Advertisement

Teaching writing in Brazilian public high schools

  • Raquel CoelhoEmail author
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Writing skills are crucial for high school students’ academic, social, and professional success in Brazil. Developing the ability to write, however, is a demanding process that requires considerable support from teachers. The purpose of this study was to survey the population of high school language arts teachers in two Brazilian states about their writing instructional practices, including the use of instructional practices supported by scientifically based research (evidence-based practices), perceptions of their preparation, and perceived self-efficacy in teaching writing. A second aim of this study was to examine whether teacher perceived preparation and self-efficacy predicted teachers’ use of evidence-based writing practices. Nine hundred fifty-three teachers completed the survey. The teachers’ responses point to some potential shortcomings in high school writing instruction, as the majority of teachers reported spending only 50 min per week teaching writing. Although teachers indicated that they were familiar with and used a variety of evidence-based writing practices in their classrooms, they used these practices infrequently. Further, teachers rated the preparation they personally undertook outside college or in-service higher than the preparation they received in college or in-service. The present study provides tentative support for the following recommendations for reforming high school writing instruction in Brazil: (a) increasing the amount of writing instruction and time students spend writing; (b) placing more emphasis on evidence-based writing practices; and (c) strengthening professional development for writing teachers in teacher education degree programs and for those already in the field.

Keywords

Writing instruction High school Evidence-based practices Teacher preparation Teacher self-efficacy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the Ceara and Pernambuco Departments of Education for allowing the research to be performed. The author is also grateful to all the teachers who participated in this study.

References

  1. Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education,17(2), 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal,100(6), 14–27.Google Scholar
  3. Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,31(4), 416–440.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709353129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brasil, Ministério da Educação. (1997). Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais (1ª a 4ª Série). Retrieved July 15, 2019 from http://portal.mec.gov.br/par/195-secretarias-112877938/seb-educacao-basica-2007048997/12640-parametros-curriculares-nacionais-1o-a-4o-series.
  5. Brasil, Ministério da Educação. (1998). Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais (5ª a 8ª Série). Retrieved July 15, 2019 from http://portal.mec.gov.br/pnaes/195-secretarias-112877938/seb-educacao-basica-2007048997/12657-parametros-curriculares-nacionais-5o-a-8o-series.
  6. Brasil, Ministério da Educação. (2000). Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais (Ensino Médio). Retrieved July 15, 2019 from http://portal.mec.gov.br/expansao-da-rede-federal/195-secretarias-112877938/seb-educacao-basica-2007048997/12598-publicacoes-sp-265002211.
  7. Brasil, Ministério da Educação. (2017). Base Nacional Curricular Comum. Retrieved July 15, 2019 from http://basenacionalcomum.mec.gov.br/.
  8. Brindle, M., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2016). Third and fourth grade teachers’ classroom practices in writing: A national survey. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,29(5), 929–954.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9604-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carvalho, J. B. (2011). A escrita como objecto escolar: Contributo para a sua reconfiguração. In I. Duarte & O. Figueiredo (Eds.), Português, Língua e Ensino (pp. 77–105). Porto: Universidade do Porto, Editorial.Google Scholar
  10. Ceará. Secretaria de Educação. (2009). Metodologias de Apoio: matrizes curriculares para ensino médio. Retrieved May 20, 2019 from http://www.spaece.caedufjf.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/livro_matrizes_curriculares.pdf.
  11. Cereja, W. R., & Magalhães, T. C. (2013a). Português: linguagens, 1 (9ª ed.). São Paulo: Saraiva.Google Scholar
  12. Cereja, W. R., & Magalhães, T. C. (2013b). Português: linguagens, 2 (9ª ed.). São Paulo: Saraiva.Google Scholar
  13. Cereja, W. R., & Magalhães, T. C. (2013c). Português: linguagens, 3 (9ª ed.). São Paulo: Saraiva.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London, UK: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  15. Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology,100(4), 907–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher,38(3), 181–199.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dockrell, J. E., Marshall, C. R., & Wyse, D. (2016). Teachers’ reported practices for teaching writing in England. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,29(3), 409–434.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9605-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dourado, L. F. (2015). Diretrizes curriculares nacionais para a formação inicial e continuada dos profissionais do magistério da educação básica: concepções e desafios. Educação e sociedade,36(131), 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fowler Jr., F. J. (2013). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology,76(4), 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey. Elementary School Journal,110(4), 494–518.  https://doi.org/10.1086/651193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2013). Designing an effective writing program. Best practices in writing instruction,2, 3–25.Google Scholar
  24. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2018). Evidence-based writing practices: A meta-analysis of existing meta-analyses. In R. F. Redondo, K. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Eds.), Design principles for teaching effective writing (Vol. 34, pp. 13–37). Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology,99(3), 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies of Reading,11(4), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007c). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  28. Graham, S., Capizzi, A., Harris, K. R., Hebert, M., & Morphy, P. (2014). Teaching writing to middle school students: A national survey. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,27(6), 1015–1042.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., McKeown, D., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies,4(1), 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hsiang, T. P., & Graham, S. (2016). Teaching writing in grades 4–6 in urban schools in the greater China region. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,29(5), 869–902.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9597-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Instituto Ayrton Senna. (2019). Caminhos para melhorar o aprendizado. Retrieved July 17, 2019 from http://www.paramelhoraroaprendizado.org.br/Conteudo/principal.aspx?canal=20100701145550501160&title=Principal.
  33. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. (2012). Microdados do Enem 2012. Retrieved July 21, 2019 from http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/microdados.
  34. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. (2013). Microdados do Enem 2013. Retrieved July 21, 2019 from http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/microdados.
  35. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. (2014). Microdados do Enem 2014. Retrieved July 21, 2019 from http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/microdados.
  36. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. (2015a). Microdados do Enem 2015. Retrieved July 21, 2019 from http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/microdados.
  37. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. (2015b). Microdados do Enem por Escola. Retrieved July 21, 2019 from http://portal.inep.gov.br/basicalevantamentos-acessar.
  38. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. (2016). Microdados do Enem 2016. Retrieved July 21, 2019 from http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/microdados.
  39. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. (2017). Microdados do Enem 2017. Retrieved July 21, 2019 from http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/microdados.
  40. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira. (2018). Microdados do Enem 2018. Retrieved July 21, 2019 from http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/microdados.
  41. Instituto Unibanco. (2016). Busca de evidências precisa fazer parte da gestão escolar. Retrieved July 17, 2019 from https://www.institutounibanco.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Aprendizagem_em_foco-n.17.pdf.
  42. Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology,101(1), 136–160.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Do teacher characteristics matter? New results on the effects of teacher preparation on student achievement. Economics of Education Review,28(1), 49–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moon, B. R. (2014). The literacy skills of secondary teaching undergraduates: Results of diagnostic testing and a discussion of findings. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,39(12), 110–130.  https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n12.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pernambuco. Secretaria de Educação. (n.d.). Currículo de Português para o Ensino Médio. Retrieved May 20, 2019 from http://www.educacao.pe.gov.br/portal/upload/galeria/750/curriculo_portugues_em.pdf.
  46. Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary grade teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal,96, 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rietdijk, S., van Weijen, D., Janssen, T., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2018). Teaching writing in primary education: Classroom practice, time, teachers’ beliefs and skills. Journal of Educational Psychology,110(5), 640–663.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties,19(2), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Secretaria de Educação de Pernambuco (2017). Official website. Retrieved May 15, 2017 from http://www.educacao.pe.gov.br/portal/.
  50. Slater, C. (1982). Stories on a string: the Brazilian Literatura de Cordel. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  51. Soares, M. B. (1978). A redação no vestibular. Cadernos de Pesquisa,24, 53–56.Google Scholar
  52. Stanek, C. (2013). The educational system of Brazil. IEM Spotlight,10(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  53. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies,23(6), 944–956.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research,68(2), 202–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. Elementary School Journal,110(2), 228–245.  https://doi.org/10.1086/605771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Veiga Simão, A. M., Malpique, A. A., Frison, L. M. B., & Marques, A. (2016). Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal and in Brazil: An exploratory study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,29(5), 955–979.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9606-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yoo, J. H. (2016). The effect of professional development on teacher efficacy and teachers’ self-analysis of their efficacy change. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability,18(1), 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations