UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Differentially scaffolded instruction for aboriginal and non-aboriginal students during writing in the.. Calder, Kim J. 2003-11-12

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2003-86037X.pdf [ 12.44MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054386.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054386-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054386-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054386-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054386-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054386-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054386-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054386-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054386.ris

Full Text

DIFFERENTIALLY SCAFFOLDED INSTRUCTION FOR ABORIGINAL AND NON-ABORIGINAL STUDENTS DURING WRITING IN THE ELEMENTARY YEARS by KIM J. CALDER B.Ed., University of Calgary, 1983 M.Sc., University of Calgary, 1989 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education; Human Learning, Development and Instruction) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE 2003 © Kim J. Calder, 2003 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Department of DE-6 (2/88) 11 ABSTRACT This study examines how teachers differentially support the needs of their Aboriginal minority students and non-Aboriginal students during writing instruction. Two grade 4/5 teachers and their students participated over a four month period in classroom observations, interviews, and artifact collection. Findings were that these teachers tended to informally assess the needs of their students, and did not always strategically plan instruction or provide differentially scaffolded support based on identified needs. Various factors impeded the teachers' abilities to incorporate empirically validated methods into their practice. Implications for pre-service and in-service professional development are discussed. Also highlighted is the need for further research into the appropriateness of recommended approaches to writing instruction for Aboriginal students. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iiList of Tables vList of Figures viii Acknowledgements ix Dedication x CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1 CHAPTER 2 Review of the Literature 6 Scaffolded InstructionThe Writing Process 22 Multicultural Education 9 School Contexts and Teacher Beliefs 37 Conclusions 38 CHAPTER 3 Methodology 40 Qualitative Case Study Approach 4Site and Participants 42 Data Collection 6 Data Analysis 57 Analyzing Data Related to Context and Research Questions 60 Writing the Report 73 Credibility and Trustworthiness of the Data 7CHAPTER 4 Results - Case Study #1 77 Donna 7Question 1: Identifying Individual Writing Needs 97 Question 2: Differentiating Scaffolded Instruction to Meet Diverse Cognitive, Literacy, and Cultural Needs 101 Question 3: Environmental Conditions and Instructional Scaffolding 125 Question 4: Interrelationship Among Teacher Training, Teacher Support, Class Size, Teacher Self-efficacy, and Differentiated Scaffolded Instruction 128 CHAPTER 5 Results - Case Study #2 134 Lorna 13Question 1: Identifying Individual Writing Needs 154 IV Question 2: Differentiating Scaffolded Instruction to Meet Diverse Cognitive, Literacy, and Cultural Needs 158 Question 3: Environmental Conditions and Instructional Scaffolding 180 Question 4: Interrelationship Among Teacher Training, Teacher Support, Class Size, Teacher Self-efficacy, and Differentiated Scaffolded Instruction 183 CHAPTER 6 Cross-case Comparison 189 Teacher, Student, School, and Community Settings 18The Teachers' Approach to Writing Instruction 190 Identifying Individual Writing Needs and Differential Teacher Scaffolding 191 Environmental Conditions and Instructional Scaffolding 194 Interrelationship Among Teacher Training, Teacher Support, Class Size, Teacher Self-efficacy, and Differentiated Scaffolded Instruction 198 CHAPTER 7 Conclusions and Future Directions 203 Strengths and ContributionsLimitations 207 Future Research 9 Bibliography 212 Appendix A Letter of Introduction - Principal 234 Appendix B Letter of Introduction - Teacher 236 Appendix C Consent Form - Teacher - 2nd Phase of the Study 238 Appendix D Consent Form - Parent 240 Appendix E Interview Form 242 Appendix F Observation Recording Sheet 245 Appendix G Table Series 246 Appendix H Map of Recorded Evidence 247 Appendix I Kim's Haunted House Story 248 Appendix J Gary's Haunted House Story 251 Appendix K Literature Circles - Reading Response 252 V Appendix L Topic Selection Form 254 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Elements Commonly Associated With Scaffolded Instruction 13 Table 2 Key Characteristics of Writing Workshop 27 Table 3 Focal Students by Teacher 46 Table 4 Lessons Transcribed for Each Type of Writing Activity 54 Table 5 Data Collection Methods Used Over the Course of the Study 57 Table 6 Labels for Data Sources 61 Table 7 Teacher's Writing Instruction Compared to Writing Workshop 63 Table 8 Inter-rater Reliability for Coded Transcripts 69 Table 9 Teacher's Scaffolding Compared to Scaffolding Elements 72 Table 10 Student Personal Characteristics and Writing Skills 80 Table 11 Characteristics of Writing Workshop - Consistent and Inconsistent Evidence - Donna 85 Table 12 Codes of Teacher Moves with Descriptors 104 Table 13 Percent of Teacher Moves by Type of Lesson - Donna 106 Table 14 Teacher - Student Interactions - Donna Number of Interactions by Type of Lesson 108 Table 15 Teacher - Student Interactions - Donna Percentage of Each Teacher Move for Each Student 109 Table 16 Scaffolding Moves - Consistent and Inconsistent Evidence - Donna 117 Table 17 Student Personal Characteristics and Writing Skills 137 Table 18 Characteristics of Writing Workshop - Consistent and Inconsistent Evidence - Lorna 142 Table 19 Percent of Teacher Moves by Type of Lesson -Lorna 162 Table 20 Teacher - Student Interactions -Lorna Number of Interactions by Type of Lesson 164 Table 21 Teacher-Student Interactions - Loma Percentage of Each Teacher Move for Each Student 165 Table 22 Scaffolding Moves - Consistent and Inconsistent Evidence - Lorna 172 Table 23 Comparing Teacher Moves Applied in Different Types of Lessons 246 Table 24 Number of Interactions Between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Students by Type of Lesson 24Table 25 Number of Interactions with Each Student During Different Types of Lessons 246 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Data Collection Methods Used to Inform the Four Research Questions 47 Figure 2 Percentage of Lessons Observed by Type 53 Figure 3 Data Analysis Procedures 59 Figure 4 Cognitive Map 74 Figure 5 Influences on Donna's Differential Scaffolding 132 Figure 7 Influences on Lorna's Differential Scaffolding 186 Figure 8 Influences on Teachers' Differential Scaffolding 200 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I owe a debt of gratitude to my supervisor and mentor, Dr. Deborah Butler. Deb has patiently and persistently challenged me and scaffolded support so that I could learn the rigors of case study research and expand my understanding of scaffolded instruction. Through each phase of the research and dissertation writing process, Deb both shared my excitement about new ideas and offered thoughtful suggestions. I feel privileged to have learned from such an accomplished scholar and fine person. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee - Dr. Nancy Perry, Dr. Marilyn Chapman, and Dr. Patricia Duff - for lending their expertise to this research project and for their warm support. It has been an honor to have them on my committee. As well, I give thanks for the generous participation of "Donna" and "Lorna", without whose involvement this research project would not have been possible. Finally, to my husband Lome, mother, and extended family, I give thanks and love for being my cheering section. DEDICATION This manuscript is dedicated to my daughter Caitlin who was born during the proposal phase of this project. As an infant, she lay on my lap as I typed, and now as a toddler, she has endured many absences when "Mommy was at work". My hope is that day she will see these pages as a symbol of perseverance and promise. To my dear Katie, you are the sparkle in my eyes. 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Canada has historically been known as a multicultural country, with citizens from various cultural and linguistic origins. Increasingly educators are challenged to develop programs that are pedagogically appropriate for minority students1 in multilingual and multicultural classrooms. First Nations students2 are one minority group constituting a considerable portion of classrooms in many regions of Canada. The academic achievement of Aboriginal students in many regions lags behind that of majority students (Minister's National Working Group on Education, 2002; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996), which is a concern for all educators. However, classroom teachers often lack specific skills and resources to address the complex needs of children with diverse cultural, cognitive, and literacy needs (Fletcher, Bos & Johnson, 1999; Harklau, 1994; Vaughn & Shumm, 1994). At the same time that educators strive to respond to the needs of minority students, particularly First Nations children, the education system has also been advocating for instruction that will promote self-regulated and independent thinking. The B.C. Ministry of Education curriculum guides recommend instruction of thinking and problem solving strategies, and not just content acquisition (Ministry of Education, 1995a,b). One particular instructional approach which lends itself to this is called scaffolding (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976). Learning is scaffolded when an expert provides calibrated support that enables the novice to perform (or complete tasks) that would normally be beyond his3 ability level. ' In this paper, minority students will refer to those students whose culture is different from the majority school population. This paper will use the term Native or Aboriginal to refer to individuals of First Nations ancestry. 3 For clarity, I refer to teachers in the feminine and students in the masculine, throughout this manuscript. Through this process the novice develops the skills to achieve success with independence. For example, initially the expert, or teacher, verbally and non-verbally mediates the learner throughout the activity until the thinking or problem solving process has been internalized by the learner. When this occurs, the learner is then able to control and monitor himself throughout the activity or problem solving process. The ability to identify task requirements and a plan for completion, and then reflect on one's progress or performance is termed self-regulated learning (Paris & Newman, 1990). The scaffolding metaphor is reflected in the research from several different disciplines which have served to clarify the types of learning conditions that instantiate the scaffolding process. For example, developmental psychologists point to Vygotsky's (1978) theory of human development, where learning is mediated through social interaction and cultural artifacts, to explain the learning process. Socio-cultural theorists such as Rogoff (1990) and Lave and Wenger (1991) discuss how individuals appropriate knowledge from, and apprentice within, a community of practice; and linguists explain language development as a process where an adult refines and supports the child's language use (Cazden, 1979; Heath, 1991). Based on these works, a number of teaching and classroom conditions that support the scaffolding process have been identified. Therefore, given the increased awareness of the needs of minority students in regular education classrooms, and the focus on developing independent thinking skills and self-regulated learning, it is important to understand how classroom teachers scaffold (or fail to scaffold) instruction for their Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. To advance understanding in this area, this study investigates the nature of scaffolded instruction with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing, a task that requires extensive 3 cognitive and linguistic self-regulation. As well, this study explores the relationship between a teacher's cross-cultural experiences, training, classroom experience, and instructional self-efficacy, and her use of differentially scaffolded instruction. A case study design (Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1994) was used to explore the nature of differentially scaffolded instruction with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing instruction. The participants for the study were two grade-4/5 elementary school teachers and their students from a semi-rural community in the interior of western Canada. Originally the intent was to examine teacher support with English-as-a-second-language (ESL) and/or English-as-a-second-dialect (ESD) students to allow for consideration of both linguistic and cultural variation. However, the minority students in the classrooms of the two teachers selected for this study were of First Nations ancestry with no ESL or ESD designation. Therefore, the criterion for comparison was based on cultural and not combined cultural and linguistic diversity. Data were collected using a variety of methods (Creswell, 1998; Denzin, 1978; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For example, each teacher was observed and video- and audio-taped during writing instruction over a four-month period. The teachers were interviewed regularly to gain further insight into the pedagogical intent of the support that they provided their students during the observed writing lessons. Other data were gathered through artifact collection and student interviews. Using the constant-comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), emerging themes related to scaffolding, and the potential influence of teacher and school factors on teachers' instructional practices, informed and shaped the investigation. 4 Four specific research questions have guided this investigation: Research question 1: How does the classroom teacher identify the individual writing needs of her students? Research question 2: How does the classroom teacher differentially scaffold instruction to meet the diverse cognitive, literacy, and cultural needs of students during writing instruction and activities? Research question 3: What environmental conditions support instructional scaffolding? Research question 4: What is the interrelationship among the amount and type of specialized teacher training, teacher support, class size, teacher self-efficacy, and the nature of differentially scaffolded instruction for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students? In the chapter to follow (Chapter 2) I begin by discussing the origins of the scaffolding term and evolution of instructional practices and classroom characteristics that instantiate the scaffolding process. Then I show how current reading and writing pedagogy have been influenced by the scaffolding metaphor. Following this I review the literature related to multicultural education4 with specific attention to identifying teacher dispositions and practices that best support minority students. In Chapter 3 I outline the methodology used for this research project. First I present a rationale for using a case study design. Then I discuss the site and the procedure for participant recruitment. This is followed by two larger sections where I explain in detail the 4 There are numerous definitions of multicultural education. In this study I use the term to refer to education that acknowledges and values the languages and cultures of all people, provides equal opportunity, and empowers all learners. 5 data collection and then data analysis processes. At the end of this chapter I address issues of credibility and trustworthiness of the data and interpretations. Chapters 4 and 5 present the findings of this investigation. Each of these chapters report the results in a case study format, which begins with a general portrait of the school, community, and teacher and her approach to writing instruction, followed by a presentation of findings related to each of the four research questions. In Chapter 6 I present a cross-case comparison and discuss the findings in light of previous research. I emphasize implications for teacher planning and instruction for diverse student bodies, implementation of instructional approaches supported by theory and research, and professional development. Finally, in Chapter 7 I conclude with a discussion of the strengths of this study, including implications for teaching of minority students, limitations of the research, and directions for future studies. 6 CHAPTER 2 Review of the Literature In this study I examine how classroom teachers support the writing development of children with diverse literacy and cognitive needs, and cultural heritages. Specifically, I seek to understand how teachers make decisions about the support they provide to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, and how this support is influenced by factors such as teacher background and community contexts. To guide this investigation I have referred to literature that addresses four topics: scaffolded instruction; writing instruction; multicultural education and First Nations pedagogy; and teacher attitudes and dispositions. I begin by discussing teacher behaviors and classroom conditions that are associated with scaffolded instruction. This background is necessary in order to examine the nature of the support employed by the teachers in this study. Next I present current beliefs about, and practices of, writing instruction to which I can compare the teachers' approach to writing instruction. In order to understand how teachers adjust support for Aboriginal learners, I then discuss trends and findings in multicultural education, as well as recommendations for instruction and planning specific to students of First Nations ancestry. Finally, I examine the literature on teacher dispositions and attitudes to understand how classroom, school and community contexts influence teacher behaviors, and specifically, how these contexts may impact scaffolding practices. Scaffolded Instruction Scaffolding is a powerful teaching method employed to support learners until they are capable of independently completing a given task or activity. To understand how classroom teachers support student learning, I first identify actions and conditions that others have 7 found to instantiate the scaffolding process. To do this I examine the origins of the scaffolding term, as well as research from a number of disciplines that have expanded the notion of scaffolded instruction. I then present a list of characteristics, based on this literature, that are commonly associated with scaffolded instruction, and provide examples of their use in reading and writing instruction. This section sets the stage for identifying dimensions of the scaffolding process that will be considered in this study. Origins of the Concept of Scaffolding The term scaffolding was originally coined by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976). In their article on effective tutoring practices, they describe the tutoring situation as a relationship between an expert and a novice learner. The ultimate goal of scaffolded instruction, according to Wood et al., is to allow the novice to achieve more in a shorter time than if they were working alone, or to complete a task that would normally be too difficult without assistance. The tutor (expert) provides a scaffold by bridging and supporting gaps in the learner's thinking process. The scaffold allows learners to perform at a level beyond that at which they would be capable of on their own. While scaffolded instruction often entails expert modelling and novice imitation, scaffolding need not be limited to these two techniques.. Wood et al. provide a list of six functions of scaffolded instruction: (a) recruitment, or enticing the child to participate in the task at hand; (b) reduction in degrees of freedom, or simplifying the task into stages or steps; (c) direction maintenance, or keeping the activity progressing; (d) notation of critical features; (e) frustration control, or maintaining motivation; and (f) demonstration, or modelling. Wood et al.'s study of 3-, 4-and 5-year-old children demonstrated that the application of these functions varies depending upon the developmental abilities of the learner. For example, with the task of constructing a 8 pyramid shape from wooden blocks, the quantity and type of assistance varied across the three age groups, where 3-year olds required more direct intervention and correction, while 5-year olds received more verbal direction and reminding. As well, Wood et al. contend that for the learner to become self-regulating in relation to a certain task or activity, he must be "able to recognize a solution .. .before he is himself able to produce the steps leading to it without assistance" (p. 90) [italics added]. Teachers may support, encourage, model and adapt instruction to scaffold the learner, but if the learner is not cognizant of the process, including the purpose and desired end point, true independent learning is not possible. For example, in the Wood et al. study where children constructed a pyramid shape using wooden blocks, the authors stated that the children must have had an understanding of the visual shape expected, because they constructed and deconstructed the blocks until they were able to reach the desired shape. The work of Wood et al. provided characteristics of, and a qualifier for, the instructional scaffolding process. Other researchers, some from different disciplines, have referred to scaffolding-like support in their work, which has served to enrich the concept. In Vygotsky's theory of human development (Moll, 1990; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991a,b) learning occurs through a dynamic social exchange between child and adult. Within an authentic context and task, presented in its whole rather than isolated into separate pieces, the more knowledgeable other (adult) verbally and non-verbally mediates a child's activity and thinking until the learning process is internalized. Once internalized, the child can then self-mediate to support himself in the completion of the activity. In order to achieve this, both the adult and the child must establish a shared understanding of the task or goal (intersubjectivity), similar to Wood et al's caveat that the learner must have a sense of the 9 task outcome. Vygotsky (1978) discussed mediation in terms of development and learning. A child's level of development of "mental functions [is] established as a result of certain already completed developmental cycles" (p. 85). There exists a second level of functioning, however, that is possible through mediation. Through a supported learning experience the child is able to function at a developmental level which has not yet fully matured. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Gutierrez & Stone, 1997; Jacob, 1997; Vygotsky, 1978) is the term used to describe the distance between these two levels of functioning Optimal learning is said to occur when the activity or task is within the child's ZPD. Vygotsky's theory of human development influenced current notions of scaffolding; social interaction within authentic contexts, identifying the learner's level of understanding (ZPD) and then creating a shared understanding of the task further characterize the scaffolding process. Another body of research, dialectic and classroom discourse studies, has influenced current understanding of scaffolded instruction (Donahue & Lopez-Reyna, 1998; Heath, 1991; Palinscar, 1986; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Investigations of parent-child interaction identify parental scaffolding for the purposes of developing infant language and cognition (Cazden, 1979, 1988). Parents scaffold by shaping children's language attempts and "providing support for their inchoate learning until it is no longer needed" (Brown & Palinscar, 1989, p. 411). Further, some researchers maintain that collaborative talk (Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992) and social interaction (Moll & Whitmore, 1993; Palinscar, 1986; Roehler & Cantlon, 1997) are an essential and key feature of the scaffolding process. Building from Vygotsky's perspective on development, other socio-cultural researchers have also influenced our understanding of scaffolding. For example, one body of research has found that different cultures mediate language development in markedly 10 different ways (Rogoff, 1990; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1983). For example, Schieffelin and Ochs (1983) found that White, English-Anglo-Saxon middle-class mothers engage in face-to-face dialogues with their infants, even before they are able to talk. Mother and child practice turn-taking and use intonation to express meaning. The mother scaffolds by simplifying her talk and interpreting for the child. In contrast, Schieffelin and Ochs (1983) found that Kaluli mothers in Papua New Guinea hold their babies facing outward and do not engage in dialogues with their babies until they are able to speak. They do not consider the non-speaking child as capable of any communication. Consequently Kaluli mothers do not scaffold language early in the infant's development. Further, when the child is able to speak, Kaluli mothers use directives as a way of showing the child how to speak, rather than adopting the guiding and supporting role that English-Anglo-Saxon mothers assume. Thus, depending upon the cultural context, scaffolding takes different forms (Scribner, 1997). In all cultures, however, more capable individuals scaffold learners "intermentally" (on the social plane) until the learner internalizes understandings ("intramentally") on the individual plane (Wertsch, Tulvistie, & Hagstron, 1993, p. 340). Another influence on the scaffolding concept from socio-cultural studies relates to acceptance and support of a learner within a larger community. Lave and Wenger (1991) describe learning as a process which takes place among co-participants, in a community of practice, where an apprentice engages in a parallel activity to a master. Through legitimate peripheral participation, the apprentice has access to "sources for understanding" (Lave & Wenger, p. 37), and learns to become a full, practicing community member. The master supports the learning by providing a controlled set of easy steps. As well, techniques and strategies are made visible to the apprentice through language and demonstration. As with 11 the parent-child language studies, discourse that supports learning and problem solving in such communities of practice is culturally specific (Forman & McPhail, 1993; Scribner, 1997). Classroom studies have further expanded our understanding of scaffolded instruction by identifying classroom conditions that support the development of self-regulated learners. To support independent learning and self-regulation the classroom climate and teacher style must be conducive to this development (Aulls, 1998; Englert, Rozendal, & Mariage, 1994; Gallimore & Tharp, 1990; Malicky, Juliebo, Norman & Pool, 1997). In classrooms that support self-regulated learning (SRL), students learn and are motivated to set goals, make plans, transform knowledge, and evaluate their performance, using cultural tools for self-mediation (Harris & Pressley, 1991; Perry, 1998; Zimmerman, 1994). There must be many and varied opportunities for the application of strategies to authentic tasks, in the context of collaborative group work. Further, teacher - student relationships must be relaxed and supportive, so that students are willing to take risks (McCaslin & Good, 1996). Perry (1998) found that during writing, children in high-SRL grade two classrooms where more likely to manage their time, monitor and evaluate their progress, and seek assistance from teachers or peers, than children in low-SRL classrooms. To review, in this section I have discussed the origins and evolution of the scaffolding term. I presented the original characteristics as proposed by Wood et al. and went on to show how other researchers and fields of study have contributed to the current notion of scaffolding. In the next section I synthesize the various characteristics into eight qualities that are most commonly associated with scaffolded instruction. 12 Qualities of Scaffolded Instruction Although the research cited above spans different fields of study, common characteristics of teacher support and student learning can be identified. I have delineated eight conditions that support the learning process and promote self-regulated learning. These conditions or elements are applied in varying degrees, depending upon the task, context, and needs of the student or students. The purpose of identifying these elements of scaffolded instruction in this study is to provide a framework for understanding how the teachers support student learning through actions and classroom conditions. Table 1 presents scaffolding elements within the first column. The second column provides an explanation for each respective element. Although the elements are presented separately, the follow-up discussion will demonstrate how they are interconnected. Note that these elements can apply both individually in one-on-one interaction, and in groups that include more than one expert and / or more than one novice. A key characteristic of scaffolded instruction is its social and dialogic nature. The work of Palinscar (1986) and others demonstrates the power of discussion among teacher and students (Meyer, 1993; Roehler & Cantlon, 1997; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). In these interactions, the teacher does not seize the expert role, but rather, all participants in the discussion share their knowledge and expertise. A second characteristic of the scaffolding process, which is related to social interaction, is that experts and novices co-participate, jointly driving the learning process. The learners are not passive recipients of the experts' knowledge, but are active participants in the learning process (Gaskin, Rauch, Gensemer, Cunicelli, O'Hara, Six & Scott, 1997; Meyer, 1993; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992), and 13 Table 1 Elements Commonly Associated With Scaffolded Instruction •Scaffolding Element Explanation Social Interaction Dialogic Talk between and among the teacher and students facilitates the exchange of knowledge and construction of meaning. Expert - Novice Co-participation The student is actively involved in the learning process and shares ownership of the task or activity with the expert. Establishment of Shared Meaning Students and teacher jointly establish an understanding of the task, goals, or learning process. Appropriate Task The teacher designs the task to suit the learner's Zone of Proximal Development; the task is challenging yet achievable with support. Authentic Intact Task Learning is more meaningful if the task retains a holistic quality and has a real life application. Acting "as if The learner is considered a capable member of the community and acts "as if he was as skilled and knowledgeable as the experts. Calibrated Formative Feedback The teacher tailors feedback to the needs and abilities of the learner. Temporary Support Transfer of Control The teacher withdraws support as the learner internalizes the processes necessary to successfully and independently complete the task or activity. therefore, share ownership in the process. Through dialogue and co-participation, the experts and learners develop a shared understanding of the tasks, goals, and learning processes (Gaskins et al., 1997; Meyer, 1993), which is a third element of scaffolded instruction. Teachers continually seek to create this collective understanding with their students. They first determine the novices' level of understanding about a given task, the strategies that they currently employ, as well as the learners' perceptions of the purpose and desired end point, before bridging to a shared understanding. It may be necessary, however, for the teacher to adjust the task or activity to suit the children's current level of ability. Learning is further scaffolded when the teacher chooses appropriate tasks that are within the child's or children's ZPD (Applebee & Langer, 1983; Meyer, 1993; Stipek, 1996). The research on student motivation and self-efficacy, or belief in their abilities to complete a 14 task successfully, confirms that activities must be moderately challenging, but within a child's abilities in order to maintain interest, and to reinforce the learner's sense of competence. Further scaffolded instruction is more successful when it occurs within an authentic context and when the task retains a holistic quality, rather than divided into isolated pieces (Moll & Whitmore, 1993; Winn, 1994). Therefore, not only should tasks be at an appropriate level of difficulty, but also be meaningful and purposeful. Under these conditions, the learners can feel as though they are fully functioning members of the learning community, working on tasks that are similar to those of the experts. This is another element of scaffolded instruction - treating learners "as if they had acquired all of the skills and knowledge of the experts in the group (Heath, 1991; Roehler & Cantlon, 1997; Rogoff, 1990). In addition, as members of the larger learning community, novices are provided feedback that is tailored to their needs and abilities and that supports greater success (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990; Gaskins et al., 1997; Meyer, 1993). Butler (1998) terms this calibrated formative feedback. Finally, as learners develop the skills to perform a task independently, the experts provide less support and eventually allow the learners to take full control of the activity. Thus, the scaffolds that were initially provided are always considered temporary, facilitating the development of self-regulated learning (Beed, Hawkins & Roller, 1991; Bull, Shuler, Overton, Kimball, Boykin & Griffin, 1999; Gaskins et al., 1997; Meyer, 1993). The eight conditions or elements of scaffolded instruction that I have identified are common among the works of many authors from different fields of study. While I have discussed each element separately in the sections above, I have also indicated how they can 15 interrelate. In order to demonstrate how the scaffolding process looks within a language arts context, in the sections to follow I provide examples of how scaffolded instruction, and the eight specific elements, have been incorporated into reading and writing instruction. In each example, note how the teacher (expert) mindfully scaffolds the child (novice) using a variety of the above scaffolding elements. As well, notice that the desired outcome in each case is for students to develop the skills necessary to complete tasks or solve problems independently. Following the examples of scaffolded instruction during reading and writing, I discuss circumstances wherein teachers' provision of instructional scaffolding has been compromised. Scaffolding applied to teaching reading. Ann Brown and Anne Marie Palinscar (1989) created a student-centered approach to teaching reading that incorporates all of the elements of scaffolded instruction. Brown and Palinscar's Reciprocal Teaching technique capitalizes on the multiple abilities, if not multiple ages, within most regular classrooms (Brown & Palinscar, 1989; Palinscar, 1987; Palinscar & Brown, 1989; Palinscar, Ransom, & Derber, 1989). The authors view this as a natural aspect of communities of learners, where some members are more expert than others (expert-novice co-participation). The teacher is also considered to be an expert reader who guides and supports the development of less accomplished readers in the class. Through discussion groups (social interaction), teacher modelling, and explicit instruction, and by providing meaningful, motivating text (authentic task), children learn to create meaning from print (establish shared meaning). Theirs is a collaborative learning experience. Initially the teacher models the reading comprehension strategies. Gradually the children imitate the strategies (acting "as if") and assume increasing control of the reading comprehension process (temporary support / transfer 16 control). In order to be effective, the teacher provides support tailored to each child's ability level (calibrated feedback). This requires constant informal assessment of the child's use of the reciprocal teaching strategies and his level of reading comprehension. As well, the teacher arranges the environment to support the learning process. For example, desks are arranged into small groups, there are spaces for large-group sharing, and a moderate level of talk is encouraged. Reading materials are at the appropriate level for each student's ability (appropriate task), to ensure successful comprehension. Another application of scaffolded instruction for reading focuses on material modifications. Kathleen Brown (2000) acknowledges that while scaffolding may take the form of modelling, thinking aloud, reminding, and coaching, textual scaffolds are not verbal. In this case, print is carefully screened to match the student's developmental level (appropriate task). By selecting texts that students are able to comfortably decode, a scaffold is provided to support comprehension. Beginning readers assume the role of competent, independent readers because the texts are at levels that allow for successful comprehension (acting "as if"). Further, Mesmer (1999) states that providing a leveled text acts "like a set of training wheels on a bicycle; it offers temporary support and is designed to facilitate future independence" (p. 14) (temporary support / transfer control). These two examples illustrate that material modifications act as scaffolds to support reading comprehension. These programs or interventions demonstrate that instruction to students can be scaffolded both verbally and non-verbally, using such teacher moves (behaviors) as questioning, modelling, and adapting materials. These teacher moves reflect an array of scaffolding conditions that support the development of the students' reading comprehension skills and promote self-regulated learning. 17 Scaffolding applied to teaching writing. The term scaffolding has also been applied to writing instruction. Writing Workshop (Calkins & Harwayne, 1991) is an example of an instructional method that incorporates scaffolding elements in order to advance children's writing performance. The Writing Workshop approach encourages the development of writing skills through authentic language communication (authentic task). The learning environment is safe and supportive so that students can take risks and explore various text structures and writing purposes (acting "as if"). Students share their writing with peers and the teacher, in order to receive feedback (social interaction, expert-novice co-participation, calibrated feedback). During mini-conferences, the teacher nudges student writers forward in their ZPD by questioning, praising, and goal setting (establish shared meaning, appropriate task). Specific materials and their applications can also act as scaffolds for developing writers. For example, an adult may scaffold the writing process with a preschool child by taking dictation and drawing lines to represent each word of a child's message (expert-novice co-participation, authentic task, establish shared meaning, acting "as if") (Bodrova, Leong, & Paynter, 1999). The child can then write as much as he can on each of the lines. His writing could take the form of initial and final word sounds, or more complete invented spellings. This type of scaffolding can be considered temporary (temporary support / transfer control), and a step toward more independent composing. Dahl and Farnan (1998) recommend using another type of material scaffold when conferencing or coaching young writers about text structures. These visual material scaffolds take the form of cards on which the teacher prints key elements, as the child dictates his or her story. The cards provide a framework, or structure, for the story that will then be written 18 by the child. For more advanced writers, some authors suggest planning templates, paragraph frames, and visual prompts to scaffold student writing (acting "as if", authentic task) (Englert, Raphael & Anderson, 1992; Graham & Harris, 1993; Lewis, Wray and Rospigliosi, 1994; Wong, Butler, Ficzere & Kuperis, 1996). These studies demonstrate teacher scaffolding (both verbal and non-verbal) which extends students' writing performance and promotes student self-regulation. Various teacher moves (such as questioning, goal setting, and material adaptations) reflect many of the elements that instantiate instructional scaffolding. Teachers' implementation of instructional scaffolding. While many researchers have documented the efficacy of scaffolded instruction to enhance student reading (Brown, Campione, Ferrara, Reeve & Palinscar, 1991; Carrell, Pharis & Liberia, 1989) and writing (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony & Stevens, 1991; Graham & Harris, 1993; Wong et al., 1996), others have pointed out that instructional approaches that have sound theoretical and empirical foundations do not always transfer into classroom practice (Duffy, 1993; Gaffney & Anderson, 1991). There are various reasons that teachers might not implement scaffolded instruction, or might not maintain the fidelity of a particular methodology. Some authors suggest that certain instructional approaches are not effective with all children, and therefore, teachers may choose not to incorporate these new practices into their classrooms. For example, Delpit (1986) states that the writing process is not as effective with some African-American children as direct writing instruction. Other reasons that innovative instructional approaches do not always seamlessly transfer into the classroom relate to teacher knowledge and on-going support. For example, Palinscar (1986) found that many of the teachers in her study were still experiencing 19 difficulty implementing all of the strategies that comprise Reciprocal Teaching, even after 20 days of in-service. This suggests that these teachers may have required more in-depth understanding of the philosophy underlying the instructional approach (Bacharach & Alexander, 1986; Klinger, Vaughn, Hughes & Arguelles, 1999) to understand the significance of each facet in order for the approach to be successful. Palinscar's findings also suggest that some teachers may require on-going support (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997) in order to sustain the newly acquired skills. Other researchers have found that new instructional approaches are often not incorporated because it is difficult for teachers to change their instructional style (Alexander, Murphy & Woods, 1996; Au & Carroll, 1997; Graham & Harris, 1993; Vaughn & Klinger, 2000), particularly if they don't see an immediate improvement in student performance and/or if they believe that their current practices are equally as effective. For example, Allington (1991) found that teachers often continue to focus on writing mechanics with lower ability children, believing that isolated skill practice will develop delayed writing abilities, despite awareness of more balanced approaches to writing instruction. Other reasons that teachers may not incorporate innovative methods or approaches into their practice, such as scaffolded instruction, are limited time (Biemiller & Meichenbaum, 1998), concerns about maintaining classroom order, and pressure to cover content for government exams (Vaughn & Schumm, 1994). Therefore, although scaffolded instruction has been proven to enhance reading and writing skills, teacher, classroom, and school circumstances can impede effective implementation. This literature review demonstrates the diverse applications of instructional scaffolding, for reading and writing instruction. I have identified and described teacher 20 actions and classroom conditions that characterize and support the scaffolding process, as well as potential reasons that scaffolded instruction is not effectively integrated into classroom practice. In the following section I review suggested methods for identifying and labelling the myriad teacher behaviors that may scaffold student learning. I conclude by proposing three parameters for describing and evaluating scaffolded instruction. Examining the Nature of Scaffolding in this Study Several authors have attempted to identify specific teacher behaviors and speech that could be labeled as a type of scaffolding (Beed et al., 1991; Bull et al, 1999; Gallimore & Tharp, 1990; Jaramillo, 1998; Roehler & Cantlon, 1997). Many consider observable teacher behaviors such as modelling, questioning, and explaining to be specific types of scaffolding. Others have elaborated the labeling process by also considering the degree of support required to address the learner's competency (Beed et al., 1991; Bull et al., 1999). These authors connect the type and amount of scaffolding to student needs and outcomes. Another approach to determining what conditions, actions or speech can be regarded as scaffolding is to consider the intentionality of the support. Meyer (1993) argued that a teacher's actions or speech are not true scaffolding unless they are consciously applied to meet the contextual (Tzuriel, 1994) needs of the students and task (Gover & Englert, 1998). In sum, many approaches have been created to classify the wide range of supports that can be provided for learners. In order to ascertain what constitutes scaffolding, and to understand the complex nature of scaffolded instruction, three parameters must be considered: the pedagogical intent of the support, resulting student outcomes, and situational variables. This study endeavors to understand the dynamics of scaffolded instruction by identifying and describing conditions that influence the process, and explaining their 21 intricacies. In this research project teacher actions or speech have been observed and considered within the whole learning context. This investigation focuses on the teacher and students as they are engaged in writing activities, steeped within a wider school and community context. The teacher's behaviors, selected writing activities, student - teacher interactions, student learning needs, and the wider learning environment are examined in order to describe and understand how classroom teachers adjust support for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing. To review, in this section I have discussed the evolution of the scaffolding concept, to arrive at a synthesized constellation of attributes of scaffolded instruction. I presented examples of scaffolding in reading and writing instruction to illustrate the diversity of applications in different learning contexts, and how the key goal of scaffolded instruction is to promote the development of self-regulated learners. In addition I pointed to circumstances that impede effective implementation of instructional scaffolding. I continued by arguing that to understand how teachers adapt instruction to meet the unique needs of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, it is important to consider the intent of the particular support, its effect on the student, and various situational conditions that influence the scaffolding process. Among the situational contexts that impact teachers' differential scaffolding is the nature of the learning task. Therefore, for this study I have reviewed the literature related to the composing process , including one particular approach to writing instruction that has been found by some researchers to support the development of self-regulated writers. The following review will provide additional background to understand the complex nature of scaffolded instruction. 22 The Writing Process In this section I present current conceptions about the nature of the composing process. I begin by discussing the complex nature of writing and the stages within the writing process (Flower & Hayes, 1981). Following this, I discuss Writing Workshop, an approach to writing instruction that supports the development of self-regulating writers (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). This information is important to this study for two reasons. First, by understanding the demands inherent in the writing process, connections can be made between the types of tasks that teachers assign, and the supports that they provide to their students. Second, information about a contemporary approach to writing instruction provides a frame of reference for examining the writing programs designed by the teachers in this study. Cognitive. Linguistic, and Motivational Demands Writing or composing is a complicated task that requires the writer to simultaneously juggle various demands (Flower & Hayes, 1980). Given this, it is not surprising that rigorous scaffolded instruction may be necessary. Recent writing research based on English-speaking North American students has described the writing experience as a complex problem solving process (Needels & Knapp, 1994) that includes the retrieval of knowledge from long-term memory, activation of working memory, text generation, and transcribing (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Graham & Harris, 2000; McCutcheon, 2000). The writer must consciously orchestrate the process while considering task demands such as topic, genre, and audience. Initiating, maintaining, and monitoring the writing process require a great deal of effort (Bereiter, 1980), motivation (Bruning & Horn, 2000; Perry, 1998), and self-regulation (Wong et al., 1997; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). 23 Flower and Hayes (1981) have created a model that identifies three key elements that are simultaneously at play during text composition. One crucial element is the writer's long-term memory, where he stores concepts or information that are stable and accessible. This includes knowledge of the topic, awareness of the audience, and familiarity with text structures and genres. For example, McCutcheon (2000) found that the more well developed the writer's knowledge of narrative structures, the greater the ease with language encoding (text generation), and the fewer the demands put on short-term working memory, which is thought to be the temporary storage for concepts or information being mentally manipulated by the writer. A second important element of the composing model is the task demands, including audience demands and the consideration of text that has already been produced. The third element is the writing process itself, comprising the three phases of text generation - planning, translating (sentence generation), and reviewing (Hayes & Flower, 1986), which operate in a dynamic and recursive fashion. The effective writer successfully manages long-term memory, working memory, and writing process demands at the same time. To elaborate, in the Flower and Hayes model the first phase of the writing process is text planning, which includes setting goals, and generating and organizing ideas (Flower & Hayes, 1980). That is, the writer must decide what to do, then he must consider what to say, and finally, he must know how to compose what he wishes to say. The planning phase is very different for novice and experienced writers. Young novice writers tend to write what they retrieve from long-term memory, with little consideration for organization (Bereiter, 1980; Hayes & Flower, 1986). Bereiter and Scardemalia (1987) refer to this as knowledge telling, and contrast it with more skilled writers who play around with their ideas, adding, deleting, and re-arranging, before actually generating text (knowledge transforming). While 24 goal setting is seen as important to the planning process, leading to longer, more detailed and better organized papers (Page-Voth & Graham, 1994), Harris and Graham (1996) have found that for most students and novice writers, goals do not "drive the planning process" (p. 20). The second phase, after planning, is sentence generation or idea translation (Flower & Hayes, 1981). This phase, in particular, places enormous cognitive and physical demands on the writer. During text generation the writer uses his language encoding skills (McCutcheon, 2000), considered to be the process of transferring ideas and thoughts to text, and background knowledge (Needels & Knapp, 1994), in addition to fine-motor skills. Difficulty with language encoding, perhaps as a result of cultural or linguistic differences, places increased demands on long-term memory. As a result, there are fewer resources for the working memory to hold and negotiate the myriad processes. Fluency in sentence generation, then, is partly related to the degree to which the writer can draw on background knowledge and experiences (Needels & Knapp, 1994). The work of Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, and Whitaker (1997) has focused on both the physical and cognitive demands of sentence generation. Spelling and handwriting abilities directly influence sentence production and fluency. Therefore, the greater the difficulty one has with language encoding (physical or linguistic), the greater the difficulty he will have producing text. The third phase of the writing process, revision, also places demands on the writer. Revising includes re-organizing, deleting, adding, and evaluating text. Fitzgerald (1992) found that experienced writers know a wide range of revising strategies and can successfully employ various strategies simultaneously. Bereiter (1980) noted that many writers revise while they write, rather than at the end of the sentence generation phase and that revising during writing requires more cognitive engagement. 