Abstract
Conducting focus groups with target audiences to assess user needs is a critical step in the process of designing and developing a web-based writing environment. This descriptive study examined focus group data gathered to address two questions: First, do data from focus groups affirm and expand our understanding of writing and writing development among middle school students? And second, do data from focus groups provide information helpful to the use of digital technology for enhancing writing instruction, production, and engagement? Analysis of students’ writing experiences across grade levels revealed that sixth graders placed more emphasis on procedural knowledge such as format, editing, and timelines, whereas seventh and eighth graders placed more emphasis on substantive processes such as plan, draft, and revise. Students’ writing experiences also showed a disconnect between writing behaviors they engaged in on their own (texting, social media, and email) and writings they learned in school. Future research and instructional practice implications are discussed, including providing ongoing supports when writing and use of digital technology to enhance instruction and engagement.
Writing is an essential skill for critical thinking, learning, and expression. Students who develop effective writing skills in their school years enter postsecondary life with a significant advantage over those who do not write well (Graham & Perin, 2007). Yet, a high percentage of students have considerable difficulties learning to write. Results from the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress revealed that 63% of Grade 8 students scored below “proficient” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012).
Based on 30 years of writing research that focused on students with learning disabilities (SWLD) and struggling writers (SW), Graham and Harris (2009) highlighted four factors that are crucial for teaching and learning to write—skills, knowledge, strategies, and motivation for writing. Nevertheless, for teachers seeking reasoned approaches to addressing poor writing skills, stagnant writing development, and a widening gap in writing knowledge and performance of their students, knowledge of the four writing factors is not concrete enough for making instructional decisions that help their students and teach writing effectively. The principle of universal design for learning (UDL), derived from synthesis of neuroscience research, conceives learning as three interconnected networks—recognition, strategic, and affective—and is an actionable framework for teachers and instructional designers to translate evidence from writing research into practices that affect the development of student writing skills and quality of writing (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014).
This study analyzed the first set of focus group sessions in which we applied UDL to develop a web-based, writing environment and employed design thinking, a process of learning from users by prototyping designs based on ideas and input, conducting focus groups to get feedback from target users interacting with the prototype and using findings to iterate and rework designs through to development. The focus group data used to inform design decisions proved to be informative to the field of writing research as well. Our analysis of focus group data on students’ writing experiences in and out of school affirmed findings from a substantial body of research supporting the positive effect of basic writing skills, knowledge of writing, and strategies for writing on the quality of writing for students with and without disabilities (Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris, 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007). Our analysis also highlighted the disconnect between writing behaviors students engaged in on their own (texting, social media, and email) and writings they learned in school. Students and teachers do not perceive text production from texting and social media as writing. In doing so, both may be undervaluing prior knowledge and interests of students that can be leveraged to develop traditional writing skills.
A Comprehensive Approach to Closing the Performance Gap in Writing
Widening Gap in Performance Across Age
One serious concern is that SWLD struggle with writing considerably more than their peers. SWLD demonstrate less knowledge of the writing process and spend less time planning and revising (Saddler & Asaro, 2007). When students do revise, their changes tend to focus on superficial edits, not substantive changes that improve the overall quality (Monroe & Troia, 2006).
Another serious concern is the widening knowledge and performance gap between SW and their peers. Lin, Monroe, and Troia’s (2007) study comparing the writing knowledge of students in Grades 2 through 8 showed that the gap between typical writers (TW) and SW increased at each grade level. They analyzed student responses to interview questions relating to the purpose of writing, forms of writing, characteristics of good writing, and writing processes such as planning and revising. Their analysis uncovered a pattern of developmental differences in writing knowledge across grades and ability levels.
Elementary students had a shallow understanding of writing. They listed what they learned about writing, but did not elaborate on how and when to integrate their knowledge to complete writing tasks. However, middle school students possessed a more substantive understanding of writing. Their responses were more elaborate and reflected an integrative understanding of planning and revising with a target audience in mind. Comparison of TW and SW students in elementary grades also showed differences in knowledge of writing. TW’ descriptions of writing were specific, referencing recent writing elements learned in class. In contrast, SW’ responses were general with no reference to writing elements taught in class. SW in middle school grades listed more writing elements than SW in elementary grade students, but they did not describe strategic use of writing processes as did their TW peers (Lin et al., 2007).
Skills, Knowledge, Strategies, and Motivation in Writing
Integrating writing skills, knowledge, and strategy development into a writing curriculum has the potential to improve the writing abilities of SWLD and close the widening knowledge and performance gap (Graham & Harris, 2009). These researchers synthesized evidence from 30 years of writing research that focused on SWLD and SW into four factors that are essential for students to develop competence and become proficient writers (Graham & Harris, 2009). First, students need to develop writing skills such as spelling, grammar, typing, or handwriting. Second, they need to acquire knowledge of writing, specifically knowledge of genre, writing processes, and assignment topic. Third, they need to know strategies for planning, drafting, and revising and how to apply them to meet writing goals and complete writing tasks for the intended audience. And fourth, students need to have motivation for writing—self-efficacy and a positive attitude toward writing. Critically, these four factors are interconnected. When writing, students seamlessly employ writing skills, knowledge of writing, strategies for writing, desire to write, and belief in their writing ability to complete the writing assignment. Skilled writers have the experience and expertise to integrate all writing factors to improve text production, idea development, and quality of writing (Graham & Perin, 2007; Graham & Sandmel, 2011).
Current research on writing supports the effects of basic writing skills, knowledge of writing including genre, strategies for writing, and motivation in writing development. Gillespie, Olinghouse, and Graham (2013) conducted a study of elementary-age students in which they determined that students’ knowledge of writing processes predicted their knowledge of writing genre. Saddler and Graham’s (2007) study of TW and SW in middle school showed a statistically significant correlation between students’ knowledge of writing and their writing performance. Similarly, multiple writing researchers have found that when SWLD are taught and supported in the use of strategies for planning, drafting, and revising, the quantity and quality of their writing improved (e.g., Monroe & Troia, 2006; Saddler & Asaro, 2007). Furthermore, writing is complex and mentally demanding. Students’ belief in their writing ability, their desire to write, and interest in the writing topic are critical to writing performance (Bruning, Dempsey, Kauffman, McKim, & Zumbrunn, 2013; Pajares, 2003; Troia, Shankland, & Wolbers, 2012). Successful writers have the motivation and confidence to engage and persist through the challenges of writing.
While there are variants in effects across individual studies, as a whole, the volume of writing research supports the four factors for improving the writing performance of all students as proposed by Graham and Harris (2009). In Graham and Perin’s (2007) meta-analysis, they identified 10 writing instructional practices that increased adolescent writers’ competencies in knowledge, skills, and strategies for writing and improved the quality of their compositions. In two subsequent meta-analyses, Graham and colleagues (2012) examined studies of instructional practices for teaching writing to elementary grade students and studies of writing interventions for SWLD (Gillespie & Graham, 2014). Some differences were detected in effective writing practices of middle school and elementary grade students with and without learning disabilities, but overall, the results support previous findings. Methods and approaches to teaching writing that focused on developing students’ knowledge, skills, and strategies for writing were effective in improving overall writing performance (Gillespie & Graham, 2014; Graham et al., 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007).
Writing research from a cognitive perspective started with a focus on the cognitive strategies and linguistic demands of transforming verbal language into its coherent written representation. Less attention has focused on understanding the effects of motivation on developing cognitive strategies and acquiring knowledge and skills of writing that are essential to writing performance. None of the meta-analyses highlighted studies that specifically examined effective instructional practices that enhance student motivation to write (Gillespie & Graham, 2014; Graham et al., 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007; Graham & Sandmel, 2011). A recent review of motivation research in writing by Troia and colleagues (2012) helps fill this gap in the literature. They describe motivation as comprising four related components—self-efficacy beliefs, goal orientations, interest, and attributions for outcomes—and reviewed empirical findings related to each. Studies of students’ self-efficacy or confidence in their writing skills, writing tasks, and self-regulation of strategies for writing showed positive correlation with writing performance. Students’ goal orientation also affects achievement. Students who focus on continuously improving their competence (mastery goals) demonstrate greater achievement than students who focus on demonstrating and receiving public recognition of their competence (performance goals).
In writing, mastery oriented goal statements that include specific details such as “write a persuasive paper that includes supporting reasons and rebutted arguments” positively affect students’ writing performance compared with goal statements that are more general such as “write a persuasive paper.” Students’ interest in particular writing topics or genre can also increase their engagement. However, interest in the absence of writing skill and knowledge has a minimal effect on writing achievement. Students who believe that their writing skills, knowledge, and performance will improve with persistent effort are more motivated to perform well and are more willing to seek help when they need it. Finally, Self-Regulated Strategies Development (SRSD) in which students are explicitly taught strategies and procedures for regulating their use of knowledge, skills, and strategies for writing has been effective in developing and sustaining self-efficacy and motivation for writing (Graham & Harris, 2009).
The breadth of writing research in Graham and colleague’s meta-analyses has focused on assessing the impact of individual factors on writing performance (Gillespie & Graham, 2014; Graham et al., 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007; Graham & Sandmel, 2011). In many of the studies reviewed in these meta-analyses, students in the experimental condition receive instruction related to a single component of writing (typing on a computer, strategies for planning and revising, or strategies for self-regulation). The quantity and quality of student writings in the experimental and control groups were assessed and compared to determine effects.
