reflection Data
Note. This is data emailed to Kris for use in writing her Reflection assignment.
67
Reflection Assignment. Part 2
The second purpose of the Reflection assignment was to determine which, if any, course activities contributed to the PSTs’ noticing. The assignment directed the PSTs to write one additional paragraph answering the question, “What aspects of the course taught you the most about noticing the K-1 writer?” (Appendix L).
Semi-Structured Interviews
The words people use reflect their consciousness (Vygotsky, 1987). To understand how the PSTs came to understand noticing the writer, I needed to engage each in a conversation about noticing. Responses to the interview questions provided insight into the thinking processes of the PSTs. Through interviews with each PST, I came to understand the participants’ views regarding noticing the K-1 writer through writing samples and a case study child.
I scheduled in-person semi-structured interviews for 45 minutes per PST during week 14 of the semester. However, I conducted the interviews remotely due to the pandemic. I used Zoom Version 4.6.8 to conduct interviews. Zoom assures “student outcomes with secure video communication services for virtual classrooms” (Zoom,
2020). Because of the pandemic, the PSTs had limited time to discuss course content with me. Consequently, the scheduled interview time included the PSTs concerns regarding all aspects of the course. To accommodate all PSTs’ course concerns, the interview design
“altered as [the] study unfold[ed]” (Hatch, 2002, p. 10). I recognized that I could not address the interview questions until assuring the PSTs were comfortable with their progress in the course. I remained responsive to my students’ needs while also eliciting
68 the data necessary for my study.
I scheduled interviews for 45 minutes. I asked 18 of the PSTs the 11 interview questions below in Table 4. I probed answers and asked exploratory questions when necessary. I discussed with each PST their noticing history. I interviewed 16 of the PSTs in week 15 of the semester and two PSTs in week 16. Two participants, Colleen and
Andrea, were unable to participate in their scheduled interviews due to the pandemic.
Colleen fell ill and was unavailable during the week of interviews. Andrea faced work challenges as an ‘essential worker’ that resulted in scheduling her interview outside the frame of the study.
Zoom provided a video feature to record the interviews. I recorded and stored the
18 video interviews on my laptop. I used Transcription (2020) by WReally to assist in transcription tasks. Transcription converted the speech from the Zoom videos to a text document. I replayed the videos and corrected the errors made by the speech recognition software. I also clipped the videos and transcribed only the portion of the interviews that covered noticing the writer. I limited the use of the videos to the verbal data provided by the participants. I password-protected the files to maintain the participants’ privacy.
69
Table 4
Interview Guide
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS To establish rapport:
What are your recollections of the writing instruction you received as a child?
Did that memory play into your responses to the writing samples? How?
When you began our course, what did you think a K-1 writer could do?
What informed your understanding?
Research Question 1
When you first began looking at the writing samples of a K-1 writer, what were you most likely to notice?
The directions asked you to take notice of the writer, not the writing. Does that change how you think about the writing sample? How? Why?
Research Question 2
Now, what do you think is important in K-1 writing?
Has your noticing changed over time? If so, how?
What do you think caused that shift?
Research Question 3
What course activities or experiences influenced your noticing?
Data Collection and Rationale
I collected qualitative data from interview transcripts and artifacts that the students submitted per course requirements (Table 5). The data informed the noticing
70 patterns of the PSTs as well as the PSTs’ experiences of taking notice of K-1 writers.
Miles et al. (2014) allowed for the qualitative words of a study to offer the meaning behind a quantifiable outcome. Miles et al. (2014) asserted that “qualitative data can be transformed in many ways: through selection, through summary or paraphrase, through being subsumed in a larger pattern and so on. Occasionally, it may be helpful to convert the data” (p. 12) for arrangement into displays
Table 5
Artifacts Collected from Participants
PARTICIPANT LISTS OF INTERVIEW (PSEUDONYM) NOTICING WRITING CASE TRANSCRIPT REFLECTION WRITING SAMPLES STUDY (PAGES) ASSIGNMENT
Assignment Pages Assignments Pages Alli 7 1 4 4 1 2 Colleen 6 1 4 0 1 2 Jill 7 1 4 2 1 2 Megan 7 1 4 5 1 2 Allyson 7 1 2 5 1 2 Victoria 7 1 5 4 1 2 Katie 7 1 4 4 1 2 Katy 7 1 3 6 1 2 Hal 7 1 4 2 1 2 Emily 7 1 5 5 1 2 Julie 7 1 3 3 1 2 Molly 7 1 3 7 1 2 Devin 7 1 3 5 1 2 Abby 6 1 5 5 1 2 Alex 7 1 5 4 1 2 Andrea 6 1 3 0 1 2 Laura 6 1 3 6 1 2 Bri 7 1 3 5 1 2 Rachel 6 1 4 4 1 3 Kris 7 1 2 4 1 1
135 20 73 80 20 40 (lists) (assignments) (pages) (pages) (assignments) (pages)
71
Experts have suggested that researchers use multiple sources of data to answer a question. Triangulation of data builds confidence in the researcher’s assertation of findings (Leavy, 2017; Merriam, 2002; Miles et al., 2014). Miles et al. (2014) further suggested that triangulating sources that “have different foci and different strengths can complement each other” (p. 299). With triangulation in mind, I treated the data in two distinct ways. Table 6 highlights the triangulation of data to inform each research question.
Table 6
Data Collected to Inform Each Research Question
SECONDARY DATA RESEARCH QUESTION DATA SOURCE SOURCE
What do early childhood PSTs Writing Sample Semi-structured notice about the writer in K-1 responses 1-7 & Interviews writing samples? Writing Case Study assignment.
How do early childhood PSTs Reflection assignment, Reflection assignment, shift, if at all, in their noticing part 1 & part 2. of the writer in K-1 writing Semi-structured samples during a semester-long Interviews. literacy methods course?
What experiences in a semester- Reflection assignment, Semi-structured long literacy methods course part 2. Interviews. influence EC PSTs’ noticing of the writer in a K-1 writing sample?
72
Data Analysis
In the following sections, I explain my methods of data analysis. I retained the
PSTs’ Lists of Noticing for Writing Samples one through seven, the Writing Case Study assignment, both Reflection assignments, and transcriptions of the semi-structured interview conducted with each PST in the study.
Lists of Noticing
I first assembled the Lists of Noticing provided by the PSTs into a master matrix of noticing. I typed the lists using Microsoft Excel software, Version 16.36 (2020). I counted the noticed items using tables. I did not use the frequencies to suggest cause, effect, influence, association, or correlation of noticing. Instead, I considered the frequencies an “organized and compressed assembly of information that allows conclusion drawing” (Miles et al., 2014, p. 12-13). The PSTs completed Lists of
Noticing throughout the semester to document any changes in noticing behavior. Figure 4 illustrates when the PSTs noticed the writer in Writing Samples and submitted the data used in the study.
Figure 4
Data Collected by Semester Week
Week 2 Week 6 Week 7 Week 9 Writing Writing Writing Writing Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 8 Week 1 Sample Case Sample Sample 1 Study 2 3
Week 14 Week 15 Week 12 Week 13 Interviews Interviews Spring Week 16 Week 10 Writing Writing (n=16) (n=2) Break Reflection Sample 4 Sample 5 Writing Writing Sample 6 Sample 7
73
Writing Case Study Assignments, Interview Transcripts, and Reflection
Assignments
I coded the Case Study assignment, interview transcripts, and Reflection assignment as a second data set to explore, describe, and explain PSTs’ noticing activities. (2016). Coding was the link between data collection and the explanation of meaning that resulted from the data (Charmaz, 2014). I coded the PSTs’ Writing Case
Study assignments, interview transcripts, and Reflection assignments separately from the
Lists of Noticing using Dedoose software, Version 7.0.23 (2016). I used this data set for vision into the PSTs’ perception of how their noticing experience progressed throughout the semester. I prioritized the codes from the Dedoose analysis to maintain the importance of the PSTs’ subjective experiences necessary to explain their noticing process.
Researchers attach codes to data “chunks” to describe a portion of language-based data (Miles et al., 2014). Miles et al. (2014) divide coding into the two stages of First- cycle coding and Second-Cycle Pattern coding (p. 73). I disassembled the two sets of data into First-Cycle Codes in Phase One of data analysis. In Phase Two, I reassembled
Second-Cycle Pattern codes for interpretation leading to my findings. Figure 5 provides an overview of my analysis process.
Figure 5
Phases of the Data Analysis Process
74
Collecting and • Organizing lists of noticing from writing samples one through seven in Excel matrices and uploading Transcribing Data writing case study, interview transcripts, and reflection assignments into Dedoose.
Dissassembling • Systematic coding using a start list of codes from the source books where the writing samples originated, Data into terms that were a part of the course content, codes that appeared repeatedly in the pilot study, transcriptions of First-Cycle Codes the first and second writing samples, and in-vivo codes.
Reassembling Data into • Creating matrices, a coding map, and narrative descriptions of codes. Second-Cycle Pattern Codes
Interpreting Patterns
Findings
Phase One. First-Cycle Coding
The data was divided into two types and coding usind different analysis tools.
Lists of Noticing (Seven Writing Samples)
Miles et al. (2014) advised that data analysis begins with data collection.
Therefore, the first phase of data analysis included compiling the data into a master matrix. I collected the first two Writing Samples during in-person instruction in weeks two and seven. Once returned, I typed each PSTs’ written responses verbatim into the
Excel matrix.
With the transition to remote instruction, I assigned the noticing of Writing
Samples three through seven using the University’s Blackboard Learn platform. The
75
PSTs completed each writing sample (Appendices F through J) in the online environment. After the PSTs completed each Writing Sample, I uploaded all completed responses to my laptop. I maintained the PSTs’ responses to each Writing Sample digitally in folders titled Writing Sample 1, Writing Sample 2, and so on. I cut and pasted the PSTs’ seven Lists of Noticing into the master Excel matrix (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Lists of Noticing in Writing Sample 4 from Emily and Kris in Excel Matrix
Sample 4, My Cousin
or pattern) Capitalization spelling Incorrect (word Spelled sight words correct Phonological Vocabulary awareness Illustrations corresponds to text Participant Message understood EMILY She seems to have an understanding of 1 letter sounds and how they work together. Example “oo” and “ea.”
EMILY I notice there are some spelling errors, 1 1 with large words but it is clear the writer is sounding out to make a best effort based on what she knows about sounds.
EMILY I also notice that she writes using 1 capital letters.
KRIS Ava did a good job illustrating her 1 1 cousin being a dog. I can tell what the story is about from the written words and picture.
KRIS I like that she used such a big word – 1 nuisance.
KRIS She spelled her sight words correctly. 1
I highlighted key phrases as deductive codes. From the pilot, I had a “start-list”
76
(Miles et al., 2014, p. 81) of codes that paralleled the noticing of the current PSTs. I also used terminology from course content to label the items the PSTs noticed in Writing
Samples one through seven.
I copied the highlighted phrases (codes) into Excel columns. For each data chunk,
I placed a numeral “1” in the corresponding column of the matrix. Figure 7 displays the building of the matrix as I added Kris and Emily’s fifth and sixth Writing Samples to the matrix.
Figure 7
First-Cycle Coding of Noticing for Writing Samples 4 through 6, Emily
Sample 4, My Cousin Sample 5, Patriots in Sample 6, Pig
the Super Bowl Kiss pattern) Participant Participant Capitalization spelling Incorrect pattern) or (word Phonological awareness Capitalization awareness Phonological Message is understood spelling (word Incorrect or Understands how writing k move Uses from craft a writer another EMILY She seems to have an 1 I noticed that this 1 The writer 1 understanding of letter student has an understands sounds and how they understanding of that she can work together. letter combinations write about her E am le and sound relationships thoughts and ea. like he ch. feelings about getting kissed by a pig. EMILY I notice there are some 1 1 I also noticed that the 1 It was as if I 1 spelling errors, with student could use could hear her large words but it is instruction on telling the clear the writer is different uses of story. She sounding out to make upper- and lower- showed disgust a best effort based on case letters as he by creating one what she knows about scatters them sentence sounds. throughout writing. Di g ing! It shows the strong attitude. EMILY I also notice that she 1 He was able to 1 She was able 1 writes using capital convey what he to spell smaller letters. wanted using writing. words correctly but still falters.
WhenI applied a code, I defined it within a master list of codes (Table 7).
77 Table 7 Master List of First-Cycle Codes
CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING
CODE CODE CODE
Capitalization “Child capitalizes Appropriate “It also seems like Can tell a story “He was able to letters throughout her spelling she is transitioning explain what he words.” progression from approximated intended to convey (recognition of spelling to through his stages) conventional writing.” spelling.”
“Child includes both “She exemplifies “The child can tell lower-and-upper-case the progression of a story on paper.” letters in their writing approximation sample.” spelling.”
78 Table 7 (continued)
Master List of First-Cycle Codes
CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST CODE CODE CODE NOTICING Compound “because=two words Can form a “Child can write Demonstrates “She is very word (be cas).” sentence full sentences.” creativity imaginative construction imagination in her “Needs to work more Can form a “They are writing.” on compound word beginning to form Elaboration words.” sentence structures encouragement “What do that are more you love complex.” about yourself?”
Consistent “Child gets confused “Grouped letters to spelling between her s and c; create words.” pattern e and a.” “Letters are “I would feel “The child spelled grouped together to great about ‘Pechreets’ the same form words.” getting a throughout the story.” strike in bowling. All the pins were knocked down. Whoo Hoo!”
79 Table 7 (continued)
Master List of First-Cycle Codes
CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST CODE CODE CODE NOTICING
Following “For the most part, Can write “I notice that this Enjoyment in “She enjoys writing rules this child is able to name writer is capable of writing drawing the write full sentences writing her name.” story out as with proper spelling well as and grammar.” “I noticed how well writing it.” this writer wrote “The child writes in her name.” sentence fragments.” Handwriting- “She is staying in the Letter “Child can write Identifies as an “She is stays on the lines when writing.” knowledge majority of the author telling a story line. letters of the about herself. “She writes curvy.” alphabet.” She starts by telling the “Child runs words “This child is able readers . . . “ together.” to write and recognize the letters in her name.”
80 Table 7 (continued)
Master List of First-Cycle Codes
CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST CODE CODE CODE NOTICING Incorrect “She doesn’t include Narrative “I could hear them Illustration “Drawing spelling (word all the letters in every skill** telling me this adds to or goes along or pattern) word but includes story.” matches text with the letters that make most writing.” prominent sounds.” “She is giving a narration on what is “Ava did a “Many letters still happening with the good job at missing in words.” ball.” illustrating her cousin being a dog. I can tell what the picture is from reading what she wrote.”
81 Table 7 (continued)
Master List of First-Cycle Codes
CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST CODE CODE CODE NOTICING
Legibility “I also notice that the Phonological “Missed letters in the Implements a “Includes child has neat awareness words being spelled, craft move repetition.” handwriting for a K-1 (sounding out) appears child is (borrowed from student.” attempting to sound a picture book) “She labeled out.” herself and her “The words and writing friend in the are legible to the “Most spelling makes picture.” reader.” sense; some does not like ‘grgle’ for jelly.” “She uses “I noticed his words words to really were very clear.” emphasize what is happening in the story such as saying, ‘rolling and rolling.’
82
Table 7 (continued)
Master List of First-Cycle Codes
CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST CODE CODE CODE NOTICING Punctuation “Child does not Print “Writes left to write Includes “The writer include punctuation awareness and from top to details describes in his writing.” (directionality) bottom.” where they were, what “I noticed that this “The child happened to writer understands understands that them, and that a period comes at you write left to how they felt the end of every right and if you run about it.” sentence.” out of space on one page, you continue at the top of the next.”
83 Table 7 (continued)
Master List of First-Cycle Codes
CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 CODE PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CODE CODE Sight words “The child also Use of word part “Knows Kept to topic “Followed spelled knows how to spell to spell abbreviations for prompt and stuck correctly common sight words patriots is pats but with the topic.” such as “when,” doesn’t correlate “went,” “we,” “to.” that into his spelling “Writer is very of patriots.” organized in her “The simple words writing. She is are all correctly “Writer understands telling a story spelled.” that ‘Pats’ is short about herself.” for patriots, but he starts off writing the word patriots like ‘pech'.”
84 Table 7 (continued)
Master List of First-Cycle Codes
CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 CODE PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CODE CODE
Specific sound “The writer Topic important “Child is writing Story has “Story has a understands that to child about something beginning, beginning, “pats” is short for that is important to middle, and middle, and patriots, but he starts them. They have end end.” writing the word seen a parent or patriots like “pech.” caregiver make this “Describing the sandwich many series of events He understands the times.” in chronological ‘th’ sound.” order of how it “The child really happened.” enjoys football and the Patriots.”
85 Table 7 (continued)
Master List of First-Cycle Codes
CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 CODE PST NOTICING CYCLE 1 PST NOTICING CODE CODE
Understanding “They have an Understands “She is telling a Use of a title “Title at top of how writing understanding that readers as story about herself. (large).” “works” writing is a way to “audience” communicate She starts by telling “The writer thoughts and feelings the readers. . . “ seemed to make at the time.” attempts at using a title.” “Child can make a list.” “Has an understanding of text bubbles.”
“Read has a grasp on what a story book should look like.”
86
I tallied what the PSTs noticed in each Writing Sample by adding together each column of the matrix (Table 8). By constructing a data matrix, I answered the qualitative questions posed in the study. Miles et al. (2014) guided that
Formats [of data] can be varied . . . [and] depend on what you are trying to
understand . . . form follows function. . . The display format and content of
entries will depend on what you are trying to understand. Formats must always be
driven by the research questions involved and your developing concepts (p. 109).
I would use the matrix to identify themes and sort the codes into Second-Cycle codes.
Table 8
Summary Row of First-Cycle Codes Applied in Writing Sample 4
pattern
line
-
form a word a form Understanding of how writing works TOTAL SAMPLE 4 Capitalization Stays on or (word spelling Incorrect legibility punctuation Sight words spelled correctly Sound error spacing Appropriate spelling progression Can form a sentence Can Can write name Letter knowledge Narrative skill Phonological awareness Print awareness Vocabulary to text corresponds Illustrations Message understood 13 2 6 2 4 4 1 9 7 3 2 2 3 1 8 3 4 5 2 1 82
Writing Case Study Assignments, Interview Transcripts and, Reflection Assignments
I preserved the Writing Case Study assignment, interview transcriptions, and the
Reflection assignment on my laptop. I downloaded from Blackboard the Writing Case
Study Assignments and saved them in a password protected file folder called “Case
Study.” I added a folder called “Reflection” and downloaded the Reflection assignments
87 from Blackboard. After transcribing the interviews, I saved the Word documents in a folder titled “Interviews.” When the semester was complete, I uploaded the three folders into Dedoose software, Version 7.0.23 (2016). Dedoose is a web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative research data (Dedoose, 2019). Dedoose software was employed because of the quantity of data. There were 113 double-spaced typed assignments and 80 single-spaced typed interview transcripts.
Within the Dedoose software, I employed systematic coding of every line of the
193 pages of assignment and interview data. Systematic coding is the process that
“breaks the data into manageable segments and identifies or names those segments”
(Schwandt, 2007, p. 32). I continuously compared and contrasted successive segments of data. I began the coding process with the provisional “start list” of codes (Miles et al.,
2014, p. 81) used in the matrix construction and also applied in-vivo codes to “preserve participants meaning of their views and actions in the coding itself. . . in-vivo codes serve as symbolic markers of participants’ speech and meanings” (Charmaz, 2014, p.
134). For example, in Alli’s interview, she said,
Focus on solutions, not problems. Effective feedback does not merely point out
problem areas but instead offers solutions. In my future classroom, it will be one
of my goals to offer solutions in not just language and literacy but in my teaching
as a whole.
The phrase “solutions not problems” became a code that represented Alli’s experience of noticing the K-1 writer. The First-Cycle Codes were “mixed-and-matched”
(Miles et al., 2014, p. 74) and included descriptive codes that summarized chunks of data,
88 in-vivo codes which applied the participants’ own words, and provisional coding using my own ‘start-list’ of codes.
I printed the condensed number of codes on cards to manipulate and sort them
(Figure 8) into categories.
