1
Phelps: A Tale of Two WIRC Classrooms
A Tale of Two WIRC Classrooms
A Comparative Case Study
by
Diane R. Phelps
University at Buffalo
December 11, 2007
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant PR/Award # R305G040153 to The State University of New York at Buffalo. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. I would like to thank Dr. Mary McVee for guidance in refining the construct of this study, and Dr. James L. Collins for his permission to investigate my hunch and interpret a portion of the WIRC data. The names of all participants to whom I refer in this report have been changed to protect their privacy.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity . . . Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1859)
Introduction
While many of us would argue that it is an “age of foolishness” with respect to our prevailing American educational policy (Boyd et al, 2006; Coles, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Miller, 2006), we on the WIRC research team also like to believe that we are doing something right as we seek to be part of the literacy solution.
At the time this assignment was given, I was grappling with a perplexing ‘mystery’ that had just surfaced from our Writing Intensive Reading Comprehension (WIRC) Year III data. With the exception of one or two students, the 4th grade class of Mrs. Carpenter (one of my favorite ‘stellar’ teachers) had failed to show improvement on our posttest results. I had systematically observed this teacher all year as she demonstrated high fidelity in implementing our thinksheet (Raphael, Kirschner, & Englert, 1986) intervention. I had had many conversations with Mrs. Carpenter and I had great respect for her obvious dedication to her work and our ‘WIRC.’ This past summer in a paper I had co-authored (Phelps & Pontrello, 2007) for the WIRC study, I had even selected Mrs. Carpenter to profile as an exemplary teacher. I had written, “It was truly remarkable to observe the progress of Mrs. Carpenter’s students over the year as their knowledge transformational thinksheet experience took them from struggling emergent writers to confident authors eager to share their writing with anyone remotely interested.” What had gone wrong?
I had the privilege of joining the WIRC research team in the fall of 2006. I was assigned to the field observations of twenty experimental and seven control 4th and 5th grade English Language Arts classrooms. All classrooms receiving the WIRC thinksheet intervention had been identified by the State as schools in need of improvement (SINI schools). It was my observation that most of the administrators, teachers, and students with whom I was assigned to work enthusiastically received our team and our thinksheet intervention.
The WIRC Research and the Thinksheet Intervention
The study of reading-writing relations with writing happening apart from reading and usually after reading, has been going on for decades(Tierney & Shanahan, 1991).
The basic premise behind the WIRC grant is that the use of thinksheets integrates reading and writing instruction (Englert & Raphael, 1988) to maximize learning. For our purposes, thinksheets can be defined as step-by-step guides to problem solving designed to be used interactively by teachers with their students (Kirschner & Yates, 1983). The combination of collaborative instruction and textual interaction creates a favorable environment for the development of higher psychological processes (Vygotsky, 1978) of reading comprehension and writing composition.
In his chapter entitled The making of the literate mind, Olson’s (1994) first four general principles about the relation between speech and writing point in the direction of our WIRC research. The following principles are of particular relevance: Whorf’s hypothesis on the relation between language and thought (principle one), the inter-relatedness of the reading and writing transaction (principle three), and the perspective of putting the meaning before the model (principle four) when learning to read (pp. 258-263). As thinksheets support students through the process of writing about reading, they bring together two cognitive problem spaces for students—the rhetorical and the content (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987).
The Study
Prior to this study, I had been looking the problem of the ‘Carpenter Mystery’ from a socio-cognitive perspective. Because I believed in the validity of what I had observed in the implementation of our WIRC intervention, my hunch was that the disconnect was in our pretest and posttest assessment tools. We had patterned our assessment after the standardized ELA assessment tool used by the state. I was convinced that the heart of the issue had to do with that which was taught not having been measured. I decided I needed to objectively re-examine the data by conducting a case study to investigate more thoroughly teacher practice. I selected two students with similar profiles: Bobby from the more successful 4th grade classroom of Mrs. Lesswing, and Devan from Mrs. Carpenter’s class. The evidence gathered from this study has caused me to reframe my argument. My new argument is that Mrs. Carpenter’s students never learned how to reappropriate text to make new meaning because they were highly dependent on directly copying from their teacher in two forms: copying from the blackboard as a group, and recording the thoughts and opinions of the teacher during individual writing conferences. One way that might be helpful to think about this in the context of WIRC is Pearson’s model of the Gradual Release of Responsibility. It seems like while this teacher may have been a master at scaffolding and supporting students, she wasn’t helping them to move from dependence on her to independence.
Methodology
I approached my case study with ample data. I had the quantative data of Mrs. Carpenter’s total class gain score as well as the pre and posttest scores. I had the detailed qualitative data from my field notes, the class thinksheets, and teacher and student surveys about the thinksheet intervention. I had also gathered subsequent audio and video tapings and follow-up interviews. I decided to select two similar students from two similar fourth grade classrooms and make a comparison.
Upon first examination, the only noteable difference in the data from teachers I selected was in the total class gain scores. The total average class gain score for our fourth grade experimental classrooms was 7.99. The total gain score of Mrs. Lesswing’s class was 9.43, while Mrs. Carpenter’s class gain score was 3.94. Both boys selected were categorized by the district to be in the lowest scoring group of their grade level: the ‘intensive’ level. Both boys were of African American descent and had trouble staying on task. Bobby (from Mrs. Lesswing’s class) and Devon (from Mrs. Carpenter’s class) both had scores of “1” on the WIRC intervention pretest writing cluster scores. On the posttest, Bobby improved to a “2” in his overall writing cluster score, while Devan remained the same. In fact, Devan actually demonstrated a drop from a “1” to a “0” in posttest reading comprehension, while Bobby demonstrated a slight gain in reading comprehension.
Aside from comparing the pre and posttest scores of the boys, I also looked at all of the thinksheet writing which had been completed by both boys over the course of the year. They amounted to twelve in all from five different theme units. I then restudied the video data of the learning transactions of each of the boys.
In addition to the total class gain scores and my field notes, I rewatched studied the teacher video data paying close attention to “teacher talk” and the teacher’s use of copying as a strategy for learning.
Data Collection
As part of my Graduate Assistant job assignment with the WIRC team this year, I recorded quantitative data on my observation checklist for the fidelity of the implementation of the thinksheet intervention. Over the course of the academic year (Year III of the WIRC study) I observed for two dozen variables, such as: “Did the students have their books open while using thinksheets?” and “Did the teacher confer with individual students about the selection?” I also recorded qualitative narrative data to provide a “snap-shot” of what occurred during each observation session. Toward the end of the year, I selected three “stellar” experimental classrooms. Two of the three classrooms I selected were those of Mrs. Lesswing and Mrs. Carpenter. We gave to all selected teachers selected audio recorders to capture the audio of the full “WIRC week.” At the same time over the course of one full week, I also video-taped each of these teachers in action as they worked through an entire thinksheet with their respective ELA classes. I followed up this taping with taped interviews of select students from each “stellar” classroom.
Some charts here summarizing the data set you are working with for this current paper would be helpful
Data Collected Prior To This Study
Of the nineteen students in her class, Mrs. Carpenter explained to me that seven were Hispanic ESL students. Two-thirds of the students in the class were struggling learners with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)—in this urban district, these students are all classified as being at the “intensive” level. Mrs. Lesswing told me that the demographic data of her classroom was similar: both fourth grade classrooms were located in the same elementary school. In addition, Mrs. Lesswing told me that Bobby had an attention deficit disorder. The audio and video data recorded in the “stellar” teachers classrooms reflected the five day “WIRC week” as based upon the sequential arrangement of the stories in the Harcourt Trophies anthologies used by the district. Over the summer, I systematically examined all of my field data. Based upon my written field notes only, I wrote about my observations in both the experimental and control classrooms (Phelps & Pontrello, 2007). Since September, the WIRC team has been evaluating quantitative data. The break down of the student pre and posttest scores includes: cluster writing scores, three reading comprehension scores, and a mechanics score. We have been paying particular attention to the cluster writing score, the class gain scores, and teacher fidelity and efficacy of intervention implementation.
Data Added For The Purpose Of This Study
For the purpose of this study, I created two master files. The first was a file including all data pertaining to the two students being compared: pre/posttest scores, audio/visual data, and all completed thinksheets. The second file included all classroom data for Mrs. Lesswing and Mrs. Carpenter: all completed thinksheets in chronological order, the total class gain scores, the average fourth grade experimental gain score, all video data for both teachers (I did not have time to review the audio data), and a phone interview with Mrs. Lesswing to further discuss her classroom practice.
Data Analysis: The Two Students
The following table represents the data gathered on the pretest and posttests of Bobby and Devan. The cluster score represents the score on the extended writing section of the thinksheet. The ‘RC’ scores represent scores for a three part short answer reading comprehension section of the tests. The ‘Mech’ score indicates the score for writing mechanics. The mechanics score is of secondary interest to me as a WIRC team researcher, but I include it here for comparison purposes.
Figure 1.Table 1 The Analysis of Pretest and Posttest Results
Pre/Cluster / Pre/RC / Pre/Mech / Post/Cluster / Post/RC / Post/MechBobby / 1 / 2, 1, 2 / 0 / 2 / 2, 2, 2 / 1
Devan / 1 / 1, 1, 1 / 1 / 1 / 0, 0, 0 / 1
Interpretation of Data:
Bobby demonstrated growth in all three areas of evaluation—cluster score, reading comprehension, and mechanics
Devan remained the same in both the cluster and mechanics scores
Devan demonstrated a decline in reading comprehension
Somewhere you need to explain the cluster scorses as it is not clear to me what this is and they have been mentioned several times. Next, I looked at the use of the test planning page and the extended writing on the pretest and posttest of both boys. I found that neither boy had made much use of the planning page, and that the writing of Bobby in the posttest represented an attempt at discussing the story, but that it was lacking in supplying the details or evidence for the response.
Figure 1.Table 2 Planning Page Usage and Extended Write Analysis
Student / Pre-Test / Post-TestBobby / No use of planning page / No use of planning page
Bobby / No extended write, only “If someone…” / Three “paragraph” sentences, no story evidence
Devan / No use of planning page / Attempted use of t-chart
Devan / No extended write / Six sentences with inaccuracies and speculations
Lastly, to round out the comparative analysis of the learning transactions of Bobby and Devan, I reviewed all completed thinksheets on file for both students. I later selected those that both boys had completed to use in my copying study. I was particularly astonished by what the data of Figure 1.3 reveals. Bobby had attempted to complete 25% less thinksheets than Devan. Of the 75% that Bobby attempted, one third were handed in incomplete. As advocated by the WIRC team, Bobby made use of partial sentences in his ‘Ideas’ and ‘Graphic Organizer’ section. In general, Bobby wrote in complete sentences only for his extended writing. Devan had written much more than Bobby, but it was Bobby whose writing demonstrated knowledge-transformation. Judging by the nature of the writing on Devan’s thinksheets, it was apparent that it was Devan’s teacher who had done the work. Once I had assimilated the results from Figure 1.3, I was compelled to investigate both of my selected classrooms for evidence of copying. So in other words the number of think sheets/intervention doesn’t determine the amount of growth alone. It depends on the teacher’s expert knowledge as s/he moves a child toward knowledge transformation.
Figure 1.3 Thinksheet Usage: Who is doing the work?
Bobby / Devan*all but last 2 (of 15) thinksheets had
First and final writing drafts / *many erasure marks, but no first drafts (often that which was erased is no where near accurate)
*1/3 (5/15) of total number of think-
Sheets turned in were incomplete / *the first 17 (of 20) thinksheets completed are very thoroughly done
*the last 3 thinksheets are incomplete
* frequent usage of partial sentences in both extended write and graphic
Organizer / *complete sentences meticulously copied in all three thinksheet sections
*simple vocabulary usage—copying on a broad scale not apparent / *use of sophisticated vocabulary words—copying apparent throughout
*a completely blank thinksheet turned in reveals prompts (mostly page numbers) from the teacher throughout to facilitate student completion of answers / *all thinksheets often include a detailed organizational “extra step” provided by the teacher between the graphic organizer and the extended write
It would be very interesting to expand this analysis to other children in the study and see if the same pattern exists. Without a broader representative category from each class, it is difficult to substantiate claims.
Data Analysis: The Copying Study
We on the WIRC team do not believe that all copying is bad copying. Students are often told to put their responses “in their own words.” More often than not, students who struggle do not have their own words to use. As a result they sometimes copy directly from a text. This, according to Collins (1998) is a default strategy. Struggling writers do not have a “better way” to put information on the page. The result often is copying, not in the deceptive sense, but rather as a means to an end. Part of the WIRC theory is that students can develop this re-appropriation of words from a text over time through the use of thinksheets. Thinksheets allow them to interact with the teacher and have meaningful transactions as they return to the text they are reading (or re-reading). There are three stages of development which provided evidence for students moving forward from knowledge telling to knowledge transforming: direct copying, less copying, and high overlap or strategic copying. Strategic copying demonstrates knowledge transforming higher levels of thinking. Over time, these ideas have become increasingly important in the analysis of student writing in the WIRC project ( Brutt-Griffler, Collins, & Lee, 2006; Collins & Lee, 2005).
I believe that the charts of Figure 1.4 are self-explanatory, with the exception of the ‘I, O, and E’ headers. To save space, ‘I’ refers to the ‘Ideas’ section of the thinksheet, ‘O’ stands for the ‘Graphic Organizer’ middle section of the thinksheet, and ‘E’ stands for the final section of the thinksheet--the ‘Extended Write.’ What I found most intriguing about the results of Figure 1.4 is the very apparent scaffolding to knowledge transformation that is evident in Mrs. Lesswing’s classroom. Some copying occurs across the thinksheets after the first ten weeks. By January there is no evidence of broad-based copying for the class as a whole. What this means is that individual students may be copying from the text, but the class as a whole is not copying uniform evidence from the text for the Ideas and Graphic Organizer sections, nor is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the class is directly copying from teacher prompts for the Extended Writing section. The case is different in Mrs. Carpenter’s classroom. As late as January, there is evidence that some class sets of thinksheets have identical copied responses for the Ideas section, and mostly copied responses in the Graphic Organizer section. While it is possible the Ideas section copying could have come directly from the text, identical Graphic Organizers most probably are the work of the teacher. Lastly, nine out of the eleven class sets of thinksheets examined exhibited at least partial copying in the Extended Writing section. This tells me that the teacher bypassed the positive effect of the intervention for those thinksheets because the teacher did the work. As Dr. Collins is so fond of repeating, “The one who does the work does the learning.”