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 1992-12-31

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

Item Metadata


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

Full Text

TWO MODES OF TEACHER RESPONSETO STUDENTS WRITING TO LEARNIN RESPONSE JOURNALSbyELAINE MACKAYBA., The University of British Columbia, 1973A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Language Education)We accept this thesis as conformingto th, required standardLIi1)UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJuly 1992(a’,Elaine MacKay, 1992SJIn presenting thisthesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at theUniversity of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall makeitfreely available forreference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesisfor scholarly purposes may be granted by thehead of mydepartment or by his or her representatives.It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesisfor financial gain shall not be allowed withoutmy writtenpermission.Department ofa7e.c€z1ocThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDatei9aysr’ /99L.DE-6 (2/88)11ABSTRACTAlthough student response journals have been demonstratedto be effective aids to learning, primarily through case studyreports and articles, there is little evidence to show themost effective ways for teachers to respond to what studentswrite in their journals. The current study examines theinfluence of two differing modes of teacher response onwriting fluency, skills and attitudes toward writing ofgrade-nine junior high school students. In addition, thestudy investigates the effects on participating teachers ofusing response journals in subject area classrooms.This study is a controlled experiment in which grade-ninestudents were randomly assigned to experimental and controlclasses in English and science. The treatment studentsreceived open, positive, encouraging comments by subject—areateachers on their response journals in the twelve—week schoolterm during which the experiment took place. Control studentsreceived evaluative, corrective comments. An attitudemeasure, administered both pre— and post—experiment, was usedto investigate student attitudes toward writing over all andon four sub—categories (source, audience, response andpurpose). In addition, a pre— and post—instruction essay wasgiven in order to ascertain the effects of treatment onwriting growth overall and on two subscores, one for contentand one for mechanics. Throughout the duration of theexperiment students maintained response journals which wereanalyzed for changes in attitude using a chronological chartiiiconsisting of a core of fifteen common features perceived tobe characteristic of good journals. Participating teacherswere administered pre— and posttest interviews in order toelicit changes in their attitudes toward the use of responsejournals. As well, they were requested to maintain individualjournals as a record of their impressions throughout theexperiment.Results did not favour expected outcomes. Thedifferences found were not only non—significant but alsofrequently in the wrong direction with the control groupexhibiting more positive growth than the experimental group.A contaminating factor, failure to carry out the procedures asdescribed, seems the most tenable explanation for this study’sfailure to reject the null hypothesis.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSABS’I’Rl..CT .TABLEOFCONTENTS ivLIST OF TABLES viiiI.1IST OF FIGURES ixACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THEPROBLEI”! 1Introduction of the Research Problem 1Purpose of and Rationale for the Present Study 3Research Questions 4Definition of Terms 9Liinitations 9CHAPTER TWO: THE RELATED RESEARCH 12Composing: The Historical Context 13The Traditional Paradigm of Writing Instruction 14Writing Across the Curriculum 16The Writing Process and the New Paradigm ofWriting Instruction 18The New Paradigm: Talk—Write Connections 19The New Paradigm: Read—Write Connections 20Writing to Learn through Response Journals 22Instructional Approach and Attitude toward Writing... 23Instructional Approach and Growth in WritingAbility 25Teaching Style: Methods of Implementation 25Native Indian Students 26Context of the Present Study 27CHAPTERTHREE:PROCEDURES 29DesignoftheStudy 29Subjects 30i) TheStudents 30ii) TheTeachers 32Attrition 33Treatments 34TwoModesofTeacherResponse 34i) The Open-process Mode of Response 35ii) The Traditional Mode of Response 36English Classes——course content 36Science Classes——course content 37Pilot Study 37Measures Used 38Part A: The P & R Writing Attitude Form(adapted) 38Part B: Student Response Journals——TheChronological Chart 40Part C: Holistic Marking Scale 41Part D: Science Experiments——Observations 42Part E: Teacher Interviews/Teacher PersonalLogs 42VCoilect ion of Data . 4 2Part A: Completion of the Questionnaire onAttitude toward Writing 43Part B: Student Response Journals 43Part C: The Writing Samples 44i) Composition Topics 44ii) Schedule 45Part D: The Science Experiments 45i) Experiments——Pre—\and Posttest Measures 45ii) Schedule 45Part E: Teacher Interviews and Personal Logs 46Preparation and Scoring of Data 472.non7nhiiy 47Part A: The Attitude Measure 47Part B: Student Response Journals 48i) TrainingSessions 48ii) Coding 49iii) Scoring 49iv) Combining Journal Modes and Featuresinto Facets 53Part C: The Writing Samples 54i) Data Preparation 54ii) TrainingSessions 55iii) Scoring of the data 56Part D: The Science Experiments——Observations 57Part E: Teacher Interviews and PersonalLogs 58StatisticalTreatments 58Calculating Reliability 59Multivariate Analysis of Variance: (MANOVA) 60Analysis of Variance: (ANOVA) 61Analysis of Covariance: (ANCOVA) 61t—Tests 61Descriptive (Condescriptive) Statistics . 61Qualitati’ve Analysis 62Preliminary Analyses 62The Attitude Measure 62The Essays 63Success of Randomization Procedures 64ChAPTER FOtJR : FINDINGS 67Part A: The Attitude Measure and the Effect ofTreatmentThe English Essays and the Effect of Treatment 68Attitude Measure: Growth Overall and onSubscores 69i) Overall Growth: the AttitudeMeasure and the English Essays 70ii) Overall Growth: the AttitudeMeasure 71viiii) Growth on Subscores: the AttitudeIvleasure72iv) Growth on Subscores: the EnglishEssays 74Part B: Student Response Journals and the Effect ofTreatment 75i) Overall Growth: Response Journals——the fifteen modes and formalfeatures——results betweenconditions 76ii) Analysis of Covariance: ResponseJournals 77iii) Growth on Subscores: ResponseJournals 78Part C: Qualitative Analysis of Teacher Interviewsand I.1ogs 81Suruuary 83CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS ANDIECOM14END2TIONS 86Sununary 86Discussion 87Attitudes toward Writing 87GrovTth in Writing 88Student Response Journals and the Effects ofTreatment 89Conclus ions 9 0Design Features 91i)Sample Size 9 1ii) InitialDifferences 92iii) Duration 92I’leasures Used 93i) TheAttitudeMeasure 93ii) The Writing Measure 95iii) TheResponseJournals 95Procedural Elements 96i) Administration of the Treatment 96Alternative Interpetations 98Recommendations for Further Research 99Replication 99Administration of theTreatment 100UntestedHypothesis 101CHAPTER SIX: EPILOGUE 102Administration of the Treatment 102The Science Teacher 103The EnglishTeacher 105Untested Hypothesis 108BIBI.1IOGR.APHY 110Appendix A: Letter of permission 115Appendix B: Parental/Guardian consent form 116Appendix C: Guidelines for student response 119Appendix D: Two modes of teacher written response 121viiAppendix E: English——course content outline123Appendix F: In-class essays--composition topics125Appendix G: In-class essays--prewriting instructions126Appendix H: Science——course content outline127Appendix I: Science experiment——pretest129Appendix J: Science experiment--posttest130Appendix K: Student writing samples--two modes ofteacher response 132Appendix L: Attitude questionnaire136Appendix N: “The P & R Writing Attitude Form” 141Appendix N: Definitions of categories--attitudequestionnaire 143Appendix 0: Attitude questionnaire--categories144AppendixP: Chronologicalchart 145Appendix Q: Definitions——categories, modes and formalfeatures 146AppendixR: Writingscale——essays 149Appendix 5: Teacher interview guide150Appendix T: Teacher interviews--transcripts 152Appendix U: Data base——samples 168AppendixV: PLAPP——samples 169Appendix W: Table 10——facets; student response journals:means and standard deviations for z scores,transformed t scores 173Appendix X: Results of pilot testing of attitude measure..l75Appendix Y: Operational statement of hypotheses 176viiiLIST OF TABLESTable 1 Inter-rater reliability, essays pretest/post-test differences on content and mechanics 63Table 2 Success of randomization procedures;explanation of two tailed test for comparisonbetween treatment conditions 65Table 3 The attitude measure and the English essays:multivariate analysis of variance 70Table 4 Attitude measure: (adjusted by removing thetwo items found unreliable by LERTAP): means,standard deviations and pretest/posttestdifferences 71Table 5 Attitude measure: means, standard deviationsand pretest/posttest differences forsub—categories 73Table 6 Essays: means, standard deviations andpretest/posttest differences per treatmentcondition 74Table 7 The response journals: multivariate analysisof variance (pretest=first 3 weeks of treatment,mid—test=next four weeks, posttest=last 3 weeks... 76Table 8 Response journals (the 5 facets combined from the12 original features and modes): analysis ofcovariance . 77Table 9 Response journals: means, standard deviationsand pretest/mid-test; pretest/posttest differenceson final sub—scores 79Table 10 Facets——student response journals: means andstandard deviations for z scores, transformedt scores 174ixLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 Design of the Study 31Figure 2 Chronological Chart 145xACKNOWLEDGEMENTSSincere gratitude is expressed to Dr. J.F. Belanger, myadvisor, for his encouragement, guidance and selfless generosityin the giving of his time and advice to this project. To theother committee members, Dr. Marion Crowhurst and Dr. IanHousego, I extend my sincere thanks for their advice andguidance.I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Walter Boldt and Dr.Bob Conry for their comments on the design of the study andtheir assistance in the statistical analysis of the data.To the numerous others who made contributions to the study,a sincere thank—you. In particular, I would like to expressappreciation to the following people:Troy Brown, for his assistance in creating and loading thedata base for the statistical analysis of the student responsejournals; andEd Clifford for proofreading both throughout the projectand finally, and for his assistance with the construction of thedata tables.Finally, I wish to thank my husband, D’Arcy MacKay, bothfor his participation as a teacher in the project and for hispatience, support and encouragement throughout the completion ofthis thesis.1CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEMIntroduction of the Research ProblemNothing is known about the effects offeedback during prewriting activities.Observational and experimental studiesshould be extremely useful in adding toknowledge about the nature and effects offeedback of this kind(Hillocks, 1986, 241).This study hypothesized that groups of experimentalstudents who were responded to in writing with warm, acceptingwritten comments (open—process response) by their teachersinresponse journals would, as a consequence, show significantlygreater growth in writing skill than the control groupsdid.The control groups were responded to withdirecting, criticalwritten remarks (traditional response) by their teachers. Itwas further hypothesizedthat these two modes of differingteacher response would result insignificant changes inattitudes toward writing, the subject area and/or the teacherwith the results favouring the experimental groups.Educators——in particular English teachers——have becomeincreasingly concerned that for themost part writing inschool has been limited to notetaking,answering study oressay test questions and copying.Applebee’s (1981) studyindicated that only three percent of writing done by secondaryschool students was of more than a paragraph in length.Furthermore, of all the writing students did, in all subjectareas, less than one half of onepercent could be termed2‘expressive’ (Britton, 1975). Often no vehicle is providedfor students whereby they can discover meaning in texts forthemselves without fear of evaluation. Their initialresponses are the final product: perfunctory exercises in“...academic tennis (returning the ball of information servedby the teacher)” (Marland, 1977, 148). The evaluative natureof such writing is also of concern; its audience is that ofteacher examiner (Applebee, 1981). The traditional mode ofteacher response to such writing is corrective, directionaland/or informing with the emphasis placed on correctness ofsurface features such as mechanics rather than content. Theeffectiveness of such final—product comments is negligibleaccording to available research (Hillocks, 1986).How does one help students to learn and understand theinformative prose that is the norm for most textbooks andreading requirements in subject areas other than English? Howdoes one help students explore their own personal connectionswith a piece of literary text before handing an essay in to begraded? Response journals provide a vehicle whereby studentscan explore new knowledge, verify old knowledge, agree ordisagree on new meanings (Jacobs, 1978). They provideopportunities for articulating connections between what thereader already knows and new information without fear ofevaluation.Case study research has indicated the value of responsejournals as vehicles for learning and in changing students’attitudes toward writing (Fuiwiler, 1987; Gere, 1985; Peyton3et al., 1988). Such case study research has laid thefoundation for this experimental study. To extend and buildon this knowledge, this study will explore the effects thatthe nature of a teacher’s written response to students’writing to learn in response journals has on a) students’attitudes toward various aspects of writing, b) students’attitudes toward the subject area teacher, c) students’writing ability and d) students’ approaches to problem solvingin science.Purpose of and Rationale for the Present StudyThis study is a controlled experiment in which theexperimental groups received treatment in writing responsejournals posited to result in different outcomes from those ofthe control groups. The purposes of this research arefourfold:1) to examine the effects of two modes of teacherwritten response (open process/traditional) to studentswriting to learn in response journals in English(specifically literature) and science on the attitudes ofninth—graders toward source, audience, response andpurpose of/for writing,2) to examine the effects of two differing modes ofteacher response (open process/traditional) to studentswriting to learn in response journals in English(specifically literature) and science on the attitudes ofninth—graders toward writing, the response journalitself, and/or the teacher,43) to examine, in particular, the effects of two modesof teacher written response to students writing to learnin response journals on the writing performance ofninth-graders as judged by the overall quality of theiressays, and the sub—categories of content and mechanics.4) to investigate the effects of two modes of teacherwritten response to students writing to learn in responsejournals on students’ approaches to solving a problem inscience.Research questionsPart A of the study, the survey on attitudes towardwriting, is a Likert-type scale that consists of twenty-ninestatements about writing. The same form is used as both apre— and posttest measure. The twenty—nine statementscomprised four categories: attitudes toward source, audience,response and purpose (definitions are located in Appendix N)of/for writing. Part A of the study is informed by thefollowing research question:1. Do students who have been responded to in writing bytheir subject area teacher using the open—process mode ofresponse (the experimental groups and/or its subgroup ofNative Indian students) show more positive attitudestoward writing according to a) source, b) audience,C) response, and/or d) purpose than students who havebeen responded to in writing by their subject areateacher using the traditional mode of response (thecontrol groups and/or its subgroup of Native Indian5students) as measured by a pre— and posttest attitudesurvey?Part B of the study is a chronological chart kept foreach student in all four groups. It is a record of possiblereflections of change in attitude toward a) writing, b) theresponse journal itself, and c) the subject area teacher. Thechart is a record of how frequently each student used thefollowing modes and formal features in his/her responsejournal. It is believed that the more often a student madeuse of these modes and features, the greater he/she valuedsome aspect of writing.Modes:i. Observations, interpretations, evaluations.ii. Insights, understanding.iii. 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).6xiv. Self—sponsored entries.xv. Organization and neatness.These modes and formal features were tabulated once aweek over the course of the twelve—week treatment period. Thetwo central questions here are:1. Do students who have been responded to inwriting by their English teacher using the open processmode of response (the experimental group and/or itssubgroup of Native Indian students) show more positiveattitudes toward a) writing, b) the response journalitself, and/or c) the subject area teacher as measured bythe number of modes and formal features used in responsejournals than students who have been responded to inwriting by their English teacher using the traditionalmode of response (the control group and/or its subgroupof Native Indian students)?2. Do students who have been responded to in writing bytheir science teacher using the open—process mode ofresponse (the experimental group and/or its subgroup ofNative Indian students) show more positiveattitudes toward a) writing, b) the response journalitself, and/or c) the subject area teacher as measured bythe number of modes and formal features used in responsejournals than students who have been responded to inwriting by their science teacher using the traditionalmode of response (the control group and/or its subgroupof Native Indian students)?7Part C of the study has as its dependent variable thewriting quality of the compositions written in Englishclasses, as determined by the ratings of judges. The ratingsare based on two formal, in—class, pre—and posttest measures(in—class essays). The writing quality variable consists ofoverall scores comprised of two subscores: a) content andorganization, and b) mechanics. The prewriting components, inpreparation for the in—class essays, are teacher instructionin purpose and structure of essay writing and brainstormingfor content of topic choices. The measures were conducted ina typical test-like situation with no verbal interactionallowed. One four—by—six file card containing student notesfor essay content and structure was allowed for each studentfor each measure. The critical question here is:1. Do students who have been responded to in writingby their English teacher using the open—process mode ofresponse (the experimental group and/or its subgroup ofNative Indian students) show greater gains in writingskill overall and/or in a) content and organization oftheir writing and b) the mechanics of their writing asmeasured in the posttest (formal, in—class essay) thanstudents who have been responded to in writing by theirEnglish teacher using the traditional mode of response(the control group and/or its subgroup of Native Indianstudents)?The dependent variable in Part D of this research is thenumber of observations made in science experiments as counted8by judges. The numbers are based on two in—class sciencelabs/experiments, pre— and posttest measures. The centralquestion here is:1. Do students who have been responded to in writing bytheir science teacher using the open—process mode ofresponse (the experimental group and/or its subgroup ofNative Indian students) show greater gains in theirapproaches to solving a problem in science as measured inthe posttest than students who have been responded to inwriting by their science teacher using the traditionalmode of response (the control group and/or its subgroupof Native Indian students)?Part E of this study is a teacher interview conducted bythe researcher with both participating teachers (English andscience) that consists of nineteen questions about attitudesand uses of writing in subject area classrooms. The sameinterview was used as both a pre— and posttest measure. Theparticipating teachers (English and science) maintainedindividual journals in which they recorded their attitudestoward the use of response journals and the two modes ofteacher response (open process/traditional) in both theirexperimental group and control group. The following researchquestions are central to Part E of this study:1. Does the use of response journals affect teacherattitudes toward the types of writing they use in theirclassrooms?92. Does the use of two modes of teacher response (openprocess/traditional) by the same teacher affect changesin attitude toward the use of either response in theteacher?The hypotheses, both directional and null, wereconstructed for each of the research questions. Since theyconstitute ten pages in the body of the thesis, to save spacethey have been placed in Appendix Y.Definition of TermsFor the purpose of this study key terms are defined asfollows:a) ‘Response journal’ is “. . .a responsive form of writing inwhich the student and teacher carry on a conversation overtime, sharing ideas, feelings and concerns [about what thestudent is learning] in writing” (Staton, 1987, 47).b) ‘Traditional Teacher Response’ is directive, informing orcorrective, not unlike Hillocks’ (1986) presentational mode ofinstruction.c) ‘Open—process Teacher Response’ is student—centeredwritten responses that are sometimes personal but alwayspositive and non—threatening to the ideas expressed (Fuiwiler,1987).LimitationsThe conclusions that can be drawn from this study arelimited by the following considerations:101. Teacher bias. It was believed that, at the onset ofthe experiment, because both the science and English teachershad consented to participate in this study, it might show awillingness to incorporate writing in their classroominstruction. Such willingness at the outset might haveindicated a bias toward writing to learn and resulted in amore enthusiastic and highly motivated approach to thetreatment groups receiving open—process response.12. Instrumentation. The potential bias in self—reportmeasures is a problem with no satisfactory solution (Borg andGall, 1989). A number were used in this study: a) an attitudemeasure, b) teacher interviews, and c) teachers’ logs. Toa certain extent, the response journals themselves, can alsobe regarded as self—report measures.Therefore, this study cannot state with certainty to whatdegree subjects’ responses reflect their true attitudes.Neither could this study control for the ‘masking’ by thescience teacher that hid his true attitude.3. Generalizability. Because the population of thejunior high school from which the sample is being drawn is notsimilar on one critical feature--degree of multiethnicity—-tothe two other junior highs in the same school district,The opposite proved to be true to varying degrees inthe case of both teachers. In the case of the scienceteacher, no science data could be analyzed because thisteacher failed to fulfill the expectations of the experimentaldesign. In the case of the English teacher, data may havebeen contaminated by his interpretation and delivery of thetreatment which was different than that envisioned by theresearch design.11generalizations can be made only to the population of thisparticular school.“The P & R Writing Attitude Form” was adapted andimproved to meet the needs of this study. As a result, thegeneralizability (of the findings regarding attitudes) toother studies is also difficult.4. Loss of subjects. Because subjects were lost prior tothe treatment but after randomization procedures had takenplace and during the course of the experiment, the reductionin sample size made it difficult to find statisticallysignificant differences between the experimental and controlgroups. Furthermore, the initiation of an alternate programthat included most Native Indian students in the grade-ninepopulation from which the subjects were drawn resulted in theloss of this subgroup from the experiment.5. Loss of data. Due to the lack of cooperation of oneof the teachers, data were not collected so the power of thestatistical analysis was greatly reduced.6. Extraneous variable--course content. The chemistryunit that was taught during the course of the experiment mayhave been an inappropriate match for the integral measure used(response journals).In the English classes, with the exception of theresponse journals, the course content was traditional (i.e.,chapter questions, quizzes, and tests). In the case of thetreatment group, this may have been a confounding factor.12CHAPTER TWOTHE RELATED RESEARCHThe process approach to the teaching of composition hasbeen accepted as the new norm both in theory and, to a lesserdegree, in the classroom. As part of this approach, the useof student response journals has also been firmly establishedas a vehicle for writing to learn. Case study research aboutthe use of response journals applauds the success of such avehicle. However, few of the investigations of writtencomposition inquire into the relationship between what astudent writes in his/her response journal and the ensuingteacher comments.The current study pursues five strands of inquiry: a) theeffects of two modes of teacher written response on students’attitudes toward writing, b) the effects of two modes ofteacher written response on students’ writing skills, c) theeffects of two modes of teacher written response on students’abilities to solve science problems, d) the effects of twomodes of teacher written response on the above variables fora specific subgroup——Native Indians, and e) teacher attitudestoward the use of response journals in their content areas.The review of relevant research incorporates findings fromthese areas.Because the paradigm shift in research on compositionfrom product to process has resulted in questions and concernsfundamental to any major shift in perspective, an overview13attempts first to place this study in an historical contextand second to outline some of the concerns stemming from thechange which have given this study direction.Once this context is established, the review of theresearch focuses on the more specific components——the effectsof teacher response on attitude, writing performance andpotential interactions between approach and culturalvariables--related to this study.Composing: The Historical ContextWriting as composing is a relatively new subject, lessthan a century old (Zemelman and Daniels, 1988). In colonialschools writing used to mean handwriting; the composition bystudents of original stories, poems or reports thoughtunnecessary. Unfortunately, the methods of evaluatingcomposition’s predecessors (penmanship, spelling, grammar andrhetoric) have been inherited by it. Concern with superficialfeatures and correctness of form were appropriate in theevaluation of such disciplines. That teachers have markedintensively for these same qualities in composition featurescan be thus accounted for historically. “To us, intensivecorrection is the standard, responsible professional way ofresponding to a piece of imperfect student work” (Zemelman andDaniels, 1988, 205).14The so—called process model, viewed in thiscontext, far from being a radical or partisaninnovation, is simply the next developmentalstage. We certainly needn’t be intimidated bythe weight of one paltry century of tradition(Zemelman and Daniels, 1988, 216).But does the traditional approach work? The research andliterature suggest that it does not. As the findings from theNational (U.S.) Assessment demonstrate (in Zemelman andDaniels, 1988), as the research studied by Hillocks (1986) andothers illustrate and as the case studies presented byteachers confirm, such an approach to the teaching andevaluation of writing not only does not work but may have theopposite effect.The Traditional Paradigm of Writing InstructionThe traditional method of writing instruction emphasizesexpository writing, neglects creativity and makes thedevelopment of a detached style its main objective (Applebee,1981; Britton, 1975; Marland et al., 1977; Raphael et al.,1989). The dominance of impersonal writing in school can beattributed to “...an implicit belief that progress in writingis associated with movement away from personal language towardmore abstract and impersonal formulations” (Britton, 1975, 8).The adherents of the traditional paradigm view writingcourses as ‘service courses’ and ‘skills courses’. Such aview ignores the importance of writing as a tool for learningand means of development (Britton, 1975; Fuiwiler, 1987;Marland et al., 1977; Moffett, 1968; Torbe, 1980).15For the most part, composing in schools has beenproduct—oriented and as a result the teaching of writing andits evaluation have been based on the finished product.Students have been repeatedly shown what is wrong with theirwriting, error monitoring the primary function of teachers.The effectiveness of such final—product comments is negligibleaccording to available research (Hillocks, 1986). “Thewriting is not seen as part of the learning process but assomething which happens after the learning” (Torbe, 1980).The traditional method of writing instruction emphasizesexpository writing and ignores the developmental nature andpotential of writing to learn by asking students to confinethe audience and purpose for their writing to teacher andevaluation (Applebee, 1981; Raphael et al., 1989). Therestrictive nature of teacher/examiner as audience...distort[s] the student’s focus on adeeper involvement with the centralideas, placing emphasis instead on theteacher’s desire to elicit the kind ofpaper he or she might write (Heller,1989, 211).That the traditional product paradigm does not meet thegoals and expectations of writing literacy is clear. Thequestion is, “Why?”. Maxine Hairston (1982) in her essay “TheWinds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in theTeaching of Writing” states, among other problems that itdoesn’t address certain crucial aspects of writing: a) contentover form, b) the recursive nature of composing and C) thefact that instruction in writing is more than instruction in16editing. In Shaughnessy’s (1982) view, it doesn’t enable usto “understand what goes on in the internal act of writing...and to intervene during the act of writing if we want toaffect its outcome” (in Hairston,p.84). As a result thisdecades—old approach broke down. Product—based research incomposition is being replaced by process based investigation.To eliminate the evaluative, judgemental and restrictivefactors as aspects of audience for at least some of studentwriting frees students to search for their own meaningsintheir own language (Britton, 1975; Fulwiler, 1987; Johnston,1983; Marland et al., 1977; Moffett, 1968).Writing Across the CurriculumThe goals and aims of writing across the curriculum aredifficult to argue with. At its theoretical base is thebelief that writing as a form of language is not just a formof communication but an important tool for learning (Applebee,1984; Fulwiler, 1987; Gere, 1985; Langer and Applebee, 1987).Writing across the curriculum implies that subjectspecialists will teach their students the specialized forms ofwriting used in their subject areas. Thus, all teachersbecome teachers of writing. “In schools where writing is usedacross the curriculum, students’ writing performance growsstrongly” (Zemelman and Daniels, 1988, 28).Even though the objectives of “Writing Across theCurriculum” are educationally sound, available evidencesuggests that the movement has failed to be implemented to anysignificant degree. Nowhere is this more glaringly stated17than in Arthur Applebee’s Writing in the Secondary Schools:English and the Content Areas (1981). The majority of writingtasks that students undertake in the secondary schools arelimited to notetaking, answering study or essay test questionsand copying (Applebee, 1981; Britton, 1971; Marland, 1977).Applebee’s study (1981) indicated that of all the writingstudents did in all subject areas less than one half of onepercent could be, in Britton’s (1975) term, called‘expressive’. Writing as a tool for learning and means ofdevelopment is essentially ignored (Britton, 1975; Fulwiler,1987; Marland et al., 1977; Moffett, 1968; Torbe, 1980).The Applebee report can be considered a “best case” studyfor the writing since only those teachers recommended by theirprincipals as ‘superior’ were involved. In the year ofobservations spent in classrooms across the content areas,forty—four percent of observed time was spent in writing. Ofthis, twenty—four percent was spent on mechanics and twentypercent on recording information. Of this twenty percent,seventeen percent was spent on notetaking. Actual writing ofmore than a paragraph in length was observed as two percent ofclass time. Further evidence suggests that even when teachersare willing to incorporate writing as a means of facilitatinglearning, its implementation is not easily integrated (Langerand Applebee, 1987). When implemented it is often a facadebehind which the “static and insular” ways (Rose, 1981, 65) ofprevious mechanistic approaches to the teaching of writinghide.18Since Applebee’s (1981) landmark study eleven years ago,articles have been written to extend the argument forpromoting writing in the content areas (Applebee, 1984) andtexts published to aid teachers in the practical applicationof writing theory in their content areas (Gere, 1985; Moore etal., 1988). However, the literature reveals little to suggestthat the movement has been implemented to any greater degreethan it was before the Applebee (1981) study.The Writing Process and the New Paradigm of WritingInstructionHairston (1982) sees this “...traditional prescriptiveand product centred paradigm that underlines writinginstruction...beginning to crumble”(p.82).Through controlled and directed research studies onwriters’ composing processes, we are beginning to find out howpeople think as they write. The new paradigm for teachingwriting is based on these findings and focuses on the writingprocess as well as the product.We know that competent writers do a great deal ofplanning (Hayes and Flower, 1980; Matsuhashi, 1981; Perl,1979; Pianko, 1979), that this planning involves a great dealof production time (Matsuhashi, 1981), and that planning cantake place at any time during the writing process (Calkins,1979; Emig, 1971; Scardamalia, Bereiter and Goelman, 1982).Donald Murray estimated that “...70 to 85 percent of thewriting process is prewriting of some type” (in Kelly andSmall, 1985, 2). Hayes and Flower also show the importance of19prewriting activities in the form of generating ideas prior toformulating a plan, outlining or making a statement. Thisstage in the writing process, the generation of ideas, is thefocus of this study, although it cannot rightly be called astage as...usually the writing process is not linear,moving smoothly in one direction from start tofinish. It is messy, recursive, convoluted,and uneven (Hairston, 1982, 85).The New Paradicnu: Talk-Write ConnectionsInterrelationships between writing development and thedevelopment of oral skills have often been discussed byphilosophers and linguists. We learn by talking (Sapir, 1961;Vygotsky, 1978).It is through the enormous variety of dialoguewith others that we gather together the linguisticresources to dialogue in our heads; there isnowhere else to get them from. Restrict the natureand quality of that dialogue and ultimately yourestrict thinking capacity (Rosen in Barnes et al.,1971, 126).By talking to others we can explore new knowledge, verifyold knowledge, agree or disagree on new meanings (Barnes etal., 1971). In this sense, talking is important but thesocial psychologist, Vygotsky (1978), sees writing as moredirectly connected to inner thought than speech. In speech,conversation is ‘other directed’ and ‘unconstrained’, thefocus of thought directed by the response of another. “Inwritten dialogues, the closeness of the writing to one’sthoughts is retained” (Staton, 1987, 55).20Vygotsky implies that the function of talk as explorationcan be focused through “. . .personal, near—to—speech reflectivewriting. . .and in addition provide opportunities for sustainedreporting and reflection which talk does not” (Martin, 1983,150). Moffett (1968) supports this statement in his beliefthat written down ‘monologue’ forms the best basis forwriting. Such a ‘naturalistic’ approach to the teaching ofwriting is more focused on the ‘cognitive growth of thelearner’. Skillful oral language development doesnot takeplace through intensive correction of faulty usage patterns.As parents and teachers we tend to listen and try to makesense of the content of the utterance. Content rather thanform is valued (Zemelman and Daniels, 1988). Providingopportunities to write in a ‘speech—like’ context can achievethis purpose and can effectively provide a bridge to theperformance of more formal writing tasks required in the upperlevels of secondary schools and post—secondary learninginstitutions (Staton et al., 1988; Yinger, 1985).[D]ialogue journal writing is one powerfulmeans of bridging the gap between the oral languagecompetence that students already possess and thecompetence necessary for writing extended proseunassisted (Staton et al., 1988, 91).The New Paradigm: Read-Write ConnectionsMany students read and write with great difficulty,especially in the content areas. How does one help studentsto learn and understand the informative prose that is the normfor most textbooks and reading requirements in subject areasother than English? Furthermore, how does one help students21explore their own personal connections with a piece ofliterary text before handing it in to be graded? Writing tolearn (Gere, 1985) rather than as something to be learned canaid students in discovering meaning in texts for themselves.Students can discover meaning through writing if they areuninhibited by the superficial expectations of style,structure and mechanics that interfere with the generation ofideas. Pianko (1979) and Shaughnessy (1977) suggest that somewriters, when their written product is primarily forevaluation, become so preoccupied with the mechanics ofwriting that the quality is adversely affected. Students needopportunities to express their ideas fully without worryingabout correctness until a later draft (Britton, 1975; Langerand Applebee, 1987; Hillocks, 1986).One solution might be to distinguish betweenthings that children write that are essentiallytheir own learning operations (using their ownformulations and expressions) on the one hand, andon the other hand the things that they write whichare presentations of information for other people(Marland, 1977, 168).If we give students the freedom to “...actively exploreconnections between the language of their world and thelanguage of the text,” (Johnston, 1983) through writing, theywill be making a personal commitment through their owninterpretations.An engaged reader contributes some things(interpretation) to the reading of the text while the textcontributes some other things. The meaning is composed byboth the reader and writer so that the “pattern of expression”22is “...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 forscaffolding (Langer and Applebee, 1987) on which students canbe guided to greater understanding (Crowhurst and Kooy, nodate). Such a vehicle for engaging the reader with the textis writing—to—learn through response journals.Writing to Learn through Response Journals0, the comfort, the inexpressible comfort offeeling safe with a person, neither having to weighthoughts nor measure words, but pouring them rightout, just as they are, chaff and grain alike;certain that a faithful hand will take and siftthem, keep what is worth keeping and then with thebreath of kindness, blow the rest away (GeorgeEliot in Fuiwiler, 1987, 47).Researchers are realizing that the power of entering intojust such a responsive dialogue as that expressed by GeorgeEliot is inherent in the informal language of responsejournals. Leading scholars of language argue that people makemeaning of the world through their own personal uses oflanguage (Britton, 1971; Emig, 1971; Johnston, 1983; Moffett,1968; Shaughnessy, 1977).The importance of writing as a tool for learning andmeans of development cannot be ignored (Britton, 1975;Fuiwiler, 1987; Gere, 1985; Langer and Applebee, 1987; Torbe,1980). Expressive writing can aid in this development betterthan any other form of instruction (Hayes and Flower, 1980;Moffett, 1968) “. . .and is likely to be both the mostaccessible mode for young writers and the key to developing23confidence and range in using written language” (Britton,1975, 42). In the expressive mode a writer “. . .feels free tojump from facts to speculation to personal anecdote toemotional outburst and none of it will be taken down and usedagainst him...”(p.137).Teachers, in all subject areas, have found that whenstudents write about what they are reading, listening to, andtalking about in their classes they “. . . understand betterwhatthey know, don’t want to know——and how it all relates to them”(Fuiwiler, 1987, 6). Writing “...has value in and for itself”(Gere, 1985, 4). The current study explores the use ofresponse journals in two subject area classrooms (science andEnglish) in order to provide students with opportunities forwriting to learn in just this way.Instructional Approach and Attitude toward WritingIt is assumed that improved attitude to writing may leadto improved quality of writing. Modifying of attitudes isseen as critical because, as John Daly (1988) observes, “Apositive attitude about writing is associated with, and mayeven be a critical precursor of, the successful developmentand maintenance of writing skills”(p.44). The use ofresponse journals in the present study explores the connectionbetween two differing instructional approaches (openprocess/traditional) and student attitudes toward writing, thesubject and/or the teacher.The traditional approach, as conceived in this study, canbe considered an aspect of Hillocks’ (1986) ‘presentational’24mode in that “...users of the mode assumethat...knowledge isbest conveyed directly in the form of verbalformulas, rules,examples, or admonitions”(p.118). Although the responsejournals in both experimental and control groups provideopportunities for teacher feedback prior to final productevaluation, the mode of response in the control groups isdirecting and critical throughout.In contrast, the open—process mode of teacher responseused in the experimental groups’ response journals can beconsidered an aspect of ‘natural process’ (Hillocks, 1986)with the teacher as ‘facilitator’ and ongoing feedback“...usually designated as being positive” (p. 129).This study attempts to build on and extend the knowledgeabout teacher written feedback and its effect on students’writing skills and attitudes toward writing as reported andsynthesized in Hillocks’ meta-analysis (1986) by concentratingon one of his recommendations for research. Because only afew of the studies available for the meta-analysis stipulated“...positive feedback in one treatment and negative in theother”(p.221), this study extends the knowledge aboutresearch in composition by asking, “Will there be a differencebetween conditions of positive (open—process response) andnegative (traditional response) feedback?”25Instructional Approach and Growth in Writing AbilityCarroll (1984), Hillocks (1986), and Clifford (1981)indicate that a process approach toward instruction leads toan improved product. Stein (1984) suggested that theenvironmental approach (Hillocks 1986) may owe its success toincreased opportunities for feedback. The use of responsejournals provides for this feedback at the prewriting stagethrough teacher comments.Teaching Style: Methods of ImplementationMost of our knowledge about the effects of teachingmethods on student learning and attitudes comes from studieson the verbal interactions between teachers and students.However, one recent study by Peyton and Seyoum (1989)investigates the ways in which a teacher’s strategies used inwritten dialogue with her students inhibit or promote studentinvolvement in the dialogue. This study shows that employinginteractive strategies that are responsive to what a studentwrites rather than directing can result in the promotion ofstudent writing. Although the findings indicate “...thatteacher strategy may affect student response to somedegree, . . . it is not the only determining factor”(p.329).However, over time, students write longer and more elaborateentries in their journals when the teacher’s responses areless controlling and more responsive to the content of whatthey have written. Moreover, research on motivation impliesthat even enjoyable activities can become tedious should thesubject feel he is being ‘controlled’ (Bowman, 1983, 63).26Native Indian StudentsSchools as institutions of learning in thiscountry (the U.S.A.) are set up to accommodatestyles of teaching and learning which areincongruent with the traditional values and stylesof learning that characterize many AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native students (Swisher, 1990, 36).Concern about the high rate of Native Indian studentsdropping out of school continues in both the United States andCanada but the problem is still unsolved (LeBrasseurandFreark, 1982). The forced assimilation of NativeIndianstudents as opposed to integration may account for their lackof success in our school systems (LeBrasseur and Freark, 1982;Rhodes, 1988; Swisher, 1990).Swisher (1990) in her synthesis of the literaturepertaining to the learning styles of Native Indiansfound welldocumented evidence of learning styles among Native Indianswhich seem to be culturally patterned; prevalent among them isa “...constant fear of standingout”(p.37). Rhodes (1988)advocates indivualizing instruction that takes intoconsideration different “... learning styles for differentstudents”(p.28) and stresses “. . . non—threateningevaluations”(p.26).Effective teachers of Indian students create a caringatmosphere (Kleinfeld, 1975; Swisher, 1990). Their role inthe classroom is one of mentor rather than judge. Supportivecomments rather than critical evaluation (regardless of howwell meaning) dominate. Their effectiveness stems from aninteractional style of instruction (Kleinfeld, 1975) thatdownplays competitive styles of learning and emphasizes27co—operative learning styles (LeBrasseur and Freark, 1982;Swisher, 1990).“Indian teachers tend to utilize a cluster of teachingstrategies which are consistent with Indian cultures...”(Herbert and Barman, 1987, 3). Response journals, whereinteachers are supportive and nonevaluative in their comments,could be such an effective strategy.Context of the Present StudyA review of the literature has shown that the pardignshift from product to process has been accompanied byquestions, concerns, insecurities and conflict within thediscipline and across the curriculum. This transition is apart of the emergence of a new norm.Concurrent with the shift from product based research toa process—oriented inquiry has been a broadened scope ofinquiry. The use of dialogue/response journals figures greatlyin the new case study reports and research on composing.Motivation and attitude toward writing are also seen to beimportant avenues of research, providing insight intostudents’ ‘willingness to perform’ (Peyton and Seyoum, 1989).The present study extends the understanding of the use ofresponse journals as part of a process approach to writing byexamining the effects of two different modes of teacherresponse (open process/traditional) to what students write intheir journals on their attitudes and writing ability. Theinvestigation does so by comparing two experimental groups(one in English and one in science) with control groups. As28well, the study pursues inquiry into the effects of two modesof teacher response on a specific subgroup, Native Indians.The effects on the attitudes of participating teachers towardthe use of response journals in their classrooms is alsoexamined.29CHAPTER THREEPROCEDURESDesign of the StudyThe purpose of the present study, as outlined in ChapterOne, is fivefold. The primary objective is to investigatewhether students writing to learn in response journals inEnglish and science classes who received the ‘open—process’treatment show more positive attitudes toward writing than dothose students who received the ‘traditional’ treatment. Thesecond objective is to examine, using the response journals asthe measure, whether students who received the ‘open—process’treatment show more positive attitudes toward writing, theresponse journal itself, and/or the teacher than thosestudents who received the ‘traditional’ treatment. The thirdobjective is to discover whether students from the ‘open—process’ treatment group in English show greater improvementin writing ability than do students from the ‘traditional’treatment group in English. The fourth objective is todetermine whether students from the ‘open—process’ treatmentgroup in science show greater gains in their approaches tosolving a problem in science than do students from the‘traditional’ treatment group in science. The fifth objectiveis to investigate whether the subgroup of Native Indianstudents who received the ‘open—process’ treatment whilewriting to learn in response journals in English and scienceclasses shows more positive growth in attitude, writingability and/or problem solving on all measures indicated above30than Native Indian students who received the ‘traditional’treatment. The final objective is to discover whether the useof response journals and two modes of teacher response have aneffect on the attitudes of subject area teachers towardstudents writing to learn in their classrooms.The methodology in this study included: 1) randomlyassigning, by computer, the grade—nine population of a juniorhigh school (grades seven to nine) in British Columbia toscience and English classes, 2) pilot testing the attitudemeasure twice, 3) pilot testing, with the participatingteachers, two modes of teacher response on intact grade—sevenand eight— classes during term one of the year treatmenttook place, 4) delivering the treatment, 5) selectinginstruments to be used in the scoring and coding of data, and6) analyzing the results. Figure 1 is a flow chart showingthe design of the study.Subjectsi) The Students: The subjects were grade—nine studentsselected from the total grade-nine population of a junior highschool in British Columbia that serves students in gradesseven, eight and nine. The school is multi-ethnic with a highratio of Native Indian students to non—Native, approximatelyone to five.31Group AGrade 9English_____________a.Group B7IGroup CGrade 9 Grade 9English ScienceRANDOM ASSIGNMENT OF CONTROL GROUPS:A or E and D or G4-ADMINISTER ATTITUDE MEASURE - ALL GROUPS‘J,ADMINISTER SCIENCE PROBLEM - GROUPS A AND EpMINISTER WRITING MEASURE - GROUPS D AND G]Group G Group DControlLiterature InstructionResponse JournalsTeacher 1Traditional OpenResponse ResponseGroup A Group EControlScience InstructionResponse JournalsTeacher 2Open TraditionalResponse Response —1’ - - -I_ADMINISTER_SCIENCEPROBLEM - GROUPS A AND EIADMINISTER WRITING MEASURE - GROUPS G AND DI_ADMINISTERATTITUDE MEASURE - ALL GROUPSINTERVIEW TEACHERS]ANALYZEATA22Science data were not analyzed because the scienceteacher failed to fulfill the requirements of theexperimentaldesign.FIGURE 1DESIGN OF THE STUDYPILOT TEST ATTITUDE MEASUREITERVIEWTEACHERSSTRATIFIED RANDOM ASSIGNMENT OF SUBJECTS TOGroup DGrade 9Science1%32A stratified random assignment procedurewas followed toensure that Native Indian students were represented in eachclass in proportion to their numbers in the total grade—ninepopulation. All ninth-grade pupils in the school were dividedinto two groups: Native and non—Native. By stratifiedrandomassignment, students were assigned by computer to one of fourclasses, two English and two science. New registrations wereadded to existing classes during the first term preceding thetreatment term through the use of a random assignment tabledesigned for this purpose. The classes were composed of fourunique populations of approximately twenty—four students each.No students were added to the experiment’s four classes oncethe treatment began. Students transferring out of theexperiment’s four classes before the end of the treatment werenot included in the data base.ii) The Teachers: One full—time science teacher, who isalso department head, consented to participate in the study.He had twenty years of experience teaching science at thejunior high level.The teacher of English (who is also the spouse of theresearcher) had seventeen years of teaching experience at avariety of levels and schools. He is a full time employee aswell but divides his time between teaching English half timeand counselling. He is presently the head of the counsellingdepartment at his school. Each teacher taught both thecontrol group and experimental group in his subject area.33Attrition“Robert Goodrich and Robert St. Pierre estimated that 20percent attrition per year is a realistic level for planning”(in Borg & Gall, 1989, 235).Normal registration for grade—nine classes at the juniorhigh school is between twenty-four and twenty-eight studentsper class. The overall attrition rates for grade nines inthis particular school over the past three years have been:i. 1987 — 1988: sixteen and one half percent, ii. 1988 —1989: twenty—one percent, and iii. 1989 — 1990: eighteenpercent with the average attrition rate over the three yearsof eighteen and one half percent.Attrition occurs for several reasons. In the case ofthis particular population attrition occurs due to thetransitory nature of the Native Indian population amongreservations and the instability of the primary industry,logging/pulp and paper, in the community which this schoolserves. The experimental class in English began with twenty—five students, finishing the treatment term with twenty-twofor an attrition rate of twelve percent. The control groupin English began with twenty-five students, finishing thetreatment term with twenty—one for an attrition rate ofsixteen percent. The experimental class in science originallyhad twenty-six students registered with twenty-four completingfor an attrition rate of eight percent. The control class inscience began with twenty students and ended with nineteen foran attrition rate of five percent. The overall rate of34attrition by the end of the experiment was ten percent,indicating that participants in the experiment withdrew at arate dissimilar from the ‘realistic’ withdrawal rate suggestedby Goodrich and St. Pierre. A possible explanation for thelow attrition rate of the grade-nine population during theyear this experiment took place is the establishment of analternate program within the school that included most grade-nine Native Indian students.TreatmentsTwo Modes of Teacher ResponseThe terms ‘open—process’ and ‘traditional’ in referenceto teacher mode of written response have been defined inChapter One and are described here specific to the treatment.This section will elaborate by specifying the methods andmaterials used in the two treatments, open process andtraditional.Of the four instructional groups, two in science and twoin English, one in each subject area was randomly assigned tobe the control group. The same teacher instructed both thecontrol group and the treatment group for each subject. Allstudents in all four groups maintained response journals.Teachers issued parallel guidelines for the use of studentresponse journals (Appendix C) to all four classes.Instruction in both English classes (literature) wasparallel as was that in the science classes. The experimentalgroups differed from the control groups in each subject area35on one variable only——the mode of teacher response to whatstudents wrote in their journals. The control groups for boththe English and science classes received written reactions towhat they wrote in their journals in the traditional responsemode. The experimental group received open—process responses.i) The Open—process Mode of ResponseThe open—process mode of response as implemented in thestudy required the teacher to make student—centered writtenresponses that were positive and non—threatening to the ideasstudents expressed in their journals in an endeavor to makewriting “...part of the learning process...” (Torbe, 1980).This mode of response also used student response journals tofocus on the idea/generation rehearsing stage of the writingprocess (Hayes and Flower, 1980), often called prewriting, asa 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 expresstheir opinions, make observations, ask questions and so on intheir journals about the text When the Legends Die by HalBorland. Students then handed in their responses forcomment(s) from their teacher. The teacher would comment, inpencil, and return the journals to the students at thebeginning of the next English class thus initiating andmaintaining a written dialogue that was warm and accepting ofthe students’ ideas. Students were encouraged to use theirresponse journals as a source for ideas when planning thecontent of their posttest essays. Examples of teacher36responses that are in the open process—mode of response areprovided in Appendix D. In science classes students wereencouraged to use their response journals in reference to thechemistry unit they were being taught in class.ii) The Traditional Mode of ResponseThe traditional mode of response required the teacher tomake written comments that were directive, informing and/orcorrective in response to what students wrote in theirjournals. Teacher comments (Appendix D) resemble those thatcan be found on a finished product. Usage errors are redcircled. Students are shown what is wrong with their ideas aswell. The dialogue thus initiated is one based on evaluation.As in the open—process mode of response, students in theEnglish classes were encouraged to use their response journalsas a source for ideas when planning the content of theirposttest essays.English classes—-course contentThe course content for both English classes was parallel,centering around a novel study of When the Legends Die by HalBorland. See Appendix E for English course outline. A pretestand posttest essay (Appendix F), each preceded by one lessonon the writing of essays (Appendix G), were included in thecourse content. Both the pretest measure and the posttestmeasure were marked by the subject area teacher as part of theterm mark before handing in as data for research purposes.37Science Classes——course contentThe course content for both science classes was parallel,centering around an introductory chemistry unit based onScience Probe 9. Labs, quizzes and tests were used toevaluate student progress throughout the term. See AppendixH for course outline. A pretest experiment, “The Candle”,(Appendix I) and a posttest experiment, “Mixing Chemicals”,(Appendix J) were included as part of the course content inscience. Lab write—ups for both experiments in all fourclasses were marked by the subject area teacher for part ofthe term mark before collection for research purposes.Pilot StudyPrior to the treatment period, in preparation for theresearóh experiment, teachers received coaching in both modesof response, practice in both modes (with present intactclasses) and collaborated with the researcher as to theparameters of teacher response that would be adhered to ineach group throughout the treatment period. The teacher ofEnglish practised on an intact grade—seven literature classand the science teacher practised on an intact grade—eightscience class. Each class was divided in half, one—halfdesignated as the control group and the other as theexperimental group. This coaching session was for the purposeof practising teacher responses in the two modes only sorandom assignment of students to groups was irrelevant.Teachers asked students to respond to what they werelearning in class following “Guidelines for Student Responses”38(Appendix C). Initial responses were collected and bothteachers met with the researcher on the same day in order toformulate responses to what the students had written. The twomodes of teacher response followed the guidelines set up inAppendix D. Examples were provided of a writing sample towhich both modes of teacher response had been used (AppendixK). Coaching sessions took place over a period of two weeksduring which six practise response sessions took place.Measures UsedPart A: The P & R Writing Attitude Form (adapted)Part A of this study consists of an attitude surveytoward writing (Appendix L) that is based on and adapted from“The P & R Writing Attitude Form” (Appendix M). “The P & RWriting Attitude Form” is a Likert-type scale that hasas itsbasis four categories: source, audience, response,andpurpose. Source can be defined as that from which theassignment originated (e.g. textbook topic); audience--by whomthe assignment will be read (e.g. examiner or peer group);response——how the assignment will be evaluated (e.g. no gradeor peer evaluation); and purpose——why the assignment waswritten (e.g. self—understanding or to give information).More detailed definitions for each category are located inAppendix N. Free choice and personal expression versusteacher choice and school assignment are designated asopposing concepts on the scale.To ensure that the college—level vocabulary of “The P &R Writing Attitude Form” had been adapted to a grade-nine39readability level and that the interpretations students madestill adhered to those intended by their initial categories(Appendix 0), the proposed attitude measure was pilot testedwith an intact grade-nine class in June of 1990. Studentswere asked to make note of any words they had difficulty inunderstanding. Their suggestions were incorporated in theadapted version.In August of 1990, following the suggestion of theresearcher’s thesis committee, “The P & R Writing AttitudeForm” was further adapted so that students responded tostatements rather than to opposing, single—word choices. Itis believed that this format is more clearly understood bygrade-nine subjects. The original form is also lengthy,comprised of fifty—two items. These items were reduced totwenty—nine statements in the final survey form because manyof the items were believed to be redundant. The criteria wereto make the survey clear and understandable, easy toadminister, and brief while still maintaining the integrity ofthe four initial categories of source, audience, response andpurpose of/for writing. In addition two practise questionswere included, one related to writing and one unrelated(Appendix L), for subjects to practise on first duringadministration of the attitude measure.A second pilot test of the measure was conducted inSeptember 1990. Six grade—nine students, who were notparticipants in the experiment, were asked to complete themeasure using a think—aloud protocol that was tape recorded.40This record of misinterpretations (interpretations that werenot intended in the adaptation) and difficulties students hadin understanding particular words facilitated in furtheradapting the instrument so that differences observed betweenthe pretest and the posttest can not be attributed to themeasure. The same measure was administered for both the pre—and posttest. See Appendix X for a detailed description ofalterations and modifications made to the original measure asa result of each pilot test.Part B: Student Response Journals--The Chronological ChartA chronological chart (Appendix P) was kept for each studentwhich is a record of possible reflections of changes inattitude toward:i. writing,ii. the response journal itself,andiii. the teacher.Frequency of the following modes and formal features instudent response journals was tabulated for each week over thecourse of the twelve-week treatment period. It is believedthat the more often a student made use of these modes andfeatures, the greater he/she valued some aspect of writing.Definitions for categories and types of entries are located inAppendixQ.With the exceptions of numbers 5, 8, 9, and 11,the definitions for modes and formal features are those ofToby Fulwiler in his “Introduction” to The Journal Book (1987,3). Because the present study is an exploratory study, thedata may indicate a need for further or different categories.41Modes:i. Observations, interpretations, evaluations.ii. Insights, understanding.iii. 