Teaching Elementary School Students to Be Effective Writers. A Practice Guide

109 Pages·4.923 MB·English

by  Graham S., Bollinger A. et al.

EDUCATOR’S PRACTICE GUIDE WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE
Teaching Elementary School
Students to Be Effective Writers
NCEE 2012-4058
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) publishes practice guides in education to bring the best
available evidence and expertise to bear on current challenges in education. Authors of practice
guides combine their expertise with the findings of rigorous research, when available, to develop
specific recommendations for addressing these challenges. The authors rate the strength of the
research evidence supporting each of their recommendations. See Appendix A for a full description
of practice guides.
The goal of this practice guide is to offer educators specific, evidence-based recommendations
that address the challenge of teaching writing in elementary school. The guide provides practical,
clear information on critical topics related to teaching writing and is based on the best available
evidence as judged by the authors.
Practice guides published by IES are available on our website by selecting the “Practice Guides”
tab at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch.
IES Practice Guide
Teaching Elementary School Students
to Be Effective Writers
June 2012
Panel
Steve Graham (Chair)
ArizonA StAte UniverSity
Alisha Bollinger
norriS elementAry School, norriS School DiStrict, nebrASkA
Carol Booth Olson
UniverSity of cAliforniA, irvine
Catherine D’Aoust
UniverSity of cAliforniA, irvine
Charles MacArthur
UniverSity of DelAwAre
Deborah McCutchen
UniverSity of wAShington
Natalie Olinghouse
UniverSity of connecticUt
Staff
M. C. Bradley
Virginia Knechtel
Bryce Onaran
Cassandra Pickens Jewell
mAthemAticA Policy reSeArch
Project Officer
Joy Lesnick
inStitUte of eDUcAtion ScienceS
NCEE 2012-4058
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences under Contract ED-07-CO-0062 by the What Works Clearinghouse,
which is operated by Mathematica Policy Research.
Disclaimer
The opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the opinions and positions of the Institute of Education Sciences or the
U.S. Department of Education. This practice guide should be reviewed and applied according to
the specific needs of the educators and education agency using it, and with full realization that
it represents the judgments of the review panel regarding what constitutes sensible practice,
based on the research that was available at the time of publication. This practice guide should be
used as a tool to assist in decisionmaking rather than as a “cookbook.” Any references within the
document to specific education products are illustrative and do not imply endorsement of these
products to the exclusion of other products that are not referenced.
U.S. Department of Education
Arne Duncan
Secretary
Institute of Education Sciences
John Q. Easton
Director
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
Rebecca A. Maynard
Commissioner
June 2012
This report is in the public domain. Although permission to reprint this publication is not necessary,
the citation should be:
Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse,
N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-
4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Insti-
tute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch.
What Works Clearinghouse practice guide citations begin with the panel chair, followed by the
names of the panelists listed in alphabetical order.
This report is available on the IES website at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee and http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch.
Alternate Formats
On request, this publication can be made available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or
CD. For more information, contact the Alternate Format Center at (202) 260–0852 or (202) 260–0818.
Contents
Teaching Elementary School Students
to Be Effective Writers
Table of Contents
Review of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Institute of Education Sciences Levels of Evidence for Practice Guides . . . . . . . 3
Introduction to the Teaching Elementary School Students
to Be Effective Writers Practice Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Recommendation 1. Provide daily time for students to write . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Recommendation 2. Teach students to use the writing process for a variety of purposes . . . 12
Understanding the Writing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Recommendation 2a. Teach students the writing process . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recommendation 2b. Teach students to write for a variety of purposes . . . . . . 20
Recommendation 3. Teach students to become fluent with handwriting, spelling,
sentence construction, typing, and word processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Recommendation 4. Create an engaged community of writers . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A. Postscript from the Institute of Education Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix B. About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix C. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix D. Rationale for Evidence Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
( iii )
Table of Contents (continued)
List of Tables
Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides . . . . . . . .4
Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Table 3. Examples of writing strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 4. Purposes for writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 5. Examples of techniques within the four purposes of writing . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 6. Spelling skills by grade level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 7. Activities for sentence-structure development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table D.1. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 1 . . . . . 51
Table D.2. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 1 . . . 52
Table D.3. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 2 . . . . . 54
Table D.4. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 2 . . . 64
Table D.5. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 3 . . . . . 73
Table D.6. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 3 . . . 74
Table D.7. Studies that contribute to the level of evidence for Recommendation 4 . . . . . 78
Table D.8. Supplemental evidence supporting the effectiveness of Recommendation 4 . . . 79
List of Figures
Figure 1. Gradual release of responsibility to students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 2. Handwriting-practice diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
List of Examples
Example 1. Applying the writing process in an upper elementary classroom . . . . . . . 20
Example 2. Story emulation of Rosie’s Walk with 1st-grade students . . . . . . . . . . 23
Example 3. Using text as a model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Example 4. The Westward Movement prompt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Example 5. “Star of the Day” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Example 6. “Author’s Chair” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
(( iivv ))
Review of Recommendations
Recommendation 1.
Provide daily time for students to write.
Recommendation 2.
Teach students to use the writing process for a variety of purposes.
Recommendation 2a.
Teach students the writing process.
1. Teach students strategies for the various components of the writing process.
2. Gradually release writing responsibility from the teacher to the student.
3. Guide students to select and use appropriate writing strategies.
4. Encourage students to be flexible in their use of the components of the writing process.
Recommendation 2b.
Teach students to write for a variety of purposes.
1. Help students understand the different purposes of writing.
2. Expand students’ concept of audience.
3. Teach students to emulate the features of good writing.
4. Teach students techniques for writing effectively for different purposes.
Recommendation 3.
Teach students to become fluent with handwriting, spelling, sentence construction, typing, and
word processing.
1. Teach very young writers how to hold a pencil correctly and form letters fluently and efficiently.
2. Teach students to spell words correctly.
3. Teach students to construct sentences for fluency, meaning, and style.
4. Teach students to type fluently and to use a word processor to compose.
Recommendation 4.
Create an engaged community of writers.
1. Teachers should participate as members of the community by writing and sharing their writing.
2. Give students writing choices.
3. Encourage students to collaborate as writers.
4. Provide students with opportunities to give and receive feedback throughout the writing process.
5. Publish students’ writing, and extend the community beyond the classroom.
( 1 )
Acknowledgments
T he panel appreciates the efforts of Virginia Knechtel, M. C. “Cay” Bradley, Bryce Onaran, and
Cassie Pickens Jewell, staff from Mathematica Policy Research who participated in the panel
meetings, described the research findings, and drafted the guide. We also thank Scott Cody, Kristin
Hallgren, David Hill, Claudia Gentile, Brian Gill, and Shannon Monahan for helpful feedback and
reviews of drafts of the guide.
Steve Graham
Alisha Bollinger
Carol Booth Olson
Catherine D’Aoust
Charles MacArthur
Deborah McCutchen
Natalie Olinghouse
( 2 )
Levels of Evidence for Practice Guides
Institute of Education Sciences Levels of Evidence for Practice Guides
This section provides information about the role of evidence in Institute of Education Sciences’
(IES) What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) practice guides. It describes how practice guide panels
determine the level of evidence for each recommendation and explains the criteria for each of the
three levels of evidence (strong evidence, moderate evidence, and minimal evidence).
The level of evidence assigned to each recom- A rating of moderate evidence refers either to
mendation in this practice guide represents the evidence from studies that allow strong causal
panel’s judgment of the quality of the existing conclusions but cannot be generalized with
research to support a claim that, when these assurance to the population on which a recom-
practices were implemented in past research, mendation is focused (perhaps because the
positive effects were observed on student findings have not been widely replicated) or to
outcomes. After careful review of the studies evidence from studies that are generalizable
supporting each recommendation, panelists but have some causal ambiguity. It also might
determine the level of evidence for each recom- be that the studies that exist do not specifi-
mendation using the criteria in Table 1. The cally examine the outcomes of interest in the
panel first considers the relevance of individ- practice guide, although they may be related.
ual studies to the recommendation and then
discusses the entire evidence base, taking the A rating of minimal evidence suggests that the
following into consideration: panel cannot point to a body of research that
demonstrates the practice’s positive effect on
• the number of studies student achievement. In some cases, this simply
means that the recommended practices would
• the design of the studies
be difficult to study in a rigorous, experimental
fashion;2 in other cases, it means that research-
• the quality of the studies
ers have not yet studied this practice, or that
• whether the studies represent the range there is weak or conflicting evidence of effec-
of participants and settings on which the tiveness. A minimal evidence rating does not
recommendation is focused indicate that the recommendation is any less
important than other recommendations with
• whether findings from the studies can be
a strong evidence or moderate evidence rating.
attributed to the recommended practice
In developing the levels of evidence, the panel
• whether findings in the studies are consis-
considers each of the criteria in Table 1. The
tently positive
level of evidence rating is determined as the
lowest rating achieved for any individual cri-
A rating of strong evidence refers to consistent
terion. Thus, for a recommendation to get a
evidence that the recommended strategies,
strong rating, the research must be rated as
programs, or practices improve student
strong on each criterion. If at least one criterion
outcomes for a wide population of students.1
receives a rating of moderate and none receive
In other words, there is strong causal and
a rating of minimal, then the level of evidence
generalizable evidence.
is determined to be moderate. If one or more
criteria receive a rating of minimal, then the
level of evidence is determined to be minimal.
( 3 )
Levels of Evidence for Practice Guides (continued)
Table 1. Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice guides
STRONG MODERATE MINIMAL
Criteria Evidence Base Evidence Base Evidence Base
Validity High internal validity (high- High internal validity but The research may include
quality causal designs). moderate external validity evidence from studies that
Studies must meet WWC (i.e., studies that support do not meet the criteria
standards with or without strong causal conclusions but for moderate or strong
reservations.3 generalization is uncertain). evidence (e.g., case studies,
AND OR qualitative research).
High external validity High external validity but
(requires multiple studies moderate internal validity
with high-quality causal (i.e., studies that support the
designs that represent the generality of a relation but
population on which the the causality is uncertain).4
recommendation is focused).
Studies must meet WWC
standards with or without
reservations.
Effects on Consistent positive effects A preponderance of evidence There may be weak or
relevant without contradictory of positive effects. Contradic- contradictory evidence
outcomes evidence (i.e., no statisti- tory evidence (i.e., statisti- of effects.
cally significant negative cally significant negative
effects) in studies with high effects) must be discussed
internal validity. by the panel and considered
with regard to relevance to
the scope of the guide and
intensity of the recommenda-
tion as a component of the
intervention evaluated.
Relevance to Direct relevance to scope Relevance to scope (ecologi- The research may be
scope (i.e., ecological validity)— cal validity) may vary, includ- out of the scope of the
relevant context (e.g., ing relevant context (e.g., practice guide.
classroom vs. laboratory), classroom vs. laboratory),
sample (e.g., age and char- sample (e.g., age and char-
acteristics), and outcomes acteristics), and outcomes
evaluated. evaluated. At least some
research is directly relevant
to scope (but the research
that is relevant to scope does
not qualify as strong with
respect to validity).
Relationship Direct test of the recom- Intensity of the recommen- Studies for which the
between mendation in the studies dation as a component of intensity of the recommen-
research and or the recommendation the interventions evaluated dation as a component of
recommendations is a major component of in the studies may vary. the interventions evaluated
the intervention tested in in the studies is low; and/or
the studies. the recommendation
reflects expert opinion
based on reasonable extrapo-
lations from research.
(continued)
( 4 )