THE PARADOX OF THE WRITING PROCESS PARADIGM

Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This thesis does not include

proprietary or classified information.

Carrie L. DeBilzan

Certificate of Approval:

_________________________________ _________________________________Donald R. Livingston, Ed. D. Sharon Livingston, Ph. D.Associate Professor and Co-Advisor Assistant Professor and Co-AdvisorEducation Department Education Department

THE PARADOX OF THE WRITING PROCESS PARADIGM

A project submitted

by

Carrie L. DeBilzan

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

July 14, 2011

iii

Abstract

This evaluation and action research study investigated how teaching the writing

process holistically would positively impact the writing of middle grade students.

Pretest and post-test scores were analyzed quantitatively through a dependent t test to

establish significant difference in students’ abilities to produce sophisticated

compositions prior to and following instruction of writing as a process. A chi square

statistic was calculated for each item to compare what was observed on students’ pre-

surveys and post-surveys to what would be expected by chance. Qualitative data were

gathered through interviews of the teachers and the principal to discover how willing

stakeholders were to implement changes in writing instruction. The results concluded that

teaching writing as a process does contribute to positive results in student writing.

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………….iii

Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………..iv

List of Tables…………….………………………………………………………………..v

Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………………..1Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………...1Significance of the Problem ……………………………………………………...2Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks.……………………………….…..…....2Focus Questions………………………………………………….……………….6Overview of Methodology ……………………………………………………….6Human as Researcher …………………………………………………………….8

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ……………………………………………………...9Process Versus Product …………………………………….…………………….9Organizational Changes Lead to Attitudinal Changes…………………………...12The Implementation of Process Writing……….……....……………………...…16

Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………….……..19Research Design…………………………………………………………….…...19Setting …………………………………………………………………………..19Subjects and Participants …………………………………………………….….21

Procedures and Data Collection Methods ……………………………………....22Validity, Reliability, Dependability, Bias, and Equity Measures…………….….26Analysis of Data …………………………………………………………….…..29

Chapter 4: Results ………………………………………………………………….……32

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results …………………………………….….. 44Analysis of Results………………………………………………………………44Discussion ………………………………………………………………………53Implications ……………………………………………………………………..55Impact on School Improvement ………………………………………………...57Recommendations for Future Research ………………………………………...60

References ……………………………………………………………………………….61

Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………....64

v

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Data Shell ……………………………………………………………………22

Table 4.1 Dependent t (Highest scores from Pretest to Post-test) ……………………...33

Table 4.2 Dependent t (Lowest scores from Pretest to Post-test) ………………………34

Table 4.3 Chi-Square Statistic for Writing Pre-Survey and Post-Survey ……………....35

Table 4.4 Dependent t (Writing Pre-Survey and Writing Post-Survey)………………...37

The Paradox of the Writing Process 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to investigate how teaching the process of writing

holistically would positively impact the writing of middle grade students to the extent

that students would further enhance the skills in which they were currently adept, as well

as demonstrate their awareness, control, and manipulation of their own writing in their

finished products. The functional, product-centered approach to teaching writing enables

students to justify the indolence demonstrated in their finished products, as well as

accepts their lack of initiative to evolve as competent writers.

Although writing is an integral part of the language arts curriculum, teachers

should be cognizant of the fact that writing transcends academia; it establishes the

foundation for lifelong learning. Writing should be taught as a process that necessitates a

hierarchy that begins with the subtleties of an imposed thought and concludes at a

pinnacle that reflects a profoundly new perspective. Cumberworth and Hunt (1998)

affirm that the writing process cannot work without teachers’ convictions to make it

important for their students. If teachers expect students to see how writing is significant

in their own lives, teachers must provide their students with real world reasons to write.

The functional writing approach is an epidemic among language arts teachers

in middle school. Currently, instructional strategies in writing fail to focus on the writing

process holistically; teachers are only teaching what is necessary for the students to meet

the requirements mandated by standardized writing assessments. The metacognitive

aspects of the writing process are neglected, if not omitted completely. As lifelong

learners, students need to be afforded opportunities to engage in rhetoric that resembles

The Paradox of the Writing Process 2

that of an Aristotelian approach: identify a claim, determine its credibility, and embrace

its impact—show how and to what extent the use of language can help them make sense

of the world. Instead, teachers are inadvertently exacerbating the problem by not

implementing a more powerful approach to teaching writing.

Significance of the Problem

Education should be in a constant process of evolution. Students should obtain

knowledge and skills that not only increase their understanding of the world around them,

they should also acquire the ability to function autonomously. Because teachers are

utilizing the functional approach to teaching writing, students are complacently resigned

to receiving an education full of deficiency. Their educational experiences begin and

ultimately end in rudimentary cognition. Functional writing suffocates the abstract

thinkers; they become confined to formulaic writing that does not transcend academia.

Thus, students are not producing work that exceeds educational standards; instead, they

are producing work that peaks at minimal requirements. According to Nagin (2003),

writing assessments cannot show the range of students’ work, nor can they demonstrate

the progression of student writing. Ultimately, students are not secure in their abilities to

assess the degree to which they comprehend the information they receive, much less

overcome weaknesses in their mental capacities to learn.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

Fundamental to social constructivism, learning that is first taught at the

conceptual level in the classroom must be transferred to situations outside the classroom

(Fosnot & Perry, 2005). In other words, learning must transcend academia. This study

relates to Tenet Two of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008)

The Paradox of the Writing Process 3

Conceptual Framework, or the “professional skills tenet.” The premise for the second

tenet is that exemplary teachers possess an immense repertoire of skills in their content

area that demonstrate high levels of competency. They tend to utilize a myriad of

resources that enable them to teach in diverse classroom settings. The knowledge

undergirded by Tenet Two recognizes that teacher preparation is not just an act of

obtaining and delivering instruction; it mandates that teachers allow students to also be

active in the learning process. Many theorists, namely Piaget and Vygotsky, “have been

concerned with how the individual learner goes about the construction of knowledge in

his or her own cognitive apparatus” (Phillips, 1995, p. 7). Tenet Two operates on the

notion that teachers should provide differentiated instructional opportunities that allow

students to create their own meaning and personal connections to their learning

experiences.

There are three subgroups related to Tenet Two of the LaGrange College

Education Department’s Conceptual Framework: Planning Skills, Instructional Skills,

and Assessment Skills. The subgroup, “Planning Skills,” illustrates the competencies that

teachers must have in order to create learning environments in which students assume

responsibility and participate in decision-making and work both collaboratively and

individually. By teaching writing as a process, students embrace their autonomy through

their motivation to construct new perspectives on universal themes. They work

collaboratively on peer editing and revising activities.

The subgroup, “Instructional Skills,” is built on the premise that students

participate in effective communication, both verbal and nonverbal, in order to develop

higher level critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills. The writing

The Paradox of the Writing Process 4

process includes steps that allow students to utilize their prior knowledge, prewriting and

brainstorming, and to apply new knowledge in ways that are meaningful in situations

outside of academia, revising and publishing.

The subgroup, “Assessment Skills,” describes the competency that teachers must

have to ensure that their students are involved in “self-assessment that helps them

become aware of their strengths and needs and that encourages them to set person goals

for learning” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008, p. 7). The writing process

allows students to evaluate their work from its initial stage of prewriting to its concluding

stage of publishing. Ultimately, their product serves as a tool for which they can measure

their own progression, along with commentary provided by their teachers to assist them

on their journey to become competent writers.

This study also reflects the organizational and philosophical concepts of the

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards outlined in

the LaGrange College Education Department’s Conceptual Framework. The NCATE

standards provide teachers with a means to adequately prepare and continuously improve

their educational practices. The standards are the written expectations that guide teachers

to meet specified levels of performance. Each standard is separated into elements. The

elements are the major components of each standard that are depicted in rubrics that

accompany the standards. Tenet Two of the LaGrange College Education Department’s

Conceptual Framework aligns with NCATE standards Elements 1C and 1D. Element 1C

is the standard for Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher

Candidates, and Element 1D is the standard for Student Learning for Teacher Candidates.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 5

Element 1C describes teachers who are cognizant of the most current research and

policies that relate to teaching, learning, and best practices. The teachers are able to

explain the implications for their own practice and for their professional development as

educators. In addition, teachers can recognize their strengths and weaknesses in their

instructional strategies. In this study, the research for teaching writing as a process will

demonstrate improvement in student writing and thus reflect best practices for student

learning. Furthermore, Element 1C reflects the notion that teachers take on leadership

roles in the professional community and collaborate with colleagues to improve the

school process. Implementing new instructional writing strategies will lead to positive

changes in the school process.

Element 1D proposes that teachers have the ability to analyze student learning,

adjust instruction to suit the needs of the students, and monitor individual progress

throughout the learning experiences of the students. This study acknowledges that there

must be changes made in the current instructional practices for teaching writing. The use

of assessment data directs the teachers in their plight to ensure that appropriate changes

are made to the writing curriculum so students receive optimal instruction for learning.

This study also relates to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,

(NBPTS) Propositions, as projected by the LaGrange College Education Department’s

Conceptual Framework. The NBPTS Proposition 2 states that teachers know the subjects

they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. Teachers must be highly qualified

to teach in their content subjects. Knowing the content does not necessarily mean that

teachers know how to teach the content. This study investigates how teaching writing can

be improved to benefit the students academically and beyond. The NBPTS Proposition 3

The Paradox of the Writing Process 6

suggests that teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning. This

study investigates how teaching writing as a process provides teachers with the

opportunity to evaluate the progress of student writing through drafting, revising, and

editing, while providing students with an avenue to revisit their weaknesses to make

improvements.

Focus Questions

Understanding why the current instructional strategies for teaching writing must

change is important. There must be identifiable value in altering methodologies that may

have been deemed satisfactory in writing objectives thus far. The end result of changes

made in instructional practices must be evident in ways in which students perform in

writing, how the attitudes of students toward writing differ after the new instructional

strategies are implemented, and in whether or not there is noticeable acceptance of

stakeholders to the changes. The following focus questions were used to guide the

research for this study:

1. Will student writing improve if students are afforded opportunities to engage

in writing as a process?

2. How will the attitudes of the students toward writing change following the

instruction of writing as a process approach?

3. How successful was the change process proposal in convincing stakeholders

to adopt the implementation of teaching writing as a process?

Overview of Methodology

This study emulated the practices of one national or international comparative

education perspective that has implemented the instructional strategies for teaching

The Paradox of the Writing Process 7

writing as a process. Comparative education is the study of how one country (or group of

countries) of diverse backgrounds, ethnicities, and languages teaches subject content

compared to another country or geographical region. Data were gathered to assess

whether or not teaching writing as a process benefitted learners by increasing their

abilities to produce sophisticated compositions while it improved their work ethic and

attitude toward writing.

This study was conducted at an affluent middle school located in Sharpsburg,

Georgia, a southwestern suburb of Coweta County, approximately 30 miles from

Atlanta’s city limits. The subjects of this study included 20 gifted eighth grade

students in a language arts class. The chief administrator and other teachers of English

language arts participated in this study.

The methods for collecting data for focus question one included a pretest and a

post-test and the data were disaggregated quantitatively using a dependent t test. For

focus question two, the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students, served as a pre-

survey and post-survey to measure the subjects’ attitudes prior to and following the

instruction of writing as a process. The data were analyzed using a chi square statistic for

each survey question (item analysis), and a dependent t test to determine if there were

significant differences between means from the pre-survey to the post-survey. A

Cronbach’s alpha was used to ensure internal consistency reliability. An effect size r

estimate was utilized to measure the magnitude of the treatment. For focus question three,

qualitative data collected through the interviews of the teachers of language arts and the

chief administrator were coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes and

repetition.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 8

Human as Researcher

With eleven years of experience as an English instructor in both middle and

secondary education, I have reached one profound conclusion: I am in a significant

position of reciprocity. My instructional strategies for teaching writing embrace the

positive influences I have had in my own experiences as a writer, and cautiously abandon

the formulaic methodology imposed upon me by traditional educational practices. I

recognize that writing is a powerful catalyst through which students improve literacy

skills and emerge as lifelong learners.

I have observed that students lack the capacity to engage in the process of

writing; they demonstrate poor metacognition and therefore do not have the wherewithal

to produce sophisticated compositions. I understand that teachers are held accountable in

regard to how well their students achieve on high-stakes tests; however, it is imperative

that writing instruction improve so that students can acquire skills that will serve them

beyond academia.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 9

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Process Versus Product

Focus question one in this study sought to answer whether or not student writing

would improve if students were afforded opportunities to engage in writing as a process.

Writing is a powerful and complex instrument often overlooked in language arts

classrooms in middle school as a means for improving communication and critical

thinking skills. A tradition of rote work dominates much of literacy education and

instruction is focused on encoding and decoding skills—how to decipher words on the

page, how to get words down on the page—there is not a great deal of interest in

imaginative or creative writing (Tchudi & Mitchell,1999). Further, preoccupation with

testing and reporting in education today has created a rift in the traditional instructional

approaches to teaching writing (Miller, 2001, p. 5). The focus lies on product-centered

writing instruction which translates to instant gratification for those who rely so heavily

upon test scores to determine student achievement. Thus, what continues to be of

consequence and perpetuates value is the final product.

Even though there is some evidence in a paradigm shift from product to process-

centered writing instruction, the reality is that educational systems still expect to evaluate

formulaic academic compositions that demonstrate all of the virtues associated with what

is deemed standard and articulated by particular grade level requirements. Therefore,

students are offered very few opportunities to engage in writing as a process. As a result,

writing instruction is often limited to functional, product-centered approaches. The

purpose of this study is to investigate how teaching the process of writing holistically will

positively impact the writing of middle grade students.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 10

The holistic, process-centered approach to teaching writing deviates greatly from

the product-centered approach in that it involves exploration and connection; it attempts

to drive instruction away from the focus on outcomes of student writing and leads

instruction to a responsiveness to the needs of the students as writers (Miller, 2001, p. 8).

Research has established the major stages of the writing process as prewriting,

drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. While all of the stages are necessary and

utilized by effective writers as they compose, the process allows individual writers to

emphasize their strengths in various stages and affords them the opportunity to revisit the

stages in which their skills are inadequate. Throughout the writing process, students may

reflect on their own writing skills, set individual goals, and evaluate their own progress as

writers.

For decades, the objective of language arts curriculums has been to improve the

quality of student writing and learning by improving the pedagogy for teaching writing.

Respectively, as students are taught the writing process, they learn that it is not only

systematic, but dynamic. It is a recursive process that challenges them to discover the

uniqueness of the written language and encourages them to appreciate the interrelations

of purpose, audience, and form (Tompkins, 2008).

Process writing enables students to confront and sharpen cloudy understandings,

pose and detail solutions to problems, and formulate and develop creative ideas (Wilson,

2006). Unfortunately, the product-centered writing instruction implemented in many

curricula teaches students that they should write to demonstrate what they know,

rather than write to create new understandings. Most students are neither allotted the time

that is necessary to assess their prior knowledge, nor are they given the chance to blend

The Paradox of the Writing Process 11

their prior knowledge with their new acquisitions of understanding. As a result, the

writing of students who are exposed to product-centered instruction reflects only the

extrinsic conventions of writing and eradication of errors (Nagin, 2003). Product-centered

writing is demonstrative of rote learning and simple reproduction of information.

Typically, formal assessments of writing focus on the quality of finished

compositions; they do not test how students write, the strategies that students employ to

write, or the decisions that students make as writers (Tompkins, 2008). The limitations

of any formal writing assessment do not allow for complete revision and refinement on

finished products and one single assessment cannot fully evaluate performance across the

entire domain of writing (National Assessment Governing Board, 2006). However, the

results of formal assessments, or the finished products, can provide teachers with

valuable information about their students’ abilities to generate first-draft responses to

assigned writing tasks. The information can be used to set writing goals for individual

students and provide students with the necessary support to accomplish their goals to

become proficient writers.

John Dewey, who insists that education must be progressive, interprets education

as “the scientific method by means of which man studies the world, acquires

cumulatively knowledge of meanings and values” (Dewey, 1938, p. 10). In other words,

the experience of knowledge can modify one’s attitudes, perceptions and skills. Teaching

writing as a process echoes the sentiments of Dewey. As students begin to show

progression in their writing, they enhance the writing skills in which they are already

adept and improve their areas of weakness; their attitudes reflect an air of confidence

that may have been absent prior to their exposure to process-centered writing instruction;

The Paradox of the Writing Process 12

and their perception of what constitutes good writing evolves.

There is no doubt that any conversant writing instructor can appreciate the

complexities of sound composition. Advocates of product-oriented writing instruction

focus on the end result of the composing process, evaluating accuracy, style,

organization, elegance and coherence which are indicative of the ability of the student

writer. On the other hand, advocates of process-oriented writing instruction perceive

writing as creative, generative, cognitive, and nonlinear (Shannon, 1994). Essentially,

what the best teachers can hope to accomplish is that their students understand that the

product is dependent upon the process and the process is the pathway to the product; thus,

a better comprehension of the writing process, along with a focus on the components

emphasized by product-centered writing, will only produce better outcomes (Shannon,

1994).

Organizational Changes Lead to Attitudinal Changes

The purpose of focus question two of this study was to determine how the

attitudes of the students toward writing would change following the instruction of writing

as a process approach.

The art of effective writing pedagogy has not been articulated or perfected in any

writing curriculum, yet educators ascertain that all students have the ability to learn to

write and that writing is the most visible expression of what their students know and to

what extent they know it (Nagin, 2003). Students, conversely, decline the notion that

their writing accurately demonstrates their understanding of knowledge or their capacity

to apply it. A study conducted by Tchudi and Mitchell (1999) included a survey that

polled students about how they regard writing and the results revealed that the students’

The Paradox of the Writing Process 13

insecurities about writing were deep and profound. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

Act of 2001 reinforced the emphasis on accountability and the use of high stakes testing

to make vital decisions regarding the curriculum in schools. Consequently, writing

instruction is invariably limited to the product-centered approach, restricting students to

write in the scope of narrowed genres. Furthermore, the ideology for what constitutes

good writing has become obscured.

In both product-centered and process-centered writing programs, students are

expected to apply the strategies that they have been taught to develop their competency as

writers. It is disheartening to report that most students do not believe that they are

competent at all; in fact, their attitude toward writing generally worsens as they advance

from one grade to another. Many students experience writing as a task that involves

tedium, lack of choice, and negative feedback (Kear, Coffman, McKenna, & Ambrosio,

2000). Some believe that when they offer their ideas in language, they are exposing

themselves to public scrutiny (Tchudi & Mitchell,1999).

However, if writing instructors were given a tool to assist them in becoming more

knowledgeable about their students’ attitudes toward writing, then their instructional

methodologies could be modified to potentially benefit their students. For instance, if

giving students a broader range in their choice about which to write would improve the

students’ attitudes toward writing, ultimately a progression in student writing would be

noted. Furthermore, if teachers could move away from response grading to advice

grading, students would move past the fear they have reserved ultimately for the feedback

they are accustomed to receiving.

Writing that is taught as a process is a medium for learning that allows students to

The Paradox of the Writing Process 14

experience the phenomenon of achieving insight and developing concepts as writing

progresses (Ruddell, 2008). The writing process encourages growth and proficiency and

stimulates thoughts that lead to new understandings about information; students are given

the opportunity to speculate, question, and explore new ideas. Process-centered writing is

not a conventionalized task, like that of product-centered writing, where students are

assigned a topic, write about the topic, and receive a grade. A grade given on a product

finishes a paper very much the same way that publication does at the conclusion of the

process, except students claim that a grade may hinder their desire to write (Ruddell,

2008). When teachers give students writing assignments, more specifically a genre and a

topic on which to write, they are, for all intents and purposes, telling the students what to

write and how to write it. Students are robbed of the opportunity to learn and discover

their own truths.

Cumberworth and Hunt (1998) conducted a study in a middle school involving

the implementation of a writer’s workshop with emphasis on process writing. Included in

the study are the results of a survey regarding the attitudes of students toward writing

prior to participating in the workshop and the probable cause for their perceptions about

writing. The survey revealed that students admit to skipping stages of the writing

process; students perceive revision not as a means to develop and improve their writing,

but as an opportunity to correct errors; publishing is superfluous because writing is done

in English class and is only for the eyes of the teacher; and, writing is for a grade.

Some of the probable causes made prominent in the study are that teachers often

deliver whole class writing instruction, which assumes that all writers use the writing

process the same way. Many teachers changed from direct grammar instruction to

The Paradox of the Writing Process 15

process-centered instruction too abruptly, which left many students insecure in their

abilities to assess their own writing. Providing students with real world purposes for

writing is an aspect that many instructors overlook; without reasons to believe that

writing is important, students will not see the significance of writing in their own lives.

King, Jonson, Whitehead, and Reinken (2003) conducted a study to investigate

why New Zealand has produced some of the highest literacy rates in the industrialized

world. According to their research, writing is a natural outgrowth of reading and students

engage in writing as a way to respond to reading. The educators in New Zealand teach

the writing process holistically so that students experience writing as authors. Writing is

shared not only with the students’ class, but with others in the school, and even beyond

the realm of academia. In addition, because the classroom culture in New Zealand

focuses on the continual development of a student’s abilities, rather than accommodate

fixed abilities, students flourish in writing. Thus, students report positive attitudes toward

their accomplishments in writing.

