UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between teachers' attitudes to the teaching of writing and whole-language/skills-based.. 1989

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1990_A8 M37.pdf [ 5.2MB ]
UBC_1990_A8 M37.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0078365.json
JSON-LD: 1.0078365+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0078365.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0078365+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0078365+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0078365+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0078365.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TO THE TEACHING OF WRITING AND WHOLE-LANGUAGE/SKILLS-BASED PHILOSOPHIES by A I L S A MARSHALL B.Ed., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1984 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFULLMENT OF THE REQUREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( D e p a r t m e n t o f Language E d u c a t i o n ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n q t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA December, 1989 0 A i l s a M a r s h a l l , 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Department DE-6 (2/88) ft ABSTRACT This study investigated teachers' attitudes towards four specific strands isolated from views propounded in recent literature and research on the teaching of written composition. Much discussion in this field has focused on a "new paradigm" in that educators and researchers alike have come to view writing from a new perspective. Certain aspects of this new perspective on the teaching of writing appear to be shared by various sources in the literature. From this body of writing the researcher identified and isolated four distinct, though interwoven, shared values or "strands." These concerned Control on the part of the student-writer, Respect for what the student-writer has to say in his or her writing, Sharing the writing process, and Learning from writing by using writing as a tool for learning. A questionnaire was constructed to probe teachers' attitudes to each of these strands. Two sample populations, one with a whole-language and one with a non-integrated orientation towards teaching language, were identified. Twenty-five teachers from each population answered a three-part questionnaire. The main body of the survey probed attitudes to each of the strands. T-test results indicate that, while the whole-language oriented group reacted more favorably to all four strands in general, statistically this was highly significant in only two of the strands. That is, CONTROL on the part of the writer, and SHARING the writing process as in a community of writers appeared to be valued more highly amongst teachers with a whole-language orientation. This suggests that there may be a relationship between a whole-language orientation and these two aspects of teaching writing. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS. iii LIST OF TABLES v Acknowledgement vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 A. The Question 1 B. Background to the Question 1 C. Overview of the Procedures 3 D. Definition of Terms 3 E. Limitations 5 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 7 A. "New Paradigm" 8 1. New Ideas on Writing 8 2. Comparisons Between the Old and New Models 11 B. New Strategies 14 1. Control 14 2. Respect 17 3. Sharing a Sense of Community 20 4. Learning 21 C. Whole Language 22 D. Summary 26 III. RESEARCH DESIGN 29 A. The Questionnaire 29 B. The Sample 32 C. Data Collection Procedures 33 1. Part A 33 2. Part B 33 3. Open-ended Questions 35 D. Analysis of Data 35 IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF DATA 37 A. Strand One: Control 37 B. Strand Two: Respect 47 C. Strand Three: Sharing 53 D. Strand Four: Learning 59 E. Qualitative Data 63 F. Summary 67 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 70 A. Summary and Discussion 70 iii B. Conclusions 78 C. Implications for Further Research 81 D. Implications for Teaching 83 REFERENCES 84 APPENDIX A: Questionnaire One 87 APPENDIX B: Tally Sheet 95 APPENDIX C: Questions Revised by Strand 97 APPENDIX D: Revised Questionnaire 103 APPENDIX E: Qualatative Data Response 112 iv LIST OF TABLES labie 1. Degree of Statistical Probability by Strand 38 labifi 2- Control: Difference in Means ;.39 JaiAs i . Control: Responses of Groups I and II 39 iJaMfi A- Respect: Difference in Means 49 JZaJble i . Respect: Responses of Groups I and II 50 Table £. Sharing: Difference in Means 53 Table 2. Sharing: Responses of Groups I and II 54 T_ahle .&. Learning: Differences in Means 60 Table 2.. Learning: Responses of Groups I and II : 61 v Acknowledgement With thanks to Dr. Todd Rogers and Dr. Don Allison for their assistance in preparing part of this study. vi CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY A. The Question The question addressed by the current study is, what is the relationship between teachers' attitudes to the teaching of writing and whole-language and skill-based philosopies? B. Background to the Question Since the Dartmouth Conference in 1967 a resurgence of interest in teaching writing has been apparent in the literature. Freedman and Pringle (1979) talk of "a 'new paradigm' revealed in the shared assumptions and values of those at the forefront of the discipline." Though writers and researchers such as Arthur Applebee (1982), James Britton (1986), Nancy Martin (1973), Donald Graves (1984), Janet Emig (1977), and Garth Boomer (1985) approach the teaching of writing each from a distinct perspective, certain views or strands are common to their writing and research. From various sources in the literature therefore four strands were identified by the investigator as being central to recent theory and research on the teaching of written composition: 1) the student writer should have control over the choice and treatment of the material. 2) the student writer, and what he or she has to say, should be treated with respect. 3) students learn by sharing their writing problems with other writers in the classroom; i.e., in the sense of a community of writers. 1 4) writing is a learning experience for students. As noted by Freedman and Pringle (1980), views on the new paradigm in writing are representative of the vanguard in the sense that: they do not so much represent the attitudes and beliefs of the practitioners in the field as indicate the direction in which the field is moving, (p.176) They have nevertheless been discussed in the literature now for more than a decade. While various projects have from time to time been launched in the general school system (e.g., the writing process) it is not clear whether these views on teaching writing have been accepted by practioners in the field. (Applebee, 1981) Recent innovations in the language arts field have focused to some extent on the whole language movement While whole language encompasses its own distinct body of literature and is generally concerned with an integrative approach to teaching reading, writing, speaking and listening, the general approach shares some assumptions and values with the literature on teaching writing. Both bodies of literature tend to encourage enactive learning and to view the teacher as facilitator rather than as director. It would appear that the views discussed in the literature on writing, if assimilated by the general practioner, would be most likely to be found amongst teachers with a whole-language orientation rather than teachers with a traditional orientation. The question addressed by the current study then is: Is a process approach to writing adopted by those who use an integrative, whole-language approach to language arts? 2 C. Overview of the Procedures A questionnaire investigated whole-language and traditionally-oriented teachers' attitudes to recent literature on the teaching of composition. The main body of the questionnaire consisted of 21 items, each of which probed teachers' attitudes to one of the four strands or goals discussed in the literature. Four open-ended questions, one addressed to each strand, asked the respondent for specific examples of ways in which he or she used writing in the classroom. These four questions were designed to probe whether respondents used these strands, or aspects of the new paradigm, in a practical sense in the classroom. Two sample populations of elementary teachers were identified by orientation to teaching language. Teachers in Group I were identified as being whole-language oriented, or involved in teaching language in an integrated program, blending language arts with other subjects in the curriculum. Teachers in Group II were identified as being involved in a more traditional, non-integrated language program. Twenty-five questionnaires were distributed at random to teachers in each sample population. D. Definition of Terms Throughout the study various central terms will be used as defined below. 1. Paradigm. This refers to what Emig (1982) defines as "an explanatory matrix...[for] any systematic investigation of phenomena." Used in the current study a differentiation is made between what is refered to by Freedman and Pringle (1980) as the "new paradigm" and the "current-traditional" paradigm. The latter is described by Freedman and Pringle as being educationally inadequate with the result that "the current mood of the profession suggests the emergence of a 'new paradigm'." 2,Strand. "Strand" refers to one aspect or goal isolated from the literature on 3 writing. Four strands were isolated. While it is recognised that each of these strands is interwoven with the others to a large extent, the four aspects or goals can be considered as separate entities for the purposes of the current study. These will be defined in depth in Chapter Two, the Review of the Literature. However, as subsets of the term "strand" they are listed below as follows: i. Control. This is a key term for the first of the strands which states that student writers should have control over the process and product when they are writing. ii. Respect This is a key term for the second of the strands which states that what student writers have to say in their writing merits respect iii. Sharing. This is the key term for the third of the strands which states that student writers learn by sharing their writing problems and the writing process with other writers in the classroom, as in the sense of taking part in a community of writers. iv. Learning. This is the key term for the fourth of the strands which states that writing is a learning experience for students. While it is recognised that writing is a tool for various aspects of learning, some focus in the present study is on learning which includes self-understanding, as this is one aspect of learning which is often overlooked. 3. Whole Language. Whole language refers to the pedagogical movement currently popular in the school system. While the term encompasses a variety of interpretations, for the purposes of the current study it will be taken to refer to an integrative approach to teaching all four aspects of language, and that Whole-language literacy instruction is the simultaneous integrated teaching of reading, writing, speaking and listening within a context that is meaningful to the language learner. 4. Non-integrated. This refers to the more traditional approach to teaching language arts whereby subjects such as reading and writing, for example, tend to be taught as separate subjects. The approach tends to be more skills oriented. 5. Orientation. This refers to the teaching philosophy or ideological stance of the teacher in the two groups taking part in the study. E. LIMITATIONS The generalizability of the results of this study must be interpreted in light of limitations of: 1) the sample; 2) the string of variables or "strands" chosen from the literature; and 3) the reliability of the questionnaire. The two major sampling limitations are the grade level taught by the respondents and the general division of the groups along public and separate school lines. The questionnaire was distributed to male and female elementary teachers, including both primary and intermediate in each group, with the majority of teachers teaching at the grade four to six level. Respondents identified as particularly interested or involved in non-integrative language programs were found to be teaching in a variety of religious and private schools, while respondents who were identified as particularly interested or involved in whole-language programs were found to be teaching in the public school system. There is, therefore, the possibility of a fundementalist element in the responses of the non-integrative teachers. Also, with six exceptions, the questionnaires were completed at the end of June. However, six whole-language respondents did not complete the questionnaires till the second week in September. There is a possibility that some of the responses to these six questionnaires 5 may have been affected by some unknown element in the intervening period. All the schools sampled were located in a suburban, middle class area. An attempt was made to compare prescribed language texts for each group. However, there did not appear to be a standardized text, and teachers in both groups took materials from a variety of sources, including Ginn 720 and Language Patterns. Formal generalization, then must be limited to the population sampled. The second limitation is imposed by the string of variables, or strands, chosen to examine in the study. While each of the four strands is well documented in the literature, it is possible another researcher using different "strands" from the literature might arrive at different results. The standard limitations ascribed to the construction of a questionnaire, namely its reliability as an instrument, also apply here. However, each item in the questionniare not only stemmed from the literature on writing but each was also tested for content validity by a panel of experts as will be described in Chapter Three in the Research Design. 6 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE For the past two decades, following the Dartmouth Seminar (1966), the literature on writing and composition has been characterized by a resurgence of interest and enthusiasm, which has been evident in conferences such as the 1979 Canadian Council of Teachers of English 12th national conference titled "Learning to Write"; in research such as Arthur Applebee's (1981) seminal study on writing in the Secondary Schools"; and in a veritable plethora of articles in the writing literature discussing, challenging, arguing, explaining and generally re-creating current thought on what is entailed in teaching writing. What Janet Emig (1982) termed a fundemental "shift in paradigm", has been influenced by a variety of disciplines, with much of the focus of research centering on the writing process and how it works. Teachers and researchers such as Graves (1983), Stillman (1984), Boomer (1985), and Brooke (1987) have added specificy to the literature by outlining innovations they have pioneered or observed in the classroom implimentation of this new paradigm. Four common threads, or strands, in particular are evident These centre on aspects of a) Control, b) Respect, c) Sharing as in a Community of Writers, and d) Learning. Yet these writers, too, are in the vanguard of their field and there has been little definitive research to indicate to what degree their views are shared by classroom teachers. This resurgence of interest has not been restricted to the teaching of writing. It has also resulted in research and innovation in other aspects of language instruction. The current whole-language movement, for example, is concerned with the entire language-learning process, its central focus being on the interactive teaching of reading, 7 writing, speaking and listening. It does, however, share some basic assumptions such as the connection between thought and language. (Vygotsky, 1977; Emig, 1982; MacDonald, 1987) A "New Paradigm" The development of what Emig terms a "new paradigm" in the literature on writing has been central to much of the study of language over the past twenty to twenty-five years. As befits a new paradigm, much of the research has been theoretical in nature, in that it concerned itself with: 1) new ideas on writing; and 2) natural comparisons with the "current-traditional" model which the "new paradigm" is replacing. 1. New ideas on Writing. Much of the interest and enthusiasm in the literature on writing and composition has stemmed from a new way of looking at language, and in particular writing. Writers and researchers have described this in various ways, depending on their own particular perspectives. However, as noted by Freedman and Pringle (1980) "beneath the diversity, a certain commonality was clear." (p. 173) For those with a pedagogical or rhetorical stance, the shift was from product to process (Freedman and Pringle), or from text alone to a "piece of writing within a total rhetorical context which includes writer, audience, and world as well." (p. 177) For researchers involved in the languaging process, the shift centred on the idea that thought and language are intricately connected, and that writing involves the writer in what Vygotsky terms, "deliberate structuring of the web of meaning." (p. 100, Freedman and Pringle, on Vygotsky, 1977) Janet Emig (1977) takes the connection between writing and thought further by listing the ways that "writing serves learning uniquely because writing as process-and-product possesses a cluster of attributes that correspond uniquely to certain powerful learning strategies." (p. 123) However, certain 8 values and assumptions are indeed evident in the work of writers and researchers from a variety of perspectives, so that: The discipline is thus poised...when, although there is a set of values, a commonly held set of assumptions about where to look and what to see, there is no fully articulated, explict theoretic system. (Freedman and Pringle, p. 177) One important assumption which appears to run through much of the literature, is a concern with the importance of function, and the value placed on this by researchers and writers with various perspectives on language. Pringle and Freedman (1980), for example, are particularly concerned with the "Reinvention of the Rhetorical Tradition"; yet from the rhetorical perspective they are also of the view that: ...reinvented rhetoric has multiple roots... It is a reworking of Rhetoric to suit contemporary needs, taking into account empirical and social sciences which were unknown in Classical Rhetoric. An ecclectic gathering of what is useful, and consistent with today's shared assumptions, (p. 179) Britton (1982), from his own perspective of viewing language as a process of creating meaning from experience, shares something of this view in that he is primarily concerned with the use and function of language and how we use language to make sense of our lives. In his article "Shaping at the Point of Utterance," he goes further, saying that not only is writing purposive, but that we shape it specifically to our own purposes as directed by our thought processes, so that: When we come to write, what is delivered to the pen is in part already shaped, stamped with the image of our 9 ways of perceiving, (p. 63) From their perspective on research on the writing experience, Rower and Hayes (1980) point out that, ...writers don't FIND meanings, they MAKE them. A writer in the act of discovery is hard at work searching memory, forming concepts, and forging a new structure of ideas, while at the same time trying to juggle all the constraints imposed by his or her purpose, audience, and language itself, (p. 21) From a pedagogical stance, both Nancy Martin (1973) and Arthur Applebee (1981) have focused on the specific writing task required of student writers. They voiced eloquent pleas for teachers to re-evaluate their approach to student-writing by making writing assignments more meaningful to the student They both advocated a shift in teacher attitude to writing in which the focus was to be placed on the meaning of the text rather than the often mindless evaluation of the product in the form of marking spelling and punctuation. Martin pointed out that in the work she and her colleagues were doing, they had found that they were, ...working with teachers on ways of making writing into something children feel they use. We felt strongly that "examiner audience" situations inhibited thinking and speculation, and that the child needed to be read with interest and sympathy rather than to be judged as the performance of a task. (p. 5) Applebee (1981), from a similar pedagogical point of view, examined teachers' purposes in making writing assignments, and found a continuing stress on informational 10 writing for testing purposes. As a result of his ground-breaking study, Applebee advocated a "context for student writing...where the writing is motivated by a need to communicate and [is] valued as an expression of something the writer wants to say." (p. 105) Thus, while in one sense the shift in paradigm involves movement away from the writing product and towards the writing process, it is, however, more than this. It involves recognition of the concept that the purpose of the writer is of paramount importance in the writing process, and that writers who know that what they write will be read with interest will be empowered by the writing process, in the sense that the statement made in the writing is writer-shaped and writer-controlled. 2. Comparisons Between the Old and New Models. With the emergence of a new model or paradigm, certain comparisons are inevitable. Partly in an attempt to identify and define these new ideas on teaching writing, writers and researchers in the literature have been to some extent concerned with looking at what existed in the field previously. Comparisons have been made between the two models, delineating ways in which the new model differs from what might be termed the "outdated" one. Again, since writing is multidisciplinary (Emig, 1980), these comparisons vary with the perspective of the researcher. From a rhetorical stance Freedman and Pringle (1980) compare the new paradigm with what they term the "current-traditional" model: Fundemental to this new discipline is a rejection of its immediate past, the tradition of composition teaching of the past century, and an attempt to find or redefine an appropriate heritage, sometimes in the classical tradition, sometimes in the contemporary intellectual milieu, more typically however a unique welding of the two. (p. 174) From the educational point of view, the new paradigm can be compared with the older model both as a shift from the traditional secondary school and university 11 division between the study of literature and the study of language mechanics, (Gleason, 1980), and also as a shift from product to process. (Martin, 1973) The old model tended to view writing as a problem of language-handling and mechanics, quite divorced from the more prestigious study of literature. In essence, this implied that writing, as part of the more mundane study of language, was usually concerned with problems of sentence structure and correctness, with emphasis on the teaching of specific skills to improve the quality of writing in the classroom. Focus, in compostion and writing, was therefore often directed at the sentence level. The new paradigm places more emphasis on the meaning expressed than on the words expressing that meaning, and thus on the connection between thought and language (Vygotsky, 1962; Emig, 1981), and finally on the process of writing rather than on the treatment and evaluation of the finished writing product. In his article, "A New Trivium," Gleason, (1980) outlines the historical and sociological reasons for the shift in paradigm. He, however, advocates the teaching of what he terms "intellectually respectable grammar" (p. 34) by connecting a new trivium of grammar, explication, and rhetoric as a "single small step toward reconstructing a fragmented and foundering discipline." Thus, much discussion has been evident in the literature, and by no means do all writers and researchers involved in the discussions in the literature on the meaning and implications of this new paradigm agree on how this connection between thought and language should be utilized in the teaching of writing. Some, such as Gleason, advocate a change in the slant of skills-based instruction which takes the concepts of the new paradigm into consideration. Many others, however, call for a move away from the teaching of skills and towards a new focus on the writer's purpose and sense of authorship and control. Like Nancy Martin (1973), the latter focus on skills learned through writing with a purpose, in a situation where students are encouraged to: 12 write in contexts which are meaningful to them and more closely linked, we believe, to their educational development than the kind of writing which is still often found in schools sometimes in the form of exercises, note-taking (rather than note-making), or just copying from the board or book. (p. 1) These various sources, however, share some commonalities in their comparisons of the two paradigms. All are concerned with a shift in concept from viewing writing as an exercise in language skills to a cognitive, writer-directed activity. In his research into the writing of secondary school students Applebee (1981) expressed concern over the paucity of paragraph-length writing assigned to students in most classes he observed. He considered that paragraph-length writing was required for the incorporation of cognitive thought on the part of the writer. While many eminent researchers and writers at the forefront of the literature thus favorably compare the newer to the old model, little research is available as to the attitude of the general practitioner in the classroom. It is by no means clear that the shift in paradigm is universally an accepted fact in the front lines. In 1972 the N.C.T.E. attempted to address this problem by conducting an Opinionnaire on "The Student's Right to Write" which probed teachers' attitudes to a series of 55 Likert-type statements on a variety of views on writing taken from the literature to date. However, this survey was considered somewhat skewed towards college teachers. Also, there is little in the literature to indicate what, if any, effect the orientation of the teacher has on teacher attitudes to the new paradigm. Applebee's (1981) study observing the writing of secondary school students concluded that much of the writing was little more than mechanical regurgitating of 13 facts, mostly less than a paragraph in length, and written to a limited teacher- evaluator audience. All of which is more in line with the current-traditional model than with the values of the new paradigm in the writing literature. Applebee himself called for techniques and activities in the Field in order to impliment the idea that "writing can serve as a tool for learning rather than as a means to display acquired knowledge." B. New Strategies Following Applebee's study, various teachers and researchers added specificy to the literature by developing the new concepts into specific techniques and activities for the classroom situation. While a variety of views are offered in this aspect of the literature some "strands" appear to recur in various forms from various respected sources. Four of these strands in particular seem to be recognised as valuable concepts. While by no means mutually exclusive, the following goals do recur throughout the literature: 1) Control. If language is indeed inextricably connected with thought (Vygotsky, 1962; Bruner, 1971), and if writing allows the writer to develop higher cognitive functions most fully (Emig, 1977), then a case can be made for student-writer control over the writing assigned in class. Various theorists do make such a case. Anne Berthoff (1980) contends that, our students can learn to write only if we give them back their language and that means playing with it, working with it, using it instxumentally, making many starts, (p. 77) This concept of playing and working with language as a valuable classroom activity implies much more than enhancing writing skills which, after all, has also been a goal of the older "current-traditional" paradigm. Berthoff is advocating recognition on 14 the part of teachers of the value of student writers directing and owning the writing they do in class. What is emphasised here is the concept that, as language is connected to thought, teachers assigning writing projects are asking student writers to create meaning. Effectively this calls for engagement on the part of the writer rather than for the parroting, or rewriting of others' ideas. Good writing techniques while not eschewed, are rather taken to be part and parcel of the need to communicate effectively with the reader of the text This perspective is reflected by Garth Boomer (1985). In "Fair Dinkum Teaching and Learning" Boomer describes the type of text he has encountered from students who feel they have no control of over their classroom writing. All of them will be phony. All of them written to impress. All of them will be written to the dead letter office. Sad, but basically true. They are destined to be marked, or ticked, or "good work" stamped, or pinned on the walls, or corrected. That is, whether or not grades are given, they are destined to be judged in some way. They are transactions with the teacher seeking approval. No one is going to write back anything but lip servicc.just occasionally you'll come across a piece where authentic excitment or intent to say something true begins to break through, (p. 60) Related to both this idea that student-writers need to feel that they have options and choices, and to the idea that thought and writing are connected, is a further aspect of writer control. If student-writers are to direct and control what they have to say in their texts, they will require time to reflect on both their choice and treatment of topic. Boomer advocates writer control of the product and the process to 15 promote authentic excitment or intent on the part of a writer who views the text as writer-directed. He is advocating, too, that the teacher develop classroom practices which allow students to feel that they do in fact own and direct their own writing. If language and thinking are linked—and if we are to use language as a "tool for thinking"—our student authors have to do more than "go through the motions." They have to be personally involved, (p. 61) This echoes Applebee's (1981) statement that there was a need for more than the three percent of classroom time he observed spent on paragraph-length writing. He also noted that an average of only three minutes of class time was normally spent on prewriting instruction, and this suggests no consideration given to the concept that students require time to prepare for the writing if this is indeed an activity connected to thought procedures. In his article "Write Before Writing", Donald Murray (1978) uses his personal experience as a writer to illustrate the need for time for reflection before writing. He looks at writing as an exploratory activity requiring room to think something out Writing in this sense would require time to "discover" an approach to a topic. Each of these sources, therefore, advocates from his or her own perspective the idea that student-writers should have control over the writing they do in class. Some suggest providing for this control by offering more time to think before writing. Yet others, such as Eileen Tway (1984), promote the idea of control through students making choices. She paraphrases Mayher, Lester, and Pradl (1983) by saying that: Choice is important, they say, because it emphasises the selection process, or the control of the writer over the writing. Recognising that language on paper is malleable, even erasable, before it becomes permanent, leads to a 16 sense of confidence and, above all, to a sense of control, (p. 534) A similar stance or attitude is advocated for teachers by Graves (1984) who advances the concept of student-writer control though authorship. From his experience in classroom observational research he describes situations in which students are encouraged to see that: They learn that child authors and professional authors have options ...Children's concept of author changes from a vague notion about some other person who is writing books to the additional perception of themselves as authors to the realization that they have choices and decisions to make as authors, (p. 183) Implied in this concept, however, is the assumption that student writers have something worthwhile to say, and that what is written by students in the classroom merits respect. 2) Respect Linked, therefore, to the concept that students should control their writing, and following directly from it, is the idea that all writers—including student-writers—have a unique view to share through their writing. The second strand or goal recurring in the literature concerns the value placed by both teacher and student on what students have to say in their classroom writing. Again, various sources advocate that teachers treat all writer's ideas as potentially valuable whether one agrees with the point of view expressed or not Among those suggesting that this view be integrated into general classroom practises is Donald Graves (1984), who encourages classroom practises such as the establishment of an "author's chair" to promote the concept that each student-writer is a legitimate and valued member of the writing 17 community with a worthwhile point of view and valuable experience to contribute. He advocates the promotion of the idea that students should be encouraged to see themselves as real writers sharing a common bond with other authors, both published, and unpublished. In other words, Graves takes children's authorship seriously and suggests that teachers encourage students to view professional authors as people like themselves who are honing their writing skills to enable them to best present their own personal and unique viewpoint In Graves' view, the texts produced in class by both teacher and students should be seen as mailable material to be read, discussed, defended and reworked, rather than as text "carved in stone" and subject only to the alteration of an evaluator's editing comments. The research shows that when children discover what they know in their own experience whether it be fashion, lasers, or space stories, then write about it and defend their topics, they learn to think and speak with authority. They become aggressive learners and their new found strength spreads to other subjects, (p. 174) This echoes Applebee's (1981) call for students to: assume an active role in their own learning... where the writing is motivated by a need to communicate and valued as an expression of something the writer wants to say. (p. 105) Robert Brooke (1987) reiterated a similar theme, again from the point of view of encouraging the classroom teacher to cultivate an attitude of respect for the unique contribution of the individual student-writer. Indeed, Brooke goes so far as to as to suggest that teachers use writing to encourage the cultivation of voice and identity in their students. 18 What's at stake, it seems, is part of their "identity"—we would like them to think of themselves as WRITERS rather than as STUDENTS. We would like them to take the initiative to communicate with their readers, to use writing to help better their world, to use writing to help them understand their world. ...As writing teachers we want them to OWN their own writing rather than attributing it only to the classroom—rather than claiming that it's only a game we play in class, (p. 150) The shift being suggested here is a focus on what the student-writers have to say in their texts rather than on the texts themselves. To do this in a practical sense teachers need to treat the message presented in the text with respect. They need to create a climate in which the developing text and the finished product are viewed as valuable and worth the attention of a wider audience than teacher-as-examiner. For Garth Boomer (1985) publication of student texts was critical in treating what the student had to say with respect. Frank Smith (1981) pointed out the "positive feeling engendered" from sharing the process with other writers when they support and encourage one another in their writing goals. Directly connected to this concept is an aspect which is of practical concern for teachers desirous of implimenting this idea of respect for students' texts. No student-writer is likely to express willingly a personal point of view unless he or she trusts both teacher and classmates who will read the text Before any teacher can logically expect students to offer opinions of their own rather than reiterate what they think he or she wants to hear, there must already exist in the classroom a tacit agreement that what each writer has to say will be treated with consideration. Susan Church (1985) points out that: A teacher can begin to create this environment by writing 19 with the students and by demonstrating regard for each writer through the questions and comments offered (Graves, 1983; Smith, 1983). It helps if the teacher makes it clear that certain types of derogatory responses are not allowed. However, when everyone writes, everyone is taking risks and is equally vulnerable, so writers quickly develop sensitivity for the feelings of their fellow writers. In addition, all writers should understand they have the option of deciding when they want to share, how much, what kind of help they want, and whether or not to accept the advice offered. They must maintain ownership of their texts in order to maintain a sense of themselves as writers, (p. 178) These researchers and writers, therefore, each from his or her own perspective promotes the idea that, in practical terms, what students have to say in their writing should be treated with respect 3) Sliaring A Sense Ol Community. These strands are, as noted above, not mutually exclusive. While Elbow (1973), Smith (1981) and Church (1985) are concerned with teachers and students treating what student writers have to say with respect—they are concerned with both student control and student ownership of the texts—they are also concerned with a third strand, namely the idea that writing is collaborative. These writers, and others such as Berthoff (1980), Graves (1983) and Boomer (1985), focus on the value of using the classroom as a community of writers sharing the problems of learning the writing process. Anne Berthoff, for example, believes that: The composition classroom ought to be a place where the various selves are heard and an audience's response is heard—listened to and responded to. Language is an exchange: we know what we've said, and what can be understood from it, when wew get a response; we come to know what we mean when we hear what we say. (p. 78) Garth Boomer, from his research in dialogue and "scribing", believes, we have been guilty of keeping generations of students "in the dark" by placing emphasis on marking rather than on making and sharing, (p. 50) thus suggesting that teachers might use classroom discussion as a more valuable type of evaluation than "marking". (Graves, 1983) 4) Learning. The fourth strand, or concept, echoed by various sources in the literature is the idea that writing is a valuable tool for learning, in that students can use it to learn more about themselves and their places in their world. Applebee (1981) and Brooke (1987), in discussing respect for what students have to say in their writing, point out the connection between writing and learning. Both Applebee (1981) and Emig (1977) refer to writing as a tool for learning. Emig also holds that writing is supremely suited to learning, and as Odell (1980) points out: both Emig and Britton have been concerned with establishing the most basic kinds of relationships between writing and learning. Emig, for example, notes that writing allows us to have our ideas immediately available for review and re-evaluation, a process that can lead us to reconsider and refine our ideas, i.e. to learn what we think by writing, (p. 43) 21 Peter Stillman (1984) extends the idea of process rather than product by insisting in the Foreword to "Writing Your Way" that "...writing isn't a printout of learning, but IS learning, meaning-making." Several teachers, such as Eileen Tway (1984), writing on their experience in implimenting this strand in the classroom, appear to agree on the potential value to student-writers of learning to use their writing as such a tool for learning. The claims for writing as a way of learning hold special promise for the future of teaching writing-Viewing writing as a way of learning more about oneself and one's subject and how the two relate is a reatively new approach in the professional references on teaching writing. A few years ago language arts instructors stressed three main purposes for writing: to communicate information, to keep records, and to create aesthetically. Today another purpose is stressed at least as much as the others: to write to learn. The newer studies of writing as a process show that writing is a powerful way of learning, (p. 533) C. Whole-language As outlined above, the teaching of writing has recently undergone a shift in paradigm. The implications of psycholinguistic connections between thought and language extend to all areas of language. Though writing has been the focus of much attention and concern, the other three modes of speaking, listening, and reading have also been the subjects of concern in the literature. New focus on the language-thought connection has had an effect on the teaching of reading in particular, though the other two modes of speaking and listening 22 have also benefited from a resurgence of interest Whole-language, an integrated language movement which shares some basic assumptions with the "new paradigm" in writing, has recently recieved much attention. It is concerned with all of the areas of language in that it is a movement which calls for the simultaneous integration of all language processes: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Or, as defined by Maureen MacDonald (1987): Whole language literacy instruction is the simultaneous integrated teaching of reading, writing, speaking and listening within a context that is meaningful to the language learner, (p. 16) MacDonald goes on to state that: Whole language is much more than a method of teaching reading or writing. It is a philosophical approach to language that has grown from the psycholinguistic research of the 1960s and 1970s, (p. 16) However, as a new movement "sparked by personal testimony rather more than by actual research conducted in Whole-Language classrooms ..." whole language tends to "...look at existing research to find an accurate perspective on Whole-Language teaching." (Shapiro, 1989, p. 231) Thus, some of the research supporting whole-language values stems from various areas of the language literature. While all four modes of language are integrated, much focus is on reading and literacy with all four aspects being viewed as mutually reinforcing, enhancing the learning of each mode. The new paradigm in writing, stemming also from psycholinguistic assumptions regarding the inter-relationship of language and thought, views writing and reading as interrelated, but its focus and area of concern is writing 23 and its unique possibilities for learning. Whole-language, on the other hand, is an approach which values writing as only one of the four language processes. Shapiro (1989) paraphrases Doake, 1983; Goodman, 1986; and Johnson and Louis, 1985 by saying: In a Whole-language classroom, speaking and listening are integral parts of a total language program, mutually reinforcing reading and writing abilties, with instruction in one mode enhancing the learning in another mode or process. Reading can be learned in the same natural way that speech is learned, that is, by listening to the printed language being read. The printed patterns become familiar to learners, and they begin to internalize the syntax of printed language, (p. 23) For many years the four modes of language were considered to be quite separate and distinct skills. Indeed, reading and writing were considered to be reverse processes in that writing was considered an active activity, while reading was considered to be passive and receptive. Following the psycholinguistic studies of the 1960s and 1970s which probed connections between thought and language, reading came to be viewed in a somewhat different light Tierney and Pearson (1984) made a strong case for the concept that reading involved more than decoding symbols on a page. Reading, they contended, involved composing meaning. What drives reading and writing is this desire to make sense of what is happening—to make things cohere. (Tierney and Pearson, p. 37) Language researchers and theorists have recently come to accept this view of what is involved in the reading process, and have focused on the uses we make of the written 24 word with regard to making meaning and furthering human understanding. Petrosky (1982) argues that the reader is not merely retrieving meaning from a written text, but is also bringing concepts and ideas of his or her own to the text to make personal sense of what is written. He contends that: ...our comprehension of texts, whether they are literary or not, is more an act of composing—for understanding is composing—than of information retrieval, (p. 19) This corresponds somewhat to Britton (1982), in the literature