AN EXAMINATION OF SELF-EFFICACY AND THE IMPACT OF SELF-REGULATION STRATEGY INSTRUCTION ON STRUGGLING HIGH SCHOOL WRITERS

              AN EXAMINATION OF SELF-EFFICACY AND THE IMPACT
OF SELF-REGULATION STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
ON STRUGGLING HIGH SCHOOL WRITERS
Dissertation
by
FERNE BETH FARKAS
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies
Texas A&M University-Commerce
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2014 AN EXAMINATION OF SELF-EFFICACY AND THE IMPACT
OF SELF-REGULATION STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
ON STRUGGLING HIGH SCHOOL WRITERS
A Dissertation
by
FERNE BETH FARKAS
Approved by:
Advisor: Susan Szabo
Committee: Wayne Linek
Casey Brown
Head of Department: Martha Foote
Dean of College: Tim Letzring
Dean of Graduate Studies: Arlene Horne
iii
Copyright © 2014
Ferne Beth Farkas
iv
ABSTRACT
AN EXAMINATION OF SELF-EFFICACY AND THE IMPACT
OF SELF-REGULATION STRATEGY INSTRUCTION
ON STRUGGLING HIGH SCHOOL WRITERS
Ferne Beth Farkas, EdD
Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2014
Advisor: Susan Szabo, EdD
This mixed methods design study qualitatively examined the phenomenon of self-efficacy from the participants’ perspective. It explained, in qualitative terms, the metacognitive thoughts of struggling high school writers as they engaged in the process of writing persuasive essays. Additionally, this study examined, in quantitative terms, the effects of the STOP and DARE self-regulation strategy on the participants’ persuasive writing achievement. The participants’ self-efficacy for writing persuasive essays progressed in a positive way throughout the study. The participants displayed positive expressions, thoughts and ideas. Their writing achievement improved when they implemented the STOP and DARE self-regulation strategy
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….………...… vi
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….…………..vii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................ 6
Research Questions ..................................................................................................6
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................7
Definitions of Terms ..............................................................................................7
Limitations .............................................................................................................9
Delimitations ...................................................................................................... 10
Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 10
Summary and Organization of Remaining Chapters ...........................................11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................12
Self-Efficacy .........................................................................................................12
Student Achievement .............................................................................................15
Self-Regulation Strategies ....................................................................................16
Assessment .............................................................................................................21
Summary .............................................................................................................. 24
vi
3. METHODS .............................................................................................................…......25
Purpose …......................................................................................................................25
Design ..... .................................................................................................................…....26
Setting .................................................................................................................….....26
Participants ........................................................................................................................27
Data Sources ....................................................................................................................28
Intervention Session Procedures ..................................................................................… 30
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................38
Summary …......................................................................................................................42
4. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 44
Qualitative Data ............................................................................................................... 44
Answering the Qualitative Research Questions ............................................................... 66
Quantitative Data ……………………………………………………………………… 66
Answering the Quantitative Research Question .....................................................................73
Summary 74
5. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY AND THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................75
Discussion by Research Question ......................................................................................76
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................81
Qualitative Definition of Self-efficacy ..............................................................................83
Limitations .........................................................................................................................84
Delimitations ......................................................................................................................85
Educational Implications ...................................................................................................86 vii
Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................................87
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................88
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................98
Appendix
A. Semi-Structured Self-Efficacy Interview .........................................................98
B. Sample Transition Words ...............................................................................101
C. Graphic Map .............................................................................…..................103
D. Goal Planning Sheet ...................................................................................…105
E. Brainstorming Sheet ......................................................................................108
F. Cue Cards..……………………………………………………………….…..110
G. TEA STAAR State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness Rubric ....112
H. Permissions .....................................................................................................117
I. Final Writing Samples ..………………………………………………..……122
VITA ..………………………………………………..……………….. .....................................127
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1. Interview Qualitative Phrase Chart -LaLa .............................................................................. 45
2. Interview Qualitative Phrase Chart-Travis .............................................................................. 47
3. Interview Qualitative Phrase Chart-Moody ............................................................................. 49
4. Stanza Analysis of Words Spoken During Sessions-LaLa ...................................................... 51
5. Stanza Analysis of Words Spoken During Sessions-Travis .................................................... 52
6. Stanza Analysis of Words Spoken During Sessions-Moody ................................................... 53
7. Researcher’s Observations of LaLa ........................................................................................ 62
8. Researcher’s Observations of Travis ...................................................................................... 63
9. Researcher’s Observations of Moody ..................................................................................... 64
10. LaLa’s Total Writing Scores .......................................................................................... ..... 68
12. Travis’s Total Writing Scores ............................................................................................... 70
13. Moody’s Total Writing Scores .............................................................................................. 72
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1. Conceptual Framework of the study ........................................................................................... 4
2. Board Showing Concepts and Themes ..................................................................................... 41
3. Metacognition ........................................................................................................................... 83
4. Qualitative Definition of Self-Efficacy ..................................................................................... 841
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
I taught middle and high school English and reading, and have been a special education case manager for more than 20 years. During that time I developed a passion for helping struggling adolescents find a key to unlock their successful written expression. I also realized through many of years of experience and an extensive reading of Bandura, (1977, 1991, 1996, 1997, 2006) that struggling students do not display confidence or persistence when engaged in persuasive writing tasks. They also do not consistently use the planning, revising, and editing skills that many teachers, over many years, introduced to them. Bandura (1977) termed this confidence or perseverance, self-efficacy. Additionally, struggling adolescent writers do not demonstrate the ongoing process of thinking about what they were learning, defined as metacognition (Griffith & Ruan, 2005).
Academic writing is neglected in many secondary classrooms (National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges, 2005). Not only has writing received far less attention than reading from researchers (Troia, 2009), this lack of research has led to fewer than 35% of students nationwide reaching the writing proficiency level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (USDOE, 2012). Colleges, universities, and businesses are forced to offer remedial and developmental programs in the hope that their students and workers can reach a proficient writing level.
Persuasive writing has been identified as an important skill for achievement in high school and thus required in many content areas and for multiple writing tasks (Fisher & Frey, 2008; TEA, 2011). State and national high stakes assessments typically include prompts for 2
persuasive writing. Responses to literature and reactions to social studies concepts have been identified as important types of persuasive writing (Fisher & Frey, 2008). Researchers, practitioners, and evaluators have concurred that the ability to write persuasively is a key skill for a proficient writer (Kiuhara, O’Neill, Hawken, & Graham, 2012; Wong, 2005).
Ongoing research seeks to determine ways to enhance students’ writing achievement. Many studies show that strategies that provide strategic planning, drafting, and revising can affect students’ writing (De La Paz, 1997, 2001; Dyson & Freeman 2003; Graham & Harris, 1989, 1993, 1999; Marchison & Alber, 2001; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). Researchers indicated that some strategies help students form mental representations of their writing responses by helping define topics and drawing on previous knowledge about writing (Kiuhara et al., 2012; Wong, 2005).
STOP and DARE (De La Paz, 2001) is a strategy that was designed to prod struggling writers to plan what they believe, decide how they want to express their ideas, and organize their thoughts into organized paragraphs. STOP and DARE are acronyms for:
 Suspend judgment.
 Take a side.
 Organize your thoughts.
 Plan as you write.
 Develop your topic sentence.
 Add supporting ideas.
 Reject arguments for the other side.
 End with a conclusion. 3
However, most of the research on the use of this strategy was conducted with elementary and middle school students. Very little has been conducted with senior high school students as participants (De La Paz, 1999).
Several researchers concluded that in addition to the effective use of strategies, writing depends on students paying attention to multiple levels of written language in order to improve. These levels have been given different names. Fisher and Frey (2008) called the levels idea illuminations. Spandel (2001) designated them as Six Traits and identified the levels as: (a) Voice, (b) Idea Development, (c) Conventions, (d) Organization, (e), Word-choice, and (f) Sentence Fluency. Perin (2002) used the term Progression. In addition, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) synthesized these levels in 2011 when it developed the rubric for the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR; TEA, 2011). TEA named the levels (a) Organization and Progression, (b) Idea Development, and (c) Use of Language and Conventions. The TEA rubric was the instrument used to assess the writing achievement of the participants in this study.
However, knowing a strategy may not be the influential factor determining its use. Research has indicated that students must also believe they are capable of increasing their performance levels (Pajares, 2003; Usher & Pajares, 2007). Bandura (1997) termed this belief in one’s ability to improve performance self-efficacy. Via his social-cognition theories Bandura (1991, 1996, 2006) postulated that children who believed they could exercise some control over their own learning achieved more success. He stated that beliefs about capabilities to control specific situations, such as academics, influenced not only immediate choices, but also life aspirations and efforts to accomplish any task. Bandura also noted that in order for adolescents to mature into productive adults, they must set goals that help foster a sense of accomplishment. 4
Without these goals, adolescent students lack a vision of the future. Bandura stressed that this sense of agency motivated students to put forth the effort needed for success and concluded that high-self efficacy beliefs facilitated task choice, engagement level, effort, performance, and academic achievement. Other researchers and theorists concurred regarding the impact of self-efficacy on student achievement (Klassen & Lynch, 2007; Usher & Pajares, 2007).
Although research has shown the importance of self-efficacy on student achievement, few studies used a qualitative approach to explore self-efficacy in adolescents (Klassen & Lynch, 2007; Scherer, 2013). According to these researchers, this emic approach has several advantages. First, this view gives the researcher an inside perspective into the participants’ attitudes. Secondly, the researcher can gain more depth and understanding of the participants’ opinions. Thirdly, the qualitative approach allows the researcher to incorporate multiple perspectives into multidimensional contexts. The conceptual framework of the study is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study
Self-Efficacy
Prior Knowledge
Goals
Accomplishments
Beliefs
Perceived Abilities 5
As illustrated in Figure 1, self-efficacy is based on prior knowledge and beliefs. Prior knowledge is composed of accomplishments and current or future goals. Beliefs are based on the participants’ perceived abilities.
Statement of the Problem
Struggling high school writers have difficulty producing the quality needed to create suitable written products (Graham & Harris, 1989). Marchison and Alber (2001) found through a 4-year case study that written expression was very complex and the most difficult type of communication to teach. National achievement of proficiency in writing remains at less than 35% (USDOE, 2011). Persuasive writing has been identified as a key skill for proficient writers (Mason, Benedek-Wood, & Valasa, 2010). However, while research indicated strategies are effective for enhancing writing achievement (De La Paz, 1997; Hilden & Presley, 2007; Reynolds & Perin, 2009) studies are still needed to determine the impact of specific strategies on enhancing adolescent students’ persuasive writing (De La Paz, 1999; Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005; Cramer & Mason, 2008).
Additionally, Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, and Perry (2002) stated that the emotions related to writing difficulty in the classroom could prevent success. These researchers, in a study of over 200 students, contended that students often feared rejection and withdrew from tasks they did not feel competent to achieve. Therefore, research is needed that not only examines the impact of specific strategies on students’ writing performance but that also aids in the understanding of students’ self-efficacy beliefs about themselves as writers.
6
Purpose
The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, it was a qualitative, emic examination of the participants’ self-efficacy of writing skills from the participants’ point of view. This study explored self-efficacy as a phenomenon, which was described in the participants’ own thoughts and expressions. This description was developed from codes and themes as derived from the study’s findings.
