Our research offers a faculty perspective of what happens when writinginstruction is taught in stand alone classes, embedded in other literacy courses or is optional for pre-service teacher candidates. What is clear from the data is that teacher educators feel that some students are leaving teacherpreparationprograms with little understanding of and experience with teaching writing (Morgan & Pytash, 2014). More research is needed to highlight the voices of teacher educators who successfully teach writinginstruction. On a local scale, teacher educators can find out what is happening at their universities with writing. On a large scale, researchers could continue our work and investigate the relationship between how teacher educators teach writing and whether that is related to our definition or teacher educators’ personal definitions of writing. We believe educators should advocate for teaching writing methods as a stand-alone, required course to give credence to the importance of teaching writing. Literacy teacher educators should continue to seek professional development opportunities to hone their teaching of writing methods and to boost their confidence levels while demonstrating that learning to teach is a career-long endeavor. Various models and methods for teaching writing exist in schools, and our pre-service teachers need to be aware of multiple perspectives.
Anne Gere and Daniel Berebitsky point out that teacher expertise is the single most important attribute of successful English teachers. Survey results confirm the majority of traditionally prepared preservice teachers in Ohio do gain some initial “expertise” in the teaching of writing. However, the picture of what this expertise looks like is mixed as students have theoretical and practical knowledge of teaching writing but lack instruction in thinking strategies and activities to help them integrate and interrogate writinginstruction from both angles. As a result, the WMC may be less effective in training future writing teachers because, when the pieces don’t connect, under pressure, novice teachers often return to models they remember experiencing as students—even after completing teacherpreparationprograms (see Kutz and Roskelly, 1991; Smagorinsky, 2010). This contributes to a cycle where the course likely has little to no effect on the teaching of writing within secondary schools despite calls for additional teacher training. Smagorinsky et al. point out the teaching of concept development is especially challenging in teacher education programs when approaches may not be presented evenly across courses, when courses can be taken in varying sequences, and the lack of correlation between university teaching and realities of schools. Even when the same concepts are taught, meanings differ, and thus preservice teachers tend to “[gravitate] toward the prevailing norms held by the schools in which they taught in their first jobs” (1403).
proactively prepare teachers to more successfully integrate writing into their future classrooms rather than to reactively try to change entrenched behaviors. Assessing preservice teachers ’ beliefs aboutwriting involves studying two separate belief systems —self- ef ﬁcacy for writing and self-efﬁcacy for writinginstruction. First, preservice teachers must have high self-ef ﬁcacy for writing (as a personal writer). In other words, teachers must view themselves as writers to be an effective writingteacher (Morgan, 2010 ; Zimmerman, Morgan, & Kidder-Brown, 2014 ). The Peter Effect (Applegate & Applegate, 2004 ) states this as teachers cannot teach what they themselves have not learned. If a teacher has not learned to be an effective writer and cannot perform the task, the teacher will most likely avoid writing in a K-12 classroom and not emphasize writing with students (Tshcannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001 ). Preservice teachers need to develop writing skills prior to entering the teaching profession, and this development should occur in their preparationprograms. Second, preservice teachers must develop self- ef ﬁcacy for writinginstruction. Self-efﬁcacy for writinginstruction is the preservice teachers ’ belief in their ability to teach writing effectively. Grossman, Hammerness, and McDonald ( 2009 ) stated that understanding how to write and being able to implement writing in a classroom can make an effective writingteacher. In the present study, we argue that both constructs —self-efﬁcacy for writing and self-ef ﬁcacy for writinginstruction—make effective writing teachers, and this work helps consider the degree that these constructs are unique or overlapping. Therefore, in teacherpreparationprograms, preservice teachers need to be exposed to methods for instructing students on writing,
efficacy and writing pedagogy of elementary teachers. While SOEL is a strong, solid program, hearing the findings of similar programs will contribute to the reliability of the findings.
In the meantime, Melissa and her colleagues will continue to strengthen the SOEL program, and together, we aim to promote this kind of professional development globally in school districts and teacherpreparationprograms. This strong emphasis on growing knowledge and empowering teachers through professional development has the potential to improve the writing experiences of elementary-school students. We hope that this work and others to come will ameliorate the need to say, The Neglected “R”... as the Sterling (2003) national report was partially named, and instead, have writing attended to and given equally important attention as teaching reading. True reading-writing integration is what students deserve.
