motivating the retained student - lagrange collegehome.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced programs/eds...

Motivating the Retained Student

REACHING THE CHILD LEFT BEHIND: MOTIVATING THE RETAINED STUDENT

A Project submitted

by

Joanie Blanks

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

2011

1


Approval Page

REACHING THE CHILD LEFT BEHIND: MOTIVATING THE RETAINED STUDENT

Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this project is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This project does not include

proprietary or classified information.

Joanie C Blanks

Certificate of Approval:__________________________Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D.Associate Professor and Co-Project AdvisorEducation Department

2

, 12/12/10,

Add Dr. Sharon as co-advisor


Abstract

Motivation is always a factor at the middle school age, especially for those

students who have been are retained; they are experiencing frustrations of repeating

something at which they were unsuccessful. Even though rapport between students and

teachers is the first step to motivation at this age, innovative methods are always desired

to motivate students to learn the content. Once the content is learned, self-esteem will

increase empowering the student to be successful. The purpose of this study was to

examine the effectiveness of using word processors to improve students’ writing

subsequently increasing students’ self-esteem. Although using word processors cannot

develop advanced writing skills, the study’s purpose was to confirm if it could assist the

struggling writer.

3


Table of ContentsAbstract …………………………………………………………………………………..iii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………iv

List of Tables and Figures…………………………………………………………………v

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………1Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….1Significance of the Problem…………………………………………………….....2Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………………………5Focus Questions………….………………………………………………………..8Overview of Methodology…...……………………………………………………9Human as Researcher………………...………………………………………......11

Chapter 2 Review of the Literature………………………………………………………12

Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………24Research Design……………………………………………………………….…25Setting……………………………………………………………………………26Sample/ Subjects/ Participants…………………………………………………...26Procedure and Data Collection Methods………………………………………...27Validity and Reliability Measures……………………......………………………#Analysis of Data…………………….……………………………………………..#

Chapter 4: Results..………………………………………………………………………..#

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results…………………………………………...#Analysis……………………………………………………………………………Discussion…………………………………………………………………………Implications……………………………………………………………………….Impact on Student Learning……………………………………………………….Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………………

References……………………………………………………………………………….31Appendicesxes………………………………………………………………………………35

Appendix A: Student Survey Appendix B: Interview Questions for AdministratorsAppendix C: Focus Questions for TeachersAppendix D: Informed Consent

4


Tables

Table 3.1 Data Shell ………………………………………………………………..28

5


CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem

There is an increased need for proficient written communication skills in our

technology driven society. We are now identified mostly by our thoughts and proposed

ideas through the written word. In the job market, face-to-face meetings have been

replaced with concise communications through modern technology. Email has become

the major form of communication in departments and businesses. According to the

Alliance for Excellent Education (2007), to prepare for college and the modern

workplace, middle and high school students will need to write extensively. The article

also explained how managerial and professional jobs have always required some amount

of writing, but that requirement now extends to all areas of the workforce. Nevertheless,

few students have the writing proficiency the job market demands.

In today’s technological world, we, as educators, recognize the need for teaching

writing skills; therefore, we must devote the necessary class time. But we also know that

writing is an extremely complicated activity that requires a lot of practice to master these

skills. Writing skills extend far beyond grammar, punctuation, and spelling, however our

intelligence is often judged by our written words. Educators agree that word-processing

programs are desirable to teach these skills and are easily accessed.

In a Pearson study conducted by Way, Davis and Strain-Seymour (2008), the

inconsistency with teaching writing using paper and pen with today’s demands for the

use of word processors was examined. The study showed the significance of using word

processors to teach writing to prepare students for their future. While educators claim to

6


be preparing students for the “real world” many do not utilize word processors to teach

writing because of the availability of computers.

In conjunction with developing the ability to communicate effectively in writing,

the classroom teacher also has an overwhelming task of increasing motivation. When

attempting to motivate students to write it is essential that writing is perceived as

appealing and applicable to life. This certainly could be challenging when considering

struggling students who are often the ones retained. The retained student has not

experienced much success, therefore not only lacks motivation, but self-esteem or self-

efficacy as well. Motivation is identified as a major component to the success of a

student. In examining students’ motivation to write, Cordaro (2009) refers to self-

perception as self-efficacy. Cordaro relates the student’s abilities to write to h/her belief

they can handle the complexities of writing.

Although many strategies of effective ways to teach writing exist, teachers are

continually searching for new and innovative methods to give students the confidence to

become good writers. While teachers encourage students to seek improvement in their

writing, students must make this connection in order to become successful adults.

Significance of Problem

Producing proficient writers in today’s classroom is a significant challenge. The

report from the National Commission on Writing for America’s Schools,

and Colleges (2003) examined the role of writing in the classroom and

in the workplace. It concluded that the ability to write well has never

been more important. In today’s technological economy, more people

than ever before are required to use the written word, as a result

7

, 12/12/10,

Singular/plural disagreement – re-work.


writing continues to be an area in need of constant attention. Even

people who do not consider themselves writers understand the

importance of writing to their careers.

Teachers and parents desire the highest education possible for

every student. Whether it is college or technical school, adults are

aware the key to employment security is some form of higher

education. Three quarters of American students enroll in institutions

of higher education immediately after graduation from high school.

With the addition of the writing section to the SAT, writing is now the

key to opening the doors for enrollment to many colleges. While many

fields of employment emphasize the written skills of documents,

writing is the most valuable quality an applicant can offer. According

to Graham and Perin (2006), businesses collectively spend $3.1 billion

annually for writing remediation (p.331).

Time constraints are one of the factors that has affected the

teaching of writing in today’s classrooms. Research papers, that once

played a major role in determining a student’s’ stage of writing, are

now usually assigned once a year because of lack of time teachers

have to grade them. Feedback, that must be effective and timely, is

essential in guiding a student as a writer. With many time

constrictions and state standards to meet, writing in the classroom is

often limited and not as thoroughly covered as teachers would like.

Emphasis is mostly on assessment and planning around test scores.

8


Findings from the National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools

and Colleges (2003) indicates that despite the neglect of writing

instruction, it would be false to claim that most students cannot write,

rather most students cannot write well.

According to the Georgia Department of Education’s (n.d.) website, 79 percent of

all Georgian students in 2010 achieved the “Meets” or “Exceeds” standard set for writing,

a 4-percentage point increase over 2009. However the 2009-2010 Georgia Department of

Education Strategic Plan’s target for eighth grade writing was 82 percent of students to

meet or exceed standards. The Georgia Department of Education explains the Grade 8

writing Assessment provides predictive information to eighth graders about their future

writing performance in advance of taking the Georgia High School Writing Test. The

state’s target was not met by the 2009-2010 eighth grade students, which incidentally

includes subjects involved in this study.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of the strategies

implemented using word processors to increase students’ abilities to write proficiently

because many other curricular subject areas are dependent on effective writing skills. The

use of the word processor can advance both teaching and learning of writing. Fairly

simple programs already exist and can improve ways to revise text while self-editing for

grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Although using word processors cannot develop advanced writing skills in

students, it can increase students’ motivation to write more often. For teachers, the use of

word processors can provide opportunities for timely feedback as well as easing the task

of assessing students’ writing. Technology has transformed most homes and is readily

9


available for the use of today’s students. Because of the availability and familiarity with

computers, little or no tutorials on using the word processor should be necessary.

Surprisingly, students are rarely allowed to use computers for writing assignments in

school. Therefore, by students being allowed to use the word processors to write, an

increase in motivation should be seen.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Constructivism is evident in this study. Constructivism is a philosophy of

learning or an approach to teaching based on research and how people learn.

Constructivism, whether it is cognitive as defined by Piaget’s theory or social as defined

by Vygotsky's theory, acquiring knowledge, experience or understanding is common to

them both. As explained by Powell, Kalina, and Cody (2009), the constructivism theory

says that each individual constructs knowledge rather than receiving from others.

Teachers must learn how the students understand the world so the teacher understands

how the student can learn. Although there is a disagreement about how we learn,

constructive teaching is based on the belief that students learn best when they gain

knowledge through exploration and active learning. Constructivists aim to provide the

learner with opportunities to link to previous knowledge as well as opportunities to

practice; learn by doing. This study lends itself to the ideals of constructivism by being

centered on writing, using technology. More specifically, cognitive constructivism is

evident as the student links previous knowledge when writing, developing paragraphs and

composing ideas on a topic. Social constructivism is evident as well as. Each learner is

10


viewed as a unique, motivated individual who is encouraged to construct h/her own

understanding within sociocultural environment, or the school.

The constructivist approach to teaching writing suggests that learning should be

authentic and real. Whole activities, as opposed to isolated skills, are more meaningful to

students. Using word processing programs do just that. While typing the essay, the

computer underlines misspelled words requiring the student to make a decision according

to the usage of the word. Also this program will identify sentence fragments as well as

grammar usage. The readability level will allow students to use the thesaurus to increase

the level of their writing.

Tenet One of the LaGrange College Education Department‘s (2009) Conceptual

Framework encompassed enthusiastic engagement in learning. The competency clusters,

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, include the knowledge of content, curriculum, and learners respectively.

Teachers must learn how the students understand the world so that the teacher

understands how the student can learn.

Tenet One also aligns with NCATE 2000 Standards 1 element 1A. Educators

must know their curriculum to ensure standards are being followed (LaGrange College

Education Department, 2009). This study will follow the standards for eighth grade

language arts curriculum, more specifically, writing for the state of Georgia. NBPTS

Core Propositions1and 2 involve teachers who know their subjects and know how to

teach them to students as well as knowing their learners. It is essential for the educator to

know the learner at this level, being among those that are retained. This type of learner

performs for those they seek to please. Unless the educator makes an effort to establish

11


that rapport, the classroom will not be conducive to learning nor will adequate learning

take place.

Tenet Two of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2009) Conceptual

Framework refers to professional teaching practices. This tenet focuses on professional

skills teachers need in order to be competent in the classroom. Competency Cluster 2.2:

Instructional skills emphasizes conceptual learning, providing differentiation if needed.

According to the tenet explanation, cooperative and collaborative methods work best with

differentiated instruction. Collaborative planning is required in Troup County schools.

Troup County is also an avid supporter of co-teaching classes and requires teachers of

regular education and teachers of special education to collaborate to find methods that

work with students of all levels. The method used in this study lends itself easily to

differentiation. Core Propositions 2 and 3 involve the teacher managing and monitoring

students learning. Adjustments and expectations can be made on assignments such as

length of assignment as well as the level of learning. Troup County is very adamant

about differentiation training and provides opportunities regularly. Students are actively

engaged in their knowledge construction while learning will be different for everyone

based on their word processing abilities. Students must see for themselves the benefit of

producing work sufficient to their level of learning. Teachers must assure that learning

experiences are designed to promote critical thinking and should integrate technology.

Tenet 3 of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2009) Conceptual

Framework: Caring and Supportive Classrooms and Learning Communities, more

specifically, Competency Cluster 3.2: Connections, is concerned with the educator as one

to foster relationships with the larger community of colleagues as well as parents to

12


support students’ learning. In Troup County parental involvement is encouraged. The

school system has a parental involvement initiative entitled, “Be There.” It encourages

parents to be there for each other and their children. Parental involvement as well as

community support is very important to the success of a school system as well as a

school. Community involvement is evident with the Communities in Schools program

available to the subjects of this study. Needs are met. Communities in Schools provide

students with anything from school supplies to academic support. Community

involvement is also visible with the students of this program tutoring the kindergartners

at the elementary school located near the middle school. Teachers, as well as the

Communities in Schools’ leader, work together to make this opportunity possible.

This study will also make connections with colleagues to share knowledge gained

through this process. Similarly, NBPTS Core Proposition 5 focuses on teachers being

members of the learning communities.

