How can I Best Support my Emergent Readers and Writers in their Literacy Development?

Angela M. Beckett December 2006

Elementary Education 792- Seminar in Curriculum and Instruction

Dr. Judith Hankes

2

How can I Best Support my Emergent Readers

and Writers in their Literacy Development?

Angela M. Beckett

A Seminar Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

Master of Science in Education

Curriculum and Instruction

University of Wisconsin- Oshkosh Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8621

December 2006

Approval Date

First Reader: __________________________________________________

Second Reader: ________________________________________________

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract page 4 Study Sequence page 5 Statement of the Problem page 6 Situating the Problem page 6 Literature Review page 8 Methods Participants page 14

Data Sources and Analysis page 14

Intervention page 16 Findings page 17 Conclusions page 22 Future Implications page 23 References page 24 Appendix A page 25 Appendix B page 29 Appendix C page 32

4

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of small group

Interactive Writing instruction, as a means to support emergent first grade Spanish

writers in their writing fluency and native language literacy development. The study was

motivated by the fact that my emergent writers had difficulty with writing fluency. They

struggled when attempting to organize their thoughts into words and put their words into

print. The results of this study indicated that small group Interactive Writing combined

with guided reading and word work produced greater learning gains than guided reading

and word work alone. The small group Interactive Writing process positively impacted

the writing fluency of my emergent writers and helped them move forward in their

development as writers.

5

STUDY SEQUENCE

September Brainstormed possible action research topics Identified action research topic Drafted statement of the problem Gathered and copied necessary pre/post assessment documents Consulted Anne Sullivan Elementary Literacy Coach, Andrea Landwehr Administered pre-assessment Began literature review research Began Guided Reading and Small Group Interactive Writing intervention Revised statement of the problem Drafted situating the problem Revised situating the problem Drafted literature review

October

Continued Guided Reading and Small Group Interactive Writing intervention Submitted UW-Oshkosh human consent form Drafted literature review (continued) Revised situating the problem (continued) Revised literature review Administered post-assessment Drafted methods section Graphed findings

November

Graphed findings (continued) Analyzed data Drafted findings section Attached appendices (pre/post assessments) Drafted conclusions and future implications section Drafted abstract Completed table of contents Submitted to second reader: Andrea Landwehr, Anne Sullivan Elementary

Literacy Coach Submitted to first reader: Dr. Judith Hankes, UW-Oshkosh professor Revised draft

6

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The Bilingual Language Arts Grade Level Benchmark Eng.B1:1.2 of the Green

Bay Area Public Schools Curriculum Framework states that first grade bilingual students

should be able to express their ideas in writing, in Spanish, both clearly and effectively;

yet many of my emergent Spanish writers lack writing fluency, the ability to organize

their thoughts into words and their words into print. I conducted this action research

study to determine whether small group Interactive Writing, in addition to guided reading

and word work, would help my emergent Spanish readers and writers in their writing

fluency and native language literacy development.

SITUATING THE PROBLEM

Currently, I team-teach in a first grade bilingual classroom at Anne Sullivan

Elementary School in the Green Bay Area Public School District. Sullivan is a

kindergarten through fifth grade SAGE school, located on the east side of Green Bay.

Approximately 76% of our students receive free or reduced lunch, and approximately

34% of our total population is Spanish-speaking. Sullivan has therefore recently

implemented a transitional bilingual program model, to support the learning of our

Spanish-speaking students. Our current program includes both pull-out and in-classroom

models. Sullivan currently has three pull-out bilingual teachers servicing kindergarten

through fifth grade, as well as three in-classroom teachers at the kindergarten, first and

third grade levels. I serve as the in-classroom bilingual teacher for first grade. I team-

teach with an English speaking classroom teacher. Our classroom consists of 30

students, 15 of whom are primarily Spanish-speaking and 15 of whom are English-

speaking. During our literacy block, I teach Spanish literacy to the Spanish-speaking

7

students in Spanish, while my team-teaching colleague teaches English literacy to the

English-speaking students. In the afternoon, together with all of the children, we team-

teach math, science and social studies concepts, primarily in English with Spanish

support as necessary.

