Systemic functional linguistics theory in practice: A longitudinal study of a school-university partnership reforming writing instruction in an urban elementary school Author: Frank Daniello Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/2591 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2012 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College Lynch School of Education Department of Teacher Education, Special Education, and Curriculum and Instruction Program of Curriculum and Instruction SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS THEORY IN PRACTICE: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF A SCHOOL-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP REFORMING WRITING INSTRUCTION IN AN URBAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Dissertation by FRANK DANIELLO Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2012 © Copyright by Frank Daniello 2012 ABSTRACT Systemic Functional Linguistics Theory in Practice: A Longitudinal Study of a School- University Partnership Reforming Writing Instruction in an Urban Elementary School Frank Daniello Dissertation Director: Dennis Shirley The ability to express meaning in prose is a foundational skill in our society. Given the importance of being a competent writer, concern with the quality of writing instruction is a recurring theme among American educators (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; National Commission on Writing, 2003, 2004, 2006). Research shows that teachers are unprepared to teach writing (Gilbert & Graham, 2010) and devote limited amounts of time to it (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010). In addition, national assessment data indicates that most students are not proficient writers (Salahu-Din, Persky & Miller, 2008). An embedded case study design (Yin, 2009), using mixed methodology (Greene & Caracelli, 2003a, 2003b; Hesse-Biber, 2010), was employed to determine whether a school-university partnership enacted systemic functional linguistics theory guided writing intervention changed fourth and fifth grade teachers’ writing instruction over the course of three years in an urban elementary school. The study further investigated changes to 41 fourth and 27 fifth graders’ writing performance during the third year of the invention. Examination of the relationship between students’ performance in writing and the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) test in English language arts was conducted. The study also explored how teachers articulated their experiences with the partnership. Findings showed the content of teachers’ instruction changed involving the use of metalanguage and the teaching of genre, language, and tenor. Similarly, instructional strategies evolved regarding negotiating field and deconstruction of text. Findings also indicated a significant improvement in writing performance for all students, and bilingual students had more growth over time than monolingual peers. Also, a moderate positive relationship existed between writing performance and MCAS performance, which suggests understanding of genre may support reading comprehension. Overall, teachers positively experienced the partnership and found value in the professional development. Implications of these study findings will benefit teacher education, administrators and policymakers, and allow for improved school-university partnerships. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who must be acknowledged and thanked for their role and support in this dissertation. I wish to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to Dr. Dennis Shirley, my academic advisor and dissertation chair. During my entire time at Boston College, you have provided me valuable guidance, support, and encouragement. Your expertise about educational change was invaluable to this dissertation. I cannot express enough how much I have valued our conversations over the years. They have made me a better scholar. I would next like to thank Drs. Maria Estela Brisk and Patrick Proctor, my dissertation readers. Dr. Brisk, your continuous support and knowledge of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) was a beacon of guidance for me as I sailed through the ocean of SFL. Thank you for exposing me to this amazing linguistic theory. Moreover, the kind and respectful ways you work with teachers is a model for all scholars seeking to enact school change. Dr. Proctor, your knowledge of quantitative analyses and insightful feedback enhanced the work of this dissertation. I learned much from our conversations and have become a better researcher because of them. I would like to extend my appreciation to the teachers at ‘Morrison Elementary School.’ This dissertation would have not been possible without your participation and commitment to the work in the school-university partnership. Your dedication to improving your pedagogical practices is a testament to your commitment to urban education. ii I would like to acknowledge my parents and family. To my parents, Guy and Jean Daniello, I am forever grateful for the lifetime of support you have provided me. You always encouraged me to pursue my dreams, one of which was earning a Ph.D. Our walks together in the woods of New Hampshire during my writing of this dissertation allowed me time to reflect on my topic. To my family—the Daniellos, the Donohues, and Donohue-Rolfes—thank you for supporting me in this endeavor. I am eternally grateful. I would like to thank my wife, Dr. Kate Daniello. Each day I am thankful I spoke to the girl sitting on the radiator in front of the library at my high school. That one moment changed my life forever. Your support is unwavering. Regardless of the demands of medical school and residency, you continuously supported me in this dissertation. Our conversations about SFL, writing curriculum and instruction, and educational change enhanced my dissertation. You are a remarkable person, doctor, and wife and I am thankful and honored to be your husband. I am excited to see what the future hold for us. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 Writing Instruction in American Schools 3 Educational Change in the American Context 8 Context for the Writing Intervention 12 Purpose of the Study 17 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 20 Systemic Functional Linguistics in Education 20 Context of Culture 21 Context of Situation 23 The Metafunctions’ Roles in Writing Instruction 29 A Pedagogical Cycle to Guide Teachers’ Classroom Instruction 30 SFL Informs Teachers’ Language Instruction 32 Fostering SFL-based Teacher Pedagogy Through Professional 36 Collaboration The Teaching of Writing and Language in Schools 45 A Process Approach to the Teaching of Writing 46 Linguistic Theory in the Teaching of Writing 50 Educational Change 55 Restructuring 56 Reculturing 59 A Culture of Teaching 62 The Fourth Way of Change 64 School-University Partnerships for School Change 67 Impact on Preservice Teachers 68 Impact on Inservice Teachers 70 Impact on Student Performance 72 The Complexity of Collaboration 75 Professional Learning Communities 76 Differences in Organizational Culture 78 Relationships Involving Partnerships 81 Factors Affecting Relationships 82 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLGY 86 Morrison Elementary School for the Writing Intervention 87 Study Participants 88 The Researcher 92 Research Design 93 Mixed Methods 95 First and Second Research Questions 97 Observation Data 97 Analyses of Observation Data 100 Third Research Question 101 Writing Data 102 iv Analytic Rubric 104 Analyses of Student Writing Data 108 Fourth Research Question 110 MCAS Test in English Language Arts 110 Analyses of MCAS Data 111 Fifth Research Question 111 Interview Data 112 Analyses of Interview Data 115 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND 118 RESEARCH QUESTIONS Content of the Writing Instruction 118 Metalanguage 118 Genre 123 Language 136 Tenor 143 Expressive 148 Teaching Strategies of the Writing Instruction 149 Negotiating Field 150 Deconstruction of Text 154 Joint and Independent Construction of Text 162 CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS FOR THE THIRD AND FOURTH 165 RESEARCH QUESTIONS Students’ Writing Performance 165 Analyses of All Participants on All Items from Time 1 to Time 2 167 Principal Components Analysis 171 Analyses of Time and Grade on Writing Performance 174 Analyses of Time and Language on Writing Performance 175 Relationship Between Writing Performance and MCAS 178 CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS FOR THE FIFTH RESEARCH 182 QUESTION Teachers’ Experiences with the Partnership 182 Ownership and Pride 183 Support and Validation 185 Professionalism 188 Collaboration 191 Grade-level Teams 192 Teachers Working with Doctoral Students 195 Teachers Working with Dr. Brisk 195 Summer Institutes 196 Professional Development 199 Content 199 Pragmatic Activities 202 Tensions 204 Curriculum 205 v Work and Support from the Partnership 206 School Principal 208 Teachers’ Uncertainty about the Future of the Writing Approach 209 CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION 213 First Research Question 213 Second Research Question 217 Third Research Question 218 Fourth Research Question 221 Fifth Research Question 222 Conclusion 227 Limitations 229 Implications 231 Implications for Teacher Education 231 Implications for Administrators and Policymakers 232 Implications for School-University Partnerships 233 Future Research 234 REFERENCES 237 APPENDICES 260 Appendix A: Interview Protocol from Year 2 260 Appendix B: Interview Protocol from Year 3 263 Appendix C: Analytic Scoring Rubric 265 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Embedded