Nature of interactions during teacher-student writing conferences, revisiting the potential effects of self-efficacy beliefs

Problem Durumu: Öğrencinin yazıları ve yazma süreci hakkında öğretmeniyle yaptığı görüşmelerin, öğrencinin yazı başarısıyla olan ilişkisini inceleyen çok sayıda çalışma bulunmaktadır ancak bu görüşmelerin öğrencinin öz-yeterlik inancına olan etkileri ihmal edilmiştir. Öz-yeterlik konusuyla ilişkilendirilen çalışmalar, öz-yeterlik duygusu yüksek olan öğrencilerin daha fazla yazmak istediklerini ve yazılarını gururla paylaştıklarını (Clippard, 1998) ve yazı konusunda kendilerine güvendiklerini (Clippard, 1998; Tobin, 1998) bulmuşlardır. Bu çalışmalar öğrencinin öğretmeni ile yüz yüze görüşmelerinin öğrencinin yazı yazmaya yönelik olumlu özyeterlik duygusu geliştirmesine etkisi olduğunu savunmuştur. Ancak yapılan araştırmalar öğretmen ve öğrencinin ikili görüşmelerinin yapısını ve aralarındaki diyaloğun öğrencinin olumlu öz-yeterlik duygusuna olabilecek etkilerini incelememiştir. Açıkça görülmektedir ki, öz-yeterlik duygusu yüksek ve düşük olan öğrencilerin ve onların öğretmenleriyle olan etkileşimlerinin yapısı incelenmeli ve öğrencinin sahip olduğu öz-yeterlik duygusunun öğrencinin davranışlarına ve bu görüşmelere katılımına olan potansiyel etkilerinin araştırılması gerekmektedir. Çalışmanın Amacı: Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğrencinin yazıları hakkında öğretmeniyle birebir yaptığı görüşmelerin özelliklerini incelemektir. Çalışma aynı zamanda öğrencinin yazı yazmaya dair sahip olduğu öz-yeterlik duygusunun bu ikili görüşmelerin doğasını açıklamaya etkisi olup olmadığını da araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Görüşmelerin kalitesinin belirlenmesi ve tartışılması zor olduğundan, araştırmacı öz-yeterlik duygusu yüksek ve düşük olan öğrencilerin ikili görüşmelerinde oluşan karakter davranışları betimlemeye çalışmıştır. Yöntem: Önceden belirlenmiş öğretmen-öğrenci görüşmelerinin yapısını (öğrenci merkezli mi, öğretmen merkezli mi yoksa ikisine de ortak derecede ağırlık mı verildiği) belirlemek amacıyla 10 hafta süren bu çalışmada birden fazla durum çalışmasının incelenmesi yoluyla nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcıları Amerikanın güney doğusunda faaliyet gösteren bir ilköğretim okulunun bir sınıfında okuyan beşinci sınıf öğrencileridir. Araştırmanın verileri Pajares, Miller, & Johnsonın (1999) Shell, Murphy, & Bruningden (1989) uyarladıkları Yazı Yazma Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeği, ses ve video kaydı yapılan öğretmenöğrenci ikili görüşmeleri, ses kaydı yapılan görüşmeler ve araştırmacının alanda yaptığı gözlem ve tuttuğu notlar yoluyla toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler nitel çalışma yöntemiyle kodlanmış ve yorumlanmıştır. Bulgular: Öz-yeterlik duygusu farklı olan öğrencilerin, öğretmenleriyle olan etkileşimlerinin de yapısı farklılıklar göstermiştir. Nitel veriler öz-yeterlik duygusu yüksek olan öğrencilerin ikili görüşmelerinin öz-yeterlik duyguları düşük olan öğrencilerin görüşmelerinden a) görüşmenin odağı; b) kendi yazı çalışmalarını sahiplenme düzeyleri; c) görüşmenin gündemi; d) söz alma sıklığı; e) konuşma miktarı; f) sorulan sorularının sayıları ve fonksiyonları; g) öğretmen tarafından verilen övgülerin sayısı ve h) görüşmelerinin kesintiye uğramasının sayısı konularında farklılıklar göstermiştir. Tartışma ve Öneriler: Yapılan analizler, öğretmen-öğrenci görüşmelerinin yapısının öğrenciden öğrenciye farklılaşabileceğini göstermiştir. Sınıf öğretmeni birçok alanda, öğrenci merkezli görüşmeler yapmasına rağmen görüşmelerin önemli bir kısmında kendisi aktif rol üstlenerek öğrencilerini pasif katılımcılar durumunda bırakmıştır. Çalışma bu tür ikili görüşmelerin karmaşık yapılarından ötürü detaylandırılmış puanlama anahtarlarıyla analiz edilmesinin gerekliliğini savunmakta görüşmelerin etkili olabilmesi için eğitimciler ve araştırmacılar için öneriler sunmaktadır.

Öğrencinin yazıları hakkında öğretmeniyle konuşmalarının niteliğinin ve öz-yeterlik duygusunun bu görüşmelerin doğası üzerindeki potansiyel etkilerinin incelenmesi

Problem Statement: Within Language Arts instruction the use of teacherstudent writing conferences is accepted as an effective strategy for teaching writing. The writing conference allows for an individual one-onone teacher-student conversation about the students writing or writing process and provides the student an audience in terms of revising or sharing purposes (McAndrew & Reigstad, 2001; Newkirk, 1989; Sperling, 1991). Although there is more than one way to label writing conferences, their process and purpose is consistently defined. Teacher-student writing conferences have purpose, follow predictable structure, and put students in a position of being partners in collaboration (Anderson, 2000). Several studies purport that writing conferences make students better writers (Bell, 2002; Eickholdt, 2004; Haneda, 2000; Hewett, 2006; Koshik, 2002; Martone, 1992; Steward, 1991; Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis,1996), help them learn better and increase their achievement (Corden, 2007; Edgington, 2004; Flynn & King, 1993; King, 1993; Mabrito, 2006; Mitchell, 2004) and improve their habits and attitudes toward learning, independence, and authority (Martinez, 2001; McIver & Wolf, 1999; Young & Miller, 2004). Bandura (1989) introduced the concept of self-efficacy and argued its effects on motivation and school success. Self-efficacy is developed from the social cognitive theory suggesting that beliefs about self-efficacy can be changed or increased with the effects of personal and environmental factors (Schunk, 2003). Self-efficacy is an individual s judgments of his or her capabilities to perform given actions (Schunk, 1991, p. 207). Even though plenty of studies investigate the connection between the writing conferences and students writing skills, research on the relationships between writing conferences and self-efficacy has been ignored. The few studies that do relate writing conferences to self-efficacy tend to mention it as a desire to write more and share their writing proudly (Clippard, 1998) as well as the individual writer s confidence (Clippard, 1998; Tobin, 1998). These studies claimed that writing conferences had a positive impact on students perceived self-efficacy beliefs toward writing, yet none of the research studies mentioned the features of interaction between the teacher and the student that might affect their perceptions of self-efficacy. Overall, it is clear that more work needs to be done on how students (with high self-efficacy vs. low selfefficacy) and teachers behave during teacher-student writing conferences to determine, and examine whether students level of perceived selfefficacy toward writing affects the nature of their scheduled teacherstudent writing conferences. The intend of this qualitative research design with multiple case studies is to investigate the nature of the interaction during scheduled teacher-student writing conferences and explore relationship between students level of perceived self-efficacy beliefs and their participation style during writing conferences. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study was two-fold, first, the nature of teacher-student writing conferences were examined to determine if they were balanced, student-centered, or teacher-centered. Second, whether students levels of perceived self-efficacy could inform the nature of their writing conferences were determined. The quality of teacherstudent writing conferences are not easily determined, so this study aimed to highlight the common patterns that occurred during the conferences with students who had low and high levels of perceived self-efficacy toward writing. Methods: A qualitative study design with multiple case studies was used to observe and analyze scheduled teacher-student writing conferences over a period of 10 weeks. The participants of the study were fifth-graders from a public primary school in the Southeastern United States. Data were collected using the Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (Pajares, Miller, & Johnson, 1999) as adapted from Shell, Murphy, & Bruning (1989), as well as audio and video-taped teacher-student writing conferences, audio-taped interviews with the teacher and students, and field observations. Collected evidence was described and interpreted using qualitative methods. Results: None of the scheduled teacher-student writing conferences were coded as completely teacher-centered. The classroom teacher was good at conducting conferences having balanced and student-centered features. Also, nature of writing conferences changed among students with different self-efficacy levels in terms of focus, ownership, conference agenda, turn taking, frequency of talk, numbers and functions of the questions asked, numbers of praise statements provided by the teacher, and amount of outside interruptions occurred during conferences. Discussion and Conclusion: The analyses of teacher-student writing conferences yielded that conference interaction changed from student to student. While the teacher was successful at conducting student-centered writing conferences in many aspects of the conferences still there were parts she was ineffective on making her students more active participants. The study argues the help of using rubrics to analyze the conference interaction and provides suggestions for practitioners and researchers to better conduct and investigate teacher-student writing conferences.

PDF

___

Anderson, C. (2000). Hows it going?: A practical guide to conferring with student writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8 (3), 231-255.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive process through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25 (5), 729-735.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 117-148.
Bell, J. H. (2002). Research report: Better writers: Writing center tutoring and the revision of rough drafts. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33 (1), 5-20.
Bottomley, D. M., Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1998). Assessing childrens views about themselves as writers using the Writer Self-Perception Scale. The Reading Teacher, 51 (4), 286-296.
Boynton, L. (2003). See me: conference strategies for developmental writers. Teaching English in Two Years College, 30(4), 391-402.
Calkins, L. M. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23, 260-294.
Clippard, D. (1998). Efficacy of writers workshop for students with significant writing deficits. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13(1), 7-26.
Corden, R. (2007). Developing reading-writing connections: The impact of explicit instruction of literary devices on the quality of childrens narrative writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(3), 269-289.
Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F. J., & Stokking, K. M. (2010). Progress feedback effects on students writing mastery goal, self-efficacy beliefs, and performance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(1), 53-74.
Edgington, A. (2004). Encouraging collaboration with students on teacher response. Teaching English in Two Years College, 31(3), 287-296.
Eickholdt, L. A. (2004). Scaffolding in the writing workshop. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
Flynn, T., & King, M. (1993). Dynamics of the writing conference: Social and cognitive interaction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Glasswell, K., Parr, J. M., & McNaughton, S. (2003). Four ways to work against yourself when conferencing with struggling writers. Language Arts, 80 (4), 291- 298.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: teachers & children at work. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Graves, D. H. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Haneda, M. (2000). Negotiating meaning in writing conferences: An investigation of a university Japanese-as-a-foreign language class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Hansen, J. (1987). When writers read. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Harris, M. (1986). Teaching one-to-one: The writing conference. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Harris, M., & Silva, T. (1993). Tutoring ESL students: Issues and options. College Composition and Communication, 44(4), 525-537.
Henk, W. A., Marinak, B. A., & Moore, J. C. (2003). The writing observation framework; A guide for defining and validating writing instruction. The Reading Teacher, 57 (4), 322-333.
Hewett, B. L. (2006). Synchronous online conference-based instruction: A study of whiteboard interactions and student writing. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 4-31.
Hudges, A., Galbraith, D., & White, D. (2011). Perceived competence: A common core for self-efficacy and self-concept? Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(3), 278- 289.
Karsbaek, B. (2011). Writers workshop: Does it improve the skills of young writers? Illinois Reading Council Journal, 39(2), 3-11.
Kaufman, D. K. (1998). In pursuit of a good healthy chat: The roles of organization and rapport building in effective middle school literacy instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire.
Keebler, R. A. (1995). So, there are some things I dont quite understand: An analysis of writing conferences in a culturally diverse second grade classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tufts University.
King, M. (1993). Social strategies: Building a collaborative relationship. In T. Flynn & M. King (Eds.), Dynamics of the writing conference (pp. 17-23). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35 (3), 277-309.
Lerner, N. (2005). The teacher student writing conference and the desire for intimacy. College English, 68(2), 186-208.
Liew, J., McTigue, E., Barrois, L., & Hughes, J. N. (2008). Adaptive and effortful control and academic self-efficacy beliefs on literacy and math achievement: A longitudinal study on 1st through 3rd graders. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 515-526.
Linnenbrink, E., & Pintrich, P. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119137.
Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2). 93-107.
Martinez, D. (2001). The experience and impact of writing conferences on selected English learners in a Puerto Rican University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
Martone, D. (1992). Ways in which at-risk college writers collaborate to reconceptualize their essays in response to the varying prompts that exist during a writing conference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
McAndrew, D. A., & Reigstad, T. J. (2001). Tutoring writing: A practical guide for conferences. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McIver, M. C., & Wolf, S. A. (1999). The power of the conference is the power of suggestion.Language Arts, 77 (1), 54-61.
McTigue, E., & Liew, J. (2011). Principles and practices for building academic selfefficacy in Middle grades language arts classrooms. The Clearing House, 84, 114-118.
McTigue, E., Washburn, E. K., & Liew, J. (2009). Academic resilience and reading: Building successful readers. The Reading Teacher, 62, 422-433.
Mitchell, A. (2004). Effective student-teacher writing conferences for first graders. Unpublished masters thesis, California State University.
Mitchell, C. J. (1990). Ideology and practice: The acquisition of academic literacy in a university ESL (English as a second language) writing class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
Murphy, S. (2000). A sociocultural perspective on teacher response: is there a student in the room? Assessing Writing, 7, 79-80.
Murray, D. M. (1985). A writer teaches writing. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Nelson, B., & Ketelhut, D. (2008). Exploring embedded guidance and self-efficacy in educational multi-user virtual environments. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 413427.
Newkirk, T. (1989). The first five minutes: Setting the agenda in a writing conference. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice and research (pp. 317-331). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
North, S. M. (1995). The idea of a writing center. In C. Murphy & J. Law (Eds.), Landmark essays on writing centers (pp. 71-85). Davis, CA: Hermagoras.
Ormrod, J. E. (2003). Study guide and reader to accompany educational psychology developing learners (4th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Oye, P. M. (1993). Writing problems beyond the classroom: The confidence problem. In T. Flynn & M. King (Eds.), Dynamics of the writing conference (pp. 111-119). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.
Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing selfbeliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (1), 50-61.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353-360.
Pajares, F. & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 390-405.
Patthey-Chavez, G. G., & Ferris, D. R. (1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31 (1), 51-90.
Reigstad, T. J., & McAndrew, D. A. (1984). Training tutors for writing conferences. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing childrens self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 7-25.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanism in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (1), 91-100.
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanism in reading and writing achievement: Gradelevel and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (3), 386-398.
Smith, A. (2005). Conferring with young second-language writers: Keys to success. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved on 1/14/2008. Available at http://www.newhorizons.org/stretegies/literacy/smith.htm.
Sperling, M. (1991). Dialogues of deliberation: Conversation in the teacher-student writing conference. Written Communication, 8, 131-162.
Steward, E. P. (1991). Beginning writers in the zone of proximal development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.
Straub, R. (2001). The student, the text, and the classroom context: a case study of teacher response. Assessing Writing, 7 (19), 23-55.
Takaku, S., & Williams, J. D. (2011). Gender, writing self-efficacy, and help seeking. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 1(3), 46-54.
Tobin, T. L. (1998). The evaluation of writing in kindergarten: The role of student-teacher conferencing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Troia, G. A., Shankland, R. K., & Wolbers, K. A. (2012). Motivation research in writing. Theoretical and empirical considerations. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 28(1), 5-28.
Ulichny, P., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1989). Interactions and authority: The dominant interpretive framework in writing conferences. Discourse Processes, 12, 309-328.
Vrugt, A., Oort, F. J., & Waardenburg, L. (2009). Motivation of men and women in mathematics and language. International Journal of Psychology, 44(5), 351-359.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wachholz, P. B. & Etheridge, C. P. (1996). Writing self-efficacy beliefs of high-and low-apprehensive writers. Journal of Developmental Education, 19 (3), 16-24.
Walker, B. J. (2003). The cultivation of student self-efficacy in reading and writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19 (2), 173-187.
Wilcox, B. (1997). Two roles of a teacher during a writing conference. The Reading Teacher, 50 (6), 508-510.
Wilson-Powers, S. (1999). The examination of teacher discourse with four Eastern Kentucky fourth-graders during writing conferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky.
Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(2), 197-212.
Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write, and revise compare-and-contrast essays. Learning Disability Research Practices, 12 (1), 2-15.
Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conference. The Modern Language Journal, 88 (4), 519-535.