Teaching the Six Traits Holly Bembridge FINAL

Teaching the six traits 1
Running Head: TEACHING THE SIX TRAITS
Teaching the six traits:
The impact of the six traits of writing model on student confidence and achievement in writing in
a middle-school ELL class
Holly Bembridge
Master’s Project: Action Research Study
Dr. Baum
Fall 2007

Teaching the six traits
Abstract
This study examines the question: “Will explicit instruction in the six traits of writing affect
middle-school ELL students’ achievement and confidence in writing?” The method used for the
study was a pre/posttest design that measured student achievement and confidence in writing.
Achievement was measured by a pretest and posttest writing assessment scored using a rubric
based on the six traits. Students completed a Likert scale before and after the implementation
period to measure changes in writing confidence. Thirty-five seventh graders participated in the
study, eighteen in the experimental group and seventeen in the control group. Students in the
experimental group received two periods a week of six-trait writing instruction over an eight
week period and reinforcement of what they had learned during the rest of their language arts
classes throughout the treatment period. While results showed a gain in students’ confidence in
writing for the experimental group, these results were not statistically significant. However,
results of the study did show significant growth in student achievement after the six-trait
intervention (t = 2.97 df 33, p < .05). Results suggest that the six-trait model is effective for
improving student achievement in writing.

Introduction
Writing is essential to learning. It is a skill needed for communication in everyday life,
and it helps people develop reading and thinking skills. Research has shown that writing is an
integral part of helping students learn. Studies by Langer and Applebee (1987) suggest that
writing plays an important role in helping students learn across the content areas, largely because
writing asks students to think more deeply about the material learned and to manipulate it in
different ways, which allow students to internalize knowledge. Many other studies have reported
similar results, showing the link between writing, thinking, and learning (Zacharias, 1991; Dart,
Boulton-Lewis, Brownlee, & McCrindle, 1998; Hohenshell & Hand, 2006; Pegram, 2006).
This study took place at St. Michael’s School, a private, English-language school in the
Dominican Republic. Over 90% of the students at the school speak Spanish as their first
language. My concern about students’ writing skills at this school developed over the course of
many years of teaching different grade levels in high school. I found that the majority of
students, even in 12th
grade, displayed serious weaknesses in writing. Among the most common
problems was the tendency for students to write abstract generalizations rather than elaborating
with concrete, relevant details. A question such as, “In Part I of A Tale of Two Cities, how does
Dickens portray the situation in France?” would invariably elicit responses such as, “The
situation in France was total chaos. Most people were poor, and the government abused of their
power over them.” Students would add very little in the way of elaboration that was more
concrete than this type of statement. Organization of writing was another major problem.
Students seemed to have a hard time remaining focused on a main idea throughout their writing.
They also would often place seemingly unrelated ideas next to one another, leaving out essential
information or not showing the links between these ideas.

Other writing-related problems seemed even harder to address because English was not
the first language of most of my students. Their writing indicated that most students draw on a
limited bank of words when they write and have significant problems controlling grammar and
usage in English. The underlying cause was likely a lack of knowledge, and helping students
build vocabulary or grammar skills is a problem with no easy remedy.
Still, I searched for resources that would help me improve my students’ writing. In 2003,
I came across Vicki Spandel’s book Creating Writers Through 6-Trait Writing Assessment and
Instruction (2001). In it, Spandel presents the six traits: Ideas (focus, elaboration, details),
Organization (internal structure and sequence), Voice (style, audience, purpose), Word Choice
(precise, vivid language), Sentence Fluency (sentence construction, rhythm, cadence), and
Conventions (punctuation, grammar and usage, capitalization, spelling). She focuses first on the
six-trait model as an analytical scoring model, as opposed to a holistic one. The idea is that for
students to learn how to write they need to focus on and be given feedback on one aspect of
writing at a time. The book explains how to use the traits to assess student writing and provides
rubrics that define performance at various levels (e.g., beginner, proficient, advanced). So first,
it is an assessment method. But Spandel also lays out ways in which the model can be used for
instruction. She recommends the following steps for teaching the six traits to students (pp. 141-
161):
1. Introduce the concept of traits and then the traits themselves.
2. Surround students with the language of the traits, such as by using it in feedback to
student writing and by hanging posters.
3. Teach students to assess their own and others’ writing, using the language of the traits.
4. Use professional and amateur writing to illustrate strengths and weaknesses in writing.

5. Use mini-lessons that focus on each trait.
Once students have practiced using the traits, Spandel urges teaching them how to do focused
revision—to identify their own problem areas and set goals for improvement. I found that this
book addressed many of the areas of concern that I had about my students’ writing.
I decided to implement the six-trait model into my own classroom and worked at teaching
the students about each of the traits and about how to assess writing using the traits. I also
shared information about the six-trait model with the other English teachers (elementary and
secondary) at the school. The school then encouraged all teachers to try to implement the six-
traits model into their classrooms. Teachers began to teach about the six traits, but there was no
consistency in the way it was being taught or used by teachers. Most students have heard of the
six traits. They may also have been assessed with a rubric designed according to the six traits.
But they do not seem to apply their knowledge about the traits to their writing. Most students
have not been taught how to assess their own or others’ writing or how to use the traits to
improve their own work.
During the 2005 school year, about two years after first implementing the six-trait model,
the school decided to undertake a writing assessment in the middle and high school (7th
-12th
).
Students were assessed using a six-point rubric, where a score of 4 indicated proficiency. The
mean score for 8th
grade was 2.79/6; therefore, the mean score fell below the proficiency level.
In 8th
grade, only 18% of students scored at the proficiency level or above, and 45% scored at the
basic level (a score of 3). In 12th
grade, students fared better. The mean score for these students
was 4.55, and 100% of them scored at the proficiency level or above. The results for 8th
and 12th
grades can be found in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. St. Michael’s School Secondary School Writing Results, Fall 2005.
Although these results only indicate one assessment, they have been confirmed by other
measures of achievement that our school collects. Students in elementary and middle school (7th
and 8th
) typically score below the 50th
percentile in Language on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
(ITBS). On the PSAT and SAT, our students consistently score lower in Writing than in Critical
Reading. Over the past few years, students at our school have attained scores in Writing that are
equivalent to U.S. national average scores. This result is positive, except that the U.S. national
average scores in Writing are also lower than the national average scores in Critical Reading.
My concerns about student writing are echoed by administrators, parents, and other stakeholders
across the United States and Canada. A national writing assessment was administered to all 13
and 16 year old school children in Canada by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada
(CMEC) in 2002. This assessment was scored out of 5, where a level 3 indicated a “control of
the elements of writing appropriate to purpose” and a “clear perspective,” and a level 4 indicated
an “effective control of the elements of writing appropriate to purpose” and a “thoughtful
Writing Assessment Results Fall 2005
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
8th 12th
Grade
Score(outof6)
Mean Score

perspective” (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada [CMEC], 2002). Less than 50% of 13
year olds performed at a level 3 or better. While nearly 61% of 16 year olds received scores of 3
and above, only 21.4% received a score of 4. Results of this assessment are summarized in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. SAIP Writing Performance Results. (CMEC, 2002)
While there have been many changes to curriculum in the past few years in the United
States, partly because of No Child Left Behind, significant improvements in writing achievement
have not been seen. Table 1, below, illustrates the results of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) “Writing: The nation’s report card” results in 1998 and 2002. The
results in the United States show that only 31% of 8th
grade students and 24% of 12th
grade
students scored at the proficient level or above in 2002. The increases from 1998 to 2002 were
small at all grade levels.

Table 1. NAEP Writing Results 1998 and 2002. (“Writing: The nation’s report card,” 2003)
Since my initial impressions about writing were confirmed both by data collected about
our students and by national assessments of writing in more than one English-speaking country, I
felt that the school needed to try an intervention in writing. Currently, many of our students
seem to be reaching our school’s defined level of proficiency in writing when they reach the 10th
grade. If we could get our students to reach proficiency in writing at an earlier age, they would
have more time to develop the skills in writing they will need in college and beyond. Thus,
middle school seemed to be the place to start such an intervention.
Review of Literature
Below
Basic At Basic
At
Proficien
t
At
Advance
d
At or
above
Basic
At or
above
Proficient
Grade 4
1998 16 61 22 1 84 23
2002 14 58 26 2 86 28
Grade 8
1998 16 58 25 1 84 27
2002 15 54 29 2 85 31
Grade 12
1998 22 57 21 1 78 22
2002 26 51 22 2 74 24

The six-trait model is rooted in assessment theory. For many years, research in
assessment has stressed the importance of certain assessment procedures: selecting assessments
that match learning targets and purposes; providing students with performance criteria in
advance and in student-friendly language; defining levels of performance for students, such as
what responses look like at basic versus proficient levels; sampling enough work to be able to
trust results; finding ways to reduce bias in assessment; and involving students in the assessment
process (Stiggins & Bridgeford, 1984; Stiggins, 1985; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Spandel, 2001;
Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). The six-trait model seeks to address these concerns by presenting a
certain set of criteria for good writing; defining that criteria for different levels of performance,
from beginning to advanced, in a clear and student-friendly way; and by involving students in the
evaluation of their own and others’ writing.
Chappuis and Stiggins (2002) argued that student involvement in assessment helps
students take responsibility for their own learning and learn how to become life-long learners.
They developed a list of how students can become involved in the assessment process:
• Determine the qualities of good performance;
• Use rubrics to evaluate real work samples, starting with one criterion and adding on as
their scoring proficiency increases;
• Revise anonymous work samples by developing a plan for revision and offering
suggestions for improvement; and
• Communicate with others about their growth and determine when they are nearing
success.
These guidelines are also consistent with the six-trait model.