25 I have presented this review of the composing process to outline the phases of text generation, and to highlight the enormous cognitive and linguistic demands at play. Students may require extensive teacher support to successfully navigate through this dynamic and recursive process. Next I identify instructional practices, and one particular approach to writing, that addresses specific writing demands. Effective Writing Instruction There are numerous programs or approaches to writing instruction that address the demands and phases of text generation. While some approaches focus on specific skill development, such as spelling or grammar, others promote self-regulation of these skills within the entire composing process (Graham & Harris, 1997; Harris & Graham, 1992), and acknowledge that a positive attitude and motivation are necessary for successful writing (Perry, 1998). Strategy instruction is one approach to developing self-regulating writers. Novice writers leam about different strategies for writing (declarative knowledge), how to employ them (procedural knowledge), and when the strategies would be of most use (conditional knowledge) (Englert, et al., 1991) through overt modelling and explanation (Graham & Harris, 1997). Strategy instruction is more effective when taught in an integrated fashion, with authentic purposes, and within a community of writers (Clay, 1998; Englert, 1992). To enhance attitude and motivation, researchers recommend that students be allowed to make choices as to topic and level of writing challenge, and be immersed in a flexible and rich language environment (Graham & Harris, 1997; Perry, 1998). Successful writing instruction also considers the impact that teacher feedback may have on student attitude, motivation (DeGroff, 1993), creativity (Dahl & Farnan, 1998), and sense of self-efficacy for 26 writing (Perry & VandeKamp, 2000). Students with a high sense of writing self-efficacy believe that they have the ability to successfully complete a writing task. In turn, these students are more likely to self-regulate their own learning. Writing instruction that includes explicit strategy instruction and addresses student motivation and attitude, facilitates the development of skilled and self-regulating writers. One particular approach to writing instruction that incorporates the practices noted above as well as many elements of scaffolded instruction noted previously, is Writing Workshop, developed as a way to support self-regulated writing (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987). I have identified eight characteristics of this particular approach to writing instruction. Table 2 presents these Writing Workshop characteristics within the first column. The second column provides an explanation for each respective characteristic. In the Writing Workshop approach, children are encouraged to share and discuss their work with others, often through teacher-student conferences (Englert et al., 1991, 1992). Through these discussions, novice writers receive feedback on their writing, and learn how others approach the writing process. Teachers also assist in the development of language for talking about writing and writing problems. "Since writing involves self-talk, communication, and collaboration, a shared conceptual vocabulary is an important aim of writing instruction" (Englert et al., 1992, p. 412). Through social interaction and by learning how other authors overcome writing problems, the learning of novice writers is mediated as they progress through the phases of the writing process. When necessary, the teachers may conference with a child about her writing or present a mini-lesson for a small group, in order to teach specific strategies or skills that would address particular needs of the novice writer or writers. Other features of Writing Workshop (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; 27 Table 2 Key Characteristics of Writing Workshop Characteristic Explanation Teacher - Student Conferences Teacher meets with students individually to discuss writing problems, writing strategies, future writing topics, aspects of current writing to note, areas that the student would like to improve The Writina Process -Brainstorm & Plan, Draft-Share-Feedback, Revise, Share Final Product Students follow the four stages which include: pre-planning to gather thoughts and ideas; drafting and then sharing the writing to receive feedback and suggestions; revising the writing based on the suggestions and editing mechanical features; sharing the final product to receive praise and communicate ideas Mini-Lessons Teacher works with a small group of students addressing a specific aspect of their writing Multiple Genres Students experiment with various genres such as narration, exposition, persuasion, poetry, lists, recipes, newspaper ads Student Ownership And Choice Students select topics of interest and make decisions about revising the writing based on feedback Individually Paced Instruction Tasks are appropriate for the students' level of ability, interests, and authentic purpose Encourage Risk Taking Teacher encourages and supports student experimentation with different writing styles, genres, and audiences Encourage Self-regulated Learning Teacher instructs and facilitates a variety of strategies, promotes choice, self-evaluation, and personal goal-setting so that students can become independent writers Graves, 1983) are consistent with scaffolded instruction and also address the motivational needs of the writer. For example, writing tasks are authentic; the children write for real-life purposes, in a variety of genres, with a focus on meaning and not just mechanics. That is, the goal of writing is to communicate with others; spelling, grammar and punctuation are a secondary focus. Another way that Writing Workshop considers the motivational needs of the writers is by promoting student ownership and choice over the writing process, and by creating tasks that are at an appropriate level and pace for the students' writing abilities. Students are encouraged to write about topics that interest them, and to take risks by experimenting with different genres and writing styles. They act "as if they are "real" writers. In summary, Writing Workshop is an approach to writing instruction that 28 incorporates effective practices and many scaffolding elements to support the development of self-regulating writers. At the same time, however, other authors have pointed out that Writing Workshop is not a panacea. For example, Ffarwayne (2002) notes that teachers, including her, have taken the writing process to an "extreme" (p. 3) by focusing on adult topics and processes which can take the "playfulness" out of writing. Rather, the emphasis of writing should be on making meaning in the myriad ways one does within the culture. Written language becomes a tool to fulfill a particular function (Chapman, 1999; Rothery, 1989), which may or may not require completing all of the stages of the writing process. A further concern of Writing Workshop is that there may not be adequate direct instruction for some children. The work of Graham and Harris (De La Paz & Graham, 2002; Graham & Harris, 1994; Troia & Graham, 2002) has demonstrated the efficacy of explicit strategy instruction over a strictly process writing approach for children with learning disabilities. Similarly, Yeh (1998), Delpit (1986), and Slavin (2002) contend that explicit instruction in reading and writing is particularly important for some minority students. In sum, writing is a complex task requiring active control of cognitive, linguistic, and motivational abilities. Classroom context and writing instruction can support the development of these skills, particularly when they reflect the elements of scaffolding as previously outlined. Effective scaffolding is not simply the deployment of a set of teacher moves, but the thoughtful, dynamic integration of various elements to best meet the shifting needs of the learner. This study investigates how the general education teacher scaffolds support to Aboriginal students and encourages the development of self-regulated writing skills. To understand how an approach to writing instruction, rich with scaffolding, may be 29 adapted to meet diverse cultural student needs, I next present current research in multicultural education and First Nations pedagogy. Multicultural Education In this section I discuss current research in the field of multicultural education. First, I begin by identifying criticisms of research and practice related to minority students. Second, I present a summary of research on instructional practices and teacher dispositions found to be most effective with cultural minority students, and specifically First Nations children. Finally, I discuss the challenges of supporting First Nations students in their writing development. Concerns about Educational Research and Practice Multicultural education is receiving increasing attention in educational and psychological research. This focus stems, in part, from a heightened interest in cross-cultural studies, likely spurred by the expanding diversity of our population. There are concerns, however, about emerging research and existing classroom practices. For example, researchers such as Cole (1990), Scribner (1997), Ladson-Billing (1995), and Valsiner (1989) have criticized educational and psychological studies for failing to be culturally inclusive. They contend that this body of research is flawed because it typically imposes Western values and paradigms which de-value and ignore the richness of other cultures. In addition, some authors claim that educational practices have not kept pace with demographic, philosophical and pedagogical changes. Instructional practices, materials and teacher dispositions often fail to be culturally responsive (Garcia, 1999; Saskatchewan Education, 1997). Second-language learners and other minority students are mainstreamed into regular education classes (Harklau, 1994), where little or no adjustment is made in the materials, methods or approaches used (Fletcher et al., 1999; Gunderson, 1991). Obiakor (1999) and others have found that most regular education teachers lack the specialized training to effectively plan and deal with the unique needs of their language and cultural minority students (Fletcher et al., 1999; Garcia, 1999; Harklau, 1994; McCarthy, 2001; Meskill & Chen, 2002). As well, educators often lack awareness of the impact of their own cultural biases on the learning process (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Saravia-Shore & Arvisu, 1992). Further, they may be unaware of the position of power and authority that they have over minority students (Toohey, 1999). Therefore, although there has been increased interest in multicultural education, some authors contend that research and educational practices have failed to acknowledge and adapt to the shifting classroom realities. Cultural Minority and First Nations Education Research In Western Canada, government departments, school districts and teacher associations have worked to address the concerns noted previously by focusing on the ethical, equitable, and appropriate educational practices for minority students. These groups of educators are compiling research-based recommendations examining the needs of cultural minority students, such as First Nations children. This research relates to curriculum and instruction, teacher knowledge and dispositions, and teaching methodologies and materials. Developing curriculum and instruction. Many authors have identified the importance of rethinking the traditional approach to curriculum development and classroom instruction in order to be culturally responsive to minority students. For example, rather than imposing a curriculum devised by the majority language and cultural group, which can perpetuate the marginalization of cultural minority groups (Gutierrez, 1992), decision making about curriculum content and instructional design should be shared with the parents and the wider 31 cultural community (Ashworth, 1980; B.C.T.F Task Force, 1999; Burns, 1998; Farrell-Racette, Goulet, Pelletier & Shmon, 1996; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998; Mattson & Caffrey, 2001; Saskatchewan Education, 1997; Toohey, 1985). Some school districts with high Aboriginal student representation have responded by offering heritage language classes and including Native elders as part of the educational team (B.C.T.F. Task Force, 1999; Burnaby, 1984; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998). Byjointly determining the curriculum and instructional approaches, there is a greater likelihood that the perspectives and traditions of cultural minority groups will be successfully integrated. Another required change is for teachers and administrators to enhance their competencies related to cultural minorities (Garcia, 1999). Professional development of this nature must be long term (Meskill & Chen, 2002) and include anti-discrimination programs and practices (Mattson & Caffrey, 2001). Specific to First Nations pedagogy, professional development should include cultural characteristics and traditional practices of the minority groups (Ashworth, 1980; Brownlie, Feniak, & McCarthy, 2000; Gutierrez, 1992; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998; Philips, 1983); awareness of factors contributing to academic failure (B.C.T.F. Task Force, 1999; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998; Mattson & Caffrey, 2001), and culturally responsive and sensitive instruction and resources (Ashworth, 1980; B.C. Ministry of Education, 1998; ESL Standards Committee, 1999; Farrell-Racette et al., 1996; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998). To summarize, both joint decision making and enhanced professional development are fundamental to creating an educational climate and curriculum that is responsive to cultural diversity. Teacher knowledge and dispositions. Teacher knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes are major factors in effective multicultural classrooms. For example, Ogbu (1995) and others 32 recommend that educators expand their knowledge regarding the kind of values families and cultural groups place on education (Corson, 1997; Leavell, Cowart & Wilhelm, 1999). Some cultural groups, such as East-Asian families, highly value education, and stress student participation in educational activities inside and outside of the school and home (Schneider, Hieshima, Lee, & Plank, 1994). In other cultures, real-life experiences are considered the best form of education (Suina & Smolkin, 1994). Educators also need to be aware of the child's and family's feelings about learning the majority language and culture (Ruttan, 2000). In some cases, minority students and their families may have negative beliefs about becoming assimilated into the dominant culture (Anderson, 1995; Asselin, 1997; McGroarty, 1996), particularly if there is no recognition given to the child's heritage language and culture. These parents and children may resist the dominance of the majority group and educational system. In addition to learning about family values about education and attitudes toward the cultural majority group, teachers need to critically examine their attitudes towards the learning abilities of different cultural groups (Obiakor, 1999; Scollon & Scollon, 1981). In the past, an often implicit assumption has been that language minority students had deficient cognitive abilities if they did not correctly speak the majority language (Heit & Blair, 1993; Scribner, 1997). While this assumption has no empirical grounding, current research has found that teachers who are not self-reflective of their attitudes toward cultural and linguistic minorities tend to underestimate student abilities and set lower or unrealistic academic expectations for success (Au & Raphael, 2000; McGroarty, 1996; Obiakor, 1999). Teacher education and cross-cultural experiences can, however, lead to more tolerant and accepting attitudes toward minority groups (Au & Raphael, 2000). 33 Teaching methodologies and materials. Other important findings about multicultural education relate to how the teacher structures instruction and the types of materials used. For example, minority student literacy is enhanced if instruction occurs in a positive and supportive environment (B.C. Ministry of Education, 1998; B.C.T.F. Task Force, 1999; Brownlie et al., 2000; Reid, 1999), is geared to the learner's needs (Mohan, 1986), and includes specific and frequent feedback (Gersten & Baker, 2000). There is debate, however, over the amount and focus of feedback, particularly related to written expression. When discussing instruction and feedback, some authors suggest that with Native children and children from low-SES families, specific skills should be explicitly taught in controlled bits (Ashworth, 1980; Mclntrye, 1995), while others recommend that instruction occur within a holistic, social context (Brownlie et al., 2000; ESL Standards Committee, 1999; Gersten & Baker, 2000) and that teacher feedback focus less on mechanical features to begin, and more on the students' attempts at creating meaning (Brownlie et al., 2000). As Cumming and So (1996) state, research findings are not consistent on the merits of specific skill training and error correction with language minority students. Teachers should also be aware of the oral discourse patterns of cultural minority groups. Ward (1997) and others have found (Philips, 1983; Scollon & Scollon, 1981) have found that many First Nations people use different discourse patterns than those of Anglo-English speakers. For example, a Native child may prefer to remain silent during class discussions, perhaps because his home discourse patterns are different from school oral discourse conventions. As well, in schools it is common for teachers to use the following recitation sequence: the teacher initiates the discussion, often asking a question; the students respond; and the teacher evaluates the responses (IRE). This particular pattern of discourse 34 places authority and power with the teacher (Toohey, 1999), which may impact on the willingness of cultural minority students to contribute to class discussions. Research also points to the advantages of certain approaches to content instruction. Vocabulary development for cultural and language minority students should be a focus in all content areas, be integrated into lessons (ESL Standards Committee, 1999; Gersten & Baker, 2000; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998), and build upon the student's current knowledge base (Au & Raphael, 2000; ESL Standards Committee, 1999). Finally, materials and content should reflect cultural traditions of the minority groups (B.C.T.F Task Force, 1999; Brownlie et al, 2000; Mattson & Caffrey, 2001; Saskatchewan Education, 1997; Toohey, 1985). These recommendations are extensive and include joint decision making, teacher knowledge and dispositions, and specific instructional materials and strategies. As I discuss in the next section, however, the types of instructional and material adaptations noted above must be judged for their appropriateness for individual minority students. Scaffolded Instruction with Minority Students Many of the suggestions noted previously could be considered scaffolds for student learning. At first glance one might assume these types of supports would be appropriate for all minority learners. However, any type of support must be considered in relation to students' cultural needs. For example, although feedback and controlling the literacy task to support children's verbal and written expression is helpful to many minority students, Reid (1998) has found that this type of scaffold is often ineffective with some inner-city African-American students. This is particularly true if the teacher has a White Anglo-Saxon frame of reference. It is common in African-American discourse to embellish, digress, and jump 35 ahead in order to effectively relate an experience, while typical White-Anglo-Saxon text structure tends to be more linear. Cooperative and small-group learning are other practices recommended to scaffold support to student learning; however, these approaches may not be appropriate for all cultural minority groups. Swisher's (1990) work with American Indian children found that Sioux children tended to leam better by observation and self-testing or rehearsing their thoughts in private, than by socially collaborating with peers. She also found that Cherokee children were willing to engage in cooperative learning groups if the groups were small and the discussions were student-led. Donahue and Lopez-Reyna (1998) point out that any instruction that relies on verbal interaction, such as scaffolded instruction, can be difficult if a student has language barriers. While their work was with language learning-disabled students, there are parallels with cultural minority students. They too may misinterpret conversational intents and may be too self-conscious to take risks. Further, similar to different narrative structures, the communication styles of different cultural groups may vary, as many authors have found between Anglo-English and Native speakers (Philips, 1983; Scollon & Scollon, 1981; Toohey & Day, 1999; Ward, 1997), leading to communication breakdown. For example, some Aboriginal cultures may avoid eye contact or reference to personal matters when conversing, while Euro-Canadian cultures may find these behaviors offensive. Finally, if a child is accustomed to a certain type of parental mediation, the teacher's style of scaffolded instruction may cause conflict and confusion. Therefore, it may take some children longer to leam school language (Gutierrez, 1992) and practices. The above examples suggest that some types of supports that are intended to scaffold support to 36 cultural minority students may in fact be inappropriate or ineffective. Minority Students and Writing Instruction Some approaches to writing instruction, such as Writing Workshop, can also be seen to conflict with the needs and learning preferences of cultural minority students. For example, although oral collaboration is a key component of Writing Workshop, some cultural minority students may be reluctant to speak orally or to share their writing, particularly in large-group settings, and may misinterpret teacher and peer feedback. Further, instruction in text structure may be problematic if, for example, the minority children use different narrative styles than the majority language group (Gee, 1989; McCabe, 1997; Michaels, 1981). Another potential mismatch between the needs of minority children and the recommended practices of Writing Workshop is the focus on student ownership and decision making. Some cultural groups value conformity and would not encourage student choice or experimentation in writing. Children from these cultural groups might find it disconcerting to venture from traditional genres or writing styles. In sum, the typical practices of Writing Workshop may be incongruous with the needs or abilities of cultural minority children. This discussion highlights the challenges that classroom teachers face when teaching and supporting the writing development of cultural minority children. While there is increasing awareness and interest in multicultural education, educational practices have been slow to change. Current research points out the need for reform in three main areas: 1) strengthening school and community ties, which includes collaborative decision making about curriculum, school anti-discrimination programs, and teacher professional development related to cultural diversity; 2) addressing teacher knowledge and disposition issues, such as personal bias, and learning about the language, traditions and beliefs of minority groups; and 37 3) developing culturally responsive teaching methodologies and materials. Suggested instructional practices are not suitable for all minority children, however. Approaches to writing instruction and types of supports provided must be adjusted to meet individual cultural, literacy, and cognitive needs. School Contexts and Teacher Beliefs It is clear that teacher dispositions and attitudes are a key factor in the effective education of minority children; therefore, it is important to be aware of the contexts that may affect these attitudes and beliefs. Brophy (1985) has found that while teachers' attitudes and beliefs develop from experience, they in turn influence behaviors and perceptions, thus creating more experiences that solidify or modify beliefs. Among the experiences that contribute to this cycle are student achievements, teacher autonomy, collegiality and professional development options. For example, when a teacher believes that her efforts are resulting in student learning, she develops a heightened sense of belief in her teaching ability, known as self-efficacy (Ashton, 1985; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Richardson & Hamilton, 1994). Further, when teachers have the freedom to design instruction and make pedagogical decisions, they tend to have more positive attitudes toward the children and the learning process (Placier & Hamilton, 1994). Supportive colleagues and administration also contribute to positive attitudes (Placier & Hamilton, 1994). Finally, extended professional development that is teacher-driven (Beatty, 1999; Bos & Anders, 1994; Perry, Walton & Calder, 1999) has a long-term impact on a teacher's instructional practices and professional motivation (Henson, 2001). These findings reflect the dynamic nature of teacher attitudes and beliefs. How teachers feel about their practice, their profession, and their ability to direct their professional growth, impacts their instructional behaviors and decision making within 38 the classroom. For this study, it will be important to consider teachers' attitudes and beliefs along with environmental contexts that may impact instructional behaviors. Conclusions In this chapter I discussed the value of scaffolded instruction for the development of independent self-regulated learners and thinkers, and how elements of scaffolded instruction have been incorporated into reading and writing. I then reviewed literature on the writing process, and explained how the practices recommended in Writing Workshop literature support students through the complex task of composing and promote the development of self-regulated writers. Next I examined the issues and suggested practices for designing and implementing responsive education for cultural minority students, such as First Nations children. Finally, in this chapter I highlighted selected literature specific to teacher attitudes and beliefs to identify school and professional contexts that influence teacher perceptions and attitudes. Building from these four lines of inquiry, in this study I examine the nature of scaffolded instruction with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing instruction. Specifically, I identify the ways that teachers determine and then address students' individual writing needs and then scaffold instruction accordingly. As well, I examine how factors such as the class composition, school context, and teacher background influence the type of support provided to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing. Again, the four research questions that guided this investigation were: Research question 1: How does the classroom teacher identify the individual writing needs of her students? 39 Research question 2: How does the classroom teacher differentially scaffold instruction to meet the diverse cognitive, literacy, and cultural needs of her students during writing instruction and activities? Research question 3: What environmental conditions support the instructional scaffolding? Research question 4: What is the interrelationship among the amount and type of specialized teacher training, teacher support, class size, teacher self-efficacy, and the nature of differentially scaffolded instruction for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students? In the next chapter I discuss the research design that I have used for this project, outlining participant recruitment, data collection methods and data analysis procedures. 40 CHAPTER 3 Methodology In this study I seek to understand, describe, and explain how two teachers scaffold instruction with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing instruction and activities. Specifically I look at the way that these teachers identify student needs related to writing and how they differentially scaffold instruction in order to meet these needs, while being culturally responsive. In addition, I examine classroom contexts that support scaffolded instruction, and the relationship between teacher scaffolding and such factors as training, school support, class size, and teacher self-efficacy. To accomplish these objectives I have undertaken two case studies. In each case study I examine one teacher and her students as they are involved in writing instruction and activities. In the following sections I state the rationale for a case study design, followed by a brief description of the site and participants. Then I explain in detail the types of data collection methods used, the procedures followed, and the purpose for selecting these particular methods vis-a-vis my research questions. Next I describe the data analysis and report writing process, followed by a section addressing issues of trustworthiness of data and findings. Qualitative Case Study Approach To best reveal and understand the complexities of differentially scaffolded instruction during writing instruction and activities, I used a case study approach. Case studies examine in depth the thoughts and behaviors of the participants situated in real-life settings (Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1994). These studies consider the whole context (Agar, 1980; Salomon, 1991) of a specific phenomenon or unit of analysis (Merriam, 1988). In this research study I investigate two teachers and their respective classrooms (2 cases). Each case was bounded 41 by time and place. That is, my research spanned May - December 2001 and principally involved the two teachers and their students who were engaged in authentic writing activities. As Yin (1994) and Merriam (1988) note, there are often multiple variables or layers . of information involved in a case study inquiry, variables over which the researcher has no control. Consequently, various data collection methods are used, and collection often continues until a clear and complete picture of the phenomena is revealed. In this study I gathered information from the teachers, students, and as an observer, and collected data through different methods such as interviews, artifacts and observations, in order to tap different perspectives. By using different collection methods and sources, I have attempted to create a thorough rendition of the differential scaffolding process. Another characteristic of the case study approach is that theory can be used to inform the data collection and analysis processes (Creswell, 1998; Yin, 1994). For this study I have drawn on four areas - scaffolding, writing instruction, multicultural education and First Nations pedagogy, and teachers' attitudes and dispositions - to provide a conceptual framework for the project. At the same time, I have also adopted a social constructivist philosophy. Social constructivism assumes an epistemological stance that knowledge is constructed through talk, observation and social involvement. That is, understanding is achieved in a social context that allows for interaction, clarification, demonstration, and a negotiation of meaning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990; Wells, 1986). Through this process understandings about reality may change as one becomes more informed (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). The social constructivist philosophy is congruent to the case study approach adopted here, in that the inquiry occurs within context, and uses multiple data collection methods such as dialogue and vicarious experience (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) in order to 42 interpret and reconstruct the studied phenomenon. Given the goal of understanding and describing how teachers differentiated their instruction to meet the linguistic, cognitive and cultural needs of their students, it is appropriate to use both theories from the literature, as well as a social constructivist lens, to guide this inquiry. For this study I first inductively analyzed the data, withholding my beliefs so that I could analyze the data with fresh eyes. Then I referred to existing theory to gain a complementary perspective on the phenomenon. Site and Participants The site chosen for this study was a school district located in Western Canada. This is the only school district for a region with approximately 17,000 students, and serves a relatively small city of 80,000 and its surrounding rural communities. The primary industries for the area are forestry and tourism. There are many First Nations communities in the area, some that have their own band schools. The school district chosen for this study has over 1200 students of First Nations ancestry in its schools. Two grade four/five elementary school teachers (and their respective students) were selected, one from an inner-city school and the other from a small town 50 km from the city. The grade three to five range was selected because students at these levels in writing development are capable of producing more extended pieces of text than younger students, and can work somewhat independently, yet still require active teacher instruction. Under these circumstances, I felt that the teachers would demonstrate more differentiated instruction for a greater range of writing ability. Initially two Aboriginal and two non-Aboriginal children from each class were selected as focal students. More detailed information about the teachers and students follows. 43 Teacher Recruitment This research project was divided into two phases. The first phase was designed to pre-screen teachers based on purposive sampling criteria (Agar, 1980; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Merriam, 1988). I began this during the late spring 2001 with the intent of recruiting teachers for the main study that would run in the fall 2001. I also wanted to test the usefulness of the interview questions and other data collection methods. Initially I contacted the principals of the school district's four inner-city schools and one rural school serving local Indian Reserves. These schools were selected because they have relatively high numbers of minority students compared to other schools in the district. The initial principal contact was made by telephone as a preface to a letter of introduction (Appendix A). All five principals were receptive to both phases of the study. They granted verbal consent pending official School District approval. The principals were asked to suggest names of teachers in their school in the grade three to five range who met the three purposive sampling criteria, which were that each teacher: 1) had at least two ESL5 students in their classrooms, 2) attempted to individualize instruction, and 3) was willing to participate in all aspects of the study, including classroom observations and post-instructional discussions. All of the teachers who were recommended by the principals were contacted by telephone, prior to sending a letter of introduction (Appendix B). Three teachers indicated an interest in the study. I scheduled individual appointments at each teacher's convenience. These meetings included an explanation of the first and second phases of the project (pre-screen and main study), and a description of the 5 Recall that the original intention of this study was to examine the differential teacher support for English-as-a-second-language students. 44 data collection procedures. All three teachers signed consent forms for the first phase of the project. In order to judge whether the teachers met the purposive sampling criteria, I conducted classroom observations during language arts periods, each spanning one to three days for each teacher. Secondly, I also confirmed that the teacher addressed writing in each language arts period. Following the first phase of the study, two teachers, "Donna" and "Lorna",6 agreed to participate in the main study. I contacted Donna and Lorna, and their respective principals, in late August 2001 to confirm participation. Both teachers signed consent forms for the main study (Appendix C). Student Recruitment The next part of recruitment was to select focal students. I observed each classroom on three separate occasions in late September 2001 to aid in selection and to make all students comfortable with my presence. My goal was to have four focal students with a range of literacy needs in each classroom, two ESL and two non-ESL. The purposes for this were to allow me to contrast how the teacher differentiated instruction and support between ESL and non-ESL children, and further, to note how support might look different between two ESL students who might or might not have been functioning at the same level in writing. The teachers selected for this study did not have designated ESL students in their classroom, but rather a near equal mix of Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian English speaking children. Therefore, I revised the research question to focus on cultural, literacy, and cognitive needs of Aboriginal students. Based on the revised goal to include two Aboriginal and two non-6 All teacher and student names are pseudonyms. 45 Aboriginal students, each teacher nominated potential focal students. We then reviewed these selections, eliminating any students who had poor attendance or were likely to be uncooperative. These stipulations were important so that I could track the focal students' writing progress over time and across different writing tasks, and also so that I could discuss their writing with them. When seeking parental permission, I sought consent for all of the students in each classroom to participate in the study (Appendix D) because I would be audio- and video taping during each visit. One parent from each classroom declined their child's participation in the study. Subsequent videotaping avoided these students, and segments of transcripts from audio-tapes of the whole classroom that included these students have not been used in analysis or examples. All of the focal students' parents granted permission for participation in the study. Once the parent consent forms were returned, each teacher and I then confirmed the selection of the focal students. Table 3 indicates the names of the focal students in each teacher's classroom. The second and third columns of the table list Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, respectively. The teachers' focal students are presented in separate rows. Note that there are three additional names under Donna's list of Native students. This is because, as the study progressed, it became apparent that Donna did not often interact with the original focal students, Gary and Rick, and therefore, there were less data for analysis. Consequently, three other Native students were added, all of whom met the stipulations for attendance and cooperation, and with whom Donna appeared to interact more frequently. It was unclear why there was variation in the number of interactions, however, it may have been related to 46 Table 3 Focal Students by Teacher Aboriginal Students Non-Aboriginal Students Donna Gary, Rick Denise, Marty, Ryan Alice, Kim Lorna Karen, Lisa Bob, Misty Donna's familiarity with Rick and Gary, having them in her class the previous year, or because other children had more literacy needs. Hence, this study examines how teachers adjust instruction based on both literacy and cultural needs. Data Collection Various data collection methods were used in this study. One purpose of using various methods is to gain multiple perspectives and to unearth data that may not be accessed or revealed using only one form of data collection. Using multiple methods allows the researcher to create a more comprehensive and complete picture of the phenomena (Agar, 1980). A second purpose for utilizing various methods is to triangulate the data (Denzin, 1978). One form of the triangulation strategy is to support or disprove emerging findings by comparing data from various sources, using a variety of collection methods. Another form of triangulation also used in this study is to have multiple investigators check the data and findings (see below). The process of triangulation enhances the trustworthiness of the research findings (Creswell, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1994). Therefore, in this study I have used triangulation in data collection by incorporating three main types: interviews, observations, and artifact collection. The next three sections focus on each of these data collection methods, the purpose for using each method vis-a-vis the research questions and the procedures involved. Figure 1 shows how all three methods of 47 Figure 1 Data Collection Methods Used to Inform the Four Research Questions 1. How does the classroom teacher determine or assess the individual needs of each student? How does the classroom teacher differentially scaffold instruction to meet the diverse cultural needs of her students during writing instruction / activities? Interviews Formal Interviews Debriefings Member checks Student conversations Observations Field notes Summary notes Transcripts Artifacts Photographs Student work Teacher records Teacher journal 3. What environmental conditions support instructional scaffolding? 4. What is the interrelationship among the amount and type of specialized teacher training, teacher support, class size, teacher self-efficacy, and the nature of differentially scaffolded instruction for Aboriginal and non-Aborieinal students? 48 data collection (and their respective sub-types) were useful in addressing the four research questions. Interviews There were four different types of interviews that I used: 1) formal interviews, 2) bi-weekly debriefings, 3) monthly member checks, and 4) informal conversations with the focal students. Formal interviews. I conducted two formal interviews with each teacher, one before the selection of focal students and beginning the series of classroom observations, and the other just following one of the final observations. The purpose of these interviews was to gather demographic and personal history data related to teacher training, classroom support, class size and composition, and teacher self-efficacy for writing instruction. This information was used to identify potential influences on the nature of the teachers' scaffolded instruction. The interviews were semi-structured, during which I asked specific questions to initially guide the conversation. By having pre-set questions (see Interview Form, Appendix E) I was able to focus the teachers on areas of their practice that directly related to my research questions. Using Part 1 of the interview form, I elicited information about such things as: 1) years of teaching experience and how many were with ESL students, 2) number of children in the class (ESL and non-ESL), 3) types of school support provided for these students, and 4) training or experiences outside of the school with individuals who have diverse learning and language needs. The second part of the interview form (Part 2) focused on teacher self-efficacy for teaching writing and making adaptations for ESL students. That is, the questions related to how confident the teachers were, and how they rate their ability to be successful in differentiating writing instruction for students with specific cultural and language needs. Part 2 included questions such as "How easy is it for you to make adaptations to your lessons or to scaffold so that your ESL students can achieve success in writing?" and "How well prepared do you feel you are to make the adaptations or to scaffold your ESL students?" In Part 3 of the formal interview I asked the teachers to reflect on their instruction of recent writing lessons. Specifically, I wanted to know how they chose a particular writing activity and what adaptations or modifications they made for their ESL students. As well, I asked them what they would do differently in future writing lessons. Because the interview was semi-structured, I was able to clarify and probe deeper into the teacher's rationale for the structure of the lessons, as well as her explanations of scaffolded instruction. Throughout the project I reviewed the information collected during the first formal interview as a means of detecting any patterns (Yin, 1994) or relationships with actual classroom practice. I repeated Parts 2 and 3 of the Interview Form during the final interview. By repeating the same questions before and after the project, I was able to detect any changes in teacher perspective. The first interview for both teachers was not audio-taped. This was because I gave both teachers copies of the Interview Form before the scheduled interview so that they would have a chance to think about their responses. However, rather than just thinking about their answers, they wrote them down on the form. I reviewed the completed Interview Form with each teacher, making additional notes on the form as needed. During the final interview I both audiotaped the session and recorded teacher responses on the interview form. I later transcribed the audiotape of the final interview. 50 Debriefings. I met with each teacher at approximately bi-weekly intervals to discuss recent writing lessons and activities. The primary purpose of these sessions was to discuss the choice of writing activity, the type of assistance provided (scaffolded instruction) to the focal students, and the type of adjustments that were made, or could be made, to the task. During these conversations the teachers would also share information about the focal students (their home lives, work habits, written work), and plans for future writing lessons. These debriefings were typically on-the-run conversations, often just before a lesson, in order to fit the teachers' schedules. I made notes of our debriefing sessions, usually at the end of the visit, and put them with the day's field notes described further in this chapter. Member checks. Member checks (Creswell, 1998) were a third type of interview with the teachers. The purpose of these conversations was to share my tentative understandings of the scaffolding process, the focal students, and the classroom contexts that supported teacher scaffolding, as well as other thoughts about the impact on their instruction of such factors as class size and composition, previous or current training, classroom support, or their level of self-efficacy for writing instruction. Before each session I recorded my emerging understandings on paper. Later, I made notes of the teacher's feedback on the same piece of paper. I did three member checks for each teacher during the course of the project. As with the debriefing sessions, these conversations were often just before class and on-the-run. Student conversations. The fourth type of interview that I used was student conversations. These were not structured interviews, but rather took place spontaneously with focal students during the course of the writing lesson or activity. I would crouch down beside students' desks and ask them about their writing, the task itself, or about ways that the 51 teacher helps them with their writing. My purpose was to get a different perspective on the scaffolding process, as well to better understand how these students might influence the teacher's sense of self-efficacy for writing instruction. The length and depth of these conversations varied considerably from student to student. Some of the focal students were able to clearly articulate their ideas. Notes of these conversations were recorded within field notes. Classroom Observations There were three different types of data collection that I used related to the classroom observations. I made field notes during the lesson, summary notes afterward of the whole visit, and then created transcripts of selected lessons. Field notes. To structure my note taking, I used an observation form (Appendix F). The top part of the form was used for recording the classroom context, including the physical arrangement of the students' desks, the task, and teacher instructions regarding the task. I then made running notes of the lesson. In the running record I tried to capture the teacher's words, any audible student words, who the teacher was talking to, both teacher and student movement in the class, and any other pertinent classroom conditions, such as evaluation practices and student decision-making about their writing. These field notes were used to document information about how the teacher differentially scaffolded instruction to meet individual student needs. As well, the field notes assisted in identifying classroom conditions that supported instructional scaffolding, such as student choice, peer sharing, and how factors such as class size or external classroom support might influence differential scaffolding. Finally, the field notes also contained the content of any student conversations that I had during each classroom visit. 52 Summary notes. Summary notes were written after each visit (Agar, 1980), as a means of collecting my thoughts and noting potentially significant highlights of the visit. Frequently I also wrote down questions about some aspect of my observation that I would ask the teacher about on my next visit. Transcripts. All of the classroom observations were supplemented with video- and audio-taping, so that I could review lessons when necessary. Transcripts were created and line numbers assigned for selected lessons so that I could examine the teacher's conversations with focal students. I selected lessons to transcribe from the beginning, middle, and end of the study so that I might see changes in instructional scaffolding over time, and / or changes in the focal students' writing. As well, since the writing lessons and activities fell into four different categories (genre, journals / free writes, specific skill, reading response), I chose to transcribe a variety of lesson types. Figure 2 shows two pie graphs indicating the percentage of the lessons that I observed for each teacher that were of each of these types. Note that I created a fifth category titled Other to include lessons that were too varied to categorize using the four other labels. The lessons that I observed in Donna's class were a relatively even distribution of the five types, so I transcribed a selection of each. In Loma's classroom I observed primarily genre and specific skill lessons; hence I only transcribed these types of lessons. Table 4 indicates the number of lessons that were transcribed for each teacher, broken down by lesson type. The columns represent each of the five lesson types. The rows display the number of transcribed lessons of each type for each teacher. 53 Figure 2 Percentage of Lessons Observed by Type Donna Other 12% Specific Skill 24% Lorna Journals 10% Artifacts I collected artifacts in a number of different ways. I took photographs of posters, work on the chalkboard, student displays, and charts. Whenever possible, I made copies of 54 Table 4 Lessons Transcribed for Each Type of Writing Activity Genre Journals / Free Writes Specific Skill Reading Response .Other Total Donna 6 1 3 2 2 14 Lorna 7 0 4 0 0 11 student written work or self-assessments. As well, I obtained copies of teacher record keeping (formative and summative evaluation, and yearly plans), and teacher journals. Photographs. In order to have a permanent record of physically large data sources that could not be photocopied, I took photographs. For example, Lorna had a number of charts to indicate to students with whom they would share their work. Students had family groups of approximately 4 students with whom they would meet regularly to share their writing, both for purposes of appreciation and receiving feedback. If there were students' written work displayed in the room, I photographed that work as well. Occasionally I also photographed the chalkboard to record examples or instructions that the teacher had provided for the students. By collecting this type of data I was able to look for classroom contexts that might have supported the scaffolding process. Student work. I made photocopies of different types of writing done by the focal students so that I could better understand the writing skills that each student (both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) was incorporating into their written work, and to see if there was a change in skill use over time or with a different type of writing task. Specifically I reviewed writing samples for the following aspects: 1) idea development, 2) organization, 3) length, 4) vocabulary, 5) capitalization and punctuation, 6) grammar, and 7) spelling. For example, I made the following note about planning in Gary's file: "says uses plan when stuck, but no 55 evidence of this." After reviewing one of Marty's story predictions I noted "3 sentence prediction, no caps." Student work included stories, poems, descriptive and persuasive paragraphs, and self-assessments of their writing and study habits. Some of the pieces that I collected also had teacher feedback on them. I made notes of the teacher feedback in the student files. Additional purposes for collecting this type of data were to examine how teacher scaffolding may have varied according to different student needs, and to make connections between student writing ability and the teachers' self-efficacy for writing instruction. Teacher records. Teacher records provided data in two areas. First, yearly plans or statements of philosophy of writing development and instruction gave me information about how the classroom structure might support instructional scaffolding for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing activities. As well, later I was able to compare the goals for, and beliefs about, writing instruction and differentiated scaffolding to teacher training and other background information that I gathered from the formal interviews. Second, teacher anecdotal assessment notes and related student grades (focal students) gave me information about how the teacher had assessed and evaluated student writing needs so that I could make connections to their differential scaffolding. I made photocopies of both types of teacher records. Teacher journal. Both teachers were given a spiral notebook at the beginning of the project and were asked to reflect and write thoughts related to their writing instruction at least once a week. I left the format open so that the teachers would not be restricted in their comments. The purpose of using the journal was to gather information from an alternate data source (rather than interviews or classroom observations) about the instructional approaches 56 used during classroom writing activities, the teacher's feelings about scaffolding or her instructional self-efficacy, ideas for future writing lessons or activities, or thoughts and opinions about the effectiveness or ease of employing differentially scaffolded instruction. Although I asked both participating teachers to complete a weekly journal, only Loma did so. Donna had broken her hand at the beginning of the project and said that she would start her journal once her hand had healed. I suggested that she could use a typewriter or tape recorder, however she declined. I reviewed Lorna's journal at the end of each week's observations and synthesized her reflection in that day's summary notes. I made a photocopy of Loma's journal at the end of the project, because she wanted to keep the notebook for future reflections. In this section I have described the different data collection methods that were employed over the course of the study. I grouped the methods into three main categories: Interviews, Observations and Artifacts. I then itemized the specific approaches under each heading, and discussed the purpose for using these methods in terms of my research questions. Table 5 provides an overview of when each type of data collection method was used during each of the lessons that I observed. The top row of the table indicates the number of the observed lesson, as well as the pre-meeting (P) that I had with each teacher. Subsequent rows depict data collection in Donna's (D) and Loma's (L) classes, respectively. Columns represent the type of data collected during observations (interviews, artifacts) as well as whether a particular lesson was transcribed. The legend at the bottom of the table shows icons to represent interviews, transcripts and artifacts respectively. Since all of the lessons were audio- and video-taped, I have not included this in the table, to avoid redundancy. 57 Table 5 Data Collection Methods Used Over the Course of the Study P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 D T T T T T T T T T T T T T T P EJ ©I EJ HP p P EJ P EJ P EJ P EJ EJ EJ P EJ EJ P L EJ P T g) P T T P T T T EJ P EJ T P T P T £J P P T EJ T \ ^ Interviews T Transcripts Artifacts Note that I numbered, in chronological order, each lesson that I observed over the course of the 15 visits made to each classroom from October to December 2001. On some visits I observed more that one specific writing lesson or activity. For example, on my first visit to Donna's class I observed a poetry writing activity, a spelling lesson, and a reading - writing activity. In this table I have chosen to represent data associated with each lesson, instead of with each visit. As well, note that there are not equal numbers of lessons for the two teachers (25 for Donna and 21 for Lorna). Data Analysis In keeping with the case study approach to this inquiry, data were collected in context (Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1994), through observation, discussion with the participants, and artifact collection. I used the constant-comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) throughout the data collection and data analysis phases. The data from all sources were analyzed to provide an account of teacher scaffolding and to better understand the process within the classroom context. The analysis was both inductive (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; 58 Merriam, 1988) and iterative (Miles & Huberman, 1994), spanning the observation portion of the study, and allowing for new insights to be incorporated throughout the data collection and analysis processes. Below I explain how I organized the data and then analyzed data related to each research question by generating codes and constructing displays. I also explain how I began creating and testing hypotheses, and undertook the report writing. Figure 3 provides an overview of these aspects of the data analysis process. In the last section of the chapter I discuss issues of credibility and trustworthiness of the data collection and analysis processes. Organizing the Data Before undertaking the classroom observations I created a number of file folders to organize the data as they were collected. Since I had intended to make a minimum of 15 visits to each classroom, I made three field-note files for each teacher, one for the beginning (1-5), middle (6-10), and end (10-15) visits. I used these folders to keep field notes, summary notes, artifacts, interviews, and transcript data in chronological order. That is, if I had photographs, transcripts and student work from a specific lesson, I would file them behind the field notes for that particular observation. I also created file folders for the teachers and focal students in which I recorded, in point form, duplicate information from the field-note files that was specific to that person. I used these notes as a tool in synthesizing the data so that I could begin to make tentative conclusions about teacher assessment of student needs related to writing, classroom conditions or routines that might support instructional scaffolding, and how factors such as teaching training, school support, class size, and self-efficacy might be related to the teacher's use of differential scaffolding. Another aspect of organizing the data for analysis was labelling evidence by data source. For example, information gathered from the initial and final formal interview with 59 Figure 3 Data Analysis Procedures Organizing Data: • by field notes • by students • by teacher Generating Codes and Displays: • generating tentative categories • creating codes of teacher moves • verifying the coding process extracting evidence related to the research questions creating various displays to sort the data Testing Hypotheses and Searching for Alternative Explanations: • identifying relationships and testing hypotheses • identifying / confirming and discontinuing evidence • comparing cases Writing the Report: • continuing to reflect on interpretations 60 each teacher was labeled "II" or "12" to indicate whether it was the first or second interview. Similarly, debriefings or member checks were labeled "dl", "d2", or "mc3", with the number following indicating whether it was the first, second or third collection. Other labels followed the same pattern. Table 6 lists the label assigned to each data source. The first column of the table lists the data source while the second column indicates the corresponding letter label. In the case of field notes, transcripts and interviews, where there were usually several pages of data, I added a second identifying label (numerical) that helped locate the specific evidence by page or line number (for transcribed information). The second identifying label was separated from the first by a period. For example, for data recorded in the field notes from the second lesson, and on the tenth page of notes, the label would be fh2.10. Analyzing Data Related to Context and the Research Questions In order to provide a comprehensive description of teachers' differential scaffolded instruction with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, I approached the data analysis in a number of different ways. As I began to gather data, I soon realized that I would have to analyze the data differently, depending on the research question on which I was focusing. For example, in one analysis I compared frequency of types of supports, and in another analysis I created a cognitive map to graphically depict'relationships between variables. In addition, I often answered each question from two different perspectives, first, without being restricted by an a priori framework, and second, by referring to existing theory to guide the analysis. I did this so that I could get a picture of actual teacher practices, and then compare teacher practices to those recommended in the literature. Further, I also characterize more generally each teacher's approach to writing instruction, given that the structure of instruction sets the 61 Table 6 Labels for Data Sources Data Source Label. Interview i Debrief d Member check mc Student artifact sw Teacher journal j Photos ph Teacher artifact ta Field notes (including summary notes) fn Transcripts t context for how and why the teacher adjusts support for students. In what follows I explain the data analysis process that I followed to examine the instructional writing context generally as well as for data relevant to each of the research questions. Describing the Teacher's Approach to Writing Instruction To provide a frame of reference for describing teacher scaffolding I first examined each teacher's approach to writing instruction. The data were analyzed in two ways to develop an overall understanding of writing instruction. First, I inductively reviewed the data for any evidence that related to the teacher's method of instruction and her program focus to capture critical qualities. Second, I re-examined teachers' writing instruction in relation to practices recommended in Writing Workshop literature. The teacher's writing instruction: An inductive analysis. In order to describe the teacher's approach to writing instruction, I reviewed all of the data for evidence related to instructional practices and the key foci of the writing program. The observational data were particularly informative for this analysis. For example, transcripts and field notes recorded actual classroom practice. Student comments provided information about how the teacher supported their writing. Artifact data were also useful; for example, the teacher's record of 62 grades and anecdotal comments reflected the emphases of her writing program. Keeping in mind the objective of describing the teacher's approach to writing, I highlighted related pieces of evidence in the original source. I then recorded this evidence verbatim, or in a summary statement, in the respective student and teacher files. Later I examined the evidence for patterns or common features. Some of the evidence was later used in other analyses to investigate differential teacher scaffolding. The teacher's writing instruction: Compared to Writing Workshop. In the next set of analyses I compared the teacher's classroom practices to those recommended in the Writing Workshop literature discussed in Chapter 2. To do this I reviewed all evidence related to writing instruction, identifying practices that were either consistent or inconsistent with each characteristic of Writing Workshop. To maintain my focus, I addressed each characteristic separately. To display the data I created a table with the characteristics of Writing Workshop listed in the first column, and consistent and inconsistent evidence in the second and third columns, respectively. Table 7 depicts the table structure. To complete this table I reviewed all of the data, highlighting and then recoding the evidence in the table beside the respective characteristic. Interviews and teacher records (journal) were useful because they represented what each teacher said about her writing approach. The observational data were also helpful because they represented how the teacher actually taught writing. I recorded interview, journal, and observational data verbatim, where possible. The informal student interviews provided other evidence. Since these interviews were not audio taped, I summarized the notes that were recorded in the field notes. I also examined artifact data such as student writing samples and classroom photographs and summarized relevant data before recording it in the table. Last, a research assistant did a 63 Table 7 Teacher's WritiriR Instruction Compared to Writing Workshop Characteristic Evidence of Instruction Consistent with Writing Workshop ' Evidence of Instruction " Inconsistent with Writing • Workshop Multiple Genres Student Ownership and Choice Writing Process -Stages: Brainstorm Plan Draft -Share-Feedback Revise Share Final Product Teacher - Student Conferences Mini-lessons Individually Paced Instruction Encourage Risk Taking Encourage Self-regulated Learning random cross-check to ensure that the recorded evidence was related to the respective Writing Workshop characteristic. Once the table was complete I looked for patterns in how the teacher's writing instruction reflected the characteristics of the Writing Workshop approach. Later, I compared the two teachers' approaches to writing instruction by contrasting evidence across these tables. Question 1. Identifying Individual Writing Needs In order to understand why teacher support might vary depending upon student needs, 64 I examined each teacher's assessment practices. To do this I looked at how she assessed, evaluated, and gave feedback to students about their written work. First, I analyzed the data without imposing an a priori framework to identify trends or patterns. Second I examined the teacher's method of determining student writing needs in light of the principles of scaffolded instruction and recommended practices of Writing Workshop (described in Chapter 2). Identifying individual writing needs: An inductive analysis. To determine teachers' process for identifying the writing needs of individual students I began by examining all of the data for any evidence related to assessment or evaluation. Interview, observation, and artifact data were all drawn upon. For example, in response to one of the questions on the interview form, the teachers talked about how they identified student needs. Observational data were again useful because they represented what the teacher actually did in class. In addition, I reviewed the teacher records of grades for, and anecdotal comments about, each of the focal students. When reviewing student work upon which the teacher had provided written feedback, I summarized the nature of the comments or corrections. Keeping the research question in mind to focus my attention, I highlighted evidence in the original source, and recorded the evidence verbatim, or in a summary statement, in the respective teacher and student files. In order to draw conclusions, I looked for patterns in, or characteristics of, the evidence. Identifying individual writing needs: Compared to scaffolding and Writing Workshop. In the second analysis of the teacher's method of assessment I compared teacher practices to two different theoretical frameworks. First I examined the data in relation to the element of scaffolded instruction associated with assessment. Then I compared teacher assessment practices to those recommended within Writing Workshop literature. 65 One element of scaffolded instruction that relates to determining or identifying individual student needs is termed calibrated formative feedback. Recall that this term refers to teachers' provision of formative feedback that is tailored to the needs and ability of the learner. By looking for evidence of teachers' calibrated formative feedback I could examine the how and when, as well as what kind, of feedback the teachers provided the focal students. These data allowed me to connect teacher support to the identified writing needs of particular students. Notes from observations were reviewed to examine the teacher's writing practices. Student work was also very informative, especially work on which the teacher had provided written feedback. Keeping the topic of calibrated formative feedback in mind I reviewed all of the data, identified specific teacher practices that were consistent or inconsistent with this scaffolding element, and recorded the evidence, either word-for-word or in a summary statement, along with the source label, in a single place. Next I looked at classroom practice in terms of two particular characteristics of Writing Workshop that were discussed previously. I focused on the extent to which teachers incorporated 1) peer sharing and feedback of written work, and 2) teacher - student writing conferences into their writing instruction, to determine students' writing needs. I referred to the evidence that I collected when I analyzed the teachers' approach to writing instruction (see above). To draw conclusions about teacher assessment practices, as compared to those recommended by the scaffolding and Writing Workshop literature, I looked at the evidence for patterns or characteristics. Also, I included the scaffolding evidence in a display which I created to examine teacher scaffolding (see below). 66 Question 2. Differentiated Scaffolded Instruction to Meet Diverse Cognitive, Literacy, and Cultural Needs This research question is central to this inquiry of how teachers differentially scaffold instruction for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. In order to comprehensively examine how teachers adjusted support to meet the cognitive, literacy, and cultural needs of their students, I examined the data from two different perspectives. First, without being constrained by existing theory, I reviewed all data for evidence that was related to how a teacher supported her students during writing activities. As part of this analysis, I coded the data inductively to develop a coding scheme for describing teachers' instructional "moves". In a second analysis I examined teachers' practices in relation to recommendations in the instructional scaffolding literature. This analysis compared teachers' instruction to the eight scaffolding elements which were identified in Chapter 2 (see Table 1). For analyses of teachers' differential scaffolding I relied heavily on the observational data recorded in field notes and transcripts, given that they recorded actual classroom practice. Teacher scaffolding: An inductive analysis. To examine how the teachers' differentially scaffolded Native and non-Native students during writing instruction without imposing a theoretical framework, I first reviewed all of the data for any evidence that was related to supportive instruction. The formal interviews, debriefing notes and member checks, as well as teacher journal and records, all provided useful information. Keeping the research question in mind, I highlighted the exact evidence in the original data source, and then funneled this information (verbatim or in summary form) into the teachers' files, along with the source labels so that I could look for patterns or a trend in the teacher's scaffolding practices. 67 Next, I developed a coding scheme to describe teacher actions and speech during writing instruction ("teacher moves"). Developing this coding scheme allowed me to systematically categorize, and then to analyze, the transcripts for the type and frequency of teacher moves by focal students, and by the type of lesson taught. I could then compare these data to the teacher's described purpose for a given "move". To develop this coding scheme, at the end of the first five observations for each teacher, I reviewed all of the observational data (field notes, summary notes and transcripts) and began to formulate one or two-word labels that would describe the perceived intention or function of the teacher's words or actions (teacher moves). In the margins of these sources I wrote preliminary labels beside the respective pieces of evidence. Examples of these labels included "repeating instructions", "feedback", "student input", and "teacher questioning". The labeling process and refinement of the codes continued throughout the data collection and analysis phases. As I reviewed the field notes and transcripts I added new codes to reflect more precisely the nature or perceived intent of a particular teacher move. I also collapsed categories when there was an overlap or when a code could not be clearly distinguished from another. I then operationally defined each of the codes (Miles & Huberman, 1994) so that the codes could be applied consistently over time and by more than one researcher. The next step in refining the coding scheme was to do a series of tests to confirm both the viability and dependability of the categories. One test was to determine inter-rater reliability of coding between a trained research assistant and me. We unitized (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) a selection of transcripts by bracketing words or phrases that could stand alone without additional information. We randomly selected three transcribed lessons for each 68 teacher, from the beginning, middle and end of the study, respectively. This selection of lessons was done to test that the codes were applicable for different types of lessons and across time. When unitizing portions of the transcripts, we inserted horizontal lines to indicate the beginning and end of a unit of meaning. We then jointly reviewed our segmentations to arrive at a final unitized version for each of the transcripts. Next, we separately coded the unitized portions, referring to the code definitions when necessary. Inter-rater reliability scores were calculated for each transcript. Table 8 reports these findings. The first column identifies the teacher and the second column the lesson number and type. The reliability score for the first inter-rater test is presented in the third column of the table. After the first inter-rater reliability test I examined the coded units and made a list of codes which were problematic; these were units on which the research assistant and I consistently differed. For example, I noted that we inconsistently applied codes such as reinforcement, encouragement and feedback. Thus, where applicable, I collapsed those codes that were redundant and refined coding definitions. To test the refined set of codes we performed a second inter-rater reliability test on the same transcripts, as well as portions of other lesson transcripts. The results of the second test are presented in the fourth column of Table 8. As a final step in code construction I undertook a peer review of the completed set of codes (Huberman & Miles, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988). I consulted Dr. Deborah Butler, who was my research supervisor and an expert in qualitative data methods. Together we reviewed each code for concept clarity and distinctiveness, and refined and collapsed codes as appropriate. After modifying the codes a final time, I conducted a 69 Table 8 Inter-rater Reliability for Coded Transcripts PERCENT•AGREEMENT Teacher Lesson number/type. First Test . Second Test Third Test Donna 2 - Specific Skill 77 97 6 - Genre 75 79 84 12- Genre 76 76 89 20- Specific Skill 74 80 90 21 - Reading Response 71 83 Lorna 2 - Genre 73 89 3 - Specific Skill 80 85 91 13- Genre 92 94 96 16- Genre 70 88 21 - Specific Skill 83 83 90 third test of inter-rater reliability. The results of this test are reported in Table 8, column five. Based on these results, which were all above 80%, all of the data were recoded using the final set of codes. A complete list of codes and the operational definitions can be found in Chapter 4. Once the coding scheme was finalized I constructed a series of table displays7 in order to examine the data for patterns of the kinds of moves used with each focal student, across different writing activities. In one kind of table I displayed the frequency of teacher moves in different types of lessons, for the class as a whole. Looking for patterns in this type of display allowed me to analyze how teacher support for the class varied depending upon different task demands. In addition I could then compare the scaffolding strategies used by the two teachers on similar lesson types. In another table display I examined the number of teacher contacts with each focal student, during each type of lesson. This display assisted me in determining if frequency of contact differed among the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal focal students. To create this 7 Please see Appendix G 70 table, I identified, pooled, and counted all of the exchanges that the teacher had with each of the focal students. I created a third table to determine if the teachers varied the type of support provided to the focal students, across all lessons. To complete this display I referred to the teacher-student exchanges that I pooled for the previous display. I then unitized and coded the exchanges for each individual student, and recorded this information in the table. This series of tables supported my data analysis by sorting quantitative data into easily understood formats so that I could detect patterns or trends in the way that teachers interacted with students. Teacher scaffolding: Compared to scaffolding elements. In the next set of analyses I relied on existing theory to further examine the nature of differentiated teacher scaffolding. My goal was to see how closely actual classroom practice reflected the theoretical recommendations for practice. Referring to the scaffolding elements that were identified in the literature review (Chapter 2), I reviewed all evidence related to instructional scaffolding, identifying practices that were either consistent or inconsistent with each element. I created a table with three columns, in which the scaffolding elements appeared in the first column. The next two columns recorded evidence of teacher instruction that was consistent and inconsistent with each scaffolding element. Table 9 is a sample of this structure, and includes an example of the type of evidence recorded. To complete the table I reviewed all of the data (interview, observation, and artifact) for evidence related to each of the elements listed. I focused on one element at a time, and used a highlighting pen to identify each piece of evidence in the raw data. Where possible, I recorded interview and observation data verbatim into the table. When reviewing artifact 71 data, such as photographs, I created a descriptor to label each picture, before recording the evidence in the table. I included the source label in parentheses for all of the evidence recorded. Note that the evidence which was identified in the analysis for the first research question, (on calibrated formative feedback), was included in this table. To test my sorting of data into this table, a research assistant did a random cross-check to confirm that the recorded evidence was related to the respective scaffolding element. Once the table was complete I looked for patterns or trends in the data. Later I could refer to these displays to compare the two teachers' use of scaffolding during writing instruction. Question 3. Environmental Conditions and Instructional Scaffolding In order to understand how and why teachers adjusted their instruction to support Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing, I examined three environmental contexts, community, school, and classroom. Inductively I analyzed data for evidence of how the socio-cultural context of the community, school-wide goals and initiatives, district support services, and class composition supported or limited teachers' instructional scaffolding. I focused on each environmental variable separately as I reviewed and highlighted evidence from the three main types of data (interview, observation, and artifact). Data recorded in the field notes, teacher interview form, member checks and debriefmgs, and teacher records were all drawn upon for this analysis. I copied evidence verbatim, where possible. All evidence was recorded in the teacher or student file folders, along with the identifying labels. Later I examined this evidence for common features or trends. Question 4. Interrelationship Among Teacher Training, Teacher Support, Class Size, Teacher Self-efficacy, and Differentiated Scaffolded Instruction Guided by the literature (Chapter 2) I identified variables that might interact to 72 Table 9 Teacher's Scaffolding Compared to Scaffolding Elements Scaffolding Element : Teacher Instruction Consistent with the Scaffolding Process Teacher Instruction Inconsistent with the Scaffolding Process Temporary Support Transfer Control - teacher doing editing for now and moving toward peer editing (mc3.1,fn14.9) Acting "as if Appropriate Task within ZPD Social Interaction Dialogic Authentic Intact Task Calibrated Formative Feedback Expert - Novice Co-Participation Establishment of Shared Meaning influence the teachers' instructional scaffolding. To determine the impact and relationship of these factors I created a cognitive map (Miles & Huberman, 1994) for each teacher to graphically depict patterns of influence. First I organized variables into three main categories, school and community context, teacher background, and instructional decision making without specifying relationships. The next step in the data analysis involved recording evidence onto the map. I referred to previous analyses for this evidence, and reviewed all of the data again for any evidence related to each factor. I systematically analyzed the evidence related to each factor to determine if a relationship existed. Where the evidence warranted, I inserted arrows to depict the direction of influence between the variables. Once the displays were complete I could compare patterns observed across the two teachers. Figure 4 provides a sample of a "blank" log map prior to insertion of arrow depicting relationships observed. For a sample of a map including recorded evidence, see Appendix I. To review, in the previous section I outlined the steps of the data analysis process. I discussed how I initially organized the data into files and labeled the data sources. As well, I clarified how I systematically extracted evidence from all data sources to 1) describe the teacher's writing instruction, and 2) address each of the research questions. In many cases I analyzed the data from two different perspectives, a priori and referring to existing theory, to sift and funnel the data. I created tables and figures to sort data and aid interpretation. Next I will explain how I wrote the report, and dealt with credibility and dependability issues. Writing the Report Just as I did with throughout data collection, I continued to question the accuracy of my interpretations throughout the report-writing phase. I repeatedly referred to the displays, transcripts and filed data to ensure that the interpretations that I was making were congruent with the data (Yin, 1981), and that I was considering viable alternate explanations. In addition, I sought to refine my account so that readers would have "rich, thick descriptions" (Creswell, 1998) necessary for judgments of transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As I revised my writing, especially Chapter 4,1 came to a deeper and clearer understanding of the scaffolding process and how it looked different for each teacher. Credibility and Trustworthiness of the Data 8 • A number of measures were taken to heighten the internal validity of the findings. First, the study was situated in a real-life context. Observations were of actual writing lessons or activities. Second, I met the students before data collection in order to develop rapport and reduce inhibitions that may lead to unusual behaviors. I also met with the In this context I use internal validity to mean the degree to which the data and findings are an accurate and credible rendition of the phenomena (Creswell, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). 74 Figure 4 Cognitive Map 75 classroom teacher on a number of occasions prior to data collection, again to develop a comfort level. During the interviews and debriefing sessions, I initially followed the outlined questions focused on the research questions, giving some structure to the conversations. At the same time, I was flexible and followed the teacher's train-of-thought. Both of these approaches allowed data to be collected that would help answer the research questions, but also provided further insight into factors or conditions that would influence instruction. Further, the repeated observations spanned a three-month period, allowing a more complete picture of differentiated scaffolding to emerge. In addition, data were collected from various sources (interviews, observations, and artifacts), so that triangulation was possible (Denzin, 1978; Huberman & Miles, 1994). Another way that I heightened credibility of the data is by providing "thick" descriptions of the phenomenon (Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 1988: Yin, 1994). As well, the data collection methods and analysis were structured around the research questions, and were consistent with the case study approach. In addition, member checks during the study allowed for tentative interpretations to be validated or modified by the teachers. Finally, the very act of writing the report required a focus on creating a logic of evidence trail (Butler, 1998; Howe & Eisenhart, 1990; Yin, 1981), which would allow for an objective check of the research procedures and findings. Various measures were undertaken to enhance the dependability9 of the findings. First, various data sources (teacher, students) and methods were utilized (interviews, observations, artifacts) (Creswell, 1998; Denzin, 1978; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Yin, 1994). Second, I became familiar with students and teachers so that they would be comfortable 9 I use the term dependability to refer to the degree to which the data and findings are consistent and reliable. 76 being observed (Agar, 1980). Third, a research assistant checked the consistency of the coding scheme, as well as the match of evidence to the various aspects in the displays (Huberman & Miles, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988). Lastly, I considered both confirming and discontinuing evidence to test emerging hypotheses (Howe & Eisenhart, 1990; Yin, 1981). In this chapter I have provided detailed descriptions and explanations of the data collection methods and analysis procedures. I began by providing a rationale for using a case study approach. I provided a description of the sites and participants, then described in detail the types of evidence collected, including the specific purpose and procedures for each. I also explained how I organized the data, extracted evidence related to each research question, and displayed the data to test hypotheses and aid in the interpretation process. Next, I briefly described the report-writing phase, and how, through that process interpretations and understandings were further clarified. Finally, I summarized how I attended to concerns of credibility within the data collection and analysis processes. In Chapters 4 and 5 I will present the findings of this study in two separate teacher case studies. CHAPTER 4 Results - Case Study #1 In this chapter and the next, I present two individual case studies that examined how Donna and Loma, respectively, differentially scaffolded instruction with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing activities. Within each case study I begin with a description of the teacher, class composition, and school setting. This account describes the learning context and factors that influence the scaffolding process. Next I provide a detailed description of the teacher's approach to writing instruction in order to situate the description of teacher scaffolding. After these two background sections, I discuss the findings related to each research question. Donna To understand how and why Donna adjusted her instruction for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, I examined potential influences from the community, school, students and classroom arrangement. In the following section I describe the community surrounding the school where Donna teaches, school initiatives and learning support services, class composition, the writing abilities of the focal students, and the physical layout of Donna's classroom. I refer to these contexts in later data analyses. Overview of the Teacher, Students, and School Setting Donna is a seasoned teacher, with over twenty-five years of experience tutoring and teaching. The school where she teaches is for intermediate students (grades 4-7) and is located in a small town approximately 50 km from the city. The town is situated beside two Indian Reserves, both of which have band-run schools. During the time of this study, one of the First Nations was embroiled in a land dispute with the provincial government and local 78 land developers. This unresolved dispute led to Native road blockages and protests in the area, which is relevant to this study because it angered many non-Natives in the community within which Donna lived. As well, the provincial teachers' union, of which Donna was a member, was involved in job action to protest the government's slow response in contract negotiations. This labor dispute was also unsettling for Donna. The principal and staff in the school where Donna teaches chose to focus on literacy during the school year in which this study was conducted. This initiative began with a professional in-service day presented by two teachers on staff, which all teachers and support staff were required to attend. Donna and I attended this in-service that addressed multiple reading comprehension strategies applicable to all elementary school grades. While Donna did participate as required, she mentioned to me several times that the content was not new to her. Later in the year, some of the teachers, including Donna, attended another workshop on reading and writing techniques, which was hosted by the school district. I also attended this workshop. Donna noted that she had learned some new strategies and intended to incorporate them into her reading and writing instruction. I did not observe Donna sharing her professional development experiences with other teachers on staff. At the same time, Donna did state that she was "always learning" (il.2)10. There were several support services available to directly assist students and consult with classroom teachers. For example, there was a Learning Assistance teacher in the school who provided remediation for some of Donna's students. Donna and the Learning Assistance teacher did not typically discuss the remedial programming; hence, Donna was unaware of All of the evidence presented in this and subsequent chapters will be referenced by a label which indicates the source and location of the data, as outlined in Chapter 3. For example, il.2 indicates that the evidence cited is located in interview number one and on the second page. the type of support provided the children. A First Nations Support Worker was assigned to Donna's classroom for several time blocks during each week, but Donna believed that the Support Worker was ineffective. There was auxiliary support staff in the areas of speech/language-, physio-, and occupational-therapy with whom Donna could collaborate. Donna had concerns about the effectiveness of these supports as well. During this study Donna taught 26 students in a grade 4/5 combination, of which over half were in grade 5. Some of the grade 5 students were in her combined 4/5-class the previous year. Twelve students in Donna's class were of First Nations ancestry. Approximately five of these students attended weekly language classes to leam their Native language. One student in the class was on an adapted behavior plan because of frequent outbursts and noncompliance in class, which was very distressing to Donna. Seven children in the class were selected as focal students, 5 Aboriginal and 2 non-Aboriginal students. Based on observations, transcripts, feedback on student written work, and Donna's mark-book, I provide a brief description of each child, his or her writing abilities, and the focus of Donna's writing instruction with them. Table 10 presents this information, with the student names in the first column, and background, writing abilities and Donna's instructional focus in the next three columns, respectively. These student profiles formed the basis for understanding how Donna scaffolded instruction differentially depending on the writing needs and background of the focal students. Interestingly, although Donna acknowledged that she had limited knowledge and experience with other cultures, ESL/ESD pedagogy and multicultural education (she took one ESL pedagogy course approximately 20 years ago), she was "satisfied" with her ability to support those students who had unique cultural and literacy needs. At the same time, 80 Table 10 Student Personal Characteristics and Writing Skills Student Background Writing Skills Instructional Focus lAbbrigirialfll Rick Confident. Attended band-run school where he was taught primarily in his native language until grade 3. At grade level in reading and writing. Read The Hobbit during free-reading. text structure and mechanics Gary Shy. Lives with grandmother. Attended band-run school where he was taught primarily in his native language until grade 3. Slightly below grade level in writing. Made great gains since last year. writing fluency Ryan Sociable. Friend of Rick and Gary. Family engaged in many traditional native practices such as hunting and fishing. Below grade level in writing. Was a reluctant writer, but now generating text. writing fluency and mechanics Marty Very quiet, soft spoken. Shy. Reluctant to contribute to class discussions. Mother died last year so is living with her grandmother. Attended Learning Assistance Vi hour daily for reading. Program focused on phonological awareness. Below grade level in writing and reading. Donna stated that syntax was significantly delayed. mechanics Denise Can be outspoken. Argumentative with Donna. Frequently reluctant to contribute to class discussions. Was in an abusive family situation; now living with aunt and uncle. Attended Learning Assistance Vi hour daily for reading. Program focused on phonological awareness. Below grade level in writing. Donna stated that syntax was significantly delayed. mechanics Non-Aboriginal Kim Sociable. Willing participant in class discussions. Family moved out of district during the final two weeks of the study. At grade level in writing. mechanics Alice Quiet and soft-spoken. Shy. Was away frequently due to illness. Slightly below grade level in writing. mechanics Donna stated that she geared her instruction to the broad base (il .2; i2.22). The physical arrangement of Donna's classroom provided further contextual information reflective of her overall teaching style and types of supports offered to the children. The classroom consisted of the main teaching area and a small side-room which housed three computer stations. The student desks in the main area were set up in rows 81 facing the front chalkboard. The grade 4 and 5 students were separated into different rows of desks. The bulletin boards in the main room were decorated with commercially produced signs or posters, whose focus ranged from appropriate classroom demeanor, to school rules, to reminders on how to edit written work. Some of the children's poetry generated on computers by a parent volunteer were displayed on one bulletin board (phi,2), and the shelves were filled with both teacher reference material and student textbooks. Overall, Donna's classroom can be described as more teacher- than student-centred. To summarize, Donna teaches at a school that is situated within a bi-cultural community that was experiencing political unrest during the time of this study. Many of the children in Donna's class were Aboriginal students, and some were delayed in writing development. Although there were services and colleagues available to aid her literacy instruction, Donna was reluctant to access their expertise or support. There was a range of writing ability among the focal students selected for this study. The physical arrangement of the classroom was decorated primarily with teacher-selected materials. Although Donna's original teacher training had occurred many years previously, with limited ESL or First Nations pedagogy, she was satisfied with her knowledge and ability to meet the diverse literacy and cultural needs of her students. Later I examine how community, school, and classroom contexts impacted Donna's view of herself as a teacher and her approach to structuring and supporting her students. In the next section I describe how Donna structured writing instruction within which differential scaffolding was provided. The Teacher's Approach to Writing Instruction The purpose of this study is to understand how teachers differentiate support for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing tasks. In order to explain their 82 differentiated scaffolding practices, it was essential to understand how writing instruction was structured. To do this, I took two different analytical perspectives. First, I analyzed Donna's approach to writing instruction inductively, reviewing the data for any evidence related to writing tasks, Donna's main method of delivery, and the foci of her writing program. Subsequently, I re-analyzed the data from a Writing Workshop perspective, thereby characterizing her writing instruction in terms of an existing theoretical framework. Donna's writing instruction: An inductive analysis. The classroom climate and the way that Donna organized writing instruction were very structured. Donna used direct instruction to deliver her lessons from the front of the classroom, while the children sat in their desks. The students' desks were in rows facing the chalkboard, and the children were generally discouraged from conversing with their peers, even on matters related to the task (tl.30-69, 205-241; U2.96-112, 179-278; t21.523-638). After instruction, Donna moved around the classroom, stopping at every student's desk to provide feedback at least once before going on to the next lesson. As I indicated in Chapter 3, the writing lessons that I observed were of four main types - genre, journal writing, specific skill, reading response (Appendix K) and other. Genre writing lessons covered poetry, and narrative, persuasive, and expository text structures. Journal writing occurred every Monday and Friday. In their journals the children discussed what they intended to do on the coming weekend, or reflected on what they had done previously. Specific skill lessons included daily spelling lessons from a textbook, as well as capitalization and general editing practice. Donna began incorporating reading response writing during the second half of the study. During these activities the children 83 wrote about the novel that they were currently reading and then shared these responses with other students who were reading the same novel. During a typical writing lesson, for example writing in an assigned genre, Donna began by explaining or assigning the task to the children. If it were a new genre, such as persuasive paragraphs, Donna modelled or created an example on the chalkboard. Typically, some children then asked questions to clarify the task. Afterwards, Donna circulated to check on student progress. If she noticed that several students were having a similar problem she stopped circulating and orally provided direction or explanation to the whole class. Generally only those children who were having the difficulty would pay attention to her. Donna did the majority of the talking; on some occasions there was very little opportunity for the children to orally contribute to the lesson. The reminders, corrections or direction that Donna provided the class were mostly related to writing form, mechanics and neatness (t6.165-169; t9.154-157; fnl2.11; fnl9.6; t20.431-436). For example, during a journal writing lesson, Donna reminded the students of the exact journal format, and drew the outline on the board: .. .we start in from the margin, we indent, remember? We don't have to make the arrow. The arrow reminds us that we start in maybe two fingers? Okay. And we write along. If our sentence keeps on going we double-space. Come over to here, put our period and a capital letter and away we go again. Do you remember that? That we have a little margin down the right-hand side so we don't run over into the next page, (pause) When you look at the little red margin that's in your book that you can see through the page, it should be about halfway across that little red margin, okay? Don't do it freehand; if you want to draw a ruler line very lightly you certainly may. (t4.23-29) On another occasion, Donna drew a student's attention to his handwriting, indicating that he needed to reduce the size in order to stay within the lines. She said that the letters were "getting big again" (fnl2.11). 84 Donna had a similar focus when providing written feedback on student work, primarily correcting mechanical errors (sw8; swl2.1,2; swl3.1,2; swl6.2; swl7.1; sw20.3; sw21.2; sw23.1-6). For example, on Kim's and Gary's Haunted House stories (Appendices J and K) (swll.l; swl4.1), and one of Alice's journal entries (sw3.10), Donna corrected punctuation, spelling, and capitalization almost exclusively. When there were no corrections to be made, Donna initialed the written work. There was one particular instance where Donna provided feedback related to the overall meaning of the text. On Rick's Haunted House story she wrote, "The first part is super", and "The last part needs reworking Rick" (swl2.1-3). In general, the evidence from this inductive analysis indicates that Donna ran a teacher-centred, structured classroom, included lessons on various genre and skills, and that her writing instruction focused primarily on format and mechanics. Donna's writing instruction: Compared to Writing Workshop. As a second step to characterizing Donna's approach to teaching writing I also compared Donna's writing instruction to the recommended practices of one particular writing pedagogy. To do this I referred to the key characteristics of Writing Workshop that I outlined in Chapter 2 (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). I reviewed the data again and sorted evidence as consistent or inconsistent with Writing Workshop recommendations. Tablel 1 presents descriptions, paraphrases, or direct quotes illustrating instruction that reflected, or was contrary, to each recommended characteristic. At a glance, it is clear from the evidence in Table 11 that some aspects of Donna's writing instruction were consistent with all of the characteristics of Writing Workshop (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). For example, Donna provided numerous opportunities for her students to use different genres, and there was evidence of oo CD 173 O Q CD O c CD "> w -4-* fi CD fi o o fi <D +J c/3 'CO PI O U I p. o o w •n co o '•4—* CO •c CD -*-» o cd S3 .fi u c c OJ to 'co c o o _c c o o 3 l_ t/5 _c If UJ 5 CL o C 2 to CO c o O c o CO _c o cu u c 01 •g > UJ o to o ca i_ CO JZ O - °s co''* CN CZ i Sz, CM O >C ll co ^ CD CM"? 2°° 8°1 TLCN CO 05 •^r oo 2^ 3 oo £• 2 co u •a E CU 5 co cu JZ "> cu o tz CL CO l_ CD CO CO CO CD c CO cu m CO E CD 3 CO >. co 3 O '> CU ro ^ r>." • ,— T od co T-i- c CU CN CO T-!2 co CO ZZ CO £ E O CD c 'co 3 D) C '> 'cn co JX. CO 2 3 «2 3 CO i_ CU ^ CL-* CU o CL CO CU ^ o c*o U) CO C cu c 3°: to 0 2 cu o g 3 .!= 2 0 cu cu rf cu o cu cu cu o >- CN £ 13 co ^ CO . ° 0™ 3 o _ JZ! h- < o gS CL .= • _ M CO CO CO (M § |«o Q Q CN CO cu i c cu U _gj CL CL co i_ CD CO i_ i ra o Q." 00 in" « JZ <*> 3 -r- CLOl c J2 2-D C CU CU co 'z: £ cu •4— •D <° CU "d T3 C CO CL CU CO CO £ "5. E cu CD,— CZ I J CD 'is c oo" !i If o CO °2 «2 c •if CU CO •o ** 3 CN o -c j= 3 co i2 cu C S3 •o 3 cu to .§»SB OS mini co" >£ LO" . . CN CO CD T CO CN CN in CO T-' CN co i_ co ^ CO !5"cu T3 cu c D) 'co co CO <" ^ .y co O CO cu -o CL ^ CO 3 *r .P i= o «"« 3 O M c o "co E cu JC CD o •» CO "O £ c &z o o •a CN co cn JZ CN •o ^ CO CO CO c c C CD o C TJ CO O 3 CO a V, £ CO |£ II o . o • CO CO o 13 c: c 2 £ CD (Or*-5> 3 c §> CO "D o co > _n CL cu Jgo < E cz 00 </> •"Z CD £8 CO .9 cu >-CO cu C CL O X Q. CU co c 2 i CD O £ o5 « f 2 => L ° J3 CU CO o o %£<* 5 C CU co JZ CO o o to N— o cu CL CO JZ t= CU .cu T3 >. CU CO — -a = 1 05 CO ~ CO 3 JD ^ CL (0 CO O o JZ o _ to '-3 C 3 O o o CO "co cz o co 3 CO cu > o to CD c £ CO 1 0) c cu CD CN O ^—' CU i— £• cz^ CO cu g i- JZ o ? r ° •E £ §. cu T3 3 co cu E CO CD co cu CD CD 3 CO ' >. JZ cu CJ o cu cu 3 ><JZ .t; ** CO o ^* m ID 3 s 2 - N O OJ | : CL "O CU _D. CU O 2^55 C CZ CD ^ CO "O CD CD CO ' 2 -CD 00 (D 5 *- .CO llsln 3 o o c CO >> ~ 0 l-CO £; O >- CO CO Jz^ o O CO c - .£ co «J JZ cu cz I— •o cu 3 "5 CO c co OJ ~ i- s o o ~ •o cu E P. n T3 -e CO LO CO • = 2 JZ CJ co eg co •—-co CN SZ-> 3 £ > co 5 T3 CD CD T3 _CU O c _ CL >, c c a. I I 8 CD <U-~ c o £ «J° ~ T3 *^ cu cu CO "O 3 g CL co co ro cu c2 O c o CO Q != cu Q 5 £ .9- 8. — ^ 'o cu 0 O O CO O < co co co JZ) • 0 JZ X3 CO 0 k_ >< 0 £^ o to CO 0 c 3 o o 4—' CL CO 0 o C CO JZ c 0 00 ^ V co co o * Jrl CN CO 1 E '—• CO °> CD m £> o to CO c •a 0 u c 0 CO c c o a 0 > cu oo = CN ii 0 c 3 ^ CO 0 iE 0 z: TZI 5 c II 1 = CL (0 o to JZ1 CO I! CO 0 0 tj CO CO 3 CO O JZ O 2 0 •35 § 0 3 "D O .« T3 CO c >- cz DC ra T3 CL 0 (U 0 o c o CO CO ? CD g CO CO CO cz C 0 C T3 O 3 Q co o to cz CD CO .tz c c 0 ca _ra :c co CO 0-§00 ro TJO) jo IS-I a. CM SQ I co ^JC (D C0~ ITS! ° I ni CO I ro Q) CD o c 0 £ > 1T3 ttCU ~-~ o CO c c ,„ C CO — CM E ^ o • -*• CT) TJ CNJ C CM 91 CN y CM ro CO - o" if S £ Bib O W CD C P CO CTJ <o" cb"£ c 5 — co *-csj co If to 3 CD .!= ^ CM £ « O CM CO CO CO c c o Q o> 0 JC £ CD o 5 01CO < 3 i-° to 3 i2 o c O CD •*- TJ CO 3 C O 0 Q £ 00 J Tl c 00 *-CD T c n CD CM T-3 f. CM CO 3 T-~ "> i-' CO ,? ™ co > 3 5 0) co ro ~ £ 3 0) CO o ^ ro c «-CD o C- CO ro 3 c o P "5 Q ro CD CD co CL in — ro o o CD c O p w CD Ig TJ '> TJ CD £ ro no o co TJ CO C 3 CD i_ ro CD CJ x: TJ 3 an XI LO LO C3) CN CN shari c p **— shari _ o O CD 2 3 O CD S£ C 3 I^CO .2 co 03 CM CD CN CD CO §» co co .CO (0 £ 1— ^- «+_ J2 2 o s £1 -II CD -c -j £?S (O c o •a 3 O CD TJ c CO CO o CO <J if O ro c E TJ >> to to CD E u o CD ** = TJ O CD o -a -ro £ r § a? o»c D2fc CO C "o o •» a c o o o " O) '•a "i_ £ ro CD ° 8.1 i- > o ra c 3 .<2 3 CO (O CO CD CD • CD 3^ 8 8 CO D)| = P CO ~ II "a c j» CD ro "o 3 3 ST <" CD ,i_ ro CD p sz c y. o CO Q £ in m ,„ O CD 0) O "O JZ ro 5 o CD in • c o co CO CD CD c D) 'in CD •D O c •a c CO J2 c CD T3 3 to _ro 3 O 't CO a. co •a CD CD c co" o c ^ o o a> Lo o 00 CN ^ <*> CM CO ro ti r- CL 3 g> co ~ CD ^ C CD O i-Q. CD m cu CD CL i_ T3 CD CD I'S 3 ro = 15 S k =5 1 co ro 2 o T3 CL I CD W CO CD s •= CO CO •5 ro CD 0 TJ ra = -4-» « ra " I CO o LU Q 0 *Z £ CO c 0 >J= i: O CO CM C?LO £ o T3 CN S^J CO 0_ £ 2 I.E 2'! p 0 ro •a c ro to w 1— i_ 0 0 •a j£ c ro 3 0 O CD c 0 •a ro 0 JZ CO E £ £ •I s 3£ co o 0 £ § 2 * ^ 0 CN JZ oo in CL CO 1_ CO CO CO CL CO c 'c ro 0 o 0 p 0 £ £ c • ra CO r» £ CN t= co . TD CN 22 2 CN ^ ro co 3 ra^ 2 § 5 0 a t CO - 0 C CL = CO O CO o co T5 •o •£ 2 k o c: o > o > 11 CO o "g e CO p CO t 3 » 8 " C £ 0 0 ro "a c "a _ o = ° Q u i-ro •a c 0 <o -a CO CO c 0 c ro Si c S I-B co ro CD £ !^ co C 0 co O C 3 Q < co CO -o o CO £ So 3 <» CO LO J3 CT) 3 T-<" csi •o i-0 JZ. 0 73 O CO P XI ro Q, cS Q o T-c "O c 3 o v_ CO >. ro CL "ro 0 CN TD x: 0 Q. x: E 3 o oq 2 CO CO co CO ro x: Q. o ro 0 CO x: *^ ro i c ra — a. X3 i_ 0 CO > o '<o X) CO _c 3 S2 j0 pe bul i_ '0 ro x: c o red ed CO "co x: o co CL _>. 0 "ro 0 o CO ms c ms 0 CT) 0 TJ o 3 CL to (0 c 0 T— 0 E 00 TD o 3 CO CO co CO 0 °? x: CM ~ CO x: . oo 5CN r^co ft CN ro CN C0T— 0 > i-ro co f CO CO • -C r-'U CM C O 85 > T3 C CO c o CO 2 0 CD "2 •> — o 2 Q. ^ 8 0 CJ "5 «2 CO CO •a t: £ o CO CO t) jo ro c c 0 c TJ O 3 a to .Eg 0 CM O CM O 5-&<» S SB CL £ CO £ 0 " 8-CO 0 £Z o co CO 0 0 CO T £ T- CO si -TJ TJ Q 3 0 * TJ — S CO c iS co "a | « 0 co — CL i£ 3 .9, £ co co c P o 0 CO TJ m 3 0 ^ W Q. 0 | o «?> p = co ro TJ E c co CO CD o TJ 0 E o _ w c >. 1 8-2 8 §1 Lo CO o ~ ro ±: 5 "5 Sx ro DJ U « ro co TJ *; o ^ CO CD" §1? Q CO CN p ro >. TJ DC ro TJ -C CD 0 x: TJ CO JL ro CL JZ 3 O TJ fe. 0 CO a ro co ^ co m i- a ^ CO j^ x: o CO co > £ <° K ir 0 Q LL U 0 3 CO CL 0 — 0 o o h- O oo f |S io .^£ 3 to o tu >-03 o CJ ^ *~" a tg co CP CD -g CD £30 c cn c ro o S JZ = > CO (u TO ° <B Sh CO TJ CD . -to . -o 03 c O UJ tj $ TJ CN "> Y: c ** 9PT-" 03 T-03 *-S9 il CD _to ** > *J 00 CD ' CM 0-2 <£ l££ O) D>Z_~ ££"CN o •= u BQ 3 E C/l c o o 3 _ 01 TJ § 2 CD CO JZ 0 o co co 0 TJ »§ CO o C/) II CO 3 CO 00 ro ^ C CO o CO a £ TJ 0 c c JO _ CL ca _: c 0 S E o g° to <n • o g || 0 CO CO „^ CO o 0 CO o 0 C JZ TJ 10 c CO CO c o 0 o ^ C T-o ^ co o o 0 CO o 0 CL m CO x 2 o 0 E JO E 0 £ 0 S ~ J= CO CD — Jz °>0 *-"D rj) C „ c o 0 o TJ " •2 I 9 1 _>£ S"^ » .2,TJ > HI o CO 0 .!= ,9. JZ CO to- 0 TJ T C 0 c c co ca t co 3 5 C CO c ~ o CO Q £ 0 .c c 0 3 av a. JZ 0 >> 3 0 JZ 0 \— 0 E 0 0 ™ s> 0 - ro£ to -o TJ c 0 TJ C CO TJ TJ CO c 00 CD OJ 1 LO -O ° C — CO c 3 ^ 9 0 3 JZ CN TJ ->•• O fe 5 Z) y c co CL O) 0 JO 0 c CO g£"° "§ 0 co « 0 to 0 o o 3 C CO S.S. g 3 .2 E 00 « to £ 0 0 1 3 £ ~ .2 CN £ TJ > C 0 CD >, co E « -CO "O o CO o 11 — w CL_ CO CO 0 "00 O - **-Tl 01 1= CO JJ CO £00 I— TJ I. £-_;.c O T- o ^ 0 w I'S i o 5- 5 0 > 3 TJ o 3 0 £ £>3 CO "5 0 >. TJ <" s JZ RO +- CD _ 00 .CO CD g cr On*' g 3 ° 0 5 JZ o < £ c 0 0 „ 3 CNJ g A-S *£ I CL ^3 o >-^5 CD o) S •n ro c ® CO O j~. CO 0°? c T" to t ^ 0 o 3 o *^ co c • -0 O CN c 'DC £ 0 7-1 1 w 0 00 CO O)^ 2 HCN 0 c £ co co 3 c 0 — c ~ m ^ r\ CL CO 1_ CD CO 1 ro CL 0 m z> TJ c CO CO CO 0 TJ 0 0 _ o o .» Q to O) c 3 c CL o To TJ T-2 cd CD <S 00 i$2 o . CO 3 TJ TJ '•> 0 2 CO £ CL JZ CL CO co CO 00 LO CO CO o <«I 0 p c J2 £ TJ c 0 0 -Q co 'iz E 0 2 o. 0 TJ TJ tZ •> <° 2 co-CL 0 CO CO 1 "c" o c Q £ CO ^ "Z. CL £ T .ti co 322 0 co £ co 23 c 0 CO TJ B CN 0) LO co co ,— c CO T— ,—^ c LO *t7. CN CO CO 1 CO CN CN LO CO CN OJ CN .—. 00 LO CN ^ 22 io "O m 0 in "c CD 0 •c 0 O «= To ~ 1- >. £ "E CL O CO v_ JZ 0 O Tz 0 £ ••£ co 3 o o I-II II 0 0 co £ co ~ 8 § 0 £ cl § = 3 o £ Q CO in Lr 0 CD CO 3 CO o £ o c ca LU I-- TJ 0 CD CO >> 0 •T£ To 3 £ .!= TJ »; 0 0 £ £ Ta in o ra 0 o. o CD O 0 3 <" o 0 JO CO CO c to 0 0 TJ CL c j- CO '0 >, JZ t o 2 u 0 ill 5jz TJ C 0 E-0 £ £ -a £-g 0 . I— c o £ co i_ in 0 TJ JZ o o c ca 0 0 CL 1 = £ ro CN TJ £ £ to j= TJ in fe 2 •s % c"ro = c 03 Q CO c =5 2 ro £ co So| i£ El 1 ~ 3 o ' E s £. ' fe £ ° ! £ CO ' TJ C i I [ii? ; .2 0 0 CO 0 s fi P CO ^ o c o JS 13 o » cnlJi jg 0 0 £ 0) '0 IE JZ 0 **—' 03 c > ro 0 CL L_ ^> 0 'io 0 ro JD 0 CO 0 LO CNJ be 1 0 be E CM TJ TJ no 3 3 O 3 he £ c ro de 03 JZ 3 LO 0 03 To LO hat SW ble' 00 E 0 0) E o.-* TJ 0 TJ 0 0 C OJ c «S 3 E co S-CN £ 'r~-03 '"-_n .b CO 03 . . 3 LO P CM 3 3 £^S To T LO O 1-CLT^ rS co 10 co o> "1- o 0 CNI ti ' >- LO 3 o •r CN • 0 CN 0 r. 03 3 o c<V ro co >.o CC CN To LO JZ •* 1— Ji in T-<" ^ 035 03 ~— 3 J* IS o g 5 c c o 3 Q o 3 0 k. o »*— 0 J0 03 0 '03 0 .—' ro to 03 cz ^ E r-c« co T 03 . 