Figure 8
Photograph of First-Cycle Codes from Writing Case Study Assignments, Reflection Assignments, and Interview Transcripts
Phase Two. Second-Cycle Pattern Coding
The data was again considered using two data analysis tools.
Lists of Noticing (Seven Writing Samples)
89
The matrix display that was created in Excel allowed “at a glance” reflection, verification, conclusion drawing, and other analytic acts” (Miles et al., 2014, p. 41). I reviewed First-Cycle codes that were column headings in the master matrix. I was easily able to sort them into a smaller number of categories, themes, or constructs (Miles et al.,
2014) called Second-Cycle Pattern codes. Second-Cycle Pattern codes are useful:
• To condense data into a smaller number of analytic units;
• To spur analysis during data collection;
• To assist in the development of a cognitive map for understanding incidents and
interactions (Miles et al., 2014).
I applied three Second-Cycle Pattern codes to encapsulate the First-Cycle codes.
The Second-Cycle codes were: conventional writing skills (or product skills), early literacy skills, and process writing skills. I considered any item with a focus on correctness (Graham et al., 2012) to be a conventional writing skill. Such items assure
“clarity and logic” (Graham et al., 2012, p. 4) in a writing product and are marked as errors by traditional writing teachers.
I defined early literacy skills as the knowledges, skills, and dispositions that precede learning to read and write in the primary grades (Roskos et al., 2003). Early literacy skills include
• Letter knowledge - the young writer’s recognition that the alphabet contains a set
of symbols and that each symbol represents a sound (Roskos et al., 2003);
• Print awareness – how text works. For example, an understanding that text is.
written in a left-to-right and top-to-bottom orientation (Roskos et al., 2003);
90
• Phonological awareness - the ability to attend to the smaller sounds of language
(Roskos et al., 2003);
• Vocabulary – a curiosity for using novel words (Roskos et al., 2003);
• Narrative ability - the ability to tell a story.
The spelling stages and writing principles identified in What Did I Write?
Beginning Writing Behavior (Clay, 1975) provided the PSTs with a snapshot of typical writing development in young children. I also coded the noticing of writing stages or principles as early literacy skills.
The applied Applebee’s (1986) summation that process writing is “a way to think about writing in terms of what the writer does (planning, revising, and the like) instead of terms of what the final product looks like (patterns of organization, spelling, and grammar)” (p. 96) to identify process writing skills. Although I attached the label of
‘skill’ while coding, Graves reminds that it is not possible to approach the “writing process in a lock-step, rigid manner” (p. 23).
Table 9 reflects how I sorted the First-Cycle codes into the three Second-Cycle
Pattern codes. Through this activity, I achieved data reassembly whereby the data
“point[ed] to different groupings suggest[ive of] associations across groupings” (Yin,
2016, p. 204).
91
Table 9
First-Cycle Codes Sorted into Second-Cycle Pattern Codes
SECOND-CYCLE PATTERN SECOND-CYCLE PATTERN SECOND-CYCLE CODE CODE PATTERN CODE Conventional Writing Skills Early Literacy Skills Process Writing Skills
Capitalization Appropriate spelling Can tell a story progression (recognition of stages)
Compound word Can form a sentence Demonstrates construction creativity/imagination
Consistent spelling pattern Can form a word Elaboration encouragement
Following writing rules Can write name Enjoyment in writing
Handwriting-Stays on the Letter knowledge Identifies as an author line
Incorrect spelling (word or Narrative skill (retells a Illustration adds to or pattern) happening not necessary, matches text including beginning, middle, and end)
Legibility Phonological connections Implements a craft (sounding out) move (borrowed from picture book)
Punctuation Print awareness Includes details (directionality)
Sight words spelled Use of word part to spell Kept to topic correctly
Spacing Vocabulary Message is understood
92
Table 9 (continued)
First-Cycle Codes Sorted into Second-Cycle Pattern Codes
SECOND-CYCLE PATTERN SECOND-CYCLE PATTERN SECOND-CYCLE CODE CODE PATTERN CODE Conventional Writing Skills Early Literacy Skills Process Writing Skills Specific sound Story has a beginning, middle, and end
Understands readers as ‘audience’
Understanding of how writing works
Use of a title
I returned to the master matrix and grouped the First-Cycle codes into the newly established Second-Cycle Pattern Codes. I highlighted each of the three codes to easily distinguish the features noticed by the PSTs in the seven Writing Samples. I also determined the frequency that the PSTs applied each code in the Writing Samples (Figure
9) by tallying the number of PSTs who listed the feature in their List of Noticing.
93
Figure 9
Grouping of First-Cycle Codes into Second-Cycle Codes for Writing Sample 4
E
CONVENTIONAL WRITING PROCESS EARLY LITERACY SKILLS WRITING SKILLS SKILLS TOTAL/SAMPL
line understood
-
ght words spelled correctly Capitalization Stays on or pattern (word spelling Incorrect legibility Punctuation Si Sound error spacing Appropriate spelling progression Can form a sentence Can form a word Can write name Letter knowledge Narrative skill Phonological awareness Print awareness Vocabulary to text corresponds Illustrations Message Understanding of how writing works Total Sample 4 13 2 6 2 4 4 1 9 7 3 2 2 3 1 8 3 4 5 2 1 82
As I was reviewing the frequency with which PSTs noticed features of the K-1 writer, I concluded that each sample offered a differing number of features to identify
(Table 10). For example, in Writing Sample 3 the PSTs collectively identified 15 distinctive features of the writer. However, in Writing Sample 7 they identified 28 unique features of the K-1 writer. I confirmed that each Writing Sample had differing possibilities to notice when I averaged the number of features (Table 10) of the writer that the PSTs noticed in the seven writing samples. In Writing Sample 2 for example, each PST averaged 4.2 noticings of the K-1 writer. However, in Writing Sample 5 each
PST recognized an average of 6.2 features of the writer.
94
Table 10
Codes Applied by Writing Sample
All PSTs WRITING WRITING WRITING WRITING WRITING WRITING WRITING SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Features 86 84 117 82 118 123 105 Listed
Total Codes 18 15 15 20 23 25 28 Applied 19 20 19 17 19 20 18 # of Respondents
Average 4.5 4.2 6.1 4.8 6.2 6.1 5.8 n/participant
Conventional Writing 9 8 8 8 9 9 6 Codes Applied
Early Literacy 4 6 4 9 8 8 8 Codes Applied
Process Writing 5 1 3 3 6 8 14 Codes Applied
Because of the different possibilities to notice in the seven unique Writing
Samples, I determined the percentage of noticing that fell into the three Second-Cycle
Pattern Codes. I could use the percentages to determine if the PSTs were shifting in their application of each Second-Cycle Pattern code (Table 11).
95
Table 11
Percentage of Codes Identified in Writing Samples by Second-Cycle Pattern Code
SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 % of 58% 75% 48% 58% 42% 35% 24% Conventions Responses
% of Early 36% 21% 41% 27% 47% 40% 27% Literacy Responses
% of Process 7% 4% 10% 16% 27% 29% 57% Responses
While assigning codes, I detected a change in the language used by the PSTs when pointing out a writer’s skill. While the PSTs noticed conventional errors across all the writing samples, the language the PSTs used to identify the errors became less focused on correctness. For example, in the first writing sample Megan noticed that “this writer uses random capitalization and doesn’t know when to use capital letters.” Weeks later when noticing the lack of capital letters in Heather’s writing, Megan commented,
“This writer understands that we capitalize ‘I’ when writing about self.” I coded both statements as capitalization noticings during the First-Cycle coding. Because they also focused on a writing convention, I labeled them with the Second-Cycle Pattern code of
Conventional Writing Skill. However, the noticings pointed out the PST’s transition from noticing deficits of a writer to attention to the growth of a writer.
To accommodate for the change in the PSTs’ tone of noticing, I returned to the master matrix and determined whether each PST’ noticing had a positive or negative tone. I added a new Second-Cycle Code of “Negative Connotation” and placed a numeral
96 in the new column when a PSTs’ language focused on an error or deficit of the writer
(Table 12).
Table 12
Percent of Negative Noticing in Writing Sample 4
PROCESS CONVENTIONAL WRITING SKILLS EARLY LITERACY SKILLS WRITING
SKILLS TOTAL
Negative Connotation Negative Capitalization Capitalization on-lineStays (word spelling or patternIncorrect l punctuation correctly wordsSight spelled Sound error spacing progressionspelling Appropriate sentence a form Can word a form Can name write Can knowledge Letter skillNarrative awarenessPhonological awarenessPrint Vocabulary text to corresponds Illustrations understood is Message works of how writing Understanding Sample 4 Total 31 13 2 6 2 4 4 1 9 7 3 2 2 3 1 8 3 4 5 2 1 82 16% 2% 7% 2% 5% 5% 1% 11% 9% 4% 2% 2% 4% 1% 10% 4% 5% 6% 2% 1%
38% 41 of 82 33 of 82 8 of 82 50% 40% 10%
Writing Case Study Assignments, Interview Transcripts and, Reflection Assignments
Returning to my research questions, I organized the code cards I had sorted
(Figure 8) and was able to align the codes that “tie[d] together bits of data” (Miles et al.,
2014, p. 86). I returned to Miles et al.’s (2014) guidance to create a data network that connects data by “links or lines that display participant actions, events, and processes” (p.
111). I found that if I thought of the codes as answers to the three research questions, I could link the codes in a matrix to illustrate the relationships among the PSTs’ noticing experiences. The data network in Figure 10 illustrates how the codes from all data sources tied together to inform my research questions.
97
Figure 10
Data Network Map of First- Cycle Codes from All Data Sources
Contextualization of Own Writing Conflict Instructional Goals Course Activities Conventional Skills Process Skills Early Literacy Skills Experience Between New Understandings
Writing is done not Solutions over Encourage Writing samples Need to focus on Writing Workshop Print motivation taught problems motivation to write
Scribbles are Handwriting is writing Positives vs. Learn to follow the Print awareness synonymous with Provide examples Course readings Meaning of writing negatives rules (Directionality) writing
Writing ability proceeds through stages Course lectures and Scribbling Readiness to write Prompt ideas Sight words Expression Letter knowledge Power Points
Reading and writing are reciprocal = Case study child Teacher writing Books exposure Provide time to How to assist child? • unwillingness to write Punctuation Effort Narrative skills "for" child write • writing utensil difference • child's need for assistance
Talk (interaction) Teacher provided frames writing Provide authentic Illustrations and Capitalization Fine motor abilities prompt to journal context text relationship Maintaining own writing journal There is a difference between Red pens = writer and writing Handwriting Topic child values correction of errors Reconciling Practice and selects this conflict Zoom interview leads to shift in noticing. Learning to write involves a process Q1. What do early childhood PSTs notice about the writer in Q3. What experiences in a semester-long K-1 writing samples? Q2. How do early childhood PSTs shift, if at all, literacy methods course influence EC in their noticing of the writer in K-1 writing Allow for individual PSTs noticing of the riter in K-1 samples during a literacy methods course? growth writing samples?
98
After sorting the codes, I drafted a narrative paragraph to answer the research question using the First-Cycle codes and Second-Cycle Pattern codes as they fit in the network map (Table 13). The narrative paragraphs guided the findings that I will report in
Chapter 4. 99 Table 13
Narrative Paragraphs Using First-Cycle and Second-Cycle Codes to Answer Research Questions
SECOND-CYCLE FIRST-CYCLE CODES NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SECOND-CYCLE
PATTERN CODE CONTAINED WITHIN PATTERN CODE PATTERN CODE Q1. What do early childhood PSTs notice about the writer in K-1 writing samples? And,
Q2. How do early childhood PSTs shift, if at all, in their noticing of the writer in K-1 writing samples during a semester-long literacy methods course?
§ Capitalization When PSTs looked at the writing samples their eyes
§ Compound word construction initially went towards the rules of writing they § Consistent spelling pattern remember learning in their early school years. Some of § Following writing rules Matrix the PSTs even confused the term “writing” with the § Handwriting-stays on the line concept of “handwriting.” In addition to legibility, the § Incorrect spelling (word or PSTs were concerned that the writer did not follow the
- Excel pattern) writing rules regarding capitalization, punctuation, § Legibility spelling, and format. The PSTs wanted to point out Conventional § Sight words spelled correctly errors so they could fix the writer’s mistakes. As a Writing Skills § Spacing Noticing Writing Sample Lists of result, they pointed out the negatives in the writing § Specific sound samples. These PSTs continued their own EC teachers’ focus on product convention over the writers’ process.
§ Need- to focus on
§ Learn to follow the rules
ose ripts, § Sight words
§ Punctuation Study, Dedo Network Interview § Capitalization Transc Writing Case Assignment §and Reflection Handwriting Practice 100
Table 13 (continued)
Narrative Paragraphs Using First-Cycle and Second-Cycle Codes to Answer Research Questions
SECOND- • FIRST-CYCLE CODES NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SECOND-CYCLE CYCLE CONTAINED WITHIN PATTERN CODE PATTERN PATTERN CODE CODE
Q1. What do early childhood PSTs notice about the writer in K-1 writing samples? And,
Q2. How do early childhood PSTs shift, if at all, in their noticing of the writer in K-1 writing samples during a semester-long literacy methods course? • Can form a sentence • Can form a word Young writers need to develop some precursor skills • Can write name before becoming expert readers and writers. These • Letter knowledge skills are not “testable” or “correctable.” There is a
• Narrative skill reciprocal process in reading and writing and as • Phonological connections children learn to love stories, they develop writing
Matrix • Print awareness (directionality) skills from their observations of read-aloud. They Early Literacy • Use parts of a word to spell develop awareness of how language and print works. Skills • Vocabulary They are exposed to new words and become better
– Excel storytellers. Young children gain these understandings over time as the progress through similar stages.
Noticing Writing Sample Lists of
101 Table 13 (continued)
Narrative Paragraphs Using First-Cycle and Second-Cycle Codes to Answer Research Questions
SECOND-CYCLE • FIRST-CYCLE CODES NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SECOND-CYCLE
PATTERN CODE CONTAINED WITHIN PATTERN CODE PATTERN CODE Q1. What do early childhood PSTs notice about the writer in K-1 writing samples? And,
Q2. How do early childhood PSTs shift, if at all, in their noticing of the writer in K-1 writing samples during a semester-long literacy methods course? • Can form a sentence Writing involves the writer understanding that when we • Can form a word write, we are sharing a message with authors. Our marks • Can write name
on paper share our thoughts and ideas with others. To Excel • Letter knowledge – get that message on paper, the writer engages in their
of • Narrative skill own writing process. There are many skills more
Matrix • Phonological connections; important than following rules. Before ever applying the • Print awareness (directionality)
Noticing • Use parts of a word to spell rules of convention, a young writer must develop an
Writing Sample Lists • Vocabulary understanding of topic, themselves as an author, and Process Writing their reader as an audience. Involving children in a • Appropriate spelling progression Skills Writing Workshop, is the opposite of the check and • Can form a sentence • Can form a word correct writing experiences they recalled. However, • Can write name when focusing on the positives in a writer’s work, it is Dedoose - possible to see how much a child has developed in their • Letter knowledge • Narrative skill language and literacy abilities.
•Network Phonological connections;
and Reflection • Print awareness (directionality)
Writing Case Study, • Use parts of a word to spell Interview Transcripts,
Assignment • Vocabulary
102 Table 13 (continued)
Narrative Paragraphs Using First-Cycle and Second-Cycle Codes to Answer Research Questions
NARRATIVE SECOND-CYCLE FIRST-CYCLE CODES CONTAINED WITHIN DESCRIPTION OF
PATTERN CODE PATTERN CODE SECOND-CYCLE PATTERN CODE
Q2. How do early childhood PSTs shift, if at all, in their noticing of the writer in K-1 writing samples during a semester-long literacy methods course?
• Scribbles are writing As PSTs begin to understand the theory of • Writing ability proceeds emergent literacy and the precursors to through stages becoming a conventional writer, they begin to • Reading and writing are recognize the strengths of young children. They
reciprocal = Books recognize that individual students develop exposure writing abilities on individual trajectories. The • Talk (interaction) frames PSTs see evidence of language and literacy Dedoose
New - writing growth in scribbling and talking. The PSTs Understandings • There is a difference recognize that conventions are preceded by a between writer and writing writing process, where children experiment • Learning to write involves a with language process Writing Case Study, Assignment • Allow for individual growth
Interview Transcripts, and Reflection
103
Table 13 (continued)
Narrative Paragraphs Using First-Cycle and Second-Cycle Codes to Answer Research Questions
SECOND-CYCLE • FIRST-CYCLE CODES NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SECOND-
PATTERN CODE CONTAINED WITHIN CYCLE PATTERN CODE PATTERN CODE
• Writing is done not taught When PSTs enter their methods courses, they are aware of • Handwriting is synonymous their own writing development. However, few have with writing memories of enjoying writing. They recall writing in daily journals on topics that were assigned by their teachers. They Contextualization Dedoose • Scribbling - of Own Writing • Teacher writing "for" child also recall handwriting drills where they completed worksheets for letter mastery. They recall the worksheets Experience • Teacher provided prompt to journals being graded with red ink and mistakes being circled and and Reflection • Red pens = correction of highlighted. They do not have memories of being
Writing Case Study, suggestions on improving those errors, the writing they Interview Transcripts, Transcripts, Interview Assignment errors turned in was “done.”
– • Solutions over problems Once aware of Early Literacy PSTs are uncomfortable with • Positives vs. negatives the dissonance between their own experiences and those the • Readiness to write university encourages. They recognize that children allowed Dedoose to write in authentic contexts demonstrate what is known • How to assist child? about literacy. PSTs abandon the idea that children who
Assignment scribble are not “ready” to write. Once a PST points out the Conflict Between positives they notice, they struggle with what to do about the
Writing Case Study, remaining problems. They do begin to adjust how they talk to young children and begin to see talk and reading aloud as
Reflection ways to encourage writing growth. They also recognize that Interview Transcripts, and and Transcripts, Interview the red pens killed writing motivation while children left to write authentically are motivated to learn the conventions when necessary.
104 Table 13 (continued)
Narrative Paragraphs Using First-Cycle and Second-Cycle Codes to Answer Research Questions
SECOND-CYCLE FIRST-CYCLE CODES NARRATIVE PATTERN CODE CONTAINED WITHIN DESCRIPTION OF
PATTERN CODE SECOND-CYCLE PATTERN CODE
Q3. What experiences in a semester-long literacy methods course influence EC PSTs’ noticing of the writer in K-1 writing samples?
• Encourage motivation to The PSTs discovered that young children should be write given uninterrupted time to write. They also • Provide examples recognized that the children would write when given
Dedoose • Prompt ideas reasons to do so. However, children did not respond Instructional Goals – • Provide time to write well to worksheets and writing “assignments.” As
• Provide authentic context children become motivated to write, it is the teacher’s job to take them to the next level by and Reflection providing writing examples, prompting ideas, and Writing Case Study, Interview Transcripts, Assignment encouraging their students to tell them more.
•
105 Table 13 (continued)
Narrative Paragraphs Using First-Cycle and Second-Cycle Codes to Answer Research Questions
SECOND-CYCLE • FIRST-CYCLE CODES NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF SECOND-
PATTERN CODE CONTAINED WITHIN CYCLE PATTERN CODE PATTERN CODE • Writing samples It was important for the PSTs to make discoveries on their • Course readings own about young writers. It was important for them to look • Course lectures/Power Points at young writers to understand how much can be observed. • Case study child They overwhelmingly regarded looking at writing samples • Maintaining own writing as an important activity. Watching a case study child scribble journal in different manners, but consistent with what they were
• Zoom interview reading about, was impactful. Talking about their
observations with one another was also important. They
were surprised with the differences among the children and
Dedoose were shocked that children could “read” their own scribbles. – – This was an eye-opening moment. It seems if the children can read what they write, providing writing opportunities is a se se Study,
Course Activities valuable part of ECE. They became skeptical of handwriting
worksheets and wanted to work more with children to assist in writing growth. They found applying course readings and lectures to the Writing Ca writing samples as valuable. They recognized that they made Interview Transcripts, and Transcripts, Interview the discoveries on their own – and that helped them Reflection Assignment overcome their own dread regarding writing. They were relieved they could look beyond conventions (which many said still scares them) and find out more about their students. As they wrote in their own journals, they also started to develop enjoyment writing because conventions were not important. They want their future students to feel that freedom.
