Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Critical features for teaching the five-paragraph essay to middle school Chinese speaking English learners
(USC Thesis Other)
Critical features for teaching the five-paragraph essay to middle school Chinese speaking English learners
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
CRITICAL FEATURES FOR TEACHING THE FIVE-PARAGRAPH
ESSAY TO MIDDLE SCHOOL CHINESE SPEAKING ENGLISH LEARNERS
by
Julie Tzu-Ling Huang
____________________________________________________________
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
August 2007
Copyright 2007 Julie Tzu-Ling Huang
ii
DEDICATION
I would like to thank Auntie Alice, Wang Mama and Ko Mama who
supported, encouraged and prayed for me while I worked on my dissertation.
I would like to thank my parents who have selfishly sacrificed their life in
order to provide for the family. They loved me, supported me, and gave me
intelligence and health to work on this dissertation. Thank you dad, for supporting
and confirming my decision to go on to doctoral study. And thank you mom, for
supporting and equipping me.
Most importantly, I would like to thank Jesus, who is the passion of my life.
All other goals, dreams, and accomplishments do not compare with knowing Him.
He is what I desire above all else. I thank Jesus for orchestrating all the pieces
together and for making the entire process come to pass. You are great Jesus! I give
you all the honor!
You are the one thing I desire. You are my first love, so I hide in Your
shelter. You wake me up; You wake my heart; You wake my soul; You lift me up
and You make me whole. (Ahn, 2007)
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank USC and Dean Gallagher for providing me with the opportunity to
further my education and accepting me into the doctoral program so that my dream
can be realized.
I thank Dr. Ragusa for providing valuable feedback throughout my
dissertation process to strengthen my research.
I thank Dr. Cowan for patiently reading my dissertation and giving me
genuine comments.
I thank Dr. Hocevar for tirelessly providing helpful and focused feedback on
Chapter Three.
Finally, and most of all, I thank Dr. Mora-Flores, my Chair. You are the most
brilliant, talented, creative young scholar I know who patiently and enthusiastically
guided me through the dissertation process.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Writing Instruction 4
The Research Questions 13
Limitations 16
Definition of Terms 17
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 20
The Role of Writing 20
How Is Writing Taught? 21
Process Approach 21
Revision Strategy 22
Writing Workshop 22
A Combination Approach 24
Genres of Writing 24
Writing Instruction: An Overview 27
Instructional Writing Strategies 31
Encouraging the Use of Mastery Orientation in the Writing Process 31
Focus on Three Important Writing Criteria 34
The Effectiveness of Whole Language-Based Writing Instruction 35
Ways to Improve Writing 41
Study Abroad 41
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) 42
L1 Instruction 43
High Levels of Self-Efficacy Determine Writing Success 44
Challenges or Difficulties in Teaching Writing 47
First Challenge: The Teacher Is Not Ready or Equipped 47
The Second Challenge: Correction 48
Third Challenge: Poor Alignment with Student Needs 49
Fourth Challenge: English Language Learners 50
Fifth Challenge: Teaching to the Test or Not? 51
Teachers Topic Selection 52
When Writing Teachers Do Not Prepare Their Students for Their Major
Required Courses 53
Writing Challenges/Writing Difficulties (Students perspectives) 53
Writing Apprehension 53
v
Plagiarism 54
Providing Feedback to Students on Writing 56
Study on Feedback on the Five-Paragraph Essay 60
Conclusion 69
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 71
Research Design 72
Overview of the Setting and Participants 72
Sampling Strategies 72
Overview of the District 73
Overview of the School 75
Overview of School CST Performance 76
Overview of the Classroom 77
Overview of the Teacher 78
Overview of the Students 80
Level 1: The Teacher 80
Level 2: Four 8
th
Grade Student Case Studies 82
Unit of Analysis 87
The Focus of Study: Breadth vs. Depth 90
Validity 90
Triangulation/Data Authenticity 92
Ethical Considerations 93
Conclusion 93
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 94
Demographics 94
Overview of School and Class 94
Student Profiles 96
Critical Features of Writing Instruction to English Learners 100
Organizing Ideas for Writing 100
Cornell Notes 100
Graphic Organizers 102
Outlines 106
Writing Environment 110
Classroom Organization 111
Classroom Management 116
Rubrics 121
Checklists 122
Use of Model Text 124
Cooperative Learning 126
Writers Workshop 128
Peer-Revision Strategy 133
Useful Feedback 136
Immediate Feedback 139
vi
Public Feedback 141
Positive Feedback 143
Student Is Receptive to the Feedback 146
The Feedback Has No Impact On Student 149
Conclusion 152
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 155
Critical Findings 155
Scaffolding Writing 155
Visual Learning Tools 157
Independent Practice 158
Collaborative Writing 159
Revision 160
Checklists 161
Cooperative Learning 162
Timely Feedback 163
Recommendations for Future Research 164
REFERENCES 167
APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM 182
APPENDIX B: TEACHER INTERVIEW #1 - PROTOCAL 187
APPENDIX D: STUDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 189
APPENDIX E: CORNELL NOTES 190
APPENDIX F: THE HOUR GLASS 191
APPENDIX G: SELF-CHECK CHECKLIST 192
APPENDIX H: THE CHECKLIST 193
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Student Population by Ethnicity 74
Table 3 Time Spent Interviewing Case Study Students 84
Table 4 Case Study Student Profiles 99
Table 5 Use of Critical Features the 5-Paragraph Essay 109
Table 6 Time Allotments for Writers Workshop 115
Table 7 Impact of Receptive Feedback on MMA 152
Table 8 Case Study Student Overall Writing Profile 154
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.4 Overview of the Critical Features 125
Figure 4.6 Mrs. Has Writers Workshop 132
Figure 4.7 Summary of Effective Strategies 136
Figure 4.8 Types of Feedback Used When Developing L2 Writers 146
viii
ABSTRACT
Writing has an advantage over speaking, listening, and reading because it
gives second language writers a chance to modify and polish the work before
presenting it to the world. The University of California has made writing an
important admission criterion due to its accurate prediction and precise correlation to
the success rate of college freshmen. This creates a need for teachers of all students,
including English learners, to provide a solid foundation in writing for future
academic success.
Where the U.S. Population has increased 17%, the Asian population
increased 153% from 1980 to 2000. (U.S. Census Bureau, as cited in Lindholm-
Leary, 2001). In 2003, the foreign population of 33.5 million people represented
11.7% of the U.S. population, 25% were Asian (Larsen, 2004). The dramatic
increase in the number of immigrants arriving in America has led to a large number
of students entering U.S. schools with limited English proficiency.
According to the California Department of Education (2006), 24% of the
entire student population taking the STAR test, a subtest of the California Standards
Test (CST), is English Learners (EL). Results showed that only 6% of middle school
English Learners taking the CST scored at a proficiency level or above in Language
Arts. School authorities believe it is imperative to help EL students build a
foundation in writing in elementary school, and further develop their writing
proficiency through middle and high school.
ix
In this dissertation, a case study approach was used to examine three critical
features, organizing ideas for writing, classroom environment, and clear
expectations, for teaching the five-paragraph essay to eighth grade, Chinese-speaking
English Learners. Specifically, the study showed strengths in the use of Cornell
notes, graphic organizers, and outlines were the three main tools used for organizing
ideas for writing. A positive writing environment included appropriate levels of
instruction and effective time management. Writing rubrics, checklists, and a model
text were tools used to clearly express and demonstrate expectations for writing. In
addition, the writers workshop, cooperative learning, and peer revision further
facilitated second language writing development. The majority of the students
welcomed these strategies. Helpful feedback, immediate feedback, public feedback,
and positive feedback were observed and identified as significant in writing
instruction for English Learners.
The data collected and the conclusions drawn were in line with the EL
literature review and show that English learners consistently need structured
teaching, experts guidance, and visual modeling in order to scaffold their language
learning. The goal is that teachers of English learners will continue to learn effective
methods for fostering the development of second language writing.
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Those who were born and raised in the United States and have never been
exposed to any other country, may not understand, nor appreciate, how fortunate and
blessed they are to be living in this golden land of opportunity. The research shows
that the major reason for the tremendous increase in the U.S. population in the last
two decades is mainly due to the large immigration of people from abroad.
Specifically, the Asian and Hispanic populations comprise two of the largest ethnic
groups in the United States. Where the U.S. Population has increased 17% from
1980 to 2000, the Hispanic population in the U.S. increased 83% from 1980 to 2000
and the Asian population increased 153% from 1980 to 2000. (U.S. Census Bureau,
as cited in Lindholm-Leary, 2001). In 2003, the foreign-born population of 33.5
million people represented 11.7% of the U.S. population. 53% were Latino and 25%
were Asian (Larsen, 2004). This dramatic increase in the number of immigrants
arriving in America has lead to a large number of students entering our schools with
limited English proficiency.
According to the California Department of Education (2006), 24% of the
entire student population taking the STAR test, a subtest of the California Standards
Test (CST), is English Learners. Results showed that only 6% of middle school
English Learners taking the CST scored at a proficiency level or above in Language
Arts. This is just one exam in a series of exams students will take as they progress in
school to demonstrate their level of academic success in language arts. In addition,
2
35% of high school students did not pass the English Language Arts Subtest of the
CAHSEE in the 2004-2005 school year which means they will not be able to
graduate from High school or get a high school diploma. The academic challenges
for English learners are further evident in their written English performance.
Statement of the Problem
Approximately two thirds of our students in the U.S. have a writing score
below the proficient level (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). The American
Universities College Board is calling for an early intervention by focusing on writing
in earlier grades to build a stronger foundation in language arts and specifically,
writing.
Writing is becoming a key determinant in the academic opportunities
awarded to students beyond high school. The SAT was previously administered in
two sectionsverbal and quantitative reasoning. However, since the year 2005 the
admission offices of the eight University of California (UC) Campuses have required
the third section writing. The maximum score for the SAT is now 2400 rather than
1600. This new score accounts for a new writing portion of the SAT. The incoming
freshmen for 2006, from all eight UC campuses, are being required to take the SAT
Subject Test in Writing for the first time. This change will affect approximately
78,000 incoming freshmen intending to attend UC schools this year (Hung, 2005).
Hillocks (2002) further pointed out that on the Illinois state-wide secondary
writing assessment, the rubric instructions clearly specify a written product in the
format of a 5-paragraph essay. Students are asked to write on a selected topic in a
3
well-structured focused essay. Although the state writing test has never specifically
referred to it as a five-paragraph essay, the essential components of the model are
apparent. For example, the perfect score on an expository /persuasive essay state test
is a five-paragraph essay format with a preview of all of the major points in the
opening paragraph, three body paragraphs and a conclusion paragraph with the
three major points restated. A focus on the five-paragraph essay model has led to an
increase of 20% of middle school students and an additional 30% of elementary
school students reaching state writing assessment. The teachers have equated the
raising of their students writing test scores to attending to the five-paragraph essay
early on and building upon this format in subsequent grade levels (Hillocks, 2002).
The College Board essay raters favor the style of the five-paragraph essay
(Smith, 2006; MIT Professor Finds Fault, 2005). Smith boldly claims that almost
without exception students who intimately know the five-paragraph essay are more
prepared to take on the challenge of college-level writing (Smith, 2006, p. 16). High
school English teachers need not worry about the SAT II writing test if they are
teaching their students the five-paragraph essay (FPE) model (Smith, 2006) because
FPE is an academic national phenomenon (Nunnally, 1991). Because of the SAT
II requirement it is important to provide students a strong foundation in writing a
five-paragraph essay. Further, it has been shown that students performance on the
SAT II subject test in writing accurately predicts college freshmans first year grade
point average (Breland, Kubota, & Bonner, 1999).
4
Knowing that students will be held accountable for their competency in the
five-paragraph essay, teachers need guidance in how to best teach the five-paragraph
essay. In particular with the large number of ELs in LA public schools, there is a
need to understand how to best teach this component of written English effectively.
Students ability to write well is gateway to various academic opportunities, such as
college access.
In California, the five-paragraph essay is introduced in the 5
th
grade as seen
in the CA Language Arts standards- writing standard 1.1, Create Multiple-paragraph
narrative compositions and 1.2, Create Multiple-paragraph expository compositions
(California Department of Education, 2006) though students may have learned it
early on-there is a need to strengthen ELs command of the 5-paragraph essay
through middle school. Therefore, to best prepare students for the type of writing
that will help them be successful in future writing tasks and assessments, it will be
necessary to provide a solid foundation in the writing of a five-paragraph essay in
middle school.
Writing Instruction
Writing involves capturing an abstract, imaginative idea and expressing it in
concrete terms on paper. Writing can also be an art, used to creatively express
familiar thoughts in a new and refreshing way. A good writer is usually highly
esteemed yet mysterious to most people (Elbow, 2002). Writers express what they
feel and think in written words (Elbow, 2002). Jim Corder, an admirable, humorous
and friendly professor once commented (Campbell, 2005), Words inspire, honor,
5
magnify and breathe meaning to life; humans are fragile and perishable, but words
live on forever. Writing combines meaning, control, coherence and expectations to
create a product that is never exactly what you intended it to be when you began
(Elbow, 2002).
An example would help to illustrate my points very well: A survey that was
conducted with 186 alumni of a business college in the United States found that their
career promotions were largely dependent upon their writing skills (Simpson &
Carroll, 1999). How could one improve his/her writing in order to write well? The
primary problem lies in a need for a solid foundation of a societys cultural and
linguistic knowledge (Gibbons, 2002).
Writing has an advantage over speech because it allows us to polish our work
before showing it to others. Speech is a riskier form of language because it is
presented to others in a pre-matured, un-ripened and unpolished seedling (Elbow,
2002). According to Elbow (2002), writing has two forms: low stakes writing
projects and high stakes writing projects. College students associate writing in
school with high stakes writingit is a serious task that will be graded and will
affect the final course grade. The stakes produce a nerve wracking effect. On the
contrary, journal writing is similar to talking on the phone in a low stakes task.
Elbow (2002) recommended that teachers assign low stakes writing more often (e.g.
free writing, free lance writing, and writing assignments done at home) that do not
affect their grade and would be treated as a pass or no pass assignment. When
students are assigned low stakes writing their prose is more vivacious, more
6
understandable, more dramatic and more uncontrived; we can see how students
understand and are able to relate and connect to their course materials primarily
through their low stakes writing tasks.
Elbow added to this idea of low stakes writing tasks by introducing the
writing process (2002) in evaluating a student composition, he suggested, we are not
looking for a gifted writer but a writer that goes through a process of sitting a while,
thinking a little more, scribbling and wrestling with the subject matter of
brainstorming, outlining and figuring out how best to express the ideas. We are
looking for the writer who recognizes when something doesnt look quite right. We
are looking for the writer that crosses out, looks up words in the dictionary or
thesaurus or asks the instructor for clarification. We want evidence that the final
product has been changed and revised several times. Elbows final comments are:
The above description looks inefficient - a lot of crossing out and throwing away
papers, this type of boiling and struggling is actually efficient. According to Elbow,
the real inefficiency is beating your head against the wall by trying to say what you
mean before you are ready.
Elbow (2002) forewarns teachers to limit their feedback and keep responses
appropriate for low-stakes writing assignments. He pointed out that teachers
feedback on students writing does little to improve students learning and writing
because no matter how lucid, precise, helpful and non biased the comments are,
students still tend to interpret the feedback through distorted and cynical lenses. His
feedback mode for those who have low self-efficacy is to consistently find creative
7
ways to praise and encourage them through their writing. Further, the teacher is
counseled to always evaluate the comment to see it is informative for the student.
Teachers should question themselves, Will they understand my intention? How
will students perceive it? He suggested reading the entire paper before one gives a
few selective comments. Students benefit most from no more than two or three
comments on their writing at a time. This allows students to process the feedback,
apply it to their writing and truly develop their writing abilities.
Negative comments (Elbow, 2002; Daniels, 2005) are likely to do harm
because students are inclined to actively resist the input. Teachers can give low
stakes praise without creating an atmosphere of lower standards (Elbow, 2002).
Examples of low stakes effective comments include I got lost in your sentence
structure, I have put a straight line underneath your strong sentence, Here is how
to revise it in future papers, Do more of that, You have shown me you can do it
(Daniels, 2005).
Teaching writing can be an extremely painful task without the appropriate
background that includes practical or research based strategies. It is time consuming
and exasperating. It exposes students vulnerability as no other process based
student activity does. Some believe that we do not even know ourselves in speech,
let alone in writing (Elbow, 2002). After a year of unsuccessful teaching of writing,
Hunt and Hunt (2004) rigorously researched and attended various writing seminars
to fine-tune their teaching process. It later became a stimulating and fascinating
process for them. They now believe the most important tool in teaching writing is to
8
require students to produce a clear and persuasive piece of writing. Further, they
believe that an effective way of engaging students in writing is to enable students to
view writing as a vehicle for an immediate and responsive mode of communication
(Daniels, 2005; Ball & Farr, 2003).
An approach that has served effectively for second language writers is the
process over product approach (Gibbons, 2002). The progressive process
approach became popular in the 1970s and 1980s. This approach placed the
learner or the student at the core of the learning process. The key element of the
theory that differed from the traditional way of teaching writing was the principle
that children learn to write well when they are reassured and use their own (unique
and unrefined) voice.
Additionally, meaning is emphasized rather than the written form. Writing
should take place often and have a real audience in order to provide a purpose to
write. This specific feature of the new approach was believed to help children
acquire different forms of writing naturally without being given specific instructions
and/or assignments. However, ESL experts voiced their concerns because of
students unfamiliarity with the language. The concern was based on the
misconception that process writing does not provide the supported needed for second
language writing development. However, process writing allows students to develop
their writing in the second language through a risk-free experience. They can make
errors, work through their challenges in written English and still create a final
product of quality. What will matter is the support ELs receive along the way.
9
Gibbons (2002) propagates the scaffolding structure in writing for English
learners. Without a writing structure, writing can go wild (Kittle, 2001). Kittle
describes that while writing, a second idea can emerge before the first is clearly
articulated and developed. Without a form, writing can be like an unbridled horse.
In science writing, Warwick and Malochs studied (2003) a writing frame
as a structural device used to frame the students ideas, expression, scientific
observation and expression of understanding into a scientific format in a fourth
grade classroom in the United Kingdom. Wray and Lewis (1997) also focused on
writing in a particular genre. They encourage the use of providing a strategic
outline to scaffold writing in a specific context. They describe it similar to a
beginning computer software user that is applying a given template to start up their
work. The structured support provides a vehicle for ELs to organize their thinking.
Warwick and Maloch (2003) admit that there is an opposing view to this
formulaic imposed techniques. The rationale for the opposing view claims that a
formulaic view can stifle the development of the reflective process, limiting the
internalization of understanding and restraining the growth of metacognitive
skills. In addition, students feel constrained by formalized scaffolding tools.
However, Warwick and Maloch (2003) admit that the writing frame is helpful in the
beginning stage of scaffolding learning. What they do not account for are the
variety of written forms and genres ELs need exposure and instruction in. So, a
beginning stage will occur with every new type of writing. It is suggested that only
10
when students are able to internally process the structure and work effectively on a
particular type of writing can they dispense with these techniques (Mercer, 2000).
Of course we need to be cautious to prevent form from taking precedent over
meaning, which would make the writing dull and tasteless (Roessing, 2004). The
form and structure should assist the ELs to not feel overwhelmed. In addition,
language switching (L-S) is found quite often among the initial and intermediate
stage of second language (L2) writers (Manchon Roca de Larios, & Murphy, 2000).
Language switching is defined according to Woodall (2002) as a privately,
spontaneous, often sub-vocal translation of language from L1 to L2 written text
and language writing. It is described further by Antón and DiCamilla (1998) as a
mental process that is geared towards the difficult task of writing. L2 writers
generate L1 words and decide which L2 words best are suited for the pragmatic
context. The beginning writer is constantly translating the written L2 text to L1;
however, Zimmerman (2000) found that a very small amount of language switching
in L2 writing is found among advanced language learners. They are able to easily
move between languages and produce highly literate written pieces in both languages.
For Japanese college students, writing an L2 English composition is a
difficult task (Hayashi, 2004); specifically, the developmental and organizational
processes are problematic for L2 writers. Hayashi further identifies the common
causes found by researchers is the lack of qualified teachers for teaching L2 writing.
Students low motivation and poor writing in L1 interfere with L2 learning.
11
Casanava (2002) commented that what is difficult about English writing in
Academia is the implicit nature of the expectations. There are no specific rules on
how to write the effective academic English paper. Currently, there are very few
studies on the practice of teachers introducing a scaffolding structure between the
interaction of the teacher and the students in a classroom setting on a larger scale
(Warwick et al, 2003).
Writing not only appears to be the most difficult skill for students to master
in ESL writing programs (Kasper & Petrello, 1998) but also there has been very little
research conducted on effective L2 writing strategies. In addition, teachers rely on
the development of writing for English dominant students when working with
English learners. Whether studies in the first language can be transferred to second
language studies is an important gap for researchers to conduct further (Kim, 2000).
Due to the paucity of research conducted in America on L2 writing we look
to other nations (for example, Japan) approaches to teaching English writing
instruction as a second language. This will help American writing teachers explore
ways of teaching our L2 English learners writing (Hirose, 2001).
Hiroses (2001) work in Japan with second language writers identified
planning and revision as two key elements for developing L2 writing. Hirose talks
about working with beginning English (L2) writers and the effectiveness of allowing
them to choose their own topics and share personal connections through a
combination of journal writing and a formal research paper (Hirose, 2001). Unlike
traditional practices of writing essays and stories, EL writers spend too much time
12
critiquing writing based on language structure and word for word translation of pre-
written essays. Allowing students to create original pieces about personal
experiences of self-selected topics allows for writing fluency to develop. In addition,
Hirose engages students in peer revision practices, allowing them to exchange
journals and provide written (English) feedback. This type of peer exchange raises
students awareness of always writing with an audience in mind and is a promising
instructional practice developing L2 writing (Hirose, 2001).
With a focus on journal writing and a checklist for classmates to edit their
peers writing, Yukios (1998) writing approach is similar to Hiroses. Typically L2
English writers mainly focus on precise reproduction of a grammar pattern.
Yukio utilized a six-point peer feedback checklist such as limiting your
topic, solutions offered, looking for organizational skills, clarity of problem stated,
clarity of orientation, the logic and the cohesiveness between the paragraph
developed to lighten teachers grading load. According to Yukio, students found this
strategy very useful (1998).
Due to lack of training and resources in teaching L2 writing to ELs, sentence
level word for word translation is the most prevailing writing instruction for English
learners (Tsui, 2000). Researchers (Hayashi, 2004) have identified the following
problems at the secondary level. Most of the writing instruction focused on grammar
with error free text and vocabulary drilling under close guidance instead of allowing
students to write freely and explore writing on their own. Further, teachers have not
provided an environment enabling students to produce English sentences on their
13
own. They have not established a instructional approach for ELs to take-risks with
written English.
In California, writing instruction has not been studied extensively to
determine best practices in teaching ELs the five-paragraph essay at the middle
school level. This dissertation will help fill that gap in EL writing research by
exploring effective writing methods for English learners in California. The main,
practical goal of this work is to provide teachers of English learners some concrete
strategies that will improve the writing performance of their EL students.
The Research Questions
The overarching research question of this dissertation is the following: What
are the critical features for teaching the five-paragraph essay to Chinese-speaking
English learners at the middle school level? In addition, the following sub-questions
are used to further investigate the instructional practices for teaching the five
paragraph essay to middle school English learners:
A. What strategies does a middle school teacher use for teaching the
five-paragraph essay to English Learners?
B. What is the role of feedback in teaching the five-paragraph
essay to English learners at the middle school level?
C. How do middle school students react or respond to the
instructors strategies and feedback?
A qualitative case study design was employed to help answer the above
questions. In the chapter that follows, a review of the literature on writing
instruction for ELs is presented. In Chapter 3, an overview of the methods used to
conduct the study including sample selection, data collection procedures and analysis
14
is provided. In Chapter 4, a presentation of the findings identifies three critical
features for teaching the 5-paragraph essay to ELs along with a look at an effective
method of instruction. Chapter 4 further identifies feedback practices and students
reactions to varied forms of feedback. In the final chapter, Chapter 5, a discussion of
the findings and suggestions for instructional practices and future research are
presented.
Purpose of the Study
The competence of locking-in formulaic writing in the five-paragraph
essay (FPE) is connected to achieving high scores on the SAT and other statewide
writing tests. As a result of the increased pressure on students to demonstrate high
levels of writing achievement, the purpose of this study is to identify effective
teaching methods and the type, quality and impact of feedback during writing
instruction.
Findings can help middle school students and their teachers find ways of
meeting their written English language needs in writing the five-paragraph essay. In
addition, broader implications that involve the ability to write effective five-
paragraph essays includes, support for prospective Chinese language teachers trying
to pass the writing section of the CBEST, Chinese students who need to pass their
writing portion of their GEPT, and Chinese students who want to take the GRE
writing test in order to study abroad. This group of non-U.S. students will be called
upon to form a strongly organized paper by implementing the principles of the five-
paragraph essay in the standard writing test such as the writing section of SAT II.
15
My choice to focus on Chinese-speaking English learners stems from both
my personal connection with the Chinese population as a Chinese student myself and
my interest in the research literature on the writing performance of Chinese students.
In helping the Japanese university faculty to improve and develop a writing syllabus,
Fujioka and Shi (2000) conducted a course evaluation and a questionnaire survey
with seventy-eight freshmen students enrolled in an intermediate writing course in an
English language program at the end of the first term. Before this survey, students
had experienced writing only two five-paragraph essays in their academic year.
There were three sections to the Fujioka and Shi (2000) survey. The first
section listed types of writing problems and included seven major types: content,
organization/ structure, language, academic style, mechanics, documentation and
research. Using a Likert Scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being the most difficult and 7 the
least difficult, 36% of the students ranked organization and structure as their major
writing concern. Among 22%, language ranked as their second major writing
concern, while 15% ranked research as their third major writing difficulty.
The writing styles in Taiwan and Japan differ from the English style. Many
L2 writers are unfamiliar with the predictable patterns of internal organization skills
in the English language (Hayashi, 2004). Students are not used to the road mapping
structure of written English. Students need a step-by-step development pattern to
frame their ideas, develop supporting examples and evidence, as well as clearly
express their thesis statement.
16
What I sought to do through this study was to identify effective practices for
teaching writing to Chinese-speaking English learners. I specifically focused my
investigation at the middle school level because based on California State Standards,
the five-paragraph essay is introduced and improved upon in middle school. More
complex structures are taught from this point on. In addition, the five-paragraph
essay is an effective and productive model for beginning English learners to develop
writing skills (Johnson, Smagorinsky, Thompson, & Fry, 2003). Five-paragraph
texts have actually been the primary teaching strategy of writing for the last five
decades (Hillocks, 1995). This formulaic instruction is easy to teach, form and
apply.
Limitations
I was not able to find a homogeneous group of Chinese speaking ELs (i.e.,
the date of immigration to America, the place of birth, as well as, learning and
cultural contexts all varied). The effective advancement in English proficiency of
participants in the study might be due to factors other than those observed through
instructional practices when teaching the writing process for a five-paragraph essay.
However, this study will provide strategies for effective instruction of the five-
paragraph essay, which can be followed with additional studies on their effectiveness
of such approaches with larger groups of ELs.
This can include ELs who have different primary languages or a larger
number of Chinese speaking ELs. The small sample size does not allow for
generalizing findings to all ELs at the middle school level. However, teachers and
17
researchers can continue to explore new and effective ways for developing second
language writing skills. In addition, this study focuses solely on teaching the 5-
paragraph essay model. Therefore, instructional approaches and strategies may not
be transferable to other types of written forms or genres.
Definition of Terms
Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS): A language has two
distinctive proficiency levels: the conversational and the academic- indicating the
contextual hints and measure of cognitive input in communication (Cummins, 2005).
English Learner (EL): Those whose primary and home languages are languages
other than English and are learning English in schools.
Feedback: Teachers or peers assessment can be evaluated in different forms.
Error correction, suggestions and advice can be either positive or negative responses
in the form of writing, verbal or telecommunication in the aspect of effort or ability
attributions (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Five-paragraph essay: As writing pedagogical practice, five-paragraph themes,
requires an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion (Hillocks, 1995).
George Hillocks describes the five-paragraph essay as a Locking-In Formulaic
Writing (2002)
18
Writing Workshop: The Writing Workshop AKA writers workshop: This is a
name brand for a modern writing method that focuses on the writing process. It has
a daily mini-lesson as the source of the students guideline for writing; students are
encouraged to share their own life experience; writing conferences are treated as the
heart of a writing process; writing partnership is established; students are trained to
be writing teachers as well as trained to learn editing techniques for revising their
own writing piece (Calkins, & Martinelli, 2006).