While the problem is well defined, the question of why this neglect persists remains unanswered. Research focusing on inservice teachers suggests that teachers do not feel adequately prepared to teach writing (Cutler & Graham, 2008). Looking at the connection between teacher self-efficacy for writing and student achievement in writing, we see that students of high-efficacy writing teachers spend more time writing each week than students of low-efficacy teachers, and high-efficacy teachers teach writing processes, grammar, and usage skills more often (Graham, Harris, Fink, & MacArthur, 2001; Zimmerman, Morgan, & Kidder-Brown, 2014). Research suggests that preservice teacherpreparationprograms and former teachers are the leading sources of preservice teachers’ beliefs aboutwriting (Graham, Harris, MacArther & Fink, 2002; Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Daisey, 2010; Dempsey, PytlikZillig & Bruning 2009). These arguments focus research back to the teacher education programs that are tasked with preparing preservice teachers to become effective writing teachers.
In chapter 8 of Classroom Instruction that Works, (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001), the authors restate the research supporting assessment-for-learning practices and provide some limited directions and classroom examples as to how to implement them. They discuss the need for students to set specific but flexible individual learning goals based on learning objectives, and some of the specifics of providing effective feedback, including using criterion referenced feedback as opposed to norm- referenced feedback. Using only criterion-referenced feedback is desirable in most situations, but there are important exceptions. Kluger and DeNisi’s study, noted previously, makes the case that there are circumstances in which norm-referenced feedback can contribute to long-term persistence in a given task, leading in turn to increased motivation and performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996, p. 277). Although Marzano et al. devote a chapter to assessment-for-learning practices, the authors’ treatment of the subject is far from exhaustive. I have included this work in my study because it does provide some support for assessment-for-learning practices and because it is a widely-published work familiar to teachers.
Faculty in agricultural teacher education programs are responsible for preparing future teachers to lead effective school-based agricultural education programs. However, agriculture teachers are having difficulty implementing supervised agricultural experience (SAE), even though they value it conceptually as a program component. In an effort to improve SAE instruction in teacher education, the American Association for Agricultural Education has adopted a guiding philosophy and competencies for teacherpreparation in SAE. Using these documents, the purpose of this national descriptive study was to identify where and to what extent SAE instruction was included within agricultural teacher education curriculum and describe the level of SAE instruction occurring in agricultural teacher education programs in the United States. Findings of this study indicate that there was a broad range in the level of instruction occurring for each of these competencies among teacher education programs. These results provide a snapshot of one- moment-in-time and serve as a starting point for a conversation about how supervised agricultural experience should be taught in agricultural teacher education. It is recommended that supervised agricultural experience competencies be taught using inquiry-based or problem-solving methods guided by the experiential learning process.
Middle school and high school classrooms house advanced technologies more than ever before. For example, the average ratio of students to computers is 5.3:1 and approximately 93% of these classroom computers have access to the internet (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). In addition, according to the Pew Internet Organization (2008), 78% of adolescents think their writing would improve if their teachers used computer-based writing tools, such as games, websites, and multimedia programs. Despite the integration of technology and students’ desire to use technology during writing, researchers have noted that “much of what counts as good writing in schools does not reflect evolving notions of texts” (Hudley & Holbrook, 2013, p. 500). In their large-scale study of 20 middle and high schools from five states, Applebee & Langer (2011) found, “for the most part, that technology seems to be reinforcing traditional patterns of teacher-centered instruction rather than opening up new possibilities” (p. 23). Computers and digital tools were mostly used for students to type their final drafts, rather than exploring new ideas about composition.
Geospatial technologies such as a geographic information system are becoming increasingly important in our everyday lives. GIS is a collection of hardware, software, and geographic data for capturing, managing, analyzing, and displaying all forms of geographically referenced information (Environmental Systems Research Institute [ESRI], 2007). The U.S. Department of Labor (2004) named geospatial technologies as a field with the greatest demand for 21st century decision-making. As these tools become critical in solving everyday problems referenced to geographical locations, the ability to think spatially is an increasingly important skill for students. In their recent book, "Learning to Think Spatially," the National Research Council (NRC) (2006) called for the focused and systematic attention of scientists and educators to understand the process of spatial thinking, develop systems to support the process, and ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn about spatial thinking. NRC contends that when GIS is integrated in a standards-based school curriculum, it is one of the most effective tools that can foster the development of spatial thinking. According to NRC (2006), integration of spatial thinking and GIS across school subjects in K-12 experiences is necessary if students are to understand the spatial dimensions of human experience and transfer this kind of thinking from one domain to another. They recommend that Colleges of Education establish guidelines for pre- and in-service teacher training programs and develop a model standards-based
The high value undergraduate users place on grammar correction likely stems from previous EFL writing experiences. Translation tasks are common in the secondary classroom, but these rarely go beyond the sentence level (Hirose, 2001). Thus, the emphasis remains on accuracy, with little attention given to broader structural issues. For example, according to Dyer and Friederich (2002), Japanese secondary students are unaware of the concept of process writing. In the case of members of faculty, most making appointments with writing center tutors do so for the purpose of fine-tuning scholarly articles in preparation for publication. Nearly all express an eagerness that their papers be rendered error-free. While this preoccupation may have its origins in EFL writing practices that date back to secondary school, it is more than justified by the rigorous standards of academic publishing.
options before submission rather than get negative summative feedback in the all-important assessments. We would welcome a systematic and pro-active su- pervisory style over a more reactive—and possibly more random—style, which is the local norm. New supervisors need to be prepared for helping their candi- dates plan, assess, and revise their research and their thesis, to be prepared for giving formative feedback on PhD drafts, for sitting on assessment commit- tees, and for writing PhD assessments that are useful to the candidate, to the university, and to future employers. As a point of departure for PhD supervisor courses, we now work on a project of alignment (Biggs, 2007) of PhD assess- ments with the supervision of PhD students and the courses offered from the graduate school. The PhD assessments (five to ten page long summaries plus evaluation) and the PhD vivas are the most comprehensive assessments done in the university system, and when read/witnessed in bulk, give deep insight into the criteria used to assess, and also the lacunae in the desired learning out- comes when it comes to university writing. These documents reveal how well university candidates are able to write and communicate according to scientific standards, what they have learned and turned into practices of their own, and what they might not have absorbed. In our department’s case, assessments from the years 2007-2008 show interesting patterns in strong and weaker features of scholarly writing. We analysed all of the departments’ 2009 assessments, from which we record all evaluative remarks. The patterns emerging from the survey point to areas of (local? or more global?) PhD supervision and feedback prac- tices that could be strengthened and reinforced to alert PhD writers to elements of dissertations that tend to be underdeveloped, and hence attract sometimes severe and clearly well-documented and justifiable criticism of dissertations.
My workload is extremely varied and I am almost never bored. One week I might be writing a scientific paper for a pharmaceutical company, the next an online guide to a disease for a medical charity, and the next a training manual for drug sales reps. I also travel to medical congresses around the world to produce conference reports. It is often necessary to pick up the essentials of a new therapeutic area very quickly, but it’s also rewarding to build up more in-depth knowledge of a few areas through repeated exposure to them. Another interesting aspect of medical communications is getting to listen to and sometimes interview leading experts in a particular field. But however fascinating (or not) the science, medical communications is a commercial service and writers must have a strong awareness of the client’s business objectives.
This has not, of course, meant complete autonomy. But it has meant a con- siderable degree of independence, allowing us to fund the writing centre se- curely and at the same time implement efficiencies that take disciplinary ideals into account. Originally, for instance, centre administration and the teaching of tutors required the time of two instructors; when we created a permanent staff position for the Computer Writing Lab, we not only freed up faculty time but also gained technological expertise and more efficient management of tutoring appointments. The decision to rely on paid tutoring also resulted in greater ef- ficiency and helped compensate for the diminishment of WAC. At one time, the opportunity to tutor was available only to students taking an array of practi- cum courses, an arrangement that reduced our pool of tutors to Education and English students, prioritized the learning of the tutor over the learning of the tutee, limited tutoring time available to a few weeks each term (usually, Fall and Winter terms only), and drew heavily on department teaching resources. Combining paid tutoring with much shorter preparation courses opened the door to a wider range of students (including those in requirement-heavy science programs), increased tutoring hours, and significantly reduced the demands on faculty time. As a result, we now attract peer tutors from across the disciplines, well-prepared to address the diversity of student need (two-thirds of those who come to the Centre have been referred by colleagues in other departments). One faculty member alone is responsible for teaching, hiring, and supervising tutors and for what we might call “public relations”: asking our colleagues to let good writers know about tutoring opportunities, weak students about op- portunities for help, and keeping them well-informed about the principles and benefits of peer tutoring.