Teachers have tried many different techniques to try to improve student writing, and
researchers have studied most of them. In his meta-analysis of over 130 experimental
treatments, George Hillocks, Jr. (1987) identified six instructional methods that commonly
appear in writing curriculums: traditional grammar, models, sentence combining, scales and
guided revision, inquiry, and freewriting. Hillocks concluded that the use of scales, which is
training students to use sets of criteria to evaluate and revise their own work and upon which the
six-trait writing model is based, had a significant impact on student growth in writing.
Interestingly, the methods of sentence combining (manipulating syntax to create more complex
sentence structures) and models (presenting good pieces of writing as examples to follow), both
of which also had positive effects on student growth in writing, are taught as part of the
underlying instructional methodology of the six-trait model.
Perhaps the most instrumental study in measuring the effectiveness of the six-trait model
was conducted by Arter, Spandel, Culham, and Pollard (1992). Their study involved six
classrooms of fifth graders randomly assigned to the treatment group (67 students) or control
group (65 students). Teachers in the treatment group received a one-day training session on
writing assessment and on integrating the six-trait model into their instruction and a wide-range
of materials to use in their classrooms. Each teacher in the treatment group was then visited
eight times during the year to help them with the implementation. Students were specifically
taught during these visits about the traits of Ideas, Organization, and Voice. The other three
traits were mentioned but not explicitly taught. Instruction included looking at examples in
literature, assessing other students’ writing, learning skill-specific strategies, and scoring their
own writing. Teachers in the control group, while teaching the writing process, provided no
specific instruction on the qualities of good writing. Results showed significant gains for the

trait of Ideas for the experimental groups and gains that tended toward significance for the traits
of Organization and Voice. Gains for the mean scores of the experimental group on these three
traits were between 0.55 and 0.87 on a 5 point scale. There was no significant difference in the
gains on the three traits that were not explicit taught. The largest gain was on the trait of Ideas,
which was introduced first and reinforced throughout the study. The results of this study suggest
that student writing improves in proportion to the amount of time teachers spend explicitly
teaching a specific quality of writing. This study demonstrated the necessity of using the six-trait
model not only as a method of assessing writing but also as an instructional technique.
Kozlow and Bellamy (2004) also looked at the link between teaching the six traits and
student achievement. They conducted a study involving 76 teachers who taught grades 3 to 6.
Half of the teachers were randomly assigned to the treatment group and received a two-day
training session in the six-trait writing model. Over the course of one school year (November
2003 to May 2004), teachers in the treatment group implemented the strategies they had learned
at the workshop. Kozlow and Bellamy’s findings did not show any significant gains for the
students in treatment group. However, their main conclusion was that teachers needed more than
one training session to bring about gains in student achievement. They recommended that
schools create support structures to provide follow-up training and coaching to bring about more
significant change with any new instructional method.
A number of other small-scale studies have been conducted that suggest the effectiveness
of the six-trait model. Jarmer, Kozol, Nelson, and Salsberry (2000) reported on improvements at
Jennie Wilson Elementary School three years after the implementation of the six-trait writing
model. They conducted a pretest before implementing the program and tracked school-wide
assessments over the next three years. The school saw improvements in student achievement in

writing each year after the model was used. Scores in each grade level (1st
-5th
) improved after
the three years between 40% and 92%. In the article “Research on writing with the 6+1 traits,”
Bellamy (2001) identifies four other small-scales studies, which all used pre- and posttest
comparisons. All of these studies showed growth in student achievement in writing.
Although many studies have pointed to the effectiveness of the six-trait writing model in
improving student achievement in writing, most focus on students in elementary school. Few
studies have been done to examine the model’s effectiveness with middle-school or high-school
students. Most of the research on this model has been done in the United States, in schools
where English is the first language of most students. For these reasons and because of the need
for improvement in our students’ writing skills, I have chosen to focus this study on how the use
of the six-trait model will affect middle-school students who are nearly all English Language
Learners (ELL). The study was designed to answer the following question: Will explicit
instruction in the six traits of writing affect middle-school ELL students’ achievement and
confidence in writing? I hypothesized that the model would have a positive impact on students’
achievement and confidence in writing.
Method
To answer this question, I designed a two group pre/posttest intervention to compare
scores of an experimental and control group on a writing sample taken pre-intervention to scores
on a writing sample taken after the eight-week six-trait intervention with the experimental group.
Students also completed a Likert scale to measure their confidence in writing before and after the
intervention period.
Sample

