kflemingksumed.weebly.com · Web viewThroughout this 8-week persuasive/opinion writing unit, the...

Running Head: PERSUASIVE RESEARCH- BASED WRITING STRATEGIES FOR ELL STUDENTS 1

Persuasive Research-Based Writing Strategies for ELL Students

Kathryn J. Fleming

Kennesaw State University, 2015

An action research submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education in the Department of Early Childhood Education in the Bagwell College of

Education

PERSUASIVE RESEARCH-BASED WRITING STATEGIES FOR ELL STUDENTS2

Abstract

The focus of the research is on investigating how student growth in persuasive and

opinion writing is impacted by the implementation of research-based writing strategies for ELL

students. My research question aims to discover what degree of impact these strategies will have

on students’ work. Throughout this 8-week persuasive/opinion writing unit, the students were

immersed in multiple ELL strategies including: interactive writing instruction, mentor texts, the

process approach, sentence frames, graphic organizers, and many others. The data was collected

and measured through the analysis of a pre and post assessment, along with 4 different writing

pieces that were created throughout the unit. The data was analyzed by observing student growth

in two main subgroups, ELL students and non-ELL students.


Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………..…………………………………..............2

CHAPTER 1: Introduction…………………..……………………………………………………4

Background and Context…………………………………………………………………..4

Importance of Study……………………………………………………………………….5

Statement of Problem………………………………………………………………...……5

Research Questions…………………..………………………………..…………………..5

Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………………..5

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review………………………………………………………………….6

CHAPTER 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………………...15

Setting………………………………………………………………………………...….15

Participants……………………………………………………………………………….15

Research Design………………………………………………………………………….15

Instruments Used for Data Collection……………………………………………...…….16

CHAPTER 4: Results……………………………………………………………………………18

Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….18

Quantitative Data……………………………………………………...…………18

Qualitative Data……………………………………………………………...…..25

CHAPTER 5: Conclusions………………………………………………………………………27

Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………28

Limitations………………………………………………………………………….……29

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………..…29

Implications for future research and classroom practice…………………………...……30

References……………………………………………………………………………………..…31

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….33


CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Background & Reasons for Research

According to a recent article from Sanford University, English Language Learners

(ELLs) make up about ten percent of the American public school population. This population is

also one of the fastest growing populations in schools today (Pompa & Hakuta, 2012). As the

population of English Language Learners continues to grow, the responsibility and magnitude of

the educators who teach them also continues to grow. It’s important that educators in the

classroom of English Language Learners are using educational practices that are geared

specifically for the needs of these students.

Throughout my experience as an educator, one of the most challenging aspects of guiding

English Language Learners to success within the classroom is in the area of writing. Not only

has it been an area of concern for me, but also the students themselves. ELL students can be

apprehensive towards writing because they are doing “double-duty” in the second language

classroom and are expected to write as they are learning the language itself. Because of this

struggle when working with the writing process, the ESOL teacher at my school and I decided to

use this 45 minute writing block to co-teach. Our intention was to reduce the class size to ensure

that all students’ needs were being met. It was within one of the first writing blocks of the year

that my co-teacher and I discovered a vast need to change direction within our narrative writing

unit to specifically engage the students in a more interactive way. In the midst of a lesson that

wasn’t going exactly how we had imagined was when our classroom “adventure” time was born.

Adventure time during our writing block quickly became the highlight of our students’

school days. The students looked forward to these short ten minute trips around the school

grounds as much as they looked forward to recess! Whether we marched like an army around the


playground, visited our school’s chicken coop, or had a read aloud sitting underneath an oak tree,

the students were deeply engaged in the experience. These engaging experiences led to narrative

writing that the students were excited about sharing. As the unit came to a close, my co-teacher

and I learned a valuable lesson about how students love to share experiences with others through

writing if the experiences are something they cherish.

As I reflected on this lesson that I learned about teaching writing, I began to wonder how

I could recreate these engaging experiences within other third grade writing themes. So as I

approach an upcoming writing unit on persuasive writing, I am interested in how my research

can guide my effort to creating meaningful writing lessons specific to ELL students within

persuasive writing.

Statement of the Problem

Investigate specific research-based persuasive writing instruction strategies and ELL writing

strategies to impact ELL students’ effectiveness in writing.

Research Question

To what degree will specific research-based ELL writing instruction strategies impact ELL

students’ individual persuasive writing abilities?

Definition of Terms

ELLs (English Language Learners): Students who are in the process of learning English as a new

non-native language (Peregoy & Boyle, 2008).


CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PERSUASIVE WRITING

One of the overarching goals on a grand scheme that most educators have for their

students is for them to walk away from the classroom empowered, knowledgeable of the world

around them, and prepared to find a way to make their mark on the world. There are many

different avenues for guiding students to this goal, but without providing the students with the

ability to communicate these passions to others, students will be left with a passion that wasn’t

able to effect change. Persuasive writing is one educational avenue that students must be taught

in order to effect change within their future passions and dreams. Crammond (1998) discusses

the power of persuasive writing, “mastery of persuasive writing is important because it

empowers students – it enables them to produce, evaluate, and act on the professional, ethical,

and political discourse that is central to our democratic society” (p. 230).

As an educator in the elementary grades, however, I don’t truly expect that my young

students will walk away from my classroom ready to act on personal discourse that may not

develop for years. Yet, in the grand scheme of a student’s educational journey, I hope that

lessons taught at a young age will inform, empower, and fan into flame the passion that students

will acquire as they mature. Anderson (2008) affirms this idea, “If persuasive writing is central

to students’ academic futures and their empowerment as US citizens, persuasive writing in all of

its complexities should be taught, written, and analyzed as early as third and fourth grades” (p.

308). This suggests a need for teachers to be thoroughly equipped with strategies for developing

effective argumentative writing with students of all different developmental and academic levels.


In discussing and researching elementary persuasive writing, the majority of elementary

teachers find that persuasive writing is difficult for their students. “A traditional developmental

view suggests that elementary school children can argue orally but are developmentally unready

for the complex cognitive task of putting their argumentative thinking into writing,” (Anderson

2008). Despite this traditional view held by many, research also suggests that students are far

more capable of writing persuasively when teachers infuse their instruction with effective

opinion writing strategies (Anderson, 2008, p. 307).

In the following paragraphs, research of both persuasive writing and ELL writing

strategies are discussed in order to inform the action research performed within a classroom of a

significant amount of English Language Learners.

PERSUASIVE WRITING WITH ELL STUDENTS

An effective strategy for ELL students that puts writing into manageable steps is the

Process Approach. Peregoy and Boyle (2008) describe the strategy of writing as, “five

interrelated phases: prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing” (p. 231). During each

of the phases of writing there is a different goal that the writer completes in order to get to the

final piece. The prewriting phase is the time that students choose a topic, brainstorm, and

research their topic in order to come up with the direction of the work. Next is the drafting phase

where students begin to string their ideas together into sentences and paragraphs without specific

concern for the mechanics and grammar of the writing. After that is the editing phase where

students read over their work and make changes on ideas of the paper independently, with a peer

editing group, or conferencing with a teacher. The revision phase follows which is the time

where students focus on spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and other grammatical errors.

Lastly, the students publish their work in a final draft. According to a meta-analysis in which


compiled different studies about elementary writing strategies, Graham et. al. (2012) found that

out of the 20 different studies analyzed, all 20 of them showed positive gains when explicitly

taught writing through using the process approach (p. 889).

Using the process approach as the framework for persuasive writing instruction, the

following strategies will be applied within each of the five interrelated writing phases. First,

within the prewriting phase, students will be exposed to mentor texts. Through the use of

literature, ELL students are exposed to a language-rich environment while also being introduced

to an authentic source of persuasive writing that sparks their imagination and creativity which

provides active engagement throughout the writing process (Clark, 2014). In Clark’s article

(2014), a children’s book that was used as an exemplar for persuasion was, Don’t Let the Pigeon

Stay up Late, by Mo Willems. Through the use of this text, Clark engaged her students in

creating their own version of the pigeon story. Mentor texts have also been found to positively

influence students’ writing content, literary technique, mechanics, and process (Samway, 2006,

p.120-122). In addition, while a teacher is reading a mentor text, ELL students are exposed to

additional vocabulary and syntax that is not normally heard in casual conversation, while also

being supported by the teacher in the comprehension in the book (Williams & Pilonieta, 2012).

Meyer & Weih (2013) discuss that, “Pictures books can serve as models for not only topics and

themes to write about but also as models for literary styles and genres.” This use of a mentor text

to expose students to the persuasive writing genre serves as a memorable and dynamic way for

students to begin their journey through persuasive writing, while also being exposed to examples

of rich language.

Another integral part of the prewriting process both for ELL students and for persuasive

writing development is oral discussion. Peregoy & Boyle (2008) discuss this strategy, “Oral


discussion prior to writing, which obviously requires some oral English abilities, represents one

kind of scaffold to literacy” (p. 246). Oral discussion about topics, paper arrangement, and other

details are useful because they allow peers to hear each other’s ideas while also communicating

about strategies to approach writing (Samway, 2006). Most often these oral discussions will

naturally spring from an anchor lesson which was geared at the students to incorporating new

styles of writing into their own writing. Meyer & Weih (2013) affirm that, “Anchor lessons in

writing provide a base for children to make necessary connections to the concepts of writing.

When children are given a foundation in writing, they will be able to build upon initial concepts

with their explorations with future writings.” Research suggests that discussions improve not

only the oral development of ELL learners, but the written development as well (Zhang, et. al.,

2013).

One way to communicate clear expectations for what the final writing piece should look

like is by using exemplars for the students to read and familiarize themselves with. Samway

(2006) discusses in her book about a teacher researcher who investigated the connection between

reading persuasive writing and writing persuasive texts. This researcher’s findings supported that

reading persuasive writing improves student persuasive writing (Samway, 2006). When students

are given the opportunity to clearly understand the expectations of the persuasive writing that

they need to produce, then the quality of work is also improved. The Department of Education

and Skills (2001) suggests also using exemplars during the revision part of the process of

writing. Using exemplars of work to show students how to make edits and revisions on their own

work is also an incredibly useful way to model expectations of the how that phase of the writing

process should look for the students themselves. Lastly, when communicating expectations for

upcoming writing pieces, Urquhart and McIver (2005) encourage teachers to provide students


with the rubric for the writing piece prior to beginning the assignment (p. 53). Using exemplars

and rubrics as a basis for their own work, students will be able to clearly understand the direction

that their own writing needs to go in.

Story mapping and the use of graphic organizers is another crucial part of the writing

process during prewriting for the purpose of planning out the contents of the argument or

opinion.

Urquhart and McIver (2005) discuss the importance of these supports,

“Providing language-based supports is just one aspect of instruction. For students to

engage in academic writing, they have to construct a written piece of text with a clear

message that can be read and understood by the audience. Students will need to be given

explicit guidance in moving from the information presented in the graphic organizer to

writing sentences, and from there to constructing paragraphs.”

Graphic organizing and story mapping are important for students during the prewriting stage

because they give students the opportunity to think through their ideas and then use these ideas to

begin the drafting process. Peregoy & Boyle (2008) discuss the importance of story mapping,

“Because mapping is less intimidating than writing a whole story or essay, students gain

confidence in their ability to compose” (p. 263). Graphic displays are a major confidence spring

board for students to make their work more complex and detailed. A couple of specific

suggestions that the Department of Education and Skills (2001) give are to use “spidergrams”

and “for and against speech bubbles” as a graphic organizer when creating a persuasive argument

(p. 36). Mapping of any sort is an integral part of the prewriting process for all students.

Sentence frames or sentence starters are another ELL strategy that supports effective and

clear communication. Sentence frames can be infused within the graphic organizers as a part of


the prewriting phase, or they can be used as a step after using a graphic organizer in the drafting

phase in order to frame ideas in a certain sequence. Regardless of the specific use within the

writing process, sentence frames are a research-based approach targeted for ELL students.

Urquhart and McIver (2005) suggest brainstorming possible sentence starters as a class so that

students are involved in the process of creating a sentence that frames their ideas (p. 50). In

addition, teachers can provide students with paragraph starters that will expose students to new

transitional words to use when changing topics.

Once the first draft of the persuasive piece is written students are able to engage in peer

response groups and peer editing groups. Response groups, after being explicitly taught the

social rules and expectations, should convene after the first draft has been completed. According

to Peregoy & Boyle (2008), “The purpose of response groups is to give writers a chance to try

out their writing on a supportive audience” (p. 236). The focus of response groups is to get

feedback from peers on the content and ideas of the paper and to offer recommendations for how

to improve the piece (Peregoy & Boyle, 2008). Students aren’t encouraged to focus on the

mechanics of the piece during this time, but rather to gain support from peers and criticism from

peers that will guide them in revising their work. After students are given the opportunity to read

their paper aloud in response groups and get feedback, students will take that feedback and revise

their work. According to Urquhart and McIver (2005), “When students get an opportunity to

listen and speak through critical conversations about text and content in collaborative settings,

their writing skills and language development are likely to benefit” (p. 51).

After revising, when students are confident in the content of their work, is when the peer

editing groups come into play. Again, before starting peer editing group work, students must be

explicitly taught how these groups should run. Peregoy and Boyle (2008) encourage teachers not


to perform the majority of the proofreading, but rather to allow students to engage in the

proofreading themselves. Peregoy and Boyle (2008) also mention that according to Cooper

(1981), “correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and other mechanics are best learned within the

context of the students’ own writing” (p.241).

