Research Questions

 What happens to students’ attitudes about writing when they engage in informal writing

exercises?

o Sub question: When students’ attitudes about writing change, how does the quality of

their writing change, if at all?

o Sub question: What happens to students’ writing fluency when they are given a variety of

informal opportunities to write?

 What happens to the quality of students’ writing when they engage in scaffolded process-oriented

writing?

Intervention/Innovation

During Round 1, I began by administering the survey to students to measure how they feel about

writing. I went over each question with them to ensure students who are not able to read the questions

were able to answer them appropriately. The same survey was administered a second time at the end of

Round 1.

Letter writing was introduced to them as an option for writing practice. Students were informed

that the letters would not be graded. I explained that while I would not ask them to correct anything in

their letters, they should use their best writing skills possible to make the letters easy to read for the

person they are writing to. We had a discussion about how to write a good letter including what the

purpose of a letter is, general letter format, and ideas regarding what to write about. Every student in the

class participated in writing at least one letter. After that, students were free to write letters whenever time

allowed. I instructed students to turn the letters in to me, and I would deliver the letters to the recipients.

In my Round 1 plan, I stated that it would be heavily modeled. During the first week of implementing

the interventions and innovations, this remained true. However, this primarily became a week of

establishing routines with process-oriented writing. The steps for my process-oriented writing instruction

are as follows:
  Day 1: Pre-planning and brainstorming: looking at the topic and discussing ideas, determining the

type of writing (narrative, informative, opinion), creating a word wall, and filling out the

brainstorm graphic organizer including the topic and three details

 Day 2: Drafting: writing a first draft using the paragraph planner graphic organizer and discussing

transitions and details

 Day 3: Self-editing and peer editing: re-reading their own work and making changes as needed,

trading work with a peer and editing their peer’s work

 Day 4: Final draft: using their edited drafts to complete a final draft and drawing a picture to go

with it

All students who were present participated in each step for two weeks resulting in two finished

writing pieces. The first writing piece was constructed together as a class and the second writing piece

allowed more freedom. For the second writing piece, students chose their own details and transitional

phrases from a list of transitional phrases we discussed and categorized (beginning, middle, and ending

transitional phrases).

Data Collected

 Student surveys

 Student letters

 Student writing graphic organizers; brainstorms and paragraph planners

 Self-editing and peer editing checklists

 Student final drafts and rubric scores completed by myself

 Observation notes of focal students in both running record and tally form

Data Analysis

Qualitative Data Analysis

In order to analyze patterns and themes of student work, I have used open coding methodology

with focal students’ work including graphic organizers, finished formal writing assignments, and informal
writing products in the form of letters. The codes developed for graphic organizers and formal writing

assessments were the same so I was able analyze the transfer of writing done during planning stages to

final stages. I also went through my observation notes and used open coding methodology for anecdotal

and running records to find common themes. Though I reviewed data on student behaviors in the form of

tally observations, I ultimately did not analyze the data as it was not relevant or reliable.

Quantitative Data Analysis

I first used descriptive statistics to calculate the means and the modes of students’ survey

responses for both the initial survey and the survey given at the end of Round 1. I gave each scoring

option on the survey a numerical score from 1-3. I then compared the scores from the initial survey to the

second survey side by side. I also scored students’ final drafts using a self-created scoring rubric. After

recording scores, I used descriptive statistics to calculate the means and modes.

Findings

Qualitative Data

As part of the process-oriented writing approach, students were required to participate in filling

out a brainstorm graphic organizer, filling out a paragraph planner graphic organizer, engaging in self-and

peer-editing, and completing a final draft. Prior to the first round, I noticed that many students struggle

with consistently using capital letters appropriately and using punctuation at the end of sentences, as well

as adding relevant details, if any. Table 1 compares baseline data I analyzed from focal student writing

samples collected two weeks before Round 1 and focal student samples collected at the end of Round 1.

For the baseline data, students had been instructed to write a narrative summary about a story we read in

which ducks were given a bath in a sink. NOTE: One out of seven focal students was absent for the entire

week of process-oriented writing I collected data on, so the final draft percentages represent six out of

seven focal students.