One class of seventh graders was selected randomly from amongst the school’s seventh
to ninth grade classes. The other seventh grade class was used as the control group for the study.
The experimental group consisted of 18 students, while the control had 17 (N=35). The school is
an English-language school that follows an American-style curriculum and is located in Santo
Domingo, Dominican Republic. More than 90% of the subjects are Dominicans who speak
Spanish as a first language and function primarily in Spanish in all situations outside of the
classroom.
Procedure
Students in the experimental group received training on the six-trait model. I went in to
their language arts class for two periods (1.5 hours total) per week to work on writing. I did not
work with the control group at all. Although the seventh grade language arts teacher is familiar
with the six-trait model, she specifically avoided presenting the traits to the control group. The
control group continued to work on writing with her, but with no specific instruction on the
traits.
Students in the experimental group received eight weeks of training. During the first
week, the concept of the six traits and the qualities of good writing were introduced. The second
week was spent working on Ideas, the third week on Organization. In week four, students were
taught how to use what they had learned about the traits to assess writing. We reviewed the first
two traits and began scoring student samples on them. Weeks five and six were spent learning
Voice and Word Choice. Each week, I also reviewed the previously learned traits with students.
One period of the seventh week was spent working on Sentence Fluency; in the other period we

began to talk about and practice using the traits to guide the revision of writing. During the last
week of the intervention, we looked briefly at Conventions, but focused mainly on editing
strategies. The students also did more practice on evaluating writing samples during the last two
weeks of the intervention.
At the start of the treatment, students were given a booklet that contained a small poster
outlining each of the traits, a rubric defining levels of performance for each trait (see Appendix
D for trait-specific five-point rubrics), an annotated sample of quality writing for each trait, and
activities for some of the traits. Students were also given the overall six-point rubric that would
be used to evaluate their writing (Appendix B). Large posters describing each of the traits were
displayed in the experimental group’s classroom but not in the control group’s room. Each of
the traits was taught in the same way. Instruction included: (1) mini-lessons on writing skills
related to the trait (e.g., “showing not telling,” writing inviting leads, using power verbs), (2) the
presentation of scoring criteria for the trait, (3) quality examples of the trait in a writing sample,
and (4) an application activity related to the trait. Samples of the mini-lessons can be found in
Appendix E. During the scoring practice, students worked individually to assign a level of
performance, from 1 (beginner) to 6 (advanced), to samples of writing. They then compared
their scores with other students and discussed similarities and differences. Finally, they shared
with the class and justified their scores, using the language of the traits from the rubrics.
During the remainder of each week’s language arts periods, students in the experimental
group received further reinforcement on that week’s trait by the regular language arts teacher.
For example, when the students learned about Organization, the teacher provided students with
practice on transitional words and phrases during the remainder of the week. After working on
Word Choice and Sentence Fluency, the teacher had students use the “Closer Look at My

Writing” form (see Appendix E) to identify ways they could revise a piece of their own writing
for Word Choice and/or Sentence Fluency.
Data Collection
Students in both the experimental and control groups completed a Likert scale on
confidence in writing (Appendix A) before and after the intervention period. Students also
submitted two writing samples—one in August 2007, before the intervention began, and the
other in November 2007, after the experimental group had received eight weeks of training on
the six-trait model. For consistency, both the pretest and posttest writing prompts were narrative
(Appendix B). Students had 40 minutes to complete their sample and were asked to use their
prior knowledge of writing to produce the best piece of writing they could. They could ask for
clarification of the prompt but were provided no help as to how or what to write.
All writing samples were scored by me using a general six-point writing rubric that
includes all of the traits. A six-point rubric was used rather than the five-point rubric described
by Spandel (2001) to avoid central-tendency scoring. This rubric had been provided to students
in the experimental group and can be found in Appendix C. As an attempt to limit scoring bias,
students were asked to use a number code rather than their name on the posttest writing sample.
Threats to Validity
As in all action research studies, it is important to look at possible threats to the validity
of the study. The way the group was chosen could present a threat to validity. Although the
experimental group was chosen at random from amongst the six groups from seventh to ninth
grade, students were not randomly assigned to any group. It is possible that the two groups were
not matched in terms of writing ability. A more rigorous study would randomly assign students

to the experimental and control groups and would include a larger sample of students, thereby
producing more valid results.
Still, the comparison-group study design was used to reduce possible threats to validity.
Maturation of students from the beginning of the year to mid-November could be a threat since
middle-school aged children can learn and change a good deal in a relatively short amount of
time. However, the comparison design would likely reduce this threat since students are not
grouped into their classrooms by maturity or ability level.
One of my main concerns was that all students had been exposed to the six-trait model in
some form before the intervention began. When students in the experimental group were first
asked what they knew about the six-trait model, most of them displayed some prior knowledge.
Although students in the control group were not taught anything new about the six traits, it is
possible that their scores were influenced by what they had learned in previous years.
Another factor that may have might have affected the validity of this study was the
attitude of the subjects. Because I was an outside teacher coming into their classroom, students
may have felt they were receiving special treatment in relation to the other class (the control
group). Students displayed great enthusiasm each time we worked on the six traits. It is unclear
whether this enthusiasm was related to the content they were learning or to the fact that a new
teacher was presenting it rather than their regular classroom teacher.
The greatest threats to the validity of this study were implementation threats. Is it
possible, for example, that my ability to communicate and connect with students is different from
the regular classroom teacher’s? Since I did not work with the control group at all, the difference
in our teaching abilities and styles could possibly account for some of the differences in
achievement and attitude. Researcher bias in the implementation of the study was also a major

