1. Teaching the six traits:
The impact of the six-trait writing model
on middle-school ELL student
achievement and confidence in writing.
Holly Bembridge
Fall 2007
3. Background Information
and Rationale
St. Michael’s School is an English-language
school in the Dominican Republic
Over 90% of students speak Spanish as a first
language
Consistent weaknesses in writing have been
displayed over many years:
• Generalizations rather than elaboration
• Lack of focus
• Omission of essential information
• Low level of vocabulary
• Weak grammar and mechanics skills
4. Background Information
and Rationale (Cont’d)
St. Michael’s School writing assessment results,
Fall 2005:
– Mean score for 8th
grade was 2.79 on a 6-point scale
– Mean score for 12th
grade was 4.55 on a 6-point scale
– A score of 4 indicated proficiency; a score of 3
indicated a basic level
– Only 18% of 8th
graders were proficient or above, while
45% were at the basic level.
– The remaining 37% of 8th
graders scored Below Basic.
Our middle-school students seem to need intervention
to get more students reaching proficiency in writing at
an earlier age.
5. Background Information
and Rationale (Cont’d)
Writing Assessment Results Fall 2005
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
8th 12th
Grade
Score(outof6)
Mean Score
6. Why is this important?
Writing is an integral part of helping
students learn
Langer and Applebee (1987) suggest
that writing plays an important role in
helping students learn across the
content areas
• Asks students to think more deeply about material
learned
• Asks students to manipulate knowledge in
different ways
• Allows students to internalize knowledge
7. Importance (Cont’d)
Many other studies show the link between
writing, thinking, and learning:
– Zacharias (1991) The relationship between journal
writing in education and thinking processes: What
educators say about it
– Dart, Boulton-Lewis, Brownlee, & McCrindle
(1998) Change in knowledge of learning and
teaching through journal writing
– Hohenshell & Hand (2006) Writing to learn
strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed
method study
– Pegram (2006) “What if?”: Teaching research and
creative-thinking skills through proposal writing
8. Review of Literature
The six-trait model is based on
assessment for learning as described
by:
– Stiggins (1985)
– Black & Wiliam (1998)
– Spandel (2001)
– Wiggins & McTighe (2005).
9. Review of Literature (Cont’d)
Chappuis & Stiggins (2002) presented
guidelines for students to become
involved in assessment and thus take
responsibility for their own learning:
– Determine the qualities of good
performance.
– Use rubrics to evaluate real work samples.
– Revise anonymous work samples.
– Communicate with others about their
growth.
THE SIX-TRAIT MODEL IS CONSISTENT
WITH THESE GUIDELINES.
10. Review of Literature (Cont’d)
Hillocks (1987) analyzed six instructional methods
commonly used to teach writing:
- grammar
- models
- sentence combining
- scales and guided revision
- inquiry
- freewriting
Scales (the basis of the six-trait model) had a
significant impact on student growth in writing.
11. Review of Literature (Cont’d)
Arter, Spandel, Culham, and Pollard (1994)
The impact of training students to be self-
assessors of writing
– Teachers trained on writing assessment and
integrating six traits into instruction
– They spent one year teaching Ideas, Organization,
and Voice
– Eight visits to help with implementation—trainers
helped teach students
– Results: Significant gains for the trait of Ideas; gains
tending toward significance for Organization and
Voice.
– Conclusions: Student writing improves in proportion
to the time spent teaching a specific trait.
12. Review of Literature (Cont’d)
Other small-scale studies suggest
the effectiveness of the six-trait
model on student achievement in
writing.
– Jarmer, Kozol, Nelson, and Salsberry
(2000)
– Bellamy (2001)
13. Review of Literature (Cont’d)
Many studies point to the
effectiveness of the six-trait model,
but
– most focus on students in elementary
school
– most have been done in the U.S. with
primarily first language English
speakers
There is a need for studies with students
in middle- and high-school and with ELL
students.
15. Method
Sample
– English-language school in Santo
Domingo, Dominican Republic
– Over 90% of students are Dominican,
first language Spanish speakers
– Randomly selected class from
middle school
• Treatment group was one 7th
grade class
of 18 students
• Control group was the other 7th
grade
class of 17 students
16. Method
Procedure
Experimental group had eight weeks of
instruction for two periods per week.
– Week 1: Introduction to the traits
– Week 2: Ideas
– Week 3: Organization
– Week 4: Review and Evaluating writing samples
– Week 5: Voice
– Week 6: Word Choice
– Week 7: Sentence Fluency and Guided revision
– Week 8: Conventions and Editing
– Weeks 7 & 8 were also spent evaluating writing
samples
17. Method
Procedure (Cont’d)
Instruction included:
1. Mini-lessons on writing skills related to the
trait (e.g., “showing, not telling,” writing
inviting leads, using power verbs)
2. Presentation of scoring criteria for the trait
3. Quality examples of the trait in a writing
sample
4. Application activities
Students were also taught how to use the rubrics
to evaluate writing samples and had to justify
their scores using the language of the traits.
18. Method
Data Collection
Likert scale to measure confidence in
writing
– Administered to both groups before and
after the intervention
Pre- and posttest writing sample to
measure achievement in writing
– Completed by both groups before and after
the intervention
– Scored using a six-point rubric based on the
six traits
19. Method
Threats to Validity
Selection
– Sampling not completing random
Maturation
– Would students just naturally become better writers
over time?
Prior knowledge
– All students had been taught someone about six traits
in past years. Would that knowledge affect control
group?
Attitude of subjects
– Would experimental group’s attitudes improve partly
because they felt special for having an outside
teacher working with them?
20. Method
Threats to Validity (Cont’d)
Implementation
– Abilities of implementer
• Is it possible that my ability to communicate and
connect with students is different from the regular
classroom teacher’s and that this difference would
affect the outcome?
– Researcher bias
• Attempt to control scoring bias by having students
place numbers instead of names on posttest writing
sample
• Possible leniency in scoring experimental group
samples
• To reduce bias in a subsequent study, all writing
samples should be anonymous and should be scored by
more than one rater
21. Results
Student Confidence in Writing
The t-test did not demonstrate the
required level of statistical significance,
with a p-value of 0.078 (t = 1.45 df 33, p
< .05).
Still, the gain for the experimental group
was larger than the gain for the control
group and shows a trend toward
significance.
22. Results
Student Confidence in Writing (Cont’d)
Values Xa
Xb
n 18 17
sum 1 -32
mean 0.0556 -1.8824
sumsq 363 216
SS 362.9444 155.7647
variance 21.3497 9.7353
st. dev. 4.6206 3.1201
MeanA
– MeanB t df
1.9379 +1.45 33
P
one-tailed 0.0782485
two-tailed 0.156497
Pretest/posttest comparison of
confidence in writing
23. Results
Student Achievement in Writing
The results of the pretest/posttest
writing samples showed a significant
difference in scores between students in
the experimental group and those in the
control group (t = 2.97 df 33, p < .05).
The experimental group had a mean gain
score of 2.97, while the control group
showed a mean loss of 0.26.
24. Results
Student Achievement in Writing (Cont’d)
Values Xa
Xb
n 18 17
sum 53.5 -4.5
mean 2.9722 -0.2647
sumsq 301.75 201.75
SS 142.7361 200.5588
variance 8.3962 12.5349
st. dev. 2.8976 3.5405
MeanA
– MeanB t df
3.2369 +2.97 33
P
one-tailed 0.002758
two-tailed 0.005516
Pretest/posttest comparison
of achievement in writing
26. Discussion (Cont’d)
Post-intervention interviews—Increase in
confidence
– “It’s easier for me to write because I can
come up with ideas faster. I know the details
I need to put.”
– “I thought at first that I was writing just like
everyone else in the class, but at the end, I
saw I was a bit better than them. I liked it
because I thought the six traits helped me
improve.”
– I can now “choose better words,” “organize
my ideas better,” “include more details than
before,” and “narrow my ideas much more.”
27. Discussion
Indicators of growth in achievement and
confidence
Students in experimental group spent more
time writing posttest than control group and
than they did during pretest.
Writing samples from the experimental group
were generally longer and more elaborated than
those from the control group.
Students in experimental group asked fewer
prescriptive questions (e.g., “How many
paragraphs?” “Does spelling count?”) than
control group and than they did during pretest.
28. Discussion
Increases in mean scores by trait
Ideas Organization Voice
Word
Choice
Sentence
Fluency Conventions
Experimental 0.41 0.65 0.79 0.65 0.59 0.21
Control 0.03 -0.18 -0.03 -0.06 -0.06 0.03
Experimental group also showed
growth in the mean score on
each of the traits.
29. Discussion
Increases in mean scores by trait (Cont’d)
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Ideas
O
rganization
Voice
W
ord
Choice
Sentence
Fluency
Conventions
Trait
MeanGainScore
Experimental
Control
30. Discussion
Results suggest that the six-trait
model is effective for helping students
improve achievement in writing.
Though not statistically conclusive,
qualitative evidence also seems to
point to the model’s effectiveness on
improving student confidence in
writing.
31. Action Plan
Given the improvements seen in
this study, I would recommend that
the six-trait model be implemented
throughout our school, not just as
an assessment method, but also as
an instructional technique.
32. Action Plan
1. Share results with teachers.
2. Design and conduct a series of
workshops for teachers on the traits
and on assessing writing with the
traits.
3. Provide teachers with resources for
teaching the traits.
4. Offer coaching or mentoring to
teachers during the implementation
period.
33. Final Thoughts
Over the past semester, I have seen these
seventh grade students become more
enthusiastic writers who produce better
pieces of writing.
If we can replicate these results
throughout the school, our students will
likely be more successful with their writing
and with their learning in school and
beyond.
34. References
Arter, J. A., Spandel, V., Culham, R., & Pollard, J. (1994, April). The impact
of training students to be self-assessors of writing. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED370975) Retrieved November 29, 2007,
from ERIC database.
Bellamy, P. C. (2001). Research on writing with the 6+1 traits. Retrieved
November 29, 2007, from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
Web site: http://www.nwrel.org/ assessment/research.php?
odelay=0&d=1
Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. J. (2002, September). Classroom assessment
for learning. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 40-43. Retrieved October 14,
2007, from EBSCOhost database. (7386630)
Dart, B. C., Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Brownlee, J. M., & McCrindle, A. R. (1998,
October). Change in knowledge of learning and teaching through
journal writing. Research Papers in Education, 13(3), 291-318. Retrieved
November 29, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. (6682874)
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1987, May). Synthesis of research on teaching writing.
Educational Leadership, 44(8), 71-82. Retrieved November 24, 2007,
from EBSCOhost database. (8721824)
35. References (Cont’d)
Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006, February 15). Writing to learn
strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(2/3). Abstract retrieved
November 29, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.
Jarmer, D., Kozol, M., Nelson, S., & Salsberry, T. (2000, Fall/Winter). Six-trait
writing model improves scores at Jennie Wilson Elementary. Journal of
School Improvement, 1(2). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from North
Central Association Committee on Accreditation and
School Improvement Web site:
http://www.ncacasi.org/jsi/2000v1i2/six_trait_model
Kozlow, M., & Bellamy, P. (2004, December). Experimental study on the
impact of the 6+1 trait writing model on student achievement in writing.
Retrieved November 29, 2007, from Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory Web site: http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/
research.php?odelay=0&d=1
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A
study of teaching and learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from ERIC database.
(ED286205
36. References (Cont’d)
Pegram, D. M. (2006, March). “What if?”: Teaching research and creative-
thinking skills through proposal writing. English Journal, 95(4), 18-22.
Abstract retrieved November 29, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.
Spandel, V. (2001). Creating writers through 6-trait writing assessment and
instruction (3rd
ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Stiggins, R. J. (1985, October). Improving assessment where it means the
most: In the classroom. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 69-74. Retrieved
November 28, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. (8518331)
Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1984). The use of performance
assessment in the classroom (Monograph). (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED242718) Retrieved November 29, 2007,
from EBSCOhost database.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Zacharias, M. E. (1991, Winter). The relationship between journal writing in
education and thinking processes: What educators say about it.
Education, 112(2), 265-270. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from
EBSCOhost database.