106
Summary of Methods
This study was a naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) using qualitative methods. The data sources included: 135 Lists of Noticing that PSTs provided after examining seven writing samples, 73 double-spaced pages of 20 Writing Case Study assignments, 80 single-spaced pages of interview transcripts (16 hours of conversation), and 40 double-spaced pages of Reflection data. I conducted my data analysis using Excel software to build matrices of noticing and Dedoose qualitative analysis software to build a data network that informed my interpretations of the matrix. I applied Miles et al.’s
(2014) coding scheme of disassembling data into First-Cycle and Second-Cycle Pattern codes to segment the data into categories and themes that informed the research questions. Despite a small sample size, the transferability of this study’s findings is possible through the “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) which explains the experiences of the PST participants. I will discuss the findings in chapter four and address the implications of those findings in chapter five.
107
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The purpose of this inquiry was to understand what PSTs notice in K-1 writing samples and how, if at all, their noticing shifted during a one-semester literacy methods course. I probed the PSTs to determine the course activities that influenced the shifts in their noticing. The qualitative data collected to fuel this inquiry was “transformed in many ways: through selection, through summary or paraphrase, through being subsumed in a larger pattern . . . [and by] convert[ing] the data” for arrangement into a display.
Displaying the PSTs’ Lists of Noticing in a matrix was appropriate as “formats [of data] can be varied . . . [and] depend on what you are trying to understand . . . form follows function. . . formats are driven by the research questions involved and your developing concepts” (Miles et al., 2014, p. 109).
I summarized the frequencies of the PSTs’ Lists of Noticing in seven Writing
Samples. I applied “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) to the noticing patterns from the
PSTs’ Writing Case Study assignments, interview transcripts, and Reflection assignments to capture the PSTs’ experiences of noticing the K-1 writer. As a result, I offer responses to the three research questions:
1. What do EC PSTs notice about the writer in K-1 writing samples?
2. How do EC PSTs shift, if at all, in their noticing of the writer in K-1 writing
samples during a semester-long literacy methods course?
3. What experiences in a semester-long literacy methods course influence EC
PSTs’ noticing of the writer in K-1 writing samples?
108
I conducted research in my semester-long EC literacy methods course. From the
20 PSTs enrolled in the course, I collected Lists of Noticing that the participants created in response to seven writing samples from K-1 writers. I analyzed the Lists of Noticing from the matrix I built using First and Second-Cycle Pattern Codes (Miles et al., 2014).
In Dedoose Version 7.0.23 (2016) software, I systematically coded an interview transcript, a written Case Study Writing Assignment, and a written Reflection assignment for each PST. I considered the coded course assignments to be “a reliable source of data concerning [the PSTs’] attitudes, beliefs and views” (Merriam, 2009, p. 143) about their noticing of K-1 writers and the course activities that contributed to it.
In the first section of this chapter, I describe what the PSTs noticed in each of the seven writing samples. This answers the first research question. I will report the features of the K-1 writer that the PSTs noted in each writing sample along with the language the
PSTs used. I will display the percentage of noticing in each Second-Cycle Pattern code of conventional writing skills, early literacy skills, and process writing skills. This analysis reveals shifts in the PSTs’ noticing to inform the second research question.
The first shift I will discuss involves the PSTs recognition that teachers of writing should attend to process writing skills over conventional writing skills. I explore this theme by examining the frequency of the PSTs’ noticing of conventional writing skills, early literacy skills, and process writing skills across all seven writing samples.
I then discuss a shift in the language the PSTs used when noticing the writer of the writing samples. I explore the PSTs’ shift from using negative language to point out
109 deficits of the writer to an eventual acceptance of the writer’s possibilities. Finally, I discuss the course experiences that the PSTs reported as influential in creating the shifts in their noticing.
Informing Research Questions
I used the data colle collected from the PSTs’ Lists of Noticing to answer the first research question. I discuss thir noticing by writing sample and then the samples collectively. The combination of all data sources allowed me to address the second and third questions in the following section.
What do EC PSTs Notice About the Writer in K-1 Writing Samples?
I discuss each writing sample independently. I identify the number of PSTs that notice the three types of skills in each writing sample (conventional, early literacy, and process). I offer a graph to illustrate the break-down. Finally, I provide the First-Cycle
Codes that the PSTs noticed in each sample and examples of the language the PSTs’ used. Because displays (such as tables and graphs) become the “organized and compressed assembly of information that allows conclusion drawing” (Miles et al., 2014,
12-13), I conclude by presenting my findings regarding the noticing of the 20 PSTs bound as a single case to answer the second research question.
Writing Sample 1, Myself (Figure 11)
In the first writing sample, 19 PSTs noticed 86 features of the K-1 writer. Each
PST recognized an average of 4.5 skills of the writer. The items that the PSTs noticed fell into the Second-Cycle codes of conventional writing skills, early literacy skills, and process writing kills (Figure 12).
110
Figure 11
Writing Sample 1, Myself
Figure 12 Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 1
Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 1 n=86 Process Writing 7% 6
Early Literacy 30 35% 50 Conventional Writing 58%
111
Table 14 Items noticed in Writing Sample 1, Myself.
EARLY LITERACY PROCESS WRITING CONVENTIONAL WRITING SKILLS SKILLS SKILLS
s k r o
w
n
l l
o g
e s
n s n s i p e d t s e o l i
i
o r n
t u r e o o r e t a t g c o w
r r
s r n n s g a r r e o i e
l d w n e e t g b l i w r
s o e t d a
e n d a s o i d l
h
n n
e e n r p e
l i n e l c s w e s u
l s o n a i
u l w i - n s w e t c d t a s p d d o i i e n r o i o a g n r t s i o n y
a g g o
t t a z t n n o e
m
u e t a i i a i o c a g r
w k l l l g g i r s o o g
w i f u n f o a t r a a w o n r u t a p i i t f t b o i s e t t i o e s c n
i o c c l h s t y d s m n p e p n c l n a e o g t i e a g e e n s a o a e e n o t u i p p h r C C F S L P S S S C L P P E m K M U U 12 2 2 2 5 7 4 6 10 1 8 16 5 1 1 2 1 1
5050 of or 86 58% 3030 or of 35% 86 6 6 or of 7%86 58% 35% 7%
Nineteen PSTs identified at least one conventional writing skill in Myself: capitalization, using compound words to spell, following writing rules, placing writing on a line, legibility of writing, punctuation use, spelling sight words, the spacing of letters and words, and spelling by letter sound. Fifty-eight percent (50 out of 86) of the PSTs’ noticing identified conventional writing errors (Table 14).
Thirty-five percent (30 of 86) of the qualities the PSTs identified were early literacy skills. Fifteen of the 19 PSTs who provided a List of Noticing identified at least one early literacy skill such as: K-1 writer’s ability to form a sentence, letter knowledge, print awareness, or the K-1 writer’s ability to sound out words (Table 14).
Seven percent of the features (6 of 86) noticed by five of the 19 PSTs recognized the K-1 writer’s awareness of process writing skills (Table 14). The process skills the
PSTs identified in Writing Sample 1 included: elaborating on a message, keeping to the topic, understanding “how writing works,” and assigning a title to the piece. Table 15
112 contains examples of the language the PSTs used to point out their noticing of the K-1 writer in the first writing sample.
Table 15
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 1
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Conventional Writing Skills
Capitalization "The child is using capital letters when not correct."
Used compound word construction to "The child needs to work more on spell compound words."
"The child understands sentence structure Follows writing rules rules."
Handwriting-stays on-line "The child new to stay on a line without one being present."
Legibility "Child ca clea l i e hei le e .
Punctuation "The child didn't use any punctuation."
"The e i aci g be ee he d . Spacing
"The child got confused between her s and Specific sound error c; e and a."
Early Literacy Skills
The child ca e a a e d make a Can form a sentence sentence."
"The child can clearly write letters." Letter knowledge
Phonological connections (sounding out) "The child is sounding out and making misspellings."
"The words and letters are written left to Print awareness (directionality) right in typical reading fashion."
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Conventional Writing Skills
Capitalization "The child is using capital letters when not correct."
Used compound word construction to "The child needs to work more on spell compound words."
"The child understands sentence structure Follows writing rules rules."
Handwriting-stays on-line "The child new to stay on a line without one being present."
113 Legibility "Child ca clea l i e hei le e .
TablePunctuation 15 (continued) "The child didn't use any punctuation."
"The e i aci g be ee he d . ExamplesSpacing of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 1
"The child got confused between her s and Specific sound error CODE EXEMPLAR FIRST-CYCLE CODE c; e and a."
Conventional Writing Skills
Early Literacy Skills Capitalization "The child is using capital letters when not correct." The child ca e a a e d make a
Can form a sentence sentence." Used compound word construction to "The child needs to work more on compound words." Letterspell knowledge "The child can clearly write letters."
"The child understands sentence structure Follows writing rules rules."
Phonological connections (sounding out) "The child is sounding out and making Handwriting-stays on-line misspellings.""The child new to stay on a line without
one being present."
"The words and letters are written left to PrintLegibility awareness (directionality) right"Child in ca typical clea l reading i e fashion." hei le e .
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR Punctuation "The child didn't use any punctuation."
Process Writing"The e Skills i aci g be ee he d . Spacing
"The child got confused between her s and Specific sound error "Tell me what you love about yourself." Encourages elaboration on message c; e and a."
Early Literacy Skills Kept to topic "The child followed the prompt and kept Theto the child topic." ca e a a e d make a Can form a sentence sentence." Message is understood "I understand their message even with all Letter knowledge "Thethe errors." child can clearly write letters."
Understanding of how writing "works" "The child knew to answer a question and Phonological connections (sounding out) "Thethen childask a isquestion sounding of outthe andreader." making misspellings." "The child wrote the title large on the Use of a title top." "The words and letters are written left to
Print awareness (directionality) right in typical reading fashion."
114
Writing Sample 2, Nysia (Figure 13)
In the second writing sample, 20 PSTs reported 84 features of the writer averaging 4.2 observations. Nineteen of the 20 PSTs identified at least one conventional writing skill. Thirteen of the 20 PSTs recognized at least one early literacy skill. Only one of the 20 PSTs identified a process writing skill in Nysia (Table 16).
Figure 13
Writing Sample 2, Nysia
115
Table 16
Items noticed in Writing Sample 2, Nysia
PROCESS WRITING CONVENTIONAL WRITING SKILLS EARLY LITERACY SKILLS SKILLS
line - Message is understood is Message Capitalization Capitalization rules writing Following on Staying spelling Incorrect Punctuation word spellingSight Spacing sound error Specific sentence a form Can name write Can knowledge Letter awarenessPhonological awarenessPrint Vocabulary
13 2 9 9 6 4 14 5 2 1 2 12 3 1 1
62 of 84 21 of 84 1 of 84 74% 25% 1%
Eight of the 15 First-Cycle codes described the conventional writing skills previously identified in Writing Sample one including correct capitalization, following writing rules, staying on the line, punctuation usage, spelling sight words correctly, spacing letters and words properly, and spelling according to letter sound (Table 16). The
PSTs recognized an additional conventional writing code, namely an incorrect spelling- word or pattern. Seventy-four (62 of 84) percent of the PSTs’ noticing recognized conventional writing skills of the writer (Figure 14).
The PSTs again recognized four early literacy skills of forming a sentence, letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and print awareness. Additionally, the PSTs recognized the early literacy achievement of being able to write one’s name (Table 16).
116
The PSTs also observed Nysia’s vocabulary usage. Twenty-five percent (21 of 84) of the noticing in this sample was of the K-1 writer’s early literacy skill (Figure 14).
One PST noticed Nysia’s ability to share a message in a text. This is the only item listed that reflected a process writing skill. One percent (1 of 84) of the noticing by all the
PSTs recognized a process writing skill of the writer (Figure 14). Table 17 offers examples of the language the PSTs used in their noticing of Nysia.
Figure 14
Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 2
Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 2 n=84
Process Writing Early Literacy 1 1% 25%
21
62
Conventional Writing 74%
117
Table 17
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 2
FIRST-CYCLE CODECODE CODECODE EXEMPLAREXEMPLAR ConventionalConventional WritingWriting SkillsSkills Capitalization TheThe childchild isis capitalizingcapitalizing somesome wordswords withinwithin thethe sentencessentences thatthat areare notnot necessary."necessary."
Follows writing rules TheThe childchild isis writingwriting withwith improperimproper grammargrammar (do(do insteadinstead ofof be)."be)."
Handwriting - stays online "The"The childchild strugglesstruggles withwith writingwriting straight straight andand onon thethe line."line."
Incorrect spelling (word(word oror pattern)pattern) "There"There areare manymany lettersletters missingmissing in in the the words.words.
Punctuation The The childchild i i lackinglacking e i d e i d a a he he end end f f he he en ence. en ence.
Sight words spelled correct "The"The childchild knowsknows howhow toto spellspell thethe wordword 'like'."'like'."
Spacing "The child runs the words together." Spacing "The child runs the words together."
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR Specific sound error "When i elled in. Specific sound error "When i elled in.
Early Literacy Skills
Can form a sentence "The child has proper sentence structure."
Can write name "Child can write their own name."
Letter knowledge "The child writes her "S" backward."
Phonological connections (sounding out) "The child is using phonological
awareness to sound out words."
Print awareness (directionality) "The text goes left to right."
Vocabulary Large vocabulary like independent.
Process Writing Skills Message is understood "The child is making sentences using little words, but it makes sense."
118 FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR Table 17 (continued) Early Literacy Skills
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 2 Can form a sentence "The child has proper sentence structure." FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Can write name Early Literacy"Child Skills can write their own name."
CanLetter form knowledge a sentence "The child haswrites proper her "S"sentence backward." structure."
CPhonologicalan write name connections (sounding out) "Child"The child can iswrite using their phonological own name." awareness to sound out words."
Letter knowledge "The child writes her "S" backward." Print awareness (directionality) "The text goes left to right."
Phonological connections (sounding out) "The child is using phonological Vocabulary awarenessLarge vocabulary to sound like out independent. words."
Print awareness (directionality) Process"The Writing text goes Skills left to right." Message is understood "The child is making sentences using little Vocabulary Largewords, vocabulary but it makes like sense." independent.
Process Writing Skills Message is understood "The child is making sentences using little Writing Sample 3, Peanut Butter and Jelly (Figure 15) words, but it makes sense."
The PSTs took notice of 117 skills of the K-1 author of Peanut Butter and Jelly
(Table 18). The average number of skills recognized by each PST was 6.2. Nineteen of the PSTs who provided a List of Noticing for this writing sample (19) recognized at least one writing convention. Fifty-six percent (66 of 117) of the PSTs’ noticing was of a conventional writing skill (Figure 16). The conventional skills noticed included: the ability to capitalize, stay on the line, write legibly, punctuate, spell by sound pattern, space words, and sight words correctly (Table 19).
119
Figure 15
Writing Sample 3, Peanut Butter and Jelly
Table 18
Items noticed in Writing Sample 3, Peanut Butter and Jelly
EARLY LITERACY PROCESS WRITING CONVENTIONAL WRITING SKILLS SKILLS SKILLS
Capitalization Capitalization on- lineStaying spelling Incorrect Legibility Punctuation word spellingSight Spacing sound error Specific knowledge Letter awarenessPhonological awarenessPrint understood is Message Important childto Topic of how Understanding worksgenre 13 3 16 10 4 4 9 7 9 23 7 2 1 9
66 of 117 39 of 117 12 of 117 57% 33% 10%
120
Figure 16
Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 3
Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 3 n=117
Process Writing 10% 12
39 Early Literacy 66 Conventional 33% Writing 57%
Fifteen of the 19 PSTs recognized at least one early literacy ability of the writer such as letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and print awareness (Table 18).
Twenty-one percent of the PSTs’ noticing was of early literacy skills (39 of 117) (Figure
16).
Ten percent (12 of 117) of the skills the PSTs noticed were process writing skills
(Figure 16). Seven of the 19 PSTs recognized process writing skills such as the writer’s ability to share meaning through text and the writer’s understanding of how writing works. Additionally, the PSTs identified that the K-1 writer knew how to write a recipe. I coded this new understanding as understanding how writing (genre) works. The PSTs also made first mention of the writer selected a topic. The PSTs suggested that the K-1 writer was enthusiastic about peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Table 19 contains the language the PSTs used when noticing the writer of Peanut Butter and Jelly.
121
Table 19
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 3 CODE EXEMPLAR FIRST CYCLE CODE
Conventional Writing Skills
Capitalization "They are writing in mostly capital letters, so they do not have an understanding of lower case and capitals."
Handwriting - stays online "The child wrote fairly straight across the page."
Incorrect spelling pattern "There are a lot of missed letters in the words being spelled."
Legibility "The child le e a e legible."
Punctuation "The child has good punctuation after the numbers making the list."
Sight words spelled correct "I iced ha he igh d The a d T a e he l d elled correctly."
Specific sound error "Some of the words that were misspelled e e i i g he ile le e . For e a le: E .
Spacing "The student does seem to understand how to space out the words."
122
Table 19 (continued)
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 3. FIRST CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
FIRST CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR Early Literacy Skills Early Literacy Skills Letter knowledge All le e a e i e e l ( backwards or upside down)." Letter knowledge All le e a e i e e l (
backwards or upside down)." Phonological connections (sounding out) "The child recognizes the sounds that P honological connections (sounding out) "Theletters child make." recognizes the sounds that letters make." "The child understands that you write left Print awareness (directionality) "Theto right child and understands if you run outthat ofyou space write on left one Print awareness (directionality) topage, right you and continue if you run at outthe oftop space of the on next." one
Process Writingpage, Skills you continue at the top of the next." Process Writing Skills Message understood "The student was also able to read what they had written to describe it to a Message understood "The student was also able to read what teacher." they had written to describe it to a teacher."
Topic important to child The child i i i g ab e hi g ha is important to them. It seems like they Topic important to child The child i i i g ab e hi g ha ishave important seen a toparent them. or It caregiver seems like make they this
havesandwich seen amany parent times." or caregiver make this
sandwich many times."
Writing Sample 4, My Cousin is a Nuisance (Figure 17)
Seventeen of the 20 PSTs noticed an average of 4.8 skills of the K-1 writer responsible for Writing Sample 4. Overall the PSTs recognized 82 features of the K-1 writer in 20 different First-Cycle codes (Table 20). Broken into the Second-Cycle codes, the PSTs’ noticing included 50% of writing conventions (41 of 82), 40% of early literacy skills (33 of 82), and 10% of process writing skills (8 of 82) (Figure 18). All 17 respondents recognized at least one conventional writing skill. Fourteen of the 17 PSTs
123 identified a minimum if one early literacy skill and 8 of the 17 PSTs took notice of the K-
1 writer’s process writing abilities.
Figure 17 Writing Sample 4, My Cousin is a Nuisance
Table 20 Items noticed in Writing Sample 4, My Cousin is a Nuisance
PROCESS CONVENTIONAL WRITING SKILLS EARLY LITERACY SKILLS WRITING SKILLS
Capitalization Capitalization on- lineStaying spelling Incorrect Legibility Punctuation word spellingSight Spacing sound error Specific progression spelling Appropriate sentence a form Can word a form Can name write Can knowledge Letter skillNarrative awarenessPhonological awarenessPrint Vocabulary story matches Illustration understood is Message of how genre Understanding works 13 2 6 2 4 4 1 9 7 3 2 2 3 1 8 3 4 5 2 1
41 of 82 33 of 82 8 of 82 50% 40% 10%
124
Figure 18
Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 4
Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 4 n=82
Process Writing 10% 8 41 Conventional Writing 33 50% Early Literacy 40%
The conventional writing skills identified by the PSTs in Writing Sample 4 included: the ability to capitalize, writing in a straight line, writing legibly, punctuating correctly, spelling correctly by sound pattern, spacing words appropriately, and spelling sight words correctly (Table 20).
The PSTs recognized new early literacy skills in Writing Sample 4 including: age- appropriate spelling progression, grouping letters into words, and the writer’s ability to narrate (tell a story). The PSTs continued to notice the early literacy skills of letter knowledge, phonological awareness, print awareness, writing one’s name, and Ava’s novel vocabulary (Table 20).
The PSTs recognized a K-1 writer’s understanding that text carries meaning and that a written message is meaningful. The PSTs recognized those process writing skills and noticed the writer’s ability to use illustration and text together to tell a story. Five
125
(26%) of the PSTs recognized that Ava used her illustration to supplement her written text (Table 20). Table 21 highlights samples of the PSTs’ noticings.
Table 21
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 4
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Conventional Writing Skills
Capitalization “Ava is writing in all capital letters in this sentence."
Handwriting -stays online "The child was able to write straight across and left to right on the lines."
Incorrect spelling (word or pattern) I ice ha he e a e e elli g e i h the larger words, however it is clear that she was sounding these out and making her best effort based on what she already knows."
Legibility "You can read what is bei g i e .
Punctuation She d e e c a i ."
Sight words spelled correct "I ice ab hi de k i ha he child fa ilia d hich c ld al possibly be sight words are spelled correctly."
"She seems to have an understanding of letter Specific sound error sounds and how they work together for example a d ea."
Spacing "There are spaces in between the words.
126
Table 21 (continued)
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 4
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Early Literacy Skills
"She exemplifies the progression of Appropriate spelling progression approximation spelling."
"Child can write a sentence." Can form a sentence
"Her letters are grouped together to form Can form a word words."
"She is adding narration to the picture she likely Narrative skills drew."
Phonological connections (sounding "The child seemed to have sounded out the out) d i a ce h i ade e e he ."
Print awareness (directionality) Child de a d he di ec i ali i ci le."
Vocabulary - impressive; creative; FIRST-CYCLE CODE N i a ce i a i e i e cab la d." large word CODE EXEMPLAR
Process Writing Skills
Illustration - matches story; is "Child can use pictures to represent thoughts detailed; shares meaning and words."
Message is understood "Ava did a good job at illustrating her cousin being a dog. I can tell what the picture is from reading what she wrote."
Understanding of how writing "I notice that this student is really starting to "works" (genre specific) understand writing."
127
Writing Sample 5, A Pig Kissed Me (Figure 19)
In the fourth writing sample, A Pig Kissed Me, 19 of the PSTs recognized 118 features of the K-1 writer (Table 22). Each PST noticed an average of 6.2 abilities of the writer.
Figure 19
Writing Sample 5, A Pig Kissed Me
Table 22
Items noticed in Writing Sample 5, A Pig Kissed Me
CONVENTIONAL WRITING SKILLS EARLY LITERACY SKILLS PROCESS WRITING SKILLS
progression
t to child to t
line -
Capitalization pattern Spelling on Staying spelling Incorrect Legibility Punctuation word spelling Sight Spacing sound error Specific spelling Appropriate sentence a form Can word a form Can name write Can knowledge Letter awareness Phonological awareness Print unknown Use of knownspell to story a tell Can author an as Identifies story matches Illustration understood is Message importan is Topic works of how genre Understanding
15 4 3 7 4 3 3 5 5 7 1 1 3 7 13 4 2 3 1 14 2 1 11
48 of 118 38 of 118 32 of 118 41% 32% 27%
128
Eighteen of the 19 PSTs who took notice of the writer in Writing Sample 5 recognized at least one conventional writing skill. Forty-one percent (48 of 118) of the features noticed by the PSTs were conventional writing skills (Figure 20) including those they had recognized in earlier writing samples. The PSTs pointed out the K-1 writer’s abilities to capitalize, write on the line, write legibly, punctuate, spell by sound pattern, space words, utilize common spelling patterns, and spell sight words correctly. The PSTs also recognized that the writer utilized their knowledge of known words to spell unfamiliar words (Table 22).
The PSTs remained consistent in the early literacy skills they noticed with 17 of the 19 PSTs noticing at least one. The PSTs took note of the writers appropriate spelling progression, being able to form words and sentences, the capability to write one’s name, letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and print awareness (Table 22).
An increasing number of PSTs noted a process writing skill (14 of 19). The PSTs also noticed an increasing number of process writing abilities of the K-1 writer. Twenty- seven percent (32 of 118) of the items noticed by the PSTs were process writing abilities
(Figure 20). In addition to the process writing skills the PSTs identified in prior writing samples, the PSTs also noted that the K-1 author of A Pig Kissed Me was successful in narrating a story with a beginning, middle, and end. The PSTs also recognized that the writer identified as an author. Table 23 contains examples from the PSTs’ lists of noticing in A Pig Kissed Me.
129
Figure 20
Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 5
Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 5 n=118
Process Writing 27%
32 Conventional Writing 41% 48
38 Early Literacy 32%
Table 23
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 5
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Conventional Writing Skills
Capitalization "Capitalized most of the words."
Follows writing rules "For the most part, this child is able to write full sentences with proper spelling and grammar."
Handwriting - stays online "The lines are straight."
Incorrect spelling (word or pattern)- "Child sounded out the spelling for words missing letters he did not know."
Legibility Child can clearl ri e ord and letters."
Punctuation "This writer understands that a period comes at the end of every sentence."
Sight words spelled correct "The child also knows how to spell common igh ord ch a hen , en , e , o.
Spacing "Child is able to space words out."
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Conventional Writing Skills
Capitalization "Capitalized most of the words." 130 Follows writing rules "For the most part, this child is able to write full sentences with proper spelling and grammar." Table 23 (continued) Handwriting - stays online "The lines are straight." Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 5 Incorrect spelling (word or pattern)- "Child sounded out the spelling for words he did not know." missing letters CODE EXEMPLAR FIRST-CYCLE CODE Legibility Child can clearl ri e ord and Conventional Writingletters." Skills
CapitalizationPunctuation "This"Capitalized writer understandsmost of the words."that a period comes at the end of every sentence." Follows writing rules "For the most part, this child is able to Sight words spelled correct "Thewrite childfull sentences also knows with how proper to spell spelling commonand grammar." igh ord ch a hen , en , e , o. Handwriting - stays online "The lines are straight." Spacing "Child is able to space words out." "Child sounded out the spelling for words Incorrect FIRST-CYCLEspelling (word or CODE pattern)- CODE EXEMPLAR missing letters he did not know."
Early Literacy Skills Legibility Child can clearl ri e ord and letters." Appropriate spelling progression "Another thing I noticed was that they were able to accurately spell familiar Punctuation "This writer understands that a period comeswords at and the had end a of few every falters sentence." on the more unfamiliar ones."
Sight words spelled correct "The child also knows how to spell "The first thing that I notice when I look Can form a sentence common igh ord ch a hen , en ,a hi child e , o. ri ing i ho ell he structure of the sentences are."
Spacing "Child is able to space words out." Can form a word Child can clearl ri e ord ."
Letter knowledge "The child knows what sound each letter in the alphabet makes."
Narrative skills "Shows knowledge of narrative skill the text is focused on the one idea and the details are consistent to that idea."
Phonological connections (sounding out) I al o no ice ha hi child i able o sound out her words. This shows me that the child knows what sound each letter in he al habe make .
Print awareness (directionality) The ri e er direc ionall .
Vocabulary "Using bigger words like disgusting instead of gross."
131
Table 23 (continued)
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR Examples ofFIRST-CYCLE PSTs’ Noticing CODE in Writing Sample 5 CODE EXEMPLAR
Process Writing Skills Process Writing Skills
Can tell a story (on paper) "The child tells us what their writing is Can tell a story (on paper) "Theabout." child tells us what their writing is about."
"Just wrote disgusting instead of writing it Implements a craft move (borrowed from "Just wrote disgusting instead of writing it Implements a craft move (borrowed from into a sentence." picture books) into a sentence." picture books)
Includes detailsdetails "I "Inoticed noticed that that the the writer writer is able is able to to describedescribe where where they they were, were, what what happened happened to tothem, them, and and how how they they felt felt about about it." it."
Kept toto topictopic "Shows"Shows knowledge knowledge of narrativeof narrative skill skill the the texttext is isfocused focused on onthe the one one idea idea and and the the detailsdetails are are consistent consistent to thatto that idea." idea."
Message isis understoodunderstood "This"This writer writer is carefullyis carefully articulating articulating their their messages."messages."
Topic importantimportant to to child child "They"They are are sharing sharing an anexperience experience they they had."had."
Understanding of of how how writing writing "works" "works" "What"What I notice I notice about about this this writer writer when when (genre specific)specific) lookinglooking at herat her writing writing is that is that they they have have an an understandingunderstanding that that writing writing is a is way a way to to communicatecommunicate her her thoughts thoughts and and how how she she was feeling at the time." was feeling at the time."
Use of a title "What I notice about the writer: title at the Use of a title "What I notice about the writer: title at the top of the page." top of the page."
Writing Sample 6, Go Patriots! (Figure 21)
All the participants (20 of 20) submitted a List of Noticing for Writing Sample 6.
Each PST recognized an average of 6.2 features in “Go Patriots!” Of the seven writing
132 samples, the PSTs noticed the most about the author of Go Patriots!” The PSTs identified 123 writing abilities demonstrated by the K-1 author (Table 24).
Figure 21
Writing Sample 6, Go Patriots!
133
Table 24
Items noticed in Writing Sample 6 “Go Patriots!”
CONVENTIONAL WRITING EARLY LITERACY SKILLS PROCESS WRITING SKILLS SKILLS
Capitalization rulesFollows writing on-lineStaying spelling Incorrect Legibility Punctuation word spellingSight Spacing progression spelling Appropriate sentence a form Can word a form Can knowledge Letter skillNarrative awarenessPhonological awarenessPrint Vocabulary story a tell Can move craft a Implements detailsIncludes topic to Kept understood is Message writer important to Topic works of how genre Understanding titleUse of a
14 6 2 1 5 10 2 3 8 5 1 3 5 5 9 2 4 3 11 3 6 8 5 2
43 of 123 38 of 123 42 of 123 35% 31% 34%
The PSTs noticed 24 features of the writer in the three Second-Cycle Pattern codes of conventional writing skills, early literacy skills, and process writing skills.
Seventeen of the PSTs identified a minimum of one conventional writing skill. The PSTs identified Reed’s abilities to capitalize, stay on the line, write legibly, punctuate, spell by sound pattern, space words, utilize common spelling patterns, and spell sight words correctly. Forty-three (35%) of the 123 items noticed by the PSTs were conventional writing skills (Figure 22).
134
Figure 22
Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 6
Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 6 n=123
Process Writing 34% Conventional Writing 35% 42 43
38 Early Literacy 31%
Thirty-one percent (38 of 123 items) (Figure 22) of the skills noticed were early literacy skills including recognition of appropriate spelling progression, the ability to form words and sentences, letter knowledge, narrative abilities, phonological awareness, print awareness, and the use of novel vocabulary. Sixteen of the 20 PSTs recognized at least one early literacy skill.
Forty-two of the 123 items noticed (34%) in Go Patriots! were process writing skills (Figure 22). Three of the eight process writing skills noticed in Writing Sample 6 were new noticings for the PSTs. The new observations the PSTs made of the K-1 writer included: starting the piece with a title, including details in prose, and borrowing a craft move typical of published authors. Additionally, the PSTs pointed out the writer’s
135 understanding that stories include one topic with a beginning, middle, and end; a notion that written text carries meaning, the knowledge that a written message is meaningful, the recognition that writing ‘works’ in consistent ways, and consideration that writers compose about topics they know personally. Sixteen of the 20 PSTs noticed at least one process writing skill. Three of the 20 PSTs observed that Reed was attempting to craft a comic book. Despite the comic book genre’s dependence on illustration, none of the PST noted that the illustrations and text worked together to tell a story despite recognizing the ability of the writer in prior writing samples. Table 25 contains examples of the language the PSTs used to point out their noticing of the K-1 writer in Go Patriots!
Table 25
Examples of FIRST-CYCLEPSTs’ Noticing CODE in Writing Sample 6 CODE EXEMPLAR
Conventional Writing Skills
Capitalization I noticed his words were very clear."
Consistent spelling pattern "The child pelling appea o be consistent throughout the book."
Handwriting-stays online "He also is able to write in a straight line, like sentences should be written."
Incorrect spelling (word or pattern) "Knows the abbreviation for patriots is pa b doe n co ela e ha in o hi spelling of Patriots."
Legibility "I noticed his words were very clear."
Punctuation “The child doe no e p nc a ion.
Sight words spelled correct "The first thing that I notice when I look at this writing is that sight words such as o he a e one and go a e all spelled correctly."
Specific sound error "I noticed that this student has an understanding of letter combinations and some of the relationships, for example the ch o nd."
Spacing "He also is able to write in a straight line, like sentences should be written."
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Conventional Writing Skills
Capitalization I noticed his words were very clear."
Consistent spelling pattern "The child pelling appea o be consistent throughout the book."
Handwriting-stays online "He also is able to write in a straight line, like sentences should be written." 136 Incorrect spelling (word or pattern) "Knows the abbreviation for patriots is pa b doe n co ela e ha in o hi Table 25 (continued) spelling of Patriots."
ExamplesLegibility of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample"I noticed 6 his words were very clear."
“The child doe no e p nc a ion. Punctuation
CODE EXEMPLAR FIRST-CYCLE CODE
Sight words spelled correct "The first thing that I notice when I look Conventional Writingat this writing Skills is that sight words such as o he a e one and go a e all Capitalization spelled I noticed correctly." his words were very clear."
"I noticed that this student has an SpecificConsistent sound spelling error pattern "The child pelling appea o be understanding of letter combinations and consistent throughout the book." some of the relationships, for example the
ch o nd."
Handwriting-stays online "He also is able to write in a straight line, like sentences should be written." Spacing "He also is able to write in a straight line, FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR like sentences should be written." "Knows the abbreviation for patriots is Incorrect spelling (word or pattern) Early Literacypa b Skills doe n co ela e ha in o hi
spelling of Patriots."
Appropriate spelling progression "Student is using approximate spelling." Legibility "I noticed his words were very clear."
PunctuationCan write a sentence “The"All childthe letters doe no are efacing p nc a ion. the correct way."
Can write word "Grouped letters to create words." "The first thing that I notice when I look Sight words spelled correct at this writing is that sight words such as Child can write name o The he child a e can one clea l and i e go hei a e o nall spelledname." correctly."
SpecificLetter knowledge sound error "I"All noticed the lettersthat this are student facing has the ancorrect way." understanding of letter combinations and some of the relationships, for example the Phonological connections (sounding out) ch "Sounded o nd." out Patriots and used what he knows to fill in similar sounds like the REE from his name." Spacing "He also is able to write in a straight line,
like sentences should be written." Print awareness (directionality) "Words are written left to right."
Use of word part to spell "Can identify different sounds in words, such as thro for throw, supr bol for super bowl, and fling for flying."
137
Table 25 (continued)
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 6
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Process Writing Skills
Can tell a story (on paper) "He was able to explain what he intended to convey through his writing."
Identifies as author "Signed his name at the bottom as if the author."
Illustration adds to or matches text "They are showing a good understanding of writing about the drawing/drawing about the writing."
Message is understood "He was able to explain what he intended to convey through his writing."
Topic important to child "Grouped letters to create words."
Understanding of how writing "works" "The different pages have pictures as well (genre specific) as words explaining what is going on."
Writing Sample 7, My Birthday Party (Figure 23)
In the final writing sample, 18 of the 20 PSTs noticed 105 features of the K-1 writer (Table 26). Each PST noticed an average of 5.8 abilities of the writer. The PSTs noticed the most about Heather, the author. They noticed 28 abilities. Six of the 28 skills
(21%) were conventional writing skills, eight codes (29%) reflected early literacy abilities, and 14 (50%) of the noticings reflected a recognition of Heather’s writer’s process (Figure 24).
138
Figure 23
Writing Sample 7, My Birthday Party
Table 26
Items noticed in Writing Sample 7, My Birthday Party
CONVENTIONAL EARLY LITERACY SKILLS PROCESS WRITING SKILLS WRITING SKILLS
Capitalization Capitalization on- lineStaying Legibility Punctuation word spellingSight Spacing progression spelling Appropriate sentence a form Can word a form Can name write Can knowledge Letter skillNarrative awarenessPhonological awarenessPrint story a tell Can Creativity elaborationEncourages writing in Enjoyment author an as Identifies text matches Illustration move craft a Implements detailsIncludes topic to Kept understood is Message writer important to Topic works of how genre Understanding Unde and an a eade a dience
5 1 4 6 1 6 4 1 4 2 1 8 7 1 13 1 1 2 1 11 3 5 3 2 7 4 1
23 of 105 28 of 105 54 of 105 22% 27% 51%
139
Figure 24
Percent of Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 7
Skills Noticed in Writing Sample 7 n=105 Conventional Writing 22%
23
Process Writing 54 51%
28
Early Literacy 27%
Ten of the 18 PSTs who completed a List of Noticing for My Birthday Party pointed out at least one conventional writing skill. Sixteen of the 18 PSTs identified at least one of the early literacy skills and process writing skills.
The PSTs eliminated some conventional writing skills they had deemed noteworthy in other samples. Their omissions concerned the spelling ability of Heather.
As in other samples, the PSTs still commented on Heather’s ability to capitalize, punctuate, space words, and write legibly.
The eight early literacy skills previously noticed by the PSTs were noticed again in Writing Sample 7. The PSTs noticed Heather’s appropriate spelling progression, ability to form words and sentences, letter knowledge, narrative ability, phonological awareness, print awareness, and capability of spelling her name.
140
The PSTs recognized the largest number of process writing abilities in the final writing sample. They recognized 14 process writing abilities of Heather (54 of 105). Fifty percent of the noticing in Writing Sample 7 was of process writing skills. In addition to the previously recognized qualities of being able to narrate a story with a beginning middle and end, identifying as an author, pairing illustration and text, keeping to a topic, providing details, borrowing moves from published authors, and understanding that writing shares a message with a reader; the PSTs also identified four new types of process writing abilities including: the author’s demonstration of creativity, the author’s enjoyment in completing the writing task, and authors’ recognition that writers write for an audience.
One PST changed her role when looking at Writing Sample 7. Rather than providing a List of Noticing, the PST provided a written response to Heather. The PST wrote the author with questions and comments to spur further written conversation. The
PST wrote, “I love parties too. Who did you invite to your party? Did you have teams for the bowling? Who was on your team?” (Emily, List of Noticing WS7). I coded this as
“teacher encourages elaboration on message. Table 27 contains examples of the language the PSTs used in noticing the K-1 writer of My Birthday Party.
141
Table 27
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 7
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Conventional Writing Skills
Capitalization "Child capitalizes letters throughout her words.
Handwriting-stays on-line "She is staying in the lines when writing."
"I noticed that the child has neat Legibility handwriting for a K-1 student."
Punctuation "The child used apostrophes."
Sight words spelled correct "She has some sight words memorized."
CODE EXEMPLAR Spacing FIRST-CYCLE CODE "Uses spacing between words."
Early Literacy Skills
Appropriate spelling progression "Appropriate spelling capabilities."
Can form a sentence "Child can write sentences."
Can form a word "Letters are grouped together to form words."
Can form a word "Letters are grouped together to form words."
Can write name "I noticed was how well this student wrote her name."
Letter knowledge "The child is able to write the letters."
Narrative skills "Child can write sentences to tell what happened."
Phonological connections (sounding out) "The child has the knowledge of first and last sounds of words."
"On the first page the child had difficulty Print awareness (directionality) writing from right to left. They had words all over the paper."
FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Early Literacy Skills
Appropriate spelling progression "Appropriate spelling capabilities."
Can form a sentence "Child can write sentences."
Can form a word "Letters are grouped together to form words."
Can form a word "Letters are grouped together to form words." 142
Can write name Table 27 (continued) "I noticed was how well this student wrote her name."
Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 7 Letter knowledgeFIRST-CYCLE CODE "The childCODE is able EXEMPLARto write the letters."
Narrative skills Early Literacy Skills "Child can write sentences to tell what happened." Appropriate spelling progression "Appropriate spelling capabilities."
Phonological connections (sounding out) "The child has the knowledge of first and Can form a sentence "Childlast sounds can writeof words." sentences."
Can form a word "Letters"On the firstare grouped page the together child had to difficultyform Print awareness (directionality) words."writing from right to left. They had words CODE EXEMPLAR FIRST-CYCLE CODE all over the paper."
