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.. Marshall, Ailsa 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 ]
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
Original Record: 1.0078365 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0078365.txt
Citation
1.0078365.ris

Full Text

THE R E L A T I O N S H I P BETWEEN T E A C H E R S ' THE T E A C H I N G OF AND  ATTITUDES  TO  WRITING  WHOLE-LANGUAGE/SKILLS-BASED  PHILOSOPHIES  by AILSA B.Ed., The U n i v e r s i t y  A T H E S I S SUBMITTED  MARSHALL of B r i t i s h  Columbia,  IN PARTIAL FULFULLMENT  THE REQUREMENTS FOR MASTER  OF  THE  DEGREE  OF  ARTS  in THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE S T U D I E S (Department We  accept to  of Language  this  thesis  the required  as  Education) conforminq  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  December, 1989 0  Ailsa  Marshall,  1989  1984  OF  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment  of the  requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  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  concerned  four  Control  student-writer  distinct, on  the  though part  interwoven, of  the  shared  values  student-writer,  or  Respect  has to say in his or her writing, Sharing the  "strands." for  These  what  the  writing process, and  Learning from writing by using writing as a tool for learning. A questionnaire was constructed  to  populations, one  probe  teachers'  attitudes  with a whole-language  to  each  and one  of  these  strands.  Two  sample  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 A. The Question B. Background to the Question C. Overview of the Procedures D. Definition of Terms E. Limitations II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A. "New Paradigm" 1. New Ideas on Writing 2. Comparisons Between the Old and New Models B. New Strategies 1. Control 2. Respect 3. Sharing a Sense of Community 4. Learning C. Whole Language D. Summary III. RESEARCH DESIGN A. The Questionnaire B. The Sample C. Data Collection Procedures 1. Part A 2. Part B 3. Open-ended Questions D. Analysis of Data IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF DATA A. Strand One: Control B. Strand Two: Respect C. Strand Three: Sharing D. Strand Four: Learning E. Qualitative Data F. Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS A. Summary and Discussion iii  1 1 1 3 3 5 7 8 8 11 14 14 17 20 21 22 26 29 29 32 33 33 33 35 35 37 37 47 53 59 63 67 70 70  B. Conclusions C. Implications for Further Research D. Implications for Teaching REFERENCES APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E:  Questionnaire One Tally Sheet Questions Revised by Strand Revised Questionnaire Qualatative Data Response  iv  78 81 83 84 87 95 97 103 112  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  v  :  61  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 between  question  teachers'  addressed  attitudes  to  by the  the  current study  teaching  of  is,  writing  what and  is  the  relationship  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  have  writing process)  been  accepted  it is not clear whether  by  practioners  in  the field. (Applebee,  innovations in the language  arts field have focused  language  whole  movement  While  language  these views on teaching 1981)  Recent  to some extent on the  encompasses its  own  distinct  whole  body of  literature and is generally concerned with an integrative approach to teaching reading, writing, speaking  and listening,  values  literature  with  encourage  the  enactive  the  on  general  teaching  learning and to  approach shares  writing. Both  view  the  teacher  some assumptions and  bodies  of  literature  tend  to  as facilitator rather than as  director. It  would appear that  assimilated teachers  by the  with  the  views discussed  in the  general practioner, would be most  a whole-language  orientation  literature  on writing, if  likely to be  found amongst  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,  language arts?  2  whole-language  approach to  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  matrix...[for]  refers  any systematic  to  what  Emig  (1982) defines as  "an explanatory  investigation of phenomena." Used in the current  study a differentiation is made between what is refered to by Freedman and Pringle (1980) as the The  latter  is  "new paradigm" and the  described  by  Freedman and  "current-traditional" paradigm.  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  self-understanding,  present  study  is  on  as this  is one  aspect  learning  which  includes  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 listening  teaching within  a  of  reading,  context  writing,  that  is  speaking  meaningful  and  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 particularly teaching  in  interested the  and private schools,  while respondents  or involved in whole-language  public  school  system.  There  is,  who were  programs were therefore,  the  identified as found  possibility  to be 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  depending on their own particular perspectives.  described  this  in  various  ways,  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 shift in teacher attitude to writing in which the  They both advocated a  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 "examiner  children feel audience"  they  use. We felt strongly that  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  sometimes in the classical tradition, 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 schools sometimes in the  found in  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  observed.  of  He  paragraph-length considered  that  writing  assigned  paragraph-length  to  students  writing  in  was  most  classes he  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  working  language  with  it,  and  using  it  that  means  playing  instxumentally,  with  it,  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 authors  to to  the the  additional  perception  realization that  they  of  themselves  have  as  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 17  and valued member of the writing  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,  suggests that teachers encourage  Graves takes children's authorship seriously and  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  want  them  to  world.  