Whole Language Environment: Language is naturally developed, correction-free,
has experiential teaming, is child centered, non-threatening and is supported by a
relaxed environment. Children learn through print rich environment. The children
in their studies participated from the planning phase to a self-directed lesson phase.
The classroom set up closely resembled the natural learning environment of a home
like setting (Kuball & Peck, 1997).
Portfolio Assessment: Writing can express a growth over time, therefore the
portfolio assessment accurately documents and assesses the students learning
process from the beginning, middle to the end (Herter, 1998).
Portfolio: Through studying its original state, its development, and its change,
writing thus can be valued and appreciated when one sees its growth, its process and
its final product (Herter, 1998).
19
Process writing: The developmental stages through which one writer moves from
the beginning of forming ideas to the final of completing product (Frey & Fisher,
2005).
Product writing: The product of a paper is emphasized. Writing teachers value the
writing quantity and it requires the writing to finish within a certain time frame. The
standardized writing test is heavily emphasized on the product of the writing which
is often a one time shot examination. Often the five-paragraph essay works well
under the requirement for product writing.
Structural writing: Writing that consists of a structure to scaffold the writing i.e.
the five-paragraph essay and the multiple paragraph essay are genres of writing that
frame the writing.
20
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of my study is to explore the critical features for teaching the
five paragraph essay to Taiwanese English learners (ELs) at the middle school level?
The purpose of this chapter is to review current literature on developing second
language writing including the role of feedback in writing. I have organized the
literature review into the following six sections.
• The role of writing in schools today
• Instructional writing strategies
• Ways to improve writing
• Challenges in teaching writing
• Challenges in a students perspective of writing
• Studies on feedback in five-paragraph essays
This literature review will lead to a better understanding of the gap in the literature
on effective practices for teaching writing to English learners.
The Role of Writing
Writing, in addition to reading and mathematics, is one of the three basic
elements for success in school (Flook, Repetti, Ullman, 2005). College admissions
treat writing scores of GRE, TOEFL, and SAT tests as one important determining
factor in accepting students. More than ever, schools are pushing and equipping
students to prepare for these tests. In this section, three subheadings will be
21
discussed: How is writing taught? What are students writing? And finally, what do
research studies reveal about writing instruction in general?
How Is Writing Taught?
In the United States, writing is taught through a variety of techniques which
are mutually similar in nature and in strategy. These are process approach, revision
strategy, writing workshop and/or a combination of the three.
Process Approach
Studies show that writers actually stumble through the stages of brain-
storming, reflection, drafting, and revision. Each phase faces different types of
challenges. Process writing is to help writers go through the writing process with
strategic planning and with constant revision. The key component of process writing
is to respond to ones work and make several revisions to a piece of writing
(Fu, 2000). According to Marchisan and Alber (2001) they discovered that the
process approach has been proven successful for improving students overall written
quality. Even with students with learning disabilities who have a long history of
learning and writing failure (though they need extra care and attention) a sense of
flow in writing (Csikszentmihalyi, & Nakamura, 1989) can be achieved. Students
love to write when it is personal and something they can relate to by dividing
different stages of writing in a different time segment. Students require revision as
an important part of the writing process to become skilled writers (Fu, 2000).
Through process writing students get an opportunity to carefully plan and improve
their written pieces.
22
Revision Strategy
Fu (2000) encourages educators to respond to students writing with care and
give students plenty of opportunities to revise. When the teachers talk to their
students like writers by giving students autonomy in their decision to select topics,
then students will work hard to perfect their papers. When students are allowed the
opportunity of revision they will want to write, love to write, grasp every opportunity
to write and thus will certainly do well on a standardized test (Fu, 2000). Revision
should be part of teaching to write no matter how difficult or tedious it seems (Fu,
2000). Revision should clarify cloudy statements and make certain all the meanings
are comprehensible to the reader (Fu, 2000).
Through revision students gain self-confidence and are motivated for more
assignments as they see significant improvement in the piece they wrote (Fu, 2000).
Revision is the key to improve themselves as authors and to assist students in
refining their work with substantial improvement (Fu, 2000).
Writing Workshop
Writing workshops have become more popular in secondary English writing
instruction (Herter, 1998). However, through the work of Donald Graves, Katie
Wood-Ray, Lucy McCormick-Calkins, Nancy Atwell and Reggie Routmann, it has
also become a popular method for teaching writing to elementary and middle school
students as well.
A typical writers workshop starts with a teacher-directed lesson called the
daily mini-lesson or an authors circle on writing, followed by a shared-session
23
and a response-session called an independent write and confer time or readers
discuss reading-writing connections and a writer presents his/her writing at the
authors chair. In addition, a seminar is set aside for a one-hour in-depth study of
a certain topic. Students work is kept in a cumulative writing folder, and students
record their new gained information and knowledge on the clipboards and on their
personal spiral notepads (Calkins & Harwayne, 1987).
The Shelton, Fu, and Smiths study (2004) has compared and contrasted a
vast difference between writing workshops and writing to conform to the school
wide standardized test in a fifth grade classroom of thirty-five students. Shelton and
fellow researchers. (2004) shared that as standardized writing has been promoted in
schools by our school authorities, students creativity, authenticity, originality and
interest has actually been hindered and stifled.
Shelton and colleagues (2004) described in September, when school had just
started, the teacher led the students in writers workshop mode. The students were
excited with their writing. They showed enthusiasm, wanted to work overtime and
were proud of their product. Writing teachers are encouraged to use positive
feedback, as well as, comments to reassure and maintain students self-efficacy.
Due to the approach of the testing date, this teacher is worried that students
may not have obtained enough test practice and therefore the teacher switched the
writers workshop writing to test mode and geared the writing only towards the test.
Immediately after the state wide writing test, students wanted to resume their
writing workshop right away. The authors described the students sudden regained
24
freedom like a lifted dam that releases raging water. Students writing energy,
motivation, emotions, ideas and inspiration came alive again. Some students wrote
short stories that spanned as many as twenty pages. Even her Special Education
students benefited from this type of writing because they are allotted more self-paced
time to develop their thoughts and are permitted more freedom of writing style. In
actuality, their state-wide standardized writing test scores exceeded the school record
that year. They are attached emotionally to the class, because the teacher has
cultivated their love for their writing; they have understood the process of writing.
A Combination Approach
Herter (1998) has taught high school writing for the past twenty-seven years.
By merging her observation of her students writing process and her own research on
real readers needs, what draws and holds their attention, what informs, describes
and satisfies readers, and the demands on writers has changed her belief on writing
instruction (Herter, 1998). She now believes in teaching writing by combining
feedback, writing workshop, whole language, writing process, and portfolio
assessment to effectively achieve the product of quality writing. She also encourages
students to discuss their writing with their friends and peers before and after the
draft. The classmates felt responsible for one anothers writing.
Genres of Writing
According to the 2006 California Curriculum Framework, eighth graders
should demonstrate developing skills which show their ability to write a well-
controlled thesis statement supported by relevant details from text. They should also
25
show a working knowledge of parallelism, transition, and consistency in point-of-
view, as well as the ability to conduct research with the aid of web information
technology. Eighth graders should be taught to write a research paper that balances
research and ones own ideas (California Curriculum Framework, 2006).
Eighth grade students should now be able to write persuasive compositions,
responses to literature, research reports, career related documents such as a simple
business letter or job application, technical documents that involve a complicated
procedure or operation (i.e. steps to make a cake, or procedures to build a toy boat),
and autobiographical or fictional narratives in about two to three pages, typed and
double-spaced (500 to 700 words). Furthermore, the narrative writing should include
the authors opinion and attitude and should go beyond the structural elements
(California Curriculum Framework, 2006).
For the job-related document students should give attention to rhetorical
considerations making sure the audience is clearly addressed, the intentions are brief
and succinct and the letter follows with logical sequence and coherence. Also,
students should be expected to master grammar, spelling, capitalization and
punctuation subsection of the written standards (California Curriculum Framework,
2006).
Not only does the California Department of Education show concern for low
performers and advanced learners, this agency also is concerned with English
Language Learners. There are specific instructional processes, expectations and
standards for English learners:
26
(1) They are concerned ELs might have difficulty paraphrasing due to
the lack of vocabulary variation they want to make sure classroom
teachers will be sure to teach EL students the correct ways to cite,
quote and referencing the sentences. (2) Instruct and remind them to
avoid using colloquial expression and slang. (3) Educators should use
differentiate and specific instruction to teach them argumentative
essay (California Curriculum Framework, 2006).
Second language learners need to know and explore different types of writing
that exist in real life settings. In this section, two topics will be introduced: the three
most popular writing forms in the business world and the use of friendly letters as a
type of reflection.
A business study (Simpson & Carroll, 1999) gave surveys to its alumni in an
unknown business school. One hundred and eighty-six people responded to the
frequency of writing in their primary occupations. A total of 84% viewed business
letters as the most frequently used form of communication. Office memoranda was
ranked the second most commonly used means of writing, and internal reports were
the third most commonly used form of writing.
The writing instructors at a Japanese university in Tokyo have been
discussing the implementation of a new writing curriculum for first year students.
Galien (2001) used a report of successful use of five genres: descriptive, narrative,
summary, process, and persuasive to a remedial English class at University of
Washington to persuade the teaching staff to try to teach students to write problem
solution text in addition to an argumentative essay. Galien stated that the purpose of
introducing genres to the language was in the hope of conveying language learning
as a social process. In order to achieve the social aspect of learning a language one
27
should pay attention to who is the audience and the purpose of this learning (Swales
& Feak, 1999).
By assigning a variety of genres to students, they could gradually become
more aware of their audience. Students have a purpose and then design their story to
fit that purpose. For example, if a student wants to instruct a group of new users in
the appropriate way to use microwave oven, she should design her script to acieve
her purpose.
Writing Instruction: An Overview
Graham (2006) uses a meta-analysis to affirm that strategic instruction in
teaching writing in general can have a strong impact. It is maintained over a period
of time in improving students writing performance such as writing quality,
elements, lengths, and revisions. There are a myriad of research studies on teaching
writing to general English population in American schools, namely Baudrand-
Aertker (in Macaro, 2003), Bayer (1999), Marchisan and Alber (2001), Herter
(1998) and Graves (1990). These empirical studies examined six major writing
instructional approaches employed in American schools: dialogue journal, writers
workshop, process writing with multiple revision, portfolios, feedback, and the
involvement of the writing instructors writing and learning with the students.
Macaro (2003) concluded that dialogue journals are an effective instructional
strategy for developing writing proficiency of students in high school grades because
it provides ample opportunities for students to practice writing skills. To illustrate,
Baudrand-Aertker (in Macaro, 2003) used a pre-post test design, with no comparison
28
group, to examine effect of dialogue journal on writing of 21 junior year students in
high school grades. Teachers would help students develop these skills by providing
opportunities for meaningful journal writing. These diaries were then shown to the
teacher who responded to the content in writing. If students misspelled words the
teacher would use the correct word in his/her response, but would never marked or
corrected their journals. It provides self-reflection of what has happened on a
particular day and students are encouraged to write freely thus encouraging the
development of flow in writing. The evidence demonstrated significant effect on
students writing progress over a nine month period when using dialogue journals.
This means that students responded positively over the dialogue journal writing and
were less restrained because of fear of making grammatical mistakes.
One implication of Baudrand-Aertkers research seems to suggest more
teaching strategies that focus more on improving students mastery of writing
content and less on teaching to the test. Learning how to write is like learning a
foreign language or playing a piano; it needs to be practiced daily, should reflect
comprehensive thinking processes, and a good grasp of language usage (Fu, 2000).
However, the drawbacks to this writing are that students would not enhance
their vocabularies or focus on new grammar structure. Therefore, this type of
writing is not considered a learning device (Macaro, 2003). In addition, dialogue
journals do not have a specific audience in mind (Galien, 2001). Therefore, students
would not be able to practice writing with specific readers in mind.
29
Bayer (1999) has addressed the practice of writers workshop in a study
conducted with first grade students. The purpose of the study was to compare effects
on first grade students writing attitude and writing related self-efficacy at the
beginning and ending of participation in a writers workshop program. Three major
findings were reported: (a) significant, positive increase in students perception of
writing, (b) doubling in the number of students waiting for writing time, and (c) a
forty-six percent increase in students reporting a liking for writing. Bayer (1999)
contends that teachers who use writers workshops with first grade students can reap
substantial academic rewards.
Writer workshop critics Sudol and Sudol (1991) oppose writers workshop on
the grounds that it has negative effects on writing acquisition. Sudol and Sudol
(1991) made it clear that an hour a day, free choice of topic, pacing and deadlines,
and other strategies employed in writer workshop had questionable impact on writing
achievement.
First, devoting one hour a day to writing is very hard to keep due to a heavy
class workload in other academic subjects. Second, district and school curriculum
requirements may restrain teachers from giving one hour a day to students for a free
choice of writing topic. Thirdly, when teachers do not set a deadline for writing,
some students have a tendency to procrastinate and not attend to their work as much
as they should. As Sudol and Sudol (1991) argue, procrastination and incomplete
work can be especially problematic among students confined to writing in a certain
genre, with limited latitude for exploring alternative forms of writing tasks. Thus,
30
these researchers did not find writers workshop an effective pedagogical strategy for
improving the quality of writing among fifth grade students.
Students felt that what has helped them the most with their writing was their
teacher writing with them, listening to their writing, and their curious questions as
the source of energy that inspired them to write. Graves (1990) states the key
element of teaching writing is that writing teachers must learn with their students.
Writing teachers connect the writing to students experience and daily lives and ask
them big questions that relate to the context of real situations which turn her students
into fresh, specific, and well controlled avid writers. She has turned in fifteen pieces
of her students writing to publishers such as Aegis, Current Events, and Merlins
Pen, and others (Graves, 1990).
Writing teachers are interested and totally submerged in literacy both
personally and professionally because they want to learn from and with their
students. Writing teachers make an effort to read interesting books that the students
like and can relate in class, so that it would enhance students motivation to write,
develop content, and explore creativity. When the writing teacher is discovering
their own literacy, they can understand the very struggle their own students are
going through so that they are able to advise their students in a deeper and more
meaningful way.
Although this type of writing instruction works effectively with native
English speakers, we do not know its effectiveness on second language learners.
There is very little research done on ways to teach second language learners to write
31
systematically. I am filling in the gap to find, research, and observe the effective
strategies of teaching writing to second language learners.
Instructional Writing Strategies
In this section, I focus on three important criteria in the writing process:
a) encouraging mastery, b) focus on three important writing criteria that TOEFL
raters are looking for, and the effect of whole language instruction on writing
development, c) the effect of writing tutoring sessions, and the use of source text to
write.
Encouraging the Use of Mastery Orientation in the Writing Process
Tung-hsien He (2005) did an extensive study on the use of writing techniques
by examining the effect of combined goal orientations. In his research questions, he
analyzed types of L2 English writing strategies that were used most often by his two
groups: Taiwanese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) HMLP (High Mastery Low
Performance goal oriented) and LMHP (Low Mastery High Performance goal
oriented), both composed of combined goal orientation individuals. He looked at
which writing strategies were crucial for polishing the final writing products.
Thirty-eight Taiwanese English major university students participated in this
study. Nineteen were assigned to HM (high mastery oriented) and nineteen were
assigned to HP (high performance oriented). They answered questionnaires and the
raters coded their think-aloud protocols quantitatively into a Likert Scale Behavior
Chart.
32
These findings can inform educators in encouraging a mastery approach to
their writing courses: HMLP uses more monitoring/evaluating, revising and
compensating strategies than the LMHP performance oriented group. This approach
results in a better final outcome.
Their two goal orientation was a combination with different and contrasting
degrees. For example, if mastery is high then performance is low. If mastery is low
then performance is high rather than being only one distinctive goal.
The result shows that the HMLP group used significantly more monitoring,
evaluating, revising, and compensating strategies as compared with the LMHP
group; HMLP tended to use the strategies of self-monitoring for planning and
organizing, inquiring for meanings, utilizing self-evaluating skills; revising
techniques used for spelling, grammar, punctuation and ideas/thought patterns,
verifying and consulting outside resources. When the writers were unfamiliar with
new vocabulary or a phrase they tend to look it up in a dictionary (or thesaurus), ask
a proctor, or try to read it in context. They intended to make their writing precise
and assimilate their writing to that of a native speaker of English. They exerted
greater metacognitive skills so that their reader can read at ease with good
comprehension. The high mastery effect in the HMLP group had been thought to be
the critical factor associated with producing a better second language (ESL/EFL)
writing outcome.
The number of times HMLP group revised was positively correlated with the
quality of writing. Also, those who had a strong tendency of HMLP orientation at
33
the same time frequently use revision strategies. Consequently, they had a greater
chance of producing quality writing.
According to Ames (1992) mastery performance orientation tended to be
more actively engaged than performance orientation. Mastery orientation believed
that a persistent effort produced self confidence and results in self fulfillment which
lead to ultimate success. They not only attended more to their writing plan and
organization but also cared more about the way they express their ideas and revisited
and edited their paper more often.
They were perfectionists in terms of writing the essay. Fostering self-
regulated learning, individuals tended to be driven to improve themselves. Therefore,
hard work became voluntary and evident (Ames, 1992). As a result, those HMLP
writers showed a higher degree of self-efficacy in their writing performance;
displayed willingness to put more effort into the future; and cared more about
learning and competed only against themselves rather than being concerned about
getting a higher/lower grade compared to someone else.
LMHP writers, on the other hand, having an avoiding-failure mindset, being
aware of how others are doing, and having ambition to outperform and compete
energized their performance. The effect of the LMHP goal oriented group
emphasized ability and used surface learning strategies that exerted little effort.
On the contrary, having a lack of self efficacy in their own writing ability
resulted in exerting less effort when encountering writing difficulties. LMHP
oriented writers were not enthusiastic about using a revising strategy to overcome
34
their writing difficulties. In addition, they were less attentive to monitoring and
evaluating their writing. All this hindered them from performing as well as their
counterparts.
Practitioners were encouraged to maintain their students high self-efficacy to
generate high writing performance and motivation in their students.
Focus on Three Important Writing Criteria
that TOEFL Raters Are Looking For
Cumming, Kantor and Powers study (2002) is an on-going research for
developing and evaluating the new scoring rubrics of the writing component of the
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). In particular, this study wants to
find out what three writing qualities experienced raters look for in native English
instructors and non-native English instructors when they assess TOEFL essays.
Seven ESL and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) raters collaboratively
rated thirty-six compositions with six students writing six different writing genres:
summary of a lecture, summary of a conversation, summary of a reading passage,
summary of a written conversation, and responses to a reading. The team verified
that this descriptive framework was appropriate because the native English raters
group and the non-native English raters groups both have similar decision-making
behaviors.
The non-native English raters valued first, rhetorical organization including
thesis statement, development, cohesion, and completion of the writing piece.
Second, they evaluated the expression of ideas, including novelty, clarity, supporting
35
examples and statement logic. And third, they examined grammar and the accuracy
of vocabulary. On the other hand, the native raters valued three qualities as most
important in a composition: (a) the same rhetorical organization (b) achievement of
purpose focus, logical reasoning, and use of examples and (c) coherence, clarity,
variety, accuracy and fluency. The native English raters used reflective, overall
impressions to rate the papers when reporting their decisions.
Prospective students who are planning to study abroad in the United States
will need to pay particular attention to what the raters, especially the TOEFL test
raters, look for when students write the TOEFL essay. The majority of university
students in Taiwan aspire to study abroad and the TOEFL test is the gateway to
fulfill the dream. Once ESL students can successfully enroll in English universities
because of good TOEFL overall scores (including TOEFL writing scores), or they
are conditionally accepted (meaning they should obtain a TOEFL score 610, or take
two writing courses and obtain an overall 2.5 G.P.A. during their first year of course
enrollment). However, some universities differ in their requirements. Universities
are watchful to see if ESL students successfully pass their first year of required
courses and remove their provisionary status.
The Effectiveness of Whole Language-Based Writing Instruction
Kuball and Peck (1997) explored the effect of whole language-based
instruction. Specifically, they examined the impact of writing development on eight
English-speaking kindergarteners versus eight Spanish-speaking kindergarteners in a
year-long case study.
36
Kuball and Peck had two research questions in mind. First, does the writing
development of Spanish speaking students differ from the writing development of
English speaking students? And second, in what area does it differ? Their results of
the findings were quite a surprise. There is no difference. Spanish speaking students
developed their writing skills, just as well as the English speaking students.
Additionally, in the process of doing this research, Kuball and Peck found little
research has been done on the academic effect of whole language-based instruction
on minority children.
Sixteen kindergarteners (five-year-olds) participated in this whole language
philosophy study. Eight of these were Spanish-speakers who were classified as
Limited English Proficient (L.E.P.). The other eight were native speakers of English
(but one relocated mid-year). They used questionnairesthree closed questions
such as (1) Can you write your name? (2) Can you write a story? (3) Can you write a
book? They also used childrens compositional literacy skills with rubrics to test
students writing development. The third instrument that they used was a scale for
measuring graph-phonemic literacy skills (Kuball, 1993).
Although Californias school system has abandoned the whole language
approach and has taken up the phonics approach, schools in Taiwan can benefit from
both the whole language approach and the phonics approach. I am searching for
whatever can be suited to motivate Taiwanese students to learn to write well.
Not only are the relaxed, informal, non-threatening and text-rich learning
environments the most suitable learning environment for student writing production,
37
but interaction, negotiation, and discussion with a tutor can impact students writing
development. There is very little research on subsequent revision done after visiting
the writing centers and there is even more rare research on second language learners
seeking help in the writing center and their subsequent revision draft is done after
tutoring and writing students interactions at the writing center. The data was
collected in five writing center (WC) sessions. There are four tutors and five tutees.
All of those four tutors are native and fluent speakers of English, two monolingual
and two bilingual with one undergraduate senior and the other three are first year
graduate students. Those five tutees all have permanent residency and have been in
the United States for at least 2 to 6 years and were freshmen enrolled in a freshmen
composition class. Before the WC session tutors and tutees backgrounds have been
checked. After the each WC session tutors were interviewed on each particular WC
session for the interaction and the responses of the tutees. All the sessions were
videotaped and transcribed.
Williams (2004) tutoring session study found out that the tutee understands
an explicit explanation more clearly than an implicit one; therefore, more revision
takes place during explicit explanation. Writers do respond to tutors corrections in
writing and the evidence shows in their subsequent drafts. The study showed that
writing students would adhere (listen and follow) the tutors advice when the
direction is clear and direct and when the tutor allows tutees to interact and ask
questions and participate in the conversation and when they together wrote down the
plan for things to be done for the next meeting. In addition, second language writers
38
prefer more structural feedback such as correcting the sentences or marking on the
text. Moreover, surprisingly the paper that gets revised does not necessarily obtain a
better grade.
The Taiwanese style of writing is very different from that of Americans. Not
only do Taiwanese students need the writing tutoring sessions, they also need to have
a sample of a good writing framework that they can emulate. Zhus (2005) use of a
source text in Reading to Write was a good solution to the Taiwanese students
writing dilemma. Zhus case study (2005) examines an overseas Chinese MBA
students use of source texts to help him formulate a business rhetorical format in
order to persuade and impress people. He has four research questions. First, what is
the students perception of the purpose of his research paper? Second, what is the
students perception of the relationship between the source texts and his paper?
Third, how does he use source texts and how does this strategy help him both study
and write his paper? Fourth, what are the insights on how this strategy will help
students like him who study abroad?
This is a qualitative study which uses a case study design focused on only
one individual Chinese MBA student. The author uses five interviews, transcribed
on tape as well as Chinese translation and triangulation of data. He analyzed six of
his library research papers using syllabi, reading notes, the outline drafts, the final
draft, and a semi-open interview.
39
The findings were two-fold. First, the source texts helped him organize his
plan. Second, the source texts also helped him formulate a business type of
rhetorical format in order to persuade and impress people.
More investigation is needed in the area of source texts in reading to write to
specific tasks. Previous researchers focused on reading to write specifically on task
representation that examines portrayal of a single task by several participants.
However this research focuses on depiction of a number of tasks by only one student.
This is an empirical study of a convenient, readily available writing format that
would help Taiwanese college students to write well.
This researcher attempted to find as many articles as possible on successful
Chinese graduate students sharing their successful use of writing strategies. Not only
does it focus on adult ESL learners looking for ways to improve, but it also looks at
the younger ones from fifth to eighth grade which are also the target of this
dissertation. Analyzing where, how and why they are at their level of English
proficiency in order to find ways to improve their literacy development is crucial.
Although articles by Dean (2006) and Hillocks (2002) are among the paucity
of research on how to specifically teach the five paragraph essay Deans innovative
method of teaching is quite interesting. Dean creatively taught her students the
principal of the five paragraph essay without actually having to write one. Here is
how: After a unit on heroes, she introduced the principal ideas and placed key ideas
in prominent places and grouped similar ideas together asking students to come up
with four attributes of each hero. For each attribute, she asked students to find
40
pictures in magazines, newspapers and journals as supporting evidence that elaborate
each character, assemble similar ideas together so that similar ideas are grouped in a
paragraph. She had them create a three dimensional paper folding stand for placing
the supporting evidence in the order of importance. For the most important one she
asked the picture to be raised up and for the least important one, she asked that it be
laid flat on the poster board. Students successfully visualized the concept of the five
paragraph structure without actually writing one (Dean, 2006).
Dean describes the five paragraph essay writing in a simple term to her
students as a type of genre to help overloaded teachers read a handful of papers
swiftly. Therefore, the teacher can spot the key ideas in the key positions in the five
paragraph essay. Guided by a skeleton frame, it helps busy readers or essay graders
skim a certain feature in the prominent place or obvious position (Dean, 2006).
In Hillockss book, he describes a teacher teaching the five-paragraph essay
as teaching in this way: this teacher gives her students a problem, he/she asks
students to agree or disagree with the stated problem. Students are then asked to
justify their opinions. Their reasons can be an extension of relevant sentences by
associating effects or experiences from the top of the head or strong evidence to
support the asserted reason (Hillocks, 2002).
People assume when a team is winning it has a lot to do with the good
coaching skills of the leader especially when the team is winning consecutively for a
number of years. When students are not performing well, people assume that the
teachers are not teaching well. Real Estate brokers and agents compare, publish and
41
distribute students test scores to the nearby neighborhood community in order to
evaluate and assess market value. Teachers are especially alarmed and feel
threatened if their school or their classrooms are not performing well (Hillocks,
2002).
Ways to Improve Writing
In this section, three types of writing strategies to improve L2 writing will be
discussed. First, studying abroad, job hunting and serving as a tutor can help in the
advancement of writing. Second, the use of computers to assist L2 students improve
their written English will increase motivation and social interaction and decrease
inhibition. Third, the use of language switching between L1 and L2 is encouraged in
the beginning and intermediate stage of writing.
Study Abroad
Sasakis study (2004) investigated the effect of two semesters of writing
instruction on Japanese ESL and EFL university students majoring in English and
American literature. The study lasted over a 3.5 year period. The uniqueness of this
study was its qualitative methodology of examining videotapes as well as interviews
focused on the impact of those who study abroad and its positive consequences as
reflected on students writing. Her research questions concentrated on comparing
the changes in students L2 proficiency, L2 composition quality, L2 writing fluency
and use of writing strategy, L2 writing style and the characteristics of L2 expert
writers of those who study abroad between those who did not study abroad.
42
The researchers also scored subjects essays before and after the two writing
courses taken during students junior and senior year. The result of the study found
that all of those students who studied abroad during their sophomore, junior and
senior year showed a significant difference in their writing skill. This was true even
for those who were only away for two months. ESL students, while writing, think in
their L2 directly without translating, and are more concerned about enriching the
content of their writing and so write more effectively in terms of content and are
more motivated to study English. They also felt that the enrichment of vocabulary
while studying abroad increased their self-efficacy overall and helped them to write a
better quality paper.
In her interviews, Sasaki (2004) also discovered that one student improved
her English reading and writing skills unexpectedly while applying and interviewing
for different jobs that required English skills. Another student was an in-home
English tutor to a high school student. This tutor admitted she learned a lot of
English herself by teaching English to someone on a one-on-one basis. Sasaki
concluded that going job hunting and private home tutoring can also assist EFL
students L2 writing growth in both social and cognitive aspects.
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)
Cummings (2004) used a computer assisted tool to decrease inhibition while
increasing social interaction and motivation in Japanese students second language
English writing. The author used a qualitative study which included questionnaires
on the first day of class and at the end of one whole semester.
43
Cummings (2004) said she used action research with a fun, teamwork
oriented assignment. In the conclusion of this assignment, the students were
required to email an idol of their choice and expect the idol to respond from an
English-speaking country. The results were positive: Japanese students were more
eager to participate, more motivated to fulfill the course requirement and learned
both from this communication with the teacher and their correspondence with native
English speakers.
