Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction PDF

Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction: Effects on Kindergarten Students'
Reading Skills
Author(s): CINDY D'ON JONES, D. RAY REUTZEL and JAMISON D. FARGO
Source: The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 103, No. 5 (2010), pp. 327-341
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41478830
Accessed: 06-11-2019 07:50 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41478830?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Educational Research
This content downloaded from 202.57.60.111 on Wed, 06 Nov 2019 07:50:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal ©
Copyright of Taylor
Educational Research,
& Francis 103:327-341,
Group, LLC | ^2010
KOU p KOU . i GO
p U GO ÇJi _
_ 00 __
ISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-067 online 8 V Taylor & Francis Group
DOI: 10.1080/002206709033831 19
Comparing Two Methods of Writing

Instruction: Effects on Kindergarten
Students' Reading Skills
CINDY D'ON JONES
D. RAY REUTZEL
JAMISON D. FARGO
Utah State University
(Clay, 2002). Indeed, the conventions of letter-sound cor-

ABSTRACT. This experimental study directly compared the
effects of two prevalent forms of classroom writing instruc-
respondence cannot be learned outside the written system
tion, interactive writing and writing workshop, on kinder- ( T olchinsky, 2006). Kindergarten students' early informal
garten students* acquisition of early reading skills. Repeatedwriting is predictive of their formal acquisition of reading
measures data was collected at four points over 16 weeks to even after controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) and
monitor growth of 151 kindergarten students in phonological
IQ effects (Aram & Levin, 2001, 2004; Levin, Share, &
awareness, alphabet knowledge, and word reading. Results of
Shatil, 1996; Shatil, Share, & Levin, 2000).
this study showed students in both the interactive writing
group and the writing workshop group demonstrated signifi- Research concerning the relationship between emergent
cant growth over time for each of the three outcome measures,and formal literacy has shown that helping a young child
with no statistically significant difference between groups forlearn to write has positive effects on future literacy learning
any of the outcome measures at any of the time points. This(Anderson, Heibert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; Boscolo,
study provides evidence that, when consistently implemented
during the first 16 weeks of kindergarten, interactive writ-
2008). In spite of the well-established relationship between
ing and writing workshop are equally effective in promoting and writing and a burgeoning national interest in
reading
acquisition of early reading skills. early literacy instruction, writing is conspicuously absent
in early literacy instruction (Halladay et al., 2007). Little
Keywords: beginning reading skills, kindergarten, writing in- is known about how present methods of early writing in-
struction
struction may impact early reading growth. An important
question arises: Are various methods of writing instruction
more effective in promoting reading growth than others?
terest in print (Clay, 1975). Children as young
Writing terest as 1 year in is oftenas 1 yearprintof ageof experiment
age the (Cwith
lay,writing
experiment
to cre- first 1975). indicator with Children of writing a child's as to young cre- in- What Is the State of Writing Instruction in Kindergarten
ate messages for others (Baghban, 1984; Lancaster, 2001). Classrooms ?
Young children quickly learn that lines and scribbles carry
meaning. Sharing thoughts and getting their needs met Given the established importance of the writing for early
through writing is important to young children, and so they literacy learners, there is a critical need for researchers to
begin to modify their writing to more closely resemble the investigate the impact of writing instructional methods on
written text they experience in their environment. For emer- the growth of early reading skills (Boscolo, 2008; Durkin,
gent literacy learners, writing is the foundation of reading 1989; Farnan & Dahl, 2003; Jagger, Carrara, & Weiss, 1986;
(Bissex, 1980; Clay, 2002; Durkin, 1966; Hansen, 1987). McCarthey, 2008; Stotsky, 1983). A recent review of re-
The concrete task of creating written text serves as a search on writing found that only 5% of the total writing in-
bridge to the more abstract task of reading. Luria and struction studies examined were conducted with elementary
Yudovich (1971) explained that writing is a powerful cog- school children, with even fewer studies employing experi-
nitive procedure because it slows down and repeats the twin mental or quasi-experimental designs (Juzwik et al., 2006).
thinking processes of analysis and synthesis. As children Pressley and Fingeret (2007) called for direct evaluations of
write, they analyze thought and meaning, experiment with
words and form, and learn concepts of directionality, se- Address correspondence to Cindy D. Jones , Utah State Uni-
quencing, and spacing. By the very nature of the task, a versity , 6705 Oíd Main Hill , Logan, UT 84322*6705. (E-mail:
writer is forced to act analytically on print, letter by letter cindy .jones@usu . edu)
328 The Journal of Educational Research
how writing instructiondata. For kindergarten

impacts early literacy cl
ac
attributed
Shanahan (2006) also indicated to the
a need forextra hal
experim
ton et al. (1996)
begin to unravel the complexities of how reported f
various w
struction influences students'
design growth
early literacy
in student
acqui
growth. An students
investigation of how in letter instruct
writing identifi
growth of early readingabout print,
skills shouldrecognizing
begin with p
nation Carrier
of present classroom et al.instruction.
writing (2000) report
A
approaches for teaching young
for children to
60 third-grade writ
studen
results in the identification
this study
of twodid
prevailing
not include
ins
random
methods: interactive writing assignment.
and writing worksh
Only two published rese
have experimentally exam
Interactive Writing
writing with primary g
Interactive writing is O'Connor (2004),experien
a group writing used a
helps children attend to design to examine
the details the eff
of letters, s
phonological
words while creating meaningful processing
text (Pinnell o &
dents. Results
1998). The focus of interactive of is
writing this
to study
prov
students with instruction on print
progress concepts,
in concepts abou
awareness, phonics, and high-frequency
letter words
identification, word(
The other
berg, 2001; Tompkins, 2010). published
The main componeres
quasi-experimental
teractive writing instruction compa
include negotiating,
writing
ing, and rereading the text. Duringthat compared w
interactive th
students and teacher negotiate
plus letter-sound
the writing instruct
topic a
tail of the text to be written. Next,
phonemic the text is
awareness co-c
and
as student
the teacher and students share achievement in p
the pen to create
or brief story. Teacherknowledge,
guidance focuses student
and early read
on applying letter-soundin correspondence,
a predominantly Wh
segme
reported
blending, letter identification andequivalent
formation, gro
an
and statistically
frequency word recognition. significa
Mistakes students m
while sharing the pen inthe adapted
letter interactive
formations and
greater
are corrected with teacher gains
help. The for word id
group-crea
The Word
reread each time a new word Identification
is written for readin
A review of research yielded
Mastery more than 100(Wo
Test-Revised pu
works advocating and/or describingbased
development the use
on of
ratii
writing to build on the phasesknowledge
shared of word reading
base of re
writing (e.g., Biddle, 2007; Brotherton
the previous & William
research bas
Button, Johnson, & Ferguson,
on early1996; Herb
reading & Bufal
acquisitio
McCarrier, Pinnell, & Fountas, 2000;
instruction Patterson,
with young stS
& Clemens, 2008; Pinnell & Fountas, 1998; Rit
& Singleton, 2001; Rubadue, 2002; Sipe, 2001; Sta
1996; Williams & Lundstrom, 2007). Descripti
Writing Workshop
have suggested a positive impact of interactive w
struction on the acquisition of reading
Writing workshopskills am
is the
students. Studies comparing the effects in
ing instruction of the
intera
pr
ing with comparison groups
Mason,or 2005)
with typical litera
and is repor
of kindergarten students over time
method were very the
to implement few.w
Pinnell and McCarrier ers(1994) presented
(Atwell, 1998; evidence
Calkins,
potential of interactive Graves,
writing using
1983).mean
The scores
writi
garten students involved
byin an International
the instructional proje
Read
ing six elements, one of which of
Council was interactive
Teachers w
of En
end-of-year spring scores
theof kindergarten
standard student
writing inst
ticipated in this project were
and compared
districts to entry
(Patthey-Ch
students selected for Reading
Because Recovery
writing at the be
workshop
Grade 1. Pinnell and McCarrier
to writing provided the w
instruction, d
"The groups represented
usedabove are
as the by no cond
control mea
rable; therefore, no conclusions can
experimental be drawn
studies on fr
w
The Journal of Educational Research 329
2005; Harris, Graham, & Mason,

writing 2006;
process Troia &
approach. (
2002; Yeh, 1998). these studies involved ele
The focus of the writing workshop of
examination is to provide
writing in
time and opportunitiesSadoski,
to use the writing
Willson, andproce
Nort
ate written text (Tompkins, 2008). The
lation between main com
quantity of
of the writing workshop include writing,
primary-grade confere
students. H
sharing. During writingofworkshop, each student
writing workshop (emp
self-selected topic, ferencing)
negotiating were
the text not a
with relate
focu
ing personal experiences A
inrecent meta-analysi
a meaningful way. St
sume ownership of theirexperimental writing
writing and work st
at their
Students are often encouraged
cluded only
to use
three
invented
publish
s
Mistakes are not corrected and, in
struction fact,
using serve
the as
writin
cator of student knowledge and
studies, progress.
writing The cr
process w
tion
is shared with the teacher (Troia
and other&students
Graham, th
conducted
ferencing, publishing, and sharingthe third
times. stud
Writing
This posttest-only
may include short teacher-directed study
minilessons a
ing workshop procedures,quasi-experimental design
writers' craft (e.g., stron
conclusions), and writing strategies
structional (e.g., writin
approach to a
(Au, Carroll, & Scheu, 1997; Calkins,
collecting writing 1994;
sampleF
and 128
Portalupi, 2007; Hoyt, 2000; sixth-grade
Ray, 2002). studen
ples from
A review of research literature second-grade
for writing work s
resulted in many published works about writingi
approach were stronger
However, in concordance differences in writing
with previous me
literature
the between
writing process approach groups in
(Pritchard & sixth-g
Honey
content,
Stahl, Pagnucco, & Suttles, 1996),or mechanics.
few evaluation
Although
ing workshop or the writing writing
process works
approach w
Similar to the published gold
works standard approach
for interactive f
writ
of the articles focused mary grades (Pritchard
on describing &
instruction
the research on writingnot clearly has
workshop demonstrated
focused on
of writing workshop onin the primary
student grades.
acquisition Mo
of wr
with varying results. how the writing worksho
Descriptive and may affect
correlational growth
studies have of rea
provi
information about the influence
ers. of
In fact, in writing
this review
were
Calkins (1983) described how located that writing
a child's directly
as writing process workshop
strategies on
were student acqu
internalized d
year case study in a third- and fourth-grade wri
shop. Data from a one-group study involving 19 k
students that had participated in writing proces
Similarities Between Writin
conducted by Hertz and LearnersHeydenberk (1997) indic
students demonstrated improvement in writing
These two writing instructional
spelling ability. A correlation between approaches, interactive
writing p
struction and writing writing
proficiency on
and writing workshop, have some National
elements in com- A
of Educational Progress mon. Both(NAEP)
interactive writing andwriting
writing workshop create assess
been reported a literacy&
(Goldstein environment
Carr, that emphasizes
1996; the importance of
Greenwa
Campbell, & Mazzeo, 1999).
writing by utilizing However,
writing models, recognizing the Dyson
unique a
contributions
man (2003) noted that even of eachthough
writer, and providing instruction
higher in sco
NAEP were associated with the
response to student needs. use of the writin
The literacy environment for interactive
approach to writing instruction, it was writing and writ-
difficult
ing workshop
the degree to which the writing is similar in design. Writing is valued and
process in-
approach
structional time
improvements in students' is dedicated to writing.in
writing Both methods
the buildUnited
on the importance
Some experimental design of writing in early have
studies literacy. Students are
also inv
the effects of writing engaged in authentic writing tasks
workshop on with awriting
variety of gen- skil
res. Students express their ideas
(1984) conducted a meta-analysis of through
the oral and results
written of
imental writing studieslanguage. Text is constructed and problems
published between are solved in a 1962
and reported a meanhighly
effect size
supported social context throughof .19, p =
group discussions
the quality of student during interactive writing or
writing through conferencing
from during
instruction
writing workshop (Boscolo & Cisotto, 1999). &

(Brotherton The goal of instruction is to
Williams, 2002;
2002). teach students the specific skills needed to become com-
Interactive writing and writing workshop both provide petent writers (McCarrier et al., 2000). The content of
writing models that help create a print-rich literacy envi- interactive writing lessons includes emphasis on the con-
ronment and that serve as motivating text for sharing and cepts about print, sound-symbol relationships, core words,
rereading. Construction of text in interactive writing is com- and construction of conventionally accurate text (Button
pleted by the group, with each student focusing on the same et al., 1996; Pinnell & Fountas, 1998; Pinnell & McCarrier,
writing task and skills. The class generates a common model 1994). Brotherton and Williams (2002) analyzed interactive
of writing. Construction of text in writing workshop is com- writing lessons in a first-grade classroom and identified six
pleted by the individual, with potentially each student focus- categories of literacy concepts taught through interactive
ing on a different writing task. The class generates a variety writing lessons: concepts about print, phoneme-grapheme
of models of writing. correspondence, letter formation, strategies for spelling un-
Both methods are responsive to children's development known words, literacy-related vocabulary, and strategies for
with the teacher providing instruction based on student composing. Interactive writing guides students through the
needs. During interactive writing lessons, a teacher may detailed skills of creating written text. Hammerberg (2001)
choose a particular child to construct the text because that described interactive writing as a technique for understand-
child already knows how to write the letter or word. For ing the technicalities of getting every word written correctly
example, Robert may be asked to write the letter R, high- on the page.
lighting his proficiency at that task and also demonstrating In contrast, writing workshop is process based, focusing
for other students correct letter formation. A teacher can on the procedural or heuristic strategies of writing. Teach-
address specific immediate needs that may arise when con- ing writing means creating supportive conditions for writing
structing text during interactive writing, such as how to spell (Boscolo & Cisotto, 1999). The goal of instruction is to
words with a vowel-consonant-silent e pattern. Similarly, teach students the generally applicable techniques to plan,
during writing workshop, a teacher may choose a particular organize, and accomplish a writing task (Calkins, 1994). The
child to share his or her writing as an example of using de- content of writing workshop includes emphasis on compos-
scriptive words. Minilessons can focus on aspects related to ing and sharing meaning through written text (Graves, 1983;
a particular writing task, such as expository text structure, or McCarthey, 2008; Richgels, 2002). According to Atwell
to an identified need of students, such as staying on topic. In- (1998), the hallmarks of writing workshop are self-selection,
clusion of writing instruction through the interactive writing ownership, self-monitoring, feedback, and individualized in-
approach or through the writing workshop approach yields struction. Students work on their own writing pieces, gen-
important benefits to the literacy environment for young erating ideas and criteria for their own work, progressing
children.
through the writing process stages at differing paces. Teach-
ers promote use of trial and error letter-sound correspon-
dence and invented spellings. Writing workshop seeks to
Differences Between Writing Instruction Approaches for Young allow students to concentrate more of their attention on
Learners content and composition than might otherwise be possible
if focusing on conventional correctness.
These two writing instructional approaches, interactive
writing and writing workshop, differ from one another in
Sequencing of skills. The two methods of writing instruc-
several important ways. Instructional approaches to teach-
tion have a contrasting sequence of skills. Interactive writ-
ing writing can be categorized in regard to the: (a) con-
ing presents writing skills using an analytical sequence or
tent of the learning task, (b) sequencing of skills, and (c)
bottom-up processing; writing is built from its structural
role of the teacher (Berry, 2006; Collins, Brown, & Holum,
parts. In bottom-up processing, writing instruction is text
1991; Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1987; Graham, Harris,
based. It begins with letter or word identification and pro-
MacArthur, & Fink, 2002; Graham & Perin, 2007; Hillocks,
ceeds to progressively larger linguistic units, ending in mean-
1981, 1984; Pollington, Wilcox, & Morrison, 2001; Varble,
ing. In interactive writing, text is created by sounding out
1990). Based on these criteria, there are several notable dif-
words, letter by letter, to create sentences. The teacher
ferences between the instructional approaches of interactive
presents graphophonic, orthographic, and morphological
writing and writing workshop.
concepts (Boscolo & Cisotto, 1999). Students learn to write
by practicing these subskills of writing.
Content of the learning task . Interactive writing and writ- Writing workshop presents writing using a global sequence
ing workshop differ in content of the learning task. Inter- or top-down processing; the whole writing task is concep-
active writing is skills based, focusing on the declarative tualized before executing the parts. In top-down process-
skills of writing, such as letter formation, phonics, syntax, ing, writing instruction is student based. Writing begins
and mechanics. Teaching writing is a structured situation with a message the writer needs to share (Graves, 1983).
in which children are conducted through the right steps The teacher tries to make writing strategies meaningful by
The Journal of Educational Research 33 1
helping Because
children discover them these skills
(Boscolo are re
& Cisott
reading
Students develop their own success,writing
individual these thr
sk
were used to evaluate grow
guidance from the teacher.
tantly, two of these comp
and alphabet knowledge, a
Role of teacher. The role of the teacher differs
ning writers.
level and degree of teacher support between interact
The principal research qu
ing instruction and writing workshop. On a cont
was: Does it make a differ
teacher guidance, interactive writing is a form o
method is used in kinderg
teacher-student writing, whereas writing worksho
ing workshop, with regar
on independent student writing (Tompkins, 2008
dents' early reading skills
interactive writing, the teacher's role is to provid
bet knowledge, and word
to create written text. The teacher helps students
ideas for writing and guides discussion to form
of text to be written. The teacher directs the ac
struction of text: reiterating
Method the specific words to b
helping students sound out the words to identify
in the word, and identifying
Participants students to write the
create an accurate text (McCarrier et al., 2000). Th
Two elementary schools within a western city school dis-
repeatedly identifies strategies and criteria for co
trict
of text. Feedback from the were randomly
teacher selected to participate
is in the study. The
immediate.
school district was selected for two reasons: (a) it had not
The teacher's role in writing workshop is to orga
yet established writing as a routine part of instruction in
workshop into a predictable structure and to prov
the kindergarten classrooms and (b) reading instruction fol-
eling and support for individual writers (McCarth
lowed evidence-based principles with a consistent time allo-
During conferences, the teacher focuses on helping
cation for reading instruction and all teachers used the same
as a writer in creating meaningful text (Calkins,
core reading program in schools throughout the district. The
teacher is not an evaluator but an audience who gu
selected school district was proportionally reflective of four
dents and supports their writing development du
ferences with studentsof (Bartlett,
the five categorized U.S. ethnic subgroups (White,
1994; His-
Boscolo, 2
panic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan);
teacher may offer suggestions for the writing piece
this district was not reflective of the U.S. ethnic subgroup of
suggestions are not binding for the writer.
Black, non-Hispanic. The district had approximately 33%
diversity, with 44% of the school district students qualifying
for free or reduced-price lunch under the National School
Research Questions
Lunch Program.
Research has
established All kindergarten
the teachersimportancein the two randomly selectedof writ
writing instruction forelementary
early schools literacy
participated, for a total of five teachers.
learners (Bis
Three teachers taught
Clay, 1975, 2002; Durkin, 1966; a full day with two half-day sessions & Dah
Farnan
Hansen, 1987). However, research
of kindergarten has
students and two teachers not
taught a half day answ
question of which of with one presently
the session each, for a total of eight sessions or classes
available and
methods of writing of kindergarten students.
instruction are All participating
more teachers in this
effective i
young students acquire study
readinghad a bachelor's skills.
degree in education with an early
Research is
educators, researchers, childhood
andendorsement.
policymakersNone of the kindergarten teachers
to make
had advanced
decisions regarding which forms literacy instruction
of training.
writing Class size ranged
instruc
from 19 to 21, with a mean of 20 students per kindergarten
most effectively in kindergarten.
Interactive writing andsessionwriting
(SD = 0.84). All classrooms followed a 9-month
workshop are t
quently instructional schedule.
recommended instructional methods. In t
study we directly compared A total of
in 151 kindergarten
a true students completed the study
experiment the
out of 156 enrolled kindergarten
interactive writing instruction to writingstudents. Two studentsworksh
did
tion, the standard not complete to
approach the entire study due to relocation
writing out of the
instruction
reading Evidence district.
skills. from Parents declined participation for threeconverges
research students. At
the beginning of
important skills for beginning readers thatthe study, participants ranged in age from
are also
5 years 0 months
dictors of reading success: (a)to 5phonological
years 11 months; the mean age was aware
5 years 4 months
knowledge of letter names and (SD = .27). In total, 53% of participants
sounds, and (c) w
were boys, 47% were
ing (Adams, 1990; National girls. Forty-three percent ofof
Institute the partici-
Child H
Human Development pants qualified for free or reduced-price
[NICHD], 2000; lunch. Twenty-seven
Scarborou
Snow, Burns, & percent1998;
Griffin, of participants were classified as English Language
Vellutino & Scanlo
Learners on school records; this

a more was also
refined confirm
comparison
ticipating teachers. instructional approaches.
Reading instruction was si
garten sessions and classro
Random Assignment in the district's adopted ki
gram. Time was allocated d
Before school began in August, each participating
reading instruction as: (a)
was assigned a number, from 001-15 1. Using ran
15 min; (с) listening comp
software, the kindergarten students were random
acy centers, 30 min. Becau
either to interactive writing (n = 75) or to writing
to compare results of two
(n = 76). Participants in the study formed eight in
reading, the walk-to-writ
groups. Four groups received interactive writing i
instruction time combined
and four groups received writing workshop instru
ferent classes within a scho
interactive writing instruction groups and writing
helping to account for po
groups were embedded within each of the two r
struction or other classro
selected elementary schools to control for poten
instructional differences w
effects. Comparison of the interactive writing an
to the differences between
ing workshop groups using chi square and indep
tests showed no statistically significant differenc
the groups for studentTeacher Training includin
characteristics,
(p = .16), ethnicity (p = .75), English Language
Prior to the beginning of
(p = .57), free and reduced lunch status (p = .81),
teachers received instruct
tial literacy levels (p = .41). The five kindergarten
ing their randomly assign
were also randomly assigned either to the interac
Training sessions included
ing instructional method (n = 2) or to the writing
one of the researchers, teac
instructional method (n = 3). Students received w
plementation of the applic
struction from the teacher of their randomly assig
and model lessons presente
also given lesson plans, in
Description of terial
Intervention to support writing
teachers received a small
This study began in August as students
trainings and for began
maintainth
garten year and concludeding in December when
instructional stu
practice
school for winter break. dures
During this 16- week
provided perio
participan
from within each of the kindergarten
ternative classes
writing at a
instruct
together to receive writing instruction from the te
domly assigned to their instructional group during
Fidelity of Implementation
write time. Two groups at each school received i
writing instruction and Since
two groups at each
all teachers schoo
used th
instruction with writing workshop.
adopted Fifteen
by the schoolminu
dis
2.5-hr kindergarten session was
classes dedicated
within to writi
the school jo
tion; this would be equivalent to 30 min
tion, fidelity of writin
of implement
tion in a full-day setting.
forms of writing instruct
Prior to beginning this study, as
monitor is the of
fidelity nature of
imple
instruction in many kindergarten
plementation classrooms,
checklist tim
w
dedicated daily to writinginginstruction (Halladay
instructional metho e
National Commission on Writing,
and content2003, 2006). Th
of procedures
ersreported they previously had for
checklist "not scheduled a
interactive w
time for writing" as "we
of didn't
teachermake it a priori
behaviors typi
years." As a result of this study, writing
writing (Wold, instructio
2003) and
each day. Writing instruction prior
scale, An to the study
Interactive Wri
cally followed a writing workshop
nell, 2003). Aapproach. How
similar fide
allcomponents of the writing workshop
for writing were was
workshop im
equally well. Because implementation of writing
the writing workshop as
may vary between teachers (Cutler
fidelity & Graham, 2
of implementatio
& Graham, 2002), it was important
classroom to standardiz
observation form
mentation of the writing workshop,
to provide which also
information r
on
Neuman, 1999; writing,

component. For interactive Roskos & Neuman, 2001). the
Therefore, fidelity
the
mentation classroom observation form included
Classroom Literacy Environment Profile (CLEP; Wolfers- it
as counting the number berger,of Reutzel, Sudweeks, & Fawson,
words to2004) be was used to
written
gather words
tence, orally segmenting information about classroom
to identifyliteracy environments sound
to evaluate comparabilityconstruction
responding letters, examining of participating classrooms. Gen- of le
words, and pointing to eralizability
written studies conducted
text with theas CLEP students
showed an r
acceptable level (G coefficient
passage. The writing workshop = .85) is obtained withof
fidelity two imple
classroom observation form focused
raters on one occasion (Wolfersberger eton al.). Theinclusion
CLEP was
completed
lessons, student writing, by a PhD early childhood specialist notand
conferencing, associated sharin
with this study
delity of implementation and a member of the research
checklists were team. Resultsused to
of the CLEP showed
writing instruction during the classrooms to be relatively
classroom visits. equal in Classr
by the researcher wereclassroom environment with ratings
typically for the five classrooms
unannounced an
in the average
one per week over the 16- week range for effective
duration literacy environments.
ofA the st
room observation forms were
Mann- Whitney U of used for
the CLEP results three
indicated there was form
no statistically
tions of each participating significant difference
teacher, (z = 1.73, p >.05) in
occurring in S
October, and Novemberthe of literacy the
environment16-week
between classrooms. study in t
the year. A pair of researchers, a literacy specia
early childhood specialist, completed the Novemb
vation. Reliability calculations Description of Instruction for this paired ob
using the fidelity of implementation checklist ran
Interactive writing . Daily interactive writing lessons took
95% to 98% agreement. Additionally, all teachers
place when students gathered on the rug for writing time.
a daily instructional log that contained the fidelity
The teacher or the students selected writing topics. If a book
mentation checklist. This daily instructional log
was read or additional information was needed to present
a self-check tool for teachers to monitor incorp
content information on a topic, this typically happened on
the components during writing instruction. Each
Monday. Once a topic for writing was identified, students,
teachers briefly described one of the week's writ
with the help of the teacher, suggested text to write. Students
in these logs.
and the teacher would then share the pen to write the text
Finally, writing instruction was evaluated for length and
on the large chart paper taped to the whiteboard. Depending
duration of the interventions. Although time for the in-
on the specific word to be written and the knowledge of the
tervention was established as 15 min per day, the actual
student, a student might write just one letter of the word or
writing instruction time was detailed as part of the instruc-
the entire word. During the writing of text, the teacher and
tional log. Writing time at each school was coordinated
between teachers in order for students to receive instruction students would discuss letter-sound correspondence, sight
words, irregular spellings, writing mechanics, and conven-
in their randomly assigned group. Each teacher maintained
tions. White editing tape was used to correct errors made in
separate logs, which provided a built-in check for comparing
letter or word construction. As the text was composed on
dedicated writing instruction time between teachers. The in-
the chart paper, the other students would also write the text.
structional logs showed that two teachers at one school (one
Sometimes, the students would use "sky pencils" to write
teacher of interactive writing instruction and one teacher of
the letters in the air with their fingers; sometimes students
writing workshop) taught five fewer writing lessons than
would use markers to write the text on individual white-
teachers at the other school due to scheduling conflicts
boards. Words and sentences were reread for comprehension
within the school (i.e., picture day or an assembly). Time
and text construction.
dedicated to writing instruction for these participants was
89.9% compared with the other teacher participants.
Information from the classroom observations and the in- Writing workshop . Writing workshop involved students in
structional logs was used to compute an implementation independent writing with teacher guidance and monitoring.
composite score. Implementation scores ranged from 81 to The components of writing workshop used for this study in-
100, with a mean of 89 and a standard deviation of 0.58. Re- cluded minilessons, writing and conferencing, and sharing.
sults of a Mann- Whitney U indicated there was no statisti- Minilessons were usually presented for the first few minutes
cally significant difference (z = .15, p >.05) for instructional of writing workshop with students gathered together on the
fidelity between groups. rug or at tables. If a book was read or a longer minilesson
was needed to support a selected writing topic, this typi-
Classroom Environment cally happened on Monday. Minilessons ranged from how
to select a topic for writing to adding descriptive words to a
The classroom literacy environments that students ex- sentence. After each minilesson, students returned to their
perience can affect student literacy achievement outcomes tables for individual writing. Pencils, colored pencils, and
(Clark & Kragler, 2005; Morrow & Weinstein, 1986; markers were available at the tables. Students used a variety
of styles of paper and the Lindamood Auditory Conception

spiral-bound journals Test (Lindamood
during th
As students wrote, the & teacher
Lindamood, 1979) andwould
the Woodcock Reading Mas-
conference
dividual students about tery
their
Test-Revised (Woodcock,
writing. 1987). Internal Teachers
consistency en
invented spelling. Short reliability
sharingfor the phonological
segments
awareness subtests rangedwere sc
throughout the week, withfrom .84 on more
the blending words
timesubtest to .89 for the eli-
allocated for
on Fridays. Each student sion was
and segmenting words subtests
given an (Rashotte, MacPhee, &
opportunity
Torgesen, 2001).
at least once a week; either the student or the teac
the composition to other students in the class.
Because the emphasis of this study was on examin
Alphabet Knowledge
differences between types of writing instruction,
within each school focused on
Student knowledge the
of letter same
names and themat
sounds was eval-
each week (e.g., autumn,
uated farm
using the Letter animals). For
Identification task, a subtest from exam
books that were part ofthea Observation
writing Survey of Early Literacy Achievement
lesson were read
instructional groups. (OSELA; Clay, 2002). Students completed the assessment
by first providing letter names and then providing letter
Measures sounds. The total number of correct letter names and let-
ter sounds was used in the analyses. Denton, Ciancio, and
Assessment of early Fletcher (2006)skills
reading reported a .65 occurred
Pearson correlation with frequent
the
included multiple measures in an
Woodcock-Johnson effort
III Letter-Word Identificationto monitor
subtest.
growth effectively. Participants were
Reliability coefficients for the OSELA Letterassessed
Identifica- usi
nationally published, norm-referenced
tion task are reported as .97 (Clay, 1993) andinstrument
.95 (Pinnell,
McCarrier, & Button, 1990).
uate the impact of interactive writing and writin
shop on kindergarten students' acquisition of earl
ing skills: phonological awareness, alphabet knowled
Word Reading
word reading. Reflective of each student's age at each
assessment during the study, student
Reading sight words and decodingscores on
phonemic nonwords each o
peated reading measureswerewere compared
measured using the Test of Word Readingwith
Efficiency the n
samples to (TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999). The
characterize early reading growth for pa
in this study. TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency subtest measures the num-
ber of sight words accurately identified in 45 s. The Phonetic
Reading Assessment Procedures Decoding Efficiency subtest measures the number of accu-
rately decoded nonwords in 45 s. Extensive validity for the
The three reading measures were individually adminis- TOWRE test has been well established; the internal consis-
tered, by one of the researchers, to all participating students tency reliability coefficient for the sight word subtest is .93
at four measurement periods scheduled at fixed occasions to and .94 for the nonword decoding subtest (Rashotte et al.,
equalize time intervals during the 16- week study. At each 2001).
of the four measurement periods, reading measures were ad-
ministered within a 10-day assessment window. Participants
Analyses
in one school were assessed in the first five days, followed
by assessment of participants in the other school the next Data were analyzed using a two-level mixed-effects or mul-
five days. Total testing time per student did not exceed tilevel model. Three separate analyses were completed, one
15 min. The order of test administration was counterbal- each for the three early reading skills dependent variables.
anced for each child. The dependent variable for the Level 1 models was student
growth over time on each of the three reading skills based on
P honological Awareness individual student outcomes from the repeated measures: (a)
phonological awareness (n = 604), (b) alphabet knowledge
Kindergarten students' phonological awareness was as- (n = 604), and (c) word reading (n = 604). The dependent
sessed using the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Pro- variable for the Level 2 models was student growth based on
cessing (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). random assignment either to the interactive writing group
The CTOPP is a standardized, norm-referenced measure or to the writing workshop group. This model also exam-
with a version specifically designed for 5-6-year-old stu- ined the interaction between time and writing instructional
dents. Student performance was gauged by using the total group. The multilevel model accounted for the nuisance
score of correct responses given for three 20-item subtests: variable of classroom grouping through the specification of
Elision, Blending Words, and Sound Matching. Concurrent a cluster variable in the analyses. The intercept and slope
validity for the CTOPP has been established with other coefficients were allowed to randomly vary across students.
well-established phonological awareness measures such as SPSS (Version 15) was used to center continuous data in
TABLE 1. Standardized Results for Multilevel Models
Growth Model Writing Instruction Model
Coefficient SE t p Coefficient SE t p
Phonological awareness
pivpn pffpfN
Time 2.62 .23 11.61 .0001 2.53 .16 16.16 .0001

Writing instruction -0.02 .10 -0.21 .83 00
Time X Treatment 0.08 .12 0.66 .5100
Random effects
Variance estimates
Intercept 1.00 1.00
Slope 1.00 0.99
Correlation between random slopes and intercepts 0.03 0.03
Alphabet knowledge
Fixed effects
Time 1.81 .08 23.65 .0001 1.83 .08 24.48 .0001
Writing instruction -0.02 .09 -0.16 .8700
Time X Treatment -0.02 .07 -0.25 .8000
Random effects
Variance estimates
Intercept 1.00 1.00
Slope 1 .00 1 .00
Correlation between random slopes and intercepts -0.85 -0.85
Word reading
HlYPn PTTPrt^
Time 1.66 .22 7.47 .0001 1.76 .01 29.77 .0001

Writing instruction 0.04 .06 0.62 .5300
Time X Treatment 0.00 .04 -0.05 .9600
Random effects
Variance estimates
Intercept 1-00 1.00
Slope 1 -00 1 .00
Correlation between random slopes and intercepts - 1 .00 - 1 .00
to be nonsignificant, t( 149) = -0.21, p = .83. Table 1 sum

preparation for multilevel modeling and for descriptive
marizes the results of the phonological awareness mode
statistics. Dichotomous data were coded as dummy variables
using 0 and 1. Multilevel analyses were conductedTable 2 displays the means, standard deviations, and gai
using
Mplus (Version 5.0; Muthén & Muthén, 2007). scores for the two writing instructional groups on phono
ical awareness for each measurement period. Figure 1 co
pares the mean growth over time for students in the int
Results active writing group with students in the writing works
group.
Phonological Awareness
Examination of the CTOPP (Wagner et al, 1999) score Knowledge

Alphabet
distributions revealed this outcome variable was acceptably
Distribution of scores for the Letter Identification Task
distributed and results were analyzed as a normal distribuì
subtest
tion. CTOPP score correlations across the four points ofof Clay's (2002) Observation Survey of Early
eracy
data assessment were high (ranging from 0.90 between Achievement, exhibited skewness for Time Poi
Time
3 (-1.29)
Points 1 and 2 to 0.76 between Time Points 1 and 4), in- and 4 (-2.45). Because no data transform
dicating a large degree of stability in scores acrosstion could alleviate the nonnormality of the data, analy
time.
Results of the growth model showed student growth ses proceeded
over with normally distributed outcome assum
time to be significant, t(150) = 11.61, p = .0001.tions. Correlations across the four time points of data
Results
of the phonological awareness instructional model sessment
showed for alphabet knowledge showed stability acros
time,
the differences between the two writing instruction ranging from a high of 0.89 between Time Point
groups
TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics for Early Reading M
Interactive Writing Writing Workshop

n 75 75 75 75 76 76 76 76
Measurement period 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Phonological awareness
(CTOPP)
Mean 12.15 17.07 21.53 27.72 12.58 16.71 22.09 26.87
SD 8.74 9.28 10.66 11.03 8.29 8.56 10.26 9.79
Mean gain score 4.92 9.38 15.57 4.13 9.51 14.29
Alphabet knowledge (OSELA
letter identification)
Mean 40.31 60.39 79.97 92.93 42.20 60.38 81.41 94.93
SD 34.39 34.80 29.08 21.28 32.81 35.29 26.66 16.98
Mean gain score 20.08 39.66 52.62 18.18 39.21 52.73
Word reading (TOWRE)
Mean 1.64 2.93 5.59 9.81 1.05 2.03 4.62 8.75
SD 5.74 8.45 11.22 13.21 4.23 6.35 8.69 11.35
Mean gain score 1.29 2.66 8.17 0.98 3.57 7.70
and 2 to a low of 0.59 between Time Points 1 and Word Reading

4. Results of the growth model for alphabet knowledge
Score distributions for TOWRE (Torgesen et al., 1999)
showed student growth over time to be significant to be
were not normally distributed and exhibited skewness and
significant, t( 150) = 23.65, p = .0001. Results of the
kurtosis for each of the four time points. As was expected,
alphabet knowledge instructional model indicated differ-
this outcome measure resulted in a large proportion of scores
ences between writing instruction groups was nonsignif-
of zero for several time points. Therefore, a zero-inflated
icant, t( 149) = -.16, p = .87. Table 1 summarizes the
Poisson distribution was thought to be a better fit for these
results of the alphabet knowledge models. Table 2 dis-
data because the results were nonnegative whole numbers
plays the means, standard deviations, and gain scores for
(counts) and the distribution was positively skewed (Atkins
the two instructional treatment groups on alphabet knowl-
& Gallop, 2007; Long, 1997). Correlations for word read-
edge for each measurement period. Figure 2 compares
ing ranged from 0.83 between Time Points 1 and 2 to
the mean growth over time for students in the interne-
0.76 between Time Points 1 and 4, indicating stability in
tive writing group with students in the writing workshop
scores across time for this measure. Results of the word read"
group.
ing growth model showed student growth over time to be
30 -|
100 1
90
ф 20 80
о Writing <у jr - # - Interactive

0 70
с 15 у/
J ЩГ Workshop
10
1
5
60
Workshop
50
40
0 "J
30 -J
12 3 4 12 3 4
Time Point
FIGURE 1. Growth over time in phonological FIGURE 2. Growth over time in alphabet knowledge,
awareness, by instructional treatment group. by instructional treatment group.
ing instructional methods as dichotomous, writing instruc-

12 ..
tion has tended toward extremes running the gamut from
one method to another (Hagemann, 2003).
By presenting these two methods of writing instruc-
10
8 tion as mutually exclusive, we may actually discourage