OWN their  ...As writing teachers own  writing  rather  we 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 exchange:  to  and  responded  to.  Language  is an  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 "in the  dark" by placing emphasis  of students  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.  think by writing, (p. 43)  21  to learn what we  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  subject  and  of  learning  how  the  more two  about  relate  is  oneself a  and one's  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  integrated listening  literacy  teaching within  a  of  instruction reading,  context  that  is  the  writing, is  simultaneous speaking  meaningful  and  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 learning  of  psycholinguistic  each  mode.  assumptions  The  new  viewed  as mutually reinforcing, enhancing  paradigm  in  writing,  stemming  regarding the inter-relationship of language  also  the from  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 decoding Ellis,  overemphasises  and accuracy in word recognition  1976),  and  that  children  using  (Johns and  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 26  the  connections  between language and  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.  Chapter Two, these four strands centre on: CjonJioJ,  As listed in  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  investigator to be a valuable item in that each, in the investigator's address  the strand as noted in the  by the  opinion, did  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 students,  or the  teacher sharing the writing process  teacher directing or otherwise  by writing along with the  "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  readabilty and semantics  by two  containing 21  teachers.  It was  questions,  was pre-tested  for  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 33  four strand statements. The responses  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  orientation. As Table 1 shows, the  with  a  more  analysis by T-test  37  traditional, non-integrative for the string of variables  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 Difference  i n Means a n d D e g r e e For  Each  V/hole Language  of S t a t i s t i c a l  Probability  Strand  Traditional  Strand  n  Mean  (SD)  n  Mean  (SD)  SI  22  23.18  1.97  20  20.30  3.28  2.88  . 001  S2  23  7 . 57  0.51  20  0 . 70  0 .37  .054  S3  22  16 . 77  1.45  19  1.95  1. 50  . 007  S4  20  7 .85  0.04  19  0.48  0.16  .230  7 . 20 15.27 7 . 69  P  f 2. - D i f f e r e n c e i n Means b e t w e e n t n e two g r o u p s 51 - S t r a n d One: S t u d e n t C o n t r o l ( s e t o f 7 q u e s t i o n s ) 52 - S t r a n d Two: R e s p e c t ( s e t o f 4 q u e s t i o n s ) 53 - Strand Three: Sharing (set of 6 questions) 54 - Strand Four: Learning (set of 4 quesitons) * p =  .05 i s t h e p o i n t o f s t a t i s t i c a l  38  significance  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 Difference  i n Means f o r E a c h V a r i a b l e i n Strand  One: C o n t r o l  Whole Language  Traditional  Variables  n  Mean  (SD)  n  Paragraph Times Real Writers Student Choice Advance Notice D e c i s i o n t o Pub Topic Source View of W r i t i n g  25 22 25 25 24 25 25  3.44 3.81 3.00 2.80 3. 33 2.64 3.76  .65 .40 .41 .82 . 41 .70 .66  20 20 20 20 20 20 20  Mean  (SD)  2.55  .85 .83 .76 .69 .85 .75 .44  3-30  2.55 2.45 3.10 2.60 3.75  .89 .51 .45 .35 .23 .04 .01  TABLE 3 Responses  of  Groups Strand  Variables  Opt.l  Para.Times-G I Para.Times-G II R e a l Wr.-G I R e a l Wr.-G I I St.Choice-G I St.Choice-G II Adv.Notice-G I Adv.Notice-G II D e c . t o Pub.-G I D e c . t o Pub.-G I T o p i c So.-G I Topic.So.-G II V i e w o f Wr.-G I V i e w o f Wr.-G II G I - Group G I I - Group  0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 3 3 1 0  I and I I t o e a c h V a r i a b l e : One: C o n t r o l  Opt.2..  Opt.3  O D t O t h e r  Total  2 10 0 2 2 9 8 10 0 0 3 2 0 0  10 6 4 10 21 8 11 8 16 12 19 15 2 5  13 3 18 8 2 2 5 1 8 6  ~  21 15  1 -  25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20  I, or Whole-language-oriented I I , or T r a d i t i o n a l l y - o r i e n t e d 39  teachers teachers  3 1 -  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 writing as  "an opportunity to  indicating a preference  for students to view  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  whole-language-oriented  indicates teachers  a  distinct  preference  for asking students  on  the  pan  of  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 Difference  i n Means f o r E a c h V a r i a b l e i n Strand  Two:  Respect  Whole L a n g u a g e  Traditional X  Variables Developing  Text  Text  Treatment  Journal  Value  Life_ Experience  n  Mean  (SD)  n  Mean  (SD)  1  25  1.76  .44  20  1.40  .50  .36  25  2.00  .00  20  1.95  .22  .05  24  1.96  .20  20  1.95  .22  .01  24  1.88  .34  20  1.90  .31  -02  - X 2  Y _ J(  * Z Traditional  - Difference Groups  i n Means b e t w e e n Whole L a n g u a g e a n d  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  Twenty-five  difference  respondents  in the individual  responses  in Group I, and nineteen  between  the  in Group II chose  two groups. 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  o f Groups Strand  Variables  Opt.  Dev.Text-G I 6 D e v . T e x t - G I I 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 I I 2  G G  I - Group I I - Group  1  I and I I t o each  Variable  Two: R e s p e c t  Opt. 19 8 25 19 23 19 21 18  2  Other  1 1  Totals 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20  I, or whole-language-oriented t e a c h e r s I I , or T r a d i t i o n a l l y - o r i e n t e d teachers  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  misinterpretation  since  above, it  was  the felt  wording by  the  of  the  question  investigator  to  was be  examined  for  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:  T-Test  analysis  SHARING  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 differences  members  of  a  community  of  writers  with  similar  problems,  indicated  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  Difference  I n Means f o r e a c h v a r i a b l e I n  Strand V/hole Variables  n  Teacher Writing Writer's Feelings W r i t e r Problems Choosing Topic T e a c h e r Mode 1. Class Discussion  25 25 25 23 23 25  ' 1 2 Traditional  Three: language  Mean  Difference Groups.  