L1 Instruction
The third technique to improve writing is utilization of dual-language
switching. Manchon, Roca de Larios, and Murphys study (2000) suggests that
switching between two languages when writing L2 texts has produced positive
effects for beginning and intermediate L2 learners. Moreover, the study
recommends that second language instructors and writing tutors utilize the language
switching as an effective instructional tool when writing, when the class is
brainstorming a difficult concept, during their discovery writing stage and when
refining their writing plans.
To learn anything new, motivation is the vital element one cannot do without.
Motivation is the power house of energy that fuels the process. A prolific motivation
proponent for second language students, founder, advocator and educator, Dörnyei
(1998) says it well, Motivation is the driving force to initiate L2 learning and the
propeller to endure the long-suffering learning process.
44
High Levels of Self-Efficacy Determine Writing Success
Self-efficacya specific form of motivationis positively related to writing.
The higher the efficacy one has the better writing he/she has. Pajares study (2003)
examines Banduras (1986) social cognitive theory, specifically, self-efficacy as it
relates to school writing. Pajares finds that students self-perception of writing
capabilities affected their writing motivation and writing performance.
Pajares (2003) showed that students confidence in their own writing is
contingent upon their writing motivation and writing success in schools. Current
trends in schools show the key principles of the beliefs that students hold and thus
determine whether they will be successful or failing in school. How one perceives
oneself affects the choice, the amount of effort the student is willing to exert, their
intellectual life and their emotional quotient.
A students choice and course of action upon encountering an unfavorable
condition is important. Bandura (1986) describes this as self-efficacy, a mediating
agent between a past experience and a contingent behavior. When one has a high
degree of efficacy, this acts as a catalyst or a lubricant of those choices and
decisions. The student is fired up and sees everything that is positive and how the
situation will work to his or her advantage. High self-efficacy will benefit the
student regardless of outcome.
Pajares (2003) found four formative sources for students concepts of self-
efficacy. The most obvious one is the result of ones performance. When the
outcome is perceived as successful, it raises ones self-efficacy. When the outcome
45
is interpreted as a failure, it lowers ones self-efficacy. A second source is social
influence or peer pressure. A third is vicarious experience. It involves a
comparison in a specific area with others. Fourth, emotional states i.e. apprehension,
worry and nervousness, will cause one to form efficacy beliefs.
The positive belief students have for their own writing propels them to write
more and eventually helps perform well in an academic setting. Pajares (1999) uses
three methods to assess writing self-efficacy. One method was particularly worth
mentioning. He has students provide a self-rating judgment of their own confidence
in their performance. These confidence judgments ratings were later compared to
the actual grade they obtained.
Pajares and Valiante (2001) study includes important findings. Typically,
educators relate writing apprehension with writing performance. However, when a
self efficacy construct is controlled, writing apprehension loses its power. When two
persons have the same level of self efficacy, writing apprehension does not cause one
to write worse and obtain a lower grade.
Pajares (2003) concludes with an effective practical suggestion. If self-
efficacy is an important key variable for writing apprehension. and predicts writing
achievement then it is important to design a strategy to lower students writing
apprehension and to increase their positive belief in their writing capability.
Pajares and Valiante (2001) further differentiate between three goal
orientations: (1) task goals - wanting to learn things well, (2) performance-approach
goalsthe desire to perform for others and therefore trying to do things well,
46
(3) performance-avoidance goalsdoing things well in order to avoid losing face.
The study concluded that task goals have a positive correlation with writing self-
efficacy but performance-approach goals negatively correlate with writing self-
efficacy. In general, girls show greater writing confidence. Performance-approach
positively relates to boys writing confidence while it is unrelated to girls writing
confidence.
Many studies reported on previous writing outcome, perceived value of
writing, self-efficacy for self-regulation, writing apprehension, and writing self-
efficacy and showed that all were related to students writing achievement in both
K-12 and college. However, Pajares and Valiante (2001) and Pajares, et al. (1999)
found that path analysis and multiple regression studies revealed that self-efficacy
alone and pre-performance assessment were the true predictors.
Pajares (2003) wants educators to take special note that students past painful
writing experience and current academic difficulty could cause them to suffer a lack
of confidence in writing. In Pajares closing thoughts (2003), he advises educators to
take extra care when fostering self-belief in students for it can either nurture or
damage the seeds they are planting. He feels that schools and educators are
accountable for nurturing students confidence. In other words Pajares (2003) stated
that when we see students have an unjustified low level of self confidence, it is not
the low ability, poor knowledge, or inadequate skill, but it is the lack of interest on
the part of the educators and maladjustment on the part of the students that need
attention. We should redirect students thoughts and identify the correct remedy.
47
Sabiks real life illustration article (1999) closely mirrors what Pajares (2003)
suggests in his conclusion. A professor entered Brians grade wrong, miscalculated
and gave him an A instead of the range of B- to C+ in his freshman writing
composition class. His group project members found it out and mentioned to his
professor on the first week of the following semester. His professor reexamined the
grade, realized what he had done and reflected on the best course of action.
Meanwhile Brian enrolled in his second semester composition class, claimed the best
seat, answered questions and took new students under his wing. The professor
finally decided not to change his grade because Brians performance was consistent
with his excellent behavior. He had well earned his A by this time. In Brians
eyes, it was the professors trust and his perception of his professor to see the true
ability in him that contributed to this transformation.
Self-efficacy and writing has received little attention. Self-efficacy
researchers have mostly narrowly concentrated their research in the area of
mathematics. Self efficacy and writing are so closely related. I was surprised to
discover that Frank Pajares (2003) has written many articles focused on self-efficacy
and writing, relevant to this study.
Challenges or Difficulties in Teaching Writing
First Challenge: The Teacher Is Not Ready or Equipped
The problem is that teachers are not being properly prepared to teach writing.
Due to the poorly defined and ill developed instruction of writing courses in
the teachers college, the overt emphasis on literature instruction and lack of writing
48
theory at the university level, many novice teachers have gone through the teacher
preparation program in college without involving themselves in and believing that
the writing field is an important part of writing education (Tremmel, 2001), yet,
reading, writing, and mathematics are three basics for success in schools ( Flook,
Repetti, Ullman, 2005).
Johnson, Smagorinsky, Thompson and Fry (2003) pointed out the teachers
own illiteracy. Many teachers simply did not read or write enough. Moreover, they
did not spend time researching the most effective writing techniques and were
therefore lacking the knowledge and vision to provide their students with effective
education.
The Second Challenge: Correction
This insensitive method is detrimental to the students. Whether to give too
much correction or not give correction at all are two unwise decisions. While one
student continues to take ESL classes with the rationale that the teacher will correct
his grammar, the other student turns away from majoring in anything related to
English writing (Leki, 2001). Cummings (2002) feels that a teachers corrections are
in many ways a hindrance to second language learners writing development, which
in turn affects the writing teachers teaching development.
Because of the teachers correction, students are hesitant to write for fear of
making mistakes, particularly the marks of the red pen all over his or her paper.
49
Third Challenge: Poor Alignment with Student Needs
The third challenge is that the teachers curriculum is not in alignment with
and or does not take into consideration what the students need. The teachers
ignorance of a students particular needs, career endeavors, or his graduate or
undergraduate course requirements, and the writing topic the teacher selects can all
hinder the students motivation and potential for future success. This challenge
conveys the tendency of the teachers teaching content to undermine the students
sense of self. This undermining can be knowledge-basedthat is, the teacher was
unaware that different students prefer different teaching and writing contentor it
can be motive-basedthat is, the role that interesting subjects play in a students
vested interest (Leki, 2001).
In a class mixed with immigrants, visa, and foreign students, teachers who
use literature that compares and contrasts different cultures should realize that it has
no relevance to immigrated Vietnamese students. Their home is here now (Leki,
2001). A writing class is also to prepare students for academic purposes, not just for
having fun, as was the case of five Mexican students who enrolled in a community
college writing course with the desire to hold career positions as plumbers and
gardeners. They felt that the class assigned writing was impractical at best.
Leki states (2001) that teachers are facing two different requests in one class
at a junior college. Diverse students have very different goals. While Thanh, a
Vietnamese student, is hoping the teacher can help her adjust to a four-year college
50
after she transfers a year later, Juan who is a sewage worker, was hoping the teacher
could make the writing class more practical and easier for his needs.
Fourth Challenge: English Language Learners
ELL is perceived as a handicapstudents lack skills and cognitive
knowledge that other students possess (Hawkins, 2004). Normally, educators utilize
the help of family members to fix the problem but here again their parents are not
like us. (Hawkins, 2004). For EL students and parents, schools are a new
environment. They are as novice as an apprentice in a new working environment.
They bring with them their own set of belief systems, culture, values and their own
knowledge of what schools are supposed to resemble from their own home country.
Students are learning new syntax, new vocabularies, new grammatical structure, and
new discourse but they are also absorbing a new sociocultural environment.
L2 students were seen as working through adversity with a handicap. The
priority intervention for a learning disability is given to English as a second language
learner because, although they do not qualify as stated in the exclusionary criteria,
they exhibit great challenges for teachers in schools and they pose a potential risk for
learning (Berninger, 1997). All these pose problems and challenges for ELL writing
teachers.
An example of EL students with a language handicap (Leki, 2001) will help
illustrate better. Three Vietnamese writing students with permanent U.S. residency
graduated from U.S. local public high schools and entered as first year freshmen.
There they discovered that they were not the model students they were in high
51
school, but had to be separated from native English-speaking classmates into a
special designed ESL writing class. It was quite shocking to them, as some of them
had lived in the U.S. for more than seven years. They finally realized that they still
had a handicap in English expression and writing. Harklaus study in 1999 (as cited
in Leki, 2001) indicated that second language learners have a more acute problem
with syntactic and lexical competence. Acquisition of literacy for second language
learners is a time-consuming process: the learning will continue throughout his/her
lifetime (Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2001). How
could their college EL writing teacher wisely refrain from judging them while at the
same time turn these depressed freshman into motivated EL writing students?
Fifth Challenge: Teaching to the Test or Not?
The teachers have a culture of teaching to the test. Many writing teachers
(Fu, 2000) have forgotten their responsibility and mission, which is to advocate the
growth of their writing students. Instead they have overlooked their mission and
focus on raising students scores up on their writing tests so that they and their
schools may benefit (Fu, 2000). Teachers become impatient with their low scoring
students, forgetting that second language writing is a life long process (Conference
on College Composition and Communication, 2001). Unfortunately, writing
instruction in some schools can be a source of tremendous stress on students
learning. This teaching approach typically stresses memorization of writing
mechanics, different genres of writing. As framed in Fu (2000): when students
cram the night before the test they are doomed to forget them. The goal of an
52
education is to digest information and to be able to make inferences for future use
(Fu, 2000). The point is, when tests direct teaching practices, it creates problems.
Students individual needs are neglected and this method scaffolds students
intellectual capacity necessary to become good writers (Fu, 2000).
A second problem is when teaching stresses product and performance. The
idea here is to help students learn the best strategies to score high. The teacher is
frequently anxious with what will be on the test, and tends to direct lectures to the
content of the writing rubrics and test questions. Fu (2000) point is clear: A major
problem in American public education at present is the shift to a product-oriented
approach to writing instruction in schools. Teachers are much too engaged in helping
students get ready for standardized test and are much too concerned about raising the
test scores of students than anything else (Fu, 2000).
The first writing draft is usually self-centered and poorly thought out. We all
know that good writing cannot be done in a single draft. It needs constant rewriting
and revision. Peers and teachers feedback should all be considered in the revision
process. In school, the purpose of writing is to have multiple sources of feedback.
However, when the writing is geared toward a test, student practice is a one-shot
performance (Fu, 2000).
Teachers Topic Selection
Jan found that the writing topic in his ESL writing class was pointless (Leki,
2001). Topics such as women in the military and abortion were meaningless to him
and, further, his writing teacher wanted him to elaborate more fully on these topics.
53
This had irritated him. However, he still sat nicely and did not complain in order to
receive his degree.
When Writing Teachers Do Not Prepare Their Students
for Their Major Required Courses
Kasper and colleagues. (2000) talked about two students who, after
successfully taking two writing courses in the university level, did not qualify at the
graduate/undergraduate level. The writing courses did not well prepare them to
tackle mainstream university courses.
Writing Challenges/Writing Difficulties (Students perspectives)
Writing Apprehension
Success in ESL writing is closely related to writing apprehension (WA) and
writing block (WB). Lee (2000) investigated ways to combat WA and WB in order
to motivate more competent writers. In this quantitative study, two hundred and
seventy students answered questionnaires based on the Likert scale, and wrote a
composition graded by two scorers with rubrics.
Lee (2000) found eight important points. First, WA and WB are related.
Second, WB has a greater influence on writing. Third, displaying a higher degree of
WB did not necessarily mean one was a poor writer. Fourth, WA did not affect
students writing quality. Fifth, more free reading does predict writing
performance. Sixth, more free reading can reduce WA and WB. Seventh, more
reading resulted in more writing. Lastly, wide reading and teaching the composing
process together are an important aspect of writing instruction and will reduce both
54
WA and WB. Reading is a crucial element that cannot be ignored when designing
writing curricula or doing research on writing.
Previous researchers have not considered the relationship among cognitive
and affective factors, reading and writing behavior, nor the impact on writing
outcome. These are still very rare in research. Previous studies only deal with the
cognitive and affective aspects. Lee (2000) was retesting her hypothesis in her
previous studies that were inconclusive because of her sample size, learning and
testing situation and research procedure. Moreover, she found a more effective
measurement tool available to her. However, she still thinks there is a gap because
she used students self-reports which might have been manipulative or had a
tendency to cater to socially desired answers.
We have seen writing in action through a fun and self-paced writing
workshop and research has verified that more reading and more writing can best
eliminate the writing anxiety and writing block one has.
Plagiarism
Sutherland-Smith study (2005) has examined closely the problem of
plagiarism, particularly among students of English as a Second Language (ESL) of
the East Hemisphere and their teachers responses to the students problematic
behavior. Sutherland-Smith uses a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, and
uses SPSS and N*Vivo software to code and trace trends in response to eleven
E.S.L. teachers and 186 first year E.S.L. students in a university in Australia.
55
School authorities nationwide should join together to comprehensively
formulate plagiarism policies for this technology based generation. ESL teachers
and ESL students have two different views regarding plagiarism. ESL teachers are
concerned about internet-related plagiarism used in students papers whereas ESL
students think that the internet is a free-zone to paste and cut articles for their class
assignments. They do not consider that these articles exist under legal proprietary
rights.
Previous research reports that use of the internet does not result in an increase
in the number of cases of plagiarism and students generally think plagiarism is a
wrongful act. This study tries to fill the gap by discovering students understanding
of plagiarism via the Internet and their perceptions of the Internets authorship
attribution.
ESL writing, particularly, with students from Taiwan and China has a very
different notion of plagiarism. Chinese students are accustomed to viewing the text
as closely as possible as a positive task for their homework. American English
writing teachers, particularly, of Taiwanese and Chinese students, need to present
information on the importance of avoiding plagiarism to their students before their
writing class.
The reason that ESL students plagiarized could be that they think the
assignment is too difficult or way beyond them. If they could choose to write and
share what is in their hearts and minds writing would become an enjoyable task.
56
In this section, I will discuss two sources of information and precautions for
writing teachers: First, ESL students ignorance on the importance of avoiding
plagiarism. Second, it is important to recognize that instructors differing
assessments will impact students' writing.
Providing Feedback to Students on Writing
Wolf & Gearhart found (1997) that an elementary teachers belief in
students writing competence directly relates to students adaptive behaviors to the
new method of the writing rubric which in turn achieve better grades.
The effect of teachers reactions, beliefs and feedback on students writing
has generated a heated debate (Macaro, 2003). With the current research, the saying:
The feedback is to a teacher as the ballet dance is to a ballerina (Macaro, 2003) still
holds true to a certain extent but educators need to prudently find ways to give
appropriate feedback. Ferris study (as cited in Ferris, 2002), Semkes study (1982),
and Kreizmans study (as cited in Macaro, 2003), all have found essential strategies
for providing feedback in three different aspect respectively; they are the direct vs.
indirect feedback, the content of the feedback and the appropriate time to give
feedback.
Ferris study (as cited in Ferris, 2002) says that direct feedback (or explicit
feedback) leads to an immediate and more accurate revision over a period of one
semester. However, students most likely stored their knowledge of writing and
writing techniques in the short-term memory (Ormrod, 2004) which they retrieved
easily, but would forget soon as compared to Frantzens Study (as cited in Ferris,
57
2002) which showed that students writing performance responded better to indirect
feedback (or implicit feedback) than direct feedback in a longer time span. Their
accuracy improves and their errors are reduced far better than with direct feedback.
With indirect feedback students get to experiment with the sentence and use a trial
and error method. They think the logistics of it and therefore students have on-the-
spot training and have some practice (it is like working on a word problem) and the
memory hence was stored in the working and long term memory (Ormrod, 2004)
whereas with direct feedback, the answers are already provided for the students, and
one does not need to exercise the memory through trial and error type of correction
(Ferris, 2002).
Semkes study (1982) focuses on the content of the feedback; what elements
of the feedback would encourage students to be motivated to write more? The result
of Semkes study provided a significant finding: She studied 141 university students
(English L1) taking German as a foreign class. She divided her students into four
groups.
1. Group A: Teacher gives feedback only on content, no error was
suggested.
2. Group B: Teacher gives feedback on both content and error.
3. Group C: Teachers gives implicit feedback by coding the error
and asks students to correct them.
4. Group D: Teacher gives error feedback only.
The result of the study was that Group A had written the most elaborate and
extensive essay and had found no significant errors in this group. All four groups
58
had equal amount of errors. This study suggests that writing instructors should
provide minimum error feedback but focus the feedback on that content which only
would promote the likelihood of avid writers.
The third study concerned feedback given at the appropriate time.
Kreizmans study (as cited in Macaro, 2003) found that when students receive
feedback from their teacher they are most concerned about their grades and only give
a slight glance at their teachers written feedback. Giving students a formative
feedback with strategies to improve in a one on one conference such as teachers
provide during the intermediate stage of the writing process (not the final stage)
would enhance accuracy and quality of the writing (Ferris, 2002; Kreizmans study
(as cited in Macaro, 2003). This strategic timing would help students focus their
attention on their teachers suggestions on their written pieces.
There are multifaceted angles to effective feedback. Effective teachers
provide feedback at the appropriate time, suitable technique, and proper content.
When writing teacher use appropriate knowledge to negotiate and communicate with
their students he or she will see direct, quick, and helpful results (Ferris, 2002).
Instructor Assessment
Shi (2001) revealed that different writing instructors assess and impact
students writing differently. Shis study (2001) examines whether or not there are
any difference in evaluating Chinese students (EFL) English writing between native
English Speaking (NES) instructors and non-native English speaking (NNES)
instructors.
59
The researcher used ten random writing samples administered to twenty-three
NES and NNES instructors to evaluate using a 10-point scale with no rubric. (The
directions instructed, Rate the 10-compositions holistically using a 10-pont scale.
Without a predetermined rubric this is a qualitative study). The teachers were given
the opportunity to include three comments on the reasons and choices for their
evaluation of each essay. The teachers also filled out a questionnaire on their past
teaching experience and educational background.
The findings suggest that NES and NNS teachers gave similar scores to EFL
students writing assessment. However, the two groups of teachers justified their
reason for the deserved scores differently. NES teachers responded more favorably
to content and language while NNS teachers responded more negatively to
organization and length.
Conclusions from previous research suggest that we do not know of any
study that has been done for NES and NNES raters/teachers qualitative evaluation
on Chinese EFL students English essays. Moreover, because findings demonstrate
that there are differences in the way that teachers/raters do qualitative evaluations,
the researcher Shi has tried to incorporate holistic scoring to analyze the results.
However, she discovered that for the present study, the holistic scoring was not an
effective tool to differentiate between NES & NNS teacher rating systems. There is a
need to construct a standard validity for L2 writing rubrics among teachers and also
between teachers and students.
60
Students writing scores would be affected and would make a difference by
those who teach them - whether they are native English speakers, NES, or NNES.
The qualities and characteristics of instructors for the English courses (NES or
NNES in particular) is a hot topic in Taiwan because many non-native English
speakers might be teaching an ESL writing class. Concerned parents and students
want to know how this will affect students in the long term and in what aspects they
will be impacted.
The linguistic background and the birth origin of the rater will impact
ESL/EFLs writing outcome. Knowing what a rater is looking for in a writing piece
would also affect the writing achievement of the English learners and possibly the
educational attainment of a study (i.e. top scoring TOEFL foreign students will be
able to obtain scholarships and grants in order to study abroad).
Study on Feedback on the Five-Paragraph Essay
Five-paragraph themes, a refined conventional format for compositions, are
the most pervasive type of writing instruction in secondary schools and some college
composition programs. This rigid, structured genre can be traced back to 16
th
century French philosopher Petrus Ramus (Johnson, Smagorinsky Thomson, & Fry,
2003). The reason for its popularity is that the five-paragraph theme is widely used
in writing textbooks, making the general public believe that it is the most effective
writing instructional method (Johnson, Smagorinsky Thompson, & Fry, 2003). As
writing pedagogical practice, five-paragraph themes, requires an introduction, three
body paragraphs, and a conclusion (Hillocks, 1995). It is easy to design and teach,
61
and teachers who employ its methods see quick improvement in students writing
outcomes.
A five-paragraph theme is now a leading template for standardized testing
(Wesley, 2000). To illustrate, in Hillocks (2002) state-wide secondary writing
assessment in Illinois, the rubric is based on a five-paragraph essay model, including
an introduction, three supporting paragraphs, and one conclusion. Although the state
writing test has never specifically referred to it as a five-paragraph essay, the
essential components of the model are apparent. Again, because of the short time
span on the test, the format provided a structured guideline students could follow for
easier completion of the writing task. Insufficient, poorly written content would not
jeopardize students grade but, instead rewarded them for following the five
paragraph formula. Tindal and Haladyna (2002) concluded that the five-paragraph
essay was a strategic writing method, effective in increasing students state-wide
standardized writing test scores.
Bronfenbrenners ecological theory (Santrock, 2006; Dacey & Travers,
2006), which deals with environmental factors is also working here. This
environment includes complex intertwine with connections among different settings.
a. Microsystem: The individual lives setting. It includes the family,
peers, school and neighborhood of this individual (Santrock,
2006).
b. Mesosystem: The interrelations between microsystems. For
example, the interconnection of family experience to relative
experiences (Santrock, 2006).
62
c. Exosystem (Santrock, 2006): an influence that is closely related to
the individual but this individual has no control over the situation.
For example, an individuals standardized writing test score would
somewhat affect the entire classs overall scores. Moreover, it
would affect the entire grade level in school. Also, it will increase
the real estate market value which would affect the rental fee in
the neighbor. This would adversely affect a housewife to now
seek for a job and would affect this individual familys daily
living (Santrock, 2006).
Ecologists (Santrock, 2006) believe that the presence of certain experience
(in this case knowing the function of five paragraph essay and how to organize it into
a paper), lets say fourth grade, influences individuals well beyond the time they first
occur.
The link is from the individual to microsystem (the context include the
persons family and school) to mesosystem (family experiences to school
experiences; i.e. the school is asking this individuals mother or brother to tutor this
individual on the format of five paragraph essay) and to exosystem (neighborhood
and its market value) (Santrock, 2006).
Urie Bronfenbrenner emphasized the importance of the environment in which
an individual lives (Santrock, 2006).
Devitt (1997) defines genres as something that can work in two extreme
dichotomies, such as selection and limitation or conformity and diversity. Seeing
this extreme end of the pendulum: selection and diversity, prudent educators will
63
then see enormous flexibility. Thus, they will be able to help students use and
choose genres more effectively.
Dean (2000) builds on Devitts definition of genre and contributes to it by
stating form-oriented writing, such as the five-paragraph essay, provides students
with a framework for forming and elaborating their ideas.
Synthesizing and combining Devitt and Deans statement one can easily
conclude that a five-paragraph essay can actually be viewed as a collection of choice
and a variety of assortment which in fact will allow users to have vast resources.
Weaknesses
However, many theorists and researchers do not know Devitts work (1997)
on the explanation of genres and are still viewing at the surface level of the negative
side of the five-paragraph format.
Focusing on its forms, the five-paragraph theme was seen as falling short of
an important feature: social interaction (Johnson et al., 2003). Emphasizing the
expression of ideas and communication, Social interaction is the ability to dialogue
immediately between anticipated readers and the writer. However, Johnson et al
(2003) have a remedy and modification for teachers. They suggest incorporating
dialogic expression into this structure in order to make this an ideal form for
writing.
Johnson and co-researchers (2003) believe that when this dialogic expression
is integrated in the five-paragraph essay, it can then be used as a real tool to socialize
students into statewide large-scale assessments.
64
Again not knowing Devitts work (1997) and are not looking at the
comprehensive side of the picture, Johnson, Smagorinsky, Thomson, & Fry (2003)
too, assess the five-paragraph model, arguing that it limits students thinking and
choices.
In Hillockss study (2002) he too chided that reproduction of this specified
five paragraph form has narrowly restrained the writing to focus only on production.
In 2003, Hillocks too denounced the five-paragraph essay for taking very
little account of thoughtful development. He criticized that one could just follow
the formula without much in depth thinking and receive a very decent grade
(Hillocks, 2003).
English Learners Need Scaffolding in Writing Structures
Gibbons (2002) promotes the scaffolding structure in writing for English
learners. The ELs process of English writing development is equivalent to young
children of native English speakers. Making things systematic and predictable
procedure in their little thinking heads, young children feel more secure and like to
have regular routine and organized structure in their learning material (Fisher, 1995).
Second language learners in a sense resemble young children when learning their
second language. They are like young children. When ELs are learning a new
language they want something that is structured, simple, systematic and predictable
(Smith, 2000).
65
Without a writing structure and form, writing can actually go in two extreme
directions: either outrageous like a tornado has just swept a city or do not know how
to start writing even when two hours have well passed (Kittle, 2001).
Warwick and Malochs study (2003) reveal that this writing frame work as
a structural device to frame students ideas. Wray & Lewis (1997) encouraged the
use of providing a strategic sketch to scaffold writing in a specific context. They
describe it similar to a beginning computer software user that is applying a given
template to start up their work.
However, Warwick and Maloch (2003) do acknowledge the fact that there is
an opposite view to this prescribed imposed technique. Warwick & Maloch (2003)
clarify that the writing frame is particular helpful to the beginning learner and
Mercer connected and elaborate to beginning English language learners to
scaffolding and use this method to express their ideas (Mercer, 2000).
The following empirical research on structural and free writing on 48 low-
achieving limited-English proficient Hispanic students proved Warwick, Maloch,
and Mercers theoretical belief and assumptions. A study conducted by Gomez
(1996) to see the effectiveness of the structural writing on English as a second
language learners over the free writing with forty-eight limited-English proficient
Spanish students. There is some extent granted to the stratified randomly assigned
Free Writing group as opposed to the Structural Writing group. Gomez, the author
of this study was theoretically in favor of this free writing group and leans more
toward this group. LEP students could choose to write in Spanish or English, the
66
Free Writing group (FWG) could write as long as they want, and they could assist
one another as if writing is a social interaction (Vygotskys theory) during Fridays
standardized test probe day.
On the other hand, the structural writing group had very strict guidelines.
The instructor assigned a topic and the students are to work on their paper alone,
quietly. Writing is closely monitored to make sure the errors are corrected in order
to prevent it from habitually reoccurring.
Instructors and teacher assistance of each group received a fidelity
implementation check and a fidelity implementation evaluation score from the
researchers to ensure the correct treatment for each group. When evaluating
student's papers, the trained raters are mainly analyzing five areas of the writing:
organization, topic and logical development, mechanics, overall meaning and
sentence construction. Counter-intuitive from what researchers have always
believed and desired to see, the result of the findings reveal that SWG showed an
apparent large and steady improvement over time while FWG showed a general
declination in writing. SWG showed somewhat of a weakness in organization while
FWG showed the only strength in the area of meaning.
This research revealed the important message that theory-based common
wisdom in the general writing instruction might not be applying to second language
learners. For example, teacher assigned writing topics and error corrections were not
encouraged in the general writing instruction but work well with ELs. This is a call
67
for the field of English as second language researchers to investigate all general
knowledge that has been applied to native speakers to the ELs (Gomez, 1996).
In addition, research also stated that structural writing would stifle student's
creativity, students would not write as much, and a higher percentage of students
would experience writers block and writing apprehension than those doing free
writing. None of these concerns were true in this experiment (Gomez, 1996).
However, to counter the argument, Gomez has found literature review by
Staton (1982) that says free writing needs to be executed for a period of 24 weeks
otherwise it would not be effective. Moreover, Williams (1989) and Samway (1993)
suggest that teachers on the spot correction would likely result in a temporary short
term memory and students would forget over a longer period of time. Therefore, if
students would take the test again, they might not show any difference or any gain
from teachers correction.