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).xiv. Self—sponsored entries.xv. Organization and Neatness.Part C: Holistic Marking ScalePart C of this study required an instrument to measurewriting quality. A criterion-based scale (Appendix R) waschosen which would allow for both overall ratings andsubscores for: a) content and organization, and b) mechanics.The subscores are weighted equally——fifteen points for contentand organization and fifteen points for mechanics——for a totalof thirty points.42Part D: Science Experiments——ObservationsPart D of this study required an instrument to measurestudent growth in solving problems in science. Thenumber ofobservations made in two science experiments——a pretest(Appendix I) and posttest (Appendix J)--was counted.Part E: Teacher Interviews/Teacher Personal LogsPre— and post—interviews were conducted with bothparticipating teachers using the same measure (Appendix S) inorder to ascertain any changes in their attitude toward theuse of response journals in their classrooms. In addition,the teachers were requested to maintain personal logsthroughout the duration of the experiment in which theyrecorded their perceptions on various aspects of theexperiment.Collection of DataSix kinds of data were collected: an attitude survey,student response journals, writing samples, science experimentobservations, teacher interviews and teacher personal logs.The schedule for administering the measures used, the criteriafor their administration and the procedures used for thecollection of each data set are explained in this section.43Part A: Completionof the Questionnaire on Attitude towardWritingThe attitude measure(Appendix L) was administeredimmediately before and immediatelyafter the twelve-week(one—term) experimental period.All four experimental groupswere administered the surveyby the researcher at thebeginning of their firstsecond-term classes (November 1990)and at the end of term (February1991). They were given thenecessary time to completethe form, approximately twenty tothirty minutes. If any questionswere asked, the researcheranswered them. Students whowere absent for the survey werecalled out of class during theresearcher’s next preparationblock to be administered thesurvey. Questionnaires werecoded in order to ensure anonymity.Part B: Student Response JournalsTo ensure that instructionwas parallel in both Englishclasses and both science classes, thesame teacher taught boththe control group and theexperimental group. Instruction inEnglish classes centered arounda novel study, When theLegends Die by HalBorland. The teacher’s course previewislocated in Appendix E.Instruction in science classescentered around a chemistry unit (seeAppendix H for sciencepreview). Both classes in bothsubject areas were issued thesame assignments, in the sameorder and were given the sameamount of time for completion.All students in all fourclasses were expected to maintain responsejournals in whichthey were to share ideas,feelings, concerns and insights44about what they were reading/and or learning in class.Parallel guidelines for the use of student response journalswere given to all four classes (Appendix C). Subjects wereinformed that their journals would count as twenty percent oftheir second term subject area mark. They were also informedthat they were expected to write in their journals at leastonce a week resulting in a minimum expectation of twelveentries per journal at the end of the term. Class time wasprovided equally to both groups in each subject area forwriting responses to what they were reading and learning inclass.Student response journals were collected at the end ofthe instructional period and coded to ensure anonymity.Part C: The Writing SamplesTwo aspects of the writing samples are explained below:the selection and description of the composition topics andthe writing schedule for the topics.i) Composition TopicsFour topics were selected for use in the current study(Appendix F). These topics were composed by the researcherand deemed acceptable by her faculty advisor. Topics one andtwo were presented to both the control and experimental groupsas choices for writing an in—class essay during the first weekof the experimental period before the novel study and use ofresponse journals were initiated. Topics three and four,parallel to topics one and two, were given as choices in theposttest situation.45Both the pretest and posttest measures were administeredduring a regular fifty-five minute instructional blockpreceded by one class of general instruction in theorganization and purpose for writing essays. The plan forthis lesson is located in Appendix G. Prior to administrationof the posttest measure, the English teacher instructedstudents in both groups to use entries from journals inpreparation for the in—class essay if they so desired.ii) ScheduleThe pretest was administered during the first week ofinstruction in term two (November 1990) and the posttest wasgiven during the last week in term two (February 1991).Part D: The Science ExperimentsTwo aspects of the science experiments are explainedbelow: the selection and description of the scienceexperiments and the schedule for conducting the experiments.i) Experiments——Pre— and Posttest MeasuresTwo science experiments that include observation as theircentral student task were used in this part of the currentstudy (Appendices I and J). Both experiments are alternateversions of each other at the same level of difficulty.ii) ScheduleBoth the control group and the experimental group inscience were administered the pretest experiment (ExperimentOne--The Candle) during the first week of instruction for termtwo (November 1990) and the posttest experiment (Experiment46Two--Mixing Chemicals) during the last week of term two(February 1991).Part E: Teacher Interviews and Personal LogsInterviews (Appendix S) were conducted with bothparticipating teachers (English and science) in order toexamine the effects the use of response journals had on theirattitudes toward writing in their subject areas.Pre—experimental interviews as well as post—experimentalinterviews were conducted with both participating teachers andall interviews were tape recorded. Transcripts of interviewsare located in Appendix T.Since both teachers used the traditional mode of writtenresponse and the open—process mode, changes in attitudestoward this aspect of their writing instruction were examined.In addition, throughout the treatment period, both instructorsmaintained personal logs in order to keep a record of thefollowing:1. observations of behavioural changes in studentsthat could indicate attitude changes toward--a) writing,b) writing in their journals, and/or c) the teacher;2. personal reactions to the use of responsejournals as vehicles for writing to learn in their subjectareas; andAs noted above, all science data were discarded andnot used in the analysis because the science teacher did notfulfill the requirements of the experimental design.473. insights regarding the effects that the natureof their responses have on student attitudes toward——a) writing, b) writing in theirjournals, and/or c) theteacher.Preparation and Scoringof DataFour components of the study were scored and/or coded: anattitude measure, student response journals, writing samplesand science experiment observations. A fifth component,interviews, were conducted and personal logs collected fromthe participating teachers.AnonymityAll data collected from students wereorganized intotreatment groups and arranged alphabetically by surname foreach group. Control group subjects were assigned oddnumbersalphabetically beginning with number one. Experimental groupsubjects were assigned even numbers alphabetically beginningwith number two. All datacollected from individual subjectswere coded with the same number.In addition all members ofthe designated subgroups were assigned the letter S with theircode number. Subject names were thenremoved from all data toensure anonymity.Part A: The Attitude MeasureResponses were tallied for each of the twenty—ninestatements that constitute the Likert scale measure (AppendixL) using a Sentry 2050 computer scanner. Alltallies werethen personally rechecked by the researcher andre—tallied by48hand. No computer errors were found. All studentsparticipating in the survey answered all questions so therewas no need to exclude any student in any itemtally. Thesame procedure as outlined above was then repeated for thetwenty—nine statements according to four categories:a) source, b) audience, c) response, and d) purpose of/forwriting.Only complete data sets wereused. In other words, astudent had to be present for boththe pretest and posttest inorder to be included in the study.Part B: Student Response JournalsThe coding and scoring of student response journals isexplained in four sections: trainingsessions, coding, thescoring of data and how facets were made from theoriginalfifteen features and modes on the chronological chart.i) Training SessionsThree raters were responsible for the coding and scoringof the response journals.One week prior to the trainingsession each received a copy of HalBorland’s When the Legendsand a copy of the “Introduction” toToby Fulwiler’s TheJournal Book in which the modes and formal features used inthe scoring measure (The ChronologicalChart) are defined. Inpreparation for the training session raters were asked to readthese materials.Raters were given a sample chronological chart at thebeginning of the training session, fifteen highlighting pens(all different colours) and one responsejournal each.49Interpretations of the modes and formal features on thechronological chart were discussed. These were then colourcoded with the highlighting pens and dates were entered acrossthe top by week, designating each of the twelve weeks of theexperimental period. This chart became the master key foreach rater.Raters then practised on a response journal which theywould not be responsible for coding by listing examples fromthe journals of modes and features. All examples werediscussed until consensus for understanding of the terms usedand interpretation of student responses was demonstrated bythe raters.ii) CodingStudent response journals were coded according to fifteenmodes and formal features using a chronological chart(Appendix P). Student entries were coded with highlightingpens, each colour corresponding to a different feature ormode.iii) ScoringTwo raters took home one set each of response journals.They were instructed to code ten journals then meet with theresearcher on an individual basis to go over what they haddone. Problems with classification of responses werediscussed and adjusted if necessary. Raters were then askedto complete the set before being issued another set.The third rater was called in to cross check all foursets of journals for consistency and accuracy. Any50discrepancies were brought to the attention of the researcher.She was the final arbiter. In addition, the researcherrandomly checked samples from each set.The following unedited examples from the journalsillustrate how the responses were coded and counted for eachcategory. Each portion of a response that was coded as onefor the designated category is underlined.1) Observations, interpretations, evaluations. Ifeel sorry for Tom because nobody likes orwants him andbecause people take advantage of him.2) Insights, understanding. I believe that this isa philosphical statement.3) Information. .. .the cowhand pays Tom a dollar tolust go get the horse & ride ita bit.4) Revisions. I really don’t know why I picked Meoas being selfish too.5) Creative expressions. As people say, ‘No twopeople are alike.6) Questions. Why did he give up and go back toschool?7) Digressions. When it comes to books I like orare interesting, I can’t stop myself from reading.\Sure Ihave 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?\I know I amcarrincr off the topic and now I will return.518) Confidences. I would never, ever have the courageto 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 namesand by the time I know who a person is they aren’t involvedanymore.10) Speculations. He will never find a woman to loveand never have children.11) Desire to know more. I want to know what happenedto the rest of the characters.An example of how some responses fit simultaneously intomore than one category follows. The same student entry isused to illustrate how it fits into four categories(6—Questions, 9—Frustrations, 10—Speculations, and 11—Desireto know more) concurrently. Each portion of a response thatwas coded as one for the designated category.6) Questions.I really don’t understand what you mean by ‘What do Meoand Tom in common.’ Do you mean that both of their familiesare dead and they have no one but themselves? Or that theyare only hanging around Red because it is a place eat andsleep and for Tom to learn some things about the rest of theworld?\Or both?9) Frustrations.I really don’t understand what you mean by ‘What do Meoand Tom in common.’ Do you mean that both of their familiesare dead and they have no one but themselves? Or that they52are only hanging around Red because it is a place eat andsleep and for Tom to learn some things about the rest of theworld? Or both?10) Speculations.I really don’t understand what you mean by ‘What do Meoand Tom in common.’ Do you mean that both of their familiesare dead and they have no one butthemselves?\Or that theyare only hanging around Red because it is a placeeat andsleep and for Tom to learn some thingsabout the rest of theworld?\Or both?11) Desire to know more.I really don’t understand what you mean by ‘What do Meoand Tom in common.’ Do you mean that both of their familiesare dead and they have no one but themselves?\Or that theyare only hanging around Red because it is a place eat andsleep and for Tom to learn somethings about the rest of theworld?\Or both?Individual totals of coded responses for the fifteenmodes and formal features in each of the three time periodswere entered in a data base, “D—Base Three Plus”. For anexample of how this data base collated the experimental data,see Appendix U. The data base computed overall totals for thefifteen modes and formal features by treatment (experimentaland control) and the three time periods used in theexperiment.53iv) Combining Journal Modes and Features into FacetsThe fifteen modes and formal features were reduced tofive facets following the elimination of: number 12 (Frequencyof entries), number 14 (Self—sponsored entries) and number 15(Organization, neatness). Self—sponsored entries andFrequency were discarded because many students did not datetheir entries making it virtually impossible to discern whichentries were required and which were self—sponsored. Thisinconsistency did not allow for the calculation of entryfrequency for the three time periods of the experiment becauseit was difficult to tell in which time period many entrieswere made. Organization, neatness was discarded as a formalfeature because, with the exception of two journals in theEnglish classes, all were in notebooks or duo—tangs (asrequired by the English teacher). Neatness and organizationappeared to be of consistent quality throughout both theexperimental and control groups’ journals therefore analysisof this feature seemed irrelevant.In the science classes allstudents made their journals during a science class frommaterials provided by the science teacher. Revisions (Facet4) were discarded because minimumscores were barely below themean but maximum scores were much greater which resulted in askewed curve.The remaining features and modes were combined into fivefacets to eliminate redundancies. So that all componentscould be measured on the same scale, raw scores were convertedfirst to z scores then to t scores. Raw scores for journal54length, for example, ranged from 16,925words to 17,783 wordsand would overpower journal questions whichranged from 153 to181. The features and modeswere combined according toperceived similarities and created inthe following manner:Facet One. 1) Observations, interpretations,evaluations was combined with 2) Insights, understanding and3) Information.Facet Two. 5) Creative expressions was combinedwith 7) Digressions and 10)Speculations.Facet Three. 8) Confidences was combined with 9)Frustrations and 11) Desire to know more.Facet Five. 12) Frequency of entries (number ofentries).Facet Six. 13) Length of entries (number ofwordsper entry).Part C: The Writing SamplesThe scoring and coding of thewriting samples isexplained in three sections:data preparation, trainingsessions, and the scoring of data.i) Data PreparationThe treatment sessions produced setsof four compositionsper student. To ensure anonymity subjectnumbers were enteredin the top right hand cornerof a holistic scoring sheet(Appendix R).The hand—written originals from each test were sorted, inno particular order, into four folderscoded DP, GP, D and G.G designated the control group. DP andGP were pretest essays55and D and G were posttest essays. To each essay was clippeda mark sheet for composition rating (Appendix R). Threeraters used different coloured marking instruments forscoring. Rater number one used blue pen, rater number twoblack, and rater number three pencil. The first rater toscore an essay indicated her score at the top of the marksheet and folded the mark sheet under so her score was nolonger visible to the next two raters. The next rater foldedher score under so the third rater would not be able todiscern the first two scores.Only subscores were indicated because the total of thesefor each composition generates the overall score whichwastabulated after all data had been scored. The subscore forcontent and organization was indicated first, followed by aslash, followed by the subscore for mechanics. Only completedata sets were used.ii) Training sessionsThree raters, including the researcher, participated inthe study. All three raters marked all four sets of data overthe course of two consecutive days.Two of the raters were unfamiliar with writing scales.At the initial training session, the third rater (theresearcher) shared the B.C. Ministry PLAPP pamphlet of scoredwriting samples (samples in Appendix V) with the othersdiscussing expectations for grade—nine writing levels and whyshe believed the Plapp samples received the scores they did.Because the researcher has twelve years’ experience teaching56English to grades eight and nine, it is believed that she isa capable judge of writing ability and expectations for theexperimental grade level. The marking scale used for thisexperiment (Appendix R) was then distributed and scoringlevels discussed in terms of what to look for in the data setsthat would correspond to each level of subscores. Thatdiscussion completed, a discussion of the composition topics(Appendix F) ensued to ensure raters understood what kind ofcontent 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 anotherfollowed by a discussion about the decisions each rater madeon 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 (i.e., pretest--control group, pretest-—experimental group) was completed the researcher unfoldedeach completed scale to check for consensus. It had beenagreed, if there was discrepency in consensus, retraining oninterpretation of the scale would take place.iii) Scoring of the dataThe pretests were scored on the first day immediatelyfollowing the training session. After the first folder wasscored, raters took a brief, ten—minute break while theresearcher checked scores for consensus. No retraining wasnecessary. The second set of pretests was then scored. The57first scoring session took approximately three hours includingthe break.Session two took place the following day preceded by adiscussion of topics three and four. One week priorto thetraining and marking sessions two of the raters were given acopy of When the Legends Die to read before scoring of theposttest measure took place. Neither had read the novelbefore. The researcher (the third rater) reread the novelduring this same time frame. Discussion oftopics for thepretest did not require that students make any reference toWhen the Legends Die as they had not read the novel beforewriting. Only complete data sets were used.Using the method suggested by Diederich (1974) theratings of the first two raters were averaged if they agreedon the rating or were not more than one point apart. In caseswhere the first two raters disagreed by more than one point,the rating of the third rater wassubstituted for the ratingthat was in most disagreementwith the third rater’s.Part D: The Science Experiments--ObservationsScience observations on the pre— and posttest experimentswere analyzed according to one surfacemeasure, the number ofobservations per treatment condition. Two assistants countedthe number separately. Agreement onthe total number ofobservations was unanimous. The following unedited examplesfrom the two science classes illustrate how the observationswere counted.58Counted as two observations:Example Ahydrogen chloride-- (white), (clear) liquidCounted as three observations:Example Bhydrogen chloride-- (white), (clear liquid), (withbubbles)Counted as four observations:Example Chydrogen chloride acid——(fizzing), (smoke), (heatsup), (dissolves)4Part E: Teacher Interviews andPersonal LogsComments made by participating teachers inthe interviewswere examined for changesin attitude toward the use ofresponse journals in theirsubject area classrooms bycomparing answers to the sameinterview questions asked onboth the pre— andposttest measure. Teachers’ personal logswere examined for these samechanges.Statistical TreatmentsAll of the data collected in thestudy except that usedto test the success of therandomization procedures were codedand prepared for statisticalanalysis using the SPSSX package,version 3.0, at the Universityof British Columbia ComputingBecause the science teacher did not fulfilltherequirements of the experimentaldesign, all science data werediscarded.59Centre. To check the rater reliability, Pearson ProductMoment Correlation was used. LERTAP was used to calculate thereliability of the individual questions on the attitudemeasure. t—tests on data for the randomization procedureswere calculated using two different programs--SPSSX and thepersonal computer program “Statistics for Researchers V2.O”(SFRP). For data that werealready coded in the computer,SPSSX was used while data not so coded wereanalyzed usingSFRP. Multivariate analysis was employed for the statisticalanalyses of the data (SPSSX: MANOVA). The SPSSX program alsogenerated the descriptive statistics (condescriptivestatistics) used to describe the differences between theexperimental and control students.Calculating ReliabilityThe item reliability of the attitude test and the raterreliability for the scores on the essays were calculated priorto the major analyses. Pearson ProductMoment Correlation wascalculated to determine rater reliability in scoring on boththe content and mechanics subscores for the essays, pre andpost.The LERTAP program was designed at U.B.C. to test thereliability of items on a test. To establish the overallreliability of the attitude measure, LERTAP was run using thescores on the pre-attitude test of all eighty-nine studentsoriginally included in the experiment. Item reliability onthe attitude measure was determined by correlating subjects’scores on an individual item with their total test scores.60LERTAP scores included a calculation of the Hoyt Estimate ofReliability.Multivariate Analysis of Variance: (MANOVA)Two multivariate analysis of variance (SPSSX:MANOVA) wererun, each using treatment as the independent variable. Thedependent variables in the first run were essay—content,essay—mechanics and the attitude measure. The dependentvariables in the second run were the five facets of thestudent journals. Two runs were necessitated by the fact thatthe essays and attitude measures were administered during twotime periods (pre and post) while journal responses werecalculated over three time periods——weeks two to four, weeksfive to eight, and weeks nine to eleven. Although the termwas twelve weeks long, the first and last weeks were used foradministering the attitude measure and the essay.The raw data scores were transformed, first to z scoresthen to t scores, in order that all components were measuredon the same scale (so that, for example, journal length, whichranged from 16,925 words to 17,783 words, would not overpowerjournal questions, which ranged from 153 to 181). z scoreswere converted to t scores in order to eliminate negativenumbers. The fifteen features and formal modes were furtherreduced to six facets then to five facets before the MANOVAwas conducted. Only those groups of variables that showed anoverall significant difference at the .05 level or greaterwere further analyzed using analysis of covariance.61Analysis of Variance (A)OVA)Analysis of variance was used to test the success of therandomization procedures on the following variables: pretestscores on attitude, essays (content and mechanics) and journallength.Analysis of Covariance: (ANCOVA)Analysis of covariance was used to determine thestatistical significance level of differences between each ofthe component variables on any set of measures which provedsignificant as a result of the multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA).t — TestsTo test the success of the randomization procedures,t-tests were used to compare the initial abilities of theexperimental and control groups judged by subjects’ previousEnglish and social studies marks. These calculations werecomputed using the “Statistics for Researchers Program” withthe significance level set at .05.Descriptive (Condescriptive) StatisticsAs an aid to describing the differences between theexperimental and control students, the boys and the girls, themeans and standard deviations of the individual scores werecalculated on:1) the attitude measure——overall scores and the foursubscores for a) source, b) audience, C) response, andd) purpose;622) the response journals——overall scores and subscoresfor the fifteen modes and formal featureson the responsejournals; and3. essays—— subscores for content and mechanics.Qualitative AnalysisTeacher interviews and logs were examined for changes inattitude toward the use of response journals in their subjectarea classrooms. Impressions of attitude trends on the partsof participating teachers are reported qualitatively in theform of verbal descriptions in chapters Four and Six.Preliminary AnalysesThe Attitude MeasureThe statistical test used to analyze the attitude measurewas LERTAP in order, partially, to determine the internalconsistency of the twenty—nine items in the questionnaire.All completed pretest questionnaires were used from allfour treatment groups in science and English resulting in anN of eighty-nine. The Hoyt Estimate of Reliability for thetwenty—nine items was .84 on the eighty—nine student responsesfor the pretest only. This was raised slightly to .85 bydiscarding items twenty—one and twenty—nine. These items werediscarded because the correlation co—efficient for itemtwenty-one equals .072 and .030 for item twenty-eight. Allother co—efficients equal .22 or above with only five of theremaining items below .3.63The Hoyt Estimate of Reliability for theposttest, minusitems twenty—one and twenty—eight, was raisedto .90 for an Nof thirty. By combining both pre-and posttest measures foran N of thirty, thistranslates to a .94 reliabilitycoefficient on the twenty—seven remainingitems indicating agood level of internal consistency.The EssaysComputations were made on theagreement among threeraters for the sub—categories(content and mechanics) on boththe pre—and posttest measure of the writingsample.As Table 1 shows, inter-rater reliability using the twoprimary raters is low (r=.76). Adjustedscores show a highlevel of inter-rater reliability. Usingthe method suggestedby Diedrich (1974), the ratings of thetwo primary raters, Aand B, were averaged if theyagreed on the rating or were notmore than one point apart. In caseswhere A and B disagreedby more than onepoint, the rating of rater C was substitutedfor the rating of whichever raterwas in most disagreementwith C. Appropriate ratings ofrater C were substitutedTable 1. Inter-rater reliability,essays, pretest/posttestdifferences on content (C) and mechanics (M)Raters Pre-C Post-C Pre-MPost-N Overallr r r r rA & B .78 .78.70 .79 .76Adjusted .93 .96 .94.93 .9464before Pearson Product Moment Correlationcoefficients werecomputed for inter-rater reliability.Table 1 shows theadjusted inter-rater reliability forthe two primary raters.The overall inter-rater reliability forthe pre- and posttestmeasures was .94 (adjusted by thirdrater) which is greaterthan the .67 reliability Diedrich(1974) suggests can beexpected using this method to mark highschool essayexaminations.Sucess of Randomization ProceduresAlthough the junior secondary school in whichtheexperiment took place allowed fortrue randomizationprocedures, it is believed that thecontrol and experimentalgroups were not equal at the beginningof the experiment interms of ability and gender differencesand the effects ofattrition that occurred after randomizationin the spring of1990 and during the suimner and fallof 1990 before theexperiment took place in the secondterm beginning November19, 1990.To test the success of the randomizationprocedures, acomposite of both control andexperimental subjects’ previousEnglish and social studies marks, pretestscores on essays,attitude measures and journal length wasconstructed. Table2 presents the findingsof this composite. As Table 2 shows,on all nine of themeasures calculated the experimental andcontrol groups were not significantlydifferent. On only one,the length of thepre-journals, did the differences evenapproach significance. These differences,although not65significant, were substantial (favouring the experimentalgroup) and tended to influencethe findings reported inChapter Four. The average probability ranged between .5 and.8 on the other measures. Itappears that random proceduresTable 2. Success of randomizationprocedures; explanation of two tailedtest for comparison between treatmentconditionsMeasure Experimental N Control N t—Value D.ofTwoF tailedprob.5 s SEng. FinalLG—June 1990 4.38 2.26 13 4.653.37 17 —0.42 28NS*S.S. FinalLG—June 1990 5.31 1.73 13 5.00 3.75 17 0.49 28NS*Eng. 1st term 5.31 1.56 13 5.002.20 17 0.61 28 0.55LG-Nov. 1990S.S. 1st termLG—Nov.1990 5.38 1.26 13 5.06 2.81 17 0.60 28 0.55Attitude—Pre 95.20 17.00 13 90.80 14.80 17 0.77 28 0.45Essays—Precontent 8.70 2.70 13 8.90 2.40 17 —0.23 28 0.82Essays—PreMechanics 9.00 2.50 13 8.70 2.20 17 0.39 28 0.70Journals—PreLength 231.50 110.40 13 160.70 101.00 17 1.83 28 0.08Attitude—Pre 93.60 14.70 49 91.20 15.70 40 0.75 87 0.45*The first two calculations were computed using the program “Statisticsfor Researchers” which did not report the probability ifthere were nosignificant differences.66were successful. However, as will be discussed in ChapterSix, the teacher of English felt that the control class wassuperior to the experimental group, a feeling that wassomewhat borne out by the differential drop—out rate: moreexperimental than control students were excluded from thefinal calculations because they did not complete all of theassignments.67CHAPTER FOURFINDINGSThe findings of the study are presented in this chapter,categorized separately by the research questions that werepresented earlier in Chapter One. Part A looks at whetherstudents who have been responded to in writing by theirsubject area teacher using the open—process mode of response(experimental group) show more positive attitudes towardwriting overall and according to four sub—categories (i.e.,source, audience, response and/or purpose) than students whohave been responded to in writing by their subjectareateacher using the traditional mode of response (controlgroup)5as measured by a pre— and posttest attitude questionnaire.Because the statistical analyses grouped the data from theattitude and writing measures for one multivariateanalysis ofvariance (MANOVA) and the data from the student responsejournals for another, the order of reporting the findings hasbeen changed to reflect these groupings. Therefore Part Awill also include the findings from the (MANOVA) on the essaysand investigate whether students in the open—process teacherresponse group showed greater growth in writing quality onoverall scores as well as on subscores than did those studentsBecause Native Indian students were not representedin the subject groups in numbers that could lend themselves tostatistical analysis, this part of the research question couldnot be addressed.68in the traditional teacherresponse group. Part B examineswhether subjects in the experimental group reflectedmorepositive changes in attitude to writing than the control groupoverall and as measured categorically by the number of modesand formal features in response journals. PartC6 examines,qualitatively, comments made by the English teacher in preand post-interviews (Appendix T) to determine differencesinthe teacher’s attitude about the uses of writingin hissubject area classroom.Tables that summarize the statistical analyses of thedata are provided and interpretations of the findings areoffered in order to give a clear picture of how the subjectsresponded to the treatments. Ancillary tablesof thestatistical results have been included in the appendices.Part A: The Attitude Measure and the Effect of TreatmentThe English Essays and the Effect of TreatmentThe discussion of the findings for Part A is divided intothree components of the reseachquestions on the attitudemeasure and the English essays:i) the attitude measure——Overall growth in total scoresand growth on the subscores (i.e. source, audience, responseand purpose) are reported. Both of these components arefurther divided into two areas. First, the multivariateanalysis of variance results are reported to indicate the6In previous chapters, Part D discussed aspects of thescience classes in this experiment. Because of inadequatedata from these classes, the findings can not be discussed andhave been omitted. Part E--Qualitative Analysis of TeacherInterviews and Personal Logs——now becomes Part C.69statistical significance of the differences between theexperimental and control groups. Second, the changes in rawscores are reported to demonstrate the magnitude of thedifferences.ii) the English essays--The discussion of the findingsfor the English essays and the effect of treatment is dividedinto two parts reflecting the two research questions: overallgrowth in total scores and growth on the subscores for theessays (content and mechanics). First, the multivariateanalysis of variance (MANOVA) results are reported. Secondly,the pre—/post—means, standard deviations and the differencesin the means are reported.Attitude Measure: Growth——Overall and SubscoresThe first question asked in the study was, “Do studentswho have been responded to in writing by their subject areateacher using the open—process mode of response (theexperimental group) show more positive attitudes towardwriting overall and according to subscores on a) source,b) audience, c) response, and/or d) purpose than students whohave been responded to in writing by their subject areateacher using the traditional mode of response (the controlgroup) as measured by a pre— and posttest attitudequestionnaire?”At the beginning of the experiment and at the end allstudents participating in the experiment were asked to respondto a survey on their attitudes toward writing (Appendix L)that was adapted from “The P & R Writing Attitude Form”70(Appendix 14). The same measure was usedas both the pre— andposttest measure. Students respondedto twenty—ninestatements that examined their attitudes toward writing.Theattitude form is a Likert-type five pointscale on whichstudents responded by: a)agreeing strongly, b) agreeingsomewhat, c) stating that they perceivedno difference in thetwo ideas presented, d) disagreeing somewhator e) stronglydisagreeing with each statement.i) Overall Growth: theAttitude Measure and theEnglish EssaysAs Table 3 shows, there were neitherstatisticallysignificant initial differenceson essay—content,essay—mechanics and the attitude measurenor on the posttestmeasures when multivariate analysisof variance (MANOVA) wasperformed on transformed scores. Theprobability figure ofTable 3. The attitude measureand the English essays:multivariate analysis of varianceWilks Mult. F D.F. Sig.Lambda of FPretest:Treatment 0.96 0.383,26 0.77Posttest:treatment bytime 0.89 1.043,26 0.3971.77 for the pretest treatment groups is very high andsuggests few initial differences between the two groups. Themultivariate analysis of variance also reveals non—significantdifferences when the posttest scores were analyzed with theprobability of .39 that either of the two separate measures(attitude and writing) was significantly different. Sincethere were no significant differences on the MANOVA, separateanalyses were not carried out for the pre— and posttest essayand the pre— and posttest attitude measure.However, it mustbe kept in mind that the very small final numbers of subjects(13 experimental and 17 control) reduced the power of thestatistical treatment considerably.ii) Overall Growth: the Attitude MeasureAs Table 4 shows, pretest/posttest differences on theTable 4. Attitude measure (adjusted by removing the twoitems found unreliable by LERTAP): means, standarddeviations and pretest/posttest differencesTreatment N Petest Pottest iff1S 5Exp/All 13 94.7 17.3 93.4 18.2 —1.3Con/All 17 90.8 14.8 90.2 15.9 —0.6Exp/Girls 6 96.2 12.7 93.7 15.2 —2.5Con/Girls 7 95.9 9.7 94.6 14.3 —1.3Exp/Boys 7 93.4 21.5 93.1 21.6 —0.3Con/Boys 10 87.2 17.1 87.2 17.0 0.072attitude measure indicate losses for all students except forthe control group boys who show no change. Both theexperimental and control groups have lower scores on theposttest than they do on the pretest, but differences aresmall. The experimental group lost 1.3 points overallwhereasthe control group lost .6 overall. Consideringthat thestandard deviations range from 14 to 18, such differences areextremely small. However, even the small differences thatwere found favour the control group and the boys.iii) Growth on Subscores: the Attitude MeasureAs Table 5 indicates, when the responses to the attitudequestionnaire were grouped into four sub—categories (source,audience, response and purpose——definitions are located inApendix N) minor differences emerged. Both experimental andcontrol groups remained relatively stable over thedurationof the experiment on the purposesub—category (items 2, 3,4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 29) and thesense of audience sub—category (items 7 and 12). Theexperimental group (essentially the experimental boys) showedlarge gains (almost one standarddeviation) on the sourcesub-category (items 1, 6, 8, 14, 19 and 20) but these changesmay 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, theselosses could be attributed to a condition shared by bothgroups. Perhaps the fact that all journals in all four groups,73Table 5. Attitude measure: means, standarddeviations andpretest/posttest differences for sub—categoriesVariable Treatment N Pretest Posttest Post/Pre1 —2x S X S x —x*On the questionnaire Source was comprised ofitems 1, 6, 8,14, 19, and 20; Audience——7 and 12; Response——13,17, 18, and23; Purpose——2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10,11, 15, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26,27, and 29.regardless of treatment, received a mark worth twenty percenttoward that term’s letter grade affectedboth groupsnegatively. Because the experimental grouplost more thanSOURCE* Exp/All 13 18.23 3.70 19.92 3.47 1.69Cont/All 17 18.65 2.74 18.29 2.11 —0.36Exp/Girls 6 20.00 2.83 20.67 4.68 0.67Cont/Girls 7 18.00 2.45 18.43 2.76 0.43Exp/Boys 7 16.71 3.86 19.29 2.21 2.58Cont/Boys 10 19.10 2.96 18.20 1.69 —0.90AUDIENCE* Exp/All 13 6.92 1.04 6.69 1.55 —0.23Cont/All 17 6.12 1.32 6.53 1.18 0.41Exp/Girls 6 6.83 0.41 7.00 2.10 0.17Cont/Girls 7 6.29 1.11 6.14 1.46 —0.15Exp/Boys 7 7.00 1.41 6.43 0.98 —0.57Cont/Boys 10 6.00 1.49 6.80 0.92 0.80RESPONSE* Exp/A11 13 14.92 2.36 12.77 2.05 —2.15Cont/All 17 14.47 2.24 12.94 2.22 —1.53Exp/Girls 6 14.67 2.73 12.50 2.25 —2.17Cont/Girls 7 14.86 1.21 13.43 1.90 —1.43Exp/Boys 7 15.14 2.19 13.00 2.00 —2.14Cont/Boys 10 14.20 2.78 12.60 2.46 —1.60PURPOSE* Exp/A11 13 49.46 5.91 48.77 5.07 —0.69Cont/All 17 50.00 5.01 50.62 4.16 0.62Exp/Girls 6 50.00 6.63 50.00 5.62 0.00Cont/Girls 6 49.33 4.50 52.00 4.94 2.67Exp/Boys 7 49.00 5.71 47.71 4.72 —1.29Cont/Boys 10 50.44 5.55 49.80 3.64 —0.64the control group (both treatments equally by sex), the74Table 6. Essays: means,standard deviations and pretest/posttest differences per treatment conditionTreatment N PretestPosttest Post/Pre-.1 -.29iff.1x 5 x S x —xa) ContentExp/Al1 13 8.70 2.70 8.703.60 0.00Con/All 17 8.90 2.40 9.60 2.40 0.70Exp/Girls 6 7.90 3.10 9.002.60 1.10Con/Girls 7 9.30 1.20 11.20 2.20 1.90Exp/Boys 7 9.40 2.30 8.404.50 —1.00Con/Boys 10 8.70 3.00 8.50 2.00 —0.20b) MechanicsExp/Al1 13 9.00 2.50 8.70 2.60 —0.30Con/All 17 8.70 2.20 9.60 2.10 0.90Exp/Girls 6 8.40 2.70 8.40 2.10 0.00Con/Girls 7 9.40 2.10 10.40 2.70 1.00Exp/Boys 7 9.60 2.508.90 3.20 —0.70Con/Boys 10 8.25 2.259.00 1.50 0.75treatment (response journals)might have had somenon—significant influence.iv) Growth on Subscores: the English EssaysAs Table 6 illustrates, posttest scores weresimilar topretest scores on essay—content forthe experimental group.The small differences in growth forthe experimental girls(+1.10) was offset by the negative growthof the experimentalboys (—1.00) resulting in zero difference.In terms ofstandard deviations generallyover 2.0 these differences areindeed small. The control group displayedmarginally greatergrowth by .7 as indicated by thepre-/posttest difference.The negative growth of the controlgroup boys (-0.20) did notcompletely negate the +1.9 pre-/posttestdifference achieved75by the control group girls.The essay—mechanics subscores reveal a slight loss(-0.30) for the experimentalgroup and slight positive growthfor the control group(+0.90). The experimental group’s lossis attributed to the negative growthof the boys (-0.70) withno growth indicated by the girls inthis category whereas boththe control boys and girlsindicate positive growth on thissubscore.Overall, the control group gained aboutone—quarter ofone standard deviation incontent and almost one—half astandard deviation in mechanics while theexperimental groupshowed no growth or marginal losses.The differences onmechanics may be interesting because thecontrol students’journals had mechanics errors indicatedby their teacher.Part B: Student Response Journals and theEffect of TreatmentPart B of the study was informedby the followingresearch question.Do students who have been respondedto in writing bytheir English teacher using theopen—process mode of response(the experimental group) showmore positive attitudes overalland/or toward a) writing, b)the response journal itself,and/or c) the subject area teacheras measured by the numberof modes and formalfeatures used in response journals thanstudents who have been respondedto in writing by theirEnglish teacher using thetraditional mode of response (thecontrol group)?Students in both the experimental and control groupswererequired to maintain journals for tenweeks of the experimentin which they recorded theirimpressions and asked questionsabout what they were reading/learningin their Englishclasses.76i) Overall Growth: Response Journals—-the fifteen modesand formal features—-results between conditionsAs Table 7 indicates, the F-ratio shows a significantdifference (p.=.OO1) between the experimental and controlstudents on the journal entries written over the first threeweeks so analysis of covariance was conducted to discoverwhich factor(s) was (were) responsible for the difference.The results for the posttest (journalentries written duringthe last three weeks) werestatistically nonsignificant, butthey did approach significance (p.=.07).The results presented in the compositeconstructed totest the success of randomizationprocedures (Table 2) inChapter Three conflict with the datapresented here. Themultivariate analysis of variance suggests thatthere werestatistically significant initial differences betweenthe twogroups whereas the composite built to testfor the success ofthe randomization procedures did not.However, thepre—journal analysis (Table 2) revealed close tosignificantresults (.08). When MANOVA was conducted,the individualTABLE 7. The response journals: multivariate analysisofvariance (pretest=first 3 weeks of treatment,mid—test=next four weeks, posttest=last 3 weeks)Wilks Mult. F D. F. Sig.Lambda of FPretest:treatment 0.43 6.36 10,190.001*Mid-/Posttest:time 0.98 0.04 10,191.00treatment bytime 0.46 2.21 10,19 0.0777facets had more influence on thestatistical outcome resultingin Facet Five (Frequency) reachingsignificance at two points,on the pretest (.05) and onthe posttest (.01). This maysuggest initial differences betweenthe two groups(experimental and control).ii) Analysis of Covariance: ResponseJournalsAs Table 8 shows, two facets accounted for thesignificant F-ratio (p.=.001) reported inTable 7, facets 2TABLE 8. Response journals (the 5facets combined from the 12original features and modes): analysis of covariancecoefficient t—value D.F. Sig. of tFacet1:*pre —3.34 —1.2010,19 0.24mid 1.38 1.2010,19 0.24post —0.05 —0.05 10,19 0.96Facet2:*pre —3.64 —1.6110,19 0.12mid 2.96 2.1310,190.04**post —2.55 —1.61 10,19 0.12Facet3:*pre 0.66 0.2510,19 0.80mid —0.38 —0.2610,19 0.80post —0.04 —0.0310,19 0.98Facet5:*pre 4.22 2.0810,190.05**mid 2.50 1.87 10,19 0.07post —4.57 —2.63 10,190.01**Facet6:*pre 2.61 0.98 10,19 0.33mid 1.50 1.2910,19 0.21post —1.64 —1.23 10,19 0.23*Facet 1 is made up of Observations, Insights andUnderstanding and Information. Facet 2 is made up of CreativeExpressions, Speculations and Digressions. Facet 3 is made upof Confidences, Frustrations, Questionsand Desire to KnowMore. Facet 5 is the single variable Frequency and Facet 6 isLength.**p.>.0578and 5. On the pretest, Facet 5 (Length of Entry) wassignificant at the .05 level of confidence. It alsoapproached significance on the mid—test (p.=.07) and reachedsignificance on the posttest. As will be noted in Table 9,these differences favour the control group. Although Facet 2(a composite of Creative Expressions, Speculations andDigressions) did not reach statistical significance on thepre— and posttest multivariate analysis of variance, itapproached significance on both the pre— and posttest (p.=.12)and reached significance on the mid—test (p.=.04). Facet 5(Frequency), however, did reach significance on both thepretest (p.=.05) and the posttest (p.=.0l). The differenceson the pretest favoured the experimental group but favouredthe control group on the posttest.iii) Growth on Subscores: Response JournalsThe variables Creative Expressions, Speculations andDigressions were combined to form Facet 2. As Table 9 showsthe experimental group showed losses on two of the variablesthat make up this facet. It lost .23 on the pre-/mid-test and.16 on the pre-/posttest for Creative Expression; 3.77 on thepre-/mid-test and 2.23 on the pre-/posttest for Speculations.The control group however, with the exception of zero growthon the mid-test for Speculations, and -0.12 on the mid-testfor Creative Expressions, showed positive growth overall onthis facet. The only test it did not exceed the experimentalgroup’s growth on was the pre—/posttest difference forDigressions. The experimental group indicated positive growth79for Digressions only,showing an increase on the pre—/mid—testof 1.30 and 3.40 on thepre—/posttest. However, mostdifferences in Table 9 are random andattributable to one ortwo individualstudents. For example, most of the increase onthe mid—test for Digressions canbe accounted for by onestudent who wanted to discussother books he was reading andrarely made reference to Whenthe Legends Die by Hal Borland.Table 9. Response journals:means, standard deviations andpretest/mid—test;pretest/posttest differences on finalsubscoresVariable Facet Treat- N Pretest Mid-testPosttest Pre/Mid Pre/Post# mentDiff DiE1sj2l8iObservation 1 E 13 8.00 6.22 11.77 10.2617.69 11.65 3.77 9.69C 17 11.76 6.98 16.53 12.21 25.2318.70 4.77 13.47Understanding 1 E 13 2.00 2.89 2.382.75 4.08 4.33 0.38 2.08C 17 2.12 2.87 4.53 5.43 6.188.40 2.41 4.06Information 1 E 13 4.463.20 6.92 4.82 7.77 3.83 2.46 3.31C 17 3.94 3.82 8.23 8.44 15.65 12.204.29 11.71Revisions 2 E 13 .85 .99 1.00 .912.00 2.24 0.15 1.15C 17 .71 1.49 .94 1.14 1.59 2.06 0.23.88Creative 2 E 13 .31 .63 .08.28 .15 .38 - 0.23 - 0.16Expression C 17 .35 .79.23 .56 .71 .98 - 0.12 0.36Questions 3 E 13 1.231.92 3.38 2.33 6.85 8.53 2.15 5.62C 17 1.47 1.84 1.65 2.09 6.00 4.20 0.184.53Digressions 2 E 13 .20 .63 1.502.80 3.60 7.01 1.30 3.40C 17 .88 1.73 5.12 11.37 3.29 7.03 4.24 2.41Confidences 3 E 13 .61 1.19 .23 .441.23 2.24 - 0.38 0.62C 17 1.06 2.49 1.06 2.30 3.598.37 0.00 2.53Frustrations 3 E 13 1.92 1.662.46 1.90 3.08 2.96 0.54 1.16C 17 1.12 .93 2.29 2.23 1.82 2.13 1.170.70Speculations 2 E 13 5.54 4.14 1.772.31 3.31 3.64 - 3.77 - 2.23C 17 4.23 2.82 4.23 3.90 4.534.80 0.00 0.30Desire to know 3 E 13 1.00 1.35 2.00 1.735.69 6.92 1.00 4.69More C 17 1.35 2.34 2.413.00 5.35 4.39 1.06 4.00Frequency 5 E 13 3.08 .283.46 1.13 6.61 1.56 0.38 3.53C 17 1.94 .97 3.88 1.93 5.59 2.26 1.943.65Length 6 E 13 231.54 110.42 386.46325.11 563.54 191.01 154.92 332.00C 17 160.71 101.32 375.94 332.44 495.23374.33 215.23 334.5280It is interesting to note that the experimental groupshowed more positive growth than the control group on threevariables only, all of which are components of Facet 3. Theexperimental group exceeded the control group on both thepre-/mid-test and pre-/posttest on Questions but on theposttest only on Frustrations and Desire to Know More.A single variable, Frequency, constitutes Facet 5. Boththe experimental and control groups exhibited positive growthon this variable with the control group exceeding theexperimental group on both the pre-/mid-test andpre-/posttest. The differences were quite large initiallyfavouring the experimental group but very small over theentire 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 onthe pretest measure. Therefore, because the experimentalstudents wrote seventy words per entry more on the pretest,they had to keep writing more to maintain their intitialsuperiority. They did, for the most part. On the mid-testand posttest they also made longer entries but, in terms ofgrowth, the control group exceeded the experimental group bothat the mid-point in the experiment and at the end of theexperiment. The final differences of two points when thestandard deviations are as much as 375 points, are trivial.Although the experimental group wrote more over time, and foreach time period, the differences in growth were essentially81the same thus accounting for no significant differences ontheMANOVA.Part C: qualitative Analysis of TeacherInterviews and LogsIn order to keep a record of behavioural changesinstudents that could be a reflection of changesin attitude andtheir own changes in attitude toward theuse of responsejournals as part of their instruction,participating teacherswere asked to maintain personal logs throughout thedurationof the experiment.As well, both a pre- andpost—experiment interview was conducted with the individualteachers.Although his personal log and both the interviewsconducted with the science teacher indicated that hewascarrying out the experiment as directed,in the final analysisthis proved to be untrue. He said hewas doing what he wasasked to do (he even appeared to be‘enthusiastic’) and hispersonal log stated he was, but hesimply did not have hisstudents do the assigned work. The science journals, withoutexception, had no entries recorded in themfrom week 5 throughand including week 7 of the experimentnor in weeks 9 and 10.Consequently, any attempt at analysis of either his interviewsor personal logs would bemisleading.The English teacher’s post-interview(Appendix T) revealsan increasing willingness to use andenthusiasm toward the useof response journals in his subjectarea. In response to the82question,Do you use or will you use more writing activitiesto help your students learn content in your subjectarea?he replied,I certainly will. It’s been a valuable lesson forme and something, as I said before, something I’vebeen a bit afraid of. Now it’s really encouragedme to take a lot more risks and I think it’s wellworth it.Both his personal log and his post—interview reveal a positiveattitude toward the use of response journals as an aid tounderstanding his students and as a source for lessonplanning.Excerpts from Personal LogI am very delighted that some students used theirjournals to discuss other topics of concern. Forexample, one young lady used Tom’s being the victimof what she viewed as racism to discuss how she wasthe victim of stereotyping. Her response showedreal insight into the problem and I thoroughlyenjoyed her sensitivity.I am really amazed at the type of questionsstudents ask. Firstly, they are far more naivethan I thought.Excerpt from Post—interviewInterviewer: Would writing to express emotionsconcerning the course——for example, anxiety,confusion, discontent——be appropriate in yourclass?English Teacher: I find that to be a very goodindicator of how kids feel about what’s happeningwith the assignments I’m giving them throughjournals. Also I’m able to get a lot better sortof finger on the pulse of what kids are feelingfrom doing the assignments and encouraging them torespond with what they’re doing. That way I get abetter idea of what they’re learning and whatthey’re not learning.83However, the English teacher’s personal log providesevidence that his teaching style and interpretationofopen—process response may indeed have been a contaminatingfactor influencing the non—significantoutcomes of theexperiment. One of his entries during the seventhweek of theexperiment states,One student commented, “Why are you being socritical?” i.e., red pen, circle mistakesetc. (student was in experimental group). I thinkhe feels afraid to make mistakes therefore I amstymieing him.Furthermore, throughout his journal he indicates a decidedpreference for the control group over the experimentalgroup.“I have trouble not directly re—inforcingthe control group.I really enjoy readingsome excellent responses...”SummaryChapter Four has presented the findings of the studycategorized primarily according to the research questionsposed. As explained previously in thischapter, the researchquestions involving the science data and the sub—groupofNative Indian students could not be addressed. Thehypothesized gains for the treatment condition on allremaining research questions were notconfirmed. Furthermore,any statistical significance that was discovered was not inthe hypothesized direction.Results on the first measure, the attitude questionnaire,revealed no significant differences overall or on thesub—categories (source, audience, response and/or purpose).The small differences that were found generally favoured the84control group and the boys. On the sub—categories, bothgroups (experimental and control) remained relatively stableon the purpose and sense of audience categories but showedlosses on the response category. The changes on thesub—category source were the only ones that showed growth inthe hypothesized direction on this measure and were largelydue to gains made by the experimental boys (almost onestandard deviation). However, because the results for thismeasure and those of the writing measure were statisticallynonsignificant, they are uninterpretable.Results based on the writing measure (two in—class essayspre and post) again favoured the control group over theexperimental group. Overall the control group gained aboutone—quarter of one standard deviation in content and almostone—half a standard deviation in mechanics while theexperimental group showed no growth or marginal losses.The student response journals consisted of fifteen modesand formal features (reduced to five facets for the MANOVA).Because a significant difference was found between theexperimental and control students on the pretest for themultivariate analysis of variance (p.