Teachers for a New Era

Teachers for a New Era

Writing Project, Year 2

Research Team: Elizabeth Adams, Ian Barnard, Suzanne Scheld, Steve Wexler

Graduate Assistant: Diana Shamiryan

Table of Contents:

A.  Introduction and Overview….2

B.  Research Questions and Methods….4

C.  Analysis of Class Topics and Observation Comments….9

D.  Philosophies of Teaching Writing….12

E.  Perceptions of Students….13

F.  Teacher Identity….14

G.  Approaches to Responding to Student Writing….16

H.  Politics of the Study….18

I.  Conclusion and Directions for future research….18

Appendices

A.  Pre-Interview Survey….19

B.  Observation Instrument….23

C.  Post Observation Interview Questions (observation 1)….28

D.  Post Observation Interview Questions (observation 2)….33

E.  Post-Observation Interview Write-Up Form….38

F.  Observation Tallies…40

A. Introduction and Overview

This year’s project was a continuation of last year’s project. The same research questions continue to drive the study:

1.  Are writing expectations the same across subject matter and education?

2.  Are all Liberal Studies pathways equal in success in candidates’ ability to write and teach writing?

3.  What pieces of the Liberal Studies curriculum are most helpful in improving students’ writing abilities?

Our study had three components, first was shelved, the second is underway, the third was the bulk of the work done for the year.

A.  We proposed that we would follow students from last year’s project into ENGL 305 (maximum N for this project will be 25) and reevaluate their writing after ENGL 305 to see what changes have occurred as a result of that class. Only a few students (less than 10) enrolled in English 305 and we were unable to collect writing samples from them. Instead, we will collect writing samples from the students in the Year 1 study from the student teaching courses (EED 477B and EED 579) to compare to their initial samples from Fall 2006

B.  We began the development of an observational protocol in Spring 08 for observing and assessing elementary school writing teaching in Fall 08 and beyond. Using the principles and instruments from the TNE Math project and ethnographic research methods more broadly and adapting them as appropriate for observing writing instruction, we have begun work on this protocol.

C.  The bulk of our work this year focused on an examination of ENGL 305 (Intermediate Composition) to get a snapshot of how Liberal Studies students are being instructed in composition at the upper division level. We collected syllabi from all the sections of ENGL 305 taught in Spring 2008.

The principle work of the research team was observing and documenting the content of ENGL 305 classes. We observed six sections of the course using an observational protocol. Before the observations, we gathered demographic data on the instructors and asked them about their professional backgrounds, preferences in teaching composition, and professional preparation. After the observations, we interviewed the faculty about the class sessions we had observed and the thinking that had gone into the class session itself and ENGL 305 more broadly. We observed each of these faculty a second time, asking to visit a class session where a different type of session might be observed. Most of these visits were done by pairs of faculty and the observations were normed.

In addition, we asked faculty for samples of student work with feedback on it and for their assignments and other material that might help us get a sense of the content of the course.

This study continues along a multi-pronged pathway. By examining where our students writing is (Year 1) and what they’re being taught at CSUN about writing (Year 2), we can follow them out into the classrooms to see what connections they make to their own writing process and education. By beginning with the 06-07 sample, we should have a chance to do a longitudinal study to see what correlations there are between writing ability and skill in teaching writing. This year’s work allows us to connect their university writing instruction to the writing instruction they do in K-5 settings.

We will continue to work with the English department, the Elementary Education department, and the candidates themselves in understanding what the best practices are in composition instruction and how those can be improved.

The larger question of how and under what circumstances we can have productive and substantive discussions with our K-12 partners about how we teach writing, how they teach writing and what affect it has on our candidates and their pupils can be a direct result of the work this study has begun and will continue into Year 3 and beyond.

In 2008-2009, our plan is to follow all of the students in both ITEP programs (junior option and freshman option) who were in the 06-07 study into their student teaching experience. We will observe their writing teaching and interview them about their preparation for teaching writing and about their experiences in the classroom with writing instruction. We will work with the instructor in the second reading and writing methods class (EED 477B) to embed assignments and data gathering into that course.

This study is part of the on-going Teachers for a New Era (TNE) Initiative that explores the impact of teacher education programs at CSUN. This is an exploratory project which documents the aspects of Liberal Studies curriculum that are most helpful in improving students’ writing abilities. We assume that in order to determine what would be most helpful a baseline study of current and typical classroom practices is needed. This study, therefore, seeks to document and analyze classroom practices and related discourse from the point of view of instructors teaching English 305 (Intermediate Composition). We assume students’ abilities to write and eventually teach writing to others are influenced by the structure of their undergraduate courses, the nature of teaching strategies employed in these classes, and instructors’ philosophies of teaching writing. We recognize that other factors shape students’ writing abilities as well, such as the amount of time students’ put into their writing assignments, and individuals’ capabilities for teaching and learning. We were unable to include an assessment of these factors, however, due to limited time and resources.

Our study adopts a mixed methods approach and emphasizes an ethnographic perspective on teaching practices. In a mixed methods design, qualitative and quantitative data are concurrently collected in the investigation of one question (cite). The final outcomes of our study are based on an integrated analysis of qualitative and quantitative sets of data which were gathered through systematic classroom observations, semi-structured interviews and by a content analysis of course syllabi.

This project benefits from research tools which were developed for a previous mixed methods study carried out by researchers in the TNE initiative at CSUN. The study examines teaching practices implemented by graduates from the single-subject math credential program (Gainsburg, Rothstein-Fish, Scheld, Spagna, von Mayrhauser 2008). The study quantifies the amount of time and frequency that teachers spend implementing certain “best” practices that they were exposed to in CSUN courses. It analyzes perceptions of practice and experience, and derives its findings from anthropological analytical methods. For our study of writing, we adapted the observation and interview protocols to fit the flow of behavior in composition classes. We discuss the benefits and limitations to these protocols in the method’s section.

