UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Two models of teacher response to students writing to learn in response journals Mackay, Elaine 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1992_fall_mackay_elaine.pdf [ 3.25MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0078071.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078071-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078071-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078071-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078071-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078071-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078071-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

TWO MODES OF TEACHER RESPONSE TO STUDENTS WRITING TO LEARN IN RESPONSE JOURNALS by ELAINE MACKAY BA.,  The University of British Columbia,  1973  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Language Education)  We accept this thesis as conforming to th, required standard  LIi  1)  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 1992  (a’, SJ  Elaine MacKay,  1992  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.  Department  of  a e 7 .  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  i9aysr’ /99L.  c€z1oc  11  ABSTRACT Although student response journals have been demonstrated to be effective aids to learning, primarily through case study reports and articles,  little evidence to show the  there is  most effective ways for teachers to respond to what students write  their  in  of  influence writing  two  fluency,  differing skills  current  modes  and  school  junior high  grade-nine  The  journals.  of  study  examines  teacher  attitudes  toward  students.  In  the  response  on  writing  of  addition,  the  study investigates the effects on participating teachers of using response journals in subject area classrooms. This study is a controlled experiment in which grade-nine students were randomly assigned to experimental and control classes  in  English  and  science.  The  treatment  students  received open, positive, encouraging comments by subject—area teachers on their response journals in the twelve—week school term during which the experiment took place. received  evaluative,  corrective  Control students  comments.  An  attitude  measure, administered both pre— and post—experiment, was used to investigate student attitudes toward writing over all and on  four  purpose). given  in  sub—categories  (source,  audience,  response  and  In addition, a pre— and post—instruction essay was order  to  ascertain the  effects  of  treatment  on  writing growth overall and on two subscores, one for content and  one  for  mechanics.  Throughout  the  duration  of  the  experiment students maintained response journals which were analyzed for changes in attitude using a chronological chart  iii consisting of a core of fifteen common features perceived to be characteristic of good journals.  Participating teachers  were administered pre— and posttest interviews in order to elicit changes in their attitudes toward the use of response As well, they were requested to maintain individual  journals. journals  as  a  record  of  their  impressions  throughout  the  experiment. Results differences frequently  did found  in  the  not were wrong  favour not  only  expected  outcomes.  non—significant  direction with  the  but  control  The also group  exhibiting more positive growth than the experimental group. A contaminating factor, failure to carry out the procedures as described, seems the most tenable explanation for this study’s failure to reject the null hypothesis.  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABS’I’Rl..CT TABLEOFCONTENTS LIST OF TABLES IST OF FIGURES 1 I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  .  iv viii ix x  INTRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEI”! Introduction of the Research Problem Purpose of and Rationale for the Present Study Research Questions Definition of Terms L iinitations  CHAPTER ONE:  CHAPTER TWO: THE RELATED RESEARCH Composing: The Historical Context The Traditional Paradigm of Writing Instruction Writing Across the Curriculum The Writing Process and the New Paradigm of Writing Instruction The New Paradigm: Talk—Write Connections The New Paradigm: Read—Write Connections Writing to Learn through Response Journals Instructional Approach and Attitude toward Writing... Instructional Approach and Growth in Writing Ability Teaching Style: Methods of Implementation Native Indian Students Context of the Present Study CHAPTERTHREE:PROCEDURES DesignoftheStudy Subjects i) TheStudents TheTeachers ii) Attrition Treatments TwoModesofTeacherResponse i) The Open-process Mode of Response ii) The Traditional Mode of Response English Classes——course content Science Classes——course content Pilot Study Measures Used Part A: The P & R Writing Attitude Form (adapted) Part B: Student Response Journals——The Chronological Chart Part C: Holistic Marking Scale Part D: Science Experiments——Observations Part E: Teacher Interviews/Teacher Personal Logs  1 1 3 4 9 9 12 13 14 16 18 19 20 22 23 25 25 26 27 29 29 30 30 32 33 34 34 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 40 41 42 42  V  Coil ect ion of Data Part A: Completion of the Questionnaire on Attitude toward Writing Part B: Student Response Journals Part C: The Writing Samples i) Composition Topics ii) Schedule Part D: The Science Experiments Experiments——Pre—\and Posttest Measures i) ii) Schedule Part E: Teacher Interviews and Personal Logs Preparation and Scoring of Data 2.non7nhiiy Part A: The Attitude Measure Part B: Student Response Journals TrainingSessions i) Coding ii) iii) Scoring Combining Journal Modes and Features iv) into Facets Part C: The Writing Samples i) Data Preparation TrainingSessions ii) iii) Scoring of the data Part D: The Science Experiments——Observations Part E: Teacher Interviews and Personal Logs StatisticalTreatments Calculating Reliability Multivariate Analysis of Variance: (MANOVA) Analysis of Variance: (ANOVA) Analysis of Covariance: (ANCOVA) t—Tests Descriptive (Condescriptive) Statistics Qua litati’ve Analysis Preliminary Analyses The Attitude Measure The Essays Success of Randomization Procedures ChAPTER FOtJR : FINDINGS Part A: The Attitude Measure and the Effect of Treatment The English Essays and the Effect of Treatment Attitude Measure: Growth Overall and on Subscores Overall Growth: the Attitude i) Measure and the English Essays Overall Growth: the Attitude ii) Measure  .  42 43 43 44 44 45 45 45 45 46 47 47 47 48 48 49 49 53 54 54 55 56 57  .  58 58 59 60 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 63 64 67  68 69 70 71  vi iii) Growth on Subscores: the Attitude Ivleasure iv) Growth on Subscores: the English Essays Part B: Student Response Journals and the Effect of Treatment Overall Growth: Response Journals—— i) the fifteen modes and formal features——results between conditions ii) Analysis of Covariance: Response Journals iii) Growth on Subscores: Response Journals Part C: Qualitative Analysis of Teacher Interviews and I. ogs 1 Suruuary  72 74 75  76 77 78 81 83  CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IECOM14END2TIONS Sununary Discussion Attitudes toward Writing GrovTth in Writing Student Response Journals and the Effects of Treatment C onc lus ions Design Features Sample Size i) InitialDifferences ii) iii) Duration I’leasures Used TheAttitudeMeasure i) ii) The Writing Measure iii) TheResponseJournals Procedural Elements Administration of the Treatment i) Alternative Interpetations Recommendations for Further Research Replication Administration of theTreatment UntestedHypothesis  89 90 91 91 92 92 93 93 95 95 96 96 98 99 99 100 101  CHAPTER SIX: EPILOGUE Administration of the Treatment The Science Teacher The EnglishTeacher Untested Hypothesis  102 102 103 105 108  IOGR.APHY 1 BIBI.  110  Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix  A: B: C: D:  Letter of permission Parental/Guardian consent form Guidelines for student response Two modes of teacher written response  86 86 87 87 88  115 116 119 121  vii 123 English——course content outline 125 In-class essays--composition topics 126 In-class essays--prewriting instructions 127 Science——course content outline 129 Science experiment——pretest 130 Science experiment--posttest Student writing samples--two modes of 132 teacher response 136 Attitude questionnaire Appendix L: 141 “The P & R Writing Attitude Form” Appendix N: Definitions of categories--attitude Appendix N: 143 questionnaire 144 Attitude questionnaire--categories Appendix 0: 145 Chronologicalchart AppendixP: Definitions——categories, modes and formal Appendix Q: 146 features 149 Writingscale——essays AppendixR: 150 Teacher interview guide Appendix 5: 152 Teacher interviews--transcripts Appendix T: 168 Data base——samples Appendix U: 169 PLAPP——samples AppendixV: Table 10——facets; student response journals: Appendix W: means and standard deviations for z scores, 173 transformed t scores Results of pilot testing of attitude measure..l75 Appendix X: 176 Operational statement of hypotheses Appendix Y: Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix  E: F: G: H: I: J: K:  viii  LIST OF TABLES  Inter-rater reliability, essays pretest/postTable 1 test differences on content and mechanics  63  Success of randomization procedures; Table 2 explanation of two tailed test for comparison between treatment conditions  65  The attitude measure and the English essays: Table 3 multivariate analysis of variance  70  Table 4 Attitude measure: (adjusted by removing the two items found unreliable by LERTAP): means, standard deviations and pretest/posttest differences  71  Table 5 Attitude measure: means, standard deviations and pretest/posttest differences for sub—categories  73  Essays: means, standard deviations and Table 6 pretest/posttest differences per treatment condition  74  The response journals: multivariate analysis Table 7 of variance (pretest=first 3 weeks of treatment, mid—test=next four weeks, posttest=last 3 weeks... 76 Table 8 Response journals (the 5 facets combined from the 12 original features and modes): analysis of . covariance  77  Response journals: means, standard deviations Table 9 and pretest/mid-test; pretest/posttest differences on final sub—scores  79  Table 10 Facets——student response journals: means and standard deviations for z scores, transformed t scores  174  ix  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1  Design of the Study  31  Figure 2  Chronological Chart  145  x  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere gratitude is expressed to Dr. J.F. Belanger, my advisor, for his encouragement, guidance and selfless generosity To the in the giving of his time and advice to this project. other committee members, Dr. Marion Crowhurst and Dr. Ian Housego, I extend my sincere thanks for their advice and guidance. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Walter Boldt and Dr. Bob Conry for their comments on the design of the study and their assistance in the statistical analysis of the data. To the numerous others who made contributions to the study, In particular, I would like to express a sincere thank—you. appreciation to the following people: Troy Brown, for his assistance in creating and loading the data base for the statistical analysis of the student response journals; and Ed Clifford for proofreading both throughout the project and finally, and for his assistance with the construction of the data tables. Finally, I wish to thank my husband, D’Arcy MacKay, both for his participation as a teacher in the project and for his patience, support and encouragement throughout the completion of this thesis.  1 CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM  Introduction of the Research Problem Nothing is known about the effects of feedback during prewriting activities. Observational and experimental studies should be extremely useful in adding to knowledge about the nature and effects of feedback of this kind (Hillocks, 1986, 241). This  study  that  hypothesized  groups  of  experimental  students who were responded to in writing with warm, accepting written comments (open—process response) by their teachers in response journals would, as a consequence, show significantly greater growth in writing skill than the control groups did. The control groups were responded to with directing, critical written remarks (traditional response) by their teachers.  It  was further hypothesized that these two modes of differing teacher  response  would  result  in  significant  changes  in  attitudes toward writing, the subject area and/or the teacher with the results favouring the experimental groups. Educators——in particular English teachers——have become increasingly school  has  concerned  been  for  that  limited to  the  most  notetaking,  essay test questions and copying.  part  writing  answering  Applebee’s  in  study or  (1981)  study  indicated that only three percent of writing done by secondary school  students  Furthermore, areas,  less  was  of  more  than  a  paragraph  of all the writing students did, than  one  half  of  one  percent  in  length.  in all subject  could  be  termed  2 (Britton,  ‘expressive’  Often no vehicle is provided  1975).  for students whereby they can discover meaning in texts for themselves  without  responses  are  the  fear final  evaluation.  of  product:  Their  perfunctory  initial  exercises  in  “...academic tennis (returning the ball of information served by the teacher)” (Marland, 1977, 148).  The evaluative nature  of such writing is also of concern;  its audience is that of  teacher examiner  The traditional mode of  (Applebee,  1981).  teacher response to such writing is corrective,  directional  and/or informing with the emphasis placed on correctness of surface features such as mechanics rather than content. effectiveness  of  such  final—product comments  according to available research (Hillocks,  is  The  negligible  1986).  How does one help students to learn and understand the informative prose that  is  the norm  for most  textbooks and  reading requirements in subject areas other than English?  How  does one help students explore their own personal connections with a piece of literary text before handing an essay in to be Response journals provide a vehicle whereby students  graded? can  explore  disagree  on  new knowledge, new  meanings  verify  old knowledge,  (Jacobs,  1978).  They  agree  or  provide  opportunities for articulating connections between what the reader  already  knows  and  new  information  without  fear  of  evaluation. Case study research has indicated the value of response journals as vehicles for learning and in changing students’ attitudes toward writing (Fuiwiler, 1987; Gere,  1985; Peyton  3 et  al.,  1988).  Such  case  study  research  foundation for this experimental study. on this knowledge, the  nature  writing  of  to  a  toward  attitudes  toward  laid  the  To extend and build  this study will explore the effects that teacher’s  learn in  attitudes  has  written  response  response journals  various the  aspects  subject  of  area  to  students’  has on a) students’  writing, teacher,  b)  students’  c)  students’  writing ability and d) students’ approaches to problem solving in science. Purpose of and Rationale for the Present Study This  study  experimental  is  a  groups  controlled  experiment  received treatment  in  which  the  in writing response  journals posited to result in different outcomes from those of the  control  groups.  The  purposes  of  this  research  are  fourfold: 1)  to  examine  written response writing  to  the  effects  of  two  modes  of  teacher  (open process/traditional) to students  learn  in  response  journals  in  English  (specifically literature) and science on the attitudes of ninth—graders  toward  source,  audience,  response  and  purpose of/for writing, 2)  to examine the effects of two differing modes of  teacher response writing  to  (open process/traditional) to students  learn  in  response  journals  in  English  (specifically literature) and science on the attitudes of ninth—graders itself,  toward  writing,  and/or the teacher,  the  response  journal  4 to examine, in particular, the effects of two modes  3)  of teacher written response to students writing to learn response  in  journals  on  the  writing  performance  of  ninth-graders as judged by the overall quality of their essays, and the sub—categories of content and mechanics. to investigate the effects of two modes of teacher  4)  written response to students writing to learn in response journals on students’ approaches to solving a problem in science. Research questions Part writing,  A  of  the  study,  survey  on  attitudes  toward  is a Likert-type scale that consists of twenty-nine  statements about writing. pre—  the  and  posttest  The same form is used as both a  measure.  The  twenty—nine  statements  comprised four categories: attitudes toward source, audience, response and purpose of/for  writing.  (definitions are located in Appendix N)  Part  A  of  the  study  is  informed  by  the  following research question: Do students who have been responded to in writing by  1.  their subject area teacher using the open—process mode of response (the experimental groups and/or its subgroup of Native  Indian  students)  toward writing C)  response,  been  according  and/or d)  responded  teacher  using  control  groups  show  to the  in  to  positive  a) source,  attitudes  b) audience,  purpose than students who have writing  traditional  and/or  more  its  by  their  subject  area (the  mode  of  response  subgroup  of  Native  Indian  5  students)  as measured by a pre— and posttest attitude  survey? Part B of the study is a chronological chart kept for each student in all four groups.  It is a record of possible  reflections of change in attitude toward a)  b)  the  response journal itself, and c) the subject area teacher.  The  chart  is  writing,  record of how frequently each student used the  a  and  formal  features  in  following  modes  journal.  It is believed that the more often a student made  use of these modes and features,  his/her  response  the greater he/she valued  some aspect of writing. Modes: i. Observations, ii. iii.  interpretations, evaluations.  Insights, understanding. Information.  iv. Revisions. v.  Creative expressions.  vi. Questions. vii.  Digressions.  viii. Confidences. ix. Frustrations. x.  Speculations.  xi. Desire to know more.  Formal Features: xii.  Frequency of entries.  xiii. Length of entries  (number of words).  6  Self—sponsored entries.  xiv.  xv. Organization and neatness. These modes and formal  features were tabulated once a  week over the course of the twelve—week treatment period.  The  two central questions here are: Do  1.  students who  have  been  responded  to  in  writing by their English teacher using the open process mode  response  of  subgroup of Native Indian students) attitudes  toward a)  group  experimental  (the  writing,  b)  and/or  its  show more positive  the response  journal  itself, and/or c) the subject area teacher as measured by the number of modes and formal features used in response journals  than  students  who have  been responded  to  in  writing by their English teacher using the traditional mode of response  (the control group and/or its subgroup  of Native Indian students)? 2.  Do students who have been responded to in writing by  their  science  teacher  using  open—process  the  mode  of  response (the experimental group and/or its subgroup of Native  Indian  attitudes  students)  toward  a)  writing,  show b)  more the  response  positive journal  itself, and/or c) the subject area teacher as measured by the number of modes and formal features used in response journals  than  students  who have  been  responded  to  in  writing by their science teacher using the traditional mode of response  (the control group and/or its subgroup  of Native Indian students)?  7 Part C of the study has as its dependent variable the writing  quality  the  of  compositions  written  classes, as determined by the ratings of judges. are based on two formal, (in—class essays). overall  scores  in  English  The ratings  in—class, pre—and posttest measures  The writing quality variable consists of  comprised  of  two  organization, and b) mechanics.  subscores:  a)  content  and  The prewriting components, in  preparation for the in—class essays, are teacher instruction in purpose and structure of essay writing and brainstorming for content of topic choices. a  test-like  typical  allowed.  The measures were conducted in  situation  with  no  verbal  interaction  One four—by—six file card containing student notes  for essay content and structure was allowed for each student for each measure. 1.  The critical question here is:  Do students who have been responded to in writing  by their English teacher using the open—process mode of response (the experimental group and/or its subgroup of Native  Indian  students)  show greater gains  skill overall and/or in a) their writing and b)  in writing  content and organization of  the mechanics of their writing as  measured in the posttest  (formal,  in—class essay)  than  students who have been responded to in writing by their English teacher using the traditional mode of response (the control group and/or its subgroup of Native Indian students)? The dependent variable in Part D of this research is the number of observations made in science experiments as counted  8  by  judges.  The numbers  labs/experiments,  pre—  are based on two  in—class  and posttest measures.  science  The central  question here is: Do students who have been responded to in writing by  1. their  science  teacher  using  the  open—process  mode  of  response (the experimental group and/or its subgroup of Native  Indian  students)  show  greater  gains  in  their  approaches to solving a problem in science as measured in the posttest than students who have been responded to in writing by their science teacher using the traditional mode of response  (the control group and/or its subgroup  of Native Indian students)? Part E of this study is a teacher interview conducted by the researcher with both participating teachers science) and  (English and  that consists of nineteen questions about attitudes  uses  of  writing  in  subject  area  classrooms.  The  same  interview was used as both a pre— and posttest measure.  The  participating  teachers  individual  journals  toward  use  teacher  the  of  response  (English  and  science)  maintained  in which they recorded their attitudes response  (open  journals  and  the  process/traditional)  experimental group and control group.  two modes in  both  of  their  The following research  questions are central to Part E of this study: 1.  Does the use of response  journals  affect teacher  attitudes toward the types of writing they use in their classrooms?  9 Does the use of two modes of teacher response (open  2.  process/traditional) by the same teacher affect changes in attitude toward the use  of  either response  in the  teacher? The  hypotheses,  both  directional  and  constructed for each of the research questions.  null,  were  Since they  constitute ten pages in the body of the thesis, to save space they have been placed in Appendix Y. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study key terms are defined as follows: a)  ‘Response journal’ is  which the time,  .a responsive form of writing in  student and teacher carry on a conversation over  sharing  ideas,  student is learning] b)  “. .  feelings  and concerns  in writing”  (Staton,  [about what the  1987,  47).  ‘Traditional Teacher Response’ is directive, informing or  corrective, not unlike Hillocks’ (1986) presentational mode of instruction. c)  ‘Open—process  written  responses  Teacher that  are  Response’  is  student—centered  sometimes  personal  but  always  positive and non—threatening to the ideas expressed (Fuiwiler, 1987). Limitations The conclusions that can be drawn from this study are limited by the following considerations:  10 1.  Teacher bias.  It was believed that,  at the onset of  the experiment, because both the science and English teachers had consented to participate in this study, willingness instruction.  to  incorporate Such  writing  willingness  at  in  it might show a their  the  outset  classroom might  have  indicated a bias toward writing to learn and resulted in a enthusiastic  more  and  highly  motivated  approach  to  the  treatment groups receiving open—process response. 1 2.  Instrumentation.  The potential bias in self—report  measures is a problem with no satisfactory solution (Borg and Gall, 1989). measure, b)  A number were used in this study: a) an attitude teacher interviews,  and c)  teachers’  logs.  To  a certain extent, the response journals themselves, can also be regarded as self—report measures. Therefore, this study cannot state with certainty to what degree Neither  subjects’  responses  could this  reflect  study control  their  for the  true  attitudes.  ‘masking’  by the  science teacher that hid his true attitude. 3.  Generalizability.  Because  the  population  of  the  junior high school from which the sample is being drawn is not similar on one critical feature--degree of multiethnicity—-to the two other junior highs in the same school district,  The opposite proved to be true to varying degrees in the case of both teachers. In the case of the science teacher, no science data could be analyzed because this teacher failed to fulfill the expectations of the experimental design. In the case of the English teacher, data may have been contaminated by his interpretation and delivery of the treatment which was different than that envisioned by the research design.  11 generalizations can be made only to the population of this particular school. “The  P  &  R  Attitude  Writing  Form”  improved to meet the needs of this study. generalizability  (of  the  findings  was  adapted  and  As a result, the  regarding  attitudes)  to  other studies is also difficult. 4. Loss of subjects. the  Because subjects were lost prior to  treatment but after randomization procedures had taken  place and during the course of the experiment, the reduction in  sample  size  made  it  difficult  to  find  statistically  significant differences between the experimental and control groups.  Furthermore, the initiation of an alternate program  that included most  Native Indian students in the grade-nine  population from which the subjects were drawn resulted in the loss of this subgroup from the experiment. 5. Loss of data.  Due to the lack of cooperation of one  of the teachers, data were not collected so the power of the statistical analysis was greatly reduced. 6.  Extraneous variable--course content.  The chemistry  unit that was taught during the course of the experiment may have been an inappropriate match for the integral measure used (response journals). In  the  English  classes,  with  the  exception  response journals, the course content was traditional chapter questions,  quizzes,  and tests).  of  the  (i.e.,  In the case of the  treatment group, this may have been a confounding factor.  12  CHAPTER TWO THE RELATED RESEARCH The process approach to the teaching of composition has been accepted as the new norm both in theory and, to a lesser degree,  in the classroom.  As part of this approach, the use  of student response journals has also been firmly established as a vehicle for writing to learn.  Case study research about  the use of response journals applauds the success of such a However,  vehicle. composition  inquire  student writes  few into  of  investigations  the  the  relationship  of  written  between  what  a  in his/her response journal and the ensuing  teacher comments. The current study pursues five strands of inquiry: a) the effects of two modes of teacher written response on students’ attitudes  toward writing,  b)  the  effects  teacher written response on students’  of  two  modes  of  writing skills, c) the  effects of two modes of teacher written response on students’ abilities to solve science problems,  d)  the effects of two  modes of teacher written response on the above variables for a specific subgroup——Native Indians, and e) teacher attitudes toward the use of response journals in their content areas. The review of relevant research incorporates  findings from  these areas. Because the paradigm shift  in research on composition  from product to process has resulted in questions and concerns fundamental to any major shift in perspective,  an overview  13 attempts first to place this study in an historical context and second to outline some of the concerns stemming from the change which have given this study direction. this  Once  is  context  established,  the  review  of  the  research focuses on the more specific components——the effects of  teacher  response  on  interactions  potential  attitude,  writing  between  approach  performance and  and  cultural  variables--related to this study. Composing: The Historical Context Writing as composing is a relatively new subject, than a century old (Zemelman and Daniels, 1988).  less  In colonial  schools writing used to mean handwriting; the composition by students  of  unnecessary.  original  stories,  Unfortunately,  poems the  or  reports  methods  of  thought  evaluating  composition’s predecessors (penmanship, spelling, grammar and rhetoric) have been inherited by it. features  and  evaluation of  correctness  of  form  such disciplines.  Concern with superficial were  appropriate  in  the  That teachers have marked  intensively for these same qualities in composition features can be thus accounted for historically. correction is the standard,  “To us,  intensive  responsible professional way of  responding to a piece of imperfect student work” (Zemelman and Daniels,  1988,  205).  14 The so—called process model, viewed in this context, far from being a radical or partisan innovation, is simply the next developmental stage. We certainly needn’t be intimidated by the weight of one paltry century of tradition (Zemelman and Daniels, 1988, 216). But does the traditional approach work? literature suggest that it does not. (U.S.)  National  Assessment  The research and  As the findings from the  demonstrate  (in  Zemelman  and  Daniels, 1988), as the research studied by Hillocks (1986) and others  illustrate confirm,  teachers  and such  as  the  an  case  approach  studies  presented  to  teaching  the  by and  evaluation of writing not only does not work but may have the opposite effect. The Traditional Paradigm of Writing Instruction The traditional method of writing instruction emphasizes expository  writing,  neglects  creativity  and  makes  the  development of a detached style its main objective (Applebee, 1981;  Britton,  1989).  1975;  Marland et al.,  1977;  Raphael et al.,  The dominance of impersonal writing in school can be  attributed to “...an implicit belief that progress in writing is associated with movement away from personal language toward more abstract and impersonal formulations” (Britton, 1975, 8). The adherents of the traditional paradigm view writing courses as  ‘service courses’  and ‘skills courses’.  Such a  view ignores the importance of writing as a tool for learning and  means  of  Marland et al.,  development  (Britton,  1977; Moffett,  1975;  1968; Torbe,  Fuiwiler, 1980).  1987;  15 the  For  most  part,  composing  in  schools  has  been  product—oriented and as a result the teaching of writing and its  evaluation  have  been  based  on  the  finished  product.  Students have been repeatedly shown what is wrong with their writing,  error monitoring the primary function of teachers.  The effectiveness of such final—product comments is negligible according  to  available  research  (Hillocks,  1986).  “The  writing is not seen as part of the learning process but as something which happens after the learning”  (Torbe,  1980).  The traditional method of writing instruction emphasizes expository writing and ignores the developmental nature and potential of writing to learn by asking students to confine the  audience  evaluation  and purpose  (Applebee,  for their writing to teacher  1981;  Raphael  et  al.,  1989).  and The  restrictive nature of teacher/examiner as audience ...distort[s] the student’s focus on a deeper involvement with the central ideas, placing emphasis instead on the teacher’s desire to elicit the kind of paper he or she might write (Heller, 1989, 211). That the traditional product paradigm does not meet the goals  expectations  and  question is, “Why?”. Winds  Change:  of  Teaching  of writing  is  clear.  The  Maxine Hairston (1982) in her essay “The  Thomas  of Writing”  literacy  Kuhn  states,  and  among  the  Revolution  other problems  in that  the it  doesn’t address certain crucial aspects of writing: a) content over form,  b)  the recursive nature of composing and  C)  the  fact that instruction in writing is more than instruction in  16 editing.  In Shaughnessy’s (1982)  view,  it doesn’t enable us  to “understand what goes on in the internal act of writing... and  to  intervene  during the  affect its outcome”  act  of writing  (in Hairston, p.  decades—old approach broke down.  84).  if we want to  As a result this  Product—based research in  composition is being replaced by process based investigation. To eliminate the evaluative, judgemental and restrictive factors as aspects of audience for at least some of student writing frees students to search for their own meanings in their own language (Britton, 1983; Marland et al.,  1975; Fulwiler,  1977; Moffett,  1987; Johnston,  1968).  Writing Across the Curriculum The goals and aims of writing across the curriculum are difficult  to  argue with.  At  its  theoretical  base  is  the  belief that writing as a form of language is not just a form of communication but an important tool for learning (Applebee, 1984; Fulwiler, 1987; Gere, 1985; Langer and Applebee, 1987). Writing  across  the  curriculum  implies  that  subject  specialists will teach their students the specialized forms of writing  used  in  their  subject  become teachers of writing. across  curriculum,  the  strongly”  Curriculum”  though are  the  Thus,  all  teachers  “In schools where writing is used  students’  (Zemelman and Daniels,  Even  areas.  writing performance 1988,  objectives  educationally  of  sound,  grows  28). “Writing  Across  available  the  evidence  suggests that the movement has failed to be implemented to any significant degree.  Nowhere  is this more glaringly stated  17 than in Arthur Applebee’s Writing in the Secondary Schools: English and the Content Areas (1981).  The majority of writing  tasks that students undertake in the  secondary schools are  limited to notetaking, answering study or essay test questions and copying Applebee’s  (Applebee, study  1981;  (1981)  Britton,  1971; Marland,  indicated that  of  all  1977).  the writing  students did in all subject areas less than one half of one percent  be,  in  Writing  as  could  ‘expressive’.  Britton’s a  tool  (1975)  for  1977; Moffett,  called  learning and means  development is essentially ignored (Britton, 1987; Marland et al.,  term,  of  1975; Fulwiler,  1968; Torbe,  1980).  The Applebee report can be considered a “best case” study for the writing since only those teachers recommended by their principals  as  observations forty—four this,  ‘superior’  spent  were  involved.  In  the  year  of  in classrooms across the content areas,  percent of observed time was spent in writing.  Of  twenty—four percent was spent on mechanics and twenty  percent on recording information.  Of this twenty percent,  seventeen percent was spent on notetaking.  Actual writing of  more than a paragraph in length was observed as two percent of class time.  Further evidence suggests that even when teachers  are willing to incorporate writing as a means of facilitating learning, its implementation is not easily integrated (Langer and Applebee,  1987).  When implemented it is often a facade  behind which the “static and insular” ways (Rose, 1981, 65) of previous mechanistic approaches to the teaching of writing hide.  18 Since Applebee’s (1981) landmark study eleven years ago, articles  have  been  written  extend  to  promoting writing in the content areas  the  argument  (Applebee,  1984)  for and  texts published to aid teachers in the practical application of writing theory in their content areas (Gere, 1985; Moore et However, the literature reveals little to suggest  al., 1988).  that the movement has been implemented to any greater degree than it was before the Applebee (1981) The Writing Instruction  and  Process  and  Hairston  (1982)  product  centred  the  sees this  New  controlled  paradigm  and  Paradigm  of  Writing  “...traditional prescriptive that  instruction...beginning to crumble” Through  study.  (p.  directed  underlines  writing  82). research  studies  on  writers’ composing processes, we are beginning to find out how people think as they write.  The new paradigm for teaching  writing is based on these findings and focuses on the writing process as well as We planning  know  the product.  that  (Hayes  competent  and  Flower,  writers 1980;  do  a  great  Matsuhashi,  deal  1981;  of  Perl,  1979; Pianko, 1979), that this planning involves a great deal (Matsuhashi,  of production time  1981),  and that planning can  take place at any time during the writing process 1979; Emig,  1971;  (Calkins,  Scardamalia, Bereiter and Goelman,  1982).  Donald Murray estimated that “...70 to 85 percent of the writing process Small, 1985, 2).  is  prewriting of  some type”  (in Kelly and  Hayes and Flower also show the importance of  19 prewriting activities in the form of generating ideas prior to This  outlining or making a statement.  formulating a plan,  stage in the writing process, the generation of ideas, is the although it cannot rightly be called a  focus of this study, stage as  ...usually the writing process is not linear, moving smoothly in one direction from start to It is messy, recursive, convoluted, finish. and uneven (Hairston, 1982, 85). The New Paradicnu: Talk-Write Connections Interrelationships between writing development and the development  of  oral  skills  philosophers and linguists. Vygotsky,  have  often  been  discussed  by  We learn by talking (Sapir, 1961;  1978).  It is through the enormous variety of dialogue with others that we gather together the linguistic there is resources to dialogue in our heads; nowhere else to get them from. Restrict the nature and quality of that dialogue and ultimately you restrict thinking capacity (Rosen in Barnes et al., 1971, 126). By talking to others we can explore new knowledge, verify old knowledge, al.,  1971).  agree or disagree on new meanings In  sense,  talking  Vygotsky  (1978),  this  social psychologist,  is  important  is  ‘other  directed’  and  but  In speech,  ‘unconstrained’,  focus of thought directed by the response of another. written  dialogues,  the  thoughts is retained”  closeness  (Staton,  of  1987,  the  sees writing as more  directly connected to inner thought than speech. conversation  (Barnes et  the 55).  writing  to  the “In  one’s  20  Vygotsky implies that the function of talk as exploration can be focused through writing.  “. .  .personal, near—to—speech reflective  .and in addition provide opportunities for sustained  .  reporting and reflection which talk does not”  that  written  down  Such a  writing.  is  writing  more  forms  ‘monologue’  focused  the  on  the  best  basis  for  approach to the teaching of  ‘naturalistic’  Skillful oral  learner’.  1983,  supports this statement in his belief  (1968)  Moffett  150).  (Martin,  ‘cognitive  growth  of  the  language development does not take  place through intensive correction of faulty usage patterns. As parents and teachers we tend to  listen and try to make  sense of the content of the utterance. form  is  valued  (Zemelman  Content rather than  Daniels,  and  Providing  1988).  opportunities to write in a ‘speech—like’ context can achieve this  purpose  and  can  provide  effectively  a  bridge  to  the  performance of more formal writing tasks required in the upper levels  of  secondary  institutions  schools  (Staton et al.,  and  post—secondary  1988; Yinger,  learning  1985).  [D]ialogue journal writing is one powerful means of bridging the gap between the oral language competence that students already possess and the competence necessary for writing extended prose unassisted (Staton et al., 1988, 91). The New Paradigm: Read-Write Connections  Many  students  read  and  write  especially in the content areas.  with  great  difficulty,  How does one help students  to learn and understand the informative prose that is the norm for most textbooks and reading requirements in subject areas other than English?  Furthermore, how does one help students  21 explore  own  their  personal  connections  with  a  piece  literary text before handing it in to be graded?  of  Writing to  learn (Gere, 1985) rather than as something to be learned can aid students in discovering meaning in texts for themselves. Students can discover meaning through writing if they are uninhibited  by  the  superficial  expectations  of  style,  structure and mechanics that interfere with the generation of Pianko (1979) and Shaughnessy (1977) suggest that some  ideas. writers,  their  when  evaluation,  become  written  so  product  preoccupied  is  with  primarily  the  mechanics  writing that the quality is adversely affected.  for of  Students need  opportunities to express their ideas fully without worrying about correctness until a later draft (Britton, and Applebee,  1987; Hillocks,  1975; Langer  1986).  One solution might be to distinguish between things that children write that are essentially their own learning operations (using their own formulations and expressions) on the one hand, and on the other hand the things that they write which are presentations of information for other people (Marland, 1977, 168). If we give students the freedom to “...actively explore connections  between  the  language  of  their  world  and  the  language of the text,” (Johnston, 1983) through writing, they will  be  a  personal  engaged  reader  making  commitment  through  their  own  interpretations. An  (interpretation) contributes  contributes  some  things  to the reading of the text while the text  some other things.  The meaning is composed by  both the reader and writer so that the “pattern of expression”  22 is “...a new event, larger than the sum of its parts” (Harste, 1984,  22).  To  deny  the  value  of  a  student’s  initial,  spontaneous response to a work ignores the necessary basis for scaffolding (Langer and Applebee, 1987) on which students can be guided to greater understanding  (Crowhurst and Kooy,  no  Such a vehicle for engaging the reader with the text  date).  is writing—to—learn through response journals. Writing to Learn through Response Journals 0, the comfort, the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person, neither having to weigh thoughts nor measure words, but pouring them right out, just as they are, chaff and grain alike; certain that a faithful hand will take and sift them, keep what is worth keeping and then with the breath of kindness, blow the rest away (George Eliot in Fuiwiler, 1987, 47). Researchers are realizing that the power of entering into just such a responsive dialogue as that expressed by George Eliot  inherent  is  the  informal  language  of  response  Leading scholars of language argue that people make  journals. of  meaning  in  the  world  through  their  personal  own  uses  of  language (Britton, 1971; Emig, 1971; Johnston, 1983; Moffett, 1968; Shaughnessy, The means  of  1977).  importance of writing as development  cannot  be  a tool ignored  for learning and (Britton,  1975;  Fuiwiler, 1987; Gere, 1985; Langer and Applebee, 1987; Torbe, 1980).  Expressive writing can aid in this development better  than any other form of instruction Moffett,  1968)  “. .  .and  is  likely  (Hayes and Flower, to  be  both  the  1980; most  accessible mode for young writers and the key to developing  23  range  using written  in  and  1975, 42).  In the expressive mode a writer  jump  facts  from  speculation  to  “. .  .feels free to  personal  to  (Britton,  language”  confidence  anecdote  to  emotional outburst and none of it will be taken down and used against him...”  137).  (p.  Teachers,  in  all  subject  areas,  have  found  that when  students write about what they are reading, listening to, and talking about in their classes they  “. . .  understand better what  they know, don’t want to know——and how it all relates to them” (Fuiwiler, 1987, 6). (Gere,  1985,  4).  Writing “...has value in and for itself” The  current  study  explores  the  use  of  response journals in two subject area classrooms (science and English)  in order to provide students with opportunities for  writing to learn in just this way. Instructional Approach and Attitude toward Writing It is assumed that improved attitude to writing may lead to improved quality of writing. seen as critical because,  Modifying of attitudes is  as John Daly  (1988)  observes,  positive attitude about writing is associated with, even be a critical precursor of, and maintenance  of writing  “A  and may  the successful development  skills”  (p.  44).  The  use  of  response journals in the present study explores the connection between  two  differing  instructional  approaches  (open  process/traditional) and student attitudes toward writing, the subject and/or the teacher. The traditional approach, as conceived in this study, can be considered an aspect of Hillocks’  (1986)  ‘presentational’  24 mode in that “...users of the mode assume that...knowledge is best conveyed directly in the form of verbal formulas, rules, or admonitions”  examples,  in  journals  both  opportunities  for  experimental teacher  the mode  evaluation,  (p.  of  Although the response  118). and  feedback  response  control prior  in  the  to  groups  provide  final  product  control  groups  is  directing and critical throughout. In contrast, used  in  the  the open—process mode of teacher response  experimental  considered an aspect of with  the  teacher  as  groups’  (Hillocks,  ‘natural process’  ‘facilitator’  ongoing  and  “...usually designated as being positive”  can be  journals  response  (p.  1986)  feedback  129).  This study attempts to build on and extend the knowledge about teacher written feedback and its effect on students’ writing skills and attitudes toward writing as reported and synthesized in Hillocks’ meta-analysis (1986) by concentrating on one of his recommendations for research.  Because only a  few of the studies available for the meta-analysis stipulated “...positive feedback in one treatment and negative in the other”  (p.  221),  this  study  extends  the  knowledge  about  research in composition by asking, “Will there be a difference between  conditions  of positive  negative (traditional response)  (open—process response) feedback?”  and  25 Instructional Approach and Growth in Writing Ability Carroll  (1984),  Hillocks  (1986),  and  Clifford  (1981)  indicate that a process approach toward instruction leads to an  improved  Stein  product.  suggested  (1984)  the  that  environmental approach (Hillocks 1986) may owe its success to The use of response  increased opportunities for feedback.  journals provides for this feedback at the prewriting stage through teacher comments. Teaching Style: Methods of Implementation Most  of  our  knowledge  about  the  effects  of  teaching  methods on student learning and attitudes comes from studies on  the  verbal one  However,  interactions recent  study  between by  teachers  Peyton  and  and  students.  Seyoum  (1989)  investigates the ways in which a teacher’s strategies used in written dialogue with her students inhibit or promote student involvement in the dialogue.  This study shows that employing  interactive strategies that are responsive to what a student writes rather than directing can result in the promotion of student  strategy  teacher degree,  Although  writing.  .  .  .  it is  not  However, over time, entries  may the  the  affect  findings student  indicate  “...that  response  only determining factor”  to  some  (p. 329).  students write longer and more elaborate  in their journals when the teacher’s responses are  less controlling and more responsive to the content of what they have written.  Moreover, research on motivation implies  that even enjoyable activities can become tedious should the subject feel he is being ‘controlled’  (Bowman,  1983,  63).  26  Native Indian Students Schools as institutions of learning in this country (the U.S.A.) are set up to accommodate are learning which and teaching of styles incongruent with the traditional values and styles many American that characterize learning of Indian/Alaskan Native students (Swisher, 1990, 36). Concern about the high rate of Native Indian students dropping out of school continues in both the United States and Canada Freark,  the  but  The  1982).  is  problem  still  unsolved  of  assimilation  forced  (LeBrasseur Native  and  Indian  students as opposed to integration may account for their lack of success in our school systems (LeBrasseur and Freark, 1982; Rhodes,  1988;  Swisher, (1990)  Swisher  1990). her  in  of  synthesis  the  literature  pertaining to the learning styles of Native Indians found well documented evidence of learning styles among Native Indians which seem to be culturally patterned; prevalent among them is a “...constant fear of standing out”  consideration students”  different  (p.  evaluations”  (p.  28)  styles  stresses  and  Rhodes  (1988)  takes  into  “. . .  for different  non—threatening  26).  Effective teachers of atmosphere  learning  “...  37). that  instruction  indivualizing  advocates  (p.  (Kleinfeld,  1975;  Indian students Swisher,  create a caring  1990).  Their role in  the classroom is one of mentor rather than judge. comments rather than critical evaluation well meaning)  dominate.  interactional  style  downplays  of  competitive  (regardless of how  Their effectiveness instruction styles  of  Supportive  stems from an  (Kleinfeld, learning  and  1975)  that  emphasizes  27 learning styles  co—operative  (LeBrasseur and Freark,  1982;  Swisher, 1990). “Indian teachers tend to utilize a cluster of teaching strategies  which  are  (Herbert and Barman,  consistent 1987,  3).  with  Indian  cultures...”  Response journals,  wherein  teachers are supportive and nonevaluative in their comments, could be such an effective strategy. Context of the Present Study A review of the literature has shown that the pardign shift  from  product  to  concerns,  questions,  process  has  insecurities  been  and  accompanied  conflict  discipline and across the curriculum.  within  by the  This transition is a  part of the emergence of a new norm. Concurrent with the shift from product based research to a  process—oriented  inquiry  has  been  a  broadened  scope  of  inquiry. The use of dialogue/response journals figures greatly in  the  new  case  study reports  and  research  on  composing.  Motivation and attitude toward writing are also seen to be important  avenues  of  research,  students’ ‘willingness to perform’  providing  insight  into  (Peyton and Seyoum, 1989).  The present study extends the understanding of the use of response journals as part of a process approach to writing by examining  the  effects  of  two  different  modes  of  teacher  response (open process/traditional) to what students write in their journals on their attitudes and writing ability.  The  investigation does so by comparing two experimental groups (one in English and one in science) with control groups.  As  28 well, the study pursues inquiry into the effects of two modes of teacher response on a specific subgroup,  Native Indians.  The effects on the attitudes of participating teachers toward the  use  examined.  of  response  journals  in  their  classrooms  is  also  29 CHAPTER THREE PROCEDURES Design of the Study The purpose of the present study, as outlined in Chapter One,  is fivefold.  whether  The primary objective  students writing  to  learn  is to investigate  in response  English and science classes who received the  journals  in  ‘open—process’  treatment show more positive attitudes toward writing than do those students who received the ‘traditional’ treatment.  The  second objective is to examine, using the response journals as the measure, whether students who received the ‘open—process’ treatment  show more positive attitudes toward writing, journal  response  itself,  and/or  the  teacher  than  students who received the ‘traditional’ treatment. objective  is  to  discover whether  students  the  those  The third  from the  ‘open—  process’ treatment group in English show greater improvement in writing ability than do students treatment  group  in  English.  The  from the fourth  ‘traditional’  objective  is  to  determine whether students from the ‘open—process’ treatment group in science show greater gains solving  a  problem  in  science  than  in their approaches to do  ‘traditional’ treatment group in science. is  to  investigate  students  who  whether  received  the  the  students  from  the  The fifth objective  subgroup  ‘open—process’  of  Native  Indian  treatment  while  writing to learn in response journals in English and science classes  shows  more  positive  growth  in  attitude,  writing  ability and/or problem solving on all measures indicated above  30  than Native Indian  students who received the  ‘traditional’  The final objective is to discover whether the use  treatment.  of response journals and two modes of teacher response have an effect  on  the  attitudes  subject  of  area  teachers  toward  students writing to learn in their classrooms. methodology  The  in  this  study  included:  1)  randomly  assigning, by computer, the grade—nine population of a junior high  school  seven to nine)  (grades  science and English classes, twice,  measure  3)  pilot  2)  in British Columbia to  pilot testing  testing,  with  the  the attitude participating  teachers, two modes of teacher response on intact grade—seven classes  and eight—  place,  took  4)  during term one of delivering  the  the year  treatment,  5)  treatment selecting  instruments to be used in the scoring and coding of data, and 6)  analyzing the results.  Figure 1 is a flow chart showing  the design of the study. Subjects i)  The Students: The subjects were grade—nine students  selected from the total grade-nine population of a junior high school  in  British  Columbia  seven, eight and nine.  that  serves  students  in grades  The school is multi-ethnic with a high  ratio of Native Indian students to non—Native, approximately one to five.  31  FIGURE 1 DESIGN OF THE STUDY PILOT TEST ATTITUDE MEASURE  ITERVIEW TEACHERS STRATIFIED RANDOM ASSIGNMENT OF SUBJECTS TO a. Group C Group D Group B7 Group A Grade 9 Grade 9 Grade 9 Grade 9 Science Science English English  I  RANDOM ASSIGNMENT OF CONTROL GROUPS: A or E and D or G 4-  ALL GROUPS ADMINISTER ATTITUDE MEASURE ‘J, GROUPS A AND E ADMINISTER SCIENCE PROBLEM -  -  pMINISTER WRITING MEASURE  Group A Control  Group D  Group G Control  Teacher 2 Open Traditional Response Response  Teacher 1 Traditional Open Response Response -  -  ADMINISTER WRITING MEASURE I_ADMINISTER  —  1%  -  I_ADMINISTER_SCIENCE PROBLEM  I  Group E  Science Instruction Response Journals  Literature Instruction Response Journals  1’  GROUPS D AND G]  -  -  -  GROUPS A AND E  GROUPS G AND D  ATTITUDE MEASURE  -  ALL GROUPS  INTERVIEW TEACHERS] ANALYZE ATA2  2  Science data were not analyzed because the science teacher failed to fulfill the requirements of the experimental design.  32 A stratified random assignment procedure was followed to ensure that Native Indian students were represented in each class in proportion to their numbers in the total grade—nine population.  All ninth-grade pupils in the school were divided  into two groups: Native and non—Native.  By stratified random  assignment, students were assigned by computer to one of four classes, two English and two science.  New registrations were  added to existing classes during the first term preceding the treatment term through the use of a random assignment table The classes were composed of four  designed for this purpose.  unique populations of approximately twenty—four students each. No students were added to the experiment’s four classes once the  treatment  Students  began.  transferring  out  of  the  experiment’s four classes before the end of the treatment were not included in the data base. ii)  The Teachers: One full—time science teacher, who is  also department head, consented to participate in the study. He had twenty years  of  experience teaching science at the  junior high level. The teacher of English researcher)  (who is also the spouse of the  had seventeen years of teaching experience at a  variety of levels and schools.  He is a full time employee as  well but divides his time between teaching English half time and counselling. department  at  He is presently the head of the counselling  his  school.  Each  teacher  taught  both  control group and experimental group in his subject area.  the  33 Attrition “Robert Goodrich and Robert St. Pierre estimated that 20 percent attrition per year is a realistic level for planning” (in Borg & Gall,  1989,  235).  Normal registration for grade—nine classes at the junior high school is between twenty-four and twenty-eight students per class.  The overall attrition rates for grade nines in  this particular school over the past three years have been: i.  1987  1989:  sixteen and one half percent,  1988:  —  twenty—one percent,  and  iii.  1989  —  ii.  1990:  1988  —  eighteen  percent with the average attrition rate over the three years of eighteen and one half percent. Attrition occurs for several reasons. this  population  particular  transitory  nature  reservations  and  of  the  Native  instability  the  logging/pulp and paper, serves.  attrition  occurs  Indian of  to  population  the  primary  the among  industry,  in the community which this school  finishing the treatment term with twenty-two  for an attrition rate of twelve percent. English  treatment  due  The experimental class in English began with twenty—  five students,  in  In the case of  began with term  sixteen percent.  with  twenty-five  twenty—one  The control group  students,  for  an  finishing  attrition  rate  the of  The experimental class in science originally  had twenty-six students registered with twenty-four completing for an attrition rate of eight percent.  The control class in  science began with twenty students and ended with nineteen for an  attrition  rate  of  five  percent.  The  overall  rate  of  34 attrition  by  the  end  of  the  experiment  was  ten  percent,  indicating that participants in the experiment withdrew at a rate dissimilar from the ‘realistic’ withdrawal rate suggested by Goodrich and St.  Pierre.  A possible explanation for the  low attrition rate of the grade-nine population during the year this experiment took place is the establishment of an alternate program within the school that included most gradenine Native Indian students. Treatments Two Modes of Teacher Response The terms ‘open—process’ and ‘traditional’ to  teacher  mode  of  written  response  have  in reference  been  defined  in  Chapter One and are described here specific to the treatment. This  elaborate by  section will  materials  used  in  the  two  specifying the methods  treatments,  open  process  and and  traditional. Of the four instructional groups, two in science and two in English, one in each subject area was randomly assigned to be  the control group.  The same teacher instructed both the  control group and the treatment group for each subject. students  in  all  Teachers  issued parallel guidelines  response journals Instruction  four  groups  (Appendix C) in  both  maintained  response  All  journals.  for the use of  student  to all four classes.  English  classes  parallel as was that in the science classes.  (literature)  was  The experimental  groups differed from the control groups in each subject area  35 on one variable only——the mode of teacher response to what students wrote in their journals.  The control groups for both  the English and science classes received written reactions to what they wrote in their journals in the traditional response mode.  The experimental group received open—process responses. i) The Open—process Mode of Response The open—process mode of response as implemented in the  study required the teacher to make student—centered written responses that were positive and non—threatening to the ideas students expressed in their journals in an endeavor to make writing “...part of the learning process...”  (Torbe,  1980).  This mode of response also used student response journals to focus on the idea/generation rehearsing stage of the writing process (Hayes and Flower, 1980), often called prewriting, as a vehicle in which students could express their ideas about, and interpretations of, the text without fear of evaluation. In the English classes  students were encouraged to express  their opinions, make observations, ask questions and so on in their journals about the text Students  Borland. comment(s) pencil,  handed  from their teacher. return  and  beginning  then  of  the  the  next  When the Legends Die by Hal their  responses  for  The teacher would comment, in  journals English  in  to  class  the thus  students  at  the  initiating  and  maintaining a written dialogue that was warm and accepting of the students’ response content  ideas.  journals of  their  as  Students were encouraged to use their a  source  posttest  for  essays.  ideas when planning the Examples  of  teacher  36 responses that are in the open process—mode of response are provided  In  in Appendix D.  science  classes  students were  encouraged to use their response journals in reference to the chemistry unit they were being taught in class. The Traditional Mode of Response  ii)  The traditional mode of response required the teacher to make written comments that were directive, corrective journals.  circled.  As  response  to  Teacher comments  found on a  can be  well.  in  what  students  (Appendix D)  finished product.  informing and/or wrote  in  their  resemble those that  Usage errors are red  Students are shown what is wrong with their ideas as  The dialogue thus initiated is one based on evaluation.  in the open—process mode of response,  students  in the  English classes were encouraged to use their response journals as  a  source  for  ideas  when planning  the  content  of  their  posttest essays. English classes—-course content The course content for both English classes was parallel, centering around a novel study of When the Legends Die by Hal Borland.  See Appendix E for English course outline. A pretest  and posttest essay (Appendix F), each preceded by on the writing of essays course content.  one lesson  (Appendix G), were included in the  Both the pretest measure and the posttest  measure were marked by the subject area teacher as part of the term mark before handing in as data for research purposes.  37 Science Classes——course content  The course content for both science classes was parallel, centering Science  around  Probe  introductory  an  Labs,  9.  chemistry  quizzes  unit  tests  and  on  used  to  were  evaluate student progress throughout the term. H for course outline.  based  See Appendix  A pretest experiment,  “The Candle”,  (Appendix I)  and a posttest experiment,  (Appendix J)  were included as part of the course content in  Lab write—ups  science.  for  both  “Mixing Chemicals”,  experiments  in  all  four  classes were marked by the subject area teacher for part of the term mark before collection for research purposes. Pilot Study Prior to the treatment period,  in preparation for the  researóh experiment, teachers received coaching in both modes of  response,  classes)  practice  and  in  both modes  collaborated  with  the  (with  present  researcher  as  intact to  the  parameters of teacher response that would be adhered to in each group throughout the treatment period.  The teacher of  English practised on an intact grade—seven literature class and the science teacher practised on an intact grade—eight science  class.  designated  as  Each the  experimental group. of  class  control  was  divided  group  and  in the  half, other  one—half as  the  This coaching session was for the purpose  practising teacher  responses  in  the  two modes  only  so  random assignment of students to groups was irrelevant. Teachers  asked  students  to respond to what they were  learning in class following “Guidelines for Student Responses”  38  (Appendix  C).  were  responses  Initial  and  collected  both  teachers met with the researcher on the same day in order to formulate responses to what the students had written.  The two  modes of teacher response followed the guidelines set up in Examples were provided of a writing sample to  Appendix D.  which both modes of teacher response had been used (Appendix Coaching sessions took place over a period of two weeks  K).  during which six practise response sessions took place. Measures Used Part A: The P & R Writing Attitude Form (adapted) Part  A  this  of  consists  study  of  an  attitude  survey  toward writing (Appendix L) that is based on and adapted from “The P & R  (Appendix M).  “The P & R Writing Attitude Form”  Writing Attitude Form” is a Likert-type scale that has as its four  basis  purpose.  categories:  Source  be  can  source,  audience,  defined  as  that  response, from  which  and the  assignment originated (e.g. textbook topic); audience--by whom the assignment will be read  examiner or peer group);  (e.g.  response——how the assignment will be evaluated (e.g. no grade or  peer  written  evaluation); (e.g.  and  purpose——why  self—understanding  or  to  the  assignment  information).  give  More detailed definitions for each category are located Appendix teacher  N. choice  Free and  choice school  and  personal  assignment  expression are  was  in  versus  designated  as  opposing concepts on the scale. To ensure that the college—level vocabulary of “The P & R Writing Attitude  Form”  had been  adapted to  a  grade-nine  39 readability level and that the interpretations students made still adhered to those intended by their initial categories (Appendix 0), the proposed attitude measure was pilot tested Students  with an intact grade-nine class in June of 1990.  asked to make note of any words they had difficulty in  were  incorporated  Their suggestions were  understanding.  in the  adapted version. In  August  of  researcher’s thesis committee, Form”  was  further  the  following  1990,  so  adapted  “The P that  statements rather than to opposing,  suggestion  of  the  & R Writing Attitude  students  responded  single—word choices.  to It  is believed that this format is more clearly understood by grade-nine  subjects.  original  The  comprised of fifty—two  form  is  also  lengthy,  These items were reduced to  items.  twenty—nine statements in the final survey form because many of the items were believed to be redundant. to  make  the  clear  survey  The criteria were  understandable,  and  easy  to  administer, and brief while still maintaining the integrity of the four initial categories of source, audience, response and purpose of/for writing. were  included,  (Appendix  L),  related  one for  In addition two practise questions  subjects  to to  writing practise  and on  one  unrelated  first  during  administration of the attitude measure. A second pilot September  1990.  participants  test  Six  of the measure was  grade—nine  in the experiment,  students,  conducted who  were  in not  were asked to complete the  measure using a think—aloud protocol that was tape recorded.  40 This record of misinterpretations (interpretations that were not intended in the adaptation) and difficulties students had in  understanding particular words  in  facilitated  further  adapting the instrument so that differences observed between and the posttest can not be attributed to the  the pretest measure.  The same measure was administered for both the pre—  and posttest.  See Appendix X for a detailed description of  alterations and modifications made to the original measure as a result of each pilot test. Part B: Student Response Journals--The Chronological Chart A chronological chart (Appendix P) was kept for each student which  is  record  a  of  possible  reflections  changes  in  features  in  of  attitude toward: i. writing, ii. the response journal itself,and iii. the teacher. of  Frequency  the  following  modes  and  formal  student response journals was tabulated for each week over the course of the twelve-week treatment period. that the more often a features,  It is believed  student made use of these modes and  the greater he/she valued some aspect of writing.  Definitions for categories and types of entries are located in Appendix Q.  With the exceptions of numbers 5,  8,  9, and 11,  the definitions for modes and formal features are those of Toby Fulwiler in his “Introduction” to The Journal Book (1987, 3).  