According to Knudson (2001), writing apprehension is significantly related to

how well students write and their feelings regarding writing; furthermore, writing anxiety

negatively affects school success. Briefly, writing attitude is directly related to writing

achievement; it can be inferred, then, that organizational changes in the writing

curriculum could be linked to attitudinal changes in the students.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 16

The Implementation of Process Writing

Focus question three in this study explored how successful the change process

proposal was in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching writing

as a process.

In the United States, the education system was never designed to deliver the kind

of results that are now necessary to equip students for today’s world—or tomorrow’s

(Wagner & Kegan, 2006). As a result, educators are incessantly faced with the challenge

of implementing variations of educational reform in the classroom setting.

They are required to alter their teaching styles and incorporate new strategies in order to

meet the demands of innovative curriculum policies developed to raise educational

standards. In addition, they must provide an array of differentiated educational

opportunities for their students. According to Glatthorn, Boschee, and Whitehead (2009),

teachers have historically viewed administrative attempts to control the curriculum as

intrusive and counterproductive and work hard to subvert such plans.

Current research in effective strategies and best practices are disseminated by

policy makers and utilized in sites for professional learning and curriculum workshops so

that educators can acquire the tools necessary to create change in their schools.

However, successful organizational change in education cannot be achieved by top-down

directives. Wagner and Kegan (2006) maintain that there must be a culture of engaged

adult learners who have an aspiration to create change. School improvement requires

from all stakeholders a collective willingness, shared commitment, and support of the

rationale for change. Furthermore, Glatthorn et al. (2009) assert that in order to promote

the value of positive change, effective curriculum leaders must be totally committed to an

The Paradox of the Writing Process 17

important idea, demonstrate unwavering faith in the process, and allow opportunities for

those involved to learn from the experiences associated with the change.

Convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching writing as a

process as opposed to sustaining functional, product-centered writing instruction is

particularly taxing. Educators who are accustomed to teaching writing using traditional

product orientation maintain that the pedagogy should emphasize the form of written

discourse. Essential skills including but not limited to mastering the correctness of

grammar and punctuation, eradicating errors in syntax, identifying the parts of speech,

and following paragraph types and genres of writing according to prescribed conventions

are the focus of assessment. Ultimately, the finished product qualifies the writing.

On the contrary, educators who advocate the process approach to teaching writing

believe that what constitutes quality writing is the ability for students to move beyond

rote learning. Writing should reflect how thoughts are organized and coherent,

demonstrate higher order thinking skills, and reveal a polished presentation of ideas and

subject matter (Nagin, 2003).

According to the results of a study conducted by Spanjer and Layne (1983), the

effects of training in a process approach to teaching writing indicated that the process

approach influenced the teachers’ attitudes toward language and increased their

awareness of the multidimensional aspects of writing. The teachers concluded that there

are no absolute laws for composition; they discovered that being prescriptive, rule-bound,

and biased toward the writing produced by students does not necessarily result in the

product of better writing. Invariably, integrating both process and product-centered

instruction, or teaching the process of writing holistically, will improve student writing.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 18

King et al.’s (2003) study reports that the literacy strategy in New Zealand

concedes that the most influential factor in a student’s writing is the quality of interaction

between the teacher and the student. Factors such as high expectations, various

instructional strategies, and engaging writing activities all play a valuable role in the

students’ acquisition of knowledge. Process-centered instruction, coupled with each of

the learning factors, and ample feedback provided in a timely fashion result in effective

instructional practices. In reference to the literacy strategy in New Zealand, teachers in

the United States concur.

However, when teachers in the United States were interviewed about best

practices in writing, the results were astonishing. In a survey conducted by Grimes and

Warschauer (2010), teachers revealed that without some form of essay grading

assistance, grading delays of a week or more are commonplace, by

which time most students lose interest. Furthermore, time for writing

practice is often too restrictive because students need instruction in

other areas, most notably, mechanics. Consequently, teachers in the

United States find teaching the writing process holistically increasingly

difficult. The rigorous curriculum, along with the reinforced emphasis on

accountability and the use of high stakes testing, has deterred educators from

implementing process-centered writing in their classrooms.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 19

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The educational research designs for this study integrated action research and

evaluation research. Action research is informal, systematic research conducted by

stakeholders, often classroom teachers, who are ambitious to resolve particular problems

in a specific setting. Action researchers focus on the development, implementation, and

assessment of an innovative product, plan, or procedure that will modify the way in

which schools operate, how educators teach, and how well students learn. Essentially,

action research provides the means by which educators can increase the effectiveness of

the work in which they are engaged (Stringer, 2007). Evaluation research is formal

research, also executed by teachers, done to assess the integrity of the various products

and processes developed in action research design (Charles & Mertler, 2002). In regard

to action research, the purpose of this study was to implement the instruction of writing

as a process and determine how teaching writing holistically positively impacts the

writing of middle grade students. The findings of this action research, particularly the

quality of writing instruction, were evaluated and used to determine the applicability of

the results to settings and contexts different from the one in which they were originally

obtained.

Setting

This study was conducted at an affluent middle school located in Sharpsburg,

Georgia, a southwestern suburb of Coweta County, approximately 30 miles from

Atlanta’s city limits. There are roughly 128,000 residents in Coweta, while Sharpsburg is

The Paradox of the Writing Process 20

comprised of a population of merely 731. The demographics of Coweta reflect that

77.2% of the population are Caucasian, 17.7% are African American, 3.1% are

Hispanic, 2% is a combination of Asian Pacific Islander or multiracial.

There are very few residents in Sharpsburg who have received post-secondary

degrees. Nearly 20% have earned a bachelor’s degree, and less than 7% possess a

graduate degree or higher. Of the residents who have attended high school, 80.2%

received a high school diploma or equivalent.

The median household income in Sharpsburg is $63,201, which is higher than the

median household income of the state of Georgia at only $50, 861. Nonetheless, just as

the recession has had a detrimental effect on the economy in most other counties in

Georgia, Coweta has suffered its own economic downturn. The fluctuation of the housing

market reveals a decrease in home values up to 30% in some areas, while foreclosures

and short sales have increased in other areas. Because of the decline in the economy,

many families in Coweta have been uprooted and forced to relocate where reasonable

housing or shelter is available. As a result, students across the county have had to transfer

to and from various school districts within the county lines and thus many schools are

experiencing an influx in the number of transient students enrolled.

There were approximately 925 students who attended the facility where this

research was conducted. Of the 925 students who were enrolled, 73% were Caucasian,

17% were African American, 5% were Hispanic, 3% were Multi-Racial, and 2% were

other. There were 246 students, or 27%, who received free and reduced lunch and 82

students, or 9%, who were enrolled in special education classes. The education levels of

the faculty ranged from those who possessed bachelor’s degrees to those who had

The Paradox of the Writing Process 21

obtained their doctorates: 37% had bachelor’s degrees, 39% had master’s degrees, 14%

had a specialist degree, and 1% held a doctorate.

The location of the setting was chosen because the investigator was a gifted

eighth grade teacher there, and as a result was made privy to a report issued to the school

regarding a decline in the overall test scores on the data gathered for the Georgia Grade 8

Writing Assessment.

Permission to conduct the study was granted by the principal of the school, as

well as the county’s Lead Psychologist/SST & 504 Coordinator, and secured by the

participating college, specifically the LaGrange College Institutional Review Board.

Subjects and Participants

The subjects of this study were 20 gifted eighth grade students enrolled in a

language arts class composed of 9 females and 11 males between the ages of 12 to 14

years. Seventeen of the students were Caucasian, while three were African American.

This group was not chosen to determine which gender or race would benefit most from

being exposed to strategies that teach writing holistically. This group was chosen because

their participation in a mock writing assessment demonstrated the most variance in scores

on the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment rubric, ranging from Does Not Meet, Meets,

or Exceeds the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS).

The principal, who has 38 years of experience in education, 18 years attributed to

the role of chief administrator, is a primary participant in this study. Prior to his years in

administration, he taught primarily English in both junior high and high school. The

principal at this facility has maintained his position since the school’s opening in 2006.

The principal’s role in this study was to act as a catalyst for organizational change in the

The Paradox of the Writing Process 22

instructional strategies for teaching writing.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

The purpose of this evaluation and action research study was to investigate how

teaching the process of writing holistically positively impacted the writing of middle

grade students. The integration of numeric and narrative data was utilized to adequately

assess the validity, reliability and dependability of the study. The rationale for using a

mixed methodology was to build on the strengths of unifying quantitative and qualitative

data for the purpose of better supporting the outcomes and insights into the phenomena

investigated, rather than polarize the objective and subjective data (Ercikan & Roth,

2006). Table 3.1 explicitly outlines the data collection methods as they align with each of

the study’s focus questions.

Table 3.1. Data ShellFocus Question Literature

SourcesType: Method, Data, Validity

How these data are analyzed

Rationale

Will student writing improve if students are afforded opportunities to engage in writing as a process?

Miller, J. P.(2001).

National Writing Project, & Nagin, C. (2003).

Tompkins, G. E. (2008).

Method:Assessment (Pretest andPost-test)

Data: Interval

Type of Validity:Content*

Quantitative:

Dependent t test

Effect Size Calculation

Quantitative:To determine if there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice

How will the attitudes of the students toward writing change following the instruction of writing as a process approach?

Cumberworth, T. J., & Hunt, J. A. (1998).

Kear, Coffman, McKenna, & Ambrosio (2000).

Knudson, R.

Method:Survey of students prior to writing instruction and post writing instruction.

Data:Ordinal

Quantitative:Inferential Statistics

Dependent t test

Chi Square

Cronbach’s alpha

Quantitative:To determine if there are significant differences

Desire to find what questions (items) are significant and which ones are not

The Paradox of the Writing Process 23

(2001). Type of Validity:Construct*

How successful was the change process proposal in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching writing as a process?

Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010).

King, C., Jonson, K., Whitehead, D., & Reinken, B. (2003).

Spanjer, R. A., & Layne, B. H. (1979).

Method:Interview of teachers of English language arts andinterview of chief administrator

Data: Qualitative

Type of Validity:Construct*

Qualitative:Coded for themes

Recurring

Dominant

Emerging

Qualitative:Looking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors

The pedagogy of effective writing instruction presents a challenge that many

writing instructors have yet to master. Many deem their approach to writing instruction

as effective when the results of standardized writing assessments reflect passing scores.

Others view standardized test scores as only partial measurements of successful writing

instruction; they believe that their students have only mastered the endeavor of producing

a well-written final product. In order to unify the dichotomy between the two perceptions

of what constitutes high-quality writing instruction, it is imperative that educators teach

the process of writing in not only a systematic, but dynamic way. It is necessary to

improve writing instruction so that students can acquire skills that will serve them beyond

academia. Throughout the writing process, students may reflect on their own writing

skills, set individual goals, and evaluate their own progress as writers.

