writing instruction in middle schools: special and general education teachers share their views and...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Gothenburg]On: 29 April 2014, At: 02:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Exceptionality: A SpecialEducation JournalPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hexc20
Writing Instruction in MiddleSchools: Special and GeneralEducation Teachers Share TheirViews and Voice Their ConcernsGary A. Troia & Mary E. MaddoxPublished online: 08 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Gary A. Troia & Mary E. Maddox (2004) Writing Instruction in MiddleSchools: Special and General Education Teachers Share Their Views and Voice TheirConcerns, Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 12:1, 19-37, DOI: 10.1207/s15327035ex1201_3
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1201_3
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
Writing Instruction in Middle Schools:Special and General Education
Teachers Share Their Viewsand Voice Their Concerns
Gary A. TroiaCollege of Education
University of Washington
Mary E. MaddoxWashington Research Institute
Seattle, Washington
We examined writing instruction in the middle school context from the perspectives ofspecial and general education teachers via focus groups and rating scales. We found thatspecial and general educators alike valued a balanced approach to teaching writing, thatboth groups held a positive view of their teaching efficacy, and that both groups werestrongly influenced by their teaching context. The teachers in our study, although sup-portive of balanced literacy instruction, were unsure of how to enact such an approach toteaching lower level writing skills and higher level composing strategies within a pro-cess-oriented framework. Moreover, they identified a number of factors that negativelyimpact their efforts to deliver effective and comprehensive writing instruction: require-ments to teach voluminous subject matter content, large numbers of students, substantialvariation in student backgrounds and abilities, diminished student motivation, barriers tosuccessful inclusion of students with disabilities and meeting these students’ writingneeds in the general education classroom, and underdeveloped or misaligned dis-trict-sanctioned writing curricula.
There is clear evidence that teachers’ epistemological beliefs mediate their instructionalpractices as well as predict student achievement. For example, teachers’ confidence intheir ability to help their students succeed exerts a direct influence on their classroomroutines and consequently their students’ motivation and success (Anderson, Greene, &Loewen, 1988; Ross, Cousins, & Gaddalla, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy,
EXCEPTIONALITY, 12(1), 19–37Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Gary A. Troia, College of Education, University of Washington, 102Miller Hall, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
1998). Teachers who possess a strong sense of efficacy marshal effort and persistence todesign engaging and challenging activities for learning, employ novel ideas to meet theneeds of struggling students, and use positive tactics to manage student behavior (Emmer& Hickman, 1990; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Stein & Wang, 1988). Likewise, teachers’assumptions about how students learn and what are the best ways to teach reportedlyaffect the instructional materials they select and the procedures they implement(Cunningham & Fitzgerald, 1996; Fitzgerald, 1993, 1999; Harste, Woodward, & Burke,1984; Schommer, 1994). In the domain of literacy, observations have affirmed that whatteachers elect to teach and how they go about teaching are shaped largely by their theo-retical orientation (Baumann & Ivey, 1997; DeFord, 1985; Fisher & Hiebert, 1990;Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Rankin, Mistretta, & Yokoi, 1996; Sosniak & Stodolsky,1993; Turner, 1995).
Pressley, Rankin, and Yokoi (1996) surveyed primary grade teachers nominated bytheir administrators as effective reading educators and found that these teachersembraced a balanced approach to literacy instruction, one in which explicit instructionis united with incidental and informal methods of teaching. Similarly, Baumann,Hoffman, Moon, and Duffy-Hester (1998) reported that nearly 90% of respondentsfrom a national sample of elementary school teachers relied on eclectic and balancedmeans of teaching children how to read. Despite claims by some experts (Freedman,1993; Goodman, 1992) that naturalistic and explicit skills approaches to literacy in-struction are mostly incompatible, these findings suggest that many teachers hold dualtheoretical orientations regarding reading instruction and how children learn to read.This complexity in teachers’ epistemological beliefs probably reflects the confluenceof (a) their knowledge of child development, reading processes, and diverse pedagogi-cal strategies; (b) their values associated with reading shaped by personal experiencesand influential others; and (c) contextual variables, including students’ abilities(Guskey, 1987) and available school resources (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Until the re-cent work of Graham and his colleagues (Graham, Harris, Fink, & MacArthur, 2001;Graham, Harris, Fink-Chorzempa, & MacArthur, 2003; Graham, Harris, MacArthur,& Fink, 2001), practicing teachers’ theoretical orientations and self-efficacy beliefs forwriting and their impact on classroom instruction were virtually unknown.
Graham, Harris, MacArthur, et al. (2001) found that, among a national sample of pri-mary grade teachers, a large majority favored informal and incidental writing instructionand almost all agreed that explicit writing instruction was important. In contrast, lessthan 40% believed that it was important to emphasize correctness in young children’swriting (see also Dreher, 1990). Graham, Harris, MacArthur, et al. also found that teach-ers’ theoretical orientations were related to their reported classroom instructional prac-tices. For example, teachers’beliefs about naturalistic writing instruction were positivelyrelated to the reported frequency of writing conferences, minilessons, student-selectedwriting topics, peer collaboration among students, and invented spelling usage (all com-ponents of a process writing model), whereas they were negatively correlated with theamount of handwriting and spelling instruction provided. Apparently, just as in the fieldof reading, primary educators’ assumptions about how writing should be taught and howchildren learn to write are multivalent and influence their application of pedagogicalknowledge.
20 TROIA AND MADDOX
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
Graham, Harris, Fink, et al. (2001) surveyed the same sample of first- throughthird-grade teachers and found that over 80% demonstrated a positive sense of per-sonal teaching efficacy for writing, whereas only one third of the teachers surveyedviewed themselves as capable of overcoming external constraints on students’ writingachievement (e.g., home and family background). Those teachers who endorsed a nat-uralistic approach to writing instruction were more likely to be confident in their abil-ity to teach writing well and to help students attain writing competence, and those whoplaced little emphasis on correctness were more likely to be positive about their gen-eral teaching efficacy or ability to counteract environmental limitations. Primary gradeteachers with a strong sense of personal teaching efficacy reported teaching writingprocesses and grammar and usage more frequently than those respondents who pos-sessed a weaker sense of efficacy, and their students reportedly spent more time writ-ing each week.
Finally, Graham et al. (2003) found that these primary grade teachers reported makingthe following instructional adaptations for students who struggle with writing more oftenthan for those who do not: individual assistance from the teacher, another adult, or a peer;extra conferencing; minilessons; instruction in basic text production skills such as hand-writing and spelling; reteaching writing skills and strategies; and supplementary instruc-tion on revision. Poor writers also were given graphic organizers for advance planning,story starters, revising checklists, and alternatives to writing (e.g., drawings) more fre-quently than average writers. Writing assignments often were shorter or easier for stu-dents who struggled. No single adaptation was made by more than 40% of the teachers.In fact, 75% of all reported adaptations were made by just 29% of the respondents.Nearly 20% of the primary grade teachers reported making no adaptations for poor writ-ers, whereas another one fourth of the sample reported making only one or two adapta-tions. Interestingly, teachers’ efficacy beliefs and theoretical orientations did not predictthe number of adaptations reported by teachers, but number of students receiving specialeducation services, time students spend writing each week, and years of teaching experi-ence did.
The findings from Graham et al. (2003) notwithstanding, there is strong evidence that,at least for primary grade teachers, theoretical assumptions and teaching efficacy are re-lated to one another and fuel the decisions professionals make about how to teach writ-ing. However, sources of variation in these two constructs remain to be discovered (e.g.,Graham, Harris, Fink, et al., 2001) and neither sufficiently explains teachers’ pedagogi-cal choices. Moreover, research on educators’ epistemological beliefs in the domain ofliteracy has almost exclusively focused on elementary general education teachers; conse-quently, we know virtually nothing about secondary teachers’ or special educators’ com-petency expectations or theories of literacy instruction and learning. The primary goal ofthis study was to help fill these voids in the extant literature for the area of writing. Be-cause survey responses are subject to social desirability and do not capture the intricaterelations between teacher knowledge, teacher values, and contextual demands, focusgroups served as the principal method for collecting data. The instruments developed byGraham and his colleagues (Graham, Harris, Fink, et al., 2001; Graham, Harris, MacAr-thur, et al., 2001) were intended to supplement and extend the findings obtained via theteacher focus groups.
WRITING INSTRUCTION IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS 21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
METHOD
Participants
Two teacher focus groups were held approximately one year apart. The first focusgroup included eight special education teachers from a large metropolitan PacificNorthwest school district. All but one of the teachers was female. Six of the eightteachers currently taught in middle schools; the remaining two teachers taught elemen-tary students but had considerable and recent experience working in middle schools.Seven teachers had a master’s degree; of them, five had degrees in special education,and two had degrees in general education. The remaining teacher had a bachelor de-gree in drama but was granted an emergency certificate to teach special education. Theteaching experience of this group ranged from less than a year to 24 years (M = 9.05,SD = 8.32, Mdn = 6.00).
The second teacher focus group included 10 middle school teachers employed at amiddle school in the same school district identified previously, although none of the par-ticipants in the first focus group were from this school. Six of the teachers were female.Four had bachelor degrees in general education (one had taken additional course work inspecial education and was teaching students with special needs), five possessed master’sdegrees in general education, and one had attained a doctorate in educational theory andwas a long-term substitute teacher for students with special needs, although he had sub-stantial and recent experience in general education. Six of the participants taught lan-guage arts, whereas the rest taught math and/or science. The teaching experience of thisgroup ranged from 2 to 30 years (M = 13.11, SD = 11.56, Mdn = 11.00).
Procedures
In the past decade or so, qualitative research methods have received greater attention inthe special education literature because they provide an additional “lens” through whichresearchers can view more of what occurs in classrooms. In addition to the traditionaltools of qualitative research (e.g., interviews, naturalistic observation, document re-view), focus groups have become a valuable investigative method for special educationresearchers (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996). Focus groups give participants theopportunity to reflect, discuss, and elaborate and offer several advantages in data collec-tion. Focus groups (a) provide richer information than surveys or other structured meth-ods, (b) allow direct interaction between the facilitator and the participants for immedi-ate clarification of responses, (c) permit respondents to react to and build on others’comments and engage in collective thought about a topic, and (d) are more efficient thanindividual interviews (Steward & Shamdasani, 1990).
We had three primary goals for our teacher focus groups: (a) to identify the teachingpractices of middle school teachers in both regular and special education in the domainof written expression; (b) to determine the salient local exigencies in teaching writing atthe middle school level; and (c) to examine the attitudes, beliefs, and theoreticalorientations of focus group participants with regard to teaching writing, especially as
22 TROIA AND MADDOX
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
they apply to students who struggle with writing tasks. The focus group sessions weresemistructured, meaning that a set of planned open-ended questions were asked (see theAppendix for teacher focus group questions), but depending on the responses obtained,follow-up questions may have been posed. Each focus group session was audiotape re-corded for later transcription by a graduate student in education who had been presentduring the focus groups as an observer. The transcripts were reviewed and codedsemi-independently (each author reviewed the codes assigned by the other). We used anopen coding scheme in which discussion points were first identified and then groupedinto major themes or topics. Differences in coding were reconciled through deliberation.
Participants of the focus groups were informed that their individual comments wouldbe kept confidential. We assured participants that we sought their honest opinions andwelcomed all contributions from each member of the group. Group members were en-couraged to express their opinions, especially those that represented minority views. Al-though some members of each focus group were reticent, most were not. We were able tosolicit at least one comment from almost every person. Teachers were paid $50 for theirparticipation.
Before each focus group began, we asked teachers to complete a series of rating scalesused in prior research. Teachers’ beliefs about the roles of explicit instruction, incidentaland informal teaching methods, and expectations for correctness were evaluated with theTeacher Writing Orientation Scale (Graham, Harris, MacArthur, et al., 2001), a 13-iteminstrument that uses a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6(strongly agree). The developers’ previous factor analysis of this instrument indicatedthat four items loaded at .40 or greater on the explicit instruction factor, which accountedfor 16% of the variance in scale scores among a national sample of primary grade teach-ers. The internal consistency reliability for this factor was .64. Four items loaded at .40 orgreater on the incidental methods factor, which accounted for 12% of the variance in pri-mary grade teachers’ scale scores. The internal consistency reliability for this factor was.60. The remaining five items loaded at .40 or greater on the expectations for correctnessfactor, which accounted for 22% of the variance in scale scores. The internal consistencyreliability for this factor was .70. It also was found that relatively low correlations (range= .01–.24) existed between the factors and that teachers’beliefs about writing instructionwere related to their reported classroom instructional practices in a predictable and reli-able way. On this scale, higher scores represented stronger emphasis placed on the im-portance of the construct measured by a factor.
Teachers’ sense of efficacy in writing instruction was measured with the Teacher Effi-cacy Scale for Writing (Graham, Harris, Fink, et al., 2001), a 16-item instrument thatuses a scale identical to that described previously to assess two aspects of efficacy: (a)personal teaching efficacy, or teachers’ beliefs about their ability to teach writing andaffect change in their students; and (b) general teaching efficacy, or teachers’ beliefsabout limitations on their teaching effectiveness created by circumstances such as anunsupportive home environment. The previous factor analysis of this instrument indi-cated that 10 items loaded at .40 or greater on the personal teaching efficacy factor, whichaccounted for 26% of the variance in scale scores among a national sample of primarygrade teachers. The internal consistency reliability for this factor was .84. The remaining
WRITING INSTRUCTION IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS 23
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
6 items loaded at .40 or greater on the general teaching efficacy factor, which accountedfor 13% of the variance in scale scores. The internal consistency reliability for this factorwas .69. It also was found that there was a relatively low correlation of .20 between thefactors and that teacher efficacy predicted teachers’ reported classroom instructionalpractices. Originally, the negatively stated items on the general teaching efficacy portionof the scale were recoded so that higher scores for both factors would represent a morepositive sense of teaching efficacy. We elected not to follow this procedure for this study;thus, for general teaching efficacy, higher scores represent a sense of diminished efficacydue to environmental factors.
The Teacher Writing Practices Scale (Graham, Harris, Fink, et al., 2001) was used toobtain information regarding how frequently specific writing activities and instructionalprocedures were reportedly used by teachers in their classrooms. The instrument has 10items and uses a 7-point Likert-type scale in which 1 was never, 2 was several times ayear, 3 was monthly, 4 was weekly, 5 was several times a week, 6 was daily, and 7 was sev-eral times a day. For this study, we collapsed these ratings into three categories: infre-quently (1–3), regularly (4–5), and daily (6–7). The previous factor analysis of this in-strument indicated that it had a four-factor structure. The first factor, teaching writingprocesses, contained three items that assessed how frequently planning, revising, andtext structure were taught and had an internal consistency reliability of .80. This factoraccounted for 28% of the variance in teachers’ responses, and factor loadings exceeded.65. The second factor, students working together, contained two items that measuredhow often students interacted with one another around writing tasks and had an internalconsistency reliability of .70. This factor accounted for 13% of the variance in teachers’responses, and factor loadings exceeded .65. The third factor, teaching spelling, con-tained three items that measured how frequently specific spelling skills were taught andhad an internal consistency reliability of .64. It accounted for 13% of the variance in scalescores, and factor loadings exceeded .50. The fourth factor, teaching grammar and usage,contained two items that assessed how often grammar, capitalization, and punctuationskills were taught and had an internal consistency reliability of .64. It accounted for 10%of the variance in scale scores, and factor loadings exceeded .60. Correlations betweenfactors were generally low, ranging from .17 to .32. For our investigation, we did not re-port separate scores for each factor.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Special Education Teachers
The comments made by participants in our first focus group comprised of special educa-tion teachers with current or recent middle school teaching experience converged on fivemajor themes: student motivation, effective teaching methods, contextual limitations, ef-fective adaptations and accommodations, and barriers to successful inclusion. The teach-ers in this group placed motivation at the top of their concerns—they believed that manystudents, especially those with special needs, simply do not like to write. They believedthat one prominent reason students lack motivation to write is because our society has in-
24 TROIA AND MADDOX
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
creasingly devalued writing in general and formal writing in particular. They cited e-mailand instant messaging as examples of common modes of writing that place few demandson writing conventions and text generation. They also noted that students often viewwriting as a formidable task, one that is more difficult to accomplish successfully than,say, comprehending assigned reading material. The teachers suggested a variety of ap-proaches to compensate for these perceived motivational deficiencies, including (a) theuse of relevant, real-world writing tasks; (b) helping students appropriate a belief systemin which writing is seen as a powerful tool for expression and reflection; (c) avoiding thelikelihood of overwhelming students with too much critical feedback by addressingweaknesses in one aspect of writing at a time; (d) providing continuous, explicit feed-back on writing assignments given in special and general education; (e) using a struc-tured, sequential writing curriculum that provides students with clear performance ex-pectations and a sense of purpose, continuity, and accomplishment; and (f) using“hooks” or enticing writing exercises such as comic strips and television scripts to en-courage reluctant writers.
Our group of special education teachers spoke extensively about what they consid-ered to be effective writing instruction for children with and without disabilities: explicitand systematic teaching, individualized support, frequent repetition, mastery learning,progress monitoring with continuous feedback, and using models from authentic chil-dren’s literature or students’ own writing to demonstrate text organization and sentencestructure. They also discussed the need to teach children planning strategies like brain-storming and webbing and to help them acquire proficiency in different genres. Theteachers recognized the importance of a balanced approach to instruction, one in whichwriting processes and skills are thoughtfully and adeptly taught to address individual stu-dents’ unique learning requirements. However, they expressed doubts about implement-ing effective practices, including balanced writing instruction, in the middle schoolsetting. They lamented the absence of a comprehensive writing curriculum with accom-panying materials. They felt that too much time was spent grading papers. They also feltthat a “tyranny of content coverage” restricts the amount of time spent on writing instruc-tion, especially writing conventions. They noted that, although middle school studentsare expected to demonstrate knowledge of subject matter through writing, many lackproficiency in basic writing mechanics. Furthermore, they believed many middle schoolteachers attribute poor writing skills to prior instructional deficiencies and consequentlyresist being held responsible for teaching lower level writing skills. Taken together, thesecomments suggest our focus group discerned substantial tension between teaching com-position and helping children improve their competence with writing conventions buthad few ideas regarding how to resolve it. Perhaps limited opportunities for appropriatepreservice and in-service training have left teachers ill prepared for integrating processwriting instruction and basic writing skills instruction for middle school students. Theparticipants did, in fact, express a desire to learn more about developmental aspects ofwriting in early and middle childhood, characteristics of accomplished writing, specificcomposing strategies, spelling instruction for adolescents, and ways to deploy effectivewriting instruction on a school-wide basis.
