OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book dr0p to remove this checkout from your record. G) 1979 JOSEPH BERNARD RUBIN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF TEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OF LANGUAGE AS AFFECTING THE DECISION-MAKING IN PLANNING AND EVALUATING STUDENTS' WRITING IN GRADES FOUR, FIVE AND SIX By Joseph Bernard Rubin A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State Univeristy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1978 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF TEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OF LANGUAGE AS AFFECTING THE DECISION-MAKING IN PLANNING AND EVALUATING STUDENTS' WRITING IN GRADES FOUR, FIVE AND SIX By Joseph Bernard Rubin The question of this qualitative study emanates from the reality that teachers, while planning, instructing and evaluating, make decisions and judgments about the writing process and product of students. On what do teachers base their decisions and judg- ments of student writing? Is the nature of language as conceived by the teacher one criterion? Specifically, this study focuses on the teacher's conception of language, the conception's compati- bility with the "self-awareness" or "back-to-basics" language movements and its influence on the teaching of writing. Purposes of this field study were threefold: (l) to ascertain the level of awareness of a teacher's conception of language; (2) to identify and explain teacher's conceptions of language and; (3) to describe if and how a teacher's language conception influences decision-making in planning and evaluation of student writing in grades four, five and six. In-depth interviews with ten teachers of grades four, five and six were conducted to discuss the teacher's conception of Joseph Bernard Rubin language and their classroom writing experiences. Card-sorts were used as a means of facilitating teachers' identification, discus- sion and explanation of ideas. Questions were asked by the researcher to determine the reasons or rationale for what teachers said, as well as what they did not say. Following the interviews, each teacher was given four samples of writing by youngsters in grades four, five and six. Each teacher was asked to read and assess each piece of work according to whatever criteria s/he chose and to make comments directly on the writing samples. Upon completion of this assessment, the teacher was directed to indicate in writing what next steps should be taken for each student's writing development. The procedures followed were observed and recorded on tape by the interviewer. From these transcripts, a description of each teacher's language conception and its effects upon student writing using the card-sort categories as a guideline were developed. Key-informant interviewing and interpersonal process recall were the techniques used for acquiring teacher responses to the study instruments. These data were used to generate a set of ten protocols, one for each subject. A protocol contained a teacher's response to the three card-sorts, assessment of the four student writing samples by the teacher and suggestions of follow-up writing activities for the author of each sanmle of writing. The major findings of this qualitative study indicate that these ten teachers did not have clearly defined conceptions of language. Most were not aware of how their language beliefs Joseph Bernard Rubin affected their decisions about student writing. Although they were somewhat consistent in what they did in evaluating student writing samples, their evaluation was not based on a language conception and was often inconsistent with what these teachers stated as being important in the card-sorts. The researcher assumed that teachers have a conception (understandings and beliefs) about language and its instruction and that this language conception influences decisions teachers make about teaching and evaluating student writing in grades four, five and six. The data of this study indicates that this assumption is not valid for these teachers. However, generalizing to other samples or populations of teachers is not inferred since this was a field study. DEDICATION To the memory of Jeffrey, my twin, and to Jill and Haley whom I love dearly. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to thank my good friends and colleagues Dorris M. Lee and Keith Goldhammer, who encouraged me to pursue doctoral study. Their belief in me as both a person and an educator has been extremely important to my personal development. To the Department of Elementary Education I express appre- ciation for the opportunity of off-campus teaching assignments and for a graduate assistantship. To the Institute for Research on Teaching I am grateful for the training I received as a Research Intern. Without this College of Education support, a doctorate for me would not have been possible. To my committee members, Dr. James Snoddy, Dr. Keith Anderson and Dr. Sheila Fitzgerald, I extend thanks for their friendship, expertise and educational leadership. To my chairman, Dr. Perry Lanier, I am indebted for advice, counsel, and for helping me during some difficult times. To the memory of Helen Dunis, whose dream has become my reality, I am thankful for inspiration. To my mother who never had the opportunity for higher education, but wanted it for her children, I am appreciative. Lastly, to Jill, my oldest daughter and roommate, I want to say "thank-you." She lived through this doctoral program sharing with me both the good and bad times, but always with a loving smile on her face. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter I. PROBLEM STATEMENT . —l Status of Writing . . Statement of Problem . Purpose of Study . Assumptions of Study . Method of Study . . Significance of Study . . Influences Upon Teacher Conceptions of Written Language . . . Language Development. . Language, Race and Cultural Awareness Internal and External Language Language and Thought . Writing as a Process . Overview of Dissertation and 0&0me GUT-DD-D-J dd wd II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 14 Theoretical Conceptions of Language . . . . . l5 Theories of Language Acquisition . . . . . l5 Conceptions of Language in Children's Thought . . . . . . . . 22 The Status of Writing . . . . . . . . . 29 The Teaching of Writing . . . . . . . 32 The Evaluation of Student Writing . . . . . 35 Teacher Decision- -Making. . . . . . . . . 38 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . 4l Research Design . . . . . . . . . . 44 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . 44 Conceptions . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Language . . . . . . . . . 44 Conceptions of Language . . . . . . . 45 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 iv Chapter Page Population and The Sample . . . . . . . 45 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . 46 Assumptions and Limitations . . . . . . 47 Procedures . . . . . . 48 Interview and Card- sort Discussion . . . . 48 Design and Judgment of Writing Samples . . . 49 Summary . . . . . 49 IV. TEACHER IDROTOCOLS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . 5l Assumptions Card-sort . . . . . . . . . 53 Assumptions Card-sort: A Description . . . . 54 Teacher One . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Teacher Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Teacher Three . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Teacher Four . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Teacher Five . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Teacher Six . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Teacher Seven . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 7l Teacher Eight . . . . . . . . . . . 7l Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Teacher Nine . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Sunmary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Teacher Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Summary . . . . . . 78 Collective Summary of Teacher Protocol on Assumptions Card- sort . . . . . . . 78 Principles Card-sort . . . . . . . . . . 80 Principles Card-sort: A Description . . . . 82 Teacher One . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Teacher Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Teacher Three . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Teacher Four . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Teacher Five . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Teacher Six . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O Chapter Page Teacher Seven . . . . . . . . . . . 9l Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Teacher Eight . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Teacher Nine . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Teacher Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Summary . . . . 96 Collective Summary of Teacher Protocols on Principles Card- sort . . . . . . . . . 96 Technical Skills Card-sort . . . . . . . . 98 Technical Skills Card-sort: A Description . . lOZ Teacher One . . . . . . . . . . . . l02 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . l03 Teacher Two . . . . . . . . . . . . l03 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO4 Teacher Three . . . . . . . . . . . l04 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . l05 Teacher Four . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO6 Teacher Five . . . . . . . . . . . lO6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . l07 Teacher Six . . . . . . . . . . . . lO7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . l08 Teacher Seven . . . . . . . . . . . l08 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . l09 Teacher Eight . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO9 Teacher Nine . . . . . . . . . . . lO9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . llO Teacher Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Summary . . . . . llO Collective Summary of Teacher Protocol on Technical Skills Card- sort . . . . . . . lll Writing Samples . . . . . . . . ll2 Responses to Writing Sample 1: My Favorite Restaurant . . . . . . . . ll4 Teacher One . . . . . . . . . . . . ll4 Teacher Two . . . . . . . . . . . . ll4 Teacher Three . . . . . . . . . . . ll4 Teacher Four . . . . . . . . . . . ll4 Teacher Five . . . . . . . . . . . ll5 Teacher Six . . . . . . . . . . . . ll5 Teacher Seven . . . . . ’. . . . . . ll5 Teacher Eight . . . . . . . . . . . ll5 Teacher Nine . . . . . . . . . . . ll5 Teacher Ten . . . . . . . . ll6 Responses to Writing Sample 2: Hi . . . . . l16 vi Chapter Page Teacher One . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Teacher Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Teacher Three . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Teacher Four . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Teacher Five . . . . . . . . . . . ll7 Teacher Six . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Teacher Seven . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Teacher Eight . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Teacher Nine . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Teacher Ten . . . . . . . . 118 Responses to Writing Sample 3. (untitled) . . 118 Teacher One . . . . . . . . . . . . ll8 Teacher Two . . . . . . . . . . . . ll8 Teacher Three .. . . . . . . . . . . 119 Teacher Four . . . . . . . . . . . ll9 Teacher Five . . . . . . . . . . . ll9 Teacher Six . . . . . . . . . . . . ll9 Teacher Seven . . . . . . . . . . . ll9 Teacher Eight . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Teacher Nine . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Teacher Ten . . . . . . . . 120 Response to Writing Sample 4: Ivan Pavlov . . 120 Teacher One . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Teacher Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Teacher Three . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Teacher Four . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Teacher Five . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Teacher Six . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Teacher Seven . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Teacher Eight . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Teacher Nine . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Teacher Ten . . . . . 122 Summary of Individual Teacher Responses to the Four Writing Samples . . . . . . 122 Teacher One . . . . . . . . 122 Teacher Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Teacher Three . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Teacher Four . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Teacher Five . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Teacher Six . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Teacher Seven . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Teacher Eight . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Teacher Nine . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Teacher Ten . . . . . . 125 Collective Analysis of Teacher Responses . . . 125 Sample 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Sample 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Sample 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Sample 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 vii Chapter Page V. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. . . . . . . . 128 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Assumptions Card- sort . . . . . . . . 130 Principles Card- sort. . . . . . . . . 131 Technical Skills Card-sort . . . . . . . 133 Writing Samples . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 140 Discussion of Conclusions . . . . . 143 Discussion of Instruments and Methdology Appropriateness . . . . . . . . 143 Recomendations for Practice . . . . . . . 144 Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . 144 Teaching. . . . . . . 145 Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . 145 FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 APPENDIX A, CARD-SORT . . . . . . . . . . l65 APPENDIX B, CARD-SORT . . . . . . . . . . 168 APPENDIX C, CARD- SORT . . . . . . . . . . 170 APPENDIX D, WRITING SAMPLES . . . . . 173 APPENDIX E, FOLLOW- UP WRITING EXPERIENCE . . . . 175 APPENDIX F, INTERVIEW GUIDE . . . . . . . 177 viii Table 2a 2b 2c LIST OF TABLES Assumptions Card-sort Principles Card-sort Most Significant . Principles Card-sort Less Significant . Principles Card-sort Not Significant Technical Skills Card-Sort Collective Card-Sort ix Page 81 99 100 101 113 135 CHAPTER I PROBLEM STATEMENT Status of Writing Most teachers want children to write. They often want them to write for themselves and for others. Some teachers want children to use writing for clarifying their ideas and for communicating appropriate and meaningful messages. It is generally accepted by most teachers that if children want or need to participate optimally in their world, written communication is necessary. Writing skills can permit children to communicate their own ideas and to receive the ideas of others. Opportunities for writing are available in classrooms; students are writing. But, it is possible that writing programs may differ in classrooms according to the teacher's understanding of what is to be taught, and why. Historically, the instructional goal for writing has been one of requiring the individual to acquire comand of the written forms and conventions of language or, of helping the individual acquire the desire and willingness to use written forms in a unique, creative way. This has meant that classroom writing focuses either within the bounds of grammatical propriety and/or creative expression. As Robert P. Parker asserts, there have been two different emphases for the writing process. Emphasis has been placed on the process of writing where the individual is uncon- cerned with grammar or rhetoric where writing grows naturally out of personal experience, and writers are free to find a form appropriate to those experiences to be expressed.1 Or, emphasis has focused on the product of writing where the concern is con- ventional pedagogy, and principles of good writing to be mastered and applied when composing.2 It can be assumed that some learners have experienced a focus on both the process and product of writing. It appears that one issue has become whether grammar or creative expression should be emphasized. While it is not necessary to set up a polarity between grammar and creative writing, teachers are required to make decisions on what and how to teach writing, and how to evaluate student work. Publicity surrounding student's writing and the teaching of writing, now popularized by some as "the crisis in writing," has propelled writing into one of the most discussed issues of contemporary school curriculum. The word crisis may be strong, but as the Spring 1977 Student Member Newsletter of the National Council of Teachers of English states, " . . . it makes good copy, and there is sufficient evidence to say that the media have made it an event, a kind of palpable public issue."3 The media reminds us that writing skills are on the decline. Some evidence of this decline exists, but there is little of it. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results indicate that the mechanics of student writing have actually improved over the last few years; however, the more substantive aspects of writing, such as coherency, organization and revision skills, have decreased in quality. Responses to NAEP results include articles, as Richard Ohmann's, where it is argued that the decline in literacy is fiction, if not a hoax.4 Others, such as Dorris M. Lee, respond to this writing crisis as one of the periodic alarms about the state of education in this country, in which each part of the curriculum alternates for criticism every five years or $0.5 Opinions such as these may suggest that the media's concern about writing is not well-founded. Apparently this "writing crisis" is questioned, if not denied, by some edu- cators and is not well supported by the presently available data. Teachers' decisions about writing programs may be responses to the current media interest in writing performance ang_to the language movements of "Back-to-Basics" versus "Self-awareness." The latter movement proclaims that language is a part of culture, of race, and of self-discovery. Written language is for the purposes of self-understanding and understanding others, whereas "Back-to-Basics" stresses the teaching of grammar and technical skills. Most teachers work daily to expand the written language of their students. They should make decisions based not only on media pressures, but also on the growing body of linguistic infor- mation available to them. Some teachers may have clearly defined language conceptions upon which to make decisions, others may not.6 Statement of Problem Generally, the question of this study emanates from the reality that teachers, while planning, instructing and evaluating, make decisions and judgments about the writing process and product of students. On what do teachers base their decisions and judgments of student writing? Is the nature of language as conceived by the teacher one criterion? Specifically, this study focuses on the teacher's conception of language, the conception's compatibility with the "self-awareness" or "Back-to-Basics“ language movements and its influence on the teaching of writing. Purposes of Study The purposes of this study are threefold: (1) to ascertain the level of awareness of a teacher's conception of language; (2) to identify and explain teachers' conceptions of language and; (3) to describe if and how a teacher's language conception influ- ences the decision-making in planning and evaluating student writing in grades four, five and six. Assumptions of Study There are two underlying assumptions of this study. 1. A teacher's conception of language is a product of theoretical study, practical experience, or both. 2. A teacher's conception of language affects the design and implementation of a writing program in the school. Method of Study In February of 1977, a pilot study was conducted that utilized five elementary teachers working at the intermediate grade levels. These teachers volunteered as participants and responded to the question of this study in the following way: Individual interviews including use of card-sorts, samples of student writing, assessment of writing samples by the subjects with a listing of suggested learning experiences to help the authors of the samples improve their writing ability. Questions were raised requiring teachers to explain their decisions and judgments about the samples. Interviews were tape-recorded while the interviewer recorded whatever additional information seemed pertinent on the form provided for this purpose (see Appendix F). To help identify and explain a teacher's level of aware- ness of a language conception and its possible influence upon student writing in grades four, five and six, the investigator employed principles of interpersonal process recall. That is a form of interviewing that elicits systematic as well as accurate responses. Three sets of card-sorts that were designed for obtaining data were used. Specifically the cover card of each set explained the directions for using the other cards. There was one main idea to each card. The first sort dealt with identifying and explaining teachers' conceptions of language. The second sort dealt with guiding principles that could influence teacher deci- sions about children's writing experiences. The third card-sort dealt with the technical skills of writing (see Appendices A, B, C). The card-sorts were developed with the help of two Institute for Research on Teaching teacher collaborators, five teachers working with grades four, five and six in Waverly School District, and three MSU doctoral students with language arts competence. The final evaluation of these card-sorts was made by Dorris M. Lee, Professor Emeritus of Reading and Language Arts, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. The investigator used personal judgment to try to identify and explain each teacher's personal awareness of a language con- ception. Also, the effect of this conception on student writing, whether clearly defined or not, was examined. It was expected that by following these procedures, descriptions of teacher thinking and behavior could result. These descriptions would become the basis upon which this researcher could determine the protocol or pattern for each subject in the pilot study. Specifically, it was felt that the data obtained helped toward inferring what is a teacher's language conception and that these inferences related directly to the three purposes of the study. From the pilot data, it was decided that protocols could be determined for each parti- cipant of the actual study. Significance of Study The identification of possible teacher's conceptions of language and their effect upon student writing could contribute to research on teaching or teacher education in the following ways: 1. An explanation of identified teacher's conceptions of language may be valuable to teachers, curriculum planners, material developers, and teacher educators for planning and evaluating lessons, materials and units of study. 2. An examination of the influence of differing teacher conceptions upon student writing could be useful to researchers in assessing the impact of variables. For example, origins of teacher conceptions will be explained and noted. 3. Future researchers studying teacher effectiveness may be provided with some useful information about why some practi- tioners behave as they do during language studies and student writing experiences. 4. Findings may be used to help teacher educators deter- mine course content for both undergraduate and graduate studies. 5. Conclusions may be used to help school personnel to settle upon content for inservice and staff development courses. Influences Upon Teacher Conceptions of Written Language Language Development There are two predominante theories about the development of language in children: the genetic and the behaviorist. Pro- bably these theories have had a major impact upon classroom procedures with their differences affecting teacher decision- making in planning, instructing and evaluating. The genetic theory of language development, whose best known proponent is linguist Noam Chomsky, holds that children possess innate language mechanisms that are responsible for most of what they learn about language. Essentially it is an intui- tionist theory, suggesting that children have an inborn or intuitive predisposition for language.7 The behaviorist theory, suggests that language is learned primarily through imitation and that children's speech is shaped by their language environments. B. F. Skinner is the main supporter of this theory, which opposes the innate view by claiming that everything is learned through external stimuli. Kean and Personke speak to the dichotomy with the following caveat: Until such time as one side or the other achieves a break- through in our understanding of this complex process, the nontheoreticians among us--especially those who work daily with children--will probably do well to steer an openminded course between the two theoretical extremes.8 Language, Race and Cultural Awareness In the last dozen years there has been considerable study of language, both oral and written. This extensive study has explored the interrelations, development and functions of language and cognition. At the same time an emerging emphasis has been placed on the importance of language, race, and culture to the development of personality and self-awareness. These ideas can influence teachers and teaching. Curriculum design and develop- ment, teacher education at both the undergraduate and graduate level often reflect this knowledge. But, varying interpretations of this information can add to the dilemma of developing language programs. In their attempt to create a new philosophical base for language some theorists have possibly added to the problem facing teachers. Jenkins explains that language is an inextricable part of self, race and culture. This age is one of confrontation when we ask the questions, Who? How? What?, and perhaps most im- portantly, Why?9 It is an age of student unrest, even in the lower grades, a time when students caution their parents and educators like IBM cards, "do not bend, fold or mutilate" me, because if you do, I will be destroyed. Students frequently let educators know they are not captive audiences. They no longer want to play the role of consumers--without choice. Jenkins further states that especially among minority groups, there has been a renaissance of positive feelings about finding and then maintaining identity, pride and culture. Some pe0ple view language and writing as a part of culture. "Our society has come to recognize that language is not the private preserve of teachers,that there is much, much more to language than being correct, preper and precise.10 Furthermore, Jenkins continues: . . . as soon as one takes the position that one's language or dialect is better than another we have taken for our- selves, and imposed on others, a stand which is elitist and absolutist. Today such a stand also can be accurately called racist. 1 Internal and External Langgage Language may be viewed in relation to cognitive psychology which holds that the internal function of language facilitates the individual to create order from the environment into existing lO patterns. James E. Miller sums up this approach to language in Word, Self, Reality; The Rhetoric of Imagination: What this book does attempt to do is to restore awareness of the mystery of language and respect for its ways and its possibilities. . . .For the truth seems to be that language-use owes more to the imaginative faculty of the mind than to the logical. . . .We create order linguisti- cally out of the chaos of experience. . . . Simply by its sheer selective nature, language reduces the vast and awesome overabundance of life as daily encountered to manageable proportions.12 Language may also serve an external function of allowing one to reach out and communicate with the world for testing and validating discoveries. When writing serves this external purpose, a poten- tial audience has been determined. At this point technique and style become important. At times writing may be experimental. It may be an end in itself. But, when writing serves an internal function, the process is not mechanical; it is organic, inextricably bound into language acquisition, maturation and self-awareness. Language and Thought The views of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky about children's language and thought have contributed to an understanding of cognitive development. While many of their findings are comple- mentary, their differences are significant. From a Piagetian perspective, language is a principle factor in some types of learning and not a factor in others. Vygotsky's position is that language is a mediating factor in all learning. The first per- spective emphasizes language learning in and of itself, as one type of learning among others, while the second considers language ll as a guiding factor in every kind of learning. John M. Kean and Carl Personke think, “For the teacher, both approaches have merit and can, indeed, complement each other . . ."13 Writing as a Process Writing is one of the communication processes. It involves recording one's ideas, thoughts and feelings on paper. It cannot exist apart from thinking, and is interrelated with talking, a productive skill, and the receptive language skills of listening and reading. Writing is an individual activity and is highly dependent on the total experiences one has had. Teachers often view writing only in relation to an end product and may fail to understand what is involved in the process. When writing is thought of as a process, rather than just a product, it enables teachers to consider what happens before and during the time of children's recording what they want to say. Language plays an important part in helping children clarify their experiences. They must consider their past exper- iences and think about what they mean for future action. Through written symbols children can deal with events and ideas that extend their thinking to what is outside of their immediate per- ception, but within the area of their understanding. Researchers and theoreticians are attempting to understand the writing process as it develops in children and describe it in terms of what people do mentally when they write. There are several approaches taken by educators to describe this process. l2 D'Angelo presents a theory of rhetoric, the study of effective use of language. He maintains that the rhetorical categories are "dynamic organizational processes, symbolic manifestations of underlying mental processes, and not merely conventional, static patterns.“14 He recognizes the need for basic research and focuses on a suggested list of twenty-one points, the first of which is "the study of the topics of invention and their relation- ]5 His theoretical ship to underlying logical thought processes." basis is compatible with Piaget's. Another approach is the building of models. Walshe suggests one consisting of writer, subject, audience, and tech- nique, thus adding technique to the three often proposed.16 Koch and Brazil offer a third approach in Strategies for Teaching the Compositional Process. Writing is viewed in three 17 segments, prewriting, writing and post-writing. The prewriting includes experiencing a response leading to a desire to write, discovering or identifying a topic and an audience, and choosing a form of writing, e.g., narrative, description or other, and of organization. The writing includes using the form selected, making language choices, and languaging or the process of carrying out the language choices. Post-writing involves criticizing and proof- reading the written work. These three examples are illustrative of the variety and concerns of professionals who are reaching for an understanding of the writing process that will help teachers help children express their thoughts on paper more effectively. 13 Overview of Dissertation In Chapter II, the pertinent literature is reviewed in relation to the dissertation purposes. The field research design and procedures used to obtain the data are discussed in Chapter III. In Chapter IV, the teacher protocols are presented along with teacher responses to the student writing samples. These data are analyzed both collectively and individually in the chapter. Chapter V contains the interpretation, conclusions and recommen- dations of the study, along with concomitant discussions of each. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Research and literature as related to the three purposes of this study (1) to ascertain the level of awareness of a teacher's conception of language, (2) to identify and explain teacher's conceptions of language and, (3) to describe if and how a teacher's language conception influences the decision-making, in planning and evaluating student writing in grades four, five and six, is less than abundant. Teacher language conceptions have not been studied by researchers. If these language conceptions do affect student writing experiences as provided by classroom teachers, there is no discussion or analysis to be found in pro- fessional writing. In this chapter, the literature presented is mainly about writing in grades four, five and six. The organization of this topic utilizes five sections: theoretical conceptions of languages; the status of writing; the teaching of writing; the evaluation of student writing and; teacher decision-making. While these five topics seem broad, research and literature has focused on beginning writing or upon composition for junior high school, high school and college. Rarely can one find an article pertaining directly to teachers and students of grades four, five and six. Because this study deals with teacher decision-making, the final section presents 14 l5 a brief statement about studies that make reference to the teacher as a decision-maker in planning and evaluating student work. There is little discussion or analysis about professional decision- making in the literature as it pertains to school writing. Theoretical Conceptions of Language, To assess teacher conceptions of language, a review of the theories of language acquisition and development is required. The two basic theories, those of the geneticists and the behaviorists, suggest very different views on how to develop language arts skills in children. The work in the geneticists field is dominated by Noam Chomsky and by B. F. Skinner in the theoretical viewpoints of the behaviorists. Men such as Vygotsky and Piaget have also influenced conceptions of language and added to what is known about language and how children learn language processes. Theories of Language Acguisition The nativist or genetic theory is best described by Noam Chomsky. He believes that each child ciiscovers individually how language works. Chomsky proposes what he calls "linguistic uni- versals" which are in the broadest sense the basic meanings people express or the commonalities of all language. He also pr0poses that language is innate, which we interpret to mean that humans are innately able to develop and use a symbolic language. Further, knowledge of children shows that all children wish to express their thoughts. With these givens, children, experiencing the language l6 used by those around them and having thoughts and meanings of their own, gradually and relatively quickly discover how the language they hear works to express them.1 There have been two major traditions in modern linguistic theory: universal gramnar and structural linguistics.2 Universal grammar has been concerned with general features of all language structure instead of particular idiosyncrasies of individual languages. It made a sharp distinction between "deep structure," or the "abstract underlying form which determines the meaning of a sentence . . .," and the "surface structure" of a sentence, or the physical components and organization of words and phrases.3 An underlying theoretical component of universal grammar is that the study of language should proceed within the framework of cognitive psychology, language providing the most effective means for studying the nature and mechanisms of the humand mind. Structural linguistics has been primarily concerned with language as a system of phonological units that undergo " . . 5 that systematic modification in phonetically determined contexts" is, the distinct sound patterns of individual language. Analysis of language through systematic segmentation and classification of data identifies all types of elements and their constraints, that function in a particular language. This cataloging of elements constitutes a full grammar of the language. A synthesis of the two traditions, Chomsky suggests, would provide insight regarding the nature of mental processes, as well as the mechanisms of perception and production, and the mechanisms 17 by which knowledge is acquired. This synthesis would result in a universal grammar based, like the traditional one, on a rationalist philosophy of mind, but one which includes study of idiosyncratic elements of particular languages as well. This general theory of ‘ linguistic structure would determine the form of grammar and is of particular interest for the information it offers concerning "innate intellectual structure."6 This intellectual schemata is the compound of linguistic universals, and credits the child with full knowledge of these parts. The important question for language learning and teaching is the specific nature of the innate schemata in the child, to determine not only what the universals are that make up the com- ponent parts, but also how detailed and specific the schema are. The schema must not be falsified by the diveristy of languages, but on the other hand, must be " . . . sufficiently rich and explicit to account for the rapidity and uniformity of language learning, and the remarkable complexity and range of the generative grammars that are the product of language learning."7 The task of understanding how language is acquired, there- fore, consists initially of writing a grammar that includes formal and substantive universals and that is sufficient to account for any utterance a child might make. The grammar is not a des- cription of the performance of the speaker, but rather of his linguistic competence, performance and competence being two quite distinct things. The more profound question involves the kinds of l8 structures the person has succeeded in mastering and internalizing, not whether he uses them in practice, when he may be influenced by a myriad of interfering factors.8 Imitation, Chomsky explains, can explain only a small amount of language knowledge, particularly at the level of sentence for- mation when most of what the child hears and says is totally new to the child's experience.9 A determination of competence cannot be derived simply from an analysis of performance. What is called for is experimentation that will draw out the true characteristics of the innate grammar. For example, the child's ability to repeat sentences and nonsentences might offer some evidence as to the underlying system he is using. In Chomsky's Aspects of the Theogy of Syntax he describes in great detail the requirements for con- structing an "acquisition model" for language.10 In a paper called "Linguistic Theory," Chomsky doubts whether the insights about language theory obtained in linguistics and psychology can be directly applied to language teaching.11 However, he discusses four notions that may be significant for language teaching: creativity in language use, the abstractness of linguistic expression, the universality of underlying linguistic structure, and the role of intrinsic organization in cognitive processes.12 But, in the final analysis, "it is the language teacher himself who must validate or refute any specific proposal. There is very little in psychology or linguistics that he can accept on faith."13 l9 Chomsky's view of some basic learning matters as they relate to language acquisition in the teaching process can be summarized: 1. Capacity is genetically determined and realized by the individual's innate language schemata. It consists of his ability to select from this schemata the phonologically relevant features the utterance requires; 2. Learning involves building on already acquired knowledge of language; 3. Reinforcement is not significant for language acquisi- tion although it may facilitate knowing better how to use the innate language structure by creating an awareness of the same, and; 4. Transfer implies using rule learning from the innate language structure in a variety of situations. In relationship to writing, Chomsky would advocate writing experiences that allow students to explore and discover the writing process. He believes language learning is intuitive, and not directly taught. This language process transfers as children write and discover rules for writing. Writing is learned by writing. It is highly individualistic. B. F. Skinner, a behavioral psycholgoist, advocated the imitation-reinforcement theory. Briefly, this theory proposes that children learn their language by imitating the speech of those around them. They continue to use the language that people react to in a positive way. Skinner's description of verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through the mediation of other persons, and as 20 14 An account such cannot be distinguished from behavior in general. of the behaviors of the speaker and listener taken together makes up a total verbal episode. One interpretation of this interaction allows a causal analysis in which specific verbal behavior can be predicted and controlled by changing the conditions under which it occurs. This approach to verbal behavior satisfies the need for a science of verbal behavior that can be applied whenever language is used.15 In the past, verbal behavior has been dealt with as events taking place inside of the individual, with emphasis on the use of words, meaning, ideas, and information rather than on the functional combination of these events.16 The study of meaning in particular has always sought objectivity, although this has failed because of the effects of the speaker's intention, attitude, sentiment, or " . . . some other psychological condition."17 When language is studied, independent of its interaction with the environment and consequently of the associated behavior, meaning cannot possibly be understood. Without taking into account psychological variables such as intention, the speaker's meaning is pure speculation. The need for an alternative approach is great, Skinner believes, and the task must begin with a description of verbal behavior. This task fulfilled, the approach must offer an explana- tion of the conditions relevant to the occurrence of the behavior. This presents us with a repertoire of verbal behavior which then demands that we study the interaction of these parts and the effects of multiple causes. An analysis of the activities of the 21 speaker and learner, such as, in the abstract, thinking and under- standing, leads us to the role of verbal behavior studied in the problem of thinking. Verbal behavior studied in its totality demands the same principles and methods for the study of human behavior as a whole.18 Skinner's hypothesis on language acquisition accepts two types of determiners, genetic and learned, that work together in a complementary, and not antagonistic way.19 However, what is genetic may be observable only as a disposition toward language; what is learned is observable in every behavior. Language teaching must inevitably concern itself, therefore, with behaviors that show increased learning and with ways to encourage these behaviors. In instruction written materials and imitation in combination with interaction between teacher and students, are used to produce new verbal behavior.20 Skinner's point of view on some basic learning issues as they relate to language acquisition in the teaching process might be as follows: 1. Capacity depands on the structuring of the stimuli in the teaching environment; 2. Learning takes place when an individual responds to stimuli in the environment; 3. Reinforcement strengthens response probability; 4. Transfer occurs when there are common elements either in a response already reinforced, or in a reinforcer that has already provided reinforcing; 22 5. and goals in a Skinner classroom are behavioral objectives that facilitate the learning process, such as practice in transfer, discrimination, etc. Measurement consists of tests or observations to assure that specific behaviors can be accom- plished. In relationship to writing, school experiences would emphasize student language behaviors based upon teacher-selected models. These models would be incorporated into each author's style. A precise and exact use of language would be advocated. The teacher's role includes structuring of appropriate stimuli in the teaching environment. Teachers would need to use reinforcement to strengthen correct response probability. Measurement of learning is conducted through tests and observations to assure specific behaviors are mastered. Conceptions of Language in Children's Thought Some of the most influential work in language development involving school age children, as well as younger ones, is that conducted by Jean Piaget (1959). Much of his early work with language was in its relation to thought, which is published originally in 1926, and republished in 1957. In a more recent book, The Child and Reality he reports his new understandings based on his interim research. In this book he reports, . . . when I believed in the close relation between language and thought, I scarcely studied anything but verbal thought. Since then there has been the study of the sensorimotor intelligence before language. . . . All this has taught me there exists a logic of coordinations of actions far deeper 23 than the logic related to language and much prior to that of propositions in the strict sense. While Piaget still recognizes a close relationship between thought and language, his more recent studies pinpoint a crucial issue. In relation to his levels of child development, he finds that children can and do operate on a level above that on which 22 they can use language. Piaget reports another relevant finding in his The Language and Thought of the Child. Until about the age of seven, children think largely egocentrically. They carry on conversations in which they may seem to be sharing ideas but mainly each is talking about his own actions and thoughts. And further until about seven " . . . the child . . . is incapable of keeping to himself the thoughts which enter his mind. He says everything. He has no verbal continence."23 Until seven or eight, children make no attempt to be con- sistent in their opinions.24 For this reason it becomes important gradually to develop this ability in youngsters at about that age and later. Further, Piaget found that because of the egocentric nature of the child until seven or seven and a half, real colla- boration and a meeting of minds in abstract thought does not occur until after that time.25 The beginnings of Piaget's theory of intelligence are shown as he discusses the importance of a child moving from ego- 26 centric speech to socialized speech. Other than his first book, Piaget hasn't written specifically about language. He deals with 24 language only as a factor in cognitive development.27 Piaget feels that logical thinking is primarily non-linguistic, is derived from action, and that language makes its appearance when actions begin to be represented in thought and becomes clear only as ideas become more logical. He does not see language as an intrinsically necessary element of operational thinking.28 Intelligence then is “the regulating force of a living organization that tends towards a stable equilibrium between organism and environment. This tendency finds expression in development. One can distinguish more or less equilibrated stages along the evolutionary continuum as well as in early development. These stages are characterized by an overall structure within which individual behavior is coordinated so that higher stages incorporate the achieved regulations of a lower stage."29 The stages referred to reflect Piaget's view that intelli- gence develops in a series of four stages which follow in sequence. The first stage in Piaget's development of intelligence is called the sensorimotor period and is the period of infancy from birth to two years to age. During the sensorimotor time, preparation for some of the phonetic phases of language is found in