on writing in that he too concerned with language as a process for creating meaning from experience. It would appear, therefore, that the reading literature has been involved in a change in focus and direction, perhaps even a shift in paradigm, somewhat similar to that outlined in the literature on writing. Researchers and theorists in the reading literature have used new psycholinguistic knowledge to probe the nature of the reading process. This appears to parallel, in a sense, the picture in the literature on writing. As new insights into what is involved in the writing process have spear-headed innovations and techniques in the teaching of writing, so the new ideas on reading have been incorporated in recent innovations in the teaching of reading. Stemming from these new insights into the reading process, and what this process entails, researchers in the reading literature have focused to some extent on reading programs and approaches which address these considerations. ...Research has discovered that children in basal reading programs have a view of reading which overemphasises decoding and accuracy in word recognition (Johns and Ellis, 1976), and that children using basals do not consider reading for meaning as important, nor do they 25 find the reading of interest (Cairney, 1988) (Shapiro, p. 239) From research such as this in the reading literature, whole-language proponents have focused on alternative ways of teaching reading which are more in line with their philosophy of teaching reading in the "same natural way that speech is learned." What appears common to various Whole-language proponents is the emphasis on early and extensive writing experiences and the reading of natural books. (Shapiro, 1989, p. 245) What whole-language proponents were seeking was a reading approach or program which incorporated new ideas on reading as a process of composing meaning. Various approaches have been attempted. Language Experience used the students' own experiences related and dictated to the teacher as class reading material. In research comparing Language Experience and Basal reading programs results were mixed. Similar findings on word reading and paragraph meaning were reported by Stauffer (1966). Vilscek, et al, (1966) reported higher reading performance on various measures, however, for Language Experience. Studies comparing literature-based, or individualized reading programs, where the major source of reading material was student selected trade books, indicated favorable results for the literature programs. (Vite, 1963) Big Books which were shared by several readers, and used little or no control over the vocabulary were also used in an effort to offer students more natural reading material than the basals offered. E. Summary The literature on composition has been much concerned with new ideas on writing which stem from new concepts of the connections between language and 26 thought As a "new paradigm" replacing an outdated one, the research has been often theoretical in nature, and has focused on: 1) defining the new paradigm and what it entails; and 2) comparing the new paradigm with the outdated "current-traditional" paradigm which it is replacing. Stemming from the theoretical research and resulting literary discussion on these two aspects of the new paradigm on writing, researchers and teachers have added specificy to the literature by outlining techniques and strategies used and observed in the classroom to impliment the new paradigm. Four strands, or recurring values, noted by various sources are: 1) Control on the part of the student-writer over the choice and selection of topic and the treatment of the material; 2) Respect for what the student-writer has to say in his or her text; 3) Sharing of the writing process with teacher and classmates, as in a community of writers; and 4) Learning from writing, as in the sense of using writing as a tool for personal learning. New insights in the connections between thought and language have had an effect on other areas of teaching language. They have also affected the teaching of the other three language modes. Whole-language, for example, a movement which is concerned with teaching all four modes of reading, writing, speaking and listening in an integrated language program, shares some assumptions and values with the new paradigm in that it views language and thought as being intricately connected. Thus, whole-language approaches to teaching both writing and reading address similar shifts in paradigm in both processes. With regard to teaching reading, for example, whole-language proponents were first concerned with delinating what the reading process is and then with how to instigate innovative programs to address the effective teaching of this process. Since here the shift is from decoding the product, or text, to focusing 27 on the process of composing meaning with the help of a reading text, whole-language proponents have been much concerned with replacing the basal reader with a more natural reading text 28 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN The current study was based on a questionnaire formulated by the investigator, and on analysis of the data obtained from responses to the questionnaire. A. The Questionnaire As indicated, four strands were isolated from the literature and identified by the investigator as being pivotal to the "new paradigm" on teaching writing in that various sources presented these strands from their own perspectives. As listed in Chapter Two, these four strands centre on: CjonJioJ, Respect, Sharing, and Learning. A questionnaire was created with specific items addressing each of the four strands. The purpose was to probe the attitudes of teachers towards these views from the literature. The pilot survey consisted of 33 questions. (See Appendix A.) To validate whether these questions could be classified in one of the strands (Control, Respect, Sharing and Learning) a set of question cards was issued to each member of a panel of ten experts who were asked to sort the 33 question cards individually into five categories, four of the categories being one strand each and the fifth, a "don't know" category. The panel consisted of a group of graduate students enrolled in a class on Research in Written Composition. The panels' judgements were tallied, (see Appendix B) and percentages of agreement were noted for each item of the questionnaire. Six questions which drew less than less than 50 per cent agreement were, with one exception, discarded, but one with 30 per cent was revised and retained. Twelve questions which received 60 to 100 per cent agreement were retained. 29 After some consideration, eight questions which had 50 per cent agreement were also retained, since in each case the other 50 per cent of the responses were either in a "don't know" category or were scattered amongst the other alternatives so that the general agreement on the part of the panel was amongst the group who agreed with the investigator. Moreover, each of these seven questions was considered by the investigator to be a valuable item in that each, in the investigator's opinion, did address the strand as noted in the literature. For example, Question 4 (originally question 11) asks about the value of the teacher writing along with the students. In her discussion on the concept of a community of writers, Tway (1984) paraphrases Graves (1983) and Ziegler (1981), noting that Ziegler's "book, as well as Graves' book, includes the teacher as one of the writers in the classroom. The call is clear in these books and others in the 1980s for teachers to write with their students." (p. 535) This indicates that the teacher writing along with his or her students is indeed one way of fostering the concept of teacher and students sharing the writing process as in a community of writers. This question was therefore retained although 50 per cent of the panel members classified it in various categories other than "sharing." In a similar fashion each of these eight questions can be defended from the literature, and indeed they were defended successfully in discussion with the advisory committee for this thesis. In most cases the wording of the question was altered slightly to make the connection with the strand clearer. For example, with the question on the teacher writing along with the students, the wording was altered slightly to indicate a choice between either the teacher sharing the writing process by writing along with the students, or the teacher directing or otherwise "helping" in the sense of someone outside the writing group. Question 11 (originally Question 12 in the first draft) was also retained for the revised questionnaire. While this item received only 30 per cent agreement from the 30 panel, it was considered significant that 20 per cent of the panel opted for the C_onJlQj category rather than the Eesnecl category. The question was altered slightly to make it clearer that the teacher was asking for input rather than telling the student what was required. This would seem to reflect Respect for the writer and his or her work. While it is recognised that a certain aspect of writer control is inherent in this situation, the over-riding aspect is that of Respect rather than Control. The teacher's part in this situation would centre on that of Respect for the writer's intent, and the final result would imply more control for the writer. Question 11/12 was therefore retained. Appendix C lists, by strand, the 21 questions which were retained. The revised Questionnaire, now containing 21 questions, was pre-tested for readabilty and semantics by two teachers. It was then read for grammatical and spelling errors by a graduate student, and by a group of 10 student teachers for clarity of expression. Two additions were made to the questionnaire. First, four open-ended questions were added asking the respondent for qualatative data. Each of these four questions addressed a different strand and asked the respondent to list examples to illustrate agreement with the designated strand. (See Appendix D, questions 22-25) The other addition to the questionnaire (see Appendix D, Part A) was a section asking for information regarding age, training, and gender of the respondent, and for language orientation. The latter was dealt with in a series of Likert-like questions probing the teacher's attitude to teaching reading. These questions were to be used as verification that teachers who were identified, or identified themselves, as integrated or non-integrated in orientation tended to view other aspects of teaching language (such as reading) from this orientation, too. 31 B. The Sample Two groups of teachers were identified. Both groups were involved in teaching written composition at the elementary level. Since many teachers use a blended approach to teaching language in. that subjects are separated to some extent, but some aspects of language are integrated, care was taken to try to locate teachers who were truly involved in either a whole language or a non-integrative program. i) Group I Group I was composed of 25 teachers who were identified as involved in teaching a whole language or integrated approach to teaching language arts at the elementary level. The superintendent of a lower mainland school board was chosen at random and asked to identify teachers who had expressed an interest in the whole language approach. He directed the investigator to the principals of six schools, all of which had expressed an interest in whole language. The principals of five of these we interviewed, aasked to distribute copies of the survey to members of their staff involved in a whole-language integrative approach. ii) Group II Group II was composed of teachers involved in teaching in a non-integrated language program. Since the investigator could locate nschools in the public school system which defined themselves as non-integrative in approach, it was decided to approach the principals of various private elementary schools. Of the five principals approached and interviewed three identified their schools as using a non-integrated approach to teaching 32 language with a traditional skills-based-orientation and basal-based reading program. Each of these principals was asked to distribute the questionnaire to members of his or her staff involved in a non-integrative approach to teaching language. Twenty-five questionnaries were distributed to each group. Twenty questionnaires were eventually returned by respondents of Group II. Nineteen questionnaires were originally returned by Group I respondents. Questionnaires were distributed at the end of June. One Group I principal over-estimated the number of respondents available during this period to complete the questionnaire. The principal of the sixth Group I school was approached the following September and asked to supply six respondents for the remaining questionnaires. These six completed questionnaires brought the Group I total to twenty-five. C. Data Collection and Scoring Procedures. 1. Part A The data in Part A was provided by a series of ten questions on a Likert scale of agreement to statements probing teachers' attitudes to the value of basal readers, and specific skill-based approaches to teaching reading. These responses were scored on a Likert scale of one to five, with five being taken as a skills-based response and one being taken as the response most likely to be taken by a teacher with a whole-language orientation. 2. Part B As can be seen from Appendix D, Part B, the main body of the questionnaire, consisted of a series of twenty-one questions with either four or two possible responses to each question. Each possible response corresponded to a predetermined value on an ordinal scale of agreement with one of the four strand statements. The responses 33 reflected the strength of agreement on the part of the respondent to the strand being probed. Upon reflection on the part of the investigator, and after some discussion with the committee, it was decided that some of the responses actually reflected two true values rather than four. Accordingly, an expert was trained to evaluate the answers to each question in this section of the questionnaire. The expert was a teacher with twenty years of teaching experience, who is currently involved in graduate studies in Language Education. She was in complete agreement with the investigator that for questions 2 and 11 the categories should be collapsed into three and two categories respectively instead of the original four. In the case of question 4 she was in complete disagreement, and thought that the response categories should remain at the original four. Even after prolonged discussion she remained 80 per cent in disagreement with the investigator about collapsing these values for this question. With regard to questions six, eight, and fifteen she was initially ambivalent as to whether they should remain in four categories or be collapsed into two. After prolonged discussion, however, she agreed with the investigator that these responses should be collapsed from four categories to two for questions six and eight, but from four categories to three for question fifteen. This section of the questionnaire was then scored by the investigator along the lines agreed upon with the expert evaluator. Each answer was assigned a value on a scale of 1-4, 1-3, or 1-2. Respondents having been asked to check the most appropriate answer or answers, the response reflecting the highest score was taken in instances where respondents had checked more than one response. The reasoning behind this was that while teachers may consider various approaches in different situations, the response denoting the highest value from the point of view of the study will reflect the degree to which the respondent is in agreement with the strand statement being 34 probed. 3) Open-ended Questions 22-25 The final four open-ended questions in Part B of the questionnaire requested input on the part of the respondent Question 22, for example, asked for a list of all the forms of writing used in the respondents' classroom over the past two week period. These questions were scored by tallying the categories offered by respondents in Group I for comparison with categories offered by respondents in Group II. D. Analysis of Data. In the first section of Part A the data was used to categorise respondents for the purposes of comparison by group. The data in the second section was tallied for each respondent, as described, and the totals used for comparison with Part B scores on writing. The raw data scores in Part B, questions 1-21, were transcribed as noted earlier to provide values of agreement to each question in this section. This transcribed data were used to run a LERTAP test of item analysis for acheivement using multiple weights, with four subtests corresponding to the four strands. Each string of questions (these are listed by strand in Appendix C) corresponding to one of the four strands was taken as a subset The test was run for the data overall, and again taking Groups I and II separately for comparison between the two groups. The LERTAP data indicated an overall Hoyt Estimate of Reliability of .78 and a Cronbachs Alpha for Composite of .62, indicating that the items and the strands were homogeneous. The results also showed the responses to each question in the strand, indicating the number of responses, by group, to each option offered. These are listed in Tables 3, 5, 7 and 9 and discussed in Chapter Four as each is examined. 35 The same data from Part B, questions 1-21, was then used in four T-tests comparing results for Groups I and II. Each T-test dealt with response data for the string of questions in the respective strands. Means and Standard Deviations were also calculated by both strand and question, and these results were tabulated to compare Group I with Group II. In this way four tables were constructed, one for each strand, comprising seven, four, six, and four variables respectively. Data was listed within each strand, the population, the means, and the standard deviations for each variable. Also noted in these tables were the differences in means between the two groups for each variable or question on the string. 36 CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF THE DATA Analysis of the data provided by teacher responses to the questionnaire revealed significant differences between the whole language and traditional teachers with respect to their attitudes to two of the strings of variables or strands: the student writer should have control over the choice and treatment of the material; and students learn by sharing writing problems and procedures with other writers in the classroom in the sense of a community of writers. A third string of variables, or strand, that the student writer has to say should be treated with respect, reflected significant differences only when one of the questions was removed from the string. The fourth string, writing as a tool for learning, showed no statistically significant differences when the two groups were no statistically significant differences when the two groups were compared. The variables in each string were also analysed for homogenity and for insight into which variables in each string appeared most highly significant While each string comprised a homogenous group of variables, the variables themselves were consistent with the string to varying degrees. The analysis and results of the data for each strand follow, with the variables, or questions, presented in order of significance within each strand. A. STRAND ONE: CONTROL Analysis of the data for the strand Control revealed highly significant degree of pooled varience between the two groups: 1) Group I, teachers with a whole lanaguage orientation, and 2) Group II, teachers with a more traditional, non-integrative orientation. As Table 1 shows, the analysis by T-test for the string of variables 37 indicated probability of .001 which is highly significant and suggests distinct differences in the attitudes of the two populations to the concept of CjmilQj probed in this siring of variables. When the six questions, listed in Appendix C for Control, were analysed separately the tendency held true in each case. Though variations in differentiation were apparent, as Table 2 indicates, all Strand One, or CJMTOJ variables drew higher scores from the responses of Group I, whole language oriented teachers, than they did from the responses of Group II teachers. As Table 2 shows, the differences in means for the individual variables ranged from .89 for Question 1 (How often do student write a paragraph or more?), to .01 for Question 12 (How would you like your students to view their writing?) TABLE 1 D i f f e r e n c e i n Means and Degree of S t a t i s t i c a l P r o b a b i l i t y For Each Strand V/hole Language T r a d i t i o n a l Strand n Mean (SD) n Mean (SD) P SI 22 23.18 1.97 20 20.30 3.28 2.88 . 001 S2 23 7 . 57 0.51 20 7 . 20 0 . 70 0 .37 .054 S3 22 16 . 77 1.45 19 15.27 1.95 1. 50 . 007 S4 20 7 .85 0.04 19 7 . 69 0.48 0.16 .230 f 2. - D i f f e r e n c e i n Means between tne two groups 51 - S t r a n d One: Student C o n t r o l ( s e t of 7 q u e s t i o n s ) 52 - S t r a n d Two: Respect ( s e t of 4 q u e s t i o n s ) 53 - S t r a n d T h r e e : S h a r i n g (set of 6 q u e s t i o n s ) 54 - S t r a n d F o u r : L e a r n i n g (set of 4 q u e s i t o n s ) * p = .05 i s the p o i n t of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e 38 In Table 3, Lenap analysis of responses to each question in the strand control shows which options were chosen by respondents in Groups I and II. TABLE 2 D i f f e r e n c e i n Means f o r Each V a r i a b l e i n Stran d One: C o n t r o l Whole Language T r a d i t i o n a l V a r i a b l e s n Mean (SD) n Mean (SD) Paragraph Times 25 Real W r i t e r s 22 Student C h o i c e 25 Advance N o t i c e 25 D e c i s i o n t o Pub 24 T o p i c Source 25 View of W r i t i n g 25 Responses V a r i a b l e s O p t . l Para.Times-G I 0 Para.Times-G II 1 Rea l Wr.-G I 0 Real Wr.-G II 0 St . C h o i c e - G I 0 St . C h o i c e - G II 1 Adv.Notice-G I 1 Adv.Notice-G II 1 Dec.to Pub.-G I 0 Dec.to Pub.-G I 2 T o p i c So.-G I 3 Topic.So.-G II 3 View of Wr.-G I 1 View of Wr.-G II 0 3.44 .65 20 3.81 .40 20 3.00 .41 20 2.80 .82 20 3. 33 . 