^ б
some teachers from fully engaging in writing instruction
because it appears that there is no end to the inter-
J
minable debate of extremes. Writing instruction is affected
by teachers' attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of writing
instructional methods (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Juzwik et
al., 2006; Rowe, 2008). Pajares (1992) reported that the
planning and instructional effort teachers expend on a par-
ticular subject is influenced by teacher affect and that un-
FIGURE 3. Growth over time in word reading, by
derstanding
instructional treatment group. the belief structures of teachers is essential for
improving teaching practices. Teachers can have similar
knowledge of a subject but teach very differently (Ernest,
1989). In an analysis of instructional activities commonly
used when
significant, t(150) = teaching first-grade studentsp
7-47, to write,= Boscolo and
.0001.
Cisotto (1999) found
writing groups were nonsignificant, that teachers clearly preferred or re-
jected particular
in the instructional writing activities, distinctly
model. Table differentiating 1 su
the word readingactivities typical of the two methodsTable
models. of writing instruction. 2 dis
Berry (2006)
dard deviations, and gain scores noted that instruction may be less effectivefor th
treatment groups in achieving
on the intended
word outcomes when it is incongruent
reading f
with the
period. Figure 3 compares theteacher's beliefs. In confining choice of writingmean
in-
structional methods to one or the other instead
students in the interactive writingof embracing g
the writing a "both-and" view,group.
workshop teachers may be less dedicated to writing
instruction.
Conversely, choice is a motivating factor. Several re-
Discussion searchers have argued for a more interactive approach to
writing instruction. In a study comparing a process-based
Educational Implications
approach and a skills-based approach, Berninger, Abbott,
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects ofWhitaker, Sylvester, and Nolen (1995) found that writing
instructional methods benefited different aspects of writ-
two prevailing writing instructional methods for early lit-
eracy classrooms, interactive writing and writing workshop,ing skill acquisition. Berninger et al. (2002) also reported
that combining instructional approaches aimed at low-level
with regard to growth of kindergarten students' early reading
skills closely in time with instruction aimed at high-level
skills. Results of this study showed student growth in phono-
logical awareness, alphabet knowledge, and word reading skills was most effective for increasing student writing skills,
ability over time to be significant. Students in both the especially when instructional time was limited. A model of
interactive writing group and the writing workshop group simple writing posits process-based (high level) abilities and
demonstrated equivalent growth over time for each of the skills-based (low level) abilities as the dual bases of a tri-
three outcome measures, with no statistically significant dif-angle supporting text generation at the top vertex (Wong
ference between the interactive writing group and the writ- & Berninger, 2004). By recognizing both methods as prac-
ing workshop group for any of the outcome measures at any tices that are equally effective for writing instruction with
of the time points. Although these two methods of writing young students, as shown in this study, teachers are able to
choose writing instructional methods and activities that are
instruction are often presented as diametrically opposing in-
structional approaches, both methods of writing instructionin congruence with their attitudes and beliefs about writing
instruction.
appear to be equally effective at promoting growth of early
reading skills. In addition, these findings promote flexibility in writ-
It seems that oftentimes in education, a dichotomy is ing instruction. Teachers are free to use a range of writ-
established pitting one method of instruction against an- ing instructional methods to engage children in writing,
other. The dichotomous thinking is also highlighted in the an important factor because no single method of writing
debate between process- and skills-based, global and an- instruction best fits the needs of every student and teacher
alytical methods of writing instruction and has occupied (Harris & Graham, 1995; Traw, 1996). The instructional
much of the emotional energy and attention of writing advantages of writing workshop and interactive writing
research for over 50 years (Parker, 1979; Roen, Goggin, can be blended in an interactive model of writing in-
Clary-Lemon, 2008). Unfortunately, by characterizing writ-
struction. For some lessons, the shared experience of
interactive writing mayweeks.

more A logical next step would be to extend the duration reflect
appropriately
ing goals; other lessons may
of the study torequire the
a full year to allow greater time
time for potential spent
dividual conferences ofeffects
writing
of writing instructionworkshop.
to more fully emerge. Second, Interac
ing could be used forthewriting about
study was limited to a particular socioculturaltopics
context, wh
mon knowledge base iskindergarten
already classrooms in in place
schools in or when
a midsized western
knowledge base needs tocity withbe established.
about 33% diversity. Results therefore should Writing
not
could be used to explore topics
be generalized of
to locations and personal
populations with vastly dif- inter
evaluate student personal knowledge
ferent demographic of
characteristics. Third, as this studya was topic-
can use interactive writing
a comparison of twoto teach
methods a minilesson
of writing instruction, it did
by independent writing in a status-quo
not include writing control group. workshop.
In order to establish Im
by recognizing the value
conditionsof both
consistent writing
with each method of writing instruc- instru
proaches, writing instruction
tion, it was necessary tocan beanddesigned
provide training monitor imple- to
mentation
the educational context, the of each instructional method. Future
specific researchers
learning obje
the differences in students' abilities,
could consider comparing prior
either method against a status- know
motivation. quo writing control group. However, this may pose potential
Writing is a prisoner of time in early literacy instruc-
problems due to the nature of writing instruction in many
tion, and teachers may be concerned that time dedicated to
kindergarten classrooms. Additionally, as these two meth-
writing is time stolen from reading instruction (Nationalods are the prevalent approaches to writing instruction, the
Commission on Writing, 2003, 2006). However, writing
resulting study could potentially be a comparison of a partic-
instruction is most effective when teachers fully imple-ular method of writing instruction against versions of itself.
ment well-designed writing lessons. Consistency of effec- In spite of these limitations, we believe this study provides
tive writing instruction is crucial if students are to become
evidence that, when consistently implemented during the
skilled writers. A lack of consistency in writing instruction
first 16 weeks of kindergarten, interactive writing and writ-
does not allow students to learn, adequately practice, anding workshop are equally effective in promoting acquisition
fully develop proficiency of writing skills. In reality, stu-
of the early reading skills of phonological awareness, letter
dents may not regard writing as a truly important skill to knowledge, and word reading ability.
master until writing instruction becomes part of the daily
curriculum. Results of this study showed significant growth
over time in kindergarten students' early reading skills even ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
though a portion of literacy instructional time was dedi-
The authors express their gratitude to the kindergarten teachers and
cated specifically to writing instruction. Students in both
students who participated in this study. They also thank the district literacy
the interactive writing group and the writing workshopcoach, and the principals, faculty, and staff of the participating schools.
Finally, the authors extend appreciation to the Emma Eccles Jones Center
group demonstrated significant growth over time for phono-
for Early Childhood Education and to the Payne Foundation for their
logical awareness, alphabet knowledge, and word readingsupport of this research study.
ability.
Early literacy instruction in only reading is not enough
REFERENCES
if students are to read and to write well (Shanahan, 2006).
Writing is an integral component of language. When a child Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
writes, thoughts and knowledge are synthesized to create a
Anderson, R. C., Heibert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. (1985).
unique message. A moment of time is captured in written Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading .
text. If children are to progressively develop writing skills Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
and an understanding of writing functions, there must be Aram, D., & Levin, I. (2001). Mother-child joint writing in low SES:
Sociocultural factors, maternal mediation, and early literacy. Cognitive
continuity of writing instruction (Boscolo, 2008). Before Development, 16, 831-852.
entering school, young children frequently experiment with Aram, D., & Levin, I. (2004). The role of maternal mediation of writing to
the subtle features of creating written text as a way to inter- kindergartners in promoting literacy in school: A longitudinal perspec-
tive. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1 7, 387-409.
act with others. The task of writing serves as a natural bridge Atkins, D. C., <St Gallop, R. J. (2007). Rethinking how family researchers
from a child's early literacy experiences to formal literacy in- model infrequent outcomes: A tutorial on count regression and zero-
inflated models. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 726-735.
struction in kindergarten. Effective writing instruction is not
Atwell, N. ( 1998). In the middle: New understandings about reading and writing
built from stolen moments, but as an essential component of with adolescents (2nd ed.). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
early literacy. Perhaps, in kindergarten it is most important Au, К. H., Carroll, J. H., &. Scheu, ]. A. ( 1997). Balanced literacy instruction:
that we do writing. A teacher's resource book . Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Baghban, M. ( 1 984 ) . Our daughter learns to read and write : A case study from
birth to three . Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Limitations Bartlett, A. ( 1994). The implications of whole language for classroom man-
agement. Action in Teacher Education, 16, 65-74.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., & Nolen, S. B.
This study has limitations that should be recognized when (1995). Integrating low- and high-level skills in instructional protocols
considering the results. First, the duration of the study was 16 for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 293-309.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, Graham,

K.,S., Abbott,
Harris, K. R., MacArthur,
R. C., & Fink,
D., B. (2002). Primary
Begay, K., C
В., Curtin, G., et al. (2002). grade
Teaching spelling
teachers' theoretical orientations concerningand composi
writing instruction:
and together: Implications for Construct validationsimple
the and a nationwide survey.
view Contemporary Educational
of writing.
Educational Psychology, 94, 291-304.
Psychology, 27, 147-166.
Berry, R. A. W. (2006). Beyond
Graham, S., strategies: Teacher
Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). beliefs
Improving the writing per-
instruction in two primary formance, knowledge,
inclusion and self-efficacy of struggling
classrooms. Journal young writers:
of The Lear
abilities , 39(1), 11-24. effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational
Biddle, M. (2007).
opportunity When
Psychology, 30, 207-241. knocks: Integrating l
and the Graham, S.,
daily
Reading & Perin, D. (2007). A,meta-analysis
calendar.
Teacher 60, 488-491. of writing instruction for
Bissex, G. L. (1980). GNYS AT WRK:
adolescent Aof child
students. Journal learns
Educational Psychology, to wr
99, 445-476.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing:
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Boscolo, P. (2008). Writing in primary school. In C. Bazerman
Greenwald, E. A., ,
book of research on writing: History Persky, H. R., Campbell,
society, J. R., & Mazzeo,
school, J. (1999). The
individual
293-309). New York: Erlbaum. NAEP 1 99 8 writing report card for the nation and the states (NCEA Report
Boscolo, P., & Cisotto, L. (1999). No. 19990462). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
Instructional of Education, Office
strategies for
write: A Q-sort analysis. Learningof EducationalandResearch and Improvement.
Instruction, 9, 209-221
Brotherton, S., & Williams, Hagemann,
C. (2002). Interactive
J. A. (2003). Balancing content and form inwriting
the writing work- in
shop. English Journal,
a first grade Title I literacy program. 92(3), 73-79. of Reading Educat
Journal
8-19. Halladay, J. L., Billman, A. K., Park, Y., Gao, F., Reffitt, К. E., & Hasty, N.
Button, K., Johnson, M. J., & (2007). The literacy researchP.
Furgerson, we have. In M. Pressley,
(1996). A. K. Billman, K.
Interactive
H. Perry, К. E. Reffitt,
primary classroom. Reading Teacher, 49, & J. M. Reynolds (Eds.), Shaping literacy achieve-
446-454.
Calkins, ment: Research
L. M. (1983). Lessons from one we have, research
child: On we needthe (pp. 1-16). New York: Guilford
teaching and
Press.
writing . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Calkins, L. M. (1994). The art Hammerberg,
of teaching D. D. (2001). Reading and writing "hypertextually":
writing. Chil-
Portsmouth
mann. dren's literature, technology, and early writing instruction. Language Arts,
Clark, P., & Kragler, S. (2005). The impact of including writing 78, 207-216.materials
in early childhood classrooms on the early literacy developmentHansen, J. (1987).
ofWhen writers read. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
chil-
dren from low-income families. Early Child Development Harris,
andK. R., & Graham,
Care S. (1995). Making the writing process work: Strategies
, 175,
285-301. far composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write ? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing
Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. performance, knowledge, and motivation of struggling writers in sec-
Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann. ond grade: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. American
Clay, M. M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (2nd Educational Research Journal, 43, 295-340.
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Herb, B. S., & Bufalino, J. M. (1997). SLIC: An early literacy program for
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: classroom teachers. Reading Improvement, 34(2), 90-96.
Making thinking visible. American Educator: The Professional Journal of Hertz, M., & Heydenberk, W. (1997). A kindergarten writing work-
the American Federation of Teachers, 15(3), 6-11, 38-46. shop: How kindergarten students grow as writers. Reading Horizons, 37,
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: 203-214.
Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Hillocks, G., Jr. (1981). The responses of college freshmen to three modes
National Institute of Education. of instruction. American Journal of Education, 89, 373-395.
Craig, S. A. (2006). The effects of an adapted interactive writing, interven- Hillocks, G., Jr. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-
tion on kindergarten children's phonological awareness, spelling, and analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education,
early reading development: A contextualized approach to instruction. 93(1), 133-170.
Journal of Educational Psy chobgy, 98, 714-731. Hoyt, L. (2000). Snapshots: Literacy minilessons up close. Portsmouth, NH:
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruc- Heinemann.
tion: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 907- International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers
919. of English. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Washington,
Denton, C. A., Ciancio, D. ]., & Fletcher, ]. M. (2006). Validity, reliabil- DC: Author.
ity, and utility of the observation survey of early literacy achievement. Jagger, A. M., Carrara, D. H., & Weiss, S. E. (1986). Research currents:
Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 8-34. The influence of reading on children's narrative writing (and vice versa).
Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early: Two longitudinal studies. New Language Arts, 6, 292-300.
York: Teachers College Press. Juzwik, M. M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K. D., Dimling, L. M., &
Durkin, D. (1989). Teaching them to read. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Shankland, R. K. (2006). Writing into the 21st century: An overview
Dyson, A. H., & Freedman, S. W. (2003). Writing. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, of research on writing, 1999-2004. Written Communication, 23, 451-
J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the 476.
English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 967-992). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lancaster, L. (2001). Staring at the page: The function of gaze in a young
Ehri, L. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. child's interpretation of symbolic forms. Journal of Childhood Literacy, 1 ,
Journal of Research in Reading , 18, 1 16-125. 131-152.
Ehri, L. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to Levin, I., Share, D. L., & Shatil, E. ( 1996). A qualitative-quantitative study
read words in English. In J. Metsala & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in of preschool writing: Its development and contribution to school literacy.
beginning literacy (pp. 3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 271-293).
Ernest, P. (1989). The knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the mathematics Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
teacher: A model. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15, 13-34. Lindamood, C., & Lindamood, P. ( 1970). Lindamood auditory conception test
Farnan, N., & Dahl, К. (2003). Children's writing: Research and practice. (Rev. ed.). Chicago: Riverside.
In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent
research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 993-1007). variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Luria, A. R., & Yudovich, F. I. (1971). Speech and the development of mental
Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. processes in the child. Baltimore: Penguin.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lyons, C. A., & Pinneil, G. S. (2003). Reading and writing and reassess-
Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2007). Craft lessons: Teaching writing K-8 (2nd ment. National Staff Development Council , 24(2), 23-31.
ed.). York, ME: Stenhouse. McCarrier, A., Pinneil, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (2000). Interactive writing:
Goldstein, A., & Carr, P. G. (1996, April). NAEPfacts: Can students benefit How language & literacy come together, K-2. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.
from process writing ? Washington, DC: National Center for Educational McCarthey, S. J. (2008). The impact of No Child Left Behind on teachers
Statistics. writing instruction. Written Communication, 25, 462-505.
Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein,Rubadue,

