This article was downloaded by: [Le Moyne College]On: 09 October 2014, At: 14:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Literacy Research and InstructionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri20

Elementary Teachers' Perceptions ofProcess WritingSusan Simmerman a , Stan Harward a , Linda Pierce a , NancyPeterson a , Timothy Morrison b , Byran Korth b , Monica Billen b &Jill Shumway ba Utah Valley University , Orem , Utah , USAb Brigham Young University , Provo , Utah , USAPublished online: 02 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Susan Simmerman , Stan Harward , Linda Pierce , Nancy Peterson ,Timothy Morrison , Byran Korth , Monica Billen & Jill Shumway (2012) Elementary Teachers'Perceptions of Process Writing, Literacy Research and Instruction, 51:4, 292-307, DOI:10.1080/19388071.2011.557764

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2011.557764

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Literacy Research and Instruction, 51: 292–307, 2012Copyright © Association of Literacy Educators and ResearchersISSN: 1938-8071 print / 1938-8063 onlineDOI: 10.1080/19388071.2011.557764

Elementary Teachers’ Perceptionsof Process Writing

SUSAN SIMMERMAN, STAN HARWARD, LINDA PIERCE,AND NANCY PETERSON

Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah

TIMOTHY MORRISON, BYRAN KORTH, MONICA BILLEN,AND JILL SHUMWAY

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

The purpose of this survey was to describe how 112 K–6 Utah teachers perceived process writ-ing. Teachers reported valuing all aspects of writing more than using them. In general, they valuedresponding to student needs, daily writing, and process writing, and reported incorporating them intheir classes. Conversely, they did not value commercial writing programs, dictation, or technology,and reported seldom using them. Older teachers valued and used spelling and English languageconventions more than younger teachers. Teachers with more years of teaching experience reportedemphasizing mechanics of writing more frequently than those with fewer. Surveyed teachers ratedthemselves as slightly above-average writers. Teachers’ greatest reported influences were experi-ences with professional development, mentors, and college/high school courses. University methodscourses were rated very low.

Keywords writing, elementary

Evidence is mounting that instruction in and opportunities for student writing are decreas-ing (Applebee & Langer, 2006). The National Commission on Writing in America’sSchools and Colleges (2003) has called writing “the neglected ‘R’” (p. 9). The New YorkTimes published a front-page article by Dillon on March 26, 2006 titled “Schools CuttingBack to Reading and Math.” Writing was not mentioned in this article, indicating thatattention on writing by educators and the general public is diminishing. Over the lastdecade the What’s Hot/Not Hot survey conducted by Cassidy and published in theInternational Reading Association’s newsletter, Reading Today, has reported writing onthe “not hot/should be hot” list. In a national survey, fourth–sixth-grade teachers reportedthat they taught writing for only 15 minutes per day (Gilbert & Graham, 2010) and in mostof their writing activities teachers did not include expectations for students to revise or edittheir work. Similarly, during the last several years writing appears to be declining as a focusof research (Kara-Soteriou & Kaufman, 2002). The decline in both writing instruction andresearch may be due in part to the focus on reading instruction and assessment of readingskills and school performances on standardized tests (Brandt, 2001). Another possible rea-son for this decline may be that teachers do not feel confident in their own writing abilities,

Address correspondence to Timothy Morrison, Brigham Young University, Teacher Education, 201-NMCKB, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: timothy_morrison@byu.edu

292

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Process Writing 293

nor do they feel adequately prepared to teach writing (Bowie, 1996). Almost two-thirdsof the teachers in Gilbert and Graham’s (2010) study reported that their university teacherpreparation courses did little to prepare them to teach writing effectively.

This decline may be pronounced in some areas of the country than others. In Utah thedecline has been dramatic. Recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP,2007) data showed that Utah’s mean writing scores were slightly below the national aver-age (Utah = 152, national = 154) in eighth grade. Utah ranked 32nd among all states.Similar data for fourth-grade students (NAEP, 2002) show Utah ranked below the nationalaverage (Utah = 145, national mean = 153), with 34 states ranking above Utah. (No scoreswere given for seven states). This puts Utah writing scores in approximately the bottomthird of all states.

The decline in writing instruction and research is of concern for educators who realizethe importance of writing (Bridge & Hiebert, 1985; McGrath, 1996). “Writing today is nota frill for the few, but an essential skill for the many” (National Commission on Writing inAmerica’s Schools and Colleges, 2003, p. 11). In an age of rapidly increasing knowledgeand information, the world is becoming more and more complex. In order to survive andthrive, young people must become proficient in their ability to think clearly and expresstheir thinking. Thus writing instruction should play a central role in elementary curricula.

Review of Literature

During the past 40 years researchers and educators have made great strides in understand-ing effective practices and methodologies for teaching writing. In 1968 Murray wroteA Writer Teaches Writing, in which he shared an insider’s view of the writing process.In 1971 Emig reported her landmark study on the composing process of twelfth-grade stu-dents. She found that students used methods similar to those of professional authors, ratherthan those taught in their English classes. Her work, confirmed by others (Elbow, 1973;Macrorie, 1970), pioneered a departure from traditional methods of teaching writing to anemphasis on the writing process.

In 1974 the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley,began a university-based program for K–16 teachers. It was called the Bay Area WritingProject. The program’s structure focused on teachers learning from other teachers aboutwriting. This successful professional development model served as the basis for whatbecame known as the National Writing Project (NWP) (National Writing Project, 2011).By 1976, the NWP was in place in six states and was making a difference in how manyteachers were approaching writing instruction in their classrooms.

In the 1980s Hayes and Flower (1980) looked at writing as a form of problem solving,and provided a theoretical framework for the stages that writers go through when producinga written piece. While the labels of these stages may change, they are generally usingthe following terms: pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. These stagesinvolve recursive cycles rather than a linear activity (Tompkins, 2010). Hillocks (1982)showed that significant gains in skills were possible over a short time as students engagedin the revising stage of the writing process.

At the same time, practical guides became available to teachers and teacher educators(Kirby & Liner, 1981; Romano, 1987). Graves (1983) made an impact at the elementarylevel with his book Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. One of Graves’ students,Calkins (1983, 1986), continued the focus on elementary writing instruction. Atwell (1987)wrote about transforming writing by describing her work with eighth graders engaged inauthentic writing tasks across the curriculum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

294 S. Simmerman et al.

During the 1990s interest in the writing process continued to increase in public schoolclassrooms. Fisher (1991) presented effective approaches for early childhood settings.Calkins and Harwayne (1991) and Graves and Sunstein (1992) showed ways to keep writ-ing instruction natural and to evaluate writing holistically. In 1991 NWP was funded as anational education program, allowing its influence to expand to new areas.

During this time work in Oregon and Montana identified qualities of effective writingas a form of assessment. These qualities came to be known as the six traits (EducationNorthwest, 2011). Since the year 2000, use of the six-trait model has been prevalent inmany states for assessing student writing as part of statewide testing programs. Severalbooks have gone beyond using six traits as evaluation to promote use of them in an instruc-tional program (Bellamy, 2005; Culham, 2003; Spandel, 2007). Such work has made asignificant impact on the methods used to teach writing and the emphasis placed on studentwriting in the classroom.

Despite decades of focus on effective writing instruction, research indicates that manyteachers may not be fully implementing these practices, or they may be using them inways that detract from their effectiveness. Applebee and Langer (2006) reported that, whileprocess oriented writing has dominated teacher vocabulary for many years, it is still unclearwhat teachers mean by this term and how it is implemented in their classrooms. Kara-Soteriou and Kaufman (2002) found that some teachers implemented process writing ina rigid, formulaic fashion that does not reflect how writing naturally occurs. They alsofound teachers were not modeling for their students, providing time for student sharing, orallowing for choice of topics.

Although writing as a process has become a well-known phrase, some claim that thewriting process is not the best way to teach writing. Hillocks (1982) identified various otherwriting instructional practices in schools. Boscolo (2008) argued that attitudes and beliefstoward writing greatly affect learners, stating that many teachers focus too much on writ-ing skills instead of focusing on writers’ beliefs and students’ attitudes. Petraglia (1999)criticized the writing process approach and labeled it as a rigid writing sequence. Althoughthere have been criticisms of process writing and comparable methods suggested in theliterature (e.g., Petraglia, 1999; Williams, 1998), this study focuses on process writingbecause it reflects the expectations of the state and districts involved.

In an effort to better understand elementary teachers’ perceptions of process writing,the purpose of this study was to explore the following research questions:

1. To what extent do surveyed K–6 teachers report they value and use various aspects ofwriting instruction?

2. How do surveyed K–6 teachers perceive themselves as writers, and what has influencedthem as teachers of writing?

Methodology

In this study the researchers used a mixed method survey design (Creswell & PlanoClark, 2010), because both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed.Given the quantitative dominance of this study, a Dominant–Less Dominant mixed meth-ods research design was used (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). The setting, participants,instrument, procedures, and data analysis are discussed below.

Setting

The setting for this study was eight suburban and rural school districts in Utah.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Process Writing 295

A proportional sample of 74 schools was selected to represent the enrollment in thesedistricts, with 22 schools chosen from the largest district and 20, 13, 9, 4, 4, 1, and1 from the others in descending order to the smallest district. This sample also representedproportionally the range from low to high in socioeconomic levels across the districts.

Participants

From within the selected schools, a stratified, random sample of 177 kindergarten–sixth-grade teachers were surveyed regarding their writing instruction. The sample representedthe population of all K–6 teachers across these eight school districts; thus more teacherswere surveyed in the larger districts. Participants also represented a proportional sample ofteachers by grade level across these districts. Accordingly, 25 were kindergarten teachers,28 taught first grade, 26 taught second, 21 third, 24 fourth, 25 fifth, and 23 sixth grade. Fiveclassrooms included a combination of grade levels—one second/third, one third/fourth,one fourth/fifth, and two fifth/sixth.

All participants were public school teachers in regular education classrooms employedfull time in their school districts. Written consent was obtained from all participants. Eachof the 177 teachers was given a written survey to complete and return by mail, asking fordemographic information. Of the selected teachers, 63% (n = 112) returned the question-naire; 90% of them were female, 6% were male, and 4% did not mark gender. Concerningeducation, 73% held bachelor’s degrees, and 24% held master’s degrees. One teacher helda doctoral degree, one had an education specialist degree, and one teacher did not report adegree. Concerning professional endorsements, 85% reported holding endorsements withthe majority being in the areas of English as a second language, early childhood, and math.Only seven reported endorsements related to literacy.

The teachers also reported the number of years they had taught. Six provided noresponse. The range of teaching experience spanned from 1 year to 40, with the averagebeing 12 years. Approximately half of the teachers were 45 years or older. Only 6 teacherswere younger than 25 years old. Eight teachers did not report their age. The large majorityof teachers were white (95.6%), with approximately 1% of the teachers being Asian, 1%Hispanic, 1% American Indian, and just over 1% not reporting ethnicity.

Instrument

A teacher survey was developed by the researchers to address the research questions (seeAppendix A). The content of the survey reflects the practices recommended in the literature(Atwell, 1987; Calkins, 1986; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1983; Smith, 1994) andexpectations of district guidelines of the teachers in the study.

The survey asked teachers to respond to 55 Likert-scale items related to how they valueand use various aspects of writing, with space provided for teachers to indicate amount oftime devoted to each and to write comments. An additional item asked teachers to rankthemselves on a scale of 1 to 10 about their self-perception as a writer. Two open-endedquestions focused on what had influenced the teachers’ writing instruction.

Procedures

Permission was granted by all school districts to survey teachers. Prior to data collection,all teachers were sent a letter informing them of their selection to participate in the study.Each teacher was hand-delivered the written questionnaire to complete and return by mail.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

296 S. Simmerman et al.

Because the initial return rate was high (63%), follow up reminders were not considerednecessary.

Data Analysis

While some results are reported for grade levels, data were not compared by district or byschool—all data were examined as a unit. Responses to Likert-scale items were averaged,as was the self-perception item. Comments and responses to the open-ended survey itemswere listed and grouped into categories and themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2007). Statisticalanalyses were used to look for significant differences among demographic groups in termsof their responses to survey items.

Limitations

This study does little to focus on the quality of writing instruction. Although teachersreported information about their writing instruction on the survey, observations and inter-views could substantiate their claims. This study is geographically focused and does notdescribe perceptions of process writing held by teachers in other areas. Nevertheless,results of the study can create greater awareness of issues affecting a broad range ofteachers.

Results

Results are presented in two sections that are aligned with the research questions: teachers’reported value and use of writing aspects, and teachers’ self-perception as writers and whathad influenced them as writing teachers.

Value and Use of Writing Aspects

Quantitative Results. The teacher survey asked respondents to indicate how they valueand use various aspects of writing. Scores on the 112 returned surveys for the teacherswere generally quite high (see Table 1). Using a scale of 1 to 5, only two value scoresand six use scores were below 3. Teachers reported valuing writing instruction more thanthey reported implementing it on every survey item. When gender, age, grade level taught,academic degree, ethnicity, and experience were considered, some significant differencesin scores were found. Older teachers who were surveyed valued (p = .041) and used (p =.025) spelling more than younger teachers. They also taught English language conventionsmore than younger teachers (p = .037). Teachers with more years of teaching experiencereported enhancing mechanics abilities of their students more frequently than those withless experience (p = .024). The higher the grade level they were teaching, the more teachersvalued (p < .001) and used (p < .001) writing evaluation and assessment. A similar trendwas seen in their approach to writing assignments. Upper grade teachers focused on genresof writing and on writing in response to literature (value p = .002, use p < .001) more thanlower grade teachers.

The items with the highest value scores were instruction in response to student needs(4.68), daily writing (4.64), student sharing (4.59), and writing as a process (4.58). Closebehind these were the use of a classroom writing center (4.56), corrections done by students(4.51), and personal student writing (4.45). The lowest value scores appeared for commer-cial writing programs (2.74), dictation (2.74), worksheets (3.03), and technology-basedgenres such as blogs and e-mail (3.00).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Process Writing 297

Table 1K–6 Teachers’ Perceptions of Process Writing

Survey Item Value Use Use Rank Difference

Writing AssignmentsDaily writing 4.64 4.35 1 .38Student choice writing 4.26 3.88 2 .29Focused writing unit 4.10 3.73 3 .37Commercial writing program 2.74 2.10 4 .64Category Mean 3.87 3.52 .35

Writing Engagement and InstructionInstruction in response to student needs 4.68 4.33 2 .35Student sharing 4.59 4.29 4 .30Writing as a process 4.58 4.41 1 .17Explicit instruction (mini-lessons) 4.52 4.30 3 .22Integration with content areas 4.36 4.16 5 .20Brainstorming (prewriting) 4.35 4.04 6 .31Individual conferences 4.29 3.81 9 .48Six Traits 4.25 3.81 9 .44Guided writing practice 4.23 3.86 8 .37Curriculum-based scope and sequence 4.15 3.94 7 .21Structured writing workshop 4.13 3.78 11 .35Daily oral language (DOL) 3.87 3.67 12 .20Trade books as mentor texts 3.74 3.37 13 .37Teacher writing while students write 3.36 2.83 14 .53Guided practice worksheets 3.03 2.91 15 .12Dictation 2.74 2.47 16 .27Category Mean 4.05 3.75 .30

Writing Evaluation and AssessmentCorrections by student 4.51 4.19 1 .32Rubrics for evaluation 4.20 3.62 6 .58Teacher assessment for content 4.17 4.09 2 .08Teacher assessment for mechanics 4.15 4.06 3 .09Evaluation checklists 3.99 3.80 4 .19Corrections by teacher 3.75 3.72 5 .03Peer assessment for content 3.66 3.33 7 .33Category Mean 4.06 3.83 .23

Writing SupportClassroom writing center 4.56 4.30 1 .26Dictionary and thesaurus access 4.22 4.02 2 .20Use of word wall 4.12 3.91 3 .21Personal dictionaries 3.68 3.26 4 .42Technology-based reference tools 3.65 2.84 5 .81Category Mean 4.05 3.67 .38

Philosophic EmphasisIncreasing writing fluency 4.55 4.15 1 .40

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

298 S. Simmerman et al.

Table 1(Continued)

Survey Item Value Use Use Rank Difference

Enhancing composition abilities 4.44 4.06 2 .38Enhancing mechanics abilities 4.31 4.02 3 .29Category Mean 4.43 4.08 .35

Approaches to Writing AssignmentsPersonal writing 4.45 4.21 1 .24Student responses to literature 4.29 3.99 3 .30Narrative/descriptive writing 4.28 4.09 2 .19Letter writing (personal, business, etc.) 4.03 3.57 5 .46Story starters 3.98 3.77 4 .21Expository writing 3.97 3.49 9 .48Poetic writing 3.76 3.38 8 .38Biographical writing 3.71 3.39 7 .32Persuasive writing 3.66 3.22 6 .44Technology-based genres (blogs, emails) 3.00 2.42 10 .58Category Mean 3.91 3.55 .36

English Language ConventionsUsage and punctuation 4.50 4.30 1 .20Grammar instruction 4.34 4.08 3 .26Spelling instruction 4.31 4.21 2 .10Handwriting instruction 3.91 3.66 4 .25Category Mean 4.27 4.06 .19

Writing DomainsStudent independent writing 4.76 4.59 1 .17Modeled writing 4.54 4.04 2 .50Collaborative writing 4.32 3.93 3 .39Category Mean 4.54 4.19 .35

Grouping for Writing InstructionIndividual 4.60 4.14 2 .46Whole group 4.47 4.32 1 .15Small group 4.21 3.60 3 .61Category Mean 4.43 4.02 .41

Note. Scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

The items with the highest mean scores for use were student-led writing (4.59), writingas a process (4.41), daily writing (4.35), whole group instruction (4.32), use of a class-room writing center (4.30), and usage and punctuation (4.30). The lowest use scores werefor commercial writing programs (2.10), technology-based genres (2.42), and dictation(2.47).

Items representing the closest alignment between value and use scores were teachercorrections (.03 point difference between the two), teacher assessment for content (.08),teacher assessment for mechanics (.09), spelling (.10), and worksheets (.12). Items rep-resenting the greatest discrepancy between value and use scores were technology-basedreference tools (.81 point difference between the two), commercial writing programs (.64),small group writing instruction (.61), technology-based genres (.58), and rubrics (.58).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Process Writing 299

Considering the high and low scores on the entire survey, the teachers showed con-sistency at both ends of the spectrum regarding what they valued and used in writinginstruction. In general, they valued responding to student needs, daily writing, and processwriting. They claimed to use student-led writing and daily process writing. Conversely,they did not value commercial writing programs, dictation, or technology, and theyreported seldom using them in their teaching.

Some differences did not surface generally, but did within their categories. For exam-ple, in writing evaluation and assessment corrections by students were highly valued(4.51) and used (4.19), while peer assessment for content was not highly valued (3.66) orused (3.33). Teachers preferred rubrics (4.20) more than evaluation checklists (3.99), butreported using checklists (3.80) more than rubrics (3.62).

Qualitative Results. For each survey item, teachers were also asked how often they usedit, and space was provided for their comments. In general, few teachers responded tothese open-ended prompts. For that reason, these results should be interpreted with cau-tion. Most of those who did respond answered the how often prompt rather than writingcomments.

In response to the how often question, answers ranged from daily, weekly, and monthlyto quarterly, yearly, and never. Items that teachers reported using daily were daily writing(n = 46), spelling instruction (n = 28), DOL (n = 26), grammar instruction (n = 25),usage and punctuation instruction (n = 22), word walls (n = 21), and classroom writingcenters (n = 20). Some teachers reported never using the following practices: technology-based reference tools (n = 4), technology-based genres (n = 4), persuasive writing (n =3), and story starters (n = 2). The widest range of responses had to do with guided practiceworksheets and dictation.

The survey items that elicited the most responses were concerned with writing as aprocess (n = 14), teacher-made corrections to student writing (n = 14), individual confer-ences with students (n = 13), personal dictionaries (n = 13), peer assessment about content(n = 13), and technology-based reference tools (n = 13). The items that drew the fewestcomments were enhancing composition ability (n = 0), increasing mechanics proficiency(n =1), and whole group instruction (n =1).

Most teachers’ comments explained why they did not use some elements, rather thanclarifying or elaborating how they used them. A few comments had a positive tone, suchas “I do best at this” or “very important for children.” Most of the comments had an apolo-getic tone, such as “I need to do this more” and “I’m building up to it.” Four themessurfaced from teacher comments on survey items—time, applicability, inability, andresources.

By far the most consistent comment was about time constraints imposed by othercurriculum demands. “Not enough time” and “hard to find time” were typical comments,most frequently made about daily writing, student sharing, individual conferences, student-made corrections, and small group instruction. Of the writing genres, teachers commentedthey did not have enough time for biographical writing and poetry writing.

The second most common theme was applicability. Many teachers labeled items asnot applicable to them—“not in lower grades,” “not at this level,” “not applicable to uppergrades,” and “children too young.” Such comments were frequently related to items hav-ing to do with assessment (e.g., rubrics, checklists, and peer assessment), writing genres(e.g., expository, personal, and biographical), and writing support (e.g., dictionaries andthesauruses). The only item on the survey on which all teacher comments were nega-tive and resistant had to do with student choice. Comments such as “they’re not ready,”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

300 S. Simmerman et al.

“need structure,” and “not until later” suggest that these teachers did not feel that allowingstudents choices in writing was applicable in their classrooms.

The third most frequent theme was related to teachers’ comments about their owninability. Responses such as “I feel incompetent,” “no training,” “would like more train-ing,” and “don’t know how” were typical. Items that elicited such statements werestructured workshop, writing process, six traits instruction, and trade books as mentortexts. These feelings of inadequacy were also apparent in other comments about not doingenough—“should do more,” “need to do more,” and “would like to do more.” Teachersmade these comments in relation to topics such as poetry writing, grammar instruction,usage and punctuation, shared writing, and small group instruction.

The final theme about lack of resources surfaced only in response to items dealing withwriting support and technology, but it appeared frequently in those areas. “No money,” “nocomputers,” and “limited access” were typical comments.

Self-Perceptions and Reported Influences

Quantitative Results. The final quantitative survey item asked teachers to rate themselvesas writers, not as teachers of writing. A score of 1 indicated a negative perception and a 10a positive perception. The mean score on this item for the sampled teachers was 6.73 with arange of 2 to 10. Teachers were then asked to explain their rating. Only 30% of the teachersresponded and their answers are reported in the qualitative results that follow.