The last phase of the process approach is incredibly crucial for students to be able to have

an authentic audience to which their writing is geared. Samway (2006) asserts that, “When

children have meaningful, purposeful reasons to write, which often involve having an authentic

audience, their writing is affected” (p. 167). One way to create an authentic audience for students

within the classroom walls is to use “Author’s Chair.” Author’s Chair is one method that many

teachers use to foster confidence in students’ own writing ability and also to foster appreciation

for peers’ abilities to create as well. After creating the final published product, students are

invited to read their work to the class while sitting in a chair in front of the class. Other

publishing activities include posting the students’ work to a class blog to promote the idea of a

global audience. Peregoy & Boyle (2008) suggest classroom newspapers, sharing work with

younger students, creating a class book, etc (p. 242). All of these culminating activities give

students the desire to want to repeat the process again. “As the process writing cycle is repeated,

as students continually write for real and functional purposes, and as they learn to provide valid

feedback to their peers, they grow into more proficient and caring writers” (Peregoy & Boyle,

2008, p. 242).

Through the use of the process approach, it is crucial that the students are taught how to

go through each phase by modeling of the teacher. Interactive writing instruction is the means in

which teachers can engage their students in a collective production of a group writing piece.

Prior to expecting students to go through the writing process independently, students must be


explicitly walked through the process. Teachers can model each phase with the class’

suggestions, so that the students are guided through the strategies mentioned above. Two

effective modeling strategies to use during interactive writing instruction are shared activities

and “sharing the pen” (Williams & Pilonieta, 2012). Shared activities usually start with a mentor

text of some kind. From the mentor text and oral discussion that follows, the teacher can begin to

choose a classroom writing topic. From there the teacher can talk through the process of planning

the text, and modeling how writers think as they begin the writing process. This activity should

be written on chart paper to model for the students. Williams and Pilonieta (2012) discuss the

power of shared activities, “children will be more engaged and motivated to write when the topic

is familiar and the activity is an authentic use of written language” (p. 146).

Sharing the pen is an activity that the students can engage in with the teacher in front of

the class during the shared activity. This activity is intended for teachers to use to scaffold their

instruction to meet the needs of their students while also engaging the students in a targeted

direction. Williams and Pilonieta (2012) continue, “Sharing the pen with ELLs can be

particularly powerful, because it helps them to build conceptual knowledge as well as self-

confidence. Seeing themselves and being seen by their peers as contributing members of the

community of writers is an important aspect of ELL’s development and sense of agency as

writers” (p. 147).

The entire process of going through the writing phases, meeting in peer groups, and

publishing work is considered a writing workshop environment because it provides the students

with substantial time and varied opportunities to practice writing. Within these various phases

and meetings, students are also given the opportunity to conference with a teacher to ensure that

students’ individual needs are exposed and worked on. Despite the challenges that surround


writing for ELL students and persuasive writing, there is proven student growth from given the

time and effort that a writing workshop can provide. Samway (2006) continues,

[The] research revealed that children are capable of writing superbly when placed in an

environment that stresses content over form, that gives time to writers, that teaches

children writing skills and strategies according to their needs and in the context of their

writing, and that acknowledges the important role that peers play in writing development

(p. 151).

By combining the best practices for instructing ELL students with specific persuasive writing

strategies reviewed above, the literature leads me to belief that significant growth is possible!


CHAPTER 3

Methodology

Setting

Barnett Shoals Elementary School is located in Athens, Georgia within the Clarke

County School District. It is a Title I distinguished school with a study body population of 524

total students in attendance, out of which 48% are African American, 35% White, 10% Hispanic,

4% Asian, and 3% Multi-racial. Among these students some sub groups to note are that 16% are

in gifted selected programs, 17% receive special education services, 8% are limited English

proficient, and 68% are eligible for free or reduced lunch.

Participants

The classroom that the research is being taught in is vastly diverse in comparison to the

rest of the school’s demographics. There are eighteen students, eleven boys and eight girls. Out

of these eighteen 8-9 year olds, there are eleven African American students, one Asian student,

two Korean students, one Hispanic student, one Pilipino student, one Senegalese student, and

one Caucasian student. One student receives gifted services and eight students receive EIP

services.

Research Design

In order to investigate the effectiveness of specific writing instruction strategies on ELL

students for persuasive writing, a mixed methods approach will guide my research. Within the

eighteen students of my classroom, six of them are ELL learners. Each school day, our schedule

provides the students in my classroom with forty five minutes for writing workshop. This is also

a time where an ESOL teacher comes into the classroom to push-in into my classroom to support

these ELL learners. This ESOL teacher will also be guiding my ELL students in the


methodology aligned with the action research. For the first two weeks of the research, students

will be guided through whole-group explicit interactive writing instruction to teach the process

of writing a persuasive piece. This interactive writing instruction will be mostly filled with

shared activities (Williams & Pilonieta, 2012), mentor texts (Clark, 2014), oral discussions, and

other activities that inform the writing process.