early schemes of hearing, voicing, of reciporical eye, ear, voice and movement coordination and time sequencing.30 The preoperational, or second stage is the preparatory part of the stage of concrete operations and is characterized by forma- tion of the symbolic or semiotic function--that is a person's capacity to construct or produce a symbol for representing that 25 which the person knows and which is not present. This interiori- zation of actions takes time, because the child is reconstructing his actions at a new level. Reconstruction presupposes a continual decentering process.3] Piaget believes that the transition between sensorimotor behavior and symbolic or representational behavior is tied to the presence of imitation beginning at about six months, moving later to deferred imitation, symbolic play and mental images. This is the beginning of symbolic function which involves the function of representational thought and the acquisition of language. The first verbal utterances are linked to and begin with symbolic play, deferred imitation, and mental images as interiorized imitations.32 The stage of concrete operations at approximately the age of seven is the beginning of operational intelligence. A concrete operation implies underlying general systems of groupings such as classification, seriation, etc. This involves the growing use of the processes of interiorization, coordination and decentration which result in equilibrium. Piaget believes operational knowing is not inherently linked to any symbol representation, including language. Language and speech are a special symbol system, evolved for social communication and important for socialization. Language is required and used by the growing child in a manner similar to other symbolic instruments, but is not an indispensable 33 medium for intelligence. Sinclair-de-Zwart's research shows 26 that language can direct attention to pertinent factors of a problem and it can control perceptual activities. Language can prepare an operation but is neither sufficient nor necessary to the formation of concrete operations.34 Formal operations is Piaget's final period of intellectual development and it begins at about the age of twelve and is consolidated during adolescence. Piaget believes that the adoles- cent's system of mental operations reaches a high degree of equili- brium. Thought becomes flexible and effective and can deal with complex problems of reasoning. Thought is no longer tied to the concrete. Formal thought consists in reflecting on operations and thereby operating on operations. At the level of formal operations propositional operations are closely tied to the use of verbal communication. And Piaget states that it is hard to conceive how they would develop or reach an advanced stage of development wihtout the use of language.35 Piaget sees language only as a factor in cognitive develop- ment and as only a part of symbolic functioning. He does not assign an important role to the use of a representational system. His descriptions of the preverbal stage, the use of personalized symbols and then the social use of language show the early stages of semantic development. Language makes its appearance when actions begin to be represented in thought, and language is not necessary for the development of operational thinking. At the stage of formal operations the ability to use language to encode abstract ideas seems to facilitate the utilization of formal operational 27 structures. In relationship to writing, Piaget would feel that use of natural language is essential for identifying meaning in one's recorded statements, and that the development of writing skills is unique to each individual. Teachers would provide materials and activities through which children could develop writing skills. Children at the intermediate level would be operating at the concrete and formal operation stages. This means they are beginning to develop a sense of audience in terms of what they say on paper. Teachers would assess on the basis of children's develOpmental levels in relationship to their ability to express thoughts on paper and their use of writing skills. In Philip S. Dale's book, Lapgupge Development, he writes about young children having great difficulty in seeing situations from any other perspective than their own. Dale makes reference to Vygotsky's book Thought and Language concerning the special nature of written language in this respect. Vygotsky compares "inner speech," talking to one's self, with talking to others. 36 Dale "Inner speech can be highly abbreviated and rapid." continues by explaining it is something like talking to someone you know very well about a familiar topic; much can be left out. But talking to another person requires filling in much additional information. When Vygotsky considered writing, he realized that it is just that much farther removed from inner speech. The reader is not present, so we have no immediate feedback, either verbal or nonverbal. The writer may not even know who the reader will be. No assumptions may be made about the specific knowledge of the 28 reader. Dale explains that Vygotsky feels that one needs to change from compact inner speech to detailed written speech in order to communicate.37 In contrast to Piaget's emphasis upon language as an out- side agent in the child's developing thought, Vygotsky's position emphasizes the language of the children and the adult teacher in the creation of thought. Vygotsky, according to Smith, Goodman and Meredith, shows great concern for the dialogue between children and adult teachers, in contrast with Piaget's concern for self- discovery before adult language is introduced.38 But the early interaction between the child's complexes (similar to Piaget's notion of schemata) and the language of one's environment is crucial. The egocentric speech of the child becomes the inner speech that is the shorthand of one's thinking. Vygotsky closes his book with, Thought epd_language . . . are the key to the nature of human consciousness. Words play a central part not only in the development of thought but in the historical growth of consciousness as a whole.3 If language is seen as a mediating factor in all learning, then through writing one's thoughts become internalized. This happens when student decisions are made as to what to write and how best to record it. The teacher's role is to help students formulate ideas and to show differing ways of presenting these ideas. 29 The Status of Writing The National Assessment of Educational Progress has reported on the achievements of youth in such subjects as reading, writing and science. John C. Mellon states that the writing component of this assessment indicates that: Despite the rise of visual studies and broadside announcing the post-literate society, writing, the second R, continues to be viewed by teachers and non-teachers as one of the most important subjects taught in school.40 Paradoxically, however, Mellon feels there is widescale disagree- ment on its curricular definition.4] But whatever the definition used to plan student writing experiences, all NAEP student participants were tested as if there was a common definition. Therefore, it was found that in 1974 thirteen and seventeen year olds used a simpler vocabulary, wrote in shorter, "primer-like" style and wrote less coherently than their peers four years earlier. This repeat assessment found that "while those 1974 writers rated 'good' were as good as those in 1970, the poor writers were worse--and there were more of 42 them." The new data about nine year olds over a four year span showed, according to Mellon: . . of the nines in 1974 we may conclude that although they were willing and able to write more, they did so less coherently and in a manner that avoided awkwardness through the unfortunate expedient of immature sentence structure. 3 But there was a general feeling as reported in the December 1976 NAEP Newsletter that the mechanics of writing--punctuation, capitalization, verb agreement, spelling--"seem to be well in 44 hand." A major concern, however, for both educators and the 30 public was the decline in coherency in student writing. Specula- tion as to reasons for this decline address themselves to society itself: (1) the influence of television and advertising language with its abbreviated, fragmented sentences and a continuity sensed visually, rather than through writing, (2) the basic assumption that the need to communicate through writing is being questioned by many young people.45 In the October 1977 NAEP Newsletter it was reported that American youths generally lack three essential writing skills: organizing their writing, making clear transitions between sen- tences and, improving their work through revision. In surveying writing abilities of 9-, 13- and 17-year olds, ational Assessment has found that students are willing to revise their written work, but the revisions are mechanical (punctuation and spelling) and stylistic or "cosmetic" 46 changes that seldom improve the overall writing effort. Results of the first NAEP Assessment of writing along with a public concern about student's writing skill led a Newsweek writer in 1975 to state: If your children are attending college, the chances are that when they graduate they will be unable to write ordinary expository English . . . If they are in high school and planning to attend college, the chances are less than even they will be able to write English at the minimal college level . . . If they are not planning to attend college, their skills in writing English may not even qualify them for secre- tarial or clerical work . . . And, if they are attending elementary school, they are almost certainly not being given the kind of required reading material, much less writing instruction that might make it possible for them to eventually write compre- hensible English.47 31 There can be little doubt that writing, an old discipline, has become both a societal and educational issue. Ellen K. Coughlin in her article, "The Teaching of Writing: No Longer a 'Stepchild,'" maintains that concern over students' inability to write and falling registrations in literature courses brings new respectability for teachers of composition and soaring enrollments in their classes. She states: The demand for writing teachers and the interest in teaching writing have been brought on by two developments: -enrollments have been falling in traditional literature courses and rising in writing courses -the widespread outcry over the reported inability of students to write coherently has forced departments to give greater attention to courses in composition.48 Donald H. Graves explains that the so-called return to basics "vaults over writing to the skills of penmanship, vocabulary, spelling and usage that are thought necessary to precede compo- sition."49 Graves claims that so much time is spent tackling drills that there is little time to play the real game, writing. In his latest Research Update labeled "We Won't Let Them Write," Graves says that writing is extolled, worried over, cited as a national priority, but seldom practiced. The problem with writing is not poor spelling, punctuation, grammar and handwriting. The problem with writing is no writing. Graves concludes his article with the statement, "Children will write if we let them."51 In the elementary language arts curriculum, writing is one of the areas of skill development. Its scope relating directly to 32 writing as an issue ranges from handwriting skills to expressive writing activities. William H. Rupley states, "the easiest language areas for both teacher and student to deal with are those which both explicitly identify the processes involved in teaching the skills and also evaluate the student's product with well established criteria."52 Rupley claims that within a language arts program writing skills can be ordered in terms of their explicit structure as they relate to both teaching process and evaluation of students' written expression.53 The Teaching of Writing Dorothy Grant Hennings and Barbara M. Grant make the assumption that when learning to write, children need to learn to construct meaningful ideas for communication. They direct teachers' attention "to focus both on the substance of writing-- the ideas to be expressed--and on the process of writing--the medium through which ideas are communicated."54 Richard Gebhart feels that in language arts classes, teachers should learn and help their students to view compositions as "a process of growth and development, beginning in crea- tivity . . . and moving toward discipline and craftsmanship."58 Elisabeth McPherson states that good writing places con- centration on communication rather than correctness. Her opinion is that writing becomes a matter of coming to terms with experience. "Writing forces form on what has been amorphous, 33 makes precise and permanent experience that has been vague and 56 fleeting." She believes that “Good teachers of writing see the product . . . as part of the process, an attempt to understand and control experience."57 McPherson feels that a satisfactory product cannot be developed through knowledge about writing, usage drill, and punctuation rules alone. James Britton argues that since the primary purpose of writing is communication, "one important dimension of development in writing ability is the growth of a sense of audience."58 Carol Sager, in her article, discusses Vygotsky's point of view that writing is remote from the purposes of children, and that children need to develop a sense of what writing is for and what it is like if they learn to do it. Vygotsky's* position, according to Sager, is that vocabulary, elaboration, organization and structure are major factors which contribute to effective, interesting communication.59 Sager, acknowledging that little has been established scientifically, claims contemporary literature reveals agreement amongst authors regarding factors that influence improving writing in the middle grades. These factors are: (1) children must have a self-felt purpose for writing; (2) children must develop a sense of audience; (3) children need an understanding of the major factors which contribute to effective writing; (4) and children must become actively involved in evaluating their own writing.60 *Lev Vygotsky, Thought and Langyage, Translated by E. Haufmann and G. Vakar (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1962). 34 Graves reports that a way of teaching writing is the process-conference approach.6] Teachers using this method initiate brief individual conferences during the process of writing. A single completed paper may require six or more conference of from one to five minutes each. Miles Myers in his article describes five theoretical approaches to the teaching of writing. (1) The mpdel§_approach assumes that a child can develop a skill through imitation before he has the power of sustained thought. It also assumes that reading can introduce students to ideas and structures that cannot be generated from one's personal experiencing. (2) The gtepg approach does inform students about process. This technique assumes that writers go through three distinct steps in the process of writing--prewriting, composing and editing--and that writing is aided more by heuristic procedures than by rules. (3) The sentence-combinipg approach shares with the models approach the assumption that one can learn a skill by imitating structure, and it shares with the ptep§_approach the assumption that students can edit each others work. Students are to begin with the sentence as it provides discrete boundaries for looking at the basic princi- ples of composition. (4) The relationships approach emphasizes relationships between the writer and the audience and between the writer and subject. (5) This last approach says that students must have some theory of the world in order to write effectively. Students can also be taught how to shape their world and their writing through instruction in predication and visual models. 35 Myers concludes the article by stating that "the wise teacher uses something of each of the five approaches, choosing that which is appropriate for the student." The Evaluation of Student Writing Lois Arnold feels that assessing student writing requires careful consideration of what kind of evaluation is actually helpful to students. She states, “intensive evaluation has little or no effect on improving writing unless writers find it meaningful."63 Patrick Groff reviewed studies on the effect of teacher's criticism about student writing. He concludes that research does not support the committee findings of the National Council of Teachers of English Commission on Composition that the quality and originality of student's writing will be reduced by negative teacher commen- tary.64 Rupley responds that, " . . . the value of negative criticism may be open to discussion, teachers do still need to evaluate students' writing to determine the effectiveness of their instruction and the areas of the students' strengths and weak- nesses."65 Arguments are advanced that criteria for the evaluation of creative writing are possible to formulate. Dixon states that "When the main purpose of writing is seen as discovery, the job of the teacher shifts from laying down rules and formulas to finding ways that will help those discoveries take place."66 Lundsteen explains that "Evaluation of children's writing is a topic that will challenge or threaten, depending on the evaluator's laersonal philosophy. It is usually a challenging 36 topic to educators or researchers, for they need to find ways to measure children's growth in writing."67 Cooper and Odell maintain, " . . . that there is no mechanical or technical solution to the problems posed in evalu- ating writing." Because these writers view writing as an expres- sive human activity, it is their belief that the best response to it is " . . . a receptive, sympathetic human response."68 But, Ronald L. Cramer, in his chapter entitled, "Evaluating Chidlren's Writing," states that a fair marking system seeks to achieve three objectives: 1. to provide children with a feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction from writing. 2. to give children a sensitive and knowledgeable instruc- tional criticism that will foster growth in writing and, 3. to assign grades using criteria which emphasize clarity of thought, language, sincerity extent of improvement, and general writing standards. 9 While the chapter presents a wide range of exercises which might aid teachers in gaining better understanding of children's writing, there are four purposes of analysis of children's writing presented: 1. to gain therapeutic insight into children's thoughts and feelings, to gain information that will enhance instruction in writing, to discover diagnostic information that will direct future instruction more precisely and, to make marking decisions regardjgg children's relative progress in writing development. th Wagner claims the first and most popular technique used by teachers in all fields, and not just writing, is to avoid the drudgery of grading. She states further that assigning grades is 37 the least effective in accomplishing any learning about written communication for students. In discussing the alternatives to grading student writing, Wagner suggests that, “ . . . The dual grade was the first attempt to escape the evils of the compre- hensive system (that is, placing a grade value on every little thing) ."7' Additional approaches are the process of grading by selective criterion, random grading and the blanket grade. The first meaning " . . . that one element of an assigned composition is singled out for evaluation . . ."72 while the reader actually ignores other aspects. The second approach requires a teacher to select a few papers for comprehensive, dual or selective criterion grading. The third is a kind of pass/fail system of grading, " . . . the blanket grade is given to those who complete the assignment'73; those who do not complete the assignment receive no grade, which most often is the same as a failing grade. Wagner continues by suggesting that students evaluate each others work as well as self-grading. These evaluation techniques, she warns, “ . . . should be reserved for students who are very "74 much at ease with their own writing ability. However, Wagner does identify the need for a teacher role in relation to evaluating student writing. "The non-grading system is conceptually rather simple; it substitutes comments for corrections."75 38 Teacher Decision-Making Since actual classroom experience requires a great deal of professional decision-making, several writers have suggested that such behaviors be analyzed to help prospective teachers learn how to make competent choices. Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil discuss two central concepts in the decision theory model: prediction 76 Value judgments inherent in choicing system and value system. are seen by Robert S. Harnach as a function of the teacher's "basic knowledge of the foundations of education (related to) the classroom setting."77 The teacher as decision maker is a current theme in the reexamination of teacher training programs by Dale L. Brubaker.78 In the N. I. E. Panel 6 report, "Teaching As Clinical Information Processing," the participants report their concern with "improving knowledge about the mental life of teachers which is considered to be an 'important' determiner of teacher 79 behavior.“ It is their opinion that Innovations in the context, practices, and technology of teaching must be mediated through teachers' minds and motives. Teachers must not only possess relevant instruc- tional skills; they must also be able to diagnose the situataons in which a particular set of skills should be used.8 Michael J. Dunkin and Bruce F. Biddle constructed a model for classroom teaching that enables one to organize the findings of research on teaching. Two of the four variables they have identi- fied are presage and product. Presage variables concern the characteristics of teachers that may be examined "for their effects 39 on the teaching process."81 Generally, Dunkin and Biddle believe that such variables have a potential for control by school dis- trict administrators or teacher educators. Teacher formative experiences, which include "every experience encountered prior 82 to teaching," teacher-trainingexperiences including the college or university attended, courses taken, attitudes of instructors, experiences during practice teaching, and inservice, etc. and teacher-pppperties which are the measurable personality charac- teristics the teacher takes into a teaching situation are the components they would examine in studying the process and presage variables.83 Product variables according to Dunkin and Biddle concern the outcomes of teaching. "Those changes that come about in pupils as a result of their involvement in classroom activities 84 These variables taken from with teachers and other pupils." the Dunkin and Biddle Model for Research on Classroom Teaching discussed here are pertinent to decision-making in planning and evaluating student writing, as well as studying teacher conceptions of language. m The two basic theories of language acquisition and development reviewed result in very different language programs for students. Conceptions of language in Piaget and Vygotsky also have implications for teacher application to classroom writing programs. Although several ways of evaluating student writing in the 40 intermediate grades are discussed in the literature, relatively little research has been done relating decision-making of teachers to student writing programs. These programs may or may not be based on teacher's language conceptions, and if they are, there is no research that describes this relationship. While student writing is receiving much attention, little is to be found in research to assist teachers of grades four, five and six in the decision-making in planning and evaluating as they respond to the current media interest in writing performance and to the language movements of "Back-to-Basics" and "Self-awareness." CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Few studies have attempted to identify or explain teacher conceptions of language. Assuming teacher language conceptions influence classroom writing experiences, this effect has not been researched and is not described in professional literature. The purposes of this study were threefold: (l) to ascertain the level of awareness of a teacher's conception of language; (2) to identify and explain teacher's conceptions of language and; (3) to describe if and how a teacher's language conception influences decision- making in planning and evaluation of student writing in grades four, five and six. To address the purposes of this study, the following were investigated: 1. sources that potentially influence the development of teacher conceptions of language; 2. guiding principles that affect teacher decisions about school writing experiences; 3. technical skills recognized by teachers as ones that equip students to become effective users of written language; 4. decisions teacher make when planning student writing experiences; 5. and effect of teacher's conception of language on planning and evaluating student writing. 41 42 The study focused upon what A. Jon Magoon calls "con- structions,“1 which this researcher labeled conceptions. These conceptions were looked at in terms of (l) the origins of a teacher's language conception, (2) the identification and explana- tion of a language conception and, (3) the influence of an existing conception in making decisions about student writing. R. E. Snow wrote about teachers being active contructors of knowledge and rules.2 In the current study the knowledge and rules specifically pertained to language and writing. Snow discussed teacher acts based upon knowledge and rules. These teacher acts are discussed in Chapter IV of this dissertation in terms of decision-making in planning and evaluating student's writing in grades four, five and six.3 To obtain the information for meeting the purposes of this study, a design for gathering qualitative data was developed. This ethnographic technique allowed the researcher to try to understand other teacher's thinking. Support for this approach came from Harry Wolcott who felt that ethnographic means could be used to obtain qualitative data for studying virtually any aspect of human social life.4 He stated that "The ethnographer's unique contribution is his commitment to understand and convey how it is to 'walk in someone else's shoes' and to 'tell it like it is.'"5 Wolcott felt that the ethnographic technique of "key-informant interviewing," taken from Pertti Pelto's Anthropplogical Research, The Structure of Inguiry_(1970), has significance for information- gathering purposes. He commented, 43 The notion of key-informant interviewing, referring to expanded interviews with one or a few members of a group rather than brief interviews with numerous "subjects," is a characteristic of anthropological fieldwork and appro— priate for researchers concerned with teacher action and behavior.6 Frederick Erickson added, "What qualitative research does best and most essentially is to describe key incidents in some relation to "7 The examination of student the wider social context . . . writing was studied in relation to the teacher's beliefs and ideas about language. This relationship is described and explained in Chapter IV of this dissertation. The following books and articles using qualitative design provided a basis for looking at and examining teacher's conceptions. l. Bussis, Chittenden and Amarel, in their book, Beypgd_ Surface Curriculum: An Interview Study of Teacher's Understanding, described teacher's conceptions of schooling. These descriptions were obtained through indepth interviews.8 2. Wolf and Tymitz, in the article, Ethnography and Reading: Matchipg Inquiry Mode to Process, as they were concerned with defining variables carefully and thoroughly, emphasized the need for future research on reading "which falls within an ethno- graphic paradigm."9 3. Hunt, in his book, Teachers are Psycholpgists Too: On the Application of ngchology to Education, used a variation of the Kelly, Role Concept Reperatory Test to identify conceptions of 10 teachers. Subjects were asked to work with ideas on card-sorts. 44 4. Wilcox, in his book, A Method for Measuring Decision Assumptions, identified conceptions of brokers by utilizing a variation of the Kelly, Role Concept Reperatory Test.]] Again, subjects worked with the forced-choice card-sort. What these authors hold in common is an emphasis on what people need to know in order to do what they do. Erickson stated, "The emphasis is placed not on behavior but on the knowledge necessary to Produce the behavior."12 Ernest Rothkopf indirectly supported this idea with the assertion that "educational researchers frequently try to measure and manipulate variables that have not been adequately described."13 Research Design Definition of Terms Conceptions.--For purposes of this study the definition of conceptions is the same as that of Schroeder, Karlin and Phares. They wrote, "Each person perceives and responds to the world in "14 his unique way. Kenneth Goodman supported this definition by stating, " . . . the sum of a persons' beliefs and ideas concerning something are conceptions."15 Language.--Language is defined in this study by Kean and "16 Personke " . . . as a social system of oral-aural symbols. Lee supported this idea, but stated, "Language is human thought, either produced or received. It is the most common system of communica- tion."17 45 Conceptions of Lapguage.--In this study conceptions of language are defined as ways in which teachers privately thought about and dealt with language. Combs, Blume, Newman and Wass added to this definition when they stated, "Whether a teacher will be effective depends fundamentally on the nature of his private world of perceptions."18 Writing.--Writing in this study is considered the recorded statement of a student, focusing upon both its content and craft. According to Lee, it is not merely handwriting and mechanics, but a form of communication--to one's self, to friends, to family, to others. It is a symbolic way of sharing experiences, ideas and information. 1 9 Population and The Sample Participating in this study was a group of ten teachers, nine women and one man, of fourth, fifth and sixth grade students. The teachers, from a mid-western suburban school district were volunteers. Each teacher had a minimum of three years classroom experience. They were selected with self-approval and approval of their building principals. All indicated in informal conversation they were interested in language arts and willing to participate in this study. The pilot study was conducted in the same district in February, 1977, using these same procedures with five teachers who did not participate in this study proper. Information was obtained by: individual interviews including use of card-sorts; samples of student writing; assessment 46 of these writing samples; and a listing of teacher-suggested learning experiences to help the students of the samples improve their writing. Questions were raised requiring teachers to explain their decisions and judgments. Interviews were taped, and the interviewer recorded information that seemed to explain con- structs on the recording sheet created for this purpose (see Appen- dix F). Instrumentation Three sets of card-sorts were developed. The cover card for each sort gave directions for using the other cards. One main idea was entered on each card. Each card-sort focused on a specific theme as related to the three purposes of this study. The first card-sort dealt with identifying and explaining teacher's assumed conceptions of language. The second sort dealt with guiding principles that can influence teacher decisions about children's writing experiences. The third card-sort dealt with technical skills of writing (see Appendices A, B, C). The card- sorts were developed with the help of two Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching teacher-collaborators, five teachers working with grades four, give and six in a local school district, and three doctoral students having extensive language arts backgrounds. The final evaluation of these card-sorts was made by Dorris M. Lee, Professor Emeritus of Reading and Language Arts, Portland State University, Portland Oregon. 47 Assumptions and Limitations When inquiring into teacher's conceptions of language, the researcher assumed that teachers have understandings and beliefs aboutlanguage and its instruction. Further, it was assumed language conceptions influence teacher decisions on student writing in grades four, five and six. It was also assumed teachers hold understandings and beliefs about teaching and evaluating writing related to their language conceptions. Limitations of the study are: l. The researcher's judgment was used to identify the language conceptions, general principles, and technical skills listed on the card-sorts. 2. The use of the three sets of card-sorts required of the teachers a forced choice from the conceptions, principles, and technical skills listed. 3. The cards, when being used by the participants, may have become instructional and may have altered previous thinking. 4. The authors of the writing samples were unknown to the teachers. Commenting on and evaluating papers of students that one does not know, for an assignment that one did not make, is a simulation. 5. The information generated for describing behaviors and judgments may be impossible to interpret even with anthropo- logical techniques.20 48 6. The stimulus-recall techniques used during the inter- views may assist in determining factual data, but it is not fool- proof. Information is subject to truthful cooperation of participants. 7. The results of the study may contribute to knowledge of teacher conceptions of language and writing in the intermediate grade classroom only. 8. The interviewer will identify teacher conceptions of language by extrapolating from the data. These extrapolated con- ceptions may reflect interviewer bias or prejudice. Procedures Interview and Card-sort Discussion In-depth interviews with ten teachers of grades four, five and six were conducted to discuss the teacher's conception of language and the classroom writing experiences. Card-sorts were used as a means of facilitating teachers' identification, discussion and explanation of ideas (see Appendices A, B, C). Questions were asked by the interviewer to get at reasons or rationale for what teachers said, as well as what they did not say. Interpersonal Process Recall: A Method of Influencing_Human Interaction was studied under the guidance of Norman Kagan, Professor of Counseling, Michigan State University. Specifically the task was for the interviewer to learn the two concepts of exploratory and listening responses. The two modes facilitated C O O O 2] 1nterv1ew commun1cat1on. 49 Decision and Judgment of Writing Samples Following the interview, each teacher was given four samples of writing by youngsters in grades four, five and six (see Appendix D). The teachers were asked to read and assess each piece of work according to whatever criteria they chose and to make comments or notations directly on the samples. Upon completion of the assess- ment, teachers were directed to indicate on a separate paper what next step(s) should be taken for each student's writing development (see Appendix E). Questions requiring teachers to explain their decisions and judgments were raised. The procedures were recorded on tape. Also, this inter- viewer recorded nonverbal cues and messages and/or whatever additional information seemed appropriate (see Appendix F). From the tape recordings and the transcripts the interviewer wrote a description of each participant's conception of language and its effect upon student writing using the card-sort categories as a guideline. Attention was directed to how teachers plan and evaluate children's writing. Summary Teacher notions of language about student writing in grades four, five and six were described. What a teacher claimed as beliefs about language, its uses and functions, was obtained by conducting interviews and using three sets of card-sorts designed to help teachers identify and explain their ideas. Teacher judgments of student writing samples were compared with 50 and added to the information on teacher beliefs. Key-informant interviewing, and interpersonal process recall were the means used for describing and interpreting teacher responses to the instru— ments. These resulted in a set of ten protocols, one for each subject, which may or may not support the assumptions of the study. A protocol contains a teacher's response to the three card-sorts, assessment of the four student writing samples by the teacher and suggestions of follow-up writing activities for the author of each sample. CHAPTER IV TEACHER PROTOCOLS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Data for this study of teacher conceptionalization and resulting behavior was collected through use of individual inter- views using three sets of card-sorts, and from teacher's written assessments of student's writing samples. These assessments included a listing of learning experiences suggested to help develop student writing. Participants in the study were ten elementary school teachers of grades four, five and six. All taught in the same school district, but in five different elemen- tary buildings. Nine of the participants were female and one was male with ages ranging from 25 to 61 years. All were tenured teachers with a minimum of three years teaching experience. All indicated an interest in language arts and a willingness to parti- cipate in the study. The individual interviews and writing assessments were, for the most part, done in the school setting, either before or after school. Teachers 5, 9, and 10 were inter- viewed in their homes, outside of the school setting. Each session ran from 90 minutes to two hours and was taped. The interviewer recorded additional information that seemed pertinent on a recording sheet (see Appendix F). All ten teachers were asked to respond to three sets of card-sorts. These sets of card sorts were developed for use during 51 52 the teacher interviews. The first card of each set gave directions for using the other cards. One main idea was stated on each additional card. (The three complete sets of card-sorts can be found in Appendices A, B, and C.) The first set of card—sorts dealt with identifying those factors that influenced the development of the teacher's assumed conceptions of language. The cards in the set were constructed to reflect influences that were experiential and those that were theoretical in nature. The second card-sort contained guiding principles that can influence teacher decisions about children's writing experiences. These principles related to the content of writing in communicating to others through writing and developing self-awareness through writing. The last set of cards was con- cerned with the technical skills of writing including the mechanics of writing and the use of written expression. Each card-sort is described in detail. Ten teacher res- ponses to each card-sort set follows this description. Placement of the teacher protocols within this chapter was determined by the order in which each participating teacher was interviewed. These teacher responses are analyzed both individually and collectively according to the constructs of each card-sort. The children's writing samples and the teacher's assessment and recommendations are described. These teacher responses are also analyzed indi— vidually and collectively. The chapter ends with an overall analysis of the teacher responses relating the teacher's assumed 53 conceptions of language to the resulting decisions made about student writing. Assumptions Card-Sort The first card-sort deals with two major assumptions: (1) a teacher's conception of language affects the design and implementation of a writing program, (2) a teacher's conception of language is a product of theoretical study, practical experience, or both. Each of the eleven cards cites a possible source that influences the development of a teacher's conception of language. The two major categories of influences are those of a practical experiential nature and those that result from theoretical study. Within the construct of experience, seven cards reflect influences from college study and professional sources or from sources related to work or employment as a teacher. In the area of college and professional organizations, four cards (a, c, j, k) list pre- service education, graduate study, local, state and national pro- fessional organizations and professional writings including reports, journals and books. Three cards (b, d, 1) contain influ- ences from work experience and include: teaching experience, colleagues, years of experience, inservice, staff development workshops and curricular committees, and teacher's manuals, dis- trict guides, and state directives. In the category of theoretical influences, there are four cards. One statement (card e) relates to behaviorist theory and the other three (f, g, h) deal with the genetic theory of language develOpment and statements from the 54 works of Vygotsky and Piaget. Each teacher read all the cards and then selected those that had been a major influence on their deci- sions about a writing program. The teachers then explained their card selections and made comments on the contents. Their individual responses appear as given during the. interview. Table 1 (page 81) summarizes the distribution of sources that have been major influences on the development of teachers' conception of language and decisions these teachers made about writing programs. The teacher responses are then care- fully analyzed by constructs. Assumptions Card-sort: A Description Teacher One "As I look over these cards,I think of two things. First, I'm more experiential oriented. Whatever works, I use! If it doesn't work, I try something else. Second, theory is for the birds! I'm just not interested in what theoreticians have to say about teacher conceptions, or anything. Let them try to put into operation their ideas. Fourteen years I've been teaching and I just wonder how long these educational leaders--these notables, really taught kids--if ever at all. I don't think that theory helps a teacher either in undergraduate or graduate classes. So, I will immediately discard cards e, f, g and h." "Preservice training equipped me with few skills. Well, I learned about lesson plans and how to set up ability groups, but 55 nothing that really helps me now, or even when I started. So, I'll toss out card a.“ "This is the one-~card b. District inservice has been the major influence in the development of my conception of language. The workshops over the years have been very practical. I guess I would call them useful, not like college classes where you get credit but do not learn how to apply ideas into real teaching situations. I'll not choose graduate study as a major influence on my conception. The classes I took over ten years ago when I got a Master's degree just missed the boat. I mean you didn't learn a thing. When we have had supervisors to help us, they always gave us more help than college professors. I've served on many curriculum committees that have prepared some good guides for teachers. But, I never really thought, and I don't think most teachers I've work with, ever felt that advanced studies really helped. You just get credits and degrees. If you move on, perhaps this study is helpful, but I've known a lot of principals who think their degrees have been a waste of time, too." "Card d helps. I learn by doing. Over the years I have picked up a lot of good ideas from my colleagues. But, I read the journals regularly. That's where I get new ideas. Yes, card j has been good to me!" "I despise teachers' manuals. Some people follow them like they were the Holy Bible. Probably one of the worst things that has ever happened in American education is teachers' giving up their creativity and own ideas for the sake of a guide. I know 56 some need to follow them, but good inservice can help teachers to cross over the bridge--you know, get away from following them step by step. So, I'll get rid of card i, too." "I joined and quit many organizations because their publi- cations just didn't give enough practical ideas like Teacher and Instructor. But I'm told Language Arts, which should be called Elementary English, is getting better. Mrs. said the last few issues had some good learning situations for kids. I need to take a look if I have time. Some professional organizations try to get us to operate on a theoretical level, but they don't really understand kids, or the problems we teachers are faced with today.“ "You asked if I had the Opportunity to study the work of Piaget and Vygotsky and the genetic and behaviorist theories of language acquisition,would I be willing to also examine the impli- cations of these theories into classroom practice. I suppose this means in a college setting--so my answer is no. I might do it through inservice if I had released time for it. I guess I'm just not willing to give the time for it. Just fill the journals with practical articles!" Summary Teacher One selected two cards (ab, ad) as having had a major role in influencing her development of a conception of language. She felt practical experience to be of much more value than theoretical study. Within the construct of experience, she 57 felt those items relating to work were of more importance than those relating to college study of professional organizations. In the explanation of her card selections, she cited district inservice training as the major influence in the development of her conception of language. She also discussed her own teaching experiences and the ideas of colleagues as being important. Teacher Two "As a beginning teacher, I had no theory upon which I would build a language program. College classes talked mostly about doing things with kids, rather than why these things were to be done. I'm sure a teacher's conception of language does affect the design and implementation of a class writing program, but I doubt if I have ever really thought about my own conception. I am sure that both practical experience and theoretical study have contributed to any decisions I have made about a writing program. I have a Master's degree and have studied much about teaching." "Theories of learning I know, but never were the works of Piaget and Vygotsky known to me in terms of language learning and cognitive learning. 50, for me, cards 9 and h have introduced me to new concepts. From what I've seen right here, I'd go with Vygotsky--his theory makes sense. In a sense, card h adds to my conception." "Graduate study and preservice training, cards a and c have not really been major influences upon what I do. Most language arts classes talk about generalities. If you do talk about 58 a rationale, it usually has to do with reading. I don't think many language arts classes include much discussion about writing, just ideas for topics for kids to write on and words games, etc." "Inservice has been the most valuable to me as I'm thinking about these cards, but card d has been a major influence upon what you would call my language conception. The years of experience I've had working with people who try hard to service kids has been invaluable. We get together and trade ideas. We try to help one another. I don't choose card k because most state and national organizations are not concerned with curriculum. You know, they work for teacher rights, benefits. Sometimes kids don't seem important." "I don't really like Skinner so I'll toss out card e. I sometimes model words for my students who are sort of lacking words for describing their real thoughts. I don't have any opinion about Chomsky, so card f really means little to me. I don't understand the idea of possessing innate language mechanisms." "1 don't have the time to keep up with the professional writings about language and writing. Teacher has good ideas, so does Elementary English, which I think has a new name. I read a book called A Circle of Quiet where the author had a lot of excellent comments about writing as a process, but it wasn't really addressing itself to teaching. It seemed to have more to do with people writing on their own, sort of self-teaching." “I don't really care for manuals and guides as they are too limiting, but I think our district has a committee trying to 59 put one together. You've probably heard about it. They've been working on it for two years." Summar Teacher Two stated thatboth practical experience and theoretical study contributed to decisions he makes about a writing program. He selected two experiential cards, inservice and teaching experience along with his work with colleagues (cards ab and ad) and described them as being invaluable in the develop- ment of his language conception. Although he mentioned theoretical study as having been important to the decisions he makes about children's writing, he did not select any cards from the theoreti- cal construct, and indicated no knowledge of the works of Vygotsky and Piaget. Teacher Three "Looking over these cards makes me feel as if I know very little about my personal conception of language. I don't ever think about it, but apparently I should. I'll accept Assumption 2, but I really don't know about Assumption 1. I don't think an over-all concept of language affects my class writing program. But, these cards help me to better understand myself." "I'll choose cards b, g, j, and i as those having been a major influence on the decisions I make about my children's writing. I almost put in card d because during my first year of teaching I had to rely upon other teachers to give me ideas. I got out of 60 college feeling unprepared for teaching. I had a degree, but was not secure in knowing what or what not to do in a classroom. When I think about writing, all my preservice training dwelled on handwriting--penmanship. We never really talked about language or creative writing. I remember the instructor once told us that writing ideas were a dime a dozen--so don't worry! Well, I didn't really have any so I patterned after the teacher next door. Now that I have six years of experience I don't need to rely upon her anymore." "District inservice has been valuable in that released time has been given to committees to produce writing guides. There have also been workshops that give creative writing ideas. One of our teachers is really clever in getting kids started and whenever she does a workshop, I am in it. I always come away knowing some new ideas. She is just great and her workshops have helped many of us." "As I said, we have a district guide. It's excellent. I use it all the time. It is available to help us all. However, most teachers don't use it, but card i has been good to me. And we have to use it. It's required!" "I keep up with the current literature through professional writings. I just read Sylvia Aston-Warner,and I like Language fit; as I get ideas. But I don't thinkl've ever read anything on teacher decision-making, maybe some on reading. Never have I found these ideas. Research articles are not practical. Give them 61 to the administrators! They write our programs. The Guides reflect what they want." "You ask why I think little has been written on teacher conceptions. I don't know. Would a study of language theory help me? Yes, I chose card 9 because Piaget always makes sense to me. But, I don't even think I've heard of Vygotsky. That is why I didn't choose card h. I'd like to know more. I need to know more, but I just don't have the time. Thirty-two students this year, no aide and over half are reading below grade level." "Yes, I think they all have ideas to share, but their technical skills for writing are so poor that they are embarrassed. I would be too. Their writing skills are closely related to their reading skills. Some of them do have good ideas, but they just don't write on their own." "I once thought about a Master's degree. But I like short, practical courses taught by teacher-types, not university professors who have been away from the real world too long. How do I know this? Too many people say this about their advanced work. I know there are exceptions, but the number of these people are few and far between. I'm sorry-~but this is how I feel." "You are fortunate in that your advanced studies at the university have been so rewarding, so useful." 62 Summary Work related experiences were a major influence on the decisions Teacher Three made about her children's writing. She felt other teachers, inservice, workshops, and School District Guides (cards ab, ad, ai) had contributed to her conception of language. She also cited professional writing (card ad) as having had an influence on her conceptional development. From the theoretical study sources, she indicated Piaget (card ag) as having been helpful to her. Teacher Four "The assumptions interest me. I am sure that most teachers conception of language affect student writing programs. I'm sure my conception is a product of both theoretical and practical experience." "These cards are interesting. Where do I being because I know I read a lot. And I compare my own views with studies, books and ideas that can add to my data bank. So card j is the top one. It provides me with a wider variety of ideas. It helps me to fill a bag of tricks to take into the classroom." "Tricks are student learning experiences and teacher knowledge that could influence decisions about a writing program. I am convinced that ideas are only as good as the teachers who present them. Also, if they don't fit into a rationale that is defensible, then I usually discard them. Learning experiences need 63 to fill some purpose. I try to provide meaningful activities for the students." "Card b is significant in that inservice provides an oppor- tunity to learn something new and practical. Many of our teachers are very skilled in language. Inservice is almost always useful. It is definitely ained at helping teachers do a better job. Card c has particular significance as I have had excellent courses that have helped me to clarify my understanding. These, however, are mainly classes that stress theory and philOSOphy. I'm a part- time doctoral student in reading. Inservice gives me practical help in the classroom and graduate study equips me to understand more about my subject. I need both to make it as a teacher. Teaching experience has been invaluable in terms of decision-making. You learn from experience, from other teachers. You learn by doing. I made mistakes. I made the wrong decisions. Some of my judgments were wrong, but I learned from them. I didn't have a rationale from which to work, like writing poems, letters, short stories. But their writing was teacher-directed, rarely self- initiated and was very impersonal." "I'll also include Piaget as a major influence in relation to what I believe. I like his ideas on abstract symbolic rea- soning. I don't agree with Vygotsky. Language and thought are not one. So cards b, c, d, j and g are those I pick. The others I'll not consider a major influence." 64 "Preservice was not a major influence, and professional organizations have good publications, but they haven't really considered teacher-decision-making when it comes to curriculum." Summary Graduate study and professional writing (cards ac, aj) are major influences that affect Teacher Four's language conception and the decisions she makes about student writing. Work related experiences that have been important to this teacher are: teacher inservices; and teaching experience,including work with colleagues (cards ab, ad). This teacher valued theoretical study and felt the work of Piaget (card ag) on an abstract symbolic reasoning had had a major effect on her beliefs. Teacher Five "I agree. A teacher's conception of language arts does affect the implementation of a writing program. Probably, for teachers who go into advanced studies where theory becomes important, assumption 2 is also true. But for me I'm sure that my conception, which I think is the way I view language, is experiential based." "Preservice training did not ever focus on decision-making. Actually the only language arts study I had was combined with a social studies component. The two studies were offered in one, three credit course. Apparently neither subject was considered that important. I remember the instructor saying to us that all you need to do is follow the manuals. It made sense then, but not 65 when I first got into the classroom. 50 the manual became my conception. I followed it step-by-step. The language arts in my classroom gradually expanded as other teachers shared their ideas with me. Initially card i was the most significant influence. Card d soon came into the picture. District inservice was avail- able, but I was sick of classes. I never took a class for the first two years I taught. So card b was a bust, too." "Cards e, f, g, and h meant nothing to me then, and about the same now. The trouble with theories is that no one shows you how to implement them." "Over the years I've read journal articles in Teacher, Elementary_English and Instructor. They often have ideas that I try to fit into my classroom structure. Some of them are good, some I never use again. So card j is okay. I mean it contributes to my conception. But, we are expected to use the district guide and the manuals for the textbook adoptions. My principal requires us to use them. I guess I really haven't changed in the six years." "I don't really spend much time with writing. I grade all their written work and probably once a week we write creatively. I usually give them a choice of three topics to choose from. Sometimes I require everyone to write on the same t0pic." "You ask if I have any definite feeling about how children acquire language. I guess card e comes closest. Skinner assumes the everything is learned through external stimuli. He's usually right. I didn't realize that he knew anything about language. You know--these cards are instructional." 66 "No, I don't want to comnent on the others. But, card k is okay because these groups are concerned about helping teachers. By help I mean working with us to improve conditions for more learning to take place. No, not teacher learning, but mainly children." Summary This teacher felt her view of language was experientially based. She selected other teachers (cards ad and ai) work exper- ience and teacher's guides and manuals as being the most significant influences on her development of a conception of language. She stressed the importance of teacher guides and manuals in making decisions about student writing programs. Teacher Six "These cards make me stop and think about things that I know are important, but can honestly say very little of my time is spent thinking about my conception of language and how it influences our class writing program. First let me explain that I run a student-centered classroom. That is why I called the writing program pgn_program. Decisions are usually made together although I admit to setting up the framework for this teacher- pupil planning and evaluation to take place. I have some definite beliefs about language and I've held them for many years. They're sound, and they work. Over the years they have been proved effec- tive. So for me, card d has been a major influence." 67 "Cards a and c probably contribute the most to my language conception. My preservice training was not in this country. It was intensive-~yet both practical and theoretical. We not only studied Piaget's writings, but learned to implement them in the classroom. We were expected to know and show evidence in a laboratory setting what we had learned. Knowing wasn't enough. Doing was the goal. So the two went together." "I worked with the same group for five years taking them to the next grade year after year. I knew the children well. I was familiar with their language. I helped them acquire and develop it. So, of course, I knew them." "At this time Skinner's work dominanted our language development curriculum. They taught that children's speech is shaped by a language environment and that most everything is learned through external stimuli. And what we did reflected this thinking. This lasted as long as I was there. It was a lot like the TESL and ESL programs today. Modeling, patterning and imitating. So card e was a major influence, and still is." "But after coming to this country, I was told by my principal and by the college people to let things happen more naturally and intuitively. I was directed to not tamper with the children's writing. Leave it alone, talk about the ideas, but don't interfere with their creative expression. I asked if I couldn't support their creativity by talking with the students about what they said on their papers and at the same time help each to develop techniques or skills that would enhance the 68 communication. But, I was told to leave their writing alone, or I'll destroy the children's creativity." "So for years creative writing was free of correction, when it could have been more precise--more communicating. The other work I could correct. Creative writing was taboo. Just let them write. I often wondered if the decision-makers and noted experts ever thought about writing as a developmental process. You know, today's errors become tomorrow's lessons. I wondered when would children realize that a sense of audience is necessary to deal with when writing. Isn't writing social, too? It can't always be personal. Just think of all the writing we do." "And even though I taught skills, grammar, and made a fuss over it, there was very little carry-over—transfer to their writing in social studies or science. Probably there was none at all when they did creative writing." "I took a Master's and consider it very valuable in helping me to think about language and writing. I try to blend some of Vygotsky's ideas with Piaget. My rationale broadened during this degree. I have never studied Chomsky, but here is where all that intuitiveness comes. I like his ideas on surface and deep structure, but I can't say that card f has been a major influence. I guess I need to study more." "I like to write. The Bullock report says non-writing teachers produce non-writing students,or maybe its reading. I'm not sure. But both skills are inter-related. When my children write, I often write with them. Occasionally, they suggest 69 topics to me, but there is always a choice. The students in our class write about whatever they decide." "I'll not consider cards i and k. Professional organiza- tions don't help me with students. The district guide is okay, but it doesn't really help me with planning. It gives ideas." "I rely on professional journals and books for keeping-up. I haven't had much time for workshops or inservice as I just finished my Master's degree. It seems that with this "Back-to- Basics" emphasis, the literature is loaded with the do's and don'ts of teaching. I think it is impossible to design a program where writing comnunicates, and not just expresses thoughts. After all, isn't communication the purpose of language?" Summary Teacher Six's development of a language conception and decisions about writing programs were strongly influenced by both experience and theory. The major influences in the experiential construct were the preservice training and graduate study of this teacher and her years of teaching experience (cards aa, ac). In theoretical study the works of Piaget and Vygotsky (cards ag, ah) played dominant roles in the teacher's understanding of language development. This teacher also stated the work of Skinner was a major factor in her undergraduate training and in her understanding of the role of environment in the development of language. 70 Teacher Seven "The teacher's guide for our language arts adoption plus the district guide have been the main influences on the decisions I make about the class writing program. Card i is the major influence." "I don't have much background in language arts. My under- graduate training emphasized reading and phonics, not writing. I don't write much, so because I needed help as a beginner, I asked other teachers to help me. My colleagues were very cooperative, and I think they too were and still are a major influence. So card d is also one I choose. My first principal was a good writer, and he assisted the staff in designing a school program. This is before our district put out a curriculum guide which included writing.