What is less known is the affect of integrating all four factors into a comprehensive writing intervention. Few studies have examined the impact of an integrative approach to writing development. Writing skills, knowledge, strategies, and engagement are interconnected (Hidi & Boscolo, 2006). Instruction that focuses on one factor invariably draws heavily on learners’ knowledge and experience of other factors. Thus, improvements in one writing competency can contribute to improvements in other competencies. Current researchers (e.g., Graham & Harris, 2009; MacArthur, 2009; Troia et al., 2012) are now calling for more investigations to determine which combination of writing factors will mitigate the challenges of learning to write and which combinations may actually increase cognitive load and anxiety, and thus thwart writing development.
Enhancing Writing Instruction With Technology
The emergence of web-based technology has potential to enhance writing instruction and close the writing ability gap. Research on the effect of multimedia on learning showed that presenting information in multiple formats such as text with pictures, complex diagrams with audio narration, animations, simulations, and video can reduce cognitive load on working memory, improve information processing, and deepen understanding (Mayer, 2005). As a multi-modal platform, the web offers many options for accessing, presenting, and supporting writing practices and acquisition of writing knowledge and skills. For example, digital text can describe the steps for writing a thesis statement, and an embedded video can walk a student through the steps of drafting, revising, and producing an exemplar thesis statement. This multimedia sequence is potentially more engaging, easier to understand, and accessible to all students whenever they need it.
However, simply providing digital technologies to students and teachers has had minimal impact on learning. In Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom, Cuban (2001) examined two decades of investments in computers and other technology at K–12 schools and his own university, Stanford. Cuban’s analysis showed that investments in computers and technology in the classroom did not lead to changes in teacher or faculty methods of instruction. What was needed were powerful, multi-modal tools with supports to engage, scaffold, and model the multi-step strategies essential for students to build writing skills. As a tool for drafting, editing, and revising, a word processing application is superior to paper and pencil. The addition of text-to-speech for reading aloud text that students typed, built-in spell-checker, dictionary, and thesaurus further enhances the word processor’s text production capacity. With its rich set of features, the interface of a word processor is nonetheless simple to understand, and students can quickly start writing with minimal training.
MacArthur (2009) reviewed studies of the effect of word processor on the writings of students with disabilities (SWD). Research comparing learning disability student’s handwriting and word processing showed no differences in the length and quality of writing (MacArthur, 2009; see, however, Morphy & Graham, 2012, for an opposite conclusion for SW in general). However, studies that integrated word processing software for drafting and revising, keyboarding instruction to develop typing skills, and writing instruction to develop planning and revising strategies showed greater improvements in quality of writing. MacArthur (2009) summarized a meta-analysis of 19 studies on Grades 4 to 12 and found an effect size of .70 as evidence to bolster his claim. Cuban and MacArthur’s research analyses affirm that simply investing in classroom technology for writing does not help students learn to write. Schools must integrate technology into writing instructional practices, specifically how teachers and students use technology to support the development of writing skills and efficacy.
The Context for This Study: Developing a Universal Design Writing Tool
The affordance of web technology should enhance writing instruction if the development employs a rigorous design process guided by a learning design framework, specifically UDL. The UDL principles draw on research from neuroscience that learners differ in how they comprehend information (recognition network), how they express what they know (strategic network), and the ways in which they can be motivated to learn (affective network; Meyer et al., 2014). The goal of UDL as a learning design framework is to create a flexible learning environment that is optimal for all learners (Meyer et al., 2014). A web-based, writing environment that adheres to UDL can potentially improve access, comprehension, and retention of information by providing multiple representation of writing knowledge and skills. It can improve use of strategies for writing by varying supports for guided practice in different genre and writing purposes. It can also model multiple starting points and approaches to a writing task that emulate writing as a cyclical, not a linear process. Finally, it can increase self-efficacy and motivation for writing by offering choice of writing topics, a collaborative and encouraging environment to write, and an authentic audience. We conducted this descriptive study to support our understandings of the following research questions:
Method
Researchers conducted five focus groups in two middle schools to address two needs in this project. First, to obtain information from representative students, including SWLD, about their knowledge of the writing process, and second, to determine what features we could develop in the digital environment that might enhance student interest in writing and potentially improve writing skills. Focus groups conducted by teams of researchers following a structured protocol were organized to support the design-thinking process used in this project.
This study included design-thinking methods. Design thinking is a human-centered approach to creating solutions for complex problems such as teaching and learning to write. We adapted the design-thinking processes of discovery, interpretation, ideation, experimentation, and evolution to create a supported writing environment. In the discovery and interpretation process, we conducted focus groups with students to gain a deeper understanding of their needs. In the ideation, experimentation, and evolution processes, we generated ideas, refined them to make prototypes for testing with students, and used their feedback to evolve the design (Brown, 2009).