Once this two week window has come to a close, the writing workshop time will begin

with a mini anchor lesson to focus the students on specific writing skills and strategies. After the

mini-lesson, students will be working individually on prewriting and drafting. After 2 days of

prewriting and drafting, students will be grouped into response groups. The students will work in

response groups for 1 day so that all students can read their work, and make note of the

suggestions from their peers. After response groups are held, students will revise their work to

resemble what was discussed during group time. Next, students will be given 1 day to work in

peer editing groups. During this time students will discuss various corrections that must be made

with grammatical errors within the writing. Lastly, the students will be given a day to publish

their work online on GoogleDocs. Sporadically within this time frame of the writing process,

students will conference with a teacher to develop specific writing skills and confidence, while

also giving the teachers an informal assessment for how the writing is going for each student.

During writing conferences, the teacher will gain specific information about the students

understanding of concepts about print, organization and development, and words and sentences

within their written work. (Appendix A) This will be one method that data will be collected.

Instruments

The students will be assessed by a pre and post assessment. (Appendix D) The pre and

post assessment consists of persuasive themes, words, and exemplars to prove students’


understanding of persuasive writing. There is a constructed response essay question at the end of

this assessment in which a persuasive writing rubric specific to third grade standards will be

used. This pre and post assessment will be used both at the beginning of the unit and at the end

of the unit. This rubric features 7 different criteria: stated opinion, reasons to support opinion,

organization, voice and tone, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions. (Appendix B)

Lastly, the teacher will complete engagement scans (Appendix C) throughout the writing

block to check students’ engagement in the writing process. These scans will measure how many

of the students are engaged in their work and how many are on task at any given moment.

Engagement scans will be one method for the teacher to decide which students need individual

conferencing time. Engagement scans will be the fourth avenue for data collection within the

research project.


CHAPTER 4

Results

Data AnalysisMy research is a triangulation mixed-methods design that focuses on implementing

writing strategies for ELL students within the genre of Persuasive/Opinion Writing. The

effectiveness of these strategies was analyzed through using a variety of measures. The

quantitative measures included a pre/post formative assessment with both constructed and

selected response items. Secondly, the students’ writing pieces were graded over the course of

the 4 weeks to demonstrate student writing growth. I also used non-engagement scans to guide

my writing conferences with students. The qualitative measures were collected through weekly

journaling and conference notes.

Quantitative Data

The pre and post assessment was identical and taken both prior to the research project

implementation and after the research project implementation was collected. The results for the

pre and post assessments can be seen on Table 1 and Table 2 below. The result on each item is

color coded, with a total raw score and a scaled score that aligns with the standards scoring:

Exceeds, Meets, Progressing, and Insufficient. Additional features can be found on the key for

both tables.

Overall, most ELL students showed growth from the pre to post assessment. The overall

average for the pretest was a 63, which is considered a “Progressing toward the standards” score;

however the posttest average was an 86, which is considered “Meeting the Standards.” That

indicates that the scaled score went from a 2 to a 3 from the pre to post assessment. The overall

data supports positive growth and a positive correlation to the ELL strategies infused within the

project.


When looking at the questions on the pre/post assessment in more individual detail, it’s

noticeable that all students were able to correctly identify opinion and factual statements from

each other on items 1 and 2. However the post assessment reveals that the students continued to

have misconceptions about the process approach to writing, as shown in items 3-7 on the test,

which will be helpful to inform future instruction. When looking at items 8-9, 5 out of 6 students

were able to use an exemplar and identify its opinion and supporting reasons on the post

assessment. Lastly, 5 out of 6 students showed growth in their constructed response item, going

from “Progressing towards the Standards” to “Meeting” and “Exceeding” the standards. The

growth from the pre to post assessment on the constructed response item shows that the students

grew in their ability to state their opinion and give supporting details. These scores were the most

helpful when analyzing how the students responded to the strategies used for Persuasive/Opinion

writing.

When analyzing the students individually, 4 out of 6 students showed positive growth in

all areas. Student number 3 remained the same from the pre to post test. Student 6 showed

negative growth from an average of 62 to 54 on the pre and post assessments. 3 of the students

are now “Exceeding the standards” which shows their mastery in third grade persuasive writing.

2 students are now “Meeting the standards” which also shows their growing mastery in third

grade persuasive writing. Student 6 showed through this specific assessment that there is

“Insufficient” data for a score to be given. Data for student 6 within the other measures of data

collection will be highlighted in the analysis below.