The Green Bay Area Public School’s Bilingual Language Arts Curriculum

Framework expects first grade bilingual students, at the culmination of the year, to be

able to express their ideas in writing, in Spanish, both clearly and effectively. This is a

difficult task for emergent writers, because writing is a very complex process that

requires the student to organize thoughts into words and words into print. Most of my

emergent Spanish writers lack this writing fluency. Their greatest challenge occurs with

transcribing their intended message independently, as children at this level experience

difficulty hearing and recording sounds in words, forming letters, writing words, and

understanding conventions of print. Often during independent journaling time, many of

my emergent Spanish writers will create their picture plan and come to me for guided

writing support. They do not view themselves as writers and lack the self-confidence

needed to take the risk to compose and transcribe their thoughts independently.

The purpose of this action research study was to determine the effectiveness of

small group Interactive Writing and its impact on developing writing fluency. Small

group Interactive Writing is an instructional strategy used to support the progress of

emergent writers. Small group Interactive Writing is a shared writing experience,

between the teacher and a small group of emergent to early writers, which assists children

in developing reading and writing strategies and skills, while working with print. In

addition to guided reading and word work, I implemented small group Interactive

8

Writing, as an intervention method in my action research study, to support my emergent

Spanish readers and writers, in an effort to improve their writing fluency and native

language literacy development. The following review of literature focuses on emergent

writing development and the effectiveness of Interactive Writing, as a means to support

emergent readers and writers in their early literacy development.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Reading, writing, and speaking are all interrelated. One writes to communicate

ideas to readers and reads to understand writing (Robb, 2003). Few would challenge the

importance of writing in early literacy development, as the reciprocity between reading

and writing is evident (Askew, Frasier, 1999). According to Chomsky (1971), children

write before they read and therefore use writing to gain knowledge of letter/sound

relationships and how print works in books (Robb, 2003). Yet, writing is a very complex

task, especially for the emergent writer, as it involves a complex series of actions:

Children have to think of a message and hold it in the mind. Then they have to think of a how to start it, remember each letter form and its features, and manually reproduce the word letter by letter. Having written that first word (or an approximation), the child must go back to the whole message, retrieve it, and think of the next word. Through writing, children are manipulating and using symbols, and in the process learning how written language works. (Askew, Frasier, 1999)

Young writers progress along a writing continuum, a series of developmental

stages or levels. Their writing at each stage reflects their hypotheses and attempts of how

to best represent their ideas in print (Freeman, Freeman, 1996). To support emergent

writers in their writing development, educators need to understand the developmental

stages of writing. Using Gentry’s stages of writing development for monolingual

English-speakers and Ferreiro and Teberosky’s levels of writing development for mono-

9

lingual Spanish-speakers, the stages of writing development that emergent, early, and

transitional writers progress through are summarized and compared below.

Precommunicative stage- Gentry’s precommunicative stage of writing

development, Level 1 & 2 of Ferreiro and Teberosky’s stages of writing development, is

the initial developmental stage of writing. During the precommunicative stage, children

scribble and write mock letters or real letters that do not correspond to sounds. Children

in the precommunicative stage of writing development demonstrate an understanding that

writing communicates a message and is different than drawing. When comparing

monolingual Spanish-speaking children’s early writing samples with monolingual

English-speaking children’s early writing samples, Kamii and Manning (1999) found

both groups of children wrote random letters that were unrelated to the sounds of the

letters (Rubin, Galvan-Carlan, 2005).

Semiphonetic stage- During the semiphonetic stage of writing development,

children understand that a relationship exists between letters and sounds, although they

are not able to match all sounds with the corresponding letters. The child is beginning to

understand and make sound-symbol connections. Letters are written to represent some of

the sounds in words. Gentry’s semiphonetic stage of writing development corresponds

with Ferreiro and Teberosky’s Level 3 of writing development, in which Spanish-

speaking monolingual children represent each syllable in a word with a single vowel

(Rubin, Galvan-Carlan, 2005).

Phonetic stage-During the phonetic stage of writing, monolingual English

speaking children demonstrate knowledge of sound/symbol correspondence. Children

are able to match most phonetic sounds to the corresponding letters. Gentry’s phonetic

10

stage of writing development corresponds to Ferreiro and Teberosky’s Level 4 of writing

development. In Ferreiro and Teberosky’s Level 4 of writing development, children

progress from writing a single vowel for each syllable to writing one letter for each sound

heard (Rubin, Galvan-Carlan, 2005).

