RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ WRITING ACHIEVEMENT: A TEACHING LEARNING RESEARCH INITIATIVE PROJECT
Dr Libby Limbrick, Pauline Buchanan, Marineke Goodwin, Helen Schwarcz
(Faculty of Education, University of Auckland), together with Joanne Hardwidge and Mereana Timoko(ManurewaIntermediateSchool), and Vanya Huntley (ManurewaEastPrimary School)
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007
ABSTRACT
The paper reports on a research partnership between classroom teachers and university lecturers. Eight primary and intermediate schools, in which student achievement in writing had been observed to be low participated in the project. The aim of the research was to investigate the effect on student achievement of teachers learning more about writing and writing instruction through close analysis of students’ writing using the English Writing Exemplars. Teachers established specific goals, whichformed the basis of targeted teaching for students and personal professional development,through discussion with University researchers, and met in professional learning circles to resolve issues, share outcomes and to provide mutual pedagogical support.
Data collected, using standardized writing assessment tools suggested that the focussed teaching resulted in higher achievement gains than would be expected in comparison with national norms. There was evidence that not only did teachers feel more confident in, and knowledgeable about, teaching writing, but they were more aware also of specific aspects of students’ writing that needed to be targeted. Co-construction of knowledge of the teaching of writing through the practitioner/ researcher partnerships was evident. The researchersgained a deeper understanding of classroom issues that affect teachers’ ability to teach writing effectively.
The project employed an action research process that supported the teachers to become researchers of their own practice. A second phase will continue in 2007 with a focus on ensuring sustainability of the gains in teacher practice and student achievement.
INTRODUCTION
Four key stimuli generated this research study. The first was the low level of writing achievement reported throughout New Zealand in recent years in contrast with the continued strong performance in reading reported nationally and internationally,particularly for Maori and Pasifika students(NEMP, 1998, 2002, PIRLS , PISA). The second was the paucity of research on the teaching of writing in New Zealand and to some extent, internationally (Aikman, 1999). The third was research suggesting that Maori and Pasifika student achievement can be raised when teaching is informed by assessment, and,finally,the growing body of research which indicates the power of professional partnerships, professional dialogue and greater practitioner involvement in classroom research.
The specific impetus was a small study undertaken in2005 by a group of school literacy leaders in conjunction with researchers at the University of Aucklandwhich identified low writing achievement levels in a group of schools with high proportions of Maori and Pasifika students (Limbrick, Buchanan, Goodwin, Schwarcz, 2005). Relatively few students were achieving according to the national expectations. Throughthis small study it became evident that many teachers were unaware of, or were not using, recently developed assessment tools for writing to assess students’ work to inform their teaching. It was apparent that many teachers were not confident about teaching writing or their own knowledgeof the writing process. Thus, in consultation with the literacy lead teachers in a group of schools in the area, the following aims for a collaborative research initiative were established:
- To raise student achievement in writing and reduce reported disparity in writing achievement for Maori and Pasifika students through strengthening teachers’ understanding and use of assessment data in writing to modify instructional programmes.
- To enhanceteachers’ capacity to analyse students’ writing, using the English Exemplars (2003), and to strengthen teacher practice in using evidence to inform teaching.
- To enhance teachers’ knowledge about the principles and practices of effective pedagogy for writing through engaging in robust professional discussion in quality learning circles.
LITERATURE REVIEW
When teaching is deliberately targeted and based on rigorous purposeful assessment, it has been demonstrated that student achievement can be raised (Lai, McNaughton, MacDonald, Hall, MacDonald, McKee, Nicholls, Reeves, Swann, Valgrave, Weir, & Warren, 2003;McNaughton, Lai, MacDonald, & Farry, 2004;Symes & Timperley,2003; Timperley, H. 2003). These studies have reported on schools in which the student population have high ratios of students who have been traditionally viewed as being at risk, but whom McNaughton (2002) claims are possibly students, with potential, in risky situations.
However, in order for this potential to be developed, teachers needto be knowledgeable about the purpose and practice of assessment to inform teaching. There is some indication that use of the English Writing Exemplars (2003), recentlydeveloped by Ministry of Educationin New Zealand as assessment tools, can lead to greater teacher knowledge about the assessment of writing.Recent research (Limbrick, Kirton, Knight , Funaki, & Evans 2004; Limbrick, Knight & Macaulay, 2005) has suggested that a focus on students’ writing and opportunities to discuss writing and writing achievement, through using the English Exemplars, can lead to teachers being more knowledgeable about the writing process itself. In this study, close analysis and moderation of student writing achievement, both within and between schools,resulted in teachers having greater confidence in their ability to assess and teach writing based on robust evidence.Teachers reported that they gained deeper insights into the teaching and assessment of writing through interrogation of student achievement data. In addition, debate within quality learning circles about the literacy learning problems identified, and the theoretical bases of solutions,also helped teachers develop, and refine, a meta-language for written language thus enabling deeper and more meaningful discussion. (Limbrick et al,2004).
Furthermore, a significant body of research now suggests that when teachers engage in ‘learning talk’ there can be positive outcomes for student achievement. (Annan, Lai, & Robinson, 2003; Ball & Cohen, cited in Robinson, 2003 p 29). Professional discussion can enhance teacher knowledge and student achievement. Through such discussions, teachers examine their own pedagogy in relation to student achievement, building on identified sound practice,strengthening weaknesses and overcoming gaps in knowledge (Robinson, 2003).
Research in New Zealand and internationally has suggested that teachers can unintentionally make writing difficult for some students especially those from diverse backgrounds (Glasswell, Parr, McNaughton 2003a; Glasswell, Parr, McNaughton 2003b, Labbo, Hoffman & Rosser, 1995;). The reported low achievement of Maori and Pasifika students may be a result, partly, of the wide variation of teachers’ understandings of writing and the writing process and not inevitable. In particular contexts, Pasifika students have demonstrated high achievement in writing (Parkhill et al 2004).
Research has also shown that teachers’ engagement in researching their own practice is pivotal to the sustainability of school improvement and to fulfilling goals related to students’ achievement.(Robinson, 2003, Robinson & Lei, 2006). As Robinson and Lei (p.5) state
‘ … there are good reasons why a research role should become a more important part of teachers’ professional lives. Perhaps the most compelling reason lies in the nature of good teaching. Good teaching is reflective, based on high quality information and constantly improving.’
Finally, there are a number of benefits of teacher-researcher partnerships between academic researchers and practitionersthat have a positive effect on student achievement (Oliver, 2006). These include benefits to teachers’ knowledge, encouragement of collaborative practice(Flack &Osler cited in Oliver) and the development of self efficacy and professional self esteem ( Berger et al cited in Oliver).
This study therefore investigated whether careful analysis of students’ writing could enable teachers to become more aware of students’ strengths and needs to informteaching. In addition it was hypothesized teachers would become more knowledgeable about writing and the writing process, and more confident in their practice through working in partnership with University researchers and colleagues in their schools through adopting an action research process to establish specific goals for their teaching.
METHODOLOGY
Twenty-five teachers in eight schools, together with the literacy leaders in the schools, took part in the study. In each school, one teacher at Year 2, 4, 6 and 8 participated (two schools had classes at each level and one school was an intermediate school with year 7/8 classes). A number of the classes were composite classes, for example, Year 2/3, 4/5 or 5/6.
Planning meetings were held initially with the literacy leaders and a Ministry of Education advisory group and later with the teachers and literacy leaders to finalize the collaborative process.
The research had four components
- Pre-post assessment of student achievement in writing was determined using Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning (asTTle) Writing for students in years 4, 6 and the English Writing Exemplars (Ministry of Education 2003) for students in Year 2. This isbecause asTTle does not assess below Level 2 of the English in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education 1994). Approximately 750 writing samples were gathered by the participating teachers and 25% of these were analysed by the University research staff.
- Each participating teacher undertook a problem solving approach to improve writing achievement of students in the class. Thiswas an iterative process of identifying and analysing the problem and fact finding (reflection), planning (consultation and reviewing relevant literature); acting (implementing the plan); monitoring and observing; evaluating and reflecting; modifying, redefining and re-planning (Cardno, 2002). The teachers worked collaboratively with the University staff at each step of the cyclical process. Using the English Writing Exemplars, teachers identified the strengths and needs of their students, and used this information to establish a specific teaching focus. Some teachers decided to focus on a small group while others identified a particular aspect of writing pedagogy on which to focus with the whole class.
- Professional school based discussion,between the researchers and teachers, and the teachers and literacy leaders, was a key component throughout the research. The focus of these discussions was the teachers’ goals based on reflection on the data and their own teaching practice.
- A forum at which focus groups of teachers discussed their participation in relation to the three major aims of the study.
RESULTS
The main purpose of this project was to raise student achievement through strengthening teacher knowledge and practice. Changes in student achievement are reported as the results of asTTle Writing Tests and, for year 2, analysis of students’ writing using the English Writing Exemplars. Teacher’s comments addanecdotal comment to support the quantitative outcomes. Teacher knowledge and practice,while apparent,can only be inferred through the teachers’ self report through the focus groups. Results are reported below in relation to the aims of the study.
1. To raise student writing achievement in writing
High levels of transience in the schools meantthe number of pre and post samples available for analysis was not as high as anticipated. Furthermore, one school withdrew before the final analysis.
Student achievement in writing increased for all classes reported. (Appendix,1, Tables 1-4 ). Not only is this evident in the increase of the means for asTTle Writing ( Appendix 2,Figures 1 -8) in each of the classes, but the scores, relative to national norms on the asTTle data, have risen. (There are no comparative data for year 2 classes as the Writing Exemplars do not have national norms)
Teachers also commented on students’growing metacognitive knowledge of writing as an outcome of more focused and explicit teaching.
One teacher said:
It’s amazing …listening to some of these things when they’re peer-editing…that showed me that they knew the writing process….the choice of words…the deeper features and so on. It really gave me a buzz to know that they were taking in what the genre was all about. (K28)
Another said:
I put (an Exemplar) in front of the children and…get them to unpick it…what makes this a good piece of writing…(we talk about) how could we do it better?(Y28)
Through such modification of instructional practices, in many classrooms,students have become moreactively involved in all aspects of the writing process. This was commented on by the teachers.
I think before it was a process they did, but they didn’t really know why they were doing it. (O6)
They (the children) understand what it is they’re expected to do….they’re working alongside you to work out what their success criteria are…they’re looking for that evidence in their own text as well. (O22)
One of the participants, a New Entrant teacher in a low socio-economic school, took a very successful writing lesson which was observed by a member of an Education Review Office team. The ERO team member commented very favourably,to one of the researchers, on this approachsaying how impressed she was by the level of engagement and understanding of such young children.
2. To enhance teachers’ capacity to analyse students’ writing using the English Exemplars and to strengthen teachers’ practice in using evidence to inform teaching.
From the focus group discussions it was evident that teachers had become more confident and knowledgeableabout writing and the teaching of writing.
When the project first started in early 2006, many of the participants had minimal knowledge of the English Exemplars.As one Lead Teacher said:
We’re much more au fait with the Exemplars now…we feel comfortable…that is we’re able to justify why we think (writing is a)particular level. No-one feels put-down…(there’s) a lot more two-way conversations. (T2)
One teacher admitted
Before I came on board this project I didn’t understand the surface features and the deeper features…and how to separate those… (Y34)
Another participant admitted:
I was still on a learning curve at the beginning of the year…I feel much more confident at looking at a piece of writing and being able to identify the strengths that are there and find it far easier now to talk about where to next.(T14)
A further commented that:
We’re thinking about what we’re doing and we’re doing it better. We are getting better so they(the children) are (too) (K24)
There is, as might be expected, a flow-on effect between increased teacher knowledge and improved student outcomes. Teachers became aware of this as suggested by one who said.
How can you help a child….if you don’t know yourself? (P29)
This close study and use of the Exemplars, therefore, can be seen as giving teachers a shared language to discuss important understandings about writing.
Although many of the teachers in the project have extended their use of the Exemplars into tools they actually use with the children, for others their main use is still for assessment purposes. One teacher stated that
For me, it’s just, at this stage,…using them (the Exemplars) for assessment…several times a year. (P23)
Nonetheless, precise and focused use of criteria for writing would appear to ensure a more coherent approach to assessmentand teaching as is evident a statement by another teacher.
It gives you that shared understanding of what you mean when you say this piece of work is at level whatever. (Y33)
Teachers also gave feedback on how they were using the Exemplars as very useful teaching models. One teacher says:
I use the Exemplars all the time…they set the criteria for the writing. (K31)
Many schools have developed, or are in the process of developing, their own school exemplars: For example as one teacher said
We’ve developed our own (Exemplars) and we do school wide moderation to build up this kit and it’s growing all the time. (Y4)
3. To enhance teachers’ knowledge about the principles and practices of effective pedagogy for writing through engaging in robust professional discussion in quality learning circles.
Most teachers commented on the difficulty of finding time to have school based professional discussion. As one teacher said,
“One of the hardest things to do in a school is to find time to sit down and talk about what you’re doing and why you’re making the decisions that you’re making.”
Even though arranging time for regular meetings was often problematic, when it did happen it was appreciated:
I’ve found it positive to have the time to reflect on my teaching…and written language, and just having that time to discuss with peers and experts. (P1)
The learning conversations that went on with the two (researchers) we had coming in, pushed that deeper thinking …without it being just us. (T3)
Another teacher describes:
What we started doing was at staff meetings, those of us who were involved…would bring along samples of the children’s work…and how you got there. The professional discussions that went on were so valuable…it was a way of dispersing what we were learning and practising……getting those out to the rest of the staff…it’s very very valuable. (P31)
Another said:
We’ve been sharing more…quite often as a teacher we would do our own thing within our own room and that’s pretty much where it stayed. Whereas now we’re coming back and saying “Hey you know, this is really exciting, the kids responded like this…”(O7)
A Lead Teacher describes:
The enthusiasm that they showed for what was happening in their classroom has started to filter through to …the other teachers in the school. (T2)
In addition to the structured and unstructured professional discussions, focused feedback and discussion occurred as the result of peer observation of writing lessons.
The observations were based on teachers’ individual goals, follow up discussion was
supportive and challenging, for individual teachers. These subsequent discussions provided valuable opportunities to share related ideas.
One teachercommented that:
It was great having (x) come into my class because it just exposes all of us to new ideas and enriches all of us. (K7)