This baseline data informed what I needed to emphasize during instruction of the process-

oriented writing approach. Even focal students who are progressing toward grade level or at grade level

were struggling with writing conventions in their writing. During day 2 of the writing process involving
filling out the paragraph planner, I emphasized these writing conventions. Comparing the data, I found

significant increases in all areas as indicated in Table 1.

On day 4, students completed their final drafts. Going over their final drafts, I noticed differences

between the application of writing conventions in the paragraph planner and final drafts. Students were

more accurately using writing conventions in the planning stages compared to their final drafts which is

the opposite of what I hoped to accomplish. Additionally, some students did not transfer all pieces of their

writing into their final draft. Utilizing data from focal students, Table 2 shows the decline in writing

production (details and conclusion) and use of conventions. The most notable gap can be seen in

punctuation with 100% of focal students using appropriate punctuation in their paragraph planner while

67% of focal students used appropriate punctuation in their final draft.

Even so, the results from the final draft show that the process-oriented approach I am

implementing increases writing production and use of writing conventions. However, it appears that some

students are not transferring these to their final drafts. Day 1-3 of the writing process involves much

discussion, direct instruction from myself, and review of their work. Day 4 of the writing process is

entirely student-managed and independent. Adding a quick review of the self-editing checklist and

reflection component may help improve the results from final drafts.

Table 1
Code Paragraph planner (n=7) Final draft (n=6)
Introduction 0% 100%

Three details 14% 83%

Conclusion 0% 67%

Transitional phrases 29% 83%

Capitalization 14% 50%

Punctuation 29% 67%

Table 2
Code Paragraph planner (n=6) Final draft (n=6)
Introduction 100% 100%

Three details 100% 83%

Conclusion 83% 67%

Transitional phrases 83% 83%

Capitalization 67% 50%

Punctuation 100% 67%

Results from my observations show that students are engaging in conversations both about the

content of their writing and writing conventions. Samples from my observations can be found in Table 3.

Prior to Round 1, conversation between students about writing was scarce, but both the implemented

writing process and informal writing opportunities are sparking more dialogue about writing. However,

most interactions involving writing happen during letter writing or during paragraph planning. As

mentioned before, this lack of interaction may be why final draft writing quality is lower than the quality

seen in their paragraph planner writing.

Though I collected observation notes on focal students’ behaviors in the form of tally marks, I

found this to be unhelpful and unreliable. I was not able to collect enough data that would accurately

represent what each focal student was actually doing at the time of writing/reviewing their writing. While

going over the tally sheets I collected data with, I included the following behavior variables:

 Volunteered during a writing lesson

 Asked a clarifying question about a writing lesson

 Reread what they wrote

 Edited their work

 Accessed the word wall

Though I was hoping to gain insight into whether these behaviors had any correlation to their

quality of work, I realized that I could not accurately measure all of the variables for each focal student.

Moreover, I did not determine how this data would drive my research. Going forward, conducting
interviews with focal students will provide me with better data that I can apply the open coding

methodology to.

Table 3
Code Theme Observation sample
Spelling Writing conventions  Student 2 asked for spelling help
three times during writing a letter.
 “What letters is ch?” – Student 3
Punctuation  “Have anyone forgot periods?”
Student 4 having a conversation
with two peers while completing
paragraph planners.
Capitalization  “Should I have a big letter here?”
Student 2 pointed to beginning of
sentence.
Detail Content  “I need help with my last one.”
Student 3 pointed to box for third
detail in paragraph planner.
Communication  “I want to tell her I’m going to
Disneyland too! I’m going to write
a letter and give that one to her.”
Student 7 heard a classmate say
she is going to Disneyland.

Quantitative Data

At the beginning of Round 1, students were asked to complete a Likert scale survey with three

options per statement. The options given were a sad face (1), neutral face (2), and happy face (3). Table 4

shows the class averages of the survey given at the very beginning of Round 1, before students were

given any other interventions, and the class averages of the same survey given at the end of Round 1. The

results between the survey given at the beginning and end of Round 1 show little difference with most

statements showing very slight increases. The modes of all statements remained the same for both

surveys. Drawing from the data charted below, it appears that students’ attitudes about writing have

overall not changed after Round 1. This is not surprising to see given the little amount of time between

the first and second surveys. The fourth survey given at the end of Round 4 will be a better indication of

whether their attitudes about writing have changed, if at all.

Table 4
Survey Statement Beginning of Round 1 End of Round 1
I like writing. 2.27 2.48

I am good at writing. 2.64 2.61

I like to read what I wrote. 2.14 2.22

I like my friends to read what I wrote. 2.41 2.48

Writing is fun. 2.27 2.48

It’s easy for me to write. 2.41 2.43

When looking at students’ final draft scores, I was able to get a closer look at what specific points

of content and conventions they are struggling with. I planned my focal group to represent the abilities of

the whole class. To determine if my focal group accurately represents the whole class, I used the mean

scores of focal students and compared them to the whole class as seen in Table 5. Overall, it shows the

focal group I selected represents the whole class’ scores well in most areas. The largest difference is

found in introduction scores in which the focal group had an average score of 4.00 while the whole class’

average was 3.35. Looking back at the data I collected, this large difference in introduction scores is

caused by three students outside of the focal group not attempting an introduction sentence in their final

draft.

The rubric variables are scored with a 0-4 point system. The points represent the following:

 0 – No attempt

 1 – Attempting: developing the practice but applies inappropriately

 2 – Approaching: applies some of the time

 3 – Progressing: applies most of the time

 4 – Exceeding: applies consistently

Based on class averages, most of the lower scores relate to writing conventions. The writing

process I am implementing heavily targets writing production and distribution, so this not surprising. The

graphic organizers I am using require all spaces to be filled and target introductions, details, and
conclusions. Prior to Round 1, introductions were difficult for my class, and the average score from the

final draft shows that the class is meeting expectations after implementing process-oriented writing.

While conclusion sentences are still a struggle based on the class average, I anticipate the scores will

increase given more instruction. Ultimately, writing conventions need to be emphasized going forward.

Table 5
Rubric Variables Focal Students Whole Class
(n=6) (n=23)
Text Types and Purposes/Production and Distribution
of Writing (Literacy.W.1.1-6)
Genre 3.50 3.65
Introduction 4.00 3.35
3 details 3.33 3.30
Transitions 3.00 3.04
Conclusion 2.17 2.17
On topic 3.33 3.30
Descriptive 2.67 2.78

Conventions of Standard English (Literacy.L.1.1-2

Complete sentences 2.83 3.09
Punctuation 2.33 2.48
Capitalization 2.67 2.59
Phonetic spelling 2.60 2.95
Upper/lowercase letters used correctly 2.33 2.50

Planning Next Round

For Round 2, a critical change will be exchanging tracking student behavior with conducting

student interviews with my focal students. This is a vital component I overlooked in understanding why

the focal students choose their survey answers and what this means in terms of how their attitudes toward

writing are affected. Additionally, stopping the use of behavior tally sheets and substituting with more

observation notes in the forms of anecdotal records, running records, and jottings will likely be more

helpful in determining areas of struggle or success.

 New interventions and innovations must be considered for Round 2. Observing that the transfer

of writing from paragraph planners to final drafts leads to lower quality of writing on their final drafts

compared to paragraph planners, I will be implementing a period of self-reflection and review after

writing the final drafts. It was already my intention to introduce this component as indicated in my

research proposal. To avoid information overload, I did not include this in Round 1 but will need to

include it in Round 2. Additionally, based on the data I analyzed, more emphasis needs to be put on

writing conventions. I will include discussion about writing conventions and their purposes in the

paragraph planning stage of the writing process I have created. Gibson (2008) notes the importance of

teaching writing conventions beyond simply stating that they need to be used. During guided writing

lessons, writing conventions should be prompted in ways that help students understand their importance

for readers. Another component I need to spend more time on in the next round is self-editing and peer

feedback. While these were implemented in Round 1 with checklists for both self-editing and peer

editing, students need more guidance on how to effectively give feedback about writing with peer

conferences.

Literature Connections

Arrimada, M., Torrance, M., & Fidalgo, R. (2019). Effects of teaching planning strategies to first-grade
writers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 670-688.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12251

This source was used to inform my research question regarding quality of writing and process-
oriented writing. I utilized planning strategies that were outlined in this approach with changes to
fit the needs of my students.

Chohan, S. (2011). Any Letter for Me? Relationships Between an Elementary School Letter Writing
Program and Student Attitudes, Literacy Achievement, and Friendship Culture. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 39, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-0438-5

This source informed my research question about student attitudes about writing and informal
writing exercises. It also helps justify my sub-question regarding effects on writing fluency and
quality in relation to informal writing exercises. Additionally, this source is why I decided to
include letter writing as an informal writing exercise.

Gibson, S. (2008). An Effective Framework for Primary-Grade Guided Writing Instruction. The Reading
Teacher, 62(4), 324-334. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.4.5
 This source was used in planning my next round in response to my findings. My students are
already being told to add punctuation, use proper capitalization, and stretch out their words for
phonetic spelling, but according to my findings, their writing products are still lacking in these
areas. This framework is informing me of what steps need to be taken to target these skills.

Knudson, R. (1995). Writing experiences, attitudes, and achievement of first to sixth graders. Journal of
Educational Research, 89, 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1995.9941199

This source is being used to support my research about student attitudes about writing. It has
relevant information regarding student attitudes about writing being able to change after different
writing opportunities are given and how improved writing correlates to improved student
attitudes.

Williams, C. (2018). Learning to Write With Interactive Writing Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 71(5),

523-532. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1643

I utilized modeling and collaborative writing described in this source to teach the writing
planning strategies I implemented.
 ROUND TWO Research Plan

Round 2
Context My school site is a year-round elementary school serving over 800 students ranging from TK to sixth grade. I teach a first grade class
Brief info about your comprised of 25 students ranging from ages six to seven years old.
school, subject, grade,
class, students
 What happens to students’ attitudes about writing when they engage in informal writing exercises?
Research Question(s) o Sub question: When students’ attitudes about writing change, how does the quality of their writing change, if at all?
o Sub question: What happens to students’ writing fluency when they are given a variety of informal opportunities to write?
(If you have more than 1  What happens to the quality of students’ writing when they engage in scaffolded process-oriented writing?
research question-
highlight he RQs that are
most relevant to this
round)
Round 2 Planned Intervention: Relevance Statement:
Intervention/ Describe the intervention in general terms Explain the relevance of the intervention to student learning
Innovations Describe the instructional strategies for implementing the intervention    Focused on learning outcomes/ Focused on the specific intervention.
Process-oriented writing instruction: Each week will end with one Process-oriented writing instruction is essential for one of my
How will you organize finished piece of writing. The process will go as follows: research questions as I am exploring the relationship between
learning experiences  Day 1: Pre-planning and brainstorm; looking at the topic, process-oriented writing and writing quality. The steps I have
for students that discussing (ideas, vocabulary to use, create a word wall included in my process-oriented writing instruction are widely
address your research for topic, determining type of writing (narrative, accepted and used in classrooms that engage in process-oriented
questions(s)? informational, opinion), filling out brainstorm graphic writing.
organizer
Cite sources as needed  Day 2: Drafting; using their brainstorms, students will During Round 2, I will continue implementing the same writing
write a first draft using the paragraph planner graphic process with the same graphic organizers. Changes from Round 1 can
Attach additional organizer. I will implement guided writing instruction be seen in Day 2, 3, and 4. According to Sarah Gibson in An Effective
lesson artifacts targeting writing conventions. Framework for Primary-Grade Guided Writing Instruction
(optional)  Day 3: Self-editing and peer editing, teaching students prompting students to consider writing conventions as an essential
how to have an effective peer conference part of writing for the reader is important in building these skills (e.g.
 Day 4: Writing final draft and engaging in reflection asking students “Can you hear where the sentence stop? Let the
reader know your sentence stopped by adding a period.”). This will
be targeted on Day 2. Additionally, students need guidance on how to
effectively engage in peer review. The Effects of Writing Workshop
on Abilities of First Grade Students to Become Confident and
Independent Writers explains that students need to be actively
engaged in peer review. Asking questions, listening, and responding
to feedback should be taught. It also explains that sharing work with
peers helps develop awareness of the audience. Finally, engaging in
reflection after writing the final draft is needed for my students. The
 Round 2
transfer of writing from planning stages to final production has led to
lower writing quality in final drafts. Adding a reflection component
may help my students ensure that their final draft is their best work.

