This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 17 November 2014, At: 21:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

Preservice teachers exploretheir conceptions of thewriting process with youngpen palsRita A. Moore aa Washburn UniversityPublished online: 05 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Rita A. Moore (2000) Preservice teachers explore theirconceptions of the writing process with young pen pals, Reading Research andInstruction, 40:1, 17-33, DOI: 10.1080/19388070009558332

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070009558332

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Reading Research and InstructionFall 2000, 40 (1)17-33

Preservice Teachers Explore their Conceptions of theWriting Process with Young Pen Pals

Rita A. MooreWashburn University

ABSTRACT

linking preservice teachers' professional education with meaningful classroom

practice is an important goal of teacher preparation (Burk, 1989; Darling-

Hammond, 1997, 1998; Goodlad, 1990; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). In this study,

44 preservice teachers enrolled in two language arts methods courses were paired as

pen pals with two classes of first and second graders for ten weeks. The purpose of

the study was to explore the influence of the children's writing on the preservice

teachers' conceptions of writing as a complex growth process (Dyson, 1996) rather

than a discreet set of skills. Throughout the ten-week study, the preservice teachers

examined the developmental nature of the writing process using the six-trait writing

analysis (Spandel and Stiggins, 1997), wrote journal entries relating what they were

learning about the writing process based on their regular analysis of the children's

letters, and engaged in follow-up classroom discussion and peer verification of an

on-going assessment of their pen pal's writing. The preservice teachers' participation

in a shared classroom experience generated genuine questions and concerns within

the context of an authentic approach to teacher preparation (Boyd, Boll, Brawner, &

Villaume, 1998). While many preservice teachers began the study thinking of writing

as a set of linear skills to teach, their paradigms shifted as they came to recognize

the highly predictable and developmental nature of the children's writing evidenced

through emerging linguistic patterns and strong student voice.

Teacher preparatory programs today seek to provide authentic learning connectionsbetween teaching candidates and children. The preservice teachers of this study wereasked to consider their conceptions of the writing process in young children throughtheir assessments of the weekly letters from their young pen pals.

Integral to teaching writing is an awareness that children's writing develops innatural, predictable ways given varied, authentic writing experiences as well as exposureto multiple genres and audiences (Calkins, 1994; Lane, 1993; Lindfors, 1991; Temple& Gillet, 1996). Writing emerges more coherently and naturally as children developand use a variety of spelling, grammar, comprehension, and writing strategies withinauthentic genres for the purpose of conveying meaning (Watson, 1996). To supportthe development of writing in young children, teachers should be willing to acknowledgethat children's voices are most clear when they are engaged in talking and writingabout that which is important and meaningful in their lives (Watson, 1996; Raban,1999). In addition, to affirm and value children's writing, from the earliest stages forward,serves to advance their motivation to write, and to think of themselves as writers(Lane, 1993).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

18 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40(1)

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Creating meaningful learning experiences for shaping pedagogical conceptions inpreservice teachers is a strong theme in current research. Dialogue journaling betweenyoung children and preservice teachers (Wham & Lenski, 1994) as well as letterwriting activities have been cited as engaging, motivating, and instructional for botheducation majors and children (Frick, 1992; Moore, 1996,1998). Pen pal correspondenceprovides a safe forum for the important celebration and valuing of human relationships(Berrill & Gall, 1999) in the lives of young children while affording preserviceteachers an opportunity to experience the "world of the young writer in a positive,non-threatening way" (Gregg, 1998, p. 34). Kennedy (1998) explored the influenceof preservice teacher education on beliefs and attitudes on teaching writing to youngchildren and a number of recent studies suggest that teacher education within authenticcontexts could "enliven and stimulate us into seeing the familiar in new ways andinto seeing patterns, relationships and connections for the first time" (Zeichner, 1999,p. 12). In addition, Hewson, Tabachnick, Zeichner, and Lemberger (1999) emphasizethe need for preservice teachers to be able to consider teaching and learning throughtheir conceptions of the learning process.

Although much of the literature focused on the influence of pen paling onchildren's writing, three studies investigated the results of pen paling on the conceptionsof preservice teachers in regard to the development of the writing process in children.Burk (1989) examined preservice teachers' understanding of the decision makingprocess children utilize in writing. Findings from the study indicated that after a fewweeks of letter exchange, preservice teachers were able to thoughtfully examine thedecision making processes behind children's use of revision, space, and risk-taking.Hedengren (1994) teamed preservice teachers with groups of second, fourth, andfifth grade students with the intention of helping them learn more about the teachingof writing. Results of the investigation reported preservice teachers were better ableto bridge what they were learning in their language arts methods course aboutchildren's writing through actual experiences with children. Wham and Lenski(1994) paired two language arts classes of elementary education majors with secondgrade dialogue journal partners to study the conceptions of preservice teachers aboutwriting development. During the semester, preservice teachers examined writingsamples of 87 elementary school children for development in spellings, content, andconventions. University classroom discussions provided a regular forum for exploringthe developmental nature of the writing process and teaching strategies to support it.