3 CO g CN TJ ^3 0 CO JZ 1 CO , TJ O fe CO «S" 1- CTJ 3 1-O 1 O CN C CO 0 ••-CO eg c c co TJ 0 0 ra co"5 _ 3 0'= o V E o ^ ra c 0 CD LU CO —I 88 student ownership and choice (see rows 1 and 2 respectively). At the same time, evidence also revealed instruction which was not consistent with the principles of Writing Workshop. In these cases, it is possible that Donna rejected some of the practices of Writing Workshop, believing them to be inappropriate for her students, as some researchers have cautioned (Delpit, 1986; Slavin, 2002; Yeh, 1999). It is difficult, however, to know the intention of some classroom practices since this was difficult for Donna to articulate. In the paragraphs to follow I review the evidence in the table, row by row, to elaborate on this general finding. First, Donna did expose children to multiple genres, including narrative, descriptive, expository, and poetry. Donna required students to do a great deal of writing each morning, covering a variety of genres over the course of each week. Students began the day by writing in their journals, using the genre assigned for that day. For example, on Wednesday students wrote poetry, Friday and Monday they wrote diary entries, and other days wrote stories (fnla.14; fn2a.l; fn5a.l). Over the course of the study the students were taught the correct text structure for stories (t4.34-49; U2.39-42, 66-70, 102-107, 211-213), persuasive paragraphs (t6.7-9, 64-68, 82-84, 92-94, 98-104), expositive paragraphs (tl3.111-113), and diaries (fnl4.2-4). Near the end of the study the students also began to complete Reader Responses to passages in the novel that they were currently reading (tal) (Appendix L). Numerous student work samples demonstrate this focus on a range of genres (fnl5.8; d3.336-371; swl.1-10; sw2.1-5; sw3.1-ll; sw4.1). Another recommendation within the Writing Workshop approach is to give students the freedom to choose the topic for their writing, infusing their own style throughout. By doing this, the students derive a sense of ownership for their writing and are motivated to self-regulate their learning and writing processes (Bruning & Horn, 2000; Perry, 1998). Consistent with this recommendation, Donna did allow for some student choice. Donna 89 encouraged the children to select their own topics for writing (tl .62) and to refer to personal experiences to get ideas. Kim confirmed this when she stated that the way her teacher helps her to write is by encouraging her to use her own experiences (fn9.2). On another occasion where Donna provided a sample text on the chalkboard, she told students, "Just don't copy my ideas. Think of some of your own" (tl .62). There was also evidence, however, that Donna controlled the student's choice. For example, she assigned a particular writing genre on certain days of the week, and often asked the students to use the sentence frames and paragraph templates that she provided (tl.31-35, 48-52; ta4; fn4; t6.166-168; t8.6-16; ph4-9; U3.72-73; fnl9; t21.523-625). Donna also relied extensively on the teachers' manual and the workbooks that were provided with the basal reader (il.3). In these instances it was unclear how or why she was adapting the materials or methodology to be responsive to the cultural and literacy needs of her students (Ashworth, 1980; B.C. Ministry of Education, 1998; Brownlie et al., 2000; ESL Standards Committee, 1999; Garcia, 1999; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998; Meskill & Chen, 2002; Saskatchewan Education, 1997). Another fundamental aspect of Writing Workshop is engaging students in key steps comprising the writing process (Flower & Hayes, 1980). The writing process typically consists of four recursive stages: Brainstorming or Planning, Drafting and Sharing, Revising, and presenting a Final Product, and is intended to mirror the process that real authors experience when composing text. The next four rows of Table 14 show that Donna included these stages in her writing instruction in varying degrees. Donna did not refer to the writing process as a whole, or specifically to the sharing or final product stage. For example, students typically did not first brainstorm, draft, and then prepare a final product of their 90 writing to present to the group. Instead, she focused on selected aspects of the four stages separately, as is described more specifically below. Donna occasionally encouraged the students to use a pre-writing strategy before they began composing (i2.179-180). On two occasions she suggested using visualization (t6.282-301) and webbing (tl2.183-184) for students who were having difficulty getting started. On another occasion, she taught the children to story map (dl.15-46; mc3.27-28; sw3.11,12; sw4.7,8; sw5.5; sw7.1; t7.4-225); however, she did not link this strategy to pre-writing. Donna stated that she planned to teach the students about character maps and Venn diagrams as potential strategies to enrich their stories (mc3.1) but I did not observe this instruction during the course of this study. After pre-writing, the next stage of the writing process involves drafting and then sharing written work with a peer for the purpose of receiving feedback or additional ideas. Donna emphasized the feedback aspect of this stage, over which she took almost exclusive control. She provided feedback and direction while the students were drafting their work (tl.227-229; t4.23-29; t6.165-168; t8.124-176; t9.154-157, 164-174; fnl2.11; fnl4.3,4; fnl9.6; sw3.8,10; swlO.1,2; swl 1.1,3; swl2.1-3; swl3.1,2; swl7.1; sw20.3; sw21.2; sw23.1). Donna said that she occasionally used peer editing and sharing (i2.179-180), but this did not occur in the lessons that I observed. Although the students were anxious to talk about their work with Donna and their peers (mc2.1), there were very few opportunities for this to occur. The exceptions were the reading responses and the two mini-lessons that focused on editing student writing. The next stage of the writing process is intended for revision, building on the feedback and suggestions that were offered in the draft-share-feedback stage. In a writing workshop, this stage typically focuses on larger organizational and idea-based features, in 91 addition to mechanics. There was little evidence that Donna discussed or modeled the movement or elimination of parts of a text in order to clarify ideas and achieve the writer's intention. On one occasion Donna modeled how to cross out and substitute words in a composition (tl2.195-198). In general, once Donna gave feedback during the drafting stage, she did not revisit a piece of student writing. However, Donna did encourage students to use the "writer's mumble" so that they could detect errors on their own (t4.116-120, 144-145, 207; U2.205-209; fnl4.6; i2.177-180), with the primary intention to correct mechanical details. Interestingly, Donna attended a workshop during the study where the speaker discussed the teacher's role in the writing process. The speaker suggested that teachers do not need to correct every error in student writing in order to be effective (d3.322-323). Afterward, Donna stated that she might try this suggestion. It was unclear whether, in the future, she would make a change in the type of feedback or correction that she normally provided to students, or if she would provide this feedback at a different point in the writing process. There was no evidence of these changes during the course of the study. The final stage of the writing process involves students sharing their completed pieces with the larger group. There are two purposes for this: one is that students see a purpose for writing - to communicate with others. The second purpose is so they can publicly share their work to receive encouragement and compliments about specific aspects of their writing. There was minimal evidence of the final sharing stage in Donna's writing instruction. On one occasion Donna asked a parent to type out students' poems for display on classroom bulletin boards (phi,2), and on another occasion some students shared their persuasive paragraphs (fnl4.1; sw8.1; sw9.1) so that I could video-tape their presentations. Overall, the four stages of the writing process are dynamic and recursive and reflect the composing process of real authors; these stages are intended to support children through 92 the complex task of putting ideas into print. In her instruction, Donna did not incorporate or refer to the full writing process, but rather focused on stages separately, with greatest emphasis on the revision and editing stage, where she assumed primary control. Thus, Donna made substantial adjustments to the intended use of the writing process model (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997), possibly to better meet the needs of her students, or perhaps because she required further information about this model. . Teacher-student conferences are another characteristic of Writing Workshop practices. During these discussions the teacher has the opportunity to review student progress and discuss ideas for future writing. As well, the teacher may ask the student to point out particular aspects of her writing that she wants the teacher to notice. The student may also indicate in what ways she thinks her writing needs improvement, as a way of setting specific writing goals. Donna felt that there was value in these types of conferences, viewing them as teaching sessions where she could focus on specific skills with a small-group of students. She indicated that she had conducted small group sessions in the past, and might try them again with this group of students (il.2). Mini-lessons are another aspect of Writing Workshop, which involve small groups of students who require specific guidance with a particular aspect of their writing, such as character development or mechanics. Donna began to include mini-lessons at the end of the study, and told the children that she would periodically provide this kind of instruction during the language arts time block (tl2.209-210). These mini-lessons were different than those recommended in the Writing Workshop literature (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983), in that they entailed large-group lessons designed as general instruction for all students. For example, on one occasion Donna facilitated the editing of a 93 diary entry from Ryan's journal (projected overhead), focusing on grammar, word choice, punctuation and spelling corrections: Donna: All right. Alice, do you want to say something? The 'the' doesn't need a capital letter. 'The' is called an article and articles don't have capitals but what does need a capital? Alice? Alice: Weekend. Donna: Weekend. And we want to probably fix the spelling of weekend. (She writes on the overhead) .. .All right. So we're going to just neatly give it a capital letter. (She writes on the overhead). Did he remember to indent? Student: Yup. Donna: Did he remember to double-space? Student: Yeah. Donna: Great. All right. 'On the weekend I went to the parade and I seen my friends and , As soon as they saw me they said my name and started to throw candies at me and I got hit by some of the candies and only caught one of them because there was so many of the coming at me.' Ryan, we really appreciate you letting us use this.. .Okay. 'They said my name? They said my name and started to throw candies at me and I got hit.' What do you want to say about them? Student: He has to [inaudible] something. Donna: Oh, you think they had to say something? Student: Yeah. Donna: Well, I'm really glad you said that too, because is that true? Is that a direct quotation? Did somebody actually speak and say 'Ryan, I am going to' in your story? Is somebody actually saying something? What? Ryan: They said my name. Donna: Okay, so they went 'my name, my name, my name'? Ryan: No. Donna: Is that what they said? Ryan: No. They went 'Ryan, Ryan, Ryan'. Donna: All right, so is that a dire.., is that a direct quotation or an indirect quotation? Student: Indirect. Donna: Okay, so it's something they said but you didn't tell me what they said exactly so we don't need quotation marks. Student: We don't? Donna: Not there. If they said, 'Ryan, Ryan, Ryan', then we would need quotation marks. All right? (t20.24-87) Again, it was unclear why Donna chose to present the mini-lessons to the large as opposed to smaller groups. Note that in Writing Workshop mini-lessons are not the same as the draft-share-feedback stage of the writing process. The draft-share-feedback stage involves a 94 student sharing his or her written work with one child or a small group of children for the purpose of receiving feedback - praise and suggestions for future writing. According to Writing Workshop, another key practice is to allow the children to work at their own pace and skill level, which also reflects the element of scaffolded instruction termed appropriate task.11 There were occasions when Donna's writing instruction reflected this practice. For example, Donna was patient with one student who resisted writing. She was willing to accept approximations in performance. Donna stated, ".. .the objective is to get these wonderful ideas, capture them before they float away in despair and frustration and get them down so he can feel some success and want to write more.. .So, even if we don't get the conventions this year, that's not my intention particularly" (d2.115-116, 120). Donna also acknowledged that Denise and Marty were language delayed and that she would like to have more time with them in order to advance their writing skills (i2.202-203). On two other occasions, Donna specifically adjusted her expectations for Rick and Gary. She nudged Rick to clearly distinguish the beginning, middle, and end of his story to aid the reader (i2.148-152; swl2.1-3), and she pushed Gary to stop numbering his ideas and use a paragraph structure (dl.197-198; 12.138-144): Gary, don't go one, two, three, four. This is a persuasive paragraph. What does a paragraph look like? It starts in from the margin. It's going to have its title (pause). It's going to have its line down the side. It's going to have a space underneath. It's going to start in from the margin with a capital letter. It's going to have a sentence that goes almost to the end and comes over here. And it needs a space in between. This sentence is going to tell what you want. This sentence is going to tell details. It should have this, it should have this, because, oops, what did I do? I wrote every line, (pause) Every second line, right? And it should end up (pause) With a sentence which is just about like the first one. You can say and that is why our school needs a new whatever, (pause) Are we okay? (t6.165-172) 111 will discuss the scaffolding nature of this Writing Workshop characteristic in a future analysis. 95 At other times, however, instruction was not designed so that the children could work at their own pace and ability level. For example, all students were given the same writing task (tl; mc2.1; t4; t6-9; til; tl2; t20; t21; ml6.28; fill4; fnl5; fill8; fill9; fn22-25), regardless of their grade level or writing abilities, with the exception of spelling lessons, which were based on different textbooks. Further, although Denise and Marty were not performing at the expected grade level in writing, they, too, were required to do the same tasks as the other children (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal). Another important aspect of Writing Workshop is fostering the development of self-regulated learning behaviors. That is, students are taught how to be independent writers, and are given the latitude to experiment with and direct their own learning. One way that Donna supported the development of self-regulated writers was by teaching and encouraging the use of writing strategies. For example, she reminded Ryan about the re-reading strategy "writer's mumble", so that he might learn to spot his own errors: See, Ryan, it's good to read it out loud every once in a while. Remember the "writer's mumble". If you get a bit written, if you're, you are at a standstill, stop and read over what you have written and you certainly may do it out loud. Not in a great, loud, shouting voice, but in a soft writer's mumble. If you don't read it out loud, then you tend to read what you want it to be in there instead of what it really says. (t4. 116-120) Donna also encouraged Ryan and other students to visualize before beginning to write. When some students were having difficulty writing a persuasive paragraph arguing for an improved playground, Donna suggested that they first make a mental picture of the ideal playground: "You know what you might want to do if you are really stuck for ideas of an ideal playground and you think in pictures in your mind, rather than words, could you draw a plan of an ideal playground in your book and then describe it" (t6.283-284)? 96 Other aspects of Donna's writing instruction were less reflective of teaching practices that promote self-regulated learning. For example, it was always Donna who pointed out errors in, and made suggestions about, the students' work; some of the children began to rely on this. Both Marty and Denise stated that the way that the teacher could help them with their writing would be to correct the punctuation, capitalization and spelling (fn24.2). Typically the students did not take the initiative to solicit teacher feedback on their work, perhaps because they knew that Donna would make corrections for them. Also, Donna was solely responsible for student evaluation, so the children had no opportunity to learn self-evaluation skills. Content was conveyed via direction instruction and Donna often told the students what to do when they experienced problems while writing; she did not usually facilitate them in devising their own solutions. On one occasion Donna became frustrated when the children did not follow the reading response format and procedure that she had laid out. To solve this problem, Donna warned that instead, the children would have to respond to the reading by answering teacher-generated reading comprehension questions (fn24.10). It is possible that Donna chose these instructional practices based on her perceptions and beliefs about effective writing instruction. In summary, Donna's classroom and writing instruction were structured and teacher-centred (Delpit, 1986; Slavin, 2002; Yeh, 1999). The primary focus of writing instruction was on mechanical features such as spelling, punctuation, and grammar, about which Donna provided extensive feedback and correction. Some aspects of her approach to writing instruction reflected key features of the writing pedagogy known as Writing Workshop (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). Donna provided multiple opportunities for the children to write in different genres, and she incorporated some of the stages of the writing process into her program. At the same time, Donna did not incorporate other characteristics of Writing Workshop pedagogy (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983), such as those related to student choice of topic and genre, opportunities for students to share their written work with others, and nurturing the development of goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation of learning behaviors, in spite of the fact that many researchers have linked those instructional characteristics with the development of self-regulated learning. Again, it is possible that Donna preferred a direct instruction approach and felt that a teacher-centred instructional style would be the best way to develop writing abilities in her students, especially students with specific cognitive or literacy needs (Delpit, 1986; Slavin, 2002; Yeh, 1999). To review, in the first sections of this chapter I provided an overview of the community, school, student, and classroom contexts within which Donna worked. I did this in order to identify factors in the environment that could potentially impact Donna's writing instruction and the scaffolding supports that she provided to her Native and non-Native students. As well, I described in detail Donna's approach to writing instruction through both an inductive analysis, and by comparing her practices to those recommended by Writing Workshop (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987). This information was essential to understanding how and why Donna differentiated her support during writing lessons and activities, that is, how she adjusted support based on the nature of the task demands, student needs, her instructional style, and the focus of her writing program. In light of this contextual information, I now discuss the findings related to each of the research questions. Question 1: Identifying Individual Writing Needs To understand and explain how and why Donna adapted her instruction and support during writing lessons to meet individual student needs, I first needed to examine how she determined the writing needs of her students. To do this I analyzed the data from two 98 different perspectives; first I examined the data for all evidence related to assessment, evaluation and feedback practices, without imposing an a priori framework, and second, I analyzed the data using theoretical constructs identified in the literature review. Identifying Individual Student Writing Needs: An Inductive Analysis In this data analysis I sought to understand how Donna determined the individual writing needs of her students. I identified data related to explicit assessment and evaluation practices, as well as evidence that indicated that Donna was aware of diverse learning needs, such as the feedback that she provided orally and in writing on student written work. Donna stated that she primarily relied on classroom observations to guide and inform her practice (il.2). She administered spelling, reading comprehension and story mapping tests; however, the information gathered from these tests was primarily for reporting purposes. Donna also stated that she referred to the school district's Benchmarks (t8.192; d2.135-136) and the provincial Performance Standards, both of which provide rubrics to help teachers determine specific areas of strengths and weakness, and an overall judgment of the student's writing level (above, at, or below grade level expectations). Interestingly, Donna had difficulty articulating how she incorporated this information into her writing instruction. When Donna recorded information about student writing performance in her grading book, she completed checklists, wrote down scores, and made anecdotal comments related to spelling, handwriting, capitalization and punctuation (t9.1-8). For example, anecdotal records for one student read, "Printing all over the place, not following pattern. No standard punct, caps even in quotations" (ta6.1). The written and oral feedback that Donna provided the focal students indicates that she was aware, to some degree, of the individual writing needs of her Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. For example, she made mechanical corrections on Rick's Haunted House story, but also added comments about the overall meaning (swl2.1-3), whereas with Ryan, Gary, and Amber (swlO.1,2; swl4.1; swl3.1,2) she focused on mechanics. Other examples were when Donna encouraged Ryan to use correct paragraph format (t6.165-172), but challenged Rick to create more distinct divisions between the beginning, middle and end of his stories (12.148-152). This evidence demonstrates that Donna varied her feedback to students to match individual student writing abilities, and that she relied on daily observations rather than tests or marking rubrics to guide her instruction. Identifying Individual Student Writing Needs: Compared to Existing Theory Next, I examined the ways that Donna determined the writing needs of her students in terms of the scaffolding and Writing Workshop practices described in the literature (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). Again, the purpose of this was to identify Donna's assessment practices so that I could understand how her scaffolded instruction related to students' writing needs. The scaffolding element defined in the literature that relates to responding to students' writing needs has been termed calibrated formative feedback (Butler, 1998). As discussed previously, this refers to the teacher supporting students' development by providing feedback that is tailored to their needs and abilities. In some cases Donna had individual goals for, and provided individualized calibrated feedback to, students. For example, Donna encouraged Rick to elaborate on his ideas, writing in his journal, "The first part is super.. ..The last part needs reworking" (swl2.3). One goal for Gary was to see him increase the number of sentences that he wrote (i2.138-144). These examples show that Donna was aware of student needs, setting individual goals and tailoring her feedback. I also examined the data for evidence related to two instructional characteristics supported by the Writing Workshop philosophy - draft-share-feedback and teacher-student 100 conferences - to identify other ways that Donna may have determined student writing needs. As I noted above, there was little evidence that the children shared their draft-work with peers for the purpose of receiving feedback. It was not common for the children to work together or to talk about their writing. Instead, Donna was the one who provided feedback and made corrections to student drafts (Delpit, 1986; Slavin, 2002; Yeh, 1999). As well, Donna had not yet included teacher-student conferences in her writing program, although she indicated that she eventually wanted to have individual writing conferences with each of her students to determine special needs and provide individual remediation or support. She stated, "I would like to get around to them more and do a little more individual conferencing.. ..In an ideal world, I would have a traveling chair and I would sit down beside each child and just, discuss what we were doing..." (i2.26-28). Donna felt constrained by one student in the class who was prone to emotional outbursts, fearing that he would lose control during individual student conferences. Hence, Donna was limited in her ability to incorporate a recommended instructional strategy because of classroom management issues (Vaughn & Schumm, 1994). Instead, she circulated around the room, stopping at each student's desk, however briefly, at least once during a lesson to provide feedback. In summary, Donna relied primarily on daily observations to determine the writing needs of her students. The written feedback that she provided on student work indicates that she was aware of the different skill levels of her students. The anecdotal comments in her mark book also confirm this. Further, the feedback that she provided orally to students as she circulated through the room reflected her recognition of individual needs. Instructional practices identified in the Writing Workshop literature (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983), such as draft-share-feedback, and teacher-student conferences, which could provide more comprehensive information about student writing 101 needs, were not employed. Next I investigate how Donna scaffolded support for her Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students to address their identified writing needs. Question 2: Differentiating Scaffolded Instruction to Meet Diverse Cognitive, Literacy, and Cultural Needs In this section I examine Donna's explicit behaviors and actions that support children during the writing process, and how this support varied based on the cognitive, literacy, and cultural needs of each student. As with the first research question, I analyzed the data from two perspectives, first by inductively examining all evidence related to how Donna adjusted her instruction in order to meet the diverse needs of her students, and second, by describing these adjustments in light of an a priori theoretical framework. Teacher Scaffolding: An Inductive Analysis To identify and examine the different types of supports that Donna offered during writing instruction, I examined all data without being constrained by a priori theory. Although the literature identifies characteristics associated with scaffolded instruction, I wanted to learn how differentially scaffolded instruction looked for Donna, given the environmental contexts that I noted previously. At the beginning of the study I asked Donna what she perceived were the best practices for teaching minority students. I did this without referring to the term scaffolded instruction, so that I would not lead her response. She stated that instruction for minority students, for example children of First Nations ancestry, should be related to practical, real-life experiences to allow the children to draw on their background knowledge (il.2). Donna did not typically pre-plan how she would modify instruction (Fletcher et al., 1999; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995), but rather, made adjustments when she sensed that the students were "flat" (il.2). Further, Donna found it difficult to articulate how she adjusted her instruction or the specific strategies and supports that she provided, which 102 indicates that she did not think metacognitively about her instruction (Alexander et al., 1996; Duffy, 1993) in terms of making adjustments for cultural minority students. There were several examples of individual instructional scaffolding and numerous examples of large-group scaffolding in the writing lessons that I observed. Donna supported one student for example, when she planned to use a tape recorder with a child of First Nations ancestry, so that he could tell a story, rather than have to write it Part of her rationale was that First Nations culture has an "oral tradition" (d2.115-119). Donna also spoke of a time when she allowed a student to express himself through art (il .2). On a large group scale, she selected some novels with First Nations content and encouraged students to write about traditional First Nations activities, such as hunting to be culturally responsive to the students of First Nations ancestry, an instructional practice which is similar to recommendations for multicultural education (B.C.T.F Task Force, 1999; Brownlie et al., 2000; Mattson & Caffrey, 2001; Saskatchewan Education, 1997; Toohey, 1985). Another example of supporting the larger group was where Donna used visual and verbal modelling (fo4.1; t6.328-330; t8.3-18; t9.126). For example, at Thanksgiving Donna provided the following format on the chalkboard, and verbally modelled different ways that it could be completed: The best thing about Thanksgiving is . You can . You canYou can evenBut the best thing about Thanksgiving is . (fnl.l) On another occasion Donna supported a group of children who were struggling with the structure of a persuasive paragraph by sketching out frame sentences for them on the chalkboard (fn6.8). 103 As a next step in my inductive analysis I developed a set of labels for the teacher "moves" that I observed during writing instruction and activities. In other words, I developed a coding scheme that described teacher instructional choices (actions and words) based on the themes that emerged from the data. Consistent with definitions of scaffolding, my focus was on teacher practices that would allow the novices (learners) to achieve more in a shorter time than if they were working alone, or to complete a task that would normally be too difficult without assistance. Table 12 presents a list of the final categories that were identified, along with definitions. Note that many sub-codes were grouped to form more inclusive categories. For example, the first grouping titled Directing contains such teacher moves as directing, recapping, and breaking down tasks. (See Chapter 3 for a complete description of code development.) The following excerpt from a Specific Skill lesson demonstrates how the coding scheme was applied to each unitized segment of the transcripts. Slashes indicate where units begin and end. T: .. ./Well, you write down gigantic enormous and whichever list word goes with it. And you write down cement paste and whichever list word goes with it. Then you write down collarbone shoulder and whichever list word goes with it./ (Directing -breaking down the task, directing) S: Just one word? T: /Just one word out of the list./ (Directing - directing, Reiterates Student) /Mhmm. I think there's only one./ (Directing - clarifying/embellishing) /Which word goes with gigantic enormous? / (Questioning - checking for understanding) S: Huge. T: /Okay./ (Feedback - confirm) I Which word goes with cement paste? (Questioning - checking for understanding) 104 Table 12 12 Codes of Teacher Moves with Descriptors Code Description . Directing • Directinq - T qives directions or specifically tells ST what to do • Expectations - T indicates minimum level of performance or output required • Recap , reiterate - T verbally reviews concepts or reiterates a strategy, rule, or expectation • Clarifvinq /embellishinq - T adds / provides information, rephrases, explains or refines expectations so ST will understand concept • Rephrases, simplifies - T re-phrases or simplifies statements • T uses analoqv to explain • Breaks down task - T focuses attention to one aspect of the task at a time • Guidinq, leadinq words - T uses key words to demark the steps of a task (i.e. next, first, then), hints Student Choice • Student Choice - ST qiven opportunity to decide on course of action, preference • Student ownership - T encouraqes ST to take ownership and pride in personal writing Reiterates Student • Reiterates Student- T reiterates or repeats a ST's comments Explicit Opportunity • Floatinq , explicit opportunity for assistance - T physically available or asks STs if they require assistance Focus Attention • Focus attention, removes distraction - T uses verbal or non-verbal actions to re-direct ST attention to the task. May cue for listening position Relating to Experience • Relatinq to personal experience - T shares own or reflects on ST's previous experience / knowledge about learning or difficulty of learning Respectful • Respectful - T demonstrates respect for ST by saying thank you Feedback • Feedback, shapinq - T provides specific information about the ST's performance or behavior • Neqative example - T refers to an example or ST's work to reinforce what NOT to do • Encouraqement, positive reinforcement - T qives explicit or implicit message that ST should continue behavior / performance. • Acknowledqe / confirm - T acknowledqes ST contribution or performance without a positive or negative judgment Wait Time • Wait time - T allows ST time to process information (pause) Model • Structure, template - T provides a written / visual or oral template (frame) for ST to follow or to help ST begin writing (i.e. story starter) • Model, example - T provides a model or demonstrates • Visual / Verbal representation - T provides a visual and verbal representation Strategy • Alternate strateqy, suqqestions, ideas - T suggests or models an alternate In this table, T = teacher; ST =student. 105 strategy or idea • Relatinq to author strateqv or the writina process • Labels strateqv - T labels a strateqv Student Input • Student Input - specific ST input solicited by T (ST name given), may be asked to provide information, to demonstrate, to explain, to review Questioning T asks question to • Prompt • Guide • Challenge • Gather information • Remind ST of expectations, rule, or strategy • Direct attention or focus attention on process or specific attribute • Checking for understanding or progress Rhetorical Questioning • Rhetorical questioning - T asks a question but does not expect an answer, or does not provide time for ST to answer (no pause). Used to - prompt/guide, remind,... To examine how Donna scaffolded instruction I recorded the frequency of each type of move across three of Donna's lessons. Table 13 indicates the percentage of each of Donna's moves that were of each type overall, and for each lesson separately. I included data for three different types of lessons since these were typical of the lessons observed during the course of the research project (see Figure 2). Note that Table 13 reflects Donna's moves with the class as a whole. This data presentation shows that the supports that Donna provided most frequently during writing instruction were direction (e.g., explanations and recapping), feedback and reinforcement, asking rhetorical questions to prompt or direct attention, and asking questions that she expected the children to answer. Note that there were no incidences of allowing additional time for students to think, and that all of the other categories account for a small percent of the overall moves. 106 Table 13 Percent of Teacher Moves by Type of Lesson - Donna13 Lesson Type Directing Student Choice Reiterates Student Explicit Opportunity Focus Attention Relates to Experience Respectful Feedback Wait time Model Strategy Student input Questioning Rhetorical questioning Specific Skill 39 0 1 1 3 0 1 25 0 1 0 2 13 13 Genre 33 3 2 0 5 2 3 24 0 2 3 1 11 12 Reading response 48 0 1 1 4 0 3 19 0 3 1 0 6 14 Overall Percent •10 <1: 1 <1 liiillili Hif <1 3 •23." 0 2 1 1 11 13 There were some slight differences in the way that Donna supported student learning during different types of lessons. For example, during a Reading Response lesson, she provided direction and clarification 48% of the time, but during Genre Writing, she provided direction and clarification less frequently (33% of the time). This is understandable because the Reading Response lessons introduced new writing formats and procedures, so that the children were likely to require more direction, explanation, and modelling. Also note in Table 13 that there were fewer instances of questioning during the Reading Response lesson (6%) than the Genre Writing or Specific Skill lessons (11% and 13%, respectively). Again, this suggests that the children required more direct instruction to learn a new writing skill. The bottom row of the table reports the overall percentage for each respective column. 107 In order to determine if Donna differentially scaffolded support to individual students during writing activities, I charted the number of interactions that Donna had, and the type of teacher moves applied, with each of the focal students during the course of the study. I then compared these findings with the writing needs of the children that I presented earlier in this case study (see Table 14). First I counted the number of interactions that Donna had with the focal students. Table 14 summarizes the total number of interactions with each student across different types of transcribed lessons. In general the data in Table 14 indicate that there were systematic differences in the number of interactions that Donna provided based on type of lesson. For example, Donna had the greatest number of interactions with focal students during Genre writing lessons (n=28) and the fewest during Journal Writing (n=4). The relatively high number of interactions that Donna had with Ryan during the Genre writing lessons may account for this difference. Two possible reasons that Donna had many interactions with Ryan appeared to be 1) to maintain his recent interest in writing or 2) because he was a very sociable young lad. As well, the number of teacher-student interactions with focal students was relatively consistent across Specific Skill, Reading Response, and Other lesson types (n=14, 17, 16, respectively). There were other differences in the number of teacher-student contacts not clearly related to student writing needs. For example, notice that both Marty and Denise had among the fewest interactions with Donna, but were experiencing more difficulty in reading and writing than the other focal students. One explanation may be that Donna found it difficult to converse with the very shy Marty. As well, it is possible that Donna limited her contact with Denise to avoid conflict, because Denise often argued with Donna. Further, Donna may have interacted more frequently with other students, believing that Marty and 108 Table 14 Teacher - Student Interactions - Donna Number of Interactions by Type of Lesson Student Genre Journal Writing Specific Skill Reading Response Other Total Interactions Aboriginal '• . • • Rick 3 1 4 4 3 15 Gary 4 0 1 3 3 11 Ryan 11 0 3 5 2 21 Marty 1 0 4 0 1 6 Denise 2 0 0 0 1 3 Non-Aboriginal Kim 3 0 2 3 6 14 Alice 4 0 0 2 0 6 Total • '* 28 1 14 ,;.K---17 16 - 76] Denise were receiving the required writing support from the Learning Assistance teacher. Another pattern in the number of interactions that Donna had with the focal students, not based on writing need, related to gender. Donna tended to interact more with the boys than she did with the girls (n=47 compared to n=29). This held true within the aboriginal student group as well, where Donna interacted more frequently with the Native boys than the Native girls (n=47 compared to n=9). To analyze these interactions further, I looked at the type of teacher moves or supports that Donna provided each of the focal students over the course of the study. I created a display, Table 15, showing the percentage of each teacher move for each focal student. In general, I found two systematic trends in type and amount of support provided to the focal students when compared to that provided to the whole class. First, there was a difference between the proportions in the primary supports that Donna provided to the whole Calculations are based on transcribed lessons only. 109 Table 15 Teacher - Student Interactions - Donna Percentage of Each Teacher Move for Each Student1 PERCENTAGE OF TEACHER MOVES Student Total number of interactions Total number of teacher moves Directing Student Choice Reiterates Student Explicit Opportunity Focus Attention Relates to Experience Respectful Feedback Wait time Model Strategy Student input Questioning Rhetorical questioning Aboriginal • •-Rick 15 117 23 0 10 4 <1 0 0 29 8 <1 0 5 9 10 Gary 11 73 23 0 8 3 0 0 0 19 4 11 0 11 12 8 Ryan 21 154 22 1 8 5 3 0 <1 26 6 1 2 5 17 13 Marty 6 65 32 2 3 3 2 0 0 15 5 5 0 15 5 14 Denise 3 25 20 4 8 4 0 0 0 20 4 0 0 4 16 20 Non-Aboriginal 1 Kim 14 79 25 0 6 3 1 0 0 18 6 1 0 14 19 19 Alice 6 27 11 3 3 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 3 26 26 11 Total m 540 " Overall Percent 23 <1. '8.. , 3 2 0 <1 23 .6 3 <1 .9 ,11 12 class and those provided to the focal students. Donna provided direction and feedback equally when interacting with the focal students (23% each), but with the entire class she tended to provide more direction than feedback (40% and 23%, respectively). Another finding is that the next most frequent moves that Donna used with the focal students were eliciting student input, asking questions that the students were expected to answer, and asking rhetorical questions (9%, 11% and 12%, respectively). With the larger group these 15 Calculations are based on all transcribed lessons. The bottom row of the table reports the overall percentage for each respective column. 110 proportions were 1%, 11% and 13%, respectively, indicating that Donna rarely elicited student ideas or suggestions during lessons. There were notable differences in the proportional frequency of particular types of support that Donna provided students, whether Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal. It was difficult, however, to relate differences in instruction to student writing needs. Instead the patterns in support seemed to be related to students' social interaction styles and/or motivation. For example, Ryan and Rick (Aboriginal students), were provided with much more feedback than the other focal students (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal). The nature of the feedback that Donna provided to Ryan was often praise: "Ryan, you really got writing there this morning. That is super. I'm proud of you" (tl2.282-283). Perhaps Donna encouraged Ryan more than the other focal students to keep him motivated and interested in writing. Another finding among the focal students is that Alice received proportionally less direction and more opportunities to provide ideas or comments during discussions, and was questioned more than others. Alice was shy, did not readily contribute to class discussions, and was functioning just below grade level in writing. Thus, Donna may have used support to draw ideas out of Alice. However, Marty was also shy and withdrawn, but Donna did not provide similar support to her. There also were differences in the type of support offered the children within the two focal groups. For example, Kim (non-Native) was an avid participant in class discussions. Alice (also non-Native), was shy and reluctant to participate, so Donna encouraged her to contribute to discussions by asking her to share her ideas on proportionally more instances than she did with Kim. To summarize this portion of the inductive analysis, the evidence showed that Donna varied the type of support that she offered the class as whole during writing instruction. She Ill provided direction and feedback most frequently, followed by questioning and rhetorical questioning to a lesser degree, and these trends were consistent across all lesson types. This pattern of support varied somewhat with the focal students where she provided proportionally more feedback, and more frequently solicited their comments during lessons and individual interactions. There were also variations in the specific type and frequency of support offered to individual Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students; however these differences were often not linked to writing needs. Rather, Donna seemed to provide support based on students' social interaction styles and/or motivation. In addition to analyzing the differential use of scaffolding (teacher moves) with the focal students, I analyzed the content and length of these exchanges to determine if there were other ways that Donna differentiated her instructional support across the focal students. To do this, I reviewed all of the conversations that Donna had with each of the focal students (Native and non-Native) and summarized the content of these interactions. In general, I found that with the Native children Donna frequently asked questions to direct attention to or correct spelling, punctuation, handwriting, paragraph format, and spacing errors (tl.227-230; t4.23-29; 6.165-169; t8.124-126; t9.154-157). For example, when reading Rick's diary entry Donna said: ".. .1 like snow because you can make a snowman," which is all one word; if I were joining that, I'd put a little scoop underneath. Okay? "Go skating lots of other stuff too. The best part about lots of snow is", good for you. "Christmas"? Cut the capital. You see all your family and friends. Now, so if you're going to put a stop there then you need to say you also get to.... (t20.431-436) Similarly, on another occasion, Donna reviewed and corrected the spelling and capitalization errors in Ryan's diary entry: Donna: Best needs a capital. Don't take the whole thing out, just change the b / into a capital b because it's important, (pause) So always the first word in a title and the important words. And a capital p on 112 pink. Okay, (pause). Capital I. Capital I is the big one. Okay. And two ds in sledding. Otherwise it says sleding (pause) Right. Okay. Ryan: Is this a small c? Donna: No. Big c, but what goes next to it? Ryan: h. Donna: Right. That looks better. If you get presents. So this line and this line are the same? /It's like a pattern. You're there Ryan, good . (t2.109-121) Although Donna's feedback generally focused on mechanical features, there were some instances where she addressed text structure (meaning) or the writing process. On one occasion Donna reminded Ryan about paragraph structure and then checked for understanding: Donna: Can you bring that to a good conclusion, Ryan? Bring it to a good end. Don't go on and on. So after you have your adventure, you need to bring it to a stop. Hamburger. Beginning, introduction, interesting part in the middle, and then a good, solid end okay, because some people like to go, when they get to the interesting middle, then they go oh yeah, and I forgot to tell you that and then and the next day. Do we want all this in a story? Ryan: No. Donna: No. We don't. We want a good introduction. (tl2.66-74) In addition, Donna offered the Native students help to generate ideas for writing. For example, during a story writing activity, Donna asked Ryan if he needed assistance to begin his story: Ryan: What are we doing today? Donna: What are we doing today? You're inventing a story of your own. Do you need a topic? Or can you come up with one. Ryan: I can come up with one. Donna: Okay. (t8.58-65) These examples show that the interactions that Donna had with the Native students focused extensively on the mechanical aspects of writing. There was less concentration on meaning and writing strategies. The type of interactions that Donna had with the non-Aboriginal students focused most frequently on reiterating task demands and/or allowing for student input. For example, 113 Kim frequently asked Donna to explain a task again. During one spelling lesson Donna spoke with Kim twice to explain and direct her efforts: Donna: Number four? Well, you write down gigantic enormous and whichever list word goes with it. And you write down cement paste and whichever list word goes with it. Then you write down collarbone shoulder and whichever list word goes with it. Kim: Just one word? Donna: Just one word out of the list. Mhmm. I think there's only one. Which word goes with gigantic enormous? (pause) Kim: Huge. Donna: Okay... (t2.96-107) Kim was also an avid participant in class discussions. When Donna asked the students a question about a text, Kim provided answers or ideas on numerous occasions (t5.41-46, 79-84, 101-105, 118-123, 439-441; t6.23-36; t7.128-132; tl 1.168-172, 186-190). Next I examined the length of the conversations that Donna had with the focal students. There was a notable difference between the Native and non-Native children. The interactions with Kim and Alice (non-Native) were typically brief, averaging three lines of typed transcript. For example, during one class discussion, Kim offered her idea in a short exchange with Donna: Donna: All right, all right, (pause)so the first problem that they had was, what's this problem that they're going to start to solve now? Kim? Kim: [inaudible] Donna: All right. So now we read on to the end of page 59. (t5.41-46) Donna spoke only once for an extended period with Alice. In this conversation Donna encouraged Alice to use an alternative strategy to help generate ideas for her persuasive paragraph: Alice: [inaudible] Donna: You can't imagine in your mind what an ideal playground would look like? You know what you might want to do if you are really stuck for ideas of an ideal playground and you think in pictures in your mind, rather than words, could you draw a plan of an ideal playground in your book and then describe it? 114 Student: Can we draw it? Donna: What did I just say? Draw a plan. Alice: Draw it like this. Donna: Like a map? .... And draw your plan there? Alice: Yeah. Donna: Yes you may. Alice: And then I... go... Donna: If you want to. (t6.280-301) In contrast, the length of the conversations that Donna had with the Aboriginal students was more extended than those with the non-Aboriginal students. The exchanges ranged from 1 to 18 lines of transcripts, with an average of 6. For example, Donna talked with Ryan at some length, correcting various mechanical errors and then pointing out the repetitive structure of the text: Donna: Christmas needs an H. H. Ryan? All you needed to do was put a little h in there, (pause) now you forgot the r. oh no. C-H-R. (pause) okay. Best needs a capital. Don't take the whole thing out, just change the b into a capital b because it's important, (pause) so always the first word in a title and the important words. And a capital p on pink. Okay, (pause) Capital I. Capital I is the big one. Okay. And two ds in sledding. Otherwise it says sleding. (pause) right, (pause) okay. Ryan: Is this a small c? Donna: No. Big C but what goes next to it. Ryan: H. Donna: Right. That looks better. Okay. If you get presents. So this line and this line are the same? It's like a pattern. You're there, Ryan, good. (t2.108-121) On another occasion, Donna reviewed syllabication with Marty, checking for understanding several times: Donna: .. .number three, syllables. Do you know about syllables? They're beats, okay? Whenever you see syllable think about beats, claps. I'm not very good at clapping at the moment. Um, two or more syllables and put a mark over the syllable that is stressed. So for example, ma-gic, re-peat. How many syllables in dumb? Clap it. Marty: One. Donna: Okay. Skull. Marty: One. Donna: Luck. Marty: One. Donna: Huge. 115 Marty: Huge? Donna: Huge. Marty: One. Donna: Include. Marty: Two. Donna: Okay, so you can write that one down. So. I'll come back, Marty. (t2.121-148) The last two analyses indicate that Donna provided different types of support to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students by varying the length and content of her interactions. With the Aboriginal students Donna focused primarily on the mechanical aspects of writing, perhaps reflecting a belief that minority students, particularly from low-SES families require more specific skill training (Allington, 1991; Mclntyre, 1995). These interactions were also more extended than those with the non-Aboriginal students. The nature of the exchanges with the non-Aboriginal students related to task completion or student input. Teacher Scaffolding: Compared to Existing Theory In order to further understand Donna's differential scaffolded instruction, I compared her practices to recommendations in the literature on scaffolding (eg. Applebee & Langer, 1983; Gallimore & Thorp, 1990; Gaskins et al., 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wood et al., 1978; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). In this analysis I reviewed the data again and sorted evidence as consistent or inconsistent with instructional practices defined in the scaffolding literature. Table 16 presents a description, paraphrase, or direct quote illustrating instruction that was consistent or inconsistent with descriptions of scaffolding (in separate columns). Note that I have also included the evidence related to calibrated formative feedback, which I discussed when addressing the first research question. A review of this evidence suggests that Donna demonstrated all of the qualities of scaffolded instruction to some degree. For example, there was some evidence of Donna handing over control of the writing process to the children, designing appropriate tasks, and 116 providing calibrated formative feedback. At the same time, many aspects of Donna's instruction were contrary to the practices recommend in the scaffolding literature (eg. Applebee & Langer, 1983; Gallimore & Thorp, 1990; Gaskins et al., 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wood et al., 1978; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). I will discuss the evidence related to this general finding by referring to each scaffolding element, in order, as they appear in the table. At a glance, the data indicate that there were several instances when Donna provided temporary support with the potential for a student to take control of the process. Although she was editing and typing some of the students' work, her goal was to have the students do their own editing (fnl4.9; mc3.1), thereby transferring control to the children. On another occasion Donna suggested to Ryan that he use a re-reading strategy to proof his work (t4.206-207). By teaching this strategy, Donna encouraged Ryan to become less dependent on teacher support when revising his written work. As well, Donna suggested students use a web, perhaps as a temporary support, to help plan their writing (tl2.183-184). In other cases it was difficult to know if Donna's support was intended to be temporary. Since Donna's teaching style was frequently teacher-centred, there was no evidence, other than her spoken comments, to indicate that she transferred control to the children as their skill levels increased. The next scaffolding element listed in the table is termed acting "as if. Recall that this refers to a learner acting as a fully participating and capable member of the group, involved in tasks that they would not be able to do without support. In some instances Donna's classroom practices were consistent with this scaffolding element. For example, Donna supported any effort that Ryan made to write, regardless of the coherence or clarity of VO 03 o Q CD o C3 CD •> W C CD C/3 a o o T3 -4—> c CD cfl o U CD > O C3 O 00 CO c TO o s= ro u co cz ro o CO CD CO c is c O CD si CO LU CD 0 CL TJ „ o o Eg a> csi = 3 lo2 3 3 3 O c CD ° "* •5.QC0 2 coo ro oo g >-CN ro ™ 3 £ ro 3 C 0 > 0 o TJ 0 C c _ro CL •o OJ co fi 0 CO si ro co c c c s 5 'a a CD UJ £ c CO — 0 ro o fe 3 c c ro o UJ S 2 £ o ro £ -0-= 0 0 T5.2 0 > D) £ 3 £ SI c -9 C CD O CD Q JO 'ro •e 0 O o 3 5*3 radg o ^5.* >• gSfl 0 O. "> »t=S TJ CD 5 0> to I ra CJ o 0 co 9 ^ co.^ ro — E ™ ro 5 5 tz o 11 Is ro i_ c3£ CL CO CO • - CM LO r~ T- co 0 "cl ro co 1— i— *- 1 <-> CO U) U) CO 3 0 O 00 JG *J CM CO 00 (J, CO CM C LO >,*- • CL S CO 3 c o s E "S to 0 X JZ 0 ' 4-» TJ TJ JD 0 2 s tz tz o o o o CD ro c c c c o o a a O CN CO *^ 07 o 00 T. «5 CO?? ** c *-o co CN £ LO CO 06 ^ UJ (0 00 . -CM 3 co T-" C **— ^ LO CO ffl r ii; J= CD o, • - -c ^ » il — CO _ 3 •— C . . JZ CD TJ t; JZ ro LO 1£. 0 T F CN £ CJ ro c UJ t 0 • -£CM TJ 0 o co . -UJ CM ro -i— 0 3 ~ CO O TJ ro XJ c co ro ro COTJ £ IZ ~ 0 0 0 0 CD ;->> 5 QC co ro co5 £ £_ to 3 TJ •—• 0 CO • S2 co ra CM CL TJ £ -. o gl CL£ UJ .-ti JZ CD TJ c ro JZ ZZ LO 0 . . CN 1- 1 0 1- CN ^c "J • -M-<JJ CD . -"S <° 2 2 c: OJTL." >»-£ csi oo" o <->1_ m E £ o 0 c c o C .<5 TJ ra TJ =5 &s 8£ ro co ro TJ E£ o 3 0 CD s 5 • ca — CJ. CD >< v--o U) o JZ ro *- JZ 3 0 3 Q cr 5 o 0 5^ CO CD CO ^cz o < CN CD if 66 ',— • - .c: ~—oo co^ CO CO -i-£ c: CO . . C LO • UJ O £, ra ^ JZ U) o UJ 0 5 £ 0 1-£ CN •° p 0 t #5 UJ ro6-2^ 0 5CN co ~!Z 0 TJ 2^[o CO*- CN c o UJ 0 § Z M-O TJ CO C TJ 10 3 <S o 3 E c "E ro co c > 0 'JZ o CO 8.a £6J" o • m S £ 1 s. £ x o UJ 0 CZ "> o ra •2 0 11 to o £ ~ TJ "0 2 I S ra CO CL ro ro c c cz c o o Q Q CO T-II 2s 0 £ c tz ra, 0 F 0 o UJ ti — 0 •g > JO £ CO cz 'c c CO 0 JO |CM !i 0 UJ JO . _ w £ C LO .2 V 12 0 JO 3 c o c TJ c CO To E .<2 CM TJ ~ ^ 0 ra 'ir E £ „ UJ £ co ^: jz .2 -tr o •0 c 2> 0 CO ^ TJ TJ 3 C c ro ro 0 o £ Q E 2 3 ro °-oo 0 CO UJ 1-^CM £'-tlco croj ro -i-Ori TJ °5 0 — UJ Tz 0 TJ 3 CO T-2 £ E, c c 11 0 ro ^'5. S co o £ S 0 CO CO ra c 0 5 £l £ o -•S3 CJ-S 23 ro 0 cz TJ c — O CO Q JZ TJ 0 C , 5 0 •S » CL CO co 2 o 0 CO ro IS O.N S.E CL JZ CL.t; < 5 CO 1 00 CM 00 CO CN ~ CN CN 00 CN CO ^ <£ 00 LO CM1? LO CM CO CN 1-3 CLT , C CO Is: JZ -CD £c§ O) 00 T CO co -JZ 00 ! O CO CD r-£co| TJ LO . 0 • , TJ LO C *-£0. x o LLI CO o LO T o - •>* czi CN LO 1 CM 1 CO o T5 0 Tz 0 TJ c 0 CL 0 TJ C TJ 0 > O > #C I CD" CLT (0 c •>-o £ 0J§ x: ^ CO CD £ TJ if "0 2 TJ O 0 C *i o CJ o it 0 =5 S uj ro ro o 13 co —1 ^3 O TJ 0 'ro 2 uj c ro 1-o o ro c 3 _co Tz 0 ^ TJ 0 ' " o 54 0 CO "J ^; c CN CL iz-0 ^ X, ra co — c LO £ iz- o Izra 3 TJ O C ^, CO g.UJ ra c ^ ro CC — £ TJ CN 2 CD CN CO o I CM £ c T3 *• i= 0 ^ TJ D-V 0 3' U) O ^ co t: o 3 CJJCN CO «£ •2 int. TJ ro w co CJ 0 S"i Oh l) .2 o' 8 £ CO Q „ TJ CD 0 CN TJ 1 1— CO CO CN 5 C=£ £ o .. c CO CD 0 0 3 UJ UJ . 0 • _ CM ro cd 0 .P ro • 3 ro o o JO JO x ra — 0 co g d c X o jn T _ "5 "* — CM c ^c o o JO OJ CO TJ-O CN Q--5 £ 2 UJ 3 CD O ^z ro "co co CL o. m 0 £ > c co <S C CO CL ~ 3 CD 0 i2£ CL 0 CO CL £ CO c TJ c CO CO c TJ ro 0 co „ o c CO TJ c ro UJ "c ro tr OJ c UJ w ^ _0 CN .j. £ C • -o 0 c cz O o o £ c 0 TJ 3 4—' co 0 TJ 0 *-< C ro 5 „ ro 9 co 9 E 0 c JZ^ ±: U) 3 CD < I— 00 CJ)r^ C \-O OO it cu 'I'S , .£ CD CO — co tz O i: O 1:2! IS p •> 0 |S o. oS 5 3 cu TJ -cu ro co . co <o oc? ro c CM c cu , TJ o 2 |Q w G! CO OM CN CN . _ i •r- CO ^t" CO CN i= If) CO Pi n ^LO 3 ,-CL i C CO — t: |CT>" 15 S£ c Tf o CO IS •= 00 'IoO ^ CD ro V *- CD iui2 JZ • O LO ro ** cu co CM IO . - LO" 00 i-r*. io O 00 Tf Tf CN -- r*. co r-T- Tf <?CD CN CO CO Tf oo a 00 o CD Tf 2* o o CO TJ CU . TJ CO C 00 03 CN LU ""2 co : r*-r- Tf - LO CN Tf i- o CO i ™° ^ Tf i- CN ""3 oo" T- CN °CO^ 'CO 00 r* " co oo "C co , o cn CN i £ 3 CL CD cu com CN tud com LO CO he *"* TJ he Tf" O *-CD c CU o c JZ CV) o Tf" * - 5 \ h_ CO o 'cu oo dth £ cu ma o g edi o c cu V+— cu JZ TJ CO c 3 to _0 JZ M— o ed CO c O JD TJ cri TJ ~ co CU ro pre did wh na na JZ o c c ro Do Do 3 •^-"CN CO LO 00 O <- i CO CN LO Zi CL -c ^ tz CO Is TJ 2r*L sg" «0M C 00 'leo CD - r*. co r*-~2 CN CD CT) Tf 00"S 00 . . T- O co ST Tf - LO CN Tf T- o" Z_ Tf ~ Tf CD ' LO I CU JZ ' . O LO ro cu H o o CO TJ CD TJ CO C 00 £ CN LU S2 T- CN TJ CO I"", oo" i- CN °CO^ oo """3 co ^ ^ o 0) CO CN £ Z3 tz CL CD CU E CM TJ o Z) o LO to cu TJ JZ Tf" CD* he to on c he to i o Tf" 5 CO o hei 00 E_ TJ (0 ite ro o TJ E g CU o M— tz cu i she D) TJ i she CZ ZJ .ID to JZ 5 M— o "S ed O) c c o JZ) TJ cri TJ CO CU ro CD TJ CL TJ wh na na tch c c ro Do Do CO CO CU o c cu tz cu CO CO c co " o CO o °P TJ if? ro CN cor; c -z> c i% cu CO Q. O O CO «• s co ro Z! T_ 0 cu D) (0 ™ n '1 Jz^ ?S si ro <u 1 £ o CO o CN iz 3 CN "3 ,_ o LO" jo 10 ro o LO ro . £ S CO §CM jz) ^ co co r"-" ro^2 ULO CU LO C CO cu cu cb" •£ °? TJ CU °o -Tz 22 0) CO S. co ro |^ J= CM Q <£ o E, CO CO CD o o D co > CD JZ o ro TJ ZJ o CJ ro JZ *-» o co c o "o 3 i Xo c ^ TJ CO 0 c ro <j= 0 P." °* ro cz o c ro ro E CO 00 CO 00 LO CN 00 COT-O) 2 -aro c c ro ro CL co L_ D) (0 i_ CO CL^. CO IS* ZI TJ-O LO CO IS co CJ be o c o ro 0  LO O *- Ccp-L .£ 0 si1 il O 0 co ~ !5 o CO c 0 0 *CN (U LO -0 T CO 00 C Tf .2 ,_ 'Tj CN c •—-. 8 » ? 3 0 •£ 3 O TJ ' TJ 0 CO 0 TJ co .£ f cl ro 0 0 cu g 1* t co 0 0 ' o CO CO cz c c 0 _ c tz O Q co LO 3 LO °T? ro Tf CO CN ro i^*" £T '« ^ 3 LO P LO J3 i-ro cri co *' «s o ? •? i r*« TJ r*. ^ 0 CM c TJ CO *-1 co r*-" E flo 2g V 2co° C OM 03 m' Q do CO (U 0 to CO CO « JZ u »_ 0 o ^ TJ ro c E P o TJ C CO 0 TJ TJ TJ 0 F O) E TJ -3 C C C CO 'cz T C C CM p 0 g co CO Q JZ) 0 CO 3 _ TJ *° C *0 ro V w ^2 CO CD 0 •>-S cd CO Tl COi— •iob 0 CO JZ) T_ E CM 3 . . C 00 CLCO £ "T co r~-roHl ll . CTJZ 0 cd - co1 ro !=. *" S S 2 P ro Q a TJ e IK Q.2 p CO CL >^ ci CO 3 W-E 8 2 ro 0 oo CL A CO i_ 0 <u 0 c JZ CO - = O TJ TJ 0 "5 & o TJ > JJ > 1? ^ a • o ca TJ c ro o CC £ LO CZ ^ CO ro ro . LO  >, cu i-§CC "5^ • 2ES co CO 0 JZ co 0 CO 3 CO CJ 0 JD 0" CJ '< o CO ro 0 JZ c JO CL X 0 p *i CO 1-ro 1-*-» ro " c >, c ro P 5 Q ro o CO 0 CJ) c ro TJ 0 to 0 CO CO 3 CO co c 0 TJ „ 3 co Ed 3 CN o c 1 M— CO ^" c g ro cr 0 CC S TJ 2 0 CL T5 "O 0 92 co JO cu O S £ CJ r*-2^ £ *o >.o DC a J2 o in £ ro 0 o ro co° C O) '•5 £ TJ 'c 0 ro i-i 2TJ CO c 0)f° 0 > o *= CO CO JZ) JD E TJ CO o 0 O LL LL r -9-0 .0 CL tz x ro LU CL O "f? "c 'E 0 CO II J2TJ JD 0 £ ro co JZ LU CO 119 his compositions, so that he could feel like a real writer (d2.149-151). As well, she assigned all students the same writing tasks, which might suggest that she believed that all children could be writers (fnl6.28). At other times, however, Donna's instruction did not allow the children to act "as if they were capable writers. For example, Donna was very prescriptive in her lessons, requiring that students fit their writing into a framework provided (tl.31-35, 48-52; t4.23-40; ta4; ph4,9; t6.328-330; fn6.8; t8.6-16; tl3.72-73; fnl4.3,4; fnl6.3,4; fnl9.3,10; t21.523-625), thus preventing them from exploring writing styles and playing with words, as expert writers do. Further, Donna took over the editing process until the students developed more proficiency in this area (mcl.l; mc3.1). Another key characteristic of scaffolded instruction is designing tasks that are suitable for the ability level of the learners (similar to the Writing Workshop recommendation). There was little evidence that Donna adjusted the task difficulty for individual students. For example, Donna stated that she was waiting for all students to achieve a minimum writing level before moving on to more detailed work on mechanics. As well, Donna assigned both grade levels the same writing task (tl; mc2.1; t4; t6-9; tll;tl2; t20; t21; mc2.1; fnl4; fn.15; fnl6.28; fnl8; fnl9; fn22-25), even for struggling students, such as Denise and Marty. Further, Donna did not set more complex tasks for advanced students, such as Rick, who often appeared to be bored with the assigned tasks. Note, however, that there was extensive evidence demonstrating how Donna differentially supported students as they worked through the same task, such as providing frame sentences, modelling the writing task, and utilizing materials reflecting First Nations traditions (B.C.T.F Task Force, 1999; Brownlie et al., 2000; Farrell-Racette et al., 1996; Mattson & Caffrey, 2001; Saskatchewan Education, 1997; Toohey, 1985). 120 Discussions are another common characteristic of instructional scaffolding (and Writing Workshop). Ideally, children and the teacher share the air space to exchange ideas, support one another's efforts, and build understanding of a task or concept. There is some evidence that Donna and the children supported one another through discussions. For example, in one case the children shared their reading responses with a peer (ml6.10) as a written dialogue about the novel that they were reading. As well, during a journal writing lesson, the students shared in a discussion about a local lake (tl2.64-107), and on another occasion the entire class discussed the attributes of the ideal playground (t5.4-101). Further, the inclusion of mini-lessons also promoted student-student and student-teacher dialogue (fn20.1-17; fn22.1-4). There were many instances, however, where the children were not encouraged to interact with each other, or to converse with Donna. This was primarily due to Donna's teaching style, which was primarily direct instruction and involved extensive teacher talk. For example, during one Reading Response lesson (t21.466-638), of which there were over three pages of single-spaced transcripts (162 lines), Donna spoke at length for most of the time (157 lines). Similarly, during one journal writing session, Donna spoke for 111 of the 120 lines of transcript. Further, Donna did not build many student-student sharing or discussion opportunities into her lessons, as noted previously. One reason that she gave for this was the presence of a student with behavioral control problems within her class (mc2.1) (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997: Klinger et al., 1999). Donna felt that this student's outbursts might increase if there were more opportunities to talk with other children. According to the literature on scaffolded instruction (e.g., Gaskins et al., 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wood et al., 1978), learning should also be steeped in tasks that are authentic and purposeful to the children. One example of this scaffolding element was when 121 Donna and the class edited a piece of student writing to review the rules for capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and spelling (fn20.1-17; fn22.1-4). On another occasion the children wrote paragraphs to persuade the school administration to improve the quality of the playground. Donna did not arrange for the children to take the final step and actually send the letters (fn6.2-l 1), however, which could have provided a real-life purpose for the writing. There were also instances where instruction was segmented into isolated parts, potentially limiting application to authentic tasks (d2.246; fn2.4-10; fnlO.1-13; fnl7.23-26). Another feature of scaffolded instruction is termed calibrated formative feedback (Butler, 1998). As noted in a previous analysis, there was evidence that Donna tailored her feedback to the unique needs of each child, and to the class as a whole. For example, individually she pointed out to Rick his use of alliteration: ".. .1 like that, "being bad to the bone". A little alliteration there" (t9.182-183). Alliteration was not necessarily a technique that Donna would have pointed out to other students; however, she used the poetic label with Rick, who was functioning at grade-level in writing. Another example of Donna providing individualized feedback was when she encouraged Rick to elaborate on his ideas, writing in his journal. Donna also provided feedback and support for the class as a whole, particularly when she noticed that some students appeared to be confused or were forgetting to follow the prescribed format. For example, she reminded the group about including opening and closing sentences when the children were drafting their persuasive paragraphs (tl2.75-83). On other occasions she repeated the layout characteristics for diary and journal entries (t4.23-40; t6.327-331; t8.87-96; t9.155-157; U2.39-46, 50-51, 55, 102-107; fnl7.27; fhl9.4) 122 while circulating among the students. Donna reviewed the formatting expectations for journal writing with the class: Donna: .. .SO remember what paragraph format looks like? Somebody want to tell me what paragraph format looks like? When I say paragraph format, what does it look like? ? Student: Umm, you use [inaudible] Donna: Pardon me? I didn't hear what you said. Student: [inaudible] Donna: Your name and your date in your journal. All right. So you start off with your heading, said. So whenever we begin, we start off with our heading, (pause) (pause) I know most of you know but just a few people. You know how many checks I got last time? When I went check, check, check? Lots of people got checks because they remembered their heading. So you put your name and your date and journal (writes on board) and then you put your title of your story, whatever it is. Remember all the important words have capital letters, especially the first one. Charlie, are we writing today? So all the important words have capital letters. If I was just calling this my story, I would put a capital on my because it's the first word and story because that's what it is about. I wouldn't really call it my story but I, that's kind of boring. Then what? Student: You have to indent, Donna: All right. So I'm going to leave a space underneath this and then she says I'm going to indent it so we're going to leave one or two or one and a half finger spaces. Student: And it starts with a capital. Donna: And it starts with a capital letter. Student: Then, umm, you have to put your sentences. Donna: Right. Way to go, . says one sentence follows another so you don't make a list of things and we {inaudible] person and that's wonderful. I'm so glad. (tl2.30-60) On yet another occasion, while the children were writing, Donna commented on one child's use of the correct format, and then reminded the entire class of these expectations: "I'm glad to see that you're starting with a finger space from the margin. Good for you. How many people remembered double space? Did you remember double space? How many people remembered indent? Start in from the margins. Hey, give yourselves a pat on the back. Remember, if you start a new paragraph you need to indent too" (t9.154-157). 123 The last two elements listed in Table 16, Expert - Novice Co-participation and Establishment of Shared Meaning, are closely linked to the presence of dialogue during instruction, and the teacher's overall teaching style. Recall that these two scaffolding characteristics refer to, a) sharing the role of teacher or expert with the learner, allowing joint ownership of the task or activity, and b) determining the learner's level of understanding of a task, concept, or skill, and through discussion and modeling, collaboratively creating a new understanding of the task or activity. Consistent with Donna's emphasis on direct instruction, where the teacher is typically the expert imparting knowledge, (tl.205-241; t3. 283-300; t5.156-168, 188-209, 417-439; t7.3-ll, 15-36; t8.3-22, 87-101tl 1.115-128; tl2.96-112, 179-188, 192-219, 240-278; U3.3-28, 32-45; t20.440-450, 454-460; t21.466-477, 489-515, 523-638), it is not surprising that there were few examples of student - student, or student - teacher collaborative participation, and of switching novice-expert roles. Typically, students were to work on their own and not talk to other students. As well, the students did not have a voice in the evaluation process, editing and typing, and there was little time or opportunity for Donna to determine the students' level of understanding of a given task, the strategies that they used, or their goals for completion. There were two instances when Donna shared the expert role with the students. Once, Donna asked Rick to explain a task to Alice because she had been away (tl 1.84-95), and on another occasion, the students shared the editor role during the class-editing of Ryan's journal entry: Donna: All right. Alice, do you want to say something? The 'the' doesn't need a capital letter. 'The' is called an article and articles don't have capitals but what does need a capital? Alice? Alice: Weekend. 124 Donna: Weekend. And we want to probably fix the spelling of weekend. (She writes on the overhead) .. .All right. So we're going to just neatly give it a capital letter. (She writes on the overhead). Did he remember to indent? Student: Yup. Donna: Did he remember to double-space? Student: Yeah. Donna: Great. All right. 'On the weekend I went to the parade and I seen my friends and , As soon as they saw me they said my name and started to throw candies at me and I got hit by some of the candies and only caught one of them because there was so many of the coming at me.' Ryan, we really appreciate you letting us use this.. .Okay. 'They said my name? They said my name and started to throw candies at me and I got hit.' What do you want to say about them? Student: He has to [inaudible] something. Donna: Oh, you think they had to say something? Student: Yeah. Donna: Well, I'm really glad you said that too, because is that true? Is that a direct quotation? Did somebody actually speak and say 'Ryan, I am going to' in your story? Is somebody actually saying something? ... (t20.24- ) Donna also mentioned to me that Rick and Gary helped Ryan, and that as a result, Ryan was talking and writing more (d2.153-154). I did not notice this during the lessons that I observed, however. To summarize, Donna demonstrated many different kinds of differentiated support with her students, such as using First Nations topics and texts, modelling, directing, and questioning. This support was directed at the whole class as well as to individual students. Donna differentially scaffolded support to the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal focal students, varying the type and frequency of support; however, these differences did not always appear to be systematic in terms of student need or task demands. From a theoretical perspective, Donna's practice reflected some of the elements of scaffolded instruction. But Donna's teaching style often prevented student - student scaffolding and limited the opportunities for the children to assume the teaching (expert) role. It appeared that the children were generally not considered collaborative partners in developing and shaping their understanding of the 125 concepts presented. Therefore, it appeared that Donna was unable to translate the theoretical constructs of scaffolded instruction into classroom practice, perhaps because of lack of knowledge (Englert & Tarrant, 1993; Gersten & Vaughn, 1997), time (Biemiller & Meichenbaum, 1998), or sense of need (Vaughn & Klinger, 2000). Question 3: Environmental Conditions and Instructional Scaffolding In this section I report evidence of how the classroom, school, and community contexts influenced Donna's instructional scaffolding. For this analysis I reviewed the data without referring to an existing theoretical framework. Specifically, I examined the socio cultural context of the community, school-wide goals and initiatives, district support services, and class composition for evidence of how they supported or limited Donna's ability to provide instructional scaffolding. Evidence suggested that the community in which Donna's school was located had an impact on her attitude toward the students. The elementary school is situated beside two Native Indian reservations, and there is a high First Nations profile in the area with one band actively involved in land-claim disputes during this research project. Although most of Donna's teaching experience included First Nations students, she had some negative beliefs about, and attitudes toward, this linguistic and cultural minority (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Saravia-Shore & Arvizu, 1992). She expressed concerns about the value that First Nations families placed on education (d2.211-213): ".. .they took her out of school for a whole week and went hunting up north and she lost her momentum and she's struggling now" (d2.170-171). Donna stated that her ability to use "best practices" for teaching minority students was impeded by student and family apathy, and cultural differences in the value of education (il.2). 126 Donna was also concerned about the disparate levels of Standard English that the students possessed (mc3; d3.94-95,208-214). Of one student she stated ".. .there's a terrible lack of language there. She is actually First Nations background" (d2.165-166). Referring to all Native Indians, Donna said ".. .their tradition is oral language,.. .1 mean, and it was, but I think it often isn't anymore. I think they don't even communicate with each other. I think they say things like mmm.. ..I mean, they understand what they're saying but they say very little. A lot of them" (d2.193-196). This evidence indicated that Donna had negative beliefs about the language ability of First Nations people and the perceived priority that they placed on education (Corson, 1997; Heit & Blair, 1993). School priorities and structures also shaped Donna's approach to literacy instruction. For example, the school staff and principal were concerned with the literacy skills of all of their students. As a result, they geared professional development and staff discussions around how to improve reading and writing skills. After one professional development opportunity where many of the school staff attended, Donna tried to implement some of the ideas into her lessons the following week. For example, she began to incorporate Literacy Circles during the Language Arts time block (dl.181; fnl2.28; fnl3.1-25; fnl8.21). There were school supports that Donna could access to inform her instructional practices. For example, the school district provided speech-, physio- and occupational-therapy services for the students, on an itinerant basis. Donna was frustrated with these supports, however, stating that there was little or no follow-up with the classroom teacher (i2.107-108, 116-118), and that the suggestions that these therapists recommended were not practical for the classroom setting (i2.127-128). This suggests a breakdown between the transfer of specialized knowledge into classroom practice (Buysse, Sparkman & Wesley, 127 2003). There was a fulltime Learning Assistance teacher in the school, who provided remediation for struggling students. Denise and Marty received LAT assistance Vi hour per day during the Language Arts time block. This programming was not planned in conjunction with the classroom teacher, which made Donna question the value of this support. Donna stated, "I have no idea [what the students are doing] because I never get to see it in operation so I don't know exactly what they're doing" (i 1.100). Another type of school support that influenced how Donna could assist her students' learning was the First Nations Support Worker. The Support Worker was assigned to Donna's classroom for several periods a week. The Support Worker's roles were to provide teaching assistance under the direction of the teacher, and to serve as a role model to First Nations students, indicating an attempt to incorporate Aboriginal culture into the school program (B.C. Ministry of Education, 1998; Brownlie et al., 2000; ESL Standards Committee, 1999; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998). Donna stated that the Support Worker often did not show up during the assigned times, and that the Worker was reluctant to provide any teaching assistance, preferring to chat with the Native children while they worked on assignments (il .2; i2. 50-55, 67-70, 76-82; fnl6.11). Donna noted that she often had to provide extensive support for the Workers, because many had learning problems themselves. Overall, Donna believed that the learning supports that were provided within, and to, the school were ineffective. Donna's instruction was also influenced by the needs of the children in her classroom. The students had diverse cultural and cognitive needs, and many came from families with low Socio-economic Status (SES). Donna was aware of the difficult family lives of some of her students. She noted that Marty's mother had died suddenly last year and that several of 128 the students were living with grandparents (d2.211-213; d3.218-232). As well, one student in her class was on an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) to address his disruptive behavior. Donna felt that this boy's outbursts restricted her instruction. When he was transferred to a different school, Donna noted that there was a "totally different class climate", and that she was optimistic that she could begin more individual work with students (mc2.1). To summarize, the community, school, and student contexts influenced Donna's attitude toward her students, their parents, and her colleagues. She questioned the linguistic ability of her First Nations students (Corson, 1997; Heit & Blair, 1993) as well as the value that their families placed on school education (Corson, 1997; Leavell et al., 1999; Ogbu, 1995). Further, various school supports did not provide Donna with the guidance or support that she needed in order to better meet the needs of her students (Buysse et al., 2003; Saskatchewan Education, 1997). Question 4: Interrelationship Among Teacher Training, Teacher Support. Class Size, Teacher Self-efficacy, and Differentiated Scaffolded Instruction In this analysis I created a cognitive map (Miles & Huberman, 1994), based on the literature reviewed in Chapter 2, to determine relationships among the variables identified in this study. To do this, I constructed a model by grouping the variables into three main categories, placing the teacher at the centre of the map. I did this to represent the interface between the teacher and the variables of influence. Then I sorted and recorded, on the map, data related to each of the variables contained within the main category groupings. (For a sample of a map that includes evidence, see Appendix I.) Using this display (Figure 5) I considered evidence that confirmed or disconfirmed potential patterns of influence and then 129 inserted arrows to the display to depict relationships observed. In what follows I discuss this evidence and suggest how Teacher Background and the School and Community Context variables influenced Donna's instructional decision making and differentiated instructional scaffolding. School and Community Contexts. There was evidence of a relationship among School and Community Context factors which, collectively, impacted Donna. The First Nations students in Donna's classroom represented the established Aboriginal community from which they came. Many of the Aboriginal children in Donna's classroom were actively involved in traditional Native practices such as hunting. The arrow pointing from the Community to Students factor to represents this relationship. There is also a relationship between the School Supports and Students factors, between which I have placed reciprocal arrows. Some of Donna's students, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, struggled with language and learning problems, and therefore influenced the need for additional support services. At the same time the school supports, for example First Nations Support Worker and LAT, influenced these particular students, whether by their support, or lack thereof. All three factors also impacted Donna. For example, Donna was concerned about absences for the children who were involved in seasonal hunting. As well, she was annoyed with road-blocks initiated by the local Native community. Finally, the teachers' job action created tension among staff (including support service providers), and between staff and parents. Teacher Background. As with the School and Community Context factors, there was interaction among the Teacher Background factors. Donna's cross-cultural experiences also impacted her overall teaching and learning experiences, as represented by an arrow between these two factors. Donna had some experience with, and was aware of, some First Nations 130 customs, having lived in the community where she taught. These experiences appeared to be negative influence. For example, she did not agree with the apparent value that the children and their families had of a school education, citing the number of days that some students were away for reasons such as traditional hunting (Corson, 1997; Heit & Blair, 1993). As well, she saw the children's use of non-standard English as a deficit, and any difficulty they had with school language was a cultural characteristic (Heit & Blair, 1993). Donna's teaching and learning experiences influenced, and were influenced by, her accumulated self-perceptions. For example, she was satisfied with her ability to meet the diverse cultural and linguistic needs of her students, perhaps because she believed that a more teacher-centred instructional approach (Delpit, 1986; Slavin, 2002; Yeh, 1999) was the best method to address the needs of the delayed and minority language learners in her classroom (Allington, 1991). Donna's positive sense of teaching self-efficacy also influenced her teaching and learning experiences by reinforcing her current teaching practices. Perhaps Donna felt confident in her teaching abilities and therefore did not see the need to apply new teaching techniques or change her instructional practices (Vaughn & Klinger, 2000). The arrows in this cluster represent the impact of cross-cultural experiences on Donna's teaching experiences, and how her accumulated self-perceptions of herself as a teacher were influenced by, and reinforced, her collective teaching experiences. The influence of Teacher Background and School and Community Contexts variables on Instructional Decision Making. Donna's instructional decision making - the way she structured instruction, her use of assessment and evaluation procedures, and how she differentially scaffolded her students - was shaped by factors both in her Background Experiences and School and Community Contexts, indicated by an arrows from Donna to the 131 Instructional Decision Making cluster (Figure 5). Donna maintained a teacher-centred approach to instruction (Teaching and Learning Experiences) and this may have influenced how she structured her writing instruction. Her classroom was very structured and she took control of most aspects of student learning. Donna focused on mechanics over meaning, in most cases, perhaps believing this focus to be most effective with Aboriginal students (School and Community Contexts). Instruction was based, in part, on the teacher's manual, and assessment and evaluation were teacher-driven. While Donna had no formal training in Writing Workshop pedagogy, she did incorporate aspects of this approach in her writing instruction. It is possible that she selected only those features of Writing Workshop that she felt would be most suitable for her students, for example, the revision stage. It is also possible that Donna required additional professional development (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995) and feedback (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger & Beckingham, in press) in order to evaluate the efficacy of her current practices or to incorporate alternate instructional approaches into her practice. The way that Donna structured her writing instruction influenced both assessment and evaluation practices and differential scaffolding factors in the Instructional Decision Making cluster. Donna primarily relied on classroom observations to inform her instruction, and the information that she gathered, often unconsciously, drove her scaffolded instruction. For example, she made adjustments in group tasks, content, and sometimes method of composing, as the need arose. At other times, Donna's scaffolded instruction did not appear to based on student need, however. She talked more frequently with the boys, particularly with Ryan, than the girls in the focal group, and had the fewest number of interactions with Figure 5 Influences on Donna's Differential Scaffolding 133 Marty and Denise who were among the lowest functioning students in the class. Therefore, while I have inserted an arrow from Assessment and Evaluation Practices to Differential Scaffolding, this is a rather weak relationship and therefore, is represented by a broken line. Notice also that Donna's teaching style influenced her provision of differential scaffolding. For example, during writing Donna provided direct instruction aimed at the class as a whole. Consequently, she did not typically pre-plan for individualized instruction or support (Fletcher et al., 1999; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995) and had difficulty reflecting on her practice in that way (Tomlinson et al., 1997). To summarize, Donna's classroom practice, and specifically her differentially scaffolded instruction, were influenced by her background, school and community contexts, and the nature of the students within her class. It is possible that the lack of knowledge of Aboriginal pedagogy, insufficient school supports and the challenging nature of the students, led Donna to tightly structure the classroom and her instruction. She provided the students with different types of supports, which were generally unplanned. Despite evidence of differential scaffolding, Donna had difficulty articulating these adjustments in her teaching practices. 134 CHAPTER 5 Results - Case Study #2 In this case study, I examine how Lorna differentially scaffolded instruction for her Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing instruction. I begin with a broad description of the community, school, classroom composition and physical arrangement, to provide an overall view of the learning context. Then I provide a detailed description of Lorna's approach to writing instruction as a frame of reference for the examination of her scaffolding practices. After this, I present the findings related to each research question, in light of these contextual variables. Lorna In order to understand how and why Lorna may have adjusted her writing instruction to support the needs of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, I examined potential influences from the community, school, students, and classroom organization. In the following section I describe the community surrounding the school where Lorna teaches, school initiatives and supports, class composition, including a summary of the writing abilities of the focal students, and the physical arrangement of Lorna's classroom. I refer to these contexts in later data analyses. Overview of the Teacher, Students, and School Setting Lorna is also a seasoned teacher with 13 years of teaching experience, most at the primary school level (il.l). She is Euro-Canadian and speaks English. The school where she teaches is located within the inner city area, which is predominantly low SES. As a result, the school offers a daily lunch program for all children. Many families in the area experience difficulties associated with poverty, such as poor nutritional habits, limited or seasonal 135 employment, and low literacy. None of the teaching staff lived in the school community at the time of this study, but many had been teaching at the school for a number of years. The principal stated that "it takes a special kind of person to teach here", because of the students' often difficult family circumstances. The teaching and support staff at Lorna's school chose to focus on writing in the school year in which this study was conducted. The principal encouraged teachers to attend related professional development opportunities. Lorna and other teachers on staff attended the same workshop on reading and writing, sponsored by the school district, as Donna. Lorna was eager to learn new skills that would enhance her reading and writing instruction, particularly since she had recently moved from teaching at the primary to the elementary level, which suggests that she was thinking metacognitively about her practice (Butler et al., in press). Unlike Donna, Lorna wanted to share with, support, and be supported by, another colleague in the school (Englert & Tarrant, 1993; Klinger et al., 1999; Perry et al., 1999). However, the other teacher of a 4/5 split had a different teaching style than Lorna, and therefore took a different approach to writing instruction. Consequently, Lorna felt that she couldn't collaborate or discuss her program with him, stating: "...I don't have that [support] with anyone anymore" (i2.397-398). Early in the research project Lorna mentioned that my presence was supportive, and that as a result, she was willing to try new ideas (i2.398-399,405-407). In the future Lorna and the Learning Assistance teacher intended to co-teach some Language Arts lessons. During this study Lorna taught 28 children in a combined grade 4/5 class, 11 of who were of First Nations ancestry. The school did not offer classes in First Nations languages; however there was a First Nations Support Worker whose roles were to assist the teacher, 136 and act as an elder, indicating the school district's effort to incorporate Native culture (Ashworth, 1980; B.C. Ministry of Education, 1998; ESL Standards Committee, 1999; Farrell-Racette et al., 1996; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998). Lorna felt that the First Nations Support Worker was ineffective, trying to balance these two roles. Although Lorna did not have any specific training in multicultural education or First Nations pedagogy, she had some experience adjusting instruction, because she had worked with special needs students in the past. She felt satisfied with her writing program and with her ability to meet the unique language, cognitive, and cultural needs of her students: ".. .I'm on the right track with what I want to do. It's my style and I think I'm meeting their needs (i2.403-404). Learning Assistance was provided to the school on a part-time basis. Approximately five of Lorna's students (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) received remedial support two days per week. Lorna felt that this was insufficient for the needs of the particular children. Four of Lorna's students were selected to be the focus of this investigation, two Aboriginal and two non-Aboriginal children. Based on observations, transcripts, feedback on student written work, and standardized assessment data, I provide a brief profile of each of the focal students, including his or her writing abilities, and the focus of Lorna's writing instruction for that child. Table 17 presents this information, with student names in the first column, followed by background, writing abilities, arid instructional focus in the next three columns, respectively. These profiles were important in order to understand how and why Lorna scaffolded instruction. For example, I later examined how the type and amount of support that Lorna offered Lisa, who was experiencing the most difficulty with writing, was different from that provided to the other focal students. 137 Table 17 Student Personal Characteristics and Writing Skills Student Background Writing Skills Instructional Focus Aboriginal . Karen Had transferred from another inner city school this year. Quiet. Often erased writing while drafting. Began tasks quickly. At grade level in writing and reading. Understood the stages of the writing process. Received a B in writing on the last report card. mechanics organization meaning Lisa Attended Learning Assistance for remediation in reading and mathematics. Frequently erased work. Slow to begin task. Often looked around the room. Often forgot or lost homework. Minimal parent support. Changed schools 4 times in past 5 years. Previously attended band-run schools. Below grade level in reading, writing, and mathematics. Had many ideas but difficulty expressing orally or in writing. fluency mechanics pre-planning Non Aboriginal Bob Family problems at home. Some behavior problems in the past. Had a broken arm in a cast during the study. Wrote with his non-dominant hand. At grade level in writing, but below in reading. Received a C in writing on the last report card, which was lower than Lorna expected. mechanics fluency organization Misty Sociable, outgoing. A frequent contributor to class discussions. Often asked for task clarification. Not critical of her own work. Didn't always follow the stages in the writing process. At grade level in writing and reading. Received a C in writing on the last report card, which was lower than Lorna expected. mechanics organization revision The physical characteristics of Lorna's classroom provided additional contextual information for this investigation. The classroom was large, with a main teaching and seating area, and a sink and fountain along a side wall, which the children could use when needed. The students' desks were often arranged into small groups, or positioned in ways other than the traditional arrangement of rows facing the front chalkboard. At the beginning of the study their desks were organized into small groupings, and then later moved into horizontal rows parallel to the front chalkboard, and near the end of the project, the desks 138 were moved into the shape of a horseshoe. Student work (written and art) was displayed on bulletin boards around the room. As well, there were functional posters identifying sharing groups (ph3), criteria for marking written work (ph5), and various text structures (ph8). The physical description of the classroom suggests that Lorna was flexible about the structure of the classroom. In summary, Lorna teaches at an inner-city school within a high-needs community. Many of the children in Lorna's class had troubled family lives. Almost half of the children were of First Nations ancestry. Lorna wanted to support and collaborate more often with the supports available within the school. Despite the above learning conditions, and Lorna's limited experience with multicultural and specifically Aboriginal education, she was satisfied with her ability to meet the diverse cultural needs of her students. In this section I have outlined contexts that could influence Lorna's view of herself as a teacher and how she adjusted her instruction to meet the needs of her students during writing activities. In the following section I provide further background information to situate Lorna's differentiated scaffolded instruction; I describe in detail how Lorna delivered her writing lessons, the writing tasks typically assigned, and the foci of her writing program. The Teacher's Approach to Writing Instruction In order to understand the purpose and types of scaffolding supports that Lorna provided her Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, it is essential to understand the specific instructional context. To do this, I examined Lorna's writing instruction in two ways, as I had done with Donna. First I reviewed the data inductively for any evidence related to how Lorna structured her writing instruction, her method of delivery, and aspects of writing she 139 emphasized. Second, I re-analyzed the data in light of recommended practices in literature on Writing Workshop (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). Lorna's writing instruction: An inductive analysis. The classroom climate and the way that Lorna organized her writing instruction were very different from Donna's. Lorna's approach was more student-centred and she encouraged interaction. She stated "I find I have to be very flexible and be open to change.. .I'm pretty flexible at reading where a student is at and can analyze a process for them to attain success" (il .2). Her main goal for the class was to "build community" early in the school year (il.2; mcl.l). She felt that it was important for the students to feel "safe" and for the teacher to be "non-critical" and "non-judgmental" (mcl.l). Once this rapport was established, she believed that the writing process would flow more smoothly (tal). At the same time, however, Lorna felt that it was essential to "establish guidelines and behavioral expectations for all" at the beginning of the school year if instruction was to be effective (il.2). Lorna's primary mode of instruction was interactive. She often stood at the front of the room, modelling the task and eliciting student input. The students were encouraged to contribute during instruction, and often went to the front of the room to demonstrate a skill or to share their written work. After instruction Lorna circulated around the room, stopping when a student asked for help, or checking on students who she thought may have difficulty with the writing task. During independent seatwork, the students were allowed to move about the room without asking permission, provided that they were on-task. Lorna encouraged her students to set goals for themselves and to self-assess these goals. Every month the students evaluated their work habits and set goals for the following month. The students were also encouraged to self-assess their own writing (sw8.1,2; sw9.1,2; 140 swlO.l; swl 1.1,2; i2.330; j9). Assignments that were used for reporting purposes were graded combining both teacher and student evaluation. Lorna stated that she "adjusts evaluation" to balance out any major grading inaccuracies that the students may award themselves (i2.329-340). Lorna also told the students how much she respected them and valued their ideas and efforts. During an acrostic lesson one student asked about the use of alliteration: Student: I thought, you could do this, like an L word after an L word. Lorna: No. No. Just the first one. Thank you for picking that up. There's a special term we call those kind of words but we won't Student: Alliteration. Lorna: Good for you. Wow.... (tl.202-209) Then, during a follow-up lesson when the students edited her acrostic poem, Lorna shared her feeling of pride for the students because they referred to the editing strategies that she had taught: "I'm really proud of you because you used this and you tried to use the five skills that we do. You tried to find out if it needed capitals or punctuation. You tried to see if things made a complete thought, if they were interesting.. .That was really well thought out. I'm very, very proud of you" (t3.57-62). As I indicated in Chapter 3, the writing lessons that I observed in Lorna's classroom were mainly of two types - genre writing and specific skill. The genre writing lessons were the backbone of Lorna's writing program. She planned her lessons around five main genre units: beginning the year with poetry, then narrative, descriptive, expository, and eventually moving on to persuasive, each which she expected would take approximately one to two months. During each genre unit the children created several different pieces, following the stages of the writing process. Lorna's writing program focused on both mechanics and meaning, reflecting the dual emphases she placed on genre writing and specific skill 141 development. This dual focus was demonstrated in the written feedback that Lorna provided on student written work. For example, on Lisa's descriptive paragraph about her dog, Lorna commented on both mechanics and meaning: "I can tell you loved this dog and you wrote so much. Well done! Can you re-read it and see if you can make the ending part clearer. Also, never start a sentence with AND" (sw9.2). On Misty's paragraph about her mother, Lorna focused on different writing components. She asked, "Can you explain why you say this Misty? Since this is a story, how should one sentence connect with the next" (swlO.l)? Specific skill lessons focused on spelling and practice with mechanical features such as punctuation and capitalization. In general, the evidence from this inductive analysis indicates that Lorna had a warm and responsive approach to instruction and included lessons on genre and specific skills, emphasizing both meaning and mechanical aspects of writing. Lorna's writing instruction: Compared to Writing Workshop. In addition to the general observations noted above, I also compared Lorna's classroom and writing instruction to the practices recommend in the Writing Workshop literature (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983), as I had done with Donna. To do this I reviewed the data and sorted evidence as consistent or inconsistent with Writing Workshop recommendations. Table 18 presents this evidence in the form of description, paraphrase, or direct quote. The evidence in Table 18 indicates that Lorna's writing instruction was highly consistent with the principles of Writing Workshop (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). She addressed multiple genres over the course of the study, encouraged student choice and ownership in their writing, taught the four stages of the writing process, desired teacher-student conferences, encouraged experimentation with CN (D e o HJ CD o a CD •a "> W c CD CO. a o o c HH -4—* C CD C/3 • r-1 C/3 s o u I o o C/J C+H O CO O in •a CD -4-» o 03 ol X5 u c £ to co c o o _c c g ii °l cu > •8 £ SI ^ i CU i-O CL co r-- T" i-g S °? £ co CD «-5 CO g LO •C CD O LO CZ 1-"55 °2 a* x r~ ®CN > oq TD r-" ro £2 c TZ 00 r~." LO + CN ^ si 55 CO CD 7 co ro •Si LO CO CD c LO CO CO Y"~~ 00 CN CO to co CN CO_ 3 co CO CN • ^ • CN : CN T co ^-X -D CD . . *" CO co ^ 2 A z: O ro r>» > (0 00 co i £ o> «? Co™ CN •1- CN CD —1 u 3> <" X c JO c 0 o TJ » JZ £ CO >= •2 O 2 c 5 o To >. C TJ 'i tl 11 5 g X CD ** CO CO C c "z: ~ ZJ •c: TJ 5 co TJ Tz c CU ro TJ CD 3 .C (O TJ CU ro JZ - cu — o 05 -r-CN CO I » *5 CN ^3 CO °? CO CD 1- 2W CD _ a- CO ^ !8 ro JS TJ O w CD O £ .—. co co 1— .-OJ T— LO 3; £ co ? ^ 3 o io JO *- CO m =0 Lri ro ~ <" LO LO OJ CO CO CD O O k_ CL CD ^ £ CU 00 c § T5 co • £ £ CO (0 JZ CZ CU 2 " 3 CU CD TJ S co C C CD CD CD JZ ^ CO C0"°. C CD UJ £ ™ co — JZ TJ . «- CD_ LO ro. rJ >*- CO co S CN ro v-~ r-" C ' CO OQ O CD CN S °°. _i *^co UJ OJ CD TJ > £ .2 ro I| ro o E E co O CU CN —I TJ CN uj ro O JZ _ o <" O TJ £ c c ro CD 21 E w CU >i &^ « CCN CD O CO TJ co .-cu -c- c ? 2 I iz- CO JD u E co ro o i ^£ T x E tM <" O sei co ro co -2 J3 o 2 1-LO £ o 00 CU "2; o) a £ E ro g. 'g r CD CL U) Tf TJ r~ B 10 to T H- ro co .2 co_i c _ TJ .t; s 5 f Si o .s1 '© "2 s s ®^ 1.2^-P CO cu = CO -JZ ZJ CO CO O CD JZ £ V CD ro 2 c c ^ t t CO O O z: 1 1 1 ro co .2 JZ x, -1 cu £ •c £ .•ti *- ro TJ UJ CO 2 3 tz > ro cu cu o CO co 5 £ UJ . . o cn T— T— 00 CN £| UJ O g TJ '> cu cu TJ H •Be O CO zz -la UJ cu c CD (3 £ CL ^,co • -• LO LO -i-£ S . . CO CO • -CD -iz-co CO CN Si co uj si 'r" o CD -C= OJ « •A co w t TJ '—• c c ro •2CN uj 00 CLO x 00 CD ^ co o 1£ cu ro iz CO CO * ro _ £ OJ" co <*l UJ CN CD • 0 CO !i °6J-««•>: D.CN UJ c\i ro T-cu 3 .t; co 5 LO 1 co" 2 CN COCN £ co JO 5; cu .; 3 LO_ TJ CN £ co_ ro CN —I UJ c CD l_ CD !t TJ Tz cu UJ cu u CL cu CO ro TJ JZ CO CU i IIP 3 to I cu OJ? UJ TJ TJ _ ^ £ £ cn ro H-£^ro CO O CU CO cu £^-" o JO OJ c JO 1- c CD 1 g r- cz cu CO 2 £ ^ £ c: "—' *^ — m -C * o "cu S= ro •a S cu 2 8 S E p _ ? cu ••i S11 •c £ 3 T5 o g> ^1 co £ CD <0 co£ ro CD UJ J2 C? Q, 2 sz o TJ 1= ro -P o o £ So CO o < CO CO UJ c cu i= CD •z: ro 5 co CO 2 £ cn Q-CD '-ZZ! > c ro ^= I— TJ O "5 =) o Q 3 O = DC 3 CL ~ hr LO" LL .— ro c LO CO CO CO ^ co$E •>* CD CO UJ <; CD DZ CD£ CD CU CO CU UJ W CD2 C ZJ E o ro o cu ^ UJ CO 2^ CD 21 1 i CD ZZ-CL CO CO ro iS TJ O „- >- <u "C tt O £ "5 cu uj JZ TJ CU .ti CD CD •g UJ C CD CD JZ UJ * CD'S E 2 UJ ro o JZ o « TJ £ c c CD CD i 21 c « CD ^ £^ O CO TJ CU T-^CD" O CO £T ra 3 0 >-cu cu £ £ j? o CO 0 o -O CD CD ^ CD 2 C E CD : £ ° CD £ T5£-to ® § £ co „j r^* T— . -T- LO ^ O {(J JO v 00" ^ ^ I"-" CO LQ" ro ^ w CO 3 CD" TJ 2 V 2 I § to I ^~ -c: c ? 2 I ^z- CD ra ra E & ~ c: in ro o I £1 ^£"§ T x E CN CD 5 §!! CD CD CD* £ JO o 2 LO £ O CN 2 CO 00 CD "S ^ CD 2 ? 3 c T: £ E ^ fZ o ro ro *= .2 JZ -o -1 cu £ •c: £ ^ ' • CO - <U >- co O CD o i£ _i JO _i TZ CO 1^1 i£| CO ..' TJ (0 UJ T— 1— a 3 t£ > CD CD .2 C TJ "3" 00 CN ™ 1 Jc^ 3 21 UJ CO !o 1 JO ra JJ i- cu Q LL cz cu cu "5 JZ 3 CD TJ CU a « s co £ CO CO c J= 2 i- <*> sz ^ C3) = I! < is 1 i •g 2 E g C = •te ° o co o CO CU c 5 S2 co o > cu — = JZ TJ -4= co •= co C U) — 5 »co cz ^ o ° 3 £ co co — cu *-T CJ t5 CJ CD CO 1 c co 2 0 CO CD JZ c — o '5 CU JD c *-O c O CJ TJ § la o £ L c «l c 2 O-o 3 o S Q XJ co O CN CO o ci 5 Q.. — cu . > " CO , CD — (0 c CU CU C J3 >.S TJ .£ O >N. CD ~ ttg JZ-_ t CD O ^ _ ra o -J-1 r~> o o ^ £ cn c ~ .E cu co o .£ B B -a -a -a 3 w 8£ cu t; CO co »j —i " : CD »J cz r~-l cu o o >%TJ ' LO LO cz cu T- CU CO |00 JZ CD ca CL 'o ca CL CO +-> c , cu TJ r-> 3 10 to V 1 rc^ |2 co CO co_i ca 3 'of (D TJ <" SS 3 92 CO COO* c r~-TJ <N 2 r~-CJ oo C CN o r. n CD •S LO LO Tf 00 OJ CO CO Tt CO Tf CO t CO CN Tf LO E CD O CL Tf CD i- JZ JZ> C CN " CO CO JO u CD ro CN 2 c?~.E 00 l_ 1—' ro co JZ CN co cb CU T-1 4_l CD . -3 CN > CO CO ,-CD o ci? CO B in .. CU O) O CD 2 CN CL T!. C CN :•=• 9 * tt CU 3 B o O) ^1 2 ;= co'cu 2 £ CD .£ £s CU 00 ro • 3 CO c 'cu XJ TJ c ro cu CD CL CO JZ 'I o 5 CO cz a> ZZ ~ — £ * c 5 O CU |TJ > CU CU !S 'I o E N o 5 CD TJ O £ g ro JZ O M_ _i o c ^ I |eo ro XJ *-TJ TJ cu > cu £ T-, ro co CN TJ rn ^ CD . . : CO CO . •O CD CD CJ c .CU cu CL X cu CO CN S c O *" .CO LO TJ CO c CD CD *£ CN CO i ^ CO TJ |-ECM CD |— .2 6 00 CN O V O CN CO —' <- ^ '55 % JZ c •£ n rt ro *• JZ TJ CO CD CU CO TJ iz-1 E c cu TJ O C tt ro. » S~ CD $2-5 i ro LO CU 1 T—^ TJ CN 2 • " CO CD T JZ c O tt CU CO^ CO . . 00 CO CO _i cn co TJ CO 3 co CD JZ TJ o io TJ C CD ro oo >>co to LO T- ro^f 5 CN CO •£ T-; • - CD CO • T3 ZZ-<§ 2 o 3 co -4= co i_ co cu o il B u "o. CJ ro ro cu co IcJ'l « c"§ o- ro S = w m CU "•>. CD XJ ^JZ 3 -2 2-Tl -S-S CD CD CO —I O co co ,—. «3 CJJ ^ CM TJ V <" co •5? cu co H Tf TJ V co CN C cq-5) co -z: •tz- o CO cu EB cu c o •£ tt.t; O 'cu -t—' -> CJ co 2 ju ro o 1? c TJ ro 2 5 XJ cu CD J. W «5 •{= co §) £ O C JZ •S c B g CO CD Tf c o V* Tf Tf ro 3 op 3 co CO O c LO nd i CO TJ (0 TJ C 2 CO CD £10 •2 CM-CO N 3 ro U LO o CO ' H— T— ' cn 3; c co CU LO'i 2 =H "C3 3 2 co ro LO cu E 3 j<: co O LO CO TZ cu JE > Tf -Sco Tu °? oo CO LO Eoo CO LO CO T-i— tu ^—^ Q. T— CO CO tt 3 •4— CO co jy • CO c\i CO MS loo • - o T tz 3 o co JZ tt co 2 E CO cu ro od par o i_ to CD o JZ o u— ro o *»— >. o tt >. o Q. o o TJ u O O na CO ;;— cu ro JZ XJ CD CD on wr po. o Q. pa XJ c u ro XJ cu 2 2 TJ 55 CU 3 CO So c C T-cu cu • TJ 3 CO CO tz. cu .co v. 3 =: (0 CO B o o 2 co o CO o CU CO o c . CD CO c 'o c O CU c cu 18 £E CD CD JZ JZ CJ •— 5S 05 2 .£ CU CD j? E TJ •> TJ c TJ cu cz c JO tt cu JZ CO CO TJ JZ c c ^ co cu i- -p E £ S CU ^ TJ ro E?2 to-| <" cot ^ C 3 CD 43 k- TJ — ro TJ cu o 3 TJ CD o tt CD CN Is §..9-> CU CU JZ JZ . CO i TJ CD N > CD sr oi = 3r TJ g ~ ro •O JZ cu ro jo 3 ^ C CO ro 2 .E ^B i— CO CU cu co .a B 2 XJ CJ ^ £ tt00 £ co Jo CO CD^ ro !2 T-C > CO _1 tt^. _l JZ JU *- ^ o o c 3 XJ co « g XJ o c C CD ro CD Etz o o CJ CD ro c tj 2 = 1° CO CL c CD TJ 3 CO co cu , CJ Tf •2 c? = ! ^ "2. 3 o £ Q-co i5 T3 yi o £^ •—CD «s| C — o CD CO X) TJ — -i^ CO T r-«" <§LCS to CO Tf (0 66 ^-l 5 °? LO eo LO pfl LO ^ LO CO y, . . c 3 3 10 CO co TJ CO O i_ XI CD C £ <L> *- CO CO — co CO JD 2= TJ 2 CD 3 ii g JO CD ta o C CD t CO O CO _l £1 c ° £ TJ — ra hi T- CD D) co g 3 § o E 3* CO o CO CD £ CD ™ ^ S CJ •= ja CO £ CD CO CD co JZ = ° £ >»•- «-E co ra 2 ocof TJ CD 3 •£ o CO 3 E _ o co CD ^! CD > TJ CM ** CO c ™ 3 TJ o £ CD CO I-£ o £ >• CO = 3 ra o CD jg 1 & *- CD 2 To CO co c ra 2 C CD —i TJ .ti CD *fc 3£ tt 00 ez> c ^ £ £ § LO ET To1 W LO co CD _^ £ JS OD 2 c CO s Ei CO CO CO CO CD tt -c: EZ •*-• CD c "2, <5 co 'co 1 8 ra g co )I £ g 8 ° &8 Ti-s1 CD 5 x CD CD 11 .a £ T' co co .t; c a. CD co c °5 co * o x 'c CL co ra JZ o CD CO CO t CD CO co >> CD 2 £ to CO o CD CL C X CD «2 co c " CD ll w co = c co^ o £ * CJ CO £ CD j»f c. c 15 CD fe "c CO 3 E T5 CD CO JZ C I? .2 CM 2 |x" E cz O 3 CN tz CD 1 CD ifc TJ TJ CO CD •a c ca LO tt CO c co o cn To CD TJ o x B cn c ID CL co Tz CD L. CD it TJ M— O 3 O •a ^ CD •<-TZ CO o 2. to CD Tz TJ CD 3 "CJ tt £ 3 « 10 CB LO = T3 O _ C !ti co 'cn -OLQ CO Jz 9 E CD Tf X CD i-XJ O CO *• fe. CO ^aj CD > CD c o E JD O C 00 3 T-co £ 3 CD C cn c CD JD jg 3 o 3 CO LO CNI CD OJ > ^; 'CD ^ u co co" ^z> co ra £ o 2 fe ^> O CD .2 co g^ JO >. o To CD «» 1 Hi CD ; c CD CD 1 £ Tt r: 1 c CO *-CO ^ CD c CO £ ^ •o c ._ CO g cn J2 c x-11 3 2 O b iii! Ss •a co 3 "a » £ |i iz o TD _I D5. c g o E_ ?! 2 c CO T3 cn c to o CL E o o tZ T3 O C " CO CO c g co 2 > |S « 2s O 3 CO o £ H i_ o> O CN CD ' JZ S £ JZ o S3 g> CD CD "O "53 co •° co CO CD r- C CD cn 3 g-to g Cl CD tt O £ CD CO •O O CO -CO JD CN c-o" O Soo" —i £ csi si 3 £ £ ci •o ra 2 e CO CD x -o CO c O 3 11? CD ra CO CD O CJ JZ c ~ CO £ Ti c CD 3 O §.ra CO CD £ > ~ JD ro 2 co £ co CD >> fe CD CL JZ X t= CD g CD O 2 J= «- CD C ^ o = •o CN 1 LO CO 5 LO to LO Z Tf 05 O CN i CN O CN JD O O 3 Tl "> CO-rj £ c CN 00 L" 3 O CO S.LO 10 °"> to eo c E o 2 CO CO jg CJ) CJ co ! ro ° jg CO CO c c To ' c >- cn ~ CD C 1=1 > 3 3 .<° T3 XI cn-o 5 CD £ co 2 8 CD CL 3 to £ > Tz > CD ro TJ c <S5 CD £ CO jz ra •-o co CO c £ £ ra -Tz CD eu 5 c c;o O 3 N 3°^ o o E ragS ££^ CO "n_ "*~[ J= CD ® co o ~ c o — o ra — E -o CD c £ •a ro _ c CD E SZ co "5. E o o o „ CO CO T3 £ CO CO ,— co C 05 O T_ a= CN CD co" to \Z . . C 1-CD Tf •a co 5Tf eo T-•§Lh" •SLC3 CO i CL£ Jz<LO <" 2 -CLOO °LO g d O CM —I CO CD CO £ 5 £CN LO CD 3 CO TZ LO O CO 3 V TJ CM C CO ro 3 --. fe 00 £ *-8 j2" CD ^ CO i co co ro cn J. CO — CO *i o 3 c CD c CD JZ co co CD eo .—. to CO CO X J. ^ 1/1 > o CL O ifz O) CD i_ TJ m 3 eo to CO CO X CD — eo o 2 co Cp !_ HL CD 2 to CO o O CL ~ co c o CO CO tt CD c CD . TJ . £ CO ^z 3 <" R £ co" LO" ra r-"CM i° 3 —I co oo £ c? £l 11 £ 2 to 21"! o ro LO i a ra£ < Q. 3 eo c o CO eo CD TJ CD CJ ro CL ro o II TJ CO C C eo ix CD CO 2 rn 3 CO o £ o j«: c ro LU I— CO g. I— 'C ra CO CD CD -I OJTJ 2 CD 3 £ ig » LU 2 in TT co ro CD TJ CD CO O ••-» ro c o o TJ CD x: CD CO D C CD TJ c CD CL CD TJ c CD 52 CD -C CO CD ro o CL co o 0) XJ ro CD XJ o 3 CD SZ CO o co >. O) CD " ro CO c TJ ro CD -o co CDC? 2 co zi co o ro. o ,-sf *- CM CD CD ro w .