B. Research Questions and Methods

Research Question

This study addresses the following research question:

o  What aspects of the Liberal Studies curriculum are most helpful in improving students writing abilities?

Sample

Our sample included seven sections of English 305 (Intermediate Expository Writing) from a total of 15 offered during the Spring 2008 semester.
The participants in our study were drawn from a pool of instructors teaching English 305: Intermediate Expository Writing in spring 2008. There were a total of 14 instructors scheduled to teach English 305 during the semester. Our sample is comprised of 7 instructors (n=7). Classes were capped at 27 students and either met three days per week for 50 minutes, two days per week for 75 minutes, or one day per week for 165 minutes. Some classes were held online.

Invitations were emailed to selected English 305 instructors. We excluded PACE sections of the course and one DF section because we felt that these sections would not be representative of the course as a whole. From the 14 emailed invitations, 8 initially replied Yes. From the initial 8, 1 later declined. A second email was sent notifying that a $100.00 stipend would be paid to participating instructors.

Several on-line versions of English 305 are offered at CSUN. We included at look at one section of the on-line classes in order to describe the broadest range of teaching practices that students encounter when taking writing courses at CSUN. In the descriptions below, we include characteristics of the instructor in the summary of our sample, but we do not include the outcomes from observing the on-line course in the summary of course characteristics. We discuss these outcomes in a separate section.

Additional characteristics of the sample include:
All instructors are women
5 have taught at CSUN for more than 10 years.

2 have taught at CSUN between 5 and 10 years.

0 have taught at CSUN less than 5 years.
1 has more than 10 years of relevant teaching experience at other institutions.

5 have between 5 and 10 years of relevant experience.

1 has less than 5 years of relevant experience.
1 is a tenured professor and 6 are lecturers at CSUN.
7 are native speakers of English

2 have other native languages including Afrikaans and Italian
1 identify themselves as professional writers who publish in non-academic forums.

6 write primarily for academic audiences.

Context on Research Design and Procedures

As a means of addressing the study’s research question, we adopted an anthropological approach for ensuring validity of qualitative data drawn from a small sample. This approach, which involves taking an inductive “multiple-look” (triangulated) approach to answering research questions, has been proven useful in anthropology for highlighting emergent themes and providing a sound foundation on which to rest suggestions for further research. In our case, research triangulation involved the concurrent assessment of several data streams produced from behavioral, interview, text-based, and survey-based inquiry. While we are fully aware that a small sample is not “robust” enough to warrant full-scale policy change recommendations, we do find use here for anthropology’s inductive triangulation approach as we pursue an understanding of the aspects of the Liberal Studies curriculum that are most helpful in improving students writing abilities. This report will share the themes that emerged from this inductive triangulation and indicate how the themes in themselves are clues for what to focus on in future research.

In this study we approach curriculum as an ethnographic phenomenon. From an anthropological perspective, curriculum is a set of teaching and learning “practices.” Typically, practice may be taken to mean exercising a technique, strategy or art. Putting into effect a technique often entails use of the body, mind, and verbal communication. From an anthropological perspective, practice is more encompassing. It is a concept that emphasizes how humans are versatile in different situations and can change forms of action quickly, unpredictably, consciously and unconsciously. The study of “cultural practice” entails consideration of patterned human social interactions, accommodations, adjustments and worldviews (or perceptions). Expressions of identity are an enactment of negotiated social conduct; therefore, they are also considered to be a patterned form of cultural practice.

In the pages below, we describe the particular methods and procedures employed in this project. We also describe the rationale for these methods, their limitations and other reflections on the research process.

Background Information Surveys

Prior to observing instructors, we collected background information about them and the class to be observed. With respect to instructors, we collected information about their education backgrounds, previous teaching experiences, and identity (see appendix A).

With respect to the class, we collected information about the number of students in the class, their gender, ethnic, language backgrounds, and skill level. We were also interested in knowing how many students in the class were transfer students, worked more than 20 hours, and were taking the class to pass the WPE, and exhibited any noteworthy attendance patterns. These circumstances tend to influence how teachers choose and implement teaching strategies (see appendix A).

Quantitative survey of classroom practices

As previously mentioned, the observation protocol was modeled after an instrument used in a study of math teachers. It was also informed by faculty members on the research team who have taught English 305. The instrument was designed to take an inventory of the teaching practices implemented and the amount of time practices are put into play. For example, observers record the presence of procedural tasks (P), direct instruction by instructor (D), group, non-writing/non-reading activity (G), student presentation (S), in-class writing such as brainstorming, drafting, revising, etc. (I), in-class reading, including reading in groups, instructor reading aloud, and students taking turns reading aloud (R), conferences (C), and other (O). For each of these activities, the time started, stopped and elapsed was noted. Observers also made notes about compelling language that was used as part of the practice.

Observations were conducted for the duration of a class meeting (between 50 and 75 minutes).

In addition to taking an inventory of practices, observers made general notes of class room behaviors, including making a note of the overall impression of student engagement, attitudes towards writing, nature of teacher talk, nature of student talk, sequencing of lesson sections, and the classroom atmosphere.

A note about the relative amount of time spent on writing related issues was also recorded. For example, observers noted if particular issues were dominant, significant, minimal, or not present in the classroom. These issues include: critical thinking, content, purpose, audience, organization, development of thesis, prose style, and conventions (grammar).

The observations were conducted by pairs of observers. Before the collection of data began, the research team members participated in a norming session conducted in the context of an English class. The instrument was also piloted and adjusted before data collection began. Norming and testing the instrument strengthened the reliability of our data.