702576

research-article2017
JTEXXX10.1177/0022487117702576Journal of Teacher EducationBallock et al.

Article

Journal of Teacher Education

An Exploration of Professional Knowledge

113
2017 American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education
Needed for Reading and Responding to Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Student Writing DOI: 10.1177/0022487117702576

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117702576
journals.sagepub.com/home/jte

Ellen Ballock1, Vicki McQuitty2, and Scot McNary2

Abstract
This study explored the knowledge elementary teachers need for one core practice: reading and responding to students
writing. Forty-five preservice teachers read and responded to an elementary students narrative writing sample. Using teacher
noticing as a framework, we first decomposed the practice into five components indicative of differences in teachers attention
to writing features, reasoning about those features, and suggested responses. We used multiple correspondence analyses to
investigate potential underlying relationships among components and developed cases to highlight one underlying relationship
that was found. The findings indicate reading and responding draws upon teachers pedagogical content knowledge. More
specifically, it draws on both knowledge of content and students and knowledge of content and teaching.

Keywords
literacy teacher education, preservice teacher education, practice-based teacher education, teacher knowledge, elementary
teacher education, teacher noticing, writing

The widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) has refocused attention on writing instruction in
schools. Previous policies, such as No Child Left Behind,
emphasized reading and mathematics achievement and mar-
ginalized writing in many classrooms (Harper et al., 2007;
McCarthey, 2008). In contrast, the CCSS make writing central
to schooling, provide a blueprint for writing instruction across
grade levels, and establish ambitious learning goals (Graham &
Harris, 2015). The CCSS include Language Standards, which
address foundational writing skills, such as spelling, grammar,
conventions, and vocabulary. The CCSS also include Writing
Standards, which require that children learn to write narrative,
informational, and opinion texts for different purposes and
audiences; use the writing processplanning, revising, edit-
ingto develop and strengthen a texts content, organization,
and style; use digital tools to produce and publish writing; and
use writing to analyze texts and build new knowledge.
Although the writing standards appear straightforward at
first glance, perhaps because they are well-organized and
specify clear developmental progressions (Shanahan, 2015),
learning to write is, in fact, a complex process for elementary
school children. Whereas adults have developed automatic-
ity in basic aspects of transcription (the act of putting words
on paper), children must exert conscious effort to form let-
ters, spell words, and adhere to capitalization and punctua-
tion rules. This can impede writing production (Hayes &
Olinghouse, 2015). Children are also still developing con-
ceptual knowledge about discourse, including the character-
istics of good writing generally and genre-specific text
features (McCutchen, 2011; Olinghouse & Graham, 2009).
While the CCSS do not directly state the discourse knowl-
edge children must learn, students cannot produce narrative,
informational, and opinion texts without understanding
appropriate genre features (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015).
Another challenge elementary children face as they learn
to write is engaging in the writing process itself. Although
children can learn to both plan and revise their writing through
explicit strategy instruction (Graham, Harris, & Santangelo,
2015), these processes do not come naturally. When prompted
to plan, children often simply begin composing (Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1987), and planning does not necessarily
improve the quality of their writing (Olinghouse & Graham,
2009). Children also do not spontaneously revise, and when
they do, they tend to make surface-level changes more akin to
editing than substantive changes that significantly improve
text quality (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). In short, elemen-
tary children have a lot to learn to attain the ambitious writing
goals established by the CCSS.
Attaining the CCSSs ambitious writing goals will depend
upon skillful teaching, yet teachers report minimal preparation
for writing instruction during teacher preparation programs
(Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010). While this
is problematic, it is perhaps unsurprising given the small body
1
Gordon College, Wenham, MA, USA
2
Towson University, MD, USA
Corresponding Author:
Ellen Ballock, Gordon College, 255 Grapevine Road, Wenham, MA 01984,
USA.
Email: ellen.ballock@gordon.edu
2 Journal of Teacher Education
of research on what writing teachers must know. Disciplines
such as mathematics (e.g., Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008) and
science (Abell, 2008) have ongoing, substantial lines of
research into the knowledge needed for teaching. In contrast,
teacher knowledge has not been a major area of inquiry among
writing researchers (Reutzel et al., 2011). The paucity of
empirical findings offers little guidance for teacher education
programs with respect to preparing teachers of writing.
A growing number of teacher educators advocate taking a
practice-based approach to understanding the knowledge and
skills needed for teaching (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Forzani,
2014; Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; McDonald,
Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013). A practice-based approach
involves first identifying the work teachers dothe core
teaching practices that support student learningthen decom-
posing those practices to specify the special knowledge,
skills, and orientations (Ball & Forzani, 2009, p. 500) needed
for enactment. Decomposition involves breaking down a
complex practice into its constituent parts (Ball & Forzani,
2009, p. 504) so that novices can more easily learn it. Because
decomposition provides a template for how preservice teach-
ers will learn to enact a practice, a practice must be decom-
posed in a way that is manageable for novices while preserving
the aspects that make it effective. Once a core practice has
been decomposed, novices can engage in approximations
(Grossman et al., 2009, p. 283) of it through rehearsals and
feedback from teacher educators.
One promising practice that is both possible for novice
teachers to begin to master and likely to help children prog-
ress toward the CCSSs writing goals is reading and
responding to student writing. Reading and responding is a
subject-specific enactment of two core practices identified
by other scholars: analyzing student work and providing
feedback to students (Teaching Works, 2016). It is central to
writing instruction because it occurs regularly in classrooms
and can positively impact the quality of students texts
(Graham, Hebert, & Harris, 2015). However, little research
has examined reading and responding as a practice or how
novice teachers become skilled in it.
In our work with elementary preservice teachers, we have
been investigating what reading and responding to student
writing entails and how to decompose it so that preservice
teachers can learn to skillfully enact it. In this article, we first
describe how we have chosen to decompose reading and
responding as a practice and how this decomposition has
allowed us to explore preservice teachers current approxima-
tions of practice (Grossman et al., 2009). Then, we present the
current study and how it informs our thinking about the
knowledge needed for reading and responding effectively.
Reading and Responding Decomposed
Recent scholarship around teacher noticing (Sherin, Jacobs,
& Philipp, 2011) offers a useful starting point for decompos-
ing reading and responding as a practice because of its strong
conceptual alignment. Much of the noticing literature ana-
lyzes how teachers attend to and make sense of students and
their thinking in the midst of classroom instruction or discus-
sions. Jacobs, Lamb, and Philipp (2010) have extended this
line of research to analyze how teachers read and respond to
students written mathematical tasks. The teacher noticing
literature highlights three interrelated components: attention,
reasoning, and determining a response.
The first two componentsattention and reasoning
decompose what teachers do while reading student writing. A
piece of writing contains many different features. Writing
teachers must be able to focus their attention on the most
salient features and reason about the instructional signifi-
cance of those features. Current research notes the variability
in writing teachers attention and reasoning while reading stu-
dents writing. Some teachers attend almost exclusively to
what many teacher educators call surface features (e.g., gram-
mar, usage, and length), those features found in the Language
Standards. Other teachers also attend to deep features (e.g.,
ideas, structure, and style; Ell, Hill, & Grudnoff, 2012;
Gibson, 2007; Masuda & Ebersole, 2012), features embedded
in the Writing Standards. When teachers reason about these
features, they may adopt an evaluative lens, focusing on
weaknesses and errors (Masuda & Ebersole, 2012; Matsumara,
Patthey-Chavez, Valdes, & Garnier, 2002). Or they might
read more generously (Spence, 2010), seeking to interpret
students purposeful thinking and meaning-making as authors.
For example, a teacher may read this story is about. . . at
the beginning of a childs draft, attend to the lowercase t,
and reason that the child does not know to capitalize the first
word of a sentence. In contrast, another teacher may read the
same text, attend to how the sentence announces the story
topic, and reason that the child is attempting to inform the
audience about the subject of the text.
The third component of teacher noticing is determining an
appropriate response. The noticing literature focuses on the
decision-making aspect of respondinga teachers intended
responserather than how a teacher carries out a response
(Jacobs et al., 2010). We also take this approach because
responses are likely to draw on strategies (e.g., conducting
mini-lessons, modeling with mentor texts), which in turn
might be decomposed and studied as practices. The literature
on writing teachers highlights at least three components of
response: response topics, response strategies, and response
agents. Response topicsthe writing features teachers
choose to address in their responsevary. Teacher feedback
may emphasize surface edits (Matsumara et al., 2002) or
may focus on content, process, and style (DeGroff, 1992).
Response strategiesthe form of the responsealso vary.
Teachers may suggest very generic response strategies like
editing or additional practice (Gibson, 2007). In contrast,
they might employ more sophisticated tactics such as teacher
modeling, trade book modeling, guided practice, or targeted
questioning to help the child consider how to clearly com-
municate with the audience (Gibson, 2007; Masuda &
Ballock et al. 3
Ebersole, 2012). Response agentswho are actively partici-
pating in the responsevary as well. Teachers might offer
teacher-centered responses that promote students depen-
dence on the teacher or child-centered responses that pro-
mote students use of self-regulated writing strategies
(Glasswell, Parr, & McNaughton, 2003).
The variability of teachers reading and responding
reported in the literature is troubling. While there is unlikely
to be a single right way to read and respond to a given
piece of writing, some approaches are more likely than oth-
ers to support the goals of the CCSS. For example, teachers
who attend and respond to a broad range of writing features
will help children develop not only language and transcrip-
tion skills but also conceptual knowledge of writing. Teachers
whose reasoning takes childrens goals, thinking, and pro-
cess into consideration have a broader evidence base for
diagnosing childrens learning needs. Teachers who engage
children as active participants in learning and equip them
with effective writing strategies are likely providing more
targeted and meaningful learning opportunities.
Our own research (Ballock & McQuitty, 2014) suggests
that preservice teachers nearing the end of their elementary
education program exhibit similar variability in attention,
reasoning, and response to that found in the literature
reviewed above. It is tempting to jump from the identifica-
tion of this problem to immediate implementation of a solu-
tion: to design a pedagogical response within teacher
education courses. However, we desired to pursue deeper
empirical support for our decision making. Research to date
allows us to describe the variability in teachers attending,
reasoning, and responding as discrete components. What is
still unclear is the relationship among these components.
Does each component follow an idiosyncratic learning tra-
jectory, or do two or more components develop in concert? Is
each component distinctive, requiring a unique set of knowl-
edge and skills that preservice teachers need to learn in isola-
tion from the other components, or is there a common
underlying knowledge base upon which all components
rely? The research presented in this article begins to address
these questions. In this study, we explore what, if any, rela-
tionship exists among the various components of reading and
responding to student writing and what such a relationship
might tell us about the professional knowledge or skill the
practice requires and how it might best be decomposed so
preservice teachers can learn it.
Research Design
This study included 45 preservice teachers in an elementary
education program at one Mid-Atlantic state university.
Eighteen participants were just beginning their degree pro-
gram and were enrolled in either Principles of Learning,
Development, and Diversity, an introductory education
course, or Writing for Elementary Educators, a course that
required them to write a personal narrative, an informational
picture book, and an argumentative essay. In contrast, 27 par-
ticipants were nearing degree completion. They had com-
pleted a series of literacy courses focused on childrens
literacy development, literacy methods, and literacy assess-
ment and were participating in their year-long Professional
Development School internship in several different school
systems with exposure to a variety of different literacy cur-
ricula. Transcripts of face-to-face interviews served as data
for this study. During the interview, each participant read and
responded to Reptile Story, a typed narrative authored and
illustrated by a second-grade student. We chose this writing
sample because it was interesting to read and included
numerous features participants could notice and respond to
with respect to the expectations of the second grade and even
a few of the third-grade standardsfor example, characters,
plot, dialogue, action, details, and conventions. We asked
participants two questions about the sample: (a) What do you
notice about the students writing? (b) What would be your
next steps with this student?
Data Analysis
The statistical analysis conducted for this study drew on a
qualitative analysis conducted for a previous study (Ballock &
McQuitty, 2014). Therefore, in this section, we first describe
our previous qualitative analysis and then describe the analysis
conducted for this study. In our initial analysis, we used quali-
tative content analysis (QCA; Schreier, 2012), a process used
to describe the content of qualitative data by systematically
applying coding frames that are both concept- and data-driven.
Drawing on the teacher noticing literature reviewed above
(e.g., Sherin et al., 2011), we developed a coding frame with
five main categories (Table 1). We identified subcategories for
each main category through consultation of relevant literature
followed by selective coding (Schreier) of the data.
The first two main categoriesTopic and Stance
focused on participants reading of the narrative. Topic
addressed participants attention: the writing features they
noticed while reading. Following precedent set by previous
research in literacy teacher education (e.g., Ell et al., 2012;
Glasswell et al., 2003), we coded two Topic subcategories: (a)
Surface Features, such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation
and (b) Deep Features, such as ideas, sequence, details, word
choice, and narrative features. Stance referred to participants
reasoning about the writing features they noticed. Four sub-
categories, adapted from previous noticing research (van Es
& Sherin, 2006), included (a) Description, (b) Interpretation,
(c) Positive Evaluation, and (d) Negative Evaluation.
The remaining three coding categoriesResponse Topic,
Response Strategy, and Response Agentfocused on the
participants response to the narrative. Response Topic
referred to the focus of the next steps participants suggested.
As with Topic, we applied two subcategories: Surface
Features and Deep Features. Response Strategy addressed
the teaching strategies participants suggested for their next
4 Journal of Teacher Education

Table 1. Qualitative Content Analysis Coding Frame.

Categories Subcategories Sample transcript segment

Topic/ Response Topic Surface Features It says Me and my snake, it should be my snake and I
Deep Features He ended the story with somebody living happily ever after.
Stance Description He spoke in first person the whole time.
Interpretation He may have recognized something from science and made a connection.
Positive Evaluation The content is really good.
Negative Evaluation His writing is very choppy and can come off a little bit awkward.
Response Strategy No Strategy He needs to work on more of the escalation to the problem.
Basic Strategy Focus more on the conventionsmini-lessons on those.
Specialized Strategy Do a web . . . to help focus on the main idea.
Response Agent Teacher I would show him paragraph formatting.
Student Have the kids first go through themselves and edit.
Both Make an outline with him . . . Say, Where do you want to start out with it? What do you
want to get across to your reader? And where do you want to end with it?

steps. To identify subcategories, we began with Cutler and
Grahams (2008) list of instructional strategies for primary-
grade writing. Through selective coding of the data, we nar-
rowed this list down to two subcategories: (a) Basic
Strategies, which any layperson might suggest, such as edit-
ing, teaching foundational writing skills, and mini-lessons
with no clearly specified learning activities and (b)
Specialized Strategies, which would require more special-
ized knowledge, such as graphic organizers, reading to sup-
port writing, writing prompts, goal-oriented writing
conferences, and clearly specified learning activities. Finally,
Response Agent referred to who would carry out the sug-
gested next steps. For this category, we identified three sub-
categories, adapted from noticing research (van Es & Sherin,
2006): Teacher, Student, or Both.
Focusing on one category at a time, the first two authors
independently segmented each transcript into coding units
using thematic criterion (Schreier, 2012). Then, we coded
each transcript, applying only one code to each segment.
Overall interrater reliability was 90%. We resolved coding
conflicts through consensus.
Coded transcripts served as the basis for describing partici-
pants skill in each component of reading and responding, the
goal of the previous study. We first focused on Topic. Because
every participant noticed a variety of Surface Features, we
focused on describing participants attention to Deep Features.
We identified whether each participant attended to a Narrow
Range (0-2 Deep Features), a Medium Range (3-4 Deep
Features), or a Broad Range (5 or more Deep Features). We
then determined each participants primary stance toward the
narrative: (a) a Negative Stance (50% or more of word count
coded as Negative Evaluation), (b) a Positive Stance (50% or
more of word count coded as Positive Evaluation), or (c) a
Broad Stance (all subcategories accounted for less than 50%
of the word count). Next, we characterized each participants
response. We identified whether each participant suggested
No Topic, only Surface Features, a Medium Range (Surface
Features and one Deep Feature), or a Broad Range (Surface
Features and two Deep Features). We determined whether
each participant identified No Strategy, only Basic Strategies,
or at least one Specialized Strategy. We determined whether
participants were Teacher-Focused (teacher as sole agent of all
next steps) or Student-Focused (student as collaborator or pri-
mary agent in at least one next step).
This analysis approach was effective for our initial
research, allowing us to describe the characteristics of each
individual participants reading and responding and to com-
pare participants within each coding category. However, it
was insufficient for the purposes of this study: exploring the
interrelationship of the five coding categories to look for
underlying structures that might shed light on reading and
responding as a practice. Several factors guided our choice
of method for this analysis. First, because we entered the
study with the goal of discovery instead of confirmation, we
required a procedure that could reveal multivariate structure
rather than confirm a priori hypotheses, as one might with
structural equation modeling. Second, because we were
interested in exploring both the clustering of participants and
categories, we needed a procedure that could be both person-
centered and variable-centered in approach. Neither Factor
Analysis nor Cluster Analysis would allow us to uncover
person and variable clusters simultaneously. Third, because
our data are categorical instead of continuous, we needed a
method that was flexible enough to accommodate the granu-
larity of our data. Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis
assume data are at least continuous in some sense and gener-
ally require larger samples sizes than what we have. In con-
trast, multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) is useful for
discovering clusters of persons/variables and accommodates
categorical data. Therefore, we elected to use MCA for this
study. We used each coding category from the qualitative
analysis (e.g., Stance), and the values assigned to transcripts
for each category (e.g., Negative, Positive, Broad) as cate-
gorical variables for the MCA.
Ballock et al. 5
MCA is a variant of correspondence analysis (CA), an
analysis technique useful for discovering whether particular
categories of the variables tend to co-occur in a way that
reveals common meaning. It is sometimes referred to as a
principal components analysis for nominally scaled variables
(Clausen, 1998). MCA is an extension of CA from the case
of two variables in a contingency table to the case in which
there are multiple categorical variables in higher order con-
tingency tables.
Any underlying structure between two variables discov-
ered through CA is based on the association between the
various categories of one variable and the categories of a sec-
ond variable. The observed association may reflect a shared
feature, or features. Extending CA to MCA, categories of
multiple variables may collectively be associated, because of
shared features across multiple variables. Whereas shared
variable associations are called factors in Factor Analysis, in
CA/MCA, these shared features are called dimensions.
MCA proves advantageous to this study because it can
represent each categorical variable and participant simulta-
neously in a multivariate space which spans the number of
dimensions that are extracted. However, careful interpreta-
tion is necessary to assess the meaningfulness of each identi-
fied dimension, because it is possible that one or more
dimensions identified through MCA may simply be the result
of chance associations among the data. Clausen (1998) sug-
gests that quantitative indices, such as Contribution and
Squared Correlation, are the first tools to aid interpretation.
Categories with large Contribution values strongly influence
the placement of dimension axes, while categories with large
values of Squared Correlation are those categories particu-
larly well explained by a dimension. Visual displays, such as
scatterplots, also guide interpretation. CA/MCA results are
often displayed visually as a scatterplot with dimensions as
axes and variable categories and/or participants as points on
the scatterplot. This results in a spatial representation of (a)
the interrelationships among variables and categories and (b)
how participants relate to those interrelationships. For exam-
ple, variable categories which tend to co-occur in the same
interview transcript would, through MCA, be located in
close proximity to each other on the scatterplot, whereas cat-
egories unlikely to co-occur would be located further away
from each other. Similarly, associations of individual partici-
pants with categories or dimensions are observable by virtue
of their location in the scatterplot. The alignment of variable
categories with dimensions reveals structure because it is
assumed that correlations among variables and categories
reflect common threads of meaning. Supplementary vari-
ables, though not direct contributors to the MCA dimension
coordinate solutions, can also be plotted and used as confirma-
tory evidence of dimension meanings. We used FactoMineR
(Husson, Josse, Le, & Mazet, 2015), a software package for
R (R Core Team, 2016), to conduct the MCA.
As we sought to explore underlying structures or associa-
tions among QCA coding categories (Topic, Stance,
Response Topic, Response Strategy, and Response Agent),
we treated each coding category as an active categorical vari-
able in the MCA. We carefully assessed the meaningfulness
of each identified dimension through triangulation of MCA
outputs, QCA results, and careful re-reading of select tran-
scripts. Finally, we added two supplementary variables to the
MCA to aid interpretation: (a) Transcript Length (four cate-
gories; quartiles of total transcript word count) and (b)
Program Status (Early, meaning enrolled in initial course-
work, or Late, meaning enrolled in the final internship year).
Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore what preservice
teachers need to learn to effectively read and respond to stu-
dent writing. To do so, we explored possible interrelation-
ships among categories of attending, reasoning, and
responding. MCA allowed us to investigate the likelihood
that certain characteristics of reading and responding would
coexist in the same participant. For example, would partici-
pants who notice a Broad Range of Topics be likely to also
suggest a Broad Range of Response Topics? Or would par-
ticipants who take a Positive Evaluative Stance toward the
narrative be likely to recommend similar Response
Strategies? Are there particular ways of attending, reasoning,
and suggesting responses that cohere?
MCA Dimensions
The five QCA categories (i.e., Topic, Stance, Response
Topic, Response Strategy, Response Agent) were submitted
as active variables to MCA. Each variable consisted of two
to five categories, collectively creating a 45 (person) 16
(categories of variables) table for analysis. Extraction of two
dimensions accounted for 37% of the variance across partici-
pants, 22% for Dimension 1 and 15% for Dimension 2.
While not large, the proportion of variance explained sug-
gests that intercorrelations among categories are potentially
interpretable. MCA output identified a third dimension; how-
ever, it did not explain sufficient variance to warrant inter-
pretation. Table 2 displays quantitative indices of the
relationship between variable categories and dimensions,
whereas Figure 1 visually represents the MCA output as a set
of scatterplots. In each scatterplot, categories are plotted to
show how strongly associated they are with each dimension.
Confidence ellipses reflect differences between centroids of cat-
egories with respect to dimension association. Nonoverlapping
ellipses imply categories which are spatially significantly
different from each other on the two dimensions. Finally,
points indicate where individual participants fall with respect
to the dimensions.
Because our interpretation of Dimension 2 is tentative and
needs further investigation, we focus this report of findings
on Dimension 1. We describe how we used a combination of
MCA outputs and three cases selected based on their MCA
6 Journal of Teacher Education

Table 2. Multiple Correspondence Analysis Coefficients for Two Extracted Dimensions.

Dimension 1 Dimension 2

Squared Squared
Coordinate Contribution correlation V test Coordinate Contribution correlation V test
Topic
Narrow range 0.54 0.04 0.13 2.42 0.78 0.11 0.27 3.47
Medium range 0.41 0.02 0.09 1.94 0.83 0.14 0.34 3.88
Broad range 0.86 0.11 0.41 4.25 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.47
Stance
Negative 0.16 0.01 0.06 1.62 0.15 0.01 0.05 1.43
Positive 1.08 0.07 0.22 3.07 0.49 0.02 0.04 1.39
Interpretive 0.41 0.00 0.01 0.73 0.80 0.03 0.05 1.42
Broad 0.93 0.03 0.08 1.92 1.38 0.10 0.18 2.85
Response Topic
No topic 0.75 0.01 0.03 1.08 0.72 0.01 0.02 1.03
Surface features 0.63 0.08 0.38 4.07 0.27 0.02 0.07 1.72
Medium range 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.99 0.15 0.32 3.75
Broad range 1.40 0.18 0.56 4.98 0.65 0.06 0.12 2.32
Response Strategy
No strategy 0.99 0.09 0.28 3.52 0.87 0.10 0.22 3.08
Basic strategies 0.25 0.01 0.07 1.69 0.72 0.16 0.54 4.85
Specialized strategies 1.31 0.19 0.62 5.22 0.65 0.07 0.15 2.59
Agent
Teacher focused 0.53 0.07 0.39 4.12 0.14 0.01 0.03 1.05
One or more student 0.73 0.09 0.39 4.12 0.19 0.01 0.03 1.05
focused

dimension coordinates as the basis for interpreting Dimension
1. Then, we articulate our conclusions as to the meaning of
Dimension 1.
Dimension 1.The spatial organization of categoriesindi-
cated by the sign and magnitude of the Coordinate column
(Table 2) and visual inspection of categories plotted across
the horizontal axis of each scatterplot (Figure 1)provides
initial evidence for interpreting Dimension 1. Five categories
are clearly associated with the positive poleBroad Topic,
Broad Stance, Broad Response Topic, Specialized Strategies,
and Student-Focused Response Agentwhile another six
categories are clearly associated with the negative pole
Narrow and Medium Topic, Positive Evaluative Stance, No
Response Topic, Surface Features Only, No Response Strat-
egy, and Teacher-Focused Response Agent. The positioning
of the most sophisticated categories and least sophisticated
categories of each variable at opposite poles leads us to infer
that Dimension 1 represents a continuum of sophistication in
reading and responding.
Supplemental variables add support to this interpretation.
This is important as supplementary variables were not used
to compute dimension coordinates but were plotted after
dimension solutions had already been established. First, par-
ticipants plotted near the positive pole were more likely to be
further along in their degree program (Program Status, Late
Program Status; Figure 1) and, therefore, had completed
more literacy coursework and field placements. We would
expect these participants to have more professional knowl-
edge and experience to draw on when reading and respond-
ing and therefore to exhibit greater sophistication. Participants
plotted near the positive pole also had more to say about the
narrative sample, as indicated by longer transcript length
(Transcript Length, Figure 1). While verbosity should not be
conflated with sophistication, review of the data shows that
participants speaking fewer than 300 words attended and
responded to a narrow or medium range of features and only
one suggested a specialized student-focused strategy, while
participants speaking over 1,000 words all attended to a
broad range of features and suggested specialized student-
focused strategies.
Contribution and Squared Correlation coefficients (Table
2) also aid interpretation. Although Contribution and Squared
Correlation coefficients tend to vary together, they reflect
different points of view. Since Contribution values sum to
1.00 down columns, they reflect the relative importance of
categories to a dimension. Two categories are the strongest
determinants of Dimension 1: Specialized Response
Strategies (0.19) and Broad Response Topic (0.18). In con-
trast, Squared Correlations indicate the extent to which
Ballock et al. 7

Figure 1. Multiple Correspondence Analysis Scatterplots.

Table 3. Reading and Responding Profiles.

Profile 1 (n = 18) Profile 2 (n = 14) Profile 3 (n = 13)

Topic Narrow or Medium Range Medium or Broad Range Broad Range
Stance Positive or Negative Evaluation Negative Evaluation Negative Evaluation
Response Topic None or Surface Features Surface Features or Medium Range Broad Range
Response Strategy None or Basic Basic Specialized
Response Agent Teacher-Focused Teacher-Focused or Student-Focused Student-Focused

dimensions explain categories. Three categories are particu-
larly well explained by Dimension 1: Specialized Response
Strategies (0.62), Broad Response Topic (0.56), and Broad
Topic (0.41). V test values greater than |2.00| indicate coordi-
nates significantly different from zero (Le, Josse, & Husson,
2008). These data suggest that three variables are particu-
larly key to interpreting Dimension 1: Topic, Response
Topic, and Response Strategies.
As a final aid to Dimension 1 interpretation, we devel-
oped three case descriptions. To select the three cases, we
examined the location of individual participants along the
Dimension 1 axis. Paying particular attention to the three
variables noted above (i.e., Topic, Response Topic, and
Response Strategies), we noted substantive qualitative dif-
ferences among participants at two points along the
Dimension 1 axis. This allowed us to group participants into
three profiles (Table 3). Despite the considerable diversity
within each profile, it is clear that Profile 2 participants focus
on more deep features than Profile 1 participants, and Profile
3 participants are characterized by an even broader focus on
deep features. Profile 3 participants are unique in suggesting
specialized response strategies. Here, we present case
descriptions to illustrate each profile. Then, we present and
discuss our conclusions as to what Dimension 1 represents.
Profile 1 case. Typical of participants in Profile 1, Megan
attended to a narrow range of writing features:
Some of the sentences needed periods, and he didnt add plurals
to the ends of some nouns. He needs to work on the present tense
and the past tense. And endings. I saw something that needed an
ed at the end. He would say me and my snake pretty often.
But . . . he understands how to use I sometimes . . . He knows
how to use dialogue, I think. He knows to put the quotation
marks after a punctuation mark. And then he knows to capitalize
8 Journal of Teacher Education

the letter. He knows how to use his commas when hes going
into a dialogue.
Megans comments exclusively addressed surface fea-
tures such as punctuation, plurality, tense, capitalization, and
sentence structure. She seemed to interpret the research task
as a directive to assess the writings correctness, evaluating
strengths and errors almost equally. Although Megan had
recently studied features of effective narratives to support
her own narrative writing in the Writing for Elementary
Teachers course, she did not note any of these deep features
in the students narrative.
Given Megans focus on surface features and evaluative
stance, it is not surprising that her next steps emphasized
instruction to correct mistakes:
When he said, Can I borrow this snake for a week, and then he
says nowhen he says no he needs to say who is saying
that. I would help him with making complete sentences, not
run-on sentences. I would help him with run-on sentences,
because I think he has some of those. And then I would help him
with using the past and present tense.
Megan identified only three response topicsidentifying
the speaker in dialogue, sentence structure, and verb tense
and each of these involved conforming the writing to con-
ventional rules. She indicated she would help the student
but provided no instructional strategies and gave no indica-
tion of the role the student might play in making these cor-
rections. Thus, her instructional ideas were confined to
surface features and unclear strategies.
Profile 2 case. While Lisa primarily addressed surface fea-
tures, such as tense, punctuation, and articles, she also high-
lighted a few deep features, including the sequence of ideas
in the story:
and usage errors. However, she took a more interpretive
stance toward the picture. She did not evaluate it even though
she did not fully understand it. Instead, she wanted to know
more about the childs intended meaning and suggested ask-
ing him what he intended the picture to communicate. This
shows a beginning acknowledgment of the child author as a
communicator with an intentional thought process.
Lisas remaining instructional suggestions addressed sur-
face features. Noteworthy, however, is Lisas identification
of grammar as the main issue. This language suggests a
weighing and prioritizing of features that might lead to
improvement. In the previous case, Megan prioritized certain
surface features over others in her suggested response, but
gave no indication she noticed any deep features. In contrast,
Lisa noticed other features, but indicated she felt the conven-
tions were the most important moving forward. Lisa indi-
cated she would go over, have a mini-lesson . . . where he
could try to make it better. Then she added, I think pulling
him aside and going over the tenses and when to use plurals
or just figuring that all out. Like Megan, Lisa focused on
correcting the writing to make it better. She offered basic
unelaborated teaching strategies, simply indicating she
would use a mini-lesson and go over tenses and plurals
without indicating any particular role for the student.
Profile 3 case. Attention to a wide range of deep features
and identification of specialized instructional strategies are
unique characteristics of participants in Profile 3. Keris
interview illustrates this sophistication. In addition to notic-
ing surface features (capitalization, punctuation, paragraph
indentations, articles, and plurality), Keri attended to quite a
range of deep features. For example, she began by noticing
a stylistic feature, stating, I notice that his writing is very
choppy and can come off a little bit awkward. She contin-
ued by highlighting the narratives structure:

My friend eat all the donuts. Everyone go home. And I
open all my presents, my gifts. He definitely needs the tenses.
And being able to know when to use commas . . . Then he used
a a couple of times. I gave my snake a snake food. It sounds
weird. All the grammar rules are wrong . . . I also thought it was
a random story. Its a pretty decent sequence because it talks
about making a party and then what the snake can do. And then
hes bringing the snake for show and tell. Then he went home. I
think he has a good gist of how to write a story . . . I just think
that the grammar and the tenses and all of that is the main issue.
Lisa also commented on the illustration drawn underneath
the text of the story:
I guess thats the snake. Maybe thats snake food, but I have no
idea the background to it. I would have asked the student what
that was. Maybe when he turned it in, or when I gave it back to
him, Could you describe whats going on in the picture?
Lisas stance toward the writing was primarily negatively
evaluative, as demonstrated in her description of grammar
He has five paragraphs, and its clear that he has an introduction,
and a conclusion, and a body, so maybe there was an organizer
used . . . Me and my snake live happily ever after. So he has
the endings. I think its a good conclusion, actually.
Most notable was Keris extensive consideration of the
authors ideas:
He seems very persistent on someone stealing his snake, which
is cute. Im not sure what the exact prompt was, but if they were
doing a story based on what they were learning in science, I
think that this is probably more fantasy than realistic because
snakes do not jump. I think its good that he used the name
Python. It means he may have recognized something from
science and made a connection . . . I wonder what the snake food
is. Just out of curiosity, because of science . . . He talks about
making a doughnut, a cupcake, a cherry pie, and a cake for his
birthday, but then he doesnt ever mention the pie again. And its
interesting that he made donuts, because thats hard . . . When
Im reading it, I would like to know more. He says, I get lots of
presents. Like, what? So, I think that hes lacking some details
that could maybe engage the reader more.
Ballock et al. 9
Keris response to the ideas in the writing sample suggests
she read the narrative through two lenses. First, as a reader,
she enjoyed the story and sought to make meaning as she
read. She seemed to enjoy the students persistence in indi-
cating the snake was stolen. She was interested in the inclu-
sion of making donuts, an activity she considered hard.
Furthermore, she reflected on her experience as a reader and
her desire for more details. She treated the narrative as an
authentic text, intended to engage an audience. Second, she
read through the eyes of a teacher assessing the students
written piece. She noted how the listed party foods were not
integral to the story, questioned whether the ideas fit the
assigned genre, and considered interdisciplinary connections
reflected in the narrative.
In addition to noticing a wide range of features, Keri was
one of just four participants who took a broad stance toward
the writing. She did make evaluative comments: His writing
is very choppy, He should have a comma and a question
mark after right, and Its a good conclusion. However,
she also employed an interpretive stance, attempting to
understand the logic in what the student did. For example,
she wondered about the snakes name: I give him a name
called Python. I wonder if hes confusing Python as a name
or if it is the type of snake . . . She went on to hypothesize
that the use of Python may have come from something the
child learned in science. She inferred maybe there was an
organizer used, acknowledging a process that may have led
to the narratives clear organization. Keri seemed to view the
child as an author with agency. She moved beyond evalua-
tion of text features to consider the students intentions and
process.
In addition, Keris suggested instructional strategies stand
out for their detailed elaboration and clear student roles. For
example,
I would do a mini-lesson on colorful language. I had to do this
with my students, when I taught a personal narrative in second
grade. Id hand out paint strips for different words that they have
in their narrative. So, when he uses the big upper boy, instead
of using the word big, he would write big at the bottom in
the lightest color of the paint strip, and you would look up and
write down different descriptive words that have the same
meaning, so he has a variety to pick from that make his writing
more colorful. But he could also use it with different times. He
could brainstorm with other things.
Keri highlighted a strategy very specific to enhancing the
vocabulary used in the narrative, and she communicated
details about how she would orchestrate the mini-lesson.
This strategy implies the teachers role is to equip rather than
correct. Keri would create the opportunity for the child to
develop a tool, but the decisions about words used in the nar-
rative would belong to the student author. This strategy
would likely improve this narrative, but Keri also suggested
the student author could use the words he generated in this
mini-lesson to brainstorm at other times. Thus, she seems
cognizant of not only helping the child improve this story but
also equipping the child with strategies to use over time.
Even when Keri suggested the need for editing the narra-
tive, her approach was very different from Megans and
Lisas:
What else could we work on? Forming our sentences . . . maybe
even having the child read the story after he wrote it down, out
loud a few times, and seeing if by taking away or adding certain
articles, like a or the or and it makes it flow better, or it
makes more sense . . . doing it in pairs, so that they can both give
each other feedback.
This strategy would actively and meaningfully involve
the student, either experimenting independently with adding
and removing different articles or getting feedback from a
partner. Again, this frames the student as the active agent in
writing.
Dimension 1 interpretation.The differences across these
three cases led us to conclude that Dimension 1 reveals
something about participants underlying knowledge for
reading and responding to student writing. First, these cases
seem to highlight differences in participants knowledge of
content and students (KCS; Ball et al., 2008). KCS is a type
of knowledge integrating knowledge of students with knowl-
edge of content. It includes knowledge about childrens
typical patterns of understanding, including common con-
ceptions, misconceptions, and error patterns at various ages
or points of development. Megan demonstrated minimal
KCS. Despite successfully writing her own narrative incor-
porating dialogue, action, and chronological sequence just
weeks before her interview, Megan attended only to surface
features. She did not seem to recognize these deep features
in the childs writing. Perhaps she did not expect children
could demonstrate genre knowledge while still developing
their language and transcription skills. Or perhaps she did
not recognize how genre features manifested themselves in
the childs narrative. In fact, Megan did not acknowledge the
student author at all except to suggest working with the child
to correct errors.
In contrast, Keri seemed to have a deeper understanding
of what children can accomplish as writers. She recognized a
variety of genre-specific features, treating the students writ-
ing as an authentic narrative. More sophisticated KCS was
also particularly evident in Keris stance toward the writing
sample. Viewing the student as an author, communicator,
meaning-maker, and thinker, she used her KCS to consider
possibilities about the childs thought processes. She pointed
out possible connections to science and questioned whether
the student understood Python as a name of a snake or a type
of snake. Thus, KCS appears to undergird effective reading
and responding by helping teachers to (a) recognize novice
forms of various writing features, (b) recognize that students
10 Journal of Teacher Education
are engaged in intentional thought processes, and (c) inter-
pret and diagnose students misunderstandings.
Second, these cases seem to highlight differences in par-
ticipants knowledge of content and teaching (KCT; Ball et
al., 2008). KCT integrates knowledge of teaching with
knowledge of content. Teachers use this knowledge to make
instructional decisions about how to make content accessible
to studentsto support students in developing understand-
ing and proficiency. Participants drew on KCT as they
weighed the importance of the various strengths and weak-
nesses they noticed in the writing sample and determined
response topics and strategies. Whereas Megan and Lisa
demonstrated minimal KCT by suggesting vague basic strat-
egies (e.g., do a mini-lesson, pull the child aside) aimed at
correcting errors in the current draft, Keri demonstrated
greater KCT by identifying specific strategies to address
both surface and deep features (e.g., peer editing, detailed
word choice mini-lesson). She also took a long-term view of
instruction, suggesting the development of a tool that would
simultaneously improve the current draft as well as support
the student in future writing. Thus, KCT undergirds effective
reading and responding because it helps teachers determine
when and how to teach students the knowledge, skills, and
strategies that can support their ongoing growth as writers.
KCS and KCT are two smaller components of a broader
category of teacher knowledge: pedagogical content knowl-
edge (PCK). Although researchers have described PCK in
different ways (Ball et al., 2008), Shulman (1986) first defined
it as the subject matter knowledge needed for teaching, an
amalgam of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge, the content knowledge that embodies the aspects
of content most germane to its teachability (p. 9). It is the
specialized content knowledge that distinguishes a good writ-
ing teacher from a good writer, including an understanding of
what makes certain topics or skills easy or difficult to learn,
the ability to diagnose and respond to misunderstandings
when they arise, and a repertoire of representations of content
that can support student learning. Because KCS and KCT
explain key differences among cases, we conclude that the
best interpretation for Dimension 1 is that it represents PCK
and plots participants along a PCK continuum. In other words,
the closer a participant is plotted toward the positive pole of
Dimension 1, the more developed his or her PCK.
Discussion
The purpose of this research was to investigate the relation-
ship among the components of reading and responding to stu-
dent writing to better understand the underpinnings of the
practice and how teacher educators might decompose it so
that preservice teachers can learn to skillfully enact it. MCA
results suggest that all five components are interrelated, but
that three may be particularly interrelated and central to sup-
porting children in meeting the CCSSs learning goals for
writing: Topic, Response Topic, and Response Strategy.
Identifying the critical components of a core practice is
important because, given the time constraints of teacher edu-
cation programs, preservice teachers may not have enough
time to learn all of a practices nuances. However, by learning
the most crucial and powerful components, they can enact the
practice in a way that still supports student learning.
The three cases demonstrate the importance of the Topic,
Response Topic, and Response Strategy components of read-
ing and responding. For example, Megan attended to only
the surface features of the childs writing, and her only sug-
gested response was to edit mechanical errors. Thus, the stu-
dent had no opportunity to develop his narrative using
effective techniques, details, or event sequences (Standard 3)
or to consider the texts clarity, coherence, development,
organization, or style (Standard 4). In addition, Megans
response that she would simply help the student edit makes
it unclear whether he would have developed an understand-
ing of language skills that he could apply to his future writ-
ing. Her response was troubling in light of evidence that
children need explicit instruction about revision and editing
strategies (Graham, Harris, & Santangelo, 2015) so they
learn strategies that will guide their writing of future texts.
In contrast to Megan, Keri attended to the both the surface
and deep features of the childs writing and suggested specific,
specialized instructional strategies. In addition to mechanics,
she considered the writers ideas, the narratives organization,
and whether the details were appropriate for the genre
(Standards 3 and 4). This attention to genre features is impor-
tant because childrens understandings of discourse knowl-
edge contribute to their success as writers (Hayes &
Olinghouse, 2015; McCutchen, 2011; Olinghouse & Graham,
2009). Keri also considered the process that might have led the
child to produce a text with these features (Standard 5).
Furthermore, she suggested instructional responses that would
allow the child to learn strategies that he could apply not just
to the current text but also to his future writing as well.
Our findings provide evidence that differences in PCK
contribute to differences in participants reading and respond-
ing. While PCK has been examined extensively in science
and mathematics, this study is among the first to empirically
identify how PCK pertains to writing instruction. Unlike
many studies, we did not set out to describe or measure PCK.
Therefore, the emergence of PCK from our analysis is par-
ticularly important, adding credibility to PCK as a relevant
construct for the teaching of writing.
More specifically, this study suggests that at least two
subsets of PCK undergird skillful reading and responding:
KCS and KCT. Teachers draw on KCS when they read stu-
dents writing. Well-developed KCS supports teachers in
attending to a broad range of features and reasoning about
those features to identify childrens learning needs. In con-
trast, teachers draw on KCT when responding to students
writing. Well-developed KCT supports teachers in selecting
targeted instructional strategies to address childrens learn-
ing needs. Our data suggest that KCS and KCT, while related,
Ballock et al. 11
may not develop simultaneously. For example, teachers can
attend and respond to deep features in the writing sample
without identifying targeted strategies likely to improve
those features. The reverse does not seem true. Participants
who attended and responded only to surface features did not
identify any specialized response strategies. Thus, it appears
that the application of KCT depends, at least in part, upon the
development of KCS. Future research should further explore
the relationship between KCS and KCT within the context of
reading and responding.
The findings of this study have several implications for
teacher education. First, it is clear that content knowledge,
such as that represented in the first three Writing CCSS, is
insufficient for effective practice. Preservice teachers can
know the features of narratives and use them proficiently in
their own writing without recognizing them in students writ-
ing. While content courses, such as Freshman Composition
or the Writing for Elementary Educators course taken by par-
ticipants in this study, provide an important foundation by
teaching genre features and writing strategies generally,
teacher education programs must extend this knowledge by
helping teacher candidates become familiar with how these
features typically appear in childrens writing (KCS).
Analyzing childrens writing is one way to bridge preser-
vice teachers content knowledge about writing to the KCS
needed for reading and responding because it provides
opportunity to examine childrens novice, emerging attempts
at writing. Preservice teachers can analyze childrens writing
with respect to research and theory on childrens writing
development and with respect to exemplars provided in
Appendix C of the CCSS (http://www.corestandards.org/
assets/Appendix_C.pdf). Studies have shown that preservice
teachers can learn to analyze childrens writing in increas-
ingly sophisticated ways over time (Davenport, 2006;
Gibson, 2007; Moore & Seeger, 2009). However, more
research is needed to further clarify how teachers develop
skill in analyzing childrens writing.
Similarly, instructional strategies cannot only be taught in
isolation if preservice teachers are to learn to read and respond
effectively. This prompts a rethinking of traditional methods
courses that teach pedagogical skills without necessarily con-
necting to childrens writing development. Our research makes
clear that reading and responding to student writing is one
integrated practice: instructional responses are contingent
upon a prioritization of the features teachers recognize in a
childs text. We assert that preservice teachers need opportuni-
ties to rehearse reading and responding as an integrated prac-
tice so they can receive feedback on their attempts to link
responses with identified student needs and further develop
their PCK in context. Rehearsals of this integrated practice
may take on a variety of forms in a methods course, such as
using protocols to guide structured collaborative discussions
of writing samples in class, collaboratively planning lessons
based on a class set of student writing samples, planning and
rehearsing writing conferences in response to writing samples,
or completing assignments requiring both analysis of and
response to a piece of writing. Rehearsals should also occur
within field placements. These might include structured con-
versations about student texts with cooperating teachers or
grade-level teams, cofacilitating student writing conferences,
videotaping and analyzing the enactment of reading and
responding during student writing conferences, and reflecting
on the results of lessons planned in response to student texts.
A final recommendation is that rehearsals of reading and
responding place particular emphasis on the deep features of
childrens writing. Research with both preservice (Ballock &
McQuitty, 2014) and inservice (Matsumara et al., 2002)
teachers demonstrates the tendency of some to attend and
respond to primarily surface features. Yet, the CCSS require
children to produce texts with substantive ideas, clear orga-
nization, and genre-specific featuresattributes that extend
far beyond conventions. Thus, meeting the expectations of
the CCSS requires teachers to both recognize deep features
(or lack thereof) in childrens writing and to respond with
pedagogies that teach deep features. Furthermore, because
the CCSS address narrative, informational, and persuasive/
argumentative writing, preservice teachers must learn to read
and respond in genre-specific ways. This study focused on
the knowledge needed to read and respond to a narrative, but
ultimately, teacher education courses must address KCS and
KCT for reading and responding to other genres as well.
We recommend that future research examine how teach-
ers learn to read and respond to different genres at different
grade levels. Given the importance of KCS to the practice,
we wonder how much difference exists between, for exam-
ple, reading and responding to kindergarteners personal nar-
ratives and reading and responding to third graders personal
narratives. Similarly, how much difference exists between
reading and responding to fifth graders personal narratives
and fifth graders opinion texts? Is there a point at which a
teacher is skillful enough in reading and responding that she
can easily learn to apply the practice to new genres and grade
levels, or must she specifically learn how each genre mani-
fests in the writing of students at each level? Answers to
these questions could provide useful additional guidance for
literacy teacher educators.
In summary, this study highlights reading and responding
to student writing as a core practice that when enacted skill-
fully is likely to support children in meeting the CCSSs
challenging demands. This study provides insight into the
nature of reading and responding, specifically in terms of its
reliance on the development of teachers PCK. As teacher
educators work to develop pedagogies of teacher education
to teach reading and responding as a practice, it will be
important not only to decompose reading and responding
into component parts that can be rehearsed in isolation but
also to support novice teachers in enacting reading and
responding as an integrated whole, connecting their knowl-
edge of teaching and content with their knowledge of teach-
ing and students to make targeted instructional decisions.
12 Journal of Teacher Education
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content
knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science
Education, 30, 1405-1416. doi:10.1080/09500690802187041
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the
challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
60, 497-511. doi:10.1177/0022487109348479
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowl-
edge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher
Education, 59, 389-407. doi:10.1177/0022487108324554
Ballock, E., & McQuitty, V. (2014, April). Preservice teachers
noticing in elementary student writing. Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Philadelphia, PA.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written
composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clausen, S. (1998). Quantitative applications in the social sci-
ences, 121: Applied correspondence analysis: An introduction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction:
A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,
907-919. doi:10.1037/a0012656
Davenport, N. A. (2006). Connecting preservice teachers with stu-
dents using email to build skills for teaching writing. Journal
of Reading Education, 31(2), 13-19.
DeGroff, L. (1992). Process-writing teachers responses to fourth-grade
writers first drafts. Elementary School Journal, 93, 131-144.
Ell, F., Hill, M., & Grudnoff, L. (2012). Finding out more about
teacher candidates prior knowledge: Implications for teacher
educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1),
55-65. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2011.643760
Forzani, F. M. (2014). Understanding core practices and
practice-based teacher education: Learning from the past.
Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 357-368. doi:10.1177/
0022487114533800
Gibson, S. A. (2007). Preservice teachers knowledge of instruc-
tional scaffolding for writing instruction. Mid-Western
Educational Researcher, 20(2), 9-15.
Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary
students in grades 4-6: A national survey. Elementary School
Journal, 110, 494-518. doi:10.1086/651193
Glasswell, K., Parr, J. M., & McNaughton, S. (2003). Four ways to
work against yourself when conferencing with struggling writ-
ers. Language Arts, 80, 291-298.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Common Core State Standards
and writing: Introduction to the special issue. Elementary
School Journal, 115, 457-463.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Santangelo, T. (2015). Research-based
practices and the Common Core: Meta-analysis and meta-syn-
thesis. Elementary School Journal, 115, 498-522.
Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Formative assess-
ment and writing: A meta-analysis. Elementary School Journal,
115, 523-547.
Grossman, P. L., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009).
Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289.
Harper, C., Platt, E., Naranjo, C., & Boynton, S. (2007). Marching
in unison: Florida ESL teachers and No Child Left Behind.
TESOL Quarterly, 41, 642-651.
Hayes, J. R., & Olinghouse, N. G. (2015). Can cognitive writ-
ing models inform the design of the Common Core State
Standards? Elementary School Journal, 115, 480-497.
Husson, F., Josse, J., Le, S., & Mazet, J. (2015). FactoMineR:
Multivariate exploratory data analysis and data mining (R pack-
age version 1.29) [Software]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=FactoMineR
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional
noticing of childrens mathematical thinking. Journal of
Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 169-202.
Le, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R pack-
age for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software,
25(1), 1-18. Retrieved from http://factominer.free.fr/docs/arti-
cle_FactoMineR.pdf
Masuda, A., & Ebersole, M. (2012). Beginning teachers study
groups: A place to continue critical conversations about teach-
ing writing. The New Educator, 8, 160-176. doi:10.1080/1547
688X.2012.670570
Matsumara, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Valdes, R., & Garnier,
H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and
third-grade students revision in lower and higher achieving
urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 103, 3-25.
McCarthey, S. J. (2008). The impact of No Child Left Behind on
teachers writing instruction. Written Communication, 25, 462-
505. doi:10.1177/0741088308322554
McCutchen, D. (2011). From novice to expert: Implications of
language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory
during the development of writing skills. Journal of Writing
Research, 3, 51-68. doi:10.17239/jowr-2011.03.01.3
McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core prac-
tices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common
language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education,
64, 378-386. doi:10.1177/0022487113493807
Moore, R. A., & Seeger, V. (2009). Dear sincerely: Exploring lit-
erate identities with young children and preservice teachers
through letter writing. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48,
185-205. doi:10.1080/19388070802226246
Olinghouse, N. G., & Graham, S. (2009). The relationship between
the discourse knowledge and the writing performance of ele-
mentary-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
101, 37-50.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statis-
tical computing [Computing software]. Vienna, Austria: R
Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://
www.R-project.org/
Reutzel, D. R., Dole, J. A., Read, S., Fawson, P., Herman, K., Jones,
C. D., . . .Fargo, J. (2011). Conceptually and methodologically
vexing issues in teacher knowledge assessment. Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 27, 183-211. doi:10.1080/10573569.2011.
560098
Ballock et al. 13
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Shanahan, T. (2015). Common Core State Standards: A new role
for writing. Elementary School Journal, 115, 464-479.
Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (Eds.). (2011).
Mathematics teacher noticing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth
in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Spence, L. K. (2010). Generous reading: Seeing students through
their writing. The Reading Teacher, 63, 634-642. doi:10.1598/
RT.63.8.2
Teaching Works. (2016). High leverage practices. Retrieved from
http://www.teachingworks.org/work-of-teaching/high-lever-
age-practices
van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). How different video club
designs support teachers in learning to notice. Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 22, 125-135.
Author Biographies
Ellen Ballock is an associate professor in the Department of Early
and Elementary Education at Gordon College in Wenham, MA. Her
research focuses on preservice and inservice teacher professional
development with a specific focus on learning through collabora-
tively examining artifacts of practice.
Vicki McQuitty is an assistant professor in the Department of
Elementary Education at Towson University in Towson, MD. Her
research and teaching center on preparing preservice and inservice
teachers to teach writing.
Scot McNary is associate professor in the Department of
Educational Technology and Literacy at Towson University in
Towson, MD. His research and teaching are focused on quantitative
methods and social interactions in learning environments.