<2 co _i ** ro CM *- LO ro -i-c • 3 146 writing styles, and promoted the development of independent, self-monitored writing. At the same time, evidence also revealed instruction which was not consistent with the principles of Writing Workshop (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). It is difficult to know the reasons for Lorna's adherence to, or exclusion of, certain Writing Workshop practices since she had difficulty articulating the connection between student needs and instruction. As I did in Donna's case study, I will address each of the writing characteristics separately, elaborating on the evidence presented in the table. To begin, Lorna did expose her children to, and provided many opportunities to write in, various genres and text structures, including narrative, descriptive, expository, and poetry (tal. 1,2,3; tl.170-176; d4.14; t7.171; tl3. 7,8,72-74,187-194,256-259; U4.39-331; U6.11-13, 32-37; fnl7.1-6; fnl8.1-10; 12.217-223; swl,2,3; sw4.2,3,6; sw5.2,5,7; sw6.2,3,5; sw7.2-5,7,8; sw8.1,3,4,6; sw9.1,3,5; swlO.1,2,4; swl 1.1,3,4,6; swl2.1-4,9,10; swl3.1-4,9,10; swl4.1-4,8,9; swl5.1,2,4,6,7). She was introducing the students to reading responses at the end of the project. Lorna believed that instruction in reading and writing text structures should be connected, and began to do this explicitly during the novel study of Charlotte's Web(d4.1;j22;i2.217-233). . Another characteristic of Writing Workshop is to provide opportunities for student choice and ownership, for example, by allowing students to select topics that interest them, choose the genre and style of writing, and make decisions about suggested revisions. A student's choice of topic was of paramount importance to Lorna, regardless of the genre studied. At the beginning of each unit, each student created a list of potential topics that would be suitable for the genre (Appendix L). These lists were generated with the help of a parent (sw4.8; swl 1.4; tl 3.290-303). For example, for the descriptive genre unit, Lisa's list 147 included "All about Roties", "Family", "Fish", and "My Cat" (swl4.1), while Bob was interested in writing "All about Totem Poles", "The Sun", and "Hunting" (swl3.1). Lorna also fostered choice and student ownership over writing by giving the children the freedom to accept or reject suggestions for revisions that were made by their peers (t3.76-77), and by allowing them to decide which piece they wanted to take to the final stage of the writing process (j5; ta5;d4.14;tal.l). Further, she respected a student's decision to share his or her writing with the group, or to pass (fn4.5, 8, 9; fn5.5; fhl2.9). One aspect of Lorna's writing program that did not allow for choice was the designation of genre for each unit of study. Again, it is difficult to be certain of Lorna's pedagogical intention of structuring writing instruction in this way. As I have outlined earlier, a key feature of Writing Workshop is a focus on the writing process. Recall that the writing process typically includes four stages: Brainstorming and Planning, Draft-Share-Feedback, Revising, and Presenting the Final Product. Lorna incorporated the writing process into each genre unit, but unlike Donna, she specifically taught each of the four stages as part of the entire process of composing. During the idea generating stage (Brainstorming and Planning), Lorna encouraged the students to get their ideas down, even if their writing was messy. The students were required to use a brainstorming technique, such as free-writing, listing or webbing, before generating a first draft (t6.102-107; U3.7-191; jl; tl8.35-43,128-191; ta3; fn5.1-8; jl4; sw4.2,3; sw5.2,5; sw6.2; sw7.2,3,5; swl2.2,3,9; swl3.2,3,9,10; swl4.2,3,8; swl5.2,4,6). Lorna reminded her students, ".. .you were webbing the ideas on your topic or you were free-writing, which is in a way kind of like a list, except that you don't stop to think about what you're putting down" 148 (16.91-96). There was a poster in the classroom that graphically presented various ways to generate and organize ideas (ph7). The next stage of the writing process involves students drafting text, then sharing their draft for the purpose of receiving feedback and suggestions. Within each genre unit, Lorna demonstrated how to draft a paragraph using previously brainstormed ideas (tl4.35-43, 128-191; fnl7.1). Many samples of student work demonstrated this skill (sw4.6,7; sw5.7,8; sw6.5; sw7.7; swl2.4,10; swl3.4,10; swl4.4,9; swl5.3,7; tl4.354-576). It was common for the children to share their completed drafts with the entire class and receive peer feedback (tl.423-369; 12.59-86, 120-127, 273-275). Sometimes this sharing focused on particular aspects of the text structure, for example, the opening and closing sentences (U4.578-641; tl6.42-166,321-395), or headings and subheadings (U9.55-129) that the students had written. The children also shared their writing with a peer or family group (ph3), in order to receive feedback and suggestions for further revisions (t2.211-269; fill 2.1-7;m 18.4-9;tl6.273-320;tal; j6). Each student had an "appointment" schedule posted on the back wall. The schedule was in the shape of a clock, with the name of one other classmate at each of the points on the clock face. A student would meet with a peer when Lorna said, for example, "go to your one o'clock appointment". Lorna stated that sharing was a vital component of the writing experience (tal.l; j6), so she paid particular attention to how the children responded to each other while sharing their written works. Lorna fostered a class climate of acceptance so that the children would feel comfortable about sharing their written work. She modelled how to be a good listener, which included saying "Thank you" to the author and stating what she liked about the piece 06; t2.140-162; U2.237-270; ph9; U6.238-255). On different occasions Lorna debriefed 149 with the class about their listening and sharing experiences (t2.341-369; tl6.321-395; fnl2.8). Lorna: You had station number nine, appointment number nine. Anyone want to share what happened? Sorry. I'm sorry, we couldn't hear you because we had some movement here. Pardon? Student: I, I (can't hear her) Lorna: You thought he lost, he learned, did you share that with him? Right? Did? Did? Good. . You liked it? What comment did they tell you about your writing. Student: That I had to do some corrections. Lorna: You had some corrections. Spelling? Or what kind of corrections did he, did he qualify? Student: Spelling and some, like (can't hear him) Lorna: Okay, good. . Student: Um, Bob said that he liked a certain part because it said plants have green leaves and stalks unless they are dead. Then they are brown and crispy. Lorna: And he thought, he liked that part? Student: He started to laugh. Lorna: He started to laugh. Ah, okay. Student: liked the part when told him if he didn't have any muscles, he couldn't lift anything. Lorna: (Laughs) So it's a sense of humour he liked. Is that what he was getting at? He laughed? Student: Yup. (U6.321-351) The next stage of the writing process focuses on revision, using the feedback and suggestions that were offered in the draft-share-feedback stage. Lorna's writing instruction included revision, and she shared the responsibility for revising and editing with the children. For example, in some instances Lorna corrected student work (sw8.1; sw9.1; swl0.1; swl 1.1); at other times the children self-edited and group-edited their work (t3.12-34, 62-143; t21.15-130). Lorna insisted that any writing which would go to the final presenting stage be revised first. On one occasion Misty asked Lorna if it was really necessary to make revisions, to which Lorna unequivocally replied, "yes" (t. 123-129). There were some editing activities that did not involve actual student writing. Rather, the children made corrections of 150 sentences that were provided in a workbook (t6.11-90; t8.14-144; fnl0.1-5; sw4.5; sw5.4,6; sw6.1-4;sw7.4,6; swl2.2,5-8; swl3.5-7,9; swl4.5-8; swl5.3,5,6). Most of the above examples of revising focused primarily on correcting capitalization, punctuation, and spelling, rather than on the more substantive modifications that are typical of Writing Workshop. Lorna may have chosen this particular focus for revision, believing that in doing so her students would become better writers. The final stage of the writing process involves students sharing their completed pieces with the larger group. Recall that one purpose of this is for the author to receive encouragement and complements about his writing. There was little evidence of this stage of the writing process in Lorna's writing instruction. The one clear example of the final stage occurred at the beginning of the study, when the students produced a final copy of their acrostic poems (swl.l; sw2.1; sw3.1). However, typically, the children did not re-print edited work from their scribblers in order to present to the class. Interestingly, the children expressed excitement when they were permitted to write their good copies on loose-leaf paper (fn21.10), with the assumption that these works would be displayed or presented in some way. As noted previously, teacher-student conferences are an integral part of the Writing Workshop philosophy (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). During these conversations the teacher has the opportunity to review student progress, discuss ideas for future writing, hear why the student has chosen a particular piece to share with the group, and learn what aspects of the writing the student is satisfied with or wants to revise. Although Lorna included individual conferencing as part of her Language Arts year plan (tal .4), and she believed that these conferences would provide her with an opportunity to 151 give specialized help to some students (d2.12), she was reticent to incorporate them with her particular group of students. She was concerned that during these conferences the remainder of the class would get out of control (mc3.1). She said, ".. .not this bunch.. .They'd just....I'm not willing to risk that. Not yet. It's just too exhausting" (i2.107-116). She held out hope that the children would have better behavioral control later in the year. Another aspect of the Writing Workshop approach is mini-lessons, which are intended to be an opportunity for the teacher to address, in a small-group setting, specific problems or aspects of student writing. Lorna's writing instruction minimally reflected this characteristic. Although there was one occasion when the entire class reviewed the criteria for evaluating a piece of Misty's work, this mini-lesson was not geared specifically to address the needs of particular students (t21.19-127; phl2). This was similar to Donna's notion of mini-lesson. Once again, it is unclear why Lorna made this modification to the Writing Workshop recommendation because she had difficulty articulating the intention of particular aspects of her practice. Individually paced instruction is another recommendation of Writing Workshop, and it too was minimally reflected in Lorna's writing instruction. Early in the year Lorna had set a modest goal for Lisa's writing: "just to use words" (mcl.l; fn5.9). As well, the grade 4 and 5 students used different spelling textbooks (fnl5.17), and near the end of the research project, the grade 4 students were beginning a novel study that was different from the grade 5 novel (d3.1). In most other cases, however, both grade levels did the same writing tasks (all except lesson #15). Lorna stated that it was unrealistic for her to adapt or modify instruction based on the needs of individual students (i2.48-49). Instead, she planned instruction that was suitable for the "broad base" of students (il.2). 152 Two other characteristics of Writing Workshop are to encourage students to take risks and experiment with their writing, and to develop self-regulated writing habits and skills. There were numerous instances in Lorna's writing instruction that reflected these particular characteristics. In terms of risk taking, recall the importance that Lorna placed on creating a safe classroom climate. Lorna stated, "I'm trying to build on free expression and acceptance of our writing and understanding of how our minds work.. .1 like how they try, if I try.. .1 like the comfy zone that is building in the classroom" (j4). The data also show that Lorna supported the development of self-regulated writers in several ways. For example, she encouraged the children to mark (sw4.5; sw5.1,3; sw6.1,4; sw7.1,23,4,6; t8.93-144; fnlO.l-5; swl5.3,5; swl4.5,7; swl3.5,7,8; swl2.5,7; t6.85-88) and evaluate their own work (sw8.1,2; sw9.1,2; swlO.l; swl 1.2; i.2.334-340; t21.132-135; jlO). The evaluation criteria were posted at the front of the classroom and were used for various types of student writing (ph5). Each aspect of writing was scored out of one, for a total of 5 points: 1 - neatness (double space, printing) 1 - mechanics (indenting, capitals, punctuation) 1 - sentences (complete thought, interesting) 1 - spelling (correct, use dictionary) 1 - meaning ("hamburger", opening sentence, middle, end sentence) Total - 5 points In self-evaluating her story, Karen wrote, "I think I should get 4 because it is not neat. It is sloppy" (sw8.2)!! Self-regulated learning was also encouraged when Lorna taught Lisa to re-read her work so that she would be able to spot mistakes by herself: Lorna: ... .Okay, which one have you selected? Did you read it through? There are no mistakes? All right, I want you to read it through while I stand here and see what you come up with. Lisa: Rottweillers are named after a city called Rottweiller. Lorna: Just a sec. Start again. Lisa: Rottweillers are named after a city called Rottweiller. Rottweiller. They originate from the early Roman Empire, Byzan (pause) descendants from 153 [unaudible]. Many different breeds like New York and German. German Rottweillers are the biggest breed. If they have a large head and strong jaw, that's a sign of intelligence. They can live between eight and 16. They could weigh up to 150 or more. Rottweillers can have, can have up to 15 puppies. The puppies, the puppies, oh I made a mistake. Lorna: (laughs) You see, that's the purpose of reading it. (laughs) All you have to do is, you know, cross it off and put in the right one. (pause) Okay. (t21.152-177) Further, she gave the children the freedom to decide whether or not to make the changes suggested by others during the draft-share-feedback stage (t3.76-77). In summary, Lorna's classroom climate and instruction were student-centred in that she demonstrated respect for the children, valued their contributions to the learning process, and strove to create a setting that fostered independent learning. Lorna focused on both meaning and mechanical features during instruction and when providing feedback, shared the assessment and evaluation process with the children, and offered them the freedom to make choices about their writing. Her approach to writing instruction reflects most of the key aspects of the Writing Workshop philosophy (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). Lorna integrated the writing process while providing multiple opportunities for the children to write in different genres. She encouraged the children to take risks and experiment with their writing, and sought to develop their self-regulated learning skills and habits. There were three areas that were not strongly reflected in Lorna's writing instruction: pacing instruction to meet individual student needs, using mini-lessons to address specific skills with small groups of students, and providing a forum for the sharing of completed student writing, indicating that Lorna may have had difficulty implementing this particular approach to the full extent that the originators intended (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997; Klinger et al., 1999). It is also possible that Lorna made strategic changes to the Writing Workshop 154 approach, based on the needs of her students and her beliefs about effective writing instruction. To review, in this section I have provided an overview of the community, school, student, and classroom contexts for this study. I did this in order to identify and understand how potential environmental factors might influence Lorna's scaffolded instruction for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. As well, I described in detail Lorna's writing program, based both on an inductive analysis and on a comparison of her practices to those recommended in the Writing Workshop literature (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). This information was essential to understanding how and why Lorna differentiated her support in light of her instructional style, the types of writing tasks that she assigned, and the skills that were the focus of her writing program. Based on these contextual variables, I now discuss the findings related to each research question. Question 1: Identifying Individual Writing Needs To understand and explain how and why Lorna adjusted her instruction and support during writing lessons to meet individual student needs, I first examined how she determined the students' writing needs. I did this by analyzing the data from two perspectives, as I had done with Donna. First, I reviewed the data for all evidence related to assessment, evaluation and feedback practices without imposing an a priori framework. I then re-analyzed the data by referring to theoretical constructs identified in the literature review. Identifying Individual Student Writing Needs: An Inductive Analysis In order to understand how Lorna determined the writing needs of her students, I examined the data for any evidence related to writing assessment and evaluation, as well as evidence that indicated that Lorna was aware of unique learning needs, such as the feedback 155 that she provided orally and in writing on written student work. An analysis of the data suggested that, like Donna, Lorna relied primarily on daily classroom observations to guide and inform her practice (il.2). She did evaluate on the spot and keep records (scores) of approximately one writing assignment per week for each student, however, these were primarily for reporting purposes and later student goal-setting. The evaluation process was shared with the children; Lorna encouraged them to self-evaluate their writing. Through this process Lorna could learn how the students judged their written work and what they perceived were their strengths and weaknesses. However, Lorna had trouble articulating how this information influenced her instruction. This would suggest that Lorna relied primarily on two types of assessment strategies, rather than multiple methods (Ministry of Education, 1993, 2000), and that she was not conscious of the complete instructional cycle - plan, instruct, assess and evaluate, reflect, plan, instruct, assess and evaluate, reflect (Ministry of Education, 2000). Lorna did administer required standardized tests. However, she felt that the information that these measures provided to the teacher was too superficial to inform daily instruction. Like Donna, Lorna could also refer to the school district's Benchmarks to determine specific areas of strength and weakness in student writing. There was no evidence that Lorna incorporated this evaluation tool during the course of this study. The written and oral feedback that Lorna provided the focal students indicates that she was aware, perhaps tacitly, of the individual writing needs of both Native and non-Native students. For example, when Lorna felt that Misty could complete a writing task without adult assistance, she urged her to try the task by herself: Lorna: Let's go on to number three. Umm, umm, Misty, please. Yes, use the yellow chalk except for the one that might be optional, if there's any optionals. Misty: Okay, (writes on board) 156 Loma: (pause) Shhh. (pause) (Misty looks to Lorna for guidance) You're doing it, not me. (pause) (t8.93-99) Knowing that Lisa had difficulty getting started writing, on one occasion Lorna crouched beside her desk and began questioning to prompt and coach her along (tl .350-416). On another occasion Lorna noticed that Bob was also having difficulty beginning his writing. As she talked with him she discovered that he was concerned about his mother going into the hospital (tl9.181-219). Although this is not an example of writing feedback, it does demonstrate Lorna's awareness of individual student needs. In general, the above evidence indicates that Lorna gathered information about student writing abilities through daily observation and student self-evaluation, and that her written and oral feedback demonstrated awareness of different student needs. Identifying Individual Student Writing Needs: Compared to Existing Theory Next, I examined the ways that Lorna determined the writing needs of her students in light of the scaffolding and Writing Workshop frameworks. I did this to understand how Lorna's assessment practices were related to the supports that she provided to address individual student needs. Recall that the scaffolding element related to responding to the students' writing needs has been termed calibrated formative feedback (Butler, 1998), which means that the teacher provides tailored formative feedback that is appropriate for the student's ability and level of need. There was some evidence that Lorna provided feedback based on specific student needs. For example, during a group paragraph writing lesson Lorna encouraged Misty and shaped her understanding: Lorna: Alrighty. Now what about the very last sentence? Unhuynh. Misty: Like, like, they say in the, in that they were going to the hospital and then they said that they were leaving. Lorna: Okay, so what are you telling me at the end? Sorry, (laughs) 157 Misty: Well that, like Lorna: You're on the right road. I get what you're saying. Can you clarify it a little more? Misty: Um, like (pause) Lorna: Did it offer a finish? A finish at the emergency room and Misty: Yes. They went home. Lorna: Okay. It finishes it. (tl4.160-177) Lorna also provided feedback to the larger group when she noticed that several students were having difficulty with the task. For example, during a larger-group punctuation lesson, Lorna paused to clarify a specific rule (t6.26-88; t7.61-67). These examples show that Lorna was aware of differing student needs, and provided tailored feedback either individually or on a group basis. I also referred to two Writing Workshop characteristics - draft-share-feedback and teacher-student conferences - to identify other ways that Lorna may have determined student writing needs. In my previous analysis where I compared Lorna's writing instruction to Writing Workshop, I found that Lorna incorporated the draft-share-feedback stage of the writing process. She encouraged the students to reflect on their own and other's written work. The information from these sharing sessions could be useful to Lorna in determining student writing needs; however, it was not clear how the data informed her practice (Ministry of Education, 2000). The other aspect of Writing Workshop that I compared to Lorna's practice was teacher-student conferences. There was no evidence that Lorna incorporated teacher-student writing conferences to determine individual student writing needs. Like Donna, she intended to include these in her writing program in the future to determine special writing needs and to provide individual remediation or support. 158 To summarize, Lorna primarily used daily observations to guide her instruction, and this process was mainly unconscious (Ball, 1995; Butler et al., in press; Tomlinson et al., 1997; Vaughn & Klinger, 2000). Teacher- and student self-evaluation were also incorporated into Lorna's writing instruction, for both reporting purposes and for student goal setting. Students frequently shared their writing with peers, and this feedback could have augmented Lorna's classroom observations. The written and oral feedback that Lorna provided students indicates that she was aware of their differing levels of writing ability. Lorna did not, however, utilize teacher-student conferences as a means of identifying the writing needs of individual students. Next I investigate how Lorna scaffolded support for her Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students to address their identified writing needs. Question 2: Differentiating Scaffolded Instruction to Meet Diverse Cognitive, Literacy, and Cultural Needs In this section I summarize how Lorna's support varied based on the cultural, literacy, and cognitive needs of each student. In the following section I identify different types of supports that Lorna provided for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing activities. As I had done previously, I analyzed the data in two ways, first by examining all evidence without imposing an a priori structure, and second, by comparing Lorna's instructional practices to an existing theoretical framework. Teacher Scaffolding: An Inductive Analysis As a first step in interpreting the data, I inductively examined all data for evidence related to how Lorna adjusted her writing instruction to meet the diverse needs of her students. Although the literature identifies characteristics associated with scaffolded 159 instruction, in this analysis I wanted to learn, from the data, what differentiated scaffolded instruction looked like in Lorna's classroom. There were several instances where Lorna provided individualized support for students. For example, during an acrostic poem writing activity in which Lorna helped Lisa by breaking the task down, Lorna acknowledged Lisa's difficulty "Okay. What else? Okay, we'll come back to it. Remember that blockage" (tl .355). Lorna also supported students writing development by providing wait time, pointing in order to provide hints, rephrasing questions, and providing frequent encouragement and positive reinforcement. In this example, Lorna guided Karen through the process of creating an acrostic poem: Lorna: Okay. So what we want to do, Karen, is this. You want to go like this. The K, the A, R, E, N. Which one of those do you want to pick? Do you want kind to others (pause) clumsy person? Which one? (pause) So, out of the K, under the K, which one of those little sentences, those thoughts, do you want to pick? (pointing) Karen: Umm, I'm gonna pick (pause) This one. Lorna: You want to pick keepsake person? Karen: Keepsake person. Lorna: All right, put keepsake person... .Okay. Now, what about in the As, which one of those do you want to pick? Karen: That one. Lorna: Okay. Okay. Now do you understand what we're doing? Karen: Yes. Lorna: Good. (t2.483-507) Further, Lorna supported student writing by allowing students to write about topics with which they were familiar. For example, Lorna sent home topic lists at the beginning of each genre unit, as described earlier. Other ways that Lorna scaffolded instruction for her students were by modeling (tl.48-168; t3.12-57; fii5; t8.22-24; tl3.16-258; tl4.354-370) and encouraging student participation. Lorna invited students to offer ideas while she was modelling a skill or teaching a lesson. When demonstrating how to create an acrostic poem 160 using her own last name, she asked students to provide descriptors for each letter (tl.58-85). Another instance of student participation was during one of a series of lessons about opening and closing sentences. Lorna asked each student to share a sentence from their writing. "Read us your last sentence" (tl 6.53); ".. .everybody has to share .. .one of their headings" (U9.57); ".. .we're going to go along the line, boom boom, all the way around. Just your opening beginning sentence. Ready? Hit it" (tl4.578-579). These particular examples demonstrate Lorna's use of differential scaffolding with individual students and with the whole group. When asked what she considered were the best practices for teaching writing to ESL or minority students, Lorna stated that one should "teach to a broad base so that each student's ability can be respected" (il.2). Lorna did not plan for individualized instruction (Fletcher et al., 1999; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995), and did not view any of the above examples as representative of a special kind of support, such as differentially scaffolded instruction. It is possible that, like Donna, Lorna did not reflect on her practice in that way (Alexander et al., 1996; Duffy, 1993), perhaps because she indicated that she was intuitive and acted tacitly when students required assistance (d2.11) adjusting the task and lesson on the spot, if necessary (il.2; i2.30-34). Lorna was aware, however, of professional materials that could suggest instructional strategies appropriate for First Nations students, but she stated that at the moment, she was too tired to read this material or to make changes to her writing program (fnl0.8; fnl3.15). As a next step in my inductive analysis I developed a coding scheme that described teacher instructional moves (actions and words), which I explained in detail in Donna's case study (see Table 12). As I had done with Donna, I applied the coding scheme to selected transcripts, recording the frequency of each type of move across four of Lorna's lessons. 161 Table 19 indicates the percentage of each of Lorna's moves that were of each type overall, and for each lesson separately. I included data for four lessons; two of each type that was typical of the lessons observed during the course of the research project, Genre and Specific Skill (see Figure 2). Note that Table 19 reflects Lorna's moves with the class as a whole. Lorna supported students during writing instruction mainly by giving directions and feedback, asking questions that the students were expected to answer and asking rhetorical questions, as Donna had done. Notice how all of the other categories account for a smaller percent of the overall moves. Comparing moves for types of lessons revealed that there were slight differences between Genre and Specific Skill lessons. For example, Lorna asked more questions during Genre than Specific Skill lessons (14% and 12% compared to 7% and 7%, respectively). At the same time, she elicited student input slightly more during Specific Skill than Genre lessons. However, when the frequency of student input and questioning are combined, there was little difference between the two lesson types (17%> and 14%> compared to 13%> and 13%>, respectively). To examine how Lorna may have differentially scaffolded instruction to individual students I tallied the number of interactions that Lorna had with, and the type of teacher moves provided to, each focal student during the course of the study. I then compared these findings with the writing needs of the children that I presented earlier in this case study. First I counted the number of interactions that Lorna had with each focal student. Table 20 summarizes these data and shows that, overall, Lorna had more interactions with the focal students during lessons that focused on writing in a certain genre (n=27), than she did in lessons addressing mechanical issues (n=10). There were no interactions recorded for Lorna 162 Table 19 Percent of Teacher Moves by Type of Lesson -Lorna Lesson # and type Directing Student Choice Reiterates Student Explicit Opportunity Focus Attention Relates to Experience Respectful Feedback Wait time Model Strategy Student input Questioning Rhetorical questioning Genre 33 0 6 0 5 0 3 22 0 0 1 3 14 12 Genre 32 2 6 0 8 1 1 26 0 2 3 2 12 8 Specific 41 0 5 0 6 0 4 15 0 3 0 6 7 12 Skill Specific 30 3 6 1 8 0 3 26 3 1 0 6 7 6 Skill Overall 34 1 6 ••1 7 K •-• >. *<1" "3 22 ' <1 2 1 •A ' '10 10 Percent during the other lesson types, which is reasonable since these lesson types were observed less frequently than genre and specific skill lessons. Looking at trends between and among the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students revealed that overall, Lorna had more interactions with Misty (n=18), than with the other focal students (n=5, 9 and 5). The majority of the exchanges with Misty occurred during lessons that focused on a specific genre. A potential explanation for this difference may be that Misty was an avid participant in group sharing and discussions. Also notice that between the two Native students Lorna had more interactions with Lisa than Karen. This Calculations are based on all transcribed lessons. The bottom row of the table reports the overall percentages for each respective column. 163 difference is understandable given that Lisa was experiencing delays in writing and so would likely need more support than Karen, who was performing at grade level in writing. To analyze these interactions further, I looked at the type of teacher moves that Lorna provided to each of the focal students over the course of the study. I created a display (Table 21) showing the percentage of each teacher move used when interacting with each focal student. Table 21 presents both the total number of interactions and moves with each student, along with the percent teacher moves of each kind. In general, Lorna provided Direction and Feedback most frequently with the focal students during writing instruction (26% and 22%, respectively), as she did with the class as a whole (Table 17). This is also similar to the pattern I found with Donna, where she directed student learning and provided feedback more frequently than other types of support, both with the focal students and the class in general. The next most frequent type of supports that Lorna offered the focal students were asking questions that the students were expected to answer, and providing additional time for the student to respond (17% and 7%, respectively). However, with the entire class, the next most frequent supports that Lorna provided were questioning and rhetorical questioning for the purpose of prompting or pointing out important features in a task (10% each), rather than providing additional time for the student to respond (<1%). An example of providing wait time for the focal students was when, during one lesson when the children were drafting a paragraph from their web, Lorna questioned Lisa to support her writing, and paused on a number of occasions to allow her to consider the question: Lorna: All right, so what is going to be your opening sentence? Lisa: I don't know what to write. Lorna: ... .What are you talking about? Lisa: My fighting fish. 164 Table 20 Teacher - Student Interactions -Lorna Number of Interactions by Type of Lesson17 Student Genre Journal Writing Reading Response Specific Skill Other Total Interactions Aboriginal Karen 2 0 0 3 0 5 Lisa 5 0 0 4 0 9 Non Aboriginal Bob 5 0 0 0 0 5 Misty 15 0 0 3 0 18 Totiifc'' 'isill27 ••• 11111%* • 0- Mil 0 '" ^QlIIIP: v tV' 37 • Lorna: Your fighting fish. Okay. So, all of this information is about your (pause) fish. So we need an opening sentence that tells us what we're going to expect to find in this. What can you say (pause) what can you say? (pause) Now, let's go back and see what you wrote about it. You talked about what? How you (pause) clean, (pause) What it looks like, right? What's this one? The, oh, the, where you keep it. Right. So you talk about where you keep it, how you clean and look after it, the parts of the fish and what the fish does to defend himself against other fish. So what are we talking about? (pause) We're talking about? Right. Say it. Lisa: about my fish. Lorna: Okay, so, what do you want to say? What's an opening sentence that will tell us all this? (pause) Siamese, fighting, fish, what? (pause) What do you think about them? Lisa: They're just fun, they're fun fish. Lorna: Okay, let's do that. And then you can start. (U4.482-506) Another difference between the focal students and the larger class was in the instances of asking rhetorical questions (10% versus 4%, respectively), although this difference is slight. Calculations are based on transcribed lessons only. 165 Table 21 Teacher -Student Interactions - Lorna Percentage of Each Teacher Move for Each Student1 PERCENTAGE OF TEACHER MOVES Student total ^number of i interactions; Total number of teacher moves Directing Student Choice Reiterates Student Explicit Opportunity Focus Attention Relates to Experience Respectful Feedback Wait time Model Strategy Student input Questioning Rhetorical questioning Aboriginal • Karen 5 45 24 7 4 2 2 0 0 22 9 0 0 7 20 2 Lisa . 9 225 27 2 7 2 <1 0 0 20 8 3 6 2 18 5 Non Aboriginal Bob 5 18 28 0 6 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 28 6 6 Misty 18 101 25 2 5 4 2 0 2 25 4 2 1 11 14 3 Total 37 390 f;< >. • .»••- , -Overall Percent . 26 . 3 6 2 1 ,0 <1 22 7 2'-' ,4 6 ,17. 4 There were also differences in the type and degree of support between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. For example, Lorna provided more opportunities for Karen and Lisa combined (Aboriginal students), to make decisions about the nature of their writing, and whether they would share their written work with the larger group, than she did for Bob and Misty (non-Aboriginal) (9% versus 2%, respectively). This suggests that Lorna may have given the Aboriginal students more latitude in order to encourage their writing. Notice also, that the Native students were given more time to think about their response than the non-Native children (9% and 8% versus 0% and 4%, respectively). This finding is Calculations are based on all transcribed lessons. The bottom row of the table reports the overall percentage for each respective column. 166 understandable, since Lisa appeared to require more time to process language tasks. At the same time, the non-Native students, Bob and Misty, were asked to contribute their ideas and comments more often than the Native students (28% and 11% versus 7% and 2%, respectively). Again, this finding is understandable, given the possible reluctance of the Aboriginal students to share, particularly with the larger group, and Misty's willingness to contribute to class discussions and sharing sessions. Also notable across the two groups is that Lorna asked Bob and Misty (non-Aboriginal) fewer questions to check for understanding, direct attention, prompt, or guide the learning process, compared to Karen and Lisa (Aboriginal) (6% and 14% versus 20% and 18%, respectively). One possible explanation for this may be that Lorna relied on questioning to guide and sustain the lengthy exchanges that she had with Karen and Lisa during such activities as the acrostic poem. To summarize this portion of the inductive analysis, the data showed that Lorna varied the type of support that she offered the class as a whole during writing instruction. She provided direction and feedback most often, followed by questioning and rhetorical questioning to a lesser degree. These trends were relatively consistent across both the genre and specific skill lesson types and consistent across the focal group of students, with two notable exceptions. The Aboriginal children were given more opportunity to make writing decisions, and more time to process information before responding to the teacher, which may have been responsive to the writing challenges faced by some of her students and Lisa in particular. Other ways that Lorna differentiated support was in the number of interactions between Native and non-Native students. Interestingly, Lorna interacted more frequently with the non-Native group, especially Misty, whose writing skills were at grade level. One possibility for this may have been Misty's eagerness to contribute to class discussions and 167 her willingness to share her written work with the group. Lastly, Lorna solicited student ideas and comments more often from the non-Native students, which could be expected, since these children had no identifiable language difficulties that would inhibit their participation. In general, Lorna differentially scaffolded instruction to the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students in predictable ways, with the exception of the number of interactions that she had with each of the students within these groups. In addition to analyzing the type and frequency of teacher moves with the focal students, I analyzed the content and length of these exchanges to determine if there were other ways that Lorna differentiated her instructional support. To do this, I reviewed all of the conversations that Lorna had with each of the focal students (Native and non-Native) and summarized the content of these interactions. With Lisa and Karen (Native), Lorna's interactions were generally focused on guiding the student through the task and providing encouragement and feedback. The intent of other interactions was to encourage both Lisa and Karen to participate in large-group writing or editing activities. The exchanges that Lorna had with Bob and Misty (non-Native) also focused on soliciting input during large-group writing activities, which is consistent with the previous analysis (Table 21). For example, during one large-group acrostic writing lesson, Misty contributed her ideas. Lorna: Awesome in math. Thank you, . That's one. Could I have another one? Okay, now Misty, have you got it? Misty: L. Lorna: You're gonna do L? Misty: Limes are my favorite food Lorna: Sorry? Misty: Limes are my favorite food Lorna: Limes are my favorite food. Misty: Ah, lilac is, lilac is my favorite flower. Lorna: Lilacs are my favorite flowers. Aha? 168 Misty: Umm, I can't Lorna: Do you have a third? Misty: Yup. Littering is the law. Lorna: Littering is the law. (t2.60-86) Many of Lorna's interactions with Bob and Misty also centred on receiving feedback about their written work (t2.120-123; U4.579-588; tl6.146-150,154-156). Another focus of the exchanges with the non-Aboriginal focal students was on providing clarification. There were several instances where Lorna clarified the task for Misty. Lorna: ... .So, if there are no more questions, you can put your writing folder up, block yourself off from me and from others and get that head going. Shh. Jordan, can you erase that please? Misty? If you're not finished, yes. If you are finished, you want to take it to the second draft. Shh. I'll be there in a minute. Writing folders up. Any more questions? Okay, how should this class look? Student: Silent. Lorna: .... Okay? Off you go. Misty Do you want us to do that? Lorna Yes. You're taking this and you're turning it into a second story. Like taking that and writing it into a second story. Misty Oh, okay, I get it. Okay. (t7.118-134) Overall, the content of the exchanges that Lorna had with the non-Aboriginal children related to eliciting their ideas and providing clarification of a task, while exchanges with the Aboriginal students focused on guiding the student through a task and providing encouragement and feedback. Next I examined the length of the conversations that Lorna had with each of the focal students. There was a notable difference between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal student groups. The transcripts indicate that conversations with the Native students ranged from 1 to 45 lines, with an average of 13. By comparison, the non-Native students had conversations with Lorna ranging from 1 to 13 lines, with an average of 4.5. For example, Lorna had a lengthy interaction with Lisa about her acrostic poem, 45 lines long: 169 Lorna: Okay, so R. Okay, what are you going to put for R words. Tell me some words that start with rrruh. Let's just, let's brainstorm. Tell me anything that starts with an nr. Quick, quick. Lisa: Rain, (pause) Right hand. Lorna: Okay. What else? Okay, we'll come back to it. Remember that blockage. How about words that start with I? First one that comes into your head (pause) What's the first one? Iiii, any word that starts with I. Iiiii. Stuck? Okay, let's go to A, can you come up with one for A? ... aaa, aaaa. Lisa: Red is my favorite colour. Lorna: Okay. Red is my favorite colour. Good, (pause) Aaah. Okay, let's try the dictionary. Oh, let's use this one. I was looking for my, let's use, okay, I have another one that might work better for you but I don't know where it is. I may have given it to the other Teacher. Okay, so let's just take a look at the As. See if there's some word in there that might help you to get an idea, okay, start looking in the As. (pause) Shhh, . (pause) There are some right there. Lorna: Found one? Lisa: Umm, maybe I should used Lisanna. Lorna: Do you want to go with Lisanna? Okay, that's fine. We can change it. No problem. So the first one you have is R, okay, we don't' have any Rs in this so let's go Huh, what's one that starts with Huh. Lisa: Lions. Lorna: Okay. Keep going, (pause) Ssssuh. (pause) Let's find some S words, okay. Unh, Lisa: Sings, (pause) Sings to the cat. Lorna: Okay, that helped, didn't it? How about E words? Easy, (pause) Lisa: That's not supposed to be an E. Lorna: Oh, that's right, that's right. I don't know how to spell your name yet. S-A. Right. Lisanna. Okay. You've got lots of As. Lisa: A lot of people spell my name Lisaena. Lorna: Oh, this is how mom spells it, thought, right? It's an example of one of those words where all the words are different. So. Umm, always might help you. Um, let's see what else, [talking to another student] What are some others? N. Go. Go. Go. N. Okay. What's an N word that would help you? (pause) Okay, so you've got, let's read what you've got so far. Likes Lisa: Loves Lorna: Mmhrnm. Lisa: Likes, inside, Lorna: Mmmhmm. Lisa: Sings to of cat. Lorna: Mmmhmm. Lisa: A nice person. Lorna: Mmmhmm. Ooh. (pause) Lisa: Nice to my friends. Lorna: (laughs). Okay. You've got the idea now? You just have to use your own brain. Get it going, (t 1.350-416) 170 The last two analyses indicated that Lorna differentially scaffolded her students by adjusting the frequency and type of support provided to individual students, as well as modifying the length and content of her interactions. With the Native students Lorna focused primarily on guiding the children through a task, breaking it down into smaller steps, and also providing encouragement. These interactions were more extended than those with the non-Native students, which focused on task completion or student input. As noted in Chapter 4, the exchanges that Donna had with her non-Native students also focused on task completion and eliciting student input. Teacher Scaffolding: Compared to Existing Theory To further understand how Lorna differentially scaffolded Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing activities, I referred to the instructional recommendations in the literature on scaffolding (eg. Gaskins et al., 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992; Wood et al., 1978). In this analysis I reviewed the data again and sorted evidence as consistent or inconsistent with instructional practices defined in the scaffolding literature (eg. Gaskins et al., 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992; Wood et al., 1978). Table 22 presents evidence as a description, paraphrase, or direct quote. Note that I have also included the evidence related to calibrated formative feedback, which I discussed when addressing the first research question. As the evidence summarized in Table 22 depicts, Lorna demonstrated all of the elements of scaffolded instruction in many aspects of her writing instruction. There were examples of Lorna handing over control of the learning process to the students, as their skills developed; treating the children as if they were competent, real writers; encouraging social interaction with and among the children, and allowing them to take on the teacher role; and 171 using discussion to determine the students' level of understanding and then collaboratively establishing a shared understanding of the task or concept. I will discuss the evidence related to this general finding by referring to each scaffolding element, in order, as they appear in the table. There was evidence that Lorna transferred the control of the learning process to the children as their skill level increased. For example, during one lesson, Lorna temporarily scribed for Lisa, relieving her of the physical demands of writing, until she understood the task demands and was willing to proceed independently (tl.373-414). Lorna also anticipated giving the children portfolio folders to hold their written work, rather than using scribblers, when she felt that the children were capable of managing the myriad sheets of paper that the portfolio would entail (t7.116-118;fnl. 10). Another example of transferring control from teacher to students was when the children marked their own work (t6.85-89; t8.93-144; fnl0.1-5; swl5.3,5; swl4.5,7; swl3.5,7,8; swl2.5,7; sw4.5; sw6.1,4; sw5.1,3,6; sw7.1-4,6). For example, Lorna encouraged students to self-evaluate (mark) their work, after the review of a capitalization workbook activity: Lorna: .. .Great. Now, let's look at this all over again. What, how many got five out of five, including the one, the beginning one we did yesterday? Good. Good. Thank you. How many noticed their mistakes? All right. What I would like you to do right now is look over six, seven, eight, nine and 10 and see if you have done it right. Do it now. (pause) (t8.93-144) This example also demonstrates how Lorna encouraged her students to self-reflect and act "as if they were real writers. Another example of treating the children "as if was when CN CN CU 6 o hJ CD O S3 CD w CD C/3 53 O o S3 HH -a S3 CD +J C/3 C/3 S3 O U I C/3 CD > O ox £3 •3 I 03 O cn c ca o CO 2 co 2 <J h- D_ cn c CO o CO cn c is c O CD si CO LU io Tt o CL Tf oni CD <rj O luat i luat CO tte CO CD > JD CD i own CO Isel own ad Isel i_ JZ TJ 'CD CO *-> ZI JZ o *^ c o c CD UJ o CD TJ 3 der nui to CD ZJ c JZ to o — o ha E un •*-' CD o JZ CO 4—' CD TJ JD TJ CD O «4— •#-» CO o C CD DJ CL JZ _C CO Uj" £ tz 3 CD CD *cz o TJ CO ZJ 3 D) c to o 1* i o c mar o mar ed CD raph crib hos raph CO o es CO CO CO c c 1 CO o o CL _l _l 00 LO' co 3 CO r~" LO" Tf 3 CO LO" co" LO 3 CO o ^ 3 l cz • CD CD JZ "So N TZ, CO o cif °? £ co ° CN 12 t £ CM_4 1—! i r-». ro 3 °> CO 00 "-CTTCN T- 00 S oo > W CO CO i- CD OJ_ ' CO 3 r- T= CO e X- qj CD CO 5 CL JZ CO It L Q. eg >- tz £ •§ o co CO • CO CO co > 8 a CD • _ c • c° Jz 3 3 ?_ CO CN CD • XJ II cn <o o ?£ CD 3 2 H CO H JD 3 CL CD cn CO IO CO CD i: cn tz . JZ OJ CL c co" CO CN o , tZ LO CD T .1 5 O Tf ^ CO RCO JD CO ^CO CO CN Tf ' CO"1 CM" T •r-" o c: 3 -"".Tf CO Tf 3 o CD O g 'CL CD c o —. co „, N -Si 1= C CO CD la 8 to O CD CD « * s CO LO 31 t- OJ 3 r-£.cb ** CO OJ od ro •-o ^] XJ £ 2LO 3 £ cr CD !ii LO ±= OJ? 3 XJ o 0 fe 3 £ 1 ® l.i >- TJ CD ® CO ro TJ CD 3LO" §~ o 5 fe "> 'CD 6o" £ K ^ CO LOS^I 3 » CO CN CD " XJ . 2? cn s TJ O CD ro co UJ tf tz CD CD TJ TJ 3 3 "J ^ C Ol CD E "d fe CO CO CO CO CO o "° > CD > N CO "ro CM" 3 ' CT^ 0 3 ro Lo co ro 3 cn n tj < XJ ro o CD DJ O XJ CN CD " XJ ~ CD ^5 CD CL JZ 3 CO O to cn £ co XJ <2 .— CO CO ~—' CO C3) co £ CD JZ cn 3 co 4-* CD JZ co _ ^ Tf £ co TJ OJ CD CN tSM CO t co o ro _l JD CD TJ CO o JD CO ro cn c :HLO 3* I ti ro o <o x CD CD £ » XJ o CD CO c co g>.g CO — ra co OJ to tz XJ CD 3 i— o CO it CO TJ c O 4—* ude OJ CN red to CM o atal dno o CO JZ cn CO 3 so CO CO he c ro to g E ro CJ CD JZ 3 JZ TJ CO c OJ c co TJ C TJ CO CD 2 2 E CO E CD Tj" o OJ CD CJ CO CD ro c O c 1 CJ i_ o 3 o 1 to _1 iZ<2 gLO CL^T CO CO CD -i-- c c *-•2 co S o 2 ^ cz ro c o ro XJ co <= x: ro o ra 5^ "CD S2 OJ 5 XC CM CD » 2™| o TJ § XJ ra " C CD jz 5 r ro to E'1! 3 — TJ •J^ CD CZ I ••S CD .2-3 3 = 3 coo to ro 2 .2,£-to 3 O JZ o j-. CN T- ra "S ra 3 CD ro > ro JZ ro _ c i_ o c to -17ZJ-I O XJ —I CD L_ CD JZ 3 XJ CD ^ ro ro OJ to ro ~ ro c: £ c i— CO i_ O 3 O CL _I CL 00 . - OJ O T-°? CM T- LO CJ TZ £i CO cn c T-•— i ro CD ? 5» 3 o ra O jo c ° o DJ <^ E co > t o ro E °-CD 5 o £ 11 CO cn CD CD JZ 2 o ^"g ?JD JD ra £ CD o 3 —i CO CD CO " C T" O -r^ CL O to p CD t I'S XJ ra 2 CO >_ T> CD O £ 3 fe <° £ 1/5 11 o .2, c * *- o c *-CD CO CD .2 s= -" ra 1: XJ ro ro o CD cn i_ tz £ 3 CO OD CO CO c co Tf CD XJ 2 O CO CO h-£ Q CO CL 1.N O £ D-£ CL-5 co" f CO 1— So LO Cp to co ro TZ CD tl S Tf -a? c i ro Tf co o ro JD XJ CD £ i CD CD CL CD > 'CD a CD co CM ^ £ T1 £ £. c 22 CD . -E «? E ^ 8 «g £ 3 ^ °£ o . -CO W Tf tz V CD CO ECLO XJ p2 CO SJ LO T g « = CO ^ In LO r~ 2 LO OJ £ co co CO CO CL'— 3 2 t-D>£ >-o" E co £co •fe CM T;CO o TZ 3£ C CO CD CM 3CM 2S ° " CN CD ro - J £ 2 e 2 - o ra 3 is'5 R XJ "O CL U C i- CD ro JZ .. £ co XJ Tf 2 oo 5 c co _ UJ oo" 3 c CO SZ-ro «ol £S gCO CO XJ CD O CL O CO <0 3 o CO XJ .g XJ c ro _ >, ra co to £ 2 = o o ^ _i ro £ o' 8£ co a ro T-. 3 co CU o c cu CO cn c TJ CO CU JZ I XI 3 CO •a c CO CO CO c TJ CO cu JZ cz 0 co CO c 'cz cu Q. o TJ c CO T? CO Tt Tt 5 iz-cu 3 CO TJ CU 4-* CO cu 1 <J co CL 33 2 co Si" ^4 Eoo c CO c 'co o C0 ! LL >t TJ cu ^ (- Tf 3 Tt 4-» T— co Ct" CO cu co > 2 LU u 3 O O Tt >- -r-' 2 TJS. S.LO ~ LO CN a L . 00 fe CO O CN ~ CD CO = s CU Pv •a CN 2 CO CO CO™. 2-^ n !oS €.3 CU t . ^ ' *- 3 cu o > >. CO 2 cl CN TJ 2 £ 0 ° il co -a E 3 CN O O CO _1 O T-o o XI » o 3 ~ '55 2 3 '—' CO c o .1= u cu CO CL Q.W = LO <fl CNJ o o cu Tl CLTt CO Tt CN ^z. CO \— cu cu CM CL T— o Ph CL cn 3 CN O w_ i CO LO >. *-; .— E CO o' CN CN sz c H— 'I es ( C "C CO CO 3 c c o c 3 sp de CD 3 'co i— CO sz de CO c TJ CO 'co CU c CD . 3 s sha -321; egan sons dent CO p-. CM x> co co i-les Stu CD *i— CO c O 2 cz ±= co 3 CO < r-o co 2 c CD i-E ^ CD O ?E •o 2 c -c ro 5 CO o CJ ** ^•i o CO *zZ XI CD 2 «2 ~ TJ c o ~° 3 CD '£ 2 CO CD o 2 —I CO CN CO ^ 3 2 2 o. E o CJ o CD O c CO to CO CO c o CO 2ro co Jr". (0 CM _l "O CJJ CD £ L— CT fe CD O CO CD E E o o CM T-r-" CN od 3 3 ?»-Q 3 co io 01 — i_ (0 2 c ~ cu c "5 cu 2 01 co i~ CO ^ CO T-o co co •-XI T T3 O CU i-2 5 CO-^ CO Q E co 0 LU 1 cz ° ° 2? c co o CJ ^ CD CO 00 ciE ™ B CO c CO ci3 a» sz § CO o °Z ~ CO c 5 O 73 ~ CD co 2 .M ™ = CO CO c •His CO > o o S o ~ 3 co c CO CO "CD cu CO CO TJ 2 CO CD CO O) 3 co TJ c CO •«° 2 c 3 •* ^ro i= co TJ 00 CD *-I £ si o pi. CM ^ 2^ TJ CD —3 |cco S > co 3 c?S 2 ~ u c ^ 3 CD CP CO TJ c co 2 OJ to •9 o x ^ 2 E *• 0 CD o co „ Tt CD CD TJ > p TJ 3 o CJ cu sz If) CO sz o If) CO CD CJ c CD CD — ra <o o co CD N _ o _ CO U i c5 2 '. 8 o 13 fe c CU CJ- -n CO CO CU E co E o c o i ca i COLO c ^ ^ I-* C CN z CO CU S TJ CL O m IX. x: co co g 11 TJ CU 1-5, co CO cu co V C CD c o o c CD TJ 3 to I u. 0 JZ o CO CD .» CN CD ^-co?^ O _CL| ^x: CD •C 11 E cu o eg _i lo1 TJ CD 2 > CJ to '^ co 2 (0 jzt XI P TJ E CD ca o CD O LL LL CM CO CO 0 -£ CJJ o rl 3 ^1 E5o xi 2 CD 3 o E CD s 8 J= °-CL CO 2 .£ O)^ CO TJ fe CD !§• CO o TJ CJ> 2 i TJ 2 >> £ CD •J5 n CJ CL CD ^ 1 § CJ 4— CO CO TJ 2 CO CD CL 3 o CO CO u ca XI TJ CD CD CD CD CL CD CO 3 c cz cu cu TJ TJ 3 3 co CO c TJ CO CD SZ I x> 3 co TJ cz CO CO CO c TJ CO a> _ sz cz: TJ T-2 -A CD CXJ co-^ 3 co JZ CO CL ' ca CO CL, 3 y cz _ CU CO TJ CO 4- 4- 2 i5 CO CO CO Q. CDC . . 1 CN 2°? CZ 00 ^ CM oco 3 --s; CJJ CD CO £ CN i TJ ' CD T-feclj x: CN co Tl co 4-» I TJ 3 O 3 CD JZ co to JZ • e o a. *i_ o CO CD TJ CD JZ ra co JZ 10 •£ co gco TJ *Z ca co c to CL TJ .9 cz o CO CO CD TJ CO 03 i_ TJ C CO TJ CD N 'c CD CD CD CO CO 8=._l CD !• CM 4- _C0 C TJ CD 0 TJ > 3 C to CO CO TZI "a co 0) x: IS • CO <u £ 5^ o .£ —i co CD o 2 B > ro o CL z y 4I 'tt c ro cu Q. S-A LU O CD CN T-CO c co cu CD CL 0 CO c 'c 0 CO (0 V I. TJ Oi c 'ca CL ,—. X CO cu CN TJ 1 c O ro CM 0 CM ro 4W J3 TJ LO 0 2 C3 TJ T— 0 c M— 3 XI Tt 't_ Tt c 1 0 PV 0 LO 2 00 c *-0 66 TJ op 3 CO c7) CO a. ro CO 2 CO CL CO c ro 3 4-M O £ 4-< CO 2 CM c« 0 T £ CJJ ~ Tt ro"'-•2 CD —1 O JZ LO •5 OJ 3 p~ TJ ^ 0 ^t 3 TJ I tO Tf 0 LO c:£. ZJ o TJ 3 CJ) ° Tt >>'. . 