Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Writing instruction in first grade: an observational study

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As schools work to meet the ambitious Common Core State Standards in writing in the US, instructional approaches are likely to be examined (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). However, there is little research on the current state of instruction. This study was designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of first-grade writing instruction across 13 schools in one state in the US. Daylong observations were conducted four times during the year in 50 first-grade classrooms. Using a time-sampled, observational protocol, observers coded multiple dimensions of instruction, including grouping, instructional focus, teacher instructional activity, and student writing activity. Results revealed that writing was taught for less than 30 min a day on average, and instruction in skills or process writing was common. Most instruction was organized in whole-class settings with teachers either presenting information or asking students questions. Variability in the amount and focus of writing instruction and in student writing activity was examined at the classroom and school levels. A small number of classrooms and schools were identified with distinctive patterns in their approach to instruction and writing activity. Several moderate relationships were found between the writing instructional focus and the nature of student writing. These findings suggest that first-grade writing instruction is inconsistent across classrooms and schools and point to instructional implications for teachers and schools in the US.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, S. K., Gersten, R., Haager, D., & Dingle, M. (2006). Teaching practice and the reading growth of first-grade English learners: Validation of an observation instrument. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K. B., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L. W., Brooks, A., … & Graham, S. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 652–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., Vaughn, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A., Abbott, S., Rogan, L., … & Graham, S. (1998). Early intervention for spelling problems: Teaching functional spelling units of varying size with a multiple-connections framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 587–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitter, C., O’Day, J., Gubbins, P., & Socias, M. (2009). What works to improve student literacy achievement? An examination of instructional practices in a balanced literacy approach. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 17–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohn, C. M., Roehrig, A. D., & Pressley, M. (2004). The first days of school in the classrooms of two more effective and four less effective primary-grades teachers. Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230. doi:10.3102/00346543073002125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books Inc.

  • Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Ponitz, C. C., Glasney, S., Underwood, P. S., … & Schatschneider, C. (2009). The ISI classroom observation system: Examining the literacy instruction provided to individual students. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, E. L. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: The effect of classroom instruction by child interactions on early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(4), 305–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

  • Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley-Ripple, Coker, D., Macarthur, C., Jackson, A., & Wen, H. (2014). The nature and variability of first grade writing instruction. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Conference, Philadelphia.

  • Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M., Moats, L. C., & Francis, D. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Common core state standards and writing: Introduction to the special issue. Elementary School Journal, 115, 457–463.

  • Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N. (2012a). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (No. 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., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002a). Contributions of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 620–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (2003). Primary grade teachers’ instructional adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C. A., & Fink, B. (2002b). Primary grade teachers’ theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: Construct validation and a nationwide survey. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Mason, L., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Moran, S., & Saddler, B. (2007). How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? A national survey. Reading and Writing, 21(1–2), 49–69. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9064-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012b). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896. doi:10.1037/a0029185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Morphy, P., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Saddler, B., Moran, S., & Mason, L. (2008). Teaching spelling in the primary grades: A national survey of instructional practices and adaptations. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 796–825. doi:10.3102/0002831208319722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Adkins, M. (2015). Practice-based professional development and self-regulated strategy development for tier 2, at-risk writers in second grade. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 5–16. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. V., Sailors, M., Duffy, G. R., & Beretvas, S. N. (2004). The effective elementary classroom literacy environment: Examining the validity of the TEX-IN3 observation system. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(3), 303–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D., & Christensen, C. (1999). The relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Sidler, J. F., & Gruelich, L. (2013). Language, literacy, attentional behaviors, and instructional quality predictors of written composition for first graders. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(3), 461–469. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for english language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.

  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/pages/findings.aspx

  • Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook or writing research (pp. 11–27). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F. (2007). Empirical properties of a scale to assess writing self-efficacy in school contexts. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39(4), 239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranik, C. S., Al Otaiba, S., Sidler, J. F., & Greulich, L. (2014). Exploring the amount and type of writing instruction during language arts instruction in kindergarten classrooms. Reading and Writing, 27(2), 213–236. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9441-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 171–183). New York NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T. (2015). Common core state standards: A new role for writing. Elementary School Journal, 115, 464–479.

  • Silverman, R., & Crandell, J. D. (2010). Vocabulary practices in prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stead, T., & Hoyt, L. (2011). Explorations in nonfiction writing: Grade 1. Portsmouth, NH: Firsthand Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. M., & Pearson, P. D. (2000). The CIERA school change classroom observation scheme. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading–writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 99(2), 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A110484 to the University of Delaware. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. Coker Jr..

Appendix: Description of codes used in the iSeeNCode classroom observation system for writing

Appendix: Description of codes used in the iSeeNCode classroom observation system for writing

Component

Code

Definition

Dimension 1: grouping

G

Note: grouping is coded for all grouping patterns observed in the class. Often there will be multiple patterns (e.g., teacher conferencing with a small group while other students work independently on their writing)

Whole class

W

Whole class is working together with no more than 2 students engaged in other activities in the classroom (e.g., teacher presentation, discussion, sharing writing)

Large group

L

Students are working together in groups of nine or more while other students are working on other activities (e.g., teacher is working with half the class on a lesson while others work at centers)

Small group

S

Students are working together in groups of 3–8 with some interaction among students related to the task (e.g., collaborative writing or learning tasks). If they are just sitting together but working entirely independently, code it as individual (e.g., independent work at centers). Small group can be either teacher-led or student-led

Pair

P

Students are working in pairs. Use same rules as for small groups

Individual

I

Students are working independently on tasks with incidental or occasional interaction (e.g. independent writing; practice exercises). They may be seated together but their work is not collaborative (e.g. teacher is working with a small group while rest of the class is working on their individual tasks. Code the rest of the class as individual if students are working independently)

Dimension 2: management of instruction

MI-

This set of codes is used to record who is managing or directing students’ attention on the learning activity on hand

Teacher/child-managed

T

The teacher has overall responsibility for directing the activity or managing the learning (e.g., lecture or presentation) with or without aid of computer but there may be substantial interaction with children (e.g., read aloud with discussion/participation; collaborative writing) Note: Some activities that might be considered child-centered activities, such as discussions about books, would be considered teacher-managed because the teacher is managing the learning

Child/peer-managed

C

Children are working independently or with peers and are primarily responsible for directing their own work. They may participate in cooperative learning activities but without direct teacher engagement (e.g., collaborative writing; paired reading). Note: Some activities that might be considered teacher-directed activities, such as completing worksheets, would be considered child-managed because the child is responsible for his or her own learning

Technology-managed

TX

Children are working with computers or audio or video materials that direct student learning (e.g., read-along tapes, computer-assisted instruction). Use of computer tools like word processors does not count as technology managed. Note: Here computers, audio or video materials are the major tool and vehicle for student learning. If a teacher uses smartboard or computer to assist teaching, this code does not apply

Dimension 3: broad instructional focus

F-

These codes are only used in whole-class settings or teacher-led small groups

Reading

R

Reading activities including both code-focused, including phonological awareness, and meaning-focused activities including comprehension of words or connected texts

Writing

W

Writing activities including both code-focused and meaning-focused writing activities. This code applies when students are focused on the mechanics of production even if they are not writing (e.g. spelling with plastic letters)

Oral language focus

O

Activities focused on developing students’ language ability without reading or writing words or text

Other academic

OA

Focus is academic but the instructional goal is not about literacy and students are not reading or writing (e.g., the code applies to math and science instruction). Calendar time would be counted as other academic only if it involves counting (numbers or days of the week, etc.) DO NOT CODE Dimension 4

Transitions

T

When students are moving from one activity to another. Teacher may be giving directions about where to sit or how to prepare. When a transition happens during a 3 min observation of an existing group then code the transition within this observation (i.e., do not code two separate observations- one for the group and then one for the observed transition). However, directions for how to do a task (e.g. complete a worksheet) would be instructional. If the entire 3-min block is a transition, use same directions as “Not Academics” (DO NOT CODE FURTHER)