Because the present study is an exploratory study,  data may indicate a need for further  the  or different categories.  41 Modes: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.  Observations,  Insights, understanding. Information. Revisions. Creative expressions. Questions.  vii.  Digressions.  viii.  Confidences.  ix.  Frustrations.  x.  Speculations.  xi.  interpretations, evaluations.  Desire to know more.  Formal Features: xii. xiii. xiv. xv.  Frequency of entries. Length of entries (number of words). Self—sponsored entries. Organization and Neatness.  Part C: Holistic Marking Scale Part C of this study required an instrument to measure writing quality. chosen  which  A criterion-based scale  would  allow  for  both  (Appendix R)  overall  ratings  was and  subscores for: a) content and organization, and b) mechanics. The subscores are weighted equally——fifteen points for content and organization and fifteen points for mechanics——for a total of thirty points.  42  Part D: Science Experiments——Observations Part D of this study required an instrument to measure student growth in solving problems in science. observations  made  in  experiments——a  science  two  The number of pretest  and posttest (Appendix J)--was counted.  (Appendix I)  Part E: Teacher Interviews/Teacher Personal Logs were  post—interviews  and  Pre—  conducted  with  both  participating teachers using the same measure (Appendix S) in order to ascertain any changes in their attitude toward the In addition,  use of response journals in their classrooms. the  were  teachers the  throughout recorded  their  requested  to  of  the  perceptions  on  duration  maintain experiment various  personal  logs  in  they  which  aspects  of  the  experiment. Collection of Data Six kinds of data were collected:  an attitude survey,  student response journals, writing samples, science experiment observations,  teacher interviews and teacher personal logs.  The schedule for administering the measures used, the criteria for  their  administration  and  the  procedures  used  for  the  collection of each data set are explained in this section.  43  the Questionnaire on Attitude toward  Completion of  Part A: Writing  measure  attitude  The  immediately  before  and  (Appendix  the  administered  the  twelve-week  All four experimental groups  (one—term) experimental period. were  after  immediately  administered  was  L)  the  by  survey  researcher  at  the  beginning of their first second-term classes (November 1990) and at the end of term (February 1991).  They were given the  necessary time to complete the form, approximately twenty to If any questions were asked, the researcher  thirty minutes.  Students who were absent for the survey were  answered them.  called out of class during the researcher’s next preparation block to  administered the  be  Questionnaires were  survey.  coded in order to ensure anonymity. Part B: Student Response Journals To ensure that instruction was parallel in both English classes and both science classes, the same teacher taught both Instruction in  the control group and the experimental group. centered  classes  English  Legends Die by Hal Borland. in  located  Appendix  E.  around  a  novel  study,  When  the  The teacher’s course preview is Instruction  in  science  classes  centered around a chemistry unit (see Appendix H for science preview).  Both classes in both subject areas were issued the  same assignments, amount  of  time  in the same order and were given the same  for  completion.  All  students  in  all  four  classes were expected to maintain response journals in which they were  to  share  ideas,  feelings,  concerns  and  insights  44  about  what  they  were  reading/and  or  learning  in  class.  Parallel guidelines for the use of student response journals were given to all four classes  (Appendix C).  Subjects were  informed that their journals would count as twenty percent of their second term subject area mark.  They were also informed  that they were expected to write in their journals at least once  a  week  resulting  in  a  minimum  expectation  entries per journal at the end of the term. provided  equally  to  both  groups  in  each  of  twelve  Class time was  subject  area  for  writing responses to what they were reading and learning in class. Student response journals were collected at the end of the instructional period and coded to ensure anonymity. Part C: The Writing Samples Two aspects of the writing samples are explained below: the selection and description of the composition topics and the writing schedule for the topics. i)  Composition Topics  Four topics were selected for use in the current study (Appendix F).  These topics were composed by the researcher  and deemed acceptable by her faculty advisor. Topics one and two were presented to both the control and experimental groups as choices for writing an in—class essay during the first week of the experimental period before the novel study and use of response  journals were  initiated.  Topics  three  and  four,  parallel to topics one and two, were given as choices in the posttest situation.  45 Both the pretest and posttest measures were administered a  during preceded  by  minute  fifty-five  regular  class  one  of  instructional  general  instruction  organization and purpose for writing essays. this lesson is located in Appendix G. of  the  students  posttest in  both  the  measure, groups  to  in  the  plan for  The  Prior to administration instructed  teacher  English  use  block  entries  journals  from  in  preparation for the in—class essay if they so desired. ii)  Schedule  The pretest was administered during the first week of (November 1990)  instruction in term two  and the posttest was  given during the last week in term two (February 1991).  Part D:  Two  The Science Experiments  aspects the  below:  of  the  selection  science and  experiments  description  of  are the  explained science  experiments and the schedule for conducting the experiments. i)  Experiments——Pre— and Posttest Measures  Two science experiments that include observation as their central student task were used in this part of the current study  (Appendices I and J).  Both experiments are alternate  versions of each other at the same level of difficulty. ii)  Schedule  Both the  control  group  and the  experimental  group  in  science were administered the pretest experiment (Experiment One--The Candle) during the first week of instruction for term two  (November 1990)  and the posttest experiment  (Experiment  46 Chemicals)  Two--Mixing  (February 1991)  during  the  last  week  of  term  two  .  Part E: Teacher Interviews and Personal Logs Interviews participating  (Appendix  teachers  S)  were  (English  and  conducted science)  with  in  both  order  to  examine the effects the use of response journals had on their toward  attitudes  Pre—experimental  writing  interviews  in as  their well  as  subject  areas.  post—experimental  interviews were conducted with both participating teachers and all interviews were tape recorded.  Transcripts of interviews  are located in Appendix T. Since both teachers used the traditional mode of written response  and  the  open—process  mode,  changes  in  attitudes  toward this aspect of their writing instruction were examined. In addition, throughout the treatment period, both instructors maintained personal  logs  in order to keep a record of the  following: 1. that  could  observations of behavioural changes in students indicate  attitude  changes  toward--a)  writing,  b) writing in their journals, and/or c) the teacher; 2.  personal  reactions  to  the  journals as vehicles for writing to learn  use  of  response  in their subject  areas; and  As noted above, all science data were discarded and not used in the analysis because the science teacher did not fulfill the requirements of the experimental design.  47 insights regarding the effects that the nature  3.  responses  of  their  a)  writing,  have  writing  b)  student  on  in  their  attitudes  journals,  and/or  toward—— c)  the  teacher. Preparation and Scoring of Data Four components of the study were scored and/or coded: an attitude measure, and  science  student response journals, writing samples  experiment  observations.  A  fifth  component,  interviews, were conducted and personal logs collected from the participating teachers. Anonymity All  collected  data  from  students  were  organized  into  treatment groups and arranged alphabetically by surname for each group.  Control group subjects were assigned odd numbers Experimental group  alphabetically beginning with number one.  subjects were assigned even numbers alphabetically beginning All data collected from individual subjects  with number two.  were coded with the same number.  In addition all members of  the designated subgroups were assigned the letter S with their code number.  Subject names were then removed from all data to  ensure anonymity. Part A: The Attitude Measure Responses  were  tallied  for  each  of  the  twenty—nine  statements that constitute the Likert scale measure (Appendix L)  using a Sentry 2050 computer scanner.  All tallies were  then personally rechecked by the researcher and re—tallied by  48  No  hand.  computer  errors  were  All  found.  students  participating in the survey answered all questions so there was no need to exclude any student in any item tally.  The  same procedure as outlined above was then repeated for the twenty—nine  statements b) audience,  a) source,  to  according c) response,  four  categories:  and d) purpose of/for  writing. Only complete data sets were used.  In other words,  a  student had to be present for both the pretest and posttest in order to be included in the study. Part B: Student Response Journals The coding and scoring of student response journals is explained  in  four  sections:  training sessions,  coding,  the  scoring of data and how facets were made from the original fifteen features and modes on the chronological chart. i)  Training Sessions  Three raters were responsible for the coding and scoring of the response  journals.  One week prior to the training  session each received a copy of Hal Borland’s When the Legends The  and a copy of the “Introduction” to Toby Fulwiler’s  Journal Book in which the modes and formal features used in the scoring measure (The Chronological Chart) are defined.  In  preparation for the training session raters were asked to read these materials. Raters were given a sample chronological chart at the beginning of the training session, (all  different  colours)  and  one  fifteen highlighting pens response  journal  each.  49 Interpretations  of  the  modes  and  formal  chronological chart were discussed.  features  on  the  These were then colour  coded with the highlighting pens and dates were entered across the top by week, designating each of the twelve weeks of the experimental period.  This chart became the master key for  each rater. Raters then practised on a response journal which they would not be responsible for coding by listing examples from the  journals  of  modes  and  features.  All  examples  were  discussed until consensus for understanding of the terms used and interpretation of student responses was demonstrated by the raters. ii)  Coding  Student response journals were coded according to fifteen modes  and  formal  (Appendix P). pens,  each  features  using  a  chronological  chart  Student entries were coded with highlighting  colour  corresponding  to  a  different  feature  or  mode. iii)  Scoring  Two raters took home one set each of response journals. They were instructed to code ten journals then meet with the researcher on an individual basis to go over what they had Problems  done.  with  classification  discussed and adjusted if necessary.  of  responses  were  Raters were then asked  to complete the set before being issued another set. The third rater was called in to cross check all four sets  of  journals  for  consistency  and  accuracy.  Any  50 discrepancies were brought to the attention of the researcher. She  was  the  final  arbiter.  In  addition,  researcher  the  randomly checked samples from each set. The  following  unedited  examples  from  the  journals  illustrate how the responses were coded and counted for each Each portion of a response that was coded as one  category.  for the designated category is underlined. 1) feel  sorry  interpretations,  Observations, for  Tom  because  nobody  likes  evaluations.  or wants  him  I and  because people take advantage of him. I believe that this is  2) Insights, understanding. a philosphical statement. 3) Information.  ..  .the cowhand pays Tom a dollar to  lust go get the horse & ride it a bit. 4) Revisions.  I really don’t know why I picked Meo  as being selfish too. 5)  Creative expressions.  As people say,  ‘No two  people are alike. 6)  Questions.  7)  Digressions.  Why did he give up and go back to  school?  are interesting,  When it comes to books I like or  I can’t stop myself from reading.  \  Sure I  have stay up late to do my homework or don’t finish my chores, but hey I have to read something I like don’t I? carrincr off the topic and now I will return.  \  I know I am  51 8) Confidences. I would never, ever have the courage to actually get on a horse.  \  \  I have a great fear of falling,  almost as great as my fear of failure. 9) Frustrations. It’s hard to remember all the names  and by the time I know who a person is they aren’t involved anymore. 10) Speculations. He will never find a woman to love and never have children. 11) Desire to know more. I want to know what happened to the rest of the characters. An example of how some responses fit simultaneously into more than one category follows. used  to  illustrate  how  (6—Questions,  9—Frustrations,  to know more)  concurrently.  it  The same student entry is fits  into  four  10—Speculations,  categories  and 11—Desire  Each portion of a response that  was coded as one for the designated category. 6)  Questions.  I really don’t understand what you mean by ‘What do Meo and Tom in common.’  Do you mean that both of their families  are dead and they have no one but themselves? are only hanging around Red because  it  Or that they  is a place eat and  sleep and for Tom to learn some things about the rest of the world?  \  Or both? 9)  Frustrations.  I really don’t understand what you mean by ‘What do Meo and Tom in common.’  Do you mean that both of their families  are dead and they have no one but themselves?  Or that they  52 are only hanging around Red because  it  is a place eat and  sleep and for Tom to learn some things about the rest of the Or both?  world?  10)  Speculations.  I really don’t understand what you mean by ‘What do Meo and Tom in common.’  Do you mean that both of their families  are dead and they have no one but themselves? are only hanging around Red because  it  \  Or that they  is a place eat  and  sleep and for Tom to learn some things about the rest of the world?  \  Or both? 11)  Desire to know more.  I really don’t understand what you mean by ‘What do Meo and Tom in common.’  Do you mean that both of their families  are dead and they have no one but themselves? are only hanging around Red because  it  \  Or that they  is a place eat and  sleep and for Tom to learn some things about the rest of the world?  \  Or both?  Individual  totals  of  coded  responses  for  the  fifteen  modes and formal features in each of the three time periods were entered in a data base,  “D—Base Three Plus”.  For an  example of how this data base collated the experimental data, see Appendix U.  The data base computed overall totals for the  fifteen modes and formal features by treatment and  control)  experiment.  and  the  three  time  periods  (experimental used  in  the  53  iv)  Combining Journal Modes and Features into Facets features were reduced to  The fifteen modes and formal  five facets following the elimination of: number 12 (Frequency (Self—sponsored entries) and number 15  of entries), number 14  Self—sponsored  neatness).  (Organization,  and  entries  Frequency were discarded because many students did not date their entries making it virtually impossible to discern which entries were required and which were self—sponsored.  This  of  entry  did  inconsistency  not  allow  for  calculation  the  frequency for the three time periods of the experiment because it was difficult to tell in which time period many entries Organization, neatness was discarded as a formal  were made.  feature because, classes,  English  with the exception of two journals all  were  in  notebooks  to  be  of  consistent  quality  experimental and control groups’  made  their  journals  (as  throughout  both  the  journals therefore analysis  of this feature seemed irrelevant. students  duo—tangs  Neatness and organization  required by the English teacher). appeared  or  in the  In the science classes all  during  science  a  materials provided by the science teacher.  class  Revisions  from  (Facet  4) were discarded because minimum scores were barely below the mean but maximum scores were much greater which resulted in a skewed curve. The remaining features and modes were combined into five facets  to  eliminate  redundancies.  So  that  all  components  could be measured on the same scale, raw scores were converted first to z scores then to t scores.  Raw scores for journal  54  length, for example, ranged from 16,925 words to 17,783 words and would overpower journal questions which ranged from 153 to features  The  181.  modes  and  were  according  combined  to  perceived similarities and created in the following manner: One.  Facet  Observations,  1)  evaluations was combined with 3)  interpretations,  2) Insights, understanding and  Information.  7)  with  Creative expressions was combined  5)  Facet Two.  Digressions and  Facet  Speculations.  Confidences was combined with 9)  8)  Facet Three.  Desire to know more.  11)  Frustrations and  10)  Frequency  12)  Five.  of  (number  entries  of  entries). 13)  Facet Six.  Length of entries  (number of words  per entry). Part C: The Writing Samples The  scoring in  explained  and  three  coding  sections:  of  the  data  writing  samples  preparation,  is  training  sessions, and the scoring of data. i)  Data Preparation  The treatment sessions produced sets of four compositions To ensure anonymity subject numbers were entered  per student. in  the  top  right  hand  corner  of  a  holistic  scoring  sheet  (Appendix R). The hand—written originals from each test were sorted, in no particular order, into four folders coded DP, GP, D and G. G designated the control group.  DP and GP were pretest essays  55  and D and G were posttest essays. a  mark  raters  for  used  different  (Appendix  rating  coloured  and rater number three pencil.  score an essay  under  first rater to  indicated her score at the top of the mark  longer visible to the next two raters. score  for  rater number two  The  so her score was no  sheet and folded the mark sheet under  her  Three  R).  instruments  marking  Rater number one used blue pen,  scoring. black,  composition  sheet  To each essay was clipped  so  the  third  rater  The next rater folded would  not  be  able  to  discern the first two scores. Only subscores were indicated because the total of these for each composition generates the overall tabulated after all data had been scored.  score which was The subscore for  content and organization was indicated first,  followed by a  slash, followed by the subscore for mechanics.  Only complete  data sets were used. Training sessions  ii)  Three raters, the study.  including the researcher, participated in  All three raters marked all four sets of data over  the course of two consecutive days. Two of the raters were unfamiliar with writing scales. At  the  initial  training  session,  the  third  rater  (the  researcher) shared the B.C. Ministry PLAPP pamphlet of scored writing  samples  (samples  in  Appendix  V)  with  the  others  discussing expectations for grade—nine writing levels and why she believed the Plapp samples received the scores they did. Because the researcher has twelve years’  experience teaching  56 English to grades eight and nine,  it is believed that she is  a capable judge of writing ability and expectations for the experimental grade level. (Appendix  experiment  The marking scale used for this was  R)  then  distributed  and  scoring  levels discussed in terms of what to look for in the data sets that  correspond  would  to  each  level  of  subscores.  That  discussion completed, a discussion of the composition topics ensued to ensure raters understood what kind of  (Appendix F)  content for each topic would be appropriate. Three incomplete data sets were used to train the raters. The three raters scored one paper independently of one another followed by a discussion about the decisions each rater made on the first paper.  This cycle was repeated two more times.  After each rater had scored the third paper  independently,  good consensus on the interpretation of the scale was reached. At this point the raters felt ready to begin scoring papers. After each data set —experimental each  group)  completed  agreed,  scale  (i.e., was to  pretest--control group,  pretest-  completed the researcher unfolded check  for  consensus.  It  had  been  if there was discrepency in consensus, retraining on  interpretation of the scale would take place. Scoring of the data  iii)  The pretests were scored on the first day following the training session. scored,  raters  took  a  brief,  After the first folder was ten—minute  researcher checked scores for consensus. necessary.  immediately  break  while  the  No retraining was  The second set of pretests was then scored.  The  57 first scoring session took approximately three hours including the break. Session two took place the following day preceded by a One week prior to the  discussion of topics three and four.  training and marking sessions two of the raters were given a to read before scoring of the  copy of When the Legends Die took  measure  before.  The researcher  read  Neither had  place.  posttest  (the third rater)  the  novel  reread the novel  Discussion of topics for the  during this same time frame.  pretest did not require that students make any reference to When the Legends Die as they had not read the novel before writing.  Only complete data sets were used.  Using  the  method  suggested  ratings of the first two raters  by  Diederich  (1974)  the  were averaged if they agreed  on the rating or were not more than one point apart.  In cases  where the first two raters disagreed by more than one point, the rating of the third rater was substituted for the rating that was in most disagreement with the third rater’s. Part D: The Science Experiments--Observations  Science observations on the pre— and posttest experiments were analyzed according to one surface measure, the number of Two assistants counted  observations per treatment condition. the  number  separately.  observations was  Agreement  unanimous.  on  the  total  number  of  The following unedited examples  from the two science classes illustrate how the observations were counted.  58  Counted as two observations: Example A (clear)  hydrogen chloride-- (white),  liquid  Counted as three observations: Example B hydrogen chloride-- (white),  (clear  liquid),  (with  bubbles) Counted as four observations: Example C hydrogen chloride acid——(fizzing), up),  (smoke),  (heats  4 (dissolves)  Part E: Teacher Interviews and Personal Logs Comments made by participating teachers in the interviews were  examined  response  for  journals  changes in  in  their  attitude subject  toward area  the  use  classrooms  of by  comparing answers to the same interview questions asked on both the pre— and posttest measure.  Teachers’ personal logs  were examined for these same changes. Statistical Treatments All of the data collected in the study except that used to test the success of the randomization procedures were coded and prepared for statistical analysis using the SPSSX package, version 3.0,  at the University of British Columbia Computing  Because the science teacher did not fulfill the requirements of the experimental design, all science data were discarded.  59  To  Centre.  the  check  rater  Moment Correlation was used. reliability  of  the  reliability,  Pearson  Product  LERTAP was used to calculate the  individual  questions  on  the  attitude  t—tests on data for the randomization procedures  measure.  were calculated using two different programs--SPSSX and the personal computer program “Statistics for Researchers V2.O” (SFRP).  For data that were  already coded  in the  computer,  SPSSX was used while data not so coded were analyzed using employed for the statistical  SFRP. Multivariate analysis was  The SPSSX program also  analyses of the data (SPSSX: MANOVA). generated statistics)  the used  statistics  descriptive to  describe  the  (condescriptive  differences  between  the  experimental and control students. Calculating Reliability The item reliability of the attitude test and the rater reliability for the scores on the essays were calculated prior to the major analyses.  Pearson Product Moment Correlation was  calculated to determine rater reliability in scoring on both the content and mechanics subscores  for the essays, pre and  post. The LERTAP program was designed at U.B.C. reliability of  items  on a test.  To  to test the  establish the overall  reliability of the attitude measure, LERTAP was run using the scores on the pre-attitude test of all eighty-nine students originally included in the experiment.  Item reliability on  the attitude measure was determined by correlating subjects’ scores on an individual  item with their total test scores.  60 LERTAP scores included a calculation of the Hoyt Estimate of  Reliability. Multivariate Analysis of Variance:  (MANOVA)  Two multivariate analysis of variance (SPSSX:MANOVA) were run,  each using treatment as the independent variable.  dependent  essay—mechanics variables  in  the  and  the  student journals.  the  in  variables  second  first  attitude run  were  run  were  five  the  essay—content, The  measure.  The  dependent  facets  of  the  Two runs were necessitated by the fact that  the essays and attitude measures were administered during two time  periods  (pre  and  post)  while  journal  responses  were  calculated over three time periods——weeks two to four, weeks five to eight,  and weeks nine to eleven.  Although the term  was twelve weeks long, the first and last weeks were used for administering the attitude measure and the essay. first to z scores  The raw data scores were transformed, then to t scores,  in order that all components were measured  on the same scale (so that, for example, journal length, which ranged from 16,925 words to 17,783 words, would not overpower journal questions, which ranged from 153 to 181). were  converted to  numbers.  t  scores  in order to  z scores  eliminate negative  The fifteen features and formal modes were further  reduced to six facets then to five facets before the MANOVA was conducted.  Only those groups of variables that showed an  overall significant difference at the were further analyzed  .05  level or greater  using analysis of covariance.  61  Analysis of Variance (A)OVA) Analysis of variance was used to test the success of the randomization procedures on the following variables: pretest scores on attitude, essays (content and mechanics) and journal length. Analysis of Covariance: Analysis  (ANCOVA)  covariance  of  was  used  to  determine  the  statistical significance level of differences between each of the component variables on any set of measures which proved as  significant  —  of  the  multivariate  analysis  success  of  the  randomization  of  (MANOVA).  variance  t  result  a  Tests To  test  the  t-tests were used to  compare the  initial  procedures,  abilities  of the  experimental and control groups judged by subjects’ previous English and social  studies marks.  These calculations were  computed using the “Statistics for Researchers Program” with the significance level set at .05. Descriptive (Condescriptive) As  an  aid  to  Statistics  describing  the  differences  between  the  experimental and control students, the boys and the girls, the means and standard deviations of the individual scores were calculated on: 1)  the  subscores for d) purpose;  attitude  measure——overall  a) source,  b)  scores  audience,  C)  the  four  response,  and  and  62  2) for the  the response journals——overall scores and subscores and  fifteen modes  formal  features  on the  response  journals; and 3.  essays—— subscores for content and mechanics.  Qualitative Analysis Teacher interviews and logs were examined for changes in attitude toward the use of response journals in their subject Impressions of attitude trends on the parts  area classrooms.  of participating teachers are reported qualitatively in the form of verbal descriptions in chapters Four and Six. Preliminary Analyses The Attitude Measure The statistical test used to analyze the attitude measure was  LERTAP  in  order,  partially,  to  determine  the  internal  consistency of the twenty—nine items in the questionnaire. All completed pretest questionnaires were used from all four treatment groups in science and English resulting in an The Hoyt Estimate of Reliability for the  N of eighty-nine.  twenty—nine items was .84 on the eighty—nine student responses for the pretest  only.  This was raised slightly to  discarding items twenty—one and twenty—nine. discarded  because  twenty-one equals  the  These items were for  item  .030 for item twenty-eight.  All  correlation  .072 and  .85 by  co—efficient  other co—efficients equal .22 or above with only five of the remaining items below .3.  63 The Hoyt Estimate of Reliability for the posttest, minus items twenty—one and twenty—eight, was raised to .90 for an N of thirty. an  N  By combining both pre- and posttest measures for thirty,  of  this  to  translates  a  .94  reliability  coefficient on the twenty—seven remaining items indicating a good level of internal consistency. The Essays were  Computations  made  the  on  agreement  among  three  raters for the sub—categories (content and mechanics) on both the pre—and posttest measure of the writing sample. As Table  1 shows, inter-rater reliability using the two Adjusted scores show a high  primary raters is low (r=.76). level of inter-rater reliability. by Diedrich (1974),  Using the method suggested  the ratings of the two primary raters, A  and B, were averaged if they agreed on the rating or were not more than one point apart.  In cases where A and B disagreed  by more than one point, the rating of rater C was substituted for the rating of whichever rater was with  C.  Table 1.  Raters  Appropriate  ratings  of  in most disagreement  rater  C were substituted  Inter-rater reliability, essays, pretest/posttest differences on content (C) and mechanics (M)  Pre-C r  Post-C r  Pre-M r  Post-N r  Overall r  A & B  .78  .78  .70  .79  .76  Adjusted  .93  .96  .94  .93  .94  64 before Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficients were computed  inter-rater  for  Table  reliability.  shows  1  the  adjusted inter-rater reliability for the two primary raters. the pre- and posttest  The overall inter-rater reliability for measures was than  the  expected  .94  .67  (adjusted by third rater)  reliability this  using  (1974)  Diedrich  method  to  which is greater  school  high  mark  be  can  suggests  essay  examinations. Sucess of Randomization Procedures Although  the  junior place  secondary allowed  school  in  true  for  which  the  randomization  experiment  took  procedures,  it is believed that the control and experimental  groups were not equal at the beginning of the experiment in terms of ability and gender differences and the effects of attrition that occurred after randomization in the spring of 1990  and  during  the  suimner  and  fall  of  1990  before  the  experiment took place in the second term beginning November 19,  1990. To test the success of the randomization procedures,  a  composite of both control and experimental subjects’ previous English and social studies marks,  pretest scores on essays,  attitude measures and journal length was constructed. 2 presents the findings of this composite.  As Table  Table  2 shows,  on all nine of the measures calculated the experimental and control groups were not significantly different. the  length  approach  of  the  pre-journals,  significance.  These  did  the  On only one,  differences  differences,  although  even not  65  were  significant, group)  and  substantial  tended  Chapter Four.  to  (favouring  influence  the  the  experimental  findings  reported  in  The average probability ranged between .5 and  .8 on the other measures.  It appears  random procedures  that  Success of randomization procedures; explanation of two tailed Table 2. test for comparison between treatment conditions  Measure  Experimental  5  N  Control  s  N  t—Value  D.of Two F tailed prob.  S  Eng. Final LG—June 1990  4.38  2.26  13  4.65  3.37  17  —0.42  28  NS*  S.S. Final LG—June 1990  5.31  1.73  13  5.00  3.75  17  0.49  28  NS*  5.31  1.56  13  5.00  2.20  17  0.61  28  0.55  5.38  1.26  13  5.06  2.81  17  0.60  28  0.55  95.20  17.00  13  90.80  14.80  17  0.77  28  0.45  8.70  2.70  13  8.90  2.40  17  —0.23  28  0.82  9.00  2.50  13  8.70  2.20  17  0.39  28  0.70  Journals—Pre Length  231.50  110.40  13  160.70  101.00  17  1.83  28  0.08  Attitude—Pre  93.60  14.70  49  91.20  15.70  40  0.75  87  0.45  Eng. 1st term LG-Nov. 1990 S.S. 1st term LG—Nov.1990 Attitude—Pre Essays—Pre content Essays—Pre Mechanics  *The first two calculations were computed using the program “Statistics for Researchers” which did not report the probability if there were no significant differences.  66  were successful. Six,  However,  as will be discussed in Chapter  the teacher of English felt that the control class was  superior  to  the  experimental  group,  a  feeling  that  somewhat borne out by the differential drop—out rate: experimental  than  control  students  were  excluded  from  was more the  final calculations because they did not complete all of the assignments.  67  CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS The findings of the study are presented in this chapter, categorized separately by the research questions that were Part A looks at whether  presented earlier in Chapter One. students  who  have  been  responded  to  in  writing  by  their  subject area teacher using the open—process mode of response (experimental  group)  show  more  positive  attitudes  writing overall and according to four sub—categories  toward (i.e.,  source, audience, response and/or purpose) than students who have  been  responded  to  in writing  by  their  subject  area  teacher using the traditional mode of response (control group) as measured by a pre— and posttest attitude questionnaire.  5  Because the statistical analyses grouped the data from the attitude and writing measures for one multivariate analysis of variance  (MANOVA)  and  the  data  from  the  student  response  journals for another, the order of reporting the findings has been changed to reflect these groupings.  Therefore Part A  will also include the findings from the (MANOVA) on the essays and investigate whether students in the open—process teacher response group  showed greater growth in writing quality on  overall scores as well as on subscores than did those students Because Native Indian students were not represented in the subject groups in numbers that could lend themselves to statistical analysis, this part of the research question could not be addressed.  68 in the traditional teacher response group. whether  subjects  in  the  experimental  Part B examines  group  reflected more  positive changes in attitude to writing than the control group overall and as measured categorically by the number of modes and formal features in response journals. qualitatively,  6 examines, Part C  comments made by the English teacher in pre  and post-interviews (Appendix T) to determine differences in the  teacher’s  attitude  about  the  uses  of  writing  in  his  subject area classroom. Tables that summarize the statistical analyses of the data  are provided  and  interpretations  of  the  findings  are  offered in order to give a clear picture of how the subjects responded  to  the  Ancillary  treatments.  tables  of  the  statistical results have been included in the appendices. Part A: The Attitude Measure and the Effect of Treatment The English Essays and the Effect of Treatment The discussion of the findings for Part A is divided into three components  of the reseach questions on the attitude  measure and the English essays: i)  the attitude measure——Overall growth in total scores  and growth on the subscores and  purpose)  are  further divided analysis 6  of  (i.e. source, audience, response Both  reported. into two  variance  areas.  results  are  of  these  First, reported  components  are  the multivariate to  indicate  the  In previous chapters, Part D discussed aspects of the Because of inadequate science classes in this experiment. data from these classes, the findings can not be discussed and Part E--Qualitative Analysis of Teacher have been omitted. Interviews and Personal Logs——now becomes Part C.  69  significance  statistical  of  differences  the  reported  are  to  the  Second, the changes in raw  experimental and control groups. scores  between  demonstrate  the  magnitude  of  the  differences. the English essays--The discussion of the findings  ii)  for the English essays and the effect of treatment is divided into two parts reflecting the two research questions: overall growth in total scores and growth on the subscores for the essays  and  (content  First,  mechanics).  the  multivariate  analysis of variance (MANOVA) results are reported. Secondly, the pre—/post—means,  standard deviations and the differences  in the means are reported. Attitude Measure: Growth——Overall and Subscores The first question asked in the study was,  “Do students  who have been responded to in writing by their subject area teacher  using  experimental writing  the  group)  overall  open—process show  and  more  according  mode  of  positive to  response  attitudes  subscores on a)  (the toward  source,  b) audience, c) response, and/or d) purpose than students who have  responded  been  to  in  writing  by  their  teacher using the traditional mode of response as  group)  measured  by  a  pre—  and  subject  area  (the control  posttest  attitude  questionnaire?” At the beginning of the experiment and at the end all students participating in the experiment were asked to respond to a  survey on their attitudes toward writing  that was  adapted  from  “The P  &  R  (Appendix L)  Writing Attitude  Form”  70  (Appendix 14).  The same measure was used as both the pre— and to  responded  Students  measure.  posttest  twenty—nine  statements that examined their attitudes toward writing. is  form  students  responded  scale on which  Likert-type five point  a  attitude  by:  a)  agreeing  The  strongly,  b)  agreeing  somewhat, c) stating that they perceived no difference in the two ideas presented,  d)  disagreeing somewhat or e)  strongly  disagreeing with each statement. Overall English  i) As  Table  significant  3  Growth: Essays shows,  initial  the there  Attitude were  differences  Measure  neither on  and  the  statistically essay—content,  essay—mechanics and the attitude measure nor on the posttest measures when multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed  Table 3.  on  transformed  scores.  The probability figure of  The attitude measure and the English essays: multivariate analysis of variance  Wilks Lambda  Pretest: Treatment Posttest: treatment by time  Mult.  F  D.F.  Sig. of F  0.96  0.38  3,26  0.77  0.89  1.04  3,26  0.39  71  .77  for  the  pretest  treatment  is very high and  groups  suggests few initial differences between the two groups.  The  multivariate analysis of variance also reveals non—significant differences when the posttest scores were probability of  analyzed with the  .39 that either of the two separate measures  (attitude and writing)  significantly different.  was  there were no significant differences on the  Since  MANOVA, separate  analyses were not carried out for the pre— and posttest essay and the pre— and posttest attitude measure.  However, it must  be kept in mind that the very small final numbers of subjects (13  and  experimental  17  control) reduced the power of the  statistical treatment considerably. ii)  Overall Growth: the Attitude Measure  As Table 4 shows, pretest/posttest Table 4.  differences  on  the  Attitude measure (adjusted by removing the two items found unreliable by LERTAP): means, standard deviations and pretest/posttest differences  Treatment  Petest  N  Pottest  iff  5  S  Exp/All  13  94.7  17.3  93.4  18.2  —1.3  Con/All  17  90.8  14.8  90.2  15.9  —0.6  Exp/Girls  6  96.2  12.7  93.7  15.2  —2.5  Con/Girls  7  95.9  9.7  94.6  14.3  —1.3  Exp/Boys  7  93.4  21.5  93.1  21.6  —0.3  Con/Boys  10  87.2  17.1  87.2  17.0  0.0  1  72  attitude measure indicate losses for all students except for control  the  experimental  group and  boys  the  show  groups  control  no  Both  change. lower  have  but  on the pretest,  posttest than they do small.  who  scores  the  on  the  differences  are  The experimental group lost 1.3 points overall whereas  control  group  lost  .6  overall.  Considering  that  the  standard deviations range from 14 to 18, such differences are even the  However,  extremely small.  small differences that  were found favour the control group and the boys. iii)  Growth on Subscores: the Attitude Measure  As Table 5 indicates, when the responses to the attitude questionnaire were grouped into four sub—categories (source, purpose——definitions are located in  audience, response and  Apendix N) minor differences emerged.  Both experimental and  control groups remained relatively stable over on  of the experiment 4,  5,  sense  9, of  10,  11,  15,  audience  duration  purpose sub—category (items 2, 3,  the 16,  the  22,  24, 25,  26,  (items  sub—category  and the  27, and 29) 7  and  12).  The  experimental group (essentially the experimental boys) showed large  gains  (almost  one  standard  deviation)  on the  source  sub-category (items 1, 6, 8, 14, 19 and 20) but these changes may be the result of inordinately low scores on the pretest. Both groups showed losses in the response category (items 13, 17, 18, and 23).  Since both groups (experimental and control)  and both subgroups (girls and boys) showed large losses, these losses  could  be  attributed  to  a  condition  shared  by  both  groups. Perhaps the fact that all journals in all four groups,  73  Table 5.  Attitude measure: means, standard deviations and pretest/posttest differences for sub—categories  Variable Treatment  Posttest  Pretest  N  1  x  —2  X  S  Post/Pre x  S  —x  13 Exp/All 17 Cont/All 6 Exp/Girls 7 Cont/Girls 7 Exp/Boys Cont/Boys 10  18.23 18.65 20.00 18.00 16.71 19.10  3.70 2.74 2.83 2.45 3.86 2.96  19.92 18.29 20.67 18.43 19.29 18.20  3.47 2.11 4.68 2.76 2.21 1.69  1.69 —0.36 0.67 0.43 2.58 —0.90  AUDIENCE* Exp/All 13 17 Cont/All 6 Exp/Girls Cont/Girls 7 7 Exp/Boys Cont/Boys 10  6.92 6.12 6.83 6.29 7.00 6.00  1.04 1.32 0.41 1.11 1.41 1.49  6.69 6.53 7.00 6.14 6.43 6.80  1.55 1.18 2.10 1.46 0.98 0.92  —0.23 0.41 0.17 —0.15 —0.57 0.80  RESPONSE* Exp/A11 13 Cont/All 17 Exp/Girls 6 Cont/Girls 7 7 Exp/Boys Cont/Boys 10  14.92 14.47 14.67 14.86 15.14 14.20  2.36 2.24 2.73 1.21 2.19 2.78  12.77 12.94 12.50 13.43 13.00 12.60  2.05 2.22 2.25 1.90 2.00 2.46  —2.15 —1.53 —2.17 —1.43 —2.14 —1.60  PURPOSE*  49.46 50.00 50.00 49.33 49.00 50.44  5.91 5.01 6.63 4.50 5.71 5.55  48.77 50.62 50.00 52.00 47.71 49.80  5.07 4.16 5.62 4.94 4.72 3.64  —0.69 0.62 0.00 2.67 —1.29 —0.64  SOURCE*  13 Exp/A11 17 Cont/All 6 Exp/Girls Cont/Girls 6 7 Exp/Boys Cont/Boys 10  On the questionnaire Source was comprised of items 1, 6, 8, 14, 19, and 20; Audience——7 and 12; Response——13, 17, 18, and 23; Purpose——2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 29. *  regardless of treatment, received a toward  that  negatively. the  control  term’s  letter  mark worth twenty percent  grade  affected  Because the experimental group group  (both  treatments  both  lost  equally  by  groups  more  than  sex), the  74  Essays: means, standard deviations and pretest/ posttest differences per treatment condition  Table 6.  -.1  x  5  Post/Pre iff. 9 1 x —x  Posttest  Pretest  N  Treatment  -.2  x  S  a) Content Exp/Al1 Con/All Exp/Girls Con/Girls Exp/Boys Con/Boys  13 17 6 7 7 10  8.70 8.90 7.90 9.30 9.40 8.70  2.70 2.40 3.10 1.20 2.30 3.00  8.70 9.60 9.00 11.20 8.40 8.50  3.60 2.40 2.60 2.20 4.50 2.00  0.00 0.70 1.10 1.90 —1.00 —0.20  b) Mechanics Exp/Al1 Con/All Exp/Girls Con/Girls Exp/Boys Con/Boys  13 17 6 7 7 10  9.00 8.70 8.40 9.40 9.60 8.25  2.50 2.20 2.70 2.10 2.50 2.25  8.70 9.60 8.40 10.40 8.90 9.00  2.60 2.10 2.10 2.70 3.20 1.50  —0.30 0.90 0.00 1.00 —0.70 0.75  journals)  (response  treatment  might  have  had  some  non—significant influence. iv)  Growth on Subscores: the English Essays  As Table 6 illustrates, posttest scores were similar to pretest scores on essay—content for the experimental group. The small  differences  in growth  for the experimental  girls  (+1.10) was offset by the negative growth of the experimental boys  (—1.00)  resulting  in  zero  difference.  In  terms  of  standard deviations generally over 2.0 these differences are indeed small. growth by  .7  The control group displayed marginally greater as  indicated by the pre-/posttest difference.  The negative growth of the control group boys (-0.20) did not completely negate the +1.9 pre-/posttest difference achieved  75 by the control group girls. The essay—mechanics subscores  reveal  slight loss  a  (-0.30) for the experimental group and slight positive growth for the control group (+0.90).  The experimental group’s loss  is attributed to the negative growth of the boys (-0.70) with no growth indicated by the girls in this category whereas both the control boys and girls indicate positive growth on this subs core.  one  Overall,  the control group gained about one—quarter of  standard  deviation  in  content  and  almost  one—half  a  standard deviation in mechanics while the experimental group showed  or marginal  growth  no  losses.  The  differences  on  interesting because the control students’  mechanics may be  journals had mechanics errors indicated by their teacher. Part B: Student Response Journals and the Effect of Treatment  Part  B  of  the  study  was  informed  by  the  following  research question. Do students who have been responded to in writing by their English teacher using the open—process mode of response (the experimental group) show more positive attitudes overall and/or toward a) writing, b) the response journal itself, and/or c) the subject area teacher as measured by the number of modes and formal features used in response journals than students who have been responded to in writing by their English teacher using the traditional mode of response (the control group)? Students in both the experimental and control groups were required to maintain journals for ten weeks of the experiment in which they recorded their impressions and asked questions about  what  classes.  they  were  reading/learning  in  their  English  76  i) Overall Growth: Response Journals—-the fifteen modes and formal features—-results between conditions indicates,  As Table 7  students  between  (p.=.OO1)  difference on  the F-ratio shows a significant and control  experimental  the  the journal entries written over the first three  weeks  so  analysis  which  factor(s)  covariance was  of  (were)  was  conducted  to  discover  responsible for the difference.  The results for the posttest (journal entries written during the last three weeks) were statistically nonsignificant, but they did approach significance (p.=.07). The results presented test  the  Chapter  of  success Three  in the composite constructed to  randomization procedures  conflict  with  the  data  (Table  presented  multivariate analysis of variance suggests  in  2)  here.  The  that there were  statistically significant initial differences between the two groups whereas the composite built to test for the success of the  procedures  randomization  pre—journal analysis results (.08).  TABLE 7.  When  (Table 2) MANOVA  did  However,  not.  the  revealed close to significant  was  conducted,  the  individual  The response journals: multivariate analysis of variance (pretest=first 3 weeks of treatment, mid—test=next four weeks, posttest=last 3 weeks) Mult. F  D. F.  0.43  6.36  10,19  0.001*  0.98  0.04  10,19  1.00  0.46  2.21  10,19  0.07  Wilks Lambda  Pretest: treatment Mid-/Posttest: time treatment by time  Sig. of F  77  facets had more influence on the statistical outcome resulting in Facet Five (Frequency) reaching significance at two points, on the  pretest  suggest  (.05)  initial  and on the posttest  differences  between  This may  (.01). the  groups  two  (experimental and control).  ii) Analysis of Covariance: Response Journals As  Table  8  shows,  two  facets  accounted  for  the  significant F-ratio (p.=.001) reported in Table 7, facets 2 TABLE 8. Response journals (the 5 facets combined from the 12 original features and modes): analysis of covariance  coefficient  Facet 1:* pre mid post Facet 2:* pre mid post Facet 3:* pre mid post Facet 5:* pre mid post Facet 6:* pre mid post  t—value  D.F.  Sig.  of t  —3.34 1.38 —0.05  —1.20 1.20 —0.05  10,19 10,19 10,19  0.24 0.24 0.96  —3.64 2.96 —2.55  —1.61 2.13 —1.61  10,19 10,19 10,19  0.12 0.04** 0.12  0.66 —0.38 —0.04  0.25 —0.26 —0.03  10,19 10,19 10,19  0.80 0.80 0.98  4.22 2.50 —4.57  2.08 1.87 —2.63  10,19 10,19 10,19  0.05** 0.07 0.01**  2.61 1.50 —1.64  0.98 1.29 —1.23  10,19 10,19 10,19  0.33 0.21 0.23  and *Facet Insights Observations, of made up 1 is Understanding and Information. Facet 2 is made up of Creative Expressions, Speculations and Digressions. Facet 3 is made up of Confidences, Frustrations, Questions and Desire to Know More. Facet 5 is the single variable Frequency and Facet 6 is Length. **p.>.05  78  and  5.  On  significant  the at  pretest,  the  .05  Facet level  5  of  (Length  of  Entry)  confidence.  It  was also  approached significance on the  mid—test (p.=.07)  significance on the posttest.  As will be noted in Table 9,  these differences favour the control group. (a  composite  Digressions) pre—  and  Creative  of  Expressions,  did not reach  posttest  statistical  multivariate  and reached  Although Facet 2 Speculations  and  significance on the  analysis  of  variance,  it  approached significance on both the pre— and posttest (p.=.12) and reached significance on the mid—test (Frequency),  however,  pretest (p.=.05)  did  reach  (p.=.04).  significance  and the posttest (p.=.0l).  on  Facet 5 both  the  The differences  on the pretest favoured the experimental group but favoured the control group on the posttest. iii) The  Growth on Subscores: Response Journals variables  Creative  Expressions,  Digressions were combined to form Facet 2.  Speculations  and  As Table 9 shows  the experimental group showed losses on two of the variables that make up this facet.  It lost .23 on the pre-/mid-test and  .16 on the pre-/posttest for Creative Expression; 3.77 on the pre-/mid-test and 2.23 on the pre-/posttest for Speculations. The control group however, with the exception of zero growth on the mid-test for Speculations, for Creative Expressions, this facet. group’s  showed positive growth overall on  The only test it did not exceed the experimental  growth  Digressions.  and -0.12 on the mid-test  on  was  the  pre—/posttest  difference  for  The experimental group indicated positive growth  79 for Digressions only, showing an increase on the pre—/mid—test of  1.30  3.40  and  on  the  most  However,  pre—/posttest.  differences in Table 9 are random and attributable to one or two individual students.  For example, most of the increase on  Digressions  the mid—test for  can be  accounted  for  one  by  student who wanted to discuss other books he was reading and rarely made reference to When the Legends Die by Hal Borland. Table 9. Response journals: means, standard deviations and pretest/mid—test ; pretest/posttest differences on final subscores  Variable  Facet Treatment #  N  1  Observation  1  Understanding  1  Information  1  Revisions  2  Creative Expression Questions  2  Digressions  2  Confidences  3  Frustrations  3  Speculations  2  Desire to know More Frequency  3 5  Length  6  3  E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C E C  13 17 13 17 13 17 13 17 13 17 13 17 13 17 13 17 13 17 13 17 13 17 13 17 13 17  Mid-test  Pretest  8.00 11.76 2.00 2.12 4.46 3.94 .85 .71 .31 .35 1.23 1.47 .20 .88 .61 1.06 1.92 1.12 5.54 4.23 1.00 1.35 3.08 1.94 231.54 160.71  Posttest  s  6.22 6.98 2.89 2.87 3.20 3.82 .99 1.49 .63 .79 1.92 1.84 .63 1.73 1.19 2.49 1.66 .93 4.14 2.82 1.35 2.34 .28 .97 110.42 101.32  11.77 16.53 2.38 4.53 6.92 8.23 1.00 .94 .08 .23 3.38 1.65 1.50 5.12 .23 1.06 2.46 2.29 1.77 4.23 2.00 2.41 3.46 3.88 386.46 375.94  10.26 12.21 2.75 5.43 4.82 8.44 .91 1.14 .28 .56 2.33 2.09 2.80 11.37 .44 2.30 1.90 2.23 2.31 3.90 1.73 3.00 1.13 1.93 325.11 332.44  17.69 25.23 4.08 6.18 7.77 15.65 2.00 1.59 .15 .71 6.85 6.00 3.60 3.29 1.23 3.59 3.08 1.82 3.31 4.53 5.69 5.35 6.61 5.59 563.54 495.23  11.65 18.70 4.33 8.40 3.83 12.20 2.24 2.06 .38 .98 8.53 4.20 7.01 7.03 2.24 8.37 2.96 2.13 3.64 4.80 6.92 4.39 1.56 2.26 191.01 374.33  Pre/Mid Diff  Pre/Post DiE  j2l  8i  3.77 4.77 0.38 2.41 2.46 4.29 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.12 2.15 0.18 1.30 4.24 0.38 0.00 0.54 1.17 3.77 0.00 1.00 1.06 0.38 1.94 154.92 215.23  9.69 13.47 2.08 4.06 3.31 11.71 1.15 .88 0.16 0.36 5.62 4.53 3.40 2.41 0.62 2.53 1.16 0.70 2.23 0.30 4.69 4.00 3.53 3.65 332.00 334.52  -  -  -  -  -  -  80  note that the experimental group  It is interesting to  showed more positive growth than the control group on three variables only, experimental  all of which are components of Facet 3.  group  exceeded the  and  pre-/posttest  pre-/mid-test  control on  group  Questions  on  The  both  the  on  the  but  posttest only on Frustrations and Desire to Know More. A single variable, Frequency, constitutes Facet 5.  Both  the experimental and control groups exhibited positive growth on  this  variable  group  experimental  the  on  control  both  group  experimental  the  group  but  exceeding  pre-/mid-test  the  The differences were quite  pre-/posttest. favouring  with  large  very  small  the and  initially over  the  entire experiment. Facet  6,  like Facet 5,  is one variable only——Length.  The students in the experimental group wrote, on the average, seventy more words than the students in the control group on the  pretest  measure.  Therefore,  because  the  experimental  students wrote seventy words per entry more on the pretest, they  had  to  superiority.  keep  writing  They did,  more  to  maintain  for the most part.  their  intitial  On the mid-test  and posttest they also made longer entries but,  in terms of  growth, the control group exceeded the experimental group both at  the mid-point  experiment.  The  in the final  experiment and differences  of  at  the  end  of  the  two points when the  standard deviations are as much as 375 points,  are trivial.  Although the experimental group wrote more over time, and for each time period, the differences in growth were essentially  81 the same thus accounting for no significant differences on the MANOVA. Part C: qualitative Analysis of Teacher Interviews and Logs In  order  to  keep  a  record  of  behavioural  changes  in  students that could be a reflection of changes in attitude and their  own  changes  in  attitude  toward  use  the  of  response  journals as part of their instruction, participating teachers were asked to maintain personal logs throughout the duration of  experiment.  the  As  both  well,  a  pre-  and  post—experiment interview was conducted with the individual teachers. Although conducted  with  his the  log  personal science  and  teacher  both  the  indicated  interviews  that  he  was  carrying out the experiment as directed, in the final analysis this proved to be untrue. asked to do  He said he was doing what he was  (he even appeared to be  personal log stated he was,  ‘enthusiastic’)  and his  but he simply did not have his  students do the assigned work.  The science journals, without  exception, had no entries recorded in them from week 5 through and including week 7 of the experiment nor in weeks 9 and 10. Consequently, any attempt at analysis of either his interviews or personal logs would be misleading. The English teacher’s post-interview (Appendix T) reveals an increasing willingness to use and enthusiasm toward the use of  response journals in his subject area.  In response to the  82  question, Do you use or will you use more writing activities to help your students learn content in your subject area? he replied, It’s been a valuable lesson for I certainly will. me and something, as I said before, something I’ve been a bit afraid of. Now it’s really encouraged me to take a lot more risks and I think it’s well worth it. Both his personal log and his post—interview reveal a positive attitude toward the use understanding  his  of response  students  and  as  journals a  source  an aid to  as  for  lesson  planning. Excerpts from Personal Log I am very delighted that some students used their For journals to discuss other topics of concern. example, one young lady used Tom’s being the victim of what she viewed as racism to discuss how she was Her response showed the victim of stereotyping. real insight into the problem and I thoroughly enjoyed her sensitivity. I am really amazed at the type of questions Firstly, they are far more naive students ask. than I thought. Excerpt from Post—interview Would writing to express Interviewer: course——for the example, concerning discontent——be appropriate confusion, class?  emotions anxiety, in your  I find that to be a very good English Teacher: indicator of how kids feel about what’s happening assignments I’m giving them through with the Also I’m able to get a lot better sort journals. of finger on the pulse of what kids are feeling from doing the assignments and encouraging them to That way I get a respond with what they’re doing. better idea of what they’re learning and what they’re not learning.  83 However,  the his  that  evidence  teacher’s  English  teaching  style  personal  provides  log  interpretation  and  of  open—process response may indeed have been a contaminating influencing  factor  the  non—significant  outcomes  of  the  One of his entries during the seventh week of the  experiment.  experiment states, “Why are you being so One student commented, mistakes circle red pen, i.e., critical?” I think etc. (student was in experimental group). I am therefore make mistakes afraid to feels he stymieing him. Furthermore,  throughout his  indicates a decided  journal he  preference for the control group over the experimental group. “I have trouble not directly re—inforcing the control group. I really enjoy reading some excellent responses...” Summary Chapter  categorized primarily posed.  findings of  Four has presented the according  to  the  the  research  study  questions  As explained previously in this chapter, the research  questions Native  science data  involving the  Indian  hypothesized  students  gains  could the  for  not  and the be  treatment  sub—group of The  addressed. condition  remaining research questions were not confirmed.  on  all  Furthermore,  any statistical significance that was discovered was not in the hypothesized direction. Results on the first measure, the attitude questionnaire, revealed  no  sub—categories  significant (source,  differences  audience,  overall  or  on  the  response and/or purpose).  The small differences that were found generally favoured the  84 group  control  and  the  boys.  On  (experimental and control)  groups  sub—categories,  the  both  remained relatively stable  on the purpose and sense of audience categories but showed on  losses  the  category.  response  The  changes  on  the  sub—category source were the only ones that showed growth in the hypothesized direction on this measure and were largely due  to  gains  made  by  standard deviation).  the  experimental  However,  boys  (almost  one  because the results for this  measure and those of the writing measure were statistically nonsignificant, they are uninterpretable. Results based on the writing measure (two in—class essays pre  and  again  post)  favoured  the  control  group  over  the  Overall the control group gained about  experimental group.  one—quarter of one standard deviation in content and almost a  one—half  deviation  standard  in  mechanics  while  the  experimental group showed no growth or marginal losses. The student response journals consisted of fifteen modes and formal features Because  (reduced to five facets for the MANOVA).  significant  a  experimental  and  multivariate  analysis  was  covariance significant  difference  control of  conducted.  F—ratio:  students  was on  variance Two  Facet  found the  2  pretest  (p.=.OOl),  facets  between  analysis  accounted  (Creative  for  for  variables  that  make  up  Facet  2,  the  the of the  Expressions,  Speculations and Digressions) and Facet 5 (Frequency). three  the  control  On all group  exhibited more positive growth than did the experimental on both  the  pre—mid  and  pre—post  comparisons.  Facet  5  was  85 significant at the .05 level of confidence both initially and on the pre—post comparison and approached significance on the mid-test (.07) with the changes observed favouring the control group.  When the raw scores were examined,  the experimental  group showed more positive growth than the control group on three variables only, all of which are components of Facet 3 (Confidences,  Frustrations,  and  Questions  Desire  to  know  more). The  qualitative  personal  log and his  analysis  of  the  English  teacher’s  interviews reinforced the conclusions  arrived at in Chapter Five of this study.  The teacher’s role  in this study and his interpretation of open—process response as  the  experimental  and  as  well  perceived control  initial  groups  may  inequalities have  of  the  influenced  the  non—significant differences found between the two groups.  86  CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  Summary The  primary purpose  of  the  study  was  examine  to  the  effects of the treatment, an open—process mode of response to students’  writing in response journals versus a traditional  mode of response, on grade—nine science and English students’ Secondary  attitudes toward writing. asked  about  writing  the  effects  abilities  and  of the  and tertiary concerns on  treatment effects  these  students’  administering  of  the  treatment on the attitudes of participating teachers. The study was a controlled experiment with two teachers (science and English)  instructing four classes, divided into  two experimental and  two control groups,  Over a twelve—week term eight  had been randomly assigned. measures were administered:  to which students  a pre— and posttest attitude,  a  pre— and posttest writing measure (English essays), a pre— and posttest  science  Students  interviews.  maintain response  and  experiment, in  all  four  and  pre— groups  were  post—teacher required  journals throughout the experiment.  to The  participating teachers were asked to maintain personal logs in order to keep a record of the following: a) observations of behavioural changes in students that  could  indicate  attitude  changes  toward: i. writing,  ii. writing in their journals, and iii. the teacher,  87  to  reactions  personal  b)  the  use  of  response  journals as vehicles for writing to learn in their subject areas, and insights regarding the effects that the nature  C)  of  on  have  responses  their  attitudes  student  toward:  i.  writing, ii. writing in their journals, and iii. the teacher. to  Prior  the  order to test the adequacy of this pilot  study  teachers  conducted  was  practice  in  both  in  order  modes  of  studies  were  attitude measure  on the  Two were performed  conducted.  pilot  three  experiment,  The third  instrument. to  give  response  in  participating prior  to  the  treatment period. A posthoc test for item reliability was performed on the attitude  measure  that  resulted  in  a  Hoyt  Estimate  of  Reliability of .94 after the two items found to be unreliable by the LERTAP program were removed.  Three raters scored the  compositions using a holistic marking scale.  After making  adjustments suggested by Diederich (1974), rater reliability on the essay ratings was .94. Discussion In answer to the fourteen research questions asked in Chapter One,  the following findings are provided.  Attitudes toward Writing Because the results for this measure were statistically nonsignificant,  they  are  uninterpretable.  Very  small,  negative changes were registered on the attitude measure by  88 both the experimental arid control groups with the experimental group showing slightly more negative changes than the control. When examined by gender, the girls in both groups showed more The greatest difference,  negative change than did the boys.  -2.5 demonstrated by the experimental girls, is only one-sixth of  standard  a  indicating  deviation  that  were  Such small differences would not have been  extremely small.  Furthermore, the  significant had the sample size been larger. not  could  treatment  changes  the  considered  be  successful  potentially  small differences favoured the control  because even these group.  Examination of the changes in raw scores for the four sub—categories  control  groups  experiment  on  audience.  The  change  in  growth  negative  the  on  all  showed two  attitude  sub—category.  one  revealed  no  changes  sub—categories, group  standard  However,  over  the  purpose showed a  deviation)  these  primarily  Experimental  sub—categories.  experimental  (almost  measure  changes  course and  of  sense  and the of  large positive on  the  appear  source to  be  attributable to the extremely low scores of the experimental boys on the pretest.  Both groups showed substantial losses in  the sub—category response but the experimental group showed greater losses than the control group did. Growth in Writing Comparison of pre— and post— essay scores revealed that, contrary to expected outcomes, the control group showed gains  89  in both content and mechanics whereas the experimental group showed  no  gains  or  marginal  The  losses.  differences  on  mechanics for the control students (about one—half a standard deviation) might be accounted for, control students’  in part, by the fact that  journals were marked for mechanics.  This  may have made students more aware of errors in written usage there  though  even  no  opposite (Hillocks,  previous Indeed,  claim.  this  substantiate  is  evidence  research research  indicates  to the  1986).  Investigation of the response journals, however, revealed an anomaly directly related to the writing of compositions. Prior to the posttest the teacher of English encouraged both groups  to use their response  content of their essays.  journals  as  a  for the  source  Seventeen out of twenty students in  the experimental group used their journals as a source for content as opposed to seven out of nineteen students from the group.  control  content  Nonetheless,  scores  for  experimental group were lower on average than those  the  in the  control group. Student Response Journals and the Effects of Treatment Over the twelve weeks of the treatment, students who had been taught using the open—process mode of response by theIr teacher  did  tabulated  not  show  for response  greater  growth  journals  on  the  five  facets  (reduced from the fifteen  modes and features used to categorize the response journals) when multivariate analysis of variance was performed on them.  90  due  However,  to  indicated  significant difference  a  on the  pretest, a stepdown analysis was conducted to discover which factors were responsible for the significance.  Also, although  the results for the posttest were nonsignificant,  they did  approach significance (.07). On the pretest, two facets——Facet 2  (a composite of the  variables Creative Expressions, Speculations and Digressions) and Facet 5 (the single variable, Frequency) ——were responsible for the significant F—ratio  (.001).  on all three variables  that make up Facet 2, the control group showed more positive growth than did the experimental group at both points during  the  level  .05  group.  was significant at  On the pretest Facet 5  the experiment.  