1

Capstone Project: Research Proposal

Verbal Feedback’s Effect on Middle School Student’s Self-Efficacy in Writing

Michelle Zwolinski

Secondary and Middle Grades Program

Bagwell College of Education

Kennesaw State University

EDSM 9300 SMGE Capstone Seminar II

Dr. MeiLin Chang

July 20, 2020

 2

Abstract

This research proposal endeavors to discover if targeted effort-based verbal feedback given in

student-teacher conferences during the writing process can affect the engagement and effort put

forth by middle school students in English Language Arts class. The participants will be from

middle schools in the researcher’s district, though not her school, in grades six through eight.

The study will take place over six months, with weekly meetings with the teachers by the

researcher that will rotate through each grade level. In addition, classroom teachers will record

verbal feedback information given during conferences, which are already part of the district

program. The study will seek to determine if targeted effort-based verbal feedback has a greater

effect on students’ engagement and effort than ability based feedback.

 3

Introduction

Orientation to Topic

The purpose of the study is to determine how the use of targeted effort-based verbal

feedback during the writing process effects middle school student’s effort and engagement in

writing. The area is of interest due to the fact that feedback is currently a part of the districts’

conferencing requirement, however no formal training has occurred to help teachers use

feedback in the most effective way. In the most recent evaluation of the writing ability of the

students in our country, the National Center for Education Statistics (2012) found that only 27%

were proficient or better, 54% were at the basic level and even more concerning, 20% were

below the basic level. This shows the need for improvement in this important area. The report

also showed that students who spent 30 to 60 minutes daily writing and used computers to draft

and revise scored higher. However, many schools do not devote the time to this important life

skill and many students do not see the value of writing or feel they can’t do it.

To combat this issue, teachers can try to create an environment that encourages students

to put forth the effort to become better writers. One way to do this may be the appropriate use of

effort-based feedback during the writing process. Some research (Brooks et al., 2019; Burnett,

2002; Graham et al., 2018; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Patthey-Chavez et al., 2004; Traux, 2018;

Zellermayer, 1989) has shown that the correct use of the right type of feedback, at the proper

time, may increase a student’s self-efficacy in writing, which in turn may lead to more effort and

engagement in writing, creating better writers.

This prospective study will provide detailed, relevant information about middle school

students in the researcher’s district and the effects effort-based verbal feedback has on their

writing in the way of effort and engagement during writing class. Since there has been no
 4

training to teachers in the district in regard to the most effective types of feedback to give, the

researcher hopes to learn whether targeted effort-based verbal feedback given during the writing

process will positively affect students’ effort and engagement in writing class.

 Research Questions

1. Does the use of effort-based verbal feedback during the writing process effect student’s

effort in writing in an English Language Arts classroom at the middle school level?

2. Does the use of effort-based verbal feedback during the writing process have a greater

effect on a student’s effort and engagement during the writing process than other types of

feedback in an English Language Arts classroom at the middle school level?

These questions seek to determine if the types of feedback given by teachers, during the

conferencing portion of the current program used by the chosen schools, is effective.  If effort-

based feedback is given, does it lead to deeper learning and a growth mindset, even when

students aren’t successful in their first attempts of a writing piece? Conversely, if only corrective

or personal ability based feedback is given will the student be discouraged and show less effort

and interest in the writing assignment? Either way, these questions hope to understand how

effort-based verbal feedback influences student self-efficacy as a writer.

Significance of the Research

This study will be significant to the school district participating because it aligns with

their current program goals for teacher clarity and visible learning. Currently there is no direction

from the district as to what type of feedback teachers should use for maximum effect. However,

the push in this district is focused on the work of Hattie’s (1999) effect sizes for feedback, which

is .79, double the average and on using feedback in conferencing during writing class. This study

will provide detailed, relevant information about the district’s middle school students and the
 5

possible benefits effort based verbal feedback will have on their writing in the way of improved

effort and engagement during writing class. This can transition to improved writing skills,

overall grades, reduced failure rates, and improved performance on the Georgia Milestone

Assessment. 

Definition of Terms

● Effect size is the amount of influence that a particular event has on student growth and

achievement. A negative effect size shows negative growth or damage, a positive effect

size up to .39 show little to no effect, and .40 is considered the “hinge point”, over that

shows growth –the higher the number associated with the event or strategy used, the

larger the effect on students (Hattie, 1999).

● Feedback is conceptualized as information provided by an agent, in this case teachers,

regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

● Growth mindset is the belief that it is possible to become better by increasing your effort

(Traux, 2018).

● Fixed mindset is the belief that skills are not likely to change, you are born with it or

you’re not (Traux, 2018).

● Process approach to writing instruction emphasizes a cycle of revision during which

feedback is key to student development as a writer (Patthey-Chavez, Matsumura, &

Valdes, 2004).

Literature Review

In the earliest studies, feedback was seen as one directional, from the giver or expert to

the receiver or novice. Feedback was primarily seen as a way to modify behavior (Skinner,
 6

1963; Thorndike, 1933). In more current views, feedback is viewed from both the perspective of

the giver and the receiver, where the learner is playing an active role in the feedback cycle.

Hattie (1999) shows the effect size of feedback as .79, which is double the average and therefore

shows the importance of using feedback in the classroom.

Feedback is often referred to as praise when it is positive or criticism when negative.

Feedback is primarily broken into two general categories by most researchers, effort-based

feedback and ability/intelligence-based feedback (Burnett, 2002; Hattie & Timperley, 2007;

Mueller & Dweck, 1998). When feedback is given, researchers have found that learners choose

goals based on the type of feedback received –learners given effort-based feedback will focus on

learning goals, like problems, that could lead to deeper learning, whereas ability or intelligence-

based feedback will result in learners choosing performance goals where problems will be easily

solved in order to show accomplishment (Burnett, 2002; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). These

conditions are true when a success has been achieved, however when a failure is the result, those

who received effort-based feedback blamed their lack of effort and were more likely to try again,

whereas those who received ability or intelligence-based feedback blamed their own abilities and

tended to avoid continued effort (Burnett, 2002; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). According to Hattie

and Timperley (2007), effort-based feedback was more credible to the receiver early in the

learning process and ability-based feedback was more credible once the learner had progressed,

however they also pointed to a similar goal setting behavior where the learner is focused on

performance.

Sadler (1989) and Hattie and Timperley (2007) contribute to our understanding of

feedback by stating that feedback must be specific in nature relative to the task or process

learners are attempting and that the power of feedback is in its ability to close the gaps between
 7

understanding and goal. They gave three questions that feedback must answer, “Where am I

going?” also called feeding up must be related to the goal, “How am I going?” also called

feeding back is information about progress toward the goal, and “Where to next?” also called

feeding forward is the deeper understanding of the goal (Hattie and Timperley, 2007,p. 86).

Brooks et al. (2019) partially affirmed this model of three levels of feedback in their research on

middle schoolers’ perceptions of feedback. Hattie and Timperley (2007) went further to divide

the goals of feedback into four levels –task/product level which tends to be corrective in nature,

for example feedback on right or wrong answers, process level which encompasses feedback on

information processing or the learning process, self-regulation level which focuses on feedback

that encourages confidence in the task, and personal level feedback. They determined that too

much feedback at the task/product level would encourage learners to focus on immediate goals

and that the best kind of this feedback was aimed at moving learners to the process level, which

is concerned with relationships, transfer of skills, and self-detection of errors for deeper learning.

They also determined that feedback at the personal level, comments not related to the task and

overly general like “Good job”, did not help learners achieve their goals. Unfortunately, they

also found that most feedback in classrooms is directed at the personal level or at the basic

corrective level.

Sadler’s (1989) research found feedback is a key element in both formative and

summative assessments. Feedback can be used by teachers to inform decisions about learning

and by students to assess strengths and successes or weaknesses and failures. While grades do

not constitute effective feedback, written feedback on assessments is better, but it often can be

confusing to the reader. Frequent feedback on formative assessments shows student progress, but

to be effective it must be timely and understood (Sadler, 1989).

 8

Feedback is very important to the teaching and learning of writing. Students’ beliefs and

attitudes about their selves as writers affect the effort, motivation, and engagement that they put

forth when responding to a writing assignment (Graham et al., 2018). Zumbrunn’s et al. (2016)

study showed this idea of self-efficacy is the most powerful predictor of success and is affected

by the perception of feedback on writing assignments. They found that high-quality, positive

feedback can increase motivation and self-efficacy which leads to better student writing. In order

for this to occur, feedback should be given verbally, as written feedback is often ignored

(Graham et al., 2018; Zellermayer, 1989), while also discussing the student’s writing

(Zellermayer, 1989). Zellermayer (1989) and Zumbrunn et al., (2016) agree that students’

understanding of the feedback process and its benefits is essential for students to see feedback in

a positive way which leads to improved writing.

According to Traux (2018) and Mueller &Dweck (1998), the language used by teachers

when giving feedback in a conference can either keep students in a fixed mindset or change their

thinking to a growth mindset. As shown above, praise or feedback about writing ability will

result in a fixed mindset, whereas feedback or compliments about the effort put forth in writing

will result in a growth mindset. When teachers focus on objective feedback about writing

strategies, process, and effort students see mistakes as learning experiences. However, when the

feedback is controlling in nature (a variant on ability feedback), for example “You should…”

which draws attention to errors, students’ motivation to write is decreased (Traux, 2018). In

addition, Patthey-Chavez et al. (2004) found that when students have the opportunity to use

verbal feedback to revise and improve during the drafting process writing was greatly improved.

They also agreed that feedback should be positive, focused and specific to the task, and it should

not be comments on changes to grammar, spelling, punctuation, word choice, or clarification or

 9

simple rewording of writing. They also found the amount of feedback given was proportional to

the amount of improvement in a writing piece.

This proposed research study will focus specifically on the gap in use of effort-based

verbal feedback during the conferencing portion of the widely used Lucy Calkins Units of Study

in Argument, Information, and Narrative Writing: A Workshop Curriculum for Middle School

Grades. As there are four middle schools and ten elementary schools in this district that use this

program, as well as countless others across the country, this study will contribute to the literature

by focusing on how the language teachers use when conferencing with students may either help

or hurt teachers’ attempts at improving their students’ writing skills. It could contribute directly

to the professional development of teachers in the researcher’s district and could impact student

achievement in writing if it shows that effort-based feedback directly affects students writing in a

positive way.

Research Design and Methods

The research design to be used to answer these questions about the effects of verbal

feedback on the effort and engagement of middle school writing will be practitioner research.

The reason for this design is the researcher’s interest in improving the practice for the teaching of

writing in her district. Practitioner research works well with the use of known locations, like the

one intended to be used, because the purpose is to initiate some sort of change and bring

knowledge to the group. In this way, being part of the organization is actually a benefit (Glense,

2016, p.49). The use of pre and post-surveys given to multiple groups,

(students participating and students not selected) in this style of research will produce the types

of data necessary to accurately answer the research questions put forth.

 10

Middle schools will be used from the same district that the researcher works in, excluding

the researcher’s school. The rationale for selecting these schools is familiarity and personal

experience with the writing program used by the middle schools in the district (which includes a

conferencing component), and yet the researcher would be unfamiliar to the students and

teachers at those schools. This would allow for the benefits of “backyard research” (Glense,

2016, p.48) without some of the negatives associated with it, like overfamiliarity with the

researcher and confusion with the role the researcher is performing.

Overview of Research Design

The study will begin in September and will last to March, 24 weeks in total (appendix D).

The sample will be selected based on voluntary teacher participation at each school building and

will include a sample of the students taught by that teacher. In addition, teachers selected will be

asked to use specific feedback responses from a list of examples for verbal feedback on writing

(appendix A). This will be reviewed with selected teachers during the first meeting with them.

The researcher will plan to visit each grade level participant teacher once every three weeks to

meet with teachers for questions or concerns and collect data as necessary. Teachers will be

asked to continue to follow the writing program already in use in the district, The Units of Study

by Lucy Calkins, in which writing conferences and feedback are already a part. Teachers will be

asked to record the type of feedback used for each student during conferences at least once every

two weeks on the feedback conferring chart (appendix C). Teachers will also be asked to check if

students applied the feedback given in their draft.  A pre-test (appendix B) will be given via

computer to all of the selected teacher’s students at the beginning of the study that will use a

Likert scale to determine student attitudes about writing in general and their writing specifically. 

The test will be given at the end as a post-test (appendix B) to determine if attitudes have
 11

changed. Other teachers at the school, who are not participating in the study, will also be asked

to give the pre and post-test to their students and serve as the control group. 

Every three weeks during the study, teachers will be asked to evaluate a piece of their

students’ writing, which is already built into the current program, and record their observations

on length and overall effort via the bottom of teacher conferring chart (appendix C). Through

these data collection procedures, the researcher hopes to determine if the targeted verbal effort-

based feedback affected whether the student used that feedback to improve their writing,

improved the students’ effort in writing, and if it seemed to have an impact on students beliefs

and attitudes about writing.

Participants 

The district to be studied has four middle schools.  The total population of the district is

about 13,376 students, of which about 3,000 are in the middle schools.  The district

demographics break down to 48% White, 35% Black, 11% Hispanic, 4% Multi-racial, and 1%

Asian.  All of the middle schools in this district are Title One schools.  The research would be

focused on grades six, seven, and eight at the three middle schools, not including the researcher’s

school.  At each grade level there are two writing teachers, for a total of 18 writing teachers.  The

optimal target for the sample would be one teacher from each grade level at each building for a

total of nine teachers and students chosen will be based on the type of classes taught by the

volunteering teacher (on-level class, an advanced class, and an inclusion). However as few as

three teachers (from various grade levels in different buildings) in total may be a more realistic

possibility due to the difficulty of obtaining participation.  This would ideally include at least 45

(5 students per class type, from each teacher at each grade level) to a possible 135 students if

nine writing teachers participate. The researcher will try to balance the types of students chosen
 12

as much as possible to include students from each type of class. Five students in each class

would be chosen as randomly as possible. Students participating will not be aware that they are

one of the five students chosen, so as to not influence behavior of the students, all students in the

selected teachers’ classes will complete the surveys. In addition, this will be feasible because all

students are required to have conferences with the teacher in writing class. Only the teacher and

the researcher will know names of the participating students, all identifying information will be

removed and students assigned numbers in the final report.

Data Sources/Instrumentation/Procedures

All quantitative data from students will be collected electronically. Pre- and post-surveys

will be created to measure student attitudes from students in the quasi-experimental group and

the control group with Likert-type scale questions on a scale of one being strongly disagree to

four being strongly agree (appendix B). A final open-ended question will allow students to write

additional information about the writing assignments or program and their feelings toward them.

Only one response will be allowed per student via a link to the survey, which will coordinate to

the random number assigned to them. The documents for teachers (appendix C) will also be an

electronic form that will manage all the information for each student’s conferences and written

work. Student names will appear in the original documents for teacher and researcher use, but

will be removed and replaced with randomly assigned numbers for final data report.

The quantitative data I hypothesize will show that the results on the pre-survey to be

mostly negative in nature towards writing in general, as most students do not like to write, talk

about writing, or revise writing –lower numbers on the Likert scale. After the study, students

who participate by engaging with their teachers about their writing on a regular basis and getting

positive verbal feedback from the suggested feedback list (which will focus on effort) should
 13

have a more positive attitude about writing as shown by the post-survey –higher numbers on the

Likert scale, as compared to their own previous responses and to the control group. They also

should show an increase in length and overall effort on their assigned writing pieces as compared

to their own writing before effort-based feedback began.

Proposed Analysis

The teacher reports on the type of effort-based verbal feedback given during conferences

and their evaluation of the student work samples for length, use of the feedback, details, and

effort (appendix C) will coded, for example 1 for yes 2 for no, to produce values to be analyzed

for the sample student. In addition, the student surveys will produce numbers indicating the

effect of verbal feedback on engagement for the experimental group by comparing answers from

the pre-survey to the answers on the post-survey. I will then be able to compare the results from

the experimental group that gets the prescribed effort-based verbal feedback from this study to

the control group that gets the non-participating teacher’s usual style of feedback. I will then use

descriptive statistics to demonstrate the effect on each of the specific areas for the research

questions. I will be able to report and analyze the results using a histogram and the associated

tables. Also, I could run an independent sample t-test to see whether the experimental and

control group differ and whether the targeted use of effort-based verbal feedback has been

effective.

 Ethics

Possible causes of errors to the reliability of this study include the self-reporting aspect

for both teachers and students on survey items, the small homogenous sample size, inconsistency

of teacher recording conference feedback, and teacher personality and teaching style. The type of

feedback given by teachers in the control group will vary and some may be similar to the
 14

experimental group which could affect the comparison results, although it will not be targeted.

Also, the validity of the survey itself. 