Can form a word Process Writing"Letters Skills are grouped together to form words." Can tell a story (on paper) "Writer is organized in her writing. She is telling the whole story about herself." Can write name "I noticed was how well this student
wrote her name."
Demonstrates creativity/imagination Letter knowledge "She is very imaginative with her writing.""The child is able to write the letters."
Narrative skills Enjoyment in writing "What"Child I cannotice write about sentences the writer: to tell she what has
excitementhappened." about birthday party."
PhonologicalIdentifies as an connections author (sounding out) "She"The is child telling has a storythe knowledge about herself. of first " and last sounds of words."
Illustration adds to or matches text "The picture relates to the story." "On the first page the child had difficulty Print awareness (directionality) writing from right to left. They had words Implements a craft move "Includes repetition." all over the paper."
Includes details "Good detail of who, what, and where."
"Drawing helped this writer figure out Kept to topic what she wanted to write about."
) Message is understood "It is neat enough to read and well written."
Story has beginning, middle and end "The story has a beginning, middle, and end."
Topic important to child "Her story is from an experience she had at her birthday party."
Understands readers as "audience" "I assume that this drawing helped this writer figure out what she wanted to write about."
Understanding of how writing "works" "She narrated her illustrations and made it (genre specific) very clear what she was writing about. " FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR
Process Writing Skills
Can tell a story (on paper) "Writer is organized in her writing. She is telling the whole story about herself."
Demonstrates creativity/imagination "She is very imaginative with her writing."
Enjoyment in writing "What I notice about the writer: she has excitement about birthday party."
Identifies as an author "She is telling a story about herself. "
Illustration adds to or matches text "The picture relates to the story."
Implements a craft move "Includes repetition."
143 Includes details "Good detail of who, what, and where."
Table 27 (continued) "Drawing helped this writer figure out Kept to topic what she wanted to write about." Examples of PSTs’ Noticing in Writing Sample 7 FIRST-CYCLE CODE CODE EXEMPLAR )
Message is understood "It is neat enough to read and well Process Writing Skillswritten."
"Writer is organized in her writing. She is Can tell a story (on paper) "The story has a beginning, middle, and Story has beginning, middle and end telling the whole story about herself." end."
DTopicemonstrates important creativity/imagination to child "She"Her is very story imaginative is from an with experience her she had writing."at her birthday party."
EnjoymentUnderstands in writingreaders as "audience" "What I notice about the writer: she has excitement"I assume about that birthday this drawing party." helped this
writer figure out what she wanted to write about." "She is telling a story about herself. " Identifies as an author
Understanding of how writing "works" "She narrated her illustrations and made it Illustration adds to or matches text "The picture relates to the story." (genre specific) very clear what she was writing about. "
"Includes repetition." Implements a craft move
SummaryIncludes ofdetails Noticing in Writing Samples"Good 1-7 detail of who, what, and where."
Table 28 summarizes the number of"Drawing abilities helped the PSTs this writerrecognized figure outin the seven Kept to topic what she wanted to write about." writing samples by Second-Cycle Pattern code. The number of abilities of each) writer Message is understood "It is neat enough to read and well that the PSTs observed increased over the semester.written." The number of conventional writing skillsStory pointed has beginning, out in each middle sample and end declined slightly"The story as has the a semesterbeginning, progressed. middle, and The end." number of noticings in early literacy skills initially increased but peaked and remained Topic important to child "Her story is from an experience she had steady from Writing Sample 4 on. The numberat her of birthday process party." writing skills of the writer that theUnderstands PSTs noticed readers gradually as "audience" increased across"I theassume semester that this until drawing nearly helped tripling this in the final writer figure out what she wanted to write writing sample (Figure 25). about."
Understanding of how writing "works" "She narrated her illustrations and made it (genre specific) very clear what she was writing about. "
144
Table 28
Second-Cycle Pattern Codes of Skills Noticed in Writing Samples 1-7
Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CONVENTIONAL WRITING 9 8 8 8 9 8 6
EARLY LITERACY 4 6 3 9 8 8 8
PROCESS WRITING 5 1 3 3 6 8 14 Total 18 15 14 20 23 24 28
Figure 25
Frequency of Second-Cycle Pattern Code Noticed by Writing Sample
Second-Cycle Codes Applied byWriting Sample 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sample 1 Sample2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7
Process Writing Skills Early Literacy Skills Conventional Writing Skills
145
I searched the PSTs’ interviews and course reflections to understand the changes in the skill categories noticed. Abby addressed the change when she wrote:
I think that spelling is not as important as I originally thought. I have learned that
it is more important to look at the effort that the students put into their writing.
Children are not going to be excellent writers without having to practice learning
through their mistakes. I now look for the child’s effort and ability and the
process they are going through as they experiment with spelling and writing
(Abby, Interview).
Alli also summarized how she came to change her assumed role as an EC PST of writing. Alli explained,
When this semester started, I thought that K-1 writing was focused on spelling,
capitalization, and all the foundations of writing. As teachers, our job was to
identify the errors and, in a sense, tear the writing apart. It wasn’t that I was
noticing the writer, I was really noticing what was wrong in the writer’s product
(Alli, Interview).
Conventional Writing Skills. The conventional skills the PSTs deemed as worthy of notice remained constant across the semester. Twenty-six percent (85 of 333) of the PSTs conventional skill noticing revolved around the writer’s ability to capitalize
(Figure 26). Laura described how the noticing task centered on conventional writing abilities. Laura explained,
When I first started looking at the different writing samples, the first things I was
146
noticing were things such as if the sentences were capitalized correctly or if the
grammar was right or not. I would try and figure out what words or sentences the
student was trying to write and I would compare it to the correct version and see
how similar or different the child’s version was (Laura, Interview).
Eventually, the PSTs’ focus on conventional writing abilities of K-1 writers
decreased (Figure 27).
Figure 26
Frequency of Noticing – Conventional Writing Skills by Writing Sample
Application by Sample of First-Cycle Conventional Writing Codes 85 90
80
70
60 42 50 40 38 39 40 30 22 30 21 20 10 10 2 4 0
sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7
147
Figure 27
Conventional Writing Skills, Trend in Noticing by Writing Sample
Conventional Writing Skills (trend in noticing by Writing Sample) 80%
70% 58% 74% 60% 56% 50% 50% 41% 40% 35%
30% 22%
20%
10% % of noticing % of noticing = conventional writing slkill 0% Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7
Early Literacy Skills. As the PSTs became more familiar with the early literacy
Skills necessary for emerging readers and writers, they gradually began to identify these skills in the writing samples. In Writing Sample four, the PSTs peaked in the number of early literacy skills they noted (Figure 28). The early literacy skill most often noticed
(37% or 84 of 227) was the K-1 writer’s phonological, or ‘sounding-out’ ability (Figure
29). The conventional writing skill of spelling and the early literacy skill of phonological awareness were important to the PSTs. Noticing the combination of these abilities suggests the PSTs recognition that sounding out words to spell them is a key language and literacy skill for young writers to master.
148
Figure 28
Early Literacy Skills, Trend in Noticing by Writing Sample
Early Literacy Skills (trend in noticing by Writing Sample) 45% 40% 40% 35% 33% 35% 32% 31% 30% 27% 25%
Early Literacy skills Literacy Early 25% - 20% 15% 10%
% of noticing % of noticing 5% 0% Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7
Figure 29
Frequency of Noticing – Early Literacy Skills by Writing Sample
Application by Sample of First-Cycle Early Literacy Codes 90 84 80 70 60 50 40 32 33 30 26 20 13 14 10 8 8 2 7 0
sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7
149
In her course reflection, Laura discussed her recognition that noticing early literacy skills in the writer would assist her eventual writing instruction. Laura realized that:
It is important to look for things such as the different literacy skills, the different
stages of writing that the child is at, and the different writing principles they use.
These things are important to look for because they tell you more about the child
as a writer as well as the skills and knowledge that they have. These things are
important to note because they can help you know where the child is at in their
writing skills, and what you need to continue to teach or work on with the child
(Laura, Reflection).
Process Writing Skills. In writing samples one through six, the PSTs were less likely to notice process writing abilities of the writer. Andrea acknowledged, “I never once thought to just focus on what’s really important, the message the writer was conveying” (Andrea, Interview). Yet, the PSTs identification of process writing skills increased steadily over the semester (Figure 30). The process writing skills most identified were the pairing of text and illustration (19% or 30 of 115) and the writer’s knowledge of how writing works (20% or 31 of 115) (Figure 31).
150
Figure 30
Process Writing Skills, Trend in Noticing by Writing Sample
Process Writing Skills (trend in noticing by Writing Sample) 60% 51% 50%
40% 34% 30% 27% Process Writing Skills Writing Process - 20% 10% 10% 10% 7% 1% 0%
% of noticing noticing % of Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7
Figure 31
Frequency of Noticing, Process Writing Skills by Writing Sample
Frequeny of Noticing Process Writing Skills
30 31 35 30 25 17 20 16 15 11 10 9 6 7 5 3 0 2 2 2
sample 1 sample 2 sample 3 sample 4 sample 5 sample 6 sample 7
151
Alli discussed her changing understanding of process writing skills by saying, “I believe K-1 writers need their teachers to encourage their writing and help prompt ideas.
Teachers should be helping their students with the meat of the story, not just the structure” (Alli, Reflection).
Table 29 summarizes the number of PSTs who shifted in their noticing habits.
Eleven of the 20 PSTs decreased their recognition of a K-1 writer’s writing conventions
over the semester. Sixteen of the 20 PSTs increased in their recognition of the K-1
writer’s process writing abilities. Emily’s course reflection was typical of her classmates.
She wrote,
[As the course progressed], I was no longer looking for the simple mistakes, I
focused more on the meaning behind the writer’s stories and ideas. I was able to
see a glimpse of who they were as young writers through the writing samples. It
made me realize that yes, they are going to make mistakes in their writing, they’re
still learning, but it’s important to recognize their ideas and thoughts through their
writing and acknowledge these behaviors in a positive less judgmental way (Emily,
Reflection).
Tone of Language. The change in language Emily discusses was also evident in her classmates. Eighteen of the 20 PSTs shifted in the language they used in their noticing.
Ninety percent of the participants adjusted their language to view K-1 writers’ texts as full of possibilities rather than filled with problems (Figure 32).
.
152 Table 29
Trends in Noticing by PST
TOTAL EARLY % TOTAL PROCESS TOTAL TOTAL # TOTAL CONVENTION EARLY LITERACY NEGATIVE PROCESS TREND NEGATIVE OF CONVENTIONS TREND (UP OR LITERACY TREND TREND (UP SKILLS (UP OR NOTICING NOTICING NOTICED DOWN) SKILLS (UP OR OR DOWN) NOTICED DOWN) NOTICED DOWN) Alli 13 32 16 10 11 Colleen 10 24 17 7 5 Jill 9 24 15 3 5 Megan 19 31 23 3 1 Allyson 4 26 16 8 S 3 Victoria 7 41 18 16 7 Katie 5 18 4 3 11 Katy 7 40 14 13 7 Hal 15 36 18 9 3 Emily 9 33 13 7 12 Julie 11 31 15 6 7 Molly 7 40 18 9 16 Devin 13 38 14 14 10 Abby 3 22 6 9 4 Alex 11 45 21 13 5 Andrea 11 33 13 8 9 Laura 12 25 14 7 5 Bri 8 25 7 14 6 Rachel 7 25 8 3 9 Kris 2 24 8 7 9 Note: =downward trend observed; =upward trend observed; =noticing remained the same; =fluctuating noticing with no trend observed.
153
Figure 32
Tone of PSTs’ Language by Writing Sample
Tone of Noticing (PST language) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sample 1 Sample2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7
Negative connotation Positive language
How do Early Childhood PSTs Shift in Their Noticing of the Writer in K-1 Writing
Samples?
Based on the data from the PSTs Lists of Noticing, represented by frequencies and percentages, I identified three shifts by the PSTs. The shifts included:
• A decreasing focus on conventional writing skills with an increasing concern for
the writing process of the K-1 writer.
• A shift away from pointing out the (negative) errors made by the writer to a
recognition of the (positive) possibilities in the K-1 writer’s work.
§ A newly discovered idea that young writers do not need conventional writing
skills to be “ready” to write. Rather, all efforts that result with marks on a page
are successful attempts by K-1 writers to share meaning through writing. 154
To bring meaning to the observed shifts made by the PSTs I searched the PSTs’ own words from interview transcripts and written course assignments to offer insight into their experiences of a shifting understanding of K-1 writers.
Shift One: From Convention to Process
The PSTs displayed a decreasing focus on conventional writing skills with an increasing concern for the process writing skills of the K-1 writer (Figure 33). The shifts occurred as PSTs resolved the conflicts between their own writing experiences and new understandings of the writing process presented in their university coursework. Eleven of the 20 PSTs noticed fewer conventional skills across the seven writing samples (Table
29). Noticing the K-1 writer’s conventional writing skills decreased as the noticing of process writing skills increased (Figure 33). Eighteen of the 20 PSTs in the class demonstrated an upward trend in the process skills they noticed in the K-1 writers (Table
29).
155
Figure 33
Trends in PSTs’ Noticing Across the Seven Writing Samples
Trend of Noticing 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% Sample 1 Sample2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7
Process Writing Skills Early Literacy Skills Conventional Writing Skills Linear (Process Writing Skills) Linear (Early Literacy Skills) Linear (Conventional Writing Skills)
The PSTs voiced unease with recognizing a writer’s process rather than the more easily identifiable writing errors. Jill explained,
I automatically look at the sentence structure first. Like, is there capitalization? Is
there punctuation at the end of the sentence? But I had this thought in the back of
my head that maybe I shouldn't be looking at the child’s writing that way (Jill,
Interview).
Megan helped clarify by saying,
I really didn’t know what to look at in the samples. Maybe it shouldn’t be about
how they [the K-1 writers] are following the rules. From what we were learning,
156
maybe it should be the content that they're writing and not just the structure. But
in college, we’re so used to thinking about our structure and having correct
grammar and punctuation, but is that really important in K-1(Megan, Interview)?
Emily expanded on negotiating the personal conflict between her own writing experience and the one presented in the course. She explained,
I instinctually looked at what spelling and grammar errors I could correct. I
checked that their [the K-1 writers] writing was legible. What I was remembering
was my writing performance - the spelling, grammar, sentence placement,
missing letters, or mixing up words. Then it occurred to me that I wasn’t taking
the time to read what the children wrote or how they expressed themselves in their
writing. As I have looked at the writing samples over the semester, I have been
able to change my perspective. I am no longer looking for simple mistakes, I
began to focus more on the meaning behind the stories and ideas. I was able to see
a glimpse of who the children were as young writers. This noticing made me
realize that children are going to make mistakes in their writing, they’re still
learning, but it’s important to recognize their ideas and thoughts through their
writing and acknowledge these behaviors in a positive less judgmental way
(Emily, Interview).
Shift Two: Recognizing Possibilities Over Problems
Emily also acknowledged that K-1 writers require encouragement and motivation to become better writers. Eighteen of the 20 PSTs shifted from pointing out the (negative) errors made by the writer to recognizing the possibilities in the K-1 writer’s work (Table
157
29).
Initially, the group of PSTs phrased their noticing of the writer in negative terms
41% of the time. However, by the end of the semester, the PSTs phrased their noticing negatively only 7% of the time (Figure 32). Molly explained that “Teachers should make positive comments about strengths they notice within the writer” (Molly, Interview).
The PSTs struggled in negotiating this shift from pointing out problems to recognizing possibilities. According to Abby:
I have grown [over the semester] to see the positives and less of the negatives.
This was difficult for me because as a college student we are made to check our
grammar, spelling, and writing structure. I am beginning to understand that
children will not be skilled like a college student. Children are learning and just
beginning their writing journey. This is a big shift that I have noticed in myself
and will need to remind myself (Abby, Reflection).
There is a Difference Between Noticing the Writer and the Writing. When I asked the PSTs in the interview to discuss the difference between noticing the writer and the writing, many PSTs voiced an ‘aha’ moment. Several of the PSTs asked to reread the directions in the writing samples to clarify the directions they were given. Julie remarked,
Well, that’s a game-changer. I guess I was doing this wrong all along. But I
honestly don’t know that I would have [initially] noticed anything different. I
never really thought to consider the person behind the paper. I only knew to judge
what was right there in front of me. Usually what I saw was writing mistakes
(Julie, Interview).
158
Victoria tried to explain to fellow PSTs how they might navigate their perception of young writers by saying, “We want to draw on what they [the K-1 writer] can do as an author, not necessarily what they're writing at this particular moment” (Victoria,
Interview).
Julie also expanded on this theme by saying:
I had to recognize that all students are at different stages of writing. Helping to
improve a child’s writing depends on the writer themselves. Some writers are
farther along than others and need extra support in different areas. One area could
include writing mechanics if students are far along enough, but teachers should
mostly focus on what children are passionately writing about, how to help take
their ideas, and make them stronger. In writing samples five and six this hit me -
focus on extending the children’s ideas. I now believe that teachers need to focus
not on how something is written, but more on what is written and what else the
writer can do. The writer is the author – and that’s who we are teaching (Julie,
Reflection).
Laura also articulated why distinguishing between the writer and the writing is so important to EC teachers. She explained,
It is important to look for things such as different early literacy skills,
illustrations, the writing stage the child is at, and the process writing skills a child
is using. These things are important to look for because they tell you more about
the child as a writer as well as the skills and knowledge that they have. These
things are important to note because they help you know what you need to
159
continue to teach or work on with the child (Laura, Reflection).
Writing Needs to be Done More Than it Needs to be Taught. Many of the
PSTs voiced minimal recollection of their writing instruction. Those that recalled any instruction at all remembered papers being marked-up with red ink. The PSTs considered their lack of motivation to write because of those marked up writing assignments. All 20
PSTs voiced the desire to mold future students who enjoy writing. When the PSTs considered their own writing education, they imagined the role of a writing teacher differently. Megan encapsulated this idea when she explained,
There's a lot of errors in young writing. But our goal is to have writers who
continue writing. The only way they'll be better writers is if they are writing. We
want to give them that motivation by looking at the positive, not pointing out the
negative errors in conventions. If we give them more time to write, instead of
spending our time giving them worksheets where they circle punctuation or
capitalization errors, they might actually enjoy writing and write more. The more
they write, the more opportunities we have as their teachers to point out all they
are doing right and all the possibilities they can use the next time they write
(Megan, Reflection).
Many of the PSTs voiced concern that children lose the motivation to write when teachers focus on grammar and spelling lessons. Bri summarized this sentiment:
Teachers should not care about the outcome of the writing, but instead the process
and let students write what is meaningful to them. I realize that none of the things
I originally thought were important (like writing in all capitals, spacing between
160
words, and writing in complete sentences) really aren’t so important. What is
more important is having the children be able to express their words, feelings, and
thoughts on paper no matter how they display it. They have to write and write
often with encouragement and acceptance (Bri, Interview).
Learning to Write Requires Writers to Engage in a Process. As Bri hinted, the
PSTs recognized that the thinking that occurs before placing pen to paper is just as important as the finished written product. In her interview, Alex discussed how her noticing changed after revisiting the peanut butter and jelly sandwich recipe in writing sample three. She recalled,
Until we started writing and we identified the process of writing that all writers
use, I never once thought to notice what’s really important. Most important is the
message the child was conveying. On the third writing sample reflection, I
pointed out how there were so many spelling mistakes and that there were many
syllables missing from words. I completely ignored all of the hard work the child
had to do to formulate the ideas in a sequence of how to make a PB&J sandwich,
which is what I should have been focusing on (Alex, Interview).
Hal recalled a similar reconciling.
I started to understand that writing is so much more than the way a child moves
their pencil to form words on a paper, it is more about the intent to convey an idea
or share a story. This shift in my thinking was a really important moment in my
teacher education journey because I feel like I was finally able to understand how
to be an effective teacher who supports children in discovering a love for reading
161
and writing (Hal, Reflection).
Shift Three. Young Writers Can Approximate Before Displaying a Readiness to Write
Young writers do not need conventional writing skills to be “ready” to write. A pivotal moment in understanding K-1 writers came when the PSTs examined a case study child’s writing sample. The PSTs experienced an epiphany when recognizing that seemingly meaningless marks on a page were successful attempts by K-1 writers to share meaning through writing. When first assigned to collect a writing sample from a case study child, the PSTs expressed their fear and belief that their students could not write. Several
PSTs went so far as to request an alternative assignment because the children in their field site ‘could not do this writing.’
