Abstract
Despite consensus regarding critical design elements for professional development (PD), numerous PD studies have not shown anticipated effects for teachers or students. Mixed methods studies investigating when and why PD is successful are needed. The qualitative study reported here was part of a larger, mixed methods study of PD for self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) in writing; the randomized controlled trial found significant and meaningful outcomes for teachers and students. In the current qualitative study, 14 Grades 2 and 3 teachers discussed semistructured, open-ended questions in small focus groups regarding their experiences with, reactions to, and evaluations of aspects and components of PD and SRSD. These teachers’ voices contribute to our understanding of critical aspects of effective PD as well as SRSD.
Quality teaching is critical to student learning, and professional development (PD) for teachers is viewed as one of the most promising interventions for addressing teacher quality (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Desimone & Garet, 2015; Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; National Academy of Education, 2009; Taylor et al., 2015). Scholarship and research on PD have thrived over the past decade, with reviewers of this research identifying key PD design elements believed to make a difference in outcomes (e.g., Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Dunst, Bruder, & Hamby, 2015; Hill, Beisiegel, & Jacob, 2013; Powell & Diamond, 2011). Two recent and influential reports, however, concluded that although researchers have identified key PD design elements, many recent PD studies incorporating these elements have failed to yield positive effects on teachers and/or students (Hill et al., 2013; The New Teacher Project [TNTP], 2015).
Desimone and Stuckey (2014), in their recent review of PD research, identified some positive results among recent randomized controlled trials of PD, although other results were disappointing. They argued that understanding why PD is successful for some outcomes in some studies, and developing insights as to how to expand successful PD, are critical for improving overall teacher and student outcomes. Several randomized controlled trial studies of PD resulting in meaningful effects on student learning indicated support in learning about and in implementing new curricular materials may have been a critical factor (cf. Gallagher, Arshan, & Woodworth, 2017; Olson, Matuchniak, Chung, Stumpf, & Farkas, 2017; Taylor et al., 2015).
Multiple authors have called for more teacher input in evaluation of PD to help identify what does and does not work, yet surprisingly few recent studies have given meaningful depth to teachers’ voices (cf. Boston Consulting Group, 2014; Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Koellner & Jacobs, 2014). Quantitative studies typically do not allow careful analysis of why and how PD affects teachers (Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Koellner & Jacobs, 2014). More mixed methods studies that allow for qualitative and quantitative examination of PD are needed.
Furthermore, in his response to the 2015 TNTP report, Schmoker (2015) presented important and cogent concerns regarding much of the PD research base. Particularly relevant here, he found that research on PD has rarely focused on PD for evidence-based practices. While practices selected for PD frequently have a research base, many have not yet achieved an evidence base demonstrating meaningful effects in classrooms. This is surprising, given widespread agreement on the importance of evidence-based practices and the tremendous increase in their identification in the past two decades (cf. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 2002; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; What Works Clearinghouse, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/). Recent reviews of research on PD have not addressed the evidence base for practices teachers are learning to use in their classrooms (e.g., Desimone & Garet, 2015; Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Hill et al., 2013; TNTP, 2015). As Schmoker reasoned, when PD is not successful for a practice that is not evidence-based, we cannot ascertain whether the PD was unsuccessful or whether the practice lacks the power needed to result in meaningful outcomes for teachers and students.
Finally, these reports regarding the efficacy of PD (Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Hill et al., 2013; TNTP, 2015), did not include review of two previously published randomized controlled trials of PD for self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) instruction for writing resulting in strong outcomes for teachers and students (Harris, Lane, Driscoll, et al., 2012; Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012). PD for SRSD in these studies incorporated the elements and characteristics of effective PD identified across the research base on PD in math, science, writing, and other content areas (cf. Desimone & Garet, 2015; Gallagher et al., 2017). In addition, SRSD for writing has been recognized as an evidence-based practice, as detailed shortly. Additional studies of PD for SRSD with significant and meaningful outcomes for teachers and students have been published since these reports regarding the efficacy of PD were published (Festas et al., 2015; Harris, Graham, & Adkins, 2015; McKeown et al., 2016). Researchers have also recently reported strong outcomes for teachers and students after PD for teachers learning to implement approaches to writing instruction designed within the National Writing Project (cf. Gallagher et al., 2017; Olson et al., 2017). These researchers also explicitly incorporated the elements and characteristics of PD that have strong support. Furthermore, the National Writing Project’s work on teacher implementation of the process approach in writing also has a meaningful evidence-base, as noted in Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools (Graham & Perin, 2007).
The qualitative investigation of PD for SRSD reported here was completed as part of a larger, mixed methods study of PD for SRSD for Grades 2 and 3 teachers and their students. The larger study consisted of a randomized controlled trial (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012) and the qualitative investigation detailed here. In this qualitative study, teachers’ perceptions of the characteristics and components of PD for SRSD, classroom implementation of SRSD for writing, and the outcomes of PD for SRSD were explored, allowing us to contribute understandings and concerns that remain to be addressed regarding both successful PD, and SRSD, to the field.
In this introduction, we further set the foundation for this qualitative study. First, we examine the status of teacher development in writing instruction, as this is critical to understanding aspects of the PD for SRSD. Next, we describe SRSD for writing and the related evidence base. We then explain the critical aspects and components of this PD for SRSD. Fourth, the randomized controlled trial that was part of the larger study is detailed. In the present qualitative study, we sought to deepen our understanding of both successful PD for SRSD and classroom implementation of SRSD, as PD does not happen “in a vacuum.”
Status of Teacher Development in Writing Instruction
In 2011, only 27% of 8th and 12th grade students scored at or above the proficient level on the writing test for the National Assessment of Educational Progress; 20% of 8th graders and 21% of 12th graders scored below basic, indicating they failed to meet minimum standards for their grade level (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). Writing is a powerful tool for supporting and extending learning and development, for showing what you know, communicating meaningfully with others, empowerment, and personal development. Students and adults with inadequate writing abilities are at a notable disadvantage in today’s world.
Inadequate teacher preparation for teaching writing is a major factor in the poor writing performance of our students today. The majority of teachers surveyed have reported inadequate pre-service preparation at the undergraduate and graduate levels in writing instruction, rarely implement evidence-based practices, and frequently have difficulty meeting diverse writing needs in their classrooms (cf. Applebee & Langer, 2011; Brindle, Harris, Graham, & Hebert, 2016; Drew, Olinghouse, Faggella-Luby, & Welsh, 2017). In a recent national survey, elementary school teachers reported feeling significantly less prepared to teach writing than reading, math, social studies, and science (Brindle et al., 2016). In addition, many teachers reported low self-efficacy for teaching writing and engaging in little writing outside of their jobs. The less prepared teachers were to teach writing, the more negative their attitudes were toward, and the less time they spent teaching, writing. Research in PD has long pointed to the importance of teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes about what they are teaching (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Dunst et al., 2015; Russ, Sherin, & Sherin, 2016), thus PD for SRSD was designed in part to explore teachers’ knowledge about genre and general writing practices as well as pedagogy for writing and to support their development here as needed.
SRSD for Writing: An Evidence-Based Practice
Skilled writing is complex, requiring extensive self-regulation of an intricate problem-solving process as writers face affective, cognitive/metacognitive, and behavioral challenges (Harris & Graham, 2017). Given the manifold demands of writing, SRSD is a complex, multicomponent instructional approach that supports differentiation across students based on strengths and needs. SRSD instruction includes active, discourse based, scaffolded, and explicit learning of: strategies for genre-specific and general writing employed across the writing process, the knowledge (such as vocabulary, background knowledge, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge) needed to use these strategies, and strategies for self-regulating strategy use and writing behavior (e.g., goal setting, self-assessment of writing performance related to goals, self-instructions, and self-reinforcement). Students are active collaborators in the learning process; peer support and group discussion are integral. Multiple elements of SRSD instruction (e.g., development of attributions for effort and use of powerful strategies; self-monitoring and celebrating of progress toward goals) help teachers support students in development of motivation, positive attitudes toward writing, and belief in themselves as capable writers. Multiple procedures that promote long-term maintenance (the desire and ability to continue using strategies after instruction ends) and generalization (appropriately and effectively applying strategies to other writing tasks and settings) are integrated throughout the SRSD stages of instruction. SRSD instruction takes places across six adaptable and recursive stages that are criterion based rather than time based (referred to as develop background knowledge, discuss it, model it, memorize it, support it, and independent performance), with gradual release of responsibility for writing to students (Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008).