Transitional stage- In Gentry’s transitional stage of writing development, children

write using common spelling patterns. The child is no longer sounding out words but

demonstrates an understanding of common letter patterns that are used in English. The

child demonstrates a greater sense of sentence structure and vocabulary, as well. Ferreiro

and Teberosky do not have a corresponding level for monolingual Spanish-speaking

students to Gentry’s transitional stage, as Spanish words, for the most part, are spelled

phonetically, and children move directly from Level 4, the phonetic stage of writing

development, to Level 5, the conventional stage of writing development (Rubin, Galvan-

Carlan, 2005).

Conventional stage- Gentry’s conventional stage of writing development is the

final stage of writing development. Regardless if children are writing in Spanish or

English, children in the conventional stage of writing development, Level 5 of Ferreiro

and Teberosky’s stages of writing development, write using their knowledge of words,

sounds, and spelling patterns to convey their meaning. At this stage of writing

development, most words are spelled correctly. The length of the writing sample, word

choice, and complexity of sentence structure becomes more complex, as well (Rubin,

Galvan-Carlan, 2005).

As stated earlier, by Askew and Frasier (1999), writing is a very complex task,

and although young children desire to be writers, research states that young children

11

frustrated by a complex task tend to become distressed and avoid engagement

(Cruikshank, 2001). “Tasks that are too difficult for a child even with the teacher’s

strong support cause frustration and can not be learned” (Robb, 2003). Learning in the

frustration zone “can cause anxiety, a loss of self-confidence, and destroy young

children’s natural curiosity and motivation to learn” (Robb, 2003). It is therefore the

responsibility of educators to guide and support children through the emergent stages of

writing development, in hopes to keep young children’s “excitement, interest, and

confidence alive, while at the same time introducing young children to the way written

language works” (McCarrier, Pinnell, & Fountas, 2000).

Interactive Writing: Language and Literacy Coming Together

Interactive writing is part of the early literacy framework, a balanced program of

instruction and independent exploration, developed by educators at Ohio State University

to provide rich, educational experiences for young children, particularly those considered

to be low-progressing students (Button, Johnson, Furgerson, 1996). Interactive writing is

an effective instructional strategy for children of all linguistic backgrounds, especially

effective for those children transitioning into English literacy (McCarrier, Pinnell,

Fountas, 2000). Interactive writing provides opportunities for the teacher to engage in

instruction precisely within in the child’s Zone of Proximal Development (Button,

Johnson, Furgerson, 1996). When one teaches concepts and tasks by supporting children

and using what they already know to understand new concepts, teachers are teaching and

children are learning within the Zone of Proximal Development. In the Zone of Proximal

Development children experience success with a new task, with teacher support. With

12

continued teacher support, children eventually complete the task independently (Robb,

2003).

Interactive writing is an instructional strategy that models for children how

written language works, while encouraging them to participate in the writing process,

with teacher support. Together the teacher and children negotiate the meaning and

structure of the text and then collaboratively transcribe the message together, sharing the

pen (McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas, 2000). To guide the interactive writing lesson, teachers

question the children with the following prompts:

How many words are there in our sentence? Where do we begin writing? After writing one word, what do we have to remember to do? Why? What word are we writing next? Say the word slowly. What sounds do you hear? Can you write the letter that stands for that sound? Can you find the letter on our alphabet chart that we need to write? What comes at the end of the sentence? Would that make sense? Does that look right? Would you point and read what we have written so far?

(Button, Johnson, Furgerson, 1996)

Through questioning, direct instruction and modeling, the children are learning

conventions of print, such as spacing between words, left to right and top to bottom

directionality, capital letters, punctuation, and phonetic structures. The teacher scaffolds

according to the child’s needs and prior knowledge of print conventions.

The learning environment the teacher creates during the interactive writing lesson

should be one that fosters risk taking. As children take an active role in negotiating and

composing the text, one must remember they are still in the process of learning about

print. Many of their responses will be approximations. Therefore the teacher needs to

explain to the children that because they and others will be reading their writing, it is

13

important that the words be spelled conventionally. The teacher uses correction tape to

correct any approximations and supports the students in writing the letter, word, or

punctuation mark conventionally. Teacher sensitivity is necessary to validate the child’s

attempt yet also to teach the standard conventions of print (Button, Johnson, Furgerson,

1996).