Qualitative Results. All comments about self-perception were categorized into themes,so the number of comments may exceed the number of teachers who responded. Themost frequent responses (n = 56) were positive declarations, such as “I love writing,” “Ienjoy it,” and “I have always written.” Despite these positive comments, 20 teachers saidthat although they liked to write, they found it hard. Less optimistic responses included22 teachers who reported not having time for writing, 11 who reported that their writingwas limited to journals and blogs, and 16 who wrote that they had “never liked it,” were“not good at it,” and “don’t do it.”

Teachers were asked to respond to two open-ended questions about what had mostinfluenced them to be a teacher of writing. Only 14 teachers declined to respond, result-ing in an 88% response rate. Data for both questions were initially analyzed separately.But since many responses were so similar, the data were combined into a common set ofcategories. Some teachers’ comments included statements that were assigned to multiplecategories, so the frequency of responses may be larger than the number of respondents.Results are included in Table 2.

The greatest influence for these teachers seems to have been their experiences withprofessional development (n = 141). A number of individual professional developmentconsultants were mentioned by name (n = 33). Classifying these individuals under profes-sional development increased the number of comments to 174, nearly twice the frequencyof the next highest category. Mentors (n = 93) also had a dramatic impact in preparingthe teachers in this study. Included in this category were colleagues, literacy coaches, andadministrators. College (n = 67) and high school (n = 40) courses and instructors weretotaled as next most influential. Comments of ten teachers were prefaced by an indicationthat they felt poorly prepared, weak, and in need of more instruction in how to teach writ-ing. There were 12 teachers who did not mention any one specific event or person who hadinfluenced them, but instead reported having been influenced by a combination of factorsthat they did not define. University methods courses were listed by only three respondents.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Process Writing 301

Table 2K–6 Teachers’ Responses to Open-Ended Survey Questions About Influences on Them as

Writing Teachers

Response Frequency

Professional development (e.g., workshops and conferences) 141Mentors (e.g., specialists, coaches, and facilitators) 93University or college courses or instructors (not methods courses) 67High School courses and instructors 40Individuals listed by name 33Classroom teaching experience 25Family members 21Own students 14Graduate student experiences 8Middle school courses and instructors 8Personal childhood experiences 7Books and research 5Awards, contests, and publications 4University or college literacy methods courses 3

Discussion

Value and Use of Writing Aspects

Teachers valued all writing aspects more than they reported using them. Older teachersand those with more years of teaching experience reported focusing on writing conven-tions more than younger teachers and those with fewer years of experience. It may bethat conventions were emphasized more when the older teachers were initially preparedto teach, or these teachers could have been affected by ongoing parental concerns aboutmechanics over the years.

Teachers in the upper grades were more focused on assessment and response to lit-erature than teachers in the lower grades. Perhaps this difference occurred because moresummative assessment is used in the upper grades. Primary grade teachers emphasizedoral rather than written response to literature. Similarly, primary grade teachers were morefocused on handwriting. Apparently, intermediate grade teachers were more concernedabout content than the form. Primary grade teachers reported using word walls much morefrequently than intermediate grade teachers. This may indicate that intermediate gradeteachers were more concerned with going beyond word level comprehension. However,this finding might also demonstrate that teachers did not see the possible benefits of usingword walls with older children. Another important difference was that both first and sixthgrade teachers conferenced less often with their students than teachers at other levels. Firstgrade teachers may not have conferenced as much due to the amount of text children atthese ages are able to produce. It is unclear why sixth-grade teachers did not employmore conferencing. Overall, teachers did not report using commercial writing programsor worksheets. It appears that they valued their instructional independence.

In the category of writing support, the item of technology-based reference tools wasrated last for both value and use. Similarly, in the category labeled writing assignments,technology-based writing genres was ranked lowest. This may be an indication that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

302 S. Simmerman et al.

teachers had not yet integrated technology with their writing instruction due to lack ofknowledge about technology or a scarcity of computers. This concern also surfaced inteacher comments such as “don’t know how,” “no money,” and “no computers.” Applebeeand Langer (2006) stated that technology is changing writing with the influences of theInternet, word processing, and text messaging. They reported that more and more studentsare using computers outside of school. Yet this study showed very little use of technol-ogy in elementary classrooms, even though use of computers has been shown to lead toincreased achievement scores (NAEP, 2002, 2007).

In the category labeled approaches to writing assignments, teachers valued and taughtpersonal writing more than any other genre. Although valued across grade levels, personalwriting was more prevalent in the lower grades, with a trend to a larger variety of genres inthe upper grades. The relatively low ranking of persuasive writing was surprising in lightof the fact that that genre is used on the Utah statewide writing assessment in intermediategrades. The item indicating use of six traits ranked low considering the emphasis that manyin the state have placed on teaching writing using this emphasis.

In the category designated as writing engagement and instruction, an inconsistencywas noted. The highest teacher survey scores (both value and use) were found in responseto student needs, student sharing, writing as a process, and mini-lessons. All of these arevital components of the writing workshop. However, the item writing workshop was rankedeleventh for both value and use. It appears that these teachers may not have fully understoodthe term writing workshop, or they may have been approaching the writing workshop inan isolated and fragmented way. In the category of writing assignments, scores for dailywriting and student choice, both essential elements of writing workshop, ranked higherthan writing workshop itself.

In the category of philosophic emphasis, fluency and composition outranked mechan-ics. However, the scores for usage and punctuation in the English language conventionscategory were the highest and were greater than mechanics in the previous category.Obviously, the philosophy of these teachers centered on composition, but in practice theywere more focused on mechanics.

All comments on the survey were made by a small portion of the sampled teachers,who may not represent all of the teachers in the study. The fact that so few wrote commentsmay also be an indicator that the teachers were busy or disinterested. Yet the comments thatwere made revealed a tension between what teachers value and the constraints of their jobs.Some teachers expressed a desire to teach writing, but they felt they had not been wellprepared and reported wanting more preparation. This is consistent with findings fromGilbert and Graham’s national survey (2010). However, unlike teachers in the nationalsurvey, teachers in this study appeared to want to teach writing, but reported that it was notalways the highest priority of district administrators, and it was not tested like reading andmath.

The most common comment by far was about teachers’ perceived lack of time forwriting. Maybe this lack of time really represents teachers’ frustration about curriculardemands and their inability to do all that is required of them. Perhaps curriculum demandsneed to be adjusted to include more time for writing instruction. The National Commissionon Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges (2003) recommended that “the amountof time and money devoted to student writing must be dramatically increased in schooldistricts throughout the U.S. and state and local curriculum guidelines must require writingin every curriculum at all grade levels” (p. 4).

The second most common theme was related to applicability and student choice. Whenteachers wrote, “they’re not ready” and “need structure,” perhaps they were also explaining

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Process Writing 303

why teachers assign so many prompted and teacher-directed writing experiences (Gilbert &Graham, 2010). This theme was consistent with the findings of Kara-Soteriou and Kaufman(2002), who reported that teachers were hesitant or unwilling to allow students to choosetheir own writing topics.

Self-Perceptions and Reported Influences

In response to the question about how they ranked themselves as writers, teachers mademany positive comments. However, despite such comments they ranked themselves as justabove average as writers (6.73 out of 10). Some were also quick to clarify that they wrotemostly in journals, blogs, or e-mails, which they did not classify as “real” writing. Whilethey reported enjoying writing, the majority did not classify themselves as writers. Thissupports Emig’s (1971) claim that teachers of writing are not effective because they do notwrite themselves or see themselves as writers.

In response to questions about what has influenced them as teachers of writing, teach-ers listed professional development most often by far. Perhaps this indicates that theiruniversity preparation was deficient in writing instruction. It could also mean that teach-ers value instructional suggestions more when they are in meaningful contexts rather thanin university methods courses that tend to be removed from actual practice. It could alsobe that professional development has occurred more recently than their methods classes.Students currently engaged in methods courses may find them more relevant than the teach-ers in this study did. Still little is known about the types of professional developmentteachers received and in the ways they were influenced by it. Results of this study sub-stantiate Applebee and Langer’s (2006) call for more professional development dealingwith writing and validate the efforts of the NWP and other such efforts.

Additional significant influences were colleagues who acted as mentors: literacycoaches, facilitators, and specialists. Such positions have not always been the norm in theschools in this study: they have been created during the past 15 years. Responses by teach-ers in this study indicated that these professionals are making a difference, even thoughresults did not specify how they are influencing classroom teachers.

The teachers reported that they learned a great deal about writing in university gen-eral education courses, but not in their methods courses. This may indicate that methodscourses focus more heavily on reading, or that in their methods courses students were notas engaged in the writing process as they were in their other classes.

Recommendations for Further Research

Future research should be completed to analyze both the content and quality of aspectsof writing such as mini-lessons, student sharing, and teacher conferences. Another fruit-ful avenue of research could be to examine why teachers are or are not teaching writing.Follow-up interviews could be done with high and low implementers of writing instruction.Observations of these teachers could validate their survey responses.