More than 100 studies of SRSD have been conducted from Grades 2 to 12 and with adults, across multiple genres and stages of the writing process, and across several countries and multiple research teams (Harris & Graham, 2017). These studies provide convincing evidence that SRSD instruction is an effective method for development of writing strategies across the writing process for general education students who represent the full range of writing ability in a typical class, as well as students with writing and other disabilities. Meta-analyses have shown that SRSD achieves significantly higher effect sizes than other strategies instructional approaches in writing. The What Works Clearinghouse Elementary Writing Practice Guide (Graham et al., 2012) recognized SRSD as an evidence-based practice; SRSD was also recognized as having the strongest impact of any strategies instruction approach in Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools (Graham & Perin, 2007). A recent meta-analysis of quasi- and true- experiments of SRSD (Graham, Harris, & McKeown, 2013) reported an average weighted effect size for writing quality and elements, respectively, of 1.75 and 2.24. Effect sizes remained high at maintenance assessments ranging from 2 weeks to 28 months; effect sizes for quality and elements, respectively, were 1.30 and 1.41. SRSD improves five main aspects of students’ performance: genre elements included in writing, quality of writing, knowledge of writing, approach to writing, and motivation and self-efficacy. See Harris and Graham (2017) for more detailed descriptions of SRSD instruction in writing.
PD for SRSD
Given inadequate preservice preparation in writing for the majority of teachers, effective PD is imperative. We have been involved in development and implementation of PD for SRSD since the 1990s (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012); we began researching PD for SRSD this past decade. Our initial approach to PD was strongly influenced by many works in the field, and particularly by the practice-based PD approach described by Ball and her colleagues, and others (cf. Ball & Cohen, 1999; Grossman & McDonald, 2008).
Ball and Cohen (1999) indicated that the focus of practice-based PD is to develop teacher knowledge, understanding, and skills related to an effective educational practice; support is provided once classroom implementation begins (Ball & Cohen, 1999). The complex reality of practice and the opportunity to develop important knowledge, skills, and understandings are addressed by (a) collective participation of teachers within the same school with similar needs; (b) basing PD around the characteristics, strengths, and needs of current students; (c) attention to content knowledge needs of teachers, including pedagogical content knowledge; (d) opportunities for active learning and practice of the new methods being learned, including opportunities to see and analyze examples of these methods being used; (e) use of materials and other artifacts during PD that are identical to those to be used in the classroom; and (f) feedback on performance while learning, prior to classroom use, so that understandings and skills critical in implementation are developed (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Grossman & McDonald, 2008).
As Gallagher et al. (2017) noted, since the early conception of practice-based PD a great deal more work has been done and a consensus has developed around aspects of PD that have provided successful outcomes across several studies. Successful PD has been intensive; involved collective participation across teachers; focused on specific content; allowed for adaptation to local needs and context; and included strategies that support classroom implementation, such as use of curricular resources and materials to be used in instruction and meaningful formative assessment. Additional critical elements multiple researchers have identified for effective PD (some of which also overlap with the characteristics noted by Ball and Cohen in 1999), include alignment with school curriculum, goals, and policies; addressing teachers’ and students’ needs and strengths; a collaborative, active learning approach for teachers situated in interactive learning communities; and sufficient time and support for teacher learning (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Borko, 2004; Cochran-Smith & Boston College Evidence Team, 2009; Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Hill et al., 2013).
The six critical characteristics of practice-based PD noted by Ball and Cohen (1999) were carefully addressed and incorporated in all the PD for SRSD studies (Festas et al., 2015; Harris et al., 2015; Harris, Lane, Driscoll, et al., 2012; Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012; McKeown et al., 2016). The overlapping and unique aspects identified by Gallagher et al. (2017) and others have also been incorporated in all studies of PD for SRSD. Greater detail on the PD for SRSD is provided in the Method section of this article.
The Randomized Controlled Trial Examining PD for SRSD
The study took place in three rural schools in a southeastern state that were part of a school-university partnership created over several years (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012). We worked to create meaningful learning communities around SRSD for writing in these schools among teachers, administrators, and researchers. Because of the grade-level teams and school-university partnerships in place in these schools, support and time for collaboration was in place.
Each school formed one or more grade level and genre specific writing teams of up to five teachers for PD. Twenty Grades 2 and 3 teachers, and their 262 students, were randomly assigned to one of two PD for SRSD conditions: SRSD instruction for (a) opinion essay writing or (b) story writing. Each SRSD condition served as the control for the other SRSD condition. This counter balanced control design was selected based on previous research findings that instruction in either one of these genres does not result in meaningful improvements in the other genre among young writers (it did not in this randomized controlled trial either). It also allowed all teachers to participate in PD and avoided the unethical withholding of effective instruction from students (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012).
After PD, teachers engaged in classwide SRSD instruction with their students for 6 to 8 weeks (typically teaching three, 30-minute lessons each week, a maximum of 24 lessons was needed across teachers). Fidelity of SRSD instruction was high across both genre groups; teachers rated SRSD instruction in writing positively before implementation and even higher after completing SRSD instruction with their classes. Results indicated students who received whole class, teacher implemented SRSD instruction in opinion essay writing demonstrated significant and meaningful improvements in number of opinion essay elements, quality of opinion essay elements, overall essay quality, and number of transition words used compared to students in the story writing condition (effect sizes ranged from 2.02 to 4.00). Length of compositions, however, did not differ between conditions. Students who received whole class, teacher implemented SRSD instruction in story writing demonstrated significant and meaningful improvements in number of story elements and quality of story elements compared with students in the opinion essay writing condition (effect size 1.82). Neither overall story quality nor length, however, differed between conditions. As expected, these students did not show improvement in use of transition words, as this was taught only in the opinion essay condition. Discussion of these results, limitations, and future research can be found in Harris, Lane, Graham, et al. (2012).
The Present Study
Teachers’ perceptions and evaluations of the elements and characteristics of effective PD believed to be critical to success have rarely been studied (Desimone & Stuckey, 2014). In this qualitative study, we addressed the need for deeper understanding of teachers’ reactions to and evaluation of PD that incorporates these elements and characteristics and was successful in improving student achievement. These findings can aid in informing and impacting PD research and practice. In addition, we sought to deepen understanding of teachers’ perceptions of SRSD and its implementation after PD. As researchers have noted, there is also little qualitative work that can provide insights on teachers’ perceptions of aspects of SRSD instruction and challenges they experience in implementing SRSD instruction in their classrooms (Graham & Perin, 2007). While student and teacher outcomes from the accompanying randomized controlled trial demonstrated significant and meaningful changes, individual teacher differences in response to PD and to SRSD could not be assessed in the quantitative study.
Teachers discussed their experiences with and reactions to aspects and components of PD and SRSD in small focus groups, responding to open-ended questions in semistructured interviews. Using qualitative methodology, we examined patterns in the teacher responses to draw conclusions about these teachers’ viewpoints and experiences regarding both PD and SRSD. Our overarching research questions included determining: what teachers found more and less acceptable and important in PD, what they would change about this PD and/or SRSD, and what else they believed to be important about this PD and/or SRSD. This study not only assists in further study of PD for SRSD but can also provide insights and directions for future research on PD more broadly.
Method
Setting and Participants
The Grades 2 and 3 teachers were from three rural elementary schools (K-5) located in the southeastern United States. School enrollment ranged from 131 to 740 students; students were predominately White (range = 94%–99%), and 12.1% to 32.9% were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. The district’s 40 schools enrolled over 31,000 students, 8.5% of whom were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, 1.39% of whom were classified as English learners, and 9.2% of whom received special education services. The three schools were part of a school-wide partnership to implement a three-tiered (whole class, small group, and individual) model of prevention and support that targeted academic, behavioral, and social goals (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012). As noted previously, 20 teachers were randomly assigned to one of two PD for SRSD conditions in the fall: teaching writing and self-regulation strategies for (a) opinion essay writing or (b) story writing. Each school created one or more PD teams; a total of five teams were formed.
All 20 teachers who participated in the randomized controlled trial were invited to participate in the focus group interviews. Fourteen (1 male, 13 female) Grades 2 and 3 teachers were able to participate in focus group interviews after implementing SRSD in their classrooms. Eight of these teachers participated in PD for SRSD in story writing (four at second grade and four at third grade) and six teachers participated in this PD for SRSD in opinion essay writing (three at second grade and three at third grade; see Supplementary Table S1 in the online version of the journal). The other six teachers were not able to attend the focus groups due to scheduling conflicts but sent feedback through email. Their feedback was similar to feedback acquired during the interviews. Two teachers whose enthusiasm and buy-in for SRSD instruction were observed to be lower than those of the 18 other teachers during the randomized controlled trial study (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012) were present for the interviews (these teachers’ students showed improvements similar to the other teachers’ students). Thus, we believe the 14 interviewees were representative of the larger group. All teachers were certified, more than half had attained a master’s degree, and teaching experience ranged from 1 to 21 years with a mean of 10.57 years.
PD for SRSD
Story and opinion essay writing had been chosen as targets by these teachers and their principals, in line with district and state goals and requirements. Teachers agreed to spend as much time in PD as needed before beginning SRSD instruction (materials for SRSD instruction used in this study are available in Harris, et al., 2008). PD occurred in small teams of up to five teachers and required a total of 12 to 14 hours over 2 days (selected by teachers and approximately 1 week apart); readings and outside preparation were also required. The time required for PD was consistent with other studies of PD for SRSD. PD for SRSD realized all the characteristics of PD described earlier. Furthermore, we purposively mirrored the six stages of SRSD in our PD with these teachers (develop background knowledge, discuss it, model it, support it, and independent performance), as these are quite consistent with the evidence base on PD. These small teacher teams allowed for collective, active participation of teachers and clear establishment of the characteristics, strengths, and needs in writing among the students in their classrooms. These small teams also allowed the three PD leaders for each group to come to know each teacher well and understand teachers’ strengths, goals, and needs.