С. M. S. (2002). Sharing the pen. Encouraging
(1986). Teaching PreK-8, 32(6), 58-60. volunta
Sadoski, M., Wilson, V.,
The impact of literature programs on& Norton, D. (1997). The relative contributions
children's use of libra
Reading Research Quarterly , of21,research-based composition activities to writing improvement in the
330-346.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, В. О. lower(2007).
and middle grades. M Research in the Teaching
plus: of English, 31, 120-
Statistical analys
variables. Los Angeles: Author.150.
National Commission on Writing. (2003).
Scarborough, H. S. ( 1998). Early identificationThe
of children atneglected
risk for reading R: T
writing revolution. New York: College
disabilities: Entrance
Phonological awareness Examination
and some other promising predictors.
National Commission on Writing. In P. Accardo, (2006).
A. Capute, & В. ShapiroWriting and school r
(Eds.), Specific reading disability:
York: College Board. A view of the spectrum (pp. 77-121). Timonium, MD: York Press.
National Institute of Child Health
Shanahan, and
T. (2006). Relations among oralHuman Developm
language, reading, and writ-
(2000). Report of the National Reading
ing development. Panel.
In C. MacArthur, Teaching
S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), childr
An evidence-based Handbook
assessment of theof writingscientific
research (pp. 171-183). New York: Guilford Press.
research literatur
and its implications for Shatil, E.,
reading Share, D., & Levin, I. (2000). On the
instruction: contribution of kinder-
Reports of the subg
Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC:
garten writing to grade one literacy: U.S.
A longitudinal study inGovernmen
Hebrew.
Office. Applied Psy cholinguistics, 21, 1-21.
Neuman, S. В. ( 1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Sipe, L. R. (2001). Invention, convention, and intervention: Invented
Reading Research Quarterly , 34, 286-3 1 1 . spelling and the teacher's role. The Reading Teacher, 55, 264-273.
O'Connor, В. K. (2004). The value of interactive writing as an interven- Snow, С. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties
tion for the literacy acquisition of struggling first-grade students. In J. in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
R. Dugan, P. E. Linder, M. В. Sampson, В. A. Brancato, & L. Elish- Stachoviak, S. (1996). Will kindergartners' writing experiences improve
Piper (Eds.), Celebrating the power of literacy (pp. 155-181). Pittsburg, their learning of letter names and sounds? Teaching and Change, 3,
KS: College Reading Association. 315-324.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning Stahl, S. A., Pagnucco, J. R., & Suttles, C. W. (1996). First graders' reading
up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research , 62, 307-332. and writing instruction in traditional and process-oriented classes. The
Parker, R. P., Jr. ( 1979). From Sputnik to Dartmouth: Trends in the teaching Journal of Educational Research, 89, 131-144.
of composition. English Journal, 68(6), 32-37. Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis
Patterson, E., Schaller, M., & Clemens, J. (2008). A closer look at interac- and suggested directions. Language Arts , 60, 627-242.
tive writing. The Reading Teacher, 61 , 496-497. Tolchinsky, L. (2006). The emergence of writing. In C. MacArthur, S.
Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Matsumura, L. C., St Valdes, R. (2004). Investigat- Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 83-95).
ing the process approach to writing instruction in urban middle schools. New York: Guilford Press.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47, 462-477. Tompkins, G. E. (2008). Teaching writing: Balancing process andproduct (5th
Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (1998). Word matters: Teaching phonics and ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
spelling in the reading/writing classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach
Pinnell, G. S., & McCarrier, A. (1994). Interactive writing: A transition (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
tool for assisting children in learning to read and write. In E. H. Hiebert Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word
& B. M. Taylor (Eds.), Getting reading right from the start (pp. 149-170). reading efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Traw, R. (1996). Large-scale assessment of skills in a whole-language cur-
Pinnell, G. S., McCarrier, A., & Button, K. (1990). Constructing literacy in riculum: Two districts' experiences. The Journal of Educational Research,
urban kindergartens: Progress report on the kindergarten early literacy project 89, 323-339.
(MacArthur Foundation, Report No. 10). Columbus, OH: Ohio State Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit,
University. teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing per-
Pollington, M. F., Wilcox, В., & Morrison, T. G. (2001). Self-perception formance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Dis-
in writing: The effects of writing workshop and traditional instruction abilities, 35, 290-305.
on intermediate grade students. Reading Psychology, 22, 249-265. Varble, M. E. (1990). Analysis of writing samples of students taught by
Pressley, M., & Fingeret, L. (2007). What we have learned since the Na- teachers using whole language and traditional approaches. Journal of
tional Reading Panel: Visions of the next version of Reading First. In Educational Research, 83, 245-251.
M. Pressley, A. K. Billman, К. H. Perry, К. E. Reffitt, & J. M. Reynolds Vellutino, F. R., & Scanion, D. M. (2001). Emergent literacy skills, early
(Eds.), Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need instruction, and individual differences as determinants of difficulties in
(pp. 216-245). New York: Guilford Press. learning to read: The case for early intervention. In S. B. Neuman & D.
Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2006). The process approach to writing К. Dickson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 295-321). New
instruction: Examining its effectiveness. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, York: Guilford Press.
& ]. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 275-290). New Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive
York: Guilford Press. test of phonobgical processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). The effectiveness Williams, C., & Lundstrom, R. P. (2007). Strategy instruction during word
of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple study and interactive writing activities. The Reading Teacher , 61, 204-
grades. Learning Disability Quarterly , 24, 119-134. 212.
Ray, K. W. (2002). What you know by heart: How to develop curriculum for Wold, L. S. (2003). An examination of teachers' learning to act on reflec-
your writing workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. tion. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(3), 52-74.
Richgels, D. J. (2002). Writing instruction. The Reading Teacher, 56, Wolfersberger, M. E., Reutzel, D. R., Sudweeks, R., & Fawson, P. С. (2004).
364-368. Developing and validating the Classroom Literacy Environment Pro-
Ritterskamp, P., & Singleton, J. (2001). Interactive calendar. The Reading file (CLEP): A tool for examining the "print richness" of early child-
Teacher, 55, 114-116. hood and elementary classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 211-
Roen, D., Goggin, M. D., & Clary-Lemon, J. (2006). Teaching of writing 272.
and writing teachers through the ages. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of Wong, B. Y., & Berninger, V. W. (2004). Cognitive processes of teachers
research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 347-364). in implementing composition research in elementary, middle, and high
New York: Erlbaum.
school classrooms. In B. S. Shulman, K. Apel, В. Ehren, E. R. Silliman,
Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. В. (2001). Environment and its influences for & A. Stone (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and
early literacy teaching and learning. In S. B. Neuman & D. К. Dickin- disorders (pp. 600-624). New York: Guilford.
son (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 281-294). New York: Woodcock, R. W. ( 1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests - Revised. Circle
Guilford Press. Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Rowe, D. W. (2008). Development of writing abilities in childhood. In C. Yeh, S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing
Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History , society, school, to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of
individual, text (pp. 401-419). New York: Erlbaum. English, 33, 49-83.
AUTHORS NOTE versity. His current research is focused on reading com

hension, primary grade teacher knowledge needed to
Cindy D'On Jones is an Assistant Professor of Literacy
reading effectively, and early literacy.
at Utah State University. Her research interests focus on
Jamison D. Fargo is an Assistant Professor of Psycho
the reading-writing relationship, literacy development, and
at Utah State University. He is a quantitative methodol
teacher knowledge of literacy instruction.
with varied research streams in areas such as teacher qu
D. Ray Reutzel is the Emma Eccles Jones Endowed abuseChair
prevention, and neurodegenerative disorders.
Professor of Early Childhood Education at Utah State Uni-

Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparing Two Methods of Writing Instruction: Effects on Kindergarten Students'

Comparing Two Methods of Writing

(Clay, 2002). Indeed, the conventions of letter-sound cor-

how writing instructiondata. For kindergarten

2005; Harris, Graham, & Mason,

writing workshop (Boscolo & Cisotto, 1999). &

Learners on school records; this

Neuman, 1999; writing,

of styles of paper and the Lindamood Auditory Conception

TABLE 1. Standardized Results for Multilevel Models

Growth Model Writing Instruction Model

Time 2.62 .23 11.61 .0001 2.53 .16 16.16 .0001

Time 1.66 .22 7.47 .0001 1.76 .01 29.77 .0001

to be nonsignificant, t( 149) = -0.21, p = .83. Table 1 sum

Examination of the CTOPP (Wagner et al, 1999) score Knowledge

TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics for Early Reading M

Interactive Writing Writing Workshop

and 2 to a low of 0.59 between Time Points 1 and Word Reading

о Writing <у jr - # - Interactive

ing instructional methods as dichotomous, writing instruc-

8 tion as mutually exclusive, we may actually discourage

interactive writing mayweeks.

Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, Graham,

Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein,Rubadue,

AUTHORS NOTE versity. His current research is focused on reading com

You might also like