Benefits to the preservice teachers' understanding of the nature and teaching ofwriting were consistently reported in the research, regardless of whether the focus ofthe studies was on the children's learning or the developing conceptions of thepreservice teachers about the developmental nature of the writing process(Crowhurst, 1990, 1992; Gregg, 1998; Tebo-Messina & Blough, 1989; and Yellin,1987). One preservice teacher remarked, "My opinions [about children's writing]have changed.. .1 got to see how children can move through stages of scribbling toactually writing sentences" (Gregg, 1998, p. 145). Participating in authentic writingcontexts with children helped preservice teachers better conceptualize that the development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pen Pals 19

of children's writing occurs in meaningful and predictable ways (Bromley, 1994;Ceprano & Garan, 1998; Gregg, 1998; Lindfors, 1991).

RATIONALE

To understand how children learn to write, the teacher must be able to conceptualizethe developmental nature of the writing process. Building on other studies, thisresearch inquiry investigated the influence of regularly shared classroom analyses ofauthentic children's writing on preservice teachers' conceptualizations of the writingprocess as well as the teacher's role in supporting it. To guide their understanding,the preservice teachers were trained in the use of an assessment and verification processto guide them in recognizing patterns of linguistic development in the children'swriting in order to build a language profile on each child. This study differs frommany others in that its emphasis is on the developing conceptions of the preserviceteachers who focused on the strengths of the children's writing as evidenced throughpredictable linguistic patterns and strong writer's voice.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following research questions served to focus the inquiry and explore theconceptions about children's writing held by preservice teachers as they learned first-hand of the developmental nature of emergent writers.

What conceptions did the preservice teachers hold prior to the study about thedevelopment of the writing process?

How did on-going analyses of the children's letters shape the preservice teachersconceptions of the development of the writing process and their role as teachers?

METHOD

ParticipantsUniversity participants were 44 preservice teachers enrolled in a language arts

methods course in a mid-size university. One fourth were males and three fourthswere females. None had any formal classroom teaching experience, but many hadworked with young children in the capacity of care givers or parents. Most were"non-traditional" in the sense that they were married, had children, held other jobs,and fell into the age bracket of between 25-48.

The classroom teachers taught in two of the local elementary schools. Debbywas an experienced second grade teacher pursuing a master's degree in curriculumand instruction. Molly was a first year teacher pursuing a master's degree in literacyeducation who taught in a multi-age first and second grade classroom. Both teachersstrongly favored providing meaningful and interesting writing experiences for theirstudents. They saw the pen pal letter exchange as a natural way of teaching reading,writing, and spelling within the context of authentic writing. As a first year teacher,Molly expressed concern about how to "help her children become more interested inwriting. . .to better understand writing as a communication process, rather than asrequired subject matter." Debby's concerns were similar but she was also very interested

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

20 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000,40(1)

in helping her students "see themselves as real readers and writers who had some-thing important to say to an appreciative audience." During a conversation we hadearly in the study, she said, "Writing must be developed authentically and naturally. Iwant to find methods of instruction that will let my children's writing emerge as richimages of their own voices and experiences." Both teachers' philosophies embraceddevelopmentally appropriate teaching strategies that supported the concept of buildingon student strengths as emergent readers and writers (Wilde, 2000).

Debby and Molly assisted in the project by 1) interpreting some of the phoneticspellings, asking the child to read what was written so that a "translated" copy of theletter could be included for the preservice teacher, 2) visiting the university class-room as guest speakers 3) arranging two meetings and a final party for the pen pals,and 4) providing both verbal and written feedback on the children's reactions andresponses to the preservice teachers' letters. In addition, they served as final peerreviewers for the study.

Guidelines and ProceduresPrior to the first letter exchange, I oriented the preservice teachers to the project

requirements. I then introduced them to the six-trait writing assessment process(Spandel & Stiggins, 1997), using children's writing samples and excerpts from writtenlanguage profiles constructed by preservice teachers involved in previous pen palprojects.

Preservice teachers' participation in the project included: 1) two visits to theirpen pal's classroom to foster greater communicative links, 2) analyzing each one ofthe children's letters using the six-trait writing process rubric as scoring guide(Spandel & Stiggins, 1997), 3) keeping dated journal entries about progress in thechild's writing as well as other reflective comments or questions, 4) attending a finalcelebration between both sets of pen pals, and 5) writing a detailed profile at the endof the project on the written language development of the pen pal using examplesfrom the scoring rubric for analyzing the six-trait writing process, as well as excerptsfrom dated journal entries about each letter as documentation of their findings.

In addition, a set of guidelines for the preservice teachers to follow were developedand distributed in order to assure greater success of the project. These included:printing or typing each letter since the children had not yet been introduced to cur-sive writing, keeping copies of both their letters and those of pen pals, asking thechildren age appropriate questions, writing in an positive, upbeat fashion, consistentlymodeling standard grammar, punctuation and spelling, having a peer read the letterfor mechanical errors prior to sending it, sharing interesting poems and stories—ingeneral, finding ways of appealing to a variety of learning modalities and topicalinterests. In addition, the preservice teachers were reminded of the sensitive nature ofthis project in regard to the children's friendship, trust, and expectations.

Data Collection and AnalysisBefore the pen pal letter exchange began, the preservice teachers wrote, then

discussed, their personal recollections of how they learned to read and write. Afterclass discussion, the preservice teachers were asked to briefly describe 1) the development

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pen Pals 21

of the writing process, 2) how they thought writing should be taught, and 3) theirconcerns in regard to teaching writing. This was used as baseline data for the study;therefore, the survey was repeated at the end of the study.