Participants
Participants included 41 middle school students in five separate focus groups of between 6 and 14 participants (see Table 1). This included 16 sixth graders, 16 seventh graders, and 9 eighth graders. There were fewer eighth graders given one school did not house eighth-grade classrooms. The total sample included 20 females (48.7%) and 21 males (51.2%). Focus group participants were selected from all permissioned students at each grade level and chosen by the English Language Arts (ELA) teachers based on (a) availability of schedule, (b) representation of the range of writing performance levels, and (c) inclusion of student with disabilities. The sample included 24.4% students with identified disabilities, most notably learning disabilities, as well as emotionally/behavior disordered (3), and other health impaired (1) (see Table 1). SWD, described above, included 2 to 3 students per focus group. Neither SWD nor their responses were separated out due to the collaborative nature of the activities and discussion in any focus group sessions.
School, Grade, Participants, Gender, and SWD in Focus Groups.
Note. SWD = students with disabilities.
Focus group sessions were organized by grade level in the two participating middle schools (see “Setting” section). We solicited informed consent from parents of all students in these grades and over the course of the school year, worked with students for whom permission was obtained, were available at the time of the various focus groups, and volunteered for participation at that time. Students eligible for special education services for the most part received instruction with peers in the general education ELA classrooms. In the general education classroom, all SWD received support from the special education teacher or a paraprofessional. Four SWD were pulled out twice each week for additional ELA support from the special education teacher in School 2. All SWD in this sample were receiving special education services in the areas of reading and writing.
Setting
Focus groups were conducted in two suburban middle schools in the northeastern United States. The first participating school was a middle school housing sixth and seventh graders. The school served 465 students in the two grades during the year of our focus group research. The ratio of males to females was 52.7% to 47.3%, respectively. Ethnic diversity at this middle school included 89.4% White, followed by 5.4% Hispanic, 2.5% Asian, 0.07% African American, 0.04% Native American, with 1.6% multi-race, non-Hispanic. A little more than 41% of the student body was considered high needs, with 18.8% of the study body identified as SWD. Students for whom English was not their primary language include 13.7% of the enrolled population; an additional 5.1% were considered English language learners. In this middle school, 27.8% of the students were identified as low income and 27.7% received free or reduced cost meals.
The second school was a middle school/high school building with 6th through 8th grades in one wing of the building and 9th to 12th grades in the other. Each school had separate faculty and administration with shared common spaces, for example, library, cafeteria, gymnasium. Focus groups were conducted with middle school 6th-, 7th-, and 8th-grade students who met with researchers by grade level in separate sessions. The second middle school (2) served 455 students in the academic year of this research, males making up 52% of the middle school population and females making up 48%. This distribution was closely representative of each grade level. Ethnic diversity was 90.7% White, followed by 3.7% Hispanic, 2.9% Asian, and 0.04% African American, with 2.3% multi-race, non-Hispanic. Twenty-four percent of this student body was considered high needs, with 14.5% of the student body identified as SWD. Students for whom English was not their first language included 2.9% of enrollment population; an additional 1.5% considered English language learners. The district identified 12.1% of the school population as low income with 11.1% receiving free or reduced meals at school.
In both schools, students changed teachers for their primary subject areas. The schools were organized into teaching teams for smaller peer groups and familiarity. Students from the same grade level came to an empty classroom or office space to complete the focus group sessions.
Procedures
Focus group sessions were conducted during the first year of this project between October and December. Students were assured that there were not correct or incorrect answers to questions and their responses would help us in our project, and finally, we would not share responses with teachers or the school. At least two researchers from the project team orchestrated each focus group session. Researchers developed a focus group protocol to assure consistency in procedures and content across focus group sessions. The protocol included an introduction in which we shared our goal and purpose of the session, followed by two topics of discussion. The first discussion area emphasized student knowledge of the writing process. The second focused on student use of text for communication in their lives and their use of technology to do so, as well as interest and feelings around writing.
Students were asked to respond orally to the protocol questions orally administered by the researchers. There were no formal procedures such as raising of hands for permission to speak.
Discussion was encouraged, students usually directed responses to the group. In each focus group, there were occasions where students responded to one another, or followed a comment by a peer with their own elaboration or opinion.
Each focus group met for approximately 45 min, all participating students were from the same grade but not necessarily the same team or class. Groups ranged in size from 6 to 14 students, with a usual size of 8 participants, 2 to 3 students in each focus group were students identified with a disability (most frequently, learning disability). All sessions were video and/or audio recorded.
Knowledge of the writing process
In the central task of the focus group, students were orally provided a scenario to consider, and in small groups or individually, respond using various tools to express and present their ideas. Researchers provided materials such as sticky notes, construction paper, pens, markers, pencils, scissors, and tape. The following scenario statement was read aloud to students and provided in written form with materials:
There is a new student in your English Language Arts class. Create directions and suggestions to help this new person to your school complete an essay writing assignment given by your teacher. Show the steps the student will need to do to successfully complete the essay. You may write the process, make a list, or draw your information, anything that works to help out the new students. Use any of the materials on the table.
The majority of students self-selected to work in pairs or small groups (two to three students) organizing themselves by simply turning to their neighbors. Across the five focus groups, four students worked independently, although they were side by side with peers and were noted to occasionally discuss what they were doing with peers in the group. Students created artifacts with these materials to “explain” the steps the new students should take to complete the assignment. Researchers allowed 15 min for this activity, then brought the focus group participants back together for a discussion about their recommendations for the “new student.” Each session was recorded using audio or video technology. All artifacts created by the students were collected, recorded, and analyzed. In addition, audio and video recordings were obtained, transcribed, and analyzed to supplement the artifacts.
Scoring
Responses regarding knowledge of the writing process were cataloged and summarized for our analysis. We compiled discussion responses for each question; these were not identified by individual student, as the conversation frequently flowed across students and back without researcher interruption. As a result, these data were summarized from both notes taken by researchers and from the audio or video files.
Using the artifacts created by the students in focus groups when addressing knowledge of the writing process, we developed a code based on the structure of Graham and colleagues (Gillespie et al., 2013; Olinghouse & Graham, 2009) to analyze student responses. Idea units, defined as “a specific, unique idea in a student’s response,” were categorized (Olinghouse & Graham, 2009, p. 40). As an example, “brainstorm or web, to figure out your main idea, then to show details” (accompanied by an illustration of graphic organizer), was considered two idea units. The first was “brainstorm or web to figure out main idea,” and “then show details” was identified as a second idea in this response versus a single idea unit response such as “Second Draft-Use your corrections to make a second draft.” We created a number of decision rules to help divide responses into idea units. That is, if an idea stated previously was repeated, it was only scored once, as a single idea unit. In addition, if an idea unit appeared a second time with some elaboration without any new or unique ideas, the idea unit was only counted once.
Researchers also adapted three of the descriptive categories reported by Gillespie et al. (2013). Gillespie and colleagues created categories of responses to code and analyze in their study with fifth-grade students. We adapted Substantive (e.g., organize your notes about the topic, write a rough draft), Production (e.g., turn in on time; name, date, and class in the top right of paper), and Motivation/Seek Help (e.g., have someone check, have fun writing) as top-level categories of comments about writing. Researchers then adapted Gillespie et al.’s subcategories for each to represent the writing process, the Substantive category included (a) idea, (b) plan, (c) organize, (d) draft/write, and (e) revise. We categorized types of Production as (a) format, (b) editing (spelling, punctuation), and (c) timeliness. And we differentiated (a) inspiration from (b) help seeking in the Motivation category.
Two researchers independently segmented responses into idea units. Once reliability was established (obtained 100% reliability with sample data), researchers then used the above structure to code each idea unit. Two researchers coded all responses, with 35% double coded for reliability purposes. Reliability was 94%, and all disagreements were resolved by consensus prior to final analysis.
Use of text for communication
Students were asked to participate in a discussion with researchers about their writing, what they do when they write, how they prefer to write (handwriting, digitally), how much time they estimate writing in and out of school. Researchers asked questions of the focus group as a whole orally, took written notes, and audio or video tapped each session. Students were told that this was a discussion and they could respond as they had ideas or answers. Students were also given the option to write ideas on sticky notes provided (although in this portion of the focus group, responses were all oral).
Scoring
Researchers used audio transcripts to review and analyze responses to questions about use of text in communication. Researchers viewed all responses and clustered them by topic and number of similar responses within each topic. Two researchers summarized these data and organized by themes together. Formal reliability checks were not conducted for this analysis, researchers came to verbal agreement on each cluster or theme of response by students in focus groups.
Results
Knowledge of the Writing Process
Information in this portion of the focus group process was more formally collected and analyzed. We adapted the descriptive categories structure of Gillespie et al. (2013) for these analyses. Across all students in our sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade focus groups, approximately 61% of responses about the writing process were categorized as Substantive (e.g., ideas, organization, drafting), 26% of responses categorized as Production (format, hand in paper, etc.), and 12% of responses were Motivational aspects of writing (seeking help, inspiration; see Table 2). Within the Substantive category for all students (grades and schools), the highest rate of responses scored as “draft/write” at approximately 37%. The second most frequently noted substantive comment was “organize” at 18%, followed by revise with 10.7% of the responses in this group. The remaining 34% of responses were scattered in other subcategories. In the category of Production, the top three response types resulted as follows: 47% format, 18% noted editing, and 12% remarked about the step of turning the paper into the teacher. Finally, in the Motivation category for all schools and all grades, approximately 72% of the Motivation category responses were coded as help seeking, the remaining 27% noted inspiration for writing in their responses.
Numbers of Responses, by Type, Means, Standard Deviations, and Proportions: Knowledge of the Writing Process for All Grade Levels.
We next analyzed the data by grade, then school, to determine variation by age or setting.
Grade-level analysis
Data were disaggregated to conduct a grade-level analysis using the same conventions as described above. By superordinate category, Substantive, Procedural, and Motivation, seventh and eighth graders noted more details and information in the category of Substantive—ideas about the process of writing (70.3% and 68.8%, respectively), in comparison with the sixth-grade focus groups (40.7%; see Table 3).
Percent Comparison of Grade-Level Responses by Category.
Procedural information—comments about format and class regulation—was most noted by sixth graders with 39.4% of their responses in this area, followed by 22% by eighth graders and 20% by seventh graders. Finally, in the Motivation category, sixth graders noted motivation most with 19.7% of their responses categorized here, followed by seventh and eighth grade in which 9% of responses were categorized as motivation for each grade.
Although across the three grade levels the highest-ranking category was Substantive, the proportion of responses was greater at the seventh- and eighth-grade level.
The differences in substantive aspects of the writing process support the gap in knowledge about writing and the writing process noted by Lin et al. (2007) above. Sixth graders noted aspects of the writing process far fewer times than their seventh- and eighth-grade peers. Whereas most of the seventh- and eighth-grade participants clearly identified steps in the writing process in response to the scenario of helping a new student succeed in writing (40% vs. 70% and 79%, respectively). Students were unaware of our coding process and simply responded to the task. When coding these responses, sixth graders had a more even distribution of responses across the three categories about writing: substantive writing, procedural aspects of writing assignments, and motivation. In contrast, seventh and eighth graders focused most on substantive aspects of writing, noting from the beginning to completion of a writing assignment, the process of planning, drafting, and revising text (73% and 69% of total responses, respectively). While noting some procedural and motivational aspects of completing a writing assignment, the substantive process steps were the focus.
The younger, sixth-grade students placed a greater emphasis on procedural tasks such as heading papers and adhering to timelines for an assignment with nearly 40% of their responses focused on adhering to procedures. Seventh and eighth graders did recognize these aspects of completing an assignment, but had fewer explicit comments or suggestions for procedural tasks. Sixth-grade students had more than twice the number of responses in the area of motivation in comparison with their upper grade peers. Twenty-two percent responses were categorized as help seeking or inspiration in motivation. In contrast, both seventh- and eighth-grade participants had a 9% response rate in this category.
In each category, we further analyzed patterns of responses by grade level according to the descriptive subcategories. Results from this analysis are shown in Table 4 below and reported as the proportion of responses in each subcategory (i.e., Substantive, Production, Motivation). Seventh and eighth graders addressed the substantive area more than sixth graders. When ranking the seventh and eighth graders, the most frequently noted substantive subcategory was Draft (writing a draft) at 43% and 37%, respectively. The highest-ranking subcategory by sixth graders was also Draft, but at only 26%. Following this initial similarity of notation, sixth, seventh, and eighth graders varied on the frequency of what they next noted within the substantive category. Eighth graders noted Organize (18%), followed by Idea and Plan at 16%, and finally noted Revising. The seventh-grade focus groups also noted Organize, but equally noted Revise at 20%. The category of Idea for writing and Plan were noted fewer times by seventh graders at 12% and 3%, respectively. Finally, the sixth-grade groups had a fairly similar number of notations categorized as Draft, Idea, and Plan in the 25% to 20% range, followed by Revise and Organize.
Percent of Student Responses by Subcategory and Grade Level.
In the area of Procedural notations for completing a writing assignment, as noted previously, sixth graders made many notations here, far more than their older aged, more experienced peers. Across the three subcategories in the Procedural area, there does not appear to be much of a pattern, both sixth and eighth graders noted Format more frequently, followed by Editing and Timelines set by the teacher. But seventh graders noted Editing most frequently in the procedural category, followed by Format and Timelines.
Finally, the category of Motivation ranked as third of the three categories. Here, we noted two subcategories: Inspiration and Help Seeking. Eighth graders noted Help Seeking only in this category, whereas seventh graders noted the importance to them of Inspiration over Help Seeking (45% vs. 55%, respectively). Finally, the sixth graders, who also ranked the category of Motivation third, yet had proportionately more responses than seventh or eighth graders, had a completely different pattern of response. Eighty percent of the sixth graders notes classified as Motivation were in the subcategory of Seeking Help and Inspiration was noted far less at only 20% of the notations in this category.
Settings analysis
Our final evaluation of focus group data on writing process analyzed setting by school. We wanted to evaluate if there was a difference in responses regarding writing process task based on the school in which the group was located. In other words, might the curriculum of the school affect student responses? In this analysis, we were able to compare only sixth and seventh grades within schools, given one setting did not house eighth graders. For the purposes of this report, we will reference settings by building number. In School 1, 12 sixth and seventh graders participated in separate focus groups. In School 2, there were a total of 20 students from the two grade levels who also participated in separate focus groups by grade. The proportion of responses by category did not vary substantially between settings. The majority of responses for both settings were in the substantive category, reflecting writing process aspects including ideas, organizing, planning, drafting/writing, and revising. The next highest category, as when analyzed by grade was Procedural issues related to formatting, editing, timeliness in turning papers into the teacher. Finally, the fewest percent of responses fell in the Motivation category (10% and 16%, respectively) also found when analyzing by grade level. Although more School 1 students noted procedural with somewhat greater frequency, and as a result, proportionately fewer substantive aspects of writing were noted at this school in comparison with School 2. These small differences between sites were not deemed meaningful.
This by-setting analysis, representing the instructional curriculum, does not support a difference between groups on this feature great enough to affect outcomes. The slight differences observed are not significant. As a result, researchers did no further analysis of outcomes by subcategory.
Uses of Text for Communication
When asked about the type of recent writing students had done both in and out of school, answers included, in descending order of frequency: five paragraph essays for ELA and social studies classes, responses to literature, letters on a topic from the teacher (e.g., 9/11 remembrance), comparison essays, and some in-class journaling mostly about books read for school.
When first asked what types of writing they do outside of school, students did not respond or responded “nothing,” until prompted with questions by the researchers. Initially, students did not consider texting and social media as “writing.” When clarified that using a mobile device such as a smart phone or a tablet for communicating to friends, family, and so on was considered writing (unless using all images), all groups (five of five), and nearly all students within every group, noted texting. The next most frequently noted writing outside of school was Facebook postings and responding to friends (four of five groups), followed by noting writing emails and being on chat rooms with friends and sports team members (two of five groups).
Nearly all students in the focus groups had access to cell phones (91%). Of those students who owned a cell phone, 87% had smart phones. These reported results are very similar to findings of the Pew Internet Project’s research on teens (Madden, Lenhart, Duggan, Cotesi, & Gasser, 2013). Finally, most students in our focus groups (84%) had access to a computer with Internet access at home (desktop, laptop, or tablet).
In summary, most focus groups noted components of the writing process in their response to what would help a new student write successfully. Sixty-one percent of all responses about writing fell in the category of Substantive, relating to process (ideas, planning, draft) for writing. Of these, the most frequently noted subcategory of the process was “draft/write.”
When conducting the focus groups at each school across grades, researchers asked the same series of questions and activities—students reported that most writing was done at school and for school, meaning assignments for classes—ELA, social studies, and some in Science. Most students did not consider using social media as “writing.” Nearly all students reported having some sort of mobile device (82%), usually a smart phone. Nearly all students reported using social media (Facebook, texting, chat rooms), fewer reported use of email.
Discussion
This descriptive study examined middle school students’ understanding of writing and the writing process in the context of a small focus group sessions. Researchers set out to address two questions as a part of the development process to create an online tool to support middle school students in writing argumentative and informational text. We analyzed data based on three structures: Substantive, Production, and Motivation.
Limitations
We acknowledge the small number of subjects participating in this project (N = 41). However, for our purposes, to inform project development and verify previous findings with a current and varied population, we found the results most informative. While the composition of the focus groups was heterogeneous by ability within grade level, and in all cases included SWLD, the structure was such that data specific to SWLD could not be disaggregated. The activities were structured, such that students self-selected smaller working groups, usually with people seated close by. Products therefore were representative of the group, versus individuals and cannot be considered representative of any ability category.
Understanding Writing Development for Middle School SWLD
We believe that the focus group data from sixth, seventh, and eighth graders both affirm the current literature on young writer’s knowledge about the writing process and extend it. The focus group data analyzed across this grade range affirmed the cross-grade knowledge gap in students. Sixth-grade students when asked about writing focused more on process activities such as heading papers correctly, and formatting paragraphs and far fewer responses related to the writing process itself (40.7%). On the other hand, seventh- and eighth-grade students provided more specific responses to the writing process focused on the substantive aspects of writing, such as planning, gathering evidence, drafting, and revising (73% and 63% respectively; see Table 3). The implications from this finding confirmed and influenced how we created explicit support components for students in both awareness of and uses for the writing process in our online tool. Across all grade levels this focus group data indicated low evidence of student consideration regarding motivation as a factor in learning to write (help seeking, interest).
Although as educators, we have sufficient empirical evidence to validate that motivation is essential in learning, little research in the last three decades directly addresses motivational aspects in the instruction of writing (Hidi & Boscolo, 2006). Based on the outcomes of this research specific to motivation, there was a clear impact on our design process. We applied evidence from the literature on motivation in writing and the framework of UDL to capitalize on engagement and motivational aspects. The literature on motivation in writing, though limited, indicates a strong relationship between writing skill and strategy use and self-efficacy (Hidi & Boscolo, 2006). Students across grades found writing a challenging task that is frequently deemed stressful. They reported avoiding writing assignments or just “pushing through” them to turn in the assignment, versus improving writing, sharing insights, or building knowledge. Writing for school was seen as an entirely different activity than chatting with friends and family via tools such as smart phones. The consideration of motivation in the design process, therefore, is essential.
Understanding the Potential of Digital Technology to Enhance Writing Instruction
Most middle school students in our focus groups had access to digital technologies such as cell phones and computers with Internet service during and out of school. They also reported high interest and experience with using digital technology to communicate and stay connected with friends. Whether on cell phones, tablets, or home computers, students’ preferred method of communicating and staying connected is through text. They use the text-messaging feature of cell phones and instant messaging apps on computers to hold conversations with friends. They also post and reply to messages on Facebook and occasionally use email to send text messages. Together, this suggests that the middle school students in the focus groups have a wealth of experiences and practices using digital technologies to transform their thoughts and ideas into text to communicate and share with others.
Simultaneously, the middle school students in the focus groups did not perceive their experience and practice of texting as writing. This suggests that they do not see a connection between composing a text message, post, or email and composing an essay for a writing assignment in school. The type and scope of composing expected of a writing assignment is very different from using text to converse with friends. Even so, when students compose a text message, they are doing it with a specific goal and target audience in mind, two important elements of writing and motivation in writing. Students’ experience and practice using digital technology to compose text for communicating with friends may be important prior knowledge and interest to draw upon for developing their knowledge and skills of writing and motivation in writing.
Motivation in writing and the use of digital technology to enhance writing instruction are the least studied topics in writing research (MacArthur, 2009; Troia et al., 2012). In this study, the fewest responses from students in the focus group fell in the motivation category. In addition, none of the students reported the use of digital technology for enhancing writing instruction. There is a significant need for more research to understand the role of motivation in writing and ways that digital technology can enhance writing instruction and student engagement in writing.
Implications for Future Research and Practice
Researchers used UDL to think around the complexity and difficulties of teaching and learning to write. For example, targeting specific populations—SWLD, SW, and TW—to understand differences in individual’s development of writing skills is useful for research purposes. However, these categories do not fully capture the natural variability of learners. Insights from neuroscience research of learning revealed that learners exist on a continuum that ranges in needs, skills, and interests (Meyer et al., 2014). In other words, learner differences in writing skills within specific populations are as varied as differences across populations. More importantly, some of these differences are not random. Learners systematically differ in how they comprehend information (recognition network), how they express what they know (strategic network), and the ways in which they can be motivated to learn (affective network; Meyer et al., 2014). When applied to teaching and learning to write, UDL provides an actionable framework for creating learning environments, so that each student, regardless of where he or she is on the continuum of proficiency, can succeed (Meyer et al., 2014).
Design-thinking methods have the potential to make direct contributions to the field of writing research as well. To bring new innovations to market, a project team of designers, engineers, and a manager employs a structured design process. From design and development to deployment, the project team is intentionally reflective about its progress and effective use of the design process (Brown, 2009). As a part of this process, the team pauses to reflect on what each member is doing during the small steps within a product development cycle, what is working, and what can be improved to evolve the design and test the hypothesis (Brown, 2009). These guiding questions prompt critical assessment of the prototype and collaboration among team members that generate actionable steps for making immediate improvements to the prototype and teamwork.
The project team’s critical approach to continuous improvements of what is being built and the process employed to build it is needed to address the complex challenges in the field of writing research and practice. The field of writing research has accumulated evidence for a set of factors that can scaffold and support novices to grow into proficient writers, but we have yet to work out the details of an integrative approach (Gillespie & Graham, 2014; Graham et al., 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007; Graham & Sandmel, 2011). Specifically, what combination of factors is most effective for what type of learner and type of writing? Similarly, schools have adopted standards for the writing knowledge and skills students should acquire as a foundation for advanced study and career readiness (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). However, schools have yet to provide teachers with effective instructional methods to achieve the standards. Teachers and researchers have a shared need to know how an integrative approach to writing instruction can affect student knowledge and ability to write. Addressing this need will require teachers and researchers to collaborate in cycles of developing, implementing, assessing, and revising instructional methods to continuously improve their effectiveness across different contexts.
The reflective focus on product and process can be beneficial to students too. Getting students to be knowledgeable and strategic in their use of writing processes as they learn to compose in different genre, for different audience and purpose is crucial to improving writing performance (Graham & Harris, 2009; Meyer et al., 2014). The same guiding questions that professional designers and engineers use daily to improve their craft and their product (what are you currently working on? what is working? what can be improved?) can be used to prompt students to reflect on their knowledge and use of strategies for writing and grow from having a shallow knowledge of writing into a more substantive one.
The tools, purpose, and type of writing that are engaging students in and out of school are constantly changing. Our focus group data revealed that students are composing text for self-expression and communication with peers every day. Yet, they feel disengaged by traditional writing being taught in school. Design-thinking methods can help researchers and practitioners become more responsive to a constantly changing writing environment without lowering expectations. Through a structured design process of ideation and experimentation, researchers, teachers, and students may discover ways that traditional writing skills learned in school can improve how students compose text for self-expression and communication in and outside of school.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was sponsored by a grant from Education Research Grants Education Technology-Goal 2: Development U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (R305A110333), Creating Compositions Using a Technology-Based Writing Tool: Supporting Students With Universal Design for Learning.