This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]On: 21 October 2014, At: 13:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

Preservice teachers teachwriting: Implications forteacher educatorsSusan A. Colby a & Joy N. Stapleton ba Appalachian State Universityb East Carolina UniversityPublished online: 05 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Susan A. Colby & Joy N. Stapleton (2006) Preservice teachersteach writing: Implications for teacher educators, Reading Research andInstruction, 45:4, 353-376, DOI: 10.1080/19388070609558455

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070609558455

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 353

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing:Implications for Teacher Educators

Susan A. ColbyAppalachian State University

Joy N. StapletonEast Carolina University

Abstract

This study examined the perceptions of preservice teachers asthey reflected upon teaching the writing process to second gradestudents over the course of one semester. Implications for teachereducators were identified based on the findings: Preservice teachersbenefited from teaching writing on a consistent basis; preserviceteachers learned and applied the course content in a highlyindividualistic manner suggesting that they also must be scaffolded inthe learning process; and the design and organization of the field-basedexperience was an influential variable in their learning. Effectivecomponents of a field-based experience included working with a smallgroup of students, teaching in groups of three, and receiving supportand feedback from a variety of sources.

Recent No Child Left Behind legislation and current methods forassessing schools and teachers place an increasing emphasis on studentachievement. Across the nation, educators have become more accountablefor ensuring that all students are achieving at or above grade level in manycontent areas. While students have shown improved achievement inreading and math, one area in which students have struggled toconsistently show gains is writing. Based on National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) scores, Scherer (2004) noted 4 of 5 U.S.students in grades four, eight, and twelve score at or above the basic levelof writing, only 22% of twelfth graders achieve at or above the proficientlevel, and only 1 in 100 is rated as advanced. In sum, while students ingrades four and eight have posted gains, less than one-third of our nation'sstudents perform at or above the proficient level in writing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

354 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

These statistics highlight our difficulties in preparing students for awork force where "writing is a ticket to professional opportunity"(National Commission on Writing, 2004, p. 3). Based on a survey of 120major American corporations employing nearly eight million people, theNational Commission on Writing found that writing is a threshold skillneeded to gain entry into the field and be considered for promotion. Inaddition, nearly two-thirds of salaried employees have some writingresponsibility. The commission argued that despite the efforts of manyeducators, writing has been shortchanged in the school reform movement.Consequently, the recommendations set forth are ambitious: Writingshould be taught in every curriculum area and at all grade levels, commonexpectations about writing should arise through in-service workshopsdesigned to help teachers understand good writing and to develop aswriters themselves, and universities should require all prospective teachersto take courses in how to teach writing (National Commission on Writing,2003; 2004).

The Position Statement on the Preparation and Development ofTeachers of Writing prepared by the Conference on College Compositionand Communication (CCCC), a major interest group of the NationalCouncil of Teachers of English (NCTE) recommends that teachereducation programs provide opportunities for students to write, to respondto writing, and to study and teach writing as a process. Further, it isadvocated that teacher education programs provide prospective teacherswith opportunities to work with individual learners and groups of learnersso that teachers can apply what they are learning about the practice ofwriting (NCTE, 1998-2004).

The National Commission on Writing and experts in the field(Bratcher & Stroble, 1994; Freedman, Flower, Hull, & Hayes, 1997;Grossman, Valencia, Evans, Thompson, Martin, & Place, 2000) echo aprinciple of the National Writing Project: Teachers need to be writersthemselves in order to be effective writing teachers. As preservice teachersengage in the writing process, they experience the struggles andsatisfactions of the writer's task (Blau, 1988; Florio-Ruane & Lensmire,1990). Preservice teachers' ability to model writing to students, identifyand teach important writing strategies, and facilitate students in thinkingabout the writing process increases as their ability to reflect on their ownprocesses develop (Frank, Carpenter, & Smith, 2003). Successfulexperiences with writing positively affect attitude, which influences one'sperformance as a teacher of writing (Chambliss & Bass, 1995).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 355

While it is important that preservice teachers engage in writing, itis equally important that preservice teachers spend time in real classroomsettings (Florio-Ruane & Lensmire, 1990). Preservice teachers cannotlearn all they need from adult teachers and mentors. Often, the exemplaryteachers they learn the most from are children (Wolf, 2001). Prospectiveteachers who participate in classroom settings are involved in realexperiences that generate genuine questions to be answered and problemsto be solved (Boyd, Boll, Brawner, & Villaume, 1998). Thoughtfullycombining university and field-based experiences promotes learning thatcan be difficult to accomplish independently in either setting. Deeperconceptual understanding occurs by integrating practicum experienceswith course content (Putnam & Borko, 2000).

However, it is difficult at the university level to not only provideopportunities for prospective teachers to engage in writing, but also toprovide opportunities to apply learning in field-based experiences. Despitethis challenge, a commitment was made by two university instructors, theauthors of this study, to offer preservice teachers opportunities to writeand teach writing on a consistent basis throughout one semester. Our goalwas to revise our courses based on the position that prospective teachersneed to experience authentic writing opportunities and field-basedexperiences to help theory become "real" (Grossman et al., 2000). Withthe intent to shift the lens of study to scrutinize our own work (Hudson-Ross & Graham, 2000), the purpose of this study was to examinepreservice teachers' perceptions about teaching the writing process tochildren to inform practice at the university level.

Methodology

For this research study, perceptions of preservice teachersregarding their experiences teaching the writing process to elementarystudents were analyzed. Implications for teacher educators were identifiedbased on the results.

Context for the StudyThe data were collected from 52 undergraduate preservice teachers

enrolled in two "linked" course sections offered in one academic year.This "linked" course included Language Arts in the Early Childhood andElementary School and Curriculum, Organization, and InstructionalPlanning in Early Childhood and Elementary Education. Both were 4-credit methods courses required of all preservice teachers enrolled in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

356 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

Elementary Education program at a rural, mid-Atlantic university of23,000 students. An essential component of the linked course was thePracticum in Curriculum and Instruction in the Elementary School, a 1-credit hour course in which students applied what they had learned fromthe two methods courses. These courses were taken during the junior yearfor most candidates and offered prospective teachers their first extensivepracticum experience. The two methods course instructors team taught andsupervised the approximately 25 students in each section. In theCurriculum and Instruction course, prospective teachers learned how toplan, implement, and evaluate lessons based on curriculum goals and thelearning needs of their students. In the Language Arts methods course,preservice teachers participated in the writing process to produce andpublish their own work; studied the theories and patterns of children'swritten language development; examined effective methods for teachingwriting in the elementary classroom; and learned how to assess children'swriting.

To fulfill this 9 credit-hour requirement, students met two days aweek from 8:00 A.M. to 12:15 P.M. combining course work at theuniversity with the field-based component situated at a local elementaryschool. Each faculty member taught the equivalent of one four-hoursession per week,which included supervision of the practicum experience.At the onset of the semester, students participated solely in course worklearning essential information and preparing for the field-basedexperience. By the fourth week of class, students were meeting at theelementary school two mornings a week from 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. toteach Writer's Workshop and then returned to campus for course workfrom 9:30 A.M. to 12:15 P.M.

The K-5 local elementary school served 484 students, of which51% percent received free/reduced lunch. Fifty-two percent of thestudents were African-American, 39% percent were Caucasian, and theremainining 9% percent was comprised of Asian, Native American, andHispanic students. The district in which this school was a member servedslightly over 20,000 students with 14 elementary schools, 5 middleschools, and 5 high schools.

For the practicum experience, preservice teachers worked withstudents in three second- grade classrooms. All three classroom teachersengaged in conversations with the university supervisors prior to thebeginning of the semester about the goals of the practicum experience andabout teaching Writer's Workshop to their students. The students in eachclassroom were divided into three groups with approximately eight

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 357

students per group. Over the course of the semester, prospective teachersworked in groups of three to teach Writer's Workshop across 15 forty-fiveminute sessions to the small group. Prospective teachers chose topics foreach Writer's Workshop session based on the goals of the curriculum andtheir understanding of each learner.

To facilitate their learning, preservice teachers were assigned therevolving roles of teacher, teacher's assistant, and observer for each fieldexperience. The teacher was responsible for planning and teaching alesson using a Writer's Workshop approach. The teacher's assistantprovided help during the lesson and worked with individual studentsduring the writing time as suggested by the teacher. The observer recordednotes about the lesson and also worked with individual students. Theuniversity instructor and classroom teacher observed the groups, offeredobservations, asked questions of both the teachers and students; andmodeled effective practices such as conferencing with a student asappropriate. In addition, written feedback to the teacher at the completionof each session was provided by the classroom teacher and universitysupervisor.

A comprehensive group reflection was then submitted by theprospective teachers online through Blackboard discussion groups. Thesereflections were written at the conclusion of each teaching session andcomprised a large portion of the grade for the one-credit hour practicumexperience. The preservice teacher designated as the observer posted first,followed by the teacher's assistant with a final posting by the teacher ofthe lesson. The observer and the teacher's assistant were encouraged toreflect on the lesson and pose two thoughtful questions to assist theteacher in thinking about his/her teaching. The final posting by the teacherwas a reflection about his/her experience and included responses to thefeedback and questions provided by the group members, classroomteacher, and university instructor. Generally, questions posted onlinefocused on improving instructional practices, teaching content, reachingall learners, and assessing student progress. Serving as a spring board forreflection were questions such as the following:

How can we motivate Troy who seems to be lessexcited about writing a fairy tale than he was about writinga personal narrative?

How could you help students better understand thetopic of your minilesson in their writing?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

358 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

What can we do to help Trisha share more at theend of Writer's Workshop ?

In your conference with Shameka, what else couldyou have done to help her write a better ending?

The last section of the teacher's reflection included a response to what wasthe easiest part about teaching Writer's Workshop, what was the hardestpart about teaching Writer's Workshop, and what was the most importantthing learned about teaching Writer's Workshop. After all group membershad posted their messages, the university instructor responded byclarifying information, encouraging thought about specific situations, andvalidating effective strategies and decisions.

Data SourcesThe primary data source for this study was the comprehensive

written reflections, approximately 3-5 pages in length, submitted bypreservice teachers in two consecutive linked course sections at the end ofthe semester (n=52). Prospective teachers were asked to reflect on theirentire field-based experience and within this paper address the familiarquestions of what was the easiest part, the most difficult part, and the mostimportant thing learned about teaching Writer's Workshop over the courseof one semester. Preservice teachers in both course sections participated incomparable experiences at the university and in the field. Factors thatremained constant between the two sections were the methods courseinstructors; the course content; the linked course requirements; thestructure of the practicum; and the teachers and students at the localelementary school. However, the preservice teachers during the secondlinked course section taught more experienced writers as the students hadpreviously engaged in a semester of Writer's Workshop.

After preliminary data analysis was completed for the first coursesection, additional data were gathered from preservice teachers in thesecond linked course (n=26) for the purpose of triangulation. Prospectiveteachers in this course, in addition to submitting a comprehensivereflection, were asked to complete an end of course survey in classdescribing their biggest success, their biggest surprise, and the greatestchallenge in teaching Writer's Workshop. While these prompts wereslightly different than the prompts used for the comprehensive reflection,they were designed to elicit similar information.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 359

Data AnalysisFor the purpose of this study, Creswell's (2002) process for analyzing

and interpreting qualitative data was used. The data were analyzed toidentify emerging themes using the following four-phase process: codingthe data; developing themes from the data; defining themes based on thefindings; and connecting and interrelating themes (Creswell, 2002). Thesecondary data were used to confirm and validate findings from theprimary data source. To establish credibility, two graduate students andthe second author provided feedback to the first author on the validity ofthe themes through the use of peer debriefing (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Results

Three themes emerged that described preservice teachers'perceptions about teaching the writing process: perceptions about learners,perceptions about instruction, and perceptions about management. Theprimary themes emerged after listing all responses to each question,grouping similar responses together and providing a number to representfrequency, coding the data, and identifying themes. These themes wereconsistent across responses analyzed from the primary and secondary datasources.

A few responses from both the primary and secondary sources didnot fit any of the three primary themes. These miscellaneous responseswere placed in an "other" category. Most often these responses discussedpositive and negative attributes of working in a group. However, thesecomments occurred infrequently in these data sources because preserviceteachers were asked to write a separate reflection about working in groups,processing and integrating feedback from a variety of sources, and usingBlackboard as a tool.

The overall findings from the primary data source indicated wellover half of the preservice teachers perceived working with individuallearners as the easiest part, while instruction was most often perceived asthe difficult part of teaching Writer's Workshop. Responses related toclassroom management were much less common than responses aboutlearners or instruction.

Similar to the findings from the primary data source, the secondarydata source findings indicated that preservice teachers overwhelminglyperceived their greatest success and biggest surprise as understanding andworking with individual learners. In regards to their greatest challenge,prospective teachers identified instruction most frequently. Table I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

360 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

indicates the overall percentage of the response per question for eachtheme.

Table 1Primary Data Source

Easiest part (n=50)About Learners

About Instruction

About Management

Other

62%(31)32%(16)2%

(1)4%

(2)Most difficult part (n=48)

About Learners

About Instruction

About Management

Other

19%(9)67%(32)0%

(0)14%(7)

Most important thing learned(n=53)

About Learners

About Instruction

About Management

30%(16)57%

(30)13%

(7)

Secondary Data SourceGreatest success (n=26)

About Learners

About Instruction

AboutManagement

92% (24)

8% (2)

0% (0)

Greatest challenge (n=26)About Learners

About Instruction

AboutManagementOther

38% (10)

50% (13)

0% (0)

12% (3)

Biggest surprise (n=26)

About Learners

About Instruction

AboutManagement

100% (26)

0% (0)

0% (0)

Percentage of Total Response Per Question

Perceptions About LearnersFindings from the primary data source revealed that a majority of the

responses related to the easiest part about teaching Writer's Workshopwere focused on working with individual learners. Preservice teachers hadmuch to say about motivating students, teaching individual learners, andteaching the writing process based on student need. Motivating students,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 361

for many preservice teachers, was the easiest part because the studentswere eager to write, excited about learning, and open to trying newtechniques. Preservice teachers were surprised to learn that these secondgraders had many wonderful ideas and loved to write about their interests.Many believed it is the teacher's responsibility to find ways to motivatestudents.