Secondly, this study examined the impact of instruction of the self-regulation strategy called STOP and DARE on struggling high school writers’ persuasive essay writing achievement, as most of the research on the use of this strategy has been done at the elementary level, and very few studies exist with high school students as the participants (De La Paz, 1999). To do so, participants were asked to write persuasive essays using planning, drafting, and revising, as described in the STOP and DARE strategy. The participants responded to eight different prompts. As the participants demonstrated and practiced individual attributes of the strategy, the participants were expected to incorporate them into their persuasive essays.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What is the nature of struggling high school writers’ initial thoughts and statements regarding their ability to write persuasive essays?
2. What is the nature of struggling high school writers’ thoughts and statements after the implementation of the STOP and DARE persuasive writing strategy
3. What is the nature of the change in struggling high school writers’ thoughts and statements after the implementation of the STOP and DARE persuasive writing strategy? 7
4. How does the STOP and DARE strategy impact struggling high school writers’ development of persuasive essays?
Significance
This study contributes to the knowledge of the phenomenon of self-efficacy as described from the participants’ points of view, as this study looks at self-efficacy from a qualitative perspective. The study contributes to the understanding of how struggling writers think about learning to write and how they learned different ways to write. This is significant as all prior research on self-efficacy has been done quantitatively (Bandura, 1977, 1991, 1996, 1997, 2006).
Additionally this study examined the impact of STOP and DARE, a self-regulation writing strategy, on struggling high school writers’ persuasive essay writing. The information gained can help design instruction that can positively impact the academic achievement, after- graduation life skills, and employment opportunities for at-risk students, which can increase literacy of individuals, communities, and society. This is significant as the majority of prior research with the STOP and DARE strategy has been done as the elementary level and a few at the middle-school level. Thus, this study examines the impact of STOP and DARE to see if it is a useful strategy for high school students.
Definitions of Terms
The researcher used the following definitions in this study:
Categories. Categories refer to qualitative data that “semantically identify similarities and differences” (Hatch, 2002 p.159).
Codes. Codes are words or phrases that symbolically represent an “essence-capturing” attribute of data (Saldana, 2009 p.3). 8
Emic. The emic perspective refers to the understanding of the way a language or culture is constructed, from an insider’s view. This perspective helps researchers to understand individuals in their daily lives, including their attitudes. The emic view can help predict future behavior in a specific context (Berry, 1999).
Exit ticket. An exit ticket is an in-class assignment or product given to the researcher at the end of the session. This shows that the participant partook in the assigned task and allows the teacher to determine the student’s level of understanding (Marzano, 2012).
Metacognition. Metacognition is the ability to monitor and regulate one’s memory in order to accomplish a goal or outcome (Flavell, 1976). According to Flavell, active self-monitoring of what a person is thinking enables him or her to deliberately examine and regulate the thinking processes needed to accomplish a cognitive task.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a term developed by Bandura (1991). He defined it as “people’s own beliefs about their own capabilities to produce levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives” (p.71). Self-efficacy is one attribute of self-regulation.
Self-regulation. Self-regulation is the “metacognitive process that requires students to explore their own thought processes so as to evaluate the results of their actions and to plan alternative pathways to success” (Usher & Pajares, 2007 p. 443). In this study the STOP and DARE strategy includes a attribute of self-regulation.
Stanzas. Stanzas are short units of text arranged in poetic-like verses for analysis (Saldana, 2009) 9
Writing quality. Writing quality is the rating of the functional elements present in each response to the prompt. The functional elements include idea development, organization, and use of language and conventions (TEA, 2011).
Limitations
While conducting this research, the following limitations, which were beyond the control of the researcher, needed to be kept in mind:
 The study was limited to students who agreed to participate.
 The participants had different classroom teachers, which could impact writing achievement and self-efficacy.
 The quantitative results may not generalize to all other struggling high school writers.
 Qualitative results, by their nature, represent the image of a specific time and place and may not be replicable.
 After school transportation was not available, therefore, limiting the participants to those who had access to alternative transportation.
 Other after school activities prevented some students from becoming participants.
 The school district limited the access to participants and facilities for this study to 8 weeks.
 The school district did not allow the researcher to comment on educational status of the students (i.e.; special education, resource, achievement scores, etc.). 10
 The participants had very little interaction between themselves. Most of their oral communications were responses to the researcher’s questions.
Delimitations
In order for this study to take place, the researcher had to make decisions on how the study was designed. The following delimitations were choices made for this study:
 The participants in this study were limited to struggling 10th and 11th graders at one specific North Texas high school.
 This study examined the STOP and DARE strategy only. Other strategies may be effective as well.
 All prompts were for persuasive writing only.
Assumptions
While conducting this study, the researcher made the following assumptions:
 The number of sessions (15) was sufficient to examine the participants’ self-efficacy and the impact of the STOP and DARE strategy on struggling high school writers.
 The rubric developed by the Texas Education Agency was valid and reliable.
 The participants’ responses to the semi-structured interviews were honest.
 Any increase in the quality rating of the participants’ persuasive writing represented genuine learning.
11
Summary and Organization of the Remaining Chapters
This chapter provides a rationale for and an explanation of both the qualitative and quantitative attributes of this study. It includes the research questions and operational definitions of self-efficacy and the quality of persuasive writing. It also explains the need for this research and the reasons the researcher wanted to do this study. Chapter 2 includes a review of the research and theory literature concerning struggling high school writers and offers suggestions for future research. Chapter 3 includes explanations of the qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis, as well as study procedures. In addition, single-subject design is explained. Chapter 4 details and displays the results from both study methods. Chapter 5 includes a discussion of the implications and meaning of the results.
12
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents a review of the literature including research studies and theories addressing the historical perspectives, current reality and gaps in the literature concerning the following topics: (a) student self-efficacy, (b) self-regulation, (c) student achievement, and (d) authentic assessment. Research shows that student achievement in writing continues to fall below academic standards (USDOE, 2011) The use of literacy strategies appears to be one successful means of delivering increased achievement (Fisher & Frey, 2008). Self-efficacy and self-regulation is connected to achievement (Pajares, 2003).
Self-Efficacy
Historical Perspective
Bandura (1977, 1991, 1996, 1997, 2006) is the preeminent researcher investigating self-efficacy, looking at the concept from a quantitative perspective. Bandura spent many years developing self-efficacy scales. The scales measure the students’ perceived belief in their ability to accomplish academic tasks across several domains (Bandura, 1997). Students were asked to rate the strengths of their beliefs in their capacity to perform at many different levels.
Bandura (1996) proposed that in different academic domains there are different levels of task demands. His study found that in effective scales the items measured had to be constructed in terms of capability rather than intention.
Self-efficacy beliefs are the motivators of human action. Without these beliefs, no incentive exists to persevere in the face of difficulties (Bandura, 2006). Bandura explained the belief that meeting life’s challenges successfully was based on sources of information an individual acquired from his or her environment. These sources combined to allow a person to 13
develop strong, positive beliefs in his or her capacity to accomplish specific tasks. However, Bandura (2006) felt it was possible to learn how other people acted and learned through proper instruction. Each individual had to be able to distinguish accurate from inaccurate thinking.
Pajares and Johnson (1994) predicted the writing performance of college students was dependent on writing skills self-efficacy. These researchers found that composite measures were necessary for teachers and counselors to have enough information regarding students’ writing confidence. They found that the correspondence between beliefs and outcomes were not always present and some of the students with high self-efficacy beliefs did very poorly using the skills needed for composition.
Pajares and Johnson (1994) also found differences between self-efficacy of writing skills and self-efficacy of completion of writing tasks. The writing skills included such items as grammar, usage, punctuation, and organization. The completion task included such skills as writing a term paper, writing a fictious short story, or writing letters. Again high levels of self-efficacy did not always match the quality of the finished written product. However, high self-efficacy of both types of skills led the students to attempt and complete the assignments. In the same study, these researchers acknowledged that not all complex writing outcomes leant themselves to the efficacy scale analysis, even when using a 0-100 point scale. This is another purpose of the current researcher seeking a qualitative definition of self-efficacy.
Scardamalia and Bereiter (1992, 2003) found that students learned more effectively when their experiences elicited appropriate emotions. This was because emotions are so important to human life, that rich emotional experiences guided and moderated self-regulation functioning. Scardamalia and Bereiter expanded on the idea of metacognition when they indicated that students must know that their ideas, no matter how good, are improvable. Students must 14
deliberately pursue improvement. The ability to do this does not come naturally, but strategy instruction helped facilitate mastery. Students must be comfortable with their own ideas, and they are the only ones who can improve them, not their parents or teachers.
In their 1992 study, Scardamalia and Bereiter asked fifth and sixth grade students to pose a number of politically or socially concerned questions about endangered species before introduction of any curriculum materials. The researchers then examined the questions to discover the differences between fact based and emotion based elements. Significant qualitative differences and improvements existed when the students included emotional elements. The questions probed deeper and required answers that were more elaborate when emotions were involved.
Contemporary Research
Bruning, Dempsey, Kaufman, McKim and Zumbrunn (2013) proposed that self-efficacy was critical, especially when tasks were difficult and motivation levels were not high. These researchers posited that writing was such a task. In a two-tiered study of both middle school and high school students, the researchers found that because self-efficacy is a domain specific construct, there can be no all-purpose measure that will adequately describe the construct in a quantitative way.
Self-efficacy beliefs can be predictive of students’ actual learning and performance (Arslan 2012). In a correlational study of sixth through eighth graders, measured by analysis of the written composition analysis of 26 participants, Arslan founds a positive correlation (r=.435, p<.01) between the student’s self-efficacy and actual performance.
15
Student Achievement
One measure of student achievement used nationally is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). A project of the United States Department of Education, it is administered biennially and includes writing. NAEP provides a comprehensive report of academic achievement over time. The assessment results are reported on both a national and state-by-state basis (USDOE, 2012).
The most recent national NAEP assessment of high school writing took place in 2011. Student writing achievement was assessed by how students performed on writing tasks. The scaled scores were divided into achievement levels of (a) below basic, (b) basic, (c) proficient, and (d) advanced. The scores for the 2011 assessment documented that only 35% nationwide and 26% of Texas high school students earned the rating of proficient or higher. The report of these scores suggests there is a great need for further research into increasing writing achievement.
In a report from the Center on English Learning and Achievement (Applebee, 2002), researchers contended that the most effective high school classrooms were systematic, with all lessons linked to interconnected concepts so that the students could experience depth. Differences in prior knowledge, cultural background, and community experiences led to disagreements that were turned into higher order thinking and writing. Students learned to appreciate differing points of view without giving up their own identities. The report concluded that effective classrooms should be welcoming places for struggling students. Thus, classrooms fostered truly open debate, where everyone was encouraged to speak, and diverse opinions were respected. Scaffolding was provided for struggling students, including alternative textbooks, modified assignments, and individual skill instruction. The environment allowed for developing 16
skills. By focusing on persuasive writing and providing strategic scaffolding, this study has the potential for providing the same effective environment.
Bangert-Downs, Hurley, and Wilkerson (2004) also concluded from their meta-analysis that the use of metacognitive prompts and increased time allotted for writing predicted positive achievement effects. While writing about subject matter can contribute to knowledge about that subject, it was difficult to determine how large that improvement can be. This study was designed to find out what was typical in the research literature about the effects of school based writing programs and investigate the relationships between certain features of writing programs and student achievement. Bangert-Downs, Hurley, and Wilkerson coded features of each study in order to explore individual factors in the studies. After analysis, they found consistent positive effects when students were actually writing about the content subjects, showing how important academic writing is to student achievement. Ongoing research is needed to determine ways to increase achievement.
Self-Regulation Strategies
High self-efficacy beliefs also lead to self-regulation (Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). In a theoretical statement in their chapter included in the book, Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, the authors stated that students felt empowered because they were able to self-motivate their own success. The researchers also endorsed the idea that emotions were critical to formulating patterns of positive behavior. Because rich emotional experiences enhance achievement, Zimmerman and Cleary declared that teachers had a responsibility to create environments that promoted, supported, and encouraged students to develop high beliefs in their own ability. One goal of this current study is explore strategies that may lead to students developing beliefs in their ability to succeed. 17
Historical Perspective of Self-Regulation Studies
Since the late 1980s and early 1990s many research studies have been conducted examining the effects of literacy strategies on student writing behavior. Graham and Perin (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of over forty experimental and quasi-experimental studies and shared the results in Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing in Middle and High Schools, a national report to the Carnegie Institute in New York. Graham and Perin categorized those strategies with positive effects (>.50) into, what they called elements.
These elements were:
 Writing Strategies that involved metacognitive tasks for planning, revising, and editing narrative, expository and persuasive compositions;
 Summarization that explicitly and systematically taught students how to summarize text;
 Collaborative Writing, that allowed students to work together to generate compositions;
 Specific Product Goals which assigned explicit goals for each writing assignment;
 Word Processing which encouraged students to use computers as instructional scaffolding;
 Sentence Combining which taught students to use more complexity in their sentences;
 Prewriting which aided students to develop ideas for their writing pieces;
 Inquiry Activities, during which students analyzed concrete data to guide them to develop specific ideas and content; 18
 Process Writing Approach which included extended chances for writing, focusing on audience, and writing cycles;
 Study of Models that gave students a chance to experience quality writing and then try to replicate the style;
 Writing for Content Learning, which encouraged students to write in all content classes.
Graham and Perin (2007) emphasized that these elements were instructional guidelines to help teachers, administrators, and parents understand the complexity of writing and guidelines to provide guidelines for building the best literacy program possible. Individual schools and classroom teachers chose their methods of utilization of these elements to best meet the needs of their learners. This current study included parts of all these elements and was measured through the participant’s body language and oral comments.
In a follow up report, Coker and Lewis (2008) suggested that Graham and Perrin’s (2007) research should be expanded to include qualitative and case study research as well as the quasi-experimental and experimental studies that were reported. The writing conference segment of the process writing approach was also left out of the analysis. Other suggestions for further research were also offered. Coker and Lewis asserted that high school students should write for real audiences, not just their teachers or other professional readers, providing the students with authentic purposes. They also distinguished writing from other developmental phases of language development in that writing is not a natural outgrowth of development. The attributes of formulation, organization, and transcription made writing more complex. Coker and Lewis concluded that teachers needed more training in instructional strategies in order to help struggling writers. 19
One method of teaching writing that has shown success with at-risk and struggling students is the Self-Regulated Strategy Development instruction method (Graham & Harris, 1989). The researchers conducted a study to determine if self-instructional strategy training could improve struggling students’ writing. The subjects were culturally diverse fifth and sixth grade students. Graham and Harris designed single-subject assessments across baseline and multi-occasion writing opportunities using a three-step metacognitive strategy, along with self-instructional statements. They rated essays for length, idea development, and grammatical conventions. The students were then taught strategies for planning and writing essays. Graham and Harris found that after training, the students’ essays showed substantial gains over baseline in all the levels and attributes. The attributes were delineated as premise, reasons, conclusions, and elaborations.
Secondary students also showed growth when explicitly taught writing strategies. De La Paz and Graham (2002) conducted an experimental study with seventh and eighth grade students at two different middle schools. One class at each school was instructed in a traditional way with the teachers choosing their own method of teaching writing. The other class was instructed in explicit writing strategies. Following a pre-test to determine base line scores, the intervention group was instructed during a six-week intervention. The students in the experimental group were directly instructed in specific strategies for planning, drafting and revising text. These students were also taught goal setting and self-monitoring. The teachers in this study received a scripted manual, lesson plans, and had several opportunities to practice before they started the intervention. They met with the researchers for training and debriefing several times during the study. Results showed the experimental group wrote longer essays, used more vocabulary, and contained more developed essay elements. De Le Paz and Graham concluded the results 20
indicated that self-regulated strategy development was both appropriate for and beneficial to struggling writers, even if no learning disability existed. In addition, they asserted that as students matured, the need for planning before writing increased and became a critical attribute of skilled composition. Capable writers used planning to decide not only what they would write, but also how they would compose their pieces.
Felton and Herko ( 2004) examined ways to scaffold high school students in their writing and concluded that while high school students love to argue, they had a great deal of difficulty writing persuasive essays. Many persuasive essays lacked the basic elements of good argument. Because many students did not take the time to plan, they failed to consider both sides of an issue and many times only wrote down a conclusion with one or two examples. They did not elaborate, or add strength to their compositions by defending their positions.
Among the self-regulation strategies, STOP and DARE (De La Paz, 1997) was specifically designed to facilitate persuasive writing and used interactive learning to facilitate and support persuasive writing. Most of the research on this strategy was conducted on the elementary level, and very few studies exist with high school students as the participants (De La Paz, 1999).
The STOP and DARE strategy consisted of several steps specifically designed for persuasive writing. The STOP portion of the strategy was used to foster increased planning. The first step, “S”, was Suspend judgment. During this step, the participants considered both sides of an issue, while writing down notes about them. The second step, “T”, was Take a side. Each participant read his or her ideas and decided which side was the one that made the strongest argument. Organize ideas, “O”, was the third step. The participants chose the strongest ideas to back up the chosen side. Then they organized them in numerical order. Finally, the “P” step 21
was Plan more as you write. It was during this step that the DARE part of the strategy was used. DARE stands for:
 Develop your topic sentence.
 Add supporting ideas.
 Reject at least one argument for the other side
 End with a conclusion
De La Paz (1997) used multiple baseline-multi-subject design to chart the effects of the intervention on the participants’ progress. A major goal of this strategy was to increase planning before and during drafting persuasive essays. During the application of the STOP and DARE strategy, goals were defined; modeling was extensive; interactive learning was stressed; and attributes were introduced gradually as mastery increased. Over the six weeks of the study, the quality of the written essays in response to persuasive prompts increased. While De La Paz concluded the STOP and DARE strategy helped students produce longer, more complete and better quality essays, additional research is needed with other populations.
Assessment
Holistic
Holistic assessment is used when learning is measured against an established standard (Briggs & Tang, 2007). This type of assessment uses an overall look at written essays. Each written essay is judged by the whole and only one score is given for the entire piece. Holistic scoring can be economical, flexible and less time consuming than other assessment measures (Finson & Ormsbff, 2000). Holistic assessment allows students to evaluate their own writing, in light of their own culture (Dyson & Freeman, 2003). A relationship always existed between ethnography, socialization, and classroom writing. In order to provide background information 22
to writers, structured instruction must be implemented. Until students are cognitively aware of both their culture and those of others, the common referents for understanding will not be present. One instructional strategy that Dyson & Freeman proposed was using experiential activities that immersed students in diversity and served as jumping off points to gain this cognition. In this case, they felt, informal assessments such as portfolios, rubrics, and charts served as better indicators of progress and involved the students in the evaluation process. Rubrics and checklists can help determine students’ strengths and areas that need improvement (Bromley, 2007).
Tied to self-efficacy, self-assessment became very important when measuring development, especially writing development (Camp, 2012). Camp postulated that writing assessment should reflect the value systems, conventions, and social interactions of the writers’ community. Writing should not be assessed by a single measurement, but rather repeated over time. Additionally, writing assessment should be looked at and understood from the perspective of personal motivation. Finally, Camp believed that writing development was not linear, but should be assessed to recognize that regression as a possibility, even though growth is present.
Analytic
Analytic assessments are similar to holistic scoring, but each essay is scored on attributes that are developed from specific descriptors (Moskal & Leydens, 2000). When constructing the rubrics, Moskal and Leydens suggest checking to make sure all the important facets of the intended attribute are evaluated through specific scoring criteria. Each attribute is scored separately. The attribute scores are averaged to create a score for the whole essay. Training for reviewers using an analytic rubric is less complicated than training for a holistic rubric because 23
the descriptors of each attribute are precise and allow for easier decisions (Calfee & Greitz-Miller, 2007).
Analytic analysis can provide a more objective assessment of writing quality because it is less susceptible to bias (Klein, et al., 1998). Therefore, more precise decisions can be made about curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Formative
Formative assessments use benchmarks to help both the writer self-regulate and the teacher to plan lessons, as they are used to measure progress toward a goal (Chappuis & Chappuis, 2007). Formative assessments give the writers feedback that allows them to re-write a piece and learn from their mistakes (Fisher & Frey, 2013). Since this type of assessment takes place during the writing process and not after completion, it lets the writers use new knowledge to self-assess. The students then are capable of actually improving their writing instead of just editing.
Fisher and Frey (2013) also suggested that formative assessments provide a scaffold to help struggling learners activate prior knowledge. They proposed using prompting instead of re-explaining errors in writing. The prompting included:
 Activating procedural knowledge
 Suggesting metacognitive thinking
 Cuing to shift attention to something that is overlooked
Formative assessment can also help student use evidence from their own writing to actively manage and adjust (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). Formative assessment have both teachers and students asking three questions (Atkin, Black, & Coffey, 2001): Where am I going? Where am I now? and How can I close the gap? 24
Summary
Research into writing instruction should include investigating not only the student’s cognitive and motivation processes as related to self-efficacy, but also authentic assessment that considers the writers’ perspectives. There is a need for more research involving secondary school students and the strategies that may improve the quality of their persuasive writing. Additionally, more phenomenological studies would increase the understanding of self-efficacy from an emic perspective.
25
Chapter 3
METHODS
This chapter explains the purpose, design, participants, and setting of this study. It also describes the data sources, procedures and data analysis used by the researcher.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, it was a qualitative, emic examination of the participants’ self-efficacy of writing skills from the participants’ point of view. This study explored self-efficacy as a phenomenon, which was best described in the participants’ own thoughts and expressions. This description was developed from codes and themes as derived from the study’s findings.
Secondly, this study examined the impact of explicit instruction of the self-regulation strategy called STOP and DARE on struggling high school writers’ persuasive essay writing achievement, as most of the research on the use of this strategy has been done at the elementary level (De La Paz, 1999). To do this, the participants were asked to write persuasive essays using planning, drafting, and revising, as described in the STOP and DARE strategy. The participants responded to eight different prompts. As individual attributes of the strategy were demonstrated and practiced, the participants were expected to incorporate them into their persuasive essays.
In addition, the following research questions guided this study:
1. What is the nature of struggling high school writers’ initial thoughts and statements regarding their ability to write persuasive essays?
2. What is the nature of struggling high school writers’ thoughts and statements after the implementation of the STOP and DARE persuasive writing strategy? 26
3. What is the nature of any change of struggling high school writers’ thoughts and statements, after strategy implementation?
4. How does the STOP and DARE strategy impact struggling high school writers’ development of persuasive essays?
Design
This mixed methods, single subject design presented an emphasis on examining functional relationships (McCormick, 1995). Instead of controlling variability, as do quantitative studies, this method provides a way of examining variability. There was no single test of variables, but rather the researcher collected and measured data frequently. This study started with three baseline prompts, used four intervention prompts, and ended with a final, after intervention prompt.
The researcher chose the single subject-multiple baseline design because it provided a stabilized baseline before initiating the intervention. This has several advantages. First, the participants become familiar and comfortable with the writing procedures so that the researcher was not introducing a new concept. This was especially important when working with struggling high school students who may not have extensive prior knowledge. The baseline concept gives the participants a chance to become accustomed to the routines and format of the study. Secondly, starting with a stable baseline can increase validity. Thirdly, the effects of the intervention become much more apparent once the baseline stabilizes (McCormick, 1995).
Setting
The participants were three struggling high school students in a large suburban high school in the southwestern United States. The high school had approximately 2500 freshman through seniors students enrolled. The student population was diverse with their ethnic 27
demographics as follows: African American 19%, Asian 9%, Caucasian 27%, and Hispanic 45%. Forty percent of the students qualified to receive free or reduced lunch and approximately 10% of the students were in special education.
Participants
The participants were chosen in several ways. First, a request was sent to all English, social studies, and English- as-a-second language (ESL) teachers asking for the names of potential participants. The teachers recommended participants for this study based on the following criteria: (a) Students who did not meet standards on the writing portion of the Language Arts state assessments or district benchmarks and/or (b) students who were failing or close to failing social studies, English, or ESL because of writing problems. The teachers’ list of recommended participants contained 75 names. All the participants met both criteria.
Next, a department paraprofessional, in order to maintain confidentially of the participants, sent out consent and assent letters to the 75 high school students who met the qualifications as well as to their parents. Envelopes and postage were provided. Thus, the researcher did not have access to students’ personal or confidential information. In addition, no mention of the study was made in the students’ regular classes, nor were any forms distributed within the classrooms.
Originally, the researcher received six signed consent and assent forms from both parents and students. However, one student changed his mind before the study began, a second participant had to withdraw after the third session because of transportation problems, and another withdrew after the tenth session because of athletic commitments after school. Thus, three participants completed the entire 8-week 15-session program. 28
The three remaining participants were Hispanic. For confidentiality, the participants chose their own pseudonyms: LaLa; Moody; and Travis. LaLa was an 11th grade female whose home language was Spanish. Moody was an 11th grade male whose home language was English while Travis was a 10th grade male whose home language was Spanish. All three participants were born in the United States. LaLa was very enthusiastic during the study. She was very anxious to improve her writing skills. At first, Travis was very shy, but as the study progressed, he became more involved in the discussions, smiled more, and liked to share his writing. Moody did not want to read his writing to the group. He wanted the researcher to read out loud anything that he wrote, instead of reading to the group himself. He was distracted easily and had to be re-directed to stay on task during the afterschool intervention.
Data Sources
The qualitative data sources for this study included: (a) pre-intervention semi-structured oral interviews, (b) after-intervention semi-structured oral interviews, (c) audio recordings of sessions, (d) observational notes taken during sessions by the researcher, and (e) entries in participants’ reflective journals.
Oral Interview Comments- Pre/Post
The interview questions for the pre and post semi-structured oral interviews were purposively written in an open-ended manner so that each participant could respond, expand on, or explain any point necessary. Additional, alternative questions were generated in the course of the interviews, which lead to deeper probing of the participants’ thinking and feelings (see Appendix A).
29
Audio Recordings and Observational Notes
Three audio recorders were placed around the room during each of the fifteen after-school sessions so that all conversations could be recorded. However, very little talk occurred. In addition, some of the talk was not dealing with writing or what was happening in the sessions but with school in general. Thus, only the participants’ comments about feelings, writing, or what was happening in the sessions were analyzed. In addition, field-notes included reference to body language, comments, attitudes, and participant’s actions.
Reflective Journal
Each participant was given a journal in which he or she wrote statements, comments, questions, feelings, and expressions of their own difficulties during each session. Their reflective statements did not have to be connected to the prompts, but the journal entries acted as reflections of any action, feeling, or thought during the sessions. The participants turned in these reflective journals at the end of each session, with the newest notation serving as an exit ticket for the session.
Writing Rubric
The quantitative sources for this study were the eight written persuasive essays in response to prompts administered over the course of this study The quantitative ratings were generated from the rubric that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) developed for the English II STAAR state assessment (TEA2011, see Appendix G). The TEA established ratings of 1-4 as a measurement of the quality of persuasive essays on three different attributes.
The rubric measured three attributes (a) organization and progression (b) development of ideas, and (c) use of language and conventions each concept was further defined. Ratings under 30
organization and progression are (a), the underlying structure, (b), ideas related to the prompt, and (c), progress of ideas. Under development of ideas, the strength of argument and reasoning, and evidence are rated. The writer’s word choice, spelling, sentence construction and grammar were rated under language and conventions. To analyze students overall writing scores, the three attributes were added and averaged.
Intervention Session Procedures
Participants attended 15 one hour instructional sessions after school on the use of the STOP and DARE strategy. These sessions occurred twice a week for a total of 8 weeks. The exact procedures and expectations were explained to the participants during the first session. The investigator developed and directed each STOP and DARE strategy session.
The planning strategy, STOP and DARE helped the participants to plan and organize before they actually started writing their intervention persuasive essays (De La Paz, 1999). The investigator provided all instruction and introduced the background knowledge the participants needed in order to use the strategy effectively.
Session 1
During the first session, students were asked to write a persuasive essay on the prompt, “Write a persuasive essay discussing whether or not your parents should have a say as to who your friends are.” This was used as a baseline for pre/post assessment.
After the participants finished their essay, the investigator explained that persuasive writing had a different purpose than narrative, personal, or informational writing. Participants were asked to tell the group about times they had to persuade someone to do something or to change their opinion about something. These examples were written on chart paper and the 31
participants copied them into their journals. Participants were also told that it was very important for them to record their thoughts and feeling in their journals during every session. .”
Session 2
In this session, discussion focused on the purpose of persuasive writing and its use in academic areas such as English, social studies, and science. In addition, the parts of a persuasive essay were discussed. The introduction should include a restating of the prompt and a thesis statement. This introduction sets the tone and lets the reader know which position the writer is taking.
The body of the essay should consist of at least three paragraphs, each one stating a reason for the writer’s thesis statement. Each paragraph should contain supporting details, which relate back to each reason. The details should contain examples or facts. The body of a persuasive essay should include at least one paragraph describing the other side of an argument and state reasons why the writer rejected that side.
The conclusion should summarize the reasons and the thesis the writer presented in the body. It should also include recommendations for future action. Participants were provided a graphic organizer to help in the visual construction of a persuasive essay.
At the end of the session, participants were instructed to use the ideas that had been talked about to write a persuasive argument. The prompt was: “Write a persuasive essay indicating whether it is ever ok to refuse a request for help. Support your position with reasons and examples.”
Session 3
Discussion in session three was about the use of transition words to connect ideas throughout the essays. Each participant received a page of sample transition words entitled 32
Linking Words (see Appendix B). There was also room for the participants to add transition words of their own.
At the end of the session, participants were instructed to use these linking words in their written persuasive argument. The prompt was: “Do you agree or disagree that today’s movies and/or video games contribute to a rise in violent crime?
Session 4
The STOP and DARE strategy was introduced. Participants received graphic map that showed the two attributes of the STOP and DARE strategy (see Appendix C; Harris & Graham, et al, 2008 p 222). The mnemonics of STOP and DARE, and each step of the strategy was explained in detail to the participants (See STOP and DARE section in the literature review). Next, participants received a copy of two persuasive essays and asked them to identify the elements of a well-written persuasive essay found in each example. The participants identified the writer’s point of view, the opposing point of view, transition words, and the parts of a persuasive essay. There was no prompt nor did the participants write an essay during this session.
Session 5
The objective in session five was to distribute a goal-planning sheet to participants as a way to monitor their progress and to help them use self-regulation to set their goals (see Appendix D). Participants were advised that even good writers, including published writers, find writing complicated and difficult. The goal sheet listed the steps for STOP and DARE and explained each step. Participants used colored pencils to draw a line on the figure to indicate their perceived level of accomplishment for the essay. Each color represented a different part of the STOP and DARE strategy. Participants were asked to set goals for their next essay, to focus 33
on organizing and planning their essays and to refer to their goal sheets when writing their next essay. Participants did not write an essay during this session.
Session 6
Modeling the steps for planning an essay occurred in this session. Participants were reminded of the STOP and DARE steps:
 Suspend judgment.
 Take a side.
 Organize your thoughts.
 Plan as you write.
 Develop your topic sentence.
 Add supporting ideas.
 Reject arguments for the other side.
 End with a conclusion.
During this session, the importance of looking at both sides of an argument was emphasized. In addition, how to rephrase the prompt into declarative statements was modeled. Then participants were asked write two declarative statements, one for each side of the argument. Each participant received an organizer entitled Brainstorming Sheet. Participants used one side of the organizer to list all the reasons and examples for one side of an argument; the other side was used to list all the reasons and examples against the argument (see Appendix E). The listing of the reasons and examples were modeled and, then, participants were asked to number them in order of importance.
Another aspect of session six modeled how to “take a position.” To accomplish this goal, a piece of paper was divided into two sections. One side had a star and one side had a circle. 34
The star was drawn on the side of the organizer in which ideas were written that could be used to defend why that side of the argument should be chosen. The circle was drawn on the side of the organizer in which ideas were written that would support rejection of the argument. During the modeling process it was made clear that “take a position” was a difficult process and there was no single correct way to take a position. It was explained that each participant should feel free to use his or her opinion and it did not have to agree with his or her peers. Throughout the modeling process, comments such as this is hard, but I know I can do it and I’m not sure what side to take, let’s see after I write down all the reasons and examples were
At the end of session six, participants were asked to stand up and recite the steps in the STOP and DARE strategy three times. They were reminded that they were expected to memorize and explain the steps at the next session. Each participant was given a pack of “cue cards” with the STOP and DARE elements to help with memorization (see Appendix F). They were told to keep these cards and refer to them whenever necessary. From then on, each session started with each participant reciting the steps and ended the session by practicing each step using the cue cards to orally quiz each other. Participants did not write a persuasive essay in session six.
Session 7
Participants started the session by reciting the STOP and DARE strategy mnemonic. They were allowed to use their cue cards during this session. Next a discussion about rejecting the other side of an argument occurred. Each participant was asked to state one thing he or she would say in his or her essay to tell the reader why the side should be rejected. Each participant’s responses were written on a chart, which remained posted for the rest of the session. 35
In the second part of session seven, participants wrote an essay on the following prompt, “Some states are considering eliminating the execution of convicted criminals. Write a persuasive essay that explains your opinion and your point of view. Make sure that as you plan and write, you include all parts of the STOP and DARE strategy.” After the participants finished writing their essays, they were instructed to highlight each sentence that showed their taking a side, their topic sentence, and their transition words. They were asked to check their brainstorming sheet for additional supporting ideas or reasons. Participants were directed to make sure they rejected the other side and to write a conclusion. Finally, students were asked to correct any deficiencies they saw in their essays in order to gain self-regulation experience.
Session 8
Participants began the session by writing down all the steps of the STOP and Dare strategy in their journals. The concept of elaboration was introduced as a way to add details to persuasive writing. A word web was drawn on a chart and put the word elaboration in the middle circle. Participants were called on to fill in the other circles around the center one with facts and figures, examples, descriptions, and quotations as ways to was to elaborate. Each words supplied by students was inserted in the web circles; the completed web remained posted in front of the room for the rest of the session. For the remainder of the session participants wrote sentences that included elaborations. The participants did not write a persuasive essay during this session.
Session 9
The focus of this session was to move the participants towards self-regulation. The session started with the participants recording the elements of the STOP and DARE strategy in their journals. They, then, chose goals on which to work. They had the choice of choosing 36
between increasing elaboration, rejecting the other side, writing more, or strengthening their conclusions. Participants recorded their goals on their goal sheets. Next, participants reviewed their essay from the first session. They revised this essay using the STOP and DARE strategy elements and their goals to improve their essays. When they finished, they highlighted the improvements and shared with their peers, who offered suggestions. The participants ended the session by recording their thoughts about the session in their journals.
Session 10
Participants wrote a persuasive essay at the beginning of the session, before the researcher provided any instruction. The prompt was, “Some members of Congress feel that too much money is being spent on scientific research. They feel solving community problems should come first. Write a persuasive essay explaining your point of view.” Participants were not reminded to use the STOP and DARE strategy because, at this point, the objective was to fade the supports and move participants towards independence. After the participants finished writing their persuasive essays, they checked their goal and brainstorming sheets to determine if they had any ideas or revisions they wanted to include. Finally, they referred to their cue cards and highlighted each element of the STOP and DARE strategy to self- assess whether they included all the strategy steps.
Session 11
During this session, participants were able to choose their own prompts from a list provided by the researcher. The prompt choices were: a) “Some school districts require high school seniors to perform community service before they can graduate. Write a persuasive essay explaining your opinion of this requirement, Make sure you follow the steps of the STOP and DARE strategy.” b) “Many schools ban cell phones from classrooms. Other school districts 37
consider cell phones to be technology tools for learning. What is your opinion? Should cell phones be allowed in the classroom? Defend you position by writing a persuasive essay. Make sure to use the elements of the STOP and DARE strategy”, and c): “Some school districts are deciding to do away with numerical grades. Instead, they are replacing grades with written reports giving details of students’ progress. Write a persuasive essay explaining your opinion of this plan. Make sure you include all the elements of the STOP and DARE strategy.” The goal was to give the participants more independence and self-regulation. While writing the persuasive essays, participants continued to rely on teacher’s assistance, graphic organizers, and the STOP and DARE cue cards. After the participants wrote their essays, they shared them with each other, providing feedback and making suggestions for strengthening the essays. Finally, the participants used the remainder of the session to make corrections and write in their journals.
Session 12
This session was a duplicate of session 11. However, instead of being given a prompt, the participants chose to write on any topic they wished.
Session 13
In this session, participants reviewed their persuasive essay from session 2. They then rewrote the essay, using all the elements of the STOP and DARE strategy. Finally, they wrote in their journal about their thoughts and feelings about the session.
Session 14
The following prompt was presented in this session: “Our school district is considering changing the school hours for high school. Presently they are from 7:30 to 2:30. However, school district administrators are thinking of changing the hours from 9:00 to 4:00 because research has shown that high school students need more sleep. Write a persuasive essay 38
explaining your opinion about the change. No additional instructions or reference the STOP and DARE strategy were provided. This persuasive essay was the post intervention essay. After the participants finished writing their essay, they wrote in their journals about their feelings and/or thoughts about the session.
Session 15
This session wrapped up the study and had the student reflect on all sessions. Participants wrote in their journals and submitted their work. Finally, participants discussed what they liked and what they did not like about the sessions.
Writing Essay Prompts
As seen in the procedure section above, the participants were asked to write eight persuasive essays. Seven of the essays had the participants responding to a prompt, while one essay during session 12 was a self-chosen topic. The responses are listed below and the session they occurred in is found in the parenthesis at the end of the prompt.
 Should parents have a say in who your friends are? (2)
 Is it ever okay to refuse someone who asks for help? (3)
 Do violent movies and/or video games contribute to violence in society? (4)
 Should the death penalty be eliminated? (7)
 Is too much money being spent on scientific research? (10)
 Should cell phones be allowed to be used in class? (11)
 Self-choice topic (12)
 Should school hours be changed to start high school later? (14)
39
Data Analysis
Researcher
Because this is a qualitative study, and the researcher was both the instructor of the intervention and the collector of observational data, the research must reflect background experiences in order to report and reflect on any biases that maybe held. The researcher is a white, middle-class, middle-aged female. She has been a middle school and high school English and reading teacher, as well as being a special education case manager for more than 20 years. During that time, she developed a passion for helping struggling adolescents become successful.
Qualitative Analysis
After the study sessions were completed, an in-depth analysis began on the collected data: (a) transcripts of the participants’ responses to the pre-intervention semi-structured interviews; (b) transcripts of the participants’ responses to the after intervention semi-structured interviews; (c) transcribed recordings of the study sessions; (d) the researcher’s observations and notes; and (e) entries in the participants’ journals.
All the narrative data from the five sources listed above were transcribed and individual participant’s data were highlighted and color-coded for each participant. Moody’s words were highlighted in yellow, LaLa’s were highlighted in green, and Travis’s were highlighted in orange. These colors served as visual cues to help make it evident who spoke, how often they spoke, number of interactions, and exactly what they said.
Constructing Themes
The researcher used two peer reviewers to help construct themes. These reviewers were doctoral students as well as classroom teachers who were familiar with both the STAAR writing rubric and the development of themes. The purpose of peer reviews is twofold. The first 40
purpose is to provide feedback to promote higher quality reporting of research data (Evans, 2013). The second purpose is to increase the trustworthiness of the reported data (Krefting, (1991) and to help eliminate any researcher biases.
Initially the researcher presented the peer-reviewers with tables showing the following narrative data:
 stanza analysis and codes of each participants’ responses to both sets of the interview questions;
 stanza analysis of the transcribed recordings of the study sessions;
 stanza analysis of participants’ entries in their journals.
However, after reading the data and reviewing the initial themes of positive statements, negative statements, ability statements, and confusion statements the team decided to start over again, as the reviewers saw different ways to look at the data. So, the data was posted onto a board with sticky notes so the team could view and read the data. This process made it easy to move ideas around while the team collaborated in grouping similar ideas and thoughts together. This process also eliminated any researcher biases and incorporated the reviewers’ understandings into theme development (Saldana, 2009; Strauss, 1987). The team of two reviewers and the researcher then collaborated going back and forth, moving data around until all the data could be placed into a group. Once the groups were created, labels for each category were created by the team. The new themes included: Personal Ability Statements; Personal Control Statements; and Personal Emotional Statements. The arrangement of the codes and themes are illustrated in Figure 2. 41
Figure 2: Board Showing Codes and Themes
42
Quantitative Analysis
For the rating of all essays, the researcher and reviewers used the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness ENGLISH II-Writing: Persuasive Writing Rubric (TEA, 2011). Utilizing the rubric, the participants’ persuasive writing essays were rated on a scale of 1 through 4, with 4 being the strongest. Each response was scored 1 through 4 on the attributes of (a) organization and progression, (b) development of ideas, and (c) use of language and conventions (TEA, 2011). These three attribute scores were calculated to obtain an average, which was considered the overall score for the writing sample.
To assure reliability, peer reviewers scored independently and then compared their scores to the researcher scoring on the first 3 (baseline prompts) and the last writing essays, as these could be considered the pre/post writing samples. It was found that they were in 100% agreement in the scoring with the researcher, as the narrative provided with the rubric was very descriptive allowing multiple scores to rate similarly.
In phenomenological studies, validity comes from the researcher’s sustained engagement with the phenomenon and the participants. Therefore, validity can be anything, as it presents itself, or as a subject experiences it (Vagle, 2009). The participants in this study engaged in interviews, wrote journal entries, talked to the researcher, talked to each other, and the researcher actively observed them. This triangulation of data sources fits into the above definition of validity.
Summary
Chapter 3 discussed the methods of this study. It began by stating the research questions that directed the study. Then, this chapter discusses the single subject design methodology and procedures. This chapter also explained the setting, participants, data sources, and analyses methodology. Next are detailed explanations of the after-school sessions and the qualitative and 43
quantitative data sources. Justification of this study’s qualitative and quantitative validity concludes Chapter 3.
44
Chapter 4
RESULTS
This chapter explains the results of this study. It begins by explaining how the researcher derived the qualitative data. Then, this chapter introduces the qualitative codes, the qualitative themes, and the participants’ statements under each theme, resulting from the raw data. Next, the researcher provides a summary of the qualitative data. Next, the quantitative data are analyzed yielding the participants’ individual scores on the persuasive essays along with an analysis of the participants’ scores on each attribute of the persuasive writing rubric. Finally, a quantitative summary concludes this chapter.
Qualitative Data
The qualitative data were used to answer three of the four research questions:
1. What is the nature of struggling high school writers’ initial thoughts and statements regarding their ability to write persuasive essays?
2. What is the nature of struggling high school writers’ thoughts and statements after the implementation of the STOP and DARE persuasive writing strategy?
3. What is the nature of any change of struggling high school writers’ thoughts and statements, after strategy implementation?
The qualitative data for this study were drawn from five sources:
1) Pre-intervention semi-structured interviews, which were used to answer research question 1;
2) After-intervention semi-structured interviews, which were used to answer research questions 2 and 3; 45
3) Audio recordings of the sessions, which were used to answer research questions 1, 2, and 3;
4) The researcher’s observations and notes, which were used to answer research question 1, 2, and 3;
5) Entries in the participants’ journals, which were used to answer research questions 1, 2, and 3.
The quantitative portion of this study answered research question 4.
Pre/Post Interview Comments
After transcribing the pre-intervention and post-intervention interview comments of the three participants, the researcher created tables of positive and negative qualitative phrases that each participant used. Table 1 shows LaLa’s interview comments. Table 2 shows Travis’ comments and Table 3 shows Moody’s comments. These tables allowed for easier comparison while answering the research questions.
Table 1
Interview Qualitative Phrase Chart – LaLa
Interview 1 negative
Interview 1 positive
Interview 2 negative
Interview 2 positive
Sometimes I am too bored to write
Sometimes I know what I can write
I don’t like to think really hard
Now that I have this course I can see I have improved
I want to write on my own topics
I like to write when they say be creative
My vocabulary is the most difficult part because I only like short spelling vocabulary
I can specify my point of view
I don’t always spell correctly
Being creative is easier than having to look into the
I don’t like learning exceeding bigger words
Writing is not as hard anymore 46
Interview 1 negative
Interview 1 positive
Interview 2 negative
Interview 2 positive
text to find what I am supposed to write
I am too lazy to get a dictionary
I feel more confident writing how I want to
In school they give you the subject to write.
It just flow now
sometimes I don’t know what I can write
Sometimes my thoughts come out organized
I have started off with a run on sentence a run on sentence or a chopped up sentence
instead of a regular sentence
I feel comfortable now
Sometimes I am confused
I think I can improve because I will try
My spelling skills are still iffy
I can think a lot more
sometimes I write something and it won’t sound right
when it won’t sound right I make it sound one way
my organization is better because I am working to receive what I need
I suck at spelling
I feel confident that I can fix it
I get help to support my topic
I am bad
I try to learn my best
I have gotten better over the past couple of months that we have been in here.
I can’t spell the harder words
Yes, I can improve my grammar
I have gotten better at spelling
Sometimes I can’t organize
I could always spell the simple words
I have like a variety of words to think about now.
Sometimes I write something and it won’t sound right
I am set on improving
I feel pretty good about my ability to learn and use new words
I feel I am getting told what to write
I learn facts after awhile and keep checking and seeing new words 47
Interview 1 negative
Interview 1 positive
Interview 2 negative
Interview 2 positive
The first thing that pops in my head is ok how long do I have to write this paper?
Instead of using the same words over and over again I have a variety of words to think about now
I feel awful that I am not doing better
I memorized the strategy and it
I don’t always have confidence
focuses my thinking about all the parts of the essay
Table 2
Interview Qualitative Phrase Chart – Travis
Interview 1 negative
Interview 1 positive
Interview 2 negative
Interview 2 positive
Too much pressure
Less difficult when I can write short
It’s harder to write longer pages when you only know a few words of it
Sometimes I feel comfortable
Don’t know what to write
I can only write a line
I don’t like to write about history or anything like that
I can get more ideas
Pressure when I have to write something specific
I try
It’s harder when the teacher gives you a subject you do not know much about
I feel more comfortable after learning the strategy
Can’t write two pages
At the house you have all the time you need
Makes me feel frustrated when the teacher gives you a subject you do not know much about
when you have an easier topic its easy
At school it is timed
Can get to my goal when not rushed
At school you need to write 4 pages
I feel ok writing out of school cause I can write 48
Interview 1 negative
Interview 1 positive
Interview 2 negative
Interview 2 positive
anything i want and have more words for it
Organization is the most difficult part
If I improve i would not struggle
At first vocabulary was difficult.
Writing outside of school is different because you can write either a paragraph or just a page
Don’t always know what order to put sentences in
I’d write more because i would know where to put the marks and the words
It’s easier to organize now after the sessions
Have to struggle to better my writing
Sometimes I know mostly every spelling word
I put stuff in place instead of just putting them wherever in a prompt
I get confused on punctuation
If i were taught I wouldn’t have so much spelling work
The brainstorming sheet helped me
don’t know where to put punctuation exactly
I have strong belief I can learn
I first look at it hen just keep going to see it there were anymore arguments or rejectments for
Feel pressured when I don’t know where to put it exactly
I am confident
the other side
I don’t know all the words
Now I am using more words than before
Not good at vocabulary
I feel good about my ability to learn the meaning of words
Just start writing no planning
There is a lot of change about how I feel.
49
Table 3
Interview Qualitative Phrase Chart –Moody
Interview 1 negative
Interview 1 positive
Interview 2 negative
Interview 2 positive
I am at a third grade level because my teachers tells me I am
The least difficult part is thinking of a sentence
The most difficult part is what to write beside the first idea
I think I have done very well in bettering myself
Every assignment takes a long time and fills up my time
I use the prompt
details and more ideas are harder
I write more
spelling is the most difficult part
I like writing quick like send a text
they take more time
it is easier figuring out the topic
I never remember the right way
Out of school there is actually someone there to help
I always have problems writing in complete sentences
Now I know how to answer a prompt
I don’t use the dictionary very much
as I progress throughout t he assignment I get better and start thinking more
there would be runoff sentences
the easiest thing when I am first starting thinking of what I am going to write down
When I send short texts I feel really non-smart because I forget how to spell words
That makes me feel good
writing in school you have to write in complete sentences
out of school is different now that I done this class I understand it more better
I feel I can’t organize my thoughts
I feel great that i can do it
when I text I do short words
this class helped me controlling runoff sentences
I don’t know how to put the words in the right sentence
It would be great to learn new stuff about writing
my grammar is still the same
I practiced more 50
Interview 1 negative
Interview 1 positive
Interview 2 negative
Interview 2 positive
My sentences are always too short and don’t have enough words
I would be more successful and comfortable feel
comfortable that I can learn more about writing
My vocabulary is still the same and I feel the same as when I first started
This strategy helped me organize my thoughts in English class today cause I was to do an essay about some mistake and because I used the cue cards in my pocket and it helped me really good.
I feel like I can’t use grammar correctly, sorry
I want to really think about what I want to write.
I didn’t learn any new words
It helped me in a good way like I knew what I was doing
My spelling skills make me feel that I am very alone
I won’t know what to put
I recognize more words and know how to look them up
I can’t do it without help I always ask
learning new words would help the reader understand my stories and my writing
Audio Recordings
Three audio recorders were placed around the room during each of the 15 after-school sessions so that all conversations could be recorded. However, very little talk occurred. In addition, some of the talk was not dealing with writing or what was happening in the sessions but with school in general. Therefore, it was determined to analyze the participants feeling comments about writing, or what was happening in the sessions only. These comments were 51
typed and short phrases were developed that showed were the comments were negative or positive. Tables 4 show LaLa’s comments, short phrase coding and positive/negative coding. Table 5 show Travis’s comments, short phrase coding and positive/negative coding, while Table
6 show Moody’s data.
Table 4
Stanza Analysis of Words Spoken During Sessions-LaLa
Stanza
Code Phrase
Positive+/Negative- Coding
Lots of work, difficult; I am not smart
I need someone there to help me out.
I can’t do that.
I don’t know how to put the words in the right sentences. Can’t do that correctly.
I wish I could spell better
I feel awful when I can’t think of words
I have to think about what I am writing about.
Makes me feel uncomfortable
I get better and start thinking more as I progress through the assignment.
I feel better as I do it.
I would be grateful to learn more stuff about writing.
It is boring to write all this out.
It is difficult to organize ideas
Sometimes I think that I have bad ideas.
Difficult (-)
Not Smart (-)
Help me (-)
Can’t do that (-)
Don’t know how (-)
Can’t do (-)
Wish (-)
Feel awful (-)
Have to think (-)
Uncomfortable (-)
Get better (+)
Feel better (+)
Grateful (+)
Boring (-)
Difficult (-)
Bad ideas (-)
52
Stanza
Code Phrase
Positive+/Negative- Coding
I like writing about sports. Last year the girls wanted a Lacrosse team and the school said no because they would have to make another team for the boys.
Today was hard trying to think like the opposite side because I already knew what side I was on.
But it is hard to think like the other person and write why they say those things.
I don’t know what I am doing.
Today I felt a big improvement
because I am understanding what is needed to write a better or longer paper
Like writing about sports (+)
Hard (-)
Already knew (+)
Hard (-)
Don’t know (-)
Big improvement (+)
Understanding (+)
Table 5
Stanza Analysis of Words Spoken During Sessions-Travis
Stanza
Code Phrase
Positive+/Negative- Coding
 Sometimes I feel confused because of the pieces of writing.
 I don’t know what form to use
 Every little idea is hard and confusing.
 It is good today
 I feel better to know how to use grammar and things for writing in sentences and essays.
 Sometimes I feel jealous of people who can write better
 I’m thinking that I want to write more sometimes
 It is difficult
 I don’t know what to write about.
 Sometimes I feel rejected
 I don’t know how to make sentences stronger
 I just write more
 I don’t know how to pick just one side of an
argument.
Confused (-)
don’t know (-)
hard and confusing (-)
good(+)
feel better (+)
jealous (-)
want to write more (+)
difficult (-)
don’t know (-)
rejected (-)
don’t know how (-)
just write more (+)
don’t know how(-) 53
Table 6
Stanza Analysis of Words Spoken During Sessions- Moody
Stanza
Code Phrase
Positive+/Negative- Coding
would give anything to improve
I can’t do as well
I don’t know what I’m doing
I want to improve
I always have bad ideas
I feel I am making a big improvement.
Because of this class I am having understanding of what is needed
I memorized the STOP-DARE
Today was good because I learned what good pieces are.
I used this strategy in English class today.
Give anything to improve (+)
Can’t do as well (-)
Don’t know (-)
Improve (+)
Have bad ideas (-)
Making a big improvement (+)
Having understanding (+)
Memorized (+)
Learned what good pieces are (+)
Used this strategy(+)
Developing Themes
Combining the information from the interview comments, session comments and journal comments, the researcher and the peer reviewers collaboratively derived three major themes. The themes included: (a) personal ability statements; (b) personal control statements and (c) personal feelings statements. These themes are tied to the phenomenon of self-efficacy as described by Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, and Perry, (2002), Bandura (2006), and Zimmerman, & Cleary, (2006). 54
Personal Ability Statements
The first theme to emerge from the data analysis was Personal Ability Statements. Personal ability statements were those statements the participants made that reflected what they thought they could or could not do regarding writing persuasive essays. The participants expressed problems with their writing ability. At the beginning of the study, most of the ability statements were negative. When the researcher asked the participants about their writing ability, the participants answered with “I don’t know what form to use” or “I don’t know how to make sentences stronger.”
Lala’s personal ability statements. LaLa wrote in her journal that she “had poor organizational skills”. She explained in a discussion with the researcher and the other participants, “Sometimes I can’t get organized. Sometimes my thoughts come out organized and sometimes I am confused.” She also mentioned that she had a hard time “thinking about the other side of a persuasive argument.” When asked about her ability to organize thoughts she responded, “It affects my self-esteem” and “I can get organized only about 50% of the time.”
Spelling was also a difficult part of a writing assignment for LaLa. She remarked, “Getting a dictionary was also not something I did regularly.” She also felt that she was not good at spelling especially the “harder” words. Her responses to the after-session interview showed a slight change in the positive direction. She commented, “My spelling skills are still iffy, but I have gotten better. I still have to use the dictionary and practice more. I expanded my vocabulary and I use the dictionary to correct my spelling, and then I remember how to spell.”
In responding to the second survey, LaLa stated, “I feel more comfortable writing in school because I can see where I have improved and how I can specify my point of view.” She explained that she felt her persuasive writing improved because, “I learned to write about the 55
other side, to say their argument.” LaLa also explained how she adapted the STOP and DARE strategy for her own use:
Recognizing her weaknesses, LaLa expressed confidence in her ability to improve from the very start of the study. She told the researcher that she thought she could improve her writing because she would try hard. She also said, “I feel confident that I can fix it.” LaLa’s confidence in her ability was even stronger after the study sessions. She explained to the researcher:
I feel comfortable about writing now. I can think a lot more. The writing is not as hard no more. I don’t like to think hard. My vocabulary is still the most difficult part of an assignment, but it just like flows now. My ability to organize my thoughts when I write is way better. I have gotten better at grammar like over the past couple of months that we have been in here. I would have started off like with a run on sentence or like a chopped up sentence. I feel pretty good about my ability to learn and use new words cause then I learn facts after a while I keep checking and seeing, learning new words
Travis’s Personal Ability Statements. Travis was very specific when he felt he only had the ability to “write a line”. He could not write “two pages.” He expressed that he “didn’t know about his vocabulary” and stated, “I’m not very good.” When asked about his ability to improve Travis was very hesitant. He said, “If I could improve I would not have to struggle as much.” He made it clear that he felt that he struggled a great deal. Travis also expressed more confidence in his ability when he responded to the after-intervention questionnaire. He told the researcher, “I will be able to get more better in writing and probably one day I will write my own book. That is a goal I possibly have, I feel better about my ability to write than I started with.” 56
When the researcher asked Travis about his abilities when he first got an assignment, Travis responded with “upset”. He explained that he felt upset because he “couldn’t do it.” He explained:
Sometimes I feel confused because of the pieces of writing. I don’t know what form to use. Do I write a story, news article, or book? Every little idea is hard and confusing. This makes me feel frustrated. My organization is the most difficult part of writing.
Travis also wanted to improve his spelling. He said, “I would be a better writer if I could correctly spell more words.” He also stated that he felt he, “improved after the sessions”. He remarked, “At first spelling was difficult, but now since I know how to spell correctly, I don’t need to look back at the dictionary that much.”
Travis saw his abilities to write a persuasive essay in terms of specific skills. He concentrated on essay length, vocabulary, and organization. He was also concerned about his spelling ability.
Moody’s Personal Ability Statements. When asked about his ability Moody responded, “I feel like I can’t do that.” When asked to explain Moody continued, “I cannot put words in the right sentences. My sentences are always too short and don’t have enough words.” He was questioned about his ability to use grammar correctly and he responded, “I feel that I can’t do that correctly either, sorry.” When the researcher asked him what made him feel that way, he related that he was “always getting corrected and marked wrong.” Moody indicated he “never remembered the right way to write.” He also stated:
Sometimes I do not follow the prompts because I do not have the ideas. When I am, first given an assignment I feel real uncomfortable. I don’t always understand what I’m supposed to write about. 57
Moody stated that the most difficult part of writing was spelling because “I can never remember the right way”. Moody did not use the dictionary very much. He felt “it slowed him down” and he was “in too much of a rush”.
While spelling was still difficult for Moody, he did express improvement in his responses to the after-intervention interview. He stated that, “I done better in spelling, but I still look up in the dictionary or the thesaurus book. I recognize more words now that I know how to look them up.”
In response to the second interview however, Moody stated that the least difficult part of a writing assignment was, “figuring out a topic because now I know how to answer a prompt”. He added, “I learned to write about the other side, to say their argument.” Moody changed how he felt about his writing ability. He stated, “I think I have done very well in bettering myself. I write more. I always have problems with writing in complete sentences. This class helped me correct that.” The STOP and DARE strategy was very important to Moody. He explained,
STOP and DARE made me feel successful, like I can do essays. I think about this strategy. It helped me with the writing using new writing skills. I used it in English today cause (sic) I was to do an essay about some mistake. I knew what to write.
Moody’s view of his own ability to write persuasive essays changed over the course of the study. At the beginning, his sense of self-efficacy concerning his ability to write was almost non-existent. By the end of the study, he saw himself as successful.
Personal Control Statements
The second theme that emerged from the data analysis was Personal Control Statements. Personal Control Statements are those ideas expressed by the participants that communicate their desire 58
or ability to manage their choices of topic, time, and place regarding persuasive writing. Having control over which topics they could write about was very important to the LaLa, Travis, and Moody.
LaLa’s Personal Control Statements. LaLa complained about time constraints and pressure to complete writing. LaLa said, “I don’t like being told what to write.” LaLa said, “I like to write about girls’ rights and I like to write about sports.” LaLa commented on her personal control during the after-session interview. She said, “The progress through the assignment is not as difficult as when I first started because I am able to see what my options are.”
Travis’s Personal Control Statements. When the researcher asked the participants to describe, what they liked least about writing in school, Travis commented, “At home I have all the time I need.” Travis thought that history was “boring” and stated, “I don’t like writing about this stuff.”
During the after-intervention interview, Travis explained:
I feel more comfortable after learning the strategy. I do not like writing hard topics, but the strategy helps. It is harder when the teacher gives you a subject you do not know much about, it makes me feel frustrated. It is difficult when you have to write longer pages when you only know like a few words for it, not like stuff about history or anything like that. I progressed more in boring stuff. That is why I progressed in writing. It feels better to write something interesting cause I have more experience on writing that instead of picking up another kind.
Travis stated, “I feel too much pressure when I have to write something specific.” Travis also named time when speaking about control. He stated, “Having timed writing assignments makes me feel rushed.”
59
Moody’s Personal Control Statements. Moody perceived a lack of control at the start of the study. Assignments were difficult Moody explained, “I want to write what I want, not what the prompt says.” He saw himself as he thought his teachers did. He told the researcher, “I am at a third grade level because my teachers tell me I am.” He was not able to see himself outside of his teachers’ judgments. Like the other two participants, time concerned him. He thought, “Every assignment takes a long time and fills up my time.” Towards the end of the study, Moody was able to show some control and express his growth. He told the researcher, “I think about the strategy to learn new writing skills.”
Personal Emotional Statements
The third theme derived from the data analysis was Personal Emotional Statements. Personal emotional statements are those expressions of emotions and personal beliefs that the participants articulated throughout the study.
LaLa’s Personal Emotional Statements. At the beginning of the study, LaLa’s feelings were decidedly negative. Writing had an effect on her emotion. She told the researcher, “I am too bored to write.” LaLa also judged herself harshly when she stated, “I am bad.” Being unsure of herself was another emotion that she expressed when she said, “Sometimes I am confused and I feel awful that I am not doing better.” As the study progressed, her statements became more positive. During the post-intervention interview, she told the researcher, “I feel more confident writing. I feel comfortable now.” When asked about her feelings during a writing assignment, LaLa responded, “I feel confident that I can do it better.”
Travis’s Personal Emotional Statements. Travis was certain about what he liked and disliked about writing persuasive essays. He said, “I don’t like to write about history or anything like that.” This participant also indicated frustration as a personal feeling. He explained, “It 60
makes me feel frustrated when the teacher gives you a subject you do not know much about.” Travis believed he had “bad ideas.” He did differentiate between writing in school and writing at home. He described his feelings when he said, “I feel ok writing out of school cause I can write anything I want and have more words for it” Travis also said that he felt better “writing something interesting because I have more experience.” Another emotion Travis expressed was feeling upset. He told the researcher, “I feel upset when someone puts a writing assignment down in front of me.”
At the end of the study Travis responded, “I sometimes feel comfortable so that I can get more ideas or how to write an essay or a prompt or just a paragraph.” Travis also expressed less confusion about finding the words to put into his essay. He responded, ‘There is a lot of change from the beginning of this class until now. There is a lot of just like words like a statement that puts my mind into the meaning of it.” Travis also referred to one aspect of the STOP and DARE strategy that was especially helpful to him. He explained, “The brain storming sheet helped. By first looking at it, I stop and then I just keep going to see if there are any more arguments or rejectments from the other side.”
Moody’s Personal Emotional Statements. Moody expressed being “uncomfortable when I’m first given an assignment.” He also was not sure of himself. When asked by the researcher to describe why he was uncomfortable, Moody responded, “Every little idea is hard and confusing. He went on the explain he also felt he was “judged too much” which made him feel “awful”
Later in the study, Moody began to feel more successful. During the post-intervention semi-structured essay he told the researcher, “I think I have done very well in bettering myself.” Moody told the researcher, “Using the STOP and DARE strategy made me feel successful like I can do essays.”
61
Observational Field Notes Taken by Researcher
During the course of the study, the researcher observed the participants’ nonverbal behavior during each session and recorded the changes observed over the course of the study. At the beginning, the three participants did not know each other. They were hesitant to communicate with each other and sat separately, with several desks between them. Their facial expressions were tentative and they avoided eye contact with each other. By the end of the third session, the participants engaged in friendly conversation. As the study progressed, the participants commented on each other’s strengths and weaknesses, offered advice on improvement, and collaborated on planning and organizing their essays.
While writing the first essay, during the second session, none of the participants used pre-writing strategies. The participants did not pre-plan, make notes, or use any organizing strategies. LaLa wrote the most, filling a whole page. Moody wrote the least, not completing a whole paragraph. He was restless and could not stay in his seat more than a few minutes. He pulled out his phone and texted. Then Moody returned to his seat. Travis was concentrating very intently while writing and did not ask any questions. A detailed summary of the observation notes are summarized below. Table 7 contains data information for LaLa, Table 8 contains data information for Travis and Table 9 contains data information for Moody.
62
Table 7
Researcher’s Observations of LaLa
Pre-Intervention
Stage
Intervention Stage
Post-Intervention
Stage
Shy
Sitting by herself
Does not participate in inter-participant communication
Answers researcher’s questions
Sits upright and pays attention
Avoids eye contact with other participants but does not hesitate with researcher
Offers personal background
Does not use planning strategies when writing
On time.
Somewhat hesitant when
Participating in group discussions more
Is willing to sit closer to other participants to collaborate
Looks directly at other participants
Memorized STOP and DARE strategy and Recites strategy before group
Does not want to read essays out loud
Using planning
Interacts with the other participants
Volunteers ideas
Likes to read essays out loud
Writes several pages
Using planning materials such as brainstorm sheet
Marks stages of STOP and DARE on her drafts
Completes at least one draft
rejects other side
63
Table 8
Researcher’s Observations of Travis
Pre-Intervention
Stage
Intervention Stage
Post-Intervention
Stage
Sat alone across from the others
Very hesitant to speak
Spoke in a whisper
Did not volunteer in group discussions
Shrugged shoulders many times when responding to interview questions
Wrote bent over his desk with arm covering paper
Arrived on time
Could not take a stand
Memorized STOP and DARE strategy
Writing in paragraphs instead of disconnected sentences
Opening up body language
Volunteers more
Taking a stand but not discussing other side of argument
Sat closer to others to facilitate group instruction
Offered ideas and suggestions
Looked researcher in the eye when responding to interview questions
Had a smile on his face.
Sat up straight
Wrote up to a full page using planning techniques
Took one side of argument and rejected the other
64
Table 9
Researcher’s Observations of Moody
Pre-Intervention Stage
Intervention Stage
Post Intervention Stage
Came in late
Distracted
Wanted to keep texting
Sat by door
Kept looking into the hallway
Wrote only one or two lines
Kept looking at clock
Fidgeted
Did not contribute
Did not use any planning techniques
Did not take a stand
Continued to come in late
Making more eye contact
Starting to contribute to discussion
Used brain –storming sheet to pre-plan
Not always including every necessary item in his plan
Taking a stand but not using examples to back it up
Texting less
Writing paragraphs, not just disconnected sentences
Still fidgeting
Using cue cards and brain-storming sheet for planning.
Making connection between STOP and DARE strategy and essay writing
Contributing to class discussion
Not texting
Developing ideas
65
Answering the Qualitative Research Questions
Research Question 1
The data from the pre-intervention semi-structured interviews, and initial observations, audio recordings and journal writing were used to answer research question 1 (What is the nature of struggling high school writers’ initial thoughts and statements regarding their ability to write persuasive essays?). The pre-intervention semi-structured interviews showed there were more negative comments than there were positive. Table 1 shows LaLa had 16 negative comments and 9 positive comments. Table 2 shows Travis had 14 negative comments and 11 positive comments. Table 3 shows Moody had 12 negative comments and 10 positive statements.
On examination, the initial audio recordings and journal writing responses also showed more negative responses than positive. In addition, the observational field notes showed these students had more negative body language. Thus, the initial nature of these struggling high school students toward writing was very negative.
Research Question 2
The data from the after-intervention semi-structured interviews, and from the last two audio recordings and journal writing, as well as observational field notes were used to answer research question 2 (What is the nature of struggling high school writers’ thoughts and statements after the implementation of the STOP and DARE persuasive writing strategy?). The data from the after-interview shows that there were more positive comments. Table 1 shows LaLa had 6 negative comments and 16 positive comments.. Table 2 shows Travis had 6 negative comments and 14 positive comments. Table 3 shows Moody had 11 negative comments and 12 positive statements. 66
While examining the two final audio recordings and journal writing the responses also showed more positive responses. In addition, the observational field notes showed these students were more enthusiastic about attending the latter writing session, more willing to talk and exchange ideas as well as writing more words on the essay. Thus, after the students participated in the STOP and DARE writing sessions their attitudes had improved as well as their writing skills.
Research Question 3
The data from the pre and after-intervention semi-structured interviews, the initial and last two audio recordings and journal writing, as well as initial and ending observational field notes were used to answer research question #3(What is the nature of any change of struggling high school writers’ thoughts and statements, after strategy implementation?). Comparing all the data sources showed a positive change even though it was small. Thus, these students did improve not only their attitudes but their writing skills with the STOP and DARE intervention.
Quantitative Data
This portion of the study answered Research question 4, (What is the impact of instruction of the self-regulation strategy called STOP and DARE on struggling high school writers’ persuasive essay writing achievement?) The quantitative sources for this study were the scores of the eight persuasive essays written in response to prompts administered over the course of this study from all three participants.
The first three essay prompts were administered in order to establish a pre-intervention baseline (McCormick, 2005). The last essay was scored as a final, after-intervention baseline. The quantitative ratings were generated from the rubric the Texas Education Agency developed for the English II STAAR state assessment (TEA 2011). Two peer reviewers, both doctoral 67
students and classroom teachers who were familiar with the STAAR writing rubric, independently scored the essays that comprised the pre/post -intervention baselines without consulting with the researcher. The researcher met with the peer reviewers to compare scores. All the scores were very close. The peer reviewers and the researcher reached inter-rater reliability by having almost identical scores. They were able to reach 100% agreement. These peer reviewers received training from their perspective school districts as well as from Region X Service Center regarding the scoring procedures. This training included professional development workshops at the beginning several school years. Finally, the researcher reviewed these procedures with the reviewers in order to make sure all three parties agreed on the scoring procedures and understanding of narrative descriptors of each attribute of the rubric.
First, each persuasive writing essay was scored by attributes. Each reviewer scored the attributes independently from each other and from the researcher. TEA divided the rubric used for scoring so one could get a better understanding of which attribute of writing the student needed more help with. The three attributes were a) organization and progression, b) development of ideas, and c) use of language/conventions. The maximum score any participant could have achieved on any attribute was 4. Ratings under organization and progression are (a), the underlying structure, (b), ideas related to the prompt, and (c), progress of ideas. Under development of ideas, the strength of argument and reasoning, and evidence are rated. The writer’s word choice, spelling, sentence construction and grammar were rated under language and conventions.
Second, the overall writing score for each essay was determined by adding the three attribute scores and finding the average. The baseline scoring was determined by adding the overall writing score for essays 1-3 and then finding the average. 68
LaLa
As seen in Table 10, LaLa’s scores ranged from a baseline of 2.00 to 3.00 for her post writing score. All of her writing scores improved for each session after baseline was established. She scored highest on essay 8 (Should school hours be changed to start high school later?) with an overall score of 3. Her self-chosen essay (Girls should have the same quality sports facilities as boys in high school) received a 2.70, which was not her highest, but was above baseline.
Table 10
LaLa’s Attribute and Overall Total Writing Scores
Essay Number
Organization/
Progression
Development of Ideas
Use of Language/ Conventions
Overall Score
1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.00
2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.00
3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.00
BASELINE
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4
3.5
2.5
2.0
2.70
5
3.5
2.5
2.0
2.70
6
3.5
3.0
2.0
2.80
7
3.5
3.0
2.0
2.70
Post - 8
3.5
3.0
2.5
3.00
Average
2.52
For the attribute Organization and Progression, during baseline LaLa demonstrated weak persuasion skills and did not have very much control over the flow of her ideas. However, she was able to relate most of her ideas to the topic, but did not use any language to connect her 69
ideas to the prompt. At this point, she only used perfunctory transitions between ideas. However, by essay 7 (Session 10) she was able to make excellent use of transitions and adequately organize and progress the ideas in her paragraphs, as her arguments were coherent and she was responsive to the prompt, even though her conclusions were still somewhat weak. In addition, she remained weak in spelling and punctuation.
For attribute Development of Ideas, LaLa did state specific ideas at the beginning of the study. However, they were not well developed and they were very brief. She did not pick a side. Instead, she wrote as if she was arguing for both sides of the issue. She had a limited understanding of the elements of the persuasive writing task. However, after the initial instruction in the STOP and DARE strategy, she progressed rapidly showing an increase in thoughtfulness, using transition words between ideas, and taking one side of an argument, while rejecting the other. By the last session, she had progressed even further by using a topic sentence, had smooth transitions and used good examples.
For attribute Language and Conventions, LaLa was very weak. Her spelling was poor while writing every essay. However, she did stop sing slang words like “gonna” and her sentence structure improved. For instance, in her later essays LaLa used complex and compound sentences to express her ideas. As correct use of commas increased, her use of plurals and word choice reflected growth and better awareness of conventions.
Travis
As seen in Table 11, Travis’s overall all scores ranged from a baseline of 1.0 to 1.30 for his post writing score. All of his writing scores improved from his baseline score. He scored highest on essay 4 and 6 with a score of 2.0. However, on his self-chosen prompt (Students in high school should be able to write on any topic they want to) he scored a 1.30.
70
Table 11
Travis’s Attribute and Overall Total Writing Scores
For attribute, Organization and Progression Travis made a little progress. During baseline Travis wrote topic statements but did not always stay on topic throughout the essays. His lack of transitions was very evident and his arguments were not focused. His sentences were random and unclear, which made them difficult to follow. Travis did not elaborate in any way and his ideas were not deep enough. By the last essay (session 14), Travis still did not use transitions nor did he make his position clear. His ideas were still random and difficult to follow. Travis made improvements in conventions over the course of the study, but this attribute was still weak.
Essay Number
Organization/
Progression
Development of Ideas
Use of Language/
Conventions
Overall Scores
1
1,0
1.0
1.0
1.00
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.00
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.00
BASELINE
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4
2.0
2.5
1.5
2.00
5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.30
6
2.0
2.5
1.5
2.00
7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.30
Post - 8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.30
1.36 71
For attribute Development of Ideas, Travis’s progression of skills was inconsistent as he scored between 1.5 and 2.5. His initial essays showed minimal idea development and he did not elaborate or provide examples, which caused insufficient development of his ideas. Travis’s writing developed to the point that in his fourth essay he was able to provide a strong topic sentence and take a stand and reject a side. However, in his last essay, Travis was able to develop his ideas, but did not elaborate on his reasons or provide examples. His improvement was small, but he still made gains on developing his ideas over the course of the study.
For the attribute Use of Language/Conventions, Travis had small gains. For his baseline, he wrote very simplistic sentences and had very little command of punctuation or capitalization. This affected the reader’s understanding. However, by the end of the study, Travis’s spelling increased a great deal, as did his use of the dictionary. This was the weakest attribute for Travis as it remained at 1.5.
Moody
Moody overall writing scores ranged from a baseline of 1.0 to 1.30. All of Moody’s persuasive writing overall score improved after his baseline scores. Moody’s overall score of 1.3 on essays 5, 6 and 8 were his highest scores. However, on his self-chosen prompt (Kids should have more time off in the summer) for essay 7, Moody only had an overall writing score of 1.00, which was no improvement from his baseline.
72
Table 12
Moody’s Attribute and Overall Total Writing Scores
Essay Number
Organization/
Progression
Development
Of Ideas
Use of Language/
Conventions
Overall Score
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.00
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.00
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.00
BASLINE
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.00
5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.30
6
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.30
7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.00
8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.30
1.11
For attribute Organization and Progression showed no progress even though one essay showed a little improvement. His essays for baseline had no organization and only wrote a single paragraph. He did not restate the prompt, nor did he take a side. His ideas did not progress because he did not use transitions or logic to move from one idea to the next. By the end, he used minimal transitions but the progression of his arguments showed progress, but it was still illogical and random.
The attribute Development of Ideas was the strongest, as there was some fluctuation in the scores. When writing his baseline essays he did not elaborate or use any examples to explain his point of view. However, as the study progressed, Moody was able to use examples and give 73
reasons for rejecting the other side. He used language that made his position clear, but each subsequent essay used the same type of language and became formulaic.
For attribute Use of Language/Conventions, Moody showed no growth. His baseline essays showed a great deal of difficulty. He used very little punctuation and was not consistent with his tense agreement. His sentences were simplistic which disrupted the fluency of his arguments. Many times Moody did not use complete sentences and his subject-verb agreement remained inconsistent. Moody showed some improvement in conventions in his last two essays but not enough to change his scores.
Answering the Quantitative Research Question
Because there were only 15 sessions and only 10 of these sessions included work on the STOP DARE intervention, the answer to research question #4 (What is the impact of instruction of the self-regulation strategy called STOP and DARE on struggling high school writers’ persuasive essay writing achievement) is slight, but positive. There was some change within both the attribute scoring, as well as the overall scoring. All three participants showed some growth from baseline scores to final scores.
Looking at the overall writing scores, LaLa gained the most, moving from a baseline of 2.0 to 3.00 with an average of 2.52. Travis’s scores changed less than LaLa’s did but did show growth from his baseline of 1 00 to his final writing score of 1.3 with an average of 1.36. Moody’s scores changed the least, as his baseline score was 1.00 and he moved to1.3 with an average of only 1.11.
74
Examining the attributes showed different strengths and weaknesses for each participant. LaLa’s strongest attribute was Organization/Progression of Ideas. Travis and Moody were both stronger in Development of Ideas. However, all three students were weakest in Use of Language/Conventions.
Summary
Chapter 4 restated the purpose and questions. The qualitative data was presented and 1-3 were answered. Next the quantitative data was presented and question 4 was answered. In Chapter 5, the discussion of the data will occur.
75
Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF THE STUDY AND THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSI0ONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECCOMENDATIONS
In this chapter, the researcher reviews the purpose of the study, the findings relative to the research questions, and the limitations/ delimitations of the study. Next, the researcher discusses the meanings of the findings, leading to several conclusions. The implications and suggestions for classroom practice are also explored. Finally, the researcher ends with several ideas for future studies.
Purpose
Research indicated strategies are effective for enhancing writing achievement (De La Paz, 1997; Hilden & Presley, 2007; Reynolds & Perin, 2009). However, studies are still needed to determine the impact of specific strategies on enhancing adolescent students’ persuasive writing (Cramer and Mason, 2008; De La Paz, 1999; Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005).
The two purposes of this study were to examine the phenomenon of self-efficacy from the participants’ point of view, using a qualitative approach. This study also helped to examine the quantitative impact that using the self-regulation strategy called STOP and DARE had on struggling high school writers’ persuasive writing, as most of the research on this strategy has been done on the elementary level, and very few studies exist with high school students as the participants (De La Paz, 1999).
The following research questions led the study:
1. What is the nature of struggling high school writers’ initial thoughts and statements regarding their ability to write persuasive essays? 76
2. What is the nature of struggling high school writers’ thoughts and statements after the implementation of the STOP and DARE persuasive writing strategy?
3. What is the nature of the change in struggling high school writers’ thoughts and statements after the implementation of the STOP and DARE persuasive writing strategy?
4. How does the STOP and DARE strategy impact struggling high school writers’ development of persuasive essays?
Discussion by Research Question
Research Question 1
Examining the initial data showed that at the beginning of the study, most of the comments and body language were negative, as the participants had no confidence in the ability to write, nor did they like to write. Bandura (1997) stated that struggling students did not display confidence or persistence when engaged in persuasive writing tasks. He noted that these students did not consistently use the planning, revising, and editing that many teachers, over many years, introduced to them (Bandura).
During the initial interviews, LaLa used only slightly more negative phrases than positive phrases. However, both Travis and Moody used considerably more negative phrases about writing. LaLa used phrases such as “I suck at spelling” and “I feel awful that I am not doing better.” Travis used phrases such as “too much pressure,” “don’t know what to write,” and I “feel upset when someone puts a writing assignment down in front of me”. Moody’s negative statements were stronger and more emphatic. He used phrases such as “I never remember the right way,” “I feel really non-smart,” and “I am always getting corrected and marked wrong.”
Initially, LaLa recognized her technical persuasive writing flaws and used the study sessions to improve her writing products. For example, LaLa commented positively about her 77
willingness to improve. She said, “Sometimes I know what I can write. I like to write when I can be creative. I think I can improve because I will try.”
Travis, during the pre-intervention interview, was very unsure of himself and seemed confused about ways to improve his writing. He expressed optimism about being able to improve, and even said that someday he wanted to write a book. This participant showed apprehension when attempting to write longer paragraphs and essays but he acknowledged, “It is less difficult when I can write short passages.” He spoke in whiskers and appeared very shy. Travis’s pre-intervention self-efficacy statements reflected on his lack of skills rather than any deficiencies in his own personality. He recognized that weaknesses existed, but he displayed a great deal of confusion about how to cor