confidence  of  in  favour  of the  It also approached significance on the mid-test (.07)  and reached significance on the posttest. observed control  experimental  were group  not  in  the  exhibiting  hypothesized greater  Again the changes direction  with  the  change  than  the  positive  experimental group. Conclusions Statistical analyses performed in the current study did not  evidence  reveal  measurable ability. experiment,  support  mode  of  written  writing  in  response  open—process students’  to  changes Under  in  the  attitude conditions  statistically  the  response  by  journals and/or  an  a  teacher  to  result  in  would growth  described  significant  that  hypothesis  in  in  writing  the  current  changes  produced on either the attitude or writing measure.  were  not  Only two  91  of  facets  five  the  the  in  reached  journals  significance at the .05 level of confidence. the  on  points  facets  two  All three of the control  the  favoured  statistical  group  indicating, for the most part, that the changes observed were not in the hypothesized direction. following  The  therefore,  discussion,  addresses  the  research problem by attempting an analysis of its failure to reject  the  null  Analysis  hypotheses.  of  the  key  design  features of the study and procedural methods used are the two perspectives adopted in an attempt to draw the four strands of the study (changes in student attitudes toward writing, growth in  writing  ability,  the  effects  treatment  of  on  student  response journals and qualitative analysis of student journals and teacher  responses)  into  a  more  cohesive  and  revealing  portrait that accounts for the unpredicted outcomes of the experiment.  Design Peatures General threats to the reliability of the conclusions are found in the sample size, the  measures  used.  the success of randomization,  None,  seems  however,  to  and  offer  a  satisfactory explanation of the results. i)  Sample Size  The small final number of subjects (thirteen experimental and seventeen control) the  statistical  Attrition,  both  for the MANOVA created a problem for  analysis, after  reducing  randomization  its  power  procedures  greatly. had  been  carried out before the onset of the experiment and throughout  92 its duration, is primarily accountable for the loss in sample size which began with fifty and ended with thirty students. the differences found were not only statistically  However,  non-significant but also frequently in the wrong direction, suggesting that the increased statistical power of a larger sample size would not have altered the results significantly. Initial Differences  ii)  A contaminating factor to the experiment may have been the initial differences between the two groups (experimental and control)  even though stratified random procedures were  Although the two groups  used.  exhibited no  statistically  significant differences in the beginning, on the pre-essay and attitude measures, they were not exactly the same. the  pre-journal,  higher  scores  measures  on  favoured  the  experimental  facets the  2  and  group  5.  had  Even  experimental  significantly  though  group  according to the perception of the  Indeed, on  at  objective  the  English teacher,  chemistry favoured the control group  (i.e.  as  onset, class  a class,  he  found them more willing to learn and more enjoyable to teach than the experimental group). iii) Duration Hillocks  (1986)  states  that  “...  many  experimental  treatments show no significant change in comparison to their control groups because their duration is too short” (p. 191). In his analysis of 2000 studies on written composition,  he  tested this hypothesis by grouping experiments according to their duration——those under thirteen weeks in duration were  93 His  compared to those over thirteen weeks.  findings were  inconclusive. Apparently some short treatments are effective, The same is true of while some are ineffective. The problem is to treatments of longer duration. discover what characteristics of treatments, aside for appear to be responsible from duration, differences in the effect sizes (p. 192). Perhaps twelve weeks, the duration of the treatment for this study, is not ample time to expect significant changes on such a complex and intangible variable as attitude regardless of However, since  how effectively the treatment is carried out. the  changes  direction, longer  that  to  period  assume of  occur  did  were  not  in  the  that maintaining the  time  would  have  hypothesized  treatment in  resulted  for  a  significant  changes favouring the experimental group would be unsupported. Measures Used One  possible  explanation  for  results  that  turned  out  contrary to those hypothesized is the power of the measures. The essay and the attitude measures used in this study were based on measures used in previous research that proved them effective.  The source for the journal measure was The Journal  Book by Toby Fuiwiler  (1987),  a compilation of case studies  centered around the use of response journals. i)  The Attitude Measure  Based on “The P & R Writing Attitude Form” the  attitude  measure used  in  this  study was  (Appendix M), adjusted  and  refined through the course of two pilot studies before being administered as part of the experiment.  94  to  First,  the  adapt  college  level  vocabulary  the  of  original form, words representing opposite poles on the scale were adjusted to a grade-nine readability level  while still  maintaining the integrity of their initial categories. revised  attitude  measure  was  pilot  with  tested  an  The  intact  Students were asked to make  grade—nine class in June 1990.  note of any words they had difficulty in understanding.  Their  suggestions were incorporated in the adapted version. In August 1990, the opposing, single-word choices on the scale  to  changed  were  statements  in  the  belief  that  this  format is more clearly understood by grade—nine subjects.  The  original form is also lengthy, comprised of fifty-two items. items were  These  reduced to twenty—nine  statements  in the  final form because many of the items appeared to be redundant. In addition to the above changes, two practise questions were included to facilitate subjects’  understanding of the  form  during administration of the attitude measure. A  second  September  pilot  1990.  participants  test  Six  of  the  grade-nine  in the experiment,  measure  was  students,  in  conducted who  were  not  were asked to complete the  measure using a think—aloud protocol that was tape recorded. Difficulties students had in understanding particular words were used to guide a subsequent adaptation of the measure. Furthermore,  the  internal  reliability  of  the  measure  was  checked by the LERTAP program; the Hoyt Reliability (.94) was very high on the twenty-seven items used in the statistical analysis.  95 What the above precautions  (use of the form in previous  research, pilot tests and testing for internal reliability) do not show is how sensitive the final measure is to changes in Because it is believed that the measure maintains  attitude. the  (source,  four sub—categories  integrity of the original  audience, response and purpose), this suggests the measure has a  sensitivity  broad  attitude  to  Therefore,  changes.  the  sensitivity of the attitude measure does not appear to be a contributor  strong  to  the  failure  to  the  reject  null  hypothesis. The Writing Measure  ii)  following  The  precautions  were  to  taken  ensure  reliability of the scores elicited from the students’ formal written  subsequent  their scales  The  products.  compositions scored  ratings by  used——proposed  were  according  Diederich  administered  and  methods  and  to  (1974)——in  previous  studies, both large and small scale. Pearson  Using  Product  Moment  Correlation,  reliability was found to be very high (.94).  rater  The validity is  supported by the marking scale used as a guide for the raters for  scoring  English  12  the  essays:  scale  used  by  this the  scale B.C.  was  adopted  Ministry  of  from  the  Education  marking teams. iii)  The Response Journals  The fifteen modes and formal features that constitute the categories for analysis of student response journals in this study have been taken from the “Introduction” of The Journal  96  Book  edited  by  Toby  Fuiwiler  (1987).  The  list,  (said to  represent a “core of common features” characteristic of good is based on Fuiwiler’s own experiences and those of  journals)  ‘the forty or so teachers’  who contributed chapters to his  book in response to the question, journals?” response  (p.  are good  Although the categories used to analyze  2).  journals  exactly,  “What,  in  this  study  have  not  been  tested  for  validity through experimental research, the model is supported by data from more than forty case studies.  As a result, the  checklist used to classify features of the student journals appears to be valid. Procedural Elements i) Administration of the Treatment In order to ensure that participating teachers became familiar with the guidelines of two modes of teacher response (open process and traditional), a pilot study was conducted in the  fall  of  1990 prior to the  experiment during which the  science and English teachers received coaching in both modes The teacher of English practised on an intact  of response.  grade—seven literature class and the science teacher practised on  an  intact  grade—eight  science  class.  Each  class  was  divided in half; one-half designated as the control group and the other as the experimental group. to  respond  to  what  they  were  Teachers asked students  learning  “Guidelines for Student Response”  in  class  (Appendix C).  following The pilot  study took place over a period of two weeks during which six practise response sessions took place.  The two teachers and  97 the  researcher  the  after  met  of  collection  each  set  of  responses in order to formulate responses to what the students had written. An exemplar for each mode of response (Appendix K)  was provided and parameters  for teacher response to be  followed during the experiment (Appendix D) established. In addition, weekly meetings were established between the participating  teachers  and  the  researcher  throughout  the  experiment in order to monitor any discrepancies and discuss problems as they arose in reference to the use of the two modes.  Training and monitoring of the teachers, then,  have ensured correct administration of the treatment.  should Despite  these precautionary measures, it appears that the execution of the treatment by the  science  (the  English teacher  teacher  dropped out of the experiment) was not that envisioned by the  reseacher’s  weekly  journals  directing  responses.  response  made  were  response  groups’  attest  logs  responses  open—process  student  in  Evidence  researcher.  in  the  the  observation  with  analysis  revealed  interwoven with traditional responses.  in  and  experimental  interspersed  Furthermore,  journals  to  journals  of  the that  groups’  traditional, the  open—process  control  responses  These may, in part, be  attributed to the classroom teacher ‘liking’ the control group better than the experimental group prior to and during the experiment.  Therefore, it is believed that the teacher’s role  in this study  (his interpretation of open—process response)  coupled with the perceived initial inequality of the groups  98 contributed to the outcomes of the experiment——no significant differences. Alternative Interpretations We are left then with four possible explanations of the results: 1)  Extraneous factors unknown to the researcher  may have influenced the outcomes of the experiment. of  the  inclusion  of  the  following  design  Because  features  and  procedures, this seems an unlikely explanation: ——Comparability was assured through random assignment of students to classes. --All participating subjects were pretested using direct tests of writing similar to those used as posttests. ——The same instrument was used as a pretest and posttest to measure changes in attitude. ——Classes were assigned randomly to treatments and were taught by the same teacher (both the control and experimental groups)  in their subject areas. 2)  Failure to reject the null hypothesis supports  the conclusion that the method of instruction tested by this experiment has no potential for improving student attitudes toward, and skills in, writing.  This also seems an unlikely  explanation based on both this study’s pilot work and work published by others in the field of composition. 3)  Predicted results could be achieved if changes  in procedure and design were implemented in a replication of this  study.  A more  rigorous method  of  ensuring that  the  99 is  treatment  carried  being  out  as  it  described--that  is  actually occurring in the classrooms——is suggested. 4)  Extending the duration of the experiment might  produce the predicted results. more  tenable  if  one  the  This explanation would be a  procedures  were  to  perceived  be  unsound or that the results favoured the experimental group on any of the measures. Recommendations for Further Research Replication Because  of  a  solid  controlled  carefully  theoretical  design  of,  base  for,  present  the  the  and study  a  replication of the experiment would likely benefit further Two alterations in the procedures and one in the  research.  may have  that  design  been  responsible  for  failure  the  reject the null hypothesis are recommended however.  to  Greater  control for teacher response, either through a more prolonged coaching session prior to the administration of the treatment or more careful monitoring during the treatment,  Extending the duration of the experiment,  considered. example,  for  two terms instead of one, might result in expected  outcomes.  Finally,  be  greatly  would  should be  the statistical power of the experiment enhanced by  increasing the  sample  size  through the addition of classes or creating larger initial class sizes.  This, however, does not necessitate a change in  the design of the study since had the students classes adequate.  been  included  the  sample  size  would  in science have  been  100 Administration of the Treatment As  be  will  elaborated  on  in  the  epilogue,  despite  a  training session prior to the experiment and weekly meetings during the experiment, the administration of the treatment did not go as expected. Therefore, the following recommendations are made for future researchers: The researcher should have more effective ways  1)  of monitoring the collection  of  administration of  data  than those  used  and the  the treatment in  the  present  study.  Although the experiment was not destroyed because the science data were not used,  this data would have been unavailable  because the science teacher did not collect the data even though he said he had. classes  Also, journal entries in both science  nonexistent  were  for  at  least  one  of  third  the  Suggestions for more effective  duration of the experiment,  ways of monitoring these aspects of the procedures are class visitations and reading of students’ journals. Future  2)  research  could  benefit  from  exercising of minimal controls for teacher variables attitudes  and  participating effectively,  philosophical teachers.  To  orientation) administer  when the  the  (i.e.,  choosing treatment  teachers must have a philosophical orientation  that is compatible with the goals of the experiment although the generalizability of the findings would be limited to those teachers with the same philosophical orientation.  101  Untested Hypothesis The  original  questions  included  subgroup of Native Indian students. addressed  because the  school  reference  to  These questions were not  population  did  not  allow  their inclusion as will be discussed in Chapter Six. into  the  attitudes  effects  of  two  modes  of  the  written  response  for  Inquiry on  the  and writing ability of Native Indian students could  prove to be promising.  102 CHAPTER SIX EPILOGUE  But Mousie, thou art no thy lane, In proving foresight may be vain: The best—laid schemes o’ mice an’ men Gang aft a-gley, An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain, For promised joy (Burns, 1785). Like Burns’  mouse, my ‘best laid scheme,’  my carefully  planned empirical investigation of the effects of two modes of teacher response on students’  writing to learn in response  journals, has gone ‘a—gley’. The scheme was well laid: 1)  I was permitted to conduct an experiment  that allowed for true randomization of subjects; 2)  I  had,  participating teachers,  not  only  daily  contact  with  but was married to one of them  the (who  could ask for better control?); and 3)  I conducted three pilot studies on intact  classes in the school from which the experimental sample was to be drawn in order to test the measures to be used and to coach teachers in the administration of the treatment. One would think such a sterling opportunity could not go What went ‘a-gley’?  ‘a-gley’.  Administration of the Treatment  I believed at the onset of the experiment that because both  the  science  and  participate  in the  incorporate  writing  English  teachers  study they would in  their  consented  to  show a willingness  to  classroom  had  instruction.  The  103 opposite proved to be true, completely true in the case of the teacher.  science  In  the  case  of  the  English  teacher,  willingness was not a factor but teaching style combined with interpretation of modes of response was. The Science Teacher One qualitative feature of the experiment involved  teachers  in  the  research were  to  roles, those of participant and observer. Gall,  1989)  the  carry out  dual  Smith (in Borg and  observed that individuals participating in case  study research often “mask” from  was that both  researcher.  (p. 392) what is really going on  While  the  experiment  was  being  conducted, I suspected that some ‘masking’ was taking place on the part of the science teacher.  Hesitant to challenge a  colleague, who was also a fellow staff member and  volunteer  participant in the experiment, I did not fully discover this ‘masking’  until  initiated.  the  coding  and  analysis  of  the  data  was  The science journals, without exception, had no  entries recorded in them from week 5 through and including week 7 of the experiment nor in weeks 9 and 10. Weekly meetings with both participating teachers were conducted throughout the experiment. to  bring  their  student  journals  Both teachers were asked  to  each  ‘teacher responses’ could be discussed. student  responses  appeared  in  the  meeting  so  that  For the weeks that no  science  journals,  the  science teacher presented a variety of explanations as to why he didn’t have his class sets with him.  104  Excerpts regarding researcher’s log:  the  science  teacher  recorded  in  the  Week 3. “I [the researcher] do not feel that I am running I have always been and am this experiment properly. extremely reticent to tell my peers what to do and how to [The science teacher] seems negative about it do things. [the research) today.”  During week stated,  3  “...  of  the  as  a  experiment, method  of  the  science  instruction,  teacher this  is  bullshit.” Week 4 In reference to the journals: “I’m sorry. I didn’t know you expected me to have them here. I’ll make sure I have them with me next time.” A week elapsed. “ I’m afraid that they don’t have much in them this week because we ran out of time. I’ll really concentrate on making time for them.”  Week7 “I forgot them at home. The kids have them because we ran out of time in class for them to finish their entries.” “All the while the science teacher sat, resting his hand on the stack of student journals. I couldn’t very well arm—wrestle him for them could I?” Another week elapsed. Week 8 “[The science teacher) was reticent to show me student journals at lunch hour today. I managed to peek Students are not writing much. at a few. [The science teacher) is not very enthusiastic about this project and I feel quite defeated and depressed about this. I don’t seem to be able to keep him enthusiastic. I think the reason he’s sending the journals home now is because the project is almost finished and he hasn’t been doing what he said he was going to (pure speculation on my part).”  105 due  Unfortunately,  to  the  participating science teacher, ‘grief’  could  and  not  be  nonparticipation  of  the  all of the science data were Constrained  used.  by  a  highly  structured and content—laden curriculum, I think he viewed the use of response journals as something ‘added on’ to an already heavy work load. The English Teacher Enthusiasm  the  for  project  and  a  willingness  to  incorporate response writing in his teaching practices were not  issues  teacher.  in the administration of the treatment by this a more complex and nebulous problem was  However,  that of his teaching style and philosophical orientation to education which did  not appear to be compatible with the  guidelines established for open teacher responses to student writing in this experiment. The teaching style of the English teacher could be termed ‘presentational’  (Hillocks  and  1986)  orientation to education ‘academic’  his  philosophical  (McNeil 1985).  Although  instruction was parallel in experimental and control classes, the inclusion of traditional components related to the novel study may have overpowered and negated the effects of the open—process journals.  responses  isolated  in  the  student  response  Traditional components such as chapter questions,  quizzes and a final comprehensive exam on the novel——all of which  suggest  one  answer——may  right  have  acted  as  a  counterbalance to the teacher’s open—process responses to the experimental  students  in  their  response  journals.  106  Furthermore, the two modes of response were not administered purely to the designated treatment groups.  In addition to the  responses they were supposed to receive, the control students received  frequently experimental  students As the  responses.  “open  praising”  frequently  following excerpts  responses received  and  the  corrective  illustrate,  not even  family coaching helped. Excerpts from student response lournals that illustrate this contamination: Experimental Group Student #3: Entry 4  (Week 4)  “I have a little difficulty with your sentence structure because if you read the last part of your entry here it is all one sentence.” Student #6: Entry 4  (Week 4)  -spelling error indicated —capitalization error indicated Student #8: Entry 4  (Week 4)  “I would enjoy your responses more if I could read them.” Excerpt from the researcher’s log: Kitchen table discussion (Week 4). R: “You [the English teacher] are not supposed to circle their errors. You’re not supposed to even notice You’re just supposed to be encouraging.” them. “I know. I can’t help myself. When I see them T: doing something wrong, I feel it’s my job to point it out.” But, for this R: “I know. please, try not to do it anymore.” T:  “Okay.  experiment,  please,  I’ll try.”  Excerpts from student response lournals : Experimental Group  107 Student #4: Entry 5  (Week 5)  “Try and avoid starting a sentence with and.” Student #6: Entry 12  (Week 10)  —two spelling errors indicated Student #15: Entry 5  (Week 5)  “Write rough copies entries neatly.”  first  One week prior to the experiment,  then  write  out  these  random assignment of  treatment groups took place by the flipping of a coin. English  teacher  control group.  wanted  the  experimental  the  to  be  the  As late as week five into the experiment I  recorded in my log that he was wanted  group  The  experimental  group  “. .  to  .still talking about how he be  the  other  block”.  I  believe this attitude toward the control group accounts for the great number of open process responses he made to them in their journals. Excerpts from student response  journals: Control Group  Student #3: Entry 2 “Great response you challenge the novel with some excellent ideas. ... Write lots——it’s wonderful to read.” —  Student #21: Entry 6 “You are doing just writer.. ..“ Entry 9  fine.  You are an excellent  “The quote is a fascinating one. I would like you There is no ‘right’ to try and figure it out.... interpretation——Try (a good journal entry item!).”  The English teacher,  like those teachers in Langer and  Applebee’s study How Writing Shapes Thinking (1987), took to  108 his classes a different interpretation of the goals of the experiment than I did.  His interpretation, as mine would be,  was shaped by his view of what his role as a teacher should be. Untested Hypothesis One of the initial reasons that I became interested in response writing was because of the personal experiences I have had in teaching English to Native Indian students.  With  these students, I have been most effective when room for some kind of private personal interaction is allowed for in the course of a lesson.  These students, more often than not, have  used their journals to tell me, and ask advice about, problems they are experiencing in their personal lives. The best example of establishing this kind of trust and rapport with a Native student through the use of journals is an experience recounted to me by a fellow staff member. I was doing my course work for my Master’s Degree,  While  I kept in  close contact with my colleagues at the school from which I was on leave.  They, of course, were very much interested in  what I was studying. decided to classes.  do  One teacher of English,  journal writing with one  in particular,  of his  grade-seven  Following is an excerpt from a letter he sent to me  while I was doing my course work (used with permission).  109 I teach one Native girl who has not done any other assignments in class except her journals. She has gone from writing one or two sentences, when we first began, to writing full pages during the short time allotted for We have discussed everything from her this activity. complicated and quite horrible personal life to pop lyrics as poetry. Her journal is the only place in which I am In fact, I think the journal has provided reaching her. us with a vehicle to defuse potential confrontation situations in the classroom. Her attendance rate has improved over the past few months as well. Whether or not this can in any way be credited to journal writing I cannot say, but it is logical to me to infer that the journal is an important part of a caring atmosphere which is hopefully an inviting atmosphere. In the year the experiment took place,  our school was  fortunate enough to receive funding from the Department of Indian Affairs to set up an Alternate Self-Paced Program (ASP) in an attempt to counteract the high drop-out rate of Native Indian  students.  majority  This  Native  of  program directed enrollment  Indian  students  away  from  the  of the regular  classrooms to such a degree that their representation in the classrooms under study was virtually non—existant. I  still  believe  journals  as  strongly a  students——whether hypothesis,  the  in the  effectiveness  means  of  reaching  Native  or  otherwise.  original  impetus  behind  of  ‘high,  scheme’, promises ‘joy’ for future research.  response at—risk’  The this  However,  untested  ‘best  laid  110  BIBLIOGRAPHY Applebee, Arthur N. (1981). Writing in the Secondary School: English and the Content Areas. NCTE Research Report #21. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE. Applebee, Arthur N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577—596. Barnes, D., Britton, J. & Rosen, H. (1971). Language, Learner, and the School. London: Penguin.  the  Berthoff, Ann E. (1978). Forming/Thinking/Writing; The Composing Imagination. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, Inc. Bereiter C. & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: the role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.) Advances in Instructional Vol.2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Psychology. Associates, 1—64. Borg,  Walter R. & Gall, Meredith D. (1989). Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: Longman Inc.  Bowman, Richard F. Jr. (1983). The personal student journal: mirror of the mind. Contemporary Education, 55, 2, 25-27. Britton, J.N. (1971). Language and Learning. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books. Britton, J.N., Burgess T., Martin N., McLeod A. & Rosen, H. (1975). The Development of Writing Abilities 11—18. London: Macmillan Education Ltd. Burns, Robert. (1785). To a mouse. In M.H. Abrams (Ed.) The Norton Anthology of English Literature: Revised, Vol.2. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. Calkins, L.M. (1979). Andrea Learns Language Arts, 56, 569—76.  to make  writing hard.  Carroll, J.A. (1984). Process into product: teacher awareness affects of the writing process students’ written products. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.) New Directions in Composition Research. New York: Guildford Press, 315—333. Clifford, J.P. (1981). Composing in stages: the effects of a collaborative pedagogy. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 1, 37—53.  111  (no date). The use of response Crowhurst, M. & Kooy, M. journals in teaching the novel. In Response Journals. Daly,  (1988). Writing J.A., Vangelisti, A. & Witte, S.P. apprehension in the classroom context. In B.A. Rafoth & D.L. Rubin (Eds.) The Social Construction of Written Ablex Publishing Norwood, NJ: Communication. Corporation, 147—171.  Diederich, P.B. Ii: NCTE.  (1974). Measuring Growth in English. Urbana,  (1874). Middlemarch. In T. Fuiwiler (Ed.) The Eliot, G. Journal Book. London: Heinemann Educational Books Inc., 47. Emig,  J. (1971). The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.  Fuiwiler, T. (Ed.) (1987). The Journal Book. London: Heinemann Educational Books Inc. Gere, Anne R. (Ed.) (1985). Roots in the Sawdust: Writing to Learn Across the Disciplines. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE. Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the of writing. the teaching College in revolution Composition and Communication, 33, 76—88. Harste, J.C., Woodward, V. & Burke, C. (1984). transactional view of a assumptions: learning. Research in the Teaching of 84—108.  Examining our literacy and 18, English,  the (1980). Identifying L.S. & Flower, Hayes, J.R. organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Writing. Processes in (Eds.) Cognitive Steinberg Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Earlbaum, Publishers, 3—30. an the soundtrack: Silencing A. (1989). Dana Heller, alternative to marginal comments. College Composition and Communication, 40, 210—14. Herbert, Y. & Barman, J. (1987). Indian Education in Canada : The Challenge. Vancouver: University of Volume 2 British Columbia Press, 13. (1986). Research on Written Composition: New Hillocks, G. Urbana, Eric Illinois: for Directions Teaching. Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, NCRE.  112  Johnston, B. Reflect Press.  (1983). Assessing English: Helping Students to on Their Work. Philadelphia: Open University  Kelly, Patricia P. & Small, R.C. Jr. (1985). Two stacks later: composition. Virginia English Bulletin, 35, 1, 1—2. Kleinfeld, J. (1975). Effective teachers of Eskimo and Indian students. School Review, (February): 301—44. Langer, J. & Applebee A., (1987). How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning. NCTE Research Report # 22. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE. LeBrasseur, M. & Freark, E. (1982). Touch a child--they are my people: ways to teach American Indian children. Journal of American Indian Education, 21, 2, 6—11. Marland, M. (Ed.) (1977). Language Across the Curriculum. London: Heinemann Educational Books Inc. Martin, N. (1983). Mostly About Writing: Selected Essays by Nancy Martin. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc. Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: the tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113—134. McNeil, J.D. (1985). Curriculum: A Comprehensive Introduction. Toronto: Little Brown & Company. Moffett, J.W. (1968). Teaching the Universe Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Miff un.  of  Discourse.  Moore, D.W., Moore, S.A., Cunningham, P.M., and Cunningham, (1986). Developing Readers and Writers in the J.W. Content Areas. Toronto: Longman Inc. Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317—36. Peyton, J. K. & Seyoum, M. (1989). The effect of teacher strategies on students’ interactive writing: the case of dialogue journals. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 3, 310—334. Pianko, S. H. (1979). A description of the composing processes of college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 5—22. Pianko, S. H. (1977). The Composing Acts of College Freshman Writers: a Description by Sharon Pianko with Louisa Rogers. New Brunswick, N.J.  113  Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. & Kirschner, B. (1989). Students’ metacognitive knowledge about writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 343—378. Rhodes, R.W. (1988). Holistic teaching/learning for Native American students. Journal of American Indian Education, 27, 2, 21—29. Rose,  Sophisticated, (1981). ineffective books——the M. dismantling of process in composition texts. College Composition and Communication, 32, 1, 65—74.  Sapir, E. (1961). Culture, Language and Personality. University of California Press. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. & Goelman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In N. Nystrand (Ed.) What Writers Know: The Language, Process, and Structure of Written Discourse. New York: Academic Press, 173—210. Shaughnessy, M.P. (1977). Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Staton, J. (1987). The power of responding in dialogue journals. In T. Fuiwiler (Ed.) The Journal Book. London: Heinemann Educational Books mc, 47—63. Staton, J., Shuy, R.W., Peyton, J.K. and Reed L. (1988). Dialogue Journal Communication: Classroom, Linguistic, Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Social and Cognitive Views. (1984). Critical issues in the development of Stein, N.L. literacy education: toward a theory of learning and instruction. American Journal of Education, 93, 171-199. 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, 29, 2, 36—43. Tierney, R. J. & Pearson, P. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language Arts, 60, 568 -80. Torbe, M. (Ed.) (1980). Language Policies in Action. Ward Lock Educational. Vygotsky, L. (1978). In N. Cole, V. John—Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds. and Trans.) Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  114  Yinger, R. (1985). Journal writing as Volta Review, 87, 5, 21—33.  a  learning tool.  