However, after engaging in conversations with their case study writers, the PSTs were surprised to witness that young children who may not yet hold a pencil correctly, form letters perfectly, or apply conventional writing could still share a message in print.
The PSTs dismissed their prior idea that children must have fine motor control and an understanding of writing conventions to engage in the task of writing. Discovering that the random marks left by their case study child told the same story over time required shifts in the PSTs thinking. Three discoveries accompanied the PSTs’ considerations about writing readiness
Individual Writing Development Proceeds Through Stages and is Mediated by a Child’s Oral Language Development. The PSTs discovered similarities and differences about young writers when engaging with their peers in group discussions. The
PSTs realized the social relationship they established with their case study child was
162 critical in understanding the child’s writing. Once they established a relationship, the
PSTs witnessed their case study child’s verbal abilities mediating writing abilities. Alex explained her discovery,
From my case study child, I noticed that she seemed to be in the scribbling stage.
I saw that she understands the message principle. I also noticed that she talked as
she was writing. She explained to me her markings and what each mark said. The
speech she used during writing reflected her plan for the story that she scribbled.
From this experience, it occurred to me that her experiences as a reader prior to
this encounter influenced her writing. She started by saying “once upon a time”
and ended with “the end.” She made marks for those phrases. This preschooler is
already writing as an author of a story (Alex, Writing Case Study Assignment).
Scribbles Carry Meaning. Many of the PSTs voiced concern when their case study children provided them with pages of random scribbles. They assumed that the young writer’s marks were indicative of the child not being a capable writer. However, when the PST showed the young writer their ‘scribbles’ days after collecting them, they were astonished that the young writers retold the same story as when they were in the act of scribbling. This discovery required the once skeptical PSTs to acknowledge that scribbles are representative of a child’s message and literacy abilities. In her Case Study
Writing assignment, Allyson explained,
I discovered a lot about emerging or developing writing students. I noticed that
each student had their own way of writing and their own ideas of how to do so.
What looks like scribbles are not scribbles at all but organized and meaningful.
163
Scribbles may not look like writing, but scribbles have meaning to the child. Our
job [as writing teachers] is to work better to understand what the child is trying to
say and help them make their writing more conventional so more people can read
their amazing message (Allyson, Case Study Writing assignment).
Handwriting is Not the Same as Writing and Legibility Does Not Constrain
Writing Development. Once accepting that scribbles carry meaning, the PSTs became more aware of writing approximations in the writing samples. The PSTs acknowledged that the ‘look’ of the writing meant little to the quality of the message the child was sharing. The PSTs recalled the handwriting worksheets of their schooling and wondered how those worksheets contribute to any child’s written message. Alex wrote in her reflection:
I recognized a shift during our interview when I was asked about my own writing
experiences. I started off by talking about the handwriting drills I would have to
do, and the point was made that writing and handwriting are two completely
different concepts. After realizing this, I started to understand that writing is so
much more than the way that the pencil forms words on a paper, it is about the
intent to convey an idea or share a story. Even when handwriting is difficult to
read, there is still a really important message reflected on the paper. It should be
important to teachers to read that message, not make the writer rewrite it over and
over until it looks like every other child’s message (Alex, Reflection).
164
Bri expressed a similar learning when she said, “I discovered that children’s writing is not all about handwriting. As long as the child is attempting to write with a purpose, that is all that matters” (Bri, Case Study Writing assignment).
What Experiences Influence EC PSTs’ Noticing of the Writer in Writing Samples?
The PSTs mentioned four course activities that were influential in shifting what they noticed about the K-1 writer. Those activities were: listing features of the writer in the seven writing samples, completing the Case Study Writing assignment (Appendix K), participating in traditional top-down instructional activities, and maintaining their writing journal. On average, each PST identified 1.9 activities that they considered influential.
Writing Samples
Eighty-five percent (17 out of 20) of the PSTs validated the use of writing samples to experience the noticing necessary for responding to a K-1 writer. Forty-five percent of the PSTs indicated that noticing the writer in the seven writing samples was the most helpful in shifting their understanding. The PSTs explained that looking at authentic writing samples from young children helped them approximate how they might respond. Victoria attributed her ability to notice the K-1 writer to the seven writing samples when she wrote,
I would say that seeing the writing examples of students taught me that I tend to
notice more about how the writing of the child looks instead of what the student is
trying to say. I feel that this has helped me to become more observant of
children’s writing and to focus more on their thoughts rather than punctuation or
capitalization (Victoria, Reflection).
165
Writing Case Study Assignment
The Writing Case Study assignment, although limited to the collection of only one writing sample because of the COVID pandemic, also was important to the PSTs’ shifting noticing. Seven of the 20 PSTs mentioned this assignment. Eighteen percent of the PSTs found this to be the course activity that most contributed to their noticing of K-1 writers. Alex explained,
Gathering the writing sample from my case study child in the field opened my
eyes to notice the writer rather than the written page. I notice a large shift [in my
noticing] having completed this course and expanding my knowledge of young
writers and how to teach them. Rather than looking to correct them, I now look to
support and encourage them. While this seems like common sense, I had not
previously thought of it this way. Studying my case study child and her writing
opened my eyes up to the different levels of writing a child can be at. It was
especially important for me to see how my child’s marks told the same story on
different days. I had no idea she would be able to “read” her scribbles (Alex,
Reflection).
Traditional Teacher-Driven Instruction
Some PSTs (8 out of 20) supported the use of traditional teacher-centered instruction. The lectures, readings, and handouts were influential to 21% of the PSTs.
None of the PSTs listed this activity as most important to their noticing of the writer.
Colleen’s comment that “there were many things about children’s language and literacy skills that I did not know before this class. I needed to understand that reading and
166 writing are emerging from the time the child is born” (Collee, Reflection) summarized her experience in the course.
While they did not vary in their noticing of early literacy skills across the semester, the PSTs did support the time spent on uncovering “those early things that allow a child to grow as a reader and writer, like print awareness, letter knowledge, narrative skills, and so on” (Devin, Reflection). Andrea defended the top-down delivery of theoretical principles by saying,
The course readings taught me that scribbles are not worthless or a waste, because
to the child, their scribbles are representing something. The lectures and course
handouts also taught me that as a teacher, it is your job to instill a love of writing
and other foundational skills that come from authentic opportunities to read and
write. While an EC writing teacher needs to provide the necessary support for
children, they do not need to mark up their work with critical red ink marks. It is
better to allow children to discover new things about writing on their own. I want
my role as a writing teacher to be like your PowerPoint slide that suggested
“nudging” the writer forward (Andrea, Reflection).
Writing Journal
While several PSTs did mention enjoyment in maintaining their writing journals, only one PST specified that her maintenance of a writing journal impacted her shifting noticing skills at all. It was the experience of reflecting on their own noticing in the writing samples that made the utmost impact on the PSTs in this study. Bri summed up her course experience:
167
I noticed a shift in my own learning from doing the work we have done in class
with the writing samples. I think I can identify more writing skills in children’s
writing. I needed to understand early literacy concepts and identify different
kinds of conventional and process writing structures. it took me most of the
semester to have a good understanding of these concepts and to be able to
identify them in a child’s work. When I reviewed all that I had noticed about the
writers, I recognized that I see the opportunities to encourage writing by looking
at the current understandings a child has. I learned a lot about children’s writing
by analyzing children’s writing and I am more confident moving into a real
classroom knowing I can do this (Bri, Reflection).
Summary
This chapter described the noticing that 20 PSTs experienced in a semester-long literacy method course as they examined writing samples representative of a K-1 writer.
The PSTs in this study entered their first literacy method course unfamiliar with the qualities of young writers. The PSTs confused the act of writing a message with legibility and handwriting. Memories of their own writing education constrained what the PSTs noticed about a K-1 writer. Through analysis of the shifts in what the PSTs noticed over the course of the literacy methods course, an emerging understanding that the writer and the writer’s process are worthy of notice materialized. This experience encouraged the
PSTs as future writing teachers and opened their eyes to the possibilities for teachers of
K-1 writers.
168
The PSTs realized that the writer should be the focus of writing instruction and writing products are useful in illuminating the knowledge a K-1 writer has about language and literacy. The data gathered in this study suggests that through the approximation of noticing, a step in the responding process, a future writing teacher can change their often error-seeking approach to writing instruction. I will discuss this, as well as additional implications for this research in the closing chapter.
169
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Teacher educators have shortchanged the teaching of writing despite recent acceptance that writing well is an essential skill for all students (Martin & Dismuke,
2015). This study investigated how EC PSTs in a literacy methods course experienced taking notice of the writer and how their noticing changed during a literacy methods course. Noticing is the first step to responding to a writer which experts have called an essential teaching practice for all teachers of writing (Teaching Works, 2019). Expert writing teachers notice meaningful patterns in their students’ writing (Lesgold et al.,
1988) yet “little research has examined reading and responding [to writing] as a practice or how novice teachers become skilled in it” (Ballock et al., 2018; Colby & Stapleton,
2006). Consequently, this investigation of EC PSTs who are rehearsing taking notice of
K-1 writers holds potential for informing the field of writing education and teacher preparation. The implications of the investigation are the focus of this concluding chapter.
Overview of the Study
I designed this study as a qualitative inquiry to understand a “naturally occurring activity in a natural setting” (Hatch, 2002, p. 26) with the “paramount objective”
(Merriam, 1988, p. 16) of explaining the meaning the participants attributed to their experience. The three questions that guided this investigation were:
1. What do early childhood PSTs notice about the writer in K-1 writing samples?
170
2. How do early childhood PSTs shift, if at all, in their noticing of the writer in K-1
writing samples during a semester-long literacy methods course?
3. What experiences in a semester-long literacy methods course influence early
childhood PSTs’ noticing of the writer in K-1 writing samples?
Twenty EC PSTs were the participants enrolled in an EC teacher certification program. The PSTs initially had trouble noticing the possibilities in young writers.
However, shifts in noticing occurred as the semester progressed. The shifts became evident as I examined the matrix which I constructed using Lists of Noticing the PSTs provided after examining seven writing samples. According to Miles et al. (2014) . . . matrices. . . are an “organized and compressed assembly of information that allows conclusion drawing” (p. 12). Through examination of the matrix, I observed shifts in the conventional writing skills, early literacy skills, and process writing abilities that the
PSTs identified. The language the PSTs used in their lists also took a more positive tone over the semester.
To understand the shifts in the PSTs’ noticing, I coded interview transcripts, a
Writing Case Study assignment, and a Reflection assignment using Dedoose software.
The coded data “suggest[ed] associations across groupings” (Yin, 2016, p. 204). By applying the PSTs explanations of their noticing in the interview transcripts, a Writing
Case Study assignment, and a Reflection assignment, I gained insight into how the PSTs viewed their shifting understandings about K-1 writers.
As a result of the findings, I suggest that teacher educators consider how they teach PSTs to respond to writers. Teacher educators might consider preparing future
171 writing teachers to respond to their students by deconstructing the responding process into smaller steps. The first step of the responding practice is noticing the writer responsible for a given product. Using writing samples when physical writers are unavailable is practical for rehearsals in the core practice of responding to a writer
(Teaching Works, 2019). In addition to implications for theory, practice, and policy in writing methods, this chapter will also address the limitations of this study as well as potential next steps for understanding how PSTs learn to notice and respond to K-1 writers.
Theoretical Considerations for Teaching EC PSTs of Writing
I applied a sociocultural lens to consider how PSTs’ noticed the K-1 writer in this research. Four theoretical implications resulted.
• Vygotsky’s assertion that “we need to concentrate not on the product of
development but the very process by which higher forms are established” (1978,
p. 64) applies to the PSTs in this study. The PSTs originally centered their
noticing of K-1 writers on the correctness of their written product. Over the
semester, the PSTs recognized that the process of the young writers was
paramount. Additionally, the PSTs benefitted from engaging in the process of
noticing. The approximation of practice was influential to 85% of the PSTs in this
study. On the contrary, only 21% of the PSTs found direct instruction to be
influential in their noticing. Including all students in authentic processes is
valuable for learning.
• The PSTs also accepted that a writer acquires language abilities implicitly and
172
spontaneously (Vygotsky, 1987). Once acknowledging that conventions would
follow as K-1 writers experimented with writing by engaging in the writing
process, the PSTs recognized creativity, imagination, and other tenants of the
young writer.
• The PSTs also recognized that writing is mediated through social interactions
(Dyson, 1987, 1989, 1992, 1993, 2000). Children in the social world of school use
talk to create social roles in writing activities by listening and responding to the
voices of others (Dyson, 1993). The PSTs in this study discussed at length how
interaction with their young writer in the Writing Case Study assignment
informed their understanding that young writer’s marks are intentional despite
their random appearance. Further, the talk with the case study writers brought
clarity to the idea that oral development informs literacy growth and is essential in
writing tasks.
• The findings of this study also suggest that mediating conceptual and material
artifacts influences how PSTs approach writing instruction. While prior research
has offered that future teachers benefit from being writers themselves (Colby &
Stapleton, 2006; Morgan, 2010; NCW, 2003; Street, 2003: Street & Stang, 2009),
the PSTs in this study found that approximating noticing the K-1 writer in writing
samples was more meaningful.
Literacy is a socially-situated practice and occurs within socially and culturally situated contexts (Street, 1985). The PSTs in this study came to discover that writing is more than applying a discrete set of skills to paper. Rather, social relationships, cultural
173 goals, and institutions define not only a young writer’s abilities (Barton, Hamilton, &
Ivanic, 2000) but also what the reader notices about the writer when reading their product. The PSTs in this study found recognizing writing conventions easy. However, the PSTs needed support from the social context of their literacy methods course to take notice of the K-1 writer’s process. I conclude that PSTs require conventional, cultural, and genre knowledge about student writers during their preparation to become writing teachers. Asking PSTs to approximate core practices during teacher preparation effectively assists their shifting understandings from writer to teacher.
Discussion of the Findings
The group of PSTs who practiced taking notice of K-1 writers in this literacy methods course experienced shifts in what they noticed. Gradually, the PSTs concentrated less on the K-1 writers’ errors and took notice of the writers’ capabilities.
The PSTs noticed less about conventional writing skills and noticed more process writing skills. Just as their approximating of responding to writers was valuable to their efficacy as future teachers of writing, approximations of writing by a novice writer offer insight into the writer’s language and literacy abilities. This transition caused the PSTs to feel uncomfortable. Megan’s comments echoed those of her classmates when she recalled,
174
At first, I only focused on the errors the child was making in their writing and
really only the negative aspects of their writing. But now I know that when
looking at writing, teachers can acknowledge the positives instead of the
negatives. By the end of the semester, I tried to focus on what the child was
capable of writing. It is difficult to change your mindset when all your life you are
taught to focus on your grammar and spelling instead of just reading the child’s
writing without noticing the mistakes (Megan, Interview).
The PSTs came to recognize that young children are capable writers even when their writing may not appear conventional to readers. Megan continued:
I watched as my focus child wrote her name and started drawing. No one else
could have determined what she wrote. But I saw the joy in her eyes. She was just
excited to write and did not care what it looked like; she just liked to practice
writing and drawing. This is how I want to motivate young writers – ready or not,
we should let them write (Megan, Interview)!
Teacher educators should not assume that PSTs understand that different ages of writers require different responses from their writing teachers. These PSTs struggled to negotiate their own writing instruction into acceptance that emergent writers’ approximate adult skills through play and drawing. The future teachers also came to understand that young children need motivation to further their writing skills. To keep writers motivated, the PSTs made constructive suggestions about the writers rather than viewing the writer’s immaturity as requiring correction. Further, the PSTs came to realize
175 that young children’s’ novice writing attempts are evidence of language and literacy abilities.
After gaining experience in recognizing young writers’ possibilities, the PSTs dismissed their entrenched understandings regarding readiness. The PSTs let go of their handwriting and spelling standards and recognized that children take individual journeys toward conventional writing. The PSTs came to value the journey each writer takes as their social interactions, opportunities to write, and teachers encouragement nudges them forward on the continuum of writing development. Focusing on the writer, as opposed to the writer’s completed writing project was valuable to the PSTs in this study and is likely to impact their future praxis as teachers of writing.
Teacher Noticing
With few opportunities in methods courses to apply theoretical understandings
(Collier et al., 2016), novice teachers do gain confidence in their teaching abilities through approximations of core practices (Martin & Dismuke, 2015). The use of writing samples in this study was successful for preparing future writing teachers to notice the K-
1 writer and “produce gains in knowledge, assessment skill, and self-efficacy as future teachers of writing” (Dempsey et al, 2009, p. 57).
Jacobs et al. (2010) proposed a construct of professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking that is useful in evaluating teachers’ decision-making processes when analyzing students’ verbal and written responses. The results from this study suggest that PSTs’ noticing of children’s written products are also useful as they notice the writer across content areas.
176
This study concurs that noticing activities are beneficial in teacher preparation courses. PSTs require guidance and focused support on recognizing that a writer exists behind a written product. Ball (2011) called for teacher educators to develop the noticing abilities of mathematics teachers because “teachers attend to and must notice important aspects of learners’ thinking, experience, and resources” (p. xxi). This study supports the need for writing educators to do the same.
Shift One: From Convention to Process
The PSTs in this study required their literacy methods course to present them with a model of teaching writing that offered the opportunity to diverge from their own writing experiences (Ballock et al., 2018; Stockinger, 2007; Street, 2003; Street & Stang, 2009).
As Gardner (2014) found, the writing pedagogy of skill-based memories influences negative chore-based thinking by teachers of writing. To overcome the traditional focus on writing correctness and conventional writing skills from their schooling, the PSTs needed to engage in approximations of responding to a K-1 writer to notice the possibilities used by a K-1 writer while crafting their written product.
The PSTs noticed the K-1 writer’s ability to spell and capitalize across the semester but expanded their understanding of the early literacy skills of letter knowledge and phonological awareness. Once recognizing that young children develop in hearing the smaller sounds of language, the PSTs looked for evidence that the K-1 writers were applying expanding knowledge of sounds into their spelling.
Initially, the PSTs negatively viewed incorrect spelling, but over time incorrect spelling became a positive as it offered the PSTs a glimpse into the K-1 writer’s sound
177 awareness. For example, PSTs expressed their pleasure by saying “[The] child sounded out the spelling for words he did not know," or “The child seemed to have sounded out the word ‘nuisance’ to how it made sense to them." Based on the patterns of noticing for the PSTs in this study, it appears that EC PSTs require assistance to overlook conventional spelling errors and focus instead on the young writer’s process of approximating spelling.
Shift Two: Recognizing Possibilities Over Problems
Approximating the noticing necessary to respond to a student writer contributed to the shifts that the PSTs experienced collectively. The language used in the PSTs’ Lists of Noticing shifted from a focus on error recognition to acknowledgement of what the K-
1 writer could do. In making this shift, the PSTs pointed out new understandings about young writers.
The Writer Versus the Writing
As the PSTs shifted their focus away from the written product and toward the individual writer their noticing changed. The PSTs were able to use the K-1 writer’s written product to inform where the writer might be on the continuum of literacy development. The PSTs looked toward the writer’s successful display of early literacy skills as evidence that the child was a capable writer rather than accepting that writing ability is dependent on achieving a predetermined age. Over time, the PSTs were successful in envisioning the possibilities for scaffolding the K-1 writer’s growth.
Writing Requires Writers to Write
178
The PSTs collectively voiced concern about young writers’ lack of motivation to write. When initiating their Case Study Writing Assignment, the PSTs expressed discouragement when their Case Study children resisted the opportunity to “come and write with me” (Bri, Case Study Writing Assignment). The PSTs generalized that young children dislike writing and do not see themselves as writers. This confirms prior research on EC writing attitudes (Batchelor et al., 2014; Gallavan & Bowles, 2007;
Martin & Dismuke, 2015; Zimmerman et al., 2014). Further, the PSTs recalled their own experiences where the problems pointed out by their writing teachers fixed their lack of desire to write well.