In this study, a pretest was administered to subjects prior to their exposure to the

instruction of writing as a process. The pretest was provided by a company called Write

The Paradox of the Writing Process 24

Score. Write Score is a progress monitoring assessment company that specializes in hand

scoring essays for individual schools and districts. The pretest was created by Write

Score and mirrors that of the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment. In essence, each of

the subjects received either a persuasive or expository writing prompt. Subjects followed

the testing criteria outlined by the Georgia Department of Education; and, each subject

was provided with all of the materials necessary for the exam and was limited to a time

frame of 100 minutes for completion. The purpose of the pretest was to gather

quantitative data that assessed the students’ prior knowledge about writing.

The rubric utilized in scoring the Write Score pretest focused on the same four

writing domains that are assessed on the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment rubric:

Ideas, Organization, Style, and Conventions. The domains assessed in writing are not

weighed equally; the Ideas domain carries a weight of 40%, while the Organization,

Style, and Conventions domains weigh 20% each. The Write Score pretest was scored by

two qualified graders; a third grader was called upon when there were obvious

discrepancies between the two original graders.

Once the results of the pretest were received, it was necessary for the

investigator to create and maintain a writing assessment portfolio for each subject. The

pretest results were logged in the writing assessment portfolio of each subject. As the

instruction of writing as a process commenced, the subjects participated in various

writing assignments over the course of several months that mimicked the writing prompts

utilized on the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment. The writing assignments were hand

scored according to the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment rubric and logged by the

The Paradox of the Writing Process 25

investigator in the writing portfolio of each subject (see appendix A). Throughout the

writing process, the weaknesses and strengths in each writing domain, as well as the

stages of the writing process became apparent for each subject. Each subject worked on

his or her area of weakness in the writing process, which fulfilled the requirements of

differentiating instruction and best practices for student learning.

Immediately following the instruction of writing as a process, students applied

their strategies of process-centered writing to the assigned writing task provided by the

Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment. The results of the Georgia Grade 8 Writing

Assessment served as the post-test and additional quantitative data for this study.

Student attitude and behavioral patterns toward writing and the writing process

were measured through the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students (see Appendix

B). English language arts teachers were interviewed to determine their teaching practices

concerning the process-centered writing versus product-centered writing, as well as their

willingness to implement necessary changes in writing instruction (see Appendix C). This

middle school’s chief administrator was interviewed regarding the change process in an

institutional setting (see Appendix D).

Validity, Reliability, Dependability, Bias, and Equity Measures

The primary purpose of focus question one in this study was to examine the

probability that student writing would improve if students were afforded opportunities to

engage in writing as a process. In this case, a single class of the same subjects was

studied pre- and post-exposure to the instruction of writing as a process. All of the

subjects used in this study received the treatment of instruction of writing as a process;

and subjects in the group selected for this study were assessed by means of a pre-

The Paradox of the Writing Process 26

test and post-test to measure their progress in writing.

As a measure of reliability, a test/retest correlation for the dependent t test was

conducted. In other words, a dependent t was used to determine if there were significant

differences between means from one group tested twice. Validation is the process of

gathering evidence that supports inferences made on the basis of test scores. Since this

study examined the results of an achievement test, specifically the Georgia Grade 8

Writing Assessment, establishing content validity was necessary. Content validity is

established when researchers make a judgment of the degree to which the evidence

suggests that the items, tasks, or questions on an assessment adequately represent the

domain of interest (Johnson & Christensen, 2008, p. 152). Content validity was used in

the selection of the pretest and the post-test chosen for this study because it centers on

how well the test item represents the related discipline. Further, prompts and rubrics

utilized in this study to monitor progression in student writing are aligned to the Georgia

Performance Standards (GPS).

Data collection and treatment were kept consistent as a measure of dependability.

Dependability emphasizes the necessity for the researcher to account for the ever-

changing context within which research occurs; further, the researcher is responsible for

describing the changes that occur and how the changes affect the way the study is

approached (Lichtman, 2006). Data were accurately recorded with the use of

protocols associated with educational research.

Bias was examined in this study to make certain it was not offensive or unfair in

nature. Standardized tests are scrutinized for bias prior to their release. The Georgia

Grade 8 Writing Assessment is a standardized test so it has been cleared of bias. In regard

The Paradox of the Writing Process 27

to how students would perform on the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment after

exposure to the instruction of writing as a process, I believed that students would

demonstrate an increase in scores between the pretest and the post-test because the

product is dependent upon the process and if students have a better comprehension of the

writing process, the product would produce better outcomes.

Focus question two in this study sought to recognize how the attitudes of the

students toward writing changed following the instruction of writing as a process

approach. Data were collected to look for categorical and repeating patterns of

behavior through the use of a student survey; specifically, the Knudson Writing Attitude

Survey for Students (see Appendix B). A chi square statistic was calculated to compare

what was observed on the pre-survey and post-survey to what would be expected by

chance (Salkind, 2010). A dependent t test was used to determine if there were significant

differences between means from the pre-survey to the post-survey. A Cronbach’s alpha

was used to determine reliability by examining internal consistency and to ensure that

only one dimension, construct, or area of interest was being represented (Salkind, 2010).

Because this study focused on measuring attitude, it is important to note that

attitude is a construct. A construct is a non-measurable characteristic, such as disposition

or beliefs (Popham, 2008). Thus, construct validity was sought to determine the

significance of the scores from the survey. How well a test gauges construct validity is

determined by how well it represents the behaviors chosen to describe the trait.

In order to ensure dependability, an adequate number of participants were selected

for this study and the time allotted for data collection was sufficient.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 28

To minimize bias and maximize objectivity in this research, I challenged the

integrity of the survey by allowing others to examine it; it was not found to contain unfair

or offensive content. In regard to disparate impact, one group did not have an advantage

over another.

Focus question three in this study determined how successful the change process

proposal was in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching writing

as a process. Qualitative data were collected through the use of in-depth interviews of

teachers at the location, as well as the chief administrator. The purpose of the interviews

was to develop an understanding of how effective the organizational change process

strategies were and to determine whether or not there was a collective willingness, shared

commitment, and support of the rationale for change among all of the stakeholders. These

qualitative data were coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes and repetition.

As a measure of dependability, the interviews of both the teachers and the

principal were recorded to secure precision of the data collected. In addition, the

interviewee checked the transcripts for accuracy. Construct validity served to interpret

and examine the relevance of the answers reported.

Programmatic equity and teacher quality were both addressed in this study.

Programmatic equity focuses on the quality of the educational programs into which

students are placed or from which they are excluded (Skrla, McKenzie, & Scheurich,

2009, p. 41). According to research, gifted and talented education programs are likely

sites for inequity. The subjects in this study included seventeen Caucasians and three

African Americans; students of color are underrepresented as gifted and talented. Equity

consciousness and high-quality teaching skills go hand in hand. Students learn as much as

The Paradox of the Writing Process 29

what their teachers know; therefore, it is imperative that the most highly qualified

teachers are in the classrooms. I am a certified gifted and talented teacher with eleven

years of experience; I am an expert in my field. Two skills I directly embedded in my

research are clearly communicating expectations for learning and frequently assessing

individual student learning.

Analysis of Data

For focus question one, all of the subjects in this study were assessed using a

pretest and post-test and the data were disaggregated quantitatively using a dependent t

test. A t test for dependent means indicates that a single group of the same subjects is

being studied under two conditions (Salkind, 2010, p. 238). The writing ability of the

subjects was determined by the pretest and how their progress in writing evolved was

determined by the post-test. The results of the pretest and post-test were then compared

using a dependent t test to determine if there was significant difference between the

means of the scores (Salkind, 2010, p. 238). The decision to reject the null hypothesis has

been set at p<.05. An effect size r estimate was used to measure the magnitude of the

treatment effect. An effect size indicator gives an estimate of the strength of the

relationship between the independent and dependent variables (Johnson & Christianson,

2008, p. 255).

For focus question two, quantitative data were collected through the use of a

student surveys; specifically the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students. The

Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students uses ordinal variables on a five point

weighting scale along the Likert Scale. The Likert scale is commonly used in survey

research; it measures subjects’ attitudes by inquiring about to what extent there is

The Paradox of the Writing Process 30

agreement or disagreement with a particular question. The data were analyzed using a chi

square for each survey question (item analysis), and a dependent t test to determine if

there were significant differences between means from the pre-survey to the post-survey.

The chi square test involves a comparison between what is observed and what would be

expected by chance (Salkind, 2010, p. 312). A Cronbach’s alpha was used to ensure

internal consistency reliability in regard to the survey items on the pre-survey and the

post-survey. An effect size r estimate was utilized to measure the magnitude of the

treatment. The results of the survey aided in the methodology for writing instruction.

Each subject approached the writing process divergently; consequently, differentiated

instruction was incorporated into the process.

For focus question three, qualitative data from the interviews were coded for

recurring, emergent, and dominant themes. This study was secured, observed, and

approved by LaGrange College. This form of validation is an agreement among

competent individuals that the description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematic of an

educational situation are right (Eisner, 1991). The evidence of the use of multiple data

sources, opposing points of view, and accuracy of data support epistemological

validation. The credibility of this study was established by the support of peer-reviewed

journals, books, projects, assessments, students, teachers, and administrators. This form

of structural corroboration, or triangulation, was used to show objectivity, precision, and

rightness of fit to form a compelling whole (Eisner, 1991). To be fair, opposing

perspectives were presented in the review of literature.

This study was conducted to demonstrate the positive transformation that

occurred when students were afforded the opportunity to use writing as a process. All

The Paradox of the Writing Process 31

aspects of this study are transferable and applicable in other settings. This form of

referential adequacy ensures that the perceptions and understandings of others will

increase due to these findings (Eisner, 1991). Through the reshaping of knowledge

constructs and empowerment of individuals, educators can become catalysts of change

within in their facilities. This form of catalytic validity in research displays the reality-

altering impact of the inquiry process (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998).

The Paradox of the Writing Process 32

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to investigate how teaching the process of writing

holistically would positively impact the writing of middle grade students to the extent

that students would further enhance the skills in which they were currently adept, as well

as demonstrate their awareness, control, and manipulation of their own writing in their

finished products. The results displayed in this chapter are organized by focus question.

The quantitative data are presented first, followed by the qualitative data obtained to

answer each focus question. The quantitative data will be exhibited in the form of

embedded tables within the chapter. The qualitative data reflects information gathered in

interviews and will demonstrate recurring, dominant, and emerging themes.

Focus question one asked, “Will student writing improve if students

are afforded opportunities to engage in writing as a process?” The data used to analyze

this question were gathered from a total of 20 eighth grade gifted language arts students.