0 CD •£ LC co in co co co . J2 ^ CJ o 0 2 sz XI co 3 21 si 4J (0 c° ^. TJ 0 0 CL CJ O C 0 c 'ro 0 0 ZJ I ro ro E £ o K > 3 o co TJ CO c to ro cz o 9 n o c? c c 0 ro P 0 JZI 0 2 ro co JZ LU CO 174 Loma indicated her expectation that all of the students would choose a piece of writing to take to the final stage of the writing process (d4.14; j5; ta5; tal.l; il.3). Another key characteristic of scaffolded instruction is designing tasks that are suitable for the ability level of the learner. There were instances where Lorna's practice was consistent with this scaffolding characteristic. For example, early in the school year Lorna set a goal for Lisa to "just use words" to express her ideas, as opposed to pictures (md.l; fn5.9). As well, Lorna often broke tasks down into small steps so that the activity was more manageable for Lisa (tl9.142-171; t21.152-198). In other ways Lorna adjusted the writing task for the benefit of groups of children. For example, she chose to do different novel studies with the grade 4 and 5 students (fn20.11). As well, all students, regardless of grade level, were typically assigned the same writing task, though Lorna did vary tasks for individuals within spelling lessons. Focusing support on the wider group may be an effective and efficient instructional strategy, but it also may have a negative impact if it means that students are not receiving individualized scaffolding as well. In some cases, Lorna did not differentiate support at an individual level. For example, Lorna acknowledged that she was too tired to consider modifying her instruction to meet the unique needs of her First Nation students (fill0.13; fnl3.10; i2.115-116). The fourth scaffolding element listed in the table relates to the inclusion of students in the teaching and learning dialogue, encouraging students to discuss and learn from one another. Lorna provided this type of scaffolding to her students on many occasions, which is not surprising, given her overall instructional style. Recall that it was common practice for Lorna to include the students in the lesson, encouraging them to contribute their ideas and to demonstrate their knowledge to the group (tl.355-416; t2.37-573; t3.3-143; fn4.1-ll; fh5.1-175 6; t8.63-144; tl3.11-90; U4.4-397; tl6.11-221; fnl7.1-6). For example, during a specific skill lesson the children made capitalization corrections for the sentences that Lorna had written on the chalkboard. After a child made a particular correction, the group would provide feedback or assistance. Misty: [has just finished making a correction] Lorna: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone want to, anyone want to say anything about this one? Yes, um, . Student: Um, that one's not optional because it's a name. Lorna: That is correct. Could you say that again to her? Why is it not optional? Student: Because it's a name. Lorna: Because it's a name. Misty, it's a name. Mr. Rockhill. So it would be in Student: But it's at the start Lorna: It also is the start and we could say that this part might be optional if it was not the mister but because, Justin's right, because it is mister, a name. That's right. So in order to get it right, it needs to look like that. Thank you. Could someone do the fourth one? Ah, I need you to sit down, . ? (pause) Shh. (long pause) Student: (writes on board) Lorna: Does anyone want to say anything? Yeah? Student: I've got a question about number two. Lorna: Let's go to four. We'll talk about the end of it. We're still on number four. No questions? Anyone have a question about four? Lisa? No. So how many think number four's right? It is. Thank you. , good girl. Number five. Lisa. Lisa: (writes on board) Lorna: Okay? Read it through once more. Okay? Does anyone, are you happy with it? Okay? Does anyone want to um, say anything? Karen? Karen: You have to underline the word day too. (t8.97-136) In another instance, during the first acrostic writing lesson, Lorna used her own last name as an example, and asked the students to suggest describing words: Lorna: ... I took my name and really it's a kind of a different list and what we're going to do is take your name and it can be either your first name or your last night and we're going to create new words.... So this L is going to be the beginning of a bunch of words. Now I'm just going to write one down first and see if you get the idea. So L likes lemonade. Shhh (pause) Okay. Can anyone give me one that would go with E, another one for L? Can you give me another L? Lisa? Lisa: Live. 176 Lorna: Sorry? Lisa: [inaudible] Lorna: Live. And where do I live? ... in ... okay, this is, wait a sec. L-E-M-U-R-E. What does that sound, what does that say? Students :LeMure. Lorna: LeMure. And who's LeMure? Students: You. Lorna: Me. Okay, so we're doing this on me. Okay. Likes lemonade. Lives in (pause). Thank you, I hear it over here. Student: Lorna: . All right. Does anyone, does anyone have anything else that starts with L? Student: Leopard? Lorna: Possible. Likes leopards. And now just, we've got three ideas for that L. How can we come up with some Es? Student: Excellent. Lorna: Okay, excellent what? Student: Teacher? Lorna: Okay, does someone else have another one that starts with E? Student: Eats everything? Lorna: (Laughter) Shhh. Do you have another one for E? (tl.50-169) These examples illustrate how Lorna included social interaction to support her students during large-group activities. There were also instances where Lorna conversed with students individually, tailoring her support to the specific needs of a student. For example, as previously noted, Lorna had an extended conversation with Lisa, guiding her through the process of generating describing words for the letters of her name (tl.355-416). Lorna had a similar discussion with Karen during another acrostic writing lesson (t2.483-507). These examples are interesting, given that Lorna did not interact as frequently with Karen and Lisa (Native students), as she did with Bob and Misty (non-Native students) (see Table 18). In fact, Lorna didn't talk with every student during every lesson, as Donna had done. However, all of the examples cited above demonstrate that these conversations, particularly with the Native students, involved turn-taking and were often extended. 177 In addition to the large-group teacher-student discussions, Lorna created sharing opportunities where the children interacted with each other in small groups or individually. For example, family groups were established so that the students could discuss their writing among themselves (fnl2.1-7; t2.211-269; U6.273-321; fn9.1), while Lorna stayed on the periphery. Clearly, Lorna's writing instruction was highly reflective of the dialogic scaffolding element. According to the literature (e.g., Gaskins et al., 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992; Wood et la., 1978), another characteristic of scaffolded instruction is that tasks are meaningful and real to the learner. The fact that Lorna required her students to take one piece of writing to its final stage demonstrated that there was a real life purpose for the writing - to communicate with others. Another example of creating tasks that were meaningful for the students was when the class group edited actual student writing during a mini-lesson (t21.15-129; phi2,13). However, there were also examples where Lorna taught specific skills out of context, and where the students practiced capitalization and punctuation skills using a workbook or rehearsed spelling using a grade-appropriate textbook (t6.16-85; t8.14-144; fnlO.2-5). Another feature of scaffolded instruction is termed calibrated formative feedback (Butler, 1998). As noted in a previous analysis, Lorna provided calibrated formative feedback both in her written comments on student work, and orally when assisting individual students during guided practice. She varied the focus placed on mechanics or content, depending upon the strengths and weaknesses in the students' writing. For example, on Karen's descriptive paragraph she wrote, "I can tell you really liked these cats. When you read your story, try and see if one sentence connects to the next so that they make sense. A 178 really good try, Karen" (sw8.2). Lorna's comments in this case focus on creating transitions between sentences. On Misty's paragraph about her motives, Lorna pushed her to include more detail and explanation: "Can you explain why you say this Misty? Since this is a story, how should one sentence connect with the next" (swl0.1)? During many of the interactions when providing feedback, Lorna both encouraged the children to assume the role of expert and also established shared meaning with the children. Both of these practices are key attributes of scaffolded instruction. An example of permitting a student to be the expert was when Lorna asked a boy in the class to help Lisa to prepare for the lesson ".. .could you give Lisa a little assistance on what she needs to have on her desk, please" (t6.52-53). Lorna trusted this boy to assume the teacher role in helping Lisa. There were also many other occasions where Lorna encouraged the children to edit or mark their own work(t6.85-89;t8.93-144;fnl0.1-5;swl5.3,5;swl4.5,7;swl3.5,7,8;sw.l2.5,7; swl 1.2;swl0.1 ;sw9.1,2;sw8.1,2;sw7.1 -4,6;sw6.1,4;sw5.1,3,6;sw.4.5), or that of others, and solicited student suggestions and ideas during instruction ideas (tl.50-169, 355-416; t2. 37-573; t3.3-143; fn4. 1-11; fn5.1-6; t8.14-144; tl3.11-90; tl4. 4-397; fnl7.1-6), as discussed previously. This indicates that Lorna did not feel the need to always be the one directing the learning experience, and believed that learning was a two-way process. Expert-novice co-participation and social interaction are closely linked to the final scaffolding element, establishing shared meaning. For example, when Lorna promoted social interaction with and among the students, she encouraged them to assume the expert role, and in a small or large group, constructed their own understanding of the task, concept or skill. During the large-group specific skill lesson where the children shared in demonstrating the correct way to capitalize sentences (t6.16-85), there was continual social interaction among 179 the children and with the Lorna. Notice in the following example how Lorna handed over the role of expert to the children, and when there was confusion, how she or other students collaboratively established a revised understanding: Lorna: And every morning now when we're doing our handwriting we're using capitals. Right? . So your job was to take the sentence that was in the book and recreate it, putting in the proper capitals. So, let's see how you did. Could someone come (writes on the board) and put the capitals in the first sentence on the board, make the corrections for Student: It's Margaret. Lorna: Excuse me. Dr. Donuss saw Margaret, Mar-gar-et on Tuesday with the yellow chalk. Ah, , since you were absent, how would you like to come and do this? We'll see if you can do it. The capital letters where you think they belong, (very long pause). You finished? Is he right? Student: Yes. Lorna: Yes. Thank you. And you get it all right if you have done just what has done. If not, please make your corrections now. Number two. (writes on board) Ah, Misty, how would you like to try this? could you give Lisa a little assistance on what she needs to have on her desk, please. Just get the books out. Help her. (very long pause) Okay. Is she right? Student: No. Lorna: There's one little error. Can anyone tell Misty what it is? Ask. Student: You're not supposed to put capitals on summer. Lorna: Can you give us some other examples of where you wouldn't put the S? Summer? When we name the seasons. So we don't use capitals for spring, summer, fall or Student: Winter. Lorna: Winter. One of those crazy things that happens with the English language. One rule doesn't necessarily hold true for all. So again, if you have all of these this way, great, give yourself a tick. If not, make your corrections. Here's the next one. (writes on board) Oops, (still writes on board) Ah, okay, , since you were away, (long pause) Oops. Cart, (pause) Why? Mmhmm. (long pause). Yes. Well done. Thank you. And again, tick it or make your corrections, (writes on board) And . (long pause) Is there, ah, what do you think? Is number four correct? Student: No. Lorna: There's one missing. , can you figure out which one you missed? You think? (pause) Don't tell her. Don't tell her. Oh, that's very good, . Look at number four again. Maybe you have it. (pause) For the title of a person. For the title of a person , which one in here is the title? Which one? Uncle. So this should be Uncle. Uncle and Auntie, all those would be capitalized. Alrightey? Tick it or make your corrections. Here comes the last one. (writes on board) Ah, Lisa, how about you? (long pause) Are you all finished? Are you all finished? Is she right? 180 Students: Yes. Lorna: Yes. Oh, who said no? What do you think that is? Oh, with an s. Ah, is she right? Yes. (clapping) (t6.28-30, 42-84) In summary, in this section I have described how I inductively analyzed the data, and then compared Lorna's practices to the characteristics of scaffolded instruction, to understand how and why she may have differentially scaffolded her instruction for her Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. Lorna demonstrated many different kinds of support with her students, such as breaking tasks down, pointing, providing encouragement, and using wait time, even though she didn't realize or acknowledge how she was employing these practices. She differentially scaffolded support to the focal students, varying the type and frequency of assistance; asking more questions, proportionally, encouraging more student choice with the Aboriginal students than the non-Aboriginal students, and providing the non-Aboriginal students more opportunity to share their ideas with the larger group. Lorna had more extended conversations with the two Native students than the non-Native students, and the content of these conversations varied. With the Aboriginal focal children Lorna focused on mechanical and meaning features of the text, while with the non-Aboriginal students she primarily clarified a task or solicited student input during a large-group activity. From a theoretical perspective, Lorna's practice was almost exclusively consistent with the characteristics commonly associated with scaffolded instruction (e.g., Gaskins et al., 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wells & Wells-Change, 1992; Wood et al., 1978). Question 3: Environmental Conditions and Instructional Scaffolding? To identify how the classroom, school, and community context influenced Lorna's use of instructional scaffolding, I examined the data for evidence without imposing an a priori framework, as I had done with Donna. Specifically, I examined the socio-cultural 181 context of the community, school-wide goals and initiatives, district support services, and class composition for evidence of how they supported or limited Lorna's ability to provide instructional scaffolding. Evidence suggests that the socio-cultural context of the community in which Lorna's school was located influenced both her instruction and energy level. Within the neighborhood surrounding the elementary school were many low-income families (i2.148). Many children came from single-parent families, and some frequently moved to other homes either within or outside of the city. Lorna indicated that the students exhausted her (ml 0.13; fnl3.15) (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997; Klinger et al., 1999), and that she was troubled by their sad home lives. Lisa had been to five different schools in four years and Lorna wondered why she was being "tossed around" (fnl 8a. 14). Lorna knew that for many children, there was no parent support at home (fnl0.13). Bob's family life had been "turbulent", dealing with suicide and blended families (fhl7.8). To counter these situations, Lorna sought to create a flexible, safe, and caring classroom climate for her students. School priorities and structures also influenced Lorna's approach to literacy instruction. Like Donna's school, the staff at the school where Lorna taught was concerned about the literacy skills of their students and was encouraged by the principal to attend related professional development opportunities. Lorna was keen to learn more about writing instruction so that she could improve her writing program and her classroom practices (il.2; i2.398-399,405-407). After one workshop, Lorna planned to incorporate reading response journals into her language arts lessons. Lorna wanted to share her ideas and student concerns with another staff member, but had not found a teacher of the same grade level with a similar approach to writing instruction. Lorna expressed a desire to have another teacher on staff 182 that ran a similar kind of classroom, at a similar grade level, to discuss these frustrations and to share ideas (i2.168-170, 393-396) (Butler et al., in press; Englert & Tarrant, 1993; Klinger et al., 1999; Perry et al., 1999). Lorna did intend to collaborate with the Learning Assistance teacher, so they could team-teach language arts lessons and address specific students' needs within the classroom setting. There were some support services available to Lorna to assist her in planning and instruction. For example, speech-language-, physio- and occupational-therapists were available on an itinerant basis through the school district; however, Lorna did not mention these services during the course of the study. As well, the Learning Assistance teacher provided remedial support, but Lorna's students attended for only Vi hour, 2-3 times per week, which Lorna felt was insufficient (ml7.8). There was also a First Nations Support Worker on staff; however, Lorna was concerned about the lack of support that this person provided to the students (i2.149-150, 305-310). She stated that there seemed to be role confusion between the Support Worker acting as a teaching assistant or an elder when she was in the classroom (Brownlie et al., 2000; Farrell-Racette et al., 1999; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998; Mattson & Caffrey, 2001). As well, Lorna was frustrated that the principal scheduled and supervised the First Nations Support Worker, leaving the teacher with little control to change schedules or address the effectiveness of the support (Placier & Hamilton, 1994). Lorna's instruction was also influenced by the needs of the children in her classroom. She was reluctant to incorporate teacher-student conferences in her writing program because she felt that the children in her class did not have adequate behavioral control to work independently while she conferenced individually with a child (mc3.1; i2.91-107) (Gersten & 183 Vaughn, 1997; Klinger et al., 1999). In other respects, however, Lorna actively involved the children in the learning process, and encouraged them to support one another's growth as writers. She demonstrated respect for her children by saying "thank you" when they contributed an idea or suggestion, and was pleased when they made efforts to learning new skills (tl.202-209; 12.574-575; t4.57-62;fn5.8;tl6.219;tl9.16), especially when they were dealing with family and learning challenges. To summarize, the community, school, and student contexts influenced Lorna's approach to writing instruction. Many of her students came from difficult home situations, and this exhausted and saddened Lorna. Though she sought support from her colleagues, she had little opportunity other than her plan to team-teach with the Learning Assistance teacher. Further, although there was a First Nations Support Worker available in the school to provide instructional support and to act as an elder and role model, Lorna did not feel that these services were effective and did not rely on them to address specific student needs. Question 4: Interrelationship Among Teacher Training, Teacher Support, Class Size, Teacher Self-efficacy, and Differentiated Scaffolded Instruction In this analysis I created a cognitive map (Miles & Huberman, 1994), based on the literature reviewed in chapter 2, to determine relationships among the variables identified in this study. To do this, I constructed a model by grouping the variables into three main categories. Then I sorted and recorded on the map data related to each of these variables contained within the main category groupings. Using this display I considered evidence that confirmed or disconfirmed potential patterns of influence, and have inserted arrows into the display to represent relationships observed, as I did with Donna. (For an example of a display that includes evidence, see Appendix I). In what follows I discuss this evidence and 184 suggest how teacher background and the school and community context influenced Lorna's differentiated instructional scaffolding, as depicted in Figure 7. School and Community Contexts. Like Donna, there was evidence of a relationship among the School and Community factors, and a collective impact on Lorna's approach to instruction. Community contexts influenced the students; many children in Lorna's classroom came from families who were struggling with poverty issues. Some of these children, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, required the assistance of instructional support services. Notice the arrows from Community to Students and from Students to School Supports to indicate these relationships. Also note that there is an arrow from School Supports to Student to represent a reciprocal influence. An example of this relationship is Lorna's belief that Learning Assistance and the First Nations Support Worker were providing inadequate support to meet the needs of some of her students. Collectively the School and Community Context factors impacted Lorna, who was for example, saddened by some of the children's troubled family lives. Teacher Background. The interrelationships among Lorna's Teacher Background factors were different from Donna's. Lorna had no cross-cultural experiences to draw upon, except for her experiences with those children from First Nation ancestry, whom she taught. She had no training in multicultural education or First Nations pedagogy, nor had she attended any workshops, and she was too worn out by the demands of her students to do any personal reading in this area. Therefore, I have not included an arrow from the Cross-cultural Experiences factor to either of the other factors within the Teacher Background cluster. 185 Lorna had teaching experiences that influenced her accumulated self-perceptions. For example, she had some experience working with students with special needs, had extensive teaching experience at the primary school level, and was confident in her ability to break a task down so that a student could attain success. The influence of Teacher Background and School and Community Context variables on Instructional Decision Making. Both Background and the School and Community Contexts variables had a collective impact on Lorna's instructional decision making, as illustrated in Figure 7. Lorna was aware of some of the social and family challenges faced by her students (School and Community Context cluster), and strove to create a safe and caring class climate. As well, she drew upon her teaching and learning experiences, in particular her exposure to the writing process, to create a community of writers and a type of writing workshop in her classroom. It is unclear of the exact purpose for incorporating more of some, and less of other, aspects of Writing Workshop. It is possible that Lorna believed that her current practices were the most suitable based on the needs of her students. It may also be possible that Lorna required additional support in order to more completely implement the Writing Workshop approach. Further, I included reciprocal arrows between Lorna and the Instructional Decision Making cluster to reflect Lorna's willingness to reflect upon and make changes to her instructional practices (Butler et al., in press; Perry et al., 1999). When examining the interrelationships among Instructional Decision Making factors I found that the way Lorna structured instruction impacted on her assessment and evaluation practices and on her differential scaffolding. For example, Lorna had an interactive teaching style and structured her classroom so that the children would be active participants in the teaching and learning process. Therefore, Lorna provided opportunities for social dialogue, 186 Figure 7 Influences on Lorna's Differential Scaffolding • 187 which can act as a support for learning. As well, through a student-centred approach, she shared the assessment and evaluation process with the children and encouraged student participation and student-student discussions. Further, she openly shared her feelings of pride, positively reinforcing the students' efforts and developing skills. I have also indicated a relationship between the Assessment and Evaluation and Differential Scaffolding factors. I did this because Lorna was aware of many of the writing needs of the focal students, which was demonstrated by the feedback that she provided them. She gave Lisa, the most writing-challenged of the focal students, more direction and wait time than the others, and spoke with her for longer periods of time. Karen, on the other hand, was having little difficulty with writing and so Lorna provided support that was similar to that she provided to the non-Native students. When Misty needed to be nudged to solve a writing problem on her own, Lorna held back direction. At the same time, Misty also required more task clarification, which Lorna provided as needed. While the frequency of Lorna's interactions with the focal students did not vary depending on individual student needs, the length of her interactions did. As noted earlier, she spent considerably more time with Lisa explaining and guiding her through writing tasks. Lorna also provided differentially scaffolded support for larger groups of students. She assigned the same task for all, providing large-group demonstrations which were for the benefit of all students. I have not indicated a reverse relationship from Differential Scaffolding and Assessment and Evaluation factors because there was no evidence that Lorna's use of differential scaffolding influenced her assessment and evaluation practices. To summarize, Lorna's classroom practices, such as the way that she structured writing instruction, assessment and evaluation procedures, and specifically differential 188 scaffolding, were influenced by background variables, school and community contexts, and the nature of the students within her classroom. She provided different types of support, often based on student need and personality. However, this support was typically not pre planned (Fletcher et al., 1999; Schumm & Vaughn, 19995), but rather was provided as the need arose. Despite the presence of differentiated instruction, Lorna did not recognize this as specialized type of support (Tomlinson et al., 1997). In the next chapter I provide a cross-case analysis and discuss the major findings in light of current literature. 189 CHAPTER 6 Cross-case Comparison In this chapter I compare the two case studies and identify themes related to the teachers' differential scaffolded instruction during writing activities. To do this I begin by reviewing the overall teacher, student, school and community contexts. I then continue the comparative discussion by contrasting the teachers' respective approaches to writing instruction and integrating findings related to each of the research questions. Throughout I clarify how my findings relate to those found in the literature. Teacher, Student, School, and Community Settings The student, school, and community contexts for Donna and Lorna were very similar. Both teachers were teaching a grade 4/5 split, approximately half of the students in their classrooms were Aboriginal, and there was a wide variation in the level of writing ability among all of the children, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. Another similarity in setting was that the teaching staff and administration at both the schools had chosen to make literacy a focus for the school year in which this study took place. The principals at both schools encouraged teachers to attend professional development opportunities related to literacy instruction. Further, the teachers' union, of which both Donna and Lorna are members, was involved in job action during the time of this study. Finally, the communities surrounding the schools where they taught faced considerable social challenges; one was embroiled in a land claim dispute and the other was struggling with the effects of poverty and unemployment. 190 The Teachers' Approaches to Writing Instruction Although the contexts in which Donna and Lorna taught were similar, the teachers had very different approaches to writing instruction. Donna's classroom and instruction was teacher-centred, and the focus of her writing program was primarily on mechanics, while Lorna's classroom and instruction were student-centred, and her writing program focused both on mechanics and meaning. Neither teacher implemented the Writing Workshop approach in its entirety, or in the manner intended by the originators, even though some researchers maintain that the Writing Workshop methodology promotes the development of self-regulated writers (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Chapman, 1997; Graves, 1983). It could be that both Donna and Lorna selectively implemented, and/or modified, components of Writing Workshop that they believed were appropriate for their students (Allington, 1991; Delpit, 1986; Slavin, 2002; Yeh, 1999),. There continues to be debate (Mclntyre, 1995) over the merits of direct instruction of specific mechanical skills, particularly with children from low SES backgrounds. As noted in Chapter 2, other researchers have also documented the inconsistent application of instructional methodologies that are supported by research. For example, although Reciprocal Teaching is a simple strategy for increasing reading comprehension that can be incorporated into any reading program, it is not a "teacher-proof program (Gaffney & Anderson 1991, p. 185). As Englert and Tarrant (1993) and others (Alexander et al., 1996; Gersten & Vaughn, 1997) have found, teachers often view professional development as an opportunity to learn about new teaching methods, and then select those, or parts of those, that can fit into their current practice. These authors have found that, for classroom teachers, it is often easier to simplify complex concepts and/or ignore cognitive dissonance, than it is to 191 change teaching style and instructional practices. This may have been the case for both Donna and Lorna. For example, Donna's writing program focused on the mechanics of writing, even though most recommended practices are to focus on meaning first. Perhaps Donna found it easier to focus on concrete, more readily definable writing qualities (Alexander et al., 1996). Another possible explanation may be that Lorna and Donna found it too difficult to manage the intricacies of all aspects of Writing Workshop, and practiced those characteristics that they could readily employ without disrupting the students or the class structure (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997; Klinger et al., 1999). Identifying Individual Writing Needs and Differential Teacher Scaffolding Donna and Lorna had similar methods of determining the unique writing needs of their students, a process that may have led, in part, to differential scaffolding, even if teachers were not consciously aware of, or did not consciously plan for, instructional adjustments to meet students' needs. Both teachers relied primarily on classroom observations to identify student writing needs, but had difficulty describing how their knowledge about students specifically informed their instruction. It seemed that the informal and spontaneous process of gathering information may have set up a situation where they did not later consciously consider how they would make instructional decisions to be culturally responsive, particularly for their Aboriginal students. Their approaches to assessment and planning suggest that Donna and Lorna were not metacognitive about their classroom practice (Alexander et al., 1996; Ball, 1995; Butler et al., in press; Tomlinson et al., 1997; Vaughn & Klinger, 2000) and that they did not make instructional decisions based on the complete instructional cycle, from assessment, to evaluation, to reflection, instruction, and returning to 192 assessment and evaluation (Ministry of Education, 1993, 2000). Rather, both teachers acted tacitly in the teaching and learning situation. Interestingly, Donna and Lorna demonstrated differentially scaffolded instruction with the whole class and with individual students. Their support differed both within and between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal focal student groups, and in many cases this support could be associated with student needs. For example, Donna spoke longer with the Aboriginal focal students and focused primarily on mechanical aspects of writing. Lorna talked more frequently with Lisa than with Karen, likely because Lisa had considerable difficulty with writing. At other times, the number of interactions and the type of support that the teachers provided to the focal students, while systematic, did not appear to be based on student need. For example, Donna interacted more often with the boys than the girls who were selected as focal students, and Lorna interacted more often with the non-Aboriginal than the Aboriginal children. Neither teacher was aware of these differences in support. Therefore, although Donna and Lorna sometimes responded tacitly to student needs, they did not plan for differential instruction, intentionally scaffold support (Meyer, 1993), nor reflect on their instruction in terms of individualized support. This pattern of teacher behaviour is consistent with findings from other studies. For example, Tomlinson et al. (1997) found that many teachers, particularly those with limited experience, were less reflective, and typically did not plan to meet the needs of their diverse student populations. Schumm and Vaughn (1995) and Fletcher et al. (1999) found that teachers with learning disabled students in their classes also did not make plans to differentiate their instruction for a variety of reasons, among them lack of time, concerns over classroom management, and pressure to cover curricular content. 193 Both Donna's and Lorna's instructional practices varied to a greater and lesser degree from the theoretical elements of scaffolded instruction, as outlined in Chapter 2 (e.g., Gaskins et al., 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wells & Wells-Chang, 1992; Wood et al., 1978). This variation from recommended practice can be attributed, in part, to their teaching styles. Donna's primary method of instruction was direct instruction, which was not conducive to student-student collaboration, or teacher-student co-participation for the purpose of establishing shared meaning. However, Donna did not question or evaluate the efficacy of her instructional methods. Lorna's teaching style was interactive and she encouraged the students to support one another, set their own learning goals, self-evaluate, and take control of their own learning process. Thus, more of her instructional methods were consistent with the elements of scaffolded instruction, which is a student-centered approach. However, Lorna had difficulty explaining how scaffolded instruction might be more likely to promote the development of self-regulated learners. These general findings are consistent with those from other studies (Alexander et al., 1996; Duffy, 1993) which have found that teachers often do not critically evaluate instructional methods. One potential explanation may be that teachers have limited knowledge of, or experience evaluating pedagogy (Buysse et al., 2003). Another reason that teachers may not critique their own practice may be that if one questions her practice, there is a possibility that she might discover the need to make changes. As noted previously, it is very difficult for teachers to radically change their instructional style (Vaughn & Klinger, 2000). Other explanations may be that teachers do not have adequate time in their day to reflect on their practice (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995), or that working conditions within the school are not supportive of teachers' role in evaluating, or making decisions about, 194 pedagogical issues (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997; Klinger et al, 1999). Another explanation may be that teachers react or respond to students' needs spontaneously and not at a metacognitive level that requires goal-setting, planning and evaluation (Alexander et al., 1996; Ball, 1995; Butler et al., in press; Tomlinson et al., 1997; Vaughn & Klinger, 2000) to consider the entire instructional cycle (Ministry of Education, 1993, 2000). Overall, although Donna and Lorna genuinely desire student success and development, their tacit, unplanned, and un-evaluated classroom practices suggest an unintentional provision of differential scaffolded instruction. While both teachers supported the focal students, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, in different ways during the learning process, it is difficult to determine how their moves were specifically related to individual student outcomes (Beed et al., 1991; Bull et al., 1999). That is, the teachers did not explicitly link learning outcomes to specific teacher moves, in light of particular student needs. Further, the teachers' provision of scaffolded instruction to accommodate for specific task and context variables (Gover & Englert, 1998) remains largely unexplained. Therefore, Donna and Lorna appeared on the surface to provide differentially scaffolded instruction; however, consideration of writing tasks, and student outcomes did not intentionally inform their scaffolded instruction. Environmental Conditions and Instructional Scaffolding The socio-cultural context of the surrounding communities, school supports and students impacted on both teachers' instructional scaffolding, but in somewhat different ways. While both communities were composed of diverse cultural groups and struggled with social issues, Donna and Lorna reacted quite differently to these challenges. For example, Donna had a negative attitude toward the Aboriginal community, viewing linguistic 195 differences as a deficit, and cultural practices, such as hunting, as interfering with education. By contrast, Lorna was saddened by the often troubled family lives of her students and strove to create a safe and supportive classroom climate where all children were valued. The stresses and demands placed upon both teachers as a result of the communities surrounding their respective schools were often overwhelming and continuous, and neither teacher had a strong interest or the energy to learn more about cultural minority students, families, or communities. Therefore, although Donna and Lorna reacted differently to the needs of their cultural minority students, neither seemed to do so from a position of knowledge of the Aboriginal community. These findings are consistent themes in research related to teacher knowledge of and planning for minority children (Corson, 1997; Heit & Blair, 1993; Vaughn & Schumm, 1994), teacher professional development (Englert & Tarrant, 1993; Vaughn & Klinger, 2000), and the constraints and challenges of teaching in today's classrooms (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997; Klinger et al., 1999). As discussed in Chapter 2, researchers have found that teachers have a need for enhanced professional development, particularly related to linguistic and cultural minorities (Garcia, 1999), and in particular First Nations pedagogy. This professional development, however, must be carefully structured in order to be effective. For example, teachers, such as Donna and Lorna, are often exhausted at the end of a school day and are unlikely to welcome professional development opportunities that take place after school time. Instead, in-service might be more effective if time were allotted within the school day, or on in-service days, to avoid placing additional demands on already busy teachers. As well, in order to change negative beliefs about minority groups, teachers (such as Donna) require long-term professional development that includes multiple opportunities 196 for self-reflection (Garcia, 1999; Mattson & Caffrey, 2001). Further, professional development could profitably focus on practical (Klinger et al., 1999; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995), but appropriate, instructional adaptations to meet the needs of diverse learners. Other environmental conditions that impacted these teachers in different ways were school priorities and support services. For example, both teachers were encouraged to attend professional development workshops to enhance their knowledge of, and skills for teaching literacy. Lorna was eager to learn more and was aware of the areas of her instruction that she felt were weak. She also welcomed the opportunity to collaborate with other teachers to give and receive support, and to share ideas about literacy instruction (Butler et al., in press; Englert & Tarrant, 1993; Klinger et al., 1999; Perry et al., 1999). This may be because she was in a state of change, having recently moved to a new grade level. Donna did not embrace the professional development opportunities in the same way. She often found the content to be repetitive, and did not indicate any desire to collaborate with other teachers, perhaps because of the discomfort associated with changing instructional practices (Alexander et al., 1996; Englert & Tarrant, 1993; Vaughn & Schumm, 1994). The school support services did not appear to be a helpful resource for either Donna or Lorna partly because of time constraints, and partly because of their limited knowledge of minority cultures. For example, neither teacher had time or opportunity to discuss and program plan with the Learning Assistance Teacher (LAT). Although ancillary support services were not a concern for Lorna, Donna was frustrated by the apparent impractical classroom recommendations, suggesting again the difficulty of applying specialized knowledge to classroom practice (Buyesse et al., 2003; Gersten & Vaughn, 1997). Both Lorna and Donna were concerned about the role and supervision of the First Nations Support 197 Worker in their classrooms. Neither felt that the Support Worker provided effective learning assistance for the Aboriginal children in their classroom, perhaps because of the teachers' limited knowledge of Native culture (B.C.T.F. Task Force, 1999; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998). As well, both Lorna and Donna felt that the principal should not be "in charge" of supervision of the Support Worker. Rather, they felt that the classroom teacher should direct this type of classroom support, indicating the importance of teacher autonomy and control of pedagogical decisions, as Placier and Hamiliton (1994) have reported. Further, Lorna believed that the roles of the Support Worker as both elder and instructional assistant were incongruous and led to ineffective practices in both roles. Many authors, educators, and government agencies echo the concern for the appropriate incorporation of minority cultures into curriculum and instruction (Ashworth, 1980; B.C. Ministry of Education, 1998; Brownlie et al., 2000; ESL Standards Committee, 1999; Garcia, 1999; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998; Saskatchewan Education, 1997), including Meskill and Chen (2002) who believe that such attempts tend to be "fleeting and ineffectual" (p. 3). Finally, both teachers were affected by the children within their classes. Both felt constrained by potential behaviour problems of their students. They arranged instruction to minimize any possible distractions or disruptions. For example, both were reluctant to incorporate teacher-student conferences into their writing programs, even though they both stated a desire to do so. Again, this finding reflects the classroom realities that can limit teachers' abilities to employ new methodologies (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997; Klinger et al., 1999). 198 Interrelationship Among Teacher Training, Teacher Support, Class Size, Teacher Self-efficacy, and Differentiated Scaffolded Instruction The following display (Figure 8) presents in combination, the cognitive map created in both case studies, and indicates the patterns of influence for the two teachers between Teacher Background, School and Community Contexts, and Instructional Decision Making factors. The teacher is placed in the centre of this figure to indicate that the teacher is the interface between the factors. Notice that the patterns of influence were the same in many ways for both teachers. For example, within the School and Community Context cluster, the presence and directionality of the arrows are the same, and indicate a reciprocal relationship between school supports and students, and that the students were influenced by the larger community, in both cases. As well, note that the School and Community Context factors, as a whole, directly influenced both teachers and their approaches to instructional decision making. Again, the placement of the teacher in the centre of the figure is to represent her as mediator between the factors. Among the Teacher Background factors, Donna's teaching experience was influenced by her experience with the Aboriginal culture and people in the community where she teaches and lives. However, because Lorna had no direct contact with the First Nations or other cultural communities within the city where she teaches, there did not appear to be a direct influence of cultural experience on her teaching and learning experiences. Notice the reciprocal influence between teaching and learning experiences and accumulated self-perceptions for both teachers. However, this influence played out differently for Lorna and Donna. For example, Donna's teaching experience reinforced her use of the direct 199 instruction method of teaching writing (Delpit, 1986; Slavin, 2002; Yeh, 1998) and the focus she placed on mechanics, believing accomplished mechanical skills to be central to quality writing. Lorna's experience with children with exceptional learning needs affirmed her understanding of diversity and her belief that she could meet the unique cognitive, literacy, and cultural needs of her students. As well, because Lorna had recently changed grade levels, she was aware of, and receptive to, the need to learn new methods of instruction (Butler et al., in press: Perry et al., 1999; Vaughn & Klinger, 2000). Further, the recent university writing course that she had taken enhanced her knowledge of the writing process, and interest in this method of writing instruction. The patterns of influence within the Instructional Decision Making cluster were the same for both teachers. The ways that Donna and Lorna structured their classrooms and instruction impacted on their methods of assessment and evaluation as well as differential scaffolding. For example, their teaching style, either teacher- or student-centred, was reflected in the extent to which they controlled assessment and evaluation, and in the type of support that they provided to meet different student needs. As well, the information that the teachers gleaned from their informal classroom assessments (Ministry of Education, 2000) was sometimes related to scaffolded support. This connection was weak, however, given that both teachers provided differential scaffolded instruction that was not always directed at individual student writing needs. Notice that I did not find reciprocal relationships between the structure of instruction, differential scaffolding, and assessment and evaluation practices. I have omitted reverse arrows because, in many cases, neither Donna nor Lorna consciously structured instruction differently based on their assessments or the type of support that the children required (Fletcher et al., 1999; Vaughn & Schumm, 1994). The way that they 200 Figure 8 Influences on Teachers' Differential Scaffolding Solid line = Donna Dotted line = Lorna 201 structured their classrooms seemed more a result of their teaching style, than of the academic needs of the children. Next, notice that collectively, the Teacher Background factors directly influenced both teachers, but that there was a reciprocal influence for Lorna. I have indicated a reciprocal relationship because Lorna seemed open to considering how she could change or improve her writing program. Further, background experiences and the school and community contexts, influenced both teachers' instructional decision making, as indicated by arrows pointing from the teacher to the cluster of Instructional Decision Making factors. Again, I have indicated a reciprocal relationship for Lorna because she was still in the process of developing her writing program, and would likely reflect on her instructional decision making at some point (Perry et al., 1999; Tomlinson et al., 1995; Vaughn & Klinger, 2000). To summarize, the teachers in this study shared similar contexts of instruction, however there were different patterns of influence within and between teachers' backgrounds and their instructional decision making. Donna had a firm, direct method of instruction and maintained a fixed, not always positive attitude toward her Aboriginal students (Corson, 1997; Heit & Blair, 1993). Lorna was influenced by her awareness of the writing process and her experience supporting special needs children. She was in a state of professional change, and therefore was receptive to learning new methodologies and improving her practice. Both teachers were tired and had little time (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997; Klinger, et al., 1999; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995) or energy to make substantial changes to their instructional practices during the school year. As well, neither teacher pre-planned instruction to specifically address the diversity of their students (Fletcher et al., 1999; 202 Vaughn & Schumm, 1994). The support services that were available were insufficient or viewed as ineffective, particularly for the Aboriginal children. Although neither Donna nor Lorna analyzed their instruction in terms of differential support, both demonstrated numerous instances of adjusting their instructional support, although this support was not always systematically based on specific student needs. Overall, community and school contexts, and teacher background, impacted on Donna and Lorna's ability to provide differential scaffolded instruction to their students. In this chapter I compared the two teacher case studies in order to identify consistent themes. I connected these major findings to research reported in the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. In the next chapter (Chapter 7), I discuss the strengths of this study, and implications for classroom instruction and teacher professional development. As well, I identify limitations of this research project, and then close the chapter with suggestions for future research. 203 CHAPTER 7 Conclusions and Future Directions In this research study I have examined how classroom teachers differentially support Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students during writing activities. I have found patterns of teacher behaviours and attitudes that are consistent with and elaborate findings in the literature related to teacher planning and reflection, knowledge and attitude toward Aboriginal students, and implementation of instructional approaches that have a sound theoretical base. In this chapter I begin with a discussion of the strengths of this study and how the findings from my research project contribute to educational research and practice. In the following sections I identify limitations of this study, and conclude with a discussion of directions for future research. Strengths and Contributions This study contributes to the discourse and research of educational practice in a number of ways. First, the case study design and methodology employed in this study have provided dependable and trustworthy insight into teacher practice and decision making, and extends our understanding of scaffolded instruction and the dynamics underlying teachers' approaches to writing instruction. Second, the findings from this study corroborate and extend findings that teachers often do not plan for diversity, lack knowledge and acceptance of Aboriginal culture, have difficulty transferring research-based instructional approaches to their practice, and are not reflective of their practice. Third, this study reinforces the need to provide teachers with accessible, on-going professional development and support. I elaborate on each of these contributions and implications below. 204 Case Study Design Case study designs allow researchers to examine phenomena in-depth within authentic contexts. As a result, the researcher gains understanding of the complex dynamics of people interacting within contexts. In the research reported here, use of a case study design allowed for construction of rich descriptions of teachers confronting and coping with the myriad demands of the students, school and community. For example, the detailed analysis of the teachers' planning and instruction revealed that, for various reasons, they are largely unintentional in their provision of differentially scaffolded instruction. Another insight that I gained from this case study was the difficulty that these teachers experienced in balancing the meaning and mechanical foci of writing instruction. As well, I discovered the teachers' frustration with, and lack of knowledge about, initiatives to integrate Native culture into school programming. The processes of data collection and data analysis recommended for case studies lend credibility to the findings. In this dissertation, multiple data sources and collection methods were used to enrich understanding of teachers' differential scaffolding. In addition, the use of safe guards such as member checks, consultation with an expert in the field, cross-checks of data displays and inter-rater reliability measures ensured that interpretations and conclusions could be closely linked to the data on which they were founded. As a result of the careful way in which this research was conducted, more confidence can be placed in the interpretations advanced and the insights provided into practices and challenges related to teachers' differential scaffolding for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. Theoretical Contributions This study also contributes tb the body of knowledge of teacher practice by 205 corroborating and extending findings from previous research. For example, consistent with findings in the literature focused on how teachers plan for diversity (Fletcher et al., 1999; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995; Vaughn & Schumm, 1994), this study illustrates how, for a variety of reasons, teachers do not pre-plan adjustments in task, materials, or instructional processes to meet the needs of their cultural minority students. Further, although both teachers were faced with the expectation of supporting Aboriginal students' writing, both had limited knowledge of Aboriginal education, consistent with previous findings of Corson (1997) and Scollon and Scollon (1981). Further, previous research has documented the challenges for teachers in translating theory to practice (Buysse et al., 2003; Englert & Tarrant, 1993; Gersten & Vaughn, 1997; Vaughn & Klinger, 2000). This study adds by showing how recommended practices (e.g., for Writing Workshop and scaffolded instruction), when implemented, often differed widely from the intention of the originators (Bacharach & Alexander, 1986; Gaffney & Anderson, 1991; Klinger et al., 1999). This study showed how time constraints, lack of teacher knowledge, and negative attitudes towards and limited knowledge about Aboriginal cultures, contributed to the research-to-practice gap. Finally, this study found, as others have, that teachers are often not metacognitive in their practice (Alexander et al., 1996; Ball, 1995; Butler et al., in press; Tomlinson et al., 1997; Vaughn & Klinger, 2000), and hence do not consider the entire instructional cycle, from assessment, to evaluation, to reflection, instruction, and returning to assessment and evaluation. As well, teachers are often unable or unwilling to change instructional practices, or a variety of reasons (Ball, 1995; Gersten & Vaughn, 1997; Gersten et al., 1997; Klinger et al., 1999; Vaughn & Klinger, 2000). 