These special educators identified a number of adaptations and accommodations forstudents with disabilities who are included in general education classrooms for at least
WRITING INSTRUCTION IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS 25
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
a portion of each day. These included adjustments to response formats (e.g., givingstudents the option of taking exams orally, using a scribe to record dictated informa-tion, completing written assignments with word processing or speech recognition soft-ware), task demands (e.g., shortening the required length of papers, segmentinglarge-scale projects into smaller tasks that can be accomplished while in the specialeducation setting), student support (e.g., having instructional assistants help studentscomplete assignments, encouraging students to keep a personalized dictionary, ad-vance teaching of course content by special education teachers), and teacher practice(e.g., holding collaborative planning sessions with general education teachers, obtain-ing frequent updates on student progress in the general education curriculum). Al-though the special education teachers in our study held strong convictions regardingthe importance of making these adaptations and accommodations available to studentswith disabilities, they spoke at length about the barriers they encounter in doing this,primarily resistance from their general education counterparts. Our special educatorsbelieved that they had to negotiate with their colleagues in general education class-rooms to obtain their endorsement and use of adaptations and accommodations al-ready sanctioned by students’ individualized education programs. They felt that gen-eral education teachers conceive the primary role of the special educator as someonewho helps students successfully complete assignments while assuming that special ed-ucators have substantially less instructional responsibility. These conceptions wereviewed by our focus group as one source for general education teachers’ resistance.The participants presented a number of additional barriers to successful inclusion ofstudents with disabilities, including (a) limited administrative support and guidance,especially by way of clear expectations for inclusive schooling practices; (b) inade-quate time for special and general educators to discuss ways to implement adaptationsand accommodations; (c) too much content for thoughtful and skilled use of evi-dence-based instructional practices; and (d) too many students in each class to permitteachers to individualize instruction and make adaptations and accommodations.
There were a number of issues our special education teacher focus group participantsdid not broach. Little was said about writing assessment other than mention of informalwriting probes to gauge students’ writing proficiency. This was surprising given thestress their district English language arts curriculum places on multiple methods of writ-ing assessment (e.g., observation, student portfolios, analytic trait scoring, checklists,conferencing) and the affiliated training and materials provided to teachers. Ways of con-necting content area instruction with writing instruction were never discussed, althoughthese teachers were neither content area experts nor responsible for teaching content areasubjects. The members of the group gave no evidence of being aware of specific strate-gies for revising and editing text or for promoting generalization and maintenance ofwriting knowledge and skills, most likely because the district curriculum offers littleguidance in these areas, focusing instead on prewriting activities and advance planningstrategies. The merit of a writing community and the value of collaborative writing activ-ities were not mentioned by anyone in our special education teacher focus group. Thismay reveal the relatively minor importance accorded peer interaction and studentself-evaluation in the district curriculum as well as the ways in which special educators
26 TROIA AND MADDOX
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
often provide services to students (i.e., in small heterogeneous groups working on dis-similar assignments).
The data we obtained from the quantitative measures for this group supplementedand, in some cases, reinforced the comments teachers made. On the Teacher Writing Ori-entation Scale (see Table 1), the special education teachers placed the most emphasis onexplicit writing skills and strategies instruction. Their average rating for items thatloaded on this factor was 4.72 (on a 6-point scale), and on average, 94% of the teachersagreed to some extent (slightly agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed) with these items. Theteachers also endorsed informal/incidental writing instruction but to a lesser degree. Themean rating for items that loaded on this factor was 3.81, and on average, 63% of theteachers agreed to some extent with these items. Only 43% of the teachers on averageagreed with items that emphasized the importance of correctness in children’s writing.The average rating for items that loaded on this factor was 3.00, which corresponded toslight disagreement. Note that our sample of special educators did place importance oncorrectly labeling words according to grammatical function and to copying exemplarymodels of different forms of writing. These favorable endorsements probably reflect thedistrict’s middle school curriculum for English language arts; beyond fifth grade, grade-level instructional frameworks make virtually no reference to writing conventions otherthan grammar. Overall, our findings are generally similar to those obtained by Graham,Harris, MacArthur, et al. (2001) for their national sample of primary grade teachers. Onaverage, 99% of the teachers in their sample agreed with items related to explicit instruc-tion, 73% agreed with items related to informal/incidental instruction, and 39% agreedwith items related to correctness. The associated factor means were 5.26, 4.11, and 3.17,respectively. The teachers in our study may have been somewhat less sanguine about anatural, process-oriented approach to writing instruction than the national sample be-cause of their work with students in special education, who typically require more ex-plicit instruction (Isaacson, 1994).
On the Teacher Efficacy Scale for Writing (see Table 2), the special education teach-ers in our study demonstrated a strong sense of personal teaching efficacy. The mean rat-ing for this factor was 4.63, and an average of 94% of the teachers agreed with items thatloaded on this factor. Simultaneously, their responses to the negatively stated items thatloaded on the general teaching efficacy factor demonstrated a belief that they could over-come environmental factors in writing instruction (recall that scores on this factor werenot inverted). The mean rating for this factor was only 3.15, and an average of only 46%of the teachers agreed with items that loaded on this factor. The average factor rating andpercentage agreement would have been much lower if not for one item. Teachers unani-mously agreed with the statement, “If parents would do more in writing with their chil-dren, I could do more.” Our findings resemble those obtained by Graham, Harris, Fink, etal. (2001) who found that a national sample of primary grade teachers showed a strongbelief in their personal teaching efficacy (factor mean of 4.58; 81% agreement) and aweak but positive belief in their general personal efficacy (inverted factor mean of 3.67;33% agreement).
Over 85% of the special educators reported teaching grammar skills at least weekly,and all reported teaching capitalization and punctuation skills at least weekly on the
WRITING INSTRUCTION IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS 27
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
28
TAB
LE1
Teac
her
Writ
ing
Orie
ntat
ion
Sca
leR
esul
ts
Spec
ialE
duca
tion
Teac
hers
Gen
eral
Edu
cati
onTe
ache
rs
Em
phas
isM
SD%
Agr
eeM
SD%
Agr
ee
Cor
rect
ness
3.00
1.52
433.
021.
6644
Ago
odst
artin
gpo
inti
nw
ritin
gin
stru
ctio
nis
toha
vech
ildre
nco
pyex
empl
ary
mod
els
ofea
chpa
rtic
ular
type
ofw
ritin
g4.
001.
6975
4.70
1.64
80
Bef
ore
child
ren
begi
na
wri
ting
task
,tea
cher
ssh
ould
rem
ind
them
tous
eco
rrec
tsp
ellin
g2.
250.
8913
2.30
1.34
30
Bei
ngab
leto
labe
lwor
dsac
cord
ing
toth
eir
gram
mat
ical
func
tions
(e.g
.,no
uns,
verb
s)is
usef
ulfo
rpr
ofic
ient
wri
ting
4.13
0.83
753.
701.
2570
Teac
hers
shou
ldai
mto
prod
uce
wri
ters
who
can
wri
tego
odco
mpo
sitio
nsin
one
draf
t2.
001.
2013
2.20
1.23
20
Bef
ore
they
begi
na
wri
ting
task
,chi
ldre
nw
hosp
eak
ano
nsta
ndar
ddi
alec
tsh
ould
bere
min
ded
tous
eco
rrec
tEng
lish
2.63
1.60
382.
201.
3220
Info
rmal
/inci
dent
alin
stru
ctio
n3.
811.
3563
4.48
1.22
88In
stea
dof
regu
lar
gram
mar
less
ons,
itis
best
tote
ach
gram
mar
whe
na
spec
ific
need
for
item
erge
sin
ach
ild’s
wri
ting
3.63
1.30
504.
001.
4970
Stud
ents
shou
ldm
eetf
requ
ently
insm
allg
roup
sto
reac
tand
criti
que
each
othe
r’s
wri
ting
4.00
2.00
754.
901.
2990
The
acto
fco
mpo
sing
ism
ore
impo
rtan
ttha
nth
ew
ritte
nw
ork
child
ren
prod
uce
3.50
0.93
504.
201.
0390
With
prac
tice
wri
ting
and
resp
ondi
ngto
wri
tten
mes
sage
s,ch
ildre
nw
illgr
adua
llyle
arn
the
conv
entio
nsof
adul
twri
ting
4.13
1.13
754.
800.
9210
0
Exp
licit
skill
/str
ateg
yin
stru
ctio
n4.
720.
9294
5.23
0.95
95It
isim
port
antf
orch
ildre
nto
stud
yw
ords
inor
der
tole
arn
how
they
are
spel
led
4.63
0.52
100
4.50
1.18
80Fo
rmal
inst
ruct
ion
inw
ritin
gis
nece
ssar
yto
ensu
read
equa
tede
velo
pmen
tof
all
ofth
esk
ills
used
inw
ritin
g4.
500.
5310
05.
500.
7110
0
Chi
ldre
nne
edto
prac
tice
wri
ting
lette
rsto
lear
nho
wto
form
them
corr
ectly
4.38
1.41
755.
100.
8810
0It
isim
port
antt
ote
ach
child
ren
stra
tegi
esfo
rpl
anni
ngan
dre
visi
ng5.
380.
7410
05.
800.
4210
0
Not
e.V
alue
sin
bold
repr
esen
tave
rage
sfo
rth
atem
phas
is.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
29
TAB
LE2
Teac
her
Effi
cacy
Sca
lefo
rW
ritin
gR
esul
ts
Spec
ialE
duca
tion
Teac
hers
Gen
eral
Edu
cati
onTe
ache
rs
Effi
cacy
MSD
%A
gree
MSD
%A
gree
Pers
onal
teac
hing
4.63
0.82
943.
741.
1866
Whe
na
stud
ent’
sw
ritin
gpe
rfor
man
ceim
prov
es,i
tis
usua
llybe
caus
eI
foun
dbe
tter
way
sof
teac
hing
that
stud
ent
4.50
0.53
100
4.00
1.41
80
Ifa
stud
entd
idno
trem
embe
rw
hatI
taug
htin
apr
evio
usw
ritin
gle
sson
,Iw
ould
know
how
toin
crea
sehi
sor
her
rete
ntio
nin
the
next
less
on4.
631.
0688
3.60
1.26
70
Ifa
stud
entm
aste
rsa
new
wri
ting
conc
eptq
uick
ly,i
tis
beca
use
Ikn
ewth
ene
cess
ary
step
sfo
rte
achi
ngth
isco
ncep
t4.
250.
7188
3.50
0.97
60
IfI
try
real
lyha
rd,I
can
help
stud
ents
with
thei
rm
ostd
iffi
cult
wri
ting
prob
lem
s4.
380.
7488
3.70
1.42
60W
hen
ast
uden
tdoe
sbe
tter
than
usua
lin
wri
ting,
itis
beca
use
Iex
erte
da
little
extr
aef
fort
4.00
0.93
882.
901.
2930
Whe
na
stud
enti
sha
ving
diff
icul
tyw
itha
wri
ting
assi
gnm
ent,
Iw
ould
have
notr
oubl
ead
just
ing
itto
his
orhe
rle
vel
4.88
0.64
100
3.70
0.95
60
The
infl
uenc
eof
ast
uden
t’s
hom
eex
peri
ence
onw
ritin
gca
nbe
over
com
eby
good
teac
hing
4.75
0.71
100
4.00
1.56
70If
one
ofm
yst
uden
tsco
uld
notd
oa
wri
ting
assi
gnm
ent,
Iw
ould
beab
leto
accu
rate
lyas
sess
whe
ther
the
assi
gnm
entw
asat
the
corr
ectl
evel
ofdi
ffic
ulty
4.75
1.04
884.
000.
8290
Ifa
stud
entb
ecom
esdi
srup
tive
and
nois
ydu
ring
wri
ting
time,
Ife
elas
sure
dth
atI
know
som
ete
chni
ques
tore
dire
cthi
mor
her
quic
kly
5.25
0.71
100
4.00
0.94
60
Whe
nst
uden
ts’w
ritin
gpe
rfor
man
ceim
prov
es,i
tis
usua
llybe
caus
eI
foun
dm
ore
effe
ctiv
ete
achi
ngap
proa
ches
4.88
0.64
100
4.00
0.94
80
Gen
eral
teac
hing
3.15
1.52
463.
281.
4440
Eve
na
good
wri
ting
teac
her
may
notr
each
man
yst
uden
ts3.
380.
9238
3.90
1.45
40T
heho
urs
inm
ycl
ass
have
little
infl
uenc
eon
stud
ents
’wri
ting
perf
orm
ance
com
pare
dw
ithth
ein
flue
nce
ofth
eir
envi
ronm
ent
2.43
1.72
143.
001.
4120
Ifst
uden
tsar
eno
tdis
cipl
ined
atho
me,
they
are
notl
ikel
yto
acce
ptan
ydi
scip
line
duri
ngth
ew
ritin
gpe
riod
2.88
1.55
503.
301.
4250
Ate
ache
ris
very
limite
din
wha
the
orsh
eca
nac
hiev
ebe
caus
ea
stud
ent’
sho
me
envi
ronm
enti
sa
larg
ein
flue
nce
onhi
sor
her
wri
ting
achi
evem
ent
2.63
1.77
382.
801.
3230
The
amou
nta
stud
entc
anle
arn
inw
ritin
gis
prim
arily
rela
ted
tofa
mily
back
grou
nd3.
001.
6038
2.10
0.88
0If
pare
nts
wou
lddo
mor
ein
wri
ting
with
thei
rch
ildre
n,I
coul
ddo
mor
e4.
500.
7610
04.
600.
8410
0
Not
e.V
alue
sin
bold
repr
esen
tave
rage
sfo
rth
atef
fica
cy.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
30
TAB
LE3
Teac
hing
Writ
ing
Pra
ctic
esS
cale
Res
ults
Spec
ialE
duca
tion
Teac
hers
Gen
eral
Edu
cati
onTe
ache
rs
Pra
ctic
eM
SDIn
freq
uent
ly%
Reg
ular
ly%
Dai
ly%
MSD
Infr
eque
ntly
%R
egul
arly
%D
aily
%
Spel
ling
wor
ds4.
291.
1129
5714
2.80
1.48
6040
0Ph
onic
sru
les
for
spel
ling
4.57
1.13
2957
141.
300.
6710
00
0St
rate
gies
for
spel
ling
unkn
own
wor
ds4.
291.
3829
5714
2.50
1.43
7030
0
Gra
mm
arsk
ills
5.00
1.41
1443
433.
502.
0140
5010
Punc
tuat
ion
and
capi
taliz
atio
nsk
ills
5.00
1.15
071
293.
701.
7730
6010
Text
stru
ctur
ean
dor
gani
zatio
n3.
571.
2757
2914
3.90
1.52
4050
10
Plan
ning
stra
tegi
es4.
291.
6043
2929
4.20
1.48
3050
20R
evis
ing
stra
tegi
es3.
711.
3857
2914
3.50
1.27
4060
0St
uden
tssh
are
thei
rw
ritin
gw
ithpe
ers
3.86
1.57
2957
143.
601.
1740
5010
Stud
ents
help
thei
rcl
assm
ates
with
thei
rw
ritin
g2.
861.
9557
2914
3.00
1.25
5050
0
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
Teacher Writing Practices Scale (see Table 3). Despite little emphasis in the middleschool English language arts curriculum, over 70% of these teachers said that theytaught spelling skills at least weekly to their students with disabilities. Although themajority of the focus group members indicated that they taught planning strategies atleast weekly, less than 45% reported teaching revising strategies as frequently. Onceagain, the teachers’ reported practices (and responses to focus group questions) ap-peared to be influenced by the district curriculum—planning receives considerable at-tention, but strategies for managing other aspects of the writing process are practicallyignored. Even though the participants believe text structure knowledge is important forstudents’ writing success and even though it is a prominent part of the curriculum (i.e.,students are expected to master numerous text forms across the modes of narration,exposition, and persuasion), almost 60% reported teaching text structure monthly orless. It is possible that our special education teachers felt that their students requiredmore instructional time devoted to writing mechanics than the organizational aspectsof writing. Finally, nearly two thirds of the teachers reported they had students sharetheir writing with peers (despite receiving little emphasis in the curriculum and notbeing mentioned during the focus group session), whereas less than 45% indicatedthey provided opportunities for students to help their peers with their writing on a reg-ular basis.
General Education Teachers
The comments made by participants in our second focus group comprised of middleschool general education teachers or teachers with recent middle school general educa-tion experience converged on three major themes: writing across the curriculum, effec-tive instructional methods, and barriers to teaching and learning. The teachers in thisgroup felt the most pressing issue in teaching literacy at the middle school level is the in-tegration of writing (and reading) instruction with science, social studies, and mathemat-ics instruction. This issue in particular may have resonated with teachers because theirschool was undergoing a major transformation. The staff had elected 2 years previouslyto make a concerted effort to integrate their disciplinary foci and to promote literacy-re-lated activities in every class. Although the teachers were convinced these efforts werehaving a positive impact, they gave three reasons why their middle school students oftendo not exercise their writing knowledge and skills in content area classes. First, in theirview, elementary school teachers do not demand writing across the curriculum to the ex-tent necessary for students to enter middle school adequately prepared to use writing as acommunicative tool in various disciplinary contexts. Second, students often lack basicwriting competence, which limits their capacity for demonstrating disciplinary knowl-edge through writing. Third, middle school students tend to be context bound and conse-quently have difficulty shifting perspectives—they cannot understand, for example, whytheir science teacher would ask them to write a paper comparing methods of inquiry inthe field of genetics when, in their minds, they simply should know what these methodsentail. Nevertheless, the teachers expressed a deeply held belief that writing is a reflec-tion of students’ thinking and that many instructional techniques applied to the craft ofwriting, such as advance planning activities, graphic organizers, and revision confer-
WRITING INSTRUCTION IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS 31
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
ences, also help students clarify and deepen their thinking and thus are beneficial for allacademic disciplines. They envisioned writing as a vehicle for the exploration of ideasand teaching children how to write better as a means of refining children’s disciplinaryknowledge.
Our group of general education teachers mentioned a variety of instructional methodsfor improving the writing competence of middle school students, including individual-ized support through conferencing, text frames for different genres, writing formulassuch as the five-paragraph essay (although they noted that formulas may impede explora-tion of ideas and constrain creativity), cooperative writing exercises, and sentence com-bining activities (although more traditional approaches to grammar instruction, namelyteaching parts of speech, were viewed as valuable tools for increasing students’ concep-tual understanding of language even if these did not result in improved writing achieve-ment). The teachers identified several adaptations for students who struggle with writ-ing, such as dictation, keyboarding, alternate response modes (e.g., oral renditions), andsegmentation of complex assignments into smaller, more manageable tasks. They ac-knowledged that teachers should be flexible in how much emphasis they place on writingmechanics versus creative expression to accommodate individual students’needs and thedemands of writing for diverse purposes and audiences. However, the teachers were un-sure of the connections between students’ personal and occupational needs and the goalsof writing instruction. They stated that, although a minority of students may become po-ets, novelists, reporters, and the like, most will use writing for functional purposes—towrite letters and notes, to fill out forms, and to perhaps keep a diary. Consequently, theypondered the value of teaching composition when most students likely will never com-pose anything more than a paragraph.
This focus group spoke of numerous barriers to the teaching and learning of writ-ing, which appeared to represent two broad concerns: resources and student attributes.The teachers noted that, although individualized support is essential for student suc-cess, it is impossible to offer such support when teachers are faced with over 150 stu-dents from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds each day and have access to toofew instructional assistants and volunteers. They bemoaned the lack of appropriatematerials; one teacher commented that a grammar textbook she used was over 40 yearsold! Because parents are less likely to attend school functions as children transitionfrom elementary to secondary education, the teachers believed that there was inade-quate support for literacy achievement in students’ lives outside of school. Eventhough the teachers at this school had access to an on-site professional developmentcoordinator, they stated that they were unable to implement and sustain what they hadlearned in various literacy-related workshops and in-service activities and that they feltoverwhelmed by competing priorities. With respect to student attributes, these educa-tors felt that many middle school students are unwilling to take risks in their writingfor fear of failure. Students may desire to remain “invisible” to avoid the ridicule oftheir peers and therefore refrain from sharing personal values and feelings in theirwriting. Students also may experience ambiguity when writing because the final prod-uct is indeterminate. Finally, our teachers noted that many students simply see writingas a burden that should be avoided.
32 TROIA AND MADDOX
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
The general education middle school teachers in our study identified fewer elementsof effective writing instruction than their special education counterparts. They did notmention repetition, mastery learning, progress monitoring with continuous feedback, ormodeling. Nevertheless, they did describe many similar accommodations and adapta-tions for students who struggle with writing, including alternative response formats, di-minished task demands, and increased student support. Like their special education col-leagues, the general education teachers said little about assessment except that thedistrict-mandated writing assessment program provided insufficient data regarding stu-dents’ writing performance and progress. The members of our second focus group, justas the first, knew little of specific strategies for managing varied aspects of the writingprocess. Interestingly, the general educators stated they often had students with disabili-ties complete writing assignments with the assistance of a special education teacher, apractice viewed as suspect by special educators.
On the Teacher Writing Orientation Scale (see Table 1), the general educationteachers, just like their special education colleagues, placed the most emphasis on ex-plicit writing skills and strategies instruction. Their average rating for items thatloaded on this factor was 5.23, and on average, 95% of the teachers agreed to some ex-tent with these items. The teachers also endorsed informal/incidental writing instruc-tion but to a lesser degree. The mean rating for items that loaded on this factor was4.48, and on average, 88% of the teachers agreed to some extent with these items. Itshould come as no surprise that more general education teachers than special educa-tion teachers expressed enthusiasm about a natural approach to writing instructiongiven the differences in their preservice training and professional responsibilities. Only44% of the teachers on average agreed with items that emphasized the importance ofcorrectness in children’s writing. The average rating for items that loaded on this fac-tor was 3.02. Like their special education counterparts, these teachers placed impor-tance on correctly labeling words according to grammatical function and copying ex-emplary models of different forms of writing.
On the Teacher Efficacy Scale for Writing (see Table 2), the general education teach-ers in our study demonstrated a weak but positive sense of personal teaching efficacy.The mean rating for this factor was 3.74, and an average of 66% of the teachers agreedwith items that loaded on this factor. Their responses to the negatively stated items thatloaded on the general teaching efficacy factor revealed a belief that they could overcomeenvironmental factors in writing instruction. The mean uninverted rating for this factorwas only 3.28, and an average of only 40% of the teachers agreed with items that loadedon this factor. Just as for our sample of special educators, the average factor rating andpercentage agreement would have been much lower if all the teachers had not agreedwith the statement, “If parents would do more in writing with their children, I could domore.” It is unclear why this group of general education teachers demonstrated less per-sonal teaching efficacy than their special education counterparts or a national sample ofprimary grade teachers. However, we speculate that these teachers felt they are unable toclosely monitor the writing performance of the numerous students they instruct each dayand thus find responding to individual needs challenging and perhaps quite impossible,despite their recognition that such differentiated pedagogy is desirable.
WRITING INSTRUCTION IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS 33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
The results we obtained for this group of general education teachers on the TeacherWriting Practices Scale (see Table 3) should be interpreted cautiously, as only 60% of thefocus group participants taught English language arts. Sixty percent of the general edu-cators reported teaching grammar skills at least weekly, and 70% reported teaching capi-talization and punctuation skills at least weekly. In contrast, less than half of these teach-ers said that they taught spelling skills regularly. The majority of the focus groupmembers indicated that they taught planning and revising strategies (although they madelittle mention of specific strategies during the focus group session) as well as text struc-ture at least weekly. Sixty percent of the teachers reported they had students share theirwriting with peers, and half indicated they provided opportunities for students to helptheir peers with their writing regularly.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Special and general education teachers in our study valued a balanced approach to writ-ing instruction as evidenced in both their comments during focus group sessions and intheir responses to the rating scales we administered. Both groups also felt rather posi-tively about their ability to teach writing and help students acquire writing competencedespite the lack of a comprehensive writing curriculum and useful instructional materi-als. These teachers were uncertain, though, of how to accomplish a balance of writingskills and strategies development within a process-oriented framework at the middleschool level. They recognized that many students lack basic writing skills but feltconstrained by the exigencies of middle schools—subject matter coverage, large and nu-merous classes, student diversity, waning student motivation, and potentially unreason-able instructional goals—to adequately attend to both form and function, product andprocess.
Based on our findings, we have several recommendations for educators. First, schoolsneed to create sustained opportunities for special and general education middle schoolteachers to collaborate about writing instruction. Each possess unique knowledge, skills,and perspectives and together would achieve a greater capacity for meeting the writingneeds of a highly diverse student population. Special educators, with their understandingof child development, learner characteristics, effective adaptations and accommoda-tions, and explicit instruction can help general education teachers address the writingskill deficits exhibited by so many students and suppress their inclination to rely on un-differentiated instruction (see Baker & Zigmond, 1990; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Fuchs,Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992; McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1993). General ed-ucators, with their content area expertise, can help special education teachers use writingtasks to focus not on just mechanics but text composition and the development of deepconceptual knowledge and critical thinking skills. Second, professional development inwriting instruction should help teachers effectively use innovative materials that are pro-cured or created, develop a comprehensive and sensible curriculum, and learn to use in-formative and expeditious assessment techniques appropriate for the middle schoollevel. Perhaps more important, the integration of content area instruction with writing in-struction seems to be an urgent matter—middle school teachers assume responsibility
34 TROIA AND MADDOX
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
for teaching voluminous amounts of subject matter to large numbers of students and con-sequently often cannot treat the two separately. In addition, this topic would seem crucialif students typically view writing assignments as absurd when given in classes other thanEnglish language arts. Third, districts should closely examine the curriculum they adoptfor teaching writing. Although teachers recognize the importance of and often do makeadaptations for students who struggle with writing, they are clearly driven by the curricu-lum, and voids within it (e.g., strategies for composing processes and peer collaboration)are reflected in their teaching.
Our results are preliminary, as we gathered information from small, select groups ofteachers. Future research should identify the theoretical orientations and efficacy beliefsregarding writing of larger samples of secondary special and general educators whoteach in diverse contexts to validate and extend the findings reported here. Focus groupsof randomly or purposively selected teachers from these larger samples should be held togather elaborated information about how teachers’knowledge, values, and context affectthe epistemological beliefs they espouse and the instructional decisions they make. Wealso would suggest that data for content area teachers and English language arts teachersbe collected independently, as these professionals have diverse but compatible viewsabout teaching and learning the craft of written expression. Obviously, survey and focusgroup data of the kind reported here need to be augmented by research in which teacherbehavior and contextual influences are observed and not just reported.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research described in this article was supported in part by a grant from the Arc ofWashington Trust Fund to Gary A. Troia. Statements do not reflect the position or policyof this organization, and no official endorsement by it should be inferred.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills,sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34, 148–165.
Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learn-ing disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515–526.
Baumann, J., Hoffman, J., Moon, J., & Duffy-Hester, A. (1998). Where are teachers’ voices in the pho-nics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of U.S. elementary classroom teachers. The ReadingTeacher, 51, 636–650.
Baumann, J., & Ivey, G. (1997). Delicate balances: Striving for curricular and instructional equilibrium in asecond-grade, literature/strategy-based classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 244–275.
Cunningham, J., & Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Epistemology and reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 36–60.DeFord, D. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading. Reading Research Quarterly,
20, 351–367.Dreher, J. (1990). Preservice early childhood teachers’ attitudes toward the process approach to writing. Early
Child Development and Care, 56, 49–64.Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (1990, April). Teacher decision making as a function of efficacy, attribution, and
reasoned action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Boston, MA.
WRITING INSTRUCTION IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
Fisher, C., & Hiebert, E. (1990). Characteristics of tasks in two approaches to literacy instruction. ElementarySchool Journal, 91, 3–58.
Fitzgerald, J. (1993). Teachers’ knowing about knowledge: Its significance for classroom writing instruction.Language Arts, 70, 282–289.
Fitzgerald, J. (1999). What is this thing called “balance?” The Reading Teacher, 53, 100–107.Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of new genres. Research in the
Teaching of English, 27, 222–251.Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators’ instructional adaptation for students with learning disabili-
ties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 23–33.Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptations for students at risk for academic failure.
Journal of Educational Research, 86, 70–84.Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology,
76, 569–582.Goodman, K. (1992). I didn’t found whole language. The Reading Teacher, 46, 188–199.Graham, S., Harris, K., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C. (2001). Teacher efficacy in writing: A construct validation
with primary grade teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 177–202.Graham, S., Harris, K., Fink-Chorzempa, B., & MacArthur, C. (2003). Primary grade teachers’ instruc-
tional adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,279–292.
Graham, S., Harris, K., MacArthur, C., & Fink, B. (2001). Primary grade teachers’ theoretical orientations con-cerning writing instruction: Construct validation and a nationwide survey. Contemporary Educational Psy-chology, 27, 147–166.
Guskey, T. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research,81, 41–47.
Harste, J., Woodward, V., & Burke, C. (1984). Examining our assumptions: A transactional view of literacyand learning. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 84–108.
Hoy, W., & Woolfolk, A. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elemen-tary School Journal, 93, 356–372.
Isaacson, S. (1994). Integrating process, product, and purpose: The role of instruction. Reading and WritingQuarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 39–62.
McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Observations of students with learningdisabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249–261.
Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominatedas effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal, 96, 363–384.
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Rankin, J., Mistretta, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). The nature of outstandingprimary-grades literacy instruction. In E. McIntyre & M. Pressley (Eds.), Balanced instruction: Strategiesand skills in whole language (pp. 251–276). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Ross, J., Cousins, B., & Gaddalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching andTeacher Education, 12, 385–400.
Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. InR. Garner & P. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 25–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sosniak, L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). Teachers and textbooks: Materials used in four fourth-grade class-rooms. Elementary School Journal, 93, 249–275.
Stein, M., & Wang, M. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change.Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171–187.
Steward, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Edu-cational Research, 68, 202–248.
Turner, J. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Re-search Quarterly, 30, 410–441.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. M. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36 TROIA AND MADDOX
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014
APPENDIX:TEACHER FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
1. Describe your personal philosophy about the best ways to teach reading andwriting.
2. How do you think children develop as writers throughout early childhood andgrade school?
3. What knowledge, skills, and attitudes about writing do children need to acquireand how do they develop these?
4. Where does the middle school teacher fit into this picture in promoting writtenlanguage development?
5. What do you actually do to teach writing? Describe the content of your curricu-lum, the materials you use, the kinds of assignments students complete, and thetypes of instructional methods you use.
6. What do you do to determine a student’s level of writing achievement?7. What do you do to determine if a student has writing difficulties?8. What modifications, adaptations, and accommodations do you make for children
who are low achievers or who have special needs? What about for students whostruggle with writing in particular?
9. What steps have you, your school, or your district taken for you to gain knowl-edge and skills for teaching children with disabilities?
10. What do you, your school, or your district do to improve reading and writingachievement of students with disabilities?
11. What do you feel are the greatest barriers you face in effectively teaching stu-dents to write?
WRITING INSTRUCTION IN MIDDLE SCHOOLS 37
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
othe
nbur
g] a
t 02:
28 2
9 A
pril
2014