Th  Zemelman, S. & Daniels, H. (1988). A Community of Writers: Teaching Writing in the Junior and Senior High School. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann Educational Books Inc.  115 Appendix A:  Letter of  Permission  School District 70 Alberni. 4690 Roger St., Port Alberni, B.C. V9Y 3Z4 Ph. 723-3565  September 24,  1990  -  UBC Behavioural Sciences Screening Committee University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C.  Dear Members of Screening Committee: This letter will provide approval for Mrs. Elaine MacKay, U.B.C . Masters student, to conduct her study entitled “The effects of teacher written response on the attitudes of students toward writing to learn in response journals” in.School District #70 (Alberni) and at E.J. Dunn Junior Secondary School specifically. I know Mrs. MacKay to be a committed teacher of English who has demonstrated the necessary sensitivity to conduct interviews with student subjects on the topic being studied. It is my belief that the results of her study will have the potentiality of improv ing instruction for students, particularly Native Indians. I have no hesitation in giving Mrs. MacKay the approval tà proceed. Please do not hesitate to call me should more information be required. I  Your  N. Su  .  r  ly,  hiessen tendent of Schools  NJT :mc cc. Mrs. E. MacKay  ExagtL,zc2g 1,2  EJLL2at1O12  H’  .‘<  ci  o  ID :3  c in D c-i-  ID  -c  3  -‘c  H’  3  ID  :r  H’  c-I-  c-i  in -c  a  x  ‘:  ID 3  in  n ‘a  in ui  r  c-i-  c-IDi  Ifl :3  H’  -c  ‘a in  X  in  in  ii)  ci  —4 3iii  c-I:i-  in  ci  -h  ID  in  3in  c-i  -  ‘:‘  ‘ci  3  i-n  CT  :r  ci  ci-  ‘-  ci  cr  in  “i  in  ci i—i  -h  ‘<  i--i  in  ‘ci  ‘,J  H’  ci  ‘—  ci  -  10  :J-  &  ci  a  ci  c-i-  a  ID  :i  3  —  I  lb &  fl  H’  a H’  Di  in  Ui c-i  O  ‘-  H’  Ii)  C  -U  Di  D  a.,  ‘-  C  ci  in  -c  3Iti  “—.  “c  i:i  -  a’  ‘c  in  Ui  ij  a’  W in  in  ci  •  -  ci -i’.  3  c’  -n  in  H.  ‘a ID <  C  Ui  ci D  3  i-n ci  in c-i  ii  C  a  P1  I  :3 c-I’  in  a  C  in ’ ci  C in c-l in  a  in  -  iJ1  Di  in ui  :i ci-  3 111  H’  in -  in X ‘a  in  i-”  -  &  ‘ci  D  i-  ci-  r iii  C a’ in  i,  ci-  C  a  D  o  -,  3  in  i—i  iJ)  -c  in  a.  C  iø C)  C  c-i-  in  H’  in  in  H’  3  -‘  ‘a in  ‘c  C  ii  ‘<  in  <  i-n  ici  i:  ci-  C  ci  <  fl  iii  ci  ci-  ILl  -  H’  ‘-“  F lb D  -  ci  Ui  III  ci  ‘-ç  ‘a  H’  3 ID D ci  H’  -‘c  in  13  in X  in  H’  3-  cI  H.  in  ci-  -a  H’  ci-  -  ‘0  c-I-  in  a  ‘--i  o C  lb C ‘ci D c-i-  in  a  ci  in  C  ci  3-  ,:i  c-I-  Ui ID J &  3  i-’, ci  C  ‘< ci  ‘  ‘-c  C  U :ciID  Di  a.  “.  ci  ID  -c  c  c’  -<  -c “  Ci  i-  c-I-  -o  H’  ‘‘  -c  ‘ci  in  in  3)  ‘--  -‘c  -a  X  ID  c  c-I-  ID  in  in  3  c-i-  ii  i: C -c  in  a  D ID  ci-  c-i  C  -  3 3 ID  ‘-i’  a  Di D  c-iin  -c  dlb  ul  U-  c-I-  c-I-  D  lb  -c ci-  ci  ‘a  3  H’  in  ci-  c-I-  C  c  r  ID  in  in  in  :3 a  in  c-I-  ‘-  in  a  C U:)  D  c-i-  D  ’ ci  ci  ‘  in  -c  H.  lb ii  ‘-  ‘a  Iti  ciin  i-n  “  -c  i—  c-I-  3 i in  Ill c-i  fl C in  H’  i’ i—i  -  I-’.  113  ‘a  In  C  H’  J•  —4  111  in  ‘-  c-IID  a  C  -c  (  ci c-i  c-t.-  in  c-IJ in  C’  C’  w i_i  a  3  Di  iI:)  D  H’  c-I-  H’  -‘c  ci  ci-  a in in  E  ci  3  ci  &  Ii  H’  :‘  ci  in  i--i  Di  a  ‘—  C  ci  x  ci  c-I-  C  ri  tr  Di  iij :3  c-i-  ci-  l’•  (  -  ID  in <  3-  <  ID  D  c-i  in  c-I-  -  -c  1)  c-i  II)  Q  Ui  U. 1) in  f-•  ‘0  ‘—  in  3-  ci  c-i-  Ct  P1  3) c-I-  3  T in DID  3  H’  “c  in  ‘a  in  :3 C  in  ia  :3  H’  c-I-  C  a  3  ‘‘ ci  ID  a’  in  -ç  in j  <  Ui  i’”  j-  ci-  C 1 J  ti  ci-  E  ([I  iti  3  i-n  c-i-  in  -c  ici D  C  ‘:‘  -  ci-  D  -  II i  i’  D c-iIll  Ii)  U.  c-I-  in  H  c-ic-I-  in  ‘  Ui  c-i  in  a  C  Ui c-I-  in  in  ri  C ID D  : —+  H  hi  i—-  d-  -+  -  3 IT ID  in 3 ID  -ç  ci  c-I-  a  3  ID  ci-  in  i-  1]  Ci  ill  -c  III c-i-  ci  3  Ci  i  ‘<  ‘—i  IT  a’  IT  c’  ‘Cl  C  <  3) UI c-I- in i-n  ci  ci  in  ci-  i’  a  ::3  3  c-Ic-i ID  Ui  :3  ci  in  H’  inD in “c c-i 3DID  ci  c-I- Iji  i  i ‘a  H’  c-I-in  H  a  ci  H  ulli)  3  ID  J Ii) — Did’  -c  C-+  ci  L  in  lomb  ci ciDC-h  Ji ‘Cl  rnci-r  ‘43 3) H  rn  H  F-i  —I  3  -c  :3 c-i  in ID  :3  Di  H’  a  -ç  Di  r  Li.’  I—.  in  :3 c-i  in  -ç  Di  -I)  w  H’  a  :1) ‘a ‘a ID :3  0’  •  LU  ‘  ID  10 LU 10  &  21 C’ Z  Z  ‘-i  ID 21 CL  ID I  1  C’ C  -<  0 21  CL  10  C LU  Cr ID  c-i-  113  ‘_‘  21  ‘-  ‘—i-  ID  ci-  :T ID I  LU  -i  C’  21 ID 3 ID LU  ID  & :r  C’  &  21 ID CL  CL  ci  O ID 1  ‘—  C) 21 ID  i-  C  &  4  ID  & LU  C  ‘—i  ,—“  Ui  I—  21 Di  -c  0 C  (..  ID  o 21 LU  ti  ID LU  21 LU ci-c  1  Di 21 CL  LU  21 &  C  21 3 10  CL ID 3 Di 21 CL LU  C’  ct  3 ID  ct  ID 21 <  ID  &  IL’  ‘-  CL  Ii)  CL  u I  ID Iii  C’  &  CL  10  I  ‘-  C  ID  Li  1  Cr ID  c-i-  o  21  &  ID CI  ‘-..  LU C Cr  c  Di  ‘—a  ID  ID  10  :r  ID  LU LU  Di  --  ID  &  -  0  10 21 ci.  ID  I—.  ID  21 ci.  &  ‘—i-  21  ‘-“  3  C)  Di 21  10 21 LU C I ID  C)  ci-  CI &  10 LU C  1  —c  0 C  1 ct  0  10  I  i-i  :i  ID  CL  ‘--i  ‘--a  T  3 ID 1  ID 21 CI ID  Ui CI  ‘:  LU  I--  IT1 2) UD  LU  c-i-  C CL 1(1 :J  c-i-  LU  Di  ci -  &  ni  C)  t  ID  LA  LU  x  CL  21  ID  ci-  3 ID 21  ‘-“  I  ID  tI  ID  ID  c-iT  -c  C’  -i  ID CL  ct  -c  Cr ID  ‘—  ‘-  -“  *  LU  ‘-  Di  -c  0 C  c.-  ID  :r Ii)  —i 1u  ‘-“  ID  c-i-  -c  ID  ui  Di  —.  “  ID Ui  -o  LU ID  ‘<  Cr --  21 ciLU  fl &  ID  CL ID  ct  U)  -..  :i  ci-  c  0  ID  & T  ci-  Di  LU ti  Ui  CL  ‘D ci. 1(1  c+  C CL ID  &  U)  &  ci-  (  ID  ID CL  c-i-  ‘  Ii)  ‘-  ‘-  iD  n  CT  21  -  CL  LU  ID ‘  C) ti  C)  0  LU  &  ID 21  ci.  d-  0  J•  1J  ,  —+  0  C  d-  Ui  i-”  21  C ci. 10  C  c-i-  ci-  LA  ‘—i  CL C ID  ‘-  LU  ID  -ç  < C) C  <  CL Di C iD 21 ciII)  <  CL C ID  i-”  .  -•  CL  21  Ci D  21 ci.  ‘-  LII  ‘-“  21  LU  ,-  21 Di  UD —-  1  C’ C  L..  21  -.-  21 -iID  ‘--fl  3 Di  c-i0  ID CL  CI &  ID  1]  ID  Cr ID  ‘-  ‘-  i-”  LU  j  C CL ID  &  UI  ‘—‘  ‘•  D  4.  21  ‘—i-  21  10 Iii 1  I-  Di 1 ID  <  ID  &  ci-  Di  T  C)  ci-  LU 10 LU  21  ID LA tI 0  -c  ‘-“  ID  cir  iv LU LU  ii  ID  &  ID  :r  -<  C, 21  ID 21 c-I-  3  I  10  x 1J  III  ID  d-  c  -+  C)  ‘-—  ID  ID  -  10  3  ID  LU  10  D  ci-  ID c-I-  ci-  Cr C  -c —h  C’  J n  c-I-  C’  J  ,,  iii ID  -+  0  21 LA  c’  LU  -  ID  ID  &  21  -‘;  [I  t  U  CL  ID ciID  ILl  Cr  ‘—  ‘-  LU ID  Ii)  r  ---I  -1-  -  ‘  -  -  CL  ID  Cr  ‘‘—  LA  II) 3  ‘--a  0 Cr  1  ti  CI 10  ID  i-”  CI  LII  ro  r  H  CL  21  ID  J ID  &  ID &  21 ID  ‘D  21 ci.  l  CL  0  .  ‘  ti ID  ‘-  ID  CI 10  10 21  ‘—i-  21 &  Ui  3 ID  CI  C’  ct  ID 21  -  ‘.0  ID  Cr  t-  ‘--i  H-  *:  Lii  c-I-  (1 ID 21  c-i-  Lii  -  CI 10  Ui  21  ‘—4  i.)  i—’  ID I  0  ID X  ID  c-i 21  -  C)  21 1]  -  21 21  Cr ID ui  J ID  d  ID  C’  III  <  :‘  Lii  0  ci-  ftI  a  ID  ‘-•  cr  C’  -  ti  1  C’  *  In  IA  2 -ç  C’  fl r  H-  ijj F--  21  rn  -c  rLI  r  -  0  1 &  ft  I] -  ‘-<  ‘—i  d10  ID  I  ID  ID  Ui  ID 21 CL  J c-i  ID  3  ,-.  -ç  ID  LJ  10  10  ciJ  Cr ID  ‘--  ‘—  c-I  ID  c-I3  i-I-  10 J  a  ‘-  •c  ID  Iii x J  itt  r  c-I-  ci  Ii i: -  21  ID III  c’ III ILl  11  ID  in  :1  -i-  i  21 CI.  ft  iD  i  r -c 0  -  iti  -i-  i—c  h  & J  0  ci-  CL  2 -c  CL  LU a dLU  ID  -c  ID  C’  Ii) -n  Cr  ID iii  Ti  ID  LA  u  J  .  c-I-  -.  -‘;  Z  ftl ID  1  :r  iLl  ii  ‘-i-  0  Ti  -  si  21  21  —i  t.:’  It) CL  C  21  c-i  C)  CI  w  x  CL  21  tJ  ]) -o  —1  aD .-1 1  -D Iii J  C ri  -p  “-i  C ci  a; a  iii •  s -‘  C --4  ID -4-’  j:  ID •—‘  -P 4-  Di £ -4-) c’  CD  -.  1  —‘  cr C 6 a Ift  -P  CD C r-4  .-1  CD a L’  D C -J.)  -,-‘  •—‘  :i C’ i —‘  Di C  p  3  -i  -P  3  -  510  r-  ID 6  a  C’  p p U  ID  > C  -ci ID C -4  ‘II  [fl .-  0 t C’ -P  -a fl! -.  •-‘  ID ID D  3  r4 .—i --4  3 i: —1  ‘Ti  -‘  C’ 4  p  C’ C  U  ID If! C’ C’ .C  3  .—i — •—I  ‘-‘  -I-)  C 0) 6 •—  f.-.  ID CL  ID C 0 --i  X  ID  If! -s-’ .  p  cr C --i -.  -ci  CD 13, Di 5-  ID C C’ “‘  .-  c C  ‘-,  W  II)  Dl 6 u ‘0  CD  1  Ui ID  —i  i -p  ID U  CF  .CD  C  ID  (Ii  Di i  C’ >, 6 1)  ID i:  IJ Ii!  cri ‘N J-  CD  .p  .  -  10  c5-  o  N U. C’  6 5.‘4—  4’  ‘0 a  -4-’  6  f• C-J lfl N I f) ‘N C ID  UI -a --4  > 6 -P  4-)  a CD  III  a.  C  r-.  ID C ‘-I  ()  a’  4-)  C’ C U ID  -p  “-i  ID  C Di U)  10  -p  p  6  C  C  1) C CD  CI)  a  6  -. •  Dl C u Cli  >  5-ci.  C’ ID  --I  --4  01 5—  ID 6 ‘U C in  Di Cli  4-’  ID 5-J  nj C  -p a’  C  in CD -‘--I  5-  -D CD J  5—  4-)  Cj C Di  CD  4-,  C)  CL 5— a  C ID L’fi.  LA  -1-’ --4  LI I—i  --I  CC 11) C’ Ui -H C-P C’ ‘Ti  --4  C  -p  -p  Iii LTI  ID  tIP C[i  r-4 a  ‘—I  CD  C  —i  ID  [II  Cli  Ill Ci.  C’  a.  C ID ID 3  ID Li IS!  C  Cr,  -‘-4  6  Ti  C  >  III  -  C’  --‘  N  If)  •  6 •  ti 0)  ill (Ii  ‘Ti -  5-.  Li  C’  ID  Cl! C  -P  4-)  ‘i  )-, ‘Ti  no  -p --I  C  tI  C CI E  ID  a  C’ i-  “-)  -P  •  CL  w  ID  OJ Dl  ‘-  1)4  ‘—4  C) C’ 3  r—i  1)  fl! Li  £  CI)  a  Ci.  >-,  fl p  C ID  3  5Ill  CD  >-.  sDl C --  [0 --I  £  ID C) .—i  r4  C  U  -p  C’ C  ‘:‘  C C’ u  > 6 C —i  ID  C  cri  U ri  Li C’  p 5-.  ID p  Cri ‘Ti  C) —.  ci C C’ U) .  C) C, >-  CD  I])  ID 6 C’  CL  5-  C’ 1  4-  Ill -p ,—,  -p  1 C’ >-,  -C  CD  iii  5-  -  i C’  Cr’ i rr.i  a  ...  C C’ In  5-  Di (0 C’  ID > ID 3 C’ I  •  (4J U) CI) L’  > C ‘Ti  -‘  —I-  -  C’ >  4-  L’  CI  L’  6  III  r—’  C) ,—i  -  ri  5-. 5-.  3  13 C  >-, 10 6  ‘1)  ID 13 ‘1)  -‘--‘  -P  1] C  I!,  3  ti  -p  5-r4  i CF DJ .-  p  C’ C Di 5CI)  Ui C Di  4-’ 11 i_i  U  I])  .p  C Li  -  [II  .C  C’ C’  Cr’  -p  C) CD  U)  C  C’ C’ ‘  C’ 5-. a  >ID 5-  Di  C --4  0  Ui  £  cr’  -I  C Lii  CD  U-I-’  >W •10 I -z.  ‘DC  6  EDi  CDa  Csnj  --i  :1-  Z  r Ct  Lii cr  in  -ç  c-i-  in  ID  r  H  •  •  a  ci.  -  in ID  Di  ir ID  D  c-ic-I ID  H’  -c  ‘—  D Ci  i. ID  c-I-  ‘:‘  D  in  i-i.  in  lil  H.  rj Ii)  J Di  & C’  ‘.0  H-  C’  ‘ri  in  ,-‘.  c-ir Di ct  u  ‘—  •  0.  a in -c in & Di  r  c-I-  a C’  J  I’D x c-i-  :3  H r  ‘<rnd-  0 -c  cI-  ill  in  H  H r  ct  Di c  in  c-i-  ‘<  1  ;c•  c-i-  a C’  ‘-  i: -  3 ID  a in  D  in in  Ct  III  —•  C’  II  !lI  J ID  -  in  ‘.0  Di  in  ii) in  3  in  ,y  H  —  0 iii  •  •  in  ‘‘-“ -  ill  ‘-“  0.  3 ‘-  .  II)  i—’  ID  ID  H  in c-i  H’  in Di  H’  Ct  in  ‘“  ID flu  iin  <  ct C’  I.fl  H r in  3  in  ID  I)’I  c-Iin 0. •  flU’ -  c-I-  in  —  Iii  . -  C’  Ii) -.  -ç  In  3  Cl-  Di  Cl-  i-i.  in  Ii)  J  3  3  ID  :3-  in 13 Iti  ‘<  I’D  c-Ir  -,‘  I—’  :3  ‘-  a C’  ID  -  Di  in “<  Ct  c-I-  ‘.0 ID c-i-  C’  c”I-  ID  C’  H’  c-i-  in  It’ -,;  Ct  Ct 7 ID in ID UI L ‘I] ‘n I’D  Di  -J  11:1  :3-  H  r  :3 c-i  ID  a  r  (0 c-I  -+  in  ID  :3  H-  ID  a  H’  r  Ii  x  I-’-  ‘O -o IP :3 a  -<  Ct  L’  dl-  C’  c-I-  C’  C r Di c-I-  1’ LU Ø  :  < ‘.0  ID  J  ‘•  •‘—fl  --  ID  Ct J in  -ç  C’  c-I-  c-IID  c-t 0  ID  in  C’  3 Di  ID  ID  I—.  Di  -c  I  c-I  in  ID In  ID  •.  in  -  c-iID -c Lii & 1  H-  F  -D  Ii) Ii)  c-I-  in  J  ID  a  in Ct  i—  H ID  fl.  ID  c-I  -  U) Ct Di  H.  ct  ct  in  ID  :r  c-I-  Iti  Di Ct  ClID  E  In  c-I-  C’  c-i-  J 0.  Ci  I -o  ID  1’ Cl ID <  (  C,  ‘<  iD  ,--  ‘— ‘-  Ct ii)  -<  0-  Cl‘-<  ‘—i’  •<  H•  c-I-  Di  c-Iflu l,fl  -+  ‘:‘ -  ‘.0  H’  J  H’  c-I3  Iii  Li’  <  c-I:J in  Ci  r  c-I-  flu 0C’  c  D  ;‘  0ID -h  c-I1 I-•”  i-s-  rti  In  r  a  ci  Cl CL  ID  -  0ID fl  ‘0  in  CI  I.-..  a’  c-I  I ci  a’ i;  ID Z  ::‘::-  i—  D  ID  <  a’  r  w  .  c1  ID w  L  •  •  a’ c-I-  c-I-  ID  -  c-I-  H c-I-  151  -l  • •  “  r <  ;:J o Z  ci-  -  CL 0 1  l—4  -ç ID  LI  ci ID  :1  c-I  CL D ID  a  il  CL H•  ci ID  •  ID  H-  ,-.  ::r  c-I  c-I ID  ID  151  lb  ID  a-  ID  H  151  ID  -c  c-I ID  I-’.  I-’  H  a  ci  I—  Zr  ci-  CL  0 1  --i  i—i  D  H-  & lb J CL  -,; 151  t U. 113  ID  J  10  H-  :-.::-  0  -  c-I-  CL  a’  :r  i-i  I-  ci-  ID  H  i—i  p  H  in  H  CL  -.  ID  l-  i—i  c-Ir a’ c-I-  J ID  x H  ci-  El Itt  (f)  c-IID CL  -c  a’  ci-  1.11  Ill El  r  c-I-  r  -+.  -J iii ‘-<  ID ID c-I-  I—i  ID  ci  Ii  ID  -  lb  •-<  ID  .r  c-I-  (  r  ciIl  i  J ID  ‘-“  ‘—a  ‘•-•‘  i:  ID  1St  0  :i  ‘-<  <  <  Ii  ID  c-I-  H  r Iii  El a’ c-I Iii  I’ tI ID D CL  r  III  I,  ID  H-  (5)  ci  ii  ct  j  III  CL  ci  LII  I.  ,—  —-I iii  c-I III Li  —  a’  c-I-  0)  ci  &  ID  ‘  a-  ci  H-  <  ‘-“  c’  cia-  a’  •-•...  :-  ij  c-I ID  1  ct  -ç  i:  ci  x  ci Ii)  ID  t  C  ci-  CL  :‘ :  -  •-c fri Lfl  Oi  E  c-I-  <:: c’  c-I-  IL’  :(  -<  ID  ci-  1’ ciID < ID -ç  j  a’  ID c  ci-  ci-  a’  ci  o  ci  a’  ID  H•  i—  ID ID  -+,  -  J ID  H•  J  -‘  cir  c-I  III  H  c-I  ‘1) ID ID 151  III  Ui ti  It’  ci  -ç  ID  -I-,  It’  r  In  r  -ç  ci  c-Ia’ ZI  :i ID Iii  3  ID  ID  1)1  0  I—i  C.-’  -I  lb Ui C  c’ a In lb  6  ci  ti  0)  w  (1)  a.  w  in  C’  4-  -P  lb  L’ rU  c  0)  3  —  4-’ 4-) •.-i  c  £ 3 rU £ c,C  in ‘fl-i-’ 3-i  -Plb  ‘:‘  -1a  4)  ill 6  6 ci  lii • c  --‘  Lii  Lii  ii>6 0  ci lii 612  iil  - - -r-i iii -  C  cr  3  4-’ iii  >-,  21  -1-’  -r•4  -  11ir4  i:  •  t3  • a  ci  a  -P  a —i--  L’L’  c’ c  -P  .r  1  £  rn 4’  a4’ a a 4-  4-  iii -ci  in 21 21 isi c Lii > > w  criC6—a6C  c’ ‘—i ci Ui 46 Ci -i-6 £ ti £ 4-’ lii  a4flJ63)’ftl  -  £  cri.-415tirtl  ‘U  a a f 4-) a a ..a.aa,(..r-Ia-r-1i1)  if)’UjLI3Nflji3.—T,--LIjl$a—i,.-I  a  )- ti 6  ..i—I>(Jj4Cci Ui (Ii Lii C C 1(1 J -i-) 13 0 13 £ -. 1] > flu  •iX>  af  4) 4-)  a4)4)  rI 4’  • 21 ci 21 cr ci c •- r a ci ci in ci inCCrD1Ji21 12 21 -4-’ c’  .fli  cr  r’ -C 0)  a a a  —  .1  a a a  C  C  •  0)  .—  J  LU (fl  CL  J Ct Z Q 0) CL LU  CL  (1) Z ci CL  0) LU CL  C lb ci.  11  -i  2 El ci 2 C]  ci 3 I— ..  Cl X -i-i  ..  rU  •  tI  (0 (0 LU C:’ C] CL CL  —i  iii in El  IL  C UI a ci.  c1 0  2 LU  >(  tO LU J CL E cr LU  • a  lb  4-) ((I f’_ a  iii  -.  t  C’ 3  01 in  Ci  -i  -. -  a  aw  a 21  -P  Ui £  cr  C iii l > -‘ in rll £ lb lb cr > in a-rI -4flJ 3 In3 .ln -p rr cciC lU )- -a C 6 --i c’ -ci--o-a-ocrui  a  ci 3 cr 0 Ci ii 1(4 (U ci. oi:i CiOEclbfl)3 w(r3w’—is>-w attatia.  Ii)’.iJt’-W’YC’-’NCO  F— I w D Q I_i i—i: 2 LULl) I F-LU  CtCL  D I—i  L5 WQA (-i  <t I  a  lb >  4-,  cii lb c  in  fti  ti  —i  -l-,lb in -  Ci  0)4-’  (1)  ci  in  a  -PCfI  ci  Ui  £21  a  Ui  Li  •11  a  inWOI(U lb C -‘-‘ a £ Lii 4) fl 6-4)46 iii i: .—i cii:’wrU OCLEI 6  cciaoi ci Li cri 4-’  1] 6 >6 -o  >4-’ in lb C 3 Ui  --i  oi -i-’ c’ in rUt3W Ui 1C >- -P C C r ci -P  a  EJirU.fJ  4-’  ncr  lL><  DW 0 I— U  a.  LU Cl El J L) >< LU  U1.Q.. Ci —i OtiOJ  WI F— I— tLl) I—I  F— o  (OF2 (1) o LU i—i D 1—Cu (1) W El 2 ci <r  zi—w  Cl 0) LUS CiZ 2W a w W 1--  LU <t LU ci.sc GLOW • a F‘tIflZ NC—I’--’  ‘-  •DC’c  ci  I  H•  ..5  I  -  0) ci ‘ —o’:’ ‘ow I I  I I  I •  frI.  F-’  ‘i33c1-<  D Zi .3 -< I-.:’ cq.cjw  CI  •  •  W  ‘-‘-.  c-i-  3  Ci  c-I-  I  x ci-  H.  -h ‘.0 ru  I  •  .  i  c-I-Ifl0.  3C orD’Lii a. —c  CT  Lii -c Ui  ‘<• ID  LuID  1 —h  IDOrD  Zr  Ct’.0H.  DO. a-.  <  a’—  H  1’  ‘<ci-o  b-  -c )‘< D C’ ‘:‘ C’ C D  LIjc-i-’.0  —h H.  H-  a.  c-I-  IL’ -cH.  o  -S  ID  H  CL’<n C’ C’ dC3 -c ro fl  —h  •  a  ro  In  C  Ui  H.  B ID  c-I-.  ci-  ‘<Cr0 -•.:‘ -c  Lii  -o C’ fl) ‘<-c  c-t-  III C W3W  fr1  rDw  “lb  c-t-ci-3  .D: 1 -  LuID C’DUi  OD C< DC’  1J  I.fl  rD Hlb  1fl  ‘-acr  1JC’D W D -.D  ‘  C *:u-i ci ci--c 1 —  -  ID1J3  ci-D ‘.0  HH-  Lu w In  C  I  uic-i-  :c-I-  o  I  ,,  ID  33  Z’.0  Ii)  ui-c C’  c-iZrci03  a.  IDID  CT ci-  Lii  o  •  C’ —c  -,  c-i-  b—  Lu  ‘:‘  ID -  •  ‘.0  •  a.-c:  c-i-  fl  ru D  —S  ID  -+,  U1W  0’<BlbD C I:’ CT’< ID  ILl  ..<  -  lbc-t-IJj  CT ID c-I-  CT ro  a.  ID  -ç  C  b—  ci  1 H.’-  -cIDbI.&  L1CIJc-tDb-0 • 3 CID  wc  •••0  •  CD  -  ct’<  ID’-(CZr  -c  C  0D(D3ZW  —.  •  -‘  *-coro’--  D’<D1b  wz-c. ‘.0 IDID• & r <  ‘0C•  •  fr—  ID  3  ci  C’  c-i-  a. Lu  C’ D ID  --c C’ 3  ‘<  3 ID C’ —c  c-i-  ‘.0  Lu Ui Ui  Ui  H  c-i-  C’ C  •C  H-  c-i0c-iCH -1- D  c-t  IT-< 00) •CID  3fr<  c-i-  LII  H.  3  c-i  a  H  I—’  I-  i-  fr_ fr_  •‘1  i-•  III...  ii) 0)  It’D  cri  (j $ ii  III  a’ -a ii]  c-f  -c  C.) tJ  -  F-’  a  -  D  Lfl  fr-I.  3  ct  ;•:-  D  H’  3  o  c-i  ID  -c  flu ‘.0  D.c  H-  11’ ‘<ID ID  LII  ID ID  -c-c  B lb C’  r  O It’  ‘<c-i  H  a’ ci- -c  z C’ 3  a  c-i-c-I.  in  -ca  Zr  D  a ID  <  1ZI  ID  tEl  lb ‘0  ID  a  H  <  i:  ‘I  ‘.0  uIi1J  3  c-i-  1  a  _I  C’  n  I..:::  1<.  (fi  -ç  c-i- 1(1  i  ii  ‘  III  IL’  i-i  a  III  -c  :r c  II)  i:  (t  I••I  1 fr-  ‘U lI  c-i  ‘<ci  iti  H-  in  c-i-  J  ID  U)  m  U,  z  0  -n i:  0)  m  91  1,-i  i-I  91  I—”  Bt’ a 3  i:  a  lb  m  1-I-i  ‘—-I  0 .2r  1) F  -1,  F  H  m :  i—b  H  c-rJ  it’ IL’  -c  -c  r:  -I]  ci  -c :J ft  ID  ‘.0  I  i—I U) 0) 0 EIZH ;Jwc ID 0 3 111 3 C’ C’ 0 Lii x IL’ Zr ID Ii) In D D Cl-fl’0 a. Ci ctf[j lb - -hD ID Ill C’ D ID -• fr_I. c-iIll Iii it’ It’ Cr ci- c-I- D ii:i lb D i-’ a-S ID Iii ‘<‘.0 tfl N ‘0 • —a -h IDZi ID B ru i_I ID lii a-c • CIII ‘ c-i lb B ID fl r t ra • IL’ a H- n It’ -o lb-c ILl It’ CD c-i--c.:, —; it’ c-I - I.—’ III ID D fl ci a ID fr_I H• CT D Ci. IL’ In C’  F-’  ID 3 ID -o’< —S It’ Cci-i,tfl lb  Wcilb  ‘<-F,I1,JH-  ‘—  Olb  ftir,ct  c-i--c ‘< c-I-lb OIDC’O3CCID-c  J1BIDLflC’Ifl  I  HIO.HF—lwZU0ci--<F ‘-UJ-< --c. ID-’:’-cw3 IDftD:J. ID:’D-c ,:IH.oci-ct-o C<<’<ci-3b-IDcIlb7 B0ID-”’<IDlb H-C CUID an’<-c ID ir 3IUW-crD ro-cm c-irn-c H.3 ‘< ID-Ln& o B DID’<IDc-D .-wC.c,’<ODcrc-tID TC lbIDIDD Lii ID  I  0) 0)  cq4.0)k.’  •.aIaaI.  a-  ID  r  D  H  ci-  I:,  x  H  a.  D  ID  15 0  ‘LI  D•  H•D  ‘CI  in  -  3 iD  3 a’ LI  IS  ci-  13  ‘.c-i-  0-a’  c-I-  [3 CCI  •—.  0 3 ID  C’ 3  C’  ci-  ‘1’] .1] m DC’ lidlUll)  Ii) ‘-•  ‘-  ci-  D in  in Ui  c-i  Ill  i)  3 1] C’ ci- 3 3 a tEl  D 13 10 in  c-i  l.A  I  C’ 3 Ui  i-n  -  ‘SI c-i  ci-  I  in  H-  •  c  < a ID Iii  ‘:‘  3 d  ctID r ID I  III  iD L—  C’ 3  i  0.  •  ‘LI  in  3  C’  ct  3 fl  It’  10 IA  •  3  e-  a’ a  -oo —, 3 r ji  Ifl  H.D  c-i-c C’  3  3  C’  H.  LI C It, Ui ci-  o 3  -.  ci- ‘Li  DIDH-[.:’irI ii] c-, 3 • 1  ID ID Ui  C  ‘-Ii-’.  i—4  H’  ( I  -c  ‘—i  i:  ci. ‘:‘ D HC 3-cT ‘CI 3 a’ a’ 1 ‘—‘ ci  Din Ui LA ID in 1) a’ I 1 ‘-n ci C’ i: i--i  CC  a’  ci’.  11 •  H’  •  ii ‘1] j- 3 Ci 3 HID “ 3 1) ci-  ‘-‘  ti Di ‘- in ID LU  ‘-“  ci-’<  ‘-c  ‘-  a 1lJin in 0 c-  It -ç  Di  -c  a’  ID  ‘.0  a’  a’  —c  a’  •  ID in  *: ID C’ in -c c-Ia -• C’  •  ‘-  ‘CI 0  ‘—I  a’  3  3  Di-”O  3’-’ •  a  i-n  a’ 0 f  •  a’ ci- 3 0 in 3 c-ia u ‘-ui’:’  ri  c’  —+ ,  in c ‘c in’:’’:’ —ç - in ; II) ruln’:’H.-c  a’  10  -  •  ui ‘- ID < - in oa-o. win  H-ctJ  ci-  13 a’  i—i  -ç  I  C’  I  ci  ‘‘  in  j  I  I  Lb tI ciin  :r  in in ciill  3 ID  ‘3.’  i—i  rn  C in in  ID I  •-;  I ct  it’  a’ 3 Cl  C’ -ç  rji  ‘—a  I in C  Di  UI  iii ID  ‘-<  iT  a ID itt  Ui  ID  ‘—i.  13  LU C  II  -‘  iii  3 .0 ‘1) .•p.:’ . QN 11-ZN HID U) • in  ‘  c-i  . a’  133  ‘c  a in  3  Itt  F  II)  ID  -  o  a’ ‘  ID 3  z —r  -<  —-tc-I- a’ ‘-  in  . a’ in I-t-c-ci- I H I ir  Iii in in ji — C IwilixinciD c-iti (... C’ itt III ID C’ 11 3 —‘s in 3 Di C in LII -c p “-a D a’ ci3 c-i a’ ‘-a. a’ C’ c-i a’ in i:  -  in  3D I’ll Ui  ‘-1nH-  -c•  C in in ut i in—hDitt ji ri •-+ -c -c -  ,c1-a’ !bD  JW-c  CLIIIfldcP7JH  inin’—ft’ • ‘.0 -c n in IOCLII a’ Ifl 0. iji ,—  in - ouiin’-•c • fl cia’ in IDct a’ ‘- -r 0. 0  a’iu-i -o in  ,-ITI1flinH.It3  ‘—IfIJ3DdinD a’— • -c ui “ CIDDID in I 3 ‘Ci LU -c ti a ti  I-i-.d-  ID  i’i’iinio-c  flI13H.a’H-lfl  I(tul’I:3I-  flt3i-•N  ‘--CiD  tDa’ flct  D’—S  i  HH•-c-ca  3LIJin1t1H  n-cod-fl3z-  flcj-N  3-ct-c< a’WHIu  C  H  LI’)  F  z o < m  G’)JJ1313’JD  .  z rn m  F-JW0Er’1  SW  m m ,z.  ‘-Da’Lfl  JrDD-c--c  Cliflul -c’’Dd-O  D0-C,a’Ha’  C’Da’ jc  0D0H0  rn m  JWi3 3(D(flh13  Ii  -  -  z [Ti m  ‘-QU) DQ&  W1JtJ  ii  LI  [11 m  Li-1JD  IS  z Iii m  -HG)  [T1 m  3 ID  c-i-  ‘:‘  c-I  3 ciID 3  C’  ID  in  -c  C  c-i  in  :r I  H’  ‘.0  m 3  m  X  3 a  Ii)  -o  D  F—)  •  •  •  •  •  •  i3  H.  C ct .5  S  3 o  S  DC I •  •  a ct •  cc 1< pin. tm 5’ • A .C a o mm 0 3 • m w a • • w• C i 0 1 I I I inn ‘-‘ 0 a 3 a. a  1  • ct •  •  a  m • m  mi DA ct-’ ‘a ‘cm  Iw.  .m 0 C10 zi a  c  VO wi Dm at ‘-‘a  DC aOCw. 3<’-’S ,.m*C let tS. am i  ••  II  “  t m in  t m in  •  ‘lL..-i w•QD DCI am ‘-‘z’-’ isa m’-’m xmm a’ 1 3 • • a a w. D c  iigjps ir1Ai A Z.-’&  p  x a  a  an ‘(7  Cl  mm  ma  DC  za aD ‘-‘a  -%c  -  •  .  etoap, mD,.dm-U ammm.a mma • C’ 1 ID let 10 mi mc • m <ii ma a a’-’ n.m a a ac w• •• cm Cw.D zm Dfl c oc 0 ma ni aD • •m zm •n m ct is m ia. Cd I Ca.t mo 0 oa cn ma m • ir .a -bi Da oct ac ,m DdI-’m  ZOL..,-.  aooz 13C1 rtin •‘-‘D.’-’ amas’  UtC..’-’W w’OODcP  W  II  “  LU  I-’  0  z in in  in in  t in in  D c a  &  0 D  in  X  t • z a  a  ‘-4  If-)  In  a  0 -p C Ci -P Ui :1  13. 6 LI  I I U) >., (U U) In  —  C  -p “‘-4  If’  (U ..  (U  ii  ..C 3 —i  Ui If) ti  4-)  (U x:  0.  (U  Cl  L -i-’  (U £  (‘“  4) “““4  9— ‘I—  4-) L’ oi  r”4  (U  ti -P -P  TJ  0  in Ui  --i  (U £  cr 01  3  1I  (U  (U In  0 I Iii  -P  -P  !-. 3 13 C -4  p r-)  -o  (U in  —i  4-  Ui  i  > 0  C  (U a CL  -.  III  (II  -  0-  —  ul (U  C’  a 0 -—4  U In  (U LI  C 01 3  r  0 4-’  L!  C  In  --I  -P  -p ti  C (U ‘-  (U  -‘  Ui (U UI  .4-, 4-  (U  —4  ‘—4  x  a 6 (U  01 3  (U  (U  (U  6 (U  --4  U) Ui  (LI  •  CL  01  L’  Ui 6 CI  Ci.  > 0  a -P  (Ii ‘3  (U a  -P  ‘-4  >-.  (U  :1 0  UI  0 C -  Ui  (U -i  4-’  UI Ui ‘3  (U £ 3  Ui :i  1:1  !-  >  !.-  a  3 0  3 -o  C (U LI -4  LI  ui  LII  -P  Iii  •  0  -P  UI  “‘l  (U 3 3 0 C  (U £ -  —  —i  C)  (U  C  CI  (U in 1:1  C’ £  CI  C)  cr tI  0  £  C Ui > UI  4)  -  C (II  (U  4)  I—  UI  43  (ii  -I-)  0  r—i  Ift  C TJ  C (U •.  -p ‘-4  •  31 ‘3 C 3  Ui i—i  CI)  CI  a  -P  (U  6 (U  (Ii >  C Li..  C CI  -I  r4 r-4  0  a 1  C  L ti  L’  (U  a  If)  -p Ill 3 I  -  C C’ III Ui a. (U 4-  (U 1.11  (U :i  9-  CI  p  -  (11 Lii H H f.  ..  (U  x  (Ii  -P If’  -(j  f’.-  CI  C (U LI  (U 01 —  •-I  4 L ti Z £  (U  — —4  9--  0 —4  ti -p 0 p  6 3 in (U  C””1  -  -p a Ui  O  Ui  Ui  0  ‘  a  —  ‘ii L  3 I 1’•  -P  C -4  (U C1’  13 -P  -P  C (U  Il_i  LU  -P  1J  in -P  .4  4-  LU  ‘-  13 3  4  ti  -  t3 C  0 In  fl  -  C  a r”4  L’  (Ii  (U UI  -0  Li  ,-i  Ui  a 6  UI C 13  r.4 “‘-4  01 > IEI  -  C C’ in  1)1  a U) Ui 3 si  L’ -i  Cl  ,—I  £  -  L’  -4  lfl  (U LI  -4  C ‘-4  L. 1:1  a -p  x .4  0 Ui  0 CI II  UI  -  (U C 6  -D  UI •  c  C 01  a ci.  ci  £  (U  H W W H Lii C  ID  3  ID  H-  Ui  x  :1 ID  a’ III LII  I--’  a’ •-<& • C’  IDD to  H-  1D  jcr  i—i  :3 ‘.0 &  I-..  ‘-“It’ cl-ft  i:  I--’  ‘—‘a’  1_ rrU  a  a’ :3  If’  3 ID ii) :3  H  &  a’  tn  w  LII n  a H.  it’  •  in  m  It, :3  ct  1  II It’  3  -ç  c  C’ D •  H-  J  oa’  a  D C’  c’  a D  iii LII  ii) iI  i_I H’  cr-c  cr  oft  0  cl-i—’  :3  a  a’  H  Q ci.  -ç  ci  fl  iii  iii  B  -ç  ‘-I-  ID  It’  -  H.  a  Iii  H•  ‘  a’ III ‘-<  a’  :rD  ‘iJID  LII 13 ‘--‘Ui  aID  Ill  tH.113  :3 ci 0 <LA Ba’ iuE -h  Ill LA 2’  d-I33 LA ID  I—’.  c  D I—.—’  d-S(fl  0  iw-c H a’ Ill  a’  :i-  il Ui  -ftB Lii  C’  -  D  ri  ill  ‘—‘:3’  B  LII a’ 13 -4,  ..< ID Ill  aJISI  —‘‘.0  LA -crci It) iii&ID  a’  H•  <  ci-a  IDJ  •-;  l13’—’J  i’-’  a’  ‘-ID’  ct  H’a’  .‘-  a’  Ui  r  ftilJ  ct3 LA III 13  :  a IDu  IfI&W cl-JO  -•  1  ‘:‘  H  C Iii 0  Iii  ID  a’  LII  H.  ci-  Ill’ -D ‘:z  IH’  1:3  ft  -  i—’ :z  II  -h  iH-  LI,  0iii’-< 0 J-I  ‘-‘II) ILl 0 Ui ‘:‘w  •-<  a III  III  i: i: H-  t3  -ç  ‘3  31  Iii  1  a ii) :3  a  ‘a 0 C’  ‘--‘  ‘  In LII ii a’  Ill  rn III  LII  rn H-  i  I—  ID <  :  i.-.  a  ‘-i.  :3:3 0 t d1fl ID LII  ID  a  <  -+ci.  0  ‘3  aw  -  cri  n  n  z  rn  I— rn U, U) 0  :3  H-  r  -ç  :3 In  H’  :3 ‘0  H  In  -ç  UI  a’  LA In  a’ LA Ui  I—.  :3  ‘—4  w  -D -D ID :3 a  Ih  127  • Appendix H:  outline  content  Science--CO.1rse SiZ I ric  INTRODUCTION  V  V  Give an experimental problem that each student can work with for one class period (35 mm). At the end of the activity give them their Journals. To start with have guiding questions on the board for which they can respond timeVto  V  write  V  in  x  .  r%r-r  I  V  T ID F I 1D  At the b eq inning of the term.  V  V  • V  Goal Using the supplies given you; how many ways can you make this candle change?  V  —  V  V  Task  A.  —  When a change is made describe the  V  V  the candle  to  change  B. What did you do to make the change? C. Which changes were physical changes where no new products were formed? D. Which changes were chemical changes where new products were formed’ V  V  V  V  V  V  V  V  V  V  ..  •  V V  V  VVV  •  •  •  V  Pesponses V  •  V  V  V  V  1.  —  V  A. S. C. D.  V V  V  When a change is noticed describe the change. What did you do to cause the change? How could you tell the changes were chemical changes? Write out the chemical equations for two (2) of the chemical changes that did’ V  TPADI TIONAL (closed)  -  V  EXPEPIMENTAL (open).  V  V  VVVV  1. I’m glad you liked the exp. I enjoyed it too. Please tell me more.:  :2.  3.  1  4.  14.  5.  15.  6.  1 6.  3.  V  V  V  V  V  V  V  V  1  •  V V  V  V  2.  V  —  V  V  V  V  Using the supplies given you; how many ways can you make the chemicals change? Task  V  •:  At the end of the term.  V  V  V  -  V  -  •Goal  V  V  V  V  •  V  V  128  Appendix H  continued  A random toss of a coin was used to determine the experimental group. RESULT A (closed) (open) E JiPENT ORGANIZATION My Journal  — —  —  Getting Started  V  make notes on how they react. instill a care for their journal. if a class is missed they should note it Give specific questions to start with. The questions should direct their thoughts on to important points of the.class.  —  State clearly what is going to happen during the class time and give  —  expectations.  Helpful Phrases  —I  found this tipic  .  interesting because......  ._I had trouble understanding It was difficult because It was easy because -  -  I was able to help my neighbour because Am I right  in thinking  I like/dislike this because I still don’t know why Is it true that I knew about this before because Does this have anythzngto do with MEETINGS ARE TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAYS.  3:40 ish  V  0’ C-”  (U  3 (U Ill  3 C  -I-’ CI  (U  >. I:  C  (U .0 3  Ill Di £ 3  4.’  in >  C (U  3  1)3  -P  ti I_I -i  in >1 >‘  in  1)3 i_I  cr  Ui 01 C (U .0  LI  in  -p  I  LI  01 cri C (U £  (U .r  LI  01 ui C 11) .0  (U  .  ati  C•. ati (U 6  £ (\.  6 Iii •1..-  ij  CI  -p  ii 3  (U  —I  (U  (U  Ti  [Il  6  Di .0  .0  (U CT! c (U  UI  c (U 6  01  a I 3  .0  (1.1  C  >  i  1:1  Di E  1:1  C  01 ci.  x Di  Di > 1’ ci 3  (Uk.  1:1  (U  rI  1  ii  (U  .p  (U iii  £  •r-  LIJ  £1  LI LIt)  II  i:  u-i  £ 3 a  I_I  iii Di  cr  (ii  in (U (U  Cfl (U 03  If’  r1jI  CII 01 C3  ti  (U  -P  £ 3 a  LI  .0 3  II  CI  III  —I  LI  TJ  3  £11)  CD (U C  (U (U  >1  I:  a’tj  r—I  1 L’ SI (U  Dl-t £ti -P C ti UI  OiL1  C r4  inn  i: I 1.11  D.0 I-I-’ I n—I (U (U.s  F  1)3  CI (U (36  (U £ 11)  C  Di I_I  If) I—I  X -—I  C (II CI.  C  u—I  C  I  -P  LU _J 01 Z 1 fl  LU I I—  130  Appendix  3:  experiment--posttest  Science  J C)UFNAL.S  C I ENCE  NAMES  I NTRODUCT I ON At the start of this term you were given a task to try out. It was your Job to take a candle and change it as many ways as possible. With each change you were to write down what the change was. Today you will be given materials which can be mixed, dissolved, and reacted together. PURPOSE It is your Job for this class, to thoughtfully combine the materials provided for you. Do it such that you will have a good idea what caused the resulting change in the materials. PREDICTION What kinds  of  changes  do you expect  to see?  A. B. C. APPARATUS AND MATERIALS 1. sodium chloride 2. copper I sulfate 3. calcium chloride 4. sodium hydroxide 5. hydrogen chloride S. magnesium 7. magnesium carbonate  a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  one large test tube one large test tube block six small test tubes one small test tube block one 50 niL beaker 2 wood splints (sticks) a book of matches  PROCEDURE with a PARTNER. 1. WORK 2. Got your materials and apparatus that are listed above. 3. Try as many combinations as you have time for. 4. REMEMBER Each time you combine chemicals, you must record the reactions that take place. (IF YOU GOT A REACTION.) 8. If a gas is given off, (fizzing) test it with a burning wood splint and record your results. —  OBSERVATIONS  What Trial  A.  #1  AT THE START did they look  like?  What  I  AT THE END did they look like?  ITrial *1 A.___ I  B.__________________________ I  B.____  Trial #2 ITrial #2 A.__________________________ I A.____________________________  B.  I  B.  #3 ITrial #3 A._________________________ I A.___________________________  Trial  B.__________________________ I  B.___________________________  PLEASE TURN THIS PAGE OVER AND CONTINUE  V  131  Appendix  3  continued  page 2 On this side I have given you more room to write. Please feel free to include as much as possible. REMEMBER we always looked for observations before they reacted, during the reaction, and then after it quit reacting. —  Trial #4 BEFORE  DURING  AFTER  Trial *5 BEFORE  DURING  AFTER  Trial *6 BEFORE  DURING  AFTER.  CONCLUS I ONS A. What did you do to cause the reactions during this activity? 1. 2. 3. B.  How were you able to help your partner?,  132  Append ix  K:  SAMPLE ONE:  Student  writ inq smp1 es——Tw r ep’:nSe  TRAD IT I ONAL RESPONSE  fQPRL E  ‘kEL gt r  —c.  rn’:’des  teacher  133  ppendiX K ccntinued SAMPLE ONE:  OPENPROCESS RESPONSE  • ZRJL E --  -  -  LL  \-  z CD m  CD -‘3 C  m  r ;v  C Z D  I—I  H  1-4  U  H  C  z  H  r m  -‘3  CD  c a  3  it I—’.  :1  7.  a ‘-• x  ID D  .o  D D  (A)  1-’  z u-i m  C  -I-’  U)  m  U-i U)  m  I-)  0  -o  m  ‘1  0  0  -i  -o I m  (1)  I,  a  m  r  3  I-i.  ct  x  I-I.  a  rD  -i-i  136  Attitude Questionnaire  Appendix L:  THE EFFECTS OF TEACHER WRITTEN RESPONSE ON THE ATTITUDES OF STUDENTS TOWARD WRITING TO LEARN IN RESPONSE JOURNALS.  we’re  year  students learn if  an  conducting  remember  to  tend  about them.  In E.J,  to  experiment  help  We would also like to know  through writing.  influences  this  have written  after they  ideas better Dunn this  most people  pri:ibably know,  As you  attitudes  students’  and  writing  to  school  I am conducting this experiment as a graduate student supervision of  under the  Joe  Dr.  Belanger,  at  UBC  a professor  in  Language Education.  like to  We would Of course, will  not  when  I would project.  I  be used.  these individual  be happy  to take  ask you report Only  part  results,  our you,  in this experiment. names of  your teacher  individuals I will  know  regarding  the  and  results.  to answer  Please asfr me  any  questions  in person while I am discussing the  project with your class or see me in my classroom  —  Poom 800  You are not required to participate in this project and may  withdraw at any time without harming your school grades. course,  since this writing  is part of the school  Of  curr iculum,  137  Appendix L continued  you will  be required to dci  cho’:’se ni:at include  your  to become marks  it  part of  in any case.  However,  the experiment,  I  if you  will  in my calculations Sincerely,  Mrs..  I acknowledge receiving this consent participate in this project.  Signed:  form.  Mac Kay  I  consent to  n’:’t  138  Appendix L ‘:ontinued The  f’:allowing  and what  about writing Opposite  in answer  If  circle A  mind between  on the  fill  importance  in  presented  are  the two  computer bubble  or there  ideas,  fill  nor  idea. A  —  D  —  each  No  in  are of  is no di fference  in your  both  in circle C fill  There is no right or  Strongly agree  8  Disagree somewhat  Should you  in circle D.  fill  E  is attached  —  positive  to  either  wrong answer.  Agree somewhat  —  If  in circle E.  each statement are neither  value .judgement  fill  ideas  If  with the statement,  expressed  negative.  in  If you  you disagree strongly with the statement, The ideas  feel  sheet.  circle B.  to you  disagree somewhat  how you  to you when you write.  important  writing  find out  strongly agree with the statement,  you  agree somewhat, equal  is  about  ideas  statement.  f’:’rm is designed to  C  —  No difference  Strongly Disagree  PRACT I SE SAMPLES: Having a gc’od breakfast 1 unc h. A  C  8  Being able  D  to express  important than  is more important than having a good  E  myself  having rules  write something. A  B  C  D  E  in  my  ciwn  provided that  words tell  is me  more how to  139  Appendix L ‘:‘:‘ntinued SLIEST 1DNNi2; I  Writing tasks 1 than *:hcos:ng what I would write wren I 2. than  I  assigned for schoo]. are want to write ab:ut  rather write ted like it  it is more important to write for myself  when  it  to write  is required  for  important  more  of me than  a tea:her or  a c’:’urse  4 I would rather decide whether or not what I write has value than have a teacher tell me whether what I write is any :ood or not 5 I would rather decide how much I want the teacher assign what I have to wr ite. A Strongly Agree B Agree Somewhat --  D  —  to write than have C  —  Disagree Somewhat  E  —  No difference  Strongly Disagree  rather have 6. I would the teacher tell me what than make up what I am going to write about. 7. It is more important to write what write what I am told to write. S. Writing than writing  for personal pleasure for a teacher.  I  am thinking than to  is of  more value to me  rather have ‘:hoices or make up my 3. I would assignment than be told what I am to write abc’ut 10. Writing creat ively.  for  a  test  has  greater  to write  ,:wn  than  value  writ  writing  ti:’ help me understand or learn something new 11. Writing more impi:’rtant than writing for an assignment.  12. f ‘:‘r  for my teacher is Writing ct her s or for pub 1 i ‘: at i cm.  13. Writing writing that  more  important  more what I know is to sh’:’w helps me learn while I am doing  is more 14. It simply write.  important  to write  for  ing  is  than writing  important it.  a grade than  it  than  is to  •  i  ci-  0 ID (  C & —i,  3  10  ci-  Di 3  Di  i—.  C  0. 3  H-  ID  0  LII Di ‘— —+.  CL  ID -c  ‘-<  c-i-  -c  c-i-  ‘‘  3 III  15113  C’ ID — CL <  < <  3 13 0  Di  H-Cl 3 H’  Di  H-  3-  c-i- 3  <  (0  ci-  X ci13 c-i(0 ID i Dl  (0 (0  3  Cl  C’  (U c-i- 3  151  H-  3 C’  Di  c-i-  3  3  (ii  (U  <5  Ifl  ID 3  CL  Di 3 3 lJ] H-  ‘--a ‘—i  ‘—  ID  a-  ci-  (U  -‘  0  3-  < ct  ILl  3C’  3 Di  IDID ci- Ci ciID ci3Di  a-  II) ciID  Ii  3  —c  13-H.  ‘:  c-i-  H-  Di  0  H-  -  3  3-CL  &  30  c-i-  Di 3  c-i-  (U 3 ci-  ci-  —‘;  C’  13  3  H-  II)  ‘:i  3  LII  H-  151  -  ID  ci-  ci-  IL’  3  Iti ci‘—CS • fti ,—  CL  j  3 H.  ‘-<  —i  3 ft  -c5  ‘—‘  I—’  —‘  ci- c-i-  C  fl  a-  ri ( 3- i_lI  “ H-  3-ci(03 Di 3  ci-  C’ i  ID ILl  Di i  i-i fti  ci- 3  ‘-  (U  tn  a  Di (0  H‘-‘  ID  H-  3  -c  ID *: 0  —c.  Iii  iii 3 C -<  ((I  (ii :-<  i  3:r  c  ci- i  Itt ii’ 0.c-i-  ‘z—c  fl  ri--a itia  i  H  ci-  l1  -c  J  ;-  fl ID  u-  c-l-J-j  c-i3 (Ii  Di  CCL 310 113 lb Iii  -c  (  1  Ci  c-i- ci-  3-  ii]  H-  —c  111(0 151 0  Hi  ID Di - ,-, 33 Di (0 ci- -c  ci3ft, 3  ID  3 Dci-  H-  <  ci3-  ID IL’ ci-  —c  fl  ID  -c  3 0  Ui  H-  u3  un  i—a i—.  