WGU C226 Task 2 Research Study Critique - Conspicuous Strategies in Teaching Expressive Writing PDF

Preview

Summary

Critique: Conspicuous Strategies in Teaching Expressive Writing: A Quantitative Study Comparing Two Approaches to Process Writing - Comparing BW & PW instructional methods....

Description

Research Study Critique Ronda Bailey Research Design and Analysis - C226 Western Governors University July, 2021

Research Purpose The purpose of this research study was to compare two instructional approaches to process-writing (BW and PW) to show student growth in expressive writing. The researchers of this study acknowledged that most teachers receive training in using process writing for the district/state writing curricula, but that training does not always include how to provide instruction to students using research-based teaching strategies. Teachers face a challenge to identify a way to systematize those strategies and integrate them into a comprehensive and step-by-step process for teachers to use when teaching writing in inclusive classrooms (Fontenot, J., Carney, K. J., & Hansen, K., 2015, p109). The intention of the research was to improve classroom practices for teaching writing. Research Questions 1. Does the BW intervention provide significantly better results than the PW intervention for both general-education students and special-needs students? 2. Do special-needs students show significantly more improvement than general-education students for both interventions and do special-needs students trained with BW show significantly more improvement than special-needs students trained with PW?

Alignment of Research Purpose and Research Questions The research questions are well aligned with the research purpose. The two research questions are investigating and comparing the effectiveness of two process writing approaches (BW and PW). The purpose of this study is to compare the results of the BW intervention (which involves teaching students a systematic approach to writing) to the PW intervention (which is the standard approach in many schools) with both general-education students and special-needs students as related to the improvement of process writing.

How the Literature Review and Sources in the Study Support the Research Purpose and Research Questions

The literature review and selected sources in this study support the research purpose and the research questions by examining why our students lack writing skills and the strategies that may change this fact. The researchers used reliable sources such as the National Assessment of Educational Performance (NAEP) to show the writing achievement level of American students. Data from these sources consistently reinforced the fact that an overwhelming majority of students perform at basic or below basic level in writing and very few scored at or above proficiency. Sources also noted that factors such as cultural background or special education needs had an impact on a student’s writing skill level. The researched literature also pointed to lack of instructional strategies as a reason students struggle with writing. The principle challenges that were identified in that study were inconsistency of practice, lack of extended time to commit to the process of writing in the classroom and a low expectation for the amount of writing produced by students within any given instructional unit (Fontenot, J., Carney, K. J., & Hansen, K., 2015, p109). The strategies found by the literature review to be most meaningful when teaching writing were direct instruction (explicit instruction) and peer-assisted learning. On-going guided feedback by both peers and teachers are essential for students to improve their writing skills. Students require scaffolded instruction in order to plan, organize, write, edit, and revise. The researchers found that there is a need for teachers to develop a systematic way to instruct students in a step-by-step process to become better writers. Research Method The research method used for this study is quantitative quasi-experimental. This research method was appropriate for this study because the researchers’ wanted to compare two methods (Blueprint writing or BW and Process Writing or PW) of teaching process writing. A total of six 6th grade classes from two schools in a mid-western district were selected to participate in this study. The three classes in both schools were inclusive with both general education students and special education students with learning disabilities. The first school (School A) included 65 students of which 34 were identified as special education. The second group (School B) consisted of 68 students of which 25 were identified as special education. The three teachers in School A were given additional training

in blueprint writing (BW) and the three teachers in School B were given additional training in the district’s standard process-writing program (PW). Permission was granted from the participating schools and from the parents of the students. The purpose of this study was a comparison of the effectiveness of two writing strategies taught to students. In order to compare the two instructional strategies, School A taught their students the BW approach to writing, whereas School B taught the PW approach to writing. Having each approach taught to the students in different schools allows for the researchers to complete the comparison using an identical test with completely different participants which increases the validity of the study. The second research question focused on achievement of special-needs students. Swanson, Harris, Graham (2013) found that Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing helped 7th grade students with learning disabilities to improve their writing performance. The breakdown of participants ensures that the achievement level of special education students can also be tested. A quantitative approach was better suited for this study through the use of the pre-test and post-test results. A qualitative approach would not have been effective to show the improvement of the students’ writing skills. Description of Data Collection Methods and Instruments Quantitative data from pre-test and post-test scores were analyzed to appropriately determine the effectiveness of the two instructional methods for expressive writing with general education students and special-education students. This method of gathering data aligns well with the purpose of the study by allowing the researchers to compare the scores of the different instructional approaches as well as comparing achievement levels of general education students and special education students. The six teachers were provided with training for one of the instructional approaches prior to beginning the research study. They also were asked to provide their level of teaching experience. The three teachers trained in the BW approach were able to provide their students with explicit instruction and conspicuous strategies. The three teachers trained in the PW approach provided their students with a standard

approach to writing used in a large number of K-8 classrooms. Improvement in student achievement levels were evaluated based on the post-test scores. The study plan required that the Written Expression subtest of the WIAT-II, Form A, be taken by all study participants as the initial step in the process (Fontenot, J., Carney, K. J., & Hansen, K., 2015, p112). After the pretest, the students in School A were then given instruction in the blueprint writing approach (BW) for the next four months while students in School B were given instruction in the standard process writing approach. The Written Expression subtest of the WIAT-II, Form B, was given to all participants in both schools at the end of the four month period of instruction in order to quantitatively analyze student growth and if one of the approaches provides significantly better results. The six classes include both general education and special-education students which allows for the researchers to analyze the results for both types of students as well as both methods of instruction. The participants, teaching methods, and pre-test/post-test align with the research purpose and the research questions. Data Analysis Techniques In order to answer the research questions, researchers analyzed the pre-test and post-test data collected from students in two different schools. The student groups were further broken down into two subgroups, the general education students and the at-risk or special education students. All participating students completed the same pre-test, then completed the same post-test after receiving instruction in either the BW or the PW writing process. After the WIAT-II subtests were scored, data were collected and assembled into a SPSS data base to include specific data [including raw scores from both subtests] for each student (Fontenot, J., Carney, K. J., & Hansen, K., 2015, p112). The pre-test data were standardized through the use of the WlATT-II Grade-Based Standard Scores grade 6 ‘Winter’ table and the post-test data were standardized through the use of the WlATT-II Grade-Based Standard Scores grade 6 ‘Spring’ table.

Research Study Results The results of this study adequately answer the research questions “Does the BW intervention provide significantly better results than the PW intervention for both general-education students and special-needs students?” and “Do special-needs students show significantly more improvement than general-education students for both interventions and do special-needs students trained with BW show significantly more improvement than special-needs students trained with PW?” Improvement in writing for each student was calculated using the pre-test and post-test scores. The aggregate mean growth suggests that the general education students improved their writing skills with both the BW and PW writing interventions completed during a four month period. The study results indicate that the writing ability of general education students improved with both strategies, but the BW intervention showed faster improvement with conspicuous strategies and explicit instruction. The special education or at-risk students receiving the BW instruction showed significant growth using conspicuous strategies, but no significant growth receiving the PW instruction. Within the subgroups, the general education students outperformed the special education/at-risk students in regard to improvement when receiving the PW intervention. To answer the first research question, the study clearly indicates the BW intervention is superior to the PW intervention for both subgroups. All subgroups showed better growth with the BW intervention. To answer the second research question, the special education/at-risk students performed better and showed more growth if they received instruction with the BW strategy, but not the PW strategy. This study confirms that the systematic, conspicuous strategies in the BW approach, taken from research-validated techniques, ca result in significant student progress over the standard process writing approach [and] has implication for helping teachers provide effective instruction to students of all abilities, which first and foremost will benefit these students individually to become competent writers (Fontenot, J., Carney, K. J., & Hansen, K., 2015, p112). The research results were quantified through the pre-test and post-test scores, therefore, the method of data collection is valid for a quantitative research design. Two schools were used to teach students the writing approaches separately. Validity is provided

through the researchers’ efforts to keep the teaching time, subgroup breakdowns, and tests as similar as possible for the study. The WIAT-II pre-test and post-test were used to measure student growth in writing ability which provides construct validity and content validity. The data is quantitative and numerical, precise, and reliable. This research study can be replicated and similar studies can be conducted.

References Fontenot J, Carney KJ, & Hansen K. Conspicuous strategies in teaching expressive writing: A quantitative study comparing two approaches to process writing. Journal of Instructional Research. 2015; 4: 108–117....