Teaching to individual learners was also mentioned frequently as theeasiest part about Writers' Workshop. Preservice teachers learned thatgetting to know their students and abilities, interacting with students on anindividual basis, and teaching based on student need were not onlyenjoyable, but important to the success of their students. Working withstudents on a one-on-one basis was beneficial in determining the progressof each student. They readily understood the value of their time together tobuild relationships that would help motivate their students and further theirwriting progress. One prospective teacher had this to say:

The easiest part about teaching Writer's Workshop wasfiguring out which lessons to teach based on the students'needs. I felt that in the beginning that we needed to have apreset plan going in detailing exactly what we were goingto teach and when. This was quickly nullified by ourinstructor's announcement that we needed to base ourlessons on our students. This left me a little unsure becauseI always like to have a plan. After we got started, however,it became very clear what the students needed. Teachingbased on a student's need is not hard, it just takes anobservant teacher. This was definitely easier to do than Ithought.

Further, preservice teachers realized that there were numerousopportunities to work individually with each student during Writer'sWorkshop. These prospective teachers were able to truly learn about eachof their students, and, as a result, they were better able to support andguide them. They discussed the power of conferencing and the uniqueopportunity it provided to better understand and scaffold their learners.One mentioned that this experience was "... a drastic change from mystandard teaching experiences. The open atmosphere created a less formalenvironment therefore allowing me, as the teacher, to get down on thelevel of the students and better understand what they were thinking."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

362 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

When discussing the most difficult part of teaching Writer'sWorkshop, approximately one-fifth of the total responses were aboutlearners. While most preservice teachers found motivating students andteaching based on student need to be the easiest part, it was clear thatothers found this difficult. Providing increased support for slowerstudents, redirecting students to keep them focused on the lesson, andplanning for diverse learning needs were challenging for some. Oneprospective teacher noted, "Some were difficult to keep focused. I had toreally talk to them and ask questions. I needed to come back every fewminutes to keep them on track."

Of the total responses describing the most important thing learned,one-third were about learners. Most often noted was the importance ofworking with and adapting to individual learners. Similar to the precedingdiscussions, preservice teachers learned that they must be prepared for thedifferent abilities of their students. They believed that writing should bechild-centered and individualized. Many learned how important it is to"keep the children in mind when planning Writer's Workshop. You mustevaluate your children to see what level they are at and then plan yourminilessons around them." Further, they learned that children have theability to produce quality work when given choice and room for creativity:

Writing shows different sides of people that one wouldnever notice unless they read their work. Some of thechildren that never had much to say to us, proved to us thatthey could write songs, use their imaginations, and includehumor into everything they do. We would never been ableto see these sides of the kids if we had not let them writeabout what they wanted to.

The data from the secondary source were overwhelmingly aboutlearners. Facilitating student growth over the course of the semester wasidentified as the greatest success for nearly all of the participants. Theydiscussed how well students caught on to what they were teaching, howmuch they improved on basic skills, the pride their students had in theirpublished work, and the tremendous change they witnessed in theirstudents' ability to write.

Of the responses describing the greatest challenge about teachingWriter's Workshop, approximately 40% noted that maintaining motivationand sustaining the attention of their students was difficult. Manypreservice teachers elaborated on their difficulty with a specific student

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 363

and the ongoing struggle of learning how to meet his/her needs. Onepreservice teacher identified a challenge that practicing teachers face,"The hardest thing to do is to keep all students motivated all the time."

In addition, every response regarding the biggest surprise aboutteaching Writer's Workshop was related to working with individuallearners. Preservice teachers were genuinely surprised by student interest,knowledge, and growth in writing. A few found it surprising that childrenreally enjoyed writing. This was in sharp contrast to their childhoodfeelings about writing. Others were surprised at the range of student abilitywithin their group. A few preservice teachers were astonished by thegrowth they had witnessed in a struggling student. Table 2 indicates theresponses about learners from the primary and secondary data sources.

Perceptions About InstructionFindings from the primary data source revealed that approximately

one-third of the total responses describing the easiest part about teachingWriter's Workshop were related to instruction. In general, preserviceteachers found it easy to conference with students, facilitate share time,prepare and conduct lessons, and read aloud for the minilesson.Conferencing was often identified as the easiest part about teachingWriter's Workshop because preservice teachers were able to workindividually with each student to help them learn important writingconcepts. Prospective teachers understood how important conferencingwas to the success of their students. Consequently, they viewed learninghow to effectively conference with students as an invaluable skill: onethey would get better at with time.

Sharing time was also identified as one of the easiest parts aboutteaching Writer's Workshop. They found it exciting to see how studentshad applied what they had learned in the minilessons to their writing.Further, share time was viewed as a time where students and teachers alikecould celebrate their efforts. Often it was noted that "students loved it."One preservice teacher summarized the beauty of share time, "Sharinggave us time to relax and enjoy. It made all of the hard work worth it."

Preparing and conducting lessons was viewed as the easiest part for afew preservice teachers. Preservice teachers enjoyed teaching theminilessons, enjoyed teaching at the pace of their students, and felt theywere prepared and ready for each session. One preservice teacherdiscussed this initial teaching experience: "The easiest part about teachingWriter's Workshop was actually teaching the lesson. I really found it to benatural and I got over my nerves."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

364 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

Table 2Primary Data Source

Easiest part(62% of total responses, n=31/50)

Motivating studentsTeaching individuallearnersTeaching the writingprocess based on studentneedOther

28% (14)16% (8)

12% (6)

6% (3)Most difficult part

(19% of total responses, n=9/48)Motivating students overtime

Teaching learners atdifferent levels

10% (5)

9% (4)Most important thing learned

(30% of total responses, n= 16/53)

Writing should be child-centered andindividualizedHow to adapt toindividual learnersHow to assist inproducing quality workwith childrenStudents must be allowedcreativityStudents need to feelcomfortable whenwriting

9% (5)

11% (6)

6% (3)

2% (1)

2% (1)

Secondary Data SourceGreatest success

(92% of total responses, n=24/26)Facilitatingstudent growth

Greatest c(38%oftotalrespKeepingstudents'attentionMotivatingstudents

92% (24)

hallengeonses, n= 10/26)

23% (6)

15% (4)Biggest surprise

(100% of total responses,n=26/26)

Keeping studentinterest

Learning aboutstudents

Watchingstudents grow inwriting

65% (17)

23% (6)

12% (3)

Percentage of Responses About Learners Per Question

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 365

Reading aloud was also viewed as an easy part of teaching Writer'sWorkshop. Preservice teachers grew fond of the high quality children'sliterature available and could see the benefits of using such literature whileteaching. One preservice teacher stated, "The easiest part about teachingWriter's Workshop is reading to the students. If you picked a good bookstudents loved it."

In contrast, two-thirds of the responses regarding the most difficultpart of teaching Writer's Workshop, were about instruction. Preserviceteachers expressed difficulties with managing time, teaching variouscomponents of Writer's Workshop, planning for instruction, andconferencing. Managing time was repeatedly identified as the mostdifficult part about teaching Writer's Workshop. Preservice teachers foundthe 45 minute time period limited their ability to effectively teach Writer'sWorkshop. They quickly learned that minilessons had to be focused andsuccinct, some discussions had to be curtailed, and more time was neededto write, share and read longer stories. In sum, it was difficult "fittingeverything in." However, a few preservice teachers also noted that itwould be much easier to teach this program on a daily basis throughoutthe year.

Teaching Writer's Workshop, for various reasons, proved difficultfor some preservice teachers. At the beginning of the semester, a few feltunsure of themselves because they lacked teaching experience and/orbackground knowledge in the area of writing. As groups became moreproductive, guiding students towards the completion of four high qualityproducts (poem, fairly tale, narrative, student choice) became challenging.One participant expressed this struggle:

// was difficult to get students to continue working on thesame piece day to day. Students have a habit of writing astory during one class, turning it in, and beginning a newstory the next day. The main objective of Writer'sWorkshop is to teach the student how to evaluate, revise,edit and linger in their work. It takes a lot of work to getthe student to understand this process, but they benefit somuch from this knowledge.

Various aspects of planning were also identified as the most difficultpart of teaching Writer's Workshop. A few preservice teacherscommented on the difficulty of "figuring out what students needed nextand how to present the material so they would get what they need." Others

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

366 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

discussed the challenge they initially faced when writing detailed lessonplans for the first time or, the difficult time they had "trying to pickappropriate literature and find suitable materials." In addition, planningbased on student need posed problems for a few who had to learn to bemore flexible over the course of the semester.

While conferencing was identified as one of the easiest parts aboutteaching Writer's Workshop, it was also identified as difficult by a fewprospective teachers. These teachers realized the challenges inherent inscaffolding students in the writing process. They commented on theirstruggles to conduct effective conferences that would lead to studentgrowth in writing.

Over one half of the responses regarding the most important thinglearned were about instruction. Preservice teachers learned first hand thevalue of Writer's Workshop and the need for students to write everyday.In addition, they learned the importance of brief mini lessons, share time,conferencing, giving students choice, managing time appropriately, andchoosing quality literature. Preservice teachers commented on how "youmust have Writer's Workshop regularly" and they would "definitely planto use Writer's Workshop." Many mentioned that they " like thistechnique so much more than the way I was taught." Preservice teacherslearned that minilessons were key to a successful Writer's Workshop, theyshould be based on student need, and should be "short and sweet." Theyunderstood how important share time was to their students and frequentlywrote how much their students loved to share their work. Others learnedthe importance of choice in writing and believed that teachers must, "Givechildren the freedom to write. If they are writing about topics that theyknow about, they will enjoy writing." Using quality literature was alsomentioned as the most important thing learned in Writer's Workshop. Oneteacher elaborated on this idea:

You can stress a point all you want, but unless you havesomething there to back it up, something strong, andsomething great, your lessons will fail. Students learnedfrom what they saw, so having good literature to use asexamples makes it better for them as writers. Students needto see models.

From the secondary data source, topics related to instruction werenot mentioned either as the biggest success or surprise. However, one-halfof the total responses discussing the greatest challenge were about

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 367

instruction. Once again, these topics covered a variety of instructionalissues such as explaining Writer's Workshop concepts to students,deciding where to begin, revising and editing work, and integratingfeedback in the lesson. Table 3 indicates the responses about instructionfrom the primary and secondary data sources.

Perceptions About ManagementWhile topics related to learners and instruction clearly received the

most discussion, a few preservice teachers commented on their successesand struggles in applying classroom management techniques with theirgroups. From the primary data source, one student mentioned that theeasiest part of teaching Writer's Workshop was classroom management.This response focused on teaching the students rules and routines. Inaddition, approximately one fifth of the total responses for the mostimportant thing learned were related to classroom management. Preserviceteachers learned classroom management skills they would use in the futureand understood the need to constantly reinforce the rules. Summarizingthis learning, one student wrote:

The practicum experience taught me a lot of things aboutchildren: how they behave and how they learn best. Ilearned how to handle discipline problems in theclassroom. I also learned how to get the children focusedon learning. I have definitely improved as a teacher sincethe beginning of the semester.

Surprisingly, there were no responses related to management fromthe secondary data source in regards to their greatest success, biggestsurprise, or greatest challenge. Table 4 indicates the responses aboutmanagement from the primary and secondary data sources.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

368 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

Table 3Primary Data Source

Easiest part(32% of total responses, n=16/50)

Conferencing withstudentsFacilitating share timePreparing/conductinglessonsReading aloudProviding resourcesManaging time

12% (6)

6% (3)6% (3)

4% (2)2% (1)2% (1)

Most difficult part(67% of total responses, n=32/48)

Managing time

Teaching Writers'WorkshopPlanning for instruction

Conferencing

27% (13)

17% (8)

15% (7)

8% (4)

Most important thing learned(57% of total responses, n=30/53)

Valuing of Writer'sWorkshopConducting briefminilessonsUsing share timeConferencingGiving students choiceManaging timeChoosing quality literatureUsing outside resources forplanning

11% (6)11% (6)

9% (5)8% (4)6% (3)6%13\4% (2)

2% (1)

Secondary Data SourceGreatest success

(0% of total responses, n=0/26)

No Responses

Greatest challenge(50% of total responses,

n=13/26)Explaining theconceptsDeciding whereto startRevising andediting workIntegratingfeedback intothe lesson

19% (5)

15% (4)

8% (2)

8% (2)Biggest surprise

(0% of total responses, n=0/26))

No Responses

Percentage of Responses About Instruction Per Question

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 369

Table 4Primary Data Source

Easiest part(2% of total responses, n=l/50)

Teaching rules androutines

2% (1)

Most difficult part(0% of total responses, n=0/48)

No ResponsesMost important thing learned

(13% of total responses, n=7/53)Behavior managementskillsPatience

11% (6)

2% (1)

Secondary Data SourceGreatest success

(0% of total responses, n=0/26)

No Responses

Greatest challenge(0% of total responses, n=0/26)

No ResponsesBiggest surprise

(0% of total responses, n=0/26)

No Responses

Percentage of Responses About Management Per Question

Discussion

One of the most interesting findings from this study was theimportance that preservice teachers placed on understanding individuallearners and planning and adapting instruction based on student need.While preservice teachers found both challenges and successes in workingwith their students, more preservice teachers viewed learning about andworking with their students positively.

In this study, preservice teachers were liberated from focusing allof their attention on presenting a lengthy multi-step lesson while managinga full class of students. Working with small groups of children enabledprospective teachers to move beyond planning and executing a lesson toadapting instruction to meet the needs of learners. They began tounderstand and realize the importance of engaging with students involvedin the learning process. With each group of three preservice teachersserving only eight students, prospective teachers became very familiarwith their students. This aided in their ability to motivate their studentsand adjust instruction based on need. One student reflected on thisexperience:

/ have learned more from teaching this semester than Icould have ever learned from a textbook. The most

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

370 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

important thing I will take with me is to concentrate onwhat the students need, not necessarily the next step. I havelearned that each student truly learns in a different wayand that each student has different learning needs. I havelearned that knowing your students is not only anadvantage, but it is a necessity. A teacher cannot beeffective unless she can relate to each student on his/herlevel.

Second, findings from this study revealed that teaching the writingprocess, including planning for instruction, conducting a lesson, andassessing student performance, provided challenges for preserviceteachers. Far more preservice teachers identified instruction as the mostdifficult part rather than the easiest part of teaching Writer's Workshop.Responses describing the challenges of teaching writing varied greatly.Evident from these findings, excluding the difficulty that time constraintscreated, was the notion that preservice teachers struggled with learningcontent and applying it in the classroom in a highly personal manner.Because preservice teachers were attempting to make meaningful,authentic decisions concerning real children (Boyd et al., 1998), much oftheir learning was individualized and context specific.

Third, the findings from this study revealed that preserviceteachers' beliefs and practices about teaching the writing process wereformalized over the course of one semester. Prospective teachers'knowledge of the writing process and Writer's Workshop was nonexistentat the beginning of the semester. In fact, many of these preservice teachershad negative views of themselves as writers. By learning the coursematerial, participating in the writing process during their language artsmethods course, and integrating their knowledge with practicalapplication, preservice teachers developed a solid foundation for teachingstudents writing. One student summarized this learning:

My field experience this semester has shown me thatWriter's Workshop is an excellent way for students todevelop creative writing skills. However, predictablestructure, high-quality literature, strong minilessons, andconferences are necessary for the success of the program. Iintend to implement Writer's Workshop in my ownclassroom, because it provides students with the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 371

opportunity to write freely and independently. That freedomis very important.

Preservice teachers valued writing as an essential part of the curriculum,understood the importance of time and choice, acknowledged that workingwith each learner at their level is essential, translated knowledge about thecontent of teaching writing into quality lessons within the Writer'sWorkshop format, transitioned between instruction and assessmentseamlessly, and fulfilled their role as a facilitator for students involved inthe writing process (Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1983; Harwayne,2001).

Implications for Teacher Educators

Provide Ongoing Opportunities to Teach WritingIt is often stated that preservice teachers need to participate in the

writing process in order to think like a writer and to better teach writing(Freedman et al., 1997). Our students also found this to be true, "Thehardest part of Writer's Workshop was actually having to participate in itas a student. This was very necessary for me to take part in so I couldlearn to empathize with my student's needs and concerns." Theorybecomes real when preservice teachers apply learning in a classroomsetting (Grossman et al., 2000). While university instructors often provideopportunities for prospective teachers to engage in the writing process,what is lacking are opportunities to apply what they have learned. The firstopportunity many preservice teachers have to teach writing may bethrough scripted curriculum or writing prompts, on an inconsistent basis,and/or in situations that are not mediated by methods course instructors orclassroom teachers committed to teaching writing as a process. Thesetypes of experiences are quite different from a field-based experiencewhere preservice teachers scaffold students in the writing process througha series of lessons. Based on our experience, preservice teachers whoteach the writing process to children over time construct a richerunderstanding of the concepts associated with quality writing thanpreservice teachers without such experience.

Assist PerformanceJust as preservice teachers need to meet the needs of their students in

order to be effective teachers, teacher educators need to adapt instructionto ensure student success. As advocated by Tharp and Gallimore (1989),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

372 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

preservice teachers must be considered as students, and teacher educatorsmust "assist performance" based on the students' developmental levels. Inteacher education programs, this means transitioning from courses thatoffer little differentiation of instruction to courses in which opportunitiesexist for preservice teachers to receive context specific feedback based ontheir teaching performance in authentic situations.

In the past, our practicum experiences enabled prospective teachersto acquire a high degree of technical competence in teaching by askingstudents to translate what they were learning in the course to theclassroom. Often missing was the attention to helping preservice teachersdevelop thought processes that drive instructional decisions, an importantprocess which requires analyzing situations and creating appropriateresponses (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000). Essential to thedevelopment of these thought processes is the ability of the universitysupervisor and/or classroom teacher to mentor with careful attention tocontext.

In this field-based experience, preservice teachers receivedscaffolding and feedback from a variety of educators. The classroomteacher and university supervisor offered strategies for meeting the needsof individual learners, provided suggestions for teaching, and helpedconnect theory to practice both during and, in written form, following eachsession. Group members provided insightful comments that helpedfacilitate professional growth. Debriefing sessions were conductedroutinely in the methods course that followed immediately after the fieldexperience. This gave preservice teachers the chance to discuss theirteaching and learning at an opportune time. Further, by responding later inthe week to each group's reflection on Blackboard, the universityinstructor had a final opportunity to offer context specific feedback.

Berliner (2004) argues, "...coaching matters in the acquisition ofcomplex skills such as teaching" (p. 203-203). Our students confirmed thisnotion, "My mistakes have led to my improvements as a teacher. Thecomments from our practicum teacher, professors, and fellow groupteachers have contributed to my reflection on teaching." In this study,preservice teachers were able to solve instructional issues that wereinterwoven with the needs of diverse learners with guidance and supportfrom peers, classroom teachers, and university supervisors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 373

Design Effective Field-Based ExperiencesMost teacher education programs embed field-based experiences

within coursework. The structure of these experiences vary in the amountof supervision, rigor, and time associated with each. Findings from thisstudy indicated that the structure of the field-based experience influencedthe success of these preservice teachers. Characteristics of an effectivefield-based experience included working with a small group of childrenacross 15 teaching sessions, working as a team of three with each smallgroup, and reflecting upon feedback from a variety of sources.

Working with the same group of eight students over the course ofthe semester encouraged deep understanding of each student as a learner,minimized the focus on classroom management, and created anenvironment in which children were taught based on need as they wroteand revised products. This was represented in the following response:

/ have always worked with a really large group of kids. Agroup so large that I wasn 't able to spend any one-on-onetime with them helping them in areas that they needed help.I have always planned for large group activities that didn 'trequire a lot of individual student planning. Doing thispracticum has helped me to realize that not only do youhave to plan what you are going to do, but you have to planfor how you are going to do it based on every single child'sneeds. This was a wake-up call for me.

Further, allowing preservice teachers to work in groups of threecreated opportunities for group members to support one another as theyencountered and resolved challenging situations unique to their students.One student discussed this benefit:

Working in a group this semester for my field experiencehas been an absolute blessing...we really worked as a teamto support each other with our lessons and teaching. Icould not have come as far as I have on my own. Thegroups are a great idea, especially at this stage of teaching.

By posting reflections on Blackboard, group members provided criticalfeedback for one another and posed challenging questions that supportedthoughtful reflection. Helpful to this process was the feedback providedby the university instructors and the classroom teacher. The structure of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

374 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

this field-based experience encouraged discussion and critical thinkingwhich increased the quality of reflection and facilitated growth in thepreservice teachers.

Based on the reflections and survey responses analyzed in thisstudy, it was evident that these preservice teachers experiencedtremendous professional growth while learning about, participating in, andteaching the writing process. When summarizing their growth, preserviceteachers expressed how they felt like and made decisions like "real"teachers for the first time. Statements such as, "I feel that I have a verydifferent outlook of myself as a teacher after this semester. I actually feellike a teacher," were common. Preservice teachers frequently stated thattheir learning would provide a foundation for their future teaching.

These results confirm research findings that advocate situatinglearning simultaneously between university coursework and the field tofacilitate the development of beliefs and practices that are not onlygrounded in research, but also in experience (Boyd, et. al., 1998; Putnam& Borko, 2000). Offering field experiences in supportive, small groupsettings is beneficial for learning the complex skills required of teachers.Providing mentoring and coaching as preservice teachers learn to makeinstructional decisions based on context heightens prospective teachers'growth. By involving preservice teachers in opportunities to teachwriting, a process which is fluid, complex, and developmental, preserviceteachers learned how to meet the diverse needs of students whileformalizing beliefs about effective methods for teaching writing. Onestudent's comment exemplified what we had hoped all students wouldlearn over the course of the semester:

The most important thing I have learned about Writer'sWorkshop is that every classroom must have one. I haveseen how valuable the writing experience has been for ourgroup of students. Students that appeared to have no desireto write at all flourished once we got started.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Preservice Teachers Teach Writing 375

References

Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachersto teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, andchallenges. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, &R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 719-742).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting theaccomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science,Technology & Society, 24(3), 200-212.

Blau, S. (1988). Teacher development and the revolution in teaching.English Journal, 77(4), 30-35.

Boyd, P., Boll, M., Brawner, L., & Villaume, S. (1998). Becomingreflective professionals: An exploration of preservice teachers'struggles as they translate language and literacy theory intopractice. Action in Teacher Research, 19(4), 61-75.

Bratcher, S., & Stroble, E. J. (1994). Determining the progression fromcomfort to confidence: A longitudinal evaluation of a NationalWriting Project site based on multiple data sources. Research inthe Teaching English, 28(1), 66-88.

Chambliss, M. S., & Bass, J. A. (1995). Effecting changes in studentteachers' attitudes toward writing. Reading Research andInstruction, 35(2), 153-160.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education, Inc.

Fletcher, R. & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing Workshop: The EssentialGuide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Florio-Ruane, S., & Lensmire, T. J. (1990). Transforming future teachers'ideas about writing instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies,22(3), 277-289.

Frank, C. R., Carpenter, M., & Smith, K. (2003). Mapping our stories:Teachers' reflections on themselves as writers. Language Arts,80(3), 185-195.

Freedman, S. W., Flower, L., Hull, G., & Hayes, J. R. (1997). Ten years ofresearch: Achievements of the National Center for the Study ofWriting and Literacy. In J. Flood, S. B. Brice Heath, & D. Lapp(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through thecommunicative and visual arts (pp. 735-751.). New York, NY:Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

376 Reading Research and Instruction, Volume 45, No. 4 * Summer 2006

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Grossman, P. L., Valencia, S. W., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., &Place, N. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teachwriting in teacher education and beyond. Journal of LiteracyResearch 32, 631-662.

Harwayne, S. (2001). Writing Through Childhood. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Hudson-Ross, S., & Graham, P. (2000). Going public: Making teachereducators' learning explicit as a model for preservice teachers.Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(4), 5-24.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, G. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected "R": The needfor a writing revolution. Retrieved January 28, 2005, from http://www.writingcommission.org

National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work...or aticket out. Retrieved January 28, 2005, fromhttp://www.writingcommission.org

National Council of Teachers of English. (1998-2004). Conference onCollege Composition and Communication (CCCC); PositionStatement on the Preparation and Development of Teachers ofWriting. Retrieved January 11, 2004, fromhttp://www.ncte.org/groups/cccc/positions/107683.htm

Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge andthinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Scherer, M. (2004). Dreams come true? Educational Leadership, 62(2), 7.Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing schools to life. American

Educator, 13(2), 20-52.Wolf, S. A. (2001). "Wax on/Wax off: Helping preservice teachers

"read" themselves, children, and literature. Theory Into Practice,40(2), 205-211.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 13:

14 2

1 O

ctob

er 2

014