Sharing  3 .12 3 . 76 3 .12 1.96 1.91 2 .96  (SD) . 60 .44 . 53 . 21 . 29 .84  I n Means 53  Traditional n  Mean  (SD)  20 20 20 19 20 20  2.65 3 . 50 2.95 1 . 79 1.75 2 . 80  .87 . 51 .61 .42 . 44 .89  between  Whole  A  l  "  .47 . 26 .17 . 17 .16 . 16  Language  a  Analysis of ihe daia for Question 4, which probed attitudes to the along with  teacher writing  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 Strand  Variables T e a c h e r Wr.-G T e a c h e r Wr.-G wr . F e e l l n g s - G Wr . F e e l i n g s - G Wr . P r o b l e m s - G Wr . P r o b l e m s - G Ch.Topic-G I Ch.Toplc-G I I T.Model.-G I T.Model.-G I I Class Disc.-G Class Disc.-G  Opt. 1 I II I II I II  I II  0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 5 0 1  I and I I t o each V a r i a b l e  Three:  Sharing  Opt. 2  Opt. 3  Opt. 4  3 9 0 0 2 1 22 15 21 15 9 7  16 6 6 10 18 16  6 4 19 10 5 2 8 5  54  8 7  Other -  -  -  2 1 2 -  Total 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20  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 conference,  chose the highest scoring option 4, a writing  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 writing  process.  This  opted to disagree with the idea of the teacher sharing the 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 significantly  more positive  than traditionally-oriented teachers  teachers were indeed  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  student-writer's  the  provision  feelings,  of  a  classroom  environment  are areas where whole-language  which  teachers  protects  the  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  moderate difference  (16)  d i d so,  in altitude,  with  as  can  be  seen  in  Table  9.  This  whole-language teachers indicating  indicates  a more  a  positive  response than traditionally-oriented teachers to the value of discussing the motives of story characters. While writing  process  by  the  question probes the strand concerning Learning from the  discussing  human character and motives,  teachers as a generally valuable exercise an  exercise  in  literary  discussion.  it  may  be  viewed by  for students' moral development, or even as  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 Difference  I n Means Strand  Whole  Varlables  n  Sharing Stories 24 Behav. C h a r a c t e r s 24 W r i t i n g as Tool 25 W r i t i n g a s T h e r a p y 20  Xj-X  Four:  Learning  Language  Traditional  Mean  (SD)  n  Mean  (SD)  X,- X. 1 c  1.96 1.96 2.00 1.95  .20 .20 .00 .22  19 20 20 20  1. 84 1.90 1.95 1.95  .38 .31 .22 .22  .12 .06 .05 .00  Difference  z  Traditional  f o r each V a r i a b l e i n  In Means between whole Language and  Groups  2. Behaviour of Characters: Question 8  When  sharing  stories  written  by  students  do  criticism of possible motives for characters? Option 1. no. does not justify time taken from writing 60  you  encourage  discussion and  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 Strand Variables  Opt.  Sh.Stories-G I Sh.Stories-G I I Behav.Char.-G I Behav.Char.-G I I wr.as T o o l - G I wr.as Tool-G I I Wr.as T h e r a p y - G I Wr.as T h e r a p y - G I G I - Group G I I - Group  t o each v a r i a b l e  I and I I  Four: Learning 1  1 3 1 2 0 1 1 1  Opt . 23 16 23 18 25 19 19 19  2  Other 1 1 1  5  -  I , or Whole-language-oriented I I , or Traditionally-oriented  Totals 25 20 25 20 25 20 25 20 teachers teachers  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 open-ended  were found between the groups in teacher responses to the four  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 studentteachers,  on  the  other  hand, listed  forms  controlled. More traditionally-oriented  of  writing which  were  categorized  as  teacher-controlled rather than student-controlled. Two traditionally-oriented teachers, for example,  listed  completion,  language  arts  exercises,  one  listed  sentece  and  two  listed  structures.  summaries, In  all,  one six  listed  sentence  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 listed only twenty-three  teachers. By contrast, traditionally-oriented  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  teacher-as-examiner student-control  in  may  writing. the  journals and scripts are  in  fact  be  students  However,  the  variety' of  sense that  students in  writing  a  forms  disguised listed  writing riddles, lists,  "playing with [their language]...  does  form  of  suggest  story cartoons,  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 64  teachers  indicated  in their  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 with with three traditional teachers.  teachers as compared  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  thoughts or feelings. eighteen.  used by their students  as a forum  for working out ideas,  Traditionally oriented teachers, on the other hand, listed only  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.  whole-language-oriented values expressed  In the  strands on  Control  and Sharing, Group  I, or  teachers indicated a significantly more positive attitude to the  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  significant  differences  teachers.  The  remaining  strand,  Learning,  indicated  no  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. attitudes  Summary  and  Discussion.  The  current  investigation  examined  teachers'  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:  whole-language-oriented  Control.  The  investigation  found  that  Group  teachers, appeared to have significantly more positive  I,  or  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  opportunities for their students  teachers  valued  more  frequent  to write at paragraph length than did skills-based  teachers.  Data marked  from  differences  the  question  regarding students  in  attitude  between  the  two  as  "real  writers" also indicated  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 variable,  the  differences  to this aspect of student writer control. Thus, both by strand and evidence  in  attitude  gathered exist  from  the  between  data  indicates  teachers  from  the  quite  clearly  that strong  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  skills-based  a  completely  teachers  negative  attitude.  