Daily interactive writing experiences provide many opportunities for children to

explore the printed form of language. While creating and composing a text, children

must do the following:

attend closely to the features of letters learn about letters, distinguishing one from another access letter knowledge work with letter clusters work with words, constructing them from letters, letter clusters, or

patterns work with syntactic knowledge of the language direct attention to page placement of text, directional rules, serial

order, and spaces break down the task to its smallest segments while at the same time

synthesizing the segments into words and sentences (Askew, Frasier, 1999)

There is evidence that low-progressing children benefit from frequent opportunities to

construct and compose text with the supporting guidance of a teacher. Through the

interactive writing process, children become more self-regulated in writing

independently, in incorporating strategic processes such as hearing and recording sounds

in words, in acquiring a core of known words, and in using known words and word

features to write new words (Askew, Frasier, 1999).

Interactive writing helps “children learn how written language works so that they

can become independent writers” (McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas, 2000). While teachers

must celebrate emergent writers competence and attempts, they must find ways to help

14

them move beyond approximations. Interactive writing is “a transition tool to help

children move forward in their development as writers” (McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas,

2000), as it enables children to transfer the strategies and skills learned to their

independent writing. Interactive writing connects oral and written language (McCarrier,

Pinnell, Fountas, 2000), while demonstrating the reciprocal nature of reading and writing

(Button, Johnson, Furgerson, 1996). Through interactive writing, reading, writing, and

speaking all come together (McCarrier, Pinnell, Fountas, 2000).

METHODS

Participants

This study included both an experimental (intervention) group and a control

group. Initially I chose six of my 15 first grade bilingual students as study participants,

based on their comparable reading levels using the Spanish Dominie running records

assessment. All participants of the study received in-classroom Spanish literacy

instruction, as they were in the pre-production level of English proficiency. Due to the

transient nature of the school population, only five of these students completed the study.

Two were girls, and three were boys. The age of the children ranged from six to seven.

The students’ ability levels ranged from average to low-average.

Data Sources and Analysis

Students in both the intervention and control groups were assessed using the

Spanish Dominie running records assessment. Additionally the Marie Clay’s

Observation Survey- Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (Instrumento de

Observación- Oír y Anotar los Sonidos en las Palabras) was administered to the study

15

participants as a baseline assessment. This assessment asks the student to record a

dictated sentence. The sentence is read aloud by the teacher and the child is encouraged

to write the sounds he/she hears in the words dictated. The student’s assessment is then

scored by counting the representation of sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The

score demonstrates the child's ability to analyze words and his/her awareness with regard

to sound/symbol correspondence. Hearing and identifying the sounds in the words one

writes is an authentic task, not a task solely completed for the purpose of assessment.

The prompt for administering the assessment written in both English and Spanish

is below:

“I am going to read you a story. When I have read it through once I will read it again very slowly so that you can write down the words in the story.” (Read the story at normal speed.) “Some of the words are hard. Say them slowly and think how you can write them. Start writing the words now.”

“Te voy a leer un cuento. Cuando termine de leerlo una vez, volveré a leerlo otra vez muy despacio para que tú puedas escribir las palabras del cuento.” (Lea el cuento con fluidez.) “Algunas de las palabras son dificiles. Dilas despacito a tí mismo y piensa de cómo las podrías escribir. Ahora, empieza a escribir las palabras.”

The dictated sentence of the Instrumento de Observación- Oír y Anotar los

Sonidos de las Palabras is below:

“Tengo un perro en la casa. Lo llevo al parque conmigo.”

The Spanish Dominie running records assessment and Marie Clay’s

Observation Survey- Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (Instrumento de

Observación- Oír y Anotar los Sonidos en las Palabras) were then administered

to both the control and experimental groups following the four-week small group

Interactive Writing intervention. The control and experimental groups were pre-

16

and post- assessed in the same way. The Spanish Dominie running record

assessment was administered to each participant individually prior to and

following the intervention, while the Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words

assessment was administered in small groups prior to and following the

intervention.

Intervention

Small group Interactive Writing was the primary intervention method of this

study. The control group of the study solely received guided reading/word work

instruction. The participants in the control group received a new guided reading book at

their instructional level everyday of the four-week intervention. The students were

oriented to the theme of the text and a purpose for reading was set. The children then

engaged in reading the text, while I scaffolded my level of support in prompting them to

use sources of information to problem solve at difficulty. The control group also

participated in a word work lesson prior to or following the reading of each new text.

Each word work lesson focused on a skill or strategy that the students were expected to

transfer to their reading of the guided reading text. The experimental group of the study

received guided reading/word work instruction, as well as small group Interactive

Writing during the four-week intervention, alternating guided reading/word work

instruction with small group Interactive Writing. On Day One of the intervention, the

participants in the experimental group received the same guided reading text and

participated in the same corresponding word work lesson as the control group. On Day

Two of the intervention, the experimental group reread the text from Day One and

17

participated in a small group Interactive Writing lesson, opposed to receiving a new

guided reading text and participating in word work instruction as the control group did.

Together the students and I negotiated the structure of the text, and then with my

guidance and support, the students collaboratively composed the text. The negotiated

text of the small group Interactive Writing lesson corresponded to the theme of their

guided reading text. The intervention, in detail, proceeded as follows: (see appendix A).

FINDINGS

Both the experimental and control groups were at comparable reading levels prior

to and following the intervention. Figure 1 shows the results of the Spanish Dominie

running records assessment that was administered prior to and following the intervention.

Each child successfully passed the next level of text at an instructional level of accuracy

(90-94%) following the intervention.

Running Records Assessment Results

Dominie Running Record Level Accuracy Dominie Running Record Level Accuracy (Pre-Intervention) (Post-Intervention)

Control Group Student 1 Level 2 91.5% Level 2A 92.9% Student 2 Level 2 82.9% Level 2A 94.7%

Experimental Group

Student 1 Level 1B 96.7% Level 2 91.5% Student 2 Level 1B 90% Level 2 91.5% Student 3 Level 1B 93.4% Level 2 91.5%

Figure 1

18

Control Group Pre/Post Assessment Results

#

of P

hone

mes

/Gra

phem

es R

ecor

ded

(39

poss

ible

pho

nem

es/g

raph

ems)

31

38

27

38

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Pre-Assessment Results

Post-Assessment Results

Student 1 Student 2

Figure 2

6

7

5

7

Ass

essm

ent R

esul

ts S

tani

nes

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Pre-Assessment Stanine

Post-Assessment Stanine

Student 1 Student 2

Control Group Pre/Post Assessment Stanines

Figure 3

The control group of the study solely received guided reading/word work

instruction during the four-week intervention. Figure 2 indicates the students’ pre and

post assessment results on Marie Clay’s Observation Survey- Hearing and Recording

Sounds in Words (Instrumento de Observación- Oír y Anotar los Sonidos en las

Palabras). Figure 3 indicates the raw scores corresponding stanines.

19

Student One of the control group recorded 31 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes

on the pre-assessment (Figure 2). A raw score of 31 on the Instrumento de Observación-

Oír y Anotar los Sonidos en las Palabras corresponded to stanine six, above-average

(Figure 3). On the post-assessment, Student One recorded 38 of 39 possible

phonemes/graphemes (Figure 2). A raw score of 38 corresponded to stanine seven, the

highest attainable stanine of the assessment (Figure 3). Student Two of the control group

recorded 27 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the pre-assessment (Figure 2). A

raw score of 27 corresponded to stanine five, above-average (Figure 3). On the post-

assessment, Student Two recorded 38 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes, as well

(Figure 2). A raw score of 38 corresponded to stanine seven (Figure 3).

Both students made gains on the Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (Oír y

Anotar los Sonidos en las Palabras) post-assessment. Although both students’ pre-

assessment results were considered above-average, both made further gains following the

guided reading/word work intervention (see appendix B).

20

Experimental Group Pre/Post Assessment Results

# of

Pho

nem

es/G

raph

emes

Rec

orde

d

22

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

16

33

Figure 4

(39

poss

ible

pho

nem

es/g

raph

emes

)

16

30

Pre-Assessment ResultsPost-Assessment Results

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3

4

6

3

5

3

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3

Pre-Assessment StaninePost-Assessment Stanine

Experimental Group Pre/Post Assessment Stanines

Ass

essm

ent R

esul

ts S

tani

nes

Figure 5

The experimental group of the study received guided reading/word work and small

group Interactive Writing instruction during the four-week intervention, alternating guided

reading/word work instruction with small group Interactive Writing. Figure 4 indicates

the students’ pre and post assessment results on Marie Clay’s Observation Survey-

21

Student One of the experimental group recorded 22 of 39 possible

phonemes/graphemes on the pre-assessment (Figure 4). A raw score of 22 on the

Instrumento de Observación- Oír y Anotar los Sonidos de las Palabras corresponded to

stanine four, average (Figure 5). Following the intervention, Student One recorded 35

of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the post-assessment (Figure 4). A raw score of

35 corresponded to stanine six, above-average (Figure 5). Student Two of the

experimental group recorded 16 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the pre-

assessment (Figure 4). A raw score of 16 corresponded to stanine 3, below-average

(Figure 5). Following the guided reading/word work and small group Interactive

Writing intervention, Student Two recorded 30 of 39 phonemes/graphemes on the post-

assessment (Figure 4). A raw score of 30 corresponded to stanine 5, above-average

(Figure 5). Student Three of the experimental group recorded 16 of 39 possible

phonemes/graphemes on the pre-assessment (Figure 4). A raw score of 16 corresponded

to stanine three, below-average (Figure 5). Following the intervention, Student Three

recorded 33 of 39 possible phonemes/graphemes on the post-assessment (Figure 4). A

raw score of 33 corresponded to stanine six, above-average (Figure 5).

Despite the fact that the control group made gains on the post-assessment

without the small group Interactive Writing instruction, the experimental group made

significant gains following the guided reading/word work and small group Interactive

Writing intervention, in comparison. Each student in the experimental group improved

by at least two stanines, improving from below-average results to above average results

(see appendix C).

Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (Instrumento de Observación- Oír y Anotar los

Sonidos en las Palabras). Figure 5 indicates the raw scores corresponding stanines.

22

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the pre-intervention and post-intervention data indicated that the

guided reading/word work instruction combined with small group Interactive Writing

instruction positively impacted students’ writing fluency. Post-assessment data supported

Button, Johnson, and Furgerson’s (1996) claim that interactive writing is an effective

strategy, particularly for those considered to be low-progressing students. The gains

made by the experimental group from a below-average stanine to an above-average

stanine provided evidence that low-progressing students do benefit from frequent

opportunities to construct and compose text with the supporting guidance of a teacher.

According to Robb (2003), children learn best when engaged in hands-on active learning

experiences that emphasize the doing. Small group Interactive Writing proved to be a

powerful instructional medium, one in which the children were encouraged to participate

in the writing process with teacher support, collaboratively negotiate the structure of the

text, transcribe the message, and share the pen in writing.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of small group

Interactive Writing and its impact on writing fluency. The assessment data collected

supported McCarrier, Pinnell, and Fountas’s notion of Interactive Writing as a

transitional tool to help children move forward in their development as writers. During

informal observations, following the intervention, I observed that small group Interactive

Writing instruction enabled the children to transfer the strategies and skills learned to

their independent journal writing. Small group Interactive Writing therefore positively

impacted the children’s writing fluency.

23

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

As a result of this study, I plan to continue implementing small-group Interactive

Writing during guided reading instructional time, with the experimental group of this

study, with the intentions to further develop their writing fluency and self-confidence as

writers. I also intend to implement small-group Interactive Writing with my lowest-

progressing group of first grade bilingual students, as a means to support their emergent

reading and writing skills in their early literacy development.

24

REFERENCES

Askew, B. J., & Frasier, D. (1999). Early writing: An exploration of literacy opportunities. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 43-66.

Button, K., Johnson, M. J., & Furgerson, P. (1996). Interactive writing in a primary classroom. The Reading Teacher, 49(6), 446-454.

Clay, M. M. (1996). Instrumento de Observacion de los logros de la lecto-escritura inicial. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Cruikshank, M. (2001). The emergent writing process of a preschool child. International Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 10-17.

Dorn, L. J., & Soffos, C. (2001). Scaffolding young writers: A writers’ workshop approach. Portland: Stenhouse.

Dulaney-Barclay, K. (1991). What children can teach us about emergent literacy. Illinois School Research and Development, 27(2), 62-69.

Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (1996). Teaching reading and writing in Spanish in the bilingual classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Gentry, R. J. (2005). Instructional techniques for emerging writers and special needs students at kindergarten and grade 1 levels. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21(2), 113-134.