in  rn  -< r-i-  c  (0ji  •  3-  —i-,  ii  i—I  -ç tDj ci‘-a- II) ci-DiJ &rir) III 3- -c 3 ID  -  ii  (C  :ii:i  :i- IT  u  Itija  J  Di  —c  ID III  Di ci-  ci-  c-a  ia  <ciFa  -‘; ‘-  •  F--) —;  r  i:  .< ID (  -+  (II  i—a  c-i-co  -c  1DQ.  a-i  r  i—i  3  ci- 3  fl  Si ui  -ç  i:’:  ID  ruro  —c  ci-  —“  -c  c-i-  ii  ro.j  c-l-LI  ( 0  rti  -c  C’  3  tn  ia.  ‘i  H  c-I-  3 ri  fti 3  i—i  c-ii-a-  —“  -c.ii.-  F)  ‘—  •  IDciLq  Z—l-F--)  -c  Z  Cr-i  F-.)  Di Cr0  & 1)  ci  -h  i-—  0 CL  CL  i—’  1j3’J3  33  i-a’  & c-I-  H-H-  -ci  —f  ci- :r I[l ID  fti. 3  d-J 3J  103  0 CT lii SI Cl  ci-  ci- 0  ( r Di DiET  c-IID  H-  ç -c  —c  (  —c  ID  3-  Di IT  ci- ID  c-I-  —c Di  Di IT Di  ‘—  ci  i—  0.  ci-  3  rIjF-.) <CO  0.  C’  c-i- *  -c  ID  i—i  ci-  31jJ  --cp  i— c-i  &  1  C’  3  0  &  —ci-  I  ci-  i-—  ( -  1  ri  IL’  3  H-  3-  c-i-  ci3Di  ILl  c-i-  C’  ci-  fl  H-  ‘<5  H’  3  ID Ci i--a-  a-c  c-i-  Ci  1010  Jtl  I Di’ -c  < i  Di ‘.13  i-—  c-i-iTi c-i-  Di c’ ]j3 (  &  ci  H-  ci & Iti 3 -c Di 3  c-i-  Di 1ST CL in in  --h  Lii iii  ‘-<5  3-c  ci-cift ITi 3 a C’  H-  iaCr 0 C’ CL Itt Z - ç l  i  C’ -c c-i-  & ID  tiH-  iD  &-i r iii ii& 3-3i c-i- i 0  3— ric.  CS  c-t Z IfI ii  In  in  —i  -t1  3i:o  H-l—  3 Ci  ci-  33 III ci-  ciOH3 3- 13 ifI 0 ‘—i i -uci-  j  a in ci -c-c  —;  ‘:ict  3  i—  iii  ci-  —-  -c10  i-  c-i-  3  fti  d  3 -  -‘-  T  ciin ci-  H- i--I  Di  Ct  -.1- (  huh  3  ui  ci-:  3  ii  -cci-  ij  :r1,  ii’  III  c-i- 13  3  nH-  r  ci-ii  -‘;  33 -c  i--  c-i- Hr Lii  i—I  Di  o  [j  In  H-  c-I-  t-i  Ci  -o  ,-  ci  H-  -c  ‘:‘  C’ 3  H-  c-i-  fti  CS  H’  (0 < Di  —h  C’  (0 Di -c  —h  ci  Cl  3-  H-  Cilti 3  l—-  ii’  ii’  <S &  ci-  —. c-IOft -c 3  i[j  ci-  -cHH-3  3 c-i-: -  Iii  i-a  c-i—  H-  i  .j  c-i-i-—  iTh  c-I-  I—i  ni  ri  i  i--a  c  ID  H-  -c  (  3  I-”  3-  -  0  -+,  I—’  3-  lii  CL  ID  i--  —c  —+,  3 (0 3  Cl  Di C’  ij  c-i- IJ]  H  -c  (  c-i- 3 Ci ID ci  C’  10 111111  C’ ID  0. ci-  ci  H-  CS ci- ID 3 ii’ c-i30  a  ID  -‘;  ci. C’  !iI&ct  Ti  -c  ftui c-I-t Iii ri  cEiDi  Di J Lii Ii) Ii  ID Di  c-i-  3Di<3C1  c-I  i--i  ,  —  --‘  ]  ‘--K  ci  ill  sr C  dl  ii’  10  c-i-  ID CL  C ID  3  H-  ci-  Cl 3  x  H  3 CL  a  ]) -t_J  CL  H-  -c cibC’  Di3 in  -  —hO  Iii  CS c-i- fti H-  ç--  c-I  ft,ct in  r1  c-i- I  l—  —i w  C’  3  cl-H  C  4>  141 Appendix  M:  “The  P  &  R  Writing  Attitude  Form”  ORIGINAL FORM •  .  THE P  R WRITING ATTITUDE FORM  The followingform is desiried to find out how you feel about writing and what is important to you when you write. It is made up of opposite concopts about writing. Each pair of opposite concepts is divided by a five point scale. You have to decide which one is important or very important to you or if there is no differo nce in your mind between the two. They are not positive or neativo. There is no value judjent attached to any of them. There is no right or wrong anower. Please place an °X” in the space that indicates your feelings. VERY NO VERY •IMP, IMP. DIFF. IMP. IMP. 1.. ASSIGN.1ENT, SCHOOL I $• I I I PERSONAL PREFERENCE, CHOICE .  2.  FORCED.  I  4.  TEACHER-DIRECTED  5.  PERSONAL JUDGMENT  I  •S  INVOLVED, EXPERIENCED  I  I  FOR PERSONAL PLEASURE  I.:  I  S PONTANEO US  I  3.FOR ACADEMICS, TEACHERS  1  AUTHORITY  6. GENERATIVE, PRODUCTIVE.  ASSIGNED, TEACHER DIRECTED  ASSIGNED, STRUCTURED  8  H  I  CREATIVE, IMAGINATIVE  EXCHANGE OF IDEAS  ASSIGNMENT  9.  SELF SATISFACTION  TEACHER  10. 11.  •  3  8.  .  •  FLEXIBlE  _t  FREEDOM  12.  TEACHER DIRECTED  13.  PERSONAL  14.  CONDENSED  15.  PERSONAL EXPRESSION  16.  FORCED, IMPOSED  17.  TEST  • 18.  LITERACY  19.  FOR SELF-INFORMAL  I  20.  PERSONAL CAPABILITY  1  21.  FOR SCHOOL, TEACRER  22.  TO RELAY INFORMATION  •. 23.  GRADE, TEACHER  24.  TEACHER EVALUATED  25.  TASK ORIENTED  26.  HONESTY  27. FOR PEERS-CONTh11PORARY  I.  RIGID, ASSIGNED COERCION, TEACHER  8 -I  ENLIGHTENING, STIMULATING COLD, DRY  i.  FREER, BROADER CONCERN FOR RULES, FORI4AL STRUCTURE PERSONAL EXPRESSION  I  I  FREE WRITING  I  ACADEMIC, SCHOOL  r  :  S  $  FOR OTHERS TO JUDGE-PUBLICATION  $  PERFECTION  I  8  FOR PUBLICATION, WIDE AUDIENCE  8  5  TO RAVE A LEARNING EXPERIENCE  I  I  FREEDOM  I  $  SELF-GENERATED  I  I  HON-PRESSURIZED. CASUAL  5  8  $  S  I  I  •  GRADE 8  FOR AUTHORITY FIGURES  14 Appendix VERY IMP.  .  28.  PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP  29.  RELAXED  30.  PERSONAL DIMENSION  31..  FREEDOM  32.  FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION  33.  FOR GRADE,BEQUIREMENT  34,  ‘PERSONAL EXPRESSION  35.  CLOSE SCRUTIN’f,EVALUA.  continued  M  No DIFF. iMP.  IMP.  VERY IMP. IMPERSONAL SCRUTINY  t i  ,  JUDGMENTAL  —,  i  i  LACK OF INTEREST, IMPERSONALITY  t  APPROVAL ADHERENCE TO A PARTICULAR SYSTEM-FORMALITY  :  —,  :  FOR SELF-UNDERSTANDING  ,  PLEASING THE TEACHER  i  GENERALIZED, VAGUE EXAMiNATION  t  NO OFFICIAL EVALUATION  36.  OFFICIAL EVALUATION  37.  EVALUATION  38.  EVALUATION  39.  FOR SELF  i  FOR GRADE  40,  GRADE  :  FEEDBACK  41. ART FORM,CREATIVE  SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANCE, GUIDANCE  1  :  RESPONSIVENESS, FLEXIBILITY  ART  42.  PRACTICAL  43.  STATIC  44.  FACTUAL MATTER  LANGUAGE ART  •1  —,  ,  ARTISTIC  ,  CREATIVE  i  EXPRESSION OF EMOTIONS AND IDEAS  45.  PREPARES FOR CAREER  46.  WORK  i  —t  t  ,  ENTERTAINMENT, ENJOYMENT  47.  CREATIVITY  s  t  —,  i  LEARNING SKILLS, CAREER  48.  ThEORETICAL  ,  PRACTICAL  49.  OUTSIDE ACTIVITY  t  SCHOOL ACTIVITY  50. RESPONSIBILITY, THINKING  i  ENTERTAINMENT, EXCITEMENT  51.  ACTUAL OCCURRENCE  52.  PARTICIPANT  s  PROVIDES FORM OF LANGUAGE  —,  $  i  PRODUCT OF THE IMAGINATION  t  ,  SPECTATOR  143  Appendix N:  1.  Source:  a. b. c. d. e. f. .  2.  h. Audience: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.  J. 3.  4.  Response: a. b. c. d e. f. g. h. i. Furpose a. b. i:.  d. e f. g. h. i. j.  k. 1. m. n. o. p. q  Definitions of categories——attitude quest ionnaire7  Teacher assigned topic Class dis’:ussion Personal Exper ience Textbook tc’pi.: Teacher assigned reading Personal reading I::i:rversaticiri with peers Conversation with a teacher Self Trusted adult Tea’:her——general relaticinship Trusted teacher Examiner Peer Group Members of a working group within a class Unknown public audience Trusted friend No discernable audience Letter or number grade Teacher symbols as correct ions General comments such as good, fair, poor Suggestions for revision or rewriting Verbal discussi’:.n for improvement .:‘f paper Ch ec k mar k No grade N’:’ comment Peer evaluation For the teacher For a grade For self—understanding To give information To express your ideas To express your feelings To clarify your thoughts To record experiences To share eperiences with others To share your feelings with others To persuade others To advise others To define To instruct others To interpret a piece of literature To elaborate or apply a theory For a class assignment  7 Definitions are those of Pianko (1977).  —  -.1 ‘-I  m  UI o  13’  UI t  I3I  3  o in  L • inc o  1fl  c 3. ow  (Ii  mc  £4-’  inE .-c  Uirj 3.,i  win  Ui---’  3in  mm cm  rfl  ci.  cW  r..  mc’  u I UJUJ in LU  x  UI £‘U  nb  rj .iw  ct’  0-ci  -pc  c 4-’c ‘:‘  c  o ID  ci. D1t3 01W cr’W  >-p -i  01  .  C) (N CI  U)  Ui “-4 tJ .-  ••  —l  n3  ..  >-  —  ‘j—  IX  -  ci  Ci D  I-’  w  W 0 Z  C.)  t  W  I—  ‘—‘  ‘  in E UI  •.  N  ..  ,-I  I—  ci CL U) W IX  W U) Z  0  W  0  --‘  IO  -  -0 a)  IX  >-  rØ.p >-  F-  0  •.  <t  W  i—’  in E ID  0 IX D a U)  •  >IX a  U) W  0  —  C’)  W U) in E UI ‘—‘  a CL IX D CL  —‘  .N  ..  •  (N  UI IflL WU z -i0J  > 0 CD W  r— 01 0 >—  r-4-  £ U In 0101 i w  CI  01 “ !‘—“-  r  >c  --,r  c  ow  .p-  -P in UI i UI -CI -P --i  -P -P •. ci  > -i  401 ft U  cic  x  Ui 0  U  mc  f.—  >‘-  x  ti “-i  “.4 c  -‘-4  4-UI  01 ci. 0.  ct  Z-  ci.  f.-.  UI  C’UJ CLI-. UI  01  9--  0101  UI  9-  ci.  W C’1  c’l —4  (‘1  —‘  in •1-4  0  CI’  in ‘-  -  () —  in 6 Ui I:  —  C  145  Appendix  P:  Sample  Chronological  Chart--Frequency  Fiure 2 Stucn C’:’de MDDE I Observatic’r, I n er pr e tat ic n, Eva luaticn.  2irisight .  Unrs!ardinq. , .j  r  —  fl  --.  i  —-—.  •_J ii .  4.Revisicns. 5.Creative  :pressions. £UEtiOfl  7.Digressions. S. Conhidenc2s. 3. Frustratio’.s. 10. Speculations.  V  II.Desire to know more. FCRMAL FEATURES 12.FTequency of entries.  V  V  13. Length of entries ( of words).  V  V  14.Self sp.:nsored entries. 15.OrQanizatic’n, neatness.  V  V  -  146  Definitions——categories, features: B  Appendix 0:  modes and  formal  Categories: A.  Growth of  Depth,  Insight:in’:reasing  use of these modes reflects value for B.  writ ing as a t’:ol  learning. Valuing  Response Journals:  response Journals has for  .journal C.  for  in the  frequency  Valuing  reflect  the  value that  the  Relationship:  in the respondent cr on the  risk taking  features ‘:af actual  its owner.  Mentor/Learner  reflect trust  the formal  value the Journal  part of  modes  that  require a measure of reflect  the student  the  owner has for his mentor.  Modes: A.Depth, 1.  Growth of  Observations,  see something  must witness  2  evaluations:  writers  interest and attempt to capture it  in order  who must read  Insights,  ideas,  interpretations,  This activity is primary tc. scientists,  language.  scholars,  of  Insight:  finding  to test,  as well  in order  tc’  understanding: relationships,  in who  as to literary  interpet.  writers putting together connecting one course or  topic with another.  8. With the exception of numbers 5, B, 9 and 11, the definitions for modes and formal features are th’:’se of Toby Fulwiler in his “Introduction” to The Journal Boc4 (1987,3  147 Appendix 0 continued 3.  Information:  reading has  Does the .journal  been done,  theor ies understo’:’d? ncrteboc’ks evidence  will  lectures listened to,  Journals dull,  be  that  but  attention  that  contain evidence that  is  read  class  like  Journals being  facts and  should  paid  to  give course  materials. Revisions:  4.  realizing they Journal E.  looking back at  have changed their minds,  to update and record their  Berthoff  and  writers  recommends this  calls  such  later  as a  prior entries, and using the Ann  thoughts.  systematic practice  endeavors  “dc’uble—entry  notebc’csks” (1978) Creative Expressions:  5.  the use of metaphor  or  simile  for example. 8.  Valuing Mentor/Learner Relationship  6.  Questions:  writers  record quest ions: questions of  yet  doubts,  personal  fact,  more important,  use journals  administration,  here,  that  to formulate and academic and theory.  queries It  is  there be questions than’ that  there be answers.  7.  Digressions:  what  they  writers  intend to say,  matters and  sometimes to  departing as they write frc’m sometimes to thin!  of personal  connect apparently disparate  pieces of thought. B.  Confidences.  writers  male personal  statements that reflect trust  disclosures or  in the respondent.  148  Appendix 0 continued 9.  for example,writers reveal  Frustrations:  of understanding about 10. the  meaning  The Journal  is the  knowledge of  on paper,  facts,  problems,  and  try out  about  readings, solut ions.  without  fear of  is the value here.  writers show confidence  in the  and an engagement with the  the respondent  matter  Valuing Response Journals  Formal 12.  issues,  pla.:e to  Desire to know more:  sub.ject  aloud,  the evidence of the attempt  penalty;  C.  events,  interpretations,  patterns,  11  of  lack  the sub.ject matter.  writers wonder  Speculat ions:  their  Features:  Frequent  written  entries: the  in  the  greater  more the  often  chance  a to  is  Journal catch  one’s  thc’ughts.  13.  Length  of entries:  single sitting thought or 14  the more writing one does at a  the greater  the chance of developing a  finding a new one.  Self—sponsored  entries:, how often a student writer  initiates writing without teacher prompts. 15  Evidence  organization  of and  increasing neatness:  attention gc.od  systematic and complete chronological  paid  Journals  to have  dc”:umentat ion.  149  Appendix  PART E:  Writing  R:  scale--essays  Multi-Paragraph Writing (30 marks)  SUGGESTED SCALE: Markers are to put a double grade on each paper: 13/9; 4/7; and so on. CATEGORY 1:  (15 marks)  CATEGORY 2:  12/11;  (15 marks)  . -  -  -  15 14  Development of ideas Organization of paragraphs Coherence (transition) between the parts  Ideas fully deveThped with. some illustrations Individual paragraphs clearly organized Precise transition between sections of essay  -  -  -  -  1 1514  Suitability of word choice Correctness and maturity of sentence patterns Spelling, punctuation, Tpechanics  Exact and sophisticated word choice Varied and correct sentences No (or only few and minor) errors in spelling, punctuation, mechanics  .  .t  13 12 11  Fairly full development with 13 limited illustrations 12 Clear evidence of good 11 paragraph organization Sustained transition  Correct but not distinguished choice of words Few (and these minor) errors in sentence structure Mechanical errors are minor  10 9 S  Thinnish development with no illustrations Overly-simple paragraph structure Overly-obvious transition  Some errors in word choice; slangy informal diction Some lack of sentence variety; some awkward and/or incorrect sentences Several errors in spelling and/or punctuation  .  t  10 9 8  : .  .  .  .  7 6 S 4  Development very sketchy Ideas badly sorted in paragraphs Overall structure not clear to reader  3 2 1  No development; note-form only Garbled paragraphs Relationship between parts not indicated  2 1  Uncontrolled vocabulary Many confused sentences Wild spelling  0  Part F not attempted  0  Part B not attempted  7 6  .  Various errors in word choice; flat, trite vocabulary Many simple sentences; numerous sentence problems An abundance of spelling errors -  .  150 Appendix S:  Interview Guide  Teacher  TEACHER INTERVIEW I3LJIDE9 1.  pla’:e has writing  What  c’pinic’n of your  Does the  2.  yi:iu use  much writ ing  in your  3.  Do you write yourself?  4.  What  5.  How ci ft en?  6.  Where did  7.  subject?  colleagues influence hc’w classes  Ci e.  department  kinds?  you learn  how to write well  (i.e.  high  university)?  Dci yi:’u remember anyone ab i 1 ity to wr ite?  your B...  ,  your  principal)?  members,  scha:’c’l  in teaching  Is it  in particular whi:’ influenced  Please describe.  for your  important  students tc’ learn to write  well? 3.  Will  the need tcr •:over the curriculum :ause yciu to  restrict the amount of writing you assign? 10.  Do  you think  they assign 11  Which  to do—  teachers should read all  in their classes?  do you think is more important  respond to  correct the  the writing  the ‘:c’ntent  spelling and  for  in student  grammar  errors  atecher writing or  in  student  writing? 12.  Do  yciu think teachers should grade all  they assign  ti:’  their  the writing  students?  ‘3. This tea’:her interview guide is based on a questionnaire made up by Dr. Marion c:rciwhurst——UBC.  151  Appendix S continued 13.  Would  imaginative writinq  imainary stories) 14.  Would  apprc’pr iate 15.  in y’:’ur  dialogues,  class? ‘:oncerning the  discontent)  ‘:onfusic’n,  business  appropriate 17  Dci  18.  Is  your  you  abc’ut  in your  (e.g.  letters, subject  use writing  students  sub.ject area?  writing  there anything  c c’mmen  Is  in your  factual  Would  be  :1 ass?  Dci you use writing activities t’:’ help your  essays,  13.  poems,  express emot ions  anxiety,  in your  learn ‘:c’ntent 16.  be appri:priate  writ ing to  (e.g.  course  (e.g.  ti:’  lab reports,  written  descriptions)  be  area?  evaluate students’  you  research  w’:’uld  kn’:’wledge?  like to add to  any  of  t s?  there anything writing  in your  else  you  ‘:1 assroom •:‘r  would  like to discuss  writing  in general?  152  ppendix T:  Teacher  interviews——trans’:ripts  Pre—Experiment English Teacher: Interviewer: sub.ject?  Interview  Darcy Mackay  What  pla’:e has writing  in teai:hing your  It is a tool to teach students impc’rtant place. is being taught and to apply it directly cr indirectly to their experieni:es both in being able to write about what they have learned and to apply it to their own experiences as individuals. ET:  Yery  to absorb what  Int: Does the opinic’n of your cc’l leagues influence h’:’w much department memeber s, wr it i ng you use in your classes ex pr in’: ipal? My English department ET: They can be very encouraging. head is very encciuraging to me as a teacher to use writing as a vehicle to allow children (who are not extroverted type individuals whc’ get to vc’ice their opinions alot) get to dci it in a non—threatening fashion by putting pen to paper. Int:  Dc’ yciu write yc’urself?  ET: Not as much as myself that way. Int:  What  I  should.  I  certainly enjoy expressing  kind of writing do you do?  ET. Letters, certainly department memo type communication writing up minutes for meetings as I with other staff, chair a couple of committees here at the s’:hool, letters to parents, community agencies in my role as a counsellor. Int:  How c’ften do you write  On the average probably at least two or three times a in the form of memos and c’ther cc’mmunicaes to other members of my profession. ET:  day,  Where did you learn to write well? Int: University?  At  high schocil?  Definitely not Highshcic’l although my grade 11 and 12 ET: teachers made me more aware of writing——university where you are forced to communicate in a fashion that is acceptable.  153 Appendix T continued Int: Dci you remember anyone in partit:ular you ability to write? ETh My grade important Int:  11  who  influenced  English teacher made writing seem more  Can you describe that  a little more?  ET: Well she’s a lady that did a lot ‘:if writing. We did a lot of writing in our class in the forms of letters, because of the nature .:‘f the sub.ject matter had ti:’ be subjective. We were forced to answer questi’:ins in m’:’re detail than we were in previous gredes. Int: Is it wel l?  important  for you students to learn to write  ETh Absolutely. Writing is a very very impcirtant form of communication. If you want to be i:learly understi:’i:id by peciple yciu must learn tc’ write well. In t Does t he need to ‘:over t he i: ur r ii: u 1 urn restrict the amount of writing youassign?  i:  ause you t o  ET: Yes it does. I find the time lines c’n covering certain aspects of what we have to do on the curriculum definitely restricts it. You have mc’re flexibilty with grade sevens have them twice in one day which allows you to because you writing but .:ertainly for grade nines I would like dci more to do a lot more writing than I am able to. Int: Do yciu think teachers should read all assign in their classes? ET: It’d of time. things or depending  the writing they  be nice but f’:’r most cif us we don’t have that kind We learn to skim well and be able to look for key more specific things are perhaps more important—— on the writing they are doing. -  Int: Which do you think is mc’re important for a teachers to do— respond to the content in student writing or correct the spelling and grammar errors in student writing? Definitely respond to the students’ writing. We can be ET: marking for mechanics that can be done on a sele’:tive basis but we can’t spend all of our time correcting mechanical mistakes. We’ve gcit to be able to respond so the kids know they are going in the right direction or if they are respc’nding correctly to what is being asked.  154  Pippendix T continued  Int Di:’ you thini-:: tea’:hers should grade all they give to their students?  the writ ing  ET: N’:’, I think that sc’met imes y’:’u can read cver a number cif art ides cf the students wc’rk and perhaps feed back to them selective ones you thought were good cr teach a point you’re trying to make through them having the experien’:e cf you reading back their writ ing rather than Just always marking for me’:hanical things. I think they learn fri:’m your being able to resp’:’nd in a p’:isitive :‘r si:’metimes a negative f ash ion. Int: Would imaginative writing cx. p’:’ems, dialogues, imaginary stories be appropriate in y’:iur class? ET: Yes, I think it allows them an open ended i:reativity that alc’t of young people I think inately have. It gives a ‘:han’:e fcir those kids to share experiences or fantasies write persc’nal thoughts, It tells you about the individuals. ,:lr  I n t:  Dci y ‘:‘LL do that?  ETh Dc’ I do that? di: it with.  mt  P’:’etry  is certainly one vehicle yi:’u ‘:an  DiD you?  ET: Di:’ wr ite?  I  personal 1 y di:’  it?  Do you mean  in a sense dci  I  Int: No, do you have your students diD these kinds of VoLt’ re tell ing me y’:iu think it’s right ti:’ di:, these things? kinds of things but do yi:iu do this? ET: I started doing it last year in certain situati’:’ns allciwing them to express their i:ipini.:ins on certain aspects c’f a novel c’r whatever. Int: Dut imaginative writing. stories, or dialogues. ETh with  Having them write poems,  I’ve done it I haven’t dc’ne it. dialc’gues cr stc’ries.  or  with poetry but not  Would The next cine I think yc’u’ve already answered. Int: writing to express emotions i:i:ini:erning the cc’urse cx. anxiety, ccinfusion, discontent be appropriate in your class?  155  ppendix T continued ET:  mt you  ET: that  rbsc’lutely. nd that’s what you were talk started doing that last year. Yup. ti:’  Those kinds of things. happen clot tc’o.  ing  aboLit  Jciurnal  when you said  writing allows  Int: Di: yi:u use writing activities to help y’:iur learn content in your subie’:t area? ET:  students  No.  Int: Would factual writing for example lab rep’:irts, research essays, business letters, written descriptions be appropriate in your subject area? Yeah I think it would, yes. Not lab reports because I ETh don’t deal with that but letters, business letters, learning hciw to write a proper business letter wciuld be a useful sk ill. Int:  Research essays.  essays that’s certainly a skill we need to ET: Research teach kids in preparation for the high school years, espei:ially when they’re forced into it. Int:  Written descr ipt  ic’ns.  ET: I think students have to be able to use writing as a The spoken word is not good enough in means ‘:‘f expressing. some cases where you need to describe something in detail. I think it’s impi:irtant for kids to write descriptively. Int: ET:  Do you use writing tc’ evaluate students’ What  knowledge?  do you mean by that?  Int: Well do you have them write as a test to tell they know? ET:  I’ve never  tried that.  Is there anything you would Int: comments? ET: and  you what  like tc’ add to any of your  I find that it’s an area I No. I’m eager to learn.  don’t  know alot  about  156 ppendix T continLted Int: Is there anything else yi:iu would like ti:i discuss about writing in you classroom or writing in general? ET: I think writing in general is bec’:’ming a lost art We live in a word of t.vized children and they don’t do a lot of written expressii:an. I think we’re missing ‘:‘ut on a lot ‘:‘f creative energy that’s not being utilized. Post —Exper iment  Inter view  Mar’:h Int: Post interview English teacher Darcy Mai:kay. 19th. The interview questi.:ins I’m going to ask you are the same as I asked you prior to the exper imental period but I’m n’:’t gi:’ing to ask them all be’:ause some c’f them your answers But I would like tc’ ask is number one won’t have .:hangeth again. What place has writing in teaching your subject? That is any thoughts you might have about how your c.pini’:in has changed now that we have finished the experiment. Well I think that it’s :ertainly encouraged me to do ET: The students are very receptive to alot more writing. writing and it’s a process I haven’t done ali:it ‘:‘f it but I will certainly utilize it alc’t more in the future English I find kids really really en.ioy writing in courses I teach. a properly guided and teach them properly and do the right Writing is a gc”:’d tool. They are very receptive. thing. Int: Is there any i:hange in h’:’w you feel about the i:ipinicin of your ‘:ol leagues influencing hc’w much writing you dci in Department members, prin’:ipals, other teachers. classes? ET: Int: ET:  You mean  in terms of me—.  How much you do. I’m sorry.  Maybe I misunderstand the question.  Int: Does what your cc.l leagues have to say influence hàw much writing you dci in class? Certainly the people in my English ET: Yes it does. department. If I know they are doing alot of writing or wc’rking on specific units in English that they have been successful with using a writing approach then certainly I’ll It influen’:es me. listen to it. Int:  Is that more  influence now though than before?  Like before it was like a ETh Right nciw I’m a lot more... risk. Now I’m willing to take all kinds of risks with I was a little scared off and reluctant to do it writing. before simply because I wasn’t to sure ‘:‘f the process but  157 ppendix T continued now that I’ve seen the very good results that I have had with these kids that reticence is gone. Int: Sc’ y’:’u’re convini:ed that writing is of value and no matter what someone else said. I d’:’n’t want to put words into your mouth but is that what you are saying? They would influence you less? ET: Yeah, if they said, that you know, that writing woul dn’ t work ‘:‘r that you shc’ul dn’ t use a wr it i ng appr oa’:h in some of these things, I w’:’uld disagree with them. It’s even influen’:ed me from the science and socials point of view because I think that I see some successful things happening in those areas in their writing. This encourages me t o do m or e wr i t i n g o f my own Int: Will the need to cover the curr i’:ulum cause restrict the amount of writing you assign?  y’:iu  to  Unfortunately it does in order to ‘:‘:‘ver some of the ET: essential parts of the curriculum. lthough it does open different approaches to covering those parts •:‘f the up curriculum and perhaps could be handled easily through writing. Do you think teachers should read all Int: assign to their classes?  the writing they  ET: No, Ithink that it depends on what it is assigned for. If it is assigned for something they should read all of it. But if it’s you’re I imagine that obviously they should. just looking spe: i fical ly for introduct ions c’r conclusions or topic sentences but then you would have told the kids that prior to them doing the assignment. What do you think it’s more important for a teacher to Tht: do— respond to student writing or cc’rre’:t the spelling and grammar errors of the student writing? -  ET: Respond to the content. The mechanics can be handled better otherwise which makes it alot easier to mark, to do more writing because if you don’t have specific pie’:es of writing may be designed for those things but you don’t have to dci it for all of them in my opinion. Int: Do you think teachers should grade all they assign to their students?  of the writing  It could be writing for enjoyment. It could be ET: No. writing that you tell the kids y.:iu are going to just read or read out to them or read out examples of whether or not kids  158 ppendix T continued are on the topic or just straight creativity as perhaps Perhaps it’s a good descriptive paragraph; you want poetry. to simply have the kids writing logs etc. Int: You .just answered my next quest ion about the p1 ace for imaginative wr it ing in your ‘:1 assroom. Poems, dial ‘:igues, imaginary stories. ET:  Abs’:’lutely.  Int: Would writing ti:t express em’:’ti’:’ns concerning the course ex. anxiety, c’:.nfusion, discontent be apprcipriate in your ci ass? ET: I find that to be a very good indicator of how kids feel about what’s happening with the assignments I’m giving them through Journals also I’m able to get alcit better sc’rt ‘:‘f finger on the pulse cif what kids are feeling from doing the assignments and encouraging them to respond with an open That way mind and an open feelings with what they’re d’:ting. and what I get a better idea of what they’re learning they’re not learning. Do you use c’r will you use more writing activities to Int: help your students learn content in your sub.ject area? It’s been a valuable lesson for me ET: I certainly will. and something as I said before something I’ve been a bit Now it’s really en’:’:iuraged me to take alot more afraid of. risks and I think it’s well w’:rth it. Int: Would factual writing ex. business letters, lab reports, written descripti’:’ns, research essays be appropriate in you subject area? critical essays, bool Yes, ET: critiques are valuable tools.  reports,  syncepsises,  Can you see a way that writing logs and non—graded Int: writing would help students do a better Job on these kinds of writing? ET: Well they’re non—threatening for the first. Essentially you get those introverted kids to correspond to yc’u thrc’ugh their writing Journals and writing logs that enables you to in a nc’n—threatening fashion to advise them whether they are For alot of kids that d’:’n’t like on the right track or not. to speak up in class it gives them an opportunity to do that. Int:  Do you use writing to evaluate students’  knowledge?  159 ppendix T c’:’ntinued ET:  Yes,  I  do.  Int: Is there anything you would like to add to any of your ‘:omments or is there anything else you would like to discuss about writing in your classroom or writing in general? ET: I would encourage anybody that’s not dc’ne Journal writing or writing of logs to, especially at the Junior sec’:’ndary level, to make it a big part of your English program. For any of my col leagues I would say get out there and di:’ it. You’ll learn alot. I did. Int:  Thank—you very much.  160  Appendix T continued Pre—Exper iment Science Tea’:her: Interviewer:  Interview  Ron Frcsl i’:  Imaginative writing.  Science Teacher: There are certain situations you can ask them to look into the future and write about about what they think it’s going to be like. Or what was it like many years ago before there certain pieces of te’:hnol’:gy were brought along or medi’:al advan’:es or certain situatic’ns, yes. Y’:’u can dci it. It’s not that often. Int: Would writing to express emotions concerning the course cx. anxiety, confusion, discontent be appropriate in your c 1 ass? ST: I think the value on that would be that I can understand and get to feel where the pressures are c’:’ming on the student. Where they are feeling the pressure. With that in mind, yes it wc’uld be valuable but if it’s students that generally waste their time, don’t know how to use their time efficiently and then they ‘:omplain, I don’t have to many sympathies for them or too mu’:h. I don’t have to’:’ much sympathy for kids that waste their time. Then they complain. Or they feel cc’mfused or upset that I’m pushing them because they wasted their time. But the answersyes. They can voice themselves, voice their opinions and I can But their concern may not be resolved by get the feed back. me changing my attitude or my method. I think they have to buckle down and work. Int: Ok. Do you use writing activities to help your students learn content in your sub.iect area? ST: Oh sure, yeah. I put on notes, even traditè’nally board. And I get them these are the concepts the nc’te I put review, point, point, point. covered last day. Rather than certainly there’s writing going on there. Then I go over those points. lecture directly to them. that’s writing and content to emphasize it. Int:  Any other  an we Sc’ Just Sc’  kinds?  Well they may have to if we have some theory on STh chemicals they would do a lab in use of those chemicals and they would have to write it up.  161  Appendix T continued Int: 4culd fa’:tual writing cx. lab reports, research essays, business letters, written descriptions be appropriate in y.:’ur subject area? Easy question.  ST:  Oh very much so.  mt  Do you use writing to evaluate students’  knowledge?  Unfortunately the answer to that is the Yes, I di:’. ST: textbook does it fc’r you and if you use a textbook, there are questions that are directly in line after content and they will say explain such and such and they will have to Straight content. look ba’:k and find it. Is there anything you would like to add to any of your Int: And the last one is is there anything else you comments? would like to discuss ab’:’ut writing in your classroom or writing in general? I find there is a lot of Joy from kids when they ST: Yeah, their mind and find that can discuss what they have on So that it’s group cither kids share the similar cipinicins. work writing, rather that ‘:‘ne individual having to ‘:rack the They’ve gained their It’s less scary. whip and produce. They’ve gained the acceptance of their ideas by confidence. others in the group or else they’ve cc’me up with an idea that’s slightly mc.dified through discussion in a gr’:’up. Sc’ we’re re—wording. Then the grciup deals with the writing. Again, felt  some  very  of  my  insecure  own  philcesciphies  about  writing  and  and  backgri:’und  expressing  like  myself  I and  What sc’ through checking with others,”How do you like this? do you thinks of this?”idea and so group work is really Another thing that I find students important in writing. en.joy and it also pertains to one of the questions you asked 1 about fantasies or fiction and that is that if you give them 1f they can time to write something and then to draw it You Just wrote a story of this, draw draw a picture of it. It breaks them They like doing that. me a picture of it. away fromthe monotony of rigid English structure and into a At Paper. fantasy world that they can then put something cm this grade level 1 like if you get some pencil crayons, add Now this seems like mickey some color to your picture. mouse stuff but it’s a time for them to hash through and think color and bring points together and meld their Rather than moments that are are gocid. memories that And burn it into their brain that this is a frustrating. And there are kids that don’t like to draw fun activity. either so you’re not going to win them all but you’ve gotta make opt ions that may be extremely difficult through varying your  methods.  162  Appendix T continued  Ok. March 4, Int: sc ience teacher.  1991  end of experiment  interview with  ST: The only thing I find n’:’w is that I’m involved in a i:ouple of ‘:omrnittees around the school so I’m ending up Taking notes and that sort of having ti:’ dci a lot more. But that’s related to school work, not anything on thing. my own. Int: Are there any changes in your opinion as to what writing has in tea’:hing yi:’ur subie’:t?  place  I’ve always felt writing was really important with STh Ok. the students giving descriptions and sequences •:‘f events In that take place and the results of these sequences. writing the labs, yes. Int:  In reports and research you said before tc’o.  