are professionals  It  seems  reasonable  who are interested  to  assume  that  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"  whole-language-oriented teachers  may  shed  light  on  the  question  of  why  teachers appear to be more comfortable with the concept than  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  significantly  investigation  more positive  found attitude  that to  whole-language-oriented  the  concept of  teachers  sharing the  had  a  writing process.  Skills-oriented teachers, on the other hand, were found to be much less enthusiastic about  this  questionnaire,  concept "I  As  don't  one  teacher  believe  in  from  the  writing by  skills-based  group  noted  on  the  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 whole-language  standard procedure. The findings  teachers  of  the  were also much more positively  investigation  in agreement  were that 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  process  focused  on  the  dealing  with the  students and the  perceived teacher  procedures through class or group discusssions findings  were that  whole-language  teachers  value  of  Sharing the writing  sharing problems,  and student  were more  solutions  and  teacher conferences. The  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 learning  noted  classroom  by  the  Emig  regardless  of  concept  of the  close relationship  (1980) and Odell orientation.  With  (1981) very  is  few  between writing and  valued  by teachers  exceptions,  teachers  in the 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 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  -oriented  teachers,  attitudes  on the  to  other  the  other  strands in the  hand, had positive  associated with the new paradigm.  77  study.  attitudes  to  Whole-language all four strands  v  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 beliefs  the  two  language  and..consistent  orientations  considered  in  this  study  have  "committed  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, 78  the  handing over of some  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 incorporates the  new  concern for the  link  respectable  grammar", in that it  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  whole-language-oriented  gathered  in  this  study  it  seems  that,  while  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  publications as Sharon Rich's Whole-Language Newsletter  by  subscription  and the newsletter  to  such  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 regardless  of  the  attitudes  program used  may more in line with the traditional teachers  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 teachers  from  the  current investigation  planning to impliment the  values  suggest  and attitudes  that  in  of  the  pedagogical new  terms,  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 strands in the positive  teachers,  however,  current study. Traditional  appeared to be comfortable teachers  indicated in the  with all four  current study a  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 & : 142-156.  "Empowering": The What and the Why. Language Arts.  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 Communication. 3jfc 141-153.  Writing  Instruction.  College  Composition and  Bruner, J. (1971). Ihe Relevance s£ Education- New York: Norton and Co. Cairney, T. H. (1988). The purpose leachei 4J: 420-428. Church  Susan. (1985). 175-179.  Blossoming  of basals: what children think. Jhe Reading  in the Writing Community.  Language  Arts. £J:  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 Communication _ 22: 122-131.  of  Learning.  College  Composition and  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 Communication _ 22: 64-75.  and  Writing.  College  Composition  and  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 Publications. Graves,  D. (1983). Writing; IsacJieis Heinemann Educational Books.  Language. Richmond Hill:  and Cjnldien  al  Work.  Scholastic  New Hampshire:  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 Composition and Communication. 3J.: 42-50.  Learning. College  Petrosky, A. (1982). From Story to Essay: Reading and Writing. College Composition and Communications. 3J: 19-37. Rich,  S. (1985). Restoring Power Language Arts. £2: 717-724.  to  Teachers:The  Impact  of  "Whole  Language."  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 Language Alls. £1: 33-45. Tway, Eileen. (1984). Knowledge 535-537.  Model of Reading.  and Control Through Writing. language Ads. .61.:  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 Technology.  Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of  Ziegler,  New  A. (1981). Collaborative.  J n £ Writing  Workshop.  86  York:  Teachers  and Writers  APPENDIX FIRST  A  QUESTIONNAIRE  87  QUESTIONNAIRE  PART A WHICH OF THE A L T E R N A T I V E S BELOW BEST DESCRIBES YOUR VIEWPOINT? P L E A S E CHECK C > ONE ONLY UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE 1) How o f t e n d u r i n g e a c h d a y do y o u r paragraph or more? a> b) c) d)  students write a  once, or l e s s o f t e n two t i m e s three times f o u r o r more t i m e s  2) To what e x t e n t d o y o u r for w r i t i n g ? a) 25/., o r l e s s b ) 507. c) 75"/. d ) 1007.  s t u d e n t s choose t h e i r  own  topics  3) How d o y o u r 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) a s s o m e t h i n g t o a v o i d i f a t 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 d o s o 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 d o d) a s an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p u t what t h e y t h i n k on p a p e r  4) To what e x t e n t d o y o u f i n d s t u d e n t s a r e w i l l i n g t o discuss their w r i t i n g topic with the teacher? a) n o t v e r y w i l l i n g b) s o m e t i m e s 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 concerned w i t h : — a) m a k i n g a n e a t job o f t h e wr i t i n g / p r i n t i ng b) c o r r e c t i n g s p e l l i n g a n d 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) m a k i n g s u r e t e x t s a v s what t h e y want i t t o s a y  6)  How i s t h e f i n a l  _: a ) b) c) d)  marked o r s e n t home kept i n a published  draft of a text  treated?  e v a l u a t e d , then d i s c a r d e d 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 folder forstudent's future reference f o r o t h e r s t o read  PART B 7) How u s e f u l d o y o u f i n d p e e r g r o u p / o r w h o l e 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 b l e m s when l o o k i n g a t an e a r l y d r a f t ? a) b) c) d)  not e s p e c i a l l y h e l p f u l sometimes h e l p f u l often helpful an i n v a l u a b l e h e l p  85 Do y o u f i n d work w i t h o t h e r a) r a r e l y b) a s n o r m a l  that students students, b)  practice  tend  t o share their  written  reluctantly c)eagerly  3) A r e your s t u d e n t s considerate of the feelings ofthe s t u d e n t w r i t e r when c o m m e n t i n g on a c l a s s m a t e ' s written text ? a) s o m e t i m e s i n c o n s i d e r a t e teacher b) u s u a l l y  b) when r e m i n d e d b y t h e d) a l w a y s  10) W h i c h w o u l d y o u e n c o u r a g e 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 f r o m y o u r 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 draft of a classmate's story? a) b) c) d)  s a y i t was a v e r y n i c e s t o r y point out t h e part they l i k e d a s k g u e s t i o n s a b o u t what t h e y f o u n d most i n t e r e s t i n g ask about any part they d i d not understand 8 9  11) D u r i n g a n y p a r t o f y o u r c l a s s w r i t i n g p e r i o d do y o u l e t your s t u d e n t s s e e y o u w r i t i n q a l o n g w i t h them? a) n o t 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 o f 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) a s n o r m a l p r o c e d u r e d u r i n g e a c h w r i t i n g p e r i o d  12) I n d i s c u s s i n g a student's d e v e l o p i n g t e x t w i t h him, w h i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g w o u l d y o u 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 o u t 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 expressed c o r r e c t l y c) A s k i n g what h e meant i n a s e c t i o n w h i c h i s n o t c l e a r d) A s k i n g q u e s t i o n s a b o u t what t h e w r i t e r h a s t o s a y  13) How do y o u r a)do b)as c)as d)as  students see themselves  as w r i t e r s ?  not t h i n k o f themselves as r e a l w r i t e r s students learning t o write well writers i n apprentice-ship 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  authors  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 "published" , 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 for readers. a) 2 5 % 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 to p u b l i s h any g i v e n f i n a l d r a f t ?  decision  a) t e a c h e r d e c i d e s b) s t u d e n t sometimes decides c)student usually decides d) s t u d e n t d e c i d e s 90  1&) W h i c h d o y o u 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 used for evaluation b) _ s t u d e n t c h o s e s w h i c h t e x t s w i l l b e 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 )  be  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) b) c) d)  from t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t ' s interests from c l a s s i n t e r e s t s from areas studied i n class 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 made:—  an o r i g i n a l  draft,  _  a r e r e v i s i o n s most  often  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 o r q r o u p 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 m a r k e d o r e v a l u a t e d b y t h e t e a c h e r e) .other (please specify) ..... 19) What r e c o r d s a r e k e p t o f c l a s s r o o m w r i t i n g d o n e b y individual students? (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 k e e p s r e c o r d o f what h e / s h e h a s w r i t t e n b) a c l a s s r o o m l i s t o r r e c o r d i s k e p t on d i s p l a y c) t e a c h e r k e e p s r e c o r d s o f who h a s 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 t o p i c throuqh advance n o t i c e ? a) no a d v a n c e n o t i c e , b u t c l a s s t i m e i s p r o v i d e d b) oc a s i on a 1 1 y c) . often d) as normal p r a c t i c e 91  of a  21) How much o f a t i m e l a p s e do y o u f e e l between t h e f i r s t d r a f t and t h e s e c o n d ? s t u d e n t s c h o o s e when t h e y a r e r e a d y s e v e r a l days a f t e r f i r s t d r a f t the day a f t e r t h e f i r s t d r a f t , t h e same d a y t h e same w r i t i n g p e r i o d  22) etc.)  i s appropriate  t o w r i t e second  How a r e w r i t i n g m a t e r i a l s (paper, organised i n t h e classroom?  pencils,  draft _  folders  a_ . m a t e r i a l s a r e k e p t i n an a s s i g n e d s p o t b _ one s t u d e n t i s i n charge of m a t e r i a l s c s t u d e n t s a s k t e a c h e r o r h e l p e r f o r m a t e r i a l s when n e e d e d d_ . t e a c h e r o r h e l p e r h a n d s o u t m a t e r i a l s a t s t a r t o f c l a s s e_ other (specify) _ 23) During w r i t i n g dealt with?  t i m e how a r e s t u d e n t  writing  problems  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 o r 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 e n c o u r 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 n o s e t p r o c e d u r e , d e p e n d s on s i t u a t i o n  PART D FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS C I R C L E THE RESPONSE BELOW WHICH YOU F E E L I S APPROPRIATE:-  24) In c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n i t i shelpful f o rt h e teacher t o s h a r e w i t h s t u d e n t s h e r own p r o b l e m s 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 ) Completely  Agree  Agree  Disagree  92  Completely  Disaaree  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 e x a m p l e s o r 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 p r o b l e m s s h o u l d n o t be s h a r e d with students.  Completely Aqree  Agree  Disaqree  Completely  Disaoree  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 o r student 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 n o t 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 relevant connections with the class. ( i . e . t h a t r e m i n d s me o f t h e t i m e . . , o r s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h a t h a p p e n e d t o me o n c e , a n d I f e l t t h e same way...) Completely Agree  Agree  Disagree  Completely  Disaqree  2 7 ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d n o t 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 " . T h a t i s , t h e y s h o u l d b e 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 T r a d e Books j u s t a s 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 . Completely Agree  Agree  Disagree  Completely  Disaqree  PART E 28) W r i t i n g on t o p i c s o f home a n d f a m i l y c a n o f t e n theraputic for children.  be  Completely Agree  Disaqree  Agree  Disagree  Completely  29) I n s h a r i n g s t o r i e s w r i t t e n ( o r r e a d ) b y s t u d e n t s i t i s useful t o encourage d i s c u s s i o n of p o s s i b l e motives f o r characters. (e.g. Why d i d s h e b e h a v e t h a t way? Maybe s h e was l o n e l y , jealous etc.) Completely Aqreee  Agree  Disagree  93  Completely  Disaqree  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 o f 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 encouraaes students to see lanquage as 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 they l i v e i n . Completely Agree  Agree  Disaqree  Completely  Disaqree  31) A s a r u l e , s t u d e n t s do n o t h a v e 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 h a v e a u t h e n t i c v i e w s a n d o p i n i o n s o f t h e i r own, Completely Agree  Agree  Disaqree  Completely  Disaqree  3 2 ) S t u d e n t w r i t i n g c a n b e 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 . Completely Agree Agree Disaqree Completely Disaqree  CHECK 33) a ) _. b) c) d)  THE STATEMENT WHICH MOST AGREES WITH YOUR E X P E R I E N C E Having  students w r i t e i n Journals tends t o : -  often lead t o a dialogue with the teacher 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 g r a m b l e a l i t t l e t o o much t o b e e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l  94  APPENDIX  B  TALLY SHEET OF PANEL'S PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENT  95  T A L L Y SHEET - P A N E L AGREEMENT  Trials  X  ,9 y  10  :  l9 y  10  10 IQ  ?  y  7 10  ^.3 ^  y  f  ? . 1 ID  07of Qy^ o  -r/y^-y  ID 10  1  10 '^y^  2 <t 9  yy  9  10 1 5#  Red  =  Blue  -  R^SpeoT-  CoiocT\r© (  SKav»'i»sj 96  J  APPENDIX  C  REVISED QUESTIONS BY STRAND  WITH PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENT  97  1.  CONTROL - 7  Questions  1) How o f t e n do y o u r s t u d e n t s w r i t e an e x t e n d e d p i e c e o f writing? ( s e v e r a l s e n t e n c e s o r 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 , o r s o m e t i m e s less b) o n c e o r t w i c e a week c) t h r e e or f o u r times a week d) more t h a n o n c e a d a y  2) F r o m what a r e a do stem? a) b ) c) d)  the  majority  of t o p i c s  for writing  from the i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t ' s interests from c l a s s i n t e r e s t s from areas s t u d i e d i n c l a s s 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 t h e y may a)  o f t e n are s t u d e n t s g i v e n advance n o t i c e have t i m e t o s e l e c t a t o p i c ?  so  that  no a d v a n c e n o t i c e , b u t c l a s s t i m e i s p r o v i d e d a t s t a r t of the w r i t i n g p e r i o d . i t i s s t a n d a r d procedure to g i v e advance n o t i c e most t o p i c s a r e a s s i g n e d by t h e t e a c h e r when p o s s i b l e a d v a n c e n o t i c e i s p r o v i d e d  b) c) c)  9) topics a) b) c) d)  To what e x t e n t do for writing?  your s t u d e n t s choose t h e i r  seldom occasionally often always  98  own  the  CONTROL  -continued  12) How w o u l d y o u l i k e your t h e y do i n t h e c l a s s r o o m ? a) b) c) d)  as as as as  students to view the w r i t i n g  s o m e t h i n g p l e a s a n t t h e t e a c h e r w a n t s t h e m t o do a l e a r n i n g t a s k s e t f o r them by t h e t e a c h e r s o m e 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 a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o p u t what t h e y t h i n k on p a p e r  13) Do y o u t h i n k writers?  your  s t u d e n t s s h o u l d see themselves  as r e a l  a) no, t h i s i s n o t 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) n o t n e c e s s a r i l y , a s 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 , 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 authors  14) Who do y o u c o n s i d e r t h e 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 classroom? 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.  6)  RESPECT - ^ Questions  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) m a r k e d o r 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 p a p e r s a n d worksheets c) p u b l i s h e d f o r other students i n t h e classroom t o read 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 student's developing text with h i m / h e r , w h i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g w o u l d y o u c o n s i d e r t h e most valuable? a) b) c) d)  15) aj o d  )  P o i n t i n g out e d i t i n g problems Asking about the w r i t e r ' s intent Asking about the intended audience f o r the t e x t P o i n t i n g o u t where s o m e t h i n g i s n o t c l e a r t o t h e r e a d e r  Student  writing  i n J o u r n a l s tends t o : -  6l>. often lead t o a dialogue with the teacher g i v e s t u d e n t s a forum f o r working out problems' Provide ideas and t o p i c s f o r f u r t h e r w r i t i n q r a m b l e 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 n o t have t h e l i f e experience 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. a)  Agree  b) 100  Disagree  5  a  3. 4)  SHARING -  D u r i n g a n y p a r t o£  6 Questions  your  c l a s s w r i t i n g p e r i o d do y o u  l e t y o u r s t u d e n t s s e e y o u w r i t i n g a l o n g w i t h them? iO^f a) n o , t h i s i s n o t a n a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e f o r t h e t e a c h e r to w r i t e . b) n o , am t o o b u s y h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s w i t h t h e i r p r o b l e m s c ) y e s , 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 g p e r i o d s d) y e s , a s n o r m a l p r o c e d u r e d u r i n g e a c h w r i t i n g p e r i o d 5) During w r i t i n g dealt with? a) b) c) d  t i m e how a r e s t u d e n t w r i t i n g  problems  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 s t u d e n t asks t e a c h e r or a peer f o r h e l p s t u d e n t i s e n c o u r 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 student w r i t i n g problems a r e addressed i n g e n e r a l w i t h the c l a s s  7) When c o m m e n t i n g on a c l a s s m a t e ' s written text, are 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 student writer? a) b) c) d)  sometimes i n c o n s i d e r a t e c o n s i d e r a t e when r e m i n d e d b y t h e t e a c h e r usually considerate 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 p e e r g r o u p / o r w h o l e 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 a n d s o l v i n g w r i t i n g p r o b l e m s when l o o k i n g a t an e a r l y d r a f t ? a) b) c) d)  not e s p e c i a l l y h e l p f u l sometimes h e l p f u l often helpful 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 u s e d 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 time. ( e.g. a)  How I c h o s e t h i s  Agree  b)  topic Disagree 101  from  these three  choices) (d^O  4.  LEARNING  -I* Q u e s t i o n s  8) When s h a r i n g s t o r i e s w r i t t e n b y s t u d e n t s do y o u encourage d i s c u s s i o n and c r i t i c i s m o f p o s s i b l e motives f o r c h a r a c t e r s , ( e . g . What w o u l d make h e r a c t l i k e t h a t ? ) a) b) c) d)  y e s , t h i s a l l o w s students t o l e a r n from t h e c h a r a c t e r s in their stories 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 a b o u t how t h e y w i l l w r i t e a b o u t t h e i r own s t o r y c h a r a c t e r s no, t h e c r i t i c i s m c a n d e t e r b e g i n n i n g w r i t e r s 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 d o e s n o t j u s t i f y t h e amount o f t i m e 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  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 t h e b e h a v i o u r o f p e o p l 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  Disagree  19) W r i t i n g on t o p i c s o f home a n d f a m i l y c a n o f t e n be therapeutic f o r children. a)  Agree  b)  Disagree 1°,  21) S t u d e n t w r i t i n g c a n be a n e x c e l l e n t t o o l t h r o u g h s t u d e n t s c a n 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 , a n d perceptions. a) Agree b) _ _ _ D i s a g r e e _  which  9>o  102  APPENDIX  REVISED  D  QUESTIONNAIRE  103  QUESTIONNAIRE  - PART A  A Female  1. M a l e Number 0—5yrs 3. Most  of years i n teaching? 6-10yrs ll-15yrs  recent  training  19  completed  4. Age? Oyrs 5. Most  recent  workshop  +51yrs  41-50yrs  31-40yrs taken  19  C I R C L E THE ANSWER WHICH CORRESPONDS VIEW:1= S t r o n g l y A g r e e 2=Agree 5=Strongly Disagree  MOST WITH YOUR POINT OF  3=Not S u r e  6. The r e p e t i t i o n o f words in a r e a d i n g p a s s a g e i s an e f f e c t i v e technique i n teaching reading t o students in the e a r l i e s t grades.  +21vrs  16-20yrs  4=Disagree  1  2  3  4  7. V o c a b u l a r y e x e r c i s e s a r e a v a l u a b l e tool f o r improving the middle-school student's reading a b i l i t y .  1  2  3  4  8. I f i n d i t u s e f u l t o keep a class record of the reading s k i l l s m a s t e r e d by e a c h individual student.  1  104  2  3  4  5  5  5  9. The b a s a l central part program.  reader i s the o f my r e a d i n g 1  10. From a p r a c t i c a l viewpoint t h e s t a n d a r d b a s a l r e a d e r can be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o most r e a d i n g programs. 1  11. A b a s i c k n o w l e d g e o f p h o n i c s provides the student with a strong f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e 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. T e a c h i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n s k i l l s i s u s e f u l i n a whole-language approach to reading. 1  13. W h i l e n o t c e n t r a l t o my r e a d i n g program, the b a s a l r e a d e r does p r o v i d e a v a l u a b l e source of reading m a t e r i a l s graded to the student's reading 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 s l o w r e a d e r s w i t h new r e a d i n g w o r d s .  1  15. An e f f e c t i v e r e a d i n g p r o g r a m s h o u l d u s e an e c l e c t i c a p p r o a c h i n c l u d i n g b o t h p h o n i c s and word attack 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 o f t e n do your s t u d e n t s w r i t e an extended p i e c e of writing? ( 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 tends t o be one sentence, or sometimes less b) once o r t w i c e a week c) t h r e e o r f o u r times a week d) more than once a day  2) From what a r e a stem? a) b ) c) d)  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  from t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t ' s interests from c l a s s i n t e r e s t s from a r e a s s t u d i e d i n c l a s s 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) b) c) c)  no advance n o t i c e , but c l a s s time Is p r o v i d e d a t t h e s t a r t of the w r i t i n g period. i t I s s t a n d a r d procedure t o g i v e advance n o t i c e most t o p i c s a r e a s s i g n e d by the teacher 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  4) During any p a r t of 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 g a l o n g w i t h them? a) no, to b) no, c) yes, d) yes,  t h i s Is 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 write. 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 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 g p e r i o d s as normal procedure d u r i n g each w r i t i n g p e r i o d  106  5) During w r i t i n g time how a r e s t u d e n t w r i t i n g problems d e a l t with? a) b) c) d  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 s t u d e n t asks t e a c h e r or a peer f o r h e l p 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 s t u d e n t w r i t i n g problems a r e addressed i n g e n e r a l w i t h the c l a s s  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 o r 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 other papers and worksheets 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 read d) kept 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  7) When commenting on a c l a s s m a t e ' s written text, are 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 writer? a) b) c) d)  sometimes i n c o n s i d e r a t e c o n s i d e r a t e when reminded by the t e a c h e r usually considerate s u p p o r t i v e o f one another  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 o f p o s s i b l e motives 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) b) c) d)  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 t h e c h a r a c t e r s in their stories 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 no, t h e 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 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 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 10?  