Comparing Two Methods of Writing

2,073 views

Published on

Writing, Interactive Writing, Writers Workshop

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Comparing Two Methods of Writing

  1. 1. Running head: COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 1 Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction Writing Workshops and Interactive Writing: Which Method Develops Confident and Independent Writers in Kindergarten Catrina Reid Kennesaw State University
  2. 2. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 2 Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 4 Importance of the Study............................................................................................................................ 4 Research Questions................................................................................................................................... 5 Background............................................................................................................................................... 5 Writing Workshop................................................................................................................................ 5 Interactive Writing ............................................................................................................................... 6 Similarities Between Writing Workshop and Interactive Writing ....................................................... 6 Differences Between Writing Workshop and Interactive Writing....................................................... 7 Writing with Independence .................................................................................................................. 7 Review of Literature ....................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology................................................................................................................................. 16 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 16 Setting..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Participants ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Research Design ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 17 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Implications for Teaching and Research....................................................................................... 21 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 21 Limitations of Study ............................................................................................................................... 21 Implications for the Future for Educators............................................................................................... 22 Implication for the Future for Other Researchers................................................................................... 22 References..................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix A................................................................................................................................... 27 Assessment Rubric ................................................................................................................................. 27 Appendix B................................................................................................................................... 28 Student one – Pre-Assessment............................................................................................................... 28 Student one – Writing Workshop ........................................................................................................... 31 Student one – Interactive Writing........................................................................................................... 33 Appendix C................................................................................................................................... 35 Student two – Pre-Assessment .............................................................................................................. 35 Student two – Writing Workshop.......................................................................................................... 37 Student two – Interactive Writing........................................................................................................... 39 Appendix D................................................................................................................................... 41 Student three – Pre-Assessment............................................................................................................. 41 Student three – Writing Workshop......................................................................................................... 47 Student three – Interactive Writing......................................................................................................... 49 Appendix E ................................................................................................................................... 52 Parental Consent Form With Child Assent Statement............................................................................ 52
  3. 3. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 3 Abstract Students enter kindergarten with a wide variety of cognitive abilities and life experiences as they transition from oral to written literacy. Writing is an essential skill that will benefit students for the rest of their lives. It is the window to communication and has an effect on the development of students’ academically, emotionally, and socially. Academically, writing exercises support the development of critical thinking and problem solving skills. In this article, there are two different writing techniques compared, writing workshop and interactive writing, to see which technique produces the most independent writers at the kindergarten level.
  4. 4. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 4 Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction Writing Workshops and Interactive Writing: Which Method Develops Confident and Independent Writers in Kindergarten Introduction “Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.” – Benjamin Franklin. Students enter kindergarten with a wide variety of cognitive abilities and life experiences as they transition from oral to written literacy. They begin to demonstrate their understanding of the organizational and basics features of print as they learn to track print and distinguish words from pictures and letters from words (Barge, 2012). Importance of the Study Writing is an essential skill that will benefit students for the rest of their lives. It is the window to communication and has an effect on the development of students’ academically, emotionally, and socially. Academically, writing exercises support the development of critical thinking and problem solving skills. In early education, the writing process is introduced. With the writing process the students learn planning and organizing. Emotionally, creative and reflective writing exercises build confidence and the appreciation of writing. Through journals and personal story writing, children can discover their identities and work through real-life problems. Socially, writing helps children connect to the world around them. Things like collaborative writing projects, enables the social inability of students.
  5. 5. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 5 Research Questions Writing workshop and interactive writing are two frequently recommended writing instructional methods. Comparing the two different writing techniques to prove which technique yields the best results as far a producing writing independence, is the purpose of this study. The questions to determine independence are: (1) Did the student choose the topic? (2) Did the student write using his/her imagination? If not, did the teacher have to help? (3) Was the student able to write two to three sentences while staying on topic? (4) Did the student start each sentence with a capital letter? (5) Did the student use proper punctuation? The principle research question addressed in this study is: In comparing two methods of writing instruction: Writing Workshop and Interactive Writing, which method develops confident and independent writers in the kindergarten grade level? Background Writing workshop. Writing workshop is an approach to teaching writing as students learn and practice the importance of rehearsal, drafting/revising, and editing their pieces of writing (Calkins, 1986; Graves, 1983). Calkins (1986) extended the concept of writing workshop to include a more student-centered approach in the classroom by implementing peer conferencing to assist in the organization and practice of writing. Writing workshop consists of three parts: opening meeting (mini-lesson), work time, and closing meeting (sharing). In the opening meeting, the teacher introduces the lesson in a whole-group setting, with some interaction from the students. During work time, the students work independently on their writing and conference with the teacher. In the closing meeting, the students share their work with their peers.
  6. 6. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 6 Interactive writing. Interactive writing takes a different approach. It is a group writing experience that helps children attend to the details of letters, sounds, and words while creating meaningful text (Pinnell & Fontas, 1998). The focus of interactive writing is to provide young students with instruction on print concepts, phonemic awareness, phonics, and high-frequency words (Hammerberg, 2001; Tompkins, 2010). The main components of interactive writing instruction include negotiating, constructing, and rereading text. During interactive writing, the students and teacher negotiate the writing topic and detail of the text to be written. Next, the text is co-constructed as the teacher and students share the pen to create a sentence or brief story. Teacher guidance focuses on student attention on applying letter-sound correspondence, segmenting and blending, letter identification and formation, and high-frequency recognition. Mistakes students might make while sharing the pen in letter formations and spellings are corrected with teacher help. The group-created text is reread each time a new word is written for reading practice (D’on Jones, Reutzel, & Fargo, 2010). Similarities between writing workshop and interactive writing. The two writing techniques have some similarities between them. Both interactive writing and writing workshop create a literacy environment that emphasizes the importance of writing by utilizing writing models, recognizing the unique contributions of each writer, and providing instruction in response to student needs (D’on Jones, Reutzel, & Fargo, 2010). Writing is valued and instructional time is dedicated to writing in both writing techniques. Writing workshop and interactive writing, both, build on the importance of writing in early literacy. Students are involved in authentic writing tasks with genres such as opinion, informative and narrative writing. Both writing techniques help develop problem-solving skills in a highly supported social context through the group discussions in interactive writing and
  7. 7. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 7 during conferences in writing workshop. Both methods are responsive to children’s development with the teacher providing instruction based on student needs. Inclusion of writing instruction through the interactive active writing technique or the writing workshop approach gets important benefits to the literacy environment for young children. Differences between writing workshop and interactive writing. There are also differences between the two writing techniques such as: content of the learning risk – the things that are taught during the sessions; and sequencing of skills – bottom up versus top down. The major difference that drives the focus of the research is the role of the teacher. The role of the teacher differs in the level and degree of teacher support between interactive writing and writing workshop. Interactive writing is a form of shared teacher-student writing. Writing workshop is based on independent student writing. During interactive writing, the teacher’s role is to provide guidance to create written text. The teacher’s role in writing workshop is to organize the workshop into a predictable structure and to provide modeling support for individual writers (D’on Jones, Reutzel, & Fargo, 2010). Writing with independence. Independent writing gives students opportunities to do their own writing using both self-selected and assigned topics. Independent writing occur as a follow- up to a series of writing lessons – involving modeled, shared, and guided writing – with a focus on a particular concept of skill. As an independent writer at the kindergarten level, students are expected to successfully write a story without any scaffolding. Writing independently occurs only after the writing lessons. The students should be able to choose their own topic and write two to three supporting sentences while staying on the topic. The students should be able to start their sentences with a capital letter and end the sentence with the proper punctuation. All these
  8. 8. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 8 writing techniques are taught in both the interactive writing model and the writing workshop model. Review of Literature D’on Jones, Reutzel, and Fargo (2010) conducted a study comparing Interactive Writing and Writer’s Workshop and the effects on Kindergarten Students’ Reading Skills. The study included phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, and word reading. In all three areas, there was a steady growth with no significant differences in the two writing techniques. They concluded that when consistently implemented during the first 16 weeks of kindergarten, interactive writing and writing workshop are equally effective in promoting acquisition of the early reading skills of phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and word reading ability. The effects of Writing Workshop on the abilities of first grade students to become confident and independent writers was studied by Jasmine and Weiner (2007). This study implemented a mixed methodology design incorporating qualitative and quantitative analysis by administering a pre-survey to each child before he/she began the Writing Workshop and a post survey after the intervention; systematic observational research as a checklist to record observed practices of students during peer revising conferences; portfolios to assess student writing and graded via a rubric; and lastly review of students regarding confidence and ability in writing. They concluded that the writing workshop model has proven to be an effective instructional method to support first graders in learning the writing process by choosing a topic, revising and editing drafts, and sharing their work. By the end of the study, students were working independently and helping each other add detail and edit through student/student conferences. Craig (2006) studied the effects of an adapted interactive writing intervention of kindergarten children’s phonological awareness, spelling, and early reading development. She
  9. 9. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 9 used a pretest-posttest comparison-group design. The primary goal was to compare a form of contextualized instruction based on an adapted interactive writing program with a field-tested program of metalinguistic games. The interactive writing-plus and metalinguistic games-plus children demonstrated comparable performances on measures of phonological awareness, spelling, and pseudo-word reading; however, the children in the interactive writing-plus group showed greater progress on measures of real word identification, passage comprehension, and word reading development. The findings verified that the children participating in a contextualized approach matched or exceeded the achievement of the children participating in a skill-sequenced program using metalinguistic games. According to Patterson, Schaller, and Clemens in their article, A Closer Look at Interactive Writing, “Interactive writing can take on many different forms and is used in a variety of ways in the classroom. This type of writing helps build a bridge between writing and all other areas of curriculum.” This is because students and teachers use this form of writing as a collaborative effort. English Language Learners (ELL) benefits from this type of writing by using the collaboration while interacting socially and linguistically with their peers. Making a class book is a great way to use the interactive writing technique. A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Students in the Elementary Grades was a study conducted by Graham, Kiuhara, McKeown, and Harris. In an effort to identify instructional practices for teaching writing to elementary grade students, they conducted the study focusing their efforts on true and quasi-experiments. The purpose was to find a use approach for identifying instructional practices that have the power to transform students’ writing. They use 13 instructional practices: strategy instruction; adding self-regulation to strategy instruction; text structure instruction; creativity/imagery instruction; teaching
  10. 10. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 10 transportation skills; grammar instruction; prewriting activities; peer assistance; product goals; assessing writing; word processing; extra writing; and comprehensive writing programs. They calculated an average weighted effective size for the 13 writing treatments, for all but one treatment, the average weighted effective size was positive and statistically greater than 0. The findings from the review provide support for the theoretical contention that writing strategies and knowledge plan an important role in elementary students’ growth as writers. When students receive instruction designed to enhance their strategic prowess as writers they become better overall writers. Schulz detailed Effective Writing Assessment and Instruction for Young English Language Learners. According to Schulz, the total number of ELL in the American public schools is more than 4.5 million students or 9.6% of the total school population. Teachers are unprepared for the unique needs and complexities that accompany ELL in elementary schools today. This article focused on instructional writing strategies and assessments for ELL in the elementary classroom. Some of the instructional strategies are self-assessment checklists, writing conferences, and writing portfolios. ELL students are not a homogenous group. They have different academic abilities. Teacher’s expectations play an important role in writing instruction as well. Effective teaching is the key to sustained academic achievement for all students, especially ELL who may struggle with writing. Effective teachers are able to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all students at different points in the educational continuum. Interactive Writing Beyond the Primary Grades was discussed by Wall. While writers’ workshop is commonly used to provide an authentic context for addressing students’ writing needs, teachers struggle with ways to teach spelling, punctuation, and grammar in similarly
  11. 11. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 11 authentic ways. Interactive writing was developed in 1991 by a group of researchers and teachers associated with The Ohio State University. By adapting McKenzie’s research on shared writing to include student participation through a “shared pen” approach, they made the process collaborative and interactive for students. Interactive writing served to provide a shared text around which class discussions of grammar, punctuation, and writer’s craft revolved. Interactive writing can provide students in the upper elementary grades a chance to apply and experiment with new and more advanced writing concepts with the help and support of their peers. The National Assessment of Educational Progress found that only 25% of 4th , 8th , and 12th grade students were at grade-level writing proficiency. This statistic was found in the article, The Effectiveness of an Explicit Instruction Writing Program for Second Graders, by Hough, Hixson, Decker, and Bradley-Johnson. Insufficient writing skill is a major contributor to lack of school and college success. They evaluated a modification of Quickwrite, a strategic writing program that explicitly teaches students how to brainstorm, plan, draft, and revise within brief time periods. Teachers who did not have knowledge of the study or the participants rated overall number of story elements included in second-grade students’ stories higher after the intervention. The rate of student writing did not improve. Results were maintained 4 weeks after the intervention. There are educational benefits of Interactive Writing which an approach to beginning writing instruction appropriate for kindergarten and first grade children. Williams and Pionieta discusses these benefits in their article, Using Interactive Writing Instruction with Kindergarten and First-Grade English Language Learners. Interactive writing is an approach to beginning writing instruction that teaches young children what it means “to write” and how they go about it. The lessons begins with a shared activity, most often storybook reading. While reading the
  12. 12. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 12 book the teacher is discussing unknown vocabulary words. This provides children with the background knowledge. Next, the text is planned and is often a one- or two-sentence response to the book that was shared. Once they have decided on the message, the teacher begins to write the oral text on a large writing tablet. At strategic points in the lesson-those with high instructional value-the teacher “shares the pen” with her students. Throughout the lesson, the teacher models phonemic segmentation skills. Throughout the lesson the teacher asks the students to constantly reread their writing. Learning to write can be complex process for all young children, and most likely, ELL will need additional instructional support. Interactive writing incorporates the instructional support that research had determined is essential to literacy instruction for young Ells, including structure, interactive conversation, teacher and peer collaboration, and explicit instruction. An option to relieve the stress of teaching writing in writers’ workshop is integrating writing partnerships, per Hsu in her article, Writing Partnerships. Writers’ workshop consists of a three part lesson: the opening, work-time, and closing. According to Hsu, an opening was easy enough because she had a captive audience and the closing the students would just share their work, it was the work-time that was agonizing. Partnering in the writers’ workshop, a concept from educator Lucy Calkins, takes a few days to implement it. Partnerships have five features of authentic literacy: the presence of other people, feedback from others, access to tools, multiple options for activity, and problem-solving situations. The partners have to be matched. Matching the partners is a skill because you would want to avoid social gatherings while finding two compatible students that will work well together. Things to consider are gender, strengths, weaknesses, organizational habits, personality, ELL needs, and potential interference from pullout support. Before writing partnerships, the writers’ workshop was a traditional way.
  13. 13. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 13 Writing partnerships reshaped the way writers’ workshop work causing it to run more smoothly. It made the students more independent and more excited about writing. Can writing be introduced to students as young as pre-kindergarten? According to King in the article, Workshop in Preschool: Acknowledging Children as Writers, it can and she explains how. Most preschoolers are not sitting down at desks scribing letters into words and sentences. This does not mean they are incapable of creating stories that can be put into print. Typically, writing workshops consist of four major components: teacher-directed mini-lessons about writing; child-centered, open-ended writing time; teacher-student conference time and author share time. All this can be done with certain modifications for preschoolers. The modifications are things like limiting the times on mini-lessons and pushing the shared conferences back to later times in the year. The steps are to set up a time in your preschool classroom when students can all write together each day (journal time), provide a time for the students to share, start conferences midyear, and be very observant. Writing is a fundamental part of engaging in professional, social, community, and civic activities. Nearly 70 percent of salaried employees have at least some responsibility for writing, and the ability to write well is a critical component of being able to communicate effectively to a variety of audiences. Students should develop an early foundation in writing in order to communicate their ideas effectively and efficiently. Graham, Bollinger, Olson, D'Aoust, MacArthur, and McCutchen details a report, Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers, while making recommendations based on the best available research evidence, as well as the combined expertise and experience of the panel members. The recommendations are: (1) Provide daily time for students to write; (2) Teach students to use the writing process for
  14. 14. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 14 a variety of purposes; (3) Teach students to become fluent with handwriting, spelling, sentence construction, typing and word processing; and (4) Create and engage a community of writers. The writing process can pose real challenges for some children. Dunn and Finley discuss some of the struggles in their article, Children’s Struggles with the Writing Process. Composing text is an essential skill for students. To produce a publishable story that fits the expectations for a sequence of events that makes sense and to move to a beginning, middle, and an end that still has a problem and a solution, students need to demonstrate command of writing practices such as idea generation, grammar, paragraphing, and story structure. A variety of strategies and activities exist to address areas of concern for struggling writers. One strategy deals with a series of seven questions basically reviewing who, what, when, where, why, and how. The ART strategy is another used. The ART strategy uses Ask, Reflect, and Text. Based on the writers’ workshop and Ernst’s artists’ workshop, the Thirsty Thinkers writers’ workshop was developed for children to have the opportunity to learn a narrative story-writing strategy which incorporated using art in the prewriting stage of creating their own story. In the final thoughts, Nancy, a writers’ workshop teacher, commented that, “Thirsty Thinkers participants were really excited to write. Even first graders made a real effort to apply the strategy.” Students of all ages can use illustrations. Applying them to writing may or may not be a new practice to them. For struggling writers, the use of art can help make their story products more elaborate. Williams, Sherry, Robinson, and Hungler details an article, The Practice Page as A Mediational Tool for Interactive Writing Instruction, which describes the ways in which an experienced primary-grade teacher used and continually modified “the practice page” to mediate specific aspects of interactive writing instruction. With mediated action, people typically employ tools of the culture to accomplish specific tasks. The mediated tool the teacher uses in the
  15. 15. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 15 practice page during the interactive writing instruction. The practice page consists of two unlined spiral notebooks that are turned sideways to create two writing areas. The bottom page of the spiral is where the child writes his or her story. The top page, which is called the “working space,” “working page,” or “practice page,” provides an area for the teacher and child to “work together on words.” The teacher used the practice page in the majority of her writing lessons and the primary purpose for which she used this tool was “word solving” – working out the spelling of specific words to be written in the group story. The authors’ analysis demonstrated that the teacher’s instruction on the practice page made the internal cognitive processes involved in spelling external visible for her students. Writers’ workshop from a parent’s perspective was detailed in Baker’s article, Writing and Reading in a First-Grade Writers’ Workshop: A Parent’s Perspective. The author spent a year as a volunteer in her son’s first-grade classroom. In the article, she describes her experiences and reflects on the growth she saw in children as readers and writers. She reviews her responsibilities as a volunteer such as sit face-to-face with the child as you are conferring, listen carefully, say something positive, ask questions, and do not spell words for the children. She felt that misspelled words would become a problem and didn’t understand that phonetic spelling was a part of the student’s writing growth. She saw the link between reading and writing. She understood that children get a voice through their writing. Lastly, she understood writing could be fun but it is work. Her final thoughts were that she believes whole language instruction reflects the close relationship between reading and writing. The approach to writing that was used in the classroom does not turn all children into prolific writers. The approach does allow each child to write successfully, however, no matter what difficulties he or she encounters.
  16. 16. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 16 Methodology Purpose The primary purpose of this research study is to determine which writing technique yields the most independent writers at the kindergarten level. Interactive writing and writing workshop are efficient ways of teaching, but they are slightly two different ways of teaching writing. Setting The research took place in a suburban but urban school setting. The school teaches PK – 5th grade. In the 2010 – 2011 school year the student population is 642 (not including PK). The race population for the school is 4% Asian, 9% Black, 85% Hispanic, and 2% White. Students with Disabilities are 4%, Limited English Proficient is 60%, and Free/Reduced Meals are 95%. (The State of Georgia, 2011) There is 3.6% of the population participating in Special Education, 48.3% of the students are participating in the English Spanish Other Languages (ESOL) program, and 41.8% of the students are participating in the Early Intervention Program (EIP) program. (The State of Georgia, 2011) Participants The research was done in a kindergarten classroom with a total of 24 students. Eighty- five percent of the students are Hispanic with their first language being Spanish. They were receiving ESOL and EIP services. The classroom was split into two random groups: A and B. There were three students selected for scoring known as: student one, student two, and student three. Student one was chosen from a low ability group of students. Student two was from a median student ability group. Students three was from a higher ability group. This was done for validity purposes. By selecting the students from different ability groups, this allowed the
  17. 17. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 17 considerations if the student does or does not understand the changes in the writing styles. Some children get it faster than others. The comparison was to see if one writing technique is better or the same. Research Design The research included a mixed-method analysis. The classroom was currently using the writing workshop model to complete all writing assignments. The writings done were used as the pre-assessment using the rubric in appendices A. One teacher continued the writing instruction using the writing workshop model for fifteen days while the students were producing writing pieces. The other writing teacher taught using the interactive workshop model for fifteen days while requiring the students to produce independent writing pieces. On the sixteenth day, the teacher sampled the most current writing piece, using the rubric in appendices A. On the seventeenth day, the two teachers exchanged groups and continued to use their same techniques for fifteen days. After the fifteen-day instructional period the teacher selected the latest written piece from the sample students and scored it using the rubric, in appendices A, making a comparison. Data Analysis Data was analyzed using a mixed methods approach. According to John Creswell in Research Design, a mixed methods approach is one, which the researcher tends to base knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds such as consequence-oriented studies. It has strategies of inquiry that involve collecting data either simultaneously or sequentially to best understand research problems. The data collection also involves gathering both numeric information as well as text information so that the final database represents both quantitative and qualitative information.
  18. 18. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 18 The analysis included: the pre-assessment results which was one piece from each sample student; a writing workshop writing piece from each sample student; and an interactive writing piece from each sample student all using the rubric provided in appendices A. The criteria for determining which writing techniques gave the best results of independent writing is: The excellent and good writers were determined as “independent”. The fair or needs improvement writers were determined as not independent. The pre-assessment, which was a writing workshop piece, was scored using the above criteria. After the second technique was taught, interactive writing, that piece was scored using the same criteria. After all the writing pieces were scored, they were compared to be determined if there were changes. If the writing workshop piece scored higher, it was determined the writing workshop technique works best. If the interactive writing piece scored higher, it was determined the interactive writing technique works best. If there were no changes and each piece scored the same, it was determined that neither writing technique was better. The margin of determining is ± 2. For example, if the pre- assessment has a score of 14 and the post-assessment has a score of 15, it was determined that there was no significant difference between the two writing techniques. If the pre-assessment has a score of 11 points and the post-assessment has a score of 9 or lower it would be determined that the Interactive writing technique did not work. TABLE 1. Writing Scores Excellent Writer 15 points Good Writer 10 – 14 points Fair Writer 6 – 9 points Need Improvement 0 - 5 points
  19. 19. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 19 Results Student one started the year as a fair writer according to the pre-assessment score of eight points. After learning to write under writing workshop student one moved up to a good writer with a score of 11 points. After implementing the interactive writing technique scored a total of 13 points, which kept him at the good writer level. (See rubric in appendices A and writing samples in appendices B.) TABLE 2. Student One Results Pre-Assessment Writing Workshop Interactive Writing Choose Topic 1 3 3 Imagination 3 3 3 Supporting Sentences 2 3 3 Capital Letters 1 1 1 Punctuation 1 1 3 Totals 8 11 13 Student two started the year as a fair writer with seven points on the pre-assessment. On the writing workshop writing piece student two scored 12 points, which was a significant 0   5   10   15   Writing  Scores   Figure 1. Assessment Results Student  One   Student  Two   Student  Three  
  20. 20. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 20 increase. A 12-point score increases student two to a good writer. Student two’s exposure to the interactive writing technique only moved up one point which still is determined to be a good writer. (See rubric in appendices A and writing samples in appendices C.) Student three started the year as a fair writer and a scoring of six points. Student three was taught under the writing workshop technique and scored 13 points, a significant jump to a good writer. After learning to write using the interactive writing technique, student three stay at 13 points and a good writer. (See rubric in appendices A and writing samples in appendices D.) TABLE 4. Student Three Results Pre-Assessment Writer's Workshop Interactive Writing Choose Topic 1 3 3 Imagination 1 3 3 Supporting Sentences 1 3 3 Capital Letters 1 1 1 Punctuation 2 3 3 Totals 6 13 13 TABLE 3. Student Two Results Pre-Assessment Writing Workshop Interactive Writing Choose Topic 1 3 3 Imagination 3 3 3 Supporting Sentences 2 2 3 Capital Letters 1 3 1 Punctuation 0 1 3 Totals 7 12 13
  21. 21. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 21 Implications for Teaching and Research Conclusion In comparing two methods of writing instruction: writing workshop and interactive writing, which method develops confident and independent writers in the kindergarten grade level? According to the results, there was not a difference between the two writing techniques with developing confident and independent writers in the kindergarten grade level. After learning to write using both techniques all three of the sample students scored the same or within the margin of good writer status. Implementing Interactive writing didn’t increase nor decrease the students’ writing ability. Neither writing technique proved to be better than the other. Writing workshop and interactive writing are two different writing techniques. In this research, the comparison is the difference in making confident and independent writers using the two different writing techniques. Currently, writing workshop involves all of the teacher’s time and attention to individual students. Writing workshop is designed for students to work independently while writing their stories, but currently they are unable to do so. The Interactive Writing technique will, in the beginning, require the teacher’s involvement. Toward the end, the expectation is for the students to learn from the process and develop ways to work on a more independent level. The students were equally as independent using both writing techniques. Limitations of Study This study has limitations that should be considered. First, the teacher’s understanding and delivery of each technique is a limitation. The teacher has previous experience in teaching writing with the Writing workshop technique. The teacher had to research and learn to teach writing using the Interactive Writing technique just prior to the start of the study. Second, the length of the research period was a limitation. The research was conducted in a four-week
  22. 22. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 22 period. The study should be extended to a full academic year to allow time for potential effects of writing instruction to emerge. It would allow writing to be sampled during different maturity levels of the students. Last, the time of the academic year in which the study was conducted is a limitation. The study was done during the second semester of the kindergarten year. This allowed for the students to mature in their writing and schooling. The study should be conducted in the beginning of the kindergarten year. Implications for the Future for Educators The writing workshop model is less hands-on for the teacher, while interactive writing is more hands-on, neither worked best for any particular student. Further research should be done. The research period should be longer and the sample population should be increased. In the future, this research should be conducted in the first semester of school. to exclude the limitation of student maturity. The research should include more than one kindergarten classroom and more than one teacher. Implication for the Future for Other Researchers This study did not include a control group. In order to establish conditions consistent with each method of writing instruction, the teachers need to be trained on both methods of writing instruction and the implementation of each method should be monitored. Further researchers could consider comparing either method against a writing control group. As these two methods are the most used and the popular approaches to writing instruction, the resulting study could potentially be a comparison of each particular method of writing instruction against different versions of itself.
  23. 23. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 23 References Baker, E. C. (1994). Writing and reading in a first-grade writers' workshop: a parent's perspective. (writers' workshop helps children develop reading and writing skills). The Reading Teacher, (5), 372 Barge, J. D. Georgia Department of Education, (2012). Teacher Guidance for Teaching the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards: Kindergarten. Retrieved from website: https://www.georgiastandards.org/Common-Core/Common Core Frameworks/CCGPS_ELA-Kindergarten-Guidance.pdf Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Carpol, J. (2013). Importance of writing in elementary schools. Retrieved from http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/importance-writing-elementary-schools-8215.html Craig, S. A. (2006). The effects of an adapted interactive writing intervention on kindergarten children's phonological awareness, spelling, and early reading development: A contextualized approach to instruction. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 714- 731. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.714 Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Aproaches (2nd ed., pp. 18-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Cox, C. (2012). Interactive writing. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/48489/ D'On Jones, C., Reutzel, D., & Fargo, J. D. (2010). Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction: Effects on Kindergarten Students’ Reading Skills. Journal Of Educational Research, 103(5), 327-341. Dunn, M. W., & Finley, S. (2010). Children's Struggles with the Writing Process: Exploring Storytelling, Visual Arts, and Keyboarding to Promote Narrative Story Writing.
  24. 24. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 24 Multicultural Education, 18(1), 33-42Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching Writing to Elementary Students in Grades 4-6: A National Survey. Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494-518. Family Health International. (n.d.). Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. In www.ccs.new.edu. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from http://www.ccs.neu.edu/course/is4800sp12/resources/qualmethods.pdf Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Olson, C., D'Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & ... National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, (ED). (2012). Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers: A Practice Guide. NCEE 2012- 4058. What Works Clearinghouse. 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. doi:10.1037/a0029185 Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hammerberg, D. D. (2001). Reading and writing “hypertextually”: Children’s literature, technology, and early writing instruction. Language Arts, 78, 207–216. Hough, T., Hixson, M., Decker, D., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (2012). The Effectiveness of an Explicit Instruction Writing Program for Second Graders. Journal Of Behavioral Education, 21(2), 163-174. doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9146-0 Hsu, C. (2009). Writing Partnerships. Reading Teacher, 63(2), 153-158.
  25. 25. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 25 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. doi:10.1007/s10643-007-0186-3 King, K. A. (2012). Writing Workshop In Preschool. Reading Teacher, 65(6), 392. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01059 Mediational Tool for Interactive Writing Instruction. Reading Teacher, 65(5), 330-340.Ontario Education. (2005). A Guide to Effective Instruction in Writing. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.eworkshop.on.ca/edu/resources/guides/Guide_Writing_%20K_3.pdf Ouyang, R. (n.d.). Basic inquiry of quantitative research. Retrieved from http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~rouyang/ED-research/details.htm Patterson, E., Schaller, M., & Clemens, J. (2008). A Closer Look at Interactive Writing. Reading Teacher, 61(6), 496-497. Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (1998). Word matters: Teaching phonics and spelling in the reading/writing classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Rhodes, L. K., & Dudley-Marling, C. (1996). Readers and writers with a difference: A holistic approach to teaching struggling readers and writers (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Schulz, M. (2009). Effective Writing Assessment and Instruction for Young English Language Learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(1), 57-62. doi:10.1007/s10643-009- 0317-0 Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  26. 26. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 26 True Ink. (n.d.). Why writing is important. Retrieved from http://www.true-ink.org/why-writing- is-important.html Wikipedia. (2012). Writing workshop. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_Workshop Williams, C. (2012). Using Interactive Writing Instruction with Kindergarten and First-Grade English Language Learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(3), 145-150. Williams, C., Sherry, T., Robinson, N., & Hungler, D. (2012). The Practice Page as a
  27. 27. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 27 Appendix A Assessment Rubric Assessment Rubric Objective 3 2 1 0 Choose topic The student chose topic independently The student chose topic with some assistance from the teacher The student was not able to choose topic Imagination The student used imagination to write the story The student used imagination with the assistance from the teacher to write the story The student did not use imagination and relied solely on the teacher to write the story Supporting sentences The student wrote two or more supporting sentences with no assistance from the teacher The student wrote 1 sentence with no support from the teacher The student wrote one supporting sentence with assistance from the teacher The did not write any supporting sentences and relied solely on the teacher Capital letters The student used all capital letters correctly The student used a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence but not on the proper nouns The students had capital letters placed incorrectly throughout the story The student did not use any capital letters Punctuation The student used the correct punctuation The student used correct punctuation with the assistance from the teacher The student had punctuation placed incorrectly The student did not use punctuation
  28. 28. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 28 Appendix B Student one – Pre-Assessment
  29. 29. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 29
  30. 30. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 30
  31. 31. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 31 Student one – Writing Workshop
  32. 32. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 32
  33. 33. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 33 Student one – Interactive Writing
  34. 34. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 34
  35. 35. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 35 Appendix C Student two – Pre-Assessment
  36. 36. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 36
  37. 37. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 37 Student two – Writing workshop
  38. 38. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 38
  39. 39. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 39 Student two – Interactive Writing
  40. 40. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 40
  41. 41. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 41 Appendix D Student three – Pre-Assessment
  42. 42. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 42
  43. 43. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 43
  44. 44. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 44
  45. 45. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 45
  46. 46. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 46
  47. 47. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 47 Student three – Writing Workshop
  48. 48. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 48
  49. 49. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 49 Student three – Interactive Writing
  50. 50. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 50
  51. 51. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 51
  52. 52. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 52 Appendix E Parental Consent Form With Child Assent Statement Title of Research Study: • Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction. Writing Workshops and Interactive Writing: Which Method Develops Confident and Independent Writers in Kindergarten? Researcher's Contact Information: • Catrina Reid, 678-676-7302, catrina_d_reid@fc.dekalb.k12.ga.us Your child is being invited to take part in a research study conducted by Catrina Reid of Kennesaw State University. Before you decide to allow your child to participate in this study, you should read this form and ask questions if you do not understand. Description of Project • The purpose of the study is to develop a way to teach the student how to write stories with confidence and independence in Kindergarten. Explanation of Procedures • The teacher will teach writing using two different techniques: writing workshop & interactive writing. Interactive Writing: a group writing experience that helps children attend to the details of letters, sounds, and words while creating meaningful text. The focus of interactive writing is to provide young students with instruction on print concepts, phonemic awareness, phonics, and high-frequency words. The main components of interactive writing instruction include negotiating, constructing, and rereading text. During interactive writing, the students and teacher negotiate the writing topic and detail of the text to be written. Next, the text is co-constructed as the teacher and students share the pen to create a sentence or brief story. Teacher guidance focuses on student attention on applying letter-sound correspondence, segmenting and blending, letter identification and formation, and high-frequency recognition. Writing Workshop: an approach to teaching writing as students learn and practice the importance of rehearsal, drafting/revising, and editing their pieces of writing . Writing Workshop consists of three parts: opening meeting (mini-lesson), work time, and closing meeting (sharing). In the opening meeting, the teacher introduces the lesson in a whole-group setting, with some interaction from the students. During work time, the students work independently on their writing and conference with the teacher. In the closing meeting, the students share their work with their peers. • There will be a total of three writing pieces scored from the students. One piece will be scored before the research begins as a pre-assessment, one writer’s workshop piece will be scored and one interactive writing piece will be scored after teaching with each method. Time Required • There will be no additional time required outside of the normal instructional period. The normal instructional period is one hour per day. The research period is 30 days. Risks or Discomforts • There will be no risks or discomforts.
  53. 53. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 53 Benefits • The research will expose the students to another writing technique. Compensation (if applicable) • There will be no compensation. Confidentiality • The results of this participation will be anonymous. The students will be randomly chosen. Once they are chosen, they will be identified as Student 1, Student 2, and Student 3. No names or personal information will be used. • The samples will remain in a locked filed cabinet for the research period of 30 days. After the research is complete the samples will be given to the parents for their records. Use of Online Surveys (if applicable) • There will be no online surveys. Inclusion Criteria for Participation • The ages of the students are between five and six years old. Parental Consent to Participate I give my consent for my child, __________________________________________________________, to participate in the research project described above. I understand that this participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw my consent at any time without penalty. I also understand that my child may withdraw his/her assent at any time without penalty. __________________________________________________ Signature of Parent or Authorized Representative, Date __________________________________________________ Signature of Investigator, Date ______________________________________________________________________________ _______ PLEASE SIGN BOTH COPIES OF THIS FORM, KEEP ONE AND RETURN THE OTHER TO THE INVESTIGATOR Research at Kennesaw State University that involves human participants is carried out under the oversight of an Institutional Review Board. Address questions or problems regarding these activities to the Institutional Review Board, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Road, #0112, Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591, (678) 797-2268.
  54. 54. COMPARING TWO METHODS OF WRITING 54 ______________________________________________________________________________ _______ Child Assent to Participate My name is Mrs. Reid. I am inviting you to be in a research study about writing stories. Your parent has given permission for you to be in this study, but you get to make the final choice. It is up to you whether you participate. If you decide to be in the study, I will ask you to write a story using your own imagination. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer or do anything that you do not want to do. Everything you say and do will be private, and your parents will not be told what you say or do while you are taking part in the study. When I tell other people what I learned in the study, I will not tell them your name or the name of anyone else who took part in the research study. If anything in the study worries you or makes you uncomfortable, let me know and you can stop. No one will be upset with you if you change your mind and decide not to participate. You are free to ask questions at any time and you can talk to your parent any time you want. If you want to be in the study, sign or print your name on the line below: _____________________________________________ Child’s Name and Signature, Date Check which of the following applies (completed by person administering the assent.) £ Child is capable of reading and understanding the assent form and has signed above as documentation of assent to take part in this study. £ Child is not capable of reading the assent form, but the information was verbally explained to him/her. The child signed above as documentation of assent to take part in this study. _____________________________________________ Signature of Person Obtaining Assent, Date

×