41 20 2.64 .70 20 3.76 .66 20 Opt.2.. Opt.3 2 10 10 6 0 4 2 10 2 21 9 8 8 11 10 8 0 16 0 12 3 19 2 15 0 2 0 5 2.55 .85 .89 3-30 .83 .51 2.55 .76 .45 2.45 .69 .35 3.10 .85 .23 2.60 .75 .04 3.75 .44 .01 O D t O t h e r T o t a l 13 ~ 25 3 20 18 3 25 8 - 20 2 - 25 2 - 20 5 - 25 1 20 8 1 25 6 - 20 - 25 20 21 1 25 15 - 20 TABLE 3 of Groups I and II to each V a r i a b l e : S t r a n d One: C o n t r o l G I - Group I, or Whole-language-oriented t e a c h e r s G I I - Group I I , or T r a d i t i o n a l l y - o r i e n t e d t e a c h e r s 39 Responses for Group I and Group II are listed for each of the four answers or options offered for each question. Thus, each question from the strand on Control is listed for Group I and again for Group II so that Table 3 shows us across the table how teachers reponded, in each group, to each of the questions in the strand. Questions are listed in the order in which they contribute to the findings for the strand. Paragraph Times: Question 1. How often do your students write an extended piece of writing? (several sentences or more) Option 1. most writing tends to be one sentence or less Option 2. once or twice a week Option 3. three or four times a week Option 4. more than once a day Question 1 probed how often teachers asked their students to write at paragraph length. As indicated in Table 2, the Group I mean for Question 1 was 3.44. By comparison, the figure for Group II was a great deal lower, at 2.55, yielding a difference of .89 between the means for the two groups. Responses to this question offered the highest difference in means for the entire strand, which is interesting considering Applebee's (1981) findings with regard to the lack of school time alloted to paragraph-length writing in his observations. Analysis of the data from the Lertap test indicated that both groups of teachers gave responses in the higher frequencies rather than the lower, as is revealed in Table 3. The majority of Group I teachers, however, chose the highest scoring frequencies with ten teachers indicating that their students wrote at paragraph length three to four times a week, and thirteen indicating the frequency at more than once a day. Only two teachers in this group chose the second option of "one to two times a week." A response indicating a higher frequency in 40 this question was taken to indicate a correspondingly higher degree of agreement with the "new paradigm." By contrast, in Group II the majority of teachers with a traditional orientation chose the second frequency option of "one to two times a week" with six and three respondents opting for the next two frequencies respectively, and only one person indicating that her students wrote at paragraph length less than once a week. In Table 3, options to each question are listed according to the weight given to the response. In each variable, Option 1 indicates the least weight in that it is taken to reflect the least degree of agreement with the the literature on the new paradim. Option 4 is taken to indicate the highest score or the highest degree of agreement with the new paradigm, while options 2 and 3 indicate degrees of agreement between the two. 2. Real Writers: Question 13. Do you think your students should see themselves as real writers? Option 1. no, this is not realistic in the classroom Option 2 no, as students have different writing problems and goals Option 3. yes, as writers in apprentice-ship Option 4. yes, as writers with much in common with professional authors The second most variable listed in the strand on Control concerned teachers' attitudes to whether students should see themselves as real writers. As Table 2 reveals, analysis of the question labelled Real Writers indicated a difference in means of .51 between the two groups. With means ranging from 3.81 in Group I to 3.30 in Group II the data indicates a large difference in attitudes between the two groups of teachers, though in this variable the difference in means is less than that in the first variable listed for this strand in Table 2. 41 Analysis of individual responses to the question on whether students should see themselves as real writers, indicated that the difference is due to the high number of responses (i.e., eighteen ) for the fourth option as listed on Table 3, with eight choosing the third. By comparison the option chosen most frequently by Group II teachers was the third in the series of four, with ten Group II teachers choosing this while only eight chose the highest scoring option and two chose a lower scoring option. As can also be seen from Table 3, there were three "others" listed for Group I. These three teachers did not respond to this question. This suggests that while Group II tended to agree to a more moderate option 3, that "students should see themselves as writers in apprentice-ship", they were less committed to the idea of students seeing themselves as real writers "with much in common with professional writers" as in option 4. 3. Student Choice: Question 9. To what extent do your students choose their own topics for writing? Option 1. seldom Option 2. occasionally Option 3. often Option 4. always The third variable in Strand One which contributes to the significance of the strand probes teachers' attitudes to students choosing their own topics for writing. As Table 2 shows, whole-language teachers again scored higher than did their traditional counterparts. The mean for Group I was 3.00 was higher than the mean of 2.55, for Group II teachers. The resulting difference of .45 was taken to indicate that Group I, or whole-language-oriented teachers, were more positive in their attitude to the idea that students should choose their writing topics. The figures for Standard Deviation on this question suggest another difference between the two groups. As Table 2 shows, 42 Group II, or traditionally-oriented teachers, varied more in their responses to the idea of students choosing their own writing topics than did their whole language counterparts. As Table 3 indicates, analysis of the data within the variable suggests a difference in response particularly with regard to the third option. While option 4 drew two responses from each group, and option 1 only one response from Group II, a definate response pattern was apparent with regard to options 2 and 3. Here Group I reacted more favorably to the higher scoring option 3, in a ratio of twenty-one to eight for Groups I and II respectively. The lower scoring option 2 drew nine responses from Group II as opposed to only two from Group I, suggesting that while both groups tended to agree with the concept of a degree of student choice, Group I opted for this "often" rather than "occasionally". Group II, on the other hand, were more likely to choose the option "occasionally". 4. Advanced Notice: Question 3. How often are students given advanced notice so that they may have time to select a topic? Option 1. most topics are teacher selected Option 2. no advanced notice, but class time given Option 3. when possible advanced notice is provided Option 4. it is standard procedure The fourth variable in Strand One probed teachers' attitudes to the idea of giving students advanced notice of a writing assignment so that they might have more control over the choice and treatment of the material. Responses were weighted as to the degree to which the respondents agreed with this concept That is, option 4 which contended that this is "standard procedure" was weighted highest, while option 1 which 43 contended that most topics are assigned by the teacher was given the lowest score. As indicated in Table 2, analysis of the data shows differences in means ranging from 2.80 for Group I to 2.45 for Group II, with a difference in means of 0.35 between the two groups. Group I reflected, therefore, the general tendency of the strand Control in that Group I scored higher than Group II. This is taken to indicate that whole-language-oriented teachers have a more positive attitude to the concept of students having advanced notice of a writing topic. As Table 3 shows, analysis within the variable indicated no difference in response to the lowest scoring option 1 which elicited one response from each group. Option 4 was selected by five Group I respondents, but only one respondent from Group II. The majority of each group again chose either option 2 or option 3, with the former indicating "no notice, but some class time given", and option 3 indicating a more positive attitude of "when possible advanced notice is given". In an almost identical reversed pattern, Group I respondents again opted for the higher scoring option 3 by eleven to eight, while the respondents from Group II indicated a preference for the lower scoring option 2 by eight to ten. 5. Decision to Publish: Question 14. Who do you consider the appropriate person to decide whether to publish or not to publish a finished draft in the classroom? Option 1. teacher Option 2. class Option 3. student and teacher Option 4. student 44 The fifth variable listed on Table 2 ranked fifth in the string of variables comprising the strand on Control . This question probes teachers' attitudes towards student-writer control of the classroom publication of a finished draft, with responses varying from complete student control in option 4 to complete teacher control over this decision in option 1. As indicated in Table 2, analysis of the data reveals a difference in means between the two groups of 0.23, with the means ranging from 3.33 in Group I to 3.10 in Group II. As can be seen in Table 3, analysis within the variable indicates that the majority of-both groups chose the higher scoring options 3 and 4. Thus, while eight Group I respondents and six Group II respondents chose option 4, and while sixteen Group I and twelve Group II respondents chose option 3, the comparative sizes of the two groups suggests that this indicates little difference between the groups. However, two Group II, or traditional teachers did choose option 1, while none of the whole-language teachers opted for a lower scoring option than option 3. This indicates that no whole-language teachers chose to have the teacher alone make this decision, whereas two traditional teachers chose this option. Group I teachers then were opting for control on the part of the student writer, either alone or in collaboration with the teacher. Two Group II teachers, however, opted for the teacher alone to make this decision. 6. Topic Source: Question 2 From what area do the majority of writing topics stem? Option 1. from teacher suggestions (or) class studies Option 2. from class interests Option 3. from student's interests The sixth variable listed on Table 2 ranked sixth in the string of questions which probed the strand C_ontroJ . Question 2, the variable on topic sources, probed 45 teachers' attitudes to student control in the area of topic sources. Options ranged from individual student writer interests, as in option 3, to teacher suggestions, as in option 1. Table 2 shows that analysis of the data revealed a difference in means of 0.04 with Group I mean, at 2.64, close to the Group II mean of 2.60, indicating that the variable on the source of student topics did not indicate a large difference in response. Table 3 also shows little difference between the two groups. 7. View of Writing: Question 12. How would you like your students to view the writing they do in the classroom? Option 1. as something pleasant the teacher wants them to do Option 2. as a learning task set by the teacher Option 3. as something useful they are learning to do Option 4. as an opportunity to put what they think on paper The seventh variable listed on Table 2, Question 12, was labelled View of Writing and probed the idea Cijnlioj. Question 12 probes teachers' attitudes to the idea that students should view their writing as writer controlled and directed rather than as teacher directed. As Table 2 reveals, Group I teachers did score higher than Group II teachers. However, the difference between the two means was slight, the mean for Group I being 3.76 compared with a Group II mean of 3.75. The difference between the two groups is non-significant Nevertheless, from Table 3 we see that within the variable the responses for Group I tended to gravitate to the highest scoring option, with twenty-one Group I respondents indicating a preference for students to view writing as "an opportunity to think on paper". Only fifteen Group II repondents indicated a similar attitude to this variable though it is worth noting that the only 46 respondent who chose the lowest scoring option was from Group I. The variable on the students' view of writing indicated the least difference between the groups on Strand One. Thus, the data for Strand One revealed that the differences in attitude between the two groups of teachers were highly significant overall. Inspection of Table 2 suggests that Questions 1, 13, and 9 contributed most to this result Responses for whole-language-oriented teachers indicated clearly a more positive attitude to the idea that student-writers should have control over the writing they do in school, than did their traditional counterparts with regard to these three questions in particular. Ranked in order of importance within the strand, the questions on the number of times paragraph length writing is used in class, whether students should view themselves as "real writers", and student choice of topic appeared to contribute most, while Question 12 and Question 2, the questions ranked sixth and seventh, which probed attitudes to topic source and to the students' view of writing, appeared to contribute least to the strand data. B. STRAND TWO: RESPECT Each of the variables in Strand Two probed the degree to which teachers agree with the idea that what students have to say in their writing merits respect Analysis of the data was, as for Strand One, by strand and by variable and compared the responses of the two groups of teachers. Analysis of the data revealed, as shown in Table 1, that this strand was not significant overall and variables in the string showed virtually no differences between the groups. Each variable was therefore examined to clarify the results. Table 1 indicates that the probability, at .54, was not statistically significant Re-examination of this question, a question on Life Experience, showed that it appeared to be worded in a way which allowed for several interpretations on the 47 part of the respondent. It appeared possible for teachers for teachers to fail to distinquish between the concepts of respect for the student and respect for what the student has to say in his or her writing. It also appeared possible, from the wording of this question on Life Experience, for teachers who agreed that what students write should be treated with respect, to be of the opinion that students at the elementary level may not yet have the Life experience to hold authentic options. The removal of this question from the strand resulted in a difference in means which was significant at the .012 level, indicating that whole-language teachers do display more positive attitudes than do traditionally-oriented teachers to the concept that what students have to say in their writing merits respect The variables for Strand Two are, therefore, listed below ranked in order of importance within the string. 1. Developing Text: Question 11 In discussing a student's developing text with him/her, which of the following would you consider the most valuable? Option 1. pointing out editing problems, or, pointing out where something is not clear to the reader Option 2. Asking about the writer's intent, or, asking about the intended audience for the text The variable which ranked first in the strand on respect for the students' developing text probed the attitude of the teacher to asking or telling students how to proceed with the writing process in a developing text Teachers' attitudes to this question differed more than on any other variable in the strand, as can be seen from Table 4. Analysis by variable revealed a difference in means of 0.36 for this question, with 1.76 as the mean for Group I and 1.40 for Group II. 48 Table 5 shows that, within the variable, LERTAP analysis indicates Group 1 respondents opting for the higher scoring of the two options in a ratio of nineteen to six. By comparison, Group II respondents chose the lower scoring of the two options in a ratio of twelve to eight, with the majority of this group indicating a preference for option 1. This indicates a distinct preference on the pan of whole-language-oriented teachers for asking students how they want to develop the text, and a similar preference on the part of traditional teachers for telling students how to do it. TABLE 4 D i f f e r e n c e i n Means f o r Each V a r i a b l e i n Str a n d Two: Respect Whole Language T r a d i t i o n a l X - X V a r i a b l e s n Mean (SD) n Mean (SD) 1 2 De v e l o p i n g Text 25 1.76 .44 20 1.40 .50 .36 Text Treatment 25 2.00 .00 20 1.95 .22 .05 J o u r n a l Value 24 1.96 .20 20 1.95 .22 .01 L i f e _ E x p e r i e n c e 24 1.88 .34 20 1.90 .31 -02 Y_ J( * Z - D i f f e r e n c e i n Means between Whole Language and T r a d i t i o n a l Groups 2. Text Treated: Question 6 How is the final draft of a text treated? Option 1. marked and sent home, or, sent home with worksheets Option 2. published for other students to read, or, kept in a personal folder 49 The variable which probed teachers' attitudes to how final texts should be treated indicated almost no difference in attitude between the two groups of teachers in the study. Wholelanguage teachers responded positively to this question as can be seen from Table 4. though a difference in means of .05 reveals this difference to be non-significant between the two groups. Also, Table 5 reveals that analysis by variable indicated very little difference in the individual responses between the two groups. Twenty-five respondents in Group I, and nineteen in Group II chose the higher scoring option 2. Only one respondent from Group II chose option 1. This suggests a positive attitude on the part of most respondents to either keeping finished text in a folder or "publishing" it, as opposed to merely marking or sending home with other school work. One Group II respondent chose the latter group, while no Group I respondents chose the lower scoring option. TABLE 5 Responses of Groups I and II to each V a r i a b l e S t r a n d Two: Respect V a r i a b l e s Opt. 1 Opt. 2 Other T o t a l s Dev.Text-G I 6 Dev.Text-G II 12 Text Tr.-G I 0 Text Tr.-G II 1 J o u r n a l V.-G I 1 J o u r n a l V.-G H 1 L i f e Exp.-G I 3 L i f e Exp.-G II 2 19 8 25 19 23 19 21 18 1 1 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 G I - Group I, or w h o l e - l a n g u a g e - o r i e n t e d t e a c h e r s G I I - Group I I , or T r a d i t i o n a l l y - o r i e n t e d t e a c h e r s 50 3. Journal Value: Question 15 Student writing in journals tends to: Option 1. ramble too much to be useful Option 2. often lead to a dialogue with the teacher, or, give students a forum for working out problems, or, provide topics for further writing Question 15, which probed attitudes to respect for what students have to say in their journals, revealed very minor differences between the two groups. Analysis indicated, as is shown in Table 4, a difference in means of 0.01 between the two groups. As Table 5 shows , twenty-three of Group I chose the higher scoring option 2, while nineteen of the twenty Group II respondents also chose option 2. Thus, there appears to be little difference in the attitudes of the two groups of teachers to the question of respecting what students have to say in their writing journals. 4. Life Experience: Question 20 As a rule, student writers do not have the life experience required to have authentic views and opinions of their own. Option 1. agree Option 2. disagree Question 20 probed teachers' attitudes to the concept that students do have authentic views and opinions of their own to contribute in their writing. As indicated above, the wording of the question was examined for misinterpretation since it was felt by the investigator to be misleading. Three whole-language teachers chose option 1, as did two traditional teachers, indicating that perhaps some teachers may have interpreted the question as asking whether elementary 51 students were mature enough to hold authentic opinions. The majority of both groups chose the higher scoring option 2, indicating either that both groups really did consider that what their students have to say merits respect, or some other interpretation may be affecting the responses to this question. It is possible that respondents are looking at two different aspects of respect, and that the question is not worded clearly enough to distinguish between the two. What is being probed is not whether teachers respect students and their opinions, but whether teachers consider that what students have to say in their writing is valuable. Analysis of the data by strand indicated a difference in means between the two groups of -.02, with 1.88 as the mean in Group I compared with 1.90 in Group II. This question is the one question in the entire questionnaire which elicited a more postive (albeit a minimally more positive) response from Group II teachers than from Group I. This lends support to the earlier decision on the part of the investigator to discard the question from the string on the grounds that the wording was misleading and open to mis-interpretation by the respondent Looking inside the variable with the LERTAP analysis, the Figures show that while twenty-one Group I respondents and eighteen Group II respondents, respectively, chose the higher scoring second option, three Group I respondents, as opposed to merely two Group II respondents, chose the lower scoring option 1. Thus, it can be seen from the analysis of the data for the strand Respect that there was little difference between the responses of the two groups. However, when one of the variables was omitted, as discussed above, the strand was revealed to be statistically significant at the .012 level of significance on a T-test The question showing the greatest difference between the two groups in this strand was the question on treatment of the developing text, listed first in Table 5. 52 C. STRAND THREE: SHARING T-Test analysis of the data by strand indicated a significant difference in responses between the two groups in that the degree of probability indicated was a figure of 0.007, as can be seen from Table 1. The mean for Group I in the entire strand was 16.77 compared to the figure of 15.26 for Group II. As Table 6 indicates, analysis by variable for this strand probing teachers' attitudes to sharing the writing process as members of a community of writers with similar problems, indicated differences between the two groups consistent with the hypothesis and the T-test data for the strand. 1. Teacher Writing: Question 4 During any part of your class writing period do you let your students see you writing along with them? Option 1. no, not an appropriate time to write Option 2. no, am too busy helping students Option 3. yes, during a small part of most writing periods Option 4. yes, as normal procedure during each writing period TABLE 6 D i f f e r e n c e In Means f o r each v a r i a b l e In S t r a n d Three: S h a r i n g V/hole language T r a d i t i o n a l V a r i a b l e s n Mean (SD) n Mean (SD) A l " Teacher W r i t i n g 25 3 .12 . 60 20 2.65 .87 .47 W r i t e r ' s F e e l i n g s 25 3 . 76 .44 20 3 . 50 . 51 . 26 W r i t e r Problems 25 3 .12 . 53 20 2.95 .61 .17 C h o o s i n g T o p i c 23 1.96 . 21 19 1 . 79 .42 . 17 Teacher Mode 1. 23 1.91 . 29 20 1.75 . 44 .16 C l a s s D i s c u s s i o n 25 2 .96 .84 20 2 . 80 .89 . 16 ' 1 2 - D i f f e r e n c e I n Means b e t w e e n Whole L a n g u a g e a T r a d i t i o n a l G r o u p s . 53 Analysis of ihe daia for Question 4, which probed attitudes to the teacher writing along with his or her students, indicated means ranging from a figure of 3.12 in Group I to one of 2.65 in Group II, as can be seen from Table 6. LERTAP analysis within each variable reveals in Table 7 that the majority of Group I teachers (sixteen) chose option 3, or the second highest scoring option, as opposed to the majority of Group II teachers (nine), who chose the second of the four options for this variable. Similarly, six Group I teachers chose the highest scoring option 4, though only four Group II teachers did so. This suggests that, while the majority of whole-language teachers value the concept of sharing the writing process by writing along with their students at least part of the time (option 3) if not as "normal procedure" (option 4), skills-based teachers valued writing time as an opportunity to help their students (option 2) most highly, As six did choose option 3, and four option 4, teachers from the traditional group appeared to be somewhat mixed in their responses to this question. As Table 7 indicates, however, their responses are less positive than those of whole language teachers. TABLE 7 Responses o f Groups I and I I t o each V a r i a b l e S t r a n d T h r ee: S h a r i n g V a r i a b l e s Opt. 1 Opt. 2 Opt. 3 Opt. 4 Ot h e r T o t a l T e a c h e r Wr.-G I Te a c h e r Wr.-G I I wr . F e e l l n g s - G I Wr . F e e l i n g s - G I I Wr .Problems-G I Wr .Problems-G I I C h . T o p i c - G I Ch . T o p l c - G I I T.Model.-G I T.Model.-G I I C l a s s D i s c . - G I C l a s s D i s c . - G I I 0 3 16 6 - 25 1 9 6 4 - 20 0 0 6 19 - 25 0 0 10 10 - 20 0 2 18 5 - 25 1 1 16 2 - 20 1 22 - 2 1 25 4 15 - - 20 2 21 - - 2 25 5 15 - - - 20 0 9 8 8 - 25 1 7 7 5 - 20 54 2. Writer's Feelings: Question 7 When commenting on a classmate's written text, are your students considerate of the feelings of the student-writer? Option 1. sometimes inconsiderate Option 2. considerate when reminded by the teacher Option 3. usually considerate Option 4. supportive of one another Analysis of the data for Question 7 indicated a difference in the attitudes of teachers in the two groups in this study. This variable probed teacher's attitudes to how their students responded to the feelings of the writer in discussing his/her work. Analysis of the data in Table 6 shows a difference in means of 0.26. The mean for Group I was 3.76 compared to a figure of 3.50 for Group II responses. Table 7 reveals that the majority of Group I teachers (nineteen) responded to the highest scoring option 4, while only half of Group II teachers (ten) did so. The remainder of both groups, six and ten respectively for Groups I and II, chose the lower scoring option 3 while no one responded to the first two options. This indicates that while both whole-language and traditional teachers value dealing with the problem of protecting the writer's feelings in class, as in options 3 and 4, more whole-language teachers appeared to value the concept of sharing the process to the extent that they had spent time dealing with this in class and felt confident in saying that their students were supportive of classmates. 3. Writing Problems: Question 5 During writing time how are student writing problems dealt with? Option 1. student encouraged to solve own writing problems or, problems addressed in general with class Option 2. student asks peer or teacher for help 55 or, student signs up for student-teacher conference Analysis of the data for Question 5 indicated differences in attitude between the two groups of teachers in the study in that whole-language teachers generally indicated more positive attitudes to the value of sharing the writing process by sharing writing problems with other writers in the classroom. As can be seen from Table 6, the data indicated a difference in means of 0.17 between the two groups. Group I had a mean of 3.12, while Group II had a mean of 2.95, which suggests that the two groups differed in their responses to this variable. Table 7 shows that analysis by variable indicated that the teachers in each group chose the third of the four options in a ratio of 18 to 16 for Groups I and II respectively. Option 3 indicated that teachers valued the concept of sharing the writing process by asking either the teacher or a peer for help in solving writing problems. More Group I respondents chose the highest scoring option 4, a writing conference, though two responses for each Group indicated the two lowest scoring options, either dealing with writing problems as a class lesson or having the student solve his or her own problems. While responses from both groups followed a similar pattern, as is evident in Table 7, whole-language teachers tended to opt more often for the responses which suggest sharing writing problems with other writers in the class, either in a writing conference or as one writer assisting another. 4. Choosing a Topic: Question 17 The teacher sharing with students procedures he/she has used personally in choosing a topic is a worthwhile use of class writing time? Option 1. disagree Option 2. agree 56 Analysis of the data on Question 17 revealed differences in teachers' attitudes to the teacher sharing the procedures he or she uses to select a writing topic. As is seen in Table 6, analysis of the data by T-test indicated a 0.17 difference in means between the two groups. The mean for Group I respondents was 1.96, while the figure for Group II was only 1.75, again following the trend within the strand. Two options were offered for this question in that respondents either agreed or disagreed with the desirablity of the teacher sharing the process of selecting a topic. Generally both groups opted to agree (option 2), as Table 7 shows. However, 22 Group I teachers, compared to only 15 Group II teachers, responded in this way. That is, while only one Group I teacher chose to disagree with the statement, four Group II teachers chose to do so. A large number of responses from both groups indicated agreement with the second option of the teacher sharing the process of topic selection with his or her students. However, four Group II teachers chose the first option, indicating that they did not agree with sharing this process, while only one Group I teacher did this. 5. Teacher Modelling: Question 18 If the teacher shares any of her/his writing with the class, care should be taken to ensure that only the polished, error-free form is modelled. Option 1. agree Option 2. disagree Analysis of the data shows a difference in teachers' responses to the teacher sharing the entire writing process with students rather than the polished final copy of his or her own writing. As is indicated in Table 6, analysis of the data revealed a difference in means of .16 between the two groups with a mean of 1.91 for Group I and one of 1.75 for Group II. Table 7 shows that the responses within the variable tended to group together in the higher scoring option 2, which reflected agreement with the, concept that the teacher should share the writing process. Howe the tendency 57 is more pronounced in Group I, in that 21 Group I teachers, but only 15 Group II teachers chose the higher scoring option 2. Five Group II teachers, compared with only two Group I teachers opted to disagree with the idea of the teacher sharing the writing process. This suggests that whole language teachers are significantly more positive about, and perhaps more comfortable with, sharing their own writing processes with their students than are skills-based teachers. 6. Class Discussion: Question 10 How useful is peer group/ or whole-class discussion with regard to sharing and solving writing problems whan looking an an early draft? Option 1. not especially helpful Option 2. sometimes helpful Option 3. often helpful Option 4. an invaluable help Analysis of the data pertaining to question 10 indicated differences in attitude between the two groups to the value of class discussion. As Table 6 indicates, there is a difference in means of .16 between the two groups of respondents. The Group I mean for this variable was 2.96, while the Group II mean was 2.80, indicating that whole-language teachers have more positive attitudes to the concept of sharing the writing process through class discussion of writing problems than do traditional teachers. As Table 7 indicates, analysis of the data within the variable revealed a similar picture in that responses for the higher scoring options 3 and 4 are indicated more often by Group I respondents than by their Group II counterparts. Moreover, the highest scoring option 4 drew eight responses from Group I but only five from Group II, indicating that whole language teachers are more likely than traditionally oriented teachers to find classroom discussion on writing problems to be "very" useful. 58 Thus, overall, the analysis of the data for the strand on sharing the writing process in a classroom community of writers indicated that whole-language teachers were indeed significantly more positive than traditionally-oriented teachers to the strand concept While all the questions in the strand indicated some differences between the groups, Questions 4 and 7 contributed most to this, indicating that the teacher writing with students, and the provision of a classroom environment which protects the student-writer's feelings, are areas where whole-language teachers appear to have a more positive attitude compared to their traditional non-integrative counterparts. D. STRAND FOUR: LEARNING Analysis of the data for the fourth strand indicates no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Here a probability figure of 0.23, shown in Table 1, suggests that the attitudes of the two groups are similar on this strand. Again, however, in looking at the variables within this strand the general tendency of Group I to score higher than Group II is apparent The mean for the strand for Group I is 7.85 as opposed to 7.68 for Group II, as can be seen in Table 8. 1. Sharing Stories: Question 16 Verbal discussions in class on the behaviour of people in stories and that of people in real lifeis a valuable usee of class writing time. Option 1. disagree Option 2. agree Analysis of the data indicates a mean of 1.96 for Group I respondents as compared with a mean of 1.84 for Group II, providing a difference in means of 0.12, as is seen in Table 8. This variable probed the attitudes of teachers to the value of learning from discussing story characters. While the majority of both groups of respondents chose the higher scoring option 2, more Group I respondents (23) than 59 Group II respondents (16) did so, as can be seen in Table 9. This indicates a moderate difference in altitude, with whole-language teachers indicating a more positive response than traditionally-oriented teachers to the value of discussing the motives of story characters. While the question probes the strand concerning Learning from the writing process by discussing human character and motives, it may be viewed by teachers as a generally valuable exercise for students' moral development, or even as an exercise in literary discussion. While reasons for employing such classroom discussions may vary, implications for the purposes of this study are specific to this strand, and the question may have been open to various interpretations which allowed teachers to agree with the statement without really agreeing with the strand concept. TABLE 8 D i f f e r e n c e In Means f o r each V a r i a b l e i n S t r a n d Four: L e a r n i n g Whole Language T r a d i t i o n a l V a r l a b l e s n Mean (SD) n Mean (SD) X,- X. 1 c S h a r i n g S t o r i e s 24 1.96 .20 19 1. 84 .38 .12 Behav. C h a r a c t e r s 24 1.96 .20 20 1.90 .31 .06 W r i t i n g as T o o l 25 2.00 .00 20 1.95 .22 .05 W r i t i n g as T h e r a p y 20 1.95 .22 20 1.95 .22 .00 Xj-X z D i f f e r e n c e In Means between whole Language and T r a d i t i o n a l Groups 2. Behaviour of Characters: Question 8 When sharing stories written by students do you encourage discussion and criticism of possible motives for characters? Option 1. no. does not justify time taken from writing 60 or, no, criticism can deter early writers Option 2. yes, this allows students to think about own stories or, yes, allows students to learn from story characters This question probed teachers' attitudes to the value of discussing the behaviour of characters in stories. Analysis of the data revealed, as can be seen from Table 8, a mean of 1.96 for Group I and 1.90 for Group II, with a difference of .06 between the two group means. Again, as Table 9 shows, differences between the responses of the two groups are apparent, with whole-language oriented teachers indicating higher scores than traditionally oriented teachers. The differences do not, however, appear to be large, and analysis of the data on this variable, therefore, indicated only marginal differences between the two groups. TABLE 9 Responses o f Groups I and I I t o e a c h v a r i a b l e S t r a n d F o u r : L e a r n i n g V a r i a b l e s Opt. 1 Opt . 2 Other T o t a l s S h . S t o r i e s - G I 1 23 1 25 S h . S t o r i e s - G I I 3 16 1 20 Behav.Char.-G I 1 23 1 25 Behav.Char.-G I I 2 18 - 20 wr.as T o o l - G I 0 25 - 25 wr.as T o o l - G I I 1 19 - 20 Wr.as Therapy-G I 1 19 5 25 Wr.as Therapy-G I 1 19 - 20 G I - Group I , o r W h o l e - l a n g u a g e - o r i e n t e d t e a c h e r s G I I - Group I I , o r T r a d i t i o n a l l y - o r i e n t e d t e a c h e r s 3. Writing as a Tool: Question 21 Student writing can be an excellent tool through which students can explore their own feelings, ideas, and perceptions. 61 Option 1. disagree Option 2. agree This question probed teachers' attitudes to the idea that writing is a valuable tool for learning. Analysis of the data on this variable indicated, slight differences between the two groups. As Table 8 indicates, the difference in means is .05, with a Group I mean of 2.00 and a Group II mean of 1.95, which indicates a moderate difference whereby whole-language teachers showed more positive attitudes to the concept that writing is a tool for learning. Within the variable, as Table 9 shows, almost all respondents from both groups opted for the higher scoring option 2, indicating agreement with the concept that writing "can be an excellent tool" for learning. It may be that this has become a "motherhood issue" in that the expression "writing as a tool for learning" may be familiar to most most classroom teachers. Both Applebee (1981) and Emig (1980) used the expression in articles which have been much discussed in educational circles and may well have caught the imagination of many teachers. 4. Writing as Therapy: Question 19 Writing on topics of home and family can often be therapeutic for children. Option 1. disagree Option 2. agree Analysis of the data on question 19 indicated no difference in responses between the two groups. The mean for both groups was 1.95, as can be seen from Table 8. Within the variable, Table 9 shows responses were identical with the exception of five Group I respondents who declined to answer this question. To varying degrees, therefore, the variables in this strand reflected strand data in that they indicate slightly higher, but non-significant responses, for whole-language 62 respondents when compared with traditionally oriented respondents. E. QUALATATIVE DATA: OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS 22 - 25 Differences were found between the groups in teacher responses to the four open-ended questions at the end of the questionnare. These Questions asked for teacher input on values relating to the four strands in the study. The data, being qualatitive rather than quantative in some aspects, was analysed by both the investigator and an expert trained to assist with classifying three of the questions. The fourth question was quantative. 1. Question 22. List the forms of writing used in class. Teachers were asked in question 22 to list the forms of writing used in their classrooms over the previous two-week period. While in the body of the questionnaire teachers from both groups responded to a series of questions which probed attitudes to student control, this question asked for teacher input on the types of writing used in class. Many teachers responded with examples of forms of writing .which would require thought and direction or control on the part of the student Most examples listed by respondents either implied writing of a paragraph or more (e.g., research pargraphs, and character sketches), or a form of writing which implied by its very nature that it would be student-writer controlled (e.g., diary, and writing about feelings) Some, as can be seen from Appendix E, were forms of writing which one might expect to be teacher directed, (e.g., language arts exercises) With the help of a trained rater, as described in Chapter Three, data for this question were analysed for a comparison of the responses between the two groups. First, the forms of writing were categorized as either student or teacher controlled. Whole lnaguage teachers, in keeping with their responses in the main body of the 63 questionnaire, listed forms of writing categorized as student-controlled in all but four responses. Two teachers in the whole-language group listed sentence completion, one listed sentence structures, and one listed transcriptions. All three forms were categorized as being more teacher-controlled than student- controlled. More traditionally-oriented teachers, on the other hand, listed forms of writing which were categorized as teacher-controlled rather than student-controlled. Two traditionally-oriented teachers, for example, listed language arts exercises, two listed summaries, one listed sentence completion, and one listed sentece structures. In all, six responses from traditionally-oriented teachers were forms of teacher-controlled writing, compared with four responses from whole-language-oriented teachers. Perhaps the most interesting finding from the data concerned the number of responses, and indeed the variety of responses. The whole-language group listed thirty-one forms of writing with a total of ninety-nine responses listed by twenty-five teachers. By contrast, traditionally-oriented teachers listed only twenty-three forms of writing with a total of sixty-six responses from twenty teachers. The greater number of responses, together with the greater variety of forms of writing listed by whole-language teachers suggests that these teachers are in fact using writing in the classroom in a great variety of forms, and indeed for many purposes other than that of students writing for the teacher as examiner. It is possible that some of these forms may in fact be students writing a disguised form of teacher-as-examiner writing. However, the variety' of forms listed does suggest student-control in the sense that students in writing riddles, lists, story cartoons, journals and scripts are "playing with [their language]... working with it, using it instrumentally, making many starts." (Berthoff, p. 77) Thus, the data from the question on forms of writing appear to support the findings in the strand on Control . Whole-language teachers indicated in their 64 responses that they used fewer forms of writing which implied teacher-control of the writing. They also listed a greater number and greater variety han traditionally oriented teachers. IQuestion 23. List types of writing problems the teacher shares with the student Responses to the open-ended question asking teachers to list types of writing problems they shared with their students. If teachers do see the classroom as a writing community in which the teacher is a writer and a member of the community, then he or she would be able to list a variety of student-teacher shared problems. Teachers responding from a whole-language stance listed sixteen ways in which they shared writing problems with their students. Traditionally oriented teachers, by comparison, listed only twelve. An interesting point which emerged from this question concerned the catgorization of problems listed. Again, the trained rater assisted the investigator in categorizing the responses listed by the two groups of respondents. As can be seen from Appendix F, the majority of traditional responses were rated as mechanical in nature rater than creative. Certainly traditionally-oriented teachers listed "variety", "topic choice", and and "developing characters" as problems they shared with students. While no whole-language teachers listed "variety" and "developing characters" as problems, "topic choice" was listed by four whole-language teachers as compared with with three traditional teachers. Whole-language teachers did list two mechanical writing problems they shared with their students, (being concise, and sequencing events) but the remainder of their responses were rated as creative in nature. 3. Question 24. List ways in which students used writing to explore something they have been thinking about 65 Question 24 probed teachers' attitudes to the idea of using writing as a tool for learning. This open-ended question asked teachers for specific examples of ways in which students had used writing in this way. That is, it asked for ways students had used writing to explore something they had been thinking about If teachers are not merely paying lip-service to the idea and are acutually using this in the classroom they should be able to list several examples of students using writing as a tool for thinking. As can be seen from Appendix E, whole-language-oriented teachers listed more categories for using writing as a tool to explore ideas, thoughts, or feelings than did traditionally-oriented teachers. It is interesting to note that this question drew the greatest number of non-responses from both groups. Of the twenty-five whole-language teachers, seven did not respond to this question. Of the twenty traditional teachers who responded to the questionnaire, five did not respond to this question. However, of the people who did respond to this question, by far the greater number and greater variety of categories came from the whole-language oriented teachers who suggested twenty-nine categories used by their students as a forum for working out ideas, thoughts or feelings. Traditionally oriented teachers, on the other hand, listed only eighteen. Forty-eight whole-language responses were noted for this question, as compared with thirty-two noted as responses from traditionally-oriented teachers. 4. Question 25. How would the teacher respond to a journal entry which concerned a child's personal statement? This question probed teachers' responses to a journal entry stating the students' dog had died. Most teachers responded to the message in the text, as can be seen from Appendix E. Ten whole-language teachers responded only to the message, ignoring the punctuation errors. Only five traditionally oriented teachers did this. Ten whole-language teachers responded to both the message and added a personal comment, as did eight traditionally-oriented teachers. Only one wholelanguage teacher responded 66 to the punctuation and spelling errors alone, as compared to five traditional teachers who did so. Overall whole-language teachers indicated from this open-ended question that they were more likely to respond to what the student has to say in the text than to the text itself, thereby demonstrating respect for the content of what the student has to say. F. SUMMARY The data from responses to the questionnaire were analysed both by strand and by the variables, or questions within each strand. Two strands in particular indicated from analysis of the data that attitudes of the two groups of teachers in the current study differed significantly. In the strands on Control and Sharing, Group I, or whole-language-oriented teachers indicated a significantly more positive attitude to the values expressed than did traditional, or Group II teachers. In one strand, Respect, moderate differences only were indicated until one question on Life Experience was removed from the string of variables. The strand, consisting of the remaining three questions, was then shown to indicate significant differences between Groups I and II, with whole-language teachers again indicating a more positive attitude towards the new paradigm than traditional teachers. The remaining strand, Learning, indicated no significant differences in attitude between the two groups to the idea that students learn from writing. Thus, while the findings of the study were that overall the data agreed with the hypothesis in that whole-language- oriented teachers indicated more positive attitudes to the values probed in the four strands, two of the strands indicated that these differences in attitude were highly significant A third strand, Respect, was highly significant only when one of the questions in the strand was discarded. The fourth 67 strand, Learning, indicated no significant differences between the two groups. Analysis of the questions within each strand indicated that various questions contributed more to this difference in attitude than did others in each strand. Within the strand probing teachers' attitudes to the value of student-writer control of the writing they do in class, the question on the value of students writing at paragraph length, for example, indicated the greatest difference in attitude between whole-language teachers and traditional teachers. Three other questions in this strand also indicated large differences in attitude between Group I and Group II respondents.. Whole-language-oriented teachers indicated a more positive attitude than their traditional counterparts to students' seeing themselves as "real writers," students choosing their own topics, and teachers' providing advanced notice of a writing assignment In the strand on Respect for what the student-writer has to say in the text, the question on teachers' respecting the developing text indicated a significant difference between the two groups. While this strand indicated a significant difference only when the question on Life Experience was discarded, the open-ended question probing this strand (Question 25) indicated that whole-language-oriented teachers were more positive in their attitude to respecting the message in the text than traditional teachers. When compared to traditional teachers, whole-language teachers responded more often to what the student had to say than they did to errors in the text The questions which contributed most to the more positive results for whole-language teachers in the strand probing Sharing the writing process, were those probing attitudes to the teacher writing with students and protecting the student writer's feelings. Analysis of the variables indicated that these questions contributed more to the significant differences between the two groups than the other questions in this strand. 68 While each of the questions in the strand probing attitudes to writing as a tool for learning indicated moderately more positive attitudes on the part of whole-language teachers than traditional teachers, none of the questions indicated any significant difference in attitude. Thus, overall differences in attitude between Group T and Group II teachers in the current study support the hypothesis that whole-language-oriented teachers would be more positive in their attitudes to the four strands from the new paradigm in writing. The findings of the study are, however, that the strands on Control and Sharing contribute most to this. Several of the questions within each of the four strands also contribute more to the findings than the others do. 69 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS A. Summary and Discussion. The current investigation examined teachers' attitudes to four strands of theory advocated in the literature over the past twenty years by proponents of the new paradigm on the teaching of writing. To measure teachers' attitudes to each of the four strands, a questionnaire was constructed, the main body of which comprised a series of 21 questions. Each question examined one of the four strands: 1) Control; 2) Respect; 3) Sharing; and 4) Learning. Two groups of teachers were identified by language orientation. Group I, which might be termed the more innovative of the two groups, comprised 25 teachers who identified themselves, and who were identified by principals, as whole-language-oriented. Group II, which might be termed the conservative or traditional group, comprised 25 teachers who identified themselves, and were also identified by their principals as being skills-based in their orientation. The data from the questionnaire were analysed by strand: that is, by grouping the series of questions pertaining to each of the four strands and by treating the data for each group as a sub-set Each question, or variable, within each of the four strands was analysed, and results were compared by group or sub-set, and also with the other variables pertaining to that particular strand. 1. Strand One: Control. The investigation found that Group I, or whole-language-oriented teachers, appeared to have significantly more positive attitudes to the concept of student-writer control over classroom writing than did their Group II, or skills-based, counterparts. The attitudes of the two groups differed more over the aspect of control than they did over any other strand. However, of the group of 70 seven questions on Control which probed this strand, five drew a much more positive response from whole-language-oriented teachers than from skills-based teachers. In particular, the former clearly indicated that they considered providing more time for students to write at paragraph length to be important This appears to contradict Applebee's (1981) findings that much of the writing in (secondary) schools is mechanical, with only 3 per cent of class time spent on writing of paragraph length or longer. Also, the present study probed the attitudes of elementary teachers, while Applebee's study concerned the secondary school, and we might reasonably expect older students to write at length at least as often as younger, elementary students. As the majority of whole-language-oriented teachers indicated that their students wrote at paragraph length either on a daily basis or three or four times a week, it would appear that attitudes, at least amongst teachers with this orientation, may indeed have become more positive towards this aspect of writer control. In light of the significant differences an attitude found in the current study between teachers in the two groups, it seems safe to say that whole-language-oriented teachers do appear to value this aspect of student control more than do skills-based teachers. It is possible that some change in attitude to this question may very well be universal since (perhaps even in response to) Applebee's report. What is clear, however, from the findings of the present study, is that whole-language-oriented teachers valued more frequent opportunities for their students to write at paragraph length than did skills-based teachers. Data from the question regarding students as "real writers" also indicated marked differences in attitude between the two groups. Whole-language-oriented teachers indicated strong support for the idea that students should see themselves as "real writers," who would therefore have some control over the writing they do in the classroom. While the majority of whole-language-oriented teachers were prepared to see 71 their students as "real writers with much in common with professional authors," few of the skills-oriented teachers were prepared to whole-heartedly support this view. Some did see their students as "real writers in apprenticeship," however. The latter position may indicate that these teachers are also familiar with the literature (Graves, 1984) yet find themselves, because of their orientation, unwilling to endorse the concept completely. What is apparent is that this position implies that a considerable element of control remains with the teacher who is directing the learning. A similar picture emerged from the data with regard to the other questions on Control. While skills-based teachers differed somewhat in their attitudes to the degree that their students should have control over the choice of topics, whole-language- oriented teachers, almost as a body, were prepared to have their students control this "often." Again, therefore, the results indicated that teachers who were integrative in orientation were more positive in their attitude to this idea of student control. Other questions in this strand indicate a similar pattern. The question on allowing students advanced notice of a writing assignment, which reflects Murray's (1980) concept of time for thought before writing, indicated from the evidence that whole-language teachers were more strongly in agreement with the idea that students should have time to "discover" or think about a topic before being required to write. In direct contrast to a mere three minutes of preparatory time for writing noted by Applebee (1980) in his study, this investigation found that whole-language-oriented teachers do indeed appear to have a positive attitude to the concept of allowing students time to prepare for writing, or as Anne Berthoff (1980) puts it, giving: our students...back their language ...playing with it... making many starts. Certainly the attitudes of the two groups of teachers in the present study differed significantly on this concept, with the whole-language teachers again responding 72 more positively to this aspect of student writer control. Thus, both by strand and variable, the evidence gathered from the data indicates quite clearly that strong differences in attitude exist between teachers from the two language orientations involved in this study, particularly with regard to the concept of student control over classroom writing. Whole-language-oriented teachers in this study indicated a more positive attitude to the concept of students' control of the writing they do in class. The data indicated that skills-based teachers react less positively to the concept It did not indicate a completely negative attitude. It seems reasonable to assume that skills-based teachers are professionals who are interested in the current research in their field and familiar to some extent with the concepts from the literature. It may be, therefore, that whole-language teachers are much more comfortable with a larger element of student control. This would be in keeping with the philosphical stance of teachers who, by orientation, are likely to teach more by the deductive rather than the inductive aproach, and who therefore have less at stake in relinquishing some teacher control. A non-integrative approach to teaching language skills may be less compatible with this concept of student writer control advocated by proponents of the new paradigm. There has been much discussion recently in the literature with regard to the possible implications of student control in the classroom writing situation. The current discussion on "empowerment" may shed light on the question of why whole-language-oriented teachers appear to be more comfortable with the concept than teachers with a more traditional skills-based orientation. This investigation, however, indicated that such a difference in attitude does exist 2) Strand Two: Respect The evidence gathered from the data on strand two, the questions on Respect for what students have to say in their writing, did not indicate a similarly high degree of difference in attitude between the two groups. 73 The results of the data on one of the questions probing teachers' attitudes to Respect indicated a wide difference in attitude between the two groups. Supporting the hypothesis, the data for the question on the treatment of the students' developing texts, indicated that whole-language-oriented teachers had a more positive attitude to this aspect of respect Nineteen of the twenty-five whole-language-oriented teachers indicated respect for the developing text by reporting that they would ask the student writer for for indications of what he or she wanted to do with the text Twelve of the twenty skills-based teachers indicated that they would point out possible problems they saw in the text While the question probes Respect for the developing meaning in the text, it also implies different degrees of student control if the teacher guides the student by asking rather than directing. It may be that the skills-based teachers were reacting partly to this aspect of student control. As the data from the present investigation have already indicated, skills-based teachers are less positive in their attitude to the concept of student control. When the question on whether students had the life experience to have authentic opinions was removed from strand two, it was found that whole-language-oriented teachers did differ from their skills-based counterparts on this strand. This was compatible with both the findings on the first strand and with the hypothesis of the study. However, eliminating the question on life experience left only three questions in this strand upon which to base the findings for this concept It may be that the question probing respect for student opinions was something of a "motherhood issue." To agree that students have no authentic views and options may, in fact, be taken to imply a disrespect for students themselves rather than the their written opinions. Teachers, regardless of orientation, do not care to treat their students disrespectfully. If this question was perceived as implying disrespect for the student, as opposed to a lack of respect for what the student has to say in his or her writing, it would perhaps explain the responses of both groups of teachers being almost identical. 74 Certainly, while the data for the other three questions in this strand indicated that whole-language teachers had a positive attitude to the concept of Respect, it also showed that skills-based teachers had a similar, only slightly less positive attitude. The data therefore indicate that the attitudes of whole-language teachers are more positive than those of traditional teachers to this concept of Respect, with the exception of the question on Life Experience. Also, in the open-ended queston on Respect, traditional teachers responded more often to the errors in the text than did whole-language-oriented teachers. The latter, with only one exception, responded to the meaning in the student's text, thus displaying respect for what the student had to say. 3. Strand Three: Sharing. The findings of the present study were more conclusive with regard to the third strand: Sharing the writing process with a classroom Community of Writers. The investigation found that whole-language-oriented teachers had a significantly more positive attitude to the concept of sharing the writing process. Skills-oriented teachers, on the other hand, were found to be much less enthusiastic about this concept As one teacher from the skills-based group noted on the questionnaire, "I don't believe in writing by committee." Whole-language-oriented teachers do apparently believe that there is value in students' sharing the process. The data provided by responses to one question in particular indicate that whole-language teachers felt strongly enough about the concept of sharing the writing process for them to be comfortable with the idea of the teacher writing along with the students. The data indicate that skills-based teachers had a less positive attitude to this concept, with the majority of this group of teachers indicating that they do not write along with their students since they are too busy helping students with their problems. Certainly, from a skillsbased philosophical stance, the teacher assisting individual students with problems during a writing period would appear a more valuable use of time. Several whole-language-oriented teachers indicated that they preferred to spend only a small part of most writing periods writing with their students rather than writing along with 75 them as standard procedure. Six of the latter group, however, indicated that writing with students was standard procedure. The findings of the investigation were that whole-language teachers were also much more positively in agreement with Frank Smith's (1981) concept of creating a classroom writing community which demonstrated "regard for each writer," than were the skills-oriented teachers. Data from other questions in this strand again supported the hypothesis. The four remaining questions dealing with the perceived value of Sharing the writing process focused on the students and the teacher sharing problems, solutions and procedures through class or group discusssions and student teacher conferences. The findings were that whole-language teachers were more strongly in agreement with Boomer (1985), that the emphasis should be "on making and sharing," than were the skills-based teachers. While the data from these four remaining questions indicated less difference between the two groups than the First two variables, in each case the data indicated that whole-language orientated teachers had a more positive attitude than did skills oriented teachers to this strand. The investigation, therefore, agreed with the hypothesis with regard to the third strand of Sharing. 4. Strand Four: Learning. The findings of this investigation were that no significant differences were apparent between the two groups of teachers with regard to their respective attitudes to the concept that writing is a valuable tool for learning. While the variable data indicated that more whole-language teachers chose the more positive options in each question, and that more of the skills-oriented teachers selected the less positive options, the numbers in each case were too small to be considered significant. Also, with a probability of .23, the Findings for the strand were that no significant differences were found in the attitudes of the two groups of teachers. 76 It appears that the concept of the close relationship between writing and learning noted by Emig (1980) and Odell (1981) is valued by teachers in the classroom regardless of orientation. With very few exceptions, teachers in both orientations indicated a positive response to this concept in the present study. These results indicate that Tway's (1984), "claims for writing as a way of learning [which] hold promise for the future of teaching writing" have been taken seriously by most teachers in the classroom. Certainly the strong case made by Emig (1980), and others since then, has been much discussed, and "newer studies of writing as a process show that writing is a powerful way of learning." (Tway, 1984) However, information on the other strands has also been available and much discussed in educational circles for many years, as noted earlier. It may be that not only has the concept of the close connection between writing and learning captured the interest of the general practioner, but the concept appears to be "product friendly" in that from a superficial perspective this concept does not appear to involve any radical change in teaching philosophy, yet v promises much. Many educational innovations have been adopted from a superficial, improperly understood conception of the educational theory behing them. "Learning by doing," and "the open classroom" spring to mind as obvious examples of this. "Writing as a tool for Learning" appears to offer similar promise, yet without a clear understanding of the remaining strands and underlying theory behind the new paradigm this fascinating concept may also be doomed to disappoint those who adapt it to an existing program. The present study found, however, that while skills-oriented teachers did have positive attitudes to the concept of writing as a tool for learning, they did not indicate positive attitudes to the other strands in the study. Whole-language -oriented teachers, on the other hand, had positive attitudes to all four strands associated with the new paradigm. 77 B. Conclusions. While information on all four strands in this study has been available in the literature to teachers regardless of orientation, two of these strands or concepts are valued more by whole-language-oriented teachers than by their skills-oriented counterparts. From the results of this investigation it is reasonable to assume that some aspect of teacher orientation is responsible for strong differences in teacher attitudes to the concepts of Control and Sharing probed in the study. It appears probable, therefore, that for skills-oriented teachers these two values are not seen as compatible with their concepts of teaching writing, either from practical considerations, or from the philosophical stance inherent in the orientation itself. Recently there has been much discussion in the literature on the concept of "empowerment" with regard to student writing. Leslie Ashcroft (1987), in discussing this concept, points out that: When we talk conscious committed beliefs and pervasive, consistent, congruent theory and practice, we are talking philosophy. Empowering in schools needs to be a philosophy of education. If the two language orientations considered in this study have "committed beliefs and..consistent theory 'and practice" in the classroom, we are indeed "talking philosophy." Teachers with different orientations operate from different sets of priorities. As noted above, teachers with a skills-based orientation would to all intents and purposes, have a more difficult time incorporating the concept of student control into a skills-focused language program. Similarly, the concept of Sharing the writing process in a community of writers neccesitates, to some degree, the handing over of some 78 classroom control to the student writers. Philosophically this is likely to be viewed as less desirable, and even perhaps impractical, in a skills-directed language program. Conversely, the two remaining strands of Respect and Learning do not require the sharing of classroom control or power to be practical. It is quite possible to envisage adopting the concept of Respect for what the student writer has to say in his or her writing, and incorporating this aspect of the shift from product to process in a language program which is skillsbased. Indeed, it would be considered "unenlightened" for a teacher not to respect his or her students' work. This attitude is somewhat akin to Gleason's (1980) adoption of an "intellectually respectable grammar", in that it incorporates the new concern for the link between thought and language into a redesigned, skills-based program. Also, with the strand on writing as a tool for learning, there appears to be no requirement to hand over teacher control in order to incorporate the concept of students learning from the writing process into a skills-based non-integrative language program. Skills-oriented teachers in the present study, for example, found no difficulty with the concept that "student writing can be an excellent tool through which students can explore their own ideas, feelings and perceptions." Certainly, skills-oriented teachers value opportunities for their students to develop their skills in this way. From the information gathered in this study it seems that, while whole-language-oriented teachers are comfortable incorporating all four strands in the study, skills-oriented teachers are comfortable incorporating only one, or possibly two of these strands. Yet, as noted earlier, these strands are by no means mutually exclusive. Anne Berthoff (1980), for example, links Learning with Control: Students can learn to write by learning the uses of chaos, which is to say, rediscovering the power of language to 79 generate the sources of meaning. Our job is to design sequences of assignments which let our students discover what language can do. She is linking student control over the writing process, in the sense of owning and directing it, and also linking thought and learning. As she also points out, "Chaos is scary." It is also not particularly compatible with a skills-oriented program since this learning is by definition student directed, and the teacher's "job is to design sequences of assignments." (Berthoff, 1980) In a second aspect of shifting classroom control in learning through writing, Esther Fine (1989) considers the interaction between Sharing and Respect: ...collaborative writing has the potential to become a tool for activating multiple voices and multiple versions of self and the world within the classroom. I have observed in collaborative writing that the moments of meaning making that seem most significant are those moments of struggle in which contradictions surface, are acknowledged and are taken up as legitimate topics for discussion by the students. My thesis argues that it is customary within the mainstream schooling for contradictions to become silenced and marginalized, (p. 502) Whether or not contradictions tend to be "silenced" in either orientation, it seems clear that these strands are indeed interactive in classroom practice. It may be possible to adopt two and reject the others as impractical or undesirable in a skills-oriented program. If this is done, however, what has been accepted is only a part of the new paradigm. It remains to be seen if the concepts of Sharing and Control are only inhibited by a philosophically inhospitable orientation, or, as integral 80 parts of the other two strands of Respect and Learning, they gradually become part of the skills-based language program. It may be that skills-oriented teachers, having accepted only one, or two, strands will eventually adopt more positive attitudes to the remaining two. On the other hand, it may be that, from a non-integrative language orientation, the concepts of Control and Sharing are philosophically unacceptable. What does appear to be clear is that a whole-language orientation is much more compatible with the concepts of Sharing and Control, and that, since the four strands are not mutually exclusive and appear to interact with one another, a whole-language program may be more suitable for teachers interested in adopting the new paradigm in writing. C. Implications for Further Research. It is recommended that the study be replicated with different populations. Many teachers tend to be • ecclectic in that they often take teaching techniques and implimentations, and even theories, from various sources and blend then into their own program. Given this propensity, it is difficult to locate populations which completely support one orientation to the exclusion of all others. It is suggested that, should this study be replicated, individual selection of populations be attempted rather than group selection. Respondents, for example, might be selected by subscription to such publications as Sharon Rich's Whole-Language Newsletter and the newsletter of the Reading Reform Foundation. This would allow for a wider dispersement of population and wider generalizabilty for the results of the study. Alternatively, a study of student perceptions of the writing process and the student writers' position in the classroom, with or without a comparison with teacher perceptions, might provide useful insight into classroom attitudes and practises. Based on the results of the present study with regard to the strand on Sharing, for example, a 81 new study might probe student attitudes to the value of sharing the writing process with other classroom writers. Of particular interest would be student perceptions of both what actually happens in a classroom writing community, and what they found useful. It is also recommended that a study be undertaken to compare the attitudes of students from whole-language and skills-based programs to all four strands. It may be that students share the attitudes of their teachers with regard to the strands, but since they must approach the subject from a different perspective their insights into which aspects of the new paradigm they find most valuable may suggest quite different results. In particular, with regard to some questions from the strands which appeared to contribute most to the differences in attitude between the two groups of teachers in the current study, student attitudes may more in line with the traditional teachers regardless of the program used by their teachers. Teachers, being aware of the research, may be guided to see what the research and the literature suggests is there. Students tend to be guided, certainly by the classroom orientation, but also by their personal classroom experience as a student-writer. In light of the current interest in "empowerment", a similar investigation of student perceptions of the degree of, or even existence of, student-writer control might prove valuable. While student-control over the writing may seem "something devoutely to be wished" on the part of the student, it may also be that for many students this concept is disconcerting. In a skills-based program students may find a sudden lack of direction to be difficult to handle. An in-depth study of teacher and student perceptions of this aspect of the new paradigm, possibly by protocol analysis and case study would be valuable. 82 D. Implications for Teaching. Findings from the current investigation suggest that in pedagogical terms, teachers planning to impliment the values and attitudes of the new paradigm on writing may find an integrated language program more compatible with their ideas than a non-integrative, skills-based program. Certainly, two of the strands from the current study did not appear to be valued by traditionally-oriented teachers as much as by whole-language-oriented teachers. Whole-language teachers, however, appeared to be comfortable with all four strands in the current study. Traditional teachers indicated in the current study a positive attitude to the concept of using writing as a tool for learning. Since the strands appear to be interactive, skills-based teachers may wish to incorporate some of the other strands. Thus, it may be that skills-based teachers wish to look at ways of developing alternative strategies for Sharing the writing process which would be more compatible with a non-integrative orientation. Whole-language teachers, on the other hand, may wish to look at ways in which they might develop communities of writers to take advantage of Esther Fine's (1989) concept of using collaborative writing to "become a tool for activating multiple voices." In the ongoing search for more creative ways of making meaning-making more relevant and personal for each student, both sharing the writing process and the use of writing as a tool for learning offer great potential. 83 REFERENCES Applebee, A. (1981). Writing in ihs Secondary School: English and las Content Areas.. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Report No. 21. Applebee, A. (1982). Writing and Learning in School Settings. In What Writers Know. M. Nystrand, (Ed.) New York: Academic Press. 365-381. Ashcroft, L. (1987). Defusing "Empowering": The What and the Why. Language Arts. &: 142-156. Berthoff, A. (1980). Learning the Uses of Chaos. In Reinventing the Rhetorical Tradition . A. Freedman and I. Pringle, (Ed.) Ottawa: Canadian Council of Teachers of English. Report No. 21. 75-79. Boomer, G. (1985). fair £inkum Teaching and Learning- New Jersey: Boynton/Cook. Britton, J. (1980). Shaping at the Point of Utterance. In Reinventing l i e Rhetorical Tradition. A. Freedman and I. Pringle, (Ed.) Ottawa: Canadian Council of Teachers of English. 61-67. Britton, J. (1982). Opening Address: Teaching English. In Retrospect and Prospect G. Pradl, (Ed.) New Jersey: Boynton/Cook. 1-12. Brooke, R. (1987). Underlife and Writing Instruction. College Composition and Communication. 3jfc 141-153. Bruner, J. (1971). Ihe Relevance s£ Education- New York: Norton and Co. Cairney, T. H. (1988). The purpose of basals: what children think. Jhe Reading leachei 4J: 420-428. Church Susan. (1985). Blossoming in the Writing Community. Language Arts. £J: 175-179. Doake, D. B. (1980). Report on the shared book experience approach to learning to read. Unpublished Paper, Acadia University. Elbow, P. (1973). Writing Without leathers, New York: Oxford University Press. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a Mode of Learning. College Composition and Communication _ 22: 122-131. Emig, J. (1980). The Tacit Tradition: The Inevitability of a Multidisciplinary Approach to Writing Research. In Reinventing Jhe Rhetorical Tradition. A. Freedman and I. Pringle. 9-19. Emig.- J. (1982). Inquiry Paradigms and Writing. College Composition and Communication _ 22: 64-75. Flower, L and Hayes, J. (1980). The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Question. College Composition and Communications. 21: 21-32. 84 Freedman, A. and Pringle, I. (1980). Epilogue. Reinventing ihs Rhetorical Tradition. Ottawa: Canadian Council of Teachers of English. Gleason, H. A. (1980). A New Trivium. In Reinventing Jhe Rhetorical Tradition. A. Freedman and I. Pringle, (Ed.) Ottawa: Canadian Council of Teachers of English. 27-36. Goodman, K. (1986). What's Whole in Whole Language. Richmond Hill: Scholastic Publications. Graves, D. (1983). Writing; IsacJieis and Cjnldien al Work. New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books. Graves, D. (1984). A Researcher Learns lo Write. Toronto: Clark Irwin. Gray, L. (1963). Teaching Children IQ Jisad. New York: The Ronald Press Company. Johns, J. L. and Ellis, D. W. (1976). Reading: Children Tell it like it is. Reading World. 1£: 115-128. Johnson, T. and Louis, D. (1985). Literacy through Literature. Australia: Methuen. MacDonald, M. (1987). Whole Language implications for the Intermediate Teacher. Research Forum. 3JQ: 16-18. Martin, N. (1973). Why Write? The Schools Council and London University Institute of Education Joint Project Bristol: Falling Wall Press. Mayher, J., Lester, N. and Pradl, G. (1983). Learning io. Write/Writing IQ Learn. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook. Murray, D. (1978). Write Before Writing. College Composition and Communication. 22: 375-381. Odell, L. (1980). The Process of Writing and the Process of Learning. College Composition and Communication. 3J.: 42-50. Petrosky, A. (1982). From Story to Essay: Reading and Writing. College Composition and Communications. 3J: 19-37. Rich, S. (1985). Restoring Power to Teachers:The Impact of "Whole Language." Language Arts. £2: 717-724. Shapiro, J. (1989). Research Perspectives on Whole-Language. In Whole-Language: Practice and Theory. V. Froese, (Ed.) Vancouver, B. C: Scholastic Publications. 230-264. Smith, F. (1981). Myths of Writing. Language Alls, 18: 792-798. Smith, F. (1982). Writing and Ih£ Writer. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Stauffer, R.G. (1966). The effectiveness of language arts and basic reading approaches to first grade reading instruction— extended into second grade. Jhs Reading leather, 2Q: 740-746. 85 Stillman, P. (1984). Writing Your Way. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook. Tierney, R. and Pearson, P. D. (1984). Toward a Composing Model of Reading. Language Alls. £1: 33-45. Tway, Eileen. (1984). Knowledge and Control Through Writing. language Ads. .61.: 535-537. Vilscek, P. (1966) Coordinating and Integrating Language Arts in the First Grade. JM Reading Isacnei. 3i: 31-37. Vite.I. (1963). Individualized reading: bright and promising. In J. A. Figurel, (Ed.) Reading as an Intellectual Activity. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Vygotsky, Lev. (1962). Thought and Language Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ziegler, A. (1981). Jn£ Writing Workshop. New York: Teachers and Writers Collaborative. 86 APPENDIX A F I R S T QUESTIONNAIRE 87 QUESTIONNAIRE PART A WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVES BELOW BEST DESCRIBES YOUR VIEWPOINT? PLEASE CHECK C > ONE ONLY UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE 1) How o f t e n d u r i n g each day do your s t u d e n t s w r i t e a pa r a g r a p h or more? a> once, o r l e s s o f t e n b) two t i m e s c) t h r e e t i m e s d) f o u r o r more t i m e s 2) To what e x t e n t do your s t u d e n t s choose t h e i r own t o p i c s f o r w r i t i n g ? a) 25/., or l e s s b) 507. c) 75"/. d) 1007. 3) How do your s t u d e n t s v i e w t h e w r i t i n g t h e y do i n t h e c1assroom? a) as s o m e t h i n g t o a v o i d i f at a l l p o s s i b l e b!> w r i t e b e c a u s e t h e t e a c h e r t e l l s them t o do so c) a s s o m e t h i n g u s e f u l t h e y l e a r n how t o do d) a s an o p p o r t u n i t y t o put what t h e y t h i n k on paper 4) To what e x t e n t do you f i n d s t u d e n t s a r e w i l l i n g t o d i s c u s s t h e i r w r i t i n g t o p i c w i t h t h e t e a c h e r ? a) not v e r y w i l l i n g b) sometimes w i l l i n g c ) u s u a l l y w i l l i n g d) c a n ' t s t o p t a l k i n g about i t 88 5) When s t u d e n t s r e v i s e w r i t t e n t e x t a r e t h e y MOST co n c e r n e d w i t h : — a) making a neat job o f t h e wr i t i ng/pr i nt i ng b) c o r r e c t i n g s p e l l i n g and p u n c t u a t i o n c). a d d i n g new i n f o r m a t i o n d) making s u r e t e x t s a v s what t h e y want i t t o say 6) How i s t h e f i n a l d r a f t o f a t e x t t r e a t e d ? _: a) marked or e v a l u a t e d , then d i s c a r d e d b) s e n t home w i t h o t h e r p a p e r s and w o r k s h e e t s c) kept i n a f o l d e r f o r s t u d e n t ' s f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e d) p u b l i s h e d f o r o t h e r s t o re a d PART B 7) How u s e f u l do you f i n d peer group/or whole c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o s h a r i n g and s o l v i n g w r i t i n g p r o blems when l o o k i n g a t an e a r l y d r a f t ? a) not e s p e c i a l l y h e l p f u l b) sometimes h e l p f u l c ) o f t e n h e l p f u l d) an i n v a l u a b l e h e l p 85 Do you f i n d t h a t s t u d e n t s t e n d t o s h a r e t h e i r w r i t t e n work w i t h o t h e r s t u d e n t s , a) r a r e l y b) r e l u c t a n t l y b) a s normal p r a c t i c e c ) e a g e r l y 3) A r e your s t u d e n t s c o n s i d e r a t e o f t h e f e e l i n g s o f t h e s t u d e n t w r i t e r when commenting on a c l a s s m a t e ' s w r i t t e n t e x t ? a) sometimes i n c o n s i d e r a t e b) when reminded by t h e t e a c h e r b) u s u a l l y d) a l w a y s 10) Which would you encourage a s t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e from your s t u d e n t s a f t e r l i s t e n i n g t o an o r i g i n a l d r a f t o f a c l a s s m a t e ' s s t o r y ? a) s a y i t was a v e r y n i c e s t o r y b) p o i n t out t h e p a r t t h e y l i k e d c) ask g u e s t i o n s about what t h e y found most i n t e r e s t i n g d) ask about any p a r t t h e y d i d not u n d e r s t a n d 8 9 11) D u r i n g any p a r t o f your c l a s s w r i t i n g p e r i o d do you l e t your s t u d e n t s s e e you w r i t i n q a l o n g w i t h them? a) not d u r i n g t h e t i m e s t u d e n t s a r e w r i t i n g b) o c c a s i o n a l l y d u r i n g p a r t of a w r i t i n g p e r i o d c) d u r i n g a s m a l l p a r t o f most w r i t i n q p e r i o d s d) as normal p r o c e d u r e d u r i n g each w r i t i n g p e r i o d 12) In d i s c u s s i n g a s t u d e n t ' s d e v e l o p i n g t e x t w i t h him, which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g would you c o n s i d e r t h e most v a l u a b l e ? a) _ P o i n t i n g out e d i t i n g o m i s s i o n s b) P o i n t i n g out where something i s not e x p r e s s e d c o r r e c t l y c) A s k i n g what he meant i n a s e c t i o n which i s not c l e a r d) A s k i n g q u e s t i o n s about what t h e w r i t e r has t o say 13) How do your s t u d e n t s see t h e m s e l v e s as w r i t e r s ? a ) d o not t h i n k o f t h e m s e l v e s as r e a l w r i t e r s b ) a s s t u d e n t s l e a r n i n g t o w r i t e w e l l c ) a s w r i t e r s i n a p p r e n t i c e - s h i p d ) a s w r i t e r s w i t h much i n common w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l a u t h o r s PART C 14) What p e r c e n t a g e o f s t u d e n t s w r i t i n g a s s i g n m e n t s a r e " p u b l i s h e d " , or o t h e r w i s e made a v a i l a b l e i n a f i n a l d r a f t f o r r e a d e r s . a) 25% or l e s s b) 267. t o 507. c) 517. t o 757. d) 767. t o 1007. 15) To what e x t e n t i s i t t h e s t u d e n t ' s d e c i s i o n t o p u b l i s h any g i v e n f i n a l d r a f t ? a) t e a c h e r d e c i d e s b) s t u d e n t sometimes d e c i d e s c ) s t u d e n t u s u a l l y d e c i d e s d) s t u d e n t d e c i d e s 90 1&) Which do you f i n d t h e most e f f e c t i v e way o f e v a l u a t i n q s t u d e n t s ' w r i t t e n work? a) s t u d e n t and t e a c h e r t o q e t h e r choose which p i e c e s w i l l be used f o r e v a l u a t i o n b) _ s t u d e n t c h o s e s which t e x t s w i l l be e v a l u a t e d c ) __ a l l work i s e v a l u a t e d d) _. a w r i t t e n a s s i g n m e n t i s g i v e n s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r e v a l u a t i on e) __. o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) 17) From what a r e a do t h e m a j o r i t y o f t o p i c s f o r w r i t i n g stem? a) from t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t ' s i n t e r e s t s b) from c l a s s i n t e r e s t s c ) from a r e a s s t u d i e d i n c l a s s d) from t e a c h e r s u g g e s t i o n s o f i n t e r e s t i n g t o p i c s _ IS) In r e v i s i n g an o r i g i n a l d r a f t , a r e r e v i s i o n s most o f t e n made:— a by s t u d e n t a f t e r c o n f e r e n c e w i t h t e a c h e r b by s t u d e n t a f t e r feedback from t h e c l a s s or qroup c where s u g g e s t e d by t h e t e a c h e r d) „...after b e i n g marked or e v a l u a t e d by t h e t e a c h e r e) .other ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) ..... 