Gomez also suggests that differential growth pattern might require the free
writing group a longer period of study than a six-week span. English writing
instruction in second language is a field that is governed mostly by doing but has
very little applied research. It is mostly administered with theoretical, hypothetical,
intuitive and descriptive writing. Only one empirical study has found for ELL and
LEP learners and there are research limitations and possible defects i.e. the duration
of this study was too short. There is a call to more research based study on second
language literacy (Gomez, 1996).
68
The challenge of High school writing instruction: (1) the assigned writing is
not aesthetics: it does not allow students to experiment with different types of writing
(they are constrained to five paragraph essay form of writing. (2) students often
cannot relate to the assigned reading for writing assignment. It is the teachers task
to encourage students to move beyond the orthodox of five paragraph essay writing
structure and help them discover, organize, and form their argument when students
launch into their creative writing (Wartchow & Gustavson, 1999).
By interviewing high school students, Wartchow & Gustavson (1999) found
that writing instruction in the upper grades when confined to the five-paragraph
essay they termed it analytical writing and there are problems that go with it.
Urban High school teachers both public and private assigned five-paragraph essays
to their students because it is a structure that teachers are familiar with and could
predict the outcome of. It also works well like a template. Students feel they are
forced to use this format. Students feel they are not being challenged with this
restrained, unmotivated and trivial structure. Students also felt they were not being
encouraged to explore and develop their own creativity and interest (Wartchow &
Gustavson, 1999)..
High school students do not value creative and personal writing any more
because school does not place any value on these. Students believe that creative
writing lacks coherence and has a chaotic structure because it does not abide by the
five-paragraph essay structure (Wartchow & Gustavson, 1999). Ransdell and Glau
(1996) conducted a study with 245 freshmen college students. A majority of students
69
stated that they hardly write or practice writing have low scores on their half-hour
essay exam and their SAT or ACT scores placed them in a basic or remedial writing
course. The result showed that a clear correlation between the quantitative amounts
of formal writing that was assigned and completed through their four years of high
school and the first year college writing placement.
When asked what advice they would give their former high school English
teachers, the five most given answers were 1) place less emphasis on or eliminate the
five-paragraph essays in high school, 2) use grading procedures, 3) instruct writing
instruction on preparation for college courses that involve mostly writing and writing
big papers, 4) rewrite, 5) turn in multiple drafts and revision, and 6) High school
writing did not prepare for them in college.
Most of the literature review in this dissertation is about five-paragraph essay
strategies such as 1) writing process 2) allow students to choose a topic 3) extensive
reading 4) prepare for test 5) teacher conferencing.
Conclusion
In this literature review section, six categories: the role of writing in schools
today, instructional writing strategies, ways to improve writing, challenges or
difficulties in teaching writing, writing challenges (students perspectives), teachers
and peers feedback in five paragraph essays have been examined by exploring
current empirical studies. These studies are closely related to my research question.
Through the literature review, the current effective instructional writing strategies as
70
well as various ways to improve writing emerge. Moreover, this type of
comprehensive literature review illumines the different genres and types of writing.
This is particularly important as the effective application of writing to real
life situations is essential for curriculum, teaching strategies and ultimate
effectiveness of a students education. Finally Pajares (2003) advises educators to
attend to ones own garden carefully and prudently. A carefully chosen word can
help boost students self-efficacy, and help students to believe in themselves so that
learning and academic motivation are nurtured. Students hearts are vulnerable and
we do not want to cause damage. Educators must think carefully and wisely on the
best advice and guidance to offer their writing students if they want to see the
students achieve their full potential:
A. Believe that the students will build a strong foundation in
written communication in which their writing will bloom
and prosper.
B. Build their confidence (Dornyei, 2001).
Although there is a great deal of research on feedback strategy little is written
about the use of feedback when teaching the five paragraph essay. There is a huge
gap in the literature on teaching writing in the United States to English language
learners, specifically on effective strategies in teaching the five-paragraph essay to
Taiwanese students along with the role of feedback during writing instruction. My
study will help fill in this gap and hopefully present effective practices to improve
the English writing development of English learners.
71
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
In this study a qualitative research method design was used to conduct an in-
depth analysis of a Middle School English teachers method of writing instruction
for both low and high-performing English-learner (EL) students. Specifically, a
qualitative case study was used to analyze a real world example of effective practices
in teaching the five-paragraph essay to Chinese-speaking English Learners. An
analysis of the literature reviewed in the area of writing instruction for English
learners presented a perceived gap in the area of writing instruction for English
learners at the middle school level. This study sought to begin to fill that gap by
identifying: What are the critical features for teaching the five paragraph essay to
Chinese-speaking English learners at the middle school level?
A. What strategies does a middle school teacher use for teaching the
five-paragraph essay to English Learners?
B. What is the role of feedback in teaching the five-paragraph essay
to English learners at the middle school level?
C. How do middle school students react or respond to the instructors
strategies and feedback?
This chapter will present an overview of the research design, sample, data
collection and analysis procedures and ethical considerations for conducting this
study.
72
Research Design
A qualitative case study approach was used to conduct this study. Case
studies can lead to an in-depth understanding of instructional practices and their
impact on student success. Stake (1995) proposed that a case study is ideal when the
researcher seeks an in-depth description of a program, a process or one or more
individuals. The cases are confined within time and activity, and researchers use a
variety of methods of data collection (Stake, 1995). Case study researchers typically
seek to gain an in-depth understanding of a situation (Merriam, 1998).
The function of the case study (Creswell, 2003) is to explore processes.
Using a case study shapes the kinds of questions formulated, the data collection
structure, the steps of data scrutiny, and the final description of the case (Creswell,
2003). Qualitative case studies are a good way to present detailed descriptions in
order to provide a clear picture and understanding of a phenomenon or practice
(Patton, 2002). This case study sought to gain an in-depth understanding of effective
writing instruction for Chinese speaking English-learners at the middle school level.
Overview of the Setting and Participants
Sampling Strategies
Patton (2002) states that there are usually multiple purposes when conducting
research, and therefore, more than one qualitative sampling strategy is desirable.
Time period sampling was one type of sampling procedure used in the study (Patton,
2002). Individual writing is a process, requires continuous and on-going observation
to follow the process. These students practice this approach everyday for two weeks;
73
therefore, their progress was tracked for a set time of three months. This illustrates
Pattons (2002) assertion that time sampling is a crucial approach because programs
function differently at different times and at different stages during the year.
Convenient sampling was further employed because of the limited number of
parental responses for agreeing to participate in the study. Those students whose
parents returned the parental consent form were the students used for the study.
Fortunately, the four students whose parents agreed to have their children
participated represented a diverse group or Chinese-speaking ELs.
Overview of the District
Symphony Unified School District was chosen because it has a high volume
of Chinese English learners. A pseudonym was used for the district as well as the
school to protect the identity of the participants. This district has five elementary
schools, one middle school, one high school, and one continuation school. At the
time of the study, Symphony Unified had 6,130 students (California Department of
Education 2006).
In Symphony Unified School District there were a total of 282 teachers with
262 (92.9%) fully credentialed teachers, 9 (3.2%) university interns, 1 (0.4%) pre-
intern, and 10 (3.5%) emergency teachers.
The average year of experience was 11.5 years, and the average year in the
district was 8.3 years. 7.9% of the teachers were first-year teachers and 4.3% were
second-year teachers. The pupil-teacher ratio was 21.3. There was an average of
27.8 students in a class.
74
The students of the Symphony Unified School District consisted of 2,658
(43.4%) Asians, 711 (11.6%) Caucasians (not Hispanic), 2,366 (38.6%) Hispanics,
151 (2.5%) Filipinos, 96 (1.6%) African Americans (not of Hispanic origin), 17
(0.3%) American Indians, 16 (0.3%) Pacific Islanders and 115 (1.9%) multiple races
or no response. 2,989 are socio-economically disadvantaged and 2,123 were English
learners. 48.8% were on free or reduced lunch, 34.6% were in English Learner
Development (ELD) classes, 4.8% were reclassified fluent English proficient, 47.4%
were in compensatory education, 92.9% were fully credentialed teachers, and 3.5%
were in the Emergency Credential category. The middle school students consisted of
18% of the entire student population in the district. (California Department of
Education, 2006) Table 1 provides an overview of district students ethnic
composition.
Table 1
Student Population by Ethnicity for
Symphony Unified School District, 2005-2006
District Students Ethnicity
Asian Caucasian Hispanic Filipino
African
American
American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Year
# % # % # % # % # % # % # %
Total
2005-06 2658 43.4 711 11.6 2366 38.6 151 2.5 96 1.6 17 0.3 16 0.3 6130
English Learner students were 34.6% of the entire student population. In this
district, there were six major language categories in the languages of English Learner
students. 734 students (12%) spoke Spanish, 654 students (10.7%) spoke Cantonese,
297 students (4.8%) spoke Mandarin. 221 students (3.6%) spoke Vietnamese,
75
39 students (0.6%) spoke Chaozhou, 178 students (2.9%) spoke other languages
(California Department of Education, 2006).
Overview of the School
Harmony middle school is a large urban school serving a diverse student
population. In Harmony middle school there are 37 white teachers (a total of 67.3%),
9 (16.4%) Asian teachers, 8 (14.5%) Hispanic teachers and 1 (1.8%) African
American teacher. 53 teachers have full credentials (96.4%) and 2 are university
interns (3.6%) (California Department of Education, 2006).
Of the 1,212 students enrolled at Harmony Middle School, 398 (32.8%) are
English learners, 433 (35.7%) Fluent English Proficient (FEP) students, and 45
(11.4%) students have been redesignated FEP (California Department of Education,
2006). Among Harmony Middle Schools eighth graders there was a total of 121
English Learners. 53 speak Spanish, 33 Cantonese speakers, 14 Mandarin speakers,
13 Vietnamese speakers, 2 Filipino, 1 Arabic, 2 Indonesian, 1 Thai, 1 Italian, and 1
other.
Harmony Middle school receives Federal Title I funds. In the classrooms,
there are a total of 258 computers averaging about 4.7 students per computer. Fifty
three classrooms have internet access. The pupil to teacher ratio is 25.6 to 1 and the
average class size in English classes is 26.2 students per class. There are 74 English
classes in Harmony Middle School (California Department of Education, 2006).
76
Overview of School CST Performance
The proficiency rate on the 2006 California Standards Tests for Harmony
Middle School doubled to 24.4% from the previous year. 53.5% of the student
population scored at or above proficiency on the Language Arts portion of the CST.
All subgroups met their targets on the California Standards Tests in
English/Language Arts (California Department of Education, 2006).
There are a total of 9 eighth grade Mandarin speaker students in Harmony
Middle Schools English Language Development (ELD) program. 2 (22%) are in the
advanced program, 3 (33%) in the early advanced category, 1 (11%) in the
intermediate, 1 (11%) in the early intermediate and 2 students (22%) are placed in
the beginning level. Five (56%) Mandarin speakers in Harmony Middle School met
State Board of Education criterion for English proficiency.
Among the Cantonese speakers, 43 eighth grade students, 27 (63%) placed in
the advanced category, 11 (26%) in the early advanced, 5 (12%) in the intermediate,
and none in the early intermediate or beginning group (California Department of
Education, 2006). Thirty eight Cantonese students in Harmony Middle School met
the State Board of Education criterion for English proficiency.
Harmony Middle Schools 2006 Growth API score was 770. Harmony
middle school had met their 2005-2006 API Growth indicator targets (753). Under
NCLB, the federal government requires that all significant subgroups must meet or
exceed standards in Math and English Language Arts (ELA). In ELA, the federal
government requires 24.5% of the students in the subgroups meet standards. At
77
Harmony Middle School 53.5% of students demonstrated proficiency in ELA.
Regarding subgroups, Asians scored over 800 so they inevitably made their growth
target. The Hispanics had a growth of 21 points and they also met their objective.
Overview of the Classroom
The study was conducted in Mrs. Has eighth grade ELD level four class.
This is a block period that combines 2 class sessions, period 2 and 3 for English.
The majority of the class was Spanish English learners with the second largest EL
group as Chinese ELs. The researcher conducted an initial interview and purposely
selected all seven Chinese students in her classroom as possible targets for selection
into the study.
Mrs. Ha has a total of 27 ELD Level four students in her class. The class
includes 15 Hispanic, 6 Chinese, 3 Vietnamese, 2 Filipinos (one was born in Saudi
Arabia but later moved to Philippines), and 1 Cambodian. Four Chinese speaking
EL students were selected for the study from Mrs. Has class. Parents consented and
signed the consent to allow their children to participate (See Appendix A). Due to
the limited number of Chinese speaking ELs and parental consent, there was no
choice in the selection process of students. Those who agreed to participate were
included in the study. Table 2 provides a summary of the language background of
ELs in Mrs. Has class.
78
Table 2
ELD Level 4 Class Profile
ELD Level 4 Class Profile
Hispanic Chinese Vietnamese Filipino Cambodian
Year
# % # % # % # % # %
Total
2006-2007 15 55.5 6 22 3 11 2 7.4 1 3.3 27
Overview of the Teacher
Mrs. Ha (Pseudonym) has worked in Harmony Middle School for more than
8 years. She is of Korean decent and originally came from Chicago, Illinois. She
received her English degree from Wheaton College and attained her Masters degree
from Biola University. She came back in December 2006 from maternity leave. The
school office manager and the principal spoke very positively about the teacher, and
it was the principals recommendation that led to the selection of Mrs. Ha and her
class for the study.
The teacher was purposely selected because Mrs. Ha is a highly qualified
teacher. The Harmony Middle School principal Mr. Clements shared:
Mrs. Ha has teaching experience with 6th, 7th, and 8
th
grade and with
ELD levels 1, 2, 3 and 4. She has special training in teaching ESL
students. She has her Cross Culture Language Academic Develop-
ment (CLAD) Certificate. She has been trained to implement
Americans Choice, a writer workshop which has been proven
effective in Harmony School. The language test scores in this school
have increased by 7%. Mrs. Ha has a great understanding of the
developmental range and skills a student comes with, along with a
variety of strategies to differentiate the instruction effectively.
Mrs. Ha is an active participant in professional development and contributes
ideas that help Harmony. She is a team player and she supports the American choice
79
program. She is a participant in the CALLIBRATION-Educational calibration is
when a rubric is strong enough for a group of teachers to use in determining the level
of student achievement on a particular assignment.
Students in the ELD program in this school consistently score at the next
higher level of CELDT each year. She is certainly the primary reason why students
are redesignated quickly and have achieved a high level of redesignation at Harmony
Middle School.
Mrs. Ha is a teacher who gets extraordinary results from her students. Her
exceptional results come from wisely implementing research proven effective
pedagogy. She has high expectations and believes students can achieve at superior
levels. She enjoys what she is doing. The students respond to that effort. The
results are not confined to her scholarly knowledge. She has integrated her required
knowledge and experience to help the students improve. She is invested in and
committed to her work ethics to make sure it happens. She has done exceptionally
well on all of her evaluations, as a result she has received high marks.
This perspective led me to believe that Mrs. Ha would be a perfect candidate for
participation in this study.
80
Overview of the Students
The sample comprised of three recent immigrants from Taiwan, China or
Sweden with low or intermediate English proficiency, while one other was American
born Chinese with non-English speaking parents who had migrated from overseas.
Data Collection Procedures
Three methods of data collection -- interview, observations and document
analysiswere used to triangulate the findings. Specifically, multiple case studies
of middle school English learners and one teacher were used to organize and report
the data. A group of people assembled together, particular activities, specific periods
of time, and critical incidents to construct the unique case study is a key tactical
method of qualitative inquiry (Patton, 2002). Case study interviews and observations
were conducted as follows:
Level 1: The Teacher
Mrs. Ha, the teacher, was both interviewed and observed.
A. Interview:
Two interviews were conducted. In the first interview questioned Mrs. Ha on
her perceived teaching techniques. The second interview was conducted after
gathering examples of the four case students writing performance and had an
opportunity to interview the four students who participated in the study (see
appendix B and C). The goal of the two teacher interviews was to discuss her
general practices in teaching the five- paragraph essay to English learners along with
81
her feedback practices and her own perception of how successful she had utilized her
intended writing program.
The initial interview with Mrs. Ha lasted approximately 25 minutes with
open- ended questions (Patton, 2002). The interview provided Mrs. Ha the
opportunity to explain the reason for using her specific writing strategies and
elaborate on her pedagogical and methodological beliefs.
Some of the protocol questions are based on statements and writing questions
from National Writing Project 2003. It is a professional development to train and
teach writing instructors. The program started in 1974. It is partly funded by
federal-Seed funding, state government and private donors.
The second interview with the teacher centered around her opinions of the
four students work samples. The work samples gathered were available on the day
of the interview. Mrs. Ha was asked to discuss each students work samples. I
intended to find out how the teacher analyzed students writing abilities and writing
samples and to better understand the role of teacher feedback in writing instruction.
The length of the second teacher interview was twenty minutes.
B. Teacher Observation
The teacher was observed for over a period of two weeks for two class
periods of 95 minutes each day. The goal of this observation was to discover to what
extent the information from the teachers interview aligned with what she did with
the students in the classroom and to get a better understanding of what the students
were doing during their teachers writing instruction. The intent was to capture
82
everything the teacher does in order to find the critical features and teaching
strategies for teaching writing instruction. For this reason a formal protocol was not
used. Instead detailed field note were taken to analyze for emerging themes and
instructional practices.
Level 2: Four 8
th
Grade Student Case Studies
In addition to interviews and observations of the classroom teacher, two in-
depth case studies on four eighth grade students were completed. Chinese students
were sampled and both interviews and observations were used to collect students
data.
A. Interview and Four Participants Mini Profiles
Initial interviews were conducted with each of the four eighth grade students
who were selected for participation in the study. The interviews lasted about 20
minutes each. Regarding the selection of four Chinese students, in Mrs. Has level
four ELD class, there were only seven Chinese students in the entire class. The
researcher first passed out permission letters to all of the seven Chinese students and
introduced herself, her background and the purpose of her study. Their participation
was encouraged though clearly stated as voluntary. Only four Chinese students
returned their consent to participate in the study.
Fortunately the sample was very diverse in terms of English writing
development and demographic characteristics. One of the students has just
immigrated back to the United States after a little less than two years from China.
The second student was born and raised in the United States but spoke only
83
Cantonese with his family. This student had been placed in Special Education
because of speech and language problems and was diagnosed as academically
delayed early in his life. The third student was born and raised in Taipei, Taiwan
and came to the United States three and a half years ago. The last student was born
and raised in Sweden and came to the United States three years ago. Detailed
profiles for each student are available in chapter four.
The objective of the student interviews was to discover these students
learning styles for writing, what they liked about the teachers style of teaching
writing, what instruction they perceived as not helpful to them, suggestions for
positive change, what strategies best help them when they write, how they liked to
receive feedback, how their teacher gave feedback, and whether or not the feedback
was helpful (See Appendix D for the interview protocol for students).
B. Observation
The four students who participated in the study were given pseudonyms to
protect their identity. Stephen, Chloe, Fong and Iwen, were each interviewed and
observed. This ELD (English Language Development) Level Four class was a
unique class which consisted of a two period span. Students attended both periods 2
and 3 from 9:10am to 10:45 am with a five minute break in between.
The observational data were recorded as reflective field notes. The
observations included situations in which each of the four students worked alone or
worked in groups or how students receive feedback from their teacher. Mrs. Has
strategies of teaching writing instruction were also observed daily and carefully
84
recorded. Chloe was interviewed for four 20 minute periods. For Fong, she was
interviewed for two 40 minute sessions, three 20 minute session and four 15 minutes
telephone interviews. There were three 20 minute interviews and two telephone
interviews with Iwen. For Stephen, he participated in three 40 minute interviews and
four 15 minutes telephone interviews. Finally, Fongs mom and Chloes sister and
mom also participated in a 20 minutes phone interview. Interviews were recorded.
Table 3 provides a summary of total time spent interviewing the four students.
Table 3
Time Spent Interviewing Case Study Students
Case Study
Student
Interview
Length/Minutes
Frequency Total Time Spent
Chloe 20 4 80
Fong 40
20
15
15
2
3
4
3
200
Iwen 20 3 60
Stephen 40
15
3
4
180
There are many reasons for the variation of the frequency of each of the four
students. Each of the four students had initially participated in 3 twenty minute
interviews. However, based on classroom observations and the lack of clarity in their
85
answers additional interviews where needed. This helped the research better
understand the students perspectives on the effectiveness of the writing instruction
they were receiving.
Document and Records Analysis
Document and records analysis were also used. These included the writing
section of their seventh grade California English Language Development Test
(CELDT), results on the Multiple Measurement Assessment (MMA) writing exam,
classroom writing samples, and background information found in their cumulative
folders. This information was primarily used for background information.
The California English Language Development Test (CELDT) assesses and
measures the 4 areas of language arts. Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing. It
identifies what ELD level a student has reached in each of the areas. There are 5
levels. The test is given in October and the Harmony school administrators use the
results as one of the measures to help determine appropriate placement for the ELD
students. All students who participated in the study were classified at an ELD 4 level.
This was not an indicator of specific writing abilities in the second language
(English). Coupled with this assessment, the school uses the writing portion of the
MMA to determine students writing proficiency.
Symphony Unified School District created the Multiple Measurement
Assessment (WMMA) which is intended to resemble the statewide, Star Writing
test and CELDT (writing). The goal is to prepare students for on-demand writing
assessments as determinants of writing ability. The test is based on the California
86
Standards. They are developed by teachers and a consultant from the Los Angeles
County Office of Education.
The maximum score for the writing test is a five. The scale is as follows:
1) far below standards, 2) below standards, 3) near standards, 4) meets standards, and
5) exceeds standards. They are given three times a year or every twelve weeks
within a semester. The assessment data reveals how well the students are learning;
how to write, and how well the writing teachers are following the Long Range Plans
for their subject area. This helps educators and administrators know exactly which
standards and rubrics need to be re-taught in order to address and close the writing
gaps.
According to the school principal Mr. Clements, Mrs. Ha placed more
emphasis on the writing than the reading because improving writing was the focus
for the year for Harmony Middle School. Reading was taught, but more time was
spent on writing. The teacher has flexibility in the 90 minute period to design
lessons with more emphasis on one skill like writing, than on another like reading.
Student work samples were analyzed from four perspectives: (1) the
researcher looked in their writing folder and compared and analyzed whether they
have adhered to the teachers recommendations and made any improvement in their
writing, (2) students writing materials outside their folder, such as portfolios and
notebooks were reviewed and analyzed, (3) all writing tests administered during the
months of January to February as well as analyzed students homework samples to
87
determine students progress in writing an essay, and (4) students writing samples to
determine their progress in developing the five- paragraph essay.
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis in the case study was four, eighth grade, Chinese-
speaking English learners. The focus was on the instructional practices used by the
teacher when teaching these four students the five paragraph essay. The researcher
investigated how the students reacted, responded, and perceived the teachers
feedback and how the teacher taught writing. The main focus was to find out how
Chinese Speaking EL students learn to write five paragraph essays. Essentially,
qualitative data was collected to show the reader the strategies and the elements for
teaching the five paragraph essay with Chinese Speaking middle school English
learners, and to compile data from different individuals in order to get a whole
picture of the entire program (Patton, 2002, p.228).
Data Analysis and Procedures
An inductive approach to data analysis was used to determine the research
findings. Though original codes and categories emerged from the data they were
based on an adaptation of Slavin (1994), Doyle (1986), Duke (1979), Emmer &
Stough (2001), and Haswell (2001). Due to a close connection to categories that
emerged from the theme of classroom organization and Slavins (1994) classroom
organization theory a portion of his work was used for analysis. After the data were
collected, the researcher organized data to match Slavins description of classroom
organization.
88
In addition, the following were used to analyze and understand the
organization and impact of the writing environment on student achievement:
(1) Classroom management: the tactics teachers employ to sustain
order in a classroom (Doyle, 1986; Duke, 1979; Emmer & Stough,
2001).
(2) Clear expectations for writing: Rubrics and checklists provide
a collaborative set of standards for evaluating students writing.
However, the scoring of writing often relies on past grading
experience or goes by prototype categorization (Haswell, 2001).
Creswells six steps to data analysis and interpretation (2003) were used. The
steps include:
A. Step 1: The data were prepared for analysis. All interviews were
transcribed and field notes were recorded and typed for categorization
into themes.
B. Step 2: All the data was reviewed before analyzing. Overall
impressions were noted and any general thoughts that connected to
the themes were discovered.
C. Step 3: The coding process was based on categories of themes used
by previous research. All data was clustered into relevant categories.
D. Step 4: The researcher used a coding process to determine if any
description of the setting, people, categories, or themes emerged in
the analysis. The description involved a thorough depiction of
information about people, places, or events in a locale. The coding
was used to generate four to seven themes from the data. The themes
were categorized into subheadings of the findings section in the study.
89
These included organizing ideas for writing, writing environment,
and clear expectations for writing. Themes were found that exhibited
multiple angles from individuals and have multiple citations and
specific evidence to support them. The reseracher analyzed themes for
individual cases and transversed different cases.
E. Step 5: A secondary evaluation of step 4 was conducted to determine
how the description and themes would be presented in a qualitative
plot. The researcher used a narrative passage - the most popular
approach to document her findings. Figures and visuals were also
used as supplements to the discussions. They expressed descriptive
information about each student in a table (Creswell, 2003).
F. Step 6: Finally, the data was interpreted. This was the researchers
personal interpretation based on her own culture, experience, and
upbringing. Conclusions were also compared with information
gleaned from the literature review in order to substantiate the
findings.
Patton (2002) warned about the challenges in collecting, analyzing and
interpreting qualitative data. For example, getting access to documents (i.e. students
7
th
grade writing assessment of the STAR test), determining the accuracy of
documents, linking documents with interviews and observations could pose
difficulties that can ultimately impact the interpretation. These kinds of problems
will be discussed further in the results and discussion chapters.
90
The Focus of Study: Breadth vs. Depth
The researcher did not constrain nor limit interview questions to
predetermined categories (Patton, 2002), thus allowing her to probe for greater
depth. Most of the interview and observation time was used to identify qualitatively
the working elements for teaching the five paragraph essay to English learners at the
middle school level. Therefore, clarification was elicited frequently on practices
observed and any other pertinent information about the teaching process.
An in-depth analysis was conducted of documents, interviews and
observations to provide greater detail, add more meaning, and generate new insights
and new ideas about the program (Patton, 1987). This was an inductive design with
adapted categories from previous research. Although the researcher had a rough pre-
established design and themes for analysis, she was open and flexible to changes.
The researcher explored what it is that the teacher was doing to add greater depth to
the analysis.
Validity
This study cannot be easily generalized because the Chinese students
English backgrounds are very diverse. For example, Iwen had hired home tutors,
Stephen and Iwen both have attended after school academic supplementary
programs, and Iwen had attended a private elementary school, while the others have
attended public elementary schools. Chloe had been born and raised in a western
European country before she immigrated to the United States. Stephen and Iwen
were born in the United States. But Iwen had migrated back to China at age five and
91
attended schools in China while her dad worked in the United States and was
sending American textbooks to her to keep her up on her reading comprehension.
Less than two years ago she had come back to attend school in the United States.
Iwen had attended foreign schools in Shanghai which required her to speak English
at a regular basis. Iwen subscribed to and read regularly English journals,
magazines, or newspapers when she was in China. Stephen has been placed in
Special Education in various school districts before his new replacement in ELD
English classes in Harmony Middle School.
The researcher realizes that it is impossible to be completely value free. But
it is normal and legitimate for one to be concerned about how ones preconception,
prejudice, cultural value may affect what one perceives and interprets. In the
findings section, biases were carefully analyzed and explicitly discussed and steps
were taken to possibly counter the bias affects. Patton (2003) suggests establishing
an audit trail to verify the effort one has put into the fieldwork in order to prevent
inaccuracy and bias and convey impartiality (Patton, 2002).
The researcher was very cautious in generalizing between English native
speakers and ELs. Theory and research regarding general writing instruction for
native English speakers might not always apply to second language learners.
Gomezs article, in chapter two, revealed that there are methods not encouraged in
the general writing instruction for the native English speakers which, surprisingly,
work well with English learners. There is very little research being conducted in
writing instruction in the field second language writing development.
92
Techniques that have been working with general English learners might need
to be retested in order to determine their validity with EL populations (Gomez,
1996). For example, research has indicated that structural writing does not work for
native English speakers. With ELs, the contrary is true. EL students like and work
more effectively with the structured writing format (Gomez, 1996). Gomez findings
with ELs in fact reveal that structured writing groups showed a noticeable and stable
improvement over time while spontaneous free writing groups showed a general
decline in writing over time.
Triangulation/Data Authenticity
The purpose of the triangulation of data sources and analytical perspectives is
to increase the authenticity and accuracy of findings (Patton, 2002). In order to
triangulate the findings, the researcher used (1) data triangulation: collection of
multiple sources data. (2) Theory triangulation: the use of more than one perspective
to interpret the data; and (3) Methodological triangulation: the use of multiple
methods to study the problem (Patton, 2002). Triangulation within a qualitative
study can also be achieved by mixing different types of sampling techniques (Patton,
2002).
A combination of methodologies can be used to illuminate an inquiry
question (Patton, 2002). Patton points out that the key issue to triangulation is to
achieve a detailed balance, not necessarily the same results from different sources.
Inconsistency can be illuminating and an opportunity to explore the causal
relationships a little deeper (Patton, 2002).
93
Ethical Considerations
The study did not contain any abuse, neglect, deception, lies, covert
observation and manipulation (Patton, 2002). It was always the researchers
obligation to treat the subjects with respect (Patton, 2002). The researcher was
attentive in informing IRB fully of the research method. The study was reviewed
and approved by the USC Human Subjects Protection agency named Institutional
Review Board (IRB).
Conclusion
Case study methodology is interested in progression rather than outcomes, in
context rather than specific variables, in new discovery rather than verification. The
results and insight gleaned from research can influence guiding principles,
practices, and future research (Merriam, 1998). A case study is expected to catch the
intricacy of a distinct solo case. We study a case when it is of extraordinary or
particularly informative significance. We look for the interface of the case within its
context.
Case study is the study of the idiosyncrasy and the complications of a single
case, coming to understand its actions within vital situations (Stake, 1995). Wilson
(2005) summarized the case study method well: when you experience how the
pieces of a case work together, new knowledge is obtained henceforth. This new
knowledge brings a deep sense of appreciation for the intricacy of the research case.
In this case, it provided a deeper understanding of effective practices for developing
ELs written English.
94
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This study examined the critical features in teaching the five paragraph essay
to English learners. In particular, the study focused on the critical features needed to
facilitate teaching the five paragraph essay to eighth grade Middle School Chinese
speaking students. Findings emerged from the following research question:
What are the critical features for teaching the five paragraph essay to English
learners at the middle school level? Related sub-questions were as follows:
a. What strategies does a teacher use for teaching the five
paragraph essay to English learners?
b. What is the role of feedback in teaching the five paragraph
essay to English learners?
c. How do students react or respond to the instructors strategies
and feedback?
This chapter is structured according to the essential themes which emerged
from student documents, observations, and interviews in this study. Qualitative data
is thus acquired, analyzed and triangulated.
Demographics
Overview of School and Class
The study was conducted in two English classesLanguage Arts 8 and
Literature 8 designated for ELD level 4 students at a middle school in a large
suburban district in East Los Angeles, California. The school was chosen because it
has a high volume of Chinese English learner (16.1%).
95
The class includes instruction in Language Arts and ELD. The second
language learners are placed in ELD based on five criteria: students grades, their
English teachers recommendation, and three district tests, namely, the MMA test,
CELDT test, and California Standard Test (C.S.T.). The MMA stands for the
Multiple Measure Assessment unique to Symphony Unified School District. It is the
districts benchmark test for four core content areas: math, science, language arts,
and social studies.
The basis for the tests is a set of criterion that indicates mastery of certain
subjects, and complies with the California Standard Test. They are developed by
teachers and a consultant from the Los Angeles County Office of Education. They
are summative assessments given three times a year or once every twelve
weeks. The average of three MMA will provide a fairly accurate estimation of how
well one will do on the California Standards Test. The assessment data reveals how
well the students are learning the material and how well the teachers are following
the Long Range Plans for their subject area. These assessments convey to educators
and administrators exactly which standards need to be re-taught in order to address
and close the learning gaps.
The California English Language Development Test (CELDT) identifies the
ELD level a student has reached. There are 5 levels: far below, below standards,
approaching standards, meeting standards, and exceeding standards. The test is
given in October and Harmony school administrators use the results as one of the
measures by which appropriate placement for the ELD students is determined.
96
Four students were chosen from the class based on parental permission and
because they are Chinese speaking ELs. The following gives brief descriptions of
the four students selected for the study.
Student Profiles
Chloe
Although Chloe was born in Sweden, she learned Cantonese because her
primary and home language is Cantonese. Chloe was placed at the Chinese
advanced level because of her ability to speak Cantonese. However, her writing
abilities in Chinese are limited. Both of her parents are of Chinese decent residing in
Vietnam and involuntary immigrated to Sweden before Chloe was born. Due to her
parents lack of education and impoverished working conditions her parents were not
afforded the opportunity of learning Swedish and they primarily spoke only Chinese.
Chloe actively learned Chinese from her parents. She also improved by speaking
with her Chinese cousins, relatives and friends. As a child, Chloe developed her
Cantonese by watching her fair share of Chinese television and Cantonese DVDs in
Sweden. At the age of 13, Chloe and her family immigrated to the United States in
2005. Chloe, who is now 15 years old started 7
th
grade in Harmony Middle School
prior to that she went to school in Sweden.
Chloes command of conversational English is stronger than that of other
students because she received basic interpersonal communicative skills or BICS
(Cummins, 2005) as a result of regularly viewing and listening to American shows
on television with Swedish subtitles. Her transfer from Swedish to English was
97
easier because Swedish is also a Germanic language and is closely in line with
English literature. In addition, Chloe started to learn English twice a week for two
hours as early as third grade in her public school in Sweden. Currently Chloe is
performing at an ELD level four. She successfully passed her Multiple Measurement
Assessment (MMA) writing section in February, 2007.
Stephen
Stephens primary language is Cantonese. Stephen used to speak Mandarin
because his baby sitter conversed with him in Mandarin but he lost his Mandarin as
he got older and no longer needed a baby sitter. At home his parents speak with him
only in Cantonese and he constantly watches Chinese cable T.V. He is considered
fluent in listening and speaking in Cantonese, but he can not read or write in
Cantonese. He was born in the United States and has never left the country. He
grew up in a predominantly Chinese community in California. His parents came
from Hong Kong originally. Both of his parents speak English only enough to get by
at their work place. They do not use it at home with Stephen. He has attended
Californias public schools since kindergarten. In Harmony Middle School he is
considered an English language learner in level four.
Fong
Fongs primary language is Chinese Mandarin. Her command of Chinese is
strong; she can speak, read and write in Mandarin. Fong came to the United States
three and an half years ago from Taiwan. She was born and educated in Taiwan until
4
th
grade and she started 5
th
grade in California. She claimed her vocabulary is
98
insufficient and she does not like to write compositions, even in Chinese. She feels
most comfortable speaking Chinese and spends her spare time reading non-fiction
books in Chinese. Fong preferred to conduct her interview in Chinese. She is now
reading books in English. Her current ELD is at level four.
Iwen
Iwen was born in California, but at age five her family moved back to China.
She was evaluated as a fluent and advanced Mandarin speaker, reader and writer.
She attended a private English Language Middle School in China. At age 12, she
came back to the United States. She was using the same level American reading
textbook in China as her same age peers in California. She had a tutor helping her
with her English speaking and writing as soon as she returned to the United States.
Iwens primary language is Chinese Mandarin because her parents only spoke
Mandarin at home. His English proficiency is at ELD level 4 and had successfully
passed her writing section of the MMA.
The four students were selected based on parental responses for permission to
participate. Writing samples, students interview and observation were used to
determine the critical features for teaching the five paragraph essay. This evaluation
cannot be easily generalized because the Chinese students English backgrounds are
very diverse. For example, Iwen has hired home tutors, Stephen and Iwen both have
attended after school academic supplementary programs, and Iwen had attended
private elementary schools, while others have attended public elementary schools.
99
Chloe has been born and raised in a western European country before she
immigrated to the United States.
Stephen and Iwen were born in the United States but Iwen migrated back to
China at age five and attended schools in China while her dad worked in the United
States and have been sending American textbooks for her to keep up with her
English reading comprehension. Iwen attended foreign language schools in Shanghai
which required her to speak English on a regular basis. Iwen subscribed to and read
English journals, magazines, or newspapers regularly when she was in China.
Stephen has been placed in Special Education in various school districts before his
new placement in ELD English classes in Harmony Middle School.
The table below provides an overview of the 4 students who participated in
the study.
Table 4
Case Study Student Profiles
Case Study Student L1 ELD Level 2nd Quarter MMA
Writing Results
Fong Mandarin 4 Failed
Iwen Mandarin 4 Passed
Stephen Cantonese 4 Failed
Chloe Cantonese 4 Passed
Based on these four students perspectives on effective writing instruction,
classroom observations, and student work samples this study was able to identify
critical feature for teaching the 5-paragraph essay to Chinese-speaking ELs.
100
Critical Features of Writing Instruction to English Learners
Critical Features (also referred to as important attributes) are a notions
important traits; one implies a positive connotation to this word (Ormrod, 2004).
Based on classroom observation and interviews three critical features were identified
for teaching the five paragraph essay to English learners at the Middle School level.
They are organizing ideas for writing, writing environment, and clear expectations
for writing.
Organizing Ideas for Writing
It is necessary to make a systematic decision to arrange ways to classify and
structurally interlock a body of information into writing (Ormrod, 2004). This
includes, ccategorizing a piece of writing based on related facts (Meyer, Brandt, &
Bluth, 1980) when that structure does not exist in the writing originally(Britton,
Stimson, Stennett, & Gülgöz, 1998). The data revealed three organizing ideas for
writing: Cornell notes, graphic organizers, and outlines. Teacher and students
interview, student document and class observation were used to support the findings.
Cornell Notes
The Cornell Note Taking System also referred to as Cornell Notes is a
strategic, time managing method to take down important and valuable notes from a
lecture (Student Success Workshop, n.d.). The essential advantage of this method is
that one is able to go back to the notes and insert and correct what is missing or
construct study questions (Notetaking Systems, 2006). The note taker records the
101
lecture notes in the right column in a condensed manner. The note taker can always
come back to add, review, or recall his/her notes (See example in Appendix E).
Mrs. Has use of Cornell Notes in assisting her students writing was a very
effective technique. Mrs. Ha believes deeply in Cornell Notes. She modeled all her
writing instruction and writing structure on these notes. Mrs. Ha used the notes
extensively during lectures to explain, clarify and reinforce the structure of the essay.
She even asked her students to bring Cornell Notes on the test day in order to help
them construct a quality essay. For example, when Mrs. Ha was teaching Strategies
for Reading and how to analyze the story before writing a response to literature essay,
she used the overhead projector to demonstrate. She asked students to take neat
notes and to place them in the literature section of their binders because she would
grade them. She asked students to fold their paper in half and to follow her example.
She then modeled Cornell Notes by drawing a center line in the middle and writing
the heading What are 6 Strategies? on the left hand column and circled numbers in
the right-hand column in order to take notes. She also provided unique symbols for
each reading strategy, such as a cloud next to prediction or a gavel next to
Evaluate.
As a consequence, three out of four students reflected what Mrs. Ha believed.
When four students were asked, What aspect of your teachers writing instruction
was most helpful? Chloe answered, Notes, when we take Cornell Notes.
102
Stephen mirrored and said, Well, we mostly take Cornell Notes a lot. I learn
more things from her by taking Cornell Notes. By taking Cornell Notes I learned
how to quote, and using examples and writing about the story that we read.
Iwen agreed, Mrs. Ha asks us to take the Cornell Notes and do the questions
for the stories and we write better essays when we take that MMA.
Not only did Chloe, Stephen and Iwen share that Cornell Notes were most
helpful to them, but Stephen even brought the notes as a permitted study sheet on the
day of the district writing test to organize his thoughts while composing his essay.
Consequently, Stephens test booklet on district Writing/Language Arts Multiple
Measures for Grade 8 included his Cornell notes on a Literature Essay Outline that
he took in class. This showed that Stephen had used and valued the Cornell Notes
technique.
Mrs. Ha used Cornell notes effectively to help students through their writing
process. She asked students to take Cornell Notes for what to write for each
sentence in an essay, such as: a hook, a thesis statement, a topic sentence, and
supporting details. And students responded favorably to her use of Cornell Notes.
Cornell Notes were helpful for ELs because Cornell Notes were written in a
strategic and idiosyncratic way so that students could easily spot, memorize, or refer
the important information they needed right away.
Graphic Organizers
Graphic organizers are a powerful and visual human tool that helps people
arrange the most important aspects of words, ideas, concepts, and relationships. Like
103
memory recall, graphic organizer, a tool used in semantic mapping, is another
engaging prewriting visual tools. It can creatively enhance cognitive understanding
(Brisk & Harrington, 2000). According to Homza (as cited in Brisk & Harrington,
2000) this is an effective device for scaffolding information and expanding lexis
for English learners.
Graphic Organizers are popular and powerful tools that help EL students
organize their ideas for writing. Mrs. Ha used many graphic organizers in her
teaching of the five paragraph essay during lectures, class work and homework. In
particular, the Hour Glass graphic organizer (see Appendix F) is very effective in
preparing students to write. Three out of the four students interviewed unanimously
shared that the Hour Glass organizer was the single most helpful instrument
introduced during the writing instruction.
What follows is an example of Mrs. Has lesson, How to use the Hour Glass
Organizer. She portrayed the diagram on a pad of white paper on an easel. She
started with the top graph by pointing at the inverted triangle of the graph and
described how to structure the five paragraph essay according to the graph. Mrs. Ha
asked students to start with a general statement accompanied by a hook and
gradually become more specific. She wrote the words and drew the arrows on the
two sides of the inverted triangles at the same time, verbally expressing what she was
doing. Students were required to copy the diagram and the words off the board. It
was a moment of discovery for the students because the mystery of the structure of
104
the five paragraph essay was clear and had become a simple template to those eighth
grade EL students.
Iwen, who has passed her writing MMA explained during her interview that
the diagram of the structure of the essay, meaning the Hour Glass graphic
organizer, was the most helpful tool for her. Even during her second interview, she
still pointed out the same one. She shared, She goes over those triangle things (she
drew the structure of the organizer on a piece of paper) like from general to a precise
point and like the structure like how to write exactly how to write the response to
literature essay.
Chloe has also passed the MMA writing. She drew the Hour Glass graphic
organizer on a piece of paper and echoed what Iwen shared, When she does this
chart, she wants this triangle and stuff and thesis and was very helpful to me.
When Chloe was interviewed a second time, she flipped papers on the easel
and pointed to the Hour Glass graphic organizer. She pointed at a page and said,
That one (pointing at the Hour Glass graphic organizer!) I think this is very
helpful when we are going to write an essay.
Stephen voiced the same opinion. He also mentioned that he liked and used
the first writing format (meaning the Hour Glass graphic organizer) and borrowed
the idea from the graph because it is easier, and he can capture and absorb more
ideas from the story, and write more information.
When Stephen was being observed while working on his writing, he was
actually using the hourglass graphic organizer that he shared during his interview.
105
He was so focused on his writing project that his shoulder bent forward while
working on his brain storming outline.
The Graphic Organizer clearly is a well-liked and dominant prewriting tool
that these 8
th
grade EL students find helpful. Iwen, Chloe and Stephen each pointed
out that while learning their five paragraph essay structure, the graphic organizer,
specifically the Hour Glass graphic organizer was the single most important
feature that helped them.
The use of graphic organizers help ELs organize and structure their ideas into
standard form before drafting. They are a way of scaffolding as in Vgotskys zone
of proximal development (ZPD) describes a particular task that might be too difficult
for a student but can be overcome with sufficient help from a more capable other
(Dacey and Travers, 2006). Wood, Bruner, and Ross study (1976) applied
Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) in their research. They invented
the words scaffolding structure as a figure of speech to further modify ZPD usage.
The teachers prime responsibility is to frame a students work based on a students
current level of learning. This will help the student build and proceed to a higher
level of problem solving.
The graphic organizer is a simple yet effective prewriting tool for ELs. After
an explanation of how the five paragraph essay is structured with the graph it
becomes easy to visualize, memorize and apply the structure of the five paragraph
essay into students writing. Based on the students success as writers with the use
106
of graphic organizers, providing varied tools for ELs at the pre-writing stage is
critical.
Outlines
Outlines organize subject matter and provide correlation between two terms
(Notetaking Systems, 2006). Outlines make use of key phrases and eliminate the
need to write in complete sentences. The degree of the importance are differentiated
in an orderly fashion from Roman Numeral to capital letters to lower case Roman
Numeral to lower case alphabets to numbers to bolted points to hyphens. It
hierarchically starts with the most general information to the most specific
information. Space relationship can denote the scale of significance. When the
next two (or three or more) terms are of equal weight they should be assigned to the
same disposition (Pauk, 1974).
During two weeks of instruction on responding to literature essays, Mrs. Ha
emphasized using an outline as one of her pre-writing tools to assist with the writing
process.
Mrs. Ha introduced a response to literature essay as a lecture and model
outline on an overhead projector for students to copy. She talked about what should
be included in a response to literature essay and then she used Roman numeral letters
for the main parts of the five paragraph essay such as introduction, first body
paragraph, second body paragraph and conclusion. She used capital letters for the
subcomponents of the main parts of the five paragraph essay i.e. the hook,
background information about characters, and thesis. She used small Roman
107
numerals letter such as i, ii, iii for descriptions of the background information about
characters. (i.e., include the title and author). Then she passed out a handout called
Response to Literature Essay Outline Part 1 (see appendix I) and walked around to
make sure the students understood how to work on the thesis and topic sentences of
each body paragraph. She made sure that they restated the thesis in their conclusion
section clearly. She asked students to line up and let her check and made corrections
on their papers before they proceeded to their first draft. Students also checked back
to their Response to Literature Essay Outline (see appendix J) for clarification on
vague terms.
Two out of four students were seen using an outline as their reference when
working on their paper and they both shared that the outline has helped them in their
writing process. Chloe was observed working on her response to literature using an
outline. Chloe shared that the outline is helpful, efficient and it works like a template.
The outline is acting as a thinker for the writer. One just follows and answers the
direction it intends to lead them. She stated, An outline is the most helpful. It
makes it very easy to write the essay because you can just focus on the outline and
just follow it. You dont have to think about what you are going to write.
Iwen agreed with Chloe about how the outline is helpful to her, how she
could depend on the outline to get her job done and how the teacher used the outline
to help her organize her thoughts through the stages of the writing process. She also
used the outline to help her generate more writing. Iwen said, She gave us the essay
108
outlines to fill out the three supporting details and quote from the story and to
explain it. So we can write more on the essay.
Iwen, who has passed her writing MMA, used the outline to help her write
her assignment. In one incident, Iwen was observed flipping through her draft and
outlines in order to review and make appropriate changes to revise her essay.
Mrs. Ha was seen using an outline as a functional tool to help her students
advance their writing. She used the outline for students to practice the five
paragraph essay element such as introduction, hook, thesis statement, topic sentences,
and conclusion. She also assigned the outline as class work, homework, preparation
for a mock test, brainstorming, point of references when revising their own paper and
in questioning. In addition, she also made a point to check every students outline
for accuracy. And finally, before the writing MMA test, she asked her students to
bring their outlines as references to structure their essay.
On the first day of observation, Mrs. Ha handed out Response to Literature
Essay Outline Part One to students. This outline included introduction, thesis, topic
sentence for body paragraph one and topic sentence for body paragraph two,
conclusion and restated thesis (see appendix I). She asked her students to carefully
complete this outline worksheet as homework. A week later, she asked them to
revise the paper and to look back at outline notes for paragraph structure. The next
day Mrs. Ha was working on practice writing test, three instructional days before the
real MMA writing test the following Monday. For this mock writing test, she wrote
on the board Before you start your essay you need to do an outline-Thesis Topic
109
sentence, Quotes. Collect your brainstorming, outline; I need to O.K. your outline;
Take out Outline notes. Do ..thesis and outline today. Mrs. Ha clearly showed
that the outline was important for them to start and head in the right direction.
Mrs. Ha wrote the following on the board, Test on Monday. It is an open
note test. The Outline for your response to literature would be helpful for looking
through the notes. Obviously, she believes that the outline would be an important
prewriting instrument for students on the important district test day. Mrs. Ha is such
a diligent teacher she is making every effort to make the outline known to her
students and her endeavor has bloomed because on the third writing of the MMA, a
majority of her students have passed (90%).
The table below provides an overview of the students choices for organizing
their ideas for writing.
Table 5
Use of Critical Features in Teaching the 5-Paragraph Essay
Case Study Student Cornell Notes Graphic organizer Outlines
Chloe X X X
Fong X
Iwen X X X
Stephen X X
Visual tools help ELs organize their ideas for writing. Cornell Notes (100%
of the research participants liked the tool), the Graphic organizer (75% of the
research participants liked this tool.), and outlines (50% of the research participants
110
liked this particular tool) are three proven effective and critical visual tools
recommended for writing teachers to use when teaching the five paragraph essay to
ELs.
Organizing ideas for writing (Meyer, Brandt, & Bluth, 1980) is only one of
three critical features for teaching the five paragraph essay to ELs.
Writing Environment
Writing environment is the second distinctive quality for teaching the five
paragraph essay to EL. The Writing Environment, according to Robertson, & Cross
(2004), should foster an interactive environment where students experience writing
in the classroom. There should be a relationship and interaction between students and
their learning atmosphere. This includes: the relationship between the writing
instructor and his/her students and the affective interactions between writing teachers
and the students.
Ideally, according to Brna, Cooper and Razmeritas study (as cited in
Robertson, & Cross, 2004) the writing educator should provide warmth and
sensitivity as well as cognitive support so that students will become engaged in an
interactive surrounding and feel secure. For example, the role of a teacher is
modeling strategic writing practices, encouraging students to explore his/her voice,
ownership and sense of pride thus engaging them and facilitating their learning.
Findings from the data reveal that writing environment has two distinctive
parts: classroom organization and classroom management.
111
Classroom Organization
Slavin (1987) has found crucial elements necessary for effective classroom
organization including Appropriate Levels of Instruction, and Time. The elements
are mutually interlocking and closely interrelated.
Appropriate Levels of Instruction
Appropriate levels of instruction reflected how well one organized the class
and positively affected students writing environment, which was one of the most
important features for teaching the five-paragraph essay to ELs. At first Harmony
school distributed EL students to their appropriate English level through their tests
result, teachers recommendation and their grades in class. Mrs. Has accumulated
teaching skills and experiences made her keenly aware of her students English
writing levels. Likewise, she perceived each students writing process so that she
could differentiate her instruction appropriately. This made her instruction really
yield positive results.
Harmony Middle School ELD Personnel test EL students extensively when
they first arrive from other countries to place students in the appropriate ELD
classroom. Mrs. Ha was keenly aware of her ELD level four students who needed
appropriate levels of instruction. Mrs. Ha had eight years of experience teaching
writing. She was good at determining the students writing level. She only needed
to swiftly scan a few lines to determine a students writing level accurately.
112
Mrs. Ha had taught both regular English classes and ELD classes. She was
able to differentiate her instruction and adjust to the students levels of understanding.
She used different instructional tools and educational material to guide her students,
thereby making certain her ELD students were prepared to compose a clear thesis,
including a well organized paragraph, focused on the topic, providing supporting
quotes, flowing smoothly from one point to the next, finishing with a strong
conclusion, and containing grammatically correct sentences. Moreover, she made
certain students understood the stories they were writing in a patient and caring
manner. If students did not know the stories they would not respond appropriately.
Mrs. Ha was knowledgeable about each of her students. She knew that Chloe
had a strong command of the English language, while Stephen struggled in grammar
usage and mechanics. Her comments on Stephen included, He does have a number
of errors in grammar whether its verb tense or subject/verb agreement. Things like
that are also distracting. By reading Fongs paper, Mrs. Ha could tell right away
Fong had a hard time working with language and conveying her thoughts clearly as
an ELD student and the language was the big factor for her not passing the essay.
Chloe, the most advanced student, enjoyed Mrs. Has writing instruction and
felt Mrs. Ha used appropriate levels of instruction. She appreciated how Mrs. Ha
presented how to make an outline, what tense to use in a story, and gave a very clear
explanation in class.
113
Whenever questions were asked, she explained the answers very clearly and
thoroughly. Chloe remarked, She teaches us very useful stuff that makes us learn
better. Useful stuff like paragraph, the one with topic sentence, and supporting
points and that would need to have quotes in a paragraph.
The appropriate placement of ELs based on ELD level as well as Mrs. Has
experience working with ELs demonstrated the effectives of appropriate levels of
instruction.
Time
Slavin (1994) categorized time, one of the four elements of the classroom
organization, into two types: engaged time and allocated time. Engaged time
meaning the students are actually involved and engaged in learning. Allocated time
is the time that the school authority or the teacher allotted for the students for that
specific day and time.
Mrs. Has class is ninety minutes in duration. In regard to Mrs. Has
approach to allocating this time, she believes that EL students need more time and
supervision on their writing assignments. Her view is that with more writing time,
her students will take advantage of available resources and personnel and will be
more engaged in their writing. After a new essay is assigned, students have two days
to work on it in class. Chloe praised Mrs. Ha:
She gives us a lot of time to do our essays, and we get to do our work
in class instead of having it as homework. That is like awesome and
she cares for me and like she didnt give us a lot of homework.
114
On this day, Mrs. Ha was rehearsing the structure of the writing with her
students and getting them ready for their big test on Monday. She was using
cooperative learning strategies as students worked on drafts. She believes that
corporate wisdom is valuable. A group of students can think about a problem
together, saving time and utilizing the knowledge of everyone in the group. It was
the last instructional day before the second quarter of the written MMA. Mrs. Ha had
almost exhausted her ideas on rehearsing the writing structures. She had given them
individual work such as self check lists, outlines, and feedback at every stage of the
writing. She had just introduced the terms: exposition, rising action, climax, and
falling action and after she let her students work individually on the terms in the
handout for about fifteen minutes. She wanted students to have more practice by
letting students work in a group of four.
She accomplished this by requiring them to complete the plot diagram (i.e.,
the climax, the rising action and the falling action) to come up with an agreeable
theme statement, write a list of conflicts that the character had faced, and present the
poster to the class. Patricia gave her answers out intending to hopefully generate a
better answer from her group members. Chloes group was trying hard to work on
the rising action and produce the prime answer for their group. Just by selecting the
best answer, hearing and absorbing different group presentations one could tell that
this was a very productive lesson. Table 6 provides the amount of time Mrs. Ha
provided for the different components of her writers workshop.
115
Table 6
Time Allotments for Elements of Mrs. Has Writers Workshop
Context Time in minutes
Individual work 35 min.
Group work 25 min.
Working with a partner 15 min.
Whole class instruction 15 min.
The individual gets the most minutes because more time with independent
practice helps develop writing fluency. Mrs. Ha assigned daily independent writing
and usually, after whole class instruction, she would assign some work for her
students to work on individually at their own desks. It was during this time that she
took the attendance and cleared those who had legitimate reasons for being absent.
She then provided the mini-lesson for the day to the whole class. After the whole
class instruction, they would work with a partner or in a group if they still needed
time to process their learning. In addition, in group work some students would take
advantage of the social situation and rely on their peers feedback. Students would
then continue to work individually.
Mrs. Ha allocates time effectively, combining individual writing, whole
group, partnership, and group work. Her effective allocation of time together with
appropriate level of instruction provide an excellent learning environment. This is a
big step towards the quality writing environment which is critical for writing the five
paragraph essay.
116
Classroom Management
Classroom management is seen as a core foundation to a novice teachers
pedagogical knowledge (Emmer & Stough, 2001) Berliners study (as cited in
Emmer, & Stough, 2001) even suggested that beginning teachers more than anything
they need to master a certain degree of management skills before they continue to
pursue and acquire their instructional skills.
Emmer, E.T., & Stough, L.M. (2001) define the term classroom management
as maintaining an orderly classroom so that students can cooperatively engage in
learning. In order for the class to run and function properly, the teacher needs to set
up and follow through a series of guidelines and principles.
Mrs. Has classroom management is closely related to the students success
in writing. Students appreciated and respected Mrs. Ha, stating that her management
skills provided the atmosphere that allowed them to concentrate and consequently do
well on their writing.
Consistency
Before Mrs. Ha was assigned to teach the class, Chloe sat at a round table
with three male students. One of the students, Juan, was especially naughty and
hyper, and his behavior caused a lot of disturbance. Chloes work productivity had
been negatively influenced by Juans distraction. However, after Mrs. Ha took over
the class, things improved drastically. Everyone worked on their writing quietly;
students had become engaged in their writing and learning was possible because the
class was quiet. Good students who have always tried to find time to excel in their
117
writing, see this type of classroom management as a benefit. Specifically, Juans
sudden quietness benefited Chloes study and concentration. In the interview with
Chloe, she said, During class she makes everyone quiet. So there is like, there is no
noise at times.
Mrs. Ha was also effective in making students turn in their writing
assignments. She thought of incentives and consequence to make sure students
turned in their writing. Students who did not turn in their essay were required by
Mrs. Ha to serve lunch detention in order to show how serious she had been about
this assignment and how important the essay was to their passing their MMA writing
exam. Fong said, For those who did not turn in their work she gave them a series of
detentions during lunch time in order for them to write up their essay.