Focus Questions:

Motivation is always a factor at this age especially for retained students; they are

experiencing the frustrations of repeating something at which they were unsuccessful.

Teachers of these students also tend to experience frustration with their apathy. Although

a rapport between the student and his teachers is the first step to motivation, new and

innovative methods are always desired to make content easier to understand. Once the

content is learned, self-esteem will increase empowering the student to be successful.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of using word processors

to improve students’ writing subsequently increasing their self-esteem. Although using

word processors cannot develop advanced writing skills in students, it can increase

13

, 12/12/10,

Same as first sentence in abstract


students’ motivation to write more often. The term, motivation to learn, is defined by

Marshall (1987) as “the meaningfulness, value, and benefits of academic tasks to the

learner- regardless of whether or not they are intrinsically interesting”(p.135).

This study will research whether implementing strategies of using the word

processor assists the student in motivation and/or knowledge of writing. Implementing

strategies turns the focus to the student’s own perception of h/her writing ability in order

to increase their level of writing. By implementing the use of the word processor,

students are able to edit their mistakes more easily, allowing the teacher to focus on the

content of the writing. Students not only become more engaged in their writing but also

are able to gauge self-improvement by monitoring their readability scores. While writing,

a student can monitor this score, using the thesaurus to increase h/her level simply by

choosing more difficult words, increasing sentence length as well as preventing run-ons

and fragments. This process promotes active learning and allows them to become

stakeholders in their education.

To change attitudes of students as writers as well as the beliefs of teachers that

writing can be less time consuming to teach, is the center of my research. Encouraging

writing as an empowering tool to becoming active learners and having such an impact on

the attitude of the learner is a vital component in the classroom. My focus questions,

therefore, had the purpose of encouraging and motivating the students and teachers. If

teachers are motivated to devote more time to writing and the student desires to write

more, then the use of word processors to write is beneficial to both. Students motivated to

be active participants in their education will continue to be successful, lifelong-learners.

1. How would utilizing word processing affect students’ writing ability?

14


2. How do students feel about the strategies implemented in order to motivate them

to be active participants?

3. How will change be successfully implemented in convincing stakeholders to

accept the writing instructional strategies based on the findings in this study?

Overview of Methodology

In using the previously listed focus questions as the guide to collect and analyze

the research, qualitative and quantitative data were gathered from the teachers, students,

and administrators. Focus groups provided the information needed to create surveys.

The surveys given to the students analyzed data such as attitude, motivation for learning

and self-perception. Teachers and administrators were interviewed to provide data

regarding the importance of attitudes toward writing and its importance to education.

Analyzing standardized test scores provided quantitative data. The Holt-Reinhart

Winston essay grader (2009) was used also to measure for significant gains in the scoring

of essay writing.

How would utilizing word processing affect students’ writing ability? This focus

questioned used quantitative data. Serving as the pretest and posttest were the scores of

the students as eighth graders and as grade 8.5 students.

How do students feel about the strategies implemented in order to motivate them

to be active participants? Qualitative data consisted of a student survey that was

administered to determine attitude toward writing using a Likert scale.

How will change be successfully implemented in convincing stakeholders to

accept the writing instructional strategies based on the findings in this study? Interviews

with administrators were used as means of analyzing data. Qualitative data were used to

15

, 12/12/10,

Likert scale produces quantitative data


measure the effectiveness of the change process in the implementation of the strategies.

A focus group was conducted to obtain ideas of how teachers feel about teaching writing

using word processors. A range of views was sought afterward from the group and

preliminary ideas were gathered to use in questions via interviews with administrators.

The setting of this study is a middle school in Georgia. All subjects were students

in grade 8.5 some of which were retained in middle school for the school year 2010-2011

based on their Criterion Referenced Competency Test scores from the previous year.

Human as Researcher

I am an educator with 17 years of experience. For the past 4 years I have been a

language arts teacher in the 8.5 program at the middle school level. This program consists

of students who were retained in the 8th grade based on Criterion Referenced Competency

Test scores as well as students who were age appropriate-retained in a previous year of

their education. It comes, as no surprise motivation and self-esteem are obviously

obstacles in my classes. To encourage students to be stakeholders in their education and

to seek knowledge is my responsibility as an educator. Having seen roughly 100 students

come through the program, I am convinced that confidence and motivation go hand in

hand with success. Therefore in order to improve these students’ chances of graduating

from high school I have to find ways to motivate and encourage them to see the benefits

of their education.

16


CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

17

, 12/12/10,

Cover page not needed


CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Over the past two decades, the presence of computers in schools has increased

rapidly. Just as the availability of computers has increased so has their use. Goldberg,

Russell and Cook (2003), stated that “from 1998 to 2002 the percentage of students using

word processors increased from 50 percent to 85 percent.” Technology is a large part of

society today. It is very much a part of every teen’s life so when reviewing the literature

about using word processors to write, it was to no surprise the amount of literature

available. However, the literature was very mixed on the motivational factor of using a

word processor, evidence was found that could support opposing sides. The literature,

for the most part, was dated in the 1990’s and seemed at times not to apply to today’s

classroom where students are expected occasionally to use computers to write

occasionally as well as conduct research.

Educators have long been interested in the use of computers in the classroom.

While computers present a range of classroom applications, one of their most frequent

uses has been for word processing. Many studies have examined the impact of word

18

, 12/12/10,

Need page number cited


processing on student writing. Although there have been concerns that using computers

would make writing less creative, Goldberg et al (2003) found that the length and quality

of writings produced on computers were greater than writings produced on paper.

Many researchers have attempted to examine influences technology has had on

today’s students, especially teens. Teenagers’ lives are filled with writing. Lenhart,

Arafeh, Smith, and Macgill (2008) revealed that while all teens write for school, 93% of

teens say they write for their own pleasure. Lenhart et al. addressed the issue of teens’

writing being influenced by technology. They concluded that while the majority of teens

have embraced written communication with their peers, most is done through social

networking such as emails, instant messages, and of course texts on cell phones. But

teens do not consider the material they create electronically as real writing. At the same

time they disassociate this communication with real writing, teens believe that writing is

a critical skill to achieving success and more writing at school would help.

Lenhart et al. (2008) claimed with the vast amount of abbreviated texting used by

teens, some is showing up in writing that is more formal. With teens being constant

texters, this is really no surprise. But with Georgia’s standards in language arts being that

students are to know the difference between formal and informal writing, this is

something that must be addressed. The impact made on writing with the use of

technology to compose emails, texting and other electronic communications, has its

positive and negative attributes. While writing is a very important part of their lives, the

formal writing is what will contribute to their success.

19

, 12/12/10,

Need date/ correct APA


In reviewing the literature and studies done on word processing, the focus will be

on examining the literature to see if there has been any reported impact on writing

motivation and performance ability, looking for increases.

How would utilizing word processing affect students’ writing ability? As students

use technology in many aspects today, it is very enlightening to review literature to

discover if technology can in fact affect students’ writing ability in a positive way. When

looking at the literature examining the affect of the use of word processors on students’

ability to write, Goldberg et al. (2003) found in early studies the focus was on students

who were generally less accustomed to working with computer technology compared to

students today. They revealed that more than half of the 200 studies done in the past

decades to examine the impact of word processing on student writing were conducted

prior to the presence and wide-scale use of current menu-driven word processors.

Roblyer and Doering (2006) also studied the impact of word processing in

education. They concluded that generally, word processing seems to improve writing and

attitudes toward writing only if it is used in the context of good writing instruction.

Roblyer and Doering (2006) reviewed the issues of students having to learn word-

processing procedures before they were able to write proficiently using a computer.

Joram, Woodruff, Lindsay, and Bryson (1990) explained that to write and revise

effectively with a word-processing program on a computer, one needs to know how to

perform the physical procedures involved in altering text. These skills are now a part of

most technology curricula in schools today.

In the meta-analysis conducted by Goldberg et al. (2003) studies from 1992-2002,

were examined focusing on the effects of computers on student writing. In looking at

20


these studies over this ten-year span Goldberg et al. (2003) found positive correlations

between computer use and the length and quality of writing, but mixed results when

looking at the effect of computer use on revision within the writing process. Baker and

Kinzer (1998) found when students wrote on paper, editing was more of a step in the

writing process versus students who wrote using computers where the revision was more

integrated, students edited as they typed. However, some studies suggest that when

students use word processors, the writing process became more collaborative and less

teacher-student centered. Other students were more involved when it came to editing and

revision. Revision began earlier in the process and students generally produced writing

with higher-quality.

Word processing software is installed on almost every school computer and is one

of the most used technology tools in education. Most students have some basic

experience with word processing through computer labs or required computer technology

classes. Many features of word processing can improve students’ level of writing while

making text more legible. Graham and Perin (2004, p.6) listed seven ways that word-

processing helps developing writers:

Legibility of text

Potential for publishing in variety of formats

Ease of revision

Fluent production of text (while composing)

Likelihood of supporting applications (for spelling, grammar, semantic

mapping)

Portable, easy-to-replicate electronic text (easy to share, hard to lose)

21


Potential for links to electronic source material

The word-processing program can help some time constraints. Word processing

has become the most commonly used software in education. Roblyer and Doering (2006)

explained the advantages of using a word-processing in writing: it saves time, enhances

document’s appearance, and allows sharing and collaboration of documents. Time is

saved by allowing writers to make corrections to word processing documents more

quickly than they could by hand. Graham (2004) studied similar points that words and

ideas can easily be added, modified, deleted, and moved using the word-processor. The

student can easily revise the text at any point without recopying the entire paper.

Graham’s (2004) study also confirmed that materials created by word-processing

software look more polished and professional than hand-written or typed materials do.

He stated that the word processor allows students to produce neat, printed work in a wide

variety of professional-looking formats. Students find it especially motivating to produce

a finished product that looks like a professional publication. Materials can be saved to

discs or other media to be shared easily.

Graham and Perin (2007) published a study on writing that proved the use of

word-processing has a positive effect on students’ writing development, and this impact

is even more evident for struggling writers. They noted word-processing can assist

students who experience considerable difficulties with spelling and the mechanical

aspects of writing. Struggling writers are inclined to avoid writing because of deficiencies

in their spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure. Word processors usually

include several checking features. Checking for spelling, grammar, using the thesaurus

and readability are useful for students as writers. Spelling and grammar checking actually

22


provides immediate feedback and makes students more independent writers. Students

can see as they write when words are misspelled. They choose from a list of options to

make their own corrections. Students’ use of correct spelling and grammar improve

because of the repetition of seeing it written clearly. There is no delay between writing

and receiving a corrected paper, and there is no reliance on an outside authority for

making corrections. As well as checking documents for spelling, it can also check for a

series of grammatical errors. Identifying clichés, subject-verb agreement, colloquialisms,

contractions, unclear phrasing and wordiness are the main ones. Word-processing

programs will also show the writer how to correct the marked mistakes.

Word processing programs help writers think as they compose, including software

that helps the writer set goals, generate writing content, organize ideas, and revise text.

Another tool available in modern word processors is a readability statistics analyzer.

Readability statistics are useful for students to track their own writing ability, providing

their own feedback on their writing. Microsoft word’s Flesch Reading Ease is a score

based on a formula developed in 1949 by Rudolf Flesch.

It is computed using the average number of syllables per word and words per

sentence. Syllables-per-word is a measure of difficulty. Words-per-sentence is

an indicator of syntactic complexity. (Stockmeyer, 2009, p. 46).

The Flesch reading scale ranges from 0-100. Zero to 40 is considered very difficult.

Microsoft encourages authors of standard documents to aim for a score of 60-70.

Microsoft word’s other readability score is the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. This

score is based on research conducted by J. Peter Kincaid in the mid-1970’s. He

reformulated the Flesch test to produce a formula for computing a text’s reading grade

23

, 12/12/10,

Block quote not required for short quotes


level. This score measures the minimum education level required for a reader to

understand the content. Certain federal agencies require that written materials meet a

specific grade level based on Flesch-Kincaid formula. According to Stockmeyer (2009),

Microsoft recommends aiming for a Flesch-Kincaid score of 7.0 to 8.0 for most

documents. It has been reported the average adult in the United States reads on a seventh

grade level.


to be active participants? Many researchers and authors have addressed the question of

motivation; why some students are motivated while others are not. Often research

classifies motivation mainly in two categories, intrinsic and extrinsic. Each has their

place and purpose in the classroom. They are both viewed as positive ways to drive

students to reach their full potential. But to fully comprehend the impact of motivation

and its connection to education, further theories must be explored that extend deeper

meaning.

Psychologists and educators have long considered the role of motivation in

student achievement and learning. However, Pintrinch and Linnenbrink (2002) explained

that since the 1980s there has been a focus on how motivational and cognitive factors

interact and influence student learning and achievement. In their study, they define

cognitive factors as referring to the knowledge or ability to acquire knowledge, while

motivation is defined as the driving force, striving to reach one’s full potential. In the

same study study,Pintrich and Linnenbrink (2002) took the term motivation to this level

and linked these two factors. They described motivation as an “academic enabler for

24

, 12/12/10,

FQ2 sub-header needed

, 12/12/10,

Who said this?


school success and as a multifaceted construct with different components” (Pintrich &

Linnenbrink, 2002, p.313). By integrating cognitive and motivational factors Pintrich

and Linnenbrink (2002) shifted the theories from traditional motivation models to social

cognitive models of motivation. Social cognitive models took the focus from the

assumption that students are simply motivated or unmotivated, to stressing students can

be motivated in multiple ways. The issue now is to understand how and why students are

motivated for school achievement.

Lumsden (1994) discussed student’s’ motivation to learn. She explained that as

children grow, their passion for learning frequently seems to shrink. Awareness of how

students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning develop and what promotes learning “for its

own sake, for the enjoyment it provides, the learning it permits, or the feelings of

accomplishment it evokes”(p.1), can assist educators in reducing student apathy.

Motivation drives success. Students who are motivated to write tend to spend more time

and effort writing. Spending more time on writing helps to ensure processing skills are at

work. Students need to write to improve not simply for a grade but to achieve the process

of writing. There is little interest in writing if they are only writing for a grade.

Improving writing skills for all students is a major concern for everyone in

education. Research shows students need to feel a sense of ownership in their learning

and understand the purpose and process of their writing. When students believe they are

good writers they have confidence to write. Writing is a complex skill that requires effort

and time to master. The word-processing program can help maximize the use of time.

“If students are not expected to write or most of their writing is limited to writing

short answers, word processing is of little value,” (Graham, Harris, and MacArthur, 2004,

25


p.9). Students need to be given many opportunities to practice what they have learned

about writing in order to become better writers. Word processing is not a substitute for

teaching students the strategies, skills, and knowledge needed to be a skilled writer.

Hunter, Jardine, Rilstone, Weisgerber (2001) explained that while composition length is

not meant to be a measure of the quality of writing, researchers have examined this in the

expectation that students who write more will eventually learn to write better.

Hidi and Boscolo (as cited in Cordaro, 2009) questioned how are educators to

understand student motivation to write? Motivation, itself, is hard to research because so

many other factors come into play. Hidi and Boscolo (2007) found that self-efficacy,

defined as a person’s perception of h/her own ability is a major component at the center

of many of the studies examining motivation. They expressed their belief in their 2007

collection of studies, Writing and Motivation, that “with the right design and

methodology, student motivation should and can be empirically researched with useful

outcomes” (p. 362).

Using the word processor to enable the student to write better is a motivational

factor. Teachers are urged to focus on changes that can be made to the school or

classroom, rather than to simply blame lack of motivation for a student performing at a

lower than expected rate.


accept the writing instructional strategies based on the findings in this study? While

examining research concerning the change process, the phrase “school improvement”

was very evident. Improving schools involves change. Change, however, described by

26

, 12/12/10,

Subheading needed

, 12/12/10,

Naked quote


Boyd (1992) “is not an isolated process, it occurs within the same context, the school”

(para. 1). Boyd (1992) describes how the effect of the change on all parts of the school

has to be considered, what she refers to as the same context, each part is dependent upon

the other and each can have a negative effect on a large environment if not done properly.

How these parts are affected must be examined by the school leader.

In reviewing the literature importance of the change process was stressed. For

this to be a successful implementation, the change process starts with a vision and is

written down to be developed into plan. Once the plan is implemented, teachers can see

the importance of being active participants in the process. Hord (2000) broke this

process down into 6 steps:

Develop and articulate a vision - know the change destination and

continually remind stakeholders of important actions to be taken

Plan and provide resources - those responsible for assisting teachers should

supply resources for teachers and allocate time needed

Invest in training and development -successful implementation involves

substantial amount of help and assistance provided by staff development

Access or monitor progress -actively monitoring progress communicates to

teachers the importance of the new program and increases support

Provide continuous assistance - coaching, consulting, follow-up-

information gleaned through assessing

Create a context conducive to change -such an environment encourages

risk taking and change of behaviors (p.2)

27


Attitudes of both teachers and students toward change are significant for the

success of school improvement. Both must feel what they think matters. But as Guskey

(2002) noted, the most significant changes in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs come after

they begin using a new practice successfully and see changes in student learning. He

Guskey (2002) illustrates these steps in progression: “staff development, change in

teachers’ classroom, change in student learning outcomes, and then change in teachers’

beliefs and attitudes” (p.383).

A starting point for any change is a clear vision. Vision has a variety of

definitions, all of which include a mental image or picture, a point of intention, and a

potential course of how to reach the mark. Boyd (1993) explains that a vision serves as a

marker pointing to where an organization needs to go. She also specifies that a vision

should guide the work of the organization because a vision should be a picture of the

future for which people are willing to work.

Visions should motivate, inspire and engage people and have become a powerful

feature necessary to school improvement. Manasse (as cited in Mandez,1993) defines a

“vision as the force which molds meaning for the people of an organization and a

compelling picture of the future that inspires commitment” (para.4). It encourages people

to work, to strive for its attainment. Educational leaders, who strive to see change in their

school or district, hunger to see improvement. Included in this thought is also what a

vision is not. Fullan (as cited in Mandez,1993) stated that ‘it is not a mission or

constraint on actions and is not intended to blind or promote over attachment to a

particular philosophies or innovation” (para.5).

28


Educators are being challenged to meet the needs of students to prepare them for

the future. They must first meet the challenge with a vision, a future goal that is shared

by teachers, students, administrators, parents and any other stakeholders. The

relationship between teachers’ and administrators’ visions is important. Mendez (1993)

compared the vision of an administrator to that of a teacher by illustrating how

administrators’ visions have to encompass the whole system while teachers’ visions are

more individualized or specific to their classrooms.

29


CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGYResearch Design

The study being conducted is a combination of an action research design and an

evaluation research design. “Action research is an approach to professional development

and improved student learning in which teachers systematically reflect on their work and

make changes in their practice” (Borgia & Schuler,1996, p.2). Sometimes the hardest part

of change is when it comes from “top down,” from people outside of the classroom.

Action research involves looking at one's own practice and then reflecting and seeking

support and feedback from colleagues. Rather than being conducted by researchers, it is

conducted by teachers. Creswell (2002) stated that action research often utilizes both

quantitative and qualitative data. He explained purpose of action research is to improve

30

, 12/12/10,

Naked quote

, 12/12/10,

Cover page not needed

http://www.vtaide.com/png/ERIC/Action-Research-EC.htm


the practice of education by individuals conducting research on their own problems.

Teachers learn what it is they are able to influence and make changes that produce results

that show change based on data. The student is the subject and object of question.

Johnson and Christensen (2008) defined action research as a never-ending process

because most problems are not fully solved through a single research study. In this study,

action research design was used by seeking teachers input regarding teaching writing and

presenting them with the idea to teach writing using the word processing program.

Johnson and Christensen (2008) defined evaluation research as specifically

determining the worth, merit, or quality of an evaluation object, such as an educational

program. Charles and Mertler (2002) described evaluating programs by looking for gains

in achievement, acceptance of program and producing changes based on interviews and

observations. Evaluation of a program is divided into five areas or assessments; needs,

theory, implementation, impact, and efficiency. It is in applying these areas that a

program can be deemed effective. This study addresses all five areas of assessment as

addressed by Johnson and Christensen (2008) therefore; it also has an overarching

evaluation research component.

The comparison between last year’s 8.5 class and this year’s 8.5 students was

conducted gathering quantitative data from the two groups. An independent-t was

conducted using state writing test scores to analyze for significant differences between

each group’s 8th grade scores and 8.5 scores. Surveys were conducted to measure

students’ motivation and attitudes toward writing. Focus groups provided the information

needed to create surveys. Data was collected through surveys using a Likert scale and

analyzed using a chi square to note significance of each question. Administrators were

31


interviewed to provide data regarding the importance of attitudes toward writing and its

importance to education. Qualitative coding was used to access the interviews.

Setting

The site for this study was in a middle school in the western end of Troup County.

The school is located in a community of a recent arrival, the Korean manufacturer, KIA.

The school’s current enrollment population is 982 students with 59% eligible for free or

reduced price lunch. Of the school’s 982 students enrolled, 58% are White, 36% are

Black, 2% are Hispanic and 1% is Asian/Pacific Islander. All participants and the setting

were chosen purposefully for the convenience of those involved. Access to this location

was chosen because it is the school in which I teach.

Subjects and Participants

Subjects and participants for this studying were chosen purposefully. Teachers of

8th grade language arts were chosen for their knowledge in the subject matter. The

teachers chosen have 4 to17 years experience, and students were chosen because they are

in my language arts class of grade 8.5. A total of 4 participants and 16 subjects were

used in this study. Of the subjects 62.5% or 10 are females and 37.5% or 6 are males.

37.5% or 6 are Black, 50% or 8 are White and 6.25% or 1 is Hispanic and 6.25% or 1 is

multi-racial. All 16 were retained in the 8th grade for the school year 2010-2011.

Procedures & Methods

The data for this research were collected by assessments, surveys and interviews.

Table 3.1 provides an outline of the data collected and the methods that were used in this

research study. Assessments consisted of state writing tests, used as pre/posttests to see if

the implementation of the word processor increased the writing ability of the students.

32


Surveys were completed by subjects and participants of the study and interviews were

conducted with participants. Students were surveyed to analyze their attitudes toward

writing. Teachers were surveyed and administrators were interviewed to provide data.

Table 3.1 Data Shell

Focus Question

LiteratureSources

How data were gathered and what type of data

How these data are analyzed

Why the data provide valid data

Rationale Strengths/Weakness

How would utilizing word processing affect students’ writing ability?

Goldberg, Russell & Cook (2003)

Joram, Woodruff, Lindsay, & Bryson (1990)

Method:Assessment-pretestGMSWT, 09-10,-PosttestGMSWT, 10-11Essay grader score

Data: interval

Descriptive and inferential statistics- independent t-tests

Contentvalidity

To determine if there are significant differences

ValidityReliabilityDependabilityBias

33


How do students feel about the strategies implemented order to motivate them to be active participants?

Goldberg, Russell & Cook (2003)

Pintrich & Linnenbrink (2002)

Graham & Perin (2007)

Method:SurveyLikert Scale

Data: nominal

Chi Square

Chronbach Alpha

ConstructValidity

Look for categorical and repeating data


How will change be successfully implemented in convincing stakeholders to accept the writing instructional strategies based on the findings in this study?

Johnson (1998)

Fullan & Hargraves (1991)

Method: interviewadministrators,focus group teachers

Data:qualitative

coded for common themes

Chi Square

Constructvalidity

Look for categorical and repeating data


How would utilizing word processing affect students’ writing ability? This

focus questioned used quantitative data. The quantitative data was the use of writing

scores Georgia Middle School Writing Test as well as the scores of the essay grader. The

scores used for the pretests were the students’ scores obtained in 8th grade on the Georgia

Middle School Writing Test for school year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The Georgia

Middle School Writing Test of these same students in grade 8.5 for school year 2009-

2010 and 2010-2011 served as posttests. Only the students of the 2010-2011 class

received the implementation of the word processor strategy. An Independent -T test was

used to determine if there was a significant difference in two groups of students, using

pretests and posttest scores. The essay grader provides feedback comparable to the states

34

, 12/14/10,

Move to chapter 3 part 6 analysis.


writing test. It scores student writing on a scale of 1-4 and utilizes the same categories as

the state, such as organization, conventions, ideas, and style. It gives the students

feedback also comparable to that of the scores given by the state. This is a product by

Holt, Reinhart and Winston that came with the adoption of the textbook. The essay

grader has a selection of topics to choose from that are able to be scored within this

program. It makes suggestions to the student about the writing and ways to improve it.


to be active participants? Qualitative data consisted of a student survey that was

administered to determine differences obtained in the students’ attitude toward the

implementation of the strategies that focused on them as stakeholders (see Appendix A).

It also analyzed the motivation of the students as writers by using a Likert scale. The

significance of the data was measured by using the Chi Square. By using this qualitative

data the survey analyzed the relationship of the students’ motivation to the role as active

learners. The survey asked students questions about their writing preferences along with

the attitude toward writing using pen and paper or the computer.


accept the writing instructional strategies based on the findings in this study? Interviews

with administrators were used as means of analyzing data (see Appendix B). Qualitative

data were used to measure the effectiveness of the change process in the implementation

of the strategies. A focus group was conducted to obtain ideas of how teachers feel about

teaching writing using word processors. (see Appendix C). A range of views was sought

after from the group and preliminary ideas were gathered to use in questions via

interviews with administrators.

35

, 12/12/10,

Move to chapter 3 part 6 analysis


References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2009). What is happening in the teaching of writing?.

English Journal, 98(5), 18-28. Retrieved from

http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/2892.

Atherton, J. (2010). Learning and teaching; Piaget's developmental theory. Retrieved

from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/piaget.htm

*Baker E. & Kinzer, C. (1998). Effects of technology on process writing: Are they

all good? National Reading Conference Yearbook, 47, pp.428–440.

Borgia, E., Schuler, D., & ERIC Clearinghouse on elementary and early childhood

36

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/piaget.htm


education, UK. (1996). Action Research in Early Childhood Education. ERIC

Digest. pp. 1-7. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Boser, R. A., & Householder, D. L. (1991). Assessing the effectiveness of the change to

Technology teacher education. Journal of Technology Education, 2(2), pp.1-15.

Retrieved from http://www.akademik.unsri.ac.id/download/journal/files/scholar/jte-

v2n2.pdf#page=15

Boyd-Dimock, V. (1992a). Creating a context for change. Issues… about Change, 2(2),

Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Charles, C., & Mertler, C.(2002). Introduction to educational research (4th ed.). Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Cordaro, D. (2009). Motivating students to write: some empirical answers (and

questions). Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language,

Composition, and Culture, 9(2), pp. 361-367. DOI:10.1215/15314200-2008-038.

Fossum, P. R., & Kubow, P. K. (2007). Comparative education: exploring issues in

international text. Columbus: Pearson.

*Fullan, M.G. (1992). Visions that blind. Educational Leadership. 49(5), 19-20.

Fullan, M. (1993). Why Teachers Must Become Change Agents. Educational Leadership,

50(6). Retrieved from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_98-99/03_93.htm

Georgia Department of Education. (2009). 8th Grade writing assessment. Atlanta:

Georgia DOE.

Glatthorn, A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. M. (2009). Curriculum Leadership.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Sage Publications.

Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The Effect of computers on student

37

, 12/12/10,

Is this correct?

http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_98-99/03_93.htm

http://www.akademik.unsri.ac.id/download/journal/files/scholar/jte-v2n2.pdf#page=15

http://www.akademik.unsri.ac.id/download/journal/files/scholar/jte-v2n2.pdf#page=15


writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992-2002. Journal of Technology,

Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 3-34. Retrieved from www.jtla.org

Graham, S., Harris, K., & MacArthur, C. (2004). The power of word processing.

Renaissance Learning. Retrieved from

http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004215628GH546B.pdf

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2006). What we know, what we still need to know: teaching

adolescents to write. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 313-335.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of

adolescents in middle and high schools-A report to Carnegie Corporation of New

York. Washington , D.C: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and

Teaching: Theory and practice 8(3/4), 381-391. Retrieved from

http://physics.gmu.edu/~hgeller/TeacherWorkshop/Guskey2002.pdf

Hidi, S. & Boscolo, P. (2007). Writing and Motivation, Volume 19. Oxford: Elsevier

Press.

Holt-Reinhart Winston essay grader assessed through go.hrw.com.

Hord, S. (2000). Strategies for Change; implementing a comprehensive school reform

program. CSRD Connections, 1(2), 1-12. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from

http://www.sedl.org/csrd/connections/april2000

Hunter, W. Jardine, G. Rilstone,P. & Weisgerber, R. (2001). The Effects of using word

processors: A hard look at the research. The Writing Notebook, 8(1), 42-46.

Retrieved from http://people.ucalgary.ca/~hunter/writ.html

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research quantitative, qualitative,

38

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~hunter/writ.html

http://www.sedl.org/csrd/connections/april2000

http://physics.gmu.edu/~hgeller/TeacherWorkshop/Guskey2002.pdf

http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004215628GH546B.pdf

http://www.jtla.org/


and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Joram, E., Woodruff, E., Lindsay, P., & Bryson, M. (1990). Students' editing skills and

attitudes toward word procesing. Computers and Composition, 7(3), 55-72.