9) topics a) b) c) d)  To for  what e x t e n t writing?  do  your  students  choose  their  own  seldom occasionally often always  10) How u s e f u l i s p e e r g r o u p / o r 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 b l e m s when looking a t an e a r l y d r a f t ? a) b) c) d)  not e s p e c i a l l y h e l p f u l sometimes h e l p f u l often helpful 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 him/her, which of valuable? a) b) c) d)  a the  student's following  developing text with would you c o n s i d e r t h e  P o i n t i n g out e d i t i n g problems A s k i n g about the w r i t e r ' s intent Asking about the Intended audience f o r the t e x t P o i n t i n g o u t where s o m e t h i n g i s n o t c l e a r t o t h e  12) How w o u l d you l i k e your t h e y do i n t h e c l a s s r o o m ? a) b) c) d)  as as as as  students  to  v i e w the  most  reader  writing  s o m e 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 a l e a r n i n g t a s k s e t f o r them by t h e t e a c h e r s o m e 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 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 p a p e r  108  13) Do y o u t h i n k y o u r writers?  students  should see themselves  as r e a l  a) n o , t h i s i s n o t 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) n o t n e c e s s a r i l y , a s 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 , 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 authors  14) Who do y o u c o n s i d e r t h e 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 classroom? a) t e a c h e r d e c i d e s c ) s t u d e n t and t e a c h e r  b) c l a s s d e c i d e s decide d) s t u d e n t  15)  i n J o u r n a l s tends t o : -  a) b) c) d)  Student  writing  decides.  often lead t o a dialogue with the teacher g i v e s t u d e n t s a forum f o r working out problems provide ideas and t o p i c s f o r f u r t h e r w r i t i n g r a m b l e 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 t h e b e h a v i o u r o f 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 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  Disagree.  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 procedures he/she has u s e d 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 c h o s e t h i s t o p i c f r o m t h e s e t h r e e c h o i c e s ) a)  Agree  b)  Disagree  109  18) I f t h e t e a c h e r s h a r e s any o f h e r / h i s w r i t i n g w i t h c l a s s , c a r e s h o u l d be t a k e n t o e n s u r e t h a t o n l y the polished, error-free form i s modelled.  a)  Agree  19) W r i t i n g therapeutic a)  b)  Disagree  on t o p i c s o f home and for c h i l d r e n .  Agree  b)  family  can  often  Agree  21) S t u d e n t w r i t i n g c a n be s t u d e n t s can e x p l o r e t h e i r perceptions. a) Agree  be  Disagree  20) As a r u l e , s t u d e n t w r i t e r s do n o t have t h e experience 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 their own. a)  the  b)  life opinions  Disagree  an e x c e l l e n t t o o l t h r o u g h own f e e l i n g s , i d e a s , and b)  110  Disagree  which  of  22> L i s t t h e forms o f 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 - story, letter, journal. .. )  23) L i s t types of w r i t i n g problems ( i f any) which you f i n d y o u h a v e i n common w i t h some o f y o u r 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 a n y a r e a s i n w h i c h some o f y o u r s t u d e n t s h a v e u s w r i t i n g o v e r t h e l a s t t w o week p e r i o d t o e x p l o r e s o m e t h i n g t h e y have been t h i n k i n g o r t a l k i n g a b o u t , (e.g. f r i e n d s , anger, a p e t . . )  25) I f y o u w i s h t o i m p r o v e 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 w o u l d y o u f i n d most a p p r o p r i a t e i n responding t o t h i s entry i n t h i s student's journal? "Our dog d i e d a t S u n d a y , s h e wos v e r y o l d and h e r l e g hurt wen s h e woked t o f a r s h e d i d n t r u n much any more." K e v i n,  111  APPENDIX  E  TALLY SHEETS FOR OPEN-ENDED  112  QUESTIONS  OPEN-ENDED QUESTION on  3 o . U § l  _  _  Q'u . y r x . . . *vM<?r-i< .^=r^r...~V.\eTi^r_i.\ .-  '. ./  V/ V x y  CONTROL  'Li-  _  „_JL__ y.y  <j£ y /.  . 1/ V v/  ^cttv,  <$)  —  .\/ . ~l  S s is  t> 4  0  TC;^ ^fy,,  ?  V-..S7. . 1 .  —V< s/.. v/  «scvi.^rl.  ...  1  i  «- I j  o  lAv<v>".^-  j  v  -0-  3  i ^ . ^ ^ . ' j ^ ^ A ^ w . J l s . (^>-.c._hSc^.eL^.i^_jud.^/-k^ul / ^ Si^.-s ^HAKVS •/ _/  \s. s  1/  ^  :^L^^.yl«i.^-j: « ^—-----— (C^i-J-  •  .... @ y  -~.Ac^?»-.(.^.4vt/.g v/.y< Ss/ - -r- S^iA._£^l^\«>A^i_-(cl.*.-) vi_t/ f  #  / y v v / v i ' ^ ^ yy<.' </yy <s v.y? s^yy i/»v ^ 5* V/k/v/Vu!.  fer  1  w/  | O  |  ?  ;  P.__  -  \  j  0 s/  ~  0"^ay^  |  "*  </ \^  3 s  cy  1  y  1  ,y  i  v  f 0 d  o -  -IM-U^ +  \*t>>Hivi  yis y.  3  l/  1 •  o ! 2 . |  c^r-.  ccp--  113  0  e,.-  ^  ' |  OPEN-ENDED QUESTION on SHARING  . A 3 .  t  r ^—f^jg>.c-e.  4^ y y y  /  y  y  0 ^  y  A.  42-  6 0  114  OPEN-ENDED QUESTION  on LEARNING  G I  f  v' l /  *  •  I  r .1 • ° o  ^%/  l /  3L I  3  1/  tr  4/ i  1 /  3  ^  o .. i  1  _  J._  _ \  ~(L.  L  JC5_  A  c  o  'SU^npUO^o P r * i M v » w V _ ...  CVfts»_R-i^a { L ^ v w ^ O  -  c.  IX.._. ....  6  / ll  y  I  i Hew-  *w.  i <  <A  y. D  3  <  I  c>  o 0  115  -(JS>>  OPEN-ENDED QUESTION  116  on RESPECT  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 6 1
China 5 10
France 3 0
Vietnam 2 0
Russia 1 0
Germany 1 6
Canada 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 6 7
Ashburn 3 0
Shenzhen 3 10
Beijing 2 0
Hanoi 2 0
Kitchener 1 0
Mountain View 1 0
Saint Petersburg 1 0

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

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078365/manifest

Comment

Related Items