Teachers in this study highlighted the importance of professional development, butlittle is known about the type of professional development they received. University meth-ods classes were ranked as not very influential, just as they were in Gilbert and Graham’s(2010) national survey. It would be important to identify what was and was not includedin those courses and compare that to current approaches in language arts methods courses.This study reported how teachers value and use various aspects of writing, but little isknown about teacher candidates’ perceptions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

304 S. Simmerman et al.

Reutzel and Cooter (2000) claimed that creating an environment that fosters literacyis an important step toward literacy achievement. Future studies should focus on aspects ofthe classroom environments that support or fail to support writing development.

This study should be replicated throughout the country, especially in states with lowand high NAEP scores and in districts that have or have not achieved according to man-dated expectations. It would also be beneficial to replicate the study in the same districts incoming years to identify trends.

References

Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America’s schools: Whatexisting data tell us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and Achievement.

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.Bellamy, P. C. (Ed.). (2005). Seeing with new eyes: A guidebook on teaching and assessing beginning

writers using the 6+1 writing model (6th ed.). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional EducationalLaboratory.

Boscolo, P. (2008). Writing in primary school. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research onwriting (pp. 293–311). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bowie, R. (1996). Future teachers’ perceptions of themselves as writers and teachers of writing:Implications for teacher education programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the CollegeReading Association, Charleston, SC.

Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Bridge, C. A., & Hiebert, E. H. (1985). A comparison of classroom writing practices, teachers’

perceptions of their writing instruction, and textbook recommendations on writing practices. TheElementary School Journal, 86, 155–172.

Calkins, L. M. (1983). Lessons from a child. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Calkin, L. M., & Harwayne, S. (1991). Living between the lines. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. C. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Culham, R. (2003). 6 + 1 traits of writing: The complete guide. New York, NY: Scholastic.Dillon, S. (2006, March 26). Schools cutting back subjects to teach reading and math. New York

Times, p. A1.Education Northwest. (2011). 6+1 trait writing. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/traitsElbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Emig, J. (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders (Research Report No. 13). Champaign,

IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Fisher, B. (1991). Joyful learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national

survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 494–517.Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Graves, D. H., & Sunstein, B. S. (Eds.). (1992). Portfolio portraits. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Hayes, J., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg

& E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Hillocks, G. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching thecomposing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 261–279.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Process Writing 305

Kara-Soteriou, J., & Kaufman, D. (2002). Writing in the elementary school: The missing pieces. TheNew England Reading Association Journal, 38(3), 25–33.

Kirby, D., & Liner, T. (1981). Inside out. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Macrorie, K. (1970). Uptaught. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.McGrath, C. R. (1996). Writing: The most powerful tool. Writing Teacher, 9(5), 30–31.Murray, D. M. (1968). A writer teaches writing. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2002). Writing 2002 report card. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2002/2003531.aspNational Assessment of Educational Progress. (2007). Writing 2007 report card. Retrieved from

http://nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2007/National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected “R”:

The need for a writing revolution. Mt. Vernon, IL: College Entrance Examination Board.National Writing Project. (2011). History of NWP. Retrieved from http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/

print/doc/about/history.cspPetraglia, J. (1999). Is there life after process: The role of social scientism in a changing discipline. In

T. Kent (Ed.), Post-process theory: Beyond the writing process paradigm (pp. 49–65). Carbondale,IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. J. (2000). Teaching children to read: Putting the pieces together (3rded.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Romano, T. (1987). Clearing the way: Working with teenage writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Smith, F. (1994). Writing and the writer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Spandel, V. (2007). Creating young writers: Using the six traits to enrich the writing process in

primary classrooms (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. B. (Eds). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social &

behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (5th ed). Boston, MA:

Pearson.Williams, J. D. (1998). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory, and practice (2nd ed). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

306 S. Simmerman et al.

Appendix A

K–6 Teacher Writing Survey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Perceptions of Process Writing 307

Please indicate on this continuum how you view yourself as a writer (not a teacher of writing). One (1) indicates most negative (don’t feel motivated, hate it, not good at it); ten (10) most positive (love it, good at it, write all the time).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Why?

Considering your whole education (high school, college, etc.) and teaching career, describe the experiences that have been the most influential in preparing you to be a teacher of writing (e.g., courses, conferences, mentors/teachers, professional development, jobs, etc.).

Consider your previous answer, what single event or person has influenced you the most to be a teacher of writing?

Gender: Female Male

Age: 18–19 20–21 22–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 45–49 50–54 55–59 60+

Current grade level teaching assignment: _______________________

Number of years you have taught: _____________________________

Highest academic degree earned: Bachelor Master Education Specialist Doctorate

Ethnicity (circle all that apply):Asian Black Hispanic Pacific Islander White American Indian/Alaskan Native

Other (describe) ______________________________________________________________________

Endorsements earned (list all)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Le

Moy

ne C

olle

ge]

at 1

4:53

09

Oct

ober

201

4