title in all caps - transforming lives. | lagrange …home.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced...
TRANSCRIPT
THE PARADOX OF THE WRITING PROCESS PARADIGM
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This thesis does not include
proprietary or classified information.
Carrie L. DeBilzan
Certificate of Approval:
_________________________________ _________________________________Donald R. Livingston, Ed. D. Sharon Livingston, Ph. D.Associate Professor and Co-Advisor Assistant Professor and Co-AdvisorEducation Department Education Department
THE PARADOX OF THE WRITING PROCESS PARADIGM
A project submitted
by
Carrie L. DeBilzan
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
July 14, 2011
iii
Abstract
This evaluation and action research study investigated how teaching the writing
process holistically would positively impact the writing of middle grade students.
Pretest and post-test scores were analyzed quantitatively through a dependent t test to
establish significant difference in students’ abilities to produce sophisticated
compositions prior to and following instruction of writing as a process. A chi square
statistic was calculated for each item to compare what was observed on students’ pre-
surveys and post-surveys to what would be expected by chance. Qualitative data were
gathered through interviews of the teachers and the principal to discover how willing
stakeholders were to implement changes in writing instruction. The results concluded that
teaching writing as a process does contribute to positive results in student writing.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………….iii
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………..iv
List of Tables…………….………………………………………………………………..v
Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………………..1Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………...1Significance of the Problem ……………………………………………………...2Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks.……………………………….…..…....2Focus Questions………………………………………………….……………….6Overview of Methodology ……………………………………………………….6Human as Researcher …………………………………………………………….8
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ……………………………………………………...9Process Versus Product …………………………………….…………………….9Organizational Changes Lead to Attitudinal Changes…………………………...12The Implementation of Process Writing……….……....……………………...…16
Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………….……..19Research Design…………………………………………………………….…...19Setting …………………………………………………………………………..19Subjects and Participants …………………………………………………….….21
Procedures and Data Collection Methods ……………………………………....22Validity, Reliability, Dependability, Bias, and Equity Measures…………….….26Analysis of Data …………………………………………………………….…..29
Chapter 4: Results ………………………………………………………………….……32
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results …………………………………….….. 44Analysis of Results………………………………………………………………44Discussion ………………………………………………………………………53Implications ……………………………………………………………………..55Impact on School Improvement ………………………………………………...57Recommendations for Future Research ………………………………………...60
References ……………………………………………………………………………….61
Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………....64
v
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Data Shell ……………………………………………………………………22
Table 4.1 Dependent t (Highest scores from Pretest to Post-test) ……………………...33
Table 4.2 Dependent t (Lowest scores from Pretest to Post-test) ………………………34
Table 4.3 Chi-Square Statistic for Writing Pre-Survey and Post-Survey ……………....35
Table 4.4 Dependent t (Writing Pre-Survey and Writing Post-Survey)………………...37
The Paradox of the Writing Process 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to investigate how teaching the process of writing
holistically would positively impact the writing of middle grade students to the extent
that students would further enhance the skills in which they were currently adept, as well
as demonstrate their awareness, control, and manipulation of their own writing in their
finished products. The functional, product-centered approach to teaching writing enables
students to justify the indolence demonstrated in their finished products, as well as
accepts their lack of initiative to evolve as competent writers.
Although writing is an integral part of the language arts curriculum, teachers
should be cognizant of the fact that writing transcends academia; it establishes the
foundation for lifelong learning. Writing should be taught as a process that necessitates a
hierarchy that begins with the subtleties of an imposed thought and concludes at a
pinnacle that reflects a profoundly new perspective. Cumberworth and Hunt (1998)
affirm that the writing process cannot work without teachers’ convictions to make it
important for their students. If teachers expect students to see how writing is significant
in their own lives, teachers must provide their students with real world reasons to write.
The functional writing approach is an epidemic among language arts teachers
in middle school. Currently, instructional strategies in writing fail to focus on the writing
process holistically; teachers are only teaching what is necessary for the students to meet
the requirements mandated by standardized writing assessments. The metacognitive
aspects of the writing process are neglected, if not omitted completely. As lifelong
learners, students need to be afforded opportunities to engage in rhetoric that resembles
The Paradox of the Writing Process 2
that of an Aristotelian approach: identify a claim, determine its credibility, and embrace
its impact—show how and to what extent the use of language can help them make sense
of the world. Instead, teachers are inadvertently exacerbating the problem by not
implementing a more powerful approach to teaching writing.
Significance of the Problem
Education should be in a constant process of evolution. Students should obtain
knowledge and skills that not only increase their understanding of the world around them,
they should also acquire the ability to function autonomously. Because teachers are
utilizing the functional approach to teaching writing, students are complacently resigned
to receiving an education full of deficiency. Their educational experiences begin and
ultimately end in rudimentary cognition. Functional writing suffocates the abstract
thinkers; they become confined to formulaic writing that does not transcend academia.
Thus, students are not producing work that exceeds educational standards; instead, they
are producing work that peaks at minimal requirements. According to Nagin (2003),
writing assessments cannot show the range of students’ work, nor can they demonstrate
the progression of student writing. Ultimately, students are not secure in their abilities to
assess the degree to which they comprehend the information they receive, much less
overcome weaknesses in their mental capacities to learn.
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
Fundamental to social constructivism, learning that is first taught at the
conceptual level in the classroom must be transferred to situations outside the classroom
(Fosnot & Perry, 2005). In other words, learning must transcend academia. This study
relates to Tenet Two of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008)
The Paradox of the Writing Process 3
Conceptual Framework, or the “professional skills tenet.” The premise for the second
tenet is that exemplary teachers possess an immense repertoire of skills in their content
area that demonstrate high levels of competency. They tend to utilize a myriad of
resources that enable them to teach in diverse classroom settings. The knowledge
undergirded by Tenet Two recognizes that teacher preparation is not just an act of
obtaining and delivering instruction; it mandates that teachers allow students to also be
active in the learning process. Many theorists, namely Piaget and Vygotsky, “have been
concerned with how the individual learner goes about the construction of knowledge in
his or her own cognitive apparatus” (Phillips, 1995, p. 7). Tenet Two operates on the
notion that teachers should provide differentiated instructional opportunities that allow
students to create their own meaning and personal connections to their learning
experiences.
There are three subgroups related to Tenet Two of the LaGrange College
Education Department’s Conceptual Framework: Planning Skills, Instructional Skills,
and Assessment Skills. The subgroup, “Planning Skills,” illustrates the competencies that
teachers must have in order to create learning environments in which students assume
responsibility and participate in decision-making and work both collaboratively and
individually. By teaching writing as a process, students embrace their autonomy through
their motivation to construct new perspectives on universal themes. They work
collaboratively on peer editing and revising activities.
The subgroup, “Instructional Skills,” is built on the premise that students
participate in effective communication, both verbal and nonverbal, in order to develop
higher level critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills. The writing
The Paradox of the Writing Process 4
process includes steps that allow students to utilize their prior knowledge, prewriting and
brainstorming, and to apply new knowledge in ways that are meaningful in situations
outside of academia, revising and publishing.
The subgroup, “Assessment Skills,” describes the competency that teachers must
have to ensure that their students are involved in “self-assessment that helps them
become aware of their strengths and needs and that encourages them to set person goals
for learning” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 7). The writing process
allows students to evaluate their work from its initial stage of prewriting to its concluding
stage of publishing. Ultimately, their product serves as a tool for which they can measure
their own progression, along with commentary provided by their teachers to assist them
on their journey to become competent writers.
This study also reflects the organizational and philosophical concepts of the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards outlined in
the LaGrange College Education Department’s Conceptual Framework. The NCATE
standards provide teachers with a means to adequately prepare and continuously improve
their educational practices. The standards are the written expectations that guide teachers
to meet specified levels of performance. Each standard is separated into elements. The
elements are the major components of each standard that are depicted in rubrics that
accompany the standards. Tenet Two of the LaGrange College Education Department’s
Conceptual Framework aligns with NCATE standards Elements 1C and 1D. Element 1C
is the standard for Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher
Candidates, and Element 1D is the standard for Student Learning for Teacher Candidates.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 5
Element 1C describes teachers who are cognizant of the most current research and
policies that relate to teaching, learning, and best practices. The teachers are able to
explain the implications for their own practice and for their professional development as
educators. In addition, teachers can recognize their strengths and weaknesses in their
instructional strategies. In this study, the research for teaching writing as a process will
demonstrate improvement in student writing and thus reflect best practices for student
learning. Furthermore, Element 1C reflects the notion that teachers take on leadership
roles in the professional community and collaborate with colleagues to improve the
school process. Implementing new instructional writing strategies will lead to positive
changes in the school process.
Element 1D proposes that teachers have the ability to analyze student learning,
adjust instruction to suit the needs of the students, and monitor individual progress
throughout the learning experiences of the students. This study acknowledges that there
must be changes made in the current instructional practices for teaching writing. The use
of assessment data directs the teachers in their plight to ensure that appropriate changes
are made to the writing curriculum so students receive optimal instruction for learning.
This study also relates to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,
(NBPTS) Propositions, as projected by the LaGrange College Education Department’s
Conceptual Framework. The NBPTS Proposition 2 states that teachers know the subjects
they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. Teachers must be highly qualified
to teach in their content subjects. Knowing the content does not necessarily mean that
teachers know how to teach the content. This study investigates how teaching writing can
be improved to benefit the students academically and beyond. The NBPTS Proposition 3
The Paradox of the Writing Process 6
suggests that teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning. This
study investigates how teaching writing as a process provides teachers with the
opportunity to evaluate the progress of student writing through drafting, revising, and
editing, while providing students with an avenue to revisit their weaknesses to make
improvements.
Focus Questions
Understanding why the current instructional strategies for teaching writing must
change is important. There must be identifiable value in altering methodologies that may
have been deemed satisfactory in writing objectives thus far. The end result of changes
made in instructional practices must be evident in ways in which students perform in
writing, how the attitudes of students toward writing differ after the new instructional
strategies are implemented, and in whether or not there is noticeable acceptance of
stakeholders to the changes. The following focus questions were used to guide the
research for this study:
1. Will student writing improve if students are afforded opportunities to engage
in writing as a process?
2. How will the attitudes of the students toward writing change following the
instruction of writing as a process approach?
3. How successful was the change process proposal in convincing stakeholders
to adopt the implementation of teaching writing as a process?
Overview of Methodology
This study emulated the practices of one national or international comparative
education perspective that has implemented the instructional strategies for teaching
The Paradox of the Writing Process 7
writing as a process. Comparative education is the study of how one country (or group of
countries) of diverse backgrounds, ethnicities, and languages teaches subject content
compared to another country or geographical region. Data were gathered to assess
whether or not teaching writing as a process benefitted learners by increasing their
abilities to produce sophisticated compositions while it improved their work ethic and
attitude toward writing.
This study was conducted at an affluent middle school located in Sharpsburg,
Georgia, a southwestern suburb of Coweta County, approximately 30 miles from
Atlanta’s city limits. The subjects of this study included 20 gifted eighth grade
students in a language arts class. The chief administrator and other teachers of English
language arts participated in this study.
The methods for collecting data for focus question one included a pretest and a
post-test and the data were disaggregated quantitatively using a dependent t test. For
focus question two, the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students, served as a pre-
survey and post-survey to measure the subjects’ attitudes prior to and following the
instruction of writing as a process. The data were analyzed using a chi square statistic for
each survey question (item analysis), and a dependent t test to determine if there were
significant differences between means from the pre-survey to the post-survey. A
Cronbach’s alpha was used to ensure internal consistency reliability. An effect size r
estimate was utilized to measure the magnitude of the treatment. For focus question three,
qualitative data collected through the interviews of the teachers of language arts and the
chief administrator were coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes and
repetition.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 8
Human as Researcher
With eleven years of experience as an English instructor in both middle and
secondary education, I have reached one profound conclusion: I am in a significant
position of reciprocity. My instructional strategies for teaching writing embrace the
positive influences I have had in my own experiences as a writer, and cautiously abandon
the formulaic methodology imposed upon me by traditional educational practices. I
recognize that writing is a powerful catalyst through which students improve literacy
skills and emerge as lifelong learners.
I have observed that students lack the capacity to engage in the process of
writing; they demonstrate poor metacognition and therefore do not have the wherewithal
to produce sophisticated compositions. I understand that teachers are held accountable in
regard to how well their students achieve on high-stakes tests; however, it is imperative
that writing instruction improve so that students can acquire skills that will serve them
beyond academia.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 9
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Process Versus Product
Focus question one in this study sought to answer whether or not student writing
would improve if students were afforded opportunities to engage in writing as a process.
Writing is a powerful and complex instrument often overlooked in language arts
classrooms in middle school as a means for improving communication and critical
thinking skills. A tradition of rote work dominates much of literacy education and
instruction is focused on encoding and decoding skills—how to decipher words on the
page, how to get words down on the page—there is not a great deal of interest in
imaginative or creative writing (Tchudi & Mitchell,1999). Further, preoccupation with
testing and reporting in education today has created a rift in the traditional instructional
approaches to teaching writing (Miller, 2001, p. 5). The focus lies on product-centered
writing instruction which translates to instant gratification for those who rely so heavily
upon test scores to determine student achievement. Thus, what continues to be of
consequence and perpetuates value is the final product.
Even though there is some evidence in a paradigm shift from product to process-
centered writing instruction, the reality is that educational systems still expect to evaluate
formulaic academic compositions that demonstrate all of the virtues associated with what
is deemed standard and articulated by particular grade level requirements. Therefore,
students are offered very few opportunities to engage in writing as a process. As a result,
writing instruction is often limited to functional, product-centered approaches. The
purpose of this study is to investigate how teaching the process of writing holistically will
positively impact the writing of middle grade students.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 10
The holistic, process-centered approach to teaching writing deviates greatly from
the product-centered approach in that it involves exploration and connection; it attempts
to drive instruction away from the focus on outcomes of student writing and leads
instruction to a responsiveness to the needs of the students as writers (Miller, 2001, p. 8).
Research has established the major stages of the writing process as prewriting,
drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. While all of the stages are necessary and
utilized by effective writers as they compose, the process allows individual writers to
emphasize their strengths in various stages and affords them the opportunity to revisit the
stages in which their skills are inadequate. Throughout the writing process, students may
reflect on their own writing skills, set individual goals, and evaluate their own progress as
writers.
For decades, the objective of language arts curriculums has been to improve the
quality of student writing and learning by improving the pedagogy for teaching writing.
Respectively, as students are taught the writing process, they learn that it is not only
systematic, but dynamic. It is a recursive process that challenges them to discover the
uniqueness of the written language and encourages them to appreciate the interrelations
of purpose, audience, and form (Tompkins, 2008).
Process writing enables students to confront and sharpen cloudy understandings,
pose and detail solutions to problems, and formulate and develop creative ideas (Wilson,
2006). Unfortunately, the product-centered writing instruction implemented in many
curricula teaches students that they should write to demonstrate what they know,
rather than write to create new understandings. Most students are neither allotted the time
that is necessary to assess their prior knowledge, nor are they given the chance to blend
The Paradox of the Writing Process 11
their prior knowledge with their new acquisitions of understanding. As a result, the
writing of students who are exposed to product-centered instruction reflects only the
extrinsic conventions of writing and eradication of errors (Nagin, 2003). Product-centered
writing is demonstrative of rote learning and simple reproduction of information.
Typically, formal assessments of writing focus on the quality of finished
compositions; they do not test how students write, the strategies that students employ to
write, or the decisions that students make as writers (Tompkins, 2008). The limitations
of any formal writing assessment do not allow for complete revision and refinement on
finished products and one single assessment cannot fully evaluate performance across the
entire domain of writing (National Assessment Governing Board, 2006). However, the
results of formal assessments, or the finished products, can provide teachers with
valuable information about their students’ abilities to generate first-draft responses to
assigned writing tasks. The information can be used to set writing goals for individual
students and provide students with the necessary support to accomplish their goals to
become proficient writers.
John Dewey, who insists that education must be progressive, interprets education
as “the scientific method by means of which man studies the world, acquires
cumulatively knowledge of meanings and values” (Dewey, 1938, p. 10). In other words,
the experience of knowledge can modify one’s attitudes, perceptions and skills. Teaching
writing as a process echoes the sentiments of Dewey. As students begin to show
progression in their writing, they enhance the writing skills in which they are already
adept and improve their areas of weakness; their attitudes reflect an air of confidence
that may have been absent prior to their exposure to process-centered writing instruction;
The Paradox of the Writing Process 12
and their perception of what constitutes good writing evolves.
There is no doubt that any conversant writing instructor can appreciate the
complexities of sound composition. Advocates of product-oriented writing instruction
focus on the end result of the composing process, evaluating accuracy, style,
organization, elegance and coherence which are indicative of the ability of the student
writer. On the other hand, advocates of process-oriented writing instruction perceive
writing as creative, generative, cognitive, and nonlinear (Shannon, 1994). Essentially,
what the best teachers can hope to accomplish is that their students understand that the
product is dependent upon the process and the process is the pathway to the product; thus,
a better comprehension of the writing process, along with a focus on the components
emphasized by product-centered writing, will only produce better outcomes (Shannon,
1994).
Organizational Changes Lead to Attitudinal Changes
The purpose of focus question two of this study was to determine how the
attitudes of the students toward writing would change following the instruction of writing
as a process approach.
The art of effective writing pedagogy has not been articulated or perfected in any
writing curriculum, yet educators ascertain that all students have the ability to learn to
write and that writing is the most visible expression of what their students know and to
what extent they know it (Nagin, 2003). Students, conversely, decline the notion that
their writing accurately demonstrates their understanding of knowledge or their capacity
to apply it. A study conducted by Tchudi and Mitchell (1999) included a survey that
polled students about how they regard writing and the results revealed that the students’
The Paradox of the Writing Process 13
insecurities about writing were deep and profound. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2001 reinforced the emphasis on accountability and the use of high stakes testing
to make vital decisions regarding the curriculum in schools. Consequently, writing
instruction is invariably limited to the product-centered approach, restricting students to
write in the scope of narrowed genres. Furthermore, the ideology for what constitutes
good writing has become obscured.
In both product-centered and process-centered writing programs, students are
expected to apply the strategies that they have been taught to develop their competency as
writers. It is disheartening to report that most students do not believe that they are
competent at all; in fact, their attitude toward writing generally worsens as they advance
from one grade to another. Many students experience writing as a task that involves
tedium, lack of choice, and negative feedback (Kear, Coffman, McKenna, & Ambrosio,
2000). Some believe that when they offer their ideas in language, they are exposing
themselves to public scrutiny (Tchudi & Mitchell,1999).
However, if writing instructors were given a tool to assist them in becoming more
knowledgeable about their students’ attitudes toward writing, then their instructional
methodologies could be modified to potentially benefit their students. For instance, if
giving students a broader range in their choice about which to write would improve the
students’ attitudes toward writing, ultimately a progression in student writing would be
noted. Furthermore, if teachers could move away from response grading to advice
grading, students would move past the fear they have reserved ultimately for the feedback
they are accustomed to receiving.
Writing that is taught as a process is a medium for learning that allows students to
The Paradox of the Writing Process 14
experience the phenomenon of achieving insight and developing concepts as writing
progresses (Ruddell, 2008). The writing process encourages growth and proficiency and
stimulates thoughts that lead to new understandings about information; students are given
the opportunity to speculate, question, and explore new ideas. Process-centered writing is
not a conventionalized task, like that of product-centered writing, where students are
assigned a topic, write about the topic, and receive a grade. A grade given on a product
finishes a paper very much the same way that publication does at the conclusion of the
process, except students claim that a grade may hinder their desire to write (Ruddell,
2008). When teachers give students writing assignments, more specifically a genre and a
topic on which to write, they are, for all intents and purposes, telling the students what to
write and how to write it. Students are robbed of the opportunity to learn and discover
their own truths.
Cumberworth and Hunt (1998) conducted a study in a middle school involving
the implementation of a writer’s workshop with emphasis on process writing. Included in
the study are the results of a survey regarding the attitudes of students toward writing
prior to participating in the workshop and the probable cause for their perceptions about
writing. The survey revealed that students admit to skipping stages of the writing
process; students perceive revision not as a means to develop and improve their writing,
but as an opportunity to correct errors; publishing is superfluous because writing is done
in English class and is only for the eyes of the teacher; and, writing is for a grade.
Some of the probable causes made prominent in the study are that teachers often
deliver whole class writing instruction, which assumes that all writers use the writing
process the same way. Many teachers changed from direct grammar instruction to
The Paradox of the Writing Process 15
process-centered instruction too abruptly, which left many students insecure in their
abilities to assess their own writing. Providing students with real world purposes for
writing is an aspect that many instructors overlook; without reasons to believe that
writing is important, students will not see the significance of writing in their own lives.
King, Jonson, Whitehead, and Reinken (2003) conducted a study to investigate
why New Zealand has produced some of the highest literacy rates in the industrialized
world. According to their research, writing is a natural outgrowth of reading and students
engage in writing as a way to respond to reading. The educators in New Zealand teach
the writing process holistically so that students experience writing as authors. Writing is
shared not only with the students’ class, but with others in the school, and even beyond
the realm of academia. In addition, because the classroom culture in New Zealand
focuses on the continual development of a student’s abilities, rather than accommodate
fixed abilities, students flourish in writing. Thus, students report positive attitudes toward
their accomplishments in writing.
According to Knudson (2001), writing apprehension is significantly related to
how well students write and their feelings regarding writing; furthermore, writing anxiety
negatively affects school success. Briefly, writing attitude is directly related to writing
achievement; it can be inferred, then, that organizational changes in the writing
curriculum could be linked to attitudinal changes in the students.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 16
The Implementation of Process Writing
Focus question three in this study explored how successful the change process
proposal was in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching writing
as a process.
In the United States, the education system was never designed to deliver the kind
of results that are now necessary to equip students for today’s world—or tomorrow’s
(Wagner & Kegan, 2006). As a result, educators are incessantly faced with the challenge
of implementing variations of educational reform in the classroom setting.
They are required to alter their teaching styles and incorporate new strategies in order to
meet the demands of innovative curriculum policies developed to raise educational
standards. In addition, they must provide an array of differentiated educational
opportunities for their students. According to Glatthorn, Boschee, and Whitehead (2009),
teachers have historically viewed administrative attempts to control the curriculum as
intrusive and counterproductive and work hard to subvert such plans.
Current research in effective strategies and best practices are disseminated by
policy makers and utilized in sites for professional learning and curriculum workshops so
that educators can acquire the tools necessary to create change in their schools.
However, successful organizational change in education cannot be achieved by top-down
directives. Wagner and Kegan (2006) maintain that there must be a culture of engaged
adult learners who have an aspiration to create change. School improvement requires
from all stakeholders a collective willingness, shared commitment, and support of the
rationale for change. Furthermore, Glatthorn et al. (2009) assert that in order to promote
the value of positive change, effective curriculum leaders must be totally committed to an
The Paradox of the Writing Process 17
important idea, demonstrate unwavering faith in the process, and allow opportunities for
those involved to learn from the experiences associated with the change.
Convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching writing as a
process as opposed to sustaining functional, product-centered writing instruction is
particularly taxing. Educators who are accustomed to teaching writing using traditional
product orientation maintain that the pedagogy should emphasize the form of written
discourse. Essential skills including but not limited to mastering the correctness of
grammar and punctuation, eradicating errors in syntax, identifying the parts of speech,
and following paragraph types and genres of writing according to prescribed conventions
are the focus of assessment. Ultimately, the finished product qualifies the writing.
On the contrary, educators who advocate the process approach to teaching writing
believe that what constitutes quality writing is the ability for students to move beyond
rote learning. Writing should reflect how thoughts are organized and coherent,
demonstrate higher order thinking skills, and reveal a polished presentation of ideas and
subject matter (Nagin, 2003).
According to the results of a study conducted by Spanjer and Layne (1983), the
effects of training in a process approach to teaching writing indicated that the process
approach influenced the teachers’ attitudes toward language and increased their
awareness of the multidimensional aspects of writing. The teachers concluded that there
are no absolute laws for composition; they discovered that being prescriptive, rule-bound,
and biased toward the writing produced by students does not necessarily result in the
product of better writing. Invariably, integrating both process and product-centered
instruction, or teaching the process of writing holistically, will improve student writing.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 18
King et al.’s (2003) study reports that the literacy strategy in New Zealand
concedes that the most influential factor in a student’s writing is the quality of interaction
between the teacher and the student. Factors such as high expectations, various
instructional strategies, and engaging writing activities all play a valuable role in the
students’ acquisition of knowledge. Process-centered instruction, coupled with each of
the learning factors, and ample feedback provided in a timely fashion result in effective
instructional practices. In reference to the literacy strategy in New Zealand, teachers in
the United States concur.
However, when teachers in the United States were interviewed about best
practices in writing, the results were astonishing. In a survey conducted by Grimes and
Warschauer (2010), teachers revealed that without some form of essay grading
assistance, grading delays of a week or more are commonplace, by
which time most students lose interest. Furthermore, time for writing
practice is often too restrictive because students need instruction in
other areas, most notably, mechanics. Consequently, teachers in the
United States find teaching the writing process holistically increasingly
difficult. The rigorous curriculum, along with the reinforced emphasis on
accountability and the use of high stakes testing, has deterred educators from
implementing process-centered writing in their classrooms.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 19
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The educational research designs for this study integrated action research and
evaluation research. Action research is informal, systematic research conducted by
stakeholders, often classroom teachers, who are ambitious to resolve particular problems
in a specific setting. Action researchers focus on the development, implementation, and
assessment of an innovative product, plan, or procedure that will modify the way in
which schools operate, how educators teach, and how well students learn. Essentially,
action research provides the means by which educators can increase the effectiveness of
the work in which they are engaged (Stringer, 2007). Evaluation research is formal
research, also executed by teachers, done to assess the integrity of the various products
and processes developed in action research design (Charles & Mertler, 2002). In regard
to action research, the purpose of this study was to implement the instruction of writing
as a process and determine how teaching writing holistically positively impacts the
writing of middle grade students. The findings of this action research, particularly the
quality of writing instruction, were evaluated and used to determine the applicability of
the results to settings and contexts different from the one in which they were originally
obtained.
Setting
This study was conducted at an affluent middle school located in Sharpsburg,
Georgia, a southwestern suburb of Coweta County, approximately 30 miles from
Atlanta’s city limits. There are roughly 128,000 residents in Coweta, while Sharpsburg is
The Paradox of the Writing Process 20
comprised of a population of merely 731. The demographics of Coweta reflect that
77.2% of the population are Caucasian, 17.7% are African American, 3.1% are
Hispanic, 2% is a combination of Asian Pacific Islander or multiracial.
There are very few residents in Sharpsburg who have received post-secondary
degrees. Nearly 20% have earned a bachelor’s degree, and less than 7% possess a
graduate degree or higher. Of the residents who have attended high school, 80.2%
received a high school diploma or equivalent.
The median household income in Sharpsburg is $63,201, which is higher than the
median household income of the state of Georgia at only $50, 861. Nonetheless, just as
the recession has had a detrimental effect on the economy in most other counties in
Georgia, Coweta has suffered its own economic downturn. The fluctuation of the housing
market reveals a decrease in home values up to 30% in some areas, while foreclosures
and short sales have increased in other areas. Because of the decline in the economy,
many families in Coweta have been uprooted and forced to relocate where reasonable
housing or shelter is available. As a result, students across the county have had to transfer
to and from various school districts within the county lines and thus many schools are
experiencing an influx in the number of transient students enrolled.
There were approximately 925 students who attended the facility where this
research was conducted. Of the 925 students who were enrolled, 73% were Caucasian,
17% were African American, 5% were Hispanic, 3% were Multi-Racial, and 2% were
other. There were 246 students, or 27%, who received free and reduced lunch and 82
students, or 9%, who were enrolled in special education classes. The education levels of
the faculty ranged from those who possessed bachelor’s degrees to those who had
The Paradox of the Writing Process 21
obtained their doctorates: 37% had bachelor’s degrees, 39% had master’s degrees, 14%
had a specialist degree, and 1% held a doctorate.
The location of the setting was chosen because the investigator was a gifted
eighth grade teacher there, and as a result was made privy to a report issued to the school
regarding a decline in the overall test scores on the data gathered for the Georgia Grade 8
Writing Assessment.
Permission to conduct the study was granted by the principal of the school, as
well as the county’s Lead Psychologist/SST & 504 Coordinator, and secured by the
participating college, specifically the LaGrange College Institutional Review Board.
Subjects and Participants
The subjects of this study were 20 gifted eighth grade students enrolled in a
language arts class composed of 9 females and 11 males between the ages of 12 to 14
years. Seventeen of the students were Caucasian, while three were African American.
This group was not chosen to determine which gender or race would benefit most from
being exposed to strategies that teach writing holistically. This group was chosen because
their participation in a mock writing assessment demonstrated the most variance in scores
on the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment rubric, ranging from Does Not Meet, Meets,
or Exceeds the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS).
The principal, who has 38 years of experience in education, 18 years attributed to
the role of chief administrator, is a primary participant in this study. Prior to his years in
administration, he taught primarily English in both junior high and high school. The
principal at this facility has maintained his position since the school’s opening in 2006.
The principal’s role in this study was to act as a catalyst for organizational change in the
The Paradox of the Writing Process 22
instructional strategies for teaching writing.
Procedures and Data Collection Methods
The purpose of this evaluation and action research study was to investigate how
teaching the process of writing holistically positively impacted the writing of middle
grade students. The integration of numeric and narrative data was utilized to adequately
assess the validity, reliability and dependability of the study. The rationale for using a
mixed methodology was to build on the strengths of unifying quantitative and qualitative
data for the purpose of better supporting the outcomes and insights into the phenomena
investigated, rather than polarize the objective and subjective data (Ercikan & Roth,
2006). Table 3.1 explicitly outlines the data collection methods as they align with each of
the study’s focus questions.
Table 3.1. Data ShellFocus Question Literature
SourcesType: Method, Data, Validity
How these data are analyzed
Rationale
Will student writing improve if students are afforded opportunities to engage in writing as a process?
Miller, J. P.(2001).
National Writing Project, & Nagin, C. (2003).
Tompkins, G. E. (2008).
Method:Assessment (Pretest andPost-test)
Data: Interval
Type of Validity:Content*
Quantitative:
Dependent t test
Effect Size Calculation
Quantitative:To determine if there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice
How will the attitudes of the students toward writing change following the instruction of writing as a process approach?
Cumberworth, T. J., & Hunt, J. A. (1998).
Kear, Coffman, McKenna, & Ambrosio (2000).
Knudson, R.
Method:Survey of students prior to writing instruction and post writing instruction.
Data:Ordinal
Quantitative:Inferential Statistics
Dependent t test
Chi Square
Cronbach’s alpha
Quantitative:To determine if there are significant differences
Desire to find what questions (items) are significant and which ones are not
The Paradox of the Writing Process 23
(2001). Type of Validity:Construct*
How successful was the change process proposal in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching writing as a process?
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010).
King, C., Jonson, K., Whitehead, D., & Reinken, B. (2003).
Spanjer, R. A., & Layne, B. H. (1979).
Method:Interview of teachers of English language arts andinterview of chief administrator
Data: Qualitative
Type of Validity:Construct*
Qualitative:Coded for themes
Recurring
Dominant
Emerging
Qualitative:Looking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors
The pedagogy of effective writing instruction presents a challenge that many
writing instructors have yet to master. Many deem their approach to writing instruction
as effective when the results of standardized writing assessments reflect passing scores.
Others view standardized test scores as only partial measurements of successful writing
instruction; they believe that their students have only mastered the endeavor of producing
a well-written final product. In order to unify the dichotomy between the two perceptions
of what constitutes high-quality writing instruction, it is imperative that educators teach
the process of writing in not only a systematic, but dynamic way. It is necessary to
improve writing instruction so that students can acquire skills that will serve them beyond
academia. Throughout the writing process, students may reflect on their own writing
skills, set individual goals, and evaluate their own progress as writers.
In this study, a pretest was administered to subjects prior to their exposure to the
instruction of writing as a process. The pretest was provided by a company called Write
The Paradox of the Writing Process 24
Score. Write Score is a progress monitoring assessment company that specializes in hand
scoring essays for individual schools and districts. The pretest was created by Write
Score and mirrors that of the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment. In essence, each of
the subjects received either a persuasive or expository writing prompt. Subjects followed
the testing criteria outlined by the Georgia Department of Education; and, each subject
was provided with all of the materials necessary for the exam and was limited to a time
frame of 100 minutes for completion. The purpose of the pretest was to gather
quantitative data that assessed the students’ prior knowledge about writing.
The rubric utilized in scoring the Write Score pretest focused on the same four
writing domains that are assessed on the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment rubric:
Ideas, Organization, Style, and Conventions. The domains assessed in writing are not
weighed equally; the Ideas domain carries a weight of 40%, while the Organization,
Style, and Conventions domains weigh 20% each. The Write Score pretest was scored by
two qualified graders; a third grader was called upon when there were obvious
discrepancies between the two original graders.
Once the results of the pretest were received, it was necessary for the
investigator to create and maintain a writing assessment portfolio for each subject. The
pretest results were logged in the writing assessment portfolio of each subject. As the
instruction of writing as a process commenced, the subjects participated in various
writing assignments over the course of several months that mimicked the writing prompts
utilized on the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment. The writing assignments were hand
scored according to the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment rubric and logged by the
The Paradox of the Writing Process 25
investigator in the writing portfolio of each subject (see appendix A). Throughout the
writing process, the weaknesses and strengths in each writing domain, as well as the
stages of the writing process became apparent for each subject. Each subject worked on
his or her area of weakness in the writing process, which fulfilled the requirements of
differentiating instruction and best practices for student learning.
Immediately following the instruction of writing as a process, students applied
their strategies of process-centered writing to the assigned writing task provided by the
Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment. The results of the Georgia Grade 8 Writing
Assessment served as the post-test and additional quantitative data for this study.
Student attitude and behavioral patterns toward writing and the writing process
were measured through the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students (see Appendix
B). English language arts teachers were interviewed to determine their teaching practices
concerning the process-centered writing versus product-centered writing, as well as their
willingness to implement necessary changes in writing instruction (see Appendix C). This
middle school’s chief administrator was interviewed regarding the change process in an
institutional setting (see Appendix D).
Validity, Reliability, Dependability, Bias, and Equity Measures
The primary purpose of focus question one in this study was to examine the
probability that student writing would improve if students were afforded opportunities to
engage in writing as a process. In this case, a single class of the same subjects was
studied pre- and post-exposure to the instruction of writing as a process. All of the
subjects used in this study received the treatment of instruction of writing as a process;
and subjects in the group selected for this study were assessed by means of a pre-
The Paradox of the Writing Process 26
test and post-test to measure their progress in writing.
As a measure of reliability, a test/retest correlation for the dependent t test was
conducted. In other words, a dependent t was used to determine if there were significant
differences between means from one group tested twice. Validation is the process of
gathering evidence that supports inferences made on the basis of test scores. Since this
study examined the results of an achievement test, specifically the Georgia Grade 8
Writing Assessment, establishing content validity was necessary. Content validity is
established when researchers make a judgment of the degree to which the evidence
suggests that the items, tasks, or questions on an assessment adequately represent the
domain of interest (Johnson & Christensen, 2008, p. 152). Content validity was used in
the selection of the pretest and the post-test chosen for this study because it centers on
how well the test item represents the related discipline. Further, prompts and rubrics
utilized in this study to monitor progression in student writing are aligned to the Georgia
Performance Standards (GPS).
Data collection and treatment were kept consistent as a measure of dependability.
Dependability emphasizes the necessity for the researcher to account for the ever-
changing context within which research occurs; further, the researcher is responsible for
describing the changes that occur and how the changes affect the way the study is
approached (Lichtman, 2006). Data were accurately recorded with the use of
protocols associated with educational research.
Bias was examined in this study to make certain it was not offensive or unfair in
nature. Standardized tests are scrutinized for bias prior to their release. The Georgia
Grade 8 Writing Assessment is a standardized test so it has been cleared of bias. In regard
The Paradox of the Writing Process 27
to how students would perform on the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment after
exposure to the instruction of writing as a process, I believed that students would
demonstrate an increase in scores between the pretest and the post-test because the
product is dependent upon the process and if students have a better comprehension of the
writing process, the product would produce better outcomes.
Focus question two in this study sought to recognize how the attitudes of the
students toward writing changed following the instruction of writing as a process
approach. Data were collected to look for categorical and repeating patterns of
behavior through the use of a student survey; specifically, the Knudson Writing Attitude
Survey for Students (see Appendix B). A chi square statistic was calculated to compare
what was observed on the pre-survey and post-survey to what would be expected by
chance (Salkind, 2010). A dependent t test was used to determine if there were significant
differences between means from the pre-survey to the post-survey. A Cronbach’s alpha
was used to determine reliability by examining internal consistency and to ensure that
only one dimension, construct, or area of interest was being represented (Salkind, 2010).
Because this study focused on measuring attitude, it is important to note that
attitude is a construct. A construct is a non-measurable characteristic, such as disposition
or beliefs (Popham, 2008). Thus, construct validity was sought to determine the
significance of the scores from the survey. How well a test gauges construct validity is
determined by how well it represents the behaviors chosen to describe the trait.
In order to ensure dependability, an adequate number of participants were selected
for this study and the time allotted for data collection was sufficient.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 28
To minimize bias and maximize objectivity in this research, I challenged the
integrity of the survey by allowing others to examine it; it was not found to contain unfair
or offensive content. In regard to disparate impact, one group did not have an advantage
over another.
Focus question three in this study determined how successful the change process
proposal was in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching writing
as a process. Qualitative data were collected through the use of in-depth interviews of
teachers at the location, as well as the chief administrator. The purpose of the interviews
was to develop an understanding of how effective the organizational change process
strategies were and to determine whether or not there was a collective willingness, shared
commitment, and support of the rationale for change among all of the stakeholders. These
qualitative data were coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes and repetition.
As a measure of dependability, the interviews of both the teachers and the
principal were recorded to secure precision of the data collected. In addition, the
interviewee checked the transcripts for accuracy. Construct validity served to interpret
and examine the relevance of the answers reported.
Programmatic equity and teacher quality were both addressed in this study.
Programmatic equity focuses on the quality of the educational programs into which
students are placed or from which they are excluded (Skrla, McKenzie, & Scheurich,
2009, p. 41). According to research, gifted and talented education programs are likely
sites for inequity. The subjects in this study included seventeen Caucasians and three
African Americans; students of color are underrepresented as gifted and talented. Equity
consciousness and high-quality teaching skills go hand in hand. Students learn as much as
The Paradox of the Writing Process 29
what their teachers know; therefore, it is imperative that the most highly qualified
teachers are in the classrooms. I am a certified gifted and talented teacher with eleven
years of experience; I am an expert in my field. Two skills I directly embedded in my
research are clearly communicating expectations for learning and frequently assessing
individual student learning.
Analysis of Data
For focus question one, all of the subjects in this study were assessed using a
pretest and post-test and the data were disaggregated quantitatively using a dependent t
test. A t test for dependent means indicates that a single group of the same subjects is
being studied under two conditions (Salkind, 2010, p. 238). The writing ability of the
subjects was determined by the pretest and how their progress in writing evolved was
determined by the post-test. The results of the pretest and post-test were then compared
using a dependent t test to determine if there was significant difference between the
means of the scores (Salkind, 2010, p. 238). The decision to reject the null hypothesis has
been set at p<.05. An effect size r estimate was used to measure the magnitude of the
treatment effect. An effect size indicator gives an estimate of the strength of the
relationship between the independent and dependent variables (Johnson & Christianson,
2008, p. 255).
For focus question two, quantitative data were collected through the use of a
student surveys; specifically the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students. The
Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students uses ordinal variables on a five point
weighting scale along the Likert Scale. The Likert scale is commonly used in survey
research; it measures subjects’ attitudes by inquiring about to what extent there is
The Paradox of the Writing Process 30
agreement or disagreement with a particular question. The data were analyzed using a chi
square for each survey question (item analysis), and a dependent t test to determine if
there were significant differences between means from the pre-survey to the post-survey.
The chi square test involves a comparison between what is observed and what would be
expected by chance (Salkind, 2010, p. 312). A Cronbach’s alpha was used to ensure
internal consistency reliability in regard to the survey items on the pre-survey and the
post-survey. An effect size r estimate was utilized to measure the magnitude of the
treatment. The results of the survey aided in the methodology for writing instruction.
Each subject approached the writing process divergently; consequently, differentiated
instruction was incorporated into the process.
For focus question three, qualitative data from the interviews were coded for
recurring, emergent, and dominant themes. This study was secured, observed, and
approved by LaGrange College. This form of validation is an agreement among
competent individuals that the description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematic of an
educational situation are right (Eisner, 1991). The evidence of the use of multiple data
sources, opposing points of view, and accuracy of data support epistemological
validation. The credibility of this study was established by the support of peer-reviewed
journals, books, projects, assessments, students, teachers, and administrators. This form
of structural corroboration, or triangulation, was used to show objectivity, precision, and
rightness of fit to form a compelling whole (Eisner, 1991). To be fair, opposing
perspectives were presented in the review of literature.
This study was conducted to demonstrate the positive transformation that
occurred when students were afforded the opportunity to use writing as a process. All
The Paradox of the Writing Process 31
aspects of this study are transferable and applicable in other settings. This form of
referential adequacy ensures that the perceptions and understandings of others will
increase due to these findings (Eisner, 1991). Through the reshaping of knowledge
constructs and empowerment of individuals, educators can become catalysts of change
within in their facilities. This form of catalytic validity in research displays the reality-
altering impact of the inquiry process (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998).
The Paradox of the Writing Process 32
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to investigate how teaching the process of writing
holistically would positively impact the writing of middle grade students to the extent
that students would further enhance the skills in which they were currently adept, as well
as demonstrate their awareness, control, and manipulation of their own writing in their
finished products. The results displayed in this chapter are organized by focus question.
The quantitative data are presented first, followed by the qualitative data obtained to
answer each focus question. The quantitative data will be exhibited in the form of
embedded tables within the chapter. The qualitative data reflects information gathered in
interviews and will demonstrate recurring, dominant, and emerging themes.
Focus question one asked, “Will student writing improve if students
are afforded opportunities to engage in writing as a process?” The data used to analyze
this question were gathered from a total of 20 eighth grade gifted language arts students.
A pretest and post-test were administered to each student. The scores of the pretest and
post-test were analyzed by quantitative means through a dependent t test to establish
significance. The dependent t test was used to evaluate a single group of the same
subjects under two conditions (Salkind, 2010). In this study, the purpose of the dependent
t was two evaluate the means of the pretest and post-test scores to establish similarity or
difference between the scores. In this case, the dependent t tests were run separately.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 33
Table 4.1 demonstrates the highest score increases from the pretest to the post-test. Table
4.2 reveals the scores that decreased from the pretest to the post-test. The calculations for
the dependent t tests are displayed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
Table 4.1 Dependent t (Highest scores from Pretest to Post-test)t Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Writing Pretest Writing Post-TestMean 42.85714286 61.54285714Variance 75.66137566 365.8895238Observations 7 7Pearson Correlation 0.70099754Hypothesized MeanDifference 0df 6T Stat 3.425577806P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0070236t Critical one-tail 1.943180274P(T<=t) two-tail 0.014047201t Critical two-tail 2.446911846
With the dependent t test for the pretest and post-test, the mean for the pretest was
42.86 and the mean for the post-test was 61.54. This demonstrates an increase in the
mean test scores. The results show t(6)=3.43, p <.05. This means that the obtained value
for the test, 3.43, was greater than the critical value of 1.94. Therefore, the null
hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the pretest and the post-test
must be rejected and the test reveals a significant difference. According to Salkind
(2010), the effect size provides an idea about the relative positions of one group to
another. The effect size for the pretest and post-test is r=0.53 which indicates a large
range. The Pearson correlation is .70, indicating a high rate of consistency between the
pretest and the post-test scores.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 34
Table 4.2 Dependent t (Lowest scores from Pretest to Post-test)t Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Writing Pretest Writing Post-TestMean 54.61538462 48.95384615Variance 86.64529915 42.06769231Observations 13 13Pearson Correlation 0.827398357Hypothesized MeanDifference 0df 12T Stat 3.803269122P(T<=t) one-tail 0.001257407t Critical one-tail 1.782287548P(T<=t) two-tail 0.002514814t Critical two-tail 2.178812827
With the dependent t test for the pretest and post-test, the mean for the pretest was
54.62 and the mean for the post-test was 48.95. This demonstrates an increase in the
mean test scores. The results show t(12)=3.80, p <.05. This means that the obtained value
for the test, 3.80, was greater than the critical value of 1.78. Therefore, the null
hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the pretest and the post-test
must be rejected and the test reveals a significant difference. According to Salkind
(2010), the effect size provides an idea about the relative positions of one group to
another. The effect size for the pretest and post-test is r=0.31 which is within the medium
range. The Pearson correlation is .82, indicating a high rate of consistency between the
pretest and the post-test scores.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 35
The students at the middle school where this study was conducted were given a
pre-survey to determine attitudes toward writing prior to receiving any writing instruction
for the purpose of answering focus question two: “How will the attitudes of the students
toward writing change following the instruction of writing as a process approach?” After
receiving instruction on the process of writing, the students were given a post-survey.
The chi square statistic was calculated to compare what was observed on the pre- and
post- surveys to what would be expected by chance (Salkind, 2010). Tables 4.3
and 4.4 below show the results of the chi-square test for the student pre- and post-
surveys.
Table 4.3 Chi-Square Statistic for Writing Pre-Survey and Post-SurveySurvey Itemsn=20
Survey Questions χ2 Pre-Survey n=20 χ
2 Post-Survey n=20
Item 1 When I have free time, I would rather write than watch TV.
3.523809524 24***
Item 2 I get good grades on what I write at school.
24*** 9.714285714*
Item 3 My parents like what I write.
23.52380952*** 15.42857143**
Item 4 I think writing is enjoyable.
10.19047619* 20.66666667***
Item 5 I am a good writer. 15.90476190** 11.61904762*Item 6 I would rather write an
essay than fill in the blanks.
1.619047619 7.333333333
Item 7 At school, I like to write science and social reports.
34.47619048*** 28.76190476***
Item 8 You have to be a good writer to do well in school.
20.66666667*** 9.238095238**
Item 9 I would like to have more time in school to write.
7.809523810 3.047619048
Item 10 I can write a complete 57.33333333*** 84***
The Paradox of the Writing Process 36
paragraph.Item 11 I do better at school if I
take notes on what the teacher says.
9.238095238** 15.9047619**
Item 12 Writing to express yourself is important in getting a good job.
16.38095238** 14.95238095**
Item 13 I write notes to my friends.
5.428571429 5.428571429
Item 14 I write letters to relatives and friends when I am not in school.
2.095238095 16.85714286**
Item 15 I am good at writing a whole composition.
7.333333333 4.476190476
Item 16 I would rather write than listen to music.
15.42857143** 17.33333333**
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
The results of the chi-square statistic for the pre-survey indicated that many of the
questions were significant. Survey items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10 were each found to be highly
significant when p < .05, .01, and .001, which signifies that a high percentage of students
answered these questions a certain way. However, items 1, 6, 9, 13, 14, and 15
demonstrated that there was no significance at all between what was observed in the
answers and what would have been expected to occur by chance. In regard to the chi-
square statistic for the post-survey, the results showed that survey items 1, 4, 7, and 10
were highly significant, whereas survey items 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15 showed no
significant difference between what was observed in the answers and what was expected
to occur by chance.
In order to determine the internal consistency reliability of the items on the pre-
survey and the post-survey administered to the students, the Cronbach’s alpha was
computed by correlating the score for each item with the total score for each individual,
and then comparing that to the variability present for all individual item scores (Salkind,
2010). The internal consistency reliability ensures that the survey items on the
The Paradox of the Writing Process 37
pre- and post- survey measured only what they were intended to measure. For the pre-
survey, the computations reported a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0.69. For the post-survey,
the Cronbach’s alpha was α = 0.86.
The results of the pre-survey and post-survey were analyzed by quantitative
means through a dependent t test to determine if there were significant differences. See
Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Dependent t (Writing Pre-Survey and Writing Post-Survey)t Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Writing Pre-Survey Writing Post-SurveyMean 43.57142857 45.76190476Variance 58.45714286 75.49047619Observations 21 21Pearson Correlation 0.240209544Hypothesized MeanDifference 0df 20T Stat 0.779425948P(T<=t) one-tail 0.22242734t Critical one-tail 1.724718218P(T<=t) two-tail 0.444854681t Critical two-tail 2.085963441
With the dependent t test for the pre-survey and post-survey, the mean for the
pre-survey was 43.57 and the mean for the post-survey was 45.76. This demonstrates a
slight increase in the mean survey scores. The results show t(20)=0.78, p > .05. This means
that the obtained value for the survey, 0.78, was less than the critical value of 1.72. Thus,
the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the pre-survey and the
post-survey must be accepted and the test shows no significant difference.
The Pearson correlation is .24, indicating a low rate of consistency between the
The Paradox of the Writing Process 38
pretest and the post-test scores. As shown in the chi square, it is interesting to note that
there were many significant increases in particular survey questions but not a difference
in the aggregated scores.
In this study, focus question three posed the question, “How successful was the
change process proposal in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of
teaching writing as a process? To successfully answer the question presented, an
interview of the middle school language arts teachers was conducted. According to the
qualitative data that were obtained for focus question three, there were two recurring
themes observed (1) the variety of methods for writing instruction (2) the diverse
approaches to measuring the progression of student writing; there were two dominant
themes observed (1) the need for adequate and consistent training in writing instruction
(2) the possibility of teaching process writing, as opposed to product writing; and, there
was one emergent theme reflected in the interview responses (1) the challenges of
teaching writing.
The first question of the interview conducted to answer focus question three was,
“What are your current methods for teaching writing?” Only two of the seven teachers
interviewed elaborated on their methods for teaching the writing process. Two other
teachers reported only teaching particular parts of the writing process. One teacher stated
that her focus lies in teaching “prewriting, drafting, and finalizing.” Another teacher
reiterated the sentiments when she stated that her students “simply write an introduction,
body, and a conclusion for each writing assignment.” The remaining teachers used
“examples to demonstrate strong writing” and “reviewed all of the steps of the writing
process, with the exceptions of editing and publishing.” Thus, the recurring theme is that
The Paradox of the Writing Process 39
there is no concrete method for teaching writing; there is a variety of methods for writing
instruction.
The next question of the interview was, “How do you measure the progression of
student writing?” One teacher reported utilizing portfolios. She said, “I measure student
progress every step of the way. They receive individual attention with any roadblocks
along the way. I have the ability to pull them out to conference with them because I have
co-lab teacher in the room.” Another teacher claimed that “measuring the progression of
writing is a struggle. The use of rubrics helps, but there is a need for more strategies.” A
third teacher stated that she “only grade[s] individual assignments.” The remaining
teachers all agreed that they “do not really measure progression of writing.” Therefore,
the recurring theme is that there is no precise methodology for measuring the progression
of student writing.
There was a dominant theme in regard to the question, “Do you feel as though
you have received adequate training to teach writing? If not, how much training do you
think you would need to adequately teach writing?” All teachers reported that training in
writing instruction should be “on-going and consistent.” None of the teachers affirmed
that they have received adequate training in the instruction of writing. One teacher
claimed, “The only true training I feel that I have is my own writing experiences; some
were positive, while others were not. I would like more training about how to grade
writing.” Another teacher said, “I received very much training in another school system,
but the current school system that I am in does not offer workshops, conventions, or
classes for just writing. It does not adequately train teachers on how to teach writing.”
The remaining teachers all said, “I haven’t received adequate training.”
The Paradox of the Writing Process 40
Another dominant theme was observed in the interview in regard to the question,
“Do you think that teaching process centered writing, as opposed to product centered
writing, would improve student writing? Why? Why not?” All of the teachers reported
that process centered writing would improve student writing. One teacher said, “I feel
that process centered writing would most definitely improve student writing because
students would ‘own’ the process instead of striving to just ‘produce’ what is expected of
them for state writing test purposes. Furthermore, [the students] would actually create
their own style of writing.” Another teacher agreed and added, “If the students were
being exposed to their mistakes in writing more often, and had multiple opportunities to
revise their products, chances are they would learn from their mistakes.” Two teachers
commented that “product centered writing stifles creativity.” One teacher proclaimed that
she would “teach process writing if there was not such a focus on high stakes testing.”
There were also emerging themes that observed in the interview responses
to questions pertaining to the question, “What do you think the most significant
challenges would be to implement the instruction of the writing process in your
classroom?” The teachers interviewed reported (1) issues related to time (2) increases in
class size (3) grading with subjectivity.
One teacher said, “There is no time to hold individual conferences with students
about their writing.” Another teacher declared, “There is not enough time to cover the
curriculum as it is; how could we spend more time on editing and revising one paper?
Publishing is really out of the question.” The other teachers simply stated, “Time.”
In reference to the projected increase in class size, all of the teachers agreed that
teaching writing to students with an array of abilities will be much more difficult with an
The Paradox of the Writing Process 41
increased number of students per class. One teacher exclaimed, “I have 150 kids now!”
Finally, one significant challenge to implement the instruction of writing as a
process that was in accordance with all of the teachers lies in the fact that grading is
subjective. After the question was posed, five of the seven teachers took turns providing
similar statements, “It’s too subjective.” “Subjectivity interferes with grading.”
“Subjective.” “What constitutes good writing?” One teacher said, “Even if we
implemented process writing, how would we objectively grade it?”
To further discuss focus question three, the principal of the middle
school where this study occurred was interviewed regarding how successful the
change process strategies were in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation
of teaching writing as a process.
The interview began with the notion that in order to successfully implement
change, it is important for leaders to establish their role in the change process. The first
question posed to the principal was, “How difficult is it to be a transformational leader?
He declared, “I have never been unenthusiastic about change.” The principal reported that
“there is a fear of change.” He said, “I believe in what I am doing. It’s about the mission
and I believe in the mission.” He further explained, “You have to convince people that
they have a purpose; most people want to have a purpose. It’s not necessarily about who
gets credit; it’s more about who gets the job done.” However, he firmly stated, “You
cannot be a prophet in your own land.” He then disclosed several personal experiences
that support his belief that those he works closely are often “aloof to his strategies to
implement change.” He defined other peoples’ indifference as a “minimalization of his
accomplishments.”
The Paradox of the Writing Process 42
The second question presented to the principal was, “If you could
provide future leaders with strategies to assist them in implementing organizational
change, what would they be?” The principal candidly responded, “Take the temperature
of the water before you jump in.” He stated, “Leaders must find out who the stakeholders
are and let them become part of the decision making process; this is how you build
rapport.” “Know who your go-to people are; who can you depend on?” He made mention
of the fact that in order to successfully implement change “you have to give
[stakeholders] credit for what they are already doing.” In other words, “use tradition to
help implement change—embrace their pride.” In reference to this study, the principal
said, “The use of the Write Score brought about change in this school. It gave the
teachers some accountability for teaching writing when there was none before.” To
elaborate on this point, the principal stated, “To have buy in you have to show results;
you have to have something that you can prove. The Write Score results showed us where
we were in writing and where we needed to be.” “We were able to showcase what that
change did for our school when we received the writing assessment results.” “Once
again, [the school] was number one in exceeds in the county—our highest number of
exceeds to date.”
The third question asked in the interview of the principal was, “What is the best
thing occurring in education today?” The principal answered with no hesitation when he
stated, “Accountability. We have never been held this accountable before. We are far
from perfect, but No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has given us accountability. We are
becoming a true profession.” He also expressed his satisfaction with “high expectations.”
He elaborated by saying that leaders in the world of education must “hire people who are
The Paradox of the Writing Process 43
like them; they should hire people who share the same philosophies in education.”
Next, the principal was asked, “What are the worst things occurring in education
today?” His response was “loyalty.” He continued, “Loyalty is everything in this
business. Nobody is loyal anymore. This profession is just a job for some people.” “There
is no camaraderie; we used to all be in this together. People just don’t care anymore.”
On another note, he called education today a “period of technological reformation.” He
referenced the innovations in technology and the speed at which they are produced. Then
he commented on how “it is especially in this area where there is tremendous fear of the
unknown.” He further suggested that since there is “no solvable solutions to things like
cyber bullying” that it is in this area where most of the litigations are expected to occur.
The notion of inequity was mentioned by the principal. He claimed that while
“higher socioeconomic schools are poor, lower socioeconomic schools are rich.” He
reiterated this point by saying, “Our school is poor because we don’t receive Title I
money.” He stated, “Funding is going down and class sizes are going up. The number of
school days is decreasing, which will lead to more regression.”
He then transitioned to different point in the conversation. He said, “Positions of
leadership are becoming more and more specialized. There is no real ownership of [a
leader’s] school anymore.” He firmly declared, “If there is no ownership of the school,
there is no real sense of leadership. It is difficult to cultivate change when people are not
confident that their leaders are vested in the school.”
The Paradox of the Writing Process 44
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Analysis of Results
Although writing should be taught as a dynamic process that often begins with the
subtleties of an imposed thought and ultimately concludes with a new perspective, or
conscious evolution, what continues to be of consequence and perpetuates value in
traditional language arts classrooms is the final written product. Students are exposed to
writing instruction that teaches them to write about what they know, rather than to write
to create new understandings. Even though research shows that product-centered writing
is demonstrative of rote learning and simple reproduction of information, teachers are
preoccupied by the pressures of high stakes testing and carry the burden of accountability
as a result of NCLB. Thus, the functional, product-centered approach to teaching writing
persists in many classrooms. The purpose of this evaluation and action research study
was to investigate how implementing the instruction of writing as a process holistically
positively impacted the writing of middle grade students.
The integration of both quantitative and qualitative data was utilized to better
support the outcomes and insights into the phenomena investigated in this study. The
quantitative data were disaggregated statistically, while qualitative data were coded for
recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. The analysis of the results of this study
summarized in this chapter are organized by focus question, followed by the discussion,
implications, impact on school improvement, and recommendations for future research.
Focus question one of this study was assessed using a pretest and post-test to
The Paradox of the Writing Process 45
determine if student writing improved when students were afforded opportunities to
engage in writing as a process. Content validity was used in the selection of the pretest
and the post-test chosen for this study because the prompts and rubrics utilized to monitor
progression in student writing were aligned to the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS).
A pretest and a post-test were administered to analyze focus question one, and the
data were disaggregated quantitatively using a dependent t test. The t test for dependent
means involves a comparison of means from each group and focuses on the differences
between the scores (Salkind, 2010). As a measure of reliability, a test/retest correlation
for the dependent t test was conducted. In this case, the dependent t tests were run
separately. A dependent t test was run for the highest score increases from the pretest to
the post-test, and another dependent t test was run for the scores that decreased from the
pretest to the post-test. The results of the pretest and post-test were then compared to
determine if there was significant difference between the means of the scores.
In regard to the dependent t test for the pretest and post-test for the highest score
increases, the results showed that the mean for the pretest was 42.86 and the mean for the
post-test was 61.54. The results also showed t(6)=3.43, p < .05, which means that the
obtained value for the test, 3.43, was greater than the critical value of 1.94. Therefore, the
null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the pretest and the post-test
must be rejected and the test reveals a significant difference. The test for reliability of the
data revealed that the effect size r was found to be a large effect size, with a difference
that was significant at the .53 level, increasing the reliability of the test. The overlap in
the test scores corroborates the contention that teaching writing holistically positively
impacts the writing of middle grade students. The Pearson correlation was .70, which
The Paradox of the Writing Process 46
indicated that there was a high rate of consistency between the pretest and the post-test
scores for the highest score increases; thus, revealing a positive relationship between the
pretest and the post-test.
In reference to the dependent t test for the scores that decreased from the pretest
to the post-test, the mean for the pretest was 54.62 and the mean for the post-test was
48.95. The results also showed t(12)=3.80, p < .05, which means that the obtained value
for the test, 3.80, was greater than the critical value of 1.78. Therefore, the null
hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the pretest and the post-test
must be rejected and the test reveals a significant difference. The test for reliability of the
data showed that the effect size r was found to be a medium effect size, with a difference
that was significant at the .31 level, giving the test moderate reliability. The test results
for the dependent t for the scores that decreased from the pretest to the post-test reveal
that teaching writing holistically does not positively impact the writing of middle grade
students. The Pearson correlation was .82, which indicated a high rate of consistency
between the pretest and the post-test scores for the scores that decreased.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the
pretest and the post-test was rejected in both instances. The tests revealed significant
differences. The students whose scores increased from the pretest to the post-test notably
increased, while the students whose scores decreased from pretest to post-test decreased
considerably.
The rubric utilized in scoring the pretest mirrored that of the rubric used to score
the post-test, which was the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment rubric. The rubrics
focus on four domains in writing: Ideas, Organization, Style, and Conventions. The
The Paradox of the Writing Process 47
domains assessed on the writing rubrics are not weighed equally; the Ideas domain
carries a weight of 40%, while the Organization, Style, and Conventions domains weigh
20% each. The protocol for grading both the pretest and the post-test required that two
qualified graders score each composition. A third grader was called upon if there were
obvious discrepancies between the scores provided by the two original graders. What is
significant to note regarding the pretest results and the post-test results is that even
though the rubrics used to score the tests were virtually identical, the tests were not
evaluated by the same qualified graders. The pretest was scored by graders from a
progress monitoring assessment company called the Write Score. The post-test, a
standardized assessment mandated by the state of Georgia, was scored by graders
employed by the state. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that any inconsistencies in
the test scores may be directly related to the inherent subjectivity of the graders, along
with the divergent training that the graders received to score the compositions.
Overall, the positive results of the pretest and the post-test of the highest score
increases mirror that of the research conducted by those who are advocates of process-
centered writing instruction. Shannon (1994) maintains that when students have a better
comprehension of the writing process, along with a focus on the components emphasized
by product-centered writing, they produce better outcomes. Furthermore, researchers
have ascertained that students who are exposed to the instruction of writing as a process
are more apt to reflect on their own writing skills, set individual goals, and evaluate their
own progress as writers (Thompkins, 2008). This suggests that the students whose scores
increased from the pretest to the post-test possessed enough knowledge about the process
The Paradox of the Writing Process 48
of writing that they were able to improve upon their individual weaknesses in writing
prior to the administration of the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment. Ultimately, the
students were fully aware of how to assess their own writing from the results of the
pretest and show progression in writing achievement on the post-test.
Additionally, the results of the scores that decreased from the pretest to the post-
test are directly parallel to research findings. According to the National Assessment
Governing Board (2006), formal writing assessments do not allow for complete revision
and refinement on finished products and one assessment cannot accurately evaluate
performance across the entire domain of writing. Nagin (2003) insists that because the
pretest and the post-tests were product-centered assessments, students were neither
allotted the time necessary to assess their prior knowledge in writing, nor were they
provided the opportunity to blend prior knowledge with new understandings about their
writing. Thus, it is logical to assume that the scores that decreased from the pretest to the
post-test due to the limitations of the product-centered format imposed upon students,
which does not allow for necessary drafting and revising, and time management.
The primary purpose of focus question two in this study was to ascertain how the
attitudes of the students toward writing changed following the instruction of writing as a
process. The students were given a pre-survey, the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for
Students, to determine attitudes concerning writing prior to receiving any type of writing
instruction. The Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students uses ordinal variables on
a five point weighting scale along the Likert Scale. Given that attitude is a construct, or
non-measurable characteristic, construct validity was sought in the student survey to
The Paradox of the Writing Process 49
discern whether or not the student answers were synonymous or divergent. After
receiving instruction on the process of writing, a post-survey was administered.
Items 2, 7, 8, 9, and 11 on the pre- and post-surveys all pertained to what students
believe the role of writing plays in school; items 3, 5, 10, and 15, inquired about how
students perceive their own writing abilities, as well as how they believe others perceive
their writing skills; and items 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 16 focused on how much writing the
students do when given the opportunity.
The survey data were analyzed using the chi-square statistic, and a dependent t
test was used to determine if there were significant differences between means from the
pre-survey to the post-survey. A Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine reliability by
examining internal consistency and to ensure that only one dimension, construct, or area
of interest was being represented (Salkind, 2010). The chi-square statistic was calculated
to compare what was observed on the pre- and post-surveys to what would be expected
by chance. The results of the chi-square statistic for the pre-survey indicated that many of
the survey questions were significant. Survey items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10 were each found to
be highly significant when p < .05, .01, and .001, which signifies that a high percentage
of the students answered these questions a certain way. However, survey items 1, 6, 9,
13, 14, and 15 revealed that there was no significant difference, which indicates that there
was very little variation among what was reported and what would be expected by
chance. The results of the chi-square statistic for the post-survey showed that survey
items 1, 4, 7, and 10 were highly significant, while survey items 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15
showed no significant differences between what was observed and what was expected to
occur by chance. In both the pre-survey and the post-survey, items 7 and 10 remained
The Paradox of the Writing Process 50
significant, while items 6, 9, 13, and 15 demonstrated no significance in either the pre-
survey or the post-survey.
The raw data revealed that prior to being exposed to writing instruction, 20 out of
20 students reported on both the pre-survey and the post-survey that they could always or
often write a complete paragraph (item 10), but when they were asked if they were good
at writing a whole composition (item 15), 14 out of 20 answered always or often on the
pre-survey, while only 10 out of 20 concurred on the post-survey. It is interesting to note
this raw data in particular because prior to receiving the instruction to writing as a
process, all of the students surveyed affirmed that they could produce a finished product,
i.e., a paragraph. Writing a composition, on the other hand, is a process in and of itself.
Thus, once the students were made aware of the complexity of writing, their perception
of their own abilities displayed less confidence. This lack of confidence could have been
a factor for some of the students whose scores decreased from the pretest to the post-test
because the post-test is a product-centered test that requires competency in the process of
writing.
Focus question three in this study sought to establish how successful the change
process proposal was in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching
writing as a process. To effectively respond the question, qualitative data were collected
through the use of in-depth interviews of language arts teachers and the chief
administrator of the middle school where the study was conducted. Construct-related
validity served to interpret and examine the relevance of the answers reported, and the
responses were coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 51
According to the qualitative data that were acquired for focus question three of
this study, there were two recurring themes observed. The first recurring theme that
transpired in the interview was the teachers’ vehement confirmation that there was an
absence of a shared vision in respect to the pedagogy for writing instruction. The
interview segued to the second recurring theme that revealed a lack of transparency in
measuring the progression of student writing.
Moreover, the interview of the teachers exposed two dominant themes.
Seemingly, one of the dominant themes expressed by the teachers at this middle school
was their belief that the implementation of teaching process-centered writing, as opposed
to product-centered writing, is quite probable. In fact, there was a consensus that holistic
writing instruction is the most beneficial for students to become more adept in writing
and students’ skills would ultimately transcend academia. Unfortunately, the following
sentiments uttered by the teachers substantiated their rationale for not teaching process-
centered writing. They all agreed that they simply had not ever received adequate or
consistent training in the instruction of writing.
Finally, one emergent theme that was communicated through the teacher
interview was that there are considerable challenges to teach writing. Some of the
challenges articulated by the teachers were in relation to time, increases in class size, and
the ramifications of grading with inherent subjectivity.
To further discuss how successful the change process proposal was in convincing
stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching writing as a process, an interview of
the principal was conducted. The interview began with the notion that leaders must
establish their role in the change process in order to successfully execute change. The
The Paradox of the Writing Process 52
principal’s responses to how difficult he thought it was to be a transformational leader
exposed one dominant theme. He firmly declared, “Positions of leadership are becoming
more and more specialized. There is no real ownership of [a leader’s] school anymore.
He elaborated by saying, “If there is no ownership of the school, there is no real sense of
leadership. It is difficult to cultivate change when people are not confident that their
leaders are vested in the school.” As stated by Glatthorn et. al., (2009), moral purpose is
one component of leadership that can affect sustainable and systematic change.
There was one recurring theme revealed as the interview of the principal
progressed. The principal was asked to provide future leaders with strategies to assist
them in implementing organizational change. He candidly responded, “Take the
temperature of the water before you jump in.” He emphasized, “Leaders must find out
who the stakeholders are and let them become part of the decision making process; this is
how you build rapport.” He also maintained that in order to successfully implement
change, “you have to give [stakeholders] credit for what they are already doing.” In other
words, “use tradition to help implement change—embrace their pride.” Lastly, it is
important to note that the principal believed that “to have buy in you have to show
results; you have to have something that you can prove.”
An emerging theme made evident through the administrative interview was that
there must be initiative in the role of leaders to raise consciousness about educational
reform. The principal alluded to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and its
reinforced emphasis on accountability. He is convinced that as a result of NCLB,
“[education] is becoming a true profession.” He expressed his satisfaction with “high
expectations.” On another aspect of reform, the principal commented on the notion that
The Paradox of the Writing Process 53
education today is “a period of technological reformation.” He referenced the innovations
in technology and the speed at which they are produced. Then he wittingly asserted that
“it is especially in this area where there is tremendous fear of the unknown.” He further
suggested that since there is “no solvable solutions to things like cyber bullying” that it is
in this field where most of the litigations are expected to occur.
Discussion
The outcomes produced in this study clearly expound the challenges associated
with implementing the instruction of writing as a process approach. Although the results
of the scores from the pretest to the post-test do not indicate that teaching writing as a
process had a positive effect on all of the students, it is not necessarily accurate to state
that teaching process-centered writing does not contribute to enhancing metacognitive
skills of students or augmenting students’ abilities to function autonomously.
The dependent t tests showed that 7 students significantly increased their
scores from the pretest to the post-test, while 13 students notably decreased their scores.
What must be acknowledged in the test results is that just because there was not an
increase in a student’s score from the pretest to the post-test it does not mean that the
student did not make progress in his area of weakness. For example, if a student had no
knowledge about how to formulate a thesis statement prior to taking the pretest, and then
managed to compose one the post-test, a degree of progression has occurred. An
important aspect of the writing process is attaining the ability to evaluate one’s one work.
Therefore, it can be assumed that discrepancies in some of the scores reported on the
post-test could be attributed to not having enough time allotted to adequately review
one’s work before time was called.
Another factor that must be considered as a result of the test scores reported on
the dependent t tests is the inherent subjectivity in grading. As mentioned previously, the
graders responsible for assessing the pretest were not of the same group responsible for
The Paradox of the Writing Process 54
assessing the post-test. Thus, the divergent training received by the graders to evaluate
compositions could have lead to very different interpretations of the rubric. As this study
advanced, it became obvious that the graders employed by the Write Score and the
graders employed by the state possessed dissimilar views on the element of diction in the
Style domain. Students who chose to use advanced vocabulary on the pretest actually
received lower scores in Style. Graders claimed that the use of big words did not
necessarily increase the degree to which the writer controlled language to engage the
reader.
However, the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment Rubric, which is based on a
scale of 1-5 in each domain, grants a score of 5 to word choice that reflects an
understanding of the denotative and connotative meaning of language; furthermore,
diction that is precise and engaging also receives a 5. Oppositely, word choice that is
simple and ordinary receives a 2. Therefore, it stands to reason that word choice that was
simple and ordinary lowered the scores in the Style domain on the post-test, but not
necessarily on the pretest.
Finally, the writing prompt may have played a pivotal role in the outcomes of the
post-test and could justify the reason some of the students’ scores decreased
considerably. The Georgia Grade 8 Writing assessment prompt used in this study asked
students to write a genre appropriate composition addressed to an audience of elementary
age children. Audience awareness is evaluated on the rubric, along with diction. The
students reported confusion in terms of how to address younger children and still utilize
appropriate word choice to engage the readers. Thus, a clear understanding of the prompt
was problematic in achieving desired test scores.
The recurring, dominant, and emerging themes revealed in this study simply
reiterate what the research states. The writing curriculum must solidify a powerful
approach to teaching writing; teachers must receive comprehensive training in the field of
The Paradox of the Writing Process 55
writing instruction; and, there must be a collective willingness, shared commitment, and
support of the rationale for change. The opposing views offered in the research maintain
that product-centered writing instruction focuses on the end result of the composing
process, but the claims still refer to the instruction as a process. Thus, an amalgamation of
the two, both process- and product-centered instruction, will prove most effective in the
writing curriculum.
Implications
This action research study was informal, systematic research conducted by a
classroom teacher whose ambition was to resolve issues concerning the writing
curriculum in the middle school where the teacher was employed. This study also
evaluated the integrity of teaching the writing process holistically to middle grade
students. Because this study only had 20 subjects, a broad generalization cannot be made
to a larger population. The subjects were gifted eighth grade students whose currently
adept writing skills and motivation to learn were both great contributing factors in this
study.
Transferability was established in this study because it could be easily imitated by
teachers of the English language arts; however, the success of this study relies heavily
upon the number of students a teacher is assigned per class. Evaluating the progression of
student writing necessitates affording students several opportunities to write, assessing
the needs of each individual student, providing ample and timely feedback on every
writing assignment, differentiating instructional strategies for each of the stages of the
writing process, and administering summative assessments, often accompanied by
conferencing.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 56
Referential adequacy was achieved through the use of the Knudson Writing
Attitude Survey for Students, along with interviews of the teachers and the chief
administrator of the school where this study was conducted. The qualitative data gathered
as a result of providing stakeholders with the opportunity to voice their perceptions and
understandings regarding the purpose of this study only enhanced its credibility which
could not be achieved solely by the quantitative data. Thus, the cohesive structure of this
study was made evident by the use of multiple data sources, opposing views, and
accuracy of data which support epistemological validation, structural corroboration and
fairness.
Through the qualitative findings of this research study I learned that writing is a
learn-by-doing skill; it requires consistent active personal participation. Even though
teaching students to write by affording them the opportunity to write is recognized as
pedagogically sound, remarkably, many language arts teachers retreat from this wisdom
and tend to avoid actually having students write. The study revealed that there is no
concrete methodology for teaching writing; the divergent approaches to measuring the
progression of student writing have hindered the holistic approach to teaching writing;
and, it is imperative that teachers receive adequate professional training in the instruction
of writing. In order to adopt the implementation of teaching writing as a process, the
components of transformational leadership will serve as most beneficial.
Throughout the duration of this research project, stakeholders were empowered
by favorable circumstances to become agents of change. Students were given the chance
to openly express their opinions about the instruction of writing in the language arts
curriculum; they were asked to divulge their beliefs about the role of writing in their
The Paradox of the Writing Process 57
lives, both within and beyond the realm of academia; they were afforded opportunities to
experience writing as a process, which is not often realistic in a traditional language arts
classroom. I believe that this study provided an atmosphere that allowed me to genuinely
show my students how dedicated I am to finding the most beneficial strategies to teach
writing. I proved to them that their worth did not lie in the results of a standardized
assessment. I made them believe that the evidence of learning is found in recognizing
their weaknesses and improving their strengths in writing. Furthermore, I feel that I truly
acknowledged and valued the input that they were willing to provide me so that we could
all become catalysts for change.
The greatest impact of this study was on school improvement. For the first time
since the opening of this middle school, there was a noticeable camaraderie established
among the language arts teachers. We were able to speak candidly about our individual
methods of teaching writing, more specifically, what was working and what was not. We
shared concerns, and offered valuable advice to one another. A mutual respect flourished,
not only for one another as professionals, but as people.
Impact on School Improvement
In the realm of education today, students, teachers, and administrators are faced
with unprecedented demands. In 2001, the passage of No Child Left Behind emphasized
the importance of ensuring that all students have access to quality schools and a rigorous
academic program (Wagner & Kegan, 2006). Unfortunately, the high stakes testing
associated with NCLB has revealed an influx of mediocrity. Students are struggling to
overcome longstanding achievement gaps and striving to master the standards necessary
to impede the odds against them to become one of the children left behind. The current
The Paradox of the Writing Process 58
organization of schools must be modified; however, the imposition of higher expectations
upon students, coupled with the perception that teachers and leaders should be showing
more initiative to meet educational demands to achieve innovative curriculum policies,
do not motivate stakeholders to support the rationale for fundamental change.
Many teachers are drawn to the profession of teaching because it offers relative
autonomy; they do not work directly under any form of supervision. Instead, teachers are
left to work in their classrooms, isolated, and given the liberty to make decisions about
their instruction without, for lack of a better word, permission. Administrators, therefore,
rely on teachers to improve classroom instruction. Administrators often remain
uninvolved in curriculum and instructional matters (Wagner & Kegan, 2006).
Consequently, I was fully aware that the notion of implementing the holistic,
process-centered approach to the instruction of writing, as opposed to continuing the
traditional product-centered approach to writing instruction, was bound to be a sensitive
subject. Nonetheless, this project has had a profound impact on the middle school where
this study was conducted.
Prior to this study, the teachers at this middle school neither possessed a shared
vision of what constitutes good writing, nor was there a consensus regarding a concrete
method for teaching writing. A small number of teachers were using various means to
measure the progression of student writing, while some were not measuring progression
at all. Many voiced their frustrations in terms of the lack of professional development that
they have received to effectively teach writing. For that reason, the majority of the
teachers focused on product-centered writing and admitted to being preoccupied by the
expectations of the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 59
In fact, prior to this study, the only writing assessment ever administered to the
students at this middle school was the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment. It was not
until after this study was conducted that a pretest designed to assess prior knowledge
about writing was and will continue to be administered. The teachers agree that with the
knowledge obtained from pretest results, they will be better equipped to differentiate their
instruction. Because the pretest will assess the needs of each student, results will serve as
the instrument for directing the stages of the writing process. Progression will be
monitored for each student with the use of individual writing portfolios. The general
consensus resulting from this study is that the focus of writing instruction should
incorporate both process-centered and product-centered practices. Ultimately, the scores
on the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment are subjective and do not show the progress
that students make when they are exposed to strong writing instruction. Therefore,
professional development was offered through the Write Score, a progress monitoring
company, during the duration of this study. The principal offered insight in regard to the
Write Score’s role in this study; he stated, “The use of the Write Score brought about
change in this school. It gave the teachers some accountability for teaching writing when
there was none before.”
Thus, this study has launched the foundation for a new writing curriculum. There
are plans to vertically align the curriculum in writing at this middle school, and the
emphasis in writing will no longer be that of the standardized writing assessment.
Furthermore, as a result of the findings in this study, this middle school has plans to
integrate the literature and language arts classes as early as the next school year;
currently, the two classes are taught separately. There is a philosophy that states, “If you
The Paradox of the Writing Process 60
want to teach a child to read, give him a pencil. If you want to teach a child to write, give
him a book.” This philosophy is supported by the research conducted in New Zealand.
King, Jonson, Whitehead, and Reinken (2003) assert that New Zealand has produced
some of the highest literacy rates in the industrialized world, and according to their
research, writing is a natural outgrowth of reading and students engage in writing as a
way to respond to reading.
I am honored to announce that as a result of this study, and the research utilized to
corroborate it, my principal has named me the new English Department Chair.
Recommendations for Future Research
Throughout the course of this study, and amid the volumes of literature devoted to
explicate the craft of writing, there is one recurring inquiry that demands consideration in
terms of the vicissitude of writing instruction: How does teaching the process of writing
holistically positively impact the writing of middle grade students? Although this study
offered various process-centered and product-centered strategies, along with means for
differentiating writing instruction, the study also yielded results that cannot definitively
answer the question at hand. Hence, further research is needed to discover how
improving the pedagogy for teaching writing will enhance the skills in which students are
already adept, as well as enable them to augment their proficiency in mastering the
writing process.
Recommendations for future research that may generate more conclusive results
include, but are not limited to, expanding the length of the study, offering teachers
sufficient professional development in the instruction of writing, and implementing a
concrete methodology for teaching the writing process.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 61
This study measured the progression of student writing over the duration of only
approximately ten weeks. In order for this study to adequately reflect how well teaching
the writing process holistically will positively impact the writing of middle grade
students, the study should be longitudinal.
REFERENCES
Charles, C., & Mertler, C. (2002). Introduction to educational research. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Cumberworth, T. J., & Hunt, J. A. (1998). Improving middle school student writing skills
and attitudes toward writing (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Xavier University).
Retrieved from ERIC.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The
Landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.
Ercikan, K., & Roth, W. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and
quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23. Retrieved from ERIC
database.
Fosnot, C., & Perry, R. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In
Catherine Twomey (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp.
8-38). New York: Teachers College Press.
Glatthorn, A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B.M. (2009). Curriculum leadership:
Strategies for development and implementation. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
The Paradox of the Writing Process 62
Publications.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of
automated writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment,
8(6), Retrieved from ERIC database.
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2008) Educational research: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed approaches. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
Kear, D., Coffman, G., McKenna, M., & Ambrosio, A. (2000). Measuring attitude toward
writing: A new tool for teachers. Reading Teacher, 54(1), 10-23. Retrieved from
ERIC database.
King, C., Jonson, K., Whitehead, D., & Reinken, B. (2003). Glimpses of literacy
education in New Zealand. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Knudson, R. (2001). Writing experiences, attitudes, and achievement of first to sixth
graders. Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 90-97. Retrieved from ERIC
database.
LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). Conceptual framework. LaGrange,
GA: LaGrange College.
Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, J. P. (2001). The holistic curriculum. Canada: OISE Press, Inc.
Nagin, C. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving writing in our schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Assessment Governing Board, (2006). Writing framework and specifications for
the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Assessment
The Paradox of the Writing Process 63
Governing Board, Retrieved from ERIC database.
Phillips, D. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.
Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. (5th ed.).
Boston: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.
Ruddell, M. R. (2008). Teaching content reading and writing. (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. (Excel 2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shannon, J. (1994). TESOL's process versus product debate. Retrieved from ERIC
database.
Skrla, L., McKenzie, K., & Scheurich, J. (2009). Using equity audits to create
equitable and excellent schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spanjer, R. A., & Layne, B. H. (1983). Teacher attitudes toward language: Effects of
training in a process approach to writing. Journal of Educational Research, 77(1),
60-62. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Tchudi, S. & Mitchell, D. (1999). Exploring and teaching the English language arts.
(4th ed.). New York: Longman.
Tompkins, G. E. (2008). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product. (5th ed.).
Columbus, OH: Pearson.
Wagner, T. & Kegan, R. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming
our schools. Jossey-Bass.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 64
Wilson, L. (2006). Writing to live: How to teach writing for today’s world. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 65
Appendix A
The Paradox of the Writing Process 66
The Paradox of the Writing Process 67
The Paradox of the Writing Process 68
The Paradox of the Writing Process 69
APPENDIX B
Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students
The rating scale—1 almost always, 2 often 3 sometimes, 4 seldom, and 5 almost never. Circle the relevant answer.
1. When I have free time, I would rather write than watch TV. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I get good grades on what I write at school. 1 2 3 4 5
3. My parents like what I write. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I like to write if I can choose the topic. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I think writing is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5
6. If I have free time, I would rather write than read. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I am a good writer. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I would rather write an essay than fill in the blanks. 1 2 3 4 5
9. At school, I like to write science and social reports. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I think I could write better than I do. 1 2 3 4 5
11. You have to be a good writer to do well in school. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I would like to have more time in school to write. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I can write a complete paragraph. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I do better at school if I take notes on what the teacher says. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Writing to express yourself is important in getting a good job. 1 2 3 4 5
16. I write notes to my friends. 1 2 3 4 5
17. I write letters to relatives and friends when I am not in school. 1 2 3 4 5
18. I am good at writing a whole composition. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I would rather write than listen to music. 1 2 3 4 5
Kear, D., Coffman, G., McKenna, M., & Ambrosio, A. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for teachers. Reading Teacher, 54(1), 10-23. Retrieved from ERIC database.
The Paradox of the Writing Process 70
APPENDIX C
Teacher Interview Questions
1. What are your current methods for teaching writing?
2. How do you measure the progression of student writing?
3. Do you feel as though you have received adequate training to teach writing? Ifnot, how much training do you think you would need to adequately teach writing?
4. Do you think that teaching process centered writing, as opposed to product centered writing, would improve student writing? Why or Why not?
5. What do you think the most significant challenges would be to implement the instruction of the writing process in your classroom?
The Paradox of the Writing Process 71
APPENDIX D
Principal Interview Questions
1. How difficult is it to be a transformational leader?
2. If you could provide future leaders with strategies to assist them in implementing organizational change, what would they be?
3. What is the best thing occurring in education today?
4. What are the worst things occurring in education today?