A pretest and post-test were administered to each student. The scores of the pretest and

post-test were analyzed by quantitative means through a dependent t test to establish

significance. The dependent t test was used to evaluate a single group of the same

subjects under two conditions (Salkind, 2010). In this study, the purpose of the dependent

t was two evaluate the means of the pretest and post-test scores to establish similarity or

difference between the scores. In this case, the dependent t tests were run separately.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 33

Table 4.1 demonstrates the highest score increases from the pretest to the post-test. Table

4.2 reveals the scores that decreased from the pretest to the post-test. The calculations for

the dependent t tests are displayed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

Table 4.1 Dependent t (Highest scores from Pretest to Post-test)t Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Writing Pretest Writing Post-TestMean 42.85714286 61.54285714Variance 75.66137566 365.8895238Observations 7 7Pearson Correlation 0.70099754Hypothesized MeanDifference 0df 6T Stat 3.425577806P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0070236t Critical one-tail 1.943180274P(T<=t) two-tail 0.014047201t Critical two-tail 2.446911846

With the dependent t test for the pretest and post-test, the mean for the pretest was

42.86 and the mean for the post-test was 61.54. This demonstrates an increase in the

mean test scores. The results show t(6)=3.43, p <.05. This means that the obtained value

for the test, 3.43, was greater than the critical value of 1.94. Therefore, the null

hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the pretest and the post-test

must be rejected and the test reveals a significant difference. According to Salkind

(2010), the effect size provides an idea about the relative positions of one group to

another. The effect size for the pretest and post-test is r=0.53 which indicates a large

range. The Pearson correlation is .70, indicating a high rate of consistency between the

pretest and the post-test scores.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 34

Table 4.2 Dependent t (Lowest scores from Pretest to Post-test)t Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Writing Pretest Writing Post-TestMean 54.61538462 48.95384615Variance 86.64529915 42.06769231Observations 13 13Pearson Correlation 0.827398357Hypothesized MeanDifference 0df 12T Stat 3.803269122P(T<=t) one-tail 0.001257407t Critical one-tail 1.782287548P(T<=t) two-tail 0.002514814t Critical two-tail 2.178812827

With the dependent t test for the pretest and post-test, the mean for the pretest was

54.62 and the mean for the post-test was 48.95. This demonstrates an increase in the

mean test scores. The results show t(12)=3.80, p <.05. This means that the obtained value

for the test, 3.80, was greater than the critical value of 1.78. Therefore, the null

hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the pretest and the post-test

must be rejected and the test reveals a significant difference. According to Salkind

(2010), the effect size provides an idea about the relative positions of one group to

another. The effect size for the pretest and post-test is r=0.31 which is within the medium

range. The Pearson correlation is .82, indicating a high rate of consistency between the

pretest and the post-test scores.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 35

The students at the middle school where this study was conducted were given a

pre-survey to determine attitudes toward writing prior to receiving any writing instruction

for the purpose of answering focus question two: “How will the attitudes of the students

toward writing change following the instruction of writing as a process approach?” After

receiving instruction on the process of writing, the students were given a post-survey.

The chi square statistic was calculated to compare what was observed on the pre- and

post- surveys to what would be expected by chance (Salkind, 2010). Tables 4.3

and 4.4 below show the results of the chi-square test for the student pre- and post-

surveys.

Table 4.3 Chi-Square Statistic for Writing Pre-Survey and Post-SurveySurvey Itemsn=20

Survey Questions χ2 Pre-Survey n=20 χ

2 Post-Survey n=20

Item 1 When I have free time, I would rather write than watch TV.

3.523809524 24***

Item 2 I get good grades on what I write at school.

24*** 9.714285714*

Item 3 My parents like what I write.

23.52380952*** 15.42857143**

Item 4 I think writing is enjoyable.

10.19047619* 20.66666667***

Item 5 I am a good writer. 15.90476190** 11.61904762*Item 6 I would rather write an

essay than fill in the blanks.

1.619047619 7.333333333

Item 7 At school, I like to write science and social reports.

34.47619048*** 28.76190476***

Item 8 You have to be a good writer to do well in school.

20.66666667*** 9.238095238**

Item 9 I would like to have more time in school to write.

7.809523810 3.047619048

Item 10 I can write a complete 57.33333333*** 84***

The Paradox of the Writing Process 36

paragraph.Item 11 I do better at school if I

take notes on what the teacher says.

9.238095238** 15.9047619**

Item 12 Writing to express yourself is important in getting a good job.

16.38095238** 14.95238095**

Item 13 I write notes to my friends.

5.428571429 5.428571429

Item 14 I write letters to relatives and friends when I am not in school.

2.095238095 16.85714286**

Item 15 I am good at writing a whole composition.

7.333333333 4.476190476

Item 16 I would rather write than listen to music.

15.42857143** 17.33333333**

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

The results of the chi-square statistic for the pre-survey indicated that many of the

questions were significant. Survey items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10 were each found to be highly

significant when p < .05, .01, and .001, which signifies that a high percentage of students

answered these questions a certain way. However, items 1, 6, 9, 13, 14, and 15

demonstrated that there was no significance at all between what was observed in the

answers and what would have been expected to occur by chance. In regard to the chi-

square statistic for the post-survey, the results showed that survey items 1, 4, 7, and 10

were highly significant, whereas survey items 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15 showed no

significant difference between what was observed in the answers and what was expected

to occur by chance.

In order to determine the internal consistency reliability of the items on the pre-

survey and the post-survey administered to the students, the Cronbach’s alpha was

computed by correlating the score for each item with the total score for each individual,

and then comparing that to the variability present for all individual item scores (Salkind,

2010). The internal consistency reliability ensures that the survey items on the

The Paradox of the Writing Process 37

pre- and post- survey measured only what they were intended to measure. For the pre-

survey, the computations reported a Cronbach’s alpha of α = 0.69. For the post-survey,

the Cronbach’s alpha was α = 0.86.

The results of the pre-survey and post-survey were analyzed by quantitative

means through a dependent t test to determine if there were significant differences. See

Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Dependent t (Writing Pre-Survey and Writing Post-Survey)t Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Writing Pre-Survey Writing Post-SurveyMean 43.57142857 45.76190476Variance 58.45714286 75.49047619Observations 21 21Pearson Correlation 0.240209544Hypothesized MeanDifference 0df 20T Stat 0.779425948P(T<=t) one-tail 0.22242734t Critical one-tail 1.724718218P(T<=t) two-tail 0.444854681t Critical two-tail 2.085963441

With the dependent t test for the pre-survey and post-survey, the mean for the

pre-survey was 43.57 and the mean for the post-survey was 45.76. This demonstrates a

slight increase in the mean survey scores. The results show t(20)=0.78, p > .05. This means

that the obtained value for the survey, 0.78, was less than the critical value of 1.72. Thus,

the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the pre-survey and the

post-survey must be accepted and the test shows no significant difference.

The Pearson correlation is .24, indicating a low rate of consistency between the

The Paradox of the Writing Process 38

pretest and the post-test scores. As shown in the chi square, it is interesting to note that

there were many significant increases in particular survey questions but not a difference

in the aggregated scores.

In this study, focus question three posed the question, “How successful was the

change process proposal in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of

teaching writing as a process? To successfully answer the question presented, an

interview of the middle school language arts teachers was conducted. According to the

qualitative data that were obtained for focus question three, there were two recurring

themes observed (1) the variety of methods for writing instruction (2) the diverse

approaches to measuring the progression of student writing; there were two dominant

themes observed (1) the need for adequate and consistent training in writing instruction

(2) the possibility of teaching process writing, as opposed to product writing; and, there

was one emergent theme reflected in the interview responses (1) the challenges of

teaching writing.

The first question of the interview conducted to answer focus question three was,

“What are your current methods for teaching writing?” Only two of the seven teachers

interviewed elaborated on their methods for teaching the writing process. Two other

teachers reported only teaching particular parts of the writing process. One teacher stated

that her focus lies in teaching “prewriting, drafting, and finalizing.” Another teacher

reiterated the sentiments when she stated that her students “simply write an introduction,

body, and a conclusion for each writing assignment.” The remaining teachers used

“examples to demonstrate strong writing” and “reviewed all of the steps of the writing

process, with the exceptions of editing and publishing.” Thus, the recurring theme is that

The Paradox of the Writing Process 39

there is no concrete method for teaching writing; there is a variety of methods for writing

instruction.

The next question of the interview was, “How do you measure the progression of

student writing?” One teacher reported utilizing portfolios. She said, “I measure student

progress every step of the way. They receive individual attention with any roadblocks

along the way. I have the ability to pull them out to conference with them because I have

co-lab teacher in the room.” Another teacher claimed that “measuring the progression of

writing is a struggle. The use of rubrics helps, but there is a need for more strategies.” A

third teacher stated that she “only grade[s] individual assignments.” The remaining

teachers all agreed that they “do not really measure progression of writing.” Therefore,

the recurring theme is that there is no precise methodology for measuring the progression

of student writing.

There was a dominant theme in regard to the question, “Do you feel as though

you have received adequate training to teach writing? If not, how much training do you

think you would need to adequately teach writing?” All teachers reported that training in

writing instruction should be “on-going and consistent.” None of the teachers affirmed

that they have received adequate training in the instruction of writing. One teacher

claimed, “The only true training I feel that I have is my own writing experiences; some

were positive, while others were not. I would like more training about how to grade

writing.” Another teacher said, “I received very much training in another school system,

but the current school system that I am in does not offer workshops, conventions, or

classes for just writing. It does not adequately train teachers on how to teach writing.”

The remaining teachers all said, “I haven’t received adequate training.”

The Paradox of the Writing Process 40

Another dominant theme was observed in the interview in regard to the question,

“Do you think that teaching process centered writing, as opposed to product centered

writing, would improve student writing? Why? Why not?” All of the teachers reported

that process centered writing would improve student writing. One teacher said, “I feel

that process centered writing would most definitely improve student writing because

students would ‘own’ the process instead of striving to just ‘produce’ what is expected of

them for state writing test purposes. Furthermore, [the students] would actually create

their own style of writing.” Another teacher agreed and added, “If the students were

being exposed to their mistakes in writing more often, and had multiple opportunities to

revise their products, chances are they would learn from their mistakes.” Two teachers

commented that “product centered writing stifles creativity.” One teacher proclaimed that

she would “teach process writing if there was not such a focus on high stakes testing.”

There were also emerging themes that observed in the interview responses

to questions pertaining to the question, “What do you think the most significant

challenges would be to implement the instruction of the writing process in your

classroom?” The teachers interviewed reported (1) issues related to time (2) increases in

class size (3) grading with subjectivity.

One teacher said, “There is no time to hold individual conferences with students

about their writing.” Another teacher declared, “There is not enough time to cover the

curriculum as it is; how could we spend more time on editing and revising one paper?

Publishing is really out of the question.” The other teachers simply stated, “Time.”

In reference to the projected increase in class size, all of the teachers agreed that

teaching writing to students with an array of abilities will be much more difficult with an

The Paradox of the Writing Process 41

increased number of students per class. One teacher exclaimed, “I have 150 kids now!”

Finally, one significant challenge to implement the instruction of writing as a

process that was in accordance with all of the teachers lies in the fact that grading is

subjective. After the question was posed, five of the seven teachers took turns providing

similar statements, “It’s too subjective.” “Subjectivity interferes with grading.”

“Subjective.” “What constitutes good writing?” One teacher said, “Even if we

implemented process writing, how would we objectively grade it?”

To further discuss focus question three, the principal of the middle

school where this study occurred was interviewed regarding how successful the

change process strategies were in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation

of teaching writing as a process.

The interview began with the notion that in order to successfully implement

change, it is important for leaders to establish their role in the change process. The first

question posed to the principal was, “How difficult is it to be a transformational leader?

He declared, “I have never been unenthusiastic about change.” The principal reported that

“there is a fear of change.” He said, “I believe in what I am doing. It’s about the mission

and I believe in the mission.” He further explained, “You have to convince people that

they have a purpose; most people want to have a purpose. It’s not necessarily about who

gets credit; it’s more about who gets the job done.” However, he firmly stated, “You

cannot be a prophet in your own land.” He then disclosed several personal experiences

that support his belief that those he works closely are often “aloof to his strategies to

implement change.” He defined other peoples’ indifference as a “minimalization of his

accomplishments.”

The Paradox of the Writing Process 42

The second question presented to the principal was, “If you could

provide future leaders with strategies to assist them in implementing organizational

change, what would they be?” The principal candidly responded, “Take the temperature

of the water before you jump in.” He stated, “Leaders must find out who the stakeholders

are and let them become part of the decision making process; this is how you build

rapport.” “Know who your go-to people are; who can you depend on?” He made mention

of the fact that in order to successfully implement change “you have to give

[stakeholders] credit for what they are already doing.” In other words, “use tradition to

help implement change—embrace their pride.” In reference to this study, the principal

said, “The use of the Write Score brought about change in this school. It gave the

teachers some accountability for teaching writing when there was none before.” To

elaborate on this point, the principal stated, “To have buy in you have to show results;

you have to have something that you can prove. The Write Score results showed us where

we were in writing and where we needed to be.” “We were able to showcase what that

change did for our school when we received the writing assessment results.” “Once

again, [the school] was number one in exceeds in the county—our highest number of

exceeds to date.”

The third question asked in the interview of the principal was, “What is the best

thing occurring in education today?” The principal answered with no hesitation when he

stated, “Accountability. We have never been held this accountable before. We are far

from perfect, but No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has given us accountability. We are

becoming a true profession.” He also expressed his satisfaction with “high expectations.”

He elaborated by saying that leaders in the world of education must “hire people who are

The Paradox of the Writing Process 43

like them; they should hire people who share the same philosophies in education.”

Next, the principal was asked, “What are the worst things occurring in education

today?” His response was “loyalty.” He continued, “Loyalty is everything in this

business. Nobody is loyal anymore. This profession is just a job for some people.” “There

is no camaraderie; we used to all be in this together. People just don’t care anymore.”

On another note, he called education today a “period of technological reformation.” He

referenced the innovations in technology and the speed at which they are produced. Then

he commented on how “it is especially in this area where there is tremendous fear of the

unknown.” He further suggested that since there is “no solvable solutions to things like

cyber bullying” that it is in this area where most of the litigations are expected to occur.

The notion of inequity was mentioned by the principal. He claimed that while

“higher socioeconomic schools are poor, lower socioeconomic schools are rich.” He

reiterated this point by saying, “Our school is poor because we don’t receive Title I

money.” He stated, “Funding is going down and class sizes are going up. The number of

school days is decreasing, which will lead to more regression.”

He then transitioned to different point in the conversation. He said, “Positions of

leadership are becoming more and more specialized. There is no real ownership of [a

leader’s] school anymore.” He firmly declared, “If there is no ownership of the school,

there is no real sense of leadership. It is difficult to cultivate change when people are not

confident that their leaders are vested in the school.”

The Paradox of the Writing Process 44

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Analysis of Results

Although writing should be taught as a dynamic process that often begins with the

subtleties of an imposed thought and ultimately concludes with a new perspective, or

conscious evolution, what continues to be of consequence and perpetuates value in

traditional language arts classrooms is the final written product. Students are exposed to

writing instruction that teaches them to write about what they know, rather than to write

to create new understandings. Even though research shows that product-centered writing

is demonstrative of rote learning and simple reproduction of information, teachers are

preoccupied by the pressures of high stakes testing and carry the burden of accountability

as a result of NCLB. Thus, the functional, product-centered approach to teaching writing

persists in many classrooms. The purpose of this evaluation and action research study

was to investigate how implementing the instruction of writing as a process holistically

positively impacted the writing of middle grade students.

The integration of both quantitative and qualitative data was utilized to better

support the outcomes and insights into the phenomena investigated in this study. The

quantitative data were disaggregated statistically, while qualitative data were coded for

recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. The analysis of the results of this study

summarized in this chapter are organized by focus question, followed by the discussion,

implications, impact on school improvement, and recommendations for future research.

Focus question one of this study was assessed using a pretest and post-test to

The Paradox of the Writing Process 45

determine if student writing improved when students were afforded opportunities to

engage in writing as a process. Content validity was used in the selection of the pretest

and the post-test chosen for this study because the prompts and rubrics utilized to monitor

progression in student writing were aligned to the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS).

A pretest and a post-test were administered to analyze focus question one, and the

data were disaggregated quantitatively using a dependent t test. The t test for dependent

means involves a comparison of means from each group and focuses on the differences

between the scores (Salkind, 2010). As a measure of reliability, a test/retest correlation

for the dependent t test was conducted. In this case, the dependent t tests were run

separately. A dependent t test was run for the highest score increases from the pretest to

the post-test, and another dependent t test was run for the scores that decreased from the

pretest to the post-test. The results of the pretest and post-test were then compared to

determine if there was significant difference between the means of the scores.

In regard to the dependent t test for the pretest and post-test for the highest score

increases, the results showed that the mean for the pretest was 42.86 and the mean for the

post-test was 61.54. The results also showed t(6)=3.43, p < .05, which means that the

obtained value for the test, 3.43, was greater than the critical value of 1.94. Therefore, the

null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the pretest and the post-test

must be rejected and the test reveals a significant difference. The test for reliability of the

data revealed that the effect size r was found to be a large effect size, with a difference

that was significant at the .53 level, increasing the reliability of the test. The overlap in

the test scores corroborates the contention that teaching writing holistically positively

impacts the writing of middle grade students. The Pearson correlation was .70, which

The Paradox of the Writing Process 46

indicated that there was a high rate of consistency between the pretest and the post-test

scores for the highest score increases; thus, revealing a positive relationship between the

pretest and the post-test.

In reference to the dependent t test for the scores that decreased from the pretest

to the post-test, the mean for the pretest was 54.62 and the mean for the post-test was

48.95. The results also showed t(12)=3.80, p < .05, which means that the obtained value

for the test, 3.80, was greater than the critical value of 1.78. Therefore, the null

hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the pretest and the post-test

must be rejected and the test reveals a significant difference. The test for reliability of the

data showed that the effect size r was found to be a medium effect size, with a difference

that was significant at the .31 level, giving the test moderate reliability. The test results

for the dependent t for the scores that decreased from the pretest to the post-test reveal

that teaching writing holistically does not positively impact the writing of middle grade

students. The Pearson correlation was .82, which indicated a high rate of consistency

between the pretest and the post-test scores for the scores that decreased.

Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the

pretest and the post-test was rejected in both instances. The tests revealed significant

differences. The students whose scores increased from the pretest to the post-test notably

increased, while the students whose scores decreased from pretest to post-test decreased

considerably.

The rubric utilized in scoring the pretest mirrored that of the rubric used to score

the post-test, which was the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment rubric. The rubrics

focus on four domains in writing: Ideas, Organization, Style, and Conventions. The

The Paradox of the Writing Process 47

domains assessed on the writing rubrics are not weighed equally; the Ideas domain

carries a weight of 40%, while the Organization, Style, and Conventions domains weigh

20% each. The protocol for grading both the pretest and the post-test required that two

qualified graders score each composition. A third grader was called upon if there were

obvious discrepancies between the scores provided by the two original graders. What is

significant to note regarding the pretest results and the post-test results is that even

though the rubrics used to score the tests were virtually identical, the tests were not

evaluated by the same qualified graders. The pretest was scored by graders from a

progress monitoring assessment company called the Write Score. The post-test, a

standardized assessment mandated by the state of Georgia, was scored by graders

employed by the state. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that any inconsistencies in

the test scores may be directly related to the inherent subjectivity of the graders, along

with the divergent training that the graders received to score the compositions.

Overall, the positive results of the pretest and the post-test of the highest score

increases mirror that of the research conducted by those who are advocates of process-

centered writing instruction. Shannon (1994) maintains that when students have a better

comprehension of the writing process, along with a focus on the components emphasized

by product-centered writing, they produce better outcomes. Furthermore, researchers

have ascertained that students who are exposed to the instruction of writing as a process

are more apt to reflect on their own writing skills, set individual goals, and evaluate their

own progress as writers (Thompkins, 2008). This suggests that the students whose scores

increased from the pretest to the post-test possessed enough knowledge about the process

The Paradox of the Writing Process 48

of writing that they were able to improve upon their individual weaknesses in writing

prior to the administration of the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment. Ultimately, the

students were fully aware of how to assess their own writing from the results of the

pretest and show progression in writing achievement on the post-test.

Additionally, the results of the scores that decreased from the pretest to the post-

test are directly parallel to research findings. According to the National Assessment

Governing Board (2006), formal writing assessments do not allow for complete revision

and refinement on finished products and one assessment cannot accurately evaluate

performance across the entire domain of writing. Nagin (2003) insists that because the

pretest and the post-tests were product-centered assessments, students were neither

allotted the time necessary to assess their prior knowledge in writing, nor were they

provided the opportunity to blend prior knowledge with new understandings about their

writing. Thus, it is logical to assume that the scores that decreased from the pretest to the

post-test due to the limitations of the product-centered format imposed upon students,

which does not allow for necessary drafting and revising, and time management.

The primary purpose of focus question two in this study was to ascertain how the

attitudes of the students toward writing changed following the instruction of writing as a

process. The students were given a pre-survey, the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for

Students, to determine attitudes concerning writing prior to receiving any type of writing

instruction. The Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students uses ordinal variables on

a five point weighting scale along the Likert Scale. Given that attitude is a construct, or

non-measurable characteristic, construct validity was sought in the student survey to

The Paradox of the Writing Process 49

discern whether or not the student answers were synonymous or divergent. After

receiving instruction on the process of writing, a post-survey was administered.

Items 2, 7, 8, 9, and 11 on the pre- and post-surveys all pertained to what students

believe the role of writing plays in school; items 3, 5, 10, and 15, inquired about how

students perceive their own writing abilities, as well as how they believe others perceive

their writing skills; and items 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 16 focused on how much writing the

students do when given the opportunity.

The survey data were analyzed using the chi-square statistic, and a dependent t

test was used to determine if there were significant differences between means from the

pre-survey to the post-survey. A Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine reliability by

examining internal consistency and to ensure that only one dimension, construct, or area

of interest was being represented (Salkind, 2010). The chi-square statistic was calculated

to compare what was observed on the pre- and post-surveys to what would be expected

by chance. The results of the chi-square statistic for the pre-survey indicated that many of

the survey questions were significant. Survey items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10 were each found to

be highly significant when p < .05, .01, and .001, which signifies that a high percentage

of the students answered these questions a certain way. However, survey items 1, 6, 9,

13, 14, and 15 revealed that there was no significant difference, which indicates that there

was very little variation among what was reported and what would be expected by

chance. The results of the chi-square statistic for the post-survey showed that survey

items 1, 4, 7, and 10 were highly significant, while survey items 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15

showed no significant differences between what was observed and what was expected to

occur by chance. In both the pre-survey and the post-survey, items 7 and 10 remained

The Paradox of the Writing Process 50

significant, while items 6, 9, 13, and 15 demonstrated no significance in either the pre-

survey or the post-survey.

The raw data revealed that prior to being exposed to writing instruction, 20 out of

20 students reported on both the pre-survey and the post-survey that they could always or

often write a complete paragraph (item 10), but when they were asked if they were good

at writing a whole composition (item 15), 14 out of 20 answered always or often on the

pre-survey, while only 10 out of 20 concurred on the post-survey. It is interesting to note

this raw data in particular because prior to receiving the instruction to writing as a

process, all of the students surveyed affirmed that they could produce a finished product,

i.e., a paragraph. Writing a composition, on the other hand, is a process in and of itself.

Thus, once the students were made aware of the complexity of writing, their perception

of their own abilities displayed less confidence. This lack of confidence could have been

a factor for some of the students whose scores decreased from the pretest to the post-test

because the post-test is a product-centered test that requires competency in the process of

writing.

Focus question three in this study sought to establish how successful the change

process proposal was in convincing stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching

writing as a process. To effectively respond the question, qualitative data were collected

through the use of in-depth interviews of language arts teachers and the chief

administrator of the middle school where the study was conducted. Construct-related

validity served to interpret and examine the relevance of the answers reported, and the

responses were coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 51

According to the qualitative data that were acquired for focus question three of

this study, there were two recurring themes observed. The first recurring theme that

transpired in the interview was the teachers’ vehement confirmation that there was an

absence of a shared vision in respect to the pedagogy for writing instruction. The

interview segued to the second recurring theme that revealed a lack of transparency in

measuring the progression of student writing.

Moreover, the interview of the teachers exposed two dominant themes.

Seemingly, one of the dominant themes expressed by the teachers at this middle school

was their belief that the implementation of teaching process-centered writing, as opposed

to product-centered writing, is quite probable. In fact, there was a consensus that holistic

writing instruction is the most beneficial for students to become more adept in writing

and students’ skills would ultimately transcend academia. Unfortunately, the following

sentiments uttered by the teachers substantiated their rationale for not teaching process-

centered writing. They all agreed that they simply had not ever received adequate or

consistent training in the instruction of writing.

Finally, one emergent theme that was communicated through the teacher

interview was that there are considerable challenges to teach writing. Some of the

challenges articulated by the teachers were in relation to time, increases in class size, and

the ramifications of grading with inherent subjectivity.

To further discuss how successful the change process proposal was in convincing

stakeholders to adopt the implementation of teaching writing as a process, an interview of

the principal was conducted. The interview began with the notion that leaders must

establish their role in the change process in order to successfully execute change. The

The Paradox of the Writing Process 52

principal’s responses to how difficult he thought it was to be a transformational leader

exposed one dominant theme. He firmly declared, “Positions of leadership are becoming

more and more specialized. There is no real ownership of [a leader’s] school anymore.

He elaborated by saying, “If there is no ownership of the school, there is no real sense of

leadership. It is difficult to cultivate change when people are not confident that their

leaders are vested in the school.” As stated by Glatthorn et. al., (2009), moral purpose is

one component of leadership that can affect sustainable and systematic change.

There was one recurring theme revealed as the interview of the principal

progressed. The principal was asked to provide future leaders with strategies to assist

them in implementing organizational change. He candidly responded, “Take the

temperature of the water before you jump in.” He emphasized, “Leaders must find out

who the stakeholders are and let them become part of the decision making process; this is

how you build rapport.” He also maintained that in order to successfully implement

change, “you have to give [stakeholders] credit for what they are already doing.” In other

words, “use tradition to help implement change—embrace their pride.” Lastly, it is

important to note that the principal believed that “to have buy in you have to show

results; you have to have something that you can prove.”

An emerging theme made evident through the administrative interview was that

there must be initiative in the role of leaders to raise consciousness about educational

reform. The principal alluded to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and its

reinforced emphasis on accountability. He is convinced that as a result of NCLB,

“[education] is becoming a true profession.” He expressed his satisfaction with “high

expectations.” On another aspect of reform, the principal commented on the notion that

The Paradox of the Writing Process 53

education today is “a period of technological reformation.” He referenced the innovations

in technology and the speed at which they are produced. Then he wittingly asserted that

“it is especially in this area where there is tremendous fear of the unknown.” He further

suggested that since there is “no solvable solutions to things like cyber bullying” that it is

in this field where most of the litigations are expected to occur.

Discussion

The outcomes produced in this study clearly expound the challenges associated

with implementing the instruction of writing as a process approach. Although the results

of the scores from the pretest to the post-test do not indicate that teaching writing as a

process had a positive effect on all of the students, it is not necessarily accurate to state

that teaching process-centered writing does not contribute to enhancing metacognitive

skills of students or augmenting students’ abilities to function autonomously.

The dependent t tests showed that 7 students significantly increased their

scores from the pretest to the post-test, while 13 students notably decreased their scores.

What must be acknowledged in the test results is that just because there was not an

increase in a student’s score from the pretest to the post-test it does not mean that the

student did not make progress in his area of weakness. For example, if a student had no

knowledge about how to formulate a thesis statement prior to taking the pretest, and then

managed to compose one the post-test, a degree of progression has occurred. An

important aspect of the writing process is attaining the ability to evaluate one’s one work.

Therefore, it can be assumed that discrepancies in some of the scores reported on the

post-test could be attributed to not having enough time allotted to adequately review

one’s work before time was called.

Another factor that must be considered as a result of the test scores reported on

the dependent t tests is the inherent subjectivity in grading. As mentioned previously, the

graders responsible for assessing the pretest were not of the same group responsible for

The Paradox of the Writing Process 54

assessing the post-test. Thus, the divergent training received by the graders to evaluate

compositions could have lead to very different interpretations of the rubric. As this study

advanced, it became obvious that the graders employed by the Write Score and the

graders employed by the state possessed dissimilar views on the element of diction in the

Style domain. Students who chose to use advanced vocabulary on the pretest actually

received lower scores in Style. Graders claimed that the use of big words did not

necessarily increase the degree to which the writer controlled language to engage the

reader.

However, the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment Rubric, which is based on a

scale of 1-5 in each domain, grants a score of 5 to word choice that reflects an

understanding of the denotative and connotative meaning of language; furthermore,

diction that is precise and engaging also receives a 5. Oppositely, word choice that is

simple and ordinary receives a 2. Therefore, it stands to reason that word choice that was

simple and ordinary lowered the scores in the Style domain on the post-test, but not

necessarily on the pretest.

Finally, the writing prompt may have played a pivotal role in the outcomes of the

post-test and could justify the reason some of the students’ scores decreased

considerably. The Georgia Grade 8 Writing assessment prompt used in this study asked

students to write a genre appropriate composition addressed to an audience of elementary

age children. Audience awareness is evaluated on the rubric, along with diction. The

students reported confusion in terms of how to address younger children and still utilize

appropriate word choice to engage the readers. Thus, a clear understanding of the prompt

was problematic in achieving desired test scores.

The recurring, dominant, and emerging themes revealed in this study simply

reiterate what the research states. The writing curriculum must solidify a powerful

approach to teaching writing; teachers must receive comprehensive training in the field of

The Paradox of the Writing Process 55

writing instruction; and, there must be a collective willingness, shared commitment, and

support of the rationale for change. The opposing views offered in the research maintain

that product-centered writing instruction focuses on the end result of the composing

process, but the claims still refer to the instruction as a process. Thus, an amalgamation of

the two, both process- and product-centered instruction, will prove most effective in the

writing curriculum.

Implications

This action research study was informal, systematic research conducted by a

classroom teacher whose ambition was to resolve issues concerning the writing

curriculum in the middle school where the teacher was employed. This study also

evaluated the integrity of teaching the writing process holistically to middle grade

students. Because this study only had 20 subjects, a broad generalization cannot be made

to a larger population. The subjects were gifted eighth grade students whose currently

adept writing skills and motivation to learn were both great contributing factors in this

study.

Transferability was established in this study because it could be easily imitated by

teachers of the English language arts; however, the success of this study relies heavily

upon the number of students a teacher is assigned per class. Evaluating the progression of

student writing necessitates affording students several opportunities to write, assessing

the needs of each individual student, providing ample and timely feedback on every

writing assignment, differentiating instructional strategies for each of the stages of the

writing process, and administering summative assessments, often accompanied by

conferencing.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 56

Referential adequacy was achieved through the use of the Knudson Writing

Attitude Survey for Students, along with interviews of the teachers and the chief

administrator of the school where this study was conducted. The qualitative data gathered

as a result of providing stakeholders with the opportunity to voice their perceptions and

understandings regarding the purpose of this study only enhanced its credibility which

could not be achieved solely by the quantitative data. Thus, the cohesive structure of this

study was made evident by the use of multiple data sources, opposing views, and

accuracy of data which support epistemological validation, structural corroboration and

fairness.

Through the qualitative findings of this research study I learned that writing is a

learn-by-doing skill; it requires consistent active personal participation. Even though

teaching students to write by affording them the opportunity to write is recognized as

pedagogically sound, remarkably, many language arts teachers retreat from this wisdom

and tend to avoid actually having students write. The study revealed that there is no

concrete methodology for teaching writing; the divergent approaches to measuring the

progression of student writing have hindered the holistic approach to teaching writing;

and, it is imperative that teachers receive adequate professional training in the instruction

of writing. In order to adopt the implementation of teaching writing as a process, the

components of transformational leadership will serve as most beneficial.

Throughout the duration of this research project, stakeholders were empowered

by favorable circumstances to become agents of change. Students were given the chance

to openly express their opinions about the instruction of writing in the language arts

curriculum; they were asked to divulge their beliefs about the role of writing in their

The Paradox of the Writing Process 57

lives, both within and beyond the realm of academia; they were afforded opportunities to

experience writing as a process, which is not often realistic in a traditional language arts

classroom. I believe that this study provided an atmosphere that allowed me to genuinely

show my students how dedicated I am to finding the most beneficial strategies to teach

writing. I proved to them that their worth did not lie in the results of a standardized

assessment. I made them believe that the evidence of learning is found in recognizing

their weaknesses and improving their strengths in writing. Furthermore, I feel that I truly

acknowledged and valued the input that they were willing to provide me so that we could

all become catalysts for change.

The greatest impact of this study was on school improvement. For the first time

since the opening of this middle school, there was a noticeable camaraderie established

among the language arts teachers. We were able to speak candidly about our individual

methods of teaching writing, more specifically, what was working and what was not. We

shared concerns, and offered valuable advice to one another. A mutual respect flourished,

not only for one another as professionals, but as people.

Impact on School Improvement

In the realm of education today, students, teachers, and administrators are faced

with unprecedented demands. In 2001, the passage of No Child Left Behind emphasized

the importance of ensuring that all students have access to quality schools and a rigorous

academic program (Wagner & Kegan, 2006). Unfortunately, the high stakes testing

associated with NCLB has revealed an influx of mediocrity. Students are struggling to

overcome longstanding achievement gaps and striving to master the standards necessary

to impede the odds against them to become one of the children left behind. The current

The Paradox of the Writing Process 58

organization of schools must be modified; however, the imposition of higher expectations

upon students, coupled with the perception that teachers and leaders should be showing

more initiative to meet educational demands to achieve innovative curriculum policies,

do not motivate stakeholders to support the rationale for fundamental change.

Many teachers are drawn to the profession of teaching because it offers relative

autonomy; they do not work directly under any form of supervision. Instead, teachers are

left to work in their classrooms, isolated, and given the liberty to make decisions about

their instruction without, for lack of a better word, permission. Administrators, therefore,

rely on teachers to improve classroom instruction. Administrators often remain

uninvolved in curriculum and instructional matters (Wagner & Kegan, 2006).

Consequently, I was fully aware that the notion of implementing the holistic,

process-centered approach to the instruction of writing, as opposed to continuing the

traditional product-centered approach to writing instruction, was bound to be a sensitive

subject. Nonetheless, this project has had a profound impact on the middle school where

this study was conducted.

Prior to this study, the teachers at this middle school neither possessed a shared

vision of what constitutes good writing, nor was there a consensus regarding a concrete

method for teaching writing. A small number of teachers were using various means to

measure the progression of student writing, while some were not measuring progression

at all. Many voiced their frustrations in terms of the lack of professional development that

they have received to effectively teach writing. For that reason, the majority of the

teachers focused on product-centered writing and admitted to being preoccupied by the

expectations of the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 59

In fact, prior to this study, the only writing assessment ever administered to the

students at this middle school was the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment. It was not

until after this study was conducted that a pretest designed to assess prior knowledge

about writing was and will continue to be administered. The teachers agree that with the

knowledge obtained from pretest results, they will be better equipped to differentiate their

instruction. Because the pretest will assess the needs of each student, results will serve as

the instrument for directing the stages of the writing process. Progression will be

monitored for each student with the use of individual writing portfolios. The general

consensus resulting from this study is that the focus of writing instruction should

incorporate both process-centered and product-centered practices. Ultimately, the scores

on the Georgia Grade 8 Writing Assessment are subjective and do not show the progress

that students make when they are exposed to strong writing instruction. Therefore,

professional development was offered through the Write Score, a progress monitoring

company, during the duration of this study. The principal offered insight in regard to the

Write Score’s role in this study; he stated, “The use of the Write Score brought about

change in this school. It gave the teachers some accountability for teaching writing when

there was none before.”

Thus, this study has launched the foundation for a new writing curriculum. There

are plans to vertically align the curriculum in writing at this middle school, and the

emphasis in writing will no longer be that of the standardized writing assessment.

Furthermore, as a result of the findings in this study, this middle school has plans to

integrate the literature and language arts classes as early as the next school year;

currently, the two classes are taught separately. There is a philosophy that states, “If you

The Paradox of the Writing Process 60

want to teach a child to read, give him a pencil. If you want to teach a child to write, give

him a book.” This philosophy is supported by the research conducted in New Zealand.

King, Jonson, Whitehead, and Reinken (2003) assert that New Zealand has produced

some of the highest literacy rates in the industrialized world, and according to their

research, writing is a natural outgrowth of reading and students engage in writing as a

way to respond to reading.

I am honored to announce that as a result of this study, and the research utilized to

corroborate it, my principal has named me the new English Department Chair.

Recommendations for Future Research

Throughout the course of this study, and amid the volumes of literature devoted to

explicate the craft of writing, there is one recurring inquiry that demands consideration in

terms of the vicissitude of writing instruction: How does teaching the process of writing

holistically positively impact the writing of middle grade students? Although this study

offered various process-centered and product-centered strategies, along with means for

differentiating writing instruction, the study also yielded results that cannot definitively

answer the question at hand. Hence, further research is needed to discover how

improving the pedagogy for teaching writing will enhance the skills in which students are

already adept, as well as enable them to augment their proficiency in mastering the

writing process.

Recommendations for future research that may generate more conclusive results

include, but are not limited to, expanding the length of the study, offering teachers

sufficient professional development in the instruction of writing, and implementing a

concrete methodology for teaching the writing process.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 61

This study measured the progression of student writing over the duration of only

approximately ten weeks. In order for this study to adequately reflect how well teaching

the writing process holistically will positively impact the writing of middle grade

students, the study should be longitudinal.

REFERENCES

Charles, C., & Mertler, C. (2002). Introduction to educational research. Boston, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

Cumberworth, T. J., & Hunt, J. A. (1998). Improving middle school student writing skills

and attitudes toward writing (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Xavier University).

Retrieved from ERIC.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The

Landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.

Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.

Ercikan, K., & Roth, W. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and

quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23. Retrieved from ERIC

database.

Fosnot, C., & Perry, R. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In

Catherine Twomey (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp.

8-38). New York: Teachers College Press.

Glatthorn, A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B.M. (2009). Curriculum leadership:

Strategies for development and implementation. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage

The Paradox of the Writing Process 62

Publications.

Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of

automated writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment,

8(6), Retrieved from ERIC database.

Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2008) Educational research: Quantitative,

qualitative, and mixed approaches. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage

Publications.

Kear, D., Coffman, G., McKenna, M., & Ambrosio, A. (2000). Measuring attitude toward

writing: A new tool for teachers. Reading Teacher, 54(1), 10-23. Retrieved from

ERIC database.

King, C., Jonson, K., Whitehead, D., & Reinken, B. (2003). Glimpses of literacy

education in New Zealand. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Knudson, R. (2001). Writing experiences, attitudes, and achievement of first to sixth

graders. Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 90-97. Retrieved from ERIC

database.

LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). Conceptual framework. LaGrange,

GA: LaGrange College.

Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, J. P. (2001). The holistic curriculum. Canada: OISE Press, Inc.

Nagin, C. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving writing in our schools. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Assessment Governing Board, (2006). Writing framework and specifications for

the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Assessment

The Paradox of the Writing Process 63

Governing Board, Retrieved from ERIC database.

Phillips, D. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.

Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.

Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. (5th ed.).

Boston: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.

Ruddell, M. R. (2008). Teaching content reading and writing. (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. (Excel 2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shannon, J. (1994). TESOL's process versus product debate. Retrieved from ERIC

database.

Skrla, L., McKenzie, K., & Scheurich, J. (2009). Using equity audits to create

equitable and excellent schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spanjer, R. A., & Layne, B. H. (1983). Teacher attitudes toward language: Effects of

training in a process approach to writing. Journal of Educational Research, 77(1),

60-62. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Tchudi, S. & Mitchell, D. (1999). Exploring and teaching the English language arts.

(4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Tompkins, G. E. (2008). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product. (5th ed.).

Columbus, OH: Pearson.

Wagner, T. & Kegan, R. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming

our schools. Jossey-Bass.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 64

Wilson, L. (2006). Writing to live: How to teach writing for today’s world. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 65

Appendix A

The Paradox of the Writing Process 66

The Paradox of the Writing Process 67

The Paradox of the Writing Process 68

The Paradox of the Writing Process 69

APPENDIX B

Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Students

The rating scale—1 almost always, 2 often 3 sometimes, 4 seldom, and 5 almost never. Circle the relevant answer.

1. When I have free time, I would rather write than watch TV. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I get good grades on what I write at school. 1 2 3 4 5

3. My parents like what I write. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I like to write if I can choose the topic. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I think writing is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5

6. If I have free time, I would rather write than read. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I am a good writer. 1 2 3 4 5

8. I would rather write an essay than fill in the blanks. 1 2 3 4 5

9. At school, I like to write science and social reports. 1 2 3 4 5

10. I think I could write better than I do. 1 2 3 4 5

11. You have to be a good writer to do well in school. 1 2 3 4 5

12. I would like to have more time in school to write. 1 2 3 4 5

13. I can write a complete paragraph. 1 2 3 4 5

14. I do better at school if I take notes on what the teacher says. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Writing to express yourself is important in getting a good job. 1 2 3 4 5

16. I write notes to my friends. 1 2 3 4 5

17. I write letters to relatives and friends when I am not in school. 1 2 3 4 5

18. I am good at writing a whole composition. 1 2 3 4 5

19. I would rather write than listen to music. 1 2 3 4 5

Kear, D., Coffman, G., McKenna, M., & Ambrosio, A. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for teachers. Reading Teacher, 54(1), 10-23. Retrieved from ERIC database.

The Paradox of the Writing Process 70

APPENDIX C

Teacher Interview Questions

1. What are your current methods for teaching writing?

2. How do you measure the progression of student writing?

3. Do you feel as though you have received adequate training to teach writing? Ifnot, how much training do you think you would need to adequately teach writing?

4. Do you think that teaching process centered writing, as opposed to product centered writing, would improve student writing? Why or Why not?

5. What do you think the most significant challenges would be to implement the instruction of the writing process in your classroom?

The Paradox of the Writing Process 71

APPENDIX D

Principal Interview Questions

1. How difficult is it to be a transformational leader?

2. If you could provide future leaders with strategies to assist them in implementing organizational change, what would they be?

3. What is the best thing occurring in education today?

4. What are the worst things occurring in education today?