Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Text-based writing in elementary classrooms: teachers’ conceptions and practice

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Writing analytically about text is a valued skill reflected in current academic standards. The quality of text-based writing opportunities in U.S. elementary schools, however, is generally weak, with variation in the rigor of the writing tasks teachers assign. Previous research suggests that teachers’ beliefs about instruction significantly contribute to their decision-making; therefore, teachers’ conception of text-based writing likely influences the tasks they assign. Yet, teachers’ conceptions of text-based writing have yet to be charted. In the present study, through qualitative analysis of interviews, we identified three such conceptions among 4th and 5th grade teachers (n =17)—text-based writing as application of reading skills and strategies (n =10); as inquiry into text ideas (n =5); and a mixed conception, as both skills-and-strategies-based and affective response tangential to text (n =2). Analysis of assigned text-based writing tasks (n = 102) showed that regardless of their conception, all teachers assigned tasks reflecting the assessment and accountability demands of their policy context. Beyond this, teachers’ assigned tasks were consistent with their conception. Teachers who held the first conception assigned predominantly tasks focused on demonstrating reading skills. The second group of teachers assigned a greater proportion of tasks guiding students to interpret or analyze big ideas than did other teachers. Finally, teachers holding mixed conceptions assigned routine skills-based tasks and personal or creative writing in near-equal proportions. We argue that teachers’ conceptions of text-based writing provide an important leverage point for supporting text-based writing instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). Testing and student engagement with literature in urban class-rooms: A multi-layered perspective. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(2), 177–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airiasian, W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational outcomes (Complete ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100, 14–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification for educational goals. New York: David McKay Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior, and students’ involvement and use of learning strategies in science. The Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Davinroy, K. H., Bliem, C. L., & Cumbo, K. (2000). Exploring and supporting teacher change: Two third-grade teachers’ experiences in a mathematics and literacy staff development project. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 273–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boscolo, P., & Carotti, L. (2003). Does writing contribute to improving high school students’ approach to literature? L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3(3), 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 29(5), 929–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. S., Teo, T., & Beng, C. L. (2009). The change in epistemological beliefs and beliefs about teaching and learning: A study among pre-service teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 351–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, M. M., Chan, K. W., Tang, S. Y., & Cheng, A. Y. (2009). Pre-service teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 319–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers’ beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2), 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correnti, R., Matsumura, L. C., Hamilton, L. S., & Wang, E. (2012). Combining multiple measures of students’ opportunities to develop analytic, text-based writing skills. Educational Assessment, 17(2–3), 132–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correnti, R., Matsumura, L. C., Hamilton, L., & Wang, E. (2013). Assessing students’ skills at writing analytically in response to texts. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 142–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosson, A. C., Matsumura, L. C., Correnti, R., & Arlotta-Guerrero, A. (2012). The quality of writing tasks and students’ use of academic language in Spanish. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 469–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFord, D. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delpit, L. (2006). Lessons from teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 220–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 1–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of educational research, 53, 159–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, G. G., & Anderson, L. (1982). Conceptions of reading project. Final report.

  • Duffy, G. G., & Anderson, L. (1984). Guest commentary: Teachers’ theoretical orientations and the real classroom. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 5(1–2), 97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fives, H., & Gill, M. G. (Eds.). (2015). International handbook of research on teacher’s beliefs. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wledenfeld and Nicholson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Capizzi, A., Harris, K. R., Hebert, M., & Murphy, P. (2014). Teaching writing to middle school students: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27, 1015–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., & Fink, B. (2002). Primary grade teachers’ theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: Construct validation and a nationwide survey. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

  • Hess, K., Jones, B., Carlock, D., & Walkup, J. (2009). Cognitive rigor: Blending the strengths of Bloom’s taxonomy and Webb’s depth of knowledge to enhance classroom‐level processes. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) publication ED517804.

  • Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 531–578). Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). It doesn’t add up: African American students’ mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 697–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers for African American children. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lipson, M. Y., Mosenthal, J., Daniels, P., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2000). Process writing in the classrooms of eleven fifth-grade teachers with different orientations to teaching and learning. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 209–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggioni, L., Fox, E., & Alexander, P. A. (2015). Beliefs about reading, text, and learning from text. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teacher’s beliefs. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, R. W., & Walsh, J. (1988). Learning from academic tasks. The Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura, L. C. (2005). Creating high-quality classroom assignments. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura, L. C., Correnti, R., & Wang, E. (2015). Classroom writing tasks and students’ analytic text-based writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 417–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Pascal, J., & Valdés, R. (2002a). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 207–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Slater, S. C., & Boston, M. B. (2008). Measuring instructional interactions ‘at-scale’. Educational Assessment, 13(4), 267–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Valdés, R., & Garnier, H. (2002b). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students’ revision in lower-and higher-achieving urban schools. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura, L. C., Wang, E., & Correnti, R. (2016). Text-based writing assignments for college readiness. The Reading Teacher, 70(3), 347–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthey, S. J., & Mkhize, D. (2013). Teachers’ orientations towards writing. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthey, S. J., Woodard, R., & Kang, G. (2014). Elementary teachers’ negotiating discourses in writing instruction. Written Communication, 31(1), 58–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monte-Sano, C., & De La Paz, S. (2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(3), 273–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC/CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards english language arts standards. Washington, DC: NGAC/CCSSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, G. E., VanDerHeide, J., & Olsen, A. W. (2014). High school English language arts teachers’ argumentative epistemologies for teaching writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(2), 95–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., Wasik, B., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 609–640). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulson, L., Avramidis, E., Fox, R., Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2001). The theoretical beliefs of effective teachers of literacy in primary schools: An exploratory study of orientations to reading and writing. Research Papers in Education, 16(3), 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • QSR International. (2011). NVivo qualitative data analysis software: Version 9.2. Doncaster: QSR International Pty Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J. C., Gipe, J. P., & Thompson, B. (1987). Teachers’ beliefs about good reading instruction. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 8(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, S., Sturm, J. M., & Cali, K. (2012). Writing instruction in elementary classrooms: Making the connection to Common Core State Standards. Seminars in Speech and Language, 33(2), 130–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T. (2015). Common core state standards: A new role for writing. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 464–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theriot, S., & Tice, K. C. (2008). Teachers’ knowledge development and change: Untangling beliefs and practices. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troia, G. A., Lin, S. J. C., Cohen, S., & Monroe, B. W. (2011). A year in the writing workshop. The Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 155–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R. W. (2010). The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, E., Matsumura, L. C., & Correnti, R. (2018). Student writing accepted as high-quality responses to analytic text-based writing tasks. The Elementary School Journal, 118(3), 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. L. (2002). Depth-of-knowledge levels for four content areas. Language Arts.

  • Westwood, P., Knight, B. A., & Redden, E. (1997). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about literacy acquisition: The development of the Teachers’ Beliefs about Literacy Questionnaire (TBALQ). Journal of Research in Reading, 20(3), 224–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyse, D., Hayward, L., & Pandya, J. (Eds.). (2015). The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was funded through grants from the William T. Grant Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, not the sponsors. The authors remain responsible for any errors in the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RAND Corporation, 4570 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Elaine Lin Wang

  2. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Lindsay Clare Matsumura

Authors
  1. Elaine Lin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lindsay Clare Matsumura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine Lin Wang.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Semi-structured interview protocol

Beliefs about reading instruction

  1. 1.

    What is the difference between a good and struggling reader to you?

    1. (a)

      What do you attribute a struggling reader’s struggles to?

    2. (b)

      What do you attribute a strong reader’s success to?

  2. 2.

    How do you define reading comprehension?

    1. (a)

      What is included in that?

  3. 3.

    What should be the main goals of teachers in reading instruction? Explain.

    1. (a)

      What kinds of thinking skills should be emphasized or prioritized? Why?

    2. (b)

      What kinds of thinking skills should be de-emphasized, or not prioritized? Why?

    3. (c)

      At the end of a lesson or unit with a particular text, what should the students have learned or learned to do?

Beliefs about effective text-based writing tasks

  1. 4.

    What do you think ought to be the role or purpose of writing tasks in reading instruction?

    1. (a)

      What sets writing tasks apart from other instructional activities?

    2. (b)

      What skills or types of student learning are writing tasks best for?

    3. (c)

      What is the best time (of year, of a unit) to give writing tasks?

  2. 5.

    What should an ideal text-based writing task look like?

    1. (a)

      What should the task ask students to do? What should the prompt sound like?

    2. (b)

      What should the instructions for students sound like? How much guidance should students be given?

    3. (c)

      How much should students be expected to write?

    4. (d)

      What should be included in the assessment criteria?

    5. (e)

      What do good responses sound like? What do poor responses sound like?

    6. (f)

      What should the feedback process look like?

    7. (g)

      What should be the nature of the feedback?

  3. 6.

    What do you believe is the teacher’s role, the student’s role, and the role of the text surrounding a writing task?

Perceived constraints

  1. 7.

    What constraints are responsible for you not enacting (i.e., creating/designing, choosing, implementing) text-based writing tasks as you ideally think they should be enacted? Please explain.

Appendix 2

Artifact-based interview with sample tasks

Artifact-based critique

  1. 1.

    Could you do a think-aloud and make some observations about each of these tasks in terms of their effectiveness?

    1. (a)

      To what extent is each writing prompt ideal or effective in terms of helping students develop reading comprehension?

    2. (b)

      Could you comment on the instructions and information given on the assignment?

    3. (c)

      Could you comment on the assessment criteria of each assignment task?

    4. (d)

      What, if any, aspects of the tasks ought to be changed to make them more effective?

  2. 2.

    Looking across the three tasks, which task is most effective? Why?

    1. (a)

      Which prompt is most effective? Why?

    2. (b)

      Which scoring criteria is most effective? Why?

figure a
figure b
figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, E.L., Matsumura, L.C. Text-based writing in elementary classrooms: teachers’ conceptions and practice. Read Writ 32, 405–438 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9860-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9860-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation