/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

The effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on students' writing achievement and attitudes

(USC Thesis Other)

The effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on students' writing achievement and attitudes

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content i

THE EFFECTS OF A SERIES OF AFTER SCHOOL FAMILY WRITING
WORKSHOPS ON STUDENTS’ WRITING ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDES

by

Veronica Plascencia

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2008

Copyright 2008 Veronica Plascencia

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family, Juan Sr., Maria, and Juan Plascencia,
Jr. They have all played an integral role in my educational journey. My parents have
always instilled in me the value of an education and have modeled how to work hard in
life. My father has taught me the value of honesty, integrity, and dedication. My mother
has supported me from the beginning in whatever I strive to do, always boosting my
confidence by telling me, “M’ija, don’t worry, you’re going to get it, I know it!” My
brother has taught me how to be a good student by studying diligently and reading
incessantly from childhood to adulthood. The love, support, and teachings of my family
have enabled me not only to achieve this arduous academic goal, but also to be the person
I am today.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my grandmother, who from afar continues to
extend her love and support.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation chair, Dr. Gisele Ragusa, and my
dissertation advisor, Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores, who started out as my chair. During the
course of writing this dissertation, they both provided me with a great deal of support.
They were giving of their time and met with me several times, even on a weekly basis.
Their guidance allowed me to finally complete this study, and to make it something to be
proud of.
I would also like to acknowledge my dissertation committee member, Dr. Robert
Land, who has been my mentor for several years. His endless support and guidance have
enabled me to make great strides both in my academic and professional career, and his
love of education has allowed me to stay focused on what is important, our students.
Additional individuals important to recognize are: the Co-Founder of Family
Writing Workshops, Gurupreet Khalsa, for helping make our vision a reality; two
colleagues I met at USC, Dr. Ramona Barrio-Sotillo and Dr. Kelly Suzanne Whitten,
who, through their support and eager ears, have made this struggle a bit easier; the
teachers who were involved in this study, Heriberto Rivas, Coreen Kemper, and Marco
Vasquez, for their flexibility and energy; and the many friends who helped me in various
ways over the past few years, including Carmen Tavitian, Jim Canelas, and Alvaro
Alvarenga.
The final acknowledgement goes to the Los Angeles Writing Project (LAWP).
My involvement with this organization led to the birth of the Family Writing Workshops,
and the funding so generously provided by the Co-Directors, including Dr. Carolyn
Frank, has benefited hundreds of students and their families.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES x
ABSTRACT xii
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Purpose of the Study 6
Statement of the Problem 7
Theoretical Framework 8
Definitions 10
Significance of the Study 11
Limitations 12
Conclusion 12

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 14
Introduction 14
Effects of Parental Involvement on Academic Achievement 14
Effects of Parental Involvement on Literacy Achievement 19
Inconsistencies in Effects of Parental Involvement on 23
Student Performance
Effects of Parental Involvement on Students’ Attitudes 24
Toward Writing
Research on the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for 29
Students in Grades 4-8
Teachers’, Parents, and Students’ Perceptions of the Effects 31
of Parental Involvement
A Gap in the Research 39

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS 41
Introduction 41
The Development of Family Writing Workshops 42
Research Design 47
Unit of Analysis 49
Sample and Population 49
Teacher Participants 51
v
Student and Parent Participants 52
Access to School Sites 53
Overview of Schools and Districts 54
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures 56
Data Analysis Procedures 60
Addressing the Validity and Confidence in the Findings 63
Ethical Considerations 63
Limitations 63
Conclusion 64

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS 65
Introduction 65
The Effects of a Series of Family Writing Workshops on 66
Students’ Writing Achievement
The Effects of a Series of Family Writing Workshops on 90
Students’ Writing Attitudes
Determining Fidelity of Implementation to the Family 100
Writing Workshop Design Through Observations
Student, Parent, and Teacher Perspectives on the 149
Effects of Family Writing Workshops
Summary of Results 162
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND 167
RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction 167
Discussion of Results 167
Implications for Future Research 172
Recommendations for Teachers 174
Recommendations for Parents 178
Conclusion 179

REFERENCES 181
APPENDICES
Appendix A- The Writing Process 187
Appendix B- Letter to Principal 188
Appendix C- Observational Checklist #1 189
Appendix D- Observational Checklist #2 195
Appendix E- Observational Checklist #3 202
Appendix F- Perception Questionnaire, Students 209
Appendix G- Perception Questionnaire, Parents 211
Appendix H- Perception Questionnaire, Teachers 213
Appendix I- Recruitment Flyer #1 214
Appendix J- Recruitment Flyer #2 215
Appendix K- Student Assent Form 216
vi
Appendix L- Parent Consent Form 218
Appendix M- Recruitment Flyer #3 222
Appendix N- Beginning, Middle, and End Sensory Detail Graphic 223
Organizer
Appendix O- Homework Sheet #1 224
Appendix P- Beginning, Middle, and End Dialogue Graphic 225
Organizer
Appendix Q- Homework Sheet #2 226
Appendix R- Beginning, Middle, and End Setting Graphic Organizer 227
Appendix S- Homework Sheet #3 228
Appendix T- Certificate of Completion 229

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: School, District, and State Enrollment by Program, 2006-07 55

Table 2: Percentage of Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2006-07 55

Table 3: Relation of Data Collection Instruments to Research Questions 56

Table 4: Component and Format Characteristics of the TOWL-3 67

Table 5: Overview of the TOWL-3 Subtests 68
Table 6: Description of TOWL-3 Standard Scores 70
Table 7: Subtest 1- Vocabulary 70
Table 8: Subtest 2- Spelling 71
Table 9: Subtest 3- Style 72

Table 10: Subtest 4- Logical Sentences 72

Table 11: Subtest 5- Sentence Combining 73

Table 12: Subtest 6- Contextual Conventions 74

Table 13: Subtest 7- Contextual Language 75
Table 14: Subtest 8- Story Construction 76
Table 15: Description of TOWL-3 Quotients 77
Table 16: Writing Quotients 77

Table 17: Description of Six Traits 81

Table 18: Description of 5-point Scoring Rubric 83

Table 19: Ideas 84

Table 20: Organization 84
Table 21: Voice 85
viii
Table 22: Word Choice 85
Table 23: Sentence Fluency 86
Table 24: Conventions 87

Table 25: Overall Score 88

Table 26: Categories and Items of the Knudson (1991) Survey 91

Table 27: Number of Points for Each Response 92

Table 28: Category 1- Prefers Writing 93
Table 29: Category 2- Positive View of Self as Writer 94
Table 30: Category 3- Competent Writer 95
Table 31: Category 4- Writing Achievement 96
Table 32: Category 5- Importance of Writing 97

Table 33: Category 6- Letter/Note Writing 98

Table 34: Overall Score 99

Table 35: Topics Presented During Each Session 101
Table 36: Family Writing Workshop #1- Prewriting Observation 103
Checklist

Table 37: Family Writing Workshop #1- Drafting Observation Checklist 107

Table 38: Family Writing Workshop #1- Revising Observation Checklist 109

Table 39: Family Writing Workshop #1- Editing Observation Checklist 111

Table 40: Family Writing Workshop #1- Publishing Observation Checklist 111

Table 41: Family Writing Workshop #2- Prewriting Observation Checklist 117

Table 42: Family Writing Workshop #2- Drafting Observation Checklist 122

Table 43: Family Writing Workshop #2- Revising Observation Checklist 124
ix
Table 44: Family Writing Workshop #2- Editing Observation Checklist 126
Table 45: Family Writing Workshop #2- Publishing Observation Checklist 127
Table 46: Family Writing Workshop #3- Prewriting Observation Checklist 135

Table 47: Family Writing Workshop #3- Drafting Observation Checklist 139

Table 48: Family Writing Workshop #3- Revising Observation Checklist 141

Table 49: Family Writing Workshop #3- Editing Observation Checklist 143

Table 50: Family Writing Workshop #3- Publishing Observation Checklist 143

Table 51: Correlation between Knudson Categories and Student 151
Questionnaire Items

Table 52: Frequency Table for Student Questionnaires 152
Table 53: Frequency Table for Parent Questionnaires 154
Table 54: Correlation between Knudson Categories and Teacher 158
Questionnaire Items

Table 55: Frequency Table for Teacher Questionnaires 159

x
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Relationship Between Attitudes and Achievement 28
Figure 2: Contrived, Spontaneous, and Overall Writing Quotients 79

Figure 3: Six Trait Mean Scores 89

Figure 4: Overall Score for Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for 99
Children (1991)

Figure 5: Family Writing Workshop #1- Prewriting Sample- Brainstorming 105
Figure 6: Family Writing Workshop #1- Prewriting Sample- Organizing 106
Ideas

Figure 7: Family Writing Workshop #1- Drafting Sample 108
Figure 8: Family Writing Workshop #1- Sample, Written by a Fourth 114
Grader’s Father

Figure 9: Family Writing Workshop #1-Sample, Written by a Sixth 115
Grader’s Father

Figure 10: Family Writing Workshop #2- Sketch 120

Figure 11: Family Writing Workshop #2- Web 120

Figure 12: Family Writing Workshop #2- Prewriting Sample- 121
Organizing Ideas

Figure 13: Family Writing Workshop #2- Drafting Sample 123

Figure 14: Family Writing Workshop #2-Sample, Written by a Sixth 129
Grader

Figure 15: Family Writing Workshop #2-Sample, Written by a Fourth 132
Grader’s Mother

Figure 16: Family Writing Workshop #3- Prewriting Sample- Brainstorming 137

Figure 17: Family Writing Workshop #3- Prewriting Sample- Organizing 138
Ideas
xi

Figure 18: Family Writing Workshop #3- Drafting Sample 140

Figure 19: Family Writing Workshop #3-Sample, Written by a Sixth Grader 145

Figure 20: Family Writing Workshop #3-Sample, Written by a Fourth 146
Grader’s Mother

xii
ABSTRACT

This dissertation focuses on involving parents in improving their children’s
writing achievement and their attitudes toward writing through a series of family writing
workshops in which students and their parents engage in writing projects.
Specifically, this dissertation examined three key areas: (1) the effects of family writing
workshops on students’ writing achievement, (2) the effects of family writing workshops
on students’ writing attitudes, and (3) the perceptions of students, parents, and teachers of
the effects of a series of family writing workshops.
A total of 60 fourth through eighth grade students from four urban schools, their
parents, and four teachers were included in this quantitative and qualitative study.
Writing assessments, a writing attitude survey, observational checklist, and student,
parent, and teacher perception questionnaires were used to determine the impact of the
family writing workshops on participating students.
Results from this study suggest that students who participated in the family
writing workshops as the treatment group made improvement in some areas of writing
when compared to students in the control group. Additionally, students in the treatment
group developed more positive attitudes toward writing than those in the control group.
Observational data indicated that the workshops were implemented with complete or
almost complete fidelity, demonstrating that changes could in part be attributed to the
workshops. Furthermore, perception questionnaires revealed that students, parents, and
teachers agreed that the workshops benefited all participants in several ways that far
surpassed the areas of student writing achievement and attitudes.
xiii
Implications for future research and teacher and parent recommendations are
included in this study.

1
CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction

Schools across the nation face stringent expectations as a result of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001. According to the policy, all states must implement statewide
accountability systems based on state standards in the areas of reading and mathematics,
annual testing for students in third through eighth grade, and annual progress objectives.
These accountability systems are intended to ensure that all students meet state
performance targets by the year 2014 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). This
includes students from various subgroups, such as those from economically
disadvantaged families, with disabilities, with limited English proficiency, and students
from all major ethnic and racial groups. If students at a school do not make adequate
yearly progress, that school is identified as failing and is required to provide public
school choice which would allow parents to transfer their children to a better-performing
school. The school is also required to offer supplemental educational services to their
students, including tutoring, after school and summer school programs, and may
eventually experience restructuring of school governance (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, 2008). Essentially, schools are considered
successful if they close the achievement gap, which the National Governors Association
defines as “the gap in academic achievement between minority and disadvantaged
students and their white counterparts” (NGA, 2008).
2
Many educators and administrators wonder if closing the achievement gap is a
feasible task to accomplish when historically, it has persisted. According to The
Education Trust (2008), in examining long term trends of National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) test results, “By the end of high school, African-American
and Latino students have the same reading and math skills as white students at the end of
middle school.” NAEP assessments are administered to fourth, eighth, and twelfth
students across the country. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2007),
results on The Nation’s Report Card in the area of reading indicated that on a scale from
0 to 500, fourth grade students scored an average of 221 points (up from 219 in 2005) and
eighth grade students scored an average of 263 points (up from 262 in 2005). Students in
California fared worse, with fourth grade students receiving an average reading scale
score of 209 and eighth grade students 251. When compared to the nation in both grades
4 and 8, California had a lower average reading scale score and 23% of students scored at
or above proficient, again lower than the nation’s 38%.
In examining results on the 2007 writing assessment, on a scale of 0 to 300,eighth
grade students scored an average of 156 points (up from 153 in 2002). In contrast, eighth
grade students in California received an average writing scale score of 148. When
compared to the nation in both grade 8, California had a lower average writing scale
score and 24% of students scored at or above proficient, again lower than the nation’s
35% (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). With performance such as this, much work
and research is needed in order for our state and larger nation to make adequate progress
in the curricular areas of reading and writing.
3
States especially challenged by the expectation of making adequate progress are
those with high numbers of English learners (ELs). According to the California
Department of Education (2007), California has the greatest number of students whose
primary language is not English, about 1.6 million in grades kindergarten through 12.
California schools in particular, then, must focus their instruction on English Language
Development (ELD). In order for ELs to catch up to their native-English speaking
counterparts and meet state standards for their grade level in English language arts, math,
social studies, and science, they must make steady progress in the area of language
acquisition. By increasing their knowledge and command of the English language, ELs
will have access to learning across curricular areas in English.
Some schools have focused on providing ELD instruction for their ELs and as a
result have experienced some success. The California Department of Education reported
in a 2007 news release that according to preliminary results of the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT, 2006), which is annually administered to ELs to
assess their progress in the domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, “32
percent of English learners in California's public schools scored at early advanced or
advanced.” In the same report, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack
O'Connell, stated, “I commend our schools for their continuing efforts to help English
learners become proficient in English,” and pointed out that “there still is a significant
gap in academic achievement between our students learning English and their native
English-speaking peers…we must all join forces to address this achievement crisis with
everything we have.” Thus, the nation’s focus on enabling ELs and all students to meet
state goals is clear.
4
There are several ways of focusing on academic achievement for students. One
approach is by encouraging parents to become partners in their children’s learning. The
No Child Left Behind Act (2001) in part focuses on building capacity for involvement:
To ensure effective involvement of parents and to support a partnership among
the school involved, parents, and the community to improve student academic
achievement, each school and local educational agency assisted under this part—
(1) shall provide assistance to parents on how to monitor a child's progress
and…work with educators to improve the achievement of their children;
(2) shall provide materials and training to help parents to work with their children
to improve their children's achievement, such as literacy training and using
technology, as appropriate, to foster parental involvement;
(3) shall educate teachers, pupil services personnel, principals, and other staff,
with the assistance of parents, in the value and utility of contributions of parents,
and in how to reach out to, communicate with, and work with parents as equal
partners, implement and coordinate parent programs, and build ties between
parents and the school (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).

Parental involvement in schools has become a topic of greater interest in the field of
education. Most educators believe that parental involvement can benefit students in
various ways. Several researchers have investigated the effects of parental involvement
on student’s academic performance and have found a positive relationship (Keith et al.,
1993; e.g., Griffith, 1996; Fan 2001). However, there seem to be many unresolved issues
and conflicting findings in this area.
Most research studies suggest that the inconsistent findings among parental
involvement and student achievement are due to the variations of operational definitions
of parental involvement. Although it has an intuitive meaning it has been operationally
defined in many different ways, including parental involvement in school activities (e.g.,
Stevenson and Baker, 1987), parental supervision at home (e.g., Keith et al., 1993), and
parental communication with teachers (e.g., Epstein, 2002). The differences in these
5
definitions make it difficult to compare studies and can account in part for different
research findings.
Epstein (2002) identified six types of parental involvement- parenting,
communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and collaborating with
the community. Despite the broadness of these areas, some educators are not supportive
of parental involvement in schools. According to Comer and Haynes (1991), parental
involvement in schools and parent participation is not significant in many schools even
when parents are invited. This is especially the case with those from low-income
families, who seldom involve themselves in school. Shirley (1997) attributes this lack of
involvement to a variety of reasons:
Some parents feel ashamed of their lack of academic skills, had terrible
experiences in schools themselves, and cannot imagine wanting to discuss their
child’s learning with a teacher…They are aware of their lack of education and
fear that they will be stigmatized or humiliated in the school. Other parents…do
not believe that it is their responsibility to attend to their child’s academic
success; they have delegated that task to the school to accomplish on its own (p.
231).

Valencia (1991) states that it is of utmost importance to develop this participation,
especially in schools in which the majority of students are of Latino backgrounds,
“Increasing the existing degree of Chicano parental involvement should be a vital part of
current school reform because the role of Chicano parents is a key in realizing their
children’s school success” (p. 323).
Many researchers have emphasized the need to find and cultivate a partnership
between schools and families that would support the emotional and cognitive
development of children. Comer and Haynes (1991) found parental participation in a
child’s education to be essential for effective teaching and learning. It is crucial that
6
schools offer programs that are meaningful and that will get parents to participate. Many
believe that schools should play a more active role in engaging parents in an effort to
provide support to all students and especially those that are socioeconomically
disadvantaged.
There are many benefits to involving parents. Levine (2002) identified some
advantages to encouraging parental involvement both in the school and in the home. He
noted that parental involvement:
(1) sends a positive message to children about the importance of their education
(2) keeps the parent informed of the child’s performance
(3) helps the school accomplish more (as quoted by Levine, 2002, p. 3, Akimoff,
1996).
Research by Comer and Haynes (1991) suggests that parent involvement programs are
most effective when they are implemented within a broader context of improving
relationships among the significant adults in the lives of the children.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to address parental involvement as a possible way to
increase students’ academic achievement. This study focuses on involving parents in
their children’s learning specifically in the area of writing, which has been overlooked in
much of the current research. A series of weekly after school family writing workshops
were held in which teachers invited students and their parents and engaged them in
writing projects. By facilitating the collaboration of parents and students, teachers
supported their students’ language acquisition and academic achievement in the area of
7
writing. Writing projects aimed to develop relationships not only between family
members, but also between the school and the family. This writing intervention took into
account the students’ developmental level and it sought to increase the parent-child
interaction through positive communication, writing activities, and interactions.
Statement of the Problem
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has placed a focus across the nation on
student performance. All subgroups of students are expected to make adequate yearly
progress and meet state performance standards by the year 2014. Parental involvement is
one method of supporting students to meet this goal. Current research investigating the
area of parental involvement and its effects on student achievement has largely neglected
the area of writing. This study addresses this gap by examining the effects of an after
school parental involvement program on students’ writing achievement and other areas.
Research Questions
This study focuses on fourth through eighth grade students, some ELs, in four
public, urban schools. It explores how to involve parents in their children’s learning and
academic achievement, specifically in the area of writing. It addresses the following
research questions:
• What are the effects of a series of after school family writing workshops
on students’ writing achievement?
• What are the effects of a series of after school family writing workshops
on students’ attitudes toward writing?
• What are students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of the effects of a
series of after school family writing workshops?
8
The operational definition of parental involvement that is utilized is that of
Epstein (2002), communicating, which includes communicating with families about
school programs, and learning at home, which addresses involving families with their
children in academic learning at home. Through parent participation in a series of after
school family writing workshops, teachers communicated with parents about writing
instruction. Teachers also provided opportunities for learning activities at home.
Four weekly family writing workshops were held after school in two-hour
sessions. During these workshops, a classroom teacher engaged participants in a writing
project and taught them the writing process via a modified writers’ workshop model.
Theoretical Framework
This dissertation employs three theoretical perspectives: sociocultural learning,
social cognitive theory, and cultural models and settings. These theories provide a
rationale for the use of a series of family writing workshops as a tool to increase students’
writing achievement and attitudes.
Sociocultural learning theory posits that individual learning and social interaction
are connected (Vygotsky, 1978). The ability to develop thought, language, and reasoning
occurs through social interaction with others. Vygotsky states:
Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, between
people (interpsychological), and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This
applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of
concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relations between human
individuals (p.57).

Thus, a child’s cognitive development largely depends on communication and exchanges
that transpire with others. In relating this theory to education:
9
Learning is shaped by a mutual exchange of views and experiences by all parties
involved; that is, children, parents, and teachers engage in the process of
constructing their thoughts, ideas, and about school and learning through social
activity within and outside the classroom context (Ortiz & Ordoñez-Jasis, 2005, p.
112).

Similar to sociocultural learning, social cognitive theory emphasizes the
importance of social factors in cognitive development. According to Bandura (1989),
“[The] most valuable knowledge is imparted socially. Those who figure prominently in
children’s lives serve as indispensable sources of knowledge that contribute to what and
how children think about different matters,” he continues in describing the importance of
types of instruction, “Guided instruction and modeling…promote cognitive development
in children” (pp. 12-13). Based on this perspective, because parents and teachers are
prominent figures in children’s lives, they play an integral role in students’ cognitive
growth.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) believe the concept of culture can be more
useful in educational research by employing the ideas of cultural models and cultural
settings. They define cultural models as “shared mental schema or normative
understandings of how the world works, or ought to work…Cultural models are so
familiar they are often invisible and unnoticed by those who hold them” (p. 47) and use
Sarason’s (1972) definition of cultural settings, which is explained as occurring
“whenever two or more people come together, over time, to accomplish something” (p.
ix). Gallimore and Goldenberg studied the interconnection of cultural models and
settings in Latino children’s families and homes and found them to be useful in the areas
of home influences of development of early literacy and school reform. Additionally,
10
they argue, “Analyzing culture through the lenses of models and settings permits a more
subtle and complex view of culture” (p. 54).
Social interaction and culture play key roles in a child’s cognitive development
and in turn, academic achievement. My study is based on these theoretical
underpinnings, which can be extended to learning in the area of writing. I offered a series
of family writing workshops that was developmentally appropriate for students from
grades 4 through 8. I aimed to increase the interaction between students, parents, and
teachers by providing participants with several opportunities to collaborate at various
stages of each workshop. Students participated in joint writing activities with teachers
and parents in social settings, both in a classroom and home environment, to construct
learning and acquire new strategies and knowledge. Additionally, through the use of
demonstrations and think alouds, teachers developed a shared model of writing
instruction with parent participants, and by providing writing activities for parents and
students to complete at home, teachers supported cultural settings that promoted the
importance of writing. The interplay of these elements was intended to foster their
cognitive development specifically in the area of writing. I expected that students’
writing achievement and attitudes toward writing would be positively affected by using
the framework of literacy development based on the perspectives of sociocultural
learning, social cognitive theory, and cultural models and settings.
Definitions
This section includes an explanation of terms that will be used in this dissertation.
Academic achievement gap- the discrepancy in academic achievement, namely state-
administered standardized test scores, between various subgroups of students, such as
11
students from economically disadvantaged families, students with disabilities, students
with limited English proficiency, and students from various ethnic and racial groups.
California English Language Development Test (CELDT)- an assessment that is
administered annually to determine students’ language proficiency in English. It
measures student progress in the four domains of listening, speaking, reading, and
writing.
English learner (EL)- a child whose primary language is not English. Students who are
ELs must acquire the targeted language in order to access to the core curriculum.
English Language Development (ELD)- this refers to the language acquisition of students
who are ELs. Teachers employ various techniques, such as individualizing instruction,
scaffolding, and the use of realia, to enable students to develop English.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001- federal legislation that calls for state
accountability to close the achievement gap between various subgroups of students in the
areas of reading and math. Schools must meet annual growth targets in standardized test
performance in order to enable all students to reach proficiency by the year 2014.
Family Writing Workshops- A series of workshops in which teachers invite students and
their parents to focus particular writing projects. The teacher models how to develop that
writing piece by using the five basic steps of the writing process: prewriting, drafting,
revising, editing, and publishing. After teacher modeling, participants have an
opportunity to put learning to practice by taking their writing through the same process.
Significance of the Study
Although many studies have been conducted about the benefits of parental
involvement in the area of reading, writing has not been addressed nearly as thoroughly.
12
This area needs further exploration because it is an area of great need for our students.
This is especially the case for ELs, who are falling further and further behind from their
native English-speaking counterparts. In order to prepare these students for our
technologically advanced day and age, today’s students must develop effective written
communication skills. This study is pertinent to this body of research and to our students.
It is essential to determine how teachers can most effectively serve their students and
nurture them toward becoming strong writers, and how more importantly, parents can
utilize their time to assist their child’s writing ability and academic development.
Limitations
The primary limitation in this study is that a low number of participants was
included. The series of family writing workshops were held after school. This limited
the number of participants because many had scheduling conflicts or other obligations
that did not enable them to attend. Additionally, only students who attended all sessions
with their parents were included in the study as the treatment group. This also lessened
the number of participants. Furthermore, as the principal investigator, I faced time
restraints, such as holding a demanding, full-time job. This limited the amount of time I
had to schedule sessions, since one measure was an observation checklist and required
my presence at all sessions. An additional challenge was recruiting teachers to
participate in the study. Many also had scheduling conflicts, time restraints, and other
obligations which prevented them from participating. As a result of these combined
factors, the number participants is rather low. Thus, results are not generalizable.
Moreover, although my original intent was to focus on ELs, the challenge in
recruiting teachers, students, and parents caused me to include all students based on
13
availability. Some ELs were included in the study (from 10 to 40% per school), but this
number was insufficient to disaggregate data for this subgroup.
Conclusion
I have been committed to implementing and facilitating family writing workshops
for the past five years. However, I have never truly studied the effectiveness of the
workshops or the impact they have on its participants. I believe that my study will not
only highlight the effects on students’ writing achievement, but also illustrate the many
other positive ways in which workshops affect students and parents.
The remainder of this dissertation is divided into four chapters. Chapter 2
provides a literature review to explore what current research has shown with respect to
areas related to my research questions. Chapter 3 describes the research methods
employed in this study, including research design and measures utilized. Chapter 4
presents results of all measures utilized as well as an analysis of that data. Finally,
chapter 5 contains implications for further research as well as recommendations for
teachers and parents.

14
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of a series of family writing
workshops on students in multiple areas. This literature review investigates several areas
of relevance to this topic. I begin by exploring what researchers have found to be the
effects of parental involvement on students’ academic achievement. I then discuss what
the research states the effects of parental involvement are on the more specific area of,
literacy achievement. In the following section, I investigate researchers’ findings on how
parent involvement affects students’ motivation and attitudes toward writing. Next, I
address teachers’, parents’, and students’ perceptions of the effects of parental
involvement and the importance of the home-school connection. Finally, I note some
gaps in research and describe the theoretical framework of the study.
Effects of Parental Involvement on Academic Achievement
Many researchers have examined the effects of parental involvement on students’
academic achievement. Several, such as Snow et al. (1991), have found that parent
involvement is correlated with academic achievement. Moreover, they found it could
even compensate for ineffective classroom instruction. The following studies
investigated the effects of parental involvement and student performance across multiple
ages and academic areas.
A group of researchers (Hong and Ho, 2005; Keith et al., 1998; Fan, 2001)
utilized National Education Longitudinal Survey (NELS) data gathered on surveys that
were conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) and the U.S.
15
Department of Education to study the effects of parental involvement on students’
achievement. Hong and Ho (2005) investigated this area with consideration given to
multidimensional, longitudinal, mediational, and ethnic variation issues. Parental
involvement was defined as communication, parent educational aspiration, participation,
and supervision, and academic achievement was estimated from item response theory in
reading, mathematics, and science test scores. Researchers utilized latent growth
modeling to examine the data, which consisted of responses to three types of
questionnaires administered for each participating student: students, parents, and
teachers. Data were collected from the base year of 1988 and the first and second follow
up NELS surveys administered to the same group of students in 1990 and 1992. The
total number of participants included 24,599 eighth graders, of which 6.4% were Asian-
American, 9.8% African–American, 12.5% Hispanic, 62% White, and 9.3% other or
unknown. 1,500 students from each ethnic group were randomly selected for the
longitudinal study, which amounted to a total of 6,000 students.
Results indicated that direct effects of parental involvement on academic
achievement varied by ethnicity. For both the White and Asian-American samples,
communication and parental aspiration directly affected initial achievement and long-
term academic growth. For the African-American sample, parental educational aspiration
had an initial effect on student achievement and parental supervision had a long-term
effect. For the Hispanic sample, only parental communication had an initial effect. The
mediator of student educational aspiration was also considered. The parental
involvement factors of communication between parents and teachers and parental
education aspiration were most significant in impacting student educational aspiration,
16
which in turn positively impacted student achievement. This was the case across all
ethnicities both initially and longitudinally. Although Hong and Ho broadly define
parental involvement, their findings demonstrate that parental involvement has a short-
and long-term positive effect on students’ academic performance in multiple subject
areas.
Fan (2001) used the same student sample from the 1988 NELS data to investigate
the effects of parental involvement on students’ academic achievement. Approximately
10,500 students were included to assess the effects of parental involvement on their
academic growth through high school. Results demonstrated that parent’s educational
aspirations for their children and communication about school activities and studies had a
positive correlation with students’ academic achievement. However, parental educational
aspiration had a more positive correlation. This longitudinal effect was consistent across
all academic subject areas and ethnic group samples. Hong and Ho’s (2005) and Fan’s
(2001) studies are important to the current study because they both suggest that parental
involvement, specifically communication between parents and teachers, significantly
impacts student achievement. In the current study, teachers engage parents in literacy
activities with their children after school, which could establish a relationship between
teacher and parent and in turn result in increased communication between teacher and
parent, thereby having a positive impact on student achievement.
In an earlier study, Keith et al. (1998) utilized the same data source from NELS to
examine whether parent involvement as measured in eighth grade had a longitudinal
effect on students’ academic achievement and whether the same patterns existed for
different genders and ethnicities. Results suggested that students’ whose parents were
17
involved in eighth grade had higher grade point averages in tenth grade. There were no
differences between genders but variations were found between ethnicities. This study
supports Ho’s (2005) and Fan’s (2001) findings that parental involvement has a
longitudinal effect on students’ academic performance. Furthermore, the large-scale data
base used in these studies strengthens the external validity of the findings.
Griffith (1996) also used a large sample size to examine the relationship between
parental involvement and empowerment, school characteristics, and student academic
performance using the school as the unit of analysis. The sample consisted of 11,317
children and their parents from approximately 41 elementary schools in a large suburban
school district. The sample was fairly heterogeneous in racial and socioeconomic make-
up; 33% of participants were African-American, Asian-American, or Hispanic, and
approximately 33% were of low socioeconomic status. Surveys were administered to
parents with questions on their characteristics, program participation, expectations for
their children’s educational attainment, and children’s grade. The 41 items on the survey
were a mixture of Likert-type and close-ended questions. Outcomes on the state’s
criterion-referenced test were used to measure student academic performance.
Results revealed that schools with higher levels of parental involvement and
empowerment also had higher test scores. This study is related to the current study since
I examined whether there is a positive correlation between parental involvement and
academic achievement, more specifically, writing achievement.
Englund et al. (2004) conducted a longitudinal study to examine how multiple
variables interrelated over time. Variables included: parental behavior, described as the
quality of instruction children received before starting school and parental involvement
18
with school, defined as whether a child’s teacher knew the parent and whether parents
had participated in meetings with the teacher, such as parent conferences; parental
expectations; and children’s academic achievement. Participants consisted of 187
children, 66% of which were Caucasian, 12% African-American, and about 19% mixed
or other, and their low income mothers from an urban part of Minneapolis, recruited
during their pregnancies. Researchers collected data from birth through third grade
through parent and teacher interviews, parent and children laboratory observations, and
intelligence tests administered to children.
Findings indicated that the variables of mother’s quality of instruction (assistance
provided to 42 month old babies during a developmentally appropriate set of problem-
solving situations) degree of parental involvement, and parental expectations outweighed
those of mother’s level of education, children’s intelligence and previous achievement.
Furthermore, high academic achievement in first grade led to high parental involvement
in third grade, which in turn led to higher academic achievement in third grade. This
study again shows that parental involvement has a positive effect on students’ academic
achievement. Rather than relying on teacher interviews, the current study utilized a
different indicator of parental involvement, active participation at a school activity and
instructional support at home. However, I expected to find similar positive results.
The previous studies show a part of the abundance of research that has been
conducted on the effects of parental involvement on students’ general academic
achievement. Hong and Ho (2005), Fan (2001), and Keith et al. (1998) used large sample
sizes and found that communication between parents and teachers most significantly
impacted student performance in the areas of reading, math, and science. Griffith (1996),
19
who also used a large sample size, also found a positive correlation between parental
involvement and academic achievement. In examining the effects of parental
involvement on young children’s achievement, Englund et al. (2004) also found positive
results. Their findings indicate that parental involvement facilitates success for students
from different ethnicities. These positive results were consistent for students from
different age groups, including adolescents, elementary-aged students, and very young
children). I expect to uncover similar results in the current study.
Some researchers have narrowed their focus and have suggested that parents can
have a profound effect on their children’s literacy development by engaging their
children in various literacy activities, such as reading to their children. This type of
interaction can provide important preparation for children’s early reading and writing
instruction in school, as well as important literacy development in later years of school.
Effects of Parental Involvement on Literacy Achievement
The effects of teachers and parents in reading intervention programs on students’
reading have been explored by various researchers. Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998)
conducted a study in Nashville, Tennessee to determine the efficacy of parent and teacher
involvement in a six-week shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low
socioeconomic backgrounds. The shared-reading, referred to as dialogic reading,
allowed the child to become the storyteller and the adult to become an active listener,
prompting the child with questions that gradually facilitated more detailed descriptions of
items in the picture book. Children who received the dialogic reading intervention both
at home and school made stronger improvements in oral language than children who
received the intervention only at home or at school.
20
Whitehurst et al. (1994) also explored a reading intervention program with
children from low socioeconomic families. In this study, teachers read picture books to
students at school and parents read picture books to children at home. Children improved
their oral language skills more when they were read to by parents and teachers than when
they were read to by just teachers.
These studies are central to my study because they demonstrate that children’s
reading skills will improve when they receive instruction at home in addition to school.
My study calls for home-based instruction that builds on school-based instruction.
According to Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998), a possible reason for the benefit of home-
based instruction is that in a home reading situation, parents are able to provide one-on-
one interaction in which they can tailor their instruction to their children’s interests and
abilities. In contrast, because a teacher in a classroom has a limited amount of time and
often works with students in a small group setting, she must adapt instruction to the
ability level of the group as a whole.
Another area that has been investigated is the effect of parental involvement in
family literacy programs on students’ literacy. Cook-Cottone (2004) evaluated the
effectiveness of a family literacy program in an urban, Northeastern elementary school.
The families of 48 children in grades 3 through 5 participated in one of three 10-week
programs. Participants’ backgrounds varied with 65% Hispanic, 35% African-American,
10% Caucasian, and 5% other. Twenty-one percent of students were identified as having
a language other than English as their primary language and more than half were of low
socioeconomic status. This program recruited and trained parent
21
mentors in family literacy techniques, such as exploring literacy with participating
families through story telling, read alouds, and decoding strategies.
Parent outcome surveys indicated that all parents believed the family literacy
program enabled families to experience growth in literacy. Additionally, children made
significant literacy gains. For example, more than half of participating children learned
decoding skills, learned how to use syllabication, structural analysis, context clues, and
target sight words when reading. The program also improved parents’ efficacy in being
able to provide literacy development to their children. Cook-Cottone (2004) found this
family literacy program to be successful because “families make the difference” (p. 208).
Morrow and Young (1997) also investigated the effects of a family literacy
program on student’s reading achievement that was created to enable parents, children,
and teachers to realize the importance of their role in children’s literacy development and
to promote interest in reading and writing. Participants included 56 students from two
classes from each of first, second, and third grade from an urban public school district.
The majority of students were from minority backgrounds, more specifically, 54% were
African-American, 44% Latino, and 2% Caucasian. One randomly selected class from
each grade level received the treatment, which was a family literacy program that
extended a school-based program to a home-based program. The control group received
only the school-based program. Some components of the school-based program were as
follows: classroom literacy centers with various literacy activities to choose from, teacher
read-alouds and storytelling with felt stories and puppets, story discussions focusing on
story structure and authors’ and illustrators’ styles, and the use of a Highlights for
Children magazine. The home-based program extended these literacy activities by
22
providing parents with a shopping bag of materials that enabled them to engage in such
activities as reading to and with their children, telling stories, and writing together in
journals. Parents also received a Parent Handbook that focused on the importance of
parents in their children’s literacy development and offered guidelines for the family
literacy program.
Three measures were used to assess children’s growth in literacy achievement,
including pre- and post-story retelling and rewriting tests, pre- and post- probed recall
comprehension tests, and the California Test of Basic Skills. Additionally, teachers rated
their students’ literacy growth. Results indicated that students in the experimental group
significantly outperformed those in the control group on all literacy measures, with the
exception of the California Test of Basic Skills. Furthermore, teacher ratings revealed
that students in the experimental group improved their reading and writing ability. This
study is key because it suggests that parental involvement via home-based family literacy
programs has a positive effect on students’ literacy achievement not just in the area of
reading but also in the area of writing, which has often been overlooked. My study
similarly extended school-based activities to the home.
Although family literacy programs are generally perceived as beneficial to its
participants, some researchers claim that they possess many shortcomings. Hendrix
(1999), for instance, states that family literacy programs typically focus on a preschooler
and his or her mother; adult education, or literacy/ESL and that time for parent-child
interaction is not effectively incorporated into the program. Enz and Searfoss (1996)
“proposed that younger learners and adolescents would both benefit from participation in
23
literacy programs, and we should expand our views (and programs) of family literacy
accordingly” (Hendrix, 1999, p. 341).
Inconsistencies in Effects of Parental Involvement on Student Performance
According to Reynolds (1992), not all studies have found a positive correlation
between parent involvement and student achievement, “Despite its presumed positive
influence, there is no consistent evidence that parental involvement…has a significant
influence on academic outcomes” (p. 442). Evans et al. (2000) found that young
children’s early literacy and oral language skills are not enhanced or developed via
general reading activities at home. Perhaps some of the difficulties in establishing a
positive relationship between parent involvement and student success can be attributed to
various factors, including the lack of consensus on what exactly the term “parental
involvement” represents and the different sources used to measure parental involvement
(e.g., parents, teachers, students). However, Reynolds (1992) stated that multiple
measures of different sources can be advantageous.
Another reason for the inconsistency in findings in the area of parental
involvement has to do with the differences among the samples used, such as students’
age. In a nationally representative sample of 179 children, Stevenson and Baker (1987)
This suggests that schools can make a difference in promoting parental involvement in
the early stages of a child’s life. However, as demonstrated in several studies (Keith et
al., 1998; Cook-Cottone, 2004) students can benefit from parental involvement regardless
of their age. Positive results have been shown in the area of student achievement. In the
next section, research on the effects of parental involvement on students’ attitudes will be
explored.
24
Effects of Parent Involvement on Students’ Attitudes toward Writing
According to DeBruyn (2001), developing positive attitudes in students supports
teachers’ instructional efforts. Several researchers have suggested that parental
involvement has a positive effect on students’ attitudes toward learning, specifically in
the area of reading (Clark and McDonnell, 2001; Bevans et al., 2001).
In an action research project, Duignan et al. (2002) evaluated an intervention that
focused on increasing parental involvement and creating a home environment that
promoted reading. This intervention aimed to have a positive effect on students’ attitudes
toward reading and in turn increase their academic achievement. The terms attitudes,
motivation, interest, and engagement were used somewhat interchangeably. Authors
seemed to focus on motivation, but this focus was muddled by such statements as,
“…more factors, such as peer pressure, contribute to the lack of motivation and interest in
school. Many factors contribute to the interest and engagement of students’ learning”
(Duignan et al., 2002, p. 20).
A total of 130 students in kindergarten, first, third, and high school grades from
four schools in Chicago participated in this study. Students’ motivation to read and
reading performance were demonstrated through the use of surveys and reading
assessments. Anecdotal records were also used, which included observation checklists
comprised of such items as being on-task and participating while reading as well as
parents’ signatures on weekly reading logs. Analysis of probable cause data indicated
that a lack of parental involvement could be a factor of low reading performance among
students. Other possible factors noted were a lack of access to a public library and
reading materials in the home.
25
The 16-week intervention program encouraged home reading and parent
participation by allowing students to borrow a variety of books from the classroom
library. Part of the intervention included incentives offered by some organizations,
including Pizza Hut and Six Flags. Teachers also offered various incentives in the
classroom such as being excused from completion of homework assignments and
receiving stickers.
Post-surveys indicated that students’ attitudes toward reading increased and post-
observation checklists showed that students’ reading skills improved, although neither
significantly. This outcome supported the researchers’ prediction that higher levels of
parental involvement would result in higher levels of student attitudes toward reading and
reading achievement. Duignan et al. (2002) stated that the intervention led to positive
results, but it is difficult to determine if these results could be attributed to home reading
activities or extrinsic rewards. Additionally, the term “reading skills” was used loosely,
since reading skills was defined as following written text, staying on task and
participating during reading, parents’ signing of reading logs, and completion of journals.
In an earlier study, researchers similarly included uses of different terms and a
home-based program. Morrow and Young (1997) conducted a study that is one of few
that investigated the effects of parental involvement in a home-based family literacy
program on students’ interest in not only reading but also writing. The words interest and
motivation were used almost synonymously, “The purpose of the school program was to
promote interest in reading and writing. We wanted to motivate children to read
voluntarily for pleasure and for information” (Morrow and Young, 1997, p.737). This
use of terms is further shown in the description for a teacher survey that was in part used
26
to, determine an increase in “motivation or interest in reading and writing” (Morrow and
Young, 1997, p.739). Another term was added, that of student attitudes. Interviews
indicated that students developed positive attitudes toward the family literacy program
and as a result, read more often at home both independently and with adults. Teacher
ratings also revealed that students’ interest in reading and writing increased. Although
this study demonstrates that parental involvement positively impacted students, the terms
interest, motivation, and attitudes were used in a somewhat confusing manner.
Fantuzzo et al. (2004) examined multiple dimensions of family involvement in the
areas of early childhood education and classroom outcomes. Like Duignan et al. (2002),
he included the dimension of home-based family involvement, but also investigated
school-based involvement and home-school conferencing. School-based involvement
was defined as activities that parents engaged in at the school site, such as being a
classroom volunteer, accompanying the class on fieldtrips, and planning events with
other parents; home-based involvement was defined as supporting a learning environment
in the home by doing such things as providing children with a physical space to engage in
learning activities.
Outcomes included the areas of competence motivation, attitudes toward learning,
and receptive vocabulary. Unlike Duignan et al. (2002) and Morrow and Young (1997),
Fantuzzo et al. (2004) used the terms motivation and attitudes distinctively and did not
overlap them. The area of competence motivation was reflected by “a child’s curiosity
about learning activities, as well as their motivation to understand and succeed in those
activities.” Attitude toward learning focused on “general demeanor in learning activities,
and the way in which they interact with peers and adults in those learning activities”
27
(Fantuzzo et al., 2004, p. 470). The distinct use of terms allowed for a clear
understanding of the focus of the study.
Approximately 140 Head Start children from 46 to 68 months in age from an
urban, low socioeconomic area in the Northeast participated in the study. Ninety-six
percent of families were African-American, with the remaining 4% consisting of
Caucasian, Asian, and Latino populations. A questionnaire was used to measure the type
and amount of family involvement. Students’ attitudes toward learning was one of the
items measured through teachers’ ratings on the Preschool Learning Behaviors Scale
(McDermott et al., 1996). Additionally, students’ receptive vocabulary skills were
measured by administering the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.
Findings demonstrated that the dimension of home-based family involvement
most strongly predicted outcomes of children’s attitudes toward learning and other areas.
This study is related to my study because it suggests that students’ learning attitudes are
positively affected by family involvement. I expected the family writing workshops to
also have a positive impact on students’ attitudes toward writing because my study
similarly employs a home-based family involvement component.
As demonstrated, there has been a lack of clarity and consistency in how terms
have been used in some studies. This can lead to a lack of consensus among researchers
on the effects of parental involvement on students’ attitudes. Alexander and Filler (1976)
generally define reading attitudes as feelings toward reading and state that positive
feelings toward reading should lead to more reading involvement; “thus, attitudes about
reading should relate to individuals’ motivation for reading” (as stated by Wigfield, A.,
Guthrie, J.T., 1995, p. 6). Although it has not been explicitly stated that interest can be
28
equated with attitudes, some attitude surveys (Knudson, 1991) include items that are
intended to measure students’ attitudes and interest. As such, for the purposes of my
study, the terms interest and attitudes will be used as correlates. .
Why, then, measure students’ attitudes as opposed to motivation? According to
Pintrich (2003), several social-cognitive constructs attempt to inform the question of what
motivates students in classrooms, one of which is that higher degrees of interest motivate
students. Hence, positive attitudes will result in motivation. He further explains that
research has shown that higher levels of personal interest “are associated with more
cognitive engagement, more learning, and higher levels of achievement” (Pintrich, 2003,
p. 674). This implies that attitudes impact the areas of motivation, engagement, and
achievement. Wigfield and Guthrie (1995) separate this process into a more distinct
sequence in their discussion of reading engagement, “(R)eaders’ engagement in reading
will be greatly facilitated when they are intrinsically motivated to read and find personal
meaning in the reading that they do” (p. 5). Similarly, Ormrod (2002) states, “Motivation
affects cognitive processing… motivated students are more likely to pay attention,
engage in meaningful learning, and seek help when they don’t understand” (p. 390).
Thus, one can infer that attitudes affect motivation, which in turn impacts engagement,
and ultimately, achievement. This sequential relationship is shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The Relationship Between Attitudes and Achievement

Subsequently, because attitudes can be viewed as initiating the process, it is
essential that students’ attitudes are examined in this study. Findings will both reveal
attitudes motivation engagement achievement
29
significant information and offer implications for further research in the areas of student
motivation, engagement, and achievement.
Another item that is important to highlight is that although some researchers
(Duignan et al., 2002; Morrow and Young, 1997) have suggested that parent involvement
does indeed impact students’ attitudes toward reading and learning, few have addressed
how parental involvement affects students’ attitudes specifically in the area of writing.
One instrument that can be used to explore this area is the Knudson Writing Attitude
Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 (1991). This survey will be addressed in the next
section.
Research on the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 (1991)
The Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 (Knudson,
1991) is comprised of nineteen 5-point Likert scale items. Students are asked to indicate
how often they agree with statements related to six categories, including Prefers Writing,
Positive View of Self as Writer, Competent Writer, Writing Achievement, Importance of
Writing, and Letter/Note Writing. A response of “Almost Always,” indicated by 1 point,
shows that students almost always agree with a statement, reflecting students’ most
positive attitudes toward writing. In contrast, a response of “Almost Never,” denoted by
5 points, reveals that students almost never agree with a statement, reflecting least
positive attitudes.
This instrument has been used by some researchers in past studies. For example,
Donovan (1998) explored whether fourth grade students in Washington who write
compositions using a computer produce better writing samples than fourth grade students
who wrote compositions using paper and pencil. Two hundred ten and 198 students
30
comprised each group, respectively. An additional area of consideration was students’
attitudes toward writing and whether there was a difference in writing attitudes between
students who used laptops and those who used paper and pencil. The Knudson Writing
Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 (Knudson, 1991) was administered to
investigate this area. Differences in both areas were considered with respect to gender,
ethnicity, schools providing free or reduced lunches to less or more than 50% of students,
and families who owned or did not own home computers. Data were analyzed through
the use of t-tests and Analyses of Variance.
Findings indicated that students who used laptops to write compositions
significantly outperformed students who did not use laptops in both writing performance
and attitudes toward writing. Additionally, girls had more positive attitudes than boys.
Although there was no significant difference in attitudes in students of different
ethnicities, more positive attitudes were found in students in schools with less than 50%
of students receiving free or reduced lunch. Furthermore, there was a low but significant
correlation between writing competence or writing conventions and attitudes toward
writing, where students with a higher competence or writing conventions had more
positive attitudes toward writing.
In a later study, Rockman et al. (2003) evaluated the Buddy STAR Writers
Project. Some of this three year program’s goals were to increase students’ writing
achievement, enable students to track their own performance from goal setting through
assessment of learning results, incorporate technology into their writing, and increase
parent involvement. Participants included 400 students from grades 3 to 6 and 21
teachers from five elementary schools in rural Indiana.
31
Although this evaluation focused on only the first year of program
implementation, positive findings were reported in the area of writing achievement.
Students’ attitudes toward writing were also measured by administering the Knudson
Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 both at the beginning of program
implementation and at the end of the first year (Knudson, 1991). Pre- and post-survey
mean changes were compared across schools. Results revealed that attitudes toward
writing were more positive in younger rather than older students, there seemed to be little
or no difference in attitudes among students with higher or lower writing scores, students
preferred to write about a self-selected topic and believed that being a good writer is an
important strength in obtaining a good job as an adult. Additionally, more fifth graders
displayed an increase in attitudes at the end of year one.
The Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 (Knudson,
1991) was utilized in this dissertation. Similar to Rockman et al.’s (2003) study, I
administered a pre- and post-survey to all students and employed t-tests to analyze
results.
The next section moves on to a different area, that of the effects of parental
involvement as perceived by teachers, parents, and students.
Teachers’, Parents’, and Students’ Perceptions of the Effects of Parental Involvement
Studies have revealed mixed results when it comes to the effects of parental
involvement on students’ academic achievement and attitudes toward learning. But what
are teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of how parental involvement affects students?
Some researchers have explored what teachers perceive are the effects of parent
involvement on students’ literacy development. Levine (2002) conducted a survey in a
32
Bronx public elementary school. Participants included twenty kindergarten, first, and
second grade teachers. Results showed that all teachers felt parent involvement plays an
essential role in students’ literacy development because parents are children’s first
teachers and can expose children to books early on. Teachers also felt that parent
attitudes toward school and reading had a direct impact on students’ own attitudes.
Another area teachers were surveyed on is the degree of participation of their students’
parents. Twenty-five percent of these teachers indicated that their students’ parents were
involved by participating in classroom celebrations, attending class fieldtrips, and having
weekly discussions about their child’s progress. In terms of parent involvement through
home literacy activities such as checking homework, reading to children, or taking
children to the local library, 25% of teachers stated that most of their students’ parents
were involved, 60% of teachers stated that at least half were involved, and 15% stated
that less than half were involved. Many teachers felt that parents could become more
involved in their classrooms to achieve the following benefits: “It would give the parents
a better sense of what learning’s going on, what methods the teacher used to reach the
students, and it would give the students a sense of how important school, education and
themselves were to the parents” (Levine, 2002, p. 8). They identified various ways of
promoting parent involvement, including sending home newsletters, inviting parents to be
guest story tellers, and volunteering in the classroom. Teacher perceptions highlighted in
this study parallel the findings of many researchers, that parent involvement benefits
students in multiple ways.
Patrikakou and Weissberg (1998) conducted a study that examined parent
involvement and attitudes and explored how socio-demographic factors that impact
33
parent involvement and parent perceptions of teacher outreach are related to one another.
Participants included 246 parents of pre-kindergarten through third grade students from
three low-performing urban schools in the Midwest that were primarily comprised of
African-American and Latino student populations. Through the use of surveys,
Patrikakou and Weissberg (1998) found that there was some degree of parental
involvement in the home: 74% of parents reported that they were involved by checking
their child’s homework, 68% assisted with the actual homework completion, and 26%
read to their child. Parents also described their involvement at school. Most parents,
71%, primarily participated by picking up their child’s report card.
Many also revealed what they did not do: 81% of them almost never volunteered
in their child’s classroom, 53% never or almost never called or made an effort to speak
with their child’s teacher in person, and 69% rarely inquired about home support they
could provide. Additionally, parents shared their perceptions of how teachers attempted
to involve them: 80% were informed of their child’s poor behavior and 71% were
informed of positive behavior; 74% indicated that their child’s teacher was accessible;
77% stated that the teacher was helpful in answering their questions; 55% thought
teachers encouraged them to visit the school; and 63% stated that teachers gave them
suggestions on how to assist in their child’s progress. Socio-demographic variables such
as low levels of education and socio-economic status were not found to have an impact
on parent involvement. Race was the only statistically significant factor. African-
American parents indicated greater involvement than Latino parents, possibly due to the
language barrier.
34
Findings indicated that “parents whose children attend inner-city public schools
make significant efforts to be involved in their child’s education both at home and at
school in spite of adverse conditions” (Patrikakou and Weissberg, 1998, p. 9). Although
parents were involved, many did not engage in supporting their child’s cognitive and
academic development due to a lack of information on how to do so. A key statistically
significant finding in this particular study was that parent perception of teacher outreach
had the greatest impact on parent involvement both at home and at school (Patrikakou
and Weissberg, 1998). When interviewed, one teacher offered a way to facilitate parent
participation, “Our school can extend itself more to the parent. Sometimes the parents
need a little push or motivation. If a parent can’t come to the school to support their child,
we must go to them” (Patrikakou and Weissberg, 1998, p. 11). This study is important
because it suggests that teacher outreach is a critical factor in parent involvement.
Johnson (1999) conducted a study to determine parents’, administrators’, and
teachers’ perceptions of a summer program, Exit Skills Summer Academies. The
program was based in Detroit, Michigan and its purpose was twofold: to strengthen
learning of basic skills and to improve student performance. Over 7,000 kindergarten,
first, and second graders from 174 schools participated in this four week, 20 hour per
week program which featured a student-teacher ratio of 10:1. Questionnaires were sent
to fifty-four randomly selected schools and three hundred ninety-five, one hundred forty-
eight, and twenty-seven of these questionnaires were returned by parents, teachers, and
administrators, respectively. Ninety-eight percent of parents indicated that they believed
the program enabled their children to better their academic skills. Ninety-six percent of
administrators and 95% of teachers strongly agreed or agreed that the summer program
35
supported student achievement. Data were not collected to determine if student
achievement actually increased as a result of the program, nor were the demographics of
the participants revealed. However, Johnson (1999) found that staff and parents
overwhelmingly perceived the program to be a strong source of academic support for
students. This study parallels my own because I also include teachers’ and parents’
perceptions.
Shymansky, Yore, and Hand (1999) conducted a study to examine students’,
parents’, and teachers’ perceptions about an Iowa program, The Science PALs (Parents,
Activities, and Literature) Project, which enabled parents to become partners in their
children’s science learning through the use of hands-on activities, literature-based
inquiry, and activities that bridged the school and home. Teachers also involved parents
in their children’s learning by sending home unit updates and activities, inviting parents
to visit, observe, or help in the classroom, and conducting conferences to discuss
children’s progress. Students, parents, and teachers viewed the program as having many
benefits. Students in grades 1 and 2 were given questionnaires.
Results revealed that Science PALs students had more positive perceptions
toward their teachers, parents, science instruction and performance, and attitudes about
science than non-Science PALs students. Parent participation surveys indicated that 49%
of parents agreed and 38% strongly agreed that home connection activities should be
extended to other subject areas. Teachers also made many positive comments in surveys,
such as, “Science PALs provides a great springboard for getting parents involved in their
child’s learning, rather than merely ‘helping out’ at school,” and, “Parents’ interest
motivates students to learn” (p. 16). The program had a strong impact on all of its
36
participants. Shymansky, Yore, and Hand’s (1999) study is significant because similar to
my study, it considers multiple individuals’ perspectives, including students, parents, and
teachers.
Barge and Loges (2003) also included student, parent, and teacher perceptions.
More specifically, it focused on their perceptions on parental involvement and
communication. The study was conducted in the Southwest as part of a grant by the U.S.
Department of Education called GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs). This grant focuses on providing middle school students with
support so they may graduate from high school and plan for college. Focus groups were
conducted for 80 middle school parents and 128 students from grades 6 through 8.
Additionally, one hundred fourteen middle school teachers were surveyed. Results
revealed commonalities among perceptions of students, parents, and teachers. All three
groups cited communication between parents and teachers as an important component of
parental involvement. This included parents’ attendance of school events, parent-teacher
conferences, and calling teachers to monitor progress. Teachers emphasized that parents
should take the initiative to contact teachers. The three groups also noted that parents
should monitor students’ progress in various ways, including contacting teachers. This
study is important in that it is one of the few that reveals students’ perceptions. It is
surprising that more researchers do not allow students the opportunity to be heard when
parent involvement is focused on them and how it can foster their educational growth and
achievement.
Perceptions have also been considered by some researchers when examining
family literacy programs. In a study that was previously described in this chapter by
37
Morrow and Young (1997), effects of parent involvement in a family literacy program
were investigated. Parent interviews revealed that parents enjoyed engaging in literacy
activities with their children, learned new ideas on how to support their children’s literacy
development, recognized the importance of supporting their children’s learning, and felt
more comfortable about participating at school. This brings to light several implications.
With proper guidance, student learning can be extended in the home and parents can play
an integral role in their literacy development. Furthermore, parent involvement through
family literacy programs can bridge the connection between the home and school.
In a study that also focused on a literacy program, researchers aimed to develop
an awareness in interested parents of various literacy activities they could engage in at
home with their children. Gilliam et al. (2004) designed a program called Project ROAR
(Reach Out and Read) with a predominantly Hispanic Texas elementary school. Authors
conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of this project. Twenty kindergarten
students and their parents, 80% of which were Hispanic, 15% African-American, and 8%
Caucasian, and all with low socioeconomic backgrounds were included in this study.
Families were invited to ten monthly sessions in which different topics were presented
and discussed by researchers and guest speakers. Such topics included the importance of
parent involvement in reading, how to use the public library to read with children,
storytelling in the home, and the use of literacy games and activities at home. While
parents attended the presentations, local undergraduate college students volunteered to
provide childcare.
Through the use of parent interviews and logs, Gilliam et al. (2004) found that the
kindergarten children and their siblings developed a love for reading, parents felt they
38
became better parents, reading became a more active pastime in the home, more than half
of the children began to write poetry, and attitudes toward literacy activities improved
among all participants. The project even developed closer relationships “between parent
and child…Sharing books together bridged the gap between busy parents and their
children” (Gilliam et al., 2004, p. 234). This study is significant in that it shows the in-
depth information that can be obtained by interviewing parents. Numerous positive
outcomes resulted from this family literacy program.
Hughes and MacNaughton (2000) examined staff views about a federal
government program in Australia, the Quality Improvement and Accreditation Scheme,
which requires early childhood centers to implement various standards to facilitate
collaboration between staff and parents in order to receive funding and formal
accreditation. Fifteen staff members from three centers participated in completing
questionnaires, focus group discussions, and phone interviews. Researchers found that
staff recognized the importance of parent involvement “but they knew that…developing a
shared understanding with parents about what was in the best interests of their child was
neither easy nor guaranteed” (Hughes & MacNaughton, 2000, p. 11). Staff members
described parent involvement as both “problematic and complex” (Hughes &
MacNaughton, 2000, p. 4). Researchers accredited some of the difficulties to knowledge-
power issues between staff and parents.
Many researchers have found that teachers and other staff members do recognize
the critical role of parents in their child’s education, but also find establishing and
maintaining this role to be challenging.
39
Thus far, the research has suggested a positive relationship between parental
involvement and students’ academic achievement in general academic areas and more
specifically, literacy. Positive effects have also been described in students’ attitudes
toward learning. Furthermore, perceptions of teachers, parents, and students on parental
involvement have been described. I have noted the several benefits that have been
documented by various researchers. The next section addresses what has not been
included, or gaps in the research.
A Gap in the Research
In conducting this literature review, I found that there is a limited amount of
research in the areas of how parent involvement affects students’ writing performance
and attitudes. Most of the studies focused either on general academic achievement,
literacy achievement, or learning attitudes in general. More information is needed on
how to support students specifically in the area of writing.
Another area that has not been explored by many is that of student perceptions on
the effects of parental involvement in various areas. In conducting research, I came
across several studies that included surveys, interviews, or focus groups for teachers and
parents, and sometimes even administrators. But student voices were included in very
few. More studies should include this component since it is their educational well-being
that is being explored.
Finally, although many family literacy programs are narrow in focus, Gadsen
(1994) argues that the entire family should be included rather than just one parent and
child.
40
My study addresses these shortcomings. First of all, I explore how parental
involvement affects students’ writing achievement and attitudes toward writing.
Secondly, I include perceptions from the three critical sources, students, parents, and
teachers. Furthermore, the whole family is invited and welcomed to participate in the
family writing workshops. In fact, grandparents have come, along with older and
younger siblings alike. The workshops focus on providing plenty of time for not only
parents and children to interact with one another, but also different families to work in
small groups. The family writing workshops are designed to foster family literacy in its
true essence, by engaging all members who attend.
These aforementioned reasons make this study both significant and relevant to
this area of research. The results will contribute to the field of education and will have
strong implications on how schools can more actively engage parents in their children’s
writing development.
The next chapter addresses the research design and methodology employed in this
dissertation.

41
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS

Introduction
With the onset of the federal government’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
schools are focusing on increasing academic achievement for all students. The U.S.
Department of Education addresses the importance of “implementing effective parental
involvement activities to improve student academic achievement and school
performance” and emphasizes the need to build capacity for involvement. As a result,
many schools are developing parental involvement programs to encourage parents to
become active partners in their children’s learning.
This dissertation focuses on involving parents in improving their children’s
writing achievement and their attitudes toward writing through a series of family writing
workshops in which students and their parents engage in writing projects. As stated in
chapter two, many researchers have found a positive relationship between parental
involvement and student performance (Keith et al., 1993; e.g., Griffith, 1996; Fan 2001).
However, most of these studies have focused on such areas as math and reading and have
neglected the area of writing. Additionally, few studies have investigated the effect of
parental involvement on students’ attitudes toward writing. Furthermore, few have
included students with limited English proficiency, which make up approximately 4.1
million students nationally. This study addresses this gap in the literature by examining
an after school family writing workshop program that engages parents of students in
grades four through eight, including ELs, as active participants in increasing their
42
children’s writing achievement. More specifically, the following research questions will
be addressed:
1. What are the effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on
students’ writing achievement?
2. What are the effects of a series of family writing workshops on students’ attitudes
toward writing?
3. What are students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of the effects of a series of
after school family writing workshops?
This chapter describes the research design, sample and population, data
instruments and collection, and data analysis process. It also addresses the validity of and
confidence in the findings, as well as ethical considerations of the study. Initially,
background information is provided on how the family writing workshops came to
fruition, as well as a description of the basic components of the workshops.
The Development of Family Writing Workshops
The family writing workshops emerged about five years ago. Soon after I had
completed a summer fellowship with the California State University, Los Angeles
Writing Project, I attended an initial meeting to explore the idea of becoming a teacher
researcher. At the time, I was a third grade teacher and very interested in conducting an
informal action research project in my own classroom.
During the meeting, another teacher whom I had never met mentioned the idea of
involving students’ parents in their writing. I was immediately interested, especially
since I had a passion for teaching writing and had been searching for a way to involve
43
parents in this particular area. I expressed my enthusiasm for the idea to my colleague,
but she seemed hesitant to start a project given the many commitments she already had at
her school. I nudged softly for the next several minutes, explaining that we could start a
project together at each of our respective schools and that being busy came with the
territory of being a teacher. Soon enough, she gave in.
That same fall, we met to discuss our thoughts and ideas and found we shared
similar viewpoints. We expressed our concern at the disconnect between home and
school. We agreed that because parents often feel distanced from the public school arena,
they have had little opportunity to witness first-hand what teachers are doing in the
classroom in crucial areas including reading and writing. Although parents expect their
children to learn language skills and to develop fluency in communication, they are often
not equipped or confident enough to participate in their child’s literacy activities. We
wanted to reach out to parents for several reasons:
• To help parents discover their own creativity and stories so that literacy
can become a “norm” in households.
• To facilitate socializing between students, parents, families, and teachers
to strengthen the connection between the school and home.
• To help parents acquire a basic understanding of writers’ workshop and
its use as a literacy tool.
• To give parents ways to help their children with literacy activities at
home.
44
Shortly after we realized we had similar goals, we designed what would come to be
known as “family writing workshops.”
We based the design on a writers’ workshop model which we both had been using
for our classroom writing instruction for years. Although we taught students at different
levels, she at the middle school level and I at the elementary level, our instruction had
some commonalities in that we followed similar versions of the writing process. There
are many variations on the writing process, but we essentially used that which is
described by Tompkins as a five-stage writing process (Tompkins, 2000). In her book,
Teaching Writing- Balancing Process and Product, she explains that her version of the
writing process utilizes activities identified by researchers including Donald Graves,
Linda Flower and John Hayes, and Nancy Sommers. The five major stages are outlined
and briefly described below:
Stage 1: Prewriting
Students choose a topic, gather ideas, and identify appropriate audience and purpose for
the writing activity.
Stage 2: Drafting
Students write a rough draft, focusing on content rather than mechanics.
Stage 3: Revising
Students share their writing with their classmates and teacher and make revisions
together, continuing to focus on content.
Stage 4: Editing
Students proofread composition on their own and with classmates.

45
Stage 5: Publishing
Students publish and share their writing.
My colleague and I decided to use a modified version of Tompkins’ writing process to fit
the needs of our family writing workshops (see Appendix A, p. 190).
In addition to following the writing process in our family writing workshops, we
incorporated pieces of some of the major elements of a writers’ workshop model, which
Tompkins (2000) explains are:
1. Writing
Children spend 30 to 60 minutes working on writing projects. They use the
writing process as they develop and refine their writing.
2. Sharing
The class gathers together to share their new publications, often during the last 5
to 15 minutes of writing workshop. Children take turns reading their writing
aloud to classmates, who respond to the writing and offer compliments.
3. Minilessons
Teachers provide 15- to 30-minute lessons on writing workshop procedures,
information about authors, literary concepts, and writing strategies and skills.
These are some of the basic components on which our writers’ workshops, and in
turn our family writing workshops, were based.
We generated a list of topics and decided that a series of two-hour workshops
would be held after school for our own students and their parents. Each workshop would
focus on one particular topic and we would engage the participants in taking their own
46
writing project through the five basic steps of the writing process: prewriting, drafting,
revising, editing, and publishing.
Shortly after designing the workshops, we implemented the project at our schools.
One week, I would go to her sixth grade classroom and assist her as she facilitated a
workshop, and the next, she would come to my third grade classroom and do the same.
And so it went for the next few years. We found the sessions to be very enjoyable and
successful and wanted to spread the word on how to implement family writing workshops
at other schools. As such, we presented at several local, state, and national conferences
for organizations such as CATE (California Association of Teachers of English), NWP
(National Writing Project), and NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English). Our
audiences were intrigued.
Over the years, our family writing workshops grew. We extended them to
students outside of our own classrooms. At times, sessions were offered to a grade level,
to multiple grade levels, and even to our entire schools. We received positive feedback
from numerous participants, students and parents alike, and often heard the eager
question, “When is the next one?” The only negative feedback we received, in fact, was
that the workshops were too short. But we felt two hours was a reasonable amount of
time for a session.
Although I knew that the workshops were having a positive effect on its
participants, I was curious to explore these statistical effects. Well before I began my
doctoral program, I knew I had the perfect topic for my dissertation and looked forward
to conducting the study.
47
In determining what the focus would be for this dissertation, I decided to
implement a series of four after school weekly family writing workshops in four schools,
following the writing process and incorporating major elements of the writers’ workshop
model I explained earlier in this chapter. The research design is described in full in the
following section.
Research Design
This study utilized a mixed methods design. According to Creswell (2003),
“Mixed methods research has come of age…A mixed methods design is useful to capture
the best of both quantitative and qualitative approaches” (pp. 4, 22). As such, I collected
both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were used for the primary
purpose, which was to evaluate the effects of a series of after school family writing
workshops on students’ writing achievement. In order to evaluate this particular area, I
administered both pre- and post-writing assessments to students. Quantitative data were
also used to examine the effects the series of after school family writing workshops had
on students’ attitudes toward writing. For this area, I administered pre- and post-surveys
to students. According to Clark and Estes (2002), surveys are an effective method to
identify beliefs and perceptions. The independent variable for this study was the series of
after school family writing workshops and the two dependent variables were students’
writing achievement, which was defined as scores on a writing assessment administered
to students, and students’ attitudes toward writing, which was defined as scores on a
survey completed by students.
48
Qualitative data were included in the study as well. I observed participants as
they were engaged in activities during each of four two-hour sessions. McMillan (2000)
describes the many benefits of observations:
The observation of behavior as it occurs yields first-hand data without the
contamination that may arise from tests, inventories, or other self-report
instruments. Moreover, observation allows the description of behavior as it occurs
naturally…Observation of behavior in natural settings also allows the researcher
to take into account important contextual factors that may influence the
interpretation and use of the results (pp. 161-162).

An additional benefit of conducting observations in this particular study was to determine
whether or not the program was implemented as it was designed. Fidelity must be
considered in order to determine if outcomes can be attributed to the series of after school
family writing workshops.
Another form of qualitative data used were questionnaires. According to
McMillan (2000), questionnaires are written documents
...containing statements or questions that are used to obtain subject perceptions,
attitudes, beliefs, values, perspectives, and other traits. Questionnaires are used
extensively because they provide the best way of obtaining information for a wide
range of research problems, from surveys of large populations to reactions of
students to different instructional methods” (p. 155).

I administered questionnaires to students, parents, and teachers at or after the last session
of family writing workshops in order to determine their perceptions of what effects the
series had on students in the areas as writing achievement and attitudes.
Using a mixed methods approach provided me with much richer information to
explore how the workshops affected participating students. As Patton (2002) states,
quantitative data is necessary in this high-stakes day and age because of “decision
49
makers’ interest in measuring standardized outcomes,” and qualitative data “typically add
depth, detail, and nuance to quantitative findings, rendering insights…and examining
individualized outcomes and issues of quality or excellence (p. 220). Thus, utilizing a
mixed methods approach revealed the effects of the workshops on multiple levels.
Unit of Analysis
According to Patton (2002), the unit of analysis is often individual people or
students, which means that “the primary focus of data collection will be on what is
happening to individuals in a setting and how individuals are affected by the setting” (p.
228). Students, parents, and teachers are the unit of analysis in this study because I
considered how the series of after school family writing workshops affected students in
the areas of writing achievement and attitudes toward writing, and considered parents’
and teachers’ perceptions of program effects. This study is time based because I
employed fixed-interval sampling; I observed participants for a fixed, isolated amount of
time since four weekly family writing workshops were held after school for a period of
two hours.
Sample and Population
This study was originally planned in two phases. Phase one was for five teachers,
both at the elementary and middle school levels, to implement a series of after school
family writing workshops in their individual classrooms during the spring of 2006.
Teachers were selected because they each had at least five years of teaching experience,
used the writers’ workshop model as part of their regular writing instruction, and had a
high population of ELs.
50
Phase two was to select three of these teachers to participate in the study the
following school year in the fall of 2006. The three teachers were chosen on the basis of
having implemented the family writing workshops successfully in phase one as
evidenced by participants’ regular attendance and positive feedback provided in
evaluations.
However, things did not go as I had originally planned. After several
unsuccessful attempts to contact one teacher, I was forced to withdraw him from the
study and decided to continue with the other two teachers. The recruitment of
participants began at these two schools in the Spring of 2007. One teacher was able to
recruit approximately twenty students and the other about four. I realized that the
number of participants that had been secured was insufficient for the study. As a result, I
postponed it until the following academic year of 2007-08 in order to recruit additional
teachers and secure a more robust sample of participants.
Phase three was an unexpected but necessary addition. After intense recruitment
efforts, I was able to bring in two more teachers for the study. Neither of these two
teachers had participated in phase one by previously facilitating a series of after school
family writing workshops at their schools. However, I held a training session for them in
which my co-founder and I presented an overview of the family writing workshops and
essential components, facilitated a typical family writing workshop, and walked them
through the other workshop topics, study design, and logistics. Once I had secured a total
of four teachers, I was able to continue with phase three of the study and implement the
series of after school family writing workshops at four schools in the Fall of 2007. The
next paragraph includes more information on participating teachers.
51
Teacher Participants
This study includes four teachers, the first two from the same school district, the
third from another school district, and the fourth from a charter school, who each
facilitated a series of after school family writing workshops at their own schools. All
teachers and schools have been assigned pseudonyms. The first teacher teaches second
grade and will be referred to using the pseudonym Mr. Leopold. He facilitated the family
writing workshops with fourth and fifth grade students and their families at School 1.
The second is a fourth grade teacher who will be referred to using the pseudonym Ms.
Taylor. She facilitated the family writing workshops with fourth and fifth grade students
and their families at School 2. The third is a sixth grade teacher who will be referred to
using the pseudonym Mrs. Copa. She facilitated the family writing workshops with fifth
through eighth grade students and their families at School 3. These three schools are
located in two urban school districts. The fourth teacher, who shall be referred to using
the pseudonym Mrs. Gela, teaches sixth through eighth grade at an urban K-8 charter
school, School 4. I believed the inclusion of both elementary and middle school teachers
yielded rich insights into the effects of the family writing workshops on students’
attitudes and writing achievement across multiple grade levels.
Teachers facilitating the family writing workshops were selected based on the
following criteria: hold a teaching credential, have taught for at least five years, and
possess experience teaching writing via the writers’ workshop model. As stated earlier in
this chapter, the two middle school teachers each implemented a series of after school
family writing workshops at their schools during phase one of the study. One of these
teachers also co-founded the family writing workshop project. The other two elementary
52
level teachers were recruited in order to secure a sufficient number of participants in
phase three of the study. I provided training to both of them to prepare them to facilitate
family writing workshops at their schools.
Student and Parent Participants
Although four teachers were included in the study, there are a fairly small number
of family participants. The second and fourth grade teachers each invited approximately
80 fourth and fifth grade students and their parents to attend the family writing
workshops. Because one of these schools follows a year-round calendar, only students
on two tracks were invited since students on the other two tracks were returning from or
leaving for vacation in the middle of the study. The other two teachers each invited
approximately 80 fourth through eighth grade students and their parents, all on the same
traditional calendar.
Based on previous attendance rates, I expected an average of about twenty-five
percent of students and their parents to participate, twenty from each school. I was able
to secure between ten to thirty percent of students and their parents at each school in
targeted grades. Participants that did not attend every single workshop were excluded
from the study. Accordingly, I secured a total of sixty students and their accompanying
parents as participants, which were divided into a treatment and control group (to be
explained later in this chapter). This small number of participants allowed me to perform
an in-depth study.
The sampling strategy I utilized is referred to as homogeneous sampling. Patton
(2002) describes the purpose of this sampling strategy, “to describe some particular
subgroup in depth” (p. 235). Each group consisted of students who were from the same
53
range of grades and experienced the same family writing workshop with their parents
since each of the four facilitating teachers followed the same workshop design and
format. Additionally, each group was comprised of from 15% to 70% ELs.
Parents were of mixed ethnic backgrounds. Parents at Schools 1 and 2 were all
Latino. About two thirds had the primary language of Spanish but did not speak fluent
English. As such, translating during the workshop was required. At School 1, the
facilitating teacher, Mr. Leopold, spoke fluent Spanish and provided all translation. At
School 2, the facilitating teacher, Ms. Taylor, possessed some fluency in Spanish but
invited a colleague to each workshop to translate all explanations, modeling, and
instructions. At School 3, a few parents of Asian and Latino backgrounds were not
completely fluent in English. These parents did not require a translator as they received
explanations when necessary from their children. At School 4, parents were of mixed
ethnic backgrounds but all were fluent in English.
Socioeconomic backgrounds were mixed and ranged from low socioeconomic
status at Schools 1 and 2, to low and low middle socioeconomic status at School 3, to low
middle and middle socioeconomic status at School 4.
Access to School Sites
Access to the sites was obtained by writing a letter to each school principal
requesting their permission for their teachers and selected students to participate in the
study (see Appendix B, p. 191). Following the letter, I met individually with each
principal upon request to further explain the study and address any questions they had.
Gaining their permission was not difficult as the benefits to having the family writing
workshops at their schools were clear. Additionally, once I acquired their permission and
54
support for the study, I explained that the facilitating teacher would act as the point
person for the project and that all communication from that point forward would
primarily occur between myself and that teacher, thereby alleviating the time and level of
involvement from the principal.
Overview of Schools and Districts
Schools 1 and 2 are in a large urban district in the western United States that will
be referred to as District A. This district serves 680,167 students in 858 schools and
centers from kindergarten through grade twelve. School 1 serves 775 students in grades
kindergarten through 5, has two administrators and 26 full-time teachers; School 2 serves
1,632 students also in grades kindergarten through 5, has three administrators and 80 full-
time teachers.
School 3 is also in a large urban district in the western United States that will be
referred to as District B. This district serves students in kindergarten through grade 12.
It is comprised of thirteen elementary schools (grades K-8) and six high schools. School
3 serves 740 students, has two administrators and 31 full-time teachers, and earned the
recognition of a Distinguished School in 2004 and a Title I Achieving School in 2003 and
2004.
The final school, School 4, is a charter school which houses students from
multiple surrounding urban districts in the western United States. School 4 serves 168
students from grades K through 8, has two administrators and eight full-time teachers,
and operates on the progressive teaching philosophy that children learn best by doing and
therefore strive to engage students through a hands-on learning style of instruction.
55
Table 1 provides enrollment information for each of the four schools and their
districts, compared to that of the state in which they are located.
Table 1: School, District, and State Enrollment by Program, 2006-07

Total Enrollment % of English Learners
School 1 775 58
School 2 1,632 59
District A 680,167 35
School 3 740 40
District B 19,149 35.8
School 4 168 10
State 6,312,102 24.9

As illustrated in Table 1, School 1 has half the number of students enrolled as
School 2, but almost the same percentage of ELs, which is almost double that of the
district in which they are located. School 3 has a similar percentage of ELs to that of its
district. School 4 has the lowest amount of ELs. The percentage of ELs enrolled
throughout the state is similar to the average percentage of ELs enrolled in Districts A, B,
and School 4.
Table 2 provides demographic information for each of the four schools and their
districts, as well as their state.

Table 2: Percentage of Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2006-07 (by %)

American
Indian
Asian Pacific
Islander
Filipino Hispanic African-
American
White Other
School 1 0 0 0 0 99 0.4 0.1 0.5
School 2 0 0.2 0 0.3 98.9 0.1 0.3 0.1
District A 0 3.7 0.4 2.3 73.7 10.9 8.7 0.3
School 3 0 38 0 3 47 2 8 1
District B 0.3 52.7 0.2 1 39.4 0.8 5.2 1.8
School 4 0 3 1 0 22 47 26 1
State 0.8 10.2 0.7 3.2 36.5 7.5 39.6 1.3

56
Table 2 reveals that Schools 1 and 2 have the greatest percentage of Hispanic
students. School 3 has a similar amount of Asian and Hispanic students at 38% and 47%,
respectively. School 4 has similar percentages of Hispanic and White students and the
greatest number of African-American students. The demographic make-up shown in
Table 2 parallels that of the family writing workshop student and parent participants.
Data Collection Instruments and Procedures
The relationship between data collection instruments and research questions
follows in Table 3.
Table 3: Relation of Data Collection Instruments to Research Questions

Data Collection
Instruments
RQ 1: What are the
effects of a series
of after school
family writing
workshops on
students’ writing
achievement?

RQ 2: What are the
effects of a series
of family writing
workshops on
students’ attitudes
toward writing?

RQ 3: What are
students’, parents’,
and teachers’
perceptions of the
effects of a series
of after school
family writing
workshops?

The Test of Written
Language-3 (TOWL-3,
Hammill and Larsen, 1996)
Pre- and Post-test

X

6 + 1 Trait® Writing
Assessment

X

The Knudson Writing
Attitude Survey for
Students in Grades 4-8
(Knudson, 1991)

X

Observational Checklist

X X

Perception Questionnaires
(Students, Parents, and
Teachers)

X

57
The following paragraphs include a brief overview of each measure. A more detailed
explanation is provided in chapter four.
The Test of Written Language-3 (TOWL-3, Hammill and Larsen, 1996)
This norm-referenced test was administered to students in order to provide a
valid, reliable measure of several dimensions of writing, including mechanics of writing,
sentence combining, spelling, and the ability to write a story. It can be given to students
from ages seven through seventeen. This test was selected for this study because it is
“the most comprehensive, reliable, and valid norm-referenced test of written language
available today…[it] has gone further than any other test of written language to detect
and eliminate sources of cultural, gender, and racial bias…[and] the TOWL-3 normative
sample is representative relative to gender, race, social class, and disability” (Pearson
Education, 2006). As the principal investigator, I administered this assessment to all
students before and after the series of four after school family writing workshops.
Analytic Writing Assessment
The 6 + 1 Trait® Writing Assessment Scoring Guide (Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory, 2007) was used to further analyze the writing samples produced
using the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996) before and after the series of family
writing workshops. It was utilized to measure students’ writing achievement in the
following six traits: ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and
conventions.
The Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 (Knudson, 1991)
This survey was used to gain information about students’ attitudes toward writing.
It was administered to participating students before the first and after the last family
58
writing workshop to assess attitude changes toward writing. As with the TOWL-3
(Hammill and Larsen, 1996), I administered this assessment to all participating students
before and after the series of after school family writing workshops.
Observational Checklist
I attended each of the four two hour after school family writing workshop
sessions at each school. My role was that of observer; students, parents, and teachers
were informed of my role as researcher (Creswell, 2003). Observing each session
allowed me to record information as it was revealed to determine if the family writing
workshops were implemented with fidelity. An observational checklist was used for
recording observational data. Descriptive notes, in which I recorded dialogue, events and
activities, and interactions between participants, as well as reflective notes, in which I
recorded my impressions and posed questions, were included (Creswell, 2003; refer to
Appendices C, D, and E, pp. 192, 198, and 205, respectively, for the observational
checklist for each session).
Perception Questionnaires
Questionnaires were used to gain insight on what participating students, parents,
and facilitating teachers in the treatment group perceived to be the effects of the family
writing workshops. I administered this measure, which mostly consisted of open-ended
questions, to students and parents at the last session of their series of workshops.
Teachers received a modified version of this questionnaire shortly after the series had
ended. Perception questionnaires may be referred to in the Appendix as follows:
students, Appendix F, p. 212; parents, Appendix G, p. 214, and teachers, Appendix H, p.
216.
59
Procedural Time Frame
The data were collected during the months of September through December of
2007. Prior to beginning the study, I wrote a letter to each school principal requesting
their permission for their teachers’ participation. Afterwards, I met with each principal
individually upon request to address any questions they had. Once I obtained permission
from each principal, I provided each facilitating teacher with a recruitment flyer to send
home to students and their parents in targeted grades at each of their school sites. This
first flyer invited them to participate in the study, provided an explanation of what it
consisted of, and listed the time frame during which the workshops would be held (refer
to Appendix I, page 217 for flyer). Teachers provided me with the flyers that students
returned demonstrating their interest to participate. I then provided each facilitating
teacher with a second flyer, which thanked students and their parents for their interest and
asked them to complete and return attached student assent and parent consent forms in
order to secure their participation in the study (refer to Appendix J, p. 218 for flyer;
Appendix K, p. 219 for student assent form; and Appendix L, p. 221 for parent consent
form). Once these forms were returned and collected, I randomly placed half of students
from each school in Group A, which would be the treatment group, and the other half in
Group B, which would be the control group. Groups A and B were formed in order to
examine data from a comparative group to yield greater validity for both the discussion
and findings. I then sent home a third flyer (refer to Appendix M, p. 225) which
confirmed their participation and provided them with workshop dates for the entire series
they had been assigned to participate in. Although the effects of the workshops were
considered for only Group A, who attended the first series of sessions, in order to ensure
60
equitability, students in Group B were also invited to attend a second series of sessions.
This second series was held after all students in both groups had completed all pre- and
posts-tests and all data had been collected.
I attended all sessions for Group A at each of the four schools. At the first
session, I again explained the purpose of the study to students and their parents, my role
as an observer, and addressed any questions they had.
Data Analysis Procedures
The purpose of the study was to determine the effects of a series of after school
family writing workshops on students’ writing achievement and attitudes. The data
collection addressed the study’s purpose by examining the research questions in the
following ways:
The Test of Written Language-3 (TOWL-3, Hammill and Larsen, 1996)
This test was administered to determine if the family writing workshops had a
positive impact on students’ writing achievement. All students in both Group A, the
treatment group, and Group B, the control group, at each school in relevant grade levels
completed the assessment simultaneously. Data from a comparison group were examined
in order to yield greater validity for both the discussion and findings. Scoring reliability
was achieved by first having two trained individuals score all pre- and post- subtests in
full. A third trained individual scored only pre- and post subtests for which the first two
scorers disagreed to the point that scores fell in a different range. Scores were then
entered into a database. Next, descriptive statistics and a t-test of paired samples were
used to measure the statistical difference between mean scores for all pre- and post-
subtests for both Group A, the treatment group, and Group B, the control group.
61
McMillan (2000) states that t-tests can be used to compare a mean to a set value.
Descriptive statistics were included to obtain additional information that the t-test did not
provide (i.e. minimum and maximum mean scores). Employing both the t-test and
descriptive statistics provided much information. Because of the small n, scores for the
treatment group from each of the four schools were combined, as were scores for each of
the control groups.
Analytic Writing Assessment
The 6 + 1 Trait® Writing Assessment Scoring Guide (Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory, 2007) was used to further evaluate the writing samples students
in the treatment and control groups produced as part of the TOWL-3 (Hammill and
Larsen, 1996) before and after the first series of family writing workshops. As with the
TOWL-3, scoring reliability was achieved by first having two trained individuals score
all pre- and post-tests. A third trained individual scored pre- and post-tests in specific
traits for which the first two scorers disagreed to any extent. Scores were entered into a
database. Descriptive statistics and a t-test of paired samples were then used to measure
the statistical difference between the pre- and post- mean scores on all traits and the
overall score for both the treatment and control group. Because each of the four schools
had a low n, treatment groups were combined, as were control groups. Combining each
set of groups provided more statistically significant results.
The Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 (Knudson, 1991)
According to McMillan (2000), “In a survey, the investigator selects a group of
respondents, collects information, and then analyzes the information to answer the
research question” (p. 195). This survey was administered to all students in each school
62
in relevant grade levels. Data from this measure were collected from all participating
students and entered into a database. As with the previous two measures, descriptive
statistics and a t-test of paired samples were used to measure the statistical difference
between category mean scores for the pre- and post-test for both Group A, the treatment
group, and Group B, the control group. Categories are further explained in chapter four.
Again, in order to obtain a higher n, the four treatment groups were combined into one
large treatment group; the same was done for the control group.
Observational Checklist
I attended each of the four two hour after school family writing workshop
sessions for the treatment group at each school. My role was that of an observer. I used
an observational checklist to record information as it was revealed. To determine if the
family writing workshops were implemented with fidelity, I simply checked off each
item as it was completed. I also took descriptive notes, in which I recorded dialogue,
events and activities, and interactions between participants, as well as reflective notes, in
which I recorded my impressions and posed questions.
Perception Questionnaires
I first obtained a general sense of the information and reflected on its overall
meaning. I then wrote notes in the margins to formulated initial impressions. Next, the
information from questionnaires was sorted and arranged into different groups. Some of
these groups corresponded with categories from the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey
and other groups emerged. Data from questionnaires were coded to identify common
findings. Coding was used to develop five to seven categories. These represented
themes of major findings. The results were then described by the frequency and
63
percentage of answers to each category. Multiple perspectives from individuals were
supported by diverse quotations and specific evidence. Themes were also interconnected
and formulated into a storyline as in a narrative.
Addressing the Validity of and Confidence in the Findings
Data triangulation was utilized to increase the accuracy and credibility of
findings. I compared the consistency of findings by employing methods triangulation.
This included triangulation of sources, such as The Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for
Children, Grades 4 to 8 (Knudson, 1991), and observational checklists. The different
types of data collected provided cross-data validity checks. Any inconsistencies among
data collected offered insight and understanding of the questions under examination.
Ethical Considerations
I ensured ethical research standards were maintained by complying with the
expectations, policies, and guidelines of the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB). In addition, participants who agreed to take part in the
proposed study were asked to sign an Informed Consent Form to demonstrate their
voluntary decision. This form disclosed the broad purpose of the study and expectations
for participants and the researcher. I also explained that participation in the study was
strictly voluntary in nature.
Limitations of the Study
The findings in the study are not generalizable to other schools due to the small
sampling size utilized.

64
Conclusion
This chapter has provided a description of the research methods utilized in this
study. An explanation of how the family writing workshops emerged and what they
consist of was included to provide background information. The research design, unit of
analysis, and sample and population were other areas addressed, as well as data collection
instruments and procedures and details on data analysis. Chapter 4 presents data analysis
and interpretations related to each measure utilized.

65
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings in relation to each question
of the study. The study was conducted to investigate the effects of a series of family
writing workshops on students’ writing achievement and attitudes, as well as students’,
parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of the effects of family writing workshops. I set out
to explore the impact the workshops had on its participants in various ways.
In alignment with the emphases, the following research questions were
considered:
1. What are the effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on
students’ writing achievement?
2. What are the effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on
students’ attitudes toward writing?
3. What are students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of the effects of a series of
after school family writing workshops?
The information in this chapter is organized into five major sections. The first
evaluates the effects of the series of family writing workshops on students writing
achievement; the second considers the effects on students’ attitudes toward writing; the
third addresses teacher fidelity of program implementation to design; and the fourth
includes students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of the effects of the family writing
workshops as revealed through perception questionnaires. Finally, this chapter concludes
with a summary of results.
66
The Effects of a Series of Family Writing Workshops

on Students’ Writing Achievement

I will begin by addressing the first research question. In order to determine the
effects of the family writing workshops on students’ writing achievement, a writing
assessment was administered to students. Once students at each of the four schools were
confirmed as participants in the study, they were randomly divided into two groups, A
(treatment) and B (control). All students, regardless of group placement, were given a
writing pre-test. Group A students and their parents were then invited to attend the first
series of four after school family writing workshops. When the first series of family
writing workshops for Group A ended, all students in Groups A and B completed a
writing post-test. Students in group B and their parents were then invited to attend a
second series of family writing workshops for equity purposes. The writing assessment
utilized to evaluate writing performance is the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996). A
brief description and overview of this assessment are provided, followed by an analysis
of results.
TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996)
As described in Chapter 3, the TOWL-3 consists of eight subtests which measure
writing performance in three components: conventional, linguistic, and cognitive. The
conventional component assesses a student’s ability to follow rules in the areas of
punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. The linguistic component measures a student’s
ability to use syntactic and semantic elements of English. Last, the cognitive component
involves a student’s ability to produce writing in a logical and coherent manner.
67
Both contrived and spontaneous writing formats are used in the assessment. The
contrived writing format focuses on isolated elements of language, such as capitalization,
punctuation, and spelling, whereas the spontaneous writing format examines the
integration of components and the ability to write meaningfully. Table 4 below illustrates
the subtests in relation to formats and components (Hammill and Larsen, 1996, p. 5).
Table 4: Component and Format Characteristics of the TOWL-3

Component
Format
Contrived Spontaneous
Conventional Spelling
Style
Contextual Conventions
Linguistic Vocabulary
Sentence Combining
Contextual Language
Cognitive Logical Sentences Story Construction

Each component is measured using both contrived and spontaneous writing
formats. The contrived writing format is assessed in subtests 1 through 5, whereas the
spontaneous format is assessed in the remaining subtests of 6 through 8.
In order to gain a basic understanding of this assessment, a brief description of
each subtest, an example of what a student may write, and what each subtest measures is
provided in Table 5 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996, pp. 5-6 & 38).

68
Table 5: Overview of the TOWL-3 Subtests

Subtest Description Example Measures the ability to…
1. Vocabulary The student writes a
sentence using a
targeted word.
For see, the
student writes, “I
see a dog.”
write meaningful sentences by
employing knowledge of word
meanings and classes.
2. Spelling The student writes
sentences from
dictation, focusing on
spelling.
The student
writes, “You can
go with me.”
spell dictated words.
3. Style The student writes
sentences from
dictation, focusing on
punctuation and
capitalization.
The student
writes, “You can
go with me.”
punctuate sentences and
capitalize words properly.
4. Logical
Sentences
The student edits
sentences so they each
make perfect sense.
The student
changes, “The cow
barked” to “The
cow mooed.”
recognize and correct through
rewriting the illogicalities
existing in stimulus sentences.
5. Sentence
Combining
The student combines
short sentences into
one grammatically
correct sentence.
The student
combines, “Tom
is big. Tom is a
man” to “Tom is
a big man.”
incorporate the meanings of
several sentences into a
comprehensive single sentence
containing embedded phrases,
introductory clauses, adjective
sequences, etc.
6. Contextual
Conventions
The student writes a
story in response to a
picture prompt. Points
are earned for
following conventions
related to
capitalization,
punctuation, paragraph
indents, etc.
Stories vary. spell words properly and to
apply the rules governing
punctuation of sentences and
capitalization of words in a
spontaneously written
composition.
7. Contextual
Language
Using the same story,
vocabulary, sentence
construction, and
grammar are evaluated.
Stories vary. use mature words that represent
a variety of parts of speech;
complex sentences comprised of
introductory and concluding
clauses, embedded phrases, and
adjective sequences; and
grammatical forms such as
subject-verb agreements.
8. Story
Construction
Using the same story,
areas such as story
beginning, sequence,
and story ending are
considered.
Stories vary. write in a logical, organized
fashion; to generate a specified
theme or plot; to develop a
character’s personality; and to
employ an interesting and
engaging prose.

69
Subtest 1 of the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996) is comprised of 28 items.
Each item is considered correct if the stimulus word is used correctly and the meaning of
the word is clear. Subtests 2 and 3 are administered simultaneously. A total of 18
sentences are dictated to students and their responses are evaluated in the areas of
spelling for subtest 2 and punctuation and capitalization for subtest 3. Subtest 4 contains
22 sentences, each of which has an illogical element. Students must edit sentences by
crossing out or adding words so that the new sentence is logical, grammatically correct,
and is not awkward. Subtest 5 is comprised of 20 items which require students to
combine from two to six short sentences into one. In this portion of the exam, key
elements from all short sentences must be incorporated into the combined sentence and
the end result must be a grammatically correct sentence. When administering subtests 1
through 5, students may cease testing when a ceiling is reached by missing three items in
a row.
Subtests 6 through 8 are administered by providing students with a picture
prompt. They are given 15 minutes to produce a story related to the picture. Eleven to
14 items are scored in each of these subtests, with each item earning from zero to two
points (Hammill and Larsen, 1996, p. 21).
According to TOWL-3 authors Hammill and Larsen (1996), “The clearest
indication of a student’s performance on the subtests is provided by standard scores” (p.
36). As such, raw scores were converted to standard scores. Guidelines for interpretation
of the standard scores are listed in Table 6.

70
Table 6: Description of TOWL-3 Standard Scores

A t-test of paired samples was used to measure the statistical difference between
standard scores for each of the subtests. Tables 7-15 show how students in Groups A and
B performed in each area.
Table 7 includes results for the first subtest, which isolates student performance in
the area of vocabulary.

Table 7: Subtest 1- Vocabulary

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 7 13 10.03 1.65
-.27 1.11 .27
Post-test 30 7 12 9.77 1.40
B
Pre-test 30 1 13 8.73 2.91
-.10 .20 .84
Post-test 30 1 12 8.63 2.14

Results presented in Table 7 demonstrate that students in both Groups A and B
slightly decreased their performance on the post-test by -0.27 and -.10, respectively.
Students in Group B present with a wide range in scores from a minimum of one to a
maximum of 13. There were no statistically significant changes for either group.
However, results for Group A approached statistical significance (t=1.11, p=.27).
Additionally, per the examiner’s manual, both groups scored in the range of 8-12,
revealing average scores for both the pre- and post tests. Student performance in this
Standard Score Description
17-20 Very Superior
15-16 Superior
13-14 Above Average
8-12 Average
6-7 Below Average
4-5 Poor
1-3 Very Poor
71
subtest may not be significant because vocabulary was not an area of instruction targeted
during family writing workshops.
The results for subtest 2, which focuses on the discrete area of spelling, are
highlighted in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Subtest 2- Spelling

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 7 15 10.17 2.07
-.63 2.13 .04
Post-test 30 7 13 9.53 1.68
B
Pre-test 30 6 15 9.63 2.02
.27 -1.31 .20
Post-test 30 7 14 9.90 1.95

Table 8 indicates that in this subtest, students in Group B outperformed students
in Group A by a small amount of 0.64. Results for Group A were statistically significant
(t=2.13, p<.05), whereas Group B approached statistical significance (t= -1.31, p=.20).
As in the area of vocabulary, students’ performed in the average range of 8-12 in the area
of spelling. The small change evident in scores may be due to the fact that although
spelling is addressed in the editing stage of the writing process, this area is not
emphasized and students are not provided with strategies on how to spell words correctly.
Instead, they are asked to edit spelling with a partner by using resources such as a
dictionary. The goal is to simply correct spelling rather than learn spelling strategies.
The negative change in mean scores for Group A parallels Reynold’s (1992) findings that
not all studies have found a positive correlation between parent involvement and student
achievement.
Table 9 displays results for student performance in subtest 3, which addresses the
area of style and emphasizes mechanics of punctuation and capitalization.
72

Table 9: Subtest 3- Style

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 5 18 11.00 3.45
-.50 1.13 .27
Post-test 30 4 16 10.50 3.19
B
Pre-test 30 4 17 9.03 3.41
.23 -.49 .63
Post-test 30 2 15 9.27 3.46

As noted in Table 9, in this subtest, there is wide variation between the minimum
and maximum scores, as well as the largest standard deviation when compared to other
subtests. Students in both groups decreased or increased their performance in the post-
test by a small amount. Neither groups’ scores were statistically significant, but the
treatment group did approach statistical significance (t=1.13, p=.27). Again, students’
performance in the area of style was in the average range, per the examiner’s manual. As
with the previous subtest, conventions were addressed but not emphasized during family
writing workshops. Thus, it is not surprising that the results are not significantly positive.
Table 10 displays student performance in subtest 4, in which students must
change a sentence so that it is logical.

Table 10: Subtest 4- Logical Sentences

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 2 11 8.27 1.87
-1.17 2.97 .01
Post-test 30 5 10 7.10 1.24
B
Pre-test 30 5 11 7.73 1.53
-1.40 3.25 .003
Post-test 30 1 12 6.33 2.17

Table 10 shows that students in both Groups A and B performed slightly worse in
the post-test. Results for each group were highly statistically significant (t=2.97, p<.05;
t=3.25, p<.05, respectively). Previous subtest results are in the average range of 8-12.
73
However, in this subtest, the treatment group performed in the average range for the pre-
test but in the below average range for the post-test. The control group maintained its
below average range of scores in both tests. It is interesting to note that students
performed lowest on this subtest than any other. This may be due to the narrow amount
of possible correct responses when students rewrite the stimulus sentence. For example,
for the sentence:
‘When I did my homework, I gave it to the teacher,’ logic is violated by incorrect
relationships between ideas in the sentence. When connotes the present in this
sentence; its use is inappropriate, because the student would not give homework
to the teacher until finished. The only acceptable answers are: ‘When I (had)
finished my homework, I gave it to the teacher,’ or ‘I gave my homework to the
teacher when/after I was finished’ (Hammill and Larsen, 1996).

The stimulus sentence seems to make sense, but a student must be able to consider it very
carefully and identify the very subtle changes that are needed in order to make the
sentence completely logical. This extremely narrow number of possible correct
responses may represent a possible flaw in this particular subtest and its representative
items.
Table 11 highlights students’ correct grammar usage as demonstrated in sentence
combining in subtest 5.

Table 11: Subtest 5- Sentence Combining

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 3 12 8.77 1.98
.73 -2.67 .01
Post-test 30 3 13 9.50 2.13
B
Pre-test 30 2 12 8.40 2.40
.67 -1.69 .10
Post-test 30 5 14 9.07 2.27

74
Results presented in Table 11 reveal that both groups improved their score,
although minimally. There is high statistical significance for the treatment group
(t= -2.67, p<.05), which outperformed the control group. Statistical significance was
approached by the latter (t= -1.69, p=.10). Both groups scored in the average range. A
significant increase for Group A may be attributed to the fact that part of the family
writing workshops focused on revising, during which each writer read his or her piece
aloud to a small group and received feedback on how to improve content. The workshop
practice of adding details or modifying language may have played a role in improved
student performance in this subtest. Positive outcomes for the treatment group are
supported by a study conducted by Griffith (1996), who found that elementary schools
with higher levels of parental involvement also had higher test scores.
The next three subtests of the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996) measure
student performance in the story they wrote in response to a picture prompt. This portion
of the test analyzes the ability of students to use conventions, language, and to have a
strong story organization in context rather than focusing on discrete skills in specific,
isolated subtests. Table 12 focuses on the use of conventions as measured in subtest 6.

Table 12: Subtest 6- Contextual Conventions

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 6 16 10.60 2.65
.43 -.91 .37
Post-test 30 6 20 11.03 3.29
B
Pre-test 30 5 14 10.20 2.34
.27 -.74 .46
Post-test 30 7 14 10.47 2.15

As evident in Table 12, both the treatment and control group improved their
scores in this area. Results are not statistically significant, but both groups approached
75
statistical significance (t= -.91, p=.37; t= -.74, p=46, respectively). As noted in subtests 2
and 3 of spelling and style, respectively, conventions were addressed during the editing
stage of the family writing workshops, but formal instruction was not provided on correct
usage of conventions related to capitalization, punctuation, spelling, etc. Hence, again,
the average range of the post-test results is not surprising.
Contextual language, or the use of vocabulary, sentence construction, and
grammar, is evaluated in subtest 7 as noted in Table 13.

Table 13: Subtest 7- Contextual Language

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 3 15 9.10 2.51
.50 -1.50 .15
Post-test 30 6 15 9.60 2.71
B
Pre-test 30 5 13 8.50 2.51
-.50 1.72 .10
Post-test 30 4 13 8.00 2.55

As with most other subtests, Table 13 demonstrates that students in both Group A
and B scored in the average range of 8-12. Group A improved their score by half a point
and Group B had the exact opposite. Mean scores for both groups approached statistical
significance (t= -1.50, p=.15; t=1.72, p=.10, respectively). Results are similar to those of
subtest 5, which also focused on grammar. The increase for Group A may be due to the
time spent revising during the workshops. The act of reading aloud one’s writing and
receiving feedback from a small group enables a writer to consider ways in which the
work can be improved to better or more skillfully relay an idea.
The outcome for the last subtest of the TOWL-3 which is on story construction is
shown below in Table 14. Students’ ability to organize a story into a logical order, to
76
develop a plot, and to employ engaging prose are some of the areas that were measured in
this subtest.
Table 14: Subtest 8- Story Construction

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 5 17 10.57 2.47
-.04 .10 .92
Post-test 30 6 16 10.53 2.13
B
Pre-test 30 6 17 10.53 2.32
-.13 .43 .67
Post-test 30 5 17 10.40 2.74

Table 14 reveals that both groups performed almost the same with a very minor
decrease in the post-test. Scores are in the average range and are not statistically
significant (t=.10, p=ns; t=.43, p=ns, respectively). Results for the treatment group are
somewhat surprising because story sequence was addressed in each of the three family
writing workshops. The teacher modeled how to organize a story into three main parts:
beginning, middle, and end. A graphic organizer was used to facilitate instruction in this
area. However, story sequence was just one item that was evaluated in this subtest.
Hammill and Larsen (1996) state that subtest standard scores are useful to
compare scores between each subtest, but the quotient can be used to evaluate students’
overall writing competence and to determine if students perform better in contrived or
spontaneous writing formats. In order to obtain the quotient, subtest standard scores are
added and the sum is converted to a quotient. Table 15 contains guidelines on how to
interpret the quotients.

77
Table 15: Description of TOWL-3 Quotients

As with the subtest standard scores, a t-test of paired samples and descriptive
statistics were used to measure the statistical difference between quotients for the
contrived and spontaneous writing formats, as well as overall writing. Table 16 reveals
how students in Groups A and B performed in each area.
Table 16: Writing Quotients
Subtests 1 to 5- Contrived Writing Quotient
Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 77 119 97.40 11.45
-2.43 2.23 .34
Post-test 30 75 116 94.97 9.69
B
Pre-test 30 68 115 91.07 11.79
-.48 .33 .75
Post-test 30 73 117 90.60 11.33
Subtests 6 to 8- Spontaneous Writing Quotient
Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 72 130 100.53 15.08
1.90 -.94 .35
Post-test 30 76 145 102.43 16.12
B
Pre-test 30 81 128 98.37 13.39
-1.10 .65 .52
Post-test 30 74 128 97.27 14.64
Subtests 1 to 8- Overall Writing Quotient
Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 75 119 98.67 12.57
-.87 .74 .47
Post-test 30 79 123 97.80 11.48
B
Pre-test 30 76 119 93.77 11.63
-.74 .68 .50
Post-test 30 76 120 93.03 11.83
Quotient Description
131-165 Very Superior
121-130 Superior
111-120 Above Average
90-110 Average
80-89 Below Average
70-79 Poor
35-69 Very Poor
78
Subtests 1 through 5 measure student performance in the areas of vocabulary,
spelling, style, logical sentences, and sentence combining; the content is similar to school
curricula. The contrived writing quotient derived from these combined subtests estimate
how students may fare on traditional, standardized tests. Results on Table 16 show that
students in both Groups A and B scored lower on the post-test, with students in Group A
faring worse. However, Hammill and Larsen (1996) indicate that “when considering
whether a difference between quotients is meaningful, three criteria should be considered.
The difference should be (a) statistically significant, (b) at least 15 to 20 points apart, and
(c) in the range that signifies the presence of a pronounced problem” (p. 37). Thus, in
considering these criteria, since the differences are not statistically significant, are less
than three points apart, and do not suggest a pronounced problem, they are not
meaningful. Students in both groups maintained their scores in the average range of 90-
110.
The spontaneous writing quotient is similar for both the treatment and control
group. As with the contrived writing quotient, the differences are not statistically
significant, are very minor, and do not suggest a pronounced problem. Therefore,
differences are not meaningful. Students again maintained average scores in the range of
90-110. However, it is important to note that students in both groups scored higher in
spontaneous than in contrived writing, demonstrating that both groups have a preference
for the spontaneous writing format and can write more effectively in the context of a
meaningful story rather than in isolated subtests. Additionally, students in the treatment
group outperformed their own scores in subtests 1 to 5 as well as the control group in
both subtest 1 to 5 and 6 to 8. Not only is the ability to write a composition important, it
79
is a strong indicator of students’ ability to effectively use elements of good writing. An
increase in scores suggests that students in the treatment group benefited from
participating in the family writing workshops and from taking an idea through the stages
of the writing process to produce a final narrative story.
In examining the overall writing quotient, which combines scores across all
subtests, difference in quotients are not significant when considering Hammill and
Larsen’s (1996) three criteria. Both groups scored in the average range of 90 to 110.
Students’ general ability in written language remained consistent.
Figure 2 highlights difference in quotients for contrived, spontaneous, and overall
writing.
Figure 2: Contrived, Spontaneous, and Overall Writing Quotients
Contrived, Spontaneous, and Overall
Writing Quotients
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
Subtests 1-5 Subtests 6-8 All Subtests
Subtests
Mean Quotients
A Pre
A Post
B Pre
B Post

In considering the results of all areas as displayed in Figure 2, perhaps pre- and
post-test results would have been more significant and pronounced if a different approach
would have been used during the family writing workshops. Students may have
80
benefited from receiving specific instruction in capitalization, punctuation, character
development, and how to make writing interesting and engaging. However, the short
amount of time of each workshop, two hours, limited the amount of instruction that could
be provided to participants. Those two hours covered each major stage of the writing
process, although not in depth. The focus was on prewriting to enable participants to
brainstorm and organize their ideas, as well as on the overall process, to give participants
an understanding of the writing process as a whole. Also, the structure was simple so that
parents who were being exposed to this method of writing instruction for the first time
would be able to gain a general understanding of the process and immediately apply this
understanding to their own writing. Furthermore, pre- and post-test results may have
been more statistically significant with a larger n. Thirty students were included in each
of the treatment and control groups, which is the minimum n for a quantitative study.
This small number of participants could not be avoided because recruiting students and
parents to attend an after school program is difficult. Additionally, only students who
attended the complete series of workshops were included in the treatment group, which
further reduced the n. Given families’ demanding schedules, it was challenging to secure
and maintain their participation.
As discussed, there are many possible factors for the lack of statistically
significant results in the contrived, spontaneous, and overall writing quotients. These
results are consistent with Evans et al.’s (2000) findings, where young children’s early
literacy and oral language skills were not enhanced or developed via general reading
activities at home. Although they studied reading, the absence of positive results is
parallel to those found in most areas of the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen (1996).
81
In the next section, subtests 6 through 8 are scored with a different method.
6 + 1 Trait® Writing Assessment Scoring Guide
As discussed in the previous section, the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996)
was used to evaluate student performance using contrived and spontaneous writing
formats. The first format focused on discrete skills that were measured in isolation; the
second format focused on students’ ability to incorporate skills into a meaningful story.
In order to gain more information on student performance, the 6 + 1 Trait® Writing
Assessment Scoring Guide (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007) was also
used to score the stories students produced for subtests 6 through 8 in the writing pre- and
post-tests. A description and overview of this assessment are provided, followed by an
analysis of results.
The 6 + 1 Trait® Writing Assessment Scoring Guide (Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory, 2007) evaluates student writing across 6+1 dimensions of
performance: ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions,
+ presentation, using clearly defined scoring guides. A brief description of each trait is
included in Table 17 (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007).
Table 17: Description of Six Traits
Trait Description
Ideas The heart of the message.
Organization The internal structure of the piece.
Voice The personal tone and flavor of the author's message.
Word Choice The vocabulary a writer chooses to convey meaning.
Sentence Fluency The rhythm and flow of the language.
Conventions The mechanical correctness.
Presentation The how the writing actually looks on the page.
82
The ideas are the heart of the message and content combined with details that
support and enrich them. The organization focuses on how a piece of writing is
structured. A clear, logical structure will enable a writer to relay ideas coherently. The
trait of voice enables an author’s unique tone to come through the writing and engages
the reader. Word choice is important because it allows a writer to express ideas using
descriptive and precise language. Sentence fluency enables a reader to understand a
writer’s message with ease in a smooth and flowing fashion. The mechanics of writing,
including spelling, grammar, capitalization, and punctuation, are addressed in the trait of
conventions. Finally, presentation focuses on how the writing is displayed on paper
(Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007). Because this last trait is optional
and students had a mere fifteen minutes to write their story, it will not be used.
Many of these traits parallel what was measured in TOWL-3 (Hammill and
Larsen, 1996) subtests 6 through 8. However, the traits allow for a closer examination of
student writing in specific and more isolated areas, rather than in broader areas, such as
language, which combines elements of vocabulary, grammar, word choice, and sentence
fluency, and story construction, which includes organization, ideas, and voice.
Each trait was scored using a rubric of 1 to 5 points. Each score is interpreted as
indicated in the assessment scoring guide in Table 18.

83
Table 18: Description of 5-point Scoring Rubric
Score Description
5 Strong: Shows control and skill in this trait; many
strengths present.
4 Effective: On balance, the strengths outweigh the
weaknesses; a small amount of revision is needed.
3 Developing: Strengths and need for revision are about
equal; about half-way home.
2 Emerging: Need for revision outweighs strengths;
isolated moments hint at what the writer has in mind.
1 Not Yet: A bare beginning; writer not yet showing any
control.

As with the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996), a t-test of paired samples was
used to measure the statistical difference between scores for the pre- and post-test for
both Group A, the treatment group, and Group B, the control group. Tables 19-25 show
how students performed in each of the six traits and how they scored overall.
Table 19 displays results for the first trait, ideas. This trait in part examines
students’ ability to focus on a theme and support it with appropriate details.
Table 19: Ideas

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 2.00 5.00 3.03 .67
.11 -1.34 .19
Post-test 30 2.00 4.67 3.14 .67
B
Pre-test 30 1.33 5.00 3.02 .79
.13 -1.04 .31
Post-test 30 1.33 5.00 3.16 .99

An analysis of the data indicates that there is an increase in the mean score for
both groups A and B. Both scored just above a 3, which is described as developing,
defined by the rubric as: “the writer is beginning to define the topic, even though
development is still basic or clear” (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007).
84
Both groups scored highest on this trait that any other and mean scores approached
statistical significance (t= -1.34, p=.19; t= -1.04, p=31, respectively).
The findings for the area of organization are shown in Table 20 below. This area
considers how students open and close their piece, transitions throughout the story,
sequence, and pacing.
Table 20: Organization

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.67 5.00 2.84 .70
.15 -1.57 .13
Post-test 30 2.00 4.67 2.99 .69
B
Pre-test 30 1.00 4.00 2.84 .69
-.03 .49 .63
Post-test 30 1.00 4.33 2.81 .80

An analysis of the data in Table 20 demonstrates that the treatment group
performed slightly better on the post-test. However, the control group had a very minor
decrease on the post-test, the only negative change for any trait. Both groups’ means
were near a 3, which on the rubric indicates that the organizational structure is strong
enough to move the reader through the text without too much confusion” (Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory). As in the trait of ideas, results are not statistically
significant; however, the treatment group approached statistical significance (t= -1.57,
p=.13).
Table 21 presents the findings for the area of voice, in which students share their
personal tone and flavor with the reader.

85
Table 21: Voice

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.67 5.00 2.93 .84
.17 -1.7 .10
Post-test 30 2.00 5.00 3.10 .79
B
Pre-test 30 1.00 5.00 2.91 .95
.19 -1.60 .12
Post-test 30 1.00 5.00 3.10 .97

The data in Table 21 reveal that both Groups A and B scored very similarly. Both
groups had a mean of 3.10 on the post-test. On the rubric, a score of 3 indicates that
students are developing their use of voice and is described as: “The writer seems sincere
but not fully engaged or involved. The result is pleasant or even personable, but not
compelling” (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007). Group B had a larger
range between the minimum and maximum scores, the largest for both the pre- and post-
test than for any other trait. Results for neither group are statistically significant, but both
groups approached statistical significance (t= -1.7, p=.10; t= -1.60, p=.12, respectively).
Students’ ability to use word choice effectively is measured in the Table 22.
Table 22:Word Choice

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.67 5.00 2.77 .78
.36 -3.76 .001
Post-test 30 2.00 4.33 3.12 .75
B
Pre-test 30 1.00 4.00 2.81 .76
.32 -3.06 .005
Post-test 30 1.00 5.00 3.13 .85

An analysis of the data in Table 22 shows that students in Groups A and B scored
similarly in both the pre- and post-tests, and have a similar positive difference in means.
This difference is higher than for any other trait. Students in both groups maintained a
score just above a 3, defined by the rubric as: “The language is functional, even if it lacks
86
much energy. It is easy to figure out the writer’s meaning on a general level” (Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007). Mean scores for both groups were highly
statistically significant (t= -3.76, p<.05; t= -3.06, p<.05, respectively). Results for the
treatment group parallel those found for the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996) in the
area of sentence combining. As previously stated, the time students spent revising during
the workshop may have allowed them to focus on ideas and content, which includes word
choice. Receiving feedback from peers and parents may have focused their attention in
part on the selection of words to include in their writing, which may have in turn
impacted their performance in this area. Additionally, the social aspect of the workshops
may have played a role in Group A’s improvement. As sociocultural learning theory
(Vygotsky, 1978) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989) posit, social interactions
are key to cognitive development.
Table 23 displays results for sentence fluency. This trait addresses how well
students are able to maintain rhythm and fluidity in their writing.
Table 23: Sentence Fluency

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.67 5.00 2.58 .76
.20 -2.43 .02
Post-test 30 1.67 4.33 2.79 .70
B
Pre-test 30 1.67 4.00 2.67 .61
.13 -1.57 .13
Post-test 30 1.67 5.00 2.80 .75

The data in Table 23 demonstrate that both groups increased their score in this
trait, with the treatment group outperforming the control group by .07. The post-test
mean for both groups is close to 3, indicating that “the text hums along with a steady
beat, but tends to be more pleasant or businesslike than musical, more mechanical than
87
fluid” (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007). Scores for the treatment
group were highly statistically significant (t= -2.43, p<.05); scores for the control group
approached statistical significance (t= -1.57, p=ns; p=.13). Results for the treatment
group are similar to those found in Table 22. Again, the workshop practice of revising in
small groups in a social setting may have facilitated sociocultural learning (Vygotsky,
1978), contributing to their improved performance in sentence fluency.
Findings for the conventions are displayed in Table 24 below. This trait addresses
students’ use of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar.
Table 24: Conventions

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.33 5.00 2.63 .83
.21 -2.25 .03
Post-test 30 2.00 4.67 2.84 .78
B
Pre-test 30 2.00 4.00 2.73 .52
.14 -1.49 .15
Post-test 30 1.67 5.00 2.87 .76

An analysis of the data in Table 24 reveals that positive increases in the means for
both groups parallel results in subtest 6 of the TOWL-3, where students improved their
ability to incorporate correct use of mechanics in their writing. Additionally, although
students in both groups scored just .03 points apart in the post-test mean, Group A
outperformed Group B with a difference of .07. Results for Group A reached statistical
significance (t= -2.25, p<.05), which are supported by Griffith (1996). In his study of
over 11,000 students from approximately 41 elementary schools, he found that schools
with higher levels of parent involvement also had higher test scores. Results for Group B
approached statistical significance (t= -1.49, p=.15). The score on the rubric that is
closest to the post-test is a 3, which demonstrates that “the writer shows reasonable
88
control over a limited range of standard writing conventions. Conventions are sometimes
handled well and enhance readability; at other times, errors are distracting and impair
readability” (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007).
Table 25 reveals how students fared overall across the 6 six traits of ideas,
organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions.
Table 25: Overall Score

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.89 5.00 2.80 .72
.20 -3.13 .004
Post-test 30 2.00 4.61 3.00 .67
B
Pre-test 30 1.33 4.17 2.83 .67
.15 -1.97 .06
Post-test 30 1.33 4.89 2.98 .79

Upon examining the data in Table 25, findings indicate that students in the
treatment group performed better than those in the control group. The treatment group
scored higher in the post-test and had a larger positive difference than the control group.
Additionally, results for the treatment group reached high statistical significance
(t= -3.13, p<.05). These findings are supported by Morrow and Young (1997), who
conducted a study on parental involvement via a home-based family literacy program that
extended school-based activities to the home. Their findings suggested that the program
had a positive effect on students’ literacy achievement in the areas of reading and writing.
Results for the control group approached statistical significance (t= -1.97, p=.06). In
comparing results from the TOWL-3’s (Hammill and Larsen, 1996) overall writing
quotient, students experienced a negative change in scores, whereas students experienced
a positive difference in scores when their writing was scored utilizing the Six Trait
89
Writing Assessment Scoring Guide (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007).
However, both measures showed that students performed in the average range.
Mean scores of all six traits are displayed in a bar graph in Figure 3 below to compare
performance differences between the pre- and post-test results for the treatment and
control group.
Figure 3: Six Trait Mean Scores

Figure 3 shows that students maintained an average score of approximately 3
across traits, with the highest scores in the traits of ideas and word choice. This suggests
that students in the treatment group benefited from working in small groups to revise
their writing. Furthermore, when comparing results of the six traits with the TOWL-3
(Hammill and Larsen, 1996), a similarity is found in the average range of scores. Both
scoring systems revealed a positive change in students’ use of conventions. In examining
Six Trait Mean Scores
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Ideas
Organization
Voice
Word Choice
Sentence Fluency
Conventions
Overall
Six Traits
Mean Scores
A Pre
A Post
B Pre
B Post
90
another area, the TOWL-3 subtest 7 measured contextual language, which was partially
addressed in the traits of word choice and sentence fluency. The treatment group
performed better on the post-test using the TOWL-3 and six traits scoring, whereas the
control group performed worse on the post-test using the TOWL-3 and better using the
six traits. In addition, the TOWL-3 subtest 8 measured story construction. Elements of
story construction were assessed in the traits of ideas, organization, and voice. Whereas
the TOWL-3 revealed a slight decrease in means for both groups, the six traits showed a
positive difference in means for all areas with the exception of organization, for which
the control group had a negative score of .03. In sum, students generally maintained
average writing performance across subtests and traits. As previously stated, minor
improvements for students in the treatment group may have been attributed to the social
aspect of learning practiced both in the classroom and at home, supported by Vygotsky
(1978) and Bandura (1989), who theorized that social interactions play an important role
in a child’s learning.
The Effects of a Series of Family Writing Workshops

on Students’ Writing Attitudes

The Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 (Knudson, 1991)
The Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 was used to
explore the effects of the family writing workshops on students’ writing attitudes. Only
one version of the survey exists, so the same survey was administered to all students in
the treatment and control group simultaneously at each school as a pre-test before family
writing workshop participation. It was also administered as a post-test to all students at
each school after the treatment group had participated in the series of family writing
91
workshops. A brief description of the survey is provided, with an analysis of results
following.
This survey is comprised of nineteen 5-point Likert scale items. Although
Knudson (1991) separated these items into groups, in order to clearly differentiate
between these groups and the treatment and control groups, the groups will instead be
referred to as categories. They are shown in Table 26.
Table 26: Categories and Items of the Knudson (1991) Survey
Category Items Name of Category
1 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 19 Prefers Writing
2 2, 3, 7 Positive View Of Self As Writer
3 4, 9, 13, 18 Competent Writer
4 10, 14 Writing Achievement
5 11, 15 Importance Of Writing
6 16, 17 Letter/Note Writing

Category 1 measures students’ interest in writing; Category 2 addresses how
students view themselves in terms of writing; Category 3 describes confidence in writing
compositions; Category 4 shows thoughts about writing achievement and achievement
through writing; Category 5 addresses whether students view writing as being important;
Category 6 addresses note writing both during and outside of school (Knudson, 1991).
Category 4, 5, and 6 each only consist of two items. As a result, these categories have
low reliabilities.
Students were asked to indicate how often they agreed with each statement. They
responded to each item by circling a number, ranging from 1 to 5 points, as noted in
Table 27.

92
Table 27: Number of Points for Each Response
Points Response
1 Almost Always
2 Often
3 Sometimes
4 Seldom
5 Almost Never

A response of “Almost Always,” indicated by 1 point, showed that students
almost always agreed with a statement, reflecting students’ most positive attitudes toward
writing. In contrast, a response of “Almost Never,” denoted by 5 points, revealed that
students almost never agreed with a statement, reflecting least positive attitudes.
As with the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996) and 6 + 1 Trait® Writing
Assessment Scoring Guide (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007), a t-test
of paired samples and descriptive statistics were used to measure the statistical difference
between mean scores for the pre- and post-test for both Group A, the treatment group,
and Group B, the control group. Tables 28 to 34 demonstrate how students performed in
each of the six groups and how they scored overall. In order to gain a better
understanding of the items included for each category, a list of each set of items precedes
each table.
The first category addressed students’ preference toward writing. Six items made
up this category, all of which are listed next:

93
Category 1: Prefers Writing
1. When I have free time, I would rather write than watch TV.
5. I think writing is fun.
6. If I have free time, I would rather write than read.
8. I would rather write an essay than work in a notebook.
12. I would like to have more time in school to write.
19. I would rather write than listen to the radio.

These items shed light on whether students’ feelings toward engaging in writing
activities changed in comparison to other activities. The findings for the first category
are displayed in Table 28.
Table 28: Category 1- Prefers Writing

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.67 5.00 3.07 .82
-.16 1.08 .29
Post-test 30 1.17 5.00 2.92 .93
B
Pre-test 30 1.50 4.33 2.90 .71
.02 -.16 .88
Post-test 30 1.33 4.50 2.92 .79

An analysis of the data in Table 28 reveals that there were minor changes in mean
scores between students in Group A, the treatment group, and Group B, the control
group. As previously stated, a response of “Almost Always,” with 1 point, reflects most
positive attitudes, whereas a response of “Almost Never,” with 5 points, reflects least
positive attitudes. Hence, a negative difference in mean scores indicates that students’
attitudes became more positive, and a positive difference denotes that attitudes became
less positive. Table 1 shows that mean scores for both groups were nearest to the
response of “Sometimes.” A preference toward writing slightly increased for Group A,
94
whereas it decreased minimally for Group B. Neither groups’ scores were statistically
significant, although results for the treatment group approached significance (t=1.08, p=
ns; p=.29). This suggests that these students developed an inclination to choose to write
over other activities, such as watching TV or listening to the radio.
Category 2 items describe students’ view of themselves as writers. Items
included in this group are shown below:
Category 2: Positive View of Self as Writer
2. I get good grades on what I write at school.
3. My parents like what I write.
7. I am a good writer.

The results for this category are presented in Table 29.

Table 29: Category 2- Positive View of Self as Writer

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.00 4.33 2.10 .84
-.30 2.99 .006
Post-test 30 1.00 3.67 1.80 .70
B
Pre-test 30 1.00 4.00 2.02 .73
-.04 .45 .66
Post-test 30 1.00 4.67 1.98 .77

The data in Table 29 demonstrate that both groups had a mean score of close to 2
in the pre- and post-tests, indicating that students chose “often” when selecting to what
extent they agreed with the statements in the survey. There was also a decrease in mean
scores for both groups. The treatment group had more positive responses in the post-test
than the control group as well as more positive responses than any other category.
Furthermore, results for the treatment group were highly statistically significant (t=2.99,
p<.05). This shows that after attending the series of family writing workshops, students
95
in this group had a more positive view of themselves as writers and felt more efficacious.
Results for the control group were not statistically significant.
The next category of items surveyed students’ opinions of themselves as
competent writers.
Category 3: Competent Writer
4. I like to write if I can choose the topic.
9. At school, I like to write science and social studies reports.
13. I can write a complete paragraph.
18. I am good at writing a whole composition.

Items 4 and 9 speak to students’ preference to write when they feel they can write
well; items 13 and 18 demonstrate their self-competence in writing in traditional forms.
Results for mean scores are noted in Table 30.
Table 30: Category 3- Competent Writer

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.25 3.50 2.40 .49
-.07 .56 .59
Post-test 30 1.00 3.25 2.33 .62
B
Pre-test 30 1.50 3.75 2.50 .52
.20 -1.86 .07
Post-test 30 1.75 4.50 2.70 .62

An examination of the data denotes that there was again a slight change for
students in both the treatment and control groups. There was a decrease in the post-test
mean score for the treatment group and an increase for the control group. The latter
approached statistical significance (t=-1.86, p=.07). This suggests that when students in
the control group took the post-test, they felt less competent as writers. The range
between minimum and maximum mean scores for the pre- and post-test is smallest for
96
both groups, demonstrating high agreeability across participants with regards to students’
opinions of themselves as competent writers. The standard deviation for pre- and post-
tests is also small in comparison to other categories, which reveals a small range between
differences in mean scores.
The next few categories have only two items each, indicating a low level of
reliability. Items for Category 4 are listed next.
Category 4: Writing Achievement
10. I think I could write better than I do.
14. I do better at school if I take notes on what the teacher says.

This category measures how students felt about their writing performance when
they took the survey. Results for pre- and post-test mean scores are displayed in Table
31.
Table 31: Category 4- Writing Achievement

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.00 4.50 2.45 .89
-.15 .79 .44
Post-test 30 1.00 4.50 2.30 1.03
B
Pre-test 30 1.00 4.00 2.25 .77
.07 -.75 .46
Post-test 30 1.00 4.50 2.31 .89

An assessment of the data in Table 31 shows that as for Categories 1 and 2,
students in the treatment group experienced a slight decrease in post-test mean scores.
Results approached statistical significance (t=.79, p=.44), suggesting that these students
felt more confident about their writing achievement after participating in the family
writing workshops. Mean scores for students in the control group increased. Results
97
again approached statistical significance (t=-.75, p=.46), suggesting that students’
confidence in their writing achievement decreased slightly.
Category 5 addressed students’ perceptions of the importance of writing. Items
included for this category are listed below.
Category 5: Importance of Writing
11. You have to be a good writer to do well in school.
15. Writing to express yourself is important in getting a good job.

Table 32 presents results for this category.

Table 32: Category 5- Importance of Writing

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.00 4.00 2.43 .94
-.28 2 .06
Post-test 30 1.00 3.50 2.15 .81
B
Pre-test 30 1.00 5.00 2.42 .82
.20 -1.21 .24
Post-test 30 1.00 4.00 2.62 .76

In Table 32, an analysis of the data reveals that as with all previous categories,
Group A post-test mean scores decreased more greatly in comparison to Group B post-
test mean scores. In this category, students in Group A chose a response close to 2,
which indicates that they often agreed with statements. They gave more importance to
writing after being a part of the family writing workshops. Results very closely
approached statistical significant (t=2, p=.06). In contrast, mean scores for students in
Group B were higher in the post-test and results approached statistical significance
(t= -1.21, p=.24), suggesting that students in this group assigned less importance to
writing.
Items for the final category of letter and note writing are listed next.
98
Category 6: Letter/Note Writing
16. I write notes to my friends.
17. I write letters to pen pals, relatives, & friends when I am not in school.

Results for category 6 are presented in Table 33 below.

Table 33: Category 6- Letter/Note Writing

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.00 5.00 3.29 1.26
-.27 1.70 .10
Post-test 30 1.00 5.00 3.01 1.27
B
Pre-test 30 1.00 5.00 3.10 1.23
.47 -3.25 .003
Post-test 30 1.50 5.00 3.57 1.07

A preliminary examination of the data shows that as in all previous categories,
students in the treatment group again fared better than those in the control group. Upon
reviewing the data more closely, although mean scores for Group A decreased by .27,
results approached statistical significance (t=1.70, p=.10). In contrast, mean scores for
Group B increased by .47, showing that for the pre-test, students on average sometimes
agreed with statements in this category, but when the post-test was later administered to
them, their responses were closer to seldom, indicating that they seldom agreed with
those same statements. Results were statistically significant (t= -3.25, p<.05).
Additionally, the standard deviation was largest for this category than any other,
highlighting the large range in difference in scores for both pre- and post-tests.
In the final table, results for all categories were combined into an overall score.
Table 34 presents this data.

99
Table 34: Overall Score

Group Test N Min Max Mean SD Diff. t p
A
Pre-test 30 1.82 3.64 2.62 .47
-.20 2.57 .02
Post-test 30 1.47 3.20 2.42 .51
B
Pre-test 30 1.64 3.33 2.53 .40
.45 -2.54 .02
Post-test 30 2.02 4.36 2.98 .46

Mean scores are displayed in a bar graph in Figure 4 below to compare
performance differences between the pre- and post-test results for the treatment and
control group.
Figure 4: Overall Score for Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children (1991)

Overall Score
2.62
2.42
2.53
2.98
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
A Pre A Post B Pre B Post
Test
Mean Scores

An analysis of the information in Figure 4 reveals that results for the treatment
and control group were almost completely opposite one another. Mean scores for
students in the treatment group decreased by .20 whereas mean scores for the control
group increased by .45. The range between the minimum and maximum scores for both
groups on both the pre- and post-tests was smaller than on any of the six categories and
the standard deviation was also smallest, demonstrating the least amount of variation in
100
scores. Moreover, results for both Groups A and B were statistically significant (t= 2.57,
p<.05; t= -2.54, p<.05, respectively). This demonstrates that students in Group A
developed more positive writing attitudes after participating in family writing workshops,
whereas students in Group B experienced a negative change in their overall writing
attitudes at the time the post-test was administered. Results for the positive change for
Group A are supported by Fantuzzo et al. (2004), who found that home-based family
involvement most strongly predicted attitudes toward learning in children from ages 46 to
68 months.
Determining Fidelity of Implementation to

the Family Writing Workshop Design Through Observations

As stated in chapter 3, qualitative data is included in this study in the form of
observations. I attended each of the four sessions of family writing workshops at each of
the four schools and acted as an observer. During this time, I used an observation sheet
on which I checked off procedures as they were completed by the facilitating teacher and
took notes that captured dialogue and interaction between participants, as well as events
and activities. These observations allowed me to determine whether the program was
implemented with fidelity and enabled me to consider factors that may have influenced
post-test results on writing achievement and attitude measures.
Facilitating teachers were given the same general instructions for each workshop:
distribute The Writing Process handout to each participant; briefly provide an overview
of the writing process; as you begin the writing project, explain each step in detail and
then model while thinking aloud; finally, have participants practice each step after it has
been modeled. They were provided with the lesson plan for each session in advance and
101
were given all accompanying handouts, including The Writing Process, Editing Tools,
Homework, and a graphic organizer (see Appendices N through S for accompanying
handouts).
I developed an observation sheet specific to each session which was divided into
five major sections, prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing, to parallel the
five major steps of the writing process. Each section contained explicitly outlined
procedures that often began with: Teacher models while thinking aloud and were
followed by: Participants do as the teacher did. The number of minutes each part should
take was included to guide teachers on usage of time. The majority of time was spent on
prewriting and revising to allow participants to brainstorm and organize ideas and work
in small groups to focus on content and ideas. The genre was narrative writing, with the
following topics and focus for each session:
Table 35: Topics Presented During Each Session
Session Topic Focus
1 Sharing Special Moments Sensory Imagery
2 A Childhood Memory from My Neighborhood Dialogue
3 My Perfect Day Setting

As noted above, the topic for the first family writing workshop was Sharing
Special Moments with a focus on sensory imagery. This topic was selected in order to
allow child and parent pairs to write about a special memory they had of a moment they
shared with one another. This would enable them to start the series of workshops off on a
positive note and perhaps also bond by telling of times they remembered fondly. The
second topic was A Childhood Memory from My Neighborhood. Dialogue was
incorporated into this story to make it more realistic to the reader. This topic was chosen
102
so that students and parents could exchange childhood memories and perhaps see one
another in a different light. For the final topic, My Perfect Day, participants described a
perfect day they would like to share with the child or parent present at the workshop. The
focus was on setting in order to paint a picture of the setting at which the perfect day
would take place. At each workshop, each participant wrote his/her own story in order to
provide each of them with a first-hand experience of the writing process. As will be
shown later in this chapter, they were given several opportunities to work together and
offer one another support.
On the following pages, observation checklists are presented which include
checks () to indicate that an item was completed at Schools 1, 2, 3, and 4. This is often
followed by an example of what a teacher wrote to model, as well as dialogue,
interaction, events and activities captured in notes. Information is organized by each of
the four family writing workshops and by each major stage of the writing process. As
previously stated, this section will allow me to consider fidelity to program design and
influencing factors on post-tests. Moreover, it will allow the reader to gain a clear
understanding of what the workshops were like and will reveal interactions that occurred
between participants in a typical session.
Family Writing Workshop #1
The topic for the first family writing workshop was Sharing Special Moments, in
which each participant wrote about a special moment (s)he shared with his/her parent or
child present at the workshop. The focus was on how to add sensory imagery to the
writing to bring it to life. As stated earlier in this chapter, each participant wrote his/her
own story independently. Although a child and parent pair could write about the same
103
moment they shared, each was to tell their own story from their unique perspective. Table
36 presents the observation checklist for the first stage of the writing process, prewriting.
Table 36: Family Writing Workshop #1- Prewriting Observation Checklist

PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models while thinking aloud (3 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the first part of the
writing process, PREWRITING.

• Explain that all family writing workshops will focus on narrative writing, or
telling stories. For the first family writing workshop, the topic is: Sharing
Special Moments. Everyone will write about a special moment he/she
shared with their parent/child who is at the session and include sensory
details.

• Using an overhead transparency (or chart paper), make a list of three
memories of special moments you shared with your parent (or with your
child).

• Talk as you write, briefly describing each special moment.
Participants do as the teacher did (4 minutes total; 2 minute each):

• Participants each make a list of three memories of special moments they
shared with one another.

• Participants briefly describe their experiences in one child/parent pair.
Teacher models while thinking aloud (5 minutes):

• Referring to your list, choose ONE of the special moments to write a story
about.

• Tell why you chose the special moment to write about (perhaps you
remember it as if it happened yesterday and can recall many details, or
perhaps it was very special to you).

• Make a web about the special moment you chose, including information
about the setting, characters, and plot, explaining that narrative writing
contains these elements.

Participants do as the teacher did (10 minutes):
• Participants refer back to their own list and choose ONE of the special
moments to write a story about.

• Participants tell their partner about the special moment they chose.
• Participants make a web about the special moment they chose, including
information about the setting, characters, and plot.

Teacher models while thinking aloud (2 minutes)

• Number your ideas in the order in which they occurred.
Participants do as the teacher did (2 minutes):

• Participants number their ideas in the order in which they occurred.
Teacher models while thinking aloud (4 minutes):

• Transfer your ideas from the web to the next graphic organizer, bulleting
(not numbering) ideas under beginning, middle, and end to indicate major
parts of the story.

104
Table 36, Continued

Participants do as the teacher did (4 minutes):

• Participants transfer their ideas from the web to the next graphic organizer,
bulleting (not numbering) ideas under beginning, middle, and end.

Teacher models while thinking aloud (2 minutes):

• Add sensory details to your story under beginning, middle, and end.
Participants do as the teacher did (3 minutes):

• Participants add sensory details to their story under beginning, middle, and
end.

Teacher models while thinking aloud (2 minutes):

• Number your ideas in the order in which they occurred to prepare for
drafting. Each section (beginning, middle, and end) should begin with #1.

Participants do as the teacher did (3 minutes):

• Participants number their ideas in the order in which they occurred to
prepare for drafting.

As previously stated, the majority of time was spent on prewriting. This stage of
the writing process was allotted approximately 45 minutes of the two hour session and
consisted of 20 items. A great deal of attention was given to this stage because it forms
the foundation for writing. The facilitating teacher at each of the four schools completed
each item listed as a procedure. Thus, the prewriting stage of the writing process was
implemented with 100% fidelity at all schools.
As listed in Table 36, when teachers modeled, they first made a list of three
special moments shared with their parent, then chose one of these special memories and
made a web. A teacher’s example is included in Figure 5.

105
Figure 5: Family Writing Workshop #1- Prewriting Sample- Brainstorming

The top portion of Figure 5 reveals one teacher’s memories of three special
moments she shared with her mother or another family member. She selected the second
idea, “canning vegetable soup at her Aunt Margaret’s house.” Once she completed the
web, she numbered her ideas in the order in which they occurred. She then transferred
them to a graphic organizer, as shown next in Figure 6.

106

Figure 6: Family Writing Workshop #1- Prewriting Sample- Organizing Ideas

Figure 6 demonstrates how the same teacher transferred her ideas from the web to
the major sections of beginning, middle, and end on the graphic organizer in bullet form.
She then added sensory images on the bottom half of the same graphic organizer to
describe what she saw, heard, smelled, tasted, and touched in the beginning, middle, and
end of her special moment. Next, she began to number her ideas in the order in which
they occurred in each section of the story.
After completing all items for prewriting, she moved on to drafting. The graphic
organizer was very useful in that it organized ideas and made the transition to drafting
smooth. Table 37 presents the observation checklist for this stage of the writing process.

107

Table 37: Family Writing Workshop #1- Drafting Observation Checklist

PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models while thinking aloud (5 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, DRAFTING.

• Using the beginning, middle, and end graphic organizer, DRAFT a narrative
about the same special moment.

• Begin to write the ideas in the order in which they are numbered.
• Encourage an ending to the narrative that will answer “So What?”– what was
the outcome, result, or bond that resulted from this special moment?

• Skip lines as you write and explain that this will make it easier to revise later.
• Be sure to include errors in conventions that you can go back to and edit later.
Participants do as the teacher did (about 15 minutes):

• Using the beginning, middle, and end graphic organizer, participants DRAFT a
narrative about the same special moment.

• Participants write the ideas in the order in which they are numbered.
• They should include an ending to the narrative that will answer “So What?”–
what was the outcome, result, or bond that resulted from this special
moment?

• Participants skip lines as they write.

Table 37 reveals that there were ten items included in the drafting stage of the
writing process. Teachers at each of the four schools completed each item and
implemented this step with 100% fidelity. One example of what was used to model this
step is shown next in Figure 7.

108

Figure 7: Family Writing Workshop #1- Drafting Sample

Figure 7 reveals part of the same teacher’s first draft. The ideas listed in the first,
second, and third columns of the graphic organizer shown in Figure 6 form the beginning,
middle, and end of the story, in this case about “soup canning day.” The draft is not
complete, and the second page includes information that was added during revising as
well as minor edits made during editing. Table 38 presents the observation checklist for
the third step of the writing process, revising.

109

Table 38: Family Writing Workshop #1- Revising Observation Checklist

PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models (4 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, REVISING.

• Read your entire draft to the group.
• Go back to the beginning and have participants ask questions or provide you
with verbal suggestions on how you can add clarifying information and
more sensory details.

• Revise your draft by inserting or deleting items as they provide you with
feedback. Use only the “insert” or “delete” tool.

• Content and ideas should be the focus, not conventions.
• Ask them to provide you with at least one positive statement.
Participants do as the teacher did (about 20 minutes total; 5 minutes each):
• Participants form groups of four (two child-parent pairs).
• Each group must assign a timekeeper to ensure that each author has a 5
minute turn.

• One author reads his/her entire draft to his/her small group.
• The same author then goes back to the beginning and others then ask
questions or provide verbal suggestions on how the author can add
clarifying information and more sensory details.

• The author revises his/her draft by inserting or deleting items as others
provide feedback.

• Content and ideas should be the focus, not conventions.
• At least one positive statement should be included in the feedback.
• Each author follows the same procedure.
Participants share their work (10 minutes):

• Invite a few participants to read their work to the whole group.
• Everyone should clap afterwards.
• Make a positive comment for each piece.

As indicated in Table 38, seventeen items were included for revising procedures.
Facilitating teachers at Schools 1, 3, and 4 completed all items, but only 13 items were
completed at School 2. At this school, participants did not all have the opportunity to
read their work to their small group to receive feedback, nor did they share their work
with the entire group. This was due to a shortage of time, which may be attributed to the
fact that because many of the parent participants spoke Spanish as a primary language, a

110

second teacher was present to translate. Additionally, the session began about 15 minutes
late due to the tardiness of participants. This was, however, the case for all schools.
Notes made during the observation highlighted this part of the workshop to be the
one that brought life to the first session. Up to this point, participants were fairly quiet
and simply listened and wrote intently. But when participants began to revise in small
groups, they started to liven up a bit. There was a steady buzz of sharing, talking,
enjoying, and laughing. As participants worked together at one school, one parent
listened to a student read her writing. After she read, he commented, “Very cool. I can
just see those waves in Palm Springs,” demonstrating his appreciation for her work.
As participants shared their story drafts at the end of the revising stage, their
enjoyment became clear. When one teacher invited participants to read aloud their draft,
a parent joked to the group, “What happens in writer’s workshop stays in writer’s
workshop, right? Like in Vegas?” After she had completed reading, the teacher asked the
group if anyone had any compliments for her. One student commented, “Pretty good
details.” Afterwards, another mom volunteered to read about giving birth to her
daughter. A student commented, “It sounded like a book!” To which the author replied
enthusiastically, “Thank you!” Interactions such as this no doubt promoted relationship
building among students, parents, and between families, making this stage of the writing
process crucial to positively impacting students’ writing attitudes.
Table 39 presents the observation checklist for the editing stage of the writing
process.

111

Table 39: Family Writing Workshop #1- Editing Observation Checklist

PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using the The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, EDITING.

• Explain that a list of editing tools can be used to help with this step.
• Walk them through the Editing Tools handout.
• Go back to the beginning and have participants provide you with
suggestions on how to edit your writing, focusing on spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, etc.

• Using editing tools, edit your writing as they provide you with feedback.

Table 39 demonstrates that five items were included in the procedures for editing.
All facilitating teachers implemented the step with complete fidelity. This step was
modeled by each teacher but participants did not have the opportunity to complete this
step during the session. Instead, this was something they were expected to do at home
together.
Table 40 displays the final observation checklist for the last step of the writing
process, publishing.
Table 40: Family Writing Workshop #1- Publishing Observation Checklist

PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, PUBLISHING.

• Begin to write your final draft, incorporating all revisions and edits.
• Distribute the Homework handout and explain that they all have a
homework assignment, to take their writing home and continue to revise
and edit together, then publish. Walk them through the handout. Explain
that the published piece and a drawing to go with it are due at the next
family writing workshop. Distribute lined paper and blank paper for the
final draft and illustration.

• Explain that all writing will be compiled into an anthology. Only families
who attend all 4 sessions will receive a free copy at the last family writing
workshop, as well as a certificate. At this last session, people will read
their final work to the whole group and celebrate. Note: a copy of the
anthology will be available to read in the school library for those who do
not attend all 4 sessions.

112

All teachers completed each of the procedures for publishing and implemented
this step with full fidelity. As in editing, although this step was modeled, participants
were not given time to publish during the workshop. They were expected to complete
this as part of their homework assignment. Participants were asked to complete
homework for a variety of reasons. First of all, homework would allow students to
practice what they learned in the workshop in a more private setting at home with their
parents. This setting would allow them to receive more individualized attention and
support from their parents. Secondly, working at home would allow parents to continue
to be engaged in their child’s education. Finally, working at home would provide
participants with continuity so as to keep what they learned about the writing process
fresh in their minds. Of course, continuous learning may have also positively impacted
students’ writing performance. This perspective is supported by research conducted by
Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998), who revealed that students who received reading
intervention both at school and at home made stronger improvements that those who
received the intervention only at school or home. The act of completing the writing
projects at home is also supported by Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) work on
cultural settings. The joint activities were designed to increase the use of writing in the
cultural setting of the home.
After compiling data from Tables 36 through 40, it is revealed that facilitating
teachers at Schools 1, 3, and 4 completed all procedures and implemented with 100%
fidelity. At School 2, however, the teacher ran out of time and did not complete all items
for revising. As a result, 52 out of the 56 total items were completed, resulting in 93%

113

fidelity to the workshop design. This is not a substantial difference from the other
schools and participants did see revising modeled by the teacher. A few also had time to
revise with a small group. However, this may have slightly negatively impacted scores
for these students in the areas of sentence combining and story construction of the
TOWL-3. Furthermore, since participants did not have time to read their work aloud to
the whole group, this may have deterred from receiving positive feedback, which may
have not allowed them to strengthen attitudes with respect to having a positive view of
themselves as writers.
As noted in Table 40, participants were asked to complete their writing projects at
home. Writing and an accompanying illustration were collected at the beginning of the
next workshop. Two examples of parents’ work are included. Figure 8 shows what one
father of a fourth grade boy wrote and illustrated.

114

Figure 8: Family Writing Workshop #1- Sample, Written by a Fourth Grader’s Father

115

Figure 8 reveals the story, “My Son’s First Chess Experience,” of how a father
taught his seven year old son to play chess. He describes how he explained the motions
made by certain pieces, the strategies, and the rules that are a part of the game. He
writes, of how he put forth a great deal of effort to make his son feel comfortable, but
despite these efforts, his son “broke down in tears.” This prompted the father to explain
that chess is “a gentleman’s game,” followed by a handshake. Although this piece did
not employ the use of sensory imagery, which was a focus of this workshop, it is an
endearing story of how a father taught his son many lessons through the game of chess.
Another example is included in Figure 9, this one written and illustrated by the
father of a sixth grade girl.
Figure 9: Family Writing Workshop #1-Sample, Written by a Sixth Grader’s Father

116

Figure 9, Continued

Figure 9 displays the untitled story of one father’s special moment, his daughter’s
birth. Rather than illustrations, he included actual photographs of his newborn child,
which give the piece a raw feel. He focuses on the sensory detail of sight and describes

117

in detail what his baby looked like when he first saw her, “I walk in there and I see a
small creature. A creature covered in white and red fluid. She has a conehead and I’m
quickly told that this is normal for children who have been pushed by their mommies
while inside to look like this.” He expresses the dramatic impact this new baby has on
him, “…my world has changed forever. I now have a new sun and universe and her name
is Victoria.” This touching story of the onset of fatherhood will no doubt always be
cherished by the family, as will the previous story of a father teaching his son about chess
and through it, life.
Family Writing Workshop #2
The topic for the second family writing workshop was A Childhood Memory from
My Neighborhood. For this topic, each participant wrote about any memory (s)he had
from the neighborhood (s)he grew up in as a child and focused on adding dialogue.
Table 41 presents the observation checklist for prewriting, the first stage of the writing
process.
Table 41: Family Writing Workshop #2- Prewriting Observation Checklist

PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models while thinking aloud (3 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the first part of the
writing process, PREWRITING.

• Explain that all family writing workshops will focus on narrative writing, or
telling stories. For the second family writing workshop, the topic is: A
Childhood Memory from My Neighborhood. Everyone will write about a
memory (s)he has from his/her childhood neighborhood and include
dialogue.

• Using an overhead transparency (or chart paper), sketch a map of the
neighborhood you grew up in as a child and make a list of three memories
you have of that neighborhood.

• Talk as you write, briefly describing each memory.

118

Table 41, Continued

Teacher models while thinking aloud (5 minutes):
• Referring to your list, choose ONE of the childhood memories to write a
story about.

• Tell why you chose the childhood memory to write about (perhaps you
remember it as if it happened yesterday and can recall many details, or
perhaps it was very special to you in some way).

• Make a web about the childhood memory you chose, including information
about the setting, characters, and plot, explaining that narrative writing
contains these elements.

Participants do as the teacher did (10 minutes):

• Participants refer back to their own list and choose ONE of the childhood
memories to write a story about.

• Participants tell their partner about the childhood memory they chose.
• Participants make a web about the special moment they chose, including
information about the setting, characters, and plot.

Teacher models while thinking aloud (2 minutes):
• Number your ideas in the order in which they occurred.
Participants do as the teacher did (2 minutes):
• Participants number their ideas in the order in which they occurred.
Teacher models while thinking aloud (4 minutes):
• Transfer your ideas from the web to the next graphic organizer, bulleting
(not numbering) ideas under beginning, middle, and end to indicate major
parts of the story.

Participants do as the teacher did (4 minutes):
• Participants transfer their ideas from the web to the next graphic organizer,
bulleting (not numbering) ideas under beginning, middle, and end.

Teacher models while thinking aloud (2 minutes):
• Explain that another element you will be adding to your story is dialogue.
Provide a 1-page handout that shows two things: (1) How to use quotations
in dialogue (include several different examples) and (2) Different ways of
saying said. Think aloud of things you remember saying during that
childhood experience or things you remember other people said. Add
dialogue to your story under beginning, middle, and end.

Participants do as the teacher did (3 minutes):
• Using the handout and your example, participants add dialogue to their story
under beginning, middle, and end.

Teacher models while thinking aloud (2 minutes):
• Number your ideas in the order in which they occurred (including dialogue)
to prepare for drafting. Each section (beginning, middle, and end) should
begin with #1.

Participants do as the teacher did (3 minutes):
• Participants number their ideas in the order in which they occurred to
prepare for drafting.

119

The twenty procedures outlined in Table 41 were allotted approximately 45
minutes. All four facilitating teachers completed each item and implemented the
prewriting stage of the writing process with 100% fidelity. The second family writing
workshop closely paralleled the first one. Procedures were essentially the same, but each
workshop had a different topic and focus. The repetitive structure was purposeful and
designed to enable participants to better learn about the writing process by applying the
same steps in telling a different personal story. The prewriting stage for this workshop
was slightly different in that teachers began to brainstorm by sketching a map of their
childhood neighborhood. In contrast, in the previous workshop, teachers simply made a
list of possible topics. Teachers then made a list of three memories of their childhood
neighborhood directly onto their sketch and then selected one of these topics to write a
story on. Observation notes highlight how one teacher explained how he selected his
topic: “I’m choosing this story because it’s a funny story and kids like to hear funny
stories about when teachers were trabiesos.” (translation: troublemakers) Another
teacher’s prewriting example is exhibited in Figures 10 and 11.

120

Figure 10: Figure 11:
Family Writing Workshop #2- Sketch Family Writing Workshop #2- Web

In Figure 10, the teacher brainstormed different topics to write about by sketching
a map of her childhood neighborhood. She then labeled items and events and listed
ideas. In Figure 11, it is apparent that she chose to write about the time she “Ran and lost
my socks.” She continued to brainstorm by making a web about the memory. She then
began to organize ideas by numbering them in sequential order. Next, she transferred
them to the graphic organizer shown below in Figure 12.

121

Figure 12. Family Writing Workshop #2- Prewriting Sample- Organizing Ideas

Figure 12 illustrates how the same teacher continued to organize her ideas by
bulleting them into the columns labeled beginning, middle, and end on the graphic
organizer. The next step was to add dialogue, which she included by using exclamations
such as “Dad, dad, ice cream!” and “Run, girl!” Bulleted ideas in each column were then
numbered in the order in which they occurred.
Once these procedures were completed by both the teacher and each participant, it
was time to move to the next stage of the writing process, drafting. Table 42 presents the
drafting observation checklist.

122

Table 42: Family Writing Workshop #2- Drafting Observation Checklist

Table 42 includes ten procedures for drafting. They parallel those from the first
session, but of course use a different topic. Teachers at all schools completed each item
and therefore implemented the drafting stage with 100% fidelity. Figure 13 displays how
the same teacher drafted the story used in previous figures.

PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models while thinking aloud (5 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, DRAFTING.

• Using the beginning, middle, and end graphic organizer, DRAFT a narrative
about the same childhood memory.

• Begin to write the ideas in the order in which they are numbered.
• Encourage an ending to the narrative that will answer “So What?”– what was
the outcome or result of this childhood memory?

• Skip lines as you write and explain that this will make it easier to revise later.
• Be sure to include errors in conventions that you can go back to and edit later.
Participants do as the teacher did (about 15 minutes):
• Using the beginning, middle, and end graphic organizer, participants DRAFT a
narrative about the same childhood memory.

• Participants write the ideas in the order in which they are numbered.
• They should include an ending to the narrative that will answer “So What?”–
what was the outcome or result of this childhood memory?

• Participants skip lines as they write.

123

Figure 13: Family Writing Workshop #2- Drafting Sample

Figure 13 illustrates how the ideas from the graphic organizer were easily written
in draft form. Since prewriting was simply a method of brainstorming and organizing
initial thoughts, the teacher expanded these words and phrases to complete sentences and
paragraph form on the draft. Instances of dialogue were incorporated to more vividly tell
the story. As evident, the story was not completed due to a limited amount of time.
Nonetheless, participants were able to use the model to begin to draft their own stories.
Observation notes indicate that they worked quietly with deep concentration, and there
was some scattered soft talking in the room. For instance, one daughter said something
inaudible to her mom, who muttered in response, “Hold on, I’m stuck.” The daughter
repeated herself, to which her mother replied jokingly, “I lost my train of thought! Is this
how you are in class?” They both giggled and continued to write.

124

About fifteen minutes later, teachers move on to revising. The observation
checklist for this step of the writing process is presented below in Table 43.
Table 43: Family Writing Workshop #2- Revising Observation Checklist

Table 43 lists the 17 items included for revising. As in the first session, teachers
at Schools 1, 3, and 4 completed all items, but the teacher at School 2 did not provide all
participants with time to read their draft to their revising group to receive feedback.
Again, the extra time used for translating cut into this procedure. However, the teacher
PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models (4 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, REVISING.

• Read your entire draft to the group.
• Go back to the beginning and have participants ask questions or provide you
with verbal suggestions on how you can add clarifying information and
more dialogue.

• Revise your draft by inserting or deleting items as they provide you with
feedback. Use only the “insert” or “delete” tool.

• Content and ideas should be the focus, not conventions.
• Ask them to provide you with at least one positive statement.
Participants do as the teacher did (about 20 minutes total; 5 minutes each):
• Participants form groups of four (two child-parent pairs).
• Each group must assign a timekeeper to ensure that each author has a 5
minute turn.

• One author reads his/her entire draft to his/her small group.
• The same author then goes back to the beginning and others then ask
questions or provide verbal suggestions on how the author can add
clarifying information and more dialogue.

• The author revises his/her draft by inserting or deleting items as others
provide feedback.

• Content and ideas should be the focus, not conventions.
• At least one positive statement should be included in the feedback.
• Each author follows the same procedure.

Participants share their work (10 minutes):
• Invite a few participants to read their work to the whole group.
• Everyone should clap afterwards.
• Make a positive comment for each piece.

125

did model and each group did have the opportunity to have at least one author read
his/her work and receive feedback.
Notes taken during the observation captured how one teacher modeled revising
her draft, shown in Figure 13, with the whole group. As she considered how to add
clarifying information and dialogue, she asked, “What can I do as a writer to make it
richer?” One parent suggested, “You explain why you were dancing around.” A father
offered, “Maybe you can describe the people so we can get a better idea about them.” A
student asked, “How old were you?” The teacher answered, “Yes, I can add my age. I
was about nine or ten.” A mother said, “I’d say maybe describe yourself and your dad.”
The teacher agreed, “Oh yeah, I can add more information about my dad. I can write a
whole book about my dad.” As she modeled, she solicited feedback from the audience,
who was eager to offer their opinions in an interactive manner.
At another school, when participants broke into groups to revise together, they did
so excitedly. As one mother began, she said, “My story is similar to the teacher’s. Well,
I’ll just read it.” Another mother, daughter, and father nodded encouragingly. After she
finished reading and received feedback, she said to a student, “Okay, how about you?”
The student answered hesitatingly, “I’m not done,” to which the mother replied
reassuringly, “That’s okay, we’ll help you.” The supportive atmosphere was clear. It
was also a time to have fun and get to know one another. In another small group, one
father explained, “She and I are both an only child.” A student replied with surprise,
daughter, “Really? Me, too!” To which the father responded enthusiastically, “Hey!
High five!”

126

When it was time for participants to read their work to the whole group, one
teacher announced, “Thank you for sharing with your groups. Do we have any authors
who would like to share out?” One boy shouted out, “Yeah, me!” After he read his
writing, one mom volunteered next to read about growing up in Colombia. She did not
read directly from her paper. Rather, she talked to the group about what her childhood
had been like, “The smell of wood burning in the fire…you know? The smell…”
At another school, when the teacher asked who would like to read their work
aloud, one student declared, “I wanna read mine! Can I read mine last?” Another student
announced, “I’ll read mine, but I’ll go second.” A father chimed in, “I’ll read mine. I’ll
go first.” After he read, the teacher asked the group, “Does anyone have a compliment?”
A mother commented, “I thought it was really descriptive.” Another mother said, “We
were rolling down the hill with you!” After which participants laughed together.
During the revising stage, participants not only supported one another’s writing,
they also developed a bond and seemed to grow into a community of learners.
Table 44 presents the observation checklist for the next step of the writing
process, editing.
Table 44: Family Writing Workshop #2- Editing Observation Checklist

PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using the The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, EDITING.

• Explain that a list of editing tools can be used to help with this step.
• Walk them through the Editing Tools handout.
• Go back to the beginning and have participants provide you with
suggestions on how to edit your writing, focusing on spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, etc.

• Using editing tools, edit your writing as they provide you with feedback.

127

All teachers completed the five items listed in Table 44, thereby implementing the
editing stage with complete fidelity. As in the previous session, teachers modeled how to
edit, but time was not allotted to enable participants to edit their work. They were later
asked to do this at home.
The observation checklist for the last step of the writing process, publishing, is
shown in Table 45 below.
Table 45: Family Writing Workshop #2- Publishing Observation Checklist

All teachers completed the four items listed above and implemented the
procedures for publishing with 100% fidelity. As noted in Table 45, although teachers
modeled this step, participants were not provided with time during the workshop to
publish. They were told that they had the option to continue to revise, but were expected
to edit and publish their writing at home with their child or parent.
An examination of the data in Tables 41 through 45 conveys that facilitating
teachers at Schools 1, 3, and 4 completed and implemented all 63 procedures with 100%
PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, PUBLISHING.

• Begin to write your final draft, incorporating all revisions and edits.
• Distribute the Homework handout and explain that they all have a
homework assignment, to take their writing home and continue to revise
and edit together, then publish. Walk them through the handout. Explain
that the published piece and a drawing to go with it are due at the next
family writing workshop. Distribute lined paper and blank paper for the
final draft and illustration.

• Remind them that all writing will be compiled into an anthology. Only
families who attend all 4 sessions will receive a free copy at the last family
writing workshop, as well as a certificate. At this last session, people will
read their final work to the whole group and celebrate. Note: a copy of the
anthology will be available to read in the school library for those who do
not attend all 4 sessions.

128

fidelity. The teacher at School 2 completed all but one revising procedure, allowing each
author in a revising group to read aloud his/her writing and receive feedback, thus
implementing with 98% fidelity. One may argue that a two percent difference does not
seem substantial and that participants may continue to revise in pairs at home.
Nonetheless, as noted for the first session, revising with the input of various individuals
in a small group may allow students with the opportunity to condense language or
combine sentences, focus on story construction, and receive positive feedback from peers
and parents. Hence, this two percent difference may ultimately have a slightly negative
impact on student writing achievement and attitudes.
As for the first family writing workshop, participants were asked to complete their
writing projects at home. Writing and an accompanying illustration were collected at the
beginning of the third workshop. Two examples of parents’ work are included. Figure
14 reveals what a sixth grade girl wrote and illustrated.

129

Figure 14: Family Writing Workshop #2-Sample, Written by a Sixth Grader

130

Figure 14, Continued

131

Although the focus of the workshop was to include dialogue, no dialogue was
included in this piece. However, the story did focus on how this sixth grade girl felt
about her new neighborhood, how she played with a friend she had recently made, and
how at the end, she met a new friend in her neighborhood, which seemed to be the most
important part of the experience, “It was nice to know that I now had a new friend to go
with my new neighborhood. I still talk to Sarah and we’ve been over each other’s houses
several times since we met. I consider her a dear friend and I’m glad that I met Sarah.”
Figure 15 displays what a fourth grader’s parent wrote and illustrated.

132

Figure 15: Family Writing Workshop #2-Sample, Written by a Fourth Grader’s Mother

133

Figure 15, Continued

Figure 15 includes what the mother of a fourth grade girl wrote and illustrated and
is entitled, “The Scorpion that Ended My First Birthday Party.” She tells of her

134

childhood neighborhood memory, a day that started out as an exciting one since it was
her eleventh birthday and the first time she was having a celebration on her actual
birthday. She explains that she had always celebrated with her sister, who was one month
apart in age. She began her day helping her mother prepare food, then went to school.
When school was over, she walked home, pushed the front door open, and was bit by an
“alacràn,” a scorpion. She writes of how her mother came to her aid, saying, “Don’t
worry, nothing will happen to you, I’ll cure you,” and how her grandmother stayed with
her in her room while the rest of her family entertained her birthday guests. What was
supposed to be a joyful day turned into a “desolate” one.
Both stories capture an important childhood memory for the student and parent.
Additionally, the sharing of stories between children and their parents allows them to
learn of one another’s experiences through different eyes.
Family Writing Workshop #3
For the third family writing workshop, participants were asked to write about the
topic, My Perfect Day, in which they described a day they would like to share with the
family member present. They incorporated many details about the setting, such as
location, the weather, and the time of day, to vividly capture the events they imagined
taking place. Table 46 presents the observation checklist for prewriting.

135

Table 46: Family Writing Workshop #3- Prewriting Observation Checklist

PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models while thinking aloud (3 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the first part of the
writing process, PREWRITING.

• Explain that all family writing workshops will focus on narrative writing,
or telling stories. For the third family writing workshop, the topic is: My
Perfect Day. Everyone will write about a perfect day they would like to
spend with their parent/child present at the workshop and include details
about the setting.

• Using an overhead transparency (or chart paper), brainstorm a list of things
that you would do or places that you would visit with your parent if you
could spend an entire perfect day with him/her. It could be things that
you’ve already done with your parent or new, creative things you’d like to
do. Encourage creativity.

• Talk as you write, briefly describing each thing/place.
Participants do as the teacher did (4 minutes total; 2 minute each):
• Participants each brainstorm a list of things that they would do or places that
they would visit with their parent/child if they could spend an entire perfect
day with him/her.

• Participants briefly describe their ideas in one child/parent pair.
Teacher models while thinking aloud (5 minutes):
• Referring to your list, choose ONE or A FEW items that you would do with
your parent on a perfect day. This will become your story for this
workshop.

• Tell why you chose those things/places (perhaps you’ve been there in the
past or maybe you’ve always wanted to do this activity).

• Make a web about the things/places for your perfect day, including
information about the setting, characters, and plot, explaining that narrative
writing contains these elements.

Participants do as the teacher did (10 minutes):
• Participants refer back to their own list and choose ONE or A FEW items
that they would do with their parent/child on a perfect day. This will
become their story for the workshop.

• Participants tell their partner about their perfect day.
• Participants make a web about their perfect day, including information
about the setting, characters, and plot.

Teacher models while thinking aloud (2 minutes):
• Number your ideas in the order in which you would like for them to occur on
your perfect day.

Participants do as the teacher did (2 minutes):

• Participants number their ideas in the order in which they would like for them
to occur.

136

Table 46, Continued

The procedures were almost identical to those in the first and second family
writing workshops. By providing a repetitive structure, participants became more
familiar and comfortable with the writing process. The prewriting stage for this
workshop was again just under 45 minutes. All teachers completed the twenty items and
thus implemented this portion with 100% fidelity.
As in the first session, teachers began by introducing the topic. Observations
made during one workshop captured one teacher’s explanation: “I think you’ll like
today’s family writing workshop because we won’t be stuck in the real world. We’re
going to write about a perfect day, the one we’d like to have with our parent or child here
Teacher models while thinking aloud (4 minutes):
• Transfer your ideas from the web to the next graphic organizer, bulleting (not
numbering) ideas under beginning, middle, and end to indicate major parts of
your perfect day (morning, day, and night).

Participants do as the teacher did (4 minutes):
• Participants transfer their ideas from the web to the next graphic organizer,
bulleting (not numbering) ideas under beginning, middle, and end (morning,
day, and night).

Teacher models while thinking aloud (2 minutes):

• Explain that another element you will be adding to your story is setting
description. Explain that setting can be a location, the weather, or the time
of day, even minutes or hours. Think aloud of items you can add for setting
description. Add ideas to your story under beginning, middle, and end.
Remind them that since this story hasn’t happened, they can get as creative
as they’d like.

Participants do as the teacher did (3 minutes):
• Using the handout and your example, participants add setting description to
their story under beginning, middle, and end.

Teacher models while thinking aloud (2 minutes):
• Number your ideas in the order in which you would like for them to occur
(including setting) to prepare for drafting. Each section (beginning, middle,
and end) should begin with #1.

Participants do as the teacher did (3 minutes):
• Participants number their ideas in the order in which they would like for
them to occur to prepare for drafting.

137

at the family writing workshop.” Teachers began prewriting by modeling how to
brainstorm a list of possible topics. They then selected one of these topics and continued
to brainstorm by making a web of ideas they might include in the actual story. Figure 16
illustrates one teacher’s example.
Figure 16: Family Writing Workshop #3- Prewriting Sample- Brainstorming

Figure 16 illustrates how this teacher began to include essential elements of who
would be involved, where the perfect day would take place, and what would happen. Her
perfect day would include a visit to Huntington Gardens with her daughters. Once she
completed her web, she modeled how to begin to organize her ideas by numbering them
in the order in which they would take place. She then transferred her ideas, still in the
basic form of words and phrases, to the graphic organizer displayed in Figure 17 next.

138

Figure 17: Family Writing Workshop #3- Prewriting Sample- Organizing Ideas

Figure 17 reveals how the same teacher modeled how to organize ideas from the
web into beginning, middle, and end on the top portion of the graphic organizer. Once
participants were provided with time to begin their own graphic organizers, teachers then
modeled how to incorporate a description of the setting. As one teacher modeled how to
add setting description, she explained, “You might have a detailed picture in your mind
about what that setting is, but it’s important to convey that on paper to the reader.”

139

Figure 17 shows how elements of weather, time, and location were used to depict how
this teacher’s perfect day would begin: “at home; crispy weather in the early morning.”
Bulleted ideas were then numbered in each column to further organize ideas.
Once these procedures were modeled and completed by all participants, the next
step of the writing process, drafting, was addressed. Table 47 presents the next
observation checklist.
Table 47: Family Writing Workshop #3- Drafting Observation Checklist

Table 47 shows that there were twenty procedures for drafting and that this stage
was allotted about twenty minutes. The majority of the time was allocated to participants
so they could draft their stories. All teachers completed the drafting procedures with
100% fidelity. Figure 18 exhibits how the same teacher modeled how to move from the
graphic organizer to drafting.

PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models while thinking aloud (5 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, DRAFTING.

• Using the beginning, middle, and end graphic organizer, DRAFT a narrative
about the same perfect day.

• Begin to write the ideas in the order in which they are numbered.
• Encourage an ending to the narrative that will answer “So What?”– what will
be the outcome or result of this perfect day?

• Skip lines as you write and explain that this will make it easier to revise later.
• Be sure to include errors in conventions that you can go back to and edit later.
Participants do as the teacher did (about 15 minutes):
• Using the beginning, middle, and end graphic organizer, participants DRAFT a
narrative about the same perfect day.

• Participants write the ideas in the order in which they are numbered.
• They should include an ending to the narrative that will answer “So What?”–
what will be the outcome or result of this perfect day?

• Participants skip lines as they write.

140

Figure 18: Family Writing Workshop #3- Drafting Sample

Figure 18 reveals how this teacher wrote her ideas in sentence and paragraph
form. The ideas listed under the beginning portion of the graphic organizer are included
and setting description enables the reader to imagine (s)he is outside with the author: “It
is November, a few days before Thanksgiving, and the air is crisp, and sharp. There’s a
misty overcast; it could almost be raining.” Since only a few minutes are allotted to
modeling, the example is brief but sufficient for participants to draft their own stories.
Later, it is time to move on the next step, revising. The observation checklist for this
stage of the writing process in included next in Table 48.

141

Table 48: Family Writing Workshop #3- Revising Observation Checklist

The 17 items listed under revising procedures are listed in Table 48. In previous
sessions, not all teachers completed these items in full. However, in this session, all
teachers implemented this stage with 100% fidelity. Notes taken during the observation
reveal that the repetitive structure enabled participants to feel more comfortable with the
writing process and required a bit less modeling. This allowed teachers to provide
participants with more time to share their work with a small revising group and receive
feedback on changes and improvements to consider with a focus on ideas and content.
PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models (4 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, REVISING.

• Read your entire draft to the group.
• Go back to the beginning and have participants ask questions or provide you
with verbal suggestions on how you can add clarifying information and
more setting description.

• Revise your draft by inserting or deleting items as they provide you with
feedback. Use only the “insert” or “delete” tool.

• Content and ideas should be the focus, not conventions.
• Ask them to provide you with at least one positive statement.
Participants do as the teacher did (about 20 minutes total; 5 minutes each):
• Participants form groups of four (two child-parent pairs).
• Each group must assign a timekeeper to ensure that each author has a 5
minute turn.

• One author reads his/her entire draft to his/her small group.
• The same author then goes back to the beginning and others then ask
questions or provide verbal suggestions on how the author can add
clarifying information and more setting description.

• The author revises his/her draft by inserting or deleting items as others
provide feedback.

• Content and ideas should be the focus, not conventions.
• At least one positive statement should be included in the feedback.
• Each author follows the same procedure.
Participants share their work (10 minutes):
• Invite a few participants to read their work to the whole group.
• Everyone should clap afterwards.
• Make a positive comment for each piece.

142

Working in small groups seemed to be one of the favorite portions of the
workshop. At one school, after the teacher briefly modeled how to revise and then
grouped participants, the room burst into sounds of shuffling chairs and participants
saying hi to one another, deciding who would read first. As they began sharing their
work, one parent at the back of the room read some of her writing to her group and
stopped. “Should I change anything so far?” she asked. A dad answered encouragingly,
“That’s good!” Twenty minutes later, the teacher announced, “Okay, everyone, let’s
come back to the whole group.” A student said to her group, “See? Our time’s up!
Aw…” Students and parents alike enjoyed working in a social setting and were very
supportive of one another.
This enjoyment continued when participants read their draft to the whole group.
At another school, one father read his piece and talked about his parents being 130 years
old on his perfect day, and how his two seventy year-old sons were wrestling outside. He
imagined his boys as being very successful as a result of their line of athletic gear,
CHARM, derived from their initials. Later, a student read his draft to the group. When
he finished, one father commented, “I gotta say, your writing is so cool! Because you’re
such a straight shooter!” This supportive and energetic atmosphere may have had a
positive impact on students’ writing attitudes and motivation to write.
Once the revising stage was completed, it was time to move on to editing. Table
49 presents the observation checklist for this stage of the writing process.

143

Table 49: Family Writing Workshop #3- Editing Observation Checklist

As demonstrated above in Table 49, all teachers completed this stage of the
writing process with complete fidelity. Once they modeled how to edit, they moved onto
the next step, publishing.
Table 50 presents the observation checklist for this portion of the workshop.

Table 50: Family Writing Workshop #3- Publishing Observation Checklist

Table 50 shows that all teachers implemented this step with 100% fidelity. As for
editing, teachers modeled how to publish and finalize a piece but did not provide
participants with time to do this during the workshop. Instead, they were expected to
PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using the The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, EDITING.

• Explain that a list of editing tools can be used to help with this step.
• Walk them through the Editing Tools handout.
• Go back to the beginning and have participants provide you with
suggestions on how to edit your writing, focusing on spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, etc.

• Using editing tools, edit your writing as they provide you with feedback.
PROCEDURES 1 2 3 4
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout, briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, PUBLISHING.

• Begin to write your final draft, incorporating all revisions and edits.
• Distribute the Homework handout and explain that they all have a
homework assignment, to take their writing home and continue to revise
and edit together, then publish. Walk them through the handout. Explain
that the published piece and a drawing to go with it are due at the next
family writing workshop. Distribute lined paper and blank paper for the
final draft and illustration.

• Explain that all writing will be compiled into an anthology. Only families
who attend all 4 sessions will receive a free copy at the last family writing
workshop, as well as a certificate. At this last session, people will read
their final work to the whole group and celebrate. Note: a copy of the
anthology will be available to read in the school library for those who do
not attend all 4 sessions.

144

complete this for homework and submit the completed piece and an accompanying
illustration the following week.
An analysis of the data in Tables 46 through 50 demonstrates that facilitating
teachers at all schools completed and implemented all 54 procedures with 100% fidelity.
The next two figures include examples of what was written by participants. First,
Figure 19 shows what a sixth grade girl wrote.

145

Figure 19: Family Writing Workshop #3-Sample, Written by a Sixth Grader

146

Figure 19 shows what a sixth grade student’s idea of a perfect day with her father
is like. She explains that it is a typical day filled with simple errands, such as driving to
the post office, picking up dry cleaning, or going to the car wash, and that as simple as it
may be, it is fun and those days “…are always perfect days with my dad.”
Figure 20 includes another example of what a parent wrote and illustrated for the
third family writing workshop.
Figure 20: Family Writing Workshop #3-Sample, Written by a Fourth Grader’s Mother

147

Figure 20, Continued

Figure 20 reveals a mother’s idea of what would be a perfect day for her, visiting
her siblings in Mexico. She explains that this would make her very happy and writes, “I
hope my dream comes true soon because I have a big family and I miss them a lot.”
The samples included in Figures 19 and 20 do not fully adhere to what was
modeled by the teacher. In Figure 19, the student did not include details about the setting
and in Figure 20, the mother did not write a story of a perfect day she would spend with
the child attending the workshop. However, participants were provided with flexibility;
although teachers modeled certain strategies and most participants integrated those
strategies into their writing, some did not.
Family Writing Workshop #4
The first three family writing workshops were held weekly. The fourth family
writing workshop, however, was held two weeks after the third session. This provided

148

participants with one week to submit the third writing project as well as any others they
had yet to submit. Once all writing projects were collected by teachers, they each typed
the pieces for their school and e-mailed them to me. I then formatted them into an
anthology and included scanned illustrations and photographs of participants in action.
Permission was obtained from participants before their work was included in the
anthology. Compilation of each set of anthologies took anywhere from eight to fourteen
hours, depending on the number of pieces that had been submitted. It was a long and
detailed process, but the results were well worth it.
At the last family writing workshop, an observation checklist was not included
because it was an unstructured session and did not include actual instruction. Instead, I
simply took notes on things I observed, such as interaction and comments. Each
participating family received a complimentary copy of the anthology as well as a
certificate of completion (see Appendix N for certificate). The facilitating teacher and I
positioned ourselves in front of the room and called each individual, students and parents
alike, to receive their handshake and smile. Once each family had received the
anthology, they were given time to read through it on their own. They poured over the
anthology while enjoying the food provided by them, the school, the teacher, and/or
myself. Observation notes indicated that although they were all informed at the three
previous sessions that their work would be unofficially published, they were surprised
and seemed to be overwhelmed with pride when they saw their work in the anthology.
One parent even commented, “Wait until the other parents at the Parent Center see this!”
Students sat together and giggled over their pictures and enjoyed their work. About

149

twenty minutes later, teachers asked their groups, “Would anyone like to read any of their
final pieces aloud to the whole group?” Several participants at each school volunteered
and read their work with strong, confident voices while the audience listened attentively.
This session, perhaps more than any other, had a positive impact on students’ writing
attitudes, enabled them to feel more competent as writers and develop a preference for
writing, and allowed participants to bond collectively as a group of authors.
The last item completed for the final session was to have participants each fill out
a questionnaire. A slightly different version was provided to students, parents, and
teachers. This questionnaire was designed to enable me to receive feedback on what they
thought of the workshops, how they were affected, and what suggestions they could offer
for future workshops. Results from these questionnaires will be presented in the next
section of this chapter.
Student, Parent, and Teacher Perspectives

on the Effects of Family Writing Workshops

Thus far, the effects of the series of family writing workshops on students’ writing
achievement and attitudes have been explored. I also examined whether the workshops
were facilitated with fidelity in order to determine if the effects could be attributed to the
time students and their parents spent participating in the workshops. These measures, the
writing assessments, survey, and observations, are essential to investigate the effects on
students and much insight has been gained from them. Our current state of focusing on
results and accountability required these items to be included. But there is another
element that must also be considered.

150

It is also important to acquire an understanding of student, parent, and teacher
perceptions of the family writing workshops, as well as incorporate more of a personal or
narrative-like element. After all, the family writing workshops were not designed to
simply increase student writing achievement and attitudes. They were also designed in
the hopes that parental engagement would increase; that parents would gain an
understanding of the writing instruction their children receive at school; that students and
parents would establish and develop a closer connection with teachers and build a bridge
between the home and the school; that families would have the opportunity to get to
know one another on a different level; that once a week for two hours, they would break
away from the busy demands of their lives and take time to have fun together, to spend
quality time together, to perhaps better their relationship. I set out to accomplish so much
more than what can be demonstrated by the measures that have so far been described in
this chapter. Thus, in order to take a deeper look into the effects of the family writing
workshops, the following pages will present information gleaned from questionnaires
administered to students, parents, and teachers.
Student and Parent Perception Questionnaires
In an effort to explore other effects and receive feedback on how family writing
workshops could be improved, a perception questionnaire was administered to all
students and parents who participated in the treatment group, or first series of family
writing workshops, at each school. It consisted of 16 questions, most open-ended, and
was designed in collaboration with the family writing workshop co-founder when we first
implemented the workshops years ago. The questions were virtually the same, but were

151

tailored specifically to either students or parents. The first is entitled, Family Writing
Workshop Questionnaire for Students, and the second, Family Writing Workshop
Questionnaire for Parents.
I distributed questionnaires at the last session of each series at each school and
requested that they be completed and submitted before participants left, but some took it
home to complete and simply did not return it. As a result, of the total of 30 students and
their parents who were included in the treatment group, 19 students and 17 parents
returned the questionnaire.
Many questions paralleled categories found in the Knudson Writing Attitude
Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 (Knudson, 1991), some of which are shown in Table
51.
Table 51: Correlation between Knudson Categories and Student Questionnaire Items

Categories from Knudson Items from Questionnaire
Prefers Writing
7. Before attending these family writing workshops,
did you write with your parent(s) at home? Why
or why not?
8. Since you began attending family writing
workshops, have you written with your parent(s)
at home? Why or why not?
11. Do you like to write more than you did before the
family writing workshops? Explain.
12. Are you more enthusiastic about completing writing
assignments that are assigned at school? Explain.
Positive View of Self As
Writer
10. Have you noticed that you have become a better or
a different writer? How so? Give specific
examples.
Competent Writer
9. Have you noticed a change in your writing since
your participation in the family writing workshops?
What changes have you noticed? Give specific
examples.
10. Have you noticed that you have become a better or
a different writer? How so? Give specific examples.

152

The items shown above in Table 51 are from the student version of the
questionnaire. Questions for parents were nearly identical, but focused on the child.
Although some categories found in the Knudson did not have parallel items on the
questionnaire, responses fell into some of those categories. Additional categories also
emerged. Responses were coded. Table 52 presents the findings from the Family
Writing Workshop Questionnaire for Students.
Table 52: Frequency Table for Student Questionnaires

Categories from Knudson Frequency %
Prefers Writing 17 17%
Positive View of Self As Writer 20 20%
Competent Writer 27 27%
Writing Achievement 0 0%
Importance of Writing 2 2%
Letter/Note Writing 0 0%
Additional Categories

FWWs Helped Student/ Student Learned More 11 11%
Student Reads More 1 1%
Parent has More Positive View of Student as Writer 1 1%
Parent can Help Student More 3 3%
Family Writes More at Home 5 5%
Better Relationship/Quality Time/Communication 6 6%
Parent Writes Better 6 6%
N=19; n=99 100%

Results in Table 52 indicate that the majority of student responses, 66%, fell in
categories found in the Knudson. After participating in the series of family writing
workshops, 27% of statements indicated that students felt that they were more competent
writers. This was made clear with answers such as, “I’ve become a better writer because
now my writing has amazed my mom. That’s how I know I have improved.” Responses

153

in the amount of 20% showed that students had a more positive view as themselves as
writers, and 17% preferred writing. An example of a response for the latter is: “…I’m
more interested in writing than ever!” These findings parallel those from the Knudson
Writing Attitude Survey that was administered as a post-test, in which students in the
treatment group repeatedly reported more positive attitudes in each category.
Additional categories emerged as responses were coded. The category with the
highest frequency, “FWW [family writing workshops] helped student/ Student learned
more,” included 11% of responses. Other less frequent categories were “Better
Relationship/Quality Time/Communication” and “Parent Writes Better,” both at 6%, and
“Family Writes More at Home” at 5%. Also, although only 1% of statements were
included in “Parent has More Positive View of Student as Writer,” the answer provided
by the one student, “My mom thinks my writing is at the top of my game,” jumped off
the page. The enthusiasm found in responses was most noteworthy in the final question:
“If someone were to approach you and ask you what you thought of the family writing
workshops, what would you say?” perhaps because of its broad and open-ended nature.
Responses included those listed below:
“I’ve gained the courage to write and express my feelings attending F.W.W.”
“It’s really fun because we get to spend time with our family.”
“I think it is an important thing to do. It is an experience.”
“I love writing workshop.”
“Will you like to come to family writing workshop?”

154

Clearly, students benefited from their involvement in multiple ways and truly enjoyed
being a part of them.
Table 53 presents the findings from the Family Writing Workshop Questionnaire
for Parents.
Table 53: Frequency Table for Parent Questionnaires

Categories from Knudson Frequency %
Student Prefers Writing 19 20%
Positive View of Student As Writer 8 8%
Student is more Competent Writer 31 32%
Writing Achievement 0 0%
Parent Sees Importance of Writing 2 2%
Letter/Note Writing with Student 1 1%
Additional Categories

Student More Motivated to Write/ More Effort 3 3%
Student Improved Reading 1 1%
Family Learned 5 5%
Parent Knows How to Help Student / Understands
Writing Instruction
11 11%
FWWs Increased Parent Involvement 10 10%
Better Relationship/Bonding 8 8%
Parent Likes Writing More 1 1%
N=17; n=96 100%

As previously noted, the parent questionnaire included the same questions as the
student questionnaire, but focused on how parents thought the workshops affected
students. As with the student questionnaire, most responses fell in categories found in the
Knudson Writing Attitude Survey. More specifically, 31% of statements fell under
Student is More Competent Writer, 19% under Student Prefers Writing, and 8% under
Positive View of Student as Writer. Answers reveal that parents also perceived the
workshops to have a significantly positive impact on students’ writing attitudes.

155

Other categories emerged in the parent questionnaires as well. The category with
the highest frequency, Parent Knows How to Help Student / Understands Writing
Instruction, included 11% of responses. One Spanish-speaking parent wrote, “…me
ayudó a entender el porque de las cosas raras que me hija hacía cuando iba a escribir
una historia,” which translates to: “[The workshops] helped me understand the why of
the strange things my daughter was doing when she wrote a story.” Another category
with a relatively high frequency of 8% was that of Better Relationship/Bonding. One
parent wrote, “It was a great bonding experience between me and my daughter. Having
her see me complete the homework with her gave her a sense of connection with me.”
Another wrote: “I discovered what makes her feel special and I want to continue making
her feel like that.” These results parallel those in a study conducted by Gilliam et al.
(2004). They explored the effects of a literacy program and found that it developed
closer relationships between parents and children.
These responses all attest to the positive impact that the family writing workshops
had not only on students’ attitudes toward writing, but on parental involvement, family
learning, and student motivation. These findings are supported by Morrow and Young
(1997), who examined a family literacy program and found that it lead to several positive
outcomes. Parents enjoyed engaging in literacy activities at home with their children,
learned new ways to support their children’s learning, and felt more comfortable about
participating in school activities.
When parents were asked what suggestions they had to improve the workshops,
they answered with: “Keep doing it. Yeah!” and “Que siguen hacienda estos talleres y

156

que no se cansen nunca porque solo asi podemos ayudar a nuestros hijos,” which
translates to: “Keep on doing these workshops and don’t ever get tired because that’s the
only way we can help our children.” The excitement parents felt was transparent. The
only concrete suggestion was: “Four classes are not enough. I think that we need eight or
ten classes,” showing that parents wanted more sessions despite their busy schedules.
Finally, the parents were also asked the final question of: “If someone were to
approach you and ask you what you thought of the family writing workshops, what
would you say?” This is what they had to say:
“I would say it was awesome and I would recommend it!”
“That every parent should attend these workshops.”
“It’s a great opportunity to show our children how important they are to us.”
Again, statements were filled with energy and enthusiasm.
Collectively, the student and parent questionnaires shed light on just what I was
hoping to find. They highlighted the many benefits the family writing workshops have
on its participants, those which perhaps cannot be captured in a writing assessment or
survey. Also, it is entirely possible that the workshops impacted families in a variety of
other ways that were not described in responses.
In fact, five months after the series ended, I received an e-mail from the Los
Angeles Writing Project (LAWP). Apparently, one parent had demonstrated interest in
enrolling her son in a summer writing program LAWP offers, Young Writers’ Camp, and
requested to speak with me personally. When I called her the next day, I realized it was
the mother of the student who had been described as the “straight shooter.” She asked if I

157

remembered them and seemed pleased when I stated that I did. She then explained how
the family writing workshops had such a strong impact on her son, and how he had
changed dramatically both as a student and as a writer. He was much more enthusiastic
and loved to write creatively. She wanted to him to take part in Young Writers’ Camp,
but although he loved to write, he was a bit hesitant because he did not want to participate
in a traditional structured classroom setting. She asked if I would be willing to speak
with him and encourage him if he was still undecided. I answered that I’d be happy to
and thought the summer program would be perfect for a great writer such as him. She
seemed pleased with everything I said about her son and thanked me for calling her,
offering support if I needed anything marketed or published in the future. After I hung
up, I realized just how much of a positive impact the workshops could have on its
participants. I remembered that this student had learning difficulties and was amazed that
his participation in these workshops had done so much for him. As excited as I was
about this student and his transformation, I wondered how other participants had
benefited. I looked forward to learning of the teachers’ insight. The next section
presents information on facilitating teachers’ perspectives.
Teacher Perception Questionnaires
I originally had distributed questionnaires to only students and parents. But a few
months after the series of workshops had ended, as I was having lunch with one of the
teachers, also a fellow doctoral student, I shared how writing this dissertation was going.
She began to excitedly tell me of dramatic changes she had seen in some of her students,
how their confidence had boosted, and how they were seen by their classmates as writing

158

experts. I then realized I was about to make the significant mistake of excluding
teachers’ unique perspectives from the study. It was then that I decided it was crucial to
include their voices and perceptions in order to gain insight on how they thought the
family writing workshops had impacted participants. Hence, with the approval of my
dissertation chairperson, I administered a questionnaire to the four teachers who
facilitated the workshops at each school via e-mail. The questionnaire, entitled, Family
Writing Workshop Questionnaire for Teachers, was a modified version of that which was
administered to students and parents and consisted of six open-ended questions (see
Appendix, p. 5). All four teachers completed the questionnaire within one week and
returned it to me also via e-mail.
As with the student and parent questionnaires, some of the questions paralleled
categories found in the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey (Knudson, 1991). Correlating
categories are presented in Figure 54 below.
Table 54: Correlation between Knudson Categories and Teacher Questionnaire Items

Categories from Knudson Items from Questionnaire
Competent Writer
1. Have you noticed a change in students’ writing
since their participation in the family writing
workshops? What changes have you noticed?
Prefers Writing
2. Do you think students like to write more than they
did before the family writing workshops? Explain.
Competent Writer

Positive View of Self As
Writer

Prefers Writing
3. What other changes have you noticed as a result of
the family writing workshops…
in students?
in parents?
in families in general?
in yourself?
4. What do you think the benefits are to participating
in family writing workshops?

159

Some responses did not parallel categories found in the Knudson, but additional
categories emerged. Responses were coded as with previous questionnaires. Table 55
presents the findings from the Family Writing Workshop Questionnaire for Teachers.
Table 55: Frequency Table for Teacher Questionnaires

Categories from Knudson Frequency %
Students Prefer Writing 7 17.5%
Students Developed Positive Views of Selves As
Writers
7 17.5%
Students More Competent Writers 8 20%
Additional Categories
Better Relationship/Communication/Bonding 7 17.5%
Stronger School/Home Connection 6 15%
Parents Understand Writing Instruction 3 7.5%
Teacher Learned About Teaching Writing 2 5%
N=4; n=40 100%

Results in Table 55 demonstrate that about half of responses, 55%, fell in
categories found in the Knudson and 45% caused additional categories to emerge. The
category with the highest frequency of responses was Students More Competent Writers,
indicating that teachers perceived students’ writing abilities as having increased as a
result of the workshops. For example, one teacher wrote, “I noticed that the students
were able to produce more high-quality writing. Their paragraph structure improved and
they were more confident in their ability to use more colorful language and dialogue.”
Two other categories paralleled those found in the Knudson, Students Prefer
Writing and Students Developed Positive Views of Selves As Writers. They had an equal
frequency of responses at 17.5%. Many statements made in the questionnaire strongly
supported both areas. For instance, in describing how students began to enjoy writing,
one teacher provided a rationale for their enjoyment, “I think the confidence boost that

160

these students received from the extra work and being made to feel special for
participating increased their interest in writing.” Another teacher provided a detailed
explanation of how students developed more positive views of themselves as writers:
“For some students, I have noticed a significant change, especially the ones who
have a harder time focusing in class or staying on task to write extended pieces.
When they worked with their parents, both students and parents were very excited
about what they were doing, and the students…were absolutely engaged in
writing, telling, reading their work, and thrilled that people in the whole group
recognized their talent.”

Results from the survey were highly statistically significant in this category and
supported teachers’ perceptions (t=2.99, p<.05).
Findings from the teacher questionnaires paralleled the results from the Knudson
Writing Attitude Survey. Not only did students report more positive attitudes toward
writing, their parents and facilitating teachers felt the workshops made a significant
difference in the way students felt about writing.
As with the student and parent questionnaires, additional categories surfaced. The
area with the highest frequency at 17.5% was Better Relationship/Communication/
Bonding. One teacher elucidated her view, “Parents and children felt a closer bond
through sharing their lives.” Not only did the relationships, communication, and bonding
occur between parents and their children, they also occurred between teachers and
students, teachers and parents, and families. Research by Hong and Ho (2005) and Fan
(2001) suggests that communication between parents and teachers is important because it
has a significant, positive impact on student achievement.
Another category with a high frequency of 15% was Stronger School/Home
Connection. The workshops established a link between the school and the home. As one

161

teacher stated: “I feel like the parents are more comfortable in talking to me about other
aspects of their child’s education. They are more likely to come up to me and talk about
things that are bothering them or questions they have. They seem to view me more as a
resource.” The workshops clearly benefited its participants on multiple levels.
The final question teachers were asked is the same as that asked of students and
parents: If someone were to approach you and ask you what you thought about the family
writing workshops, what would you say? Teachers’ responses were as follows:
Teacher 1: “I would let them know that it was an interesting, fun, and productive
experience that brings families together in a positive way. It also fosters parents
feeling comfortable in spending more time at their child's school and gives them an
insight into their education.”

Teacher 2: “I would definitely suggest it to anyone who wants to provide a sense of
community to their students and parents. I think it was a great opportunity for me to
learn more about teaching writing, and it built a lot of confidence in my families.
There is a lot of anxiety for parents and students about making the transition to 4
th

grade, since now they’re in “upper” grades, and I think the FWW’s were a good way
to show that with the proper parent involvement and teacher guidance, it wasn’t so
scary. It honestly was one of the best things I’ve ever done as a teacher for my
students.”

Teacher 3: “It's an opportunity for families to learn the strategies that their children
are learning in the classroom in writing.”

Teacher 4: “That they are one of the best things we have done at our school, and that
everyone should make an effort to participate– it’s a low-stress environment, and the
outcomes are fabulous!”

The enthusiasm found in teachers’ responses illuminated the numerous positive
effects that family writing workshops had on participants. They benefited in ways I did not
expect to see. Nonetheless, my curious and restless mind caused me to continue to wonder
about the changes that may have occurred later in students’ writing achievement and
attitudes. I also wondered how participants felt when they saw their writing published in the

162

anthology that was provided to each family at the last session. As noted in the observations,
participants were full of pride. But the rewards may have easily surpassed pride. Students,
parents, and teachers alike may experience many positive, long-term results that I may never
know of, which makes all of the planning, the time, the long evenings, the collection of data,
the feverish note-taking, well worth it.
The next section presents a summary of results found on all measures.
Summary of Results
As described in chapter three, four schools were included in this study with a total
of 60 fourth through eighth grade students; 15% to 40% of student participants at each
school were ELs. The sixty students were randomly divided into Group A, the treatment
group, and Group B, the control group. The study also included students’ parents and
four teachers. The following summary provides a brief description of the findings for
each of the measures used in this dissertation, including the TOWL-3, 6 + 1 Trait™
Writing Assessment Scoring Guide, Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children
(1991), observation checklists, and perception questionnaires administered to students,
parents, and teachers.
In order to determine the effects of a series of family writing workshops on
students’ writing achievement, the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996)
was administered to students as a pre- and post-test in Group A, the treatment group, and
Group B, the control group. Descriptive statistics and a t-test were used to measure
statistical differences between each group’s mean standard scores for eight subtests: (1)
vocabulary, (2) spelling, (3) style, (4) logical sentences, (5) sentence combining, (6)

163

contextual conventions, (7) contextual language, and (8) story construction. Subtests 1
through 5 measured student performance in contrived writing and subtests 6 through 8
addressed spontaneous writing. Statistical significance was reached for subtest 2, in
which Group A performed slightly lower in the post-test than on the pre-test; subtest 4, in
which Groups A and B decreased their mean scores on the post-test; and subtest 5, in
which Group A experienced a slight increase in their post-test mean score. All students’
pre- and post-test mean scores remained in the average range, with the exception of
subtest 4, for which students in both groups scored in the below average range in the
post-test. Results for the contrived, spontaneous, and overall writing quotient mean
scores were not statistically significant.
An analytic measure, 6 + 1 Trait® Writing Assessment Scoring Guide (Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory, was used to further evaluate the writing students
produced for TOWL-3 subtests 6 through 8. The traits were as follows: ideas,
organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions, and presentation. Only
the first six were included. As with the TOWL-3, descriptive statistics and a t-test were
used to measure statistical differences between Group A and B’s pre- and post-test mean
scores in each of the six traits and the overall mean score. Statistical significance was
reached in the areas of word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions. In these areas,
the post-test mean score was slightly higher for Group B; however, Group A showed
more of an improvement in the post-test mean score, demonstrating that the students in
the treatment group experienced greater gains.

164

The overall score for both groups also reached statistical significance. Results revealed
that Group A not only outperformed Group B in the post-test, but Group A also improved
by a greater amount. Similar to the TOWL-3 (Hammill and Larsen, 1996), all scores
were in the average range. Findings of improvements made by Group A are supported by
research conducted by Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998), who found that preschool
children made greater gains in the area of reading when they received a reading
intervention both at home and at school. Similarly, the family writing workshops
examined in this dissertation included structured opportunities for students to focus on
writing instruction at school and home.
The Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8 (1991) was
used to explore the effects of the series of family writing workshops on students’ attitudes
toward writing. Six categories were evaluated: Prefers Writing, Positive View of Self as
Writer, Competent Writer, Writing Achievement, Importance of Writing, and Letter/Note
Writing. As with previous measures, descriptive statistics and a t-test were used to
measure statistical differences between Group A and B’s pre- and post-test mean scores
in the six categories. Although students in Group A reported an increase in writing
attitudes in each of the six areas, results were statistically significant only in the category
of Positive View of Self as Writer. In this category, students developed a more positive
view of themselves as writers. Results approached statistical significance in the
categories of Prefers Writing, Writing Achievement, and Importance of Writing, in which
students in Group A consistently showed more positive writing attitudes than students in
Group B. In the overall score, Group A post-test mean scores again demonstrated more

165

positive writing attitudes than Group B. Results were statistically significant for both
groups. Research by Morrow and Young (1997) supports these findings. They found
that a family literacy program lead to more positive attitudes toward reading among
students and a higher interest in both reading and writing.
Qualitative data was also included through the use of observations. These were
included to determine if the family writing workshops were implemented as they were
designed. For the first family writing workshop, teachers at Schools 1, 3, and 4
implemented the workshop with 100% fidelity, whereas the teacher at School 2
implemented with 93% fidelity. For the second session, teachers at Schools 1, 3, and 4
again implemented with 100% fidelity and the teacher at School 2 with 98% fidelity. All
teachers implemented the workshop design with 100% fidelity at the third family writing
workshop. Notes were taken at the last session as it was unstructured in comparison to
the first three, which were focused on instruction. The observations indicated that since
the family writing workshops were implemented with full or high levels of fidelity,
results in all measures could in part be attributed to student and parent participation in the
series.
A final element was included, that of students’, parents’, and teachers’
perspectives on the effects of the family writing workshops. Questionnaires were
administered to each group and responses were then coded and analyzed through the use
of frequency tables. Many student responses fell into categories from the Knudson
Writing Attitude Survey, with the Prefers Writing, Positive View of Self as Writer, and
Competent Writer scoring highest frequencies of 17%, 20%, and 27%, respectively.

166

Several additional categories emerged, with the highest frequency of 11% in Student
Learned More. Parent responses also paralleled categories, with Student Prefers Writing
and Student is More Competent Writer showing a frequency of 20% and 32%,
respectively. Other categories also developed, such as Parent Understands Writing
Instruction, with a frequency of 11%. Finally, teacher responses also fell into various
categories, such as Students Prefer Writing, Students Developed Positive View of Selves
as Writers, and Students More Competent Writers. These areas revealed frequencies of
17.5% for the first two and 20% for the last. The additional category with the highest
frequency was Better Relationship/Communication/Bonding with 17.5%. These results
corresponded with more positive student attitudes exhibited through the use of the
Knudson Writing Attitude Survey. Collectively, students, parents, and teachers perceived
the workshops as having numerous positive effects. These findings are supported by
Levine (2002), who stated that teachers felt parental involvement could achieve several
benefits, including an understanding of instructional methods for parents and the message
to students that school and education are important to their parents.
The next chapter includes a discussion of these findings, implications, and
recommendations for teachers and parents.

167

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Although many researchers (Snow et al., 1991; Cook-Cottone, 2004; Hong and
Ho, 2005) have explored the effects of parental involvement on students’ academic
performance, few have focused specifically on the area of writing. This dissertation
addresses this gap in the research by examining the effects of a series of after school
family writing workshops on students’ writing achievement and attitudes, in addition to
students’, parents’, and teachers’, perceptions of workshop effects. The previous chapter
presented results across all targeted areas and an analysis of those results. The purpose of
this particular chapter is to further consider findings. This chapter is organized into six
major sections: (1) summary of results, (2) discussion of results, (3) implications for
future research, (4) recommendations for teachers, (5) recommendations for parents, and
(6) concluding statements. In order to discuss implications and recommendations, a
discussion of the results is first presented.
Discussion of Results
Results on the writing achievement measure of the TOWL-3 (Hammill and
Larsen, 1996) indicated that students who participated in the first series of family writing
workshops, or the treatment group, experienced a slight increase in the post-test mean
score on subtest 5, sentence combining. As mentioned in chapter 4 in the section on
observations, teachers only included words, phrases, and short sentences in their webs
and later, their graphic organizers, for each topic. Hence, when it was time to move from

168

prewriting to drafting, each teacher modeled how to take these words, phrases, and short
sentences and combine them into complete sentences. After teachers modeled the next
step of revising, they provided participants with time to work in small groups and
practice revising one another’s writing, focusing on content and ideas. As stated in
chapter 1, sociocultural learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1998) emphasize the importance of social factors in cognitive development.
Bandura believes that “guided instruction and modeling…promote cognitive
development in children” (pp. 12-13). Furthermore, as revealed through the
observational checklists in chapter 4, participants seemed to like revising more than any
other stage of the writing process. The pleasure derived through revising with feedback
is what Elbow describes as “…the most powerful way to revise, and happily enough it is
also the most interesting and enjoyable technique” (1998, p. 139). Thus, the
improvement for the treatment group in the area of sentence combining may have been
attributed to opportunities provided for them to observe their teachers as strategies were
modeled, as well as revising collaboratively with their parents and peers in an active,
supportive way.
Results for the overall score as measured by the 6 + 1 Trait® Writing Assessment
Scoring Guide (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2007) indicated that
students in the treatment group both outperformed students in the control group and made
greater gains. Again, the social aspect of the family writing workshops may have played
a role in these results. These findings are supported by sociocultural learning theory
(Vygotsky, 1978) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1998), which highlight social

169

interactions as key factors to children’s cognitive development. These findings are also
supported by the work of Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) on cultural models and
settings. The family writing workshops facilitated a shared model of writing instruction
between the culture of the school and home. Additionally, homework assignments that
called for completion of writing projects focused on meaningful stories and personal
experiences supported cultural settings in which important writing activities took place.
For both measures used to assess writing achievement, scores on most subtests
and traits remained in the average range. Although there were some improvements for
family writing workshop student participants, they were minor. These findings are
supported by Morrow and Young (1997), who, as described in chapter 2, also
investigated the effects of a family literacy program. Results demonstrated that student
achievement was positively impacted in the areas of reading and writing. My study is
similar to Morrow and Young’s in that I also extended school activities to the home.
However, one major difference is the length of program time. Morrow and Young
conducted their study for an entire school year. Teachers held several monthly sessions
and activities in the home were monitored on a weekly basis. In contrast, my study was
conducted for only five weeks. During this time, teachers held three weekly instructional
sessions and asked participants to continue the activities in between sessions. Although
time restraints limited the duration of the family writing workshop program, results may
have been more positively statistically significant had it occurred over a more extensive
period of time.

170

Stronger results in writing attitudes for students in the treatment group were
evidenced through the Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8
(1991). These students experienced many positive changes, specifically reaching
statistical significance in the category of Positive View of Self as Writer, and the overall
mean score. These findings are supported by the work of Fantuzzo et al. (2004), who
explored the effects of home-based family involvement, school-based involvement, and
home-school conferencing. They found that the element of home-based involvement
most strongly predicted outcomes of children’s attitudes toward learning.
As stated in Chapter 2, according to Pintrich (2003), higher levels of personal
interest and positive attitudes “are associated with more cognitive engagement, more
learning, and higher levels of achievement” (p. 674). Thus, it is surprising that more
positive gains were not made in the area of writing achievement. Although post-survey
results demonstrated that students’ participation in the family writing workshops
positively impacted their attitudes at the end of the series, more time may have been
needed in order for the increase in attitudes to result in a greater increase in writing
achievement. As previously noted, more significant results may be evident on a more
long-term basis or with the extension of workshops.
Additionally, a greater number of students included in the study may have also
yielded more statistically significant results. But it was difficult to recruit participants for
this after school family writing workshop program and maintain steady weekly
participation. Some students were already committed to another after school program or
had commitments at home. This was the case with one student, who only attended half of

171

the workshops. When I asked her why she had not come to all of the sessions, she
explained that she had to go home to take care of her younger siblings.
Another reason for low numbers of participants may have been parents’
schedules. Many of them work late hours and cannot take time off from work to attend a
weekly session, or were not able to attend due to commitments to the family at home.
Some parents were able to address this by bringing their entire families. It was not
unusual to see a student bring older and younger siblings, a parent pushing a stroller with
a baby, and a father meeting the family in the classroom after work. In these cases, the
participation of the entire family may have shown the student that the event was an
important one and arrangements needed to be made to attend. Delgado-Gaitan (1991)
highlights additional reasons for lack of attendance:
The absence of appropriate sociocultural knowledge precludes acceptable
participation in formal school activities, resulting in isolation for many parents,
especially those who have not been schooled in the United States and who are
limited in English proficiency (p. 21).

Thus, several obstacles may have prevented the participation of students and parents in
the family writing workshops. Higher numbers of participants would have allowed more
students to benefit and may have lead to more significant results.
Since observations demonstrated that all teachers implemented family writing
workshops with almost complete fidelity, changes exhibited in writing achievement and
attitudes may be attributed to students’ participation in the series. Furthermore, all
questionnaires revealed that students, parents, and teachers unanimously agreed that the
workshops had a positive, and in many cases, profound impact, on its participants in

172

attitudes and in other areas, such as supporting communication and bonding between
students, parents, families, and teachers.
The next section of this chapter addresses implications for future research based
on these findings.
Implications for Future Research
As stated previously in this chapter, the majority of results in students’ writing
achievement were not statistically significant. In contrast, students’ increase in attitudes
was statistically significant or approached statistical significance in multiple areas.
Additional workshops may have been necessary for students to experience an increase in
their writing performance. Offering more sessions was a common request among
participants in questionnaires when asked what suggestions they had to improve future
workshops. Students and parents alike wanted to participate in a longer series of
workshops.
Offering more sessions may allow facilitating teachers to focus on completing one
writing piece during a two session period. One session would emphasize prewriting and
drafting; the second session would emphasize revising, editing, and publishing. The way
the study was conducted, facilitating teachers simply modeled editing and publishing and
asked participants to complete these steps as part of homework. This may have been too
high an expectation for participants because they may have not had much opportunity in
between weekly sessions to complete the remaining steps. Perhaps if more time were
allotted to each step and participants had sufficient time to follow the teacher’s example
during the workshop, students would experience positive, statistically significant results

173

in writing achievement. A study should be conducted that examines the impact of
perhaps a nine session series. Using this design, four topics would be addressed, each
during a two-week period, and the last session would be reserved for a celebration of the
group’s published work. A study on a longer series may lead to more statistically
significant, positive results in students’ writing achievement and attitudes as well as in
other areas for parents and teachers.
Additionally, more in-depth qualitative data should be included in a future study.
Although the questionnaires administered in this study yielded valuable information,
focus groups and interviews may have provided more insight on effects the workshops
had on participants. Along the same lines, it would be useful to extend the focus from
students to include how the workshops impacted parents and teachers. This would reveal
effects on multiple levels.
Observational data collected for this study revealed that students and parents
seemed to enjoy the revising stage of the writing process most. This seemed to be due to
the social interaction participants experienced. Further research should be conducted to
investigate whether teaching writing by utilizing social, interactive processes will
positively impact students’ writing attitudes and performance.
Finally, as stated in chapter 2, although some researchers (Duignan et al., 2002;
Morrow and Young, 1997) have suggested that parent involvement does indeed impact
students’ attitudes toward reading and learning, few have addressed how parental
involvement affects students’ attitudes specifically in the area of writing. There is also
little research available that has addressed the effects of parental involvement on

174

students’ writing achievement. Furthermore, few studies have targeted ELs. This was
confirmed in my search for studies that addressed these areas. This suggests that the area
of writing, specifically writing for ELs, has been neglected by researchers and should be
given more attention. Although this dissertation included from 15 to 40 percent of ELs at
each school of the four schools, that quantity was not sufficient to examine results for the
EL subgroup. In order to have statistical significance for any group of students, there
should be a minimum of thirty. Due to the difficulty in securing participants as well as
the time restraints of conducting this study as one investigator with a demanding, full-
time job, I was unable to focus my study on ELs. This study should be conducted again
and concentrate exclusively on writing achievement and attitudes for ELs in order to
contribute to the large research gap.
Recommendations for Teachers
Recommendation #1: Don’t be Afraid to Make the First Move.
Although this recommendation is neither an academic sounding nor a formal
statement, it is intentionally simple in nature. It stems from an article the co-founder and
I wrote a few years ago shortly after we had implemented the family writing workshops
at our schools. It was entitled, “We’re Scared, They’re Scared, and Nobody Makes the
First Move” (California English, 2005), and in part described how the workshops came to
be. When we first discussed the workshop design and how they would be implemented,
we spent a great deal of time brainstorming together before we finalized the concept. It
helped that we were able to collaborate, support one another, and use our experience and
expertise to develop the project. We were not sure how things would go, nor were we

175

sure if students and parents would be interested in attending the workshops. In short, we
were unsure of many things. But we did not allow uncertainty to hold us back. We knew
we wanted to find a way to engage parents in their children’s education, specifically in
the area of writing. Thus, we spurred forward.
In the past few years, the co-founder and I have seen that parents very much want
to support their children, to become involved in their education, and to help them
succeed. But they often do not know how. It is our responsibility as educators to use as
many resources as we can to support the academic achievement of our students. As
research indicates (Fan, 2001; Hong and Ho, 2005), there is a positive correlation
between parental engagement and academic performance. Given this information, it
behooves teachers to make the first move by reaching out to parents and showing them
how they can work with their children at home and support them in their academic
growth. According to Scribner, Young, and Pedroza (1999), who examined practices of
high performing schools in Texas, some staff thought of parent involvement as “as a
parent responsibility to be initiated by parents, rather than as a collaborative
responsibility of the entire school community” (p. 38). However, Samaras (1998) points
out that “many families need assistance in knowing how they can take part in their child’s
learning” (p. 4). Reaching out is a collective responsibility and should occur regardless
of the grade level at which a teacher provides instruction. Stevenson and Baker (1987)
state that parental involvement tends to be higher with younger students. But this does
not have to be the case. As long as parents are provided with proper tools, they can be an
important part of their children’s academic lives at any age or level.

176

Recommendation #2: Collaborate with Colleagues.
Since the inception of the workshops, they have changed in various ways. One
factor, however, has remained consistent, and that is that the co-founder and I have
continued to collaborate. This unity has enabled us to support one another, continue to
rely on one another’s expertise to develop and strengthen the workshop design, reach out
to parents for several years, and positively impact participants in multiple ways. Our
collaborative efforts have enabled us to spread the project to over ten schools. In fact, we
are planning to write a book in the next year or so to further expand our efforts. But we
never expected it to go this far.
According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), “teachers, especially beginning
teachers, work largely isolated from others” (p. 51). But teaching should not be an
isolated profession. Instead, colleagues can reach out to one another and find ways to
work together, whether it be to develop a program or build on successful teaching
practices. The overarching, common goal to support students in their learning is enough
to start with. Had the co-founder and I not shared the common desire to engage parents
in their children’s writing and to encourage the telling and writing of family stories in a
secure, supportive environment, we never would have implemented the family writing
workshops. Collaborating with colleagues is essential to effective teaching and is
highlighted by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS, 2008)
as a method of improving student learning under the fifth core proposition on teachers as
members of learning communities. Collaboration is an excellent way for a teacher to

177

develop and implement family writing workshops or any other program or project to
facilitate parental engagement and student success.
Recommendation #3: Identify a Passion and Engage Parents.
Again, neither an academic nor a formal statement. But the simplest of
statements are often the strongest. The message is: Teachers should reflect on their skills,
their strengths, and on what they love to teach. They should identify that which they are
most passionate about teaching, and use that as a starting point to build their craft. If it
happens to be in the area of writing, they should attend conferences, read journals and
articles, or become a fellow at a local university’s Writing Project. Whatever their
strength and interest, it should be developed as much as possible.
Then teachers should move forward and perhaps find a colleague who shares that
interest and brainstorm ways to engage parents. As noted in the previous
recommendation, the NBPTS (2008) calls on teachers to be members of learning
communities. Additionally, the standards state that teachers should “know how to work
collaboratively with parents to engage them productively in the work of the school”
(Proposition 5). In developing ways to engage parents, it is important to remember that
ideas should be simple as overcomplicating things may lead to the overwhelming of
participants. Passion will be both evident and contagious. Teachers should also keep in
mind that an initial plan may not be successful, and should always be willing to reflect on
practice. As Bandura (1989) states, “People gain understanding through reflection” (p.
58). The act of reflecting will facilitate constructive change so that efforts have a positive
impact on students, parents, families, and on teachers.

178

Recommendations for Parents
Recommendation #1: Don’t be afraid to make the first move.
As stated in the first teacher recommendation, parent engagement falls on
everyone’s shoulders. It is a collective responsibility. If we are to see our students
succeed, we must unite in our efforts. Parents should not wait for their children’s
teachers to initiate contact; instead, parents should reach out to teachers. As Barge and
Loges (2003) found in interviewing teachers, “What is interesting about the teacher
perceptions of good communication is that they emphasize the importance of parents
taking an active role in contacting the teachers, and not the teachers actively contacting
parents” (p. 156). Thus, waiting will accomplish nothing, but taking a proactive
approach will. When contact is made, parents should ask more than, “How is my child
behaving?” According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), this question stems from the
cultural model of the view of good behavior as a foundation for doing well in school. But
parents should extend this cultural model to include literacy development. They should
ask how they can support their child at home. They should ask about their child’s
academic performance.
Parents should also encourage the school to hold events for parents. If parents
have a particular subject of interest, such as literacy, they should ask the school to offer
monthly literacy nights. Parents might be surprised at what can happen by asking. Also,
they can become engaged in different ways, whether it be to assist a child with
homework, visiting a child’s classroom and offering to read with students, or helping
plan events. There are so many things that can be done. The first step is the hardest.

179

Once that first step has been taken, parents will see many benefits result from their
efforts.
Recommendation #2: Parent Child Communication
As stated in chapter 4, student and parent perception questionnaires indicated that
one of the results of the family writing workshops was a better relationship and bonding
between child and parent. The workshops provided a venue for participants to
communicate in a way they may have not done before. They were able to step away from
the normal demands of their lives and talk to one another. This may have in part
positively impacted students’ attitudes toward writing. The implication for parents is that
communicating with their child in a constructive manner can only yield benefits. Parents
can ask them about school and about their learning. They can let their children teach
them about their academic lives. If children see that their parents are interested in their
learning, it will become more important to them. Barge and Loges (2003) highlight this
concept in the area of literacy: “When parents set an example by reading to their child,
they reinforce the teacher’s message that reading is a valued activity” (p. 153). Parental
support will encourage children to value their education and will strengthen the parent-
child relationship.
Conclusion
This dissertation has shed light on the lack of research available on the effects of
parental involvement on students’ writing achievement. Also lacking is research on
students’ writing attitudes. I addressed this gap by offering a series of after school family
writing workshops to fourth through eighth grade students and their families at four

180

schools. I then explored how parental involvement in these sessions and at home
impacted students in the areas of writing achievement and attitudes. Quantitative data
revealed many positive trends, but few were statistically significant.
A higher number of participants and a longer series may have lead to more
significant results, which may have required a change in ideologies among parents. As
Shirley (1997) states, some “…do not believe that it is their responsibility to attend to
their child’s academic success; they have delegated that task to the school to accomplish
on its own (p. 231). Additionally, other barriers may have impeded their participation.
However, according to Inger (1992), “There is considerable evidence that parental
involvement leads to improved student achievement, better school attendance, and
reduced dropout rates, and that these improvements occur regardless of the economic,
racial, or cultural background of the family” (p. 1). As such, greater efforts should be
made, by parents, by teachers, by all involved, to facilitate the implementation of parental
involvement programs that will foster students’ academic growth and cause them to
experience numerous other positive effects that may affect them for the rest of their lives.

181

REFERENCES

Akimoff, K. G. (1996). Parental involvement: An essential ingredient for a successful
school. ERIC Digest, ED 400930.

Baker, L. (2003). The role of parents in motivating struggling readers. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 19, pp. 87-106.

Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child
development. Vol. 6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.

Barge, J. K., & Loges, W. E. (2003). Parent, Student, and Teacher Perceptions of Parental
Involvement. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31(2), 140.

Bevans, B., Furnish, B., Ramsey, A., and Talsma, S. (2001). Effective strategies for
home-school partnerships in reading. M.A. Research Project, Saint Xavier
University and SkyLight Professional Development Field-Based Masters
Program.

California Department of Education, CELDT. Retrieved June 19, 2008, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr07/yr07rel77.asp.

Clark, A. W., & McDonnell, K. L. (2001). Increasing independent reading practice
through family involvement and motivational strategies. Master of Arts Action
Research Project, Saint Xavier University and SkyLight Professional
Development Field-Based Masters Program.

Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (Eds.). (1978). Mind in
Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological
approach. Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 271-277.

Cook-Cottone, C. (2004). Constructivism in family literacy practices: Parents as
mentors. Reading Improvement, Wint., 4(4), 208-216.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. (2
nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

182

Davis, J.D. & Pokorny, N. (2004, January). High-achieving middle schools for Latino
students in poverty. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 9(1), 23-45.

DeBruyn, R. (2001). The Master Teacher. Six secrets for making better decisions.
(Volume 32).

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991) Involving Parents in the Schools: A Process of Empowerment.
American Journal of Education, 100(1), 20-46.

Donovan, M. E. (1998). Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of writing in technology
and nontechnology elementary classrooms. Seattle Pacific University.

Duignan, S., Klioris, A., Porter, J., Rockett, N., & Vogwill, K. (2002). Increasing
academic growth through motivating students to read. 56 pp. Illinois. Master of
Arts Action Research Project, Saint Xavier Univeristy and SkyLight Professional
Development Field-Based Master’s Program.

Edwards, S. L. (1996). The effects of parental involvement on academic
achievement in elementary urban schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 398331).

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (2002). Myths versus realities. Answers to
common questions about the new No Child Left Behind Act. The Education
Trust. Retrieved on June 24, 2008, from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/
D90C064A-C788-466C-992F-DD588C073B25/0/ESEAMyths.pdf.

Enz, B., & Searfoss, L. (1996). Expanding our views of family literacy. The Reading
Teacher, 49, 576-579.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C. , Jandsorn, N. R., & Voorhis,
F. L. (2002). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for
Action. (2
nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Evans, M. A., Shaw, D., & Bell, M. (2000). Home literacy activities and their
influence on early literacy skills. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,
54(2), 65-75.

Fan, X. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ Academic Achievement: A
Growth Modeling Analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(1) 27-62.

Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of
family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies
for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review 33(4), 467-480.

183

Gadsen, V. (1994). Understanding family literacy: Conceptual issues facing the field.
Teachers College Record, 96, 58-86.

Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing Cultural Models and Settings to
Connect Minority Achievement and School Improvement Research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.

Gilliam, B., Gerla, J. P., & Wright, G. (2004). Providing minority parents with relevant
literacy activities for their children. Reading Improvement, Winter, 41(4), pp.
226-234.

Griffith, J. (1996). Relation of parental involvement and empowerment, and school
traits to student academic performance. Journal of Educational Research, 90(1),
33.

Hammill, D. D. & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of Written Language. (3
rd
Ed.). Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed, Inc.

Hannon, P. & James, S. (1990). Parents’ and teachers’ perspectives on pre-school
literacy development. British Educational Research Journal, 16(3).

Hendrix, S. (1999). Family literacy education- Panacea or false promise? Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Sec 1999/Jan 2000, 43(4), 338-346.

Hewison, J. & Tizard, J. (1980). Parental involvement and reading attainment.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 209-215.

Hughes, P. & MacNaughton, G. (2000) Building equitable staff-parent communication
in early childhood settings: An Australian case study. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference and Exhibition of the Association for Childhood Education
International (Baltimore, MD, April 17-20, 2000), 15 pp.

Johnson, C. D. (1999). The Exit Skills Summer Academies: staff and parents’
perceptions. Detroit Public Schools, MI. Office of Research, Evaluation, and
Assessment, 27 pp., ED 429139.

Keith, T. Z. & Keith, P. B. (1993). Does parental involvement affect eighth-
grade students’ achievement? Structural analysis of national data. School
Psychology Review, 22 (3), 474-495.

Knudson, R. E. (1991). Knudson Writing Attitude Survey for Children, Grades 4 to 8.
Psychological Reports, 68, 807-816.

184

Kuhn, K. (2000). Problems and benefits of requirements gathering with focus groups: a
case study. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12 (3 & 4),
309-325. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Learning Point Associates. (2005). Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.
learningpt.org/page.php?pageID=243.

Leslie L. & Allen L. (1999). Factors that predict success in an early literacy intervention
project. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 404-424.

Levine, L. A. (2002). Teacher’s perceptions of parental involvement: How it effects our
children’s development in literacy. ERIC Digest, ED 465438.

Lonigan, C. J. & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher
involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-
income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 (2), 263-290.

Martini, M. (1995). Features of home environments associated with children’s school
success. Early Child Development and Care, 111, 49-68.

McDermott, P. A. Green, L. F., Francis, J. M., & Stott, D. H. (1996). Learning Behaviors
Scale. Philadelphia, PA: Edumetric and Clinical Science.

McMillan, J. H. (2000). Educational Research- Fundamentals for the Consumer (3
rd
ed.).
New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Morrow, L. M. & Young, J. (1997). A family literacy program connecting school and
home: Effects on attitude, motivation, and literacy achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89(4).

Murray, D. M. (2004). The Craft of Revision. Massachusetts: Wadsworth of the Thomson
Corporation.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2008). Retrieved on July 1, 2008
from http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards/the_five_core_proposition.

National Governor’s Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices. (2006). Closing the
Achievement Gap. Retrieved August 13, 2006, from http://www.nga.org/portal/
site/nga/menuitem.50aeae5ff70b817ae8ebb856a11010a0/.

National Science Teachers Association. (1997). PTA issues national standard for
parental involvement. NSTA Reports, 8(5), 13.

185

Patrikakou, E. & Weissberg, R. P. (1998). Parents’ perceptions of teacher outreach and
parent involvement in children’s education. Publication series No. 14. ERIC
Digest, ED 439800.

Pearson Education. (2006). TOWL-3. Retrieved on August 12, 2006, from
http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/group.asp?nGroupInfoID=a19045.

Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effects
on academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(3), 441-462.

Rockman et al. (2002). What Writers Do: Buddy STAR Writers & STAR Universal
Writers Year 1 Report. Retrieved on October 2, 2006, from http://www.rockman.
com/publications/presentations/what_writers_do.pdf.

Samaras, A. P., & Wilson, J. C. (1998, April). Am I Invited? Perspectives of Family
Involvement with Technology in Inner City Schools. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego,
CA.

Senechal, M. and LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of
children’s reading skill: a five-year longitudinal study. Child Development,
73(2), 445-461.

Senechal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E. M., and Daley, K. E. (1998). Differential effects
of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language.
Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 96-116.

Shirley, D. (1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. Austin:
University of Texas.

Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. M. (1999). Empowering families in hands-
on science programs. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Paper
presented at the International Conference of the Association for Educating
Teachers in Science (Austin, TX, January 14-17, 1999). 23 pp.

6 + 1 Trait® Writing Assessment Scoring Guide. (2007). Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory. Retrieved on February 11, 2007 from www.nwrel.
org/assessment/pdfRubrics/6plus1traits.PDF.

Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I.F., & Hemphill, L. (1991).
Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

186

Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family school relation and the child’s
school performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.

Tinkler, B. (2002). A Review of Literature on Hispanic/Latino Parent Involvement in
K-12 Educaiton. University of Denver. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED469134).

Tompkins, G.E. (2000). Teaching Writing: Balancing Process and Product. (3
rd
Ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Institute of Education Sciences. National Center
for Education Statistics. The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007, National
Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 8 and 12. NCES 2008-468.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Institute of Education Sciences. National Center
for Education Statistics. The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007, National
Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8. NCES 2007-496.

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D.S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fishcel, J. E.
(1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children
from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30, 542-555.

Wigfield, A, & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensions of children’s motivations for reading:
An initial study. Reading Research report no. 34. University of Maryland College
Park: National Reading Research Center.

187

APPENDIX A- The Writing Process

The Writing Process

Prewriting Brainstorm for ideas and plan
your writing.

Drafting Write a rough draft.

Revising Change and improve your content.
Add details. Have a partner
help.

Editing Proofread and correct mistakes
on spelling, capitals, and
punctuation. Have a partner
help.

Publishing Write a final draft. Share it in
some way. Celebrate!

188

APPENDIX B- Letter to Principal

October 11, 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I greatly appreciate your support and enthusiasm for the Family Writing Workshop project that
Mr. Leopold will be implementing at your school. Over the next few weeks, Mr. Leopold will be
facilitating four after school family writing workshops with 4
th
and 5
th
grade students and their
families. These workshops will engage families in meaningful literacy activities, expose them to
the writing process, allow them to share a sense of community with other families, and give them
a chance to have fun and be creative. These workshops will be part of a study I am conducting as
part of my doctoral work at the University of Southern California. The purpose of the study is to
investigate the effect of family writing workshops on students’ writing achievement and attitudes.

I have developed these workshops in collaboration with the Los Angeles Writing Project at Cal
State LA, which is part of the National Writing Project, a 30-year old endeavor to broaden the
field of the teaching of writing. With the motto of “teachers teaching teachers,” collaborative
institutes and workshops have helped thousands of teachers to engender enthusiasm and creativity
in their students through well-rounded, thoughtful writing instruction. In family writing
workshops, that enthusiasm is brought to students and their families.

Family participation in school activities, and especially in literacy events, is a critical factor in
student achievement. Families who have been a part of family writing workshops over the past
four years report that reading and writing have increased in their lives in a variety of ways.

Again, thank you for your school’s participation in this project and study. I hope that you will be
able to drop in and see the workshops in action. If you have any questions regarding the
workshops or study, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can meet with you in person or speak
with you on the phone.

Sincerely,

Veronica Plascencia
veronica.plascencia@lausd.net
(213) 241-1000

189

APPENDIX C- Observational Sheet #1

FWW Activity #1: Sharing Special Moments (Narrative Writing)

Fidelity
(check
off)
Elements of Workshop Quality (detailed notes to include dialogue, events &
activities, interactions between participants,
reflective notes, & ?s to consider)
MATERIALS
The Writing Process handout
(1 per family)
Beginning, Middle, and End
Sensory Detail Graphic Organizer
(1 per person)
Editing Tools handout (on back of
graphic organizer, 1 per person)
Homework handout
writing paper
8 ½ x 11 plain white paper
pencils and pens

GENERAL PROCEDURES
Distribute the Writing Process handout
to each participant. Briefly provide an
overview of the writing process. As you
begin the writing project, explain each
step in detail and then model while
thinking aloud. Finally, have
participants practice each step after it
has been modeled.

PREWRITING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(3 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout,
briefly explain the first part of the
writing process, prewriting.
• Explain that all family writing
workshops will focus on narrative
writing, or telling stories. For the first
family writing workshop, the topic is:
Sharing Special Moments. Everyone
will write about a special moment
he/she shared with their parent/child
who is at the session and include
sensory details.
• Using an overhead transparency (or
chart paper), make a list of three
memories of special moments you
shared with your parent (or with your
child).
• Talk as you write, briefly describing
each special moment.

190

APPENDIX C, Continued

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(4 minutes total; 2 minutes each):
• Participants each make a list of three
memories of special moments they
shared with one another.
• Participants briefly describe their
experiences in one child/parent pair.

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(5 minutes):
• Referring to your list, choose ONE of
the special moments to write a story
about.
• Tell why you chose the special
moment to write about (perhaps you
remember it as if it happened
yesterday and can recall many
details, or perhaps it was very special
to you).
• Make a web about the special
moment you chose, including
information about the setting,
characters, and plot, explaining that
narrative writing contains these
elements.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(10 minutes):
• Participants refer back their own list
and choose ONE of the special
moments to write a story about.
• Participants tell their partner about
the special moment they chose.
• Participants make a web about the
special moment they chose, including
information about the setting,
characters, and plot.

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(2 minutes):
• Number your ideas in the order in
which they occurred.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(2 minutes):
• Participants number their ideas in the
order in which they occurred.

191

APPENDIX C, Continued

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(4 minutes):
• Transfer your ideas from the web to
the next graphic organizer, bulleting
(not numbering) ideas under
beginning, middle, and end to indicate
major parts of the story.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(4 minutes):
• Participants transfer their ideas from
the web to the next graphic organizer,
bulleting (not numbering) ideas under
beginning, middle, and end.

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(2 minutes):
• Add sensory details to your story
under beginning, middle, and end.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(3 minutes):
• Participants add sensory details to
their story under beginning, middle,
and end.

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(2 minutes):
• Number your ideas in the order in
which they occurred to prepare for
drafting. Each section (beginning,
middle, and end) should begin with
#1.

Participants do as the teacher did
(3 minutes):
• Participants number their ideas in the
order in which they occurred to
prepare for drafting.

192

APPENDIX C, Continued

DRAFTING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(5 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout,
briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, drafting.
• Using the beginning, middle, and end
graphic organizer, DRAFT a narrative
about the same special moment.
• Begin to write the ideas in the order in
which they are numbered.
• Encourage an ending to the narrative
that will answer “So What?” – what
was the outcome, result, or bond that
resulted from this special moment.
• Skip lines as you write and explain
that this will make it easier to revise
later.
• Be sure to include errors in
conventions that you can go back to
and edit later.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(about 15 minutes):
• Using the beginning, middle, and end
graphic organizer, participants DRAFT
a narrative about the same special
moment.
• Participants write the ideas in the
order in which they are numbered.
• They should include an ending to the
narrative that will answer “So What?”
– what was the outcome, result, or
bond that resulted from this special
moment.
• Participants skip lines as they write.

193

APPENDIX C, Continued

REVISING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models (4 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout,
briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, revising.
• Read your entire draft to the group.
• Go back to the beginning and have
participants ask questions or provide
you with verbal suggestions on how
you can add clarifying information
and more sensory details.
• Revise your draft by inserting or
deleting items as they provide you
with feedback. Use only the “insert”
or “delete” tool.
• Content and ideas should be the
focus, not conventions.
• Ask them to provide you with at least
one positive statement.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(about 20 minutes total; 5 minutes
each):
• Participants form groups of four (two
child-parent pairs).
• Each group must assign a
timekeeper to ensure that each
author has a 5 minute turn.
• One author reads his/her entire draft
to his/her small group.
• The same author then goes back to
the beginning and others then ask
questions or provide verbal
suggestions on how the author can
add clarifying information and more
sensory details.
• The author revises his/her draft by
inserting or deleting items as others
provide feedback.
• Content and ideas should be the
focus, not conventions.
• At least one positive statement
should be included in the feedback.
• Each author follows the same
procedure.

START TIME: __________
Participants share their work
(10 minutes):
• Invite a few participants to read their
work to the whole group.
• Everyone should clap afterwards.
• Make a positive comment for each
piece.

194

APPENDIX C, Continued

EDITING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using the The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the next part
of the writing process, editing.
• Explain that a list of editing tools can
be used to help with this step.
• Walk them through the Editing Tools
handout.
• Go back to the beginning and have
participants provide you with
suggestions on how to edit your
writing, focusing on spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, etc.
• Using editing tools, edit your writing
as they provide you with feedback.

PUBLISHING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process handout,
briefly explain the next part of the
writing process, publishing.
• Begin to write your final draft,
incorporating all revisions and edits.
• Distribute the Homework handout
and explain that they all have a
homework assignment, to take their
writing home and continue to revise
and edit together, then publish.
Walk them through the handout.
Explain that the published piece and
a drawing to go with it are due at the
next family writing workshop.
Distribute lined paper and blank
paper for the final draft and
illustration.
• Explain that all writing will be
compiled into an anthology. Only
families who attend all 4 sessions
will receive a free copy at the last
family writing workshop, as well as a
certificate. At this last session,
people will read their final work to
the whole group and celebrate.
Note: a copy of the anthology will be
available to read in the school library
for those who do not attend all 4
sessions.

As participants left:

195

APPENDIX D- Observational Sheet #2

FWW Activity #2: A Childhood Memory from My Neighborhood (Narrative Writing)

Fidelity
(check
off)
Elements of Workshop Quality (detailed notes to include dialogue, events &
activities, interactions between participants,
reflective notes, & ?s to consider)
MATERIALS
The Writing Process handout
(1 per family)
Beginning, Middle, and End
Dialogue Graphic Organizer
(1 per person)
Editing Tools handout
(1 per person)
Homework handout
writing paper
8 ½ x 11 plain white paper
pencils and pens

GENERAL PROCEDURES
Distribute the Writing Process handout
to each participant. Briefly provide an
overview of the writing process. As you
begin the writing project, explain each
step in detail and then model while
thinking aloud. Finally, have
participants practice each step after it
has been modeled.

PREWRITING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(3 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the first
part of the writing process,
prewriting.
• Explain that all family writing
workshops will focus on narrative
writing, or telling stories. For the
second family writing workshop,
the topic is: A Childhood Memory
from My Neighborhood.
Everyone will write about a
memory (s)he has from his/her
childhood neighborhood and
include dialogue.
• Using an overhead transparency
(or chart paper), sketch a map of
the neighborhood you grew up in
as a child and make a list of three
memories you have from that
neighborhood.
• Talk as you write, briefly

196

APPENDIX D, Continued

Participants do as the teacher did
(4 minutes):
• Participants each sketch a map of
the neighborhood they grew up in
as a child and make a list of three
memories they have from that
neighborhood.
• Participants briefly describe their
experiences in one child/parent
pair.

Teacher models while thinking aloud
(5 minutes):
• Referring to your list, choose
ONE of the childhood memories
to write a story about.
• Tell why you chose the childhood
memory to write about (perhaps
you remember it as if it happened
yesterday and can recall many
details, or perhaps it was very
special to you in some way).
• Make a web about the childhood
memory you chose, including
information about the setting,
characters, and plot, explaining
that narrative writing contains
these elements.
•

Participants do as the teacher did
(10 minutes):
• Participants refer back their own
list and choose ONE of the
childhood memories to write a
story about.
• Participants tell their partner
about the childhood memory they
chose.
• Participants make a web about
the special moment they chose,
including information about the
setting, characters, and plot.

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(2 minutes):
• Number your ideas in the order in
which they occurred.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(2 minutes):
• Participants number their ideas in
the order in which they occurred.

197

APPENDIX D, Continued

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(4 minutes):
• Transfer your ideas from the web
to the next graphic organizer,
bulleting (not numbering) ideas
under beginning, middle, and end
to indicate major parts of the
story.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(4 minutes):
• Participants transfer their ideas
from the web to the next graphic
organizer, bulleting (not
numbering) ideas under
beginning, middle, and end.

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(2 minutes):
• Explain that another element you
will be adding to your story is
dialogue. Provide a 1-page
handout that shows two things:
(1) How to use quotations in
dialogue (include several
different examples) and
(2) Different ways of saying said.
Think aloud of things you
remember saying during that
childhood experience or things
you remember other people said.
Add dialogue to your story under
beginning, middle, and end.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did (3
minutes):
• Using the handout and your
example, participants add
dialogue to their story under
beginning, middle, and end

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(2 minutes):
• Number your ideas in the order
in which they occurred
(including dialogue) to prepare
for drafting. Each section
(beginning, middle, and end)
should begin with #1.

198

APPENDIX D, Continued

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(3 minutes):
• Participants number their ideas in
the order in which they occurred
to prepare for drafting.

DRAFTING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(5 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the next
part of the writing process,
drafting.
• Using the beginning, middle, and
end graphic organizer, DRAFT a
narrative about the same
childhood memory.
• Begin to write the ideas in the
order in which they are
numbered.
• Encourage an ending to the
narrative that will answer “So
What?” – what was the outcome
or result from this childhood
memory.
• Skip lines as you write and
explain that this will make it
easier to revise later.
• Be sure to include errors in
conventions that you can go back
to and edit later.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(about 15 minutes):
• Using the beginning, middle, and
end graphic organizer,
participants DRAFT a narrative
about the same childhood
memory.
• Participants write the ideas in the
order in which they are
numbered.
• They should include an ending to
the narrative that will answer “So
What?” – what was the outcome
or result from this childhood
memory.
• Participants skip lines as they
write.

199

APPENDIX D, Continued

REVISING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models (4 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the next
part of the writing process,
revising.
• Read your entire draft to the
group.
• Go back to the beginning and
have participants ask questions
or provide you with verbal
suggestions on how you can add
clarifying information and more
dialogue.
• Revise your draft by inserting or
deleting items as they provide
you with feedback. Use only the
“insert” or “delete” tool.
• Content and ideas should be the
focus, not conventions.
• Ask them to provide you with at
least one positive statement.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(about 20 minutes total; 5 minutes
each):
• Participants form groups of four
(two child-parent pairs).
• Each group must assign a
timekeeper to ensure that each
author has a 5 minute turn.
• One author reads his/her entire
draft to his/her small group.
• The same author then goes back
to the beginning and others then
ask questions or provide verbal
suggestions on how the author
can add clarifying information
and more dialogue.
• The author revises his/her draft
by inserting or deleting items as
others provide feedback.
• Content and ideas should be the
focus, not conventions.
• At least one positive statement
should be included in the
feedback.
• Each author follows the same
procedure.

200

APPENDIX D, Continued

START TIME: __________
Participants share their work
(10 minutes):
• Invite a few participants to read
their work to the whole group.
• Everyone should clap
afterwards.
• Make a positive comment for
each piece.

EDITING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using the The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the next
part of the writing process,
editing.
• Explain that a list of editing tools
can be used to help with this
step.
• Walk them through the Editing
Tools handout.
• Go back to the beginning and
have participants provide you
with suggestions on how to edit
your writing, focusing on
spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, etc.
• Using editing tools, edit your
writing as they provide you with
feedback.

PUBLISHING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the next
part of the writing process,
publishing.
• Begin to write your final draft,
incorporating all revisions and
edits.
• Distribute the Homework handout
and explain that they all have a
homework assignment, to take
their writing home and continue to
revise and edit together, then
publish. Walk them through the
handout. Explain that the
published piece and a drawing to
go with it are due at the next
family writing workshop.
Distribute lined paper and blank
paper for the final draft and
illustration.

201

APPENDIX D, Continued

• Remind them that all writing will
be compiled into an anthology.
Only families who attend all 4
sessions will receive a free copy
at the last family writing
workshop, as well as a certificate.
At this last session, people will
read their final work to the whole
group and celebrate. Note: a
copy of the anthology will be
available to read in the school
library for those who do not
attend all 4 sessions.

As participants left:

202

APPENDIX E- Observational Sheet #3

FWW Activity #3: My Perfect Day (Narrative Writing)

Fidelity
(check
off)
Elements of Workshop Quality (detailed notes to include dialogue, events &
activities, interactions between participants,
reflective notes, & ?s to consider)
MATERIALS
The Writing Process handout (1
per family)
Beginning, Middle, End and
Setting Graphic Organizer (1
per person)
Editing Tools handout (on back of
above graphic organizer, 1
per person)
Homework handout
writing paper
8 ½ x 11 plain white paper
pencils and pens

GENERAL PROCEDURES
Distribute the Writing Process handout
to each participant. Briefly provide an
overview of the writing process. As you
begin the writing project, explain each
step in detail and then model while
thinking aloud. Finally, have
participants practice each step after it
has been modeled.

PREWRITING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(3 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the first
part of the writing process,
prewriting.
• Explain that all family writing
workshops will focus on
narrative writing, or telling
stories. For the third family
writing workshop, the topic is:
My Perfect Day. Everyone will
write about a perfect day they
would like to spend with their
parent/child present at the
workshop.

203

APPENDIX E, Continued

• Using an overhead transparency
(or chart paper), brainstorm a list
of things that you would do or
places that you would visit with
your parent if you could spend
an entire perfect day with
him/her. It could be things that
you’ve already done with your
parent or new, creative things
you’d like to do. Encourage
creativity.
• Talk as you write, briefly
describing each thing/place.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did (4
minutes total; 2 minutes each):
• Participants each brainstorm a list
of things that they would do or
places that they would visit with
their parent/child if they could
spend an entire perfect day with
him/her.
• Participants briefly describe their
ideas in one child/parent pair.

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(5 minutes):
• Referring to your list, choose
ONE or A FEW items that you
would do with your parent on a
perfect day. This will become
your story for this workshop.
• Tell why you chose those
things/places (perhaps you’ve
been there in the past or maybe
you’ve always wanted to do this
activity).
• Make a web about the
things/places for your perfect day,
including information about the
setting, characters, and plot,
explaining that narrative writing
contains these elements.

204

APPENDIX E, Continued

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(10 minutes):
• Participants refer back their own
list and choose ONE or A FEW
items that they would do with their
parent/child on a perfect day.
This will become their story for
the workshop.
• Participants tell their partner
about their perfect day.
• Participants make a web about
their perfect day, including
information about the setting,
characters, and plot.

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(2 minutes):
• Number your ideas in the order in
which they occurred.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(2 minutes):
• Participants number their ideas in
the order in which they occurred.

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(4 minutes):
• Transfer your ideas from the web
to the next graphic organizer,
bulleting (not numbering) ideas
under beginning, middle, and end
to indicate major parts of the
story.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(4 minutes):
• Participants transfer their ideas
from the web to the next graphic
organizer, bulleting (not
numbering) ideas under
beginning, middle, and end.

205

APPENDIX E, Continued

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(2 minutes):
• Explain that another element you
will be adding to your story is
setting description. Explain that
setting can be a location, the
weather, or the time of day, even
minutes or hours. Think aloud of
items you can add for setting
description. Add ideas to your
story under beginning, middle,
and end. Remind them that
since this story hasn’t happened,
they can get as creative as they’d
like.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did (3
minutes):
• Using the handout and your
example, participants add setting
description to their story under
beginning, middle, and end.

START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(2 minutes):
• Number your ideas in the order
in which you would like for them
to occur (including setting) to
prepare for drafting. Each
section (beginning, middle, and
end) should begin with #1.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(3 minutes):
• Participants number their ideas in
the order in which they occurred
to prepare for drafting.

DRAFTING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models while thinking aloud
(5 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the next
part of the writing process,
drafting.
• Using the beginning, middle,
and end graphic organizer,
DRAFT a narrative about the
same perfect day.

206

APPENDIX E, Continued

• Begin to write the ideas in the
order in which they are
numbered.
• Encourage an ending to the
narrative that will answer “So
What?” – what will be the
outcome or result from this
perfect day.
• Skip lines as you write and
explain that this will make it
easier to revise later.
• Be sure to include errors in
conventions that you can go
back to and edit later.

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(about 15 minutes):
• Using the beginning, middle, and
end graphic organizer,
participants DRAFT a narrative
about the same perfect day.
• Participants write the ideas in
the order in which they are
numbered.
• They should include an ending
to the narrative that will answer
“So What?” – what will be the
outcome or result from this
perfect day.
• Participants skip lines as they
write.

REVISING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models (4 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the next
part of the writing process,
revising.
• Read your entire draft to the
group.
• Go back to the beginning and
have participants ask questions
or provide you with verbal
suggestions on how you can add
clarifying information and more
setting description.
• Revise your draft by inserting or
deleting items as they provide
you with feedback. Use only the
“insert” or “delete” tool.
• Content and ideas should be the
focus, not conventions.
• Ask them to provide you with at
least one positive statement.

207

APPENDIX E, Continued

START TIME: __________
Participants do as the teacher did
(about 20 minutes total; 5 minutes
each):
• Participants form groups of four
(two child-parent pairs).
• Each group must assign a
timekeeper to ensure that each
author has a 5 minute turn.
• One author reads his/her entire
draft to his/her small group.
• The same author then goes back
to the beginning and others then
ask questions or provide verbal
suggestions on how the author
can add clarifying information and
more setting description.
• The author revises his/her draft
by inserting or deleting items as
others provide feedback.
• Content and ideas should be the
focus, not conventions.
• At least one positive statement
should be included in the
feedback.
• Each author follows the same
procedure.

START TIME: __________
Participants share their work
(10 minutes):
• Invite a few participants to read
their work to the whole group.
• Everyone should clap
afterwards.
• Make a positive comment for
each piece.

EDITING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using the The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the next
part of the writing process,
editing.
• Explain that a list of editing tools
can be used to help with this
step.
• Walk them through the Editing
Tools handout.
• Go back to the beginning and
have participants provide you
with suggestions on how to edit
your writing, focusing on
spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, etc.

208

APPENDIX E, Continued

• Using editing tools, edit your
writing as they provide you with
feedback.

PUBLISHING
START TIME: __________
Teacher models (10 minutes):
• Using The Writing Process
handout, briefly explain the next
part of the writing process,
publishing.
• Begin to write your final draft,
incorporating all revisions and
edits.
• Distribute the Homework handout
and explain that they all have a
homework assignment, to take
their writing home and continue to
revise and edit together, then
publish. Walk them through the
handout. Explain that the
published piece and a drawing to
go with it are due at the next
family writing workshop.
Distribute lined paper and blank
paper for the final draft and
illustration.
• Remind them that all writing will
be compiled into an anthology.
Only families who attend all 4
sessions will receive a free copy
at the last family writing
workshop, as well as a certificate.
At this last session, people will
read their final work to the whole
group and celebrate. Note: a
copy of the anthology will be
available to read in the school
library for those who do not
attend all 4 sessions.

As participants left:

209

APPENDIX F- Perception Questionnaire, Students

STUDENT FAMILY WRITING WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE

Please read each question below carefully and answer the questions in detail. Your
input is very valuable. Your thoughts and answers will help us as we plan for future
family workshops that may be offered.

1. Four family writing workshops have been offered for this series. How many have
you attended? ______

2. Which of the three sessions have you enjoyed the most (or enjoyed the least)?
Why?

3. Were the writing topics interesting to you? Why or why not?

4. Place rank each writing topic below from 1 to 3 in order of interest (for example,
if it was the most interesting to write about, place a 1 on the line).

____ Session 1: Sharing Special Moments
____ Session 2: A Childhood Memory from My Neighborhood
____ Session 3: My Perfect Day

5. Why was your #1 choice above the most interesting topic to write about?

6. What other topics would you like to write about during a family writing
workshop?

7. Before attending these family writing workshops, did you write with your
parent(s) at home? Why or why not?

8. Since you began attending family writing workshops, have you written with your
parent(s) at home? Why or why not?

210

APPENDIX F, Continued

9. Have you noticed a change in your writing since your participation in the family
writing workshops? What changes have you noticed? Give specific examples.

10. Have you noticed that you have become a better or a different writer? How so?
Give specific examples.

11. Do you like to write more than you did before the family writing workshops?
Explain.

12. Are you more enthusiastic about completing writing assignments that are assigned
at school? Explain.

13. What other changes have you noticed, in you or your parent(s), as a result of the
family writing workshops?

14. What do you think the benefits are to attending and participating in family writing
workshops?

15. What suggestions, if any, would you offer to improve the family writing
workshops?

16. If someone were to approach you and ask you what you thought about the family
writing workshops, what would you say?

Name_______________________________ (optional)

Thank you!

211

Appendix G- Perception Questionnaire, Parents

PARENT FAMILY WRITING WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE

Please read each question below carefully and answer the questions in detail. Your
input is very valuable. Your thoughts and answers will help us as we plan for future
family workshops that may be offered.

1. Four family writing workshops have been offered for this series. How many have
you attended? ______

2. Which of the three sessions have you enjoyed the most (or enjoyed the least)?
Why?

3. Were the writing topics interesting to you? Why or why not?

4. Place rank each writing topic below from 1 to 3 in order of interest (for example,
if it was the most interesting to write about, place a 1 on the line).

____ Session 1: Sharing Special Moments
____ Session 2: A Childhood Memory from My Neighborhood
____ Session 3: My Perfect Day

5. Why was your #1 choice above the most interesting topic to write about?

6. What other topics would you like to write about during a family writing
workshop?

7. Before attending these family writing workshops, did you write with your
child(ren) at home? Why or why not?

8. Since you began attending family writing workshops, have you written with your
child(ren) at home? Why or why not?

212

APPENDIX G, Continued

9. Have you noticed a change in your child’s writing since his/her participation in
the family writing workshops? What changes have you noticed? Give specific
examples.

10. Have you noticed that your child has become a better or a different writer? How
so? Give specific examples.

11. Does your child like to write more than he/she did before the workshops?
Explain.

12. Is your child more enthusiastic about completing writing assignments that are
assigned at school? Explain.

13. What other changes have you noticed, in your child or in you, as a result of the
family writing workshops?

14. What do you think the benefits are to attending and participating in family writing
workshops?

15. What suggestions, if any, would you offer to improve the family writing
workshops?

16. If someone were to approach you and ask you what you thought about the family
writing workshops, what would you say?

Name_______________________________ (optional)

Thank you!

213

Appendix H- Perception Questionnaire, Teachers

TEACHER FAMILY WRITING WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE

Please read each question below carefully and answer the questions in detail. Your
input is very valuable and will be considered for future family workshops that may be
offered.

1. Have you noticed a change in students’ writing since their participation in the
family writing workshops? What changes have you noticed?

2. Do you think students like to write more than they did before the family writing
workshops? Explain.

3. What other changes have you noticed as a result of the family writing
workshops…

a. in students?

b. in parents?

c. in families in general?

d. in yourself?

4. What do you think the benefits are to participating in family writing workshops?

5. What suggestions, if any, would you offer to improve the family writing
workshops?

6. If someone were to approach you and ask you what you thought about the family
writing workshops, what would you say?

Thank you!

214

Appendix I- Recruitment Flyer #1

Parents and 4
th
through 8
th
grade students:
You are cordially invited to a series of
FAMILY WRITING WORKSHOPS!

This is a great way for students and parents to…

• learn about the writing process
• spend quality time together
• have fun and be creative
• publish writing in an anthology
• develop a joy for writing by sharing personal stories
• share a sense of community with others

Also, students learn different writing strategies and
parents learn how to become involved in their child’s education!

This will be a part of an important and valuable study conducted by a USC
student. The purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of family writing
workshops on students’ writing achievement and attitudes. Workshops will be
facilitated by Mrs. Copa.

Dates: 4 workshops after school in October or November
Place: Room 9
Time: Each workshop will last 2 hours
Refreshments and snacks will be provided.

Students, please RSVP, as space is limited. Cut below and return to Mrs.
Copa in room 9 by Thursday, September 20th.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

______ Yes, we are interested! Please send us more information!

Dates are tentative. You will receive more information once dates are finalized.

Name of student: ____________________ Teacher: ________________________

Name of parent: ___________________________ Grade:______ Room:______

215

Appendix J- Recruitment Flyer #2

Parents and 4
th
through 8
th
grade students:
Thank you for your interest in
FAMILY WRITING WORKSHOPS!

This is a great way for students and parents to…

• learn about the writing process
• spend quality time together
• have fun and be creative
• publish writing in an anthology
• develop a joy for writing by sharing personal stories
• share a sense of community with others

Also, students learn different writing strategies and
parents learn how to become involved in their child’s education!

These workshops will be a part of an important and valuable study conducted by
a USC student. The purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of family
writing workshops on students’ writing achievement and attitudes. The attached
forms provide further details. If you choose to participate in the study, you and
your child will be randomly placed in Group A or Group B. You will then be
invited to attend four Family Writing Workshops. These workshops will be held
during the months of October or November after school.

You will receive information on the group you are placed in,
as well as dates and times for your four Family Writing Workshops
by the end of the week.

All workshops will be facilitated by Mrs. Copa in room 9.
Refreshments and snacks will be provided.

If you would like to participate in this great opportunity,
please sign and return the attached forms and return to
Mrs. Copa in Room 9 by ____________________.

216

Appendix K- Student Assent Form

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

ASSENT FORM FOR RESEARCH

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

The Effects of a Series of Family Writing Workshops on Students’
Writing Achievement and Attitudes toward Writing

1. My name is Veronica Plascencia.

2. I am asking you to take part in a research study because I am trying to learn more
about how parents can help students become better writers and like writing more.

3. If you agree to be in this study, you will participate in after school family writing
workshops that you and your parents will be invited to attend. You will take a writing
assessment and a writing survey before the first workshop and after the last workshop.
Also, I will be observing each workshop and taking notes about what I see.

4. There will be no risks to you if you choose to participate in the study.

5. There may be some benefits to your participation. This may include that your
writing achievement will improve and you will like to write more.

6. Please talk this over with your parents before you decide whether or not to
participate. We will also ask your parents to give their permission for you to take part in
this study. But even if your parents say “yes” you can still decide not to do this.

7. If you don’t want to be in this study, you don’t have to participate. Remember, being
in this study is up to you and no one will be upset if you don’t want to participate or even
if you change your mind later and want to stop.

8. You can ask any questions that you have about the study. If you have a question
later that you didn’t think of now, you can call me at (213) 241-2539 or ask me next
time.

217

Appendix K, Contiued

9. Signing your name at the bottom means that you agree to be in this study. You and
your parents will be given a copy of this form after you have signed it.

_________________________________ ____________________
Name of Subject Date

____________________________________
Subject’s Signature

___________________________________ ____________________
Name of Investigator Date (must be same as Subject’s)

___________________________________
Investigator’s Signature

218

Appendix L- Parent Consent Form

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL PERMISSION

***********************************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

The Effects of a Series of Family Writing Workshops on Students'
Writing Achievement and Attitudes toward Writing

Written/signed Permission for a Minor by a Parent or Legal Guardian

You and your child are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by
Veronica Plascencia, M.A., and Eugenia Mora-Flores, Ed.D, from the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California because your child attends _____
Elementary School. Results of this research study will be included in a dissertation.
You and your child were selected as possible participants in this study because he/she is
in the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth grade and you are his/her parent or legal
guardian. A total of approximately 80 students will be invited from fourth, fifth, sixth,
seventh, and eighth grades to participate along with their parents or legal guardians.
Your participation and your child’s participation are voluntary. You should read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before
deciding whether or not you and your child will participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study focuses on students in four public, urban schools. It is designed to investigate
the effects of a series of family writing workshops on student’s writing achievement and
attitudes toward writing.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate and have your child participate in this study, we would ask
your child to do the following things:

219

Appendix L, Continued

Take a Writing Test
Take a test which assesses your child’s writing performance. Part of this test will be for
your child to write a story for a picture he/she is given. This test will be administered by
a researcher during the regular school day. It will be given in October.

Take a Writing Survey
We would also ask your child to take a nineteen-item survey which assesses his/her
attitudes toward writing. Your child will be asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 if he/she
agrees with statements such as: I think writing is fun. This survey will also be
administered by a researcher during the regular school day. It will be given in October.

Participate in Family Writing Workshops
Lastly, we would ask you and your child to attend a total of four after school family
writing workshops. These workshops will be held every week for two hours and will be
facilitated by a teacher, Mrs. Copa, at your child’s school. During each workshop, Mrs.
Copa will guide you and your child to write on a particular topic by using the writing
process. She will model exactly what to do and you will be able to work with your child
and other students and their parents. This will be a fun and creative time in which you
will be able to see how your child writes at school and learn ways to help your child with
writing at home. We may observe workshops and take notes. Also, we may ask you
what you think of the workshops and ask if you have any suggestions on how to improve
them.

Please note that all students in the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades at your
child’s school are being invited to participate in the study. Students who agree to
participate in the study will be randomly divided into two groups, Group A or Group B.
All students in Group A and Group B will take the writing test and writing survey at the
same time in October. Students in Group A will then be invited to attend four after
school family writing workshops with their parents. These workshops will be offered
weekly and will be observed by a researcher. Afterwards, all students in Groups A and B
will take the post- writing test and writing survey at the same time in November. Results
from students in each group will be compared to determine if the workshops improved
their writing performance and attitudes toward writing. Finally, students in Group B will
then be invited to attend four after school workshops with their parents.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Neither you nor your child will take any risks by participating in this study. You may
feel slight discomfort while the researcher is observing the family writing workshops.
This is the only potential discomfort and it is minimal. The researcher will do her best
not to make you uncomfortable during the observations. The notes she will take will be
strictly for research purposes. There are no other risks that might result from
participating in the research.

220

Appendix L, Continued

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
As a direct result of participating in the research, your child may increase his/her writing
achievement and may experience a positive change in his/her attitudes toward writing.
Additionally, this research may help learn effective ways of involving parents in their
child’s writing and supporting their learning in this area.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Neither you nor your child will be paid for participating in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you
or your child will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or
as required by law.

Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet and
password protected computer. Personal information, research data, and related records
will be coded to prevent access by unauthorized personnel other than the research team.

The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your or your child’s identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to give permission for your child to be in this study. If you
volunteer your child to be in this study, he/she may withdraw at any time without
consequences of any kind. You or your child may also refuse to answer any questions
you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw
you or your child from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so. Your
child’s participation in the study may be terminated if he/she does not complete the
writing tests and writing surveys. Participation may also be terminated if you and your
child do not attend all family writing workshops offered to the group your child is placed
in.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your or
your child’s participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your or
your child’s rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the
Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

221

Appendix L, Continued

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Veronica Plascencia at (213) 241-2539 at 333 S. Beaudry Ave., 25
th
Floor, Los Angeles,
CA 90017 or via e-mail at veronica.plascencia@lausd.net.

SIGNATURE OF PARENT

I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been
given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction,
and I agree to participate in this study and have my child(ren) participate in this study.

Name of Subject (Student)

Name of Parent

Signature of Parent Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject and his/her parent(s), and answered all of
their questions. I believe that the parent(s) understand the information described in this
document and freely consent(s) to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as
subject’s/parent’s)

SIGNATURE OF WITNESS (If an oral translator is used.)

My signature as witness certified that the subject or his/her parent(s) signed this consent
form in my presence as his/her/their voluntary act and deed.

Name of Witness

Signature of Witness Date (must be the same as
subject’s/parent’s)

222

Appendix M- Recruitment Flyer #3

_________________________________________________________ and Parents:
You are invited to a few wonderful sessions of
FAMILY WRITING WORKSHOPS!

This is a great way for students and parents to…

• learn about the writing process
• spend quality time together
• have fun and be creative
• publish writing in an anthology
• develop a joy for writing by sharing personal stories
• share a sense of community with others

Also, students learn different writing strategies and
parents learn how to become involved in their child’s education!

Thank you for agreeing to participate in these workshops, which will be a part of a
study conducted by a USC student. The purpose of the study is to investigate the
effect of family writing workshops on students’ writing achievement and attitudes.
You have been placed in Group A. Students and parents in Group A are invited
to attend four family writing workshops.

Dates: Tuesdays- October 23, 30, and November 6 and 20
Place: Room 9
Time: 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

Dinner will be provided. Workshops will be facilitated by Mrs. Copa.
Attendance at all 4 sessions is required.

Cut below and return to Mrs. Copa in room 9 by Tuesday, October 23rd.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

______ Yes, we will come to all 4 family writing workshops!

Name of student: ____________________ Teacher: _______________________

Name of parent: ______________________ Grade: _______ Room: ______

223

Appendix N- Beginning, Middle, and End Sensory Detail Graphic Organizer

BEGINNING MIDDLE END

______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
What do I see? What do I see? What do I see?
______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

What do I hear? What do I hear? What do I hear?
_____________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

What do I smell? What do I smell? What do I smell?

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

What do I taste? What do I taste? What do I taste?

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

What do I touch? What do I touch? What do I touch?

_____________________ _______________________ ______________________

224

Appendix O- Homework Sheet #1

Family Writing Workshop Activity #1
Sharing Special Moments
Narrative Writing

HOMEWORK HOMEWORK HOMEWORK HOMEWORK

Check off each item as it is completed.

REVISING
_____ I read my entire draft to my parent/child.
_____ My parent/child made suggestions on how to add clarifying
information or sensory details.
_____ I revised my draft by adding or deleting items.
_____ I focused on ideas and content.
_____ My parent/child made at least one positive comment about my
writing.
EDITING
_____ I used the editing tools sheet to edit my work with my parent/child.
_____ I focused on correcting capitals, punctuation, spelling, etc.
PUBLISHING
_____ I wrote a clean and neat final draft and included all revisions and
edits I made with
my parent/child.
_____ I made an illustration to go along with my writing.

FINAL DRAFT AND ILLUSTRATION DUE
AT THE NEXT FAMILY WRITING WORKSHOP IN ONE WEEK

225

Appendix P- Beginning, Middle, and End Dialogue Graphic Organizer

BEGINNING MIDDLE END

______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

Dialogue Dialogue Dialogue
_____________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

_____________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

226

Appendix Q- Homework Sheet #2

Family Writing Workshop Activity #2
A Childhood Memory from My Neighborhood
Narrative Writing

HOMEWORK HOMEWORK HOMEWORK HOMEWORK

Check off each item as it is completed.
REVISING
_____ I read my entire draft to my parent/child.
_____ My parent/child made suggestions on how to add clarifying
information and dialogue.
_____ I revised my draft by adding or deleting items.
_____ I focused on ideas and content.
_____ My parent/child made at least one positive comment about my
writing.

EDITING
_____ I used the editing tools sheet to edit my work with my parent/child.
_____ I focused on correcting capitals, punctuation, spelling, etc.

PUBLISHING
_____ I wrote a clean and neat final draft and included all revisions and edits
I made with
my parent/child.
_____ I made an illustration of my childhood neighborhood to go along with
my writing. I made my drawing dark so images may be photocopied
clearly.

FINAL DRAFT AND ILLUSTRATION DUE
AT THE NEXT FAMILY WRITING WORKSHOP IN ONE WEEK

Reminder: Only 2 sessions left! Please be sure to come to all
sessions for a free copy of an anthology with your
published work and a certificate for your family!

227

Appendix R- Beginning, Middle, and End Dialogue Graphic Organizer

BEGINNING MIDDLE END

______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________
______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

Setting Description Setting Description Setting Description
(location, weather, time) (location, weather, time) (location, weather, time)
_____________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

_____________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

______________________ _______________________ ______________________

228

Appendix S- Homework Sheet #3

Family Writing Workshop Activity #3
My Perfect Day
Narrative Writing

HOMEWORK HOMEWORK HOMEWORK HOMEWORK

Check off each item as it is completed.

REVISING
_____ I read my entire draft to my parent/child.
_____ My parent/child made suggestions on how to add clarifying
information or setting
description.
_____ I revised my draft by adding or deleting items.
_____ I focused on ideas and content.
_____ My parent/child made at least one positive comment about my
writing.

EDITING
_____ I used the editing tools sheet to edit my work with my parent/child.
_____ I focused on correcting capitals, punctuation, spelling, etc.

PUBLISHING
_____ I wrote a clean and neat final draft and included all revisions and edits
I made with my parent/child.
_____ I made an illustration of my perfect day to go along with my writing.

FINAL DRAFT AND ILLUSTRATION DUE
AT THE NEXT FAMILY WRITING WORKSHOP IN ONE WEEK

Reminder: ONE SESSION LEFT!
WE WILL CELEBRATING OUR PUBLISHED
WORK ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7th!
EACH FAMILY WILL RECEIVE A FREE
COPY OF THE ANTHOLOGY AND A
CERTIFICATE!

229

Appendix T

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION

The Los Angeles Writing Project
congratulates

for participating in Family Writing Workshops
and becoming published authors.

_________________________________________________
Veronica Plascencia, Family Writing Workshop Coordinator November 16, 2007

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation focuses on involving parents in improving their children's writing achievement and their attitudes toward writing through a series of family writing workshops in which students and their parents engage in writing projects. Specifically, this dissertation examined three key areas: (1) the effects of family writing workshops on students' writing achievement, (2) the effects of family writing workshops on students' writing attitudes, and (3) the perceptions of students, parents, and teachers of the effects of a series of family writing workshops.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The effects of a multi-linguistic diagnostic spelling intervention on the writing achievement and writing self-perception beliefs of secondary students: phonology, orthography, and morphology

PDF

The path of involvement: educational practices of working class African American parents of college students

PDF

The impact of parental involvement on student achievement

PDF

Exploring the effects of media on the self-concepts and achievement of African American high school students

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

An evaluation of the effective engagement of English-language students’ parents in UTK-8th grade schools

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

Writing across the curriculum: exploring promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

Parental influence on children's education: Japanese-speaking families

PDF

Social reproduction theory and parental involvement in Head Start: investigating the parent's perspective

PDF

Exploring the promise of multicultural literature: a case study exploring the impact of the use of mulitucultural literature on the engagement of students from diverse backgrounds

PDF

A quantitative analysis on student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 6th grade middle school students

PDF

Reading prereferral intervention: developing, implementing and monitoring

PDF

Teachers' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

We can read and write: critical characteristics of highly literate deaf and hard of hearing students and their families

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

Effective reading instruction for English learners

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners