Teaching writing in primary education: Classroom practice, time, teachers’ beliefs and skills.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to provide insight into the current practice of writing instruction in Dutch primary education, as a stepping stone for designing and implementing sustainable innovations that could satisfy both practitioners and policymakers. We investigated the extent to which three domain-specific approachescommunicative writing, process writing, and writing strategy instruction-and general features of high-quality instruction were implemented in writing lessons in the upper grades of primary schools. We also examined the learning time for writing, teachers' views on writing and writing instruction, how efficacious they feel about teaching writing, and how skilled they are in the writing instruction domain. Lastly, we explored relations between classroom practices, learning time, and teachers' beliefs and skills through correlation analysis, to identify potential aids and constraints to guide innovations in writing education. Participants were 61 teachers of 45 primary schools in the Netherlands. Data were collected through questionnaires, stimulated recall interviews and over 100 lesson observations. Results indicated that the three domain-specific approaches for writing instruction were insufficiently implemented in Dutch classrooms, as were differentiating and the teaching of learning strategies. The allocated learning time was also insufficient, but the realized learning time and the extent to which teachers promoted active learning were satisfactory, providing a strong basis for curricular improvement. Several relations were found between teachers' classroom practices, learning time, and teachers' beliefs and skills in the domain of writing instruction. Finally, we discuss options for sustainable innovations of writing instruction in this national context. Educational Impact and Implications StatementThe aim of this study was to provide insight into the current state of writing instruction in the upper primary level in the Netherlands, as a knowledge base for designing sustainable curricular innovations including professional development programs. The results indicated that teachers evaluate their writing lessons, are able to assess the communicative effectiveness of students' texts, promote active learning, and use the allocated learning time efficiently. However, not enough writing lessons are taught in Dutch primary schools. Also, little attention is paid to communicative aspects of writing, the writing process, teaching strategies, differentiating, and tracking students' writing development. Moreover, teachers' efficacy in teaching writing is moderate. The correlational network between teachers' beliefs and skills and classroom practices suggests that innovations must take these belief systems into account to be successful and sustainable. Overall, this study provides valuable clues for designing, adjusting, and implementing innovations in writing education in a particular region which could meet the concerns of both practitioners and policymakers.

Effects of writing instruction on adolescents’ knowledge of writing and text quality in history

“…Furthermore, in each of the three interventions students' writing performance was measured with just one writing task at pretest and posttest. This is problematic, because previous studies have shown that students' writing scores tend to differ strongly across tasks (Schoonen, 2012;Rietdijk et al, 2018). In future studies, more writing tasks are needed to estimate students´ writing skill more precisely.…”

“…For our history teachers, who taught writing for the first time, direct and explicit writing strategy instruction might have been a step too far. After all, writing strategy instruction is still relatively uncommon in Dutch writing education (Mottart et al, 2009;Rietdijk, van Weijen, Janssen, van den Bergh, & Rijlaarsdam, 2018), and difficult to implement in a normal classroom practice (De La Paz, 2007). A next step for these teachers might be to include explicit process related writing instruction in their teaching.…”

High-quality writing instruction in Dutch primary education. A framework for national assessment

“…Writing strategy instruction, for instance, is rather uncommon in Dutch primary education, as shown by Rietdijk, Van Weijen, Janssen, Van den Bergh, & Rijlaarsdam (2018) in an analysis of teacher interviews and classroom observations. However, recently two writing programs based on strategy instruction have been developed and tested in Dutch primary schools: Tekster (Bouwer & Koster, 2016) and Better Writing (Rietdijk, Janssen, Van Weijen, Van den Bergh, & Rijlaarsdam, 2017).…”

“…We examined the instruments used in 14 different studies. We started by examining the instruments used in the most recent Dutch periodic writing assessments (Krom et al, 2004;Kuhlemeier et al, 2013) and instruments that were used in recent Dutch and Flemish research into writing in elementary education (De Smedt et al, 2016;Franssen & Aarnoutse, 2003;Henkens, 2010;Rietdijk et al, 2018). We supplemented this group of studies with instruments from studies used as a theoretical basis for the Writing Framework (Kyriakides et al, 2009;Van de Grift, 2007) and with questionnaires developed by Steve Graham's research group (Cutler & Graham, 2008;Gilbert & Graham, 2010;Graham et al, 2002;.…”

Peer talk in collaborative writing of primary school students: A conversation analytic study of student interaction in the context of inquiry learning

“…The insights may benefit writing education in Dutch primary schools, which may be generally characterized as a process-oriented approach from a broad perspective on writing (Hoogeveen, 2018;Van Gelderen, 2010), although research in the primary school classrooms, among which periodic inquiry from the Dutch Inspectorate for Education, has shown that writing education is predominantly product-oriented (Pullens, 2012;Bonset & Hoogeveen, 2015;Henkens, 2012). A recent inquiry by Rietdijk et al (2018) demonstrated however that teachers mainly support a view of writing as a way to create a text involving personal thinking (a transactional view on writing; White & Bruning, 2005), rather than as a way to provide readers with information from authoritative sources (regarding 'correct writing' as the main focus of writing instruction). Observing students while writing together and taking a more process oriented approach to the joint construction of texts, including attention to the role of creative interthinking (Mercer & Littleton, 2010), may be important conditions for optimizing writing practices in the primary school classrooms.…”