Every writer begins the process quite convinced that they are an accomplished writer with little need for improvement. Scientific writing is an art form that must be constantly refined (regardless of your level). Take your committee's criticisms and learn from them. Don't set up an epic battle between you and your committee. You are supposed to be learning while completing the thesis. Take each editorial comment and fix the problem. Joe Wolfe ( How to Write a Ph.D. Thesis ) offers the following observations in regard to the editorial process:
“seriously” and was “very passionate about education.” This characterization implicitly contrasted to others who may not approach the work in the same way. Luis also aligned himself rhetorically with Joe, wanting to “credit” him for his own professional growth. Luis acknowledged the “flexibility” he has been afforded to “experiment,” which was a privilege Joe clearly explained he did not offer to all faculty equally. In bringing his reading and requests to Joe and positioning himself as a “thinker” and “learner,” Luis has proven himself (performed) a “good teacher” and his requests have been granted. For Luis and for others who earned the latitude Joe described by “bringing something to the table,” freedom and flexibility were the norm at P.S. 999. In the same way that others have written of the language and cultural practices of students’ homes aligning less or more with the practices of school (Heath, 1983; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992), so too the practices of teachers align less or more with the discourses and values of the school’s culture. Moreover, when there is a misalignment, teachers may be told, “This isn’t the school for you”; their identities, if not performed in a way that aligns to the culture, may deny them access to the space. In this way, claims such as “I’m just not a writer,” or a refusal to perform a writing identity as defined by writing workshop, could have potentially serious consequences for teachers—or, in Joe’s terms, “we’re gonna have problems.”
prevalent among young d/hh students who typically struggle with language use and English grammar. D/hh writers have been known to write shorter and less complex sentences with fewer adjectives and adverbs, and demonstrate various English morphology and syntax usage errors with, for example, verb agreements, omissions of function words, and confused word order (Antia, Reed, Kreimeyer, 2005; Fabretti, Volterra & Pontecorvo, 1989; Harrison, Simpson & Stuart, 1991; Marschark, Mouradian & Halas, 1994; Power & Wilgus, 1983; Spencer, Barker & Tomblin, 2003; Wilbur, 1977; Wolbers, Dostal & Bowers, 2012). Some research suggests that d/hh students have relatively better discourse skills (Antia, Reed, Kreimeyer, 2005; Musselman & Szanto, 1998). They have been known to perform at commensurate levels with their hearing peers in the number of story propositions or elements used (Arfe, 2015; Marschark, Mouradian & Halas, 1994; Yoshinaga-Itano, Snyder & Mayberry, 1996) but do more poorly when discourse ability includes coherence relations such as linguistic connectives (Arfe, 2015). Further, because the writing of d/hh students tends to be less syntactically fluent and grammatically complex, there are challenges to communicating ideas successfully or coherently, which may give their writing the appearance of not having similar discourse elements (Marschark, Mouradian & Halas, 1994; Yoshinaga-Itano, Snyder & Mayberry, 1996).
Research shows that Masters students regard themselves as beginners in the field, rely mainly on grades and do rarely see themselves as part of a community of practice (Casanave, 2002) compared to PhD students who are usually required to know the literacy practices that govern their disciplines (Belcher, 1995; Cadman, 1997). Some studies further show graduate students either do not take academic writing classes or just take general-focus L2 writing courses. Even for these general classes, ESL graduate students maintain that these courses do not support their learning and even at times conflict with the needed disciplinary practices (Hansen, 2000; Schneider & Fujishima, 1995). Other studies show L2 graduate academic writers’ success only when professors believe the fact that these students will not simply align with themselves to the standards of the disciplines, but rather alter and shape it with the rich cultural background knowledge they are bringing to this discipline (see Belcher, 1997; Casanave, 2002). More
In Iranian language learning contexts, writing in English is an important challenge for learners, since it is usually treated as a secondary skill and is led to the periphery of language classes, due to its time-consuming nature. Computer technology and namely the free online environments available in the World Wide Web (WWW) offer possibilities for moving beyond such confinements. Asynchronous discussion forums and web-based materials, for instance, can facilitate e-writing in addition to being motivational and engaging. Such environments can compensate for the time limitations which restrict language classes, and also offer equal learning opportunities to all learners. The present experimental research investigates how implementing technology i.e., web- based writing lessons can enhance the degree of coherence in participants’ English essays. The data consists of the results of the pre- and post-treatment TOEFL-like writing exams, which were scored according to the degree of coherence they demonstrated. The participants included forty female Iranian students studying English as a foreign language in a private institute in Tehran. They were randomly divided into comparison and experimental groups. The experimental group used an educational website entitled “Writing Snapshot: Received: September 2011 ; Accepted: January 2012
Background: Students must be able to recognize the difference between facts and opinions to develop successful persuasive arguments. Students can learn the difference between fact and opinion statements through class discussion on current event topics. Stimulate class dis- cussion around opposing viewpoints on current event issues. Let your students discuss and tell each other why they feel the way that they do on a current event issue. We’ve provided a Current Event Opinion Inventory worksheet for your students (see Student worksheet 7.4 at the end of this chapter). Use this worksheet with your class but if you have some press- ing issues in your community or state use those. Tell your students to save this worksheet in their Rough Draft Writing Folder.