Custom Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-National-Study-Of-Exemplary-Writing-M 👈

1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulri20
Literacy Research and Instruction
ISSN: 1938-8071 (Print) 1938-8063 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20
A National Study of Exemplary Writing Methods
Instructors’ Course Assignments
Roya Q. Scales, Kelly N. Tracy, Joy Myers, Linda Smetana, Dana L. Grisham,
Chinwe Ikpeze, Karen Kreider Yoder & Jenn Sanders
To cite this article: Roya Q. Scales, Kelly N. Tracy, Joy Myers, Linda Smetana, Dana L. Grisham,
Chinwe Ikpeze, Karen Kreider Yoder & Jenn Sanders (2019) A National Study of Exemplary Writing
Methods Instructors’ Course Assignments, Literacy Research and Instruction, 58:2, 67-83, DOI:
10.1080/19388071.2019.1575496
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2019.1575496
Published online: 26 Feb 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 170
View Crossmark data

2. A National Study of Exemplary Writing Methods Instructors’
Course Assignments
Roya Q. Scalesa
, Kelly N. Tracya
, Joy Myersb
, Linda Smetanac
, Dana L. Grishamc
,
Chinwe Ikpezed
, Karen Kreider Yodere
, and Jenn Sandersf
a
School of Teaching & Learning, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC; b
Early, Elementary & Reading Education,
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA; c
Department of Educational Psychology, California State University East
Bay, Hayward, CA; d
School of Education, St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY; e
Elementary Education, Goshen College;
f
School of Teaching, Learning and Educational Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
ABSTRACT
In response to the dearth of research on K to 6 teacher preparation for
teaching writing, we investigated writing methods course instructors’
course assignments. Participants’ courses met the following criteria: (a)
Courses taken by undergraduate elementary teacher candidates; (b)
Writing methods courses; (c) Use of exemplary writing instructional prac-
tices; and (d) Direct writing instruction with field application opportunities.
Cross-case analysis revealed that despite vastly different teacher prepara-
tion programs and contexts, assignments were highly similar and focused
on developing the candidates’ self as writer or on becoming a teacher of
writing. Assignments highlighted in the findings illuminate how exemplary
writing methods course instructors support candidates’ development and
may be applied to programs seeking to create or to strengthen a writing
methods course. Future directions for research are explored.
KEYWORDS
Writing methods courses;
writing pedagogy; writing
methods course
assignments; writing
methods instructors;
preservice teacher education
In the last decade, much attention has focused on reading teacher preparation (e.g., Dillon,
O’Brien, Sato, & Kelly, 2011; Roller, 2010), including research on high quality reading teacher
preparation programs (programs; e.g., Lacina & Block, 2011; Lenski et al., 2013). However, as
Freedman, Hull, Higgs, and Booten (2016) stated in their chapter dedicated to writing in the
Handbook of Research on Teaching (Gitomer & Bell, 2016), “[T]he research on teacher education
for writing teachers is relatively scant” (p. 1419). In response to the call for more research in
preparation to teach writing (e.g., Cassidy, Ortlieb, & Grote-Garcia, 2016; Cremin & Oliver, 2016;
Freedman et al., 2016; National Commission on Writing, 2003), we embarked on this journey to
investigate exemplary writing methods instructors and, more specifically, to examine assignments
from writing methods courses taken by undergraduate elementary teacher candidates. Recent
research addresses teacher candidates’ (candidates’) attitudes about teaching writing (e.g., Cremin
& Oliver, 2016; Hall, 2016); their perceptions of learning from engagement experiences in
a writing methods course (Martin & Dismuke, 2015); their changing beliefs about approaches
to writing as a result of literacy methods courses (e.g., Wickstrom, 2013); and how they implement
learning in the field during student teaching and/or in their first year of teaching (e.g., Grisham &
Wolsey, 2011). However, research studies have not focused on the assignments that writing
methods course instructors use to help undergraduate elementary teacher candidates become
classroom teachers of writing.
CONTACT Roya Q. Scales rqscales@wcu.edu School of Teaching and Learning, Western Carolina University, 91
Killian Building Lane, Cullowhee, NC 28723
LITERACY RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION
2019, VOL. 58, NO. 2, 67–83
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2019.1575496
© 2019 Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers

3. Research on assignments spans at least eight decades, as Dewey (1938) advocated
students’ learning through experiences, asserting that teachers must link prior and current
experiences to the future and engage students “in an active quest for information and for
production of new ideas” (p. 97). For writing methods instructors, Dewey’s assertion
means engaging candidates in authentic writing experiences (e.g., Whitney, 2017), while
simultaneously exploring how to reconcile their writing experiences as K to 12 students
with learning about writing pedagogy and considering their future writing instruction as
classroom teachers (e.g., Dismuke, 2015; Zumbrunn & Krause, 2012). Further, Doyle’s
(1983) seminal review of research on K to 12 classroom tasks, henceforth called assign-
ments, attended to the cognitive processes associated with those assignments. Doyle
identified differences in types of assignments, with the focus on memorization (simple
recall), procedural (using routines to produce correct answers, drill and practice), under-
standing (using schema of content for applying to new situations), and opinion (stating
preferences). Doyle explained assignments as necessary for accountability purposes. Thus,
assignments are created to monitor students’ learning of content. Inspired by Doyle’s
(1983) research on academic tasks, we consider tasks to be assignments that require
elementary candidates’ close attention to writing pedagogy (how to teach writing to
elementary students).
In this study, we focus on exemplary writing methods instructors’ course assignments.
Research on writing methods course assignments is needed to explore how writing
methods course instructors gauge teacher candidates’ deep understanding of writing
pedagogy. This is important because candidates filter course content and more closely
attend to what is assigned because that is what they consider to be important from the
course (Doyle, 1983). Our research question is: What do exemplary writing methods
instructors strive to teach candidates through their course assignments?
Theoretical framework
Our research is shaped by Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural learning theory because candi-
dates develop pedagogical understandings of how to teach writing through interactions
with more knowledgeable others, such as course instructors, peers, and cooperating
teachers. Candidates may have misconceptions of writing pedagogy, due to their own
experiences as K to 12 students, which contributes to their “apprenticeship of observation”
(Lortie, 1975, p. 61). Through Vygotsky’s (1978) lens, we understand that writing methods
instructors’ careful construction of course experiences, including scaffolding, builds can-
didates’ understandings of writing pedagogy while promoting success with course
assignments.
Our research is further informed by Doyle’s (1983) concept of task with the focus on
students’ understanding through higher-level thinking. Thus, the emphasis is on using
schema of content (i.e., writing pedagogy) to apply in new situations (e.g., field place-
ments). Assignments lead to work products, and they draw students’ attention to and help
them filter what aspects of the curriculum are considered important for the topic of study.
As Doyle (1983) asserted, assignments “regulate the selection of information and the
choice of strategies for processing that information” (p. 162). Hence, candidates in writing
methods courses closely attend to course content (writing pedagogy) that assists them with
assignments that are applied to their specific contexts, such as field placements.
68 R. Q. SCALES ET AL.

4. Methodology
This qualitative multiple-case study (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014) investigates
exemplary writing methods instructors’ assignments from elementary level writing meth-
ods courses, where the focus of the course is on teaching candidates how to teach writing.
The courses were focused on writing pedagogy, not writing content. The research litera-
ture indicates that effective writing instruction includes the following components:
authentic, genre-specific writing (e.g., Morgan & Pytash, 2014; Whitney, 2017) with choice
in topics (e.g., Gadd & Parr, 2017; Graves, 1982), daily writing time (e.g., Graves, 1982),
explicit instruction in process writing (e.g., Graham & Perin, 2007), explicit modeling
(e.g., Gadd & Parr, 2017; Troia, 2007), use of mentor texts (Graham & Perin, 2007),
exploring text and genre features through the readers’ lens while attending to authors’
strategies (e.g., Graham & Hebert, 2011), and time for feedback and conferencing (e.g.,
Troia, 2007). Additionally, Bazerman et al. (2017) explained that writing and writing
development are complex for various reasons (e.g., learning needs, curriculum, resources,
opportunities, interests), so teachers must be prepared to differentiate writing instruction
for their students. The research team operationally defines “exemplary writing methods
instructors” as teacher educators who include all the effective writing instruction compo-
nents (see above) in their writing methods courses. After being given a list of the
characteristics of exemplary writing instruction and instructors outlined in research
literature, approximately 15 literacy teacher education researchers attending a national
literacy conference special interest group session recommended (verbally or via email)
potential participants as being exemplary writing methods course instructors. Attendance
at the special interest group sessions is typically 30 members. While some potential
participants were recommended more than once, we did not tally how many times each
participant was recommended.
Then, we invited these potential participants from this purposive, snowball sampling to
complete a survey (see Appendix) about characteristics of exemplary writing instructional
practices as a screening tool, to ensure they fit the study criteria. From that original pool of
34, eight participants were selected using homogeneous sampling (Miles et al., 2014)
because we specifically targeted instructors of elementary-level writing methods courses
who reported using characteristics of exemplary writing instructional practices. We
excluded potential participants who did not indicate use of exemplary writing instruc-
tional practices in their courses, as well as those who taught middle grades or secondary
candidates and those whose courses embedded reading and children’s literature along with
writing. For inclusion in this study, participants’ courses had to meet the following criteria
based initially on their survey responses and then through examination of their syllabi: (a)
Courses taken by undergraduate elementary teacher candidates; (b) Writing methods
courses; (c) Use of exemplary writing instructional practices; and (d) Direct writing
instruction with opportunities for field application.
Participants taught in public and private institutions in six states across the United
States: Florida, Idaho, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. All eight
participants earned their doctoral degrees in the areas of Curriculum and Instruction,
Teaching and Teacher Education, or Elementary Education, with their focus area as
literacy education. Seven participants identified as female and one as male. See Table 1
for participant demographics.
LEARNING RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION 69

5. Data sources included audio-recorded and transcribed individual interviews, syllabi,
and assignment directions. While reports on teacher preparation may focus solely on
course syllabi to make assumptions about course content and the quality of teacher
preparation (e.g., Bryan, Hougen, & Nelson, 2018; Ross et al., 2017), as literacy teacher
educators and researchers we decided to include multiple data sources to support our
understanding of writing methods instructors’ course assignments. Because of our focus
on assignments that require candidates’ close attention to writing pedagogy, we excluded
quizzes and attendance/class participation items from our analysis. Through cross-case
analysis, we deepened our understanding of assignments used by exemplary writing
methods instructors.
While every author interviewed participants, the first four authors comprised the data
analysis team. First, we created a data matrix to organize data (Miles et al., 2014), with
columns labeled: (a) What the assignments were called; (b) Participants; and (c)
Assignment descriptions, including assignment directions and quotes from interview
transcripts. Next, we combed through the data to populate the matrix. Highly similar
assignments were combined in the same row with multiple participants noted. Then we
inserted comments to summarize the essence of assignment descriptions and interview
quotes, which prompted discussions of themes we noticed in the focus of assignments. We
then created a two-column data matrix per assignment focus to group similar assignments
in column one and descriptors in column two. Once data were organized, we carefully
read through both matrices and inserted additional comments for clarification. As data
were sorted and re-sorted, two categories emerged: developing the self as writer and
becoming a teacher of writing.
To address overall validity in our study (e.g., confirmability, dependability, credibility,
transferability, application; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Miles et al., 2014), we took the
following actions. First, we clearly organized and described methods, procedures, and
conclusions. Next, participants provided member checks and the larger research team
served as critical peers. Finally, we suggested application of findings to programs seeking
to create a writing methods course and to strengthen existing writing methods courses.
Findings
Our research question asked, “What do exemplary writing methods instructors strive to
teach candidates through their course assignments?” Across the eight participants, we
found 22 different assignments. Many assignments were highly similar, with 11 assign-
ments focused on developing the self as writer (see Table 2) and 11 focused on becoming
Table 1. Participant demographics.
Pseudonym Years at the university Region Public/private institution
Charlotte 14 Northwest Public
Judy 3 Northwest Public
Kim 11 Central Private
Mark 11 Southeast Public
Michelle 9 Southeast Public
ShinJa 24 Southeast Public
Stephanie 8 Southeast Public
Yolanda 5 Mid-Atlantic Public
70 R. Q. SCALES ET AL.

6. a teacher of writing (see Table 3). It is important to note that Charlotte and Judy (all are
pseudonyms) taught in the same institution and planned courses together. While Mark
and Michelle taught in different institutions, they regularly share ideas. Thus, some
overlaps exist across those pairs of participants.
The sections below illustrate how exemplary writing methods instructors’ assignments
focus on developing the self as writer and on becoming a teacher of writing.
Developing the self as writer
Assignments that develop candidates’ self as writer include journals and other open-ended
writing assignments, as well as various projects that require working through the writing
process, such as memoir writing, writing in multiple genres, multigenre life story project,
and the multigenre book project. These assignments often include multiple writing
samples in a variety of genres, with accompanying reflections so candidates can explain
their learning through these writing experiences.
Table 2. Assignments focused on self as writer.
Assignments (participants) Assignment focus
● Multigenre Life Story Project (Mark, Michelle)
● Writing Portfolio (Charlotte, Judy)
● Multigenre book project with reflective paper (ShinJa)
● Writing Assignments (Yolanda)
Genre; Writing Process; Choice in topics; Reflection
● Memoir Writing Project (Kim)
● Writing Across the Curriculum (Charlotte, Judy)
Writing Process; Genre; Audience
● Journal (Michelle) Personal writing
● Response to Readings/Reading Logs (Michelle)
● Weekly reading journal (ShinJa)
● Quick Writes (Kim)
● Online Forum Discussions (Mark)
Responding to readings; Experiencing writing; Reflections
Table 3. Assignments Focused on Teacher of Writing.
Assignments (participants) Assignment focus
● Multimodal Project (Stephanie) Planning how to implement ELA; Shaped by personal mission;
Developmentally appropriate; Lesson Plans; and/or Schedule
● Lesson Plans (Charlotte, Stephanie, Michelle,
Judy, Kim, ShinJa)
Some plans taught (context dependent)
● Assessment Summary and Reflection (Michelle)
● Student Profile focused on writing (observation
and assessment of writing) (Charlotte, Judy)
● Case study and teaching practice portfolio on
a struggling learner (ShinJa)
Assess student writing; Hold a writing conference with student;
Reflection; Recommend instruction interventions; and/or Track
writing development
● Clinical Experience Report (Mark) Observe lessons, Collect documents, Interview Teacher, Interview
student, and Reflections
● Group presentation on writing standards (ShinJa)
● ELA Content and Pedagogy Research (Michelle)
Examine a Writing standard; Research aspect of ELA content;
Presentation; Paper; and/or Reflection
● The final synthesis paper on writing instruction
(ShinJa)
● Reflective Writing: Final Digital Presentation
(Mark)
● Metacognitive Reflections (Kim)
Reflections on learning how to teach writing and/or Processes and
strategies used; Based on course content and assignments
throughout
LEARNING RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION 71

7. Experiencing the art of writing
During interviews, participants explained the importance of requiring assignments that
develop candidates’ self as writer. They described how getting candidates to recognize
themselves as writers would then translate into their future writing instruction as class-
room teachers. For example, journals and other variations (e.g., response logs, quick
writes) provide candidates with space to jot down their thinking about writing and writing
pedagogy, while also recognizing that they are writers. Each participant shared that these
forms of writing are for candidates to have choice in their personal writing and to discover
their own craft and style as writers, although they sometimes ask candidates to specifically
address an assigned reading about writing pedagogy. ShinJa, for example, uses weekly
reading journals for candidates to record their “thoughts and ideas, concerns and ques-
tions, revelations and wonderings” (ShinJa, syllabus) as they consider their learning about
writing pedagogy in their assigned readings. Likewise, Michelle uses responses to readings
(reading logs) in the same way. However, Michelle also implements personal journals in
class where she provides a relatively open prompt with the option to write about some-
thing else. Michelle explained that journals help candidates “transition into the class by
getting a writing mindset” while building community because she reads and responds to
every entry.
Building confidence in writing
Similarly, Kim focuses on candidates’ discovering the craft of writing while building their
confidence in themselves as writers through quick writes. Kim stated, “I really emphasize
the craft of writing because I don’t think a lot of classroom teachers have that security or
are terribly confident in teaching the craft of writing.”
Kim explained that candidates often admit to lacking confidence in their writing
abilities. Thus, quick writes build their confidence while also helping them consider who
they are as writers. During the interview, Kim stated:
I begin the course by helping them think about themselves as a writer and getting them to
engage in the writing process. We do quick writes. I want them to understand that writing
doesn’t have to be this big scary overwhelming process. When you are putting pen to paper or
fingers to keyboard, you are writing, and it doesn’t have to be this elegant memoir, this
fantastic best-selling novel.
Michelle shared that on the first day of class, she asks candidates to, “put yourself on this
continuum: How do you feel about yourself as a writer? about writing? A lot of them fall
on the low end of that continuum and have had really negative experiences.”
Similarly, Kim spoke to building confidence because “maybe 75% of them don’t
identify as writers. They are not particularly confident, so that’s been a good portion
of the course—helping them feel confident in their abilities as writers.” One of Kim’s
assignments that addresses building candidates’ confidence as writers while developing
their self as writer is the memoir writing project. Kim stated:
One of the things that they take through the whole writing process themselves … is
a memoir. They write about a personal small moment in their lives, and I tell them it has
to be something that they could share with elementary school children.
72 R. Q. SCALES ET AL.

8. Like Kim, other participants address the importance of candidates learning about them-
selves as writers to better understand what their future students will experience.
Illustratively, Yolanda requires candidates to engage in the writing process, a common,
evidence-based practice for improving writing in K to 6 classrooms (e.g., Graham et al.,
2012) and required by many school districts. She does this by having candidates compose
multiple essays (narrative, informational, and argumentative). Yolanda’s syllabus states:
“This course is designed to develop your writing skills so you will be able to teach your
future students to write well. Therefore, the primary course assignments involve compos-
ing texts.” Yolanda said:
I do think you need to be a writer yourself inasmuch as you need to have written enough to
understand the writing process, to understand the challenges and pitfalls, to understand how
to get unstuck when you’re stuck, because those are things that you have to teach.
Learning to write for different audiences
Participants described how their assignments require candidates to write and why. Mark
said that “for teachers to teach writing, they have to be somewhat embedded in writing
themselves and teach from a place of experience.” While Mark and Michelle teach in
different institutions, they share ideas, and they both use the multigenre life story project
in their writing methods courses. Mark explained how this project deepens candidates’
writing experiences, as follows:
They need to experience what it feels like to be published and have people react and respond
to publications because that’s how students are going to experience it. It’s also important for
them to experience writing because they will be frustrated, or they’ll have writer’s block, or
they’ll have struggles through drafting, or they’ll have problems seeing how to revise, and it
will get them in the mindset of how their own students will feel as they kind of work through
their own classrooms.
Michelle stated that the multigenre life story project is powerful because, “it pulls
together so much of what the course is about.” She explained how the project is
beyond assignment completion because it “requires them to do a lot of the things that
we’ve talked about,” while prompting them to reflect on what they learned as writers,
about the process, and about themselves as writing teachers. Michelle described the
sharing of these projects as her favorite day of the semester because, “I can guarantee
you we’re going to laugh, we’re going to cry, you’re going to learn things about your
peers that you had no idea about, and they’re going to suddenly see how powerful and
important writing is.”
Every participant discussed the importance of choice in writing (e.g., topics, audience)
and how powerful that was in developing candidates’ self as writer. For example, Judy
explained that choice in writing means that “they are invested in the writing. The more
they choose, the more invested they are.” However, Mark shared the resistance he
encountered with the idea of choice when one candidate stated, “I just need you to tell
me what I need to write about.” When he refused, the candidate shared, “I have never in
my entire schooling had a choice in what I write about and it makes me really uncomfor-
table you telling me that it’s completely up to me what I write about.”
LEARNING RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION 73

9. Modeling the writing process
To build candidates’ confidence with all aspects of the writing process, Charlotte and Judy
first lead the class through a hands-on activity where they compose with Play-Doh.
Charlotte explained that the activity corresponds with candidates’ course readings and
previous discussions and helps build their understanding of the writing process. While
they create a pencil holder, they discuss the composing processes and, “I have them do
these charts, for their own teacher toolbox, with what is each of these stages and what are
some ways to teach.” Charlotte said, “When we talk about students doing their own
writing, and various genres, I am modeling instruction just like they would do in the
classroom.”
Likewise, ShinJa spoke to modeling the writing process and the importance of studying
the author’s craft. Through using children’s books as mentor texts, she builds candidates’
confidence in writing while also considering how to teach writing. For instance, ShinJa
explained how she read leads from 10 different children’s books to explicitly teach how
authors use leads before candidates wrote their own. ShinJa said, “You have to use the
books you already know, so then you can focus on the craft. … I sometimes have students
find their very favorite book and model it for their own writing.” Mark echoed this: “I
believe that writers are readers, so if we really want to understand what goes into a piece of
writing, we need to do quite a bit of reading to study and analyze to see what writers do.”
While every participant addressed how they model process writing for candidates,
Stephanie further explained the importance of modeling and teaching the power of
authentic writing for real purposes. Her examples included reaching out to the community
to help solve a problem and addressing needs in the school. Stephanie aims to empower
students at all levels (K to 16) through purposeful, authentic writing. She stated:
It needs to be very purposeful because I want my kids to see that writing is a way of having
a voice. I’m very much into equity, pedagogy and social justice pedagogy. Empowering
them. … [I]f you use words that catch people and make them think, then you can change
things. You can really make things happen.
Participants’ interviews indicate that constantly relating in-class experiences to candidates’
future teaching is important for building candidates’ understanding of themselves as
writers, as well as their writing pedagogy. In-class experiences support and directly
connect to candidates’ out-of-class assignments, which provides scaffolding for success
with writing assignments. As Mark said, “I think if we’re telling teachers that they should
be doing this with their students, well then we better damn sure be doing that in the
classroom ourselves. Otherwise, we’re just being total hypocrites.”
Becoming a teacher of writing
Participants overwhelmingly agree that it is not enough for candidates to consider
themselves as writers. Indeed, through interviews and course materials, participants
indicated the importance of explicitly teaching candidates how to become teachers of
writing. Assignments designed to accomplish this include lesson plans, research (English
language arts [ELA] content and pedagogy paper, group presentation), and various
projects that require field experiences (case study, clinical experiences report) and/or
working with writing samples (student writing assessments, writing portfolios). See
74 R. Q. SCALES ET AL.

10. Table 3 for assignments focused on helping candidates become teachers of writing. These
assignments often include analyzing elementary students’ writing needs and planning
instruction that addresses those analyzed needs, with accompanying reflections so candi-
dates can explain their learning about teaching writing.
Lesson plans
Six of the eight participants require lesson plans, as stand-alone assignments or embedded in
a case study. Participants acknowledged that classroom teachers create lesson plans to guide
their instruction while documenting how they meet required standards, and they prepare
candidates for that through lesson planning and their course design. Charlotte described
herself as a proponent of “practice-based teacher education. So that’s the bottom line on
everything: What does this mean for teachers?” Similarly, Kim shared, “if they can’t
implement it with their own children in their own classrooms, it just doesn’t happen.”
Michelle explained her course design as going from, “this global understanding of
writing and teacher as writer to the specifics of how they implement this in the classroom,
and really thinking about what you are trying to achieve as a writing teacher.” Likewise,
Judy described her course design as shifting “from knowledge to practice about halfway
through in order for teachers to try to build that bridge between the content knowledge,
the pedagogy, and then the application of it in a classroom.”
Due to participants’ vastly different contexts, each program has unique structures in
place. While most writing methods courses coincide with field components, field contexts
determine whether lesson plans are taught. Regardless, candidates are taught to first
analyze student work samples to determine what students need before creating lesson
plans. For instance, ShinJa shared, “You have to observe closely and differentiate your
instruction, and that’s one of the things I stress a lot. Really study students’ writing…. [S]
ee where they are and move to the next step.” Indeed, every participant discussed how
differentiation of instruction through focused mini-lessons was important during writing
instruction. Stephanie stated:
You need to know what your students need and keep track of that. Every time you conference
you’re moving them in their zone of proximal development. That way we can make the most
progress with students that come to us with very different needs.
Research
Two participants specifically addressed how they incorporate research into their writing
methods courses to prepare candidates to become teachers of writing. ShinJa and Michelle
delve into writing content teachers need to understand and connect that knowledge to
pedagogy. For instance, ShinJa requires candidates to study writing standards and present
information in class. Then they discuss how standards inform instruction. She stated, “So
we do have to follow some—not teach for the standard but have the standard on your
mind.” Additionally, ShinJa’s candidates consider various language arts textbooks to
determine how to keep “writing as the center, then cover the other components of
language arts.”
Michelle’s ELA content and pedagogy research paper stems from her program’s efforts
to improve candidates’ content knowledge. The assignment directions state, “The purpose
of this assignment is to help you understand the need to fully understand the content of
LEARNING RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION 75

11. what you teach, how to find information about this content, and how to find research-
based strategies for teaching specific content.” At least five scholarly sources (e.g., peer-
reviewed journal articles, books) are required for this assignment. Michelle explained,
“They’ll pick an area of [ELA] content that they feel uncomfortable in. They’ll do a study
first of pure content, like how do you define this, what is it, and then look at the pedagogy:
How do I teach it?”
Field experiences
Another way participants help candidates become teachers of writing is through assign-
ments directly related to field experiences, such as clinical experience reports or case
studies. For instance, Mark’s program requires a 30-hour field placement that occurs two
full weeks in the middle of the 16-week semester. During that time, candidates complete
clinical experience reports using an online platform for ease of sharing. The report
contains five distinct components to focus candidates’ attention to how writing is taught
in that field placement. For the report, they observe writing lessons, collect documents
related to writing instruction, interview their host teacher about teaching writing, inter-
view a student or a small group of students about writing, and reflect on each component
as well as the entire clinical report process. Each component reflection includes open-
ended prompts, but always asks, “How does this influence me as a future teacher?” Hence,
this assignment keeps candidates’ focus on their becoming a teacher of writing.
Participants help candidates with becoming a teacher of writing by incorporating
projects into their writing methods courses that focus on at least one elementary student’s
writing samples and growth in writing over time. For instance, Charlotte’s and Judy’s
student profile assignment requires observations of up to three elementary students
engaged in writing, analysis of those writing samples using various writing rubrics,
administering a writing attitude survey, interviewing the student about their interests
and about writing, and developing plans for meeting the student’s writing needs. Charlotte
explained:
They have a graphic organizer where they’re going to write what they learned about the
student in one column and what are the implications for instruction in the other column.
When they find out things, like this child is a reluctant writer but loves dinosaurs, I want
them to be able to say maybe they will do some work around dinosaurs. I want them to figure
out how to meet the needs of their student.
Likewise, Michelle requires an assignment where candidates select one student from their
weekly field placement and assess the student’s writing using multiple sources, including
assessing writing with an analytic rubric, holding a student conference, and observing the
student. Michelle explained that in class they discuss the limitations of rubrics, how
scoring writing is subjective, and that conferring with the student provides deeper under-
standings of “where that student is as a writer.” Michelle said that she wanted candidates
to understand that assessing writing “is complicated and messy,” and that the purpose of
those assessments is geared toward helping students grow as writers.
Similarly, Kim’s assignment requires candidates’ analysis of writing samples to deter-
mine what they will teach in their mini-lessons. Kim stated that her keen interest in the
teacher as decision-maker shaped her approach to the writing methods course and course
assignments. Kim shared, “They have to gather writing samples and use those writing
76 R. Q. SCALES ET AL.

12. samples to guide their mini-lesson plan, and then confer with the writers and have some
sort of sharing time.” Kim further stated that, in light of “data-driven decision-making,”
her focus is “teacher as decision-maker” as part of her research agenda in writing. Kim
explained:
How do you make decisions about what to conference with the writer on? How do you make
decisions about the focus of the mini-lesson? How do you gather that information from their
writing samples, from their conferences? How do gather information from what they are
required to know in that grade level? And, how do you fit those all together?
Like other participants, ShinJa aims to prepare candidates to become teachers of writing
through a “case study and teaching practice portfolio on a struggling learner.” Candidates
select a student from their field placement and assess the student’s writing ability. Based
on those assessments, candidates teach focused mini-lessons and conduct individual
writing conferences with the student to help improve their writing. Throughout the
semester candidates compile a portfolio comprised of the student’s writings, writing
assessments, documented mini-lessons and conferences, and reflections of their teaching
of writing with specific references to writing samples to indicate changes in their student’s
writing. ShinJa provides a model before candidates begin their case study work. She
explained that she has collected writing samples from an entire school year from students
in kindergarten through grade five. ShinJa shares these portfolios in class to demonstrate
how this is an assessment tool. She said she provides “the whole year of the students’ work
in a portfolio to show the development of the student. And show them if you want to do
this type of assessment, this is how you do it.”
Further, ShinJa teaches candidates about required state tests and how to navigate the
writing process and test preparation. ShinJa stated, “I collect students’ work from the test
and … look at how those are based on the standard and how to assess. I talk about how to
individually assess students and how to assess historically and holistically.” Then ShinJa
uses classroom examples to demonstrate how to balance process writing with test pre-
paration. She described how one teacher teaches four days of process writing and one day
is dedicated to test preparation and how another teacher teaches process writing during
the first half of the school year, but then only teaches test preparation. After the test, they
switch to process writing again.
ShinJa explained that she wants candidates to understand differences in writing assess-
ments so they will know what to do with data. She said, “when you assess, it’s to see where
[individual] students are and to find the next step—it’s for teaching.”
Discussion
From our data, we understand that we cannot simply focus on teaching candidates to
teach writing or focus solely on developing the teacher as writer. Instead, candidates need
both. Our data indicate participants (course instructors) believe and enact this; however,
this study is unclear about the impact. If instructors jump into pedagogy without attend-
ing to the self as writer, candidates’ attitudes and beliefs could get in the way of the
methods (e.g., Cremin & Oliver, 2016; Grisham & Wolsey, 2011; Hall, 2016).
Despite vastly different programs and contexts, each participant in our study strived to
develop candidates’ self as writer and help candidates become teachers of writing. As
LEARNING RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION 77

13. Doyle (1983) asserted, assignments hone students’ attention in on what they believe are
the most crucial aspects of the topic of study (writing methods). While assignments may
have different names, the experiences and essence of the assignments were highly similar
across contexts. Every participant implements assignments where candidates learn
through experiences (Dewey, 1938; Whitney, 2017; Woodard, 2015). Further, they focus
on candidates’ understandings of and schema for writing pedagogy through careful
construction of course experiences, which includes scaffolding, for candidates to then
apply in field placements while considering their own future classroom writing instruction
(Doyle, 1983; Vygotsky, 1978).
When looking specifically at course assignments focused on developing the candidates’
self as writer, we noticed assignments were open-ended and designed to get candidates
writing in a variety of ways. Participants intentionally designed assignments for candidates
to experience the art of writing and help them learn to write for different audiences, while
building their confidence. The intent is that candidates engage in purposeful writing
experiences (e.g., Whitney, 2017) while considering their attitudes and beliefs about
writing (e.g., Cremin & Oliver, 2016). Cremin and Oliver (2016) stated, “sustained
opportunities to reflect on personal writing histories, engage in writing, discuss textual
processes and participate in a community of practice, can influence teachers’ self-
assurance as writers and their pedagogical approaches” (p. 24). Thus, the candidates’
sense of self as writer and teacher of writing are connected. Because candidates often
come with their own negative experiences (e.g., Cremin & Oliver, 2016), course assign-
ments are important for helping candidates break out of the “apprenticeship of observa-
tion” (Lortie, 1975, p. 61). That is, new experiences with writing can offer the opportunity
to reconcile candidates’ K to 12 experiences with writing with their roles as aspiring
teachers of writing. It is intended that candidates’ knowledge of themselves as writers, and
perhaps how comfortable they are as writers, continues to expand as they interact with
others in the writing methods course (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978). If we neglect to address
candidates’ negative attitudes about writing, then they may avoid teaching writing or they
may teach writing in a technical way (Cremin & Oliver, 2016).
Participants’ course assignments that were intended to help candidates become
teachers of writing emphasized “this global understanding of writing and teacher as
writer to the specifics of how they implement this in the classroom, and really thinking
about what you are trying to achieve as a writing teacher” (Michelle). Regardless of the
field placement context, the course focus was on how candidates might implement
these practices. Assignments also focused on required writing content (e.g., writing
standards) and how to design and implement instruction (lesson plans) that contained
research-based effective writing instruction components, while attending more deeply
to students’ writing needs (e.g., case study). Hence, assignments focused on under-
standing elementary students as individual writers and how to teach them, given their
unique interests and learning needs.
We do not advocate for replicating these specific assignments, because the purpose of
this article is not to standardize the process of teaching candidates how to teach writing.
Instead, our goal is to broaden ideas of how to help candidates develop as writers and as
teachers of writing. Hence, assignments described in this article are generic ideas that
instructors might consider when shaping their own.
78 R. Q. SCALES ET AL.

14. Limitations
Whereas contextual differences add strength to the study by providing opportunities for
broader transferability, these differences also provide limitations. Specific differences
include when the writing methods course is taken in candidates’ plans of study. For
instance, Yolanda’s course is taken during sophomore year, while others are taken in the
junior or senior years. The timing of courses (e.g., sophomores, juniors, seniors) may
influence candidates’ learning about writing pedagogy because they may not be devel-
opmentally ready to think like a teacher early in their programs.
Additionally, field experiences are required in some programs but not all. Those with
field experiences require different structures. Field experiences ranged from a total of two
half days to two full weeks. A limitation is the lack of data regarding field experiences in
this study (e.g., contexts, frequency, requirements), as well as in teacher preparation in
general (Scales & Wellman, 2016). Does the learning from writing methods courses differ
if there is a field experience component, or how the field experience is structured? If so,
how? To address this issue, data would need to be collected from candidates and perhaps
from program graduates.
Also, we collected no evidence of learning from candidates or from program graduates.
Without these data, we cannot be certain that candidates fully grasped course content
emphasized in course assignments or if they can teach writing in the ways their writing
methods instructors described. Hence, we do not know how they are implementing
content emphasized in writing methods course assignments or if that makes a difference
in their elementary students’ writing abilities or growth.
Further, our data set lacks observational data. Interview transcripts and course materi-
als provide a limited scope and observations would make the study more robust by
potentially adding triangulation of data. Participants were interviewed by different
research team members. Some researchers asked probing questions and for examples
and others did not. This could be considered a limitation because the depth of interviews
varied, depending on which researcher conducted the interview.
While the small sample could be considered a limitation, readers may see potential for
application to their own teaching contexts because participants were from across the
United States. As well, the participants taught stand-alone writing methods courses at
the elementary level. Further investigation is warranted for courses that teach writing
methods embedded with reading methods and/or children’s literature, as well as at the
middle grades and secondary levels.
Implications and future directions
One implication from this study is there is no guidebook for teaching candidates how to
teach writing. The participants in this study, whether they had a stand-alone writing
methods course or not, chose to develop assignments that focused on developing the
candidate’s self as a writer and on becoming a teacher of writing. Because research
suggests that few programs devote a methods course to writing (Myers et al., 2016),
these findings have practical implications for teacher educators who are searching for
ways to better integrate writing pedagogy into existing literacy courses.
LEARNING RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION 79

15. A second implication is that the teaching of writing pedagogy is still evolving. This is
often influenced by institutions’ commitment, or lack thereof, to the broader scope of
literacy education (Brenner, 2013). Teacher educators must be explicit with candidates
about our views, beliefs, and struggles to incorporate writing instruction, especially within
catch-all literacy courses. This transparency will better prepare them for the challenges
they will most likely encounter while trying to embed writing instruction in K to 6
classrooms. Teacher educators and classroom teachers can use this research to advocate
for writing methods instruction being allocated the space it requires and deserves in
elementary and higher education classrooms.
Future research should incorporate observations of writing course instructors to deepen
our understanding of how they teach candidates about writing pedagogy in class sessions
or online. These observations would further researchers’ understanding of how content is
perhaps layered within their pedagogy, since the participants did not specifically address
the content of writing in their interviews. An additional question might explore how
teacher educators advocate what the research literature indicates as effective writing
instruction while also helping candidates see themselves as writers and as teachers of
writing.
Finally, what do writing methods courses mean for sustained learning? That is, how do
these courses ultimately shape candidates’ instructional practices and assignments they
implement in their future classrooms over time? How do course assignments and learning
from writing methods courses compare to those from all-encompassing literacy courses,
where reading methods and/or children’s literature and writing methods are combined?
What does this all mean for the elementary students the candidates (and later in-service
teachers) teach and their writing growth, writing abilities, and motivation to write? While
this research study was designed to respond to the ever-present call for more research in
preparation to teach writing, we still have much to accomplish in this area.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Bazerman, C., Applebee, A. N., Berninger, V. W., Brandt, D., Graham, S., Matsuda, P. K., …
Schleppegrell, M. (2017). Taking the long view on writing development. Research in the Teaching
of English, 51(3), 351–360.
Brenner, D. (2013). Teacher education and the reading-writing connection. In B. Miller,
P. McCardle, & R. Long (Eds.), Teaching reading & writing: Improving instruction & student
achievement (pp. 55–66). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Bryan, B. A., Hougen, M., & Nelson, K. (2018). Leading on literacy: Challenges and opportunities in
teacher preparation across the University of North Carolina system. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina System.
Cassidy, J., Ortlieb, E., & Grote-Garcia, S. (2016). Beyond the common core: Examining 20 years of
literacy priorities and their impact on struggling readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(2),
91–104. doi:10.1080/19388071.2015.1136011
Cremin, T., & Oliver, L. (2016). Teachers as writers: A systematic review. Research Papers in
Education. doi:10.1080/02671522.2016.1187664
80 R. Q. SCALES ET AL.

16. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into
Practice, 39(3), 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dillon, D. R., O’Brien, D. G., Sato, M., & Kelly, C. M. (2011). Professional development and teacher
education for reading instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 629–660). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dismuke, S. (2015). Influences of intensive professional development in writing instruction on
teachers’ dispositions and self-efficacy: It’s a matter of practice. Teaching/Writing: the Journal of
Writing Teacher Education, 4(2), 113–138.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199. doi:10.3102/
00346543053002159
Freedman, S. W., Hull, G. A., Higgs, J. M., & Booten, K. P. (2016). Teaching writing in a digital
and global age: Toward access, learning, and development for all. In D. H. Gitomer &
C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 1389–1449). Washington,
DC: AERA.
Gadd, M., & Parr, J. M. (2017). Practices of effective writing teachers. Reading & Writing, 30(7),
1551–1574. doi:10.1007/s11145-017-9737-1
Gitomer, D. H., & Bell, C. A. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.).
Washington, DC: AERA.
Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., 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. Retrieved
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch
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), 710–785. doi:10.17763/
haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in
middle and high schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Graves, D. (1982). A case study observing the development of primary children’s composing, spelling,
and motor behaviors during the writing process: Final report. Durham: New Hampshire
University, Department of Education.
Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2011). Writing instruction for teacher candidates: Strengthening
a weak curricular area. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(4), 348–364. doi:10.1080/
19388071.2010.532581
Hall, A. H. (2016). Examining shifts in preservice teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward writing
instruction. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 37(2), 142–156. doi:10.1080/
10901027.2016.1165761
Lacina, J., & Block, C. C. (2011). What matters most in distinguished literacy teacher education
programs? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 319–351. doi:10.1177/1086296X11422033
Lenski, S., Ganske, K., Chambers, S., Wold, L., Dobler, E., Grisham, D. L., … Young, J. (2013).
Literacy course priorities and signature aspects of nine teacher preparation programs. Literacy
Research and Instruction, 52(1), 1–27. doi:10.1080/19388071.2012.738778
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University Press.
Martin, S. D., & Dismuke, S. (2015). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of their learning and engage-
ment in a writing methods course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 104–114. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2014.11.002
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods source-
book (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. N., & Pytash, K. E. (2014). Preparing preservice teachers to become teachers of writing:
A 20-year review of the research literature. English Education, 47(1), 6–37.
Myers, J., Scales, R. Q., Grisham, D. L., Wolsey, T. D., Smetana, L., Dismuke, S., … Martin, S.
(2016). What about writing? A national exploratory study of writing instruction in teacher
LEARNING RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION 81

17. preparation programs. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(4), 309–330. doi:10.1080/
19388071.2016.1198442
National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution.
Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf
Roller, C. M. (2010). Initial teacher preparation for reading instruction. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, &
J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of English, language and literacy
teaching (pp. 413–322). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ross, E., Gerber, N., Jarmolowski, H., Lakis, K., Ledyard, N., Staresina, L., & Worth, C. (2017). 2017
State teacher policy yearbook: National summary. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher
Quality.
Scales, R. Q., & Wellman, D. (2016). Field experiences required in K-6 teacher preparation
programs: Similarities, differences, and the need for common terminology. The Field
Experience Journal, 18, 52–72.
Troia, G. (2007). Research in writing instruction: What we know and what we need to know. In
M. Pressley, A. K. Billman, K. H. Perry, K. E. Reffitt, & J. M. Reynolds (Eds.), Shaping literacy
achievement: Research we have, research we need (pp. 129–156). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitney, A. E. (2017). Keeping it real: Valuing authenticity in the writing classroom. English
Journal, 106(6), 16–21.
Wickstrom, C. D. (2013). Inquiry can be transformative: From “I will make him write” to “He will
learn to write”. In S. Szabo, L. Martin, T. Morrison, L. Haas, & L. Garza-Garcia (Eds.), Literacy is
transformative: The thirty-fifth yearbook: A double peer reviewed publication of the association of
literacy educators and researchers (Vol. 35, pp. 255–273). Commerce, TX: Association of Literacy
Educators and Researchers.
Woodard, R. (2015). The dialogic interplay of writing and teaching writing: Teacher-writers’ talk
and textual practices across contexts. Research in the Teaching of English, 50(1), 35–59.
Zumbrunn, S., & Krause, K. (2012). Conversations with leaders: Principles of effective writing
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 65(5), 346–353. doi:10.1002/trtr.2012.65.issue-5
Appendix
Screening Survey Questions for Potential Participants
Likert-style answer choices for each question: Very Important, Somewhat Important, Neutral,
Somewhat Unimportant, Not Important
How important are the following concepts or processes in your writing-intensive methods course?
(1) Including instruction on how to teach the characteristics of particular genres to teacher
candidates.
(2) Promoting daily writing time as part of effective writing pedagogy.
(3) Providing explicit instruction in the various processes of idea generation, drafting, revision,
and editing as part of effective writing pedagogy.
(4) Engaging in explicit modeling of writing strategies and processes.
(5) Providing model/mentor texts to teacher candidates.
(6) Using think-aloud methods when working with teacher candidates.
(7) Teaching text and genre structures explicitly as part of effective writing pedagogy.
(8) Demonstrating how to teach grammar in context of authentic writing experiences and texts
when working with teacher candidates.
(9) Addressing issues with prompt-based and decontextualized writing exercises.
(10) Engaging teacher candidates in opportunities to read like a writer during which they examine
a writer’s strategies.
82 R. Q. SCALES ET AL.

18. (11) Allowing teacher candidates to write their own creative or informational pieces and to have
topic choice.
(12) Providing opportunities for feedback on teacher candidates’ writing through peer-
conferencing or collaboration.
(13) Modeling teacher–student conferencing.
(14) Discussing portfolio assessments and other longitudinal assessments.
(15) Including instruction on how to teach the characteristics of particular genres to teacher
candidates.
(16) Promoting daily writing time as part of effective writing pedagogy.
(17) Providing explicit instruction in the various processes of idea generation, drafting, revision,
and editing as part of effective writing pedagogy.
(18) Engaging in explicit modeling of writing strategies and processes.
(19) Providing model/mentor texts to teacher candidates.
(20) Using think-aloud methods when working with teacher candidates.
(21) Teaching text and genre structures explicitly as part of effective writing pedagogy.
(22) Demonstrating how to teach grammar in context of authentic writing experiences and texts
when working with teacher candidates.
(23) Addressing issues with prompt-based and decontextualized writing exercises.
(24) Engaging teacher candidates in opportunities to read like a writer during which they examine
a writer’s strategies.
(25) Allowing teacher candidates to write their own creative or informational pieces and to have
topic choice.
(26) Providing opportunities for feedback on teacher candidates’ writing through peer-
conferencing or collaboration.
(27) Modeling teacher–student conferencing.
(28) Discussing portfolio assessments and other longitudinal assessments.
LEARNING RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTION 83