“ "You ask what I do with the guide. Well, I supplement the language textbook with activities from the guide. No, the guide does not include any language theory, just "starters," motivators, activities to get kids going. Ii:really doesn't talk about planning for or evaluating student writing. They, the district, leave this up to the teachers. Teachers are expected to implement the guide using the text and whatever sources needed." "Inservice is helpful, but I donW:think they've done much in writing. I definitely do not plan on a Master's. I'm only taking courses required to maintain my certificate. Graduate courses are not practical. They are not geared to the problems 71 we teachers are faced with daily. They are theoretical. I can't see what good Piaget, Vygotsky, B. J. Skinner and Chomsky are to me. How can they help me make sure my students can write a pruaper sentence? Do their theories include teaching strategies? I don't really know. So, I'll discard cards c, e, f, g, and h. As for card j, I don't read much. When I have spare time I prefer to relax. I read and write so much at school that I need a change when I come home. Card k--I just don't think most of these groups care much about language--except NCTE." Summary The teacher's guide (card ai) and colleagues (card ad) have been the major influences on Teacher Seven's development of a language conception and decisions made about student writing. All sources cited were from work-related experiences. Theoretical study was not felt to play any role in this teacher's design and implementation of a writing program nor her conception of language. Teacher Eight "These are interesting, but I've not really considered how my language conception developed. You ask what are the possible sources--I will think out loud as I examine these cards." "Card A - I didn't learn anything in language arts about what to do in a classroom--just granmar and rules to teach kids. The subject was combined with reading methods. So, that is what was emphasized." 72 "Card B - Inservice has been helpful, but anything in writing had to do with techniques, rather than creativity.“ "Card C - Graduate study does not assist teachers with problems connected with teaching school. Classes are theoretical, not practical, and taught by people who no longer know what kids are like. Maybe they never even taught. College professors have ideas but do not help you put them into practice!" "Card D - Yes, I've learned what experiences or activities are good. Which ones work, those that don't. Sometimes what works with one class doesn't work with another. So the notion that the lesson or activity is only as good as the teacher who presents it, just isn't so. My colleagues and I share ideas. They cooperate well with one another. Over the years I have learned a lot. Well, I've learned that writing can be viewed in two ways: expressive or technical. I try to find a balance. Some days we work on the rules, other days we work on expression. So many of them don't know what to say, or how to say it." "Cards E and F - Skinner makes sense; I don't know Chomsky. I guess language can be developed according to these cards in different ways. You know, I'm learning something. I think Skinner has had a big impact upon bi-lingual programs where a lot of modeling is done." "Cards G and H - I don't really think these theories could help me. I know they haven't yet. They're for graduate studies." "Cards I - We have a district guide. I use it. It was a "God-send" when I first started teaching. It doesn't include a 73 writing plan, just a collection of ideas. It will be nice when the committee comes out with the new one. Teacher's manuals are useful. I follow many sections page-by-page--other parts I don't even look at them. How do I decide? I look at each child's written work. Then I determine what skills need to be taught and assign the appropriate sections from the text." "Card J - I read some of the journals occasionally. I don't have much time. The practical ones are the most useful. The theoretical ones are for the college people." "Card K - I definitely don't see how any professional organization could influence my writing program. I only am a member of MEA. Their concern is not language arts." "It looks as if card d was the major influence. Should there have been more than one? Maybe card i was just as influ- ential as the other." Summary Teacher Eight valued district guides, teacher's manuals, her teaching experience and her colleagues (cards ai, ad) as the major influences in her development of a writing program. The two cards cited by this teacher were experiential in nature and related to work experiences. Theoretical study was not viewed as having played a role in her language conceptions or program development. 74 Teacher Nine "1 am sure these assumptions are important to you, to the profession. Number 2 seems obvious, but I think most of us would have trouble connecting how one views or thinks about language and implementing a writing program." "There are several cards that have been a major influence on my decisions about a language program, but they are not the cards based on language theory or acquisition. I don't know if Chomsky or Skinner have affected me. I am aware that commercially developed materials, even textbooks, are often built upon one of those conceptions of language acquisition. I've used many sets of materials. So, indirectly they affect me. But we're talking about direct influences. I will have to reject cards e and f. They were not part of my preservice or graduate studies. The same is true for Piaget and Vygotsky. Their work is admirable. Both are concerned with language learning and cognitive learning, but I've never directly studied in the implications of these ideas for teaching writing in relation to my personal perspective re- garding language. In my graduate language arts class, there was nothing mentioned about their work. It's funny! Most people say college classes are too theoretical. You know methods classes are considered impractical because you never get down to the basic question of what this all means for children. Well, mine did. I was fortunate. So, I will choose cards a, b, and c as having been major influences on decisions I make about a writing program." 75 "Card A - Our college was growing rapidly and my language arts and reading courses were over-load sections. The university was under-staffed and recruited from the local district teachers who had reputations for having excellent understandings about school experiences. One of these people had done graduate work with Roma Gans and the other had studied with Dorris Lee, two outstanding language arts people. While my instructors did not hold doctorates, they worked daily with youngsters and each had studied with a prominent person. Both saw their studies with their mentors as vital and significant. This was evident in their style and modes of teaching. While an emphasis was not placed on theory I'm sure many of their ideas came from a theoretical base. They were excellent classes, and they were taught by elementary teachers." "Card 8 - The district provides all kinds of workshops and inservice classes. Again, these are taught by teachers who work directly with children. This gives the students the advantage of working yitn_someone rather than fpr_someone. I remember feeling while in college that my professors didn't really care if I learned, or not. This is true of Colleges of Education, too." "Card C - My graduate studies during my Master's were better than I thought. While not all courses were useful, my language arts classes were taught by teachers who were working on advanced degrees. These pe0ple were student-oriented, creative and worked to assure that we would get a lot out of the classes. Too much time was spent on objectives, but my knowledge of a total 76 language arts program widened. I sure learned how to broaden the scope of writing experiences. Previously, I placed too much emphasis on personal writing. I needed to expand activities where students would write for others." "I kind of ignore manuals and guides. Occasionally I look at one just to check a few particulars--like district expectations. So, I reject card i." "Experience as well as one's colleagues are not neces- sarily the best teacher. I'll not consider card d. I don't look to professional organizations for much direction. NCTE and IRA have journals that I sometimes read. 50, there go cards j and k." Summary Cards relating to theoretical study were not chosen as major influences on Teacher Nine's views of language nor her decisions on student writing. The strongest influences identified by this teacher were experiential and related to her college study (cards aa, ac) and her work experience and sharing with colleagues (card ab). Teacher Ten "I find myself thinking about things that I just took for granted. I accept assumption 1, but don't accept 2 because of the theoretical study. You want me to talk about my writing program and my decisions, right?" “As far as I'm concerned, there are three cards that have been a major influence on what you call a language conception." 77 "Card B - When I first started teaching,I received a lot of help from those teachers working next door and across the hall. They kind of watched to make sure I could keep things going and get through the first year. I didn't know much about language or writing. They gave me many creative writing ideas. I made a card file of ideas and kept adding to it year by year. Now, it has over 100 ideas. Years of experience and my colleagues have cer— tainly been a major influence." "Card I - The teacher's manual always had something in it about writing. Again it never talked about theory. I rejected those cards because theories are not practical. Their implications are not brought out in college courses. So, I'll not consider cards a and c--preservice and graduate study. They didn't help me much to decide anything about language conceptions as affecting writing. We have a writing section in the district Language Arts guide. We're expected to follow it. It's mandated. I know that the pressure of the state is on us--so obviously, our district policymakers are trying to make sure we cover what is necessary.“ "Card J - I like to read some of the journals. Often the articles give me new ideas, like the "Writing Marathon" discussed in Language Arts. When I was a primary teacher, I thought that Learning to Read Throggh Experience was a most helpful book on writing. I don't know of a good professional book for the inter- mediate grades that is on the subject of writing." "I'm willing to admit my language concept is cloudly. It might always be that way unless I decide to do something about it. 78 Where, when or how I just don't know. Writing is a big issue. Lots of people are concerned. I think the District Guide is being revised. Now writing is really important in the curriculum. But is it as important as listening and speaking? These are the skills we need to develop for today's living." "I sometimes wonder if I'm supposed to teach how to write or just provide opportunity for my students to express their ideas." Summary Experiential influences of work and the help of colleagues, teacher's manuals and district guides (cards ab, ai) were des- cribed by Teacher Ten as having been major influences on the design and implementation of her student writing program. She also stated that professional writings (card ai) were sources of influence in her program. No cards were selected from the theoretical construct by the teacher. Collective Summary of Teacher Protocol on Assnnptions Card-Sort In the Assumptions Card-sort the two major assumptions of this study are dealt with. Overlying constructs of this card- sort are experiential and theoretical. The experiential construct is divided into two groupings: college and professional training and work related experiences. The theoretical constructs are grouped according to the behaviorist and genetic theories of 79 language learning. (For detailed description of each card, see Appendix A.) In the college and professional training area of the experiential construct, two out of ten teachers selected preservice training (card aa), three out of ten teachers identified graduate study (card ac), and four out of ten chose professional writings (card aj) as influences upon the development of their language conceptions and decisions about a writing program. Professional organizations (card ak) were not considered influential by these teachers. Six of the ten teachers selected inservice, staff development workshops and curriculum committees (card ab), eight of the ten identified teaching experience,colleagues and years of experience (card ad), five of the teachers considered the teacher's manual, school district guides or state directives (card ai) to be a major influence on the development of their con- ception of language and resulting decisions about student writing. In the theoretical constructs one teacher felt she was influenced by the behaviorists theory of language development (card ac). Three teachers indicated being influenced by the genetic language development theory; of these three, two were influenced by the work of Piaget (card ag) only and one teacher felt both the work of Piaget and Vygotsky (card ah) had aided her development of a conception of language. No teachers selected Chomsky (card af) as major influence on a language conception or upon writing program decisions. 80 There is little theoretical agreement among these parti- cipants. Work related experiences in the experiential construct lends itself to more similar thinking among teachers than does training at the preservice and graduate levels. The following table focuses upon this representation. Prinpjples Card-sort The second set of cards identify guiding principles that can influence teacher decisions about children's writing exper- iences. The thirteen statements in this card-sort relate to the content of writing and utilize two categories. These are communi- cation to others and the development of self-awareness through writing. Seven cards (a, d, g, i, k, l, m) contain principles relating to communicating to others and include: communication occurs when written thoughts and feelings are understood by one- self and/or others; writing without an idea to communicate produces a sequence of empty words; writing skill develops through involve- ment with materials and activities which are perceived as valuable; writing ability develops through the need for others to understand one's recorded statement; when writing revision develops a more standard way of expressing meaning; the audience needs to be identified when writing; and writing requires a precise and exact use of language. The category of development self-awareness through writing contains the following six principles (cards b, c, e, f, h, j): the development of writing skills is unique to each individual; much about writing is learned intuitively; and is not 81 Table l.--Assumptions Card-sort Constructs Teacher College and Professional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Card aa - preservice X X ac - graduate study X X X 7; aj - professional writing X X X X ;; ak - prof. organizations C '95 Work Related §- ab - inservice X X X X X X “J ad - experience, colleagues X X X X X X X X ai - manuals, guides X X X X X Behaviorist ac - Skinner X :5 Genetic *5; af - Chomsky g ag - Piaget X X X _g ah - Vygotsky X '— Each X indicates a given teacher's selection of factor(s) that influence his/her own development of a conception of language or decisions related to the teaching of writing. 82 directly taught; material language usage is essential for identi- fying meaning in one's written expression; thoughts become inter- nalized when decisions are made as to what to write and how best to record it; constructive writing experiences can promote self- confidence as a writer; and literature can provide models for personal writing. All ten teachers read the cards and sorted them into two or three groups according to principles that were most significant to them, those that were less significant than the first group, and those principles they would not consider. Again, comments and explanations were recorded as the teachers discussed their groupings. The responses are given for each teacher. Tables 2a, b, c (pages 99-101) show the distribution and principles by groups and by teacher, that have influenced teacher decisions about student writing experience. Collective analysis of this data follows. Principles Card-sort: A Description Teacher One "I think all these cards are important, but there are definitely two groups. I won't have a group containing principles I would not consider. I'll sort them by thinking that the first grouping includes principles that affect before writing skills. These are all things l