Not academic

NA

None of the above applies; focus is not academic. (e.g. calendar time (may also be called morning meeting/morning calendar), discipline time, pledge of allegiance, snack time.) Note: Calendar time counts as not academic only if it does NOT involve counting or math-related activities. Stop coding

Dimension 4: specific writing focus

 

These codes are only used in whole-class settings or teacher-led small groups. More than one specific code is possible for an activity

Spelling

S

Spelling instruction or practice including work with a spell checker. Use for writing sentences with spelling words

Grammar or sentence formation

GS

Grammar instruction or practice focused on sentence formation, e.g., sentence combining, sentence formulas or parts of speech

Handwriting

W

Handwriting instruction or practice. Use for copying texts for handwriting practice

Punctuation, capitalization, other conventions

PC

Instruction or practice in punctuation, capitalization and other conventions for writing besides spelling and handwriting

Keyboarding, word processor operation

KW

Keyboarding or typing instruction, learning to use a word processor or other software for writing that focuses on transcription, e.g., assistive technology

Mixed skills

MS

Instruction or practice in more than one writing-skill areas. Including spelling, grammar, punctuation and/or capitalization. Technologies such as computers and smartboard can be used to assist instruction and student practice

Vocabulary

V

Activities that develop vocabulary with a focus on using them in writing. This can include activities before, during or after writing activities when teacher and students talk about word choice and word power

Independent writing. Code for narrative or informative

I-N

I–I

Students individually write meaningful texts of any length or form (e.g., drawing a picture and labeling it; writing sentences to tell a story; writing a story; journal entries)

Collaborative writing. Code for narrative or informative

C-N

C-I

Activities in which students work together (or teachers and students work together) to write a text, including joint writing and activities in which one student helps another with writing the text

Pre-writing

PW

Activities involving planning or pre-writing, including instruction and student practice e.g. story mapping

Revising

R

Revising including instruction and student practice. Revising is more meaning and content-based. It can also take the form of constructively participating in discussions about classmates’ writing, making changes to reflect the comments of classmate and the teacher

Editing

E

Editing, including instruction and student practice. Mainly include proofreading compositions to locate or correct mechanical errors. Editing centers more on checking the convention and mechanics of writing, such as spelling, capitalization and punctuation

Planning strategy

PS

Teacher or students name, explain, discuss, or model a planning strategy, e.g., brainstorming, mapping. This code goes beyond planning instruction by focusing on learning a strategy

Revising strategy

RS

Teacher or students name, explain, discuss, or model a revising, e.g., brainstorming, mapping. This code goes beyond planning instruction by focusing on learning a strategy

Editing strategy

E

Teacher or students name, explain, discuss or model an editing strategy. This code goes beyond planning instruction by focusing on learning a strategy

Sharing writing by students

SS

Activities involving reading or listening to written work by peers. Note: the student or the teacher can read the written work

Sharing writing by teacher

ST

Activities involving reading or listening to written work by teacher

Publishing

P

Preparing any form of printed work or electronic text to share finished written product with others

Assessment

A

Code along with other writing codes for activities where the primary focus is on assessment. The fact that a piece of writing will be assessed does not mean it should be coded here; use only if assessment is the main purpose of the activity or happens during the observation

Textual features

TF

Activities and or instruction related to discourse features of a text or the craft of writing. This may include parts of a text, such as openings, endings, the dedication, or whole text types such as letters or poems

Other writing

O

Activities that fit the broad writing code but none of the above specific codes

Dimension 5: materials

  

Textbook

T

School textbook (e.g., basal reader, science textbook) [Note name of textbook series in field notes]

Serial reader

SR

Magazines, weekly readers, newspapers, or other serial readers

Trade book: narrative or informative. Code for narrative or informative

TB-N

TB-I

Trade books for children to read, including easy readers and predictable books. Narrative or informative

Teacher created text

TT

Texts written by teacher for students. If the text is handwritten and you cannot identify ut as coming from the curriculum, assume that it is a TT

Student created text

ST

Text/s written by a student or students

Teacher and student collaborative text

TST

Texts written collaboratively by teacher and students

Picture book

PB

Picture books designed to read to children. These are also trade books, but are usually more difficult so they are read to children

Pictures

PICS

Pictures not as part of a book

Blackboard/whiteboard

BW

Teacher or students are writing on BB or WB. This includes large one on the wall or smaller one used for individual use

Computer

CPU

Computer being used for any instructional activity other than accessing electronic texts, including word processing, keyboarding. Do not include teacher record-keeping

Video/TV/audio

AV

Smartboard, video, television, overhead projector, or audio resources used for instructional activity

Paper

PAP

Students are writing on single sheets of paper that may or may not have lines. There may also be an area for drawing a picture. This paper is loose leaf, that is, the paper is not bounded in a notebook or journal. Also, paper can include the big sheets of lined paper that teachers use to write on during instruction

Student journals

SJ

Students writing in essentially blank journals, not structured ‘journals’ that contain specific writing activities, which should be coded as workbooks. Journals are sheets of lined paper bound together

Workbooks/worksheets

WW

Workbooks and worksheets with exercises or lines and space for students to respond. The response may be any length (letter, word, sentence, connected text)

Charts/posters

CP

Charts, posters, and other teacher-created or published materials on the walls or the ones used for instruction on tables or in teacher’s hands, e.g., charts about writing process. Code only if used or referred to in the observation segment

Reference materials

REF

Reference materials, e.g., dictionary, encyclopedia

Assessment materials

ASM

Materials used for an assessment

Games

GO

Games, puzzles, manipulatives, or flashcards. Flashcards can be teacher made or store bought

Other

O

Other materials

None

N

None of the above apply

Dimension 6: teacher instructional actions

 

These codes are intended to capture the main mode of instruction and teacher-student and student–student interaction during each activity. It is possible for this dimension to be left blank. (i.e., if the grouping is individual-child managed- it is possible for there to have been no teacher action to code)

Presentation

P

Telling or giving students information or explaining something without any student response. For example, during a math test the teacher reads the problems aloud to the whole class but she does not provide any additional explanations or support

Question and answer

QA

Teacher asks students to respond to questions that draw on literal information or has a known answer with an aim to check students’ comprehension. This teacher-centered and teacher-managed instruction usually involves the IRE sequence (teacher Initiates the question, student Replies, teacher Evaluates the answer). Compared to Discussion, less independent thinking skills or strategies and less analytical skills are required in Q&A

Discussion

D

Discussion differs from presentation or Q&A because the conversation is more open-ended rather than the teacher-student–teacher pattern. Teachers may modify the content of the discussion based on students’ responses or if the teacher expands on a student’s comment and uses it to extend the conversation. May be teacher-led or student managed. Compared to Q&A, Discussion is more teacher-moderated and student-centered. The teacher’s role is to direct students in the conversation, to clarify and highlight the students’ good answers and use them to enhance the content of the lesson or to build and extend the conversation to another level. Students’ responses usually involve more independent thinking, show high-level skills and are more opinion-oriented and strategy-focused. In the first-grade classrooms where students comparatively have lower level of independent thinking and reasoning skills, discussion is more about reflection of the strategies learned or sharing of opinions relating to students’ personal life experience. Discussion may also consist of conversations that take place solely between the students with or without teacher input

Self-regulation

SR

Teacher talk addresses high-level concerns related to goal setting, self-instruction, self-monitoring, self-reinforcement and/or metacognition to enhance motivation and regulate students’ use of the target strategies in fulfilling learning tasks. This would include discussions about goals for instruction or a reflective conversation about what was learned. This is when teachers try to get students to think about the learning process. An example of this is when the teacher discusses the objectives of an upcoming lesson. Goals for instruction would include the teacher discussing the goals/objectives for a specific lesson OR reviewing those goals/objectives at the end of a lesson

Teacher modeling

M

Teacher demonstrates how to do some process, explaining the thought process, usually with think-alouds. It may be collaborative with student participation

Conferencing/coaching/scaffolding

CS

Teacher conferences with individual students or small groups. Involves checking students’ progress and supporting their work with guidance. Teacher’s role is to be a listener and a guide. It is frequently used in writing workshop when teacher works one-on-one with student, talking about their written texts and offering help to solve problems relating to writing. Scaffolding could present as the teacher actively providing support such as reading questions aloud and then providing an explanation for a word that the students do not understand

Checking/managing work

CM

Teacher checks work and monitors whether students are on task but without providing guidance beyond feedback. The teacher must be in the presence of the student(s). It is not considered checking or managing work if, for example, the teacher is working with a small group of students and appears to be periodically looking around the room at the other students. The teacher must actually get up and be in their physical space to be considered CK

Assessment

A

When teacher is giving an assessment (could be a DIBELS test to an individual or calling out spelling words to the whole class)

Other

O

When teacher action cannot be classified into one of the other categories. Examples include when a teacher leads a choral reading activity OR a teacher read aloud

Dimension 7: student activity

 

It is possible for this dimension to be left “blank” (i.e., there was nothing to code for this dimension)

Reading

R

Reading books or other texts. May include student-written texts

Reading—turn taking

RTT

Taking turns reading texts and listening to each other. This occurs frequently in developing student’s fluency esp. in small group setting

Reading chorally

RC

Reading with the teacher as a group or a student reading with the teacher

Oral response

OR

Oral response to question, prompt or discussion. Includes sounding out words to focus attention on how to spell them. If the teacher instructional mode “QA” is selected then it is likely the student response is oral response

Correct/copied written response

CCWR

Written response that is copied or with only one correct answer. The content of the writing is not created. It comes from some source such as the book or reading materials (e.g. spelling words, copying words from board, filling in blanks with expected answer)

Open written response

OWR

Written response with original content created by students. It could be limited to a single word (writing words that rhyme with “cat”), but it may be sentences or longer text where students generate ideas from their reading of a text or their experiences

Writing about text

W

Writing about text that was read. This may include writing summaries, an open-ended journal response about a text or describing some aspect of the text and may include completing story maps or graphic organizers. It may look like OWR but the crucial difference is that it will be focused on text

Drawing

D

Draws picture without using words

Manipulate

M

Manipulation of materials without oral or written response

Other

Oth

Other

Dimension 7.1: level of language for each activity

 

This dimension only appears if the coder indicates that students were reading or writing OR if the management of the group is Child/peer-managed (C) and the specific literacy focus codes were not applied

Individual letters

IL

Reading or writing individual letters or combinations of letters (e.g. digraphs, blends) that are not complete words. May include editing activities designed to correct spelling or responses that require only letters to complete a word

Individual words

IW

Reading or writing words in isolation

Sentence

S

Reading or writing a sentence (including phrases or clauses) of at least four words. Includes situations when a worksheet asks students to respond in individual sentences (e.g. each answer is a sentence) but the sentences are not connected as in connected text

Connected text

CT

Reading or writing multiple thematically related sentences in response to a prompt to elaborating on a topic, such as a story or other text. The sentences must be connected in that there is a relationship each sentence. Is not connected text if, for example, the student is writing sentences using vocabulary words and each sentence is independent of the others. However, if the sentences were part of a paragraph in which the students were making connections between the sentences this would then be connected text

Marking response

MR

When answers are provided in which the student must choose only from the provided responses such as multiple choice questions. This can also be applied if, for example, a student is called on to underline/circle letters/words/etc. in a presented sentence/paragraph in which the student may be instructed to identify needed corrections such as a misspelled word. MR does not apply to tasks in which the student response involves actively writing in the form of letters/words/sentences/connected text

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coker, D.L., Farley-Ripple, E., Jackson, A.F. et al. Writing instruction in first grade: an observational study. Read Writ 29, 793–832 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9596-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9596-6

Keywords

Navigation