206 Implications for Professional Development Many authors have pointed to professional development as a means to initiate and support teacher growth in order to meet challenging classroom realities (Au & Raphael, 2000; B.C.T.F Task Force, 1999; Garcia, 1999; Kamloops/Thompson School District, 1998). The findings from this study reinforce this notion, and suggest that professional development could be targeted in two specific areas. First, there is a need for teachers to enhance their knowledge of diverse cultures, and in this study, of the First Nations cultures. Teachers in many metropolitan areas may require knowledge of such cultures as Chinese, East Indian, and Russian to address the needs of their minority student populations (Ashworth, 2001). These educational opportunities should focus on acquiring knowledge of the traditional language and culture, but also promote self-reflection on attitudes and beliefs about diversity (Garcia, 1999; Mattson & Caffrey, 2001). This suggestion is consistent with calls from others for schools to provide on-going anti-discrimination programs for staff and students (Mattson & Caffrey, 2001). Therefore, professional development must focus on both knowledge of and attitudes towards cultural diversity. The second target of professional development should be to support teachers' implementation of new or innovative practices. The support must take place on two levels. First, it is essential that teachers understand the philosophy and theory behind the instructional methods that they are learning (Ball, 1995; Klinger et al., 1999). This background knowledge will enable teachers to make informed adjustments to the instructional methods (Ball, 1995) without compromising intervention integrity. In addition, when teachers develop new conceptual frameworks, they are more likely to make deep-rooted changes in their instructional practices (Butler et al., in press; Englert & Tarrant, 207 1993; Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler & Schiller, 1997). A second level of support for teachers involves participation in collaborative professional development with other educators (Butler et al., in press; Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Perry et al., 1999; Stein et al., 1999). In this type of model, teachers and/or researchers engage in collaborative problem solving, discussing, testing, and evaluating new ways of teaching. Through joint inquiry, teachers are supported to make meaningful and sustained change in their practice. With a solid theoretical grounding, in tandem with on-going supports focused on shifting practices, teachers may be able to make planful and informed decisions (Delpit, 1986; Slavin, 2002; Yeh, 1998) about how to meet the needs of their cultural minority students, and know how to self-evaluate educational practices. While professional development may be a powerful remedy for the challenges to effective instruction and curriculum development, educational contexts must also change. For example, if teachers are to take full advantage of professional development opportunities, they must have adequate time to learn and practice new skills (Bryne, 1995; Gersten 8c Vaughn, 1997; Gersten et al., 1997; Perry et al, 1999; Stein et al, 1999). The learning climate must be safe and supportive (Bryne, 1995; Englert & Tarrant, 1993), where teachers have control over planning of, and goal setting for, their on-going professional development (Perry et al., 1999). Extended support by researchers, administration and colleagues can enhance the learning process (Gersten & Vaughn, 1997; Klinger et al., 1999; Perry et al., 1999; Stein etal., 1999). Limitations At the same time, there are limitations to this study in two main areas - scope and methodology. First, this study examined instructional scaffolding at the elementary level, with two Euro-Canadian, English speaking teachers and their combined 4/5 classes, during writing activities, within a semi-rural community. Although this investigation provides important information about the differential scaffolding process, care should be exercised when generalizing to other instructional contexts. Also, it is not possible to draw generalizations about what is "typical" practice by teachers, given the focus here on just two cases. Further, the focus of this inquiry was on teacher decision making and instruction, and did not directly assess student outcomes (Beed et al., 1991; Bull et al., 1999), which was one of three parameters for identifying scaffolding moves, the other two parameters being intention (Meyer, 1993) and consideration of task and context (Gover & Englert, 1998). Further research is needed to assess how differential scaffolding provided during writing is related to writing performance. Second, in terms of methodology, there are two particular points to raise. The selection of the focal students was based on the criteria of attendance, cooperation, and later on the frequency of teacher-student interactions. In Donna's classroom this resulted in the addition of three more Aboriginal students, all of whom were experiencing difficulties in written language use. It should be noted that at no time was there an intention to link low language ability with students of First Nations ancestry. Another methodological issue related to designing the study to create opportunities for in-depth discussion and reflection between the teachers and the researcher. Time constraints ultimately worked against enacting this part of the study design. For example, although the researcher was available to meet with the teachers before classes began in the morning, and at recess and lunch, both Donna and Lorna had many other demands that prevented extended conversations or debriefings about their lessons. As well, there was a time lapse between audio-taping the teacher-student interactions, and opportunities for generating transcripts. 209 Consequently, the findings from the transcripts were not an integral part of the researcher's discussions with the teachers. Future Research In this study I have examined differential scaffolding with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal student during writing. I have contributed to educational research and knowledge by providing dependable, credible, rich descriptions of teacher decision making, attitudes, and instruction. I have not only corroborated findings from other studies, but I have also elaborated understanding about instructional scaffolding by enriching understanding of how teachers make instructional decisions in context and in relation to their background experiences. My findings reinforce the need for on-going participatory professional development, and provide some guidance concerning how professional development might be structured to effect meaningful change. Future research could extend the inquiry to examine how teachers adjust instruction with children at other grade levels, in classes of only one grade level, and in different subject areas. Studies could also investigate how working in other contexts, for example schools in urban areas serving different minority students, may influence teachers' instructional decision making. As well, future research could examine the impact of linguistic diversity, for example with ESL/ESD students, on differentially scaffolded instruction. Student selection could be systematically based on specific level of English language ability, so that literacy and cultural factors can be more clearly teased apart. The procedure for such investigations could also include data on students' academic performance in response to instructional scaffolding. These inquiries should also build in time for the teachers to consciously reflect on their practice. Through this process, teachers may connect the intent 210 and use of differentially scaffolded instructional with student outcomes. In order to do this, it may be necessary for researchers, school districts and government to financially support release time for teachers to engage in collaborative research. Future studies could also examine the impact of specific educational opportunities on pre-service teachers. For example, researchers could contribute to the development of teacher education programs that build in such components as First Nations pedagogy and multicultural education, and the philosophical underpinnings of innovative instructional practices such as scaffolded instruction and Writing Worksop. Researchers could investigate the development of self-regulating teachers who are metacognitively aware of their practice, reflecting on the complete instructional cycle. Another area of study could be on the appropriateness of certain innovative practices with different cultural, linguistic and economic minority groups, as Delpit (1986) and others (De La Paz & Graham, 2002; Graham & Harris, 1994; Slavin, 2002; Troia & Graham, 2002; Yeh, 1998) have questioned regarding Writing Workshop. It maybe that a teacher-centred and direct instructional approach which focuses on mechanical writing competence is, in fact, the most effective approach for some cultural minority students, as Donna may have believed. Further, scaffolded instructional practices may be incompatible with discourse patterns and learning preferences of some cultural minority groups. Research of this nature would require moving beyond the school and classroom, to the wider socio-cultural community. Future studies may discover that innovative practices may be Eurocentric and therefore, continue to perpetuate the cultural bias that Cole (1990) and other have criticized (Ladson-Billing, 1995; Scribner, 1997; Valsiner, 1989). 211 In conclusion, this study has contributed to our understanding of how teachers adjust instruction to meet the diverse cultural, literacy, and cognitive needs of Aboriginal minority students. Instructional decision making is a complex process that is influenced by environmental conditions, as well as teacher background and experience. This study has provided a rich portrait of how writing instruction unfolds to match, or not match, theoretical recommendations. Finally, the findings of this research project have important implications for how to address impediments to effective instruction and teacher change. 212 BIBLIOGRAPHY Agar, M.H. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. NY: Academic Press, Inc. Alexander, P.A., Murphy, P.K., & Woods, B.S. (1996). Of squalls and fathoms: Navigating the seas of educational innovation. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 31-39. Allington, R.L. (1991). Children who find learning to read difficult: School responses to diversity. In E.H. Heibert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society (pp. 237-252). NY: Teachers College Press. Anderson, J. (1995). Listening to parents' voices: cross cultural perceptions of learning to read and to write. Reading Horizons, 3J(Issue 5), 394-413. Applebee, A.N. & Langer, J.A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60(2), 168-175. Ashton, P. (1985). Motivation and the teacher's sense of efficacy. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education. Volume 2: The classroom milieu (pp. 141-171). NY: Academic Press, Inc. Ashworth, M. (1980). Standard English as a second dialect for Nation Indian students. BC: UBC. Ashworth, M. (2001). ESL in British Columbia.. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning, and identity (pp. 93-106). UK: Perason Ed. Asselin, M. M. (1997). Bridging the gap: children's family and community literacies. Journal of the Canadian Association for Young Children, 22(2), 23-29. Au, K.H., & Carroll, J.H. (1997). Improving literacy achievement through a constructivist approach: The KEEP demonstration classroom project. The Elementary School Journal, 97(3), 203-221. Au, K.H., & Raphael, T.E. (2000). Equity and literacy in the next millennium. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 170-180. Aulls, M.W. (1998). Contributions of classroom discourse to what content students learn during curriculum enactment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 56-69. B.C.T.F Task Force (1999). Report and recommendations of the task force on First Nations education to the 1999 annual general meeting (revised annotated version). Retrieved February 28, 2000 from http://www.bctf.ca/social/AboriginalEd/TF-Report.html Bacharach, N., & Alexander P. (1986). Basal reading manuals: What do teachers think of them and how do they use them? Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 7, 163-177. Ball, D.B. (1995). Blurring the boundaries of research and practice. Remedial and Special Education, 16(6), 354-363. Beatty, B.R. (1999, April). Teachers leading their own professional growth: Self-directed reflection and collaboration and changes in perception of self and work in secondary school teachers. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Que. Beed, P.L., Hawkins, E.M., & Roller, CM. (1991). Moving learners toward independence: The power of scaffolded instruction. The Reading Teacher, 44(9), 648-655. Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 73-93). NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances Instructional Psychology, Vol.2 (pp. 1-64). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written coomposition. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Biemiller, A.w & Meichenbaum, D.(1998). The consequences of negative scaffolding for students who learn slowly - A commentary on C. Addison Stone's "The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities". Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 365-369. Bodrova, E., Leong, D.J., & Paynter, D.E. (1999). Literacy standards for preschool learners. Educational Leadership, Oct., 42-46. Bos, C.S., & Anders, P.L. (1994). The study of student change. In V.Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 181-198). NY: Teachers College Press. Brophy, J. (1985). Teachers' expectations, motives, and goals for working with problem students. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol.2): The classroom milieu (pp. 175-214). NY: Academic press Brown, K. (2000). What Kind of Text-For Whom and When? Textual Scaffolding for Beginning Readers. Reading Teacher, 53(4), 292-307. Brown, A., & Palinscar, A.S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning, and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.393-451). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Brown, A.L, Campione, J.C, Reeve, R.A., Ferrara, R.A., & Palinscar, A.S. (1991). Interactive learning and individual understanding: A case of reading and mathematics. In L.T. Landsmann (Ed.), Culture, schooling, and psychological development (pp. 136-170). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Brownlie, F., Feniak, C, & McCarthy, V. (2000). Promoting success in your classroom: Instruction and assessment of ESL learners. BC: Minuteman Press. Bruning, R. & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25-37. Bryne, M.K. (1995). Building bridges: Response to Schumm and Vaughn. Remedial and Special Education, 16(6), 376-379. Buckley, L.C (2000). Culture specific learning strategies. Intercultural Communication Interest Section ofTESOL, 4(3), 2-3. Bull, K. S., Shuler, P., Overton, R., Kimball, S., Boykin, C, & Griffin, J. (1999). Processes for developing scaffolding in a computer mediated learning environment. In D. Montgomery (Ed.), Rural Special Education for the New Millennium ($v.2A 1-248). NM: American Council on Rural Special Education. Burnaby, B. (1984) English and Native languages: Integration not competition. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 11(2), 7-13. Burns, G.E. (May, 1998). Discursive power and problems of Native inclusiveness in the public education system: A study of mandated school councils. Nail Working paper. Paper presented at the annual general meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Ottawa, Ont. 216 Butler, D.L. (1998). A strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning by students with learning disabilities. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 160-183). NY: Guilford Pub. Butler, D.L., Lauscher, H.N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (in press). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers 'professional development. Manuscript submitted for publication. Buysse, V., Sparkman, K.L., & Wesley, P.W. (2003). Communities of practices: Connecting what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263-277. Calkins, L.M. & Harwayne, S. (1991). Living between the lines. NH: Heinemann. Calkins, L.M., & Harwayne, S. (1987). The writing workshop: A world of difference - A guide for staff development. NH: Heinemann Press. Carrell, P., Pharis, B., and Liberia, J. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23(Issue 4), 647-678. Cazden, C. (1979). Peekaboo as an instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school. (Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, No. 17). CA: Stanford University, Dept. of Linguistics. (EDRS No. ED 191 278) Cazden, CB. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. NH: Heinemann. Chapman, M.L. (1997). Weaving webs of meaning: Writing in the elementary school. Ont: ITP Nelson. Chapman, M.L. (1999). Situated, Social, Active: Rewriting genre in the elementary classroom. Written Communication, 16(A), 469-490. Clay, M.M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. ME: Stenhouse Pub. Cole, M. (1990). Cognitive development and formal schooling: the evidence from cross-cultural research. In Luis Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistoricalpsychology (pp. 89-110). NY: Cambridge University Press. Corson, D. (1997). Awareness of non-standard varieties in the schools. In L. van Lier & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol.6: Knowledge and language) (pp. 229-240). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Pub. Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. CA: Sage. Cumming, A., & So, S. (1996). Tutoring second language text revision: Does the approach to instruction or the langue of communication make a differnce? Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 197-226. Dahl, K.L., & Farnan, N. (1998). Children's writing: Perspectives from research. Del: IRA &NRC. De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687-698. DeGroff, L. (1993). Process-writing teachers' responses to fourth-grade writers' first drafts. Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 131-144. Delpit, L.D. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive black educator. Harvard Educational Review, 56(A), 379-385. 218 Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. US: McGraw Hill. Donahue, M., & Lopez-Reyna, N.A. (1998). Conversational maxims and scaffolded learning in children with learning disabilities: Is the flying buttress a better metaphor? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 398-403. Duffy, G.G. (1993). Rethinking strategy instruction: Four teachers' development and their low achievers' understandings. Elementary School Journal, 93(1), 231-247'. Englert, CS. (1992). Writing instruction from a sociocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and social enterprise of writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(3), 153-172. Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., & Anderson, L.M. (1992). Socially mediated instruction: Improving students' knowledge and talk about writing. The Elementary School Journal, 92(A), 411-449. Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Anderson, L.M., Anthony, H,.M., & Stevens, D.D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 337-372. Englert, C.S., Rozendal, M.S., & Mariage, M.(1994). Fostering the search for understanding: A teacher's strategies for leading cognitive development in "zones of proximal development". Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 187-204. Englert, CS. & Tarrant, K.L. (1995). Educational innovations: Achieving curricular change through collaboration. Education & Treatment of Children, 95(16), 441-474. ESL Standards Committee. (1999). English as a Second Language standards. BC: Ministry of Education. Farrell-Racette, S., Goulet, L., Pelletier, J., & Shmon, K. (1996). Aboriginal cultures and perspectives: Making a difference in the classroom. Diversity in the Classroom Series, Number Five. SK: Saskatchewan Professional Development Unit. Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Variant views about good thinking during composing: focus on revision. In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in schools (pp. 337-358). CA: Academic Press. Fletcher, T.V., Bos, C.S., & Johnson, L.M. (1999). Accommodating English language learners with language and learning disabilities in bilingual education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(2), 80-91. Flower, L.S. & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). NJ: Lawrence Erblaum Assoc. Flower, L.S. & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32 ^ 365-387. Forman, E.A., & McPhail, J. (1993). Vygotskian perspective on children's collaborative problem-solving activities. In E. Forman, N. Minick, and C. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning- sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 213-229). NY: Oxford University Press. Gaffney, J.S., & Anderson, R.C. (1991). Two-tiered scaffolding: Congruent processes of teaching and learning. In E.H. Heibert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society (pp. 184-198). NY: Teachers College Press. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistoricalpsychology (pp. 175-205). NY: Cambridge University Press. Garcia, E. (1999). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge. MA: Houghton Mifflin. Gaskins, I.W., Rauch, A., Gensemer, E., Cunicelli, E., O'Hara, C, Six, L., & Scott, T. (1997). Scaffolding in the development of intelligence among children who are delayed in learning to read. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 3-73). MA: Brookline Books. Gee, J.P. (1989) Two styles of narrative construction and their linguistic and educational implications. Discourse Processes, 12, 287-307. Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454-470. Gersten, R., & Vaughn, S. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 466-477. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466-476. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. IL: Aldine Publishing. Goetz, J.P. & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. FL: Academic Press. Gover, M., & Englert, C.S. (1998). Orchestrating the thought and learning of struggling writers (CIERA Report #1-002). IL: CIERA Publications. Graham, S., Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Abbott, S.P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(1), 170-182. Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1993). Self-regulated strategy development: Helping students with learning problems develop as writers. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 169-181. Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching writing to students with special needs. Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 275-289. Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1997). Self-regulation and writing: where do we go from here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 102-114. Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3-12. Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. NH: Heinemann. Greaney, V., & Neuman, S.B. (1990). The functions of reading: A cross-cultural perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(3), 175-194. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). CA: Sage. Gunderson, L. (1991). ESL literacy instruction: A guidebook to theory and practice. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Gutierrez, K.D. (1992). A comparison of instructional contexts in writing process classrooms with Latino children. Education and Urban Society, 24(2), 244-262. Gutierrez, K.D., & Stone, L.D. (1997). A cultural-historical view of learning and learning disabilities: participating in a community of learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12(2), 123-131. Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241-271. Harris, K.R., and Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self-regulation. MA: Brookline Books. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Self-regulated strategy development: A part of the writing process. In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in schools (pp. 278-312). CA: Academic Press. Harris, K. & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, Mar/Apr, 392-404. Harwayne, S. (2001). Writing through childhood: Rethinking process and product. NH: Heinemann. Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1106-1113. Heath, S.B. (1991). "It's about winning!" - The language of knowledge in baseball. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 101-124). Washington, DC: APA. Heit M., & Blair, H. (1993). Language needs and characteristics of Saskatchewan Indian and Metis students: Implications for educators. In S. Morris, K. Mcleod, & M. Danes (Eds.), Aboriginal languages and education: The Canadian experience (pp. 103-125). Ont: Mosaic Press. Henson, R.K. (2001). The Effects of Participation in Teacher Research on Teacher Efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 819-836. Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-9. Hoy, W.K. & Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372. Huberman, A.M., & Miles, M.B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444). CA: Sage. Jacob, E. (1997). Context and cognition: implications for education innovators and anthropologists. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 28(1), 3-21. Jaramillo, A. (1998). Professional development from the inside out. TESOL Journal, Autumn, 12-18. Kamloops/Thompson School District (1998). Improving school success for First Nations students. Retrieved Feb. 28, from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/abed/readings/iss.toc/htm Klinger, J.K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., & Arguelles, M.E. (1999). Sustaining research-based practices in reading: A 3-year followup. Remedial and Special Education, 20(5), 263-275. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 465-491. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. NY: Cambridge University Press. Leavell, A.G., Cowart, M., & Wilhelm, R.W. (1999). Strategies for preparing culturally responsive teachers. Equity & Excellence in Education, 32(1), 64-71. Lewis, M., Wray, D., & Rospigliosi, P. (1994). ".. .And I want it in your own words". The Reading Teacher, 47(1), 528-536. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. CA: Sage. Malicky, G., Juliebo, M., Norman, C, & Pool, J. (1997). Scaffolding of metacognition in intervention lessons. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 18(2/3), 114-126. Mattson, L, & Caffrey, L. (2001). Barriers to equal education for Aboriginal learners: A review of the literature. A BC Human Rights Commission Report. BC: BC Human Rights Commission. McCabe, A. (1997). Cultural background and storytelling: a review and implications for schooling. The Elementary School Journal, 97 (5), 453-473. McCarthy, V. (2001). Resource models. Notes for ESL, 11(A), 5-6. McCaslin, M. & Good, T.L. (1996). Listening in classrooms. NY: HarperCollins Inc. McCutcheon, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 13-23. McGroarty, M. (1996). Language attitudes, motivation, and standards. In S.L. McKay & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics & language teaching (pp. 3-46). NY: Cambridge University Press. Mclntyre, E. (1995). Teaching and learning writing skills in a low-SES urban primary classroom. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(2), 213-242. Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. CA: Josey-Bass. Meskill, C, & Chen, CE. (April, 2002). Infusing English language learner issues throughout professional educator curricula: The Training for all Teachers Project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Mesmer, H.A. (1999). Scaffolding a crucial transition using text with some decodability. The Reading Teacher, 53(2), 130-142. Meyer, D.K. (1993). What is scaffolded instruction? Definitions, distinguishing features, and misnomers. In D.J. Lev, & C.K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice (pp. 41-53). ILL: National Reading Conference. Michaels, S. (1981). "Sharing time": Children's narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423-442. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Minister's National Working Group on Education (2002). Our children- Keepers of the Sacred Knowledge. Ont: Minister of Supply and Services. Minstry of Education (1993). Supporting learning: Understanding and assessing the progress of children in the Primary Program. A resource for parents and teachers. BC: Queen's Printer. Ministry of Education (1995a). Evaluating problem solving across curriculum. BC: Queens Printer. Ministry of Education (1995b). Personal Planning -Kto 7. Integrated Resource Package^ BC: Queens Printer. Ministry of Education (1998). English as a second language policy framework (Draft). BC: Queen's Printer. Ministry of Education (2000). Primary Program: A framework for teaching. BC: Queen's Printer. Mohan, B.A.(1986). Language and content. MA: Addison-Wesley. Moll, L. (1990). Introduction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistoricalpsychology (pp. 1-30). NY: Cambridge University Press. Moll, L.C. & Whitmore, K.F. (1993). Vygotsky in classroom practice: moving from individual transmission to social transaction. In E.A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. Addison Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 19-42). NY Oxford University Press. Needels, M.C. & Knapp, M.S. (1994). Teaching writing to children who are underserved. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 339-349. North Vancouver School District #44 (1999). Reading 44: A core reading framework. Intermediate. BC: Dunn Communications. O'Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. NY: Cambridge University Press. Obiakor, F.E. (1999) Teacher expectations of minority exceptional learners: Impact on "Accuracy" of self-concepts. Exceptional Children, 66(1), 39-53. Ogbu, J.U. (1995). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. In J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 582-593). NY: MacMillan. Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 230-240. Palinscar, A.S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 &2), 73-98. Palinscar, A.S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Classroom dialogues to promote self-regulated comprehension. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Teaching for understanding and self-regulated learning: Vol.1 (pp. 35-72). NY: JAI Press. Palinscar, A.S., Ransom, K., & Derber, S. (1988/89). Collaborative research and development of reciprocal teaching. Educational Leadership, Dec./Jan., 37-40. Paris, S.G., & Newman, R.S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 87-102. Perry, N.E. (1998). Young children's self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 715-729. Perry, N., & VandeKamp (2000). Creating Classroom Contexts That Support Young Children's Development of Self-Regulated Learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 33 (7-8), 821-43. Perry, N.E., Walton, C, & Calder, K. (1999). Teachers developing assessments of early literacy: A community of practice project. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 218-233. Philips, S.U. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. NY: Longman. Placier, P., & Hamilton, M.L. (1994). Schools as contexts: A complex relationship. In V.Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and staff development process: A case in reading instruction {pp. 135-158). NY: Macmillan. Reid, D.K. (1998). Scaffolding: A broader view. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 386-396. Reid, J. (1999). Affect in the classrooms: Problems, politics and pragmatics. In Jane Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 297-306). UK: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, V., & Hamilton, M.L. (1994). The practical-argument staff development process. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 109-134). NY: Macmillan. Roehler, L.R., & Cantlon, D.J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches (pp. 6-42). MA: Brookline Books. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. NY: Oxford University Press. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. (1996). People to people, nation to nation: Highlights from the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ont: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Ruttan, L. (2000). Issues in shared schools in mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal school systems. In J.C. Montgomery & A.D Kitchenham (Eds.), Issues Affecting Rural Communities (II) (pp. 83-86). BC: Malaspina University College Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10-18. Saravia-Shore, M. & Arvizu, S.F. (1992). Cross-cultural literacy: an anthropological approach to dealing with diversity. In Marietta Saravia-Shore & Steven Arvizu (Eds.), Cross-cultural literacy: Ethnographies of communication in multiethnic classrooms (pp. xv-xxxviii). NY: Garland Publishing. Saskatchewan Education (1997). Building communities of hope: Best practices for meetin gthe learning needs of at-risk and Indian and Metis studetns: Community schools policy and Conceptual framework. Sask: Saskatchewan Education. Schieffelin, B.B., & Ochs, E. (1983). A cultural perspective on the transition from prelinguistic to linguistic communication. In R.M. Golinkoff (Ed.), The transition from prelinguistic to linguistic communication (pp. 115-131). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Schneider, B., Hieshima, J., Lee, S., and Plank, S. (1994). East-Asian academic success in the United States: family, school, and community expectations. In P. Greenfield and R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 323-350). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Schumm, J.S., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Meaningful professional development in accommodating students with disabilities: Lessons learned. Remedial & Special Education, 16(6), 344-354. Scollon, R., & Scollon, B.K. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp. Scribner, S. (1997). In E. Tobach, RJ. Falmagne, M.B. Parlee, L.M.W. Martin, & A.S. Kapelman (Eds.), Mind and social practice: Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner. NY: Cambridge University Press. Slavin, R.E. (2002). Mounting evidence supports the achievement effects of Success for All. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 469-471. Stipek, D. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 85-113). NY: Macmillan. Sue, D.W., Bingham, R.P., Porche-Burke, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). The diversification of psychology: A multicultural revolution. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1061-1069. Suina, J.H. and Smolkin, L. B. (1994). From natal culture to school culture to dominant society culture: supporting transitions for Pueblo Indian students. In P. Greenfield and R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority development (pp. 115-130). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Swisher, K. (1990). Cooperative learning and the education of American Indian/Alaskan native students: a review of the literature and suggestions for implementation. Journal of American Indian Education, Jan., 36-43. Tomlinson, C.A., Callahan, CM., Tomchin, E.M., Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., & Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming architects of communities of learning: Addressing academic diversity in contemporary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 269-282. Toohey, K. (1985). English as a second language for Native Canadians. Canadian Journal of Education, 10(3), 275-292. Toohey, K. (1999, April). Appropriating voices in oral language practices: A sociocultural analysis of learning ESL in primary school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Que. Toohey, K., & Day, E. (1999). Language-learning: The importance of access to community. TESL Canada Journal, 77(1), 40-53. Troia, G.A., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290-305. Tzuriel, D. (1994). Cognitive modifiability, mediated learning experiences and affective-motivational processes: A transactional approach. In R. Feuerstein, P.S. Klein, & A.J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Mediated learning experiences (MLE): Theoretical, Psychological and Learning Implications (pp. 95-120). NY: International Center for Enhancement of Learning Potential. Valsiner, J. (1989). General Introduction: How can developmental psychology become "culture inclusive". In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Child development in cultural context (pp. 1-8). NJ: C.J. Hogrefer Inc. Vaughn, S., Klinger, J., & Hughes, M. (2000). Sustainability of researcher-based practices. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 163-171. Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J.S. (1994). Middle school teachers' planning for students with learning disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 15(3), 152-162. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. MA: Harvard University Press. 232 Ward, A. (1997). Classroom conversations: Talking and learning in elementary school. Ont: ITP Nelson. Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: children learning language and using language to learn. NH: Heinemann. Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing Knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of inquiry and literacy. NH: Heinemann . Wertsch, J.V. (1991a). The problem of meaning in a sociocultural approach to mind. In A. McKeough & J. L. Lupart (Eds.), Toward the practice of theory-based instruction: Current cognitive theories and their educational promise (pp. 31-49). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Wertsch, J.V. (1991b). Voices of the mind. MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J.V., Tulvistie, P., & Hagstrom, F. (1993). A sociocultural approach to agency. In E.A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Context for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in childhood development (pp.336-356). NY: Oxford University Press. Winn, J. A. (1994). Promises and challenges of scaffolded instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 89-104. Wong, B.Y.L., Butler, D.L., Ficzere, S.A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(2), 197-212. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Yeh, S.S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(1), 49-83. Yin, R.K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 58-65. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research - design and methods (2nd ed.) CA:Sage Publications, Inc. Zimmerman, B.J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In Dale H.Schunk & Barry J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-resulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 3-21). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Zimmerman, B.J. & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101. 234 APPENDIX A RESEARCH PROJECT: Differentially Scaffolded Instruction for ESL and non-ESL Students During Writing in the Elementary Years March 27, 2001 Mr./Ms. Principal Any Elementary School Western Canada community Dear : I am writing to request permission to conduct a two-month (maximum 40-hour) observational research project at your school, to begin in September 2001 and complete in December 2001. I have permission from the Superintendent, Dr. . My research interests are in the area of writing and cross-cultural instructional methods. As our school populations continue to diversify, educators and researchers continue to explore alternative methods of instruction and support that would promote the development of writing skills. Many approaches focus on the principles of Writing Workshop, utilizing conferences and cooperative learning. My interest is in discovering how teachers may modify or adapt writing instruction differently for students who are not English language proficient. In order to do this, I would like to observe classroom writing activities (approximately 45 minutes per observation) followed by one-on-one interviews with the classroom teacher (approximately 30 minutes per interview session). The observations will require the use of video and audio-recorders, which will help to embellish the observational notes. During each follow-up interview, the teacher will be asked to clarify the intent of their instruction and support, as observed during the writing activity. Additionally, the classroom teacher will be asked to write a weekly journal reflecting upon their writing instructional practices with ESL and non-ESL students, which would take approximately 30 minutes per week to write. The total teacher time commitment is 40 hours. I may also informally speak with students during the observation period. Our conversations will be brief and focus on their writing. No out-of-class time is required for the students. The criteria for teacher participation are threefold. First, they must be willing to be observed during writing instruction / activities (15-20 lessons) over a three-month period, and be available for post-lesson interviews. Second, interested teachers must have a minimum of 3-5 ESL students in their classroom. Third, these teachers must demonstrate elements of scaffolded instruction (support that enables students to complete tasks that may be above their current ability level). t Page 1 of 2 235 All data will be locked in my faculty office (or on-site, in your office), when not in use. Should any papers or articles be published using the data from this study, all names and identifying information will be changed or removed to protect identities. At any time, the teacher or children's parents may decide to withdraw from the study, with no consequence. I have attached a copy of the Ethics Review form for your perusal, as well as a teacher information package (letter of introduction for interested teachers, sample interview questions, and teacher consent forms) to distribute to any teachers who meet the sampling criteria. I would be grateful for your permission to conduct my research in your school, however, I am aware of the demands that it places on the teachers and their students. I will call within the coming week to answer any questions that you may have, and to determine if there are teachers who would be interested and suitable for my study. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kim J. Calder Ph.D. student, UBC Page 2 of 2 236 APPENDIX B RESEARCH PROJECT: Differentially Scaffolded Instruction for ESL and non-ESL Students During Writing in the Elementary Years March 27, 2001 Mr./ Ms. Teacher Any Elementary School Western Canada community Dear Teacher: As your principal has probably already told you, I am a UBC graduate student currently doing research for my dissertation. As part of my research I would like to explore how teachers instruct and support students during writing activities. I am aware that your school has a high ESL population and am particularly interested in the way that you work with these students. Writing is a very difficult task for most students, so I'm sure your job is a challenging one with children who are also English language learners. In order to obtain as accurate a picture as possible of your classroom practice, I would like to do a series of observations of you and your students during story writing instruction / activities (45 minutes per observation). Approximately 15-20 observations will be needed, likely over a two-month period, for a total of 30 hours of observation time). During each observation I would try to be as unobtrusive as possible, although I will video- and audio-tape each session. Hopefully your students will become familiar with the observation process, and eventually ignore the taping equipment so that I can get a relatively authentic record of how you instruct and support story writing with your students. Occasionally I may talk to some of your students about their story writing. These conversations will be brief and should not interfere with your instruction. The portions of the study that will require additional time on your part will be the lesson reviews and the teacher journal. I would like to interview you after each observation (though it need not be immediately following, but at a time later in the day when you are available). During these review sessions I would like to examine further some of the specific actions that you took with certain students (particularly the ESL students). The observations and interviews are not intended to be evaluative in any way. Rather, I am interested in knowing more about the intent of your instructional techniques and how the student responded to them. The review sessions should take no more than 30 minutes, during which time I would take additional notes and tape-record our conversation for future review. The teacher journal is to be completed by you once a week (taking approximately 30 minutes), and is simply your own reflection of your writing instruction - perhaps comments about the success of certain approaches, how you felt about your delivery, or what you might do different next time. I will make a copy of each week's entry for review later. Page 1 of2 237 Ideally I will be seeking two teachers (and their students) to participate in the study. They may or may not be from the same school. My objective is to achieve a strong sense of how teachers instruct and support students (particularly ESL children) during writing activities. Again, my intent is not evaluative in any way. I realize the commitment that will be required by the teachers who choose to participate in my study. Though I cannot offer monetary reimbursement, my findings will be enormously helpful in learning more about the challenging work of classroom teachers with diverse student populations. If you would be interested in participating in this study, kindly indicate this to your principal. I will be confirming teacher participation in the next week. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kim Calder Ph.D. student, UBC Page 2 of 2 239 study, upon completion, please fill in an address below your signature of consent. Should you have any concerns about your rights or treatment as a research participant, you may contact the Director of Research Services at the University of British Columbia, Dr. Richard Spratley at Sincerely, Kim Calder, Ph.D. student, UBC I, the undersigned, CONSENT to participate in this research study. Teacher's name (please print) Teacher's signature Address/Postal Code Date I HAVE / HAVE NOT (circle one) received a copy of this form for my records Teacher's signature Page 2 of2 240 APPENDIX D RESEARCH PROJECT: Differentially Scaffolded Instruction for ESL and non-ESL Students During Writing in the Elementary Years May 10, 2001 Mr. & Mrs. Parent Any Elementary School Western Canada community Dear Mr. & Mrs. Parent: The above project will be carried out at ^ School from September to December 2001. I would be grateful to have your permission for your child to participate. I would like to learn more about the ways those teachers instruct and support children during story writing. To do this I will be observing your child's teacher, , on approximately fifteen to twenty occasions over the next two months. Each observation will last approximately 45 minutes (30 hours of observation in total). During each class observation I will make anecdotal notes and video- and audiotapes of student-teacher interactions. On occasion I may ask your child about their story writing. Our conversations will be brief and take place within the classroom. Your child will not miss any instruction. After each lesson, I will interview the teacher to learn more about the approaches that he/she used with various students. I would be grateful for your permission for your child to participate in this study; however, you are under no obligation to do so. Also, if you or your child wishes to withdraw at any time once the study is underway, you may do so without jeopardizing your child's standing in the class. When the observation notes and video/audio-tapes are not in use, they will be locked my office desk/cabinet for security. Should any papers or articles be published using the data from this study, all names and identifying information will be changed or removed to protect identities. Please sign the bottom of this form and return it, indicating your choice regarding your son/daughter's participation by circling one of the alternatives below. A second copy of this form is attached, which you may keep for your records. If at any time you have questions regarding the project, contact Dr. D. Butler, UBC, If you would like to receive a report summary of this study, upon completion, please fill in an address below your signature Page 1 of2 241 of consent. Should you have any concerns about your child's participation in this study (their rights or treatment), you may contact the Director of Research Services at the University of British Columbia, Dr. Richard Spratley at Sincerely, Kim Calder, Ph.D. student, UBC I, the undersigned, CONSENT / DO NOT CONSENT (circle one) for my child, named below, to participate in the research study. Child's name (please print) Signature of Parent or Guardian Address / Postal Code Date I HAVE / HAVE NOT (circle one) received a copy of this form for my records Signature of Parent or Guardian Page 2 of 2 242 APPENDIX E INTERVIEW FORM Part 1 1. Teacher Name: 2. Grade Taught: 3. Total # of children in the class: 4. Years of teaching experience: 5. # of ESL students in the class: (An ESL student is one whose "use of English is sufficiently different from standard English to prevent reaching his or her potential." Ministry of Education definition taken from Supporting Learners of English.) 6. How many students are at each level of English language development? Beginner 1 Beginner 2 Intermediate 1 Intermediate 2 Advanced 7. What are the first languages of your ESL students? How many of each? Asian - First Nation -Indian - Eastern European -. French - Other (please specify) -8. How many years have you been teaching students with ESL? 9. What type of ESL support do you or does your school receive? Circle one or specify in the space provided. ESL Class, ESL itinerant teacher, ESL district consultant, PD training How often do you receive this support? Circle or specify in the space provided, daily, weekly, biweekly, monthly, yearly, hourly 243 10. What special training have you had in second language training? university course (type and number) workshops (type, number and duration) personal reading (please specify) 11. Have you had experience working with students with other types of diverse learning needs? Y N If yes, please explain. 12. Do you speak / read / write / listen in a second language? Y N If so, which languages? How would you rate your proficiency in each area (speaking, reading, writing, listening) for each language, using the above 5 point scale (1 no use to 5 native equivalent proficiency). For example: Spanish - speak-3, read-1, write-1, listen-1 13. What materials, program or instructional techniques have you or your school staff developed in order to better meet the needs of your ESL students? 14. What do you consider to be the 'best practices' for effectively teaching ESL students in the regular classroom? 15. What impediments do you face which hinder your ability to use these 'best practices' for ESL students in your classroom? Part 2 1. How easy is it for you to make adaptations to your lessons or scaffold so your ESL students can achieve success in writing? 2. How well prepared do you feel you are to make the adaptations or to scaffold your ESL students? 244 3. How would you describe your level of satisfaction with your instructional practices in composition for your class in general? 4. What could be done to improve your instruction of writing in general? For your ESL students? 5. What could be done to increase your level of satisfaction with your instructional practices in composition? Part 3 1. How did you decide on today's writing activity? What curriculum factors did you consider? What student factors did you consider? How did you adapt or modify the activity for your ESL students? What were the reasons for these changes? How did you modify the activity differently for the ESL students with greater language competency compared to those with less competency? What would you have done differently? Why? 4. The research will review the observation record and for each teacher-student interaction ask: "What did you say or do with this student and why?" "What did you perceive the student was thinking or feeling?" 245 APPENDIX F Observation Recording Sheet Task Context: Task: Initial Instruction / directions: Physical classroom arrangement: Teacher-student interactions: Teacher interaction with Location Content/Function of interaction Gestures Expressions Intonation Student Outcome Classroom Conditions: 246 APPENDIX G Table Series Table 23 Comparing Teacher Moves Applied in Different Types of Lessons CD CJ CO cz cz >-* CD o Lesson Type CD CZ it Choice ates Studei it Opportun Attention is to Experi o o ro cu E CO nt input ioning rical Quest "o cu OJ TJ i_ Si o ~ to zn cj tu CO cu CL to .O "U cu cu TO cu to <D o Q ZZt to CD or X LU o Li- CD or CD or cu LL. CO o 1 CO 3 co =J a £Z Specific Skill Genre Journal Writing Table 24 Number of Interactions Between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Students by Type of Lesson Student Genre Journal Writing Specific Skill Reading Response Other Total Interactions Aboriginal - •.' Non-Aboriginal Table 25 Number of Interactions with Each Student During Different Types of Lessons Student Directing Student Choice Reiterates Student Explicit Opportunity Focus Attention Relates to Experience Respectful Feedback Wait time Model Strategy Student input Questioning Rhetorical Questioning Aboriginal • Non-Aboriginal * > 5 APPENDIX I - , -._ --.i.L-i-f j^ferjS^iAfy -4 ^#o&> A..^^A^ ''•rr^;"' s ' "'• ' '" ' f" ' ;;''"•**" • / • ' /J'-Piz H^t/rVb . .w>ai hocks*'- ^ <:<XX&J -AZ&utb' ' •/ " . . • I 'j" > 'tj -/fcl/H.' ,'^'^-.^/Lf- . ..,v «. ^ MCJCV^ _ r^wL .citf^ A'^' |S-^zi<:WJ^ j: r ( ^ _s>]_ir ( iim iiii)[imii[Mj. ,„,.„„!...„„ril„TI w£ APPENDIX J 252 APPENDIX K Literature Circles Reading Response 1. Previewing a new book I have just begun reading by From looking at the pictures, the chapter beginnings (or titles) and the story summary, I can see that this book is about who I predict that a problem the main character has might be I wonder if I think I hope that.... Now read a few chapters of your book. Then write Reading Response 2 in your Reading Response books: 2. Responding to a passage from the story On the left hand page of your Reading Response books, copy two or three sentences from your story. On the right hand page, tell what is happening and what you thought as you read this passage: In this part of the story, is I think ,. I wonder ,. This part reminded me of 3. Letter to a friend When you are about half way through your book, write a letter to a classmate who is reading the same novel. Discuss the characters and plot (action). Write about your favorite part and ask your classmate what he or she thinks about part of the story: 253 Dear : I have just gotten to the part of the story where I wonder What did you think when ? Did you think would ? What is your favorite part of the story so far? Your friend Now finish reading the book. When you are finished, write a book report summarizing the main parts of the story, and writing your thoughts: I have just finished reading by It was about who (Tell about a couple of problems or adventures the main character has). The part I liked best was ,. I also liked (or I didn't like) , I think the author was trying to tell us I would like to ask the author I wish that 254 APPENDIX L Student: Dear Parents: We have just completed our unit on true stories and are preparing to start our next unit. Once again, I'm asking for your assistance. Could you please talk with your child about tilings they know a lot about (descriptions). The category will be called ALL ABOUT... Please list 10 topics that fit into this category. Some examples are: • All About Bears • All About Cars • All About Rainbows Please discuss this project with your student. As this is a homework assignment, completion and return is Thank you for your on-going commitment to your student's education. Sincerely, Mrs. L. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054386/manifest

Comment

Related Items