Improving writing in social studies through professional development: Effects on teachers’ beliefs, classroom practice and students’ writing

Jannet van Drie; Tanja Janssen; Talita Groenendijk

doi:10.1515/eujal-2017-0009

Article

Improving writing in social studies through professional development: Effects on teachers’ beliefs, classroom practice and students’ writing

Jannet van Drie , Tanja Janssen and Talita Groenendijk

Published/Copyright: August 31, 2017

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal European Journal of Applied Linguistics Volume 5 Issue 2

Abstract

Although academic literacy is an important goal in secondary education, many students struggle with it, particularly with disciplinary writing. There is a need for a closer integration of writing with instruction in subject areas. We designed and implemented a practice-based professional development program aimed at improving teachers’ ability to teach writing within social studies. We distilled five design principles from meta-analyses of effective writing instruction, which teachers (twelve subject- and Dutch Language teachers) used to design lessons in their own classes. Effects of the program on teachers’ beliefs about writing instruction were measured with a questionnaire. Although no changes in beliefs were found, teachers indicated in a learner report that they had learned a lot about integrating writing in their lessons. After six months teachers reported that they felt more able to use the design principles and still used them in their lessons. Three interventions are described in more detail in this paper. Effects on students’ writing and knowledge of writing were measured using pre- and post-writing-tasks. Results showed a significant positive effect for the writing-instruction groups. We conclude that the professional development program enabled teachers to teach disciplinary writing within social studies and to improve students’ writing as well.

Keywords: academic writing; writing in the disciplines; social studies; practice-based professional development

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (grant number 405-14–505).We are grateful to Arie Westerhout, Douwe Dijksterhuis, Evah den Boer, Frans Diederen, Gianna Troiani, Henri Boer, Jan de Kort, Johan van Driel, Joop van der Kuip, Lieke Holdinga, Roderik Egberink, and Safrien van de Leemkolk and their students for participating in our study. Furthermore, we would like to thank Daphne van Weijen for her feedback on this manuscript.

References

Bangert-Drowns, Robert. L., Marlene M. Hurley & Barbara Wilkinson. 2004. The effects of school-based writing to learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1). 29–58. doi: 10.3102/0034654307400102910.3102/00346543074001029Search in Google Scholar

Bereiter Carl & Marlene Scardamelia. 1987. The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Search in Google Scholar

Bonset, Helge. 2010. Nederlands in voortgezet en hoger onderwijs: Hoe sluit dat aan? [Dutch in secondary and higher education: How does it correspond?] Levende Talen Magazine, 3, 16–20. Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Ann L. & Joseph C. Campione. 1994. Guided discovery in a community of learners. In Kate McGilly (ed.). Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice: Classroom lessons, 229–270. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Search in Google Scholar

Chambliss, Marilyn J., Lea A. Christenson & Carolyn Parker. 2003. Fourth graders composing scientific explanations about the effects of pollutants: Writing to understand. Written Communication, 20(4). 426–454. doi: 10.1177/074108830326050410.1177/0741088303260504Search in Google Scholar

Coffin, Caroline. 2006. Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

De La Paz, Susan. 2005. Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2). 139–156. Search in Google Scholar

De La Paz, Susan & Mark F. Felton. 2010. Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35. 174–192. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.00110.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.03.001Search in Google Scholar

De Leur, Tessa, Carla van Boxtel & Arie Wilschut. 2015. ‘Just imagine...’: Students’ perspectives on empathy tasks in secondary history education. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 13(1). 69–84.Search in Google Scholar

De Oliveira, Luciana. C. 2011. Knowing and writing school history. The language of students’ expository writing and teachers’ expectations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Desimone, Laura M. 2009. Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3). 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X0833114010.3102/0013189X08331140Search in Google Scholar

Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Huub van den Bergh. 2009. Schrijf voor de lezer. Over effecten van lezersgericht (her)schrijven op de kwaliteit van instructieve teksten. [Write for the reader. On the effects of reader oriented (re)writing on the quality of instructive texts]. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 10. 14–23.Search in Google Scholar

Expert Group Learning Trajectories. 2009. Referentiekader taal en rekenen: De referentieniveaus. [Reference framework language and arithmetic: The referential levels]. Enschede: Ministerie van OCW.Search in Google Scholar

Felton, Mark F., Mercé Garcia-Mila & Sandra Gilaber. 2009. Deliberation versus dispute: The impact of argumentative discourse goals on learning and reasoning in the science classroom. Informal Logic, 29(4). 417–446.10.22329/il.v29i4.2907Search in Google Scholar

Fidalgo, Raquel, Mark Torrance, Gert Rijlaarsdam, Huub van den Bergh, & M. Lourdes Álvarez. 2015. Strategy-focused writing instruction: Just observing and reflecting on a model benefits 6th grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 37–50.Search in Google Scholar

Garet, Michael S., Andrew C. Porter, Laura Desimone, Beatrice F. Birman, & Kwang Suk Yoon. 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004915 10.3102/00028312038004915Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, Sherri & Myron Dembo. 1984. Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76. 569–582. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.76.4.56910.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569Search in Google Scholar

Graham, Steve, Karen Harris, Barbara Fink & Charles MacArthur. 2001. Teacher efficacy in writing: A construct validation with primary grade teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5. 177–202.Search in Google Scholar

Graham, Steve & Michael Hebert. 2011. Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4). 710–744. doi: 10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566.10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566Search in Google Scholar

Graham, Steve & Dolores Perin. 2007. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3). 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.99.3.445.10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445Search in Google Scholar

Guskey, Thomas R. 2003. What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan International, 84(10). 748–750.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Karen R. & Steve Graham. 2009. Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, and the future. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, (6). 113–135. doi: 10.1348/978185409X422542.10.1348/978185409X422542Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Karen R., Kathleen Lane, Steve Graham, Steven Driscoll, Karen N. Sandmel, Mary Brindle, & Christopher Schatschneider. 2012. Practice-based professional development for strategies instruction in writing: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63. 103–119.Search in Google Scholar

Hillocks, George. 1986. Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, Ill.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National Institute of Education.Search in Google Scholar

Holdinga, Lieke. 2013. Zaakvakdocenten en hun visie(s) op het ontwikkelen van de schrijfvaardigheid van havo/vwo-bovenbouwleerlingen. [Social studies teachers and their view(s) on developing students’ writing skills in upper secondary education]. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam; Scriptie in het kader van de masteropleiding Academisch Meesterschap.Search in Google Scholar

Janssen, Tanja & Marianne Overmaat. 1990. Tekstopbouw en stelvaardigheid. Een onderzoek naar de effecten van twee experimentele methoden voor tekstopbouw. [Text structure and writing; A study of the effects of two experimental methods to teach text structure]. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, Forum 8.Search in Google Scholar

Kennedy, Mary M. 2016. How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.3102/003465431562680010.3102/0034654315626800Search in Google Scholar

Kirkpatrick, Lori C. & Perry D. Klein. 2009. Planning text structure as a way to improve students' writing from sources in the compare-contrast genre. Learning and Instruction, 19(4). 309–321. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.001.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.001Search in Google Scholar

Klein, Perry D. 1999. Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3). 203–270.Search in Google Scholar

Klein, Perry D. 2004. Constructing scientific explanations through writing. Instructional Science, 32(3). 191–231. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000024189.74263.bd.10.1023/B:TRUC.0000024189.74263.bdSearch in Google Scholar

Klein, Perry D. & Pietro Boscolo. 2016. Trends in Research on Writing as a Learning Activity. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3). 311-350. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2016.07.3.01.Search in Google Scholar

Klieme, Eckhard. 2006. Zusammenfassung zentraler Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie. [Summary of the main results of the DESI study]. Retrieved from http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2006/2006_03_01-DESI-Ausgewaehlte-Ergebnisse.pdf (accessed 14 December 2016).Search in Google Scholar

Koster, Monica, Elena Tribushinina, Peter F. de Jong & Huub van den Bergh. 2015. Teaching children to write: A meta-analysis of writing intervention research. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2). 300–324. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.2 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.2Search in Google Scholar

Kramer, Femke & Jacqueline van Kruiningen. 2015. Moeilijker, langer, serieuzer. [More difficult, longer, more serious]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 37(2). 187–216.Search in Google Scholar

Kretlow, Allison G. & Christina C. Bartholomew. 2010. Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 33(4), 279–299. doi: 10.1177/088840641037164310.1177/0888406410371643Search in Google Scholar

Kuiken, Folkert & Alice van Kalsbeek. 2014. De ontwikkeling van taalbeleid binnen Geesteswetenschappen aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. [The development of language policy in the Humanities]. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2). 154–169. Search in Google Scholar

Leinhardt, Gea. 2000. Lessons on teaching and learning in history from Pauls’ pen. In Peter N. Stearns, Peter Seixas & Sam Wineburg (eds.). Knowing, teaching, and learning history. National and international perspectives, 223–245. New York: New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, William E. & Ralph P. Ferretti. 2011. Topoi and literary interpretation: The effects of a critical reading and writing intervention on high school students’ analytic literary essays. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4). 334–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1057356090312065610.1080/10573560903120656Search in Google Scholar

Martin, Jim R., Frances Christie & Joan Rothery. 1987. Social processes in education: A reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others). In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates. Geelong: Deaking University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, Jim R.. 2009. Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.00310.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003Search in Google Scholar

McCarthy Young, Kathleen & Gaea Leinhardt. 1998. Writing from primary document: A way of knowing in History. Written Communication 15(1). 25–68. doi:10.1177/074108839801500100210.1177/0741088398015001002Search in Google Scholar

McKeown, Debra, Mary Brindle, Karen R. Harris, Steve Graham, Alyson A. Collins & Megan Brown. 2016. Illuminating growth and struggles using mixed methods: Practice-based professional development and coaching for differentiating SRSD instruction in writing. Reading and Writing, 29(6). 1105–1140. doi 10.1007/s11145-016-9627-y10.1007/s11145-016-9627-ySearch in Google Scholar

Midgette, Ekaterina, Priti Haria & Charles MacArthur. 2008. The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth-and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 21(1–2). 131–151. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9067–9.10.1007/s11145-007-9067-9Search in Google Scholar

Moje, Elisabeth. 2008. Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2). 96–107. doi 10.1598/JAAL.52.2.110.1598/JAAL.52.2.1Search in Google Scholar

Monte-Sano, Chauncey. 2010. Disciplinary literacy in history: An exploration of the historical nature of adolescents’ writing. Journal of the Learning Sciences,19. 539–568. doi 10.1080/10508406.2010.48101410.1080/10508406.2010.481014Search in Google Scholar

Mottart, André, Peter Van Brabant & Piet-Hein van de Ven. 2009. Schrijven bij diverse schoolvakken. Een verkenning. [Writing in the disciplines; An exploration]. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 10(4). 14–20.Search in Google Scholar

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011. Washington D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.Search in Google Scholar

Nussbaum, E. Michael & Gregory Schraw. 2007. Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1). 59–92. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59–92. 10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92Search in Google Scholar

Rietdijk, Saskia, Tanja Janssen, Daphne van Weijen, Huub van den Bergh & Gert Rijlaarsdam. submitted. Teaching writing in primary education: Classroom practice, time, teachers’ beliefs and skills.Search in Google Scholar

Rose, David. 2009. Writing as linguistic mastery: The development of genre-based literacy pedagogy. In Roger Beard, Debra Myhill, Jeni Riley & Martin Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 151–166). London: SAGE. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.03.00110.1016/j.jslw.2011.03.001Search in Google Scholar

Rijlaarsdam, Gert, Martine Braaksma, Michel Couzijn, Tanja Janssen, Marleen Kieft, Mariet Raedts, Elke van Steendam, Anne Toorenaar & Huub van den Bergh. 2009. The role of readers in writing development: Writing students bringing their texts to the test. In Roger Beard, Debra Myhill, Jeni Riley & Martin Nystrand (eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development, 436–452. London: SAGE Publications. 10.4135/9780857021069.n31Search in Google Scholar

Schoonen, Rob & Kees de Glopper. 1996. Writing performance and knowledge about writing. In Gert Rijlaarsdam, Huub van den Bergh & Michel Couzijn (eds.), Theories, models & methodology in writing research. 87–107. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Stevens, Reed, Sam Wineburg, Leslie R. Herrenkohl & Philip Bell.2005. Comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present, and future. Review of Educational Research, 75(2). 125–157. Search in Google Scholar

Toorenaar, Anne & Gert Rijlaarsdam. 2011. Instructional theory of Language Lessons. A design study to validate the communities of learners concept in the language curriculum. L1- Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 11. 57–89.Search in Google Scholar

van Eerden, Anouk & Mik van Es. 2014. Meten en maximaliseren van basale schrijfvaardigheid bij eerstejaarsstudenten in het hoger beroepsonderwijs. [Measuring and improving the basic writing skills of first year students in higher education]. [Doctoral thesis]. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Search in Google Scholar

Van der Leeuw, Bart & Theun Meestringa. 2011. Eisen aan schrijfvaardigheid in de bovenbouw havo/vwo. [Writing requirements in the higher grades of secondary education]. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 12(2). 14–24.Search in Google Scholar

Van Drie, Jannet, Carla van Boxtel & Martine Braaksma. 2014. Writing to engage students in historical reasoning. In Perry Klein, Pietro Boscolo, Lori Kirkpatrick & Carmen Gelati (eds.), Writing as Learning Activity, 94–119. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. doi:10.1163/9789004265011_00610.1163/9789004265011_006Search in Google Scholar

Van Drie, Jannet, Martine Braaksma & Carla van Boxtel. 2015. Writing in History: Effects of writing instruction on historical reasoning and text quality.Journal of Writing Research, 7(1). 123–156. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.0610.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.06Search in Google Scholar

Van Veen, Klaas, Rosanne Zwart & Jacobine Meirink. 2012. What makes teacher professional development effective? A literature review. In Mary Kooy & Klaas van Veen (eds.), Teacher learning that matters: International perspectives. 3–21. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Wayne, Andrew J., Kwang Suk Yooin, Pei Zhu, Stephanie Cronen & Michael S. Garet. 2008. Educational Researcher, 37(8). 469–479. Doi: 10.3102/0013189X0832715410.3102/0013189X08327154Search in Google Scholar

White, Mary J. & Roger Bruning. 2005. Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30. 166–189. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.00210.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.002Search in Google Scholar

Wong, Bernice Y.L., Deborah L. Butler, Sheryl A. Ficzere & Sonia Kuperis. 1997. Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write, and revise compare-and-contrast essays. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12(1). 2–15.Search in Google Scholar

Yore, Larry, Gay L. Bisanz & Brian Hand. 2003. Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix 1. Overview of the Professional Development program

Meeting	Topic	Short description
1	Effective writing instruction	Introduction to the five design principles. Application of the design principles on a writing task teachers brought with them.
2	Genres in social studies	Comparison of writing tasks teachers brought with them. Introduction to characteristics of writing tasks, and genres in the social sciences. Example of addressing text genres in social studies (using a video-fragment)
3	Assessing text quality Designing lessons	Introduction to different ways of assessing text-quality. Assessment of different texts by teachers individually and whole-group discussion of outcomes. Discussion of first ideas for the intervention.
4	Examples of writing in various school subjects Designing lessons	Presentation of several examples of writing instruction in social studies (related to design principles). Feedback on and discussion of design of intervention lessons.
5	Use of rubric for assessing text quality Designing lessons	Training use of rubric. Feedback on and discussion of design of intervention lessons.

Appendix 2. Item examples and reliability of scales in the teacher questionnaires

Scale	Items	Item examples	Cronbach´s alpha pretest	Cronbach’s alpha posttest
Beliefs about writing
Writing as transmission	6	The key to good writing is to report accurately on what experts think	.74	*
Writing as transaction	13	Writing helps me to understand the complexity of ideas.	.71	.76
Beliefs about writing instruction
Correct writing	7	Students should be reminded to use correct spelling.	*	.65
Explicit instruction	4	It is important to teach students strategies for planning, checking and correcting their texts.	.58	*
Natural learning	6	Students gradually learn the requirements to which written texts should comply by writing and responding to other’s texts.	.80	.60
Writing as testing	3	Writing assignments are mainly a way of testing.	*	*
Writing as learning	5	Writing can help to learn domain-specific content.	*	.62
Self-efficacy beliefs
Efficacy in teaching writing	16	When students’ writing improves greatly, it is usually because I have found a more effective teaching approach.	.73	.74
Efficacy in teaching strategies	7	Asking students to explain which writing strategy they use.	*	.90
Efficacy in differentiating	9	Adapting writing lessons to students’ different ability levels.	.60	.57
Efficacy in promoting active learning	15	Asking questions that encourage students to think.	.51	.87
Classroom practice
Teaching strategies	7	Frequency of asking students to explain which writing strategy they use.	.87	.93
Differentiating	9	Frequency of adapting writing lessons to students’ different ability levels.	.85	.77
Promoting active learning	15	Frequency of asking questions that encourage students to think.	.85	.80
Use of design principles	6	How often did you use modelling writing before (now six months after) the PD.	*	.68
Ability in using design principals	6	?How able did you feel before the PD to teach students writing strategies?	.62	.59

Note: * = alpha < .50

Appendix 3. Example of a student text written at the pretest and posttest

Pretest

POPULATION SWEDEN: Sweden is sparsely populated. It has fewer inhabitants than Greece

POPULATION GREECE: Greece is a bit between sparse and densely populated. Greece has more inhabitants than Sweden.

CLIMATES SWEDEN: There is between 400–600 cm of precipitation and that is less than in Greece. Sweden has a continental climate.

CLIMATES GREECE: There is between 600–800 cm of precipitation and that is more than in Sweden. Greece has a Mediterranean climate.

CULTURE SWEDEN In Sweden there are especially many Protestants. Swedish is spoken most.

CULTURE GREECE: Their faith is mainly Eastern orthodox. Multiple languages are spoken in some parts.

NATURAL DISASTER/LANDSCAPE SWEDEN: Sweden has mountains and countryside along the coast.

NATURAL DISASTER/LANDSCAPE GREECE: It has many mountains and much less countryside than Sweden

Posttest

Hello Mr. and Mrs. Kruger,

I understand that you want to go on vacation and do not know which country is more suitable. Ireland and Italy are the two countries you are trying to choose between. I'll try to help you decide.

Ireland has fewer inhabitants than Italy so it will be slightly quieter there. If you prefer hustle and bustle then you’d better go to Italy.

Ireland has a maritime climate and there is a little more rain annually than in Italy. In Italy you have a Mediterranean climate and a transitional climate, so the climate can vary. Italy is usually warmer than Ireland so you can probably go to the beach and sunbathe there more often.

In both Ireland and Italy the majority of the population is Roman Catholic.

There are mountains both in Italy and in Ireland, so if you like mountains then both are suitable.

In Italy you will enjoy delicious Italian food, which the Italians are known for of course. In Ireland you won't encounter many famous dishes. You will mainly come across dishes that the Irish really like.

Italy is known as a holiday destination and will certainly be visited regularly by many tourists. If you do not like such hustle and bustle so much then you will enjoy the quiet Irish countryside more. It is still quite cold in Ireland in summer, so you will have to take your jackets and gloves with you. In Italy it can be bloody hot then, and you can wear short t-shirts and shorts.

The conclusion therefore is that if you love hot countries and warm beaches then you can better go to Italy. If you prefer cold, quiet and slightly greener countryside more, then you can best go to Ireland. I hope I have given you enough information about the 2 countries for your holiday. Good journey already!

Greetings NAME.

Published Online: 2017-8-31

Published in Print: 2017-9-5

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0009

Keywords for this article

academic writing; writing in the disciplines; social studies; practice-based professional development