=.OOl), analysis ofcovariance was conducted. Two facets accounted for thesignificant F—ratio: Facet 2 (Creative Expressions,Speculations and Digressions) and Facet 5 (Frequency). On allthree variables that make up Facet 2, the control groupexhibited more positive growth than did the experimental onboth the pre—mid and pre—post comparisons. Facet 5 was85significant at the .05 level of confidence both initially andon the pre—post comparison and approached significance on themid-test (.07) with the changes observed favouring the controlgroup. When the raw scores were examined, the experimentalgroup showed more positive growth than the control group onthree variables only, all of which are components of Facet 3(Confidences, Frustrations, Questions and Desire to knowmore).The qualitative analysis of the English teacher’spersonal log and his interviews reinforcedthe conclusionsarrived at in Chapter Five of this study. The teacher’s rolein this study and his interpretation of open—process responseas well as the perceived initial inequalities of theexperimental and control groups may have influenced thenon—significant differences found between the two groups.86CHAPTER FIVESUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSummaryThe primary purpose of thestudy was to examine theeffects of the treatment, an open—processmode of response tostudents’ writing in response journalsversus a traditionalmode of response, on grade—nine science andEnglish students’attitudes toward writing. Secondary andtertiary concernsasked about the effects of treatmenton these students’writing abilities and the effects ofadministering thetreatment on the attitudes ofparticipating teachers.The study was a controlled experimentwith two teachers(science and English) instructing four classes,divided intotwo experimental and two control groups,to which studentshad been randomly assigned. Over atwelve—week term eightmeasures were administered: a pre— andposttest attitude, apre— and posttest writing measure(English essays), a pre— andposttest science experiment, and pre—and post—teacherinterviews. Students in all fourgroups were required tomaintain response journals throughoutthe experiment. Theparticipating teachers were asked to maintain personal logs inorder to keep a record of the following:a) observations of behavioural changes in studentsthat could indicate attitude changes toward: i.writing,ii. writing in their journals, and iii.the teacher,87b) personal reactions to the use of responsejournals as vehicles for writing to learn intheir subjectareas, andC) insights regarding the effects that the natureof their responses haveon student attitudes toward: i.writing, ii. writing in their journals,and iii. the teacher.Prior to the experiment, three pilot studies wereconducted. Two were performed on theattitude measure inorder to test the adequacy of this instrument. Thethirdpilot study was conducted in order togive participatingteachers practice in both modes of response prior tothetreatment period.A posthoc test for item reliability wasperformed on theattitude measure that resulted in a Hoyt Estimate ofReliability of .94 after the two items found to be unreliableby the LERTAP program were removed.Three raters scored thecompositions using a holistic markingscale. After makingadjustments suggested by Diederich (1974), rater reliabilityon the essay ratings was .94.DiscussionIn answer to the fourteen research questions asked inChapter One, the following findings are provided.Attitudes toward WritingBecause the results for this measure were statisticallynonsignificant, they are uninterpretable. Very small,negative changes were registered on the attitude measure by88both the experimental arid control groups with the experimentalgroup showing slightly more negative changes than the control.When examined by gender, the girls in both groups showed morenegative change than did the boys. The greatest difference,-2.5 demonstrated by the experimental girls, is onlyone-sixthof a standard deviation indicating that thechanges wereextremely small. Such small differences would not have beensignificant had the sample size been larger. Furthermore,thetreatment could not be considered potentiallysuccessfulbecause even these small differencesfavoured the controlgroup.Examination of the changes in raw scores for the foursub—categories on the attitude measure revealedprimarilynegative growth in all sub—categories. Experimental andcontrol groups showed no changes overthe course of theexperiment on two sub—categories, purposeand sense ofaudience. The experimental group showed a large positivechange (almost one standard deviation) on the sourcesub—category. However, these changes appear to beattributable to the extremelylow scores of the experimentalboys on the pretest. Both groupsshowed substantial losses inthe sub—category response but theexperimental group showedgreater losses than the control group did.Growth in WritingComparison of pre— and post— essay scores revealed that,contrary to expected outcomes, the control group showed gains89in both content and mechanics whereas the experimentalgroupshowed no gains or marginal losses. The differencesonmechanics for the control students (about one—halfa standarddeviation) might be accounted for, in part, by thefact thatcontrol students’ journals were markedfor mechanics. Thismay have made students more awareof errors in written usageeven though there is no previous researchevidence tosubstantiate this claim. Indeed, research indicatestheopposite (Hillocks, 1986).Investigation of the response journals, however, revealedan anomaly directly related to the writingof compositions.Prior to the posttest the teacher of Englishencouraged bothgroups to use their response journals as a source for thecontent of their essays. Seventeen out oftwenty students inthe experimental group used their journalsas a source forcontent as opposed to seven out of nineteenstudents from thecontrol group. Nonetheless,content scores for theexperimental group were lower on averagethan those in thecontrol group.Student Response Journals and the Effects of TreatmentOver the twelve weeks of the treatment, students who hadbeen taught using the open—processmode of response by theIrteacher did not show greater growth on the five facetstabulated for response journals (reduced from thefifteenmodes and features used to categorize the response journals)when multivariate analysis of variance was performed on them.90However, due to a significant difference indicated on thepretest, a stepdown analysis was conducted to discover whichfactors were responsible for the significance. Also, althoughthe results for the posttest were nonsignificant, they didapproach significance (.07).On the pretest, two facets——Facet 2 (a composite of thevariables Creative Expressions, Speculations and Digressions)and Facet 5 (the single variable, Frequency) ——were responsiblefor the significant F—ratio (.001). on all three variablesthat make up Facet 2, the control group showed more positivegrowth than did the experimental group at both points duringthe experiment. On the pretest Facet 5 was significant atthe .05 level of confidence in favour of the experimentalgroup. It also approached significance on the mid-test (.07)and reached significance on the posttest. Again the changesobserved were not in the hypothesized direction with thecontrol group exhibiting greater positive change than theexperimental group.ConclusionsStatistical analyses performed in the current study didnot reveal evidence to support the hypothesis that anopen—process mode of written response by a teacher tostudents’ writing in response journals would result inmeasurable changes in attitude and/or growth in writingability. Under the conditions described in the currentexperiment, statistically significant changes were notproduced on either the attitude or writing measure. Only two91of the five facets in the journals reached statisticalsignificance at the .05 level of confidence. All three of thepoints on the two facets favoured the control groupindicating, for the most part, that the changes observed werenot in the hypothesized direction.The following discussion, therefore, addresses theresearch problem by attempting an analysis of its failure toreject the null hypotheses. Analysis ofthe key designfeatures of the study and procedural methods used are the twoperspectives adopted in an attempt to draw the four strands ofthe study (changes in student attitudes toward writing, growthin writing ability, the effects of treatment on studentresponse journals and qualitative analysis of student journalsand teacher responses) into a more cohesive and revealingportrait that accounts for the unpredicted outcomes of theexperiment.Design PeaturesGeneral threats to the reliability of the conclusions arefound in the sample size, the success of randomization, andthe measures used. None, however, seems to offer asatisfactory explanation of the results.i) Sample SizeThe small final number of subjects (thirteen experimentaland seventeen control) for the MANOVA created a problem forthe statistical analysis, reducing its power greatly.Attrition, both after randomization procedures had beencarried out before the onset of the experiment and throughout92its duration, is primarily accountable for the loss in samplesize which began with fifty and ended with thirty students.However, the differences found were not only statisticallynon-significant but also frequently in the wrong direction,suggesting that the increased statistical power of a largersample size would not have altered the results significantly.ii) Initial DifferencesA contaminating factor to the experiment may have beenthe initial differences between the two groups (experimentaland control) even though stratified random procedures wereused. Although the two groups exhibited no statisticallysignificant differences in the beginning, on the pre-essay andattitude measures, they were not exactly the same. Indeed, onthe pre-journal, the experimental group had significantlyhigher scores on facets 2 and 5. Even though objectivemeasures favoured the experimental group at the onset,according to the perception of the English teacher, classchemistry favoured the control group (i.e. as a class, hefound them more willing to learn and more enjoyable to teachthan the experimental group).iii) DurationHillocks (1986) states that “... many experimentaltreatments show no significant change in comparison to theircontrol groups because their duration is too short”(p.191).In his analysis of 2000 studies on written composition, hetested this hypothesis by grouping experiments according totheir duration——those under thirteen weeks in duration were93compared to those over thirteen weeks.His findings wereinconclusive.Apparently some short treatments are effective,while some are ineffective. The same is true oftreatments of longer duration. The problem is todiscover what characteristics of treatments, asidefrom duration, appear to be responsible fordifferences in the effect sizes(p.192).Perhaps twelve weeks, the duration of the treatment for thisstudy, is not ample time to expect significantchanges on sucha complex and intangible variable as attituderegardless ofhow effectively the treatment is carried out. However, sincethe changes that did occur were not in the hypothesizeddirection, to assume that maintaining the treatment for alonger period of time would have resulted in significantchanges favouring the experimental group would be unsupported.Measures UsedOne possible explanation for results that turned outcontrary to those hypothesized is the power of the measures.The essay and the attitude measures used in this study werebased on measures used in previous research that proved themeffective. The source for the journal measure was The JournalBook by Toby Fuiwiler (1987), a compilation of case studiescentered around the use of response journals.i) The Attitude MeasureBased on “The P & R Writing Attitude Form” (Appendix M),the attitude measure used in this study was adjusted andrefined through the course of two pilot studies before beingadministered as part of the experiment.94First, to adapt the college level vocabulary of theoriginal form, words representing opposite poles on the scalewere adjusted to a grade-nine readabilitylevel while stillmaintaining the integrity of their initialcategories. Therevised attitude measure was pilot tested with an intactgrade—nine class in June 1990. Students were asked to makenote of any words they had difficulty in understanding. Theirsuggestions were incorporated in the adapted version.In August 1990, the opposing, single-word choices on thescale were changed to statements in the belief thatthisformat is more clearly understood by grade—nine subjects. Theoriginal form is also lengthy, comprised of fifty-two items.These items were reduced to twenty—nine statements in thefinal form because many of the items appeared to be redundant.In addition to the above changes, twopractise questions wereincluded to facilitate subjects’ understanding of the formduring administration of the attitude measure.A second pilot test of the measure was conducted inSeptember 1990. Six grade-nine students, who were notparticipants in the experiment, were asked to complete themeasure using a think—aloud protocol that was tape recorded.Difficulties students had in understanding particular wordswere used to guide a subsequent adaptation of the measure.Furthermore, the internal reliability of the measure waschecked by the LERTAP program; the Hoyt Reliability (.94) wasvery high on the twenty-seven itemsused in the statisticalanalysis.95What the above precautions (use of the form in previousresearch, pilot tests and testing for internal reliability) donot show is how sensitive the final measure is to changesinattitude. Because it is believed that the measure maintainsthe integrity of the original four sub—categories (source,audience, response and purpose), this suggests the measurehasa broad sensitivity to attitude changes. Therefore,thesensitivity of the attitude measure does not appear to be astrong contributor to the failure to reject the nullhypothesis.ii) The Writing MeasureThe following precautions were taken to ensurereliability of the scores elicited from the students’ formalwritten products. The compositions were administered andtheir subsequent ratings scored according to methods andscales used——proposed by Diederich (1974)——in previousstudies, both large and small scale.Using Pearson Product Moment Correlation, raterreliability was found to be very high (.94). The validity issupported by the marking scale used as a guide for the ratersfor scoring the essays: this scale was adopted from theEnglish 12 scale used by the B.C. Ministry of Educationmarking teams.iii) The Response JournalsThe fifteen modes and formal features that constitute thecategories for analysis of student response journals in thisstudy have been taken from the “Introduction” of The Journal96Book edited by Toby Fuiwiler (1987). The list, (said torepresent a “core of common features” characteristic of goodjournals) is based on Fuiwiler’s own experiences and those of‘the forty or so teachers’ who contributed chapters to hisbook in response to the question, “What, exactly,are goodjournals?”(p.2). Although the categories used to analyzeresponse journals in this study have not been testedforvalidity through experimental research, the modelis supportedby data from more than fortycase studies. As a result, thechecklist used to classify features of thestudent journalsappears to be valid.Procedural Elementsi) Administration of the TreatmentIn order to ensure that participatingteachers becamefamiliar with the guidelines of twomodes of teacher response(open process and traditional), a pilotstudy was conducted inthe fall of 1990 prior to the experimentduring which thescience and English teachers received coachingin both modesof response. The teacher of English practisedon an intactgrade—seven literature class and the science teacher practisedon an intact grade—eight science class. Each class wasdivided in half; one-half designated as the control group andthe other as the experimental group. Teachers asked studentsto respond to what they werelearning in class following“Guidelines for Student Response” (Appendix C). The pilotstudy took place over a period of two weeks during which sixpractise response sessions took place. The two teachers and97the researcher met after the collection of each set ofresponses in order to formulate responses to what the studentshad written. An exemplar for each mode of response (AppendixK) was provided and parameters for teacher response to befollowed during the experiment (Appendix D)established.In addition, weekly meetings were established between theparticipating teachers and the researcher throughout theexperiment in order to monitor any discrepancies and discussproblems as they arose in reference to theuse of the twomodes. Training and monitoring of the teachers, then, shouldhave ensured correct administration of the treatment. Despitethese precautionary measures, it appears that the execution ofthe treatment by the English teacher (the science teacherdropped out of the experiment) was not that envisioned by theresearcher. Evidence in student journals and in thereseacher’s weekly logs attest to the observation thatopen—process responses made in the experimental groups’response journals were interspersed with traditional,directing responses. Furthermore, analysis of the controlgroups’ response journals revealed open—process responsesinterwoven with traditional responses. These may, in part, beattributed to the classroom teacher ‘liking’ the control groupbetter than the experimental group prior to and during theexperiment. Therefore, it is believed that the teacher’s rolein this study (his interpretation of open—process response)coupled with the perceived initial inequality of the groups98contributed to the outcomes of the experiment——no significantdifferences.Alternative InterpretationsWe are left then with four possible explanations of theresults:1) Extraneous factors unknown to the researchermay have influenced the outcomes of the experiment. Becauseof the inclusion of the following design features andprocedures, this seems an unlikely explanation:——Comparability was assured through random assignment ofstudents to classes.--All participating subjects were pretested using directtests of writing similar to those used as posttests.——The same instrument was used as a pretest and posttestto measure changes in attitude.——Classes were assigned randomly to treatments and weretaught by the same teacher (both the control and experimentalgroups) in their subject areas.2) Failure to reject the null hypothesis supportsthe conclusion that the method of instruction tested by thisexperiment has no potential for improving student attitudestoward, and skills in, writing. This also seems an unlikelyexplanation based on both this study’s pilot work and workpublished by others in the field of composition.3) Predicted results could be achieved if changesin procedure and design were implemented in a replication ofthis study. A more rigorous method of ensuring that the99treatment is being carried out as described--that itisactually occurring in theclassrooms——is suggested.4) Extending the duration of the experimentmightproduce the predicted results. Thisexplanation would be amore tenable one if theprocedures were perceived to beunsound or that the results favoured theexperimental group onany of the measures.Recommendations for Further ResearchReplicationBecause of a solid theoretical base for, and thecarefully controlled design of, thepresent study areplication of the experiment would likely benefitfurtherresearch. Two alterations in theprocedures and one in thedesign that may have been responsiblefor the failure toreject the null hypothesis are recommendedhowever. Greatercontrol for teacher response, eitherthrough a more prolongedcoaching session prior to the administrationof the treatmentor more careful monitoring duringthe treatment, should beconsidered. Extending the duration of the experiment, forexample, two terms instead of one, mightresult in expectedoutcomes. Finally, the statistical power of the experimentwould be greatly enhanced byincreasing the sample sizethrough the addition of classes or creating larger initialclass sizes. This, however, does not necessitate a change inthe design of the study since had thestudents in scienceclasses been included the sample size would have beenadequate.100Administration of the TreatmentAs will be elaborated on in the epilogue, despite atraining session prior to the experiment and weeklymeetingsduring the experiment, the administration of the treatmentdidnot go as expected. Therefore, the following recommendationsare made for future researchers:1) The researcher should have more effective waysof monitoring the administration of the treatmentand thecollection of data than those used in the presentstudy.Although the experiment was not destroyed because the sciencedata were not used, this data would have been unavailablebecause the science teacher did not collect the data eventhough he said he had. Also, journalentries in both scienceclasses were nonexistent for at least one thirdof theduration of the experiment, Suggestions for more effectiveways of monitoring these aspects of the proceduresare classvisitations and reading of students’ journals.2) Future research could benefit fromtheexercising of minimal controls for teacher variables (i.e.,attitudes and philosophical orientation) when choosingparticipating teachers. To administer thetreatmenteffectively, teachers must have a philosophical orientationthat is compatible with the goals ofthe experiment althoughthe generalizability of the findings would be limited tothoseteachers with the same philosophical orientation.101Untested HypothesisThe original questions included reference to thesubgroup of Native Indian students. These questions were notaddressed because the school population did not allow fortheir inclusion as will be discussed in Chapter Six. Inquiryinto the effects of two modes of written response on theattitudes and writing ability of Native Indian students couldprove to be promising.102CHAPTER SIXEPILOGUEBut Mousie, thou art no thy lane,In proving foresight may be vain:The best—laid schemes o’ mice an’ menGang 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 carefullyplanned empirical investigation of the effects of two modes ofteacher response on students’ writing to learn in responsejournals, has gone ‘a—gley’.The scheme was well laid:1) I was permitted to conduct an experimentthat allowed for true randomization of subjects;2) I had, not only daily contact with theparticipating teachers, but was married to one of them (whocould ask for better control?); and3) I conducted three pilot studies on intactclasses in the school from which the experimental sample wasto be drawn in order to test the measures to be used and tocoach teachers in the administration of the treatment.One would think such a sterling opportunity could not go‘a-gley’. What went ‘a-gley’?Administration of the TreatmentI believed at the onset of the experiment that becauseboth the science and English teachers had consented toparticipate in the study they would show a willingness toincorporate writing in their classroom instruction. The103opposite proved to be true, completely true in the case of thescience teacher. In the case of the English teacher,willingness was not a factor but teaching style combined withinterpretation of modes of response was.The Science TeacherOne qualitative feature of the experiment was that bothteachers involved in the research were to carry out dualroles, those of participant and observer. Smith (in Borg andGall, 1989) observed that individuals participating in casestudy research often “mask”(p.392) what is really going onfrom the researcher. While the experiment was beingconducted, I suspected that some ‘masking’ was taking place onthe part of the science teacher. Hesitant to challenge acolleague, who was also a fellow staff member and volunteerparticipant in the experiment, I did not fully discover this‘masking’ until the coding and analysis of the data wasinitiated. The science journals, without exception, had noentries recorded in them from week 5 through and includingweek 7 of the experiment nor in weeks 9 and 10.Weekly meetings with both participating teachers wereconducted throughout the experiment. Both teachers were askedto bring their student journals to each meeting so that‘teacher responses’ could be discussed. For the weeks that nostudent responses appeared in the science journals, thescience teacher presented a variety of explanations as to whyhe didn’t have his class sets with him.104Excerpts regarding the science teacher recorded in theresearcher’s log:Week 3.“I [the researcher] do not feel that I am runningthis experiment properly. I have always been and amextremely reticent to tell my peers what to do and how todo things. [The science teacher] seems negative about it[the research) today.”During week 3 of the experiment, the science teacherstated, “... as a method of instruction, this isbullshit.”Week 4In reference to the journals:“I’m sorry. I didn’t know you expected me to havethem here. I’ll make sure I have them with me nexttime.”A week elapsed.“ I’m afraid that they don’t have much in them thisweek because we ran out of time. I’ll really concentrateon making time for them.”Week7“I forgot them at home. The kids have them becausewe ran out of time in class for them to finish theirentries.”“All the while the science teacher sat, resting hishand on the stack of student journals. I couldn’t verywell arm—wrestle him for them could I?”Another week elapsed.Week 8“[The science teacher) was reticent to show mestudent journals at lunch hour today. I managed to peekat a few. Students are not writing much. [The scienceteacher) is not very enthusiastic about this project andI feel quite defeated and depressed about this. I don’tseem to be able to keep him enthusiastic. I think thereason he’s sending the journals home now is because theproject is almost finished and he hasn’t been doing whathe said he was going to (pure speculation on my part).”105Unfortunately, due to the nonparticipation of theparticipating science teacher, all of the science data were‘grief’ and could not be used. Constrained by a highlystructured and content—laden curriculum, I think he viewed theuse of response journals as something ‘added on’ to an alreadyheavy work load.The English TeacherEnthusiasm for the project and a willingness toincorporate response writing in his teaching practices werenot issues in the administration of the treatment by thisteacher. However, a more complex and nebulous problem wasthat of his teaching style and philosophical orientation toeducation which did not appear to be compatible with theguidelines established for open teacher responses to studentwriting in this experiment.The teaching style of the English teacher could be termed‘presentational’ (Hillocks 1986) and his philosophicalorientation to education ‘academic’ (McNeil 1985). Althoughinstruction was parallel in experimental and control classes,the inclusion of traditional components related to the novelstudy may have overpowered and negated the effects of theopen—process responses isolated in the student responsejournals. Traditional components such as chapter questions,quizzes and a final comprehensive exam on the novel——all ofwhich suggest one right answer——may have acted as acounterbalance to the teacher’s open—process responses to theexperimental students in their response journals.106Furthermore, the two modes of response were not administeredpurely to the designated treatment groups. In addition to theresponses they were supposed to receive, the control studentsfrequently received “open praising” responses and theexperimental students frequently received correctiveresponses. As the following excerpts illustrate, not evenfamily coaching helped.Excerpts from student response lournalsthat illustrate thiscontamination: Experimental GroupStudent #3: Entry 4 (Week 4)“I have a little difficulty with your sentencestructure because if you read the last part of your entryhere it is all one sentence.”Student #6: Entry 4 (Week 4)-spelling error indicated—capitalization error indicatedStudent #8: Entry 4 (Week 4)“I would enjoy your responses more if I could readthem.”Excerpt from the researcher’s log:Kitchen table discussion (Week 4).R: “You [the English teacher] are not supposed tocircle their errors. You’re not supposed to even noticethem. You’re just supposed to be encouraging.”T: “I know. I can’t help myself. When I see themdoing something wrong, I feel it’s my job to point itout.”R: “I know. But, for this experiment, please,please, try not to do it anymore.”T: “Okay. I’ll try.”Excerpts from student response lournals : Experimental Group107Student #4: Entry 5 (Week 5)“Try and avoid starting a sentence with and.”Student #6: Entry 12 (Week 10)—two spelling errors indicatedStudent #15: Entry 5 (Week 5)“Write rough copies first then write out theseentries neatly.”One week prior to the experiment, random assignment oftreatment groups took place by the flipping of a coin. TheEnglish teacher wanted the experimental group to be thecontrol group. As late as week five into the experiment Irecorded in my log that he was “. . .still talking about how hewanted the experimental group to be the other block”. Ibelieve this attitude toward the control group accounts forthe great number of open process responses he made to them intheir journals.Excerpts from student response journals: Control GroupStudent #3: Entry 2“Great response — you challenge the novel with someexcellent ideas. ... Write lots——it’s wonderful toread.”Student #21: Entry 6“You are doing just fine. You are an excellentwriter....“Entry 9“The quote is a fascinating one. I would like youto try and figure it out.... There is no ‘right’interpretation——Try (a good journal entry item!).”The English teacher, like those teachers in Langer andApplebee’s study How Writing Shapes Thinking (1987), took to108his classes a different interpretation of the goals of theexperiment than I did. His interpretation, as mine would be,was shaped by his view of what his role as a teacher shouldbe.Untested HypothesisOne of the initial reasons that I became interested inresponse writing was because of the personal experiences Ihave had in teaching English to Native Indian students. Withthese students, I have been most effective when room for somekind of private personal interaction is allowed for in thecourse of a lesson. These students, more often than not, haveused their journals to tell me, and ask advice about, problemsthey are experiencing in their personal lives.The best example of establishing this kind of trust andrapport with a Native student through the use of journals isan experience recounted to me by a fellow staff member. WhileI was doing my course work for my Master’s Degree, I kept inclose contact with my colleagues at the school from which Iwas on leave. They, of course, were very much interested inwhat I was studying. One teacher of English, in particular,decided to do journal writing with one of his grade-sevenclasses. Following is an excerpt from a letter he sent to mewhile I was doing my course work (used with permission).109I teach one Native girl who has not done any otherassignments in class except her journals. She has gonefrom writing one or two sentences, when we first began,to writing full pages during the short time allotted forthis activity. We have discussed everything from hercomplicated and quite horrible personal life to poplyrics as poetry.Her journal is the only place in which I amreaching her. In fact, I think the journal has providedus with a vehicle to defuse potential confrontationsituations in the classroom. Her attendance rate hasimproved over the past few months as well. Whether ornot this can in any way be credited to journal writing Icannot say, but it is logical to me to infer that thejournal is an important part of a caring atmosphere whichis hopefully an inviting atmosphere.In the year the experiment took place, our school wasfortunate enough to receive funding from the Department ofIndian Affairs to set up an Alternate Self-Paced Program (ASP)in an attempt to counteract the high drop-out rate of NativeIndian students. This program directed enrollment of themajority of Native Indian students away from the regularclassrooms to such a degree that their representation in theclassrooms under study was virtually non—existant. However,I still believe strongly in the effectiveness of responsejournals as a means of reaching ‘high, at—risk’students——whether Native or otherwise. The untestedhypothesis, the original impetus behind this ‘best laidscheme’, promises ‘joy’ for future research.110BIBLIOGRAPHYApplebee, 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 ofEducational Research, 54, 577—596.Barnes, D., Britton, J. & Rosen, H. (1971). Language, theLearner, and the School. London: Penguin.Berthoff, Ann E. (1978). Forming/Thinking/Writing; TheComposing Imagination. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, Inc.Bereiter C. & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation tocomposition: the role of instruction in a developmentalprocess. In R. Glaser (Ed.) Advances in InstructionalPsychology. Vol.2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, 1—64.Borg, Walter R. & Gall, Meredith D. (1989). EducationalResearch: 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.) TheNorton Anthology of English Literature: Revised, Vol.2.New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.Calkins, L.M. (1979). Andrea Learns to make writing hard.Language Arts, 56, 569—76.Carroll, J.A. (1984). Process into product: teacher awarenessof the writing process affects students’ writtenproducts. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.) New Directionsin Composition Research. New York: Guildford Press,315—333.Clifford, J.P. (1981). Composing in stages: the effects of acollaborative pedagogy. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 15, 1, 37—53.111Crowhurst, M. & Kooy, M. (no date). The use of responsejournals in teaching the novel. In Response Journals.Daly, J.A., Vangelisti, A. & Witte, S.P. (1988). Writingapprehension in the classroom context. In B.A. Rafoth &D.L. Rubin (Eds.) The Social Construction of WrittenCommunication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex PublishingCorporation, 147—171.Diederich, P.B. (1974). Measuring Growth in English. Urbana,Ii: NCTE.Eliot, G. (1874). Middlemarch. In T. Fuiwiler (Ed.) TheJournal 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: HeinemannEducational Books Inc.Gere, Anne R. (Ed.) (1985). Roots in the Sawdust: Writing toLearn Across the Disciplines. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE.Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and therevolution in the teaching of writing. CollegeComposition and Communication,33, 76—88.Harste, J.C., Woodward, V. & Burke, C. (1984). Examining ourassumptions: a transactional view of literacy andlearning. Research in the Teaching of English, 18,84—108.Hayes, J.R. & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying theorganization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg & E.R.Steinberg (Eds.) Cognitive Processes in Writing.Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Earlbaum, Publishers, 3—30.Heller, Dana A. (1989). Silencing the soundtrack: analternative to marginal comments. College Composition andCommunication, 40, 210—14.Herbert, Y. & Barman, J. (1987). Indian Education in CanadaVolume 2 : The Challenge. Vancouver: University ofBritish Columbia Press, 13.Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on Written Composition: NewDirections for Teaching. Urbana, Illinois: EricClearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, NCRE.112Johnston, B. (1983). Assessing English: Helping Students toReflect on Their Work. Philadelphia: Open UniversityPress.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 Indianstudents. 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 mypeople: ways to teach American Indian children. Journalof 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 byNancy Martin. Upper Montclair, New Jersey: Boynton/CookPublishers, Inc.Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: the tempo ofwritten discourse production. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish, 15, 113—134.McNeil, J.D. (1985). Curriculum: A Comprehensive Introduction.Toronto: Little Brown & Company.Moffett, J.W. (1968). Teaching the Universe of Discourse.Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Miffun.Moore, D.W., Moore, S.A., Cunningham, P.M., and Cunningham,J.W. (1986). Developing Readers and Writers in theContent Areas. Toronto: Longman Inc.Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled collegewriters. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317—36.Peyton, J. K. & Seyoum, M. (1989). The effect of teacherstrategies on students’ interactive writing: the case ofdialogue journals. Research in the Teaching of English,23, 3, 310—334.Pianko, S. H. (1979). A description of the composing processesof college writers. Research in the Teaching of English,13, 5—22.Pianko, S. H. (1977). The Composing Acts of College FreshmanWriters: a Description by Sharon Pianko with LouisaRogers. New Brunswick, N.J.113Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. & Kirschner, B. (1989). Students’metacognitive knowledge about writing. Research in theTeaching of English, 23, 343—378.Rhodes, R.W. (1988). Holistic teaching/learning for NativeAmerican students. Journal of American Indian Education,27, 2, 21—29.Rose, M. (1981). Sophisticated, ineffective books——thedismantling of process in composition texts. CollegeComposition 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 roleof production factors in writing ability. In N. Nystrand(Ed.) What Writers Know: The Language, Process, andStructure of Written Discourse. New York: Academic Press,173—210.Shaughnessy, M.P. (1977). Errors and Expectations: A Guide forthe Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.Staton, J. (1987). The power of responding in dialoguejournals. 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,Social and Cognitive Views. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Stein, N.L. (1984). Critical issues in the development ofliteracy education: toward a theory of learning andinstruction. American Journal of Education, 93, 171-199.Swisher, K. (1990). Cooperative learning and the education ofAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native students: a review of theliterature and suggestions for implementation. Journal ofAmerican Indian Education, 29, 2, 36—43.Tierney, R. J. & Pearson, P. (1983). Toward a composing modelof reading. Language Arts, 60, 568 -80.Torbe, M. (Ed.) (1980). Language Policies in Action. Ward LockEducational.Vygotsky, L. (1978). In N. Cole, V. John—Steiner, S. Scribner,& E. Souberman (Eds. and Trans.) Mind in Society: Thedevelopment of higher psychological processes. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.114Yinger, R. (1985). Journal writing as a learning tool.ThVolta Review, 87, 5, 21—33.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.115Appendix A: Letter of PermissionSchool District70 Alberni.4690 Roger St., Port Alberni,B.C. V9Y 3Z4 Ph. 723-3565September 24,1990-UBC BehaviouralSciencesScreening CommitteeUniversity of BritishColumbiaVancouver,B.C.Dear Membersof ScreeningCommittee:This letter willprovide approvalfor Mrs. ElaineMacKay, U.B.C.Masters student,to conducther study entitled“The effectsofteacher writtenresponse onthe attitudesof studentstowardwriting to learnin responsejournals” in.SchoolDistrict#70(Alberni) andat E.J. DunnJunior SecondarySchool specifically.I know Mrs. MacKayto be a committedteacherof English whohasdemonstratedthe necessarysensitivityto conduct interviewswithstudent subjectson the topicbeing studied.It is my beliefthatthe resultsof her studywill have thepotentialityof improvinginstructionfor students, particularlyNative Indians.I have no hesitationin giving Mrs.MacKay the approvaltà proceed.Please do nothesitate tocall me shouldmore informationberequired.IYour ly,N. . hiessenSu r tendent ofSchoolsNJT :mccc. Mrs.E. MacKayExagtL,zc2g1,2 EJLL2at1O12c-I-in—4C‘a‘ci‘ainw-intif-•—IJciJ•H’113ci‘-çc-i-i_i-+c-I-CU.F-iinc-iInI-’.--cCci11)H.‘<H’i’H’-C’U.Jinc-t.-i—i‘‘IIICC’d-Ii)Uirn(Cflci-U-‘---<iniøi—iDci-3)-caCinH’c’ciinUiC)i—-c-i-j-QUI‘-ininul-occiinhiIlli’”II)‘433)Hc-I-111IllItid-3)-c-3Uic-i<rnci-rIDc-ilbc-I-aoCi’Jic-I-inc-I-i—-cini-lbCHII1)C‘Cli-noci‘ac-i-CiIDC‘--ia.-,:i<-ccici-3‘-ininci‘ciaino—+-inDC-hilb-c“DDF-cDDj‘Cl-cinii“.c-i-lbaC-çlombH.Dia.in‘-“DCID-c’ini’-cDDiH’DiH’iJ)ci-i,Dci-c-I-ITLci-inci’aC-Crci-ri-inina’ciciinD-U‘-Uc-I-ILla’iiii-inITC-+“‘-i’C:-inDin‘:‘‘—i-ccii-nci3Ii)Oci-ci-I‘ciCa’c-i‘<JIi)—c-i-‘C3UiinID‘0ciUiiciDDid’DU:)IDc-i‘-cP1C&UiDIDID-aH’Di‘-a‘a-c-I-<iin‘-aH’Iflci-iiiCIDi-”C‘‘CiIDac-I-Clb:i—H’flii-ina-cci3ininc-i&3IDin<inin33-:3inininainc-iH.c-i-ainulli)ai--i-a<i-nininc-ii-nC<ci-‘<“ic-i-cicici-nXUi3ID3HcIDDinciCci-C3c’‘a‘itic-I-cicirc-I-ID‘-in3inH’(IIIinC-hcraa.,-:3-c-i-ci-aiiciciciH.ci-H’inial’•c-I-ini:i—ici-i:ci3c-i-ci--cac-i3C‘-:r&‘<-i’.111c-I-([Ic-i-illIDinc-i--cci:J-cicIici:iHiniijCi3ininCT10C3-i-nci-ci-E:3:31]H’IDi-nIDH’<Ccii-H::333-h-inin-inaCinc-I-in‘a‘cicicii-’,•uiin‘—inDiH’Uicic-I-‘:‘-ciin‘<inaxtri‘a-cc-in‘—3XiiDi‘arici-icici-ciUi13CDiinCID:3lbc-ic-I-IDin‘cciiJ1ci-i--i“cc-I-3c-I-IjiDID3-—4:i-H’J-‘cin-ciinH’aciinc-I-Xin3-ii)‘,J&H’‘ainci3ci-aiii‘ci3inainTc-I--‘cinID-‘WC:‘DIDc-I-inDciininXc-I-D3inin-‘cH’Ct3ciininnin‘a,:iciH’c-lH’“cc-ic-i-ui‘:xinina’inc-I-Ii3D-r‘a-cinH’c-i--çIDIDainH’3-H’ijinD&ci3)inH’3-cH’ciinci’iI:)cic-I-3c-ic-I-H’IflUiD‘cCIDc:rID3:3“—.a-3-P13ID-‘cinc-I-3--inDi3inITIDH’3DDiItii:i:33ci‘—ID:3-cc-i--c“ca’c-I’aE‘0:1)‘a ‘aID :3 a H’ w -I) Di -ç in :3 c-i in I—. Li.’ r Di -ç a H’ Di :3 in ID :3 c-i- -c 30’‘-“LII‘-Ui1JCT&LU“CLUtitiIDCL21Ci21d-J•ID—.:rID-LUa2ci.DCLC0-oIDID-t‘C’d--c-•.i-”ci.d-LUDiUi&-[I.crI]LU-<CL<IDC)n-cui-‘;0‘-•ftCLiDi‘-021iDU)tiU)IDID4.‘21CLIDi.)1iDt.:’CLCCL—+&C)‘-&cctc-i-a&ci-CiDCLUti‘-C0IDii-&lftI‘—40ft—iID21IDIi)CL-..CL‘-“D-1-ID21210&2121ci-‘—i,ID‘IDIDID—iiv‘•ci.ci--JCI.II)0CLc-i-fl21:rLU‘—‘0-ç‘IDc+&ci-1uIi)LUIDUih21IDLACLLULULA-‘Dri-LUci-LUCrIDUI---ILU21LiirLI—ciC<CID‘DIDtci-&rID:‘C)ci.-ci.Di‘<--nic.-rCIi)c’-c-i--i-sic-i-C101(1ci-ci-C)‘--a0IDCLLU21ID<CI:1LU‘21CLi-”21‘--i&C‘-“IDIDLA&III10rnitiin-•ci-:iCL-c-cj-21Ui(&IDciijj-ci-T21-DiLU‘-0&C’F--rIDTi])IDC)ID:ro‘-ID-+JLiiH--c-oLU:iDi10c-i-DiLULA‘—IDc-i-fl0110tJ10LUtIi-”iiirc’:T‘—-2110LUCrLU*0‘-CrIDIDID(1IIIID‘-i-21IDi-i-iLU21IDIDc-i--“21‘-ILl,,21dIDILl21iiCLI‘-Cci.IDIDC‘-LUJCL21C’IIIIiiLlI21CCL‘—10c-I-2xci-IID3‘—a11(1LUCrIDJLii-çi:ID2110010DiID:JCrIDci-C’IDIA-ci:rw113ID-21cLic-i-IDIDc-I-In1‘_‘c-i-0Di&Cci-IDCLJHCr*:ci-ftlCI121LULU‘-LU-cC)nrIDH-*Jc-I-IDC)IDctC)&CI1]—h-croui‘--iC’10rI3DiCr10IT1ctIDC’t-1ittc-iCr‘-“ID21‘-..CL2)IDTCIcCr2110ZID021CLIDUDCLDi&CLII21-‘;21IDC‘—i-CI&I--ci-IDd-ci-CI-CrLJIii-.C21—c&--1&C’-iCLi-”21IDIDxc-I-It)CLC21IDLUC’IDID1]-çJ.CLLULULUuCLT-c&c-i-ID,-.IDJ‘-i101IDci-tiIIi)0IIIc-I-CIC)‘.03•cuCL1021-coIDCL‘:c-i-IDx10--ID‘-LUci.C21Iii‘-T<31Jci-JaLAZCCILUIDDi10Dtic-iIDc-i10IDI—.4&IDCLIL’UiDi‘--flI1012121J&IDi-ID&CIID1210IDIDi-I-TiLU&C)(..3IDxID-i-3LUCr21C210DiIDtIIDIDID‘--aIDctCLc-I-ID0IDC21ID21IDI--.-213II)X3iii212121‘—-cCL21CII1021c-I-1030C’UiIDC’21ID21LU<ID‘-“IiiLAIDIDc-IZ-<IDCLDi31L..C,-I3OI—ct3ID21C’21IDi—’UiIDCrID&IDUiID21‘—i-C3CII-Ii)&LUC’131ci-211-<ID‘-ID‘—i-ID‘—-nIDUD21‘-—‘—2110d-‘--C’10C’&ci,—“IDDi&2110-cLUCC’:rCLct21—-,-C)CrIDCI‘—iCrID101-iID‘—iC’CL21LU-+ID‘-10‘-<ID—1aD.-11-DIiiJCri-p“-iCa;aciiiiID03.—iIf!.-Di••—‘j:ti:—-s-’cisDi-P—1•—I.CC’-‘£C’-‘3p-4-)4--P‘Tic’‘-‘cr>,Ccr-aC’C61)ID--4C1fl!4--i—‘-.-.-I-)-ci‘-,.pcrii:6CD•-‘pC-.CD‘NIJIDaC’0)CDW-4-’CDC613,.J-Ii!CDCIftID•—Dioc--ar-4IDf.-.5-N10.-1-PIf!IDIDII)f•L’:iDIDC’CLCIDC-J-4-’5-•—‘C’CDC’X0Clfl‘0U.-i-,-‘.CID--iC’DlNC’5--P-J.)r4U“‘6I10—‘-i.—iIDCDf)6aa3--4—iUi‘Na331iIDur-.a.CDIDC’U1‘0C’6Di>-,4-.-CF-pp()IDpr-CIllC’CDC10‘-ICpp-p1>-.C’-p-C,—,-pCu1)-ci>IDCr’i5->CD6CCIDCUiC’CD6CD5-‘IICrr.iCL5-‘:‘a-r4-4aiiiCIlli-p[fl—i3If)6-.CFtiCID1)4(Ii•CI)DJ.-C’-6IDCIDC’a.6.-DiIn5-C’criID3(0IDUC‘-N-I!,5-...>I])rifl•pIDLip6CDlC’1]C’C’3CD•IDCCCL’>C’C’>-,OJtiIDu-PIpCi.Dl3-‘--‘4-s-a0)CliDi3CI-DlCI)ID5-65-.C£IDLitIPCI)>-,•ID--w10(4Jp[0fl!ill‘TiIS!C[i6U)--ILi(IiTiCr,—iUiIIIL’CI)Cri£---‘Ca4-’IDriL’C)1)CL5-.C13135-.‘TiIDr—iLiCIDDiC‘1)5-.>ciC)III[II11‘1)-C)C—.C)C’C’>CliC)Cr’U‘TiC.—i3•-PIDIll-p.pC’U-PCDi_i,—ir—’U)C‘—4‘i)-,Cl!Ci.I])C’C’Cr4ID‘TiC‘C’C’-.“-)tI4-)C’C.CC)-pC’C5-.Li—I-C,C’i-CICaU)[II-‘>-CaE--I£Ui-Icr’CLiiCD>W•10I-z.U-I-’>-‘DCEDiID65-DiCs---injCCDa--40UI-a--4>6-P4-)CDiU)-pC’CUIDC’C’5--ci.01--4-pC--4-pCC11)C’Ui-HC-PC’‘TiL’fi.--II—iLI--4-p5—noa65.-‘4—4’CIDIIICID“-i4-)a’C-‘-4>--IID5—IiiLTIIDr-4CCD‘—IDi4-’CliID5--J-pnjCa’inCCD-‘--I-D5-CDJCj4-)CID5—CDCLID6‘UCin4-,CDiC)-1-’LA‘-HHHi—’HHrr,yraHaininC’inC’ID:33I.flillI’DII)ii)ctc-i-cI-xc-I-ID.inC’0c-i-30.in;c•-c‘-‘-“Di<1‘<rnd-JDill‘.0raa‘-ini-‘—inin‘-“inin-c-uin3in-&ID•ID‘<i-i.c-i-Difluinri:•Jc-i-Di0.-0ID‘“Dct•iiiinin‘:‘—IICtc-I-,-‘.!lICtH’DiinC’ci.inctID‘riinD‘—C’CiH-—•-IIIin‘.0Dici.-c H’&H’ac-i-C’in•c-Ic-iIDJ•DDiirrjIDIi)DiH.inlilIDCtCt;‘c-I-7DfluIDinIDinl,flIctin“<c-octIDCiH.DifluDiJUI-0-0.LIDC’c-I-‘I]H•U)‘nac-I-•<c-i-CtI’DC’‘—i’C’Diin‘-Cl--c-i-:3r‘-<c-IH’CiIDC’0-c-I-fl.-<IDc-I-InI—’:Jc”I--,‘inCtC’<ii)Hc-I-‘—EID‘.0rLi’‘-IDI’D,--Cl-i—c-i-‘<IiiIDiDc-I-inc-I-Diin:3-133‘<CtCtIDItiH’C,33JaItiIDinJH’(Jc-I-Ii)flU’in‘.01’in-i-i.Clc-I-Cl-‘:‘IDc-I-c-I-inDi-<:rr0.Ii)Ii)ID•Cl--+ ID ID•---‘•c-I-3‘—flIDIDDiJ<3‘.0c-I-In:LU1’-çØIi)C’c-I-C’C’-.-çCt-<inC’C’ID.C-rCtIiiDidl-Jc-t—c-I-L’in0HZr:1-ID in c-i- -ç in Lii cr r CtH :3- 11:1 -J Di Ct It’ -,; I)’IID in 3F H- c-i-‘OID-o-cIPLii:3&a1I-’--xin •.Ii r H’ a ID H- :3 ID in -+ (0 c-I r a ID :3 c-i ID In-Din ID c-I I -c Di I—. IDLi—ID::‘::-wIDc1Z.a’wi;rIa’ci< IDc-Ia’I.-..Dinc-I-0-1IDI-•”-hCI‘0- IDCl0- IDCLflcia r Ini-s-rti-ll—4(f)151CLEll-H0Ittc-I-1ci--xIDc-I-ci-H-.-JCL;:-IDHIDJinoc-I-c-I-ZrHa’:-.::-a’c-I-10c-I-r<i—ici•“ID••CLil•H•aCL DIDc-I :1 ci ID LI -ç IDci-•-c‘rjfriID-‘1’Lfl&Jci--ciID:‘H•<:JIDCLID-çci-0)ci-Cc-I--a’IDt—-+,-<c-IIDIDIIIIDLii—:(ciH•IL’Ii) xIDc-I-ci—-Ia’<::i:iiicic’-ç,—oI.ctcic-I-1LII cic-Ia’IDCLci-ijIII:-jci-E•-•...cta’iiIDcOici-cia-‘-“ra’c’<IiiH-<Ilci-ciIiElcira-a’<‘-<(IDc-I Iiic-I-‘•-•‘:i.r‘—aI—iID‘-“0-+.•-<J1StIDID-Jlbiii-‘-<IDii:I’tIID D CL H c-I- r ID Ii(5) H- ID I, IIIpi-ii—i:r--ii—ia’0CL1Hc-I-CLID-ci-ci-Zr0I—H-I-JIDcic-I ::rta,-.U.H113I-’-,;H-151I-’.&IDlbc-IJIDCL-c•H-IDD151IDc-I HIDa- ID lb 151 IDc-I-1)1rIDIllIDEl31.11:ici-IDa’Iii-c c-I-c-I-IDa’CLZI ci -ç r In r It’ -I-, ID -ç ci It’ UitiIII r‘1) IDID 151 c-I H III c-IIDID c-I-I—i 0C.-’-IF—IlbinwUi‘fl-i-’DlbC3-iQ>c’I_ia-Plbi—i:4-,In2lbr’cii—-CLULl)lb0)IcccrF-LU0)CCtCLin4-’-1aDfti4-)L5(1)•.-i4)‘:‘I—iati—WQA-l-,lbci36(-i-inci<tICi—iinliiilllL><£21Ui0)6•DWncrcic-P-0U1.Q..L’i:cUI—Ci—irU-r•4OtiOJlb•11ir4WI4-’-PCfI-P-1-’F—0)4-’at3I—4-.1-P—i--21•tLl)EJirU.fJC’rn1aaa£.rc’c>-,-.F—ooi-i-’c’inin4’a4’aaL’L’4-)I—IrUt3W0)a.aaa4-’((I(OF-1CUiti(1)4-a4-aain2121iiilbC’2(1)>--PCCciwwc’‘—iciUi4-isicf’_3oLU-Prci6(1)26CiLii>>3ai—iD--iUiLiZEl-i-6C01t1—Cu>4-’incicici£ti£4-’liiwiii-cicriiiin(1)lbC3Ui3CL2.flicriC6—a6CCCCiWI—0)C]•21ci21crcic•-r---r-iliiicrEl21]6>-LU.—aciciinciiii->-‘inci<r6-o..CL-iCLinCCrD1Ji-21iilrll£lbUicciaoiCl11•rI4’•4)4-)1221-4-’c’ciliilbcr>in£Cl0)ciLicri4-’(0CJafa•iX>6123a-rI-4flJ-PLUSX(0lbCta4)4)a4flJ63)’ftlIn3.ln-pCiZinWOI(U-i-iLUci.ZUi..i—I>(Jj4-Cciii>-cciCrra2WlbtI..C:’Q(IiLiiCC1(1J-i-)60lU)--aC621-.waC-‘-‘a£CtOC]rU0)-.-13013£1]>fluac’--i-W1--a.Lii4)flUILUCLCLcri.-415tirtl-ci--o-a-ocruiawzi—wLU6-4)4-aJCLiiiLU‘U££3rU£)-ti6Liici3cr0Ciii-i1(4(Uci.LU<tLUCl6iiii:.—ici.CLinCLcic,C--‘Liioi:iCiOEclbfl)3ci.scElcii:’wrUc1E2Elw(r3w’—is>-wGLOWJOCLEIcrLULUaaf4-)aaattatia.aa•aF-L)6>(IL•(fla..a.aa,(..r-Ia-r-1i1)Ii)’.iJt’-W’YC’-’NCO‘tIflZ><a•11aLU0—iJif)’UjLI3Nflji3.—T,--LIjl$a—i,.-INC—I’--’LUii)0)cri(j$ii a’-a0)0IL’Zrctf[jlbfr_I. tfli-’-hNlbBIDIL’ac-i--c.:,-1<.ID0IllC’Ill‘<‘.0ID rtlb-c —S It’ lb am : -1, F m 1-I-iEIZH31113DIDc-i-IiiIiiB‘0liia-cr- ILl flciaH•CToDI..:::-n C’3 H’_IDa;•:-1ctc-i-3 fr-I.3Lfllb‘0 1ZIIDci0)0)0)ci-‘DZi.3-<I-.:’frI.F-’F-’I—’I-i-fr_fr_i-•‘-•DC’ccq4.0)k.’—o’:’‘owcq.cjw•.aIaaI.IIH•..5IIIIII•III...HIO.HF—lwZU0ci--<F‘-UJ-<ID-’:’-cw3IDftD:J.ID:’D-c--c.,:IH.oci-ct-olb7C<<’<ci-3b-IDcI-B0ID-”’<IDlbCUIDH-Can’<-cID3IUW-crDro-cmir‘<oc-i-H.3rn-cBID-Ln&DID’<IDc-D.-wC.c,’<ODcrc-t-IDTC•lbID-IDDIDLii‘0C•CI0D(D3ZWID1J31flI.flI‘i33c1-<wz-c.C--cIDbI.&-CrDJ1BIDLflC’Ifl‘.0IDID•ct’<H.’-1‘*:u-iHlbr<&-cci-‘-‘-.cici-c-t-ci-3c-i--c‘<c-I-lbD’<D1bID’-(CZrW—1--c“lbOIDC’O3-*-coro’--wclbc-t-IJj‘-acr.D-1:-CCID-c-‘CDL1CIJc-tDb-0rDwCIIIftir,ct•••3CIDfr1W3WOlbWcilb•••0—.0’<BlbDCL’<nc-t-•C-ç•CI:’CT’<IDC’C’-o‘—ID3ID-o’<b—IDU1WdC3C’fl)‘<-F,I1,JH-a.-+,a.-c:Lii-cro‘<-cCci-i,tflID•CTci-Hc-I-Liifl—hc-i-fr—c-tCT—S‘.0IDID1JC’D‘<Cr03fr<Hroru•‘:‘a.WD---•.:‘-cIT-<00)aDLuc-i-.Dci-•CIDCTflb—Zrci-LIjc-i-’.0c-I-.c-i-c-i-c-iIDILl03-c30c-i-3c-I--,ui-c)‘<BIDCHH.c-i-c-i-C’Ii)C’DC’IDC’-1-DLIIIDCi—c‘:‘C’C—c‘.0-Z’.0DH.‘<H-c-I-c-i-33b-1’UiH.I3o‘<ci-o--•C-hxID‘.03CC-cci-ruorD’-InC’..<,,:c-I-Liia.ro3oIuic-i-—caC’C•LuHH-c-I-Ifl0.•C’CIwci-DLuIDD•In‘.0C’DUiIDIIL’—hH.1J-cH.a.IDODCt’.0H.Lu-SC<ZrCTc-i-H-DC’IDOrDoa’——h1c-i-Ha.<‘<•C’UiLuIDIDHDO.Liiciia-.-c3.-IDLuUiUi UiH i—b H ‘—-I 0 .2r 1) F 91 i-I 1,-i 91 m 0) -n 0 z U, m U)C’C’0LiixDDCl-fl’0-••‘1ci-c-I-Dii:ilb•ru•CIII‘a•It’c-IInC’uIi1J‘.0i: < H a ID ‘I tEl < a ID D Zr ID -c IDi—IU)a.CiD—ac-i CD D Ci.IL’It’D -ca in c-i-c-I. ac-izC’3 a’ ci--c H‘<c-iOIt’rBlbC’-c-c IDIDLII 11’‘<IDH-fluD.c‘.0IIIC.)tJF-’ii]I;Jwc IDIi)In--hDIDit’It’Cra-SID-IDZiIDfli_IH-nIt’—;it’-oI.—’IIIIDIDfr_IDc-f-cci‘.0-ç-I](fiIDr:-c:Jft-cic-i-1(1-cit’IL’I—”c-rJlbai:a‘i-i IL’i:iiIIIBt’a3 IDc-iJ‘Uc-i-lIinfr-1- I••IH-(titii:15 0 ID D a. H x I:, ci- H D r ID a-II):rc‘<ci-c IIIzzzz[T1Iii[11[Tirnmrnommmmmmm<-,z..m FLI-ISiiIiSWLI’) H-HG)Li-1JDW1JtJ‘-QU)JWi3F-JW0Er’1G’)JJ1313’JDCD0D0H0C’Da’D0-C,a’Ha’DQ&3(D(flh133LIJin1t1HHH•-c-caiClifluljcJrDD-c--ctDa’I(tul’I:3I-i’i’iinio-c,-ITI1flinH.It3-<-o-c’’Dd-Oflcj-Nn-cod-fl3z-flctflt3i-•NflI13H.a’H-lflCLIIIfldcP7JHIi)3-ct-c<D’—S‘-Da’LflI-i-.d-‘--CiD‘—IfIJ3Dd-IDz3a’WHIua’iu-iJW-c,c1-a’!bDCa’—inD‘-1nH--c•—rain-o--çin-oui‘-ID<-ininc‘cininutiui“•-cinir.a’inIDuiin’-•cinin’—ft’winoa-o.in’:’’:’in—hDittinCIDDID3DI-t-c--3X•flci-13•‘.0•—+,•—çjiri•-+I3‘CiLUI’llUi‘‘ci-IHI-a’ina’-cnin-c’a’-a-in;-c-c--ctiatiinciin‘oa’-mIDctIOCLII1001lJ-II)ruln’:’H.-cri-oo—-t-ja’‘--rci-a’Ifla’finina’i:a’ci-30ina’Ifl—,3-IIc-I-a’‘-ID0.00.iji,—a‘-0c-ci.‘:‘Dau3c-i-arjii:Iiiininji—CmH•Di—iH-ctJi-nCCHC‘-ui’:’e-It’ctIDIwilixinciDF3D•3’-’Di-”O3‘-cDin3-cTDIDH-[.:’irI33rtic-i--II)‘.0‘LIa’‘—I‘CI0‘CIci-’<UiLA‘CI3a’ii]c-,3•1‘LIflIDI(...C’ittIIIIDC’•3‘-‘-“IDa’1ci-‘Li•i113in—‘sIttH’-intiDiin1)‘—‘ci-.•ctC’3dCinDiLII33in•‘-ina’o3‘:‘c-cp“-aa’Da:r*:IDIDLUI1(3C’<a3ci-inIC’in‘-‘‘-nciI3iDIDIiia’‘-a.a’c-i-cc-I-ii‘1]C’H’LIL—C’c-ia’13c-ia-•j-3i:i--i‘-I-CIIIci--in-‘—i.C’Ci3-ci—4i-’.It,inI‘SI‘cC’LUCIDCHID33Uic-i133a-cIDin“3a’LIiDci-i-n-.a’IDittiTina’•1)ci-‘—iCH.C’D13c-iIUi‘-<ID—c•IDC’310in‘iiiUIIDUi3Ui31]3.0iiiIDI3ci-ISC’‘1).•-Diit’C’H’c-i-Ici-3p.:’.in‘—a311-cC’3aQNCci-a’•H.Dl.AtEl11-ZN•-;rjiID10IA0.i)ci-H--‘IDIDC’3inH-c-i‘-C’U)•inI-çc-Ia’•Illci-Ii)III‘.0c-i‘-•‘1’].1]Crna’‘:‘IDC’mincti—i3in3DC’inin‘3.’Clc-i-Uilid-in0lUll)ci-33illID3ID0-a’IDa’ -c•—.Di[3‘.c-i-:rCCILbci’.c-I-13tIItDci--çinin IF—)tttzmmininininininininI-’LUW0“II••IIDCVO‘lL..-iZOL..,-.UtC..’-’WaOCw.wiw•QDaoozw’OODcP3<’-’SDmDCI13C1iigjps,.m*Catamrtinir1Ai‘-‘a‘-‘z’-’•‘-‘D.’-’AZ.-’&“letcisaamas’etoap,•tS..mm’-’mDdI-’mmD,.dm-Uctam0xmmammm.amma•iC-a’•C’1i31031ID110letcczi••mc•mima1<aa<iiamaa’-’ctpin.Iw.an.maaac•tmw.••cmw•5’miDCw.DzmDflt•DAc0cmaoc•.CAct-’•aD•ni•mzao‘azm•nmamm‘cmmisctCdIia.X30moCa.t0••mmoainaw•macnm••m.air•Cw•a-biDa0•i0octacD••-,m&1I-•II-%c•.D•innc•‘-‘0zaa3aDaa.a‘-‘aDC •IDC•S 3maommSClCanH.‘(7cta.5x a p‘-4 aIf-)(U-.CUi-p..C’—p-o4-U“‘-4(U-ir-)—i(II(U>(UInIf’0-a0in(UUi..CaulLIIf)30(UIIICLCIn-PL!-—4001tiiiInCr4-’3L—i(UaCl(U-‘-p-p0-i-’a‘-tiC-p(U(UUiUi(U--I£0.01aL’CUICL4Lr—i(UCi(U—(Utiax:ti1C-I-)-P(‘“4-)ZIf)-p(U4)‘•-IIll0LIUi“““44-)Ui£3r4.4-,:1L’—Ir-413.tioia—:1(ii(U6r”49——4C04-‘I—(UC’-LI-P(U‘iiIIII(UL9---C>-.I£-P0Ui(IIUI—4U)--i3a.>.,—44)43(U(U(U—inIOti(U-IC‘-4U)crUi0-pTJ00-PInC00CC(U1I01TJ1’•p4-(UCIIft(U-PCUIaIn(U3Ui6(U(U-‘—4lfl-P0C31.11•.4)a(UU)(UI-4in-p-iUi6Ui-4!-.(U(U‘-4!.-4-’(U(U--4LI3IiiC1’(U:i3CxaIl_i13UiUI016C13-4-P-P-PC-o>3(U‘-4C13-41J(UCUIUiti3LUin-P(U‘3-P(U‘-4--P4.4LU(UL.L’1)10(U£-LI3>£(IiCC31-401:13‘3xaa-C’t3‘3a£!-.41:1In6inCC0CLUi>-D-pU)fl---3-Pui60CUi,-i-UI9-UiCI01UI3aLiaIii:i•L’Ci.acL’6UiCI•CLI(LI01ci.•0sir”4CCI-PUiI—CILIIcrciH-i-0L’p(Ii(11-—itIW(UClUI(U(Ui—iLii(UC)(U(UUIWUiUI..>aHin—3H001C(Ii-6H1:13(ULiiCI>r.4-(jf.(UCI)C’0£C£“‘-4(Iif’.--PxC£C•-PII,—IIEI13C””1CIIf’(ULi..CIC)-“‘l0nncriaw‘3-+ci.<ID‘-i.:3:3a0ti.-.d1fl:ID LII3ID1_<rrUI— a‘—‘a’ii) :3I--’ i:it’‘-“It’ cl-ftaI-..H.:3LII‘.0&ni—iwjcrtn1DH-IDD toa’a’•-<&&•C’HI--’ a’3IIIIDLIIii) :3 If’ a’ :3 aIH’IfI&WIll’cl-JO-D‘:zarIDu :ftilJci-ct3 LAIII13H. LIIl13’—’J •-;ci-aa’IDJ a’c—‘‘.0LAID-crciIiiIt)Uiiii&IDa’aJISI<..<IDIll ill-4,LIIa’13Bri-1:3-•C’H•‘—‘:3’Lii-ftB a’iiiilflUiiw-c Ha’Ill:i-d-S(fl0DcI—.—’I—’.d-I33LAIDH•IllLA2’-h:30ciIii<LA Ba’aiuEH.tH.113‘Ill-aIDIt’LII13ID‘--‘Ui‘-I-‘iJID:rD-ça’Ba’iiiIII‘-<-D -DID :3 a w ‘—4 :3 I—. a’ LA Ui LA In a’ UI -ç In H :3‘0H’ :3 In -ç r H- :3I— rn U, U) 0 rn z-irnrnH-IIIIll0LIIInLIIaa‘iia’IIIID1‘--‘Iii•-<31‘a‘-‘II)0‘3ILl0UiC’‘:‘wa-çt30iii’-<i:0i:LI,J-I-IIIiH-H-IIi—’:z-hCIii0 -çII-H.‘-3It’‘:‘H’a’1ftctct1‘-ID’It, :3i’-’ Da’mciin-ç•Q ci.cl-i—’H0a’oftacrcr-c:3ii)i_IiIiii:1H’IDLII H-aC’DxD •DC’Uic’ aH-Joa’IDIh• Appendix H:Science--CO.1rse contentoutlineSiZ I ric1273. 13.4. 14.5. 15.VINTRODUCTION V VGive an experimental problem that each student canwork with for one class period (35 mm). At the end ofthe activity give them timeVto write in their Journals. VVTo start with have guiding questions on the board for .which they can respondx I r%r-rT ID F I 1DVAt the b eq inning of the term.V•VVGoal — Using the supplies given you; how many ways can youVmake this candle change?VVV V V VVTask — A. When a change is made describe thechange to the candle VB. What did you do to make the change? V V V VV..C. Which changes were physical changes where no newV•VVVV Vproducts were formed? •- VVVVVV-•:V VVD. Which changes were chemical changes where new productsVwere formed’V At the end of the term.V• V VV•Goal — Using the supplies given you; how many ways can youVmake the chemicals change?Task — A. When a change is noticed describe the change. VVV• VV S. What did you do to cause the change?V V• VV C. How could you tell the changes were chemical changes?VD. Write out the chemical equations for two(2)of thechemical changes that did’Pesponses TPADI TIONAL EXPEPIMENTAL• V VVV(closed)V V V V- VV(open).V V VVVVVV1. • 1 1. I’m glad you likedthe exp. IVenjoyed it too. Please tell memore.:2.V:2.6. 1 6.Appendix H continued128A random toss of a coinwas used to determinethe experimental group.RESULT A (closed)E (open)JiPENT ORGANIZATIONMy Journal — make noteson how they react.— instill a carefor their journal.— if a class is missedthey should noteitGetting Started— Give specific questionsto start with.The questions should directtheir thoughtson to important points ofthe.class.V — State clearly whatis going to happenduring the class timeand give expectations..Helpful Phrases—I found this tipic interestingbecause......._I had trouble understandingIt was difficult becauseIt was easy because- I was able to helpmy neighbour because- Am I rightin thinkingI like/dislike thisbecauseI still don’t know whyIs it true thatI knew about this beforebecauseDoes this haveanythzngto do with_________MEETINGS ARE TO BE HELDON WEDNESDAYS. 3:40ishV0’C-”(U3(U-I-’>.3I:CIIllC4.’CC(ULI(UIll(UCT!-pincDi(Uin>(U£.0UI1)333-P301IUiI(U010101ac.ruicricrI(U-PCCC611)(U(U(U.0£.0C3.0LILIDi1:1E.0Di—I.0ti1)3I_Ii_I01i(U-ici.1:1(Uininx>>1>‘Di[Il(UC•.£(\.C6atiatiDi(1.1Tiij>6CIIii(U6C-p.Diii1’ciiiu—IrI1:13•1..-3I_IinIf)(U(U(UIf’(iiiiiDir1jIcr1(U(Uk.r—ICCI:CII01Cfl(UI—Ia’tj>1C303(U(UX1L’LIti£11)i:iii-—ISI—II_I.pII(U(U(UTJLILICDl-t££1(II£tiCD-PLIt)LIJCI.-PC(UC(Uu-i•r-CIti£11).0££OiL1333a3aLUC_Jr4UI01innZD.0i:IIIII1I-I-’IflIn—I(ULU(U.s1.11ICI(U1)3I—(36F130Appendix 3: Science experiment--posttestI NTRODUCT I ONC I ENCE J C)UFNAL.S NAMESAt the start of this term you were given a task to try out. It wasyour Job to take a candle and change it as many ways as possible. Witheach change you were to write down what the changewas. Today you will begiven materials which can be mixed, dissolved, and reacted together.PURPOSEIt is your Job for this class, to thoughtfully combine the materialsprovided for you. Do it such that you will have a good idea what causedthe resulting change in the materials.PREDICTIONWhat kinds of changes do you expect to see?A.B.C.APPARATUS AND MATERIALS1. sodium chloride2. copper I sulfate3. calcium chloride4. sodium hydroxide5. hydrogen chlorideS. magnesium7. magnesium carbonatea. one large test tubeb. one large test tube blockc. six small test tubesd. one small test tube blocke. one 50 niL beakerf. 2 wood splints (sticks)g. a book of matchesPROCEDURE1. WORK with a PARTNER.2. Got your materials and apparatus that are listedabove.3. Try as many combinations as you have time for.4. REMEMBER — Each time you combine chemicals, you must record thereactions that take place.(IF YOU GOT A REACTION.)8. If a gas is given off, (fizzing) test it witha burning woodsplint and record your results.OBSERVATIONSAT THE START AT THE ENDWhat did they look like?I What did they look like? VTrial #1ITrial *1_________________________I A.___B.__________________________IB.____Trial #2 ITrial#2A.__________________________IA.____________________________B.IB.Trial #3ITrial #3A._________________________IA.___________________________B.__________________________I B.___________________________A.PLEASE TURN THIS PAGE OVER AND CONTINUE131Appendix 3 continuedpage 2On this side I have given you more room to write. Please feel free toinclude as much as possible. REMEMBER — we always looked for observationsbefore they reacted, during the reaction, and then after it quit reacting.Trial #4BEFOREDURINGAFTERTrial *5BEFOREDURINGAFTERTrial *6BEFOREDURINGAFTER.CONCLUS I ONSA. What did you do to cause the reactions during thisactivity?1._____________________________________2.3._______________________________________B. How were you able to help your partner?,132Append ix K: Student writ inq smp1 es——Tw rn’:’des teacherr ep’:nSeSAMPLE ONE: TRAD IT I ONAL RESPONSE‘kELgt—c.rfQPRLEppendiXKccntinuedSAMPLE ONE: OPENPROCESS RESPONSE133•ZRJLE----LL \-CD -‘3 r m H z C H U 1-4 H I—I C ZDDDr.oID;vDmaCD‘-•-‘3xC z7.CD m:1 it I—’. 3 c a1-’ (A)(1) -o I m -i 0 0 ‘1 m -o 0 I-) m U-i U) m U) -I-’ C z u-i mI,-i-irD a I-I. x ct I-i. 3 r m a136Appendix L: Attitude QuestionnaireTHE EFFECTS OF TEACHER WRITTEN RESPONSE ON THE ATTITUDES OFSTUDENTS TOWARD WRITING TO LEARN IN RESPONSE JOURNALS.As you pri:ibably know, most people tend to rememberideas better after they have written about them. In E.J,Dunn this year we’re conducting an experiment tohelpstudents learn through writing. We would also like to knowif this influences students’ attitudes towriting andschoolI am conducting this experimentas a graduate student at UBCunder the supervision of Dr.Joe Belanger, a professor inLanguage Education.We would like to ask you to takepart in this experiment.Of course, when I report our results,names of individualswill not be used. Only you, your teacherand I will knowthese individual results.I would be happy to answer any questions regardingtheproject. Please asfr me in person while I am discussing theproject with your class or see me in my classroom — Poom 800You are not required to participate in this project and maywithdraw at any time without harming your school grades. Ofcourse, since this writing is part of the school curr iculum,137Appendix L continuedyou will be required to dci it in any case. However, if youcho’:’se ni:at to become part of the experiment, I will n’:’tinclude your marks in my calculationsSincerely,Mrs.. Mac KayI acknowledge receiving this consent form. I consent toparticipate in this project.Signed:__________________Date: _____________138Appendix L ‘:ontinuedThe f’:allowing f’:’rm is designed to find out how you feelabout writing and what is important to you when you write.Opposite ideas about writing are presented in eachstatement. If you strongly agree with the statement, fillin answer circle A on the computer bubble sheet. If youagree somewhat, fill in circle B. If both ideas are ofequal importance to you or there is no di fference in yourmind between the two ideas, fill in circle C Should youdisagree somewhat with the statement, fill in circle D. Ifyou disagree strongly with the statement, fill in circle E.The ideas expressed in each statement are neither positivenor negative. No value .judgement is attached to eitheridea. There is no right or wrong answer.A — Strongly agree 8 — Agree somewhat C — No differenceD — Disagree somewhat E — Strongly DisagreePRACT I SE SAMPLES:Having a gc’od breakfast is more important than having a good1 unc h.A 8 C D EBeing able to express myself in my ciwn words is moreimportant than having rules provided that tell me how towrite something.A B C D E139Appendix L ‘:‘:‘ntinuedSLIEST1DNNi2;I1 Writing tasks assigned for schoo]. are more importantthan *:hcos:ng what I want to write ab:utI would rather write when it is required of me thanwrite wren I ted like it2. it is more important to write for a tea:her or a c’:’ursethan to write for myself4 I would rather decide whether or not what I write hasvalue than have a teacher tell me whether what I write isany :ood or not5 I would rather decide how much I want to write than havethe teacher assign what I have to wr ite.A -- Strongly Agree B — Agree Somewhat C No differenceD — Disagree Somewhat E — Strongly Disagree6. I would rather have the teacher tell me what to writethan make up what I am going to write about.7. It is more important to write what I am thinking than towrite what I am told to write.S. Writing for personal pleasure is of more value to methan writing for a teacher.3. I would rather have ‘:hoices or make up my,:wn writ ingassignment than be told what I am to write abc’ut10. Writing for a test has greater value than writingcreat ively.11. Writing ti:’ help me understand or learn something new ismore impi:’rtant than writing for an assignment.12. Writing for my teacher is more important than writingf ‘:‘r ct her s or for pub 1 i ‘: at i cm.13. Writing to sh’:’w what I know is more important thanwriting that helps me learn while I am doing it.14. It is more important to write for a grade than it is tosimply write.--cprIjF-.)d-JF-.)Z—l-F--)F)c-l-LIF--)c-l-J-j[ji-H-l—c-i-i-—3Di-cl-H31jJ<CO3JCr-iIDciLq-c.ii.-ro.j—;u-o-c103i:o.j<3C1•ci-fti.—“ii•Di—--t-i33c-i-c-i-3flIDci-1c-i-3IDi—ici-i——fZ•i—ii-a-;-—ii—iiii-——it-iIDiThI—ii--i-cci-:r-c3-ci—i.<-‘;Hi—Ic-ici-inH-c-I-Dic-I-c-II[l‘—ri—“ID(‘-i—Inc-i—DiC’c-i-*IDc-I-fti3ci-ri:c-i-H-3c-tZH-JLiiC’ciH—cIDriarLiiIIfIiii-aInIi)Iiruroa-i<ciFaJii--‘:ictCSIiicEiDi—i‘—-ci‘i1DQ.c-aItijau3ri--a33—;3—3ftuiw0.0.H-H--citia-caric.c-i-:c-I-t&c-I-ia.c-i-ci--çH-fl-‘;inci-Iiiril—Di—ci-a’tn-coutDjUi‘z—cci-ii-c-c&-iITDiDi33Di:i-IT‘-a-II)ci-Ittii’rjriii-cric-i-Ic-I-1j3’J33ci-:ii:ici-DiJ30.c-i-nH-ci-ii&-cH-Tinir13-C’(C&rir)03OH-3-3-H-3!iI&ctft,ctci-IDIDi—’i-—-cIDIIIIII3--c-cci-ic-i-133ici--oci.C’IDin—crti—ciii—I3IDIDcIIIC’3-13c-i-ii[jCic—DiCL—i-,•cii’1ifI00-‘;c-IIT(0CL(ci-3-+Difl&‘—ii—.c-I-ID])—cci03-(0ji-<—c3:r:r1,-uci-(Oft-t_Jç-cH--h-iic-i-Itici-r-i-rnIDi(iiij3iD--c3a,a&i:’:30‘—CSinIL’:-<-cci-33tiH-ci-i--aç--c-I-1)-ç•ftii—aci-ci-((IIiiIIIci-C’&CSH-CS3IDci-&c-i-,—i—.3-H-&-cID<S&ci-IDc-i-ftiCL(DiSiui‘:un<iii3ii0ci-c-i-ii’‘:‘3IiiHrDiCr-fl(II—c3IDC-<33Ciiii’c-i---‘xDiET03-CL313-H.3Dci-—c.ci-:CLia-30—hOci-0C0IDII)ci-IL’IDci-ID*:ui-IttZCr0ii’-c-&(-IDci-Di3-0—--çC’,-H-H-(ci-i—aa-ci--,-,ft,-c3ci-lH-cil—-cici-cH-03IDIDID3333huhci-ci-&CiltiH-Di3Cl03—i,ci-Ci-Di(0ftITi30.ci-in3CTliiDici-151ci--cJ3-.1-(3(DiC’ID]ci-SICliIDci--cH-ftac’H-10-cci-H-103H-Ii3-H-Hil1DiC’]j3111111bC’333-DiLII111(0IDCt3-cc-i-iTi3-C’CLC<ctDiC’(Uci-151ci-Di(0‘-<5c-i-Clc-i-3IDIDILl3--‘0a-0H-tnaH-i--ILiiIL’i-—3-CiIDCL‘—‘--a‘—i3—c‘-‘ci-iiiH-ciciDi3ID‘:iH-j(Ui-iinci-ri3(3-H-3lJ]Ifl(Uii]CL‘-DiftiT--h1Di‘.13—h-cI-”c-i-CL<5H-c-i-3II)3-i-‘-Di<(0H310ID151C’c-i-ci-IDILl31STCLici-Dic-i-IJ](U3H-—‘-inin3--cij3(iic-i-3(0(03CiC’c-i-Di-3DiClXci-1313iI—’dci&Ic-i-C’DiC’ii’313c-i-C’‘-<‘—‘Iti3Di’—hCldlC’H-ci-(0(0—‘;(-c5fti-cDi-c3c-i-33-IDici--cH.ci-33Jtl(0(03<DiH-Dl(UCCL3-ci-1010<H-Cl3151133310(03c-i-H-a-cDi3-sr3H’13ci-113lbDiCic-i-IDH’I—’—+,C<<Di03IIIIii3CiCS—cC’ID‘‘-c‘-<0Di“H-3ftiii--ill—CLc-i-c-i-LIIDic-i-a-c-i-H-flc-i-ID<CDiID-cfl3ri(i--a-H--+,ciIDH-Di3‘—10DiC(Ii3-i_lIc-i-ci-H’C’0CL0.3i—.ci-—+.CL3ci-3ci-c-i-ILlC’‘<53lii‘--K4> CAppendix M: “The P & R Writing Attitude Form”ORIGINAL FORM1413 8 IPERSONAL PREFERENCE,CHOICEINVOLVED,EXPERIENCEDFOR PERSONAL PLEASURES PONTANEO USASSIGNED,TEACHER DIRECTEDH CREATIVE,IMAGINATIVEASSIGNMENTTEACHER_t RIGID, ASSIGNEDCOERCION, TEACHER8 ENLIGHTENING, STIMULATINGCOLD, DRYi. FREER, BROADERCONCERN FOR RULES,FORI4AL STRUCTUREPERSONAL EXPRESSIONFREE WRITINGACADEMIC, SCHOOLFOR OTHERS TOJUDGE-PUBLICATIONPERFECTIONFOR PUBLICATION,WIDE AUDIENCETO RAVE A LEARNINGEXPERIENCEFREEDOMSELF-GENERATEDHON-PRESSURIZED.CASUALFOR AUTHORITYFIGURES• .THE PR WRITING ATTITUDE FORMThe followingformis desiried tofind out how youfeel about writing and whatis importantto you whenyou write. Itis made upof opposite concoptsabout writing. Eachpair ofopposite conceptsis divided bya five pointscale. You haveto decide which one isimportantor very importantto you or ifthere is no differoncein your mind betweenthetwo.They are not positiveor neativo.There is no value judjentattached to anyofthem.There is noright or wrong anower.Please placean °X” in the space thatindicatesyour feelings.. VERYNOVERY•IMP, IMP.DIFF. IMP. IMP.I $• II II I I•SI II.: I1 AUTHORITY1..ASSIGN.1ENT, SCHOOL2.FORCED.3.FOR ACADEMICS,TEACHERS4.TEACHER-DIRECTED5. PERSONAL JUDGMENT6. GENERATIVE,PRODUCTIVE.ASSIGNED,STRUCTURED8.EXCHANGEOF IDEAS9. SELFSATISFACTION10.. FLEXIBlE11.