Survey: The same survey given to students in Round 1 will be
given at the end of Round 2.
The survey will be vital in helping me determine students’ attitudes
about writing. This is needed to determine whether students’ attitudes
change with the implementation of the interventions/innovations.
Understanding if or how their attitudes change will inform me of
whether I will need to change my interventions.

Informal writing: I will continue using letter writing as an option
for students when they finish their work early. Writing sprints will
be introduced to students during this round. Students will be given
five minutes to write as much as they can in response to a picture
prompt.
Letter writing and writing sprints will be used as an informal writing
exercises. Ideally, students’ attitudes about writing will improve.
According to Knudson’s study in Writing experiences, attitudes, and
achievement of first to sixth graders, students who feel more
positively about writing tend to be better writers. I will also be seeing
if students are transferring formal writing skills to their informal
writing.

Round 2 Data to be  Student surveys

collected  Student work (pieces from writing process like graphic organizers and finished samples, informal writing products)
 Observation notes from running records, anecdotal records, and jottings
What are the  Interviews with focal students
data/artifacts that you
will collect? Just a
list.

e.g.: Student work?

Notes from
observations?
Interviews? Video?
 For qualitative data, I will be using open coding methodology on student work samples, focal student interviews, and observation notes. If
Data Analysis Plans needed, I will utilize analytical memos of descriptions of student work or observation notes that may need to be connected (e.g. jottings).
Coding the interviews of focal students will be important for helping me analyze why students’ attitudes about writing change or don’t
What are your data change.
analysis strategies for
qualitative data (e.g., For quantitative data, I will use descriptive statistics. The survey scores from the end of Round 2 will be compared to survey results from
coding, memos) the end of Round 1. I will also use descriptive statistics for student writing scores. Calculating the mean and mode will be important for
Explain your analysis understanding class averages, gaps, etc. These scores will be compared to the scores from Round 1.
plans specifically for
the data in this round

What are your data

analysis strategies for
quantitative date (e.g.,
descriptive statistics)
Explain your analysis
plans specifically for
the data in this round
 Arrimada, M., Torrance, M., & Fidalgo, R. (2019). Effects of teaching planning strategies to first-grade writers. British Journal of
Literature Source(s)
cited in APA Educational Psychology, 89(4), 670-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12251
 This source is being used to inform my research question regarding quality of writing and process-oriented writing.
Cite any sources here
and briefly describe Chohan, S. (2011). Any Letter for Me? Relationships Between an Elementary School Letter Writing Program and Student Attitudes,
how the literature will Literacy Achievement, and Friendship Culture. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-0438-5
be leveraged to inform  This source informs my research question about student attitudes about writing and informal writing exercises. It also helps justify
your research my sub-question regarding effects on writing fluency and quality in relation to informal writing exercises. Additionally, this source
questions, is why I decided to include letter writing as an informal writing exercise.
intervention, data
collection and analysis Gibson, S. (2008). An Effective Framework for Primary-Grade Guided Writing Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 324-334.
plans. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.4.5

 This source is being added to inform me of how to integrate teaching writing conventions in ways that support my students. My
students are already being told to add punctuation, use proper capitalization, and stretch out their words for phonetic spelling, but
their writing products are still lacking in these areas. I will be utilizing this framework in the areas my students need support in.
This framework includes better teaching practices for increasing abilities with phonetic spelling and use of punctuation in ways
that are meaningful.

Jasmine, J. & Weiner, W. (2007). The Effects of Writing Workshop on Abilities of First Grade Students to Become Confident and
Independent Writers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0186-3
 This source is being used to rationalize why I am going to implement teaching students how to give effective peer feedback. The
researchers explain that students need to be actively engaged in peer review for it to be productive. Asking questions, listening, and
responding to feedback need to be taught to ensure students are engaging in helpful practices.

Knudson, R. (1995). Writing experiences, attitudes, and achievement of first to sixth graders. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 90-97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1995.9941199
 This source is being used to support my research question about student attitudes about writing. It has relevant information
regarding student attitudes about writing being able to change after different writing opportunities are given and how improved
writing correlates to improved student attitudes.

Attach Notes or Additional Materials (lesson plans, rubrics, materials you plan to use in teaching, etc. (Optional)