Figure 1.1: Pretest ScoresKey

C Correct ResponseX Incorrect Response¼ Insufficient2/4 Progressing¾ Meeting4/4 Exceeding

Pretest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

(CR: /4)Raw Score

Scaled Score

Student 1 C C C C C X C X C 2/4 69 2Student 2 X X C C C X X X X 1/4 31 1Student 3 C C C C C C C C C 2/4 85 3Student 4 X X C C C C C C X 2/4 62 2Student 5 C C C C C X X C C 2/4 69 2Student 6 C C C C X X C C C 1/4 62 2

Average 63 2

Figure 1.2: Post-Test Scores

Post- test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10(CR: /4)

Raw Score

Scaled Score

Student 1 C C C C C C X C C 4/4 92 4Student 2 C C C C C C C X C 3/4 85 3Student 3 C C C C C X X C C 4/4 85 3Student 4 C C C C C C C C C 4/4 100 4Student 5 C C C C C C C C C 4/4 100 4Student 6 C C C C X X X C C 1/4 54 1

Average 86 3


Figure 1.3: Pre to Post Assessment Raw Scores Comparison

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Student 60

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pre-TestPost-Test

There were 4 writing pieces that we worked on over the course of the project. Each of the

writing pieces stemmed from a question based on a mentor text. The four featured mentor texts

were: Hey Little Ant by Hannah & Phillip House, The Lorax by Dr. Suess, I Wanna Iguana by

Karen Orloff, and Zoo by Anthony Browne. The scoring for each of the writing pieces was

completed using the same rubric used in the pre and post assessments. The scoring ranges from a

1 to a 4, each meaning, 1=Insufficient, 2=Progressing, 3=Meets, and 4=Exceeding. The scoring

for the ELL students can be found in table 4. The scoring for the rest of the class can be found in

table 5.

All ELL students demonstrated growth from the beginning of the project to the end of the

project. Students 1 and 5 “exceeded the standards” for all 4 of their writing pieces, suggesting

that they consistently mastered the writing genre over time. Students 2 and 4 demonstrated

growth over time, going from “Meeting” to “Exceeding” the standards. Students 3 and 6 showed

growth that was inconsistent. Student 3 showed inconsistencies in the beginning half of the


project, thus allowing her to exceed by the completion of the project. Student 6 showed

inconsistencies in his work because of his two “Meeting” scores in the middle of the project, and

his two “Progressing” scores at the beginning and end of the project. Student 6 was able to show

through this mode of data that he was progressing in some areas instead of regressing as the pre

and post assessment showed.

When comparing the student growth between the ELL students and the whole class, there

is also a positive correlation of overall growth shown (Figure 2.1, 2.2, 2.3). It’s interesting to

notice that the ELL students seem to have the majority of the 4 scores (Figure 2.3), which is also

considered exceeding the standards. Although there are a lot of elements that impact the results

that aren’t directly and explicitly correlated to the strategies that were used when teaching about

opinion writing, there is an undeniably positive correlation between the strategies used and the

writing outcomes.

Figure 2.1: ELL Student Writing Growth

Studen

t 1

Studen

t 2

Studen

t 3

Studen

t 4

Studen

t 5

Studen

t 60

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5

Opinion Piece 1Opinion Piece 2Opinion Piece 3Opinion Piece 4


Figure 2.2: Whole Class Student Writing Growth

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Opinion Piece 1Opinion Piece 2Opinion Piece 3Opinion Piece 4

Figure 2.3: Averages of ELL & Class Student Writing Pieces

Opinion Piece 1

Opinion Piece 2

Opinion Piece 3

Opinion Piece 4

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

Averaged Overall Scores

Averaged ELL ScoresAveraged Class Scores

Non-Engagement scans were another source of data to measure the amount of student

engagement that was maintained throughout the duration of the project. As displayed in Figure

3.1, there were 4 out of 6 students who were 100% engaged daily. There was one student,

student 6, who was at a 95% engagement, being caught off-task 2-3 times throughout the project.


Student 1 was also another student who was found disengaged in writing 1-2 times which was a

98% engagement. The majority of the students, however, remained engaged in the writing

process, and these are the students who were able to slightly outscore their ELL peers.

Comparing these engagement scans with the rest of the classroom, the ELL students

continued to show an increased ability to remain engaged in their writing. It can be seen in figure

3.2, the ELL students, labeled as students 1-6, had a higher percentage of overall engagement.

This continues to prove the impact of the ELL strategies that were used throughout the project

for these students’ benefit.

Figure 3.1: ELL Students Engagement Scan Percentage Overall

Student 1Student 2Student 3Student 4Student 5Student 6

92 94 96 98100

Percentage Engaged

Percentage Engaged

Figure 3.2: Whole Class Engagement Scan Percentage

13579

11131517

82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98100

102

Percentage Engaged

Percentage Engaged


Figure 3.3 Engagement Scans and Writing Growth Comparison

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180

20

40

60

80

100

120

Opinion Piece 1 Opinion Piece 2 Opinion Piece 3Opinion Piece 4 Engagement %

Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative data was collected throughout the research project through journaling.

Journaling was completed 2-3 times a week which discussed classroom observations, notes from

conferences, engagement levels of students, effectiveness of lessons, etc. In order to visualize the

themes and frequencies of words used within journaling, the journals were put into a program

called Wordle, as shown in figure 4.1 below.

The Wordle on the page below demonstrates the consistent themes in my journaling over

the course of the project. As shown in figure 4.1, students were the absolute supreme focus

throughout the research process and research plan. There were many different areas that

encompassed how the students’ were the main focus. One major theme was how much control


the students had over the work that they were creating. The mini-lessons guided the students to

become empowered in how to move through the process approach with their writing with less

and less teacher focused work. Other repeated words like, “engaged,” “time,” and “support”

expose consistent themes within the project implementation. The ELL students were

consistently highly engaged, and they also received multiple variations of support throughout

their writing. These themes can be easily seen and connected to the quantitative data displayed

above. It’s clear that there is a correlation between the ELL strategies implemented in the

classroom, along with the continual support geared toward the students individually. This

positive correlation suggests a relationship that must be further researched and explored.

Figure 4.1


CHAPTER 5

Conclusions

Conclusions

I have drawn many conclusions from the quantitative and qualitative data that I

collected and analyzed throughout the course of this project. While there are a couple of

limitations, as discussed below, there are also several positive correlations that were proven

through this project. One of the most impactful conclusions is that incorporating research-based

ELL strategies greatly impact student learning, both for ELL students and non-ELL students.

There is a positive correlation between the achievement and growth on both subgroups of

students as a result of the ELL strategies used throughout the project. Some of the most

meaningful research-based strategies shown throughout the project that the students responded to

were the process approach, graphic organizers with sentence frames (Urquhart and McIver

2005), mentor texts (Clark, 2014), and the use of exemplars (Samway, 2006). The students

showed increasing success with the writing pieces they were creating from the beginning to the

end of the project due to the repetition and consistency of implementing the process approach.

This process began using mentor texts as a guide and then allowing the students to move through

the creation of writing the same for each new writing piece. As the students continued to create

each writing piece, the support of the sentence frames were slowly retracted, causing the students

to come up with their own sentence frames instead. The students were more confident in this

aspect because they had continually practiced using the sentence frames throughout the other

writing pieces. Lastly, when the students were able to share their work through an author’s chair,

the work and effort they put into the writing process was validated and confirmed as important.

Students looked forward to sharing their work in front of their peers because it offered them a


meaningful audience. As referenced within the literature review above, “As the process writing

cycle is repeated, as students continually write for real and functional purposes, and as they learn

to provide valid feedback to their peers, they grow into more proficient and caring writers”

(Peregoy & Boyle, 2008, p. 242). This quote was easily seen amongst the students because not

only were they growing in their writing, but they were also caring more deeply about their

writing. Overall, the students’ growth scores and increasing proficiency over the opinion writing

unit prove that these specific strategies contributed in a positive way to their achievement.

Another conclusion that is drawn from the research is the importance of the

implementation of interactive writing at the beginning of writing units. By creating a writing

piece collectively as a class and by moving through the writing process together, students were

able to understand what their own individual writing process should look like. This, in

collaboration with the exemplars used throughout the duration of the project, gave the students

clear expectations of how to complete their own persuasive writing piece. I believe that it is

through the interactive writing strategy that students were able to have a clear understanding in

how to complete their own independently, which is a difficult task for most.

The final conclusion that can be made by looking at the research is the level of impact

that incorporating these strategies have on ELL students. The ELL students were able to achieve

at equally high or higher levels than they started out with. This positive correlation overtime

displays that the implementation of research-based ELL writing strategies is absolutely necessary

for their success in writing. Without these specific strategies, ELL students can be easily

confused by how to accomplish such a demanding task, especially when it is considered that they

are learning a new language in addition to having to write in that new language. Without these

supports in the writing workshop, I am certain that ELL students’ writing scores will suffer.


LimitationsThere were some notable limitations within this study in regards to reliability and

validity. First, the validity of the data collected in which shows the student growth from each

writing piece created could be questioned due to the nature of student growth that can be shown

overtime in the classroom. I was able to sufficiently answer that there is a positive correlation

between ELL strategies and writing growth, but I wasn’t able to clearly define how much of that

was just an expected outcome of learning in the classroom versus a direct impact of the specific

research-based strategies. Further research would support the findings if the growth could be

compared to both a control group and experimental group, or to measure the effectiveness

between implemented strategies and student growth versus a time period where the strategies

were not implemented. Another limitation is that the data collected through the pre and post

assessments could be considered unreliable due to the lack of internal consistency. In order to

prove the effectiveness of these strategies in a more clear way, the assessments should have

varied more and been taken more frequently throughout the duration of the project.

DiscussionOverall, the positive correlation between the research-based ELL writing strategies

implemented and the student growth shown proves the effectiveness of using these strategies in

the classroom. The positive correlation existed both in the ELL student growth and the overall

student growth. This shows that there is an increased impact on student achievement when ELL

strategies are used for all subgroups of students. More importantly, these strategies are proven in

their effectiveness to support ELL students and their writing journey. Because of this proven

effectiveness, teachers must used specific research-based strategies in their classrooms for ELL

students so that they are given the exact support that they need. Writing is one of the most


difficult areas for ELL students, thus suggesting that they need the most support in the writing

classroom.

Implications

Because of the research found and proven through the project discussed above, there will

be various implications on future students in writing workshop. This project has proven the

drastic need there is to give ELL students the support they need in writing, however, this can also

be inferred for other subject areas as well. The most important themes for an ELL student are

consistency, clear expectations, and repetition. When these supports can be provided from the

teacher, these ELL students will be able to achieve at a more rigorous and demanding level.


References

Anderson, D. D. (2008). The elementary persuasive letter: Two cases of situated competence,

strategy, and agency. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(3), 270-314. Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215344749?accountid=11824

Clark, B. (2014). Should We Let the Pigeon Stay Up Late?. Educational Leadership, 71(7), 73.

Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student

persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15(2), 230-268.

Department for Education and Skills, L.( (England). (2001). Teaching Writing: Support Material

for Text Level Objectives. The National Literacy Strategy.

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing

instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal Of Educational

Psychology, 104(4), 879-896. doi:10.1037/a0029185

Meyer, J., & Weih, T. G. (2013). Engaging Emergent Writers with Anchor Lessons. Online

Submission.

Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, B.F. (2008). Reading, Writing, and Learning in ESL. Boston, MA:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Pompa, D., & Hakuta, K. (2012). Opportunities for policy advancement for ELLs created by the

new standards movement. Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the

Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94, 123.

Samway, K. D. (2006). When English language learners write (Vol. 9). Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/215344749?accountid=11824


Urquhart, V., & McIver, M. (2005). Teaching Writing in the Content Areas. Alexandria, Va:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Williams, C., & Pilonieta, P. (2012). Using Interactive Writing Instruction with Kindergarten and

First-Grade English Language Learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(3), 145-

150.

Zhang, J., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2013). Language-Rich Discussions for English

Language Learners. International Journal Of Educational Research, 5844-60.


Appendices

Appendix A

Writing Conference Form:

Writing Conference form above created by Tracie Beckman (2012)


Appendix B

Persuasive Writing Rubric:


Appendix C

Engagement Scan:

Day: 10:50 10:55 11:00 11:05 11:10 11:15 11:20 11:25 11:30Monday

Date: ______

TuesdayDate: ______

WednesdayDate: ______

ThursdayDate: ______

FridayDate: ______


Appendix D

Pre/Post Assessment:

Persuasive Pre/Post AssessmentELACC3W1: Write opinion pieces on topics or texts, supporting a point of view with reasons.

Circle whether the following sentences are facts or opinions.

1. The boy’s shoes are really cool. FACT OPINION2. The tiger has orange fur with black stripes. FACT

OPINION

Fill in the blank in the questions below:

3. The part of the writing process where students use computers to type a final draft is called: _________________.

4. The part of the writing process where students collect ideas, research, and fill out graphic organizers is called: ______________.

5. The part of the writing process where students create their first version of their writing is called: _______________.

6. The part of the writing process where students work in response groups with peers to discuss their ideas in the writing is called: _________________.

7. The part of the writing process where students fix grammar, spelling, and punctuation within their writing is called: ________________.

Read the persuasive writing examples below and then answer the questions. The writing topic was: “Should there be zoos?”

8. Is there a clear opinion in this writing example? Does this example have enough reasons to support their opinion?


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Is there a clear opinion in this writing example? Does this example have enough reasons to support their opinion?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. Using your best persuasive writing skills, answer the following question, “Should students have homework?” (Refer to rubric below!)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

kflemingksumed.weebly.com · Web viewThroughout this 8-week persuasive/opinion writing unit, the...

Documents

Transcript of kflemingksumed.weebly.com · Web viewThroughout this 8-week persuasive/opinion writing unit, the...