The PSTs found agreement with NCTE’s statement that children learn to write through the act of writing (2004). The PSTs concluded that handwriting worksheets and forced writing drills dampen young writers’ desire to write. The PSTs agreed that motivating children to want to write is a critical consideration for future EC writing teachers. The PSTs recognized that providing time for young writers to write freely would improve the writers’ willingness to do so and once in the act of writing, the writers would improve in process and product. By focusing on the positives, more possibilities would emerge.
Shift Three: Writers Can Approximate Writing Before Appearing Ready to Write
The PSTs in this study had difficulty thinking of young children as writers when looking at the marks the children made as scribbles and random. However, the experiences in the course allowed them to consider that writing proceeds across a developmental continuum and may not look conventional but carries meaning for the
179 child. Readiness is a term not explored in this study but was a preconceived notion by the
PSTs. The PSTs entered the course with a preconceived understanding that readiness
(for school, reading, or writing) is “a characteristic of an individual child that develops as the child grows” (Graue, 1993, p. 4). Early childhood policymakers and educators who accept the place of readiness in academics often believe readiness to be a visible, assessable, and quantifiable construct. However, the PSTs shifted their view on readiness to reflect a more constructive idea of readiness situated in the interaction between the individual and the environment. In this study, the PSTs discovered the salient nature of the instructional situation to determine readiness. When young children were viewed as capable of writing and provided an instructional setting to do so, the writer could meet the expectations of the teacher and thus was ready to be a writer. Several themes accompanied the PSTs’ shifting understanding of readiness.
Writing is More Than Handwriting
The PSTs were surprised to consider that in EC writing and handwriting are not synonymous. The PSTs’ assumption followed their own EC experiences with worksheets where they practiced forming individual alphabet letters and words starting with the same letter. The PSTs assumed worksheet drills would be all that young writers could produce.
However, upon reflection, the PSTs realized that they were limiting the young writers to readiness activities that discounted the ability of young writers to share ideas through their scribbles, drawings, and approximated writing.
The language used by one PST in sample one and seven respectively highlight this change. The PST initially pointed out that “[The] child doesn’t clearly write their
180 letters.” However, by semester end the PST pointing out “He was able to explain what he intended to convey through his writing."
All Writers are Ready to Write
Teaching writing using a process approach is at odds with a readiness approach to writing instruction (Dreher, 1990). Initially, the PSTs in this study confirmed their presumption that young children needed to be at a level of readiness to begin writing instruction. However, with exposure to Clay’s (1975) writing principles, writing stages, and emergent literacy assumptions; the PSTs came to agree that each writer follows an individual path on the writing development continuum. As a result, the PSTs concluded that forcing students into skill lessons outside their zone of proximal development
(Vygotsky, 1987), would be futile. The PSTs decided that leaving students in charge of their writing process encourages inevitable progress.
By identifying the early literacy skills “essential to early literacy instruction”
(Roskos et al., 2003, p. 52), the PSTs noticed the abilities of the K-1 writer as opposed to the errors in the written product of the writer. Investigating the process writing skills featured in Writing Workshop classrooms encouraged the PSTs to reject the notion that all writers must attain the same level of readiness before being able to create a written message.
Writing is Social
Writing is not an individual endeavor (Morgan & Pytash, 2014) and requires social interaction. During the Case Study Writing Assignment, the PSTs experienced this firsthand. As a result, the PSTs agreed that Language Arts classes should encourage
181 development in the areas of reading, talking, listening, and playing. Authentic uses for new abilities foster a child’s willingness to try new skills and should be prioritized in EC classrooms according to the PSTs in this investigation.
The PSTs discussed how talking with their case study writer helped them understand not only the writer’s product but also the writer’s process of placing marks on the page. Primary to this recognition was the observation that when they gave their case study child a writing implement, the child began to make marks and scribble as they told a story. When the PST showed their case study child their markings at a later date, the same scribbles prompted a retelling of the same story. Thus, the PSTs witnessed the social nature of becoming a writer.
Acceptance of Spelling Approximation
The PSTs’ Lists of Noticing in the areas of conventional writing skills and early literacy skills together indicated a belief by the EC PSTs that “sounding out” is the key language and literacy skill for young writers to master in the early years. The EC PSTs altered their initial notion that language and literacy lessons in the EC classroom should support spelling tasks to a recognition that EC writers approximate spelling along a developmental continuum. Further, the PSTs realized that by examining a writers’ phonological abilities, they have insight into the possibilities for scaffolding the K-1 writer’s spelling and writing abilities.
Through their examination of K-1 writing samples, the PSTs recognized that young writers require motivation to write. They found that young children who are offered authentic writing tasks in EC classrooms will approach the task with desire
182
(Graves, 1973). Further, the PSTs recognized that scribbling, drawing, and approximating were necessary components of the writing journey.
The PSTs embraced the Writing Workshop atmosphere as the teaching approach most likely to encourage and embrace writers. In Writing Workshop, young writers could learn the conventional writing skills necessary of writers in an atmosphere encouraging the development of their writing process. Additionally, the PSTs in this study believed they would implement a process view for teaching writing in their future classrooms so that they would have many opportunities to note the strengths of the writer while scaffolding the writer’s development in areas of need. This confirms the finding of
Dreher (1990) whose PSTs voiced a similar belief. Through mini-lessons and individual writing conferences, while concentrating on the writing process, the PSTs identified how they could address individual writers’ needs for conventional writing skills as they blossom into capable authors. This would happen at various times for differing writers and teachers should not hold writers back until a preset battery of skills are mastered.
Implications
Little is known about how to best prepare teachers of writing (Collier et aet al.,
2016) so the implications of this study serve to inform: (a) future policy for teacher preparation programs in writing, (b) preparing EC PSTs writing teachers in EC education endorsement programs, and (c) the field of EC writing instruction.
Implications for Teacher Preparation Programs
University settings are the foremost backdrops for learning how to teach (Morgan
& Pytash, 2014; Zimmerman et al., 2014) yet few states require PSTs to complete a
183 writing methods course (Batchelor et al., 2014; Hall, 2016; Martin & Dismuke, 2015).
The inequitable treatment of writing methods exists despite the knowledge from studies such as this that the writing activities presented and modeled for PSTs during teacher preparation hold the potential to improve future teachers’ writing praxis (Draper et al,
2000). Teacher education programs intent on improving future writing instruction need to involve PSTs in the approximations of practice that lead to mastery of core practices.
Specifically, as this study suggests, using writing samples to practice noticing the writer improved PSTs’ vision of themselves as future teacher of writers. If teachers are to be better prepared to assist every child in writing effectively, they must accept children where they are, scaffold their existing skills, and celebrate their attempts to improve their abilities. Providing negative task-based checklists of accomplishments was detrimental to the PSTs in this study and was a practice they found worthy of abandonment. Instead, the
PSTs sought assistance in developing ways to encourage young writers to write for real purposes with support in writing following the young writer’s individual writing needs.
Implications for Teacher Educators of EC PSTs
In this study, the “PSTs learned by doing” (Zimmerman et al., 2014). As the PSTs practiced noticing the K-1 writer in writing samples, the “theory [of process writing] became real through practice.” (Grossman et al., 2000, p. 658). Approximating responding to a writer, by taking notice of all the writer can do, was integral to the PSTs’ recognition of the young writer and uncovering the next instructional strategy to nudge the writer forward. According to Culham (2018), “sometimes all a writer needs is a little nudge to move them forward” (p. 82). Once focused on the possibility of the young
184 writer, PSTs experienced a diminishing concern for the child’s readiness to write and focused on how to scaffold the next needed nudge.
Jacobs et al. (2010) proposed a construct of professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking that allows teacher educators to evaluate the decision-making processes of PSTs when analyzing students’ written work. The results of this study concur that engaging PSTs in the noticing of the student behind any given piece of writing has a strong benefit. Applying Jacobs et al. (2010) construct of decomposing noticing into the smaller acts of attending, interpreting, and identifying students’ thinking holds potential for PSTs who struggle to respond to student writers. Decomposing the act of responding also appears to be of value to PSTs.
Access to live students is not always possible in teacher preparation. The remote context of this study dictated by the COVID-19 pandemic confirms this trend. Therefore, working with writing samples instead of in-person writers allowed PSTs to practice the noticing that is necessary for the core practice of responding to a student writer. Without preparation in responding to a writer, writing teachers may be unable to provide frequent and complex feedback to their students which limits the development of future writing abilities. Therefore, using writing samples to approximate responding to a young writer is a strategy useful in teacher preparation.
Teacher educators should not make assumptions regarding what PSTs understand about the development of children. In this study, the PSTs were new to the concept of
“emergent” literacy and consequently had an unrealistic view of the abilities writers of an early age might demonstrate. The PSTs assumed scribbles were random and voiced
185 surprise when their young scribblers attributed meaning to each mark. After exposure to young writers, through writing samples, PSTs gained insight into the value of each mark on a page. With scaffolding, the PSTs in this study were able to look at the K-1 writer’s written products and see evidence of future writing possibilities. This also allowed the
PSTs to consider that readiness in not a prerequisite for writing instruction. Before young children can hold a pencil, spell conventionally, or properly form their letters they can talk about a message they want to share. Once that message is framed orally, any mark on the paper represents that message and is an opportunity to scaffold that writing along in writing development.
Implications for EC Writing Instruction
Based on the understandings that the PSTs brought with them from their writing histories and field site classrooms, there appears to be a need to examine EC writing instruction. This study brings to light important considerations about current writing instruction in U.S. elementary schools. As in prior research, this study found that EC teachers focus on the conventional features of writing such as spelling, capitalization, and punctuation despite years of writing research that revealed that EC students need to be actively engaged in learning experiences before meaningful connections that lead to understanding can take place (Vygotsky, 1978). One could argue that when EC PSTs come to notice a young writer’s desire to communicate, they will respond with motivating feedback. However, PSTs do not immediately see their role as motivators.
Instead, their assumption is to point out deficiencies.
186
Thus, this study contributes to our understanding of how EC PSTs might be best prepared to respond to a K-1 writer by noticing the possibilities in their written products.
With attention on the evidence the individual writer leaves on their paper, an attentive writing teacher can provide a rich context for learning where reading, writing, listening, and speaking become tools for literacy growth.
Even though the CCSSs require students to “devote significant time and effort to writing” across curricular areas to assure students are “college and career-ready writers”
(CCSS, 2019, pp. 63-64), PSTs of EC writers are unprepared to do so. Just as writing
“skills cannot be picked up from a few minutes here, and a few minutes there” (NCW,
2003, p. 20), future EC writing teachers cannot teach writing without intentional preparation to do so. Involving PSTs in writing methods courses that make use of writing samples to approximate the practices of classroom teachers is required as writing is “the quintessential 21st-century skill” (The National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE],
2009, p. 4). As American education devalues writing instruction in the early years
(Calkins, 1986; Yancey, 2009) providing teacher educators with a way to improve writing praxis is important.
As preparing PSTs to support students’ writing development is vital, I provide three specific recommendations as outcomes of this research.
§ At the policy level, EC teacher certification should require all PSTs to enroll in a
writing methods course where they approximate responding to the writer. When
students are not available in-person, teacher educators can use writing samples.
§ As learning is an active process and PSTs “learn by doing” (Zimmerman et al.,
187
2014), EC teacher educators should explicitly plan to allow the “theory [of
process writing [to] became real through practice” (Grossman et al., 2000, p.
658). To assist PSTs with their ability to respond to a writer, teacher educators
need to incorporate many opportunities to take notice of the K-1 writer.
§ In EC classrooms the tendency to focus on the evident errors in young children’s
writing needs explored so that PSTs can replace the tendency with an
understanding that intrinsic motivation to improve writing skill will develop when
teachers offer writers ample opportunity to write in authentic contexts. Supportive
teachers who nudge writers forward need to first notice the possibilities of a
writer and refrain from concentrating on the conventions necessary in more adult
settings.
Limitations
Context of Study
While the goal of research is to reduce limitations, I recognize that limitations are unavoidable in any research study. This study was limited by the number of participants registered in one course and the short duration of one course. Additionally, my role as researcher was dependent on my role as the course instructor in the literacy methods course.
Role of Researcher
My findings were based on the reporting of the PSTs. It is possible that the PSTs aimed to please their instructor and skewed the findings. While I hope that the participants indeed shared openly, this cannot be known for sure. To minimize this
188 problem, I reinforced that participation in the study in no way jeopardized their standing within the School of Education or with grades associated in the course.
Duration
The amount of time spent with the PSTs is another limitation of this study. I conducted this study over one semester. This does not constitute a large amount of time.
Had the duration of the study been longer, I may have had more opportunities to meet with the participants. Further, the long-term effects of the shift in PSTs’ noticing patterns is not measurable. Whether the PSTs continue to focus on process writing skills when confronted with the CCSSs or a school district curriculum that requires instruction in conventional writing standards is unclear.
Sample Size
Another limitation of this study is that it was situated in one class section with 20 participants. The PSTs in this study were young, white, and female. This study may have had different results with preservice student teachers from another semester, section, or even institution.
Coding
The lack of inter-rater coding is another limitation of this study. I completed all the coding of the data individually. To increase reliability of the results, another coder could code the data to establish iter-rater reliability.
Recollections of EC Writing Instruction
I discovered that the 20 PSTs in this study relied on memories of their own writing preparation in early childhood to notice K-1 writers. However, individual
189 recollections of past experiences vary and may not offer a complete representation of the writing preparation each PST received during their ECE. In a larger sample, the writing experiences of the PSTs might reflect more diversity.
Removed Social Relationship
Another limitation of this study is the inability of the PSTs to develop a relationship with the K-1 writers they noticed. The directions given to the PSTs instructed them to “Imagine a K-1 writer.” The ability to imagine a K-1 writer assumes that the
PSTs were familiar with K-1 students, their writing capabilities, and their intentions for writing.
Vygotsky (1962, 1978) pointed out that learning can occur before children have the development necessary to apply their learning in a social context. It is conceivable that if the PSTs engaged in conversations with the writers of the writing samples, they may have noticed additional skills of the writer that were not evident on the paper samples. I included the Writing Case Study assignment wherein the PSTs sat next to children in their field classrooms to illuminate the social aspects of writing for young children. However, the COVID-19 pandemic limited the number of opportunities the
PSTs had to “sit alongside a writer” (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001) in the social context
Vygotsky indicated to be vital in understanding a young learner’s development.
Effectiveness of Course Activities
I did not explore the efficacy of each activity completed by the PSTs in this course. Instead, I relied on the frequency with which the PSTs discussed each course activity. What the PSTs believe to be most impactful is not supported with empirical
190 evidence. However, the PSTs’ self-reflections agreed with prior research that when students decompose practices into smaller parts, like responding to a writer, they gain the necessary orientations needed for enactment (Ballock et al., 2018, p. 57).
The limitations presented above minimize the generalizability of the findings.
While the specific nature of the study limits the amount of generalizability, I claim naturalistic generalization as defined by Stake (1978). I expect that something similar would occur under similar circumstances with similar participants.
Stake (1978) offered that naturalistic inquiries lead readers to expect something similar would occur under similar circumstances with similar participants. I believe that despite the limitations of this study, noticing of a K-1 writer by another group of EC
PSTs would reveal similar findings.
Areas for Further Study
As with any investigative project, the conclusions drawn from this investigation require future research. For example, this study only studied the short-term effects one literacy course had on the participants. The long-term effects of a course like ECED
30123 on PSTs requires examination to recognize if the shift made in noticing impacts the tone of the teacher’s eventual EC classroom. For example, are PSTs who matriculated from this course more likely to implement a Writing Workshop in their classroom? Or, did the participants in this study experience obstacles in balancing their process approach to writing instruction with product-based curriculum materials mandated by their school district? Following up with the participants of this study, once entrenched in classrooms, would be interesting.
191
An experimental research study could be designed to measure the PSTs knowledge about writing and the writing process before and after participation in the course.
Matching those bits of knowledge to the PSTs’ lists of noticing in writing samples would provide quantitative depth to the participants’ shifting understandings.
By exploring what teachers notice, researchers might gain additional insight into the eventual practice of responding (Teaching Works, 2019) which is a priority for teachers of writing. Future studies into PSTs’ noticing and responding patterns would supplement the limited research the writing field has on reading and responding to writers.
Conclusion
Through approximating the core skill of noticing in writing samples, PSTs shifted in their acquisition of the “special knowledge, skill, and orientations needed for [the] enactment” of responding (Ballock et al., 2018, p. 57) to a writer. Responding to a writer is a necessary activity for all teachers of writing.
This study revealed that a literacy methods course has the potential to influence how PSTs might come to notice the writer before focusing on the writer’s product. To do so, the PSTs in this investigation needed to shift three assumptions about young writers.
PSTs required practice to notice a writer’s process as opposed to the errors made in the writer’s finished product. Through noticing practice, the PSTs were able to consider the need to scaffold young writers existing understandings by nudging forward the writer using encouragement instead of pointing out errors. As the PSTs recognized what the writer could do, instead of what he could not, the PSTs celebrated the writer regardless of
192 where they sat on the continuum of writing development and viewed all children as capable and ready writers.
Taking advantage of approximating a core practice in teacher preparation is valuable for building the pedagogy of future teachers. Using writing samples in a literacy methods course is one way for a future writing teacher to recognize a writer’s potential.
As a writer’s writing proficiencies are limited [only] by the abilities of teachers to teach
[writing] well” (Gallavan & Bowles, 2007, p. 61), continued emphasis on preparing PSTs to attend to the “surplus of possibilities” (Bomer et al., 2019, p. 140) of a writer holds great promise for educating the next generation of writers.
193
APPENDICES
194
APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT
195
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent
Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study
Study Title: From Product to Process: Creating Shifts in Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of K-1 Writing
Principal Investigator: Dawn R. Roginski Under the Supervision of: Dr. Lori Wilfong and Dr. Denise N. Morgan
You are being invited to participate in a research study. This consent form will provide you with information on the research project, what you will need to do, and the associated risks and benefits of the research. Please read this form carefully. It is important that you ask questions and fully understand the research to make an informed decision. You will receive a copy of this document to take with you.
Voluntary Participation Taking part in this research study is entirely up to you. You may choose not to participate or you may discontinue your participation at any time without penalty
Purpose, Procedures, and Risks: As part of my doctoral program, I am conducting this research to better understand how early childhood preservice teachers learn to become future teachers of language and literacy in K-1 classrooms. Your participation in this study will not require any additional commitment beyond those included in the course syllabus. All research data will come from assignments completed for ECED 30123 Language and Literacy for the Preschool Child. I do not believe this research poses any risk to you beyond those encountered in everyday life.
After the completion of this course, several participants will be asked to participate in a follow-up interview to discuss their experiences in the class. The participants will be selected at random and involvement in the interview is voluntary. The interviews will be audio-recorded to assist in transcription.
Benefits: Although you may find it interesting to participate in this study, there will be no direct benefit to you from your participation. However, your participation in this study may contribute to teacher-educators’ understandings of effective teaching methods in early childhood teacher education. You will not be paid or receive extra credit for any classes for being in this study nor will your participation, or refusal to participate have any bearing on your grade in this course.
PLACE THE TITLE OF THE STUDY HERE Page 1 of 2
196
Privacy and Confidentiality: Your participation will be confidential. Class assignments will be photocopied after they are turned in and the last three digits of your student number will be used to identify the participant. A fellow course instructor will maintain a master list of students’ names and identification numbers to assist in this process of protecting your identity. Research participants’ names will not be identified in any publication or presentation of the research results. All data will be kept in a locked cabinet in White Hall. After the completion of the study, all data will be shredded and destroyed.
Contact Information: If you have any questions or concerns about this research, you may contact me, Dawn Roginski at 440-596- 8462 or [email protected] or my principal advisor, Dr. Lori Wilfong at [email protected]. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Kent State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 330-672-2704. The IRB is a group of people who review research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research participants.
Thank you for considering participation in this research.
Consent Statement and Signature I have read this consent form and have had the opportunity to have my questions answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I understand that a copy of this consent will be provided to me for future reference.