• FREEDOM12. TEACHERDIRECTED13. PERSONAL14.CONDENSED15. PERSONALEXPRESSION16.FORCED, IMPOSED17.-ITESTI II• 18.LITERACY19. FORSELF-INFORMAL20. PERSONALCAPABILITY21. FORSCHOOL,TEACRERr22. TORELAY INFORMATION•. 23. GRADE,TEACHER:• 24.TEACHER EVALUATEDI $1 • $I 88 5I II $I I25.26.TASK ORIENTEDHONESTY27. FORPEERS-CONTh11PORARY5 8$ GRADES SI I 8I.Appendix M continued14VERYNo VERYIMP. IMP. DIFF.iMP. IMP.28. PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPt IMPERSONAL SCRUTINY29. RELAXEDi, —, JUDGMENTAL30. PERSONALDIMENSIONi i LACK OF INTEREST,IMPERSONALITY31..FREEDOMt APPROVAL32. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSIONADHERENCE TO A PARTICULARSYSTEM-FORMALITY33. FOR GRADE,BEQUIREMENT: FOR SELF-UNDERSTANDING34,‘PERSONAL EXPRESSION, PLEASING THETEACHER35.CLOSE SCRUTIN’f,EVALUA.: —, iGENERALIZED, VAGUE EXAMiNATION36. OFFICIALEVALUATIONt NO OFFICIAL EVALUATION37. EVALUATION1SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANCE,GUIDANCE. 38.EVALUATION:RESPONSIVENESS, FLEXIBILITY39. FOR SELFi FOR GRADE40,GRADE: FEEDBACK41. ARTFORM,CREATIVEARTLANGUAGE ART42.PRACTICAL, ARTISTIC43.STATIC, CREATIVE44.FACTUAL MATTER—, •1i EXPRESSION OF EMOTIONS ANDIDEAS45. PREPARES FORCAREER s—, PROVIDESFORM OF LANGUAGE46.WORKi —t t , ENTERTAINMENT,ENJOYMENT47.CREATIVITYs t —,i LEARNING SKILLS, CAREER48.ThEORETICAL$, PRACTICAL49.OUTSIDE ACTIVITYt SCHOOLACTIVITY50. RESPONSIBILITY,THINKINGi ENTERTAINMENT,EXCITEMENT51. ACTUALOCCURRENCEi tPRODUCT OF THE IMAGINATION52.PARTICIPANT, SPECTATOR143Appendix N: Definitions of categories——attitudequest ionnaire71. Source: a. Teacher assigned topicb. Class dis’:ussionc. Personal Exper ienced. Textbook tc’pi.:e. Teacher assigned readingf. Personal reading. I::i:rversaticiri with peersh. Conversation with a teacher2. Audience:a. Selfb. Trusted adultc. Tea’:her——general relaticinshipd. Trusted teachere. Examinerf. Peer Groupg. Members of a working group within a classh. Unknown public audiencei. Trusted friendJ.No discernable audience3. Response:a. Letter or number gradeb. Teacher symbols as correct ionsc. General comments such as good, fair, poord Suggestions for revision or rewritinge. Verbal discussi’:.n for improvement .:‘f paperf. Ch ec k mar kg. No gradeh. N’:’ commenti. Peer evaluation4. Furposea. For the teacherb. For a gradei:. For self—understandingd. To give informatione To express your ideas —f. To express your feelingsg. To clarify your thoughtsh. To record experiencesi. To share eperiences with othersj. To share your feelings with othersk. To persuade others1. To advise othersm. To definen. To instruct otherso. To interpret a piece of literaturep. To elaborate or apply a theoryq For a class assignment7 Definitions are those of Pianko (1977).C-.1‘-II3I1flcW—33.oowmL£4-’-UIinmc•(IiC’1-incinEoo.-c13’Ui---’UirjUI3in3.,immwintcWcmur..rflc’lIci.xUIUJUJnbinmc’—4(‘1rj£‘ULUc4-’c.iwc‘:‘oow0-ci.p--pc-PIDinci.inUIcct’—‘iD1t301W>c>-p--,r-i•1-4UIcr’W-CI01C)01“Ui“-4(N-P!‘—“-tJ0--irCIn3-P£.-CI-PUUI—InIflLCI’0101WU•.iwz‘j—..••.cir-4--i0J->->-U)•inr—rØ.p..IXIX—l>-x>>>--00IX“.4f.—xa).-a‘-tiUi00100W•WNU)c>‘->—CD-I—(NI——‘W-01“-i-iWIOt,-I—()ci.4-UI401F-C.)00.-‘-4UftU<t..C’)0—ctmccic0--‘WNWC’UJ01010U)WCLI-.Z-W•.Z•.ZU)UIUI0inwinciinain9-9--IXEI-’ECLECL6UI01DIDCiUIU)UIIXUif.-.a-D‘WDci.ci.U)i—’ci‘—‘IX‘—‘CLI:145Appendix P: SampleChronological Chart--FrequencyFiure 2Stucn C’:’deMDDEI Observatic’r,I n er pr e tat icn,Eva luaticn.2irisight. Unrs!ardinq.,r --. —-—..j — fl i •_J ii .4.Revisicns.5.Creative:pressions.£UEtiOfl7.Digressions.S. Conhidenc2s.3. Frustratio’.s.10. Speculations. VII.Desire to knowmore.FCRMAL FEATURES12.FTequency ofentries. V V13. Length ofVentries ( of words). V14.Self sp.:nsoredentries.15.OrQanizatic’n,neatness.VV -146Appendix 0: Definitions——categories, modes and formalfeatures: BCategories:A. Depth, Growth of Insight:in’:reasing frequency in theuse of these modes reflects value for writ ing as a t’:olfor learning.B. Valuing Response Journals: the formal features ‘:afresponse Journals reflect the value that the actual.journal has for its owner.C. Valuing Mentor/Learner Relationship: modes thatreflect trust in the respondent cr require a measure ofrisk taking on the part of the student reflect thevalue the Journal owner has for his mentor.Modes:A.Depth, Growth of Insight:1. Observations, interpretations, evaluations: writerssee something of interest and attempt to capture it inlanguage. This activity is primary tc.scientists, whomust witness in order to test, as well as to literaryscholars, who must read in order tc’ interpet.2 Insights, understanding: writers putting togetherideas, finding relationships, connecting one course ortopic with another.8. With the exception of numbers 5, B, 9 and 11, thedefinitions for modes and formal features are th’:’se of TobyFulwiler in his “Introduction” to The Journal Boc4 (1987,3Appendix 0 continued3. Information: Does the .journal contain evidence thatreading has been done, lectures listened to, facts andtheor ies understo’:’d? Journals that read like classncrteboc’ks will be dull, but Journals should giveevidence that attention is being paid to coursematerials.4. Revisions: writers looking back at prior entries,realizing they have changed their minds, and using theJournal to update and record their later thoughts. AnnE. Berthoff recommends this as a systematic practiceand calls such endeavors “dc’uble—entrynotebc’csks” (1978)5. Creative Expressions: the use of metaphor or similefor example.8. Valuing Mentor/Learner Relationship6. Questions: writers use journals to formulate andrecord quest ions: personal doubts, academic queriesquestions of fact, administration, and theory. It ismore important, here, that there be questions than’ thatyet there be answers.7. Digressions: writers departing as they write frc’mwhat they intend to say, sometimes to thin! of personalmatters and sometimes to connect apparently disparatepieces of thought.B. Confidences. writers male personal disclosures orstatements that reflect trust in the respondent.147148Appendix 0 continued9. Frustrations: for example,writers reveal their lackof understanding about the sub.ject matter.10. Speculat ions: writers wonder aloud, on paper, aboutthe meaning of events, issues, facts, readings,patterns, interpretations, problems, and solut ions.The Journal is the pla.:e to try out without fear ofpenalty; the evidence of the attempt is the value here.11 Desire to know more: writers show confidence in theknowledge of the respondent and an engagement with thesub.ject matterC. Valuing Response JournalsFormal Features:12. Frequent entries: the more often a Journal iswritten in the greater the chance to catch one’sthc’ughts.13. Length of entries: the more writing one does at asingle sitting the greater the chance of developing athought or finding a new one.14 Self—sponsored entries:, how often a student writerinitiates writing without teacher prompts.15 Evidence of increasing attention paid toorganization and neatness: gc.od Journals havesystematic and complete chronological dc”:umentat ion.149Appendix R: Writing scale--essaysPART E: Multi-Paragraph Writing (30 marks)SUGGESTED SCALE:Markers are to put a double grade on each paper: 12/11;13/9; 4/7; and so on.CATEGORY 1: (15 marks) CATEGORY 2: (15 marks).- Development of ideas - Suitability of word choice- Organization of paragraphs - Correctness and maturity of- Coherence (transition) sentence patternsbetween the parts - Spelling, punctuation, Tpechanics15 Ideas fully deveThped with.115 Exact and sophisticated word14 some illustrations - 14 choiceIndividual paragraphs . Varied and correct sentencesclearly organized .t No (or only few and minor)Precise transition between errors in spelling, punctuation,sections of essay mechanics13 Fairly full development with 13 Correct but not distinguished12 limited illustrations 12 choice of words11 Clear evidence of good 11 Few (and these minor) errorsparagraph organization in sentence structureSustained transition Mechanical errors are minor10 Thinnish development with 10 Some errors in word choice;9 no illustrations 9 slangy informal dictionS Overly-simple paragraph 8 : Some lack of sentence variety;structure . some awkward and/or incorrectOverly-obvious transition sentences. . . Several errors in spelling and/ort .punctuation7 Development very sketchy 7 Various errors in word choice;6 Ideas badly sorted in 6 flat, trite vocabulary -S paragraphs Many simple sentences; numerous4 Overall structure not sentence problemsclear to reader An abundance of spelling errors3 No development; note-form . Uncontrolled vocabulary .2 only 2Many confused sentences1 Garbled paragraphs 1 Wild spellingRelationship between partsnot indicated0 Part F notattempted 0 Part B not attempted150Appendix S: Teacher Interview GuideTEACHER INTERVIEW I3LJIDE91. What pla’:e has writing in teaching your subject?2. Does the c’pinic’n of your colleagues influence hc’wmuch writ ing yi:iu use in your classes Ci e. departmentmembers, principal)?3. Do you write yourself?4. What kinds?5. How ci ft en?6. Where did you learn how to write well (i.e. highscha:’c’l , university)?7. Dci yi:’u remember anyone inparticular whi:’ influencedyour ab i 1 ity to wr ite? Please describe.B... Is it important for your students tc’ learn to writewell?3. Will the need tcr •:over the curriculum :ause yciu torestrict the amount of writing you assign?10. Do you think teachers should read all the writingthey assign in their classes?11 Which do you think is more important for atecherto do— respond to the ‘:c’ntent in student writing orcorrect the spelling and grammar errors in studentwriting?12. Doyciu think teachers should grade all the writingthey assign ti:’ their students?‘3. This tea’:her interview guide isbased on a questionnairemade up by Dr. Marionc:rciwhurst——UBC.151Appendix S continued13. Would imaginative writinq (e.g. poems, dialogues,imainary stories) be appri:priate in y’:’ur class?14. Would writ ing to express emot ions ‘:oncerning thecourse (e.g. anxiety, ‘:onfusic’n, discontent) beapprc’pr iate in your :1 ass?15. Dci you use writing activities t’:’ help your studentslearn ‘:c’ntent in your sub.ject area?16. Would factual writing (e.g. lab reports, researchessays, business letters, written descriptions) beappropriate in your subject area?17 Dci you use writing ti:’ evaluate students’ kn’:’wledge?18. Is there anything you w’:’uld like to add to anyofyour c c’mmen ts?13. Is there anything else you would like to discussabc’ut writing in your ‘:1 assroom •:‘r writing in general?152ppendix T: Teacher interviews——trans’:riptsPre—Experiment InterviewEnglish Teacher: Darcy MackayInterviewer: What pla’:e has writing in teai:hing yoursub.ject?ET: Yery impc’rtant place. It is a tool to teach studentsto absorb what is being taught and to apply it directly crindirectly to their experieni:es both in being able to writeabout what they have learned and to apply it to their ownexperiences as individuals.Int: Does the opinic’n of your cc’l leagues influence h’:’w muchwr it i ng you use in your classes ex department memeber s,pr in’: ipal?ET: They can be very encouraging. My English departmenthead is very encciuraging to me as a teacherto use writingas a vehicle to allow children (who arenot extroverted typeindividuals whc’ get to vc’ice their opinionsalot) get to dciit in a non—threatening fashion by putting pento paper.Int: Dc’ yciu write yc’urself?ET: Not as much as I should. I certainly enjoyexpressingmyself that way.Int: What kind of writing do you do?ET. Letters, certainly department memotype communicationwith other staff, writing up minutes formeetings as Ichair a couple of committees here atthe s’:hool, letters toparents, community agencies in my role as acounsellor.Int: How c’ften do you writeET: On the average probably at least twoor three times aday, in the form of memos and c’ther cc’mmunicaes toothermembers of my profession.Int: Where did you learn to write well? At highschocil?University?ET: Definitely not Highshcic’l although my grade 11and 12teachers made me more aware of writing——university whereyouare forced to communicate in a fashion that is acceptable.153Appendix T continuedInt: Dci you remember anyone in partit:ular who influencedyou ability to write?ETh My grade 11 English teacher made writing seem moreimportantInt: Can you describe that a little more?ET: Well she’s a lady that did a lot ‘:if writing. We did alot of writing in our class in the forms of letters, becauseof the nature .:‘f the sub.ject matter had ti:’ be subjective.We were forced to answer questi’:ins in m’:’re detail than wewere in previous gredes.Int: Is it important for you students to learn to writewel l?ETh Absolutely. Writing is a very very impcirtant form ofcommunication. If you want to be i:learly understi:’i:id bypeciple yciu must learn tc’ write well.In t Does t he need to ‘:over t he i: ur r ii: u 1 urn i: ause you t orestrict the amount of writing youassign?ET: Yes it does. I find the time lines c’n covering certainaspects of what we have to do on the curriculum definitelyrestricts it. You have mc’re flexibilty with grade sevensbecause you have them twice in one day which allows you todci more writing but .:ertainly for grade nines I would liketo do a lot more writing than I am able to.Int: Do yciu think teachers should read all the writing theyassign in their classes?ET: It’d be nice but f’:’r most cif us we don’t have that kindof time. We learn to skim well and be able to look for keythings or more specific things are perhaps more important——depending on the writing they are doing. -Int: Which do you think is mc’re important for a teachers todo— respond to the content in student writing or correct thespelling and grammar errors in student writing?ET: Definitely respond to the students’ writing. We can bemarking for mechanics that can be done on a sele’:tive basisbut we can’t spend all of our time correcting mechanicalmistakes. We’ve gcit to be able to respond so the kids knowthey are going in the right direction or if they arerespc’nding correctly to what is being asked.154Pippendix T continuedInt Di:’ you thini-:: tea’:hers should grade all the writ ingthey give to their students?ET: N’:’, I think that sc’met imes y’:’u can read cver a numbercif art ides cf the students wc’rk and perhaps feed back tothem selective ones you thought were good cr teach a pointyou’re trying to make through them having the experien’:e cfyou reading back their writ ing rather than Just alwaysmarking for me’:hanical things. I think they learn fri:’m yourbeing able to resp’:’nd in a p’:isitive :‘r si:’metimes a negativef 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:reativitythat alc’t of young people I think inately have. It gives a‘:han’:e fcir those kids to share experiences or fantasies ,:lrwrite persc’nal thoughts, It tells you about theindividuals.I n t: Dci y ‘:‘LL do that?ETh Dc’ I do that? P’:’etry is certainly one vehicle yi:’u ‘:andi: it with.mt DiD you?ET: Di:’ I personal 1 y di:’ it? Do you mean in a sense dci Iwr ite?Int: No, do you have your students diD these kinds ofthings? VoLt’ re tell ing me y’:iu thinkit’s right ti:’ di:, thesekinds of things but do yi:iu do this?ET: I started doing it last year in certain situati’:’nsallciwing them to express their i:ipini.:ins on certain aspectsc’f a novel c’r whatever.Int: Dut imaginative writing. Having them write poems,orstories, or dialogues.ETh I haven’t dc’ne it. I’ve done it with poetry but notwith dialc’gues cr stc’ries.Int: The next cine I think yc’u’ve already answered.Wouldwriting to express emotionsi:i:ini:erning the cc’urse cx.anxiety, ccinfusion, discontent be appropriate in your class?155ppendix T continuedET: rbsc’lutely.mt nd that’s what you were talk ing aboLit when you saidyou started doing that last year.ET: Yup. Those kinds of things.Jciurnalwriting allowsthat ti:’ happen clot tc’o.Int: Di: yi:u use writing activities to help y’:iur studentslearn content in your subie’:t area?ET: No.Int: Would factual writing for example lab rep’:irts,research essays, business letters, written descriptions beappropriate in your subject area?ETh Yeah I think it would, yes. Not lab reports because Idon’t deal with that but letters, business letters, learninghciw to write a proper business letter wciuld be a usefulsk ill.Int: Research essays.ET: Research essays that’s certainly a skill we need toteach 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 ameans ‘:‘f expressing. The spoken word is not good enough insome cases where you need to describe something in detail.I think it’s impi:irtant for kids to write descriptively.Int: Do you use writing tc’ evaluate students’ knowledge?ET: What do you mean by that?Int: Well do you have them write as a test to tell you whatthey know?ET: I’ve never tried that.Int: Is there anything you would like tc’ add toany of yourcomments?ET: No. I find that it’s an area I don’t know alot aboutand I’m eager to learn.156ppendix T continLtedInt: Is there anything else yi:iu would like ti:i discuss aboutwriting in you classroom or writing in general?ET: I think writing in general is bec’:’ming a lost art Welive in a word of t.vized children and they don’t do a lotof written expressii:an. I think we’re missing ‘:‘ut on a lot‘:‘f creative energy that’s not being utilized.Post —Exper iment Inter viewInt: Post interview English teacher Darcy Mai:kay. Mar’:h19th. The interview questi.:ins I’m going to ask you are thesame as I asked you prior to the exper imental period but I’mn’:’t gi:’ing to ask them all be’:ause some c’f them your answerswon’t have .:hangeth But I would like tc’ ask is number oneagain. What place has writing in teaching your subject?That is any thoughts you might have about how your c.pini’:inhas changed now that we have finished the experiment.ET: Well I think that it’s :ertainly encouraged me to doalot more writing. The students are very receptive towriting and it’s a process I haven’t doneali:it ‘:‘f it but Iwill certainly utilize it alc’t more in the future Englishcourses I teach. I find kids really really en.ioy writing ina properly guided and teach them properly and do the rightthing. They are very receptive. Writing is agc”:’d tool.Int: Is there any i:hange in h’:’w you feel about thei:ipinicinof your ‘:ol leagues influencing hc’w much writing you dci inclasses? Department members, prin’:ipals, other teachers.ET: You mean in terms of me—.Int: How much you do.ET: I’m sorry. Maybe I misunderstand the question.Int: Does what your cc.l leagues have to say influence hàwmuch writing you dci in class?ET: Yes it does. Certainly the people in my Englishdepartment. If I know they are doing alot of writing orwc’rking on specific units in English thatthey have beensuccessful with using a writing approach then certainly I’lllisten to it. It influen’:es me.Int: Is that more influence now though than before?ETh Right nciw I’m a lot more... Like before it was likearisk. Now I’m willing to take all kinds of risks withwriting. I was a little scared off and reluctant to do itbefore simply because I wasn’t to sure ‘:‘f the process but157ppendix T continuednow that I’ve seen the very good results that I have hadwith these kids that reticence is gone.Int: Sc’ y’:’u’re convini:ed that writing is of value and nomatter what someone else said. I d’:’n’t want to put wordsinto your mouth but is that what you are saying? They wouldinfluence you less?ET: Yeah, if they said, that you know, that writingwoul dn’ t work ‘:‘r that you shc’ul dn’ t use a wr it i ng appr oa’:hin some of these things, I w’:’uld disagree with them. It’seven influen’:ed me from the science and socials point ofview because I think that I see some successful thingshappening in those areas in their writing. This encouragesme t o do m or e wr i t i n g o f my ownInt: Will the need to cover the curr i’:ulum cause y’:iu torestrict the amount of writing you assign?ET: Unfortunately it does in order to ‘:‘:‘ver some of theessential parts of the curriculum. lthough it does openup different approaches to covering those parts •:‘f thecurriculum and perhaps could be handled easily throughwriting.Int: Do you think teachers should read all the writing theyassign to their classes?ET: No, Ithink that it depends on what it is assigned for.If it is assigned for something they should read all of it.I imagine that obviously they should. But if it’s you’rejust looking spe: i fical ly for introduct ions c’r conclusionsor topic sentences but then you would have told the kidsthat prior to them doing the assignment.Tht: What do you think it’s more important for a teacher todo— respond to student writing or cc’rre’:t the spelling andgrammar errors of the student writing? -ET: Respond to the content. The mechanics can be handledbetter otherwise which makes it alot easier to mark, to domore writing because if you don’t have specific pie’:es ofwriting may be designed for those things but you don’t haveto dci it for all of them in my opinion.Int: Do you think teachers should grade all of the writingthey assign to their students?ET: No. It could be writing for enjoyment. It could bewriting that you tell the kids y.:iu are going to just read orread out to them or read out examples of whether or not kids158ppendix T continuedare on the topic or just straight creativity as perhapspoetry. Perhaps it’s a good descriptive paragraph; you wantto simply have the kids writing logs etc.Int: You .just answered my next quest ion about the p1 ace forimaginative 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 thecourse ex. anxiety, c’:.nfusion, discontent be apprcipriate inyour ci ass?ET: I find that to be a very good indicator of how kidsfeel about what’s happening with the assignments I’m givingthem through Journals also I’m able to get alcit better sc’rt‘:‘f finger on the pulse cif what kids are feeling from doingthe assignments and encouraging them to respond with an openmind and an open feelings with what they’re d’:ting. That wayI get a better idea of what they’re learning and whatthey’re not learning.Int: Do you use c’r will you use more writing activities tohelp your students learn content in your sub.ject area?ET: I certainly will. It’s been a valuable lesson formeand something as I said before something I’ve beena bitafraid of. Now it’s really en’:’:iuraged me to take alot morerisks and I think it’s well w’:rth it.Int: Would factual writing ex. business letters, labreports, written descripti’:’ns, research essays beappropriate in you subject area?ET: Yes, critical essays, bool reports, syncepsises,critiques are valuable tools.Int: Can you see a way that writing logs and non—gradedwriting would help students do a better Job on these kindsof writing?ET: Well they’re non—threatening for the first. Essentiallyyou get those introverted kids to correspond to yc’u thrc’ughtheir writing Journals and writing logs that enables you toin a nc’n—threatening fashion to advise them whether they areon the right track or not. For alot of kids that d’:’n’t liketo speak up in class it gives them an opportunity to dothat.Int: Do you use writing to evaluate students’ knowledge?159ppendix T c’:’ntinuedET: 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 discussabout writing in your classroom or writing in general?ET: I would encourage anybody that’s not dc’ne Journalwriting or writing of logs to, especially at the Juniorsec’:’ndary level, to make it a big part of your Englishprogram. For any of my col leagues I would say get out thereand di:’ it. You’ll learn alot. I did.Int: Thank—you very much.160Appendix T continuedPre—Exper iment InterviewScience Tea’:her: Ron Frcsl i’:Interviewer: Imaginative writing.Science Teacher: There are certain situations you can askthem to look into the future and write about about what theythink it’s going to be like. Or what was it like many yearsago before there certain pieces of te’:hnol’:gy were broughtalong or medi’:al advan’:es or certain situatic’ns, yes. Y’:’ucan dci it. It’s not that often.Int: Would writing to express emotions concerning the coursecx. anxiety, confusion, discontent be appropriate in yourc 1 ass?ST: I think the value on that would be that I can understandand get to feel where the pressures are c’:’ming on thestudent. Where they are feeling the pressure. With that inmind, yes it wc’uld be valuable but if it’s students thatgenerally waste their time, don’t know how to use their timeefficiently and then they ‘:omplain, I don’t have to manysympathies for them or too mu’:h. I don’t have to’:’ muchsympathy for kids that waste their time. Then theycomplain. Or they feel cc’mfused or upset that I’m pushingthem because they wasted their time. But the answersyes.They can voice themselves, voice their opinions and I canget the feed back. But their concern may not be resolved byme changing my attitude or my method. I think they have tobuckle down and work.Int: Ok. Do you use writing activities to help yourstudents learn content in your sub.iect area?ST: Oh sure, yeah. I put on notes, even traditè’nally anthe nc’te board. And I get them these are the concepts wecovered last day. I put review, point, point, point. Sc’certainly there’s writing going on there. Rather than Justlecture directly to them. Then I go over those points. Sc’that’s writing and content to emphasize it.Int: Any other kinds?STh Well they may have to if we have some theory onchemicals they would do a lab in use of those chemicals andthey would have to write it up.161Appendix T continuedInt: 4culd fa’:tual writing cx. lab reports, researchessays, business letters, written descriptions beappropriate in y.:’ur subject area?ST: Oh very much so. Easy question.mt Do you use writing to evaluate students’ knowledge?ST: Yes, I di:’. Unfortunately theanswer to that is thetextbook does it fc’r you and if you use a textbook, thereare questions that are directly in line aftercontent andthey will say explain such and such and they will have tolook ba’:k and find it. Straight content.Int: Is there anything you would like to add to anyof yourcomments? And the last one is is there anything elseyouwould like to discuss ab’:’ut writing in your classroomorwriting in general?ST: Yeah, I find there is a lot of Joy from kids when theycan discuss what they have on their mind and findthatcither kids share the similar cipinicins. So that it’s groupwork writing, rather that ‘:‘ne individual having to‘:rack thewhip and produce. It’s less scary. They’ve gained theirconfidence. They’ve gained the acceptance of their ideas byothers in the group or else they’ve cc’me up with an ideathat’s slightly mc.dified through discussion in agr’:’up.Then the grciup deals with the writing. Sc’ we’rere—wording.Again, some of my own philcesciphies and backgri:’undlike Ifelt very insecure about writing and expressing myself andsc’ through checking with others,”How do you likethis? Whatdo you thinks of this?”idea and so group work isreallyimportant in writing. Another thing that I find studentsen.joy and it also pertains to one of the questions you askedabout fantasies or fiction and that isthat if you give them1time to write something and then to draw it 1f theycandraw a picture of it. You Just wrote astory of this, drawme a picture of it. They like doing that.It breaks themaway fromthe monotony of rigid Englishstructure and into afantasy world that they can then putsomething cm Paper. Atthis grade level 1 like if you get somepencil crayons, addsome color to your picture. Now this seemslike mickeymouse stuff but it’s a time for them to hashthrough andthink color and bring points together andmeld theirmemories that are gocid. Rather thanmoments that arefrustrating. And burn it into their brainthat this is afun activity. And there are kidsthat don’t like to draweither so you’re not going to win themall but you’ve gottamake opt ions that may be extremelydifficult through varyingyour methods.162Appendix T continuedInt: Ok. March 4, 1991 end of experiment interview withsc ience teacher.ST: The only thing I find n’:’w is that I’m involved in ai:ouple of ‘:omrnittees around the school so I’m ending uphaving ti:’ dci a lot more. Taking notesand that sort ofthing. But that’s related to school work, notanything onmy own.Int: Are there any changes in your opinion as to what placewriting has in tea’:hing yi:’ur subie’:t?STh Ok. I’ve always felt writing was really important withthe students giving descriptions and sequences •:‘f eventsthat take place and the results of these sequences. Inwriting the labs, yes.Int: In reports and research you said before tc’o.ST: Yeah in research. What I see now, what I dci, what Igot probably from this activity is I see that, and I put itd’:’wn in my .journal when I wr’:’te things out, is that there isan importance fc’r kids to be able to communicate privatelyto the teacher. And that is sometimes they’re tooshy toraise their hand. Sometimes later c’n at a later date they‘:ome up with an idea that hey I didn’t really understand acertain thing, so they talk about that in the Journals. Andthe answer is yes. I think there is a point where Journalsdo become a gc’od method of communicating for things thatthey Just weren’t quite up •:‘n at the time.Int: Is it important for your students to learn to writewell? And as I recall you said yes it isvery important.. Is-’there anything you want to add to that?ST: I think that the freedi:’m cif writing and theirexpression of how they see it is important. The more I getinvolved in things that are happening for theyear 2000, Ithink the more I’m inclined to think that education isn’tjust black and white and there aren’t any Just right andwr’:’ng answers. I think a students has tohave time to sayit the way they think it is. If it isn’texactly the wayit’s supposed to be then it gives you achance to talk thatc’ver. To agree c’r disagree.Int: Will the need to cover the curriculumcause you torestrict the amount of writing you assign? Or thatplus theother thing I want to ask you is the need tocover thecurriculum restr ict the amc’unt of Journal writ ingyou had163Appendix T continuedthe kids dci and how did you feel about that? And maybe inthe future as well.5Th What I find really restricting is my, .just myphysically being the number of hours in a day, like how mu’:henergy I really have ti:’ read