The agenda printed on the board said, No essay serves lunch detention;
Come over to write essay, Mrs. Ha proclaimed, I dont care if you come up with an
excuse like my computer broke. She further decreed, if you turn your essay in at
this point you get half the grade points The class observation confirmed what Fong
said.
Fong also stated, If the class is not behaving she adds extra work. On this
day of observation when the break bell rang no one said anything. And no one left
the classroom. The teacher was punishing them for their noise level.
Mrs. Ha was also effective in monitoring students group projects. Iwen was
observed working on the group project with her table members. Two of her group
members minds wandered and they began to chat. No one was really working
118
except Iwen, which made her mad and nervous. Then in time, Mrs. Ha, the teacher
came to look at how the group was doing. The two girls stopped talking and
seemingly started working. Mrs. Ha walked around to each group in order to
maintain a constructive learning environment. This worked effectively. An effective
teacher remains in control even till the end of class. Mrs. Ha said, If I hear zippers
and you guys packing backpacks you will all stay after class. I dont want you to
line up by the door.
The reason Mrs. Ha had strong control in keeping the noise level down,
turning in writing assignment on time, and monitoring students group project was
because of her consistency with her discipline techniques with her 8
th
grade students.
This positively affected students writing MMA and provided students a quiet and
constructive writing environment. ELs need opportunities for independent practice
in quiet settings to focus and think about the information and learning in a the second
language. EL students further rely on the teacher to monitor group processing and
participation so that they can feel safe trying out language and making mistakes
while valuing their opinions and input.
Not only would consistency make strong classroom management, but
diligence in discipline when different students tried various ways to disrupt the class
was also very important in classroom management.
Diligence
Mrs. Ha was diligent in controlling the class because she believed that a well-
controlled class was the prelude to good learning and strong instruction. Especially
119
on the first day of her return to teaching in the classroom. She had been informed by
Mrs. Johnson that students had been very disruptive in her absence. On her first day
back, the class was required to remain very quiet, which was quite different from
when the substitute teacher had been there.
While Stephen was explaining a question to the teacher, the class became
very noisy. Mrs. Ha was trying to give Stephen feedback so she had to maintain
control of the classroom environment. She raised her voice to control the class
effectively saying, if you start talking again you will have one major assignment.
Get your work done and stop talking, understand? The class suddenly quieted
down.
An effective teacher must be diligent in controlling a class. When EL sees
how diligent and serious the teacher was managing the class then they will be serious
to behave in class therefore they could concentrate on working on their writing
assignment with a single eye to improve its quality.
Respect
Mrs. Ha knew what she was teaching and was very serious when giving a
lecture. She was very fair and would not show favoritism to one student over
another. She definitely earned students respect and trust. Therefore, hardly any
students acted up during class. Fong said, Boys are behaving better now. She
would control the class only when students were beginning to act up. Her class
management is very good. It only takes her to shout once and everyone is quiet.
120
When the researcher was first introduced to the class she spoke with the 7
Chinese students in a different room in order to explain the study and encourage
participation. At the end Fong and Iwen asked to remain in the room because they
did not like Mrs. Johnsons classroom management. However, when Mrs. Ha took
over there was a noticeable change in the classroom environment. Students
respected Mrs. Ha and liked the way she corrects and responds to students
immediately. Students were calmer and appeared to listen to her classroom rules,
instruction and lectures. She was well focused and had very good concentration.
She possessed a teaching momentum that flowed very well. She was well organized;
she taught and followed the procedures step-by-step.
Mrs. Has classroom management technique was beneficial, consistent and
effective to the students; her teaching style was respected which caused students to
comply with her rules. This provided an excellent writing environment because
students were writing purposefully and in turn were developing their L2 writing
skills.
Clear Expectations for Writing
Mrs. Ha gives her English learners very clear expectations for writing five
paragraph essays. There is instructional evidence of her expectations. Rubrics,
checklists and model text are three typical items for teaching the five paragraph essay
to ELs.
121
Rubrics
A group of writing teachers at Harmony collaboratively devised a criteria or a
set of standards for evaluating students writing - the principal referred to it as
calibration. It is a four-point rubric evaluating five areas of writing. At Harmony
School, every essay focused on only one category in the rubric, at a time. If there is
any rating distribution uncertainty, the third rater will intervene to determine rater
reliability. However, the rating of writing often by and large relies on past grading
experience or goes by prototype categorization. The raters grading experience is
based on his/her previous experience (Haswell, 2001).
When beginning the second MMA writing task Mrs. Ha passed out the
inventory self-check checklist but forgot to pass out the rubric. Therefore, students
did not know what to expect on the second MMA writing. When Mrs. Ha was
interviewed before the second MMA on the topic of specific expectations for her
students, she did not realize that most of her EL students had never seen rubrics nor
did they know the function or usage of them. She thought she had handed out the
rubrics in the beginning of the semester. She said, I give them rubrics at the
beginning of every unit that we are doing. They know what were looking for in the
paper. There are checklists that are based on the rubrics, so they know what earns
credit.
At the interview with Fong she pointed out the specific time when the teacher
first gave them the rubrics to check for their writing. She said, It wasnt until the
122
third quarter that she gave us the rubrics to show what criteria the teacher uses to
score our essays.
In her interview, Iwen suggested that Mrs. Ha use a rubric more often. She
shared, And she can like focus on the rubrics more so like last time I got four and
this time I have to aim at 5. And so we know like how the teacher grade the
essay .
Mrs. Ha did not focus on rubrics during the early part of her writing
instruction. The students had wished that the teacher would have shown them the
rubrics prior to the MMA writing test. She handed them out after the third quarter.
Iwen stated that besides the outline she believed that the rubrics helped her the most.
Rubrics tell what the grader is looking for in an essay so students can try to
reach the ultimate standards. It is one of the most important tools for providing clear
expectations for writing that teachers can provide for EL students. This tool
therefore should be one of the crucial features for writing instructors to teach the five
paragraph essay to ELs.
Checklists
Mrs. Ha used both a self checklist and peer checklist editing strategy. Mrs.
Ha handed out checklists (see appendix G and H) for students to proof read and
evaluate their own and each others writing. Here is how she described her writing
expectations on checklists in the interview, I gave them a checklist to go
through...And, yeah, I mean its just giving them feedback and then giving them a
checklist to assess their peers writing as far as its organization and content.
123
Mrs. Ha described the self-checklist that she used with her students in writing.
She explained to the students how to make use of the checklists. She instructed them
to use modeling combined with color coding techniques to reinforce the key terms of
the writing structure and writing components of the five paragraph essay.
She asked her students to examine the self-check checklist, to look at their
own writing paragraph by paragraph and section by section, and to read the questions
on each grid of the checklist. If their writing showed evidence of the checklist item
they put a yes check in the box. For the thesis statement underline that sentence!
If one cannot find a thesis, mark no thesis in a red pen! she announced. She used
an overhead projector and also used student samples to demonstrate her instructions
step by step. She required students to change all the nos in the checklist to a
yes. She called for finding out what was missing, and asked the students to fill in
what was missing. Mrs. Ha collected the homework with the checklist on top.
Iwen remembered her checklist from Mrs. Has recent instruction on writing
a business letter. Although it was not a response to a literature essay, it still served
the point. Iwen said, She likes to ask other students to correct each others paper so
the peer editing helps me a lot. She asks the peer editors to write a summary for each
paragraph and to compare it to the outline.
Mrs. Ha had done a lot more of self-check checklist than peer editing
checklist. Mrs. Ha had caught up with the usage of the checklist after the 2
nd
MMA.
Three out of four students remembered the checklist after they were taught business
124
writing. She had incorporated more of the checklist strategy to her teaching on the
third quarter, where the passing rate of the students writing in MMA increased.
The checklist was used as a strategic tool for students to revise and proof read
what they had written. The Checklists were an additional tool for students to
reexamine their writing work. It was an additional reference that ELs were able to
rely on. It clearly expressed the expectations for writing and was a vital ingredient
for teaching the five paragraph essay to ELs.
Use of Model Text
Sample essays, also known as model texts, can come from books, instructor-
composed, or an essay written by peers. See appendix M1-M3 for a sample of
Model Text.
The use of model text is a highlight in Mrs. Has teaching. She has collected
various text from her first year of teaching. Two out of four students liked the use of
model text. Fong particularly liked the model text. She stated, She gives us
examples of others work to look at. The sample essays are actually the most helpful
to me. I need a lot of examples, not a lot of details. It is more illustrative and easier
for me.
At the time of the interview with Iwen, Mrs. Ha had only presented one
simple model text. Iwen inquired whether her teacher could provide more model
letters for them to follow. Soon after the interview Mrs. Ha had presented more
model texts to her students. In her second interview, Iwen stated gladly, And she
125
Critical Features for
Teaching
the 5 Paragraph
Organizing
Ideas
For Writing
Writing
Environment
Clear
Expectations
for Writing
Cornell Notes Graphic
Organizer
Outlines Classroom
Organization
Classroom
Managemen
t
Rubrics Checklists Model
Text
teaches us how to write she gives us examples of the sample essay. We have a better
idea.
One day Mrs. Ha was caught using an overhead projector with a former
students essay to explain and position the location of an introduction and hook in an
essay. She asked students to color code the main point in red, supporting details in
yellow, transition words in green. It was an interesting educational activity
reinforcing the structure of writing in mind.
Use of the model text strengthens ones teaching. Use of the model text
causes students to want to learn more. It is particularly helpful for EL students to
have a concrete object to replicate and specific samples clearly demonstrate the
instructors expectations for writing. Figure 4.4 provides the overview and the
detailed branches and the specific names of the critical features for teaching the five-
paragraph essay to ELs.
Figure 4.4
Overview of the Critical Features for Teaching the Five-Paragraph essay to EL.
126
Organizing ideas for writing, the writing environment, and clear expectations
for writing are three critical features for teaching the five-paragraph essay to the EL
student which emerged from data collected in Mrs. Has classroom. Cornell Notes,
graphic organizers, and outlines were the three most salient examples of organizing
ideas for writing. In particular, classroom organization and classroom management
were the two most significant considerations in Mrs. Has writing environment. Mrs.
Has use of rubrics, checklists and model texts were the three most prominent
writing tools to scaffold students writing, thus spelling out clear expectations for
writing.
To know the critical features involved is not enough. One also has to know
the strategies that successful EL teachers employ to shape the writing process for the
EL student. The next section will discuss the three most popular strategies Mrs. Ha
employed in teaching the 5-paragraph essay to her ELD level 4 students.
Strategies for Teaching the 5-Paragraph Essay
to Middle School ELs
Cooperative Learning
Stephen had a very positive experience with cooperative learning. His role in
the process was an information gatherer. He felt it was a very helpful experience.
He was able to look for the facts of the summary and plot out the main events of the
story. He even flipped back to his old notes and applied the ideas from his notes
onto the poster. The group came together to revise their story and to make sure the
information, the content and the mechanics were correct. He was able to learn from
other students mistakes and how others corrected and revised the paper. When the
127
time came for the other groups to present their projects he was able to watch and
learn new information from the other group. Stephen stated, It is helpful. I look at
other peoples work to borrow some idea from the other group that is working with
my group. I listen carefully what is going on from the other group.
Chloe has a field sensitive type of personality: she likes to be with friends.
Although she was shy she liked to be around with friends. In her interview she
emphasized a couple of times that she enjoys the cooperative learning strategy much
more than the other learning strategies. She did not like independent writing because
she would work alone for a longer period of time, which was not as helpful when she
worked with a group of people who could collectively generate a bundle of creative
ideas. She liked the way that cooperative learning tasks were distributed evenly to
people. This allowed everyone to participate and lightened the workload. Thus, the
work was easier and it was more fun to do.
In addition, group members were selected out of convenience. Chloe, who
was the top student in the class of 2007, described that she liked to see the beautiful
sight of watching everyone talking to one another and planning out the project
together for their common goal. One can actually have a group of partners and
friends working together for a better grade! And one didnt have to always work
alone. This was great news to Chloe. She had the opportunity to share her ideas and
learn new and creative things from her group that she could not have thought of one
her own. She felt she learned a lot more about the work they were doing from
cooperative learning, as opposed to the other methods of learning.
128
Chloe was very appreciative of her group members. In her opinion, she
viewed the many positive aspects of the cooperative learning process. While Chloe
was writing up the groups final report, her group members praised her for her
writing abilities. They encouraged her to keep up the good work and use more of
them in her future writing. They also provided constructive criticism on some of her
sentence constructions so she could improve her writing as well. She expressed a
short quote from her own words regarding cooperative learning, and shared, If you
work in a group you have different ideas but alone only one idea because you are
only one person. Work with people. You learn about them. You learn about the
work. Again, you get new ideas.
Cooperative learning can generate a lot more ideas than one could ever think
of alone. Teacher needs to make sure responsibilities are evenly distributed and
everyone participates. Cooperative learning can be a useful and positive tool one
teacher could use for teaching the five paragraph essay to EL in the middle school
level. Small group settings facilitate language development because students
affective filters are lowered to allow language input (Krashen, 1982).
Writers Workshop
Writing workshops have become more popular in secondary English writing
instruction (Herter, 1998). Calkins Writers Workshop, also known as Writing
Workshop, is a name brand for a modern writing method that focuses on the writing
process. A typical Writers Workshop is compiled of a daily mini-lesson as the
knowledge bank of the students spiritual bread and direction for writing. Students
129
are encouraged to share their life experience through writing; writing conferences are
the core of a writing process and writing partnership is valued and recognized.
Students are trained to be writing teachers as well as trained to learn and accumulate
editing skills for revising their own writing pieces (Calkins, & Martinelli, 2006).
Mrs. Ha has been trained in the Americas Choice Writers Workshop. She
has used this training to develop her own version of Writers Workshop. Mrs. Has
eight years of teaching experience, her own practice with writing, adjusting, gearing,
targeting, conforming and teaching within school mandates influenced her version of
the method. Her experiential knowledge about what it took for EL students to
acquire writing knowledge was also helpful in the development of her workshop.
She has added valuable teacher and peer feedback to design her signature writers
workshop.
Stephen shared his personal impression of what the Writers Workshop
meant to him. He was familiar with the Writers Workshop because it was a part of
his seventh grade curriculum last year. He considered the Workshop to be a
wonderful process, because he was given the opportunity to write on any topic of his
choice. He was thrilled to write on anything he liked with unlimited length and
without time constraints. He appreciated the big notebook he got from his teacher.
In it, he would write whenever he got the chance to and wherever he went. He
would share his thoughts from the journal with anyone he knew. He even brought
the journal to his aunts swimming party and shared his brilliant journal entries to his
uncles and friends. Stephen stated, I like notebooks with many pages so I can write
130
what I want. I like to take them wherever I go and share my writing with my friends
and family. Thats why I like the Writers Workshop.
Stephen also fell in love with readings about war which were accessible to
him in the Writers Workshop. He loved to read non-fiction accounts of World War
II. He started to share about a recent book he had been reading, So Far from the
Bamboo Grove, Stephens passion for the topic was observed through his voice
intonations and how meticulous his memory was of the war.
Stephen appreciated Mrs. Has use of model text with the overhead projector
in the mini lesson during writers workshop that helped him understand and know
exactly how the essay should be written or how others had written it. For example,
the six componentsheading, inside address, salutation, body, closing and signature
that should be entailed in a business letter was made very clear to him when he saw
the model text on the overhead projector that Mrs. Ha showed the class during mini
lesson instruction. Stephen shared, Use of essay from another student helped me
understand how the essay is written. It helps me understand use example from
others essay to transfer to my writing. [She] use overhead projector because she
show to see other peoples writing.
Like Stephen, Iwen too was passionate about the Writers Workshop. She
savored learning new things. She embraced writing as she had every day with her
more comfortable subjectsChemistry, Physics and Biology in the tutorial center.
This was surprising, given Chemistry, Physics and Biology were absent from her 8
th
grade curriculum. She liked learning through the Writers Workshop because it was
131
systematic, in sequence, in small chunks, and involved in-depth learning. Iwen said
that the Workshop was pretty good because it taught us important things that we
were not clear about--including grammar and vocabulary.
Similarly, Iwen also liked the independent writing. She had the chance to
practice her burgeoning literary analysis skills daily. Unlike Stephen, who felt the
independent writing was challenging and difficult for him, Iwen believed that
practice made perfect no matter how alienating and difficult the task might seem.
She had been bombarded with cognitively demanding sets of problems (Cummins,
2005) dailywith her Chemistry, Physics, Biology and Geometry courseworkyet
overcame such arduous obstacles. She believed her daily practice would help her
improve on her verbal test scores, writing skills, and future academic writing. She
said, Practicing literary analysis helps. It helps improve my writing skills. It helps
me practice my skills for writing little essays and doing well on the writing tests.
Practice literary analysis.
Chloe liked the Mini lesson in writers workshop because the teacher set the
stage and she knew ahead of time what was going to be the topic for that day so she
planned ahead by reading ahead and surfing on the internet and she would mentally
picture what it would be so she was prepared to learn. She was able to generate
thoughtful questions and determine gaps in her learning. She said, You are
prepared what you gonna learn. You know, so you are ready to learn. You know
what is going on in class. You learn. If you tell us what we are going to learn before
so we are ready.
132
Writers Workshop is an outstanding tool for prompting and promoting
students to become avid writers. In this environment, teachers need to be aware of
the students varying levels of English. Teachers need to also adjust their teaching
styles for EL learners. For such learners, the cognitive demand in writing and tests
should be diminished. As EL teachers utilize these strategies, many students will be
encouraged to write well and eventually become proficient, and possibly even
professional writers. EL writing instructors should utilize a writers workshop model
to teach the five paragraph essay at the middle school level. Figure 4.6 provides an
overview of Mrs. Has Writers Workshop model for her ELD level 4 students.
Figure 4.6
Mrs. Has Writers Workshop
●Readers discuss Reading-Writing Connections
●An independent Write and confer time
●Cooperative Learning: An in-depth learning process in which
students worked purposefully towards the completion of a task and
made friends in the process. Easing the workload, the tasks were
distributed evenly, which encouraged and allowed everyone to
●Authors Chair: Sharing ones own journal on a teachers designated
chair and everyone listens attentively in a circle.
●Independent Writing: The writing instructor assigns writing tasks for
his/her students to work on individually at their own desks.
●Mini-Lesson is the knowledge bank of the students spiritual bread
and direction for writing.
●Peer Revision According to Brisk & Harrington (2000), the audience
of the writing recommends corrections on the authors content,
organization and grammar usage.
133
Peer-Revision Strategy
The definition for peer revision, according to Brisk & Harrington (2000) is
when the audience of the writing recommends corrections, proposals, evaluations or
feedback on the authors content, organization and grammar usage. In the revision:
mechanics are corrected; content and ideas are more fully developed (Beason, 1993).
All students agreed that peer revision strategy was a helpful strategy. A real life
illustration from Mrs. Has classroom would help to illustrate. Mrs. Ha handed
Stephen his final draft that Sharleen had provided corrections for. Sharleen had
suggested that he pick a different quote, delete the phrase the thesis is and turn it
in again later that week.
Stephen thought the peer revision was helpful because the editing process had
reinforced and strengthened his business letter writing format and writing skills. He
said, It was helpful. I get through things easily and fast check the format of a
business letter on the checklist. ..I know what I am supposed to I can reinforce,
review the format and get it into my head.
Although Iwen was one of the top two students in writing she still felt that the
peer revision had helped her a great deal. She was fascinated to see how her peer
perceived her writing and summarized what she wrote in each paragraph. Finding
out how her audience perceived her writing had helped her to write with an audience
in mind. She had to go back to rewrite or add some more description. Mrs. Ha
handed out a rubric and asked peer editors to edit their friends paper based on a
rubric. Comments from the peer editor helped Iwen to know where exactly she had
134
missed the point. According to Iwen, Peer editing helps me a lot. She made a
checklist [rubric]. We could see how much that we missed on each part of the essay.
It helps a lot.
Iwen has a very healthy and mature view of what constitutes a well-written
paper and a poorly written paper. She knows that a good paper does not always
immediately win the favor of a teacher. The teacher might forget to praise it at the
moment or might have beliefs or values that run counter to the argument the student
is presenting.
Although she has passed at least two quarters of her writing MMA and her 7
th
grade CELDT writing section, Iwen shared that she still had room to grow as a writer.
She said it was a good idea for her to read and observe how others were writing. She
could then observe their outstanding areas and strive to be like them. She felt it was
a great opportunity to exchange papers and communicate good ideas. She did not
mind if her classmates made mistakes in correcting her paper because the students
helped to improve her paper. Plus, Mrs. Ha would always look at her paper again
after the peer revision was done. She felt she was getting additional positive
feedback from her peers. This process helped not only to develop Iwens writing
skills, but her thinking skills as wellskills that would be added to her already great
family education and education from previous language teachers.
Iwen expressed praise for peer correction, I can read another persons work
and learn from it we can exchange and share ideas. If I think an idea is helpful, I can
always learn from it. I am getting an additional feedback that I had not received.
135
Fong also noted Mrs. Has peer revision strategy. Although Fong preferred
Mrs. Ha to edit her paper she felt Mrs. Ha did not have time and peer editing was the
best strategy and excuse for students to help her with grading papers. Mrs. Ha
collected all of their writing and then passed it out randomly to different students.
She reminded students if they received their own paper by mistake they were to pass
to someone else to edit. Mrs. Ha also handed out a checklist. Students needed to
look for a thesis, body (a problem to a solution) and conclusion. This was a business
letter which had a slightly different structure than the response to literature. The
editors were looking for missing structures, the right order and the right structure
encompassed in a business letter. But they did not need to worry about the grammar
Baudrand-Aertkers study (as cited in Macaro, 2003).
Chloe also liked the peer revision strategy. Through peer revision Chloe
generated ideas and improved her paper through discussion. She learned new things,
and obtained new ideas from her graders and she carried what she learned into the
future writing. She said, You can discuss the paper and tell how to correct it and
whats wrong and whats good about it. They will tell you whats good and whats
bad so next time you write an essay it will be better.
Mrs. Ha had used peer revision as one of strategies for teaching the five
paragraph essay to EL. Through peer revision EL students would learn to write with
a sense of audience in mind. The subsequent drafts after the peer revision could thus
became clearer and better in quality. It was a good idea to have a checklist for the
136
EL peer editors so they knew what to edit. Figure 4.7 provides a summary to
highlight the 3 writing strategies that Mrs. Ha used were valued by EL students.
Figure 4.7
Summary of Effective Strategies for Developing L2 Writers
The Role of Feedback in Teaching Writing
The role of feedback is important in the teaching of the five paragraph essay
to English learners. Feedback includes useful feedback, immediate/Timed feedback,
public feedback and positive feedback.
Useful Feedback
Feedback can positively affect students school performance and overall
learning when provided with information on how to improve (Omrod, 2004). All
four students believed that feedback was useful.
Iwen shared her point of view on the significance of useful feedback on her
test scores. Iwen, who is performance oriented, appreciated her teacher giving her
feedback because her grade was significantly better and she learned the lesson. The
Cooperative
Learning
Peer Revision
Writers
Workshop
Strategies for
Developing L2
Writers
137
feedback also lets her know where she needs improvement and where she stands
compared to others and though she has passed her writing MMA she is still aiming
for a higher grade. She will also apply what she has learned to future essays. She
wont make the same mistakes again. After she received feedback from her teacher
Iwen said, Now I know how to write a thesis statement and whenever I write other
essays I can think of that.
In a different interview, Iwen also said, I can correct the mistakes that Mrs.
Ha points out so I wont make the same mistake during the MMA so I will get a
better grade. And she gave us the letter grade so we know which level.
Chloe also believed the role of feedback was useful and important. The
feedback her teacher provided made her aware of her errors, such as diverging from
the thesis or repeating sentences, so she has the room to change and improve them.
The teacher would guide or explain to her how to improve her sentences by offering
her explicit answers or by suggesting where to look for the answers. She said, I
think feedback is important. She tells us what weve done wrong so it can make us
do better, just like when we write an essay that is not how it is supposed to be.
Mrs. Ha provided many useful suggestions and comments to Stephen
specifically on the clarity of his writing but was done in a diplomatic way full of
encouragement and support. Stephen took it gladly and wanted to improve. When
Stephen had taken his time to write a much better final draft Mrs. Ha found the
chance to praise him even more. As a consequence, Stephen felt that writing is
138
easier for him and he will apply what he learned from Mrs. Ha to any given essay or
writing from now on.
Stephen thought that feedback was noteworthy and useful. This is what he
said, She also said that I might have to write better by writing more sentences in a
clear statement. Now, everything feels easy because I pretty much know what I need
to do on any given essay.
Fong did not like to write in English nor in Chinese and did not receive good
grades on either. Although she was very diligent with her class work and keeping up
her grades as much as possible, she received a D+ on her final draft of her first
writing assignment from Mrs. Ha. Nevertheless Fong was very receptive to the
feedback Mrs. Ha wrote on the side margin believing that it was the chance for her to
improve her writing. Fong also supported the other three students findings, and she
shared, When she gives me feedback I pay closer attention. For those sentences
that she did not write on the margin I would look at.
Feedback definitely is a useful tool in Mrs. Has writing class. The useful
feedback that Mrs. Ha provided would help improve students writing on future
assignment. This is important when working with ELs to develop their writing
because it provides clear guidance of how to specifically improve their written
English skills. Feedback can positively affect students school performance and
overall learning when provided with information on how to improve (Gagne and
Driscoll, 1988).
139
Immediate Feedback
Immediate feedback is seen as an important tool for writing instruction in
Mrs. Has classroom. The following teacher interview, class observation and student
observation confirmed that Mrs. Ha valued immediate feedback and it played a
significant role in her classroom.
As the date for the writing exam drew near and fast approaching, Mrs. Ha
believed in and practiced immediate feedback. She provided students immediate
feedback by asking them to come up row by row to her so that she could see if they
were working correctly on the specific components of their writing. She made sure
that they had enough practice writing a thesis statement and topic sentences under a
specific prompt so they could pass the response to literature essay part of the MMA
writing exam.
In class, Mrs. Ha wanted students to practice writing a thesis statement and
two topic sentences on How Squeaky Overcomes to adjust the problem as a mock
writing test for the entire writing time. During the last 20 minutes she asked students
to bring up the writing paper row by row to her and she read each students paper so
that she could give them immediate feedback. Hence, students would know how
they did and made appropriate corrections right on the spot.
The following the MMA test, when the researcher asked Mrs. Ha about
feedback she explained that she had always believed immediate feedback was the
most effective. Feedback included specific suggestions not just a simple good job
or I think you could revise it to obtain a higher grade. She believed that the
140
timely on spot correction would have long term effects. She further claimed,
They need specific and timely feedback. The feedback needs to be fairly immediate,
like as quickly as you turn it back to them. It needs to be specific telling them
how to make this better by giving them suggestions.
The first time the concept of thesis statement was introduced to the
students Mrs. Ha wanted students to read their thesis statement out loud to the class
and she provided immediate feedback right on the spot. After the first two students
read theirs, Mrs. Ha corrected them by saying, Dont say, The thesis is . After
a few more read theirs, she challenged students to write a more complicated sentence.
After everyone in the entire class had read his/her thesis statement, the researcher
marveled at how a simple thesis can be orchestrated and turned out with so many
creative variations.
Mrs. Ha cares how students are working on their writing and she wanted to
be available to students who had needs. She would walk around to provide feedback.
Mrs. Ha walked to Fongs desk to look at her thesis statement. She corrected and
marked on Fongs thesis statement with a red pen. She commented, A thesis
statement should be one sentence telling me what is the main theme. Very simple.
You dont need to go into details. Fong was interviewed immediately after the
teacher provided her the feedback. She wasnt annoyed with the red marks, Fong
was very grateful that Mrs. Ha corrected her grammar and provided immediate
feedback.
141
Immediate feedback is a long held belief with Mrs. Ha and students
responded to positively. Immediate feedback produces instant results. For ELs, they
need to know right away whether they have produced compositions and other
writings correctly in order to discard wrong concepts immediately and memorize
correct ones.
Public Feedback
The purpose of Mrs. Has public feedback is to encourage students not to
make the same mistakes as their peers.
Mrs. Ha employs two types of public feedback. One is to have a student
present his/her writing piece in front of the class. She listens and corrects it right on
the spot. The other is, as she walks around the class in order to see common mistakes,
she announces them publicly. The second method is more conservative and students
who make the mistakes do not feel embarrassed or shameful.
The role of public feedback has played an essential role in Mrs. Has five-
paragraph writing instruction. Four class observations and three student interviews
have authenticated the findings.
Three out of four students noticed Mrs. Has unique style of public feedback
and they all shared its impact in their interviews without the researcher probing for it.
Chloe felt that public feedback is effective. She said, If a student writes
something wrong she explains to the whole class that this is not how it is supposed to
be. She tells us how to do better as if anyone makes mistakes and she tells them
142
Fong also shared, She would talk to the entire class when someone asks her
questions. She would say Why do most of you make the same mistakes? Or Mrs.
Ha would say, Only one or two of you are doing what I asked
Regarding the public feedback, Iwen too shared the same opinion, If any
one has a question she will answer it and if she knows that many people dont get it
she will go over the stuff again with the whole class.
Mrs. Ha walked around correcting students thesis statements. She paid
special attention to those who seldom went up to ask her questions. At one point she
announced to the class, Stop where you are! A lot of you are writing really long
sentences. It only needs to meet the point. A thesis statement is a brief sentence on
what you are going to write on your essay.
On another occasion, Mrs. Ha wanted the students to read the thesis to her
one by one out loud. It felt like the class was working on a big project together. It
also seemed like Mrs. Ha was the symphony conductor and each student responsible
for playing a different solo piece of musical instrument. She started by saying,
Dont say The thesis is .
Sharleen said, Squeaky is able to solve her problems because of her
determination and bravery. Mrs. Ha wrote Squeaks ___and ___ helped her
overcome her problem. She challenges students to write a more complicated
sentence. Someone read, Although her problem is always interfering with her,
Squeaky is determined to win the race.
143
Mrs. Ha was pleased and said, This is one step beyond the basic! A boy
murmured something. Mrs. Ha said, Take out the trying very hard. It is
redundant!
Public feedback was a unique type of feedback and played a significant role
in Mrs. Has writing class. It helped the ELs not make the same mistakes of their
peers. Sometimes because ELs are still developing their L2 writing they may not
realize their own mistakes. Public feedback shows how well each individual EL is
performing as compared to the rest of the class. Positive feedback helps the EL
know to continue working in the same direction. However, if the feedback is
negative, as in common mistakes ELs make, they will be prompted to look for
correct answers and ways to avoid making the same mistake again.
Positive Feedback
Based on Butlers work, (1987) positive feedback can drive students to
perform better and direct them to the desired behaviors. One of the most crucial
elements one can possess as a writing teacher is the ability to be sincere, optimistic
and loving in his or her comments to the students. A teacher must make sure that
comments are constructive, pleasant and positive. Oftentimes a teachers words are
perceived as a reflection of his/her attitudes. When a teacher provides positive
feedback it encourages, and motivates students. Being positive in encouraging
students is the single most important element in motivating students to become better
writers.
144
Two students who had not passed their second quarter writing MMA had
made comments about Mrs. Has positive feedback in their interviews. Mrs. Ha
constantly used positive feedback with Fong on her writing. Fong did not like to
write (not even in Chinese) and she did not like to read English text either. The only
way to get Fong motivated was to encourage her with positive feedback and
comments.
Mrs. Has constructive criticism lifted Fongs spirits and encouraged success
for Fongs future writing. More importantly, Mrs. Ha made the writing experience a
pleasant one. Fong noted, Although my writing is poor, she will never put me
down with harsh words. She usually says something nice.
Stephen too had problems with the written English. Yet, he found solace in
Mrs. Has encouraging comments. Mrs. Ha noticed Stephens paper often had
several points that lacked meaningful content. Mrs. Ha constantly encouraged him
and helped Stephen improve his writing. Consequently, he was not afraid of going
up to ask Mrs. Ha subsequent questions on how to improve his writing. His final
draft showed marked improvement and he passed his third quarter writing MMA,
which dealt with the topic of Business letters. Stephen also made a remark about
Mrs. Has positive feedback during his interview. He shared, Mrs. Ha was
impressed at my writing because I got a good quote and examples from the story.
She says I should do a good job on any essay I am writing .She said I did a good
job on .
145
Mrs. Ha had graded the students writing papers over the holiday weekend.
Students had worked on this particular writing assignment daily for more than two
weeks. They color coded their ideas, engaged in peer editing and self check
checklist editing. Before she passed out her students papers, Mrs. Ha made an
announcement and talked about general mistakes and the high frequency of mistakes
students made. She balanced this, however, first with praise. She appreciated that
everyone in the class had turned in their papers and no one had a grade lower than a
C.
She praised them for their hard work: they had made extensive revision and
substantial improvement over the last draft. She later gave them a few days to revise
their work again and turn in their paper later that week. She encouraged students to
examine their own work, saying, A good tip is always asking yourself: Does this
sentence support what I am writing? If not, you need to reconstruct the sentence to
support your body paragraph.
Positive feedback worked as a catalyst. Mrs. Has comments made EL
students willing to write and want to write more. Positive feedback definitely played
a vital role in teaching EL students many things, including the five paragraph essay.
Figure 4.8 below provides a summary of the types of feedback employed in Mrs.
Has classroom.
146
Figure 4.8
Types of Feedback Used When Developing L2 Writers
Feedback played a significant role in Mrs. Has ELD Level Four classroom.
The four types of significant feedback Mrs. Ha employed were the following: helpful
feedback, immediate feedback, public feedback, and positive feedback. Each of
those feedback categories promoted and prompted ELs to be keenly aware of their
present state of writing performance. Moreover, the feedback helped ELs be attentive
to new ways to improve their writing.
Students Reactions and Responses to Feedback
In regard to students reactions and responses to feedback, data was collected,
analyzed and synthesized into three categories: receptive and no impact.
Student Is Receptive to the Feedback
Students responded to their teachers comments and felt confident
in incorporating a high percentage of the teachers feedbacks and comments into
their revision papers. Students perceived and esteemed their teacher as the qualified,
educated, influential figure whom they trusted and placed confidence in. They
passively relied on their teachers comments more even if they might disagree with
their teacher. They saw their teachers comments as beneficial, useful, pertinent, and
Types of
Feedback
Helpful Immediate Public Positive
147
effective to their subsequent drafts. They saw their teachers remarks as facilitating
ideas to further improve their revised drafts. Moreover, the students believed that by
integrating their teachers comments, it assisted them in their language development
which resulted in receiving a higher grade in class.
In general, Mrs. Has four students were very receptive to her feedback. For
example, not only did Fong shared that she was a receptor of Mrs. Has feedback but
an analysis of her writing validated her words. She had incorporated 98% of Mrs.
Has correction on her first draft. For one of the sentences with errors she did not
know how to revise so she deleted the rest of the sentence to save her time. The
other one she did not recognize the acronym VT marked on her paper, and she
overlooked a comma that Mrs. Ha added in her paper. Mrs. Ha had marked deletion
on a phrase for whoever is but she only deleted whoever is and let for
dangling in her sentence which sounded odd when combined with her other
sentences. In turn, she received a perfect score on her final draft.
Iwen also shared her receptive of feedback from her teacher. She appreciated
Mrs. Has feedback on practice prompts which enabled her to see her mistake which
help her to improve. She said, she gives us two practice prompts and she grades
them and we know like how we are writing and what we need to improve.
Chloe too shared, I get feedback when we make mistakes; she tells us how
to make it better, because you learn from your mistakes. They are very helpful. She
writes on our essays to help us do better. [What] she writes [is] very helpful.
148
Chloes subsequent final paper had improved tremendously because she had
incorporated 95% of Mrs. Has feedback and comments into her writing. By
comparing Chloes final draft of Raymonds Run Practice Prompt #1 and her first,
second, third and fourth drafts with teachers corrections. Her receptivity to
feedback was noted in the changes made from one draft to another and her score on
the final draft. Mrs. Ha did not give students any grade on the first three drafts, but
Chloe received a maximum score of 10 points on her final draft. Chloe honored her
teachers suggestion by carefully correcting and revising based on Mrs. Has
comments. She also said, It becomes better. Its been improved since the first draft
and its been revised. Its been edited first draft is really different from the final draft
because the final draft is where I add things to it, like transitions. Consequently,
she has passed her district writing MMA and is getting As in Mrs. Has two English
classes. The positive results from Chloe and Iwens receptive feedback are apparent
from their successful passing of the districts second quarter writing MMA. They
both earned As in Mrs. Has periods 2 and 3 classes (see Table 4).
Students reactions to Mrs. Has feedback were positive and were reflected
on their final papers. The teachers feedback is positively welcomed by ELs who are
writing the five-paragraph essay, because their teachers feedback facilitates
mastering the writing process and it positively affects subsequent assignments. As a
result, ELs who incorporated their teachers feedback have a better chance to make a
higher grade.
149
The Feedback Has No Impact On Student
Fong shared that she did not learn from Mrs. Ha and was not impressed by
her writing instruction, but she liked her much more than the substitute teacher Mrs.
Johnson.
In looking at Fongs cumulative folder, she has all As in 6
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
grade except one B in the 2nd semester of the 6
th
grade. Her sixth grade English
teacher commented on her report card, She is an extremely hard working student.
She always tries her best and her effort is commendable. Moreover, this is her first
year in the United States. The teacher further commented, Fong listens attentively
and attempts the assignments by watching others. Fongs enthusiasm and desire to do
all the work is admirable. Fong is very motivated to acquire English fast and is eager
to participate in all class activities.
However, quite contrary to her work ethic, Fong did not pass her 2
nd
writing
section of the MMA, and her attitude towards the feedback was negative. Fong was
interviewed and she did not feel the feedback had any impact on her writing. She
only felt obligated to correct her work based on Mrs. Has feedback. In fact, she felt
more troubled since she had to make sure all of the marked issues had been changed.
Unlike her usual enthusiastic nature, Fong was negative about her experience
in Mrs. Ha's English class. She complained that the teacher was too busy and had
not provided individuals with conferences. She felt Mrs. Ha comments were too
general, whether Fong asked her questions privately or publicly. In addition, she
was afraid that if she asked the teacher questions she might be humiliated because
150
Mrs. Ha might announce in class, Why do most of you make the same mistakes?
or Only one or two of you are doing what I asked you to do in this area. Fong
would instead correct her own paper without consulting the teacher. She would
incorporate the comments that Mrs. Ha put in her first draft and then she would skim
it through one more time before turning it in. Fong concluded that she personally did
not think she improved much on her writing between the first and the final draft but
she believed as she continued her study in America she would see the change in
writing soon. She received a D+ (67 points) on her second draft but a full score of A
on her final draft. She did not pass her second quarter writing section of the MMA.
When asked what she would do if she got stuck on a certain topic, she
responded that she hardly gets stuck. But, if she did she would still not ask Mrs. Ha
for help. Fongs attitude was somewhat rebellious. She would not ask Mrs. Ha for
help when she got stuck. Her reason behind this was she might not like the teachers
suggestion and she wanted to be independent from her teacher. She wanted to
express her own thoughts and felt constrained if she consulted her teacher for ideas.
The following interview shed some light to her inner writing world, I think
carefully before I write it. I might not like the suggestion she gave . I do not want
to depend on the teacher. The only drawback is I need to spend more time to do it.
Fongs document analysis on her 2
nd
quarter of writing MMA she received a score of
three, an approaching grade which validated her interview response: she felt Mrs.
Has feedback did not serve any impact on her writing.
151
Stephen contradicted himself during his interview. At first he said the
feedback did not help him that much because Mrs. Ha was too busy to give time to
provide feedback. (Stephen had a tendency to sidetrack his response to the interview
so often the same question needed to be asked several times in the same interview to
readdress his focus.) However, when the researcher asked him the same question the
second time, he said Mrs. Has feedback had helped him greatly especially her
soothing encouragement had made him want to become an avid writer.
Here were Stephens interviews in two instances, Umm a little bit but not
really. She just umm didnt have I think she just too busy so she doesnt have time
to give feedback and stuff. But, in two minutes his answer switched to I think it
was very helpful. Because they both help me a lot and its kind of mostly trying to
encourage me.
In viewing and comparing Stephens second MMA writing task and his
cumulative folder, he also did not show growth with his writing. He did not pass his
writing section of his MMA either.
Two out of four students did not respond positively to Mrs. Has feedback,
claiming that it had no impact on them. There could be factors beyond this study
that would further explain why this is the case. Further studies are needed and
suggested to find out the reasons. Table 7 provides a summary of four research
subjects reactions to feedback.
152
Table 7
Impact of Receptive Feedback on MMA
Case Study Student 2
nd
quarter WMMA Receptive to Feedback
Chloe 4 x
Fong 3
Iwen 4 x
Stephen 3
*Total score possible on MMA is a 5, a score of 4 is considered meeting or proficient, and a score
of 3 indicates approaching but not yet proficient.
Mrs. Ha commented that the reason for Fong not passing her second quarter
writing MMA was her many grammatical errors typical of an ELD student and she
has a hard time articulating her point clearly. In addition, unlike the other students,
Fong was not receptive to peer and teacher feedback. This shows the value of
feedback in developing proficient writers. Chloe and Iwen who enjoyed learning
from their peers scored proficient on the MMA exam in writing. Stephen also was
receptive to feedback but agreed that he struggled with writing and needed more time
and additional feedback to continue improving. His progress at this point based on
his receptivity to feedback was commendable.
Conclusion
This chapter examined three critical features for teaching the five paragraph
essay to eighth grade Chinese speaking English Learners. The researcher concluded
from her data that the three main features for teaching the 5-paragraph essay to EL
were organizing ideas for writing, writing environment, and clear expectations for
153
writing. Organizing ideas for writing included: Cornell notes and Graphic
Organizers and Outlines. The writing environment included classroom organization
and classroom management. Mrs. Ha used three tools: writing rubrics, checklists,
and a model text to clearly express and demonstrate her expectations for writing.
Cornell notes, graphic organizers, and outlines were the three main tools used for
organizing ideas for writing.
Classroom organization and classroom management were two essential
writing environments. Classroom organization included appropriate levels of
instruction and time. Three types of strategies, the writers workshop, cooperative
learning, and peer revision were utilized by Mrs. Ha and were welcomed by the
majority of the student used as subjects for this study. The role of feedback in
teaching the five paragraph essay to was significant. Four types of common
feedback were observed and identified as significant in Mrs. Has writing instruction
in teaching the 5 paragraph essay to ELs. They were helpful feedback, immediate
feedback, public feedback, and positive feedback. Students had two types of general
reactions to feedback: receptive and no impact.
The data collected and the conclusions drawn were in line with the EL
literature review and show that English learners consistently need structured teaching,
experts guidance, and visual modeling in order to scaffold their language learning.
Only as they grow and proceed in language writing do educators reduce the intense
scaffolding provided at early stages of language development. Table 8 below
154
provides an overview for each case study student, the strategies they use, their MMA
results and their receptivity to feedback.
Table 8
Case Study Student Overall Writing Profile based on Research Findings
Case
Study
Student
Critical
Features
Used
Strategies
Preferred
Feedback
Preferred
Receptive
to
Feedback
WMMA
Score
Chloe Cornell
notes
Graphic
organizer
Outlines
Cooperative
learning
Peer
revision
Writers
workshop
Useful
feedback
Public
feedback
Yes 4
Fong Cornell
notes
Peer
revision
Useful
feedback
Immediate
feedback
Public
feedback
Positive
feedback
Yes 3
Iwen Cornell
notes
Graphic
organizer
Outlines
Peer
revision
Writers
workshop
Useful
feedback
Public
feedback
Yes 4
Stephen Cornell
notes
Graphic
organizer
Cooperative
learning
Peer
revision
Writers
workshop
Useful
feedback
Positive
feedback
Yes 3
155
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This study examined critical features for teaching the five paragraph essay to
eighth grade Chinese speaking English Learners. Data revealed three critical features
for teaching writing to ELs include the use of varied graphic organizers, a
collaborative learning environment and tools that provide clear expectations for
writing such as checklists and rubrics. These findings directly informed possible
implication and recommendation for future research and practice. Five major critical
findings were drawn from data collected. They were scaffolding writing, visual
learning tools, independent practice, collaborative writing, revision. In addition, the
researcher concluded and recommended four items for practitioners. These include
the use of checklist, cooperative learning, the writing portfolio, conferring. Finally,
this chapter concluded with five recommendations for future research such as
conducting a longitudinal study, broadening the scope of study, increasing the
quantitative study with a larger sample size, investigating different grade levels, and
examining different types of writing.
Critical Findings
Scaffolding Writing
Based on the findings, EL students appreciated and worked well when the
instructor provided scaffolds for writing as a strategy for teaching the five-paragraph
essay. Beginning Second language learners need careful systematic supervision and
provision (Gibbons, 2002) in a language that is unfamiliar to them. At no phase
156
should they be left alone to struggle by themselves. They should be guided
structurally in a stimulating linguistic schemata input, yet detailed with patience.
Attention should be paid to the degree of scaffolding. The structure can be gradually
loosened up as one becomes more familiar with the language, and the learner should
progressively engage in a less structured and a more autonomous learning
environment. It is similar to constructing a building. As the building is nearing
completion, the scaffolding structure is slowly removed (Wood, Bruner, & Ross (as
cited in Gibbons, 2002). Wood and colleagues applied Vygotskys Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) in their research. They invented the words scaffolding structure
as a figure of speech to further modify ZPD usage. The teachers prime
responsibility is to frame a students work and identify a students current level of
learning. This will help the student build and proceed to a higher level of problem
solving.
When provided with "scaffolds" for a required writing task, second language
learners learn most effectively when challenged a step beyond their cognitive ability
(Cummins, 2000).
Similar to the idea of the scaffolding, as one became more proficient with
the writing, supervision could gradually decrease and the writers could slowly
engage in a less structured and a more autonomous writing environment. Elsom-
Cooks study (as cited in Heift, 2001) showed the concept of guided discovery was
assisting a learner depending on his proficiency level on a range from heavy
procedural step by step guidance to less supervision and assistance to free discovery
157
and learning. Feedback played an important role in the language learning. Feedback
following the guided discovery theory was also given on a scale from meticulous and
direct error specific feedback to underlining or pointing to the word for students to
discover the answer themselves (Stein, 1984).
Visual Learning Tools
Based on the findings, visual learning tools were one of the critical features
for teaching ELs how to organize ideas for the five- paragraph essay. Mrs. Ha trained
and equipped her students scaffolding writing by employing visual learning tools as
a structured framework for her teaching strategy.
Visual aids work better than only verbal material when teaching EL students
to write (Edens & McCormick, 2000). Humans tend to remember things better when
they see a visual form of information together with a verbal form (Sadoski & Paivio,
2001).
Our young generations are increasingly exposed to an illustrative culture
(Horn, 1998). Colon (2002) described that the visual learning tool makes thinking
visible and transfers the thinking process to a concrete form. The process of
assembling visual learning tools help clarify, strengthen, and express ideas (Colon,
2002). The purpose is to provide adequate provision, yet to restrain students
direction of writing when students stage of writing is certain (Colon, 2002).
Visual learning tools are especially helpful for visual learners (Colon, 2002).
Visual learning tools provide varied ways of thinking, about text and organizing
ones ideas. Having six various types, information mapping and concept mapping
158
are two examples of specific forms of visual learning tools. Contrary to text which is
compacted with a great detail of information, visual learning tools bring out
important key terms; summarize and integrate the main points; critically analyze and
synthesize data; as well as use diagrams, graphs and other illustrative information
productively (Clegg, 2003). Visual learning tool occupy a lot of space, but promote
apparent, comprehensible, and vital information. To decide which type of visual
learning tool the students prefer depends on each subject matter and its intended
purpose (Colon, 2002).
Involving the modality of sight for processing language, visual learning tools
make it easier to remember key terms and important concepts, and are highly
welcomed by ELs (Irwin-DeVitis, L., Modlo, M., & Bromley, K., 1995). Visual
learning tools work as a strategy for dynamic learning by demonstrating subject
matter, organizing facts, conveying understanding, depicting image information, and
aiding comprehension (Irwin-DeVitis, L., Modlo, M., & Bromley, K., 1995).
Independent Practice
Based on the findings, more time with independent writing practice helps
develop writing fluency. When students work alone to process their learning and all
input from their environment true learning takes place. Garcia & Ortiz (1988)
advised that after new information or a mini-lesson is taught, students needed time to
reflect on their learning. This helps them move on to independent practice in order
to prevent the emergence of the wrong concepts and wrong behaviors (Garcia &
159
Ortiz, 1988). Instructors need to constantly check for students comprehension level
by observing their work before and during independent practice.
In addition, language can only develop with ample opportunity for using the
target language. One needs to be mindfully practicing the language not just
observing, reading or listening how others do it, but independently practicing on
his/her own.
Collaborative Writing
Based on the findings, the collaborative writing was helpful for EL students.
Collaborative editing fulfills technical, social and scholastic needs in writing (Kasper,
Babbitt, Mlynarczyk, Brinton, Rosenthal, Master, Myers, Egbert, Tillyer, & Wood,
2000). The writing instructor promotes a community of learning and writing and
makes the first move to negotiate in the peers review and editing process (Bloch,
& Brutt-Griffler, 2001). Four or five students together participate in a group editing
session to help support and develop group members learning (Bishop, 1997). In this
approach, the writer reads aloud his work while each group member has a copy of
his paper.
Group members can give advice, criticize or provide feedback on his work
orally or on the draft. The group could comment on the spelling, punctuation,
unclear statements, generate more ideas, construct facts, lexicology and etymology
information (Kasper et al, 2000), test to see if the information makes sense (Haswell
& Lu, 1999), or suggest and share strategies of writing from a different perspective
(Bloch, & Brutt-Griffler, 2001). It helps the audience to learn social norms and build
160
a sense of individual worth, (Sproulls study as cited in Kasper, 2000) and grow in
self-editing expertise (Bishop, 1997). It is the authors decision whether or not he
will accept his peers recommendations (Erickson, 2002). But even a decision to not
accept the feedback involved a great deal of thought.
Revision
Based on the findings, revision played a vital role in Mrs. Has strategies for
teaching the five- paragraph essay to ELs. The definition for revision according to
Brisk & Harrington (2000) is, the audience of the writing (usually teacher, editor or
peers) recommends corrections, proposals, evaluation or feedback on the authors
content, organization and grammar usage. In the revision stage content and ideas are
more fully developed (Beason, 1993).
Much like the idea of a writing portfolio, Fu (2000) encourages educators to
respond to students writing and to give students plenty of opportunity to revise their
work. Teachers, here, are encouraged to promote the students autonomy in the
selection of their own topics. In doing so, students take ownership of their project
and will more often than not take more pride in perfecting their papers. Students are
encouraged to feel confident, competent, and secure about their work. Revision is
the key to their improvement as authors. It is important also for teachers to assist
students in refining their work to achieve substantial improvement (Fu, 2000).
Students need to master the revision process and embrace it as an important part of
the writing process in order to become skilled writers. One goal of revision is to
clarify cloudy statements and make certain that all potentially questionable meanings
161
are comprehensible to the reader. Through revision, students gain self-confidence
and are motivated to finish more assignments as they see significant improvement in
each subsequent piece they write (Fu, 2000).
Especially for EL since the language is new to them a revision provided by
writing instructor informed EL that the purpose of writing is that so that one can
revise and modify his/her writing. writing should be a process. A revision made
from his /her EL writing instructor helps EL to clarify and develop his/her cloudy
writing in a sufficient time given. As a result, EL could be proud of his/her writing.
Recommendations for Practice
Checklists
Developing writing strategies (Jenks, 2003) and reinforcing the five-
paragraph writing structure checklist is intended to endorse a graphical, self-
measurement, cognitive process writing tool for English learners. The road to
academic success in writing needs structural learning and procedural evaluation
(Jenks, 2003).
Checklists (Marchionda, 2004) can be used to guide students both as
independent writers and when working with peers. They help students understand
the expectation and elements required for a strong written product.
Through a non intimidating environment students (Marchionda, 2004)
receive authentic and informative feedback. Through rigorously working with
checklists students felt their critiquing skills have been widened and they now
possess a greater magnitude of authorship (Hodgson and Bohning, 1997). Even
162
though it is time consuming, a two-peer checklist editing strategy is well worth the
time. It has the capability of continued improvement every time it is re-written.
There is no end to how much improvement can be seen over time (Marchionda,
2004).
Cooperative Learning
According to Kagan (1994) Cooperative learning is significance in
connecting with others to achieve a common objective in learning development. The
duration for different cooperative learning groups varies depending on the nature of
the task, for example, a more common group is a short term cooperative learning that
accomplishes specific writing tasks such as working on the five paragraph essay in a
class period of 60 minutes (Kagan, 1994). Omrod (2004) shared five basic common
features of Cooperative Learning:
1. Students work on a common goal in small groups.
2. Students are given behavior principles such as listening to others
respectfully
3. Group members are interdependent of one another for their
achievement.
4. A useful learning behaviors framework is provided, and the
teacher serves the role as a facilitator.
5. Students are rewarded based on group contingency. The group
assesses its efficiency at the end.
Four main roles and responsibilities in the cooperative learning group are:
Facilitator: paces time and helps the group member finish the assigned work in a
timely manner, keeps the group focused during class, is the Master of Ceremony
163
(M.C.) and the spokesman for the group, makes sure group members are involved,
is a peace maker and maintains harmonious relationships among group members
(Dembo, 2005). Recorder: prepares a written summary of the discussion of the
group, devises a group list, and fills out the Group Report (Dembo, 2005).
Strategizer assigns a portion of the research assignment to each member and
assures every portion of the assignment is being taken care of, and has the skills to
navigate the library research tools (Dembo, 2005). Integrator: collects the work
contributed from each member, prepares a summary on the findings and ensures the
presented paper reflects writing standards (Dembo, 2005). An EL writing instructor
could assign a group research paper to a group composed of students that have
similar levels of writing ability. Each group member is assigned to a different role
and the instructor needs to check periodically to ensure true learning takes place and
no one is social loafing for an easy grade.
Timely Feedback
The Kreizmans study (as cited in Macaro, 2003) concerned feedback given
at the appropriate time. This study found that students are most concerned about
their grades and only give a slight glance at their teachers written feedback. Giving
students strategic feedback to improve during the middle phase of the writing
process, drafting, would enhance accuracy and quality of writing (Ferris, 2002;
Kreizmans study (as cited in Macaro, 2003)). This intentional timing would help
students focus their attention on their teachers suggestions as they continue through
164
the writing process. If teachers wait until the end students will not have a chance to
process feedback.
Recommendations for Future Research
A study of an intensive 6 week summer writing program with 48 limited-
English proficient Spanish speaking students structural writing (S.W.) compared to
the use of free writing (F.W.), conducted by Gomez (1996), revealed an important
finding, one that suggested , based on that research, that F.W. instruction should not
be used with ELs. There is great need for more extensive research in this field of
English, research that includes all common knowledge of existing programs that
have been accepted for native speakers as well as for ELs (Gomez, 1996). This
study started to look closer at writing for ELs but it only focused on Chinese-
speaking ELs in 8
th
grade on the 5-paragraph essay.
To date, EL writing instruction is governed by experience and intuition, with
little research-based evidence. From 1996 to the present only one empirical study
targeted EL and LEP learners, and this research has some limitations, for example,
the time frame for this study was too short for the F.W. to trigger. Therefore, a
definite call for more research- based study on EL literacy is greatly needed (Gomez,
1996).
There is a need for more research done with EL students and written English
development. The current literature reviews are mostly from countries other than the
United States, such as Japan, Taiwan, China, Australia, Korea and the United
165
Kingdom. More studies in classrooms across America with varied populations of
ELs are needed.
A longitudinal study including long-term follow up on these students writing
progress is recommended. The follow up study would examine the writing progress
on stated critical features, strategies, and the role of feedback on those four EL 8
th
grade students.
The researcher recommends investigation of different primary languages and
comparison of strategies, critical features, the role of feedback and students reaction
to feedback for other ELs.
Due to the time constraint and the nature of this qualitative study only four
subjects were examined. A large scale study with a larger sample size is
recommended for generalizing findings.
It is recommended to conduct the same type of study on different grade levels
including elementary school and/or in high school, junior college or a university in
which the prospective teachers are planning and preparing to pass the writing portion
of the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST).
A recommendation of similar research but on other types of writing not just
limited to the five-paragraph essay is further suggested. There are few viable models
of writing for second language writers (Silva & Matsuda, 2001). In fact, there is still
a lot of room for researchers to cover on the recent topic of second language writing.
We know very little about it. It is important for ELL writing teachers to get together
annually or semi-annually to share effective teaching and writing strategies and
166
encourage one another to publish findings in order to help boost the ELL writing
economy in a most efficient and effective way.
167
REFERENCES
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
Antón, M. & CiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative
interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54,
314-342.
Ball, A.F. & Jarr, M. (2003). Language varieties, culture and teaching the English
language arts. In J. Flood, J.M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J.R. Squire (Eds.),
Dialects, culture, and teaching the English language arts (pp. 435-445).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barry, N. (1992). The effects of practice strategies, individual differences in
cognitive style, and gender upon technical accuracy and musicality of student
instrumental performance. Psychology of Music, 20, 112-123.
Bayer, R. A. (1999). The effects of a first graders participation in a writers
workshop on their ability to become more confident and more descriptive
writers. Kean University: Masters Research Project. 41 pages.
Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes.
Research in the Teaching of English, 27(4), 395-422.
Behrmann, M. (2000). The minds eye mapped onto the brains matter. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 50-54.
Bishop, W. (1997). Teaching lives: Essays and stories. Logan, UT: Utah State
University Press.
Bloch, J. & Brutt-Griffler, J. (2001). Implementing CommonSpace in the ESL
composition classroom. In D. Belcher, & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies:
Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 309-328). Ann Arbor:
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Breland, H.M.., Kubota, M.Y., & Bonner, M.W. (1999). The performance
assessment study in writing: Analysis of the SAT II: Writing Test. College
Board Report. No. 99-4. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination
Board.
168
Bridgeman, B., & Bonner, M. SAT writing subject test as a predictor of grades in
freshman English Composition courses. ETS research report (PDR 94-10),
unpublished.
Brisk, M.E., & Harrington, M.M. (2000). Literacy and bilingualism: A hand book for
all teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Britton, B.K., Stimson, M., Stennett, B., & Gülgöz, S. (1998). Learning from
instructional text: Test of an individual differences model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 476-491.
Brunken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J.L. & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of
cognitive load within multimedia learning by the dual task methodology.
Experimental Psychology, 49, 109-119.
Bunce-Crim, M. (1991). What is a writing classroom? Instructor, 17(1), 36-38.
Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects
of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 474-482.
California Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources.
www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/.
California Department of Education (2005). California high school exit exam
(CAHSEE) results. Retrieved August 30, 2006, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/reports.asp
Calkins, L.M., & Harwayne, S. (1987). The Writing workshop: A world of
difference: A guide for staff development. Portsmouth, NH: HEINEMANN.
Calkins, L. & Martinelli, M. (2006). Units of study for teaching writing: Launching
the writing workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Campbell, A. (2005). Selected essays of Jim W. Corder: Pursuing the personal in
scholarship, teaching, and writing. Technical Communication, 52(3), 382-
383.
Casanava, C. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy
practices in higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chamot, A.U., & OMalley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the
cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
169
Christianson, K. (1997). Dictionary use by EFL writers: what really happens?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 23-43.
Clark, D., & Estes. (2002). Turning research into results: a guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta: CEP Press.
(2001, June). Conference on College Composition and Communication Statement
on second-language writing and writers. College Composition and
Communication, 52(4), 669-674.
Conlon, T. (2002). Information mapping as support for learning and teaching.
Computer Education, 106.
Cornell notes. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from
http://www.sas.calpoly.edu/asc/ssl/notetaking.systems.html#cornell.
Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation
and school reform. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, R., & Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in
problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments. Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2/3), 239-302.
Cramer, S., & Smith, A. (2002). Technologys Impact on student writing at the
middle school level. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 3-14.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation:
A study of adolescents. In C. Ames (Ed.), Research on Motivation in
Education (pp. 45-71). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cumming, A. (2001). ESL/EFL instructors practices for writing assessment:
specific purposes or general purposes? Language Testing, 18(2), 207-224.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Powers, D., (2002). Decision making while rating
ESL/EFL writing tasks: A descriptive framework. The Modern Language
Journal, 86(1), 67-96.
Cummings, M.C. (Fall, 2004). Because we are shy and fear making a mistake:
Computer mediated communication with EFL writers [Electronic Version].
Journal of Basic Writing, 23(2), 23-49.
170
Cummins, J. (2000). Language proficiency in academic contexts. In improving
schooling for language minority children: A research agenda (pp. 57-85).
Clevedon, Eng.: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Cummins, J. (2005). Primary language instruction and the education of language
minority students. In C.F. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language minority
students: A theoretical framework (2
nd
ed., pp.3-46). Los Angeles, CA: LBD
Publishers.
da Costa, D. (1999). An investigation into instrumental pupils attitudes to varied,
structured practice: Two methods approach. British Journal of Music
Education, 16(1), 65-77.
Daniels, H. (2005). The English Teachers Red. Voices from the Middle, 13(2), 46-
48.
Dean, D.M. (2000). Muddying boundaries: Mixing genres with five paragraphs.
English Journal, 90(1), 53-56.
Devitt, A.J. (1997). Genre as language standard. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrom (Eds.),
Genre and writing: Issues, arguments, alternatives (pp.45-55). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
DiGiano, C., Chorost, M., Chung, M., & Huang, J. (2005). Helping instructors
scaffold students design of educational technology projects. SRI
International. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from
http://www.trails-project.org/resources/papers/SRI_EdMedia_paper.pdf
http://www.trails-project.org/resources/papers/SRI_EdMedia_paper.pdf
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language
Teaching, 31, 117-135.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom Organization and Management. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3
rd
ed., pp. 392-431). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Duke, D. (Ed.). (1979). Classroom Management: The 78
th
yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, part II. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Dutta, M. (2005). Chinas industrial revolution: Challenges for a macroeconomic
agenda. Journal of Asian Economics, 15, 1169-1202.
171
Edens, K.M., & McCormick, C.B. (2000). How do adolescents process
advertisements? The influence of ad characteristics, processing objective, and
gender. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 450-463.
Ehrlich, E., Flexner, S.B., Carruth, G., & Hawkins, J.M. (Eds.). (1980). Oxford
American Dictionary (3
rd
ed.,). New York: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, P. (2002). High stakes and low stakes in assigning and responding to writing.
In G. DeLuca, L. Fox, M. Johnson, & M. Kogen (Eds.), Dialogue on writing:
Rethinking ESL, basic writing, and first-year composition (pp. 289-298).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Elbow, P. (2002). The process of writing - Growing. In G. DeLuca, L. Fox, M.
Johnson, & M. Kogen (Eds.), Dialogue on writing: Rethinking ESL, basic
writing, and first-year composition (pp. 141-156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Emmer, E.T., & Stough, L.M. (2001). Classroom Management: A critical part of
educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational
Psychologist, 36(2), 103-112.
Erickson, M. (2002). The best of intentions. In L.L. Blanton, B. Kroll, A. Cumming,
M. Erickson, A.M. Johns, I. Leki, J. Reid, & T. Silva (Eds.), ESL composition
tales: Reflections on teaching (pp. 37-47). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Ferris, D.R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision.
TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
Ferris, D. (2002). Chapter 2 Perspectives on error correction in L2 writing.
Treatment of error in second language student writing (pp.10-37). Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Fisher, B. (1995). Writing workshop in a first grade classroom. Teaching PreK-8,
26, 66-68.
Flook, L., Repetti, R., & Ullman, J.B. (2005). Classroom social experiences as
predictors of academic performance. Developmental Psychology 41(2), 319-
327.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2005). Language arts workshop: Purposeful reading and
writing instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Fu, D. (2000). Teach real writing, dont just teach for the test. The Florida Reading
Quarterly, 36(3), 12-16.
172
Fujioka, K. & Shi, J. (2000). ESL students problems in academic writing. Language
Research Bulletin 15, 1-15.
Gagne, R.M., & Driscoll, M.P. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction (2
nd
ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Galien, P. (2001). A genre-driven writing curriculum at the low intermediate level.
Language Research Bulletin, 16, 41-51.
Garcia, S.B., & Ortiz, A.A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language
minority students to special education. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 5. www.ncela.gwu.edu
Gaskell, G., & Cobb, T., (2004) Can learners use concordance feedback for writing
errors? System, 32, 301-319.
Gomez, Jr. R. (1996). Process versus product writing with limited English proficient
students. Bilingual Research Journal, 1-11.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3722/is_199604/ai_n8756897/print on
June 14, 2006
Graham, S. (2006). Chapter 13 Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A
meta-analysis. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of writing research (pp. 187-207). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young
struggling writers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the center on
accelerating student learning. Journal of Special Education, 39, 1, 19-33.
Graves, D. H. (1985). All children can write. Learning Disabilities Focus, 1, 36-43.
Graves, D. H. (1990). The reading/writing teachers companion: Discover your own
literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second
language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Harris, M. (1985). Diagnosing writing process problems: A pedagogical application
of speaking-aloud protocol analysis. In M. Rose (Ed.). When a writer cant
write (pp. 166-181). New York: Guilford Press.
173
Haswell, R.H. (2001). The Obvious placement: The addition of Theory. In R.H.
Haswell (Ed.), Beyond outcomes: Assessment and instruction within a
university writing program (pp. 53-63). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Haswell, R.H., & Lu, M.Z. (Eds.). (1999). Comp tales: An introduction to college
composition through its stories. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman,
Inc.
Hawkins, M.R. (2004). Researching English language and literacy development in
schools. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 14-25.
Hayashi, C. (2004). Teaching Academia writing: Giving the clueless a clue.
Language Research Bulletin 19, 81-94.
He, Tung-hsien (2005). Effects of mastery and performance goals on the
composition strategy use of adult EFL writers. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 61(3), 407-431.
Heift, Trude. (2001). Intelligent Language Tutoring Systems for Grammar Practice.
Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [Online], 6(2), 15 pp.
Available: http://www.spz.tu-
darmstadt.de/projekt_ejournal/jg_06_2/beitrag/heift2.htm
Herter, R.J. (1998). Portfolio assessment and the social construction of high school
writing instruction. In E. Decker, & K. Geissler (Eds.), Situated stories:
Valuing diversity in composition research (pp. 11-19). Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
Hillocks, G. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control
learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hillocks, G. (2003). Fighting back: Assessing the assessments. English Journal,
92(4), 63-70.
Hirose, K. (2001). Realizing a giant first step toward improved English writing: A
case in a Japanese university. In I. Leki (Ed.), Academic Writing Programs
(pp. 35-46). DC, MD: TESOL.
Hirsch, C.R. (1977). The effects of guided discovery and individualized instructional
packages on initial learning, transfer, and retention in second-year Algebra.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 359-368.
174
Hodgson, A.R., & Bohning, G. (1997). A five-step guide for developing a writing
checklist. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 138-141.
Hong, Y. (2004). The effect of teachers error feedback on international students
self-correction ability. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from
http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd529.pdf
Horn, R. (1998). Visual language: Global communication for the 21st century.
Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU.
Howell, D.C. (2004). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.,).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc.
Hung, L. (2005, June 20). Should we memorize English vocabularies in the English
dictionary or simply read an English novel? The United Newspaper [Special
Literature Section], p. E7.
Hunt, T.J. & Hunt, B. (2004). Teaching is revision. English Journal. [High school
edition], 94, 1, 100-104.
Irwin-DeVitis, L., Modlo, M., & Bromley, K. (1995). Science gets graphic: dynamic
ways you can use graphic organizers to plan, teach, and assess science. Gale
Group. Farmington Hills, MI. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-16673466.html
Jenks, C.J. (2003). Process Writing Checklist. George Mason University. Retrieved
April 24, 2007, from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80
/22/ee/38.pdf
Johnson, T.S., Smagorinsky, P., Thompson, L., & Fry, P.G. (2003). Learning to
teach the five-paragraph theme. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(2),
136-176.
Jones, M.S., Levin, M.E., Levin, J.R., & Beitzel, B.D. (2000). Can vocabulary-
learning strategies and pair-learning formats be profitably combined? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 92, 256-262.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Celemente, CA: Resources for
Teachers, Inc.
175
Kasper, L.F., Babbitt, M., Mlynarczyk, R.W., Brinton, D.M., Rosenthal, J.W.,
Master, P., Myers, S.A., Egbert, J., Tillyer, D.A., & Wood, L.S. (2000).
Content-based college ESL instruction: Theoretical foundations and
pedagogical applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kasper, L.F., & Petrello, B.A. (1998). Responding to ESL student writing: The value
of a nonjudgmental approach. Community Review, 18, 178-185.
Kim, A. (2000). A comparison of oral and writing development in a second language
college student. RTDE, 16(2), 73-82.
Kittle, P. (2001). Writing giants, columbine, and the queen of route 16. Voices from
the Middle, 9(1), 8-12.
Krashen, S.D. (1987). Applications of psycholinguistic research to the classroom. In
M. Long & J. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings
(pp. 33-44). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Kreizman, R. (1984). Student feedback regarding teacher comments on Hebrew
native language compositions. Seminar paper, School of Education, Hebrew
University (in Hebrew) cited in Cohen 1987.
Kuball, Y., & Peck, S. (1997). The effect of whole language instruction on the
writing development of Spanish-speaking and English-speaking
kindergartners. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2/3), 213-232. Retrieved
February 25, 2006 from
http://www.proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=61&sid=2&srchmode=1&vin.
Larsen, L.J. (2004). The foreign-born population in the United States: 2003 (Current
Population Report, pp 20-551). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Lee, Sy-ying (2005). Facilitating and inhibiting factors in English as a foreign
language writing performance: A model testing with structural equation
modeling. Language Learning, 55(2), 335-374.
Leki, I. (2001). Hearing voices: L2 students experiences in L2 writing courses. In T.
Silva, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp.17-28).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C.K., & Secules, T.J. (1999). Designing technology to
support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development,
47(3), 43-62.
176
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Loucky, J.P. (2002). Improving access to target vocabulary using computerized
bilingual dictionaries. ReCALL: Journal of Eurocall, 14(2), 293-312.
Macaro, E. (2003). Chapter 9: Research on writing. Teaching and learning a second
language: a review of recent research (pp. 220-250). New York, NY:
Continuum.
Mancho n, R., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2000). An approximation to the
study of backtracking in L2 writing. Learning and Instruction, 10, 13-35.
Marchionda, D. (2004). Peer Review Times Two. National Writing Project.
Retrieved April 24, 2007, from
http://www.writingproject.org/cs/nwpp/print/nwpr/1984
Marchisan, M.L., & Alber, S.R. (2001). The write way: Tips for teaching the writing
process to resistant writers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(3), 154-
162.
McGee, S.J. (2001). A qualitative study of student response to teacher-written
comments. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and
Social Sciences, 62(6).
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together.
London: Routledge.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and case study applications in education:
Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Meyer, B.J.F., Brandt, D.H., & Bluth, G.J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text:
Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 16, 72-103.
MIT Professor Finds Fault with SAT Essay. Weekend Edition. National Public
Radio. 7 May 2005.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4634566>.
National Writing Projects and Carl Nagin (U.S.) (2003) Because writing matters:
improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
177
Nunnally, T.E. (1991). Breaking the five-paragraph-theme barrier. English Journal,
80(1), 67-71.
Ormrod, J.E. (2004). Human learning (4th ed.,). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Oxford, R.L., & Shearin, J. (1996). Language learning motivation in a new key. In
R.Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the new
Century. (pp.121-144). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Pajares, Frank (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing:
A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly 19, 139-158.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing
self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24, 390-405.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and
achievement of middle school students: A function of gender orientation?
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 366-381.
Parkinson, D. (2005). Unexpected student reflections from an underused genre.
College Teaching, 53(4), 147-152. Retrieved February 25, 2006 from
http://www.http://find.galegroup.com/itx/printdoc.do?&prodId=EAIM&user
GroupName=usocal_main&version=1.0>.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pauk, W. (1974). How to study in college (2nd ed.,). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Pintrich, P. R. & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research
and Applications. Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V.E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992).
Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct
explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 91-
109.
Qi, D. (1998). An inquiry into language-switching in second language composing.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 413-435.
178
Ransdell, D.R. & Glau, G.R. (1996). Articulation and student voices: Eliminating the
perception that High school English doesnt teach you nothing. English
Journal, 85(1), 17-21.
Reynolds, D.W. (2005). Linguistic correlates of second language literacy
development: Evidence from middle-grade learner essays. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 14, 19-45.
Robertson, P. (2002). The critical age hypothesis. A critique of research
methodology. The Asian EFL Journal, 4(1) http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/marcharticles_pr.php
Roessing, L. (2004). Toppling the Idol. English Journal (High school edition), 94(1),
41-47.
Rueda, R., & Dembo, M. (1995). Motivational processes in learning: A comparative
analysis of cognitive and sociocultural frameworks. In M. Maehr & P.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Culture,
Motivation, and Achievement (Vol. 9). (pp. 255-289). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Sabik, C. (1999). #99 Professionalism. In R.H. Haswell, & M. Lu (Eds.), Comp
Tales: An introduction to college composition through its stories (pp. 123-
124). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading
and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Samway, K. D. (1993). This is hard, isnt it? Children evaluating writing. TESOL
Quarterly, 27, 233-258. (95852)
Sasaki, M (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL
student writers. Language Learning, 54(3), 525-582.
SAT II Writing Section. Retrieved April 2, 2006, from http://www.collegeboard.org
Schmidt, R.A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning.
Psychological Review, 82, 225-260.
Semke, H. (1982). Correcting students freewriting - help or hindrance? Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages, New York, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. 228850.)
179
Shelton, N.R., Fu, D., & Smith, K. (2004). Creating space for teaching writing and
for test preparation. Language Arts, 82(2), 120-129.
Shi, L. (2001). Native-and nonnative-speaking EFL teachers evaluation of Chinese
students English writing. Language Testing, 18(3), 303-325.
Simpson, M.S., & Carroll, S.E. (1999). Assignments for a writing-intensive
economics Course. The Journal of Economic Education, 30(4), 402-411.
Slavin, R.E. (1987). Success for all. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from Johns Hopkins
University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk
Web site: http://www.successforall.net/_images/pdfs/modeleffect.htm.
Slavin, R.E. (1994). Success for all. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from Johns Hopkins
University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk
Web site: http://www.successforall.net/_images/pdfs/modeleffect.htm.
Smith, C.B. (2000). Writing instruction: Current Practices in the classroom. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading English and Communication Bloomington IN.
ERIC Digest D156.
Smith, K. (2006). In defense of the five-paragraph essay. English Journal, 95(4), 16-
17.
Smith, K. & Stock, P.L. Trends and Issues in Research in the Teaching of the
English Language Arts, 114-129.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staton, J. (1982). Analysis of dialogue journal writing as a communicative event,
vol. 1. Final report to the National Institute of Education. Washington, DC:
Center For Applied Linguistics (ERIC Document Reproduction No. 217
327).
Stein, N.L. (1984). Critical issues in the development of literacy education: Toward a
theory of learning and instruction. American Journal of Education, 93(1),
171-199.
Sudol, D., & Sudol, P. (1991). Another story: Putting Graves, Calkins, and Atwell
into practice and perspective.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005). The tangled web: Internet plagiarism and international
students academic writing. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1),
15-29.
180
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (1999). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press.
Taiwan Education center http://www.tw.org
Thornberg, C. (2006). California Forecast. In P. Feinberg (Ed.), The UCLA Anderson
Forecast for the Nation and California (pp. 51-63). Los Angeles, CA: UC
Regents.
Tindal, G., & Haladyna, T.M. (2002). Large-scale assessment programs for all
students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Troia, G.A., Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1999). Teaching students with learning
disabilities to mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 235-
252.
Tsui, A.B.M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer
comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Statement by Education Secretary Paige on
NAEP Report Card on Writing.
http://www.ed.gov/new/pressreleases/2005/11/11182005.html
Wartchow, K., & Gustavson, L. (1999). The art of the writer: An aesthetic look at
the teaching of writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Warwick, P. & Maloch, B. (2003). Scaffolding speech and writing in the primary
classroom: a consideration of work with literature and science pupil groups in
the USA and UK. Reading, Literacy and Language, 37(2), 54-63.
Way, D., Joiner, E.G., & Seaman, M.A. (2000). Writing in the secondary foreign
language classroom: The effects of prompts and tasks on novice learners of
French. The Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 171-184.
Weigle, S., & Boldt, H., & Valsecchi, M. (2003). Effects of task and rater
background on the evaluation of ESL student writing: A pilot study. TESOL
Quarterly, 37(2), 345-354.
Wesley, K. (2000). The ill effects of the five paragraph theme. English Journal,
90(1), 57-60.
181
Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing
center. Journal of Second Language Writing. 13, 173-201.
Williams, J.D. (1989). Preparing to teach writing. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Wilson, M. R. (2005). Constructing Measures. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wolf, S.A., & Gearhart, M. (1997). New writing assessments: The challenge of
changing teachers beliefs about students as writers. Theory into Practice,
36(4), (pp. 220-230). Mahwah, NY: LEA.
Wood, D.J., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Woodall, B.R. (2002). Language- switching: Using the first language while writing
in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 7-28.
Wray, D & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: Children reading and writing non-
fiction. London: Routledge.
Yasuda, S. (2004). Revising strategies in ESL academic writing: A case study of
Japanese postgraduate student writers. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 14(1), 91-112
Yukio, H. (1998). Writing to improve analytical and organizational skills. The
Language Teacher, 22(12), 21-23.
Zhu, W. (2005). Source articles as scaffolds in reading to write: The case of a
Chinese student writing in English. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication,
15(1), 129-152.
Zimmermann, R. (2000). L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and
empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10, 73-99.
182
APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Waite Philips Hall, Suite 802
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL PERMISSION
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Features for Teaching Writing to Middle School English
Learners
Your child is asked to participate in a research study conducted by the
principal investigator Julie Huang, Ed. D. candidate under the supervision of
the faculty advisor Dr. Mora-Flores Ed. D., from the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. I am examining the
critical features for teaching writing to middle school students, particularly the
effect on English learners. The result of the study will be contributed to my
dissertation. Your child was selected as a possible participant in this study
because your child is in the ELD class. A total of 4 subjects will be selected
from the ELD class to participate. Your childs participation is voluntary.
Please read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do
not understand.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to understand the critical elements for teaching
writing to English learners in middle school level in order for educators to
devise best writing instruction strategies to help these students.
PROCEDURES
If you are agreed to participate in this study, I would ask your child to do the
following:
I will conduct an interview with your child. The objective of this interview is to
discover your childs learning styles for writing, what does he/she like about
the teachers style of teaching writing, what is helpful to him/her and any
suggestions for positive change, what strategies best help him/her when
he/she writes, how he/she likes to receive feedback, how the teacher gives
feedback, and whether or not it is helpful.
183
I will bring one translator that can speak Spanish (Vietnamese) and I am
bilingual in Chinese (Taiwanese) and English. The instructions will be written
in English and Spanish (Vietnamese or Chinese) and will be explained
verbally in the classroom. Your child will be told that the interviews and
observations are confidential.
I will observe your child in four different time settings for 50 minutes each,
and, particularly, I will observe the interaction between the teacher and your
child during the writing process.
The total length of time for my study is approximately from the month of
November to December. In addition, I am asking permission to access your
childs record to check for his/her writing samples, homework, grades,
classroom test scores or standardized state exam scores.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your childs participation; he/she may
experience some discomfort at answering the interview questions or you may
be inconvenienced from taking time to answer my questions. Any questions
that make your child uncomfortable can be skipped and not answered. All of
the information is confidential.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from this research study. Free evaluation is not
considered a benefit. However, this study will help EL teachers to have a
better understanding of how their English learners struggles through each
writing stage and to devise strategic plans to best help their students to
tackle the challenges. Finally, EL teachers can create a writing instruction
curriculum that is suitable for different ethnic backgrounds and cultural
groups.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not 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 your child will remain confidential and will be disclosed only
with your permission or as required by law.
All field notes, transcripts, and interview protocols will be kept in a locked file
cabinet in a secured office in the researchers home office to prevent access
by unauthorized personnel. Personal information will be coded and stored.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed.
After three years, personal data will be shredded and erased.
184
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences,
no information will be included that would reveal your childs identity. All
personal identities will be disguised with pseudonyms (fake names).
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your child can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you allow your
child to volunteer for this study, you may withdraw him/her at any time
without consequences. Your child may also refuse to answer any questions
and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this
research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
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 participation in this research study. If you have questions
regarding your 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.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact the followings:
Principal Investigator: Julie Huang
(626) 568-4510
Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores, Ed. D.
(213) 821-2727
USC Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway WPH 1003D
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038
185
SIGNATURE OF PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above.
I/we have been given a chance to ask questions. My/our questions have
been answered to my/our satisfaction, and I/we agree to participate in this
study and/or have our child(ren) participate in this study. I/we have been
given a copy of this form.
__________________________________________
Name of Subject
__________________________________________
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 consents to participate.
__________________________________________
Name of Investigator
____________
_________________
Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same
as subjects/parents)
186
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
subjects/parents)
187
APPENDIX B: TEACHER INTERVIEW #1 - PROTOCAL
1. What method or methods do you use to teach the five-
paragraph essay to English learners at the middle school
level that are distinctively different from regular English
writing in your classroom?
2. How would you define quality writing?
3. What impact have your methods had on your students
writing, in general, specifically?
4. What type of feedback do you provide to students on their
writing? How often? When?
5. How do you incorporate students prior knowledge in their
writing?
6. To what extent do you encourage mastery performance in
writing? (National Writing Project, 2003).
7. To what extent do you encourage self-evaluation, peer
evaluation, and group evaluation?
8. Please describe prewriting activities that you use to
motivate students and generate ideas?
9. What type of accommodations do you provide for English
Learners?
188
APPENDIX C: TEACHER INTERVIEW #2 PROTOCOL
1. What type of editing tools do you use?
2. To what extent do you use checklists, or rubrics to guide
students revisions and editing?
3. How do you correct students papers (National Writing
Project, 2003)?
4. In addition to correcting mechanical errors, to what extent
do you also suggest that students vary in their writing style,
organization patterns, logic flow, and format (National
Writing Project, 2003)?
5. How do you help students with purpose, organization, and
development (National Writing Project, 2003)?
6. How do you teach students to revise?
7. How do you encourage your students to develop their own
unique writing voice and style?
8. What writing book do you base your writing instruction on?
9. To what extent does accuracy improve after the students
have received feedback and corrected mistakes?
10. What can you tell me about this students writing?
189
APPENDIX D: STUDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. What do you like about how Mrs. Ha teaches writing?
2. What aspect of your teachers writing instruction is most
helpful to you? What would you like her to change?
3. Describe what your teacher has done to help you write
better.
4. How do you receive feedback from your teacher? How
helpful is the feedback that you receive?
5. How does your first draft change after a conference with
your teacher?
6. To what extent does your teacher help you through the
stages of the writing process? For example, brainstorming,
reflection, drafting, and revision? How does she help you
when you get stuck? (National Writing Project, 2003)?
7. How does your teacher encourage you to write more?
(National Writing Project, 2003)?
8. How does your teacher help meet everybodys needs in the
class? (National Writing Project, 2003)?
190
APPENDIX E: CORNELL NOTES
191
APPENDIX F: THE HOUR GLASS
Body
(2-3 paragraphs)
Restating Thesis &
Conclusion
(1 paragraph)
Introduction & Thesis statement
(1 paragraph)
192
APPENDIX G: SELF-CHECK CHECKLIST
193
APPENDIX H: THE CHECKLIST
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Writing has an advantage over speaking, listening, and reading because it gives second language writers a chance to modify and polish the work before presenting it to the world. The University of California has made writing an important admission criterion due to its accurate prediction and precise correlation to the success rate of college freshmen. This creates a need for teachers of all students, including English learners, to provide a solid foundation in writing for future academic success.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The role of music in the English language development of Latino prekindergarten English learners
PDF
Effective reading instruction for English learners
PDF
English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices
PDF
The perceived effectiveness of dual language programs at the middle school level
PDF
Factors associated with second language anxiety in adolescents from different cultural backgrounds
PDF
Status of teaching elementary science for English learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools
PDF
Staff perceptions of critical challenges faced by Long-Term English Learners (LTEL) during the transition to junior high school
PDF
Teaching literacy to Latino English learners in kindergarten, ready or not: an evaluation study
PDF
Self-determination among adult Chinese English language learners: the relationship among perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement
PDF
Writing across the curriculum: exploring promising practices in two California charter schools
PDF
Using task based writing instruction to provide differentiated instruction for English language learners
PDF
The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts
PDF
Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school
PDF
Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners
PDF
Taiwanese students' perceived English oral proficiency in relation to communication strategies
PDF
Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
PDF
Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model
PDF
Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools
PDF
School leader impact on equitable grading practices to support middle school English learners
Asset Metadata
Creator
Huang, Julie Tzu-Ling
(author)
Core Title
Critical features for teaching the five-paragraph essay to middle school Chinese speaking English learners
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
08/10/2007
Defense Date
07/02/2007
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Chinese-speaking English learners,English learners,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,the 5-paragraph essay,Writing,writing instruction
Place Name
California
(states),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Advisor
Mora-Flores, Eugenia (
committee chair
), Cowman, Mae (
committee member
), Ragusa, Gisele (
committee member
)
Creator Email
7jhuang@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m786
Unique identifier
UC1161589
Identifier
etd-Huang-20070810 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-543094 (legacy record id),usctheses-m786 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Huang-20070810.pdf
Dmrecord
543094
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Huang, Julie Tzu-Ling
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Chinese-speaking English learners
English learners
the 5-paragraph essay
writing instruction