PD began in each team with teachers describing their previous PD in writing, practices, and experiences with teaching writing. All reported insufficient preservice preparation in teaching writing and limited in-service PD in this area. All teachers had participated in PD for implementing a commercially available whole-language based reading and writing workshop program 2 years earlier but reported that their students’ writing was not progressing in line with school, district, and state goals despite careful implementation of the whole-language program. Teachers brought student work with them and shared their students’ writing strengths and needs, the range of abilities represented in their classroom, and their writing goals for their students in general and in these genres. Detailed notes were taken and returned to throughout PD to further anchor the PD in teachers’ strengths, needs, and goals.
All of the PD leaders had implemented SRSD instruction with students similar to those in these teachers’ classrooms. They shared their experiences as well as samples of student writing before and after SRSD instruction, and a summary of the research base on SRSD. This served to enhance teacher buy-in, although all the teachers had agreed to participate in this PD (as noted previously, these schools had requested PD in writing). Teachers were supported in development of knowledge about writing, such as both general characteristics of effective writing appropriate at these grade levels and the essential genre elements for either stories or opinion essays. We also discussed current instructional elements teachers were using and found effective, such as peer support and aspects of writers’ workshop. We explained that these elements were all consistent with the goals of SRSD and that teachers could, and should, integrate these as they desired, and that in fact they would find many of them already integrated into the SRSD lessons. We clarified that SRSD instruction is not a complete writing curriculum, but rather one component of effective writing instruction.
Each teacher received an SRSD instructional notebook, including 10 detailed professional learning lesson plans covering the six stages of SRSD instruction (each lesson could take one or more class periods) as well as all the instructional supports they and their students would use (such as strategy charts, self-statement records, rockets for graphing student essays, bulletin board ideas, graphic organizers, and so on). The lesson plans were for professional learning and discussion only and were not to be used as scripts. Teachers developed their own lesson plans adapted to their students’, classrooms, contexts, and additional curricular materials available. We watched, and stopped and discussed as appropriate, a commercially produced, 1-hour video of classwide SRSD instruction (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2002). We also shared, analyzed, and scored additional appropriate pre- and posttests from former students until teachers were comfortable with scoring essays. Student self-assessment and scoring of collaborative and independent essays, with teacher input, was a critical aspect of formative assessment during SRSD. Active learning and practicing of SRSD, use of all materials and other artifacts during PD that would be used in their classrooms, and evaluation of teachers’ learning and what they were learning occurred throughout PD, as teachers continued to strengthen their knowledge of key vocabulary, constructs, elements, and practices in SRSD instruction. PD leaders modeled each of the 10 SRSD lessons, while teachers acted as “students” based on how they believed their students would respond during instruction.
After PD leaders modeled each of the 10 lessons, teachers practiced that lesson in pairs or as a group and we provided support and feedback. Some lessons are easier for teachers to become comfortable with; the lesson requiring teachers to engage in cognitive modeling for their students is often one of the more difficult lessons and was allotted more time and discussion. We facilitated proactive brainstorming and problem solving focused on effective adaptations to each lesson to meet their students’ needs. We emphasized that this sort of problem solving would be needed throughout SRSD instruction, and that while teachers needed to use all the stages and components of SRSD, they also needed to effectively adapt instruction to their students, themselves, and their contexts. Teachers planned to meet formally weekly to discuss and support each other as part of their regular school team meeting times.
During PD, we explained that while we did not have funding that would allow coaching, an observer experienced in SRSD instruction would be in their classrooms for every third or fourth lesson. These observations served two purposes: to provide teachers with ongoing feedback and support (observers answered questions or discussed the lesson with the teacher immediately afterward or later by phone or email), and to collect treatment fidelity data. We gave the teachers copies of the observation forms for each lesson and went through them together. We explained that we would be talking to observers after each observation and meeting with our team weekly, and that we would be discussing with observers any support teachers might request or need. We also gave teachers our phone numbers and email addresses and encouraged them to reach out to any of us as well throughout SRSD instruction. We also offered to come back and meet with them during SRSD instruction to provide further support as desired; none of the teachers, however, requested this, and most talked primarily with their observer. We sent regular (typically weekly) emails to the teams commenting on their progress and sharing ideas and observations from our research team meetings.
Focus Groups and Analysis
Following SRSD instruction in their classrooms, teachers participated in one of four, 45 to 60 minutes, video-recorded focus groups using semistructured, open-ended questions covering their evaluations of the components and adequacy of the PD, how the PD might be enhanced in the future, SRSD for their targeted genre, how they implemented SRSD, changes/adaptations they made to meet their students’ needs, and changes to instruction they would make in the future (see Appendix in the online version of the journal). Focus groups are an efficient means of collecting data with “high face validity” (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Focus groups, as opposed to individual interviews, are considered a safer environment in which more responses can be elicited (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996). The focus groups were conducted at school sites with three to four teachers by grade level; at least two members of the research team who had worked with that group of teachers were present at the interviews as rapport and trust had been established during the PD. During the interviews, teachers were encouraged to share their thoughts freely and understood that their insights would be used to improve PD for classwide implementation of SRSD in writing.
The focus group videos were transcribed. Video recordings and transcripts of all four interviews were analyzed to reach saturation; theoretical sampling was not employed (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The constant comparative method was used to find patterns from raw data. This process included dividing the data into small, usable components (comments), labeling them (open coding), and then organizing them into meaningful groups (axial coding). We determined patterns of response, disconfirming responses, additional information provided spontaneously, and the relationships among these linguistic samples to aid us in understanding the participating teacher perspectives on what both the PD and SRSD were and how each worked (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In short, we sought to understand the meaning system the teachers used to organize their behavior and interpret their experiences with PD and SRSD (Spradley, 1979).
To ensure data immersion, the first author transcribed all speech from the videos using Inqscribe (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Each comment had an identified speaker, was time stamped, and exact words were typed. Gesture, pauses, and interactions were not represented. A research assistant blind to the purpose of the study confirmed accuracy of both comments and identified speaker on one third of the transcripts with 98% accuracy. Built-in features of MS Word were used for analysis.
Counts of frequency (how often a similar comment is repeated) and extensiveness (how many different people made similar comments) are common in qualitative research, especially individual interviews, but cannot be accurately applied to focus group analysis (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Everyone hears comments made in focus groups, so a lack of repetition must be situated in this social context. For example, if others in a focus group agreed with a comment, it is unlikely they would repeat the same idea. Thus, we attended to specificity—comments that are specific and detailed—and represent those comments throughout this article. We also coded for consensus, described below.
Coding
The first author analyzed the transcripts using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), applying a code to each meaningful phrase and constantly comparing and contrasting new comments to those already coded. After three passes through all transcript data and cross-checking with the video recordings to confirm each code accurately reflected tone and context, 29 codes were identified (see Supplementary Table S2 in the online version of the journal). Each of these codes could be tagged as being strength/positive, weakness/negative, or changed/needs to change. Using this set of codes, the first author compared the transcripts and codes against the videos during a second and third viewing. During these viewings, 12 surface-level corrections were made to the transcripts that did not affect meaning.
Field notes contained theoretical notes, personal notes, and codes with the intent of keeping each separate from the other (Spradley, 1979). One example is a theoretical note made when analyzing teacher comments about lesson plans. Two teachers had concerns about the lesson plans and a theoretical note was made, “Does liking the lesson plans affect implementation? Follow-up: Not true. One teacher quoted had highly ranked implementation.”
Once the initial set of codes was established, the first two authors analyzed the transcripts together. For each comment, they went through a series of decisions: (a) Does the comment contain important, relevant information? If no, mark for later analysis; if yes, go to question b; (b) Is the comment similar or different than what has been said earlier? If similar, group like comments; if different, start a new group (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Through this iterative process, codes were reduced through collapsing or elimination (Fetterman, 1989). Collapsing occurred when there were few examples of the code and/or the code was strongly related to another code and codes with singular examples were eliminated (see Supplementary Table S2 in the online version of the journal). By the third collaborative pass through the data, 18 codes remained that were, predictably, organized around the semistructured interview questions. These were used to establish a codebook. The codes and tags (strength, weakness, or change) were applied independently by the fifth author to 25% of the transcripts to increase trustworthiness (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). Agreement was 95%. The only disagreement was that the fifth author believed one code (student independence in writing), previously collapsed into a larger category (student change), should stand on its own based on volume of comments. After discussion, the authors agreed, making a final count of 19 axial codes (see Supplementary Table 2 in the online version of the journal).
During analysis, some statements cut across codes. In these cases, we coded only the sections of the statement relevant to the code, even though this broke the natural flow of the statement. In reporting, we use the complete statement to maintain coherence of the participant’s meaning. In the rare case when one coder was unsure if an item was positive, negative, or a change, the coders discussed potential influencing biases, re-read the comments, and reached consensus. For example, one comment on modeling was, “I could see the benefit to the kids [strength], but it didn’t feel comfortable [weakness].” The comment has both a strength and a weakness, so we agreed to divide the comment for coding.
Coding Consensus
Onwuegbuzie, Leech, and Collins (2010) addressed coding for consensus in focus groups. Consensus coding helps mediate the limitation of not having each participant offer their opinion and input independently. In this study, the first author watched the videos again solely to document agreement or dissent on the identified codes. Agreement or dissent was determined by documenting the verbal or nonverbal response of each focus group member for each discussion comment made relevant to the codes. Qualitative indicators such as tone or body language were also documented to substantiate the counts. The following consensus codes, based on Onwuegbuzie and colleagues (2010) were used: (a) A = indicated agreement (i.e., verbal or nonverbal); (b) D = indicated dissent (i.e., verbal or nonverbal); (c) NR = did not indicate agreement or dissent (i.e., nonresponse). Nonverbal responses were indicated only for those in view. Because the researchers were immersed in the data, voices were easily distinguished, thus recognizable vocal agreements were coded even if off screen.
In the following sections, we share teachers’ feedback about the PD and SRSD. Findings are presented by their codes and grouped by areas (i.e., feedback on PD, feedback on SRSD, impacts on students, suggestions for improvement of PD and/or SRSD, and final thoughts). If comments within the code were further grouped by strength, weakness, or change, the variation is presented as well. Guba (1981) encouraged researchers to look for similarities among objects of inquiry but noted we should equally occupy ourselves with differences. Thus, we present at least two examples of typical responses that best fit the phenomena in that category. However, all disconfirming cases are presented and discussed.
Findings and Discussion
The focus group data represents 5 hours 33 minutes of teachers discussing their thoughts and experiences regarding their professional learning and subsequent implementation of SRSD instruction in writing. Consistent with common practice in qualitative reports, findings are presented contextually. Teacher perspectives are presented across four broad areas around which the interview questions were originally organized: perceptions, evaluations, and recommendations regarding the components and adequacy of PD; SRSD instruction; SRSD’s impact on students; and teacher suggestions for improving PD and SRSD. Findings for each code are presented along with example quotes. Consensus or disagreement is reported where present. We end with final thoughts from the teachers.
PD Reflections: Active Learning, Practice, Relationships, Adaptability, and Curriculum/Instructional Materials
Teachers participated in two days of small group, intensive PD for SRSD focused on their students as described previously. Teachers were questioned about the PD experience, including what worked and what could be improved in future PD efforts. Our questions were open-ended and did not specifically refer to the critical characteristics of PD consensus has evolved around noted in the introduction, as we did not want to lead teachers in any way. However, we did encourage teachers to think about their classrooms, students, and SRSD instruction to stimulate rich discussion. Desirable characteristics and aspects of PD both researchers (cf. Ball & Cohen, 1999; Ball & Forzani, 2009; Borko, 2004; Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Gallagher et al., 2017; Koellner & Jacobs, 2014) and teachers (e.g., Boston Consulting Group, 2014) have identified as critical to effective PD emerged in these focus groups. It was clear that these teachers valued each of the following: personalized, interactive PD; PD leaders who understood teachers’ and students’ strengths and needs; active learning; sufficient practice using all processes and materials that would be used in the classroom; the ability to differentiate (adapt) lessons and instructional components to local needs and contexts; the detailed curriculum/instructional materials they were provided with during the PD; and the formative assessments embedded in SRSD instruction. While teachers also noted challenges that they encountered during PD and later in their classrooms, they clearly stated they were happy with the PD.
Active Learning and Practice
In terms of the roles of active, interactive learning and sufficient practice, Helena began, I felt like I knew what I was doing when I first started [SRSD] because we went through the process and did it ourselves. That helped to sit and do it and act like we were teaching the lessons, especially never having touched this before. It helped to actually do the lessons in the groups.
Gretchen agreed, I am very thankful we were able to go through so many examples together so by the time we started, I had it.
Faye also found the amount of time spent in PD worthwhile: We had two days to spend, not just a two-hour crash course. We actually had a sufficient amount of time to think about it and read . . . That was helpful.
Teachers suggested the most difficult part of both the PD and implementing SRSD in the classroom was the cognitive modeling, especially using self-statements while modeling. They appreciated the time they had here to become comfortable with this relatively new demand. Nina explained, The training we got was good. It’s always hard to do modeling for your fellow teachers. There’s this self-conscious feel about it. And I think despite the training, it’s not until you actually do it that it starts making sense.
PD Group Size
The number of teachers who participate in a PD group emerged as a critical consideration for these teachers because it related not only to active learning and practice but also to trust and relationships. We believed the number needed to be large enough to build a community but small enough to feel safe discussing delicate matters, such as student or teacher needs. Furthermore, a characteristic considered important in the evidence base for PD is relating the PD to teachers’ current students. PD was held in the fall after the school year started, so teachers were able to discuss current students’ writing abilities and needs, and their current writing instructional practices and goals, in detail. Small groups allowed us and the teachers to brainstorm during PD on how they might meet the needs of particular students.
Ella said of group size, “I wouldn’t want it to be more than ten,” while Gretchen said six was her ideal number. Gretchen elaborated, It was small enough, it was safe, but it was so small, you [PD leaders] had a very personal interest in my kids. It was really nice to sit down and learn about my class. If you get many more [participants], I am not going to share the nitty gritty like I did.
Group size may also affect participation. Gretchen continued, “The smaller group made us try. Also, I got to do it, not just say I saw someone do it. In a larger group, you may not get that.” Thus, the small group size also facilitated relationships among PD leaders and teachers, helping to create the personalized nature of PD seen as important to teacher buy-in and learning (Desimone & Stuckey, 2014). This is also consistent with the views expressed by teachers regarding desirable aspects of PD (Boston Consulting Group, 2014): a personalized, interactive approach; time for modeling and practice; and PD leaders who understands teachers’ and students’ strengths and needs.
Differentiation (Adaptability)
As explained in the Method section, teachers were encouraged throughout PD to maintain all elements of SRSD instruction but to adapt lessons, materials, pace, and more to their classrooms. As Desimone and Stuckey (2014) noted, there can be tension between the need for high fidelity and teachers’ needs to adapt to suit their own settings and needs. Becky appreciated the freedom to adjust, “I think it wouldn’t have been as rich without the PD. We wouldn’t have been as open to modify. They [students] would start to get bored, so I had to think about how I could change this, maybe do it on the computer, and such.” However, Isaak and Nina were concerned about differentiating too much. Nina said she “wanted to be sure I was doing what you needed me to do for the research.” Two teachers in her session agreed.
These 14 teachers were involved in a research study with observers monitoring fidelity during instruction. Several teachers indicated this may have discouraged them from personalizing the lessons and differentiating during instruction for fear of having lower fidelity. Isaak explained, “I was worried about not checking things off of the fidelity sheet . . . it took away some of the authenticity.” Two teachers in his session agreed. These concerns directly highlighted the tension between fidelity and adaptation. Yet, overall teachers expressed frequent adaptations. One example many commented on was their approach to student learning of the mnemonics; mnemonics not only represented genre elements but also served as reminders to use all of what students knew about effective writing in that genre.
In this study, students learned a genre-specific writing strategy for either opinion writing or story writing as well as general writing strategies such as beginning with a catchy opening and good word choice. The genre-specific writing strategy for writing opinion essays was represented by the mnemonic TREE (T—Topic sentence, Tell what you believe!; R—Reasons, three or more, Why do I believe this? Will my readers believe this?; E—Ending, Wrap it up right!; E—Examine, do I have all my parts?). The genre-specific writing strategy for writing stories was represented by the mnemonic WWW, What = 2, How = 2, (W—Who is the main character or characters?; W—When does the story happen? W—Where does the story take place?; What—What does the main character do or want to do? What do the other characters do?; What—What happens then? What happens with the other characters?; How—How does the story end?; How—How does the main character feel? How do the other characters feel?). In this discussion, we will refer to these as the opinion essay writing mnemonic and the story writing mnemonic.
Differentiation: Memorizing and Internalizing Writing Strategies
Memorizing the mnemonics (and the meaning, characteristics, and importance of each genre element represented in a mnemonic) is a key to students internalizing and using the strategies independently. While teachers were provided flash cards and a poster of the mnemonic, they were encouraged to be creative and use a variety of methods to engage all students. Each of these teachers reported incorporating hand motions representing each letter of the mnemonic, raps or songs, and/or movement to support recall, understanding, and use of the strategies.
Leigh shared, My kids really liked the mnemonics. We had little motions and they would really get into that part of it. They brought it into everything. When I asked them to write a summary of the story we were working on, they would write it [the mnemonic] on the sides of their papers and that’s how we would get their summaries. It’s fabulous!
Chris’s students named themselves the Power Writers and developed a catchy jingle to motivate their writing. To the tune of “Who Let the Dogs Out” they would chant, “Who let the words out? Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof! Who let the kids write? Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof!” She also described a movement-based activity she believed was effective to for memorization. “In the beginning, to practice memorization, we formed two circles where the inner circle of students sat at their desks and the outer circle walked around to music. When the music stopped, they quizzed whoever they landed in front of.” “I loved the different strategies,” Gretchen said, “I taught them a song that goes with it [the mnemonic]. With that, they were able to take the song and . . . develop their own graphic organizer.” The teachers who implemented these complimentary activities to enhance memorization reported their students singing or doing the hand motions during writing time to manage the writing process, stay on task, and to remember the steps. To aid students in completing the steps of the strategy during writing, Danielle shared, “I had them use little cards [with the mnemonic on them] . . . They put [the cards] in order and turned them face down as they used them.”
Kelly, on the other hand, found some students initially struggled to learn and apply the longer story writing mnemonic. She said, I saw difficulty in learning the story writing mnemonic . . . They learned so many W words and H words, but when they went to write, they had problems merging it all together . . . The long mnemonic is a little difficult.
While her students did master this strategy, an adaptation here may have been useful. Longer mnemonics, such as the story writing mnemonic, can be broken into pieces for learning as needed; this is something to be emphasized in future PD.
Detailed Lesson Content and Materials
The nature of curricular materials, just how detailed they should be, and their importance in PD has been noted as an important consideration by several researchers (cf. Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Gallagher et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2015). Teachers received and worked with all teacher and student materials. In addition, based on our experience with teachers learning SRSD for writing, we have created detailed professional learning lesson plans as well as notes and comments to teachers within these lesson plans focused on ideas for adapting/differentiating, formative assessment, and so on. We have found that SRSD lessons include so many moving parts that most teachers find these materials useful over time as they continue to develop SRSD instruction in their classrooms. Teachers were told the lessons plans were a meta-script designed for professional learning purposes, to guide them through learning about the genre strategies and SRSD and were not to be taught from directly or used as scripts. Teachers were encouraged to use the professional learning lesson plans flexibly as a guide when creating their own lesson plans. The structure and detail of their own lesson plans as they began teaching was up to them.
Detailed Professional Learning Lesson Plans
Of the 14 teachers, 13 found the detailed model lesson plans to be both an important learning tool and a helpful reference for planning instruction. Leigh reflected, “I think there was enough structure . . . I thought the plans were flexible. I liked the detail in the lesson plans because it gave you a good start.” During PD, teachers were also encouraged to adapt the lesson plans to meet their students’ needs. Michelle explained, “The lesson plans did say at one point you can use this or you can choose to do something different. So it let you transition to where you are comfortable.”
Teachers with less experience with writing instruction may benefit more from the detailed, model plans during PD. Nina noted, “I did think the lesson plans were very complete, they gave you enough that even if you weren’t a writer to start with you had a good place to start and teach your students from.” One teacher had difficulty with the lesson plans and another made suggestions to improve them. Kelly shared, The lesson plans are very difficult to follow, maybe too detailed and too wordy. As an elementary school teacher you have six subjects you’re teaching and [writing instruction] was 20 minutes. You don’t have two hours to sit and read about a lesson. We are used to seeing larger, less academic font.
Jackie added, “I had a hard time with the lesson plans too. What might be more helpful is to bold the first big thing you need to do and use bullets.” The third teacher in their focus group disagreed and teachers in the other focus groups did not report problems with the lesson plans. Michelle summarized, “I really think that the lesson plans were really easy. You don’t have to go home and study them. It’s fairly easy to implement especially once you do it.” Thus, overall these teachers found the detailed professional learning lesson plans useful. Some suggestions for improvements were made.
Finally, some teachers received PD in one genre and after implementing it, went on independently to use the professional learning lesson plans from the other genre, but without PD. Chris was one of those teachers and said, “I definitely think it [the PD] was beneficial . . . we [implemented] the other strategy but didn’t receive PD for it, so we are realizing how beneficial PD was.” Teachers who taught both genres indicated the detailed professional learning lesson plans for the genre they had not yet taught were very important, but they also relied on each other to clarify differences between genres and for instructional ideas. They also believed SRSD instruction for the second genre would have been easier with additional PD.
SRSD Reflections: Components and Processes
Teachers in the focus groups discussed components of SRSD, implementation of SRSD, and student responses to the intervention, both academic and behavioral. As noted previously, teachers were also provided with all the student materials and teacher support material needed for SRSD instruction; inclusion of curriculum materials may be one key to effective PD (Gallagher et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2015). As seen in this section, teachers found the curriculum/instructional materials integrated in PD to be useful and important.
Genre-Specific Writing Samples to Analyze
One way in which students learned to identify the genre-specific elements of compositions was by analyzing/scoring exemplar and nonexemplar stories or persuasive essays provided in the professional learning lesson plans. Teachers were encouraged to create additional essays as desired or needed. Critical, however, was that these exemplars and nonexemplars were written at the students’ writing level, not their reading level. In other words, students needed proximal models rather than stories or essays written by adults for them, although books and other classroom resources were also used as teachers related the writing strategies being used to reading and other parts of the day.
“The examples really helped them to understand all the parts,” shared Ella. Teachers, like Gretchen, said the students enjoyed critiquing the models: I liked the stories that were provided because you could really break them apart. And the stories were appropriate because they could see what a good story looks like and what a story looks like that doesn’t follow the rules.
Having “good” and “poor” genre-specific papers to analyze, discuss, revise, and rewrite was an important part of learning to write well for these teachers and their students.
Applying Story Writing Skills to Reading
By learning the structure and essential elements of the genre, students are able to identify those elements in reading passages. Chris’s students used their knowledge of story parts in story retell. “They won’t miss the parts if they know [the story writing mnemonic]! Feelings [in stories] are commonly missed because you have to infer, but because they knew all the story parts they won’t miss feelings again.”
The Graphic Organizer
Teachers were given a genre-specific graphic organizer to help support students planning for writing during PD, however, we stressed that teachers should decide whether to use it or have students begin with creating the same graphic organizer on scratch paper. Teachers who chose to use the graphic organizer faded its use in later lessons by modeling how students could make their own organizer; Faye, for example, had her students write the letters down the side of their paper to represent each story element. Some teachers, however, like Nina, chose not to introduce the formal graphic organizer: I never used the graphic organizer provided. I just had them write [the complete mnemonic for story writing] on their paper. I really think they needed to do that for everything because I found when I told them they didn’t have to do it, the writing fell off.
Others, such as Gretchen, chose to only use the graphic organizer with her struggling writers saying, “I think the lower writers really need the graphic organizer.” Many teachers said they would teach students to make their own planning sheet from the start rather than use the graphic organizer when teaching the following year.
This is an important modification to be carefully considered for classwide SRSD and should be addressed in future PD. Some students, especially those who struggle with writing, may need the more formal graphic organizer to begin with and may need extra support transitioning to creating their own organizer. Furthermore, previous research with typical writers, students struggling with writing, and students with disabilities indicates they like the graphic organizers and recommend that they be used with future students (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012; Harris & Graham, 2017).
Planning to Write
Students were taught to make notes while planning their essays using “caveman talk,” or short phrases, rather than full sentences. Making short notes reduces cognitive demand and provides a way to efficiently organize ideas prior to writing. Some students, however, struggled with the idea of using notes instead of full sentences during planning. Based on our experience, we anticipated this problem and discussed addressing it during PD. Teachers consistently reported this was one of the more difficult parts of SRSD instruction. “The note taking really threw some of mine,” Helena admitted, “They liked the caveman talk but their notes were essays, not notes. Struggling writers had this problem.” Gretchen’s struggling writers also had challenges. “I had a couple of struggling writers who struggled with brainstorming. They would finish a story and then go back to find the parts [and make notes].” The other two teachers in this session agreed notes were difficult for their students.
To address the obstacles with making notes, we recommend more in-depth discussion of lesson adaptations during PD. For example, when the teacher models making notes during the planning phase, students can generate the short phrases for the teacher or write their own notes simultaneously. If students write sentences on their planning sheets, teachers can help students learn to rewrite using phrases. Teachers can also model and practice with individuals or small groups how to develop phrases. Students who are concerned about forgetting their ideas can initially write a bit more on the plan while avoiding full sentences. Finally, some students may benefit from working together to turn sentences into short notes.
Other obstacles to planning exist. Students who are resistant to planning may rush to finish because they have difficulties with the physical act of handwriting or with working memory. Offering positive feedback on plans and reminding students of the purpose of the plan (e.g., notes will not be read by others) will often motivate students to complete the plan. For students who have a physical difficulty with handwriting, teachers may encourage the use of a keyboard, planning software, audio recorder, speech-to-text program, or a peer or adult to transcribe their ideas. Students can also develop their own abbreviations for commonly used words and ideas. Collaborative planning and note making is also important for some students, with assistance in making notes gradually faded.
Teacher Modeling of Writing and Self-Regulation
Teachers in this study believed, and research has demonstrated, that the modeling stage is critical to student success (Brunstein & Glaser, 2011; Harris, Lane, Driscoll, et al., 2012). “Modeling was most useful because everything you teach should be modeled. Children learn not by what you tell them but by what you do,” Becky expressed. While modeling, teachers talked aloud through their thought processes, struggles, and successes using self-regulatory statements. “The modeling built into the lessons was really helpful,” explained Michelle, “The kids who I never thought would come up with those parts suddenly were able to do it because we had modeled it so much.”
During the modeling stage, teachers encouraged students to generate positive self-talk (e.g., “I can use my imagination to do better work,” “I need to look to see if I did it right”), which can affect motivation and perseverance in any academic task, not just writing. Students were free to make up their own or use modeled self-statements. When Danielle modeled struggling with a writing task, her students offered support. “The students helped me. They would sometimes write down a self-statement and hand it to me.” Ella shared, My kids are doubters. They don’t talk well to themselves sometimes. I had them write at least three [self-talk statements] and put them on the tree [on our wall] (a bulletin board for the opinion essay writing mnemonic and students’ selected examples of personal self-speech). I would see them look to the tree when they were writing.
Leigh shared, “My students really took to the self-regulatory talk. They were bringing it into ALL of our other subjects and saying it to each other during group work.” One teacher was concerned that students were not saying the statements out loud. Research indicates that it is not necessary for students to engage in self-talk aloud; it can be “in their heads” (Harris & Graham, 2017), but if teachers see students struggling, they should offer support and remind students to refer to their written list of self-statements and use them while writing, either covertly or overtly. While some teachers may be tempted to leave out the development of self-statements in SRSD, researchers have found that students identify the use self-statements during writing as highly effective and recommend other students learn such statements (Harris & Graham, 2017; Harris et al., 2008).
Many of these teachers identified modeling as initially difficult and awkward. Jackie recognized, “Self talk? I was bad at that. I can see a benefit for my kids, but it didn’t feel comfortable.” Three of the four focus groups addressed this discomfort. Over time, however, teachers found modeling became more comfortable and agreed that modeling and self-talk made a difference and believed it kept students on task, motivated, and rewarded. Furthermore, teachers are encouraged to determine how and when to encourage student assistance and contributions during modeling (Harris & Graham, 2017; Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012; Harris et al., 2008).
Some teachers in this study, however, initially restricted student involvement during modeling and expressed changing to engage more with their students during modeling, allowing students to interact, offer ideas, and collaborate. As Michelle noted, “I found one of the hardest things was modeling because when you model you ask yourself questions and my group wanted to answer them.” Alice added “My kids couldn’t restrain themselves from talking to me. They would try to talk me through it [the Model It stage]. Why should I keep their enthusiasm down?” During PD, we noted that as long as teachers are leading the modeling process, students can and should collaborate with the teacher. Further demonstration of this in future PD may be helpful.
Student Self-Evaluation
Formative assessment was supported as students analyzed their plans as well as collaborative and individual essays for genre parts and other aspects of good writing (e.g., strong opening, linking words, effective vocabulary, powerful ending) by graphing the number of included genre elements and characteristics on a rocket graph (each student had sheets with several blank rockets used throughout instruction). Each rocket was divided into sections representing the key genre elements (differing for stories and essays), and stars around the rocket were used to record use of other aspects of good writing in that genre. Rockets are completed as students progress in SRSD instruction, allowing students to set goals and self-monitor progress, and to enhance motivation (see Harris et al., 2008 for examples).
Teachers varied in when they asked students to complete the rockets and how they used this tool; here again, flexibility was stressed in PD. This further illustrates the issue of adaptability addressed previously. Some teachers asked students to self-evaluate using a rocket after they finished a composition. Others, like Danielle, had students wait a while before evaluating their work. She explained, My kids love the rockets. We did get to the point where before we start a new writing we went back and filled in our rockets after we left the paper alone for a while. There was no pressure during class because everyone filled in rockets at the same time.
Still others, such as Nina, used the rockets to facilitate writing conferences with students. Students evaluated their work, completed the rocket, and then met with the teacher to talk about both their self-evaluation and their composition. Teachers also saw value in helping students learn how to evaluate the work of others by expanding on the rockets. As Jackie explained, “I like the blankness of the rocket because then I can use it for anything. [For example], ‘How much did this person persuade you? Complete the rocket.’ We became very critical of work we put up [in the classroom].”
Researchers who have interviewed elementary students after SRSD instruction have consistently noted that the “rockets” (or other graphing device) are identified by the majority of students as one of their favorite parts of SRSD (Harris & Graham, 2017). Isaak shared, “Initially students were very excited about the rockets. The notion of blowing the top off your rocket (by having more good reasons or story parts than the minimum) was a little more energizing.” Three teachers in this study indicated that while a majority of their students were excited to use the rockets, some were not. Jackie noted, “For some of them, it didn’t seem important. They didn’t self-monitor themselves all the time.” Alice shared that as students progressed, “They would go back to make sure they had all the parts, but they didn’t necessarily fill in the rocket. But they still had all their parts!” We noted in PD that as students internalize the essential parts of the genre and aspects of the craft of writing and develop proficiency using the strategies, the self-regulation strategies, including the rockets, may be faded, and these teachers saw that happening. Further, students may react differently to differing self-regulation strategies, but should all learn to self-evaluate and self-monitor progress.
Teacher Perspectives on SRSD’s Impact on Students
Teachers were most excited to talk about the changes they saw in their students. In particular, they emphasized changes in students’ behavior, confidence, and writing ability.
Changes in Student Behavior and Confidence
Findings from the experimental study (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012) indicated significant growth in the overall quality and number of genre-specific elements included in student writing after the intervention. In addition, in the present study, teachers shared a number of changes they observed in their students across ability levels, from more capable to average and struggling writers. Becky summarized, “Every single student benefitted. Even the highest student in my class who could write a 2-page story before, she just wrote more.” Ella added, “I saw huge improvements in my lower writers.”
Most of the observed changes were in the quality and length of student writing, but there were also noticeable changes in the writing behavior of some students. Furthermore, these teachers worked with some students with challenging behaviors. Faye shared a story about one of these students whose enthusiasm grew along with his writing ability: I have a boy who struggles. He had good ideas but you couldn’t read anything he wrote. Now, he has these great stories with paragraphs and they make sense and you can read it. He produces some of the best stories out of the whole class. He enjoys writing now . . . It’s really great to see him loving to write.
Ella added, I had one little boy [who had] ADHD . . . [SRSD] helped him to put a sequence to his thoughts. He was able to make valid arguments because before he couldn’t pull it all together. His writing has gone from 2s to 4s and 6s [on a scale of 0–6].
For some students, SRSD instruction increased focus and engagement. Alice noted, I had one who wrote zero in the beginning and wrote a persuasive paragraph in the end. He grew a lot and he was able to write and stay focused and keep on track, check all his parts, had his rocket, and the whole bit.
Alice shared her feelings about the effectiveness of SRSD and her experiences with two students who avoided writing tasks, one who was more externalizing (e.g., out of seat, talking loudly) and one who was more internalizing (e.g., unresponsive to questions, refusing peer interaction): I do not feel like there wasn’t anyone it wasn’t effective for. My top internalizer and top externalizer both had tremendous behavior changes. When I asked her [internalizer] to speak to the class, she refused . . . in the end, she was writing full essays and reading them aloud to the class proudly and in a voice that could be heard. My externalizer, when I said it was writing time, he suddenly had an urge to go to the bathroom or he might have hurt his toe and had to go see the nurse. He would go and actually write. It was nice to see the engagement for him just to be able to sit down and do the task at hand. He had all the steps and confidence.
Gretchen recounted similar experiences with a student, stating, His writing was all over the place just like his behavior, but when we got the song and motions, he got excited about that. Now instead of writing all over the place, now he’s pulling out 5’s [on a 0–6 scale] and honestly, his behavior has gotten better. It helped and he’s finishing a story and it makes sense. I have a few who have that same behavior type. Their writing has gotten better and more organized too.
Teachers also noted that SRSD enhanced some students’ confidence during the classroom writing time. Helena described a girl who cried during writing prior to learning the strategies in SRSD: I had a child who doubts herself a lot. If she can’t do it perfectly she actually comes apart so writing was one of those things . . . she struggles and she knows it. Anytime we did writing, it was tears. As we got into SRSD and breaking it down . . . this child became so excited to write. She made a stand against the entire class on a persuasive essay and wrote a wonderful essay. Writing wasn’t drudgery any more. That for me was very helpful because before I didn’t know what to do. She never felt successful. But with this, the checklist, the graphic organizer, she was.
Frequently, students who have difficulty with an academic task such as writing also exhibit challenging behaviors, perhaps as a result of ongoing frustration and failure, as a coping mechanism, or as a means of avoiding the task. The teachers in this study believed SRSD instruction benefited their students regardless of ability level and behavioral challenges, reporting improvements in both student writing and behavior during writing time.
Students Knew How to Start Writing
Getting students to start writing can be a challenge. These teachers consistently indicated that SRSD instruction resulted in students knowing what to do to get started. Students knew how to begin writing and how to continue through the next steps toward completion. Becky said, “Not a single student said, ‘I don’t know what to write about’ or ‘I can’t write’ after the intervention. And it’s still like that to this day.” Ella emphasized, “They know how to lead in now. That’s the hard part… for kids to even know how to start [writing].” Isaak shared, This [strategy] allowed kids to grab on to something that had been missing in other kinds of writing instruction. This, they grabbed whether they realized or not. And they just wrote . . . no one had the excuse of “I don’t know what to write.” That was taken off the table.
There was consensus from teachers in each session on this point.
Students Were More Independent Writers
In every focus group session, teachers shared examples of their students writing more independently. Michelle shared, I had a little boy who was not confident with any task. He was at my side without attempting to do the task. But when I gave him the strategies, he was just at work. It was almost like nothing. Once he knew it, he was like, “Yeah, I can go do that.” It gave him confidence.
Isaak offered a different example, One (student) of mine has a sharp wit, sharp tongue, and the persuasive was right up his alley. He wrote things purposely to get somebody’s goat. I couldn’t have asked for more! He would have given little effort if I had just said “What are you going to write about today?” He had definite opinions and wanted you to know. He became very involved.
Organizing Ideas and the Writing Process
Another common difficulty in student writing is organization of both the process of writing and ideas for writing (Harris & Graham, 2017). Several teachers reported their students knew the mnemonic and used it to help them remain on task and manage the writing process as they moved from planning to writing, resulting in a more organized written product. As Helena explained, “several [students] had a mass group of thoughts before, but after continually repeating a pattern of how to organize the thoughts on paper, they got it.” Gretchen said, “SRSD kept them more organized with writing. Every time we come to writing, they want to use it. They have seen the first part of [the story writing mnemonic] will help with any story.” Nina stated, “It gave students a direct plan on how to put their writing together.”
Generalization and Maintenance
Generalization, the appropriate and effective application of strategies to a new writing task or situation, is built into SRSD instruction. During PD, teachers discussed fostering generalization and maintenance by (a) ensuring students understand the purpose and benefits of the strategy; (b) discussing, modeling, and supporting strategy use in other settings; (c) providing booster sessions as needed; (d) helping students develop an understanding of when and how to use the strategy; (e) developing skills for adapting strategies to other writing tasks and situations; (f) fostering peer collaboration and support in writing tasks; and (g) promoting strategy use across settings by collaborating with other school personnel and family members. As Danielle expressed after SRSD instruction, “When they can apply the knowledge in a new situation, that’s true learning.” Teachers in both genres reported student application of the self-regulation and writing strategies to other academic areas (e.g. reading and math). Helena shared, “Several weeks later [after completing SRSD], we wrote a persuasive letter to their parents. Those letters went home and they were good, valid persuasive arguments.”
Opinion Writing in Real-World Applications
As noted previously, teachers reported discussion and use of the story writing strategy during reading. Teachers also reported several examples where students used the opinion writing strategies for their own purposes beyond the classroom. Alice shared, We do a school-to-home journal. There was a lot of “Dear Mom and Dad, I feel that we should get a hamster . . . the first reason is.” And the parent wrote back that the student had made good points and they could talk about getting a hamster. They started to realize, “This might benefit me!”
Michelle noted that her students “wanted to convince the principal to put a hot chocolate and ice cream machine on the playground. He responded saying the PTO might take this on as a project. The students noticed there was power in [persuasive writing].”
Teacher Suggestions for Improvement in PD and/or SRSD
Teachers were asked to share their ideas on what they changed in instruction or what should be changed in either PD or SRSD instruction, based on their experience. Their suggestions centered on modifying SRSD to increase its impact on their students.
Mechanics of Writing
Several teachers in this study felt mechanics needed to be a part of the evaluation stage so students would attend to both the genre parts and mechanics. Alice, who taught the opinion essay strategy, explained, The examine part of [the strategy] was great in that it checked ‘does it have every part’, but it didn’t really have a lot of focus on the mechanics. And . . . when we began, my students were really good at the mechanics of writing (periods, capital letters), and because the focus got shifted so much to all the parts (transition words, great belief statement), some of those mechanics got thrown to the wayside. We had to say “Examine isn’t just doing your parts, it is capitals and end marks.” That is the one bit our team talked a lot about. We plan to teach it again next year, but we will make that adjustment [to include writing mechanics].
Gretchen wished, “there was a grammar and punctuation part on the rockets as well.”
As discussed with teachers during PD, SRSD is not intended to be a complete writing program and should be embedded in a comprehensive writing curriculum. Therefore, teachers were encouraged to integrate instruction in the mechanics of writing, encourage students to set mechanics-related goals, and ask students to evaluate themselves on their use of mechanics in addition to the essential genre elements. Greater attention to this may be needed in future PD, or teachers may become more comfortable integrating with increased SRSD experience.
Meeting the Needs of More Capable Writers
Based on our experiences with classwide SRSD, we are concerned that SRSD instruction might limit more capable writers if it is not differentiated to create greater challenges and learning for these students (Harris & Graham, 2017; McKeown et al., 2015). Teachers who discussed this were split on this topic; four said it limited their higher achieving students, and four disagreed. Ella was among those concerned saying, “My higher writers got burnt out a lot quicker than the lower ones did. Their reaction was, ‘What else can we do?’” While more advanced goals for these students were discussed during PD, greater discussion and planning for supporting more capable writers was needed. Teachers may be unsure how to create and meet specific goals for some students, or they may need experience with SRSD instruction to move on to greater differentiation. Helena suggested providing additional lessons specifically for higher achieving writers. “We need to take those higher learners and move them forward. We may need additional lessons for higher writers.”
We had discussed during PD that teachers can meet the needs of more capable writers by changing the pace, intensity, level of independence, and complexity of the writing task. For example, to meet the needs of Nina’s more capable writers, she shared, When I do it again next year, I will probably let my higher writers go a lot sooner than I did. I think they got a little frustrated having to stick to the whole group and I do think that would free me up to work with some of my lower writers. I could give them more encouragement.
Teachers can also encourage more capable writers to set writing goals to include more elements and more complex ideas in their writing based on their prior performance. Michelle plans to do that next year, saying, “Some of those higher writers learn the concept pretty quickly but didn’t go quite as far as they could have. Now that I’ve done it once, I can do that.” We will also strive to incorporate greater problem solving and planning for more capable writers in future PD.
Utilizing Small Groups and Pairs
The stages of SRSD are recursive and can be repeated as necessary, often with small groups or individuals. For example, some students may benefit from the teacher re-modeling in a small group, where they are better able to attend and contribute and the teacher can adapt modeling to their needs. During PD, we encouraged teachers to carefully consider the challenges each student in a small group faces and then model encountering and overcoming those challenges. We suggested teachers might group students who are struggling with a specific genre element and provide a mini-lesson on that element (e.g., endings), or might pair writers to work together on a composition or provide feedback to each other on individual compositions.
Teachers reported approaching re-teaching or re-modeling as needed with small groups, pairs, and/or individual students in various ways depending on how many students needed help and what type of assistance was needed. Teachers approached this in a variety of ways to address the needs of their class. Four teachers reported using small group instruction and paired peers for collaborative work. “I used the intermediate step of having them write together rather than going immediately to writing on their own so they had someone else to help them with putting ideas down on paper,” expressed Nina. Helena did the same: As we moved away from me modeling, I knew I couldn’t just set them on their own. I went to pairs. Working together to come up with a persuasive essay made all the difference because they were so excited to read what they had written. Now they could do it on their own; they weren’t afraid.
Ella also had small groups of two to three students write a whole essay together before setting them off to work individually. She and Faye both used the small group time to provide additional support to those who needed it. Faye explained, “We started writing sooner than the plans. I set them off saying, ‘See what you can do’ except those who needed more support. Those, I pulled into a small group and worked with them.” Based on the input from these teachers, we plan to spend more time on possibilities for small grouping in each teacher’s classroom as part of brain storming and problem-solving. Feedback and assistance to teachers here could be an important focus for future research.
Final Thoughts From Teachers
The teachers shared final thoughts on what they would tell other teachers who might want to implement SRSD classwide. Michelle shared, . . . You feel even more confident the next year. I know at the beginning I approached it like, “Oh no, it’s another thing” but when I got into it, it was fun, and I can use it in lots of different areas and so I don’t think they need to be scared about approaching it.
Two teachers told us they were tempted to skip or rush some of the lessons, but decided it was better to complete them all. Alice said, [The students] were so anxious just to get to write because there are so many lessons before they actually get to write. “Do we get to write? Do we get to try [the opinion essay strategy]?” They were so excited, by the time we gave them that pen and paper, there was not a kid in the room who was saying, “I don’t know what to write.”
Two teachers, Isaak and Jackie, discussed SRSD in comparison to another program. Isaak explained.
Many schools get into [commercially produced whole language writing program] and can’t do it. (SRSD) made it a little easier for me to go, “Okay, to write a persuasive essay you do this, this, and this.” Then I can get crafty and add million dollar words, and say more. It gives me something to teach. I wish we had had more time to devote to writing instruction. You’re going to need a chunk of time . . . don’t rush through it. Also, you may want to start with persuasive; it’s an easier mnemonic . . . for people who aren’t that far along in their own thoughts about writing instruction, this is a great place to come in!
Jackie added, Last year I did a workshop model which allows them a lot of freedom but when I sent them off to write with all their freedom, it overwhelmed the kids I had and I got hardly anything as far as their stories. Having the [story writing] strategy, I got more information in the stories.
Implications for PD, SRSD, and Future Research
While researchers have reached a strong consensus on key PD design elements believed to matter, recent reports conclude that many recent PD studies have not shown the anticipated effects for teachers or students (Hill et al., 2013; TNTP, 2015). Researchers have, however, identified studies where PD did result in meaningful outcomes among teachers and students, and potential components and characteristics of PD related to these outcomes (cf. Desimone & Garet, 2015; Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Gallagher et al., 2017; Olson et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2015). The PD literature calls for more mixed methods research; Desimone and Stuckey (2014) argued that understanding why PD is successful for some outcomes in some studies is critical for improving overall teacher and student outcomes. The qualitative study reported here was part of a larger, mixed methods study of PD for SRSD that also included a randomized controlled trial. Results of the randomized controlled trial showed positive effects for both teachers and second and third grade students on multiple outcomes (Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012).
Implications for PD and Future Research
As detailed previously, aspects of PD that have reached consensus include alignment with school curriculum and goals, intensive development, collective participation among teachers in a specific content area, addressing teachers’ strengths and needs, focus on these teachers’ students, attention to content and pedagogical knowledge of teachers, active and collaborative learning situated in learning communities, observation and analysis of experienced teachers practices, formative assessments that support classroom implementation, practice using all curricula and materials, allowing for adaptation to local needs and context, sufficient time and support for teacher learning, and feedback and support while learning and during instruction after PD (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Borko, 2004; Cochran-Smith & Boston College Evidence Team, 2009; Desimone & Stuckey, 2015; Gallagher et al., 2017). All these characteristics and elements were incorporated in the current PD for SRSD.
The teachers in these focus groups felt that this PD based on these characteristics and components was a powerful mechanism for learning to implement a complex evidence-based practice. Although they did not specifically mention this aspect of the PD during discussions, these schools and teachers had asked for PD in writing aligned with state, school, and teacher goals as part of a school-university partnership. Furthermore, they concurred with the consensus in the academic literature on all other aspects of the PD noted and recommended they be included in future PD. This verification of critical characteristics and components of effective PD by teachers in this one study requires replication but is an important finding. When coupled with evidence-based practices, such PD is a powerful force for improving teaching and learning.
These teachers, however, also believed that aspects of the PD should be enhanced in future studies. As seen in the Results and Discussion, an important, and anticipated, issue raised was addressing the tension between fidelity and the need to adapt and differentiate instruction (cf. Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; McKeown et al., 2015). Differentiating instruction for individual needs and delivering instruction to small groups or one-on-one is a challenge in classwide instruction. Some of these teachers were reticent to differentiate for fear of lowering implementation fidelity. Others indicated they would be able to more effectively differentiate for student needs now that they had “done” SRSD instruction once. No studies of teachers implementing SRSD for writing a second time have been conducted. Future research should follow teachers as they become more experienced with SRSD instruction and determine how further PD, or other forms of support (such as coaching or feedback), might be useful as they continue to develop as writing teachers and implement SRSD with fidelity while also differentiating for individual students.
Another important issue raised was the desire for additional PD to address teaching new sets of strategies for differing genres. We were surprised that teachers who had the opportunity to use the professional learning lesson plans to move on to instruction in the second genre and set of strategies without PD found this challenging. We had anticipated teachers would generalize to the other genre without significant difficulty given the materials available to them, the PD on SRSD, and their SRSD instruction experiences. This may be related to teachers’ overall perception of their level of preparation to teach these genres. Only a few teachers had the opportunity to move into the second genre on their own, and future research should investigate the level of support needed to engage in SRSD for writing beyond the genre focused on in initial PD. SRSD instruction is complex and demanding. Several teachers stated they would have liked additional feedback on how they were implementing the intervention and this study identified multiple aspects of SRSD that teachers might profit from further discussion of, or support with, during and after PD.
Finally, numerous researchers have noted the potential issues involved when teachers volunteer for, or select, PD as opposed to being required to participate (cf. Desimone & Stuckey, 2014; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Harris & Graham, 2017; Koellner & Jacobs, 2014; McKeown et al., 2015). The teachers in this study were volunteers working in schools with strong university partnerships addressing both learning and behavior. These factors could have an impact on the outcomes and teacher perceptions. Clearly, research is needed here.
Implications for SRSD Instruction and Future Research
We also gathered important insights about SRSD instruction for writing. Teachers noted important changes in their students’ attitudes and behavior, including less behavioral challenges for some students, less avoidance of writing and increased focus and engagement during writing, less difficulty getting started writing, more independence during writing, generalization to reading stories and writing persuasively in other contexts, and greater confidence about writing. These teacher observations are important, as little research has focused strongly on these outcomes, with the exception of self-efficacy for writing. These observations support the inclusion of aspects of SRSD instruction aimed at building self-efficacy and motivation and should be investigated further in future research. Research has rarely addressed the contribution of differing components and aspects of SRSD instruction (Harris & Graham, 2017); studies are needed to address the mechanisms of change for differing outcomes of SRSD instruction.
Teachers also reported realizing they should not push instruction too fast and that all SRSD components, including the self-regulation components, were valuable among their students. This information is helpful in working with future teachers, as we often find that teachers consider leaving out the modeling as well as the self-statements and self-evaluation elements. Students have indicated in prior research that the modeling, self-talk, and monitoring though graphs/rockets are often their favorite parts, as well (e.g., Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012; McKeown et al., 2015). Integrating writing mechanics and further meeting the needs of more capable writers should be addressed further in future research. Finally, further support in grouping and other aspects of differentiation should also be addressed in future research.
Important Additional Foci for Future Research
Two final recommendations for future research are noted. First, as established by research reviewed in the introduction, teacher preparation for writing development and instruction across undergraduate and graduate programs is typically deeply inadequate. This is one factor that may contribute to the large effect sizes across the SRSD research base (Harris & Graham, 2017). It is imperative that teacher preparation programs work to bring preparation in writing to the same levels as achieved and continually refine in reading and math. Research is badly needed on how to do so effectively and the teacher and student outcomes that follow.
Second, the National Writing Project’s work on teacher implementation of the process approach in writing also has a meaningful evidence base (e.g., Graham & Perin, 2007). While SRSD for writing is an evidence-based practice and is situated within the writing process, research across the writing process in grades K-12 incorporating SRSD has not been conducted. Research should be undertaken to explore the ways in which SRSD instruction could be effectively integrated into the larger scope addressed by the National Writing Project, to ascertain where the two work well together and ascertain benefits for teachers and students as well as challenges. In our opinion, such research is long overdue, as SRSD has been designed to be used within the larger development of writing and the writing process since the early 1980s (Harris & Graham, 2017).
Conclusion
The nature of qualitative inquiry limits its potential for generalization; Guba (1981) suggested the best we can aim for are “working hypotheses” (p. 77). While we provided descriptors of the participants, setting, and methods, our findings may not be generalizable to other teachers, other settings, or addressing other foci for PD (Desimone & Stuckey, 2014). We do note, however, that other studies of PD for SRSD in different states and classrooms found similar outcomes (e.g., Harris, Lane, Graham, et al., 2012; Harris et al., 2015; McKeown et al., 2015). In the current study, we did not directly ask teachers about changes in content knowledge, pedagogical beliefs, or their efficacy for teaching these genres. All of these are important outcomes among teachers and need to be addressed in future studies. While many additional questions remain to be addressed, as noted in the discussion, this study deepens our understanding of both effective PD and SRSD instruction in meaningful ways.
Supplemental Material
DS_10.3102_0002831218804146 – Supplemental material for Teachers’ Voices: Perceptions of Effective Professional Development and Classwide Implementation of Self-Regulated Strategy Development in Writing
Supplemental material, DS_10.3102_0002831218804146 for Teachers’ Voices: Perceptions of Effective Professional Development and Classwide Implementation of Self-Regulated Strategy Development in Writing by Debra McKeown, Mary Brindle, Karen R. Harris, Karin Sandmel, Trisha D. Steinbrecher, Steve Graham, Kathleen Lynne Lane and Wendy Peia Oakes in American Educational Research Journal
Footnotes
Notes
D
M
K
K
T
S
K
W
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
