Implementing Writing in Content Areas; Teachers’ Perceptions as Writing Instructors.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

Writing is a crucial skill that students must possess in order to communicate

successfully in a competitive 21st century job market (Arnold et al., 2017; Balgopal &

Wallace, 2013; Dede, 2009; Fry & Villagomez, 2012; Hill, 1994; Russell, 2013).

Employers, therefore, understand the importance of writing and the value of possessing a

skill that allows for communication and exchange of ideas. In a survey of 120 major U.S.

corporations, researchers for the National Commission on Writing (NCW, 2004) noted

that writing was an important factor in hiring and promoting, and was a requirement for

professional opportunity. The NCW (2004) proclaimed that “people that cannot write

and communicate clearly will not be hired, and if already working, are unlikely to last

long enough to be considered for promotion” (p. 3). Business leaders viewed the ability

to write effectively as a prerequisite for success in the business world and a skill that

dictated students’ career success. Writing is a gateway into the job market and ever

present in daily operations of the business world, where “two-thirds of salaried

employees in large American companies have some writing responsibility” (NCW, 2004,

p. 3). Business leaders acknowledged that the importance of writing in the business

world ranged from correspondence to formal analytical reports and understood the skill

of writing as one that provided opportunity (Education Partnerships Inc., 2006; NCW,

2004). The ability to convey information in a direct manner shows writing as a useful

tool and critical in the corporate world at large: a skill that is imperative for student

success (NCW, 2004).

Writing is important in both the business world and K-12 and postsecondary

classrooms in that writing enables students to draw connections between among content

to further develop content knowledge understanding (NCW, 2004). The NCW (2004)

characterized the importance of writing in the classroom as “not simply a way for

students to demonstrate what they know [… but] a way to help them understand what

they know” (p. 13). Whereas the product of writing assesses student understanding of

content, the act of writing actively encourages development of critical thinking and

content knowledge. McLeod and Miraglia (2001) emphasized this connection between

writing and content understanding and noted that “writing [was] an essential component

of critical thinking and problem solving […] a way of constructing knowledge” (p. 16).

In another study, researchers found that using writing as a tool in the content area

classroom provided students the opportunity to further develop and discover knowledge

of the content while creating opportunities for students to authentically learn (Gunel,

Hand, & Prain, 2007). Writing is a critical aspect of the educational system in the form

of a tool to encourage content knowledge acquisition and development of critical thinking

skills.

Given the important role that writing plays in students’ future employability and

academic success, many K-12 schools have developed literacy plans or programs to

ensure students are receiving needed writing instruction. This study focused on one

particular high school and its implementation of a literacy program through the use of

grant funding. The study further focused on the role of content area teachers in writing

instruction. Examples of academic content range from U.S. history and American

literature to biology and geometry. The participating school district received the Striving

Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) grant from the Georgia Department of

Education (GaDOE) in 2014 to improve literacy and writing instruction at each of the

four schools and area pre-K programs within the district. In order to complete the grant

application process, all content area teachers at the high school completed a needs

assessment survey to determine teachers’ perceptions of areas of improvement regarding

literacy instruction. The resulting analysis of data from the needs assessment survey

formed the basis of the school literacy plan and identified key areas of need in that the

majority of the teachers did not view writing instruction as their role and lacked a

pedagogical understanding to confidently implement writing strategies.

Statement of the Problem

Despite the importance of writing to student success, results of the participating

high school’s needs assessment survey, conducted as part of the SRCL grant application

process, revealed a lack of teacher understanding regarding the role of content area

teachers in writing instruction (GaDOE, 2014). The survey “highlighted a lack of

professional learning toward literacy instruction across the curriculum […and] a lack of

understanding of the role literacy plays in all content areas and a perception that literacy

is confined to the ELA classroom” (GaDOE, 2014, p. 3). The goal of the SRCL program

was to improve literacy instruction throughout each level and content area within the

district. In order to have successful implementation of content area writing and literacy

instruction, teacher buy-in, or willingness, and confidence in writing and writing

instruction were critical (Atwell, 1984; Frager, 1994; Romano, 2007). Teachers across

content areas have a shared responsibility to incorporate writing instruction into the

curriculum; however, needs assessment survey data collected at the time of grant

application revealed that the faculty did not embrace writing instruction responsibility

(NCTE, 2011; Russell, 1994).

Furthermore, analysis of national, state, and school level assessment data showed

a deficit in student writing ability in general despite the importance of writing on the

success of students in both higher education and the job market. National, state, and local

assessment of literacy scores generally showed that students needed more support and

instruction in writing. Researchers for the National Center for Educational Statistics

(NCES, 2012) assessed the writing ability of students in Grade 12 through an assessment,

the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which measures the ability to

effectively communicate thoughts through narrative, persuasive, and informational

writing. These researchers discovered that 24% of students nationally scored at the

proficient level during the 2012 assessment (NCES, 2012). The state of Georgia

currently uses a system of assessments, the Georgia Milestones, to measure the mastery

of prescribed state standards in content areas from Grades 3 through 12 (GaDOE, 2016).

The most recent state Milestones assessment data revealed that 47.1% of ninth-grade

students and 51.1% of 11th-grade students scored in the lower two levels (GaDOE,

2016). These data showed that a staggeringly high percentage of students, over half of

the 11th-grade students in Georgia did not have the literacy and writing skills required to

be successful at the college and career level and required increased academic support.

The participating high school data fell below the state averages, further reinforcing the

need to focus on writing instruction at not only the national and state levels but also at the

local level. Figure 1 presents a visual representation in regards to the statement of the

problem.

Importance

of writing

Perceived

writing

defect

Implementation

of content area

writing

instruction

Teacher

buy-in and

efficacy

Teacher

perceptions

of role as

writing

instructors

SRCL

grant goals

Figure 1. A visual representation of the problem statement. This figure illustrates the

importance of teacher perceptions in order to achieve SRCL grant goals.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions, confidence, and

use of writing instructional strategies throughout content areas at the conclusion of

implementation of the five-year SRCL grant. Through the study, the researcher sought to

understand the perceptions of teachers as writing instructors and use of writing

instructional strategies utilized in content area classrooms at the end of grant

implementation as compared to initial data collected during the 2014 application process.

Based on the reviewed needs assessment survey, a clear lack of understanding of content

area teachers’ role in writing instruction and usage of writing strategies at the time of the

grant application in 2014 was revealed. Five years into grant implementation, the

perceptions of the participating high school teachers’ role as writing instructors and their

implementation of writing strategies in content areas were unknown. Furthermore, the

implementation of writing strategies and amount of time given to dedicated writing

instructional strategies throughout content areas remained unknown.

Research Questions

The overarching research focus for this study centered on content area teachers’

perceptions as instructors of writing and their perceptions of writing instruction strategies

used in their classrooms. The specific questions for this research study were

1. How do content area teachers perceive their role as instructors of writing?

2. How do teachers perceive their confidence and knowledge of writing instruction?

3. How are content area teachers implementing writing instruction strategies?

Conceptual Framework

The six goals of the state literacy plan, as determined by the Georgia Literacy

Task Force (GLTF), were to (a) increase high school graduation rate and postsecondary

enrollment, (b) improve teacher quality and retention, (c) improve workforce readiness,

(d) improve educational leadership, (e) improve achievement scores, and (f) make

policies that ensure academic and financial accountability (Fernandez & O’Conner,

2016). These six goals formed the basis of the state literacy plan with the understanding

that increased writing instruction across the curriculum was an important aspect of the

learning process and, therefore, a key component in the achievement of these goals

(GaDOE, 2010; INWAC, 2014). The GLTF reinforced the importance of writing

instruction across the curriculum as an effective tool to help students successfully convey

thoughts, think critically, and build knowledge in all content areas (CCSS, 2010; GaDOE,

2010). Therefore, teachers’ perceptions of writing and implementation of writing

instructional strategies are instrumental to the success of district literacy plans and the

vehicle to accomplishing of the goals of the state literacy plan (GaDOE, 2010).

However, the understanding of teachers’ perceptions and buy-in when considering

implementation of writing strategies was critical as teachers must possess a willingness to

add newly learned strategies to their curriculum. Figure 2 details the relationship

between teachers’ perceptions of writing and the use of writing instructional strategies

across the curriculum. Through the study, the researcher analyzed teachers’ perceptions

as writing instructors and confidence in implementation of writing instruction strategies

in order to understand teachers’ willingness to use writing instruction in content area

classrooms to achieve the goals suggested by the GLTF.

6 Goals of the Striving Readers

Comprehensive Literacy Program (SRCL)

Content Area Writing

Instruction

Perceptions

Teachers

Implementation

of Writing

Strategies

Study

Figure 2. The constructs of the study in relationship to the goals of SRCL. This figure

illustrates teachers’ perceptions and use of writing strategies leads to writing instruction

across the curriculum, which, in turn, leads to the goals of the SRCL grant.

Methodology Overview

The chosen methodology of the study was a mixed methods explanatory design

that allowed for analysis of quantitative data in order to inform development and analysis

of the qualitative data instrument. The qualitative phase followed the quantitative phase

in order to inform and elaborate on results from the quantitative phase (Creswell, 2012).

The quantitative data instrument was a survey created using Google Forms that consisted

of items from the needs assessment survey used by the participating school during the

grant application process combined with items that explored the writing strategies

teachers utilized during classroom instruction. The survey was made available to the

certified faculty of the participating school through email. The qualitative instrument

consisted of an interview protocol that ensured consistency among each interview. These

individual, semi-structured interviews were based on the findings from the quantitative

phase. The second qualitative data source was teacher lesson plan documentation used to

reinforce findings gained from the interviews. The desired sample size for the qualitative

phase was eight participants who were selected through a stratified sampling process

from each of the following four content areas: (a) ELA, (b) math, (c) science, and (d)

social studies. The stratified sampling technique was non-proportional in that each of

these five subgroups were given equal representation instead of population percentage of

the subgroups.

Delimitations and Limitations

The study was limited due to the possible effect of the target population on

participation and generalizability. With 57 certified teachers at the participating high

school, a small population size could negatively affect the study due to lack of

participation. With a smaller population, the difficulty of obtaining a high survey return

percentage was a concern. The small population size further created a limitation with the

non-proportional stratified sampling technique used to select potential interview

participants. The size of each content area department provided for fewer possible

participants for the qualitative phase. Furthermore, the small population size created an

inability to generalize study results to a greater population. Study results will be limited

in that an understanding gained of teachers’ perceptions as writing instructors at the

participating high school will not translate to an understanding of teachers’ perceptions at

other SRCL high schools in the state of Georgia.

The delimitations of the study consisted of the use of the target population.

Despite the limitations a small population size could potentially create, the accessibility

and make-up of the population allowed for great value to the researcher. The entire

desired target population was accessible due to researcher employment with the

participant high school. With the desire to understand teachers’ perceptions of writing at

the participant high school, the researcher communicated and interacted with the

population with ease. Furthermore, the researcher maintained professional connections

and was well known to the population. These connections potentially increased the

population’s willingness to participate in the quantitative and qualitative aspect of the

study.

Definition of Terms

Content area teachers are educators with specific knowledge and understanding

of a certain academic area in regards to English language arts, mathematics, social

studies, and science (Great Schools Partnership, 2014).

Explanatory sequential research design is a design in which, the researcher “first

collects and analyzes quantitative data, then the findings inform qualitative data

collection and analysis” (Fetters, Curry, & Creswell, 2013, p. 2136). The final aspect of

this design is the interpretation of results in which both the quantitative and qualitative

data are integrated and analyzed (Creswell, 2012; Fetters & Freshwater, 2015).

A shared responsibility of writing was described as an understanding that all

content area teachers were considered teachers of writing and were responsible for

content area writing instruction as related to the specific content taught (CCSS, 2010;

GaDOE, 2010).

Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program (SRCL) was a federal grant

that allowed the state of Georgia, to develop a state literacy team, GLTF, to create a state

literacy plan with goals and guidelines to aid districts in development of literacy

instruction (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

Significance of the Study

The significance of the study was related to the unique, singular focus of the

target population of the participating high school, as opposed to a larger sample size. The

researcher further embraced the opportunity to study a specific SRCL school and the

understanding of teacher buy-in in relation to implementation of writing strategies.

Through the understanding of teachers’ perceptions, leadership could implement

professional development at the conclusion of the SRCL grant that targets teacher

confidence and willingness to use writing instruction. The current body of Georgia

SRCL literature lacked a study that detailed the perceptions of teachers from a specific

SRCL school, as teacher dedication and buy-in of writing and literacy instruction across

the curriculum are crucial in the implementation of the SRCL grant. With a statewide

macro approach, current literature lacked analysis of a single school at a micro level. The

current SRCL literature consisted of three annual reports, which were used to conduct a

statistical analysis of SRCL data from the district and grade level. These reports included

suggestions of strategies based on teacher feedback. Prior literature also consisted of a

case study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, which described the

experience, implementation, and results of all SRCL schools in Georgia based on Georgia

Milestones data. To fill this gap, the researcher focused on a specific understanding of

teachers’ perceptions of a single Georgia high school.

Many stakeholders, ranging from district leadership to students, could benefit

from the results of the study. First, at the district level, through understanding of

teachers’ perceptions of writing and use of writing tasks, district leadership could better

utilize future funds to provide a more targeted professional development program to the

high school teachers. Through the understanding of teachers’ perceptions regarding

writing instruction, district leadership could also better support content area classroom

teachers’ writing instruction implementation. Second, the results of this study pertained

to the participating high school faculty. The original needs assessment survey conducted

during the grant application process was used to determine initial perceptions of the

faculty concerning writing instruction use in content area classrooms and correlated with

the results from this study to determine the degree of change in teacher perceptions.

Therefore, the results were of paramount importance to the participating high school and

provided an understanding of current teacher perceptions of content area writing. These

teachers also gained ideas of instructional strategies used by other teachers that could be

implemented in their classrooms. This understanding could lead to future faculty-led

professional development sessions or implementation of professional learning

communities within and across content area departments that could aid in implementation

of new writing strategies and instructional models. Third, the students could benefit from

the results of the study with the increased teacher knowledge of writing demonstrated

through classroom writing instruction. Finally, with greater understanding of writing

instruction, the community and business leaders could gain the benefit of graduates

exposed to a greater degree of writing instruction. With the importance of writing in the

business world, community business leaders would have a greater supply of potential

quality employees. Consequently, the need of this study was of chief importance to all

stakeholders of the district of the participating high school.

Summary

Writing is a critical aspect of both the educational and business worlds and is a

critical skill for students to possess in order to succeed in a competitive job market.

Despite this importance, there is a perceived student writing deficit characterized through

high-stakes assessment scores and student inability to complete college level writing

tasks. In order for teachers to utilize writing as a tool that gives students the opportunity

to explore content knowledge and understanding, teachers must possess confidence and

willingness to embrace writing instructional strategies. Despite the importance of writing

to student success, results of teacher analysis of the participating high school’s needs

assessment survey, conducted as part of the SRCL grant application process, revealed a

lack of teacher understanding regarding the role of content area teachers in writing

instruction (GaDOE, 2014). The purpose of the study was to investigate teachers’

perceptions, confidence, and use of writing instructional strategies throughout content

areas at the conclusion of the five-year SRCL grant.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Historical Overview

Importance of Writing

The ability to write is crucial in order to succeed in the aggressive business world

and the competitive 21st century job market (Fry & Villagomez, 2012). According to a

report by the National Writing Project and Negin (2006), “writing is the gateway for

success in academia, the new workplace, and the global economy” (p. 2). Writing is a

requirement for students to possess in order to communicate ideas quickly, efficiently,

and clearly to endure the rigors of today’s fast-paced and demanding world (NCW,

2004). This writing is evident in students’ real-world need to convey thoughts, ideas, and

arguments through both written and oral modes to be successful in an ever-changing and

competitive job market. In a survey of 120 major U.S. corporations, researchers from the

NCW (2004) noted that writing was an important factor in hiring and promoting, and was

required for professional opportunity. The NCW proclaimed that “people that cannot

write and communicate clearly will not be hired, and if already working, are unlikely to

last long enough to be considered for promotion” (p. 3). The ability to write effectively is

seen as a prerequisite to be successful in the business world and is a skill that can dictate

a students’ career success. The NCW further described the importance of writing in that

“two-thirds of salaried employees in large American companies have some writing

responsibility” (p. 3). Business leaders acknowledge the importance of writing in the

business world and understand the skill of writing as one that provides opportunity

(Education Partnerships Inc., 2006). In the business world, writing exists in the form of

memos, PowerPoints, email correspondence, technical reports, formal reports, and

presentations (Education Partnerships Inc., 2006). The NWC (2004) reinforced this

understanding and based on survey response data, reported that more than half of all

responding companies described frequent use of writing through policy, technical reports,

formal reports, PowerPoints, and correspondence. Writing is even present in the work

lives of technical workers and engineers who are required to produce written

documentation and reports once material technical work is completed (NCW, 2004). The

importance of writing in the business world and workforce cannot be understated as

writing ability is a necessary key to student career success.

With the arrival of the 21st century, writing instruction remains a critical aspect of

our educational system (Coskie & Hornof, 2013; Dede, 2009; NCES, 2012). Writing is

not only an important skill to possess in the business world but also one that is crucial to

student learning in content areas. Kelly Gallagher (2017) described writing as

“foundational to [students’] literate lives” (p. 25). This characterization of writing

demonstrated the importance of writing as a foundational skill and basis on which

students build on throughout their lives. In K-12 and university classrooms, writing

enables students to draw connections between content to further develop knowledge

(NCW, 2003). The NCW (2003) further epitomized the importance of writing in the

classroom as “not simply a way for students to demonstrate what they know [… but] a

way to help them understand what they know” (p. 13). Writing does not only assess

student understanding, but also could be used to actively encourage development of

critical thinking and content knowledge. McLeod and Miraglia (2001) emphasized this

connection between writing and content understanding and noted that “writing [was] an

essential component of critical thinking and problem solving […] a way of constructing

knowledge” (p.16). Therefore, writing is a tool for classroom instruction that can be

effectively utilized in order to connect the content of the subject area with a students’

deeper understanding of the material. Arnold et al. (2017) suggested that writing was a

key component in students’ ability to analyze, learn, and understand specific content

material ranging from scientific theories to historical cause and effect. Just as McLeod

and Miraglia (2001), Arnold et al. (2017) described writing as a tool in development of

critical thinking and deeper understanding of content knowledge. Gunel et al. (2007),

through analysis of six studies that related to writing in science classrooms, further

reinforced the importance of writing in the content areas as a means of developing

reasoning and critical thinking skills. Gunel et al. suggested that writing strategies that

“requires students to re-represent their knowledge in different forms, and as such, greater

learning opportunities exist” (p. 634). The practice of writing allows students to develop

greater content understanding through reconstruction and synthesis of information in

order to create a composition. Writing as tool in the content area classroom can provide

students with the opportunity to further develop and discover knowledge of the content

while creating opportunities for students to authentically learn. Writing in the content

area classroom can have a significant influence on student learning and understanding of

the content material. The NCW (2003) noted the educational value of writing in that “at

its best, writing is learning” (p. 13).

Writing and Learning

Writing is a crucial ability for students to possess to be successful in the

classroom and workforce of the 21st century, and an ability that potentially greatly

influences learning (Arnold et al., 2017; Dede, 2009; Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). The

importance of writing in learning is apparent and cannot be understated, although it can

be nebulous (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). Educators, administrators, and researchers

all make common assumptions through observational means about the relationship

between writing and learning in that writing directly leads to learning (Arnold et al.,

2017; Balgopal & Wallace, 2013; Hill, 1994; Russell, 2013). The International Network

of Writing-Across-the-Curriculum (INWAC, 2014) noted that “writing has long been

recognized as enhancing the learning process” (p. 5). This common assumption

regarding writing referred to when students write, they learn and improve literacy (Fry &

Villanova, 2012; Hill, 1994). Writing was said to require students to synthesize content

information in order to display understanding and learning of the content. However,

despite these common assumptions based on observation and perceptions, little empirical

research evidence existed that specifically defined the relationship between writing and

literacy (Arnold et al., 2017; Balgopal & Wallace, 2013; Hill, 1994; Russell, 2013).

Many studies have been conducted to measure the relationship between writing

and learning in order to gain empirical evidence that reinforced the assumptions of a

positive connection between writing and learning held by many educators (Arnold et al.,

2017; Balgopal & Wallace, 2013; Dede, 2009; Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2012; Fry &

Villagomez, 2012; Hill, 1994; Russell, 2013). Interestingly, researchers’ results were

mixed in that these studies (Arnold et al., 2017; Balgopal & Wallace, 2013; Dede, 2009;

Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2012; Fry & Villagomez, 2012; Hill, 1994; Russell, 2013) found

a positive connection between writing and learning; however, other studies showed little

evidence to support a positive connection between writing and learning. Thus, the

contradictory, or nebulous, nature of the relationship between writing and learning

existed in contradicting research studies. Arnold et al. (2017) conducted an experimental

study to determine the effectiveness of three different writing strategies (i.e., essay

writing, note taking, and highlighting) on learning. Arnold et al. found that writing tasks

requiring students to recall resulted in improved performance on a final assessment when

compared to the other two selected writing strategies. Therefore, Arnold et al. concluded

that essay writing and free recall led to a positive increase in learning as a result of the

utilization of writing strategies. Furthermore, Arnold et al. also showed the importance

of understanding the cognitive aspect of writing and how each cognitive process related

to learning. Balgopal and Wallace (2017) suggested a similar conclusion that writing

improved literacy. Balgopal and Wallace conducted a qualitative study with the purpose

of determining the effectiveness of writing strategies in the development of scientific

literacy. Based on the results of the study, Balgopal and Wallace found that writing

allowed for greater development of scientific theory. Both studies (Arnold et al., 2017;

Balgopal & Wallace, 2017) reinforced the assumption of the positive influence writing

had on the development of literacy and learning. However, Fry and Villagomez (2012)

argued that writing did not significantly improve student learning. Fry and Villagomez

conducted a quasi-experimental mixed methods study in order to determine the impact of

writing on student learning. Through the analysis of quantitative data, Fry and

Villagomez (2012) noted that writing did not have a statistically significant influence on

student achievement and learning. Likewise, Klein (1999) noted that there was no

evidence, based on assessments and empirical data, of the effect of writing and learning,

but conceded that there was a positive yet inconsistent impact writing had on learning.

The commonly accepted and nebulous assumption of the importance of writing in

learning and the development of literacy are reflected in the contradicting empirical

evidence related to the influence writing has on learning.

Positive Benefits of Writing

Despite the lack of empirical evidence that demonstrated the influence of writing

on learning, researchers suggested that are definite benefits to the inclusion of writing

strategies in the content areas (Arnold et al., 2017; Fry & Villagomez, 2012; Graham &

Perin, 2007; Hill, 1994; Russell, 2013). Graham and Perin (2007) noted that “although

the impact of writing activity on content learning is small, it is consistent enough to

predict some enhancement in learning as a result of writing-to-learn activities” (p. 20).

Writing-to-learn activities are strategies that used writing as a tool of learning content,

which allow the content area teacher to encourage students to delve deeper into the

content through writing in order to develop deeper content understanding. Graham and

Perin conducted a meta-analysis using quasi-experimental and experimental research into

the effect of writing on learning in order to offer strategies that demonstrated positive

results of writing on learning. Graham and Perin found that although the meta-analysis

effect size of content area writing was small, (.23), 75% of writing–to-learn studies

revealed positive results on writing and learning. Through the meta-analysis of multiple

research studies, Graham and Perin showed that writing not only had a positive influence

on learning but that the act of writing could be an effective tool in content area classroom

instruction in order to encourage development of student content knowledge. In order to

understand the role that writing has on learning, one simply has to observe and would

realize “the idea that writing promotes learning and reasoning is still commonplace”

(Hill, 1994, p. 3). Hill (1994) argued that there were observational perceptions of the

common sense notion of the importance of writing and learning. This researcher further

argued a key point in that there should be less emphasis on the lack of empirical evidence

of writing influence on learning but more focus on instructional practices of writing as a

crucial instructional tool. Hill conceded the difficulty of understanding the direct

empirical connection between writing and learning, but suggested that there were

numerous ways, such as external memory, that writing benefited the learning process.

Writing, therefore, is an instructional tool that allows students to reinforce and understand

content knowledge (Arnold et al., 2017).

Russell (2013) suggested that although much empirical data showed writing to

have no effect on learning, the possible long-term effects of writing instruction strategies

may be of more benefit than simple educational writing assessments. The value of

writing on the learning process comes through the use of writing as a means of creating

knowledge and understanding of content as opposed to assessment of knowledge. Fry

and Villagomez (2012) analyzed qualitative data that described writing as helpful in

making sense of content. Russell (2013) reflected this idea that writing was a tool for

learning instead of simply a tool for assessing learning. Russell described writing in the

same light as Fry and Villagomez (2012), “a means of engaging students with the

problems and methods of a discipline” (p. 164). Hill (1994) noted the same

characteristic, as writing helped students “identify problems in their understanding or

gaps in their knowledge” (p. 6). Writing is a tool for understanding the content or self-

assessing students’ gaps in knowledge. To write in a specific content, one must

demonstrate and self-assess the knowledge of the material (Russell, 2013). Each of these

researchers described that the benefits of writing came as a tool for learning and making

sense of content material instead of an assessment of learning (Graham & Perin, 2007).

Despite the lack of concrete, empirical evidence that suggested a positive relationship

between writing and learning, writing strategies in content area classrooms aid students in

development of critical thinking skills and content knowledge.

Perceived Student Writing Deficit

However, notwithstanding the importance of writing in relationship to learning

and the business and education worlds, educators, researchers, and business leaders,

nationally, have discerned a lack of K-12 and college level students’ writing

proficiencies, which has been a longstanding concern (McLeod, 2001; Russell, 1994).

This lack of proficiency was evident through the multiple writing crises that arose during

the 19th and 20th centuries, as Russell (1994) noted that “writing has always been an

issue in American secondary and higher education since written papers and examinations

came into wide use in the 1870s” (p. 3). A writing crisis occurred in the 1870s as a result

of changes that came as a consequence of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 and a shift

in the university model geared towards departmentalization and research, which allowed

for a wider range of education programs (McLeod, 2001; Russell, 1994). As a result,

teachers perceived a lack of student writing ability because of an inability to complete

university-level writing tasks (McLeod, 2001). This perceived lack of student writing

deficiencies continued throughout the 20th century and became evident in the 1970s. The

decade of the 1970s brought further evidence of a writing crisis and reignited interest in

the longstanding teacher perception of a lack of student writing ability in the United

States. With the GI Bill of the post-World War II years and social and political upheaval

of the 1960s, less strenuous university entrance requirements allowed for a more racially

and ethnically diverse student population (Bazerman et al., 2005; McLeod, 2001; Russell,

1991). The crisis of the 1970s created a change in demographics at the postsecondary

level, along with less rigorous admission standards, which opened universities to a wider

range of students (McLeod, 2001; Russell, 1991). With a wider range of students

entering universities, these students entered with a wider range of abilities and needs

(McLeod, 2001). The lack of writing ability and inability to complete university-level

writing assignments caused further reinforcement of a national writing crisis and concern

over student writing ability. The writing crisis of the 1970s was further publicly fueled

by Sheils (1975) and the Newsweek article “Why Johnny Can’t Write”. Sheils described

the lack of college students’ inability to write “ordinary, expository English with any real

degree of structure and lucidity” (p. 58) and described the downhill descent of U.S.

literacy. Sheils revealed the problems of secondary and postsecondary students and

provided momentum and desire for writing instruction reform at the high school and

university levels (Brewster & Klump, 2004). Despite the national press concerning the

lack of secondary and postsecondary writing deficiencies, students continued to display a

lack of writing ability throughout the latter years of the 20th century and into the 21st

century.

National Writing Assessment Data

One must only look at current and past assessment data of writing in the United

States to see evidence of this nationally perceived lack of writing proficiency and the

need for focused and effective writing instruction to prepare students for the university

classroom and 21st century workforce. Educator and researcher analysis of NAEP data at

the national level and Georgia Milestones data at the state and local levels showed a

declining trend of student writing ability. These data further highlighted teachers’

perceived decrease in overall student writing ability (McLeod, 2001). Current national

research concerning student writing in the United States showed a deficit in student

writing ability. Researchers for NCES (2012) assessed the writing ability of students in

Grade 12 through a computer-based writing assessment, the NAEP measures ability to

effectively communicate thoughts through narrative, persuasive, and informational

writing. These researchers discovered that 24% of students scored at the proficient level

during the 2012 assessment, which was described as students at this level could

effectively and clearly convey thoughts through written language (NCES, 2012). This

percentage has changed little since the 1998 assessment with 22% and has remained at

24% based on the 2002 and 2006 assessments (NCES, 2007). Based on these assessment

data, only one-fourth of students possess the writing abilities that are required for success

in the university classroom and job market. This decade long trend only highlights

students’ deficit of a skill that is “fundamental in business” and prerequisite for job

promotion (NCW, 2004, p. 8). NAEP data also showed that 54% of the 52,200 students

in Grades 8 and 12 tested nationally scored at the “basic level" or had “partial mastery of

the prerequisite knowledge and skills” to effectively communicate in writing (NCES,

2012, p. 2). NAEP data collected by NCES showed a national trend of little

improvement in student writing ability in the new millennium. Over the past two

decades, a consistent 24% of students showed the ability to effectively write to meet the

needs and rigors of the 21st century, while over half of U.S. students are ill-prepared to

write and communicate in the demanding world and job market.

State Writing Assessment Data

This national trend in the deficit of student writing ability was also visible at the

state level, as noted by results of previously administered high-stakes assessments. The

current study was situated in the state of Georgia, and, therefore, the relevance of high

stakes assessment data at the state level was important in understanding the state of

students’ writing ability. The state of Georgia uses a system of assessments, Georgia

Milestones, first implemented in the 2014-2015 school year, to measure the mastery of

prescribed state standards in content areas from Grades 3 through 12 and provides

students with an assessment for readiness for the next level (GaDOE, 2016). The English

language arts (ELA) Milestones have open response questions based on provided texts

that measure both the content and writing standards of the Georgia Standards of

Excellence. These open response questions allowed educators to gain an understanding

of Georgia students’ writing ability. The Georgia Milestones also consist of multiple-

choice questions that measure reading comprehension skills. The scores collected from

the Georgia Milestones are holistic scores, which reflect students writing and reading

ability in order to gauge students’ college and career readiness. Milestones data analysis

draws on the relationship between reading and writing. Milestones data analysis showed

a trend that while student writing ability and reading comprehension seems to improve, a

large number of students still lack the ability to communicate effectively at the next level.

Georgia Milestones were administered in the subjects of 9th grade literature and

American literature, in which a majority of students displayed partial or lacked

demonstration of needed writing skills (Fincher, 2016; GaDOE, 2014, 2015). For the

initial year of implementation, educator analysis of Milestones data revealed that 61% of

students in ninth grade and 63.9% of students in 11th grade scored in the beginning

learner or developing learner levels, or the two lower levels of performance (Fincher,

2016; GaDOE, 2014). Students at the beginning learner level “need substantial academic

support to be prepared for the next level” whereas developing level students “needed

additional academic support” (GaDOE, 2016, p. 1). These percentages improved slightly

in the 2015-2016 school year, with 58.8% of students in ninth grade and 56.8% of

students in 11th grade scored in the same performance level. However, the most recent

Milestones data showed that 47.1% of students in ninth grade and 51.1% of students in

11th grade scored in the lower two levels. Despite this decrease in the percentage of

students at the lower two levels of performance, there remains a high percentage of

students, over half, who do not have the skills required to be successful at the next level

and require increased academic support, which are students who are entering their final

year of high school and will be headed to colleges and the workforce in just over a year.

Despite these scores being a combination of both reading comprehension and writing

ability, analysis of the Milestones assessment data showed that a large number of Georgia

students require additional academic support and are not ready to handle the

communication rigors of the next level, or college.

Local Writing Assessment Data

Analysis of the participating high school’s Milestones data, as presented in Table

1, showed a similar lack of student writing ability and a higher percentage of students ill-

equipped to enter the university classroom or workforce (GaDOE, 2017). For the initial

year of implementation, an educator analysis of the Milestones data revealed that 78.8%

of students in ninth grade and 76.3% of students in 11th grade scored in the two lower

levels of performance. These percentages changed slightly in the 2015-2016 school year

with 72.7% of students in ninth grade and 80% of students in 11th grade tested in the

bottom two performance levels. However, the most recent Milestones scores revealed

improvement; 66.7% of students in ninth grade and 62.7% of students in 11th grade

scored in the lower two levels. Each year, the participating high school has reported

above state averages in the percentage of students scoring in the beginning and

developing learner levels. The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE, 2011)

noted the importance of reading and writing in order to enhance student learning and

achievement. NCTE (2011) also noted that “studies show that reading and writing […]

are essential to learning. Without strategies for reading course material and opportunities

to write thoughtfully about it, students have difficulty mastering concepts” (p. 16). These

high-stakes assessments showed a definite need to improve writing instruction and focus

on improvement of literacy. With the importance of writing capability as a prerequisite

to success in the job market and university classroom, students continue to show a

deficiency in that skill at the national, state, and local levels. Based on Georgia

Milestones scores at the state and local levels, a large percentage of students are not

prepared for the writing rigors of the work force and academic world, and, therefore,

these students require increased support and instruction for writing (GaDOE, 2016).

Table 1

Percentage of Students Scoring in the Beginning and Developing Learner Levels

Year

Test

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

State Ninth Grade Literature

58.8

47.1

Local Ninth Grade Literature

78.8

72.7

66.7

State American Literature

63.9

56.8

51.7

Local American Literature

76.3

62.7

Note: Milestones data for ninth grade literature and American literature comparing state

and local assessment result percentages of students who scored in the beginning and

developing learner levels.

Teachers’ Perceptions

In order for teachers to utilize writing as a tool that gives students the opportunity

to explore content knowledge and understanding, teachers must possess confidence and

willingness to embrace writing instructional strategies. Teachers’ self-perceptions of

their role and confidence as writers and writing instructors directly influenced teachers’

willingness and ability to teach writing and incorporate writing instruction into content

curriculum (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013; Curtis, 2017; Lewis & Sanchez, 2017; Troia et al.,

2011). Therefore, based on the purpose of the current study, to understand teachers’

perceptions as writing instructors and use of writing instruction strategies, the

understanding of prior research concerning teachers’ perceptions was critical. Analysis

of teachers’ perceptions revealed two themes among the literature: (a) ELA writing

instruction ownership, and (b) teacher efficacy. The theme of ELA writing instruction

ownership, as presented in Table 2, aligned closely with Research Question 1, or how

content area teachers perceived their role as instructors of writing (Hanstedt, 2012;

McLeod, 2001; NCTE, 2011; Russell, 1990, 1994). Based on content area teacher

perceptions of ELA ownership, teachers lack buy-in or willingness to incorporate writing

instruction (McLeod, 2001; Russell, 1994). The second theme, teacher efficacy, or

confidence, reflected Research Questions 2 and 3, as noted in Table 3 (Bifuh-Ambe,

2013; Curtis, 2017; Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara, & Hebert, 2013; Lewis & Sanchez,

2017; Troia et al., 2011). The understanding of teacher efficacy related to how teachers

perceived their confidence, knowledge, and willingness to implement writing instruction.

Furthermore, teachers should have buy-in or willingness to incorporate new writing

strategies into content area classrooms despite perceptions of ELA ownership of writing

instruction (Ates, Cetinkaya, & Yildirim, 2014).

Teachers across content areas share the responsibility for addressing the deficit in

student writing ability and dire assessment results; however, based on prior research of

teachers’ perceptions, the common belief of ELA ownership, or writing instruction as

solely the responsibility of English teachers, was prevalent among secondary and

postsecondary educators (McLeod, 2001; Russell, 1990, 1994, 2013). The NCW (2003)

described the importance of cross-curricular writing but noted the “near-total neglect of

writing outside English departments” (p. 28). The perception of ELA ownership

reinforced common assumptions of where writing instruction should take place and the

perceived role content area teachers played in writing instruction. Prior research

literature characterized K-12 and postsecondary content area teachers’ perception of

writing as being solely the responsibility and domain of the ELA department, thus

allowing for content area teachers to focus solely on content instruction (Hanstedt, 2012;

NCTE, 2011; Russell, 1990, 1994, 2013). Russell (1994) described administrator and

teacher perceptions, in principle, that “every teacher should teach writing” but did not

hold true in practice (p. 4). This belief is a common thought in education; however, it is

not an idea that is put into practice due to teachers’ perceptions of ELA department

ownership of writing and view of writing in content classrooms (Russell, 1994).

Since the inception of high schools in the late 19th century, disciplinary

organization and focus with curriculum shaped by the entrance requirements of

postsecondary institutions, which gave rise to ELA ownership of writing (Bazerman et

al., 2005). With this disciplinary focus, English departments eventually became the

caretakers of writing instruction and responsible for student writing and literary analysis

(Bazerman et al., 2005). This disciplinary model also added to the assumption that

writing instruction was to happen only in ELA classrooms, thus allowing other discipline

instructors to focus solely on content (Bazerman et al., 2005). Further English

department writing responsibilities came with changes to entrance requirements and

waves of students who seemed to lack efficient writing ability to meet the demands of

postsecondary education in the form of freshman or remedial composition classes

(Russell, 1990). Russell (1994) further reinforced English department ownership of

writing and noted “since the turn of the century, the American educational system has

placed the responsibility for teaching writing outside the disciplines” (p. 4). Long has

writing been considered the domain of ELA departments, which allowed content area

teachers the freedom from complaints of the lack of student writing ability (Russell,

1990, 1994). In an anecdote, McLeod (2001) reinforced Russell’s (1990, 1994)

characterization and described a confrontation with a colleague over student

writing. This colleague in the history department was furious over the lack of writing

ability as displayed through an assigned historical analysis essay. McLeod (2001)

recalled the colleague blamed the English department for failure to teach students to write

effectively. The assumption of ELA department ownership of writing further encouraged

a disconnect between content disciplines and writing instruction.

Hanstedt (2012) reinforced the perception of writing responsibility laid solely

with ELA departments, in that “people outside of the English department worry that they

might be forced to do someone else’s job” (p. 48). Hanstedt described a teacher

perception that writing instruction was the job of ELA teachers and for content area

teachers to teach writing meant that the ELA teachers were not doing their jobs. This

perception allowed for content area teachers to ignore responsibility for the lack of

student writing skills (McLeod, 2001). NCTE (2011) further described content area

teachers’ difficulty in coming to terms with how writing fit in the confines of content

curriculum, which added to the ease of allowing English department ownership of

writing. NCTE further defined this disconnect as teachers simply do not see how their

content area is linked to reading and writing and, therefore, see little need to implement

writing strategies in content area instruction. This negative perception of the benefit and

need of writing instruction in content area classrooms limits successful implementation of

writing instruction strategies within content area classrooms, which could encourage

student development of content knowledge. This perceived English department

ownership developed as a result of departmentalization of the disciplines, which caused

the task of writing instruction to fall outside the content areas, persisted as a result of

content area teachers’ perceived lack of role in writing instruction, and led to a deficit of

teacher buy-in for content area writing (Russell, 1990, 1994).

With the perceived ELA ownership of writing, many teachers lack buy-in to

willingly incorporate writing into content area instruction. This lack of buy-in is

characterized by time, ability, and understanding. Secondary level content area

teachers argue, because of immensity of the amount of content required by state and local

standards, content area teachers simply lacked the time to include writing instruction

(Brewster & Klump, 2004; McLeod, 2001). Educators at the post-secondary level also

describe the importance of protecting time to focus on content material as opposed to

sacrificing time to teach a skill that many believe students should already possess at the

college level (McLeod, 2001). In addition to the issue of time, Russell (1990, 2013)

emphasized content area teachers’ lack of confidence in teaching writing as an important

characteristic in the lack of willingness to use content area writing instructional

strategies. Teachers who were self-conscious or lacked ability to write are unwilling to

include teaching a skill they did not possess. Romano (2007) noted that “teachers who

write demonstrate to students someone who loves to think, explore, and communicate

through writing” (p. 171). However, teachers who lack the buy-in or willingness to

incorporate demonstration of writing as a result of a lack of self-efficacy as a writer miss

the opportunity to instruct students how a writer creates writing. NCTE (2011) suggested

that content area teachers struggle with how their subjects are linked with writing and,

therefore, lack buy-in and willingness to implement new writing instruction as a result of

a lack of understanding of their role as instructors of writing. With the perceived ELA

ownership of writing, many teachers do not see writing instruction as their responsibility

and lack understanding of their role as writing instructors. Therefore, they lack buy-in to

willingly use time to incorporate writing into content area instruction strategies.

Teachers’ Writing Efficacy

In addition to the limitations concerning content area teachers’ perceptions of

ELA department ownership of writing, teacher self-efficacy as writing instructors further

contributes to content area teachers’ lack of buy-in and willingness to implement

effective writing instruction successfully. Albert Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-

efficacy described the importance of personal belief and confidence in one’s own

abilities. This concept of teachers’ self-perceptions of efficacy as writers directly related

to teachers’ willingness and ability to incorporate writing instruction and, therefore,

required support and instruction in order to implement instructional strategies

successfully (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013; Troia et al., 2011). Confidence, or lack thereof, had an

effect on content area teachers’ willingness to implement writing strategies in classroom

instruction based on the confidence in their ability to write effectively.

Teacher Self-Efficacy as Writers

Teacher self-efficacy, or perception of their own abilities in writing ability, was

an important factor in writing instruction and lack of proficiency led to a lack of desire

and difficulty to include writing instruction in classroom practices (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013;

Russell, 2013, 1990). Albert Bandura’s (1977) concept of self-efficacy characterized the

importance of how one perceived their own abilities to accomplish a task. For teachers,

this concept could be applied to how teachers perceived their own abilities as writing

instructors or their ability to teach writing effectively based on their own writing ability.

Taimalu and Oim (2005) reinforced Bandura’s (1977) understanding of self-efficacy and

applied the concept to educators’ ability influence student achievement. The confidence

that educators possess in their abilities to convey content knowledge relate directly to

student achievement. Within the concept of self-efficacy, Bandura (1977) described the

idea of instructional choice based on self-efficacy in that “not only can perceived self-

efficacy have direct influence on choice of activities and settings but through

expectations of eventual success” (p. 194). Thus, teacher confidence can lead an

educator to not implement a successful writing strategy simply because of fear of a

negative outcome. A teacher’s perception of personal writing ability could influence

instructional choices. Russell (2013) also noted the importance of confidence in content

area teachers’ writing instruction practices as inherent in a lack of understanding in

teaching writing form. Content area teachers do not perceive themselves as teachers of

writing but as teachers of specific content (Russell, 2013). Content area teachers are

experts in teaching their specific content but lack confidence and knowledge in teaching

the form or structure of writing (Russell, 2013). For writing instruction, content area

teachers should be able to teach students how to write in the form and expectations of the

teachers’ specific content areas. The difficulty for content area teachers, as noted by

Russell (1990), came with teacher confidence to “explain (and to some extent

conceptualize) the conventions of [the teacher’s] discipline and--more difficult still--

describe how the conventions she requires [...] are different from the conventions [...] in

another class” (p. 56). As a result, content teachers have the added difficulty of

instructing students of not only how to write but how to write in a specific content area

that is guided by specific conventions and expectations. Teachers, therefore, who do not

perceive themselves as effective writers will limit the use of writing instructional

strategies in the content area classrooms.

Content area teachers should possess a positive perception of self-efficacy in

order to effectively implement writing instruction into the content area classroom. Bifuh-

Ambe (2013) reflected the importance of teacher writing confidence, in that “teachers

must feel competent as writers and writing teachers in order to provide the kind of

instruction and modeling that will help students develop into proficient writers” (p. 137).

Content area teachers must have the confidence and professional development in order to

provide effective writing instruction (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013; Curtis, 2017). In a mixed

methods study, Bifuh-Ambe (2013) examined teacher attitudes towards writing

instruction, implemented a 10-week workshop, and utilized pre and post surveys to

understand teacher perceptions. Bifuh-Ambe discovered that teachers’ beliefs and

epistemologies not only influenced instructional choices, but teacher efficacy also

influenced student progress in writing. Through the analysis of survey data, Bifuh-Ambe

described that the “improvement of teachers’ writing ability and proficiency would in

turn improve students’ writing achievements” (p. 137). Furthermore, Lewis and Sanchez

(2017) also noted the importance of teachers’ self-perceptions of efficacy in regards to

writing instruction. In a longitudinal study, which spanned the academic years of 2012-

2014, Lewis and Sanchez surveyed over 160 preservice teachers and noted a

“disconnection between the perception of overall writing proficiency and the perception

of proficiency in revision and editing”, and, therefore, there is a perceived lack of

confidence in teacher writing ability in connection to writing instruction (p. 7). Teachers’

perceptions and self-efficacy as writers have a direct influence in regards to writing

instruction in content area classroom. However, professional development and support

are required.

Teacher Efficacy, Professional Development, and Writing Instruction

Teacher efficacy in their writing ability has a direct influence on content area

teachers’ willingness to implement writing instruction, and, therefore, professional

development is required for successful implementation. Troia et al. (2011) described the

importance of teachers’ understanding of writing instruction as those teachers who lack

knowledge of writing instructional strategies limit student writing development and are

less willing to utilize new strategies as opposed to teachers who possess strong writing

confidence and understanding. Zimmerman, Morgan, and Kidder-Brown (2014)

characterized this connection between teacher efficacy and professional development; for

students to learn writing, they must receive effective writing instruction. However, many

teachers not only do not perceive themselves as writers but also feel ill-prepared to teach

writing. This lack of self-efficacy requires professional development in order to provide

effective writing instruction and student learning. Prior research of teacher efficacy in

writing showed a direct relationship with classroom writing instruction and teacher

efficacy and displayed the importance of professional development (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013;

Curtis, 2017; Gillespie et al., 2013; Lewis & Sanchez, 2017; Troia et al., 2011).

For effective content area writing instruction, professional development is

required to improve teachers’ writing efficacy, perceptions of writing, and use of writing

instructional strategies (Gillespie et al., 2013). Atwell (1984) characterized the

importance of professional development through experience and noted “up until three

years ago, nobody wrote much of anything at my school. Nobody wrote because nobody

taught writing. Nobody taught writing because nobody was trained to teach writing” (p.

240). In order to teach writing, a teacher must have confidence in his or her writing

ability and willingness to utilize writing strategies during instruction. Professional

development is critical in developing teacher ability and confidence in writing. In a year-

long study of six elementary school teachers who received professional development in

writing instruction, Troia et al. (2011) found that “teachers who possessed a relatively

strong sense of general teaching efficacy tended to use more instructional adaptions for

struggling writers” and, therefore, reinforced the importance of teacher writing efficacy

to improve writing instruction and student writing ability (p. 177). Troia et al. drew the

connection between the need for professional development in order to improve teachers’

efficacy in writing and, in turn, improve writing instruction. Likewise, Curtis (2017)

described the importance of professional development through modeling in improving

writing instruction through improvement of teacher self-efficacy. In a study of two

kindergarten teachers, Curtis researched the effect of professional development through

the use of a literacy coach modeling writing instructional strategies on perceptions,

knowledge, and efficacy of teacher writing ability and instruction. Through survey data,

Curtis noted that “modeling specific writing strategies over a period of time did have a

positive impact on teachers and their ability to teach writing” (p. 24). Similarly, through

analysis of survey data, Gillespie et al. (2013) found that the use of writing strategies to

support student learning was directly related to teachers’ preparation through professional

development. In a study of 800 teachers of ninth to 12thgraders teachers, Gillespie et al.

found that teachers utilized an average of 24 different writing strategies during the school

year. However, teachers reported little professional development to support effective

implementation. Gillespie et al. further described the utilized writing strategies involved

writing that did not include actual composition. Teachers noted the use of short answers,

notetaking, worksheets, and summarizing but did not include writing that was creative or

analytical (Gillespie et al., 2013). The results of this study showed a need for

professional development to instruct teachers on the implementation of writing strategies

and writing instruction techniques (Gillespie et al., 2013). Without professional

development, lack of teacher self-efficacy as writers leads to a lack of buy-in in

implementing writing instruction in the content areas.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical basis of this study embraced the teacher-as-writer. Based on the

perceived writing deficiency, which lingered into the 21st century, and the importance of

writing in the academic classroom and the business world, teachers should have

confidence as writing instructors in order to help students improve writing ability through

effective implementation of writing instructional strategies in content areas. Atwell

(1984), Calkins (1993), Graves (1990), and Susi (1984) characterized the importance of

teacher confidence as avid readers and writers in order to be effective teachers of reading

and writing through modeling self-efficacy and professional development. In accordance

with these researchers, Romano (2007) further developed and reinforced the use of the

idea of the teacher-as-writer through the benefits and necessities of a teacher’s comfort as

a writer. Applegate and Applegate (2004) described the importance of teachers’ self-

efficacy as a model during instruction. Similarly, Frager (1994) conducted a study that

reinforced the views of Atwell (1984), Calkins (1993), Graves (1990), and Susi (1984)

through categorizing teachers into four writing groups. However, Brooks (2007)

conducted a study that utilized the works of Atwell (1984), Calkins (1993), and Graves

1984 as a framework and found that the writing experience played little role in effective

writing instruction. Despite the findings of Brooks (2007), the characterization of

Calkins (1993), Graves (1990), Atwell (1984), and Susi (1984) of the importance of

teachers’ confidence as writers remained a critical component of effective

implementation of content area writing instruction.

Ideological Background

The teacher-as-writer framework reflected the importance of teacher self-efficacy

as writers, and teacher perceptions of willingness to buy-in to the implementation of

writing instructional strategies in content area classrooms. The teacher-as-writer

framework was based on the understanding of the importance of teachers being confident

in their own writing ability to implement writing instruction and model writing in order to

create enthusiasm within the student and an environment that will foster student writing.

Romano (2007) described the teacher-as-writer as crucial in that one who taught the craft

should practice the craft as well. This practice allowed students to see the teacher-as-

writer as an authority and provided credibility to the writing instruction. Romano further

described the benefits of the teacher-as-writer as one who modeled writing instruction

and went beyond simply telling students how to write. Romano (1987) described that an

important aspect of the teacher-as-writer model was to help students develop the feeling

that writing was not only a critical aspect of their lives but to develop a joy for writing

that was evident in the teacher. Atwell (1984) characterized this framework as what she

called “getting inside writing” (p. 241). In order for teachers to not only teach writing

effectively but also develop a passion and enjoyment of writing within students, teachers

should first become active participants within the writing process. Teachers become

“insiders” willing to embrace writing in the classroom and develop an environment that

fosters a love for writing in the teacher and the student. Through becoming a writing

insider, teachers could understand the process and challenge students during composition,

and they could better encourage and aid students while they write. Students should see

the teacher as more than simply someone who conveys information but as active

participants in the writing process that models and encourages the act of composition.

Susi (1984) described the importance of teachers modeling the act of composition in

order to “share the visible part of that process” (p. 713). When teachers have the

confidence in their own writing ability to write with students, teachers have the unique

opportunity to demonstrate how they maneuver through all aspects of the writing process.

Similarly, in a study of preservice teachers, Applegate and Applegate (2004)

described the importance of teacher self-efficacy and the teacher-as-writer as a model

during reading instruction that motivated and encouraged students to read and

encapsulated this idea as the Peter Effect. Applegate and Applegate alluded to the

Biblical story of Peter and the beggar. In Acts 3:5, Peter was approached by a crippled

beggar, and, when asked for money, Peter simply replied that he could not give what he

did not have (Applegate & Applegate, 2004). Applegate and Applegate (2004) used this

allusion to demonstrate the importance of teacher confidence as an avid reader. If a

teacher was not an avid and confident reader who enjoyed reading, then that feeling could

not be encouraged in their students. Applegate and Applegate’s study focused on a

teacher’s role in fostering a love for reading by being an avid reader. Despite the focus

on reading, the allusion provided a similar analogy to Atwell’s (1984) description of the

importance of teachers’ self-efficacy in writing. Confidence in writing ability was

required for a teacher to get inside writing to encourage passion within students, and,

therefore, the teacher cannot give what the teacher does not have. By “getting inside

writing”, teachers-as-writers showed the visible aspects of the writing process and created

a positive environment for writing. The teacher-as-writer framework used for this study

was based on the research of Frager (1994).

Frager and Teacher Self-Efficacy

Frager (1994) reinforced the framework of the teacher-as-writer through a three-

day workshop with 32 participants ranging from primary to high school English teachers.

The focus of this workshop was to study and develop teachers’ understanding of

themselves as writers. Teachers who participated in the workshop wrote about their

perceptions as writers and discussed their writing samples in small groups. Based on data

and writing samples gained from the workshop, Frager determined four writing groups

that described the teacher-as-writer: (a) reluctant writers, (b) practical writers, (c) integral

writers, (d) perspectives as writers. The five reluctant writers disliked writing and did not

see themselves as effective writers. Practical writers consisted of six teachers who only

wrote out of necessity or as a means of organization. The integral writers consisted of six

teachers who described writing as an important aspect of their lives and an activity they

constantly used in every aspect of their lives. The final group consisted of nine teachers

who gave different accounts of the what it meant to be a writer. Frager concluded that

“teachers who feel writing is an integral part of their lives can help some students feel the

same way” (p. 277). Teacher self-efficacy and ability to write could have an effect on

student achievement and perspective of writing (Atwell, 1984). Frager (1994) further

described the two important influences that were evident in the teacher-as-writer model:

(a) learning is through modeling and (b) shared feelings. Students learn about the act of

composition through observing how the teacher maneuver through the writing process.

This idea of the importance of modeling is reflected through Atwell’s “getting inside

writing” as a means of showing the visible aspects of the writing process (Atwell, 1984).

Frager (1994) also described the importance of feelings and perspectives for the teacher-

as-writer, in that “teaching involves sharing feelings about the writing process as much as

demonstrating techniques for good writing” (p. 277). The ways that teachers perceive

their own self-efficacy as writers and their own views on the importance of writing could

influence students’ feelings concerning writing. Frager noted that “there is reason to

believe that teachers who are themselves fearful and reluctant writers influence some

students to share that apprehension” (p. 277). This transference of feelings toward

writing from the teacher to the student illustrated the importance of the allusion to the

Peter Effect and the positive perceptions teacher should possess as the teacher-as-writer.

A teacher who lacks confidence or a positive view of the act of composition cannot give

the students confidence or a positive view of writing. They cannot give students what

they do not have (Applegate & Applegate, 2004). Frager’s (1994) research provided

reason to embrace the importance of the teacher-as-writer in implementing content area

writing instruction and curriculum policies. However, Brooks (2007) presented a counter

argument, which suggested teacher self-efficacy was less important.

Brooks’s Counter Argument

Where Frager and other researchers found the teacher-as-writer to be a critical

component to writing instruction, Brooks (2007), in a case study of fourth-grade teachers,

concluded that writing efficacy played little role in instruction. The theoretical basis of

Brook’s study was the theories set forth by the research of Atwell (1984), Calkins (1993),

and Graves (1990), which related to the importance of teachers’ writing ability in teacher

efficacy as writing instructors. The participants of the study consisted of four teachers

who were recommended by an administrator as excellent teachers of reading and writing.

These teachers were chosen from a greater sample of 21 teachers with varying degrees of

self-efficacy as writers; however, the four chosen participants were avid readers and

writers with a positive perception of writing. Brooks (2007) primarily collected

interview data but also utilized field notes, which related to how the teachers reading and

writing influenced their ability to implement writing instruction effectively. The purpose

of Brooks’ study was to examine the idea that teachers must be confident, avid readers

and writers, as described by Atwell (1984), Calkins (1993), Graves (1990), Romano

(2007) and Susi (1984), in order to implement effective writing and reading instruction.

Brooks (2007) found that, despite each of the four teachers in the participating study

considering themselves to be avid readers and writers, personal reading and writing

experiences did not play a significant role in the teachers’ ability to provide effective

reading and writing instruction. Brooks’s findings directly opposed the theoretical works

of Atwell (1984), Calkins (1993), and Graves (1990) and suggested that the teachers-as-

writer framework argued by Romano (2007) and Frager (1994) was not critical in teacher

ability to implement writing instruction effectively.

Despite the findings of Brooks (2007), the characterization of Calkins (1993),

Graves (1990), Atwell (1984), Romano (2007), and Susi (1984) of the importance of

teachers’ confidence as writers remained a critical component of effective

implementation of content area writing instruction. Brooks (2007) focused on the writing

experiences of four teachers who had a positive self-efficacy as writers and writing

instructors and did not consider teachers who had a negative perception of writing, or

what Frager (1994) called reluctant writers. Brooks’s (2007) conclusions were based on

those teachers who exemplified the teacher-as-writer and overlooked reluctant writers in

order to examine the importance of the teacher-as-writer during writing instruction.

Brooks’s conclusion that teacher efficacy in writing was not critical for effective writing

instruction was based on the one-sided analysis of the cases of four teachers who

perceived themselves as teachers-as-writers. With Brooks’s conclusion that self-efficacy

in writing was not important, Frager (1994) suggested the opposite and cited Gillespie

(1987) who used an analogy of skiing to describe the importance of a writing instructor

practicing the craft that he taught. Gillespie described “I can know the vocabulary,

describe the techniques and equipment, label and name the parts […] but I still don’t

know how to ski until I practice on the snow time and time again, and sometimes fall” (p.

741). Gillespie argued that one can know everything about a skill, but without practice,

experience, and self-efficacy, one cannot master and teach the skill. Gillespie drew the

comparison of skiing to writing and the act of composition. A teacher can describe the

act of composition, techniques, vocabulary, and processes of writing, but one must

practice the act of composition to project the authority and confidence to teach the craft.

Frager (1994) related the Gillespie (1987) skiing analogy to the teacher-as-writer and the

importance of teacher’s writing efficacy by asking two questions: (a) “who would take

skiing lessons from an instructor who painfully struggles to make it to the bottom of the

slope? (b) who would learn writing from a teacher who painfully struggles to express

thoughts and ideas on a page?” (p. 274). These questions contradicted the findings of

Brooks (2007) and emphasized the importance of the teachers’ self-efficacy as a writing

instructors. The teacher-as-writer framework was based on the understanding of the

importance of teachers being confident in their own writing ability to implement writing

instruction and model writing in order to create enthusiasm within the student and an

environment that will foster student writing.

Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program

In order to curtail student deficiencies in writing, support and professional

development are required to improve teacher confidence and efficacy in writing for

successful instruction implementation, with one such form found in the development of

literacy programs at the state level through the use of a federal grant (U.S. Department of

Education, 2010). The SRCL was a federal grant that allowed the state of Georgia to

establish a state literacy team, GLTF, to create a state literacy plan with goals and

guidelines to aid districts in development and improvement of literacy instruction (U.S.

Department of Education, 2010). The SRCL was an initiative by the federal government

in order to encourage the development of literacy programs at the state level (U.S.

Department of Education, 2010). The program was authorized as part of the

Consolidated Appropriations Act (2010) under the Title I section of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). This program

distributed funds in the form of discretionary grants to states in order to create literacy

programs to advance literacy skills ranging from pre-reading skills and writing for

students birth through Grade 12 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Funds were

awarded to states in order to develop a literacy team who would formulate a state literacy

plan in order to advance the development of reading and writing skills across all ages

(U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

Goals

As a result of these funds from the U.S. Department of Education, the GaDOE

created the GLTF, which began development of a state literacy plan to serve as a

framework in order to cultivate and improve reading literacy in districts around the state

(GaDOE, 2014). The GLTF defined literacy as “the ability to speak, listen, read, and

write” in order to create the Georgia literacy plan, which served as a model for district

literacy plans (Fernandez & O’Conner, 2016, p. 1). The GLTF further described the

importance of developing students’ ability to convey thoughts and communicate with

others effectively, think and respond critically, and utilize knowledge in all content areas

(GaDOE, 2010). In accordance with this definition, Georgia’s SRCL program and the

GLTF identified six goals in order to ensure a focused and well developed literacy plan:

(a) increase high school graduation rate and postsecondary enrollment, (b) improve

teacher quality and retention, (c) improve workforce readiness, (d) improve educational

leadership, (e) improve achievement scores, and (f) make policies that ensure academic

and financial accountability (Fernandez & O’Conner, 2016). In order to aid students in

obtaining these elements of literacy and goals, the GLTF described the importance of

creating authentic literacy opportunities through cross-curricular texts and more writing

instruction in the content areas (Fernandez & O’Conner, 2016). The GLTF further

described the importance of writing instruction across the curriculum in order to develop

students’ ability to convey their thoughts and communicate with others effectively, which

became an important element in the state literacy plan and an important tool in the

development of literacy (Fernandez & O’Conner, 2016; GaDOE, 2010).

Grant Application Process

The GaDOE, since receiving the SRCL grant in 2011, developed a process to

determine which local education agency would receive funds as a sub-grantee. This

method began with assessment of eligibility of the local educational agency applicant.

To qualify for the grant, the applying district was required to have at least 35% of the

student population qualify for free or reduced lunch, agree to implement data-driven

literacy instruction, and implement between two and four hours of content area reading

instruction (Fernandez & O’Conner, 2016). With the support of program management,

the applying district formed school and district level literacy teams, which would be

responsible for collecting data and the actual writing of the grant. The literacy team at

each applicant school formed a school literacy plan based on the needs of that school.

The focus of this literacy plan was to demonstrate strong literacy instruction across the

curriculum and exhibited how the school would use grant funding to implement effective

literacy instruction, leadership, professional development, and intervention to encourage

student growth in literacy (Fernandez & O’Conner, 2016). Each school in the applying

district, over a three- to four-month time period, then completed an application that

contained a school literacy plan, needs assessment analysis, school narrative, student and

teacher data, goals and objectives, materials, professional development plan, detailed

budget, and sustainability plan in order to qualify for the annual SRCL sub-grant

competition (Fernandez & O’Conner, 2016). Each application was reviewed by an expert

panel who scored the application with a 100-point rubric. District scores were calculated

based on the combined scores of the district schools; the highest score in each subgroup

(i.e., large systems, mid-sized systems, and small systems) received the grant (Fernandez

& O’Conner, 2016). Once funds, which were based on student population size, were

released to the winning sub-grantees, the GaDOE monitored the implementation of grant

funds through surveys and school observations (Fernandez & O’Conner, 2016). As an

added requirement to receive funds, districts were required to purchase and administer,

three times per year, two universal screeners, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early

Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI), as a means to

quantify student growths in literacy development (Fernandez & O’Conner, 2016). The

grant application process encouraged applying districts to analyze data related to building

literacy and identified targeted areas of need in which funds could be utilized to improve

literacy instruction. The SRCL grant program allowed grantee districts the opportunity to

use funds for the development and improvement of literacy programs throughout each

school level (GaDOE, 2014).

Statewide Implementation Data

Statewide implementation data related to the SRCL grant consisted of three

annual reports and a statewide case study (Fernandez & O’Conner, 2016; Pasquarella,

2013, 2014, 2015). The three annual reports were conducted by Pasquarella (2013, 2014,

2015) of the University of Delaware. Each of these reports consisted of data analysis at

the district level and at the school level collected from DIBELS at the elementary level

and SRI at the middle and high school levels. Through analysis of district data,

Pasquarella (2013) drew statewide comparisons and additionally focused a comparison of

the schools within each district. Each of these reports described the empirical influence

of the SRCL grant on literacy in the state of Georgia (Pasquarella, 2013). The initial

report presented by Pasquarella (2013) described how all districts made significant

growth and progress in foundational skills and reading comprehension over the course of

the academic year, despite the fact that half of the students enrolled were characterized as

economically disadvantaged. The study consisted of 15 school districts with 118 schools

that received SRCL grant funds and utilized repeated measures analysis of variance

(ANOVAs) in order to draw comparisons across districts based on performance and

growth (Pasquarella, 2013). Based on the analysis of data, Pasquarella (2013) found

evidence of student growth as a result of “professional development initiatives that [were]

directed towards learning how to incorporate evidence-based strategies and curriculum

maps into instructional plans may be associated with growth in comprehension” (p. 221).

Effective implementation of instructional practices was an important aspect that led to

growth in student achievement.

Pasquarella (2014) further described the positive growth of schools that received

the SRCL grant. Eighteen school districts submitted data for analysis in the 2014-2015

academic school year. The 2014 report consisted of data analysis at the district level and

then disaggregated by grade level. Pasquarella (2014) found continued growth from

participating school based on SRI data analysis, “on average, students gained 9.63 points

from fall to spring […] in the previous year, average student growth was 7.5 points” (p.

8). Schools that received the SRCL grant maintained high performance and growth in

reading comprehension and foundational skills. Based on surveys submitted by teachers

in participating districts, Pasquarella (2014) noted that a wide range of teachers

emphasized the importance of increased use of literacy strategies across the curriculum

and emphasized the importance of professional development. Furthermore, for high

school growth, “use of evidence based strategies and teacher use of web materials and

writing curriculum appear to be integrated into the curriculum almost daily” (p. 118).

Pasquarella noted a theme in the responses of teachers within SRCL schools, in that most

reported an importance in the use of writing and literacy strategies across the curriculum.

The 2015-2016 district level annual report for the SRCL plan was once again

compiled through the work of Pasquarella (2015). Pasquarella used the same structure to

present data from the SRI and DIBELS and utilized ANOVAs to analyze district level

and grade level comparisons of student achievement. Pasquarella noted that “on average,

students gained 7.73 points from fall to spring […] in the previous years, average student

growth was 7.5 and 9.3 points indicating consistency with previous years” (p. 8). The

number of SRCL school districts increased to 24, with each district representing positive

gains overall at the elementary level. SRI data showed positive gains for both middle and

high school students. However, not all districts submitted SRI data related to the middle

and high schools.

The case study of Fernandez and O’Conner (2016) based on all participating

SRCL schools in the state of Georgia during the 2014-2015 academic year provided a

macro analysis of performance across all four cohorts of the SRCL grant based on

assessment data. The case study consisted of 36 SRCL school districts with 80% of

students defined as economically disadvantaged. The SRCL grant, as Fernandez and

O’Conner noted, encouraged the use of research-based literacy and writing instruction

across the content areas through sustainable professional development. The case study

was not as detailed as the annual reports conducted by Pasquarella (2013, 2014, 2015) but

came to different conclusions. Whereas Pasquarella utilized a statistical analysis of data,

Fernandez and O’Conner (2016) provided a more descriptive analysis of the grant

process, program goals, and state literacy plan, with overall analysis related to the

Georgia Milestones. Pasquarella (2013, 2014, 2015) reported SRCL schools as having

mostly positive results, while the Fernandez and O’Conner (2016) case study showed that

SRCL schools were below state levels in reading and writing. Fernandez and O’Conner

accounted lower test scores to the state of Georgia’s transition to the Georgia Milestones,

a more difficult and rigorous standardized assessment and did not take into account SRI

and DIBELS data. Despite the increased rigor of the test, Fernandez and O’Conner noted

that “the percentage of SRCL participating students who met or exceeded proficiency on

the state language arts assessment was 29% in fifth grade, 32% in eighth grade, and 27%

in high school” (p. 2). Each of these percentages were 10 percentage points less than the

state average. Fernandez and O’Conner’s analysis showed that only a small percentage

of SRCL students met or exceeded proficiency in reading and writing, based on data from

the Georgia Milestones. Both Pasquarella (2013, 2014, 2015) and Fernandez and

O’Conner (2016) provided an understanding of the performance of students in SRCL

schools. Pasquarella (2013, 2014, 2015) provided an in-depth analysis of DIBELS and

SRI data at the district and grade levels through the use of statistical analysis (i.e.,

repeated measures ANOVAs) to draw comparisons across grade levels and districts. The

understanding gleaned from Pasquarella showed an overly positive growth in reading and

literacy performance. Research studies related to Georgia’s SRCL grant program were

limited to three empirical studies and one case study to provide a macro understanding of

the performance of SRCL schools.

Needs Assessment Survey Analysis

The current study focused on a specific school’s need to improve reading and

writing proficiencies as per guidelines set forth in the SRCL grant. However, it is

important to understand teachers’ perceptions as writing instructors and their

understanding of implementation of writing strategies. Through the study, the researcher

desired to understand teachers’ perceptions as teachers of writing and use of writing

instruction in classrooms across the content areas in response to the data used to create

the participating high school’s literacy plan in cooperation with guidelines from the

GaDOE. In order to understand current teachers’ perceptions of writing as compared to

teachers’ perceptions at the time of SRCL grant application, analysis of the background

information of the grant and needs assessment data was required to complete the grant

application process.

In order to develop the school literacy plan, the participating high school literacy

team (HSLT) first administered the “Survey of Literacy Instruction for Middle and High

School Staff” to all certified and classified staff (n = 85). In addition to this survey, the

HSLT also administered the Georgia Literacy Plan Needs Assessment for Literacy

Survey to all certified staff (n = 71) in order to collect additional data to determine and

prioritize critical areas of concerns. The Georgia Literacy Plan Needs Assessment

Survey was based on six building blocks of effective literacy instruction: (a) engaged

leadership, (b) continuity of care and instruction, (c) ongoing formative and summative

assessments, (d) best practices in literacy instruction, (e) systems of tiered intervention,

and (f) professional learning and resources; all of which stood as key components to the

creation of the school literacy plan (GaDOE, 2014). Survey items were scored based on

a four-level scale: (a) fully operational, (b) operational, (c) emergent, (d) not addressed.

The data analyzed from the participating high school’s needs assessment survey revealed

teachers’ perceptions of writing at the time of grant application and provided the

researcher with a basis to compare teachers’ perceptions at the end of the five-year grant

implementation.

After data analysis, the HSLT members concluded that the “data highlighted a

lack of professional learning directed toward literacy instruction across the curriculum

[… and] a lack of understanding of the role literacy plays in all content areas and a

perception that literacy is confined to the ELA classroom” (GaDOE, 2014, p. 3). Based

on the data, there was a need for professional development in regards to how to teach

writing and information concerning available strategies to teach writing across the

curriculum. The researcher also noted that the perceptions of the teachers’ role in literacy

provided the understanding of the school’s perceived deficiencies as related to the use of

writing strategies across the curriculum to improve literacy. Data from four items

reflected this idea of teachers’ perceptions and usage of writing across the curriculum that

directly related to the statement of the problem for the study. The four items discussed in

the next section reinforced the need to understand teachers’ perceptions of writing

instruction across the curriculum in order to improve literacy.

The HSLT noted multiple areas of concern revealed by the participating school’s

needs assessment survey that directly related to the purpose of the study. The first item,

Block One, Part D, a school culture exists in which teachers across the content areas

accept responsibility for literacy instruction, revealed that 39% of teachers perceived a

lack of understanding of content area teachers’ role in literacy instruction (GaDOE, 2014,

Literacy Plan, p. 5). Furthermore, nine percent of that 39% described this item as not

addressed, showing concerns of how teachers perceived writing instruction. The second

item, Block One, Part E, literacy instruction is optimized in all content areas, further

demonstrated the lack of use of writing instruction across the curriculum (GaDOE, 2014,

Literacy Plan, p. 7). Fifty-one percent of teachers described a lack of literacy instruction

across the curriculum, and 10% noted this item was not addressed (GaDOE, 2014

Literacy Plan, p. 7). This item showed a lack of use of narrative, informational, and

argumentative writing strategies in content area classrooms (GaDOE, 2014, Literacy,

Plan, p. 7). The third item, Block Two, Part B, teachers provide literacy instruction

across the curriculum, further described the perceptions of teachers and reinforced the

idea of literacy as the domain of the ELA department. Forty-eight percent of teachers felt

that writing literacy only occurred in ELA classrooms, with nine percent noting that

instruction was not guided by a comprehensive language arts program and implemented

across the curriculum (GaDOE, 2014, Literacy Plan, p. 10). The final item that

demonstrated a lack of teacher understanding of writing literacy across the curriculum

and further highlighted teacher perceptions of writing instruction was Block Four, Part B,

all students receive effective writing instruction across the curriculum (GaDOE, 2014,

Literacy Plan, p. 17). Forty-seven percent of teachers described this item as “emergent,”

and, of that percentage, 7% described the item as not addressed (GaDOE, 2014, Literacy

Plan, p. 18). Teachers noted that they were beginning to develop a plan for writing

instruction across the curriculum but reinforced that the perception of writing was only

taught by ELA teachers (GaDOE, 2014, Literacy Plan, p. 18). These items demonstrated

teachers’ perceptions of writing at the time of SRCL grant application. Accordingly,

each of these items illustrated a need for better understanding of literacy instructional

strategies and content area teachers’ role in writing instruction. The needs assessment

survey also demonstrated a gap in the knowledge base of the faculty of the participating

school and provided a need to understand current perceptions.

Implementation of Grant

In order to understand how teachers perceived and utilized writing instruction as a

result of implementation of resources from the SRCL grant, use of strategies that the

participating high school planned to employ required consideration as a response to

improve areas of need. As a part of the school literacy plan, HSLT described different

strategies that would be implemented as a response to teachers’ perception of writing

instruction across the curriculum and the ability to implement writing strategies in the

classroom. A key aspect of planned intervention was the focus on importance of writing

and writing instruction across the curriculum (GaDOE, 2014, Literacy Plan, p.

6). During the first year of implementation, faculty at the participating school

participated in a two-day summer professional development, which focused on research-

based literacy and writing instructional strategies that could be used across the

curriculum. The literacy plan called for additional professional learning centered around

writing instructional strategies, implementation of consistent daily literacy activities

across the curriculum including journal writing, research papers, and document-based

questions in order to improve literacy (GaDOE, 2014, Literacy Plan, p. 6). Furthermore,

the HSLT planned to increase the amount of time students were exposed to literacy

activities during the day and described a focus on reading and writing as an “integral part

of learning in every class every day” (GaDOE, 2014, Literacy Plan, p. 7). The HSLT at

the participating school included different strategies and professional development in the

high school literacy plan in order to achieve the goals of the SRCL grant and state

literacy plan. However, teacher confidence and buy-in were required to implement

literacy and writing instructional strategies across the curriculum effectively.

Summary

Writing is a critical skill for students to possess in both the academic and business

worlds. Writing can be an effective tool to develop content understanding and a major

factor in hiring and promoting based on the ability to communicate effectively. Writing

is a critical ability and potentially greatly influences learning. Despite the importance of

writing in relation to learning and the academic and business worlds, many educators and

business leaders discerned a deficit of K-12 and college level students’ writing ability.

The national writing assessment, NAEP, reinforced this perception and revealed that only

24% of students in Grade 12 were proficient writers and ready for the writing rigors of

college and the business world. At the state level, Georgia Milestones data further

reinforced the perception of student writing deficits as a vast majority of students scored

in the lower two levels and required increased academic support. As a result of the

importance of writing and the perceived lack of student writing proficiencies, writing

instruction is a critical component in classrooms. However, teachers’ self-perceptions of

their role and confidence as writers directly influences willingness and ability to teach

writing in content area classrooms. Teachers across content areas share the responsibility

for addressing the deficit in student writing ability. Based on prior research of teachers’

perceptions, the common belief of ELA ownership, or writing instruction as solely the

responsibility of English teachers, not the role of the content teacher, was a predominant

belief among secondary and post-secondary teachers. Many teachers do not view the

teaching of writing as part of their jobs and, therefore, lack buy-in or willingness to

implement strategies. One factor that contributed to content teachers’ lack of buy-in is

their self-efficacy, or confidence, as writers. Professional development could have a

positive effect on teacher confidence through providing teachers writing instructional

strategies for content area classrooms. The purpose of the study was to investigate

teachers’ perceptions, confidence, and use of writing instructional strategies in content

area classrooms at the end of implementation of the five-year SRCL grant.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

With the dawn of the 21st century, writing remains a critical component of the

business world and K-12 through postsecondary classrooms (NCW, 2004). Business

leaders and educators each stressed the importance of the ability to clearly communicate

ideas through written words. Despite the importance of writing, students’ writing

performance has been a longstanding concern; therefore, the need for improved writing

instruction has remained a desire throughout the history of education in the United States

(McLeod, 2001; Russell, 1994). However, teacher buy-in and willingness to implement

writing tasks and strategies are required for improved writing instruction (Atwell, 1998;

Calkins, 1993; Graves, 1990; Romano, 2007; Susi, 1984). Teacher buy-in and

understanding of literacy instruction at the participating high school presented a problem

based on analysis of the needs assessment survey, which was completed at the time of

SRCL grant application in 2014. The HSLT described a “lack of understanding of the

role literacy plays in all content areas and a perception that literacy is confined to the

ELA classroom” (GaDOE, 2014, p. 3). This issue of a lack of understanding of content

area teachers’ role in literacy instruction was prevalent at the time of grant application

and could potentially influence student writing development beyond the life of the grant.

The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions, confidence,

and use of writing instructional strategies in content area classrooms at the end of

implementation of the five-year SRCL grant. The researcher chose an explanatory

sequential mixed method as the research design in order to explore this problem. This

design allowed for quantitative data to be collected and utilized to inform the qualitative

instrument and implementation. The population for the study consisted of 57 certified

faculty members. This study took place at a rural Georgia high school at the end of the

five-year SRCL grant. The student body enrollment was over 800. The data instrument

utilized for Phase 1, the quantitative phase, comprised of a survey that reflected key

aspects of the original needs assessment survey conducted by the HSLT of the

participating school at the time of SRCL grant application. Permission was obtained

from the GaDOE to utilize items from the needs assessment survey. The Phase 1 survey

was administered to the entire faculty of the participating high school. Quantitative

analysis of the data consisted of the use of Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) version 25 through a descriptive statistics approach, which allowed for the

discovery of trends in the data. Descriptive statistics allowed for comparison and

correlation of data results to survey data collected from initial needs assessment survey

conducted during SRCL grant application. Phase 2 of the study consisted of semi-

structured interview and participant lesson plan document protocols. These protocol

instruments were used to delve deeper into trends revealed through analysis of survey

data. Qualitative data were analyzed through a phenomenological lens in order to focus

on the trends that emerged during Phase 1.

Research Questions

The overarching research focus for this study centered on content area teachers’

perceptions as instructors of writing and their perceptions of writing instruction strategies

used in their classrooms. The specific questions for this research study were

1. How do content area teachers perceive their role as instructors of writing?

2. How do teachers perceive their confidence and knowledge of writing instruction?

3. How are content area teachers implementing writing instruction strategies?

Research Design

For the study, an explanatory sequential mixed methods design was the chosen

research design as the best means to utilize and integrate both quantitative and qualitative

data sources, which, when analyzed together, provided a more detailed understanding of

teachers’ perceptions of writing and writing instruction implementation (Creswell,

2012). In this design, the researcher “first collects and analyzes quantitative data, then

the findings inform qualitative data collection and analysis” (Fetters et al., 2013, p.

2136). Figure 3 illustrated the relationship between the quantitative phase of data

collection and analysis and the qualitative phase of data collection and analysis. The

qualitative phase followed the quantitative phase in order to inform and elaborate on

results from the quantitative phase (Creswell, 2012). Data interpretation occurred after

quantitative data analysis and after qualitative data analysis. The final aspect of this

design was the integration of results, in which both the quantitative and qualitative data

were integrated and analyzed (Creswell, 2012; Fetters & Freshwater, 2015). Integration

of the data occurred through a narrative approach at the reporting level once all data were

analyzed. Creswell noted the importance of how the researcher “explicitly combines or

mixes the two data sets” as a key characteristic of mixed methods research (Creswell,

2012, p. 557). Therefore, the design allowed for quantitative findings to be presented

first, followed by the qualitative findings, and finally, the findings were integrated

(Fetters & Freshwater, 2015). This design allowed the researcher to utilize survey

participants as possible interview participants during the qualitative phase of the

study. Also, this design allowed the researcher to use qualitative interviews to elaborate

and reinforce the quantitative survey findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Through

the use of both quantitative and qualitative data, the researcher gained a more detailed

understanding of the phenomenon of teachers’ perceptions than through the use of only

one method (Creswell, 2012).

Quantitative Data

Collection and

Analysis

Qualitative Data

Collection and Analysis

Interpretation

Integration of data at the

reporting level through a

narrative approach

Figure 3. Visual representation of the study. The study design of the relationship

between quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis and mixed methods

integration (Creswell, 2012).

Population

The setting of the study took place at a rural Georgia high school with a student

enrollment of over 800 students. The target population was all certified faculty members

of the participating high school during the 2018-19 school year. Therefore, the accessible

population, the population to which the researcher had access, was all certified staff at the

participating high school, from which 57 certified teachers participated. Administrators,

non-certified staff, and district personnel were omitted from the population as the purpose

of the study was to understand content area classroom teachers’ perceptions and use of

writing in content area classroom instruction.

Summary of Method Procedures

The methodological approach of the explanatory sequential design allowed for a

clear and defined organization through separation and identification of the quantitative

and qualitative aspects of the study (Creswell, 2012). The purpose of the study was to

understand teachers’ perceptions of writing and use of writing instruction in the

classroom, and the study was divided into two phases: (a) quantitative data collection and

analysis and (b) qualitative data collection and analysis. During Phase 1, the researcher

administered a survey through Google Forms with the accessible population, the certified

faculty of the participating high school. The survey was distributed by an email that

described the purpose and information concerning the survey through faculty email. The

survey consisted of four parts: (a) teacher demographics, (b) SRCL abbreviated needs

assessment survey, (c) teachers’ perceptions, and (d) teachers’ use of writing instruction.

Informed consent was required for the participant to complete the survey. The purpose of

the survey was to gain an understanding of overall teacher perceptions of writing and

how writing instruction was implemented across the curriculum. Once the survey data

were collected, the data were analyzed through a descriptive statistics approach with

SPSS version 25. The survey consisted of 15 items from the Georgia SRCL needs

assessment survey, and an analysis was conducted using a line-item percentage

comparison. In addition, survey data analysis also consisted of a cross-tabulation using

demographic variables. Experience, grade level, gender, subjects currently taught, and

the highest degree earned were analyzed in order to determine frequency counts for

participant responses by these variables. Trends in the survey data were noted in order to

be compared to the qualitative data and informed the interview protocol of Phase 2

through the development of follow-up questions. Furthermore, Phase 2 consisted of

interviews of eight participants who were selected through a stratified sampling of survey

participants and interview participant submitted lesson plan documents. This sampling

technique allowed the researcher to ensure that each of the content sub areas, (a) ELA,

(b) math, (c) science, and (d) social studies, were equally represented. In order to invite

participants to the interview, an email invitation was sent to the selected participants.

This email contained information that described the interview process and requirements.

Furthermore, the email contained attachments of the informed consent form and

interview protocol for the interview participants to review prior to the session. The

purpose of the interview process was to gain an understanding of personal experiences

and perceptions of writing and writing instruction in content area classroom. The

interviews were conducted personally by the researcher at a time and place convenient

for the interview participant. The interviews were transcribed by the principal researcher.

The transcription process consisted of two phases: initial transcription and review.

Following initial transcription, the principal researcher reviewed the transcript for typos

and ensured the transcript matched the audio recording. As a final aspect of review, the

interview participant reviewed the transcript to ensure accuracy. The researcher

conducted the qualitative data analysis through a phenomenology lens, which allowed for

analysis of the data thematically. Emergent themes were noted through analysis of the

textual data of the interview transcripts and lesson plan documents, which were coded

through two waves. The first wave of data analysis consisted of the researcher reviewing

each transcript and creating initial codes that related to the teachers’ perceptions of

writing, as a writer, and the use of writing during instruction. The researcher created a

codebook to organize and note the meaning of reoccurring ideas and concepts. The

second wave of analysis included combining codes into themes. The personal

experiences and themes from Phase 2 were integrated into the survey data collected in

Phase 1, and both data sources were mixed and interpreted based on overall common

themes and trends, using a narrative approach. The findings of the study were presented

based on themes that integrated both quantitative and qualitative data analysis. The

themes and personal experiences collected during Phase 2 provided details and a more

thorough understanding of the trends identified through analysis of survey data.

Phase 1: Quantitative

Participants

Because the entire population of the participating school were potential

participants, there was no sampling method required. The researcher created the

quantitative survey instrument available in an online format through Google Forms and

was made accessible to the population through a website link, which was delivered

through district email. The email invitation (see Appendix B) to complete the survey

consisted of the purpose of the survey and a description of the survey. Members of the

population had the opportunity to participate voluntarily and complete the survey.

Furthermore, a description was included at the beginning of the quantitative instrument

that outlined the goal, purpose, and significance of the study in order to obtain informed

consent from the participants who completed the survey. Participants were required to

acknowledge informed consent (see Appendix A) before beginning the survey by

selecting “accept” or “decline.” Those participants who accepted were allowed to

continue to the survey, and those participants who declined were given the option to

submit and end the survey. The recipients received a week to complete the 34-question

survey. The desired response rate, as noted by Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2012), was

50%, with any percentage above adding to confidence of the findings. In order to

achieve this percentage, a plan for follow-up surveys consisted of program created

invitations sent to those individuals who did not complete the survey within one week.

Quantitative data analysis began once the 50% response rate threshold was reached.

Instrument

The survey was divided into four parts: (a) teacher demographics, (b) SRCL

abbreviated needs assessment survey, (c) teachers’ perceptions, and (d) teachers’ use of

writing instruction. Before the participants could access the survey, the first screen

displayed the informed consent with two options: “accept” and “decline.” Those

participants who accepted were allowed to continue to the survey, and those participants

who declined were given the option to submit and end the survey. Part 1 of the survey

instrument consisted of demographic information, which included number of years of

experience, grade level, gender, subjects currently taught, and the highest degree earned.

Part 2 of the quantitative instrument was characterized as a trend survey in order to

“examine changes over time in a particular population defined by some particular trait”

(Gay et al., 2012, p. 185). Part 2 consisted of 15 questions derived from the GaDOE

needs assessment survey. The GaDOE created the needs assessment survey as a

component of SRCL grant qualification, and the responses included a Likert scale

consisting of (a) fully operational, (b) operational, (c) emergent, and (d) not addressed.

Fully operational signified that the item was completely implemented in the operation of

the school. Operational described that the item was in the beginning stages of

implementation. Emergent signifies that the item was in the preliminary or planning

stages before implementation. Not addressed signified that the item was not currently

implemented in the operation of the school. The purpose of Part 2 was to gain data

concerning teachers’ perceptions, which was compared to the previous administration of

the needs assessment survey in 2014. As demonstrated in Table 2, the research questions

of the study were used to identify and select items from the needs assessment survey that

aligned to the research study purpose; therefore, the entirety of the survey was not used.

The original needs assessment survey was divided into six sections, or blocks, and the

numbering of the items in Part 2 of the survey remained consistent with the original

needs assessment survey.

Table 2

Item Analysis of Part 2 of the Quantitative Survey

Item

Literature

Research

Question

1.a. Administrator demonstrates commitment to

Gillespie, Graham,

learn about and support evidence-based literacy

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

instruction in his/her school.

2014

1.b. A school literacy leadership team organized

GaDOE, 2010

by the administrator is active.

1.C. The effective use of time and personnel is

GaDOE, 2010

leveraged through scheduling and collaborative

planning (6-12).

1.D. A school culture exists in which teachers

Gillespie, Graham,

1, 3

across the content areas accept responsibility for

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

literacy instruction as articulated in the Common

2014

Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS).

1.E. Literacy instruction is optimized in all

Gillespie, Graham,

1, 3

content areas.

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

2014

2.A. Active collaborative school teams ensure a

Gillespie, Graham,

consistent literacy focus across the curriculum.

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

2014

2.B. Teachers provide literacy instruction across

Gillespie, Graham,

1, 3

the curriculum.

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

2014

3.a. An infrastructure for ongoing formative and

Gillespie, Graham,

summative assessments is in place to determine

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

the need for and the intensity of interventions

2014

and to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction.

3. D. Summative data is used to make

Gillespie, Graham,

programming decisions as well as to monitor

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

individual student progress.

2014

Table 2 (continued)

Item

Literature

Research

Question

3.E. A clearly articulated strategy for using data

Gillespie, Graham,

to improve teaching and learning is followed.

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

2014

4.a.2. All students receive direct, explicit

Gillespie, Graham,

instruction in reading and writing.

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

2014

4.A.5. Extended time is provided for literacy

Gillespie, Graham,

instruction.

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

2014; Troia et al., 2011

4. B.1. All students receive effective writing

Gillespie, Graham,

1, 3

instruction across the curriculum.

Kiuhara, & Hebert,

2014

4.C. Teachers are intentional in efforts to

GaDOE, 2010

1, 3

develop and maintain interest and engagement as

students’ progress through school.

6.B. In-service personnel participate in ongoing

Bifuh-Ambe, 2013

professional learning in all aspects of literacy

instruction including disciplinary literacy in the

content areas.

Part 3 of the survey consisted of 19 questions that related to teachers’ perceptions

of writing in content area classrooms. Survey questions were developed by the

researcher based on the following five topics: (a) teacher writing instruction practices, (b)

teachers’ personal writing practices, (c) teacher confidence in writing, (d) teacher beliefs,

and (e) experience with professional development in writing. As demonstrated in Table

3, each topic reflected an aspect of the research questions that guided the study.

Timeliness was also considered in the development of the number of items for Part 3.

The briefness of questions during Part 3 was a method to improve response rate, as

teachers would have end of school year responsibilities and would be less likely to

participate in a long, time consuming survey. A Likert scale, consisting of (a) Strongly

Agree, (b) Agree, (c) Disagree, and (d) Strongly Disagree, was used to score survey

items. Information gained from Part 3 of the survey concerning teachers’ perceptions

was used to create follow up questions for the Phase 2 interview protocol.

Table 3

Item Analysis of Part 3 of Quantitative Survey

Item

Literature

Research

Question

1. I enjoy teaching writing.

2. I take time to instruct students

on how to specifically write in

my content area.

3. A teacher has to be a good

writer to teach writing.

4. Essay writing is difficult to

implement and not important in

my class.

5. Writing should be

incorporated in all classes.

6. Teachers in my content area

do not have to be good writers.

7. Content area classes should

focus on content and not writing.

8. Writing instruction should

occur mainly in ELA

classrooms.

9. There is not enough time to

teach writing and content

material.

10. I feel confident enough in

my writing ability to critique

another person’s writing.

11. I feel confident in my ability

to clearly express my ideas in

writing.

12. I don’t think I am as good of

a writer as others.

13. I have difficulty organizing

my thoughts and ideas when I

write.

14. I think journal writing is a

great way to keep up with

thoughts.

Lewis & Sanchez, 2014; Bifuh-Ambe,

2013

Bifuh-Ambe, 2013

Curtis, 2017

Lewis & Sanchez, 2014

1, 2

Hanstedt, 2012; Mcleod, 2001; NCTE,

2011; Russell, 1990

Hanstedt, 2012

Hanstedt, 2012; Mcleod, 2001; NCTE,

2011; Russell, 1990

NCTE, 2011; Russell, 1990

Hanstedt, 2012;

Lewis & Sanchez, 2014

Bifuh-Ambe, 2013

Lewis & Sanchez, 2014

1, 2

Curtis, 2017

Table 3 (continued)

Item

Literature

Research

Question

15. I avoid writing at all costs.

Lewis & Sanchez, 2014

16. I enjoy writing in my spare

Lewis & Sanchez, 2014; Bifuh-Ambe,

time.

2013

17. Expressing my ideas through

Curtis, 2017

writing seems to be a waste of

time.

18. There are professional

Bifuh-Ambe, 2013

development opportunities

available for content area writing

instruction.

19. I do not need instruction in

Bifuh-Ambe, 2013

writing.

Part 4 of the survey consisted of one item, which related to teachers’ use of

writing instruction and writing tasks in content area classrooms. The survey item was

developed by the researcher based on common writing instruction strategies and tasks

(Atwell, 1994; Gillespie et al., 2014; Troia et al., 2011). As demonstrated in Table 4, the

item reflected an aspect of the research questions that guided the study. The item

consisted of a list of writing strategies and tasks for the participants to denote their

current writing instruction practices. The purpose of Part 4 was to determine which tasks

and strategies were used during content area instruction, and these findings informed

interview follow-up questions.

Table 4

Item Analysis of Part 4 of Quantitative Survey

Item

Literature

Research

Question

Please mark the following

Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara, &

strategies you use during

Hebert, 2014; Troia et al., 2011

instruction:

Data collection consisted of implementation of the quantitative survey instrument

through the use of an online format, Google Forms, which allowed the respondents to

complete and submit the survey at their convenience. Google Forms was chosen because

of researcher familiarity with the platform and settings that allowed the researcher to

control the setup of the survey. The settings also allowed for the initial screen to display

the informed consent. The platform also gave options to direct where the form sent the

participant based on the answer. Those participants who chose “accept” were taken to

Part 1 of the survey. Those participants who chose “decline” were given the option to

submit and end participation. Potential respondents of the population of the participating

school received an email with the Google Forms website link through the district email

service and had one week to respond. The email, which contained a description of the

purpose of the study and information concerning the survey, was sent to the entire faculty

of the participating high school. The researcher collected the responses, which were

compiled into a spreadsheet through an aspect of Google Forms platform. The

spreadsheet compiling component of Google Forms provided another benefit that led to

the utilization of the platform over other options. The spreadsheet showed line item

responses to each survey question in a format that could be uploaded into SPSS.

Anonymity of the respondents was ensured as respondent email addresses were not

collected as means of identification.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted in order to ascertain the content validity of the

survey instrument. The pilot study was conducted prior to the implementation of the

study and consisted of four participants. Participants of the pilot study consisted of two

administrators and two guidance counselors and were selected through selective sampling

based on their expertise in the educational field, prior content area classroom teaching

experience, and classroom observation experience. Participation in the pilot study was

voluntary, and the participants were not members of the target population. Participant

recruitment consisted of in-person requests by the principal researcher in order to discuss

the reasons for the pilot study, time commitment, and goals. During implementation of

the pilot study, participants were gathered in a conference room and received a packet

that consisted of a recruitment email, informed consent form for the pilot study, and a

hard copy of the survey instrument. First, the participants were required to read and

acknowledge the informed consent form in order to continue with their participation in

the pilot study. Next, the participants read the email invitation and provided feedback

concerning understandability and grammar. Finally, the participants read and answered

each of the survey questions on the hard copy survey. They were encouraged to make

comments in the margins and provide feedback concerning understandability, directions,

and overall effectiveness of the instrument. Once participants completed the survey and

provided feedback, their role in the study concluded.

Despite the pilot participants not being current classroom teachers, the pilot study

sample provided effective and detailed feedback on the recruitment email, informed

consent form, and survey instrument. The participants provided written and verbal

feedback concerning all aspects of the study. Minor changes were made to the

recruitment email in order to clarify phrasing and grammar. Upon verbal conversations

with the participants, the informed consent form was described as effective in informing

the participants of their role and rights in the study. Based on each participant’s survey

submission, minor changes were made to the survey instrument in order ensure clarity of

the survey items. Feedback also ensured data collected through the survey instrument

could answer the intended research questions and purpose of the study.

Data Analysis

Survey data were analyzed through a descriptive statistics approach using SPSS,

which was produced and distributed by IBM. The approach consisted of analysis of basic

information about the participants and a statistical analysis of responses based on numeric

values (Gay et al., 2012). The researcher also compiled categorical data concerning years

of experience, content and grade level taught, gender, and educational experience.

First, the data results were compared with the initial administration of the needs

assessment survey that the participating school conducted in 2014 during the application

process. The analysis was made using on a line-item percentage to compare with the

results from the 2014 needs assessment survey results. Only the 15 items of the needs

assessment survey that related to the purpose of the study were compared. Through this

analysis of specific items, changes in the percentages were noted in relation to the

changes of teachers’ perceptions of writing. Second, survey data analysis consisted of a

cross-tabulation analysis using the demographic variables, which included experience,

grade level, gender, subjects currently taught, and the highest degree earned. Trends

related to teachers’ perceptions and use of writing were noted by the researcher through

the use of note cards. Statistical data results were recorded on note cards and then

divided based on research questions. Trends were then formulated based on analysis of

data corresponding to each research question. The understandings and trends regarding

teachers’ perceptions gained from the needs assessment correlation analysis and cross-

tabulation of demographics were further utilized to guide Phase 2 of the study.

Phase 2: Qualitative

Participants

Participants for Phase 2, the qualitative phase, were selected from the participants

of Phase 1. The desired sample size for Phase 2 was eight participants who were selected

through a stratified sampling process drawing from the respondents of the Phase 1

survey. The stratified sampling technique was non-proportional in that each of the four

subgroups were given equal representation instead of a population percentage of the

subgroups (Gay et al., 2012). This sampling was desired as a means to prevent one

content area from dominating the data. The researcher desired eight participants across

the following four academic content areas: (a) ELA, (b) math, (c) science, and (d) social

studies, and two participants were selected from each subgroup. The stratified sampling

technique allowed for a balanced and equal sample based on four content areas. Other

sampling techniques, like random sampling, would not guarantee an equal sampling

representation among the different content areas. Stratified sampling, therefore,

prevented over representation with one subgroup dominating the qualitative data. This

sampling technique also ensured that each subject area had equal opportunity to provide

perspectives specific to that content area, and thus created a varied and rich description of

teacher perceptions of writing. In order to form the sample, the researcher first identified

the sample size (n = 8) and subgroups, (a) ELA, (b) math, (c) science, and (d) social

studies. Members of each subgroup were classified based on the content area taught and

randomly selected to participate in individual, semi-structured interviews. The purpose

of randomly selected participants in Phase 2 was to eliminate researcher bias, and taking

this approach prevented the researcher from choosing participants who shared a certain

point of view, which would have skewed data results. Randomization ensured and

provided an unbiased representation of teacher perceptions. Participants of Phase 2 were

chosen through a randomized drawing of names, which was available only to the

researcher. The names of each participant who completed the survey from Phase 1 were

written on a notecard and placed into a container separated by content area taught. Two

names were blindly drawn from each container in order to ensure randomization. Names

of the randomly chosen interviewees were changed through the use of pseudonyms in

order to ensure anonymity of the participants. The interviews were voluntary, and, if an

individual chose not to participate in the interview aspect of the study, another name was

drawn. Those participants who were selected for Phase 2 were informed through an

email letter (see Appendix B), which described the interview process and requirements.

Furthermore, the email contained the informed consent (see Appendix A) and interview

protocol (see Appendix F) for the interview participants’ review prior to the session.

Also contained in the email was a request to bring four to five lesson plans for the

document analysis portion of the study.

Instruments

In order to improve trustworthiness of the data, two qualitative instruments were

utilized: (a) interview protocol and (b) lesson plan document analysis protocol. The

purpose of the qualitative instruments was to collect data that explained and elaborated

on the understandings gained from Phase 1 by providing individual and personalized

experiences (Creswell, 2012). The first instrument utilized was individual, semi-

structured interviews that consisted of 14 questions, in addition to probing questions that

allowed flexibility for more in-depth exploration of topics that became apparent during

the interview (Hayes & Singh, 2012). With the interview as semi-structured, the

researcher developed an interview protocol to ensure consistency, but the researcher had

the freedom to control the pace, sequence, and content of the interview through the use of

additional interview questions that better allowed the interviewee the opportunity to

provide a detailed account and description of the experience (Hayes & Singh, 2012).

This interview protocol provided a format and structure to the interview and ensured

continuity between interviews. The second instrument utilized was interview participant

lesson plan documents, which detailed strategies and activities used during instruction. A

document analysis protocol was created in order to provide for continuity during

document analysis. The document analysis protocol ensured that the same information

and topics were analyzed among all documents. The analysis of lesson plans could

collaborate the data gained from the survey and interview of writing strategies used in the

classroom. In order to ensure the most accurate and useful lesson plan data were

collected, interview participants were asked to bring four to five lesson plans of their

choice that reflected their use of writing instruction to the interview session. The lesson

plans collected were from the 2018-2019 school year, in order to demonstrate a current

use of writing instructional strategies.

This interview approach was chosen over a focus group approach as teachers in a

group would be more likely to agree with other as a result of “group conformity” (Hayes

& Singh, 2012, p. 254). Also, teachers would be less likely to be candid with their

thoughts concerning writing and writing instructional practices when in a focus group

setting with co-workers. Individualized interviews allowed for an environment

conducive to eliciting genuine responses through established interview rapport (Hayes &

Singh, 2012).

As described in Table 5, the interview protocol was created by the researcher

through two phases. An initial protocol was developed that consisted of 14 questions

with additional probing questions. Interview questions consisted of background

questions to provide a demographic understanding of the participant. Further questions

consisted of opinion and feeling questions in order to gain an understanding of

participants’ perceptions of writing (Hayes & Singh, 2012). Knowledge questions were

asked to gain an understanding of the participants’ writing instructional practices and

examples of writing strategies implemented during classroom instruction (Hayes &

Singh, 2012). Probing questions further allowed the researcher to gain greater detail in

understanding teachers’ writing instruction practices. The questions were based on the

four parts of the quantitative instrument: (a) teacher demographics, (b) SRCL abbreviated

needs assessment survey, (c) teachers’ perceptions, and (d) teachers’ use of writing

instruction. These parts allowed for continuity during data collection and analysis and

ensured that qualitative data would reinforce and elaborate on the quantitative data

through personal explanations and experiences.

Table 5

Item Analysis of Qualitative Instrument

Item

Literature

Interview

Research

Question

Amount of time

Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara, & Hebert,

writing

2014

A good writer

Curtis, 2017; Troia et al., 2011

2,3

Use of writing

Curtis, 2017

instruction

How often writing

Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara, & Hebert,

2, 3

instruction

2014

Writing effectiveness

Curtis, 2017; Troia et al., 2011

Teacher writing

Curtis, 2017

confidence

Writing strategies

Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara, & Hebert,

2014

Teacher confidence

Curtis, 2017; Mcleod, 2001; NCTE,

1, 2

and teaching writing

2011; Russell, 1990

Content area Teacher

Mcleod, 2001; NCTE, 2011; Russell,

role in teaching

1990

writing

Professional

Bifuh-Ambe, 2013

development

Writing in content

Mcleod, 2001; NCTE, 2011; Russell,

areas

1990

Improvement of

Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara, & Hebert,

2, 3

writing

2014

Professional

Bifuh-Ambe, 2013

development benefit

The second phase of the interview protocol development utilized the findings of

the Phase 1 quantitative data analysis. The trends that emerged from the data helped to

inform the final version of the qualitative interview protocol. Through the

understandings gained with analysis of the quantitative data collected from the survey

instrument, the interview protocol questions better elaborated on the trends of the

quantitative data. More specific focus and probing questions were added to the protocol

in order to increase validity of the instrument. The final version of the interview protocol

consisted of questions to gain a complete understanding of teachers’ perceptions or the

role of writing in content areas and specific writing strategies used during instruction.

The development of an interview protocol was then created using the qualitative

interview instrument in order to systematically guide the collection of data. The protocol

consisted of a step-by-step format of the practice of conducting individual interviews.

The interview protocol described the consent process, pre-interview elements, during

interview routine and questions, probes for discussion, and materials and supplies. The

use of this protocol ensured continuity among interviews and the collection of accurate

and appropriate data. The interview protocol also included a field notes form to

accompany the interview transcript. This form was utilized by the researcher to reflect

on the interview immediately at the conclusion of the session. The field notes form

consisted of (a) impression of interviewee, (b) general reflections of the interview, (c)

special requests that require follow up, and (d) summary of interview. The first section

of the field notes, impression of interviewee, allowed the interviewer to make note of

gestures, body language, and mannerisms of the interviewee that would not be noted by

the interview transcript. The second section of the field notes required the interviewer to

make general reflections about the interview. This section would allow the researcher to

make note of important information and overall connections and understandings of the

interview at the end of the session. The third section allowed for noted requests of

transcripts and other information to ensure fidelity of requests. The final section,

summary of interview, allowed the interview to create a brief abstract of the interview to

aid in recollection during data analysis and integration. This form was meant to

accompany the interview transcript and provide the researcher with personal notes to

provide additional information during data analysis.

The second qualitative instrument consisted of examining lesson plans as records

of the interview participants’ instructional strategies. When an interview date and time

were agreed upon, the interview participant was asked to bring four or five lesson plans

that showed examples of how the teacher used writing instruction in their classrooms.

The participants were asked that these lesson plans come from the fall and spring

semesters of the 2018-2019 school year. This timeframe ensure that the lesson plans

were current and would give teachers an ample time period to select the lessons. Four to

five lesson plans would ensure an appropriate sample size that could display how the

participating teachers utilized writing in their content area classrooms. By allowing the

participants to choose which lesson plans to submit, they had the ability to produce plans

that showed what they thought content area writing looked like. The purpose of this

study was to determine how content area writers perceived writing instruction in content

areas. The purpose of collecting the lesson plan documents at the time of interview was

to gain an understanding of writing instructional strategies in use during content area

instruction. However, limitations did exist with the use of this instrument. First, the

lesson plans may not have reflected what was actually implemented in the classroom.

Lesson plans may not have been updated to reflect changes in instruction. Also, lesson

plans may lack detailed descriptions of how writing instructional strategies were

implemented. Through allowing the participants to select the lesson plans, the impact of

these limitations would be minimized and applicable data would more likely be

submitted. Despite these limitations, this instrument was used to reinforce data accuracy

through triangulation and indicate the number of uses of strategies discussed during the

interview. This instrument added another layer of detail to the qualitative understanding

of the quantitative data. The lesson plans corroborated the descriptions of the writing

strategies during the interview session, what content area teachers view as writing

instruction, and noted the occurrences of writing strategies used during instruction.

Although the lesson plans could potentially lack detail, a detailed understanding was

gained through the interview process; therefore, this instrument was an effective

compliment to the first qualitative instrument. Through analysis of the lesson plan

documents, a better understanding of the use of writing instructional strategies in content

area classrooms was ascertained.

Data Collection

Data collection consisted of eight 30-minute to one-hour interviews in which the

researcher and participant discussed the topics being researched. Data saturation, or “the

point in which the data collection process no longer produces any new or relevant data,”

was used to determine the number of interview participants (Dworkin, 2012, p. 1319).

Participants were met individually and at a time and place of their choosing to ensure

their comfort during the interview process. At the beginning of each interview session,

the participants were briefed on the purpose, significance of the study, major topics, and

interviewee rights. The participants acknowledged their understanding with a signature

on the informed consent form in order for the interview process to proceed. The

participants were also informed that a digital recorder would be used in order to provide

an accurate transcription of the interview. The digital recorder was a small, handheld

device with abundant internal storage to ensure the entirety of the interview would be

captured. Each participant was made verbally aware when the recorder was recording

and was allowed the opportunity to pause recording if needed. The interviewer utilized

the interview protocol as a means to stay consistent between interviews and ensured the

interviewee was judiciously informed of the interview process. Upon completion of the

interview, the recorded aspect of the session was transferred to computer as a digital file

in order to be transcribed. The transcription process was conducted by the principal

researcher and consisted of two phases: initial transcription and review. Following initial

transcription, the principal researcher reviewed the transcript for typos and ensured the

transcript matched the audio recording. As a final aspect of review, the interview

participant reviewed the transcript to ensure accuracy. Once an interview was

transcribed, analysis of the data was conducted before the next scheduled interview.

Lesson plans were also acquired at the time of interview and were analyzed at the same

time as the corresponding interview. This procedure ensured that pertinent information

from the lesson plans that elaborated or confirmed themes from the interview were not

overlooked or forgotten. The lesson plans also reflected current instructional practices

and coincided with the timeframe that was discussed during the interview.

In order to ensure effective data collection and analysis in systematic and

consistent means, a document analysis protocol was created. This form consisted of the

following sections (a) type of document, (b) dates, and (c) document information. The

first two sections of the document analysis consisted of identification of the lesson plan

document. The final section regarding document information consisted of five questions,

which would be analyzed and answered based on the lesson plan document. The five

questions were (a) What student writing tasks or activities were described in the lesson

plan; (b) How were the writing tasks described; (c) Was the writing task for assessment

or instruction; (d) Did the writing task require cognitive processes of writing or simple

recall; and (e) Evidence or important quotes. These questions provided a framework for

analysis of all lesson plan documents and ensured collection of relevant data pertaining to

the research questions.

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness was addressed through four constructs as described by Guba

(1981) and emphasized by Gay et al. (2012) and Shenton (2004): credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility, as noted by Shenton

(2004), is related to internal validity in that the “study measures or tests what is actually

intended” (p. 64). Credibility was established in four ways: (a) familiarity, (b)

triangulation, (c) honesty of participants, and (d) member checks. Credibility of the study

was reinforced through the familiarity experienced with the participating high school

faculty, which allowed for a deeper understanding of the environment and an increased

amount of trust between the researcher and participants (Shenton, 2004). Triangulation

of data, through the utilization of three different data collection instruments, ensured that

conclusions drawn from data analysis are supported in multiple ways. The inclusion of

participant lesson plans provided an opportunity to cross-check information provided

during the interview process. Further credibility was ensured through the use of member

checks. Member checks related to the accuracy of data were conducted by the interview

participants of the research study. Interview participants were given the opportunity to

review transcripts and analysis of the data for accuracy and ensured their personal

experiences were portrayed correctly.

Transferability, as noted by Shenton (2004), was related to external validity in

that the “extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to other situations” (p.

69). The context of the study was a rural Georgia high school with a small population

consisting of only certified teachers, and generalizability was not the expressed goal of

the study. However, descriptions of the participating high school, background of the

SRCL grant, and other information had been offered in order for the reader to determine

the possibility of transferability (Shenton, 2004). Despite the difficulty of transferability

of the specific context related to the school and teacher backgrounds, other recipients of

the SRCL grant could reproduce the study to provide a wider range understanding of

teachers’ perceptions. Shenton (2004) was quick to note that differences in results would

not be a sign of untrustworthiness due to the difference in contexts and participants.

Dependability related to the idea of reliability, or the understanding that “if a

work were repeated, in the same context, with the same methods, and with the same

participants, similar results would be obtained” (Shenton, 2004, p. 71). In order to

account for dependability in the study, a detailed and systematic description of the

contexts and procedures was included in order to allow for reproduction of the study.

Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative protocols were described in detail and

provided in Appendix E and Appendix F.

The final aspect of trustworthiness was confirmability, or “the qualitative

investigator’s comparable concern for objectivity” (Shenton, 2004, p. 72).

Confirmability related to the researcher’s ability to describe the experiences of the

participants without allowing personal bias and opinions to influence results of data

analysis. Confirmability was established through two means: the use of triangulation of

data and clear acknowledgements of the researcher’s biases and predispositions (Shenton,

2004). Through the use of multiple data points, conclusions drawn from the analysis of

data were informed through a quantitative survey instrument and qualitative instruments

including interview protocol and lesson plan analysis. Each of these three data points

were considered in presenting data results in order to avoid reliance on preconceived

researcher bias.

An important aspect to establish and ensure confirmability is the direct

acknowledgement of researcher bias. As a result of the researcher being a faculty

member of the participating high school and a member of the target population, steps

were taken in order to prevent established researcher bias to influence the data analysis

results. The researcher has taught English composition at the participating high school

for 7 years and held the belief that writing was an important aspect of the learning

process. The researcher further held that writing should be implemented throughout all

content areas as a means to reinforce content understanding. Despite these biases, steps

were taken to prevent undesired influence during data analysis. These steps consisted of

(a) member checking, (b) journaling, and (c) triangulation of data. Interview participants

were given the opportunity to review transcripts and analysis of data for accuracy. The

use of member checking allowed participants to ensure their perceptions and personal

experiences were portrayed with fidelity. Researcher bias was minimized as participants

had the opportunity to view data analysis and conclusion. Journaling, or “reflective

commentary”, provided documentation of researcher observations related to the research

process (Shenton, 2004, p. 68). The researcher used the reflective journal as a means to

make note of impressions and thoughts during data collection and analysis. A notebook

was obtained to record the researcher’s thoughts to ensure acknowledged biases did not

interfere with the data analysis process. During data analysis, the notebook was used to

record feelings, thoughts, experiences, and other insights to ensure transparency. This

process allowed for perceived bias to be explained during data analysis and create a trail

that showed the reflective thoughts that led to the researcher’s conclusions (Ortlipp,

2008). Finally, triangulation of the data provided for improved confirmability through

the use of multiple data sources. Conclusions drawn from multiple data sources reduced

the presence of researcher bias in interpretation of the data.

Data Analysis

The qualitative data analysis process was viewed through a phenomenological

lens, which allowed for analysis of the “data thematically to extract essences and

essentials of participant meanings" (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014, p. 8). Hayes and

Singh (2012) described this approach as a means to “discover and describe the meaning

or essence of participants’ lived experiences, or knowledge” (p. 50). As a result of a

phenomenological approach, the researcher desired to understand the phenomenon of

teachers’ perceptions through participants’ lived experiences. Therefore, a more

emergent data analysis method allowed the researcher to analyze the data and identify

themes as they became evident (Miles et al., 2014). Emergent themes were identified by

reoccurring codes during the data analysis process.

The qualitative data analysis consisted of two waves of coding and development

of emergent themes. The interview protocol document was utilized in data collection to

ensure the uniformity of each interview and also ensured that relevant information was

gained. The researcher began by personally reading each interview transcript

immediately after the session and made reflective notes that noted emergent themes.

After the initial reading of the transcript, codes were created and assigned based on

meaningful topics and ideas within the data. A codebook was created, which listed code

labels from the first wave. The codebook provided readers with an understanding of the

labels and definitions. The codebook was structured based on the description provided

by DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall, and McCulloch (2011): (a) code name/label, (b) full

definition, and (c) example. The codebook allowed the researcher to analyze the raw data

of the transcripts through established codes with a detailed definition that described

criteria for the inclusion of an idea or concept labeled by the code. A second wave of

coding was conducted to make specific note of common themes throughout each of the

transcribed interview texts. During the second wave of analysis, repetition of the codes

were noted through the interviews, and similar codes were combined to form themes.

The researcher then drew comparisons between each of the interviews and noted

examples and descriptions in perceptions and attitudes towards writing. Once themes

were identified, the researcher utilized note cards in order to record and organize critical

quotes and phrases to present the views of the participants faithfully.

Common writing instruction strategies implemented in the classrooms as

described by the participants were analyzed based on lesson plan documents. The lesson

plan documents were collected from interview participants at the time of their interview

sessions and reflected the fall and spring semesters of the 2018-2019 academic year. The

lesson plans were coded along with the respective interview transcripts in order to

maintain continuity in analysis. During the first wave of analysis, codes were established

that related to writing strategies used during classroom instruction. During the second

wave of analysis, occurrence rates of the codes and descriptions of the writing strategies

were recorded. The recursive codes were combined into themes that added to the

understanding of writing use described by the participants during the interview session.

The lesson plan analysis added detail and understanding to the descriptions gained

through the interview process and further confirmed teachers’ use of writing strategies in

content area classrooms.

Mixed Methods Integration

Integration of both quantitative and qualitative measures was conducted at

multiple levels of the study. Fetters et al. (2013) emphasized the importance of

integration of both quantitative and qualitative data at three levels: (a) study design level,

(b) methods level, and (c) integration and reporting level. At the design level, the

researcher utilized the explanatory sequential design that required the researcher to

collect and analyze the quantitative data first. Based on the survey responses and initial

understanding of teacher perceptions of writing, the researcher then created an interview

protocol that elaborated on the understandings generated through previous analysis. The

intent was for the qualitative aspect of the study to elaborate and explain the quantitative

aspect (Fetters et al., 2013). This framework allowed for rich details that made the

quantitative data more valuable through a more detailed understanding of personal

experiences. Also, based on the research design framework, the survey responses of the

population allowed for the influence of the study through the development of the

interview protocol.

Fetters et al. (2013) described the use of four approaches to integrate data at the

methods level: (a) connecting, (b) building, (c) merging, and (d) embedding. For the

purpose of this study, the connecting and building approaches were utilized. At the

methods level, the researcher utilized the idea that data builds upon previous data as

presented by Fetters et al. in order to integrate the quantitative and qualitative data. The

connecting approach of integration was embraced through the selection of the interview

participants from the survey respondents. Therefore, the participants of Phase 1

influenced the selection of participants for Phase 2, in that the randomly selected eight

interview participants were chosen from the Phase 1 participant pool. The building

approach of integration allowed results from one data source (the quantitative) to inform

the data collection of the other source (the qualitative). An important aspect of this

approach was that the qualitative data set reinforced and elaborated on the quantitative

data set (Fetters et al. 2013). In addition, by using a method that allowed for data to build

upon each phase, the understandings and findings of Phase 1 were elaborated and

explained through the qualitative data of Phase 2.

Integration of the quantitative and qualitative data at the interpretation and

reporting level consisted of integration through narrative integration. Fetters et al. (2013)

described this type of integration as one where the quantitative and qualitative findings

are reported together. Fetters et al. further described the weaving approach to narrative

integration. This approach weaved both the quantitative and the qualitative data together

based on a theme by theme basis (Fetters et al., 2013). Through this approach, the

descriptive qualitative themes were presented together with the quantitative statistical

analyses to bring about a better understanding of teachers’ perceptions of writing and use

of writing strategies during classroom instruction. The findings of the study were

presented based on themes that integrated both quantitative and qualitative data analysis.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations were taken into account in order to ensure fair treatment of

the participants of the study and trustworthiness of the reported conclusions. The

following considerations were used (a) institutional review board (IRB), (b) informed

consent, and (c) permission requests. The first ethical consideration consisted of IRB

approval. In order to obtain this approval, the researcher completed an online ethics

course, Research Involving Human Subjects. The course covered concepts that included

reproducibility of research results, authorship, conflicts of interest, data management,

peer review, research misconduct, and plagiarism. In addition to completion of this

course, the researcher was required to submit all documentation, which included

instruments and methodology to ensure correct ethical treatment. The second ethical

consideration, informed consent, ensured interview participants were informed about the

study. Each participant received an informed consent form that described the goals of the

study, the methodology, and rights of the participant. The form also described

participants’ right to refuse participation in the study and further elaborated on their

ability to withdraw from the interview process at any time. Participants who withdrew

their participation were ensured their data up to the point of withdrawal would be deleted

and not used in the study. Additionally, names of the randomly chosen interviewees were

changed through the use of pseudonyms in order to ensure anonymity of the participants.

The final aspect of ethical consideration related to permission (see Appendix D). The

researcher obtained permission from the GADOE in order to use aspects of the SRCL

Needs Assessment survey. The survey was developed by the GaDOE and was a

requirement for the SRCL grant application process.

Limitations and Delimitations

The study was limited due to the possible effect of the target population on

participation and generalizability. With 61 certified teachers at the participating high

school, a small population size could negatively affect the study due to lack of

participation. With a smaller population, the difficulty of obtaining a high survey return

percentage was a concern. The small population size further created a limitation with the

non-proportional stratified sampling technique used to select potential interview

participants. The size of each content area department provided for fewer possible

participants for the qualitative phase. Furthermore, the small population size created an

inability to generalize study results to a greater population. Study results were limited in

that an understanding gained of teachers’ perceptions as writing instructors at the

participating high school will not translate to an understanding of teachers’ perceptions at

other SRCL high schools in the state of Georgia.

The delimitation of the study consisted of the use of the target population.

Despite the limitations a small population size could potentially create, the accessibility

and make-up of the population allowed for great value to the researcher. The entire

desired target population was accessible due to researcher employment with the

participant high school. With the desire to understand teachers’ perceptions of writing at

the participant high school, the researcher communicated and interacted with the

population with ease. Furthermore, the researcher maintained professional connections

and was well known to the population. This professional relationship potentially

increased the population’s willingness to participate in the quantitative and qualitative

aspect of the study.

Summary

The purpose of the study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions, confidence, and

use of writing instructional strategies in content area classrooms at the end of

implementation of the five-year SRCL grant. To answer the research questions, an

explanatory sequential research design was chosen to gather both quantitative and

qualitative data. For Phase 1, quantitative data were collected from the population who

consisted of certified faculty members of the participating high school. A survey

consisting of structured items was created through Google Forms and made available to

the target population in an online format through faculty email. Data analysis consisted

of descriptive statistics to gain a statistical understanding of responses and compared to

the findings of the initial needs assessment survey conducted at the time of SRCL grant

application and a cross-tabulation of responses based on demographic variables. For

Phase 2, qualitative data were collected from respondents from the Phase 1 survey. The

qualitative sample size of eight participants was selected through a non-proportional

stratified sampling process with each of the four academic content areas, ELA, math,

science, and social studies, represented. This sampling ensured equal representation and

prevented one subgroup from dominating the qualitative data and ensured that each

subject area had equal opportunity to provide perspectives specific to that content area.

Furthermore, the participants of Phase 2 were chosen through a randomized drawing of

names, available only to the researcher. The instruments utilized were individual, semi-

structured interview protocol that consisted of 14 questions in addition to probing

questions and a document analysis protocol of the interviewees’ lesson plan data. The

qualitative data analysis consisted of emergent themes and was guided by a

phenomenology approach in order to understand the phenomenon of teachers’

perceptions of writing through their lived experiences. The final aspect of the

explanatory research design was the integration of the quantitative and qualitative data.

This aspect was accomplished through a narrative weaving approach in which both the

quantitative and qualitative findings were combined and discussed together based on

themes.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Introduction

Writing is an important skill for students to possess in order to be competitive in a

global job market, and writing instruction is required in order to curtail a perceived

student writing deficit (McLeod, 2001; Russell, 1994). However, teacher buy-in and

confidence are critical for effective writing instruction to take place (Atwell, 1998;

Calkins, 1993; Graves, 1990; Romano, 2007; Susi, 1984). Teacher buy-in and

understanding of literacy instruction at the participating high school were presented as a

problem based on the HSLT analysis of the needs assessment survey, which was

completed at the time of SRCL grant application in 2014. Based on analysis of the needs

assessment survey, the HSLT described a “lack of understanding of the role literacy plays

in all content areas and a perception that literacy is confined to the English language arts

(ELA) classroom” (GaDOE, 2014, p. 3).

Therefore, the purpose of the study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions,

confidence, and use of writing instructional strategies throughout content areas at the

conclusion of implementation of the five-year SRCL grant. An explanatory sequential

mixed methods research design was chosen to explore this purpose. The research design

consisted of two phases. Phase 1, the quantitative phase, consisted of administering a

survey to all certified faculty members of the participating high school. Participants had

a one-week window to respond. Quantitative data were analyzed through the use of

SPSS and consisted of descriptive statistical analysis and cross-tabulations based on

demographics. The raw survey data were tallied and analyzed in order to inform Phase 2

of the study. Phase 2, the qualitative phase, consisted of interviews and a lesson plan

document analysis. The interview transcription process consisted of two phases: initial

transcription and review. Following initial transcription, the principal researcher

reviewed the transcript for errors and ensured the transcript matched the audio recording.

As a final aspect of review, the interview participant reviewed the transcript to ensure

accuracy. Qualitative data analysis consisted of two waves of coding and development of

emergent themes that related to the research questions. A codebook was created to

provide readers with an understanding of the labels and definitions. The codebook also

provided the principal researcher an organized structure to analyze the raw textual data of

the transcripts. Document analysis of lesson plans was based on a protocol that ensured

all documents were consistently analyzed. A pilot study was conducted prior to

implementation of the study in order to receive feedback concerning the survey

instrument and ensure content validity.

The findings were presented through a mixed methods weaving approach where

both quantitative and qualitative data were reported together in a narrative integration

(Fetters et al., 2013). Further organization of presentation of the findings was based on

emergent themes related to each of the research questions. First, the result of the pilot

study was reported in order to discuss minor changes made to the survey instrument.

Next, the raw data of needs assessment survey items were reported and compared to the

findings of the initial needs assessment survey conducted in 2014. The discussion of the

needs assessment survey through the use of both qualitative and quantitative means

followed. Next, three themes were described in regards to RQ1: (a) minimal role in

teaching writing, (b) ELA ownership, and (c) requirement of teacher buy-in. Two themes

were evident in regards to RQ2: (a) knowledge of content area writing and (b) teacher

self-efficacy as writers. Two themes were evident for RQ3: (a) writing implementation

and (b) writing as summative assessment. Understanding of the themes provided an

overall understanding regarding teachers’ perceptions, confidence, and use of writing

instructional strategies throughout content areas at the conclusion of implementation of

the five-year SRCL grant.

Research Questions

The overarching research focus for this study centered on content area teachers’

perceptions as instructors of writing and their perceptions of writing instruction strategies

used in their classrooms. The specific questions for this research study were:

RQ1. How do content area teachers perceive their role as instructors of writing?

RQ2. How do teachers perceive their confidence and knowledge of writing instruction?

RQ3. How are content area teachers implementing writing instruction strategies?

Participants

The study took place at a small, rural high school in the State of Georgia with a

student enrollment of over 800 students. The school is currently a Title 1 school and

services a low-income population of students. According to NCES, the free and reduced

lunch population of the participating high school for the 2017-2018 school year consisted

of 851 students out of the reported 919, or 92% of the student population (NCES, 2019).

According to 2018 U.S. Census data, the county that the participating high school serves

had a total population of 20,299 with 21.6% in poverty and a median household income

of 40, 269 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018).

During Phase 1 of the study, a quantitative instrument in the form of a survey was

administered to 57 certified faculty members. Of the total population surveyed, 31

teachers submitted responses to the interview for a response rate of 54%. The desired

response rate was 50%. Demographic information was collected at the beginning of the

survey, presented in Table 6, in order to conduct cross-tabulations of survey items and

demographic variables. A majority of respondents were female, which represented

64.5% of respondents and closely resembled 60% of female teachers who comprised the

total population.

Table 6

Frequency Data Regarding Gender of Respondents

Gender

Population

Male

40%

35.5

Female

60%

64.5

Respondents were further broken down by content area, teaching experience, and

grade level taught. Data collected and presented in Table 7 represented all departments,

except physical education, with multiple teachers from each content area responding.

However, 15 respondents came from ELA and Career, Technical, Agricultural Education

(CTAE), which accounted for half of the sample.

Table 7

Frequency Data Regarding Content Area

Total number of

Content area

faculty members in

the content area

Math

16.1

Science

19.4

Social studies

16.1

English language arts

22.6

CTAE

25.8

P.E.

In regards to teaching experience, as presented in Table 8, a majority of

respondents, 38.7%, characterized their teaching experience as 0 to 5 years. Furthermore,

a large part of the respondents, 35.5%, characterized their teaching experience as more

than 20 years. Through analysis, these percentages suggested that teachers at the

beginning and ending of their careers were more apt to complete the survey.

Table 8

Frequency Data Regarding Years of Experience

Years of experience

0-5 years

38.7

6-10 years

12.9

11-15 years

6.5

16-20 years

6.5

21-25 years

12.9

26-30 years

16.1

31+ years

6.5

Respondents were further broken down by grade level taught, as presented in

Table 9. Multiple grade levels could be selected on the survey to consider teachers who

taught multiple grades. Based on demographic information, teachers of freshman,

sophomores, and juniors were equally represented by the respondents. However, only

32.3% of respondents were characterized as teachers of seniors. The sample of survey

respondents provided an accurate representation of the population of certified teachers of

the participating high school.

Table 9

Frequency Data Regarding Grade Level Taught

Demographic Information

Teachers of freshman

61.3

Teachers of Sophomores

61.3

Teachers of Juniors

67.7

Teachers of Seniors

32.3

The interview participants consisted of eight randomly selected respondents of the

Phase 1 survey. The sample consisted of two certified teachers from each of the

following four academic content areas: (a) ELA, (b) math, (c) science, and (d) social

studies. Participants ranged in experience from 3 years to 25 years and had teaching

experience and certification in their content area.

Pilot Study Findings

Prior to implementation of the Phase 1 survey instrument, a pilot study was

conducted to ensure the content validity of the instrument. Participants of the pilot study

consisted of two administrators and two guidance counselors and were selected through

selective sampling based on their expertise in the educational field, prior content area

classroom teaching experience, and classroom observation experience. Based on their

provided feedback, minor changes were made to the instrument. These changes were

presented in Table 10. The phrase “separate from the school leadership team” was added

to Item 1B to clearly differentiate a school literacy team and the school leadership team.

The term “cross-curricular” was added to Item 2A to clarify the type of collaboration the

participants would describe. Finally, the term “schoolwide” as added to Item 3E in order

to clarify what type of strategy was in place. The pilot participants also discovered two

minor errors in the formatting of the survey. The demographic item of “grades currently

taught” provided a blank fifth option that should not have been a choice. The fifth option

was deleted before the survey was administered to the population. Also, with the same

item, a question was raised about teachers who taught multiple grades. Initially,

respondents would only be allowed to choose one grade level. However, the item was

amended to allow respondents to choose multiple grade levels to correctly identify grade

levels taught. Based on the feedback provided, the pilot study participants provided

insights that helped to verify content validity and ensured the quantitative instrument

gathered data useful to the purpose of the study.

Table 10

Changes to Survey Based on Pilot Study Results

Survey Item

Pre-pilot survey item

Post-pilot survey item

A school literacy leadership

team organized by the

team, separate from the school

administrator is active.

leadership team, is organized

and active.

Active collaborative school

Active cross-curricular

teams ensure consistent literacy

collaborative school teams

focus across the curriculum

ensure a consistent literacy

focus across the curriculum

A clearly articulated strategy for

A clearly articulated, school

using data to improve teaching

wide strategy for using data to

and learning is followed

improve teaching and learning

is followed.

Grades currently taught

Grades currently taught (mark

only one oval)

9th

any that apply)

9th

10th

11th

12th

Option 5

100

2019 Needs Assessment Survey Findings

Part 2 of the quantitative survey consisted of 15 questions derived from the

GaDOE needs assessment survey and was scored with a Likert scale consisting of (a)

fully operational, (b) operational, (c) emergent, and (d) not addressed. Fully operational

signified that the item was completely implemented in the operation of the school.

Operational described that the item was in the beginning stages of implementation.

Emergent signified that the item was in the preliminary or planning stages before

implementation. Not addressed signified that the item was not currently implemented in

the operation of the school.

As presented in Table 11, the raw data findings of Part 2 of the quantitative

survey instrument are compared to the findings of the initial needs assessment survey

conducted by the participating high school at the time of SRCL grant application in 2014.

Initial observation of the raw data showed a similarity in percentages among multiple

items between the 2014 and 2019 data sets. Despite a change in faculty over the time

period of the SRCL grant and a smaller sample size of participation, percentages of

responses among multiple items remained relatively consistent. Item 1A demonstrated

this idea and despite a change in leadership, 22.6% of faculty in 2019 in relation to 27%

of faculty in 2014 felt administrator commitment to learn and support literacy instruction

was fully operational. For the same item, relatively similar percentages represent those

teachers who felt leadership commitment to literacy instruction was not addressed, with

1% in 2014 and 3.2% in 2019. Likewise, 79% of respondents in 2014 and 74.1% of

respondents in 2019 felt Item 1C2, effective use of collaborative planning, was at least

operational.

101

Table 11

Frequency Data Comparison of 2014 and 2019 Needs Assessment Survey Data

Needs Assessment

Fully

Not Addressed

Emergent

Operational

Year

Operational

1.A: Administrator demonstrates commitment to learn about and support evidence

based literacy instruction

2014

17%

54%

27%

2019

3.2 %

16.1 %

58.1 %

22.6%

1.B: School literacy team is organized and active

2014

14%

23%

37%

26%

2019

41.9%

32.3%

22.6%

3.2%

1.C.2: Effective use of time through collaborative planning

2014

14%

50%

29%

2019

3.2 %

22.6 %

51.5 %

22.6%

1.D: Create a school culture in which teachers across the curriculum are responsible

for literacy instruction

2014

30%

41%

20%

2019

9.7 %

32.3 %

45.2 %

12.9%

1.E: Literacy instruction is optimized in all content areas

2014

10%

41%

33%

16%

2019

12.9 %

38.7 %

6.5%

2.A: Active cross-curricular collaborative school teams ensure consistent literary

focus

2014

14%

41%

33%

11%

2019

29.0 %

51.6 %

12.9 %

6.5%

2.B: Teachers provide literary instruction across the curriculum

2014

39%

41%

11%

2019

12.9 %

41.9 %

38.7 %

6.5%

3.A: An infrastructure for ongoing formative and summative assessment is in place

2014

34%

43%

17%

2019

9.7 %

12.9 %

58.1 %

16.1%

3.D: Summative data is used to make programming decisions

2014

10%

27%

49%

14%

2019

12.9%

12.9 %

58.1 %

16.1%

3.E: A clearly articulated, schoolwide strategy for using data to improve teaching

and learning is followed

2014

27%

44%

20%

2019

3.2%

45.2 %

48.4 %

3.2%

4.A.2: All students receive direct, explicit reading instruction

2014

37%

40%

14%

2019

16.1%

22.5%

41.9 %

19.4%

102

Table 11 (continued)

Needs Assessment

Fully

Not Addressed

Emergent

Operational

Year

Operational

4.A.5: Extended time is provided for literacy instruction

2014

37%

40%

14%

2019

12.9%

29.0%

29.0 %

29.0%

4.B: All students receive effective writing instruction across the curriculum

2014

40%

41%

11%

2019

12.9%

45.2%

32.3 %

9.7%

4.C: Teachers are intentional in efforts to develop and maintain interest and

engagement as students’ progress through school

2014

23%

57%

19%

2019

6.5%

12.9%

64.5 %

16.1%

6.B: In-service personnel participate in ongoing professional learning in all aspects

of literary instruction including disciplinary literacy in content areas

2014

20%

29%

39%

13%

2019

25.8%

29%

35.5 %

9.7%

2019 Needs Assessment Survey Discussion

The purpose of the study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions, confidence, and

use of writing instructional strategies throughout content areas at the conclusion of

implementation of the five-year SRCL grant. Moreover, the purpose of Part 2 of the

quantitative instrument was to gain data concerning teachers’ perceptions that would be

compared to the previous administration of the needs assessment survey in 2014. Several

items of interest were noted during data analysis that demonstrated a discrepancy

between school culture of shared literacy responsibility and literacy implementation in

content area classrooms.

In 2014, 61% of the faculty believed that Item 1D, a school culture in which

teachers across the curriculum are responsible for literacy and writing instruction, was at

least operational or in practice. That number declined slightly to 58.1% in 2019. On one

hand, the interview participants reinforced this belief when each of the eight participants

noted that content area instruction should include writing and suggested a shared writing

103

responsibility within their school culture. Participant 2 reflected his/her belief in this

culture through a comment that “the practice of writing and writing in assessment should

be integrated into every content area.” On the other hand, despite a majority perception

of a school culture that embraced all teachers’ responsibility to teach literacy and writing,

a majority (n = 6) of the interview participants described having no role in writing or

literacy instruction in their content classroom. In addition, for Item 1E, 51% in 2014 and

51.6% in 2019 felt that optimized literacy instruction in all content areas was below

operational. Also, 54.8% of respondents in 2019, up from 48% in 2014, described Item

2B, teachers provide literacy instruction across the curriculum, as below operational.

Furthermore, a majority of respondents, 58.1% in 2019, which increased from 47% in

2014, felt that the idea that all students received effective writing instruction across the

curriculum was below operational. Despite a perception of a culture of shared

responsibility of literacy instruction, over half of the faculty, at the end of grant

implementation, felt that writing instruction across the curriculum was in the beginning

stage of implementation, or below operational.

In response to Item 1B, 25.8% of respondents felt a school literacy team was

organized and active, a decline from 63% in 2014. A school literacy team was active at

the beginning of grant implementation and less active at the end. In the early stages of

the grant, the literacy team provided insight and leadership. Without an active literacy

team to monitor and guide literacy instructional practices, teachers lacked a resource who

encouraged a shared responsibility of literacy instruction throughout the content areas.

Therefore, without a school literacy team, inconsistencies between a perception of a

school culture of shared writing instruction responsibility and practice became possible.

104

Item 2A further provided a possible understanding to the discrepancy in that only 19.4%

of respondents, down from 44% in 2014, described active cross-curricular collaborative

school teams ensured consistent literacy focus. A vast majority of respondents, 80.6%,

felt that cross-curricular collaboration was below operational and, therefore, potentially

limited implementation of a schoolwide culture of shared responsibility in writing and

literacy instruction. Interview participants further noted the lack of cross-curricular

collaboration as a means of limitation between implementation and a shared

responsibility culture. Multiple participants noted limited collaboration or discussion

among different content area departments. Participant 1 commented that “we need to

have more conversations […] teachers are really bad about putting themselves in their

classrooms and only needing themselves or only meeting with those in their content area”

and “are very departmentalized.” Participant 1 described a lack of interdisciplinary

collaboration among all content areas. Participant 6, when asked about cross-curricular

collaboration further elaborated that “I typically don’t see that.” There was little formal

encouragement of cross-curricular collaboration, as Participant 6 further described a lack

of buy-in from the faculty. “People have to be committed and invested …I just don’t

think that people are invested here for lots of reasons due to trust, stress, [and] all the

other things that keep it from being [implemented]” (Participant 4). With the lack of a

school literacy team and dedicated cross-curricular collaboration, discrepancies formed

between teachers’ perception of a schoolwide culture that viewed writing instruction as a

shared responsibility among content area teachers and actual implementation of writing

instruction.

105

Another possible understanding for this discrepancy regarding teachers’

perceptions of shared writing instruction responsibility and content area teachers’ role in

such instruction may be found in responses to Item 6B, in-service personal participate in

ongoing professional learning in all aspects of literacy instruction including disciplinary

literacy in content areas. Over half of respondents, 54.8% of teachers in 2019, down

from 49% in 2014, felt ongoing professional development in content area literacy

instruction was below operational, or lacking. Participants of the study reported the

importance of teachers’ capability to teach writing; however, many teachers noted a lack

of professional development in content area writing instruction. A majority of

respondents described a lack of professional development, which potentially limited the

implementation of a shared responsibility of writing culture into practice. For Item 3.19,

74.2% of respondents felt they needed instruction in content area writing. Interview

participants reinforced this belief when asked about the occurrence of professional

development in content area writing and literacy instruction. Seven of the eight

participants noted that they had not received professional development in the past year in

regards to content area writing and literacy instruction. One participant, an ELA teacher,

went to one writing instruction workshop in the past year. Participant 1 reflected the

need for professional development and commented “math teachers don’t realize there is a

lot of literacy in math […] and [professional development] would help math teachers

understand more the importance of the [literacy instruction].” Each of these items, as

described in Table 12, potentially provided insight into the inconsistencies related to a

perception of a shared writing instruction culture and the practice of content area writing

instruction.

106

Table 12

Frequency Data Regarding the Discrepancy between a Perceived School Culture of a

Shared Responsibility of Literacy Instruction and Teachers’ Perceptions

Needs Assessment

Fully

Not Addressed

Emergent

Operational

Year

Operational

1.B: School literacy team is organized and active

2014

14%

23%

37%

26%

2019

41.9%

32.3%

22.6%

3.2%

1.D: Create a school culture in which teachers across the curriculum are responsible for

literacy instruction

2014

30%

41%

20%

2019

9.7 %

32.3 %

45.2 %

12.9%

1.E: Literacy instruction is optimized in all content areas

2014

10%

41%

33%

16%

2019

12.9 %

38.7 %

6.5%

2.A: Active cross-curricular collaborative school teams ensure consistent literary focus

2014

14%

41%

33%

11%

2019

29.0 %

51.6 %

12.9 %

6.5%

2.B: Teachers provide literary instruction across the curriculum

2014

39%

41%

11%

2019

12.9 %

41.9 %

38.7 %

6.5%

4.B: All students receive effective writing instruction across the curriculum

2014

40%

41%

11%

2019

12.9%

45.2%

32.3 %

9.7%

6.B: In-service personnel participate in ongoing professional learning in all aspects of

literary instruction including disciplinary literacy in content areas

2014

20%

29%

39%

13%

2019

25.8%

29%

35.5 %

9.7%

3.19: I do not need instruction in content area writing

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

6.5%

19.4%

67.7%

6.5%

SRCL Impact and Role on Content Area Writing Instruction

Furthermore, each interview participant noted there was no visible schoolwide

improvement of writing instruction or writing implementation in content area instruction.

Participant 5 commented that “I have not seen or heard of any significant writing

improvement or seen any professional development geared towards writing or discussion

across content areas about writing.” Likewise, Participant 1 commented that “I don’t

107

really feel like we saw an effective change from year to year.” These two teachers

described a perception that the SRCL grant funds did not create an apparent change in

implementation of writing instruction or literacy instruction in the participating high

school. Participants 2 and 6, both employed at the participating high school for three

years, each described little change or discussion concerning the grant. Participant 2 noted

that “I have not personally been aware of any changes.” Participant 6 suggested that no

changes resulted from the grant but also noted that “I haven’t heard one word about the

SRCL grant…there has not been any professional development or follow-up.”

Participant 4 summarized the impact of the SRCL grant as “nothing has affected me

personally, if anything, [student] writing is getting worse.” Being a teacher of freshman

students each year, the teacher believed students writing abilities declined from year to

year, despite the SRCL grant implementation being district wide.

In relation to SRCL grant implementation, Participant 3 described a short

anecdote concerning notebooks purchased using grant funds. When Participant 3 first

arrived at the participating high school three years ago, the teacher found a large box of

composition notebooks in a bookroom that was going to go to waste. The notebooks

were “supposed to go toward writing in math and it was supposed to be for warm-ups the

year before I got here […] they planned on throwing them away. I would say it has

definitely digressed.” Participant 3 described an initial initiative to use grant funds to

increase the use of research-based vocabulary and writing strategies in literacy instruction

across the curriculum. The teacher’s anecdote described an attempt to use the SRCL

grant to make positive changes. However, strategy implementation did not continue.

Participant 8 also felt that there was no visible change in writing and literacy instruction

108

in content area classrooms and described that vocabulary improvement strategies were

based on content vocabulary. Despite the use of vocabulary improvement strategies,

Participant 8 discerned that “there was absolutely no uniformity” and no opportunity to

cross-collaborate. Participants 3 and 8 described an attempt in using the SRCL grant to

improve literacy instruction throughout content area classrooms but emphasized the lack

of uniformity and consistency that prevented the success of implementation.

Participant 7 made similar comments concerning the lack of success of

implementation of the SRCL grant; however, the participant noted contributing factors

that could possibly have affected implementation. The teacher mentioned that “whoever

the powers to be when the grant was written are no longer here […] you’re saying 2014,

that’s two principals back, so it has never been stressed to me” (Participant 7).

Participant 8 also further suggested that although the strategies were research-based,

academic indifference of the students played a role in preventing the strategies from

becoming effective. Participant 8 noted that “the problem that we had with [vocabulary

intervention] was that there was absolutely no grade attached to it, so academic

indifference kicks in for the students.” Not only did a change in leadership prevent

consistent implementation of the grant, but also a lack of student buy-in prevented

implemented strategies from taking hold.

Survey respondents noted that a culture of shared responsibility of writing and

literacy instruction existed; however, interview participants contradicted this

characterization. Multiple factors might have contributed to this discrepancy. The lack of

an active literacy team limited monitoring and support for content area writing

instruction. Furthermore, a lack of cross-curricular collaboration potentially fueled this

109

discrepancy through limited discussion of writing implementation among content areas.

Also, a lack of professional development geared toward content area writing instruction

limited teachers’ understanding of content area writing. In addition, a perception that

there was no visible schoolwide improvement of writing instruction in content area

classrooms as a result of implementation of the SRCL grant due to change in leadership

further added to the discrepancy between perceived culture of shared responsibility of

writing instruction and actual implementation.

Research Question 1

The purpose of Research Question 1 was to examine how content area teachers

perceived their roles as instructors of writing. During data analysis, three themes became

evident in regards to how content area teachers perceived their role as writing instructors:

(a) minimal role in teaching writing, (b) ELA ownership, and (c) requirement of teacher

buy-in. Content area teachers perceived a minimal role in writing instruction despite a

view of the importance of writing in content area instruction. Furthermore, participants

described a perception of ELA ownership based on ELA teachers’ expertise in writing

and the time required to implement effective writing instruction. In addition, content area

teachers described teacher buy-in as an important aspect of successful writing instruction

in content area classrooms and perception of role as writing instructors. Each of these

themes demonstrated how content area teachers at the end of SRCL grant implementation

perceived their role as writing instructors and mirrored teachers’ perceptions as indicated

in the survey results from 2014.

110

Theme 1: Minimal Role in Teaching Writing

Content area teachers viewed writing as an aspect of content area instruction that

could have a positive effect on student learning, although content area teachers embraced

a minimal role as instructors of writing. Based on Item 1D, 48.1% of respondents

perceived a school culture in which teachers across the curriculum were responsible for

literacy instruction. Almost half of the survey respondents felt that content area teachers

were responsible for literacy instruction in content areas. For Item 3.5, 87% of teachers

felt that writing should be implemented into all classes. Most content area teachers

believed that writing should be taught across all content areas and writing was effective

in helping students learn. When participants reported on their own teaching practices and

experiences, all non-ELA content teachers did not take on the role of writing instructor.

Interview participants described content area teachers as having a minimal role in

teaching writing in the content area classroom. Each of the eight interview participants

reinforced this understanding and believed that content area instruction should include

writing. Furthermore, each interview participant believed that writing was effective in

helping the student learn. Despite this belief, the role of content area teachers in writing

instruction was described as minimal. Of the eight participants, all six non-ELA content

area teachers described that they had little or no role in writing instruction. Participant 1

noted that “I don’t think I really have much of a role. I think most of that happens in the

ELA classroom.” Participant 7 reinforced this idea that the content area teachers’ role

was “basically to stay out of the ELA teachers’ way.” Participant 6 reflected this

sentiment in that “I would end up doing more damage than helping.” Participant 4

described the content area teachers’ role as “while I think everybody has some

111

responsibility in [writing instruction], I think it should be handled elsewhere.”

Participant 6 viewed content area teachers’ role as “not so much writing […but] getting

them to read things outside of their norm.”

Both ELA teachers viewed their role as a writing instructor and teacher of writing

in order to “help students become more comfortable writing,” which further added to a

perceived ELA responsibility of writing instruction (Participant 5). These perceptions of

the content area teachers’ role in writing instruction put Items 1E and 2B in perspective,

as Table 13 presented. For Item 1E, 51.6% of respondents noted that optimized literacy

instruction in all content areas was below operational. For Item 2B, 54.8% of

respondents noted teachers providing literary instruction across the curriculum was not

addressed or was emergent. Despite the view of the importance of inclusion of writing in

content area instruction, a majority of respondents described content area writing

instruction as below operational, reflecting a perception of a minimal role and

responsibility for teaching writing in content area instruction.

Table 13

Frequency Data Related to a Perceived Minimal Role of Content Area Teachers in

Writing Instruction

Needs Assessment

Fully

Not Addressed

Emergent

Operational

Year

Operational

1.D: Create a school culture in which teachers across the curriculum are responsible for

literacy instruction

2019

9.7 %

32.3 %

45.2 %

12.9%

1.E: Literacy instruction is optimized in all content areas

2019

12.9 %

38.7 %

6.5%

2.B: Teachers provide literary instruction across the curriculum

2019

12.9 %

41.9 %

38.7 %

6.5%

3.5: Writing should be implemented into all classes

2019

41.9%

45.2%

12.9%

3.2%

112

Theme 2: Perception of ELA Ownership

ELA ownership of writing instruction, or the idea that writing should mainly

occur in ELA content instruction instead of content area instruction, was evident based on

analysis of survey respondent data and interview participant’s responses. The responses

to Item 3.8, which stated that writing instruction should occur mainly in ELA classrooms,

described that 71% of respondents agreed, and of that group, 22.6% strongly agreed with

this statement. Not only did a vast majority agree that writing instruction should mainly

be in the domain of ELA classrooms, but nearly one-fourth felt that they strongly agreed

with that sentiment. Participant 1 reflected this thought and noted that “I think most of

that [teaching writing] happens in the ELA classrooms.” Participant 5 further noted that

“I haven’t seen [writing instruction] enough in practice. I haven’t really seen it outside of

an ELA classroom.” Each of the two ELA teachers, Participants 2 and 5, were asked if

they used writing instruction during content instruction and both replied with laughter

“well…being an ELA teacher…” (Participant 5). This sentiment suggested the

importance of writing to the ELA content and also the assumption that writing instruction

was not only the ELA teacher’s role, but their responsibility. Participant 2 noted that

“primarily I do think that it’s the ELA teacher’s job to teach writing.” ELA teachers

seemed to assume writing ownership in ELA classrooms, while other content area

teachers see ELA ownership in writing instruction because they feel writing opportunities

are limited in content classrooms.

A common sentiment that became evident during analysis of interview data was

that content area teachers felt that ELA teachers possessed an expertise in writing

instruction and writing evaluation. Therefore, writing instruction should take place in the

113

ELA classroom. Participant 3 had some comfort in helping students with punctuation,

but he/she felt that ELA teachers possessed more writing expertise because “we don’t go

into as much detail quite like literature class would.” Participant 3 was comfortable with

basic writing structure but lacked the writing expertise that ELA teachers possessed to go

into more depth with writing. Participant 3’s comments reflected what Participant 1

noted as “some people are so ELA-minded and not math-minded that we almost put up a

brick wall between us.” Participant 1 suggested that being “ELA-minded”, ELA teachers

were more adept as writing instructors, as opposed to being “math-minded” with an

expertise in mathematical computations. Participant 6 further reinforced this idea in that

“I am not an English teacher, and I have a feeling I would end up doing more damage

than helping.” These non-ELA teachers described common sentiments that ELA teachers

had the skills and expertise to teach writing effectively, while other content area teachers

lack comfort and understanding to teach writing effectively. Participant 5 further

described the idea of expertise as related to writing and content area instruction: “As an

English teacher, I am more equipped at doing vocabulary and looking at root words and

context clues […] I wouldn’t expect a math teacher to have those same kind of strategies

in their tool kit.” Participant 5 described the importance of ELA teachers having a wide

understanding and expertise of the writing process and strategies in order to help students

with their writing and improve student writing ability. Participant 2 further noted that

“[one] must have, especially as an English teacher, [one] has to be fluent with all those

things.” Participant 2 further described the perception of English teachers’ expertise in

writing instruction in that ELA teachers have access to more tools and strategies to teach

114

writing. Content area teachers viewed ELA classrooms as a natural home for writing

instruction based on ELA teachers’ knowledge and expertise in teaching writing.

Time further played into the perception that writing instruction should mainly

take place in the ELA classroom. According to responses for Item 3.9, there was not

enough time to teach writing and content material; 64.5%, including all social studies

teachers, agreed with this statement. Participant 5, an ELA teacher who implemented

writing instruction on a daily basis, described that “my content area more than any other

provides specific opportunities for writing.” Participant 5 acknowledged that there was

time and opportunity to implement writing instruction in the ELA classroom as opposed

to other content areas. Participant 2, another ELA teacher who also implemented writing

instruction daily, noted that it was a large part of ELA state standards and described that

“I understand time wise they feel like they probably don’t have time to teach writing

because they have their content standards [to cover].” For non-ELA content area

teachers, time was a barrier to increased implementation of writing. Participant 6

reflected this view in that “there are other classes better suited for [students] to write.”

Participant 1 described utilizing writing instruction only once a month due to “math in

itself has so many standards that we have to meet that we struggle just to cover all the

content without adding what I would call extra.” Participant 4 further noted that

Participant 4’s class was an End of Course Test (EOC) that required the participant to get

through the curriculum map in order to ensure students were prepared for the high-stakes

test, which left little time to implement writing instruction. Not only do content area

teachers feel a time crunch to cover content material, they also feel that writing

instruction took too much time to implement. Participant 5 acknowledged that

115

“everybody feels constraints of writing because writing takes a lot longer than other tasks

you could have students do.” Upon reflection of a writing strategy, Participant 3 felt that

“it took up too much time.” Participant 4 came to a similar conclusion while discussing a

cell campaign project. The project “was about two weeks’ worth of in-class time and we

were not able to go over the information in class” (Participant 4). As a result of

obligation to cover EOC-related content material and writing instruction being time

intensive, content area teachers held a perceived view of ELA ownership of writing

instruction.

Theme 3: Requirement of Teacher Buy-in

Content area teachers’ buy-in was related to how they perceived their role as

instructors of writing. Content area teachers described teacher buy-in as an important

aspect of increased writing instruction in content area classroom instruction. Participant

6 noted that “people have to be committed and invested” in order to be willing to add

writing instruction to content area classrooms. Teachers’ buy-in to a shared

responsibility of writing instruction across the curriculum did not happen with

ultimatums or directives. Participant 5 noted that teacher buy-in came from helping

teachers to understand how to write within a content area that was directly tied to

standards-based instruction. Furthermore, Participant 5 described the current

environment as “we just get these overarching ultimatums like ‘you need to do this in

your room’ but then we are never told how that connects to what we are doing or how

that looks so we just push it off.” Teacher buy-in was an important aspect in

understanding teachers’ perceptions of role in writing instruction. Participant 2 further

elaborated in that “teachers have to be willing to try [writing instruction] and then you

116

also have to have a leadership team or administrator or academic coach that is going to

follow up and provide help.” Without buy-in to instructional practices and support,

teachers’ perception of their role in content area writing instruction was potentially

negatively affected.

Research Question 2

The purpose of Research Question 2 was to examine teachers’ perceptions of their

confidence and knowledge of writing instruction. During data analysis, two themes

became evident in regards to how content area teachers perceived their confidence and

knowledge of writing: (a) knowledge of content area writing and (b) teacher self-efficacy

as writers. Teacher knowledge and self-efficacy as writers were important factors that

led to content area teachers’ use of writing strategies and tasks during content area

instruction. However, participants displayed a lack of understanding of content area

writing as characterized by formal writing, as opposed to writing to learn, and expressed

a lack of self-efficacy in writing ability, which led to negative perceptions of writing

usage during content area instruction.

Theme 1: Knowledge of Content Area Writing

Graham and Perin (2007) showed that writing not only had a positive influence on

learning, but the act of writing could be an effective tool in content area classroom

instruction in order to encourage development of student content knowledge. Writing,

therefore, is an instructional tool that allows students to reinforce and understand content

knowledge (Arnold et al., 2017). To this end, writing-to-learn activities were strategies

that used writing as a tool of learning content that allowed the content area teacher to

encourage students to delve deeper into the content through writing in order to develop

117

deeper content understanding. Writing is more than assessment of learning (Russell,

1994). However, many teachers not only described writing as a summative practice, but

few noted writing as an instructional tool to be used to help students develop deeper

understandings of content material.

Teacher participants displayed a limited understanding of what content area

writing entailed and what writing to learn strategies looked like when implemented. Each

teacher agreed that writing effectively helped students learn the content However, further

analysis of survey responses and interview participant descriptions suggested a

misunderstanding of what constituted content area writing. As noted in Table 14, this

limited understanding or confusion concerning what constitutes writing instruction was

evident in that 77.4% of respondents for Item 3.2, I take time to instruct students on how

to specifically write in my content area, stated they agreed with the statement. A vast

majority of teachers felt they used specific writing instruction during content instruction.

However, other items showed a lack of perceived implementation in content area

classrooms as noted by Item 1E where 51.6% described the idea that literacy instruction

was optimized in all content areas as only emergent. Just under half the respondents,

48.4%, did not believe that literacy instruction was optimized in content area classrooms.

This belief contradicts the majority of teachers’ perceptions of instructing students to

specifically write in their content. Furthermore, 58.1% of respondents noted that Item

4B, all students receive effective writing instruction across the curriculum, was only an

emergent idea at best. Despite a majority of teachers having described use of writing

instruction, one-third of the respondents did not believe writing instruction was taking

place across the curriculum. These discrepancies demonstrated a possible perceived

118

misunderstanding of knowledge in what constituted writing instruction during content

instruction.

Table 14

Frequency Data Related to Content Area Teachers’ Knowledge of Content Area Writing

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

3.2: I take time to instruct students on how to specifically write in my content area

25.8%

51.6%

19.4%

3.2%

A limited understanding became evident in analysis of interview participants’

thoughts concerning content area writing instruction. Most content area teachers

immediately associated writing essays and formal structured writing as a requirement for

content area writing instruction. Participant 1 described that “we just don’t write

paragraphs [in math] to explain things, we just write short sentences and so when I think

of writing, I think of essays and researching different things.” Participant 3 further

equated content area writing through the use of essay type open response questions on

end of unit assessments. When asked what types of writing tasks are used, Participant 4

described limiting essay writing in the science classroom due to the difficulties of grading

research papers and essays and noted that “this was one of the struggles in learning how

to implement writing in the classroom.” Participant 4 perceived writing essays as a

necessary part of content area writing instruction. Participant 7 responded similarly as

“we don’t write essays or papers [in social studies], but we have a lot of open-ended

questions;” thus, the researcher identified a perceived understanding of content area

writing instruction required formal essay writing. Participant 6 also reflected this idea

and noted “I look at the definition of writing, I immediately think of essays, short stories,

119

reports, and stuff like that.” Participant 6 described a perception that ELA style writing,

like essays and creative writing, was a required characteristic of content area writing

instruction. As an example of content area writing instruction, Participant 8 described

that once during the fall semester, students wrote an essay related to “current affairs

information, otherwise a lot of what we do in economics is not something that would

necessary lend itself to writing.” Participant 8 saw essay writing as an example of

writing instruction and, therefore, was limited to when the teacher could align the content

with the opportunity to write a formal essay. A majority of the interview participants

shared this perception and saw content area writing as implementation of formal,

structured essays and open response questions.

A majority of interview participants displayed a limited understanding of content

area writing instruction that went beyond the use of essay writing. Interview participants

viewed content area writing instruction as structured and formal essays and did not seem

to recognize that informal writing constituted content area writing instruction. Interview

participants provided examples of informal writing strategies or writing to learn strategies

However, they did not seem to recognize that these types of writing strategies reflected

content area writing instruction. Despite equating essay and structured writing as an

important characteristic of content area writing, Participant 4 also noted the importance

of providing instruction concerning science content specific writing. Participant 4

provided direct content area writing instruction in order to teach students how to write lab

reports. This teacher provided specific examples and feedback related to writing the

abstract, procedures, and results of a lab report. Participant 5 reinforced this idea that

content area teachers should use writing during instruction because “writing varies so

120

much depending on content.” The teacher further described that content area writing

“should be in terms of whatever the content area requires. I don’t think that a science

teacher should be making students write a five-paragraph essay if that is not within the

boundaries of their content.” To reinforce this idea, the teacher further summarized

content area writing in that “I think that writing needs to be used in whatever way fits

into the standards.” Whereas many teachers assumed content area writing required

formal essays, Participant 5 noted that content area writing should look like the content

and recommended not attempting to implement ELA style writing into other content

classrooms. Participant 2 described this definition of content area writing in providing

potential strategies in that students “can write about how they came to the answer of an

equation, or they can respond to an event they learned in social studies.” This teacher

described that content area writing should expose students to different types of writing in

different contexts to help students engage with and better understand the content material.

Participant 2 further described that content area writing helps students to “process new

information and forces them to organize content material in a logical way.” Despite these

participants’ understanding and knowledge of content area writing, there was an overall

confusion on what “content area writing” was and looked like.

Theme 2: Teacher Self-efficacy as Writers

Participants of the study reported that the importance of teachers’ capability to

teach writing. However, many teachers acknowledged they lacked confidence and self-

efficacy to implement content area writing instruction. Participants described the

importance of teachers’ perceptions of writing ability and self-efficacy. As noted by

Table 15, 74.2% of respondents agreed that a teacher had to be a good writer to teach

121

writing. Interview participants reinforced this understanding and provided insight into

why perceptions of writing ability and confidence were important. Seven of the eight

interview participants answered “yes” when asked if a teacher had to be a good writer in

order to teach writing. Multiple participants noted that you cannot teach what you do not

know in regards to teachers’ self-efficacy and writing ability. Participant 2 suggested

“not that [a teacher has] to be an expert, but you have to have some personal experience

with what you are asking them to do.” Participant 4 reiterated this understanding, “I

think you need at least a good basic understanding; you don’t have to be J.K. [Rowling]

but you do need a basic understanding.” Participant 5 noted that “you have to be

comfortable within whatever that type of writing is […] I don’t think a biology teacher

needs to be good at writing a literary analysis in order to teach how to write a lab report.”

Participant 7 added “mainly because if you don’t understand how something goes, it

makes it hard to teach it. Participant 3 provided an alternate explanation, “I guess you

have to comfortable but at the same time, you and your students can learn together.” Each

participant described the importance of writing ability in teaching writing.

Study participants also acknowledged that personal writing ability influenced

writing instruction. Six of the eight interview participants answered in the affirmative

when asked if personal writing ability influenced writing instruction. Participant 6

described how a teacher’s strength in an aspect of writing could have a positive influence

on the teacher’s implementation of writing instruction. The teacher described editing and

revising as a strength and could instruct students in that aspect. Participant 5 felt that

planning, organizing, and brainstorming were a strength and reinforced how personal

writing ability influenced writing instruction. The teacher commented that “I think

122

because of that and that is how my brain works as a writer, I really emphasize that in my

teaching.” Participant 2 recognized that a teacher must have experience and

understanding with writing in order to guide, model, and help students in their writing.

The teacher commented that with knowledge and writing ability “you can model

[writing] and you can provide a think aloud for them. You can’t just expect them to write

it and then grade it arbitrarily.” Each of these participants described that a teacher’s self-

efficacy as a writer played a role in the implementation and use of writing instruction;

however, the two teachers felt writing ability had little effect on writing instruction.

Participant 8 described writing ability as a barrier to instruction. Participant 8 was

a confident writer that practices academic writing and discourse in which a topic was

researched, analyzed, and discussed “using very high ended academic language.”

Participant 8 commented that “I cannot even approach getting the students to that point.”

Because of Participant 8’s strong and academically sophisticated writing background, the

participant perceived a barrier to implementing writing instruction. Participant 8 knew

what good and effective academic writing looked like through experience; however, the

participant felt that background did not help his students reach a higher level of academic

writing ability. Participant 1, a math teacher, also felt that writing ability had little effect

on teaching writing in math because “it’s not more of the essay kind of writing. It is

more of short sentences that explains things.” Participant 1 felt that math content writing

consisted of short writing of mathematical processes instead of longer academic essays

and noted that teacher writing ability had little influence on writing instruction.

Despite the importance of teachers’ self-efficacy on writing instruction, many

teachers described a confidence in different areas of the writing process. Survey

123

respondents described overall positive views in regards to self-efficacy as writers. For

Item 3.10, 93.6% of the respondents felt confident enough in their own writing ability to

critique another person’s work. Likewise, for Item 3.11, 90.3% of respondents felt

confident in their ability to clearly express ideas in writing. Furthermore, for Item 13,

90.3% disagreed with the statement, “I have difficulty organizing my thoughts and

ideas.” However, the confidence that was described in these survey items declined when

respondents compared their writing ability to others. For Item 3.12, 58% of respondents

felt that they were not as good of a writer as others. Despite the confidence in writing

ability teachers described on the survey, the interview participants reported a low

perception of writing ability and comfort level in teaching writing. Each teacher agreed

that writing was an effective means to help students learn content material; however, each

of the eight interview participants admitted a low comfort level in teaching different

aspects of writing.

Table 15

Frequency Data Related to Content Area Teachers’ Self-efficacy as Writing Instructors

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

3.3: A teacher has to be a good writer to teach writing

12.9%

61.3%

25.8%

3.10: I feel confident enough in my writing ability to critique another person’s writing.

32.3%

61.3%

6.5%

3.11: I feel confident in my ability to clearly express my ideas in writing.

48.4%

41.9%

9.7%

3.12: I don’t think I am as good of a writer as others

3.2%

54.8%

32.3%

9.7%

3.13: I have difficulty organizing my thoughts and ideas as I work

9.7%

74.2%

16.1%

124

Research Question 3

The purpose of Research Question 3 was to examine how content area teachers

implement writing instruction at the participating high school. During data analysis, two

themes became evident in regards to content area teachers’ implementation of writing

instruction: (a) writing implementation and (b) writing as summative assessment.

Content area teachers reported that the use of a variety of writing strategies and tasks;

however, most of the tasks did not require a high degree of cognitive processing.

Teachers used writing strategies for a limited purpose. Despite a common perception

among participants that characterized content area writing as very structured and formal,

each of the interview participants described effective use of writing instruction to engage

their students in content material learning through writing.

Theme 1: Writing Implementation

Interview respondents reported the use of numerous writing strategies and tasks in

content area instruction. Table 16 presented the findings of Part 4 of the survey

instrument, in which survey respondents were asked to note any writing strategy or task

they implemented during classroom instruction. Mostly, teachers chose from the

predetermined list of writing strategies and tasks; however, three additional strategies

were entered in by participants. Based on cross tabulation of survey responses from Part

4, ELA respondents reported the use of 11 of the 12 listed strategies and tasks.

Furthermore, ELA respondents noted the use of responsive writing and creative writing

during instruction. Math respondents noted the use of six different strategies and

represented the fewest use of writing strategies during instruction. Overall, math

respondents primarily reported the use of worksheets and notes, while one respondent

125

noted the use of Role, Audience, Format, and Topic (RAFT) and quick writes. Writing

tasks teachers perceived as summative, research papers and essay tests, showed to be

utilized by half of the respondents.

Tasks that required little cognitive processing, like notetaking, worksheets, fill-in-

the-blank notes, and summarization, showed high response rates among respondents. Of

the 31 respondents, 26 noted the use of worksheets, and 27 utilized notes as forms of

writing instruction. Respondents showed a lower response rate for creative tasks, such as

free-verse poetry, quick writes, and creative writing. Journaling was the most widely

used creative task with 17 respondents citing use. Other writing strategies and tasks, like

conferencing, micro-themes, and document-based questions showed a low response rate

of fewer than five respondents. Based on the analysis of Part 4, teachers viewed writing

as more summative or useful in simple writing exercises and not widely used for creative

means. The raw data from Part 4 was further described and elaborated through

discussion with interview participants that described different unique means of

implementing writing instruction and use of writing as a summative assessment strategy.

Each interview participant described and documented, through lesson plans, examples of

how they used writing instruction in order to help their students effectively learn the

content material.

Table 16

Frequency Data Related to Writing Strategies and Tasks Implemented in Content Area

Classrooms

Writing task/strategy

Number of teacher

responses

Percentage of

responses

Journals

11%

Essay test

10%

Research paper

126

Table 16 (continued)

Writing task/strategy

Number of teacher

responses

Percentage of

responses

Worksheets

17%

Notes

17%

Free-verse poetry

Summarization

11%

RAFT

Quick writes

Micro themes

Conferencing

Fill in the Blank notes

12%

Creative writing

Responsive writing

Document-based question (DBQ)

Science implementation of content area writing instruction. The two science

teacher interview participants provided insight on writing instructional strategies they

implemented during classroom instruction. These two participants varied in occurrences

of implementation of writing instruction, with one describing weekly use and the other

monthly. Participant 4 described an elaborate, authentic project that implemented

numerous types of literacy and content area writing opportunities. Participant 4

implemented a cell project that required students to work in groups to create a

presidential campaign for their assigned organelle. Students were required to research

their organelle, create a campaign poster with an original slogan, a pamphlet, a video ad,

a mascot, and give a final speech. The project ended with the class voting for the cell

organelle president. This elaborate project created an authentic means for the students to

gain content understanding of content material through a multimodal literacy and writing

assignment. Both participants described the occasional use of the RAFT strategy, which

six survey respondents utilized to help students connect and understand content material.

Despite the content of the science class being more mathematical, Participant 6 utilized

127

the RAFT strategy in order for students to understand abstract concepts like atom

movement or the carbon cycle. Participant 4 also noted using of the RAFT strategy in

order to understand the movement and organization of molecules through what the

teacher called the molecule game. The students rolled dice and then correlated the

number they rolled with a specific role, audience, format, and topic. The students then

wrote a creative story based on their dice roll and understanding of the content.

According to survey data, 27 respondents, almost all survey participants,

described the notetaking task as a means of implemented content area writing.

Participant 6 further noted the use of writing in taking notes and created what the

participant called “muscle memory”. Participant 6 perceived the value of writing as a

means of simply writing and rewriting content material notes in order to gain

memorization. Participant 4 further noted the use of the note-taking and worksheets as

examples of content area writing, and described that the goal of these strategies were

perceived as “if you write it, you are more likely to remember it,” similar to Participant

6’s view of muscle memory. However, Participant 4 also described notetaking as

requiring “not a whole lot of brain activity,” which signified that note taking was a simple

process and not reflective of the cognitive processes utilized in writing.

In addition to these creative uses of content area writing, Participant 4 also

described the importance of teaching students how to write lab reports. Through

modeling, Participant 4 taught students how to write specific aspects and sections of a lab

report in order to display insights and information from scientific lab experiments. For

lab reports, students were required to have an abstract, an introduction, detailed

procedures, materials, and a conclusion based on the collected data. Participant 4

128

described the importance of a science teacher teaching science content area writing in

order to help students to think and write like a scientist. Participant 4 also noted the

importance that helping students to not only describe their conclusions based on data but

also gave an explanation as to the “why and how” of the data. The teacher would model

how to write different sections and provide examples that showed “what a good one looks

like.”

Math implementation of content area writing instruction. The two math teacher

interview participants further provided insight on writing instructional strategies

implemented during math content instruction. Each of the teachers described a monthly

occurrence of writing instruction, which simply occurred on the unit test as a form of

assessment in order to prepare for the EOC; however, both participants discussed

instructional writing tasks and strategies that helped students comprehend mathematical

content through writing instruction. The math teachers perceived math content writing as

related to students’ ability to describe their thought process while solving problems.

Participant 1 described math as very numerical and, therefore, did not write paragraphs;

however, the participant noted that “whatever goes through [the student’s] head needs to

come put on paper.” In order to encourage student development and expression of the

thought process required to solve a mathematical equation, Participant 1 routinely

encouraged students to write their thoughts on their desks with dry erase markers. The

desks were coated in a material that allowed dry erase markers to be wiped off. This

strategy gave the students the opportunity to write larger and display their thought

process while erasing and working through their errors. Participant 3 described the use of

worksheets and fill-in-the-blank notes in order to provide writing instruction. Based on

129

survey data, 20 respondents reported using fill-in-the-blank notes, and 26 reported using

worksheets during instruction. Participant 3 described how these tasks encouraged the

students to write. One worksheet required students to write their own detailed word

problem “so [the students] have to come up with names and numbers and a whole

background for the problem” (Participant 3). Participant 3 further described the use of

writing in pairs, which allowed for collaboration and discussion among the students. The

students also conducted brief quick writes or solved equations and discuss their thought

processes with each other.

Social studies implementation of content area writing instruction. Both social

studies teachers described writing as a critical component of learning; however, the

teachers described monthly use of content area writing instruction. Participant 7

described an effective strategy to help students understand the nuances of the Declaration

of Independence through the use of a RAFT assignment. Instead of students simply

summarizing the document, they were tasked with rewriting the document so that a

younger audience could understand the content. This task forced students to analyze and

synthesize information into a different format. The teacher described the reasoning and

benefit of the strategy as “if [the student] can process this and put it into a simpler form

so [a different audience] can understand, maybe [the students] understand the content

better” (Participant 7).

Participant 8 described two examples of personal implementation of writing tasks

and instruction in an economics class. The teacher utilized a jigsaw strategy in which

students were divided into groups where each group received a different article. The

groups had a certain amount of time to read and discuss their article before they switched

130

groups. In the new groups, each group member shared their understanding of the article

and made note of a group consensus concerning different aspects of what they read on a

graphic organizer. Afterwards, the teacher wrote the following prompt on the board:

“should the United States pay off its national debt or not?” (Participant 8). The students

wrote a constructed response based on the information they read and were given from the

other groups. This strategy allowed the students to critically think like economists

concerning the content material through authentic means. The teacher further described

the use of podcasts regarding the marketplace morning report in order to experience the

content through authentic means. The students summarized the podcast and described

how the podcast related to the content being studied. The goal of the strategy was to help

the students “to become analytical and use critical thinking skills.” Despite the expressed

lack of occurrence of writing instruction, these teachers described how content area

writing instruction was implemented in the social studies classroom.

ELA implementation of content area writing instruction. The two ELA teachers

embraced writing instruction in their classroom as a daily occurrence and further

elaborated on different strategies used in order to help students gain content

understanding. Both teachers described use of the RAFT model and quick-writes in order

to engage students in the content. Nine teachers noted use of the quick write strategy

during classroom instruction. In addition, both teachers noted use of a strategy they

referred to as timed writing. Participant 5 discussed the use of the time writing strategy

as a means to create a composition in a limited amount of time order to provide

instruction in the writing process and editing of drafts. The strategy allowed the teacher

to provide dedicated writing instruction in order to teach structure and review techniques.

131

Participant 2 also described the successful use of timed writing where multiple revision

stations were set up and allowed students to revise their drafts based on the station topic.

Participant 2 further noted that one station related to sensory details. The students read

through their drafts and highlighted all sensory details and then used material at the

station in order to incorporate the idea into their compositions. The students then moved

to the next station at their own pace and incorporated different strategies and techniques

into their composition.

Both participants described dedicated use of writing instruction; however, both

teachers felt the constraints of preparation for EOC testing. Participant 5 noted being

“confined by state standards and state testing […] it feels like a sacrifice to do creative

writing, free writing, that kind of thing.” Therefore, both teachers felt a need to focus on

structured and formal writing. Participants 2 and 5 utilized graphic organizers that

focused on brainstorming and prewrite exercises that emphasized the usefulness of

organizing thoughts before writing. Participant 2 also focused on the use of outlining and

content webs to help students visualize how their formal writing should be structured.

Furthermore, both teachers utilized sentence starters and sentence stems, which provided

differentiated instruction to students who struggled with formal essay writing.

Theme 2: Writing as Summative Assessment

Participants of the study viewed the use of writing during content area instruction

as a means of summative assessment in order to show what students learned. For Item

3A, an infrastructure for ongoing formative and summative assessment is in place, 74.2%

of respondents noted this item to be at least operational. Similarly, for Item 3D,

summative data is used to make programming decisions, 74.2% of respondents perceived

132

this item as being at least operational across the school. Survey respondents perceived

the importance of summative assessment in making instructional decisions.

Participant 2 reflected this belief in that “I feel that it is probably used more for

assessing in other content areas [because writing] is really the measure if you mastered

the content, is if you can explain it in your own words.” Furthermore, respondents noted

in Part 4 of the survey that tasks related to summative assessment, research paper and

essay test, were frequently noted as being used during content area instruction. Fifteen

respondents noted the use of essay tests, and 13 noted the use of research papers during

instruction. Participant 3 described the use of open response and essay questions on unit

assessments in order to use writing to assess learning and commented that “if they can

write about it and tell you what they are doing then we know that they know what they

are doing.” Participant 5 mirrored this explanation and remarked “if you can effectively

write about a topic or concept…then that means you actually understand what the

concept is.” Furthermore, Participant 5 mentioned that if you can write about a topic, “it

shows that you really understand more so than if you answered some multiple-choice

questions.”

Participant 7 further elaborated on the use of open response and essay questions

on unit assessments as a means to determine student learning and declared that writing

“works better as summative.” Participant 8 also described the importance of summative

writing in that “I tag a short writing assignment to [a test and] I think that if you are

having the students write down their thoughts, they are not guessing.” Each of these

participants described a perception of use of writing to show what a student learned about

the content material. Participant 4 further added to the perception of writing as a means

133

to assess learning in that “you have to have the steps to lead up to it.” Participant 4 felt

that summative writing should take into account what the teacher desired to assess and

how the students were prepared for the assessment. Most of the interview participants

described the perception of the use of writing as a means to assess summative learning.

Summary

The purpose of the study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions, confidence, and

use of writing instructional strategies throughout content areas at the conclusion of

implementation of the five-year SRCL grant. The overarching research question that

guided the study was, what are content area teachers’ perceptions as instructors of writing

and their perceptions of writing instruction strategies used in their classrooms? In order

to answer this question, three sub-questions were developed: (a) How do content area

teachers perceive their role as instructors of writing, (b) How do teachers perceive their

confidence and knowledge of writing instruction, and (c) How are content area teachers

implementing writing instruction strategies. To answer these questions, an explanatory

sequential research design was chosen to gather both quantitative and qualitative data.

Comparison of the needs assessment survey data demonstrated a discrepancy between a

perceived school culture of shared responsibility of literacy instruction and teachers’

perceptions of writing instruction implementation in content area classrooms. Teachers

reported the importance of content area writing; however, teachers did not perceive wide

use of writing instructional strategies across the curriculum. Teachers further

demonstrated a limited understanding concerning content area teachers’ role in content

area writing instruction. This knowledge was reinforced by a perceived ELA ownership

of writing in that instructors of writing should be good writers as writing ability impacted

134

writing instruction. In this regard, many teachers reported a lack of confidence and self-

efficacy in personal writing ability. This limited knowledge of what constituted content

area writing instruction was emphasized through each interview participant. Interview

participants cited examples of informal writing strategies and tasks geared toward helping

students better understand content area material; however, teachers did not seem to

recognize the examples as content area writing instruction. As a possible result of limited

knowledge and professional development, as noted by each interview participant, there

was no visible schoolwide improvement of writing instruction or writing implementation

in content area instruction based on implementation of the SRCL grant.

135

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Summary of the Study

Writing is a critical skill for students to possess in order to be successful in the

global job market and higher education classroom (Arnold et al., 2017; Balgopal &

Wallace, 2013; Dede, 2009; Fry & Villagomez, 2012; Hill, 1994; Russell, 2013). Despite

the importance of writing to student success, results of the participating high school’s

needs assessment survey, conducted as part of the SRCL grant application process in

2014, revealed a lack of teacher understanding regarding the role of content area teachers

in writing instruction (GaDOE, 2014). Furthermore, student writing deficiencies are

evident in national, state, and local standardized assessments and Georgia Milestones

data.

In order for teachers to utilize writing as a tool that allows students the

opportunity to explore content knowledge and understanding, teachers should possess

confidence and willingness to embrace writing instructional strategies (Russell, 1994).

Teachers’ self-perceptions and confidence as instructors of writing directly influenced the

efficacy and willingness to implement writing instruction (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013; Troia et

al., 2011). Teachers’ views and beliefs influence instructional choices and

implementation of writing strategies. If teachers lack knowledge of such instructional

strategies and the confidence to implement them, teachers may require professional

development and learning in order to build confidence in writing implementation.

136

Furthermore, the current body of Georgia SRCL grant program literature lacked

empirical studies that detailed the perceptions of teachers from a specific SRCL school as

teacher dedication and buy-in of writing and literacy instruction across the curriculum are

crucial in the implementation of the SRCL grant.

The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions, confidence,

and use of writing instructional strategies throughout content areas at the conclusion of

implementation of the five-year SRCL grant. The overarching research question that

guided the study was, What are content area teachers’ perceptions as instructors of

writing and their perceptions of writing instruction strategies used in their classrooms? In

order to answer this question, three sub-questions were developed: (a) How do content

area teachers perceive their role as instructors of writing, (b) How do teachers perceive

their confidence and knowledge of writing instruction, and (c) How are content area

teachers implementing writing instruction strategies.

To answer the research questions, the methodology of the study consisted of an

explanatory sequential research design in order to gather both quantitative and qualitative

data. For Phase 1, quantitative data were collected from 31 respondents of the population

that consisted of 57 certified faculty members of the participating high school. A survey

consisting of structured items was created through Google Forms and made available to

the target population in an online format through district email. Data analysis consisted

of descriptive statistics to gain a statistical understanding of responses, comparison of the

results to the findings of the initial needs assessment survey conducted at the time of

SRCL grant application, and a cross-tabulation of responses based on demographics.

137

For Phase 2, qualitative data were collected from respondents of the Phase 1

survey. The qualitative sample size of eight participants was selected through a non-

proportional stratified sampling process with each of the four academic content areas,

ELA, math, science, and social studies, represented. The qualitative instruments utilized

were an individual, semi-structured interview protocol that consisted of 14 questions in

addition to probing questions and a document analysis protocol of interviewee lesson

plan data. The qualitative data analysis consisted of identification of emergent themes

and was guided by a phenomenological approach in order to understand the phenomenon

of teachers’ perceptions of writing through their lived experiences and

understanding. The final aspect of the explanatory research design was the integration of

the quantitative and qualitative data through a narrative weaving approach in which both

the quantitative and qualitative findings were combined and discussed together based on

emergent themes.

Based on the findings of the data analysis and comparison of the needs

assessment survey data, a discrepancy between a perceived school culture of shared

responsibility of literacy instruction and teachers’ perceptions of writing instruction

implementation in content area classrooms became evident. Furthermore, study

participants emphasized a perceived ELA ownership of writing in that writing instruction

primarily occurred in ELA classrooms. Study participants also reported the importance

of content area writing; however, participants described a perceived lack of wide use of

writing instructional strategies across the curriculum. In addition, study participants

demonstrated a lack of understanding concerning content area teachers’ roles in content

area writing instruction. Participants described a limited understanding of content writing

138

in that content area writing was primarily constituted of formal essays and as a means of

summative assessment. Despite this lack of understanding concerning writing

instruction, each interview participant unintentionally cited examples of content area

writing strategies and tasks geared toward helping students better understand content area

material through compositional writing. Furthermore, survey respondents reported use of

a variety of writing instructional strategies and tasks; however, these tasks did not require

a high amount of cognitive processes. As a possible result of lack of understanding and

professional development, as noted by each interview participant, there was no visible

schoolwide improvement of writing instruction or writing implementation in content area

instruction based on implementation of the SRCL grant.

Analysis of the Findings

Whose Role it is to Teach Writing

ELA ownership. The findings of the current study affirmed the conclusions of

other researchers in regards to whose role it is to teach writing. Multiple researchers

(Hanstedt, 2012; McLeod, 2001; NCTE, 2011; Russell, 1990, 1994) suggested teachers’

understandings of their roles as instructors of writing were driven by a perception of ELA

ownership of writing, which further led to a belief of a lack of responsibility towards

content area writing instruction. The empirical evidence of the findings reinforced

previous scholarship and suggested that a perception of ELA ownership of writing was a

common sentiment. Russell (1990, 1994) suggested that departmentalization at the

secondary and post-secondary levels led to content areas teachers’ willingness to accept

ELA ownership and responsibility for writing instruction. Departmentalization at the

secondary and post-secondary level meant that teachers became specialized in specific

139

content areas, which were divided into content departments. Participant 1 reinforced the

idea of departmentalization at the high school level and noted that “we are very

departmental and not encouraged [to collaborate with other departments] as much as we

should be […] we need to have more conversations.” Participant 1 described the idea of

departmentalization in that content area teachers planned and collaborated with teachers

with their content department more so than teachers of other departments. The schedule

of the high school featured in this study provided content area teachers with common

planning periods with other teachers in their respective content to encourage

interdepartmental collaboration. Teachers have the opportunity to meet with their

department during their planning period, but, due to the structure of the planning

schedule, teachers had little ability to meet with others outside their content area to share

and learn about content area writing instruction. Departmentalization, therefore, limited

teachers’ access to discuss writing instruction and potentially reinforced the idea of ELA

ownership of writing instruction.

McLeod (2001) further described examples and reasoning of ELA ownership of

writing instruction. McLeod (2001) acknowledged the existence of this perception

through an anecdote concerning a colleague from the history department. In complaining

about college students’ writing ability, the professor described a perception of ELA

ownership in that the lack of writing ability was a result of English teachers not doing

their job. Participant 4 mirrored this anecdote through a belief that specific writing

instruction should have occurred before the students reached high school, and ELA

teachers in the middle grades should have focused more on writing practices. Participant

7 described teachers as “sort of territorial” when test scores are involved and further

140

noted that the teacher basically “stayed out of the ELA teacher’s way” in regards to

writing instruction. Teachers in the current study perceived that writing instruction

should occur in ELA classrooms and was the responsibility of ELA teachers.

Content area teachers’ roles in writing. Hanstedt (2012) described the complexity

of content area writing and writing instruction. Good writing was defined differently in

each content area and was difficult for content area teachers to teach. Similarly,

interview participants described struggling with how to connect writing to their content.

In fact, findings of the current study contradicted prior literature in that participants

perceived little to no active role in writing instruction. The six non-ELA teachers each

reported that they had no role in writing instruction; however, the two ELA teachers

described their role as one of importance. Participant 1, a math teacher, described that,

because the math content was numerical, the teacher did not have a role in writing

instruction. This teacher noted that “math is very numerical and so we just don’t write

paragraphs to explain things.” Participant 3, a math teacher, struggled with capitalization

and punctuation when constructed responses were utilized in math content instruction.

The teacher did not believe that kind of writing instruction should be in a math

classroom; however, the teacher determined grammar convention training was a need for

the students.

Participant 7, a social studies teacher, described a “hands off” role in writing

instruction by simply “staying out of the ELA teacher’s way.” Participant 4, a science

teacher, described the use of formal research papers during content instruction but

reported a lack of role in teaching writing when in the form of grammar and sentence

structure. Participant 6 described the difficulty in implementing writing into a science

141

classroom “when I am thinking about writing, for my students […] I am trying to get

them to focus on the importance of an individual word, phrase, or symbol.” The teacher

had difficulty in aligning writing into the context of science content for a specific

purpose. Other teachers found it difficult to take time to teach students grammar and

writing instead of content material. Content area teachers experienced confusion as to

how writing might be integrated into their content curriculum. Without understanding

how or why to teach writing, these teachers seemed not to perceive a need to take on this

instructional role. Instead, teachers took on the traditional view of teaching writing as the

ELA teacher’s role and responsibility.

. The Common Core State Standards (2010) suggested that content area teachers

shared a responsibility in writing instruction. Furthermore, the NCTE (2011) emphasized

the importance of content area teachers implementing writing instruction as a means to

improve content understanding and embraced the idea of shared responsibility in writing

instruction. Russell (1994) and McLeod (2001) noted the importance of content area

teachers embracing a role in content area instruction. Russell (1994) further argued that

content area teachers had a responsibility to teach students how to write in their specific

content areas and model how scientists, mathematicians, and historians utilized writing.

Study findings contradicted the arguments made by Russell (1994) and McLeod (2001) in

that most of the study participants did not see their role as teaching students to write in

specific content areas.

How to Teach Writing

Writing perceived as summative. A further finding of the current study was a

prevalent perception among content area teachers that writing was a summative activity;

142

a strategy that should be used to assess student learning as opposed to helping students

learn the content material. Russell (1994) argued that writing was more than just

assessment of learning: it could be a tool for the actual learning of content material.

Tasks like RAFT writing assignments created an opportunity for students to explore and

reinforce their understanding of the content. Through this RAFT task, students were

required to consider the role, audience, format, and topic in a compositional writing.

Teachers created the opportunity for students to delve deeper into the content and

strengthen their content knowledge. This task differed from utilizing a constructed

response or essay question to assess whether the student gained mastery of the content.

Through analysis of the findings, teacher perceptions at the participating school were

inconsistent with Russell’s argument in that participants primarily perceived and utilized

writing as a means to assess learning and not as a tool for learning. Interview Participant

7, a social studies teacher, described that writing worked best as a means to assess student

learning. Furthermore, Participant 2, a math teacher, used writing to assess how students

critically think through a problem. Respondents for Part 4 of the quantitative survey

noted the use of summative type tasks, like essay tests and formal essays, more frequently

than other creative tasks that require cognitive processing to create a composition.

Teacher understanding, implementation, and knowledge of writing-to-learn tasks, as

described by Russell, were lacking.

Writing tasks lacked cognitive processing. Respondents and interview

participants of the current study described types of writing tasks and instruction that did

not require students to utilize cognitive processing or analysis in order to create

compositions. These types of writing tasks related to notes, worksheets, fill-in-the-blank

143

notes, and summarization. These writing tasks also accounted for a vast majority of

respondent answers to Part 4 of the survey, with notes and worksheets most frequently

cited. Tasks that required a student to create a composition through cognitive processing,

like quick writes, RAFT tasks, creative and responsive writing, were among the least

frequently used. These findings reinforced the conclusions of Gillespie et al. (2013) in

that many of the writing strategies and tasks used during high school writing instruction

involved little composition. Furthermore, multiple interview participants noted the use of

notes and summarization as means of providing writing instruction. Interview

participants described writing instruction as simply having students write, or putting

pencil to paper. A majority of the interview participants described examples of writing

instruction in which students were passive recipients of information and not engaged in

tasks that required critical thinking in order to form coherent compositions.

How to Become a Writing Teacher

The teacher as writer model guided the research study in that content area

teachers shared a responsibility in writing instruction (CCSS, 2010). The theoretical

framework was based on the understandings developed by Frager (1994), Sushi (1984),

and Romano (2007) where each described teachers as writing models. Frager (1994)

described the importance of teachers’ perceptions of writing on the influence of writing

instruction in that perceptions could be passed to students. A majority of respondents

from the current study, 68.1%, noted that they did not enjoy writing in their spare time.

Furthermore, a majority of interview participants described having little role as content

area teachers in writing instruction. In addition, a majority of teachers perceived little

enjoyment in personal writing; therefore, these negative perceptions potentially prevented

144

the implementation of writing instruction into content area teachers’ classroom

instruction due to the conclusions described by Frager where teachers’ perceptions

influence writing instruction. Teachers had a negative view of writing, and, therefore,

there was a negative influence on their writing instruction implementation.

Many teachers reported a lack of confidence and self-efficacy in teaching writing.

Bifuh-Ambe (2012) noted that teachers’ confidence and proficiency in writing ability

impacted writing instruction. Study findings affirmed the conclusion of Bifuh-Ambe in

that many of the interview participants (n = 6) noted that their confidence levels in

writing were low, which reflected the infrequency of use of writing instruction in their

content instruction. Half of the interview participants (n = 4) noted that they used writing

instruction at least once a month, while two noted weekly use. The two ELA teachers

reported writing instruction use on a daily basis and a higher level of confidence than

other content area teachers. As a result of a lack of confidence and proficiency in

writing, teachers were less willing to implement writing instruction. In regards to the

significance of confidence in writing ability, Curtis (2017) found the importance of

modeling writing instruction in improving the confidence and writing ability of teachers.

In addition, Curtis further found that teachers’ attitudes towards writing improved. These

conclusions were affirmed by the findings in that the two ELA teachers described their

use of modeling during writing instruction, which potentially could have influenced their

positive attitudes towards writing. Curtis further highlighted a need to embrace a more

positive culture of writing through encouragement of development of confidence and

teacher self-efficacy.

145

Romano (2007) described the teacher as writer model and self-efficacy as

“teachers who write demonstrate to students someone who loves to think, explore, and

communicate through writing” (p. 171). Sushi (1984) also contended that teachers were

to actively model the writing process during writing instruction. Participants of this

study, however, felt limited by their confidence in writing to provide effective modelling

of writing instruction. A majority of interview participants viewed themselves as good

writers, while each described a lack of comfort in teaching writing. Based on the

understandings provided by Romano (2007) and Sushi (1984), lack of confidence and

self-efficacy as experienced by the study participants potentially prevented teachers from

acting as writing models in their classrooms.

Limitations of the Study

The study was limited in the following ways: (a) population size, (b)

instrumentation, and (c) time period. The population size proved to be a limitation.

Despite a 54% obtained response rate, above the 50% desired response rate, the resulting

sampling size was small. Each of the 57 certified faculty members of the participating

high school who comprised the population had the opportunity to complete the survey.

Only 31 respondents completed and submitted the survey to participate in the study. This

sample was smaller compared to the 71 respondents of the initial needs assessment

survey conducted at the time of grant application in 2014. A larger sample from a larger

population would have provided more data, adding to the validity of the survey data and

conclusions. Furthermore, during the grant implementation years of 2014-2019, there

was a considerably high turnover rate for not just leadership but also teachers at the

participating high school. Many teachers and administrators who were present at the

146

outset of the grant and participated in the initial needs assessment survey had departed the

school by the conclusion of the grant. There is little opportunity to correlate survey

results from the initial grant application and the current study because the needs

assessment survey conducted in 2014 was anonymous and did not record participant

identification.

Instrumentation also proved to be a limitation of the study. The instruments and

protocols developed for the study were meant to gather relevant data concerning teachers’

perceptions of writing, their role as writing instructors, and writing instruction use in

content area classrooms. However, more specific questions concerning perceptions of

ELA ownership would have been beneficial. Interview data provided information

concerning ELA ownership, but the survey instrument lacked items that addressed the

issue. Furthermore, survey items and interview questions concerning teachers’ personal

writing practices, i.e. occurrence of personal writing and types of personal writing,

provided interesting data but, upon analysis, did not aid in answering the research

questions that guided the study. Initially, items related to the aspect of teachers’ personal

writing practices were meant to gain an insight to another facet of teacher confidence and

knowledge of writing. However, analysis of the items related to teachers’ personal

writing practices did not provide additional information to answer Research Question 2.

In addition, the time period in which the study was conducted presented a

challenge. Data collection and analysis began in the middle of May with teachers trying

to close out the school year. The study was conducted after the administration of the

Georgia Milestones, but data collection still took place during a busy time for teachers.

This time period potentially created difficulties for members of the population to respond

147

to the survey. With teachers focusing on closing out a school year and end of school year

duties ranging from finalizing grades, lesson plans, and paperwork responsibilities,

teachers potentially were less willing to complete another survey. Despite the amount of

usable data and the understandings gained through data analysis, the population,

instruments, and time period became limitations of the study.

Recommendations for Future Research

The overall findings of the study suggested a number of possibilities for future

research endeavors. These topics include (a) teacher preparation, (b) content area

teachers’ understanding of writing, (c) literacy leadership, and (d) cross-departmental

collaboration.

Based on teacher demographics of the survey instrument for the current study,

teachers with 0 to 5 years of experience constituted a large percentage of respondents. Of

the 31 respondents, 12 (38.7%) belonged to the 0 to 5 years of experience group. These

teachers were relatively new to the field of education and joined the participating high

school after the initial implementation and grant application in 2014. Furthermore, based

on perceived lack of content area teachers’ role in content area instruction, the findings

could potentially provide opportunity for future research endeavors. With a majority of

teachers who were new to the profession, how are preparation programs preparing future

teachers for content area writing? Further cross-tabulation will provide information as to

the novice teachers’ perceptions and practices as content area writing teachers. Further

cross-tabulation of collected survey data from the current study could be the basis of

future study into preservice teachers’ perceptions of their role in content area writing

148

instruction. Current data, however, will not provide any insights into preservice teachers’

perceptions.

The findings of the current study showed that content area teachers did not

possess common understandings of content area writing. This finding was evident in that

numerous interview participants described writing as effective only as summative

assessment. Interview participants further described writing as tasks related to formal

writing. Future research could be conducted into how each content area understood and

defined writing in content area instruction. Furthermore, the qualitative data of the

current survey provided a better understanding of the quantitative survey; however, the

qualitative data also revealed contradiction between survey respondents and interview

participants. A majority of survey respondents, 61%, described that a school culture in

which teachers across the curriculum were responsible for literacy instruction was at least

operational. The majority of interview participants described that content area teachers

did not have a role in writing instruction. Further research could be conducted into the

reasons for the contradictory findings of the quantitative and qualitative instruments.

The lack of professional development targeted towards literacy and writing

instruction in order to obtain the goals of the SRCL grant persisted due to the lack of a

formal literacy leadership team that would have potentially provided support and ensured

implementation of content area writing strategies. Based on Item 1b, 41.9% of survey

respondents noted a literacy leadership team that was organized and active was not

addressed at the participant school. Further research would be beneficial to understand

the role of a literacy leadership team and how that leadership team could potentially

create a culture of shared responsibility of writing instruction by all teachers. In order to

149

address teachers’ perceptions of their role as instructors of writing and ELA ownership of

writing, a literacy leadership team could be created and mandated with organizing

beneficial, in-house and expert led professional develop in relation to content area

instruction. The literacy leadership team could also monitor and support implementation

of learned strategies through observations and modeling writing instruction.

Findings of the current study revealed a lack of time for cross-departmental

collaboration across different content areas. Participant 1 described how the schedule

allowed for common planning among departments but did not allow for time to

collaborate among other content areas. Other interview participants further described a

lack of time to meet with other content area teachers to discuss and collaborate on

effective writing strategies. Considerations for further study into interdepartmental

collaboration and school scheduling would help to better understand how teachers could

effectively collaborate.

Implications of the Study

The stated problem of the study referred to a lack of teacher understanding

regarding the role of content area teachers in writing instruction based on analysis of the

2014 needs assessment survey conducted during SRCL grant application. The current

study findings reflected a similar lack of teacher understanding regarding content area

writing instruction. Therefore, the findings of this study pertained to each of the different

stakeholders in the participating high school’s district. The district leadership can better

utilize funds for specific professional development geared toward content area writing

based on the understood perceptions of the high school teachers. This dedicated

professional development could potentially increase the amount of content area writing

150

instruction implemented in the participating high school. Professional development

concentrated toward writing instructional strategies and content area teachers’ role in

writing instruction could improve learning and writing ability and would reinforce a

sense of shared responsibility of writing instruction among all content areas. Professional

development could help teachers understand that content area writing is more than essay

writing and summative assessment; writing can be a tool to help students learn content

material. In addition, understanding of the study findings could give district leadership

the tools to provide additional support for teachers’ classroom instruction. Further

research could be conducted as to why the participating faculty felt that the SRCL grant

was ineffective and provided no improvement and implement changes to improve content

area writing instruction.

Teachers could benefit from the study through the implementation of professional

learning communities (PLCs) that allow for teachers of all content areas to share writing

instructional strategies and discuss implementation of writing instruction in content area

classrooms. PLCs are organized meetings of teachers in order to discuss instructional

strategies and data. Furthermore, content area departments could create PLCs that focus

on how to implement writing instruction and writing tasks into specific content area

classrooms. This shared collaboration and discussion among teachers of different

departments would help to develop and support a culture of shared responsibility of

writing instruction. Students would benefit from the increased teacher knowledge and

understanding of a shared responsibility of writing instruction.

Both students and the community will benefit from the increased writing

instruction throughout each content area. The students would further learn how writing

151

can have different meanings and expectations based on the content area. Students would

be exposed to the different facets of writing and will increase practice and understanding

of the writing process in different contexts; and thereby possibly increasing student

writing ability. The community business leaders would benefit as students graduate with

the writing ability and skills to be competitive in the current job market. Business leaders

could recruit and retain local students and have less need to train students to complete

necessary writing tasks.

Dissemination of the Findings

Findings of the current study were disseminated to the faculty and leadership of

the participating high school and district leadership. The principal researcher met with

the participating high school’s leadership and discussed the findings of the study. A

discussion of means to address writing instruction further ensued. Furthermore,

dissemination of the results to the faculty of the participating high school was conducted

through the use of principal researcher led PLCs. The purpose of these PLCs was to have

different teachers from different content area departments to meet and discuss strategies

related to content area writing instruction. In this environment, teachers could gain

instructional strategies concerning writing instruction and reinforce the idea that writing

instruction is a shared responsibility among all content area teachers. The principal

researcher also met with district leadership in order to discuss the findings of the current

study. Targeted professional development and the development of a literacy leadership

team were discussed.

152

Conclusion

In a fast-paced world and competitive job market, student writing ability is an

important skill to possess in order to be successful. Teachers must reinforce their

implementation of content area writing instruction in order to better prepare students for

the rigors and responsibilities of college and life. However, findings of the current study

revealed that teachers at the participating high school embraced a minimal role of writing

instruction during content area instruction. Furthermore, content area teachers perceived

writing instruction as the responsibility of ELA teachers and that it should primarily take

place during ELA content instruction. These findings reinforced the findings of prior

research in that teachers’ understandings of their role as instructors of writing were

driven by perceptions of ELA ownership of writing, which led to a belief of a lack of

responsibility towards content area writing instruction (Hanstedt, 2012; McLeod, 2001;

NCTE, 2011; Russell, 1990, 1994). Further findings reflected that content area teachers

lacked understanding and self-efficacy regarding content area writing instruction. These

findings affirmed prior research in that many interview participants noted low self-

efficacy in writing ability, which reflected the infrequency of use of writing instruction in

content area classrooms (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013; Curtis, 2017; Lewis & Sanchez, 2017; Troia

et al., 2011). Findings also revealed that content area teachers implemented writing tasks

that required little cognitive processing. Tasks like note-taking, worksheets, fill-in-the-

blank notes, and summarization showed high response rates among survey respondents.

These findings reinforced the findings of Gillespie et al. (2014) in that many of the

writing strategies and tasks used during high school writing instruction involved little

composition. Further findings of the study revealed that teachers viewed the use of

153

writing during content area instruction as a means of summative assessment in order to

show what students have learned. Russell (1994) argued that writing was more than just

assessment of learning; it could be a tool of for actual learning of content material.

Findings of the study showed that teacher perceptions at the participating school were

inconsistent with Russell’s argument. Teachers must be comfortable with writing in

order to implement instruction that gives students the opportunity to improve

compositional skills while gaining content understanding by delving deeper into the

content material. When writing is not confined only to ELA classrooms, students can

explore other facets and purposes of writing, which improves writing ability and makes

them more prepared for the future.

Implementing Writing in Content Areas; Teachers’ Perceptions as Writing Instructors.

Students also viewed