RM Winter 2016 FLIP

24 / 88

Reading Matters
Research Matters
| 22| Reading Matters | Volume 16 • Winter 2016 |
of instructional strategies used. We know survey data may be
less reliable than classroom observations because teachers may
report what they want to do rather than reporting what actually
happens in their classrooms (Mayer, 1999). We are cautious
interpreting the results of this study due to the possibility of
response bias which sometimes occurs when teachers with
positive dispositions toward the topic of the survey (e.g.,
writing) respond to the survey more frequently than teachers
with a negative disposition. In addition, we are aware that
survey respondents sometimes interpret items differently.
It is also important to note that this study only allows us to
examine teachers’ perceptions of classroom practices. Therefore,
the survey design does not encompass school or district policies
that also shape instruction, nor does it examine all possible aspects
of writing instruction due to the necessary brief nature of online
surveys. Though fairly representative of the larger population,
we also know the study is limited given the sample is fairly small.
While still informative, this study would need to be replicated
with a wider pool of teachers in order to be fully generalizable.
In conclusion, it is encouraging that state legislation such as
the Read to Succeed Act has placed an increased emphasis on
writing instruction in South Carolina and that teachers report using
many effective writing strategies identified in current research.
This study helps identify roadblocks that teachers may face in
implementing these strategies and provides many implications
for teachers, teacher educators, and professional development
personnel in order to support teachers in improving their writing
practices. As educators’ literacy paradigms continue to shift
to see writing as equally important as reading, students will
experience the benefits of more balanced literacy instruction.
References
Achieve, Inc. (2005) Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared
for College andWork? Washington, DC: Peter D. Hart Research Associates/Public
Opinion Strategies.
Birman, B., Desimone, Garet, M., & Porter, A. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. (1998). Scaffolding emergent writing in the zone of
proximal development. Language and Literacy Learning, 3(2), 1-18.
Brandenburg, M. L. (2002). Advanced math? Write! Educational Leadership, 60 (3),
67-69.
Bruner, J. S. (1966).Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Burns, M.S., & Casbergue, R. (1992). Parent-child interaction in a letter writing
context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 289-231.
Chapman, M. L. (1996). More than spelling: Widening the lens on emergent
writing. Reading Horizons, 36, 317-339.
Clay, M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Cutler, L. & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national
survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907-919.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s
future. Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. New
York: National Commission on teaching and America’s Future.
De Smedt, F. & Van Keer, H. (2014). A research synthesis on effective writing
instruction in primary education. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112,
693-701.
Dooley, C. M. & Assaf, L. C. (2009). Contexts matter: Two teachers’language arts
instruction in this high stakes era. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 354-391.
Ghiso, M. P. (2011). Writing that matters: Collaborative inquiry and authoring
practices in a first grade class.Language Arts, 88(5), 346-355.
Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades
4–6: A national survey. Elementary School Journal, 110, 494–518.
Graham. S., Harris, K. R., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (2001). Teacher efficacy in
writing: A construct validation with primary grade teachers. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 5(2), 177-202.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., & MacArthur, C. (2003). Primary
grades’ teachers instructional adaptations for struggling writers”A national
survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 279-292.
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of
writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104(4), 879-896.
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for
adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.
Hoogeven, M. & van Gelderen, A. (2013). What works in writing with peer
response? A review of intervention studies with children and adolescents.
Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 473-502.
Hutchison, A. & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’perceptions of integrating
information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national
survey in the U.S. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 308-329.
Lane, K. L., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Little, M. A., Sandmel, K., & Brindle, M.
(2010). Story writing: The effects of self-regulated strategy development for
second-grade students with writing and behavioral difficulties.Journal of Special
Education, 44, 107 – 128.
Lang, M., & Fox, L. (2004). Breaking with tradition: Providing effective professional
development for instructional personnel supporting students with severe
disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(2), 163-173.
Lienemann, T. O., Graham, S., Leader-Janssen, B., & Reid, R. (2006). Improving the
writing performance of struggling writers in second grade. The Journal of Special