Running head: STRUGGLING WRITERS: A CASE STUDY OF TWO STUDENTS 1

Struggling Writers: A Case Study of Two Students

Sterling Hope

Kennesaw State University

Quantitative & Qualitative Research

EDRS 8000

Mei-Lin Chang, Ph.D & Qiana Cutts, Ph.D.

November 24, 2013

Running head: INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY 2

Struggling Writers: A Case Study of Two Students

Introduction

Orientation to Topic

Writing is one of man’s greatest achievements without the ability to record history many

stories may have been lost through oral tradition as groups of people died off. Writing is most

notably credited to the Ancient Egyptians. (History World, 2001) Most writing began as symbols

and evolved over time into different systems of written communication around the world. The

idea of utilizing a written form of communication allowed other cultures to communicate more

efficiently. With the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799 by Napoleon’s army ("How the

rosetta stone works," n.d.), researchers were able to translate ancient history which gave us great

insight to the ancient cultures and how the written word had evolved. From this evolution we

gained the ability to effectively communicate with cultures of today but reach the past in a way

that was unobtainable before the discovery.

Today writing is one of the primary communication skills we possess in modern society:

letters, e-mail, text messaging, online chats, employment paperwork, newspapers, and street

signs. (Calkins, 2013) Written communication comes in two forms for elementary students: the

written word with the alphabet and environmental print such as recognizing symbols like the

McDonald’s arch. Struggling students and students who are learning English language learners,

ELL, have a difficult time reaching grade level standards are put at a disadvantage academically

without intervention. These students are also then at a disadvantage as they enter the work force.

Without have basic skills in writing, these students are unable to reach their potential in all other

areas. Writing is pervasive throughout every aspect of our lives.

“It has become increasingly clear that children’s success in many disciplines is reliant on

their ability to write.” (Calkins, 2013, p. 20) Teaching struggling writers and ELL students can

pose a variety of challenges. Are they weak readers? Reading and writing are very much related.

You can’t have one without the other. Do the students have poor fine motor skills that prevent

them for writing with stamina? Many students come to school with the preconceived notion that

they won’t like writing. How often do parents come to us and say I was never any good at this

and that expectation is passed on to their child. Are they weak in process or product? Developing

ideas? Mechanics? (Dudley-Marling & Paugh, 2009) How do educators help students especially

struggling writers and ELL writers s reach grade level goals?

Enter technology, the utilization of technology opens doors to students and gives them

scaffolding that might not have allowed them to grow and blossom in any given area. As

technology becomes more integrated into every aspect of our daily lives, students must learn

how to utilize these resources within the context of learning. (Roblyer & Doering, 2013) As

every teacher looks across his or her classroom, they must contend with mixed abilities and ask

themselves how do I reach each student and help them achieve the goals for this grade level? The

main focus for many educators are EIP, Early Intervention Program, for struggling students and

ESOL, English as a Second Language students, and helping them to catch up with their grade

level peers. The use of technology will help bridge the gap for these struggling students and help

them achieve at the highest level possible, to give them better tools to succeed. There are many

technological tools available to assist ELL students and struggling writers in making their

writing better: predictive writing software, recording the story with their voice, graphic organizer

tools, typing vs. writing, and speech recognition software. Many of these products were

developed for special needs students and have been adapted for ELL students and struggling

students. (Reading Rockets, 2013) Yet many teachers still avoid using technological tools to help

these two groups of writers. High stakes testing is more often than not paper and pencil based.

Today’s students are digital students and word processing might allow them to exhibit more

creativity. (Peterson-Karlan, 2011) So how do we take these writers and bring them to grade

level standards and help them become citizens of the future, a world that will be wrapped in

technology.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this case study will be to evaluate technological tools to help two sub-

groups of struggling writers be able to write fluently and produce a complete piece of writing

assigned to them. How will technology aid ELL and struggling writers in writing production and

what are the effects on the mechanics of their writing?

Examine technologies both online and software that allow for writing in different forms.

Such as voice recording and then transcription as a student grows in their ability.

Audacity, Voice Thread, SOLO, Edmodo, Blogging, Screencasting

Examine technologies that did not work as well with the struggling student in growing

their writer’s voice. Same list as above.

Research Questions

Will allowing students to speak their stories with Audacity help them produce more

writing than with pencil and paper?

o How will this impact their word choice? spelling?

o How will this impact the organization of the piece of writing?

Will using predictive software such as SOLO 6 within a word processing program,

Microsoft Word aid students in producing more writing than with pencil and paper?

o How will this impact their ability to spell? word choice?

o How will this impact the organization of the piece of writing?

Importance of the Study

The importance of the study is to begin to help teachers better utilize technology in aiding

ELL and struggling writers become more proficient with the writing process. Calkins has

suggested that explicit instruction in writing produces results and this will translate to all types of

students. (Calkins, 2013) There are few studies that involve ELL students and struggling students

and how technology impacts their ability to produce coherent writing. This case study of these

two-subgroups of students will shed a light on how the technology can be expanded to help other

students like them.

Definition of Terms

ELL – English language learners are students that are learning English for the first time. These

are non-native English speakers.

ESOL – English as a second language are those who are learning English as their second or even

third language. They may have little to no mastery of the English language in a formal school

setting.

SOLO6 – A word processing program that allows students to have the program writing with and

use predictive text. It will also read what they have written back to them.

Struggling Learner – This is a student identified under the EIP program. They are below the 25

percentile on national normed progress monitoring assessments.

EIP – The early intervention program is meant to scaffold instruction for struggling students in

the areas of reading, writing, and math. Some of these students go on to be tested for special

education.

Literature Review

Struggling writers have been a focus of education for quite some time. Many struggling

writers come from English as a Second Language (ESOL) or English Language Learning (ELL)

backgrounds. ESOL students are the fastest-growing population in today’s school environments.

They are students of immigrants and do not speak English fluently. (Calderon, Slavin, &

Sanchez, 2011) The National Association for the Education of Young Children states that

children who hear little or no English in the home have even more difficulty with comprehension

of English. (National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2009) Mayer

& Alexander surmise that since the writing process contains many facets teachers must scaffold

lesson about the elements of writing. (Mayer & Alexander, 2011, p. 33) ESOL students also

benefit from a school to home connection. Students that are encouraged to use written expression

in both languages for a variety of purposes are better able to internalize the process, practice, and

genre as they experience them. (Sze, Chapman, & Shi, 2009) These students are expected to

master the same content regardless English. (Howard, 2012) It has been shown that the more

frequently students read their reading and writing show improvement and this benefits ESOL

students as well as struggling students. (Howard, 2012) Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011, say

the quality of the education is what matters most for ESOL students. These students have lower

performance and lower graduation rates that native students. (Calderon et al., 2011, p. 104)

Technology can offer students and teachers a way that will bring all students to the table.

These technologies may be a solution for at-risk students to provide specialized instruction for

low cost with consistent fidelity. (Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Herron, & Lindamood, 2010)

The argument is being made that computer-based instruction should be a supplemental

intervention to teacher instruction to aid in student achievement of the standards. (Torgesen et

al., 2010, p. 42)

To help these students become better writers, teachers must use a variety of techniques to

motivate and engage ESOL students. There are a variety of Web 2.0 tools that can help bolster

student writing achievement. Current technologies include iPads and their Apps, interactive

computer programs, Voice Thread, Edmodo, Blogging, Wikis, instructional software to name a

few. This belief in technology and that it will garner better teaching and learning, policy makers

have spent billions of dollars in infrastructure. (Bebell, O’Dwyer, Russell, & Hoffmann, 2010)

The utilization of technology is meant to engage the learner so they can develop a deeper

understanding of the content and in this case for the writing process. (Nelson, Christopher, &

Mims, 2009) Nelson, Christopher & Mims suggest that the integration of the Web 2.0

technologies can improve and facilitate lifelong skills; skills such as collaboration, creative

thinking, and construction of knowledge. (Nelson et al., 2009, p. 80) So as technologies are

explored for the use within the classroom, when choosing what to use we must consider

matching the correct tool for the correct student. This allows all students to have differentiated

instruction on their level with a tool that will scaffold their learning. (Olthouse & Miller, 2012)

For struggling ESOL students, many times the writing process can be very difficult to

navigate. The frustration level is very high and the outcome is below grade level. (Dunn &

Finley, 2010) Dunn & Finley, 2010, say that writing is not an innate process but requires

initiative, practice and literacy skills. Many ESOL students lack these skills and thus writing is

very difficult for many of these students. E-portfolios are a viable option for these students.

Portfolios have been utilized for many years and with the advent of technology students are now

able to house them electronically. One study asks if e-portfolios can specifically motivate

students to become better writers. (Nicolaidou, 2013) This also expands the students’ audience

when they are writing. Not only does the classroom teacher have access but the students’ peers,

families, and others with online access. (Nicolaidou, 2013) Another way to impact struggling

writers is the utilization of computer based instruction. Myrtle Welch states that technology can

only be an effective solution to the challenge of student achievement if it is made an integral part

of the learning process. (Welch, 2010)

As writers communication is front and center and writing is the key component and that

writing skills touch all aspects of our lives. (Magnifico, 2010) Magnifico (2010) states that when

a writer posts this online the audience is there ready to give direct feedback to the writer and the

writer then must respond with more clarity and focus. The Web 2.0 tools allow the student/writer

to become a part of the conversation while attending to the conventions of writing.

The literature seems to support the involvement of technology to support and scaffold

student instruction for struggling writers, that there are a variety of tools to enhance and extend

writing for the EIP and ESOL population.

Methodology

This will be an ethnographic collective case study with quantitative data being collected

from a rubric. There are two participants: one ELL student struggling in writing and one EIP

student struggling in writing. One student is male and one is female.

Data Sources & Collection

The grading rubric for the pieces of writing will be the Georgia State writing rubric used

for the state writing assessment. (Georgia Department of Education, n.d.) There will be a pre and

post-test graded with the rubric to determine growth in four areas. The case study will take place

over the course of one nine-week period. There will be a pre-writing assessment in the genre

being taught. The Georgia state writing rubric will be used for this case study. The case study

participants will then receive direct instruction in writing with the technologies chosen to

enhance the writing production skills and then there will be a post test to determine if the

technologies allowed the student to make substantial growth towards being on grade level in

writing production in the genre being taught. The post-test will also be graded with the state

writing rubric to see if there were gains or not. Since this is a collective case study the validity

and reliability will be based on these two students. This will hopefully give insight into the sub-

groups of EIP and ELL and how technology enhances direct instruction of writing. The student’s

parents will need to consent for the data collected to be used for the purpose of this case-study

and well as talking to the student about the instruction over the nine-week period. All

information will be shared with the parents at any point in time during the nine-week period.

Parents will have access to all written work produced by the students and the grades derived

from the work.

Reliability & Validity

The rubric being used has been used by the state of Georgia for a number of years. The

researcher will be using two technology tools to aid the students who are struggling; SOLO6 and

Audacity. The reliability of the rubric is favorable since it has been used for many years and

there is a multitude of data from thousands of students. The researcher will not be disaggregating

this data in the course of this study. This could be another study in the future looking at similar

sub-groups and how to target ELL and struggling writers.

Analysis

This is a case study and a small sample size. Extrapolations of the data will be limited to this

classroom but assumptions about ELL and struggling writers will be made and expanded upon

for future instructional use. The data will be collected and compared from pre-test to post-test

and a simple calculation will determine percentage of growth. From the extrapolation the

researcher will be able to determine f the technology was useful in direct instruction and then

apply that to other struggling students.

Appendices

Rubric Link

References

-Dore, L. N. (2007). Digital equity in education . Retrieved from

http://imet.csus.edu/imet9/portfolio/nunes_luci/251/postersession/digitalequity/

homepage.html

A Luna Production . (2012). 3 R’s: Revolution, Reaction and Reform [Video file]. Retrieved

from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/teaching-complex-concepts

Advancing Science, Serving Society . (2013).

http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/default.htm

Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Hoffmann, T. (2010). Concerns, considerations, and

new ideas for data collection and research in educational technology studies. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education , 43(1), 29-52. Retrieved from

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

direct=true&db=cph&AN=53500536&site=eds-live&scope=site

Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners.

Future of Children , 21(1), 103-127. Retrieved from http://proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?

url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ920369&site=eds-live&scope=site

Calkins, L. (2013). A guide to the common core writing workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Dudley-Marling, C., & Paugh, P. C. (2009). A classroom teacher’s guide to struggling writers:

How to provide differentiated support and ongoing assessment. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Dunn, M. W., & Finley, S. (2010, Fall ). Children’s struggles with the writing process exploring

storytelling, visual arts, and keyboarding to promote narrative story writing. Multicultural

Education , 18(1), 33-42. Retrieved from

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

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ916844&site=eds-live&scope=site

Georgia Department of Education . (n.d.). http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-

Assessment/Pages/Grade-3-Writing-Assessment-.aspx

History World. (2001). http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?

groupid=3517&HistoryID=ab33&gtrack=pthc

How the rosetta stone works. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/rosetta-stone.htm

Howard, R. M. (2012). Ell’s perception of reading . Reading Improvement, 43(3), 113-126.

Retrieved from

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

direct=true&db=tfh&AN=82186311&site=eds-live&scope=site

kelntony1664. (2010, February 27). The habitats of Georgia [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ_PMFYQoEs

Magnifico, A. M. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition, motivation, and a writer’s audience.

Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167-184.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.49370

Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (Eds.). (2011). Instruction based on feedback. Handbook of

research on learning and instruction (pp. 249-271). New York: Routledge Taylor &

Francis Group.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally appropriate

practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8; a position

statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. , 1-31.

Nelson, J., Christopher, A., & Mims, C. (2009, September/October ). Transforming of teaching

and learning . TechTrends, 53(5), 80-85. Retrieved from

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

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=43865445&site=eds-live&scope=site

Nicolaidou, I. (2013, June 10 ). E-portfolios supporting primary students’ writing performance

and peer feedback. Computers & Education .

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.004

Olthouse, J. M., & Miller, M. T. (2012). Teaching talented writers with web 2.0 tools . Teaching

Exceptional Children , 45(2), 6-14.

Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2011, Summer). Technology to support writing by students with learning

and academic disabilities: Recent research trends and findings. Assistive Technology

Outcomes and Benefits Focused Issue: Assistive Technology and Writing, 7(1), 39-62.

Retrieved from http://www.atia.org/files/ATOBV1N1A4.pdf

Reading Rockets. (2013). http://www.readingrockets.org/article/33078/

Sze, C., Chapman, M., & Shi, L. (2009). Functions and genres of esl children’s English writing

at home and at school. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 19:1, 30-55.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/japc.19.1.03sze

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., & Lindamood, P. (2010, January 6).

Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for

dyslexia: outcomes from two instructional approaches . The International Dyslexia

Association , 60(), 40-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-003-y

Welch, M. (2010). Instructional technology factors that impede and impel struggling adolescent

students’ reading comprehension . The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge

and Society, 6(4). Retrieved from

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

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=66384990&site=eds-live&scope=site