To organize the letter exchange, Molly and Debby paired the children withnames of the preservice teachers. They then introduced the project to the children byexplaining that they would be exchanging weekly letters with a university pen pal.This introduction led to a mini-lesson on personal letter writing during which thechildren brainstormed ideas and questions for their initial letters. Molly and Debbydid not write a standard letter for the children to use as a model, rather they sharedexamples of real letters, inviting the children to discuss their knowledge of letterwriting and basic conventions associated with the genre. The children wrote the firstletter, then weekly letters were exchanged between pen pals for ten weeks.

Multiple sources of data that were collected from the preservice teachersincluded: analyses of the children's letters using the six-trait scoring rubric, journalentries, informal surveys administered at the beginning, middle, and end of theproject, final language profiles developed by the preservice teachers on their penpals, and responses to questions asked at the beginning and end of the study in regardto their conceptions of the writing process. In addition, as researcher, I kept extensivefield notes.

The data were analyzed using a constant-comparative method (Bogdan & Biklin,1992). The data were grouped and regrouped as the semester progressed, revealingdominant patterns and themes in the developing conceptions of the preservice teachersand their views on authentic writing strategies. Two types of tnangulation establishedthe validity of the study. First, methodological triangulation, "the use of multiplemethods to study a single problem" (Patton, 1990, p. 187), was used to triangulatedata such as journal entries, six-trait writing analyses, informal surveys, and my fieldnotes from class discussions and conversations with preservice teachers. Compilingthese sources helped maintain a more complete picture of the entire data body.

The second method was triangulation of data sources, "comparing and cross-checking the consistency of information derived at different times and by differentmeans within qualitative methods" (Patton, 1990, p. 467). For example, twice duringthe study, five representative, anonymous, samples of data from each of the languagearts sections were randomly selected and presented for peer review to a graduateassistant in literacy education, who was also an experienced classroom teacher. Shelooked for consistency and patterns in the preservice teachers' analysis of thechildren's writing as well as evidence of conceptual change. Upon completion of thestudy, Molly and Debby reviewed the results of the data analysis to verify theconceptual development of the preservice teachers in regard to the children's writingprocess. Their input was considered unbiased since the preservice teachers' workremained anonymous and the focus of the study was not on the children's developmentas writers but on the preservice teachers' conceptions of writing and the teaching ofwriting.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

22 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40 (1)

Letters, scoring guides, and journalsDuring the 10 weeks of the project, at least one hour a week of the language arts

methods classes was dedicated to informally assessing and discussing the children'sletters for evidence of writing strengths, changes, and patterns of linguistic development.The preservice teachers studied the children's letters and wrote weekly journalentries. These entries were reflections on the child's progress as well as a chronologyof what the preservice teachers were learning about the writing process, particularlyin regard to linguistic patterns prevalent in early attempts at writing.

To guide the preservice teacher's analysis of their pen pal's writing, every weekthey completed a six trait analytical scoring rubric (Spandel & Stiggens, 1997) on thechild's letter. To rationalize their scoring, the preservice teachers maintained evidencefor their ratings on the same sheet. To ensure accurate assessment of the children'sdevelopment, scores on each child's letter were cross checked by peers, a graduatestudent, and me. The six traits included 1) ideas and content, 2) organization, 3)voice, 4) word choice, 5) sentence fluency, and 6) conventions. The preservice teachersranked each trait demonstrated in the pen pal letters on a scale of 1-5, with five as thehighest score. A weekly average was compiled. Ratings on the scoring rubric werethen compared with findings from the weekly journal organizer.

To organize their journal writing, the preservice teachers dated the journal entry,then drew four columns on the first page of the entry. In the first column they listedthe writing strengths observed in each letter citing specific evidence in the secondcolumn. The third column was for noting any changes they saw in the child's writing,citing evidence in the fourth column. On the next page, they were to reflect oncharacteristics of the child's writing that puzzled them and to discuss teachingstrategies that might support their growing profile of the young writer. This organizerwas maintained and used for directing discussion throughout the project. It alsoserved as an organizational aid in the preservice teachers' final profile of theirrespective pen pal's writing development. The six trait scoring rubric often generatedideas for the preservice teachers to consider as they completed entries in their journals;likewise, the journal organizer was a place to capture data that the scoring rubric didnot include. For example, one child only drew pictures at first but by project's endwas writing simple sentences.

Drawing on evidence cited in their journals as well as that from the six trait scoringguide, the preservice teachers then composed a written language profile on each childbased on five to six exemplary letters. The profile included: 1) exemplary letters citedin chronological order, 2) a charted overview of the preservice teacher's evaluations ofthe child's writing progress using the six-trait analysis, 3) a summary of the child'scommunicative competence and writing development according to both the six-traitanalysis and the preservice teacher's journal organizer with evidence cited, and 4)specific teaching strategies that would support the continued development of thewriting process for their pen pal.

Informal surveysThree times during the semester, I administered informal written surveys for the

purpose of collecting information to guide our classroom discussions and to track the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pen Pals 23

teachers' conceptual changes. I asked the preservice teachers to briefly summarizethe developments they saw in their pen pal's writing, supporting their answers by usingspecific examples from the child's letters that they had used to make coding decisionsfor the six-trait writing analysis. To assist the preservice teachers, I asked them toconsider the following questions when describing their respective pen pal's development:

What evidence is there of your pen pal's growing confidence, strategies, andskills as a writer?

What strategies would be useful in supporting your pen pal's writing development?

The questions of the survey were intentionally open-ended since each child'swriting progress was different and each pen pal relationship was unique. I collectedand read the surveys after the third, sixth, and last letter had been received, notingexamples to share for instructional purposes, then returned them to the preserviceteachers.

RESULTS

Two major themes focused the analysis of the data collection. One dealt with thepreservice teachers' conceptions of the powerful role of phonetic spelling in languagedevelopment while the other concentrated on how to teach writing. Themes werechosen based on the frequency in which they occurred in either the journals, theinformal surveys, my field notes, and the final written language profile of each child,which included the charted six-trait writing analysis. For example, if a topic occurredat least ten times in at least two of the data sources, it was determined to be a majortheme. I then chose exemplary data samples drawn from the preservice teachers journals,discussions, and language assessment profiles to characterize each theme and itscomponent parts. These choices were reviewed by the classroom teachers, the graduatestudent who assisted in data collection, and another literacy professor to ensure theirclear correspondence to the theme.

The research questions addressed the preservice teachers' conceptions of thedevelopment and teaching of the writing process prior to and after the study. Informationdirectly related to the research questions are included in the discussion of the themes.

Theme I: Conceptualizing Writing and Spelling DevelopmentThis theme characterized the preservice teachers' understanding of how writing

develops with particular regard for 1) the role of phonetic spelling, 2) the influenceof phonemic awareness on early writing, 3) the early presence of function words, 4)the development of conventions and use of punctuation, and 5) the acquisition ofwriting in a second language through the letters of an English limited child.

They write foneticle. In describing the first few sets of pen pal letters, onepreservice teacher quipped "they write foneticle;" however, after two months of penpal correspondence, results from the informal surveys indicated that the majority ofthe preservice teachers had learned to conceptualize the phonetic spelling in terms oflinguistic trial and error (Goodman, 1996).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

24 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40(1)

Baseline data from the questionnaire given at the beginning of the study indicatedthat only five (11%) of the preservice teachers said that writing evolved most effectivelythrough linguistic trial and error (Goodman, 1996). I concluded that, like otherpreservice teachers, as well as practicing teachers (Ceprano & Garan, 1998), themajority had not conceptualized the role of invented or phonetic spelling in acquiringthe use of conventional spelling.

In contrast, at the end of the study, all of the preservice teachers' language profilesof the children, in varying degrees, reported evolving patterns of linguistic structurescommon to English syntax and spelling in the letters. For example, many discoveredthe exploratory, non-linear process children use when first learning to spell Englishdiphthongs, digraphs, or words ending in "silent e," learning first-hand thatchildren's emergent spelling of most phonemes is based on patterns of language theyhear and see, not rules and generalizations that are not consistently applicable(Moustafa, 1997). To illustrate: in a class discussion about how children's orallanguage is often reflected in their written expressions, one preservice teacher,Trisha, pointed to her pen pal's spelling of "swop" for "swap" as a cogent example oftwo same-sound phonemes with different spellings within an identical linguisticenvironment: "sw_p."

Like many of her classmates, Tracy commented on her pen pal's use of variousphonological strategies rather than phonics rules to guide his spellings (Strickland,1998; Wilde, 1997), demonstrating the "emergent and novice" stages of spellingdevelopment (Hiebert & Raphael, 1998, p. 23). Tracy cites two strategies in herorganizer: her pen pal's use of the first letter of a word as "a place holder " and his"not yet understanding the function of the silent e ending to determine the sound ofthe preceding vowel."

Phonemic awareness, or the ability to segment and blend sounds, was cited inalmost all of the language profiles as an important indicator of vocabulary use andspelling development. To demonstrate this link to phonemic awareness, Trisha sharedexamples from her pen pal's last letter to her in which he spelled "chried" as the phonemiccounterpart of "tried," "a latty" for "a lady," and "shous" for "shoes."

Although at first, the preservice teachers described the phonemic spellings andearly punctuation attempts as "interesting" and "cute," as they continued to receiveletters, their nomenclature changed in their organizers, journals, and class discussionsindicating their paradigms were changing. For example, Luke went from labeling thephonetic spellings of his pen pal as "peculiar," or as "errors," to noting the "patternsof correct spelling beginning to emerge." He particularly began to notice theincreased conventional spellings in high frequency or function words which, after avisit to his pen pal's classroom, he later attributed to the print rich environment thatDebby, the classroom teacher, provided her students. The preservice teachers alsonoted wide variances in spelling development among and across grade levels—particularly evident in letters from Molly's multi-age first and second grade class-room. In a class discussion about the stages of written language development, Audranoted that many of the second grade writers had moved beyond the emergent spellingstage to become "novice spellers" (Strickland, 1998, p. 23), who used fewer pictures

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pen Pals 25

and primarily engaged in phonemic, or temporary spellings, to communicate a greatdeal of meaning (1998). In addition to developing spelling strategies, the preserviceteachers observed that the children were beginning to experiment with punctuation,noticing that periods and exclamation marks were subject to the same developmentalprocess as were the children's spellings. The preservice teachers also noticed thatsuch conventions as paragraphing, dates at the top of the letter, and greetings alloccurred as emergent processes.

One of the language arts classes was able to follow the above mentioneddevelopments through the letters from Liz's pen pal, a Chinese child with limitedEnglish. Opening her first pen pal letter, Liz exclaimed to the class, "Look! It's writtenin Chinese!" Over time, Liz studied her pen pal's writing development both as anemergent writer and as a second language learner. Comparing letters with those ofher classmates, Liz and her peers saw concrete evidence of what I could only presentas theory in our classroom—all language learners go through a similar developmental,experimental process as they become writers, regardless of their first language(Lindfors, 1991) or the language they are currently learning. For example, in laterletters, Ann progressed from using pictures as place holders to the use of consonantstrings interspersed with function words, a process that Liz correctly cited as evidenceof the parallels between first and second language acquisition. She was also surprisedat how rapidly Ann acquired English proficiency. Late in the project Liz wrote in herjournal, "In September, she wrote only in Chinese, but by November, her letter is entirelyin English!"

Answers from the regularly administered surveys as well as my field notesrevealed that after only two letter analyses, over half of the preservice teachers realizedthat predictable linguistic patterns and place holders were easily identifiable as thechildren acquired standard grammar, spelling, and punctuation. In fact, 41 (93%) saidthat they believed writing evolved most effectively through linguistic trial and error(Goodman, 1996). For example, Trisha, whose pen pal loved to snowboard, noted inher organizer the child's consistent spelling of "snowboard" as "snowbord" patternedafter other /ordV ending words. Her observation led to closer scrutiny by her classmatesof their most recent letters revealing evidence of similar patterns.

Conceptions of the preservice teachers about the development of the writing processbegan to be clearly and consistently addressed in the data about mid-way through theproject. In their journal entries, surveys and discussions, the preservice teachers beganto speculate on why the children sometimes interchanged both the phonetic andconventional spelling of the same word. Questions like these framed our regularclassroom discussions and led to the consideration of the teacher's role in supportingthe young writers' growing acquisition of conventional spellings. For example, duringthe fourth week of the study, Luke commented in class that he was beginning to betterunderstand the importance of providing many kinds of writing opportunities inconjunction with a print-rich classroom to "reinforce" the spelling that he observedhis pen pal gradually coming "to own."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

26 Reading Research and Instruction Fall200O, 40(1)

Theme II: Approaches to Writing InstructionThe second theme related to the approach teachers should take to writing

instruction based on what they were learning about the development of the writingprocess. Within this theme, the following conceptual understandings emerged in theobservations of the preservice teachers: 1) children should be involved and investedin the writing process in meaningful, authentic ways; 2) teachers should provide differentopportunities for children to write across different genres to support their growingexpertise; and 3) children benefit from having an interested audience for their writing.

Meaningful involvement in the writing process. Drawing on the research ofHeath (1983), Lindfors (1991), Hubbard (1996), Cazden (1996), and others, Mollyand Debby encouraged the children to express themselves in authentic narrative asthey composed their letters and to share other writing experiences with their universitypen pals. Exposure to these practices demonstrated the classroom teacher's role ingiving children greater choice in writing, and providing authentic opportunities tobroaden their knowledge and use of writing strategies (Dahl & Farnan, 1996).Following are representative samples of evidence cited by the preservice teachers todemonstrate the importance of authenticity and choice in showcasing the knowledgeof the emergent writer.

he wuz my favrit cusin untl he diyd. Tara's father had recently passed away,consequently, she missed writing the weekly letter. Although another preserviceteacher wrote a letter to the child, he was very worried about his "real" pen pal. Afterfielding many questions from the youngster, Molly decided to explain to him whathad happened. Tara shared his next letter with the class to demonstrate how an authenticcommunication event motivates even the most reluctant writer. The child, a second-grader, who had scarcely ever written more than a few lines, had composed a fullpage of phonetically spelled narrative about his recent loss of a favorite cousin. Wewere stunned by the power and motivation demonstrated in this example of a childwriting with such meaning and purpose. He wrote that he was "sory" Tara's fatherhad "diyd," then with great detail described the tragic death of his cousin, closing hisletter with "he wuz my favrit cusin untl he diyd."

This clok is for you. Occasionally, the preservice teachers sent book marks,stickers or photographs and received some interesting "presents" in return. Amongthe most memorable were worn pencils without erasers, a watch that did not work, asingle piece of candy taped tightly to the letter, and self-portraits the children drew.Along with the watch that did not work was the explanation: "Well aneway this clokis for you its not set rihgt so your gowing to have to do it yourself."

These memorabilia represented more than just quaint gifts; they provideddiscussion starters about typical behaviors and interactions between and among agegroups. For example, Karen said the "clok" reminded her of her own childhood gifts,given or received, that clearly carried the personal voice and message of the giver.She, like many of her classmates, commented in her journal that the personalization

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pen Pals 27

of the letters by the child helped her better understand the concept of voice in writing.She thought the children's voices were clearest when they wrote with the intention ofmaking a "personal connection."

aoor TRDL DieD. Three weeks into the study, the preservice teachers pen palingwith Molly's multi-age first and second grade class eagerly read the latest news fromtheir young friends. Up to now, the letters had been upbeat narratives from the childrenabout classroom routines, interests, and up-coming events. That afternoon was different.As I watched the preservice teachers' lips silently working to decode the phonetic spellings,I sensed from their facial expressions that the content of this set of letters was differentfrom the others.

"Oh no! Speedy died!" Dana finally exclaimed aloud and her classmates rapidlychimed in to corroborate the untimely death of the class pet that the preservice teachershad been hearing about in the children's letters. I listened to this most authenticliteracy learning event as 22 future teachers carefully pooled information expressedin varying developmental stages of spelling about the passing of the beloved turtle,Speedy. The preservice teachers engaged in the helping one another decipher phoneticspelling and picture clues until the details of Speedy's weekend passing, thechildren's questions about death, dying, and animal heaven, and the candle-lit Mondayburial of the class pet were complete and apparent to us all.

One child wrote: I'm sorey spedie is diyd he diyd lasnit I lit the candle." Thepoetry and power of those words struck us all. An examination of the evidence ofspelling development and advanced graphophonological constructions such ascontractions, and the conventional spelling of "candle" compared to what we saw inthe child's last letter helped the preservice teachers to realize the learning processesand strategies transitioning through this child's control and use of written language.His pen pal Lorena commented that up until now, the child had written short,perfunctory sentences as though he really did not have much of interest to say to her.

Writing within and across genres. Experiencing the effects of teaching writingthrough the genre of letter writing often sparked university classroom discussionsabout how to encourage the non-linear development of writing expertise and studentvoice through letters as well as other genres. The following are examples from thosediscussions.

P.S. I think your butiful. One of the conventions of letter writing that many ofthe preservice teachers characterized as a powerful communicator of personal feelingsfor the children was the postscript. Particularly after meeting their pen pals, thepreservice teachers observed how young children's behaviors may often resemblethe last minute response of a postscript—the unexpected hug, a tug at your sleeveand a smile, or an ingenuous comment much like the postscript to a preserviceteacher which said, "PS I think your butiful."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

28 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40 (1)

Blending genres. The preservice teachers wrote poems, stories or story startersto encourage and compare the children's use of writing strategies and conventionsacross genres. As a result, they received stories about how parrots came to talk, detailedfables about good overcoming evil, original poetry, and some entertaining attemptsat science fiction writing.

In class discussions, as well as in their journals, the preservice teachers notedthat in the stories, the children seemed more willing to experiment with punctuationand dialogue than in their letter writing. For example, several times we saw exclamationmarks placed in the middle of a sentence for emphasis. Becky suggested that possiblychildren associate punctuation and dialogue more closely to picture book narratives.In comparing the use of the different genres with the six-trait writing analysis, thepreservice teachers agreed that a higher level of creativity and voice emerged butsometimes continuity of thought and expressions were not as focused as they were intheir letters. Lorena conjectured that this might be due to the context of letter writingin which the children were often responding to direct questions or following up on apreviously discussed topic.

Sher is a bummer. Dan cited the following poem as an example of strongwriter's voice. It was written by his pen pal after Dan had shared some poems with him.

Monday drop my books got mud on them tore my shrt flukt my testtecher said I must do better Monday sher is a bummer

Benefiting from an interested audience. The first of the following pen pal letterswas written at the beginning of the project; the second one was written near the end.Trisha said in her journal that they represented her pen pal's evolving appreciation ofher as a "valued and trusted audience" and remarked on her growing realization ofthat role as a teacher.

September, 1998Dear Trisha,

I love to read. My favorite animal is my dog. My favorite sport is baskitball.We have new peslholdres. I went to Tailand. I am going agin, when I grow up Iwant to be a baskitball player. I have 3 Dads and 1 Mom. I am glad to be yourpen pal. Taylor

December, 1998.Dear Trisha,

I am sorry that my letter was short, the latty was hear to soon. Saturday Iwent to the ski swop! I chried on some snowshous on a snow-bord. I am goingto learn to snow-bord. How are your kittens. They are cute. I used to have a catbut it got ran over by a car on my birthday. I was sad, I ran in my room andcride. but now I got a dog, and now I am happy, bye for now. Taylor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pen Pals 29

As Trisha's language profile states, "the first letter seems to be the moreadvanced of the two since most of the words and conventions are in standard form;however, a closer look at the second letter shows a great deal more about Taylor'sdeveloping writing and his willingness to share personal things with me." Asevidence, she cited the description of Saturday's trip to the ski swap as well as theinclusion of many details about his feelings and interests.

The data indicated that conceptions held by the preservice teachers of their rolein teaching writing were shaped as a result of the pen pal project. For example, onthe survey administered at the beginning of the study, 38 (89%) of the preserviceteachers were uncertain of how much invented or phonetic spelling should beencouraged in young writers and all 44 (100%) agreed they were not yet confidentenough to teach writing. In the same survey administered at the end of the study, onlythree (.06%) of the 44 preservice teachers were still uncertain as to how muchinvented or phonetic spelling to encourage in young writers. And, all 44 (100%)preservice teachers said that as a result of assessing the children's writing and ourclassroom discussions about the children's writing, they were more confident inteaching writing using authentic instructional approaches such as letter writing andpersonal narrative.

IMPLICATIONS

Looking for patterns of writing development in the letters helped the preserviceteachers conceptualize the children's writing samples as evidence of the growth anddevelopment of the individual child's writing process rather than a lack of spelling orphonics skills (Clay, 1998; Moustafa, 1997; Temple & Gillet, 1996; Wilde, 1997). Invarying degrees of competency, the preservice teachers were now able to assess thewriting process as Clay (1998) describes it: "Daily or weekly records . . .show agradual build-up in each of these areas [writing stages] as more letters, more words,more segmented clusters, and more links between these knowledge sources areacquired" (p. 134).

Utilizing the children's writing to teach language development theory madeclassroom discussions much more relevant than arbitrary response to the course text-book. (Although this was not a research question, over 75% of the preservice teachersaffirmed this on their final course evaluations.) For example, several weeks into thestudy, I introduced the concept of the common ambiguity of spelling associated withthe schwa sound, the recurrent unstressed syllable heard in English (Goodman, 1996;Wilde, 1997). When, I asked the preservice teachers to look for evidence of the effectof the schwa on the children's spelling, Danielle cited clear examples from her penpal's letters that included "baskitball" instead of "basketball: where the secondunstressed syllable carries the same "uh" sound in spoken English, and "agin" for"again" where the second syllable is unstressed. I know from experience that theeffect of the schwa on conventional spellings is not easily understood or accepted bypreservice teachers; however, the evidence found in the children's letters was over-whelmingly affirmed by this group of students.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

30 Reading Research and Instruction Fall2000, 40(1)

The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of the weekly letterexchange and analysis of the children's developing writing strengths on thepreservice teachers' conceptions of children's writing as a complex growth process(Dyson, 1996). Beginning with their beliefs and personal experiences as writers, thepreservice teachers were invited to consider the emergent writing process from thedevelopmental, non-linear perspective of linguistic trial and error (Goodman, 1996).They began by looking at the pen pal letters for evidence of writing strengths, notweaknesses, making a list of everything the children knew about writing and thedifferent ways they expressed uniqueness or "voice" as writers (Lane, 1993). Later,the preservice teachers began to notice and document patterns of language developmentinherent in the writing progress of their pen pals. These patterns were translated intolanguage profiles which provided rich, more authentic representations of writingfrom children the preservice teachers had come to know. The profiles represented apowerful assessment of each preservice teacher's level of conceptualization of thewriting process based on the clarity and richness of evidence they cited from theirpen pal's letters. It is well known among teacher educators that "literacy learningshould be approached through the use of authentic and meaningful "communicativeintent" (Hiebert & Raphael, 1998, p. 70). Certainly, authenticity of learning was integralto the preservice teachers of this study.

On-going discussion of how to create teaching strategies to underscore thewriter's strengths and to demonstrate that the reader values the child's writingprovided preservice teachers with real insight into their role as teachers. In very earlyclassroom discussions, memories of former teachers returning red-inked paperssprinkled with discouraging comments was not viewed as a particularly motivatingteaching strategy, but they also viewed conventional spelling and writing as criticalto social and professional success. Like other preservice teachers, as well as practicingteachers (Ceprano & Garan, 1998), limited understandings of writing as an intricate,developmental process often created instructional dilemmas.

In follow-up discussions, inviting the preservice teachers to view emergent writingas the process of each writer developing his or her own strengths within variousstyles and genres proved integral to the process of guiding their conceptions aboutteaching writing. For many preservice teachers, because of past learning experiences,this involved a major paradigm shift from teaching writing as a linear set of skills torecognizing and supporting emergent writing patterns that would lead to writingconfidence and expertise.

As the preservice teachers analyzed the letters from the first and second gradestudents, we discussed the value and purpose of phonetic spelling, which was theirgreatest concern at the beginning of the study. At the end of the study, rather thanlabeling these early attempts at writing with the usual terminology of "scribbling,""cute," or "lacking in phonics," the preservice teachers conceptualized them in multipledata sources as evidence of the use of linguistic place holders to give young writers akind of facility or method for exploring the meaning, content and structure of writing.Their change in nomenclature implied a major paradigm shift in how they nowperceived and interpreted the writing process. All but three of the preservice teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pen Pals 31

affirmed through at least one data source their understanding that "emergent spellers"(Strickland, 1998, p. 22) use a combination of phonetic spellings and picture cues toconvey meaning because, although children generally understand quite well thenature and purpose of written communication, their graphophonic knowledge is notyet sufficient to convey a message through print alone (1998).

In regard to the importance of audience, the children began to recognize andassimilate new spellings and to model their writing after their pen pal's languagepatterns and linguistic style (Ceprano & Garan, 1998). Trisha remarked on this in ajournal entry, "these were models they [the children] trusted and in whom they hadgenuine interest." In a visit to our class, Debby reiterated the importance of interestedaudience to writing: "Having pen pals has created a reason for writing, or writingwith a purpose and for an audience. The improvement that I have seen in their writingability is greater than when the children were writing just to write. It has helpedincredibly for them to have an audience to whom to write, one that is just as excitedto receive their letters as they are to write them" (D. Oliver, personal communication,November 12,1998).

Through this experience, the preservice teachers broadened their understandingof the connection between authentic teaching strategies and meaningful learning.Their learning guided our inquiry into the development of the writing process. Thepen pal project provided a forum for both the children and the preservice teachers to"preserve a sense of agency, to maintain a respect for the relevance of their own textualexperiences..." (Dyson, 1999, p. 369).

REFERENCES

Berrill, D. & Gall, M. (1999). On the carpet: Emergent writers'/readers' letter sharing in apen pal program. Language Arts, 76(6), 470-478.

Bogdan, R., & Bilden, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction totheory and method. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boyd, P., Boll, M., Brawner, L., & Vîllaume, S. (1998). Becoming reflective professionals:An exploration of preservice teachers' struggles as they translate language and literacy theoryinto practice. Action in Teacher Research, 19 (4), 61-75.

Bromley, K. (1994). Buddy journals in the classroom. In N. Hall, & A. Robinson, (Eds.)Keeping in touch: Using interactive writing with young children, Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Burk, J. (1989, November/December). Pen pals: A beneficial partnership. Paper presentedat the 39th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX (ERIC DocumentReproduction Services No. ED319065).

Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Cazden, C. (1996). How knowledge about language helps the classroom teacher—or does

it? In B. Power and R. Hubbard (Eds.), Language development, (pp. 87-100).Ceprano, M. & Garan, E. (1998). Emerging voices in a university pen-pal project: Layers

of discovery in action research. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(1), 31-56.Clay, M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse.Crowhurst, M. (1990). Sixth-graders learn from letter writing. (Report No. CS 212 213).

British Columbia University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 315 776).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

32 Reading Research and Instruction Fall 2000, 40(1)

Crowhurst, M. (1992). Some effects of corresponding with an older audience. LanguageArts, 69(4), 268-273.

Dahl, K. & Farnan, N. Children's writing: Perspectives from research. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational

Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.Duffy, G. & Roehler, L. (1986). The subtleties of instructional mediation. Educational

Leadership, 43, 23-7.Dyson, A. (1996) Faces in the crowd: Developing profiles of language users. In B. Power

and R. Hubbard (Eds.), Language development, (pp. 110-116).Dyson, A. (1999). Coach Bombay's kids learn to write: Children's appropriation of media

material for school literacy. Research in the teaching of English, 33(4), 367-402.Frick, S. G. (1992). Improving student achievement through creative writing. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 25, 52-55.Goodlad, J. (1990). Places where teachers are taught. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Goodman, K. (1996). On reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Gregg, S. (1998). Kid's experiences with buddy writing: Primary multi-age children writing

to preservice teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boise State University at Boise,Idaho.

Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and class-rooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hedengren, E. (1994, March). Breaking the blame cycle: A small partnership betweenpreservice writing teachers and elementary classrooms. Paper presented at the 45th AnnualMeeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Nashville, TN.(ERIC Document Reproduction Series No. ED 369 098).

Hewson, P., Tabachnick, R., Zeichner, K., & Lemberger, J. (1999). Educating prospectiveteachers of biology: Findings, limitations, and recommendations. Science Education, 83(3),373-384.

Hiebert, E. & Raphael, T. (1998). Early literacy instruction. San Diego, CA: HarcourtBrace.

Hubbard, R. (1996). Invitations to reflect on our practice. In B. Power and R. Hubbard(Eds.), Language development, (pp. 169-180).

Kennedy, M. (1998). Learning to teach writing: Does teacher education make a difference?New York: Teachers College Press.

Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changingthe pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4-17.

Lane, B. (1993). After the end: Teaching and learning creative revision. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Lindfors, J. (1991). Children's language and learning (2nd edition). Needham Heights,MA: Simon & Schuster.

Moore, R. (1996). Conversations between fifth grade learners and college students. IllinoisReading Council Journal, Fall, 1996.

Moore, R. (1998). On becoming pen pals: Shared teaching and learning experiencesbetween preservice teachers and elementary school children. Portals, A Publication of theICIRA, Idaho State University, Fall, 1998.

Moustafa, M. (1997). Beyond traditional phonics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.), Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pen Pals 33

Raban, B. (1999) Language and literacy as epistemology. In J. Gaffney & B. Askew(Eds.) Stirring the waters: The influence of Marie Clay. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Spandel, V. & Stiggins, R. J. (1997). Creating writers: Linking writing assessment andinstruction (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Strickland, D. (1998). Teaching phonics today. Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Tebo-Messina, M. & Blough, D. (1989, April). Penpals and keypals—Networks for studentwriters. Paper presented at the Annual Spring Conference of the National Council of Teachersof English, Charleston, SC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 321 257).

Temple, C. & Gillet, J. (1996). Language and literacy: A lively approach. New York, NY:Harper Collins.

Yellin, D. (1987, March). My pen pal goes to college: A functional approach to literacylearning. Paper presented at the 6th Spring Conference of the National Council of Teachers ofEnglish, Louisville, KY. (ERIC Reproduction Services No. ED 282 236).

Watson, D. (1996). Bringing together reading and writing. In Sandra Wilde (Ed.) Makinga difference, (pp. 132 - 146).

Wham, M. & Lenski, S. (1994). Dialogue journals as a vehicle for pre-service teachers toexperience writing process (I like him; should I tell him at recess?). Reading Horizons, 35,62-70.

Wilde, S. (1997). What's a schwa sound anyway? A holistic guide to phonetics, phonicsand spelling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wilde, S. (2000). Miscue analysis made easy: Building on student strengths.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher,28(9), 4-15.

Received: January 10, 2000Revision Received: May 8, 2000

Accepted: May 17, 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

11 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014