Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 7, pp 1551–1574 | Cite as

Practices of effective writing teachers

  • Murray Gadd
  • Judy M. Parr
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study analyses the practices of nine New Zealand teachers of upper primary and middle-school students (N = 210) whose classes had consistently shown gains in writing far greater than normative expectations. Data from observations of three writing lessons and related interviews with each teacher, plus interviews with three focus students after each lesson, were considered in relation to learner gains in writing. To analyse these data, a content analysis matrix was constructed from selected writing research literature, yielding eight dimensions of effective practice: expectations; learning goals; learning tasks; direct instruction; responding to learners; motivation and challenge; organisation and management; and self-regulation. Instructional moves associated with each were defined. There was a significant association between three dimensions (learning tasks, direct instruction and self-regulation) and learner gains. Analysis also indicated that these effective teachers of writing employed an interconnected range of instructional moves in a strategic and flexible way. Instructional actions and activities are particularly effective if regarded as purposeful by learners and if they include meaningful opportunities for learner involvement. The findings detail strategies for generating higher than anticipated gains by learners.

Keywords

Writing Teacher practice Student achievement Primary schools 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle and high schools. The English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.Google Scholar
  2. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle school literacy: A report from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I. Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
  4. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluation quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  7. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Washington, DC: Centre for the Study of Teaching and Policy.Google Scholar
  8. Department for Education (UK). (2012). What is the research evidence on writing? (Research Report DFE-RR238). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183399/DFE-RR238.pdf.
  9. Education Counts. (2014). Achievement information. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/121981/122072.
  10. Fisher, R., Myhill, D., & Twist, L. (2011). Evaluation of every child a writer report 2: Teaching and writing in ECaW classes. University of Exeter and National Foundation for Educational Research. DfE RR108b.Google Scholar
  11. Gadd, M. O. (2014). What is critical in the effective teaching of writing? A study of the classroom practice of some Year 5 to 8 teachers in the New Zealand context. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 1–15. doi: 10.1086/651193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glasswell, K., & Brown, G. T. L. (2003, August). Accuracy in the scoring of writing: Study in large-scale scoring of asTTle writing assessments. asTTle Technical Report of #26. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland/Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, S., Capizzi, A., Harris, K. R., Hebert, M., & Morphy, P. (2014). Teaching writing to middle school students: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27(6), 1015–1042. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 414–424.Google Scholar
  16. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chambers, A. B. (2013). Evidence-based practice and writing instruction: A review of reviews. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 211–226). New York, NY: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence. in Education.Google Scholar
  18. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Education Psychology, 104(4), 879–896. doi: 10.1037/a0029185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grossman, P. L., Greenberg, S., Hammerness, K., Cohen, J., Alsop, C., & Brown, M. (2009, April). Development of the protocol for language arts teaching observation (PLATO). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Grossman, P. L., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ valued-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119, 445–470. doi: 10.1086/669901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall, K. (2002). Developing the protocol for a systematic review of literature on effective literacy teachers and their teaching: Research in progress. Reading: Literacy and Language, 36(1), 44–47. doi: 10.1111/1467-9345.00184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, K., & Harding, A. (2003). A systematic review of effective literacy teaching in the 4 to 14 age range of mainstream schooling. London: Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  24. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800 meta-analyses on achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hattie, J., Brown, G., Keegan, P., MacKay, A., Irving, S., Patel, P., et al. (2004). Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning (asTTle) version 4, 2005: Manual. Wellington: University of Auckland/Ministry of Education/Learning Media.Google Scholar
  26. Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  27. Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 136–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lacina, J., & Block, C. C. (2012). Progressive writing instruction: Empowering school leaders and teachers. Voices from the Middle, 19(3), 10–17.Google Scholar
  29. Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837–880. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lodewyk, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2009). Implications of task structure on self-regulated learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1080/01443410802447023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshall, H. M., & Weinstein, R. S. (1984). Classroom factors affecting students’ self-evaluations: An interactional model. Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 301–325. doi: 10.3102/00346543054003301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Medwell, J., Wray, D., Poulson, L., & Fox, R. (1998). Effective teachers of literacy. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000829.htm.
  33. Meissel, K., Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. (2016). Can professional development of teachers reduce disparity in student achievement? Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 163–173. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, S. (2003). Impact of mixed methods and design on inference quality. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 423–455). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  36. Ministry of Education. (2009). The New Zealand curriculum reading and writing standards for years 1–8. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  37. Ministry of Education and New Zealand Council for Educational Research. (2012). e-asTTle: Writing (revised). Wellington: Author. Retrieved from http://e-asTTlle.tki.org.nz/user-manuals.
  38. Ministry of Education/University of Auckland. (2006a). asTTle: Assessment tools for teaching and learning (version 4). Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  39. Ministry of Education/University of Auckland. (2006b). asTTle: Assessment tools for teaching and learning (version 4): User manual. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  40. National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…. or a ticket out. New York, NY: College Board.Google Scholar
  41. National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges. (2005). Writing: A powerful message from state government. New York, NY: College Board.Google Scholar
  42. National Council for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  43. Neilsen, K. (2012). Self-assessment methods in writing instruction: A conceptual framework, successful practices and essential strategies. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01533.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. (2001). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. A report for the National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement. New York, NY: University of Albany.Google Scholar
  45. Parr, J. M., Glasswell, K., & Aikman, M. (2007). Supporting teacher learning and informed practice in writing through assessment tools for teaching and learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parr, J. M., & Jesson, R. (2016). Mapping the landscape of writing instruction in New Zealand primary school classrooms. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 981–1011. doi: 10.1007/s11145-015-9589-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parr, J. M., & Limbrick, L. (2010). Contextualising practice: Hallmarks of effective teachers of writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 583–590. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perry, N. E., & Drummond, L. (2002). Helping young students become self-regulated researchers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 56(3), 298–310.Google Scholar
  49. Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H., (2016). Section Discussion: Teachers and assessment: Enhancing assessment capability. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment (pp. 95–108). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Parr, J. M., & Wilkinson, I. A. W. (2016). Widening the theoretical lens on talk and writingpedagogy. International Journal of Educational Research,. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.08.011.Google Scholar
  51. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampson, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth and fifth grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 159–194. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Rankin, J., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145–160. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0102_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly: Explorations in Literacy, 42(1), 8–45. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modelling, goal setting and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 159–172. doi: 10.1080/10573560308219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2007). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options