Student Writing Performance: Identifying the Effects when Combining Planning and Revising Instructional Strategies

The purpose of the current study is to identify the impact of teaching students to revise their stories on writing production (Total Words Written; TWW), writing accuracy (Percent Correct Writing Sequences; %CWS), number of critical story elements included in stories, and quality of writing. Three third-grade and one fourth-grade student who were experiencing difficulties in the area of writing were involved in the study. The students were first taught to plan their stories using the evidence-based program, Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), which has frequently been implemented to teach students to plan their stories. Students were then taught to revise their stories using SRSD procedures modified for instruction in revision strategies. Student progress was evaluated through a multiple-probe design across tasks and a multiple-probe design across participants, which allowed for experimental control over time and across story probes. In addition to the previously mentioned variables, student’s acceptability of the intervention and their attitudes toward writing were also assessed. Results indicated that instruction in revising increased student writing accuracy beyond the effects of instruction in planning. Additionally, although instruction in planning was shown to increase writing production, number of critical story elements, and quality of writing, instruction in revising produced additional improvement in these variables as well. Finally, results indicated that students liked the intervention and their attitudes toward writing generally increased. Implications for practice and future research directions will be discussed. Advisor: Merilee McCurdy

Traces, Patterns, Texture: In Search of Aesthetic Teaching/Learning Encounters

This inquiry reveals the crucial guidance of teachers toward surveying the capacity and needs of students, the formation of ideas, acting upon ideas, fostering connections, seeing potential, making judgments, and arranging conditions. Each aesthetic trace causes me to wonder how teachers learn to create experiences that foster student participation in the world aesthetically. The following considerations surface: • Given the emphasis in schools on outcomes and results, how do we encourage teachers to focus on acts of mind instead of end products in their work with students? • Given the orientations toward technical rationality, to fixed sequence, how do we help teachers experience fluid, purposeful learning adventures with students in which the imagi¬nation is given room to play? • Given the tendency to conceive of planning in teaching as the deciding of everything in advance, how do we help teachers and students become attuned to making good judgments derived from within learning experiences? • How do we help teachers build dialogical multivoiced conversations instead of monolithic curriculum? • What do we do to recover the pleasure dwelling in subject matter? How do we get teachers and students to engage thoughtfully in meaningful learning as opposed to covering curriculum7 • A capacity to attend sensitively, to perceive the complexity of relationships coming together in any teaching/learning experience seems critical. How do we help teachers and students attend to the unity of a learning experience and the play of meanings that arises from such undergoing and doing? The traces, patterns, and texture evidenced locate tremendous hope and wondrous possibilities alive within aesthetic teaching/learning encounters. It is such aliveness I encountered in the grade 4 art classroom that opened this account and continues to compel my attention. Possibilities for teaching, learning, and teacher education emerge. I am convinced they are most worthy of continued pursuit.