Retrieved from http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/html/history.htm

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism. New York: Peter

Lang Publishing, Inc.

LaGrange College Education Department. (2009). Conceptual framework. LaGrange,

GA: LaGrange College.

Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. (2008, April 24). Writing, technology

and teens. Retrieved from Pew Internet & American Life Project:

http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Writing_Report_FINAL3.

Lumsden, L. (1994). Student motivation to learn. ERIC Clearinghous on Educational

Management. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/learn.htm

Lyons, J. (2001) Paulo Freire's Educational Theory. New Foundations 2001. Retrieved

from http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Freire.html

*Manasse, A. (1986). Vision and leadership: Paying attention to intention. Peabody

Journal of Education, 63(1), 150-173.

Marshall, H. Motivational Strategies of Three Fifth-Grade Teachers. The Elementary

School Journal. 88(2). 135-50.

Mendez-Morse, S. (1993). Vision, Leadership, and Change. Issues… about Change, 2(3),

Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2003). The

neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. New York: College Board.

39

http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Freire.html

http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/learn.htm

http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Writing_Report_FINAL3

http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/html/history.htm


Pintrich & Linnenbrink (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School

Psychology Review, 31(3), 313-326.

Powell,K C., Kalina, Cody J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: developing

tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

Roblyer, M, & Doering, A (2006). The impact of word processing in education. Pearson

Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall.

Strain-Seymour, E., (2008). A tale of two modes: A case study in user-centered design’s

role in comparability and construct validity. Paper presented at the annual

conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York, New

York.

Stockmeyer, N., (2009, January). Using microsoft word’s readability program. Michigan

Bar Journal, Retrieved from http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1467

Way, W. D., Davis, L. L., & Strain-Seymour, E. (2008). The validity case for assessing

direct writing by computer. A Pearson Assessments & Information White Paper.

40

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1467


Appendix A

SELECT ONLY ONE RESPONSE TO EACH QUESTION.

Strongly disagree

disagree agree Strongly agree

1. I don’t think I write as well as other people.

2. I think I am a good speller.

3. My paragraphs are not long enough.

4. I feel confident in the length of my paragraphs.

5. I write well developed sentences

6. I feel confident in my ability to clearly express my ideas in writing.

7. I have grammar problems in my writing.

8. I am very confident in my computer skills.

9. I avoid writing.

10. I don’t like to type my essays on the computer.

11. Writing is a lot of fun.

12. I have no fear of my writing being evaluated

13. I am very confident in my ability to write.

14. I am a poor speller.

15. I like to write in my free time.

16. My sentences are short and choppy.

17. How often do you use Microsoft word or some other word processing product?

Often Some-times

Rarely never

18. How would you rate your typing skills?

Fast and error free

Pretty good

Average lousy

Adapted from sources:Daly & Miller test online, retrieved from: http://www.csus.edu/ indiv/s/stonem/The%20Daly-Miller%20Test.htmStudent Motivation Survey Self-Assessment, Smart and Cool America, assessed online from www.assessmentgenerator.com/.../cRboslearn117190407.html

41

http://www.assessmentgenerator.com/.../cRboslearn117190407.html

http://www.csus.edu/


Appendix B

Interview questions:1. As a principal how do you expect writing to be taught in your school?2. What do you feel is the teacher’s role in teaching writing?3. As a principal, what problems do you see teachers experience in teaching writing?4. How do you feel about implementing change in the way writing in taught to 8.5?5. How do you feel the results of this study will affect the teaching of writing?

42


Appendix C

Focus Questions for teacher focus group:1. As a Language Arts teacher, why is teaching writing important?2. Do you feel changes are needed in the way writing is taught?3. What do you feel is the best way to improve a student’s ability to write?4. What could make teaching writing easier?5. How often do you think a child should write? 6. Do you feel every writing assignment should be graded?7. How do you feel about change in a curriculum?8. If change is implemented what do you feel is the easiest way?

43


Appendix DLaGrange College

Education Department

Informed Consent Letter

Reaching the Child Left Behind; Motivating the Retained StudentJoanie Blanks, Principal Investigator

I am an Education Specialist candidate conducting a thesis at LaGrange College. My research interest is to motivate the retained student by improving their writing ability. You are invited to participate in this survey because it is important for my research to have the opinions of professional educators. The study involves interviewing. With your consent, I will audiotape the interviews. If you are not comfortable with that, I will simply take notes during your interview. You are free to answer as many or as few questions as you like or to stop the interview at any time.

Your privacy will be strictly protected. I will keep your records confidential. I will use a study code rather than your name on study records where I can. The information will be analyzed only by me as the principal investigator. Your name and other facts that might point to you will not appear when I present this study or publish its results.

Participating in this study involves minimal risk. The study will not benefit you directly, but will contribute to our understanding of what motivates the retained student to write and teachers’ and administrators’ attitudes towards the importance of writing to a student’s education. Participation in this research is voluntary. You have the right to refuse to be in this study. If you decide to be in the study and change your mind, you have the right to drop out at any time. However, any information already gathered to the point when you withdraw consent will not be removed. Whatever you decide, you will not be adversely affected by your withdrawal from the study.

If you have any questions about the study, please feel free to ask. You may contact me, the principal investigator, at any time. I may be reached by phone at (706)884-6951 or by email at [email protected]. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a participant in this research study, you may contact LaGrange College’s Chair of the Institutional Review Board, Dr. Charles Kraemer, at 706-880-8284.

Please sign your name below if you are willing to participate in this study. Your signature indicates that you have decided to participate, having read the information provided above. A copy of this consent form shall be given to you to keep.

________________________________________________________________________Print your name here Sign your name here Date

Your participation is greatly appreciated! Thank you.

44

mailto:[email protected]

motivating the retained student - lagrange collegehome.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced programs/eds...

Documents