Green Bay Area Public School District. (2004). ESL/Bilingual Program Information [Brochure]. Green Bay, WI: Author.

Leonard-Lamme, L., Fu, D., Johnson, J., & Savage, D. (2002). Helping kindergarten writers move toward independence. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 73-79.

McCarrier, A., Pinnell, G., & Fountas, I. C. (2000). Interactive writing: How language and literacy come together, K-2. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Robb, L. (2003). Literacy links: Practical strategies to develop the emergent literacy at-risk children need. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Rubin, R., & Galvan-Carlan, V. (2005). Using writing to understand bilingual children's literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 728-739. Strickland, D. S., & Mandel-Morrow, L. (Eds.). (2000). Beginning reading and writing.

New York: Teachers College Press.

25

Day 1 (09-14-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: Veo, veo Publisher: ETA Cuisenaire Text Level: DRA 2 Word Work: un/una Day 2 (09-15-06) Control Group Guided Reading Text: En el mercado Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 2 Word Work: gusta/gustan Experimental Group Interactive Writing Negotiated Text- Veo a unos niños afuera. Day 3 (09-18-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: El zoológico Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 2 Word Work: mira/miro Day 4 (09-19-06) Control Group Guided Reading Text: ¡Alto! Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 2 Word Work: aquí Experimental Group Interactive Writing Negotiated Text- Ven y mira el leon. Day 5 (09-20-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: ¿Donde estan los bebes? Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 2 Word Work: está/están

Day 6 (09-21-06) Control Group Guided Reading Text: Los hogares de los animales Publisher: Benchmark Education Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: está/estamos Experimental Group Interactive Writing

Appendix A

26

Negotiated Text- Los pescados viven en el mar. Day 7 (09-22-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: El listón Publisher: Hampton-Brown Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: pongo Day 8 (09-25-06) Control Group Guided Reading Text: Orejas Publisher: Hampton-Brown Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: que/qui/aquí/quien Experimental Group Interactive Writing Negotiated Text: Me pongo el listón en el regalo. Day 9 (09-26-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: Mi mochila Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: pongo Day 10 (09-27-06) Control Group Guided Reading Text: El gato nuevo Publisher: Pacific Learning Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: bebí/bebió/comí/comió Experimental Group Interactive Writing Negotiated Text: Yo pongo mi tarea en mi mochila. Day 11 (09-28-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: Me gusta leer Publisher: Rigby Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: gusta/gustan/gusto Day 12 (09-29-06) Control Group Guided Reading Text: En la mañanita Publisher: Hampton-Brown Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: que/qui/quiero/quiere

27

Experimental Group Interactive Writing

Negotiated Text:

Me gusta leerle a mi amigo en la escuela. Day 13 (10-02-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: Todos usamos agua Publisher: Benchmark Education Text Level: DRA 3 Word Work: usan/usamos/para Day 14 (10-03-06) Control Group Guided Reading Text: La hora de acostarse Publisher: Bebop Books Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: quiero/quiere/tengo Experimental Group Interactive Writing Negotiated Text: Usamos agua para lavar las manos. Day 15 (10-04-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: ¿Quien soy yo? Publisher: Hampton-Brown Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: soy/voy/hoy/tengo Day 16 (10-05-06) Control Group Guided Reading Text: La gorra de Omar Publisher: Pacific Learning Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: dijo/dije/quitate Experimental Group Interactive Writing Negotiated Text: Un león tiene dientes largas. Day 17 (10-06-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: El gato goloso tiene hambre Publisher: Pacific Learning Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: al/la/algo/lago/buscaba Day 18 (10-10-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: Las semillas

28

Publisher: Benchmark Education Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: mira/tiene Day 19 (10-12-06) Control Group Guided Reading Text: La ciudad Publisher: Pacific Learning Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: veo/vivo/encanta Experimental Group Interactive Writing

Negotiated Text:

Las manzanas y las calabazas tienen semillas. Day 20 (10-13-06) Control/Experimental Group Guided Reading Text: Los lentes de Nicolás Publisher: Pacific Learning Text Level: DRA 4 Word Work: está/están/estoy/donde

29

Pre-Assessment

Appendix B

Post- Assessment

30

Pre-Assessment

31

Post-Assessment

32Appendix C

Pre- Assessment

33

Post-Assessment

34

Pre-Assessment

35

Post- Assessment

36

Pre- Assessment

Post- Assessment