What I see now, what I dci, what I Yeah in research. probably from this activity is I see that, and I put it d’:’wn in my .journal when I wr’:’te things out, is that there is an importance fc’r kids to be able to communicate privately And that is sometimes they’re too shy to to the teacher. Sometimes later c’n at a later date they raise their hand. ‘:ome up with an idea that hey I didn’t really understand a And certain thing, so they talk about that in the Journals. I think there is a point where Journals the answer is yes. do become a gc’od method of communicating for things that they Just weren’t quite up •:‘n at the time. ST: got  Is it important for your students to learn to write Int: Is-’ well? And as I recall you said yes it isvery important.. there anything you want to add to that? ST: I think that the freedi:’m cif writing and their The more I get expression of how they see it is important. involved in things that are happening for the year 2000, I think the more I’m inclined to think that education isn’t just black and white and there aren’t any Just right and I think a students has to have time to say wr’:’ng answers. If it isn’t exactly the way it the way they think it is. it’s supposed to be then it gives you a chance to talk that To agree c’r disagree. c’ver. Will the need to cover the curriculum cause you to Int: Or that plus the restrict the amount of writing you assign? other thing I want to ask you is the need to cover the curriculum restr ict the amc’unt of Journal writ ing you had  163  Appendix T continued the kids dci and how did you the future as well.  feel  about  that?  And maybe in  What I find really restricting is my, .just my 5Th physically being the number of hours in a day, like how mu’:h energy I really have ti:’ read everything and reply to everything. Doing a journal for me, and I wrote it down, There were real 1 y involved what was real 1 y pr ec ious. precious minutes there and they weren’t just minutes, they were hours going through journals and making some kind of approriate comment experimentally, positively, or on a regular basis, or a neutral cc’mment, and appraisal, an I’d like ti:’ say some here just on appraising ccmment. curriculum. A curriculum nowadays, we’re still stu.:k •:‘n Nowadays, we’re following the ‘:urriculum, step by step. expected to alter it someway so it fits each individual in These journals now, are even the kids the classroi:’md. themselves, the students themselves within the .journal is So dci even asking for their attention ‘:‘n i:ertain things. yciLt realize that what you’ve got there is that you have to customize your curr iculum tc’wards the kids the way you see it and then you’re getting replies through the Journals on Sc’ it’s even opening up more avenues sure how they see it. across points, but more avenues or time and to teach, to get time consumption. If I could Just go back to what you said earlier that Int: it was a restriction of time and it added on time, you di:’ see, correct me if I’m wrong, the curriculum is restricting your time be’:ause doing the Journals has added on top of You don’t see a way of it being a what you already have. Like valid substitute for some of the other things you do when I do it in my class I see it as, I’ve taken away things and put it there instead, not added it on.  Yeah, what I was forced to do withtheJournal is to do ST: my class, cut ciff the last ten minutes and give them time to go through it, hand them. back, and give them time the next day or a couple of days later and take the beginning of class and say look here are scime of the responses, respond Sc’ again you’re cutting ba.:k to me immediately or whatever. time out of the classtime to do it and our courses are I see that course work and streamlining, to fairly full. integrate a student is going to become more and more flexible and I can see that curriculum work is gciing to be less and less important. Int:  Do you see that as a good thing or a bad thing?  164  Appendix T continued I think it’s very g’:’cid. The unfortunate result that is pi:’ssibly going to ‘:ocne from it though is that kids that prepared for certain stages of a later process and in order f’:’r them to be’:ome prepared they may have to spend more time, another year later on, even a part of a year later on to be able to do, to cover some materials to get themselves prepared. Like if they don’t complete certain concepts in ‘:hemistry they won’t be able to go onto another step. ST:  Int: Do you think teachers should read all assign in their classes?  the writing they  6Th If you want to know what’s going on in the class you take time. Whether you take class time and g’:’ around and sit down with them and see what they’ve written and do a spot check and say today I’m going to cover five of them and the next day another five. There’s only one way ti:’ find out hi:*w a child is really coping and that is to be with them and to assess what they put down or tal k to them and find out how they are coming alcing. Int: Did you find Journals helpful know what they are thinking?  that  way?  To let  you  Yeah, I found the Journals really useful when there was 6Th specific problems and the student would say I can’t understand what is going •:n here so they wc’uld write me a note, can I see you about such and such, or else I would see frc’m their writings and I would write I’ll see you next day. I’d go down and sit with them and deal with that problem. It’s useful, it’s definitely useful There’s a spot for it To read all— in the class. Int: To add in on top of what you already di:’, I think that Sc what do you is, that’s asking too much, to do too mu’:h. think is more important for a tea’:her tc’ do? To respond to the content of the students writing or tc’ correct the spelling and grammar errors? ST: Oh to respond for sure. If I was an English tea’:her perhaps I’d be saying the opposite, grammar is first and how they write and punctuation and spelling. As far as I’m concerned I think that the highest priority in any educational system for me would be getting levels of thinking and if you can turn aside, put aside for a moment, the spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and start lociking for thought processes, applications of things and creative thought that leads into new experiments and new ways of looking at the problem, that to me is the most  165  Appendix T continued The spelling and writing and stuff certainly I important. go throught it and I pick ‘:‘ut whatever I can pick out and say y’:iu certainly could have devel’:’ped this thought further I’m having diffii:ulty arid please be a little tidier. If the That be’:c’mes a cc’mmunicatirio pri:iblem. reading this. person .just writes blue down f’:’r a statement rather than writing an explanation what turned blue or what changed to blue, it bec’:’mes a problem of communication. In a sense it might not have that much value to the Int Dci you think teachers should rade all the students either. writing they assign to their students? Maybe it ST: You know, it drives you nuts all the marking. sounds like this coming across on the tape you’ll listen to Yeah, I mark hours it later and think all he does is mark? I think that you’ve got to be and it drives me bloody nuts stream line that marking c’therwise you’ll burn out. able to Things that I dci for instance, I’ll take s’:’methinq and look through the blanks and very quickly my mind will say whether A kid is not going to .iLtSt put blah they seem appropriate. blah blah into some of these blanks and I won’t be able ti:’ Most often you can visually look at the sheet recognize it. and it’s gonna make conne’:tions whether there are correct answers, l.:’gical questions, without reading the whole thing. I can go through a sheet very quickly and I’ll put a check I I don’t put a 6. I d’:in’t give any grades. mark on it. I don’t put a ten or a nine out of ten cir dc’n’t put an S. Then I At least I’ve looked at it. anything of any values check marks tick with ti’:k tick mark book through my go down it in. And then handed she’s in, he’s handed it yes and say and it marking scrutiny in more a bit take ‘:‘ther times I How many of these I’ll look for same values in it. What kind sentence structure.. in a answered questions were of crude_way I’ll put a very Then shown. of effort is to’:’ marking shortens my That a 6. marking, a U, an 5, or Lastly, estimate. if it’s longer method a little but it’s you might want them when you really look for detail, then That takes ten. or out of of questions the number out of longest the What would say if they had three things assigned to Int: them and they were told they could pick what was their best one to be handed in to you? I’d only want that done if ST: I think that’s excellent. pertained to similar concepts or the three things they did cm scilubility or did three things They the same concept. value than the that and has a greater neither like something Then I would say The concept is followed thrc’ugh other.  166  Appendix T continued  you just did three labs, I don’t want to see the other two Then I w’:’uld only have one Just hand in one ‘:‘f the best. mark out of three. I d’:in’t think it’s relevant if I have them all. (***  Tape Three  Int: The questii:in was would imaqinitive writing ex. poems, dialogues, imaginary stories be appropriate in you class? ST: It’s ni:it that appropriate but I imagine y’:’u. could We do in science be dealt scimetime include abstract ideas. in a level of if yciu could imagine little pei:’ple i:arrying on these electrical motions—. Int:  Two mc’le’:ul es tal king to each cit her.  5Th Two molei:ul es talking ti:’ each other sure. To a ‘:i:impound pulling apart and fi:irming a new compc’und. I think that anything in educaticin that helps a learning situation making it more enjoyable ti:’ the kids is worth trying. And for s.:’me it’s ni:it going to mean anything for others they are really going to get into it and feel su’:cessful. How do you feel about writing to express emi:’t ions in Int: Di:, you yciur ci:’urse ex. anxiety, c’:infusii:’n, discontent? think that appropriate? On a lab report ok ST: Well it’s appropriate on a journal. The I think there might even be a place for it there. students have gone through the experiment and find it isn’t working and they could just leave a note there saying I really felt frustrated doing this because I expected such Everyone else got and such and couldn’t get that result. There are points of difficulty and, this result how come... there probably are points of normal feeling that could be expressed. Sc’ is there anything you would like to add to you Int: One of the questions I haven’t asked again are do comments? you use writing activities to help your students learn You answered that one before with factual writing. content. Is there Do you use writing to evaluate students knowledge. anything you want to talk about writing in OU classroom or writing in general?  ST: I didn’t carry ona type of structure with these two The kind of thing I am starting t’:’ classes we were testing. generate new ideas for and that is I like to, I’m starting to work now in my mind of opening the topics up. Integration of the social studies aspect, English, math, you  167 Appendix T continued know. S’: far the science area, ‘:hemistry, was the most diffi’:ult. I think I’ve got a lonq way to go with that—. Int It miqht be alcit easier unit rather than i:hemistry..  if  it  had been a different  5Th That’s right. This is a very structured unit and I would like ti: you knc’w when I ‘:ome back in this wc’rld and I have Mr. Time and all kinds of time I would like to get into restructuring alc’t of the .iargc’n and all routine things sc’ that they can open up. You get a routine sub.ject like chemistry... Maybe I’ve lost the creative thought in it but it become bc’ring. They are less ready and more reluctant to open themselves up with it and to say wow lc’ctk what I did. Look at this display. I look across the room and see some really nice art work on there. Well you know there is a place for that in chemistry to’:’. There really isn’t much time in a term to get through some of the stuff and yet I know with my experiences with grade sevens and grade eight classes you can integrate the topic and allow them all kinds of freedom of choice within—. I think something that suits Journal writing so much Int: more and readily as well that might have been an unfortunate experience that it was chemistry. ST: Yeah and flexibility. Certain subjects, maybe I’m wrong, dci lend themselves, are a little more flexible dci to choices and what they can find—. But yctu Int environment  ‘ust did one of those choice things on  ST: I did yeah. It was a terrific learning situation for the kids and fc’rme to see how they can integrate their diverse thought within the class and the materials that were generated from it made me super happy to see it and made me really proud to see that the kids were doing things that they were having fun with Int: STh  So anything else? Yeah.  168 Appendix  U:  Data  base--samples  STUDENT * 0007  11/19 11/26 12/03 12/10 12/17 01/07 01/14 01/21 01/28 11/2 12/02 12/09 12/16 01/07 01/13 01/20 01/27 02/03 Cbs, Inter, Eval Insight, Undstd InforrAation Revisions CreativeExQ Questions Digressions Confidences Frustrations Søeculations Knowinore Entry length Self sponsored Org, neatness  10 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 100 0 0  4 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 56 0 0  4 2 6 1 0 3 1 0 2 1 3 2 102 1 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  4 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 68 0 0  TTL  22 4 14 1 0 9 1 0 3 3 9 6 326 1 0  169 Appendix V:  PLAPP  samples  GRADE S NARRATIVE EXERCISE WHAT’S THE STORY? Problems are a part of life. Everyone faces them almost every day. Sometimes problems are large but often they are small: something we need or would like to have, something we don’t want to do, or something we forget to do. Sometimes it is another person who is making us sad or we are making them angry! Whatever the problem is, it makes a story.  ASSIGNMENT: Look at the peopte in the photo graphs Each of them has a problem. Choose the one person you want to write about and decide what the problem is. Now write a story telling about this person, the problem, and the solution. You may add any other characters you need. -  Try to make your characters and story as realistic as possible.  170 Appendix V  continued  GRADE 8 SCALE FOR NARRATIVE WRITING  Scale Point 1:  Either incomprehensible OR no attempt to address the topic.  Scale Point 2:  Minimal attempt to tell a story. Mechanical problems are excessive. Serious problems with coherence and unity. Comprehension difficult  Scale Point 3:  Either attempts to fell a story, but style is ineffective and mechanical problems excessive rendering comprehension difficult OR mechanically satisfactory but fails to tell a story.  Scale Point 4:  Attempts to tell a story. Reasonably clear, but no evidence of originality. Lapses in unity and coherence.  Scale Point 5:  Content is fairly thin although there is some attempt at originality. A story is told with evidence of coherence, unity and reasonable command of the language. Style tends to be conversational. Some problems with mechanics most often in spelling and sentence structure. Sentences lack control and variety. Often wordy and repetitious.  Scale Point 6:  Evidence of originality. Good use of detail. Some attempt at characterization. However, contain problems with unity, coherence and mechanics.  Scale Point 7:  Workmanlike. Written with clarity and organization but not a great deal of originality. No serious errors. Use of mechanics and writing style acceptable. Charactel(s) may be realistic, but problem and its development and resolution pedestrian.  Scale Point 8:  Well developed narrative. Generally, the introduction is effective although the resolution may not be strong. Some attempt at characterization. Vocabulary, style nd mechanics above average for grade level.  Scale Point 9:  Establishes a realistic character with an interesting problem. Evidence of originality. The conclusion is effective, and may have an interesting twist. The ending is ‘honest’ in terms of development. Good paragraph structure and organization. Precision in use of language. No serious mechanical flaws. Shows a. great deal of promise as a writer.  171 Appendix V  continued  GRADE 8 NARRATIVE WRITING SCALE POINT2. Scale Point 2:  Minimal attempt to tell a story. Mechanical problems areèxcessive. Serious problems with coherence and unity. Comprehension difficult.  ‘J>  V  -  t4  9tt  -.  V  A  I  2” ?J1  riir  £,-  JLtct\i  “-s  L. -&  3E iL 2 3L  -  ft&9$Oi So  -.  -  -‘-  J —  8-GL-1  /  172 Appendix V  continued  GRADE 8 NARRATIVE WRNG SCALE POINT5 Content is fairly thin although there is some attempt at originality. A story is told with evidence of coherence, unity and reasonable command of the language. Style tends• in spelling:and to be conversational. Some problems with mechanics most often and wordy repetitious. Often sentence structure. Sentences lack control and variety. -  Scale Point 5:  fl 4f±o  f  , Wir. 4, -Ii cy Li 4 ,ii Jruii 1 Tho ‘(  )1 (  r,i,i.W.r  c’ LJI& h7-5, til4e4, 4rid fV1o 7j-/ L5/vj  I,t-h° r..41 Q OIern  1’fliS  i;r  -c/  c  z-  hi’5  4 rr.  7  -h.-,  4- bkd,odni/ niv1Thv-r  4  ht’&t  .  -  fl1fl19  ” ‘ i 4  1  ui  i’k  1irn  toiItr 1m  r1n4  rry (t  Piw 1P  di 4o  h;  ‘s  lEd  1irn  ônri  ,yyO  b  \  oui,1  tU(Cil’1  ILWt  -;d i  1m  CQ:I  4r,  h)O-5  iod.  51  ia&  ‘C  -  hflkk  s4{  4lic.  ckr  cii+  Cl 1 1 )V,iS°  0 kr  ,v-f  rr’  ii11  M  4n  6rd ‘thfi(  4  oh (1l’Ir  f,  nil h(Ot°  lr+’r  3o4- 4’-(  l: ‘rc h 1  6.  Øic.i  rr.4. ig  4i  nnil i4 4o  ir(io  hi c  nil i.nII-i  4  c”Jn,i:  -1c-l  ---  (v  fnthed  4h 44÷  btrS  I  4 xtn +i&itS  4-nII 4, nM -  hock.  ,  ccm  t7’  i’ q,d.  hrh  cr+  3rr1  rn1  .,  54({’d  ?nrY. 1.(-d  4  f’l  c 4  (dd  dc,t  -  f11  Ef cTh,ii n  .  4ko  4h  çrt1oii  .9  rn  trWiq  Ip’  w1+  -tti  ii  ci+4  c,hhd  mvt  4 -‘iyi  hink  4 fl°  4  c;  ir -1r&iiIr irvl  ricc  rc  jSj/(  (jrid  (-I-  fiPj,)  4.  (i.1  rid’d  ‘1jt  flrrI’  riThr  mid  3Thfl  h° .c-  (  bidflI,)  *M l 4th  irrg  -Th  4  tLl1jil 5  iihc r4  c  ‘n  Cift’  —  4 fl?1  4,  tri4  4 r  )w  n-I hor  in’-i  lirrl  Arif1cz1orl (+  (  JIçi  r 4  t1 hlhfl+  ‘7  —  119 jh 11  5ihd  4  (iñ  -b  Fiiiihe-  1  pcn!’  )rJkf  rn  iiii/r  43.  mid .-.r.-rfiod 4fl  ‘c-ri dd’4-  .1  o  lir.  ho,-  i1i  iis  L+  ,4,  n4  rnr  h4  “  4,r-1r1 ,I/’v,’  n4l  1.73  1ppendix W: Table 1O..——fa’:ets; student response .journals Means and standard deviations for z scores and transformed t scores  How  facets were made:  Facet  1:  Observations, combined  Understandinq and  Facet 2:  Creative Expressions, were cc’mbined  Facet 3:  !uestic’ns, K.nc’w Mi:ire.  Facet 5:  Frequency  Facet 6:  Lenqth.  Speculations and Digressions  Confidences,  (Revisions were dropped)  Information were  Frustrations and Desire to  174  Appendix W:  Table 10 continued  Table 10.--facets; student response journals. Means and standard deviations for z scores and trans formed ONUMBER OF VALID OBSERVATIONS (LISTWISE) = 30 00 OVARIABLE MEAN STD DEV MINIMUM MAXIMUM VALID N .  JFAC1T1Z JFAC1T2Z JFAC1T3Z JFAC2T1Z JFAC2T2Z JFAC2T3Z JFAC3T1Z JFAC3T2Z .JFAC3T3Z JFAC4T1Z JFAC4T2Z 1 JFAC4T3Z JFAC5T1Z JFAC5T2Z JFAC6T1Z JFAC6T2Z JFAC5T3Z JFAC5T3Z EFAC1T1Z EFAC1T2Z EFAC2T1Z EFAC2T2Z AFAC1T1Z AFAC1T2Z TJF1T1 TJF1T2 TJF1T3 TJF2T1 TJF2T2 TJF2T3 TJF3T1 TJF3T2 TJF3T3 TJF4T1 TJF4T2 TJF4T3 TJF5T1 TJF5T2 TJF5T3 TJF6T1 TJF6T2 TJF6T3 TEF1T1 TEF1T2 TEF2T1 TEF2T2 TAF1T1 TAF1T2  .  -.001 .000 .000 .002 -.004 .002 .001 .000 -.001 .003 -.003 -.002 .004 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 -.001 .000 .001 .000 .000 -  -  -  50.006 49.997 49.999 50.005 49.998 50.000 49.993 4g.ggg 50.007 50.004 49.998 50.004 50.076 50.000 49.996 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 49.999 50.000 50.004 49.998 50.000  .795 .911 .891 .760 .628 .760 .714 .698 .609 .998 1.003 1.001 .995 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 .998 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 9.997 10.003 10.001 10.003 10.006 9.997. 9.999 10.005 10.000 10.005 10.003 10.000 10.000 10.003 9.997 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.002 9.996 10.004 10.003 10.002 9.999  -1.13 -1.06 .97 .93 -.64 .75 .72 .87 -.83 .60 -.94 -.84 -2.59 -2.28 -1.75 -1.18 -1.55 -2.97 -1.97 -1.92 _1...67 -1.78 -1.93 -1.83 -  -  -  -  -  -  35.74 38.49 39.12 37.76 3g.8g 40.15 39.89 37.59 35.35 44.00 40.64 41.64 24.06 27.18 20.22 32.52 38.24 34.54 30.28 30.82 33.32 32.20 30.67 31.67  .  2.38 2.28 3.37 1.93 1.82 2.01 2.54 2.43 1.69 3.30 1.97 2.48 1.67 2.04 2.22 3.13 2.98 1.46 2.09 1.60 2.01 2.05 1.75 1.94 79.90 75.01 87.81 75.36 79.07 .76.43 85.59 84.76 77.82 83.14 69.68 74.78 66.83 70.35 64.64 72.16 81.35 79.78 70.93 66.05 70.15 70.50 67.47 69.41  30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 •30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 --30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30  175  Appendix X:  Results of pilot testing of attitude measure  1. The attitude measure used in this research “The P < R Writing Attitude Form”.  is based on  1990 , 2. In June c’f Pil’:t Test A (Appendi> II) was tested with an intact grade nine class at a Junior high sch’:’ol in British Columbia. After meeting with the Thesis C:ommittee, it was decided that the attitude measure would be more readily understo’:’d by grade nines if it f’:’ll’:’wed a sentence format. Pilot Test B was designed. 3. In September and October of 1990, six grade—nine students who would not be part i’: ipants in the actual research, completed the measure (Pilot Test B) using a think aloud “l3ifted”, protocol. One of the students was another was “Modified” and the remaining four were “Average”. These difficulties think—alouds were tape recorded. The these students experienced dictated the follc’wing adaptations: a. Two pra’:tise, sample exercises have been included so grade—nine that instructions can be better understood by students; b. Further redundancies i:tmitted from Pilot Test B;  (items 10,  11,  17,  and 26)  were  incorporated at the top of page c. An answer guide was ease of in order to facilitate two of the questionnaire answering; 25, and 28 on Pilot 4, 12, 13, 16, 22, 24, d. Items from Pilot Test B because these were Test C were rewritten participating in the think—alouds the items that students had difficulty with. bubble were incorporated as student sheets 4. Computer answer sheets in order to facilitate analysis procedures.  176 Operational  Appendix V:  Oper at i onal 1  St atement of Hypotheses Students who have been responded to  Hi  in writing by their  groups)  show  sub.ject area tea’:her  cf response  crpen—prc”:ess mode  more  response,  posit ive  to  writ ing according c)  statement of hypotheses  and/or  a:)  (the  using the  experimental  attitudes  source,  b)  audience,  purpose than students who  d)  have been responded to  in writing by their  area  the  teacher  response  (the  using contr’:’l  pre— and posttest HO  c  groups)  mode  as measured  of  by  a  Students who have been responded to  open—process mode  writing  traditional  sub.je’:t  attitude survEy  in writing by their  groups)  toward  do nc.t  sub.ject area teacher using the of response  experimental  show more positive attitudes toward  according  response,  (the  to  and/or d)  a)  source,  b)  audience,  purpose than students who  have been responded to in writing by their subiect area  teacher  response  (the  using control  pre— and posttest 2..  Hi  :  teacher  using  traditional  groups)  mode  as measured  of  by  a  attitude survey..  Native  been responded to  the  Indian  students  who  in writing by their subject  have area  the open—pr.:i.:ess m’:’de of response  177 ppendix V experimental  (the  attitudes b)  audience,  c)  response,  writ inq by their  in  m’:’de  gri:tups)  as  attitude  survey.  more ti:’  d)  and/or  positive a)  sour’:e,  purpcise than  been respi:inded to teacher using  by  pre—  a  groups)  attitudes  pc’sttest  who  have  subject  mode ‘:‘f not  dci  using  ‘:ontr’:’l  and  students  Indian  the open—process  b:  (the  in writing by their  experimental  source,  area teacher  response  c’f  Native  positive  subject  measured  HO  (the  show  Indian students who have been respi:inded  the traditional  a)  qrc’ups)  toward writ inq ac’:ordinq  di:i Native to  continued  area  response show  more  toward writing according to  audien’:e,  c)  and/cir  response,  purpose than Native Indian students  who have been  responded to  subject  in writing  teacher using (the control  by  their  the traditional groups)  as  mode  of  area  response  measured by a pre—  and  posttest attitude survey. Hi  3. to  in  Students writing by  open—process mode group)  show  a)  writing,  c)  the  number  b)  been responded  their English teacher using the (the  of response  more  positive  -  modes  and  tea’:her as formal  experimental  attitudes  the response journal  subject area of  who have  toward  itself,  and/or  measured by features  used  the in  178 ppendix V continued response Journals responded to  control  traditional  by their  t:’pen—process mode  writing,  c)  the  of  English  teacher  response  b)  of  the response  modes  the  (the  using  the  experimental  than  itself,  measured by features  students  mode  and/or  used have  who  the in been  English teacher  of  (the  resp’:’nse  oup). Native  been responded  to in  teacher using  attitudes  toward  itsel f,  as measured  by  writing,  and/or c)  their  their  English response pi:tsitive  mcre b)  have  the  response  the subject area tea’:her  number of  who have  who  mode of  show  in response  Indian students  traditional  students  writing  group) a)  by the  features used  by  Indian  the open—process  experimental  writing,  formal  traditional  Hi  .journal  as  in writing by thejr  responded to  gr  (the  .ja:furnal  teacher  and  response .,ournals  c on t r o 1  teacher  of resp’:’nse  sub.iect area  number  (the  Encjlish  been  not show more posit ive attitudes toward  do  a)  4.  mode  have  Students who have been responded to  in writing  using  ho  gr:’up)  HO  group)  students  in writing by their  the  using  than  modes  Journals been  English  mode of response  and  formal  than  Native  responded teacher  to  using  (the control  in the  group).  179  ppendix V ‘:ontinued HO  Native  been responded teacher  to  using  journal  itself,  5  whi: have  c)  the  number  b)  and  formal  than  Native  teacher  to  using  (the control  teacher (the  in the  group).  teacher as  and  formal  than  traditional  toward  itself,  features  by their  the  experimental  and/or  measured by  students  made  using  attitudes  positive  in writing  the  who-  used have  the in been  science teacher  of  response  (the  graup.  HO  :  in writing  Students who have been responded to by their  open—process mode group)  response  respi:nded  the response Journal  modes  responded to  control  been  science  more  response journals  using  the  modes  of response  subje.:t area of  response  Students who have been responded to  show  writing,  b)  .iournals  English  by their  a)  English  the sub.ject area teacher  mode of response  open—process mode group)  their  have  show more posit ive  number of  their  :  in. writing  c)  whc’  mode of  writing,  in resp’:’nse  by  HI  )  and/or  Indian students  tradit ic’nal  by  do not  groLip)  by the  features used  writing  writing  in  toward  as measured  students  the open—pr’:”:ess  (the experimental attitudes  Indian  dci not  science  of response  teacher (the  using  the  experimental  show mare positive attitudes tc’ward  180 ppendix V continued a)  writing,  c)  the  b)  the response Journal  subject  number  of  area  m’:des  and  resp’:inse .journals resp’:’nded to  usinq  6 been  (the  Native  using  by their  the  used have  in been  science teacher  of  response  ti:’ward  itself,  as measured  a)  (the  by  been responded tea’:her using  toward  itself,  as measured features used  group)  by the  formal  than  Native  by  in the  group) who  their  have  science  mode of  response  more  positive  the  response  show  of  to  using  students  b)  the subject  number  and  the control  writing, :)  area teacher  teacher  writing  and/or  response  responded  been  Indian  a)  the  b)  the open—process  experimental  posit ive  modes  science  tc’ in  more  .iournals  who have  Native  attitudes  of  mode of response  HO  response  the subject  in response  their  mode ‘:‘f  show  number  have  who  their science  by  writing,  and/or c)  Indian students  traditional  writing  gr’:’up)  by the  features used  writing  students  the open—pr.:’cess  experimental  .jc’urnal  who  students  Indian  to in  responded  .iournal  measured by features  mode  and/or  group).  attitudes  (the  than  traditional  Hi  teacher  as  formal  in writing  the  control  teacher  itself,  modes  area teacher and  formal  in response journals than Native  181  Appendix Y continued students  Indian writing  by  their  by their  open—process mode  group)  show  measured  in  the c on t r o 1  teacher  to in  (the  in  in the  group).  gr  using  skill  than students  writing  mode  as  who have  their  by  the  experimental  writing  the traditional  English respi:inse  i:’f  op:’ Students who have been responded to  HO in writing  by their  open—process mode dci  not  as measured  teacher using (the control  English  tea’:her  of response  (the  shc’w greater gains  in the posttest  been responded  to  in  using  the  experimental  in writing skill  than students who have by  writing  the traditional group).  their  mode  of  English response  V  Students who have been respcinded to  Hi  in writing  by their  open—process mode group)  t’:i  using  (the control  of resp’Dnse  the p’:’sttest  teai:her using  B.  teacher  English  greater gains  been resp’:’nded  group)  science  responded  Students whi:’ have been responded to  Hi  in writing  C:  been  mode of respi:inse  tradit ional 7.  who have  sh’:’w  English  of response  greater gains  using  teacher (the  the  experimental  the content and  in a)  organization of their writing and b)  the mechanics  of their  the  (formal,  writing  as  measured  in—class essay)  than  in  students  posttest who  have  V  182 fppendix V •:c’ntinued been responded tea’:her  using  (the control 8.  to  group  their  mode  of  English response  :  by their  open—pro’:ess mode do not  mechanics c’f posttest  sh’:w greater ‘:f  been  English  of response  their  responded teacher using  Native  been responded teacher using  to  to  in  the content and  b)  the  measured  in  the  in  students  than  writing  the traditional  by mode  group).  Indian  students  writing  the open—prt:’cess  (the experimental  the  experimental  writing as  using  in a)  in—class essay:)  (the control  Hi  (the  gains  their writing  (formal,  who have  teacher  English  of response  and ‘:.rganizati’:’n  9.  by  Students who have been responded tc’  in writing  their  writing  the traditional  HO  grc’up)  in  grc’up)  show  by  who  their  mode of  English response  greater  in the  have  gains  posttest  in than  writing skill  as measured  Native Indian  students who have beenresponded to  in writing  by their  traditional  mode of response  HO  :  been resp’:’nded teacher using  Native to in  teacher  English  (the control  Indian writing  the open—process  c:the experimental  group)  using  students by  their  mode of  the  group). who  have  English response  do not show greater gains  183 ppendix V continued skill  in writinq Native  by their  traditional  mode of response  Hi  Native  to in  been responded teacher  usinq  (the control  Indian  by  the  group).  who  students  writinq  group:  have  English  their  mode of  resp’:nse  greater gains in  show  organization ‘:‘f their writing  content and  the  tea’:her  Enqlish  the open—process  using  (the experimental a)  than  students who have been responded to  Indian  in writing  10.  in the posttest  as measured  and b)  the mechanics of their writing as measured  in the  posttest  Native  Indian  the  control  traditional  :  Native to in  been responded teacher  the  a)  writing and measured  in  b)  the  writing  the  and  have  been  of  resp’:’nse  Indian  by  traditional  who  their  mode of  (the  have  English response  show greater gains  organization  (formal,  students  in writing  group  do not  students  mechanics of their  the posttest  responded to  control  mode  Indian  group)  content  Native  using  than  by their English teacher  the open—process  using  (the experimental  than  who  essay)  group).  HO  in  in—class  students inwriting  responded to using  (formal,  of  their  writing as  in—class essay) who  have  been  by their English teacher mode  of  response  (the  184 Appendix V continued ii.  Students who have been responded to  Hi  by their  in writinq  open—process mode group)  show  solving a p’:sttest  of response  qreater problem  by their  traditional  mc’de of response  HO  by their  not  in  teai:her using  12  been responded  to in  approaches  as measured  using  in  gains  problem  the  their  science  in  as  than students who have  writing  by mode  their  science response  of  students  Indian writing  by  the open—process  (the experimental their  qr’:’up)  group Native  using  the  exper imental  (the  the traditional  Hi  teacher  teacher  greater  the pc’sttest in  usinq  (the contri:’l  science  show  been responded to  (the control  in the  who have been resp’:’nded to  solving a  approaches to  tea’:her  of response  open—prcicess mode  measured  science  Students  do  experimental  measured  science as  in writing  gr’:’up)  the  in their approaches to  qains  in  (the  using  students who have been responded to  than  in writing  teai:her  science  group)  show  to solving  in the  who  tfeir  science  mode of greater  a pr’:’blem  posttest than  students who have been responded to  have  response gains  in  in s’:ience  Native  Indian  in writing by  185 ppendix V continued their  science  ‘:‘f resp’:ense  teacher  (the ‘:c’ntr’:’l  HO  Native  been resp’:tnded teacher  using  in  their  group)  measured  Indian students writing  writing  approaches  science as  by  traditional  students  the open—process  (the exper imental  to in  who have  their  m’:de  group:)  Indian  in  ti:’  the traditional  using  di:’ not  by  their  mode of  a  the pc’sttest  science  mode of response  science response  show greater  solving  been  have  who  problem  in  than Native  responded teacher  gains  to  using  (the control  in the  group).  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items