One way I will deal with these threats is to use multiple data-collection methods (pre and

post surveys of both experimental and control groups) of the same event, weekly meetings with

teachers to reinforce desired feedback, and multiple sources of interpretation of the event –

teachers, students, and myself (Glense, 2016, p. 53). Another way is by ensuring that the

appropriate amount of time is used to complete the data-collection process, in this study that will

take place over 24 weeks, which is more than half the school year.

Some possible ethical issues could develop if the teachers feel like they have to

participate due to pressure from administrators or the researcher and the students could feel

pressure from the teacher who has volunteered. Participating in this research would have little

risk for any of the participants because the parts of the study are already in the program that is

required by the district for the teacher to use with the students and students would not be aware if

they were one of the five because all students in their class will have conferences and be asked to

complete surveys. The benefits of the study would far outweigh any risks and would only serve

to increase the effectiveness of the current program already in use. If effort-based feedback

proves useful, the benefits would be to the writing teachers in the district, in the way of increased

effectiveness during conferences and to students in an improvement in their writing ability and

self-efficacy in writing.

Conclusion

Determining whether the use of effort-based verbal feedback helps to improve self-

efficacy in students, which in turn effects their effort and engagement in the writing process is of

extreme importance in the district being studied. Many of the students in the district do not like
 15

to write, feel they are bad at it, and do not devote the time necessary to improve in it. While it

may seem that the immediate goal of improving writing ability is to improve state testing scores

that should not be the ultimate goal. Writing is a very useful life skill that benefits students

throughout their educational career and beyond. If using the correct phrasing of feedback during

the required conferences could accomplish this goal, it is a simple addition to the current

program that will reap huge real world benefits.

Implications of Study

This study could contribute to the knowledge of the teachers who are involved in the use

of this writer’s workshop program that is currently in use in the district. Knowing what types of

verbal feedback helps students the most to become better writers by being more engaged in the

writing process. This is critical to them becoming self-regulated writers and to improving their

self-efficacy in writing. In addition, this research could be a benefit to policy and practice in that

discovering the best type of feedback to use with students could reinforce that the use of the

conferencing with verbal feedback is beneficial to students becoming better writers now and in

the future. It could also promote more useful professional development for teachers, focusing on

the specific types of feedback that are most useful and how teachers can use it to promote better

writing from their students in all subjects. The participants would have greater self-efficacy and

self-regulation in writing which is a very useful life-long skill.

 16

References

Brooks, C., Huang, Y., Hattie, J., Carroll, A., & Burton, R. (2019). What Is My Next Step?

School Students’ Perceptions of Feedback. Frontiers in Education.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2019.00096/full

Burnett, P.C., (2002) Teacher praise and feedback and students' perceptions of the classroom

environment, Educational Psychology, 22:1, 5-16, DOI:10.1080/01443410120101215

Calkins, L., Ehrenworth,M., Minor, C., Roberts, K., Wischow, K., Shepherd, J., Robb,A., Jones-

Rooy, G., (2012). Units of study in argument, information, and narrative writing: A

workshop curriculum for middle school grades. (L. Calkins, Ed.). Heinemann.

Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). Pearson.

Graham, S., Daley, S. G., Aitken, A. A., Harris, K. R., & Robinson, K. H. (2018). Do writing

motivational beliefs predict middle school students’ writing performance? Journal of

Research in Reading, (4), 642. https://doi-org.proxy.kennesaw.edu/10.1111/1467-

9817.12245

Hattie, J. A. (1999, June.). Influences on student learning (Inaugural professorial address,

University of Auckland, New Zealand). Retrieved from http://geoffpetty.com/wp-

content/uploads/2012/12/Influencesonstudent2C683.pdf

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational

Research, 77(1), 81. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=edb&AN=24322758&site=eds-live&scope=site

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s

motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1), 33.

 17

Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=edsggo&AN=edsgcl.21006954&site=eds-live&scope=site

National Center for Education Statistics (2012). The nation's report card: writing 2011 (NCES

2012–470). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington,

D.C.

Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Matsumura, L. C., & Valdes, R. (2004). Investigating the process

approach to writing instruction in urban middle schools. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, (6), 462. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.114325475&site=eds-live&scope=site

Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional

Science, 18(2), 119. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.23369143&site=eds-live&scope=site

Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. Am. Psychol. 18, 503–515. doi:10.1037/h0045185

Thorndike, E. L. (1933). A proof of the law of effect. Science 77, 173–175.

doi:10.1126/science.77.1989.173-a

Truax, M. T. (2018) The impact of teacher language and growth mindset feedback on writing

motivation, literacy research and instruction, 57:2, 135-157,

DOI:10.1080/19388071.2017.1340529

Zellermayer, M. (1989). The study of teachers’ written feedback to students’ writing: Changes in

theoretical considerations and the expansion of research contexts. Instructional

Science, 18(2), 145–165. https://doi-org.proxy.kennesaw.edu/10.1007/BF00117715

 18

Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S., & Mewborn, C. (2016). Toward a better understanding of student

perceptions of writing feedback: A mixed methods study. Reading and Writing: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 29(2), 349–370. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.kennesaw.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=mzh&AN=2018710199&site=eds-live&scope=site

Appendix A: Verbal Conferring chart from Traux (2018)

19
 20

Appendix B: Student Pre and Post-Test adapted from Zumbrunn et al. (2016)
Student Writing Feedback Perceptions Scale (will be a Google survey or similar app)

1. I like talking with my teachers about my writing.

2. I usually understand what to do when my teacher comments on my writing.

3. I like it when teachers comment on my writing.

4. I often feel good about the teacher’s comments about my writing.

5. I feel good after I have used comments about my writing to improve it.

6. I know how to use comments about my writing to improve it.

7. I think conferencing with my teacher is helpful.

8. I like comments from my teacher, it lets me know what I did wrong.

9. I like comments from my teacher, it helps me know my strengths.

10. I believe that comments on my writing will help me to improve my writing in the

future.

11. My teacher’s verbal feedback has helped me a lot in understanding the mistakes I

made.

Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale

12. I can spell my words correctly.

13. I can write complete sentences.

14. I can punctuate my sentences correctly.

15. I can think of many ideas for my writing.

16. I can put my ideas into writing.

17. I can think of many words to describe my ideas.

18. I can concentrate on my writing for a long time.

19. I can avoid distractions when I write.

 21

20. I can keep writing even when it is difficult.

Writing Self-Regulation Aptitude Scale

21. Before I start writing, I plan what I want to write.

22. Before I write, I set goals for my writing.

23. I think about who will read my writing.

24. I think about how much time I have to write.

25. I ask for help if I have trouble writing.

26. While I write, I think about my writing goals.

27. I keep writing even when it’s difficult.

28. While I write, I avoid distractions.

29. When I get frustrated with my writing, I make myself relax.

30. While I write, I talk myself through what I need to do.

31. I make my writing better by changing parts of it.

32. I tell myself I did a good job when I write my best.

*All responses above will have 4 choices: 4-Strongly Agree, 3-Agree, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly

Disagree

Final Open-ended Question:

Do you like having teacher conferences to discuss your writing? Why or why not?
 22

Appendix C: Teacher Conferring Chart (will be a Google Document)

Teacher Name:______________________________________ Teacher Number_____________

Student Name:_______________________________________ Participant number___________

Date Verbal Feedback given Feedback

applied by
student in
draft/process?
YES

NO
YES

NO
YES

NO
YES

NO
YES

NO
Final writing piece teacher thoughts and observations

Student’s writing is …less than usual….same as usual…more than usual in length.

Student’s writing is… less than usual….same as usual…more than usual in details.

Student’s writing is… less than usual….same as usual…more than usual in effort.

Appendix D: Timetable for Study

 23

Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of Week of

September October November December January February March
7 visit with 5 2 classroom 11 classroom 1 1
teachers classroom visit 7th visit 7th classroom classroom
for visit 6th grade grade visit 7th visit 8th
interview grade grade grade
and set up
14 12 9 classroom 7 18 classroom 8 8
classroom classroom visit 8th classroom visit 8th classroom classroom
visit 6th visit 7th grade visit 8th grade visit 8th visit 6th
grade grade grade grade grade
21 19 16 14 25 classroom 15 15
classroom classroom classroom classroom visit 6th classroom classroom
visit 7th visit 8th visit 6th visit 6th grade visit 6th visit 7th
grade grade grade grade grade grade
28 26 30 22 22
classroom classroom classroom classroom classroom
visit 8th visit 6th visit 7th visit 7th visit 8th
grade grade grade grade grade
**collect **collect **collect
materials materials materials
at each at each at each
grade grade level grade level
level visit visit this visit this
this month month
month