everything and reply toeverything. Doing a journal for me, and I wrote it down,involved what was real 1 y pr ec ious. There were real 1 yprecious minutes there and they weren’t just minutes, theywere hours going through journals and making some kind ofapproriate comment experimentally, positively, or on aregular basis, or a neutral cc’mment, and appraisal, anappraising ccmment. I’d like ti:’ say some here just oncurriculum. A curriculum nowadays, we’re still stu.:k •:‘nfollowing the ‘:urriculum, stepby step. Nowadays, we’reexpected to alter it someway so it fits eachindividual inthe classroi:’md. These journals now, areeven the kidsthemselves, the students themselves within the .journal iseven asking for their attention ‘:‘n i:ertainthings. So dciyciLt realize that what you’ve got there is that youhave tocustomize your curr iculum tc’wards the kids the way youseeit and then you’re getting repliesthrough the Journals onhow they see it. Sc’ it’s even opening upmore avenues sureto teach, to get across points, but moreavenues or time andtime consumption.Int: If I could Just go back to what yousaid earlier thatit was a restriction of time and it added ontime, you di:’see, correct me if I’m wrong, the curriculum is restrictingyour time be’:ause doing the Journals has added on top ofwhat you already have. You don’t see a way of it beingavalid substitute for some of the other things you do Likewhen I do it in my class I see it as, I’ve taken away thingsand put it there instead, not added it on.ST: Yeah, what I was forced to do withtheJournal is to domy class, cut ciff the last ten minutes and give them time togo through it, hand them. back, and give them time the nextday or a couple of days later and take the beginning ofclass and say look here are scime of the responses, respondba.:k to me immediately or whatever. Sc’ again you’re cuttingtime out of the classtime to do it and our courses arefairly full. I see that course work and streamlining, tointegrate a student is going to become more and moreflexible and I can see that curriculum work is gciing to beless and less important.Int: Do you see that as a good thing or a bad thing?164Appendix T continuedST: I think it’s very g’:’cid. The unfortunate result that ispi:’ssibly going to ‘:ocne from it though is that kids thatprepared for certain stages of a later process and inorder f’:’r them to be’:ome prepared they may have to spendmore time, another year later on, even a part of a yearlater on to be able to do, to cover some materials to getthemselves prepared. Like if they don’t complete certainconcepts in ‘:hemistry they won’t be able to go onto anotherstep.Int: Do you think teachers should read all the writing theyassign in their classes?6Th If you want to know what’s going on in the class youtake time. Whether you take class time and g’:’ around andsit down with them and see what they’ve written and do aspot check and say today I’m going to cover five of them andthe next day another five. There’s only one way ti:’ find outhi:*w a child is really coping and that is to be with them andto assess what they put down or tal k to them and find outhow they are coming alcing.Int: Did you find Journals helpful that way? To let youknow what they are thinking?6Th Yeah, I found the Journals really useful when there wasspecific problems and the student would say I can’tunderstand what is going •:n here so they wc’uld write me anote, can I see you about such and such, or else I would seefrc’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 itin the class. To read all—Int: To add in on top of what you already di:’, I think thatis, that’s asking too much, to do too mu’:h. Sc what do youthink is more important for a tea’:her tc’ do? To respond tothe content of the students writing or tc’ correct thespelling and grammar errors?ST: Oh to respond for sure. If I was an English tea’:herperhaps I’d be saying the opposite, grammar is first and howthey write and punctuation and spelling. As far as I’mconcerned I think that the highest priority in anyeducational system for me would be getting levels ofthinking and if you can turn aside, put aside for a moment,the spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and startlociking for thought processes, applications of things andcreative thought that leads into new experiments and newways of looking at the problem, that to me is the most165Appendix T continuedimportant. The spelling and writing and stuff certainlyIgo throught it and I pick ‘:‘ut whatever Ican pick out andsay y’:iu certainly could have devel’:’pedthis thought furtherarid please be a little tidier. I’m havingdiffii:ultyreading this. That be’:c’mes a cc’mmunicatiriopri:iblem. If theperson .just writes blue down f’:’r a statement ratherthanwriting an explanationwhat turned blue or what changed toblue, it bec’:’mes a problem of communication.Int In a sense it might not have that muchvalue to thestudents either. Dci you think teachers shouldrade all thewriting they assign to their students?ST: You know, it drives you nuts all the marking. Maybe itsounds like this coming across on the tape you’ll listen toit later and think all he does is mark? Yeah, I markhoursand it drives me bloody nuts I think that you’ve got to beable to stream line that marking c’therwise you’ll burn out.Things that I dci for instance, I’ll take s’:’methinq and lookthrough the blanks and very quickly my mind will say whetherthey seem appropriate. A kid is not going to .iLtStput blahblah blah into some of these blanks and Iwon’t be able ti:’recognize it. Most often you can visually look atthe sheetand it’s gonna make conne’:tionswhether there are correctanswers, l.:’gical questions, without reading thewhole thing.I can go through a sheet veryquickly and I’ll put a checkmark on it. I d’:in’t give any grades. Idon’t put a 6. Idc’n’t put an S. I don’t put a ten or anine out of ten ciranything of any values At least I’velooked at it. Then Igo down through my mark book ti’:k ticktick with check marksand say yes he’s handed it in, she’shanded it in. And then‘:‘ther times I take a bit more scrutiny inmarking it andI’ll look for same values in it.How many of thesequestions were answered in a sentence structure..What kindof effort is shown. Then I’ll put a verycrude_way ofmarking, a U, an 5, or a 6. Thatshortens my marking to’:’but it’s a little longer method if it’sestimate. Lastly,when you really look for detail, thenyou might want themout of the number of questions or out of ten.That takesthe longestInt: What would say if they had threethings assigned tothem and they were told they could pickwhat was their bestone to be handed in to you?ST: I think that’s excellent. I’d onlywant that done ifthe three things they did pertained tosimilar concepts orthe same concept. They did three things cm scilubility orsomething like that and neither has a greater value than theother. The concept is followed thrc’ugh Then I would say166Appendix T continuedyou just did three labs, I don’t want to see the other twoJust hand in one ‘:‘f the best. Then I w’:’uld only have onemark out of three. I d’:in’t think it’s relevant if I havethem all.(***Tape ThreeInt: 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. couldscimetime include abstract ideas. We do in science be dealtin a level of if yciu could imagine little pei:’ple i:arrying onthese 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 thinkthat anything in educaticin that helps a learning situationmaking it more enjoyable ti:’ the kids is worth trying. Andfor s.:’me it’s ni:it going to mean anything for others they arereally going to get into it and feel su’:cessful.Int: How do you feel about writing to express emi:’t ions inyciur ci:’urse ex. anxiety, c’:infusii:’n, discontent? Di:, youthink that appropriate?ST: Well it’s appropriate on a journal. On a lab report okI think there might even be a place for it there. Thestudents have gone through the experiment and find it isn’tworking and they could just leave a note there saying Ireally felt frustrated doing this because I expected suchand such and couldn’t get that result. Everyone else gotthis result how come... There are points of difficulty and,there probably are points of normal feeling that could beexpressed.Int: Sc’ is there anything you would like to add to youcomments? One of the questions I haven’t asked again are doyou use writing activities to help your students learncontent. You answered that one before with factual writing.Do you use writing to evaluate students knowledge. Is thereanything you want to talk about writing in OU classroom orwriting in general?ST: I didn’t carry ona type of structure with these twoclasses we were testing. The kind of thing I am starting t’:’generate new ideas for and that is I like to, I’m startingto work now in my mind of opening the topics up.Integration of the social studies aspect, English, math, you167Appendix T continuedknow. S’: far the science area, ‘:hemistry, was the mostdiffi’:ult. I think I’ve got a lonq way to go with that—.Int It miqht be alcit easier if it had been a differentunit rather than i:hemistry..5Th That’s right. This is a very structured unit and Iwould like ti: you knc’w when I ‘:ome back in this wc’rld and Ihave Mr. Time and all kinds of time I would like to get intorestructuring alc’t of the .iargc’n and all routine things sc’that they can open up. You get a routine sub.ject likechemistry... Maybe I’ve lost the creative thought in it butit become bc’ring. They are less ready and more reluctant toopen themselves up with it and to say wow lc’ctk what I did.Look at this display. I look across the room and see somereally nice art work on there. Well you know there is aplace for that in chemistry to’:’. There really isn’t muchtime in a term to get through some of the stuff and yet Iknow with my experiences with grade sevens and grade eightclasses you can integrate the topic and allow them all kindsof freedom of choice within—.Int: I think something that suits Journal writing so muchmore and readily as well that might have been an unfortunateexperience that it was chemistry.ST: Yeah and flexibility. Certain subjects, maybe I’mwrong, dci lend themselves, are a little more flexible dci tochoices and what they can find—.Int But yctu ‘ust did one of those choice things onenvironmentST: I did yeah. It was a terrific learning situation forthe kids and fc’rme to see how they can integrate theirdiverse thought within the class and the materials that weregenerated from it made me super happy to see it and made mereally proud to see that the kids were doing things thatthey were having fun withInt: So anything else?STh Yeah.168Appendix U: Data base--samplesSTUDENT * 000711/19 11/26 12/03 12/10 12/17 01/07 01/14 01/21 01/28 TTL11/2 12/02 12/09 12/16 01/07 01/13 01/20 01/27 02/03Cbs, Inter, Eval 10 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 422Insight, Undstd 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4InforrAation 3 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 3 14Revisions 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 01CreativeExQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Questions 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 9Digressions 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Confidences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Frustrations 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Søeculations 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3Knowinore2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 9Frecuency2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 6Entry length 100 56 102 0 0 0 0 0 68 326Self sponsored 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Org, neatness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Appendix V: PLAPP samplesGRADE S NARRATIVE EXERCISE169WHAT’S THE STORY?Problems are a part of life. Everyone facesthem almost every day. Sometimes problems arelarge but often they are small: something we needor would like to have, something we don’t want todo, or something we forget to do. Sometimes it isanother person who is making us sador we aremaking them angry! Whatever the problemis, itmakes a story.ASSIGNMENT: Look at the peopte in the photographs-Each of them has aproblem. Choose the one person you want to writeabout and decide what the problem is. Now write astory telling about this person, the problem, andthe solution. You may add any other charactersyou need.Try to make your characters and story as realisticas possible.170Appendix V continuedGRADE 8 SCALE FORNARRATIVE WRITINGScale Point 1: Either incomprehensibleOR no attempt to addressthe topic.Scale Point 2: Minimal attemptto tell a story. Mechanical problemsare excessive. Serious problemswith coherence and unity. ComprehensiondifficultScale Point 3: Either attempts tofell a story, but style isineffective and mechanicalproblemsexcessive renderingcomprehension difficult ORmechanically satisfactorybut fails totell a story.Scale Point 4: Attempts totell a story. Reasonablyclear, but no evidenceof originality. Lapses inunity and coherence.Scale Point 5: Contentis fairly thin although there issome attempt at originality.A story is told withevidence of coherence, unityand reasonable commandof the language. Style tendsto be conversational. Someproblems with mechanicsmost often in spellingandsentence structure. Sentenceslack control and variety. Oftenwordy and repetitious.Scale Point 6: Evidenceof originality. Good use ofdetail. Some attempt at characterization.However, contain problemswith unity, coherence and mechanics.Scale Point 7: Workmanlike.Written with clarity and organizationbut not a great deal of originality.No serious errors. Use of mechanicsand writing style acceptable. Charactel(s)maybe realistic, but problem andits development and resolution pedestrian.Scale Point 8: Well developednarrative. Generally, the introductionis effective although theresolution may not be strong.Some attempt at characterization.Vocabulary, stylend mechanics above averagefor grade level.Scale Point 9: Establishes a realisticcharacter with an interestingproblem. Evidence of originality.The conclusion is effective,and may have an interesting twist.The ending is ‘honest’in terms of development. Goodparagraph structureand organization. Precision inuse of language. Noserious mechanical flaws. Showsa. great deal of promise as awriter.Appendix V continuedGRADE 8 NARRATIVEWRITINGSCALE POINT2.171Scale Point2: Minimal attemptto tell a story. Mechanical problemsareèxcessive. Serious problemswith coherence and unity.Comprehension difficult.‘J>--________VAt49tt -. IV2”?J1 riir£,--JLtct\i-“-sL.-&L2i3E3L -ft&9$Oi -.-‘--JSo— 8-GL-1/Appendix V continued172GRADE 8 NARRATIVEWRNG -SCALE POINT5Scale Point 5: Contentis fairly thin although there issomeattempt atoriginality. A story is told withevidence of coherence,unity and reasonablecommandof the language. Style tends•to be conversational.Some problems withmechanics mostoften inspelling:andsentence structure. Sentenceslack controland variety.Often wordy and repetitious.Q OIern LJI& h7-5, til4e4,fl 4f±o 4ridfV1o7j-/ L5/vj)1 ( i;r , Wir.4, -Ii -c/ 7,ii Jruii1 Tho ‘(4cy Liz-c “4- bkd,odni/4 niv1Thv-r iis i1iho,-.1o iiii/r rn ht’&t - .Fiiiihe- -b t1‘7 ‘4i” fl1fl19 1irn i’kJIçi ui 1 in’-i n-Ihor fl?14toiItr 1m r1n4 tri4 4, c)w r4- Piw ‘n 1irnrry(t 1P Cift’ ônri 3Thfldi4o h; h° .c-‘s --Th( rid’dc;hflkk s4{ 4lic. cii+ ckr -‘iyi4ricc ir -1r&iiIr irvlii11C11l fl°4hink -ttikr0 )V,iS° ,v-f ci+4 ii4 4.oh - 3o4- 4’-((1l’Ir f,‘rc1hl:f’llr+’r nil h(Ot° Øic.i .,bidflI,) (dd 4c 4irr.4. ig nil i.nII-i hrh‘1jt dc,t ir(io nnil i44o cr+c”Jn,i:hic4-1c-l ----r,i,i.W.r 4,r-1r1 ,I/’v,’ lir. 1(i- 4. CQ:I h)O-54r,‘C.1\ oui,1 1m ia&51iod.1’fliS I,t-h° r..41 f c’rr.4 hi’5n4 ,4, L+43. —h4 rnr mid.-.r.-rfiod 4fl —-h.-,pcn!’‘c-ri dd’4- 11jh119)rJkf 4r lirrl tLl1jil 5(iñ 4 5ihd *M l 4thhlhfl+Arif1cz1orl(+ flrrI’ (jridjSj/( ,yyO( iihcr4birrglEdfiPj,) (-I- tU(Cil’1 ILWtmid riThr -;di4mvt c,hhd rnrr’ trWiq 4ko4n M 6rd ‘thfi( f11 54({’d,w1+ Ip’ 4h ccm.9çrt1oii Ef cTh,ii xtn4n t7’ +i&itS n4l4 ?nrY. 1.(-d6. 3rr1 4-nII4,- nMrn1 hock.i’ q,d.rc (v fnthed 4h 44÷ btrS I1.731ppendix W: Table 1O..——fa’:ets; student response .journalsMeans and standard deviations for z scores and transformed tscoresHow facets were made:Facet 1: Observations, Understandinq and Information werecombinedFacet 2: Creative Expressions, Speculations and Digressionswere cc’mbinedFacet 3: !uestic’ns, Confidences, Frustrations and Desire toK.nc’w Mi:ire.Facet 5: FrequencyFacet 6: Lenqth.(Revisions were dropped)174Table 10.--facets; student response journals. Meansand standard deviations for z scores andONUMBER OF VALIDOBSERVATIONS (LISTWISE)=OVARIABLEMEAN STD DEVMINIMUMAppendix W: Table 10 continuedtrans formed30 . 00MAXIMUM VALIDNJFAC1T1Z-.001 .795-1.13 2.3830JFAC1T2Z.000 .911-1.062.28 30JFAC1T3Z.000 .891- .97 3.3730JFAC2T1Z.002 .760- .931.93 30JFAC2T2Z-.004 .628-.641.82 30JFAC2T3Z - .002.760 - .752.0130JFAC3T1Z- .001 .714- .72 2.5430JFAC3T2Z .000.698 - .872.43 30.JFAC3T3Z -.001.609 -.83. 1.69 30JFAC4T1Z - .003.998- .603.30301JFAC4T2Z -.0031.003-.941.9730JFAC4T3Z-.002 1.001-.84 2.4830JFAC5T1Z .004.995-2.591.67 30JFAC5T2Z.0001.001-2.282.0430JFAC6T1Z.0001.000-1.752.2230JFAC6T2Z.0001.000-1.183.13 30JFAC5T3Z.0001.000-1.552.9830JFAC5T3Z.002.998-2.971.4630EFAC1T1Z.0001.000-1.972.09 30EFAC1T2Z-.0011.000-1.921.6030EFAC2T1Z.000_1...672.01•30EFAC2T2Z.0011.000 -1.782.05 30AFAC1T1Z.0001.000-1.931.7530AFAC1T2Z.0001.000-1.831.94 30TJF1T1 50.006 9.99735.74 79.9030TJF1T2 49.997 10.00338.49 75.0130TJF1T3 49.999 10.001 39.1287.81 30TJF2T1 50.005 10.003 37.76 75.3630TJF2T2 49.99810.006 3g.8g79.07 30TJF2T3 . 50.000 9.997. --30TJF3T149.993 9.999 39.8985.59 30TJF3T24g.ggg10.005 37.59 84.7630TJF3T3 50.007 10.000 35.3577.8230TJF4T1 50.004 10.005 44.0083.14 30TJF4T2 49.998 10.003 40.6469.68 30TJF4T3 50.004 10.000 41.6474.78 30TJF5T1 50.076 10.000 24.0666.83 30TJF5T2 50.000 10.003 27.1870.35 30TJF5T3 49.996 9.997 20.2264.64 30TJF6T1 50.000 10.00032.52 72.16 30TJF6T2 50.000 10.000 38.2481.35 30TJF6T3 50.000 10.000 34.5479.78 30TEF1T1 50.000 10.002 30.2870.93 30TEF1T2 49.9999.996 30.8266.05 30TEF2T1 50.00010.004 33.3270.15 30TEF2T2 50.004 10.00332.20 70.5030TAF1T1 49.998 10.00230.67 67.4730TAF1T2 50.000 9.99931.67 69.4130175Appendix X: Results of pilot testing of attitude measure1. The attitude measure used in this research is based on“The P < R Writing Attitude Form”.2. In June c’f 1990 , Pil’:t Test A (Appendi> II) was testedwith an intact grade nine class at a Junior high sch’:’ol inBritish Columbia. After meeting with the Thesis C:ommittee,it was decided that the attitude measure would be morereadily understo’:’d by grade nines if it f’:’ll’:’wed a sentenceformat. Pilot Test B was designed.3. In September and October of 1990, six grade—nine studentswho would not be part i’: ipants in the actual research,completed the measure (Pilot Test B) using a think aloudprotocol. One of the students was “l3ifted”, another was“Modified” and the remaining four were “Average”. Thesethink—alouds were tape recorded. The difficulties thesestudents experienced dictated the follc’wing adaptations:a. Two pra’:tise, sample exercises have been included sothat instructions can be better understood by grade—ninestudents;b. Further redundancies (items 10, 11, 17, and 26) werei:tmitted from Pilot Test B;c. An answer guide was incorporated at the top of pagetwo of the questionnaire in order to facilitate ease ofanswering;d. Items 4, 12, 13, 16, 22, 24, 25, and 28 on PilotTest C were rewritten from Pilot Test B because these werethe items that students participating in the think—aloudshad difficulty with.4. Computer bubble sheets were incorporated as studentanswer sheets in order to facilitate analysis procedures.176Appendix V: Operational statement of hypothesesOper at i onal St atement of Hypotheses1 Hi Students who have been responded toin writing by their sub.ject area tea’:her using thecrpen—prc”:ess mode cf response (the experimentalgroups) show more posit ive attitudes towardwrit ing according to a:) source, b) audience,c) response, and/or d) purpose than students whohave been responded to in writing by their sub.je’:tarea teacher using the traditional mode ofresponse (the contr’:’l groups) as measured by apre— and posttest attitude survEyHO Students who have been responded toin writing by their sub.ject area teacher using theopen—process mode of response (the experimentalgroups) do nc.t show more positive attitudes towardwriting according to a) source, b) audience,c response, and/or d) purpose than students whohave been responded to in writing by their subiectarea teacher using the traditional mode ofresponse (the control groups) as measured by apre— and posttest attitude survey..2.. Hi : Native Indian students who havebeen responded to in writing by their subject areateacher using the open—pr.:i.:ess m’:’de of response177ppendix V continued(the experimental qrc’ups) show more positiveattitudes toward writ inq ac’:ordinq ti:’ a) sour’:e,b) audience, c) response, and/or d) purpcise thandi:i Native Indian students who have been respi:indedto in writ inq by their subject area teacher usingthe traditional m’:’de c’f response (the ‘:ontr’:’lgri:tups) as measured by a pre— and pc’sttestattitude survey.HO Native Indian students who havebeen respi:inded to in writing by their subject areateacher using the open—process mode ‘:‘f response(the experimental groups) dci not show morepositive attitudes toward writing according toa) source, b: audien’:e, c) response, and/cirpurpose than Native Indian students who have beenresponded to in writing by their subject areateacher using the traditional mode of response(the control groups) as measured by a pre— andposttest attitude survey.3. Hi Students who have been respondedto in writing by their English teacher using theopen—process mode of response (the experimentalgroup) show more positive - attitudes towarda) writing, b) the response journal itself, and/orc) the subject area tea’:her as measured by thenumber of modes and formal features used in178ppendix V continuedresponse Journals than students ho have beenresponded to in writing by their Encjlish teacherusing the traditional mode of response (thecontrol gr:’up)HO Students who have been responded toin writing by their English teacher using thet:’pen—process mode of resp’:’nse (the experimentalgroup) do not show more posit ive attitudes towarda) writing, b) the response .ja:furnal itself, and/orc) the sub.iect area teacher as measured by thenumber of modes and formal features used inresponse .,ournals than students who have beenresponded to in writing by thejr English teacherusing the traditional mode of resp’:’nse (thec on t r o 1 g r oup).4. Hi Native Indian students who havebeen responded to in writing by their Englishteacher using the open—process mode of response(the experimental group) show mcre pi:tsitiveattitudes toward a) writing, b) the response.journal itsel f, and/or c) the subject area tea’:heras measured by the number of modes and formalfeatures used in response Journals than NativeIndian students who have been responded to inwriting, by their English teacher using thetraditional mode of response (the control group).179ppendix V ‘:ontinuedHO Native Indian students whc’ havebeen responded to in writing by their Englishteacher using the open—pr’:”:ess mode of response(the experimental groLip) do not show more posit iveattitudes toward ) writing, b) the responsejournal itself, and/or c) the sub.ject area teacheras measured by the number of modes and formalfeatures used in resp’:’nse .iournals than NativeIndian students whi: have been respi:nded to inwriting by their English teacher using thetradit ic’nal mode of response (the control group).5 HI : Students who have been responded toin. writing by their science teacher using theopen—process mode of response (the experimentalgroup) show more positive attitudes towarda) writing, b) the response Journal itself, and/orc) the subje.:t area teacher as measured by thenumber of modes and formal features used.inresponse journals than students who- have beenresponded to in writing by their science teacherusing the traditional made of response (thecontrol graup.HO : Students who have been responded toin writing by their science teacher using theopen—process mode of response (the experimentalgroup) dci not show mare positive attitudes tc’ward180ppendix V continueda) writing, b) the response Journal itself, and/orc) the subject area teacher as measured by thenumber of m’:des and formal features used inresp’:inse .journals than students who have beenresp’:’nded to in writing by their science teacherusinq the traditional mode of response (thecontrol group).6 Hi Native Indian students who havebeen responded to in writing by their scienceteacher using the open—pr.:’cess mode ‘:‘f response(the experimental gr’:’up) show more posit iveattitudes ti:’ward a) writing, b) the response.iournal itself, and/or c) the subject area teacheras measured by the number of modes and formalfeatures used in response .iournals than NativeIndian students who have been responded to inwriting by their science teacher using thetraditional mode of response the control group)HO Native Indian students who havebeen responded tc’ in writing by their sciencetea’:her using the open—process mode of response(the experimental group) show more positiveattitudes toward a) writing, b) the response.jc’urnal itself, and/or :) the subject area teacheras measured by the number of modes and formalfeatures used in response journals than Native181Appendix Y continuedIndian students who have been responded t’:i inwriting by their science teacher using thetradit ional mode of respi:inse (the control group).7. Hi Students whi:’ have been responded toin writing by their English teacher using theopen—process mode of resp’Dnse (the experimentalgroup) show greater gains in writing skill asmeasured in the p’:’sttest than students who havebeen resp’:’nded to in writing by their Englishteai:her using the traditional mode i:’f respi:inseC: the c on t r o 1 g r op:’HO Students who have been responded toin writing by their English tea’:her using theopen—process mode of response (the experimentalgroup) dci not shc’w greater gains in writing skillas measured in the posttest than students who havebeen responded to in writing by their Englishteacher using the traditional mode of response(the control group). VB. Hi Students who have been respcinded to Vin writing by their English teacher using theopen—process mode of response (the experimentalgroup) sh’:’w greater gains in a) the content andorganization of their writing and b) the mechanicsof their writing as measured in the posttest(formal, in—class essay) than students who have182fppendix V •:c’ntinuedbeen responded to in writing by their Englishtea’:her using the traditional mode of response(the control group :8. HO Students who have been responded tc’in writing by their English teacher using theopen—pro’:ess mode of response (the experimentalgrc’up) do not sh’:w greater gains in a) the contentand ‘:.rganizati’:’n ‘:f their writing and b) themechanics c’f their writing as measured in theposttest (formal, in—class essay:) than studentswho have been responded to in writing bytheir English teacher using the traditional modeof response (the control group).9. Hi Native Indian students who havebeen responded to in writing by their Englishteacher using the open—prt:’cess mode of response(the experimental grc’up) show greater gains inwriting skill as measured in the posttest thanNative Indian students who have beenresponded toin writing by their English teacher using thetraditional mode of response (the control group).HO : Native Indian students who havebeen resp’:’nded to in writing by their Englishteacher using the open—process mode of responsec:the experimental group) do not show greater gains183ppendix V continuedin writinq skill as measured in the posttest thanNative Indian students who have been responded toin writing by their Enqlish tea’:her usinq thetraditional mode of response (the control group).10. Hi Native Indian students who havebeen responded to in writinq by their Englishteacher using the open—process mode of resp’:nse(the experimental group: show greater gains ina) the content and organization ‘:‘f their writingand b) the mechanics of their writing as measuredin the posttest (formal, in—class essay) thanNative Indian students who have beenresponded to inwriting by their English teacherusing the traditional mode of resp’:’nse (thecontrol group).HO : Native Indian students who havebeen responded to in writing by their Englishteacher using the open—process mode of response(the experimental group) do not show greater gainsin a) the content and organization of theirwriting and b) the mechanics of their writing asmeasured in the posttest (formal, in—class essay)than Native Indian students whohave beenresponded to in writing by their Englishteacherusing the traditional mode ofresponse (thecontrol group184Appendix V continuedii. Hi Students who have been responded toin writinq by their science teai:her using theopen—process mode of response (the experimentalgroup) show qreater qains in their approaches tosolving a problem in science as measured in thep’:sttest than students who have been responded toin writing by their science tea’:her usinq thetraditional mc’de of response (the contri:’l qr’:’up)HO Students who have been resp’:’nded toin writing by their science teacher using theopen—prcicess mode of response (the exper imentalgr’:’up) do not show greater gains in theirapproaches to solving a problem in science asmeasured in the pc’sttest than students who havebeen responded to in writing by their scienceteai:her using the traditional mode of response(the control group12 Hi Native Indian students who havebeen responded to in writing by tfeir scienceteacher using the open—process mode of response(the experimental group) show greater gains intheir approaches to solving a pr’:’blem in s’:ienceas measured in the posttest than Native Indianstudents who have been responded to in writing by185ppendix V continuedtheir science teacher using the traditional m’:de‘:‘f resp’:ense (the ‘:c’ntr’:’l group:)HO Native Indian students who havebeen resp’:tnded ti:’ in writing by their scienceteacher using the open—process mode of response(the exper imental group) di:’ not show greater gainsin their approaches to solving a problem inscience as measured in the pc’sttest than NativeIndian students who have been responded to inwriting by their science teacher using thetraditional mode of response (the control group).


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 38 0
Germany 15 4
China 9 24
Canada 8 0
Republic of Moldova 5 0
Russia 5 0
Cambodia 4 0
New Zealand 3 0
United Kingdom 3 0
Republic of Lithuania 2 0
Sweden 2 0
Armenia 2 0
United Arab Emirates 2 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 38 6
Ashburn 9 0
Shenzhen 5 23
Fremont 5 0
Toronto 5 0
Chişinău 5 0
Arlington Heights 4 0
Beijing 4 1
Manassas 3 0
Montreal 3 0
Christchurch 3 0
London 3 0
Houston 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats



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