Writing: The Lost Literacy… Found!

Sacred Heart University Sacred Heart University

DigitalCommons@SHU DigitalCommons@SHU

Certificate of Advanced Studies (CAS) in Literacy Farrington College of Education

12-2021

Writing: The Lost Literacy… Found! Writing: The Lost Literacy… Found!

Tahlya Stevenson Sacred Heart University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/lit

Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Elementary Education and

Teaching Commons, and the Language and Literacy Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Stevenson, Tahlya, "Writing: The Lost Literacy… Found!" (2021). Certificate of Advanced Studies (CAS) in Literacy. 14. https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/lit/14

This Certificate of Advanced Study is brought to you for free and open access by the Farrington College of Education at DigitalCommons@SHU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Certificate of Advanced Studies (CAS) in Literacy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@SHU. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].

http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/

http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/

https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/

https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/lit

https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/lit

https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/ced

https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/lit?utm_source=digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu%2Flit%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/796?utm_source=digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu%2Flit%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages




https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/lit/14?utm_source=digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu%2Flit%2F14&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected],%[email protected]

December 8, 2021

This is to certify that the action research study by

Tahlya Stevenson

[email protected]

Has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all

revisions as required by the CT Literacy Specialist Program have been made.

College of Education

Department of Leadership and Literacy

EDR 692- Applied Reading and Language Arts Research

Writing: The Lost Literacy… Found!

Advisor: Karen C. Waters, Ed.D.


1

Abstract

According to the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP, 2012), writing

proficiency across the country has been stagnant for the past generation. This “writing crisis” has

the potential to impact job preparedness, reading development, and the future of our nation’s

students. Additionally, teachers are ill-prepared with the knowledge and time to best teach

writing. The purpose of this study was to identify best practices in elementary narrative writing

and to explore the effectiveness of implementation in a grade 2 classroom. Experts agree that

process writing, use of mentor text, explicit instruction in text structure, and peer feedback

increase student writing proficiency. Data collection consisted of pre and post writing

assessments as measured by the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project Narrative

Writing Rubric. Results confirmed the efficacy of the aforementioned elements, with particular

emphasis in writer’s craft and elaboration. Future directions should focus on the conventions of

spelling and grammar instruction for diverse populations.

Keywords: Elementary writing, writing instruction, process writing, writing strategies, mentor

text, text structure, peer feedback,


2

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction to the Study …………………………………………………...…5

Background of the Study ………………………………………………………....5

Rationale ……………………………………………………………………….....6

Problem Statement ……………………………………………….……………….7

Solution …………. ……………………………………………………………….7

Research Questions …………………………………………………..…………..9

Section 2: Literature Review……………………………………….……………………11

Introduction …………………………………………………….……………………11

Definition of Terms …………………………………………….……………………12

Theoretical Perspective ……………..………………………….……………………13

Studies Affirming Best Practices in Elementary Writing ……………….………….13

Process Writing and Explicit Strategy Instruction ……………………..……………14

Reading and Writing Connection through Mentor Text ……………….……………15

Peer Feedback ……………………………………………………………….………16

Summary …………………………………………………………………………….17

Section 3: Methodology …………………………………………………………………18

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….18


3

Participants………..………………………………………………………………….18

Materials……………………………………………………………………..………20

Instrumentation and Rubrics ……………………………………………………….. 20

Procedure ……………………………………………………………………………21

Section 4: Data Collection and Conclusions …………………………………………….22

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….22

Data Collection ……………………………………………………………………...22

Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………..23

Data Interpretation ……………………………………………………………...…...24

Discussion …………………………………………………………………………...26

Emergent Themes………………………………………………………………..…..28

Theme 1: Writing Craft and Elaboration ……………………………….……….28

Theme 2: Not a One-Size Fits All Approach ……………………………………29

Theme 3: Importance of Environment and Culture on Student Writing

………...29

Recommendations …………………………………………………………………...29

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………..30

Summary …………………………………………………...………………………..30

References ..…………………………………………………...…………………….…...32

Appendices …………………………………………………...………………………….38


4

Appendix A: Prompt and Rubric for Second Grade Narrative Writing……….... 38

Appendix B: Mentor Text and Examples

………………………………………..40

Appendix C: Narrative Writing Checklist …………………………...………….41

Appendix D: Baseline Pretest Assessment Results ………………………….… 43

Appendix E: Study Artifacts ………………………………………………….…44

Appendix F: Post Assessment Results …………………………………………..46

Appendix G: Narrative Writing Growth from Pre to Post Testing ……………...47


5

Section 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

Helping young people to find and use their voices could never be more critical than

today. In a world teeming with social inequality, poised on the precipice of change after Covid-

19 shifted the landscape of long held traditional paradigms, student proficiency in writing is

needed now more than ever to advocate for social justice. And yet, writing instruction has been

all but forgotten, pushed into stolen moments, ‘covered’ only through content area journaling,

and reduced to prosaic carbon copy sentence stems devoid of authentic thought. Overshadowed

and distracted by literacy camps focused on reading wars, writing instruction, teacher training in

writing, and student writing proficiency have suffered. Writing is truly the forgotten literacy!

This unintended writing consequence profoundly impacts a generation unable to give voice to

their thoughts, and creates a world ill-prepared to articulate a new path forward. Hope is not lost,

however. There are steps that can be done to rebalance a focus on writing instruction, support

implementation of writing best practices, and provide children with the tools they will need to

pen a better tomorrow.

Background

The idea that writing has been the ‘Neglected R’ (College Entrance Examination Board,

2003) in American education is not something new. Writing instruction as a construct has

competed with core disciplines, such as math and reading, for focus and time in our nation’s

classrooms (McCarthey & Woodward, 2017). Writing was omitted from the National Reading

Panel report (National Reading Panel, 2000) and from No Child Left Behind legislation (No


6

Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002). Additionally, teachers have been poorly trained in best

writing practices (Goldstein, 2017), with a staggering 58% of elementary teachers who pursued

graduate degrees having no coursework in writing or composition (Rickenbrode et al., 2018).

Writing proficiency across the country is poor. According to the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES, 2003, 2008, 2012), only 33% of students were deemed proficient in

writing on the 2002 and 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing

assessment (NCES, 2003, 2008). With the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (NGA

& CCSSO, 2010), a newfound focus was placed on writing instruction in the United States

(Graham, et al, 2012). The writing standards within the CCSS address mastery of writing genre,

traits, purpose, and process, each with a plethora of subsequent and interwoven skills. These

expectations are built upon in a clearly articulated hierarchy, to ensure demonstrated, ‘college

and career readiness’ (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). Unfortunately, 2011 NAEP writing results

dropped further, resulting in only 25% of students nationwide demonstrating proficiency in

writing (NCES, 2012). With no results published on 2017 NAEP writing performance, clearly

rigorous standards alone have not resulted in writing instruction being prioritized.

Rationale

Writing is a powerful tool necessary for maintaining and sculpting our democratic world.

Throughout history, the revolutionary impact of writing in voicing freedoms, battling oppression,

or heightening the human perspective are widespread and countless (College Entrance

Examination Board, 2003; Behizadeh, 2019). Simultaneously, writing is often the task that we

seek in processing pain or joy, psychologically moving through periods of transition in our lives

(College Entrance Examination Board, 2003; Yagelski, 2012).


7

The value of writing goes beyond isolated moments of radical revolution however, as

democratic ideals are woven into the daily fabric of a thriving country. Without writing, there are

no laws, no research journals sharing new findings, no memoirs to capture experiences outside

our view, no persuasive essays challenging us to embrace a different perspective, no recordings

of our cultural currency (songs, stories, poems), and no history. Without writing, there is no

potential for change. At a time when the country is at a heightened state of political and social

polarity (Behizadeh, 2019), writing as an essential skill is non-negotiable in the quest for equity,

access, and social justice.

Problem Statement

Student writing across the nation, at all grade levels, is poor (NCES, 2003, 2008, 2012;

Graham, et al., 2012 ) which, if neglected, will continue to have an adverse effect on student

academic achievement. Ultimately the same poor writers will enter the workforce without having

the requisite skills needed for communication and collaboration (College Entrance Examination

Board, 2003; Hochman & MacDermott-Duffy, 2015; Ciullo & Mason, 2017; ACT, 2019). This

problem is further underscored by the lack of recent test data available to support writing as a

focus (NCES, 2017). For now, the Common Core Writing Standards are challenging to navigate

in determining the foundational skills necessary to teach writing (Hochman & MacDermott-

Duffy, 2015) and teachers are not provided adequate training in writing best practices (Goldstein,

2017; Rickenbrode et al., 2018). Compounding the problem that students’ writing proficiency

has diminished, if not stagnated over time is that, “writing, always time-consuming for student

and teacher, is today hard pressed in the American classroom” (College Entrance Examination

Board, 2003, p 14).

Proposed Solutions


8

A bifold solution to the writing crisis includes research-based pedagogy and high quality

classroom-embedded professional development. Having protected time for daily writing

instruction is essential to improving writing proficiency (Graves, 1985; College Entrance

Examination Board, 2003; Hochman & MacDermott-Duffy, 2015; Teachers College Reading

and Writing Project [TCRWP], 2021). Long stretches of time writing build stamina and improve

writing fluency and performance (Teachers College Reading and Writing Project, 2021), being

the single most powerful change that can be implemented to improve student writing (College

Entrance Examination Board, 2003). Thus, it is imperative that dedicated and protected time be

given to writing instruction as an integral part of a solution.

Secondly, evidence-based best writing pedagogy must be identified and taught. A process

approach to writing improves writing quality (Graves,1983; Graham, et al, 2012; Hochman &

MacDermott-Duffy, 2015). Additionally, Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara, and Harris (2012)

identified 13 writing practices that improve elementary student writing in their meta-analysis of

115 elementary writing studies. These practices include: strategy instruction, self regulation

instruction, text structure instruction, imagery instruction, transcription, prewriting, peer

assistance, goal setting, feedback, word processing, grammar instruction, and extra time writing

(Graham, et al, 2012). Implementation and fidelity to these pedagogical practices are crucial to

improved writing performance.

Finally, teacher professional development, which accounts for a .51 effect size on

learning (Hattie, 2003; Fisher, Frey, & Hattie, 2016) is the single greatest external influence on

student performance. Participation in high quality writing professional development practices is a

powerful way for teachers to effect change for student writing achievement. With increased

training, teacher collective efficacy in writing practices will improve (Hattie, 2017). When


9

teachers not only feel confident in teaching writing, but begin to see themselves as writers,

clarity, credibility, and change is possible. Due to the powerful impact of teachers on student

achievement, teacher training needs to be a necessary component of any solution to the writing

deficit problem.

Theoretical Perspectives

Constructivism and Social Learning theory play a distinct role in underpinning this

research. Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivist theory holds that children construct their own

learning through social interactions and in conjunction with prior experiences. By focusing

instruction in the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), students are able to maximize learning

just outside current performance (Vygotsky, 1978). Gradual release of responsibility theory

(Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), further built upon the idea of ZPD, by scaffolding support leading

to independence.

Process writing encompases constructist ideals through social interaction: through mini

lessons, student and peer conferences, and writer’s workshop (Calkins, 1994; Graham et al,

2012; Behizadeh, 2019;). The ideals of constructivism are inherent in process writing and

embedded within best practices in writing pedagogy (Graves, 1983; Calkins, 1994; Graham et al,

2012). Thus, explicit instruction through mini lessons, participation in writer’s workshop

(Calkins, 1983), and student conferences provide choice in writing about things of importance

and encompass the principles of constructivism, which will be examined in the study.

Research Questions

With our nation facing a literacy crisis (Graham & Perin, 2007) and writing performance

scores stagnantly poor over the last 10+ years (NCES, 2003, 2008, 2012), a change is needed in

writing instruction and student writing proficiency. The purpose of this research is to highlight


10

best practices in elementary writing instruction and action plan how to best support teachers in

the implementation of such practices. The following questions will guide this study:

RQ1. What are the necessary components of effective elementary writing instruction?

RQ2. How can best practices in writing be implemented to increase student writing

achievement?


11

Section 2: Review of Literature

Introduction

While there has been much research on writing pedagogy over the last 35 years, there is

limited data and research connected to proficiency and best practices in early elementary writing

(Applebee & Langer, 2006; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Puranik, Lonigan, & Kim, 2011; Korth et

al., 2017; NAEP, 2017). The lack of data and research precipitates a mismatch between

instructional problems and solutions (Cutler & Graham, 2008), while increasing the chance of

variability amongst practitioners (Korth et al., 2017). Furthermore, while programs exist to

support writing instruction at the elementary level (Calkins, 2010; Teachers College Reading and

Writing Project, 2021), teacher understanding and implementation of best writing practices

continues to be lacking (Gilbert & Graham, 2010; McCarthey & Woodward, 2018).

Despite these setbacks, the importance of developing effective early writing skills and

their impact on later literacy development has been well documented (Snow et al., 1998; Graham

& Perin, 2007). Diamond et al. (2008) found that early writing instruction reinforces

phonological awareness, letter identification, and concepts about print, all early indicators of

later literacy success. Similarly, Graham & Hebert’s (2011) meta-analysis of twenty-one

different studies, in grades 1-12, found that writing instruction produces a positive impact on

reading comprehension. This research was further supported by Hall et al. (2015), finding that

early writing instruction, in preschool and kindergarten, improves early literacy proficiency. The

purpose of this action research project is to highlight best practices in elementary writing

instruction and implement these practices to improve student writing performance.


12

Definition of Terms

Process Writing (PW)

An approach to teaching writing that is grounded in the fluid and cyclical processes of

writing in stages, including, but not limited to, planning, writing/drafting, editing,

rewriting/revising, and publishing (Murray, D., 1972). Writing for real and authentic purposes is

a foundational tenant of this writing.

The Simple View of Writing (SVW)

A foundational theory that transcription, composition, and self regulation skills, working

in tandem through the utilizing attention and working memory (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003).

Transcription

The first component of SVW. The physical act of turning sounds, words, and sentences

into print through handwriting, spelling, and written mechanics (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003).

Text Generation

The second component of the SVW. The act of turning ideas into text through

composition. Elements include idea generation, content, genre, text structure, and word choice

(Berninger & Amtmann, 2003).

Self-Regulation

The third component of the SVW. Writers must employ executive functioning skills to

meet writing goals, including goal setting, planning, organizing, self monitoring, revising, and

self reflecting (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003).

Self-Regulated Strategy Development Model (SRSD)


13

An explicit writing strategy model that introduces strategies and models their use and

application, but emphasizes student procedures (goal setting, self monitoring, self reinforcement)

for regulating the use of the strategies (Harris et al., 2008).

Mentor Text

Pieces of literature that are reread and used for a variety of purposes in modeling new

learning and application (Culham, 2014).

Theoretical Perspective

Vygotsky (1978) and social constructivist ideals are foundational to all best practices in

writing pedagogy. Student ownership of learning, which is constructed upon previous

experiences and enriched by choice and peer opportunities, are critical to writing success.

Furthermore, instructing new concepts within the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky,

1978), deepened by Gradual Release of Responsibility theory (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983),

provide a clear road map for how writing practices should be introduced, rehearsed, and

mastered.

Application of Vygotsky’s Theory to the Study

Growing from constructivist beliefs, is the Simple View of Writing [SVW] (Berninger &

Amtmann, 2003). This framework encompasses three distinct areas of necessary instruction and

mastery, anchored by working memory and constrained attention in becoming a skilled writer.

The SVW postulates that transcription, text generation, and self regulation are equally necessary

and fundamental to becoming a proficient writer.

Studies Affirming Best Practices in Elementary Writing

Securing protected daily time for writing (Berninger et al., 2006; Calkins, 1994;

Applebee & Langer, 2006; Hochman & MacDermott-Duffy, 2015) is an essential piece of


14

improving writing proficiency. Without sacrosanct time, students are not provided established

routines in instructional writing practices or conditioned to regularly use and apply them.

Graham and Hebert (2011) corroborated the idea that increased writing time strengthens reading

comprehension and the quality and quantity of student writing. Conversely stated, Korth et al.

(2017) found that insufficient time for writing instruction was a constant obstacle to writing

proficiency. While not the primary focus of this research, protected time for daily writing

increases the quality of student writing and is considered a foundational expectation for

implementation of pedological best practices (Berninger et al., 2006; Calkins, 1994; Applebee &

Langer, 2006; Hochman & MacDermott-Duffy, 2015).

Integrating Best Practice Pedagogies

Process Writing with Explicit Strategy Instruction

In their meta-analysis, Graham and Harris (2018) found 33 studies in which a process

approach to writing instruction improved the quality of student writing with an effect size [ES]

of 0.48 at the elementary level. A study by Graham et al. (2012), which built upon previous

research, revealed an ES of .54, finding that students in grade 2-6 who engaged in prewriting

activities, such as drawing or planning before writing, significantly improved the quality of their

writing. Identifying the audience and establishing a clear purpose for composition, while

developing a plan for what to say and how to say it, are integral parts of the writing process

supported by this research.

Further, writing strategies should be explicitly taught for each component of the writing

process, using the gradual release model (What Works Clearinghouse, 2018). In another meta-

analysis of 20 studies implementing both genre specific and non-genre specific strategy

instruction at the elementary level, Graham et al. (2012) found that student writing quality


15

significantly improved, yielding an ES of 1.02 (Graham et al., 2012). This significant increase

strengthens the argument that the process approach to writing, coupled with explicit strategy

instruction, more than doubles the positive impact on student writing quality.

The results of Graham et al. (2012) was corroborated by Graham and Harris (2018), who

looked at 42 studies in grades 2- 10, in which direct strategy instruction was implemented for

planning, drafting, revising, and editing, resulting in an average weighted ES of 1.26. It is

important to note that conclusions were disaggregated to highlight the effectiveness of the Self-

Regulated Strategy Development Model (Harris et al., 2008, SRSD), showcasing an ES of 1.59,

as compared to 0.56 (Graham & Harris, 2018). This implies that while all explicit strategy

instruction in the writing process positively affects writing outcomes, the SRSD model is most

effective in impacting writing quality.

Reading and Writing Connection through Mentor Text

Maximizing the power of the reading and writing connection is paramount to efficiently

improving writing performance. Graham et al. (2018) found that reading instruction improves

writing performance, highlighting the reciprocal nature of reading and writing best pedagogy. In

examining thirty-six studies, preschool to 12th grade students who increased their volume of

reading, improved their quality of writing (2018). Employing evidenced based writing pedagogy

that is grounded in a connection to reading instruction, supports student growth measures.

Seven studies found that writing instruction that included emulation of a model text

significantly increased student writing quality with an effect size of 0.30 (Graham & Harris,

2018). Using mentor texts to emulate and model writing strategy instruction increases student

writing quality (Gallagher, 2011; Bromley, 2007; Graham et al., 2012; Fitzgerald & Shanahan,

2000). This was further supported by Cullum (2014), who found that writing instruction through


16

mentor text analysis improved writing quality in multiple areas, including organization, syntax,

and word choice.

Peer Feedback

In their meta-analysis, Graham et al. (2012), found four studies in which students

received peer assistance in writing during the revision process. The findings indicated enhanced

student writing quality with an effect size of 0.89 (Graham et al., 2012). Peer collaboration

during revision was found to be an impactful scaffold in supporting student writing and writing

quality (Graham et al., 2012).

In a similar study, peer collaboration around the entire writing process resulted in a

positive impact on student writing (Graham & Harris, 2018). Seven studies were analyzed in

which students worked together to draft, revise, and edit each other’s pieces, providing feedback

based on modeled strategy instruction. The writing quality growth of peer collaboration had a

significant positive effect size of 0.74, and results were found in typically developing students as

well as struggling writers in specialized settings (Graham & Harris, 2018).

In parallel findings, Graham et al., (2018) found five studies in which when K-12

students read and analyzed a peer’s writing, the quality of their own writing improved (Graham

et al., 2018). This means that not only the writing that is receiving feedback improves, but also

the writing of the peer providing the feedback. It is important to note, that while recent research

has indicated peer collaboration has a positive impact on students in grades 1-12, previous

foundational research in peer collaboration has only found this positive impact in students grade

4 or older (Paquette, 2009). This is an important distinction to be mindful of, as this study will be

conducted in a second grade classroom.

Summary


17

From process writing with explicit strategy instruction (Hochman & MacDermott-Duffy,

2015; Calkins, 2010; Graham & Harris, 2018), to the integration of reading and writing through

mentor texts ( Graham et al., 2018; Gallagher, 2011; Cullum, 2014), evidence writing pedagogy

results in significant improvements in student writing proficiency (Graham et al., 2018). To

extend the existing research, this study will use a second grade classroom with a first year

teacher, to measure the impact of explicit process writing strategy instruction and use of mentor

texts on the quality of students’ writing using the Teachers College Writing Project rubric.


18

Section 3: Methodology

Introduction

With our nation’s writing proficiency in crisis (ACT, 2019), the necessity of providing

daily protected time for evidence-based writing instruction, cannot be underestimated.

(Berninger et al., 2006; Applebee & Langer, 2006; Graham & Hebert 2011). The purpose of this

study was to identify the necessary components of effective elementary writing instruction, and

to create a bank of best practices that could be effectively implemented in the classroom to

increase student writing proficiency. Studies have supported process writing instruction

(Hochman & MacDermott-Duffy, 2015; Calkins, 2010; Graham & Harris, 2018), use of mentor

texts (Graham et al., 2018; Gallagher, 2011; Cullum, 2014), text structure instruction (Bromley,

2007; Graham & Harris, 2018), and peer feedback (Paquette, 2009; Graham & Harris, 2018;

Graham et al., 2018) to improve the quality of student writing. When implemented during a

sacrosanct daily writing block, the outcomes aimed to improve overall student narrative writing

performance.

Participants

The participants in the study, selected through convenience sampling, attend a public

elementary school in a small, suburban town in the Northeast region of the United States, whose

moderate to high socioeconomic status identifies the district as a “high need” area. With

approximately 3,000 students within the school district, the racial breakdown consists of 68%

White, 20% Hispanic or Latino, 4.5% Black, 2.5% Asian, and 4.6% two or more races

(Connecticut State Department of Education [CSDE], 2019). Within the population, 53% of

students are male and 47% of students are female. Students who receive special education

services account for 13.7% of the student population, while 7% of students receive English


19

Language services (CSDE, 2019). Students who qualify for free or reduced price meals account

for 40% of the student population (CSDE, 2019).

Students participating in this study attended a preschool to 5th grade suburban school,

with a population of approximately 415 students. The population of this elementary school

racially mirrored the population of the district, but stands out in its free and reduced meal

population, especially when compared to the other two elementary schools in the district. The

population of the elementary school is 64% white, 25.5% Hispanic or Latino, 4.1% Black, 1.9%

Asian, and 4.1% two or more races (CSDE, 2019). Within the population, 13.3% of students

receive special education services, 13.8% of students qualify for English Language services, and

48.5% of students qualify for free and reduced meals (CSDE, 2019).

This study focused on a second grade classroom consisting of 16 students, 10 female and

six male, being taught by a first year teacher, Mary [pseudonym]. Of the 16 students, one student

received special education services, three students received EL services, and eleven students

received Tier 2 intervention in literacy. The large concentration of students requiring literacy

intervention being placed in one classroom was done purposefully to streamline service staff

support. All students were between the ages of six and eight. The population within the

classroom mirrored that of the school with 62.5% of students identifying as white, 31.2%

Hispanic and Latino, and 6% Black.

As the researcher of this study, I am certified as an elementary classroom teacher for

grades K-6 and am the school’s K-5 Instructional Resource Coach. I am in my 20th year of

teaching and hold state certification as a remedial reading and remedial language arts specialist.

I am currently working towards the Reading Consultant Certificate in the State of Connecticut.

An aspect of my responsibilities includes coaching novice teachers in the first three years of


20

induction. Additionally, the project included coaching first year teacher, Mary [pseudonym],

who was excited to try process writing.

Materials

Process writing lessons were selected from Teachers College Reading and Writing

Project’s [TCRWP] Lessons From the Masters to Improve Narrative Writing (Calkins, Hartman,

& Mooney 2013) and administered whole class. These lessons were selected based on student

performance on the TCRWP Grade Writing Prompt, scored by the second grade narrative writing

rubric (see Appendix A: Rubric for Second Grade Writing). The attached list of picture books

were utilized and referenced as mentor texts throughout the lessons (see Appendix B: Mentor

Text). During daily instruction, each student had access to a Writer’s Notebook, writing folder,

various writing tools, and a laptop.

Instrumentation and Rubrics

The 4-point scale Teachers College Reading and Writing Project [TCRWP] grade 2

narrative writing rubric was used to measure pre and post writing samples (see Appendix A:

Rubric for Second Grade Writing). An overall 4-1 holistic score determined the extent to which

the student demonstrated writing proficiency, with a low of “4” and a high of “1” encompassing

discrete evaluation of lead, transitions, endings, organization, elaboration, craft, spelling, and

punctuation. For fidelity of scoring, each writing piece was read and scored by two certified

teachers and analyzed to ensure inter-rater reliability. A narrative writing checklist (see

Appendix C: Narrative Writing Checklist) to support student ownership and collaboration of

necessary writing skills, was also utilized.


21

Procedure

This qualitative study was conducted over a seven week time period at the beginning of

the year. The study began with identifying a daily, protected instructional writing block, where

all students would be present. From there, all lessons were co-planned based on baseline

performance and co-taught to support new teacher ownership and development. Daily writing

instruction occurred for 45min five times per a week, and lessons were co-taught three times per

week. One the days where co-teaching was not scheduled, the first year teacher executed a

predetermined coplanned lesson. Each writing block consisted of a ten minute mini lesson

modeling a desired writing skill, a five minute mentor text exploration, ten minute shared writing

time, and 20 min independent writing time. During independent writing, teachers confer with

students to support the development of their piece and independence along the writing process.

Every Friday, students met with a peer writing partner for feedback and support in editing and

revising.


22

Section 4: Data Collection

Introduction

Research confirms that process writing, use of mentor texts, peer feedback, and

instruction in text structure improve student writing proficiency (Graham & Harris, 2018;

Hochman & MacDermott-Duffy, 2015; Calkins, 2010; Graham et al., 2018; Gallagher, 2011;

Paquette, 2009; Cullum, 2014; Bromley, 2007). The purpose of this study was to replicate a

study design that might yield enhanced student writing in an early elementary (grade two)

classroom of struggling students, with the overarching goal of increasing the quality of student

writing. The completion of this project generated a menu of evidence-supported best writing

practices, with the potential to impact student writing proficiency for years to come. The

following research questions guided the study:

RQ1. What are the necessary components of effective elementary writing instruction?

RQ2. How can best practices in writing be implemented to increase student writing

achievement?

Data Collection

Throughout the seven week action research project, pre and post assessment data was

collected to measure student writing proficiency using the Teachers College Reading and

Writing Project On Demand Performance Assessment Prompt [TCRWP Prompt] and Teachers

College Reading and Writing Project Rubric for Narrative Writing: Second Grade [TCRWP

Rubric] (see Appendix A: Prompt and Rubric). Over the course of instruction, field notes were

maintained, noting observations of students’ daily writing, attitudes toward writing, written

production quantity, and writing quality aligned with grade level rubric expectations. These

recorded notes provided real-time impetus for personalized instruction and identified common


23

areas of difficulty to be addressed through whole group strategy instruction. A summative post-

assessment on-demand writing prompt, identical to the one used at the inception of the study,

allowed student writing proficiency (gains) to be measured from the beginning of the study to the

conclusion (see Appendix F: Post Assessment Data).

Data Analysis

Quantitative baseline assessment data using the TCRWP Rubric for Narrative Writing-

Second Grade (Calkins, Hartman, & Mooney, 2013) highlighted individual student writing gains

from pre to post testing. Students’ individual scores were plotted on a continuum of scaled scores

that aligned the student’s performance on a bell curve. Specifically, totaled scores correlated to 4

point scaled score (4 representing above grade level, 3 at grade level, 2 within grade level, and 1

novice below grade level proficiency) (see Appendix A). Students scored a zero, if they wrote

nothing or there was no evidence of the measured trait present in their writing. Additional

discrete evaluation of written lead, transitions, endings, organization, elaboration, craft, spelling,

and punctuation were tabulated. Grade level expectation is that students will score a 3 in each

subsection and have a total score of twenty-eight points or greater on their entire prompt. No

reliability measures could be obtained for this assessment.

Appendix D represents quantitative baseline pretest scores. A total of 16 students were

assessed using the TCRWP Prompt scored by the TCRWP Rubric. All but one student scored in

the Novice range (15/16= 94%), with summative scores ranging from one to seventeen. The

mean score for students assessed at pretesting was 5.44. Two students (12.5%) scored ten or

more points above the mean, though still falling within the scaled score below grade level range.

69% (n=11) of students scored below the mean. Notable discrete skill findings include that 100%

of students (n=16) did not write an ending to their piece and 87.5% of students (n=14) showed


24

no evidence of written organization or transitions. Spelling was the strongest discrete skill with

50% (n=8) of students scoring within grade level goal.

To triangulate findings, student daily writing was collected in a Writer’s Notebook and

used as the focus of one-on-one conferences and small group instruction. Additionally, teacher

observations of student writing behaviors and production acted as a third source of reference.

These formative data sources helped to ensure progress toward goal and provide cross

verification of growth through a body of evidence writing portfolio. Appendix E: Study Artifacts

highlights some photographs and student writing throughout the span of the study.

Appendix F: Post Assessment Data represents quantitative post test scores. A total of 15

students were assessed using the TCRWP Prompt, scored by the TCRWP Rubric. One student

from pretesting was on extended absence for five weeks and unable to get post testing data. The

range of scores at post testing was one to thirty-one. The mean score at posttesting was 20.7.

Analysis of mean scores from pre to post testing revealed a 15.3 point increase, which indicates

that the writing strategy instruction was effective.

Data Interpretation

A Comparison of Pre and Post Writing Scores

Baseline data at the inception of the project revealed that of the 16 student participants,

not one student scored at proficiency. However, 7/16 were able to attempt the writing of a lead,

a relative area of strength; whereas the traits of organization, transitions, elaboration, and craft

proved to be areas of strength for only 2/16 students. All pretesting prompts were completed

within ten minutes, despite having sixty minutes to complete the task.

Coupled with quantitative data, observational baseline student writing behaviors and

attitudes were equally stark. At the inception of the study, students did not exhibit “writing


25

stamina;” they had difficulty writing for a prolonged period of time. None of the students wrote

independently for more than 10 minutes and were unable to sustain independent writing without

adult support. Not surprisingly, the quantity and quality of student writing was limited. Students

did not envision themselves as writers and struggled to compose simple sentences. Two students

hid under their desks and broke their pencils at the mention of a writing prompt. Of the students

who were more behaviorally compliant, ten struggled to begin writing and instead produced

pictures of a narrative scene which included a scant one to three sentences, which was not in

keeping with the rubric. Two students were still at the pre-alphabetic writing stage, composing a

string of letters to represent their story. Students’ stark writing difficulties were in evidence: this

second grade cohort was the pocket of students whose education was compromised in the spring

of 2020 due to Covid.

An examination of post writing assessment data revealed significant growth for most

students, with 60% of students (n=9) growing to attaining grade level writing goal and 20% of

students (n=3) yielding increases to within the goal for grade level by the end of the study. The

mean gain for the entire class was +15 points from pre to post study, with 11 students averaging

mean gains significantly above the mean of 15 points (16 to 23 points). Three students, one

identified as a student with disabilities in writing and two who have just been identified as

having special needs, did not progress beyond the status of novice for the kindergarten grade

level, exhibiting gains of 0- 8 points. Written craft and elaboration were the strongest

performance areas of growth; whereas spelling and conventions were the overall weakest.

Qualitative data highlighted additional gains in student writing proficiency. From pre to

post testing, student writing stamina increased, with students having the ability to sustain writing

for 30 minutes or more, producing multiple pages of writing each day. Students no longer hid or


26

broke pencils during writing time, but instead commented that, “I am an author.”, and, “I have

great ideas and can even help my friends with their writing.” The culture and environment within

the classroom shifted and writing was now looked at as a prized time during the day. Students

could be seen talking about their writing during free choice time and were observed sneaking out

their writer’s notebooks to write during math and other content instruction. Students read with an

author’s eye, collecting words to use in their own stories and discussing text structures or craft

moves they noticed the authors of their books using. Additionally, a group of students decided

during indoor recess to make a sign to hang on the door that said, ‘Shhh. Please don’t interrupt

us. We are busy writing important things!”. Writing became a daily practice for these students,

who now saw themselves as authors.

Discussion

In reflecting on the research questions that informed the purpose of the study, key

insights emerged.

To answer the overarching question, ‘RQ 1: What are the necessary components of

effective elementary writing instruction?’, a thorough review of seminal elementary writing

research identified four promising instructional practices. Process writing instruction (Hochman

& MacDermott-Duffy, 2015; Calkins, 2010; Graham & Harris, 2018), use of mentor texts

(Graham et al., 2018; Gallagher, 2011; Cullum, 2014), text structure instruction (Bromley, 2007;

Graham & Harris, 2018), and peer feedback (Paquette, 2009; Graham & Harris, 2018; Graham et

al., 2018) were individually found to improve the quality of student writing. When implemented

in combination during a sacrosanct daily writing block, the results of the study support that the

four instructional strategies resulted in significant student writing growth. The four strategies

were additionally found to address the text generation and self regulation elements found in the


27

Simple View of Writing framework (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003), resulting in highest scores in

areas associated with these components (craft and elaboration).

It is important to note that students with learning challenges found transcription, within

the third component of the Simple View of Writing, to be the most challenging area, which given

the lack of systematic and explicit focus on spelling and conventions during this study, was not

surprising. What was surprising was the disproportionate impact on students with disabilities.

Students with identified learning challenges, despite showing elements of growth and application

in their formative independent writing, often become hindered by struggles with spelling,

impacting written stamina and production during testing.

In reflecting on RQ 2, ‘How can best practices in writing be implemented to increase

student writing achievement?’, the conclusions reveal that the integration of process writing, use

of mentor text, explicit text structure instruction, and use of peer feedback worked in tandem to

significantly increase second grade narrative writing performance. Allocating a protected 45

minute daily block for writing instruction, allowed for ensured opportunities for writing practice,

while creating a culture and identity of writers within the classroom. In structuring the writing

block to include a 15 minute mini lesson, models were highlighted through mentor text and

demonstrated through shared writing. Process writing was brought to life through integrated

examples on a daily basis. The remaining 30 minutes of the writing block was used for

independent practice, small group reinforcement, and peer feedback allowing for targeted and

differentiated instruction around demonstrated areas of need. Explicit text structure scaffolds and

revisitation of mentor text were strategies utilized during conferring and small group instruction.

As an unexpected result of this research, implications regarding implementation were

shared through observations and feedback during weekly planning meetings with the first year


28

teacher in whose class the research was conducted. Until she began to see herself as a ‘writer’

and better understand the underpinning research, the first year teacher was hesitant to model

writing in front of her students or fully embrace the value of process writing. Understanding the

impact teacher efficacy has on student achievement (Hattie, 2003), expanding teacher training in

writing and inviting them to regularly write themselves, will be important components that

impact the successful implementation of elementary writing best instructional practices.

Themes

Analysis of the data revealed the presence of a number of themes, including writing craft

and elaboration, the impact of the methodology on struggling writers, and the importance of a

nurturing and caring environment.

Writing Craft and Elaboration

Written craft and elaboration were the writing traits most positively impacted by the use

of mentor text, process writing, and peer feedback. Explicit modeling of these traits, teased out

through underlying skill, mentor text models, and peer feedback follow up, resulted in strong

student understanding and ownership of these traits. All three instructional techniques in

conjunction, helped students identify, practice, and support each other in growing their

application, while seeing how the skills can be used in unison to create the desired For example,

by identifying explicit second grade skills that result in elaboration (using senses words, having

your character talk/feel, stretching out the story using specific bit by bit details, etc), process

writing, mentor texts, daily independent writing, and peer feedback provided ample opportunities

and inroads for learners to access and improve in these traits.


29

Not a One-Size Fits All Approach

This approach is not a ‘one size fits all.’ Struggling students with deficits in letter/sound

correspondence would benefit from a more explicit and targeted writing approach, as written

composition and fluency were often stifled by spelling, syntax, conventions, and handwriting.

The lack of written fluency impacted student stamina and production. This in turn limited the

breadth and depth of ideas a student recorded on paper, despite being able to demonstrate trait

success orally.

The Importance of Environment and Culture on Student Learning Achievement

Classroom environment and culture are at the heart of student achievement in writing.

When students, and teachers, are given time to grow their craft of writing through daily practice

and a safe, risk taking classroom environment, their belief in themselves as writers and their

writing performance improves. Collective efficacy in expectations and beliefs, for both

instruction and performance in writing, reinforces the importance of teacher training in best

practices in writing instruction and the need for a classroom culture of student writers.

Recommendations

The action research highlighted the significance of integrating process writing, mentor

text, explicit text structure, and peer feedback in elementary writing instruction. Further studies

may include isolating these variables to see the impact of individual strategies and better gauge

which best helped to ignite student writing growth. Additionally, including a larger sample size

across multiple grades, could help to inform generalized results, since the study sampled only

second grade students. Another step for future research would be to focus on which writing

instructional strategies best target the needs of struggling learners, specifically around the area of

transcription. Extending the timeframe of the study to cover the entire school year and include


30

various genres, such as informational, persuasive, and poetry writing, could highlight additional

benefits to using these strategies in supporting student writing instruction.

The results of the project have been shared with district administration and staff through

monthly Literacy Grade Level Meetings, where best practices in reading and writing instruction

are explored and paired with school-wide data analysis. Additionally, I have been asked to

facilitate district-wide professional development in writing with teachers in grades K-5 in

January 2022. The results of the research will be presented at the 9th Annual Sacred Heart

University Literacy Conference in March 2022 and I will seek publication through Digital

Commons, a repository of university research. Finally, through my roles as a K-5 literacy coach

and TEAM mentor, I look forward to integrating this new learning into future coaching cycles

and new staff support.

Conclusions

In sum, The Lost Literacy found that integration of process writing, text structure, use of

mentor texts, and peer feedback all helped to increase second grade student narrative writing

achievement. Additionally, the application of the research during a coaching cycle helped to

grow new teacher understanding and capacity as an instructor of writing through job-embedded

professional development. Subsequent support for struggling learners that includes explicit

instruction in transcription skills and syntax would help to support the three students who did not

demonstrate expected gains.

Summary

As The College Board (2003) stated to initiate their National Commission on Writing in

America’s Schools and Colleges report, “Writing today is not a frill for the few, but an essential

skill for the many” (p1). Students require our instructional expertise and implementation of best


31

practices in writing instruction. The benefits of integrating process writing, text structure, mentor

texts, and peer feedback on student writing proficiency cannot be underestimated (Graham &

Harris, 2018; Hochman & MacDermott-Duffy, 2015; Calkins, 2010; Graham et al., 2018;

Gallagher, 2011; Paquette, 2009; Cullum, 2014; Bromley, 2007). Research affirms that

integrating these practices during a daily protected time for writing helps to grow students

writers and proficiency across genres and grade levels (Berninger et al, 2006; Cutler & Graham,

2008; Calkins, 1994, 2010; Applebee & Langer, 2006; Hochman & MacDermott-Duffy, 2015).

Knowing the impact writing proficiency has on student reading proficiency, advocacy for social

justice, and later economic implications in our workforce, the impetus to ensure teacher training

in writing best practices and daily hallowed time to instruct writing is essential to student writing

achievement in the classroom and in preparation for the rest of their lives.


32

References

Act. (2019). The condition of college and career readiness 2019 . Iowa City, IA: ACT.

Applebee, A, & Langer J. (2006). The state of writing instruction in america’s schools:

what existing data tells us. Albany, NY: Center of English Learning and Achievement,

University of Albany. Retrieved from

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.541.4136&rep=rep1&type=pd

f

Berninger, V. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections with

language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 65–84.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200020040-00007

Berninger, V. & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through

early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling

problems: Research into practice. In: Swanson H, Harris K, Graham S, editors. Handbook

of Learning Disabilities. New York: The Guilford Press; 2003. pp. 323–344.

Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G.,

Hawkins, J. M., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and

together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology,

94(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.291

Berninger, V., Rutberg, J., Abbott, R., Garcia, N., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Brooks,

A., & Fulton, C. (2006). Tier 1 and Tier 2 Early Intervention for Handwriting and

Composing. Journal of School Psychology, 44(1), 3–30.

Behizadeh, N. (2019). Realizing powerful writing pedagogy in U.S. public schools.

Pedagogies: An International Journal, 14(4), 261–279.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480x.2019.1671847

Bromley, K. (2007). Best Practices in Teaching Writing. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M.

Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (pp. 243–263).

Guilford Press.

Calkins, L. (1994). The Art of Teaching Writing, 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Calkins, L. (2010). Units of study for primary writing: A yearlong curriculum.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.541.4136&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.541.4136&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1097/00011363-200020040-00007

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480x.2019.1671847


33

Calkins, L., Hartman, A., & Mooney, J. (2013). Units of study in opinion, information,

and narrative writing elementary series bundle, grade 2: Lessons from the masters to

improve narrative writing. New York: Teachers College Reading and Writing Project,

Columbia University.

Calkins, L. (2013) Writing Pathways Grades K-5.Portsmouth, NH: firsthand.

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2010). New report finds that writing can be

powerful driver for improving reading skills [Press release]. Retrieved from

https://www.carnegie.org/news/articles/new-report-finds-that-writing-can-be-powerful-

driver-for-improving-reading-skills/

Ciullo, S. & Mason, L. (2017). Prioritizing elementary school writing instruction:

Cultivating middle school readiness for students with learning disabilities. Reading and

Writing Instruction in the Upper Elementary Grades, 52(5), 287-294.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216676801

College Entrance Examination Board. (2003). The neglected “r”: The need for a writing

revolution. Report of The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and

Colleges. Retrieved from

https://archive.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/21478/the-neglected-r-college-

board-nwp-report.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d

Connecticut State Department of Education. (2019-2020). District Profile and

performance report for school year 2019- 2020. Edsight: Insight into Education.

http://edsight.ct.gov/Output/District/HighSchool/1100011_201920.pdf

Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012656

Culhum, R. (2014). The writing thief: Using mentor texts to teach the craft of writing.

Newark, DE: International reading Association

Diamond, K. E., Gerde, H. K., & Powell, D. R. (2008). Development in early literacy

skills during the pre-kindergarten year in head start: Relations between growth in

children’s writing and understanding of letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23,

467–478.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1053451216676801

http://edsight.ct.gov/Output/District/HighSchool/1100011_201920.pdf

https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0012656


34

Emig, J. (1983). Writing as a mode of learning. In J. Emig, D. Goswami, & M. Butler

(Eds.), The web of meaning: Essays on writing teaching, learning, and thinking. (pp.123-

131). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible learning for literacy, grades K-12:

Implementing the practices that work best to accelerate student learning. Corwin

Literacy

Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their

development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39–50.

Gallagher, K. (2011). Write Like This: Teaching Real-World Writing Through Modeling

& Mentor Texts. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publisher.

Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6:

A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 494–518.

Goldstein, D. (2017, August 6). Why kids can’t write. New York Times. p8

Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully

integrated. Reading Research Quarterly ,55(S1), S35-S44.

https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.332

Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Olson, C. B., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D.,

Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A

practice guide (NCEE 2012-4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of

Education.

Graham, S. & Harris, K. (2018). Evidence-based writing practices: A meta-analysis of

existing meta-analyses. In R.F. Redando, K. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Ed.), Design

principles for teaching effective writing, (pp 13-37). Brill.

https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004270480_003

Graham, S. & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of

writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710-744.

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566.

Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K.R., & Holzapfel, J. (2018).

Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-

analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 53( 3), 279– 304. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.194.

https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004270480_003

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566

https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.194


35

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185

Graham, S & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of

adolescents in middle and high school. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.

Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Graves, D. (1985). All children can write. Learning Disabilities Focus. 1(1), 36-43.

Graves, D. (1994). A Fresh Look at Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hall, A., 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, 115–134

Harris, K., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies

for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence?. Australian

Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality.

Auckland: University of Auckland. Retrieved from:

https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_confere

nce_2003

Hattie, J. (2017). The Collaborative Impact: Research and Practice Conference 2017.

[Conference session]. Retrieved from: https://visible-learning.org/2018/03/collective-

teacher-efficacy-hattie/

Hochman, J. & MacDermott-Duffy, B. (2015). Effective writing instruction: Time for a

revolution. International Dyslexia Association. Perspectives On Language and Literacy,

Spring 2015, 31-37

Jasmine, J., & Weiner, W. (2007). The effects of writing workshop on abilities of first

grade students to become confident and independent writers. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 35(2), 131-139.

Korth, B.B., Wimmer, J.J., Wilcox, B., Morrison, T.G., Harward, S., Peterson, N. &

Pierce, L.E. (2017). Practices and challenges of writing instruction in k-2 classrooms: A

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0029185

https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_conference_2003

https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_conference_2003

https://visible-learning.org/2018/03/collective-teacher-efficacy-hattie/

https://visible-learning.org/2018/03/collective-teacher-efficacy-hattie/


36

case study of five primary grade teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 237-

249.

Mackenzie, N. & Hemmings, B. (2014). Predictors of success with writing in the first

year of school. Issues in Educational Research, 24(1), 41-53.

McCarthey, S & Woodward, R. (2017). Faithfully following, adapting, or rejecting

mandated curriculum: Teachers’ curricular enactments in elementary writing instruction.

Pedagogies: An International Journal, 13(1), 56-80.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1376672

Murray, Donald M. (1972). Teach writing as a process, not product. The Leaflet, 7i:11-

14, November 1972. Retrieved from:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED402614.pdf#page=18

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002

(NCES 2003-529). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of

Education.


(NCES 2008-468). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of

Education.


(NCES 2012-470). Washington, DC:Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of

Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Washington, DC:Institute of Education

Sciences, US Department of Education. Retrieved from:

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of chief State

School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and

Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects: About the standards.

Washington, DC:authors. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/aboutthe-standards

National Reading Panel & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

(2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-

based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1376672

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1376672

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1376672

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED402614.pdf#page=18

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/

http://www.corestandards.org/aboutthe-standards


37

reading instruction. Washington, D.C: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services,

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 101, Stat. 1425

(2002).

Paquette, K . (2009). Integrating the 6+1 writing traits model with cross-age tutoring: An

investigation of elementary students' writing development. Literacy Research and

Instruction, 48(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802226261

Pearson, P & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.

Puranik, C. S., Lonigan, C. J., & Kim, Y. (2011). Contributions of emergent literacy

skills to name writing, letter writing, and spelling in preschool children. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 26, 465–474.

Rickenbrode, R., Drake, G., Pomerance, L., & Walsh, K. (2018). 2018 teacher prep

review. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved April 21,

2018, from https://www.nctq.org/publications/2018-Teacher-Prep-Review

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young

children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Teachers College Reading and Writing Project. (2021). Research base underlying the

teachers college reading and writing workshop's approach to literacy instruction. The

Reading & Writing Project - Research Base, 2021.

https://members.readingandwritingproject.org/about/research-base

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

What Works Clearinghouse. (October 2018). Teaching elementary school students to

be effective writers. Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved July 6, 2021 from

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/WWC_Elem_Writing_PG_Dec18201

8.pdf

Wolbers, K., Dostal, H., Graham, S., Cihak, D., Kilpatrick, J., & Saulsburry, R.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/19388070802226261

https://www.nctq.org/publications/2018-Teacher-Prep-Review

https://members.readingandwritingproject.org/about/research-base

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/WWC_Elem_Writing_PG_Dec182018.pdf

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/WWC_Elem_Writing_PG_Dec182018.pdf


38

(2015). The writing performance of elementary students receiving strategic and

interactive writing instruction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education.

Advanced online publication. http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/doi:

10.1093/deafed/env022

Yagelski, R. (2012). Extending the conversation: Writing as praxis. English Education,

NCTE. January, 188–204. Retrieved from https://www.albany.edu/~rpy95/yagelski-

writing%20as%20praxis.pdf

Zhou, M & Brown, D. (2015). Educational Learning Theories: 2nd Edition. Education

Open Textbooks. https://oer.galileo.usg.edu/education-textbooks/1

Appendix A: Prompt and Rubric for Second Grade Narrative Writing

Calkins, L. (2013) Writing Pathways Grades K-5.Portsmouth, NH: firsthand. Used with

permission.


39


40

Appendix B: Mentor Text and Examples

Mentor Text List


41

Title Author

Owl Moon Jane Yolen

The Leaving Morning Angela Johnson

Fireflies Julie Brinckloe

Hello Ocean Pam Munoz Ryan

Nothing Ever Happens on 90th Street Roni Schotter

My Abuelita Tony Johnston


42

Appendix C: Narrative Writing Checklist

Calkins, L. (2013) Writing Pathways Grades K-5.Portsmouth, NH: firsthand. Used with

permission.


43

Appendix D: Baseline Pre Test Assessment Results


44

Overall Lead Transitions Ending Organization Elaboration Craft Spelling Punctuation

Total

At/Above 22+

Within 12-21

Novice 0-11

Student A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Student B 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 15

Student C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Student D 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4

Student E 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3

Student F 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 3 17

Student G 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 11

Student H 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 7

Student I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Student J 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3

Student K 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5

Student L 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Student M 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Student N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Student O 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 5

Student P 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4


45

Appendix E: Study Artifacts


46


47

Appendix F: Post Assessment Data (Post Test)

Overall Lead Transitions Ending Organization Elaboration Craft Spelling Punctuation

Total

At/Above 22+

Within 12-21

Novice 0-11

Growth

from

Pre to

Post

Student A 2 1 2 2 2 4 4 0 0 17 +15


48

Student B 3 3 3 3 3 4 6 3 3 31 +16

Student C 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 10 +8

Student D 3 3 3 1 2 4 6 2 0 23.5 +20

Student E 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 2 0 19 +16

Student F 3 2 3 0 3 6 6 3 2 28 +11

Student G 3 3 3 3 2 4 6 3 3 30 +19

Student H 3 2 2 2 2 6 6 2 2 27 +20

Student I 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 2 0 17 +15

Student J 2 2 3 3 3 6 4 2 1 26 +23

Student K Student on extended absence and not available for Post Testing

Student L 2 2 3 1 2 6 6 1 0 23 +21

Student M 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 8 +7

Student N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

+0 Child

referred

to

SPED

Student O 2 2 3 1 3 4 6 3 3 27 +22

Student P 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 24 +20

Appendix G: Narrative Writing Growth From Pre to Post Testing


49

Documents

Writing: The Lost Literacy… Found!