area of concern. Some accommodations were made to decrease bias, such as having students
identify the second writing sample with a number rather than with their name. However, scoring
error due to bias could have been lowered more still if students had also identified their first
writing sample with a number rather than a name. Although I tried to be as unbiased as possible
in scoring both the first and second samples, it is possible that some positive leniency error
occurred for scores in the experimental group. To reduce bias in a subsequent study, all writing
samples should be anonymous and should be scored by more than one rater.
Results
In this study, there was not a significant difference in gains of confidence in writing
between students who received explicit instruction in the six traits and those students who did
not (t = 1.45 df 33, p < .05). Table 2 summarizes the results of this analysis. Group A was the
treatment group, Group B the control group. I had hypothesized that Group A (the treatment
group) would have a larger gain in confidence in writing. The mean gain score for Group A was
0.056. Group B had a mean gain score of -1.882. Although the gain for Group A was larger
than the gain for Group B and shows a trend toward significance, a p-value of 0.078 does not
demonstrate the level of significance needed.
Table 2. Pretest/posttest comparison of confidence in writing.
Values Xa Xb
n 18 17
sum 1 -32

mean 0.0556 -1.8824
sumsq 363 216
SS 362.9444 155.7647
variance 21.3497 9.7353
st. dev. 4.6206 3.1201
MeanA – MeanB t df
1.9379 +1.45 33
P
one-tailed 0.0782485
two-tailed 0.156497
The results of the pretest/posttest writing samples show a significant difference in scores
between students in the experimental group and those in the control group (t = 2.97 df 33, p < .
05). A summary of these results can be found in Table 3. Here again, I had hypothesized that
Group A, the treatment group, would achieve higher results after the intervention than Group B,
the control group. Writing was scored out of a possible 36 points. The mean gain score for
Group A was 2.97, while Group B showed a mean loss of 0.26. With a p-value of 0.002 (p < .
05), there is a significant difference between the gain scores of the two groups.
Table 3. Pretest/posttest comparison of overall writing scores.
Values Xa Xb
n 18 17
sum 53.5 -4.5
mean 2.9722 -0.2647

sumsq 301.75 201.75
SS 142.7361 200.5588
variance 8.3962 12.5349
st. dev. 2.8976 3.5405
MeanA – MeanB t df
3.2369 +2.97 33
P
one-tailed 0.002758
two-tailed 0.005516
Discussion and Action Plan
Although the statistical evidence does not conclusively show significant growth in
confidence in writing, there is some qualitative evidence that students’ confidence level did
increase after the intervention. In post-intervention interviews, a group of students was asked,
“Do you feel you have become a better writer since learning about the six traits?” All students
answered yes. Responses such as, “It’s easier for me to write because I can come up with ideas
faster. I know the details I need to put,” and, “I saw how I could use more vivid words. I also
found that before I wrote what people want to hear, but now I write how I want to write,”
convinced me of the benefits of this model on student attitude. When students were asked what
they liked the most about learning the six-trait model, nearly all of them expressed that it made
them better writers. One student stated, “I thought at first that I was writing just like everyone
else in the class, but at the end, I saw I was a bit better than them. I liked it because I thought the
six traits helped me improve.” When asked what difference they see in their writing from before
the intervention and now, they reported that they can now “choose better words,” “organize my

ideas better,” “include more details than before,” and “narrow my ideas much more.” Several
students also stated that they now felt more confident using their own voice in writing—saying
what they wanted to say, “not only what other people what to hear.”
One reason that the Likert scale results may not have shown the same growth in
confidence reported by students is that some students might have overestimated their ability in
writing on the pretest confidence scale. Once they learned more about the qualities of good
writing during the intervention, they may have realized their weaknesses, leading to a decrease in
confidence between the pre- and posttest administration. Seen in this light, the decrease could be
seen as positive since it would mean that students are doing what the six-trait model wants them
to do—recognize their areas of weakness so that they can develop goals for improvement.
The results of the study did show significant growth in student achievement after the six-
trait intervention. Early in the intervention, I did not feel that this would be the result. I felt that
an eight-week period was not enough time to create a marked difference in a student’s writing.
However, not only do the results show a significant improvement in student writing scores,
qualitative observations also suggested growth in ability and confidence. During the initial
writing assessment, although students were given 40 minutes to complete their writing, most of
them finished in less than 20. Only two students out of the 33 used the whole 40 minutes.
During the posttest writing assessment, no student in the experimental group completed his or
her writing sample in less than 20 minutes. Most of the students used nearly all of the allotted
time, and several expressed concern that they would need more time to finish. In the control
group, there was not such a marked change from pre- to posttest. One of the students in the
control group finished the posttest in less than 15 minutes, and about half of them had handed in