______Participant Signature Date
PLACE THE TITLE OF THE STUDY HERE Page 2 of 2
197
APPENDIX B
COURSE SYLLABUS
198
APPENDIX B
Course Syllabus
Language and Literacy for the Preschool Child ECED 30123
Spring 2020
Instructor: Dawn R. (Turocy) Roginski Course Numbers: ECED 30123 Section 001 Class Dates: January 15 through April 29, 2020 Class Meeting Times: 2:15 to 5:00 PM (Wednesday) in White Hall Room 102 Email: [email protected] AND [email protected] Phone and Text: 440-596-8462 Office Hours: White Hall 410 - Tuesdays 10:30–2 PM and Wednesdays 12-2 PM
Catalog Entry: (Equivalent to ECET 22130) An examination of the process of language and literacy development in preschool children. The course focuses on how preschool teachers integrate knowledge of development with early school and family literacy learning. Prerequisite: admission to advanced study. Corequisite: ECED 30142, ECED 30147, ECED 40165, and ECED 40192 (ECED Block II).
The acquisition of emergent language and literacy skills during the preschool years is predictive of children’s future academic success (National Early Learning Panel, 2008). Ideally teachers scaffold students’ literacy learning progression by providing meaningful experiences within a literacy-rich environment (Hall, Simpson, Guo & Wang, 2015). A literacy rich preschool classroom serves to build emergent literacy skills including oral language, phonological awareness, fluency, emergent writing, vocabulary, and comprehension (Byington & Kim, 2017). Early Childhood teachers play an essential role in the development of language and literacy by intentionally designing their classroom environment and planning for meaningful learning experiences. Within well-planned classrooms preschool students will explore, talk, listen, think, and investigate. Thus, students’ language and literacy skills will flourish and blossom as they begin their academic journeys.
Byington, T.A., & Kim, Y. (2017). Jump-starting preschoolers’ emergent literacy: The entomologist tool kit. The Reading Teacher, 70(5), 601-604. Hall, A.H., Simpson, A., Guo, Y., & Wang, S. (2015). Examining the effects of preschool writing instruction on emergent literacy skills: A systematic review
of the literature. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54(2), 115-134. DOI:10.1080/19388071.2014.991883 National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
ECED-30123 Language & Literacy for the Preschool Child (Roginski) Spring 2020 Syllabus page 1
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
APPENDIX C
REVISED SYLLABUS – REMOTE LEARNING
209
APPENDIX C
Revised Syllabus – Remote Learning
210
211
212
213
APPENDIX D
WRITING SAMPLE 1
214
APPENDIX D
Writing Sample 1
215
APPENDIX E
WRITING SAMPLE 2
216
APPENDIX E
Writing Sample 2
217
APPENDIX F
WRITING SAMPLE 3
218
APPENDIX F
Writing Sample 3
219
APPENDIX G
WRITING SAMPLE 4
220
APPENDIX G
Writing Sample 4
221
APPENDIX H
WRITING SAMPLE 5
222
APPENDIX H
Writing Sample 5
223
APPENDIX I
WRITING SAMPLE 6
224
APPENDIX I
Writing Sample 6
225
APPENDIX J
WRITING SAMPLE 7
226
APPENDIX J
Writing Sample J
227
APPENDIX K
WRITING CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT PROTOCOL FOR COLLECTING WRITING SAMPLE FROM CHILD
228
APPENDIX K
Writing Case Study Assignment Protocol for Collecting Writing Sample from Child
229
230
231
232
APPENDIX L
REFLECTION ASSIGNMENT
233
APPENDIX L
Reflection Assignment
234
REFERENCES
235
REFERENCES
Applebee, A. N. (1986). Problems in process approaches: Toward a reconceptualization
of process instruction. The Teaching of Writing, 85, 95-113.
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2009). What is happening in the teaching of writing?
English Journal, 98(5), 18-28.
Ball, D. L. (2011). Forward. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.),
Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. xx–xxiv).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Ballock, E., McQuitty, V., & McNary, S. (2018). An exploration of professional
knowledge needed for reading and responding to student writing. Journal of
Teacher Education, 69(1), 56-68.
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing
in context. Literacies series. Florence, KY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Batchelor, K. E., Morgan, D. N., Kidder-Brown, M. K. & Zimmerman, B. S. (2014).
Investigating the unit of study approach to teach writing to early childhood
education preservice teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35,
276-289.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, V. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of
instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.) Advances in
instructional psychology. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
236
Bomer, R., Land, C. L., Rubin, J. C., & Van Dike, L. M. (2019). Constructs of teaching
writing in research about literacy teacher education. Journal of Literacy Research,
51(2),196-213.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Calkins, L. M. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Calkins, L. M. (2003a). The conferring handbook. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Calkins, L. M. (2003b). Units of study for primary writing: A yearlong curriculum.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Calkins, L. M. (2003c). The nuts and bolts of teaching writing. Firsthand Books.
Calkins, L. M. (2015). A guide to the Reading Workshop, Primary Grades. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Calkins, L. M., & Mermelstein, L. (2003). Launching the Writing Workshop. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Chambless, M. S., & Bass, J. A. (1995). Effecting changes in student teachers’ attitudes
toward writing. Reading Research and Instruction, 35(2), 153-160.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory, 2nd edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Chomsky, C. (1971). Write first, read later. Childhood Education, 47(6), 296-299.
Clay, M. M. (1966). Emergent reading behavior. [electronic resource]. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com
Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
nd Clay, M. M. (2005). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (2 ed).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
237
Colby, S. A., & Stapleton, J. N. (2006). Preservice teachers teach writing: Implications
for teacher educators. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(4), 353-376.
Collier, S. M., Scheld, S., Barnard, I., & Stallcup, J. (2015). The negotiation and
development of writing teacher identities in elementary education.
Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Education, 4(2), 90-112.
Common Core State Standards (2019). Common Core State Standards: Standards in your
state. Retrieved from: http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/
Culham, R. (2018). Teach writing well : how to assess writing, invigorate instruction, and
rethink revision. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishing.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907-919.
Daisey, P. (2009). The writing experiences and beliefs of secondary teacher candidates.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), 157-172.
Dedoose. Version 7.0.23, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting
qualitative and mixed method research data (2016). Retrieved from
www.dedoose.com.
Dempsey, M. S., PylikZillig, L. M., & Bruning, R. H. (2009). Helping preservice
teachers learn to assess writing: Practice and feedback in a Web-based
environment. Assessing Writing, 14, 38-61.
Denizen, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
238
Dewey, J. (1916). Education and democracy. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.
Draper, M. C., Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Radencich, M. C. (2000). Reading and writing
habits of preservice teachers, Reading Horizons, 40(3), 185-2003.
Dreher, M. J. (1990). Preservice early childhood teachers’ attitudes toward the process
approach to writing. Early Child Development and Care, 56, 49-64.
Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: NY: Teachers College Press.
Durkin, D. (1972). Teaching young children to read. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dyson, A. H. (1987). The value of "time off task": Young children's spontaneous talk and
deliberate text. Harvard Educational Review. 57. (4), 396-420.
Dyson, A. H. (1989). Multiple Worlds of Child Writers: Friends Learning to Write. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Dyson, A.H. (1992). Whistle for Willie, lost puppies, and cartoon dogs: The sociocultural
dimensions of young children's composing. Journal of Reading Behavior. 25 (40),
433-462.
Dyson, A. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primary
school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dyson, A. H. (2000). Writing and the sea of voices: Oral language in, around, and about
writing: In: R. Indrisano, & J. R. Squire (Eds.). Perspectives in writing: Research,
theory, and practice (pp. 45-65). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Dyson, A. H. (2002). Writing and children’s symbolic repertoires: Development
unhinged. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
research (pp. 126-141). New York: Guilford Press.
239
Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2013). Social talk and imaginative play: Curricular basics
for young children’s language and literacy. Theoretical models and processes of
reading, 164-181.
Edwards, L. (2003). Writing instruction in Kindergarten: Examining an emerging area of
research for children with reading and writing difficulties. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 36(2), 136-148.
Erickson, F. (1982). Taught cognitive learning in its immediate environments: A
neglected topic in the anthropology of education. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 13(2), 149-180.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their
development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39-50.
Fletcher, R. & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing Workshop: the essential guide. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Florio-Ruane, S. & Lensmire, T. J. (1990). Transforming future teachers’ ideas about
writing instruction. Retrieved from
https://proxy.library.kent.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di
rect=true&AuthType=ip&db=eric&AN=ED309440&site=eds-live&scope=site
Flower, L. (1990). The role of task representation in reading-to-write. In L. Flower, V.
Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. C. Peck (Eds.), Reading-
to write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 35-75). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Freeman, M. S. (1998). Teaching the youngest writers: A practical guide. Gainesville,
240
FL: Maupin House Publishing.
Gallavan, N. P., Bowles, F. A., & Young, C. T. (2007). Learning to write and writing to
learn: Insights from teacher candidates. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 61-
69.
Gardner, P. (2014). Becoming a teacher of writing: Primary student teachers reviewing
their relationship with writing. English in Education, 48(2), 128-148.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures (Vol. 5019). Basic Books.
Gentry, J. R. (2005). Introduction: Timing of literacy instruction can spell success.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 109-111.
George, S. (2019). On the podcast: Lucy Calkins reflects on her path to leadership.
Retrieved from http://blog.heinemann.com/on-the-podcast-lucy-calkins- reflects-
on-her-path-to-leadership
Gibson, S. A. (2007), Preservice teachers’ knowledge of instructional scaffolding for
writing instruction. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 20(2), 9-15.
Glover, M. (2009). Engaging young writers: Preschool-grade 1. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Goodman Y. M. (1986). Children coming to know literacy. In W. Teale and E. Sulzby
(Eds.), Emergent Literacy (pp. 1-14). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Goodman, Y. M., & Goodman, K. S. (2003). Vygotsky in a whole-language perspective.
In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and
applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 223-250). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
241
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance,
knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-
regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2),
207-241.
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of
writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104(4), 879–896.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of
adolescents in middle and high schools – A report to Carnegie Corporation of
New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Graue, M.E. (1993). Ready for what? Constructing meanings of readiness for
kindergarten. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers & children at work. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Graves, D. H. (1994, March). Writing is like breathing. Paper presented at the
Conference on College Composition and Communication, Nashville, TN.
Graves, D. H. (2002). Testing is not teaching: What should count in education.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2011). Writing instruction for teacher candidates:
Strengthening a weak curricular area. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(4),
348-364.
Grossman, P., Valencia, S. W., Evans K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (2000).
242
Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and
beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 631-662.
Gundlach, R. (1982). Children as writers: The beginning of learning to write. In M.
Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language process, and structure of
written discourse. New York, New York: Academic Press.
Hall, A. H. (2009). A necessary part of good teaching: Using book clubs to develop
preservice teachers’ visions of self. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48, 290-
317.
Hall, A. H., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2011). Writing development over time: Examining
pre-service teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about writing. Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education, 32(2), 148-158.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A., & Burke, C. L. (1984). Language stories & literacy
lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Hawkins, L. K. & Razali, A. B. (2012). A tale of 3 P’s – penmanship, product, and
process: 100 years of elementary writing instruction. Language Arts, 89(5), 305 –
317.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Heinemann. (2019). Lucy Calkins. Retrieved from
https://www.heinemann.com/authors/430.aspx
243
Helfrich, S. R. & Clark, S. K. (2016). A comparative examination of pre-service teacher
self-efficacy related to literacy instruction, Reading Psychology, 37(7), 943-996.
Henderson, E. H., & Templeton, S. (1986). A developmental perspective of formal
spelling instruction through alphabet, pattern, and meaning. The Elementary
School Journal, 86(3), 305-316.
Hiebert, E. H. & Calfee, R. C. (1989). Advancing academic literacy through teacher’s
assessments. Educational Leadership, 46, 50-54.
Hillocks, G. (2006). Research in writing: Secondary school, 1984–2003. L1—
Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 6(2), 29-52.
Horn, M. & Giacobbe, M. E. (2007). Talking, drawing, writing: Lessons for our youngest
writers. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse Publishers.
International Reading Association & National Association for the Education of Young
Children. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate
practices for young children. Young Children, 53(4), 30-46.
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s
mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2),
169-202. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20720130
Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2015). Write to read: Investigating the reading-writing
relationship of code-level early literacy skills. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
31(4), 297-315.
Kaufman, D. K. (2009). A teacher educator writes and shares: Student perceptions of a
publicly literate life. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 338–350.
244
Kent State University. (2019). Kent State University Catalog 2019-2020. Retrieved from
http://catalog.kent.edu/
Kent State University. (2019). Early Childhood Education. Retrieved from
https://www.kent.edu/earlychildhood
Lenski, S., Ganske, S., Chambers, S., Wold, L., Dobler, E., Grisham . . . & Young,
J. (2013). Literacy course priorities and signature aspects of nine elementary
initial licensure programs, Literacy Research, and Instruction, 52(1), 1-27.
Lenski, S. D. & Pardieck, S. (1999). Improving preservice teachers’ attitudes toward
writing, Yearbook of the College Reading Association, (pp. 269–281).
Lesgold, A., Rubinson, F. I., Feltovitch, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D., & Wang, Y. (1988).
Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing x-ray pictures. In M.T.H. Chi, R. Glaser,
& M. Farr (Eds.) The nature of expertise (pp. 311-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lombardino, L. J., Bedford, T., Fortier, C., Carter, J., & Brandi, J. (1997). Invented
spelling: Developmental patterns in kindergarten children and guidelines for early
literacy intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28(4),
333-343.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Mackenzie, N., & Hemmings, B. (2014). Predictors of success with writing in the first
year of school. Issues in Educational Research, 24(1), 41-54.
Martin, S. D., & Dismuke, S. (2015). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of their learning
245
and engagement in a writing methods course. Teaching and Teacher Education,
46, 104-114.
Matsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, C. G., Valdes, R. & Garnier. H. (2002). Teacher
feedback, writing assignment quality, and third grade students' revision in lower
and higher achieving urban schools, The Elementary School Journal 103(1), 2-25.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook. 3rd, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moore, R. A. (2000). Preservice teachers explore their conceptions of the writing process
with young pen pals. Literacy Research and Instruction, 40(1), 17-33.
Morgan, D. N. (2010). Preservice teachers as writers. Literacy Research and Instruction,
49(4), 351-365.
Morgan, D. N. & Pytash, K.E. (2014). Preparing preservice teachers to become teachers
of writing: A 20-year review of the research literature. English Education, 47(1),
6-37.
246
Murray, D. M. (1972, November). Teach writing as a process not product. The Leaflet,
11-14.
Myers, J., Scales, R.Q., Grisham, D.L., Wolsey, T.D., Dismuke, S., Smetana, L . . . &
Martin, S. (2016). What about writing? A national exploratory study of writing
instruction in teacher preparation programs. Literacy Research and Instruction,
55(4), 309-330.
Napoli, M. (2001). Preservice teachers’ reflections about learning to teach writing.
Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED459472).
National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2003). The
neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. Washington, DC: College
Board.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2009). Writing between the lines and
everywhere else: A report from the National Council of Teachers of English.
Retrieved from http://www. ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Press/
WritingbetweentheLinesFinal.pdf.
National Council of Teachers of English. (Feb. 2016). Position statement on the
professional knowledge for the teaching of writing. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/ teaching-writing
National Writing Project, & Nagin, C. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving
student writing in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
247
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
Norman K. A., & Spencer, B. H. (2005). Our lives as writers: Examining preservice
teachers’ experiences and beliefs about the nature of writing and writing
instruction. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 25-40.
Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction:
Examining its effectiveness. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 275-290). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Puranik, C. S. & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Early writing deficits in preschoolers with oral
language difficulties. doi: 10.1177/0022219411423423
Puranik, C. S., Al-Otaiba, S., Sidler, J. F., & Greulich, L. (2014). Exploring the amount
and type of writing instruction during language arts instruction in kindergarten
classrooms. Reading and Writing, 27(2), 213-236.
Ray, K. W. (2002). What you know by heart: How to develop curriculum for your
Writing Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ray, K. W. (2010). In pictures and words: Teaching the qualities of good writing through
illustration study. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ray, K. W. & Cleaveland, L. B. (2004). About the authors: Writing Workshop with our
youngest writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ray, K. W. & Glover, M. (2008). Already ready: Nurturing writers in preschool and
kindergarten. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Richgels, D. J. (2002). The professional library. Writing Instruction.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2013). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In D. E.
248
Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and
processes of reading (pp. 923-956). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Roskos, K. A., Christie, J. F., & Richgels, D. J. (2003) The essentials of early literacy.
Young Children, 58(2), 52-60.
Rowe, D. W. (2008). Social contracts for writing: negotiating shared understandings
about text in the preschool years. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(1), 66-95.
Saracho, O. & Spodek, B. (1993). Introduction: Language and literacy in early childhood
education. In B. Spodek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Language and literacy in early
childhood education, (pp. vii-xiii). New York: Teacher's College Press.
Scales, R. Q., Tracey, K. N., Myers, J., Smetana, L., Grisham, D. L., Ikpeze . . . &
Sanders, J. (2019). A National study of exemplary writing methods instructors’
course assignments. Literacy Research and Instruction, 58(2), 67-83.
Schwandt, T. (2007). The role of practical knowledge in learning. Paper delivered at the
21st Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, Learning to
evaluate, evaluating to learn. Baltimore, MD.
Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading and writing development.
In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, and J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing
Research (pp. 171-183). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Shanahan, T., & Lonigan, C. J. (2013). Literacy in preschool and kindergarten children:
The National Early Literacy Panel and beyond.
Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Phillip, R. A. (2011). Situating the study of teacher
249
noticing. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics
teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 3-13). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Sheils, M. (1975). Why Johnny can’t write. Newsweek, 92(8), 58-65.
Smith, F. (1983). Reading like a writer. Language Arts, 60(5), 558-567.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Report by the National Research Council. Washington, DC: Department
of Education.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher,
7(2), 5-8.
Stockinger, P. C. (2007). Living in, learning from, looking back, breaking through in the
English Language Arts Methods Course: A case study of two preservice teachers.
English Education, 39(3), 201-225.
Street, C. (2003). Preservice teachers’ attitudes about writing and learning to teach
writing: Implications for university educators. Teacher Education Quarterly,
30(3), 33–50.
Street, C. & Stang, K. K. (2009). In what ways do teacher education courses change
teachers’ self-confidence as writers? Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(3), 75-94.
Sulzby, E. (1989). Assessment of writing and of children's language while writing. In L.
Morrow & J. Smith (Eds.), The role of assessment and measurement in early
literacy instruction (pp. 83-109). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sulzby, E. & Teale, W. H. (1996). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.
250
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. II) (pp.
727-757). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Teaching Works at the University of Michigan (2019). High leverage practices.
Retrieved from http://www.teachingworks.org/work-of-teaching/high-leverage-
practices
Tracy, B., Reid, R., & Graham, S. (2009). Teaching young students’ strategies for
planning and drafting stories: The impact of self-regulated strategy development.
Journal of Educational Research, 102(5), 323–331.
Tracy, K. N., Scales, R. Q. & Luke, N. (2014). Writing and learning online: Graduate
students’ perceptions of their development as writers and teachers of writing.
Teaching/Writing: e Journal of Writing Teacher Education, 3(1), 71-80.
Transcribe. (2020, June 24). New automatic transcription. Retrieved from
http://transcribe.wreally.com/how-to-transcribe
U.S. News and World Report. (2019). 2018 best colleges rankings. Retrieved from
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges
Vukelich, C. (1993). Play: A context for exploring the functions, features, and meaning
of writing with peers. Language Arts, 79, 386-392.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Watson, P. A. & Lacina, J. G. (2002, April). Teachers of writing as writers: Examining
attitudes and informing practice through action research. Paper presented at the
251
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Whitehurst, G. J. & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy.
Child Development, 69(3), 848-872.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem
solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Yancey, K. B. (2009). Writing in the 21st Century. National Council of Teachers of
English. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Press/Yancey_final.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish, second edition. New York,
New York: The Guilford Press.
Yoon, H. S. (2014). Can I play with you? The intersection of play and writing in a
kindergarten classroom. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(2), 109-
121.
Zimmerman, B. S., Morgan, D.N. & Kidder-Brown, M.K. (2014). The use of conceptual
and pedagogical tools as mediators of preservice teachers' perceptions of self as
writers and future teachers of writing. Action in Teacher Education, 36, 141-156.
Zoom Video Communications (2020, June 28). Zoom for education. Retrieved from
http://zoom.us/education