19) What r e c o r d s a r e kept o f c l a s s r o o m w r i t i n g done by i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s ? (e.g.A l i s t o f T o p i c s , T i t l e s , Modes, or o t h e r d e s c r i p t i v e r e c o r d o f f i n i s h e d d r a f t s ) a) __ s t u d e n t keeps r e c o r d o f what he/she has w r i t t e n b) a c l a s s r o o m l i s t or r e c o r d i s kept on d i s p l a y c ) t e a c h e r keeps r e c o r d s o f who has w r i t t e n what d) no l i s t o r r e c o r d i s kept 20) How o f t e n a r e s t u d e n t s g i v e n t i m e f o r s e l e c t i o n o f a t o p i c t h r o u q h advance n o t i c e ? a) no advance n o t i c e , but c l a s s t i m e i s p r o v i d e d b) oc as i on a11y c) . o f t e n d) as normal p r a c t i c e 91 21) How much o f a t i m e l a p s e do you f e e l i s a p p r o p r i a t e between t h e f i r s t d r a f t and t h e second? s t u d e n t s choose when t h e y a r e read y t o w r i t e second d r a f t _ s e v e r a l days a f t e r f i r s t d r a f t t h e day a f t e r t h e f i r s t d r a f t , t h e same day t h e same w r i t i n g p e r i o d 22) How a r e w r i t i n g m a t e r i a l s ( p a p e r , p e n c i l s , f o l d e r s e t c . ) o r g a n i s e d i n t h e c l a s s r o o m ? a_ . m a t e r i a l s a r e kept i n an a s s i g n e d spot b _ one s t u d e n t i s i n c h a r g e o f m a t e r i a l s c s t u d e n t s ask t e a c h e r or h e l p e r f o r m a t e r i a l s when needed d_ . t e a c h e r o r h e l p e r hands out m a t e r i a l s at s t a r t o f c l a s s e_ o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) _ 23) D u r i n g w r i t i n g t i m e how a r e s t u d e n t w r i t i n g p r o b l e m s d e a l t w i t h ? a) s t u d e n t s i g n s up f o r s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e b) ..student a s k s t e a c h e r or p r e v i o u s l y a s s i g n e d " h e l p e r " c ) s t u d e n t i s encour a g e d t o s o l v e own w r i t i n g p r o b l e m s b no s e t p r o c e d u r e , depends on s i t u a t i o n PART D FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS CIRCLE THE RESPONSE BELOW WHICH YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE:- 24) In c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n i t i s h e l p f u l f o r t h e t e a c h e r t o s h a r e w i t h s t u d e n t s her own problems i n c h o o s i n g a t o p i c . C e.g. Why I c h o s e t h i s t o p i c from t h e s e t h r e e c h o i c e s ) C o m p l e t e l y Agree Agree D i s a g r e e C o m p l e t e l y D i s a a r e e 92 25) Only t h e t e a c h e r ' s p o l i s h e d or f i n i s h e d w r i t i n a examples or t e x t s s h o u l d be s h a r e d w i t h t h e s t u d e n t s . The t e a c h e r ' s own w r i t i n g problems s h o u l d not be s h a r e d w i t h s t u d e n t s . C o m p l e t e l y Aqree Agree D i s a q r e e C o m p l e t e l y D i s a o r e e 26) In s h a r i n g a t e x t ( e i t h e r w r i t t e n by a p r o f e s s i o n a l or s t u d e n t w r i t e r ) f o r c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n and enjoyment, s t u d e n t s s h o u l d not be d i s c o u r a q e d from s h a r i n g p e r s o n a l r e l e v a n t c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h t h e c l a s s . ( i . e . t h a t r e m i n d s me o f t h e t i m e . . , or some t h i n g l i k e t h a t happened t o me once, and I f e l t t h e same way...) C o m p l e t e l y Agree Agree D i s a g r e e C o m p l e t e l y D i s a q r e e 27) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d not s e t t h e work o f p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s "on a p e d e s t a l " . That i s , t h e y s h o u l d be a b l e d i s c u s s , a p p r e c i a t e , and c r i t i c i s e s t o r i e s i n Trade Books j u s t as t h e y would s t o r i e s w r i t t e n by t h e i r c l a s s m a t e s . C o m p l e t e l y Agree Agree D i s a g r e e C o m p l e t e l y D i s a q r e e PART E 28) W r i t i n g on t o p i c s o f home and f a m i l y can o f t e n be t h e r a p u t i c f o r c h i l d r e n . C o m p l e t e l y Agree A g r e e D i s a g r e e C o m p l e t e l y D i s a q r e e 29) In s h a r i n g s t o r i e s w r i t t e n ( or r e a d ) by s t u d e n t s i t i s u s e f u l t o e n c o u r a g e d i s c u s s i o n o f p o s s i b l e m o t i v e s f o r c h a r a c t e r s . (e . g . Why d i d she behave t h a t way? Maybe she was l o n e l y , j e a l o u s e t c . ) C o m p l e t e l y Aqreee Agree D i s a g r e e C o m p l e t e l y D i s a q r e e 93 30) Making a s s o c i a t i o n s between t h e b e h a v i o u r of p e o p l e i n s t o r i e s and t h a t o f p e o p l e i n r e a l l i f e e n c o u r a a e s s t u d e n t s t o s ee l a n q u a g e a s a " t o o l " f o r t h i n k i n q about t h e w o r l d t h e y l i v e i n . C o m p l e t e l y Agree A g r e e D i s a q r e e C o m p l e t e l y D i s a q r e e 31) As a r u l e , s t u d e n t s do not have t h e l i f e e x p e r i e n c e r e q u i r e d t o have a u t h e n t i c v i e w s and o p i n i o n s o f t h e i r own, C o m p l e t e l y A gree A g r e e D i s a q r e e C o m p l e t e l y D i s a q r e e 32) S t u d e n t w r i t i n g can be an e x c e l l e n t t o o l f o r e x p l o r i n g t h e i r f e e l i n g s , i d e a s , and p e r c e p t i o n s . C o m p l e t e l y A gree A g r e e D i s a q r e e C o m p l e t e l y D i s a q r e e CHECK THE STATEMENT WHICH MOST AGREES WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE 33) H a v i n g s t u d e n t s w r i t e i n J o u r n a l s t e n d s t o : - a) _. o f t e n l e a d t o a d i a l o g u e w i t h t h e t e a c h e r b) g i v e s t u d e n t s a forum f o r w o r k i n g out problems c) p r o v i d e i d e a s and t o p i c s f o r f u r t h e r w r i t i n g d) r a mble a l i t t l e t o o much t o be e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l 9 4 APPENDIX B TALLY SHEET OF PANEL'S PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENT 95 TALLY SHEET -PANEL AGREEMENT X y : y ^ . 3 ^ y07ofoQy^ -r/y^-y y '^y^ yy 5 # Red = R ^ S p e o T - B l u e - SKav»'i»sj 96 J CoiocT\r© ( T r i a l s ,9 10 l9 1 0 10 IQ ? f 7 10 ? . 1 ID I D 10 1 10 2 <t 9 9 10 1 APPENDIX C REVISED QUESTIONS BY STRAND WITH PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENT 97 1. CONTROL - 7 Questions 1) How o f t e n do your s t u d e n t s w r i t e an e xtended p i e c e of w r i t i n g ? ( s e v e r a l s e n t e n c e s or more) a) most w r i t i n g t e n d s t o be one s e n t e n c e , or sometimes l e s s b) once or t w i c e a week c) t h r e e or f o u r t i m e s a week d) more th a n once a day 2) From what a r e a do the m a j o r i t y of t o p i c s f o r w r i t i n g stem? a) from th e i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t ' s i n t e r e s t s b ) from c l a s s i n t e r e s t s c) f r om a r e a s s t u d i e d i n c l a s s d) from t e a c h e r s u g g e s t i o n s of i n t e r e s t i n g t o p i c s 3 ) How o f t e n a r e s t u d e n t s g i v e n advance n o t i c e so t h a t t h e y may have time t o s e l e c t a t o p i c ? a) no advance n o t i c e , but c l a s s t ime i s p r o v i d e d a t the s t a r t of t h e w r i t i n g p e r i o d . b) i t i s s t a n d a r d p r o c e d u r e t o g i v e advance n o t i c e c) most t o p i c s a r e a s s i g n e d by the t e a c h e r c) when p o s s i b l e advance n o t i c e i s p r o v i d e d 9) To what e x t e n t do your t o p i c s f o r w r i t i n g ? a) seldom b) o c c a s i o n a l l y c) o f t e n d) a l w a y s s t u d e n t s choose t h e i r own 98 CONTROL -continued 12) How would you l i k e your s t u d e n t s t o v i e w the w r i t i n g t h e y do i n the c l a s s r o o m ? a) as some t h i n g p l e a s a n t the t e a c h e r wants them t o do b) as a l e a r n i n g t a s k s e t f o r them by the t e a c h e r c) as some t h i n g u s e f u l t h e y a r e l e a r n i n g t o do d) as an o p p o r t u n i t y t o put what t h e y t h i n k on paper 13) Do you t h i n k your s t u d e n t s s h o u l d see t h e m s e l v e s as r e a l w r i t e r s ? a) no, t h i s i s not r e a l i s t i c i n the c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n b) not n e c e s s a r i l y , as s t u d e n t s have d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g problems and d i f f e r e n t g o a l s from r e a l w r i t e r s c) y e s , as w r i t e r s i n a p p r e n t i c e - s h i p d) y e s , as w r i t e r s w i t h much i n common w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l a u t h o r s 14) Who do you c o n s i d e r the a p r o p r i a t e p e r s o n t o d e c i d e whether t o p u b l i s h or not t o p u b l i s h a f i n i s h e d d r a f t i n the c l a s s r o o m ? a) t e a c h e r d e c i d e s b) c l a s s d e c i d e s c ) s t u d e n t and t e a c h e r d e c i d e d) s t u d e n t d e c i d e s 99 2. RESPECT - ^ Questions 6) How i s t h e f i n a l d r a f t of a t e x t t r e a t e d ? a) marked or e v a l u a t e d b) s e n t home p e r i o d i c a l l y w i t h o t h e r papers and wor k s h e e t s c) p u b l i s h e d f o r o t h e r s t u d e n t s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m t o r e a d d) k e p t i n a p e r s o n a l f o l d e r f o r f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e 11) I n d i s c u s s i n g a s t u d e n t ' s d e v e l o p i n g t e x t w i t h him/her, which of t h e f o l l o w i n g would you c o n s i d e r the most v a l u a b l e ? a) P o i n t i n g out e d i t i n g problems b) A s k i n g about the w r i t e r ' s i n t e n t c) A s k i n g about the i n t e n d e d a u d i e n c e f o r the t e x t d) P o i n t i n g o u t where something i s not c l e a r t o the r e a d e r 6l>. 15) S t u d e n t w r i t i n g i n J o u r n a l s tends t o : - a j o f t e n l e a d t o a d i a l o g u e w i t h the t e a c h e r o g i v e s t u d e n t s a forum f o r w o r k i n g out problems' P r o v i d e i d e a s and t o p i c s f o r f u r t h e r w r i t i n q d ) ramble a l i t t l e t o o much t o be e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l 20) As a r u l e , s t u d e n t w r i t e r s do not have the l i f e e x p e r i e n c e r e q u i r e d t o have a u t h e n t i c views and o p i n i o n s of t h e i r own. a) Agree b) D i s a g r e e 5 a 100 3. SHARING - 6 Questions 4) D u r i n g any p a r t o£ your c l a s s w r i t i n g p e r i o d do you l e t your s t u d e n t s see you w r i t i n g a l o n g w i t h them? iO^f a) no, t h i s i s not an a p p r o p r i a t e time f o r the t e a c h e r t o w r i t e . b) no, am t o o busy h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s w i t h t h e i r problems c) y e s , d u r i n g a s m a l l p a r t of most w r i t i n g p e r i o d s d) y e s , as normal p r o c e d u r e d u r i n g each w r i t i n g p e r i o d 5) D u r i n g w r i t i n g t ime how a r e s t u d e n t w r i t i n g problems d e a l t w i t h ? a) s t u d e n t s i g n s up f o r s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e b) s t u d e n t a s k s t e a c h e r or a peer f o r h e l p c) s t u d e n t i s encouraged t o s o l v e own w r i t i n g problems d s t u d e n t w r i t i n g problems a r e a d d r e s s e d i n g e n e r a l w i t h t h e c l a s s 7) When commenting on a c l a s s m a t e ' s w r i t t e n t e x t , a r e your s t u d e n t s c o n s i d e r a t e of the f e e l i n g s of the s t u d e n t w r i t e r ? a) sometimes i n c o n s i d e r a t e b) c o n s i d e r a t e when reminded by the t e a c h e r c) u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r a t e d) s u p p o r t i v e o f one a n o t h e r 10) How u s e f u l i s peer group/or whole c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o s h a r i n g and s o l v i n g w r i t i n g problems when l o o k i n g a t an e a r l y d r a f t ? a) not e s p e c i a l l y h e l p f u l b) sometimes h e l p f u l c) o f t e n h e l p f u l d) an i n v a l u a b l e h e l p 17) The t e a c h e r s h a r i n g w i t h s t u d e n t s p r o c e d u r e s he/she has used p e r s o n a l l y In c h o o s i n g a t o p i c i s a w o r t h w h i l e use of c l a s s w r i t i n g t i m e . ( e.g. How I chose t h i s t o p i c from t h e s e t h r e e c h o i c e s ) a) Agree b) D i s a g r e e (d^O 101 4. LEARNING -I* Questions 8) When s h a r i n g s t o r i e s w r i t t e n by s t u d e n t s do you encourage d i s c u s s i o n and c r i t i c i s m of p o s s i b l e m o t i v e s f o r c h a r a c t e r s , ( e . g . What would make her a c t l i k e t h a t ? ) a) y e s , t h i s a l l o w s s t u d e n t s t o l e a r n from the c h a r a c t e r s i n t h e i r s t o r i e s b) y e s , t h i s a l l o w s s t u d e n t s t o t h i n k about how t h e y w i l l w r i t e about t h e i r own s t o r y c h a r a c t e r s c) no, the c r i t i c i s m can d e t e r b e g i n n i n g w r i t e r s d) no, t h e p o s s i b l e improvement i n s t u d e n t s ' f i c t i o n a l w r i t i n g does not j u s t i f y t he amount of time t h i s would t a k e from r e a l w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s 16) V e r b a l d i s c u s s i o n s i n c l a s s on the b e h a v i o u r of peopl e i n s t o r i e s and t h a t of people i n r e a l l i f e i s a v a l u a b l e use of c l a s s w r i t i n g t i m e . Agree D i s a g r e e 19) W r i t i n g on t o p i c s of home and f a m i l y can o f t e n be t h e r a p e u t i c f o r c h i l d r e n . a) Agree b) D i s a g r e e 1°, 21) S t u d e n t w r i t i n g can be an e x c e l l e n t t o o l t h r o u g h which s t u d e n t s can e x p l o r e t h e i r own f e e l i n g s , i d e a s , and p e r c e p t i o n s . a) Agree b) ___Disagree _ 9>o 102 APPENDIX D REVISED QUESTIONNAIRE 103 QUESTIONNAIRE - PART A A 1. Male Female Number of ye a r s i n t e a c h i n g ? 0—5yrs 6-10yrs l l - 1 5 y r s 16-20yrs +21vrs 3. Most recent t r a i n i n g completed 19 4. Age? Oyrs 31-40yrs 41-50yrs +51yrs 5. Most re c e n t workshop taken 19 CIRCLE THE ANSWER WHICH CORRESPONDS MOST WITH YOUR POINT OF VIEW:- 1= S t r o n g l y Agree 2=Agree 3=Not Sure 4=Disagree 5=Strongly D i s a g r e e 6. The r e p e t i t i o n of words i n a r e a d i n g passage i s an e f f e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e i n 1 2 3 4 5 te a c h i n g r e a d i n g t o s t u d e n t s i n the e a r l i e s t grades. 7. Vocabulary e x e r c i s e s a re a v a l u a b l e t o o l for improving the middle-school s t u d e n t ' s r e a d i n g a b i l i t y . 1 2 3 4 5 8. I f i n d i t u s e f u l t o keep a c l a s s r e c o r d of the r e a d i n g s k i l l s mastered by each i n d i v i d u a l s tudent. 1 2 3 4 5 104 9. The basal reader i s the c e n t r a l part of my r e a d i n g program. 1 10. From a p r a c t i c a l viewpoint the standard b a s a l reader can be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o most re a d i n g programs. 1 11. A b a s i c knowledge of phonics p r o v i d e s the student with a s t r o n g foundation f o r the r e a d i n g program I f i n d most e f f e c t i v e . 1 12. Teaching comprehension s k i l l s i s u s e f u l i n a whole-language approach t o r e a d i n g . 1 13. While not c e n t r a l t o my r e a d i n g program, the basal reader does p r o v i d e a v a l u a b l e s o u r c e of r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l s graded to the s t u d e n t ' s r e a d i n g a b i l i t y . 1 14. S p e l l i n g d r i l l s and games can be u s e f u l i n fami 1 i a r 1 i s n g slow r e a d e r s with new r e a d i n g words. 1 15. An e f f e c t i v e r e a d i n g program should use an e c l e c t i c approach i n c l u d i n g both p h o n i c s and word a t t a c k s k i l l s . 1 105 QUESTIONNAIRE - PART B WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVES BELOW BEST DESCRIBES YOUR EXPERIENCE? PLEASE MARK (X) ONE, OR MORE IF APPROPRIATE 1) How often do your students write an extended piece of writing? (several sentences or more) a) most w r i t i n g tends to be one sentence, or sometimes less b) once or twice a week c) three or four times a week d) more than once a day 2) From what area do the majority of topics for w r i t i n g stem? a) from the i n d i v i d u a l student's i n t e r e s t s b ) from c l a s s i n t e r e s t s c) from areas studied i n cla s s d) from teacher suggestions of i n t e r e s t i n g topics 3) How often are students given advance notice so that they may have time to s e l e c t a topic? a) no advance notice, but cla s s time Is provided at the s t a r t of the wr i t i n g period. b) i t Is standard procedure to give advance notice c) most to p i c s are assigned by the teacher c) when possib l e advance notice i s provided 4) During any part of your c l a s s writing period do you l e t your students see you writ i n g along with them? a) no, t h i s Is not an appropriate time for the teacher to write. b) no, am too busy helping students with t h e i r problems c) yes, during a small part of most wri t i n g periods d) yes, as normal procedure during each wr i t i n g period 106 5) During w r i t i n g time how are student w r i t i n g problems dealt with? a) student signs up for student-teacher conference b) student asks teacher or a peer for help c) student i s encouraged to solve own writ i n g problems d student w r i t i n g problems are addressed in general with the c l a s s 6 ) How i s the f i n a l d r a f t of a text treated? a) marked or evaluated b) sent home p e r i o d i c a l l y with other papers and worksheets c) published for other students i n the classroom to read d) kept i n a personal folder for future reference 7) When commenting on a classmate's written text, are your students considerate of the feeli n g s of the student writer? a) sometimes inconsiderate b) considerate when reminded by the teacher c) usually considerate d) supportive of one another 8) When sharing s t o r i e s written by students do you encourage d i s c u s s i o n and c r i t i c i s m of possible motives for characters, (e.g. What would make her act l i k e that?) a) yes, t h i s allows students to learn from the characters in t h e i r s t o r i e s b) yes, t h i s allows students to think about how they w i l l write about t h e i r own sto r y characters c) no, the c r i t i c i s m can deter beginning writers d) no, the possible improvement i n students' f i c t i o n a l w r i t i n g does not j u s t i f y the amount of time t h i s would take from r e a l w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s 1 0 ? 9 ) To what e x t e n t do your students choose t h e i r own t o p i c s f o r w r i t i n g ? a) seldom b) o c c a s i o n a l l y c) o f t e n d) always 10) How u s e f u l i s peer group/or whole c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n with regard to s h a r i n g and s o l v i n g w r i t i n g problems when l o o k i n g a t an e a r l y d r a f t ? a) not e s p e c i a l l y h e l p f u l b) sometimes h e l p f u l c) o f t e n h e l p f u l d) an i n v a l u a b l e h e l p 11) In d i s c u s s i n g a s t udent's d e v e l o p i n g t e x t with him/her, which of the f o l l o w i n g would you c o n s i d e r the most v a l u a b l e ? a) P o i n t i n g out e d i t i n g problems b) Asking about the w r i t e r ' s i n t e n t c) A sking about the Intended audience f o r the t e x t d) P o i n t i n g out where something i s not c l e a r to the reader 12) How would you l i k e your students to view the w r i t i n g they do i n the classroom? a) as something p l e a s a n t the teacher wants them to do b) as a l e a r n i n g task s e t f o r them by the teacher c) as something u s e f u l they are l e a r n i n g to do d) as an o p p o r t u n i t y to put what they t h i n k on paper 108 13) Do you t h i n k your s t u d e n t s s h o u l d see t h e m s e l v e s as r e a l w r i t e r s ? a) no, t h i s i s not r e a l i s t i c i n t h e c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n b) not n e c e s s a r i l y , as s t u d e n t s have d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g problems and d i f f e r e n t g o a l s from r e a l w r i t e r s c) y e s , as w r i t e r s i n a p p r e n t i c e - s h i p d) y e s , as w r i t e r s w i t h much i n common w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l a u t h o r s 14) Who do you c o n s i d e r the a p r o p r i a t e p e r s o n t o d e c i d e whether t o p u b l i s h or not t o p u b l i s h a f i n i s h e d d r a f t i n the c l a s s r o o m ? a) t e a c h e r d e c i d e s b) c l a s s d e c i d e s c ) s t u d e n t and t e a c h e r d e c i d e d) s t u d e n t d e c i d e s . 15) S t u d e n t w r i t i n g i n J o u r n a l s tends t o : - a) o f t e n l e a d t o a d i a l o g u e w i t h the t e a c h e r b) g i v e s t u d e n t s a forum f o r w o r k i n g out problems c) p r o v i d e i d e a s and t o p i c s f o r f u r t h e r w r i t i n g d) ramble a l i t t l e t o o much t o be e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l PLEASE MARK ONE ONLY (X) 16) V e r b a l d i s c u s s i o n s i n c l a s s on the b e h a v i o u r of p e o p l e i n s t o r i e s and t h a t of peopl e i n r e a l l i f e i s a v a l u a b l e use of c l a s s w r i t i n g t i m e . Agree D i s a g r e e . 17) The t e a c h e r s h a r i n g w i t h s t u d e n t s p r o c e d u r e s he/she has used p e r s o n a l l y i n c h o o s i n g a t o p i c i s a w o r t h w h i l e use of c l a s s w r i t i n g t i m e . ( e.g. How I chose t h i s t o p i c from t h e s e t h r e e c h o i c e s ) a) Agree b) D i s a g r e e 109 18) I f the teacher shares any of h e r / h i s w r i t i n g with the c l a s s , care should be taken to ensure t h a t o n l y the p o l i s h e d , e r r o r - f r e e form i s modelled. a) Agree b) Disagree 19) W r i t i n g on t o p i c s of home and f a m i l y can o f t e n be t h e r a p e u t i c f o r c h i l d r e n . a) Agree b) Disagree 20) As a r u l e , student w r i t e r s do not have the l i f e e x p erience r e q u i r e d to have a u t h e n t i c views and o p i n i o n s of t h e i r own. a) Agree b) Disagree 21) Student w r i t i n g can be an e x c e l l e n t t o o l through which st u d e n t s can e x p l o r e t h e i r own f e e l i n g s , i d e a s , and p e r c e p t i o n s . a) Agree b) Disagree 110 22> L i s t t h e forms of w r i t i n q your c l a s s has used i n t h e l a s t two week p e r i o d . ( p o s s i b l e examples - s t o r y , l e t t e r , j o u r n a l . . . ) 23) L i s t t y p e s of w r i t i n g problems ( i f any) which you f i n d you have i n common w i t h some of your s t u d e n t s , (e.g. p u n c t u a t i o n , t o p i c c h o i c e ) 24) L i s t any a r e a s i n which some of your s t u d e n t s have us w r i t i n g over t h e l a s t two week p e r i o d to e x p l o r e something t h e y have been t h i n k i n g or t a l k i n g about, (e.g. f r i e n d s , anger, a p e t . . ) 25) I f you wi s h t o improve t h e s t u d e n t ' s w r i t i n g , what w r i t t e n comment would you f i n d most a p p r o p r i a t e i n r e s p o n d i n g t o t h i s e n t r y i n t h i s s t u d e n t ' s j o u r n a l ? "Our dog d i e d at Sunday, h u r t wen she woked t o f a r she wos v e r y o l d and her l e g she d i d n t run much any more." Ke v i n, 111 APPENDIX E TALLY SHEETS FOR OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS 112 OPEN-ENDED QUESTION on CONTROL 3 o . U § l _ _ „_JL__ _ Q ' u . y rx . . . *vM<?r-i< - V / V x y y.y V / k / v / V u ! . .^=r^r...~V.\eTi^r_i.\ - <j£ . - ^cttv, . 1/ V v/ <$) -~.Aĉ ?»-.(.̂ .4vt/.g v/.y< Ss/ .... @ '. ./ - -r- Ŝ iA._£̂ l̂ \«>Â i_-(cl.*.-) vi_t/ ^ : ^ L ^ ^ . y l « i . ^ - j : f « 3 ^ — - - - - - - -0- 'Li- # / y v v / v i ' ^ ̂  yy<.' </yy <s v.y? s^yy i/»v ̂  5* y /. \s. s .\/ . ~l • 1/ v S s is t> 1 y 4 i «- I o j — (C î-J- ?TC;^ f̂y,, 0 \ i^ . ^ ^ . ' j^^A^w . J l s . (^>-.c._hSc^.eL^.i^_jud.^/-k^ul 7. . / ^ Si^.-s ^HAKVS • / 1 . _ / — lAv<v>".̂ - —V< s/.. V-..S- | O | v/ w/ ? ; j «scvi.^rl. ... fer 1 - P.__ j 0 s/ 1 0"^ay^ "* </ \^ 3 y 1 ~ | c y s ,y i v f 0 d o - -IM-U^ + \*t>>Hivi yis y. 3 l / 1 • o ! c ^ r - . 2 . | ccp-- 0 e,.- ^ ' | 113 OPEN-ENDED QUESTION on SHARING . A 3 . t r 4 ^ y y ^—f^jg>.c-e. y / y y 0 ^ y A. 42- 6 0 114 OPEN-ENDED QUESTION on LEARNING G r .1 • ° o v ' l / • % / l / 1 / 1 _ JC5_ I f * I ^- 3 tr 4- / i .. i _ \ L 1 / ^ 'SU^npUO^o P r * i M v » w V _ ... I X . . _ . CVfts»_R-i^a { L ^ v w ^ O - . . . . y H e w - *w. <A A / l - l I 3 i i < < c> o 0 y. 3L I 3 o J._ ~(L. c o c . 6 D I -(JS>> 115 OPEN-ENDED QUESTION on RESPECT 116

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 2 10
France 2 0
United States 2 1
Canada 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 2 4
Beijing 2 0
Kitchener 1 0
Mountain View 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items