their papers before 25 minutes were up. The writing samples from the experimental group were
generally longer and more elaborated than those from the control group.
Another indicator of growth in writing ability and confidence was the questions students
asked during the administration of the pre- and posttests. During the pretest, in both groups,
many students asked questions such as, “How many paragraphs does it have to be?” or “Do I
have to write in cursive?” or “Does spelling count?” Students seemed to be more concerned
about the superficial, prescribed aspects of writing rather than elements such as content and
organization. During the posttest, several students in the control groups asked the same
questions again. However, not one student in the experimental group asked this type of question.
Rather, they immediately began writing and remained focused on the task throughout the
majority of the 40 minutes.
Aside from the overall improvement in writing scores in the experimental group, this
group also showed growth in the mean score on each of the traits. These results are summarized
in Table 4 and can be seen in Figure 3.
Table 4. Comparison of mean gain scores by trait.
Ideas Organization Voice
Word
Choice
Sentence
Fluency Conventions
Experimental 0.41 0.65 0.79 0.65 0.59 0.21
Control 0.03 -0.18 -0.03 -0.06 -0.06 0.03
Figure 3. Comparison of mean gain scores by trait.

The results of these gain scores are consistent with students’ self-reporting of what they
learned. When asked what they thought the most important thing they learned about the six
traits, the majority of students referred to the trait of Voice, which they defined as “saying
something in your own way, not how anyone else does” and as “saying something in your own
way, even if you have the same idea as someone else.” This gain is not consistent with findings
by Arter, Spandel, Culham, and Pollard (1994) who suggested that the more time spent on a trait,
the more growth in student achievement. We began working on Voice halfway through the
treatment and spent more time on Ideas and Organization. So, why would Voice show the
largest gain? I can only hypothesize. It may be that students enjoyed the way in which the trait
was presented—through music (see Appendix E)—so that it stuck with them. It might also be
that no other teacher had stressed the importance of their own ideas and style in writing, as many
teachers provide patterns (e.g., five-paragraph essay) for students to follow in their writing.
More research on the individual traits would be needed to draw any substantive conclusions.
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Ideas
O
rganization
Voice
W
ord
C
hoice
Sentence
Fluency
C
onventions
Trait
MeanGainScore
Experimental
Control

Spandel (2001), Chappuis and Stiggins (2002), and Wiggins and McTighe (2005) stress
the importance of student involvement in assessment if assessment is to be used to help students
learn. The results of this study also support this idea. Students reported that the instructional
technique that helped them learn the most was evaluating writing samples. One student stated
that the part that helped him the most was “[w]hen you gave us papers to grade.” Another
student said the part that helped him the most was “[l]earning to grade our own work and other
people’s work because now I know what to look into when I look at work and know if I have
good or bad voice, conventions, etc.”
The consistency of these results with other small-scale studies, such as those reported by
Jarmer, Kozol, Nelson, and Salsberry (2000) and by Bellamy (2001), and with larger scale
studies, such as those by Arter, Spandel, Culham, and Pollard (1994), suggests that the six-trait
model is effective in a variety of school settings. For this reason, I would recommend that the
six-trait model be implemented throughout our school, not just as an assessment method, but also
as an instructional technique. As Language Arts Department Head at our school, I have made an
Action Plan on six-trait implementation to be put in place over the next two years. The first step
will be the presentation of the results of this study in mid-December 2007, followed by a series
of workshops on teaching the individual traits. Given the work of Kozlow and Bellamy (2004),
who recommended “[building] in support structures…following training” and “[including]
coaches who could provide onsite support for teachers” (p. 24), it is essential that teachers be
given ample support during implementation. Teachers will be provided with resources on each
of the traits and with mentoring, both in and out of the classroom. Over the past semester, I have
seen these seventh grade students become more enthusiastic writers who produce better pieces of

writing. If we can replicate these results throughout the school, our students will likely be more
successful with their writing and with their learning in school and beyond.

References
Arter, J. A., Spandel, V., Culham, R., & Pollard, J. (1994, April). The impact of training students
to be self-assessors of writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED370975) Retrieved November 29, 2007, from ERIC database.
Bellamy, P. C. (2001). Research on writing with the 6+1 traits. Retrieved November 29, 2007,
from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: http://www.nwrel.org/
assessment/research.php?odelay=0&d=1
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998, October). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-147. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from
EBSCOhost database.
Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. J. (2002, September). Classroom assessment for learning.
Educational Leadership, 60(1), 40-43. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from EBSCOhost
database. (7386630)
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2003, May 23). School achievement indicators
program writing III assessment 2002: The public report. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from
http://www.cmec.ca/pcap/scribe3/public/indexe.stm
Dart, B. C., Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Brownlee, J. M., & McCrindle, A. R. (1998, October).
Change in knowledge of learning and teaching through journal writing. Research Papers in
Education, 13(3), 291-318. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.
(6682874)
Hammond, C. (2003). AP Language directory. In Eau Gallie High School Advanced Placement.
Retrieved November 29, 2007, from http://home.cfl.rr.com/‌eghsap/‌
AP%20Language.html#Closer%20Look%20at%20Writing

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1987, May). Synthesis of research on teaching writing. Educational
Leadership,
44(8), 71-82. Retrieved November 24, 2007, from EBSCOhost database. (8721824)
Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006, February 15). Writing to learn strategies
in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science
Education, 28(2/‌3). Abstract retrieved November 29, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.
(19216280)
Jarmer, D., Kozol, M., Nelson, S., & Salsberry, T. (2000, Fall/Winter). Six-trait writing model
improves scores at Jennie Wilson Elementary. Journal of School Improvement, 1(2).
Retrieved November 24, 2007, from North Central Association Committee on Accreditation
and School Improvement Web site: http://www.ncacasi.org/jsi/2000v1i2/six_trait_model
Kozlow, M., & Bellamy, P. (2004, December). Experimental study on the impact of the 6+1 trait
writing model on student achievement in writing. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/
research.php?odelay=0&d=1
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and
learning. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved November 28,
2007, from ERIC database. (ED286205)
Lesson plan: Kernel paragraph. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2007, from Knox County Schools
Web site: http://www.kcs.k12tn.net/‌LessonPlans/‌LanguageArts/‌SixPlus1/‌SettingScene.pdf
Pegram, D. M. (2006, March). “What if?”: Teaching research and creative-thinking skills
through proposal writing. English Journal, 95(4), 18-22. Abstract retrieved November 29,
2007, from EBSCOhost database. (20411321)

Spandel, V. (2001). Creating writers through 6-trait writing assessment and instruction (3rd
ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Stiggins, R. J. (1985, October). Improving assessment where it means the most: In the classroom.
Educational Leadership, 43(2), 69-74. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from EBSCOhost
database. (8518331)
Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1984). The use of performance assessment in the classroom
(Monograph). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED242718) Retrieved November
29, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.
Sutherland, J., & Watson-Peterson, M. (2002, January 2). Six Traits Materials. Retrieved August
20, 2007, from Madison Metropolitan School District Web site:
http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/‌tnl/‌langarts/‌sixtrtcrsmtrl.htm
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Writing: The nation's report card. (2003, July 10). National assessment of educational progress.
Retrieved November 29, 2007, from U.S. Department of Education Web site:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/results2002/natachieve.asp
Zacharias, M. E. (1991, Winter). The relationship between journal writing in education and
thinking processes: What educators say about it. Education, 112(2), 265-270. Retrieved
November 29, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.

Appendix A: Likert scale to measure confidence in writing
Name: _________________________ Date: __________________
Class: 7____
Writing is easy for me.  Strongly
agree
 Somewhat
agree
 Somewhat
disagree
 Strongly
disagree
I come up with lots of good ideas when I
write.
 Strongly
agree
 Somewhat
agree
 Somewhat
disagree
 Strongly
disagree
I can organize thoughts well when I
write.
 Strongly
agree
 Somewhat
agree
 Somewhat
disagree
 Strongly
disagree
I have good spelling skills.  Strongly
agree
 Somewhat
agree
 Somewhat
disagree
 Strongly
disagree
I feel confident in my ability to use
grammar correctly.
 Strongly
agree
 Somewhat
agree
 Somewhat
disagree
 Strongly
disagree
I write as well or better than most
students in my class.
 Strongly
agree
 Somewhat
agree
 Somewhat
disagree
 Strongly
disagree
I feel good about sharing my writing
since I think most people will enjoy it.
 Strongly
agree
 Somewhat
agree
 Somewhat
disagree
 Strongly
disagree
I believe I am developing the writing
skills I need to be successful in school
and in my life.
 Strongly
agree
 Somewhat
agree
 Somewhat
disagree
 Strongly
disagree
I know how to pick precise, lively words
to express my ideas when I write.
 Strongly
agree
 Somewhat
agree
 Somewhat
disagree
 Strongly
disagree
I can support my ideas with specific
details and examples.
 Strongly
agree
 Somewhat
agree
 Somewhat
disagree
 Strongly
disagree

Appendix B: Prompts used for pre- and posttest writing samples
Pretest Writing Prompt (August 2007)
Think about an unforgettable day out you had with a friend. Tell the story of this experience,
reflecting on your reactions to it then and now.
Posttest Writing Prompt (November 2007)
Think of a memorable trip you have taken somewhere such as to the beach, a relative's home, a
big city, or even to the supermarket. Write a description of the trip and the place you visited. Tell
why the trip was memorable.

Appendix C: Six-point overall rubric used to score student writing samples

Appendix D: Five-point trait-specific rubrics
From Sutherland and Watson-Peterson, Six Traits Materials (2002)

Appendix E: Sample mini-lessons on each trait
IDEAS—Show, Don’t Tell
Your turn: Can you turn these telling examples into showing examples?
1. The room was a mess.
2. She was a kind person.
3. He felt depressed.
4. The storm was violent.
5. The dog looked aggressive.
Adapted from Sutherland and Watson-Peterson, Six Traits Materials (2002)

ORGANIZATION—Writing Inviting Leads
What’s the best way to begin a story about a confrontation between a woman and a spider? What
impression do you wish to create in your reader’s mind? Remember that a good lead creates a
sense of anticipation and also draws your reader in, making him or her want to keep reading. So
you think any of these leads works well? Which one is best? Why? Which doesn’t work?
Why?
After discussing these, try brainstorming some of your own. Then, the teacher will read Robert
Fulghum’s original.
Possible leads:
• Do you like spiders? Some people do and some don’t.
• Have you even run full-force into a sticky spider web? It’s a horrid experience,
I can tell you!
• Following is a story about how my neighbor reacted when she ran into a spider
web one morning on her way to aerobics class.
• Spiders! Yuck! The very thought gives me the creeps!!
• It’s dumb to be afraid of spiders, but some people just can’t help it, I guess.
• “Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!” yelled my neighbor, as she ran headlong into a giant spider
web.
Now, try writing one, two, or three leads of your own. Then, compare what you’ve written to
Robert Fulghum’s original:

VOICE—Hearing Voice
Musicians each have their own voice. Even if they sing the same song, they do so in their own
way.
Play two versions of the same song by different artists (e.g., “I Will Always Love You” by Dolly
Parton and by Whitney Houston). What’s the difference? What can you tell about the singer?
Who is the audience for each song?
Play short clips of other songs. Discuss the same questions. What can you tell about the singer
from his or her style? Who is their audience? How can you tell?
Move from music to writing. Read several short pieces of writing from different types of
sources (e.g., newspaper article, encyclopedia entry, novel, advertisement, weblog, etc.).
Discuss the following questions for each:
• Can you picture the writer? What can you tell about him or her? Is he or she
young or old? A man or a woman? What is his or her job?
• Who is the audience for this piece of writing? How can you tell?
• What do you think the author’s purpose is with this piece?
• What can you tell about the writer’s attitude toward his or her subject?

WORD CHOICE—Kernel Paragraph
Read over the paragraph below. Make the changes suggested at the bottom of this paper. When
you have completed all of the steps, add any other details you like, and copy the revised
paragraph onto a new piece of paper.
The man walked along the street. The night was windy and dark.
A piece of newspaper blew along the street. Somewhere a dog howled.
The smell of the harbor filled the air.
Changes:
1. Change the general noun “man” to a specific noun. (For example, “man” might become
“robber,” “actor,” or “James.”)
2. Add an adjective in front of the word you substituted for “man.”
3. Put an adjective in front of the word “night.”
4. Cross out the word “walked,” and instead use a stronger action verb that tells exactly how
he walked. (Examples: tiptoed, strode, etc.)
5. Add an adverb in front of or after the word you substituted for “walked.”
6. Somewhere in the paragraph, add a simile.
Adapted from Lesson plan: Kernel paragraph (n.d.)

SENTENCE FLUENCY—A Closer Look at My Writing
Instructions for students:
This form will help you analyze your own writing. You will very quickly discover some of your
strengths and weaknesses. Not only will this form be used to analyze your own writing style, but
it will also be used to look a the writing styles of professional writers as well as your peers.
Give students a sample of writing that is weak on sentence fluency. It should, for example, have
many sentences that begin in the same way (e.g., pronoun-verb). It likely also has either short,
choppy sentences or long, rambling sentences. Have students fill in a chart like the one above,
like the following:
Sentence #
First four words Verbs Number of
words/sentence
1
In an article about writes, described 1
2 Mailer writes that Paret writes, is, loses 17
3 Mailer says that the says, reflects 15
4 After examining the fight believes, suggests, is,
reveals
40
Discuss the results with students and what could be done to improve the sentence fluency.
Then, give students a writing sample with strong sentence fluency, and repeat the exercise.
Discuss the differences with students. Make a class list of suggestions for improving sentence
fluency (e.g., begin sentences in different ways, use some long sentences and some short
sentences, use different sentence structures).
Adapted from Hammond, AP Language directory (2003)
Sentence
Number
First four words Verbs Number of
words/sentence

CONVENTIONS—Focused Editing Practice
Practice editing one skill at a time using editing marks. First, edit only for spelling. Use a
sample like the following:
It was a warm sunmer day in June. The slight briez was
conferting. We sat like stumps in the grasy feald whating four
someone to do the dare. Noone had the curage to do the dare
even if it was eatting the wurm that sat in the midle of the
circkle.
Then, edit for capitalization:
it was a Warm summer day in june. The slight Breeze was
comforting. We sat like Stumps in the GrasSy field waiting for
Someone to do the dare. No One had the courage to do the Dare
even if it was eating the Worm that sat in the middle of the circle.
Then, edit for punctuation:
It was a warm…summer day in June, the slight breeze was,
comforting we sat like stump’s in the grassy field waiting for
someone—to do the dare! Even if it was eating the worm; that
sat in the middle of the circle

Teaching the Six Traits Holly Bembridge FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Teaching the Six Traits Holly Bembridge FINAL

Similar to Teaching the Six Traits Holly Bembridge FINAL (20)

Teaching the Six Traits Holly Bembridge FINAL