Upload
kaitlinebersol
View
16
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this intervention was to examine the effects of three weeks of daily, timed freewriting on the overall quality and depth of student writing as well as on student enthusiasm for writing.
Citation preview
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner:How can daily freewriting affect the quality and depth of students’ writing skills?
Undergraduate Full Practicum Inquiry ProjectApril 2012
BA in Secondary EducationLynch School of Education
Boston College
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 1
AbstractThe purpose of this intervention was to examine the effects of three weeks of daily, timed
freewriting on the overall quality and depth of student writing as well as on student enthusiasm for writing. Before and after the intervention, students responded to survey questions relating to their enthusiasm for writing and their perceived writing abilities. Following daily independent reading and reading responses, students responded for 7 minutes to a freewrite prompt written on the board. At the end of 7 minutes, pupils counted the number of words they had written and recorded this number at the bottom of their entries. Students also had the opportunity to share their writing with their peers, either by reading their entries aloud or by passing their entries to a neighbor. A cross-sample of low-, medium-, and high-achieving students from each period were selected and their freewrite entries were collected for analysis. Survey questions were analyzed for changes in response, word counts were analyzed for significant increases or decreases in value, and cross-sample entries were codified for elements of writing quality and depth of writing. Overall, the intervention was successful, indicating that daily, timed freewriting increases quality and depth of student writing as well as student enthusiasm for writing.
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 2
Problem Statement
The ability to write, to express oneself logically and eloquently in print, opens academic and
professional doors for those students who master it. Students who write well perform better in all
academic classes and have an easier time applying to colleges and entering many careers. Furthermore,
writing gives individuals the chance to better understand themselves and the world around them and to
communicate more effectively with others. In the eighth grade ELA classes at my school, I noticed a
marked incompetence in students’ writing abilities. Homework assignments and essays revealed
mechanical problems such as spelling and punctuation errors, incomplete sentences, and incorrect verb
conjugation. Worse, some students failed to write coherently, errors distorting the very meaning of their
thoughts. Having observed students during writing instruction, and having made connections with many
students on a personal level, I realized that the writing illiteracy in my classroom stemmed in part from
their apathetic and even defeatist attitudes towards the writing process. As many of my students were
ELLs, had IEPs, or struggled with difficult home situations that inhibited proper academic growth,
traditional writing instruction had thus far failed to meet their individual needs. They did not enjoy
writing because they had never been good it nor seen a purpose for it, and thus they put little effort into
their assignments. Through a writing intervention involving daily, timed freewriting, I hoped to increase
the quality and depth of student writing as well as their enthusiasm for writing.
Context and Frame of Reference
Frame of Reference
I grew up in West Chester, Pennsylvania, a suburb just west of Philadelphia, where I attended a
public, middle-class high school with a predominantly white demographic; according to the school
website, approximately 83.35% of students are white, 7.37% are black, 5.29% are Asian, and 3.92% are
Hispanic. We benefited from plentiful academic resources including libraries, computer rooms, an
auditorium and music rooms, and classrooms equipped with the latest technology. With every resource at
my finger-tips, and with teachers and a family who firmly believed in my ability to achieve, I developed
the academic skills necessary for success.
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 3
Having thus experienced a relatively privileged educational upbringing surrounded by mostly
white peers, I have noticed some similarities but more differences in the educational environments of my
practicum placements while at Boston College. In the last three years, I have taught in a public, low SES
school with a majority of black and Hispanic students, I have taught at a private, all-girls school
composed of wealthy white students, and I have taught at a public school with both low and high SES
students and a relatively even spread of races. Each of these schools brought its own demographics,
teaching goals, and educational problems to the table, opening my eyes to the pros and cons, the benefits
and challenges, of various educational settings.
From these three, varied teaching experiences as compared to my own educational background, I
have developed personal practical theories that I think apply to all pupils regardless of school, race,
gender, or SES. Firstly, I believe that every student sincerely wants to learn and therefore deserves the
opportunity to learn in a manner appropriate to his/her needs and skills. In other words, teachers should
understand that everyone learns differently and should thus incorporate accommodations for all learners
into their lessons in order to ensure that every student’s needs are met. I believe that it is an individual’s
right to receive an appropriate education and that it is the teacher’s job to make this happen. As this
relates to my writing intervention, I believed that traditional writing instruction had not thoroughly met
the learning needs of ELLs or students on IEPs, as demonstrated by the poor writing produced in my full-
inclusion ELA classes. Students struggled with basic English skills and thus required teaching
accommodations that would spark their enthusiasm for the writing process by making it less intimidating
and more engaging, allowing them to express themselves freely and without criticism from an instructor.
They also needed repeated practice – more practice, perhaps than other students – to increase the quality
of their writing. I believed that a freewriting intervention would promote this kind of enthusiasm and
writing quality by allowing students to write consistently about topics that interested them without the
threat of negative feedback for mechanical writing errors.
Secondly, I believe that a teacher’s responsibilities go beyond just academics, that he/she should
make personal connections on some level with every student. I really believe that mutual respect is the
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 4
key for good classroom management and effective learning and that the only way to establish a genuine
teacher-student relationship is for the teacher to actively know the student. Thus, an instructor should
memorize all his/her students’ names, he/she should be familiar with his/her students’ academic strengths
and weaknesses, he/she should have some familiarity with each students’ personality in the classroom,
and he/she should make some effort to talk to every student in a social context (during breaks, between
classes, etc.). In this way, the class will feel comfortable with the teacher, will respect the teacher, and
will behave better and absorb more from instruction. Furthermore, by knowing a student well, the teacher
is better able to plan his/her instruction around that student’s abilities, needs, and interests. Through
writing and discussing topics related to students’ lives and experiences, I believed my writing
intervention would facilitate this kind of personal connection between myself and the individuals in my
classes. It would allow me to understand the way my students thought, to learn a bit about their lives
while also monitoring their strengths and weaknesses as writers. In establishing these relationships, I
would be better prepared to deliver the kind of instruction each individual required.
Context
For four months, I taught in three 8th grade ELA classes at a public, urban K-8 school. According
to the Massachusetts Department of education website, this school has 838 students between pre-
kindergarten and eighth grade, 45.9% of whom are Hispanic, 27.6% of whom are African American,
12.2% of whom are white, and 11.1% of whom are Asian, along with a small minority of other races.
Furthermore, 81.7% of students are low SES, with 75.1% qualifying for free lunch and 6.7% qualifying
for reduced lunch. In terms of English proficiency, 52.4% of students do not speak English as a first
language and 39.4% of students have limited English proficiency. 21% of students require special
education. The 71 pupils in my CT’s three classes, therefore, consisted mainly of black, Hispanic, and
Asian students who spoke a variety of languages. Because the school operated under full inclusion, a
large portion of my students had learning or language needs. Furthermore, probably as a result of their
low SES, many students lived in difficult home environments in which they suffered physical, sexual, or
emotional abuse, experienced broken families, or were directly exposed to the violence so prevalent in
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 5
their communities. Such living conditions fostered students with little to no academic confidence or
ambition. Lacking support from family and friends, my pupils began failing academically at an early age
and, believing they could not succeed because they had never succeeded, continued to fail. It is in this
environment that my CT must teach academic writing, accommodating students with learning and
language needs as well as students who never read and who disliked writing because these skills were
never encouraged at home. It is no wonder that traditional methods of writing instruction had not
adequately prepared these non-traditional students to write effectively.
My school demonstrated some characteristics of a bureaucratic school culture and some
characteristics of a collegial school culture. It was bureaucratic in that the teachers must follow various,
constantly changing orders from on high such as a pre-determined district curriculum, a school-mandated
uniform, or the administration’s “Bright Light” program in which students received Bright Light slips
from their teachers for demonstrating good behavior. The school culture was collegial in that teachers
had some freedom for experimentation in their instruction and in that there was constant communication
between teachers within each grade. For instance, although the district dictated what books my CT must
teach and required that she teach them based on the “reciprocal teaching” approach, a technique which
emphasizes general reading comprehension, she could utilize whatever methods and activities she
deemed most effective for accomplishing this task. Furthermore, eighth grade teachers and
administrators met twice a week to discuss struggling students and to propose new tactics for helping
individuals improve. In a learning environment which promoted instructional experimentation and
collaboration between teachers, I was able to implement those measures I believed would best meet the
varied needs of my students. Specifically, I received full support for the implementation of my
freewriting intervention.
My educational role at the Edison was to help my CT with various tasks (collecting papers,
making copies, answering questions, reading aloud to students, etc.), to grade students’ daily Do Now
activities (either grammar or poetry) and check homework, and to help students during group or
independent activities by answering their questions and by engaging them in discussion about the task at
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 6
hand. I also taught many individual lessons and completed two full takeover weeks with 3rd and 4th blocks
(the last and second-to-last periods of the day). I implemented my intervention with these periods
because I had made connections with most of these students and I thought they would cooperate in
completing surveys, doing interviews, and responding seriously to freewriting prompts. Furthermore,
because I knew these classes well, I knew which individuals were high-, middle-, and low-achieving
students and could thus choose samples from each group for data collection purposes.
Students in my 3rd and 4th block classes were, generally speaking, a lively and talkative bunch. As
a group, they had a keen sense of humor and got along well with each other. Although they respected my
CT, the classes’ learning and behavioral problems combined with their overall apathy towards reading
and writing often resulted in students who did not pay attention, were frequently off-task, or distracted
their neighbors during instruction. Despite their sociable nature – or perhaps because of it – students
benefitted most from whole-group and individual learning, tending to be distracted and unproductive
during group activities. Certain students in each class, most notably two male pupils in 3rd block and a
male and female pupil in 4th block who had been held back, consistently refused to complete their work
or participate in class activities. The rest of the students generally worked to the best of their ability, or at
least attempted the majority of their work, on a daily basis.
I also chose a cross-section of one low-, middle-, and high-achieving student from each period to
use as a sample of the classes. I selected these students based on my CT’s recommendations. My CT, in
turn, chose these students based on a combination of grades and effort. In other words, she recommended
students who earned A’s and B’s and who consistently tried their best as high-achieving, students who
earned low B’s, C’s, and high D’s and who sometimes tried their best as middle-achieving, and students
who earned lower than D’s and who rarely or never tried their best as low-achieving. From 3rd block I
chose Joe (low-achieving), Danielle (middle-achieving), and Allison (high achieving), and from 4th block
I chose Mark (low-achieving), Kelly (middle-achieving), and Evan (high-achieving) to represent a cross-
sample of each class1. Although none of these students had IEPs, Danielle, Mark, and Evan were ELLs,
1 Names of students have been changed to protect their identities.
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 7
as indicated by their responses to the survey question, “Is English your native language? If not, what
other language(s) do you speak?”
Research QuestionsHow can daily freewriting affect the quality and depth of students’ writing skills?
How do students feel about writing, and how will structured writing prompts alter this attitude?
How will recording word counts of freewrite entries affect the quality of student writing and student enthusiasm for writing?
Mini Literature Review
Introduction
In recent years, the increased focus on standardized testing in schools has led to an emphasis on
traditional teaching methods and formal writing assignments. According to Ortiz-Marrero and
Sumaryono (2010), teachers gravitate towards direct instruction and whole group approaches as a way to
complete the curriculum and cover all necessary material in a limited time. However, some specialists
worry that traditional approaches do not “…allow sufficiently for individual student growth and
reflection” (Greenwood, 1989, p. 184), especially since governmental and administrative powers have
nearly eliminated “…affective development, e.g., activities to get to know students and foster
community…” (Knight, 2008, p. 13). Furthermore, research indicates that traditional “chalk and talk”
methods overlook the special needs of both ELLs and students who speak non-standard dialects of
English, as the heavy emphasis on correction in traditional teaching belittles non-traditional languages
and discourages non-native English speakers from expressing themselves comfortably. On the other
hand, more interactive and critical methods of learning, such as freewriting, have been found to teach
necessary skills while promoting emotional growth, creativity, and the celebration of various cultures
(Ortiz-Marrero & Sumaryono, 2010). Given the high population of ELLs and students on IEPs in my
classroom, and given my CT’s highly MCAS-oriented and traditional teaching, my students may not
have received proper support for personal engagement in their learning. This lack of creative instruction
can hinder the development of their writing abilities. Knight (2008) quotes Linda Rief in defending the
necessity of opportunities for personal expression and creativity in American education: “Good writing
comes from creativity, imagination, and passionate beliefs, feelings, opinions, questions” (p. 8). Below, I
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 8
will review the literature on freewriting and journal writing in order to assess its effect on students’
attitude toward and quality of writing.
Freewriting Methods
In the search for more interactive teaching methods to promote creativity and improve the quality
of student writing, researchers and teachers have implemented freewriting and journaling procedures in
various classroom contexts and then analyzed the results. Most of the studies reviewed here focus on the
frequency of journal writing, the implementation of writing prompts, the amount of time spent writing,
and the effects of these variables on student writing. Lutz and Moxley (1995) include four studies on
freewriting in first, second, third, and fourth grade classrooms, Knight (2008) focuses on 16 students in a
sixth grade homeroom, and Greenwood (1989) discusses journaling as implemented in seventh grade.
Although I taught students in the 8th grade, a large majority of my class wrote well below grade level as a
result of learning disabilities or lack of English fluency; Lutz and Moxley’s studies of elementary school
students applied to my pupils’ learning situation in that many of them were essentially beginning writers.
On the other hand, Knight’s and Greenwood’s studies of middle school students demonstrate that
individuals with the emotional development of pre-teenagers can also benefit from these methods. Some
of the above studies implement freewriting two or three times each week (Lutz & Moxley, 1995; Knight,
2008). Others implement daily journaling (Lutz & Moxley, 1995). Greenwood’s study focuses on a self-
regulated writing schedule with a quota of pages per week (1989). In terms of writing prompts, the
majority of these studies provide an optional topic to guide student thinking but allow writers to use these
prompts at their own discretion. In Knight’s study (2008), for instance, “students were provided with, but
not required to use school-wide prompts, nor were they required to write in particular genres” (p. 13), yet
students generally choose to answer the prompt because, as they reveal in post-study interviews, the
questions interest them and encourage them to think more deeply (Knight, 2008). In Greenwood’s (1989)
study, students receive no prompt, allowing them the freedom to discuss personal issues, reflect about
themselves and the world around them, and share goals and dreams. Since my CT already implemented
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 9
reading response journaling every day, I intended to replace these reading responses with daily
freewriting, providing writing prompts taken from an online source for students to respond to.
The research articles reviewed here also explore the effects of strictly timed, loosely timed, and
untimed journaling on writing ability. Lutz and Moxley (1995), for example, analyze the effect of both
strictly restricted and loosely restricted time limits on the amount and quality of student writing. The
second grade study reveals that strictly-restricted time limits do not significantly deteriorate writing
mechanics. The third grade study, “…illustrates the benefits of timed writing in increasing the total
amount of freewriting,” and reveals that, “…the timed writing generally had more expressive detail…”
(Lutz & Moxley, p. 7). Furthermore, teachers who implement timed writing note that students enjoy it
and specifically request it.
Still another variable shown to influence the freewriting process is word counting, or the
calculation of words written per journal entry. Lutz and Moxley (1995) discuss the implications of word
counting as a means of increasing both the amount and quality of student writing. In all four studies,
students count the number of words they write each day and record this number on personal and class
charts, and various prizes are awarded for the completion of set goals. The rationale behind this method is
that, “…writing more and at a higher rate already has a demonstrated link to improved quality of writing
and that self-recorded word counts of freewriting can facilitate increased writing in early grades” (Lutz &
Moxley, 1995, p. 2). The four studies support this rationale, as participants increase their words counts
over time and as, “increases in writing speed were accompanied by increases in expression…” (Lutz &
Moxley, 1995, p. 8).
Considering the improvements in amount and quality of writing caused by strictly-timed writing
limits and word counting, and because freewriting would take the place of reading-response journaling,
which generally took about 5-10 minutes, I chose to implement a 7-minute journaling limit with several
minutes after writing reserved for word counting and sharing.
Interactive Learning
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 10
In order for students to experience, as Fox and Suhor (1986) say, “…both student interaction and
thoughtfully structured classroom activities” (p. 35) teachers must incorporate certain elements in the
freewriting process to encourage interactive learning. For example, many researchers emphasize the
benefits of non-graded journal writing. Chandler (1997), upon experiencing graded journaling in a
graduate course, realizes that grading, “…is an effort to direct or correct my thinking, to criticize what
I’ve said or felt. I feel inadequate and stupid, put down, and punished…” (p. 46). She suggests that grades
do not motivate critical thinking but rather encourage students to guess and conform to what the
instructor wants. Furthermore, studies show that grading inhibits, “participation, performance, and
creativity,” that it, “reject[s] diversity,” and even, “contribute[s] to students’ misbehavior, cheating, and
cutting class” (Chandler, 1997, p. 47). Greenwood (1989) insists that teachers should resist the urge to
“red-ink” journal entries, focusing on content instead. Knight (2008) proposes that writing completed
during journal writing should be treated as practice because students require opportunities, “…to express
themselves without the pressure to perform for a grade” (p. 20). Non-graded freewriting benefits every
student, including ELLs and students who speak non-standard dialects of English, because it provides
them an opportunity to communicate and express themselves without judgment or corrections (Ortiz-
Marrero & Sumaryono, 2010).
Rather than grading freewrite entries, many researchers and teachers promote the implementation
of real student-teacher dialogue about student writing. In one study, participants have the option to put
their journals in a crate to be read and commented on by the teacher (Knight, 2008). Wanting to avoid
criticizing or correcting their entries, the teacher asks students what they expect from her responses; the
majority of students seek, “…honest feedback… they wanted the compliments but they also wanted to
know where they needed improvement” (Knight, 2008, p. 5). This teacher finds that her role changes
from the “teacher-critic” to the “coach for a recreational team” who encourages and does not criticize.
Chandler (1997) finds that her students, like those of another study she quotes below, prefer, “…
thoughtful comments about the subject at hand, preferably comments I made as a fellow human being
rather than as a teacher” (p. 46). Such an approach eliminates the traditional school culture of teacher
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 11
versus students and prevents learning from being a pointless ritual focused on making a grade. Instead, it
promotes a democratic environment that cultivates open communication (Chandler, 1997). Chandler
(1997) suggests that, “…journals not be assessed or evaluated, but be… accepted as either credit for
completion or no credit for failure to complete” (p. 48). In addition to commenting on student journals,
Greenwood (1989) proposes that teachers freewrite as a model. In her own studies, she writes every day
along with the class and leaves her journal in the room for everyone to read as a way to build trust
between herself and her students. In an effort to promote authentic and creative thinking, I planned not to
grade my students’ journal entries for content or mechanics. Instead, I would collect notebooks every
Friday and give credit for completion and record word counts. I would also write thought-provoking
comments about elements that interested me.
For 3-5 minutes after the 7-minute writing time, I planned to allow volunteers to read their entries
aloud to the class. Students may comment on these shared thoughts or they may simply listen and ponder
them silently. Research has found that sharing freewriting with peers can create real dialogue about
important topics and promote democratic and interactive learning in the classroom. Chandler (1997)
suggests that students share journals with a partner who will respond to an entry in writing or pass their
journals around the classroom for several students to read. These sharing activities “…reinforce common
understanding and point to common misunderstandings,” and also, “…expose students to multiple
viewpoints and interpretations” (Chandler, 1997, p. 49). In the sixth grade study, students have the
opportunity to share their writing at the end of each day of writing but are not required to do so. Four of
sixteen students describe sharing as their favorite part of journaling while others remain too shy to share
with the class and instead pass their journals only to their friends. According to Knight (2008), “they
didn’t want or need feedback; they simply wanted another human being to acknowledge that they had
written something, to share the writing in a safe environment” (p. 18). In the studies conducted by Lutz &
Moxley (1995), “modeling occurred when the students heard or saw what other students had written,”
while student comments provide formative feedback on this writing (p. 3). In all four of these studies,
students are encouraged to share their writing with a neighbor or aloud to the class. I hoped that sharing
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 12
entries and discussing writing prompts as a class – even if only for a few minutes – would increase my
classes’ enthusiasm for writing and improve their writing skills by exposing them to other points of view
and writing styles.
Transferable Skills
Researchers and teachers have found that freewriting can lead to significant improvements in the
overall quality of student writing. In all four studies conducted by Lutz and Moxley (1995), increased
writing speed as demonstrated by word counts ultimately produces increased expression with only minor
decreases in mechanics. Specifically, higher rates lead to, “…increases in concrete detail, such as
dialogue, and in sentence complexity, as indicated by both word length and syntax” (Lutz & Moxley,
1995, p. 8). In concluding interviews, participants in the sixth grade study claim to have improved as
writers as a result of journaling. One student notes that her writing has become more interesting because
she finds the writing process more engaging; two other students in the same study notice that they have
begun incorporating higher-level words and are writing more and longer sentences (Knight, 2008).
Furthermore, one student believes that her writing ability transfers over to writing in other academic
classes: “she also felt that she had make improvements in writing in her other classes, ‘…because my
writing makes sense [now]’” (Knight, 2008, p. 18).
Studies indicate that, in addition to improving the quality of student writing, journaling results in
more personal points of view and reflections on personal experiences (Lutz & Moxley, 1995). Knight
(2008) finds that student confidence increases noticeably, as “they grew to like writing more and felt
proud of themselves for their accomplishments” (p. 18). One student reports that this newly developed
confidence allows her to participate and share more in other classes and to stand up for herself at home
(Knight, 2008). Another student claims that freewriting increases his critical thinking skills because,
“‘when I hear some of [these] question that I have never thought makes me think’” (Knight, 2008, p. 20).
One teacher notes that journaling promotes, “critical self-appraisal,” discussions about “…youngsters’
emerging interest in the opposite sex, school pressure, and parental expectations,” and the sharing of
dreams (Greenwood, 1989, p. 186). Furthermore, researchers have found that teaching outside the
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 13
confines of traditional instruction produces, “…remarkably enthusiastic readers and writers” (Fox &
Suhor, 1986, p. 34). Because my CT generally taught with traditional direct instruction, a method that
had so far correlated with overall apathetic writers and thinkers, I hoped a more democratic learning
environment as implemented through freewriting and sharing would encourage confidence, self-
reflection, critical thinking, and increased enthusiasm as demonstrated in the studies.
Conclusion
Although my students’ overall lack of writing fluency and apathy toward the writing process may
not have been directly related to my CT’s traditional teaching methods, research suggests that more
interactive learning techniques such as freewriting can increase the quality of student writing and
encourage student enthusiasm, especially in ELLs and students with learning needs. However, Fox and
Suhor (1986) point out several shortcomings of journaling as a method of teaching writing. Namely, “…
both time and preparation are required to move from free writing to the more structured composition
called for in school settings” (p. 35), especially since students accustomed to freewriting may resist the
revising and editing process. Furthermore, they emphasize two excesses of the freewriting process when
used alone to teach writing: “…the tendency to reject skills instruction without reservation and the naïve
expectation that fluid writing will somehow become good writing…” (Fox & Suhor, 1986, p. 35).
However, when used in conjunction with traditional teaching methods that promote technical skills and
revision, freewriting can develop creativity, expression, and critical thinking. I believed it would improve
my students’ attitude toward writing as well as the depth and quality of their writing.
Intervention
As stated above, I implemented my writing intervention during my CT’s 3rd and 4th blocks of
ELA. In total, for both classes, I studied the effects of freewriting on 47 students, 25 of whom were girls
and 23 of whom were boys. The freewriting intervention consisted of three weeks of daily, timed
freewriting. I chose to time the freewriting so as to be able to complete the activity on a daily basis within
the time constraints of the class period. Furthermore, the literature states that timed writing increases the
amount and quality of freewriting and that students prefer timed writing over untimed writing.
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 14
Every day in my CT’s classes, students read their independent reading books for 20-25 minutes
and then responded to the reading for 5 minutes in their independent reading journals – a task designed to
improve students’ reading comprehension and writing abilities. Students were allowed to choose their
own books, to read whatever interested them, with the idea that this freedom of choice would increase
students’ involvement in their reading. The journal prompt was also very open; students were asked to
make connections with the text but were given little other guidance in their writing. My CT collected
these journals randomly to assess them for depth of response according to a general rubric she had given
students at the beginning of the year. Unfortunately, the majority of students simply summarized the
reading rather than analyzed it. Some students did not respond to the reading at all but rather wrote about
other things. They seemed uninterested in journaling, despite the fact that these 5 minutes served as an
opportunity to be creative and connect to the text on a personal level. Furthermore, poorly-written essays
and homework assignments suggested that independent reading journals did little to enhance the quality
of student writing. Thus, I wondered if daily, structured writing prompts and class discussions about
these prompts would improve the quality of student writing and their enthusiasm for writing.
Before implementing my intervention, I distributed a survey which asked students to rate their
feelings about different aspects of writing as a way to determine student’s enthusiasm for writing and
their perceived writing abilities.
I also picked a low-, medium-, and high-achieving pupil from each class as a cross-sample to
track their writing progress throughout the intervention. I interviewed these six students in-depth about
writing at the start of the intervention. I analyzed their freewriting journals throughout the intervention to
evaluate the quality and depth of their entries and to assess any improvements in quality or depth.
Specifically, I looked for concrete detail, sentence complexity, level of vocabulary, and expressive
language (metaphors, similes, descriptive words, etc.) as indicators taken from my research to
demonstrate writing quality. In terms of writing depth, I looked for the use of personal points of view and
personal experiences.
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 15
I originally intended the following intervention to take the place of the independent reading
journals as described above. However, because my CT resisted this change, I decided to implement the
intervention in addition to the reading response journals. Thus, following independent reading and
response time, I asked students to open their journals to a fresh page, write the date at the top of the page,
and respond to a freewriting prompt I had written on the board for a time duration of 7 minutes. When the
7 minutes ended, I gave them 2-3 minutes to count up the number of words they had written and to write
and circle this number at the bottom of the page. The literature claims that word counting increases both
the amount and quality of student writing, and I thus intended to track changes in word counts throughout
the intervention.
After 10 minutes devoted to writing and counting words, students had the opportunity to share
their entries. Sharing was to be completely voluntary. For the first week of the intervention, I allotted a
few minutes for volunteers to read their entries aloud, as some research claims that sharing aloud
facilitates an interactive learning environment. However, when students seemed reluctant to read their
writing, and when my CT insisted on cold-calling students to share despite my explicit explanation of the
intervention, I changed the sharing activity slightly; for the last two weeks of the intervention, I asked
students to pass their journals to a neighbor, read each other’s entries, and write a comment or two – a
compliment or a helpful suggestion or a thoughtful response to a point made by the writer – in the
margins. Research states that sharing in any form is beneficial because it exposes students to new
viewpoints, because reading others’ writing serves as a form of modeling, and because student comments
provide helpful feedback to improve student writing.
Every Friday, I collected student journals and graded their responses for completion (100% for
effort and 0% for no entry). This non-graded journaling policy coincided with studies suggesting that
grades discourage creativity and effort, that non-graded freewriting benefits ELLs and students who
speak non-standard English by allowing them to express themselves without the fear of judgment. I
recorded the word counts of each student’s entries in an Excel graph. The three individuals with the
highest total word counts at the end of each week received a candy prize of their choosing. I informed the
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 16
classes of this word count competition on the first day of the intervention as an incentive for students to
write as much as possible for the full 7 minutes of the freewrite.
While grading journals for the first week, I made comments and notes in the margins of the
entries, following the advice of studies that promote honest feedback and encouragement on the part of
the instructor in order to facilitate teacher-student relationships. For the last two weeks, when students
read and commented on their neighbors’ journals, I made no comments, both because time constraints
made doing so difficult and because students had already read and commented on the writing.
On the last day of the intervention, I distributed another survey, one which asked students to rate
their feelings both about different aspects of writing and about the freewriting activity as a way to assess
changes in their responses from the beginning to the end of the intervention and as a way to determine the
overall success of the intervention.
Data Sources
In order to assess the effectiveness of my intervention, I collected a variety of qualitative and
quantitative data to document student learning and to measure desired outcomes.
Before starting the intervention, for instance, I distributed a survey meant to assess students’
enthusiasm for writing and perceived writing ability (see Figure 11 in Appendix). Students were asked to
rate their agreement with 4 statements related to writing on a scale of 1-5, with 1 representing “not at all”
and 5 representing “very much.” They were also expected to respond to 2 open response questions, one
about their favorite type of writing and one about their native language. At the end of the intervention, I
distributed a similar survey (see Figure 12 in Appendix). I repeated all 4 questions from the original
survey as a way of determining changes in answers, and I asked 3 new questions meant to assess the
effectiveness of the intervention. I also required students to answer open response questions about their
favorite and least favorite writing prompts and their favorite and least favorite parts of the freewriting
activity. Changes in answers from survey one to survey two were expected to demonstrate how
freewriting affected student enthusiasm for writing. I entered overlapping survey responses into graphs
(see Figures 1-4 in Appendix) and analyzed the results. I also entered students’ responses to the questions
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 17
related to the freewriting activity on survey two into charts (see Figures 7-9 in Appendix) and used this
information to help analyze the changes in overlapping survey questions.
At the start of the intervention, I interviewed my cross-sample students more in-depth about their
attitudes towards writing, their feelings about writing instruction in their classroom, and their thoughts
and suggestions about the freewriting activity. I intended to use these sources to assess the writing
enthusiasm of these cross-sample students. However, later analysis revealed that these interviews added
little valuable information to my understanding of the study, and so I did not include the interview
responses in my final analysis.
Every day during the intervention, I made detailed observations about student participation. I
noted which students wrote furiously for the entire 7 minutes and which students slacked off or seemed
uninterested. I also observed when students seemed particularly interested, uninterested, or confused by
specific prompts. During the first week, I kept a tally of those students who chose to share, noting
whether or not students were eager to read what they wrote. During the second and third weeks, I
observed how eager students were to read their peers’ entries and to respond to them.
Every day after responding to prompts, I asked that students count and record the number of
words they had written. I put these word counts into an Excel chart for later analysis. By the end of the
intervention, students had responded to and recorded word counts for a total of 12 writing prompts: 4
from the first week, 3 from the second week, and 5 from the third week. Since research suggests that
increased word counts relate to increased quality of writing, this data was expected to correlate with
improved student writing. Furthermore, I expected that the number of words written would relate to
students’ enthusiasm for writing. I entered word count data into two graphs (see Figures 5 and 6 in
Appendix) in order to analyze the results.
Most important for my study was the collection of freewrite entries I took from the selected cross-
sample of students. I read and analyzed these entries for writing quality and depth of writing.
Specifically, I considered concrete detail, sentence complexity, strength of vocabulary, and expressive
language (metaphors, similes, descriptive words, etc.) as signifying quality of writing. I considered
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 18
personal points of view and experiences, as well as critical self-reflection, as signifying depth of writing.
In order to analyze these entries, I color-coded each element of writing quality and each element of depth
of writing and high-lighted examples of these elements within the entries using the appropriate color.
Results
Finding One
Analysis of journal entries written by a cross-sample of students addressed the question of whether or
not freewriting affects the quality and depth of students’ writing skills. The following findings suggest
that, overall, every students experienced some increase in both the quality and the depth of their writing.
However, these results varied from student to student.
The journals revealed that one or more elements of writing quality (concrete details, sentence
complexity, vocabulary, and expressive language) improved in the course of the freewrite intervention
for all six cross-sample students. Between the first and last freewrite entries, high-achieving students
Allison and Evan improved the concrete detail and sentence complexity of their writing while their level
of vocabulary and expressive language remained relatively the same. Middle-achieving student Danielle
increased significantly in the sentence complexity of her writing from the first entry to the last entry, with
moderate improvements in the level of her vocabulary and use of expressive language; although she
incorporated many concrete details in her entries, the frequency of these concrete details did not
significantly increase from the beginning to the end of the intervention. Middle-achieving student Kelly’s
use of concrete details significantly increased between her first and last entries, and her sentence
complexity improved somewhat, while her level of vocabulary and expressive language showed no
significant change. Low-achieving student Joe’s sentence complexity, concrete detail, and vocabulary
improved only slightly from the first to the last entry, although his use of expressive language increased
noticeably throughout the intervention. Low-achieving student Mark markedly improved the sentence
complexity of his writing and showed slight increases in the use of concrete detail, but his level of
vocabulary and expressive language remained very low throughout.
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 19
The journals also revealed that five out of six cross-sample students improved in one or more of
the elements of depth of writing (personal points of view and personal experiences). High-achieving
students Allison and Evan improved in both elements of depth of writing throughout the course of the
intervention. Middle-achieving student Danielle increased slightly in her use of points of view and
personal experiences; middle-achieving student Kelly’s points of view remained consistent, and she
incorporated no personal experiences in her writing throughout the intervention. Low-achieving student
Joe’s points of view and personal experiences increased slightly. Low-achieving student Mark used no
personal experiences in his writing, but his incorporation of personal points of view increased
significantly from the beginning to the end of the intervention.
Finding Two
Analysis of responses to survey questions distributed at the beginning and end of the intervention
addressed the question of whether or not daily freewriting affects students’ enthusiasm for writing. The
following results suggest that the three-week-long freewriting intervention increased students’ enjoyment
of writing and level of comfort with the writing process. However, results relating to students’ perceived
writing abilities and students’ perception of writing as a means of expression were inconclusive.
Figure 1 shows the frequency of responses to the survey question, “How much do you enjoy
writing?” The average response increased from 2.91 to 3.56, indicating that students enjoyed writing
more after the intervention than before the intervention.
Figure 2 shows the frequency of responses to the survey question, “How comfortable do you feel
with the writing process?” The average response increased from 2.7 to 3.26, indicating that the
intervention had a positive effect on students’ comfort with the writing process.
Figure 3 shows the frequency of responses to the survey question, “How well do you write?” The
average response increased slightly from 3.12 to 3.35. However, since this increase was not statistically
significant, my findings about students’ perceived writing ability were inconclusive.
Figure 4 shows the frequency of responses to the survey question, “To what extent do you see
writing as a way to express yourself?” The average response decreased from 3.58 to 3.53. Since this
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 20
decrease was not statistically significant, my findings about students’ perceptions of writing were
inconclusive.
Finding Three
Analysis of word counts for the 12 freewrite entries of the intervention addressed the question of
whether or not word counting affects the quality of student writing and student enthusiasm for writing.
The following results suggest that word counts had a slight upward trend and that word counts increased
more steadily for those students who reported enjoying writing more at the end of the intervention than
for students who did not report enjoying writing more at the end of the intervention.
Figure 5 shows the average number of words written per journal entry throughout the course of
the intervention. The graph indicates a general upward trend in word counts.
Figure 6 compares the average number of words written per entry for those students whose
enjoyment in writing increased versus words written per entry for those students whose enjoyment in
writing did not increase. The graph indicates that word counts for students who reported enjoying writing
more after the intervention increased more steadily than did word counts for students who did not report
enjoying writing more after the intervention.
Analysis/Interpretation
Finding one, based on my analysis of freewrite entries written by a cross-sample of students from
3rd and 4th blocks, revealed that overall writing quality and depth of writing increased from the beginning
to the end of the freewriting intervention. Because I never corrected journals but only graded them for
completion, this finding would suggest that improved writing quality and depth of writing resulted
naturally from the freewriting process rather than from students’ desire to meet specific grading criteria
dictated by the teacher. In other words, they did not improve so as to conform to my expectations. The
comments I made during week one and the comments made by peers during weeks two and three may
have influenced this improvement to some extent, with compliments, suggestions, and reflections
encouraging students to include more elements of writing in their subsequent entries. A study on the
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 21
effect of commenting might have revealed the correlation between commenting, writing quality, and
depth of writing.
Of course, I based my analysis of student journals on a somewhat subjective coding system. I
took liberties in deciding which examples of students’ entries signified or did not signify each element of
writing quality and depth of writing. Thus, it was impossible to measure writing improvements precisely
or definitely, and so I based my findings on subjective conclusions. This subjectivity should be taken into
account when considering the results of finding one.
With that in mind, the journal analyses suggest that, although every student in the cross sample
increased their writing quality and depth of writing, the writing of higher-achieving students improved
more noticeably than did that of lower-achieving students. High-achieving Allison and Evan improved
significantly in two elements of writing quality and in both elements of depth of writing. Middle-
achieving Danielle only improved significantly in one element of writing quality, with slight
improvements in other elements of writing quality and depth of writing; Kelly only improved
significantly in two elements of writing quality with no improvements in other elements of writing
quality or depth of writing. Low-achieving students Joe and Mark also improved in one element of
writing quality and one element of depth of writing, with slight or no improvements in other elements of
writing quality and depth of writing. Greater improvements in the writing of high-achieving students
could be a result of many variables. For instance, the better class grades of high-achieving students may
suggest a more dedicated work ethic which positively affected their performance during the freewriting
activity. In other words, these students generally try harder than middle- or low-achieving students and
thus applied themselves more consistently throughout the course of the intervention. Similarly, the
natural intelligence and learning skills which allow high-achieving students to succeed in school may
have also allowed them to self-regulate their own writing abilities. Finally, because low-achieving
students frequently develop a self-defeatist attitude toward learning as a result of years of failure, this
attitude may have hindered them from putting their full effort into the intervention, thereby improving.
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 22
Finding two, deduced from survey responses given at the beginning and end of the intervention,
revealed that students’ enthusiasm for writing and their comfort level with the writing process increased
significantly over the course of three weeks. When creating the graphs shown by Figures 1 and 2, I made
sure to eliminate the answers of any student who did not respond to both surveys. Therefore, if a student
was absent or refused to participate on the day of either the first or second survey, I eliminated their data
from the chart so as to avoid any bias.
The great increase in students’ enthusiasm for writing, from an average of 2.91 to 3.56, pleasantly
surprised me, as I did not anticipate such a drastic change to occur within three weeks. However,
responses to a survey question as seen in Figure 7, “How much did you enjoy the freewriting activity?”
partially explain this unexpected result. With an average response of 3.84, students indicated that they
enjoyed my intervention. This enthusiasm for the intervention, however, might suggest that students’
interest in freewriting as a genre increased more than their interest in writing as a more general concept.
On the other hand, this answer may simply demonstrate that enjoyment of one style of writing carries
over into the enjoyment of all types of writing.
The increase in students’ comfort with the writing process also came as an unexpected result of
my intervention. As a possible explanation, students who formerly struggled with writers’ block, who
found writing to be intimidating because they doubted their own skills, may have felt freed by the ability
to write without the threat of losing points for poor grammar or organization. More in-depth survey
questions or a study about the effects of freewriting on the writing process might have revealed the
connection between these two activities.
Survey responses furthermore revealed a slight increase in students’ perceived writing ability and
a slight decrease in students’ perceptions of writing as a means of self-expression. Although too
insignificant to be considered conclusive, the increase in students’ perceived writing abilities can be
supported by responses to a survey question as seen in Figure 9, “To what extent do you think the
freewriting activity improved your writing ability?” Students responded to this question with an average
of 3.49. In other words, answers to this survey question suggest that, because students considered the
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 23
intervention as having improved their writing abilities, they also perceived themselves to be better overall
writers by the end of the intervention. Similarly, while too insignificant to be considered conclusive, the
decrease in students’ perception of writing as a means of self-expression – perplexing because the
freewriting prompts focused on students’ personal thoughts and experiences – can be contradicted by
responses to a survey question as seen in Figure 8, “How applicable were the writing prompts to your
life, experiences, and interests?” Students responded to this question with an average of 3.49. Thus,
although students reported that they considered writing less as a means of self-expression following the
intervention, their answers to the above survey question suggest that they considered the intervention
prompts to promote self-expression by connecting to their lives, experiences, and interests. On the other
hand, these results may mean that students only view freewriting, and not other types of writing, as a
means of self-expression.
Finding three was pulled from charts demonstrating an upward trend in word counts throughout
the course of my intervention. Although word counts generally increased from the beginning to the end
of the three weeks, slight spikes and dips in the data can be partially explained by students’ interest or
disinterest in particular prompts. The table shown in Figure 10 demonstrates which prompts students
especially enjoyed or disliked based on survey questions about their favorite and least favorite prompts,
and this information relates generally to the graph of word counts. For instance, one especially low point
in the graph correlates to prompt 8, which 15 students indicated as being their least favorite prompt and
which 0 students indicated as being their favorite prompts. Similarly, one especially high point in the
graph correlates to prompt 4, which 3 students listed as being their favorite and which 0 students listed as
being their least favorite. Another high point correlates to prompt 9, which received 9 votes for favorite
prompt and 1 vote for least favorite prompt, while still another high point correlates to prompt 11, which
received 9 indications of favorite prompt and 3 indications of least favorite prompt. In other words,
students generally wrote more about prompts they enjoyed and less about prompts they disliked.
Field notes further support the correlation between student interest and word counts. For example,
students wrote very little for prompt 8: “What do we mean when we say, ‘The grass is always greener on
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 24
the other side of the fence?’” Upon revealing this prompt to the class and asking them to respond, I noted
that the majority of students looked around the room, made confused faces, or exclaimed, “Huh? I’ve
never heard that expression!” Baffled by the meaning of this prompt, students were at a loss of what to
write, thus explaining their low word counts for that day. On the other hand, students wrote the most
words of the entire intervention for prompt 9: “Three goals I have set for my life are…” I observed that
students were especially focused and quiet while writing on this day. They seemed intrigued by the
prompt because it asked them to consider their futures. Furthermore, students seemed hesitant to share
these particular entries, probably because (as I discovered when I collected the journals at the end of the
week) they had written very personal confessions about their dreams and desires. In other words, the
reluctance to share indicated that these entries had special meaning to the students, thus explaining their
high word counts for that day.
The three findings, as analyzed above, indicate that all three elements of my research questions
improved or increased as desired. That is, writing quality and depth of writing improved as demonstrated
by the analyzed freewrite entries discussed in finding one, overall enthusiasm for writing increased as
indicated by answers to the survey questions discussed in finding two, and word counts rose at an upward
trajectory as indicated by the graph discussed in finding three. Moreover, data suggests that these three
elements – writing quality and depth, enthusiasm, and word counts – are inextricably interrelated. As
indicated by my research, increases in word counts generally correlate with improvements in student
writing quality and depth of writing. My analyses of student entries supported this hypothesis, as writing
quality and depth of writing within these entries generally improved over the course of the intervention.
In turn, students’ word counts rose and fell in relation to their enthusiasm for daily writing prompts.
Finally, two separate indicators suggest that enthusiasm relates directly to the quality and depth of
student writing. Specifically, the cross-sample students’ survey answers to the question, “How much do
you enjoy writing?” suggest that higher levels of enthusiasm lead to higher-quality writing. Allison’s
survey answers increased from 4 to 5, and Evan’s survey answers increased from 3 to 4; high and
increasing levels of enthusiasm therefore correlate with improved writing quality and depth, as the
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 25
writing of these high-achieving students improved the most throughout the intervention. Middle-
achieving students Danielle and Kelly responded to both surveys with a consistent answer of 3, thus
suggesting that moderate, unchanging enthusiasm relates to moderate improvements in writing quality
and depth of writing (as the writing of these middle-achieving students improved somewhat). Finally,
Joe’s answers fell from 4 to 3 while Marquis’ answers remained at a consistent 2. Since the writing
quality and depth of writing of these low-achieving students increased the least during the intervention,
decreasing and low levels of student enthusiasm relate to less improvement in student writing. Moreover,
the graph shown in Figure 6 demonstrates the relationship between enthusiasm and quality and depth of
writing, as the word counts of students who reported enjoying writing more at the end of the intervention
increased at a steadier pace than did the word counts of students who did not report enjoying writing
more at the end of the intervention. Since word counts relate directly to quality of writing, one could
deduce that a steadier increase in word counts means a steadier improvement of writing quality and depth
of writing.
Implications
This intervention, a study of the effect of freewriting on the quality and depth of student writing
and on the level of student enthusiasm for writing, calls attention to the most important goal of effective
teaching – to meet the unique learning needs of students, instructing them in the manner most appropriate
to their individual strengths and weaknesses. In a classroom full of ELLs and students on IEPs, my
intervention has demonstrated that non-traditional teaching methods better accommodate non-traditional
learners. As implemented on a daily basis for a span of three weeks, freewriting was shown to increase
both the quality and depth of student writing as well as student enthusiasm for writing. More importantly,
it showed the high correlation between students’ attitudes towards learning and their academic
achievement. In other words, students who are excited and confident about their education will perform
better. With this in mind, teachers should modify their practices to accommodate the specific interests of
their students as a way to keep the curriculum engaging and effective. However, one must always
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 26
remember that – as shown in my study when low-achieving students improved less than higher-achieving
students – not every student will respond well to every type of instruction.
Were I to implement my freewriting intervention a second time, with the intention of collecting
more in-depth data and making broader conclusions about the ultimate effects of freewriting on students’
writing abilities, I would require, above all else, more time. For one, I had originally planned to show
how my intervention influenced the quality and depth of student writing outside the narrow boundaries of
the study. That is, I had intended to collect sample essays written by the cross-section students from
before and after the intervention. I would have analyzed these compositions to determine if my
intervention improved students’ general writing abilities or if student writing only developed within the
limits of the freewriting activity. Unfortunately, time constraints made such data collection impossible;
the class began a research project at the start of my intervention and wrote nothing substantial for the
entire three weeks of my intervention, thus providing me with no post-intervention writing samples to
evaluate. Secondly, although student writing did improve slightly from the beginning to the end of my
three-week intervention, the true development of writing skills requires more time. Thus, I would
implement the freewriting activity for an entire year in the hopes that results would be more drastic and
longer-lasting. Furthermore, I would increase the time limit of the freewrite slightly to 10 or 15 minutes,
allowing students more time to really consider and thoroughly respond to the freewriting prompts.
Had I been the teacher of record in the classroom, I would have changed several variables of the
study. For instance, I would have replaced independent reading responses with the intervention as
originally planned, since my intention had been to evaluate how freewriting compares to more traditional
methods for teaching writing skills. Furthermore, I would have ensured that sharing remained a voluntary
activity so as to reduce shy students’ anxiety, preserve all students’ privacy, and encourage authentic
enthusiasm for sharing and discussing the prompts. I would also participate in the freewrite along with
my classes and share my entries with them so as to build a sense of trust between myself and the students,
as suggested by my research. Finally, were I the teacher of record in the classroom, I would develop the
most engaging freewrite prompts – as indicated by number of words written – into formal essay
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 27
assignments so as to demonstrate how stream-of-conscious writing, or pre-writing, can transition into a
formal composition. In this way, I would combine the non-traditional instruction necessary the learning
needs of ELLs and students on IEPs with the more traditional instruction practiced by and expected in
modern American education. In utilizing both non-traditional and traditional teaching styles, I would
hope to meet the needs of all (or at least more) students, which is the ultimate goal of my profession.
Although my freewriting intervention answered several pertinent research questions relating to
student writing ability, certain unresolved aspects of the study offer new suggestions for future
investigation. For instance, as mentioned above, a study demonstrating the influence of this intervention
on the quality and depth of student writing outside the confines of the freewriting activity would better
determine the effectiveness of freewriting as an established method of writing instruction. Also, as
mentioned in my analysis, a study demonstrating the effects of teacher and peer commenting on the
quality and depth of student writing could demonstrate the benefits of non-graded instruction on student
achievement.
As a professional teacher, I hope to maintain an inquiry stance toward instruction in order to best
understand the learning needs of my students and to alter my instructional methods in order to
accommodate their differences. This freewriting intervention, a non-traditional teaching approach which
improved the quality of writing for ELLs and students on EIPs, is a good start. As a teacher, I would like
to implement it on a daily basis in my own English classroom.
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 28
ReferencesOrtiz-Marrero, F. W., & Sumaryono, K. (2010, July). Success with ELLs: ELLs at the center: Rethinking high-stakes testing. English Journal, 99(6), 93-96. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org.proxy.bc.edu/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/0996jul 2010/EJ0996Success.pdf
Lutz, P. A., & Moxley, R. A. (1995, May). Self-recorded word counts of freewriting in grades 1-4. Education and Treatment of Children, 18(2), 138-157. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.bc.edu/ehost/detail?sid=fe7a5013-fa58-44ad- b59bb52baaed9eef%40sessionmgr10&vid=1&hid=108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWh vc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=9508180427
Knight, A. K. (2008, January 1). Finding the center of gravity: Unexpected benefits of non- graded writing. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 24(1), 13-21. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=lajm
Greenwood, S. C. (1989, December). Journal writing for middle school students. The Clearing House, 63(4), 184-187. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/30182069.pdf?acceptTC=true
Chandler, A. (1997, January). Is this for a grade? A personal look at journals. The English Journal, 86(1), 45-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/820780.pdf?acceptTC=true
Fox, D., & Suhor, C. (1986, December). Limitations of free writing. The English Journal, 75(8), 34-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/819077.pdf?acceptTC=true
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 29
Appendices
1 2 3 4 50
5
10
15
20
25
Figure 1:How much do you enjoy writing?
Before InterventionAfter Intervention
Survey Responses
Frequency
1 2 3 4 502468
101214161820
Figure 2:How comfortable do you feel with the writing process?
Before InterventionAfter Intervention
Survey Responses
Frequency
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 30
1 2 3 4 50
5
10
15
20
25
Figure 3:How well do you write?
Before InterventionAfter Intervention
Survey Responses
Frequency
1 2 3 4 502468
10121416
Figure 4:To what extent do you see writing as a way to express
yourself?
Before Intervention
After Intervention
Survey Responses
Frequency
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Figure 5:Average of Non-Zero Word Counts by Day
Journal Entry
Number of Words
020406080
100120140160180
Figure 6:Word Counts by Level of Enjoyment after the Intervention
People Who En-joyed Writing More After In-tervention
People Who Didn't Enjoy Writing More Af-ter Intervention
Journal Entry
Number of Words
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 32
1 2 3 4 50
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Figure 7:How much did you enjoy the freewriting activity?
Student Responses
Frequency
Average: 3.84
1 2 3 4 502468
1012141618
Figure 8:How applicable were the writing prompts to your life,
experiences, and interests?
Student Responses
Frequency
Average: 3.49
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 33
1 2 3 4 50
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Figure 9:To what extent do you think the freewriting activity
improved your writing ability?
Student Responses
Frequency
Average: 3.49
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 34
Figure 10Prompt Chart
Freewrite Prompt
Number of Students Who Listed Prompt as
Favorite
Number of Students Who Listed Prompt as
Least Favorite1 2 12 2 23 7 44 356 57 4 28 159 9 110 3 311 9 312
Number of students who said they liked ALL of the prompts: 13Number of students who said they liked NONE of the prompts: 1
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 35
Figure 11Name: ______________________________________________ Date: __________________
Survey 1Instructions: Answer questions 1-4 to the best of your ability by circling the number that best correlates to your response, with 1 representing “not at all” and 5 representing “very much.” For questions 5-6, respond in a sentence or two.
6. How much do you enjoy writing?
1 2 3 4 5
2. How comfortable do you feel with the writing process (brainstorming, outlining, organizing your thoughts, editing and revising, etc.)?
1 2 3 4 5
3. How well do you write?
1 2 3 4 5
4. To what extent do you see writing as a way to express yourself (thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc.)?
1 2 3 4 5
5. What is your favorite type of writing (journal writing, creative writing, poetry, literary analysis, research papers, etc.)?
6. Is English your native language? If not, what other language(s) do you speak?
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 36
Figure 12Name: ______________________________________________ Date: __________________
Survey 2
Instructions: Answer questions 1-9 to the best of your ability by circling the number that best correlates to your response, with 1 representing “not at all” and 5 representing “very much.” For questions 10-15, respond in a sentence or two.
1. How much do you enjoy writing?
1 2 3 4 5
2. How comfortable do you feel with the writing process (brainstorming, outlining, organizing your thoughts, editing and revising, etc.)?
1 2 3 4 5
3. How well do you write?
1 2 3 4 5
4. To what extent do you see writing as a way to express yourself (thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc.)?
1 2 3 4 5
5. Overall, how much did you enjoy the freewriting activity?
1 2 3 4 5
6. How applicable were the writing prompts to your life, experiences, and interests?
1 2 3 4 5
7. To what extent do you think the freewriting activity improved your writing ability?
1 2 3 4 5
Non-Traditional Instruction for the Non-Traditional Learner 37
8. What was/were your favorite writing prompt(s)? Why?
9. What was/were your least favorite writing prompt(s)? Why?
10. What was your favorite part of the freewriting activity (writing, sharing, reading/hearing your peers’ entries, the word count competition, etc.)? Why?
11. What was your least favorite part of the freewriting activity? Why?
12. At any time during the last three weeks, did you ever choose not to participate in the freewriting activity? Circle one:
Yes / No
13. If you answered yes to the above question, please explain why you chose not to participate.