Investigating High School Writing Instruction:

Differences and Commonalities Across Diverse

Contexts

Mary A. Avalos (mavalos@miami.edu)

Xuchys Perez (x.perez@umiami.edu)

Vanessa Thorrington (v.thorrington@umiami.edu)

Literacy Research Association

December 5, 2013

Research on Writing Instruction• Has received limited attention (Applebee & Langer,

2011; Ball, 2006; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Graham, 2013; Kiuhara, Graham, & Hawken, 2009)

– Has not described the extent or nature of explicit writing instruction

• Demonstrates teachers need more preparation and knowledge about writing (Coker & Lewis, 2008; Smagorinsky, Wilson, & Moore, 2011; Whitney et al., 2008)

– Culturally and linguistically diverse populations (Albertinti, 2008; Ball & Ellis, 2008)

• Is needed to inform professional development efforts (Coker & Lewis, 2008) and increase writing proficiency and achievement for all students (NAEP; National Center for Education Statistics, 2012)

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

• Benefit from explicit literacy instruction (Aguirre-Muñoz & Boscardin, 2008; Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010; Gebhard, Willet, Caicedo, & Piedra, 2011)

• opportunity to learn (Wang, 1998)

• Responsive Instruction to build on “Funds of Knowledge” (Lee, 1995; Moll & Gonzalez, 2004)

• Specific supports for language and literacy acquisition

– CCSS (Bunch, 2013; Galguera, 2011)

Research Questions• What are the differences and similarities

of the instructional format and approach for writing instruction across four high school classrooms serving CLD students?

• To what extent do the teachers provide explicit writing instruction for a) clarity and detail of teachers’ expectations, b) access to teachers’ expectations, and c) rigor of expectations across the four diverse schools’ classroom contexts?

High School Demographics

Participating Teachers

Procedures and Data Sources• Pre- and post-interviews• Questionnaire• Observed and videotaped 4-6

writing lessons per teacher (n=19)– Coordinated observation times over

one academic year– Field notes– Range of time for lessons = 16-59

minutes – Various genres observed

Video Analyses• Grounded Theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008)

– Content Analysis; Constant Comparative methods

• Initially three researchers coded 3-4 observations together two coded remaining videos together with third researcher calibrating at certain points third researcher reviewed all codes (κ=.997 each category) – First: Sampled three areas of foci in 15-second

coding cycles (n=19)• Instructional Format• Student Engagement• Instructional Approach

– Second: Process Writing– Third: Explicit Instruction Rubric

• 3 videos/teacher

Framework: Larger Study• Writing Instruction Observation Protocol

– Structure adapted from work by Foorman, Goldenberg, Carlson, Saunders, & Pollard-Durodola, 2004

• Instructional Approach– Graham & Perrin, 2007 as categories for

protocol • Summarization• Collaborative Writing• Specific Product Goals• Word Processing • Pre-Writing/Process Writing• Inquiry Activities• Study of Models• Grammar Instruction (Traditional/Contextualized)• Sentence Combining• New Literacies

Frameworks• Explicit Instruction Rubric (Matsumura, Slater,

Junker, Peterson, Boston, Steele, & Resnick, 2006)

– Clarity and Details of Expectations• Genre Structure• Terms/Vocabulary for Writing• Stating Learning Objective• Providing Multiple Examples• Teacher Modeling/Exemplary Papers• Guided and Supported Practice

– Access to Expectations• Monitors student performance for re-teaching• Teacher feedback builds on students’ understandings• Teacher builds on students’ knowledge

– Rigor of Expectations• Teacher scaffolds students to go beyond examples to push

critical thinking• Teacher uses varied questioning patterns and Talk Moves

Example of Explicit Writing Instruction Rubric

Limitations• Small sample size

– not generalizable

• Lessons observed– different genres, length of time,

not sequential

• Teachers volunteered• “Diverse” schools in large,

primarily urban district– Making AYP– Honors classes

Instances of Explicit Instruction: Clarity and Details

Instances of Explicit Instruction: Access

Instances of Explicit Instruction: Rigor

Instructional Format and Explicit Instruction

Implications for PD and Teacher Education-Serving CLD Students• Driven by needs of teachers

– Clarity of Details and Expectations– Access to Expectations– Rigor of Expectations

• Classroom-based supports needed – basic teaching and learning processes were not evident for all teachers– student-centered philosophy of teaching dialogic teaching (Fecho,

2011)

• Language and Writing: Explicit and Implicit knowledge– Teachers need to experience writing authentic and varied genres as

learners (NWP) (Roen, Goggin, & Clary-Lemon, 2008) – Teachers need more knowledge about language (Arias & Faltis, 2013;

Bunch, 2013; Galguera, 2011; Gebhard & Willet, 2008; Lucas, 2011; Schleppegrell, 2013)